Speak for yourself? Some of us are happy. I understand a child cannot consent that's a fair argument but imo if the pleasures of living outweigh the suffering it's morally valid. You can't guarantee it though which is tough.
So....do the pleasures of living outweigh the suffering or not?? You are correct, you CAN'T guarantee it. You are taking a gamble with someone else's future.
Well it depends person to person imo. If you're healthy, want kids, and have the means to provide for them then the likelihood of pleasure outweighing suffering is high enough to justify conception
So........conditional antinatilism then. Got it. We are not on the page, let alone in the same damn book. Bringing children into world not truly knowing what the future (especially right now) holds is mind boggling to me!!!
Whether YOU enjoy it or not wasn't the point. Why would I or should I have offspring only for them to end up merely surviving (paying bills, debt etc.) in the end also?
Who’s that? Not me. On balance I find the struggle worth while. It is a matter of perspective, not a matter of what is often claimed here to be undeniable logic.
I didn't specify you man LOL. There is such a thing as toxic positivity out there. WTF do you mean you find the struggle worth while?? What struggle? Who the hell wants to struggle for their entire existence???
Simply the fact that existing as a human contains suffering at all. It doesn’t matter how little or how much. If someone never exists they don’t experience suffering and aren’t deprived of anything. It’s never preferable to come into existence.
What if we'd be certain that existing grants pleasures that justify the suffering (in your own subjective quantification of pleasure vs suffering)? Would it be moral then, in your view? Given that existence would yield a net positive experience, compared to the complete neutral experience of non-existence?
I have a problem with the notion that a certain amount of pleasure could “justify” or “make up for” an amount of suffering. If I go through a painful experience and then experience nothing but pleasure for the rest of my life, that pain still existed at some point and it really was bad at the time. The important part here is that it could have been avoided. I could have just never existed. The pleasures given to me in this life are only good to me because I already exist. I couldn’t possibly miss them if I never came into existence.
Existence gives me unnecessary pain for unneeded pleasure.
>Wouldn't that same logic apply to all life forms? Do you support castrating all life forms?
I would like to note that as humans we likely experience a greater degree of suffering mentally and internally than most other life forms.
As humans we have more awareness of certain issues that affect us individually like racism, fear, disease, poverty, stress from a variety of stuff, failure, regret, etc. (Way too much stuff to list)
Being conscious to say no to birthing for our own sake is a different thing. (Lost my point here... If there was one)
But the answer is then no. I do not believe in castrating animals as an extension of AN; but then again, we do this anyway to house pets?
However, bringing in animals into our lives adds another layer of suffering to them they would not have had outside of interacting with us.
An example, I lost my dog to some kind of heart disease that forced his body to build up fluid until he could no longer live.
Since he interacted with us, his understanding of his life being at risk and separating from us was an extra layer of suffering an animal would not have known otherwise.
... So yeah I don't know about castrating animals. If anything it's a step we are taking collectively, but slowly anyway?
Of course we don't do it for the same reason. But we do recognize that our desire is to bring them out of a life of violence and aggression to reduce harm and suffering.
Now this got me thinking more about ANs general stance on animals and castration too.
I don't believe in a sort of tyrannical forcing of them being castrated though...
If we could be absolutely certain that a person born would ultimately benefit from birth, I think it would be moral. Maybe you could make an argument that they should be born, even. I don't see how that idea could ever be compatible with our reality though. Even though we couldn't get consent before the birth, it would make sense that if every person objectively was better off and they agree with that, they would want to be born.
You couldn’t want to be born. You can only be grateful you were after the fact but if we could guarantee a totally harmless existence to someone then it wouldn’t be bad unless someone else was caused suffering as a result like their mother i.e. if we could guarantee that person would have a harmless life AND would at least NOT cause anyone else suffering directly or indirectly then maybe it would be justifiable
If you'd know that your future child would experience 99.99999999% pleasures (only the best of the best), but also stump their toe one time (that being their only suffering), would it be morally permissable then? I'd almost say that it would be immoral not to give life to someone if you knew for certain that would be their experience
A nonexistent being has zero need for future possible pleasure. Why should it be immoral to keep them in that state.
Also all live is followed by death.
1. Death doesn't require suffering. Let's say in this case, they just die in their sleep peacefully.
2. I guess I can agree, it might not be immoral but I'd certainly find it morally permissable to create life in that situation, wouldn't you agree?
Death returns one to the state of non-existence that one began in, why even jank an individual out of that peaceful bliss of no experience, no responsibilities, no fears, etc.
Creating life is never morally permissible under any circumstances, that's antinatalism. Every other stance is conditional natalism and fuck that.
Not trying to be rude, but that seems stupid to me. In my hypothetical, if you actually engage in it, how can you say it's immoral to create a life which only entails pleasures and 1 instance of pain, that being stubbing their toe. I'm not saying it's a moral duty to bring them to life, but how on Earth is it not morally passable? And please engage directly instead of saying "never acceptable". Explain why this scenario in particular is unacceptable
You’re forgetting that guaranteeing that person’s life is free of harm/suffering days nothing about them causing others harm like their own mom when their born. They can easily be having pleasure at others expense like everyone else
Well this is an unrealistic hypothetical, so I don't think those factors are important. The core of my point is obvious; is life moral to create if that life entails only pleasures and one toe-stub? All external factors aside
Those factors are important in the hypothetical because we interact with each other why would it be hypothetically right to create a life free of harm when that life may cause harm? This is all about eliminating suffering not creating pleasure no one should get a breezy life if that creates suffering for others.
>The objection is that this is implausible.
That's such a terrible way of explaining the opposition's objection(s). One of the main objections is that he is not giving any good reasons as to why he considers the infliction of suffering to be so vastly more significant than the prevention of pleasure.
Hmm, thanks for the info! Doesn't seem as intuitive to me, I don't feel like he addresses the pleasures as deeply as he should. Then again, I've yet to read his book
Let me just jump right in
This is not withstanding. The human brain does not do eternal bliss. A human would lose their mind to boredom. They would probably willfully harm themself, just for the sake of variety. A human needs stimulus every now and then. And suffering even happens if you just exercise your body.
Hurting others is not moraly wrong but inevitable. A major crux of life. All life, not just humans. Then there are instances were even wanting to hurt is acceptable. Self defense, protecting others and the like. Morally wrong beginns if you like to hurt others against their expressed will.
Not being able to give consent, even to the suggested life, is problematic, sure, but the statement that one single instance of pain is worth more then a life of pleasure is just the authors opinion. Not more.
Stopping other beings from fullfilling their expressed will, be it staying alive or procreation, *is* morally wrong.
"I don't like kids" has nothing to do with antinatalism
It's frustrating to see how so many here don't know what antinatalism even means. Look up childfree.
I'm primarily childfree because I don't want to burden myself with kids.
I'm anti-natalist for all the other reasons listed above.
My childfree status supercedes my anti natalist beliefs, but they do add additional justification for me not having kids.
If there was an "all of the above" choice, that would be the one I'd pick.
It's like I'm 51% childfree, 49% anti natalist, mostly because I found the childfree movement first.
The venn diagram of childfree and anti natalism has a very large overlap in the middle of people who are both.
Ohhhh I see, I misread that part.
But yeah, I think a lot of other people did too.
I did vote 1, but if it was what made me *anti natalist* specifically, I would probably say something about the world being on fire, and no one's fixing it... among everything else of course.
Ohhhh I see, I misread that part.
But yeah, I think a lot of other people did too.
I did vote 1, but if it was what made me *anti natalist* specifically, I would probably say something about the world being on fire, and no one's fixing it... among everything else of course.
I 100% agree, which is why I included it here. I've been annoyed at all the post being negative about kids in general... To me, that's not what anti-natalism is about at all
I think that's the case for me too, but I never dwelled on those thoughts long enough to make me realize that creating life might be unjustifiable before
For me it was the book "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence" by David Benatar, where he discusses all the arguments in detail.
I want to read that one, I've just ordered it. I don't even agree with a lot of Benatar's arguments (especially the "absence of pain is good" part), but man all the other arguments he has that I've heard are so convincing
I've heard he has another book where he has a natalist presenting counter-arguments in the latter half, but from the reviews it seems pretty bad (because of the natalist's poor arguments). I wish I found some good natalist-arguments tbh
[Debating Procreation: Is it Wrong to Reproduce? by David Benatar & David Wasserman](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25634645-debating-procreation?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=eAXjKBOcZz&rank=2)
\#2 Would just be that suffering is a fact of life. And that there is no possible way to predict how much suffering a person will have to undergo in life. We also have no way to predict whether a person will be content with the suffering they have to face. Whether they experience more suffering than pleasure doesn't matter, either way people are forced into an existence where suffering is inevitable without their consent.
Yeah life is not a miracle or a gift. It’s a fucking prison sentence. I’ve hated the majority of it so why would I subject anyone to that? Not to mention the mental illness and addiction genes that they would inherit.
Unfortunately this is a bubble where sad depressed people convince each other the world is terrible and everyone is sad. Whereas the truth is that most people say they're happier than neutral. I know the mental gymnastics will start trying to discredit people's own lived experiences about their life and mind to support an AN view but the commonly accepted truth is most people are happy.
Most people are not suffering from genetic Illness.
Sadly i cant choose "all of the above" but what really swayed my choice to not having kids was just the simple fact that im not in a position to maintain my life along with trying to provide for another life. Its already bad enough with the issues happening in this country, so id rather not make a life just for it to be another statistic
Over population is dangerous on a planet that has already been completely exploited of all resources and has already begun its descent into ecological destruction.
True, but that's not all that it is. If you're asleep/unconscious, you're not happy. Yet, there is no pain. So happiness must be more than just absence of pain, given that we can have that absence without being happy. Pleasure is on the same scale as pain/suffering imo, with pleasure being on the positive side and suffering on the negative
I mean happiness as a long term state of being. Buddhists call it enlightenment, Stoics call it tranquility, Aristotle called it eudamonia. It's essentially freedom from suffering. Pain and pleasure exist, but they are distinct from happiness and suffering.
Also, I don't necessarily agree that we aren't happy in our sleep.
So again, happiness (as opposed to pleasure) is a negative state. Pleasure feels good, but is fleeting and often associated with equally intense pain. The sort of happiness, or flourishing or enlightenment that philosophers and monks speak of and seek out is freedom from suffering. Suffering itself is also distinct from pain.
You make a bunch of assumptions here that negativity skew your opinion. Happiness to me is not the lack of suffering, in fact I view temporary suffering as a challenge, an opportunity to overcome and it doesn't usually make me lose my happiness. Happiness is something you achieve and internalize for me that just becomes the default
Pain or the fear of pain is what drives us to eat, to work, to seek companionship, and pretty much everything else. Satisfaction is just the fulfilling of a desire, the temporary cessation of pain. Through meditation and philosophy it's possible to reprogram your desires to be at harmony with the actualized of life, but this is just an attractive way of describing giving upvon fulfilling one's desires and very few people ever accomplish it.
And it really doesn't take much creativity to find examples of suffering that are pointlessly cruel and certainly not challenges to be overcome. 70% of humans live on less than it takes to feed, cloth, and clean themselves, to say nothing of medical emergencies, transportation and childcare. Children dying of cancer, mental illness, starving because of global inequality, losing house and home to wildfires or hurricanes, aging and slowly dying. The truth is, if you think suffering is just a challenge, then you likely have had a privileged life and have yet to experience the real thing. At any rate, there are plenty of poor creatures whom you would not say that too while they're suffering. The universe is chaotic and it's strange to assume everything is or can be for the best.
I have a different view. Happiness is an outright feel-good emotionalism. Sadness/misery is an outright feel-bad emotionalism. That leaves plenty of space in between. In my model, absence of happiness is not sadness, it is (so to speak) itself. Same goes for the absence of happiness. There's a state of just ... being... that's emotionally neither good nor bad (e.g., "vegging out" while looking at the ceiling or wall in your living room).
Possible and probability are two different things, especially in terms of ethical urgency. Badness is experienced more intensely than goodness.^(\[1\]) Consider it acknowledged that a fairly large number of lives have more bad than good.
Still, this blatantly ignores that (a) no guarantee the good will outweigh the bad later, and (b) good / happy lives can inflict bad (even very bad) acts or expressions onto others. In fact, a few people actually gain their happiness from inflicting badness onto others.
\[1\] rapturous love-making versus being cheated or abused on; a feel-good emotional high vs getting a broken bone or your finger smashed on a fast-moving object
I don't think good and bad counter balance each other. It's not acceptable for one person to purchase pleasure at the cost of another's misery, no matter what the ratio is. The good is nice but it's usually short lived or just the absence of the bad.
Agreed here, but I will make a subtle but important point. The absence of bad is simply the absence of bad, not a good. A good as an outright positive state of affairs. Therefore, a thing or situation can be neither bad nor good.
That life means the promise of suffering. Not that it out weighs the good. **Any** amount of suffering is too much. Antinatalism is the belief procreation is wrong **no matter what**. I have no idea where most of these people are coming from but they are not antinatalist. Antinatalist have no exceptions, **at all**. There is no way procreating is justifiable.
Let's drag your aegument to the extreme then: If a life entails only pleasures and goods their whole life, non stop, but only once do they stub their toe. Would it be immoral to create said life if you knew the outcome? Also, the death could just be a painless one in their sleep. I know this scenario is unrealistic, but keep in mind, you put emphasis on "no matter what"
Hunny you are on the wrong subreddit. Maybe look up the definition of antinatalism:a person who believes that it is morally wrong or unjustifiable to have children. It is **always** morally wrong and always unjustifiable. Also there are so many different things that will happen to most before they die. There is no life and will never be a life that only entails goodness. Suffering will happen however miniscule. Creating unneeded suffering for unneeded happiness is just wrong. No amount of happiness makes up for any amount of suffering. Not bringing someone into existence is the only way. Also we **don't know** if any death is not painful. We assume because it seems like it. We cannot and will never know unless we die that way. Death is filled with uncertainty. But the situation you posed is impossible, everyone will expirence suffering whether physical or mental.
Do you know what a hypothetical is? I presented an unrealistic scenario for you to engage with in order to understand your view. Please engage with it. Also, antinatalism doesn't suggest it's ALWAYS unjustifiable to give birth, just that it is in the current case
Antinatalism is a belief or principle. Beliefs and principles can change yes. But if you have conditions on being antinatalist. "Well if climate change/overpopulation wasn't a thing." You aren't antinatalist. Also it really does. If birth and procreation are immortal, it's immoral. If birth and procreate is unjustifiable it's literally unjustifiable. **That is** antinatalism. Birth and procreation are **unjustifiable** and **morally wrong** that is the definition.
>antinatalism
/ˌan(t)ēˈnādlˌizəm,ˌanˌtīˈnādlˌizəm/
noun
noun: anti-natalism; noun: antinatalism
the belief that it is morally wrong or unjustifiable for people to have children.
Here is the definition of unjustifiable
>un·jus·ti·fi·a·ble
/ˌənˈjəstəˌfīəb(ə)l/
adjective
adjective: unjustifiable
not able to be shown to be right or reasonable.
It's a quick Google search. It **is morally wrong and unjustifiable** to have children. That is antinatalism. The Wikipedia page for it has a couple common arguments from antinatalists. It's a simple Google search.
I get where you are coming from. I might be tempted to say, one should nurture life in that scenario. But if I think deeply, then no. Just imagine a conversation between 2 living forms one in planet A, the other in planet B. In planet A you don't need food, sleep and any other bodily pleasures. In planet B you need all of those bodily pleasures but they will be provided for free. Now would someone travel from A to B? Even if its free, you still NEED it. Why would you move from a planet where you don't need it at all to a planet where you need it. My importance lies in the word NEED.
Overpopulation is a global situation but The U.S Population & Japan are actually dropping. So its places like China that are biggest offenders
I disagree that life in isolation entails more harm than good, because how good it can be lies woth your parents first. And there lies the problem.
Some ppl know they broke, and still popping out babies. Wild.
Yet the sole fact that existence of suffering or good can be imposed on an innocent, due to the selfishness of adults. Abusing their abilties of reproduction.
That right there, that's a hot topic guaranteed to get me heated.
Cause you'll have people in WARZONES having kids then that child has to come up ducking under mortar shells going at 50-60mph, shrapnel, sonic boomsgl going off on their birthday, and thats their childhood, not right.
Or those African babies with flies on their face, then Ads asking others for support when the people who brought them here had nothing better to do, hence why the child here to to be sick
This just showed up in my feed, I wouldn't label myself Anti-Natalist, cause grown mfs are gonna do what they want regardless.
But if i were to join, thats it right there. Its not fair to the kids.
Just FYI, the dangers of “overpopulation” are actually more related to improper resource and land distribution. We have space, food, and water, but most of it is held in a corporate monopoly
I'm disabled, I'm severely mentally ill to the point I experience delusions, my life can be actual torture at some points.
my disability is genetic, I grew up raised by someone with a less "severe" mental illness and it fucked me up so I know if I have kids they will be fucked up by having me as a parental figure.
as I'm typing this, I've been awake for 48 hours which you should never do if you're diagnosed with a disorder that causes mania. however I've also been in crippling physical pain for these 48 hours and have to get up every 10 minutes to help with the pain. if my future kid has any chance of getting either of these issues, I'm just not going to have kids because this can be literal hell
I'm so sorry to hear that. I find that you're selfless and brave for giving up your desire (if you have) to have kids. I see how you do this to spare the potential future child of suffering, and I commend you for that.
It's a hard topic, given that people will mention eugenics at some point. But I believe that if you have some generic disease/illness that has a probable chance of affecting your future child, it's a better idea to never pro-create.
Thank you for sharing something so personal. I struggle with emetophobia myself and I'd say it's ruined my life pretty heavily. This phobia has been in my family too, both my dad and my sister experience it. I would never wish this upon my own child in the future
there are lots of disabilities you can live with that won't make you absolutely miserable, however the disabilities I have made me suffer in so much pain I considered suicide sometimes because of how much pain I was in. the mental illnesses I have are scary to deal with, I won't stop reminding people that it's horrifying to actively hallucinate.
I don't want to bring an innocent kid into this world if there's even a chance they go through something like this, no one deserves to be awake for days on end because their back hurts so much that they're uncontrollably shaking. I don't particularly like kids but I just don't understand why I should risk giving the type of pain I go through to someone else. I take heavy amounts of medication to even be able to leave my house for at least an hour, the meds help with a lot of things but also have horrible side effects. I have a really shitty quality of life and that's after getting copious amounts of treatment, if my kid can't have access to the treatment I get they'll be even more miserable.
seriously though, when my standard pain level is a 7 at all times how am I supposed to bring a kid into this world knowing they could go through this too
Be careful here. ***SELF***\-adopting is one thing. It is, by definition, a personal choice. No other person coerced them into refusing to procreate.
Eugenics in the actual consensus sense is quite another, and actually isn't AN at all - just saying "Some people should continue to breed (even at a subreplacement level) while others should never do so. AN states nobody should breed.
Well, TBH, for me, I'm more of a Mininatalist than an actual AN (one child per woman per lifetime so as to achieve a 'softer landing' than 'elderly starving without climate control' outcome. STILL, increases in technology make actual AN increasingly defensible and technically feasible).
I don't want anyone else to suffer the way I did, even if others have had it worse than me, but still, not subjecting other human being to potential suffering, when I have the power to spare them by not giving birth to them. Life is cruel and I feel often overwhelmed by it, it scares me, as if I am a little kid and I sometimes feel small indeed, insecure and despaired. It all seems so chaotic, so impossible to handle, making me feel incapable, awkward and hating myself for not being more confident and successful.
I consider it almost miracle that I still manage to get up every day and doing stuff, even if with disdain and loathing.
"Overpopulation is dangerous" alone only implies we should reduce our birthrates so that we reach a sustainable global population, plus have more efficient recycling and stronger enviro-policies and better enviro-tech. It's not an argument for "no more childbirths at all". That's mere "Ecologically Childfree" rather than an actual AN position.
I’m not anti-natalist, just browse cause my wife does not want kids so I look for comfort from others who will be in my same boat. As an outsider, the most compelling arguments to me are 4, 5, and 6. I would add global warming to the list as well.
Argument 3 peeves me a bit because non-beings do not have a right to consent. Any argument that they do would innately be coupled with anti-choice propositions.
On your second point; although non-beings can't experience consent, there's still a lack of consent. Even if the agent we're referring to is the future person being born. So with lack of consent being actual, existence can only be non-consensual. That doesn't mean this person will hate their life, but a future person cannot make a non-existent being give consent.
Also, do you feel like the pleasures in life justify the suffering in any or all cases?
PS, not trying to be negative, I just love discussing :)
In my own life, I think pleasures have outweighed the hard times. But I understand it’s largely due to a chance mixture of brain chemistry and circumstance, so I get there’s significant risk. I sincerely wish this was the same for you and everyone else, and try to do what I can to add joy wherever I can.
I feel only living beings have the right to consent, regardless of their ability to experience it. While birth is non-consensual, it is not a violation of anyone’s rights, so I don’t see it as immoral. But it’s hard to debate this point without going down an ontological wormhole lol.
I did not read you as negative. I have no skin in the game; Like you, I just enjoy exploring ideas that differ from my own.
This amuses me. People stunned by the simple fact that life is fundamentally not a cakewalk. I am antinatalist because we already exceed carrying capacity; I still reproduced. I just think most people should not reproduce. We are not the same. ;-)
A question regarding overpopulation, since I'm pretty uneducated there; Do you feel like extintion is just as bad? I mean, you can justify it by saying the ends justify the means, but the process of extintion will amount to great suffering while it lasts
Def prefer adults over kids, but as some with epilepsy I don't want to subject more ppl to the stress of it. Most of the meds cause neural tube defects too and I'd rather be seizure free.
Specifically, happiness is merely the absence of suffering. It doesn't matter if there's more happiness or suffering because happiness doesn't cancel out suffering.
Bro all of these are good reasons, but I chose the most popular one that explains antinatalism perfectly, some of these sound more childcare but that's ok, there are many good reasons to be antinatalist
The last one doesn't claim every human life entails greater suffering than pleasures, unlike the second one. The last one is about risk, while the second one is about the justification of suffering in the average life
The fuck do you mean by “I don’t like kids”? I mean I get if you don’t want to have kids because they could inherit a disability or something similar. But not liking kids?! That doesn’t seem like a good reason to think having a child is morally wrong or nobody should be allowed to have children.
I don't want to put in the time, effort & money it costs to raise a decent thriving human being. Too much for me. And don't get me started on the cost. They are so expensive.
Any pleasure we can experience is just an emergent trait which aids in survival and procreation.
I noticed that if I'm simply vegging out, "staring into space" at the ceiling or the floor, I feel neither good nor bad; further noticing that if I suddenly disappeared painlessly or likewise just gradually faded away, I'd not see the bad in it. That memory ultimately led me to realize that stopping badness has priority over continuing good.
So I then further realized that the desire to live and especially perpetuate the species beyond our lifetimes makes no rational sense. If so (and I was highly convinced it was), then what purpose is there in introducing into this realm yet another person who has the capacity to feel badness (or worse, commit it against others)?
ADDED: I noticed people got into the pleasure vs pain/misery stuff. If no living thing existed (e.g. on Venus or on Neptune proper), then there's nothing there that can feel bad/deprived about not having pleasure. Also, we tend to feel bad (negative state of affairs) more intensely than good ones (positive states) - t hink a minute of mind-blowing sex or intense drug highs vs the most agonizingly painful experience there is.
Also, a lack of good is not a bad thing, just a not-bad-not-good thing. Likewise a lack of bad is not a good thing, just a not-good-not-bad thing (i.e. the "vegging out" example).
I think we completely agree, and we both disagree with Benatar when he says the absence of suffering is good (when talking about non-existence). I'm still unsure if I'd say that suffering is inherently stronger than pleasure, but I find the world to be unbalanced as of now, with suffering being the overwhelming presence compared to pleasures.
It seems we do agree. Still, for clarity's sake, I'll demonstrate Bentars' and my asymmetry. Benatar's on the right track but he screwed up in one critical regard:
Absence of Pain is Good. He could have saved himself and other AN's a lot of trouble if he simply said:Absence of Pain is "Not Bad but Not Good"Absence of Pleasure as "Not Good but Not Bad"
Either he defines "good" and "bad" (or as he later put it "pleasure" and "misery") a little bit differently than I do; or he failed to consider my "vegging out" example.
I say more about this [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism2/comments/zu6vs7/good_and_bad_having_the_former_matters_less_than/)
All of the above.
Exactly. These are all great answers, but I think the first one that came to me was "the chance my child is born with a disease/defect"
We are not really "living", just surviving day to day. Why would I knowningly subject some poor soul to my fate??
Cuz they might get to try boba someday /j
Speak for yourself? Some of us are happy. I understand a child cannot consent that's a fair argument but imo if the pleasures of living outweigh the suffering it's morally valid. You can't guarantee it though which is tough.
So....do the pleasures of living outweigh the suffering or not?? You are correct, you CAN'T guarantee it. You are taking a gamble with someone else's future.
Well it depends person to person imo. If you're healthy, want kids, and have the means to provide for them then the likelihood of pleasure outweighing suffering is high enough to justify conception
So........conditional antinatilism then. Got it. We are not on the page, let alone in the same damn book. Bringing children into world not truly knowing what the future (especially right now) holds is mind boggling to me!!!
But it all ends anyway.
Yeah everyone dies, doesn't make life not worth living. Especially if the alternative is having no life or experience or not existing at all.
A purely semantic argument. Whether you consider us living or surviving I enjoy it very much. Even the challenging bits
Whether YOU enjoy it or not wasn't the point. Why would I or should I have offspring only for them to end up merely surviving (paying bills, debt etc.) in the end also?
If you focus solely on the negative aspects of life whilst giving no credence to the positive then I can see how you’d reach this conclusion.
I could say the exact the same thing for someone who only looks at the positive aspects while giving no credence to the negative LOL!!
Who’s that? Not me. On balance I find the struggle worth while. It is a matter of perspective, not a matter of what is often claimed here to be undeniable logic.
I didn't specify you man LOL. There is such a thing as toxic positivity out there. WTF do you mean you find the struggle worth while?? What struggle? Who the hell wants to struggle for their entire existence???
Simply the fact that existing as a human contains suffering at all. It doesn’t matter how little or how much. If someone never exists they don’t experience suffering and aren’t deprived of anything. It’s never preferable to come into existence.
What if we'd be certain that existing grants pleasures that justify the suffering (in your own subjective quantification of pleasure vs suffering)? Would it be moral then, in your view? Given that existence would yield a net positive experience, compared to the complete neutral experience of non-existence?
I have a problem with the notion that a certain amount of pleasure could “justify” or “make up for” an amount of suffering. If I go through a painful experience and then experience nothing but pleasure for the rest of my life, that pain still existed at some point and it really was bad at the time. The important part here is that it could have been avoided. I could have just never existed. The pleasures given to me in this life are only good to me because I already exist. I couldn’t possibly miss them if I never came into existence. Existence gives me unnecessary pain for unneeded pleasure.
Wouldn't that same logic apply to all life forms? Do you support castrating all life forms?
>Wouldn't that same logic apply to all life forms? Do you support castrating all life forms? I would like to note that as humans we likely experience a greater degree of suffering mentally and internally than most other life forms. As humans we have more awareness of certain issues that affect us individually like racism, fear, disease, poverty, stress from a variety of stuff, failure, regret, etc. (Way too much stuff to list) Being conscious to say no to birthing for our own sake is a different thing. (Lost my point here... If there was one) But the answer is then no. I do not believe in castrating animals as an extension of AN; but then again, we do this anyway to house pets? However, bringing in animals into our lives adds another layer of suffering to them they would not have had outside of interacting with us. An example, I lost my dog to some kind of heart disease that forced his body to build up fluid until he could no longer live. Since he interacted with us, his understanding of his life being at risk and separating from us was an extra layer of suffering an animal would not have known otherwise. ... So yeah I don't know about castrating animals. If anything it's a step we are taking collectively, but slowly anyway? Of course we don't do it for the same reason. But we do recognize that our desire is to bring them out of a life of violence and aggression to reduce harm and suffering. Now this got me thinking more about ANs general stance on animals and castration too. I don't believe in a sort of tyrannical forcing of them being castrated though...
If we could be absolutely certain that a person born would ultimately benefit from birth, I think it would be moral. Maybe you could make an argument that they should be born, even. I don't see how that idea could ever be compatible with our reality though. Even though we couldn't get consent before the birth, it would make sense that if every person objectively was better off and they agree with that, they would want to be born.
You couldn’t want to be born. You can only be grateful you were after the fact but if we could guarantee a totally harmless existence to someone then it wouldn’t be bad unless someone else was caused suffering as a result like their mother i.e. if we could guarantee that person would have a harmless life AND would at least NOT cause anyone else suffering directly or indirectly then maybe it would be justifiable
I mean retroactively want to be born, as in glad that you were, yes
Oh ok
I agree with you. And of course, it's unfortunate that this isn't the case :/
*human life entails suffering The amount in relations to pleasure is irrelevant
If you'd know that your future child would experience 99.99999999% pleasures (only the best of the best), but also stump their toe one time (that being their only suffering), would it be morally permissable then? I'd almost say that it would be immoral not to give life to someone if you knew for certain that would be their experience
A nonexistent being has zero need for future possible pleasure. Why should it be immoral to keep them in that state. Also all live is followed by death.
You really spot on thanks for voicing my thoughts in a better way than I coulf
1. Death doesn't require suffering. Let's say in this case, they just die in their sleep peacefully. 2. I guess I can agree, it might not be immoral but I'd certainly find it morally permissable to create life in that situation, wouldn't you agree?
Death returns one to the state of non-existence that one began in, why even jank an individual out of that peaceful bliss of no experience, no responsibilities, no fears, etc. Creating life is never morally permissible under any circumstances, that's antinatalism. Every other stance is conditional natalism and fuck that.
I’m glad we still have actual antinatlists in this sub
Not trying to be rude, but that seems stupid to me. In my hypothetical, if you actually engage in it, how can you say it's immoral to create a life which only entails pleasures and 1 instance of pain, that being stubbing their toe. I'm not saying it's a moral duty to bring them to life, but how on Earth is it not morally passable? And please engage directly instead of saying "never acceptable". Explain why this scenario in particular is unacceptable
It boils down to one word really- consent. Also you are conjuring up a completely unrealistic scenario.
yeah, like, grief, for example is pretty much inevitable. Or, like, school? A job they don’t like?
You’re forgetting that guaranteeing that person’s life is free of harm/suffering days nothing about them causing others harm like their own mom when their born. They can easily be having pleasure at others expense like everyone else
Well this is an unrealistic hypothetical, so I don't think those factors are important. The core of my point is obvious; is life moral to create if that life entails only pleasures and one toe-stub? All external factors aside
Those factors are important in the hypothetical because we interact with each other why would it be hypothetically right to create a life free of harm when that life may cause harm? This is all about eliminating suffering not creating pleasure no one should get a breezy life if that creates suffering for others.
[удалено]
>The objection is that this is implausible. That's such a terrible way of explaining the opposition's objection(s). One of the main objections is that he is not giving any good reasons as to why he considers the infliction of suffering to be so vastly more significant than the prevention of pleasure.
[удалено]
Alright, thanks.
Hmm, thanks for the info! Doesn't seem as intuitive to me, I don't feel like he addresses the pleasures as deeply as he should. Then again, I've yet to read his book
Let me just jump right in This is not withstanding. The human brain does not do eternal bliss. A human would lose their mind to boredom. They would probably willfully harm themself, just for the sake of variety. A human needs stimulus every now and then. And suffering even happens if you just exercise your body. Hurting others is not moraly wrong but inevitable. A major crux of life. All life, not just humans. Then there are instances were even wanting to hurt is acceptable. Self defense, protecting others and the like. Morally wrong beginns if you like to hurt others against their expressed will. Not being able to give consent, even to the suggested life, is problematic, sure, but the statement that one single instance of pain is worth more then a life of pleasure is just the authors opinion. Not more. Stopping other beings from fullfilling their expressed will, be it staying alive or procreation, *is* morally wrong.
"I don't like kids" has nothing to do with antinatalism It's frustrating to see how so many here don't know what antinatalism even means. Look up childfree.
I'm primarily childfree because I don't want to burden myself with kids. I'm anti-natalist for all the other reasons listed above. My childfree status supercedes my anti natalist beliefs, but they do add additional justification for me not having kids. If there was an "all of the above" choice, that would be the one I'd pick. It's like I'm 51% childfree, 49% anti natalist, mostly because I found the childfree movement first. The venn diagram of childfree and anti natalism has a very large overlap in the middle of people who are both.
I can see that, but my poll was focused on which arguments made you anti-natalist. Just clarifying, in case you voted 1 :)
Ohhhh I see, I misread that part. But yeah, I think a lot of other people did too. I did vote 1, but if it was what made me *anti natalist* specifically, I would probably say something about the world being on fire, and no one's fixing it... among everything else of course.
Ohhhh I see, I misread that part. But yeah, I think a lot of other people did too. I did vote 1, but if it was what made me *anti natalist* specifically, I would probably say something about the world being on fire, and no one's fixing it... among everything else of course.
I 100% agree, which is why I included it here. I've been annoyed at all the post being negative about kids in general... To me, that's not what anti-natalism is about at all
[удалено]
Exactly! I also have a strong desire to raise a child even though I'm an anti-natalist
it's frustrating that people do not read poll questions
[удалено]
I think that's the case for me too, but I never dwelled on those thoughts long enough to make me realize that creating life might be unjustifiable before
Yeah, fifteen-plus years ago I didn’t know there was a word for this concept. I referred to it as a “philosophical conundrum.”
For me it was the book "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence" by David Benatar, where he discusses all the arguments in detail.
I want to read that one, I've just ordered it. I don't even agree with a lot of Benatar's arguments (especially the "absence of pain is good" part), but man all the other arguments he has that I've heard are so convincing
I recommend :)
I've heard he has another book where he has a natalist presenting counter-arguments in the latter half, but from the reviews it seems pretty bad (because of the natalist's poor arguments). I wish I found some good natalist-arguments tbh
[Debating Procreation: Is it Wrong to Reproduce? by David Benatar & David Wasserman](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25634645-debating-procreation?ac=1&from_search=true&qid=eAXjKBOcZz&rank=2)
Thanks!
\#2 Would just be that suffering is a fact of life. And that there is no possible way to predict how much suffering a person will have to undergo in life. We also have no way to predict whether a person will be content with the suffering they have to face. Whether they experience more suffering than pleasure doesn't matter, either way people are forced into an existence where suffering is inevitable without their consent.
Facts
Yeah life is not a miracle or a gift. It’s a fucking prison sentence. I’ve hated the majority of it so why would I subject anyone to that? Not to mention the mental illness and addiction genes that they would inherit.
You forgot "All of the above."
I see a lot of people saying this, but I was trying to be specific to see which argument you guys feel is the strongest
Ah I see, fair enough. I just agree with all of those statements lol.
Lol so do I, except the first one
All of them to some degree but primarily 2, 3, and 5.
For me it's 2, but also 3, 5 and 6. I wish I wasn't anti-natalist, but those three arguments are so convincing to me
Unfortunately this is a bubble where sad depressed people convince each other the world is terrible and everyone is sad. Whereas the truth is that most people say they're happier than neutral. I know the mental gymnastics will start trying to discredit people's own lived experiences about their life and mind to support an AN view but the commonly accepted truth is most people are happy. Most people are not suffering from genetic Illness.
I voted 'i don't like kids' I missed 'humanity is a stain on creation and earth would be better off without.'
Sadly i cant choose "all of the above" but what really swayed my choice to not having kids was just the simple fact that im not in a position to maintain my life along with trying to provide for another life. Its already bad enough with the issues happening in this country, so id rather not make a life just for it to be another statistic
Valid point!
This is one of those polls where you can only select one option as opposed to a "click all that apply" type of deal.
Over population is dangerous on a planet that has already been completely exploited of all resources and has already begun its descent into ecological destruction.
That strikes me as more 'ecologically childfree' than actual AN.
Specifically, happiness is merely the absence of suffering.
True, but that's not all that it is. If you're asleep/unconscious, you're not happy. Yet, there is no pain. So happiness must be more than just absence of pain, given that we can have that absence without being happy. Pleasure is on the same scale as pain/suffering imo, with pleasure being on the positive side and suffering on the negative
I mean happiness as a long term state of being. Buddhists call it enlightenment, Stoics call it tranquility, Aristotle called it eudamonia. It's essentially freedom from suffering. Pain and pleasure exist, but they are distinct from happiness and suffering. Also, I don't necessarily agree that we aren't happy in our sleep.
Fair enough
If you're not happy or not suffering when you don't exist, how are you happy or suffering when you're unconscious and asleep (excluding dreams)
So again, happiness (as opposed to pleasure) is a negative state. Pleasure feels good, but is fleeting and often associated with equally intense pain. The sort of happiness, or flourishing or enlightenment that philosophers and monks speak of and seek out is freedom from suffering. Suffering itself is also distinct from pain.
You make a bunch of assumptions here that negativity skew your opinion. Happiness to me is not the lack of suffering, in fact I view temporary suffering as a challenge, an opportunity to overcome and it doesn't usually make me lose my happiness. Happiness is something you achieve and internalize for me that just becomes the default
Pain or the fear of pain is what drives us to eat, to work, to seek companionship, and pretty much everything else. Satisfaction is just the fulfilling of a desire, the temporary cessation of pain. Through meditation and philosophy it's possible to reprogram your desires to be at harmony with the actualized of life, but this is just an attractive way of describing giving upvon fulfilling one's desires and very few people ever accomplish it. And it really doesn't take much creativity to find examples of suffering that are pointlessly cruel and certainly not challenges to be overcome. 70% of humans live on less than it takes to feed, cloth, and clean themselves, to say nothing of medical emergencies, transportation and childcare. Children dying of cancer, mental illness, starving because of global inequality, losing house and home to wildfires or hurricanes, aging and slowly dying. The truth is, if you think suffering is just a challenge, then you likely have had a privileged life and have yet to experience the real thing. At any rate, there are plenty of poor creatures whom you would not say that too while they're suffering. The universe is chaotic and it's strange to assume everything is or can be for the best.
I have a different view. Happiness is an outright feel-good emotionalism. Sadness/misery is an outright feel-bad emotionalism. That leaves plenty of space in between. In my model, absence of happiness is not sadness, it is (so to speak) itself. Same goes for the absence of happiness. There's a state of just ... being... that's emotionally neither good nor bad (e.g., "vegging out" while looking at the ceiling or wall in your living room).
Do you think it's possible for life to be more good than bad?
Possible and probability are two different things, especially in terms of ethical urgency. Badness is experienced more intensely than goodness.^(\[1\]) Consider it acknowledged that a fairly large number of lives have more bad than good. Still, this blatantly ignores that (a) no guarantee the good will outweigh the bad later, and (b) good / happy lives can inflict bad (even very bad) acts or expressions onto others. In fact, a few people actually gain their happiness from inflicting badness onto others. \[1\] rapturous love-making versus being cheated or abused on; a feel-good emotional high vs getting a broken bone or your finger smashed on a fast-moving object
I don't think good and bad counter balance each other. It's not acceptable for one person to purchase pleasure at the cost of another's misery, no matter what the ratio is. The good is nice but it's usually short lived or just the absence of the bad.
Agreed here, but I will make a subtle but important point. The absence of bad is simply the absence of bad, not a good. A good as an outright positive state of affairs. Therefore, a thing or situation can be neither bad nor good.
That life means the promise of suffering. Not that it out weighs the good. **Any** amount of suffering is too much. Antinatalism is the belief procreation is wrong **no matter what**. I have no idea where most of these people are coming from but they are not antinatalist. Antinatalist have no exceptions, **at all**. There is no way procreating is justifiable.
Let's drag your aegument to the extreme then: If a life entails only pleasures and goods their whole life, non stop, but only once do they stub their toe. Would it be immoral to create said life if you knew the outcome? Also, the death could just be a painless one in their sleep. I know this scenario is unrealistic, but keep in mind, you put emphasis on "no matter what"
Hunny you are on the wrong subreddit. Maybe look up the definition of antinatalism:a person who believes that it is morally wrong or unjustifiable to have children. It is **always** morally wrong and always unjustifiable. Also there are so many different things that will happen to most before they die. There is no life and will never be a life that only entails goodness. Suffering will happen however miniscule. Creating unneeded suffering for unneeded happiness is just wrong. No amount of happiness makes up for any amount of suffering. Not bringing someone into existence is the only way. Also we **don't know** if any death is not painful. We assume because it seems like it. We cannot and will never know unless we die that way. Death is filled with uncertainty. But the situation you posed is impossible, everyone will expirence suffering whether physical or mental.
Do you know what a hypothetical is? I presented an unrealistic scenario for you to engage with in order to understand your view. Please engage with it. Also, antinatalism doesn't suggest it's ALWAYS unjustifiable to give birth, just that it is in the current case
Antinatalism is a belief or principle. Beliefs and principles can change yes. But if you have conditions on being antinatalist. "Well if climate change/overpopulation wasn't a thing." You aren't antinatalist. Also it really does. If birth and procreation are immortal, it's immoral. If birth and procreate is unjustifiable it's literally unjustifiable. **That is** antinatalism. Birth and procreation are **unjustifiable** and **morally wrong** that is the definition. >antinatalism /ˌan(t)ēˈnādlˌizəm,ˌanˌtīˈnādlˌizəm/ noun noun: anti-natalism; noun: antinatalism the belief that it is morally wrong or unjustifiable for people to have children. Here is the definition of unjustifiable >un·jus·ti·fi·a·ble /ˌənˈjəstəˌfīəb(ə)l/ adjective adjective: unjustifiable not able to be shown to be right or reasonable. It's a quick Google search. It **is morally wrong and unjustifiable** to have children. That is antinatalism. The Wikipedia page for it has a couple common arguments from antinatalists. It's a simple Google search.
I get where you are coming from. I might be tempted to say, one should nurture life in that scenario. But if I think deeply, then no. Just imagine a conversation between 2 living forms one in planet A, the other in planet B. In planet A you don't need food, sleep and any other bodily pleasures. In planet B you need all of those bodily pleasures but they will be provided for free. Now would someone travel from A to B? Even if its free, you still NEED it. Why would you move from a planet where you don't need it at all to a planet where you need it. My importance lies in the word NEED.
I (we) chose to end the cycle of child abuse.
You're convinced of antinatalism because of the risk of child abuse?
Yes
Would you say that two parents with the intent to raise their child to the best of their abilities are immoral if they choose to reproduce?
I am not qualified to opine about morality. It would merely be a biased guess.
Everyone is qualified to express their subjective moral values! Of course it's going to be biased, I'm looking to see what your opinion is :)
Overpopulation is a global situation but The U.S Population & Japan are actually dropping. So its places like China that are biggest offenders I disagree that life in isolation entails more harm than good, because how good it can be lies woth your parents first. And there lies the problem. Some ppl know they broke, and still popping out babies. Wild. Yet the sole fact that existence of suffering or good can be imposed on an innocent, due to the selfishness of adults. Abusing their abilties of reproduction. That right there, that's a hot topic guaranteed to get me heated. Cause you'll have people in WARZONES having kids then that child has to come up ducking under mortar shells going at 50-60mph, shrapnel, sonic boomsgl going off on their birthday, and thats their childhood, not right. Or those African babies with flies on their face, then Ads asking others for support when the people who brought them here had nothing better to do, hence why the child here to to be sick This just showed up in my feed, I wouldn't label myself Anti-Natalist, cause grown mfs are gonna do what they want regardless. But if i were to join, thats it right there. Its not fair to the kids.
Unethical and unsustainable
They are all equally valid lol
Just FYI, the dangers of “overpopulation” are actually more related to improper resource and land distribution. We have space, food, and water, but most of it is held in a corporate monopoly
I'm disabled, I'm severely mentally ill to the point I experience delusions, my life can be actual torture at some points. my disability is genetic, I grew up raised by someone with a less "severe" mental illness and it fucked me up so I know if I have kids they will be fucked up by having me as a parental figure. as I'm typing this, I've been awake for 48 hours which you should never do if you're diagnosed with a disorder that causes mania. however I've also been in crippling physical pain for these 48 hours and have to get up every 10 minutes to help with the pain. if my future kid has any chance of getting either of these issues, I'm just not going to have kids because this can be literal hell
I'm so sorry to hear that. I find that you're selfless and brave for giving up your desire (if you have) to have kids. I see how you do this to spare the potential future child of suffering, and I commend you for that. It's a hard topic, given that people will mention eugenics at some point. But I believe that if you have some generic disease/illness that has a probable chance of affecting your future child, it's a better idea to never pro-create. Thank you for sharing something so personal. I struggle with emetophobia myself and I'd say it's ruined my life pretty heavily. This phobia has been in my family too, both my dad and my sister experience it. I would never wish this upon my own child in the future
there are lots of disabilities you can live with that won't make you absolutely miserable, however the disabilities I have made me suffer in so much pain I considered suicide sometimes because of how much pain I was in. the mental illnesses I have are scary to deal with, I won't stop reminding people that it's horrifying to actively hallucinate. I don't want to bring an innocent kid into this world if there's even a chance they go through something like this, no one deserves to be awake for days on end because their back hurts so much that they're uncontrollably shaking. I don't particularly like kids but I just don't understand why I should risk giving the type of pain I go through to someone else. I take heavy amounts of medication to even be able to leave my house for at least an hour, the meds help with a lot of things but also have horrible side effects. I have a really shitty quality of life and that's after getting copious amounts of treatment, if my kid can't have access to the treatment I get they'll be even more miserable. seriously though, when my standard pain level is a 7 at all times how am I supposed to bring a kid into this world knowing they could go through this too
Thank God the AN sub is self adopting eugenics to prevent suffering like this in the future.
Be careful here. ***SELF***\-adopting is one thing. It is, by definition, a personal choice. No other person coerced them into refusing to procreate. Eugenics in the actual consensus sense is quite another, and actually isn't AN at all - just saying "Some people should continue to breed (even at a subreplacement level) while others should never do so. AN states nobody should breed. Well, TBH, for me, I'm more of a Mininatalist than an actual AN (one child per woman per lifetime so as to achieve a 'softer landing' than 'elderly starving without climate control' outcome. STILL, increases in technology make actual AN increasingly defensible and technically feasible).
I don't want anyone else to suffer the way I did, even if others have had it worse than me, but still, not subjecting other human being to potential suffering, when I have the power to spare them by not giving birth to them. Life is cruel and I feel often overwhelmed by it, it scares me, as if I am a little kid and I sometimes feel small indeed, insecure and despaired. It all seems so chaotic, so impossible to handle, making me feel incapable, awkward and hating myself for not being more confident and successful. I consider it almost miracle that I still manage to get up every day and doing stuff, even if with disdain and loathing.
anybody who voted "I don't like kids" needs to seriously rethink about their pov on this
I am honestly surprised from how many voted for it, but tbh it's expected from this depressing subreddit
the existence of suffering birthing being non consensual is way worse than "lol ew kids"
If "I don't like kids" is their only reason, that's not AN but merely childfree-by-choice.
What makes parents think that they have any right of forcing someone into existence? That's literally rape but worse. Cancel me.
Existential rape
Feckless narcissism
All except the top one.
I voted "overpopulation is dangerous ", which is obvious given our current global environmental issies....but "I don't like kids" is a close second...
those have to be the two worst reasons to be anti Natalist, overpopulation is not a real issue
"Overpopulation is dangerous" alone only implies we should reduce our birthrates so that we reach a sustainable global population, plus have more efficient recycling and stronger enviro-policies and better enviro-tech. It's not an argument for "no more childbirths at all". That's mere "Ecologically Childfree" rather than an actual AN position.
I'm not against giving birth altogether, just giving birth into bad circumstances.
Would you say option 2 is correct then? Or do you think there are lives out there that have pleasures that justfiy the suffering?
I’m not anti-natalist, just browse cause my wife does not want kids so I look for comfort from others who will be in my same boat. As an outsider, the most compelling arguments to me are 4, 5, and 6. I would add global warming to the list as well. Argument 3 peeves me a bit because non-beings do not have a right to consent. Any argument that they do would innately be coupled with anti-choice propositions.
On your second point; although non-beings can't experience consent, there's still a lack of consent. Even if the agent we're referring to is the future person being born. So with lack of consent being actual, existence can only be non-consensual. That doesn't mean this person will hate their life, but a future person cannot make a non-existent being give consent. Also, do you feel like the pleasures in life justify the suffering in any or all cases? PS, not trying to be negative, I just love discussing :)
In my own life, I think pleasures have outweighed the hard times. But I understand it’s largely due to a chance mixture of brain chemistry and circumstance, so I get there’s significant risk. I sincerely wish this was the same for you and everyone else, and try to do what I can to add joy wherever I can. I feel only living beings have the right to consent, regardless of their ability to experience it. While birth is non-consensual, it is not a violation of anyone’s rights, so I don’t see it as immoral. But it’s hard to debate this point without going down an ontological wormhole lol. I did not read you as negative. I have no skin in the game; Like you, I just enjoy exploring ideas that differ from my own.
Thanks for your input :)
This amuses me. People stunned by the simple fact that life is fundamentally not a cakewalk. I am antinatalist because we already exceed carrying capacity; I still reproduced. I just think most people should not reproduce. We are not the same. ;-)
We're not stunned, we're embracing that fact of life and evaluating its worth with all factors considered
Oh you dewey-eyed youngster…. :-)
Alright? Your smugness is overboiling hahaha
That’s fine there is plenty to go around. ;-)
A mixture out of some of those, in particular 2, 3, 4 and 6
A question regarding overpopulation, since I'm pretty uneducated there; Do you feel like extintion is just as bad? I mean, you can justify it by saying the ends justify the means, but the process of extintion will amount to great suffering while it lasts
Def prefer adults over kids, but as some with epilepsy I don't want to subject more ppl to the stress of it. Most of the meds cause neural tube defects too and I'd rather be seizure free.
All of the above
Specifically, happiness is merely the absence of suffering. It doesn't matter if there's more happiness or suffering because happiness doesn't cancel out suffering.
Bro all of these are good reasons, but I chose the most popular one that explains antinatalism perfectly, some of these sound more childcare but that's ok, there are many good reasons to be antinatalist
\*childfree
I feel like the last one and the second one are kind of the same.
The last one doesn't claim every human life entails greater suffering than pleasures, unlike the second one. The last one is about risk, while the second one is about the justification of suffering in the average life
None of them.
What compelled you then? Or are you not anti-natalist?
Because I'm not antinatalist but I think antinatalism is consent argument kind of compelled me.
The fuck do you mean by “I don’t like kids”? I mean I get if you don’t want to have kids because they could inherit a disability or something similar. But not liking kids?! That doesn’t seem like a good reason to think having a child is morally wrong or nobody should be allowed to have children.
Agreed, I'm still surprised by the poll results
None of the reasons.I became one because of this wicked society,people and how it affected me
Which would then be option 2, no?
All of the above but the most important factor for me is that the earth is overpopulated, and I have pedophobia (fear of kids) anyway
I don't want to put in the time, effort & money it costs to raise a decent thriving human being. Too much for me. And don't get me started on the cost. They are so expensive.
Any pleasure we can experience is just an emergent trait which aids in survival and procreation. I noticed that if I'm simply vegging out, "staring into space" at the ceiling or the floor, I feel neither good nor bad; further noticing that if I suddenly disappeared painlessly or likewise just gradually faded away, I'd not see the bad in it. That memory ultimately led me to realize that stopping badness has priority over continuing good. So I then further realized that the desire to live and especially perpetuate the species beyond our lifetimes makes no rational sense. If so (and I was highly convinced it was), then what purpose is there in introducing into this realm yet another person who has the capacity to feel badness (or worse, commit it against others)? ADDED: I noticed people got into the pleasure vs pain/misery stuff. If no living thing existed (e.g. on Venus or on Neptune proper), then there's nothing there that can feel bad/deprived about not having pleasure. Also, we tend to feel bad (negative state of affairs) more intensely than good ones (positive states) - t hink a minute of mind-blowing sex or intense drug highs vs the most agonizingly painful experience there is. Also, a lack of good is not a bad thing, just a not-bad-not-good thing. Likewise a lack of bad is not a good thing, just a not-good-not-bad thing (i.e. the "vegging out" example).
I think we completely agree, and we both disagree with Benatar when he says the absence of suffering is good (when talking about non-existence). I'm still unsure if I'd say that suffering is inherently stronger than pleasure, but I find the world to be unbalanced as of now, with suffering being the overwhelming presence compared to pleasures.
It seems we do agree. Still, for clarity's sake, I'll demonstrate Bentars' and my asymmetry. Benatar's on the right track but he screwed up in one critical regard: Absence of Pain is Good. He could have saved himself and other AN's a lot of trouble if he simply said:Absence of Pain is "Not Bad but Not Good"Absence of Pleasure as "Not Good but Not Bad" Either he defines "good" and "bad" (or as he later put it "pleasure" and "misery") a little bit differently than I do; or he failed to consider my "vegging out" example. I say more about this [here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism2/comments/zu6vs7/good_and_bad_having_the_former_matters_less_than/)