Discussion Anti natalism seems to be the only moral conclusion

[Confront4283]

My parents brought me into this world like all breeders do, because they think it will benefit their life. They may pretend they have grander motives like creating more life, but most people are suffering too and think that having a child will alleviate their own suffering.

If it was unplanned, it comes about from sex, one of life's distractions which means you don't have to think about anything else for a while and engage in feel good chemicals. Either way, it's for the self.

I'm sick of being told that having a life is a selfless thing, it's absolutely not. All roads lead back to the idea that you wanted to engage in an action because you thought it'd help YOU. Not because of any altruistic ideas of spreading joy.

But let's say that was the case then, let's say that you were just wanting to bring more life in the world for the completely selfless idea that more life is better. You know full well that chronic illness exist, that rape exists, and the most important of all: you know that your child is going to have to grow up and work for their existence for the majority of their life. In what world is that altruism?

In my eyes, it's no different than suicide to begin with. You want to raise a child because you see it as an escape, that it will bring some sort of comfort to your existence, just be honest. We are.

 

[FuneralCry]

The fact that humans actually choose to procreate is such a horrific, devastating tragedy to me, I see it as the most selfish crime ultimately responsible for all human suffering causing nothing but harm. Not procreating is all that's rational and compassionate, it's so terrible how this human species hasn't gone voluntarily extinct yet even know nobody can suffer from never existing at all yet there is literally no limit as to how torturous existing can get. It's disgusting imposing potentially decades of meaningless, unnecessary suffering onto someone else, I wish I never existed more than anything.

 

[Confront4283]

The fact that humans actually choose to procreate is such a horrific, devastating tragedy to me, I see it as the most selfish crime ultimately responsible for all human suffering causing nothing but harm. Not procreating is all that's rational and compassionate, it's so terrible how this human species hasn't gone voluntarily extinct yet even know nobody can suffer from never existing at all yet there is literally no limit as to how torturous existing can get. It's disgusting imposing potentially decades of meaningless, unnecessary suffering onto someone else, I wish I never existed more than anything.

Well said. When you give birth to a child you are dooming them to pain and a meaningless existence where they get to live out the rest off their lives as a cog in the machine, while being told that remaining as that cog is the most rational thing to do.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

There is no such thing as altruistic action to begin with. Even the most materially altruistic behavior is still fundamentally driven by internal reward systems (happiness, satisfaction, catharsis, etc.). So the conclusion is that the only moral action is to cease all action.

Well there's a missing step there. What moral framework are we even using?

Surely it's not something as rigid and unworkable as one which says that to cause any and all suffering is wrong?

As much as I agree with the conclusion of anti-natalism, you're skipping a step here just the same. You can't make a moral conclusion without defining a functional moral framework in the first place. It certainly wouldn't be hard to construct a framework within which anti-natalism is not, in fact, the only conclusion if anything goes.

And human existence is not defined by any such moral system to begin with. We gamble all the time, even knowing that the worst result is catastrophic. Just as a new life has a chance to suffer, driving a car has a chance of causing your immediate death. Yet humans do it all the same. You're not going to be able to persuade people by citing the worst possible outcome, or even the fact that the average outcome is bad.

The honest answer is that humans have children because they want to on a fundamental level. The humans who didn't want to died out long ago. The desire to have children was literally programmed into our dna by process of elimination. And of course it's selfish. All actions, all wants and desires are fundamentally selfish. Having children is no different from literally every other action a human can take in that sense.

Unfortunately it's just going to take a lot more than an emotional rationalization of someone's suffering to convince humanity to cease reproducing entirely.

 

[moshimoshi]

There is no such thing as altruistic action to begin with. Even the most materially altruistic behavior is still fundamentally driven by internal reward systems (happiness, satisfaction, catharsis, etc.).

I see what you mean and ive often pondered that too, and i respect that opinion. But i feel like theres been plently of times where people have sacrificed themselves for others even if it gave them 0 reward and absolutely destroyed them/made things a living hell for them. And completely overpowering any worth their internal reward system could give them

 

[pollux]

I disagree with this actually. In general, more people is a net good. This doesn't mean all lives are worth living, but from a utilitarian point of view, you could justify natalism.

 

[obligatoryshackles]

I see what you mean and ive often pondered that too, and i respect that opinion. But i feel like theres been plently of times where people have sacrificed themselves for others even if it gave them 0 reward and absolutely destroyed them/made things a living hell for them. And completely overpowering any worth their internal reward system could give them

It could be a definitional issue, but my interpretation of that could be two things:

1. since they made that choice, their internal reward must necessarily have been sufficient to justify that action even if any outside observer might disagree

2. humans are not very good at assessing risk and reward, so in the retrospective the tradeoff may not be worth it without changing what motivated them initially

An additional factor worth mentioning, which probably should have been added to the initial post, is that the avoidance of internal punishment is also a motivation, one which far more often drives ultimately self destructive actions. Pride, ego, identity, or even just trying to avoid consequences can often lead humans to take such sacrificial actions - ex. the guilt and shame of not making that choice would be a sufficient internal punishment. And yeah, fundamentally that too is a selfish motivation.

And I'm not saying that's a bad thing by the way. I just think it's wrong to frame human behavior by the notion of altruism and to make moral arguments about human actions by the framework of non-altruistic behavior when in reality there's no such thing as altruistic behavior. Essentially, I'm not arguing that all human action is evil, I'm arguing that since there is no such thing as altruism, there is no such thing as anti-altruism either - all human actions are fundamentally neutral.

 

[sserafim]

I see what you mean and ive often pondered that too, and i respect that opinion. But i feel like theres been plently of times where people have sacrificed themselves for others even if it gave them 0 reward and absolutely destroyed them/made things a living hell for them. And completely overpowering any worth their internal reward system could give them

Why would they do that? It makes no sense to me

I disagree with this actually. In general, more people is a net good. This doesn't mean all lives are worth living, but from a utilitarian point of view, you could justify natalism.

How is more people a net good? It's good for capitalism and the system though. More people means more wageslaves and cogs in the capitalist wheel as well as more workers and human capital for society to exploit

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

Antinatalism is cool because it makes the boring and basic biological process of procreating and breeding way sexier just because it's evil now.

How is more people a net good? It's good for capitalism and the system though. More people means more wageslaves and cogs in the capitalist wheel as well as more workers and human capital for society to exploit

Even in communism or socialism, you still need more people around to actually work because somebody has to do it but instead of working for themselves they'll be working for everybody else too, or maybe they'll just be working for the state presumably.

 

[Superdeterminist]

Ultimately, I think it would be best if none of this existed. However I don't know if total, permanent extinction of all life is achievable, via antinatalism or by any other means. I wouldn't know where to begin an attempt to achieve it, so I'm just stuck here navel-gazing.

I understand those who procreate; I would like to have my own child, but it is not feasible. I think what we should aim for is a world where ctb is easily achievable. The vast number of humans suggests that life is cheap, and given that it is, death should be also.

 

[Aergia]

I disagree with this actually. In general, more people is a net good. This doesn't mean all lives are worth living, but from a utilitarian point of view, you could justify natalism.

Unless you're a negative utilitarian, and I'd hazard most of us here, at least intuitively, find negative utilitarianism more sensible.

 

[divinemistress36]

I wish people had to get some sort of liscence to breed

 

[EvisceratedJester]

I wish people had to get some sort of liscence to breed

I feel like that's more likely to end in disaster rather than lead to any improvements in regards to cases of child abuse and general mistreatment.

 

[crystal_meth97]

I agree that a lot of people bring children into this world as a form of escapism - they reach a point in their lives when they just don't know what to do anymore, when they seem to have exhausted all their other distractions, so they choose to breed. It is a form of escapism to some, but not for all. Some really do believe they're doing a good thing, for the child, for them, or for both. While you can't know for sure what's in their head unless you ask - which usually results in weird looks because who asks you why you had children? - I still agree with what you said, specifically that it is unethical to bring more life into this shithole we made Earth to be with war, disease, rape, poverty, and everything that entails suffering. It is wrong and I would never do it. If my life got too boring, which is unlikely, I'm just going to adopt, even if it's a lengthy process and I still don't think I'm fit to be a mother for a variety of reasons. But I would adopt no problem. As for actions truly being altruistic, that's a complex discussion, but my take is that there is a small dose of selfishness in every action we do - take making a gift, for instance. You do it for the other person and think about them, but at the same time, you relate the whole action to you, asking yourself whether they're going to like you more, whether they're going to appreciate you more, whether they're going to value you more, whether they're going to treat you differently, whether they're going to love you more. Actions like this relate back to you somehow, so yes, they're not completely selfless or altruistic. It's a compelling discussion to have anyway, that's just an example that came to mind, I'm sure there are others and that there might be truly selfless actions we do.

 

[pollux]

Unless you're a negative utilitarian, and I'd hazard most of us here, at least intuitively, find negative utilitarianism more sensible.

Yeah, if you're a negative utilitarian then it makes more sense.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I wish people had to get some sort of liscence to breed

Unfortunately that would just lead to some people who do breed winding up either in prison or deep in financial debt, and either of those scenarios would make the lives of their future child even worse than if they had just not needed a license in the first place.

 

[rmartin]

Some people find things that they feel are meaningful. I don't really think it's worth being alive but that other people that aren't me have that ability is sort of nice. They aren't perfect but some people try. I have a niece. Her mom tries her best to give her a good life. Building a little family is something my sister chose to do. I try to be a supportive sister and aunt. I'm not good at it and it doesn't really make life worth it to me. But while I'm here for a little while I can do some little things.

 

[Zoloft Muncher]

My parents brought me into this world like all breeders do, because they think it will benefit their life. They may pretend they have grander motives like creating more life, but most people are suffering too and think that having a child will alleviate their own suffering.
.....
I'm sick of being told that having a life is a selfless thing, it's absolutely not. All roads lead back to the idea that you wanted to engage in an action because you thought it'd help YOU. Not because of any altruistic ideas of spreading joy.

This is not true. I don't speak for your parents but its simply true that many parents have a child for both grander and personal motives. If they believe they are doing a good thing by bringing more life into the world, why should they not feel good about themselves?

But I am very sorry your parents decided to make that decision...

 

[All_is_in_vanity]

Anti natalist is not moral. It's a coping strategie. Suicide is the only moral action in existence. Unless you're a pussy( like me ) that's the only time you get a pass for being immoral.