Is your anti-natalism limited to yourself or something is it something you believe should be universal? If it is just yourself, why should it not be universal? If you do think it should be universal, why do you want the end of humanity and should it be forced on humanity or arise naturally?
To bring someone into existence is a gross violation of their autonomy, they have no way to consent to it. Every rational I’ve seen for why it’s okay to force existence on someone makes no sense to me. Even if you knew 100% that the person you’re bringing into existence would live a totally fulfilling happy life it wouldn’t be okay. Like imagine if you somewhat had the ability to look into the future and knew if you preformed a certain sex act on someone without they’re consent they’d actually enjoy it and be cool with it after, would that be okay? No it’d still be sexual assault.
As such the perpetual of humanity is the greatest continual act of violation of human autonomy ever, to end it would be the moral thing to do.
I’d prefer this to happen naturally but don’t have much faith it will. Ending it by force, whether I’m willing to support that is something I grapple with.
I feel this is a fully general counterargument to any sort of interaction with any other life form. At some point you need to assume consent is implied to, for example, talk to a person. While also acknowledging it can be revoked at any time. I feel if you could simulate perfectly a human's consent to any given action then that action is in fact ethical, because we already do this imperfectly in our heads all the time.
If (post)-humans were modified so that the only way to procreate was via consent of the new life form (via, say, a provisional creation, or cloning of minds) would you still be anti-natalist?
Also, if you could cause a stable strangelet to engulf the universe, killing everything painlessly before they realised, you'd be tempted?
If (post)-humans were modified so that the only way to procreate was via consent of the new life form (via, say, a provisional creation, or cloning of minds) would you still be anti-natalist?
I suppose in this science fiction hypothetical where you could someone simulate a brain with enough accuracy that it could comprehend the concept of life and give pre-natal consent to it's existence you'd could maybe argue then it would be acceptable, if and ONLY if we lived in a society with legal and socially acceptable suicide. I think one morally negative aspect of bringing a child into this world is they're is no real easy "out", suicide is illegal requiring people do it in isolation using often painful and ineffective means, and also we as a society shame and discourage suicide.
If these two conditions existed I could see an ethical human society existing but I find it unlikely, indeed I suspect the former of these two conditions is actually impossible.
Also, if you could cause a stable strangelet to engulf the universe, killing everything painlessly before they realised, you’d be tempted?
Beyond temped. Non-existence is better than a negative one.
Yeah that’s the nuclear option, I’d prefer it if we went the non-destruction route but considering how I view giving birth as violence I think I’d consider it.
That's fair. Yes, legally and socially acceptable suicide is something we need desperately.
That said, I ascribe negative utils to the non-existence of existing beings. and of life in general. I do think that bringing someone into existence violates agency, which is bad, but given everyone violates others agency all the time in a sort of diffuse buzz of annoying me, and most people are not trapped in a fate worse than death, it's a pretty minor sin, provided you're fairly sure the resultant child will have a happy existence, and can check out if or when that changes.
Maybe this is my Catholicism speaking, since I really do think life is a terminal good in some sense and support, for instance, human efforts to spread life throughout what is likely a mostly dead universe.
and most people are not trapped in a fate worse than death
I think this is debatable. Thing is I believe there’s a lot of biological and psychological factors that pressure humans into self preservation once they’re alive that means they’ll suffer on even if in reality they probably would rather terminate themselves. Thinking of how many people, myself included, suffer from horrible mental health problems, substance abuse issues, histories of abuse, chronic pain, and just general unhappiness, I think a lot of people really would be willing to end things if it weren’t for the various social pressures preventing them.
if you preformed a certain sex act on someone without they’re consent they’d actually enjoy it and be cool with it after, would that be okay? No it’d still be sexual assault.
what? I have no idea how that is comparable to conception. There isn't an entity getting assaulted when they're being created.
Is your anti-natalism limited to yourself or something is it something you believe should be universal? If it is just yourself, why should it not be universal? If you do think it should be universal, why do you want the end of humanity and should it be forced on humanity or arise naturally?
Universal.
To bring someone into existence is a gross violation of their autonomy, they have no way to consent to it. Every rational I’ve seen for why it’s okay to force existence on someone makes no sense to me. Even if you knew 100% that the person you’re bringing into existence would live a totally fulfilling happy life it wouldn’t be okay. Like imagine if you somewhat had the ability to look into the future and knew if you preformed a certain sex act on someone without they’re consent they’d actually enjoy it and be cool with it after, would that be okay? No it’d still be sexual assault.
As such the perpetual of humanity is the greatest continual act of violation of human autonomy ever, to end it would be the moral thing to do.
I’d prefer this to happen naturally but don’t have much faith it will. Ending it by force, whether I’m willing to support that is something I grapple with.
I feel this is a fully general counterargument to any sort of interaction with any other life form. At some point you need to assume consent is implied to, for example, talk to a person. While also acknowledging it can be revoked at any time. I feel if you could simulate perfectly a human's consent to any given action then that action is in fact ethical, because we already do this imperfectly in our heads all the time.
If (post)-humans were modified so that the only way to procreate was via consent of the new life form (via, say, a provisional creation, or cloning of minds) would you still be anti-natalist?
Also, if you could cause a stable strangelet to engulf the universe, killing everything painlessly before they realised, you'd be tempted?
I suppose in this science fiction hypothetical where you could someone simulate a brain with enough accuracy that it could comprehend the concept of life and give pre-natal consent to it's existence you'd could maybe argue then it would be acceptable, if and ONLY if we lived in a society with legal and socially acceptable suicide. I think one morally negative aspect of bringing a child into this world is they're is no real easy "out", suicide is illegal requiring people do it in isolation using often painful and ineffective means, and also we as a society shame and discourage suicide.
If these two conditions existed I could see an ethical human society existing but I find it unlikely, indeed I suspect the former of these two conditions is actually impossible.
Beyond temped. Non-existence is better than a negative one.
deleted by creator
I wouldn’t describe it as a “desire” or “destruction”. I think we should just decided not to continue life and i think that for moral reasons.
deleted by creator
Yeah that’s the nuclear option, I’d prefer it if we went the non-destruction route but considering how I view giving birth as violence I think I’d consider it.
deleted by creator
That's fair. Yes, legally and socially acceptable suicide is something we need desperately.
That said, I ascribe negative utils to the non-existence of existing beings. and of life in general. I do think that bringing someone into existence violates agency, which is bad, but given everyone violates others agency all the time in a sort of diffuse buzz of annoying me, and most people are not trapped in a fate worse than death, it's a pretty minor sin, provided you're fairly sure the resultant child will have a happy existence, and can check out if or when that changes.
Maybe this is my Catholicism speaking, since I really do think life is a terminal good in some sense and support, for instance, human efforts to spread life throughout what is likely a mostly dead universe.
I think this is debatable. Thing is I believe there’s a lot of biological and psychological factors that pressure humans into self preservation once they’re alive that means they’ll suffer on even if in reality they probably would rather terminate themselves. Thinking of how many people, myself included, suffer from horrible mental health problems, substance abuse issues, histories of abuse, chronic pain, and just general unhappiness, I think a lot of people really would be willing to end things if it weren’t for the various social pressures preventing them.
Maybe in your previous state of being you did consent to it.
I mean maybe but there’s no way to ever prove that
what? I have no idea how that is comparable to conception. There isn't an entity getting assaulted when they're being created.
deleted by creator