Thanks for your thoughtful response to my challenge. Although I originally challenged you to rebut antinatalism, I don't 'identify' as an antinatalist as such. in fact, I am not sure whether there is an 'I?' However, I would call myself a radical sceptic - one who attempts to remain as open as possible whilst remaining very sceptical. Reading your article and the books you sent me, brings up a huge amount of doubt and skepticism. I used to be into all sorts of schools of thought, especially New age thought. But I have become very skeptical over the years about it all and reading your article (which was beautifully written and presented) just sounds like woo woo to me. I don't really care about philosophising about 'getting rid of the world' (like Inmendham does - the creator of the term 'Efilism' which is Life spelt backward) because thankfully I have no power to do so, so its all hypothetical. The question I have had for 8 years since I came across 'suffering based ethics, is simple. What possible justification can there be for creating and form of sentient life, given the risk of intolerable suffering and the guarantee of a great deal of suffering and death, especially when there are already millions of children and billions of adults who so desperately need our help?
Prevention is superior to a cure which is why I question people creating new life. the best way to prevent cancer is to desist from bringing someone into existence who can experience cancer. I salute you for not having brought new people into existence and thereby preventing possibly millions of your descendants from unnecessary suffering and death. I also agree with some of the points about denial vs feeling feelings as a way through them and i agree that once we are here, it is wise to maximise the experience we and others have. i just cannot for the life of me see how someone wise, humane and compassionate would take such a huge and unnecessary gamble with someone elses life by creating them?