Are you a Antinatalist?

[esoterispeec]

for those who don't know what Antinatalism is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

 

[GrumpyFrog]

I am not a pure antinatalist. I do not believe all humans must cease to procreate.
However, I do believe most people really shouldn't.

 

[Fragile]

No, because I don't believe in any ideology that wants to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

 

[KuriGohan&Kamehameha]

Yes. I don't think a lot of people truly understand antinatalism and take personal offense to how a select few fringe efilists act online - thus giving AN a bad rep and astroturfing it as a taboo philosophy. It also goes against the basal biologcal programming of survive and procreate which further ostracises those of us who choose to speak openly about our ethical beliefs. We often get labeled as looney.

One can acknowledge that procreation is immoral without conflating it with "parent bashing" or authoritarianism (in fact, its likely to be the opposite in the future, where people will be forced into childbirth if workforce populations decline heavily enough.)

Some people think AN is about being child free and hating kids as well, which is totally off base as AN comes from a position of empathy towards the unborn. I personally love kids and have the mothering instinct. I wanted to adopt, however, that will probably never be a reality as the state actively discriminates against the sick and disabled when it comes to adoption.

When it comes to people breeding to create bio kids though, even the most vile of child abusers can pop out as many offspring as they please with no recourse (Social and welfare services are notoriously failed systems) dooming the children to a life full of suffering. Yet a disabled or LGBT person cannot foster or adopt. Where is the logic in that?

I recognise that AN is always going to be misunderstood, misrepresented, and misconstrued. It will never be a popular philosophy. Yet, I'm fine with that. I am preventing my non existent children from suffering in this hellish, faustian world by breaking the cycle and saying no to procreation.

I have spared someone from illness, disease, poverty, stress, worry, heartbreak, pain, loss, and eventual death. So that's a win for me!

 

[not-2-b-the-answer]

Hells yeah

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

It would be a very tame way of putting it, but yes.

 

[Life sucks]

People should not reproduce. Life is shit and its not only about morals but its absurd and self-contradictory. Humans ignore that because of their ignorance and arrogance. Anyway the extinction of humans is inevitable and they just bring more people to suffer and lose in a bad game.

 

[x_LittleAmy_x]

Bit of a deep dive but humans have done so much wrong to the Earth that we should become extinct and let Earth heal itself.

 

[deflationary]

No, because I don't believe in any ideology that wants to tell other people what to do with their bodies.

Making bodies in the first place is kinda the ultimate example of that tho. When you procreate you're basically consigning the poor bastard to a lifetime of toil and you can never get consent beforehand.

So, yeah, total antinatalist here. Easiest moral dilemma there ever was for me.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I've already made my points on why I don't think antinatalism will ever gain enough traction even if I agree with it on principle because it's basically just reducing suffering for the privileged few who know the truth about how harsh reality is by causing suffering for a majority of unwitting people since entire economies rely on new generations popping up and not being able to satisfy the urge to breed will literally drive some people to suicide too. You might as well get humans to quit ice cream. That's also bad for both you and the global environment but it just tastes so good to the majority of people. Unlike ice cream it doesn't always cost anything to make a kid (raising one is another story though).

As for people not asking to be born, we can't know that for sure unfortunately. I keep bringing up the movie Soul because it basically cucks antinatalism by offering the possibility that maybe our souls were physically not allowed to be born until they actually wanted to live on earth. The energy spent here preaching to the choir about antinatalism for like the 500th time might as well be spent marching on Pixar's doors and demanding they pay for their anti-antinatalist propaganda.

Idk, I'm a horrible human being anyway. The more I keep seeing people earnestly want human genocide by pursuing this movement, the more my evil nature wants me to meet my biological imperative and unleash more hellspawn on the world. Good thing no one will ever want to do that with me anyway.

 

[Fragile]

Making bodies in the first place is kinda the ultimate example of that tho. When you procreate you're basically consigning the poor bastard to a lifetime of toil and you can never get consent beforehand.

So, yeah, total antinatalist here. Easiest moral dilemma there ever was for me.

You are assuming that every person will suffer and projecting your situation, when in reality the vast majority of people are not suicidal and are content with living.

Besides, you are ignoring the fact that the reproductive instinct is something so strong that it happens to every single creature and even goes to the cellular level. So, are you going to stop just at humans? animals can suffer far more than us, are they immoral because they don't follow your arbitrary morals?

Antinatalism is a very reductive answer to a far more complicated question.

 

[deflationary]

You are assuming that every person will suffer and projecting your situation, when in reality the vast majority of people are not suicidal and are content with living.

Besides, you are ignoring the fact that the reproductive instinct is something so strong that it happens to every single creature and even goes to the cellular level. So, are you going to stop just at humans? animals can suffer far more than us, are they immoral because they don't follow your arbitrary morals?

Antinatalism is a very reductive answer to a far more complicated question.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if you have a kid you're making them come here without their consent. If you don't have a kid then no one exists to oppose to being left in nonexistence and you're not making a choice for anyone. People who don't want to force shit on other people should be antinatalists.

I'm also not ignoring anything about animals. Animals don't get brought up in discussions about morality because they can't be reasoned out of their positions. Do you also bring up animals when someone brings up the immorality of murder or theft or whatever else. It's a weird thing to say.

I don't even believe in an objective morality. I'm not offended if someone doesn't believe in antinatalism. But if it was up to me I'd totally make everything in this universe unable to bear offspring.

 

[Fragile]

I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that if you have a kid you're making them come here without their consent. If you don't have a kid then no one exists to oppose to being left in nonexistence and you're not making a choice for anyone. People who don't want to force shit on other people should be antinatalists.

I'm also not ignoring anything about animals. Animals don't get brought up in discussions about morality because they can't be reasoned out of their positions. Do you also bring up animals when someone brings up the immorality of murder or theft or whatever else. It's a weird thing to say.

Then, if you want to not exist you are free to choose it for yourself, but some people are grateful about being brought to life, so don't apply your morals to them.

Consent is an entirely human concept that ignores nature and can only exist in our modern society, and even then it gets ignored. We didn't evolved around consenting, quite the opposite, human history since its origins is shaped around taking by force, the same way any animal would do but in a much larger scale.

How do you ask a non-existing being if it wants to follow a rule that doesn't exist in nature? Might as well ask god at that point, you are going to get the same answer.

I don't even believe in an objective morality. I'm not offended if someone doesn't believe in antinatalism. But if it was up to me I'd totally make everything in this universe unable to bear offspring.

So you wouldn't care about consent either if you would take the ability to reproduce to individuals without their consent or caring about their freedoms.

I'm just saying that this ideology is borderline ridiculous given how utopic, inapplicable and inconsiderate it is.

 

[WornOutLife]

I had no idea whether I was or not but after reading posts here and wikipedia, I think I am!

 

[deflationary]

@Fragile

Lmao now you're denigrating consent when you were the one who first brought up your unease with telling people what to do with their bodies. People go to the weirdest lengths and give up so much they usually cling to just to escape the logic of antinatalism.

You never need to ask a nonexistent person anything if you just leave them in nonexistence. That's the point. That's the great boon of antinatalism. You're not forcing anything on anyone.

I wouldn't care all that much about taking away someone's ability to do stuff without consent, yes. Antinatalism is the only option where consent is never violated.

An ideology doesn't have to be perfectly executable to be a worthwhile ideology. It's like complaining about laws against murder because you can't totally eradicate it.

 

[MYStERY_Man]

Only in the same sense I'm a vegan, which is I believe the arguments are sound, but I wouldn't put it past me to refuse the sacrifice.

For example, right now I recognize @Fragile isn't arguing on a philosophical level and I'd advise them to at least read the Wikipedia page on the topic. But just like I still eat meat, I could see myself deciding to impose the burden of existence on someone if I get to middle age, decide to stick around and have nothing else to look forward to.

 

[Fragile]

@Fragile

Lmao now you're denigrating consent when you were the one who first brought up your unease with telling people what to do with their bodies. People go to the weirdest lengths and give up so much they usually cling to just to escape the logic of antinatalism.

You never need to ask a nonexistent person anything if you just leave them in nonexistence. That's the point. That's the great boon of antinatalism. You're not forcing anything on anyone.

I wouldn't care all that much about taking away someone's ability to do stuff without consent, yes. Antinatalism is the only option where consent is never violated.

An ideology doesn't have to be perfectly executable to be a worthwhile ideology. It's like complaining about laws against murder because you can't totally eradicate it.

You are misinterpreting my point about consent, I said that it can only exist in our modern world and I stand by it, I ultimately believe in freedom and it includes reproductive freedom, same with the freedom to choose not to live. And those are entirely human concepts as well, they can only be sustained in our modern environment.

People go to the weirdest lengths and give up so much they usually cling to just to escape the logic of antinatalism.

What logic?
you are just expressing your point about something as logical as consent, and you said that you would violate it in the name of your mighty antinatalism!
There is no logic there.

Only in the same sense I'm a vegan, which is I believe the arguments are sound, but I wouldn't put it past me to refuse the sacrifice.

For example, right now I recognize @Fragile isn't arguing on a philosophical level and I'd advise them to at least read the Wikipedia page on the topic. But just like I still eat meat, I could see myself deciding to impose the burden of existence on someone if I get to middle age, decide to stick around and have nothing else to look forward to.

Hey! don't assume that, I've read far more than it, and that article is very biased since it includes virtually no criticism of the idea, as opposed to many other philosophical articles that have an extensive section about its criticism and detractors.

And about your point about veganism, I've been a vegetarian for over a decade specifically because of it. I beleve in reducing suffering by not supporting an industry that brings objective suffering on animals, because unlike humans, they are invariably guaranteed to suffer in the conditions that they are brought to live.

 

[deflationary]

The reasoning if the word logic triggers you. In the real world every action forces something on someone else. Putting a stop to the whole universe would in the end still violate the consent of infinitely less creatures than it existing forever.

You totally gave up any kind of morality for some handwavy nonsense about nature and you didn't even notice it.

 

[StringPuppet]

In theory yes but I also know it will never be implemented. I think the next best thing will be making suicide safe and easy for anyone who'd prefer not to be alive.

 

[Fragile]

The reasoning if the word logic triggers you. In the real world every action forces something on someone else. Putting a stop to the whole universe would in the end still violate the consent of infinitely less creatures than it existing forever.

You totally gave up any kind of morality for some handwavy nonsense about nature and you didn't even notice it.

Morality is subjective, I just believe that I shouldn't force mine upon others.

I see that you are growing increasingly frustrated with this, so I'll leave it at that, but it was a nice little discussion!

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

The reasoning if the word logic triggers you. In the real world every action forces something on someone else. Putting a stop to the whole universe would in the end still violate the consent of infinitely less creatures than it existing forever.

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

[deflationary]

Morality is subjective, I just believe that I shouldn't force mine upon others.

I see that you are growing increasingly frustrated with this, so I'll leave it at that, but it was a nice little discussion!

Yeah, actually I'm sorry for growing frustrated. There was no need for that. I hope it didn't affect your mood too much. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[NumbItAll]

Being an antinatalist doesn't necessarily mean forcing anything on anyone. I'm an antinatalist but I'm not doing anything to prevent people from reproducing. I just think it's disgusting, narcissistic, and irresponsible to do so. Most people disagree.

 

[GenesAndEnvironment]

I'm an antinatalist but I'm not doing anything to prevent people from reproducing.

Maybe we should start cock-blocking as much as possible.

 

[Fragile]

Yeah, actually I'm sorry for growing frustrated. There was no need for that. I hope it didn't affect your mood too much. Thanks for the discussion.

Don't worry about it, I just really enjoy discussing in general. And I know I made some weird arguments.

 

[Callie Arcale]

Being an antinatalist is the only reasonable stance I can take in life. Mind you, I say that strictly in relation to myself.

Other people can do whatever they want. They can procreate to their heart's desire - I have no right to tell them what to do with their bodies and genes.

But I cannot, in good conscience, inflict the surest mortal wound on someone else. I cannot condemn another being to suffering and death.

 

[yeahwellso]

for those who don't know what Antinatalism is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

I find it to be nothing more than "I wish I'd never been born. Also, you."

Like yeah, being born invariably and inevitably destines you to suffer. Nevertheless, the vast majority of people find their life to have positive value overall.

Only chronic depressives find "antinatalism" to have any appeal whatsoever. To most people, it's just whiny, uninteresting fantasizing.

It's not a "philosophy", and it doesn't provide any insights. It's merely a value judgment made by people who are at the low end when it comes to capacity for feeling happy.

"Overall, life offers more suffering than benefit, therefore ..." No shit, Sherlock. And yet, most people are keen on it. Not because they haven't pondered your precious deep thoughts about mystery, but simply because whatever life offers is enough for them.

People are not going to stop reproducing, no matter what existentially depressed people think. "Antinatalism" is just yet another way to ensure that you get to be disappointed with everything every day: You wish you hadn't been born – tough shit, you were born and while you can kill yourself, you can't undo having been born. You wish people would stop having children – tough shit, people are going to keep on having children.

 

[lofticries]

Not really but I hate how having kids has become the norm and how everyone is told they can become parents no matter what the consequences are. I think rather than just the stupid robot baby test teens in high school should also be taught what else comes with parenthood. It would also be nice as a society to stop shaming others for not having kids. A person can find meaning and happiness in life without reproducing.

 

[Callie Arcale]

Antinatalism" is just yet another way to ensure that you get to be disappointed with everything every day: You wish you hadn't been born – tough shit, you were born and while you can kill yourself, you can't undo having been born. You wish people would stop having children – tough shit, people are going to keep on having children.

I beg to differ.

My antinatalism is an expression of a moral stance that I have taken in relation to my own self.

I am not an antinatalist as an act of rebellion against being born. Neither am I am antinatalist because I want others to stop procreating. Quite the contrary, I think people should be free to do whatever they want.

I am an antinatalist in the sense that I believe it would be immoral for me to inflict suffering, and ultimately cause death, to another being by bringing them into the world.

 

[deflationary]

Only chronic depressives find "antinatalism" to have any appeal whatsoever. To most people, it's just whiny, uninteresting fantasizing.

Well most people are unthinking idiots. Why should it matter whether they find any appeal in it? They won't find any appeal in any moral philosophical takes on life.

It's not a "philosophy", and it doesn't provide any insights. It's merely a value judgment made by people who are at the low end when it comes to capacity for feeling happy.

Being a philosophy isn't some lofty achievement and antinatalism definitely doesn't fall short of it. It's clearly a philosophical take. No doubt most of the people who're drawn to it are unhappy people. Doesn't really say anything about the worth of its arguments though.

"Overall, life offers more suffering than benefit, therefore ..." No shit, Sherlock. And yet, most people are keen on it. Not because they haven't pondered your precious deep thoughts about mystery, but simply because whatever life offers is enough for them.

Well, no, to a large extent it is exactly because they haven't pondered on anything deep for more than two seconds in their life. If there being more suffering in life than happiness is a no-shit-sherlock take then those people probably need to do more philosophizing and realize that what makes life okay for them is being blind to its realities.