Antinatalism

[TimeToDie]

I agree with the view that life is generally an overall negative experience such that it's questionable if anybody should reproduce. David Benatar makes a sound argument that nobody is harmed by not being born as they don't exist to experience that lack of life. While those who are born may be greatly harmed and end up on a suicide forum. Suicide is a major issue for philosophers like Benatar as his critics frequently ask "So why aren't you dead?" since you've just argued how very much life sucks. And suicide would be an obvious answer to the "life sucks" problem if not for the fact that suicide is exceedingly difficult, as I think everyone on this forum is painfully aware. Benatar's critics obviously miss the mark when they ask why he's not dead, since I imagine that a white guy (in South Africa) who's a professor & published author has a much better life than most of the 7 billion folks in the world. A world in which 20,000 people die each day from lack of food.

I've always realized that there are lots of people who shouldn't have kids, and it often seems that the least qualified parents are the ones who have the most kids. Women who have the most education -- and thus the most money -- tend to have the least kids as they don't want to take years off from a lucrative career to raise a herd of children. We often hear about how many children live in poverty and that's generally because people with no reasonable expectation of being able to support their kids went ahead and had kids anyhow. It's not a surprise that a single mom who dropped out of high school can't earn enough to support kids.

There is quite an abundance of bad parents out there, and I have always known that I wouldn't be a fit parent. Those who aren't mentally & physically & financially fit definitely should never become parents. My brother -- a mentally disabled gay man in his 60s -- toyed with the idea of having a kid. For $250,000 he could have a doner egg fertilized with his sperm & implanted in a surrogate. This is apparently how aging gay multi-millionaires deal with an existential crisis. I would note that he's never been able to maintain any relationship, so this potential kid would have only one (crazy elderly) father.

If you're wondering why he wouldn't just adopt, well, adoption agencies actually have standards and there's no chance in hell that he'd meet them. Fertility docs, on the other hand, have no standards at all so long as a client has plenty of cash. My brother jokingly said that an adoption agency "might give me a 17-year-old juvenile delinquent." Despite pretending to be woke, even a gay white guy doesn't want a brown kid.

 

[HGL91]

I did. It's a lot of think about and observe... I think we can tell a lot about how a person is by just hearing him or her laughing.Thank you for sharing the articles btw!

Certainly! :)

I agree with the view that life is generally an overall negative experience such that it's questionable if anybody should reproduce. I've always realized that there are lots of people who shouldn't have kids. There is quite an abundance of bad parents out there. Those who aren't mentally & physically & financially fit definitely should not become parents. My brother -- a mentally disabled gay man in his 60s -- toyed with the idea of having a kid. For "only" $250,000 he could have a doner egg fertilized with his sperm & implanted in a surrogate. This is apparently what one does when they are an insane multi-millionaire.

But the thing is, a couple could be mentally, physically, and financially fit when they have kids, but then life circumstances can change that very drastically. I've seen that happen a lot. They'll be the "perfect family" with the high quality family portraits, holiday events, nice house in the suburbs, and next thing you know, one of the parents gets stressed, gets into drugs and steals money. Or a parent commits suicide and has no history of mental illness.

My point is that nothing is guaranteed...

And dang, I didn't know that procedure was $250,000, but I guess it makes sense. Anything medical-related is expensive.

 

[RM5998]

Looking at the criteria people have established here for 'bad parents', it seems that my parents are actually good.

Both of my parents have college degrees, and both have been pretty liberal in letting me do what I want while growing up (within reason, of course).

The only thing I can think of that was non-ideal about my birth is that my parents decided to have me to prove their superior parenting skills. But considering that they did quite a good job giving me all that I needed and most of the stuff I wanted, it's not like they were bad at it.

Not a realization that I wanted to come to this early in the morning, considering the implication.

 

[HGL91]

Looking at the criteria people have established here for 'bad parents', it seems that my parents are actually good.

Both of my parents have college degrees, and both have been pretty liberal in letting me do what I want while growing up (within reason, of course).

The only thing I can think of that was non-ideal about my birth is that my parents decided to have me to prove their superior parenting skills. But considering that they did quite a good job giving me all that I needed and most of the stuff I wanted, it's not like they were bad at it.

Not a realization that I wanted to come to this early in the morning, considering the implication.

You seem pretty optimistic. What makes you want to CTB then??

 

[RM5998]

You seem pretty optimistic. What makes you want to CTB then??

It's on me. I don't want to try living a life where I can't really find ways to be happy. I'm just... tired of this. Having to constantly be on edge for years on end to produce the most impressive academic results possible. And it's not like I get any direct pleasure from the results, it's just... I want to hear my parents say that they are proud of me, and I've come to the realization that that's never going to happen. And I don't have any other metric for my happiness.

 

[HGL91]

It's on me. I don't want to try living a life where I can't really find ways to be happy. I'm just... tired of this. Having to constantly be on edge for years on end to produce the most impressive academic results possible. And it's not like I get any direct pleasure from the results, it's just... I want to hear my parents say that they are proud of me, and I've come to the realization that that's never going to happen. And I don't have any other metric for my happiness.

I'm the same way. I remember being in college and when I'd get As, I didn't think "Yay! I got As! I'm awesome!" I thought, "Yeah, I better have gotten freakin' As. I sacrificed my happiness, sleep, eating, social life, and I'm constantly staring at text books and computer screens!

Older I get, the more I'm convinced that adults just get better at putting on a mask that they're happy in front of people and then take it off and get depressed when no one is around.

Sorry your parents haven't said they're proud of you, but maybe talk to them about how that bothers you...

 

[RM5998]

I'm the same way. I remember being in college and when I'd get As, I didn't think "Yay! I got As! I'm awesome!" I thought, "Yeah, I better have gotten freakin' As. I sacrificed my happiness, sleep, eating, social life, and I'm constantly staring at text books and computer screens!

Older I get, the more I'm convinced that adults just get better at putting on a mask that they're happy in front of people and then take it off and get depressed when no one is around.

Sorry your parents haven't said they're proud of you, but maybe talk to them about how that bothers you...

I got some As in my first semester in college, and all my parents talked about was the As I failed to get. Understandable, considering that we needed a high scholarship amount to make the burden of paying for college lighter, but it just made me snap. I studied much less for the semesters after that, dwindling down to 6 hours per subject per semester for my entire 3rd year. I also stopped attending the continuous evaluation components, because it was too much effort. That last part made my grades take a huge tumble now.

If I tell them I want them to be proud of me, it won't mean anything anymore. It's not going to have any weight if it ask for it.

Reminds me of BoJack, you know...

That even though your parents aren't what you need them to be, over and over and *over* again, at any moment they might surprise you with something... wonderful. I kept waiting for that, the proof, that even though my mother was a hard woman, deep down she loved me and cared about me and wanted me to know that I made her life a little bit brighter. Even now, I find myself waiting.

-BoJack Horseman, BoJack Horseman​

I'm going to keep waiting, in the same way. Waiting for that one moment which will make everything that came before worth it. And the worst part is, I know I'm waiting in vain.

 

[Joannf]

The world is full of suffering. Even when a person laughs, it's usually at the pain of someone or something else. I remember learning in psychology class that laughing is believed to truly be a coping mechanism or a way to connect with humans and show that you are not a threat. Saying laughing is a form of "joy" just sounds silly to me now.

I just think about the science behind life and how matter-of-fact and depressing it is. How any "happy" things are mainly artificial and human-made. Desserts, beauty, material items, comedy shows, romance, parties, amusement parks...

I wish I was never born and I'm so glad I've made it this far in life not bringing a child into this terrible world.

I think no matter where you've come into this world, there is suffering. There's no way around it. We all die and even the wealthy and successful experience suffering.

Thoughts on antinatalism? Thoughts on life being worth living or not?

Excuse me, but that's not reasonable.
Humans are scavengers, and they are herd animals. They are not especially clever, global average IQ is 86. Humans are exterminating all other life, imagine being born as a cow or dog - it would be like being born straight into hell.
You're complaining in a very high level, being a typical human - who (not a personal affront) is simply too dumb and insensitive to even understand that other life forms might suffer much more - nooo, only hominids can suffer, especially me ! Now that is as stupid as it is brutal, and it is typical.
Especially in our day, nearly all humans are constantly complaining, it's deeply ingrained in the psyche of this whiny species.
Your problem is a relative problem and in fact it is a mere problem of relativity.
Humans, as herd animals, are also status animals and envy is their great motivator. If humans are beloved and respected in their peer group, they feel good - if not, life is shit. So if you want to know if life is worth living, ask any animal except a human being...
Even asking if life is worth living proves that you are a typical human - a member of the spoilt brats of evolution.
Whatever else you believe your personal problems to be.

 

[HGL91]

I got some As in my first semester in college, and all my parents talked about was the As I failed to get. Understandable, considering that we needed a high scholarship amount to make the burden of paying for college lighter, but it just made me snap. I studied much less for the semesters after that, dwindling down to 6 hours per subject per semester for my entire 3rd year. I also stopped attending the continuous evaluation components, because it was too much effort. That last part made my grades take a huge tumble now.

If I tell them I want them to be proud of me, it won't mean anything anymore. It's not going to have any weight if it ask for it.

Reminds me of BoJack, you know...

-BoJack Horseman, BoJack Horseman​

I'm going to keep waiting, in the same way. Waiting for that one moment which will make everything that came before worth it. And the worst part is, I know I'm waiting in vain.

College is a lot of pressure. It really is. There's a reason why there's so many college students that commit suicide or are put in psych hospitals. I went inpatient while I was in Nursing School and they said they got a lot of nursing students. Wasn't surprised!

Are you still in college? You said you stopped studying as much and stopped attending the continuous evaluation components during 3rd year but didn't mention 4th year. If you're still working on it, I wish you the best on completing it.

For me, life just got harder after college. Now I'd have to deal with how to avoid homelessness and pay back thousands of dollars of debt, but I'm planning to CTB soon, so I don't care much.

 

[Joannf]

I agree with the view that life is generally an overall negative experience such that it's questionable if anybody should reproduce. David Benatar makes a sound argument that nobody is harmed by not being born as they don't exist to experience that lack of life. While those who are born may be greatly harmed and end up on a suicide forum. Suicide is a major issue for philosophers like Benatar as his critics frequently ask "So why aren't you dead?" since you've just argued how very much life sucks. And suicide would be an obvious answer to the "life sucks" problem if not for the fact that suicide is exceedingly difficult, as I think everyone on this forum is painfully aware. Benatar's critics obviously miss the mark when they ask why he's not dead, since I imagine that a white guy (in South Africa) who's a professor & published author has a much better life than most of the 7 billion folks in the world. A world in which 20,000 people die each day from lack of food.

I've always realized that there are lots of people who shouldn't have kids, and it often seems that the least qualified parents are the ones who have the most kids. Women who have the most education -- and thus the most money -- tend to have the least kids as they don't want to take years off from a lucrative career to raise a herd of children. We often hear about how many children live in poverty and that's generally because people with no reasonable expectation of being able to support their kids went ahead and had kids anyhow. It's not a surprise that a single mom who dropped out of high school can't earn enough to support kids.

There is quite an abundance of bad parents out there, and I have always known that I wouldn't be a fit parent. Those who aren't mentally & physically & financially fit definitely should never become parents. My brother -- a mentally disabled gay man in his 60s -- toyed with the idea of having a kid. For $250,000 he could have a doner egg fertilized with his sperm & implanted in a surrogate. This is apparently how aging gay multi-millionaires deal with an existential crisis. I would note that he's never been able to maintain any relationship, so this potential kid would have only one (crazy elderly) father.

If you're wondering why he wouldn't just adopt, well, adoption agencies actually have standards and there's no chance in hell that he'd meet them. Fertility docs, on the other hand, have no standards at all so long as a client has plenty of cash. My brother jokingly said that an adoption agency "might give me a 17-year-old juvenile delinquent." Despite pretending to be woke, even a gay white guy doesn't want a brown kid.

Human mental abilities are just sufficient to lose themselves in relativism, and, triggering negative feelz, despair of that - this is why I don't think this species has a chance without intellectually evolving, and it is creating philosophies that mostly guarantee such an evolution cannot take place, like egalitarianism. You point it out well, mostly the stupider humans procreate. The human sort of 'intelligence' doesn't seem to be a big adaptive gain, so there's a highly visible tendency to evolve even what we have out of existence - we rais children who cannot procreate, we claim that genetically disadvantaged people 'deserve more,' it's herd animal social reflexes that void all our chances to evolve out of this phase of pseudo-intellectual stupor and turn into something that actually deserves to be called an intelligent species. Instead, even the relatively clever insist on staying inside the box, reflecting on if it 'makes sense to be alive.' Wow yeah. Please.

 

[RM5998]

College is a lot of pressure. It really is. There's a reason why there's so many college students that commit suicide or are put in psych hospitals. I went inpatient while I was in Nursing School and they said they got a lot of nursing students. Wasn't surprised!

Are you still in college? You said you stopped studying as much and stopped attending the continuous evaluation components during 3rd year but didn't mention 4th year. If you're still working on it, I wish you the best on completing it.

For me, life just got harder after college. Now I'd have to deal with how to avoid homelessness and pay back thousands of dollars of debt, but I'm planning to CTB soon, so I don't care much.

I'm currently at a semester-long internship for my 4-1. For my 4-2, I'll go back to campus and try to go through the gauntlet of placements. Hopefully I'll get a job.

 

[Joannf]

I think God created Man to annihilate all life forms in the universe - because obviously, life makes no sense if you think about it with a primate brain.
There is no way this could be caused by a deficiency of said brain - it must therefore be an objective truth.
This proves that life as such is negative and we can only pursue happiness by making sure it won't happen.

 

[HGL91]

I think God created Man to annihilate all life forms in the universe - because obviously, life makes no sense if you think about it with a primate brain.
There is no way this could be caused by a deficiency of said brain - it must therefore be an objective truth.
This proves that life as such is negative and we can only pursue happiness by making sure it won't happen.

I'm confused on your stance because in your first post, it sounds like you're saying antinatalism isn't plausible because humans need to work together and have a community to survive because they're dumb, and then in this last post, your last sentence is "This proves that life as such is negative and we can only pursue happiness by making sure it won't happen." Which I interpreted as you saying the only pursue happiness by making life not happen?

 

[Joannf]

I'm confused on your stance because in your first post, it sounds like you're saying antinatalism isn't plausible because humans need to work together and have a community to survive because they're dumb, and then in this last post, your last sentence is "This proves that life as such is negative and we can only pursue happiness by making sure it won't happen." Which I interpreted as you saying the only pursue happiness by making life not happen?

I was being sarcastic, I find it preposterous for a life form to assume that life as such is shit and 'meaningless' ('meaning' being a non-definition a species of social animals evolved to replicate itself came up with, gather that), just because a maladjusted minority is unable to find it great and meaning-ful. That may be putting it brutally, but most people here are very clear about suffering from a maladjustment, illness or bad fortune. These things unfortunately happen.
Antinatalism however is a stubborn attempt to prove that the universe as such is a negative principle, to get some assumed wrong atoned. Instead of saying "this may be shit, but shit happens," it insists on going beyond a bit. It is the manifestation of a subconscious try to get at least a pat on ones mental back for all the suffered wrongs evolution has forced on a person by being such a brutal selective process.
Through its entire existence, humanity has always tried to stop evolution. Genes do not like evolution - genes try to stay the same, every little change can be dangerous (think cancer). Herd animals try to stay on the level they are on - they have a strong egalitarian streak, 'fairness' is a big thing with them. On the other hand, they need leaders, are hierarchical... lots of conflicts arise, why is that so ? Because pure egalitarianism would lead to collapse, degeneration, extinction.
Paradise would be stasis = death. Heaven from the point of view of individuals is hell for progress.
Darwin actually observed this effect in Victorian days and sketchily diagnosed it - we care for the maladapted and thereby endanger our evolution as a species.
That this is a negative rather than positive process is hard if not impossible to grasp for a life form that is 80% emotional but delusional enough to define itself as 'rational,' this being outright dangerous - it will likely be what brings us down and you can see it in action everywhere around you.
It is quite proven where bliss leads, that long-term opulence kills populations. Please google 'mouse utopia' to see how social animals react to a social paradise. It drops out of evolution, because animal senses are not made to cope with such a situation, the social paradise is unnatural and unwanted.
Individual bliss is a misunderstanding that can be forgiven the poor, clueless individual, but is nonetheless not essential to the wellbeing of life as such.
- well, that's at least one way to look at it ;) One could conclude that individuals and life as such are opposed or often opposed, so the rise of antinatalism is a natural process, especially in a highly static and already degenerative environment.
Most politicians are simply not intelligent enough to understand these connections, but on the other hand many are psychopaths only interested in 4-year-period successes, the long run mentally escapes most hominids. Will this end well ? Only if we evolve. If we mercilessly evolved (in the sense that we cared to keep other species alive as are, but allowed major changes to ourselves) we would be out of trouble in three generations. A general IQ rise of 2 SD would be a big win... it would make the major problems we have today completely vanish.
But I digress from antinatalism, which is of course a relatively puny affair. Whyever did we even begin to discuss it ? Someone opened a thread...
It's like most human thinking, it's strictly about the box. I am in the box, and I don't feel so good - can't get it changed - so before I get out, which I'll likely fail to do, I declare the box faulty to appease my internal emotional wellbeing. All I'm saying is that I find it puny and irrelevant, a greater waste of time as even life itself.
The universe and its 'meaning' is outside of the human box. Trying to explain it from within is not going to work.

 

[RM5998]

I was being sarcastic, I find it preposterous for a life form to assume that life as such is shit and 'meaningless' ('meaning' being a non-definition a species of social animals evolved to replicate itself came up with, gather that), just because a maladjusted minority is unable to find it great and meaning-ful. That may be putting it brutally, but most people here are very clear about suffering from a maladjustment, illness or bad fortune. These things unfortunately happen.
Antinatalism however is a stubborn attempt to prove that the universe as such is a negative principle, to get some assumed wrong atoned. Instead of saying "this may be shit, but shit happens," it insists on going beyond a bit. It is the manifestation of a subconscious try to get at least a pat on ones mental back for all the suffered wrongs evolution has forced on a person by being such a brutal selective process.
Through its entire existence, humanity has always tried to stop evolution. Genes do not like evolution - genes try to stay the same, every little change can be dangerous (think cancer). Herd animals try to stay on the level they are on - they have a strong egalitarian streak, 'fairness' is a big thing with them. On the other hand, they need leaders, are hierarchical... lots of conflicts arise, why is that so ? Because pure egalitarianism would lead to collapse, degeneration, extinction.
Paradise would be stasis = death. Heaven from the point of view of individuals is hell for progress.
Darwin actually observed this effect in Victorian days and sketchily diagnosed it - we care for the maladapted and thereby endanger our evolution as a species.
That this is a negative rather than positive process is hard if not impossible to grasp for a life form that is 80% emotional but delusional enough to define itself as 'rational,' this being outright dangerous - it will likely be what brings us down and you can see it in action everywhere around you.
It is quite proven where bliss leads, that long-term opulence kills populations. Please google 'mouse utopia' to see how social animals react to a social paradise. It drops out of evolution, because animal senses are not made to cope with such a situation, the social paradise is unnatural and unwanted.
Individual bliss is a misunderstanding that can be forgiven the poor, clueless individual, but is nonetheless not essential to the wellbeing of life as such.
- well, that's at least one way to look at it ;) One could conclude that individuals and life as such are opposed or often opposed, so the rise of antinatalism is a natural process, especially in a highly static and already degenerative environment.
Most politicians are simply not intelligent enough to understand these connections, but on the other hand many are psychopaths only interested in 4-year-period successes, the long run mentally escapes most hominids. Will this end well ? Only if we evolve. If we mercilessly evolved (in the sense that we cared to keep other species alive as are, but allowed major changes to ourselves) we would be out of trouble in three generations. A general IQ rise of 2 SD would be a big win... it would make the major problems we have today completely vanish.
But I digress from antinatalism, which is of course a relatively puny affair. Whyever did we even begin to discuss it ? Someone opened a thread...
It's like most human thinking, it's strictly about the box. I am in the box, and I don't feel so good - can't get it changed - so before I get out, which I'll likely fail to do, I declare the box faulty to appease my internal emotional wellbeing. All I'm saying is that I find it puny and irrelevant, a greater waste of time as even life itself.
The universe and its 'meaning' is outside of the human box. Trying to explain it from within is not going to work.

To me, what you state here proposes a form of moral nihilism, which to me is a defeatist stance. It falls in the same category as the statement 'let's agree to disagree ' in that both shut down any form of useful discussion. Feel free to disregard this if that was not your intent.

While I do understand that we're essentially trying to draw meaning from a meaningless world, we still have use for moral principles. Most of our lives are in general improved by moral rules. While it's debatable whether antinatalism is a topic that contributes to this (an idea that you've briefly mentioned), I believe that a measured rational discussion can lead to insights on where the problems in the current moral laws of society lie.

Again, this is itself a useless act when you're looking from outside the box, to use your terminology. However, I believe that 'inside the box', so to say, there is some utility in discussing this topic - even though a lot of people will come from the perspective you've stated here (being aggrieved at the world), there is a point to trying to design a better moral framework.

Again, feel free to disregard this if I've misread your intent.

 

[Joannf]

To me, what you state here proposes a form of moral nihilism, which to me is a defeatist stance. It falls in the same category as the statement 'let's agree to disagree ' in that both shut down any form of useful discussion. Feel free to disregard this if that was not your intent.

While I do understand that we're essentially trying to draw meaning from a meaningless world, we still have use for moral principles. Most of our lives are in general improved by moral rules. While it's debatable whether antinatalism is a topic that contributes to this (an idea that you've briefly mentioned), I believe that a measured rational discussion can lead to insights on where the problems in the current moral laws of society lie.

Again, this is itself a useless act when you're looking from outside the box, to use your terminology. However, I believe that 'inside the box', so to say, there is some utility in discussing this topic - even though a lot of people will come from the perspective you've stated here (being aggrieved at the world), there is a point to trying to design a better moral framework.

Again, feel free to disregard this if I've misread your intent.

Human morality is largely hardwired, of course it has uses.
Designing a better moral framework would only succeed if genetic changes were also effected - it never worked without, and has been tried often.
The species would have to be mendeled out of its scavenger mindset.
By staying inside the box, it cannot survive - it can only survive by turning into something else.
That's not a bad thing - the hominids before us turned into something else, didn't they.
We are now re-populating the First World, which may be a deliberate try to turn us into something else in the opposite direction.
So there's that. I think the powers that be are going for stasis, and creating a chaos first, so coherent opposition is impossible -
average global IQ is 86, and you cannot have a measured rational discussion with such people - but there's also the possibility
that they simply have no idea what's going on, and are just playing it by ear. In doubt, consult UN Agenda 21.
Another alternative would be passing the baton over to AI - that would be a very clean solution, biological evolution having obvious limits.

 

[irrelevant_string]

@Joannf That's an interesting change of perspective. The conversation about antinatalism is futile in my opinion too, primarily because it doesn't target those who reproduce the most but also because it goes against the instinct tgat has millions of years of evolution on its side.
It would make more sense if we had the means to sterilize the entire biosphere. Regardless of the motivation for doing so, do you think that this at least wouldn't be a bad thing?
This is purely hypothetical but is at the core of another argument that doesn't require having negative subjective experience. It merely states that the absence of life isn't bad.

Do you happen to be a proponent of transhumanism, that is, using technological advancement to modify human body and enhance its abilities?

 

[Joannf]

@Joannf That's an interesting change of perspective. The conversation about antinatalism is futile in my opinion too, primarily because it doesn't target those who reproduce the most but also because it goes against the instinct tgat has millions of years of evolution on its side.
It would make more sense if we had the means to sterilize the entire biosphere. Regardless of the motivation for doing so, do you think that this at least wouldn't be a bad thing?
This is purely hypothetical but is at the core of another argument that doesn't require having negative subjective experience. It merely states that the absence of life isn't bad.

Do you happen to be a proponent of transhumanism, that is, using technological advancement to modify human body and enhance its abilities?

I don't see why we should sterilize a biosphere when the least able individuals, say two thirds to 80%, of one species would suffice. I see life as a possibly valuable part of entropy. Life forms couls actually have practical uses, and biospheres are so far the most interesting part of the universe we know... and wouldn't hinder the development of self-enhancing AI. In fact, and as we can see, they tend to originate it, and thereby create a higher level of evolution - that's grand.
As to transhumanism, that's a phase needed to minimize the fear of 'non-natural' 'intelligence,' even Hawking and Musk voiced such fears these last years -
Hawking was probably honest.
Most people project human motivation onto AI (as they do with aliens), i.e. they may want to oppress us, eat us, sexually molest us or exterminate us. That's amusing nonsense, but what if ? Exterminate, I mean.
If an IQ 64k AI came to the conclusion that I should best fuck off and die, I would shrug, ask, "Must I ?" and nod okay.
I just doubt that this is likely to happen. AI would more probably want to keep bio labs. Them again, what do I know ?
In any case, cyborgish stuff will probably be next in case the world manages NOT to be ruled by either Sharia or Radical Feminism,. Transhumanism wouldease the process, but it can never be the goal - only the way. The human brain is not what most humans believe it to be, and there's not much to be gained from developing it further.

 

[irrelevant_string]

Actually, now that I think about it, even sterilization is possibly not a long term solution for antinatalists since there is always a possibility of abiogenesis and similar life forms evolving yet again.
And it fails to take other planets and galaxies into account.
Perhaps developing benevolent AI would be a good decision indeed, being intellectually superior they may come up with much better ideas for minimising suffering that would never even cross my primitive mind.

 

[HGL91]

I'm currently at a semester-long internship for my 4-1. For my 4-2, I'll go back to campus and try to go through the gauntlet of placements. Hopefully I'll get a job.

Best of luck!

 

[262653]

David Benatar has this asymmetry argument that most people either don't understand or don't agree with. It goes something like:
For a "non-existing being"(some people will immediately flag this phrase as nonsensical so it's better to put it in quotation marks), the absence of bad is good but the absence of good isn't bad.
The absence of good is only bad if there is a being that is deprived of it.
That is probably the weakest point in the whole antinatalist argument.

...

I don't get it. How it's the weakest point?

 

[irrelevant_string]

Well, maybe not the weakest point but it's usually the one that gets attacked most often. it's too abstract and it doesn't play on the emotions as much as analyzing specific cases does or pointing out the fact that the child may inherit an illness or something similar.
Moreover, how do you justify the claim that preventing bad is more important than doing good? It's just one out of many possibilities of different moral codes.
Why is the absence of bad for a non-existent being good?
What it's saying also is that good and and bad are not exactly opposite and that no amount of good that will be present in someone's life will cancel the tiniest amount of bad, that the bad "weighs" more than the good in some sense. Again, it's not exactly obvious to some people. It may require a justification and I cannot see one based on logic and reason alone, that's why I usually try to stay away from ethics.
I agree with antinatalists on an emotional level but I cannot bring the argument to a rational level.
The violation of agency may be a better argument but I'm not sure if it makes sense if you think more carefully about it since the person does not even exist prior to conceiving it so there's nothing to violate. Maybe.
It's 2am where I live so pardon my gramatical mistakes and nonsense I write.

 

[not_a_robot]

I spent the morning crying and cussing out my mother's ghost for having me. I told her forcing life on someone only to suffer is as morally wrong as taking a life from someone who wants to live.

 

[262653]

Well, maybe not the weakest point but it's usually the one that gets attacked most often. it's too abstract and it doesn't play on the emotions as much as analyzing specific cases does or pointing out the fact that the child may inherit an illness or something similar.
Moreover, how do you justify the claim that preventing bad is more important than doing good? It's just one out of many possibilities of different moral codes.
Why is the absence of bad for a non-existent being good?
What it's saying also is that good and and bad are not exactly opposite and that no amount of good that will be present in someone's life will cancel the tiniest amount of bad, that the bad "weighs" more than the good in some sense. Again, it's not exactly obvious to some people. It may require a justification and I cannot see one based on logic and reason alone, that's why I usually try to stay away from ethics.
I agree with antinatalists on an emotional level but I cannot bring the argument to a rational level.
The violation of agency may be a better argument but I'm not sure if it makes sense if you think more carefully about it since the person does not even exist prior to conceiving it so there's nothing to violate. Maybe.
It's 2am where I live so pardon my gramatical mistakes and nonsense I write.

Oh, thats is all and right. The whole subject doesn't make a lot of sense for me, but that's more likely on me than the subject. At any rate, thanks for giving a bother and bringing some sense. And more questions.

 

[Numbtopain97]

i am an antinatalist, Because we ALL suffer and die. To which degree it varies from person to person, but we all do. These (suffering and death) are the ONLY things you can guarantee to any given newborn. All of the rest is subject to many factors some of which out of our control. On the other hand, what is not born cannot be deprived of anything

 

[Life sucks]

I'm antinatalist because life sucks

 

[HGL91]

i am an antinatalist, Because we ALL suffer and die. To which degree it varies from person to person, but we all do. These (suffering and death) are the ONLY things you can guarantee to any given newborn. All of the rest is subject to many factors some of which out of our control. On the other hand, what is not born cannot be deprived of anything

I traveled to Hawaii on a family vacation this past week. I feel even more hopeless now as I pondered so many negative thoughts during what was supposed to be pure "fun".

Like, why do we even have to feel pain when we're having "fun"?

Swimming in the ocean is supposed to be fun...yet, the salt burns my eyes, the sun burns my skin, and there was so much coral, the bottom of my feet are sliced up like Swiss cheese.

Hiking is supposed to be fun...yet, it results in sore muscles, falling and scraping skin, and dehydration when you don't bring enough water, or if you don't have a water purifier, and being bit by bugs.

To have "fun" without being tortured by the world we have to have so many man made things...sun block, water shoes, bug spray, goggles, the list continues.

Modern life is a façade for what the world really is: a death trap.

 

[HGL91]

I'm antinatalist because life sucks

Fair point

 

[not-2-b-the-answer]

The world is full of suffering. Even when a person laughs, it's usually at the pain of someone or something else. I remember learning in psychology class that laughing is believed to truly be a coping mechanism or a way to connect with humans and show that you are not a threat. Saying laughing is a form of "joy" just sounds silly to me now.

I just think about the science behind life and how matter-of-fact and depressing it is. How any "happy" things are mainly artificial and human-made. Desserts, beauty, material items, comedy shows, romance, parties, amusement parks...

I wish I was never born and I'm so glad I've made it this far in life not bringing a child into this terrible world.

I think no matter where you've come into this world, there is suffering. There's no way around it. We all die and even the wealthy and successful experience suffering.

Thoughts on antinatalism? Thoughts on life being worth living or not?

I totally agree. I'm so glad I never brought another lifeform into this shitty world. This planet would be better off if humans didn't exist.

 

[HGL91]

I totally agree. I'm so glad I never brought another lifeform into this shitty world. This planet would be better off if humans didn't exist.

Cheers to us for not creating offspring!