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.

 

[eran0004]

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

Shame.

Except other people aren't your slaves. You're not entitled to their work.

Slavery has nothing to do with it.

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.

The question of choice is not contested. What I'm getting at is that you don't want to acknowledge that antinatalism causes harm. The question of harm has nothing to do with the question of choice.

It's your choice to not have children, that decision does cause some harm, as I have previously pointed out.

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

Why would you have to be entitled to that?

I did answer that.

You didn't.

 

[Danoff]

What I'm getting at is that you don't want to acknowledge that antinatalism causes harm.

You're using harm weirdly, to equivocate two things which should not be equivocated. Antinatalism is just something you don't like. You think it has outcomes (worse economics, etc.) that you don't like. But to say that that's harming you is something else. You're not entitled to others doing things for you. I could say that you not giving me $1000 is harming me. That's directly equivalent to what you're saying. I've already made that point, and you're not really considering it. You're not engaging, you're just arguing, and occasionally lying.

What you're doing is not just having a lack of proactive introspection on your own position, you're refusing introspection when asked to. You're not holding up your end of the bargain in conversation.

I think somewhere along the line you forgot that I'm not even an antinatalist. This isn't even my position. Your position is just not making as much sense as the antinatalist position, which is also wrong and not my position. At least in my view of it.

Why would you have to be entitled to that?

If you're not entitled to it, how can you say that it's harming you? I'm not entitled to that $1000 from you. And yet, at the end of the day, if you don't give it to me, it's not in my bank account. So I'm harmed (using your strange parlance) by you not giving it to me. If you see that as parallel (which I think you should), how does that make any sense to you, and how does that enable you to use the term "harm" with any kind of straight face? If you don't see that as parallel, I have no idea what you're seeing.

Your position is not to fight the idea that bringing children into the world results in them to suffering (of course you don't fight that, it's impossible to fight). Your position is just that you'd like to use those kids for your bank account, and so their suffering is ok with you. That's... I mean... I don't know how else to put this... immoral. Justifying the suffering of others with your own personal benefit is pretty much the opposite of morality as most cultures would define it.

Best I can do is "utilitarian". But that's another topic you're not engaging with.

 

[eran0004]

You're using harm weirdly

You haven't even specified what you mean by harm.

Antinatalism is just something you don't like.

What does that even mean?

You think it has outcomes (worse economics, etc.) that you don't like.

Nobody would like to starve to death. But hey, keep trivialising the collapse of society.

But to say that that's harming you is something else. You're not entitled to others doing things for you.

Your definition of harm seems to be linked to entitlement. You can only be harmed if something you're entitled to is damaged? Are you entitled to food? To clean drinking water? To medicine? To welfare? To justice? To human rights? What do you mean by harm and entitlement?

I could say that you not giving me $1000 is harming me. That's directly equivalent to what you're saying.

How is that equivalent?

I've already made that point, and you're not really considering it.

You have argued that point, but you haven't motivated why you think it's a fair point. You've chosen trivial examples instead of discussing the points I've brought forward. I have argued that a collapsed economy will lead to famine, pain, suffering, death. Your attempt to counter that with "it's like you not giving me $1000" doesn't work.

You're not engaging, you're just arguing, and occasionally lying.

You're not responding to any of my questions, yet you think I'm the one not engaging.

What you're doing is not just having a lack of proactive introspection on your own position, you're refusing introspection when asked to. You're not holding up your end of the bargain in conversation.

No. I disagree with your opinion and I think you are wrong.

I think somewhere along the line you forgot that I'm not even an antinatalist. This isn't even my position.

What difference does it make? And why are you not an antinatalist?

Your position is just not making as much sense as the antinatalist position, which is also wrong and not my position. At least in my view of it.

In your opinion, no. I'm of another opinion.

I'm not entitled to that $1000 from you. And yet, at the end of the day, if you don't give it to me, it's not in my bank account. So I'm harmed (using your strange parlance) by you not giving it to me.

That's a poorly devised scenario. A more accurate one would be this: You decide not to have any children (for whatever reason, it doesn't have to be because you're antinatalist). As a result, when you get sick or old and can't take care of yourself, other people's children are going to have to work to care for your needs. Some will work directly to take care of you while others contribute indirectly, for example by paying taxes. Your decision to not have any kids means that other people's children have to pay for your wellbeing. Now, in a society big enough, the impact of your decision will be tiny. But more and more people decide to stop having children and the impact grows. After a while, the increased burden to care for the elderly is starting to have a noticeable effect on the economy. Businesses go bankrupt, people loose their jobs, productivity grinds to a halt. Crime goes up as the people get poorer and more desperate. Many people can no longer satisfy their hunger, especially women and children. Medicines can no longer be supplied, emergency operations have to be done without anesthetics. Elderly people live in starvation and misery, many of them die alone in pain and in agony. The collective decision to stop having children has caused tremendous harm.

Your position is not to fight the idea that bringing children into the world results in them to suffering (of course you don't fight that, it's impossible to fight).

Oh I did dispute that as well. I can agree that it creates a potential for suffering, but it doesn't actually cause them to suffer.

Your position is just that you'd like to use those kids for your bank account

That has never been my position. You have clearly not understood my critique.

and so their suffering is ok with you.

No, I never said that their suffering is okay. I haven't determined whether it's right or wrong to have children - I have criticised antinatalism for not considering the harm it's causing.

That's... I mean... I don't know how else to put this... immoral. Justifying the suffering of others with your own personal benefit is pretty much the opposite of morality as most cultures would define it.

Then I would suggest that you stop making such things up.

Best I can do is "utilitarian". But that's another topic you're not engaging with.

What's there to engage with? If you want me to respond to something, ask me a question.

 

[Danoff]

You haven't even specified what you mean by harm.

I think first you need to come to terms with the fact that you have no clear notion of it. Your version of harm included "economic damage", which has to include that your bank account isn't as high. It wasn't linked with your property rights either. It was just linked to a situation in which you presume you would have more money through no action of your own. Then you don't understand my point that my bank account isn't as high because you didn't give me $1000?

That's intentionally obtuse (again).

Your definition of harm seems to be linked to entitlement. You can only be harmed if something you're entitled to is damaged? Are you entitled to food? To clean drinking water? To medicine? To welfare? To justice? To human rights? What do you mean by harm and entitlement?

How about before you start looking to something to poke holes in, you acknowledge the problems in your own definition.

How is that equivalent?

Ugh. Ok... I will walk through this one more time. But I expect you to ignore this (again) and refuse to see it (again), and I will not do it again.

You're saying that if people don't have kids, that lack of children will result in "economic damage" to you - which you consider harm. And as a result, you're claiming that their choice to not have children harms you. Even though you have no rights in any of that - no entitlement whatsoever to those facts. You're still harmed because in one scenario your bank account (or whatever economic measure you prefer) is lower.

So I'm saying that if you don't give me $1000, that is economic damage to me, my bank account is lower than it would be - which I consider harm (under your definition). As a result, you choosing not to give me $1000 harms me - even though I have no rights in any of that. I'm still harmed because in one scenario my bank account (or whatever economic measure you prefer) is lower.

That's how it's equivalent.

I have argued that a collapsed economy will lead to famine, pain, suffering, death. Your attempt to counter that with "it's like you not giving me $1000" doesn't work.

Hey, I'm suffering and in pain because of the lack of $1000. I could even be in a position to starve or die without it. You don't really know. Does it make a difference? Does it count as "harm" in your book then?

That's a poorly devised scenario. A more accurate one would be this:

This is engaging to you?

You decide not to have any children (for whatever reason, it doesn't have to be because you're antinatalist). As a result, when you get sick or old and can't take care of yourself, other people's children are going to have to work to care for your needs.

You've already lost me. First of all, they don't have to do that. When I'm sick and old and can't take care of myself, me dying in the street is a real and viable option. It's happening in various places as we speak, so let's not pretend that it's not a viable option.

Secondly, in my society (and probably in yours), that is still not true. I have means to pay for my own needs even when I can't take care of myself. And other people might CHOOSE to VOLUNTARILY work for pay to help me out, but that would be me using my past work to pay for my current needs. That's not the same thing as other people's children HAVE to work to care for my needs.

Another issue, what difference does it make whether some people's children HAVE to work for my needs vs. my own children HAVE to work for my needs. I'm not entitled to either of those things, and enslaving those people is wrong in EITHER scenario.

Some will work directly to take care of you while others contribute indirectly, for example by paying taxes.

You're assuming some kind of socialist effort to care for me. This is an issue with socialism for sure, in that enslaves some people to others at some level. But it's still not necessary. Suppose that your tax code is changed such that people who have fewer children pay more in taxes or something. Problem solved.

Your decision to not have any kids means that other people's children have to pay for your wellbeing.

I have no idea why other people's children are less required to pay for my wellbeing than my own. Neither of them are my slaves, it's wrong in both situations. I think what you're kinda sort trying to argue is that a smaller tax base is a problem for funding my healthcare or whatever. But the structure of the healthcare system has no more moral weight for requiring new children to suffer for it than I do personally. It's just a shell game you're playing. The problem that you're highlighting is the social system you're assuming that collects taxes in a particular way. And then you're blaming others for not creating children to help ease the tax burden. It does not help the morality of the situation.

The collective decision to stop having children has caused tremendous harm.

No. People just didn't provide for themselves and maintain their society in that circumstance. That's purely an example of a ponzi scheme (a society built on the idea that one's burdens can be shifted to innocent people in the future against their will) running out on the people who were hoping to benefit from it. The fact that you want to enslave a new generation (through taxes or whatever) to keep yourself fed and comfortable does not make it ok to cause them to suffer.

You keep running into that same problem, no matter how you phrase it. Anyway, you owe me $1000, I've got bills to pay.

I can agree that it creates a potential for suffering, but it doesn't actually cause them to suffer.

We're back to cause and effect. Go back and deal with the cause and effect issues I mentioned earlier before we can proceed on this.

 

[Danoff]

I'm just kinda musing on this attack on antinatalism that we can create beings that we know will suffer because we need them to pay taxes and work for us. That is perhaps the antinatalist point in a nutshell is it not? That the expressed intent is for the new beings to suffer for us, work for us, care for us, pay taxes for us?

This is a common view of life in general, that the new generation owes the older generation something. But I think antinatalism is right to flip that on its head. The older generation owes something to the younger. We brought them here, for all we know, they would never have come willingly. We didn't make a perfect, or in some cases even passable environment for them. And yet we expect them to be grateful and toil away for us? That's a bit of a narcissistic god complex.

The reality is that we owe them for the hubris of creating them - with all of our potential input into the matter - as they are. Making a new being is something that a lot of people take for granted. They don't even consider the input to the genetics of the child that they exercised. They simply feel entitled to bring forth a new creature and subject it to, mostly ill-considered, whims for how to be and what to think. We feed them whatever we feel like, modifying the literal structure of their bodies in the process. And we teach them what we feel like, modifying the literal structure of their brains in the process. And for subjecting them to this we ask for servitude?

The truth is that the older generation should never stop apologizing for the mess they made out of the next generation. A certain level of humility is needed when it comes to the job we do of raisining young - because none of us nail it. And every kid is different.

Anyway, I completely reject the idea that we're justified in this exercise because we want the tax base and the work force. Utilitarianism is deeply immoral, because it throws specific members under the bus if they belong to a small enough group - especially a group of one. It leave the most vulnerable in society exposed to abuse for the sake of larger groups. In the case of antinatalism, new beings are a small group compared to the rest. Those new beings, who are the most vulnerable of us, being dragged through whatever it is they must experience for the sake of making sure that the rest of us are taken care of, because we need them to pay taxes and wipe our butts in our old age, is exactly the kind of problematic conclusion we should all expect from utilitarianism.

 

[zzz_pt]

It’s been years since I last posted here, but I was checking out new threads and this one caught my attention. The GTPlanet off-topic section is still one of the best places on the internet for engaging in and reading thoughtful discussions on complex topics (and it’s great to see some of you are still around).

I haven’t read through the entire thread yet, but I wanted to write something before I forgot what I was thinking after going through Danoff’s initial post.

The fundamental idea behind antinatalism—that being born is more harmful than not being born—is, as Imari mentioned, an extraordinary claim. It seems entirely subjective, and even dangerous, to assume that most people are unhappy for most of their lives.

What data supports this view, aside from personal perception and subjective interpretation of reality—not just theirs, but everyone else’s?

What would the ideal life look like according to antinatalists? One where there’s no suffering of any kind and everyone is constantly happy? Just mostly happy? What’s the threshold, and who gets to decide it?

Two people could have nearly identical life experiences over 90 years, but due to their genetics or psychological makeup, one might see it as a happy life while the other perceives it as mostly negative. We can also include universally recognized negative experiences—illness, loss of loved ones, divorce, war, trauma, etc. If we look at these experiences in isolation, devoid of context or humanity, they’re certainly negative. But that’s an extremely narrow lens through which to view them.

We could even have two people (twins, say) living very different lives, where one never encounters major hardship and still describes themself as unhappy.

There’s a quote that says, “Comparison is the thief of joy,” and I believe that’s one of the main reasons people feel unhappy. Often, it’s not because they are actively suffering, but because they are confronted with a reality someone else is living that triggers a certain emotional reaction.

This could be seeing someone rich, attractive, and happy posting their vacation reel on social media—or watching a documentary about the situation in Gaza—while you sit on your couch sipping hot Guatemalan coffee.

Suffering is part of the human experience. If we follow this (antinatalists) logic to its final conclusion, we’d have to argue that no conscious life should exist anywhere in the universe.

 

[TheCracker]

As someone who doesn't have children, i get the concept of Antinatalism as a personal choice - but acknowledge hypothetically it's a flawed movement for the future of the human race as a whole.

Biologically my wife and i couldn't have kids naturally, but there were always other options available to us - doners, adoption, fostering etc, had we really wanted to be parents. In the end a combination of circumstances, including my wife's then emerging health issues and it never seemingly feeling like 'the right time', we decided we wouldn't pursue any of those options. But it was never an easy decision to make and it's never totally without an eliment of regret.

The increasingly poor and uncertain state of the world, including being unstable politically and being already overcrowded were certainly factors in taking that decision to not bring children into the world as it would feel in many aspects a bit cruel to do so. I guess this is quite well aligned with people who consider themselves 'antinatalists'. Like i said, not a concept i'm totally unsimpathetic to, even if the official antinatalist philosophy is quite different.

 

[Danoff]

The fundamental idea behind antinatalism—that being born is more harmful than not being born—is, as Imari mentioned, an extraordinary claim. It seems entirely subjective, and even dangerous, to assume that most people are unhappy for most of their lives.

I think it's a bit more simple than that even, and the simplicity removes any extraordinariness from the idea. The idea is not that on balance it is harmful, but just that you know that the organism you're creating will suffer. And you don't have its consent to force it to suffer. It's not a question of whether you think it will balance out, or your values suggest that if it has similar values to yours it might come around. It's just a question of not being able to ask and signing it up for some level of suffering.

The key problem with creating new people, according to antinatalists, is that you can't ask them what they want. Sure maybe you think it'll work out for them, but it's not up to you, and you don't get their input into the process. This is the same as most criminal laws, where forcing people to suffer without their consent is against the law. Sure, some people like having their genitals smashed, but unless you get consent you can't sign people up for genital smashing, that would be a crime.

As someone who doesn't have children, i get the concept of Antinatalism as a personal choice - but acknowledge hypothetically it's a flawed movement for the future of the human race as a whole.

So you see the dilemma from the issue above. Maybe you think the human race needs to continue, but how can you do that without foisting suffering on individuals that don't consent?

 

[TheCracker]

I think it's a bit more simple than that even, and the simplicity removes any extraordinariness from the idea. The idea is not that on balance it is harmful, but just that you know that the organism you're creating will suffer. And you don't have its consent to force it to suffer. It's not a question of whether you think it will balance out, or your values suggest that if it has similar values to yours it might come around. It's just a question of not being able to ask and signing it up for some level of suffering.

The key problem with creating new people, according to antinatalists, is that you can't ask them what they want. Sure maybe you think it'll work out for them, but it's not up to you, and you don't get their input into the process. This is the same as most criminal laws, where forcing people to suffer without their consent is against the law. Sure, some people like having their genitals smashed, but unless you get consent you can't sign people up for genital smashing, that would be a crime.



So you see the dilemma from the issue above. Maybe you think the human race needs to continue, but how can you do that without foisting suffering on individuals that don't consent?

At it's core Antinatalism is a simple philosophical concept that living = suffering. So chosing to bring new life into the world is to bring suffering to a life that hadn't given consent to suffer. Straight forward, but with little real-world value.

I'd argue that suffering is just part of life and without it life has no value. It's ying and yang. 'Good' needs 'bad' for it's value as being considered 'good'. Without the concept of 'bad' the concept of 'good' means nothing, it has no value. To give life is to give suffering, but life without suffering is no life at all, it's just existance.

 

[Danoff]

So chosing to bring new life into the world is to bring suffering to a life that hadn't given consent to suffer. Straight forward, but with little real-world value.

I guess that depends on what you consider to be "real-world value". For some, the concept that we don't have permission to create beings that will suffer has motivated them to bomb fertility clinics, refuse to have children, and probably (I'm just guessing on this one) support some measures of population control. That might not be real-world value to you, but it is certainly real-world value to some.

The assumption that is baked into the idea that to live is to suffer, is that you will live. But that's not guaranteed. Humans don't have to make more humans. We choose to do that. And that choice has real consequences for (at least) the target of that choice.

Look, I understand the gut reaction to reject this. But the gut reaction is based on genes that want to propagate themselves and wire humans to think that's a good idea. It's worth thinking dispassionately about whether humans have moral authority to procreate.

 

[05XR8]

Interesting.

So, I put my Jesus hat to the back and I'll look at this scientifically.
If humans have evolved from animals and we're becoming more intelligent, we should therefore understand we've run our course on the earth and accept to become extinct.
Humans have found ways to make survival more efficient. We're at a point where we do know we've caused harm to our environment and are finding ways to adapt and recover. Slowly, but working together to cause less harm.
However, many of us are not on the same program and this struggle doesn't look to be getting better.

Ceasing to procreate would be the selfless option to allow the earth to adapt and recover to the messes us humans would leave behind.

Would the antinatalist even think this would be a possible solution? I figure an antinatalist doesn't want to leave it to other humans to see the light.

Is the idea humans would be intelligent enough to understand human extinction would be best for the planet?
I mean, that seems like the ultimate goal. The earth will keep spinning until the sun goes out. We don't need to be here to witness that.

 

[Danoff]

Is the idea humans would be intelligent enough to understand human extinction would be best for the planet?

If that were it, I would really find the whole thing uninteresting. Because it's better for the planet from whose perspective? There is no "better" for the planet except from the perspective of some sentient creature that has its own values about what makes a good planet.

I think the antinatalist perspective isn't so much about the planet as it is the people. I think to understand the position, you have to step out of the idea that existence is this amazing gift, and see it as potentially a curse.