Antinatalism

[Arihman]

There are more people who live happy, productive lives, and die from illness or old age than there are who commit suicide. So, the human race are, overall, HAPPY living.

Non sequitur. The fact that most people don't commit suicide is not evidence that the human race is overall happy: https://nonvoluntary-antinatalism.com/suicide/

Not only that, but individuals are not statistics, and the suffering of the unhappy ones is not compensated by the happiness of the others. Also, those who would be happy if created would never even be in a position to regret not living in case their parents abstained from procreation, whereas those who are miserable can indeed regret being created once they are born. Existence creates both the need for happiness, and the need to avoid suffering, whereas in non-existence those needs just are not there. The point is simple: if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Existence can't be an improvement over non-existence, because claiming otherwise would imply that in the latter state (or, more precisely, non-state) there is some deficiency that needs to be fixed. But that is nothing but either a projection by procreators, or a convenient excuse to attempt to justify one's purely self-interested desire to gamble with a prospective being's welfare for one's gratification, or to serve society's otherwise temporary needs that would cease to exist if society no longer existed. Gratification of oneself (something the pursuit of which is at times regretted by parents) being honestly the more likely reason. Why should a miserable life be sacrificed either to ensure the happy existence of beings who would never be deprived of anything by remaining unborn, or for the selfish gratification of breeders? Why should that be a good reason?

If I gambled with someone else's money while said person was unconscious (and thus unable to give or refuse consent), because I think I can win a larger sum of money, would that be a justifiable reason to gamble with said finances? Why? Because they couldn't say "yes, go to Las Vegas and gamble with my money, that would be cool", or "no, don't do that" while they were unconscious? Indeed, it's even worse than that, because at least that sleeping person might actually need more money, and thus be in a state that needs some kind of improvement, but the unborn need absolutely none of the goods life could or would grant them if they were created, while being incapable of suffering.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

So the human race should die out completely, is that how you see it? Just because SOME may become unhappy with their lives and decide to end it?

When you're talking to an Antinatalist, it's like talking to someone from Bizarro world, like from another planet. For their suffering to have credence, it's only makes sense to them if ALL others share in the same suffering. They need to justify to themselves that the suffering they feel is real and not "isolated" only unto themselves, so they need to feel that everyone must share in the misery they feel. Their convoluted philosophy is an extreme version of a narcissistic personality disorder.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I think life carries a tremendous risk factor. It's not necessarily that a person could end up hating it so much that they wish they were never born- although, that's a possibility. There are so many other things that could easily happen to them though. I guess it depends on what you feel is acceptable. Personally- if there was a 0.0000000000000000001% chance my child could feel as unhappy as I have during my life- if there was ANY chance they could in fact (there clearly is,) personally- I couldn't stand to see that. Personally speaking- I don't think it's all that fair to take that risk with someone elses life.

But- there we go. My opinion has largely been formed by my own experience in life. If I'd had a different experience, I may well have had children. I do understand why people do it- if they have had a more positive experience in life and/ or, they feel they can give that child a better chance at navigating this difficult world.

We can only go on what we know and remember- so, I do understand the argument that non existence is the better option. We don't remember feeling anything before we were born. Of course- that largely hinges on belief. You might believe that our souls are in some other worse place before they come here. Some people even believe we choose to be born. Kind of odd- that we have the faculties to make a collossal existential decision like that and then we are born as helpless babies that are stupid. Sorry- but we are stupid as babies. We cry when we're tired- rather than going to sleep!

Also, I expect we are in a minority. Most people probably don't regret being born- even if they struggle. Again- it's risk factor though. Would you design a car for someone and force them to drive it if you knew there existed a risk factor that something truly awful could happen to them? The problem is choice- you're not giving them the choice. You're forcing them into something that has the potential to hurt them. It could bring them pleasure too of course. They could be eternally grateful for their life. I suppose my biggest bugbear is the expectation that we should be grateful no matter what. But anyhow- the way I see it- creating life- birthing a child is the same as starting an experiment in which things could go well or, horribly wrong. Would you start a treacherous experiment on a sentient creature?

 

[conarc]

Thread hijacked by prolifers...
We humans have gained so much IQ and actually also wisdom, we should actually know that every additional child which is being born will make the climate issue worse. Ever thought about the additional Co2 emission of a person? Furthermore, the world is so full of shit nowadays and its getting only worse. Breeding has simply become a selfish act which is anticipated by religions, society, big companies and governments. We are far aware from extinction of the human race.

Yes, antinatalism is just as rational as rational suicide.

Many people refrain from suicide due to pressure from society, because they have bred and several other reasons (religion and so on).

If there is an easy access for suicide and if it would be accepted by society, the numbers would be much much higher. Also, many suicides never find their way into the official numbers.

 

[Captive_Mind515]

You can see in western societies, where we are encouraged to use our brains and logic over instincts, birth rates are dropping like a stone. Unfortunately, we still have large parts of the world that are impoverished and lacking access to education or even contraception.

I do believe that having children comes from a predominantly selfish motive: "I want kids/a family". Just because some parents may eventually become selfless people, who dedicate themselves to their kids, doesn't mean the underlying motivation wasn't still a selfish one.

I actually know a couple of families near me, who have profoundly disabled children. I feel sorry for them, they're fundamentally not bad people. The dream they had of a happy family, has been shattered by this natural occurrence of disability - you can see it on their faces. But society tells them that they must put on a brave face and accept the cards they've been dealt. Play happy families regardless of how they feel about the situation. How many people actually consider the possibility of this happening to them? Very few imho.

 

[conarc]

You can see in western societies, where we are encouraged to use our brains and logic over instincts, birth rates are dropping like a stone. Unfortunately, we still have large parts of the world that are impoverished and lacking access to education or even contraception.

I do believe that having children comes from a predominantly selfish motive: "I want kids/a family". Just because some parents may eventually become selfless people, who dedicate themselves to their kids, doesn't mean the underlying motivation wasn't still a selfish one.

I actually know a couple of families near me, who have profoundly disabled children. I feel sorry for them, they're fundamentally not bad people. The dream they had of a happy family, has been shattered by this natural occurrence of disability - you can see it on their faces. But society tells them that they must put on a brave face and accept the cards they've been dealt. Play happy families regardless of how they feel about the situation. How many people actually consider the possibility of this happening to them? Very few imho.

The most selfish words these days: I want kids...

Folks should ask their potential kids if they want to be in this world or want to have this parents.

Unfortunately, also media and religions playing in their part in telling people to breed.

 

[jar-baby]

When you're talking to an Antinatalist, it's like talking to someone from Bizarro world, like from another planet. For their suffering to have credence, it's only makes sense to them if ALL others share in the same suffering. They need to justify to themselves that the suffering they feel is real and not "isolated" only unto themselves, so they need to feel that everyone must share in the misery they feel. Their convoluted philosophy is an extreme version of a narcissistic personality disorder.

While some antinatalists may have views that extreme, that's not really the point of philosophical antinatalism. Philosophical antinatalism isn't based on an alleged ratio of happy people to sufferers or the ratio of people with wills to live— to people who are suicidal, or the overall ratio of happiness to pain.

Antinatalism acknowleges there exists some suffering in the world, then goes on to argue that the absence of pain is always a good thing, while the absence of pleasure is not necessarily a bad thing— then goes on to say that non-existence is preferable to existence, since non-existent people don't feel the deprivation of pleasure. They don't know what they're missing out on, so it's not bad that they miss out on life's joys. But they also don't experience pain, which is surely a good thing, whether they know it or not. Of course, this only applies to people who don't already exist— those who exist, often have interests in living.

No one mourns for nonexistent people because they do not enjoy pleasures; one does mourn for existent people when they experience pain.

I'd recommend checking out David Benatar's Better Never to Have Been if you want to see the argument fleshed out.

 

[lopsidedcrawdad1]

When you're talking to an Antinatalist, it's like talking to someone from Bizarro world, like from another planet. For their suffering to have credence, it's only makes sense to them if ALL others share in the same suffering. They need to justify to themselves that the suffering they feel is real and not "isolated" only unto themselves, so they need to feel that everyone must share in the misery they feel. Their convoluted philosophy is an extreme version of a narcissistic personality disorder.

Lol what… the whole idea of antinatalism is about minimizing suffering. I dont want people to suffer and the only way you cant experience suffering is to never have existedI have no idea why youd think theres anything narcissistic about it.

 

[FuneralCry]

I wish that I never existed more than anything as only nothingness is perfection, existence is just a disgusting, horrific and unnecessary mistake. It's so tragic to so cruelly and selfishly burden one with the ability to suffer endlessly in this existence that was completely unnecessary in the first place.

The compassionate thing would be to let this species go voluntarily extinct so that no human would ever have to suffer in this existence ever again.
I despise how many humans are so blinded by delusions to the point that they are unable to recognise that existence is nothing but a harm and they are only causing more harm by forcing one into this undeniably hellish reality when previously they were peacefully unaware.

It's always a curse to be a conscious being trapped in a decaying flesh prison with no straightforward way to permanently escape from this existence, I see it as always better to not exist regardless of the circumstances.

 

[Stray Cat]

"Every year 703 000 people take their own life and there are many more people who attempt suicide".
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide

703,000 suicides per year/8,000,000,000 people in world = 0.000087875% of population

I get what you want to show, but to be accurate you should divide the number of suicides per year by the number of people who are born each year (on average).
Around 140 million babies are born per year, so we get a ratio of 703 000/140 000 000, which is around 0.5%, but anyways this number isn't accurate.
According to the World Health Organization the suicide rate is around 14 out of 100 000 people, so 0.014% of the population

 

[locked*n*loaded]

I get what you want to show, but to be accurate you should divide the number of suicides per year by the number of people who are born each year (on average).
Around 140 million babies are born per year, so we get a ratio of 703 000/140 000 000, which is around 0.5%, but anyways this number isn't accurate.
According to the World Health Organization the suicide rate is around 14 out of 100 000 people, so 0.014% of the population

No. Why would you do that? The people who kill themselves each year represent a portion of the entire population, not just a portion of the people born each year.

Lol what… the whole idea of antinatalism is about minimizing suffering. I dont want people to suffer and the only way you cant experience suffering is to never have existedI have no idea why youd think theres anything narcissistic about it.

You don't seem to understand that you don't get to decide what is, and what is not, suffering to someone other than yourself. That's is an individual's decision to make over their own person. You don't get to decide for ALL life. It's not in your job description to be judge, jury, and executioner.

 

[lopsidedcrawdad1]

No. Why would you do that? The people who kill themselves each year represent a portion of the entire population, not just a portion of the people born each year.

You don't seem to understand that you don't get to decide what is, and what is not, suffering to someone other than yourself. That's is an individual's decision to make over their own person. You don't get to decide for ALL life. It's not in your job description to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Okay so you dont know what anti natalism is… lol we dont want to kill everyone. Everyone whos alive should have their bodily autonomy respected. We just dont think people should keep having kids

 

[locked*n*loaded]

While some antinatalists may have views that extreme, that's not really the point of philosophical antinatalism. Philosophical antinatalism isn't based on an alleged ratio of happy people to sufferers or the ratio of people with wills to live— to people who are suicidal, or the overall ratio of happiness to pain.

Antinatalism acknowleges there exists some suffering in the world, then goes on to argue that the absence of pain is always a good thing, while the absence of pleasure is not necessarily a bad thing— then goes on to say that non-existence is preferable to existence, since non-existent people don't feel the deprivation of pleasure. They don't know what they're missing out on, so it's not bad that they miss out on life's joys. But they also don't experience pain, which is surely a good thing, whether they know it or not. Of course, this only applies to people who don't already exist— those who exist, often have interests in living.

This conversation is set around the right of one person to decide for ALL of existence what is, and what is not, suffering, and to unilaterally make the decision as judge, jury, and executioner to extinguish ALL LIFE, if given the means to do so simply by flipping a switch to the "off" position. It is about taking away the autonomy from ALL life to make their own decisions. It IS an anti-choice position. People who believe in this philosophy, and I use that term loosely, are no better than the pro-lifers/anti-choicers who, also, desire to hinder the autonomy of individuals.

 

[lopsidedcrawdad1]

No. Why would you do that? The people who kill themselves each year represent a portion of the entire population, not just a portion of the people born each year.

You don't seem to understand that you don't get to decide what is, and what is not, suffering to someone other than yourself. That's is an individual's decision to make over their own person. You don't get to decide for ALL life. It's not in your job description to be judge, jury, and executioner.

Okay so you dont know what anti natalism is… lol we dont want to kill everyone. Everyone whos alive should have their bodily autonomy respected. We just dont think people should keep having kids

This conversation is set around the right of one person to decide for ALL of existence what is, and what is not, suffering, and to unilaterally make the decision as judge, jury, and executioner to extinguish ALL LIFE, if given the means to do so simply by flipping a switch to the "off" position. It is about taking away the autonomy from ALL life to make their own decisions. It IS an anti-choice position. People who believe in this philosophy, and I use that term loosely, are no better than the pro-lifers/anti-choicers who, also, desire to hinder the autonomy of individuals.

Im probably about to drink my SN in an hour or so id rather not spend my last time arguing but I promise that you do not understand what antinatalism is at all.

 

[locked*n*loaded]

We just dont think people should keep having kids

Again, making decisions for other people. Not your business and well above your pay grade. I bet it drives you completely mad that you have absolutely zero control over any of the things we're talking about, doesn't it? And never will, either.

Okay so you dont know what anti natalism is…

I don't care about convoluted definitions of warped philosophical beliefs.

Im probably about to drink my SN in an hour or so id rather not spend my last time arguing but I promise that you do not understand what antinatalism is at all.

See above response.

Im probably about to drink my SN in an hour or so

I truly hope you get to the peace you seek and deserve.

 

[jar-baby]

Again, making decisions for other people.

There's a huge difference between simply advocating for a philosophical stance and forcing others to conform to it. Making decisions for other people would be like if we started lobbying governments to implement obligatory sterilisation for everyone (which I certainly don't want to do). Like how pro-lifers restrict the autonomies of those who want to end their own lives by restricting access to peaceful methods, and forcefully institutionalising the suicidal, and so on.

If I hold the opinion that people should eat less/no meat because the living conditions of farm animals used for food are cruel, does that qualify me as an anti-choice monster who wants to restrict personal autonomy by controlling everyone's diets?

make the decision as judge, jury, and executioner to extinguish ALL LIFE, if given the means to do so simply by flipping a switch to the "off" position.

No one wants to flip any kill switches on existent life, my dude.

According to the Oxford dictionary. Hardly convoluted. I believe you're thinking of pro-mortalism.

But I suppose we'll agree to disagree.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

No one wants to flip any kill switches on existent life, my dude.

To be fair, some people in the antinatalism camp HAVE expressed such desires on this forum.

Let's be glad they lack both power and influence.

 

[sserafim]

Not all cats (or dogs, or other innocent, carefree animals) live carefree lives. Many are abused beyond belief, by HUMANS !
But yes, I get what you're saying.
Thank you for being so open about your struggles. I wish you peace and I'm sending love to you

I know, I just think it's so sad that they're being abused by humans. Honestly, humans just cause so much suffering: to the world, animals, and even to each other.

In my next life, I'd love be a housecat with an owner who loves me…

 

[Arihman]

To be fair, some people in the antinatalism camp HAVE expressed such desires on this forum.

Let's be glad they lack both power and influence.

If you're referring to people like me, that's because I'm not just an antinatalist, I'm explicitly anti-life, or an extinctionist if you prefer. But if you ask antinatalists (e.g on Reddit), many of them do not necessarily want extinction (though they're likely to agree that this would be the more likely result if antinatalism won), and they might even support ideas like transhumanism (or some other technological invention meant to eliminate suffering) that aim to preserve currently existing life, because doing otherwise would violate moral principles like bodily autonomy, while still opposing procreation on ethical grounds. And, in general, they certainly don't tend to like ideas like forced sterilization, or the red button thougth experiment.

Indeed, there is often a conflict between extinctionism and antinatalism, as the latter is often driven by deontological morality (which I honestly view as utter garbage). As a rule of thumb, not all antinatalists are pro-extinctionists, but all pro-extinctionists are most likely also antinatalists.

 

[Ashu]

And the worst thing is that we had no say in it. We're here because our parents selfishly decided to procreate.

You sound young, and inexperienced in the complex realities of long-term relationships. It's not this simple, people who have children aren't evil. But I remember the fortifying and inspiring thrill that such paranoid good-versus-evil narratives used to give me when I was younger.

 

[sserafim]

You sound young, and inexperienced in the complex realities of long-term relationships. It's not this simple, people who have children aren't evil. But I remember the fortifying and inspiring thrill that such paranoid good-versus-evil narratives used to give me when I was younger.

I never said that people who have children are evil. I just think that it's annoying that I was forced to exist. I think it's selfish that just because my parents wanted kids, I was forced into existence without my consent. This is a selfish act, to force life onto someone who didn't even want to be born in the first place.

Also, just saying, but to be honest, I don't see a point in relationships anyways (I'm aroace). Most human norms and traditions were always foreign to me (like romantic relationships and other things). I never saw a need in having relationships, getting married, or a family, or understood why people wanted them. However, I understand that there are societal expectations for doing so, and that this is usually the norm.

If people want to get married or have children, good for them. I don't care, it's none of my business. I just hate the fact that I was born, as I never even wanted to be here on this earth.

Also, technically the desire to procreate is selfish because it allows you to pass on your genes and DNA. In the animal kingdom, it's basically survival of the fittest, those who live long enough survive to pass on their genes to the next generation. They basically "won" at the game of life, and fulfilled their "purpose".

Nature's goal is this: it wants all beings to reproduce. If you reproduce, you would have fulfilled the "purpose" of your existence. I honestly think that it's sad that biologically-wise, the meaning of life comes down to this. From a biological viewpoint, the meaning of life is only to reproduce. Sadly, human beings are still only at the mercy of their biological nature.

By the way, on an unrelated note, it can be argued that it's an increasingly selfish decision to have children due to the climate's destruction. The more people on the planet, the more the planet dies. Just saying…

 

[jar-baby]

To be fair, some people in the antinatalism camp HAVE expressed such desires on this forum.

Let's be glad they lack both power and influence.

Agreed. But I think that philosophy is pro-mortalist, not antinatalist per se, although there's naturally significant overlap between the two camps. Should've probably phrased that sentence differently.

 

[conarc]

I never said that people who have children are evil. I just think that it's annoying that I was forced to exist. I think it's selfish that just because my parents wanted kids, I was forced into existence without my consent. This is a selfish act, to force life onto someone who didn't even want to be born in the first place.

Also, just saying, but to be honest, I don't see a point in relationships anyways (I'm aroace). Most human norms and traditions were always foreign to me (like romantic relationships and other things). I never saw a need in having relationships, getting married, or a family, or understood why people wanted them. However, I understand that there are societal expectations for doing so, and that this is usually the norm.

If people want to get married or have children, good for them. I don't care, it's none of my business. I just hate the fact that I was born, as I never even wanted to be here on this earth.

Also, technically the desire to procreate is selfish because it allows you to pass on your genes and DNA. In the animal kingdom, it's basically survival of the fittest, those who live long enough survive to pass on their genes to the next generation. They basically "won" at the game of life, and fulfilled their "purpose".

Nature's goal is this: it wants all beings to reproduce. If you reproduce, you would have fulfilled the "purpose" of your existence. I honestly think that it's sad that biologically-wise, the meaning of life comes down to this. From a biological viewpoint, the meaning of life is only to reproduce. Sadly, human beings are still only at the mercy of their biological nature.

By the way, on an unrelated note, it can be argued that it's an increasingly selfish decision to have children due to the climate's destruction. The more people on the planet, the more the planet dies. Just saying…

THIS!

 

[Ashu]

I never said that people who have children are evil. I just think that it's annoying that I was forced to exist. I think it's selfish that just because my parents wanted kids, I was forced into existence without my consent. This is a selfish act, to force life onto someone who didn't even want to be born in the first place.

Also, just saying, but to be honest, I don't see a point in relationships anyways (I'm aroace). Most human norms and traditions were always foreign to me (like romantic relationships and other things). I never saw a need in having relationships, getting married, or a family, or understood why people wanted them. However, I understand that there are societal expectations for doing so, and that this is usually the norm.

If people want to get married or have children, good for them. I don't care, it's none of my business. I just hate the fact that I was born, as I never even wanted to be here on this earth.

Also, technically the desire to procreate is selfish because it allows you to pass on your genes and DNA. In the animal kingdom, it's basically survival of the fittest, those who live long enough survive to pass on their genes to the next generation. They basically "won" at the game of life, and fulfilled their "purpose".

Nature's goal is this: it wants all beings to reproduce. If you reproduce, you would have fulfilled the "purpose" of your existence. I honestly think that it's sad that biologically-wise, the meaning of life comes down to this. From a biological viewpoint, the meaning of life is only to reproduce. Sadly, human beings are still only at the mercy of their biological nature.

By the way, on an unrelated note, it can be argued that it's an increasingly selfish decision to have children due to the climate's destruction. The more people on the planet, the more the planet dies. Just saying…

I'm sorry I spoke that way, it wasn't right. I soon regretted it, but I was no longer in a place where I could delete my reply. We all have our issues here. Peace.