Veganism is a philosophy about animal exploitation. Vegans don’t even eat honey because it is an animal product. If you eat eggs from a back yard chicken, you are still participating in the exploitation of that animal and feeding systems which further exploit animals. Some detailed further reading:
https://theminimalistvegan.com/backyard-eggs/

So no, a vegan would not do this. Though, what OP said about nomenclature remains true - some people are loose with the terms

e: a word

⌈סּَ‎͜つסּَ‎⌉

what an evocative interpretation. great work

They confused 3 letter evil agencies – not surprising

Let’s see your funny and cohesive movie world and story written, performed, and edited to youtube for millions then! The world building is pretty basic and derivative, but it’s at its heart closer to a satire than anything resembling a serious story. I think there was significant effort in building, but also writing recording, etc.

theres a youtube movie someone made about a dystopian society in minecraft whose economy operates on doing cool parkour tricks and climbing the ranks to become a minecraft parkour god. it’s hilarious and high-effort, but stupid

This is hilarious

You are already (fat and fluffy) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This is such a weird non sequitur – what?

This is the coolest thing I have ever heard

I think that you have a well-reasoned and valid view. It’s not that I regret my birth, but that I didn’t consent to being a living, conscious thing – the consent portion of which you can reasonably view as an impossibility.

Suffering is a necessity of living, and therefore bringing a person into the world means they will suffer. You’re right that I generally take a utilitarian view of things, upon reflection. Though, taking it to its most extreme conclusion, I could never be asked to choose between saving 5 million people if it meant killing 4,999,999. Such thought experiments leave me confounded.

Maybe it’s the case we’re faced with infinite impossible choices because the universe doesn’t care and tends towards entropy. There is likely no perfect answer. All I can do as a person is try to beget as little pain into world as possible, but I recognize that my view isn’t without flaw or applicable to everyone everywhere all the time.

This is also why I don’t simply despise people who have children, like my own parents.

I appreciate you taking the time to explore this with me! Genuinely much food for thought.

I say that it’s actually impossible to answer, except in the most extreme cases.

It’s certainly impossible to answer in a single broad stroke for everyone, but that doesn’t mean it’s not useful or relevant to think about.

That is because the question was about rights, not consent.

If that’s so, then we’re talking past one another. My point is that in my ethical framework, having a child is wrong. They are incapable of consenting as you point out, which is part of why I view it as wrong.

Existence is a presupposition to consent.

Why? The child surely exists before, during, and after its birth. Can’t it be that the unborn human is incapable of consent rather than creating a paradox? I understand the chicken-and-egg problem you are describing, but I think it’s incomplete. As a fully functioning human being now, if I look back at my birth, did I consent? Did I exist yet? I think I can say simply, “No, I did not consent to being born.” Whether you ascribe a negative, positive, or neutral value to this is up to you. In my opinion, it’s immoral.

In what way is that different to negotiation?

It isn’t. I don’t think we disagree on this

But birth is a natural result of conception.

Yes, however isn’t this logic used to argue against abortion? I’d argue that a person becomes a full “person” at birth, which is perhaps arbitrary, but we have to define that point somewhere. Regardless of when we say a person “exists”, they still cannot consent regardless.

That all said, is anti-natalism completely correct for everyone? I don’t know. I’m sure our species going extinct would create lots of suffering for the dwindling population. Maybe on average, humans do not regret their existence. Does that mean it’s moral to make more conscious beings who are capable of feeling that regret?

How is there a ranking of “goodness” at all, be it “bad, because suffering”, or “good, because joy”? That’s like demanding a serious answer for: “how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle?”

The question was “is the joy worth the pain?” That’s a fairly simple question – not nonsense. Is there a point at which suffering outweighs joy? Are you to make that determination for a “hypothetical” person? The question is perhaps abstract and difficult to answer, but it’s perfectly valid.

Rights aren’t given. They’re negotiated. I negotiate the right with the person that conceives the child with me.

This is the transactional portion. I meant no ad hominem, it just sounds funny to me to put it this way. My point is that the child at no point enters into the question of consent. You’re saying there is no violation of consent because the person doesn’t exist yet, but what about when they do? I.e. when they are born? Did they consent to that? Does it matter to you?

Who “gives” any rights from your point of view? God?

Other humans. The only way to have a “right” is for the people around you to agree that you have them. Perhaps it’s more complicated than that if you want to get extra philosophical, because I do believe that all conscious beings deserve the least amount of suffering possible purely by virtue of them being aware – be they birds, pigs, cows, whatever. I think maybe that’s more morality than “rights,” but I’m not sure how clear the distinction is between them.

You’re claiming by conceiving a child, you’re violating its’ consent. At that point, nothing exists, yet. It’s only a being whose consent can be violated in the hypothetical future.

This isn’t what I am claiming. I am claiming that birth is a violation of consent. Conception is meaningless to me unless it comes to fruition and bears a conscious being.

That only happens, because the whole anti-natalist reasons are paradoxical from the start.

Can you describe the paradox? I found a paradox using your own words. If they were in jest or you were “meeting [my] non-sensical argument where it’s at” then please help me understand better.

I think I have a fairly cynical view that reproduction is primarily a selfish act based solely on our biological drive to continue our species. I’ve pondered for a long time, and I fail to see a more logical conclusion than that.

Life is tough and there are no guarantees. Rolling the dice by having a kid seems like a messed up thing to do imo.

That said, I would adopt a child or children. That’s a better way to ensure you are putting kindness and hope into the world where it’s needed, rather than creating another vessel for pain from whole cloth.

You yourself said they are not yet existent, so really is joy being “withheld”? That doesn’t work in your framework, I think.

Just because a human exists does not mean they fall neatly into a category where they innately love “contributing to a community”. We’re not apes, well most of us :p

rights are negotiated

You only mentioned the rights of the parents (in a strangely cold and transactional way btw lol). What of the child’s rights? They must negotiate with you for them after their nonconsensual birth?

Consent doesn’t matter for hypothetical futures

It’s not hypothetical–a child is born. They live and experience. You’re in a paradoxical state where consent doesn’t matter because the kid doesn’t exist, yet they necessarily must exist to experience the joy you mention

Is the joy worth the pain? What if they don’t want to contribute to a community? Can you guarantee the joy will outweigh the pain? What gives you the right to will another being into existence?

If the being will become conscious and self aware, why doesn’t their consent matter?

The only way to experience suffering is to be alive. The only way to be born is without consent

Modern OSes handle memory management and background tasks. Unless you have something truly malicious running, you’re just getting in your own way by force quitting apps.

https://qz.com/stop-closing-your-iphone-s-background-apps-1851269132

I am a man and I am affected 0% by this meme. This meme was a chance to display some empathy and understand why it might be that the bear analogy strikes a chord with many women.

When I go to the grocery store, do I have to think about being snatched? My privilege affords me the convenience of not worrying about that. Do I need to worry about being sexually assaulted walking home? Statistically, probably not. There are a whole host of problems and horrific fates that befall women disproportionately, and very often at the hands of men.

Why would a woman feel safer with a bear?

The 750,000 black bears of North America kill less than one person per year on the average, while men ages 18-24 are 167 times more likely to kill someone than a black bear.

Most attacks by black bears are defensive reactions to a person who is too close, which is an easy situation to avoid. Injuries from these defensive reactions are usually minor.

https://bear.org/bear-facts/how-dangerous-are-black-bears

Since 1784 there have been 82 fatal human/bear conflicts by wild brown bears in North America. Yellowstone National Park has seen a mere 8 since being established in 1872, which is only one more than the number of people who have died from a falling tree.

https://bearvault.com/bear-attack-statistics/

Seems to me that even I would be safer with a bear than a man. Makes you think, doesn’t it?

I haven’t said anything to you. I’m not telling anyone they’re wrong. It seems to me the bear discussion revolves around the fact that many if not most women are distrustful of men because of violence, misogyny, etc. Your subjective experience doesn’t change that, but neither is it invalid.