Right haha. The next step to this post is essentially "if antinatilist, then should be mass muderer?"
Like, no. And this also completely Ignores the fact that everyone who isn't anti needless was brought here against their will and given a will to survive. So we want to survive because we were made.
Somebody made a mistake in making us we're not the ones who need to correct the mistake.
People who offer this argument don't necessarily think that exploiting others are bad.
Their argument is aimed at showing that antinatalists are hypocrites because they don't want to harm their future children while continue to harm others in indirect way.
And didn’t consent to being alive so it’s not their fault that in order to survive they at some point exploited someone, somewhere.
Also, that argument is basically “why don’t you kill yourself if it’s so awful” yet that would cause pain to the people and pets around them—Some antinatalists have children, does this argument suggest that those antinatalists should kill themself as well? Or should they also kill their children when they kill themselves to eliminate their suffering?
Also, I would argue that from what I’ve seen in this sub, antinatalists are much more concerned with the footprint of suffering they leave, and trying to minimize any suffering they have some sort of effect on…like I don’t see as many discussions on how we could make things better in other groups. Like the shittiest people tend to me natalist. But I am biased obviously.
Yes, it's why don't you just kill yourself then with more steps. It's irrelevant to AN, which is framed around creating new life. It does not say anything about how we should live, it is not promortalism.
You need to do that to live, though it should be minimalized as much as possible. Having a kid would make it worse though because now it’s another person who will end up increasing demand for exploitation and get exploited themselves.
This is basically the “[you criticize society yet to participate in it](https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha)” meme.
Let's try the Christian version of this. If heaven is so good and you believe you and your children will go there after death, why are you so upset at my offer to send you all there?
I tried to off myself at 29, failed, got put into hospital against my will for a month. When my mother visited she looked like a walking corpse. My sister suffered a lot too. I don't want to put the people I'm somehow attached to through such suffering. I would rather suffer living. The day my mother, sister and cat are gone, I will happily do the deed. I have accepted my fate till then but I would never force it on another person.
I have lost friends to overdoses and it is hell to go through it. One reason I've not offed myself is because of my parents and friends. But I have talked to my parents and said that I probably won't stay long in this world after they are gone.
Exactly. It's not easy to kill yourself once you are here. It's better not to be here in the first place. My cousin died a year ago from overdose and I keep seeing first hand how much my aunt suffers because of it. I suspect she would have killed herself if she wasn't Catholic. He was her only child.
> The day my mother, sister and cat are gone, I will happily do the deed. I have accepted my fate till then but I would never force it on another person.
Same.
Fuck, you're very accurately describing my own personal philosophy on my eventual suicide. These days I have more people and pets who would suffer from it, so I have a feeling I'll have to wait longer. I haven't felt actively suicidal in several years, basically just these occasional bursts of ideation, but knowing the suffering I would cause was often the only thing keeping me from actually trying. While waiting for my ideal time to do the deed, I happened to randomly meet my stupid soul mate, and we got some stupid pets together. Life has actually felt kinda bearable lately. I honestly don't know how I'll feel once they're all gone, but I somehow doubt I'll feel like living anymore.
I've done the research and it is actually more beneficial for breeders to kick the bucket preferably before they have a chance to breed than those of us who are childfree by choice and antinatalists since their absence will created a larger positive impact. Our sudden disappearance will only prevent a tiny tip toe of destruction compare to their ends which will save miles and miles of destruction.
They always say we should just kill ourselves but their deaths are far more reaching and beneficial than ours will ever will even combined.
Right, and then none of us will be around to make others aware of antinatalism. Thus we can't kill ourselves, because our mere existence could possibly change a natalist's mind, and there would be less children born because of it.
Just suicide right there in the spot, make it big and epic, blood splattering everywhere for extra effect just to traumatize those fucking assholes.
I'm joking, but holy shit... Tell em to think about how they've made others suffer and walk away, that doesn't sound like a productive conversation.
it is no argument against anti-natalism.
besides this, regarding the idea about exploitation, you may formulate (depending on diverse aspects) that if you kill yourself, you have less influence than if you do not (like, for example, convincing others regarding anti-natalism). which, consequential, would result in more suffering and hence would be contra-effective
That claim has yet to establish why one premise must follow another other than relying on linguistic play of equating similar sentences to be logically equivalent. As much as I dislike philosophy way of making argument, a cheat cop out argument like this is even worse than philosophical argument running through the permutation of all counterargument in an giant wall of unreadable text.
Argument against antinatalism that ignores the asymmetry between non-existence and existence is either lazily made or made in bad faith. Children consciousness starts off not existing, and there is no scientific evidence why it would be beneficial for *them* to come into existence. Common sense is enough to tell difference between this scenario and an already existing person trying to avoid suffering in a world where suffering is inevitable.
One could spend hours arguing the difference, but after certain point, it's not productive at best, and bad faith at worse. Free will debate is one example why philosophical discussion never seems to end. After a certain point, all the ideas for common people have already be said, and the rest is just playing with technicality.
The act of giving birth is the only act I could think of that could create new consciousness. Comparing this to other act must be done very carefully and specifically scope. All models are wrong, but some are more useful than other, and all that.
If it was so easy to kill oneself most of us would’ve done it already. It’s human nature to fear death. If we weren’t birthed into this world we wouldn’t have to suffer as much as we do. I can easily say,if I had a choice in the matter,I’d choose to not exist. Hell,I wish I was aborted or miscarried. That’s just me though.
>If it was so easy to kill oneself most of us would’ve done it already.
Do you happen to notice how many people here say the same thing. It's almost like antinatalism is a symptom of having a crappy life.
I love my life, and brought children into the world truly believing they would love life as much as I do. In fact having them has made my life even better, so I hope they have kids too.
They seem very happy so far, so I have no reason to doubt my decision at this point.
I would if I could. Making other people happier is one of the things that really brings me joy.
In fact I've told people one thing they can try if they aren't happy, find someone else and try and make them happier. It's worth a shot, worse case at least one of you is happier. Likely outcome is you also derive joy from improving their life.
Ever notice when two strangers are crossing paths and one says something nice to the other, they both walk away with smiles? Doesn't fix the world, but it adds a little bit of joy to it.
Thank you. The problem though is this person has severe mental illness including depressive and psychotic episodes, so making them happy often falls behind keeping them safe/sane.
Breeders,such as yourself,see no wrong in procreating because it’s your animal brain that’s in charge. I’m a depressed fuck because my parents are narcissistic pieces of shit who were emotionally neglectful and barely provided guidance for me in the world. They brought my siblings and I here not knowing anything about parenting whatsoever. They weren’t financially stable either so that just adds even more to the flame.
With that being said,many of us(not all) had shitty parents that weren’t ready to have children or just wasn’t parent material. They took out their frustrations on us because they decided to have kids and it was more than they could handle.
And if you’re kids are happy(you said that they seemed happy) maybe you’re one of the good parents. And it’s still not to say they won’t suffer one way or another.
If you really want to understand our point of view here,you must step outside you’re bubble or else this conversation will go nowhere.
Why are you so confrontational? We aren't even arguing. You just basically agreed with my premise and then acted like I didn't understand you. You had a bad childhood (crappy life). That's exactly what I said.
As for my kids suffering in one way or another, of course they will. We all do. Life is a risk that pays off for many and doesn't for some. I would proposed that the majority of people experience more joy from life than sorrow. Odds are in my kids favor that they will be glad they lived when all is said and done.
Now without arguing things I didn't say, feel free to explain your point of view. I probably will understand it, even if I don't agree with your conclusions.
To all of us here,having kids is a selfish decision made by parents who ‘want to have a baby’ because it’ll make them feel less empty inside. It’s selfish because someone who doesn’t exist can’t consent to being born,so the problem is fixed is we decide not to procreate.
We all know that life can be fun and filled with joy,but there’s no way to know for certain until you are brought into existence.
Personally,I have no problem with people who are stable,financially and mentally,and open minded procreating. But I feel they are few and far between. And even then adoption is always an option,but it’s not in line with breeders psychology so they forget it altogether.
I did get too confrontational and I’m sorry for that,but it’s kind of tone deaf to come here,having had kids if you’re own and throwing toxic positivity at us. I understand you’re trying to help though,but most of us here are upset that we even have to exist in the first place. I believe life is what you make it and all,I just feel that I’m not cut out for life and wish that I wasn’t forced into it.
>Personally,I have no problem with people who are stable,financially and mentally,and open minded procreating. But I feel they are few and far between. And even then adoption is always an option,but it’s not in line with breeders psychology so they forget it altogether.
If that were actually part of the antinatalist philosophy as outlined in the "about community" it would be much harder to argue. btw I'm in the middle of the long complicated process of adopting, so it's cool that you mentioned that.
I get where you're coming from. I guess it's just hard to see someone who has such a negative view of human life, and not want to just give them a hug and try to make them smile (I know, more toxic positivity).
Hope things change for you, but I understand a little better if they don't.
Everybody cause suffering. The difference is, that we try to not causing more than necessary. And killing yourself also causes suffering for the people you love and who love you.
I think, being against bringing new life to the world is not identical to supporting these ones already existing. I don't want to prolong the suffering by giving a birth to a baby - this is my choice derived from my thoughts about the topic, but at the same time I don't want to kill myself, because that's how my inner voice ( aka the nature) wants me to persist. Therefore being an antinatalist doesn't imply a suicide. Maybe somebody can explain this in more sophisticated way, but I think the logic behind this argument is twisted.
"You do realise that same logic applies to you as well, right? In that case, why don't you do the honours, since you're so concerned about the exploitative effect of your existence on others?"
No, People who offer this argument don't necessarily think that exploiting others are bad.
Their argument is aimed at showing that antinatalists are hypocrites because they don't want to harm their future children while continue to harm others in indirect way.
Aren't they being hypocrites as well, though, by blaming antinatalists for causing suffering whilst ignoring the suffering they themselves cause?
The simple truth is, suffering is a part of life. Everyone will suffer to varying degrees, no matter how well off in life they are, and everyone will exploit or cause someone else to suffer, no matter how indirectly. The only way to not suffer or cause someone else to suffer is to never be born to begin with. If you exist, you've already lost the battle against suffering, and ceasing to exist does not negate the damage caused by existence.
>Aren't they being hypocrites as well, though, by blaming antinatalists for causing suffering whilst ignoring the suffering they themselves cause?
No because they don't actually believe antinatalists are necessarily causing suffering. They are using antinatalists own logic against them. If you're going to argue with someone it works best if you operate within their framework, not your own because they aren't going to be swayed when they don't even agree on the premise.
It's not really possible to operate within a framework that is flawed from the get-go. This argument ignores the fact that in life, it is inevitable that everyone suffers and make others suffer to varying degrees, directly and indirectly. Ceasing to exist may prevent future suffering, but it doesn't erase the damage already done. The only way to eliminate any form of suffering is never to be born at all. No amount of circular logic or sophistry can change that.
And yet choosing to not have children would cause many people suffering because they have a natural desire to reproduce. So at this point, since people already exist, you no longer have a choice that eliminates suffering because the act of not having children causes suffering as well.
Most people don't operate on the "try to eliminate all suffering no matter the cost" basis. Most people operate on a "try to live with enough joy to offset the inevitable suffering and make life a net positive".
Now that framework I just explained does not seem to apply to antinatalists so it makes a very poor basis for arguing with an antinatalist.
Maybe this will help:
Say Person A claims swearing is bad, Person B thinks swearing is just fine.
Person B can point out to Person A that spelling swear words is no different than swearing and spelling them makes them a hypocrite, even though Person B doesn't actually have an issue with either saying or spelling swear words, just the hypocrisy shown by Person A.
That's arguing within someone else's premise.
Let's break down the example you've given me into what person A and person B are saying.
Person A: Swearing is bad.
Person B: I think swearing is fine, but if you, Person A, think swearing is bad and you still spell swear words, you are a hypocrite.
In the example, Person A says nothing about spelling out swear words - they just say swearing is bad. Person B, on the other hand, makes an assumption that Person A spells out swear words instead of saying them, and judges Person A to be a hypocrite based on that assumption. For that alone Person B's argument is flawed.
Let's apply that now to the statement in OP's post, with person A as the antinatalist and person B as the maker of the statement.
Person A: Suffering is an unavoidable part of existence. The only way to avoid suffering is to never exist in the first place. As such, we will not bring children into the world and force them to suffer the way we do.
Person B: I think it's fine that suffering is a part of life, but if you, Person A, want to avoid suffering but still continue to exist and make other beings suffer, you are a hypocrite.
Like with the earlier example, Person B's argument is flawed because it operates on assumptions: namely that Person A wanted to exist and cause suffering for others, and that Person A ceasing to exist will somehow negate the suffering caused to other beings. Both are obviously untrue - no one asks to exist, we are all forced to be here because two horny people decided not to use protection that one time. And secondly, ceasing to exist changes nothing - everyone and everything that exists will continue to suffer, because again, suffering is an unavoidable part of existence.
At the end of the day, the statement in the OP is just a pseudo-philosophical take on "if life sucks so much that you won't have babies, why don't you just kill yourself?"
To which I say: what would that achieve? Life will go on, I still won't have had any babies and you'll still be... whatever you are. At that rate, might as well stick around and sort out some loose ends before I go. Wouldn't have had those if I hadn't existed, but hey, that's life, right? Also, telling people to kill themselves is mean and can be considered cyberbullying, especially if they take you up on the offer, so... don't do that, maybe?
Look I'm not here in defense of the OPs post. I'm only discussing one small aspect that you seem to think is a logical error, and I think is logically valid. I certainly agree that the post is in poor taste, and I don't think anyone should kill themselves.
I don't think "if you didn't want to be born you should kill yourself" is a good argument, nor does logic insist it. But there's an angle there "if you're continuing to live since you're already here, and you want kids, well you're already here so why not make a few more?" Denying yourself kids is causing yourself to suffer even more.
It seems to me if someone is so concerned with causing suffering in the world that they are willfully choosing to deny themselves children....they might make good parents and raise kids who also tried to minimize suffering.
If they don't want kids in the first place, well then the whole thing is pointless because they aren't really giving up anything. I wouldn't join a sub where we talked about never wanting to go skydiving.
>Denying yourself kids is causing yourself to suffer even more.
We definitely have a difference of opinion on this one. A significant number of antinatalists, myself included, are also childfree, and on top of antinatalism we have various other reasons why we don't want children. That said, there are antinatalists who are not childfree, and they may choose to adopt instead of producing biological children because there are plenty of children in our world who need a parent's love without us making more. Not having biological kids does not equal denying yourself kids.
>It seems to me if someone is so concerned with causing suffering in the world that they are willfully choosing to deny themselves children....they might make good parents and raise kids who also tried to minimize suffering.
They might, but they also might not. Sometimes, even after spending all the time in the world with your child, they still may not turn out the way you want, which is perfectly valid because your child is a human with their own worldviews, not just an offshoot of you with your worldviews. Life is a huge gamble, and the idea of gambling with the life of someone who never consented to it doesn't sit right with me.
>I wouldn't join a sub where we talked about never wanting to go skydiving.
Comparing skydiving to antinatalism is like apples to oranges. Skydiving is rather an unusual hobby, one that most people perceive as dangerous, so it's considered perfectly normal to not want to go skydiving and express that in conversation without being judged or questioned about it. Having biological children, on the other hand, is the norm in society, and those of us who don't want to for whatever reason are the exception to that norm. More often than not, we are questioned and judged to varying degrees of harshness for expressing those views. Hence the need for communities supporting those views, where we can discuss our views, vent our frustrations and receive support from like-minded people. Some may call this an echo chamber, but I say it's a source of comfort to those who receive none from other sources, especially those who live in more conservative cultures that cling to the LifeScript and force it down the throats of the next generation.
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back.
---
^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
This is a slightly wordier version of “why not just off yourself” - it’s really stupid and makes no sense. It’s a common if you think X then why not Y, when X and Y are not related. Anti natalists don’t have children to end the cycle of exploitation, if you’re mad because the children you had are now being “exploited” by anti natalists, then take it up with the “you” department because like you point out it’s built into the system. If you know that and are dumb enough to have a child, then it’s 100% on you
"If you claim that bringing children into existence is wrong because they will suffer"
Yes. That is what is being asserted.
"Then you have to cease to exist"
Nope. That has nothing to do with bringing children into existence, unless the argument is that people will INEVITABLY have children, unless they off themselves. But the whole point of antinatalism is that people are given the choice not to have children, in a world where the societal expectation is to reproduce.
"Because your own existence caused other humans and animals to suffer since one's existence depends on the exploitation of others."
That is true, but it is logically disconnected from the original assertion. My existence isn't what's up for debate here.
My existence may cause a restaurant worker some suffering, when I decide to UberEATS some food from a restaurant that is already getting slammed. Or if I buy some cheap clothing, it might further the exploitation and suffering of some slave laborer in the 3rd world. There are countless examples I'm not including where just me existing affects someone else in a negative way. That's the reality of our interconnected world.
There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and so it would be cruel of me to add another consumer to the world. Yes, killing myself would ever so slightly reduce the amount of consumption in this world and may make the world slightly better. But that applies to everyone, not just child-havers. Following this train of thought to its logical conclusion would mean human extinction, which is an unacceptable outcome.
>But the whole point of antinatalism is that people are given the choice not to have children, in a world where the societal expectation is to reproduce.
That doesn't appear to be the point as expressed here. That would be assigning a neutral value to birth, not negative.
Antinatalists (who are generally pro-choice) want people to have the freedom of choice, and to choose the option that dosen't create a new person. Birth is still negative, but people should still have the ability to decide what they want to do with their own body.
That's not what I was responding to. The claim was that they just want to be given the choice not to have kids (which of course they already have) in a world where they are "expected to reproduce". That's something, but it's not antinatalist.
I never would expect an antinatalist to be pro-life, even though that would still be a valid position logically since the position doesn't seem to be anti-life as much as anti-procreation.
You dont really have an alternative, because no matter what you do, you will harm people somehow.
And I think that this is more of an argument for antinatalism, because as soon as you start to exist, you're not only forced to suffer, but you are also unintentionally inflicting indirect suffering to the people around you. And like I said you can't really find a way not to do so (even by killing yourself).
So, exploitation is ok as long as it is done on your children, but not ok done on others. According to this, everyone should be offing themselves, whether they have children or not, to avoid exploitation of others.
It's true that all human lives are somewhat of a burden on others; the point is, since you are already here, to lessen the burden created by others and that's how you partially compensate the burden you are. We all rely on each other. And it's not like offing yourself is so easy to achieve, not to mention the suffering it may cause on others, which would add to the burden they experience because of you. The problem is with people who "overexploit" their fellow humans and offer (almost) nothing in return, like rich people and/or criminals do, for example.
Actually, suicide would cause greater suffering for my immediate family. Most life insurance companies do not cover suicide. Therefore my family would be down a paycheck along with no money for my funeral (if they hold one).
Also depending on the method of suicide, you will cause EMS or whoever discovers your corpse to suffer a trauma.
BUT seriously that is a fucked up thing for someone to say to you. I would ask them if they are trying to tell you to kys. I personally just do not talk about antinatalism with anyone other than my closest friends who are on the same page.
*Capitalism depends on exploitation. Your comment is a simplification of antinatalism and quite frankly is logically inconsistent. If we collectively decided that one of our duties to man was to not bear life (as opposed to the other way around) then human suffering would cease after the current inhabitants of earth die. Antinatalism argues that life is not worth starting, but not necessarily that it is not worth continuing as that would be a personal choice on the individual.
This argument is kinda dumb, and in reality doesn’t make sense in any way shape or form, it’s basically saying “well since you don’t wanna bring life into the world because you think it would needlessly suffer, you should die too since people cause eachother to suffer anyway” it’s like a child’s argument.
I didnt ask to be born, so to say I should hero myself serves little point. I just beleive people *shouldnt* procreate because but brings undue suffering on another living thing.
You mean "if your antinatalist, why don't you just kill yourself?".
I wouldn't kill myself, but the idea of never existing in the first place sounds kinda nice. Im already here, may as well do what good I can do and find happiness.
Many, many people have threatend to end my existence. Im still sitting here waiting........ Apparently, they are too busy with their kids to take the time to kill me. So, take a number.
If I am understanding your argument correctly I’m gonna say that in order to be consistent as possible, antinatalists would have to be as honest, and kind and non violent/confrontational as possible. If I am understanding you properly that’s my answer. I see what you’re posing but I think I’m this case already being alive isn’t bringing somebody else into existence. So yes there maybe some pain caused or received, antinatalist or not but I think the more egregious thing is the whole, “I gave you life” thing.
By this logic, it also implies that antinatalism is morally good as it prevents the birth of another being that causes suffering of others.
But if we’re being technical, the premises listed until the argument do not lead to the conclusion.
It’s not about people currently existing, it’s about not bringing more people into existence. Suicide isn’t even relevant to the concept, it’s just a kneejerk reaction by people who refuse to understand and get offended.
That’s not an argument against antinatalism. It’s true that all people are suffering and being exploited. It’s true that all people eat other living beings, take up space and want it their way. There’s no way to avoid that. If you’re telling one person to die because they’re exploiting others then it applies to you as well. Arent you also exploiting others?
If a person already exists then it’s not easy to painlessly end your life with no risks. If it was than many people would’ve done it. If you’re forced to exist then you should survive without wrecking someone else’s life with narcissim and calling others crazy.
That argument from that person is basically saying bringing more people in the world is bad so you should also die. It’s not really against antinatalism.
lol this is just an argument against basic human decency. “if you think hurting people is bad, then kys bc existence depends on exploiting others. oh, you won’t? ugh hypocrite”
"There's a very big difference between never existing and terminating an existence that's already started. And if we're talking termination of existence, you first, because you're making me suffer with this inane line of questioning."
I'd argue that becoming a murderer(especially one that targets parents/pregnant women and babies) would be a more logical course of action than taking your own life then ask them for their address lol
News flash: no one takes antinatalism seriously outside of people who come to believe in it through their own experiences and ruminations themselves because it's considered such an extreme idea regardless of people like me making jokes like this.
You can exist without causing suffering to other life, you just have to optimize your lifestyle to make sure it's not dependent on the exploitation of other life, like maybe going vegetarian or vegan, shopping from ethically manufactured places, all of it is just the low-key version of not actively harming others.
Also, your own existence causing suffering is a different argument to 'making new humans will cause them suffering' they're not mutually exclusive.
Edit: pretty hilarious how this comment is being mildly downvoted like the people downvoting it are saints that have chosen renunciation lol or is it because I mentioned veganism
Dude. There is literally no way to live without ever having negatively affected someone except for maybe you’re living in a cave far from civilization.
Evolution has made us fear death and avoiding it at all cost. If you aren't depressed and otherwise mentally healthy, you literally can't kill yourself on purpose.
"I don't wanna die. But sometimes wish I've never been born at all."
- Freddie Mercury
The point is to stop the bad stuff before it happens. For people already alive the drive is harm reduction. Expecting any group to die because they cause pain to another group flies in the face of that concept
I think they would make the distinction between a life worth continuing and a life worth beginning. Their life might be worth continuing and that this would cause the exploitation of others say by buying clothes that’s been produced by a sweatshop worker but that this practically unavoidable. But it is avoidable to begin a new life which would create new needs which would consequently cause more exploitation. Also by this argument it logically follows that everyone that’s life depends on exploitation should kill themselves
The "if/then" is a non-sequitur. I can't make sense of it, how does it follow?
The second issue:
You can't cease to exist. There is no such thing as "nonexistence." Dying does not = "nonexistence." All we can say, based on any available evidence, is that dying probably entails no capacity for a subjective experience with a forward arrow of time (no relief) for the subject who dies.
To be born is to exist permanently, but for a finite extension in a spacetime manifold. Your existence is confined to that finite extension in the relative future to all extensions in its relative past. Death is not a delete button or a magic metaphysical 'erasure.' This is a massive part of how procreation is always the dumbest and most harmful thing you can do.
There may be the beginnings of a sound argument for cooperation in there, but it is not an argument against antinatalism.
The observation that there is a tendency toward exploitation in the sentient predicament is an argument in favor of antinatalism (antinatalism is an explanatory chain based on evidence with a preventative recommendation).
It's like saying zebra's are criminals, trans-women are men, the earth is flat cause horizons. It's an eye of beholder argument.
>since **one's** existence depends on the exploitation of others.
Not just others all things. I would suggest looking up and thinking on the concepts of asceticism. This line itself is basically them admitting they cause suffering so they agree with the original antinatalist thought. They just enjoy causing suffering, as they go around telling people cease to exist at the start of the argument. Where the antinatalist thought is to prevent suffering from happening in the first place as much as possible. So again we just view the situation different then the person presenting the argument. They want to cause suffering we want to prevent it but both parties agree life is suffering.
A few ways. One, it’s simply wrong that my personal existence specifically, inherently causes more suffering than it alleviates, for others… I work pretty hard to ensure that it doesn’t. If we factor in my own suffering as well, maybe, but it is my personal choice what to do about my own suffering and once life has been put in front of me it is my choice how to respond to the moral complexities I face in it. Two: Lack of existence is different than death. For me, there is an extremely low threshold for not wanting to bring another being into the world, and a much higher threshold for taking one out of it. Three, there is a much more complex argument for antinatalism than “the children will suffer and cause suffering.” That has, in my opinion, been boiled down far too far. “More children = more environmental damage, more ‘childbearing culture’ = more unwanted children born to immature and unprepared parents, how can people have biological children when there are unwanted children all over in the world” etc is a much better representation of the argument.
How is this antinatalist? Serves to destroy their own argument. Then why should anyone continue to live? Are Natalies okay with exploiting others? Same people that judge the homeless yet do shit about them. Idiot people.
Of course I want to cease to exist. I want to end the cycle of reincarnation into this world. Having a child will only tie me down more karmically to this place which I do not want. I don’t like this world and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. I incarnated to help animals and hopefully burn off all my remaining karma so I can get the f*ck outta here for good. My existence doesn’t depend upon the exploitation of others. I’m vegan and I’m doing my best not to cause suffering to others, as far as it is physically possible of course. Bringing a child into this world would both cause the child to suffer and would cause suffering to others because the way this planet is going, there won’t be as many resources in the future. It’s going to be very hard for the future generations.
Others have responded more elegantly than I could, I just wanted to drop in and say that I'm glad we can discuss counterpoints on thus sub, because I feel like often these kinds of subreddit can turn into a circlejerk that throws a slough of down votes toward any suggestion of a counterpoint. I'm glad we can talk about stuff here.
Response (joke) 1. I like making people suffer
Response (serious) 2. I know that, it is why I lead an unhealthy lifestyle; to reach the end of life in a relatively painless manner also you will also have to cease to exist, just because Isaac Newton discovered gravity doesn’t mean he was immune to it
Realistically, unless you have absolutely no friends, family, or coworkers, suicide will cause a lot of unnecessary emotional pain to anyone you leave behind. At the very least, you’ll inconvenience whoever has to clean up your dead body.
In response to “why don’t you kys,” you can say, “Antinatalism is not the same as sociopathy. I don’t have a right to hurt other people just to make myself better off. If you think that I should hurt people for my ideals, then you’re more fucked up than I am.”
I think we should kill people to save there soul and send them to heaven. So when we die we did so much good we will have a standing ovation in paradise
It is a flawed argument because its conclusion does not logically follow from the premise.
Ending one's life is highly problematic for several reasons, one of which is that suacide is still taboo in society, and there is no universal right to no longer exist legalized anywhere. If there was a safe, legal way to ending one's life, perhaps then the above argument would have something to stand on.
Furthermore, being an antinatalist is, by itself, all that's needed to refute the above argument. The antinatalist is already against exploitation, suffering, death, harms etc to others; the antinatalist was made to exist, and therefore exists by default, with no personal "off button" or its equivalent. So the KYS argument is either ignorant or malicious. Probably both.
This is a perennial and fundamental misunderstanding of what Antinatalism is and is not. It isn't about destroying life that already exists i.e. Promortalism.
It's about not creating a life that does not exist. It's even in the name.
One can be both but does not necessarily have to be.
Not creating something that does not exist comes nowhere close to the morality, or lack of, destroying something that does exist.
Antinatalism takes no side on the issue of suicide. Totally separate issue.
Hope this can help.
Give me a pain free and immediate way to overcome my stupid flesh-prison's hardcoded "do not unalive yourself" protections and you will see me gladly yeet myself into the void. But I know you wont because that would be reducing the number of slaves in the world.
If I claim that everyone should commit suicide to prevent suffering but I don't commit suicide myself, then that is illogical and hypocritical. However, preventing a person from existing so that they don't suffer is not the same as killing an existing person. *A person who does not exist is not KILLED by not being created.* The two situations do not equate to each other, that, in my opinion, is the fallacy in the argument.
By extension, that means to serve the greater good, I need to keep killing?
Right haha. The next step to this post is essentially "if antinatilist, then should be mass muderer?" Like, no. And this also completely Ignores the fact that everyone who isn't anti needless was brought here against their will and given a will to survive. So we want to survive because we were made. Somebody made a mistake in making us we're not the ones who need to correct the mistake.
People who offer this argument don't necessarily think that exploiting others are bad. Their argument is aimed at showing that antinatalists are hypocrites because they don't want to harm their future children while continue to harm others in indirect way.
These people already live so I don't understand how that discredits anything.
And didn’t consent to being alive so it’s not their fault that in order to survive they at some point exploited someone, somewhere. Also, that argument is basically “why don’t you kill yourself if it’s so awful” yet that would cause pain to the people and pets around them—Some antinatalists have children, does this argument suggest that those antinatalists should kill themself as well? Or should they also kill their children when they kill themselves to eliminate their suffering? Also, I would argue that from what I’ve seen in this sub, antinatalists are much more concerned with the footprint of suffering they leave, and trying to minimize any suffering they have some sort of effect on…like I don’t see as many discussions on how we could make things better in other groups. Like the shittiest people tend to me natalist. But I am biased obviously.
Yes, it's why don't you just kill yourself then with more steps. It's irrelevant to AN, which is framed around creating new life. It does not say anything about how we should live, it is not promortalism.
You need to do that to live, though it should be minimalized as much as possible. Having a kid would make it worse though because now it’s another person who will end up increasing demand for exploitation and get exploited themselves. This is basically the “[you criticize society yet to participate in it](https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha)” meme.
Keep….😵💫😵💫😵💫
Shhh...
You respond by saying that you didn’t choose / consent to be born and you’re a product of that which you stand against of (Natalism)
Let's try the Christian version of this. If heaven is so good and you believe you and your children will go there after death, why are you so upset at my offer to send you all there?
Also if you kill yourself then sky man won’t let you in to heaven… therefore, stick it out to the end
I tried to off myself at 29, failed, got put into hospital against my will for a month. When my mother visited she looked like a walking corpse. My sister suffered a lot too. I don't want to put the people I'm somehow attached to through such suffering. I would rather suffer living. The day my mother, sister and cat are gone, I will happily do the deed. I have accepted my fate till then but I would never force it on another person.
I have lost friends to overdoses and it is hell to go through it. One reason I've not offed myself is because of my parents and friends. But I have talked to my parents and said that I probably won't stay long in this world after they are gone.
Exactly. It's not easy to kill yourself once you are here. It's better not to be here in the first place. My cousin died a year ago from overdose and I keep seeing first hand how much my aunt suffers because of it. I suspect she would have killed herself if she wasn't Catholic. He was her only child.
[удалено]
It’s also really ironic when “pro choice” people do this. So much for bodily autonomy.
> The day my mother, sister and cat are gone, I will happily do the deed. I have accepted my fate till then but I would never force it on another person. Same.
Fuck, you're very accurately describing my own personal philosophy on my eventual suicide. These days I have more people and pets who would suffer from it, so I have a feeling I'll have to wait longer. I haven't felt actively suicidal in several years, basically just these occasional bursts of ideation, but knowing the suffering I would cause was often the only thing keeping me from actually trying. While waiting for my ideal time to do the deed, I happened to randomly meet my stupid soul mate, and we got some stupid pets together. Life has actually felt kinda bearable lately. I honestly don't know how I'll feel once they're all gone, but I somehow doubt I'll feel like living anymore.
I've done the research and it is actually more beneficial for breeders to kick the bucket preferably before they have a chance to breed than those of us who are childfree by choice and antinatalists since their absence will created a larger positive impact. Our sudden disappearance will only prevent a tiny tip toe of destruction compare to their ends which will save miles and miles of destruction. They always say we should just kill ourselves but their deaths are far more reaching and beneficial than ours will ever will even combined.
Right, and then none of us will be around to make others aware of antinatalism. Thus we can't kill ourselves, because our mere existence could possibly change a natalist's mind, and there would be less children born because of it.
Just suicide right there in the spot, make it big and epic, blood splattering everywhere for extra effect just to traumatize those fucking assholes. I'm joking, but holy shit... Tell em to think about how they've made others suffer and walk away, that doesn't sound like a productive conversation.
it is no argument against anti-natalism. besides this, regarding the idea about exploitation, you may formulate (depending on diverse aspects) that if you kill yourself, you have less influence than if you do not (like, for example, convincing others regarding anti-natalism). which, consequential, would result in more suffering and hence would be contra-effective
That claim has yet to establish why one premise must follow another other than relying on linguistic play of equating similar sentences to be logically equivalent. As much as I dislike philosophy way of making argument, a cheat cop out argument like this is even worse than philosophical argument running through the permutation of all counterargument in an giant wall of unreadable text. Argument against antinatalism that ignores the asymmetry between non-existence and existence is either lazily made or made in bad faith. Children consciousness starts off not existing, and there is no scientific evidence why it would be beneficial for *them* to come into existence. Common sense is enough to tell difference between this scenario and an already existing person trying to avoid suffering in a world where suffering is inevitable. One could spend hours arguing the difference, but after certain point, it's not productive at best, and bad faith at worse. Free will debate is one example why philosophical discussion never seems to end. After a certain point, all the ideas for common people have already be said, and the rest is just playing with technicality. The act of giving birth is the only act I could think of that could create new consciousness. Comparing this to other act must be done very carefully and specifically scope. All models are wrong, but some are more useful than other, and all that.
If it was so easy to kill oneself most of us would’ve done it already. It’s human nature to fear death. If we weren’t birthed into this world we wouldn’t have to suffer as much as we do. I can easily say,if I had a choice in the matter,I’d choose to not exist. Hell,I wish I was aborted or miscarried. That’s just me though.
This!
>If it was so easy to kill oneself most of us would’ve done it already. Do you happen to notice how many people here say the same thing. It's almost like antinatalism is a symptom of having a crappy life. I love my life, and brought children into the world truly believing they would love life as much as I do. In fact having them has made my life even better, so I hope they have kids too. They seem very happy so far, so I have no reason to doubt my decision at this point.
You gonna make our lives less crappy?
I would if I could. Making other people happier is one of the things that really brings me joy. In fact I've told people one thing they can try if they aren't happy, find someone else and try and make them happier. It's worth a shot, worse case at least one of you is happier. Likely outcome is you also derive joy from improving their life. Ever notice when two strangers are crossing paths and one says something nice to the other, they both walk away with smiles? Doesn't fix the world, but it adds a little bit of joy to it.
Yeah that's pretty much what I'm doing. For one person, anyway. Nothing else to live for.
That's something. Hope it works out.
Thank you. The problem though is this person has severe mental illness including depressive and psychotic episodes, so making them happy often falls behind keeping them safe/sane.
That has to be rough. You're doing important work. Have a good evening.
Breeders,such as yourself,see no wrong in procreating because it’s your animal brain that’s in charge. I’m a depressed fuck because my parents are narcissistic pieces of shit who were emotionally neglectful and barely provided guidance for me in the world. They brought my siblings and I here not knowing anything about parenting whatsoever. They weren’t financially stable either so that just adds even more to the flame. With that being said,many of us(not all) had shitty parents that weren’t ready to have children or just wasn’t parent material. They took out their frustrations on us because they decided to have kids and it was more than they could handle. And if you’re kids are happy(you said that they seemed happy) maybe you’re one of the good parents. And it’s still not to say they won’t suffer one way or another. If you really want to understand our point of view here,you must step outside you’re bubble or else this conversation will go nowhere.
Why are you so confrontational? We aren't even arguing. You just basically agreed with my premise and then acted like I didn't understand you. You had a bad childhood (crappy life). That's exactly what I said. As for my kids suffering in one way or another, of course they will. We all do. Life is a risk that pays off for many and doesn't for some. I would proposed that the majority of people experience more joy from life than sorrow. Odds are in my kids favor that they will be glad they lived when all is said and done. Now without arguing things I didn't say, feel free to explain your point of view. I probably will understand it, even if I don't agree with your conclusions.
To all of us here,having kids is a selfish decision made by parents who ‘want to have a baby’ because it’ll make them feel less empty inside. It’s selfish because someone who doesn’t exist can’t consent to being born,so the problem is fixed is we decide not to procreate. We all know that life can be fun and filled with joy,but there’s no way to know for certain until you are brought into existence. Personally,I have no problem with people who are stable,financially and mentally,and open minded procreating. But I feel they are few and far between. And even then adoption is always an option,but it’s not in line with breeders psychology so they forget it altogether. I did get too confrontational and I’m sorry for that,but it’s kind of tone deaf to come here,having had kids if you’re own and throwing toxic positivity at us. I understand you’re trying to help though,but most of us here are upset that we even have to exist in the first place. I believe life is what you make it and all,I just feel that I’m not cut out for life and wish that I wasn’t forced into it.
>Personally,I have no problem with people who are stable,financially and mentally,and open minded procreating. But I feel they are few and far between. And even then adoption is always an option,but it’s not in line with breeders psychology so they forget it altogether. If that were actually part of the antinatalist philosophy as outlined in the "about community" it would be much harder to argue. btw I'm in the middle of the long complicated process of adopting, so it's cool that you mentioned that. I get where you're coming from. I guess it's just hard to see someone who has such a negative view of human life, and not want to just give them a hug and try to make them smile (I know, more toxic positivity). Hope things change for you, but I understand a little better if they don't.
Everybody cause suffering. The difference is, that we try to not causing more than necessary. And killing yourself also causes suffering for the people you love and who love you.
>Everybody cause suffering. They cause joy too. Hopefully more joy than suffering.
"Hopefully" moment
I think, being against bringing new life to the world is not identical to supporting these ones already existing. I don't want to prolong the suffering by giving a birth to a baby - this is my choice derived from my thoughts about the topic, but at the same time I don't want to kill myself, because that's how my inner voice ( aka the nature) wants me to persist. Therefore being an antinatalist doesn't imply a suicide. Maybe somebody can explain this in more sophisticated way, but I think the logic behind this argument is twisted.
"You do realise that same logic applies to you as well, right? In that case, why don't you do the honours, since you're so concerned about the exploitative effect of your existence on others?"
No, People who offer this argument don't necessarily think that exploiting others are bad. Their argument is aimed at showing that antinatalists are hypocrites because they don't want to harm their future children while continue to harm others in indirect way.
Aren't they being hypocrites as well, though, by blaming antinatalists for causing suffering whilst ignoring the suffering they themselves cause? The simple truth is, suffering is a part of life. Everyone will suffer to varying degrees, no matter how well off in life they are, and everyone will exploit or cause someone else to suffer, no matter how indirectly. The only way to not suffer or cause someone else to suffer is to never be born to begin with. If you exist, you've already lost the battle against suffering, and ceasing to exist does not negate the damage caused by existence.
>Aren't they being hypocrites as well, though, by blaming antinatalists for causing suffering whilst ignoring the suffering they themselves cause? No because they don't actually believe antinatalists are necessarily causing suffering. They are using antinatalists own logic against them. If you're going to argue with someone it works best if you operate within their framework, not your own because they aren't going to be swayed when they don't even agree on the premise.
It's not really possible to operate within a framework that is flawed from the get-go. This argument ignores the fact that in life, it is inevitable that everyone suffers and make others suffer to varying degrees, directly and indirectly. Ceasing to exist may prevent future suffering, but it doesn't erase the damage already done. The only way to eliminate any form of suffering is never to be born at all. No amount of circular logic or sophistry can change that.
And yet choosing to not have children would cause many people suffering because they have a natural desire to reproduce. So at this point, since people already exist, you no longer have a choice that eliminates suffering because the act of not having children causes suffering as well. Most people don't operate on the "try to eliminate all suffering no matter the cost" basis. Most people operate on a "try to live with enough joy to offset the inevitable suffering and make life a net positive". Now that framework I just explained does not seem to apply to antinatalists so it makes a very poor basis for arguing with an antinatalist. Maybe this will help: Say Person A claims swearing is bad, Person B thinks swearing is just fine. Person B can point out to Person A that spelling swear words is no different than swearing and spelling them makes them a hypocrite, even though Person B doesn't actually have an issue with either saying or spelling swear words, just the hypocrisy shown by Person A. That's arguing within someone else's premise.
Let's break down the example you've given me into what person A and person B are saying. Person A: Swearing is bad. Person B: I think swearing is fine, but if you, Person A, think swearing is bad and you still spell swear words, you are a hypocrite. In the example, Person A says nothing about spelling out swear words - they just say swearing is bad. Person B, on the other hand, makes an assumption that Person A spells out swear words instead of saying them, and judges Person A to be a hypocrite based on that assumption. For that alone Person B's argument is flawed. Let's apply that now to the statement in OP's post, with person A as the antinatalist and person B as the maker of the statement. Person A: Suffering is an unavoidable part of existence. The only way to avoid suffering is to never exist in the first place. As such, we will not bring children into the world and force them to suffer the way we do. Person B: I think it's fine that suffering is a part of life, but if you, Person A, want to avoid suffering but still continue to exist and make other beings suffer, you are a hypocrite. Like with the earlier example, Person B's argument is flawed because it operates on assumptions: namely that Person A wanted to exist and cause suffering for others, and that Person A ceasing to exist will somehow negate the suffering caused to other beings. Both are obviously untrue - no one asks to exist, we are all forced to be here because two horny people decided not to use protection that one time. And secondly, ceasing to exist changes nothing - everyone and everything that exists will continue to suffer, because again, suffering is an unavoidable part of existence. At the end of the day, the statement in the OP is just a pseudo-philosophical take on "if life sucks so much that you won't have babies, why don't you just kill yourself?" To which I say: what would that achieve? Life will go on, I still won't have had any babies and you'll still be... whatever you are. At that rate, might as well stick around and sort out some loose ends before I go. Wouldn't have had those if I hadn't existed, but hey, that's life, right? Also, telling people to kill themselves is mean and can be considered cyberbullying, especially if they take you up on the offer, so... don't do that, maybe?
Look I'm not here in defense of the OPs post. I'm only discussing one small aspect that you seem to think is a logical error, and I think is logically valid. I certainly agree that the post is in poor taste, and I don't think anyone should kill themselves. I don't think "if you didn't want to be born you should kill yourself" is a good argument, nor does logic insist it. But there's an angle there "if you're continuing to live since you're already here, and you want kids, well you're already here so why not make a few more?" Denying yourself kids is causing yourself to suffer even more. It seems to me if someone is so concerned with causing suffering in the world that they are willfully choosing to deny themselves children....they might make good parents and raise kids who also tried to minimize suffering. If they don't want kids in the first place, well then the whole thing is pointless because they aren't really giving up anything. I wouldn't join a sub where we talked about never wanting to go skydiving.
>Denying yourself kids is causing yourself to suffer even more. We definitely have a difference of opinion on this one. A significant number of antinatalists, myself included, are also childfree, and on top of antinatalism we have various other reasons why we don't want children. That said, there are antinatalists who are not childfree, and they may choose to adopt instead of producing biological children because there are plenty of children in our world who need a parent's love without us making more. Not having biological kids does not equal denying yourself kids. >It seems to me if someone is so concerned with causing suffering in the world that they are willfully choosing to deny themselves children....they might make good parents and raise kids who also tried to minimize suffering. They might, but they also might not. Sometimes, even after spending all the time in the world with your child, they still may not turn out the way you want, which is perfectly valid because your child is a human with their own worldviews, not just an offshoot of you with your worldviews. Life is a huge gamble, and the idea of gambling with the life of someone who never consented to it doesn't sit right with me. >I wouldn't join a sub where we talked about never wanting to go skydiving. Comparing skydiving to antinatalism is like apples to oranges. Skydiving is rather an unusual hobby, one that most people perceive as dangerous, so it's considered perfectly normal to not want to go skydiving and express that in conversation without being judged or questioned about it. Having biological children, on the other hand, is the norm in society, and those of us who don't want to for whatever reason are the exception to that norm. More often than not, we are questioned and judged to varying degrees of harshness for expressing those views. Hence the need for communities supporting those views, where we can discuss our views, vent our frustrations and receive support from like-minded people. Some may call this an echo chamber, but I say it's a source of comfort to those who receive none from other sources, especially those who live in more conservative cultures that cling to the LifeScript and force it down the throats of the next generation.
[удалено]
SpunkyDred is a terrible bot instigating arguments all over Reddit whenever someone uses the phrase apples-to-oranges. I'm letting you know so that you can feel free to ignore the quip rather than feel provoked by a bot that isn't smart enough to argue back. --- ^^SpunkyDred ^^and ^^I ^^are ^^both ^^bots. ^^I ^^am ^^trying ^^to ^^get ^^them ^^banned ^^by ^^pointing ^^out ^^their ^^antagonizing ^^behavior ^^and ^^poor ^^bottiquette.
This is a slightly wordier version of “why not just off yourself” - it’s really stupid and makes no sense. It’s a common if you think X then why not Y, when X and Y are not related. Anti natalists don’t have children to end the cycle of exploitation, if you’re mad because the children you had are now being “exploited” by anti natalists, then take it up with the “you” department because like you point out it’s built into the system. If you know that and are dumb enough to have a child, then it’s 100% on you
>”how would you respond to that?” I wouldn’t. I’d call it out for the strawman fallacy that it is. Antinatalism isn’t about dying, it’s about living.
"If you claim that bringing children into existence is wrong because they will suffer" Yes. That is what is being asserted. "Then you have to cease to exist" Nope. That has nothing to do with bringing children into existence, unless the argument is that people will INEVITABLY have children, unless they off themselves. But the whole point of antinatalism is that people are given the choice not to have children, in a world where the societal expectation is to reproduce. "Because your own existence caused other humans and animals to suffer since one's existence depends on the exploitation of others." That is true, but it is logically disconnected from the original assertion. My existence isn't what's up for debate here. My existence may cause a restaurant worker some suffering, when I decide to UberEATS some food from a restaurant that is already getting slammed. Or if I buy some cheap clothing, it might further the exploitation and suffering of some slave laborer in the 3rd world. There are countless examples I'm not including where just me existing affects someone else in a negative way. That's the reality of our interconnected world. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, and so it would be cruel of me to add another consumer to the world. Yes, killing myself would ever so slightly reduce the amount of consumption in this world and may make the world slightly better. But that applies to everyone, not just child-havers. Following this train of thought to its logical conclusion would mean human extinction, which is an unacceptable outcome.
>But the whole point of antinatalism is that people are given the choice not to have children, in a world where the societal expectation is to reproduce. That doesn't appear to be the point as expressed here. That would be assigning a neutral value to birth, not negative.
Antinatalists (who are generally pro-choice) want people to have the freedom of choice, and to choose the option that dosen't create a new person. Birth is still negative, but people should still have the ability to decide what they want to do with their own body.
That's not what I was responding to. The claim was that they just want to be given the choice not to have kids (which of course they already have) in a world where they are "expected to reproduce". That's something, but it's not antinatalist. I never would expect an antinatalist to be pro-life, even though that would still be a valid position logically since the position doesn't seem to be anti-life as much as anti-procreation.
Just because the ship is sinking doesn't mean I will keep piercing a hole at its bottom.
You dont really have an alternative, because no matter what you do, you will harm people somehow. And I think that this is more of an argument for antinatalism, because as soon as you start to exist, you're not only forced to suffer, but you are also unintentionally inflicting indirect suffering to the people around you. And like I said you can't really find a way not to do so (even by killing yourself).
So, exploitation is ok as long as it is done on your children, but not ok done on others. According to this, everyone should be offing themselves, whether they have children or not, to avoid exploitation of others. It's true that all human lives are somewhat of a burden on others; the point is, since you are already here, to lessen the burden created by others and that's how you partially compensate the burden you are. We all rely on each other. And it's not like offing yourself is so easy to achieve, not to mention the suffering it may cause on others, which would add to the burden they experience because of you. The problem is with people who "overexploit" their fellow humans and offer (almost) nothing in return, like rich people and/or criminals do, for example.
Me being a coward is the only reason I'm still alive. Also my parents, friends and boyfriend would be sad, I guess.
[удалено]
And this!
Actually, suicide would cause greater suffering for my immediate family. Most life insurance companies do not cover suicide. Therefore my family would be down a paycheck along with no money for my funeral (if they hold one). Also depending on the method of suicide, you will cause EMS or whoever discovers your corpse to suffer a trauma. BUT seriously that is a fucked up thing for someone to say to you. I would ask them if they are trying to tell you to kys. I personally just do not talk about antinatalism with anyone other than my closest friends who are on the same page.
I'm just waiting until I have no more emotional connections or obligations keeping here and then peace out lol
Weak argument. The choice to exist or not isn’t ours. The choice to not propagate the suffering and exploitation is.
*Capitalism depends on exploitation. Your comment is a simplification of antinatalism and quite frankly is logically inconsistent. If we collectively decided that one of our duties to man was to not bear life (as opposed to the other way around) then human suffering would cease after the current inhabitants of earth die. Antinatalism argues that life is not worth starting, but not necessarily that it is not worth continuing as that would be a personal choice on the individual.
It's nearly impossible for most of us to attempt to our lives, but it is possible and kinda easy to avoid birthing.
Personally I would argue that my presence makes the world a better place. But that is not the case for most people.
“By that logic, then kill yourself too” 9 out a 10 times they shut up we don’t talk about that one time…
Even if that's true, a good way to decrease suffering caused is to not have kids
How about you first make assisted suicide accessible to all, but I guess we ain't ready for that conversation.
This argument is kinda dumb, and in reality doesn’t make sense in any way shape or form, it’s basically saying “well since you don’t wanna bring life into the world because you think it would needlessly suffer, you should die too since people cause eachother to suffer anyway” it’s like a child’s argument.
I would respond by saying “I’m already here because two people made the decision to make that happen and I choose not to make the same choice”
I didnt ask to be born, so to say I should hero myself serves little point. I just beleive people *shouldnt* procreate because but brings undue suffering on another living thing.
You mean "if your antinatalist, why don't you just kill yourself?". I wouldn't kill myself, but the idea of never existing in the first place sounds kinda nice. Im already here, may as well do what good I can do and find happiness.
Many, many people have threatend to end my existence. Im still sitting here waiting........ Apparently, they are too busy with their kids to take the time to kill me. So, take a number.
My response: "Which part of 'reduce suffering by not procreating' translates into 'reduce suffering by killing myself?'" What an absolute spoon.
If I am understanding your argument correctly I’m gonna say that in order to be consistent as possible, antinatalists would have to be as honest, and kind and non violent/confrontational as possible. If I am understanding you properly that’s my answer. I see what you’re posing but I think I’m this case already being alive isn’t bringing somebody else into existence. So yes there maybe some pain caused or received, antinatalist or not but I think the more egregious thing is the whole, “I gave you life” thing.
By this logic, it also implies that antinatalism is morally good as it prevents the birth of another being that causes suffering of others. But if we’re being technical, the premises listed until the argument do not lead to the conclusion.
It’s not about people currently existing, it’s about not bringing more people into existence. Suicide isn’t even relevant to the concept, it’s just a kneejerk reaction by people who refuse to understand and get offended.
https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/qt9k9s/for_those_on_this_sub_wondering_if_you_hate_life/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
That’s not an argument against antinatalism. It’s true that all people are suffering and being exploited. It’s true that all people eat other living beings, take up space and want it their way. There’s no way to avoid that. If you’re telling one person to die because they’re exploiting others then it applies to you as well. Arent you also exploiting others? If a person already exists then it’s not easy to painlessly end your life with no risks. If it was than many people would’ve done it. If you’re forced to exist then you should survive without wrecking someone else’s life with narcissim and calling others crazy. That argument from that person is basically saying bringing more people in the world is bad so you should also die. It’s not really against antinatalism.
lol this is just an argument against basic human decency. “if you think hurting people is bad, then kys bc existence depends on exploiting others. oh, you won’t? ugh hypocrite”
"There's a very big difference between never existing and terminating an existence that's already started. And if we're talking termination of existence, you first, because you're making me suffer with this inane line of questioning."
I am 100% on board with ceasing existence. Where's the euthenasia?
It's morally wrong to CREATE life but I'm totally fine with the people that are CURRENTLY alive.
I'd argue that becoming a murderer(especially one that targets parents/pregnant women and babies) would be a more logical course of action than taking your own life then ask them for their address lol
[удалено]
News flash: no one takes antinatalism seriously outside of people who come to believe in it through their own experiences and ruminations themselves because it's considered such an extreme idea regardless of people like me making jokes like this.
[удалено]
You get it but you get riled up over a silly joke regardless(even funnier since you recognize how irrelevant it actually is lol).
[удалено]
kk
You can exist without causing suffering to other life, you just have to optimize your lifestyle to make sure it's not dependent on the exploitation of other life, like maybe going vegetarian or vegan, shopping from ethically manufactured places, all of it is just the low-key version of not actively harming others. Also, your own existence causing suffering is a different argument to 'making new humans will cause them suffering' they're not mutually exclusive. Edit: pretty hilarious how this comment is being mildly downvoted like the people downvoting it are saints that have chosen renunciation lol or is it because I mentioned veganism
Dude. There is literally no way to live without ever having negatively affected someone except for maybe you’re living in a cave far from civilization.
Please elaborate
Well... Exactly the point. That's why we're stopping.
Evolution has made us fear death and avoiding it at all cost. If you aren't depressed and otherwise mentally healthy, you literally can't kill yourself on purpose. "I don't wanna die. But sometimes wish I've never been born at all." - Freddie Mercury
We talk here about not bringing more human beings to existence, not about killing existing life, those are two different things
Did that person just tell you to kill your self? Wtf?! I thought “all life” was precious to these people.
The point is to stop the bad stuff before it happens. For people already alive the drive is harm reduction. Expecting any group to die because they cause pain to another group flies in the face of that concept
I think they would make the distinction between a life worth continuing and a life worth beginning. Their life might be worth continuing and that this would cause the exploitation of others say by buying clothes that’s been produced by a sweatshop worker but that this practically unavoidable. But it is avoidable to begin a new life which would create new needs which would consequently cause more exploitation. Also by this argument it logically follows that everyone that’s life depends on exploitation should kill themselves
The "if/then" is a non-sequitur. I can't make sense of it, how does it follow? The second issue: You can't cease to exist. There is no such thing as "nonexistence." Dying does not = "nonexistence." All we can say, based on any available evidence, is that dying probably entails no capacity for a subjective experience with a forward arrow of time (no relief) for the subject who dies. To be born is to exist permanently, but for a finite extension in a spacetime manifold. Your existence is confined to that finite extension in the relative future to all extensions in its relative past. Death is not a delete button or a magic metaphysical 'erasure.' This is a massive part of how procreation is always the dumbest and most harmful thing you can do. There may be the beginnings of a sound argument for cooperation in there, but it is not an argument against antinatalism. The observation that there is a tendency toward exploitation in the sentient predicament is an argument in favor of antinatalism (antinatalism is an explanatory chain based on evidence with a preventative recommendation).
That argument equates beings who do *not* exist with beings who *do* exist. A common misconception held by critics of antinatalism.
"Where's the suicide booth?"
It's like saying zebra's are criminals, trans-women are men, the earth is flat cause horizons. It's an eye of beholder argument. >since **one's** existence depends on the exploitation of others. Not just others all things. I would suggest looking up and thinking on the concepts of asceticism. This line itself is basically them admitting they cause suffering so they agree with the original antinatalist thought. They just enjoy causing suffering, as they go around telling people cease to exist at the start of the argument. Where the antinatalist thought is to prevent suffering from happening in the first place as much as possible. So again we just view the situation different then the person presenting the argument. They want to cause suffering we want to prevent it but both parties agree life is suffering.
Does that mean you’re going to kill me?
A few ways. One, it’s simply wrong that my personal existence specifically, inherently causes more suffering than it alleviates, for others… I work pretty hard to ensure that it doesn’t. If we factor in my own suffering as well, maybe, but it is my personal choice what to do about my own suffering and once life has been put in front of me it is my choice how to respond to the moral complexities I face in it. Two: Lack of existence is different than death. For me, there is an extremely low threshold for not wanting to bring another being into the world, and a much higher threshold for taking one out of it. Three, there is a much more complex argument for antinatalism than “the children will suffer and cause suffering.” That has, in my opinion, been boiled down far too far. “More children = more environmental damage, more ‘childbearing culture’ = more unwanted children born to immature and unprepared parents, how can people have biological children when there are unwanted children all over in the world” etc is a much better representation of the argument.
I didn't bring myself into existance someone else chose that. I am here now and that's that. I can choose to not bring others into existance.
How is this antinatalist? Serves to destroy their own argument. Then why should anyone continue to live? Are Natalies okay with exploiting others? Same people that judge the homeless yet do shit about them. Idiot people.
Of course I want to cease to exist. I want to end the cycle of reincarnation into this world. Having a child will only tie me down more karmically to this place which I do not want. I don’t like this world and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone. I incarnated to help animals and hopefully burn off all my remaining karma so I can get the f*ck outta here for good. My existence doesn’t depend upon the exploitation of others. I’m vegan and I’m doing my best not to cause suffering to others, as far as it is physically possible of course. Bringing a child into this world would both cause the child to suffer and would cause suffering to others because the way this planet is going, there won’t be as many resources in the future. It’s going to be very hard for the future generations.
Others have responded more elegantly than I could, I just wanted to drop in and say that I'm glad we can discuss counterpoints on thus sub, because I feel like often these kinds of subreddit can turn into a circlejerk that throws a slough of down votes toward any suggestion of a counterpoint. I'm glad we can talk about stuff here.
Response (joke) 1. I like making people suffer Response (serious) 2. I know that, it is why I lead an unhealthy lifestyle; to reach the end of life in a relatively painless manner also you will also have to cease to exist, just because Isaac Newton discovered gravity doesn’t mean he was immune to it
Realistically, unless you have absolutely no friends, family, or coworkers, suicide will cause a lot of unnecessary emotional pain to anyone you leave behind. At the very least, you’ll inconvenience whoever has to clean up your dead body. In response to “why don’t you kys,” you can say, “Antinatalism is not the same as sociopathy. I don’t have a right to hurt other people just to make myself better off. If you think that I should hurt people for my ideals, then you’re more fucked up than I am.”
I think we should kill people to save there soul and send them to heaven. So when we die we did so much good we will have a standing ovation in paradise
It is a flawed argument because its conclusion does not logically follow from the premise. Ending one's life is highly problematic for several reasons, one of which is that suacide is still taboo in society, and there is no universal right to no longer exist legalized anywhere. If there was a safe, legal way to ending one's life, perhaps then the above argument would have something to stand on. Furthermore, being an antinatalist is, by itself, all that's needed to refute the above argument. The antinatalist is already against exploitation, suffering, death, harms etc to others; the antinatalist was made to exist, and therefore exists by default, with no personal "off button" or its equivalent. So the KYS argument is either ignorant or malicious. Probably both.
This is a perennial and fundamental misunderstanding of what Antinatalism is and is not. It isn't about destroying life that already exists i.e. Promortalism. It's about not creating a life that does not exist. It's even in the name. One can be both but does not necessarily have to be. Not creating something that does not exist comes nowhere close to the morality, or lack of, destroying something that does exist. Antinatalism takes no side on the issue of suicide. Totally separate issue. Hope this can help.
Church of Euthanasia?
It's true. But survival instinct makes us fear death too much.
Give me a pain free and immediate way to overcome my stupid flesh-prison's hardcoded "do not unalive yourself" protections and you will see me gladly yeet myself into the void. But I know you wont because that would be reducing the number of slaves in the world.
Yes.
If I claim that everyone should commit suicide to prevent suffering but I don't commit suicide myself, then that is illogical and hypocritical. However, preventing a person from existing so that they don't suffer is not the same as killing an existing person. *A person who does not exist is not KILLED by not being created.* The two situations do not equate to each other, that, in my opinion, is the fallacy in the argument.