Antinatalism

[eran0004]

It's not.

Then there's no justification to call it a crime.

At exactly what scale does it cause harm?

At a global scale. Total economic collapse within a couple of decades.

This is not well thought through. If lots and lots of people really want to have kids, that does not give lots and lots of people the right to inflict harm.

It's not about "really really wanting to have kids".

If someone chooses not to have kids because they're antinatalist, that inflicts harm on zero people.

That's not true. Other people's children are going to pay for their wellfare.

That doesn't change if it's two, or three, or 7 billion.

That particular thing, no. But when applied on a large enough scale you will see a huge impact on the economy and it will eventually crash and burn, most likely within a couple of decades.

If it is made illegal to have children, that's slightly different. But not by much. Making it illegal is based on the idea that you don't have a right to do that - to create people you know will suffer. Just like you don't have a right to punch people, even if you really want to.

It could be made a crime, sure, but there is no justification for it, because it would be based on a contradiction.

 

[Danoff]

Then there's no justification to call it a crime.

It could be made a crime, sure, but there is no justification for it, because it would be based on a contradiction.

We covered this:

Conception being a crime is based on knowingly and intentionally creating a being that will experience harm without its consent (not a postulation, a conclusion). That is why most crimes (not including the negligence statutes) are considered criminal, because you knowingly intentionally subject others to harm.

At a global scale. Total economic collapse within a couple of decades.

That's not true. Other people's children are going to pay for their wellfare.

That particular thing, no. But when applied on a large enough scale you will see a huge impact on the economy and it will eventually crash and burn, most likely within a couple of decades.

Hmmm, this is interesting. You seem to think that you're entitled to force people to have children. I can see why you'd have an issue with antinatalism if you have that notion. You've been pretty consistent on this point, but I'm really not used to seeing someone go this far. You're literally saying that choosing to not have children harms others - in other words - is a crime against others.

That's some handmaids tale, forced birth, strangeness that I'm not used to seeing people advocate openly. But I get why this thread has drawn you now. So why do you think you can force someone to have a child?

It's not about "really really wanting to have kids".

It is. Even if it's just because they'll labor for you when you're older and prevent "economic collapse" or whatever. That's just people wanting what they want for themselves.

 

[eran0004]

We covered this:

You're postulating that it's a crime, not concluding that it should be. The reason why you're postulating is because you don't want to touch the problem that criminalising childbirth causes harm, you just dismissed that harm by saying that since childbirth is a crime, it's okay to cause harm to prevent it. You haven't concluded that the harm caused by childbirth (if any) is worse than the harm caused by criminalising childbirth.

Hmmm, this is interesting. You seem to think that you're entitled to force people to have children.

Not at all.

I can see why you'd have an issue with antinatalism if you have that notion. You've been pretty consistent on this point, but I'm really not used to seeing someone go this far. You're literally saying that choosing to not have children harms others - in other words - is a crime against others.

You're the only one of us who has insisted that causing harm to someone else is a crime, regardless of the circumstances. So I don't see how you think the fact that I'm pointing out that criminalising childbirth causes harm means that I somehow have to think that not having children is a crime. If anything, that’s your moral view on the matter, not mine. I mean, I have already pointed out several situations in which you can cause harm to someone else without it being considered a crime, so it's kind of strange to see that you've misunderstood it so gravely.

That's some handmaids tale, forced birth, strangeness that I'm not used to seeing people advocate openly. But I get why this thread has drawn you now. So why do you think you can force someone to have a child?

Your words, not mine.

It is. Even if it's just because they'll labor for you when you're older and prevent "economic collapse" or whatever. That's just people wanting what they want for themselves.

You don't believe in economy now? What makes you think the economy wouldn't collapse if childbirth was criminalised?

 

[Danoff]

You're postulating that it's a crime, not concluding that it should be.

We went over that too. That's also incorrect.

The reason why you're postulating is because you don't want to touch the problem that criminalising childbirth causes harm, you just dismissed that harm by saying that since childbirth is a crime, it's okay to cause harm to prevent it. You haven't concluded that the harm caused by childbirth (if any) is worse than the harm caused by criminalising childbirth.

That honestly doesn't make any logical sense. That is not how crimes are determined. I guess I could theorize that in a utilitarian society crimes could be derived out of a sense of minimizing harm or something, but it's not the world we live in. Essentially no society on Earth determines what is criminal in this way. Maybe there is some small club run by Sam Harris or something that determines crimes in this way (thus, the "essentially"), but I'm not aware of it.

You're the only one of us who has insisted that causing harm to someone else is a crime, regardless of the circumstances.

Well that's just bad faith arguing. You know this isn't true. I don't know why you went here but it's somewhat dishonest. Do you know how I know that it's dishonest? Because right above you said "you just dismissed that harm by saying that since childbirth is a crime, it's okay to cause harm to prevent it". This sentence attributes the opposite notion to me as the one you attribute above. These two statements of yours:

"you just dismissed that harm by saying that since childbirth is a crime, it's okay to cause harm to prevent it"
"You're the only one of us who has insisted that causing harm to someone else is a crime, regardless of the circumstances."

are at complete odds. One of them is wrong. And you know which one it is, and you knew that when you typed it. This makes it very difficult to carry on with this conversation, but it seems like you're here to argue, including lying about me.

So I don't see how you think the fact that I'm pointing out that criminalising childbirth causes harm means that I somehow have to think that not having children is a crime.

And this is also bad faith arguing because that is not at all why I concluded anything. I guess this is probably just a straight forward strawman, but I think I could give it worse interpretations as above.

To be clear, what I said is that when someone chooses not to have a child, no one is harmed. And you said that they are. Note how that does not involve criminalizing anything. I honestly don't know how you can support this idea, but your use of the word harm is very strange to me.

I mean, I have already pointed out several situations in which you can cause harm to someone else without it being considered a crime, so it's kind of strange to see that you've misunderstood it so gravely.

I don't think you and I use the word "harm" in the same way. And perhaps this led to some level of confusion over this (and other aspects of this discussion). You seem to be using "harm" to mean that someone just doesn't like it. Like, for example, if I don't have a child and you have a shop, and as a result, someday you don't have a customer at your store. That's not you being harmed, that's just something you don't like.

I'm glad to hear that you don't think you can force someone to have children. But it makes your position harder to understand for me.

You don't believe in economy now? What makes you think the economy wouldn't collapse if childbirth was criminalised?

Your words, not mine. I said it's what they really wanted. If avoiding "economic collapse" is something you want, you don't get to harm others to get it.

 

[eran0004]

We went over that too. That's also incorrect.

You have assumed that childbirth causes harm and argued that since it's assumed to cause harm it should be considered a crime. But you have completely and repeatedly ignored the harm caused by banning childbirth, attempting to justify any harm done by stating that it's allowed to cause harm in order to prevent crimes. That reasoning only works if you postulate that childbirth is a crime. If you don't postulate that it's a crime, you must consider the harm done by banning childbirth, otherwise you end up with a contradiction.

That honestly doesn't make any logical sense. That is not how crimes are determined.

Then you have a contradiction. Because if it's enough to say that knowingly and intentionally causing harm is a crime, then the act of banning childbirth is a crime.

Well that's just bad faith arguing. You know this isn't true. I don't know why you went here but it's somewhat dishonest.

Says the guy who accused me of wanting to force people to give birth. "Somewhat dishonest"...

Do you know how I know that it's dishonest? Because right above you said "you just dismissed that harm by saying that since childbirth is a crime, it's okay to cause harm to prevent it". This sentence attributes the opposite notion to me as the one you attribute above. These two statements of yours:

"you just dismissed that harm by saying that since childbirth is a crime, it's okay to cause harm to prevent it"
"You're the only one of us who has insisted that causing harm to someone else is a crime, regardless of the circumstances."

are at complete odds. One of them is wrong. And you know which one it is, and you knew that when you typed it. This makes it very difficult to carry on with this conversation, but it seems like you're here to argue, including lying about me.

They are not at odds with each other. Both statements are highlighting the fact that you haven't completed the analysis, you haven't argued why it's childbirth that should be considered a crime instead of the act of criminalising childbirth. You have prematurely concluded that childbirth, in your opinion, causes harm and therefore it's justified to call it a crime. You have, to some degree, accepted that banning childbirth also causes harm but justified that by stating that it's okay to cause harm when preventing a crime. When pressed on this issue you have then reversed and tried to deny and ignore that banning childbirth would cause harm.

You tried to ascribe to me the opinion that I want forced childbirth, merely from the fact that I pointed out that even voluntary antinatalism causes harm. But I have never claimed that causing harm is enough to consider something a crime, that is your own opinion.

To be clear, what I said is that when someone chooses not to have a child, no one is harmed. And you said that they are. Note how that does not involve criminalizing anything. I honestly don't know how you can support this idea, but your use of the word harm is very strange to me.

How do you define harm then?

I don't think you and I use the word "harm" in the same way. And perhaps this led to some level of confusion over this (and other aspects of this discussion). You seem to be using "harm" to mean that someone just doesn't like it.

Not at all. Physical and emotional pain, suffering, economic damage, loss of individual freedom, for example. I have no idea how you have read "just doesn't like it" into it, it's certainly not from any of my posts.

Like, for example, if I don't have a child and you have a shop, and as a result, someday you don't have a customer at your store. That's not you being harmed, that's just something you don't like.

I have provided a few examples of harm in previous posts, for example that you have to rely on other people's children to provide for you when you get old. That's an economic damage, tiny sure, but that's assuming that there are relatively few antinatalists.

I'm glad to hear that you don't think you can force someone to have children. But it makes your position harder to understand for me.

It's not rocket science. Banning childbirth causes harm, so banning childbirth on the grounds that childbirth causes harm is a contradiction. Even voluntary antinatalism causes harm if applied on a large enough scale. I have never proposed that we should force people to have children and I have no idea how you could have reached that conclusion in good faith.

Your words, not mine. I said it's what they really wanted. If avoiding "economic collapse" is something you want, you don't get to harm others to get it.

Your use of quotation marks implies that you don't agree with the opinion that antinatalism applied on a large scale would lead to economic collapse, hence my question. An economic collapse would lead to great harm, it's not just something we really want to avoid.

 

[Danoff]

They are not at odds with each other.

They are. You're not interested in engaging in actual conversation.

Not at all. Physical and emotional pain, suffering, economic damage, loss of individual freedom, for example. I have no idea how you have read "just doesn't like it" into it, it's certainly not from any of my posts.

Ok, you get to assume some kind of alternate economic state for yourself based on someone else's presumed actions and then say that you're harmed when they don't do that. Absolutely, 100% ridiculous. It's like you claimed that not being able to steal is economic damage to you. The same exact argument could be used to support slavery, and actually IS being used to support at least some level of that kind of relationship as you claim that whatever harm is caused to children by bringing them into the world is outweighed by how much money you're supposed to get from them.

I'd go through that with you, but you're playing WAY too fast and loose with the truth. So I'm officially uninterested in what you have to say.

 

[eran0004]

They are. You're not interested in engaging in actual conversation.

You're the one who's constantly trying to deflect and shift focus, like below...

...where instead of sharing your definition of harm (I bet you either don't have one or you realise that your definition of harm would be problematic) you laugh at mine.

Ok, you get to assume some kind of alternate economic state for yourself based on someone else's presumed actions and then say that you're harmed when they don't do that. Absolutely, 100% ridiculous. It's like you claimed that not being able to steal is economic damage to you.

It's nothing like stealing. If you choose not to have children you are increasing the burden on other's children to provide for you when you get old. That's an economic damage.

It seems like you're trying to pretend that your choice has no consequences, that if we stop having children the society would continue to function until the last person is dead and no harm would be caused. That's not what will happen, the economy would collapse within a couple of decades. Without a working economy we don't have a working society. Without a working society people will be unable to get housing, food, healthcare, they would be unable to be protected from crime, unable to have justice, etc. It's not that there's going to be a little less money left on my account at the end of the year.

The key question is this: If childbirth is so bad, because it creates a potential for suffering, then why would antinatalism be okay when that causes suffering?

The same exact argument could be used to support slavery, and actually IS being used to support at least some level of that kind of relationship as you claim that whatever harm is caused to children by bringing them into the world is outweighed by how much money you're supposed to get from them.

Yet another claim I haven't made.

I'd go through that with you, but you're playing WAY too fast and loose with the truth. So I'm officially uninterested in what you have to say.

More deflection.

 

[Danoff]

...where instead of sharing your definition of harm (I bet you either don't have one or you realise that your definition of harm would be problematic) you laugh at mine.

We could go through it. But I no longer trust you to engage.

It's nothing like stealing. If you choose not to have children you are increasing the burden on other's children to provide for you when you get old. That's an economic damage.

Except other people aren't your slaves. You're not entitled to their work. I don't expect you to get this or admit it if you do.

It seems like you're trying to pretend that your choice has no consequences

No. And this one I don't blame you for getting wrong. The other one you knew was wrong and typed it anyway and that's a problem.

It's not that your choice has no consequences, it's that it's clearly your choice to make (to not have children). It's not your choice that others have children, or whether those children work for your benefit.

, that if we stop having children the society would continue to function until the last person is dead and no harm would be caused. That's not what will happen, the economy would collapse within a couple of decades. Without a working economy we don't have a working society. Without a working society people will be unable to get housing, food, healthcare, they would be unable to be protected from crime, unable to have justice, etc. It's not that there's going to be a little less money left on my account at the end of the year.

Right... and you're entitled to that somehow.

The key question is this: If childbirth is so bad, because it creates a potential for suffering, then why would antinatalism be okay when that causes suffering?

I did answer that.