Opinions on anti-natalism

[Green Destiny]

I share the Antinatalist view for the most part. Like how I believe for 1 happy family are 10 families with terrible abusive parents that never should have had children. Families with parents that want to live their dreams vicariously through their kids and put an insane amount of pressure on them, or your classic reprehensible dirtbag abusive parents that again never should have been allowed to have kids. I know that people will never stop having kids and i'm not in the party of trying to prevent people from having kids, but in this day and age with suffering and misery never being in short supply I think having kids is just unfair for the generations to come in a world on the brink of it's own oblivion.

 

[rationaldeath]

Used to be antinatalist. I still have no interest in having children myself (just because it'd be too much work for not enough reward), but I thought about the position a bit and it just doesn't really make sense when you take a step back and look at it.

Antinatalists tend to say things like "children can't consent to being born", but societally we don't believe they can consent to much of anything, and we allow parents to make decisions for their kids if the parents think it's in the child's interest, so saying parents shouldn't make the choice for their child to exist seems kind of arbitrary.

The rebuttal to might be, "well, life is full of suffering, and if parents didn't have kids the kids wouldn't ever have to suffer." and thats true, but most people value the parts of life that are not suffering OVER the suffering parts. i mean, most people get through their lives and are motivated daily to do things that further their existence/happiness. if the suffering were more valuable than the enjoyment wouldn't most people be killing themselves?

and to add onto that, i have trouble agreeing with the idea that since life is full of suffering or MOSTLY suffering, that life on the whole becomes something to avoid creating/propagating. why is it necessarily better that living and dealing with suffering in order to find something enjoyable is worse than avoiding all pain and not existing entirely?

i understand and empathize with the antinatalist position but when i look closely at it it just seems like a hard buy. generally it seems like living things are interested in continuing to live when created so i have trouble accepting that it's better for life (human ones specifically) to not be continued to be created.

One way I look at it is this: by choosing to continue the human race we are implicitly saying the horrific suffering some individuals experience is a reasonable sacrifice for the pleasure others experience. And we are making this decision for them. There will be children born that are tortured and raped constantly and then brutally killed before they reach 10 years old, but because the majority of people have more experiences of pleasure than suffering (which I'm not entirely sold on) we are saying it's worth it.

On your question of why more people dont kill themselves if they experience more suffering than happiness, I would answer because of how deeply engrained the evils of death/suicide and inherent goodness of life are in society, the hardwired evolutionary drive to survive, and the practical difficulty of obtaining a method that isn't painful, messy, or illegal.

 

[TheSoulless]

The less people are born, the better. Antinatalism will never catch on, though. Obviously.

 

[Arrow]

One way I look at it is this: by choosing to continue the human race we are implicitly saying the horrific suffering some individuals experience is a reasonable sacrifice for the pleasure others experience.

I think the continuation of the human race is saying something closer to "despite the horrors or suffering someone might end up going through, life is worth living for the parts that are good" or at least this would probably be the general consensus among people having kids knowing the risks. generally they don't think of it in the way you're suggesting.

On your question of why more people dont kill themselves if they experience more suffering than happiness, I would answer because of how deeply engrained the evils of death/suicide and inherent goodness of life are in society, the hardwired evolutionary drive to survive, and the practical difficulty of obtaining a method that isn't painful, messy, or illegal.

if life were really so undesirable it would make sense we would see more people attempting to override their programming despite difficulty in obtaining good methods.

if you're saying "once people are alive, the desire to stay alive and persist despite all the challenges outweighs the desire to die because of fundamental drives that exist in living things" you're more or less saying that, for most people/living creatures, life is worth persisting in.

 

[rationaldeath]

I think the continuation of the human race is saying something closer to "despite the horrors or suffering someone might end up going through, life is worth living for the parts that are good"

But I don't think most people would make that conclusion for every single life, which is what we do by continuing to reproduce as a species. And remember we are making that decision for every future person, choosing not to believe the ones that end up saying they wish they weren't born. There are babies born with horrible deformities that cause them to suffer immensely for a few days before dying, people with severe mental disorders that experience constant suffering without even the capacity to feel pleasure, and many other cases where I think most people would be hard pressed to conclude the good outweighed the bad.

if life were really so undesirable it would make sense we would see more people attempting to override their programming despite difficulty in obtaining good methods.

if you're saying "once people are alive, the desire to stay alive and persist despite all the challenges outweighs the desire to die because of fundamental drives that exist in living things" you're more or less saying that, for most people/living creatures, life is worth persisting in.

If concentration camps were so bad why didnt we see more people trying to escape? Or why do so many people stay in abusive relationships? Even if you're in a bad situation the path to exiting could be sufficiently difficult (even if just psychologically) that you don't end up leaving. Also I don't believe life is that terrible for the majority of people, just somewhat worse than neutral if you add everything up. But there is a minority that does have truly awful lives and they are sacrificed for the majority.

 

[Arrow]

There are babies born with horrible deformities that cause them to suffer immensely for a few days before dying, people with severe mental disorders that experience constant suffering without even the capacity to feel pleasure, and many other cases where I think most people would be hard pressed to conclude the good outweighed the bad.

Sure, people might not think it applies to every life. Some people might think it does, but the overwhelming majority of the time even those with struggling lives cling to what they have and don't end up killing themselves. The amount of people that can't feel any pleasure at all or the amount of babies born completely mangled that die soon after birth is so low that it seems highly irrational that the entirety of humanity should stop for them.

If concentration camps were so bad why didnt we see more people trying to escape?

This seems like a really bad analogy because if you had asked any starving person concentration camp if they would want to leave they'd say yes. If you asked the average person if they want to leave their life and die, they'd look at you like you're crazy 90% of the time.

Even if you're in a bad situation the path to exiting could be sufficiently difficult (even if just psychologically) that you don't end up leaving.

I agree but most people don't look at life this way or feel that way about their lives, so why should the entire cycle stop?

Also I don't believe life is that terrible for the majority of people, just somewhat worse than neutral if you add everything up.

But who are you to say that it's worse than neutral if you add everything up, if most people aren't depressed, are glad they are alive, function well, enjoy time with friends, etc etc? Even most disfigured and mentally ill don't want to die, act in ways that ensure they stay alive, and so on.

But there is a minority that does have truly awful lives and they are sacrificed for the majority.

If sacrificing a minority so that a species that generally is interested in continuing itself despite the struggles it faces and overwhelmingly does not choose to kill itself can continue, why would you be interested in stopping the entire species for that small minority?
It seems irrational, and being antinatalist seems to almost require some deep personal unsatisfaction with life—which i relate to and understand, mind you—that stretches unnecessarily into believing creating more people is wrong.

Sure, my life is pretty dreary and odds are i'll take myself out, but I look around and see plenty of people who clearly don't want to take themselves out, don't think of life as a concentration camp, have hopes, etc, and letting that disappear from the planet so that a super small minority doesn't have to feel bad doesn't sound right.

 

[rationaldeath]

The amount of people that can't feel any pleasure at all or the amount of babies born completely mangled that die soon after birth is so low that it seems highly irrational that the entirety of humanity should stop for them.

So I think this is our main point of disagreement. We could argue about what percent of people experience more suffering than pleasure, but I believe even if a single person experiences a life full of horrific suffering it is not worth the pleasure of even 7 billion people.

Imagine you are at a huge party where everyone is having a great time but hidden just under your feet is a room containing an 8 year old girl being raped and tortured, suffering to an unthinkable extent. The party and the torture will continue for thousands, even millions of years with the girl being replaced with a new one each time she dies. You have a button that would painlessly end the lives of everyone at the party and the girl, ending the pleasure and suffering forever. I take it you would not press it?

 

[Arrow]

So I think this is our main point of disagreement. We could argue about what percent of people experience more suffering than pleasure, but I believe even if a single person experiences a life full of horrific suffering it is not worth the pleasure of even 7 billion people.

Surely then you must accept that your antinatalist position does much less in the way of stopping sufffering and much more in the way of reducing the existence of pleasure/happiness of intelligent creatures in the universe, right? Because (hypothetically), You'd halt a species of happy billions to stop one among them from being tortured. This seems unfair to the people that are interested in having kids who will almost certainly value being alive, and possibly end up making great things/being great artists/changing the world, or simply be content with an average life.

Imagine you are at a huge party where everyone is having a great time but hidden just under your feet is a room containing an 8 year old girl being raped and tortured, suffering to an unthinkable extent. The party and the torture will continue for thousands, even millions of years with the girl being replaced with a new one each time she dies. You have a button that would painlessly end the lives of everyone at the party and the girl, ending the pleasure and suffering forever. I take it you would not press it?

I don't think I would, no.
If the button only killed the girl and put her out of her misery, stopping the cycle, I would. But I don't see why tens or even hundreds of partygoers should lose their lives so one person (at a time) doesn't have to suffer.

 

[rationaldeath]

Surely then you must accept that your antinatalist position does much less in the way of stopping sufffering and much more in the way of reducing the existence of pleasure/happiness of intelligent creatures in the universe, right? Because (hypothetically), You'd halt a species of happy billions to stop one among them from being tortured. This seems unfair to the people that are interested in having kids who will almost certainly value being alive, and possibly end up making great things/being great artists/changing the world, or simply be content with an average life.

I don't think I would, no.
If the button only killed the girl and put her out of her misery, stopping the cycle, I would. But I don't see why tens or even hundreds of partygoers should lose their lives so one person (at a time) doesn't have to suffer.

If there was only one partygoer, would you press it? If so, how many people experiencing pleasure does it take to outweigh the suffering of the girl?

Also, do you believe life has inherent value?

 

[Arrow]

If there was only one partygoer, would you press it? If so, how many people experiencing pleasure does it take to outweigh the suffering of the girl?

if it is just one guy partying (let's say he is immortal, the girl is immortal, and the party is also able to continue indefinitely unless there is intervention for whatever reason) i will still think it is unfair that he must lose his life so that someone else will not suffer, especially since he isn't partying to hurt anyone.

i imagine myself in Party Guy's position; if all i want to do is party eternally and this is extremely important to me, i would find it completely unfair and unreasonable if some 3rd party person were to say "hey, i'm gonna press this button to kill you and put a suffering child out of her misery". why must i die for someone else?

likewise, if i tried to imagine myself as a person being tortured underneath a party forever, i wouldn't expect a random person enjoying their lives to be okay with being sacrificed for my sake.

so even if it's one guy i wouldn't press it.

Also, do you believe life has inherent value?

not really. i think i'd take an egoist approach and say that from my perspective my own life has some value and that the more people that exist in my society and continue to breed/work together (for however long i'm alive) will benefit me, because the better my society, the better odds there are of me having a better life. and if people were to stop breeding and making people, society would collapse while i am alive and this would affect me negatively.

so if everyone became antinatalist after i died i wouldn't mind. knowing that on my death bed would just be a bit depressing i guess.

 

[rationaldeath]

if i tried to imagine myself as a person being tortured underneath a party forever, i wouldn't expect a random person enjoying their lives to be okay with being sacrificed for my sake.

I take it you view death as a negative then? That might be the important distinction between our positions; to me suffering is the only negative, whereas death is completely neutral. Most of us view death negatively and experience suffering when thinking about it, but I don't see the actual "state of being dead" as bad since you won't exist to assign it any value.

 

[CrossroadsCurious]

Wondering where people stand on this philosophy here. Antinatilism is basically the thought process that bringing life into this world is bad for those who didn't know

This is fine as long as it stays a personal decision. As soon as someone tries to force it on others tho it just makes them an @sshole!

 

[CrescendoChiller]

I use to be more of a staunch anti-natalist, but I feel like I've come to see it as something not really worth worrying about.

I guess it can be nice to have circle-jerk interactions with fellow anti-natalists, and it can be "nice" (I put in quotations cause in the end, I feel like I end up more riled up and unhappy, even if in the moment it feels good or right) to feel like I'm entitled to a life free of misery, or that I can feel justified in blaming any bad thing that happens to me on my parents.

But one major problem is it doesn't seem to matter to most people, and it's not something you could probably expect to get most people on board with either. So to me, I just don't really see it as being worth the effort to worry about when most people aren't going to care no matter what.

 

[Arrow]

I take it you view death as a negative then? That might be the important distinction between our positions; to me suffering is the only negative, whereas death is completely neutral. Most of us view death negatively and experience suffering when thinking about it, but I don't see the actual "state of being dead" as bad since you won't exist to assign it any value.

for the purposes of getting what i want from society i'd generally have to view death as negative. some could say the actual state of being dead itself is neutral because you don't experience good or bad things, but i'd lean into death being more negative than neutral because it means i won't ever get to experience any good things, the possibility for good things is gone. I also understand that living in a society and benefiting from one requires that I understand others value their lives, because if I had no consideration for that, the other members of my society wouldn't have any reason to consider me, which is bad for obvious reasons.

so i'd say taking the life of the PartyMan even though he's enjoying his life and not responsible for the Girl's suffering is pretty wrong.

for example, if someone came up to me right now and said killing me would make it so some random person wouldn't suffer a horrible life, and that they wanted my permission to do so, i would think this is pretty absurd.

if i had a 100% torturous life and someone was like, "we will kill you and this other guy to make you not suffer anymore", i'd think it's absurd someone else--an unreltated party--must die to help me.

 

[TooConscious]

I share the Antinatalist view for the most part. Like how I believe for 1 happy family are 10 families with terrible abusive parents that never should have had children. Families with parents that want to live their dreams vicariously through their kids and put an insane amount of pressure on them, or your classic reprehensible dirtbag abusive parents that again never should have been allowed to have kids. I know that people will never stop having kids and i'm not in the party of trying to prevent people from having kids, but in this day and age with suffering and misery never being in short supply I think having kids is just unfair for the generations to come in a world on the brink of it's own oblivion.

I am of the belief that even if you reversed your analogy and there were 10 happy families for every one that ends up abusive then I still would believe those people are evil for risking 10% chance of allowing a child to be abused.
Having only realized how buried childhood trauma effected me right at the arse end of my life I know people cannot be so ignorant to be blind to what goes on and "I'll make sure it doesn't happen to my child" ego shit is abysmal and I feel weepy at the hopeless situation.

If there was only one partygoer, would you press it? If so, how many people experiencing pleasure does it take to outweigh the suffering of the girl?

Also, do you believe life has inherent value?

I agree with you. I just feel like a different species to the persons trying to reason otherwise... I'm not saying theyre wrong, I don't know, it's probably what one chooses to believe in existence there is no truth, suffering and pleasure are probably two sides of one coin.

I however say it's the party goers that keep the suffering continuing by allowing it to happen. I don't believe they can say they are truly loving when they allow it, then disregard the situation as if it's nothing to do with them when it gets too difficult. The perpetrators don't get punished. Allowing it... I don't know what to say, you can't even think clearly about these things why we're actively burning.

And the partygoers also tell the girl it's wrong of her to wish to escape the pain, so they add mental emotional torment to the physical torture.

 

[rationaldeath]

for the purposes of getting what i want from society i'd generally have to view death as negative. some could say the actual state of being dead itself is neutral because you don't experience good or bad things, but i'd lean into death being more negative than neutral because it means i won't ever get to experience any good things, the possibility for good things is gone. I also understand that living in a society and benefiting from one requires that I understand others value their lives, because if I had no consideration for that, the other members of my society wouldn't have any reason to consider me, which is bad for obvious reasons.

so i'd say taking the life of the PartyMan even though he's enjoying his life and not responsible for the Girl's suffering is pretty wrong.

for example, if someone came up to me right now and said killing me would make it so some random person wouldn't suffer a horrible life, and that they wanted my permission to do so, i would think this is pretty absurd.

if i had a 100% torturous life and someone was like, "we will kill you and this other guy to make you not suffer anymore", i'd think it's absurd someone else--an unreltated party--must die to help me.

So your first point is that viewing life as valuable is beneficial in society because it provides a reason for others to do the same for you. I don't see that as a reason for actually believing death is bad, just that it's helpful if other people think you do (which I agree with).

Another point you implicitly make is that killing is wrong because of reasons related to personal agency and moral responsibility. I assume you believe someone should never be forced to die for others, unless they are personally responsible for suffering inflicted on those people. This implies that you do actually believe death is bad at least in some cases, and you provide a reason for that mentioning that death eliminates the possibility for future good experiences. Would you say that's your main reason for believing death/killing is bad?

 

[noaccount]

No one can ever possibly consent to be born,

and to create a life is to create a death,

so yeah.

 

[Arrow]

So your first point is that viewing life as valuable is beneficial in society because it provides a reason for others to do the same for you. I don't see that as a reason for actually believing death is bad

Well if life is the opposite of death and i intrinsically place value on my life experience because it's pretty much the source of all that i have, death becomes bad almost automatically under this logic.

I assume you believe someone should never be forced to die for others, unless they are personally responsible for suffering inflicted on those people.

I think the argument for killing people who are responsible for the suffering of others is stronger/more convincing than killing people who aren't responsible. I tend toward the idea that killing people overall is bad because, egostistically, i probably want as little leeway in the realm of me being killed by others as possible. My thing is that it seems worse to kill non-responsible parties than responsible ones when trying to alleviate suffering.

Would you say that's your main reason for believing death/killing is bad?

Pretty much. I guess if you knew no possibly good experience could ever befall some living human-intelligent entity then you'd be best off killing it, but that becomes an issue if you're sacrificing perfectly happy living things that are also human-intelligent just to kill the thing in pain especially if they aren't responsible in any intentional way

 

[jandek]

Although my personal philosophy is very pessimistic, my stance on anti-natalism seems to be unusual. On the one hand, I think individuals can be justified in not wanting children because of heritable illness, poverty, etc. This is like refusing to play dice because you know they're loaded.

However, I think anti-natalism as a philosophical principle, appealing to some hedonic calculus, is incoherent. The idea that non-existence is "better" than existence doesn't make sense to me. Better to whom and relative to what? Statements of value presume the condition of existence and consciousness and they only have significance within that context. I understand at the same time that this argument also means that suicide as a means of "relief" from suffering is also incoherent, assuming that a person is aiming at self-destruction. That said, that doesn't stop me from feeling suicidal.

The way I see it, there really can be no exit from one's consciousness. If the suffering mind is annihilated at death, then who or what is "relieved"? If the mind is not destroyed, how could its condition radically differ from what it was before?

 

[BruhXDDDDD]

Not sure. If I were sure that the world will continue to stay the same, I'm definitely on board. Suffering beats out pleasure. However, if I knew that people continue to improve and become a lot happier in the future, I'd reconsider.

 

[not-2-b-the-answer]

Wondering where people stand on this philosophy here. Antinatilism is basically the thought process that bringing life into this world is bad for those who didn't know

Total Anti-Natalist. Especially if you are stupid. Your offspring will not be any better.

 

[Niko66]

There's really no good answer to this for me though I lean with anti natalist thoughts... I think parents should be held up to higher standards and children more protected but even these are not realistic, can't stop people from making babies even if they are not remotely capable of giving them a decent life, can't take away their freedoms without being inhumane either. We are stuck with the cycle of suffering either way.

 

[DynamicDepression]

It's the only philosophy that makes complete sense.

 

[KalteWind_inBerlin]

Non-Existence will always be more preferable to existence under cruel conditions.

 

[Lost in a Dream]

I'm definitely an anti-natalist and it's obvious to me that being suicidal for as long as I have been has made me this way. I don't really like to argue about it with people anymore because it never leads to anything good, and I can't stop people from having kids that want them. I'm probably biased in favor of anti-natalism however, just because I wish everyday that I had been miscarried or aborted, and on my worst days, I hate my parents for bringing me into this world.

I think if everyone had access to voluntary euthanasia and a peaceful death, regardless of the reason, then I probably wouldn't be anti-natalist. Being forced into an existence that you're not allowed to leave is sadistic, imo, but if we were allowed to leave whenever we wanted to, after becoming legal adults, then it wouldn't be so bad.

 

[Sibyl Vane]

I'm against it. It sounds like an extremally authoritarian concept to me straight out of a dystopian novel or a totalitarian regime. It's one thing for you to decide not to have kids, but it's another, completely different, wanting to force your beliefs on other people.

Thus far, all the discussions I've seen on the subject are made based on idealistic views. There are no concrete plans of how this would play out in the real world or considerations of its implications. Who would be responsible for dictating and controlling it? The people who disobeyed the impositions would suffer punishments? Which ones? Do you trust your government that much? Enough to willingly give away part of the autonomy over your body and entrust that much power and dominion over your life? Can you see the danger of it?

 

[MountainMonkey]

I've always been a strong supporter of antinatalism, as an ideal, not a government imposition (I'm also anti-government). Humans are a cancer to this planet

 

[redeyepiranha]

I'm antinatalist because I believe that life is pointless and there's too much suffering. I read the news every day and it breaks my heart when I see other people being in pain.

 

[Efilismislife]

No offense but im baffled at how many people not realize how selfish and damaging it is to bring new baby to this unwelcoming world full of threats, possible bad genes, bad physical mental, intelligence, never ending fights&competitions, and certain deteriorating, suffering, troubles/burdens, aging, sick, dying, etc.

well unless you can guarantee a happy great secure whole life.
Which is rare. But its like gambling to get a lucky prize of winning a billion dollar lottery. Better not count on it/ push your luck on it.

Still even for such a rare perfect life, its temporarily short, while waiting at the end is a certain deterioration, sick, aging, disabled, suffer, dying, etc, etc. so dont know if its still worth it..

unfortunately despite that many people will still bring new people to carry the burdens because this life is a cult that need to bring new members to provide for the previous ones

People don't realize that the elites, the hidden people in power, are using people giving birth to their advantage. They want everyone they see lower as them to do all the dirty work for them, while they stay rich. People also shouldn't have children because there are so many idiots that have no idea how to take care of their children. They just have them for the sake of having them and then complain about how awful life is with their child even though they know it is their responsibility. Some people have children because they want mini slaves to do their work for them, and have someone to abuse and project their unhealthy shit, most likely because its been done to them. The act of not having children can end the cycle of trauma and abuse that seems never-ending in todays world and I'd think it be best if the amount of child births is reduced.

Totally true

 

[Tortured Existence]

I'm antinatalist and vegan to the core. Breeding is 100% for selfish reasons. It's gambling with a life which the only certainties are diseases and death, suffering. Supporting enslavement, exploitation, torture, and murder of animals is also 100% selfish. I pisses me off when one's own values don't align.