Plenty of society’s have lived in equilibrium with nature throughout history. Plenty still do. A “humans are the problem” philosophy is total erasure.
I'm not an eco anti natalist so I don't care about this
It’s impossible to compare the bad/good of being alive with the null state of non-existence.
So let me ask you this, say you had the ability to see into the future and you meet a couple who was planning on having a baby, and you saw that not matter what they did that child was doomed to an absolutely horrible life, like pretty close to the worst existence imaginable. You tell the parents this and they respond "It’s impossible to compare the bad/good of being alive with the null state of non-existence, we're having it anyway". Would you think they were doing something wrong? If the answer is "yes" you clearly view the null state of non-existence as morally superior to one of suffering. Even the best parents living under total FALGSC would have some non-0 risk of having a child who'd suffer such a life, so you're subjecting a being to a gamble they didn't agree too by making them.
Antinatalism is anti-everything.
Yes. Absence is better than a negative existence.
You're purposefully stopping a conscious being from being born. What is wrong with you?
IMO, we should have as many babies as possible, especially if we're living under FALGSC. Let everyone who can possibly exist experience the joy of being alive.
Okay I’ve heard some good arguments against my beliefs here that took some thought for me to respond to but this comment is dumb.
By this logic shouldn’t we abolish all family planning? If having babies is really this moral good shouldn’t we just compel all people to reproduce as much as possible?
Some stuff sucks but I actually quite like existing. I think there's a lot of cool shit out there.
Well that’s fantastic for you. Don’t force that gamble on anyone else.
Oh, get over yourself.
You're in a death cult. Why are you even a Communist if you don't want anyone people born to experience it in the future?
Why are you even a Communist if you don’t want anyone people born to experience it in the future?
I’d like society to be as nice a possible for all the people forced to live in it until we can convince humanity that a our perpetuation is unethical and end it.
Miserable. Enjoy your death cult.
It's either killing ourselves with capitalism, or just giving up and dying under communism.
Good luck trying to convince anyone with that tagline.
What are your current plans, after your victory dissolving the province of Natal in 1994?
If I could kill every Anti-anti-anti-anti-natalists, I… wouldn’t… That’s right, I’m not some mass murdering monster or Hitler type figure. Yet that’s how the admin team sees and treats me. In reality I’m actually a pretty nice progressive girl. I’m just sick of all this stupid shit. MANY more people are too they just do not want to be instabanned and referred to as Anti-anti-anti-natalists by a community they once felt welcome in. I’ve seen so many people leave the site and even have babies. I know of at least one person that considered joining the Anti-anti-natalists as a direct result of the past week. Never would have happened if we didn’t openly pander to the types of people that shit themselves during “natalist breeders” meetings and blame the lack of diapers. I think we all know the type. The people getting banned are not bad people. YOU are vilifying US, not the other way around. I hope banning random people to get your tiny little dick hard is worth turning this site into an absolute dumpster fire. One day in the near future this website will be nothing but that cuck based ball and the horrible and undeserving 0.01% of Anti-anti-anti-natalists that need and mandate everything to constantly about them. That require their offspring being tucked away and kissed. The people that kill everything they’re apart of. Fascist losers that ought to be ridiculed nonstop. Nobody would go near them on real life. And that’s a fact! If you agree with me, DM me on Reddit. u/jarnvidr. I have so much more to say.
You need to DM u/jarndivr on Reddit
Which side is Neera on? Is she an anti-Natalist? All I know for sure is that this is my pasta and it was used with out my consent
There’s the personal action of not reproductions yourself, much like vegan praxis.
There’s also the propaganda side of encouraging others to do the same, which is part of the motivation of this thread.
Hypothetically a state could enforce anti Natalist policies but most anti natalists don’t support that. Some support states encouraging less child birth through various non coercive policies.
I personally don’t have any babies so call that praxis. I discourage others from doing it too.
I grabbed with wether it’d be ethical to ever make anti-Natalism mandatory. I do think giving birth to someone is an act of violence on them but the only way to end that is to violate people’s bodily autonomy which is also an act of violence.
I grabbed with wether it’d be ethical to ever make anti-Natalism mandatory
:bruh-moment:
I mean I explained my logic for this you could reply to that
OP literally explained they realized that was wrong in the next sentence lol
Maybe not Marxist but I do consider it materialist. There’s really no way to logically justify bringing people into this world that doesn’t also call into question the very concept of morality itself.
Will these advancement minimize births to zero? I doubt it.
Why is this anti materialist? Can one not come to the conclusion that humanity existence is a net negative via materialist logic?
if you have a uterus and you sit on a public toilet can you get preganat? maria said thats what happened to her cousin during recess but my mom says maria's cousin's just a loose lady.
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?
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.
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.
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.
despite the fact that once living, almost all beings would choose to stay that way for as long as possible.
Are stupid meat computer minds give us a drive towards self preservation that often overrides our real emotional desires. Also society pressures people to continue existing even when they don’t want to. Life is pain for many people and they should be allowed to exit it if they want.
There is no difference between you and your meat computer. You are the meat computer. If the meat computer wants itself to self-preserve then so does the person. The meat computer doesn't always want to self preserve.
I think there’s a deeper truer self than my base emotions. My base programming wants me to pump out offspring, my higher philosophical self gets that wrong.
There really isn't. You are a being made out of many parts, what you're experiencing is your consciousness that allows you to reflect on your own mind. You can try to judge by yourself which part of your mind is better or worse but ultimately that's subjective and they are all necessary for you being you and you can't really imagine who you would be if that changed.
Personally I'd find life much worse if we didn't have that primordial urge to have sex and form romantic relationships, both of which are part of the urge to reproduce in an equal way.
But it's very important to realize that there is no higher and lower, base and philosophical self. They are one and the same and without either you wouldn't exist.
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.
To bring someone into existence is a gross violation of their autonomy, they have no way to consent to it.
Maybe in your previous state of being you did consent to it.
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.
Are you more of a humans are inherently harmful anti natalist, or more of a can't live a life of suffering if you never live anti-natalist?
Gotcha, so you don't fuck with the VHEM.
How would you feel about using a particle accelerator to sling phosphorus around the universe in order to create the conditions for life?
Gotcha, so you don’t fuck with the VHEM.
No. They’re not really much of an actual thing, like some chat rooms that are 90% trolls. They don’t do any actual organizing.
would you feel about using a particle accelerator to sling phosphorus around the universe in order to create the conditions for life?
Creating more life without that life’s consent is a violation of autonomy, in any circumstances, so I’d oppose it.
If creating more life without the consent of that non-existent life is wrong, then is it not wrong to prevent the creation of that as of yet non-existent life?
thanks for the good night-forum content :sicko-jammin: :sicko-jammin: :sicko-jammin:
my question for you: voluntary jonestown for antinatalist purposes?
voluntary jonestown for antinatalist purposes?
Sure
cool, thank you have a nice day :squirtle-jam:
Because it’s wrong to bring beings into existence without their consent
what if you filmed it and put it on youtube with clickbait thumbnail?
Do you think it's okay for gorillas to have babies? If so how many? Should I return my pair of breeding gorillas to the wild?
If I were being born right now would you try to put a stop to it or are you all talk?
If I knew your parents before you were born I’d try and talk them out of having you.
After that point things get messy and I don’t think I’d want to fuck with that
If no one were ever born how would we ever learn from such a wise philosopher as yourself?
i think it subtracts from your argument. most people like living, im very glad to be alive and i dont believe having a kid is damning them to suffer any more than it is damning them to experience all the joys the world has to offer. and most people experience more joys in their life than suffering because most people are not depressed.
I have. It helped me personally but if anything it strengthened my conclusions.
