The right to exist is only applicable to those already here which antinatalism doesn't go against. Unless you're talking about those that haven't even been born, in which case how do you propose we let every single being that could've ever had a chance to be conceived have this fundamental right? It's impossible.
True, I think suffering is inherent to life. I don't think there's any situation where a utopia is really possible... like we can reduce suffering but never eliminate it. Even reducing suffering has issues because our technologies always have unintended consequences. Even the mental health crisis is mostly a result of civilization (likely not present in our hunter-gatherer ancestors). And I agree, people not procreating is definitely not going to happen.
I know antinatalism doesn't advocate killing the living. sperm and eggs aren't beings, they're cells.
Yes exactly, I see it that way too, I thought suffering prevention should be on everyone's minds as the most important thing but clearly not...I guess I'd rather not see a kid suffering horribly even if it means missing out on seeing a kid happy. It's a super easy choice for me
Yeah so what's the problem
Last edited:
People bang and have kids and they're never going to stop. Some will successfully use birth control to reduce the number of children. They will do this regardless of how you feel about it. Antinatalism presents a fantasy world where there is no suffering. No such thing exists or could exist.
Well you're free to ignore discussions that you think are fantasy and others are free to discuss them aren't they? Just don't say antinatalism removes rights, especially when you admit yourself people are gonna keep doing it regardless of what any antinatalist thinks. If discussing the morality of it makes people uncomfortable that's too bad tho.
Do you really think antinatalism could be the future? It's hard for me to believe that antinatalists think it's realistically possible, not just theoretically possible. Antinatalism is a coping skill, not a serious philosophy.
@thenamingofcats when I first discovered antinatalism I did, until I saw the huge backlash it gets in the mainstream and then I realised damn this is not gonna catch on lol. I'm not gonna go out doing activism for it but I like having discussions about it. That being said I have huge respect for those braving the public trying to spread the word, I believe it is becoming more wider known these days which is all we can probably hope for really.
thewalkingdread
Life is a pointless, undeserved, unnecessary pain.
- Oct 30, 2023
- 489
Yes. Not only it could be the future but It actually is the future. At least for the one who matters the most to me, anyways: my unborn son.
My unborn son will never experience an ounce of pain or suffering, he will never get sick or die.
He won't get to have the pleasure of going to Disneyland to see Mickey Mouse... But who really cares about futile shit like that.
Therefore... antinatalism is pretty grounded and real to me and, specially, to my unborn son.
About the rest of the word: I couldn't really give a rats ass about what people end up doing to themselves and their own children, as long I'm not harmed by any of that. If people don't like to listen to reason, it's their own fault.
I mean... It's not that I don't care at all about what happens to the rest of the world... I am not a monster. And I surely would, and will, try to prevent bad stuff from happening If I can, but I know I'm not God.
"Actually, my parents could also CTB"
thewalkingdread
Life is a pointless, undeserved, unnecessary pain.
- Oct 30, 2023
- 489
Beyond_Repair
Disheartened Ghost
- Oct 27, 2023
- 452
I agree wholeheartedly. You can't consent to being born. If you ask parents why they had kids, many will say things like "I wanted a mini-me!" "Who else is going to take care of you when you're old?" "It's just what you do!". Or that they are bored and want a new experience, it's what's socially expected of them, or they want another human that is dependent on them and programmed to love them. Procreating is generally careless, thoughtless, and selfish if not completely irresponsible in some cases.
People have kids even when they are dirt poor. People have kids when they are living in war zones or countries in extreme poverty. People have kids even if they have highly heritable conditions that are guaranteed to make a person's life significantly harder. They have the child anyway. Do you think that kid would have chosen to be born into those situations?
If you asked the majority of people working for low wages or jobs with bad conditions if they would rather continue working or never have to work again and be able to live comfortably, I'm sure the majority would choose the latter. Unfortunately, we are not given this choice when we are born. Not to mention parents who are strict or have religious views or whatever else and place expectations on their children.
That's to say, obviously there are better, more loving parents than others. But it's still selfish to have kids, because the parents are making the decision for themselves, and the child has no say in it.
The vast majority of people are happy and grateful to be alive though.
Just because a tiny minority of us suffer with deep depression, doesn't mean all humans are suffering.
Why should we prevent others feeling joy and happiness just because we are ill?
Just because a tiny minority of us suffer with deep depression, doesn't mean all humans are suffering.
Why should we prevent others feeling joy and happiness just because we are ill?
They're opposed to any and all human suffering so they would rather eventually have the entire human race wiped out.
Ambivalent1
🎵 Be all, end all 🎵
- Apr 17, 2023
- 3,279
The amount of people I've created through sperm deposits at the local sperm bank is astronomical.
Pluto
Meowing to go out
- Dec 27, 2020
- 4,120
Arihman
Efilist, atheist, pro-right to die.
- Jun 8, 2023
- 133
Thing is, you don't really know it. Yes, people prefer to exist, but that doesn't equate to actually loving life, anymore than being addicted to an abusive partner would be proof that the relationship is good for you.
And the amount of people who suffer is not a tiny minority anyway. It might be a minority, but it's certainly not a tiny one.
But still, that's irrelevant to the fact that the absence of happy beings would not be a tragedy, either objectively (as in, for the universe, since it would not be in torment over the absence of life) or for them (since they couldn't even lament not existing), and hence that their needs do not need to exist.
Given that, and the fact that suffering also doesn't need to exist, procreation is not ethically right, and it can only be done for the sake of the parents. Procreation is ultimately unnecessary suffering for the sake of unnecessary benefits.
Thus, in order to rationally justify it, something more is needed than appeals to popularity, appeals to nature, or some variation of "I want". If tomorrow I tried to create a sickness for the sake of curing it, and my proposed justification was one of these, all without proving why what I'm doing actually has some greater utility, I'm pretty sure no reasonable person would buy it.
xinino
Anti humanist
- Mar 31, 2024
- 398
Beyond_Repair
Disheartened Ghost
- Oct 27, 2023
- 452
I don't think anyone wants to prevent others from feeling joy and happiness.
Antinatalism is about preventing future suffering. If a child isn't born, they will never have missed being born in the first place, and will never worry about whether they were able to experience joy and happiness. Not having been born, however, does guarantee that a hypothetical child will never experience any suffering.
This diagram pretty much sums up the morality of antinatalism. Also, while trying to find the source for the diagram I came upon this site which made for some really interesting reading, if anyone is interested in the philosophy of antinatalism.
So it's ok for people to go through any amount of suffering as long as they're still grateful to be alive? The immoral thing is to prevent happiness? So during all the covid lockdowns we all should've been living life completely normally and partying because fuck all the old people suffering and dying, people feeling joy and happiness is more important than that? Do you think all the happiness that was prevented in that situation to reduce suffering was immoral?
untothedepths
ego death, then death
- Mar 20, 2023
- 593
IF parents are financially, emotionally, and mentally stable who DO want children then I don't see it as selfish as much. While the child didn't ask to be born, the child is most likely going to grow up and have the best odds. Personally I would wait sense we are heading straight into a world war again by the looks of it but I'm not one to judge, I guess.
Any other time it feels like two people have sex and they have a baby. It's "oops, well that happened" type of selfishness, in which the only reason behind even caring for the kid is just out of obligation, guilt, or a mix of both. On some level the kid will probably not get enough adequate love, attention, or necessities met.
....not to mention the whole epidemic of orphans, mental health crisis, financial ruin facing the world.
So, unless you are prepared to raise a whole ass human being, who can become a good human being, even with the possibility of disabilities and their own challenges, I would highly advise you not to. I mean, unless you don't care that is, and you're just a demographic to help feed the war machine so economies get their much needed bandaid, because we cannot possible touch money hoarder money...
Any other time it feels like two people have sex and they have a baby. It's "oops, well that happened" type of selfishness, in which the only reason behind even caring for the kid is just out of obligation, guilt, or a mix of both. On some level the kid will probably not get enough adequate love, attention, or necessities met.
....not to mention the whole epidemic of orphans, mental health crisis, financial ruin facing the world.
So, unless you are prepared to raise a whole ass human being, who can become a good human being, even with the possibility of disabilities and their own challenges, I would highly advise you not to. I mean, unless you don't care that is, and you're just a demographic to help feed the war machine so economies get their much needed bandaid, because we cannot possible touch money hoarder money...
Moniker
Member
- Nov 1, 2023
- 66
I think a large majority of people are raised in an environment where having kids is a wonderful thing, so I don't think I'm gonna get mad at parents for never considering the anti-natalist perspective when they've likely never even encountered it (excluding some common sense views on parenting such as if one is ready to raise a kid).
Still, I always found the common disregard for adoption to be troublesome. I don't get the appeal behind creating a bloodline or whatever. Having a kid in spite of being able to improve a preexisting child's life could be considered nothing but selfish.
Still, I always found the common disregard for adoption to be troublesome. I don't get the appeal behind creating a bloodline or whatever. Having a kid in spite of being able to improve a preexisting child's life could be considered nothing but selfish.
Circling back to OP, the perspective you are taking would fall under the theory of psychological egoism, basically that all human actions are by their nature self-centered. I am an anti-natalist, but don't quite agree with egoism as there is a lot of proof against it as a concept. If having children came from purely selfish intent, parents would not die for their children. In reality, the desire to have children is a complex combination of natural instincts, societal norms, the desire to leave a legacy (which certainly is selfish), and the outlook that life is inherently sacred or positive. We here think about and push back against many of those ideals, but the majority of people have a different perspective and have so since time immemorial.
