Asklemmy

Well, to me, it seems pretty paradoxical, almost in the same Rousseauesque line of “I’m forced to be free”.

That's fair, but it's either we force all people to exist or no one ever has the opportunity to make a choice. An unfortunate fact of life is that a lot of things will happen to you, without you having a choice. Some of that will suck, some of it will be fantastic, much of it will be somewhere in between. You will never get to choose everything which happens to you, all you can choose is how you react to it. Pain and suffering is valid, but so is joy. If you choose to focus on pain and suffering, that's up to you. But ya, that's kinda the response of the angsty teenager.

Sorry but you distorted my words. In no moment I said “everyone needs to die”, and I challenge anyone accusing me of that to point out where I said this.

Fair enough, that was me getting absurd.

What I’ve been saying throughout this Lemmy thread is how humans are inherently evil (as per Hobbesian philosophy, not out of hatred misanthropy)

This one would be fun to expand one. Though, fair warning, I tend to dive into moral relativism and will put Hobbe's philosophy up as an appeal to authority and his idea of some "state of nature" as just a "noble savage myth" wrapped in fancy language. Speaking of "noble savage" style myths...

No other lifeforms developed nuclear warheads, no other lifeforms shrug off when children starve.

Ok ya, we have fancier ways to kill each other, but the idea that animals don't is complete bullshit. Wild animals which have too many young will kill or abandon the extra young to conserve resources. If you're an old enough fart, you might recall people quoting Planet of the Apes (the one without CGI), "ape don't kill ape". Except, that ya, they do. Primates are known to kill and eat other groups of primates, even within the same species. Competition for resources and all the brutality that entails predates modern humans and it predates cities and agriculture by a long way. Sure, we have absolutely raised it a to terrifying scale. But, we really aren't that different from our stick wielding forebearers.

Even Earth herself isn’t eternal, for the Sun will engulf the Earth as part of its transformation to Giant Red.

Speaking of things we have no choice about, this is one of them. Given the vast expanses of interstellar space, there's a good chance that this really will spell the end for humanity. On the upshot, we've got a few million years (maybe a billion or two) before the Sun gets hot enough to make Earth uninhabitable (assuming we don't speed that one up ourselves). If we figure nothing out in that time, we'll be long dead before the Sun goes Red Giant. At the same time, humanity went from the first powered flight at Kittyhawk to humans walking on the Moon in the span of a single human life. We're a clever bunch and might just sort something out. I like our chances and would love to give us a shot.

Yes. Then, Science was hijacked by capitalism, becoming something sponsored by capital goals, one which sees people as cogs in the machine because “profit must go up”.

Science has always been beholden to economics and war. Capitalism didn't change that. Again, you've latched on to a mythical past. It didn't exist. Leonardo Da Vinci invented a lot of stuff, much of it was designing better ways for one idiot with an upgraded stick to kill another idiot with a less upgraded stick. Even early hominids were working on better ways to gather resources and kill each other. It'd be great if we can ever change this, but until we sort out some sort of technological singularity (probably itself just a utopian myth), scientific work will take resources which means it's part of whatever economic theory is currently being used. Economics is always trying to find a way to distribute finite resources in a world of infinite wants. Every economic system has advantages and disadvantages. Capitalism is just getting its opportunity to display its disadvantages at the moment.

Yes. And, on one hand, this improved quality of life (= less physical suffering). On the other hand, it empowered capitalism so people became increasingly reliant on a system that seeks to perpetuate their slavery (= ontological, invisible suffering).

Given what came before (feudalism), I'll take capitalism and it's "slavery" (so edgy) any day of the week. Seriously, for anyone in a first world country, sit back and look at the embarrassment of choices and riches you have available to you today. Go to a grocery store, buy a pineapple and eat it. You have now done something that would have been considered the height of indulgence in the 18th Century. Go to your bathroom, take a shit, flush. This would have blown the minds of most of humanity prior to the 19th Century (some really rich Romans wouldn't have been all that impressed). To me, this exemplifies the weakness in your philosophy, you are quick to validate suffering but refuse to validate progress, joy or anything positive about existence. There are many, many good things in life but you refuse to recognize them, or seek to minimize them. The philosophy is so caught up in the negative, it fails to recognize the good, only calling it "less physical suffering". And I call that bullshit. The good things in life are good, not a reduction in suffering. The default state is not suffering, you only see it that way because you choose to.

Improving human condition also means avoiding suffering from future generations: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7422788/

I'll have to apologize, I've only made it to the end of Section 4 of the linked paper. It's getting late and I'm getting pretty deep in my cups (one of humanity's best, early inventions, booze). I do plan to pick it up in the morning, it's an interesting read. But this is starting to sound suspiciously like the eugenicist movement of the early 20th Century. The authors also seem to recognize this and are doing a lot of "no really, we're not those people":

More troublesome is the realization that, as mentioned, many folks view any efforts to contain population growth as homicide, etc.

Ya, let's have a critical look at China's One Child Policy and then come back and tell me how great your policy is. Or, you know, what Eugenicists got up to in the early 20th Century. It might just be that the reason "many folks view any efforts to contain population growth as homicide" is because it always seems to turn out that way. But who knows, maybe the authors really do have A Brave New World planned and I just haven't read that far yet.

Population growth is already slowing (something the paper mentions). Access to education and birth control already started bending that curve. In fact, most first world countries are already facing shrinking populations. No fancy "don't have kids" push needed. The economic consequences of this are going to be a "fun" ride and may lead to the sort of suffering the authors are hoping to avoid. Or not, managing a shrinking population may not be an insurmountable economic problem. Japan is kinda doing OK, after all. But, so far is seems that the most effective method for long term population control is less eugenics and more first world development.

To try and sum this all up, I'd note that you seem to be arguing less about anti-natalism and more about the harms of unconstrained capitalism. I'm all on board with the latter, less so the former. We need more socialism (at least in the US). Modern capitalism is broken and that's only going to be solved via higher taxes and greater wealth redistribution. Even people who believe wholeheartedly in capitalism should recognize that the level of wealth accumulation, rent seeking and regulatory capture have created distortions in the market which are not healthy for capitalism. We've entered a new Guilded Age and it's time to break out the monopoly busting hammer. But, let's leave the Eugenics in the dustbin of history, it wasn't good the last time, it won't be good this time.