My question is, & in a Nietzschean vein, is there value in continuing to suffer so that in the future we may have unanimous consent to self-eradicate as a species?

The value is an eventual unanimously consensual annihilation of our species, and an increase in autonomy in the interim due to increased normativity of others acting toward the same goal. I have run into Sorites paradox with this line of reasoning: n people in agreement is not unity; n+1 people in agreement is still not unity.

Unity of mind increases autonomy for the group in agreement, but begins to dwarf autonomy for those outside of the group, especially if the group is the large majority.

​

I don't think my thought process overcomes the reasoning for antinatalism in your version of negative utilitarianism, but perhaps a slow extinction due to partite participation in pro/anti-natalism increases FNF to a degree (both for existing & non-yet-existing persons) that there are additional duties for some not-yet-existing individuals to be born.

​

I am not an accredited philosopher in any sense of the word & I understand if you find my question frivolous. I wanted to note that your essay (article?) reinvigorated my interest in philosophy, as well as my participation in denouncing contemporary normative society as you have shown that the burden of proof lies upon the hegemony. I am looking forward to reading many of your other publications.

I'll take that to mean the same as, "Is there a duty to conceive a child so that it may experience a god's love" as the question seems to be a double negative (Would it be not ethical to not give.... by not permitting it to not exist)

Does god's love increase or perpetuate the frustration of a child's fundamental needs?

If we accept that a god's love is not a socially constructed and psychologically manipulated want, then increasing the experience of a god's love by accepting the duties or at least accepting that bringing a new sentient being into existence perpetuates human suffering. From the article:

>Pronatalists defend reproduction on more traditional grounds. My conflict-responsive negative utilitarianism offers a middle way. Since the reproducers’ claim is so bold, approaching bizarre, they do have a strong prima facie duty not to have children. Due to the clash of fundamental need frustrations, however, the final judgment is deferred and can only be made after further scrutiny and assessment.

Not being well-versed in religious ideology, I suggest that a Christian god's love does come at a cost; original sin.

In the garden of eden, there was supposedly no pain or anguish, but autonomy was dwarfed, either by divine design of humans or by coercion; by the threat of removal of needs met by existing in eden.

As Eve's autonomy was exercised, either intrinsically, or by devilish trickery: Humanity was thusly punished in mortality.

Attempting to create logical steps from theology is madness in my view. Nonetheless, I think I have shown that a christian god created the conditions for increasing and perpetuating human suffering by dwarfing autonomy in the garden of eden.

I posit that this god's love increases or perpetuates the suffering of humans, as it requires existing to experience, & that existence came at a cost of dwarfed autonomy.