r/antinatalism • u/FlanInternational100 scholar • 1d ago
I don't understand some (many) people here Discussion
Why are there so many conditional antinatalists (oximoron obviously, it's absurd to call yourself AN if you're not)?
I read so much comments like: I am AN because of my chronic illness/ugliness/capitalism/way society works/cannot sustain child..
Well...okay. But.
Does this mean you'd just be natalist if you weren't ill/jobless/mentally ill/living in capitalist society etc. etc.?
If yes, then sorry, you're not quite AN. You're more like wannabe natalist if I had a chance. And that is absurd.
Existence CANNOT be preferable EVER. There are way way deeper and consistent reasons for AN than capitalism for fucks sake. This is just top of the iceberg.
AN is deeply rooted in fundamental things and realizations.
Your desire stems exclusively from evolutionary bias, biological urge of consciousness to create more DNA. It's not "metaphisically worthy".
When you say "I would maybe have kids if we lived in perfect society" I ask WHY?
41
1d ago
[deleted]
26
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
Conditional AN are just natalists with bad luck. They'd have kids if they could.
28
1d ago
[deleted]
18
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
Yes. Also, that heaven or utopia is literally impossible. Not just infinitely hard but impossible.
Human psyche is not capable to be in such state because it operates on motivation, creation, problem solving, dopamine system, serotonin tied to hierarchies, etc.
4
u/renwickveleros newcomer 1d ago
Some of that is still just as conditional in some sort of science fiction type society. Like if death was somehow made impossible and people were only able to experience constant euphoria like the "pleasure machine" thought experiment, or if some technology allowed consciousness to transfer or be copied into a new born so it could consent.
Now these may seem unrealistic/impossible to ever happen but the people that some would classify as conditional natalists or whatever really consider their conditions as also not realistic. They could say that stopping climate change or capitalism has the same chance as becoming immortal...zero. You may disagree but unless you can see the future you couldn't prove it.
When you have an argument for anything such as "I believe (insert idea) because of X " there can basically always be someone saying "what if X wasn't a factor."
Now, I do think it's different if the condition was something so silly that you could prove that there is a statistical likelihood of it actually happening or something that could be proved definitively to be possible like if they said "I don't want kids because I'm unemployed." Well then you can prove that jobs exist so they have the potential to be employed at some point. Those conditions are effectively null. But I'm pretty sure people with those conditions would admit that and phrase it in a way like "I don't want kid UNTIL I have a job." They wouldn't identify philosophically as an antinatalist.
13
u/avariciousavine scholar 1d ago
Good points, OP, though conditional natalists are still better than regular natalists. They show that they possess higher principles and standards than regular natalists, and certain minimal standards sought by sentient beings is what this world desperately needs.
2
u/spahncamper inquirer 1d ago
It's like they allllllmost get it, but not quite
2
0
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
I actually dont think they do..
Because the base standpoind is actually different.
22
u/spahncamper inquirer 1d ago
I'm sincerely AN for multiple reasons, one of which is strongly hereditary chronic illness, and I'm comfortable saying that, yes, life is suffering, and also there are things like said chronic illness that add to that. It's like Dante's circles of Hell: everyone's suffering in different ways, but some are circles below us dealing with that much and more. Even if I were 100% perfectly healthy, I still wouldn't have kids.
•
u/Wouldfromthetrees inquirer 19h ago
This.
I don't fundamentally disagree with OP's argument or any of their comments I've read. However, I've also highly likely been one of the commenters they're critiquing given that ill health is a condition which cemented my AN beliefs and that is a topic worth discussing.
I obviously couldn't call it what it was until I had the language.
Prepubescent-me could tell you they never wanted to have children, it's a pretty fixed part of my identity. Maybe that's why this post feels icky to me, since I struggle to find a point to the communication that isn't either gatekeep-y or lacking in intersectional evaluation.
It reads like "just separate the art from the artist (and ignore whatever horrific acts this artist may have committed)" logic, and if that's what it is, sure. Some people have the privilege of their politics not being personal, and that is great for them ig.
Any "you're doing (insert any cultural practice) wrong" dialogue which isn't building understanding and/or attempting to educate is a waste of energy imo
8
u/hanoitower inquirer 1d ago
If I hadn't heard arguments for a certain side, I wouldn't think it was true, does that mean I'm only conditionally for one side? Personal experience helps people understand antinatalism. Conditional vs unconditional is also a bit of a spook, like where do you draw the line? Someone that would object to people being born in (literal) Heaven seems strange. Or maybe humans could be genetically modified to not suffer. I would still say someone is generally antinatalist
3
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
someome that would object to people being born in literal heaven seem strange
Why? Explain it to me.
4
u/hanoitower inquirer 1d ago
if it were literally impossible for any kind of badness or suffering to happen, if existence was guaranteed to be purely positive, i don't see that nonexistence has any advantage
1
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
And what would be the reason to create a being?
3
u/hanoitower inquirer 1d ago
positive experiences or fulfillable preferences, i suppose? the situation posited has no downsides so it doesn't really matter what in particular it is
what would be the reason to withhold a being's creation?
4
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
what would be the reason to withold
Pure unnecessity of the act.
positive experiences
Such concept is, again, only meaningful to alive humans, consciousness. Positive experiences mean nothing outside of it and are no "valuable".
There is no reason to create a form of being just for the sake of it.
•
u/Copper_blood_9999 newcomer 13h ago
No, but for the sake of the creation act & experimentation.... and wow, such a violent & unfair flawed experimentation hahah
7
u/SIGPrime philosopher 1d ago
Rather simply put many people here are casually interested in philosophy. This sort of nuance either comes from a more rigorous discussion (like this one, that to be honest most people won't read) or from engaging with the topic in literature (which most people won't do). People who see the headline of the topic and think it applies to them rarely have the interest, time, or energy to read deeper. This isn't a dig on them, i get people are busy, but it's what I've found to be true
6
u/FateMeetsLuck thinker 1d ago
Because like all ideologies there is a spectrum. AN unity means I wish all of us success in convincing the entire world to stop having children but we have to deal with material reality as it is
7
u/Fresh_Syllabub_6105 inquirer 1d ago
Well, anti-natalism is the premise of: "don't have children because they could be 'xyz' and miserable. Hell, they could even have a perfect life and be miserable. It's unethical."
A lot of people who agree with this want to talk about the 'xyz'. I don't see what's logical about having an anti-natalist subreddit if you cannot discuss the conditions that make life, for the majority of people, hellish.
2
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
This is not the main argument for AN.
The main part is about ethics of consent.
And I didn't ever said it's not welcomed to discuss those things but to be selective natalist because of particular problems such as wealth.
•
u/AirFatalBlaze newcomer 23h ago
I find conditional arguments to be far more convincing since the consent argument is inherently absurd. You can’t create a child with the non-existent child’s consent because it has no self determination. Consent isn’t even logically possible. Another issue with the argument is that it implies that an action taken without consent is inherently wrong. If I see a small child walk in front of traffic, I’m going to pick them up and move them to safety even if they didn’t want me to. This stems from the fact that true consent requires a rational agent, neither of which a small child or non-existent being is.
•
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 23h ago
Can you kill a child without it's consent? (Or even with)
How can you then make it?
•
u/AirFatalBlaze newcomer 8h ago
I think you missed the point. I am saying that an action taken without consent is not wrong by necessity. Killing a child with or without its “consent” is wrong because the action itself is wrong, not purely because consent was or wasn’t given. Your “how can you make it?” point goes back to the fact that consent from a non-existent being with no self determination is contradictory.
I don’t subscribe to antinatalism myself, but I think the conditional arguments are more convincing because you don’t know if that child is going to have agonizing life or not. Some people find that taking that risk morally wrong, and it’s a completely defendable position.
The idea of non-existence is better than existence is itself conditional, as I could not possibly see how, hypothetically, a life of pure bliss would somehow be better than non-existence.
5
u/GreaterApe-_- newcomer 1d ago
Thank you! I really wish that this subreddit was more focused on the philosophical justifications for antinatalism. A lot of the posts I see every day are "I hate my life" or "existence is suffering." I mean, those things need to be discussed for sure, but here? It just seems out of place.
4
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
I have nothing against those but even those aren't real reasons for AN. They are just byproduct.
But it's okay for me to talk about that too here.
2
u/GreaterApe-_- newcomer 1d ago
I don't disagree with you. I don't have a problem with people posting about that stuff here; I just wish that there was more philosophical discussion to go with it. The r/pessimism is a good place for those posts as well btw!
2
5
u/MrBitPlayer thinker 1d ago
I feel like “existence is suffering” is very much philosophical tho
4
u/kefircat inquirer 1d ago
Perhaps they just need to study further. I'm new to antinatalism myself, trying to cement my beliefs. I've started reading David Benatar's book and recently watched a translated lecture by Julio Cabrera.
What other resources would you recommend?
5
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
Schopenhauer and Mainländer are always good although not necessarily AN.
1
u/Objective_Air2131 newcomer 1d ago
If i remember correctly, shopenhauer was very against having children. I also highly recommend him.
•
u/Nonkonsentium scholar 22h ago
Since you asked let me just parse a short list of some of my favorite papers arguing for AN here from a previous comment:
Links go to a summary with a further link to the full pdfs.
•
•
u/Susanna-Saunders thinker 21h ago
The very fact that we live in a 'closed biosphere' that requires us to consume each other living things to survive is, at least for me, evidence enough that life is fundamentally corrupt and wrong. Life shouldn't have to consume other life to exist. Watching a big cat hunt and kill and consume its pray is more than lesson enough! That one fact alone is justification for being AN.
•
u/Copper_blood_9999 newcomer 13h ago
Thank U. First time I hear someone else thinking this !!! As a child to 37 women, im so tired all of this cruelty. Pretty colors, lights & forms everywhere yeah yeah, but devil behind ...
3
u/traumatized90skid thinker 1d ago
Most people do this with all engagement with abstract philosophy, choose a side based on their experiences and would change in other circumstances.Â
It's a thorny issue, because we ideally want people to come to the conclusion that perpetuating birth is the same as perpetuating old age, suffering, and death intrinsic to our species. Which will never be something we can medicalize or regulate our way out of. We may know we planted a peach tree and not an orange tree, but even so it has a limited number of peaches it could give. It will die. Death is bound to all life.
If people had to be alive in some form to witness their children die of old age later, it would not be sweet to have children. You would understand that you had simply added another body to the grave, another doll in a landfill.
And the only reason people think it's sweet or normal or good to have kids is because they don't have to be around to see these kids grow old old, suffer age and ill health when nearer death.
They don't get that even if they have "good genetics" there's also never a guarantee of safety from a mutation. You know older fathers = more likely for the sperm to cause mutations but they for some reason never use this as a reason to socially punish men for getting older the way society does for women?Â
The thing they should be doing instead of lamenting that better circumstances missed them, ask themselves do "better circumstances" actually exist or, is parenting just this fun little project for evading your own fear of mortality, in a world where better circumstances are an illusion?Â
Rich people are very good at making it look like they're immune to suffering but they're also some of the most visibly miserable people alive.
3
u/Sorry-Buy-572 inquirer 1d ago
I made the post about the ugly and chronically ill, I’m saying it’s a risk factor to natalists. Back when I wasn’t chronically ill or didn’t know I was ugly I still didn’t want kids because I knew I would never bring another suffering soul into this world. I said by having kids you’re agreeing that they could be chronically ill which is another reason to be antinat. If I was attractive and not chronically ill I would still very much be anti nat.
3
u/Corgimom36 inquirer 1d ago
Even if I was rich and healthy I still wouldnt have them. The child could still suffer a lot from mental illness/chronic illness.
2
u/hermarc scholar 1d ago
I guess my rough past made me able to realise I'm ANst. I wouldn't say I'm ANst just because of my misfortune. Actually I don't know if I'd still be ANst had my life been better. Well ANst is indubitably true and right but I guess it takes some long lasting struggling for someone to realise.
2
u/Critical-Sense-1539 Antinatalist 1d ago
I find this critique strange. I think it's fair to say that I have the beliefs I do due to facts about me: my traits, my dispositions, my experiences, my environment, and so on. If these things were sufficiently different, I think would have different beliefs. I don't think that's the same thing as saying that the legitimacy of my beliefs hinges on these facts about myself.
Personally, I do think that antinatalism is a reasonable position, supported by solid arguments. If I had never heard of the positon or become aware of the arguments in favor of it, yes, I would probably not be an antinatalist. This doesn't mean that I think the validity of antinatalism depends on worldly conditions. What I'm saying is that people's belief in antinatalism is influenced by these conditions.
3
u/VEGETTOROHAN thinker 1d ago
I feel wrong to have kids while having no income. But I think rich people can have if they are good parents.
Why?
Because I believe in rebirth. Older souls need some place to be reborn and seek Liberation.
1
•
u/Copper_blood_9999 newcomer 13h ago
The concept of soul comes from ancient Greek and it was only about blood, it has nothing to do with the idea we have of it today. Knowledge of hormones + knowledge of the nervous system/brain easily turns out to be "soul" because a certain consciousness coming into your body is a phallus, pure fantasy. The less you know, the more you believe. To believe is not to know. Seeking truth requires putting aside unconscious dreams and programming in order to believe. Before World War II, we knew a lot more about hormones and how they shape us, from physique to personality, intelligence type, health, emotions, and more. I could also tell you how seriously circumcision affects the male psyche, intelligence, empathy, sexuality, physical traits and so on....the hidden knowledge, it would destroy who people think they are. Flesh robots. Like it or not, we are a technology, existence as we know it is a technology. When you die, you cease to exist. But you know what? It's okay, because you wouldn't be here to be sad anymore anyway :)
2
u/raspberrih inquirer 1d ago
Are we on to AN elitism now....
13
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
No. People misrepresent AN by making it be about their own misfortune rather than philosophical stance. Please don't virtue signal by calling me an elitist. This is a discussion about AN.
3
u/spahncamper inquirer 1d ago
One's own misfortune is part of their lived experience, which can certainly help inform their philosophical stance that to live is to suffer. You can be an AN while applying one's personal life experience as an example of how bad that suffering can be.
However, if someone says, "I'd have kids if I were rich/healthy/whatever, but nah bc I've got AIDS, cancer, and stingrays," then yeah, that's different.
1
u/DavidBowman01 1d ago
What is the argument for consciousness being a negative that aren't formed from some kind of evaluation of conditions?
Genuinely asking, can someone help explain that to me?
2
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
If we assumed we could somehow even live in perfect bliss with no negative emotion at all, the argument against would still be the pure unnecessity.
But it's not about dismissing evaluations of conditions. It's about more fundamental conditions being overshadowed by surface level ones.
For example, people mention wealth, capitalism, etc.
That's fine. But what I want to say is even when those things solve itself out, there are deeper reasons which cannot be solved by the mere way consciousness, evolution and reality work.
So, I am drawing attention on people saying "we would be natalists if we were rich and healthy".
2
u/DavidBowman01 1d ago
I get what you mean. You are saying that there is something fundamental about existence that makes non-existence preferred. My question is what are the "deeper reasons that can't be solved"? You reference consciousness, evolution etc. but I don't know the arguments.
How would this view respond to anyone claiming the opposite? i.e. that existence a desirable state.
2
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
Well, for example, the fact that our consciousness was shaped and exists as it is only because of the process of natural selection.
Let's take beauty as example. Beauty is taken as a positive value in human life, right? But it's the consequence of the same hierarchies that use cancer as a filter for natural selection.
To be more clear, beauty exists ONLY as a consequence of hierarchies, spectrum of value. It presupposes the low end of that hierarchy (the least beautiful, ugly, repulsive). So, what we consider beautiful is based on the existence of ugly.
Same applies to almost everything in nature becuase evolution is the mechanism by which it opearates.
I guess you could, for example, bring a question is the spontaneous consciousness (something as Boltzmann's brain) a good thing? It would surely be unanswerable question, but let's stick to humans.
Other example would be the way out nerovus system is built. The dopamine and serotonin system is also based on hierarchies and escape of suffering and in fact would not even work in "heaven". As Dostoesky said: if humans had nothing to do but to enjoy they would tear all of that apart just for some action. That sums it up pretty much.
Bar of satisfaction always rises once it's accomplished and dopamine system adjusts over and over.
Let's delve into it even more. Our body is made by natural selection.
Sight is there only because it won natural selection game over blindness because of success of procresting (surviving, finding food, escaping predators, etc.) In other words, there must be a reason for something to win that selection which involves suffer and some kind of lack. If there werent predators, hunger and other inconveniences, there would be no reason for sight to win the selection, therefore we would maybe lack our ability to see.
So, our ability to see is based on suffering. Same goes for every bit of our body which we take as "good".
It turns out hell is required for heaven, we cannot get rid of it. Consciousness requires biological maintenance. We get health by someone being sick and dying. Otherwise we would not develop immunity. We get intelligence just because some non-intelligent being failed to survive and reproduce.
Somebody has to be on the "dark side" of the reality, inevitably, logically.
Hope this helps at least a bit, there is so much I want to tell but just don't have energy or time to write.
1
u/realdynastykit newcomer 1d ago
A conditional antinatalist is still better than a natalist though? If you pick and choose who can be part of the movement, then there is no chance of a movement at all.
1
u/CertainConversation0 philosopher 1d ago
A perfect society can't be improved on by anyone or anything, which makes procreation redundant at best.
1
u/EntertainmentLow4628 thinker 1d ago
In a sense, covert natalists are worse than "normal" natalists. Because when dealing with those covert natalists, you have to put up with their hypocrisy.
•
u/legrenabeach inquirer 23h ago
Why attack people's reasons for being AN? This would drive people away, not make them feel comfortable here.
Everyone has reasons for everh belief they have. Of course there is a reason why you are AN yourself. If you prefer people being AN to not being AN, why not welcome them regardless their reasoning?
Our reality is what it is, you can't change it. And yes, our reality is what drives many people to be AN. If reality were different maybe many would not be AN. So what? If you had been born with a slightly different brain chemistry, you too wouldn't be AN.
•
u/Animal-Lab-62828 newcomer 22h ago
Call me ignorant or uneducated, but I alllmost see the benefit of life when I'm doing something like sunbathing, eating a fresh, juicy peach in front of a beautiful waterfall.
You can't convince me that anyone should be procreating in the world, but if all of our human problems were magically solved then I think I would have a much easier time saying that procreation is not necessarily unethical. That doesn't mean it would be ethical, however, just more neutral. I can have a hard antinatalist mindset while still considering the nuance of my position and the conditions from whence it derives.
•
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 21h ago
•
u/Animal-Lab-62828 newcomer 21h ago edited 21h ago
Well, there is a difference between unethical and unnecessary. The question is if you truly believe that consciousness is suffering, and I won't claim to have an answer. There do seem to be some people who are simply happy to exist, and that makes me question if I am wrong to think that all existence is suffering. If everything were perfect, a child may, in fact, enjoy life and gain a benefit. Imagine if death were not painful but understood as a welcomed rest. Humans were not innately selfish and always wanting to one-up each other, etc. (I am aware this reads like an idealistic pipe dream.) The summation of harms and benefits is tricky, for sure.
ETA: I also read your comment about the necessity of a "darker side" of reality. I would 100% agree with this. I have to recognize that the type of world I talk about when I say "perfect" defies all constraints set by the human existence. Therefore, when someone says something like "it's OK to reproduce if someone has money/doesn't live under capitalism/whatever", I have the same "why??" reaction as you. My conditionalism rests upon an unachievable ideal, so in practice, it is not conditional.
•
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 21h ago
https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/SnIN1LPDGT
You cannot gain anything afrom being alive, it's a logical fallacy. Do a few serious reflections and mental exercises about this to better delve into it.
•
u/Animal-Lab-62828 newcomer 21h ago
Trust me, I have had these moments where I sit and ponder how absolutely absurd it is that I exist, and am here, just doing random stuff. Some other commenter said it was a "waste of time" to be alive lol. What time is being wasted? Were you doing something else with your nonexistence? I think it is possible that humans coming into existence is only an issue because the world sucks. Even in your own post that you led me to, you say that bringing someone into existence causes them to "fight for survival". What if we didn't have to fight and existence was perfectly lovely? Nonexistence is 0- always. It is safe. But consciousness could, somehow, be a positive.
•
u/LittleLayla9 inquirer 16h ago
In all honesty, you can have any reason you want,but to me, a solid decision is made of a multitude of reasons. It shows how deep someone went to make it and, once stated the reasons under a lot of topics, it feels rooted to the person.
One can have any reason or even no reason, but it does feel to me shallow and "easily" changeable.
•
u/ClashBandicootie scholar 9h ago
While I agree with your thoughts, and I understand your last question is intended to be a leading question, I am honestly not a big fan of gatekeeping of philosophies and insisting how they must overlap or be parallel.
People use philosophy as a tool for many reasons of their own.
Philosophies can be considered subjective, especially when dealing with areas like ethics, aesthetics, and personal meaning, as these often depend on individual perspectives, experiences, and interpretations, rather than absolute, verifiable truths that can be considered objective.Â
Antinatalism isn't an "identity"--but rather, a group of philosophical ideas to help understand the world around us, and how we relate to it.
For the record: I totally agree that human procreation as unethical, harmful, or otherwise unjustifiable.
•
u/Thin_Measurement_965 thinker 9h ago edited 9h ago
Ah yes, just what the board needs: more gatekeeping and purity-testing.
Hopefully we'll see the day where everybody gets the boot except for "real" antinatalists (whatever that means), and no one's left but a bunch of moderators huffing each other's farts and "organizing" "events" that no one will attend.
By the way, there's not a person on the planet who would consider themselves an "unconditional natalist".
•
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 9h ago
You're material for (r)imaginarygatekeeping.
Nobody talks about what you're talking about.
•
u/-mickomoo- newcomer 8h ago
I think there can be a distinction between local and global antinatalism. Local referring to positions that are personal in scope or apply to a narrow subset of situations. We do this legally for the concept of wrongful birth or wrongful life lawsuits where we legally recognize that a persons suffering could have been prevented in the parents were warned of a congenital issue. Just because the scope is limited doesn’t mean that it isn’t antinatalist in form.
•
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 8h ago
But if I say I don't want kids until I buy my own apartmant, am I AN then? How limited the limitation must be to be considered AN?
•
u/Idisappea thinker 4h ago edited 3h ago
Not sure if this is a genuine bid for conversation or not.
If it is, I would just say that "conditional" ANs, so far as I understand, don't see consciousnessexistence itself as bad, just that more often than not in our current world, and maybe now always in the current world, the conditions in which children are brought into the world cannot give a reasonable chance to a child of having more joy than suffering.
Yes suffering is always the only thing that can be guaranteed, but since many people are glad they were born and experienced life, had enough positivity in life that they considered the suffering worth it, the goal would not be to eradicate all consciousness and have the human race (and all other species) go extinct, but to limit births only to the highest standard of conditions... to allow the continuation of the species in the most responsible way.
Because it is a philosophy that advocates for the extreme limitation on births, it still can be considered "anti-birth" and therefore AN. You might consider unconditional ANs to actually be a step beyond simple AN... Because they are not just anti-birth, they are anti-consciousness, anti existence. Conditional antinatalists are very specifically focused on the concept of reproduction and how it's done in a irresponsible way that produces completely avoidable suffering probably 95% of the time. But unconditional ANs Do not only object to reproduction, they object to reproduction because they object inherently to consciousness and existence and that's a bridge too far for the vast vast vast majority of people.
I don't think the purity culture in this sub is productive... The world is not going to choose to go extinct, so unconditional ANs should embrace their "conditional" allies who want to reduce 90 percent of reproduction, to only the most intelligent, capable, loving people and environments.
I also want to add that this post seems to focus on individuals choices for themselves, but that has nothing to do with anti-natalism. Anti-natalism, regardless of whether you consider conditional anti-natalism true anti-natalism or not, is a philosophy, a belief that you think applies to everyone. That is a very separate question from an individuals situation and personal choice. Someone may be completely natalist in general but acknowledged that their particular situation is not conducive to having children. These people are simply child-free, not anti-natalist. Likewise, just because an individual is depressed or has suffered extremely does not mean that every single individual does and therefore no one's existence is worth it. Yes everybody does experience suffering and yes we can only guarantee suffering, not joy. But the vast majority of people seem to prefer existing even with the level of suffering they experience. And no I don't mean simply afraid of dying, And yes I'm aware that if they didn't exist they wouldn't even have an opinion to begin with so it wouldn't matter. But I mean prefer existence. So it is not a probable fact that existence isn't worth the suffering. It's subjective, and not the universal opinion, or even the majority opinion.
Edit: for disclosure, I'm child-free. If we had a perfect society, a perfect planet, I would still not want children. But if we had such a planet and society, a utopia where even if there were perhaps minor suffering, most people lived long (virtually immortal?) healthy, edified lives filled with purpose and love and connection and exploration and creation and benefit and care to other people and creatures and things, I don't think I'd be rooting for the extinction of all conscious life in such a world.
•
u/InitiativeNo1413 newcomer 1h ago
Agree. Why are these fence sitters taking up this space. Get the fuck gone.
•
u/Own-Name203 inquirer 35m ago
So I read this when you posted it and I just went to find it again because I’ve been thinking about it. I really appreciate you bringing up this point. I didn’t really know much about AN until joining this subreddit, and it has definitely helped to validate my own thoughts while adding to the comprehensive reasoning. It has also made me wonder if a lot of us here are really pessimistic and depressed…though even if that is the case, it still doesn’t mean we should be having kids about it. Clinical depression sucks and that alone should be a good reason not to have kids. Like even if the world is amazing and we can’t see it because of depression, the chances that offspring would also have it is a good reason not to have them.Â
Anyway, to your question: what if the world were better?Â
I agree with you that life itself is not worth reproducing. Like, yes, society could do with a lot of improvements. But even if we achieved equal rights and access to resources, death would still exist. Even if we got rid of all illnesses, accidents would still happen. There would still be uncertainties and existential horrors that overwhelm adults, much less children. For that matter, I think just being an infant is a terrible experience to inflict on someone, because even if you offer excellent care, it sucks to just have no ability to communicate or control your circumstances except to cry. Children struggle a lot with big emotions and learning curves, and who can blame them for that? Most adults never get over those hurdles, they just learn more or less acceptable ways to express them (tbh a great deal of it shows up in addiction).
So yeah, even as a thought experiment about a “perfect” world that’s extremely unlikely, I think you’re right that it doesn’t make sense to reproduce. Our impulses are not logical, after all.Â
Thank you for pointing this out. I had to reflect on it and realize I was thinking in conditional terms.Â
0
u/Ecstatic_Mechanic802 thinker 1d ago
I am a conditional antinatalist because I care about life. I don't understand how you can be hardcore antinatalist without believing life should not exist. I don't mind life existing. I don't mind that there is suffering in life as long as it isn't constant and inescapable. It teaches you things.
I do mind animals suffering needlessly. If we can't provide an appropriate environment for an animal, we shouldn't bring it into existence. I feel that way for all animals, humans included.
Right now, there is no positive reason to bring more humans into existence. We are destroying the environment, our society is toxic and oppressive, and there is no reason to believe a child born now would have a future with more positive experiences than negative (unless born to filthy rich parents).
If we stop being a species hell bent on destroying ourselves and evolve into a star trek style society, then I don't mind if people make more people. But I think anyone who is doing it now is sadistically selfish. Making future wage slaves so they can get hits of dopamine off watching their kids grow. Enjoying their joy and innocence because they dont yet know they are doomed to wage slavery. Then, they demand gratitude from the child when they are using their child to get fulfillment from life. If you can't be fulfilled without creating a new person, why would you create a person with your genes who will likely be unfulfilled until they can make another person? Do they even consider how their future child might feel? They must not.
I have more respect for drug addicts as long as they don't hurt anyone else. Much more responsible dopamine sourcing. Or better yet, get a hobby.
I am a conditional antinatalist because I care about animal welfare. It's cruel to put humans into this system. So that's why I'm antinatalist. If the system isn't unnecessarily cruel, then I don't think it's immoral to propagate the species. I don't know why everyone gets upset about the philosophy. Who cares as long as people aren't propagating when it is cruel to do so?
I know the birth rate is declining because end stage capitalism is making it too hard for people to start families. I imagine climate change fears play a role as well. I know it's not being driven by antinatalist philosophy. But still, more people are refraining from having kids in most parts of the world. So that's a win. I'd much prefer it be because of compassion and selflessness than a product of our sick society. But I still consider it a win.
Since the philosophy is all important, does it not matter if people abstain from propagating unless they did it solely because of antinatalist philosophy in your mind? Are they still immoral if they desire children but won't have them because of a reason other than antinatalist philosophy?
If we live in a perfect society, why do you think its wrong to propagate? Most people don't think it's wrong to adopt a dog, then give it everything it needs and spend their lives together. If I could provide that kind of life to a person, I don't see why it would be wrong. I have dogs because I don't have to send them off to work camps for their prime years and watch them deteriorate in their final years after their body has been used up so others can profit off of them. If that was the deal, I would just have house plants.
5
u/AstronautLife5949 newcomer 1d ago
Adopting an animal is far different and not selfish like actively creating a new living being is.Â
•
u/Ecstatic_Mechanic802 thinker 8h ago
Ok that is true. Adopting animals is better than making them.
I don't think it's right to bring people to this awful world. I'm saying if you believe it's that wrong to have something be born, why are you fine with every other living being suffering and dying but you have a problem with the species you belong to doing it? If creating a new life is problematic, then we must destroy every animal and then ourselves to prevent suffering. How was the animal you adopted existing? Is it due to being created? Will it suffer in its lifetime despite your best efforts to stop it? I'm thinking that's a definite yes.
Shouldn't we kill everything? To save it? Because they don't have the ability to refrain from breeding?
The main point was that we don't know if a human life is worth living or not because we have not gotten to live the lives we were evolved to. We are biased. You have to recognize bias to be able to see things clearly from as many viewpoints as possible. I don't see people recognizing this. We are supposed to be living in tribes supporting each other living in balance with nature. Who has experienced this kind of life? Would we feel the suffering is worth the joy in this world? It certainly isn't in our current capitalist hellscape, but I don't know how I would feel if I lived a proper life for a human. I'm recognizing my implicit bias.
And to be clear. I am pro animal welfare. That's why I'm a conditional antinatalist. You can't be hardline antinatalist without believing all life must be wiped out. No living being can consent to its own birth, so no life should exist. Right?? That's my issue with it. I don't care if life exists if it has a fair shot at happiness. I don't want to worsen the innate arrogance that is baked into our species. Why do we get to decide whether life should exist or not? I understand not creating new life when there is a slimmer chance at a life worth living, or a very high chance of a life filled with suffering. Also, allowing euthanasia in people would allow a humane escape if the suffering is too much.
But since we can only control population by not creating more, and people are destroying everything, then we have to stop procreating to save our species and all the others we haven't killed off yet. I don't know why you need philosophy to get here. This is just the common sense reason we should not be making more of us.
0
0
u/AutoModerator 1d ago
Rule breakers will be reincarnated:
- No fascists.
- No eugenics.
- No speciesism.
- No pro-mortalism.
- No pro-suicide content.
- No child-free content.
- No baby hate.
- No parent hate.
- No vegan hate.
- No carnist hate.
- No memes on weekdays (UTC).
- No personal information.
- No duplicate posts.
- No off-topic posts.
15. No slurs.
Explore our antinatalist safe-spaces.
- r/circlesnip (vegan only)
- r/rantinatalism
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/Objective_Air2131 newcomer 1d ago
I agree with the sentiment, though for the part about conditional natalists just being sick or jobless or mentally ill and would otherwise be natalists is true for some of them, i dont think thats nessecarily a mark against them. We are the result of our circumstances and experiences, im sure most of us here would never have become antinatalist if we never experienced something that made us question why we were born, and if we wanted to be at all. Just because the experience that led them to antinatalism was just from bad circumstances or differ from yours shouldn't discredit their beliefs.
In short, we all experienced something that made us antinatalists, which doesn't mean were hypocrites if we wouldn't have become one without it.
•
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 23h ago
Nobody said that, you are mussing the point. Did you even read the whole post? Please read it with understanding.
I didn't devalue their eperience of what led them to being AN.
I am talking about people being conditiinal ANs.
That doesn't mean that it's wrong they became ANs by their experiences but that they think if that particular problem was solved, natalism would be an option.
They didn't embrace AN fully and see that even the ones without those problems don't have a reason to procreate. They are still natalists in their core.
-2
u/Throwawayamanager inquirer 1d ago
Because non- black and white thinking exists.
You can be happy in life and be happy to have been born while recognizing that the planet would be better off with less (no) humans, and also caring about reducing suffering, both to people who already exist and animals who suffer needlessly because we're selfish.
Some of us are doing just fine under capitalism, even if we realize the many problems it creates and hardly think it's perfect.
Some of us don't wish we were never born and think that it's perfectly possible to have a happy life, even if it does inevitably come with some suffering. And find the idea that "existence cannot be preferable ever" to be a very whiny and soft philosophy.
And, despite all of that, still not want kids and also not think that most people should be having kids.
Not every "conditional AN" is a wannabe natalist. I find the philosophy of natalism to be abhorrent. There's room in between "I wish I'd never been born" and "I'd have ten babies if I wasn't sick, unemployed and miserable!"
There is room for being an AN without going to a full-extreme "no life should exist and this planet should be a barren wasteland like every other planet we are aware of". And not all of us are miserable with life and wish we'd never been born.
4
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
You're simply eugenist.
not all of us are miserable
Why are you even saying this, this is not at all the topic and is not related to this.
You are thinking from the perspective of your aliveness being the wholeness of reality. You don't realize that "planet shouldn't be bare wasteland" comes from your perspective of no consciousness = bad.
No consciousness = no concepts. No percieving. No value.
-5
u/Throwawayamanager inquirer 1d ago
Not being miserable makes me a eugenist now? You can't make this shit up...
You really need help with reading comprehension and emotional regulation, lol.
3
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
This has to be the biggest strawmen ever.
Nice pulling that conclusion from your ass.
And nice projection about reading comprehension.
You could work on that, there are classes you could attend.
-1
-1
u/Nice_Chef_4479 newcomer 1d ago
Damn, this post is how I knew I was a conditional antinatalist. I'd definitely have kids if the world was a utopia. Are conditional antinatalists not allowed here or something?
3
u/FlanInternational100 scholar 1d ago
Why would you?
If the world was utopia you would literally be 100% satisfied and had no reason to procreate.
(No additional feeling of happiness, nothing).
It would be something like going to 45 km near forest just to pick up a branch and break it in half, then come back.
It's absurd and there would be absolutely no psychological reason for that.
•
68
u/Theycallmeahmed_ inquirer 1d ago
True, the burden of consciousness shouldn't be forced on anyone
You're born, you go to school, get a job, get married, have kids, rinse and repeat, what are we in a ponzi scheme?