More gibberish.

we have empathy – that’s 100% sure. but this article pathologizes antinatalism without taking into account the academic philosophical arguments for it. i don’t mean to be internecine, but antinatalism goes well beyond what’s being presented here.

you’re ignoring and blocking arguments. so what if you have to repeat yourself? you seem like a passionate person – you’d think you’d take the extra 5 minutes to explain your stance. what happened to bringing brilliance to the world?

Another irrelevant observation ignoring everything we said.

Already refuted. You are just a broken record repeating assertions refuted dozens of times here already. Go waste someone else’s time.

You are just ignoring us and blathering with complaints and whining now.

I see no point in your even continuing to post here.

I don’t even know what you are talking about at this point. Nor do I fathom any point in citing a nutter’s opinion piece here. I’m citing science. You’re citing bullshit.

And you continue to ignore everything I’ve said and blathering on with more undocumented or irrelevant assertions.

I can’t help you at this point.

That’s not a science paper. It’s an opinion piece. It is the exact opposite of scientifically ascertaining the facts. I cited actual science that found that that editorial’s opinions are factually false. And science trumps opinion.

I think that Richard Carrier understands antinatalism quite well. Antinatalism is an unworkable universal solution to something that really doesn’t require a universal solution at all. The existence of human suffering isn’t universally bad, and the existence of humanity is not necessarily a net negative for itself. There are multiple solutions to the problem of suffering that don’t require a complete end to reproduction, and the problem of consent for the unborn really isn’t that much of a problem since consent only applies to an existing agent anyway.

The only certain positive achievements that universal antinatalism would accomplish, in my opinion, is that no future generations would be able to feel grief or bereavement due to the existence of death, and that no future people would die in accidents or of any other cause because no future people would be born anyway. The philosophy would do nothing to prevent the death or bereavement of existing people.

The negativity bias is a subjective viewpoint rather than an objective one. In fact, most psychologists are finding that it’s just as flawed and inaccurate as the positivity/ optimism bias when it evaluates reality and the morality of existence. If you remove both biases, then existence becomes objectively morally and ethically neutral, rather than having either a net positive or a net negative value. True moral and existential nihilists would tell you that since humans are cognitively biased in either direction, then existence wouldn’t have an objectively morally negative value compared to nonexistence because morality is itself a human construct. Existence would actually be objectively amoral according to existential and moral nihilists. Most skeptics and antitheists would agree with that assessment.

The positive value of existence is the one that consciousness gives to it.