Venting Nobody should be forced to suffer. Antinatalism anyone?

[sicklyalive]

I'm new to openly talking about this.

Most people have no understanding or concept about what it is to have disabilities. Especially ones that cause chronic pain. My conditions have little treatment, are rare, and have no cure. They are seldom paid attention to, and we are often called attention/drug seekers, lazy, a burden, ungrateful. Humans are a disease that in large groups cause immense pain and harm. I don't know what my way out is.

To live is scary, but to die is frightening. Most methods are not foolproof, and even those with a higher success rate are hard to achieve when your physical abilities aren't like able bodied folks.

I'm scared, I'm sick and tired of being sick and tired. Somedays I can only sleep, and it's so boring.

This society punishes everyone. Nobody has much free will and are forced to be cogs in the grand machine. Take me out.

 

[lessthanperfect]

I'm also an antinatalist with disabilities (ASD, OCD, and ADHD; no physical disabilities).

I'd rather be dead and gone than alive but I'd also rather have never been here in the first place than have to choose whether or not to cause my own death.

 

[Gonnerr]

Anti natalist here and im not scared to talk about it in real life, i made a facebook post that said basically I would have prefer not to be born.

I can tell you , there was almost no reaction, its a taboo subject, but like every new movement, it has to start somewhere.

Keep spreading the word , leave the kids safe in the void.

 

[Mistiie]

I'm not really a fan of anti-natalism, to be honest. Seems like a very flawed philosophy that sort of falls apart when you take into consideration the majority of the population, plus how it manifests. That's not to say that there aren't aspects of it that apply to a lot of depressed or suicidal people, but I feel like it's only really relevant to those people, and not those content with their lives (which is, again, most people.) Remove those poor experiences from the lives of those who are anti-natalists and I think you'll find lots wouldn't be anti-natalists in the end.

 

[sicklyalive]

I'm not really a fan of anti-natalism, to be honest. Seems like a very flawed philosophy that sort of falls apart when you take into consideration the majority of the population, plus how it manifests. That's not to say that there aren't aspects of it that apply to a lot of depressed or suicidal people, but I feel like it's only really relevant to those people, and not those content with their lives (which is, again, most people.) Remove those poor experiences from the lives of those who are anti-natalists and I think you'll find lots wouldn't be anti-natalists in the end.

I hear what you say, but antinatalism basically states that anyone born endures suffering. What is the point of suffering do you think? Whether you're rich or poor, you feel pain, loss, and other negative emotions. Like others in the thread have pointed out it's better to not exist than exist at all.

I'm also an antinatalist with disabilities (ASD, OCD, and ADHD; no physical disabilities).

I'd rather be dead and gone than alive but I'd also rather have never been here in the first place than have to choose whether or not to cause my own death.

Exactly! The fact that we have to be forced with such a brutal choice to begin with is inhumane

 

[lessthanperfect]

I'm not really a fan of anti-natalism, to be honest. Seems like a very flawed philosophy that sort of falls apart when you take into consideration the majority of the population, plus how it manifests. That's not to say that there aren't aspects of it that apply to a lot of depressed or suicidal people, but I feel like it's only really relevant to those people, and not those content with their lives (which is, again, most people.) Remove those poor experiences from the lives of those who are anti-natalists and I think you'll find lots wouldn't be anti-natalists in the end.

I understand the thought, but I disagree. I'd like to think that I wouldn't want to increase the amount of suffering in the world if I wasn't also suffering.

Antinatalism isn't about "was your life mostly good? then it's okay."

It's about risk assessment. If you have a child, there's a 100% chance of suffering. If you don't, there's a 0% chance of suffering.

Even though the amount of actively suicidal people is low and most people only suffer a little bit, all people suffer and purposely increasing suffering because "I want to be a mom/dad!" is insane to me.

 

[Mistiie]

I hear what you say, but antinatalism basically states that anyone born endures suffering. What is the point of suffering do you think? Whether you're rich or poor, you feel pain, loss, and other negative emotions. Like others in the thread have pointed out it's better to not exist than exist at all.

You're ignoring the fact that negativity isn't the only emotion present. To be fair, most anti-natalists on this site seem to. Negativity doesn't exist in a vacuum; for every negative, be that pain or loss or whatever else, there is a positive imbued upon someone else, or at least in most situations. The ratio of negativity to positivity in people's lives isn't 1:1 either, as you might be able to tell given you're on this site. Some suffer more than others. The rich have amazing lives. The poor don't necessarily. That's not to say the rich don't suffer at all, be that some minor inconvenience like a stubbed toe or something larger like the loss of a loved one, but their suffering is typically diminished by the fact that they have an overwhelmingly positive life.

Your argument here is basically that either everyone experiences a ratio of positivity to suffering, such that suffering outweighs positivity, or that if someone suffers even once, then life is automatically tainted and shouldn't exist. The former argument simply isn't true, and we know that because there are people that die happy - maybe not on this forum, but most people who die are content with their demise. The latter argument is just a bit ridiculous. People can live with overwhelming positivity in their lives and very little suffering. Why would that miniscule amount of suffering render all that joy they experience not worth the experience of life? It's an irrational idea. In those instances, it's far better to have existed and experience 99% positivity, 1% negativity, than to not have. Positivity is equal to negativity, after all.

The reason why you feel this way is because you've experienced more negativity in your life than positivity. Your ratio will be way out of balance with most people. In fact, most people probably lead on positivity rather than negativity in their lives. As a result of your experience having more negativity, you believe that that is the case for everyone; you have an inaccurate perception of the norm. Yes, people feel pain and loss regardless of wealth or class or any other factor. But if your positive experiences outweigh the negative ones, which it almost certainly will if you're born a human being, then why should you not exist, given that it's undoubtedly good for your self to have done so?

Antinatalism isn't about "was your life mostly good? then it's okay."

It's about risk assessment. If you have a child, there's a 100% chance of suffering. If you don't, there's a 0% chance of suffering.

The same thing can be said here. You act as if suffering is an absolute no-no for life. If it were, there wouldn't be life. Suffering is equal to not suffering. You can't have one without the other, and so they are equal in value, if that makes sense. I could twist your argument for myself here; if you have a child, that child has a 100% chance of having a positive experience in their life. If you don't, there's a 0% chance. See how this doesn't work? Your argument here is that no matter how miniscule the suffering is, if it's present, then life just isn't compatible. However, there's a trade-off to be had; most people have positive lives of varying degrees, which makes the trade-off of a little bit of suffering for a life of joy worth it.

 

[lessthanperfect]

Anti natalist here and im not scared to talk about it in real life, i made a facebook post that said basically I would have prefer not to be born.

I can tell you , there was almost no reaction, its a taboo subject, but like every new movement, it has to start somewhere.

Keep spreading the word , leave the kids safe in the void.

I've tried, but everyone has shot me down (knowing my history of depression) as a nihilist who just wants to die. It's frustrating.

 

[sicklyalive]

I'm also an antinatalist with disabilities (ASD, OCD, and ADHD; no physical disabilities).

I'd rather be dead and gone than alive but I'd also rather have never been here in the first place than have to choose whether or not to cause my own death.

You're ignoring the fact that negativity isn't the only emotion present. To be fair, most anti-natalists on this site seem to. Negativity doesn't exist in a vacuum; for every negative, be that pain or loss or whatever else, there is a positive imbued upon someone else, or at least in most situations. The ratio of negativity to positivity in people's lives isn't 1:1 either, as you might be able to tell given you're on this site. Some suffer more than others. The rich have amazing lives. The poor don't necessarily. That's not to say the rich don't suffer at all, be that some minor inconvenience like a stubbed toe or something larger like the loss of a loved one, but their suffering is typically diminished by the fact that they have an overwhelmingly positive life.

Your argument here is basically that either everyone experiences a ratio of positivity to suffering, such that suffering outweighs positivity, or that if someone suffers even once, then life is automatically tainted and shouldn't exist. The former argument simply isn't true, and we know that because there are people that die happy - maybe not on this forum, but most people who die are content with their demise. The latter argument is just a bit ridiculous. People can live with overwhelming positivity in their lives and very little suffering. Why would that miniscule amount of suffering render all that joy they experience not worth the experience of life? It's an irrational idea. In those instances, it's far better to have existed and experience 99% positivity, 1% negativity, than to not have. Positivity is equal to negativity, after all.

The reason why you feel this way is because you've experienced more negativity in your life than positivity. Your ratio will be way out of balance with most people. In fact, most people probably lead on positivity rather than negativity in their lives. As a result of your experience having more negativity, you believe that that is the case for everyone; you have an inaccurate perception of the norm. Yes, people feel pain and loss regardless of wealth or class or any other factor. But if your positive experiences outweigh the negative ones, which it almost certainly will if you're born a human being, then why should you not exist, given that it's undoubtedly good for your self to have done so?


The same thing can be said here. You act as if suffering is an absolute no-no for life. If it were, there wouldn't be life. Suffering is equal to not suffering. You can't have one without the other, and so they are equal in value, if that makes sense. I could twist your argument for myself here; if you have a child, that child has a 100% chance of having a positive experience in their life. If you don't, there's a 0% chance. See how this doesn't work? Your argument here is that no matter how miniscule the suffering is, if it's present, then life just isn't compatible. However, there's a trade-off to be had; most people have positive lives of varying degrees, which makes the trade-off of a little bit of suffering for a life of joy worth it.

The thing is that there is a 100% guarantee of some sort of suffering. Sure, having money makes it more comfortable but there is always pain no matter what. It's the human condition, because without pain you wouldn't know joy. Someone whose brain dies happy is using that as a coping mechanism.

We all suffer under capitalism. We are destroying the planet, all the species on it, humans continue to kill each other on mass scales and commit atrocities on a daily basis. Society tends do be very individual, but these things on a grand scale effect everyone individually. If you go through life without having to think of the horrors continuing all around you, you're selfish and delusional.

There is no guarantee a child will be born healthy. 1 in 4 Americans suffer from some sort of health problem or disability. Say they are physically fit, but mental illness disable you just as severely. Mental health issues are currently an epidemic in the US. No matter what walk of life you come from, you will suffer.

 

[Adûnâi]

This is one of the reasons normies despise Hitlerism - because in Hitler's Germany, people with disabilities had a state-sanctioned way out.

Not exactly anti-natalist, but an argument for children could lie in a temporary birth of new life with the aim to cleanse the planet of suffering, in due time (see the animal welfare laws in Nazi Germany).

Seems like a very flawed philosophy that sort of falls apart when you take into consideration the majority of the population, plus how it manifests.

People really love to spread suffering. Anti-natalism removes that tendency, by force if necessary. Just imagine humans as maniacs ready to mutilate genitalia - because that's literally how humans behave in many parts of the world. Humans are a tumour - and a happy tumour brings sickness.

 

[sicklyalive]

This is one of the reasons normies despise Hitlerism - because in Hitler's Germany, people with disabilities had a state-sanctioned way out.

Not exactly anti-natalist, but an argument for children could lie in a temporary birth of new life with the aim to cleanse the planet of suffering, in due time (see the animal welfare laws in Nazi Germany).


People really love to spread suffering. Anti-natalism removes that tendency, by force if necessary. Just imagine humans as maniacs ready to mutilate genitalia - because that's literally how humans behave in many parts of the world. Humans are a tumour - and a happy tumour brings sickness.

I completely disagree. Antinatalism does not discriminate against gender, race, sexuality, ethnicity, or social class. Hitler despised all of what I just listed and wanted to cleanse the planet of only certain groups of people, in a very brutal fashion.
Not only is that the opposite of the philosophy, but Nazism just causes more suffering. It has nothing to do with empathy for suffering

 

[lessthanperfect]

You're ignoring the fact that negativity isn't the only emotion present. To be fair, most anti-natalists on this site seem to. Negativity doesn't exist in a vacuum; for every negative, be that pain or loss or whatever else, there is a positive imbued upon someone else, or at least in most situations. The ratio of negativity to positivity in people's lives isn't 1:1 either, as you might be able to tell given you're on this site. Some suffer more than others. The rich have amazing lives. The poor don't necessarily. That's not to say the rich don't suffer at all, be that some minor inconvenience like a stubbed toe or something larger like the loss of a loved one, but their suffering is typically diminished by the fact that they have an overwhelmingly positive life.

Your argument here is basically that either everyone experiences a ratio of positivity to suffering, such that suffering outweighs positivity, or that if someone suffers even once, then life is automatically tainted and shouldn't exist. The former argument simply isn't true, and we know that because there are people that die happy - maybe not on this forum, but most people who die are content with their demise. The latter argument is just a bit ridiculous. People can live with overwhelming positivity in their lives and very little suffering. Why would that miniscule amount of suffering render all that joy they experience not worth the experience of life? It's an irrational idea. In those instances, it's far better to have existed and experience 99% positivity, 1% negativity, than to not have. Positivity is equal to negativity, after all.

The reason why you feel this way is because you've experienced more negativity in your life than positivity. Your ratio will be way out of balance with most people. In fact, most people probably lead on positivity rather than negativity in their lives. As a result of your experience having more negativity, you believe that that is the case for everyone; you have an inaccurate perception of the norm. Yes, people feel pain and loss regardless of wealth or class or any other factor. But if your positive experiences outweigh the negative ones, which it almost certainly will if you're born a human being, then why should you not exist, given that it's undoubtedly good for your self to have done so?

Again. Antinatalism isn't an idea of assessing results after they've happened. It's risk assessment. I don't believe it's morally acceptable to gamble on someone else's infinite suffering just because you want to experience parenthood.

If someone lives a life that is virtually perfect with minimal suffering (because all people suffer), was their life a good thing? Yes.

But would I have had them if I was their parent? Absolutely not. If I had known their life would be a net good, would I have had them? Maybe I'd consider it. But you don't know. You can try to give your child everything you can, but it doesn't always work. Plenty of kids with good parents still kill themselves.

Maybe they were bullied. Maybe they're insecure. Or maybe they've always been sad and they never had a reason. Maybe everything went right for them and they still wanted to die because their brains were wired that way. It's possible.

Edit: And I forgot to mention disabilities on a post about disabilities. Some children are born disabled, which can make their life harder, make it harder to fit it, and/or literally be physically painful.

But you know what isn't possible? Never experiencing suffering.

Plenty of kids go their entire lives without experiencing joy. Some are born into sex slavery and never escape before they CTB. Some are born into abusive families and die at the hand of their own parent.

But no child has ever lived a life without suffering. So it's wrong to gamble on the possibility of extreme suffering because you desire to be a parent. Adoption exists.

 

[Adûnâi]

Antinatalism does not discriminate against gender, race, sexuality, ethnicity, or social class. Hitler despised all of what I just listed and wanted to cleanse the planet of only certain groups of people, in a very brutal fashion.

People with genetic disorders were prevented from being born. People already born were given an easy way out. This is what historically happened, and I as an honest person consider it in line with my views.

The war was politics, as any other part of a relevant and successful view is. Imagine an anti-natalist revolution which gets squashed by pro-natalists or something lol.

I don't believe it's morally acceptable to gamble on someone else's infinite suffering just because you want to experience parenthood.

I would consider parenthood to be tantamount to rape, and to hell with flimsy logic about how you can't rape him who doesn't yet exist. We are "raped" into existence, my own metaphor (and it has nothing to do with women, it's just being born without consent).

If I had known their life would be a net good, would I have had them? Maybe I'd consider it.

That's a counter-argument - "have kids so that they exterminate the practice of female genital mutilation in Kenya"/"it's an ethical duty to have children until unnecessary suffering disappears from the planet". Again, something like Hitlerism. But having children is still disgusting, and such moral dilemmas are cringe.

 

[Mistiie]

The thing is that there is a 100% guarantee of some sort of suffering. Sure, having money makes it more comfortable but there is always pain no matter what. It's the human condition, because without pain you wouldn't know joy. Someone whose brain dies happy is using that as a coping mechanism.

Again, yes, there's a 100% guarantee of pain. I covered that; a trade-off is to be made. A small amount of pain for a larger amount of joy and general happiness/contentment. This doesn't work out in a fringe number of cases (those being the individuals who end up being suicidal) but the trade-off is successful for most because it seems that there's a greater source of drawback-less positivity (that is to say, positivity that doesn't result in negativity) compared to drawback-less negativity. I'm yet to fully explain that, but I would presume it's to do with nuanced emotions and because negative emotions and positive emotions aren't mutually exclusive results of a particular trigger or event.

Look, in short; yes, there's pain. But there's typically more joy than pain. Otherwise, life wouldn't stick around, or at least not human life. Just because there's some amount of pain, life isn't rendered immediately over as a result. If you end up having a more positive experience than a negative one, then is it not better to have existed than to have not, since the pain's value is negated by the positivity you've experienced?

We all suffer under capitalism. We are destroying the planet, all the species on it, humans continue to kill each other on mass scales and commit atrocities on a daily basis. Society tends do be very individual, but these things on a grand scale effect everyone individually. If you go through life without having to think of the horrors continuing all around you, you're selfish and delusional.

There is no guarantee a child will be born healthy. 1 in 4 Americans suffer from some sort of health problem or disability. Say they are physically fit, but mental illness disable you just as severely. Mental health issues are currently an epidemic in the US. No matter what walk of life you come from, you will suffer.

And this is a good example of exactly what I mean. We all suffer, yet most of us push through, regardless of those so-called horrors you speak of. And that's not to say that they aren't horrors, it's just that they're not immediately affective to most people. Not every person will feel the wrath wrought by war or the hunger driven by famines. They will live blissfully unaware or uncaring out of either ignorance or ignorance born from the inability to act. Ignorance is bliss.

Those who end up on this site are the ones that don't. So why do the majority get past their suffering? The answer is simple; because the positivity they feel in their life outweighs the negativity. There is no other explanation I can think of.

People really love to spread suffering. Anti-natalism removes that tendency, by force if necessary. Just imagine humans as maniacs ready to mutilate genitalia - because that's literally how humans behave in many parts of the world. Humans are a tumour - and a happy tumour brings sickness.

No, they don't. Another misconception. We clinically diagnose and segment those who spread suffering with a select few disorders: psychopathy or antisocial personality disorder. That should be evidence in and of itself that humans aren't inherently set on spreading suffering; otherwise, would we not deem psychopathy or antisocial behaviours to be the norm and accept them entirely whilst requiring mental help for those who are hard-working, kind individuals?

Again. Antinatalism isn't an idea of assessing results after they've happened. It's risk assessment. I don't believe it's morally acceptable to gamble on someone else's infinite suffering just because you want to experience parenthood.

Yes, and the risk assessment is skewed to look as though suffering is an absolute, infinite evil. How about I alter the risk assessment for you:
If you exist, there's a >50% chance that P>=N, where P is positivity and N is negativity. There is a <50% chance that N>P. If you don't exist, then there is a 100% chance that P=N. It's worth mentioning that we know "P>=N = 0.5" because there is ample evidence to suggest that most people die happy, and have a bearable life. This itself is known because life carries on. If it turned out that the experience was far less enjoyable, such that N>P was >50%, then humanity would not exist, as we have a higher level of cognition that allows for us to decide our own fate.

To me, it appears more mathematically sound to choose the first option of existing, as the likelihood that positivity will triumph over negativity is higher. As for the second option, when you're losing, yes, the best option is to not to have played at all, but is it not best to start the game in the first place if you're more likely to win it? In fact, why don't we liken it to a chess match between a grandmaster and a child? Sure, there's a chance the child will win, but more often than not, the grandmaster wins, so why would the grandmaster instead opt not to play? It's not a sound idea.

You also seem to believe that infinite suffering is a very real threat to a born child. There is no such thing as infinity. The universe was born and so too shall it die. There is no such thing as infinity. Everything is within set parameters. Yes, there is extreme suffering, outside of infinity. But as we covered, it makes more sense to exist than to not, at least when you look at it mathematically.

 

[busreservation92]

Absolutely! I've been an Antinatalist since like 12 years of age

 

[Adûnâi]

That should be evidence in and of itself that humans aren't inherently set on spreading suffering; otherwise, would we not deem psychopathy or antisocial behaviours to be the norm and accept them entirely whilst requiring mental help for those who are hard-working, kind individuals?

Umm, don't you understand that people literally inflict suffering _as a bonding mechanism?_ All those stories about mothers cutting off their daughters' vaginas? Or parents in Carthage burning their children alive? Or Palestinians bringing up their children to be suicide bombers? Psychopathy is a meaningless buzzword - society is cruel as it is, morality is built on spreading pain, state by definition is an actor with a monopoly on [large-scale] violence, parents are slave-owners with the green light to torture kids into submission with beatings, rape and holodomors.

Yeah, sure, in America beating children has become illegal in the recent decades - instead, they are given hormones to change their sex or something. Reality is vile and monstrous.

You also seem to believe that infinite suffering is a very real threat to a born child. There is no such thing as infinity.

Isn't 1 infinitely more than 0? Non-existence is not a presence of suffering.

 

[lessthanperfect]

You made another edit, so I'm going to respond to it:

The same thing can be said here. You act as if suffering is an absolute no-no for life. If it were, there wouldn't be life. Suffering is equal to not suffering.

Not really. If I've never experienced joy or suffering, there is no good or bad. Zero and zero is very clearly cut-and-dry equal.

If I've experienced both, it becomes a constant tug-a-war of which happens more.

If you kill my dog and then give me two puppies, will I stop suffering? Objectively I should because negative one dog plus two more dogs equals one dog, which is a net positive, correct? Should I be thanking you what what you did because it's a net positive?

Does the suffering go away as soon as something good "cancels it out"?

No, because suffering and joy cannot be measured objectively. It is impossible. When you suffer once, you suffer indefinitely. One minus one does not equal zero in this instance because it isn't math where you can just calculate the bad away and pretend it never happened.

You can't have one without the other, and so they are equal in value, if that makes sense. I could twist your argument for myself here; if you have a child, that child has a 100% chance of having a positive experience in their life. If you don't, there's a 0% chance.

Again, not true. I gave examples in my other comment that negate this. This is no guarantee of pleasure. There is a guarantee of suffering. That's it.

See how this doesn't work? Your argument here is that no matter how miniscule the suffering is, if it's present, then life just isn't compatible. However, there's a trade-off to be had; most people have positive lives of varying degrees, which makes the trade-off of a little bit of suffering for a life of joy worth it.

Like I said, antinatalism doesn't weigh the reward (edit bc you got confused: antinatalism doesn't weigh the RESULT post-birth). It doesn't matter what happens in "most people's" lives. It matters what you're risking and how you are gambling on someone else's life and not your own.

Gambling on your own is fine. If babies in the void could click a button to be born, that would be fine. It's their own decision.

But you're making the decision for the child, knowing that the risks are infinite suffering, which is inexcusable.

 

[Adûnâi]

It matters what you're risking and how you are gambling on someone else's life and not your own.

Apparently, internalising the concept of bodily autonomy is evolutionarily disadvantageous. Who would've thought? After all, pre-feminist societies are effectively built on [sexual] rape. And all societies are built on disregarding the ethics of child-bearing.

Because human nature is not built on such ethics, it is built on the most efficient way to transform energy. The old have to die, and the young have to be born, and each of them has no inherent value on its own - let alone his ephemeral feelings. We are mere cogs. The issue is that some cogs are apparently self-aware - but not sufficiently so, for suicide is still a non-threatening and uncommon idea to the prevailing majority.

Maybe there is something to the counter-arguments in that only a tiny minority considers suicide? After all, my mom constantly brings up my cousins who don't pester their parents about not having done abortion.

 

[sicklyalive]

People with genetic disorders were prevented from being born. People already born were given an easy way out. This is what historically happened, and I as an honest person consider it in line with my views.

The war was politics, as any other part of a relevant and successful view is. Imagine an anti-natalist revolution which gets squashed by pro-natalists or something lol.


I would consider parenthood to be tantamount to rape, and to hell with flimsy logic about how you can't rape him who doesn't yet exist. We are "raped" into existence, my own metaphor (and it has nothing to do with women, it's just being born without consent).


That's a counter-argument - "have kids so that they exterminate the practice of female genital mutilation in Kenya"/"it's an ethical duty to have children until unnecessary suffering disappears from the planet". Again, something like Hitlerism. But having children is still disgusting, and such moral dilemmas are cringe.

People with genetic disorders were prevented from being born. People already born were given an easy way out. This is what historically happened, and I as an honest person consider it in line with my views.

The war was politics, as any other part of a relevant and successful view is. Imagine an anti-natalist revolution which gets squashed by pro-natalists or something lol.

It's still just as unethical to cull a certain group of a population. Just as a personal example, my conditions are genetic and can only be diagnosed through genetic testing. I have been sick for my whole life and only decades later am I finally seeing a geneticist who will do the proper tests. It's impossible to detect more rare genetic diseases. Technologically we're not there yet, and for my case it would be a while until something like that is possible. Many chronic illnesses don't present until later in life, so there would be no reason for someone to terminate a pregnancy thinking the baby will be born healthy and able bodied.

 

[Mistiie]

Umm, don't you understand that people literally inflict suffering _as a bonding mechanism?_ All those stories about mothers cutting off their daughters' vaginas? Or parents in Carthage burning their children alive? Or Palestinians bringing up their children to be suicide bombers? Psychopathy is a meaningless buzzword - society is cruel as it is, morality is built on spreading pain, state by definition is an actor with a monopoly on [large-scale] violence, parents are slave-owners with the green light to torture kids into submission with beatings, rape and holodomors.

Yeah, sure, in America beating children has become illegal in the recent decades - instead, they are given hormones to change their sex or something. Reality is vile and monstrous.

Yeah, and as you say, we're literally working on not doing that anymore...why do you think you see stories about mothers cutting off daughters' vaginas, or parents burning children alive, or children becoming suicide bombers? If these were socially acceptable behaviours, would you see them on the news, or would they be ingrained into society as a normal action? The answer is the former, if that was not blatantly obvious. Society can be cruel, but as you can see, we're actively working on being less cruel.

I'm also not going to get too into the shitshow that is you calling out HRT, other than saying that it's a cure to a disorder known as "gender dysphoria." Not to mention they're not changing their sex either. Given that you didn't know that, I'll assume that you don't have too much knowledge of it, and that's fair, not many people do, but please actually look into why people undergo gender reassignment before bringing it up as being a negative part of life.

Isn't 1 infinitely more than 0? Non-existence is not a presence of suffering.

Yeah, mathematically, 1 is infinitely more than 0. However, pure mathematics like this doesn't have a physical representation in reality. You'll be hard pressed to find an example of this. Distance is capped. Speed is capped. The energy in the universe is capped. There are no real instances of infinity which is why it sits ever so comfortably in the realm of theory.

I also feel as though you'll mention my dismissal of mathematics used there to represent a mathematical representation of positivity and negativity, so before that happens, I'm going to follow this up by saying that that infinity statement is one of the few exceptions that I would mention when I say that mathematics is representative of reality. In almost every other aspect, it can be used to quantify things like I did in my previous comment.

Not really. If I've never experienced joy or suffering, there is no good or bad. Zero and zero is very clearly cut-and-dry equal.

I don't know what you're trying to say here; I did say that suffering is equal to non-suffering in value. That goes for it as an abstract number (like 1=1 is p=n here) or during an instance of non-existence (un-existence??? Not sure here how you would phrase that.)

If you kill my dog and then give me two puppies, will I stop suffering? Objectively I should because negative one dog plus two more dogs equals one dog, which is a net positive, correct? Should I be thanking you what what you did because it's a net positive?

This is sort of a strawman argument, to be honest. If I killed your dog, there isn't necessarily a fixed amount of positivity or negativity attached to that action. I don't ever recall saying that either. The consequences of an action and the negativity or positivity associated with it change based on every instance of an interaction that occurs with said object or animal or whatever. It does not mean that those actions are equivalent based on arbitrary classes you've defined and placed things into.

No, because suffering and joy cannot be measured objectively. It is impossible. When you suffer once, you suffer indefinitely. One minus one does not equal zero in this instance because it isn't math where you can just calculate the bad away and pretend it never happened.

You're right; suffering and anti-suffering (or whatever) can't be measured objectively, because they're not inherently numerical values. This is where relativity comes into it. Sort of like Einstein's theory of relativity, I suppose, albeit altered for my purposes here. No two individuals necessarily experience suffering and joy in the same way. However, that doesn't mean that they don't equal eachother. If you somehow managed to extract the value associated with each person's joy or each person's suffering and compared them, they would be different values. However, that requires a frame of reference, just like in the physical theory of relativity. No such frame can be identified or created. That is why p=n here. There is no way to measure up one's suffering to another's. As there is no frame of reference to build a comparison on, p can only be one thing, as can n. Comparison requires two separate values, so if no comparison can be drawn, then is it not safe to assume that, yes, p does equal n and so therefore you can just apply an arbitrary numerical value to these letters to represent suffering and anti-suffering in a logical format?

Again, not true. I gave examples in my other comment that negate this. This is no guarantee of pleasure. There is a guarantee of suffering. That's it.

I'll give you this; technically, suffering and anti-suffering aren't necessarily absolute necessities of life. Or at least, the emotions we feel as born individuals aren't. There is one moment where both anti-suffering and suffering can be said not to exist, that being as soon as the baby or fetus can begin 'feeling'. If the baby were to instantly die, quicker than the brain can comprehend something, then suffering wouldn't take place for the individual. Nor would anti-suffering. That's evidence against both, I suppose!

Like I said, antinatalism doesn't weigh the reward. It doesn't matter what happens in "most people's" lives. It matters what you're risking and how you are gambling on someone else's life and not your own.

Gambling on your own is fine. If babies in the void could click a button to be born, that would be fine. It's their own decision.

But you're making the decision for the child, knowing that the risks are infinite suffering, which is inexcusable.

Anti-natalism does weigh the reward, or rather, whatever the opposite of a reward would be. A punishment?

Your description of "0% chance of suffering if not exist, 100% if do" (which we proved false, same for anti-suffering) is weighing up the potential chance of something happening. It doesn't matter how you want to frame it. It's a risk assessment at the same time as weighing of the reward/punishment. You're weighing up the possibilities of something happening if you do something; that's the very definition of it.

Maybe there is something to the counter-arguments in that only a tiny minority considers suicide? After all, my mom constantly brings up my cousins who don't pester their parents about not having done abortion.

You're getting there...

Most people who think about CTB aren't thinking about it to do it, they're wondering what life would be like if they did, or more accurately, what it would be like if they didn't exist, which they see as almost equally imaginable, albeit with no suffering caused to an individual as a result of lack of existence. Not many people think about suicide. I thought this was apparent?

 

[lessthanperfect]

Again, yes, there's a 100% guarantee of pain. I covered that; a trade-off is to be made. A small amount of pain for a larger amount of joy and general happiness/contentment. This doesn't work out in a fringe number of cases (those being the individuals who end up being suicidal) but the trade-off is successful for most because it seems that there's a greater source of drawback-less positivity (that is to say, positivity that doesn't result in negativity) compared to drawback-less negativity. I'm yet to fully explain that, but I would presume it's to do with nuanced emotions and because negative emotions and positive emotions aren't mutually exclusive results of a particular trigger or event.

Look, in short; yes, there's pain. But there's typically more joy than pain. Otherwise, life wouldn't stick around, or at least not human life. Just because there's some amount of pain, life isn't rendered immediately over as a result. If you end up having a more positive experience than a negative one, then is it not better to have existed than to have not, since the pain's value is negated by the positivity you've experienced?

So...what you're saying is there's a 100% guarantee of pain but an average, "typical", usual, "most", etc. measure of happiness outweighing pain?

It makes sense to make that decision for yourself. If you would've chosen to live when the Button of Birth was displayed to you in the void, that's gambling on your own life. Not someone else's.

But the moment you decide to use percentages and words like "typically" or "most" to justify making that decision for a non-consenting child, you are immediately in the wrong.

It doesn't matter the outcome. You took that risk on another person's life because of your own desire for parenthood.

And this is a good example of exactly what I mean. We all suffer, yet most of us push through, regardless of those so-called horrors you speak of. And that's not to say that they aren't horrors, it's just that they're not immediately affective to most people. Not every person will feel the wrath wrought by war or the hunger driven by famines. They will live blissfully unaware or uncaring out of either ignorance or ignorance born from the inability to act. Ignorance is bliss.

Those who end up on this site are the ones that don't. So why do the majority get past their suffering? The answer is simple; because the positivity they feel in their life outweighs the negativity. There is no other explanation I can think of.

Again with the "most"s and "majority"s.

The only way you can justify gambling on the chance of a child not being in that majority is if you believe suicidal people bring this upon ourselves. If we don't bring it upon ourselves, then we were wronged by something.

What were we wronged by? The world? Our parents? Bullies? Maybe for some of us, but for me, my life experiences weren't perfect, but they didn't push me to suicide.

What did push me to suicide were my disabilities that I was born with and my predisposition to suicidal ideation just from having those disabilities. So how could this have been avoided? Not a perfect society. Not perfect parents. Not anti-bullying programs.

My disabilities were caused by the fact that I existed in the first place; because my parents gambled on my life and potential future suffering because they wanted a third kid.

And that is wrong in itself, not just because of the outcome. It was wrong for them to have both of my sisters. And it was wrong for their parents to have them.

Natalists don't care about the lives of their kids because if they did, they wouldn't gamble on their lives just because they want the experience of parenthood.

Yes, and the risk assessment is skewed to look as though suffering is an absolute, infinite evil. How about I alter the risk assessment for you:
If you exist, there's a >50% chance that P>=N, where P is positivity and N is negativity. There is a <50% chance that N>P. If you don't exist, then there is a 100% chance that P=N. It's worth mentioning that we know "P>=N = 0.5" because there is ample evidence to suggest that most people die happy, and have a bearable life. This itself is known because life carries on. If it turned out that the experience was far less enjoyable, such that N>P was >50%, then humanity would not exist, as we have a higher level of cognition that allows for us to decide our own fate.

These numbers are incorrect, but even if they were they don't matter. It doesn't matter what the chance is; it matters that there's a chance.

There's a chance and natalists don't care, because they put their desire for parenthood over consideration of what their future children's lives might actually look like instead of their assumption that "my child won't be the one [to suffer like that]; it's such a low chance."

When every natalist thinks that way, plenty of kids do suffer. And some grow up into adults and continue to suffer. And every natalist has committed a grievous wrong against their child[ren]--even the parents whose children grow up happy and healthy--because they bet on their child's life for their own desires.

To me, it appears more mathematically sound to choose the first option of existing, as the likelihood that positivity will triumph over negativity is higher. As for the second option, when you're losing, yes, the best option is to not to have played at all, but is it not best to start the game in the first place if you're more likely to win it? In fact, why don't we liken it to a chess match between a grandmaster and a child? Sure, there's a chance the child will win, but more often than not, the grandmaster wins, so why would the grandmaster instead opt not to play? It's not a sound idea.

Again, no one cares which is more "mathematically sound" or what "most people" experience, "more often than not".

Some will suffer. Your child may be the one to suffer. Are you willing to take that risk?

If you do take the risk, you are in the moral wrong because you are imposing that kind of risk on a non-consenting being.

The grandmaster consents to his own chess match; it is not imposed upon him. And a chess match is not a 100% chance of suffering, like life is.

The grandmaster has a 100% chance of still having life experiences and suffering if he rejects the chess match. The future child has a 0% chance of suffering if you chose not to force him into life.

You also seem to believe that infinite suffering is a very real threat to a born child. There is no such thing as infinity. The universe was born and so too shall it die. There is no such thing as infinity. Everything is within set parameters. Yes, there is extreme suffering, outside of infinity. But as we covered, it makes more sense to exist than to not, at least when you look at it mathematically.

Infinite suffering = immeasurable suffering.

You have misunderstood the definition of infinite. It does not mean infinity in this context. It means a non-finite measurement, or a non-measurable measurement.

Because the amount of suffering is indefinite, it is also immeasurable and therefore infinite.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:
Infinite: limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

Don't try to catch me on technicalities if you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Mistiie]

So...what you're saying is there's a 100% guarantee of pain but an average, "typical", usual, "most", etc. measure of happiness outweighing pain?

It makes sense to make that decision for yourself. If you would've chosen to live when the Button of Birth was displayed to you in the void, that's gambling on your own life. Not someone else's.

But the moment you decide to use percentages and words like "typically" or "most" to justify making that decision for a non-consenting child, you are immediately in the wrong.

It doesn't matter the outcome. You took that risk on another person's life because of your own desire for parenthood.

Saying I'm immediately wrong for opting for a choice where happiness is more likely than sadness is wrong itself. Let me try and describe what I'm explaining to you in a diagram:

Apologies for the poor drawing, I had to use JSPaint, but it gets the idea across well enough.
When you have a child, what that child feels isn't necessarily of most importance to you. What does matter is what you will feel. That's not to say that what the child feels isn't important, but it's not what comes first. You are hardcoded to want to have children. That goes for most life, and I've yet to find a counterexample of this. Now, if you have a child, let's say you gain a point of positivity. Congrats. You are now completely disassociated from any sort of action which would affect positivity based on the child existing or not, because that state has already been determined. Now, if you were to look at all of the Person(s) as one entity, you would naturally assume that that entity would want to keep having children over and over again, so that the overall "positivity" increases. If someone doesn't have a child, the entity ceases to increase and the positivity is set from that point onward (not in reality, because multiple children, but this is for theory.) If you want to think of it like a score, it's effectively trying to get a high score by having children in your bloodline. The more children, the better it feels for the parent.

Now, evolution, albeit unconsciously, since it's not a physical property, did notice your idea of it not being 'fair' to decide for the child. That's why there's a >=50% chance of positivity in life, if there's life. It serves as an incentive for a parent to have a child as well as a method of ensuring that a child doesn't take the third route I didn't label, and become an anti-natalist, or just in general someone who doesn't want children. That stops the growth of that entity as well, which limits the positivity that can be created as a result. In fact, the fact that this diagram works is evidence of p being >=50% as well, because the consequence of p not being that would be that there would be an eventual extinction of the human race (should p remain unchanged) as less children would be born as more children end up not desiring children.

You can look at it as gambling if you really want to, but in this instance, if you do want to call it that, that doesn't make it a bad thing, because it's logically correct for you to 'gamble' on it, and that child in the womb is more than likely going to appreciate you gambling on it because p >=50%. That's the gist of the idea. The desire for parenthood alone isn't a valid reason for having children, but the desire for it plus the positivity that a child is more likely to face...? That makes it worth it, and we know that makes it worth it because it's worked in practice so far. This is the theory of why children are born rather than life having been a one-and-done thing as a weird proto-cellular mass down in the deep, dark ocean full of primordial soup. And this theory has proven true so far, for billions of years.

What were we wronged by? The world? Our parents? Bullies? Maybe for some of us, but for me, my life experiences weren't perfect, but they didn't push me to suicide.

What did push me to suicide were my disabilities that I was born with and my predisposition to suicidal ideation just from having those disabilities. So how could this have been avoided? Not a perfect society. Not perfect parents. Not anti-bullying programs.
My disabilities were caused by the fact that I existed in the first place; because my parents gambled on my life and potential future suffering because they wanted a third kid.

And that is wrong in itself, not just because of the outcome. It was wrong for them to have both of my sisters. And it was wrong for their parents to have them.

Natalists don't care about the lives of their kids because if they did, they wouldn't gamble on their lives just because they want the experience of parenthood.

That is being wronged by something still. Having a predisposition to suicidal ideation, and suffering as a result of your disabilities, is being wronged by something. As odd as it is, it's really being wronged by your own limitations. I'm not sure what disability you have, but I assume there's someone else out there, or other people rather, that have it too. Are they all suicidal? Not necessarily. They don't feel wronged by their own limitations. You do. That's not to say that you're a bad person or anything for being wronged by your disabilities, or worse than them, but it does mean that you were wronged by something, even if it was part of you. It doesn't have to be an external factor.

These numbers are incorrect, but even if they were they don't matter. It doesn't matter what the chance is; it matters that there's a chance.

There's a chance and natalists don't care, because they put their desire for parenthood over consideration of what their future children's lives might actually look like instead of their assumption that "my child won't be the one [to suffer like that]; it's such a low chance."

When every natalist thinks that way, plenty of kids do suffer. And some grow up into adults and continue to suffer. And every natalist has committed a grievous wrong against their child[ren]--even the parents whose children grow up happy and healthy--because they bet on their child's life for their own desires.

Why are those numbers incorrect? Just saying they are doesn't mean they are. As far as I can tell, the way I've presented it is logically sound, and the concept works theoretically. I've had an incredibly long time to think about these things and I've been refining them for topics of discussion like this for quite a while, so I'm interested to know how you see them as wrong.

The second paragraph kind of relates to my first point about natalism literally being what life wants you to do and what it's really about, but I do need to re-mention that the parents may put their desire to have a child over the future child's life, but that doesn't mean that that the future life isn't taken into account either. If my figures were wrong, as I mentioned earlier, life would face a very sharp and sudden extinction, within a couple thousand years or so. P needs to be >=50% or else children will grow up to be anti-natalists, and they won't want children.

And yes, every natalist thinks that way. It's how you're meant to think so that life fulfils its purpose. And yes, plenty of kids do suffer. And yes, some grow up into adults and continue to suffer. But again, as much as you hate this word apparently, the majority don't. And that's good enough for life. It's why anti-natalism is fundamentally flawed. If anti-natalism was a correct philosophy, then the majority would face suffering. Life would be a net negative. But they don't, which renders anti-natalism in regards to the wider system of life.

Again, no one cares which is more "mathematically sound" or what "most people" experience, "more often than not".

Some will suffer. Your child may be the one to suffer. Are you willing to take that risk?

If you do take the risk, you are in the moral wrong because you are imposing that kind of risk on a non-consenting being.

The grandmaster consents to his own chess match; it is not imposed upon him. And a chess match is not a 100% chance of suffering, like life is.

The grandmaster has a 100% chance of still having life experiences and suffering if he rejects the chess match. The future child has a 0% chance of suffering if you chose not to force him into life.

Uh, you very much should care which is more "mathematically sound" or what "most people" experience, "more often than not." These arguments render anti-natalism to be flawed. It doesn't work. Ignoring these arguments is like walking into a forest and choosing to ignore the trees...you're missing the entire point if you do so.

If I wanted to have children, which I don't, as I am fundamentally broken like that, as my theory/ies dictate/s, then yes, I would be willing to take that risk. And no, I wouldn't be in the moral wrong. Let's put it this way; would you be in the moral wrong for not allowing a non-consenting being a chance at life? Or would that not apply, because the being isn't even a being yet, nor is it able to consent? If the chances were that it would experience positivity over negativity, yet you didn't allow it to receive that increased chance, are you morally wrong?
I do withdraw from the grandmaster analogy though, I suppose it's not perfect. Then again, what analogy is? Although, again, you're wrong on life being a 100% chance of suffering, as I already proved...

Infinite suffering = immeasurable suffering.

You have misunderstood the definition of infinite. It does not mean infinity in this context. It means a non-finite measurement, or a non-measurable measurement.

Because the amount of suffering is indefinite, it is also immeasurable and therefore infinite.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:
Infinite: limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

Don't try to catch me on technicalities if you don't know what you're talking about.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:
Infinity: the state of having no end or limit.
A state of having no end or limit can be described as limitless. Therefore, Infinite = Infinity. One and the same.

There is no such thing as something immeasurable as a result of there being no bound. The only way in which something becomes immeasurable is if there is nothing to reference it with. An unbounded thing or value, and therefore an immeasurable quality excluding the same type of quality caused by a lack of reference, is not a thing that can exist in this universe. As I said, everything is finite. Everything has a limit. From the distance that something can exist in, to the amount of time that can pass, or in other words, how long an "instant" is, to how much energy or how many particles there are in this universe, nothing can exist in a state that can be called "limitless" or "endless." It is simply not a property of the universe, as far as we can tell right now. An impossibility to measure or calculate is, as I said, something that is immeasurable...I'm not going to repeat myself on what that means.

So yes, I do know exactly what I'm talking about. I've had quite a few years to think about what life means, and I've refined my ideas and theories beyond what anyone should would reasonably do. Please don't act as if your words are somehow exempt from being "caught on technicalities".

 

[lessthanperfect]

I'm also not going to get too into the shitshow that is you calling out HRT, other than saying that it's a cure to a disorder known as "gender dysphoria." Not to mention they're not changing their sex either. Given that you didn't know that, I'll assume that you don't have too much knowledge of it, and that's fair, not many people do, but please actually look into why people undergo gender reassignment before bringing it up as being a negative part of life.

Holy shit I didn't see that the first time around. I was refusing to like their comments because of those horrific Nazism comments, but I didn't see their comments about gender affirming care.

I guess now would be a good time to tell them that I, the person they think agrees with them, am trans.

Apparently, internalising the concept of bodily autonomy is evolutionarily disadvantageous. Who would've thought? After all, pre-feminist societies are effectively built on [sexual] rape. And all societies are built on disregarding the ethics of child-bearing.

Because human nature is not built on such ethics, it is built on the most efficient way to transform energy. The old have to die, and the young have to be born, and each of them has no inherent value on its own - let alone his ephemeral feelings. We are mere cogs. The issue is that some cogs are apparently self-aware - but not sufficiently so, for suicide is still a non-threatening and uncommon idea to the prevailing majority.

Agreed. Evolution wants us to have babies because evolution cares only for what is beneficial to population growth, not for what is morally right.

Yeah, sure, in America beating children has become illegal in the recent decades - instead, they are given hormones to change their sex or something. Reality is vile and monstrous.

Which is done after thorough consultation with the child's parent(s), therapist(s), doctor(s), and medical team (and self) and only in the most dire of cases, such as when they believe the child is at risk to themselves if they do not receive the proper treatment.

Gender affirming care is not comparable to child abuse in any way, at all, because
1) gender affirming care treats a medically recognized disorder, gender dysphoria, while there is no such medical disorder for a child with "disobedient disorder" in which the proper standard of care is beating them.
2) while allowing gender affirming care is a decision made by a team, including the child's parents AND medical professionals, beating your child is a decision made alone by a parent who does not have the proper credentials to say that this is the cure for the child's misbehavior.
3) gender affirming care has been studied and proven effective at decreasing depression, suicidal ideation, gender dysphoria, body dysmorphia, etc., while beating your child has never once been proven to have a single positive effect (and has clear negative effects).

And beating your child is still not illegal. Beating them to death or leaving bruises is, but a parent's legal right of corporal punishment includes everything from a slap on the hand to literally whipping them with a belt. Still legal and still an issue.

Yeah, mathematically, 1 is infinitely more than 0. However, pure mathematics like this doesn't have a physical representation in reality. You'll be hard pressed to find an example of this. Distance is capped. Speed is capped. The energy in the universe is capped. There are no real instances of infinity which is why it sits ever so comfortably in the realm of theory.

I also feel as though you'll mention my dismissal of mathematics used there to represent a mathematical representation of positivity and negativity, so before that happens, I'm going to follow this up by saying that that infinity statement is one of the few exceptions that I would mention when I say that mathematics is representative of reality. In almost every other aspect, it can be used to quantify things like I did in my previous comment.

I disagree with @Adûnâi 's assessment of this.

Infinite does not equal infinity. End of story.

I don't know what you're trying to say here; I did say that suffering is equal to non-suffering in value. That goes for it as an abstract number (like 1=1 is p=n here) or during an instance of non-existence (un-existence??? Not sure here how you would phrase that.)

You replied to this before reading the next point. I emphasized that zero = zero so that I could emphasize the difference between that measurable quantity (zero) and the immeasurable qualities of suffering and joy.

Suffering and joy are always immeasurable and incomparable and one good thing does not cancel out one bad thing.

If I killed your dog, there isn't necessarily a fixed amount of positivity or negativity attached to that action.

Exactly. The same goes for every other instance of suffering or joy.

Neither is measurable and therefore they are not comparable and cannot cancel out the other, like you've been trying to do this whole time (by calculating the percentages of one's life that is suffering or joy).

I don't ever recall saying that either. The consequences of an action and the negativity or positivity associated with it change based on every instance of an interaction that occurs with said object or animal or whatever. It does not mean that those actions are equivalent based on arbitrary classes you've defined and placed things into.

Exactly. Suffering is immeasurable. It cannot be weighed against joy (which is also immeasurable).

You're right; suffering and anti-suffering (or whatever) can't be measured objectively, because they're not inherently numerical values. This is where relativity comes into it. Sort of like Einstein's theory of relativity, I suppose, albeit altered for my purposes here. No two individuals necessarily experience suffering and joy in the same way. However, that doesn't mean that they don't equal eachother. If you somehow managed to extract the value associated with each person's joy or each person's suffering and compared them, they would be different values. However, that requires a frame of reference, just like in the physical theory of relativity. No such frame can be identified or created. That is why p=n here. There is no way to measure up one's suffering to another's. As there is no frame of reference to build a comparison on, p can only be one thing, as can n. Comparison requires two separate values, so if no comparison can be drawn, then is it not safe to assume that, yes, p does equal n and so therefore you can just apply an arbitrary numerical value to these letters to represent suffering and anti-suffering in a logical format?

No...it's not safe to assume that p=n just because you don't know what p or n is...

If I asked you "is that building the same height as that chicken?" are you going to answer me "well, they must be, because I haven't measured either of them." I would hope not.

Just because two things are immeasurable does not mean those two indefinite quantities are equal.

I'll give you this; technically, suffering and anti-suffering aren't necessarily absolute necessities of life. Or at least, the emotions we feel as born individuals aren't. There is one moment where both anti-suffering and suffering can be said not to exist, that being as soon as the baby or fetus can begin 'feeling'. If the baby were to instantly die, quicker than the brain can comprehend something, then suffering wouldn't take place for the individual. Nor would anti-suffering. That's evidence against both, I suppose!

"Suffering and joy aren't necessities of life because babies who die don't feel them!" Using babies who die in utero as an example of life is actually the weirdest take I've ever heard.

That's actually one of my arguments for antinatalism.

It's why I'm pro-abortion. Better to prevent the future child from both suffering and joy before they can comprehend either.

Anti-natalism does weigh the reward, or rather, whatever the opposite of a reward would be. A punishment?

I worded it badly, but my point is the same. Antinatalism doesn't weigh the reward POST-BIRTH.

Once the baby is born, it doesn't matter if your betting paid off and they live a happy life; the fact that you gambled on the child's infinite suffering in the first place is horrific.

Your description of "0% chance of suffering if not exist, 100% if do" (which we proved false, same for anti-suffering)

We did not agree on this. You made a claim, I made a counterexample, and you continued to hold your position, but so did I. Don't act like this is an established truth. You have not won this point.

Your description of "0% chance of suffering if not exist, 100% if do" (which we proved false, same for anti-suffering) is weighing up the potential chance of something happening. It doesn't matter how you want to frame it. It's a risk assessment at the same time as weighing of the reward/punishment. You're weighing up the possibilities of something happening if you do something; that's the very definition of it.

I never tried to "frame it" any way. I just worded my statement badly and you misunderstood.

It IS risk vs. reward, but the fundamental piece that it is not your decision to make and yet you make it anyway.

I am not deciding what gives the baby the best chance. It doesn't need a chance at all. I am deciding what prevents the baby from unnecessary harm.

You are deciding that it's better to push a button that has a 95% likelihood of giving someone $100 and a 5% chance of stabbing someone and would do it over and over and over and over and over so many times that many children get stabbed in the ordeal just because you can say "well I didn't know what would happen each time I pushed it, it was randomized!"

(These are random numbers. Not an actual assessment of the risk, because I personally am not going to make up information that I do not have and purport it as fact like you did earlier with your percents.)

 

[Forever Sleep]

I hear what you say, but antinatalism basically states that anyone born endures suffering. What is the point of suffering do you think? Whether you're rich or poor, you feel pain, loss, and other negative emotions. Like others in the thread have pointed out it's better to not exist than exist at all.

Exactly! The fact that we have to be forced with such a brutal choice to begin with is inhumane

For me- it isn't just about the pain and suffering potential- although- that's obviously an enormous risk. It's that we aren't given a choice. (At least- I don't think we are.) I think people mostly have children because they want them. Then- when they have them- the child that becomes an adult is still under the same pressure. We have to stay for them. We are supposed to just make the best of it. Be grateful for our lives. Thrive. Try not to become too much of a burden to those who initiated this mess to begin with and then either did their best parenting wise- or- didn't.

Most people would say forcing a sentient being into an experiment where really nasty things could happen is wrong. Why is bringing a child into this world any different? It's still denying an eventual sentient being choice. What's worse- we can't easily choose to quit either! That would do something to remedy it but- that's not allowed either!

 

[lessthanperfect]

Saying I'm immediately wrong for opting for a choice where happiness is more likely than sadness is wrong itself. Let me try and describe what I'm explaining to you in a diagram:
View attachment 124716

No child is not "negative feeling". Nothing cannot be negative. It's why "negative zero" doesn't exist. Your graph makes no sense.

When you have a child, what that child feels isn't necessarily of most importance to you.

And that's the point of antinatalism. Natalists are doing it out of selfishness. And selfishness is immoral when it harms others.

This is an argument of morality, not what will make the parents the most happy.

I don't care if I'm neutral and not +1 Positivity. At least I didn't torture a child or risk torturing a child to get there.

What does matter is what you will feel. That's not to say that what the child feels isn't important, but it's not what comes first. You are hardcoded to want to have children. That goes for most life, and I've yet to find a counterexample of this. Now, if you have a child, let's say you gain a point of positivity. Congrats. You are now completely disassociated from any sort of action which would affect positivity based on the child existing or not, because that state has already been determined. Now, if you were to look at all of the Person(s) as one entity, you would naturally assume that that entity would want to keep having children over and over again, so that the overall "positivity" increases. If someone doesn't have a child, the entity ceases to increase and the positivity is set from that point onward (not in reality, because multiple children, but this is for theory.) If you want to think of it like a score, it's effectively trying to get a high score by having children in your bloodline. The more children, the better it feels for the parent.

That's fucking disgusting, wtf?

"It doesn't matter whether the baby suffers if the parents are happy because they get +1 Positivity when the baby gets -1 Positivity!!!!"

If I get really happy (+2) by slapping you and you only get half as sad (-1) from being slapped, should I slap you? No, because that's fucking selfish. You don't want to be slapped.

But it's a 2 to 1 ratio, so with your logic wouldn't that make it okay?

If I get really happy by having a baby but the baby suffers their entire life and kills themselves at 13, would that be a neutral event? Because the parent had "+1 Positivity" and the child had "-1 Positivity"?????

Now, evolution, albeit unconsciously, since it's not a physical property, did notice your idea of it not being 'fair' to decide for the child. That's why there's a >=50% chance of positivity in life, if there's life. It serves as an incentive for a parent to have a child as well as a method of ensuring that a child doesn't take the third route I didn't label, and become an anti-natalist, or just in general someone who doesn't want children. That stops the growth of that entity as well, which limits the positivity that can be created as a result. In fact, the fact that this diagram works is evidence of p being >=50% as well, because the consequence of p not being that would be that there would be an eventual extinction of the human race (should p remain unchanged) as less children would be born as more children end up not desiring children.

As I am an antinatalist, yes. That's the goal. Human extinction does not scare me.

You can look at it as gambling if you really want to, but in this instance, if you do want to call it that, that doesn't make it a bad thing, because it's logically correct for you to 'gamble' on it, and that child in the womb is more than likely going to appreciate you gambling on it because p >=50%. That's the gist of the idea. The desire for parenthood alone isn't a valid reason for having children, but the desire for it plus the positivity that a child is more likely to face...? That makes it worth it, and we know that makes it worth it because it's worked in practice so far. This is the theory of why children are born rather than life having been a one-and-done thing as a weird proto-cellular mass down in the deep, dark ocean full of primordial soup. And this theory has proven true so far, for billions of years.

MORE THAN 50% IS ENOUGH TO RISK TORTURING A CHILD??????? ONLY >50%????? That's horrific.

Okay. I think I'm about done with this conversation. I'm arguing against someone who thinks it would be okay to risk a 49% chance of their child living a painful life that ends in suicide just because it would give them a slight boost of oxytocin to have a baby.

That is being wronged by something still. Having a predisposition to suicidal ideation, and suffering as a result of your disabilities, is being wronged by something.

Yes. I know. That's what I was saying. I was wronged by my parents' decision. They knew the risks to existence and still decided to gamble with my life. And it backfired.

As odd as it is, it's really being wronged by your own limitations. I'm not sure what disability you have, but I assume there's someone else out there, or other people rather, that have it too. Are they all suicidal? Not necessarily. They don't feel wronged by their own limitations. You do.That's not to say that you're a bad person or anything for being wronged by your disabilities, or worse than them, but it does mean that you were wronged by something, even if it was part of you. It doesn't have to be an external factor.

And oh my god. There it is, just like I predicted multiple comments ago.

The only way you can justify gambling on the chance of a child not being in that majority is if you believe suicidal people bring this upon ourselves. If we don't bring it upon ourselves, then we were wronged by something.

You've done it. It's my fault I'm suicidal clearly because there's no disability in which every person who has it has killed themselves. Excellent point. /s

If you want to know, I have 3 (commonly comorbid, so not that strange): Autism, ADHD, and OCD.

For autism alone, 66% of autistic people have considered suicide and 35% of us have attempted it (I am in the 35%). Compared to 0.5% of the general population, 15% of autistic children have considered suicide (I am in this group). Despite the fact that autistic people make up 1% of the population, a study there found that 11% of suicides are autistic people and 15% of suicide attempts that result in hospitalization are autistic people. 80% of autistic people have a mental health condition (ex: depression, anxiety, etc.). In 2020, 1/4 of people who committed suicide had autism or ADHD.

Also, 11-41% percent of people who commit suicide are suspected to have autism (the 11 is the original 11% who are KNOWN to have ASD), even though we make up 1% of the population. Take from that what you will.

Despite that data, I'd say that my ADHD contributes to my suicidal ideation more than my autism, but that's a topic for another day.

The point is, it's kinda weird that 66% of us want to die. And more than a third of us have attempted suicide. If we're just overly affected by our limitations.

You sort of backtracked, but you still said it and you could've deleted it if you didn't mean it.

Why are those numbers incorrect? Just saying they are doesn't mean they are. As far as I can tell, the way I've presented it is logically sound, and the concept works theoretically. I've had an incredibly long time to think about these things and I've been refining them for topics of discussion like this for quite a while, so I'm interested to know how you see them as wrong.

You made a guess about 50% and then had the audacity to say that if it was a <50% chance of your child being tortured, you were okay with those odds.

The second paragraph kind of relates to my first point about natalism literally being what life wants you to do and what it's really about, but I do need to re-mention that the parents may put their desire to have a child over the future child's life, but that doesn't mean that that the future life isn't taken into account either. If my figures were wrong, as I mentioned earlier, life would face a very sharp and sudden extinction, within a couple thousand years or so. P needs to be >=50% or else children will grow up to be anti-natalists, and they won't want children.

And yes, every natalist thinks that way. It's how you're meant to think so that life fulfils its purpose. And yes, plenty of kids do suffer. And yes, some grow up into adults and continue to suffer. But again, as much as you hate this word apparently, the majority don't. And that's good enough for life. It's why anti-natalism is fundamentally flawed. If anti-natalism was a correct philosophy, then the majority would face suffering. Life would be a net negative. But they don't, which renders anti-natalism in regards to the wider system of life.

Yes, like I said: the majority of people are natalists and all natalists are selfish. So I'm not surprised to hear that the majority of people are selfish and have no empathy.

Uh, you very much should care which is more "mathematically sound" or what "most people" experience, "more often than not." These arguments render anti-natalism to be flawed. It doesn't work. Ignoring these arguments is like walking into a forest and choosing to ignore the trees...you're missing the entire point if you do so.

Antinatalism states that the 100% chance of suffering is worse than any possibility of prosperity. Your mathematical assumptions have nothing to do with the fact that you agreed that there's a 100% chance of suffering and not a 100% chance of prosperity.

Risking that; having a child knowing only one thing that'll happen in their life--that they'll suffer--and still having children is morally wrong. The end.

If I wanted to have children, which I don't, as I am fundamentally broken like that, as my theory/ies dictate/s, then yes, I would be willing to take that risk. And no, I wouldn't be in the moral wrong. Let's put it this way; would you be in the moral wrong for not allowing a non-consenting being a chance at life? Or would that not apply, because the being isn't even a being yet, nor is it able to consent? If the chances were that it would experience positivity over negativity, yet you didn't allow it to receive that increased chance, are you morally wrong?

The chances are that it's not your choice to make and that by making it, you assume all responsibility for any and all suffering they experience or may experience in life because none of it would've happened if you hadn't forced them into existence.

I do withdraw from the grandmaster analogy though, I suppose it's not perfect. Then again, what analogy is? Although, again, you're wrong on life being a 100% chance of suffering, as I already proved...

You didn't prove it; you stated it. And I disagreed. No proofs were given from either side.

Stating your opinion without any evidence provided to the contrary is not proof.

If I say a planet 1 million light years away is made of chocolate and you give no proof to the contrary, that doesn't make me right.

According to the Oxford Dictionary:

Infinity: the state of having no end or limit.
A state of having no end or limit can be described as limitless. Therefore, Infinite = Infinity. One and the same.

Then you're not using infinity as a number and your earlier point is invalid. You proved yourself wrong for me.

There is no such thing as something immeasurable as a result of there being no bound. The only way in which something becomes immeasurable is if there is nothing to reference it with. An unbounded thing or value, and therefore an immeasurable quality excluding the same type of quality caused by a lack of reference, is not a thing that can exist in this universe. As I said, everything is finite. Everything has a limit. From the distance that something can exist in, to the amount of time that can pass, or in other words, how long an "instant" is, to how much energy or how many particles there are in this universe, nothing can exist in a state that can be called "limitless" or "endless." It is simply not a property of the universe, as far as we can tell right now. An impossibility to measure or calculate is, as I said, something that is immeasurable...I'm not going to repeat myself on what that means.

Feelings are immeasurable. They cannot be quantified. They cannot be bottled. They cannot be stretched. Comparing feelings to physical properties is strange.

So yes, I do know exactly what I'm talking about. I've had quite a few years to think about what life means, and I've refined my ideas and theories beyond what anyone should would reasonably do. Please don't act as if your words are somehow exempt from being "caught on technicalities".

My words aren't exempt from being caught on technicalities, but in that specific example they were, because it was in the word's definition, which I had handy. Not sure why you're pushing a point that you've already lost.

Edit: Also, I am done. Have a good day. I don't feel like continuing an argument with someone who thinks my suicidal thoughts are my fault and a 49% chance is a small enough chance that they would risk hurting a child.

 

[Kawaii_Shoujo215]

I'm gonna tip in here and give my take:

Giving birth to a child, which couldn't have experienced any negative or positive experience if it hadn't been born, deprives the children who already exist (as orphans/in foster care) of a potential family and is therefore harmful to others. If a person truly wishes to raise a child, they should adopt (in theory, setting aside the process of adoption) instead of giving birth, so the existing child and now adoptive parent both "win" and the child which doesn't exist isn't harmed (nor is anyone else)

In addition to this, we have discussed the possibility of the born child being a potential victim of suffering, but it's important to note that any given person isn't just a potential victim, but also a potential perpetrator or oppressor. Take meat eating, for example. If the child doesn't grow up vegan (which is statistically very likely), its existence will cause harm to animals by increasing demand and therefore supply (more suffering). Since this is just an example, veganism alone wouldn't solve the issue, since there are countless ways in which the child will be and could be a perpetrator or a cause of suffering.

Tl;dr: adopt instead of giving birth

 

[Adûnâi]

Yeah, and as you say, we're literally working on not doing that anymore...why do you think you see stories about mothers cutting off daughters' vaginas, or parents burning children alive, or children becoming suicide bombers? If these were socially acceptable behaviours, would you see them on the news, or would they be ingrained into society as a normal action? The answer is the former, if that was not blatantly obvious. Society can be cruel, but as you can see, we're actively working on being less cruel.

There is no "we". There is no united humanity. There are different cultures, more or less autonomous, sovereign, closed off to foreign intervention. People in Gaza don't get to see themselves on TV as something abhorrent - to them, their brutality is their offline life. Those behaviours _are_ widely accepted - in their respective cultures.

Again, giving children sex-change hormones would be considered as mutilating as FGM is to you, an "enlightened" Westerner. Apparently, all cultures are abominable in their own preposterous way. (Yes, I'm talking from the PoV of a hypothetical Star Child from A.C. Clarke, observing mankind with aversion.)

 

[FuneralCry]

I see procreating as such a cruel, horrific crime as it's the inevitable creation of suffering and problems that there was never a need for in the first place. Once one exists in this hellish reality where chance so senselessly determines everything they are capable of suffering to unlimited amounts and this is why I'd always prefer to not exist, it disgusts me how people force life into this reality.

It really is undeniable that existence just causes harm and if one never existed they never would have been able to mourn for how they lack the ability to suffer in this meaningless existence, instead they'd be eternally unaware.

Procreation is disgusting as if nobody procreated then no human would ever suffer, the only rational and compassionate outcome is to let this species go extinct, as it's such a curse to exist as a conscious being. Human existence is torturous, burdensome and futile, existence just causes unnecessary suffering that nobody would had missed out on if they never existed.

 

[sicklyalive]

There is no "we". There is no united humanity. There are different cultures, more or less autonomous, sovereign, closed off to foreign intervention. People in Gaza don't get to see themselves on TV as something abhorrent - to them, their brutality is their offline life. Those behaviours _are_ widely accepted - in their respective cultures.

Again, giving children sex-change hormones would be considered as mutilating as FGM is to you, an "enlightened" Westerner. Apparently, all cultures are abominable in their own preposterous way. (Yes, I'm talking from the PoV of a hypothetical Star Child from A.C. Clarke, observing mankind with aversion.)

Unsure as to why you keep talking about "sex change". That is not how it works. You can't just go to the doctor as a minor and they'll give you hormones. It can be a long, drawn out process, which is pointed out in the thread but gender affirming care has many studies backing up it's legitimacy. Accessing any type of healthcare is extremely difficult even in a developed country like the US. Also, biological sex is more complex than male or female. You can have people born with both or a mix of both sex organs, some with different chromosomes, and intersex folks. Your attitude that kids get sex changes like free candy is gross. Gender affirming care saves lives just like access to mental healthcare support.

 

[Mistiie]

No child is not "negative feeling". Nothing cannot be negative. It's why "negative zero" doesn't exist. Your graph makes no sense.

Except it does, because I'm not talking about what the child is feeling. I'm talking about what the parent is feeling. If you don't have a child, then it absolutely makes sense from the perspective of anything alive that you would feel pretty negative about that. It's kind of the whole reason of life and all that, and not having a child kind of means you invalidated it. I suppose that the graph could be amended to say "no or negative feelings" but the point I'm trying to represent with that graph is that having a child increases the positive feelings you have, and not doing that doesn't. It's clear to see why a future parent would be, well, a parent, if you look at it that way.

And that's the point of antinatalism. Natalists are doing it out of selfishness. And selfishness is immoral when it harms others.

This is an argument of morality, not what will make the parents the most happy.

I don't care if I'm neutral and not +1 Positivity. At least I didn't torture a child or risk torturing a child to get there.

Century Dictionary definition of "selfishness": The quality or state of being selfish; exclusive regard to one's own interest or happiness; that supreme self-love or self-preference which leads a person to direct his purposes to the advancement of his own interest, power, or happiness, without regarding those of others.
Parents aren't being selfish if they have a child, because they aren't taking an exclusive interest in themselves. The feelings of the child are still taken into consideration, they're just lesser in value than those of the parents in that scenario.

That's fucking disgusting, wtf?

"It doesn't matter whether the baby suffers if the parents are happy because they get +1 Positivity when the baby gets -1 Positivity!!!!"

If I get really happy (+2) by slapping you and you only get half as sad (-1) from being slapped, should I slap you? No, because that's fucking selfish. You don't want to be slapped.

But it's a 2 to 1 ratio, so with your logic wouldn't that make it okay?

If I get really happy by having a baby but the baby suffers their entire life and kills themselves at 13, would that be a neutral event? Because the parent had "+1 Positivity" and the child had "-1 Positivity"?????

Amazing strawman with the second line, I'm almost proud.

It should be clear that that wasn't what I was saying to basically anyone reading my comment. If you had actually read my comment, you would've clocked that I said that, as I said in the response to your previous quote, the child's feelings (or rather, potential feelings) are taken second. I never said they weren't taken into consideration, did I? I thought I actually made sure to really make that point, but whatever.

As for the slapping analogy, it's kind of poor since, as I've mentioned before, the feelings formed by an action change in value for every time the action is committed, so those slaps would grow less and less satisfying, and probably less miserable for the slapped. Another issue is that you're doing exactly what I mentioned you can't do in these scenarios, which would render that analogy completely inaccurate, and that is to measure the worth of feelings against someone else. It's not possible. There's no way to form a frame of reference for that. No comparison can be made. Another another issue with what you're saying is that you're intentionally twisting the numbers so it looks more ridiculous than it is. How much pleasure do you actually think someone derives from slapping, and how much pleasure do you think someone derives from being slapped? I would argue that being slapped evokes much more emotion than slapping in the first place. Same goes for having a child. If you experience giving birth to a child, that's a good feeling. Very very good, but not sky-high. Now let's look at the CTB of your child. That would be unimaginably horrific for the parents, and even just friends. Many never recover from the state of mind that lingers afterwards. They're almost incomparable events. It seems to me as if you're simplifying it just so the argument looks more absurd than it actually is, by equating events that wouldn't evoke as much emotion as another would.

MORE THAN 50% IS ENOUGH TO RISK TORTURING A CHILD??????? ONLY >50%????? That's horrific.

Okay. I think I'm about done with this conversation. I'm arguing against someone who thinks it would be okay to risk a 49% chance of their child living a painful life that ends in suicide just because it would give them a slight boost of oxytocin to have a baby.

I don't know what else to tell you other than that 49% of children don't CTB. If you think this, then you need to go outside a bit more. There's no other way of putting that. There is an obvious twisting of words at this point to make the argument seem stupid. "Torturing" a child? We can look at it like a normal distribution if you want; most children aren't going to be experiencing that immense an amount of suffering. Like, to the point that when they die, they're probably not aware of it levels of suffering. If you're going to go and tell me that 49% of births are torture for a child, then I don't think I want to bother arguing the point anymore, because it's evident that the only solution to this argument is to go out and actually experience life. You're not going to understand it with theory, especially if you're misrepresenting it like this.

And oh my god. There it is, just like I predicted multiple comments ago.
You've done it. It's my fault I'm suicidal clearly because there's no disability in which every person who has it has killed themselves. Excellent point. /s

If you're going to intentionally try and alter the points I'm making, what's even the point anymore?

Where did I say it was your fault you were suicidal? Go on. Quote me. Tell me where it says it in "I'm not sure what disability you have, but I assume there's someone else out there, or other people rather, that have it too. Are they all suicidal? Not necessarily. They don't feel wronged by their own limitations. You do." Hint: It doesn't say that. You're just assuming things I'm saying at this point. Applying a fault to something implies that you caused it. I would sincerely hope that you can tell that you didn't. The point I was making was that disabilities in a vacuum aren't going to cause someone to become suicidal, nor is a predisposition to it. Sure, you're more likely to, but they're not going to do it on their own. The suicidal tendencies are a result of the experience you have as well as your own feelings towards yourself, but they're not your own fault.

You sort of backtracked, but you still said it and you could've deleted it if you didn't mean it.

Which part did I backtrack on? Sorry if I did, this is a very long comment chain and it's quite difficult to get thoughts straight when the discussion is this long lmao

You made a guess about 50% and then had the audacity to say that if it was a <50% chance of your child being tortured, you were okay with those odds.

Again, not tortured, but that aside...
Here's a good source to indicate that p>=50%; most people seem to be happy, according to, well, themselves. That's about as accurate as you can get, no? Although it's worth mentioning that that doesn't take into account lesser developed countries, and it's quite subjective/dependent on what a person's idea of happy is. A quick glance at this article states it might be lower than what we see on sources like the first one, but I doubt it's lowering enough to bring it to below 50%; that would be quite extreme. This one is actually a lot better at showing this. There's a tendency towards being higher than 5 here, which means that it's more probable than not that life is positive for people.

Yes, like I said: the majority of people are natalists and all natalists are selfish. So I'm not surprised to hear that the majority of people are selfish and have no empathy.

Why is it about empathy now?

Antinatalism states that the 100% chance of suffering is worse than any possibility of prosperity. Your mathematical assumptions have nothing to do with the fact that you agreed that there's a 100% chance of suffering and not a 100% chance of prosperity.

Risking that; having a child knowing only one thing that'll happen in their life--that they'll suffer--and still having children is morally wrong. The end.

...except I didn't, since I provided a counterexample of a 100% chance of suffering. Same for 100% chance of prosperity...

At this point, I can basically see this as only working if we agree to disagree. We clearly have different beliefs. Not a bad thing, to be fair.

You didn't prove it; you stated it. And I disagreed. No proofs were given from either side.

Stating your opinion without any evidence provided to the contrary is not proof.

If I say a planet 1 million light years away is made of chocolate and you give no proof to the contrary, that doesn't make me right.

The proof I used was that killing a child the very instant it can begin to feel means that it will have been able to feel but won't have experienced suffering or anti-suffering, depending on how quickly you do it. I'm not exactly sure when a body can begin to feel or differentiate between bad vs. good feelings and react in a way that we would consider to be representative of emotion, but I guess that's a whole other debate. Point is, if you kill it before it has felt, then it hasn't necessarily suffered. Also, what if it actually hasn't suffered yet? What if it's had all the nutrients it needs and so when it's born, it cries or whatever, but so far, no negative feelings have been experienced? That could have been a life of 100% happiness. It's improbable, but that state could continue, couldn't it? The exact same can be said for a life of 100% suffering.

Then you're not using infinity as a number and your earlier point is invalid. You proved yourself wrong for me.

Which point was this again?

My words aren't exempt from being caught on technicalities, but in that specific example they were, because it was in the word's definition, which I had handy. Not sure why you're pushing a point that you've already lost.

Edit: Also, I am done. Have a good day. I don't feel like continuing an argument with someone who thinks my suicidal thoughts are my fault and a 49% chance is a small enough chance that they would risk hurting a child.

Big exaggeration but OK

There is no "we". There is no united humanity. There are different cultures, more or less autonomous, sovereign, closed off to foreign intervention. People in Gaza don't get to see themselves on TV as something abhorrent - to them, their brutality is their offline life. Those behaviours _are_ widely accepted - in their respective cultures.

Again, giving children sex-change hormones would be considered as mutilating as FGM is to you, an "enlightened" Westerner. Apparently, all cultures are abominable in their own preposterous way. (Yes, I'm talking from the PoV of a hypothetical Star Child from A.C. Clarke, observing mankind with aversion.)

No one's giving children sex-change hormones?? If you think they just get given them instantly, then you need to educate yourself. It takes years for people to be able to get HRT. They have to get written approval from doctors and often have to be checked to see if they're in the right mental state for it. No one's handing them out like it's candy.

There also doesn't need to be a 'united humanity' for a 'we' pronoun to be used. We is a collective. A collective does not need to be unified, it just has to be a collective. Someone speaking for the government says "we". Someone speaking for a jury says "we". Are they all of exactly the same belief? No. However, the majority are who is represented by "we".