Being a breeder defies logic and commen sense. We all saw our parents, grandparents, other family, friends and neighbors be miserable. We all saw loved ones grow old, get sick, suffer, and die. Many of us who are past a certain age are only going down hill. Yet, we all still spawn.🤯
I support anti-natalism, mandated for all anti-natalists! Also, while you cease reproduction, please also cease the reproduction of your demented ideology, it is evil to spread suffering so keep your anti-natalism to yourself! I saw my parents, grandparents, family, friends, and neighbors be HAPPY and LOVE EACHOTHER. I'm sorry you never had that privilege.
Anti-natalism as I've pretty much always seen it formulated gives too much weight to suffering and not enough to neutral existence or pleasure. Pain is not required for pleasure, and additionally, the choice to continue existence is telling in itself that that the will to live is meaningful. And a baby not yet born doesn't have rights, so it's impossible to evaluate without them first existing. On a personal level, I generally agree, but I believe logically, the position suffers from eugenics- and colonial-imagination-like reductios wherein someone else decides if some level of suffering is sufficient for a being to not exist, removing autonomy without justification.
Thank you. I too have looked to emphasize this sentiment, simply on the conceptualization of ethics alone. Antinatalism is an ethical philosophy placing a negative ethical value towards birth and death. The nature to this existence was never an ethical system at bottom to start with.. A honest natalist/pronatalist would admit to the innate unethical faults that comes with procreating, just like how a honest carnist would admit to the innate unethical faults that comes with their diet (goes for any diet as well).
@@levprotter1231 One can say suffering has zero value, but when we look at what actually goes on in reality, people reap their positive experiences through the predisposition of a negative/suffering/non-preferred scenario Amplifying positive experiences comes through the alleviation out of a negative/non-preferred situation Suffering by and large entails a sense perception experience that of which that person is seeking to get out of. This encompasses a predominant amount of one’s existence here So suffering has inherent value.. that is why people value getting away from such a state of being, can’t get around that
True nihilism wouldn't value either pleasure OR pain 🤔. You can devalue your own suffering, but can a child consent to theirs? Antinatalism isn't about denying joy, it's about preventing unnecessary pain.@@levprotter1231
I wish you had more content about this subject here on TH-cam. Antinatalism is a subject that many address through an exceedingly nihilistic lense that can make it difficult to take in, let alone comprehend it as a compassionate ideology. Your ability to convey the idea in the almost comforting way that you do is a gift. Thank you for sharing it.
Survival > compassion. Antinatalism is like the autoimmune disease of leftist philosophy. When concepts like consent, harm reduction, etc. are taken to absurd extremes.
...Some really great and generally considered comments here everyone. I know we all have varied opinions on this quite controversial topic, but I'm glad to see a level of human decency and thoughtfulness in your comments - much more so than in most comment sections, which leads me to think that even those who disagree quite strongly with the antinatalist position are thinking through this. Warms my heart :). Let me know what you'd like me to tackle in my next video and I'll try to do that as well as I can. Daniel
Much suffering is caused because there is enough on this planet for everyone's basic needs to be met but not everyone's greed. It is malignant greed and inflated egos which is destroying so much potential for a better quality of life and happiness. We're investing so much in destruction ie forever wars, there is not much left for anything else. A huge tragedy.
Life could have been incredible, beautiful. But the selfish portion of humanity ruined it for all of us. I was quite happy up til the age of 10 so I've experienced how much better life can be and I can only shake my head at what idiots people for doing things that make us miserable instead.
@@AgeismGoesBothWays This is literally the best time to be alive right now, objectively. Quite a bit of current day life is fucked up but it’s not like it can’t improve anymore (like it has already)
Gaza is an open air prison, occupied by a state that want it removed, wars happen every 10 years and yet people there still have so many children that its one of the most overpopulated areas on Earth. Its amazing to me how those people dont have any compassion for their children, which will probably struggle to survive, unless they get killed by a bomb.
Thank you for letting us know how deep your thought processes are, as you've only mentioned the two troubled places the media has *told* you to care about.
Another reason for anti natalism is we do not know why we are here and what we are supposed to be doing. It seems as we arrive here 99.9% of us simply do what they see others here already doing.
Simply put life does not pass the cost/benefit analysis for the person u would be bringing here. No consent from the child is an argument u cant get around. So that makes it immoral and unethical from the jump. Would be parents talk about what they want for their kid. Well that makes it selfish because the child does not exist to want anything and has no needs and cant be harmed or bothered with any of the foolishness here until u force it here for no real good reason. There is nothing that I have experienced here in the almost 42 years I have been on earth that was good enough to be worth starting my life for before I existed. I have had a life that has been better than a lot but still most of it was bad, pain, suffering and pretty much bullshyt. Like the gum abscess I’m dealing with right now that I would not even have to suffer with had I not been born. The only good things here I see are segz and good tastinh food. Good tasting food can cause u health problems. Segz could give u and std or force someone else here and force u to be a child support slave if u dont take any precaution to not knock anybody up so are those only two good things really that good? Thats how most the breeders respond to antinatalism. U dont want kids? well what about all the good in life your kids wil be missing out on??? My response to that is did u miss out” in the choclate cake I baked and ate two weeks ago that u didnt even know about? They look like a deer in the headlights. Most human beings ARE DUMB! All I have did for the most part was suffer because my mother was dumb. I blame her more than my father cause he coulda been an idiot and wanted a baby but ultimately the decision was hers. Your life is what happens when a dumb person had power. It is repulsive to me… One person can make such a stupid decision and someone who did not exist, consent to or have any desire whatsoever to be born has to be forced here to pay such a huge huge huge heavy price! If u wanna make stupid decisions and u and only u pay for them fine but when u have power to force innocents to pay and pay dearly that is repulsive to me…
Gree with everything you said. Sometimes I think we who are Antinatalists are seeing something rest of humanity is totally blind to. Namely, stupidity and suffering.
I like your thought experiment What truly is terrible is that some people, even if they have some type of disability or genetic problem and could pass this to their child, some people do it anyway, like what? I saw a post on r/antinatalism about a mother in texas (i guess) and she had two sons, and BOTH OF THEM HAD A GENETIC RARE DISEASE THAT CAN CAUSE BONE DEFORMITY, AND THEY BOTH USE WHEELCHAIRS, BECAUSE THE MOTHER ALSO HAD THAT DISEASE In my opinion this is a monstrosity, and in the article the mother said "pain is part of our everyday life", well, then why don't we DO SOMETHING TO STOP THE CYCLE OF PAIN RATHER THAN NEGLECT IT You know, there was a time where i was depressed and i even kind of demonstrated apathy and no reaction to most things at all, like i had lost my ability to feel anything for a while because i struggled a lot, but not even in this state i would subject anyone to that type of monstrosity, this is way beyond apathy, i have a sore throat now and it hurts and kind of stresses me, and that reminds me why i will never have children I plan to have a vasectomy in the future, i have to avoid bringing innocent people to this world of darkness
i like people look at mixed breed dogs and say that its cruel to bring such dogs when they will suffer their whole life, but the same thing can be said in the hypthetical scenario but people think its a different thing
Something I think should be clarified is that antinatalism doesn’t strictly require the bad to outweigh the good. That’s more of a utilitarian argument, which may be true for some - even many - people and say it’s not worth the risk, 100 good lives aren’t justified by 1 bad one. I know Benetar has covered it quite a bit in his book and I don’t necessarily disagree with him, at least not strongly. Even for those with great lives, the Asymmetry still holds. They were exposed to unnecessary suffering, since they had no need or desire to exist. They were not missing out on the lack of pleasure before they existed. So for all people it’d be “better never to have been”. Some have been less harmed than others (and, arguably, the unfairness can make it even worse)
I find it surprising that people don't usually talk in these videos about regular everyday life in modern societies. Perhaps most people are not aware of what is happening. People spend decades getting a piece of paper (going into debt so that financial institutions can extract future earnings) that enables them to work and get payed just enough to keep repeating the cycle in which they find themselves, which is there mostly to enrich the people at the top who are already rich, and could not spend their fortunes even if they tried. And the things that keep people working are these entries into a database somewhere that supposedly represent how much freedom and power you have (money) despite being completely made up. Whenever the people at the top feel like it they just increase the supply of the currency, which shows what is its intrinsic value (cero). The path society puts before you is beyond ridiculous. It's like a bad joke, really. You have to stretch the concepts of egoism and evil into something quite abstract before any of it makes even a little bit of sense.
@@basic6735 I agree about America but most countries are on a very similar path. America is just ahead of the game. "wouldn’t this also apply to laws, which are also completely made up"? Yeah, it's all made up and most of it is bad for you. The difference is we don't spend 8 hours a day thinking about or trying to comply with some law, but we do spend 8 hours a day trying to make money. If we did the former then it would be equally ridiculous. Maybe some day it will be that bad, but we are not there yet. Do you realize that our ancestors spent that time hunting and gathering, and not trying to increase an entry in a database? Most of the things we do don't even make sense morphologically, like sitting in a desk all day. It's pretty absurd and getting crazier IMO.
At age 8, I knew I would never want to bring another poor soul into this world, and I was born in Canada, one of the wealthiest parts of it. Too much war, crime, corruption, injustice, and DUMB people. Haven't regretted it. I love children, that's the whole point. I was very often tempted to ask parents WHY they had children. I know that it's mainly a cultural thing. People have children to be or to appear NORMAL, which is why the world's in the state that it's in. Slaves giving birth to more slaves, just because.................
In the first hypothetical scenario, the baby has verry little to no chance for happiness, and there yes I would be antinatalist. In the real world, I know life is 100% going to contain suffering, and to me that’s okay. I have accepted that I will die, and that some people have it 10X worse than I do. I’ve accepted that when I have children they will undoubtedly suffer at many points in their lifetime. I am also giving them an opportunity to love, be loved, and be happy. That is a privilege. This life we live is a privilege and that fact that you are you, and I am me is a miracle. I understand your view, at least I think I do, and I’d love to debate more
There are two basic tiers when it comes to antinatalism for how I see it: description --> prescription Description: identifying/addressing the unethical value towards birth and death Prescription: abstaining from imposing birth and death Typically, for those who say they are not AN, they reflexively are hyper-fixated on self-rationalizing why they would want to procreate Though, really if they care to reasonably engage in this discourse, they ought to explain first how imposing birth and death is in actuality ethical
When I discuss antinatalsim with others we discuss whether it's fair for people with genetic disorders that impact their lives negatively to even consider having children. Even the government is antinatalist when it comes to incestual relationships; even between consenting adults, due to the increased likelihood of an incest baby having genetic abnormalities. Personally, throughout my life I have kept the opinion that having children is a selfish act and primal like behaviour.
"anti natalist", it's called eugenicist. Stop using terms incorrectly, anti natalists are dysgenic freaks themselves who should not have been born to spread their dumb takes.
@@CounterNarrative_ you know that some of your descendants would be antinatalists right? You have AN genes in you,by reproducing you are making sure in the future antinatalists with your genes would be born,they can even be your kids☠☠☠
Antinatalism would't be necessary if we could remove the stigma against suicide, and come up with a way to accurately evaluate the validity of suicide as a remedy in each case. Of course, the latter part would be nearly impossible in a lot of cases, since it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not life afterwards would be "worth" living. Some wrong decisions will be bound to be made. However, the same thing can be said about deciding not to make a child. The only difference between the two is timing. In the case of suicide, you at least have some individual life experience to refer to in order to estimate the balance between suffering and joy in your later life. Also, more importantly, the decision can be made by the person themself, given they have the mental ability to do so. So personally, I gravitate towards natalism.
I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but here it is: my AN position is firmly founded on two observations: a.) parent's vulgar gambling on behalf of others (I claim to be at the origin of this wording, but won't mind being plagiarised as I'm a nihilist), and b.) Life's principle being that for a majority to party off their lives, a minority has to go through protracted suffering or even grotesque suffering (I claim to be ...), mirroring Ursula K. Le Guin's reflection.
Antinatalism is untenable given that we have no idea what the state of pre-born life is, if there's any at all. For all we know there could be countless souls crying out to be born into this world which is paradise compared to the state they are in. But the biggest problem is if that's not the case, and instead pre-born lives have no awareness, no existence at all. That state is devoid from any aspect whatsoever that we can measure the suffering of life to. For something to be bigger than something else, they each have to have a size. A geometric line is not bigger than a geometric point, though we usually think like this. Properly speaking it is not the case, as you can see if you reverse the proposition to make "a geometric point is smaller than a line." Within a point there is no notion of size, so we're borrowing the concept of size from our line and theoretically applying it to the point to judge that it is smaller. But it has no size, so it cannot be smaller, since to be smaller means to be small, and something which has no size cannot be small. The same is true with antinatalism. There is no way for life to be worse than non-life. You cannot say life is bad compared to non-life, since you're just saying the same, that non-life is better, but non-life is nothing, and so cannot be better, because then it would be good, and nothingness is not good, it is nothing. This is why the Buddhists make it clear that enlightenment is beyond all good and evil. To think it is good is the biggest obstacle, and people think it is good, until they meet it, and realise there was nothing for any goodness there to cling to.
this is actually rather an incredible logical deduction, see what you're saying is "if i was right, you'd agree with me" and while this argument works as excellent fodder for your circlejerk, it has no potential to actually convince anyone of anything 2/10
I think he is using this argument as a way of introducing antinatalism to someone who doesn't know anything about it; but yeah I agree that it isn't a very convincing argument
Take care of yourself man. Anyways, I'd argue most of the Western/Eastern European world and East Asia (maybe even south asia) are already antinatilist. The big issue is Africa. Estimates show Africas population to be 2.5 billion by 2050. That's %25 of the world population. Hopefully we are dead by then but still. Onto Diet, I'm vegetarian but I still consume honey and cream which I am trying to limit. Got a rice cooker so it makes meal prep ALOT easier. Much cheaper than meat but most importantly Ethical. 70 billion Chickens alone are murdered each year for human consumption. That's 11, 666 Holocausts a year!
so there's a "cut off," so what. should I have wished children I'd decide on a cut off too, maybe one different than some other parents might decide. mine would be something along the lines of a ready and comfortable two parent household, then tests performed with nothing abnormal detected during the abortion window. that said, I see nothing wrong with bringing in a life (I think more than one is most healthy for each) into the world without permission. I find my own life a gift despite any adversity. if I can think of something wrong that would be an attitude by some parents that their children are a free workforce and retirement plan (impoverished environments). because I didn't ask to be born there's nothing that I owe you. life is the gift to me (and we don't owe anything for gifts). then me being simply present is the gift to you despite the duty you assume to raise me. I pay it forward by being an upstanding member of family and society, maybe have children of my own ..if I wish.
From a certain perspective, the argument that you cannot give consent to being born may seem strong, but it is actually narrow-minded and self-centered. The fact that you did not ask to be born is irrelevant. This is not just about you. It is about the bigger picture of humanity, life, and the infinite. Moreover, if you look at it from a deeper perspective, you come to realize that you cannot not exist. You are already a part of everything and always will be.
I understand many of the antinatalist arguments and I sort of agree with most of them but there's always that counterpoint that to me, seems to undermine the position. That is the fact that if you ask most people : are you glad that you exist or would you have preferred not to live at all? most people would say that they are in fact satisfied with being alive. Of course I might be living in a bubble where people are especially happy but still, wouldn't you say that most people around you are in that case?
@@dcktater7847 Well in this case, appeal to popularity is sort of relevant since we're not trying to solve a matter of truth here (where appeal to popularity would be a fallacy) but rather a matter of opinion. It's an interesting way of formulating the question, I don't know if those two are really equivalent but I suppose they are closely related. I'd be interested in seeing the results though, In my case I would in fact answer that I would relive my life (hopefully I won't change my mind later) but I wonder how many people feel the same way.
"If you ask people: are you glad to exist etc etc they'd say yes etc" I heard this so many times it almost makes me sick. This argument is totally biased 1. Sad people are less active than happy ones, online and offline, and tend to be less willing to be interviewed 2. Sad people are more likely to have already ki**ed themselves hence u don't get to ask them that question to begin with 3. People who say they are happy haven't even experienced their deaths / severe pre-end-of-life suffering yet Go to the hospital / old people's homes and do that survey again and see if your results are the same.
How do you know that everyone is being honest with you when ask them that? For a person to say that they wish they had never been born would invite concerns of suicidal ideation, which is likely a conversation or feeling they don't want to bring up.
Assumptions have to be made no matter one's take on this topic. Like whether it's better or not to have existed and suffered vs never having existed at all. And where the soul (object that perceives) would be if it didn't incarnate into this human life. That's why I don't think there is a right or wrong answer on this topic. Just varying opinions
Personally speaking because I cannot speak for others, I can careless ultimately what people in fact do But to deem procreation as an ethical act, literally does not make ethical sense You cannot explain the 'good' parts of this existence, while ignoring the innate harms that comes along with it... in an ethical conversation... Time and time again people who engage in this topic who wish to procreate seem not to understand this
This exact argument can be turned the other way “You cannot explain the ‘bad’ parts of this existence, while ignoring the innate enjoyment that comes along with it” The net suffering and net enjoyment is the same, otherwise everyone would have killed themselves by now
Interesting concept. I'm intrigued. But surely you are aware of people that indeed have happy lives. To me, that is so fascinating, it almost gives sense to all the suffering and the dread, just for couple of souls to enjoy existence. One such person is worth at least a billion that are on the losing end of spectrum. Personally, I'm pretty miserable, but I'm not lying when I say misery is also a life experience, and incredibly sometimes even rewarding. Basically, things aren't really clear cut as they seem to be. The right question is obvious - what is the percentage of people honestly wishing never to be born in the first place. If that's incredibly high, that's strong argument for this view.
I am for population reduction as well as for not having people waste their lives working to make someone else rich. But maybe extinction is going too far. We should work towards everyone having a life so great that they're sad to leave it. Suffering is only temporary, but should be minimized whenever possible.
@mariaradulovic3203 Do you still say "ow" to a cut you got when you were 5 years old? When you die do you continue to experience pain and suffering? Suffering as with all mental experiences are temporally limited.
By your logic, everyone also supports murder because there exists an exceptionally horrible hypothetical person who can only be stopped by being killed and can't be stopped by the police and would stop at nothing to kill you in a horrific way. I am not an antinatalist so you need to revise your argument. It is very sloppy.
@@antinataliz9633 I forget the exact details of this video, but skimming over it, I think his basic argument boiled down to "there exists x such that x is a life and we want to prevent x from living, therefore for all x, if x is a life, thenwe want to prevent x from living." That's obviously fallacious and I showed it by applying the basic logic "Exists x such that P(x), therefore For all x, P(x)." to show the idea. Bluntly: just because we don't want one particular life to continue doesn't mean we want all life not to continue.
@@wiggles7976 are u familiar with other antinatalist arguments? This last comment u typed isn't exactly pertinent to what he said in the video. (Note: his not actually making an argument, he's saying many people seem to think it's absurd when first confronted with antinatalist arguments, so using an approach like his would demonstrate it is a matter of where someone's threshold for suffering lies.) I've debated antinatalism for about 5 years now, most actual arguments are in fact undefeatable, if I may say so myself.
@@antinataliz9633 To me, antinatalism sounds like the idea that optimally, the human race ceases to exist. To me, that is absurd. To see what's wrong with solipsism, put a bunch of solipsists in a room and get them to argue which one of them is the one who really exists. To see what's wrong with the extreme view of antinatalism, put a bunch of antinatalists in a room and watch them continue living. I can't see how a person can think that coming into existence is immoral, when they have come into existence and continue to exist. Unless an antinatalist follows a practice like Sallekhana, I don't think they fully believe their position. I can see this getting into a debate about religious philosophy, and my Christian background (although I am atheist) has ideas about original sin. I have concluded that by existing and "eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge", we all have an element of irreducible rascality, and while in the game of life, it is better to play the game out than to terminate it prematurely. Alan Watts said "perhaps the greatest philosophical question is whether or not to commit suicide", and I don't think suicide is optimal. While I don't want children in the foreseeable future, I don't think I can tell other people that they are not allowed to have children. People can make their own minds up about that.
@@wiggles7976 it's quite simple really, there is no easy way out of your flesh bodysuit. Why would any rational person deliberately choose suffering like partaking in Sallekhana? Antinatalism is about preventing births, it doesn't mean terminate yourself. U think AN is absurd, I think it's absurd that you've barely had any thought about the topic to realize that nobody would voluntarily seek suffering, the very thing antinatalists are trying to prevent in the first place.
The consent argument isn’t solid at all. It makes no sense to demand consent from something unable to give consent. Very easy for people to reject. There are much stronger and more persuasive arguments.
No. Developed countries are declining in terms of birthrates but they don't embrace this ideology. Should they do so, they will cease to exist. Its that simple.
Biggest reason I reject antinatalism is because pleasure and pain is subjective, alongside the assumption that only pleasure and pain brings value to life. Additionally Antinatalism falls into the "is-ought problem", in that it objectively says that because pain is bad we ought to avoid it. Also idk how preventing births protects consent anymore than allowing it does, as being born is not something that consent pertains to as its not physically possible. Resultantly you can just spin antinatalist arguments around on their head to be pronatalist ones, due to the subjectivity of the matter. Antinatalism is therefore just self-projecting utilitarian nihilism.
You cannot aggress against someone who doesn't exist, i.e., reproduction isn't aggression against the unborn life. Also, a human ethic is one that must be sustainable. There is no point in ethics if there are no humans. Antinatalism is not ethical. It's an attempt, but a dumb one.
Once you are alive, you may have interests in remaining alive until death. It's up to you what to do. I can only add my personal opinion here, and that is, I try to make the best of the life I have yet to live, and try not to traumatize my friends and family via suicide unless extreme suffering motivates that choice. I wish you the best in whatever path you choose.
@@Demortixx ...because a choice cannot be made by the unborn, therefore consent is not possible. I recognize the end result of refusal to violate the principle of consent would result in the end of our species if adopted universally. But that does not negate the moral argument. This is why the antinatalism argument always ends in the pronatalist getting angry - it is the only option left when reason is abandoned.
@@DanielClementYoga I’m not angry I was asking a question. I’m not convinced by your argument so you say I’m just angry cause that’s all I have left? Maybe actually have a discussion instead. So here is some more conversation. By your reasoning, we can’t ask the unborn if they want to be born or not and life is more suffering than non suffering so making someone be born without consent is immoral. 1: you can’t ask someone unborn for their consent to be born. This is sound. 2: Life is more suffering than non suffering universally for all humans. You have yet to prove this or convince me of this. 3:not existing creates less suffering than existing. This follows if 3 is true but I’m not convinced 3 is true 4:forcing someone to be born without consent is immoral because it creates more suffering. This is sound of 3 and 4 are true but I’m not convinced of those so I’m not convinced of 5. Just stating 3 and 4 don’t make them true. You seem to even contradict your own premise. If existing is more suffering than non, why isn’t suicide the preferred option? You cat cause it’s up to me and make the best life and such. Well why can’t we make the same argument for the unborn child. By letting them be born we give them the choice to live or not. Why does existence suddenly change your whole premise?
@@Demortixx can you review and edit your numbering (1,2,3,...) there is no #3?. If we start with #1, which we agree on - consent cannot be granted by the unborn, that is a sufficient reason for antinatalism. For the rest yes you are right - everyone's subjective life experience is different, and that is why I cannot recommend suicide. However, we have not lived an entire life yet, so neither of us can comment on what it was like "to have lived" - the story isn't over yet. Thanks for your comments and thoughtfulness.
I think this whole ethical or not perspective hinges on your concept of life itself. If you're a material atheist & see no concept of consciousness outside of rational embodied living beings I think it's very easy to paint yourself into this corner on a logical level & see no way out; even on a purely logical I-only-see-what's-directly-infront-of-my-physical-eyes perspective I don't really believe anti-natalism presents a substantial or deeply weighted perspective on the issue mainly because 1. who are you to measure the weight of suffering & joy in the world & find that the totality of living beings finds it lacking. 2. why is your perceived measure of joy the benchmark for the purpose of life or conscious existence. 3. where in nature outside of human thought does existence show itself as being an ethical consideration or experiment. 4. If every being conscious enough of its own existence comes to this conclusion & follows it to its logical end, what steward of nature is left to care for all the forms of conscious that don't & are left to "suffer" at the whim of nature. 5. if you can't gain consent from the unborn you have to also acknowledge in the same breath that you can't know if the being would or would not have the will to be apart of creation at this level of existence; & so are you sparing a conscious being from an existance it never asked for or are you depriving it of something it would have cherished. I feel like this perspective or philosophy doesn't really have a deep root in an existence itself it feels very shallow & coming from a place of moral-absurdum; the argument itself suffers from the character trait of being logic in a vacuum with no substantial ground. Looking outside of the material atheist perspective, be it Christianity, Buddhism (or other eastern spiritual traditions), or perhaps Native American or other ancient spiritual shamanistic traditions - this conversation doesn't hold any water whatsoever. All of these traditions on some level recognize 2 things. 1. That what we see before us is not the end all be all of existence or creation. 2. That consciousness grows, learns & becomes a better version of itself when it is exposed to adversity or conflict & that this is inherently beneficial not just to truly appreciate the joys of this world & life but also for the process of reincarnation, spiritual ascension/development or to continue the process of the nurturing & character development of the soul/spirit to be like to that of the creator who brought it forth from the essence or seed of the universe. My self being steeped in an esoteric tradition having roots in several different spiritual orientations I don't at all see why this conversation about halting conscious material existance holds any weight towards our purpose or the purpose of life.
I've never understood the mindset of Antinatalism. Just seems like humans trying to find the worst in a situation but ignoring nature itself. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to assume humans shouldn't have kids
I think your arguments are incorrect for the following reasons: 1. Those who haven't been born yet don't exist, and so it is essentially illogical to argue that they did not consent to be born. There is nothing which exists whose will is being violated. Now once the child comes into existence, yes at that point, if the baby were able to understand you, you could ask a variant of that question (like, now that you are born are you happy that it happened?). But it would make sense to give babies time to understand language, their surroundings and the world they live in before presenting them with such a question. 2. The value of being alive does not outweigh the pain. This is first of all, I think, an argument which relies on evidence to be correct, but no evidence is being presented so I'm not sure why I should entertain it. I don't know what studies you have looked at, but the idea that there is more suffering than joy in most people's lives (or anyone's) just seems totally unknowable and likely false if they don't suffer from any kind of depression or suicidal ideation. And secondly this idea seems highly subjective and dynamic. What used to be a bad place to live in could become dramatically better as economic, social and political systems improve. So I don't see how this principle could possibly be viewed as being generally valid when it is determined by so many things that could easily grant life much more happiness than sorrow. And if you're really claiming that it is true for everyone regardless where they live, it just seems hard to take seriously. You really believe someone living a rich life in a mansion with a decent career and family would prefer to have never been born? Really? 3. The idea that everyone is an antinatalist simply because they agree that it would probably be bad if a child should not be born into a world filled with suffering. I think this is confusing definitions a bit. If I were in hell and had a chance to produce offspring, I probably wouldn't, because its hell. That's just obvious. But an antinatalist, by definition, is someone who thinks we should not have children IN GENERAL. This is not referencing "only in extreme circumstances". This is referencing our current reality. So whatever argument you're making here it simply does not apply to the definition of antinatalism. Like you cannot only take one piece of a definition and ignore the other part, and call someone the definition. You have to have both parts. The "in general" is practically the defining feature of antinatalism.
1. You are also denying them consent to live. 2. You're then denying them the ability to also enjoy life. 3. Most parents of mentally disabled children almost always say it's hard for sure but they fully love their child. So what I'm hearing you say is that suffering is bad so therefore everyone should just be dead. So then you are condemning everyone to endless eternal suffering with not hope of joy at all.
@basic6735 lmao enjoy what ? Once it comes to enjoyment, all you people seem to do is just mention valueless nonsense that has already been done over and over and over again. Im not even an Antinatalist, but bringing life into this worthless existence is a basic and simple cost benefit analysis. At the end of the day, all your children will do is work and then die like the slaves they are. Life is based on repition. Most people have children because of three things... pride, ego, and boredom. Problem is the "benefits" of being born almost always never outweigh the negatives. Not saying you can't enjoy life. The problem is the "enjoyments" aren't worth it because with those enjoyments is guaranteed eventual suffering and anguish, whether it is mentally or physically.
this doesn't work, because historically for thousands of years humans had large familly, even though infant mortality was high, mother fatality was high and the rate of birth defects were high. Humans still had large familly akin to 10 children. Infact evolutionarilly, the high number of children ultimate increased the survival rate of the genetic line.
Well... That usage of consent is comical. It means consent is contextual based on culturally informed morality. And there is nothing wrong with that. It is actually absurd, to think the individual should be entitled to a choice in whether they are brought into existence, it is on the parents, community, society, culture to ensure that the child brought into a good circumstance of existence. Suffering is normal.
Lack of consent = Imposition = Placed in bondage Antinatalism is an ethical philosophy The nature to this existence does not contain ethical principles already. At bottom that is what antinatalism addresses
Culturally informed morality is a skewed/folly concept Human beings get manipulated/socially engineered/propagandized Yes suffering is normal, antinatalism is an ethical philosophy, hence it asks "why?" behind why are we imposing something that is unnecessary, which will included risks/uncertainties that would impose more harm to the unborn. Human beings can do what they want, but procreation is not an ethical act. It is a biological result by the way of the biological impulse to engage in intercourse That is where it starts --> not fuzzy moral principles
@@basic6735 “Disproven” Your head is clouded with philosophy and not actual reality -> there is nothing being disproven against the merit to antinatalism Human beings are not ‘good’, we just exist Human beings by in large do not actually care about the ethical matter to the core of their situations Antinatalism is an ethical philosophy..
Devaluing life or the exploration of being under any constraints for a reality is foolish, if it is all you have as "reality" then running against everything that has ever been simply because you're led by your poorly balanced modern neurochemicals is the most pitiful possible result that could be, yet you chose to force yourself into this endless deadlock. Here we are. Enjoy it lol.
Life isn't about suffering or happines! They are only metal tools who help you to recognize what is bad and needs to be avoided and what is good and needs to be chased. We needs as a species meaning not happines!!!!
Fair argument, but sort of pointless since it doesn't really change anything or affect anyone, the state of things is still the same. Its logical that everyone would prefer a healthy and capable child if possible, and i wouldnt care if that makes me antinatalist. Also you would never hear those people calling themselves antinatalist. The only people that call themselves that in real life are the ones who don't want to have kids at all, so the theoretical meaning of the term doesn't really matter.
To push back on this...isn't having a child, then, an act of hope and optimism? I say that to push back on the assertion that the net suffering of the world outweighs the net joy. I don't think that you can prove that, and subsequently the beliefs that derive from it are equally unfounded. Personally, I think that the "high" that suffering can reach in this world proves that, if there is a god, it cannot be all knowing/loving/powerful (this is a topic for another day), but I don't think that you can make the direct line that suffering>joy in the world. It would vary hugely person to person. The other issue with no kids, separate to any moral argument, is that we have no answer to "what do we do with old people if there are no young ones?" We have never created an economy that could handle no growth. It's tempting to brush this off, but in your perfect world, everyone alive now are the last people to be born. This eventually completely collapses the economy, which if we look at history would be scorched earth on the environment. So until and unless we also have an answer to, "How do we end a civilization without wrecking the environment and/or subjugating the remaining people to undue suffering," I don't think we can advocate for no children.
@@MrRayopt Again, this is a misnomer. There are not a surplus of children. For every one baby available, in North America, there's something like six families wanting to adopt. Coupled with the fact that many countries have strictly limited out-of-country adoptions, and the foster system seeks to place disenfranchised children with extended family...there just aren't enough babies to go around. Lastly, it's extraordinarily expensive to adopt. Cost prohibitive to many low- to middle-class families.
If i have to doom a new life to chaos and asymmetry of pain/pleasure just to ensure my physical safety/security when i am old, i have to say thats a game i am not willing to play. As I get older, i see that life meets you halfway if you are compassionate and treat life with respect, so I am not worried about aging/getting old. If Buddha primary realization was "life is suffering" in a diff culture/time period. There is some truth there i think.
@@foreverskeptical1 His last point wasn’t him wanting security when he gets old but him wanting the tortuous end of the world, all that will be left is old people struggling to get by in a shattered economy
@@foreverskeptical1 Respectfully, that's because you either aren't thinking it through or have lived with such priviledge that you can't conceive of societal collapse. I'm not talking about children to tend to you when you're elderly. I'm talking about being homeless because your city's grid has shut down because the few remaining young people moved elsewhere (think 1990s Detroit). Or the grocery stores are empty (or gone), because there's no profit to be made there. What will you do when you're 85, somewhat infirm, and there's no services or structures around you? What's your plan?
Antinatalists are 6 times more likely to be depressed than the average person. They are also higher in the dark triad traits psychopathy and machiavellianism. They are lower in narcissism however.
@@txlyons2937 hell is bs & a huge lie, btw even if you were not born it wouldn't still means much cuz if such place even existed which i'm more than sure doesn't, it's still unavoidable by default even if you weren't born, remember the planet is in 8 billions as of now which means that every billions goes there as well too since they exists, so it's makes no fucking sense that anybody besides an idiot would believe in this, all religions are about taking over our own thoughts and creates obeying slaves, that's the very purpose as to why they keep making this assumption as a threat no coincidences here.
Just because there are times when you wouldnt bring a kid into the world does not mean that everyone is inherently antinatalist. It means that you would become one at a certain point. Also, antinatalism doesnt work because all of its foundational belief is based in a vacuum, and also assumes you know what is best, not only in general but for someone who hasnt even been born yet. Also, how do you justify living if you think its wrong to bring someone else into the world? Im not trying to convince anyone to kill themselves, but deciding that life is worth if for YOU but not worth it for someone else sounds unethical and hypocritical. This is my initial reaction to this as ive never heard of antinatalism before but it seems like a pretty obvious self debunking theory.
You can't reduce the suffering of someone that doesn't exist because they don't exist. You're talking about absolutely nothing as if it's a person you're helping.
You didn't even choose to be born, why do you think you have the ownership over your own body to decide if you want to live or not let alone a child who might've consented to being born? It's irrational. Isn't your whole point about not consenting to be born? Why do you not apply to life as well?
I support anti-natalism, mandated for all anti-natalists! Also, while you cease reproduction, please also cease the reproduction of your demented ideology, it is evil to spread suffering so keep your anti-natalism to yourself! I saw my parents, grandparents, family, friends, and neighbors be HAPPY and LOVE EACHOTHER. I'm sorry you never had that privilege.
@@antinatalistwitch111 you clearly don't know how pensions work. The social security money you put in when you're working is used to fund current pensioners, and then the working population of the future will fund your pension. The money you put in doesn't just sit in a pile waiting for you to retire. Nothing wrong with not having children but those who think they are doing it for some higher ethical reason should really understand and acknowledge the potential impact their decision has, rather than posturing like a teenager
If you are antinatalist you have earned my subscription
I always reserve the right to update my perspectives upon better evidence.
@@DanielClementYoga I'm also antinatalist
Here I am 😊
@@ANTINATALIST_lewis do you post videos ? Would like to watch and share
@@mcc5295 no I just watch for new antinatalist channel & watch them.
If u have mercy , u won't breed
One has to be sadistic to bring a child into this unfair and unjust world.
Or just woefully ignorant. But, yes!
Get help and stop projecting this mental health crisis into an ideology.
Being a breeder defies logic and commen sense. We all saw our parents, grandparents, other family, friends and neighbors be miserable. We all saw loved ones grow old, get sick, suffer, and die. Many of us who are past a certain age are only going down hill. Yet, we all still spawn.🤯
I don't find that am issue though. But by all means you decide not to have kids. But please try not to push this as policy.
I support anti-natalism, mandated for all anti-natalists! Also, while you cease reproduction, please also cease the reproduction of your demented ideology, it is evil to spread suffering so keep your anti-natalism to yourself! I saw my parents, grandparents, family, friends, and neighbors be HAPPY and LOVE EACHOTHER. I'm sorry you never had that privilege.
@@flochforster7864 this
Absolutely not. To be clear I don’t want kids at all, but this “logic” you are using is insanity. By your “logic “ we should just euthanize all life.
Anti-natalism as I've pretty much always seen it formulated gives too much weight to suffering and not enough to neutral existence or pleasure. Pain is not required for pleasure, and additionally, the choice to continue existence is telling in itself that that the will to live is meaningful. And a baby not yet born doesn't have rights, so it's impossible to evaluate without them first existing.
On a personal level, I generally agree, but I believe logically, the position suffers from eugenics- and colonial-imagination-like reductios wherein someone else decides if some level of suffering is sufficient for a being to not exist, removing autonomy without justification.
Thank you. I too have looked to emphasize this sentiment, simply on the conceptualization of ethics alone.
Antinatalism is an ethical philosophy placing a negative ethical value towards birth and death.
The nature to this existence was never an ethical system at bottom to start with..
A honest natalist/pronatalist would admit to the innate unethical faults that comes with procreating, just like how a honest carnist would admit to the innate unethical faults that comes with their diet (goes for any diet as well).
Nah, honest natalist is a nihilist.
Suffering has zero value, I can choose to devalue it, and amplify positive experience value.
Not really
@@levprotter1231 suffering can have value but general I agree
@@levprotter1231
One can say suffering has zero value, but when we look at what actually goes on in reality, people reap their positive experiences through the predisposition of a negative/suffering/non-preferred scenario
Amplifying positive experiences comes through the alleviation out of a negative/non-preferred situation
Suffering by and large entails a sense perception experience that of which that person is seeking to get out of. This encompasses a predominant amount of one’s existence here
So suffering has inherent value.. that is why people value getting away from such a state of being, can’t get around that
True nihilism wouldn't value either pleasure OR pain 🤔. You can devalue your own suffering, but can a child consent to theirs? Antinatalism isn't about denying joy, it's about preventing unnecessary pain.@@levprotter1231
I wish you had more content about this subject here on TH-cam. Antinatalism is a subject that many address through an exceedingly nihilistic lense that can make it difficult to take in, let alone comprehend it as a compassionate ideology. Your ability to convey the idea in the almost comforting way that you do is a gift. Thank you for sharing it.
Thank you!
Survival > compassion. Antinatalism is like the autoimmune disease of leftist philosophy. When concepts like consent, harm reduction, etc. are taken to absurd extremes.
...Some really great and generally considered comments here everyone. I know we all have varied opinions on this quite controversial topic, but I'm glad to see a level of human decency and thoughtfulness in your comments - much more so than in most comment sections, which leads me to think that even those who disagree quite strongly with the antinatalist position are thinking through this. Warms my heart :). Let me know what you'd like me to tackle in my next video and I'll try to do that as well as I can. Daniel
Much suffering is caused because there is enough on this planet for everyone's basic needs to be met but not everyone's greed. It is malignant greed and inflated egos which is destroying so much potential for a better quality of life and happiness. We're investing so much in destruction ie forever wars, there is not much left for anything else. A huge tragedy.
Life could have been incredible, beautiful. But the selfish portion of humanity ruined it for all of us. I was quite happy up til the age of 10 so I've experienced how much better life can be and I can only shake my head at what idiots people for doing things that make us miserable instead.
@@AgeismGoesBothWays This is literally the best time to be alive right now, objectively. Quite a bit of current day life is fucked up but it’s not like it can’t improve anymore (like it has already)
Gaza and Ukraine are also good examples, I can think of a whole page of situations.
Gaza is an open air prison, occupied by a state that want it removed, wars happen every 10 years and yet people there still have so many children that its one of the most overpopulated areas on Earth.
Its amazing to me how those people dont have any compassion for their children, which will probably struggle to survive, unless they get killed by a bomb.
I can think of European imperialism and colonialism on the planet
Thank you for letting us know how deep your thought processes are, as you've only mentioned the two troubled places the media has *told* you to care about.
Nope. Antinatalism is still unjustified in those situations.
@@seto_kaiba_ antinatalism is a subjective viewpoint - it's not a concrete scientific fact
They're not antinatalists. They're anti-extreme-suffering.
Everyone is anti extreme suffering but sadists and psychopaths, don’t be ridiculous
@@basic6735 And Christians.
@@granddaddyofthemall6320 Don’t generalise
@@basic6735 Why you can say sadist and psychopaths but I can't say Christians?
@@granddaddyofthemall6320 Because they literally get off to pain and suffering, Christian’s are just religious
Another reason for anti natalism is we do not know why we are here and what we are supposed to be doing. It seems as we arrive here 99.9% of us simply do what they see others here already doing.
this is a simple and great observation!
Simply put life does not pass the cost/benefit analysis for the person u would be bringing here. No consent from the child is an argument u cant get around. So that makes it immoral and unethical from the jump. Would be parents talk about what they want for their kid. Well that makes it selfish because the child does not exist to want anything and has no needs and cant be harmed or bothered with any of the foolishness here until u force it here for no real good reason. There is nothing that I have experienced here in the almost 42 years I have been on earth that was good enough to be worth starting my life for before I existed. I have had a life that has been better than a lot but still most of it was bad, pain, suffering and pretty much bullshyt. Like the gum abscess I’m dealing with right now that I would not even have to suffer with had I not been born. The only good things here I see are segz and good tastinh food. Good tasting food can cause u health problems. Segz could give u and std or force someone else here and force u to be a child support slave if u dont take any precaution to not knock anybody up so are those only two good things really that good? Thats how most the breeders respond to antinatalism. U dont want kids? well what about all the good in life your kids wil be missing out on??? My response to that is did u miss out” in the choclate cake I baked and ate two weeks ago that u didnt even know about? They look like a deer in the headlights. Most human beings ARE DUMB! All I have did for the most part was suffer because my mother was dumb. I blame her more than my father cause he coulda been an idiot and wanted a baby but ultimately the decision was hers. Your life is what happens when a dumb person had power. It is repulsive to me… One person can make such a stupid decision and someone who did not exist, consent to or have any desire whatsoever to be born has to be forced here to pay such a huge huge huge heavy price! If u wanna make stupid decisions and u and only u pay for them fine but when u have power to force innocents to pay and pay dearly that is repulsive to me…
Painfully true
Gree with everything you said. Sometimes I think we who are Antinatalists are seeing something rest of humanity is totally blind to. Namely, stupidity and suffering.
Its crazy how cognitive dissonance works
I like your thought experiment
What truly is terrible is that some people, even if they have some type of disability or genetic problem and could pass this to their child, some people do it anyway, like what?
I saw a post on r/antinatalism about a mother in texas (i guess) and she had two sons, and BOTH OF THEM HAD A GENETIC RARE DISEASE THAT CAN CAUSE BONE DEFORMITY, AND THEY BOTH USE WHEELCHAIRS, BECAUSE THE MOTHER ALSO HAD THAT DISEASE
In my opinion this is a monstrosity, and in the article the mother said "pain is part of our everyday life", well, then why don't we DO SOMETHING TO STOP THE CYCLE OF PAIN RATHER THAN NEGLECT IT
You know, there was a time where i was depressed and i even kind of demonstrated apathy and no reaction to most things at all, like i had lost my ability to feel anything for a while because i struggled a lot, but not even in this state i would subject anyone to that type of monstrosity, this is way beyond apathy, i have a sore throat now and it hurts and kind of stresses me, and that reminds me why i will never have children
I plan to have a vasectomy in the future, i have to avoid bringing innocent people to this world of darkness
support antinatalist content
I get your point with this hypothetical scenario, but you might be shocked at the amount of geniuses that would still bring the child into the world.
i like people look at mixed breed dogs and say that its cruel to bring such dogs when they will suffer their whole life, but the same thing can be said in the hypthetical scenario but people think its a different thing
Yes, cause most geniuses recognize that human survival outweighs this ideological brainrot.
Something I think should be clarified is that antinatalism doesn’t strictly require the bad to outweigh the good. That’s more of a utilitarian argument, which may be true for some - even many - people and say it’s not worth the risk, 100 good lives aren’t justified by 1 bad one. I know Benetar has covered it quite a bit in his book and I don’t necessarily disagree with him, at least not strongly.
Even for those with great lives, the Asymmetry still holds. They were exposed to unnecessary suffering, since they had no need or desire to exist. They were not missing out on the lack of pleasure before they existed.
So for all people it’d be “better never to have been”.
Some have been less harmed than others (and, arguably, the unfairness can make it even worse)
I find it surprising that people don't usually talk in these videos about regular everyday life in modern societies. Perhaps most people are not aware of what is happening.
People spend decades getting a piece of paper (going into debt so that financial institutions can extract future earnings) that enables them to work and get payed just enough to keep repeating the cycle in which they find themselves, which is there mostly to enrich the people at the top who are already rich, and could not spend their fortunes even if they tried. And the things that keep people working are these entries into a database somewhere that supposedly represent how much freedom and power you have (money) despite being completely made up. Whenever the people at the top feel like it they just increase the supply of the currency, which shows what is its intrinsic value (cero).
The path society puts before you is beyond ridiculous. It's like a bad joke, really. You have to stretch the concepts of egoism and evil into something quite abstract before any of it makes even a little bit of sense.
In America yeah, but not everyone lives in such a broken country
Side note:
You say money is “completely made up” like this is some flaw with it, wouldn’t this also apply to laws, which are also completely made up?
@@basic6735 I agree about America but most countries are on a very similar path. America is just ahead of the game.
"wouldn’t this also apply to laws, which are also completely made up"?
Yeah, it's all made up and most of it is bad for you. The difference is we don't spend 8 hours a day thinking about or trying to comply with some law, but we do spend 8 hours a day trying to make money. If we did the former then it would be equally ridiculous. Maybe some day it will be that bad, but we are not there yet.
Do you realize that our ancestors spent that time hunting and gathering, and not trying to increase an entry in a database? Most of the things we do don't even make sense morphologically, like sitting in a desk all day. It's pretty absurd and getting crazier IMO.
At age 8, I knew I would never want to bring another poor soul into this world, and I was born in Canada, one of the wealthiest parts of it. Too much war, crime, corruption, injustice, and DUMB people. Haven't regretted it. I love children, that's the whole point. I was very often tempted to ask parents WHY they had children. I know that it's mainly a cultural thing. People have children to be or to appear NORMAL, which is why the world's in the state that it's in. Slaves giving birth to more slaves, just because.................
In the first hypothetical scenario, the baby has verry little to no chance for happiness, and there yes I would be antinatalist.
In the real world, I know life is 100% going to contain suffering, and to me that’s okay. I have accepted that I will die, and that some people have it 10X worse than I do. I’ve accepted that when I have children they will undoubtedly suffer at many points in their lifetime. I am also giving them an opportunity to love, be loved, and be happy. That is a privilege. This life we live is a privilege and that fact that you are you, and I am me is a miracle. I understand your view, at least I think I do, and I’d love to debate more
Thanks for the thoughtful consideration!
If you consider all of (subjective) existence through an ethical lens you fail to capture the whole
I prefer Pat Benatar's quote, "Love is a Battlefield".
😀
Good one.
There are two basic tiers when it comes to antinatalism for how I see it: description --> prescription
Description: identifying/addressing the unethical value towards birth and death
Prescription: abstaining from imposing birth and death
Typically, for those who say they are not AN, they reflexively are hyper-fixated on self-rationalizing why they would want to procreate
Though, really if they care to reasonably engage in this discourse, they ought to explain first how imposing birth and death is in actuality ethical
When I discuss antinatalsim with others we discuss whether it's fair for people with genetic disorders that impact their lives negatively to even consider having children. Even the government is antinatalist when it comes to incestual relationships; even between consenting adults, due to the increased likelihood of an incest baby having genetic abnormalities. Personally, throughout my life I have kept the opinion that having children is a selfish act and primal like behaviour.
"anti natalist", it's called eugenicist.
Stop using terms incorrectly, anti natalists are dysgenic freaks themselves who should not have been born to spread their dumb takes.
@@CounterNarrative_ you know that some of your descendants would be antinatalists right? You have AN genes in you,by reproducing you are making sure in the future antinatalists with your genes would be born,they can even be your kids☠☠☠
Great video. Good to see antinatalism rise ☝🙏
Antinatalism would't be necessary if we could remove the stigma against suicide, and come up with a way to accurately evaluate the validity of suicide as a remedy in each case. Of course, the latter part would be nearly impossible in a lot of cases, since it is nearly impossible to determine whether or not life afterwards would be "worth" living. Some wrong decisions will be bound to be made. However, the same thing can be said about deciding not to make a child. The only difference between the two is timing. In the case of suicide, you at least have some individual life experience to refer to in order to estimate the balance between suffering and joy in your later life. Also, more importantly, the decision can be made by the person themself, given they have the mental ability to do so. So personally, I gravitate towards natalism.
I'm a latecomer to this discussion, but here it is: my AN position is firmly founded on two observations: a.) parent's vulgar gambling on behalf of others (I claim to be at the origin of this wording, but won't mind being plagiarised as I'm a nihilist), and b.) Life's principle being that for a majority to party off their lives, a minority has to go through protracted suffering or even grotesque suffering (I claim to be ...), mirroring Ursula K. Le Guin's reflection.
What an awesome video you'd love Dr. Mackler on here as well he's a solid AN too.
Would love for you to go deeper into 3:25. People denying their own pain perpetuates so many harmsul systems and practices.
This isn't a problem for someone like me who supports eugenics.
but they are still guaranteed to die and get old and get bored and even if its the most artificially bred pig in the sty
Theres slim shady in all of us
Antinatalism is untenable given that we have no idea what the state of pre-born life is, if there's any at all. For all we know there could be countless souls crying out to be born into this world which is paradise compared to the state they are in.
But the biggest problem is if that's not the case, and instead pre-born lives have no awareness, no existence at all. That state is devoid from any aspect whatsoever that we can measure the suffering of life to. For something to be bigger than something else, they each have to have a size. A geometric line is not bigger than a geometric point, though we usually think like this. Properly speaking it is not the case, as you can see if you reverse the proposition to make "a geometric point is smaller than a line." Within a point there is no notion of size, so we're borrowing the concept of size from our line and theoretically applying it to the point to judge that it is smaller. But it has no size, so it cannot be smaller, since to be smaller means to be small, and something which has no size cannot be small.
The same is true with antinatalism. There is no way for life to be worse than non-life. You cannot say life is bad compared to non-life, since you're just saying the same, that non-life is better, but non-life is nothing, and so cannot be better, because then it would be good, and nothingness is not good, it is nothing.
This is why the Buddhists make it clear that enlightenment is beyond all good and evil. To think it is good is the biggest obstacle, and people think it is good, until they meet it, and realise there was nothing for any goodness there to cling to.
Lack of suffering is not what most people value most highly
Doesn't that make human species sadistic?
@@millenialmusings8451 No, it means it exists alongside evolution and seeks to survive, not die out due to brainrot ideologies.
this is actually rather an incredible logical deduction, see what you're saying is
"if i was right, you'd agree with me"
and while this argument works as excellent fodder for your circlejerk, it has no potential to actually convince anyone of anything
2/10
I think he is using this argument as a way of introducing antinatalism to someone who doesn't know anything about it; but yeah I agree that it isn't a very convincing argument
Take care of yourself man.
Anyways, I'd argue most of the Western/Eastern European world and East Asia (maybe even south asia) are already antinatilist.
The big issue is Africa. Estimates show Africas population to be 2.5 billion by 2050. That's %25 of the world population. Hopefully we are dead by then but still.
Onto Diet,
I'm vegetarian but I still consume honey and cream which I am trying to limit. Got a rice cooker so it makes meal prep ALOT easier. Much cheaper than meat but most importantly Ethical. 70 billion Chickens alone are murdered each year for human consumption. That's 11, 666 Holocausts a year!
so there's a "cut off," so what. should I have wished children I'd decide on a cut off too, maybe one different than some other parents might decide. mine would be something along the lines of a ready and comfortable two parent household, then tests performed with nothing abnormal detected during the abortion window.
that said, I see nothing wrong with bringing in a life (I think more than one is most healthy for each) into the world without permission. I find my own life a gift despite any adversity. if I can think of something wrong that would be an attitude by some parents that their children are a free workforce and retirement plan (impoverished environments). because I didn't ask to be born there's nothing that I owe you. life is the gift to me (and we don't owe anything for gifts). then me being simply present is the gift to you despite the duty you assume to raise me. I pay it forward by being an upstanding member of family and society, maybe have children of my own ..if I wish.
Excellent point!
From a certain perspective, the argument that you cannot give consent to being born may seem strong, but it is actually narrow-minded and self-centered. The fact that you did not ask to be born is irrelevant. This is not just about you. It is about the bigger picture of humanity, life, and the infinite. Moreover, if you look at it from a deeper perspective, you come to realize that you cannot not exist. You are already a part of everything and always will be.
That made no sense what you said just some emotional gobbledygook.
I understand many of the antinatalist arguments and I sort of agree with most of them but there's always that counterpoint that to me, seems to undermine the position. That is the fact that if you ask most people : are you glad that you exist or would you have preferred not to live at all? most people would say that they are in fact satisfied with being alive. Of course I might be living in a bubble where people are especially happy but still, wouldn't you say that most people around you are in that case?
@@dcktater7847 Well in this case, appeal to popularity is sort of relevant since we're not trying to solve a matter of truth here (where appeal to popularity would be a fallacy) but rather a matter of opinion.
It's an interesting way of formulating the question, I don't know if those two are really equivalent but I suppose they are closely related. I'd be interested in seeing the results though, In my case I would in fact answer that I would relive my life (hopefully I won't change my mind later) but I wonder how many people feel the same way.
@@dcktater7847 You're not wishing me harm are you?
@@dcktater7847 I would say you're right in many situations but surely not all of them, some amount of harm can be bearable
"If you ask people: are you glad to exist etc etc they'd say yes etc"
I heard this so many times it almost makes me sick. This argument is totally biased
1. Sad people are less active than happy ones, online and offline, and tend to be less willing to be interviewed
2. Sad people are more likely to have already ki**ed themselves hence u don't get to ask them that question to begin with
3. People who say they are happy haven't even experienced their deaths / severe pre-end-of-life suffering yet
Go to the hospital / old people's homes and do that survey again and see if your results are the same.
How do you know that everyone is being honest with you when ask them that? For a person to say that they wish they had never been born would invite concerns of suicidal ideation, which is likely a conversation or feeling they don't want to bring up.
Interesting how antinatalists are all still alive despite the suffering in the world. Fancy that.
Assumptions have to be made no matter one's take on this topic. Like whether it's better or not to have existed and suffered vs never having existed at all. And where the soul (object that perceives) would be if it didn't incarnate into this human life. That's why I don't think there is a right or wrong answer on this topic. Just varying opinions
What's a soul?
@@granddaddyofthemall6320 I dunno, what's existence?
What it is like to be something(experiencing)
@@King_of_Sofa I think there for I am that's existence. But I still don't know what a soul is?
@@King_of_Sofa If I'm thinking I exist period. I still have no idea what a soul is and nobody does just a bunch of gobbledygook.
Personally speaking because I cannot speak for others, I can careless ultimately what people in fact do
But to deem procreation as an ethical act, literally does not make ethical sense
You cannot explain the 'good' parts of this existence, while ignoring the innate harms that comes along with it... in an ethical conversation...
Time and time again people who engage in this topic who wish to procreate seem not to understand this
This exact argument can be turned the other way
“You cannot explain the ‘bad’ parts of this existence, while ignoring the innate enjoyment that comes along with it”
The net suffering and net enjoyment is the same, otherwise everyone would have killed themselves by now
Interesting concept. I'm intrigued. But surely you are aware of people that indeed have happy lives. To me, that is so fascinating, it almost gives sense to all the suffering and the dread, just for couple of souls to enjoy existence. One such person is worth at least a billion that are on the losing end of spectrum. Personally, I'm pretty miserable, but I'm not lying when I say misery is also a life experience, and incredibly sometimes even rewarding. Basically, things aren't really clear cut as they seem to be. The right question is obvious - what is the percentage of people honestly wishing never to be born in the first place. If that's incredibly high, that's strong argument for this view.
Life is not rewarding game because at end you die and don't take anything with you not even the memories.
american christopher eccleston
I am for population reduction as well as for not having people waste their lives working to make someone else rich.
But maybe extinction is going too far. We should work towards everyone having a life so great that they're sad to leave it. Suffering is only temporary, but should be minimized whenever possible.
''Suffering is only temporary''???? Are u insane? Or just stupid?
@mariaradulovic3203 Do you still say "ow" to a cut you got when you were 5 years old? When you die do you continue to experience pain and suffering? Suffering as with all mental experiences are temporally limited.
By your logic, everyone also supports murder because there exists an exceptionally horrible hypothetical person who can only be stopped by being killed and can't be stopped by the police and would stop at nothing to kill you in a horrific way.
I am not an antinatalist so you need to revise your argument. It is very sloppy.
The term you're looking for is death penalty or sentence. It's different from just plain murder.
@@antinataliz9633 I forget the exact details of this video, but skimming over it, I think his basic argument boiled down to "there exists x such that x is a life and we want to prevent x from living, therefore for all x, if x is a life, thenwe want to prevent x from living." That's obviously fallacious and I showed it by applying the basic logic "Exists x such that P(x), therefore For all x, P(x)." to show the idea. Bluntly: just because we don't want one particular life to continue doesn't mean we want all life not to continue.
@@wiggles7976 are u familiar with other antinatalist arguments? This last comment u typed isn't exactly pertinent to what he said in the video. (Note: his not actually making an argument, he's saying many people seem to think it's absurd when first confronted with antinatalist arguments, so using an approach like his would demonstrate it is a matter of where someone's threshold for suffering lies.) I've debated antinatalism for about 5 years now, most actual arguments are in fact undefeatable, if I may say so myself.
@@antinataliz9633 To me, antinatalism sounds like the idea that optimally, the human race ceases to exist. To me, that is absurd. To see what's wrong with solipsism, put a bunch of solipsists in a room and get them to argue which one of them is the one who really exists. To see what's wrong with the extreme view of antinatalism, put a bunch of antinatalists in a room and watch them continue living. I can't see how a person can think that coming into existence is immoral, when they have come into existence and continue to exist. Unless an antinatalist follows a practice like Sallekhana, I don't think they fully believe their position. I can see this getting into a debate about religious philosophy, and my Christian background (although I am atheist) has ideas about original sin. I have concluded that by existing and "eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge", we all have an element of irreducible rascality, and while in the game of life, it is better to play the game out than to terminate it prematurely. Alan Watts said "perhaps the greatest philosophical question is whether or not to commit suicide", and I don't think suicide is optimal. While I don't want children in the foreseeable future, I don't think I can tell other people that they are not allowed to have children. People can make their own minds up about that.
@@wiggles7976 it's quite simple really, there is no easy way out of your flesh bodysuit. Why would any rational person deliberately choose suffering like partaking in Sallekhana? Antinatalism is about preventing births, it doesn't mean terminate yourself. U think AN is absurd, I think it's absurd that you've barely had any thought about the topic to realize that nobody would voluntarily seek suffering, the very thing antinatalists are trying to prevent in the first place.
The consent argument isn’t solid at all. It makes no sense to demand consent from something unable to give consent. Very easy for people to reject. There are much stronger and more persuasive arguments.
"It makes no sense to demand consent from something unable to give consent."
You realise that's effectively a defence for the rape of babies?
no 🗿
Do you think this is an issue or more of an opinion shared by already developed countries? In developing countries this is not a thing at all.
No. Developed countries are declining in terms of birthrates but they don't embrace this ideology. Should they do so, they will cease to exist. Its that simple.
Biggest reason I reject antinatalism is because pleasure and pain is subjective, alongside the assumption that only pleasure and pain brings value to life. Additionally Antinatalism falls into the "is-ought problem", in that it objectively says that because pain is bad we ought to avoid it. Also idk how preventing births protects consent anymore than allowing it does, as being born is not something that consent pertains to as its not physically possible. Resultantly you can just spin antinatalist arguments around on their head to be pronatalist ones, due to the subjectivity of the matter. Antinatalism is therefore just self-projecting utilitarian nihilism.
breeders are so boring and STUPED
You cannot aggress against someone who doesn't exist, i.e., reproduction isn't aggression against the unborn life.
Also, a human ethic is one that must be sustainable. There is no point in ethics if there are no humans. Antinatalism is not ethical. It's an attempt, but a dumb one.
How is this not, if true, an argument for suicide?
Once you are alive, you may have interests in remaining alive until death. It's up to you what to do. I can only add my personal opinion here, and that is, I try to make the best of the life I have yet to live, and try not to traumatize my friends and family via suicide unless extreme suffering motivates that choice. I wish you the best in whatever path you choose.
@@DanielClementYoga so why can’t the same choice be given to someone not born yet?
@@Demortixx ...because a choice cannot be made by the unborn, therefore consent is not possible. I recognize the end result of refusal to violate the principle of consent would result in the end of our species if adopted universally. But that does not negate the moral argument. This is why the antinatalism argument always ends in the pronatalist getting angry - it is the only option left when reason is abandoned.
@@DanielClementYoga I’m not angry I was asking a question. I’m not convinced by your argument so you say I’m just angry cause that’s all I have left? Maybe actually have a discussion instead. So here is some more conversation. By your reasoning, we can’t ask the unborn if they want to be born or not and life is more suffering than non suffering so making someone be born without consent is immoral.
1: you can’t ask someone unborn for their consent to be born. This is sound.
2: Life is more suffering than non suffering universally for all humans. You have yet to prove this or convince me of this.
3:not existing creates less suffering than existing. This follows if 3 is true but I’m not convinced 3 is true
4:forcing someone to be born without consent is immoral because it creates more suffering. This is sound of 3 and 4 are true but I’m not convinced of those so I’m not convinced of 5. Just stating 3 and 4 don’t make them true.
You seem to even contradict your own premise. If existing is more suffering than non, why isn’t suicide the preferred option? You cat cause it’s up to me and make the best life and such. Well why can’t we make the same argument for the unborn child. By letting them be born we give them the choice to live or not. Why does existence suddenly change your whole premise?
@@Demortixx can you review and edit your numbering (1,2,3,...) there is no #3?. If we start with #1, which we agree on - consent cannot be granted by the unborn, that is a sufficient reason for antinatalism. For the rest yes you are right - everyone's subjective life experience is different, and that is why I cannot recommend suicide. However, we have not lived an entire life yet, so neither of us can comment on what it was like "to have lived" - the story isn't over yet. Thanks for your comments and thoughtfulness.
Are antinatalists fun at parties?
I think this whole ethical or not perspective hinges on your concept of life itself.
If you're a material atheist & see no concept of consciousness outside of rational embodied living beings I think it's very easy to paint yourself into this corner on a logical level & see no way out;
even on a purely logical I-only-see-what's-directly-infront-of-my-physical-eyes perspective I don't really believe anti-natalism presents a substantial or deeply weighted perspective on the issue mainly because
1. who are you to measure the weight of suffering & joy in the world & find that the totality of living beings finds it lacking.
2. why is your perceived measure of joy the benchmark for the purpose of life or conscious existence.
3. where in nature outside of human thought does existence show itself as being an ethical consideration or experiment.
4. If every being conscious enough of its own existence comes to this conclusion & follows it to its logical end, what steward of nature is left to care for all the forms of conscious that don't & are left to "suffer" at the whim of nature.
5. if you can't gain consent from the unborn you have to also acknowledge in the same breath that you can't know if the being would or would not have the will to be apart of creation at this level of existence; & so are you sparing a conscious being from an existance it never asked for or are you depriving it of something it would have cherished.
I feel like this perspective or philosophy doesn't really have a deep root in an existence itself it feels very shallow & coming from a place of moral-absurdum; the argument itself suffers from the character trait of being logic in a vacuum with no substantial ground.
Looking outside of the material atheist perspective, be it Christianity, Buddhism (or other eastern spiritual traditions), or perhaps Native American or other ancient spiritual shamanistic traditions - this conversation doesn't hold any water whatsoever.
All of these traditions on some level recognize 2 things.
1. That what we see before us is not the end all be all of existence or creation.
2. That consciousness grows, learns & becomes a better version of itself when it is exposed to adversity or conflict & that this is inherently beneficial not just to truly appreciate the joys of this world & life but also for the process of reincarnation, spiritual ascension/development or to continue the process of the nurturing & character development of the soul/spirit to be like to that of the creator who brought it forth from the essence or seed of the universe.
My self being steeped in an esoteric tradition having roots in several different spiritual orientations I don't at all see why this conversation about halting conscious material existance holds any weight towards our purpose or the purpose of life.
I've never understood the mindset of Antinatalism. Just seems like humans trying to find the worst in a situation but ignoring nature itself.
It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to assume humans shouldn't have kids
On the contrary. But denial and projection is a helluva drug.
Most have stopped having kids. It's the uneducated countries popping out 2+ kids. That means population growth.
@@francisdec1615 It takes a special level of delusion to be an antinatalist and accuse others of being delusional.
@@seto_kaiba_ YOU are deluded. You are living a lie. NPC. Hypocrite.
I think your arguments are incorrect for the following reasons:
1. Those who haven't been born yet don't exist, and so it is essentially illogical to argue that they did not consent to be born. There is nothing which exists whose will is being violated. Now once the child comes into existence, yes at that point, if the baby were able to understand you, you could ask a variant of that question (like, now that you are born are you happy that it happened?). But it would make sense to give babies time to understand language, their surroundings and the world they live in before presenting them with such a question.
2. The value of being alive does not outweigh the pain. This is first of all, I think, an argument which relies on evidence to be correct, but no evidence is being presented so I'm not sure why I should entertain it. I don't know what studies you have looked at, but the idea that there is more suffering than joy in most people's lives (or anyone's) just seems totally unknowable and likely false if they don't suffer from any kind of depression or suicidal ideation. And secondly this idea seems highly subjective and dynamic. What used to be a bad place to live in could become dramatically better as economic, social and political systems improve. So I don't see how this principle could possibly be viewed as being generally valid when it is determined by so many things that could easily grant life much more happiness than sorrow. And if you're really claiming that it is true for everyone regardless where they live, it just seems hard to take seriously. You really believe someone living a rich life in a mansion with a decent career and family would prefer to have never been born? Really?
3. The idea that everyone is an antinatalist simply because they agree that it would probably be bad if a child should not be born into a world filled with suffering. I think this is confusing definitions a bit. If I were in hell and had a chance to produce offspring, I probably wouldn't, because its hell. That's just obvious. But an antinatalist, by definition, is someone who thinks we should not have children IN GENERAL. This is not referencing "only in extreme circumstances". This is referencing our current reality. So whatever argument you're making here it simply does not apply to the definition of antinatalism. Like you cannot only take one piece of a definition and ignore the other part, and call someone the definition. You have to have both parts. The "in general" is practically the defining feature of antinatalism.
Be gone, breeder!
1. You are also denying them consent to live.
2. You're then denying them the ability to also enjoy life.
3. Most parents of mentally disabled children almost always say it's hard for sure but they fully love their child.
So what I'm hearing you say is that suffering is bad so therefore everyone should just be dead. So then you are condemning everyone to endless eternal suffering with not hope of joy at all.
@@dcktater7847He's probably a religious nutcase. Don't listen to him.
Makes no sense. Can't suffer if you don't exist.... that's how non-existence works
@@dethroned4226 Can’t enjoy anything if you don’t exist either. All you’ve done is completely ignore OP’s point and state the same useless rhetoric
@basic6735 lmao enjoy what ? Once it comes to enjoyment, all you people seem to do is just mention valueless nonsense that has already been done over and over and over again.
Im not even an Antinatalist, but bringing life into this worthless existence is a basic and simple cost benefit analysis. At the end of the day, all your children will do is work and then die like the slaves they are. Life is based on repition. Most people have children because of three things... pride, ego, and boredom.
Problem is the "benefits" of being born almost always never outweigh the negatives. Not saying you can't enjoy life. The problem is the "enjoyments" aren't worth it because with those enjoyments is guaranteed eventual suffering and anguish, whether it is mentally or physically.
@@basic6735 There is no need for the unborn to enjoy anything, as they don't exist and have no needs or desires.
least demented antinatalist
this doesn't work, because historically for thousands of years humans had large familly, even though infant mortality was high, mother fatality was high and the rate of birth defects were high. Humans still had large familly akin to 10 children. Infact evolutionarilly, the high number of children ultimate increased the survival rate of the genetic line.
Well... That usage of consent is comical.
It means consent is contextual based on culturally informed morality.
And there is nothing wrong with that. It is actually absurd, to think the individual should be entitled to a choice in whether they are brought into existence, it is on the parents, community, society, culture to ensure that the child brought into a good circumstance of existence.
Suffering is normal.
Lack of consent = Imposition = Placed in bondage
Antinatalism is an ethical philosophy
The nature to this existence does not contain ethical principles already. At bottom that is what antinatalism addresses
Culturally informed morality is a skewed/folly concept
Human beings get manipulated/socially engineered/propagandized
Yes suffering is normal, antinatalism is an ethical philosophy, hence it asks "why?" behind why are we imposing something that is unnecessary, which will included risks/uncertainties that would impose more harm to the unborn.
Human beings can do what they want, but procreation is not an ethical act. It is a biological result by the way of the biological impulse to engage in intercourse
That is where it starts --> not fuzzy moral principles
@@illicitmind702 how many fucking buzzwords? All to make the same arguments that have been disproven time and time again
@@basic6735
“Disproven”
Your head is clouded with philosophy and not actual reality -> there is nothing being disproven against the merit to antinatalism
Human beings are not ‘good’, we just exist
Human beings by in large do not actually care about the ethical matter to the core of their situations
Antinatalism is an ethical philosophy..
@@illicitmind702 You can’t tell me I’m deluded with philosophy and in the same reply make try and tell me your philosophy is ethical
Devaluing life or the exploration of being under any constraints for a reality is foolish, if it is all you have as "reality" then running against everything that has ever been simply because you're led by your poorly balanced modern neurochemicals is the most pitiful possible result that could be, yet you chose to force yourself into this endless deadlock. Here we are. Enjoy it lol.
Life isn't about suffering or happines! They are only metal tools who help you to recognize what is bad and needs to be avoided and what is good and needs to be chased. We needs as a species meaning not happines!!!!
Fair argument, but sort of pointless since it doesn't really change anything or affect anyone, the state of things is still the same. Its logical that everyone would prefer a healthy and capable child if possible, and i wouldnt care if that makes me antinatalist. Also you would never hear those people calling themselves antinatalist. The only people that call themselves that in real life are the ones who don't want to have kids at all, so the theoretical meaning of the term doesn't really matter.
To push back on this...isn't having a child, then, an act of hope and optimism? I say that to push back on the assertion that the net suffering of the world outweighs the net joy. I don't think that you can prove that, and subsequently the beliefs that derive from it are equally unfounded. Personally, I think that the "high" that suffering can reach in this world proves that, if there is a god, it cannot be all knowing/loving/powerful (this is a topic for another day), but I don't think that you can make the direct line that suffering>joy in the world. It would vary hugely person to person.
The other issue with no kids, separate to any moral argument, is that we have no answer to "what do we do with old people if there are no young ones?" We have never created an economy that could handle no growth. It's tempting to brush this off, but in your perfect world, everyone alive now are the last people to be born. This eventually completely collapses the economy, which if we look at history would be scorched earth on the environment. So until and unless we also have an answer to, "How do we end a civilization without wrecking the environment and/or subjugating the remaining people to undue suffering," I don't think we can advocate for no children.
I think there are a lot of childless couples that are very happy. However a good alternate situation would be to adopt in this overcrowded world
@@MrRayopt Again, this is a misnomer. There are not a surplus of children. For every one baby available, in North America, there's something like six families wanting to adopt. Coupled with the fact that many countries have strictly limited out-of-country adoptions, and the foster system seeks to place disenfranchised children with extended family...there just aren't enough babies to go around. Lastly, it's extraordinarily expensive to adopt. Cost prohibitive to many low- to middle-class families.
If i have to doom a new life to chaos and asymmetry of pain/pleasure just to ensure my physical safety/security when i am old, i have to say thats a game i am not willing to play. As I get older, i see that life meets you halfway if you are compassionate and treat life with respect, so I am not worried about aging/getting old. If Buddha primary realization was "life is suffering" in a diff culture/time period. There is some truth there i think.
@@foreverskeptical1 His last point wasn’t him wanting security when he gets old but him wanting the tortuous end of the world, all that will be left is old people struggling to get by in a shattered economy
@@foreverskeptical1 Respectfully, that's because you either aren't thinking it through or have lived with such priviledge that you can't conceive of societal collapse. I'm not talking about children to tend to you when you're elderly. I'm talking about being homeless because your city's grid has shut down because the few remaining young people moved elsewhere (think 1990s Detroit). Or the grocery stores are empty (or gone), because there's no profit to be made there. What will you do when you're 85, somewhat infirm, and there's no services or structures around you? What's your plan?
Antinatalists are 6 times more likely to be depressed than the average person. They are also higher in the dark triad traits psychopathy and machiavellianism. They are lower in narcissism however.
Like so much evil, it sounds reasonable if there's no God.
If you believe in Hell, then you must acknowledge that the _only_ sure way to avoid damnation is to never be born in the first place.
@@txlyons2937 hell is bs & a huge lie, btw even if you were not born it wouldn't still means much cuz if such place even existed which i'm more than sure doesn't, it's still unavoidable by default even if you weren't born, remember the planet is in 8 billions as of now which means that every billions goes there as well too since they exists, so it's makes no fucking sense that anybody besides an idiot would believe in this, all religions are about taking over our own thoughts and creates obeying slaves, that's the very purpose as to why they keep making this assumption as a threat no coincidences here.
You have the option to quit if life is so terrible, so antinatalism is undermined big time by the continued existence of antinatalists.
Just because there are times when you wouldnt bring a kid into the world does not mean that everyone is inherently antinatalist. It means that you would become one at a certain point. Also, antinatalism doesnt work because all of its foundational belief is based in a vacuum, and also assumes you know what is best, not only in general but for someone who hasnt even been born yet.
Also, how do you justify living if you think its wrong to bring someone else into the world? Im not trying to convince anyone to kill themselves, but deciding that life is worth if for YOU but not worth it for someone else sounds unethical and hypocritical. This is my initial reaction to this as ive never heard of antinatalism before but it seems like a pretty obvious self debunking theory.
You can't reduce the suffering of someone that doesn't exist because they don't exist. You're talking about absolutely nothing as if it's a person you're helping.
You didn't even choose to be born, why do you think you have the ownership over your own body to decide if you want to live or not let alone a child who might've consented to being born? It's irrational. Isn't your whole point about not consenting to be born? Why do you not apply to life as well?
No
I support anti-natalism, mandated for all anti-natalists! Also, while you cease reproduction, please also cease the reproduction of your demented ideology, it is evil to spread suffering so keep your anti-natalism to yourself! I saw my parents, grandparents, family, friends, and neighbors be HAPPY and LOVE EACHOTHER. I'm sorry you never had that privilege.
Thank you for your comment, every interaction helps boost the channel. All the best.
@@DanielClementYoga Thank you for your sarcastic reply. Every interaction with my comments helps to bolster my ego. Love you, merry Christmas.
win -win!
@@flochforster7864
you also will watch all those characters die and suffer
Lot of people in the comments who don't want a pension. What an absolute crock AN is
Oh u need a constant supply of humans to supply u with a pension, but childfree people are the selfish ones. LOL
@@antinatalistwitch111 you clearly don't know how pensions work. The social security money you put in when you're working is used to fund current pensioners, and then the working population of the future will fund your pension. The money you put in doesn't just sit in a pile waiting for you to retire.
Nothing wrong with not having children but those who think they are doing it for some higher ethical reason should really understand and acknowledge the potential impact their decision has, rather than posturing like a teenager