Antinatalism DEBATE with Lawrence Anton - The Ethics of Procreation 

My pleasure! Great conversation. We'll keep in touch.👍

Going to watch soon. 😎

Wow. Well written like your other comment. The only critique I have is that "positive" or "negative" values gets decided on what it is by you as a conscious being. So, it really is entirely subjective whether what you think is positive is really positive or what you think is negative is really negative. There is no way to objectively define these properties.

@@stonksguy420 This is the establishment of Objective Value. Note that refuting and invalidating Natalism does not absolutely depend on Objective Value. Objective Value provides strong assistance, by forming a constraint for the misconceptions created by nihilism, subjectivism, agnosticism, natalism, and anything else that would keep this case hanging open. Objective Value - Simple Epistemology It is possible to have false purpose, false belief, false understanding, false information, false ideas, false concepts, and so on. But there is no such thing as "false sensation" or "false experience". Phenomenology That is because, as far as Epistemology, those types of consciousness that derive or posit information as "purpose, belief, understanding, ideas, concepts" are a payload and claim about truths and falsehoods which can all either be confirmed true or false And as far as Phenomenology, that is the raw sensation of feelings -- or the instance of an experience taking place inside the brain -- these are physically forced generations of chemical reaction. These are also not just taking place inside the brain, they are taking place inside the universe. They are not a payload or claim about truths and falsehoods and cannot be refuted or denied once they occur. Even if, for instance, you felt pain by an object that didn't actually hit you. Even after realizing the fact the object didn't hit you, it does not follow that pain wasn't felt. Note you cannot go back and revise a phenomenological state and correct it, based on updates of information, like you can with epistemological claims. Note that placeboand psychosomatic and illusory effects exist, which allow experience to arise independentand even contrary to all other factors of reality; such as feeling better by taking a useless innocuous sugar pill, feeling worse by convincing yourself you can't do better, or experiencing a total disruption of all worldly coherence by taking intense hallucinogens. Note therefore phenomenology actually transcends "understanding" and "misunderstanding". Because it is the event of sensation and experience in it of itself that is the real and concrete thing taking place in the universe. Phenomenological states cannot be put into the same pile as epistemological claims -- doing so is not only a categorical error, but phenomenology also overrides epistemology (it can't be refuted by it). Because for as long as the experience and sensation is happening, it remains irrefutable. Once the sensation stops happening, then it is simply no longer the case that the sensation is happening. Note there is no room in that for "refuting" the sensation and experience, it's like saying you can argue a running car out of existence.

@@stonksguy420 Objective Value - Advanced Nociception and Negative Valence DNA life is the incident of deterministic chaos, has no reason to continue existing, serves no need or purpose while doing so. But DNA life is not just any code strung together by careless happenstance of physics - it’s also the code that invented every conceivable pain and harm. Since we don't want to commit ourselves to ambiguous babytalk, instead of "bads, pains, ouches", this can be signified as Nociception in biology or Negative Valence in affective neuroscience. This is "objectively negative value", not opinions of bad value. It does not rely on the subject to "subjectively opine it with property", because correctly: the property was determined for the subject, not by the subject. The values are not dice, and they are not wildcards -- they cannot be indeterminately or arbitrarily decided by the system they are instantiated in. These values are commenced by the universe's material determinism (just like literally everything else) - they are not commenced by any subject's discretion or whimsy. The values are galvanizing physical forces of truly distinct property. These values are not "outside" of reality, they cannot be discounted from reality's equation just because they happen in nerves and brains. It also doesn't matter if they are activated "by" or "as" or "in" non-identical substrata, catalysts, entities, or "subjective" systems -- IE. - One subject has positive valence instantiated by peanutbutter, resulting in relieving nourishment. - One subject has negative valence instantiated by peanutbuter, resulting in anguishing allergies. Because such difference in no way changes the fact that each objective value exists, and exists distinctively and statically (they keep their static values and their separate values) - it's just that they are not instantiated totally identically across subjects. And finally, the fact that the event(s) and value(s) occur in subjects (more accurately called entities) does not refute, invalidate, or change even a single part of what happened. This is the point where the non-concrete (incoherent) idea of "subjective value" has been chopped up and examined as objective configuration in objective terms. Antinatalism is based on preventing and eliminating objectively negative value from even having potential to exist.

@@austinr.5989 Ok. So, we experience suffering and your brain reacts automatically. And you define this quality of biological life as objective negative value. But then, wanting to reduce objective negative value is still subjective. That is, you can experience objective negative value and still decide not to reduce it. It all depends on what your goal is. And if you had no goal then you would have no opinion on whether to reduce negative value or not.

It depends. Do you see all pain and suffering is as bad? Suffering is many times the beauty of life. And it is not really forcing someone into life since they did not exist before. They only exist when they exist.

@@stonksguy420 anytime when someone is suffering against their will it's bad that they are according to me. And you were forced into existence because you didn't have the ability to choose to not exist.

​@@AnonymousWon-uu5yn In most cases suffering is a signal for you to get into a state of non-suffering. If you are unable to do so, then yes, it is bad. But even then, conscious experience is limited to a lifetime at which point suffering will end. And in most cases people will not have uncontrollable suffering most of the time. Since, a person does not have a state prior to non-existence, they cannot be forced into existence since they were nothing. Their only origin is at the point of existence.

@@stonksguy420 anytime that you are unable to not do something that means that you're forced to do it. You were forced into existence, full stop! Also, it would be much better if no life forms existed at all because then no life forms would be victims of existing and suffering so badly against their will that they wish they didn't exist. And if no life forms existed then that would be just fine because then no life form would know or care that they didn't exist.

@@stonksguy420 are you okay with someone procreating even though the person that they forced into existence might hate existing?

Do you think someone coming to the conclusion that their future child is better off exsisting then having them for the childs sake is altruistic? Even if they are wrong it seems altruistic to me.

Don't be overly confident. I fully agree with antinatalism, but to dismiss the critique of someone interested like that is risky. Never be dogmatic, no matter how sure you are of something.

@@treedewhat I’m just saying that no good points were made.

@@CheesygarliccccJust because you don't view them as being good doesn't mean they aren't valid, is what he's trying to tell you and that you should be less dogmatic about your assertions.

@@treedewhat There is no quality arguments for natalism that _actually_ make sense. Only word magic. At it's core, none of it makes _any_ sense.

I thought he was unusually good at the start. Really made me think. But in the end I come back to the idea that the only universally (almost) accepted (negative) value is suffering.

Existence itself having value is not the same thing as wellbeing having value. They are 2 very different things, and that's my point. If existence has intrinsic value, then to stop allowing sentient beings to be in existence would obviously be wrong. This has nothing to do with wellbeing.

@@eliassideas Any existence? Or specifically talking about sentient beings? Why should rocks have less value than cats?

@@brokenfractal In values there can always be variation and differences. What I am saying is that existence in general (literally existence as a thing itself, not any particular existing thing) is probably one of the best candidates for things that have intrinsic value. Again, I point out in the video how incredibly specific it is in comparison to the alternative of nothingness and also how its likely contigent. These are things that require explanation not only as to how they come about, but also as to why. If I were to explain how something intricate like an eye came to be, I would need to give explanation as to why it came to be, not only how. This is because in the context of evolution it is intrinsically good to have good senses, and just like that in the context of the cosmos it is intrinsically good to have existence.

​@@eliassideas The agony of needing this explanation appears to only affect specific subjects of existence, doesn't it?

@@brokenfractal what agony?

Analog Bits and Digital Bits The universe is just clockwork analog pieces, that are dead but moving. Brains/life/computers/calculators and senses are digital pieces that paradoxically emerge from dead analog pieces. It is only after ample and sufficient complexity and momentum is carried forward, then ran as a circuit loop inside a configuration as a constant, that a full blown online configuration like this emerges. We are alive, despite being 100% made out of dead analog pieces. And of course: In their attempt to decipher reality, these configurations have an emotional knee-jerk compulsion (and a neurological mandate) to coherence. They must make it seem coherent, even if bad reasoning is all they have available, to make it seem coherent. Which have manifested in the global history of mankind's failed attempts to assign various "purposes" and reasons to this truly purposeless mechanism of nomological deterministic chaos. There is probably more chemistry nuance in one insect than in most entire planets in the universe. Our planet is the most chemically-chaotic one we have ever discovered, and we live on it, and that is exactly why DNA formation happened on it. We understand DNA life forms are essentially mutants of chaos, they are just patterns of matter and force that happen to fall together - temporarily - before inevitably falling back apart. And life is necessarily contingent on that which created life, but neither the contingency nor life itself is necessary, it is just a happenstance. This happenstance of chaos can permanently end at any time this non-necessary contingency is released: that is, both life and life's contingency is so "changeable" that it's "effaceable"; life is not necessarily the case. On the contrary -- everywhere else in the mapped universe necessitates life's absence -- and universal heat death will seal it forever. Earth is the only pocket in the known universe that wove together a chemical mutated chaos such as the DNA Life Experiment. And even in this pocket, life can be annihilated and become like every other spot, nothing will be amiss, nothing intelligent or logical necessitates life's existence. Life is infinitely unmissable. But there's a problem. Almost no one is a real evolutionist, even the ones purporting to understand evolution, still imbue DNA with some dogmatic sense that it has a real plan. They sincerely believe it looks after its own somehow, or has net utility. Despite the fatal irony that DNA staged a global gladiator war of Team DNA vs Team DNA - and commenced the ongoing 540 million year bloodsport of zero-sum self-defeating carnage. (This is also known as "predator vs prey", one of the many glib euphemisms designed to whitewash the severity of implication behind this catastrophic experiment.)

@@austinr.5989 You have definitely put a lot of effort in constructing your philosophy, however, I have to point out a few problems. The first problem is that your entire thesis is based on an unfounded assertion; that existence itself is teleologically void, as you put it. The only thing you cite to defend this assertion is that the universe seems to be full of chaos and events that seem meaningless. It seems that particles are just hitting one another randomly. That's a good observation, however as I said in the debate, I would urge you to contemplate the difference of precision and specifity between absolute nothingness and existence. For as absurdly random as the happenings within existence may seem, it is infinitely more absurdly specific for there to be any "thingness" instead of pure simplistic nothingness. I think if you contemplate from this perspective, all of a sudden contingency and teleology become a lot more relevant. I'd be happy to hear your response to this.

The universe being an error seems comedic to me. Let's all laugh at the absurdity.

Unfortunately we didn't have enough time to speak about the consent problem in this convo, but thanks for the comment! As for Hell, well, I don't believe in it👍.

@@eliassideas Since you don't believe in a bad or horrible afterlife, then that means that it's not possible.

"It is immoral to force someone into the type of existence that they might not like or possibly even hate to exist in." DUH! LOGIC! And, as a consequence, ANYTHING IS JUSTIFIED to do to someone who DOES that!

​@@eliassideas Just as theists need to come up with a theodicy to justify their decision to have a child who might end up in hell, an agnostic/atheist needs to come up with an anthropodicy to justify bringing a child into a world that is indifferent to needless suffering.

Yes, that's exactly why I am debating. I brought up 3 separate reasons as justification in this debate, and we did not even get into other points like consent liberty etc. so yeah. If you have some objection to something I said in the discussion let me know. @@antinatalizm

Thanks mate!

I appreciate that!

Seems like you have some bias towards natalism.

That would only work if you could prove that, only if you could prove there are sentient beings in perharps an immaterial realm that want to be born

If you really want choice there should be a safe exit from this world for some. They can wrestle with their own psychology about it but if we cannot choose to leave on peaceful terms then we've potentially forced many to play this game which they may feel is not worth the cost. That's a valid opinion, and if we are truly free to express and demonstrate it, it softens the consent argument within antinatalism, as everyone would have a chance to choose, thumbs up or thumbs down to this existence.

You can't be deprived or harmed by not being brought into existence. By your logic we would have to lament every single sperm cell that curdles in a Kleenex, every fertile egg that ends up discarded in a menstrual pad. The unborn have no interest in being born and cannot be harmed by remaining so. The logical conclusion of your argument would be the preservation and actualization of every potentially viable human gamete.

@@buckfozos5554 I am pretty much for that argument. I think we should have a society where, if someone decides to exit, that we hope that person is in a better place. Instead, we seem to be programmed to believe that this is a horrible option, the worst thing you could possibly do.

By that logic, you should have as much children as you can possibly have. A fertile women can give birth to at least 15 children. A fertile man can have infinite amount of children.