Antinatalism-Thoughts?

[bruto]

I'm pretty well done arguing the point and will probably let Marplots and Checkmite finish the job if they can (they seem to be more economical anyway), but would add a couple of points. The first is that the arguments of the antinatalists are continually thwarted by language. Perhaps that's just the fault of language, but I think it's also a basic fault in the thinking. You cannot ask consent of the nonexistent, utopia really is nowhere, and to demand that life be something it is not and cannot be is just an intellectual tantrum. It's one thing to take the soft position and say that if life does not accord with some set of standards one will opt out. One can disagree with the standards but not with the decision. It's entirely different to say that it's that or nothing. That if life does not adhere to the invented standards it ought to be eliminated and forbidden to all.

Antinatalists try to sell their ideas as moral, but the upshot is really just a fancy way of saying "I can't deal with the world so I wish I could kill it."

The antinatalist position has an unpleasantly familiar odor of theism. It is not only arrogant in its assumption of right, but ready and willing to allow of no error. Of course non-breeders and local-level antinatalists are just opting out for themselves and those of like mind, but as far as I can see, at least, a true antinatalist, if presented with a switch and told "this will snuff humanity like a candle" would confidently flip it in the certainty of truth, just as many theists would push a button labeled "kill all the heretics." I find that a frightening degree of self-righteousness.

[dimasok]

Originally Posted by marplots

Yes, my point exactly. It is absurd. But it is also absurd to think there is a moral imperative the other way round.

You are saying, in effect, "This game is rigged, therefore I will not play it."

However, the result, in the extreme, is that no one else can play it either. Just as much as your decision prevents the potential for harm, it prevents all other potentials. This relies upon a concept of "suffering" which I reject as baseless because it is relative and subjective.

The fact that you have to work for a living ALONE is sufficient for me to not want to play the game. Its fairly obvious to me that my offspring would hate doing that as well. Ergo, I would rather not bring him to a game where he is guaranteed to lose anyways and also suffering in the process. Rejecting suffering because its baseless, relative and subjective is really unfathomable to me - life is by its very nature deprivation (a negative) and suffering, why would you want someone to come into a negative state in the first place is beyond me.

But I guess everyone would forgive my personal antinatalism because as I mentioned to Bruno, I personally wouldn't force it on anyone else.

[dimasok]

Quote:

This is a non sequitur. There's no such thing as "bringing someone from non-existence". If they do not exist, they cannot be brought or taken anywhere.

No its not. You KNOW what he will experience when he comes into existence (as he will be imbued with consciousness just like you) so pretending it doesn't matter is really intellectually dishonest.

Quote:

Yes. My personal opinion. "Because I cannot nurture it" is a good reason; "because it is life" is not.

Well, to me, its absurd. If you consider lesser issues as significant deterrents, then existential issues should be of much higher priority.

Again, that's how I see it. I am personally against forcing antinatalism on those who love life. However, I would personally not want to bring anyone here and I think my set of reasons is rational.

[deaman]

Originally Posted by dimasok

life is by its very nature deprivation (a negative) and suffering, why would you want someone to come into a negative state in the first place is beyond me.

I am so happy I do not share your bleak view of life.

I don't feel sorry for you though, you have the right to see things your way.

I am going to have a really beautiful Christmas, with my wife and three children.

Merry Christmas!

[marplots]

I should have mentioned my bias.

One of the greatest joys in my life, matched by no other, was raising two excellent children. This was a source of great pleasure to me and I would gladly have suffered mightily to experience such a wonderful thing.

I highly recommend it.

[dimasok]

That's fine guys. I have nothing against your happiness or the happiness of other people so I am not forcing my view on anyone else.
Merry Christmas everyone!

[bruto]

Originally Posted by dimasok

No its not. You KNOW what he will experience when he comes into existence (as he will be imbued with consciousness just like you) so pretending it doesn't matter is really intellectually dishonest.


....

Yes it is a non sequitur. Until there is a person in existence there is no "he" you can refer to. You have fallen into the existential rabbit hole again.

Anyway, I'm glad you have nothing against others' happiness and do not feel inclined to force your gloomy view on others. Like a few others here I have a definite bias in the other direction. But I do wonder, as a thought exercise, and an attempt to pin down whether you're a real antinatalist or just a strongly biased non breeder: if by magic a big red button appeared before you labeled "push to obliterate mankind" would you push it?

[JayJayJay]

s4zando, you're welcome and thank you for taking the time to ask me questions about anti-natalism. I think it's cool that anti-natalism fascinates you.

For an easy-to-read, entertaining, and thought-provoking explanation on anti-natalism, I would highly recommend this link: http://uriupina.com/philosophy-psychology/antinatalism

PM if you ever want more anti-natalism links. Good day as well.

everyone, this will be my last time posting in this thread. I do apologize for posting so late so often and I again thank dimasok for taking over. Thank you for allowing me to discuss anti-natalist viewpoints and for taking the time to have discussions with me. Again, if anyone would like links on anti-natalism, feel free to PM me at anytime. Good day, happy holidays, good life, etc.

Originally Posted by bruto

I do not feel that I need to frame an assertion as something else. What I see in the strong antinatalist position is a desire and intention to eliminate humanity (and thus all that is or ever has been human) from the world forever. There is no degree of non-acceptance greater than this.

I respectfully disagree with what you've written in the parenthesis. As I said before, I do not believe that we can "eliminate" the past. What happened, happened. Ending the human race in the future would not erase what happened in the past.

And I SPECIFICALLY said that I DO accept the human condition. dimasok DOESN'T accept the human condition. Obviously two different opinions from people who identify as anti-natalist. Like I've said before, my acceptance of the human condition is NOT the point. I ACCEPT it but I believe it is UNNECESSARY.

If you are going to make assumptions about how people think and feel, then there is no point in trying to have a discussion with another person. That is why I ask that you frame assertions as questions.

We might be having a misunderstanding when it comes to this phrase so we may have to agree to disagree and step over it.

Quote:

I believe it is exactly the point. If your desire is, in fact, to end humanity, then you are, de facto, rejecting humanity.

I don't even understand what that means. I do not believe "stopping breeding" is "rejecting humanity." I do not believe "humanity" = breeding. We may have to agree to disagree on this issue.

Quote:

There is no god or other being to whom the history and collected cultures of the human experience will ever be available. You state your wish to snuff it entirely.

I do not state my wish is to snuff it entirely. As I've said it cannot entirely be stuffed. The future doesn't change the past. My wish is to simply stop breeding because it is unnecessary for numerous reasons.

I do not want to come across as insulting but PLEASE try to understand the points I'm trying ot make. It appears you are interpreting my words through your personal filter of what "humanity" and "anti-natalism" mean to you and if you are doing so, then it's impossible to even partially understand where I'm coming from.

Quote:

Of course we can stop, and since life is life, the decision means no life. To suggest that this isn't a rejection of life is silly.

You said that I can't accept the human condition. I said that I CAN accept it. You said nothing about the "rejection of life," so I have NO idea as to what you are talking about. I agree that stopping breeding means no more life. Never said otherwise.

Quote:

If you believe as a strong antinatalist, the world cannot get much worse anyway, but if you are not, then political correctness aside, you must look at who subscribes to the idea, where it will be implemented, and what generations are forever ended.

Not sure what you're saying here.

Quote:

The problems of overpopulation and exploitation and war will not be ended by the decision of a few well educated middle class westerners to end it all, and while everyone has his own ideas about what is virtuous and beautiful in human culture, handing the world to the remainder is at best a risky decision.

I'm not sure what you're saying but I'll just say that every single decision we ever make is a risky decision because humans decide to breed, so.... /shrug

Like I've said before, I don't undetrstand how advocating anti-natalism and/or not breeding is "worse" than breeding. Pardon my language, but I don't believe we can mess **** up worse than we already do.

Quote:

It should be. If a significant percentage of the people who exist believe that existence is good and that they are glad they were brought into being, then your proposal that they should not have been conceived and that nobody should ever be again is at least very arrogant.

It shouldn't be. Congratulations that now that you are here most of you cling to life which is the way nature intended. Nature mindlessly wants you to mindlessly live to breed, live to breed, live to breed, and live to breed. What's your point?

And isn't it coicidence that most people who say that they are glad they are here are NOT receiving more than they can handle? Isn't it a coincidence that we're not interviewing individuals when they are directly in the throes of pain as a result of reaching their limit? (We can't do that, of course) Isn't it a coincidence that humans freak the **** out when another human says they don't want to be here or have mixed feelings about existing? (Just to clarify, I'm not saying that everyone is lying about their feelings. But I don't know how many people are hiding their true feelings about existence because they don't want people to look down on them and neither does anyone.) These are just things to think about.

But no matter: It's arrogant to make the huge decision of life for SOMEONE ELSE who can't make that choice and isn't even begging for it. It's arrogant to make the decision of life for SOMEONE ELSE who might regret that decision. It is arrogant to make the decision of life for SOMEONE ELSE who might not want the random amount of suffering and death that they have been "granted" through birth. (dimasok, for example) Are we just going to sweep these people under the rug? We can't pretend that everything is okay. We can't pretend that we had nothing to do with them. We have EVERYTHING to do with them. Their pain is real and they deserve to be considered, too.

If you're still not sure how arrogant pro-natalism is think about this for a second: The main pro-natalist arguments for breeding are WE like living (so far) and WE want to continue the human race. Notice the "WE." Notice how literally irrational those arguments are. Who cares if YOU (general "you") like living so far? What does that have to do with OTHER POTENTIAL PEOPLE who aren't even begging to exist? Who cares if YOU want to continue the human race? Seriously. What does that even mean? This "Continue the human race" mindset is the direct result of mindless nature. There is no need to allow it to control us and make us mindlessly breed. Life isn't a contest or a race. It doesn't "need" to continue. We weren't crying tears of sadness before humanity came into existence and we won't do it after we stop existing.

Anti-natalism is FAR from arrogant because anti-natalism says, "You know, have fun while you're here. Why not? You're designed to. But why do you need to make the decision of life for others? You don't. So don't do it." Simple. Again, I understand the fear of "Oh my god what if I didn't exist?" I do. But it's an irrational one.

You wouldn't have been crying if you didn't exist. But if things, God forbid, go horribly wrong people WILL be crying before going back into non-existence. And those tears are absolutely unnecessary. In one fantastic documentary I watched (and would highly recommend) called "How to Die in Oregon," the beautiful terminally ill woman who eventually committed suicide to escape her suffering flat-out said, "I didn't sign up for this." Obvious at least mixed feelings about non-existence. Again, some things to think about.

Quote:

Sorry, but as far as I am concerned, you cannot advocate the end of humanity and say you value it.

And you cannot tell me what I value just because you think differently from me.

Quote:

The language here is handicapped by being a product of human culture, of course, but the very idea that conception involves a right, or that the decision can be made for another person, is problematic.

I found it problematic that you find it problematic. But it's understandable because, again, it's nature's mindless design to tell us "You MUST breed" and you're just following what nature has told you.

Quote:

You can't say you're in favor of life and then reject the way it happens.

I said I value humanity. I don't value continuing life for no good reason. To me, there is a difference.

Quote:

It's unfortunate that some people dislike life and it's too bad there is no effective way for them to opt out of it. I don't think this is the general viewpoint, and acting as if it is is not to accept the reality of reality.

I'm not acting as if it's the general viewpoint. I've said MANY times that most people say they like being here. (And this is as nature intended) Again, please be careful not to let my words go through your mental filter of what anti-natalism is. All I'm saying is that these people MATTER. These people need to be HEAVILY considered when it comes to even THINKING about breeding. Again, WHY risk passing along this "gift" if it might not be accepted and can't be returned? Why? What is the point?

Trust me when I say that anti-natalism pays a GREAT deal of attention to reality. Unlike pro-natalism, we don't just sweep these folks under the rug as "unfortunate" and suggest that we "try again" with the breeding process.

These real people's lives, these real people's pain is BEYOND "too bad." We don't even have a word for that horror. All we can say is "Thank God it'll eventually end." And that is nowhere near enough.

Quote:

I'm sorry to say I will always find anti-natalism naive and stupid, because what I see here is a clash between an idealistic view of what human life should be and the reality of what it is, and the conclusion that if we can't have it in some imagined way we should have none at all.

Well, no offense, but I'm getting the feeling that you aren't trying to understand it, then. Like I've said, anti-natalism can be summed down to "Why breed when they can't consent?" The concepts of suffering and utopias can COMPLETELY be ignored and the argument STILL makes sense.

Quote:

Not just because I love life, but because my experience suggests that others will too. I see something worth continuing, and since there's only one way nature has given us to do that, that's the way to do it.

Like I've said, what do your experiences have to do with other people? Do you feel they are being deprived by not existing? They aren't. So, what's the point? Whether it's "worth" continuing isn't the point, either. I'm sure you're aware that life isn't a contest or a movie. What gives YOU the right to make the decision of life for OTHER people simply because YOU see life as something "worth continuing." (Which, again, is exactly how nature designed you. It is NOT a coicidence that every species strives to reproduce) Human life is going to end eventually so why not end it now?

Quote:

Well, in some way you're right, just as I'm right that life is no less because we know that someday the universe will blow out like a candle. We will have to stay neutral on that one, I think, because just as dying doesn't undo the pain of death, the pain does not undo the pleasures of life.

Of course, the pain doesn't undo the pleasures of life. Again, the "pain vs. pleasure" argument doesn't work on me because I can't objectively compare and contrast them. They are what they are. My point is simply that nothing can erase the past.

Quote:

I will probably die painfully too, though of course I hope I don't. But I am neither such an individualist nor such a liver in the moment that I would end my life now, with its prospects and its memories, in anticipation of that.

I understand and feel the same way. I too hope you do not die painfully.

Quote:

I would contend that aside from the theistically tinged arguments on consent, and the ontologically difficult ones on being and non-being, the potential for further suffering is really the only good argument you have. There's no real cake under that icing.

I will respectfully disagree. As I've said, the suffering argument is subjective and can literally go on for ages, but the non-consent argument is factual. People who don't exist can't consent to existance. Anti-natalists simply tack on "If they can't consent, then why do it?" which makes sense. Why breed if the non-existent can't consent to existence? People make the concept of not breeding way more complicated that it needs to be. We don't really have a lot of good justifications for breeding.

Quote:

Indeed I do. I also am of course inevitably steeped in the linguistic limitations of being a human being in a human society, but I think existence is a good thing. I am for it.

If that's how you feel, then that's how you feel. But, again, what gives you (general "you") the right to make the decision of life for another just because you are for existence?

Quote:

I still say that all you're really doing is observing the truism that humanity is not what you would have designed if you were boss, and so to hell with it all.

Well, if you want to see anti-natalism that way then that's how you want to see it. It's not that way, though. It goes BEYOND that way. Anti-natalism is NOT about "wanting a utopia." To me, your interpretation of anti-natalism sounds more like some kind of pro-natalist mindset than an anti-natalist one. That makes sense because you seem to be pro-natalist and that, of course, has the potential to affect how you view anti-natalism.

Quote:

Language and the limitations of concept trip us up here. Nonexistence is total, and there is not an iota of retrospection available. Decisions about the pluses or minuses of life can only be made by and for the living.

Well aware of this fact. I'd say most anti-natalists are.

Quote:

Well, on that note I think we might as well close. The very idea of need is a social and human one, and I say there is a need for us to continue breeding as much as there is any need or any application of the idea of needing. On one level of course you're right, with the truism that the entire universe wouldn't be missed if it didn't exist (phrase stolen from Piet Hein), and on another, I believe, entirely wrong. As I've said before, if you value the hive then you need the bees.

I'd say my truism is "There's no need to breed. Since there's no need, let's not breed." If there is a "need" to breed, that sounds like a kind of mental disorder to me, but whatever. Heh. Anyways, I appreciate you taking the time to explain your point of view to me. I do hope someday you can see anti-natalism beyond the "easy" way to see it. Good day.

[marplots]

Is the anti-natalist morally bound to do what they can to reduce suffering in the here and now, for themselves and others, or only potential suffering?

[dimasok]

Quote:

Yes it is a non sequitur. Until there is a person in existence there is no "he" you can refer to. You have fallen into the existential rabbit hole again.

It just seems to be a play on words. When a country declares a moratorium on having more than one child (like China does), they're quite clearly aware that unless they decree that, people will have more than one child. Same when you procreate, you know that unless you don't procreate, there will be a child born who will be imposed all of what he never needed when he didn't exist, how's that not an imposition? Especially considering that life in general is choke-full of suffering? Your judgement as to how their lives will turn out is really beside the point: the people's personal need to have kids and a family shouldn't be a factor in deciding to play with a future person's welfare who might not appreciate the gesture. I can tell you that myself. I was imposed birth on because when I didn't exist I didn't have to complain or feel depressed about my life. How can you counter that? Procreation would make any sort of sense if you could show a potential future being how his life will turn out (and if that wouldn't be possible, then at least give him statistical odds) and only then if he consented would you have the right to impose on him. It just doesn't get more obvious than that for me.

Procreation just doesn't make sense to me at all. Even one person suffering in a world of 7 billion is just too much of a risk to take because, again, the pleasure of life could never be balanced with the suffering in life because in a neutral state of non-existence, pleasures aren't missed and there is no harm but in a future state of existence, harm is everywhere and the pleasures rarely counterbalance it to the preferred degree.

Essentially, when you're creating a new consciousness, you're saying "I think this life is good and this world is sufficiently safe that I want others to experience it no matter what they could come to think about it. I'll take the risk"

Now you can definitely take a risk with your own welfare and do extreme sports for instance, however you really don't have a right to play with the welfare of others who might not come to appreciate that "gift" you gave them at all. The fact that there are so many suicides out there as well as depressed people due to all the horrors of life, the collapsing ecosystem and the threat of mankind extinction should serve as enough of a warning that perhaps bringing yet another victim here is not such a bright idea and that perhaps betting on your kid being shielded from all that is just statistically improbable and too optimistic.

Quote:

But I do wonder, as a thought exercise, and an attempt to pin down whether you're a real antinatalist or just a strongly biased non breeder: if by magic a big red button appeared before you labeled "push to obliterate mankind" would you push it?

I had a poll on my blog where 7 people voted that they would press the button while 4 people voted that they would press it but hesitate.
My take on it is a little bit more complicated than that. I wouldn't mind if someone pressed the button and ended my life and the lives of everyone around me as I don't see much of any value in society or humanity as a whole and I don't think the suffering and the imposition of life are justified. However, while theoretically I would say that yes I would press the button, in practice I probably wouldn't because I wouldn't want to drag all the people who do happen to enjoy life despite how horrific it is with me. I mean, they were already born so its too late to prevent that biggest harm of them all, so killing them now could perhaps be at odds with how they view life and that would be equivalent to mass genocide and make me look like another Hitler.

[dimasok]

Originally Posted by marplots

Is the anti-natalist morally bound to do what they can to reduce suffering in the here and now, for themselves and others, or only potential suffering?

Yes, whenever he can reduce suffering should definitely be on his agenda. However, as long as he doesn't procreate, he surely prevented at least one vehicle of suffering to go through the rigmarole of life so that contribution alone is of value to him.

I think the only case where procreation could be justified is if the potential being was trapped in some sort of state where he was screaming for me to save him/her from all the horrors he goes through. In that case, giving birth to him wouldn't be as much of an imposition as you would naturally get his consent and would reduce his suffering (however, its still questionable whether what he would experience here is any better than what he experienced there).

[bruto]

Originally Posted by dimasok

It just seems to be a play on words. When a country declares a moratorium on having more than one child (like China does), they're quite clearly aware that unless they decree that, people will have more than one child. Same when you procreate, you know that unless you don't procreate, there will be a child born who will be imposed all of what he never needed when he didn't exist, how's that not an imposition? Especially considering that life in general is choke-full of suffering? Your judgement as to how their lives will turn out is really beside the point: the people's personal need to have kids and a family shouldn't be a factor in deciding to play with a future person's welfare who might not appreciate the gesture. I can tell you that myself. I was imposed birth on because when I didn't exist I didn't have to complain or feel depressed about my life. How can you counter that? Procreation would make any sort of sense if you could show a potential future being how his life will turn out (and if that wouldn't be possible, then at least give him statistical odds) and only then if he consented would you have the right to impose on him. It just doesn't get more obvious than that for me.

Procreation just doesn't make sense to me at all. Even one person suffering in a world of 7 billion is just too much of a risk to take because, again, the pleasure of life could never be balanced with the suffering in life because in a neutral state of non-existence, pleasures aren't missed and there is no harm but in a future state of existence, harm is everywhere and the pleasures rarely counterbalance it to the preferred degree.

Essentially, when you're creating a new consciousness, you're saying "I think this life is good and this world is sufficiently safe that I want others to experience it no matter what they could come to think about it. I'll take the risk"

Now you can definitely take a risk with your own welfare and do extreme sports for instance, however you really don't have a right to play with the welfare of others who might not come to appreciate that "gift" you gave them at all. The fact that there are so many suicides out there as well as depressed people due to all the horrors of life, the collapsing ecosystem and the threat of mankind extinction should serve as enough of a warning that perhaps bringing yet another victim here is not such a bright idea and that perhaps betting on your kid being shielded from all that is just statistically improbable and too optimistic.


I had a poll on my blog where 7 people voted that they would press the button while 4 people voted that they would press it but hesitate.
My take on it is a little bit more complicated than that. I wouldn't mind if someone pressed the button and ended my life and the lives of everyone around me as I don't see much of any value in society or humanity as a whole and I don't think the suffering and the imposition of life are justified. However, while theoretically I would say that yes I would press the button, in practice I probably wouldn't because I wouldn't want to drag all the people who do happen to enjoy life despite how horrific it is with me. I mean, they were already born so its too late to prevent that biggest harm of them all, so killing them now could perhaps be at odds with how they view life and that would be equivalent to mass genocide and make me look like another Hitler.

To make the example fairer I should probably have relabeled the button "sterilize all humanity now," but too late I suppose. Of course as usual you have slipped and fallen down the liguistic rabbit hole in the last sentence. You won't look like anything at all if there's nobody to look. I must say I find it unsettling that how you would look seems more important than the possibility that those who enjoy life are right. However, we will pass that one over, assuming that language is a tricky bastard.

It's a poor idea to bring up the Chinese example. Actually it's more than a poor idea, it's a really stupid one. The one child policy is purely social and anti-individualistic, addressing the numerical issue of population in order that the society survive as long and as well as its leaders hope. It happens to address breeding, but its goals are the very opposite of the antinatalist's. Everything about the policy is aimed at strengthening and prolonging the Chinese culture and nation.

I'm a bit busy this weekand not ready to address every point as I might, but cannot stay out of it entirely.

One of the main problems in all of this discussion seems to be that there are two versions of antinatalism being argued at the same time, and seemingly by the same parties. One, what I would call the mild form, is effectively the non-breeding decision, with an addition of persuasion. One can argue for or against the reasons for this, but there are plenty of good as well as bad reasons for a person to decide to skip breeding and to end his line. It's an individual's choice and not really open to argument. The individual is free, and what he does or advocates is free. We can accept or reject it as we choose. But inherent in this is that freedom and the realization that society will continue. People will not stop breeding, even if the reasons you do are good.

The hard version of antinatalism of course goes much further than this, because it advocates the utter end of humanity. Practically speaking, this is a wishful thinking theory, impossible to achieve unless it is coercive and universal. Jayjayjay claims not to understand what I mean here, but I think you'd have to be a fool not to realize that if you opt out of society without killing it, society will go on without you, and that it is on average, at best morally neutral, since certainly all possibility of anyone from your lineage ever doing something to improve it is gone. In the more likely reality, if the antinatalist is, in fact, a person of better than average intelligence and moral discrimination, practicing the partial version means handing the world over to those who are not.

The problem is that the antinatalists seem to be advocating the hard version, but when called on its faults they point out that only the soft version can actually happen. You cannot use the impossibility of an enterprise to deflect criticism of its principles. I say that human culture itself is a benefit that trumps the individualistic ideas of antinatalism. Pointing out that it won't work anyway hardly makes those ideas less wrong.

Jayjayjay and Derchin keep bringing up the issue of necessity. It is, of course, truistically obvious that it is not necessary for an individual to breed. Many do not. But from the point of view of humanity as a whole, it's just as obvious how necessary it is for someone to breed, even though the individual remains free. You cannot argue the individual point of view alone and still claim that you value society in any meaningful way.

The argument comes up that because everything will eventually end and we as individuals will inevitably die there's no essential difference between ending it now and continuing it as long as we can. If there can be no absolute, or no guarantee that mankind will go forever, the prospect that it will end means we might as well do it now. But if you are going to stick to the relative, a minute is not a year. A short life is not a long one. If you value life you do not hope for its early end. Period.

But there is another (and I would have thought pretty obvious) problem with the argument from necessity that keeps coming back up. And that is, quite simply, that the entire idea of necessity is fabricated. Who, aside from the person with the idea, says that a thing must be necessary in order to be worth doing? Who except the person with the idea says that what an individual can or cannot tolerate should be the rule for mankind as a whole? A person can live a life in prison. Art is not necessary. Most of the great wonders and beauties of culture are unnecessary. A great many of us will live and die without having created much of the grandeur that surrounds us. But what a drab, unnhappy and stupid world we would have if we looked only to individual necessity as our guide for humanity!

I was thinking about this as I was driving to my destination today, and here, as far as I can see it, is the antinatalist logic, along with the justifications we've heard, applied to a smaller idea:

I have read, and enjoyed, Jane Austen's Pride and Prejudice. It's very good, and I value it as fine literature. I could (indeed, really! )go on and on about this. However, I have decided that people who spend their time reading it are not helping mankind enough - it does not teach morality in the way I wish, and it certainly is not necessary. So I am advocating that the work be banned, all copies mulched to grow vegetables, the CD's shredded and recycled, and all electronic space reserved for it given over to instructional manuals on safe driving, and all records of its existence expunged. Mind you, I am not saying it's not good, even great, but some day it will disappear, so we might as well disapappear it now. It's entirely unnecessary. Many people on earth have lived without it. Once read it's not unread, so those who have read it cannot complain and those who have not will never realize what they're missing.

What's wrong with this argument?

Well, it's supper time, and I'm visiting for a few days, so I will close with a Merry Xmas or whatever holiday floats your craft. Have a good one and keep your finger off the damn button for a while longer, thanks.

[dimasok]

Quote:

It's a poor idea to bring up the Chinese example. Actually it's more than a poor idea, it's a really stupid one. The one child policy is purely social and anti-individualistic, addressing the numerical issue of population in order that the society survive as long and as well as its leaders hope. It happens to address breeding, but its goals are the very opposite of the antinatalist's. Everything about the policy is aimed at strengthening and prolonging the Chinese culture and nation.

The reason I brought it wasn't to bring the attention on what it accomplishes, but to stress the factor of imposition. That policy imposes on the right of other people to reproduce because the government KNOWS that if that isn't regulated, the society would explode. Same goes for an individual decision to create a new being - they KNOW what sort of experiences their kid could potentially undergo and what his overall fate in life locally and globally will be so claiming that a non-existent couldn't be imposed on is, in my opinion, ludicrous. I only brought up the examples of China to emphasize the prior KNOWLEDGE part before the act itself.

I think that the following video would shed more light on what I mean as he goes to great explanation as to why its an imposition:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6B_vlHMu1g

Quote:

I must say I find it unsettling that how you would look seems more important than the possibility that those who enjoy life are right. However, we will pass that one over, assuming that language is a tricky bastard.

I am not dismissing the way others enjoy life nor do I wish to impinge on their right to enjoy and make their own decisions. However, I find it the most rational point of view that life is inherently not worth living and spreading this "virus" unto others is the most heinous crime imaginable. Is that what unsettles you? That I would not kill everyone not because I accept their point of view but because I don't want to impose on them my will? If so, then you're right. I can't accept the idea that life is worth living because there is not a single rational argument backing that up except personal mush and uplifting, misleading optimism. Universe is not here for us and life is just a chemical accident, pretending its anything more than that just because we exist and can have fun now and then is extremely insincere and incorrect in my opinion.

Quote:

Jayjayjay and Derchin keep bringing up the issue of necessity. It is, of course, truistically obvious that it is not necessary for an individual to breed. Many do not. But from the point of view of humanity as a whole, it's just as obvious how necessary it is for someone to breed, even though the individual remains free. You cannot argue the individual point of view alone and still claim that you value society in any meaningful way.

As I said before, I agree with that. I do not value society at all nor do I see a need to continue breeding and sustaining civilization. To me, its all futile and meaningless. So I think at least in that regard, I happen to be closer to what antinatalists should be like given their philosophical outlook according to you than the other antinatalists. Nothing against them of course, but I agree with you that if I want humanity to end, I don't value it at all.

Quote:

If you value life you do not hope for its early end. Period.

All the more reasons why it should never be started. If the majority of people enjoy life, they naturally do not want it to come to an end. However, the dangers of the world are seemingly infinite and you can die at anytime from whatever reason (be it natural, disease related or due to an accident) and even if you don't die early on, you will die inevitably as you age and decay. If people value their lives so much, then I don't see why they would want to give birth to anyone who has no need to potentially experience valuing their life because they don't exist and have no stake in existence. Its tragic to pro-natalists that life ends and they would want to prolong it as much as possible. However, it will definitely end and its all the more tragic for those who came to value it, especially if it ends earlier than they expected. Again, why risk bringing someone here who might value their life when they don't exist and don't need to experience value only to lose it later anyways?

Quote:

Who except the person with the idea says that what an individual can or cannot tolerate should be the rule for mankind as a whole?

I think there are universal ideas that everyone would want. Obviously, everyone would want a society that is egalitarian where everyone is happy and satisfied, everything is automated and life is all pleasure with the minimal (or no) amount of suffering. On the other hand, no one would want a society where everyone is a suicide bomber detonating themselves everywhere because they believe that killing infidels will bring them closer to their version of heaven. And so, mankind would naturally want the ideas of the first scenario and not the second scenario.

It doesn't matter if one person would actually prefer to see the second scenario happen. What matters is what's right and what reduces/eliminates suffering and leads to the greatest prosperity for everyone. So mankind would agree with the first scenario as being the rule of the whole if one person professes it and another person professes the other one.

Quote:

Many people on earth have lived without it.

The universe was here billions of years before humanity evolved and the other species that crawled on the face of Earth never missed us nor was there a particular need for us to evolve. We are the only ones who see the need to continue the experiment instead of bowing out gracefully when we finally see how the whole thing is not accomplishing anything at all and its all artificial need that is perpetuated for our own individual and collective selfish reasons.

Quote:

Well, it's supper time, and I'm visiting for a few days, so I will close with a Merry Xmas or whatever holiday floats your craft. Have a good one and keep your finger off the damn button for a while longer, thanks.

Merry Xmas to you too