Discussion On consent to be born

[thewalkingdread]

Consent depends on existence

No, It doesn't.

Consent is the voluntary — and conscious! — agreement between two parties to do something or a course of action.

If, by any kind of circumstance whatsoever, one cannot consciously and voluntarily agree to said course of action, then this will be an imposition without one's consent.

Non-existence is like any other conditions that impair judgment or make it impossible. As someone can't consent because they are unconscious (like when sleeping or in a coma), one can't consent because their are non-existent.

 

[DreamEnd]

No, It doesn't.

Consent is the voluntary — and conscious! — agreement between two parties to do something or a course of action.

If, by any kind of circumstance whatsoever, one cannot consciously and voluntarily agree to said course of action, then this will be an imposition without one's consent.

Non-existence is like any other conditions that impair judgment or make it impossible. As someone can't consent because they are unconscious (like when sleeping or in a coma), one can't consent because their are non-existent.

impairing judgement means there is someone who has impaired judgement. There is nobody there, literally nobody. There is no them who can't consent. A person in a coma is a living, albeit impaired person.

For there to be a condition of forced consent there has to be someone on whom this proposition is forced but since that person doesn't exist until they are conceived you can't say they were forced to consent to anything since there was no them when you decided to make that decision

If you believe that there is nothing after death then that person doesn't exist. You don't pull them out of nothing since nothingness is just that… nothing where no person exists so you aren't pulling people out of nothingness. It's simply an act of creation

 

[davidtorez]

Literally. I asked my mom why she had me and she said "who's going to take care of me in old age?", not to mention the fact that we're born into a state of modern day slavery. Once we're born, we're already slaves to the system. Society is a pyramid scheme.

It sure is system of slavery!

 

[thewalkingdread]

There is nobody there, literally nobody. There is no them who can't consent

Exactly.

you can't say they were forced to consent to anything

I didn't say that. I never said that a non-existent person is forced to consent. That's an impossibility.

All I said was that it's impossible for the non-existent to consent. Therefore, bringing forth new life is still an imposition all the same.

What should be the "default" behavior for when a person can't consent — for whatever reason! — to a course of action which has potentially serious, harmful, consequences for that same person?!

There isn't a clear cut simple answer for that question because the circumstances may vary a lot from one case to another.

It's one thing when, for instance, (1) a surgeon is trying to save someone's life in a life or death emergency and (2) another when the patient is in a vegetative state like Terry Schiavo.

These circumstances are very hard to determine what should be the default course of action, If any, because it's a highly subjective matter which depends on us assuming what the other person would like to be done.

That's why the consent argument is so important when the subject at hand is the morality of procreation... It seems nonsensical at first glance because there is no one that actually exists. But we are still obliged to consider what would be the will or best interest of this POTENTIAL new life.

Anti-natalism proposes that it's in one's own best interest for one to never exist — even if there is no actual, existing, being yet.

 

[DreamEnd]

Exactly.


I didn't say that. I never said that a non-existent person is forced to consent. That's an impossibility.

All I said was that it's impossible for the non-existent to consent. Therefore, bringing forth new life it's still an imposition all the same.

What should be the "default" behavior for when a person can't consent — for whatever reason! — to a course of action which has potentially serious, harmful, consequences for that same person?!

There isn't a clear cut simple answer for that question because the circumstances may vary a lot from one case to another.

It's one thing when, for instance, (1) a surgeon is trying to save someone's life in a life or death emergency and (2) another when the patient is in a vegetative state like Terry Schiavo.

These circumstances are very hard to determine what should be the default course of action, If any, because it's a highly subjective matter which depends on us assuming what the other person would like to be done.

That's why the consent argument is so important when the subject at hand is the morality of procreation... It seems nonsensical at first glance because there is no one that actually exists. But we are still obliged to consider what would be the will or best interest of this POTENTIAL new life.

Anti-natalism proposes that it's in one's own best interest for one to never exist — even if there is no actual, existing, being yet.

Well yeah it all comes down to whether actually living is a net negative or positive. One point of view is that birth is necessary to produce people who can change the world in the positive direction. The more darker view is that there is no turning back and it's better we just go extinct. Idk. Do we as humans have a responsibility to make the world a better place? Or is it all too late and we should just end the whole thing?

 

[thewalkingdread]

Do we as humans have a responsibility to make the world a better place?

It's a hard question to answer.

I think we do have a responsibility to not make the world worse... "Making the world a better place" sounds to me a grandiose, very ambicious, undertaking. Plus, I am very skeptical about the philantropic capabilities of the human species. I see things from a harm reduction perspective... But if we could actually make things better, that would be great.

One point of view is that birth is necessary to produce people who can change the world in the positive direction

I don't think, however, that birthing more people in order to make things better is a good, reasonable, idea.

First of all, this would be using those new lives instrumentally, for our own purposes, unnecessarily bringing them here to suffer and solve a bunch problems they never asked for. This would be a machiavellian thing to do to them.

And, lastly, there is no guarantee whatsoever that bringing more people here would bring about a better world. This is a very risky gamble to be made with their lives...

If the problems are ours, we should solve them (or not)... Not pass them to future generations.

 

[DreamEnd]

It's a hard question to answer.

I think we do have a responsibility to not make the world worse... "Making the world a better place" sounds to me a grandiose, very ambicious, undertaking. Plus, I am very skeptical about the philantropic capabilities of the human species. I see things from a harm reduction perspective... But if we could actually make things better, that would be great.


I don't think, however, that birthing more people in order to make things better is a good, reasonable, idea.

First of all, this would be using those new lives instrumentally, for our own purposes, unnecessarily bringing them here to suffer and solve a bunch problems they never asked for. This would be a machiavellian thing to do to them.

And, lastly, there is no guarantee whatsoever that bringing more people here would bring about a better world. This is a very risky gamble to be made with their lives...

If the problems are ours, we should solve (or not) them... Not pass them to future generations.

Well I mean that's technically what I meant. I meant turning the direction of the world around but for any improvements to be seen it would require next generations to continue the work

 

[thewalkingdread]

I meant turning the direction of the world around but for any improvements to be seen it would require next generations to continue the work

Sometimes it's just the opposite of that. Sometimes you fix problems by not having any more generations....

Here's an example:

One of the world's biggest problems is "global warming"/"climate change"... Right?!

We currently have no effective, technological, solution to stop, much less reverse, the anthropogenic increase in global temperatures... NONE.

Electric cars won't save the planet and only a fool would believe that Elon Musk really wants to save humanity by sending some very "fortunate" of us in his space X dicks to impregnate Mars.

There is one very simple and effective solution, however, to stop climate change on it's tracks... But, unfortunately, no one likes to hear about it:

We must reduce our consumerist life-style and STOP procreating like rabbits. One of the worst things one can do to the environment is to have a child.

Elon Musk, our Holy tech saviour, has had around 10 already. And that's because he is, suposedly, an "eco friendly Genius"... Imagine if he wasn't one.

So ... Here is a clear example of how not bringing more people to the world could actually help It get better.... (Without even mentioning anti-natalist ideias)

 

[DreamEnd]

Sometimes it's just the opposite of that. Sometimes you fix problems by not having any more generations....

Here's an example:

One of the world's biggest problems is "global warming"/"climate change"... Right?!

We currently have no effective, technological, solution to stop, much less reverse, the anthropogenic increase in global temperatures... NONE.

Electric cars won't save the planet and only a fool would believe that Elon Musk really wants to save humanity by sending some very "fortunate" of us in his space X dicks to impregnate Mars.

There is one very simple and effective solution, however, to stop climate change on it's tracks... But, unfortunately, no one likes to hear about it:

We must reduce our consumerist life-style and STOP procreating like rabbits. One of the worst things one can do to the environment is to have a child.

Elon Musk, our Holy tech saviour, has had around 10 already. And that's because he is, suposedly, an "eco friendly Genius"... Imagine if he wasn't one.

So ... Here is a clear example of how not bringing more people to the world could actually help It get better.... (Without even mentioning anti-natalist ideias)

I'm not an expert here but if I just Google potential solutions to climate change I will get hundreds of scientific peer reviewed papers with possible solutions. So idk how exactly is it that we have no solutions besides stopping consumerism and having less kids. Not all consumerism is bad by the way

 

[thewalkingdread]

I just Google potential solutions to climate change I will get hundreds of scientific peer reviewed papers with possible solutions

Well, I never denied that there are people researching for solutions... I just said that there aren't any effective solutions available...now.

 

[Ulrich]

I think it's a negative problem. The fact is that you cannot consent. If and only if they had the capacity to, would it then be justifiable to give birth to a child who does in fact consent. They lack the power to not not consent, but that is irrelevant. The point is that a non-trivial imposition which entails [insert anti-natalist rhetoric here] is wrong. The point about consent is rhetorical.

 

[DreamEnd]

I think it's a negative problem. The fact is that you cannot consent. If and only if they had the capacity to, would it then be justifiable to give birth to a child who does in fact consent. They lack the power to not not consent, but that is irrelevant. The point is that a non-trivial imposition which entails [insert anti-natalist rhetoric here] is wrong. The point about consent is rhetorical.

Yes this makes a lot of sense that's what I thought too. A lot of anti Natalism is perhaps implied in this question

 

[dreambound]

...going off on a bit of a tangent here but.......it is interesting that the human body matures before the mind is fully
developed. I wonder how many less children would be born if the body matured at say...25 years when the mind has
had a dose of reality...
...this would suggest that the parameters have been set to facilitate the largest possible population...