Is Human Existence Worth Its Consequent Harm?

[Dalek Prime]

Oh yeah. The usual 'experts' on antinatalism appear.

Never has antinatalism been solidly refuted. Most don't even understand the arguments to debate it. (Especially, the usual 'experts'.) So, I'm not debating it. Do what you're gonna do anyway, and that's breed.

Yeah, I know. Go top yourself, Dalek.

[HexHammer]

He is right, the world can't handle all the pollution that humans causes, and we should reduce our numbers.

[Greta]

How about this. Since humans have led to the extinction of more species than in any million year period since the end of the Mesozoic era, their appearance on earth has achieved a net reduction in the suffering of all those creatures that would otherwise have been born.

How about this. Suffering is good; represents the keenest of all experiences, and on a Universal level is not harmful. Since humans suffer, and being most sentient of all the creatures has meant that the most exquisite types of suffering has to come into being since the dawn of time. So more and more sensitive and intelligent humans means more suffering and more goodness.

Shall I go on?

I like it.

Slowing the rate of destruction as much as possible makes sense on almost all levels, but a dominant species is going to dominate, even if it slows itself. The sheer numbers of us make the processes impossible to stop. We are compelled by instinct and exigency to create large institutions that we can't control, that take on a life - and certainly interests - of their own.

[Hobbes' Choice]

He is right, the world can't handle all the pollution that humans causes, and we should reduce our numbers.

But you are assuming that the destruction of the earth is a harm. Though it seems obvious, the point I was making was that no matter how well you argue you are limited by the values that you employ in the first place.