What do you think of antinatalism?

[Aqizeth]

Note: Idk if this has been asked before.

In my opinion life is pretty pointless & feels like it mostly consists of suffering. Like a post on this website once said, that there are "happy moments", but in the end nothing is worthy eneogh to keep on suffering through life. (Btw this is the post)
I once heard that there was some kind of teaching from buddha saying life is a evil creature. (Might be untrue tho, I'm not good with buddhism) I looked more into that and found out more about antinatalism. And I can only agree. Why would you let someone be born if there is no reason behind it? Atleast no good one. Especially in a world like this, so there are many reasons why it's a bad idea. Anyway, I tried to talk about this to someone before, but it only ended up with them saying it's ridiculous sjw propaganada... So I'm pretty sure it's a better idea to ask this to people who may see this a bit more... not-judging.

So... What do you think of antinatalism? I would love to know

 

[CRM]

It makes sense, but it's not like this forum is the most unbiased place to ask, either.

From a logical standpoint, it's pretty much unassailable because nobody "misses out" from not being born. Nobody who wasn't born has ever suffered for a single second. And nobody who wasn't born says to themselves, "man, I wish two morons who have no idea what they're doing would have unprotected sex so I could do the same thing in 20-40 years!"

The species as a whole will never accept it, though. That would lead to extinction, and there's a reason humans have been around for so long. We'll make ourselves extinct through war and climate change.

 

[Life sucks]

Life sucks so no I won't bring anyone here.

 

[lv-gras]

generally not too interested in antinatalism, for similar reasons that am on this forum. people can make their own decisions to leave if they wish, and maybe they might find they don't. if we allow all that choice and treat people with respect, don't see it being that much of a problem.

 

[Life sucks]

generally not too interested in antinatalism, for similar reasons that am on this forum. people can make their own decisions to leave if they wish, and maybe they might find they don't. if we allow all that choice and treat people with respect, don't see it being that much of a problem.

Antinatalism is not about forcing others but only a philosophy. You can be pro-choice while being antinatalist. On the other hand, pro-natalists try to force others to bring more and more and they are disgusting and not pro-choice at all

 

[Life sucks]

It makes sense, but it's not like this forum is the most unbiased place to ask, either.

From a logical standpoint, it's pretty much unassailable because nobody "misses out" from not being born. Nobody who wasn't born has ever suffered for a single second. And nobody who wasn't born says to themselves, "man, I wish two morons who have no idea what they're doing would have unprotected sex so I could do the same thing in 20-40 years!"

The species as a whole will never accept it, though. That would lead to extinction, and there's a reason humans have been around for so long. We'll make ourselves extinct through war and climate change.

The problem isn't about the non-existent people. Its about the lack of choice both negatively and positively. You are forced to live and suffer without any choice. Who make the choice? Not you as an existent person but parents or other people and circumstances. But even with that, probably there is no free will and there is no true choices in life so its all like a machine working.

 

[Life sucks]

Note: Idk if this has been asked before.

In my opinion life is pretty pointless & feels like it mostly consists of suffering. Like a post on this website once said, that there are "happy moments", but in the end nothing is worthy eneogh to keep on suffering through life. (Btw this is the post)
I once heard that there was some kind of teaching from buddha saying life is a evil creature. (Might be untrue tho, I'm not good with buddhism) I looked more into that and found out more about antinatalism. And I can only agree. Why would you let someone be born if there is no reason behind it? Atleast no good one. Especially in a world like this, so there are many reasons why it's a bad idea. Anyway, I tried to talk about this to someone before, but it only ended up with them saying it's ridiculous sjw propaganada... So I'm pretty sure it's a better idea to ask this to people who may see this a bit more... not-judging.

So... What do you think of antinatalism? I would love to know

I'm strongly antinatalist because life is shit and I don't want others to suffer. That's my personal choice. Specially if someone wants to ctb, bringing children is not a good thing to do

 

[Comatose11]

I'm unsure about it. Some people do enjoy life and some people do see it as a gift. A lot of people are lying to themselves, but there are people who genuinely are thankful to be alive and genuinely enjoy it. We are in a minority, but this minority really suffers.

I wish that before we were born we could decide if we wanted to come into this world or not and before we agreed, we knew exactly what life would look like for us. And I wish that we had the ability to just die when it became too much. Like we could just willingly stop our hearts in the middle of the night and not wake up ever again if we wanted to.

 

[Aponia & Ataraxia]

Life sucks so no I won't bring anyone here.

That very way in which "life" is phrased is what leads to humans assuming that it is o.k. to reproduce (this is in no way to say that you're mistaken, but to elaborate even further). Eugene Thacker has delineated the distinctions: "life" as metaphysical (religiosity, spirituality, etc.), "life" as the negentropic/evolutionary process, "life" as it pertains to the individual v.s. the societal.

This ambiguity in language is one chronic reason for why the majority of humans have a distorted view of the: finite, ephemeral, (indeed, fleeting) Homo sapiens experience (which occurs in a very distinct, particular, specific phase-space; characterized by immutable tendency toward increasingly disordered states of affairs with time)

"...characterized by a state of constant striving in order to keep unpleasantness at bay" --David Benatar

...amidst mounting multiverse theories (and even some limited empirical evidence such as the BICEP experimental observations; cosmic/eternal inflation, inflationary cosmology) postulating the existence of pocket universes which feature no such abrasion in time, nor arrow of time.

 

[Aponia & Ataraxia]

I'm unsure about it. Some people do enjoy life and some people do see it as a gift. A lot of people are lying to themselves, but there are people who genuinely are thankful to be alive and genuinely enjoy it. We are in a minority, but this minority really suffers.

I wish that before we were born we could decide if we wanted to come into this world or not and before we agreed, we knew exactly what life would look like for us. And I wish that we had the ability to just die when it became too much. Like we could just willingly stop our hearts in the middle of the night and not wake up ever again if we wanted to.

I'd have to concur with that one, my friend. Albeit, why stop right there? It would be best if there were a sort of instantaneous vaporization or instantaneous compactification, --seamless, painless, leaves no body behind/no decomposition (indeed, "vanish into thin air"). In reality, this is an ethics far ahead of the times, and there is in fact no such thing as "free will" (which is why we observe such a walking-contradiction-of-a-world)



(39:17 - 41:29) :

 

[Morning Angel]

I like the philosophy of antinatalism when it's used as a basis for rational arguments to reduce human suffering (i.e. babies born with genetic defects or prevention or child abuse), waste, resources, and to increase efficiency (e.g. child welfare system and adoption). I'm less crazy about when it's used as a basis and rationale for killing oneself because often the argument is, "Well life sucks I didn't ask to be brought here." True, but killing yourself will do little to prevent others from continuing to try and make children.

 

[Deleted_9cKnXB34QG]

It does make sense but it will never be widely accepted. People will continue to breed no matter what - in concentration camps and war zones, during famine and Great Plague, absolutely nothing will force them to stop and think about it. They're horny, they fuck, they shit out a baby, life goes on. We're animals after all.

I'm glad that I didn't bring anyone here, I didn't pass my family trauma and crappy genes, nobody will suffer because of me. But I'm not gonna try and convince others to do the same since it's pointless.

 

[sky7]

My parents long ago accepted the fact that I would never give them grandchildren because I told them that I did not have any say or consent to my existence and that I would never force that on another person. My personal opinion is that non-existence is certainly better than a lifetime of pain and suffering. And if there is an afterlife with the possibility of a hell....non existence is certainly better than an eternity of suffering

 

[Tiburcio]

Being parents is the biggest form of selfishness. We are put here for fulfilling their wishes (even if their only wish was having the typical "happy family") and if you don't like it, you are fucked. Once you are here, you must do what almost everybody in the planet do unless a extremely concrete conditions are done: you have to hold on life, trying to find a reason for vague it can be, for continuing with everything. The lack of meaning in their life is one of the worst tgings the common person can imagine so they blind their eyes, endure all the negative things life gives them and keep going. And force others to have the same wretched fate than them, without considering even a moment how fucked the world is. There is no choice; it's the ultimate form of slavery, creating life because you wanted something, no matter of how bad can be the child's life.

Ones try to ignore the reality and see everything as a gift; they confuse something unique with something worthy.
The fear of nothingless is huge and many people strongly try to ignore it; others realize it.

If you think your life is OK, well then, but when you decide OTHERS life CAN be OK, then there is a problem. You made an unfixable mistake.


This will never change as living in the most deep ignorance is the easiest thing but I will do my aportation and I won't reproduce. If there must be more chained souls, it won't be my fault. I won't become one of this tyrants: if I really love my kids, I don't put them here without any kind of advide. We don't owe anything to our parents: they owe us creating OUR OWN LIFE, contrary of what they mark us in our mind since young.

Consider this.

 

[watchtthethrone]

Most of the antinatalists I've spoken to seem to project that life must be awful for everyone because it is for them. I also find the hubris of saying no one should be allowed to breed weird. It's fine as a personal choice but you don't get to force your philosophy on everyone else

 

[Smilla]

Most of the antinatalists I've spoken to seem to project that life must be awful for everyone because it is for them. I also find the hubris of saying no one should be allowed to breed weird. It's fine as a personal choice but you don't get to force your philosophy on everyone else

Life can be wonderful or it can be awful: it's the gambling aspect that antinatlists generally abhor about procreation. You can't guarantee your offspring will not suffer from any number of ailments including bullying, cancer, failed relationships, the list goes on.

The only guarantee to prevent suffering is to not create sentient beings in the first place.

 

[watchtthethrone]

Life can be wonderful or it can be awful: it's the gambling aspect that antinatlists generally abhor about procreation. You can't guarantee your offspring will not suffer from any number of ailments including bullying, cancer, failed relationships, the list goes on.

The only guarantee to prevent suffering is to not create sentient beings in the first place.

Then it's a personal decision about whether you think the potential beauty and reward of life justifies the potential suffering. If I knew I was in a position to support my prospective children financially and refrained from abusing them, then I've cut down on a whole lot of potential suffering right there. But again, that's my view. I wouldn't tell someone else they're right or wrong for choosing to procreate.

 

[Life sucks]

That very way in which "life" is phrased is what leads to humans assuming that it is o.k. to reproduce (this is in no way to say that you're mistaken, but to elaborate even further). Eugene Thacker has delineated the distinctions: "life" as metaphysical (religiosity, spirituality, etc.), "life" as the negentropic/evolutionary process, "life" as it pertains to the individual v.s. the societal.

This ambiguity in language is one chronic reason for why the majority of humans have a distorted view of the: finite, ephemeral, (indeed, fleeting) Homo sapiens experience (which occurs in a very distinct, particular, specific phase-space; characterized by immutable tendency toward increasingly disordered states of affairs with time)

"...characterized by a state of constant striving in order to keep unpleasantness at bay" --David Benatar

...amidst mounting multiverse theories (and even some limited empirical evidence such as the BICEP experimental observations; cosmic/eternal inflation, inflationary cosmology) postulating the existence of pocket universes which feature no such abrasion in time, nor arrow of time.

It doesn't matter for me as I think all of them sucks. And my definition is a faulty brutal machine. Not to mention the endless problems within it. The problem for humans is they usually don't accept the abstract or simple truth and go after the sugar-coated lies and illusions to distract themselves from the whole process.

Natural languages are inherently ambiguous about everything and every argument can lead to arguments of definitions. What is life and what is sucks, what is antinatalism, there is nothing having complete meaning and we always approximate to understand. Natural languages and communication of humans are inherently ambiguous with a big probability of error. How many times a simple misunderstanding caused problems for us or even in a larger scale, caused destruction and fighting.

One can sugarcoat life and add lies either explicitly or implicitly using natural languages. And it is not strange that religions are heavily associated with languages, like the use of a language in the religious books that makes the reader thinks about holiness or coming from a superior entity.

However, artificial languages can be unambiguous but sadly its not for human uses.

Sorry this is maybe not related to antinatalism

 

[Tiburcio]

The user Life sucks described extremely good all my thoughts.


Apart of that:

Most of the antinatalists I've spoken to seem to project that life must be awful for everyone because it is for them. I also find the hubris of saying no one should be allowed to breed weird. It's fine as a personal choice but you don't get to force your philosophy on everyone else

If you force somebody to live you are forcing he to follow YOUR philosophy.

It's extremely simple: there is no freedom in parent-son relationships. You are completely submited to them... Is that respectful? It's better don't having him, a lot of problems can be saved with that.


And it was said life can be beautiful or terrible, apart of the middle term but are you going to take that risk for giving a life like is it, based on the lack of choice, will and freedom?

 

[Meena]

I don't think that being parents is selfish knowing that most of the parents included myself would sacrifice their life for their children.
I am bipolar and i have a 10 y old boy from whom i am seperated because of his father.
I was married young and didn't know at that moment how serious is my illness otherwise i wouldn't give life because i know now this illness is hereditary. And the fear of my life is to see my son struggling with this illness.
I wanted also to have a baby girl but life deprived me of having her.
Sometimes i still dream of her and imagine how would she look like.
But maybe the best thing i have ever made is to not having her. Knowing that my son is living without a mother since 6 y

 

[Morning Angel]

Then it's a personal decision about whether you think the potential beauty and reward of life justifies the potential suffering. If I knew I was in a position to support my prospective children financially and refrained from abusing them, then I've cut down on a whole lot of potential suffering right there. But again, that's my view. I wouldn't tell someone else they're right or wrong for choosing to procreate.

My only counter argument to that is that a lot of people don't have the self awareness or judgement to really say if they'd be a good parent after all. Certainly many overestimate their abilities.

There is no way to regulate sexual activity and pregnancy because that would be fascistic but I wish new or expecting parents were mandated to undergo parenting training. If we require people to have a license to drive, fish, or own a handgun I can't see why a license to parent doesn't exist.

 

[toolateforme]

There's an episode of Intervention where this woman had become addicted to opiates after getting PTSD from losing 3 of her 4 kids in a fire. Up until then she had done everything "right". She was fairly religious and could never see herself doing drugs. She was a normal person with normal experiences and a normal/supportive family.

I am anti-natalist because of cases like this which are a testament to the Just-world fallacy;

The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias (or assumption) that a person's actions are inherently inclined to bring morally fair and fitting consequences to that person, to the end of all noble actions being eventually rewarded and all evil actions eventually punished. In other words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of—a universal force that restores moral balance. This belief generally implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, or order, and has high potential to result in fallacy, especially when used to rationalize people's misfortune on the grounds that they "deserve" it.

In other words, there is nothing that prevents the worst from happening to you, even if you do everything the "right" way and consistently make healthy, good decisions. Conversely, this is why there are so many shitty people who continue to live fulfilling lives, whose actions go unpunished and unaccounted for.

So, it's up to each of us to determine whether or not it's worth it to continue suffering in our efforts to obtain stability and happiness. It's an awful kind of responsibility that I don't wish to pass on.

 

[Oblivion]

why would anyone bring a life into this miserable miserable world, a world that is unpredictable and uncertainty is at every corner.
brining a child into life so you can enjoy your time and "fulfill" your life is a very selfish thing to do.

 

[Aponia & Ataraxia]

Then it's a personal decision about whether you think the potential beauty and reward of life justifies the potential suffering. If I knew I was in a position to support my prospective children financially and refrained from abusing them, then I've cut down on a whole lot of potential suffering right there. But again, that's my view. I wouldn't tell someone else they're right or wrong for choosing to procreate.

Everyone eventually gets to an undeniably awful state (or chronic awful state). If you can't see this, it is due to what Dean Buonomano calls 'Temporal Myopia' + Empathy gap (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy_gap). Although biological aging appears elongated and slow (to the unsuspecting human brain), this does not make it absent... if the trajectory of aging and decrepitude is there, it's there (the only way to avoid it is to step off of "time's train" early). No one in an aged and eroded state "looks back" on a splendid life due to: diminished senses, false memories, dependency, unremitting bodily agony, etc. --this idea of "looking back" on a good life is a neurological/sociocultural myth.

When you assemble an individual in this particular phase-space with these particular laws (e.g. 2nd law of thermodynamics), you willingly sign up someone who is not yourself for a trajectory of certain awfulness (not "possible" awfulness). Then again, the human brain has been outfitted with all sorts of evolutionary neurological illusions to keep the entity from realizing that they exist on a conveyor belt of constant motion... unable to fully grasp the consequences of their irrationality... what more could you expect from a cosmic locust (one of multiple billions, living and dead) in denial of its having resided in a stream of entropy for the entirety of its vanishing (and, odds are: mundane + mediocre) life?

There's no "personal decision" here for the distinctly separate individual who would be created in this inherently (and admittedly deceptively placid at certain isolated moments) abrasive phase-space (the haphazard universe we find ourselves in, likely just one of many). No amount of "looking out the window" or playing ignorant is going to stop you from your aging and death, --we'll see how your perceived "decency" of this place holds up against your terminal cancer or [not so] mere biological aging...

Empathy gap: "interpersonal" (including but not limited to your future self)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empathy_gap

 

[couldntthinkofaname]

 

[Cold]

Ligotti sums it up perfectly: "nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone."

 

[Smilla]

Excellent inmendham compilation.

 

[FullFat]

I think most anti-natalists are closed-minded They're just as guilty of it as the vehemently anti-suicide people we like to harangue on here. Neither can understand the other's perspective. Just as life isn't automatically good, it isn't automatically bad either. I think I was always going to have a shitty life no matter my circumstances, but that's me (and probably you), not everybody. I am only antinatalist insofar as I know mental illness is strongly influenced by genetics and the fact that I would be a shitty parent. I have no desire to gift this kind of existence to anybody.

 

[Deleted member 1465]

The population of a species is self-limiting in nature. As humanity grows, we suffer more competition for resources, wealth inequality, disease, conflict, famine. These are natural feedback mechanisms to curtail population growth. The only way to avoid all this nasty sh@t is to choose to limit population growth ourselves, and we won't do that as a species 'cus we are programmed to procreate. Anti-natalism isn't an effective solution to anything, its just another viewpoint. In itself, it is also enslaved to the natural order: possibly the anti-natalism view is becoming more common as the world's population grows and the suffering of all intensifies.

 

[skitliv]

I support it