Thoughts on Antinatalism?

[DeadbeatDaughter]

"the philosophical value judgment that procreation is unethical or unjustifiable."

I once saw a YouTube video called voluntary extinction, that talks about it. Although very realistically, a hypothetical "voluntary extinction" is completely..well, impossible. It's not something that would ever happen, the philosophical beliefs of every person honestly varies so much especially when it comes to the topics of procreation. There's obviously no more than a small group of people who even agree with Antinatalism to begin with.

The idea is that you could spare someone the unnecessary pain of life, by keeping that person inexistent. Many people on this forum can probably agree, if having been given the choice of life, knowing what would come of it...you might have chosen to skip this experience.

Well then some argue, what about the good in life? Doesn't the good in life make the misery worth it? Well that's something else that's likely going to vary person to person. But what does the good mean...when it's not guaranteed? There is a chance everyone will have a good life. But there is a guarantee that everyone will experience misery. Hunger, boredom, sadness. Grief, heartbreak, disease.

Is it worth it to be brought into existence, if there's (let's just say) a solid %50 chance of experiencing all the misery. Whereas inexistence offers %100 avoidance of misery. What is really best for life at stake? And if that life could choose....would they really chose to be brought into a world that will absolutely cause misery? Misfortune? Very likely, depression. Especially in the world of today. Is it not a selfish, almost cruel, decision to make for someone? To decide they will have to bare the burden of life?

 

[U. A.]

You need to reply to this thread or react to this post in order to see this content.

 

[Forever Sleep]

I am an anti-natilist personally. I don't hate all parents. It's more a hope they can give their child what it needs and a dread that they may not or that something will happen that they had no control over.

By that principle though- I have to agree that it's morally questionable to birth children- because they are exposing that lifeform to KNOWN danger. Some of which they have no control over preventing.

I suppose it's being aware that's the problem. We don't expect animals to go anti-natilist because we largely assume they live according to primal instincts. We can think and reason though. We aren't so bound to those primal drives. Otherwise- we wouldn't be able to suicide either. I suppose I have the feeling that we ought to know better!

There again- if a person hasn't suffered greatly in their life or, they've been able to overcome problems relatively easily- I also wonder if it's reasonable to expect them to truly appreciate what they might be exposing their child to.

There again- none of us live under a rock! We know about all the numerous illnesses we are prone to- at any age. We know lots of people experience bullying and abuse. We've heard of rape and murder. We know what the state of the economy and job market is. We know life isn't exactly fair. It does truly perplex me that seeing and knowing and living through all that- people still think: 'What a great place to bring a child into!'

I suppose that touches on something else though. I tend to think would- be parents aren't solely focussed on that. As in- How will my child fair in this world? I think their desire to procreate is because THEY want it. They want to experience that (hopefully) loving bond. It will give them pleasure to watch their child (hopefully) enjoy the fun things in life. They maybe want offspring who will take up their (failed) ambitions or, who will look after them in old age. They maybe think being a parent will give them new purpose in life. But- all of that stuff is selfish need. At best- it's an exchange. Will you look after me, if I look after you? Why is that something to be admired though?

I suppose that's the other thing. REALLY incredible parents sometimes stand out. When- should they? Shouldn't that just be the norm? What kind of job is any of us going to do? I doubt I'd be a neglectful or abusive parent but- if my offspring grew up with all the same pessimism and insecurity I have- which of course- they likely would. How on earth would I teach optimism and confidence? Chances are though- they'll have ended up suffering in the same way I have. Why would I want that for them? So- on an individual basis too- I think we should be thinking about what we can really give children and where we might not be all that great for them.

I suppose I'm more grateful than anything else- that I was too uggly to attract a man when I was younger. It's not impossible I would have had children back then. I have this weird love for my unborn children tucked up safe and away in non existence. I feel like I'm the best, most protective Mum I could be by not being one in the first place! My children will never bet bullied, abused, bereaved and die.

I've seen the argument presented as numerical figures. Where non existence is 0 and life is either +1 or -1. So that's really the question I suppose. Is it worth risking a minus score over a zero? Ultimately- it's a lottery. If we were all so convinced that a win is worth the risk- we'd all be playing with all of our money every week. But- we won't risk that much misfortune when it affects us. Put another way- we walk up to someone in the street with a button. They can choose to walk away or press the button. If they press the button, they will either be handed a million pounds or, they will contract Sickle Cell Disease. Maybe not a great example because those already suffering may well still risk it and press it but I imagine most wouldn't want to risk that chance. Especially if they aren't told the odds. Ironic then, that we'll expose our children to terrible odds sometimes and still claim to love them.

I suppose to be fair though- can we absolutely call non existence a minus score? Do we absolutely know there isn't some kind of consciousness before or after death? I tend to think there isn't so- that equation makes sense to me. Having no awareness in pre existence means we can't feel envy of those who have life. Why risk that peace for a totally unknown variable? On the off chance they may be ok?

 

[orvreader]

Based on my limited understanding of anti-natalism, I personally disagree. I think people should be born into this world, it's just that they should also be freely allowed to leave.

 

[DeadbeatDaughter]

I have this weird love for my unborn children tucked up safe and away in non existence. I feel like I'm the best, most protective Mum I could be by not being one in the first place! My children will never bet bullied, abused, bereaved and die.

Couldn't have said it better. When I look at conversations between antinatalists it often seems like alot of them foster this very deep affection for children they're never going to have, me included.

 

[daruino]

In my opinion it's kind of weird to think you're somehow "sparing" and doing the "right thing" by not creating more humans. If anything it's just as morally grey as choosing to bring someone in (though morally it's basically non-existing since you don't actually bring someone in,, but assuming we are talking about a 'real person').

We view this in the sasu bubble where the conversation is with like minded suicidal people, mostly holding quite negative beliefs on life, but there are actually people who enjoy being alive, who are not suicidal. They probably experience life way differently (and more positively than users here). Even the people here have not always been suicidal, think of in the first few years of living,,
My point is that you can't for certain say that you're "saving" a potential human (that doesn't exist) from anything, because it's unsure how their life would even unfold. If you know you're an unfit parent, then yes... but that's not what you seem to be saying.

I agree with orvreader ; the solution to all this is simply just the choice to freely be allowed to leave!

 

[itsgone2]

Based on my limited understanding of anti-natalism, I personally disagree. I think people should be born into this world, it's just that they should also be freely allowed to leave.

perfectly stated.

 

[Liebestod]

I am an antinatalist purely because life is a forceful imposition. Suffering is also inherent in life/life is suffering, so it could be said that procreating is a forceful imposition of suffering. Even if life didn't have suffering it doesn't change the fact that the person has no say in the matter as well as the fact that they have no control over the course of their life as they can't choose their genetics or parents or where they're born. Also not only does the person not have a say in their own existence they also are forced to undergo cultural conditioning. They become infected with cultural values as the only reason they exist was to continue perpetuating said values. Values control people, culture is masochism, life is suffering. Culture is the systemic artificial imposition of suffering through values and deprivation.

 

[Maravillosa]

I've been reading at the Crisis online magazine an ongoing series of articles on why existence rather than nothingness. Crisis is decidedly Catholic, so I assume the series of articles will end with the assertion that God wants the universe (and us) to exist, and that we should feel privileged and grateful to be alive, even though God allows us to suffer for our own good. That line of thought does not completely convince me. Why does God want the universe to exist? It can't be because He is lonely, since God is by definition self-sufficient.

Often I wish I were a fictional character rather than an actual person. Sometimes I wish someone less fortunate and more grateful than I could step into my life without anyone noticing, while my consciousness, my soul, can sleep till the Last Judgment. (Yes, I know that soul sleep is heretical from the Catholic POV, but there are times when I wish for it.) I often don't feel privileged and grateful for the gift of life that God has given me. Yes, I know I am far more privileged than at least 90% of all humans who have ever existed, but if I, who am so fortunate, can feel so miserable, how awful must have been the lives of those worse off than I!

At least I have never been pregnant, never had children who could be brought into the trap of existence against their will. I've never married, never had a serious romantic relationship: the only way I could refrain from childbearing and not sin in doing so, since my tenuous physical and mental health preclude my becoming a nun. (I'm 59 and had my last period in 2013, so it's highly unlikely I will ever have children.) Last Sunday at Mass, during the homily for the feast day of the Holy Family, the priest went a tiny bit ballistic on couples who marry at 35 and are reluctant to have children (and call their pet dogs and cats their babies). The priest wondered why people would marry in the first place if they didn't want kids. (If a couple gets married in the Catholic Church without accepting any children that might come along, the marriage is invalid.) He didn't mention financial difficulties living alone, the longing for companionship, etc. as reasons for marriage. The priest is from the Philippines, so I suspect he might think any financial difficulties suburban Americans might experience are paltry compared to what people in his homeland endure.

Anyway... it's hard to reconcile my antinatalist tendencies with my Catholic beliefs. I suspect it'd be nice if every human being voluntarily abstained from sex for 100 years, but I doubt that will ever happen.

I hope the new year gives you the fulfillment of all your desires.

 

[maylurker]

antinatalism makes sense if ur deep in the dark and want to ctb but for most normies its not that bleak. lifes a mixed bag but the mix is worth rolling for quite some people

 

[FuneralCry]

No matter what this existence should never be imposed and the fact that humans continue to punish others by forcing them into this torturous, deeply undesirable existence I just always saw as a mistake truly is the most terrible, devastating tragedy to me, all that existence does is just cause harm and suffering with no limit as to how much one can be tortured.

I'll just always see it as an abomination to suffer in this existence, never existing would had saved me from so much futile unnecessary suffering in this existence that to me is always so torturous, every second is torture to be conscious and what is so horrific is how humans have made suicide into a crime even know this existence was so cruelly forced in the first place.

It truly is a terrible punishment to be trapped in this existence, life should never be forced into this evil world where there is all this endless suffering, it's just so horrifying how humans cause so much harm all for the sake of it that there was never a need for at all yet do all they can to make it so others cannot leave this torturous, cruel existence on their own terms, being born is the true cause of all torture, pain and suffering and to me forcing all this suffering onto others will always be so horrific.

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

I think you shouldn't add more people to this world until we fix it. Let's focus on making everyone's lives better first.

Also I have mental illnesses and no money, I should not have a child so that they suffer 100%.

I don't think it's a bad thing, no? I will adopt if I somehow end up living and make enough money to help a child. But I probably will not be able to due to always going to be single by choice and being trans so yeah.

Whatever.

 

[MicahBell]

"the philosophical value judgment that procreation is unethical or unjustifiable."

I once saw a YouTube video called voluntary extinction, that talks about it. Although very realistically, a hypothetical "voluntary extinction" is completely..well, impossible. It's not something that would ever happen, the philosophical beliefs of every person honestly varies so much especially when it comes to the topics of procreation. There's obviously no more than a small group of people who even agree with Antinatalism to begin with.

The idea is that you could spare someone the unnecessary pain of life, by keeping that person inexistent. Many people on this forum can probably agree, if having been given the choice of life, knowing what would come of it...you might have chosen to skip this experience.

Well then some argue, what about the good in life? Doesn't the good in life make the misery worth it? Well that's something else that's likely going to vary person to person. But what does the good mean...when it's not guaranteed? There is a chance everyone will have a good life. But there is a guarantee that everyone will experience misery. Hunger, boredom, sadness. Grief, heartbreak, disease.

Is it worth it to be brought into existence, if there's (let's just say) a solid %50 chance of experiencing all the misery. Whereas inexistence offers %100 avoidance of misery. What is really best for life at stake? And if that life could choose....would they really chose to be brought into a world that will absolutely cause misery? Misfortune? Very likely, depression. Especially in the world of today. Is it not a selfish, almost cruel, decision to make for someone? To decide they will have to bare the burden of life?

I think this current world and fucked and personally I pity every baby born into it. But I think in a better world (for me, I long for what my society looked like pre-colonialism. I think I could live in that world) it wouldn't be unethical to reproduce. Life is full of pain, but there is also love and beauty.

 

[grantaire]

I don't think there's inherently anything wrong with having children. but I think I would never do that and don't think most people should, all of that is nuanced. I do however think that having more than 3 children MAX is unethical.

 

[badatparties]

If you can look at the horrors of human history like the holocaust and still decide to have children, double fuck you