Antinatalism

Andrew4Handel · #1 by **Andrew4Handel** » Mar 18, 2012 9:50 pm

Like David Benatar I believe that having children leads to nontrivial harm and therefore noone should procreate.

Life is also potentiallly (although not provably) pointless dominated by work and ends in decay. We are sentient and hence can dwell on the implication of our impending death.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that having children doesn't propogate harm and is moral.

Maybe you have one?

The_Metatron · #2 by **The_Metatron** » Mar 18, 2012 9:59 pm

You should never procreate, then. That will have the benefit of your ideas dying with you.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

SafeAsMilk · #3 by **SafeAsMilk** » Mar 18, 2012 10:06 pm

A friend of mine has a similar view, they say that to give birth to a child is to condemn them to death.

Fine, I say, do us all a favor and don't have any children. A parent with such a view of life would surely end up fulfilling their own prophecy.

Andrew4Handel · #4 by **Andrew4Handel** » Mar 18, 2012 10:15 pm

The_Metatron wrote:You should never procreate, then. That will have the benefit of your ideas dying with you.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

That is not true dear.

Ideas survive the death of a person.

Have you heard of Books?
Have you heard of the long dead Aristotle?

You sound like a typical breeder to me..

Based on your paradigm and mine combined atheism wont survive your death because it is not a belief and hence has no memes to pass on lol..

Andrew4Handel · #5 by **Andrew4Handel** » Mar 18, 2012 10:20 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:A friend of mine has a similar view, they say that to give birth to a child is to condemn them to death.

Fine, I say, do us all a favor and don't have any children. A parent with such a view of life would surely end up fulfilling their own prophecy.

When the antinatalist has died the suffering will continue unabated because people refuse to take responsibility for or grasp that they are propogating suffering.

I think some atheist oppose antinatalism because they want to distance themselves from the nihilistic implications of their own position. If someone has a child and believes in a positive after life scenario then the suffering we experience on earth may not bee final or the end. That is a potential plus for the theist.

Even though I am not opposed to the notion of afterlife and the temporary nature of suffering I think any but the mildest suffering is totally unacceptable. And life throws suffering on by the bucket load.

LucidFlight · #6 by **LucidFlight** » Mar 18, 2012 10:30 pm

Andrew4Handel wrote:
The_Metatron wrote:You should never procreate, then. That will have the benefit of your ideas dying with you.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

That is not true dear.

Ideas survive the death of a person.

Have you heard of Books?
Have you heard of the long dead Aristotle?

You sound like a typical breeder to me..

Based on your paradigm and mine combined atheism wont survive your death because it is not a belief and hence has no memes to pass on lol..

LOL. Where does it say memes necessarily require a belief set to contain and propagate them? Simply the idea itself of non-belief is sufficient to constitute a meme.

Welcome back, by the way. :cheers:

Spinozasgalt · #7 by **Spinozasgalt** » Mar 18, 2012 10:42 pm

Andrew4Handel wrote:Like David Benatar I believe that having children leads to nontrivial harm and therefore noone should procreate.

Life is also potentiallly (although not provably) pointless dominated by work and ends in decay. We are sentient and hence can dwell on the implication of our impending death.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that having children doesn't propogate harm and is moral.

Maybe you have one?

You believe that living leads to nontrivial harm, don't you? Shouldn't you be advocating painless suicides then? Let's get clearer on that.

SafeAsMilk · #8 by **SafeAsMilk** » Mar 18, 2012 10:43 pm

Andrew4Handel wrote:
SafeAsMilk wrote:A friend of mine has a similar view, they say that to give birth to a child is to condemn them to death.

Fine, I say, do us all a favor and don't have any children. A parent with such a view of life would surely end up fulfilling their own prophecy.

When the antinatalist has died the suffering will continue unabated because people refuse to take responsibility for or grasp that they are propogating suffering.

I think some atheist oppose antinatalism because they want to distance themselves from the nihilistic implications of their own position. If someone has a child and believes in a positive after life scenario then the suffering we experience on earth may not bee final or the end. That is a potential plus for the theist.

Even though I am not opposed to the notion of afterlife and the temporary nature of suffering I think any but the mildest suffering is totally unacceptable. And life throws suffering on by the bucket load.

For some, more so than others. But what can you do? Whine and complain about how crappy life is, or make the most of it? Some folks need to believe that there's some sort of grand balancing of the scales after they've died, I don't see how not needing that comfort is nihilism.

I think it's a perfectly acceptable position to not want to have children because you don't want to cause more suffering. Too many people do have kids without really thinking about it, and sometimes it doesn't turn out so well. But to make others not have children because you oppose it would be causing another kind of suffering. Some of us are glad to have been born.

Andrew4Handel · #9 by **Andrew4Handel** » Mar 18, 2012 10:56 pm

Spinozasgalt wrote:

You believe that living leads to nontrivial harm, don't you? Shouldn't you be advocating painless suicides then? Let's get clearer on that.

Before someone has a child due to the wonder of the human mind we can contemplate on the outcome of our actions.

This decision not to have children is being made before the existence of a new sentience life come to exist suicide is taking place after the existence of sentience and is down to the individual. Many people do chose it around 1 million people world wide every year.

If you created a robot would you create a robot that had inbuilt faults, the capacity to suffer immensely and a limited shelf life?

However although everyone does suffer non trivial harm in life most notably through facing death and bereavement alot of people suffer unmitigated horrendous harm.

If there was a scenario where there was no going to be no child poverty war slavery and genocide then the questions could be approached solely from the perspective of western privellege and expectations.

Cito di Pense · **#10** by **Cito di Pense** » Mar 18, 2012 11:10 pm

Andrew4Handel wrote:
Before someone has a child due to the wonder of the human mind we can contemplate on the outcome of our actions.

However although everyone does suffer non trivial harm in life most notably through facing death and bereavement alot of people suffer unmitigated horrendous harm.

{Soliloquy from Hamlet cited, but full text omitted for sake of brevity. Brevity is the soul of parsimony.} :shhh:

Andrew4Handel · **#11** by **Andrew4Handel** » Mar 18, 2012 11:11 pm

LucidFlight wrote:
LOL. Where does it say memes necessarily require a belief set to contain and propagate them? Simply the idea itself of non-belief is sufficient to constitute a meme.

Welcome back, by the way.

I was responding to the posters claim that my ideas would die out with me.

However say tomorrow we all stopped believing in gods as a species then down the line assuming the belief in god didn't reassert itself the notion of atheism would be irrelevant due to the lack of a proposed alternative. So for instance noone likely believes that the there is a planet made solely of condoms therefore noone has an explicit nonbelief in this. Atheism is an explicit nonbelief that is based on the presence of theism. Antinatalism is propped up by the continuation of procreation.

So in a wry way you could say athiesm is parasitic on theism which would be a charming idea for another thread.

I say this because I think metatrons hostility towards me derives from my stringent criticism of atheism.

I was brought up to believe billions of non believers would spend eternity in hell which I rejected as a macabre and sick belief which makes people holding this ideology unfit parents and made me question the rationale of people having children whilst holding such nihilistic beliefs..

On the otherhand when I left religion I found that the alternative was meaningless pointlessness and was unable to replace religion with anything meaingfull. So I don't see atheism as a solution to cankerous religious ideologies but it carries its own innate unpleasent nihilism making life pointless which is a god reason not to propogate it.

Here is a lucid youtube proponent of antinatalism..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgQNlotRv5s

Spinozasgalt · **#12** by **Spinozasgalt** » Mar 18, 2012 11:15 pm

Andrew4Handel wrote:
Spinozasgalt wrote:

You believe that living leads to nontrivial harm, don't you? Shouldn't you be advocating painless suicides then? Let's get clearer on that.

Before someone has a child due to the wonder of the human mind we can contemplate on the outcome of our actions.

This decision not to have children is being made before the existence of a new sentience life come to exist suicide is taking place after the existence of sentience and is down to the individual. Many people do chose it around 1 million people world wide every year.

If you created a robot would you create a robot that had inbuilt faults, the capacity to suffer immensely and a limited shelf life?

However although everyone does suffer non trivial harm in life most notably through facing death and bereavement alot of people suffer unmitigated horrendous harm.

If there was a scenario where there was no going to be no child poverty war slavery and genocide then the questions could be approached solely from the perspective of western privellege and expectations.

Sure, you can tack on that it's up to the individual whether or not to terminate their life, but that's political. Do your arguments lead you to think that suicide is the moral choice for the individual to make? Afterall, if life is suffering and we actually contribute to the suffering of others through our choices, then we do less harm by absenting ourselves from those choices through suicide, don't we? Surely making the decision to have a child is not the only way we contribute to the horrendous suffering of others. Shouldn't you at least be promoting suicide?

I wonder if your arguments could be taken a different way though. If bereavment and other features of life are things we should avoid (we should avoid spreading suffering), then does this legislate that we should refrain from forming committed relationships to others? Afterall, it seems like a similar choice, given that we know there is the potential for intense suffering accompanying the relationships, so where's the motivation for pursuing these? Shouldn't we all isolate ourselves from others and never form these relationships in the first place?

SafeAsMilk · **#13** by **SafeAsMilk** » Mar 18, 2012 11:40 pm

Andrew4Handel wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:
LOL. Where does it say memes necessarily require a belief set to contain and propagate them? Simply the idea itself of non-belief is sufficient to constitute a meme.

Welcome back, by the way.

I was responding to the posters claim that my ideas would die out with me.

However say tomorrow we all stopped believing in gods as a species then down the line assuming the belief in god didn't reassert itself the notion of atheism would be irrelevant due to the lack of a proposed alternative. So for instance noone likely believes that the there is a planet made solely of condoms therefore noone has an explicit nonbelief in this. Atheism is an explicit nonbelief that is based on the presence of theism.

Ah, no. I disbelieve in a planet made out of condoms until you present me some evidence it exists. If everyone disbelieved in gods, everyone would be atheist, they just wouldn't bother making up a term for it in the same way nobody bothers making up a term for disbelief in your condom planet. In a way, you've created a new kind of people, those that disbelieve in a planet made out of condoms. You should give them a name. And who says your life has no meaning?

Antinatalism is propped up by the continuation of procreation.

So in a wry way you could say athiesm is parasitic on theism which would be a charming idea for another thread.

I suppose it would if it was actually a thoughtful idea. Then again, it probably wouldn't be any more of a dead-end than any of your other threads.

I say this because I think metatrons hostility towards me derives from my stringent criticism of atheism.

I think it has more to do with your persistent "woe is me" posting style :smile:

For your criticism to be stringent, it would probably need some substance first. If this thread is any indication, it still looks like all you've got is sour grapes.

I was brought up to believe billions of non believers would spend eternity in hell which I rejected as a macabre and sick belief which makes people holding this ideology unfit parents and made me question the rationale of people having children whilst holding such nihilistic beliefs..

On the otherhand when I left religion I found that the alternative was meaningless pointlessness and was unable to replace religion with anything meaingfull. So I don't see atheism as a solution to cankerous religious ideologies but it carries its own innate unpleasent nihilism making life pointless which is a god reason not to propogate it.

Hate to break it to you boss, but unless you make a point for your life, it has none. I'm sorry you need a Big Poppa Bear In The Sky to give your life meaning, but I hope he starts doing it quick. Your endless whining about how shitty and miserable your life is looks like the best promotion of atheism one could hope for. Leave it to the theist to drone on about the depressive meaninglessness of life while us non-believers go about our business, acting with purpose and enjoying our lives.

UndercoverElephant · **#14** by **UndercoverElephant** » Mar 19, 2012 12:08 am

Phillip Larkin wrote:
They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

Spinozasgalt · **#15** by **Spinozasgalt** » Mar 19, 2012 12:32 am

Life ain't so bad, really. We have Alison Krauss and Sarah McLachlan alive at the same time. That fact alone offers weighty reasons for preferring life over death. I haven't even mentioned Radiohead yet.

the PC apeman · **#16** by **the PC apeman** » Mar 19, 2012 12:33 am

Andrew4Handel wrote:I have yet to hear a convincing argument that having children doesn't propogate harm and is moral.

Maybe you have one?

No. I'm still waiting for a convincing argument that moral claims (like the one expressed via 'should' in your opening sentence) are truth-apt. Then again, if we had such a thing I suppose these little emotion-tugging puzzles wouldn't be so much fun to stir up.

Spinozasgalt · **#17** by **Spinozasgalt** » Mar 19, 2012 12:42 am

Yeah, it's a bit strange to say in one breath that the atheist is stuck with nihilism and then in the next that he or she has this moral obligation not to have kids. That's what Andrew4Handel seems to have said.

jamest · **#18** by **jamest** » Mar 19, 2012 1:33 am

A good advert for buddhism, is this thread.

Mr.Samsa · **#19** by **Mr.Samsa** » Mar 19, 2012 2:33 am

Andrew4Handel wrote:Like David Benatar I believe that having children leads to nontrivial harm and therefore noone should procreate.

Life is also potentiallly (although not provably) pointless dominated by work and ends in decay. We are sentient and hence can dwell on the implication of our impending death.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that having children doesn't propogate harm and is moral.

Maybe you have one?

What moral system are you using to judge the morality of the action? By the sounds of it, you think it's immoral because it causes harm, but all we have to do to make a moral argument is to use a moral system that isn't based on harm reduction. Even if we don't want to do that, we can still use some forms of systems that value a reduction in suffering, like utilitarianism, and discover that overall suffering can be reduced by producing more unhappy people (i.e. the repugnant conclusion).

More generally speaking though, I'm surprised that they wait until the beginning of antenatal classes to teach parents this sort of thing - surely they should do it before they get pregnant!

mjt · **#20** by **mjt** » Mar 19, 2012 3:00 am

Andrew4Handel wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:
:
I was responding to the posters claim that my ideas would die out with me.

However say tomorrow we all stopped believing in gods as a species then down the line assuming the belief in god didn't reassert itself the notion of atheism would be irrelevant due to the lack of a proposed alternative. So for instance noone likely believes that the there is a planet made solely of condoms therefore noone has an explicit nonbelief in this. Atheism is an explicit nonbelief that is based on the presence of theism. Antinatalism is propped up by the continuation of procreation.

So in a wry way you could say athiesm is parasitic on theism which would be a charming idea for another thread.

I say this because I think metatrons hostility towards me derives from my stringent criticism of atheism.

I was brought up to believe billions of non believers would spend eternity in hell which I rejected as a macabre and sick belief which makes people holding this ideology unfit parents and made me question the rationale of people having children whilst holding such nihilistic beliefs..

On the otherhand when I left religion I found that the alternative was meaningless pointlessness and was unable to replace religion with anything meaingfull. So I don't see atheism as a solution to cankerous religious ideologies but it carries its own innate unpleasent nihilism making life pointless which is a god reason not to propogate it.

Why do you need a "thing" to replace religion?

Not a deep thinker here(makes my brain bleed). So if the ideal is no reproduction, does that mean we should all abstain from sex? Or just mandatory contraception and abortion?
The human suffering you have outlined (slavery, war etc) of course are not good things, but to just turn your back on the troubles of the world by saying no more babies, and eventually it will all be gone will not solve these problems. People solve these problems. Not always quickly enough granted.
Where did you get the idea that the only acceptable life is one free of all suffering? Are you that special?without ever feeling pain it is difficult to feel empathy. I find it quite a selfish position

Antinatalism

Antinatalism

Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Antinatalism

Who is online