Discussion [POLL] Why are you an antinatalist?

[_Gollum_]

For the antinatalists out there, what argument sways you the most?

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's hard to pick just two reasons but for me, it's really simply about not inflicting this world as it is (and will likely continue to be) on them and, not inflicting them on this world- in the shape of yet another consumer/ polluter. But, all the reasons you listed inform my feelings to some extent.

 

[Namelesa]

Earlier in life i would probably said current state of the world and resorce consumption but now i would say the 2 biggest arguments for me is gambling with someone elses life and that we would be completely fine to not just exist in the first as before being created i would say we didn't even desire to exist when if we do exist we have the chance to regret our existence. These are 2 biggest things for me as other things as a lot of the other reasons could just not apply in a better world but these plus others would still apply no matter what.

 

[Cosmophobic]

Since I can only pick two I'll go with inevitability of suffering and risk of passing on bad genes. I have had depression all my life, so did my father and both of his parents. Many mentally ill and alcoholic aunts and uncles. A lot of suicides in the extended family. I wouldn't dare risk it.

Inevitability of suffering is a consideration I added later in life. I slowly went from some people shouldn't have kids to nobody should the more I realised life in general is defined by suffering.

I have to keep AN as a completely personal and private philosophy though because people automatically feel judged by it. I don't even judge my parents for it tbh. It's a biologlocial compulsion and a social imperative to reproduce. But even if you qualify your position in that way most people still don't want to hear it.

Without a cataclysmic change in human behaviour AN is a lost cause. But I don't think it's pointless to support a lost cause. You can't abandon what you feel to be true even if it's never going to catch on.

 

[sanctionedusage]

I don't care what other people do either way; I can see the appeal of wanting to create your own family and observe the genes of your dearest relatives showing up in your offspring, etc. But I'd feel disgusted with myself if I fulfilled some selfish desire to create an extension of myself, or a family member, or have something (someone) 'of me' in the world, and disregarded all of the reasons you outlined just for that. Even picturing that everything went right genetically and I recovered enough to be a good parent as well, I couldn't bring myself to decide for that future child that any and all suffering they'd experience, unrelated to me and my genes, would be worth it for them. I'd always prefer to just adopt and give someone who's already alive and born that support.

Personally, I'm always disturbed by the obsession people have with "their own flesh and blood" and the idea of blood relation as a means to bind people together, indebt them to each other, and otherwise gaslight or control them. I see adoption as a much purer connection where I'd have gone out of my way just to choose them and commit to them as a parent, not out of moral obligation after getting knocked up.

 

[-Link-]

I feel like a lot of people adopt the "antinatalist" label without due consideration to its connotations beyond, "People shouldn't breed." ie. It's also an endorsement for human extinction.

To go on a bit of a tangent here: Personally, I believe there are far too many people procreating when they shouldn't be, and too many people choosing not to procreate when they're in ideal positions to do so. But how would that actually be addressed without imposing eugenics on the population?

So, this is a belief that I have. But I reject eugenics all the same.

This can be applied to the beliefs of antinatalism. "People shouldn't procreate." OK, but would you also actively support our extinction? Would you be OK with being the messenger, telling people, "Sorry, but we're gonna have to sterilize you." Or, "Oh, you were planning a family? Well, that's not happening now." Or, "Oh, you're pregnant? Well... see, we're not procreating anymore, so... about that..." Or, what happens if someone finds a way to defy the procreation ban and bring a new life into the world? Or, would it be simpler to just force an extinction event so that no one has to worry about these questions?

How far do you take it?

For the true antinatalists among us, that's your prerogative, and this isn't about you.

But for everyone else, consider what all you're actually implying to people when you adopt the label and declare yourself as such.

 

[asaṅkhata]

I used to be an antinatalist because I was overwhelmed by the existence of extreme suffering. I thought ignorance was the only way to be at peace in this world.

It's a biologlocial compulsion and a social imperative to reproduce. But even if you qualify your position in that way most people still don't want to hear it.

Because its degrading to reduce parenthood to the mere exertion of a biological impulse? If you said 'its my personal view' period, I dont think anyone would be offended by it. You're already incinuating that its something worth judging someone for, but that youre simply too polite to do it, so understandibly people might get upset.

 

[azo]

Really just Benatar's asymmetry.

The only counterarguments that actually address what he says boil down to a reductio i.e. we should reject antinatalism because it's unpalatable or unintuitive. Not very compelling—to me, anyway.

I do think it's one of those things that are just futile to argue about because it just comes down to whatever your intuitions are.

(I picked inevitability of suffering and the gambling one.)

 

[Cosmophobic]

I used to be an antinatalist because I was overwhelmed by the existence of extreme suffering. I thought ignorance was the only way to be at peace in this world.

Because its degrading to reduce parenthood to the mere exertion of a biological impulse? If you said 'its my personal view' period, I dont think anyone would be offended by it. You're already incinuating that its something worth judging someone for, but that youre simply too polite to do it, so understandibly people might get upset.

You're right. I should stop trying to be polite about it.

I don't think saying reproduction is an impulse is to reduce parenthood to that impulse. I'm not sure what that would even mean. There's obviously good and bad parents.

I feel like a lot of people adopt the "antinatalist" label without due consideration to its connotations beyond, "People shouldn't breed." ie. It's also an endorsement for human extinction.

To go on a bit of a tangent here: Personally, I believe there are far too many people procreating when they shouldn't be, and too many people choosing not to procreate when they're in ideal positions to do so. But how would that actually be addressed without imposing eugenics on the population?

So, this is a belief that I have. But I reject eugenics all the same.

This can be applied to the beliefs of antinatalism. "People shouldn't procreate." OK, but would you also actively support our extinction? Would you be OK with being the messenger, telling people, "Sorry, but we're gonna have to sterilize you." Or, "Oh, you were planning a family? Well, that's not happening now." Or, "Oh, you're pregnant? Well... see, we're not procreating anymore, so... about that..." Or, what happens if someone finds a way to defy the procreation ban and bring a new life into the world? Or, would it be simpler to just force an extinction event so that no one has to worry about these questions?

How far do you take it?

For the true antinatalists among us, that's your prerogative, and this isn't about you.

But for everyone else, consider what all you're actually implying to people when you adopt the label and declare yourself as such.

Honestly the answer is you don't take it very far at all. It can't be 'implemented' without turning the world into a totalitarian nightmare. For me it's just a philosophical position. As for what utility it has...it might prompt some people to reconsider having children after considering AN arguments.

 

[Irisse]

For me it is mostly the fact that suffering is a guaranteed part of life. I don't like it, no one likes it, so why would I willingly subject a new life to it? And the current state of the world certainly doesn't help. Everything is getting worse. Social media toxicity, the price of houses and apartments going up while wages stay low and possible climate catastrophe in the future. I'm so glad I won't live out my old age in this shithole.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

I wonder what societal views on antinatalism would be if a higher percentage of people ended up being of the types to always regret having been brought here (like me and certain other users we are all familiar with). Let's say half of all babies ended up being such, or maybe just 20%.

 

[darksouls]

the main reason for me is the atrocities committed by humanity, the destruction of our mother earth and the exploitation of animals and humans, the entire system of society is perverse, taxpayers finance animal testing, I dont want to support that

 

[starboy2k]

Its a shame I could only choose two options. I tried to checkmark all of them lol.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

the posibility of a human or other sentient animal getting trapped in the worst torture the worst pain and or the worst hell imaginable is always there.

imo most don't see this or believe it that something extremely horrible can happen to any human or animal

so to put a human or animal in this hell you are condeming them to suffering and posibility of extreme suffering which is not right.

and then the evil of this world to make all guaranteed suicide methods into crimes . so that when a human does get trapped in unbearable pain they can't escape their pain in a guaranteed instant easy painless way. the tech is there nembutal , hiring someone to shoot me , sarco suicide pod but they made all these and more into crime. they even put up fences on suicide bridges even though jumping is not guranteed, are not painless and are brutal . i mean i don't know if someone could feel pain on impact or remain conscious a few seconds on the ground if the fall hits something soft or not high enough etc

 

[-nobodyknows-]

I'm not.

 

[_Gollum_]

I feel like a lot of people adopt the "antinatalist" label without due consideration to its connotations beyond, "People shouldn't breed." ie. It's also an endorsement for human extinction.

The implication here is that extinction is wrong, but this is not obvious. Regardless, extinction will never come about by people choosing to stop reproducing, so the moral goods or harms of extinction achieved this way is more of a thought exercise than anything.

To go on a bit of a tangent here: Personally, I believe there are far too many people procreating when they shouldn't be, and too many people choosing not to procreate when they're in ideal positions to do so. But how would that actually be addressed without imposing eugenics on the population?

So, this is a belief that I have. But I reject eugenics all the same.

As @Cosmophobic said, personal convictions don't always--or even ever--entail enforcement. While antinatalists believe that procreation is always a harm, they do not--and cannot--force that belief on anyone else. Their personal conviction usually only amounts to a personal choice to not have kids. I'm sure you could find a few kooks out there but we generally don't support eugenics or forced sterilization due to the ethical implications.

This can be applied to the beliefs of antinatalism. "People shouldn't procreate." OK, but would you also actively support our extinction? Would you be OK with being the messenger, telling people, "Sorry, but we're gonna have to sterilize you." Or, "Oh, you were planning a family? Well, that's not happening now." Or, "Oh, you're pregnant? Well... see, we're not procreating anymore, so... about that..." Or, what happens if someone finds a way to defy the procreation ban and bring a new life into the world? Or, would it be simpler to just force an extinction event so that no one has to worry about these questions?

This is like saying to a vegan, "What, are you going to tell people, 'You were planning on having a delicious meat roast today? Well, that's not happening now!' Or, 'Oh, you're currently eating a creamy beef stroganoff? Well, we don't eat meat or dairy anymore, so... about that...'"

Like sure, vegans would ideally want everyone to adopt their diet, but they recognize the impracticality and immorality of such use of force, so they settle for activism and personal choice.

 

[lurk]

Antinatalism is such a double-digit IQ take.

"My life is miserable, that means everyone's life is too. Let's go extinct!!"

 

[GhostInTheMachine]

Ignoring the obvious bait above me.

In a theoretical world where I can travel to a future and can confirm my descendants would indeed want the lives they end up with, I wouldn't have much issue with reproduction. Some suffering is always inevitable, but overwhelming suffering isn't. Lots of people wouldn't mind suffering to even great degrees if it meant that there was something to show for all of it afterwards. The problem is that reality is quite brutal and the odds of a good life for my children wouldn't be high considering I don't come the kind of wealth that could supplement their deficits. I'm willing to gamble on my life any day, but not on somebody else's, much less my children's.

I can guarantee most of the pro-natalists of the world would immediately hesitate on having kids if they were shown in advance that their kids would suffer horrid lives with no real prospects of delight. Anybody who still chooses to force their kid into that life, knowing full well their kid won't have anything to really live for is just a psychopath. The fools who cry about "but we'll go extinct" act like they really give a shit about the fate of humanity when they don't even care about their own kids.

 

[-Link-]

The implication here is that extinction is wrong, but this is not obvious. Regardless, extinction will never come about by people choosing to stop reproducing, so the moral goods or harms of extinction achieved this way is more of a thought exercise than anything.

If people choose to stop reproducing, the natural outcome is extinction. This is a built-in component of antinatalism. Anyone using this label should accept and acknowledge the logical consequences of it. Otherwise, they should probably use a more accurate label.

As @Cosmophobic said, personal convictions don't always--or even ever--entail enforcement. While antinatalists believe that procreation is always a harm, they do not--and cannot--force that belief on anyone else. Their personal conviction usually only amounts to a personal choice to not have kids. I'm sure you could find a few kooks out there but we generally don't support eugenics or forced sterilization due to the ethical implications.

The personal choice to not have kids is just that -- "I'm choosing not to have kids". Why adopt such a controversial, far-reaching, consequential label instead of something like "childfree", which would be more accurate and absent all these overtones?

This is the difference between "people shouldn't have children" (implications: judgement against those who do; human extinction) and "people should think before they have children" (implications: common sense; would make for a better world).

This is like saying to a vegan, "What, are you going to tell people, 'You were planning on having a delicious meat roast today? Well, that's not happening now!' Or, 'Oh, you're currently eating a creamy beef stroganoff? Well, we don't eat meat or dairy anymore, so... about that...'"

Like sure, vegans would ideally want everyone to adopt their diet, but they recognize the impracticality and immorality of such use of force, so they settle for activism and personal choice.

Does there come a point where a label implies such strong connotations that its usage outside the context of those connotations is no longer appropriate?

Veganism isn't an implied threat to people's personal family planning or to the future of humanity as a whole.

What about the "vegan" who makes an exception for cheese. Or the "pacifist" who concedes the necessity of occasional war. Or, wait for it... the "straight guy" who "likes doing a guy every now and then".

Antinatalism without the extinction component is just like the cheese-eating vegan, or the war-mongering pacifist, or the label-bending straight guy.

This isn't about antinatalism in practice. That's a whole other discussion.

This is about the implications of the label and what people are implying when they profess themselves "antinatalist". The above-mentioned issues in this thread go towards the reasons why people have hostile reactions to it. With that in mind: If a so-called "antinatalist" doesn't buy into the extinction element, then I think they're doing themselves a disservice by adopting the label.

Regarding philosophy and ethics, a popular response to the topic question will be, "the state of the world". But how much of "the state of the world" is due to people imposing their philosophy and ethics on others? As "antinatalism" comes with an implied push towards human extinction, the topic will always be a flashpoint in conversation. Thus my discouraging use of the label unless someone is truly all-in with it, otherwise it just invites avoidable arguments as well as inaccurate, highly negative judgements from others.

Maybe some people don't care about those inaccurate judgements. I don't know. Personally, I wouldn't want people wrongfully believing I'm for human extinction, but that's just me.

 

[azo]

Antinatalism is such a double-digit IQ take.

"My life is miserable, that means everyone's life is too. Let's go extinct!!"

strawman

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

all of them

strawman

Probably a frustrated troll. ignore button