I’ve never gotten the accusation that anti Natalist is Malthusian. Malthus thought that the natural rate of population growth would lead to famine. Clearly that’s not true since improvements in agriculture have raised the max population level a lot over the past few centuries and also it seems birth rates drop with industrialization.
I don’t see how that’s related to thinking perpetuating humanity is a violation of human agency.
Also people who don’t exist can’t have or not have agency. Existence is a prerequisite to being consulted about things
Let’s say you had the ability to see into the future, and let’s say you meet a couple planning on having a child, and you saw that no matter what these parents did that child would be doomed to a life of misery, and I mean like pretty close to the worst existence you could imagine for a human. You tell the parents this and they go “well this child can NOT consent to being born so fuck it we’re going to have it anyway”. Would you think that was shitty of these parents? If yes then clearly you think persons-not-yet-existing have some rights in terms of what to expect out of life.
Truth is even the best parents ever living under FALGSC can’t eliminate any chance they’re child will live a life of pain and suffering to any child birthing is subjecting a being to a gamble they didn’t consent to.
But you do not have the ability to see the future with certainty. And you would also be depriving that hypothetical child of every moment of joy or glimpse at beauty they will ever experience you are unreasonably focusing on only a subsection of the human experience in order to condemn the whole.
Also until the birth(/conception/however you slice it) that child exists only as a hypothetical a thought experiment. Saying they can't exist is no less of a violation of their hypothetical consent as saying they must.
And you would also be depriving that hypothetical child of every moment of joy or glimpse at beauty they will ever experience you are unreasonably focusing on only a subsection of the human experience in order to condemn the whole.
If this is true why do most leftists support family planning and birth control? If the “wonders of life” are so damn great why isn’t there a moral imperative to pump out as many kids as possible? Isn’t every time someone doesn’t get pregnant when they could them depriving a life of the amazing experience of being?
It's not what I believe as I do not believe that the non-existent have the right to consent however supposing for the sake of argument they do then it is no more respectful of their consent to decide for them that they have no right to exist than it is to decide they must exist. Just as suffering is not more true or important than joy.
The reason many leftists support birth control and family planning has to do with the rights of women rather than the rights of thought experiments.
Ah go spout neo-malthusianism and whine about the pain of being born
I’ve never gotten the accusation that anti Natalist is Malthusian. Malthus thought that the natural rate of population growth would lead to famine. Clearly that’s not true since improvements in agriculture have raised the max population level a lot over the past few centuries and also it seems birth rates drop with industrialization.
I don’t see how that’s related to thinking perpetuating humanity is a violation of human agency.
It's the fact that they keep proposing the same things like for example mass sterilisation
Also people who don't exist can't have or not have agency. Existence is a prerequisite to being consulted about things
Let’s say you had the ability to see into the future, and let’s say you meet a couple planning on having a child, and you saw that no matter what these parents did that child would be doomed to a life of misery, and I mean like pretty close to the worst existence you could imagine for a human. You tell the parents this and they go “well this child can NOT consent to being born so fuck it we’re going to have it anyway”. Would you think that was shitty of these parents? If yes then clearly you think persons-not-yet-existing have some rights in terms of what to expect out of life.
Truth is even the best parents ever living under FALGSC can’t eliminate any chance they’re child will live a life of pain and suffering to any child birthing is subjecting a being to a gamble they didn’t consent to.
But you do not have the ability to see the future with certainty. And you would also be depriving that hypothetical child of every moment of joy or glimpse at beauty they will ever experience you are unreasonably focusing on only a subsection of the human experience in order to condemn the whole.
Also until the birth(/conception/however you slice it) that child exists only as a hypothetical a thought experiment. Saying they can't exist is no less of a violation of their hypothetical consent as saying they must.
If this is true why do most leftists support family planning and birth control? If the “wonders of life” are so damn great why isn’t there a moral imperative to pump out as many kids as possible? Isn’t every time someone doesn’t get pregnant when they could them depriving a life of the amazing experience of being?
It's not what I believe as I do not believe that the non-existent have the right to consent however supposing for the sake of argument they do then it is no more respectful of their consent to decide for them that they have no right to exist than it is to decide they must exist. Just as suffering is not more true or important than joy.
The reason many leftists support birth control and family planning has to do with the rights of women rather than the rights of thought experiments.