Katrisia

If we are to assume that every non-existent person desires to exist, and that we have the obligation to not block this, then we should be having children whenever possible as to not block anyone.

Let's visualize this. If I decide to wait for another partner and a certain age, the humans that I could create with my current sexual partner in these years are screaming to be born and I'm ignoring them. I'm not letting Laura or Ignacio be born, and over them I'm preferring Óscar who will be born in 2028 of a different father. Am I doing something morally incorrect at negating Laura's and Ignacio's right to be? If so, as I said, you agree we have the obligation of having children whenever possible and we better start now you and me and everyone else reading. If not, if we don't have this obligation, then there's no problem if I skip Laura this year, Ignacio the next and Óscar and others later. Unless you want to save this by saying some people deserve to come into existence more than others, but I already say I won't agree with that.

Other people would argue in a different way. There are people who would say that even if we create good by bringing people that do consent retrospectively, we also harm forcing life into people that wouldn't and don't want life. And even if the proportion is absurd, not harming is always the priority over giving pleasure. This is the idea behind negative utilitarianism and other ethical paradigms. This also has been studied by philosopher David Benatar who reframed it, and now that's called "Benatar asymmetry" (but the question is older than him).

I hope my English does not betray my explanation...

antinatalism is depression turned into a moral philosophy

Not necessarily. Antinatalism and other pessimistic points of view can be held by non-depressed people. On the internet, it seems like psychological pessimism is the same as philosophical pessimism as many depressed people do adopt these points of view and flood the forums. Adding to that, they often abandon their philosophical pessimism when their depression lifts, leaving a testimony that it is true: only depressed people defend these ideas. But we need only an example of a person that is not depressed and still values antinatalism on its own to demonstrate that your statement is not the case, and I think I might be that example. Many other examples might be found in universities. I hope one day we get a formal social study so that I do not have to give anecdotal "evidence" and personal information.

Now, I'd add to defend those I know that are indeed depressed, we should be debating and trying to refute the philosophy itself. Even if depression is leading them into these kinds of thoughts, we cannot say that this disproves their ideas. Many brilliant discoveries and inventions were reached in what we classify as pathological states. The manic researcher and crafter is an archetype for a reason (e.g., mad scientist, mad artist), and we have not fewer examples of depressed people that made valuable work, such as author F. Dostoevsky. There are two books that are coming to my mind that explain why (specifically) mood disorders are pathological but still let people do great things: A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illnesses and Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament. So, as I was saying, the fact that someone is clinically depressed does not inform us about how true or how solid their ideas might be. Discrediting them just because they suffer from depression would be an ad hominem, and, in the moral part, ableism. We need to listen to/read their ideas and discuss the ideas instead.

it posits itself as a solution to suffering by offering an unrealizable future

This is a very misunderstood part of antinatalism. Almost no antinatalist is utopic in their views, that is, few antinatalists think that the point must be to cease all reproduction and that antinatalism fails if they don't. That would be an ideal scenario; there's no suffering without existence, but that is a dream. There are no goals for many antinatalists, just the idea that bringing children into this world is not ethically correct. They might follow antinatalism and not have children or adopt, but not preach much about it because they know practically no one will listen. I, for instance, bring this problem to people that might have not thought about it before. If they go ahead and have children, I'd still think that was not correct, but well, nothing to do but to help take care of this new life. It can be as pragmatic as that.

but really it's an excuse to not even attempt to make the world better.

No. In my case, I try to help in other ways. This right here is an example as I'm trying to broaden the discussion around these topics in a healthy way because I know Reddit has sadly damaged these debates with a lot of insults and bad attitudes from many sides. They insult people, so these people go to their subreddit and insult them back... It is not a good way to first learn about these topics, and many are learning what antinatalism is first on Reddit. I hope Lemmy will be slightly better.

Anyway, I also try to better the world in the ways I can. Still, as a person that values philosophical pessimism, I think we are only saving lives from a neverending fire, or giving palliatives for an incurable disease. I enjoy my life and I try to help others enjoy theirs as much as this existence lets us.

If anything, philosophies around negative utilitarianism, preference utilitarianism, overall pessimism, etc. tend to respect others a lot and value their suffering negatively. That's usually their point. Suffering is not a "necessary side for pleasure" or "a trial from which we gain something" or "something not that bad" or any explanation different cultures have given. Suffering is bad; in a better world, it wouldn't exist like this. It is tragic, but it is reality, so we must face it and combat suffering as best as we can. I'd say these ethical paths inspire protection of others more than others less centered on sentience.

Finally, it is good advice to seek professional help, but not on the sole basis of someone being an antinatalist. If our OP here is depressed, I do recommend visiting a professional.

Contemporary philosophy and sciences are different from religion in some aspects. One important aspect is that these academic fields rely on rational arguments, while religion today mostly relies on traditional beliefs and faith.

Let's say a philosopher is pondering the idea that direct experience is not necessary for knowledge. The only way to go and declare this publicly is to elaborate why, how, in a rational and rigorous manner. Most scientists work with objects that admit replicated experimentation, so they must do that, let's say in their case, to demonstrate that a rain frog only comes out with heavy rain, but not with light rain. In contrast to these two, a religious or spiritual person might give "arguments", but this argumentation is never to see if their belief resists examination, it is only to convince others of this belief that has been established as truth before everything else. In other words, philosophy and sciences examine their thesis (hypothesis, theory, etc.) and never assume they have the ultimate truth; on the contrary, they keep searching and exploring possibilities. Talking here about the disciplines and not the individuals who can be different from this from time to time (e.g., a dogmatic professor). Meanwhile, religion and spirituality do not have thesis or any beliefs that are susceptible to drastic change. They establish core beliefs or dogmas, and only later might try to prove them or not, depending if they find this exercise important.

Are they all ultimately unprovable statements? I guess so, but we should care how these statements come to be and how we justify them. To me, it makes an enormous difference.
I rather believe in climate change in which human action is definitely affecting the Earth (source: sciences) and the importance of stopping it as we seem to have a responsibility to others and to ourselves (source: ethics, a branch of philosophy), than to believe that there is a conspiracy to make us believe about climate change (source: perhaps imagination) and that we shouldn't do anything anyway because there is no reason to (source: ignorance or dogmatism, honestly).

I try to remain critical of rational disciplines too, but that's ironically done with more rationality. And here I do not mean "cold" and rigid pseudo logical analysis, but something that admits different approaches as long as they are solidly justified.

I guess it comes down to who we are. I simply cannot be convinced without this I explained. I cannot believe in religion or spiritual beliefs. I sometimes get short videos about people telling many different stories, about ghosts, ayahuasca trips where they talked to superior entities, gods and the way they know they're real, etc. How can I believe what they perceive is real? Mere "leap of faith"? And why choose one over the other? Just because I like a particular system or because it benefits me in some way? Sorry, too arbitrary even for me that I sometimes act impulsively and capriciously. As I said, I guess the way we are allows us to accept or to deny different ways to approach existence. This is me.

Thank you for reading my stupidly long comment.

I hate these generational divides. Are we really supposed to think that a person from 1982 and a person from 1994 (both millennials) have more in common than a person from 1994 and one from 1997 (one millennial and one zoomer)? It makes no sense.

If I had to answer, I guess the closest would be Zillenial: born around the mid 90s.

It's hard to admit, but I'm not healthy in that regard. I postpone the break-up so that time gives an opportunity to fix things, and when that fails I jump into another relationship right away, and not in a "using people to distract me from my pain" way but in a "falling in love with people who show me empathy and care, and who I imagine are a good fit without giving enough time to consider it thoroughly" way. Currently in the first step, waiting, wishing.

I have no advice. I can only say I am sorry you are grieving.

Edit: Grammar.

Perhaps we are taking the trolley problem too seriously in the comments. The trolley problem is not meant to be a model for analysis nor a relevant dilemma in all ethical discussions. It was a way to illustrate the objections a philosopher (Philppa Foot) had against certain ethical approaches. It is, at best, a thought experiment with many limitations.

Parenthesis. Just as in physics where you may find people supporting either quantum mechanics or general relativity; in psychology where you may find people more inclined to behaviorist, humanist or psychodynamic therapy models; you have ethicists (moral philosophers) sometimes divided between deontology and utilitarianism. If I remember correctly, Philippa Foot was trying to demonstrate these mainstream approaches loops/problems with this hypothetical scenario, as she supported a different school of thought other than these two (one called virtue ethics). Also worth noting that just as in these disciplines and many others you also find attempts to "reconcile" apparently incompatible 'theories' (or whatever the case), you find the same in ethics (moral philosophy).

Back to topic, the trolley problem has become a common meme, so I think it makes sense people modify it to illustrate the moral dilemmas they are encountering in the world. It may feel like the trolley problem is not the right thought experiment for some situations because it was not meant to be universal, as I said. Thought experiments are just tools, efforts to make apparent, in this case, the difficulties of moral decisions and the conflicting priorities in given cases (among other problems). Thought experiments should be adapted and created to serve this purpose, to help us illustrate these problems. To do it the other way around which would be categorizing in which thought experiment (and its alternatives) a given problem clicks is to risk a rigid or incomplete framing of a problem in favor of an unnecessary categorization/boxing.

So, the dilemma U.S. voters are facing regarding the support of the Palestinian cause their two main political parties show is not necessarily going to fit any thought experiment in record. We either create a new one, abstain from using one, or heavily modify a known one. It's natural some people decided this. Descriptive? I'd imagine a new thought experiment would be more useful capturing the nuances of the problem while also simplifying the hypotheticals. Effective for communication? Well, that's the strength of this: a well known meme has better chances at being shared* (and virilized) than a whole new thing of a more serious nature.

Edit: *and here I include shared, commented, discussed, etc.

Similarly, people interested in philosophy (and other theoretical stuff) might take a break and think of different things like "but how's the soap made, anyway?".

I disagree. Generally speaking, psychologists aren't competent either. Psychiatrists at least know about the human body, its interactions, and psychopathology in depth. Psychologists study the things you mentioned, but many fail to study the biological parts and how deep psychopathologies can go.

Therefore, I've encountered many psychologists who think that all problems are caused by the environment, by inner (often cognitive) processes, etc. They fail to understand severe mental disorders such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and regularly make one of two mistakes (if not both in different contexts): downplay the severity of psychosis and mania/hypomania or think the mildest symptom is psychosis or mania/hypomania.

Also, many psychologists I've known and seen lean into the antipsychiatry movement. This may not be a problem when treating, say, mild to moderate depressions of a certain reactive nature. They might advise not to take medication and, indeed, medication may not be necessary for these cases. But to do the same for endogenous recurrent depressions and, again, severe mental disorders is borderline clinical negligence.

Finally and in the same vein, many psychologists do not understand how dependent on the physiological are phenomena such as behavior and beliefs. They often picture our mental experience as mostly free, perhaps influenced by many factors (e.g., psychoanalysis), yet ultimately driven by ourselves. I disagree. I disagree not only because there are many scientific observations to the contrary, but because my own experience has been ever-changing by the silliest of things, like medication for physical illnesses, food, weather conditions, etc. Anecdote incoming: >!Traits that psychologists would try to explain away, treat in talk therapy, and solidify as part of my personality were mere consequences of the physiological and went away immediately after I stopped the causes. The average psychiatrist would find this obvious, while psychologists were often surprised.!<

If I may add, both psychiatrists and psychologists face a profound ignorance about the things they study. Psychology has tried to explain them, and in this effort it has created dozens of different and incompatible schools of thought (e.g., psychoanalysis, behaviorism, cognitivism, etc.). Psychiatrists are also at a loss in the definitive hows, and I should add there's also dense theory behind it (it did not stop with Emil Kraeplin or Karl Jaspers). If you ask me, I wouldn't consider one more scientific than the other just because one created more paradigms/theories; if anything, remaining observant and pragmatic sounds to me more scientific (in both disciplines), but that's a whole new conversation...

My understanding is that tankies believe that groups that have partially or completely followed far-left principles should be exempt from all criticism. I disagree. As long as it is honest criticism, it should not only be allowed but encouraged.

I've also heard that tankies are historic revisionists to an extreme. While I agree Western history is not telling us the real version of things, I don't think other countries are either. I won't say that an event happened one way or the other just because country A or country B says so. If historians and other experts are still debating an event and its details, I prefer to watch from a distance as I have no way to contribute to those debates.

So... no.

This might sound pedantic, but it isn't, it was actually naive: I expected a better environment in academia when I was young.

Why? Because academia is supposedly full of bright people, and I assumed they would be bright enough to be cooperative (because academia advances more when we are, and they supposedly love knowledge); unattached from superficiality (like judging people by their looks, money, etc., because they should know an interesting person can come in any "package"); relatively ethical (as bright people should figure out something close to the categorical imperative, although with unique details); a non-dogmatic, eager to learn and correct their ideas —over preferring recognition and pettiness— attitude (again, just because I assumed their intelligence must guide them towards appreciating knowledge and authenticity over much more ephemeral and possibly worthless things such as prizes, fame, etc.).

I was wrong, so wrong. It's painful to remember how I felt when I realized it...

But I think the premises weren't entirely off, I just imagined people much wiser and more intelligent than they are, myself included. Anyway, I fully understand why others are shocked too.

We don't know if evil is relative, but you can follow the dilemma with different wording.

We don't like our wellbeing and our ability to make our own decisions taken away from us. We suffer, which is something we want to avoid in general terms. It goes beyond humanity, as many animals also seem to seek the satisfaction of their will (being it playing, feeding, instinctively reproducing, etc.) and seem adverse to harm and to losing their life.

So... If we are such creatures, it's natural we don't like situations and beings that go against this. We don't like volcanic eruptions when they're happening with us close the crater. We don't like lions or bears attacking us. We especially don't like other humans harming us as we suspect they could have done otherwise in many cases. We simply don't like these things because of our 'programming' or 'design'.

Problem? There are a few. The first is God asks us to like him when he's admitting that he is actively doing the things we dislike almost universally as human beings. That makes us fall into internal conflict and also into conceptual dilemmas. Perhaps due to our limitations, but nonetheless real and unsolvable to us.

Then you can argue that the way we are is designed by him, so why design something that is going to live, feel, think certain things as undesirable and then impose such things unto them? Let's say I cannot say that's evil, I at least can say it's impractical as it will certainly cause trouble to his mission of accepting him (and following him). If that obstacle for us is part of the plan, that's not for me to say, yet it is an obstacle in our view and experience. In human terms, all this might be classified as unfair or sadistic*, which is the reasoning in the guide and how you can follow it in this perhaps closer way.

Now, about this last part, while we can argue that *those terms arise from our own dispositions and might be different to other dispositions (aliens that do not experience pain, for example), is that enough to invalidate our perspective? Then what's the place of empathy, which I am assuming is also a part of God's gifts to us? What's the place of compassion, as written in many religious texts of supposedly divine inspiration? If we need to carry our dispreference, displeasure, dislikeness—suffering—and not to classify it as necessarily evil when the gods impose it to us (as it is our judgment only), then why classify it as evil in other circumstances?

I hope I am getting my new point though. What this all seems to conclude is that if the lack of respect for the suffering of the animal kingdom is not worthy of being classified as bad (for whatever reason, here I argued that because this comes to be only by our characteristics/disposition); if, therefore, we cannot say a god is evil for going against our wellbeing and against our ability to make our own decisions, then I fail to understand many other things that tend to follow religious thinking and even moral thinking.

That would fall under the "then God is not good/not all loving". You described it as if it were a privilege, but the capacity of evil causes indescribable suffering to us and to innocent beings such as small children and animals. If God lets all of this happen just because he wants some replicas of himself or because he thinks it is such a gift to be like him despite it, he's an egotistical god.

Also, if he gets bored of pure goodness, blissfulness, and perfection, then it was never pure goodness, blissfulness, and perfection for him. Those things, by definition, provide eternal satisfaction. So he either never created that (evil branch again) or he cannot achieve those states even if we wanted to. If he cannot achieve those states even if he wanted to, if he lacks enjoyment and entertainment and has to spice his creation from time to time, then he's not all powerful.

Also, many people argue the necessity of evil as a requisite for freedom. If God needs to allow evil so we can be free, then he's bound to that rule (and/or others): not all powerful.