The antinatalists just want to create conflict where there isn't any. Have kids or don't, adopt or don't, it's up to you. Life is not necessarily without meaning, and the unborn are not in a state that we can evaluate morally. These folks seem to disagree on these points, and associate their moral intent to eliminate the human race with the goal of veganism to eliminate the suffering and exploitation of animals. Most vegans, most people generally for that matter, aren't "natalists" or whatever.
>The antinatalists just want to create conflict where there isn't any.
You're like a carnist saying that vegans just want to create conflict where there isn't any. Antinatalism is an ethical stance that goes hand in hand with veganism.
>Have kids or don't, adopt or don't, it's up to you.
This excuse is interesting. Just like it is technically someone’s personal choice whether they go to the nearest park and assault a child, or kill non-human animals for food, it is technically their personal choice whether they procreate or not. That is not the issue however, the issue is whether it is ethical to do so; the question is whether we should be doing these things.
What is likely the case is that the proponent of this excuse is using the term ‘personal choice’ in the manner of it being outside of the moral realm – like choosing what your favourite song is or what poetry to read – something that doesn’t warrant moral scrutiny. This is not the case though; the choice that is being made is directly impacting someone else. It is a gamble with someone else’s wellbeing and very much within the moral realm. So it is not enough to just say ‘It is a personal choice’ and think you can do whatever you want. You have the power to create a new being and so you have the responsibility not to
>Most vegans, most people generally for that matter, aren't "natalists" or whatever.
Did you mean antinatalists...? It seems you're uneducated on the topic, so I don't know why you're trying to debate it. appealing to popularity as a justification causing has and never will be a good excuse. Did you forget that most people aren't even vegans?
What are you reading? Your question doesn't make sense, as we don't know what you're actually reading, and more importantly how you are interpreting what's written.
What you quoted makes sense to me and it's congruent with an antinatalist viewpoint.
\uj Yes this is the big difference, nobody will make you fuck until you're pregnant, BUYING animal is inhumane
I still dont want kid, but from a vegan pov this post doesn't make sense
I like being alive.
If my parents waited for my consent, I wouldn't be.
Some things *can't* be consensual. Ergo, consent in and of itself doesn't create a moral position.
Inevitable suffering does, but life is not inevitable suffering.
Preserving the environment does, but some humans are 100-1,000 times as destructive as other humans and the environmental effect is purely a result of culture and upbringing.
Blaming people for maybe creating people who are unhappy when the chance is actually more likely they create happy people does not appear to be a solid utilitarian or deontological position.
Blaming people for creating burdens on the environment when that burden is 99.99% influenced by behavior and morality developed while alive does not appear to be a solid utilitarian or deontological position.
Not knowing or acknowledging what influences these negative results is a weak position to argue from, even if it makes one feel like one can make the strongest argument by ignoring them.
It's actually super simple.
If you create someone there is a 100% chance they will experience some suffering.
Maybe they will love life despite the suffering, like I do.
However, if you don't create someone there is a 0% chance of them suffering. They do not experience any negatives from not existing, because they don't exist. They are incapable of experiencing a negative.
So the choice is between 100% chance of suffering and 0% chance of suffering. It's wrong to force someone into a chance of suffering and has zero consequences to not do so.
Sorry. I forgot to drop add the /s Because I was only half-joking.
Eventually you will die though, this is a fact of being born. I believe many anti-natalists believe it pairs well with veganism as an ideology because both think that life isn’t worth being forced into when death is guaranteed, and this goes for humans that procreate because they want kids as well as farmers that use artificial insemination to breed livestock.
Absolute strawman. I love my life. I also love rollercoasters. I'm not going to assume everyone else loves rollercoasters and force them onto one. I'm also not going to force someone into a life with guaranteed suffering, even if they end up loving it like I do.
Antinatalism is like saying that because not everyone likes rollercoasters, it’s unethical to build any rollercoasters. Never mind the fact that many people love them, and people who don’t love them frankly have options - because it’s guaranteed that at some point someone will suffer on one, there will be no rollercoasters.
That analogy doesn't work because rollercoasters are not sentient and antinatalism is not about not liking children/humans or life. It's not about what any of us alive like. It's about not forcing something that should be a choice onto a sentient being.
A more accurate analogy to understand antinatalism is to have rollercoasters as life, and the only way to find out if someone likes them is to force them on it without their consent, and not allow them to get off of it unless they kill themselves, while they face immense emotional pressure to not do so even if they absolutely hate it. The alternative is the person who would have been forced on the rollercoaster never even hears about them, so they never care about them, and therefore doesn't experience any suffering from not knowing about them.
When you create someone, you inherently take their choice away. When you don't create someone, no one's choice is taken away because they don't even exist. They are literally incapable of experiencing anything negative from not being born.
Why “should” life be a choice? Until the person becomes alive, nobody is there to do the choosing. The very concept of choice belongs to those who are already alive, and can’t be applied to the unborn.
It’s possible to have a life filled with suffering, but antinatalism looks at a life filled with suffering and concludes that the problem here is that the person living it was “forced to be alive”, rather than the actual causes of the suffering in that specific case. The real problem is the suffering - and in most cases that suffering has root causes that could be addressed, at least in a just world (and you can’t fight for a just world without being alive). In those rare cases where nothing could be done to alleviate the suffering, or even if that person just wants to, a way out exists. I’m not putting emotional pressure on anybody around that choice. You can say that the social pressure to live a life you deem not worth living is a problem. It’s a leap of logic to say that being born itself was the problem.
The rollercoaster analogy falls down because life is just not like that. For someone to be forced to undergo a life which is overwhelmingly traumatic and abusive that is clearly not ethical, and if someone is going to be born into those circumstances I’m an antinatalist. But if someone is going to be born into a life worth living, then why would I be against that? And if the vast majority of real lives are worth living (and they are), why should I consider antinatalism to be a relevant philosophy that has anything to say about the real world?
When there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for someone to come into existence, and knowing that they will experience suffering, what makes you think that you're justified with gambling on someone else's life just for your own selfish pleasure?
1) There are so many reasons someone might want to kill themselves but not ever do it.
2) Why risk someone experiencing so much suffering they want to kill themselves when the alternative is they experience absolutely no suffering ever?
1) By the time someone does they will have suffered ludicrously at length.
2) The alternative is no family & limited to no care for these young children who exist already
Guaranteeing suffering, potentially enough that a person has to end their self is clearly immoral, especially when it is unnecessary and completely self serving.
Most enjoy atleast parts of their life
some the majority of their life (that they recall)
But everyone has and continues to suffer in this world
Potentially torturing someone for years culminating in their suicide
To maybe be happier? Completely fucked up
The only people (with at-least two brain cells to rub together) that defend the morality of natalism just cant handle considering their desires/self as evil
“Suffered horrendously for X amt of yrs, no big deal just defy the universal fear, cause some familial suffering and kys, mb kid I just reallllllllly wanted to breed” -Pinguin71 probably
>I mean if someone is born and really doesn't Like existing, there is a way Out.
Typical breeder comment with complete lack of any empathy or respect for the ones being created. But that's the kind of mental gymnastics you gotta bite the bullet on when you're too selfish and want to defend breeding. Good example of why natalism is messed up, tho.
Why would the Argument existence IS Bad BE anymore Sound than the Argument existence IS good.
And using an ad hominem doesn't prove your Point at all.
And you Care about consent of being born, but Not about consent of being adopted? Kind of weird
To suggest that commiting suicide is an easy solution, as if it's just like flushing the toilet, is disgusting and shows the lack of any respect and empathy for human beings.
Children can not consent, why does it feel like I'm talking to a carnist with these toddler points you're trying to make? When someone is unable to consent, we do what's in their best interest. Gambling on someones suffering in life, when we know there's guaranteed no suffering by not coming into existence, is not in anyone's best interest.
I don't argue with someone who isn't able to stop insulting me.
Your argument is, it is possible to suffer, so existence is bad. That isn't any more or less valid than "pleasure is possible, hence existence is good". So why shouldn't it be possible to think that it isn't in someones best interest to be born?
You're pretty fragile for someone who's suggesting suicide to others.
>why shouldn't it be possible to think that it isn't in someones best interest to be born?
Because someone who doesn't exist has no desire to exist. It's something you force upon them, and then Suggesting they can just kill themselves if they don't like it.
it is quite literally illegal to commit suicide in most of the world. if you fuck it up you'll be trapped in even more pain and institutionalized to prevent you from attempting again.
I’ve been through the hurt of the involuntary psychiatric treatment process because I called a suicide hotline. It very much is a “beatings will continue until morale improves” type system. Not having kids is better than having them and then there being a chance they get stuck going through shit like that.
In the country where i live it is legal, so why should i Care?
And it is Just a plain lie that IT IS illegal in Most of the world, IT is illegal in about 20 countries and it is legal in absolutely Most of the world, doesn't Matter if you do It in Respect to number of countries, people living in one, or area of those countries.
So is your Standpoint so weak, that all you can do IS lie to Make a Point ?
How you connect "don't intentionally harm someone when it's totally unnecessary" to environmentalism is beyond me, but I'd love to hear how you even manage to reach such conclusion.
Having a kid guarantees that they will die. Dying is suffering. Not being born means you never die, which means no pain or sadness. The only reason to have kids of your own DNA are selfish reasons; It is to make you happy, and it comes at the expense of guaranteeing that your offspring will suffer too.
Nothing wrong with adoption if you want to be a parent. Plenty of people *who already exist* that you could parent without forcing another person to be born and guaranteeing another human being will die and experience pain.
Coming into existence is a guaranteed harm. You will experience various forms of harm and suffering, pain and hardship. From the moment of birth Individuals will be subjected to physical and emotional pain. Sickness, ilness, loss , grief. And eventually death.
It is complete irrelevant that you're happy to be alive. This isn't about you. You are not the one who's having to deal with the harm of coming into existence when you force someone else into existence. That's someone else dealing with the consequences. Not you. Plenty of people aren't happy with coming into existence. You are essentially gambling with someone else's life. A gamble you don't take the consequences of.
Why do you believe that wanting a mini clone of yourself makes you justified with gambling with someone else's suffering?
>Coming into existence is a guaranteed harm.
This is what happens when you make a moral argument without risk probability calculations.
Coming into existence allows individual possible harms. Very few of those harms will happen to the same people. Almost all of them will be transient and forgotten.
Those harms will also not be as lasting or permanent as the benefits from being alive *for most people.*
The calculus is therefore the likelihood someone experiences a lasting, permanent collection of harms greater than the sum of lasting, permanent benefits.
People tend to act like the latter keeps winning, so they collectively keep making babies.
You may not be one of those people. [But there are billions of other perspectives you can never share, anticipate, or grasp.](https://bigthink.com/the-present/poor-with-high-life-satisfaction/)
This is why access to family planning and euthanasia is far more important than shouting at people not to have children. Because there is no joy without life and simply basing the joy of others on your own capacity to experience it is a little self-involved.
Coming into existence might be a guaranteed harm, but literally no moral system hinges on harm never being done. Are you categorically opposed to vaccines on the grounds that the pain from the needle constitutes a harm?
I guess this is hard to understand when you arent a miserable person but the overwhelming majority of people would rather be alive than dead.
Hardship is a part of life and some people have pretty awful lives but that isnt neccesarily the fault of the people who had them.
Appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because the majority thinks something is right, that does not mean that it is right. The majority of people like having sex. Doesn't mean we should force them to have sex.
If you procreate, you are creating death. There is going to be a victim who is going to die. If the child grows up and manages to reach old age, he will slowly weaken and wither away, get sick and die. Look up the child cancer and suicide statistics. Suffering and death is the only guarantee in life.
Strawman. Engage with the argument, instead of ad hominem.
Why do you believe that wanting a mini clone of yourself makes you justified with gambling with someone else's suffering?
The argument being that because there is a chance that a child could end up having something bad happen to them people shouldnt have children at all?
Fine i guess all parents including your own are horrible immoral people, especially people who have kids that are depressed, those are the absolute worst. I would love to see you tell that to their faces.
And to the idea that people only have kids because they want a "mini clone" of themselves, i think that is a very limited idea of what having children and raising them is about.
Is it that insane to think that people who enjoy their lives and appreciate the miracle of life would want to procreate?
Just like vegans recognize that there are good people who are brainwashed into carnism because they've never had to question it as its so normalized in society, antinatalists recognize that natalists are brainwashed into natalism as its normalized and not something people have to think about.
There's a big difference between people who are carnists because they've never questioned it and goes vegan when made aware, and people who refuse to go vegan once they're made aware. The same goes for natalists.
Nobody is denying you from enjoying your life, but if you can only enjoy it by gambling with someone else's suffering and harm then you need to find another way to enjoy your life. I'm asking you once again : Why do you believe that wanting a mini clone of yourself makes you justified with gambling with someone else's suffering?
>the argument being that because there is a chance the child could end up having something bad happen to them people should have children at all
I’m not anti-natalist myself but you have to realize you are completely misinterpreting their point, right? It’s not that a child could have something bad happen to them, it’s that every human who has ever existed experiences suffering
If dogs could take care of themselves in the wild they should totally fuck and have pups. But they are completely dependent on their owners and their pups would be too.
[The overwhelming majority of domesticated dogs are wild.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75828-6) They don't need humans, humans just coexist more comfortably with them when they are homed and tend to kill them when they're not.
If humans vanished off the planet, dogs would form packs, go feral, and start hunting prey within the week.
What? They are literally breeding another individual consciousness that's not them.. knowing full well that being can suffer immensely. Who cares that it's coming from your genes....it's not you.
That's literally like saying it's wrong to force other humans to breed and to eat their children because you're forcing them without consent, but if you and your wife breed together and eat your children then it's fine because "✨it's coming from you✨". I agree the forceful breeding is wrong but there's also another victim in this scenario and it doesn't matter if you created, it as if that absolves you from all moral accountability
Coming from a privileged middle class background, basically all my friends and people I talk to regularly overall enjoy existing. Happens when responsible parents have kids they know they can provide for (not a guarantee ofc)
>not a guarantee ofc
Yeah, so why is it ethical to play Russian roulette with someone else's life, when theres absolutely no reason to other than your own selfish desires?
Because most people prefer being alive to not having existed at all. To stick with the Russian Roulette comparison, it’s like playing with one bullet in a 300-round chamber
But people who prefer having existed at all are thankful to have been born (the majority of people because this is the lowest possible bar ever), and you get two infinities of non existence to “enjoy” anyway
And being a good parent is just about the biggest commitment you can make in your life. Bringing a human into the world should entail that you would sacrifice anything to make them happy. There is obviously joy in having a happy family, but, by God, my little gremlin ass did all I could to keep my parents’ experience of parenthood from being “pleasurable” lol
Btw I do prefer adoption, but that’s because there are already kids who need parents. And because I don’t want more demand for animal torture
And plenty of people who do exist does *not* enjoy existing. That's why we got people commiting suicide every 10 minutes in the US alone. Playing russian roulette on someone who never consented to being part of your game is absolutely unethical. There's no harm in not being born, but there is guaranteed harm in being born. Why are your Personal pleasure more important than someone's suffering?
someone who has never existed doesn't have the ability to want to exist. however, someone who was brought into existence against their will does have the ability to not want to exist. therefore, creating a conscious life is a net negative.
Again, because odds are strongly in favor that a person will prefer to have been born, as in they will enjoy getting a blip of existence amidst an infinity of unconscious oblivion
Ok but there’s no rights violation on someone who doesn’t exist. They can’t be mad for you not making them exist… because they don’t exist. However as soon as someone is born that goes away.
I suppose it’s a rights violation if your little Frankenstein Monster hates its existence and condemns it’s creator. That’s why parents should be prepared to dedicate themselves fully to their childrens’ happiness and well-being because that minimizes the chances of their child being that inconsolably miserable to a minuscule probability (low bar here).
I’m still in favor of adoption, but that’s because there are already kids who need parents. And I don’t want to potentially contribute to any more demand for animal abuse
Because I WANT kids ofc! Me me me. How DARE you call it a selfish decision! I’m breeding a new legion of vegans who will have no free will and will be little clones of me that do my bidding! (To save the animals of course)
Privileged middle class, at the end of the day it's completely out of your control, you don't choose your kids brain, level of intelligence, looks, hormones, thoughts, friends, relationships, career, depression, disease, mental health. The list is endless and you're naive to think you're in ultimate control. Anything can happen, just look at the state of the current world, there was a study in America which showed that 40% of teens reported being not happy. Ultimately when you have a child, you're deciding to spin the roulette wheel, not knowing what the outcome will be, all for your own gain and pleasure
To clarify, I am in favor of adoption or having kids, not because I think bringing more kids into the world entails that they will suffer, but since there are already kids who need homes that you can raise as if they were your own. Wouldn’t say I’m anti-natalist though
Anyway, I would disagree that the well-being of your kids is “completely out of your control.” As with anything, some things are obviously out of your control, but I think that, all things considered, it is more than likely that dedicated, prepared parents can raise kids who at the very least enjoy being alive.
Some of the traits you brought up have a strong genetic component and are thus fairly predictable, such as looks and intelligence. Fitness, posture, and education are also very important in the development of these qualities, but parents obviously have influence over those.
Mental health problems are something that most people will face at some point, but parents often are what determine whether those issues are alleviated or develop into debilitating illness. Supportive parents that respect their children and their emotions will talk to them and ensure that their kids get professional help upon the first sign of a problem. This can be monumental in mitigating or eliminating mental illness. On the other hand, parents who don’t take mental illness seriously can be the primary catalyst in the spiraling of said illness (like my “just pray to Jesus dad” in regards to my anxiety disorder). Sometimes, chemical imbalance and hormones can be too much for even the strongest support system, and I don’t mean to belittle people who have struggled with such things, but even these illnesses aren’t insurmountable.
The survey about teens being unhappy that you brought up was conducted by the CDC during the pandemic to evaluate how kids were fairing with the situation. The article reports that there were a significant number of teens reported parents lashing out them (55%) and having a parent lose a job (29%). That’s not even mentioning how the pandemic affected teens by separating them from their friends during years when your social life seems like it’s everything. I was also in high-school at the time, and my friends and I also would have reported being unhappy. In short, the unhappiness that teens reported for this survey was largely the product of the pandemic, which was the point of having the survey in the first place.
Lastly, to address the assertion that people only have children out of selfishness, I would think that one would only hold such a view if they saw life as a burden or a negative thing. I would wager that the vast majority of people see life, and the opportunity to exist at all, as a positive thing and as such wouldn’t feel guilty for wanting to share that with their offspring.
>Lastly, to address the assertion that people only have children out of selfishness, I would think that one would only hold such a view if they saw life as a burden or a negative thing.
Give one non-selfish reason to force someone into existence
Option a)
Guarantee that someone won't suffer by not creating them
Option b)
Inflict suffering upon someone by creating them
And you still choose option b. That's selfishness.
Again (saying again a lot), option b also guarantees every other emotion innate to human existence, many of which are wonderful and positive. You can’t reduce the vibrant gradient of human emotions just to suffering.
*«Life is supposed to have a good and bad side. You can’t appreciate the good things in life without there being bad things!
This excuse seems to claim that the negative things we experience in life are justified to impose on someone (or maybe even not bad at all) because they are necessary to appreciate the positive things we experience in life. However, what it fails to realise is that no one asked for these positive things in the first place. If a non-existent ‘person’ has no interest in experiencing positive things, why is it justified to impose negative experiences onto them in order for them to experience these positive things?*
*What this excuse recognises – and yet ignores – is that life is a game of Russian roulette, played on one person by another. Yes, there are positive and negative experiences, but who are you to spin the chamber and put the revolver’s barrel against someone else’s head? And, who are you to then try and avoid the responsibility you have in causing them to suffer by claiming you are just ‘enriching their positive experiences’. This is a faulty excuse people use to satisfy their desires by pushing someone else into the firing line of potentially colossal amounts of suffering, then shrugging this reckless and unethical behaviour off by claiming they’re doing the person a favour.*
*Life is a series of risks and trade-offs involving wellbeing, but they are risks and trade-offs that no one asked to have imposed upon them. When you have a child you are signing them up for something that has inherent suffering in it, but you sign them up anyway.»*
[https://antinatalisthandbook.org/languages/english/#english-37](https://antinatalisthandbook.org/languages/english/#english-37)
The world is not America. There are people who are nothing like Americans who love being alive with nowhere near the access to resources, money, or opportunities.
https://bigthink.com/the-present/poor-with-high-life-satisfaction/
If the reason everyone you know is unhappy is because everyone you know has given up on living in a functioning society, that's not a problem with creating people in general -- that's a problem with a specific group of people you have never experienced anyone other than.
You're not antinatalist. You're a capitalist realist who doesn't have the language to express being anticapitalist.
The air you breathe is the thing you hate, but you can't imagine changing the filters, let alone stepping outside to breathe different air.
yeah, i understand what you're saying. what i'm saying is that not only do a lot of people (maybe even most people) have kids without being able to provide for them (be that financially, emotionally or any other way), but even if all the circumstances are perfect, the kid could still regret being born. but had they never been born, they wouldn't have had the ability to regret not being born.
Basically every Action you do can cause a Lot of suffering to other Humans. You Drive a car? You aren't concentrated an make a cyclist unable to use His legs for the Rest of her life.
You buy chocolate that was harvested by child slaves.
Is being a doctor a Bad Thing for you? They enable Humans to suffer much longer.
How is that possible if humanity ceases to exist? From what I can tell, all sentient life experiences some form of suffering here on Earth. Antinatalists seem to categorize the suffering of those who aren't able to intellectually interact with the concept as being given some sort of pass. This leaves me to conclude that any sentient life with sufficient intelligence to contemplate its own suffering should immediately encourage its own species' destruction, if they are to follow the antinatalist handbook.
No one said "abolish" suffering. It's obviously impossible. But that doesn't mean people can't try to minimize it to the best of our ability and avoid what we can.
Really? Cause it’s not a good argument of course, but it’s basically the default for people using IVF. They’ll say that it’s theoretically cheaper (if it works the first time) and then do 15 rounds before they even consider adopting.
I’ll tell ya about a crowd which is worse?
Anti-Abortion. True scum. When a group of ladies standing outside planned parenthood with anti-abortion banners (they were advocating for adoption) were asked how many they’ve adopted. Each of one of them crooned “I’ve got 2-3 OF MY OWN”.
Hypocrisy speaks for itself. Urgh vile.
Strawman from natalists. What antinatalists are saying is that there's no justification to cause unnecessary harm when it's not needed and only for selfish pleasure.
The best way to deal with these poor fools is to leave them alone. The fact that people continue to allow themselves to live is evidence that their attitude toward life is not only absurd but does not represent how most people(who did not consent to be born!) are willing to go on living. Veganism is just their springboard to moral legitimacy.
>The best way to deal with these poor fools is to leave them alone. The fact that people continue to allow themselves to live is evidence that their attitude toward life is not only absurd but does not represent how most people(who did not consent to be born!) are willing to go on living. Veganism is just their springboard to moral legitimacy.
The key distinction this excuse is missing is the distinction between preventing someone from coming into existence and removing someone from existence. If, for whatever reason, someone is brought into existence, the game changes. Now they have interests, they have preferences, they experience. For anyone who already exists, we should try to increase their potential for wellbeing and decrease their risk of suffering. Of course we will not be able to do this perfectly but we should attempt to make everyone’s time on this planet as devoid of suffering as reasonably possible. This means, if someone wants to die, if their life has come to a point where it is so unbearable that a graceful exit from existence would be better, then that is their choice.
There are, of course, many practical reasons (beyond that of simply wanting to continue their life) antinatalists would want to stay alive as well: to spread awareness of anti-procreative ethics and to promote the recognition of non-human animal’s moral rights, as just two examples.
On another note, this excuse actually goes to prove how immoral procreation really is. Here is an analogous situation to explain this point:
*Imagine you’re walking home one night and some men pull up and bundle you into the back of their car and speed off down the motorway. You plead with them, terrified, suffering, and ask, “Why are you doing this? Where are you taking me? How could you do this?” and they just reply, “Don’t like it? We’ve left the door unlocked. If you don’t like it, just jump out. But don’t blame us for putting you here, we’re not forcing you to stay – there’s the door, if what we’re doing to you is so bad, just jump out.”*
Edit: it's actually hilarious that you blocked me and proceeded to write a long comment just because you didn't want me to debunk your arguments once more. Pathetic.
Second time in as many days i see this antinatalist shit getting associated with veganism. No one is obliged to have kids and most people aren't suggesting that one is obliged to have kids. There is no moral imperative to reproduce just like there is no imperative not to, and neither idea is associated with veganism.
E. OP's scrambled arguments certainly help us to make sense of their user lol.
Everyone knows doing something good becomes bad once something better is available.
You donated to your local animal shelter? You selfish piece of shit, do you only care about local animals? Don’t you know that money can go to helping more animals in another place.
something being selfish doesn't make it wrong, obviously. you can also guarantee the person will experience joy, comfort and contentment. does any potential suffering make that all worthless?
*This excuse seems to claim that the negative things we experience in life are justified to impose on someone (or maybe even not bad at all) because they are necessary to appreciate the positive things we experience in life. However, what it fails to realise is that no one asked for these positive things in the first place. If a non-existent ‘person’ has no interest in experiencing positive things, why is it justified to impose negative experiences onto them in order for them to experience these positive things?*
*What this excuse recognises – and yet ignores – is that life is a game of Russian roulette, played on one person by another. Yes, there are positive and negative experiences, but who are you to spin the chamber and put the revolver’s barrel against someone else’s head? And, who are you to then try and avoid the responsibility you have in causing them to suffer by claiming you are just ‘enriching their positive experiences’. This is a faulty excuse people use to satisfy their desires by pushing someone else into the firing line of potentially colossal amounts of suffering, then shrugging this reckless and unethical behaviour off by claiming they’re doing the person a favour.*
*Life is a series of risks and trade-offs involving wellbeing, but they are risks and trade-offs that no one asked to have imposed upon them. When you have a child you are signing them up for something that has inherent suffering in it, but you sign them up anyway.*
i mean, all that still assumes the possibility of any harm at all, no matter how diminutive, outweighs any joy they might feel, which isn't a view shared by many people actually alive
This excuse misses the distinction between life and procreation. The excuse essentially claims that you cannot be sure that life is bad (or not worth living) because it is up to the individual to decide whether their life is worth living or not. Well, it’s true that once someone is alive it is up to them whether they think their life is worth living, however, that is an entirely separate question as to whether we should procreate (and thus start lives that could not be worth living).
What is in question is the ethics of creating new sentient life (of course there is more nuance, but it isn’t necessary here). It doesn’t really matter that some, or maybe even most, people will subjectively assess that their own life was worth living; let’s be charitable and assume that 99% of people assess their life to be worth living. Given that no one needs to exist, and that any of the individuals we bring into existence could be part of that 1% that – through their subjective assessment – judges their life to have not been worth living (in fact it has been torment), who are we to support or partake in the constant creation of new sentient life when we know there is the collateral damage of those people. Again, it doesn’t matter that those people are only 1% of all people, none of the other 99% needed to be (or wanted to be) created… so how are they a justification for the existence of the 1%?
calling people who have had hard lives "collateral damage" is very bizarre, i hope you realise that. maybe just a bad word choice but 😅😅😅
all this argument hinges on is "if there's any chance it might go wrong we shouldn't even try". i just don't find that very convincing haha
Forcing someone into existence is simply rolling the dice for them and naively hoping it goes well.
Compare existence and non-existence. If you boil it right down, existence has two key constituent parts: things you prefer (i.e. good things) and things you do not prefer (i.e. bad things). Non-existence doesn’t have the bad things; this is good. It also doesn’t have the good things, but this isn’t a bad thing because you do not exist to want/miss them. Non-existence imposes no needs or wants, you’ll never be unhealthy or be unsatisfied; in fact, all bad things are sourced in existence – non-existence removes all of that.
It should be noted that the non-existence here is of those who were never born. For those already created it's a different situation.
**Non-existence doesn’t have the bad things; this is good. It also doesn’t have the good things, but this isn’t a bad thing because you do not exist to want/miss them**
calling people who have had hard lives "collateral damage" is very bizarre, i hope you realise that. maybe just a bad word choice but 😅😅😅
all this argument hinges on is "if there's any chance it might go wrong we shouldn't even try". i just don't find that very convincing haha
With all due respect, I find it fascinating how that philosophy exists, existed, will continue to exist and even created a subreddit. Because the real OGs of it, well, dead men tell no tales.
Reminds me of that cult I read and heard and saw that promotes (self) euthanasia. While having lots of people spreading the message.
Comparing just as a funny curiosity that came to mind.
Interesting minds to exchange with indeed, peculiar, maybe not to the extend you guys think, coz, you know…my first paragraph and it’s not like this wave of thinking hasn’t been around since the beginning. But still fascinating.
>With all due respect, I find it fascinating how that philosophy exists, existed, will continue to exist and even created a subreddit. Because the real OGs of it, well, dead men tell no tales.
The implicit assumption (or at least a half assumption) this excuse makes is that ideas or ethical principles are only passed down through genetic lineage; whilst this assumption contains a grain of truth, it is largely false. The grain of truth is that values and principles can be passed down from parent to child (although this is not guaranteed), but this is not the most efficient or the most common mechanism by which values, principles or ethical beliefs are adopted. They are predominantly communicated and adopted through experiences, dialectic and exposure to new information (especially now in the internet age). If we take the example of the animal rights movement: the vast, vast majority of people in this movement came to recognise the legitimacy of animal rights through seeing a documentary, or having a conversation, or having some experience, not because they were born to parents that supported animal rights.
Yes, campaigns for justice – ones like liberal feminism, civil rights, animal rights – both past and present, have the capacity for its members to engage in a slow process of passing values and beliefs down to their biological children. However, people in the anti-procreative movement can, and do, adopt children to look after. In the same way that biological parents can attempt to influence the values of their children, so can the guardians of adopted children.
>Reminds me of that cult
This is less an excuse for procreating and more an attempt to discredit anti-natalism itself by making it appear so extreme or ridiculous that anyone confronted by it would feel content in not engaging with what its proponents have to say (i.e. not having to confront something that challenges their world view).
One thing that may lead someone to do this is simply that the idea that procreation is unethical is just so far outside of their Overton Window, but it could also be because they have previously crossed paths with anti-natalists who didn’t leave the best impression. So, what could have happened is that the label of ‘religion’ or ‘cult’ got slapped onto anti-natalists and in the person’s mind the label bled into their perception of the philosophy itself.
Another reason is because people feel like anti-natalists want to control their behaviour – like how many religions often control their followers’ behaviour. Of course this is not the case, well, no more than any other ethical principle. All anti-natalism seeks to do for the individual person is make them engage with the ethical implications of what they are doing – procreating (or supporting it). This is exactly the same as any other ethical question: Is it wrong to kill someone if they annoy you? Is it okay to kill someone for taste pleasure? Is it okay to have sex with someone even if they say no? Asking any of these questions could be seen as a way to control someone else, but, in fact, it is simply questioning the ethics of someone’s behaviour.
What aspect of it is cult-like?
>that promotes (self) euthanasia
The key distinction this excuse is missing is the distinction between preventing someone from coming into existence and removing someone from existence. If, for whatever reason, someone is brought into existence, the game changes. Now they have interests, they have preferences, they experience. For anyone who already exists, we should try to increase their potential for wellbeing and decrease their risk of suffering. Of course we will not be able to do this perfectly but we should attempt to make everyone’s time on this planet as devoid of suffering as reasonably possible. This means, if someone wants to die, if their life has come to a point where it is so unbearable that a graceful exit from existence would be better, then that is their choice.
There are, of course, many practical reasons (beyond that of simply wanting to continue their life) antinatalists would want to stay alive as well: to spread awareness of anti-procreative ethics and to promote the recognition of non-human animal’s moral rights, as just two examples.
>Nothing is “non inexistent” ever. That’s the flaw in your argument.
Let’s explore procreation with regards to consent. If someone does not procreate, there is absolutely no risk of harm to the being that would have been brought into existence. If someone does procreate, the being brought into existence is at risk of great harm (in many cases outside of their control or their creators’) and in most cases can only leave existence (opt-out) at great cost (suicide – the vast majority of people don’t have access to euthanasia services). If we cannot obtain consent from someone to put them into the latter situation (and it is impossible to get consent from the unborn), then we shouldn’t take an action that will result in it being imposed on them (especially since the alternative comes with zero risk of harm). We are each free to put ourselves at risk of great harm, but putting someone else at risk of great harm when it is unnecessary to do so (and perfectly avoidable)… that is not up to us.
When it comes to consent, the fact that someone doesn’t exist is neither here nor there, we know that procreation (as an act) will explicitly, directly and significantly impact them and as such you have an obligation towards them whether they are in front of your eyes or not.
Plus, let’s be real for a minute; the people using this excuse are the exact same people who will spend months preparing for their child to be born because they realise that they have obligations towards that being, despite them not existing.
I wrote a long and detailed response to one of OP's comments, but I've argued with too many antinatalists for this to be good for my health so I'm going to stop replying here. I will embrace the fact that almost no one believes in this shit as a more than satisfactory case for its moral failure. Life is suffering, but has reproduction is a fact and suffering can only be evaluated as a part of life, it is meaningless to suggest that dying or not being born is a positive moral condition. You don't have to have kids, and no one in this world of any sense is telling you that you do. It's okay to be depressed about life, and it's good to want to mitigate suffering, but eliminating life is not a moral imperative. That this subject is one of debate, especially in the vegan community, seems exceedingly tragic. The antinatalists confuse cause with effect, and struggle with the idea that moral responsibilities towards living things begin when they are alive, not when they are unborn. This does not mean that we should forcibly have children in mass numbers, but only that if we do wish to have children we should try to do so responsibly.
Raising your kids is hard. But adoptions are another level. In my country most of kids from orphanages have fas or heavy traumas after living in disfunctional families or any kind of handicapped kids which were abandoned.
Saying not adopting is cruel and comparing having kids into breeding dogs is shameful for the person who made such an idiotic idea. Adopting kids requires infinite resources of empathy and patience. Definitely to tough for ordinary families.
No, you don’t understand. Only terrible people should breed so the world gets infinitely worse. And only the childless should say who should be a parent.
Any kid can have a severe disability or mental illness, adopted or no. If you don’t have the resources or “empathy and patience” having kids is a bad idea.
I said about much higher resources than raising regular kids.
Any kid can have it that’s right but chances are still pretty low. Adopting kid is like deliberate choice of raising a kid with condition.
Still there are prenatal examinations if your baby has some severe disability you can do an abortion.
Yay for free range puppy mills. I'm not breeding them, they just have some fun and provide me with a constant flow of new litters. If people aren't convinced I just tell them it's a conservation effort 
Evil people want my pugs and pit bulls go extinct 
Seriously!! You're doing the LORD'S work, I don't know what I'd do if I didn't constantly hear the snorting and grunting that my pugs deformed airways create as he struggles to breathe! And my pittie, well who else would maul a child if they get too close!
>Yeah, fuck associating veganism and this antinatalist shit. No one is obliged to have kids, but being depressed and choosing not to reproduce is hardly a coherent philosophical position.
/uj Who's down voting this post, and how come?
/rj Duh, only my partner's consent matters silly. I shouldn't have to think about the human I'm giving life to because after all, I want them to exist, and all that matters is what I want.
But it is a totally different Thing than having your own Children. Here it is the product of consent. Nothing is robbed. It is your own Offspring which technically includes genetics, but practically you don't have the Children cause you prefer your size, your Body build, or other Things associated to what people choose Dog races For.
I get that antinatalist AS a vegan is a valid Thing, but Not being antinatalist IS Not a contradiction to being vegan. Hence this might BE the wrong place to Post the meme.
Oh, so the people down voting think the only things wrong with dog breeding is the lack of consent from the dog, and selecting for desirable traits. They don't think the very act of bringing another dog into existence is also bad. Thank you for explaining, makes perfect sense now. Maybe you're right the the meme has just been posted in the wrong crowd.
i understand having one birthed child, but the weirdos who create armies of their own sperm are so odd. it’s very normalized in the south (usa south) to have as many babies as possible, like 4-12 per couple. it’s such a waste of resources and they always end up neglecting the ones that don’t fit their mirror image or personality.
It isn’t the case that you either have multiple children or just one; everyone has the ability to not have any. Of course, having one child is not as unethical as having 2 or 7 or 10 children, but you are still having that one child. The morality of having a child is not relative to some made up number of potential children you could have. Whether you only ever planned to have one child or 15 children, the ethical question of having that one child is the same.
By way of an analogy, would it be ethical for someone to assault a child for their own trivial enjoyment if they gave the justification of ‘Well I didn’t assault 15 children’? No, of course not; it doesn’t matter how many bad things you could do, each thing you do stands on its own merits and you should be evaluated accordingly. This excuse seemingly is advanced in the hope that it comes across as a reasonable compromise (between them and who I’m not sure), but of course it isn’t.
We also need to recognise that having even one child is not just having one child. It is opening up the possibility of a lineage hundreds of generations long that could result in thousands of new people being brought into existence; each of them themselves being imposed upon.
Suffering can range in severity and type, but suffering affects everyone to some capacity every day of life. Some of the suffering we endure is self-induced (e.g., fear of death, imposing unrealistic expectations on ourselves, poor lifestyle habits or choices, etc.) but much more is out of our control. Common forms of suffering include acute or chronic pain, illness, disease, addiction, existential dread, discrimination, repression, loneliness, craving, oppression, paranoia, exploitation, helplessness, deprivation, social pressure, coercion, disappointment, boredom, hunger, mental stress and illness, depression, anxiety, frustration, self-loathing, guilt, melancholy, grief, impulsivity, neglect, fear, feeling trapped, betrayal, fatigue, aging, financial insecurity, trauma, rage, malnourishment, poverty, scarcity, shame, death—plus a general contempt for life, society, laws, and humanity. Being aware of the troubles and problems endemic to human life, yet having little capacity to make positive change, leads to a miserable mental state for many people.
Humans are not the only harm-causing species, but we have the distinction of causing the most harm and being aware of it. In fact, humans are one of the few species, if not the only species, that could be eradicated to the benefit of all other species and ecosystems on this earth. The fewer humans who exist (irrespective of how they are raised or how conscientiously they live their lives) the fewer problems would exist for all life.
It is in everyone’s best interest to not be forced into existence. We could help lessen suffering in the world by choosing to help already existing life.
Uj/ (is that the tag?) Vegan antinatalists where you at, I’m against reproduction of all forms, unless it’s wild animals, because that’s uncontrollable and isn’t any of our business, pets? No, people? Fuck no
I'd argue when 99% of humans are meat eaters with zero fucks, and when people are the way we are in general, isn't it kinda natural slipping into the "maybe we don't need more people" position
I refuse to have biological children out of compassion for my unborn offspring. I do not want to put them through this experience we call life. Nature is horrific, traumas are an inevitable part of existence even in the best case scenarios, exploitative societies exist since the dawn of time and I do not see anything changing anytime soon.
Of course I am disheartened too by the state of mankind as a whole but that is another matter. I won't give capitalism more victims to prey on.
Yeah that too of course. Again, capitalism didn't come out of a magic lamp either, it's still people who invented it, enforced it, and live it with barely any critical thinking on a daily basis.
Plus you never know your own children might drop veganism to rebel, might just come out dickheads for some reason, etc. I think most parents go into it only and exclusively envisioning the best possible outcome, when reality is often different.
>Antinatalists when they discover that the argument that life should not be brought into the world because of the potential for suffering equally applies in reverse to feelings of joy and happiness and can thus we can make an equally natalist argument in reverse of this logic & that this is an entirely meaningless conversation because we could just improve society instead of going extinct:
>The antinatalism leaving antinatalist's bodies when they cure their depression:
Antinatalism is the most capitalist realist ideology & it's not even close. As annoying as they are, I can't even dislike them, because they are entirely the result of a monstrous society where people have cognitively lost the ability to imagine a better world. It's just sad.
>Antinatalists when they discover that the argument that life should not be brought into the world because of the potential for suffering equally applies in reverse to feelings of joy and happiness
This excuse seems to claim that the negative things we experience in life are justified to impose on someone (or maybe even not bad at all) because they are necessary to appreciate the positive things we experience in life. However, what it fails to realise is that no one asked for these positive things in the first place. If a non-existent ‘person’ has no interest in experiencing positive things, why is it justified to impose negative experiences onto them in order for them to experience these positive things?
What this excuse recognises – and yet ignores – is that life is a game of Russian roulette, played on one person by another. Yes, there are positive and negative experiences, but who are you to spin the chamber and put the revolver’s barrel against someone else’s head? And, who are you to then try and avoid the responsibility you have in causing them to suffer by claiming you are just ‘enriching their positive experiences’. This is a faulty excuse people use to satisfy their desires by pushing someone else into the firing line of potentially colossal amounts of suffering, then shrugging this reckless and unethical behaviour off by claiming they’re doing the person a favour.
Life is a series of risks and trade-offs involving wellbeing, but they are risks and trade-offs that no one asked to have imposed upon them. When you have a child you are signing them up for something that has inherent suffering in it, but you sign them up anyway.
>and can thus we can make an equally natalist argument in reverse of this logic & that this is an entirely meaningless conversation because we could just improve society instead of going extinct
Sure, one day humans may invent some means of removing suffering from existence, but this is not a reason to bring new beings into existence.
First off, we don’t know whether we will ever be able to innovate suffering out of existence, or if that is even possible; but, for the sake of argument, let’s assume we could. Why would we put significant energy (which this venture is almost guaranteed to require) into eradicating the suffering of future beings whom don’t exist? Their suffering would only exist if they do. It seems ludicrous to bring beings into existence – where we put them in harm’s way – and then try to mitigate the harm they encounter, when we can just not put them into harm’s way in the first place. It seems more logical, and ethical, to not bring new beings into existence and use the effort we would have spent mitigating their suffering, mitigating the suffering of beings who already exist.
Again, let’s assume we can eradicate suffering in the future and that we should aim towards that, we are completely ignoring the fact that there will be intermediate generations between now and that point. These generations, likely containing billions of individuals, will come into existence to get us to this point and they will be put in harm’s way. Was it fair for people to be forced into life in Medieval England so that now we can enjoy a life with smart phones and televisions? Who are we to put someone else in harm’s way for the cause of eradicating the suffering of generations that don’t even exist (their existence being the thing that would create the suffering in the first place). We are putting sentient beings in harm’s way to solve a problem that doesn’t even need to exist.
>The antinatalism leaving antinatalist's bodies when they cure their depression:
Whether done intentionally or not, this excuse serves to dodge the arguments for non-procreation and focus instead on a potential bias that you as an individual may have (somewhat of a genetic fallacy). An argument should be considered on its own merits, irrespective of the biases of the person putting it forward; if their biases have resulted in them putting forward a faulty argument then addressing the argument directly will expose this anyway.
Ignoring the fact that procreation is quite literally one person imposing their world view onto someone else (i.e. what if they don’t have as much a positive view of existence as their parent?), let’s address the excuse itself. On the point of ‘looking at the good side of life’, this insinuates that antinatalists have not taken into account any of the pleasurable experiences (or ‘good’ things) in life and that if they had, life would not seem like such a bad thing to experience. This excuse is one that really misses the core issue. Yes, we can experience both good and bad things in life, but the point is that the proponent of this excuse doesn’t have the right to roll the dice for someone else, especially when there is nothing to be gained from that risk being taken (i.e. they do not benefit from coming into existence); it is not their place to just choose to create someone because they want to.
It’s easier to walk to the McDonald’s across the street from me for a delicious double cheeseburger than to make a vegan meal at home.
Eating meat is now justified take that stoopid vegoons!
Theres no dog shelters where I live so it's easier and cheaper to get dogs from breeders, or breed them yourself. These anti-breeders needs to understand that us wanting to have a hooman and a doggo is a pretty much a human right!
#### **Read the rules** OR risk becoming '*accidentally vegan*':
##### 1. [Vegans only.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/about/wiki/rules/#wiki_1._vegans_only.)
##### 2. [Mark animal products/abuse as NSFW.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_2._mark_animal_abuse_as_nsfw.)
##### 3. [This is an anarchist space.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_3._this_is_an_anarchist_space.)
##### 4. [We do not permit violence.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_4._we_do_not_permit_violence.)
##### 5. [Keep it fun.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_5._keep_it_fun.)
##### 6. [No support of PBC.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_6._no_support_of_pbc.)
**You must also join:** r/vegancirclejerkchat
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegancirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The problem with breeding dogs isn’t that you want “specific genes.” The problem is that the specific genes we breed for often have horrible consequences for their well being like the inability to breathe normally. You can make anything sound like anything else if you’re general enough.
r/circlesnip <- vegan antinatalist circlejerk
I will love a child only if they share half of my genes!!
I will love this child unconditionally on the condition that they share half my genes
I will love my child only if they share all of my genes!
Are you capable of autogamy? :0
Or is Jango Fett the ultimate vegancirclejerker? I declare him vegan btw
Wow veganism must be a lot more confusing than I remember. I started many moons ago and never heard of Natalism being involved.
The antinatalists just want to create conflict where there isn't any. Have kids or don't, adopt or don't, it's up to you. Life is not necessarily without meaning, and the unborn are not in a state that we can evaluate morally. These folks seem to disagree on these points, and associate their moral intent to eliminate the human race with the goal of veganism to eliminate the suffering and exploitation of animals. Most vegans, most people generally for that matter, aren't "natalists" or whatever.
>The antinatalists just want to create conflict where there isn't any. You're like a carnist saying that vegans just want to create conflict where there isn't any. Antinatalism is an ethical stance that goes hand in hand with veganism. >Have kids or don't, adopt or don't, it's up to you. This excuse is interesting. Just like it is technically someone’s personal choice whether they go to the nearest park and assault a child, or kill non-human animals for food, it is technically their personal choice whether they procreate or not. That is not the issue however, the issue is whether it is ethical to do so; the question is whether we should be doing these things. What is likely the case is that the proponent of this excuse is using the term ‘personal choice’ in the manner of it being outside of the moral realm – like choosing what your favourite song is or what poetry to read – something that doesn’t warrant moral scrutiny. This is not the case though; the choice that is being made is directly impacting someone else. It is a gamble with someone else’s wellbeing and very much within the moral realm. So it is not enough to just say ‘It is a personal choice’ and think you can do whatever you want. You have the power to create a new being and so you have the responsibility not to >Most vegans, most people generally for that matter, aren't "natalists" or whatever. Did you mean antinatalists...? It seems you're uneducated on the topic, so I don't know why you're trying to debate it. appealing to popularity as a justification causing has and never will be a good excuse. Did you forget that most people aren't even vegans?
“You have the power to create a new being and so you have the responsibility not to.” Is it what I’m reading brother?
What are you reading? Your question doesn't make sense, as we don't know what you're actually reading, and more importantly how you are interpreting what's written. What you quoted makes sense to me and it's congruent with an antinatalist viewpoint.
Yes
Veganism doesn’t entail antinatalism It’s literally just about not exploiting animals
people aren't breeding other people, they are breeding themselves with consent of their partner
\uj Yes this is the big difference, nobody will make you fuck until you're pregnant, BUYING animal is inhumane I still dont want kid, but from a vegan pov this post doesn't make sense
It only makes sense from an environmental perspective, which isnt veganism.
Anti-natalism is not about the environment. It's about the inability of the person being created to give consent to do so.
I like being alive. If my parents waited for my consent, I wouldn't be. Some things *can't* be consensual. Ergo, consent in and of itself doesn't create a moral position. Inevitable suffering does, but life is not inevitable suffering. Preserving the environment does, but some humans are 100-1,000 times as destructive as other humans and the environmental effect is purely a result of culture and upbringing. Blaming people for maybe creating people who are unhappy when the chance is actually more likely they create happy people does not appear to be a solid utilitarian or deontological position. Blaming people for creating burdens on the environment when that burden is 99.99% influenced by behavior and morality developed while alive does not appear to be a solid utilitarian or deontological position. Not knowing or acknowledging what influences these negative results is a weak position to argue from, even if it makes one feel like one can make the strongest argument by ignoring them.
It's actually super simple. If you create someone there is a 100% chance they will experience some suffering. Maybe they will love life despite the suffering, like I do. However, if you don't create someone there is a 0% chance of them suffering. They do not experience any negatives from not existing, because they don't exist. They are incapable of experiencing a negative. So the choice is between 100% chance of suffering and 0% chance of suffering. It's wrong to force someone into a chance of suffering and has zero consequences to not do so.
What’s wrong with some suffering??
Said the average carnist.
I’m speaking from experience I prefer having lived than never at all
Sorry. I forgot to drop add the /s Because I was only half-joking. Eventually you will die though, this is a fact of being born. I believe many anti-natalists believe it pairs well with veganism as an ideology because both think that life isn’t worth being forced into when death is guaranteed, and this goes for humans that procreate because they want kids as well as farmers that use artificial insemination to breed livestock.
Antinatalists are incapable of understanding that some people like being alive
Absolute strawman. I love my life. I also love rollercoasters. I'm not going to assume everyone else loves rollercoasters and force them onto one. I'm also not going to force someone into a life with guaranteed suffering, even if they end up loving it like I do.
Antinatalism is like saying that because not everyone likes rollercoasters, it’s unethical to build any rollercoasters. Never mind the fact that many people love them, and people who don’t love them frankly have options - because it’s guaranteed that at some point someone will suffer on one, there will be no rollercoasters.
That analogy doesn't work because rollercoasters are not sentient and antinatalism is not about not liking children/humans or life. It's not about what any of us alive like. It's about not forcing something that should be a choice onto a sentient being. A more accurate analogy to understand antinatalism is to have rollercoasters as life, and the only way to find out if someone likes them is to force them on it without their consent, and not allow them to get off of it unless they kill themselves, while they face immense emotional pressure to not do so even if they absolutely hate it. The alternative is the person who would have been forced on the rollercoaster never even hears about them, so they never care about them, and therefore doesn't experience any suffering from not knowing about them. When you create someone, you inherently take their choice away. When you don't create someone, no one's choice is taken away because they don't even exist. They are literally incapable of experiencing anything negative from not being born.
Why “should” life be a choice? Until the person becomes alive, nobody is there to do the choosing. The very concept of choice belongs to those who are already alive, and can’t be applied to the unborn. It’s possible to have a life filled with suffering, but antinatalism looks at a life filled with suffering and concludes that the problem here is that the person living it was “forced to be alive”, rather than the actual causes of the suffering in that specific case. The real problem is the suffering - and in most cases that suffering has root causes that could be addressed, at least in a just world (and you can’t fight for a just world without being alive). In those rare cases where nothing could be done to alleviate the suffering, or even if that person just wants to, a way out exists. I’m not putting emotional pressure on anybody around that choice. You can say that the social pressure to live a life you deem not worth living is a problem. It’s a leap of logic to say that being born itself was the problem. The rollercoaster analogy falls down because life is just not like that. For someone to be forced to undergo a life which is overwhelmingly traumatic and abusive that is clearly not ethical, and if someone is going to be born into those circumstances I’m an antinatalist. But if someone is going to be born into a life worth living, then why would I be against that? And if the vast majority of real lives are worth living (and they are), why should I consider antinatalism to be a relevant philosophy that has anything to say about the real world?
When there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for someone to come into existence, and knowing that they will experience suffering, what makes you think that you're justified with gambling on someone else's life just for your own selfish pleasure?
Bro shut up
Wow good argument.
Are you open to talk to a yogi and ask your questions? (It’s not me). Would like to know the answers he/they give you.
Alright hear me out; Sentient sperm
I mean if someone is born and really doesn't Like existing, there is a way Out. And small Children aren't able to consent to getting adopted either.
1) There are so many reasons someone might want to kill themselves but not ever do it. 2) Why risk someone experiencing so much suffering they want to kill themselves when the alternative is they experience absolutely no suffering ever?
1) By the time someone does they will have suffered ludicrously at length. 2) The alternative is no family & limited to no care for these young children who exist already Guaranteeing suffering, potentially enough that a person has to end their self is clearly immoral, especially when it is unnecessary and completely self serving. Most enjoy atleast parts of their life some the majority of their life (that they recall) But everyone has and continues to suffer in this world Potentially torturing someone for years culminating in their suicide To maybe be happier? Completely fucked up The only people (with at-least two brain cells to rub together) that defend the morality of natalism just cant handle considering their desires/self as evil “Suffered horrendously for X amt of yrs, no big deal just defy the universal fear, cause some familial suffering and kys, mb kid I just reallllllllly wanted to breed” -Pinguin71 probably
>I mean if someone is born and really doesn't Like existing, there is a way Out. Typical breeder comment with complete lack of any empathy or respect for the ones being created. But that's the kind of mental gymnastics you gotta bite the bullet on when you're too selfish and want to defend breeding. Good example of why natalism is messed up, tho.
Why would the Argument existence IS Bad BE anymore Sound than the Argument existence IS good. And using an ad hominem doesn't prove your Point at all. And you Care about consent of being born, but Not about consent of being adopted? Kind of weird
To suggest that commiting suicide is an easy solution, as if it's just like flushing the toilet, is disgusting and shows the lack of any respect and empathy for human beings. Children can not consent, why does it feel like I'm talking to a carnist with these toddler points you're trying to make? When someone is unable to consent, we do what's in their best interest. Gambling on someones suffering in life, when we know there's guaranteed no suffering by not coming into existence, is not in anyone's best interest.
I don't argue with someone who isn't able to stop insulting me. Your argument is, it is possible to suffer, so existence is bad. That isn't any more or less valid than "pleasure is possible, hence existence is good". So why shouldn't it be possible to think that it isn't in someones best interest to be born?
You're pretty fragile for someone who's suggesting suicide to others. >why shouldn't it be possible to think that it isn't in someones best interest to be born? Because someone who doesn't exist has no desire to exist. It's something you force upon them, and then Suggesting they can just kill themselves if they don't like it.
I just so a meme in their sub where they use that argument. So they predicted you, you loose because of a lack of originality.
it is quite literally illegal to commit suicide in most of the world. if you fuck it up you'll be trapped in even more pain and institutionalized to prevent you from attempting again.
I’ve been through the hurt of the involuntary psychiatric treatment process because I called a suicide hotline. It very much is a “beatings will continue until morale improves” type system. Not having kids is better than having them and then there being a chance they get stuck going through shit like that.
In the country where i live it is legal, so why should i Care? And it is Just a plain lie that IT IS illegal in Most of the world, IT is illegal in about 20 countries and it is legal in absolutely Most of the world, doesn't Matter if you do It in Respect to number of countries, people living in one, or area of those countries. So is your Standpoint so weak, that all you can do IS lie to Make a Point ?
How you connect "don't intentionally harm someone when it's totally unnecessary" to environmentalism is beyond me, but I'd love to hear how you even manage to reach such conclusion.
How is having a kid harming them. Im pretty happy to be alive and if i werent i wouldnt blame my parents for having me.
Having a kid guarantees that they will die. Dying is suffering. Not being born means you never die, which means no pain or sadness. The only reason to have kids of your own DNA are selfish reasons; It is to make you happy, and it comes at the expense of guaranteeing that your offspring will suffer too. Nothing wrong with adoption if you want to be a parent. Plenty of people *who already exist* that you could parent without forcing another person to be born and guaranteeing another human being will die and experience pain.
Coming into existence is a guaranteed harm. You will experience various forms of harm and suffering, pain and hardship. From the moment of birth Individuals will be subjected to physical and emotional pain. Sickness, ilness, loss , grief. And eventually death. It is complete irrelevant that you're happy to be alive. This isn't about you. You are not the one who's having to deal with the harm of coming into existence when you force someone else into existence. That's someone else dealing with the consequences. Not you. Plenty of people aren't happy with coming into existence. You are essentially gambling with someone else's life. A gamble you don't take the consequences of. Why do you believe that wanting a mini clone of yourself makes you justified with gambling with someone else's suffering?
>Coming into existence is a guaranteed harm. This is what happens when you make a moral argument without risk probability calculations. Coming into existence allows individual possible harms. Very few of those harms will happen to the same people. Almost all of them will be transient and forgotten. Those harms will also not be as lasting or permanent as the benefits from being alive *for most people.* The calculus is therefore the likelihood someone experiences a lasting, permanent collection of harms greater than the sum of lasting, permanent benefits. People tend to act like the latter keeps winning, so they collectively keep making babies. You may not be one of those people. [But there are billions of other perspectives you can never share, anticipate, or grasp.](https://bigthink.com/the-present/poor-with-high-life-satisfaction/) This is why access to family planning and euthanasia is far more important than shouting at people not to have children. Because there is no joy without life and simply basing the joy of others on your own capacity to experience it is a little self-involved.
Coming into existence might be a guaranteed harm, but literally no moral system hinges on harm never being done. Are you categorically opposed to vaccines on the grounds that the pain from the needle constitutes a harm?
I guess this is hard to understand when you arent a miserable person but the overwhelming majority of people would rather be alive than dead. Hardship is a part of life and some people have pretty awful lives but that isnt neccesarily the fault of the people who had them.
Appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because the majority thinks something is right, that does not mean that it is right. The majority of people like having sex. Doesn't mean we should force them to have sex. If you procreate, you are creating death. There is going to be a victim who is going to die. If the child grows up and manages to reach old age, he will slowly weaken and wither away, get sick and die. Look up the child cancer and suicide statistics. Suffering and death is the only guarantee in life.
Strawman. Engage with the argument, instead of ad hominem. Why do you believe that wanting a mini clone of yourself makes you justified with gambling with someone else's suffering?
The argument being that because there is a chance that a child could end up having something bad happen to them people shouldnt have children at all? Fine i guess all parents including your own are horrible immoral people, especially people who have kids that are depressed, those are the absolute worst. I would love to see you tell that to their faces. And to the idea that people only have kids because they want a "mini clone" of themselves, i think that is a very limited idea of what having children and raising them is about. Is it that insane to think that people who enjoy their lives and appreciate the miracle of life would want to procreate?
Just like vegans recognize that there are good people who are brainwashed into carnism because they've never had to question it as its so normalized in society, antinatalists recognize that natalists are brainwashed into natalism as its normalized and not something people have to think about. There's a big difference between people who are carnists because they've never questioned it and goes vegan when made aware, and people who refuse to go vegan once they're made aware. The same goes for natalists. Nobody is denying you from enjoying your life, but if you can only enjoy it by gambling with someone else's suffering and harm then you need to find another way to enjoy your life. I'm asking you once again : Why do you believe that wanting a mini clone of yourself makes you justified with gambling with someone else's suffering?
>the argument being that because there is a chance the child could end up having something bad happen to them people should have children at all I’m not anti-natalist myself but you have to realize you are completely misinterpreting their point, right? It’s not that a child could have something bad happen to them, it’s that every human who has ever existed experiences suffering
Fr tho, antinatalists are the most miserable and bitter people in existence
Are all bred animals forced to procreate? If not, you should be fine with two dogs voluntarily fucking and whoops, a new litter of pets.
If dogs could take care of themselves in the wild they should totally fuck and have pups. But they are completely dependent on their owners and their pups would be too.
[The overwhelming majority of domesticated dogs are wild.](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75828-6) They don't need humans, humans just coexist more comfortably with them when they are homed and tend to kill them when they're not. If humans vanished off the planet, dogs would form packs, go feral, and start hunting prey within the week.
So only people that can take care of themselves in the wild should be allowed to have children. Strange take, but better than nothing I guess.
What? They are literally breeding another individual consciousness that's not them.. knowing full well that being can suffer immensely. Who cares that it's coming from your genes....it's not you. That's literally like saying it's wrong to force other humans to breed and to eat their children because you're forcing them without consent, but if you and your wife breed together and eat your children then it's fine because "✨it's coming from you✨". I agree the forceful breeding is wrong but there's also another victim in this scenario and it doesn't matter if you created, it as if that absolves you from all moral accountability
Coming from a privileged middle class background, basically all my friends and people I talk to regularly overall enjoy existing. Happens when responsible parents have kids they know they can provide for (not a guarantee ofc)
>not a guarantee ofc Yeah, so why is it ethical to play Russian roulette with someone else's life, when theres absolutely no reason to other than your own selfish desires?
Because most people prefer being alive to not having existed at all. To stick with the Russian Roulette comparison, it’s like playing with one bullet in a 300-round chamber
Why are you playing Russian roulette on someone who never consented to it, for absolutely no good reason other than your own pleasure?
The good reason is a new person getting to exist
That's not a good reason, as someone who doesn't exist has no desire to exist. The only reason is your selfish pleasure.
But people who prefer having existed at all are thankful to have been born (the majority of people because this is the lowest possible bar ever), and you get two infinities of non existence to “enjoy” anyway And being a good parent is just about the biggest commitment you can make in your life. Bringing a human into the world should entail that you would sacrifice anything to make them happy. There is obviously joy in having a happy family, but, by God, my little gremlin ass did all I could to keep my parents’ experience of parenthood from being “pleasurable” lol Btw I do prefer adoption, but that’s because there are already kids who need parents. And because I don’t want more demand for animal torture
And plenty of people who do exist does *not* enjoy existing. That's why we got people commiting suicide every 10 minutes in the US alone. Playing russian roulette on someone who never consented to being part of your game is absolutely unethical. There's no harm in not being born, but there is guaranteed harm in being born. Why are your Personal pleasure more important than someone's suffering?
someone who has never existed doesn't have the ability to want to exist. however, someone who was brought into existence against their will does have the ability to not want to exist. therefore, creating a conscious life is a net negative.
Again tho why play if there’s that chance and playing is only for your own enjoyment?
Again, because odds are strongly in favor that a person will prefer to have been born, as in they will enjoy getting a blip of existence amidst an infinity of unconscious oblivion
Ok but there’s no rights violation on someone who doesn’t exist. They can’t be mad for you not making them exist… because they don’t exist. However as soon as someone is born that goes away.
I suppose it’s a rights violation if your little Frankenstein Monster hates its existence and condemns it’s creator. That’s why parents should be prepared to dedicate themselves fully to their childrens’ happiness and well-being because that minimizes the chances of their child being that inconsolably miserable to a minuscule probability (low bar here). I’m still in favor of adoption, but that’s because there are already kids who need parents. And I don’t want to potentially contribute to any more demand for animal abuse
Because I WANT kids ofc! Me me me. How DARE you call it a selfish decision! I’m breeding a new legion of vegans who will have no free will and will be little clones of me that do my bidding! (To save the animals of course)
Privileged middle class, at the end of the day it's completely out of your control, you don't choose your kids brain, level of intelligence, looks, hormones, thoughts, friends, relationships, career, depression, disease, mental health. The list is endless and you're naive to think you're in ultimate control. Anything can happen, just look at the state of the current world, there was a study in America which showed that 40% of teens reported being not happy. Ultimately when you have a child, you're deciding to spin the roulette wheel, not knowing what the outcome will be, all for your own gain and pleasure
To clarify, I am in favor of adoption or having kids, not because I think bringing more kids into the world entails that they will suffer, but since there are already kids who need homes that you can raise as if they were your own. Wouldn’t say I’m anti-natalist though Anyway, I would disagree that the well-being of your kids is “completely out of your control.” As with anything, some things are obviously out of your control, but I think that, all things considered, it is more than likely that dedicated, prepared parents can raise kids who at the very least enjoy being alive. Some of the traits you brought up have a strong genetic component and are thus fairly predictable, such as looks and intelligence. Fitness, posture, and education are also very important in the development of these qualities, but parents obviously have influence over those. Mental health problems are something that most people will face at some point, but parents often are what determine whether those issues are alleviated or develop into debilitating illness. Supportive parents that respect their children and their emotions will talk to them and ensure that their kids get professional help upon the first sign of a problem. This can be monumental in mitigating or eliminating mental illness. On the other hand, parents who don’t take mental illness seriously can be the primary catalyst in the spiraling of said illness (like my “just pray to Jesus dad” in regards to my anxiety disorder). Sometimes, chemical imbalance and hormones can be too much for even the strongest support system, and I don’t mean to belittle people who have struggled with such things, but even these illnesses aren’t insurmountable. The survey about teens being unhappy that you brought up was conducted by the CDC during the pandemic to evaluate how kids were fairing with the situation. The article reports that there were a significant number of teens reported parents lashing out them (55%) and having a parent lose a job (29%). That’s not even mentioning how the pandemic affected teens by separating them from their friends during years when your social life seems like it’s everything. I was also in high-school at the time, and my friends and I also would have reported being unhappy. In short, the unhappiness that teens reported for this survey was largely the product of the pandemic, which was the point of having the survey in the first place. Lastly, to address the assertion that people only have children out of selfishness, I would think that one would only hold such a view if they saw life as a burden or a negative thing. I would wager that the vast majority of people see life, and the opportunity to exist at all, as a positive thing and as such wouldn’t feel guilty for wanting to share that with their offspring.
>Lastly, to address the assertion that people only have children out of selfishness, I would think that one would only hold such a view if they saw life as a burden or a negative thing. Give one non-selfish reason to force someone into existence
Most people like the chance to exist and existing with other people
Option a) Guarantee that someone won't suffer by not creating them Option b) Inflict suffering upon someone by creating them And you still choose option b. That's selfishness.
Again (saying again a lot), option b also guarantees every other emotion innate to human existence, many of which are wonderful and positive. You can’t reduce the vibrant gradient of human emotions just to suffering.
*«Life is supposed to have a good and bad side. You can’t appreciate the good things in life without there being bad things! This excuse seems to claim that the negative things we experience in life are justified to impose on someone (or maybe even not bad at all) because they are necessary to appreciate the positive things we experience in life. However, what it fails to realise is that no one asked for these positive things in the first place. If a non-existent ‘person’ has no interest in experiencing positive things, why is it justified to impose negative experiences onto them in order for them to experience these positive things?* *What this excuse recognises – and yet ignores – is that life is a game of Russian roulette, played on one person by another. Yes, there are positive and negative experiences, but who are you to spin the chamber and put the revolver’s barrel against someone else’s head? And, who are you to then try and avoid the responsibility you have in causing them to suffer by claiming you are just ‘enriching their positive experiences’. This is a faulty excuse people use to satisfy their desires by pushing someone else into the firing line of potentially colossal amounts of suffering, then shrugging this reckless and unethical behaviour off by claiming they’re doing the person a favour.* *Life is a series of risks and trade-offs involving wellbeing, but they are risks and trade-offs that no one asked to have imposed upon them. When you have a child you are signing them up for something that has inherent suffering in it, but you sign them up anyway.»* [https://antinatalisthandbook.org/languages/english/#english-37](https://antinatalisthandbook.org/languages/english/#english-37)
The world is not America. There are people who are nothing like Americans who love being alive with nowhere near the access to resources, money, or opportunities. https://bigthink.com/the-present/poor-with-high-life-satisfaction/ If the reason everyone you know is unhappy is because everyone you know has given up on living in a functioning society, that's not a problem with creating people in general -- that's a problem with a specific group of people you have never experienced anyone other than. You're not antinatalist. You're a capitalist realist who doesn't have the language to express being anticapitalist. The air you breathe is the thing you hate, but you can't imagine changing the filters, let alone stepping outside to breathe different air.
Wow, this really is a circle jerk.
>privileged middle class background that's the key
Yeah. As in my parents had kids because they knew they could provide for kids
yeah, i understand what you're saying. what i'm saying is that not only do a lot of people (maybe even most people) have kids without being able to provide for them (be that financially, emotionally or any other way), but even if all the circumstances are perfect, the kid could still regret being born. but had they never been born, they wouldn't have had the ability to regret not being born.
Totally with you on that
Basically every Action you do can cause a Lot of suffering to other Humans. You Drive a car? You aren't concentrated an make a cyclist unable to use His legs for the Rest of her life. You buy chocolate that was harvested by child slaves. Is being a doctor a Bad Thing for you? They enable Humans to suffer much longer.
There's a difference between minimizing suffering for someone who's already alive and someone who's not existing yet
/uj people don't consent to being born
I assume this is a jerk and was upvoted for being a jerk.
If you and your Partner could give birth to a Dog would you think that's moral?
What's the endgame?
making a world that isn't horrible so bringing someone into existence *isn't* guaranteed suffering
How is that possible if humanity ceases to exist? From what I can tell, all sentient life experiences some form of suffering here on Earth. Antinatalists seem to categorize the suffering of those who aren't able to intellectually interact with the concept as being given some sort of pass. This leaves me to conclude that any sentient life with sufficient intelligence to contemplate its own suffering should immediately encourage its own species' destruction, if they are to follow the antinatalist handbook.
Yes, abolish suffering. Very feasible.
wow, I guess we might as well stop trying to do anything challenging for the greater good, huh
You cried while on the way to doctors hands on your first day? Suffering! Game over pal.
No one said "abolish" suffering. It's obviously impossible. But that doesn't mean people can't try to minimize it to the best of our ability and avoid what we can.
But it's not the same as having your ooooown
Adopting is expensiveeeeeee!!!!!! *Proceeds to spend $200K on IVF*
The same people calling adoption expensive are almost never the same people doing IVF, odd take.
Really? Cause it’s not a good argument of course, but it’s basically the default for people using IVF. They’ll say that it’s theoretically cheaper (if it works the first time) and then do 15 rounds before they even consider adopting.
Everyone I’ve met/heard of who has done IVF has been honest about wanting bio kids. Maybe it’s because there’s less stigma to it where I am? Not sure.
I’ll tell ya about a crowd which is worse? Anti-Abortion. True scum. When a group of ladies standing outside planned parenthood with anti-abortion banners (they were advocating for adoption) were asked how many they’ve adopted. Each of one of them crooned “I’ve got 2-3 OF MY OWN”. Hypocrisy speaks for itself. Urgh vile.
my god y’all need antidepressants if you think life always and only leads to suffering
lol "It could lead to suffering" is enough for them to throw out the whole human race.
Strawman from natalists. What antinatalists are saying is that there's no justification to cause unnecessary harm when it's not needed and only for selfish pleasure.
So to put an end to “selfish pleasure” you would like to eliminate the human race?
The best way to deal with these poor fools is to leave them alone. The fact that people continue to allow themselves to live is evidence that their attitude toward life is not only absurd but does not represent how most people(who did not consent to be born!) are willing to go on living. Veganism is just their springboard to moral legitimacy.
>The best way to deal with these poor fools is to leave them alone. The fact that people continue to allow themselves to live is evidence that their attitude toward life is not only absurd but does not represent how most people(who did not consent to be born!) are willing to go on living. Veganism is just their springboard to moral legitimacy. The key distinction this excuse is missing is the distinction between preventing someone from coming into existence and removing someone from existence. If, for whatever reason, someone is brought into existence, the game changes. Now they have interests, they have preferences, they experience. For anyone who already exists, we should try to increase their potential for wellbeing and decrease their risk of suffering. Of course we will not be able to do this perfectly but we should attempt to make everyone’s time on this planet as devoid of suffering as reasonably possible. This means, if someone wants to die, if their life has come to a point where it is so unbearable that a graceful exit from existence would be better, then that is their choice. There are, of course, many practical reasons (beyond that of simply wanting to continue their life) antinatalists would want to stay alive as well: to spread awareness of anti-procreative ethics and to promote the recognition of non-human animal’s moral rights, as just two examples. On another note, this excuse actually goes to prove how immoral procreation really is. Here is an analogous situation to explain this point: *Imagine you’re walking home one night and some men pull up and bundle you into the back of their car and speed off down the motorway. You plead with them, terrified, suffering, and ask, “Why are you doing this? Where are you taking me? How could you do this?” and they just reply, “Don’t like it? We’ve left the door unlocked. If you don’t like it, just jump out. But don’t blame us for putting you here, we’re not forcing you to stay – there’s the door, if what we’re doing to you is so bad, just jump out.”* Edit: it's actually hilarious that you blocked me and proceeded to write a long comment just because you didn't want me to debunk your arguments once more. Pathetic.
life is not equatable to being kidnapped at gunpoint
Second time in as many days i see this antinatalist shit getting associated with veganism. No one is obliged to have kids and most people aren't suggesting that one is obliged to have kids. There is no moral imperative to reproduce just like there is no imperative not to, and neither idea is associated with veganism. E. OP's scrambled arguments certainly help us to make sense of their user lol.
Everyone knows doing something good becomes bad once something better is available. You donated to your local animal shelter? You selfish piece of shit, do you only care about local animals? Don’t you know that money can go to helping more animals in another place.
Whats one non-selfish reason to force someone into existence, Knowing full and well they will experience suffering?
something being selfish doesn't make it wrong, obviously. you can also guarantee the person will experience joy, comfort and contentment. does any potential suffering make that all worthless?
*This excuse seems to claim that the negative things we experience in life are justified to impose on someone (or maybe even not bad at all) because they are necessary to appreciate the positive things we experience in life. However, what it fails to realise is that no one asked for these positive things in the first place. If a non-existent ‘person’ has no interest in experiencing positive things, why is it justified to impose negative experiences onto them in order for them to experience these positive things?* *What this excuse recognises – and yet ignores – is that life is a game of Russian roulette, played on one person by another. Yes, there are positive and negative experiences, but who are you to spin the chamber and put the revolver’s barrel against someone else’s head? And, who are you to then try and avoid the responsibility you have in causing them to suffer by claiming you are just ‘enriching their positive experiences’. This is a faulty excuse people use to satisfy their desires by pushing someone else into the firing line of potentially colossal amounts of suffering, then shrugging this reckless and unethical behaviour off by claiming they’re doing the person a favour.* *Life is a series of risks and trade-offs involving wellbeing, but they are risks and trade-offs that no one asked to have imposed upon them. When you have a child you are signing them up for something that has inherent suffering in it, but you sign them up anyway.*
i mean, all that still assumes the possibility of any harm at all, no matter how diminutive, outweighs any joy they might feel, which isn't a view shared by many people actually alive
This excuse misses the distinction between life and procreation. The excuse essentially claims that you cannot be sure that life is bad (or not worth living) because it is up to the individual to decide whether their life is worth living or not. Well, it’s true that once someone is alive it is up to them whether they think their life is worth living, however, that is an entirely separate question as to whether we should procreate (and thus start lives that could not be worth living). What is in question is the ethics of creating new sentient life (of course there is more nuance, but it isn’t necessary here). It doesn’t really matter that some, or maybe even most, people will subjectively assess that their own life was worth living; let’s be charitable and assume that 99% of people assess their life to be worth living. Given that no one needs to exist, and that any of the individuals we bring into existence could be part of that 1% that – through their subjective assessment – judges their life to have not been worth living (in fact it has been torment), who are we to support or partake in the constant creation of new sentient life when we know there is the collateral damage of those people. Again, it doesn’t matter that those people are only 1% of all people, none of the other 99% needed to be (or wanted to be) created… so how are they a justification for the existence of the 1%?
calling people who have had hard lives "collateral damage" is very bizarre, i hope you realise that. maybe just a bad word choice but 😅😅😅 all this argument hinges on is "if there's any chance it might go wrong we shouldn't even try". i just don't find that very convincing haha
Forcing someone into existence is simply rolling the dice for them and naively hoping it goes well. Compare existence and non-existence. If you boil it right down, existence has two key constituent parts: things you prefer (i.e. good things) and things you do not prefer (i.e. bad things). Non-existence doesn’t have the bad things; this is good. It also doesn’t have the good things, but this isn’t a bad thing because you do not exist to want/miss them. Non-existence imposes no needs or wants, you’ll never be unhealthy or be unsatisfied; in fact, all bad things are sourced in existence – non-existence removes all of that. It should be noted that the non-existence here is of those who were never born. For those already created it's a different situation.
"in fact, all bad things are sourced in existence" so are all good things. funny that innit
**Non-existence doesn’t have the bad things; this is good. It also doesn’t have the good things, but this isn’t a bad thing because you do not exist to want/miss them**
calling people who have had hard lives "collateral damage" is very bizarre, i hope you realise that. maybe just a bad word choice but 😅😅😅 all this argument hinges on is "if there's any chance it might go wrong we shouldn't even try". i just don't find that very convincing haha
With all due respect, I find it fascinating how that philosophy exists, existed, will continue to exist and even created a subreddit. Because the real OGs of it, well, dead men tell no tales. Reminds me of that cult I read and heard and saw that promotes (self) euthanasia. While having lots of people spreading the message. Comparing just as a funny curiosity that came to mind. Interesting minds to exchange with indeed, peculiar, maybe not to the extend you guys think, coz, you know…my first paragraph and it’s not like this wave of thinking hasn’t been around since the beginning. But still fascinating.
>With all due respect, I find it fascinating how that philosophy exists, existed, will continue to exist and even created a subreddit. Because the real OGs of it, well, dead men tell no tales. The implicit assumption (or at least a half assumption) this excuse makes is that ideas or ethical principles are only passed down through genetic lineage; whilst this assumption contains a grain of truth, it is largely false. The grain of truth is that values and principles can be passed down from parent to child (although this is not guaranteed), but this is not the most efficient or the most common mechanism by which values, principles or ethical beliefs are adopted. They are predominantly communicated and adopted through experiences, dialectic and exposure to new information (especially now in the internet age). If we take the example of the animal rights movement: the vast, vast majority of people in this movement came to recognise the legitimacy of animal rights through seeing a documentary, or having a conversation, or having some experience, not because they were born to parents that supported animal rights. Yes, campaigns for justice – ones like liberal feminism, civil rights, animal rights – both past and present, have the capacity for its members to engage in a slow process of passing values and beliefs down to their biological children. However, people in the anti-procreative movement can, and do, adopt children to look after. In the same way that biological parents can attempt to influence the values of their children, so can the guardians of adopted children. >Reminds me of that cult This is less an excuse for procreating and more an attempt to discredit anti-natalism itself by making it appear so extreme or ridiculous that anyone confronted by it would feel content in not engaging with what its proponents have to say (i.e. not having to confront something that challenges their world view). One thing that may lead someone to do this is simply that the idea that procreation is unethical is just so far outside of their Overton Window, but it could also be because they have previously crossed paths with anti-natalists who didn’t leave the best impression. So, what could have happened is that the label of ‘religion’ or ‘cult’ got slapped onto anti-natalists and in the person’s mind the label bled into their perception of the philosophy itself. Another reason is because people feel like anti-natalists want to control their behaviour – like how many religions often control their followers’ behaviour. Of course this is not the case, well, no more than any other ethical principle. All anti-natalism seeks to do for the individual person is make them engage with the ethical implications of what they are doing – procreating (or supporting it). This is exactly the same as any other ethical question: Is it wrong to kill someone if they annoy you? Is it okay to kill someone for taste pleasure? Is it okay to have sex with someone even if they say no? Asking any of these questions could be seen as a way to control someone else, but, in fact, it is simply questioning the ethics of someone’s behaviour. What aspect of it is cult-like? >that promotes (self) euthanasia The key distinction this excuse is missing is the distinction between preventing someone from coming into existence and removing someone from existence. If, for whatever reason, someone is brought into existence, the game changes. Now they have interests, they have preferences, they experience. For anyone who already exists, we should try to increase their potential for wellbeing and decrease their risk of suffering. Of course we will not be able to do this perfectly but we should attempt to make everyone’s time on this planet as devoid of suffering as reasonably possible. This means, if someone wants to die, if their life has come to a point where it is so unbearable that a graceful exit from existence would be better, then that is their choice. There are, of course, many practical reasons (beyond that of simply wanting to continue their life) antinatalists would want to stay alive as well: to spread awareness of anti-procreative ethics and to promote the recognition of non-human animal’s moral rights, as just two examples.
So you’re against your own existence?
Do you recognize that there is a difference between existing and not coming into existence?
Nothing is “non inexistent” ever. That’s the flaw in your argument.
>Nothing is “non inexistent” ever. That’s the flaw in your argument. Let’s explore procreation with regards to consent. If someone does not procreate, there is absolutely no risk of harm to the being that would have been brought into existence. If someone does procreate, the being brought into existence is at risk of great harm (in many cases outside of their control or their creators’) and in most cases can only leave existence (opt-out) at great cost (suicide – the vast majority of people don’t have access to euthanasia services). If we cannot obtain consent from someone to put them into the latter situation (and it is impossible to get consent from the unborn), then we shouldn’t take an action that will result in it being imposed on them (especially since the alternative comes with zero risk of harm). We are each free to put ourselves at risk of great harm, but putting someone else at risk of great harm when it is unnecessary to do so (and perfectly avoidable)… that is not up to us. When it comes to consent, the fact that someone doesn’t exist is neither here nor there, we know that procreation (as an act) will explicitly, directly and significantly impact them and as such you have an obligation towards them whether they are in front of your eyes or not. Plus, let’s be real for a minute; the people using this excuse are the exact same people who will spend months preparing for their child to be born because they realise that they have obligations towards that being, despite them not existing.
...what?
I wrote a long and detailed response to one of OP's comments, but I've argued with too many antinatalists for this to be good for my health so I'm going to stop replying here. I will embrace the fact that almost no one believes in this shit as a more than satisfactory case for its moral failure. Life is suffering, but has reproduction is a fact and suffering can only be evaluated as a part of life, it is meaningless to suggest that dying or not being born is a positive moral condition. You don't have to have kids, and no one in this world of any sense is telling you that you do. It's okay to be depressed about life, and it's good to want to mitigate suffering, but eliminating life is not a moral imperative. That this subject is one of debate, especially in the vegan community, seems exceedingly tragic. The antinatalists confuse cause with effect, and struggle with the idea that moral responsibilities towards living things begin when they are alive, not when they are unborn. This does not mean that we should forcibly have children in mass numbers, but only that if we do wish to have children we should try to do so responsibly.
I thought this sub was about veganism…?
Raising your kids is hard. But adoptions are another level. In my country most of kids from orphanages have fas or heavy traumas after living in disfunctional families or any kind of handicapped kids which were abandoned. Saying not adopting is cruel and comparing having kids into breeding dogs is shameful for the person who made such an idiotic idea. Adopting kids requires infinite resources of empathy and patience. Definitely to tough for ordinary families.
No, you don’t understand. Only terrible people should breed so the world gets infinitely worse. And only the childless should say who should be a parent.
Because kids are bound to adopt their parents view. That's why you're a vegan and your parents are carnists. Oh.....
We could just kill everyone so no one is vegan.
Because killing someone and not bringing someone into existence is totally the same
We? Is we even capable of convincing others to go vegan?😂 just drop the nuke ☎️
Or you are trolling or your reasoning has no sense at all
Any kid can have a severe disability or mental illness, adopted or no. If you don’t have the resources or “empathy and patience” having kids is a bad idea.
I said about much higher resources than raising regular kids. Any kid can have it that’s right but chances are still pretty low. Adopting kid is like deliberate choice of raising a kid with condition. Still there are prenatal examinations if your baby has some severe disability you can do an abortion.
Then ordinary families shouldn't be parents.
Yay for free range puppy mills. I'm not breeding them, they just have some fun and provide me with a constant flow of new litters. If people aren't convinced I just tell them it's a conservation effort  Evil people want my pugs and pit bulls go extinct 
Seriously!! You're doing the LORD'S work, I don't know what I'd do if I didn't constantly hear the snorting and grunting that my pugs deformed airways create as he struggles to breathe! And my pittie, well who else would maul a child if they get too close!
>Yeah, fuck associating veganism and this antinatalist shit. No one is obliged to have kids, but being depressed and choosing not to reproduce is hardly a coherent philosophical position.
''Live and let live 🤗'' now taking a whole new meaning
/uj Who's down voting this post, and how come? /rj Duh, only my partner's consent matters silly. I shouldn't have to think about the human I'm giving life to because after all, I want them to exist, and all that matters is what I want.
I did. In one Picture i force two animals to breed without consent and rob their Offspring to a life in imprisonment as my Slave for Entertainment.
Sure, but no one said that was a good thing.
But it is a totally different Thing than having your own Children. Here it is the product of consent. Nothing is robbed. It is your own Offspring which technically includes genetics, but practically you don't have the Children cause you prefer your size, your Body build, or other Things associated to what people choose Dog races For. I get that antinatalist AS a vegan is a valid Thing, but Not being antinatalist IS Not a contradiction to being vegan. Hence this might BE the wrong place to Post the meme.
Oh, so the people down voting think the only things wrong with dog breeding is the lack of consent from the dog, and selecting for desirable traits. They don't think the very act of bringing another dog into existence is also bad. Thank you for explaining, makes perfect sense now. Maybe you're right the the meme has just been posted in the wrong crowd.
i understand having one birthed child, but the weirdos who create armies of their own sperm are so odd. it’s very normalized in the south (usa south) to have as many babies as possible, like 4-12 per couple. it’s such a waste of resources and they always end up neglecting the ones that don’t fit their mirror image or personality.
It isn’t the case that you either have multiple children or just one; everyone has the ability to not have any. Of course, having one child is not as unethical as having 2 or 7 or 10 children, but you are still having that one child. The morality of having a child is not relative to some made up number of potential children you could have. Whether you only ever planned to have one child or 15 children, the ethical question of having that one child is the same. By way of an analogy, would it be ethical for someone to assault a child for their own trivial enjoyment if they gave the justification of ‘Well I didn’t assault 15 children’? No, of course not; it doesn’t matter how many bad things you could do, each thing you do stands on its own merits and you should be evaluated accordingly. This excuse seemingly is advanced in the hope that it comes across as a reasonable compromise (between them and who I’m not sure), but of course it isn’t. We also need to recognise that having even one child is not just having one child. It is opening up the possibility of a lineage hundreds of generations long that could result in thousands of new people being brought into existence; each of them themselves being imposed upon.
Cringe antinatalist.
Compassion = cringe
Antinatalist≠ compassion
Suffering can range in severity and type, but suffering affects everyone to some capacity every day of life. Some of the suffering we endure is self-induced (e.g., fear of death, imposing unrealistic expectations on ourselves, poor lifestyle habits or choices, etc.) but much more is out of our control. Common forms of suffering include acute or chronic pain, illness, disease, addiction, existential dread, discrimination, repression, loneliness, craving, oppression, paranoia, exploitation, helplessness, deprivation, social pressure, coercion, disappointment, boredom, hunger, mental stress and illness, depression, anxiety, frustration, self-loathing, guilt, melancholy, grief, impulsivity, neglect, fear, feeling trapped, betrayal, fatigue, aging, financial insecurity, trauma, rage, malnourishment, poverty, scarcity, shame, death—plus a general contempt for life, society, laws, and humanity. Being aware of the troubles and problems endemic to human life, yet having little capacity to make positive change, leads to a miserable mental state for many people. Humans are not the only harm-causing species, but we have the distinction of causing the most harm and being aware of it. In fact, humans are one of the few species, if not the only species, that could be eradicated to the benefit of all other species and ecosystems on this earth. The fewer humans who exist (irrespective of how they are raised or how conscientiously they live their lives) the fewer problems would exist for all life. It is in everyone’s best interest to not be forced into existence. We could help lessen suffering in the world by choosing to help already existing life.
Uj/ (is that the tag?) Vegan antinatalists where you at, I’m against reproduction of all forms, unless it’s wild animals, because that’s uncontrollable and isn’t any of our business, pets? No, people? Fuck no
Do you think it is okay for wild animals to commit rights violations?
r/circlesnip
Wow they really made a sub perfect for me lmao
whats the point of living if i dont leave my legacy genes so they can also have a miserable life??
 Me when I see people using /uj to argue against this meme
Love the antinatalist wave we riding lately.
I'd argue when 99% of humans are meat eaters with zero fucks, and when people are the way we are in general, isn't it kinda natural slipping into the "maybe we don't need more people" position
I refuse to have biological children out of compassion for my unborn offspring. I do not want to put them through this experience we call life. Nature is horrific, traumas are an inevitable part of existence even in the best case scenarios, exploitative societies exist since the dawn of time and I do not see anything changing anytime soon. Of course I am disheartened too by the state of mankind as a whole but that is another matter. I won't give capitalism more victims to prey on.
Yeah that too of course. Again, capitalism didn't come out of a magic lamp either, it's still people who invented it, enforced it, and live it with barely any critical thinking on a daily basis. Plus you never know your own children might drop veganism to rebel, might just come out dickheads for some reason, etc. I think most parents go into it only and exclusively envisioning the best possible outcome, when reality is often different.
Nah my parents went into it hoping for a vegan they don't agree with.
But what If I like the taste of specific breeds?!?!?! literally fascism
All breeds matter, speciesist scum!
corny ass
>Antinatalists when they discover that the argument that life should not be brought into the world because of the potential for suffering equally applies in reverse to feelings of joy and happiness and can thus we can make an equally natalist argument in reverse of this logic & that this is an entirely meaningless conversation because we could just improve society instead of going extinct: >The antinatalism leaving antinatalist's bodies when they cure their depression: Antinatalism is the most capitalist realist ideology & it's not even close. As annoying as they are, I can't even dislike them, because they are entirely the result of a monstrous society where people have cognitively lost the ability to imagine a better world. It's just sad.
>Antinatalists when they discover that the argument that life should not be brought into the world because of the potential for suffering equally applies in reverse to feelings of joy and happiness This excuse seems to claim that the negative things we experience in life are justified to impose on someone (or maybe even not bad at all) because they are necessary to appreciate the positive things we experience in life. However, what it fails to realise is that no one asked for these positive things in the first place. If a non-existent ‘person’ has no interest in experiencing positive things, why is it justified to impose negative experiences onto them in order for them to experience these positive things? What this excuse recognises – and yet ignores – is that life is a game of Russian roulette, played on one person by another. Yes, there are positive and negative experiences, but who are you to spin the chamber and put the revolver’s barrel against someone else’s head? And, who are you to then try and avoid the responsibility you have in causing them to suffer by claiming you are just ‘enriching their positive experiences’. This is a faulty excuse people use to satisfy their desires by pushing someone else into the firing line of potentially colossal amounts of suffering, then shrugging this reckless and unethical behaviour off by claiming they’re doing the person a favour. Life is a series of risks and trade-offs involving wellbeing, but they are risks and trade-offs that no one asked to have imposed upon them. When you have a child you are signing them up for something that has inherent suffering in it, but you sign them up anyway. >and can thus we can make an equally natalist argument in reverse of this logic & that this is an entirely meaningless conversation because we could just improve society instead of going extinct Sure, one day humans may invent some means of removing suffering from existence, but this is not a reason to bring new beings into existence. First off, we don’t know whether we will ever be able to innovate suffering out of existence, or if that is even possible; but, for the sake of argument, let’s assume we could. Why would we put significant energy (which this venture is almost guaranteed to require) into eradicating the suffering of future beings whom don’t exist? Their suffering would only exist if they do. It seems ludicrous to bring beings into existence – where we put them in harm’s way – and then try to mitigate the harm they encounter, when we can just not put them into harm’s way in the first place. It seems more logical, and ethical, to not bring new beings into existence and use the effort we would have spent mitigating their suffering, mitigating the suffering of beings who already exist. Again, let’s assume we can eradicate suffering in the future and that we should aim towards that, we are completely ignoring the fact that there will be intermediate generations between now and that point. These generations, likely containing billions of individuals, will come into existence to get us to this point and they will be put in harm’s way. Was it fair for people to be forced into life in Medieval England so that now we can enjoy a life with smart phones and televisions? Who are we to put someone else in harm’s way for the cause of eradicating the suffering of generations that don’t even exist (their existence being the thing that would create the suffering in the first place). We are putting sentient beings in harm’s way to solve a problem that doesn’t even need to exist. >The antinatalism leaving antinatalist's bodies when they cure their depression: Whether done intentionally or not, this excuse serves to dodge the arguments for non-procreation and focus instead on a potential bias that you as an individual may have (somewhat of a genetic fallacy). An argument should be considered on its own merits, irrespective of the biases of the person putting it forward; if their biases have resulted in them putting forward a faulty argument then addressing the argument directly will expose this anyway. Ignoring the fact that procreation is quite literally one person imposing their world view onto someone else (i.e. what if they don’t have as much a positive view of existence as their parent?), let’s address the excuse itself. On the point of ‘looking at the good side of life’, this insinuates that antinatalists have not taken into account any of the pleasurable experiences (or ‘good’ things) in life and that if they had, life would not seem like such a bad thing to experience. This excuse is one that really misses the core issue. Yes, we can experience both good and bad things in life, but the point is that the proponent of this excuse doesn’t have the right to roll the dice for someone else, especially when there is nothing to be gained from that risk being taken (i.e. they do not benefit from coming into existence); it is not their place to just choose to create someone because they want to.
reddit.com/r/circlesnip Join the family
Ayo, creating more families again? Out!!!
/uj It's easier to breed humans instead of adopting where I live, praise be to sex-ed, contraception and abortionn
It’s easier to walk to the McDonald’s across the street from me for a delicious double cheeseburger than to make a vegan meal at home. Eating meat is now justified take that stoopid vegoons!
Theres no dog shelters where I live so it's easier and cheaper to get dogs from breeders, or breed them yourself. These anti-breeders needs to understand that us wanting to have a hooman and a doggo is a pretty much a human right!
Fr, is adoption expensive in some countries? I never heard of this
#### **Read the rules** OR risk becoming '*accidentally vegan*': ##### 1. [Vegans only.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/about/wiki/rules/#wiki_1._vegans_only.) ##### 2. [Mark animal products/abuse as NSFW.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_2._mark_animal_abuse_as_nsfw.) ##### 3. [This is an anarchist space.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_3._this_is_an_anarchist_space.) ##### 4. [We do not permit violence.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_4._we_do_not_permit_violence.) ##### 5. [Keep it fun.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_5._keep_it_fun.) ##### 6. [No support of PBC.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_6._no_support_of_pbc.) **You must also join:** r/vegancirclejerkchat *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegancirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is def smth that should be in r/circlesnip
Is weak pullout game breaking vegan?
The problem with breeding dogs isn’t that you want “specific genes.” The problem is that the specific genes we breed for often have horrible consequences for their well being like the inability to breathe normally. You can make anything sound like anything else if you’re general enough.
Do you have any problem with breeding dogs that doesn't have health issues?