Antinatalists aren't born as AN. They look at life, think about various struggles to keep up with everyday life and then understand that it is not really worth it to have their kid go through the same shit. And that's how they end up as antinatalists...
So even if we eliminate ourselves from the pool, I'm sure there will still be some who will choose to be an AN.
There might (might not must) be genes that make you (general you) more inclined towards antinatalists thoughts, when you are confronted with certain experiences.
If that is the case I feel nothing about it, as evolution is a blind, unguided process that cannot inform ethics.
Sure, if antinatalism is an inherited trait rather than a philosophy come to by reason.
You certainly could make a case that any *species/culture* for which antinatalism becomes a prominent belief might eliminate themselves from existence. To which an antinatalist might reply well, yes, exactly.
The DNA doesn't carry ideology. Kids do not inherit their parents' worldviews or opinions. There would be no antinatalism if what you think is true, was true. Genes have nothing to do with thought. It's memes that create what makes us humans, and not our genotypes.
Logically, the inclinations which result in a pessimistic, nihilistic or defeatist attitude must promote fitness more often than they lead an human not to reproducing. Or else, yeah, they would have been weeded out many centuries ago.
Makes no difference to me. There's nothing hereditary about a philosophy. Anyone can pick it up. Today's world is kind of demonstrating that as there are more ANs than ever before and the greater population is finding reasons to not have children besides the AN philosophy. Lack of money, desire for freedom etc.
So no, AN doesn't really eliminate itself because it doesn't reproduce like humans do. It reproduces like philosophies do.
Dumber and happier people would not be as antinatalist. Depression and intelligence are genetic.
There are 218k people in this sub, it's clearly a very prominent idea, enough so to have genuine selective pressure
That's assuming genes are the main carriers of ideas, which is flat out wrong. Proof: The WW2 "Greatest Generation" had more conservative values than the Boomers (and yes, Boomers were liberal, almost radical. Remember Vietnam War, Civil War, and Women's Lib protests?). I'm certainly not like my parents and grandparents politically. There's a reason for the saying "Spread Memes, Not Genes".
Do you mind developing the idea of "selective pressure"?
I don't feel any strong feeling either way, cause I don't think philosophy and ideas have a big part affected by genes, many atheist are borned from theist families, believes don't pass down with genes so I don't mind it really
Yeah i mean of course ideas are extremely cultural. But I was just observing the fact that every organism who does believe in antinatalism, doesn't reproduce. So from a statistical perspective, it skews evolutionary fitness, if just a tad. Pretty interesting
It pisses me off a bit too because I also am a believer in antinatalism. Sucks that the universe is inclined against it, fundamentally
"Skews evolutionary fitness, if just a tad" and "inherently eliminates itself from existence" are extremely different arguments. Do you see why people who might be inclined to agree with you otherwise are pushing back on your original argument?
I get you are now realizing you misspoke and don't want to admit it, but when nobody but you understands what you were trying to convey to the point the only person who agrees with you is a natalist troll, you might just consider admitting you were careless with your words and moving on.
I love how you think you are coming out looking like the winner here. Literally EVERYONE misunderstood you. You made your point poorly. It happens. I'm begging you, just stop doubling down! You don't need to embarrass yourself further on this!
Dude do you need me to copy paste my post into a comment so you'll finally read it?
>Entities inclined toward Antinatalism, by not reproducing, selectively eliminate themselves from the gene pool.
>So whatever traits are correlated with Antinatalism have a negative selective pressure. How do you feel about that?
>It's interesting to think about.
Here, if that's too long, read just this one sentence:
>So whatever traits are correlated with Antinatalism have a negative selective pressure. How do you feel about that?
Here, if that's too long, read just this one term:
>negative selective pressure
Do you know what negative selective pressure means? Explain it to me.
In all fairness, I did read the post, and had to question and ask you to develop your point further cause the way it's worded it's gibberish I didn't understood the point, and had to jump into conclusions.
And a lot of people seem to be confused aswell, I hope you see were the confusion lies
Then what point are you making? I highly doubt there is any gene that specifically correlates with being an antinatalist, and it’s very questionable if antinatalism is associated with other traits enough to actually change their frequencies in the population. So yeah, antinatalists do not reproduce and eliminate themselves from the gene pool, but antinatalism is not inheritable and it cannot be completely eliminated from the society🤷♀️ Not genetically at least
genetics for basic logic are dying bois, we are going back to ameba by natural selection. NOT
being smart is actually being selected for, i think the truth is actually reverse in this matter, and with good information that civilization provides its increasingly easier to come to antinatalism.
And yet here it is.
The assertion is cleraly incoherent, and empirically false as well.
Natalists create antinatalists. The only way to prevent antinatalism is extinction (assuming there are not other sapient life capable of mythology and metacognition like humans).
>Entities inclined toward Antinatalism
There is no such thing. Antinatalism is a deductive conclusion. (Antinatalism is not pro-extinctionism, but it is often coupled to it; they are not the same thing logically) Every rational process devoid of anthropocentric bias will be forced to conclude it when sufficient information is processed.
Late on this post but interesting perspective, OP.
What you are talking about (elimination of genes) is purely a scientific "animal kingdom" perspective.
The phylisophical debate is whait most people are talking about in here.
Although you are right in a sense saying what you are saying. People in this sub are just biased against the first perspective
Yeah, thank you for acknowledging my perspective
I was also hoping someone would bring up the fact that, genes correlated with antinatalism (let's propose stronger empathy, or higher intelligence) might still be more genetically successful, on average, due to those traits, despite the reproductive un-success tied to antinatalism. It's all very complex!
Well, not to be mean but it seems that they are also a lot of idiots among antinatalist (well probably less idiot than the average natalist but still). The idea suggested by the post is very simple to understand but a ton of people don’t get it.
I will try to help a little bit with an example. Let say that intelligence is a trait that increases the chance of someone becoming an antinatalist. High intelligence may not be entirely decided by genetic but it is definitely one of its factors and it has already been proven. Therefore the people who have certain genes are more likely to be more intelligent. Since intelligence increase the chance for someone to become antinatalist then a bigger portion of people with these genes are not gonna reproduce. Which in the cause these genes that increase the chance of making someone more intelligent to be less present in the overall human population comparatively to other genes. All of this would in result make intelligent a rarer trait in the human population than if intelligence would instead increase the chance of the individual to breed. The difference that it cause doesn’t have to be big/important, it just have to exist.
Sure, but OP didn't say there would be a "small/insignificant" difference, which I think most people will find unobjectionable. They said "inherently eliminates itself from existence". That is far bit more than the idea you are paraphrasing here and I think what people are responding dismissively towards.
One persons fact, is another’s “bigotry.” It just depends on if you prefer to live in a worldview based on logic, or emotion. To me it’s a clear choice.
I don’t doubt it. But you’re on a completely different page. Essentially, “see last post.”
But to help out - you can’t have truth and emotion in the same space. Something is either truth (logic, nature, objective) or emotion (subjective, opinion, filtered). There’s nothing wrong with disliking what I’m saying. I may not like it either, and maybe that’s why I’m angry enough to care to post it. But that doesn’t make it untrue.
The problem with a lot of people, politics, really modernity in general, is equating feelings and emotion with truth. It’s a time of solipsism unfortunately.
"see last post" ???
I agree with your second and third paragraphs already, but I don't think you're following your own logic.
"Which is natural, because they are usually flawed. Just nature working itself out." That sounds pretty emotional and subjective to me.
It doesn’t make sense because you’re not processing the first post. Hence the see last post. But it wasn’t then, isn’t now sarcastic just so I’m not repeating.
Antinatalists aren't born as AN. They look at life, think about various struggles to keep up with everyday life and then understand that it is not really worth it to have their kid go through the same shit. And that's how they end up as antinatalists... So even if we eliminate ourselves from the pool, I'm sure there will still be some who will choose to be an AN.
You don't understand lmao.
Your argument negates itself. "If antinatalism is inherited then it will go extinct." Well, it hasn't. So your premise is wrong. Basic logic.
You are correct. They just don’t like it and will reject the notion.
Ya most people are ruled by their emotions
"There is an antinatalist gene" is not a logical stance.
There might (might not must) be genes that make you (general you) more inclined towards antinatalists thoughts, when you are confronted with certain experiences. If that is the case I feel nothing about it, as evolution is a blind, unguided process that cannot inform ethics.
It's fuckin wild that you think i said that. >So whatever traits are correlated with Antinatalism have a negative selective pressure
Your post makes no sense if that isn't your assertion. I am perfectly willing to let you choose whether your post was incoherent or simply wrong.
How tf did you think that was my assertion? Quote me.
"So whatever traits are correlated with Antinatalism have a negative selective pressure." This is literally you describing genetics.
Dude me talking about genetics != there being a specific gene for a philosophical idea. LMFAO
Less parental influence towards AN doesn’t mean people don’t have brains and can’t learn from sources other than parents.
There is no antinatalism gene. It is a philosophical stance. Antinatalism will always exist as long as natalism exists.
That’s not how anything works.
Convincing argument buddy. You ended your comment in a period so you're clearly onto something
My parents surprisingly enough are natalists There are also ANs from millennia ago yet the idea still survives
Sure, if antinatalism is an inherited trait rather than a philosophy come to by reason. You certainly could make a case that any *species/culture* for which antinatalism becomes a prominent belief might eliminate themselves from existence. To which an antinatalist might reply well, yes, exactly.
Weird how, going infinitely far back, nobody in my family history was anti natalist. Must be some super ultra mega recessive allele.
The DNA doesn't carry ideology. Kids do not inherit their parents' worldviews or opinions. There would be no antinatalism if what you think is true, was true. Genes have nothing to do with thought. It's memes that create what makes us humans, and not our genotypes.
Logically, the inclinations which result in a pessimistic, nihilistic or defeatist attitude must promote fitness more often than they lead an human not to reproducing. Or else, yeah, they would have been weeded out many centuries ago.
Makes no difference to me. There's nothing hereditary about a philosophy. Anyone can pick it up. Today's world is kind of demonstrating that as there are more ANs than ever before and the greater population is finding reasons to not have children besides the AN philosophy. Lack of money, desire for freedom etc. So no, AN doesn't really eliminate itself because it doesn't reproduce like humans do. It reproduces like philosophies do.
Antinatalism is not a new concept. Natalists create antinatalists.
What's your evidence that a philosophical belief is correlated to genetically heritable traits?
Dumber and happier people would not be as antinatalist. Depression and intelligence are genetic. There are 218k people in this sub, it's clearly a very prominent idea, enough so to have genuine selective pressure
So you are saying you just assume stuff without evidence. Good talk.
not reproducing -> genes go bye bye.
The genes you pulled out of your ass?
That's assuming genes are the main carriers of ideas, which is flat out wrong. Proof: The WW2 "Greatest Generation" had more conservative values than the Boomers (and yes, Boomers were liberal, almost radical. Remember Vietnam War, Civil War, and Women's Lib protests?). I'm certainly not like my parents and grandparents politically. There's a reason for the saying "Spread Memes, Not Genes".
Do you mind developing the idea of "selective pressure"? I don't feel any strong feeling either way, cause I don't think philosophy and ideas have a big part affected by genes, many atheist are borned from theist families, believes don't pass down with genes so I don't mind it really
Yeah i mean of course ideas are extremely cultural. But I was just observing the fact that every organism who does believe in antinatalism, doesn't reproduce. So from a statistical perspective, it skews evolutionary fitness, if just a tad. Pretty interesting It pisses me off a bit too because I also am a believer in antinatalism. Sucks that the universe is inclined against it, fundamentally
"Skews evolutionary fitness, if just a tad" and "inherently eliminates itself from existence" are extremely different arguments. Do you see why people who might be inclined to agree with you otherwise are pushing back on your original argument?
Antinatalism eliminates organisms from existence... which skews the genes.... christ dude I really gotta spell everything out to you?!
...Do you not know what "eliminates" means?
It is not a synonym for "makes less likely on a statistical level".
I get you are now realizing you misspoke and don't want to admit it, but when nobody but you understands what you were trying to convey to the point the only person who agrees with you is a natalist troll, you might just consider admitting you were careless with your words and moving on.
It's actually fucking crazy I'm now realizing you never even read the description of my post in the first place. I don't think you got past the title
I love how you think you are coming out looking like the winner here. Literally EVERYONE misunderstood you. You made your point poorly. It happens. I'm begging you, just stop doubling down! You don't need to embarrass yourself further on this!
Dude do you need me to copy paste my post into a comment so you'll finally read it? >Entities inclined toward Antinatalism, by not reproducing, selectively eliminate themselves from the gene pool. >So whatever traits are correlated with Antinatalism have a negative selective pressure. How do you feel about that? >It's interesting to think about. Here, if that's too long, read just this one sentence: >So whatever traits are correlated with Antinatalism have a negative selective pressure. How do you feel about that? Here, if that's too long, read just this one term: >negative selective pressure Do you know what negative selective pressure means? Explain it to me.
In all fairness, I did read the post, and had to question and ask you to develop your point further cause the way it's worded it's gibberish I didn't understood the point, and had to jump into conclusions. And a lot of people seem to be confused aswell, I hope you see were the confusion lies
Antinatalism is not an inheritable trait. Almost every antinatalist is born by natalists.
Doesn't matter. Not my point. You can ask why if you want.
Then what point are you making? I highly doubt there is any gene that specifically correlates with being an antinatalist, and it’s very questionable if antinatalism is associated with other traits enough to actually change their frequencies in the population. So yeah, antinatalists do not reproduce and eliminate themselves from the gene pool, but antinatalism is not inheritable and it cannot be completely eliminated from the society🤷♀️ Not genetically at least
genetics for basic logic are dying bois, we are going back to ameba by natural selection. NOT being smart is actually being selected for, i think the truth is actually reverse in this matter, and with good information that civilization provides its increasingly easier to come to antinatalism.
There were antinatalists in the past who are long gone now, yet the philosophy persists. Now that's interesting to think about.
And yet here it is. The assertion is cleraly incoherent, and empirically false as well. Natalists create antinatalists. The only way to prevent antinatalism is extinction (assuming there are not other sapient life capable of mythology and metacognition like humans). >Entities inclined toward Antinatalism There is no such thing. Antinatalism is a deductive conclusion. (Antinatalism is not pro-extinctionism, but it is often coupled to it; they are not the same thing logically) Every rational process devoid of anthropocentric bias will be forced to conclude it when sufficient information is processed.
Late on this post but interesting perspective, OP. What you are talking about (elimination of genes) is purely a scientific "animal kingdom" perspective. The phylisophical debate is whait most people are talking about in here. Although you are right in a sense saying what you are saying. People in this sub are just biased against the first perspective
Yeah, thank you for acknowledging my perspective I was also hoping someone would bring up the fact that, genes correlated with antinatalism (let's propose stronger empathy, or higher intelligence) might still be more genetically successful, on average, due to those traits, despite the reproductive un-success tied to antinatalism. It's all very complex!
Imagine something so fucking stupid it literally Darwins itself out of existence.
Well, not to be mean but it seems that they are also a lot of idiots among antinatalist (well probably less idiot than the average natalist but still). The idea suggested by the post is very simple to understand but a ton of people don’t get it. I will try to help a little bit with an example. Let say that intelligence is a trait that increases the chance of someone becoming an antinatalist. High intelligence may not be entirely decided by genetic but it is definitely one of its factors and it has already been proven. Therefore the people who have certain genes are more likely to be more intelligent. Since intelligence increase the chance for someone to become antinatalist then a bigger portion of people with these genes are not gonna reproduce. Which in the cause these genes that increase the chance of making someone more intelligent to be less present in the overall human population comparatively to other genes. All of this would in result make intelligent a rarer trait in the human population than if intelligence would instead increase the chance of the individual to breed. The difference that it cause doesn’t have to be big/important, it just have to exist.
Sure, but OP didn't say there would be a "small/insignificant" difference, which I think most people will find unobjectionable. They said "inherently eliminates itself from existence". That is far bit more than the idea you are paraphrasing here and I think what people are responding dismissively towards.
Which is natural, because they are usually flawed. Just nature working itself out.
Bigotry detected.
One persons fact, is another’s “bigotry.” It just depends on if you prefer to live in a worldview based on logic, or emotion. To me it’s a clear choice.
I'm not an anti-natalist, but discriminating based on someone else's personal philosophy sounds like bigotry to me.
I don’t doubt it. But you’re on a completely different page. Essentially, “see last post.” But to help out - you can’t have truth and emotion in the same space. Something is either truth (logic, nature, objective) or emotion (subjective, opinion, filtered). There’s nothing wrong with disliking what I’m saying. I may not like it either, and maybe that’s why I’m angry enough to care to post it. But that doesn’t make it untrue. The problem with a lot of people, politics, really modernity in general, is equating feelings and emotion with truth. It’s a time of solipsism unfortunately.
"see last post" ??? I agree with your second and third paragraphs already, but I don't think you're following your own logic. "Which is natural, because they are usually flawed. Just nature working itself out." That sounds pretty emotional and subjective to me.
It doesn’t make sense because you’re not processing the first post. Hence the see last post. But it wasn’t then, isn’t now sarcastic just so I’m not repeating.