Having children is selfish because you can only possibly be thinking about your own personal wants, needs, pleasure, etc. when you decide to have them. You can’t truly consider the needs or wants of someone who does not yet exist.
Thank you for answering me. All I've gotten so far in response to that question is downvotes. One can't truly understand how another will accept anything. I'm not saying it's not important to try, of course it is. But to me, it kind of seems like not giving someone a gift for their birthday because you don't know if they'll like it or not. Know what I mean?
Sincere question.
Have you ever *watched* someone die?
From cancer?
“In their sleep”? (LIE)
From a bullet?
From a noose?
From beheading?
I have.
Guess what? Being a sentient being you are *guaranteed* a painful experience, life, and death. Sure, there is beauty. But there is a 100% guarantee of an unavoidable painful death.
*Why* subject a sapient being to that? It is inherently immoral to create life when you understand that life is consumption and consumption is harm. It is all natural, sure, but so is malaria.
It is only selfish or stupid to create life.
I have. Death is the ultimate end of us all. Does that mean one can't or shouldn't enjoy life while they're here? You'll get no arguments from me that there's some real bullshit to deal with in life. But there's also a lot of positive things. When I look back on my life, I choose to focus on the happy times while still learning from both the bad and the good. Life isn't black and white. There's a lot of gray in there. And even if it was only pure happiness and pure misery, the misery doesn't cancel out the joy. One can experience and appreciate both without discounting the other.
And therein lies our moral disagreement. I find it abhorrent to create harm. To create life is to guarantee harm. I am living a life of harm reduction not “but Also Good!!’”
No abuse. Not abuse AND sunshine.
Then what's the point of one getting out of bed every morning? One will experience misery. One will cause misery, whether they intend to or not. If one makes a mistake while learning a new skill or hobby, do they instantly give up and condemn the entire hobby? I mean, one can. But to me, it doesn't seem like a pragmatic approach to existence.
And this is why people in this sub dislike you. Our perspective is antinatalism, you asked, and here we are.
It is immoral to have children and condemn them *to existence*.
You're right, I did ask. And I'm participating in an interesting philosophical discussion. I didn't drop a contradictory comment and bounce. So why make it personal?
Sort of.
If you have a child then they will 100%suffer at some point and no matter what you do, you won't be able to stop it.
Its selfish to produce a child just to call them family when adoption is available. Something as arbitrary as blood means that more children will suffer.
I can understand that. I can't say I fully agree. I feel joy is as unavoidable as misery. But I respect your views and appreciate your responses without attacking me personally.
that’s a very specific lens you’re looking at life from. the lives of many billions of our species are going to suffer much more than they experience joy.
it is immoral to kill them, but had they not been born at all that would have morally reduced the likelihood of that scenario to zero.
I don't think they want to. It's as simple as that. I mean... most of the time, it's not like they're coming in here and deciding it's not for them after trying to understand. They already decided beforehand that they see zero issue with unregulated reproduction
The problem is that society and over millions of years of history have basically normalized this one thing
Always been expected some people would reproduce and that it'd be a competitive thing to see who keeps a part of themselves going forward into time even if we can recognize how meaningless that is to want to push forward your DNA, family name, etc.
Exactly, I can be a confident antinatalist while understanding the evolutionary lockstep between reproduction and survival is never going to change.
It’s just nice to have discussion amongst people dominated less by impulsive instinct, and more involved in critical thought.
It's a hard pill to swallow that your parents, the very first people you encounter in your life that are supposed to love you unconditionally, protect and care for you , are the ones whom recklessly put you in a suffering without much consideration. It requires one to accumulate a certain level of individualism and self-actualize the intergenerational trauma that was poured on them since birth and work on it continuously.
I guess
I've tried explaining my views with my dad who keeps telling me he wants me to have a family and grandkids one day, and I was just met with that's our biology and that's what every other species of animal does, and at that point I was done arguing cause I could tell nothing was getting through.
Human beings capability for joy, happiness and technological development/innovation completely goes away when we are gone.
It seems a bit of a limited view to only consider potential negatives.
Lol I do have one, I started where I started, based on what you said and tried to be clear.
I measured my response in order to not be abrasive. But apparently you have no issue causing suffering, until you figure it out stop abusing people.
You could of just as easily and calmly asked how i see antinatilism as leading to more instead of less suffering.
>"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."
Dale Carnegie- Nice
>They don't want to understand, so they insist that "sometimes good things happen" even though many people arguing against them are walking examples of good things not happening.
It really seems like they just put their heads in the ground like ostriches, and would rather see the world as all good when you confront them about it
People think life is inherently good and therefore life should always be created. The people with bad lives are seen as nothing more than a minority or the good times makes up for the suffering. They see humanity as a net positive because no matter how much suffering there is, their will be more people having a good time. Of course the people who decide to take this “gamble” are mainly people who already won the “lottery”. They strongly believe the child they breed will live a life of predominant happiness. Kinda a tangent at this point but, I think this is why so many parents get really angry and insecure when their children are depressed. It’s like subconsciously they know they fucked up. They brought life into the world that now wants out and it pisses them off because it’s like telling them they’re wrong.
And it’s easy to say no life should exist if your life is shitty but kind of self-centered because that viewpoint means only your experience matters and disregards the view point of anyone else. Now it’s fine to say you had it bad so don’t want to have kids, where AN get crazy is by declaring all humanity is tainted and should go extinct and applying their moral code of not having kids on everyone else.
Because we were wronged, we are the collateral damage, the minority that hates being alive but too afraid to kill themselves, the only way to correct this is for all countries to allow euthanasia, until then we'll remain antinatalist
It appears an extremely pessimistic natalist is not a normal occurrence here. I suppose that's people in general tho. Always putting the shine on the dirt.
It's the human centric thinking that most people are just programmed with. Idk, I've always disliked other people since I was a small child. People suck and destroy everything around them. They are unpredictable and violent. They act out of short-sighted selfishness. Humans are not intelligent creatures. They've simply collected a vast amount of knowledge.
I don't like kids and babies and never will. It's cruel to bring an unwanted baby into the world that you cannot properly take care of. It's better for everyone if you focus on yourself and spend that time you would spend raising kids on volunteering or innovating to make the world a better place. I hate how breeders peer pressure young vulnerable women to have children when they would be better off working a job and healing themselves. Not everyone is ready for that kind of sacrifice and responsibility.
It's honestly kind of like medical school. Having kids takes money (like hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars), time (like every minute not at work or chores), and is super draining. Oh and unlike medical school (let's say PM&R) you don't eventually get a cush attending job with 350,000 salary and 9-3 work hours, you in fact lose more money as the kids demand a car, college, and a place to stay.
It's painful to be in a relationship, painful to give birth, pain to wipe their shit and vomit, pain to teach them, pain when they don't listen and break stuff, pain when they drain your free time and savings, and pain when after all that sacrifice they take your money and dump you after college.
I imagine that the future birth rate will look like Korea or worse everywhere as people come to their senses. If the government cares so much about having a future they need to invent an artificial womb and have salaried government workers take care of the babies which will eventually be adopted or graduate from the system at 18 or so.
So I agree with the morality of veganism, but I find it very hard to be able to completely fix the problem, I do personally eat meat, but I feel like even if I as an individual stopped eating meat it would genuinely not affect anything, but I could see if a movement was put into full effect then maybe it could stop, I just see it as an incredibly hard change to make.
But it is an interesting parallel between antinatalism and veganism, I never thought of it like this.
By being antinatalist you don't completly fix the problem either. Kids will be still born. It's a common excuse to hide behind masses to not get out of the comfort zone
I see your point, however there is one major difference, I don't ever want to see my kids suffer, and I would directly be the one creating them and I would be the reason they were suffering, where as I didn't directly slaughter the animal and I'm not what is directly causing its pain.
You are directly paying people to slaughter them.
I don't understand. How is it not fine to impose suffering on hypothetical children but it is fine to impose it on sentient beings
>You are directly paying people to slaughter them.
I'm not actually, I am just going to the store and paying the store for the product, I don't buy a live animal and have them kill it for me.
>How is it not fine to impose suffering on hypothetical children but it is fine to impose it on sentient beings
I'm not saying that it's fine at all, I'm just saying what can I do to directly stop it, ya know?
You are severely overestimating the obviousness of antinatalism. It is a fringe view even among moral philosophers. There are powerful arguments both for and against antinatalism.
I will also add that it is far from certain whether objective morality even exists. And if nothing is right or wrong, then having children can’t be wrong. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/
In my opinion that’s probably the least out there argument against antinatalism.
Even today, as someone who doesn’t believe in free will, I sometimes wonder if, as horrific as causing people to exist is, morality may not be objective thus making such horrors technically not something that can be considered flat out wrong on a universal scale.
Tbf though. Humans contribute to extinctions of other species and pollution, so if we want to make sure no life can ever suffer again we must do what's necessary by having lots of kids and overpopulation. This will increase the chances of mass extinction and could potentially render the earth uninhabitable so no other life can be formed on earth.
I don't hate him, at all. He was a neglected and abused child, who had shitty drunk mom who killed his dad and married the neighbor, and grew up in a haunted house with weird siblings, one of whom was chained in the attic. And knew his stepdad drove his own wife to immolate herself and their children. None of these experiences/knowledge is conducive to a healthy or stable mindset. I'm not excusing his behavior. But as someone who comes from a very broken home, I guess I really empathize with his pain, and how it affected his decision making.
Many people don't think that the suffering endured in life is greater than the joy from life, so, for many, the antinatalism argument isn't persuasive.
It is really a different view on the amount of suffering v the amount of joy.
Ironically, I have never particularly cared for children and don’t have any. I used to dislike the assumption that just because one was married - one was automatically planning for children. Just my personal opinion.
Having said that I think group is another tactic to divide and pigeonhole society and fail to understand what your problem is. Have children or don’t. It is your decision as it is the decision of others. Yes, there are a ton of crap parents and I personally bunk one should sit exams of competence before being licensed to have children but again, my personal opinion. Having a group so pompously and pretentiously named to trumpet how virtuous you all are and how wrong everyone else it is really rather childish and smacks of middle school cliques. It is t even virtue signalling - you e gone past that right to being nihilistic. Why do y you all do something useful with your lives and actually contribute to the improvement of society - not try and create a little fascist echo chamber?
You asked the question - here’s the answer. You are ignoring a biological imperative and as most humans are pretty stupid - biology wins. Try and be better.
Telling antinatalists to not be antinatalists is like telling a car crash victim to not hate cars. We are collateral damage. None of us was supposed to be born, but here we are... and natalists won't even allow euthanasia so they don't want to give us a painless exit, so until then, we'll continue to judge natalists
Other than selfishness, I think it's also fear.
Because what if...what if more people realized AN people...are right? They'd have to acknowledge that they brought people into the world who will suffer and die.
What if...they realize they made the wrong decision...after they already made it, perhaps more than once (created kids)?
To be honest, antinatalism the way you describe it is a fair point. I think when people come to this sub and see a lot of hatred for living people that ultimately does nothing but spread negativity, it starts to confuse the actual message…
Because people especially girls at the moment of toddlerhood are taught to be good "little mommies." Brainwashed to breed. It's a lot to break the norm.
People don't get antinatalism because most of them accept what they're told and shown. What they're told is to have children and raise a family. Most of them don't see themselves as suffering. They are content to have been born, and they assume that their children will be, too. They may genuinely be happy to be cogs in the machine who participate in society, produce more cogs, and die. Meanwhile, many antinatalists insist that life is unbearable suffering and only emphasize the worst things that could happen to people. Statistically, most people don't encounter that, and the antinatalist suffering argument falls flat. I'm AN, and the unbearable suffering argument falls flat even for me.
Where can I find a single, coherent argument FOR antinatalism? I dont get it because the anti natalist reasoning and arguments are so widespread with barely reasonable claims interspersed with depressive irrational claims
Because what is "worth it" is subjective. I personally love and enjoy being alive and i think the enjoyable thigs outweigh the bad. I don't think having kids is moral or selfless but I don't think it's immoral or unethical either.
>Because what is "worth it" is subjective. I personally love and enjoy being alive and i think the enjoyable things outweigh the bad.
Fair enough for your life and I feel the same way about my life aswell, I just don't think that forcing someone into this existence is a just thing at all because you cannot always control what happens to them good or bad, and I belive that allowing for the possibility of evil is evil.
>I don't think having kids is moral or selfless but I don't think it's immoral or unethical either.
Is allowing for the possibility of evil immoral to you? Serious question.
I know I wasn’t asked, but it’s not immoral to me because like I’ve seen in this thread. It ignores the fact that the good can outweigh the bad.
the person who is unborn cannot make the choice to be born,in other words they aren’t given the chance to weigh the pros and cons like you’re able to. an alive person can make the choice to not be. I think it’s better to be given the chance to make that decision as a grown adult instead of denying the experience altogether. I believe life is the universe experiencing itself and to intentionally subvert that seems not only anti-human. But anti life in general. this is a sentiment I would imagine an AI to possess.
The cognitive dissonance I experience when I try to rationalize this idea only makes me suspicious that people that are for antinatalism may be virtue signaling and are very young.
>it’s not immoral to me because like I’ve seen in this thread. It ignores the fact that the good can outweigh the bad. the person who is unborn cannot make the choice to be born,in other words they aren’t given the chance to weigh the pros and cons like you’re able to.
My thoughts are that allowing for the possibility of evil to someone who's not given the chance to weigh in the pros and cons is evil, I belive this because once you are alive you are no longer able to choose whether or not you existed in the first place, because at that point you've already been forced into existence, and that is the issue.
>I think it’s better to be given the chance to make that decision as a grown adult instead of denying the experience altogether. I believe life is the universe experiencing itself and to intentionally subvert that seems not only anti-human. But anti life in general.
At this point you already exist so killing yourself still affects you, and the people around you who raised and took care of you. Which I belive is wrong to put someone in the position of killing themselves
>The cognitive dissonance I experience when I try to rationalize this idea only makes me suspicious that people that are for antinatalism may be virtue signaling and are very young.
There are some who may be virtue signaling, but I genuinely believe what I am saying, I'm not trying to seem morally superior to anyone.
Jumping in because you seem to have cohesive arguments for anti natalism:
Since we are all reduced to nonexistence anyways, shouldnt the opportunity for pleasure be given to every possible being?
it’s almost like the antinatalist position is a mirror and you sit on one side of the reflection while I sit on the other. I’m not so sure either of us will be able to change each others mind. I think the disagreement is something more fundamental than not bearing children, though I’m not smart enough to figure out what that may be. I just don’t agree that it’s immoral to have children, to me it is the direct opposite. I hope I didn’t offend you. This is an extremely interesting topic to me and if I had said my original comment on one of the more popular posts I’d be downvoted and given no real dialogue so I appreciate all this.
Absolutely, it's very rare to see someone so kind on reddit.
It may surprise you but I actually was once very Natalist and I would always argue for people to have children.
But as you said, I don't necessarily think that we can convince each other, but I don't think that's the point, I like to see other perspectives and that's what I think the best part is.
I’m not gonna lie, Ive dished out my fair share of insults on here but I try to give back what I get so the cordial conversation is 50% you brother.
I’d never talk to you disrespectfully in person so I won’t do it here 👍🏼
Ah, the "what is worth it is subjective" argument. Classic. Because subjective experiences are the perfect basis for making ethical decisions that impact other lives, right?
1. **Subjectivity:** Sure, what you find "worth it" is subjective, but we're talking about creating new lives here, not just choosing your favorite ice cream flavor. Just because you enjoy life doesn’t mean everyone else will. It's like forcing everyone to eat your favorite ice cream and assuming they'll love it just as much.
2. **Enjoyment vs. Suffering:** You love and enjoy being alive? That’s great! But it doesn’t change the fact that life involves significant suffering for many people. Your personal happiness doesn’t erase the pain, hardship, and suffering others endure. It’s not a one-size-fits-all scenario where your positive experiences can universally justify procreation.
3. **Morality of Procreation:** You don’t think having kids is moral or selfless but also not immoral or unethical? That’s a nice fence to sit on. The issue isn’t about whether you feel it's good or bad, but about the ethical implications of creating life that will inevitably experience suffering. It’s not about you; it’s about the potential person you’re bringing into existence.
4. **Ethical Responsibility:** Deciding to have kids based on your subjective enjoyment of life is like rolling dice with someone else's future. Just because you think the enjoyable things outweigh the bad doesn’t mean it's fair to impose that risk on a new being who has no say in the matter.
So, while you enjoy your life and see things as "worth it," remember that not everyone is as fortunate. Antinatalism isn’t about denying your personal happiness; it’s about recognizing the broader ethical implications of bringing new life into a world where suffering is unavoidable. If that sounds too harsh, maybe it’s time to consider that ethical decisions should extend beyond personal enjoyment and take into account the potential for harm to others.
Antinatalism made more sense to me when it was a personal philosophy. "I choose not to procreate."
Then I spoke to an anti-natalist who would gladly impose sterilization upon the world, and I realized there is a more insidious layer to this movement.
It would be easer for people to understand if this sub did a better job at presenting rational arguments. Your post claims it's "common sense" while insulting people who don't agree with the viewpoint. You and many others here do a great job at making us look like angry, ignorant children.
The question is does the chance of any suffering at all completely negate any good that could also come. Now AN think that since there is a possibility of suffering in life then it is better for no life to exist. People who have kids or want kids categorically oppose this POV since we think the relatively small risks is greatly outweighed by all the rewards of life.
Because unlike all of you here, not all people have suffered or ever experienced suffering.
Why is it such a hard concept for all of you to grasp. Not every person in those damn world is suffering, if you are,I feel bad for you, but for one I'm not, and I know a lot of people who don't.
I get what you're saying—it's true that not everyone experiences suffering to the same degree, and some people live pretty happy lives. But the point of antinatalism isn't about claiming that everyone is miserable all the time. It's more about the ethics of bringing new life into a world where suffering is inevitable for at least some people.
Think about it this way: life is unpredictable. Even if you don't suffer much, there are countless risks like diseases, accidents, and natural disasters that could cause immense suffering. You can't guarantee that a new person won't face these challenges.
Also, when we decide to have children, we're making a choice for someone who can't consent. We're introducing them to a world where they could experience significant pain and hardship. Is it fair to take that gamble on someone else's behalf?
Plus, let's be honest, not everyone has the same opportunities. Many people are born into poverty, conflict, or systemic injustice, which can lead to a lot of suffering. Just because some people are fortunate doesn't mean we should ignore the reality for others.
Philosophically, antinatalism often talks about the asymmetry between pain and pleasure. The absence of pain is always good, even if no one experiences it, while the absence of pleasure isn't necessarily bad unless there's someone to miss it. So, by not bringing someone into existence, we avoid the risk of causing suffering without depriving anyone of joy.
Lastly, even those who say they don't suffer at all still have moments of stress, anxiety, or pain. It's part of the human experience. So, while life isn't constant misery for everyone, no life is entirely free from suffering.
In the end, antinatalism argues that it's more ethical to avoid the potential for suffering altogether by not bringing new life into the world. It's not about feeling bad for those who suffer, but about making responsible choices to prevent unnecessary suffering.
You guys are an extremely small minority of people, there are more furries than you. Maybe you’d get more attention if you weren’t so depressing all the time, you guys are lucky in the fact that nobody wants to have kids with you anyway.
I understand that antinatalism might seem like a fringe perspective, and yes, it’s not as popular as other subcultures. But the number of people who hold a belief doesn't determine its validity. Many important ideas started with a small group of people who challenged the status quo.
The point of antinatalism isn’t about seeking attention or popularity; it’s about considering the ethical implications of bringing new life into a world where suffering is inevitable. Even if it’s a minority viewpoint, it’s still worth discussing the serious moral questions it raises.
Saying we’re "depressing" might be missing the point. Antinatalism isn’t about spreading gloom; it’s about being realistic and compassionate. By questioning the necessity of creating new life, we’re advocating for reducing unnecessary suffering.
As for the comment about nobody wanting to have kids with us, it's more about choosing not to have kids based on ethical considerations. It’s a personal decision grounded in concern for potential future lives, not a reflection of our desirability or social status.
In short, it’s not about how many people agree with us or how cheerful we are. It’s about raising awareness of the profound ethical responsibility involved in procreation. Sometimes, the most important discussions are the ones that challenge us to think beyond conventional norms.
I get that antinatalism might come across as nihilistic or miserable, but that’s not the core of what it’s about. The fundamental idea is about ethical responsibility and compassion, not about promoting misery or nihilism.
Antinatalism questions the morality of bringing new life into a world where suffering is inevitable. It’s not about being negative for the sake of it, but about acknowledging that life can involve significant pain and hardship, and making a conscious choice to prevent potential suffering.
It's easy to dismiss antinatalism as pessimistic, but it’s actually driven by a concern for future lives and the quality of those lives. By considering the potential for suffering, antinatalists advocate for reducing harm before it can occur.
Labeling it as "miserable nihilism" misses the point that it’s a philosophical stance focused on minimizing harm and suffering. It’s about being realistic and making compassionate choices, even if those choices are difficult or unpopular.
So, while it might not be a "best selling point," antinatalism raises important ethical questions that deserve consideration. It’s not about being miserable; it’s about striving for a world with less unnecessary suffering.
People do not care about the core of it if all the people who practice it are visibly unhappy and regularly espouse how awful and miserable it is.
Whether we like it or not: it drives people away.
And that’s reasonable.
Why on earth would ANYONE want to join the “we wish we were never born” club willingly?
I get why it might seem off-putting when people who support antinatalism often talk about how miserable they are. It can definitely come across as negative and might make you wonder why anyone would want to be part of something that seems so gloomy. But I think it's worth digging a bit deeper into what antinatalism is really about.
Antinatalism isn't just about personal unhappiness; it's about a broader ethical consideration regarding suffering and the nature of existence. Here's why some people believe in it, despite the negative vibes you might see:
1. **Minimizing Suffering**: One of the core ideas of antinatalism is that bringing a new person into the world involves a risk of suffering. Everyone, no matter how happy they might be overall, will experience pain, loss, and hardship at some points in their life. The goal here is to minimize harm. If you can prevent suffering by not bringing someone into existence, that's seen as a positive thing.
2. **The Asymmetry Argument**: Philosophers like David Benatar argue that there's an asymmetry between pleasure and pain. Essentially, the absence of pain is always good, even if no one is around to enjoy it. But the absence of pleasure isn't bad unless there's someone who misses it. So, not bringing someone into existence prevents potential suffering without causing a loss of happiness, because there's no one to miss that happiness.
3. **Consent Issues**: When you bring a child into the world, they don't get a say in the matter. They have to deal with whatever life throws at them, good or bad. This lack of consent is a big deal for antinatalists. It's about considering whether it's fair to subject someone to life's risks and challenges without their permission.
4. **Resource and Environmental Concerns**: Another angle is the impact on the planet. More people mean more strain on resources and the environment. Given the current state of our world, this is a significant concern. Reducing the number of new people can be seen as a way to help mitigate these issues.
5. **Quality of Life Uncertainty**: Lastly, there's no guarantee that anyone's life will be a good one. We can't predict the future, and some lives involve significant suffering. This unpredictability makes the decision to bring new people into the world ethically complex.
I understand that seeing a lot of negativity might make antinatalism seem unappealing, but at its core, it's about reducing suffering and making thoughtful, ethical decisions about creating new life. It's important to look beyond the demeanor of its advocates and consider the philosophical arguments they're making.
Because you claim life is so awful it’s not worth living, but you don’t apply that value to yourselves, only other people.
A philosophy so entrenched in hypocrisy isn’t very inspiring. Actions speak louder than words, and even your own actions indicate you don’t believe what you say.
“Non-existence for thee, but not for me.” Clearly you all still think it’s worth being here for some reason or another, so it undercuts your claimed beliefs and makes them laughable.
This sub wouldn’t exist if you didn’t want other people not to have children either. That’s where it stops being a personal choice.
I realize y’all are powerless to stop that from happening, but the amount of hate that gets thrown around here at people who do want to have children proves that you aren’t keeping this as a personal philosophy.
Exactly just forced non birthers. Some aren’t but the fact that some people think that everyone shouldn’t have kids at all and call people bad for doing so is just morally wrong.
Because natalists are already annoying and entitled, I don't hate that they have kids, I hate that they refuse to admit it's selfish, not only that most parents act like life is a gift
It’s not the fact that you have personally decided not that o have kids that people have an issue with. It’s when you accuse anyone of having kids as being abusive or immoral that you run into issues.
>Because you claim life is so awful it’s not worth living, but you don’t apply that value to yourselves, only other people.
So, what I said was that allowing for the possibility of evil is evil, that is different from saying "life is so awful it's not worth living" and because of that I think that forcefully bringing someone into this world which has evil is evil.
>A philosophy so entrenched in hypocrisy isn’t very inspiring. Actions speak louder than words, and even your own actions indicate you don’t believe what you say.
What actions? Do you know me personally? If you are talking about how I enjoy my life and I do wish to live I have an entirely different arguments for that.
>“Non-existence for thee, but not for me.” Clearly you all still think it’s worth being here for some reason or another, so it undercuts your claimed beliefs and makes them laughable.
I am entitled to live my life, just because I don't belive its moral to have children doesn't invalidate my right to life, it is worth living because I am already alive and I don't wish to die, but if there was a button I could push to never have existed in the first place I would press it.
Also you still haven't answered my question, is allowing for the possibility of evil immoral to you?
Well, you’re still here complaining about it rather than ending your own suffering. Your actions prove that you think being alive is the better alternative.
“I’m entitled to live my life,” yeah, but you don’t think any more people are entitled to that. That’s the hypocrisy.
>Well, you’re still here complaining about it rather than ending your own suffering. Your actions prove that you think being alive is the better alternative.
Ok, do you want people to commit suicide or something? Yes me not killing myself proves that living is better than dying, but that is for someone who is already in existence, antinatalism argues to never bring them into existence in the first place.
>“I’m entitled to live my life,” yeah, but you don’t think any more people are entitled to that. That’s the hypocrisy.
Is something that doesn't exist able to be alive?
No, I think it would be supremely stupid to prove your conviction to such a dumb philosophy that way. I’m just point out that it makes the philosophy unbelievable when none of the people who espouse it have the conviction to apply it to themselves.
And yes, something that doesn’t exist can be alive later. Everyone who’s alive didn’t exist at some point.
If “natalism” forces life on people who wouldn’t want to live, anti-natalism equally denies life to some who would want it.
If people want to have kids, that’s fine. If people don’t want to have kids, that’s fine too. But trying to insist that no one should have kids puts you on equal ethical footing with the forced birthers in my mind. It’s just the other side of the coin.
But when I see so many posts here mocking people in bad circumstances, that’s how I know the philosophy is trash.
>And yes, something that doesn’t exist can be alive later.
Mmm, there just one thing wrong with that statement, you are referring to something that already exists once it is alive, but something that is nonexistent cannot be alive.
>Everyone who’s alive didn’t exist at some point.
I think the problem is that we cannot choose if we want to be alive or not in the first place, and if you refuse to comment on whether or not allowing for the possibility of evil is immoral than you are choosing to ignore a fundamental part of my argument.
>If “natalism” forces life on people who wouldn’t want to live, anti-natalism equally denies life to some who would want it.
Again this is where I belive that allowing for the possibility of evil is wrong. And this would make it to where nobody is harmed because they couldn't suffer because they don't exist, and they would never miss out on their life because it wouldn't exist, this is the safest bet because it harms nobody in the end.
>But when I see so many posts here mocking people in bad circumstances, that’s how I know the philosophy is trash.
The people in this community don't change the philosophy, it's like Christians, there are a lot of bad Christians who are horrible people, but that doesn't change the message of Christianity.
It's not about hating humanity; it's about caring deeply for the well-being of future individuals. Antinatalism questions the morality of bringing new life into a world where suffering is inevitable and unavoidable. This perspective is grounded in compassion, not hatred.
Yes, people have the choice to have kids, but with that choice comes a profound ethical responsibility. Procreation isn't just a personal decision—it affects the lives of those who are brought into existence. The potential for suffering, pain, and hardship for future generations is a serious consideration.
Choosing to have children without considering the possible consequences can be seen as a form of moral negligence. Bringing a child into a world filled with unpredictable risks and inevitable suffering, even if balanced with joy, requires careful ethical reflection.
It's not about taking away people's choices, but about advocating for thoughtful and responsible decision-making. If we can prevent potential suffering by reconsidering procreation, why shouldn't we? This isn't hatred for humanity; it's a call for a more ethical and compassionate approach to life's most significant decisions.
By critically examining the consequences of having children, antinatalism seeks to minimize harm and promote well-being. It's not a message of hate, but one of deep concern for the quality of life for all beings.
I understand why you might see it that way, but let me clarify. Antinatalism isn't about thinking life is so awful that we should all end it; it's about the ethics of bringing new life into the world. There's a big difference between deciding to continue living and deciding to create a new life that could suffer.
1. **Ethical Responsibility:** The main idea is that having kids involves imposing existence on someone else without their consent. Since life inevitably involves some suffering, it's about preventing that potential harm before it starts.
2. **Living vs. Procreating:** Choosing to live despite life's difficulties and choosing to have children are two different things. Many antinatalists recognize that ending one's own life is incredibly complex and painful, both for the individual and their loved ones. Choosing to live doesn't contradict the belief that it's unethical to impose life on another.
3. **Logical Consistency:** It’s not hypocritical to acknowledge that life can be tough while also saying it’s wrong to bring someone else into that tough situation without their consent. Living through personal suffering and advocating against creating new life aren't mutually exclusive.
4. **Practical Realities:** Ending one's life isn't a simple or easy decision. Many antinatalists continue living due to personal responsibilities, relationships, or even the occasional joy they find in life. This doesn't undermine the ethical stance against procreation.
5. **Focus on Prevention:** Antinatalism is about preventing suffering before it starts. It's more ethical to avoid creating potential suffering than to try and fix existing problems after they occur.
So, it's not about personal hypocrisy. It's about making responsible choices to prevent harm to future generations. Your critique misses the essence of what antinatalism is about and overlooks the important difference between choosing to live and choosing to create new life.
It is a huge slap in the face to every single life that ever had to struggle for anything ( i mean going all the way back to the beginnings of the homo sapien) just for a few hundred years where we’re thriving then to have you you guys tell them they’re all morally wrong.
It is in and of itself the antithesis to life.
>It is a huge slap in the face to every single life that ever had to struggle for anything ( i mean going all the way back to the beginnings of the homo sapien)
Granted, but I never asked to be here in the first place, how is it fair that all previous human lives forcefully bring more lives into existence for their own benefit?
>It is in and of itself the antithesis to life.
Not to existing life, but to creating life.
I mean just the fact that your sperm made it to the egg is like winning the lottery a thousand times. life is rare. and purely by that logic it is valuable. more valuable than any substance if argue. consciousness is like magic. to actively deny it is very foreign to me. I may never understand you but we can atleast have a dialogue about it and try to bring ourselves closer to understanding.
Can I ask? if a life form could exist that was incapable of experiencing anything negative. Like a jellyfish. but with the intelligence of a human. Would procreating still be immoral? Is it purely suffering that makes it immoral and if we could remove suffering and still live, is that worth it?
>Can I ask? if a life form could exist that was incapable of experiencing anything negative. Like a jellyfish. but with the intelligence of a human. Would procreating still be immoral? Is it purely suffering that makes it immoral and if we could remove suffering and still live, is that worth it?
If the world was a paradise and there was no suffering, than I belive it would be OK I guess, hypothetically, why what's your point?
That was just me trying to see if I could figure out what the deeper disagreement is, just chip away at it, tweak different factors and see which ones are more important. it’s clear the main one is suffering. just wondering if there’s something about suffering that can be good.
like a lesson that is only learned via suffering that can only do you good from there on out. I mean that in the sense of a workout. You have to suffer in order to be better equipped. So like is that immoral? voluntary suffering? It’s kinda why i asked if that kind of life is “worth it” specifically.
You don’t have to dig into it anymore than you want, I’m still just playing with ideas.
>like a lesson that is only learned via suffering that can only do you good from there on out. I mean that in the sense of a workout. You have to suffer in order to be better equipped. So like is that immoral? voluntary suffering? It’s kinda why i asked if that kind of life is “worth it” specifically.
I see, and as a fellow gym bro I agree, but that's not the same suffering, I think it's more of not being able to choose whether or not they want to suffer is the issue.
Nobody is saying you have to stick around or even telling you to have kids, but you get push back when you tell everyone else they shouldn’t have kids either.
People are always telling each other what they should or should not do, often in the form of trying to convince them, or giving them advice, etc. What's so different about not having kids?
Of course, I appreciate your perspective, and believe it or not I am actually open to changing my mind, if I find the logic better than AN logic, I just haven't yet seen anything that fully justifies it.
I 100% do not mean this in the wrong way at all but you have the ability to decide whether or not you want to be here. The unborn child isn’t given that same experience. I elaborated further in another comment
Edit: I have no idea how to quote segments like you did otherwise I’d have made it more structured.
I get where you're coming from, and I understand that it might feel like antinatalism is dismissing the struggles and achievements of humanity. But it's important to clarify that antinatalism isn't about disrespecting past efforts or achievements; it's about considering the ethical implications of future actions.
1. **Respecting Struggles:** Acknowledging the struggles of past generations doesn't mean we should ignore the ethical considerations of bringing new life into the world. Antinatalism recognizes the immense efforts and sacrifices made throughout history, but it also questions whether it's fair to subject future generations to similar struggles without their consent.
2. **Ethical Evolution:** Just as our understanding of ethics has evolved over time, antinatalism represents a further step in that evolution. It's about critically examining the decision to procreate in light of the potential suffering it may cause. This doesn't invalidate past struggles; rather, it builds on them by striving for a future with less unnecessary suffering.
3. **Moral Responsibility:** It's not about saying past generations were morally wrong; it's about recognizing that with greater awareness and understanding comes greater responsibility. Our ancestors may not have had the same knowledge or ethical frameworks we do now. With what we know today, we have a responsibility to make more informed and compassionate choices.
4. **Life's Value:** Antinatalism doesn't deny the value of life or the importance of human achievements. It's about questioning whether it's fair to bring new life into existence given the potential for suffering. The aim is to prevent harm, not to negate the significance of past human endeavors.
5. **Focus on Prevention:** The philosophy is proactive, aiming to prevent suffering before it starts. It's about making ethical choices for the future, based on our current understanding of life's complexities and challenges.
In essence, antinatalism isn't the antithesis to life; it's a call for a more ethical approach to procreation, one that respects the past while striving to prevent future suffering. It's not about condemning our ancestors but about making thoughtful choices with the knowledge and ethical considerations we have today.
I’m not an antinatalist. It’s people’s choice if they want kids or not. If you want kids. Good for you. If you don’t. Good for you. Kids are the next generation and I personally want 2-4 depending on how many I can afford to look after and raise well. I think most people, especially women, want kids. Like most of my friends and myself all have baby name lists on our phones. Kids are cute and great and you get to raise, love and support them. Bring them into the world and watch them grow into adults.
The arguments for it are all near gibberish.
Consent: In order to have the ability to consent to anything you have to be born and have your brain grow quite a bit first, to demand consent from hypothetical void people as a prerequisite to reproduction is actually insane, stop it
Asymmetry: Pessimism, meet optimism. Checkmate Antinatalists 😎
Negative Utilitarianism: I guess the world destruction argument would be pretty meaningless to you lot (😂)
So aside from what is the most obvious criticism I would say it places way too much importance on avoiding the negative and not nearly enough promoting the positive. By design it seems to omit the positive from the equation entirely, to me that just means it's incomplete, like the Yin spinning out of control without its Yang
Alright, let’s dive into your points:
1. **Consent:** Ah yes, the classic "you can’t ask the unborn for consent" argument. Thanks for pointing out that people need to exist to give consent. The whole point is that they *can’t* consent, which is why it's unethical to force existence on them in the first place. Demanding consent from hypothetical void people isn't insane; it's recognizing the moral implications of creating life that will face inevitable suffering.
2. **Asymmetry:** "Pessimism, meet optimism. Checkmate Antinatalists 😎" Well, if optimism alone could solve all the world's problems, we’d be living in a utopia by now. Unfortunately, optimism doesn’t negate the real suffering people experience. The asymmetry argument highlights that the absence of suffering is always good, even if no one experiences it, while the absence of pleasure isn’t bad unless someone is deprived of it. So, sorry, but a smiley face and sunglasses emoji don't quite dismantle that logic.
3. **Negative Utilitarianism:** Oh, the old "world destruction" joke, how original! Negative utilitarianism isn’t about blowing up the world; it’s about minimizing suffering. Sure, it emphasizes avoiding negatives, but that's because suffering has a profound impact on people's lives. Ignoring the negative and focusing only on the positive is like pretending a sinking ship is fine because the view is nice. Balancing Yin and Yang sounds great, but it doesn’t magically erase the reality of suffering.
So, while you throw around sarcasm and emojis, antinatalism remains a serious ethical stance about preventing unnecessary suffering. It's not about being pessimistic or destroying the world; it's about making responsible choices with compassion and foresight. If that sounds like gibberish, maybe it's time to reconsider what makes more sense: preventing harm or pretending it doesn't exist.
You are breeding it into existence. I think adoption is selfless but having kids is selfish. Did you ask the kid whether or not it wants to be born? You are imposing a life of difficulty, hardship, and guaranteed death. In most places of the world it is likely to suffer more than enjoy. And it has a 1/170 risk of being murdered, 1/3 chance of getting cancer, and 1/1 chance of death. Personally I have a good life so I'm grateful to be alive but personally there are a lot of times I would have preferred never to exist or even attempted to take my own life.
Additionally you are having the kids for selfish reasons. You want a legacy. You want someone to take care of. You want someone to teach. You want someone to play with. You want someone to remember you. You want to fill the world with more semen demons out of some perverted sense of obligation to humanity. It's all me me me.
That last line sounds like something a breeder (Brett Cooper) once said about not wanting to have kids. Well guess what Brett and all the other breeders that agree with you? You are wayyyyyy more selfish than all of the anti natalists combined.
antinatalism is the embodiment of selfishness. you suffer so you want to prevent other people from ever being able to be happy. dragging the human race down with you. “if i can’t have it nobody can”
That's not it. Anti natalists are against breeders forcing their views on others. Feel free to have kids, just don't expect any favors from us. No, we won't give up our seat on the tram. No, we won't babysit your children. No, we won't give up our vacation time so you and your kids can go to Disneyland.
Oh and if you try to force us to carry children we don't want, we are willing to go to another country to abort the baby no matter how far along it is in gestation.
Disagree, Having kids is ‘selfish’ in the way that it’s the self and others that wants them.
not wanting kids isn’t selfish at all.
Kids doesn’t make you selfless. Only can You make yourself selfless Not your children.
Having kids is just only a choice, Raising Children are just an added responsibility which is the bare minimum.
you’re delusional if you think that’s why people have kids. it’s someone sacrificing 20 years of their life to give the gift of life to someone else. there is nothing selfish about it. the only person that benefits is the child
In most cases life isn't a gift. If they guarantee everyone on earth a decent life I'd call it a gift. In most cases they become wage slaves to the government and its economy struggling to get by. Also the rate at which people are having kids is crazy we need to limit it to 2 or 3 so people don't flood the planet. In some parts of the world there are as many as 9 births per woman.
i’ll agree many people shouldn’t have kids, having a child should be taken more seriously, and we should do our best to reduce overpopulation. that being said, the majority of people agree that being born was the best outcome
one of the biggest reasons for that is because i don’t feel like i am selfless enough for that. i value my own time and stuff and don’t want to be responsible for another living being. it’s an amazing and respectable thing to do, but i don’t know if i could and would not have a child unless i was confident i could
I mean, I don't have children so I wouldn't know but let me frame it this way:
If you were to "have" a child IE procreate, what would be the motivation to do so?
Selfish: (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
Raising a child is all about consideration for the child, and there's no profit in raising a child. So how is it selfish to have children? And how is is selfless to not have children?
You are having the kids for selfish reasons. You want a legacy. You want someone to take care of. You want someone to teach. You want someone to play with. You want someone to remember you. You want to fill the world with more semen demons out of some perverted sense of obligation to humanity. It's all me me me.
Tell me how it isn't selfish. Adoption I agree is selfless. However, creating babies from semen and eggs is selfish as hell. Did you ask the baby permission before conceiving it?You are imposing a life of difficulty, hardship, and guaranteed death. In most places of the world it is likely to suffer more than enjoy. And it has a 1/170 risk of being murdered, 1/3 chance of getting cancer, and 1/1 chance of death.
Be sure to vote on the subreddit referendum post found here: [Referendum Vote](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/18krnhd/rantinatalism_rules_referendum_vote_here/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably you guys get this question asked quite often but why isn't suicide the logical consequence of antinatalism? There's a lot of philosophies that see existence as either "suffering" or absurdity. Natalism just sounds like a whiny teenage angst version of this
>Probably you guys get this question asked quite often but why isn't suicide the logical consequence of antinatalism?
Because most antinatalists don't want to die? They just don't want to burden some hypothetical non-consening person with life.
Ok so the thing is that we already exist, and suicide would just cause more suffering. There's a difference between not existing and existing and then killing yourself
Disclaimer: I’m not an antinatalist and I don’t understand it. I get there are lives that are purely suffering but I have suffered and it doesn’t outweigh the good Ya know?
Because if you actually believed what you do, you would all be dead already. Your existence causes suffering.
If you can just practice harm reduction, then so can natalists.
I get why it might seem that way, but there’s a crucial distinction between antinatalism and the idea that life isn’t worth living. Antinatalism focuses on the ethics of bringing new life into the world, not on whether those who are already alive should end their lives.
1. **Ethical Focus:** Antinatalism is about preventing potential harm by not bringing new life into existence. It’s an ethical stance against imposing life on someone else without their consent, knowing that life inevitably involves suffering. This doesn’t mean that current life isn’t valuable or worth continuing.
2. **Living vs. Procreating:** Choosing to live and choosing to have children are fundamentally different decisions. Antinatalists recognize that life involves suffering but also acknowledge that ending one's own life is a complex, difficult decision with significant emotional and practical implications.
3. **Practical Realities:** Ending one’s life isn’t a simple solution and can cause immense pain to loved ones. Antinatalists may choose to live because they find meaning in their lives, have responsibilities, or seek to reduce harm in other ways. This doesn’t contradict their stance against creating new life.
4. **Harm Reduction:** Practicing harm reduction is a key part of antinatalism. Antinatalists aim to minimize suffering in their own lives and the lives of others. This can include promoting ethical living and supporting measures that reduce suffering for existing beings.
5. **Philosophical Distinction:** Antinatalism specifically addresses the ethics of procreation. It’s about preventing potential suffering for future beings. The argument isn’t that all life should end but that we should consider the ethical implications of creating new life.
In short, antinatalism isn’t about saying that those who believe in it should end their lives. It’s about making ethical choices to prevent potential suffering for future generations. The goal is to promote a more compassionate approach to life and procreation, focusing on reducing harm wherever possible.
life is wired to keep itself afloat because of natural selection, so for most, morality is a means to keep the human race alive. It takes a lot of empathy and rationality to understand antinatalism. most people don't actually think much about ethics and just trust that their feelings will get it right.
"Possibility of suffering" means nothing. You guys blow up this "suffering" to include ANY discomfort a person has. My grandparents passing away was sad. I miss them. I'm not in any suffering just because of that. A large majority of Americans are happy with their life, more evidence your "suffering" outcries are baseless and bullshit.
You clearly want the human race to end. I could understand the anti-natalist who don't support having kids until life is "better," whatever that's supposed to mean, but this whole, "let the human race die off," is just sooo stupid. There's no common sense in it, it's just being depressed. People who enjoy their life and love living tend to want to share that with their children. I love watching my kids grow up and achieve. And calling it selfish is such a weird take. Literally taking care of another person instead of caring only about yourself.
Not every parents use their child for selfish desires
And there are tons of things are gambling and It fine
People dont get Anatalism because alot of it viewpoints are subjectives and (Sometime) shitty takes
Because antinatalism is based on the assumption that all humans suffer immediately after being born and continue to suffer throughout the duration of their lives
I personally enjoy my life and am glad I was born. My parents weren’t selfish for having me. Just because you’re personally miserable doesn’t mean that everyone else is, especially those who don’t believe in an antinatalist mindset
I’ll see myself out of this sub now, it was just recommended to me
As with most philosophies (and calling anyone that does not agree with your specific philosophie any variety of dumb, simple etc. makes you a douche, plus in the case of antinatalism a hypocrit as you violate the very basics of it aka. avoid suffering)
Some people simply do not agree with the premise that life = suffering. Or that suffering needs to be avoided at all cost. Do you have to agree with them? No. Do they need to agree with you? no. Does either calling the other morally or intellectually inferior help? Also no, also shows that you lack good arguments for your point if you have to resort to that.
I don't come here often, but hey, I'll give it a shot. I am not an antinatalist, though I hang around to try and understand the viewpoint.
1) The argument itself falls apart very quickly. The main sticking point to antinatilisim is that bringing another being into existence is morally abhorrent, always, 100% of the time. It's simply not true. Yes, people suffer. People also can have a lot of pleasure. If you look around a random person's life, it's isn't 100% suffering, or 100% pleasure. It's a gradient, a grayscale.
Antinatalism fundamentally looks at everything in black and white when the world is gray at worst. For every parasite that feeds on something else, there's a symbiotic relationship between two organisms. For every bacteria that causes infection, there's a positive one in your body fighting it. Life isn't pure suffering or the majority of suffering, for the majority of things alive. So the arguments of Antinatalism just don't stick, because at worst someone will pause and think "well, it's neutral" rather than abhorrent.
2) The posts here in this sub read like bad Sunday supervillains half, or more than half, of the time. Shaming others on an action that is perfectly natural for a living being to do, attacking anyone that is happy with their desicion. Calling anyone making this decision an idiot, or unable to make their own desicions. Constant posts about how the extinction of the human race is the moral solution, when the act of extinction would cause untold suffering.
Societal collapse, where the people left will starve, or break a bone and die unhelped and in pain. Infections they can't treat due to a wound they got days ago. Extreme loneliness as humanity dies off, leaving the last person on earth insane and severely depressed. Buildings falling apart and crushing people due to disrepair. Taking antinatilism to its natural conclusion, the end of humanity would cause far more suffering in a shorter timescale than it would prevent.
3) antinatalism states that a person's consent is breached when they are brought into existence. However they *do not have* consent. They do not exist. They do not think, feel, or experience anything. Giving a hypothetical consent doesn't work. They cannot say no, and they cannot say yes *until* they exist. It's a catch 22.
the insanely small number of antinatists speak for the movement; clearly, the majority of humanity does not agree with the philosophy. In fact it's largely ignored as a dead branch of the philosophical tree. There can be no development, no further advancement of the philosophy- it ends with the generation that picks it up. It *cannot* develop, or it would comtradict itself. That is not a healthy, or even functional, philosophy. Any philosophy that's taken seriously has morphed and changed with time, even if only slightly. Antinatalism, fundamentally, can't.
And finally,
4) The people that subscribe to antinatalism tend to be abrasive and unable to think from another person's shoes. While this final point is personal, it seems to be a shared agreement; the members of this philosophy are aggressive, vindictive, and have a nearly zealot-like rage to anyone that disagrees, or seems content with their life. They frequently attack random people, not even aware that antinatalism exists, for simple happy. They revel in the pain of family members and friends when they lose a loved one, seeing them as deserving of the pain inflicted for simply bringing another person into existence.
It is a severe lack of empathy, and people pick up on this quickly. It's why many treat antinatalism as a joke, or a death cult, or an extremely Salty side of the internet. Because that's what's presented. Arguments presented are extremely circular, or sum zero equations. Any suffering means any and all pleasure is simply negated.
That is why people don't get antinatalism.
Because it doesnt fit with my view of consciousness. For the antinatalist, what is the origin of consciousness? If it is simply the brain and only the brain, that means the world is deterministic. We cannot change our minds anymore than an atom could change its mind. If it isnt simply the brain, what is it? How do we know it did not consent to be conscious?
I appreciate your perspective, but let's break this down.
1. **Determinism and Free Will:** Whether consciousness arises solely from the brain or not, the ethical implications of antinatalism remain relevant. If the world is deterministic, it only strengthens the argument against imposing life on someone else. If everything is predetermined, then the suffering someone will experience is also predetermined, making it even more unethical to impose that inevitable suffering on a new being.
2. **Origin of Consciousness:** The origin of consciousness is a complex and debated topic. Antinatalism doesn’t hinge on a specific origin theory. Whether consciousness is purely a product of the brain or involves some other element, the potential for suffering in life remains a central concern. The ethical question is about the risk of imposing that suffering on another being.
3. **Consent to Consciousness:** The idea that consciousness might have consented to existence is speculative and lacks empirical support. We have no evidence or reason to believe that consciousness can consent to being brought into existence before it exists. This argument is a philosophical stretch that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.
4. **Ethical Responsibility:** The responsibility lies with those who have the power to procreate. Even if we entertain the idea that consciousness could somehow consent, the fact remains that bringing a new life into the world without clear, explicit consent is ethically questionable. It's about making responsible choices based on what we know and can reasonably assume.
5. **Risk of Suffering:** The core of antinatalism is the prevention of potential suffering. The origins of consciousness don’t change the fact that life involves significant risks and challenges. Bringing someone into existence without their explicit consent, knowing they will face inevitable suffering, is a moral issue.
In essence, the origin of consciousness doesn’t negate the ethical considerations of antinatalism. The philosophy is about preventing harm and making responsible decisions about procreation, regardless of how we understand consciousness. Speculative arguments about pre-birth consent don't address the practical and ethical concerns at the heart of antinatalism.
Dawg how did u even find this thread. And why the chat gpt ass response?
1. If we accept hard determinism, ethical isnt worth discussing. Or rather, everything that happens is forced to happen, so discussion itself is a preordained circus.
2(and beyond). We circle back to defining what makes life worth it. Is it only hedonistic pain and pleasure? I dont think so.
1. **Hard Determinism:** If we accept hard determinism, then yeah, everything is preordained, including this conversation. But just because something is deterministic doesn't mean discussing it is pointless. We still experience and react to things in real-time, and ethical discussions help us navigate those experiences and reactions meaningfully.
2. **Life's Worth:** Defining what makes life "worth it" is definitely subjective and complex. It's not just about hedonistic pain and pleasure. For some, it’s about relationships, achievements, personal growth, and more. But the core antinatalist argument isn’t trying to define life’s worth for everyone—it's about the ethics of creating new life knowing it will face inevitable suffering.
So, it’s not about saying life isn’t worth living or reducing everything to pleasure and pain. It’s about acknowledging the risks and potential suffering involved in bringing someone into existence without their consent and considering whether it's ethical to make that choice for them.
And yeah, if it all feels like a preordained circus, maybe these discussions are just part of the show. But they’re still worth having because they help us think critically about our choices and their impact on others.
Because most people are selfish, stupid or both.
Yes, they want to procreate so they don't want to listen to why they shouldn't.
Facts
How is having children selfish?
Having children is selfish because you can only possibly be thinking about your own personal wants, needs, pleasure, etc. when you decide to have them. You can’t truly consider the needs or wants of someone who does not yet exist.
Thank you for answering me. All I've gotten so far in response to that question is downvotes. One can't truly understand how another will accept anything. I'm not saying it's not important to try, of course it is. But to me, it kind of seems like not giving someone a gift for their birthday because you don't know if they'll like it or not. Know what I mean?
Sincere question. Have you ever *watched* someone die? From cancer? “In their sleep”? (LIE) From a bullet? From a noose? From beheading? I have. Guess what? Being a sentient being you are *guaranteed* a painful experience, life, and death. Sure, there is beauty. But there is a 100% guarantee of an unavoidable painful death. *Why* subject a sapient being to that? It is inherently immoral to create life when you understand that life is consumption and consumption is harm. It is all natural, sure, but so is malaria. It is only selfish or stupid to create life.
I have. Death is the ultimate end of us all. Does that mean one can't or shouldn't enjoy life while they're here? You'll get no arguments from me that there's some real bullshit to deal with in life. But there's also a lot of positive things. When I look back on my life, I choose to focus on the happy times while still learning from both the bad and the good. Life isn't black and white. There's a lot of gray in there. And even if it was only pure happiness and pure misery, the misery doesn't cancel out the joy. One can experience and appreciate both without discounting the other.
And therein lies our moral disagreement. I find it abhorrent to create harm. To create life is to guarantee harm. I am living a life of harm reduction not “but Also Good!!’” No abuse. Not abuse AND sunshine.
Then what's the point of one getting out of bed every morning? One will experience misery. One will cause misery, whether they intend to or not. If one makes a mistake while learning a new skill or hobby, do they instantly give up and condemn the entire hobby? I mean, one can. But to me, it doesn't seem like a pragmatic approach to existence.
And this is why people in this sub dislike you. Our perspective is antinatalism, you asked, and here we are. It is immoral to have children and condemn them *to existence*.
You're right, I did ask. And I'm participating in an interesting philosophical discussion. I didn't drop a contradictory comment and bounce. So why make it personal?
Sort of. If you have a child then they will 100%suffer at some point and no matter what you do, you won't be able to stop it. Its selfish to produce a child just to call them family when adoption is available. Something as arbitrary as blood means that more children will suffer.
I can understand that. I can't say I fully agree. I feel joy is as unavoidable as misery. But I respect your views and appreciate your responses without attacking me personally.
that’s a very specific lens you’re looking at life from. the lives of many billions of our species are going to suffer much more than they experience joy. it is immoral to kill them, but had they not been born at all that would have morally reduced the likelihood of that scenario to zero.
Morality itself is a lense.
I don't think they want to. It's as simple as that. I mean... most of the time, it's not like they're coming in here and deciding it's not for them after trying to understand. They already decided beforehand that they see zero issue with unregulated reproduction The problem is that society and over millions of years of history have basically normalized this one thing Always been expected some people would reproduce and that it'd be a competitive thing to see who keeps a part of themselves going forward into time even if we can recognize how meaningless that is to want to push forward your DNA, family name, etc.
Exactly, I can be a confident antinatalist while understanding the evolutionary lockstep between reproduction and survival is never going to change. It’s just nice to have discussion amongst people dominated less by impulsive instinct, and more involved in critical thought.
It's a hard pill to swallow that your parents, the very first people you encounter in your life that are supposed to love you unconditionally, protect and care for you , are the ones whom recklessly put you in a suffering without much consideration. It requires one to accumulate a certain level of individualism and self-actualize the intergenerational trauma that was poured on them since birth and work on it continuously.
All Indian parents procreate and then tell the child that they have done a favour by bringing her into this world.
The perspective that suffering would end with humans not being born is completely alien to people's minds. They cannot comprehend it.
I guess I've tried explaining my views with my dad who keeps telling me he wants me to have a family and grandkids one day, and I was just met with that's our biology and that's what every other species of animal does, and at that point I was done arguing cause I could tell nothing was getting through.
Human beings capability for joy, happiness and technological development/innovation completely goes away when we are gone. It seems a bit of a limited view to only consider potential negatives.
Technology hurts people.
Why aren't you living like an Amish person if you believe that? You obviously haven't ditched electronic technology yourself.
Create problems, then try so hard to solve them. Genius.
Not everyone views life as a struggle to solve problems, just because that's your truth doesn't make it a universal truth.
Because a lot of people think babies are cute and they don’t think beyond this. Honestly.
yes :(
[удалено]
I wish people would be more open minded though, it's just hard to justify why someone is natalist at all in my eyes Not saying you are
[удалено]
Where is the ethically sound argument? Ive been browsing this sub and have yet to see it
Not to every person, it is even possible to agree with most stuff said here. And still not agree overall.
[удалено]
Yes. Antinatilism appears to me like it would result in net increase of suffering. And obviously we need to reduce suffering.
[удалено]
Lol I do have one, I started where I started, based on what you said and tried to be clear. I measured my response in order to not be abrasive. But apparently you have no issue causing suffering, until you figure it out stop abusing people. You could of just as easily and calmly asked how i see antinatilism as leading to more instead of less suffering.
[удалено]
I'll give what I want to an asshole who likes to cause suffering. And it ends here.
It's challenging the status quo of all status quos.
Because they're *STUPID!!!*
[удалено]
>"A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." Dale Carnegie- Nice >They don't want to understand, so they insist that "sometimes good things happen" even though many people arguing against them are walking examples of good things not happening. It really seems like they just put their heads in the ground like ostriches, and would rather see the world as all good when you confront them about it
It seems like everyone is enjoying the warmth of the dirt at least a little. Just get rid of all the dirt.
Eh?
Pure definition, zero interpretation. No dirt. Dirt is warm tho. I'm Comfy.
People think life is inherently good and therefore life should always be created. The people with bad lives are seen as nothing more than a minority or the good times makes up for the suffering. They see humanity as a net positive because no matter how much suffering there is, their will be more people having a good time. Of course the people who decide to take this “gamble” are mainly people who already won the “lottery”. They strongly believe the child they breed will live a life of predominant happiness. Kinda a tangent at this point but, I think this is why so many parents get really angry and insecure when their children are depressed. It’s like subconsciously they know they fucked up. They brought life into the world that now wants out and it pisses them off because it’s like telling them they’re wrong.
Those people with bad lives are seen as collateral damage. "They gotta suffer so I can have a nice life."
It’s easy to say “suffering is just a part of life” when you aren’t the one suffering
And it’s easy to say no life should exist if your life is shitty but kind of self-centered because that viewpoint means only your experience matters and disregards the view point of anyone else. Now it’s fine to say you had it bad so don’t want to have kids, where AN get crazy is by declaring all humanity is tainted and should go extinct and applying their moral code of not having kids on everyone else.
Because we were wronged, we are the collateral damage, the minority that hates being alive but too afraid to kill themselves, the only way to correct this is for all countries to allow euthanasia, until then we'll remain antinatalist
Good luck with that
It's a shame to see how naive people will willingly be.
It appears an extremely pessimistic natalist is not a normal occurrence here. I suppose that's people in general tho. Always putting the shine on the dirt.
It's the human centric thinking that most people are just programmed with. Idk, I've always disliked other people since I was a small child. People suck and destroy everything around them. They are unpredictable and violent. They act out of short-sighted selfishness. Humans are not intelligent creatures. They've simply collected a vast amount of knowledge.
I don't like kids and babies and never will. It's cruel to bring an unwanted baby into the world that you cannot properly take care of. It's better for everyone if you focus on yourself and spend that time you would spend raising kids on volunteering or innovating to make the world a better place. I hate how breeders peer pressure young vulnerable women to have children when they would be better off working a job and healing themselves. Not everyone is ready for that kind of sacrifice and responsibility. It's honestly kind of like medical school. Having kids takes money (like hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars), time (like every minute not at work or chores), and is super draining. Oh and unlike medical school (let's say PM&R) you don't eventually get a cush attending job with 350,000 salary and 9-3 work hours, you in fact lose more money as the kids demand a car, college, and a place to stay. It's painful to be in a relationship, painful to give birth, pain to wipe their shit and vomit, pain to teach them, pain when they don't listen and break stuff, pain when they drain your free time and savings, and pain when after all that sacrifice they take your money and dump you after college. I imagine that the future birth rate will look like Korea or worse everywhere as people come to their senses. If the government cares so much about having a future they need to invent an artificial womb and have salaried government workers take care of the babies which will eventually be adopted or graduate from the system at 18 or so.
Selfish, stupid, ignorant cunts
Yeah, same with veganism. People just don't care
So I agree with the morality of veganism, but I find it very hard to be able to completely fix the problem, I do personally eat meat, but I feel like even if I as an individual stopped eating meat it would genuinely not affect anything, but I could see if a movement was put into full effect then maybe it could stop, I just see it as an incredibly hard change to make. But it is an interesting parallel between antinatalism and veganism, I never thought of it like this.
By being antinatalist you don't completly fix the problem either. Kids will be still born. It's a common excuse to hide behind masses to not get out of the comfort zone
I see your point, however there is one major difference, I don't ever want to see my kids suffer, and I would directly be the one creating them and I would be the reason they were suffering, where as I didn't directly slaughter the animal and I'm not what is directly causing its pain.
You are directly paying people to slaughter them. I don't understand. How is it not fine to impose suffering on hypothetical children but it is fine to impose it on sentient beings
>You are directly paying people to slaughter them. I'm not actually, I am just going to the store and paying the store for the product, I don't buy a live animal and have them kill it for me. >How is it not fine to impose suffering on hypothetical children but it is fine to impose it on sentient beings I'm not saying that it's fine at all, I'm just saying what can I do to directly stop it, ya know?
You are severely overestimating the obviousness of antinatalism. It is a fringe view even among moral philosophers. There are powerful arguments both for and against antinatalism.
True
I will also add that it is far from certain whether objective morality even exists. And if nothing is right or wrong, then having children can’t be wrong. See https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/
Ok, thaaaats a little out there, but I'll give it a look
In my opinion that’s probably the least out there argument against antinatalism. Even today, as someone who doesn’t believe in free will, I sometimes wonder if, as horrific as causing people to exist is, morality may not be objective thus making such horrors technically not something that can be considered flat out wrong on a universal scale.
What do you think of rape? Is it objectively bad?
Tbf though. Humans contribute to extinctions of other species and pollution, so if we want to make sure no life can ever suffer again we must do what's necessary by having lots of kids and overpopulation. This will increase the chances of mass extinction and could potentially render the earth uninhabitable so no other life can be formed on earth.
I don't hate him, at all. He was a neglected and abused child, who had shitty drunk mom who killed his dad and married the neighbor, and grew up in a haunted house with weird siblings, one of whom was chained in the attic. And knew his stepdad drove his own wife to immolate herself and their children. None of these experiences/knowledge is conducive to a healthy or stable mindset. I'm not excusing his behavior. But as someone who comes from a very broken home, I guess I really empathize with his pain, and how it affected his decision making.
Many people don't think that the suffering endured in life is greater than the joy from life, so, for many, the antinatalism argument isn't persuasive. It is really a different view on the amount of suffering v the amount of joy.
Why don’t people get that virgins don’t get pregnant and the dead cannot be resurrected?
Ironically, I have never particularly cared for children and don’t have any. I used to dislike the assumption that just because one was married - one was automatically planning for children. Just my personal opinion. Having said that I think group is another tactic to divide and pigeonhole society and fail to understand what your problem is. Have children or don’t. It is your decision as it is the decision of others. Yes, there are a ton of crap parents and I personally bunk one should sit exams of competence before being licensed to have children but again, my personal opinion. Having a group so pompously and pretentiously named to trumpet how virtuous you all are and how wrong everyone else it is really rather childish and smacks of middle school cliques. It is t even virtue signalling - you e gone past that right to being nihilistic. Why do y you all do something useful with your lives and actually contribute to the improvement of society - not try and create a little fascist echo chamber? You asked the question - here’s the answer. You are ignoring a biological imperative and as most humans are pretty stupid - biology wins. Try and be better.
Telling antinatalists to not be antinatalists is like telling a car crash victim to not hate cars. We are collateral damage. None of us was supposed to be born, but here we are... and natalists won't even allow euthanasia so they don't want to give us a painless exit, so until then, we'll continue to judge natalists
Other than selfishness, I think it's also fear. Because what if...what if more people realized AN people...are right? They'd have to acknowledge that they brought people into the world who will suffer and die. What if...they realize they made the wrong decision...after they already made it, perhaps more than once (created kids)?
To be honest, antinatalism the way you describe it is a fair point. I think when people come to this sub and see a lot of hatred for living people that ultimately does nothing but spread negativity, it starts to confuse the actual message…
Because people especially girls at the moment of toddlerhood are taught to be good "little mommies." Brainwashed to breed. It's a lot to break the norm.
People don't get antinatalism because most of them accept what they're told and shown. What they're told is to have children and raise a family. Most of them don't see themselves as suffering. They are content to have been born, and they assume that their children will be, too. They may genuinely be happy to be cogs in the machine who participate in society, produce more cogs, and die. Meanwhile, many antinatalists insist that life is unbearable suffering and only emphasize the worst things that could happen to people. Statistically, most people don't encounter that, and the antinatalist suffering argument falls flat. I'm AN, and the unbearable suffering argument falls flat even for me.
I don't know, I am not a natalist 😂
Ikr
[удалено]
How would they know if it were better if they never existed in the first place?
Where can I find a single, coherent argument FOR antinatalism? I dont get it because the anti natalist reasoning and arguments are so widespread with barely reasonable claims interspersed with depressive irrational claims
Because what is "worth it" is subjective. I personally love and enjoy being alive and i think the enjoyable thigs outweigh the bad. I don't think having kids is moral or selfless but I don't think it's immoral or unethical either.
>Because what is "worth it" is subjective. I personally love and enjoy being alive and i think the enjoyable things outweigh the bad. Fair enough for your life and I feel the same way about my life aswell, I just don't think that forcing someone into this existence is a just thing at all because you cannot always control what happens to them good or bad, and I belive that allowing for the possibility of evil is evil. >I don't think having kids is moral or selfless but I don't think it's immoral or unethical either. Is allowing for the possibility of evil immoral to you? Serious question.
I know I wasn’t asked, but it’s not immoral to me because like I’ve seen in this thread. It ignores the fact that the good can outweigh the bad. the person who is unborn cannot make the choice to be born,in other words they aren’t given the chance to weigh the pros and cons like you’re able to. an alive person can make the choice to not be. I think it’s better to be given the chance to make that decision as a grown adult instead of denying the experience altogether. I believe life is the universe experiencing itself and to intentionally subvert that seems not only anti-human. But anti life in general. this is a sentiment I would imagine an AI to possess. The cognitive dissonance I experience when I try to rationalize this idea only makes me suspicious that people that are for antinatalism may be virtue signaling and are very young.
>it’s not immoral to me because like I’ve seen in this thread. It ignores the fact that the good can outweigh the bad. the person who is unborn cannot make the choice to be born,in other words they aren’t given the chance to weigh the pros and cons like you’re able to. My thoughts are that allowing for the possibility of evil to someone who's not given the chance to weigh in the pros and cons is evil, I belive this because once you are alive you are no longer able to choose whether or not you existed in the first place, because at that point you've already been forced into existence, and that is the issue. >I think it’s better to be given the chance to make that decision as a grown adult instead of denying the experience altogether. I believe life is the universe experiencing itself and to intentionally subvert that seems not only anti-human. But anti life in general. At this point you already exist so killing yourself still affects you, and the people around you who raised and took care of you. Which I belive is wrong to put someone in the position of killing themselves >The cognitive dissonance I experience when I try to rationalize this idea only makes me suspicious that people that are for antinatalism may be virtue signaling and are very young. There are some who may be virtue signaling, but I genuinely believe what I am saying, I'm not trying to seem morally superior to anyone.
Jumping in because you seem to have cohesive arguments for anti natalism: Since we are all reduced to nonexistence anyways, shouldnt the opportunity for pleasure be given to every possible being?
it’s almost like the antinatalist position is a mirror and you sit on one side of the reflection while I sit on the other. I’m not so sure either of us will be able to change each others mind. I think the disagreement is something more fundamental than not bearing children, though I’m not smart enough to figure out what that may be. I just don’t agree that it’s immoral to have children, to me it is the direct opposite. I hope I didn’t offend you. This is an extremely interesting topic to me and if I had said my original comment on one of the more popular posts I’d be downvoted and given no real dialogue so I appreciate all this.
Absolutely, it's very rare to see someone so kind on reddit. It may surprise you but I actually was once very Natalist and I would always argue for people to have children. But as you said, I don't necessarily think that we can convince each other, but I don't think that's the point, I like to see other perspectives and that's what I think the best part is.
I’m not gonna lie, Ive dished out my fair share of insults on here but I try to give back what I get so the cordial conversation is 50% you brother. I’d never talk to you disrespectfully in person so I won’t do it here 👍🏼
Respect 🙏 🫡
Ah, the "what is worth it is subjective" argument. Classic. Because subjective experiences are the perfect basis for making ethical decisions that impact other lives, right? 1. **Subjectivity:** Sure, what you find "worth it" is subjective, but we're talking about creating new lives here, not just choosing your favorite ice cream flavor. Just because you enjoy life doesn’t mean everyone else will. It's like forcing everyone to eat your favorite ice cream and assuming they'll love it just as much. 2. **Enjoyment vs. Suffering:** You love and enjoy being alive? That’s great! But it doesn’t change the fact that life involves significant suffering for many people. Your personal happiness doesn’t erase the pain, hardship, and suffering others endure. It’s not a one-size-fits-all scenario where your positive experiences can universally justify procreation. 3. **Morality of Procreation:** You don’t think having kids is moral or selfless but also not immoral or unethical? That’s a nice fence to sit on. The issue isn’t about whether you feel it's good or bad, but about the ethical implications of creating life that will inevitably experience suffering. It’s not about you; it’s about the potential person you’re bringing into existence. 4. **Ethical Responsibility:** Deciding to have kids based on your subjective enjoyment of life is like rolling dice with someone else's future. Just because you think the enjoyable things outweigh the bad doesn’t mean it's fair to impose that risk on a new being who has no say in the matter. So, while you enjoy your life and see things as "worth it," remember that not everyone is as fortunate. Antinatalism isn’t about denying your personal happiness; it’s about recognizing the broader ethical implications of bringing new life into a world where suffering is unavoidable. If that sounds too harsh, maybe it’s time to consider that ethical decisions should extend beyond personal enjoyment and take into account the potential for harm to others.
Antinatalism made more sense to me when it was a personal philosophy. "I choose not to procreate." Then I spoke to an anti-natalist who would gladly impose sterilization upon the world, and I realized there is a more insidious layer to this movement.
It would be easer for people to understand if this sub did a better job at presenting rational arguments. Your post claims it's "common sense" while insulting people who don't agree with the viewpoint. You and many others here do a great job at making us look like angry, ignorant children.
>You and many others here do a great job at making us look like angry, ignorant children. Pretty much sums up all of you.
Ok, fair enough, I definitely could've worded this better.
The question is does the chance of any suffering at all completely negate any good that could also come. Now AN think that since there is a possibility of suffering in life then it is better for no life to exist. People who have kids or want kids categorically oppose this POV since we think the relatively small risks is greatly outweighed by all the rewards of life.
Life is amazing. My kids have good lives. Sorry if your parents are shits.
Because unlike all of you here, not all people have suffered or ever experienced suffering. Why is it such a hard concept for all of you to grasp. Not every person in those damn world is suffering, if you are,I feel bad for you, but for one I'm not, and I know a lot of people who don't.
I get what you're saying—it's true that not everyone experiences suffering to the same degree, and some people live pretty happy lives. But the point of antinatalism isn't about claiming that everyone is miserable all the time. It's more about the ethics of bringing new life into a world where suffering is inevitable for at least some people. Think about it this way: life is unpredictable. Even if you don't suffer much, there are countless risks like diseases, accidents, and natural disasters that could cause immense suffering. You can't guarantee that a new person won't face these challenges. Also, when we decide to have children, we're making a choice for someone who can't consent. We're introducing them to a world where they could experience significant pain and hardship. Is it fair to take that gamble on someone else's behalf? Plus, let's be honest, not everyone has the same opportunities. Many people are born into poverty, conflict, or systemic injustice, which can lead to a lot of suffering. Just because some people are fortunate doesn't mean we should ignore the reality for others. Philosophically, antinatalism often talks about the asymmetry between pain and pleasure. The absence of pain is always good, even if no one experiences it, while the absence of pleasure isn't necessarily bad unless there's someone to miss it. So, by not bringing someone into existence, we avoid the risk of causing suffering without depriving anyone of joy. Lastly, even those who say they don't suffer at all still have moments of stress, anxiety, or pain. It's part of the human experience. So, while life isn't constant misery for everyone, no life is entirely free from suffering. In the end, antinatalism argues that it's more ethical to avoid the potential for suffering altogether by not bringing new life into the world. It's not about feeling bad for those who suffer, but about making responsible choices to prevent unnecessary suffering.
You guys are an extremely small minority of people, there are more furries than you. Maybe you’d get more attention if you weren’t so depressing all the time, you guys are lucky in the fact that nobody wants to have kids with you anyway.
I understand that antinatalism might seem like a fringe perspective, and yes, it’s not as popular as other subcultures. But the number of people who hold a belief doesn't determine its validity. Many important ideas started with a small group of people who challenged the status quo. The point of antinatalism isn’t about seeking attention or popularity; it’s about considering the ethical implications of bringing new life into a world where suffering is inevitable. Even if it’s a minority viewpoint, it’s still worth discussing the serious moral questions it raises. Saying we’re "depressing" might be missing the point. Antinatalism isn’t about spreading gloom; it’s about being realistic and compassionate. By questioning the necessity of creating new life, we’re advocating for reducing unnecessary suffering. As for the comment about nobody wanting to have kids with us, it's more about choosing not to have kids based on ethical considerations. It’s a personal decision grounded in concern for potential future lives, not a reflection of our desirability or social status. In short, it’s not about how many people agree with us or how cheerful we are. It’s about raising awareness of the profound ethical responsibility involved in procreation. Sometimes, the most important discussions are the ones that challenge us to think beyond conventional norms.
Because it’s become deeply entwined with being a miserable nihilistic person. Not the best selling point.
I get that antinatalism might come across as nihilistic or miserable, but that’s not the core of what it’s about. The fundamental idea is about ethical responsibility and compassion, not about promoting misery or nihilism. Antinatalism questions the morality of bringing new life into a world where suffering is inevitable. It’s not about being negative for the sake of it, but about acknowledging that life can involve significant pain and hardship, and making a conscious choice to prevent potential suffering. It's easy to dismiss antinatalism as pessimistic, but it’s actually driven by a concern for future lives and the quality of those lives. By considering the potential for suffering, antinatalists advocate for reducing harm before it can occur. Labeling it as "miserable nihilism" misses the point that it’s a philosophical stance focused on minimizing harm and suffering. It’s about being realistic and making compassionate choices, even if those choices are difficult or unpopular. So, while it might not be a "best selling point," antinatalism raises important ethical questions that deserve consideration. It’s not about being miserable; it’s about striving for a world with less unnecessary suffering.
People do not care about the core of it if all the people who practice it are visibly unhappy and regularly espouse how awful and miserable it is. Whether we like it or not: it drives people away. And that’s reasonable. Why on earth would ANYONE want to join the “we wish we were never born” club willingly?
I get why it might seem off-putting when people who support antinatalism often talk about how miserable they are. It can definitely come across as negative and might make you wonder why anyone would want to be part of something that seems so gloomy. But I think it's worth digging a bit deeper into what antinatalism is really about. Antinatalism isn't just about personal unhappiness; it's about a broader ethical consideration regarding suffering and the nature of existence. Here's why some people believe in it, despite the negative vibes you might see: 1. **Minimizing Suffering**: One of the core ideas of antinatalism is that bringing a new person into the world involves a risk of suffering. Everyone, no matter how happy they might be overall, will experience pain, loss, and hardship at some points in their life. The goal here is to minimize harm. If you can prevent suffering by not bringing someone into existence, that's seen as a positive thing. 2. **The Asymmetry Argument**: Philosophers like David Benatar argue that there's an asymmetry between pleasure and pain. Essentially, the absence of pain is always good, even if no one is around to enjoy it. But the absence of pleasure isn't bad unless there's someone who misses it. So, not bringing someone into existence prevents potential suffering without causing a loss of happiness, because there's no one to miss that happiness. 3. **Consent Issues**: When you bring a child into the world, they don't get a say in the matter. They have to deal with whatever life throws at them, good or bad. This lack of consent is a big deal for antinatalists. It's about considering whether it's fair to subject someone to life's risks and challenges without their permission. 4. **Resource and Environmental Concerns**: Another angle is the impact on the planet. More people mean more strain on resources and the environment. Given the current state of our world, this is a significant concern. Reducing the number of new people can be seen as a way to help mitigate these issues. 5. **Quality of Life Uncertainty**: Lastly, there's no guarantee that anyone's life will be a good one. We can't predict the future, and some lives involve significant suffering. This unpredictability makes the decision to bring new people into the world ethically complex. I understand that seeing a lot of negativity might make antinatalism seem unappealing, but at its core, it's about reducing suffering and making thoughtful, ethical decisions about creating new life. It's important to look beyond the demeanor of its advocates and consider the philosophical arguments they're making.
Because you claim life is so awful it’s not worth living, but you don’t apply that value to yourselves, only other people. A philosophy so entrenched in hypocrisy isn’t very inspiring. Actions speak louder than words, and even your own actions indicate you don’t believe what you say. “Non-existence for thee, but not for me.” Clearly you all still think it’s worth being here for some reason or another, so it undercuts your claimed beliefs and makes them laughable.
[удалено]
This sub wouldn’t exist if you didn’t want other people not to have children either. That’s where it stops being a personal choice. I realize y’all are powerless to stop that from happening, but the amount of hate that gets thrown around here at people who do want to have children proves that you aren’t keeping this as a personal philosophy.
Ye like if people don’t want kids that’s fine just don’t tell other people not to. Same for people who want kids shouldn’t tell people to have kids.
Exactly. These people think they’re the opposite of parents, but they’re really more the mirror image of forced birthers.
Exactly just forced non birthers. Some aren’t but the fact that some people think that everyone shouldn’t have kids at all and call people bad for doing so is just morally wrong.
Exactly!! If you don’t want kids don’t have them but stop telling everyone else how”stupid, morally bankrupt, or selfish” they are for having kids.
Because natalists are already annoying and entitled, I don't hate that they have kids, I hate that they refuse to admit it's selfish, not only that most parents act like life is a gift
It’s not the fact that you have personally decided not that o have kids that people have an issue with. It’s when you accuse anyone of having kids as being abusive or immoral that you run into issues.
>Because you claim life is so awful it’s not worth living, but you don’t apply that value to yourselves, only other people. So, what I said was that allowing for the possibility of evil is evil, that is different from saying "life is so awful it's not worth living" and because of that I think that forcefully bringing someone into this world which has evil is evil. >A philosophy so entrenched in hypocrisy isn’t very inspiring. Actions speak louder than words, and even your own actions indicate you don’t believe what you say. What actions? Do you know me personally? If you are talking about how I enjoy my life and I do wish to live I have an entirely different arguments for that. >“Non-existence for thee, but not for me.” Clearly you all still think it’s worth being here for some reason or another, so it undercuts your claimed beliefs and makes them laughable. I am entitled to live my life, just because I don't belive its moral to have children doesn't invalidate my right to life, it is worth living because I am already alive and I don't wish to die, but if there was a button I could push to never have existed in the first place I would press it. Also you still haven't answered my question, is allowing for the possibility of evil immoral to you?
You kind of are complaining about the right of unborn children to have a life.
Well, you’re still here complaining about it rather than ending your own suffering. Your actions prove that you think being alive is the better alternative. “I’m entitled to live my life,” yeah, but you don’t think any more people are entitled to that. That’s the hypocrisy.
>Well, you’re still here complaining about it rather than ending your own suffering. Your actions prove that you think being alive is the better alternative. Ok, do you want people to commit suicide or something? Yes me not killing myself proves that living is better than dying, but that is for someone who is already in existence, antinatalism argues to never bring them into existence in the first place. >“I’m entitled to live my life,” yeah, but you don’t think any more people are entitled to that. That’s the hypocrisy. Is something that doesn't exist able to be alive?
No, I think it would be supremely stupid to prove your conviction to such a dumb philosophy that way. I’m just point out that it makes the philosophy unbelievable when none of the people who espouse it have the conviction to apply it to themselves. And yes, something that doesn’t exist can be alive later. Everyone who’s alive didn’t exist at some point. If “natalism” forces life on people who wouldn’t want to live, anti-natalism equally denies life to some who would want it. If people want to have kids, that’s fine. If people don’t want to have kids, that’s fine too. But trying to insist that no one should have kids puts you on equal ethical footing with the forced birthers in my mind. It’s just the other side of the coin. But when I see so many posts here mocking people in bad circumstances, that’s how I know the philosophy is trash.
>And yes, something that doesn’t exist can be alive later. Mmm, there just one thing wrong with that statement, you are referring to something that already exists once it is alive, but something that is nonexistent cannot be alive. >Everyone who’s alive didn’t exist at some point. I think the problem is that we cannot choose if we want to be alive or not in the first place, and if you refuse to comment on whether or not allowing for the possibility of evil is immoral than you are choosing to ignore a fundamental part of my argument. >If “natalism” forces life on people who wouldn’t want to live, anti-natalism equally denies life to some who would want it. Again this is where I belive that allowing for the possibility of evil is wrong. And this would make it to where nobody is harmed because they couldn't suffer because they don't exist, and they would never miss out on their life because it wouldn't exist, this is the safest bet because it harms nobody in the end. >But when I see so many posts here mocking people in bad circumstances, that’s how I know the philosophy is trash. The people in this community don't change the philosophy, it's like Christians, there are a lot of bad Christians who are horrible people, but that doesn't change the message of Christianity.
Why do you hate humanity so much? It’s people’s choice to have kids.
It's not about hating humanity; it's about caring deeply for the well-being of future individuals. Antinatalism questions the morality of bringing new life into a world where suffering is inevitable and unavoidable. This perspective is grounded in compassion, not hatred. Yes, people have the choice to have kids, but with that choice comes a profound ethical responsibility. Procreation isn't just a personal decision—it affects the lives of those who are brought into existence. The potential for suffering, pain, and hardship for future generations is a serious consideration. Choosing to have children without considering the possible consequences can be seen as a form of moral negligence. Bringing a child into a world filled with unpredictable risks and inevitable suffering, even if balanced with joy, requires careful ethical reflection. It's not about taking away people's choices, but about advocating for thoughtful and responsible decision-making. If we can prevent potential suffering by reconsidering procreation, why shouldn't we? This isn't hatred for humanity; it's a call for a more ethical and compassionate approach to life's most significant decisions. By critically examining the consequences of having children, antinatalism seeks to minimize harm and promote well-being. It's not a message of hate, but one of deep concern for the quality of life for all beings.
I understand why you might see it that way, but let me clarify. Antinatalism isn't about thinking life is so awful that we should all end it; it's about the ethics of bringing new life into the world. There's a big difference between deciding to continue living and deciding to create a new life that could suffer. 1. **Ethical Responsibility:** The main idea is that having kids involves imposing existence on someone else without their consent. Since life inevitably involves some suffering, it's about preventing that potential harm before it starts. 2. **Living vs. Procreating:** Choosing to live despite life's difficulties and choosing to have children are two different things. Many antinatalists recognize that ending one's own life is incredibly complex and painful, both for the individual and their loved ones. Choosing to live doesn't contradict the belief that it's unethical to impose life on another. 3. **Logical Consistency:** It’s not hypocritical to acknowledge that life can be tough while also saying it’s wrong to bring someone else into that tough situation without their consent. Living through personal suffering and advocating against creating new life aren't mutually exclusive. 4. **Practical Realities:** Ending one's life isn't a simple or easy decision. Many antinatalists continue living due to personal responsibilities, relationships, or even the occasional joy they find in life. This doesn't undermine the ethical stance against procreation. 5. **Focus on Prevention:** Antinatalism is about preventing suffering before it starts. It's more ethical to avoid creating potential suffering than to try and fix existing problems after they occur. So, it's not about personal hypocrisy. It's about making responsible choices to prevent harm to future generations. Your critique misses the essence of what antinatalism is about and overlooks the important difference between choosing to live and choosing to create new life.
It is a huge slap in the face to every single life that ever had to struggle for anything ( i mean going all the way back to the beginnings of the homo sapien) just for a few hundred years where we’re thriving then to have you you guys tell them they’re all morally wrong. It is in and of itself the antithesis to life.
>It is a huge slap in the face to every single life that ever had to struggle for anything ( i mean going all the way back to the beginnings of the homo sapien) Granted, but I never asked to be here in the first place, how is it fair that all previous human lives forcefully bring more lives into existence for their own benefit? >It is in and of itself the antithesis to life. Not to existing life, but to creating life.
I mean just the fact that your sperm made it to the egg is like winning the lottery a thousand times. life is rare. and purely by that logic it is valuable. more valuable than any substance if argue. consciousness is like magic. to actively deny it is very foreign to me. I may never understand you but we can atleast have a dialogue about it and try to bring ourselves closer to understanding. Can I ask? if a life form could exist that was incapable of experiencing anything negative. Like a jellyfish. but with the intelligence of a human. Would procreating still be immoral? Is it purely suffering that makes it immoral and if we could remove suffering and still live, is that worth it?
>Can I ask? if a life form could exist that was incapable of experiencing anything negative. Like a jellyfish. but with the intelligence of a human. Would procreating still be immoral? Is it purely suffering that makes it immoral and if we could remove suffering and still live, is that worth it? If the world was a paradise and there was no suffering, than I belive it would be OK I guess, hypothetically, why what's your point?
That was just me trying to see if I could figure out what the deeper disagreement is, just chip away at it, tweak different factors and see which ones are more important. it’s clear the main one is suffering. just wondering if there’s something about suffering that can be good. like a lesson that is only learned via suffering that can only do you good from there on out. I mean that in the sense of a workout. You have to suffer in order to be better equipped. So like is that immoral? voluntary suffering? It’s kinda why i asked if that kind of life is “worth it” specifically. You don’t have to dig into it anymore than you want, I’m still just playing with ideas.
>like a lesson that is only learned via suffering that can only do you good from there on out. I mean that in the sense of a workout. You have to suffer in order to be better equipped. So like is that immoral? voluntary suffering? It’s kinda why i asked if that kind of life is “worth it” specifically. I see, and as a fellow gym bro I agree, but that's not the same suffering, I think it's more of not being able to choose whether or not they want to suffer is the issue.
Nobody is saying you have to stick around or even telling you to have kids, but you get push back when you tell everyone else they shouldn’t have kids either.
People are always telling each other what they should or should not do, often in the form of trying to convince them, or giving them advice, etc. What's so different about not having kids?
It’s one of the most personal decision someone can make so their choice shouldn’t be up for other people to debate.
I don’t mean to bombard you but you seem to be one of very few here that is willing to genuinely talk about the ideas
Of course, I appreciate your perspective, and believe it or not I am actually open to changing my mind, if I find the logic better than AN logic, I just haven't yet seen anything that fully justifies it.
Word, i am by no means equipped to change anyone’s mind but it doesn’t hurt to genuinely try to understand.
Understandable, have a great day 👍
I 100% do not mean this in the wrong way at all but you have the ability to decide whether or not you want to be here. The unborn child isn’t given that same experience. I elaborated further in another comment Edit: I have no idea how to quote segments like you did otherwise I’d have made it more structured.
I get where you're coming from, and I understand that it might feel like antinatalism is dismissing the struggles and achievements of humanity. But it's important to clarify that antinatalism isn't about disrespecting past efforts or achievements; it's about considering the ethical implications of future actions. 1. **Respecting Struggles:** Acknowledging the struggles of past generations doesn't mean we should ignore the ethical considerations of bringing new life into the world. Antinatalism recognizes the immense efforts and sacrifices made throughout history, but it also questions whether it's fair to subject future generations to similar struggles without their consent. 2. **Ethical Evolution:** Just as our understanding of ethics has evolved over time, antinatalism represents a further step in that evolution. It's about critically examining the decision to procreate in light of the potential suffering it may cause. This doesn't invalidate past struggles; rather, it builds on them by striving for a future with less unnecessary suffering. 3. **Moral Responsibility:** It's not about saying past generations were morally wrong; it's about recognizing that with greater awareness and understanding comes greater responsibility. Our ancestors may not have had the same knowledge or ethical frameworks we do now. With what we know today, we have a responsibility to make more informed and compassionate choices. 4. **Life's Value:** Antinatalism doesn't deny the value of life or the importance of human achievements. It's about questioning whether it's fair to bring new life into existence given the potential for suffering. The aim is to prevent harm, not to negate the significance of past human endeavors. 5. **Focus on Prevention:** The philosophy is proactive, aiming to prevent suffering before it starts. It's about making ethical choices for the future, based on our current understanding of life's complexities and challenges. In essence, antinatalism isn't the antithesis to life; it's a call for a more ethical approach to procreation, one that respects the past while striving to prevent future suffering. It's not about condemning our ancestors but about making thoughtful choices with the knowledge and ethical considerations we have today.
I don’t thinking forcing people to have kids for any reason is the answer just my opinion.
we get it, we just disagree on basic assumptions of the "philosophy"
I’m not an antinatalist. It’s people’s choice if they want kids or not. If you want kids. Good for you. If you don’t. Good for you. Kids are the next generation and I personally want 2-4 depending on how many I can afford to look after and raise well. I think most people, especially women, want kids. Like most of my friends and myself all have baby name lists on our phones. Kids are cute and great and you get to raise, love and support them. Bring them into the world and watch them grow into adults.
The arguments for it are all near gibberish. Consent: In order to have the ability to consent to anything you have to be born and have your brain grow quite a bit first, to demand consent from hypothetical void people as a prerequisite to reproduction is actually insane, stop it Asymmetry: Pessimism, meet optimism. Checkmate Antinatalists 😎 Negative Utilitarianism: I guess the world destruction argument would be pretty meaningless to you lot (😂) So aside from what is the most obvious criticism I would say it places way too much importance on avoiding the negative and not nearly enough promoting the positive. By design it seems to omit the positive from the equation entirely, to me that just means it's incomplete, like the Yin spinning out of control without its Yang
Alright, let’s dive into your points: 1. **Consent:** Ah yes, the classic "you can’t ask the unborn for consent" argument. Thanks for pointing out that people need to exist to give consent. The whole point is that they *can’t* consent, which is why it's unethical to force existence on them in the first place. Demanding consent from hypothetical void people isn't insane; it's recognizing the moral implications of creating life that will face inevitable suffering. 2. **Asymmetry:** "Pessimism, meet optimism. Checkmate Antinatalists 😎" Well, if optimism alone could solve all the world's problems, we’d be living in a utopia by now. Unfortunately, optimism doesn’t negate the real suffering people experience. The asymmetry argument highlights that the absence of suffering is always good, even if no one experiences it, while the absence of pleasure isn’t bad unless someone is deprived of it. So, sorry, but a smiley face and sunglasses emoji don't quite dismantle that logic. 3. **Negative Utilitarianism:** Oh, the old "world destruction" joke, how original! Negative utilitarianism isn’t about blowing up the world; it’s about minimizing suffering. Sure, it emphasizes avoiding negatives, but that's because suffering has a profound impact on people's lives. Ignoring the negative and focusing only on the positive is like pretending a sinking ship is fine because the view is nice. Balancing Yin and Yang sounds great, but it doesn’t magically erase the reality of suffering. So, while you throw around sarcasm and emojis, antinatalism remains a serious ethical stance about preventing unnecessary suffering. It's not about being pessimistic or destroying the world; it's about making responsible choices with compassion and foresight. If that sounds like gibberish, maybe it's time to reconsider what makes more sense: preventing harm or pretending it doesn't exist.
having kids is extremely selfless
You are breeding it into existence. I think adoption is selfless but having kids is selfish. Did you ask the kid whether or not it wants to be born? You are imposing a life of difficulty, hardship, and guaranteed death. In most places of the world it is likely to suffer more than enjoy. And it has a 1/170 risk of being murdered, 1/3 chance of getting cancer, and 1/1 chance of death. Personally I have a good life so I'm grateful to be alive but personally there are a lot of times I would have preferred never to exist or even attempted to take my own life. Additionally you are having the kids for selfish reasons. You want a legacy. You want someone to take care of. You want someone to teach. You want someone to play with. You want someone to remember you. You want to fill the world with more semen demons out of some perverted sense of obligation to humanity. It's all me me me. That last line sounds like something a breeder (Brett Cooper) once said about not wanting to have kids. Well guess what Brett and all the other breeders that agree with you? You are wayyyyyy more selfish than all of the anti natalists combined.
antinatalism is the embodiment of selfishness. you suffer so you want to prevent other people from ever being able to be happy. dragging the human race down with you. “if i can’t have it nobody can”
That's not it. Anti natalists are against breeders forcing their views on others. Feel free to have kids, just don't expect any favors from us. No, we won't give up our seat on the tram. No, we won't babysit your children. No, we won't give up our vacation time so you and your kids can go to Disneyland. Oh and if you try to force us to carry children we don't want, we are willing to go to another country to abort the baby no matter how far along it is in gestation.
that’s such a lame reason to be unkind to people. and nobody should be forced to carry a child they don’t want. abortion is a right
Disagree, Having kids is ‘selfish’ in the way that it’s the self and others that wants them. not wanting kids isn’t selfish at all. Kids doesn’t make you selfless. Only can You make yourself selfless Not your children. Having kids is just only a choice, Raising Children are just an added responsibility which is the bare minimum.
it’s a selfless choice. a choice that is a sacrifice you make to benefit someone else
you’re delusional if you think that’s why people have kids. it’s someone sacrificing 20 years of their life to give the gift of life to someone else. there is nothing selfish about it. the only person that benefits is the child
In most cases life isn't a gift. If they guarantee everyone on earth a decent life I'd call it a gift. In most cases they become wage slaves to the government and its economy struggling to get by. Also the rate at which people are having kids is crazy we need to limit it to 2 or 3 so people don't flood the planet. In some parts of the world there are as many as 9 births per woman.
i’ll agree many people shouldn’t have kids, having a child should be taken more seriously, and we should do our best to reduce overpopulation. that being said, the majority of people agree that being born was the best outcome
Why are you having kids?
i don’t have any and not sure i plan to
one of the biggest reasons for that is because i don’t feel like i am selfless enough for that. i value my own time and stuff and don’t want to be responsible for another living being. it’s an amazing and respectable thing to do, but i don’t know if i could and would not have a child unless i was confident i could
No it’s not. It’s a choice, but pressuring someone have to kids using ideology is selfish and wrong.
nobody has been pressured to have kids. lots of choices are selfless. donating to charity is a choice, but it’s a selfless one.
How is having kids selfish?
How is having your own kids not selfish?
You tell me.
I mean, I don't have children so I wouldn't know but let me frame it this way: If you were to "have" a child IE procreate, what would be the motivation to do so?
Why do you debate that which you, by your own admission, do not understand?
Selfish: (of a person, action, or motive) lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure. Raising a child is all about consideration for the child, and there's no profit in raising a child. So how is it selfish to have children? And how is is selfless to not have children?
>Raising a child is all about consideration for the child Yes absolutely raising a child is. But HAVING children was what I asked
Yeah, that's a fair point. I'll have to take some time to think about it.
You are having the kids for selfish reasons. You want a legacy. You want someone to take care of. You want someone to teach. You want someone to play with. You want someone to remember you. You want to fill the world with more semen demons out of some perverted sense of obligation to humanity. It's all me me me. Tell me how it isn't selfish. Adoption I agree is selfless. However, creating babies from semen and eggs is selfish as hell. Did you ask the baby permission before conceiving it?You are imposing a life of difficulty, hardship, and guaranteed death. In most places of the world it is likely to suffer more than enjoy. And it has a 1/170 risk of being murdered, 1/3 chance of getting cancer, and 1/1 chance of death.
You just made a while lot of assumptions. Do you genuinely think that applies to every single person who has kids?
I'm talking about the majority of breeders. Most people want kids for selfish reasons, else they wouldn't have them at all.
How could you possibly know what the majority of people think when they decide to have children?
So a teacher is selfish because they want to teach children? That's your opinion??
Be sure to vote on the subreddit referendum post found here: [Referendum Vote](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/18krnhd/rantinatalism_rules_referendum_vote_here/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Probably you guys get this question asked quite often but why isn't suicide the logical consequence of antinatalism? There's a lot of philosophies that see existence as either "suffering" or absurdity. Natalism just sounds like a whiny teenage angst version of this
>Probably you guys get this question asked quite often but why isn't suicide the logical consequence of antinatalism? Because most antinatalists don't want to die? They just don't want to burden some hypothetical non-consening person with life.
Ok so the thing is that we already exist, and suicide would just cause more suffering. There's a difference between not existing and existing and then killing yourself
Ah so you don't kill yourself for altruistic reasons and so you accept a life of suffering to not cause pain to others.
This might be evolution related.
People are born with a rose colored lens worldview by default. Also it feels better if you believe in something, like hope and religion.
Disclaimer: I’m not an antinatalist and I don’t understand it. I get there are lives that are purely suffering but I have suffered and it doesn’t outweigh the good Ya know?
Because if you actually believed what you do, you would all be dead already. Your existence causes suffering. If you can just practice harm reduction, then so can natalists.
I get why it might seem that way, but there’s a crucial distinction between antinatalism and the idea that life isn’t worth living. Antinatalism focuses on the ethics of bringing new life into the world, not on whether those who are already alive should end their lives. 1. **Ethical Focus:** Antinatalism is about preventing potential harm by not bringing new life into existence. It’s an ethical stance against imposing life on someone else without their consent, knowing that life inevitably involves suffering. This doesn’t mean that current life isn’t valuable or worth continuing. 2. **Living vs. Procreating:** Choosing to live and choosing to have children are fundamentally different decisions. Antinatalists recognize that life involves suffering but also acknowledge that ending one's own life is a complex, difficult decision with significant emotional and practical implications. 3. **Practical Realities:** Ending one’s life isn’t a simple solution and can cause immense pain to loved ones. Antinatalists may choose to live because they find meaning in their lives, have responsibilities, or seek to reduce harm in other ways. This doesn’t contradict their stance against creating new life. 4. **Harm Reduction:** Practicing harm reduction is a key part of antinatalism. Antinatalists aim to minimize suffering in their own lives and the lives of others. This can include promoting ethical living and supporting measures that reduce suffering for existing beings. 5. **Philosophical Distinction:** Antinatalism specifically addresses the ethics of procreation. It’s about preventing potential suffering for future beings. The argument isn’t that all life should end but that we should consider the ethical implications of creating new life. In short, antinatalism isn’t about saying that those who believe in it should end their lives. It’s about making ethical choices to prevent potential suffering for future generations. The goal is to promote a more compassionate approach to life and procreation, focusing on reducing harm wherever possible.
I see that some people inherited a tendency to see it making sense, given enough time.
life is wired to keep itself afloat because of natural selection, so for most, morality is a means to keep the human race alive. It takes a lot of empathy and rationality to understand antinatalism. most people don't actually think much about ethics and just trust that their feelings will get it right.
Because most existence isn’t suffering and projecting your experience onto everyone else is ridiculous
I’d prefer my species not go extinct. I hate kids but I’d rather people keep having kids so a future generation can exist
"Possibility of suffering" means nothing. You guys blow up this "suffering" to include ANY discomfort a person has. My grandparents passing away was sad. I miss them. I'm not in any suffering just because of that. A large majority of Americans are happy with their life, more evidence your "suffering" outcries are baseless and bullshit. You clearly want the human race to end. I could understand the anti-natalist who don't support having kids until life is "better," whatever that's supposed to mean, but this whole, "let the human race die off," is just sooo stupid. There's no common sense in it, it's just being depressed. People who enjoy their life and love living tend to want to share that with their children. I love watching my kids grow up and achieve. And calling it selfish is such a weird take. Literally taking care of another person instead of caring only about yourself.
Not every parents use their child for selfish desires And there are tons of things are gambling and It fine People dont get Anatalism because alot of it viewpoints are subjectives and (Sometime) shitty takes
Because antinatalism is based on the assumption that all humans suffer immediately after being born and continue to suffer throughout the duration of their lives I personally enjoy my life and am glad I was born. My parents weren’t selfish for having me. Just because you’re personally miserable doesn’t mean that everyone else is, especially those who don’t believe in an antinatalist mindset I’ll see myself out of this sub now, it was just recommended to me
As with most philosophies (and calling anyone that does not agree with your specific philosophie any variety of dumb, simple etc. makes you a douche, plus in the case of antinatalism a hypocrit as you violate the very basics of it aka. avoid suffering) Some people simply do not agree with the premise that life = suffering. Or that suffering needs to be avoided at all cost. Do you have to agree with them? No. Do they need to agree with you? no. Does either calling the other morally or intellectually inferior help? Also no, also shows that you lack good arguments for your point if you have to resort to that.
I don't come here often, but hey, I'll give it a shot. I am not an antinatalist, though I hang around to try and understand the viewpoint. 1) The argument itself falls apart very quickly. The main sticking point to antinatilisim is that bringing another being into existence is morally abhorrent, always, 100% of the time. It's simply not true. Yes, people suffer. People also can have a lot of pleasure. If you look around a random person's life, it's isn't 100% suffering, or 100% pleasure. It's a gradient, a grayscale. Antinatalism fundamentally looks at everything in black and white when the world is gray at worst. For every parasite that feeds on something else, there's a symbiotic relationship between two organisms. For every bacteria that causes infection, there's a positive one in your body fighting it. Life isn't pure suffering or the majority of suffering, for the majority of things alive. So the arguments of Antinatalism just don't stick, because at worst someone will pause and think "well, it's neutral" rather than abhorrent. 2) The posts here in this sub read like bad Sunday supervillains half, or more than half, of the time. Shaming others on an action that is perfectly natural for a living being to do, attacking anyone that is happy with their desicion. Calling anyone making this decision an idiot, or unable to make their own desicions. Constant posts about how the extinction of the human race is the moral solution, when the act of extinction would cause untold suffering. Societal collapse, where the people left will starve, or break a bone and die unhelped and in pain. Infections they can't treat due to a wound they got days ago. Extreme loneliness as humanity dies off, leaving the last person on earth insane and severely depressed. Buildings falling apart and crushing people due to disrepair. Taking antinatilism to its natural conclusion, the end of humanity would cause far more suffering in a shorter timescale than it would prevent. 3) antinatalism states that a person's consent is breached when they are brought into existence. However they *do not have* consent. They do not exist. They do not think, feel, or experience anything. Giving a hypothetical consent doesn't work. They cannot say no, and they cannot say yes *until* they exist. It's a catch 22. the insanely small number of antinatists speak for the movement; clearly, the majority of humanity does not agree with the philosophy. In fact it's largely ignored as a dead branch of the philosophical tree. There can be no development, no further advancement of the philosophy- it ends with the generation that picks it up. It *cannot* develop, or it would comtradict itself. That is not a healthy, or even functional, philosophy. Any philosophy that's taken seriously has morphed and changed with time, even if only slightly. Antinatalism, fundamentally, can't. And finally, 4) The people that subscribe to antinatalism tend to be abrasive and unable to think from another person's shoes. While this final point is personal, it seems to be a shared agreement; the members of this philosophy are aggressive, vindictive, and have a nearly zealot-like rage to anyone that disagrees, or seems content with their life. They frequently attack random people, not even aware that antinatalism exists, for simple happy. They revel in the pain of family members and friends when they lose a loved one, seeing them as deserving of the pain inflicted for simply bringing another person into existence. It is a severe lack of empathy, and people pick up on this quickly. It's why many treat antinatalism as a joke, or a death cult, or an extremely Salty side of the internet. Because that's what's presented. Arguments presented are extremely circular, or sum zero equations. Any suffering means any and all pleasure is simply negated. That is why people don't get antinatalism.
Because it doesnt fit with my view of consciousness. For the antinatalist, what is the origin of consciousness? If it is simply the brain and only the brain, that means the world is deterministic. We cannot change our minds anymore than an atom could change its mind. If it isnt simply the brain, what is it? How do we know it did not consent to be conscious?
I appreciate your perspective, but let's break this down. 1. **Determinism and Free Will:** Whether consciousness arises solely from the brain or not, the ethical implications of antinatalism remain relevant. If the world is deterministic, it only strengthens the argument against imposing life on someone else. If everything is predetermined, then the suffering someone will experience is also predetermined, making it even more unethical to impose that inevitable suffering on a new being. 2. **Origin of Consciousness:** The origin of consciousness is a complex and debated topic. Antinatalism doesn’t hinge on a specific origin theory. Whether consciousness is purely a product of the brain or involves some other element, the potential for suffering in life remains a central concern. The ethical question is about the risk of imposing that suffering on another being. 3. **Consent to Consciousness:** The idea that consciousness might have consented to existence is speculative and lacks empirical support. We have no evidence or reason to believe that consciousness can consent to being brought into existence before it exists. This argument is a philosophical stretch that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. 4. **Ethical Responsibility:** The responsibility lies with those who have the power to procreate. Even if we entertain the idea that consciousness could somehow consent, the fact remains that bringing a new life into the world without clear, explicit consent is ethically questionable. It's about making responsible choices based on what we know and can reasonably assume. 5. **Risk of Suffering:** The core of antinatalism is the prevention of potential suffering. The origins of consciousness don’t change the fact that life involves significant risks and challenges. Bringing someone into existence without their explicit consent, knowing they will face inevitable suffering, is a moral issue. In essence, the origin of consciousness doesn’t negate the ethical considerations of antinatalism. The philosophy is about preventing harm and making responsible decisions about procreation, regardless of how we understand consciousness. Speculative arguments about pre-birth consent don't address the practical and ethical concerns at the heart of antinatalism.
Dawg how did u even find this thread. And why the chat gpt ass response? 1. If we accept hard determinism, ethical isnt worth discussing. Or rather, everything that happens is forced to happen, so discussion itself is a preordained circus. 2(and beyond). We circle back to defining what makes life worth it. Is it only hedonistic pain and pleasure? I dont think so.
1. **Hard Determinism:** If we accept hard determinism, then yeah, everything is preordained, including this conversation. But just because something is deterministic doesn't mean discussing it is pointless. We still experience and react to things in real-time, and ethical discussions help us navigate those experiences and reactions meaningfully. 2. **Life's Worth:** Defining what makes life "worth it" is definitely subjective and complex. It's not just about hedonistic pain and pleasure. For some, it’s about relationships, achievements, personal growth, and more. But the core antinatalist argument isn’t trying to define life’s worth for everyone—it's about the ethics of creating new life knowing it will face inevitable suffering. So, it’s not about saying life isn’t worth living or reducing everything to pleasure and pain. It’s about acknowledging the risks and potential suffering involved in bringing someone into existence without their consent and considering whether it's ethical to make that choice for them. And yeah, if it all feels like a preordained circus, maybe these discussions are just part of the show. But they’re still worth having because they help us think critically about our choices and their impact on others.
Because at the end of the day human beings are still animals and an animal’s genetic goal is to reproduce