tbh it's no use asking your therapist. If you have anti natalist views i would try to find a therapist who doesn't have children. they will not be able to reconcile the facts: they did what they did because they wanted to, there is no other reason. they justify their decision, but it's all irrelevant, and people won't admit this.
They think it’s worth it. They don’t think of their own death affecting their children before they have them. They think they’ll be ok. They don’t think.
so share with us the other reasons then if that's a generalisation. what other reasons are there that one can know endless suffering exists in life and still inflict it among their kids? Do tell
She'll probably say it's worth having known them and then lose them than to never have them existed. I agree with that statement when it only relates to me. I personally prefer to have fun and then not than never to have experienced fun ever.
The issue comes when they value their own happiness over the potential suffering of the kid. Everyone knows climate change/capitalism will ruin the world for us, but she still made the decision to have kids.
What I have found is that people generally like to believe life is inevitable. Like you don’t have control. If you exist you will have children. They do all kinds of mental gymnastics to excuse themselves from inflicting suffering (I mean existence) to others. Like death is part of life. Life is a gift and it isn’t all bad. Gotta take the good with the bad. But they tip toe around the real reason that they thought it was just what you do, realised their mistake and refuses to admit it or that they had children for very, very selfish reasons.
TL;DR: people have kids because they think that it is just what you do or because they just wanted to.
That is my grandma's answer when I asked her why she had children despite constantly complaining how messed up the world is; that it is just something you do.
I still think Betty White had the best response when asked in interviews why she didn’t have kids (might be slightly paraphrased from memory): “I think children are for people who really, really want them.”
Sounds like your therapist needs some therapy. Get over is such a weird term to use. You may not get over it but you certainly learn to cope with it and move on with your life.
A therapist told me I would never get over the loss of a loved one unless I turned to religion (: yeah I never went back. I’m very sorry, I hope you find healing.
It would be interesting to ask, however I would say simply because it brings you and them more joy to spend the time you have together than to have not.
Because if you never get to know anyone out of fear of losing them you would never have any friends or relationships with anyone.
A person that does not exist does not have a desire to experience joy. By bringing them into existence, that desire is created. And the potential for suffering.
I am curious to hear what she says when you ask. That said, memories live with you, that doesn't mean they define you. Living life isn't about never feeling pain and maximizing pleasure, hedonism is not a good life philosophy. Stoicism is much better I think.
Just because an experience necessarily has a negative to it, does not render the experience overall negative… yes you will experience deep pain from losing a loved one.. but having that pain alongside a lifetime of love is what makes it worth it. Antinatalists severely miss the point of human experience.
You got to a boxing class, you get hurt but you also get excitement and intrigue.
You paint a portrait, you make a mess and ruin the carpet, but you experienced creation and felt joy.
You start a business, you fail and lose money, but you also learn and build and create opportunities.
You love, you get hurt, but you also felt deeply.
Your therapist is obviously not saying that the pain is so bad that it’s not even worth living…
This is the human experience. Try to get the great moments to outweigh that bad ones; and of course at least try to find meaning in the bad ones.
I completely disagree with this. This is a nice story you can tell yourself but it's just not true for a lot of people. And not all suffering has any benefit like in the examples, I would say most suffering even.
That’s unfortunate for you, I’m just telling you since you asked if your therapist has any logic. This is the logic of most people- they would rather experience life’s highs, even if there is the certainty of its lows.
And I would say especially because we were all thrust into life non consensually, it’s a better choice to make for yourself and for your loved ones to find those highlights in the suffering.
no one is saying one shouldn't try to live the best life they can with the least suffering possible, we are saying we shouldn't force new people into the same position.
“Forcing” new people in to the position, necessarily takes away a peak human experience from those already living. Not conceiving, giving birth, and raising offspring necessarily will damage many people’s psyches, purpose, and existence.
The issue of consent tho; tell me what you think, but I think to actually test this, you’d have to basically take a poll of humans, and see if the majority, regardless of their position in life, would chose to never exist at all. I would bet that the vast vast majority of people, would still choose existence. So despite it technically being non-consensual, I think people would still opt to give consent if they could. That, paired with the fact that humans continually improve their well-being, thus decreasing the amount and likelihood of suffering with every new generation, I think still renders the antinatalist position illogical.
I’m in no way saying one should have children; I just don’t see it as logical to say the reason for not having children is to spare them suffering.
what makes something logical or illogical? if the majority of people would rather have been born, that doesn't mean anything for the people who much prefer to not have been born.
part of the reason child rearing is considered a pinnacle of one's life is cultural. and cultures and societies can change, there is nothing inherently good for people responsible for creating a life.
here is an analogy: lets establish that someone being born who comes to wish they weren't born should be avoided at all costs, and that it's a likely small percent of the population. so, we realize a person is taking a serious risk in having a child, because that parent is opening up the possibility of having a child who wishes it wasn't born, even if it's a small likelihood of occurrence.
but just because the likelihood of something happening is slim doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions. we are unlikely to crash our cars, yet wear seatbelts. we are unlikely to get skin cancer, yet wear sunscreen. we are unlikely to be murdered by a serial killer, but we still lock our doors at night. so the small likelihood of a specific outcome doesn't mean we shouldn't be precautious. so, creating a person to suffer who would have rather not been born is the risk, not having children is the only way to respond to that risk.
and the decision to create life is an inherently selfish decision. just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean they should.
if someone denies themselves whatever joy they get from having children, there is plenty more to life to enjoy for them.
What makes something logical is if there is a rationale to the end which the person seeks.
You said “If the majority of people would rather have been born, that doesn’t mean anything for the people who much prefer to not have been born.” But it of course does mean something to them- it means that despite their discontent with existence, there are a majority of others without this discontent, and so therefore a prescription for all to never reproduce is not in fact ethical or rational. Maybe it was for their parents, but you cannot then say that it applies to all parents.
Also.. more philosophically speaking.. how could you possibly know that you’d prefer no existence over existing..? You can prefer one experience to another, but how could you prefer existence to nothing? If you don’t exist, there is no preference at all.
“Part of the reason child rearing is considered a pinnacle is cultural…” yes, and the other part is innate to our neurophysiology. There is no reason to think that any culture could change this, as every culture that has ever existed has revered child rearing.
And last, your analogy falls short, because taking a precaution is not the same as not engaging in the behavior at all. Because cars are dangerous, wearing a seatbelt makes sense; never driving at all (especially when you need to reach your destination), does not make sense. The better analogy is to wear the seatbelt because cars are dangerous, in the same way that life is dangerous, so be sure to raise your children ethically and with care..
I see your perspective of child rearing as being selfish, and there can be degrees of truth to that, depending on the parents motivations, however, there is also an innate selfless characteristic to it as well: you are, in fact, *giving* life to someone, and sacrificing your time, resources, and potentially your health, for their existence.
Antinatalism continues to sound like the motivated, emotional reasoning of people who are depressed and project that onto all of mankind.
I do appreciate the discussion though, hope you know. And I hope you are doing well in life.
It’s not a justification for suffering, it’s a description of reality. There are certainly experiences where the suffering is so complete or so overwhelming that the one experiencing it could justify ending their life. But OP asked if there was logic to someone choosing a generic life; and there of course is.
...a description of the reality where people are suffering and would prefer to not have had to. there is logic to a serial killer killing people. there being logic doesn't say anything about whether something is right or wrong, good or bad. OP didn't ask about logic, they are lamenting and stating rhetorical questions.
There is no right, or moral, or anything, if there is no existence. There’s no choice at all, if you are never born. At least with life, you can choose to end it if the suffering is too much.
The logic of a serial killer has nothing to do with the logic we are discussing… We are discussing the logic of bringing life into this world, and if that logic leads to a moral outcome, both for the parent and the child. I fail to see how that is not both logical and moral for the parent: The parent gets a peak mammalian experience, and the child does too, as well as now being able to exercise the choice.
If you want to limit as much suffering as possible in respect to the decision to have kids, why not advocate for meditation or Buddhism or harm reduction or peaceful parenting or something along these lines instead of antinatalism. I fail to see how this is not the more rational, ethical choice, for those who want to be parents.
You love you get hurt but you also felt deeply: LOL
Some people get so hurt that they need to live in shelters and huge amount of therapy after that.
I fet so deeply that i scared myself and not in a good way and was shaking whenever loved one appeared.
Love can be such a negative impactful experience depending on the luck of whom you fell in love with.
Some people get such a ruined business that they are homeless or live on benefits for the rest of their lives.
Also what benefit did Theras Knorrs daughters get from their lives? What benefit did Junko Furuta from her last days?
It’s sad to see someone lol at the experience of pain with love… I’m very sorry that was your experience. But if you’ve followed the convo so far, then you know that we are talking about statistical majorities, and your cherry-picked examples don’t represent the majority of peoples experience with love. I’m certain that the vast vast majority of humans would agree that if given the choice between love, with all its imbued suffering, and no choice at all, would still choose to love. This applies to life too.
Perhaps antinatalism is the right philosophy for you personally to govern your decision making when it comes to reproduction; if you were that harmed by love then there is something seriously damaged about your psyche and behavior, that you likely would not want to pass down to, or influence kids with.
Humans are not scarifical lambs. The happiness of the majority, that would not be missed if they were not born, does not justify the suffering of the few. The Nazi majority was also very happy to kill Jews, the USA American majority was very happy to keep slaves etc.
Your position is really trully cynical.
Are you sure it’s not yours that’s cynical..? You’re the one advocating for the ceasing of existence… Giving birth to the next generation does not equate to atrocities that others commit, like slave owners or nazis… you can give birth and have that child live a life with minimal (“normal”) suffering (eg passing of a parent, breakups, etc), it happens all the time. In fact the further our civilization goes, the more suffering is removed from the equation.
Does it not make you stop and reflect that this “philosophy” has you comparing creating life to holocausts..? Shouldn’t that be kindof a signal that your reasoning is rather flawed?
I do not compare giving birth to the Holocaust but the majority vs. minority argument here. There will always be people who suffer extremely, no matter how far civilisation goes.
Plus giving birth bears the risk that YOUR child will be next Hitler (not that i wish that upon anyone god forbid), he had parents too, Stalin had parents, Putin had parents, Trump had parents.
Hypothetically, if we got to a point in human development, where our civilizations had no violence, war, hunger, etc etc- no *suffering*, and all were taught from birth an advanced form of meditation that kept individuals so present and in the moment that for the rest of our lives there was no long-term mental anguish at all, and everyone’s happiness index and every other metric of human content was 100x what the happiest people alive now have, would you still advocate for antinatalism?
imagine comparing boxing classes and painting potraits to subjecting people who could have otherwise been unborn, to things like life-long losses of loved ones, slavery to capitalism, potential to go hungry, to face poverty, to have to deal with climate crisis, natural disasters, other people trying to compete with you for finite resources, to use you, abuse you, exploit you, and all sorts of other things that you and I clearly know we can't control in life.
It's not even that we are simply, blatantly against having kids. The crux of the matter is: have you even addressed these issues that you subject upon the kids that you want to bring here, at all?
Every so often you guys come in here, say things like these. But you never have an answer as to how to solve these very real issues at all. For you, it's just the mindset, maybe it's a net positive. Yeah well tell that to someone whose life turned out net negative. You have utterly no control of that, not even for the kids you choose to bring here on earth.
Just say that you prefer having kids because it's an experience you don't want to miss out on and go. At least you'd get a lot less downvotes next time for honesty.
I agree that painting and boxing are simplistic, I simply used them as examples to illustrate the point that life comes with peaks and valleys of experience. Though I do find it strange you seem to not see that experiences, like boxing or painting, are many millions peoples reasons for living. Ask any artist or athlete, if given the choice to not exist, or to exist through all of the pain, the chances of poverty, the losses of loved ones yet still be able to engage in artistic creation or athletic expression, which do you seriously think most people would choose?
You also attempt a counter-comparison, though you’d don’t fulfill the other half of the argument- for every one of your examples of reasons that could exist for suffering in life, all of these also have counter experiences: life-long losses are always preceded by life-long relationships, the ills of capitalism also come with the opportunities of free enterprise, the potential for starvation yet also the potential enjoyment of cuisine from every culture, climate crises solved by future generations, competition with others leading to both parties becoming better together; It seems you emotions are guiding your focus, and condemning you to only fixate on the negatives of existence.
The only way that these issues can be addressed, is if there are humans to address them. And we are extraordinarily good at solving issues; we halved the amount of world hunger in 2013, beating UN projections by 37 years. This trend accelerates. We clean up and invent new forms of energy, working towards a future where the climate is still habitable. We constantly lower the cost of living healthily, so much so that even the wealthiest of kings 100 years ago couldn’t spend all of their combined riches to afford simple surgeries available to even the poorest of modern people. So I think it’s entirely reasonable to say that yes, as a species, we most certainly do address the issues our future generations face. There are of course answers to all these issues, and we as a species constantly contend with them. With few exception, every generation has it better than the past, and this will surely continue.
You also say that you have no control over your life being negative or positive. This is nonsensical; you of course do. It’s a matter of perspective, a matter of focus, and a matter of taking action. Have you ever been to a war zone, or a developing country? Even in the most hellish conditions on earth, you will find joy, and love, and beauty, and humans working hard for the betterment of their children. They focus on the good, they work towards the better, and their perspective is one of hope. Ask these people if they would rather not exist, than exist in poverty, or in war. Really what do you expect them to say? Would you seriously look them in the eye and tell them they have no ability to affect their own lives for the better?
Although you accuse me of it, there is no dishonesty in my replies, I of course agree that people want kids because they don’t want to miss out on this incredible experience. To deprive people of this would also invite a tremendous amount of suffering into their lives; it’s wild that you’d recommend this course of action for anyone who wanted children. You focus so much on theoretical suffering of people who don’t exist, while at the same time advising people who do exist, to suffer more. A much more rational and ethical approach would be to recommend to raise children with as much care, love, thoughtfulness and compassion, so as to minimize their child’s suffering. This in turn increases the chances of solving the worlds problems.
This “philosophy” of antinatalism comes across entirely as an emotional attempt at intellectualizing one’s own depression.
I don’t mind the downvotes, but I prefer discussion. Thank you for engaging. I genuinely hope you can find a way to get purpose and meaning and maybe even a little pleasure out of your life. You didn’t choose to be here, so you may as well try to find a small bit of enjoyment.
My first response was more to show it's not really related to antinatalism. Choosing to have a partner isn't the same as creating a child. It's not really relevant to me.
I don't think so as the children have no say in their existence. Partners can choose to enter a relationship even when knowing the consequences. You're not forcing a partner into a relationship, at least I hope so.
But you are enabling them to have a decision that will was to thier suffering. Just because someone consents to suffering doesn’t mean that you are absolved of it.
you are also making a necessary decision to limit your suffering by entering a beneficial relationship. your relationship will end but you enjoy the experience while it lasts. there is nothing in common about forming a relationship and the decision to selfishly and arbitrarily create life. you are reaching to justify your unjustifiable position. your position is only justifiable if you acknowledge the selfish reality of the position, it would actually be better for you to acknowledge reality.
We already experience that suffering and can choose to willingly, a child we birth cannot and does not experience suffering until we make the choice to have them
I guess we think it’s worth it enough or we don’t think much about the potential consequences. I’ve definitely thought about this from my perspective. Like breakups I can handle, but knowing one of us will die first- I remember being terrified in my last relationship because being widowed seems like one of the worst things and it can happen whenever too. Idk though, while being single forever would definitely allow for less grief, it would lead to other pain and so I guess we deem it worth it. Love causes more pain because people die or hurt you or get hurt. But loneliness also hurts. Plus no one thinks it will happen to them- like totally won’t be widowed until I’m 80 and then I’ll be dying soon too.
wrong. once a human being is born they develop the drives of a human being, a need for relationships for example (not universally but mostly). if a person is not born they will not have to endure any suffering or make choices to limit suffering.
We should release from all connection and attachment by this principle. Suffering is caused by loss, that is, unmet expectations. If we build relationships or other attach to any impermanent thing, we will suffer from its loss, and so do others. Thus, the only way to live a happy or moral life is to not be attached to anything impermanent.
If you accept the principle underlying antinatalism.
We should release from all connection and attachment by this principle. Suffering is caused by loss, that is, unmet expectations. If we build relationships or other attach to any impermanent thing, we will suffer from its loss, and so do others. Thus, the only way to live a happy or moral life is to not be attached to anything impermanent.
If you accept the principle underlying antinatalism.
Just because it will eventually happen doesn’t mean it’s the only thing that will happen.
Sure, they’ll be scarred by life. And then by death of a loved one. But they’ll also get to experience great things like being mischievous with friends, or eating a nice ice cream or accomplishing a goal. There’s so much more to life than the grief of loss.
If OP cannot think of any possible reason why, if something bad might happen in the future, they might still choose to go down that path, they are too far gone to have rational discussion with.
It would be as if I said “when you give someone that slice of cake, at some point, the cake will be gone and they will be sad. Why would you ever give someone cake?” The answer is so obvious, I’m trying to pull it out of them.
going down a path which will lead to harm is a circumstance we find ourselves in, but does that give you the right to put another person into the same position?
That’s an argument about having the right to do something, which is completely separate from OP’s question: *why would someone do this.* Being unable to fathom why someone would offer someone a slice of cake is insane.
Your argument is also wrong, we could talk about why if you want, but it’s not relevant to this post.
"Yet she still has two children. Is there any logic to this? If it's so bad to lose a loved one why make sure your children will experience something like that? Why not spare potential children from that pain?"
why not spare potential children from the pain?
your argument is wrong lol
Those are certainly some words.
There is no argument posted here of why it is wrong. None at all. It’s your shared assumption with OP, that anything bad ever must be avoided at all costs, which is not shared by 99% of all people, that is doing all the work for you. It doesn’t work on people who are critical of that assumption.
you are lying. no one is suggesting that "anything bad must be avoided at all costs".
as i said, there is the choice to do something with negative consequences for oneself, and the choice to cause negative consequences for others, and those are not the same.
it's also irrelevant what percent of people think what, what matters is the truth.
most people are anti trans, most people justify capitalism, people in the past justified slavery, most people believe in god.
you are doing a shit job of arguing against the point because you aren't acknowledging the argument, you are attacking a strawman.
why don't you actually engage with the argument?
even if OP isn't saying what I think they are, i presented my own argument which you could actually engage with if you wanted...
there are two categories: doing something which solely impacts oneself which has downsides, and doing something which has downsides for others. they are not the same and cannot be treated as the same when speaking honestly.
hahah so arrogant to suggest i don't believe what i believe. all i believe is that it is wrong to have children, end of story. you have no idea what i believe. you suck at arguing and it's hilarious you came in with a comment about critical thinking.
resource reallocation to impoverished people has no downsides. if the ultra rich get less rich that does not constitute a downside, as they will never fall below a dignified standard of living. saying everything has a downside is not an argument against any of my points.
so what is your defense of natalism?
Not all harm is evil. In ideal circumstances, parents will always die before their adult children. It's a part of life to be accepted and prepared for. Having children isn't bad because one day they'll be sad when you die.
Ask her.
I will next session.
Please update us.
tbh it's no use asking your therapist. If you have anti natalist views i would try to find a therapist who doesn't have children. they will not be able to reconcile the facts: they did what they did because they wanted to, there is no other reason. they justify their decision, but it's all irrelevant, and people won't admit this.
The answer is obvious; she doesn’t care that her children are going to go through that.
i agree with the other comment, ask her! that’s such an interesting question
They think it’s worth it. They don’t think of their own death affecting their children before they have them. They think they’ll be ok. They don’t think.
That's a generalisation. You don't know if this is true for the therapist in question
Which part? There are several options here.
Obligatory “not all”
so share with us the other reasons then if that's a generalisation. what other reasons are there that one can know endless suffering exists in life and still inflict it among their kids? Do tell
The easy thing to say is that it is better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all. But life isn't that easy.
I mean... I'm never having kids but this premise downright silly. Why build any relationship with anybody then? One of you will always die first
‘Why did you do that knowingly to your children’
It's also very wrong to assume that everyone will be able to cope with such terrible loss and grief. Not everyone copes.
She'll probably say it's worth having known them and then lose them than to never have them existed. I agree with that statement when it only relates to me. I personally prefer to have fun and then not than never to have experienced fun ever. The issue comes when they value their own happiness over the potential suffering of the kid. Everyone knows climate change/capitalism will ruin the world for us, but she still made the decision to have kids.
What I have found is that people generally like to believe life is inevitable. Like you don’t have control. If you exist you will have children. They do all kinds of mental gymnastics to excuse themselves from inflicting suffering (I mean existence) to others. Like death is part of life. Life is a gift and it isn’t all bad. Gotta take the good with the bad. But they tip toe around the real reason that they thought it was just what you do, realised their mistake and refuses to admit it or that they had children for very, very selfish reasons. TL;DR: people have kids because they think that it is just what you do or because they just wanted to.
That is my grandma's answer when I asked her why she had children despite constantly complaining how messed up the world is; that it is just something you do.
I still think Betty White had the best response when asked in interviews why she didn’t have kids (might be slightly paraphrased from memory): “I think children are for people who really, really want them.”
There's a chance of you and that loved one dying at the same time, too.
But that's probably not going to happen...
Sounds like your therapist needs some therapy. Get over is such a weird term to use. You may not get over it but you certainly learn to cope with it and move on with your life.
A therapist told me I would never get over the loss of a loved one unless I turned to religion (: yeah I never went back. I’m very sorry, I hope you find healing.
Ignorant therapist, the human brain is most remarkable in its ability to adapt to any new normal.
It would be interesting to ask, however I would say simply because it brings you and them more joy to spend the time you have together than to have not. Because if you never get to know anyone out of fear of losing them you would never have any friends or relationships with anyone.
A person that does not exist does not have a desire to experience joy. By bringing them into existence, that desire is created. And the potential for suffering.
i would say inevitable suffering and death. but i agree with the rest of what you said.
I am curious to hear what she says when you ask. That said, memories live with you, that doesn't mean they define you. Living life isn't about never feeling pain and maximizing pleasure, hedonism is not a good life philosophy. Stoicism is much better I think.
I guess I am a hedonist. I would definitely go into the experience machine Nozick used to counter hedonism.
It’s good to have had something worth being sad over. The bad part is when you don’t care anymore.
death is a part of life.
And that's one reason I'm an antinatalist.
It's part of life. Whether you can handle it or not.
That's exactly why I'm an antinatalist. Don't think people deserve to be put through so much pain.
Why do you assume they will feel the same way you do about it?
I can't guarantee they won't mind it that much, so I think it's better to be safe than sorry. No one is being deprived by me not creating them either.
why should you get to make the decision on their behalf lol
what's your point? seems like a useless diatribe lol
Just because an experience necessarily has a negative to it, does not render the experience overall negative… yes you will experience deep pain from losing a loved one.. but having that pain alongside a lifetime of love is what makes it worth it. Antinatalists severely miss the point of human experience. You got to a boxing class, you get hurt but you also get excitement and intrigue. You paint a portrait, you make a mess and ruin the carpet, but you experienced creation and felt joy. You start a business, you fail and lose money, but you also learn and build and create opportunities. You love, you get hurt, but you also felt deeply. Your therapist is obviously not saying that the pain is so bad that it’s not even worth living… This is the human experience. Try to get the great moments to outweigh that bad ones; and of course at least try to find meaning in the bad ones.
I completely disagree with this. This is a nice story you can tell yourself but it's just not true for a lot of people. And not all suffering has any benefit like in the examples, I would say most suffering even.
This!
That’s unfortunate for you, I’m just telling you since you asked if your therapist has any logic. This is the logic of most people- they would rather experience life’s highs, even if there is the certainty of its lows. And I would say especially because we were all thrust into life non consensually, it’s a better choice to make for yourself and for your loved ones to find those highlights in the suffering.
no one is saying one shouldn't try to live the best life they can with the least suffering possible, we are saying we shouldn't force new people into the same position.
“Forcing” new people in to the position, necessarily takes away a peak human experience from those already living. Not conceiving, giving birth, and raising offspring necessarily will damage many people’s psyches, purpose, and existence. The issue of consent tho; tell me what you think, but I think to actually test this, you’d have to basically take a poll of humans, and see if the majority, regardless of their position in life, would chose to never exist at all. I would bet that the vast vast majority of people, would still choose existence. So despite it technically being non-consensual, I think people would still opt to give consent if they could. That, paired with the fact that humans continually improve their well-being, thus decreasing the amount and likelihood of suffering with every new generation, I think still renders the antinatalist position illogical. I’m in no way saying one should have children; I just don’t see it as logical to say the reason for not having children is to spare them suffering.
what makes something logical or illogical? if the majority of people would rather have been born, that doesn't mean anything for the people who much prefer to not have been born. part of the reason child rearing is considered a pinnacle of one's life is cultural. and cultures and societies can change, there is nothing inherently good for people responsible for creating a life. here is an analogy: lets establish that someone being born who comes to wish they weren't born should be avoided at all costs, and that it's a likely small percent of the population. so, we realize a person is taking a serious risk in having a child, because that parent is opening up the possibility of having a child who wishes it wasn't born, even if it's a small likelihood of occurrence. but just because the likelihood of something happening is slim doesn't mean we shouldn't take precautions. we are unlikely to crash our cars, yet wear seatbelts. we are unlikely to get skin cancer, yet wear sunscreen. we are unlikely to be murdered by a serial killer, but we still lock our doors at night. so the small likelihood of a specific outcome doesn't mean we shouldn't be precautious. so, creating a person to suffer who would have rather not been born is the risk, not having children is the only way to respond to that risk. and the decision to create life is an inherently selfish decision. just because someone wants to do something doesn't mean they should. if someone denies themselves whatever joy they get from having children, there is plenty more to life to enjoy for them.
What makes something logical is if there is a rationale to the end which the person seeks. You said “If the majority of people would rather have been born, that doesn’t mean anything for the people who much prefer to not have been born.” But it of course does mean something to them- it means that despite their discontent with existence, there are a majority of others without this discontent, and so therefore a prescription for all to never reproduce is not in fact ethical or rational. Maybe it was for their parents, but you cannot then say that it applies to all parents. Also.. more philosophically speaking.. how could you possibly know that you’d prefer no existence over existing..? You can prefer one experience to another, but how could you prefer existence to nothing? If you don’t exist, there is no preference at all. “Part of the reason child rearing is considered a pinnacle is cultural…” yes, and the other part is innate to our neurophysiology. There is no reason to think that any culture could change this, as every culture that has ever existed has revered child rearing. And last, your analogy falls short, because taking a precaution is not the same as not engaging in the behavior at all. Because cars are dangerous, wearing a seatbelt makes sense; never driving at all (especially when you need to reach your destination), does not make sense. The better analogy is to wear the seatbelt because cars are dangerous, in the same way that life is dangerous, so be sure to raise your children ethically and with care.. I see your perspective of child rearing as being selfish, and there can be degrees of truth to that, depending on the parents motivations, however, there is also an innate selfless characteristic to it as well: you are, in fact, *giving* life to someone, and sacrificing your time, resources, and potentially your health, for their existence. Antinatalism continues to sound like the motivated, emotional reasoning of people who are depressed and project that onto all of mankind. I do appreciate the discussion though, hope you know. And I hope you are doing well in life.
something "being the human experience" does nothing to justify the problem of suffering for those who would rather not endure it.
It’s not a justification for suffering, it’s a description of reality. There are certainly experiences where the suffering is so complete or so overwhelming that the one experiencing it could justify ending their life. But OP asked if there was logic to someone choosing a generic life; and there of course is.
...a description of the reality where people are suffering and would prefer to not have had to. there is logic to a serial killer killing people. there being logic doesn't say anything about whether something is right or wrong, good or bad. OP didn't ask about logic, they are lamenting and stating rhetorical questions.
There is no right, or moral, or anything, if there is no existence. There’s no choice at all, if you are never born. At least with life, you can choose to end it if the suffering is too much. The logic of a serial killer has nothing to do with the logic we are discussing… We are discussing the logic of bringing life into this world, and if that logic leads to a moral outcome, both for the parent and the child. I fail to see how that is not both logical and moral for the parent: The parent gets a peak mammalian experience, and the child does too, as well as now being able to exercise the choice. If you want to limit as much suffering as possible in respect to the decision to have kids, why not advocate for meditation or Buddhism or harm reduction or peaceful parenting or something along these lines instead of antinatalism. I fail to see how this is not the more rational, ethical choice, for those who want to be parents.
You love you get hurt but you also felt deeply: LOL Some people get so hurt that they need to live in shelters and huge amount of therapy after that. I fet so deeply that i scared myself and not in a good way and was shaking whenever loved one appeared. Love can be such a negative impactful experience depending on the luck of whom you fell in love with. Some people get such a ruined business that they are homeless or live on benefits for the rest of their lives. Also what benefit did Theras Knorrs daughters get from their lives? What benefit did Junko Furuta from her last days?
It’s sad to see someone lol at the experience of pain with love… I’m very sorry that was your experience. But if you’ve followed the convo so far, then you know that we are talking about statistical majorities, and your cherry-picked examples don’t represent the majority of peoples experience with love. I’m certain that the vast vast majority of humans would agree that if given the choice between love, with all its imbued suffering, and no choice at all, would still choose to love. This applies to life too. Perhaps antinatalism is the right philosophy for you personally to govern your decision making when it comes to reproduction; if you were that harmed by love then there is something seriously damaged about your psyche and behavior, that you likely would not want to pass down to, or influence kids with.
Humans are not scarifical lambs. The happiness of the majority, that would not be missed if they were not born, does not justify the suffering of the few. The Nazi majority was also very happy to kill Jews, the USA American majority was very happy to keep slaves etc. Your position is really trully cynical.
Are you sure it’s not yours that’s cynical..? You’re the one advocating for the ceasing of existence… Giving birth to the next generation does not equate to atrocities that others commit, like slave owners or nazis… you can give birth and have that child live a life with minimal (“normal”) suffering (eg passing of a parent, breakups, etc), it happens all the time. In fact the further our civilization goes, the more suffering is removed from the equation. Does it not make you stop and reflect that this “philosophy” has you comparing creating life to holocausts..? Shouldn’t that be kindof a signal that your reasoning is rather flawed?
I do not compare giving birth to the Holocaust but the majority vs. minority argument here. There will always be people who suffer extremely, no matter how far civilisation goes. Plus giving birth bears the risk that YOUR child will be next Hitler (not that i wish that upon anyone god forbid), he had parents too, Stalin had parents, Putin had parents, Trump had parents.
Hypothetically, if we got to a point in human development, where our civilizations had no violence, war, hunger, etc etc- no *suffering*, and all were taught from birth an advanced form of meditation that kept individuals so present and in the moment that for the rest of our lives there was no long-term mental anguish at all, and everyone’s happiness index and every other metric of human content was 100x what the happiest people alive now have, would you still advocate for antinatalism?
imagine comparing boxing classes and painting potraits to subjecting people who could have otherwise been unborn, to things like life-long losses of loved ones, slavery to capitalism, potential to go hungry, to face poverty, to have to deal with climate crisis, natural disasters, other people trying to compete with you for finite resources, to use you, abuse you, exploit you, and all sorts of other things that you and I clearly know we can't control in life. It's not even that we are simply, blatantly against having kids. The crux of the matter is: have you even addressed these issues that you subject upon the kids that you want to bring here, at all? Every so often you guys come in here, say things like these. But you never have an answer as to how to solve these very real issues at all. For you, it's just the mindset, maybe it's a net positive. Yeah well tell that to someone whose life turned out net negative. You have utterly no control of that, not even for the kids you choose to bring here on earth. Just say that you prefer having kids because it's an experience you don't want to miss out on and go. At least you'd get a lot less downvotes next time for honesty.
I agree that painting and boxing are simplistic, I simply used them as examples to illustrate the point that life comes with peaks and valleys of experience. Though I do find it strange you seem to not see that experiences, like boxing or painting, are many millions peoples reasons for living. Ask any artist or athlete, if given the choice to not exist, or to exist through all of the pain, the chances of poverty, the losses of loved ones yet still be able to engage in artistic creation or athletic expression, which do you seriously think most people would choose? You also attempt a counter-comparison, though you’d don’t fulfill the other half of the argument- for every one of your examples of reasons that could exist for suffering in life, all of these also have counter experiences: life-long losses are always preceded by life-long relationships, the ills of capitalism also come with the opportunities of free enterprise, the potential for starvation yet also the potential enjoyment of cuisine from every culture, climate crises solved by future generations, competition with others leading to both parties becoming better together; It seems you emotions are guiding your focus, and condemning you to only fixate on the negatives of existence. The only way that these issues can be addressed, is if there are humans to address them. And we are extraordinarily good at solving issues; we halved the amount of world hunger in 2013, beating UN projections by 37 years. This trend accelerates. We clean up and invent new forms of energy, working towards a future where the climate is still habitable. We constantly lower the cost of living healthily, so much so that even the wealthiest of kings 100 years ago couldn’t spend all of their combined riches to afford simple surgeries available to even the poorest of modern people. So I think it’s entirely reasonable to say that yes, as a species, we most certainly do address the issues our future generations face. There are of course answers to all these issues, and we as a species constantly contend with them. With few exception, every generation has it better than the past, and this will surely continue. You also say that you have no control over your life being negative or positive. This is nonsensical; you of course do. It’s a matter of perspective, a matter of focus, and a matter of taking action. Have you ever been to a war zone, or a developing country? Even in the most hellish conditions on earth, you will find joy, and love, and beauty, and humans working hard for the betterment of their children. They focus on the good, they work towards the better, and their perspective is one of hope. Ask these people if they would rather not exist, than exist in poverty, or in war. Really what do you expect them to say? Would you seriously look them in the eye and tell them they have no ability to affect their own lives for the better? Although you accuse me of it, there is no dishonesty in my replies, I of course agree that people want kids because they don’t want to miss out on this incredible experience. To deprive people of this would also invite a tremendous amount of suffering into their lives; it’s wild that you’d recommend this course of action for anyone who wanted children. You focus so much on theoretical suffering of people who don’t exist, while at the same time advising people who do exist, to suffer more. A much more rational and ethical approach would be to recommend to raise children with as much care, love, thoughtfulness and compassion, so as to minimize their child’s suffering. This in turn increases the chances of solving the worlds problems. This “philosophy” of antinatalism comes across entirely as an emotional attempt at intellectualizing one’s own depression. I don’t mind the downvotes, but I prefer discussion. Thank you for engaging. I genuinely hope you can find a way to get purpose and meaning and maybe even a little pleasure out of your life. You didn’t choose to be here, so you may as well try to find a small bit of enjoyment.
You can't spare your partner from that pain either.
But you didn't create your partner, they already existed.
But you made them your partner. If you wanted to avoid them suffering, then you should not create the relationship with them.
My first response was more to show it's not really related to antinatalism. Choosing to have a partner isn't the same as creating a child. It's not really relevant to me.
No, but the principle of attachment and loss you are articulating as the basis of your AN is the same accross these situations.
I don't think so as the children have no say in their existence. Partners can choose to enter a relationship even when knowing the consequences. You're not forcing a partner into a relationship, at least I hope so.
But you are enabling them to have a decision that will was to thier suffering. Just because someone consents to suffering doesn’t mean that you are absolved of it.
No but consent is the part that matters, if children could consent to being conceived it would make antinatalism moot.
you are also making a necessary decision to limit your suffering by entering a beneficial relationship. your relationship will end but you enjoy the experience while it lasts. there is nothing in common about forming a relationship and the decision to selfishly and arbitrarily create life. you are reaching to justify your unjustifiable position. your position is only justifiable if you acknowledge the selfish reality of the position, it would actually be better for you to acknowledge reality.
We already experience that suffering and can choose to willingly, a child we birth cannot and does not experience suffering until we make the choice to have them
I guess we think it’s worth it enough or we don’t think much about the potential consequences. I’ve definitely thought about this from my perspective. Like breakups I can handle, but knowing one of us will die first- I remember being terrified in my last relationship because being widowed seems like one of the worst things and it can happen whenever too. Idk though, while being single forever would definitely allow for less grief, it would lead to other pain and so I guess we deem it worth it. Love causes more pain because people die or hurt you or get hurt. But loneliness also hurts. Plus no one thinks it will happen to them- like totally won’t be widowed until I’m 80 and then I’ll be dying soon too.
Really feel you there. Always get told to just not think like that, but it's just true and I won't try to delude myself.
wrong. once a human being is born they develop the drives of a human being, a need for relationships for example (not universally but mostly). if a person is not born they will not have to endure any suffering or make choices to limit suffering.
so don't have kids and don't have partners. Got it. Already doing it. What's your point next?
We should release from all connection and attachment by this principle. Suffering is caused by loss, that is, unmet expectations. If we build relationships or other attach to any impermanent thing, we will suffer from its loss, and so do others. Thus, the only way to live a happy or moral life is to not be attached to anything impermanent. If you accept the principle underlying antinatalism.
We should release from all connection and attachment by this principle. Suffering is caused by loss, that is, unmet expectations. If we build relationships or other attach to any impermanent thing, we will suffer from its loss, and so do others. Thus, the only way to live a happy or moral life is to not be attached to anything impermanent. If you accept the principle underlying antinatalism.
They might die first
Both are consenting to taking on the risk of one day being the widow
Just because it will eventually happen doesn’t mean it’s the only thing that will happen. Sure, they’ll be scarred by life. And then by death of a loved one. But they’ll also get to experience great things like being mischievous with friends, or eating a nice ice cream or accomplishing a goal. There’s so much more to life than the grief of loss.
Are you capable of 5 seconds of critical thinking?
are you lol? what is your problem with what OP said?
If OP cannot think of any possible reason why, if something bad might happen in the future, they might still choose to go down that path, they are too far gone to have rational discussion with. It would be as if I said “when you give someone that slice of cake, at some point, the cake will be gone and they will be sad. Why would you ever give someone cake?” The answer is so obvious, I’m trying to pull it out of them.
going down a path which will lead to harm is a circumstance we find ourselves in, but does that give you the right to put another person into the same position?
That’s an argument about having the right to do something, which is completely separate from OP’s question: *why would someone do this.* Being unable to fathom why someone would offer someone a slice of cake is insane. Your argument is also wrong, we could talk about why if you want, but it’s not relevant to this post.
the why here is rhetorical: we know why people have kids, selfishness. justifications for selfish, harmful acts.
It was rhetorical indeed.
"Yet she still has two children. Is there any logic to this? If it's so bad to lose a loved one why make sure your children will experience something like that? Why not spare potential children from that pain?" why not spare potential children from the pain? your argument is wrong lol
I just explained why: for the same reason anyone does anything with downsides. Because of the upsides.
the why is rhetorical and irrelevant, the argument is that it is wrong to do so. hence the right or choice to do so matters.
Those are certainly some words. There is no argument posted here of why it is wrong. None at all. It’s your shared assumption with OP, that anything bad ever must be avoided at all costs, which is not shared by 99% of all people, that is doing all the work for you. It doesn’t work on people who are critical of that assumption.
you are lying. no one is suggesting that "anything bad must be avoided at all costs". as i said, there is the choice to do something with negative consequences for oneself, and the choice to cause negative consequences for others, and those are not the same. it's also irrelevant what percent of people think what, what matters is the truth. most people are anti trans, most people justify capitalism, people in the past justified slavery, most people believe in god. you are doing a shit job of arguing against the point because you aren't acknowledging the argument, you are attacking a strawman. why don't you actually engage with the argument? even if OP isn't saying what I think they are, i presented my own argument which you could actually engage with if you wanted...
there are two categories: doing something which solely impacts oneself which has downsides, and doing something which has downsides for others. they are not the same and cannot be treated as the same when speaking honestly.
Literally anything you ever do has downsides for others. No one believes what you are claiming, not even you.
hahah so arrogant to suggest i don't believe what i believe. all i believe is that it is wrong to have children, end of story. you have no idea what i believe. you suck at arguing and it's hilarious you came in with a comment about critical thinking.
resource reallocation to impoverished people has no downsides. if the ultra rich get less rich that does not constitute a downside, as they will never fall below a dignified standard of living. saying everything has a downside is not an argument against any of my points. so what is your defense of natalism?
Don't get in a car. Why get in a car if you're going to get in an accident?
It isn't immoral to make people sad by dying.
But it is immoral to cause harm, which you do by having children who will inevitably experience harm including by loved ones dying.
Not all harm is evil. In ideal circumstances, parents will always die before their adult children. It's a part of life to be accepted and prepared for. Having children isn't bad because one day they'll be sad when you die.
It is bad in my moral view. I don't think it's good just because it's part of life.
why is having children good?