>>24671755
>What could possibly be nihilist about prescribing an action to be immoral because it causes harm?
Not sure where to put this thought so I'll just reply here, but it seems to me that the only people who will actually take the anti-natalist bait are those who are already predisposed to conscientiousness to begin with, and it is those who are predisposed to conscientiousness who bear the faculties that allow for improvement in the world and thus the reduction of harm. Meanwhile, those who are not predisposed to conscientiousness (and thus, do not possess the faculties to care for harm reduction) will continue to procreate anyway, and thus there will be a net increase of harm in the world as the conscientious go extinct.

Anti-natalism then is, at best, a prisoner's dilemna. This is without getting into any metaphysical or religious perspectives either.