What are your feelings on Antinatalism?

[loopylou]

Think I have been on this website far too long as iv seen this argument a few times now

 

[avoid_slow_death]

My pain and sorrow are my own although most of it is born of the selfish actions of others. That said, I don't feel I have a right to place my subjective view of the world upon others. Their choices are their choices and to tell someone otherwise is to thrust the same subjective views on others that led me to this. In summary, said concept is simply a choice just like most things in life. I don't support nor begrudge anyone for this point of view.

 

[loopylou]

My pain and sorrow are my own although most of it is born of the selfish actions of others. That said, I don't feel I have a right to place my subjective view of the world upon others. Their choices are their choices and to tell someone otherwise is to thrust the same subjective views on others that led me to this. In summary, said concept is simply a choice just like most things in life. I don't support nor begrudge anyone for this point of view.

This.

 

[Efilismislife]

If the universe rolls good dice for you, then there can be a lot of joy in life. I know I've had some amazing experiences here and others have told me they have too. I definitely acknowledge the suffering as well though and how awful it can be, which is why I think a right to die is essential. Some people just suffer terribly, and ALL people deserve that option.

The strongest belief I hold is that we don't have free will. That means I can't be angry at my parents for conceiving me, it wasn't a free choice of theirs. They were compelled to procreate, much the same as I am compelled to die.

Well if youre happy in life you wouldnt be in a depression suicidal forum right..

Yeah i think if one can guarantee a great life full of satisfying experiences and low pain with a happy ending. Its ok to procreate. But who can guarantee that?

Let alone if happy ending exist? Since everybody has to experience dying and the body deteriorating.

Have you seen Animalplanet and such? How the animal eating happily then after a while they get eaten screaming in agony.
is the joy of eating worth the pain?

Also heres a article about a prince being asked at the end of the life if hes truely happy when he had experience joy of life. And he said no. And said
"O man! place not thy confidence in this present world!"

Also a science, psychology that human actually not meant to be happy but to survive. Which is why you cant be fully satisfied

Humans aren’t designed to be happy – so stop trying

Happiness is a human construct, an abstract idea with no biological basis. But this is something to be happy about.

theconversation.com

Because even when all our material and biological needs are satisfied, a state of sustained happiness will still remain a theoretical and elusive goal.

Happiness is a human construct, an abstract idea with no equivalent in actual human experience. Positive and negative affects do reside in the brain, but sustained happiness has no biological basis.

The fact that evolution has prioritised the development of a big frontal lobe in our brain (which gives us excellent executive and analytical abilities) over a natural ability to be happy, tells us a lot about nature's priorities.

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

That means I can't be angry at my parents for conceiving me,

If you are, you can. And whether or not you are is pre-determined.

 

[Efilismislife]

Whyd you keep deleting your post twice though? Its a good post

im confused cause i saw your post twice and it keeps disappearing

@pthnrdnojvsc

 

[Deleted member 8579]

People who bring new lives into this hell are evil.

This is a bit much. I don't think they are evil, but merely ignorant or stupid (inclusive "or").
It is akin to saying that a drunk driver who caused a horrible accident is evil.

This entire system is a giant ponzi scheme. It requires a constant stream of new slaves to sustain itself. That is why governments and corporations are always freaking out about low birth rates. With less people who are going to pay their taxes, fight their wars, create their wealth and consume their products?

Spot on. In a sensible society, each generation should be able to sustain itself without borrowing from future generations. If society begins to experience severe setbacks because fewer people are being produced than expected, something is fundamentally wrong.

I mentioned before on this forum that I don't believe that there is such a thing as an instinct to procreate. I think it's more accurate to say that we have an instinct to have sex, which in turn leads to children as an effect.

This is a perfect summary.

People will scream that it is eugenics. Look at people who have kids with severe disabilities and call it a blessing. Even though the kid is in complete agnoy and torment. It is all about the feelings of the parents and not the quality of life for the kids.

It is most unfortunate that the reputation of eugenics has been tarnished by the national socialists.
Some will say that severely disabled people and people with devastating mental illnesses are able to live lives as happy as anyone else. They fail to realise that mentally and physically disabled people were either born with their impairments or were forced to develop coping mechanisms after sustaining them. No healthy person would willingly chose to live the life of a paraplegic or a schizophrenic, which proves that living with a disability is an undesired way of life; there is no need to force it on others, especially if it could have been prevented.

Thats what people use to insult actually

"WHY DONT ANTI NATALIST JUST KILL THEMSELVES! TRASH WASTING THE OXYGEN! HYPOCRITE"

I thought the position of antinatalism was to stop bringing new life into being, not forcible eradicating life already in existence.
How is telling someone with a different worldview to kill themselves reconcilable with the belief that life is precious and must be preserved?

By their logic, murder should be permitted, rape as well...I can easily see someone arguing for the "natural-ness" of these things, the "inability" to control the urge, we see them all the time in other species and we don't exactly demonize or pathologize them (unless when applied to ourselves.)

Such a stupid argument. There is hardly anything natural about modern life. Cancer is natural; that doesn't make it good.

Even about the threat about overpopulation people still dont care. Some organization works to raise awareness about it. And to places where many people uneducated it shows that they breed more mindlessly.

I don't understand why you harp on about overpopulation. Overpopulation is not the problem, existence is; overpopulation is merely a consequence thereof.

If the universe rolls good dice for you, then there can be a lot of joy in life. I know I've had some amazing experiences here and others have told me they have too.

So you live 80 blissful years and then you die; what is the point of this futile exercise? If you create life, anything can happen. Even if it would be easy to execute a suicide (pun), you need to go through high amounts of suffering to even consider suicide an option, let alone commit it.
Much better to not create life at all.

 

[ConfusedAndWeird]

I sympathise heavily with many antinatalist sentiments, but I don't subscribe to antinatalism. I think it's fine to create life, what's not fine is to forbid that life from dying if it wants to.

If the universe rolls good dice for you, then there can be a lot of joy in life. I know I've had some amazing experiences here and others have told me they have too.

I think it's true that many people find joy in life, and I think it would be wrong to deny that from them, but I still think that Antinatalism is the right way to go in general based on how our morality applied to other similar situations is formulated. Essentially the issue is that the unborn, being non-existent, cannot consent to being born. But it's also true they can't consent to not being born either, and by not creating them, we could be denying them plenty of positive life experiences (if we suppose that this is a bad thing, which I personally have doubts about, but let's assume this would be bad here).

Let's take an example of where somebody is intoxicated for example. Even if a person is high in drugs, they cannot properly consent to sex, and having sex without their consent would be rape. However, it's also true in this case that sex is generally pleasurable and that by denying them sex (especially if they ask for it) you could be denying them positive experiences. But in this dilemma, we resolve it by taking the more passive choice of action where we don't do anything to the inebriated. The passive choice is the less risky choice that is less likely to expose a person to severe or permanent suffering. In this case a raped person could be traumatized by the experience and find it difficult to cope with living with it, as an example of what could go wrong. We also apply this principle to other groups that can't properly consent like kids or animals, which can't legally consent to many various things. A child couldn't consent to be a member of the military (where I live anyways) but that also implies they can't properly consent to not be a member of the military. But we don't let them join anyways even if they expressed the desire to join because these kids could suffer a lot from the experiences of war.

So when it comes to having a child or not, they are not even existent to say whether they would want to live or not, and to be consistent with our other moral norms, we should make the choice that would less likely expose the potential children to severe suffering. In this case, not giving birth to kids would fit better than having them. So I think even if many people enjoy life, I still think it would be wrong to have kids based on the matter of consent and gambling with their future.

 

[motel rooms]

Some people who know that life is very painful won't have children, most others will continue to breed like the nasty str8 breeders that they are.
I say the solution is large-scale bareback gay orgies because I'm a good Catholic & we hate condoms even more than Muslims & Protestants. We also think that all females should be more like the Blessed Virgin, which can be accomplished by them having only lesbian sex (the Pope & all the cardinals say only dicks count when it comes to devirginizing women - they have examined many a lesbian porn video & they were not impressed).

 

[LastFlowers]

but whats the purpose for bringing the creature into the world to suffer&die?

Unless euthanasia is free and allowed its not a 'prize' because its so frustrating just to find N!

Think about it WHY THEY ALLOW FREE MINDLESS BREEDING JUST TO BRING MORE DYING PEOPLE BUT BANNED A HUMANE WAY TO EXIT? THEY SHOULD PROVIDE IT INSTEAD AS AN COMPENSATION FOR BRINGING A PERSON OUT OF THEIR CONSENT TO A TERRIBLE PLACE?

Um..I am confused by your response..
I said "consolation prize", that means something far different than simply calling access to euthanasia or any suicide a "prize".
A consolation prize is what you get even when you lost the race, a small favor, and my point was that to never have begun the hellish race to begin with would be preferable to going through with it and suffering, just to lose and get a damn consolation, like "well here, it's the least we can do, it won't erase all the trauma and pain you've endured, but at least you can end it now."
It is kind of shitty when you think about it,
that's the bare minimum and sort of a slap in the face, but we are still begging for it because we know that's the best we are going to get and we are desperate to put a stop to the madness.
It's our right, after all.

I am simply saying that to have never been born is superior to having lived a life of suffering, or risking such.
Because death isn't even enough, once you've reached the point of no return.
Death ends your consciousness of the torture, it doesn't erase it unfortunately.

If the universe rolls good dice for you, then there can be a lot of joy in life. I know I've had some amazing experiences here and others have told me they have too. I definitely acknowledge the suffering as well though and how awful it can be, which is why I think a right to die is essential. Some people just suffer terribly, and ALL people deserve that option.

The strongest belief I hold is that we don't have free will. That means I can't be angry at my parents for conceiving me, it wasn't a free choice of theirs. They were compelled to procreate, much the same as I am compelled to die.

That concept of a lack of free will is flawed. And by that logic, the prolifers are also acting out of a fated path, rather than choosing to harass us, so are they free from blame as well? Murderers? Rapists? Child molesters?

People make the informed decision not to have children every day.
I do not think rolling the dice on a human life is morally or ethically sound, you're gambling with the unknown and you're not even the one who suffers the consequences.
Just because some people get a better hand dealt to them, doesn't mean their pleasure matters more than our pain, it doesn't mean continued procreation and risking more lives to roll snake eyes just to get some that roll otherwise, is worth it.
We need to stop sacrificing people to a nightmare life, just for the off-chance that they might end up one of the lucky ones, the ones who use the less fortunate as stepping stones to their own end, and beginning.
If you told me I would have 10 children and 9 of them would live mostly happy, fulfilled lives, while 1 of them would suffer to the point of suicide, or even at all in relation to their siblings...for that very fact alone, I would refuse to have a single one of them, just so that I wouldn't risk the suffering of that one child.

Such a stupid argument. There is hardly anything natural about modern life. Cancer is natural; that doesn't make it good.

We were referring to human instincts and the ability for a human being to control themselves rather than blame their actions on a "natural instinct".
So something like cancer wouldn't come into the equation regardless, it wasn't specific enough to the conversation to be relevant.

Also I'm not sure if you are calling my own words stupid or the argument I was outlining..which was my point, that it's ridiculous-to say we can't control whether we procreate on the basis of a natural "urge" but not apply that same flawed logic to other types of "natural urges/instincts", many of which have been (rightfully) outlawed in modern society and most of us manage just fine.
It's a slippery slope, the "natural, therefore good and permitted" argument.
I am pretty sure we are in agreement on that ..

 

[killedbypsychiatry]

That concept of a lack of free will is flawed. And by that logic, the prolifers are also acting out of a fated path, rather than choosing to harass us, so are they free from blame as well? Murderers? Rapists? Child molesters?

for me the hardest thing to accept about lack of free will is that yeah, some people are indeed predetermined to commit such horrible crimes, but that doesn't mean nothing should be don't to prevent it. It's not free will that causes them to do such horrible thing but rather their biology (humans tend to be selfish by biology and seek pleasure) and stuff like systemic violence. I still get angry at people who do horrible thing but I haven't found a compelling argument for free will, the brain is an organ after all that follows the laws of physics like every other organ.

 

[Someonewhotypes]

I am pro-natalism. Someone needs to pay my retirement pension (some kinda joke was tried). Young work force is needed to keep the system going.

Now, jokes aside, I don't think many people here would not be antinatalists since everyone on this sorta forum has thought of undoing their own natalism.

 

[LastFlowers]

for me the hardest thing to accept about lack of free will is that yeah, some people are indeed predetermined to commit such horrible crimes, but that doesn't mean nothing should be don't to prevent it. It's not free will that causes them to do such horrible thing but rather their biology (humans tend to be selfish by biology and seek pleasure) and stuff like systemic violence. I still get angry at people who do horrible thing but I haven't found a compelling argument for free will, the brain is an organ after all that follows the laws of physics like every other organ.

What makes you say they are predetermined? Nature or nurture? Genes or environment, or both?
I don't think it can honestly be said that all factors that lead a person to do what they do and become what they become are wholly biological (in the manner of genetic predispositions).
I think it also depends how you define 'free will' as a concept vs a practice.
If you are strict with how you define it then you need to apply that same strict definition across the board, and that's where things become questionable.
If predetermined events can be preventable then doesn't that give credence to the notion of free will?

For instance, I am replying to you now, is that my own decision, of my own volition, or was this predetermined?
If I were to type a bunch of nonsense right now..glabageufocneoeg384737!,&/!.s...
my choice or predetermined fate?
Preventable?
Could I have chosen otherwise?
Could I have been persuaded to refrain?
Or are my inherent biological factors forcing me to say what I'm saying?

 

[motel rooms]

You don't have to be a six-footer
You don't have to have a great brain
You don't have to have any clothes on
You're a Catholic the moment Dad came
Because
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted
God gets quite irate

Let the heathens spill theirs
On the dusty ground
God shall make them pay for
Each sperm that can't be found

Every sperm is wanted
Every sperm is good
Every sperm is needed
In your neighborhood

Hindu, Taoist, Mormon
Spill theirs just anywhere
But God loves those who treat their
Semen with more care

Every sperm is useful
Every sperm is fine
God needs everybody's
Mine! And mine! And mine!

Let the pagans spill theirs
Over mountain, hill and plain
God shall strike them down for
Each sperm that's spilt in vain

 

[LastFlowers]

My pain and sorrow are my own although most of it is born of the selfish actions of others. That said, I don't feel I have a right to place my subjective view of the world upon others. Their choices are their choices and to tell someone otherwise is to thrust the same subjective views on others that led me to this. In summary, said concept is simply a choice just like most things in life. I don't support nor begrudge anyone for this point of view.

Isn't forcing a life into this world the most significant and egregious example of forcing your subjective views-and thus your decisions based on those views-onto another person?
Children are often a product of the views of their parents, with no care given to their lack of consent to be shaped and chained by said views and decisions.
Your comment actually proves to support antinatalism.

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

Whyd you keep deleting your post twice though? Its a good post

im confused cause i saw your post twice and it keeps disappearing

@pthnrdnojvsc

I'm reposting here. I thought nobody was interested in engaging the topics my post addressed as i got no replies or likes or anything so..

Everyone should have the right to escape pain or torture easily and painlessly. If i am about to be homeless or have extreme pain from a blocked colon from colon cancer i should be able to purchase nembutal pills online to escape this torture. But i can't . i have to suffer the extreme torture of these nightmares. and many do too as we see all the examples here on this website and other places. Anyone can fall into hell any day , an accident can paralyze , a stroke can cause brain damage, cancer etc. . we should be allowed to escape these hells by taking a bottle of nembutal pills that could be purchased online without a prescription.. but we are denied that because of the extreme irrational controlling pro-life ideology dominating the world.

Page doesn't exist

English news from the Voice of America. VOA news provides coverage from around the world and learning English lessons from VOA Special English.

www.voanews.com

Why can't we buy nembutal pills online ? And now they are restricting SN too. And they put Dr Kervorkian in prison for helping very old people with painful terminal illnesses to escape their pain by comiting suicide. Why are they doing this banning anyone from helping us escape our pain, banning Nembutal pills, restricting SN? It's because of the extreme pro-life controlling ideology that is totally dominating the world. antinatalism is censored there is no discussion of any other opinions that go against this oppressive controlling pro-life ideology. if you even mention you want to commit suicide you are considered insane. imo the pro-life ideology is the irrational one. suicide will solve all my problems and pain. most people have no understanding of how bad extreme long lasting physical pain can be . and most people have no understanding that old age, disease and pain are inevitable : so why is suicide so taboo when it should be rational to want to be able to escape imminent torture and have an easy reliable painless way to do it as in nembutal pills.

I don't care what someone else does with their life whether they want to live or die. however imo most of the world is extremely pro-life and wanting to control others by restricting N and SN etc. Most of the world want to stop suicide , stop anyone from comiting suicide and change anyone from being suicidal. so that's why it's very hard for me or anyone who is suffering or is about to be in extreme torture to escape their pain by commiting suicide . there is no threat of antinatalism over taking the world etc. the extreme pro-life irrational view is getting worse imo. and that's why most people will try to stop me if they see me trying to commit suicide.

Efilism and antinatalism imo describes reality better than all the ideologies we are forced fed since birth.

imo practically all the cultures, secular and religious ideologies share the same pro-life false beliefs that state 1. life is sacred and 2. that Death and suicide are the worst things ever and 3. that any one contemplating suicide is mentally ill and irrational .

Efilism and antinatalism don't have this insane imo pro-life view. so that's why i see some reason in some of their arguments . however i don't care what someone else does if they want to have children that doesn't affect my problems in any way. I have huge huge many problems. i need to try to solve them or ctb asap. i can't be worried about what some other human is thinking what their ideology is whether they want to have kids or want to live whatever. that never interests me. what bothers me is that others will try to stop me from killing myself to escape torture. they want to interfere with my life by restricting N, Sn etc and ...

i just wish i could be Nembutal pills online and be done with this hell. it's the pro-life mentality of the world that doesn't permit this from happening. notice the restricting of SN. if people were less wanting to control others and or more open to seeing suicide as an option then N would be available.

But these 2 ideologies efilism and anti-natalism are not allowed and are extremely censored so there is no discussion in the world . Because no discussion is allowed the world is extremely pro-life and they will lock you up in a mental hospital if you attempt suicide. if you attempt and someone catches you they will stop you and leave you alive but with brain damage.

To me Death and suicide are the best things for me because Death solve all my problems forever and after Death i'll never feel pain again nor have any problems etc. I see no purpose to life and much less reason to struggle ,work so hard , and risk the inevitability of accident , disease, old age causing extreme pain that is not understood how bad pain can be by most people.

 

[BeansOfRequirement]

Nature or nurture? Genes or environment, or both?

Both, GenesAndEnvironment.

If predetermined events can be preventable then doesn't that give credence to the notion of free will?

No future events are preventable. That's per definition.

For instance, I am replying to you now, is that my own decision, of my own volition, or was this predetermined?

"Your" decisions are not any different from a calculator generating an answer.

 

[noname223]

I absolutely don't want to have children due to my genes and the probability that i will ctb. It makes me angry when very dumb/ ill people with bad genes and horrible lifes want to procreate. However I would not interfere. Longtime I was a convinced antinatalist but I am not sure if this belief makes me even more depressed. One time I told a psychologist that i am antinatalist and she said no wonder you are depressed lol. In the past I have fought this war on Twitter pro antinatalism also against celebrities. I owned one. She deleted her tweets afterwards she is a famous TV moderator who insulted antinatalists.
But in the end it is not up to me to decide. Also it won't change my life. My sister wants to procreates this makes me very angry. But I won't interfere. People also explain that consciousness is awesome and life is a miracle. Maybe I am too biased because my life was a pure nightmare. I do not want to become even more bitter and resentful.

 

[Amumu]

Isn't forcing a life into this world the most significant and egregious example of forcing your subjective views-and thus your decisions based on those views-onto another person?
Children are often a product of the views of their parents, with no care given to their lack of consent to be shaped and chained by said views and decisions.
Your comment actually proves to support antinatalism.

Note that this forum wouldn't make any sense if free will weren't a thing since the concept of "pro-choice" implies the concept of choice which implies the concept of free will. Free will and determinism aren't incompatible btw, contrary to what most people think.

 

[LastFlowers]

Both, GenesAndEnvironment.

No future events are preventable. That's per definition.

"Your" decisions are not any different from a calculator generating an answer.

Per definition of what?
And whose definition?

Calculators can only generate the correct answer when input properly, humans can generate any number of answers.
So you're saying they can't?
That the brain is chained by a linear and constant path?
Environment isn't exactly set in stone in the way genetics are, so if you consider environment to be a factor then it contradicts the idea that certain events or conditioning toward certain events is not changeable/preventable.

Note that this forum wouldn't make any sense if free will weren't a thing since the concept of "pro-choice" implies the concept of choice which implies the concept of free will. Free will and determinism aren't incompatible btw, contrary to what most people think.

Yea that's why I was pushing for each person to define free will so I know where they're coming from when I'm conversing with them or an argument is to be made.
If the basis of the argument is mercurial then it's kind of pointless and too much confusion will set in.
Yes I realize the distinction between free will and determinism, but free will was what was being brought up and conflated with the latter..although some people do believe they are one in the same apparently, that free will can't exist within a determinist mindset, that a lack of free will is an aspect of determinism.
(I think the official definition itself allows room for it being synonymous to certain people...which just complicates any discussion on it.)

If you wouldn't mind expanding on how they aren't exactly "incompatible", that would be appreciated, thank you.
(Also how that relates to my comment that you quoted?..I'm in a bit of a fog right now, apologies.)

I absolutely don't want to have children due to my genes and the probability that i will ctb. It makes me angry when very dumb/ ill people with bad genes and horrible lifes want to procreate. However I would not interfere. Longtime I was a convinced antinatalist but I am not sure if this belief makes me even more depressed. One time I told a psychologist that i am antinatalist and she said no wonder you are depressed lol. In the past I have fought this war on Twitter pro antinatalism also against celebrities. I owned one. She deleted her tweets afterwards she is a famous TV moderator who insulted antinatalists.
But in the end it is not up to me to decide. Also it won't change my life. My sister wants to procreates this makes me very angry. But I won't interfere. People also explain that consciousness is awesome and life is a miracle. Maybe I am too biased because my life was a pure nightmare. I do not want to become even more bitter and resentful.

That's how they get us to back down..the majority attacks and we become defeated and filled with doubt at the exhaustion of our efforts which don't seem to be appreciated or considered by most people.

 

[killedbypsychiatry]

Or are my inherent biological factors forcing me to say what I'm saying?

Your biology is changing (brain states change, even your genes can change (epigenetics), hormones etc )because of the environment and natural factors so it's not inherent per se but yeah basically there's always a physical factor making you do what you do. Everything has a cause. Even your brain states which dictate what you do, think, feel.
"A man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."
- Schopenhauer

to be honest, I am not the best at explaining but Dr. Sabrine Hossenfelder is

cosmic skeptic also has a simpler and shorter video about no free will:


other great people at explaining this are Dr. Susan Blackmore <3 and Sam Harris

Note that this forum wouldn't make any sense if free will weren't a thing since the concept of "pro-choice" implies the concept of choice which implies the concept of free will.

The action of choosing is not incompatible with no free will, and even then, you can just change it to pro-decision. The vast majority of the world still believes in free will so it makes sense the term pro-choice is still widely used.

Free will and determinism aren't incompatible btw, contrary to what most people think.

well tbh combatibilism is simply semantic trickery where one has do redefine terms like free will and choice to make "free will" fit into the equation. But the free will comparabilist believe in, is not the free will most people believe in, libertarian free will (the ability to have done otherwise)

 

[LastFlowers]

Your biology is changing (brain states change, even your genes can change (epigenetics), hormones etc )because of the environment and natural factors so it's not inherent per se but yeah basically there's always a physical factor making you do what you do. Everything has a cause. Even your brain states which dictate what you do, think, feel.
"A man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."
- Schopenhauer

to be honest, I am not the best at explaining but Dr. Sabrine Hossenfelder is

cosmic skeptic also has a simpler and shorter video about no free will:


other great people at explaining this are Dr. Susan Blackmore <3 and Sam Harris

I may have already watched those videos awhile ago or similar ones. But thank you.
(Forgive my possible confusion as I am foggy from cbd right now.)
It still seems like everyone defines these concepts differently.
And Yes, I am aware that biology is an umbrella for many things lol, that's why I made a specification and was only speaking within the lines you drew in your own comment.
(Also I thought epigenetics refers to gene expression or inactivity, not actual genes or dna changing after birth...? Am I wrong?)

Could you clarify something for me in your previous comment, when you said those who commit criminal acts have that predetermined by their biology, are you saying they do have free will or they don't have free will?
And how do you define that, or are we not talking about free will here? (the same way the videos do?)
Were you including environmental factors within your proposed causes of what would lead a person to commit crimes?
And do you consider their actions to be preventable or a product of any type of choice?

All in all, I agree that everything has a cause and is thus an effect (well for the most part..I'll have to think more on it later) but I don't think that necessarily eliminates the possibility of "free will"-especially not in every conceivable scenario.

Note that this forum wouldn't make any sense if free will weren't a thing since the concept of "pro-choice" implies the concept of choice which implies the concept of free will. Free will and determinism aren't incompatible btw, contrary to what most people think.

I think I just realized what you were trying to get across lol, wow I am out of it today, correct me if I am wrong, but you are saying that free will and determinism can coexist?
That within our 'cause and effect' chain of events that make up our lives, there is still room for choices and acting at our own discretion..?

Your biology is changing (brain states change, even your genes can change (epigenetics), hormones etc )because of the environment and natural factors so it's not inherent per se but yeah basically there's always a physical factor making you do what you do. Everything has a cause. Even your brain states which dictate what you do, think, feel.
"A man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills."
- Schopenhauer

to be honest, I am not the best at explaining but Dr. Sabrine Hossenfelder is

cosmic skeptic also has a simpler and shorter video about no free will:


other great people at explaining this are Dr. Susan Blackmore <3 and Sam Harris

The action of choosing is not incompatible with no free will, and even then, you can just change it to pro-decision. The vast majority of the world still believes in free will so it makes sense the term pro-choice is still widely used.

well tbh combatibilism is simply semantic trickery where one has do redefine terms like free will and choice to make "free will" fit into the equation. But the free will comparabilist believe in, is not the free will most people believe in, libertarian free will (the ability to have done otherwise)

Doesn't choice necessitate the ability to choose among more than one possible outcome, two in the least?
If there is no free will, then did we ever really have a choice or an opportunity for a decision? Or just the illusion of one?

 

[avoid_slow_death]

Isn't forcing a life into this world the most significant and egregious example of forcing your subjective views-and thus your decisions based on those views-onto another person?
Children are often a product of the views of their parents, with no care given to their lack of consent to be shaped and chained by said views and decisions.
Your comment actually proves to support antinatalism.

No, my comment literally supports free will. Think you're confused.

 

[killedbypsychiatry]

Forgive my possible confusion as I am foggy from cbd right now.)

no problem it's okay <3

Also I thought epigenetics refers to gene expression or inactivity, not actual genes or dna changing after birth...? Am I wrong?

yes you are right, I didn't explain it correctly. epigenetics is what you said, the silencing or activation of a gene not actually changing the genome just altering which ones are activated. Sometimes epigenetic changes can be permanent so I think that's what I was trying to say.

when you said those who commit criminal acts have that predetermined by their biology, are you saying they do have free will or they don't have free will?
And how do you define that, or are we not talking about free will here? (the same way the videos do?)
Were you including environmental factors within your proposed causes of what would lead a person to commit crimes?

yup basically I do believe that people who commit criminal acts don't have free will as well and are acting because of environment and genetic causes. I am talking about free will in the same way I'm talking of free will in the videos.
It's complex but there's neurobiological conditions that can cause one to commit crimes such as sociopathy, brain injuries and tumors, many people in jail have brain injuries/abnormalities. Then also, one of the biggest causes of criminal behavior is structural violence. Structural violence harms people by preventing them from meeting their basic needs, it's also the most potent stimulant of behavioral violence and the most lethal form of violence.

And do you consider their actions to be preventable or a product of any type of choice?
All in all, I agree that everything has a cause and is thus an effect (well for the most part..I'll have to think more on it later) but I don't think that necessarily eliminates the possibility of "free will"-especially not in every conceivable scenario.

I don't believe they "choose" to do those actions. I don't believe that it could have been preventable (under the factors that the person was) but that doesn't mean that the person shouldn't be accountable for their actions, and that if criminals can't be reformed they should be locked up for the good of society. I don't think punishment will stop crimes. Violence is something systemic and political.

 

[Superdeterminist]

I think it's true that many people find joy in life, and I think it would be wrong to deny that from them, but I still think that Antinatalism is the right way to go in general based on how our morality applied to other similar situations is formulated. Essentially the issue is that the unborn, being non-existent, cannot consent to being born. But it's also true they can't consent to not being born either, and by not creating them, we could be denying them plenty of positive life experiences (if we suppose that this is a bad thing, which I personally have doubts about, but let's assume this would be bad here).

Let's take an example of where somebody is intoxicated for example. Even if a person is high in drugs, they cannot properly consent to sex, and having sex without their consent would be rape. However, it's also true in this case that sex is generally pleasurable and that by denying them sex (especially if they ask for it) you could be denying them positive experiences. But in this dilemma, we resolve it by taking the more passive choice of action where we don't do anything to the inebriated. The passive choice is the less risky choice that is less likely to expose a person to severe or permanent suffering. In this case a raped person could be traumatized by the experience and find it difficult to cope with living with it, as an example of what could go wrong. We also apply this principle to other groups that can't properly consent like kids or animals, which can't legally consent to many various things. A child couldn't consent to be a member of the military (where I live anyways) but that also implies they can't properly consent to not be a member of the military. But we don't let them join anyways even if they expressed the desire to join because these kids could suffer a lot from the experiences of war.

So when it comes to having a child or not, they are not even existent to say whether they would want to live or not, and to be consistent with our other moral norms, we should make the choice that would less likely expose the potential children to severe suffering. In this case, not giving birth to kids would fit better than having them. So I think even if many people enjoy life, I still think it would be wrong to have kids based on the matter of consent and gambling with their future.

I don't think the consent argument holds water because as you said, an unborn person can't have any say. Another problem I have with antinatalism is that we came to exist through some process that we don't fully understand. If we eliminated ourselves by ceasing to reproduce, who's to say another intelligent organism wouldn't just evolve to fill the gap? We don't have the power to totally stop life from emerging. We have good reason to believe that many other animals are conscious as well, which means by exctincting ourselves we would be leaving it all to them, and it's reasonable to think that animals typically suffer way more than humans, given the state of nature.

 

[eternalmelancholy]

I'm reposting here. I thought nobody was interested in engaging the topics my post addressed as i got no replies or likes or anything so..

Why can't we buy nembutal pills online ? And now they are restircting SN too. And they put Dr Kervorkian in prison for helping very old people with painful terminal illnesses to escape their pain by commiting suicide. Why are they doing this banning anyone from helping us escape our pain, banning Nembutal pills, restricting SN? It's because of the extreme pro-life controlling ideology that is totally dominating the world. antinallism is censored there is no discussion of any other opinions that go against this oppressive controlling pro-life ideology. if you even mention you want to commit suicide you are considered insane. imo the pro-life ideology is the irrational one. suicide will solve all my problems and pain. most people have no understanding of how bad extreme long lasting pysical pain can be . and most people have no understanding that old age, disease and pain are inevitable : so why is suicide so taboo when it should be rational to want to be able to escape imminent torture and have an easy reliable painless way to do it as in nembutal pills.

Efilism and antinatalism don't have this insane imo pro-life view. so that's why i see some reason in some of their arguments . however i don't care what someone else does if they want to have children that doesn't affect my problems in any way. I have huge huge many problems. i need to try to solve them or ctb asap. i can't be worried about what some other human is thinking what their ideology is wether they want to have kids or want to live whatever. that never interests me. what bothers me is that others will try to stop me from killing myself to escape torture. they want to interfere with my life by restricting N, Sn etc and ...

But these 2 ideologies efilism and anti-natalism are not allowed and are extremely censored so there is no discussion in the world . Becausee no discussion is allowed the world is extremely pro-life and they will lock you up in a mental hospital if you attempt suicide. if you attempt and someone catches you they will stop you and leave you alive but with brain damage.

Many times I won't reply to a post because I have nothing further to add. I've seen you post occasionally and I wish you would post more often but understand why you choose to lurk. I've been lurking here for years before I finally signed up a few months ago. Now I can't keep my mouth shut.

The fact that they dragged Dr. Kevorkian's name through the mud when he was just providing a peaceful exit to those in unnecessary torment goes to show pro life is just a ruse for keeping us slaves on the plantation.

There is no reasonable argument that I've read that counters antinatalism and the right to die. The usual arguments solely rely on arbitrary conditions or emotionally charged nonsense. I get it, these kinds of topics are sensitive and people feel personally attacked. But trying to silence discussion of uncomfortable topics is unethical in a civilized society.

 

[FuneralCry]

I mean I do wish I was never born. Existence is the root of all my problems, Its better to be ignorant to the horrors of this world. People procreate for purely selfish reasons and the only purpose of our lives is an biological one, to continue this cycle of procreation.
I think the problem for me is there is no right to die. Having one would make up for the fact that we were forced into this world with no choice. We have no obligation to stay alive as we did not ask for it.

 

[eternalmelancholy]

I think it's true that many people find joy in life, and I think it would be wrong to deny that from them, but I still think that Antinatalism is the right way to go in general based on how our morality applied to other similar situations is formulated. Essentially the issue is that the unborn, being non-existent, cannot consent to being born. But it's also true they can't consent to not being born either, and by not creating them, we could be denying them plenty of positive life experiences (if we suppose that this is a bad thing, which I personally have doubts about, but let's assume this would be bad here).

David Benatar addresses this. The absence of pleasure is not a bad thing when the person does not exist to experience this deprivation. But the absence of pain is always a good thing. Obviously I am condensing and simplifying his argument so it is easier to read.

 

[motel rooms]

David Benatar addresses this. The absence of pleasure is not a bad thing when the person does not exist to experience this deprivation. But the absence of pain is always a good thing.

I don't get this. Isn't the absence of both pleasure & pain neutral when the person doesn't exist to experience anything? Not that anything that doesn't concern people who actually exist matters - who gives a shit about people who don't exist? Well, probably people who are into Jesus

 

[Zzzzz]

Some people who know that life is very painful won't have children, most others will continue to breed like the nasty str8 breeders that they are.
I say the solution is large-scale bareback gay orgies because I'm a good Catholic & we hate condoms even more than Muslims & Protestants. We also think that all females should be more like the Blessed Virgin, which can be accomplished by them having only lesbian sex (the Pope & all the cardinals say only dicks count when it comes to devirginizing women - they have examined many a lesbian porn video & they were not impressed).

They need to examine every lesbian porn video available so they can grasp a firm understanding of Satan/Lucifer's plans and strategies. Know thy enemy.