Any arguments *against* anti-natalism??? Checking Wikipedia or Rationalwiki even, there pages upon pages of for arguments and literally a single vague paragraph is reserved for against. Seems all like a psyop or vitriolic anti-natalists venting in forms of wiki articles. It all seems so surreal though. If anti-natalism is the truth then calling Exterminatus on Earth WH40K style and eradicating *all* life is pretty much the penultimate moral good action since you'd be preventing all the countless evil that'd spawn from succeeding generations of life far into the future. "The ends justify the means" kinda deal... wtf is going on..
Well realistically speaking if you do not care about suffering you don't care about anti-natalism
I for one don't put suffering as my top priority and I honestly care more about other stuff
The best argument it is rejecting atheism or accepting nihilism and saying it doesn't matter if babies are born, so preventing it is pointless
life is good and fun. i'm glad i was born. i want to have children so that they can experience this beautiful world just as i have.
Life isn't good fun or beautiful idiot
proofs?
Sorry to hear you haven't had the same experience 🙁
Yeah it is. You are just bad at it.
exactly, life is what it is
miserable, ugly
Enjoyable, beautiful.*
Ftfy
It is for some people
Why not kill yourself then
Unironic skill issue
Kind of. But most people who tell you that have no idea of what kind of skill you need for life in certain circumstances to be made enjoyable, and how difficult of a task that is especially for someone in such circumstances, considering they most likely have mental issues that slow down the process, or even make it virtually unobtainable for them.
It gets worse if you arent atheist, since you're exposing everyone born to the evil being who throws non believers into a fire
Argument against anti-natalism: Life is good
>If anti-natalism is the truth then calling Exterminatus on Earth WH40K style and eradicating *all* life is pretty much the penultimate moral good action
Argument against that: you don't get to decide for others what to do with their life. "I killed them because their kids would have been miserable" wouldn't fly even in the most anti-natalist court.
existence is good retard
Source?
Check for yourself nagger. If it weren't the case, you'd have slept over the rope a long time ago.
Anti-natalism is moot because all conscious beings will eventually die, and assuming a nihilist moral framework, this renders any suffering they may experience void.
Pro-natalism by contrast is much easier to justify, even under the pretenses of nihilism. Given that all living things, from the smallest bacterium to all the way up to man, reproduce, it makes no to reject this seemingly universal law of self-proliferation.
You are ignoring the problem of consciousness. Obviously nobody cares if random microbes are all over the place. Most sentient animals have draw a pretty terrible hand.
>because all conscious beings will eventually die
They will feel while they are alive which is the problem. Anti-natalism is not about adhering to nihilism, it's about reducing suffering.
>it's about reducing suffering
To what end?
That's flipping the premise on its head. Anti-natalism is asking that question and addressing the lack of a justification for reproduction. It isn't proposing an action that demands an explanation, it's saying to stop an ongoing action.
>Anti-natalism is asking that question and addressing the lack of a justification for reproduction.
Pro-natalism is the default position of all living things, it does not need a justification, it just is.
natalists have children instead of seething about it
It's the obsession on dualism, specifically on the "good and evil", and supposition that PAIN is "le bad".
A good counter comes from Alpha Centauri:
>What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output.
To clarify, an individual interprets and classifies ideas into groups, the "good" and the "bad" are just classifications. Pain is a stimulus meant to tell the body to react. A leper is not a sign of a successful organism.
Yes that would be the "red button" of efilism. Of course, in reality there is no button or even means to destroy all life. Not even every nuclear bomb. Not even multiple massive meteor strikes. Life survives it all. And there's other considerations as well, such as should we inflict harm to prevent harm? Should I kill a pregnant fish to prevent it laying eggs? In terms of concequentialism the answer seems yes, but in terms of animal rights, or consent, or bodily autonomy it seems no. But like I say it's irrelevant because there's like 3672811billion other fish in the see and so you're just harming am animal for no real difference. Perhaps we could reduce animal population through habitat destruction? Things like deforestation, pollution, climate change all seem like good things to me. But of course in a million years it will be irrelevant.
The way I see it humans are the only organisms that can rationally deliberate on their reproduction. Although hardly any seem to. I have chosen not to procreate, but I don't really discuss the philosophy in public. It doesn't go down well, nobody will accept it or change their mind, and people think you're crazy. Of course it's perfectly rational - children don't exist prior to developing in a womb/being born. They have no interest in "coming into being", and as they don't exist, cannot be deprived of the good parts of life. Life contains non trivial suffering, harm, and death. All of which can be prevented by not procreating. I don't see any good reason to subject someone to these known, non trivial harms when prior to being born, there is no interest in enduring these for the sake of the good in life. The goods in life are mostly (or all) just a reduction in deficiency or alleviation of harm. You dont eat, you starve, so we call it the pleasures of food. It is a mitigation of need and harm, predicated upon supply chains imbued with human and animal exploitation. Like wise for other goods
>”I’m happy”
>N-NO YOU’RE NOT!!!!
>Any arguments *against* anti-natalism???
Indians are having kids. All it takes for brown people to win is white people to stop fucking.
Source: brown person who wants more BWP
>Yes goyim! Don't have children and let your country be overran by Tyrone, Ahmed, Pedro and Sanjay!
israelite psyop.
If humans decide to go voluntarily extinct, we leave behind a planet full of animal life which continues to generate great amounts of suffering until the Sun finally extinguishes life on Earth. So the least we could do is postpone our species suicide until we've sterilized the planet.
But even that may be fairly pointless. Considering the size of the universe and the enormous amount of time that we have left until the heat death, there's bound to be lots of conscious life in the universe, now and in the future. So wiping out one planet might be a drop in the ocean. The most moral thing to do then would be to try to evolve into a space-faring civilization so that we can spread throughout the universe and exterminate all life in it.
Better yet, replace humans with autonomous, unfeeling robots to do the extermination for us so we can commit suicide while our plan is carried out on autopilot. And in case you're one of those antinatalists opposed to forcibly destroying conscious life that already exists, the least we could do is seek out potential life-bearing planets and sterilize them before life has a chance to evolve there. We could at least try to minimize the amount of life in the universe.
It may even be that humanity is the only species in the universe that has both the ability and the desire to exterminate all life in it. If that is the case, then ceasing to procreate and advance our technology is in fact a very selfish act, as it would cause tremendous amounts of present and potential future alien life to suffer.
This is how I've always thought about it as well. Because of evolution we're forced to continue reproducing and advancing to minimize suffering in the universe.
I don't suffer. Would it still be moral to kill me?
depends on who you ask. there is no objective moral.
>The great filter
That's because natalism is practically self-evident. It's like how Christians have to devote tens of thousands of pages on arguments why sex and the world are bad.
Both are fundamentally anti-intuitive opinions, which have to be justified by extensive mental gymnastics, while the counterarguments are really simple ("I like being alive" or "I like sex")
The whole belief is founded on insecurity, misunderstanding, ignorance, desperation and subsequent deception, therefore, so does the disclosure follows the same qualities.
People who arrived at natalism never did it though thoughtful analysis which involves the test and challenge of the claims. If all the claims based on personal emotionally driven assumptions there will be no room for debate since the "truth" of the matter was never a question in the first place.
If you don't want to an hero, then to reduce your relative suffering in old age. You don't have to personaly reproduce, you just need someone to have kids who continue to produce viatnamese cartoons.
Anti-natalism simply lacks an imperativ for reducing global suffering