Discussion [Idea] Antinatalism with Voluntary Euthanasia (combo)

[TAW122]

I believe that if both antinatalism and voluntary euthanasia are practiced in tandem, it would be the best combination of that would ensure that suffering is minimized, if not nearly completely eradicated in the human species. Antinatalism is basically being against birth, or bringing in "new" sentient life into existence or being. Voluntary euthanasia is the voluntary (by free will, free choice) termination of existing life. With those two terms defined, I will proceed with the topic at hand.

So the topic that I am getting to is about if two major concepts were combined and practiced in a particular society, perhaps there would be a lot of peace, and much less suffering than we have in today's world. Having antinatalism allowed on a large scale would prevent a lot of new suffering to come into existence as the potential sentient beings would never come to existence to begin with. Then having voluntary euthanasia allowed on a large scale would give those who are currently suffering a way out of life, to no longer suffer and be at peace.

One example that I would like to think is suppose we have a particular society whose population is 500,000 people. Of those 500,000 people, there are a lot of people who could reproduce, but wouldn't, and then maybe about a fifth of those 500,000 people who wish to leave voluntarily and then are able to. Thus, this cuts the population down to 400,000, which about 200,000 are "capable of reproducing and replacing the people who have left. Then of those 200,000, about 100,000 are antinatalists, which means that they won't reproduce for that reason (including personal and philosophical reasons as well), which only leaves 100,000 to reproduce (aka the natalists). The society would still see suffering as potential new life comes in and one cannot simply 'force' others to be antinatalists as that would go against free will. However, with many people who don't wish to suffer finding peace and leaving as well as many potential life not being conceived, I could see the amount of suffering drop tremendously. Then for the new life that was conceived (by the 100,000 - or rather 50,000 people since it requires a pair to produce new life), voluntary euthanasia would be an option for those who don't wish to stay around. This would result in a society for those who wish to live, can live, but those who don't wish to live can find peace and no longer suffer existence.

Granted IRL is never this simple, but this is just a simplified, easier to understand scenario that I've thought of if antinatalism and voluntary euthanasia are practiced.

Credit to @WhyIsLife56 for creating her Antinatalism thread titled "Life and Existence is a Burden".
Also credit to Eye Doubt's videos regarding antinatalism as well.

Anyways, what are your thoughts on this, if antinatalism and voluntary euthanasia are both present and practiced?

 

[WhyIsLife56]

My thread isn't exclusively Antinatalism , it includes EFILism and beyond that as well.
But thank you for crediting it.

Spreading both antinatalism and making euthanasia free for everyone would be a productive one as it means people can make a choice if they want to leave instead of people saying that life is great and all.

Euthanasia should be legalized and free for ANYONE who wishes to leave.

If antinatalism is difficult to spread, making euthanasia legal for everyone would be a productive option.

 

[TAW122]

Ah yes, I saw efilism as well in your thread too. To my understanding, EFILism is likely a subset of antinatalism as it's focusing more on a macro level of life ending, meaning that it focuses on that "current existence" is still suffering (which it is). I also agree that if anti-natalism is not really gaining traction, then the very least society can do is to make voluntary euthanasia legal and accessible to everyone which would greatly reduce a lot of suffering that is present in today's world.

 

[WhyIsLife56]

Ah yes, I saw efilism as well in your thread too. To my understanding, EFILism is likely a subset of antinatalism as it's focusing more on a macro level of life ending, meaning that it focuses on that "current existence" is still suffering (which it is). I also agree that if anti-natalism is not really gaining traction, then the very least society can do is to make voluntary euthanasia legal and accessible to everyone which would greatly reduce a lot of suffering that is present in today's world.

Efilism is bigger than antinatalism in terms of concept.
There needs to be a red button scenario.
Euthanasia would help humans.
What about the other animals and plants and other life forms that are suffering? Someone needs to invent a red button in the future soon.

 

[WhyIsLife56]

When you think about it, Efilism makes more sense. Those animals and plants and the many other life forms didn't ask to be brought here. They don't necessarily need consciousness like humans do to know they're suffering themselves.
Every life form: They never asked for any of this.

 

[Ἡγησίας]

Do any of you know this essay? I think you might be interested.

The Last Messiah | Issue 45 | Philosophy Now

The first English version of a classic essay by Peter Wessel Zapffe, originally published in Janus #9, 1933. Translated from the Norwegian by Gisle R. Tangenes.

philosophynow.org

 

[WhyIsLife56]

Do any of you know this essay? I think you might be interested.

The Last Messiah | Issue 45 | Philosophy Now

The first English version of a classic essay by Peter Wessel Zapffe, originally published in Janus #9, 1933. Translated from the Norwegian by Gisle R. Tangenes.

philosophynow.org

I know of it. :)

 

[HopeDiesLast]

Are these really new concepts?

1) Nobody is being forced to reproduce. If you don't want to bring offspring into the world, then you can simply choose not to.

2) We all have the option of ending our lives at any point if we so desire. It may not be "socially acceptable", and euthanasia is not available to everyone, but nobody can stop you from killing yourself.

If there was a magic button that just made you go "poof" in an instant, then the human race would already be extinct. Everybody, at one point or another, will have a moment of pain or desperation where they just want an easy out. That doesn't mean everybody should hit the buzzer...

Just my opinion. Maybe not a popular one around here.

 

[Innereye]

I believe that if both antinatalism and voluntary euthanasia are practiced in tandem, it would be the best combination of that would ensure that suffering is minimized, if not nearly completely eradicated in the human species. Antinatalism is basically being against birth, or bringing in "new" sentient life into existence or being. Voluntary euthanasia is the voluntary (by free will, free choice) termination of existing life. With those two terms defined, I will proceed with the topic at hand.

So the topic that I am getting to is about if two major concepts were combined and practiced in a particular society, perhaps there would be a lot of peace, and much less suffering than we have in today's world. Having antinatalism allowed on a large scale would prevent a lot of new suffering to come into existence as the potential sentient beings would never come to existence to begin with. Then having voluntary euthanasia allowed on a large scale would give those who are currently suffering a way out of life, to no longer suffer and be at peace.

One example that I would like to think is suppose we have a particular society whose population is 500,000 people. Of those 500,000 people, there are a lot of people who could reproduce, but wouldn't, and then maybe about a fifth of those 500,000 people who wish to leave voluntarily and then are able to. Thus, this cuts the population down to 400,000, which about 200,000 are "capable of reproducing and replacing the people who have left. Then of those 200,000, about 100,000 are antinatalists, which means that they won't reproduce for that reason (including personal and philosophical reasons as well), which only leaves 100,000 to reproduce (aka the natalists). The society would still see suffering as potential new life comes in and one cannot simply 'force' others to be antinatalists as that would go against free will. However, with many people who don't wish to suffer finding peace and leaving as well as many potential life not being conceived, I could see the amount of suffering drop tremendously. Then for the new life that was conceived (by the 100,000 - or rather 50,000 people since it requires a pair to produce new life), voluntary euthanasia would be an option for those who don't wish to stay around. This would result in a society for those who wish to live, can live, but those who don't wish to live can find peace and no longer suffer existence.

Granted IRL is never this simple, but this is just a simplified, easier to understand scenario that I've thought of if antinatalism and voluntary euthanasia are practiced.

Credit to @WhyIsLife56 for creating her Antinatalism thread titled "Life and Existence is a Burden".
Also credit to Eye Doubt's videos regarding antinatalism as well.

Anyways, what are your thoughts on this, if antinatalism and voluntary euthanasia are both present and practiced?

I am glad to not be alone on the antinatalism train, its simply wrong to force someone into a happiness gamble without them having any way of having a say.

 

[TAW122]

I am glad to not be alone on the antinatalism train, its simply wrong to force someone into a happiness gamble without them having any way of having a say.

Yes and this is a big reason why I an an antinatalist, because I don't want to bring more potential suffering into this shitty world. Also, it isn't fair to the conceived (person who is born) as he/she did not have a say (choice) in deciding to exist. Sadly, it won't stop the people who decide to have children, but for those people who do have children (especially multiple), out of those children when they grow up to be adults, there may be those who don't wish to reproduce (becoming antinatalists themselves) and/or decide to CTB. Hence by also having voluntary euthanasia available, it would allow those who don't wish to continue living to be able to leave with dignity.

 

[Mizzmini45]

My thread isn't exclusively Antinatalism , it includes EFILism and beyond that as well.
But thank you for crediting it.

Spreading both antinatalism and making euthanasia free for everyone would be a productive one as it means people can make a choice if they want to leave instead of people saying that life is great and all.

Euthanasia should be legalized and free for ANYONE who wishes to leave.

If antinatalism is difficult to spread, making euthanasia legal for everyone would be a productive option.

I agree!

 

[FullyUnplugged]

I believe that if both antinatalism and voluntary euthanasia are practiced in tandem, it would be the best combination of that would ensure that suffering is minimized, if not nearly completely eradicated in the human species. Antinatalism is basically being against birth, or bringing in "new" sentient life into existence or being. Voluntary euthanasia is the voluntary (by free will, free choice) termination of existing life. With those two terms defined, I will proceed with the topic at hand.

So the topic that I am getting to is about if two major concepts were combined and practiced in a particular society, perhaps there would be a lot of peace, and much less suffering than we have in today's world. Having antinatalism allowed on a large scale would prevent a lot of new suffering to come into existence as the potential sentient beings would never come to existence to begin with. Then having voluntary euthanasia allowed on a large scale would give those who are currently suffering a way out of life, to no longer suffer and be at peace.

One example that I would like to think is suppose we have a particular society whose population is 500,000 people. Of those 500,000 people, there are a lot of people who could reproduce, but wouldn't, and then maybe about a fifth of those 500,000 people who wish to leave voluntarily and then are able to. Thus, this cuts the population down to 400,000, which about 200,000 are "capable of reproducing and replacing the people who have left. Then of those 200,000, about 100,000 are antinatalists, which means that they won't reproduce for that reason (including personal and philosophical reasons as well), which only leaves 100,000 to reproduce (aka the natalists). The society would still see suffering as potential new life comes in and one cannot simply 'force' others to be antinatalists as that would go against free will. However, with many people who don't wish to suffer finding peace and leaving as well as many potential life not being conceived, I could see the amount of suffering drop tremendously. Then for the new life that was conceived (by the 100,000 - or rather 50,000 people since it requires a pair to produce new life), voluntary euthanasia would be an option for those who don't wish to stay around. This would result in a society for those who wish to live, can live, but those who don't wish to live can find peace and no longer suffer existence.

Granted IRL is never this simple, but this is just a simplified, easier to understand scenario that I've thought of if antinatalism and voluntary euthanasia are practiced.

Credit to @WhyIsLife56 for creating her Antinatalism thread titled "Life and Existence is a Burden".
Also credit to Eye Doubt's videos regarding antinatalism as well.

Anyways, what are your thoughts on this, if antinatalism and voluntary euthanasia are both present and practiced?

THANKS for linking Eye Doubt's videos been watching em. Is he on this forum.