Depends on whether a Christian takes Genesis or I Corinthians more seriously: "Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (7:1-2) Paul says that the ideal state is no marriage/sexual relations, which by extention would result in no procreation.
Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 : And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.
The writer is simply breaking down the thought processes of those who have nothing to die for. Without that, life and everything in it is “meaningless”. Wisdom, pleasures, folly, labor, generations, creation, knowledge, laughter, possessions, achievements, on and on. Gotta read the whole thing. It’s a nihilists playground. It does offer a conclusion.
Maybe but the Bible really is antinatalist, even if that quote can be read different. For the whole multiply thing for example, women who refuse to have children get a special place in heaven (not literally you know what I mean)
Mr. C Exactly, and the conclusion is : Better never to have been. Even Jesus himself tried to make this LOUD and CLEAR by not having been afraid to die. ALSO, he didn’t have any children. Any idea why that might have been?
Every argument against antinatalism is grounded in emotion. People desire to have children for themselves and because of the stigma society has on those who refuse to have children. It’s reassuring that someone like professor Benatar is brining this philosophy to light.
You're correct, the evolutionary craving for existence is so powerful that it blinds most of us totally to reason, and this applies to huge numbers who accept that existence is a pretty bleak affair and who have substantial cognitive capacity - I'm thinking of Richard Dawkins for example. I don't want there to be a powerful case for antinatalism, but after 2 years of being obsessed by this subject I have to say that the attempts to rebut David's and Schopenhauer's arguments are staggeringly poor. It's remarkable for example how little Schopenhauer is mentioned. I don't recall really having even heard of him prior to age 33 or so, and most people consider me pretty intelligent. His conclusions are just so unpalatable that he gets ignored completely. Natalism runs at least as deep in normal people as religious belief to a fundamentalist, so it's a lot like talking to a brick wall. It's like debating biblical contradictions with a fundamentalist - you're just not going to get through. The only area I probably differ with David is that he thinks an instantaneous annihilation of all life in the next microsecond would be very bad. I think when contrasted with letting things run out until they end anyway, which is assured, annihilation looks a lot better, but I don't want it to happen to me of course! That's the bind we're in, this 'existence bias' as Thomas Metzinger calls it is a wretched thing. We wouldn't be here without it...
@@igaraparana what about transhumanism and the technological singularity that will take place. Possible alleviating the suffering that makes life undesirable in the first place? And in order to enforce this morality of existence vs non-existence we would need to exist long enough to stop the suffering of non human animals on earth and possibly in space and the universe as a whole
There is more a stigma on people to not have children than there is to have children. There are dozens if not thousands of message daily, passively demanding people to stop breeding and to limit reproduction rates. Most people don't really care if you have kids. In most cases it is harmlessly deemed as ''abnormal''. I don't see how that defines ''stigma'' IE something that is disgraceful or a mark of a disease.
Antinatalism isn’t against life, it’s against the gamble of a bad/painful/sad/cruel life compared to the smaller possibility of a good or great existence. Most people die in fear or pain, a lot of people are treated horribly antinatalism looks at these and says why should I risk you having to experience torment when you definitely now (nonexistent) don’t have to experience anything vs I bring you into a world where there are more bad experiences than there are good and there is no going back.
Another reason I believe in antinatalism is because quantum physics says that if something can be done once it absolutely will happen again which I apply to my existence as if I can come into being exactly as I am I will come back at some point and possibly not even as my current life and I believe in eternal recurrence and universal consciousness and a new idea has come to mind what if instead of repeating just my life exactly the same I do reincarnate into every living being and live their lives? Time is a human construct so everything is technically happening all at once we just only experience parts of it and see it as a moving image. That would mean when I die I live every single action and experience and what terrifies me about that is that I will live every prison sentence, every painful disgusting terrifying action, experience all pain and every death and do this for eternity. So for me to not bring a life into this world is to either one spare me from living that life, two stop a being from having to possibly experience the tragedies of life, or three if other people do exist but they repeat everything as well keep them from having to live a nightmare that cant be undone
@Humanity Galatica do you want to appologies if your kids suffering like got cancer, mentall ill, proverty, and say i don't want to live if i can choice in the beginning?
@Humanity Galatica wake up from your delusion and enjoy your life, dont harm another Person( your children) with probability of suffering, they dont need that, and in the end they suffer because of death.
@Dao the Eternal Nameless Beyond Thought There are a number of behaviours one could adopt in order to alleviate the suffering of one's existence, and mindfulness is just one of them. Religions (unfortunately) seem much easier for people to adopt but they are dripping wet with the problems of past existences.
@John White People will often justify their decision to have children to the death, selfish and thoughless as it sometimes was. Its too hard to accept you were wrong or did the wrong thing
-YOUNG ME: why do people procreate when there’s so much suffering? -ADULT ME: vasectomy done & I’m vegan. I’m reducing cruelty & suffering wherever I can. Plus I’m open to “adoption” if needed.
@@justjoking5841 No mutilation necessary, and it’s an excellent form of non-drug, non-condom, permanent birth-control for couples. You lay down, they give you a local anesthetic, make a tiny incision, they pull and suture shut the _vas deferens_ (sperm canal) and close the incision, then repeat on the other side. My surgeon and I were even chatting about sports during the quick 45mins procedure. Here’s the best part, Testosterone production is uninterrupted because it uses blood vessels for delivery and _not_ the sperm canal. And yes, you still _ejaculate_ just like before, since the seminal fluid is produced by a separate organ. Let me know if you got additional questions.
Absolutely totally perfect sense. I hold Dr. Benatar in the highest regard. He is highly intelligent and compassionate. I am 100% in favor of antinatalism.
@@FB-jg2xq I couldn't possibly be more sure of it than I am now and have been for about 10 years when I realized how immoral it is to create a new person.
I'm not at all convinced by Benetar's premises that pain is bad and pleasure is good. The main problem is that Benetar doesn't define what he means by "good" and "bad". How do you define these things without referring them to each other, or indeed back to life itself? Also, to say that pain is always bad and pleasure is always good is very shortsighted. For example, marathon runners tremendous feeling of accomplishment (I wouldn't say pleasure) from running a marathon, but this usually involves a good deal of pain. Stoicism takes the view that pain and pleasure are "indifferents". That is, they are irrelevant to the attainment of the only true good - virtue - which is its own reward. It's not the things that life throws at us that are good or bad, but our reactions to them. Hence pain can be a great opportunity to increase one's virtue, and to live a flourishing life. Equally, even small amounts of pleasure can actually harm our character. Life certainly contains a lot of suffering, but what matters most is how we acquit ourselves. Virtue, not pleasure, is the only true good. So I don't accept Benetar's asymmetry argument because it's founded on faulty premises and simplistic assumptions. Sure, not ever being born means no loss (of pleasure) for the non-existent person, but it does lessen the opportunity for the presence of virtue in the world.
Antinatalist Outreach Agreed. Many propagate for all the wrong reasons. Some are ignorant to the ramifications of bringing another life into the world...which are many. But there are those who express their love to one another by sharing , nurturing, maturing, sacrificing for, etc. a life outside their own. Perhaps all that is a selfish endeavor?....up for debate.
@@mr.c2485 it is just the selfish gene at work, causing all suffering and death. The only thing that needs to happen is people waking up to the crudeness of their desire to have kids and how it is morally wrong to drag someone to this hellworld.
Antinatalist Outreach I feel ya. Here’s a fun fact. If animals like ants, earthworms, bees, etc. were to be eliminated from the planet, we all die, probably inside of a few short years. However, if humans were eliminated, the planet would thrive beautifully and harmoniously. Go figure!?!?
It's strange to me that the one saying "let's not bring kids into a world where they will suffer" is the "controversial" opinion. Knowing the impact another kid will have on the planet in developed countries, knowing how hard it is to stay financially solvent and be able to provide a healthy environment for a child, not knowing if there will be a worthwhile life for any children that grow up, all these things, are becoming normal to think about for anyone considering having kids. Plus, who does having many children benefit? The more workers there are, the worse wages will be. What will my child's life be, in reality? To serve a military industrial complex/enrich some corporate ceo? Is that a life worth living, one where they have little free time, and are always worried about the cost of food and rent? With little upward mobility? or maybe to join the military to die on foreign soil over mineral rights? I am a person who wants to have kids, but when I look at all they will have to face, I am not sure if I want them anymore. "oh but they could become the ceo!" yeah, maybe. And then they will exploit other humans, humans that I also care about. There is no winning here. I don't know about you, but if I know I can't win a game, I prefer not to play it at all.
Think about how life was just 400 years ago. How many circumstances and things that were considered to be a part of everyday life, that to us today are considered to be high suffering just isn't present in our modern day life? It is clear then, that life tends towards improvement and expansion, and that we can carry this legacy our ancestors have set before us onto our children. While we have had tremendous advancements in, for example, technology in the first world , one could say that other things are worse off. One of today's most notable struggle and challenge is an unprecedented one, that is the state of our mental health and how it relates to the unexplored territory of overstimulation (too much social media, too much society, too much external junk in our minds and so on). See this as a game you CAN win. For you and your presence are the focal point and the result due to thousands upon thousands of years where your ancestors survived and overcame many challenges. Then again if you truly do NOT desire to have children then it's perfectly alright, I'm just saying that one has to honestly gauge the trajectory of humankind, and how one can choose to play a part of it if they'd like to. Be careful to not fall into a dogma of any kind - antinatalism is no exception of an alluring dogma.
@@MattiasWalc I do not think that the gains made by humanity are sustainable. There is no guarantee that things will improve. In fact, it's the opposite. It is likely too late to reverse the effects of climate change that we have set into motion, whether we accept the reality or not.
@@MattiasWalc That's a statistical delusion. There is no such trend. There are BILLIONS of people living in horrid circumstances today in 2021, that's easily more than there were a thousand years ago. You can't win either, you can only lose less. And there's a very easy way to guarantee no loss that you'd be insane to dismiss.
Think about this.... By you not reproducing to pass on your ideals (which will undoubtedly be archived or buried in some library nobody goes to) someone else will reproduce. Those kids will carry on their parent's ideals with them and your ideals will inevitably die out because it is scientifically and logically (based on evolution) unreasonable to continue. Speaking in favor of evolution: it is entirely detrimental.
Same. I remember becoming one as a Christian and I thought for sure I was the first Christian in history to think of it, and also the worst because of it lol
*What I really appreciated about this particular show is that these lads, though being on a different ethical pathway, were scratching their heads in thought, rather than folding their arms like William Lane Craig, let's say, and just disregard the lad's proposition. These guys are thinkers, and I totally respect that. These kinds of shows are a extremely rare to witness.*
Benatar's asymmetry argument states that: 1. The presence of harm is bad. 2. the presence of benefit is good. 3. The absence of harm is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone. 4. the absence of benefit is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation. His asymmetry is the BEST explanation for those four widely-accepted asymmetries: 1. The asymmetry of procreational (reasons and) duties: While we have a duty to avoid bringing into exis-tence people who would lead miserable lives, we have no duty to bring into existence those who would lead happy lives. 2. The prospective beneficence asymmetry: It is strange to cite as a reason for having a child the fact that the child will thereby be benefited, whereas it is not simi-larly strange to cite as a reason for not having a child that that child will suffer. 3. The retrospective beneficence asymmetry: One can regret having brought a suffering child into existence, and one can regret it for the sake of that child. However, when one fails to bring a happy child into existence, one cannot regret that for the sake of the child one did not bring into existence. 4. The asymmetry of distant suffering and absent happy people: We are rightly sad for suffering people in distant places, but we are not similarly sad for the absence of what would have been happy people on uninhabited is-lands or areas of earth or on other planets.
Isn't Benatar's Asymmetry Argument summed up by a simple analogy: if I get some free coupon in the mail, and I benefit, I still owe the sender nothing: that was THEIR choice, whereas if that sender harms me (clogs up my mailbox with junk mail) then they DO owe cleaning up the mess THEY caused. I 100% agree with Benatar.
Before I’d heard of anti Natalism, I asked my mother if she would’ve gone through with having me if she knew with certainty that I was going to die in a fire at 50, after a reasonably good life, and she couldn’t answer.
@@edwardmacedo3409 Dying in a fire at 50 is hardly the worst case scenario when it comes to life. I can think of thousands of ways a persons life can be and probably will be worse than that.
@@edwardmacedo3409 Umm...... that's not even CLOSE to the worst-case scenarios many people experience in this life. Just had to point that out specifically.
@@edwardmacedo3409 You claim that dying in a fire is one of the worse ways to die which is incorrect. Dying from a fire will take less than 10 minutes and you will black out from smoke inhalation well before that point. Dying slowly from a terminal disease would be much worse. Dying from being tortured would be much worse. Living your life in constant pain and dying from old age is worse. I can go on if you really need me to give more examples.
Wouldn’t antinatalism be a good philosophy for Christians to hold onto? For every life that is created in a Christian family, there is a real possibility that the child will not end up becoming a Christian, and according to the Bible, this would result in them being sentenced to eternal suffering and punishment (Hell). If a Christian were to choose not to procreate, this would 100% spare a created soul from the perils of eternal punishment.
Actually there is a long history of antinatalist stances in christian thought-St. Augustine, St. Gregory, Kant, various Christian sects (e.g. the Cathars, the Bogomils, the Shakers, etc) have all taken exclusively antinatalist positions.
For those who believe in eternal damnation, the risk of procreation potentially leading to a damned soul (even in spite of trying to lead them to a righteous life) is surely too great to risk?
@@agh0x01 David Benatar is a fool, and the idea of anti-natalism is nonsense. It's just more of the anti-human propaganda pushed by Marxists since Marxism began. It's the same people who push the false climate hysteria, and demand westerners reduce their birthrates while replacing them with migrants (see: UN Replacement Migration for documentation of my claim). The only way to get anything interesting out of anti-natalism is to be an atheist. The only way to be an atheist is to ignore the evidence for Christianity (I've yet to see an atheist who knows all of the arguments for Christianity, but feel free to start by debunking the 5 reasons to believe in God from William Lane Craig if you want). So ultimately it's just anti-human propaganda from someone who claims expertise but, in fact, is just a sophist who defines words, ideas, and concepts in such a way as to be useful, while deriding and being intellectually dishonest about the criticism. For instance claiming that "everyone knows there is no God because of the problem of evil", is just the mindless ramblings of a fool who hasn't engaged with any of the literature, and doesn't understand what he's talking about.
I don't see how you can justify horrific lives by other people having generally good lives. Simply put you can't justify the extreme pain and suffering of one person with the pleasure and joy of another person. 1000 good lives to me don't justify one horrific life. From this perspective the world is only as good as the worst life lived and it only seems to make sense it would be best there was no world at all. My only way to justify existence over all is to consider that all consciousness is one and everyone and everything lives on after/ outside this seemingly one lifetime. This would include something akin to karma or the laws of probability that allow for all the suffering and agony some people experience in one lifetime to be just a speck in the eternal cycle allowing for another lifetime to somehow make up for it.
I care about my unborn children enough to not birth them in a world where they will suffer, and more importantly, where they will sin. If you're a good Christian, adopt a child.
@@rovert46 it's funny that that verse is accepted blindly, but the statement from Ecclesiastes that to be dead is to better than to be alive, and that best of all is never to have been, is totally ignored. If God exists and truly wants new beings to come about, he clearly wants or is indifferent to billions or trillions of more people going to hell. What a kindly being.
@@rovert46 from what i understand, god told adam & eve specifically to be fruitful & multiply. it wasn't like it was some command to all mankind to make babies. i mean if it was why would he create women who are infertile?
I became an anti-natalist this year I actually have been for years, I just wasn’t aware of the philosophy. It seems like a lot of people are learning about it and it seems to be growing, I hope we get enough people so we can have a mercy death option for anyone who would want it.
Doesn't his argument apply to christianity as well? A being that doesn't exist does not "miss out" on the eternal life with God but the being does indeed get the relief of not suffering. I think this was a very interesting topic but I would have liked more discussion about the view in a theistic world view. I believe that it does make sense if you're a christian
It's an interesting thought, if we all choose to stop reproducing by using our own free will, does that mean God's prophecy of the second coming of Jesus would never happen? In addition to, if we stop reproducing, that means there are less souls for God to send to Hell. A person could be unconvinced of the Christian's god existence, therefore be sent to hell for all eternity. Wouldn't stopping the reproduction of the human race be one of the most moral actions someone could take?
Amineye Fury Yes...if this were a numbers game. However, if it were indeed about the numbers then God is immoral for not drowning everyone in the flood. Just throw in the towel and call it a bad idea.
@@mr.c2485 did you even listen to the conversation. He is not in favor of killing. Once someone has gained their consciousness it should be up to the individual
International crisis right in front our doors, earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, this is the best moment to think what how important to not bring someone to this world.
actually, it is the perfect time to question wether we should be bringing people here. how can someone look at a worldwide pandemic and think "hmmm, perfect time to have a child!"
@@dadellacannella Human is the only animal that knows will dead soon or later. The only animal that knows they children will die and even knowing that, they just don’t care.
The host says, that most of the people are happy to be alive... Which kind of people? Most of the people I know suffering because of what is going on this planet. And the people from poor countries are even suffering more.
My mother had 6 kids.. she was always unhappy. At 70 years old she’s still unhappy. My father was unhappy too!! Everybody I know is unhappy with life!!
This is a very difficult topic to discuss with people as they get very offended by the subject matter as I have experienced, which further supports David's position of optimism bias, which I surmise has something to do with the illusion of self and ego. One area that I wish Benetar would address is that since most of the discussion is done between educated people in developed countries who benefit from the pillaging of poor countries, people supporting procreation have a vested interest in furthering the species because they are not suffering, further supporting their optimism bias. To quote Voltaire... "The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor".
And yet the highest natality rate are..... in poor countries. Bravo. I know a lot of poor people and they don't regret being born. Don't think everybody is as deppressed as you..
@@veganworldorder9394 They do regret it, they are simply too stupid to be able to articulate it, and suffer from social pressure to signal reproductive fitness. No one is glad to be alive. That is impossible - that's a subset/set issue. They are only glad for the occasional relief to their suffering, and the ability to engage in the metanarrative denial of death.
The Jackanapes “no one is glad to be alive” please speak for yourself, not everyone is as depressed and disappointed with life as you. i don’t suffer whatsoever in life and i’m extremely happy with my existence... unless you consider minor inconveniences to be “suffering”.
@@pinkfoxgloves Way to demonstrate everything I wrote is true. Bwa ha ha ha... and an ad hominem to boot. It is *impossible* to be glad to be alive. You don't know all of the conditions of your own life, you haven't lived them yet, and you have yet to experience *dying* The fact that you refrain from suicide is all the evidence needed - you are already aware that dying is worse than being alive, and that being alive a necessary but insufficient condition for all the worst things possible in experience. To claim one is glad to be alive is to take an *a posteriori* inference, and a subset of being alive, and pretend that it is in fact _a priori_ and the set of all subsets. This is a contradiction. Further - you must restrict your dataset to your current feelings to make the delusional, ignorant (non-pejorative usage of the word) argumet response "I don't suffer..." You suffer a helpless set of epistemic limitations - one of which is a delusional blindness to the glut of agony and suffering that is the rest of life. Indeed, showing that in ignorance, the suffering of others is the easiest to bear... I got mine, fuck everything else, eh? LOL - idiot.
The Jackanapes it isn’t impossible to be glad to be alive... it’s a subjective emotion and no one can tell somebody that they aren’t happy to be alive just because they haven’t ”experienced dying” yet. you’re basically saying we aren’t capable of feeling any emotion about life aside from despair. where did i say that dying is worse than being alive? it depends on the circumstance... if i was ailing from cancer or in a vegetative state then being dead is better than being alive. your entire argument is based on generalizations and pessimism, and dictating how other people feel about life because you’re convinced there’s no joy to be had in the world... not everyone suffers, not everyone hates their life, and not everyone is destined to be miserable. it’s kind of comical that you’re trying to convince me that i hate my life or that my children will hate theirs solely because others happen to suffer. it’s all circumstantial.
Well, existence is vastly overrated, no question about that. Also, most inhabitants of this planet would probably benefit greatly from humans' disappearance, which can be used as a moral argument for extinction. A world without human self-absorption and self-glorification doesn't come out as too wrong to me.
I've never understood the "nature will be better off without us" argument. Nature is the monster that has created us, and every other creature on this planet suffers just as much meaningless death and pain as we do. As the most intelligent species, it's our moral responsibility to annihilate the Earth and the universe if it's possible. Nobody is interested in a universe that even a five-year-old could do a better job of designing.
All inhabitants of this planet should go extinct, not just humans. We aren't special and neither are the other species. All sentient beings suffer. Nature is not cute, it's cruel.
@@aured605 so glad you brought up that argument. I also find it infuriating the romanticisation of nature, and the condemnation of mankind (which exists at the hands of nature). They are nothing but desperate appeals to nature.
No. Humans will simply embrace their nihilistic misanthropic views and become machines instead. Or simply plug their mind into a digital world and let machines work for them.
Antinatalism is one of the hardest to accept but morally truest position to take. 1) Do not cause unnecessary suffering. 2) Life is unnecessary. 3) A sentient being experiences suffering. 4) Therefore, procreation is an act of unnecessary suffering.
I've read an argument for a guy called David jacquemotte. It goes as follows: 1- we have a moral prohibition against creating new, foreseeable, unjustified suffering. 2- we have a moral permission (but not obligation) to create new foreseeable joy. 3- all sentient beings will experience some joy and some suffering. 4- moral prohibition always outweighs moral permission. C: we are always morally prohibited from creating new sentient beings. I think we also could present this argument: 1- creating suffering can't be justified by creating any amount of well-being. 2- creating suffering can be justified by preventing much bigger suffering. 3- bringing a person into existence creates suffering without preventing much bigger suffering. C: bringing a person into existence can't be justified. What do you think of those two arguments?
@@OmarAli-rp9vc They both seem ethical and logical. Makes me think of the phrase from the Hypocratic oath "First do no harm". Based on that all doctors should be antinatalists?
How refreshing to hear two people, holding opposing viewpoints, debate with one another with deep respect, and without any trace of rancour. I'm so glad I came across this. I hadn't heard of David Benatar before, even though my personal beliefs would fall under the anti-natalist umbrella, so I'm very glad to have been introduced to his well structured and robust arguments. I think there's a misconception that anti-natalists must be depressed. I'm generally fairly happy, and am living the best life I can; I've had many wonderful experiences and adventures, but if I could have chosen to have foregone it all, I would have.
For an atheist he sure has alot of religious undertones. Benatar predicts the end of the world or extinction and says we need to act to reach a state of bliss with no suffering. When asked if people should end their lives he says no. That’s smart because if he did that it would make him seem like a cult leader and no one would take him seriously.
Why did you keep the title of the video when the first thing David explains is that is not the point of anti-natalism. This is misrepresenting and makes honest discussion more difficult.
@Oners82 I'm an amoralistic antinatalist and I'm not the only one either. Antinatalism and moralism are not linked at the hip nor are they required to be. Moralists have no valid monopoly where opposing birth goes. Amoralists like me are able to validly oppose birth too.
To paraphrase Max Stirner: nice spooks, nerd. If there's one thing amoralists like me hate it's being expected to comply with abstractions like moralism. I mean, seriously, was my avatar of Max Stirner not a dead enough giveaway that appealing to reification was going to have zero effect on someone like me? Also nice false dichotomy but I'm neither a nihilist or a misanthrope.
Dude, for the second and last time I'm an antinatalist who isn't a moralist. I'm not a troll. If you can't accept the simple and verifible existential fact antinatalists come in different varieties, such as amoralistic, then you better fucking believe you're not getting any arguments or even an attempt at it from me. Bye.
This was a very respectful conversation that didn't devolve into straw-manning and ad hominem attacks. Good on all three of you. We need more critical debate and less scathing criticism.
The antinatilist's Best Possible World is a world without sentience. So it is actually the antinatilist who must defend their goals to intelligent sentiences.
Antinatalists are defending a heavily counterintuitive position. They bear a burden of proof if they want to convince people that we should stop reproducing.
Huge Benatar fan. Powerful thinkers from across all beliefs sling all kinds of mud at him but as far as I'm concerned no one has even come close to knocking his primary position down.
David Benatar depends on many assumptions and he has not been well debunked because there is no serious engagement. If this philosophy goes mainstream it will be suffer a few devastating objections.
But you figure since we're already here, might as well live out our personal lives. Going to be adopting a few children as well, they're already here too so I'll help them live their lives to the fullest
So the title suggest a debate between Benatar and Blackshaw, or at least that's what I would expect when using the word "vs." . From where I'm standing, it seemed to me that the host and Blackshaw were just asking David questions (whil looking a bit unprepared), instead of presenting their arguments. As usual, Benatar is handling the discussion with his characteristic profesionalism and well structured presentation of ideas.
Genesis 1:27-28 Thus God created the man in his image: in the image of God created he him: he created them male and female. And God blessed them, and God said to them, Bring forth fruit and multiply
@@mmartinu327 Clearly you believe these words quoted carry authority. Does that authority extend to all the inhabitants of planet earth, or only some? Similarly, do all the word of the OT carry the same weight of authority?
@@andrewfisherman3811“ Clearly you believe these words quoted carry authority“ Yes? I clearly believe these words quoted carry authority FOR YOU. And is it not upon you to answer those questions?
@@mmartinu327 I claim to be a Christian. The authority I recognise is Jesus Christ. The words you quote were written by a human being who lived several thousand years before JC stepped foot on this earth. Clearly these words had authority to those who submit to the authority of the Torah. Why should it be thought that I am obliged to submit to that authority today?
Here's something important left out of the euthanasia and suicide prevention discussion: Depression and suicidal ideation are HERITABLE traits. Consider a person with a genetic propensity toward depression and suicide. Now imagine that this person is prevented from killing themself temporarily, giving them just enough time to procreate. See where I'm going with this? Natural selection would have allowed those genes to die out, but due to "eusocial" intervention, the genes not only survive but perpetuate into many future generations. Ironically, suicide intervention could cause a shift in allele frequencies which cause the human population to gradually accumulate nihilistic/depressive/suicidal traits, eventually reaching a tipping point where antinatalism becomes the mainstream view.
You don’t have to be depressed or suicidal to be convinced of antinatalism my guy. It’s literally just compassion. Like you say suicidal ideation and depression are heritable, I agree. I should know, as I did get em both from my mom and grandpa who both decided having kids was a cool idea. But anyways, if that’s true, why would passing those genes on be good for the kid? Do you really think that a life spent wishing you were dead is better than never existing? I get that there’s some irony in me commenting this as I say I’m depressed, and I’ll even grant that maybe depressed people or people who’ve known more pain than average people are more inclined to accept antinatalism. But I’d say that’s because they’re better able to see the thing in full. They know how bad life can be, and they don’t want anyone else to ever have to feel like they do. But you don’t need to have had a terrible life to come to that conclusion. Just recognizing that life can suck and if you have a kid its life can suck is enough. (And I thought your argument for suicidal ideation being selected for in a compassionate society was pretty cool. It would be cool to see some study done on it)
Not all antinatalists are suicidal. Some antinatalists have just been through or have directly witnessed trauma, physical abuse, mental abuse, chronic pain, premature death, insecurities, bullying, murder, rape, sickness etc. Some people have been through tremendous suffering or have seen others suffer and they realise that they don't want to pass on suffering to more generations. As a kid, one of my class mates died at the age of 9 from sickle cell disease. It's fair to assume that she must have suffered from the disease before she died.
Yet here you are, living it up. Enjoying all the positives that also come with your existence. Existence for me, but not for thee. A selfish, psychotic worldview.
A person who never existed can't be deprived of pleasures they never had...can't this same train of thought be applied to children who get murdered? The parents of those children always lament the future that was taken from that child, but that child never had that future in order to be deprived of it - same as an unborn person who never had a future they could be deprived of. Isn't one of the core reasons murder is illegal is because it deprived the victim of an unrealized future?
If you are only here to talk about why you personally think that abortion is wrong, then you misunderstood the point of the video. Anti-natalism philosophy does not require abortion. It doesn't even require birth control. It just requires not making more people. The debate can rage on for when a person starts to "exist" but if you know what you think about it, if you know when YOU think "sentient life" begins, then you can think about whether anti-natalist makes sense from that perspective. And you can do it without dragging anyone into the constantly raging debate about when we should define the start of human life.
@@ambissionzazaridah4112 actually they get it but as they say , "truth is hard to digest" people try to prove it wrong by providing various shit arguments and fallacies.
Saying AN necessitates suicide is hasty, and proves shallow once you dig deeper into what it entails -especially its negative effects on others and on the world. It does so on at least three counts, if not more. (1) It causes more avoidable anguish to others (especially family and friends) than it eliminates for ourselves (2) It's denies the future our suffering prevention efforts. Less effective to just stop a bad than to do that plus support things opposing the bad. You can't do the latter if dead. (3) Saying feelings of others don't matter concerning suicide has ripple effects far outside the AN issue. If we can disregard feelings of others even in matters as traumatic as suicide, it's difficult to justify condemnations of unmistakably bad acts practically assured to be less emotionally damaging than suicide (theft, vandalism, bigotry, harassment, battery not requiring hospitalization). Thus the "off yourself" admonition just doesn't stand up under closer scrutiny.
I think the best thing would be not bringing people into existence in the first place but if you must have children, I hope you don't, but if you do don't ruin peoples lives with things like circumcision or getting them addicted to foods that ruin your health like dairy
@@stellagyan6593 Based on the scientific studies of how circumcision permanently alters nuerologic function and leaves people with things like PTSD I'd say yes. It's just as ludicrous as FGM
Justin helped to create both religious and atheistic anti-natalists with this discussion. Even Bruce acknowledged the power of the argument at the very end, only to be quickly silenced by the claim that it's only a position to be adopted by naturalists(!?) Which was a point addressed numerous times by all parties in the discussion. Facepalm!
@@veganworldorder9394 You may be surprised, but you have no moral right to claim your life as being acceptable just because you like it. You are not alone in this world, your presence here has negative consequence on others. All you are saying, is that it is okay to cause harm as long as someone benefits from it. This is the justification one would use to excuse rape to give an extreme example. Morality is unforgiving, and for us, to live often means to be immoral. Wait until you are the last living being capable of suffering, then make your claim that you are alright with living and all will be well. Until then, don't try to ignore everyone else.
@@dopaminecloud Stop strawmaning me. I don't claim that. I know I have very few bad consequences on other sentient beings in this world. I am not saying that you can cause harm if someone else is benefiting from it either. Again, don't strawman me.
Buddhists agree that life is suffering, saying that nirvana is an escape from the endless cycle of birth and rebirth. I wonder what the Buddhist perspective on Antinatalism is.
There are many schools of Buddhist thought. But going back to the original manuscripts, it is not explicitly stated but strongly implied that procreation is wrong.
@@ChowMeinChowdown Interesting. Perhaps these stricter aspects of Buddhism are intended only for monks and not for lay people. In contrast, it doesn't seem like Christian monks are celibate for Antinatalist reasons.
he (buddha) did come to that realization and subsequently came up with another coping mechanism. that said, inventing another mechanism to be able to cope with all the shit that life throws at you is in no way a permanent solution to the problem. the only permanent solution is a peaceful exit.
Yeah Buddhists and antinatalists agree on how the world is on a descriptive level. You will hear Buddhists say that being born is entering the field of dukkha. But their prescription or methodology on how to overcome this predicament is different.
Some folk do become committed antinatalists after giving birth you know. Jim Crawford, author of "Confessions of an Antinatalist" is a prominent example that spings to my mind.
I think a brief way to show the implausibility of antinatalism is with Tina Rulli's Hangnail Case. As Rulli puts it, on Benatar's view "A life with a hangnail’s worth of pain for an otherwise extremely happy person is one that is worse than nonexistence". Imagine the most amazing life possible, with no pain other than a hangnail. Benatar says this life is not worth starting. I think many people would find this deeply implausible. Tina Rulli, “The Ethics of Procreation and Adoption,” Philosophy Compass 11 (2016), 306.
It is not worth starting because it has no advantage over non-existence but one disadvantage (the hangnail). People find it implausible because they implicitly compare it with other _existing_ beings.
@@gonzobatano5352 I appreciate your response. I also don't think that goods in life are reasons to begin a life. But if we take Melinda Roberts's view of the Asymmetry, what matters is if someone will come into existence for other reasons. If a being will come into existence, because parents want to have a child, then benefits and harms count, and we should make sure the benefits will outweigh the harms and do as much as we can to have benefits in the person's life. If the being never will come into existence, then the harms and benefits don't count. But if we could bring someone into existence with only a hangnail's worth of pain, this would surely be at the very least *permissible*, if the parents desired to have a child. A hangnail!? On Roberts's view, there is no reason to bring someone into existence except if parents want to have a child. But it is permissible to have a child if benefits outweigh harms and parents work to bring about benefits in the child's life. And surely a life with only a hangnail's worth of pain would be permissible to start. To bring out the implausibility further, we can also do what Jeff McMahan does. McMahan says Benatar's argument can't distinguish between different amounts of pain in lives which we would want to plausibly distinguish. If we compare two lives, one that is amazing but with one hangnail, and another that is full of terrible pain, Benetar says both are equally not worth starting. But surely if we could choose to start one of these lives, or if we had to choose, the hangnail life is at least more permissible to start while the other life, if it contained more pain than enjoyment (assuming hedonism) would be impermissible to start. Benetar's view can't distinguish between them, both are not worth starting, but that's a deeply implausible judgment. I think Benatar's argument sounds good to those who recognize the world is full of suffering when heard in isolation. Benetar gets a lot of press because his view is controversial and edgy. But there are so many other theorists who have way more plausible views of the Asymmetry. Now it still could be that Benetar's "Quality-of-Life" argument goes forward. That is, it might still be that his view that the vast majority of lives contain more harm then benefit is true, which would mean even on a view like Roberts's the life shouldn't go forward. I don't think this is plausible either, but it's independent of the implausibility of his treatment of the Asymmetry. In other words, one could still be an antinatalist while rejecting Benetar's treatment of the Asymmetry, and I think we should reject it. Melinda Roberts, “The Asymmetry: A Solution,” Theoria 77 (2011): 333-367. Jeff McMahan, “Causing People to Exist and Saving People’s Lives,” The Journal of Ethics 17, Special Issue: The Benefits and Harms of Existence and Non-Existence (June 2013): 5-35.
"But it is permissible to have a child if benefits outweigh harms and parents work to bring about benefits in the child's life. And surely a life with only a hangnail's worth of pain would be permissible to start." Benatar does not deny that it can be morally permissible to bring a sentient life into existence if the harm is very minuscule and the benefit to other beings is big enough. It is still not worth starting from the point of view of that being which is brought into existence, though. "To bring out the implausibility further, we can also do what Jeff McMahan does. McMahan says Benatar's argument can't distinguish between different amounts of pain in lives which we would want to plausibly distinguish. If we compare two lives, one that is amazing but with one hangnail, and another that is full of terrible pain, Benetar says both are equally not worth starting. But surely if we could choose to start one of these lives, or if we had to choose, the hangnail life is at least more permissible to start while the other life, if it contained more pain than enjoyment (assuming hedonism) would be impermissible to start. Benetar's view can't distinguish between them, both are not worth starting, but that's a deeply implausible judgment." I fail to see why McMahan's conclusion follows from Benatar's view. Surely Benatar can say that the one life with only a hangnail is better than the one with terrible suffering in it. He just needs to compare those two scenarios where both beings exist. Their lives are both not worth starting, but Benatar is not committed in any way to saying that bringing the second being into existence is not much worse than bringing the first one into existence.
@@gonzobatano5352 Thanks for your response. Yes, and I would say that view that says the hangnail life is impermissible to start is pretty implausible. As Benatar says, he thinks a minuscule pain, like a pinprick, would make it impermissible to start a life: "One of the implications of my argument is that a life filled with good and containing only the most minute quantity of bad-a life of utter bliss adulterated only by the pain of a single pin-prick-is worse than no life at all." (Better Never to Have Been, p. 48) Since Benatar is only relying on plausibility judgments or intuitions in his arguments, and this is an implication of his argument, we should reject it if we don't share his intuition and if we find an alternative account of the Asymmetry, like Roberts's, more plausible instead. On Benatar's view of the Asymmetry, both the pinprick/hangnail life and the life with more pain than enjoyment are wrong to start. Now he could go further and say if he had to pick he would choose the pinprick life to start. But it just seems more plausible that the life with more pain in it than enjoyment is impermissible to start but the life with a hangnail is entirely permissible to start.
I would really like more discussion on David's "happy slave" thought experiment. Teasing out specifically what's wrong in that example, and whether it's analogous to real life.
How interesting! For the past 50-years it never even once occurred to me that there might be even one other person who thought pretty much exactly like I did, and still do. Bullying victim here.
Another point on antinatalism is that if one becomes an antinatalist that doesn't mean the whole world would. There are many orphans, and it's better to improve an orphan's life than not do that and bring a new life into existence.
More than death, he is doomed to suffer for an indefinite period of time. And that's just pure hell. Death could infact be liberating though, but a suffering life! Oh that's hell
finding a different path, away from the pre defined one which, for some reason, most think is the only path. the path that was engraved in their head from birth by the world around them.
I think being an atheist helps someone to fully commit to these ideals because they don't believe in an afterlife. If you are religious, not specifically christian than life has purpose and it continues into the afterlife. My biggest problem with antinatilism is that nobody knows if we asked for life because we can't prove what is happing prior to being born. And I think that's the biggest flaw and argument to be made. I wonder if there is an afterlife would David Benatar want to exist because in it we serve a much greater purpose we can't even comprehend in our current state? Overall I tend to agree with a lot of what antinatilism stands for because I think in general too many people have children to satisfy their own personal needs and wants without thinking about what it means to bring another life into this world.
@finalfantasy8911 I agree there is no good logical reason to hold out some sort of possibility that someone can consent to being born because its all speculative and depends on a person faith. But nobody knows what is happening before or after birth. You may think someone cant consent before birth but can you prove it?
@finalfantasy8911 Based on science...what science you mean the same science that is always changing and evolving because people make new discoveries every day? Your claim only holds true because of the evidence available to you now and even that is subjective. Like I said it all depends on a persons beliefs because you can't prove you didn't exist prior to sperm to egg or however you want to word it.
@finalfantasy8911 Because you're talking about when something comes into existence. You can't say what existed before the universe because you don't know. There are theories but no actually agreement or conclusive evidence that proves what actually took place. I think that's relevant Just a disclaimer I am in no way advocating for reproduction or children I have none of my own and don't plan to I just see how religious some people can be and think having children is a "blessing"
@finalfantasy8911 The correlation I make with the Universe and birth is just one with many questions. An example I'll give, but don't buy into is reincarnation. It seems absurd to think we are all alive and decide to come back with no recollection of our past lives to possibly fill some void or gain some knowledge to help a greater good or higher power. I guess I am really just a very deep thinker I was raised Catholic and antinatilism is just very new and foreign to me but it interesting and I feel like it shares a lot of ideals I have and could never share with friends or family I am curious as how you came to be atheist and what made you decide
Loved this conversation! "on a naturalist basis, there feels like there's a lot to it there..." haha love how the host throws in that at the end. He really doesn't want his religion tied into the antinatalist views Amazing discussion that I would love to continue to explore more on
Dostoevsky: "Without God, all things are permitted." Indeed, an atheistic/materialistic conception of the universe, a universe in which there can be no hope and no purpose, practically necessitates a disdain for life and all the beauty it contains. With such a view, one is capable only of seeing darkness and despair. With such an outlook, one can reason his way to almost any moral position, no matter how foolish or wicked.
Tyler Pedersen With God, all things are still permitted because nothing supercedes God's will. And on top of that, death is not even a final repose with God but a horrible chance of being tortured for eternity. Are we going to call hell beauty now? By simply not being born into the right religion to worship the right God follows a horrible, horrible faith of being burned conscious forever.
@@neocyte85 It also presents the chance for eternal life and eternal happiness over merely becoming a mere corpse past its expiration date. A rotting carcass eaten from the inside out by worms, carnivores, and parasites before being turned into fecal matter.
I gaved up on wanting to be human a long time ago. Had no idea what I was exhibiting was any of these statements from a young age. Never liked any of the kids or 20-30 some thing being unsympathetic too self-interested about their livilyhood. That said I'm willing to let everyone gamble with the outcomes of their lives to the bitter end.
/////// History is full of people who allowed themselves to be martyred for a variety of reasons. Rights, justice, love, community, family...just to name a few. If you have nothing to die for then what exactly is “living”? Perhaps I should have said, life is not worth living if you have nothing to die for.
In my opinion it is so easy to understand the concept of antinatalism when you think about bringing someone who you genuinely love to where it is corrupted in all extensions. We always want the best for our loved ones.
I'm commenting part way through whilst listening. I'm loving this conversation. I wanted/want to be a mother. Longed to be in fact. I oozed maternal instinct from a tender age. But unfortunately I have a history of trauma that has prevented me from meeting a husband etc. I'm a Christian, so no sex before marriage for me. I'm sad about my situation, but comforted that I've been responsible, and haven't caused anyone else to suffer. I increasingly worry about the future of today's children. I say this without any judgement towards those who've got children. I would have too if my life had gone to plan. I guess we adjust our narrative to suit our circumstances...
@Humanity Galatica Well, no, we put sentient well-being above all else. In so doing, avoiding suffering naturally comes out as a main goal. And given that human life is mainly comprised of long gaps of feeling no memorable emotion interspersed with varying amounts of joy and sorrow depending mainly on your wealth and genetics, I think it makes perfect sense to say that life isn’t worth the trouble. That’s not actually my main argument, though, and if you’ve got the time and desire, I’d love to hear what you’ve got say about my main one. It’s that we ought not conceive because that forces life on someone incapable of consenting to it. Two premises needed are that 1) Forcing a potentially bad situation on someone without their consent is immoral, and 2) Life at least always has the potential to be bad on the whole. I don’t really think that 2 is debatable, it seems obviously true. You could always have a kid with some sort of genetic disease that makes their life a living hell, so that possibility is always there. But I can see a debate happening around premise 1. But yeah, if you’ve got time and want to, I’d love to hear what you think of that
@Humanity Galatica anyway if you want to reduce suffering without go extinct you can have one child instead of two, two instead of three, three instead of four. We don't need to be billions and billions and billions on the planet. It's also a environmental issue
@Humanity Galatica which reason? You said you want expansion of humankind but that immediately brings more problems. The core of antinatalism is that non existence of man is the only way to solve any problem of man
@@sisypheanexistence8955 Can you blame them? This philosophy has more or less ruined my life, so I honestly can understand anyone who doesn't want anything to do with it. Ps, I personally think it's a bit arrogant to claim that everyone who doesn't agree with you is willfully ignorant.
@@jimgiann2740 I was living a mostly decent life and was somewhat interested in philosophy. I had already heard about antinatalism, but it was mostly in the context of environmentalism. Then I came across Benatars asymmetry and Thomas Ligotti and since then my mental well-being took a nosedive. Getting told that essentially you are better off nonexistent, your mother and every other parent is a vile monster, life is a waking nightmare whether you agree or not, if you think your life is decent you are wrong and don't even realize how bad you and everybody has it and the sooner the world ends the better, can take a toll on one, especially if one has low self esteem and depression too begin with. I'll never be able to become a "true" antinatalist who is proud about "losing the rose-tinted glasses" and "seeing the ugly truth", and tries to spread it, and frankly, I don't want to. Partly because I don't want to be responsible for making anybody else go through what I went and am still going through.
@@frederikleidl6861 i am truly sorry to hear that. I've been suffering with severe depression for the last two years but i have to say even though i kinda agree with this philosophy i certainly have noticed the damage it has caused my mental state. Stay strong and i hope you get better soon.
I am not an anti-natalist. But.....I agree with the entire philosophy of it. I completely understand that it is a VERY controvesial topic of discussion, but to me it is a really easy, logically sound argument. Most, and I emphasize the word 'most' really high level thinkers really battle to grasp this topic, and I have no idea why. I say they cannot grasp it because whenever they talk about it, they completely derail the points which are those of antinatalism. I would understand if they disagreed with the entire philosophy, because anti-natalism goes against all that humans are genetically 'designed' for, which is to spreadperpetually their DNA. But MANY of them don't get it. And I dont know why.
Domzdream personally I disagree with anti natalism for a lot of reasons but you’re right people really don’t understand the argument at all. The common misconception is that the antinatalist desires to kill people and eradicate life by means of force which is not true
Self proclaimed higher thinkers resent antinatalism because they didn’t think of it first themselves. Embracing AN renders all their other work and thinking obsolete and moot. Like Jordan Peterson. JP suffers cognitive dissonance when it comes to accepting AN. AN is the pinnacle of evolved thinking and consciousness. Great thinkers will reject it because their ego won’t allow them to accept that it’s logically irrefutable.
@Humanity Galatica Nah, I’m pretty sure the person bullying a hypothetical teenager going through emotional pain and likely suicidal ideation is the most pathetic, personally
This is it for me personally. I take the woman’s perspective as a guy with a ton of empathy. I would absolutely not want to deal with carrying extra weight that kicks you for the better part of 9 months, is very inconvenient and often painful, and near the end giving birth is the worse part. To top it off, you now have a communication issue with the baby in addition to probably hundreds of sleepless nights, a now decidedly disgusting environment 24/7, and as I type this, I can’t think of a single benefit, other than to stroke your own ego that you created it. I realize only unsuccessful and dumb people have children, as harsh as that sounds. Brilliant minds, philosophers, people with accomplishments, they don’t care about having children because they are confident in their lives.
Howdie Mikovski is another one who get it and speak about the prison cave in which we live,the suffering that didn't help us to evolve.Are many worlds out there, some are free and harmonious, outside from underworlds, are humans that live in harmonious spiritual evolved worlds,human luminousus.
If we follow evidence and start with the most reasonable assumption there's no gods, or afterlives or souls (the absolute weakest idea theism people have proposed) then we are left with dog eat dog world. We have social systems and structures in societies, many of which are corrupt and oppressive. We have families and friends and love and care for them, and try to make the world better for them. Millions of our own kinds suffer and die each year from a variety of afflictions. No one asked to be born. And we have the entirety of animal kingdom with predators and short lived deaths. This is a truly harsh reality we are in whatever you believe. Those who were born into privileged lives due to nothing other than luck have a hard time seeing this position.
This was very cordial, sincere, logical, and I rather enjoyed listening to this conversation. So much better than David's debate with Jordan Peterson: who was totally illogical, incoherent, and behaved like a jerk throughout the whole discussion.
Anyone who argues that antinatalism and Christianity are compatible would have to also argue that God was morally wrong to create a universe with sentient life. Then there is a contradiction, since everything God does is morally correct. Hence antinatalism and Christianity are incompatible.
What about these quotes from the Bible. “For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.” Luke 23.29 “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” Genesis 3.16 “Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.” Hosea 9.14 “Their root is dried up and they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Hosea 9.16
Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 “And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.”
wonderful episode. great to see such a deep dialogue between the three of you. i agree with david, but definitely appreciate the comments from the christian scholars as well.
This life affirming stance is very much a modern consequence of the industrial revolution in which women who were once vital to the family became obsolete from an economic standpoint. This created a profound uncertainty about their usefulness. Thus the sacredness of motherhood and of childhood was amplified and a different meaning given to motherhood in which childbearing has been turned into a freedom rather than something that just happens. Apart from that most of the ancient world religions stand out in their strongly negative view of existence. Liberating human beings from their bondage to earthly existence has been their chief concern. Take Buddhism's Nirvana (extinction) or Hinduism's Moksha (release). Both have a great deal in common in their view of human existence and in their approach to transcending the evil of existence. Even Christianity has a negative view of worldly existence and the search for salvation from it. In the Fall of Adam Christianity symbolises mans affirmation of the will to live. His sin bequeathed to all of us in time through the bond of generations causing us all to partake of suffering and eternal death. On the other hand Christ, God becomes man, symbolises salvation through the denial of the will...a "Kenosis", a self emptying of oneself from existence.
Even on Christianity, if the doctrine of Eternal Conscious Torment is true, then anti-natalism is the most gracious and kind position.
No, it's anti Christian. Christians are tasked with being fruitful and multiply.
Depends on whether a Christian takes Genesis or I Corinthians more seriously:
"Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband." (7:1-2)
Paul says that the ideal state is no marriage/sexual relations, which by extention would result in no procreation.
@@VACatholic St Agustine was an antinatalist.
@@VACatholic so that most of you Christians well done in hell
@@Android-ds9ie English is hard.
Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 : And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.
The writer is simply breaking down the thought processes of those who have nothing to die for. Without that, life and everything in it is “meaningless”. Wisdom, pleasures, folly, labor, generations, creation, knowledge, laughter, possessions, achievements, on and on.
Gotta read the whole thing. It’s a nihilists playground.
It does offer a conclusion.
Maybe but the Bible really is antinatalist, even if that quote can be read different. For the whole multiply thing for example, women who refuse to have children get a special place in heaven (not literally you know what I mean)
That quote is actually featured in "Better Never to Have Been" :)
My favorite bible verse
Mr. C
Exactly, and the conclusion is :
Better never to have been.
Even Jesus himself tried to make
this LOUD and CLEAR by not having
been afraid to die.
ALSO, he didn’t have any children.
Any idea why that might have been?
Every argument against antinatalism is grounded in emotion. People desire to have children for themselves and because of the stigma society has on those who refuse to have children.
It’s reassuring that someone like professor Benatar is brining this philosophy to light.
You're correct, the evolutionary craving for existence is so powerful that it blinds most of us totally to reason, and this applies to huge numbers who accept that existence is a pretty bleak affair and who have substantial cognitive capacity - I'm thinking of Richard Dawkins for example.
I don't want there to be a powerful case for antinatalism, but after 2 years of being obsessed by this subject I have to say that the attempts to rebut David's and Schopenhauer's arguments are staggeringly poor. It's remarkable for example how little Schopenhauer is mentioned. I don't recall really having even heard of him prior to age 33 or so, and most people consider me pretty intelligent. His conclusions are just so unpalatable that he gets ignored completely. Natalism runs at least as deep in normal people as religious belief to a fundamentalist, so it's a lot like talking to a brick wall. It's like debating biblical contradictions with a fundamentalist - you're just not going to get through.
The only area I probably differ with David is that he thinks an instantaneous annihilation of all life in the next microsecond would be very bad. I think when contrasted with letting things run out until they end anyway, which is assured, annihilation looks a lot better, but I don't want it to happen to me of course! That's the bind we're in, this 'existence bias' as Thomas Metzinger calls it is a wretched thing. We wouldn't be here without it...
@@igaraparana what about transhumanism and the technological singularity that will take place. Possible alleviating the suffering that makes life undesirable in the first place? And in order to enforce this morality of existence vs non-existence we would need to exist long enough to stop the suffering of non human animals on earth and possibly in space and the universe as a whole
There is more a stigma on people to not have children than there is to have children. There are dozens if not thousands of message daily, passively demanding people to stop breeding and to limit reproduction rates.
Most people don't really care if you have kids. In most cases it is harmlessly deemed as ''abnormal''.
I don't see how that defines ''stigma'' IE something that is disgraceful or a mark of a disease.
I am religious and I am leaning towards anti nataliam. My only arguemnt against it would be that god said it’s moral so it’s moral.
@@igaraparana and my girlfriend wants to have kids really bad, what should I do 💔💔 I love he so much 😢😢
Antinatalism isn’t against life, it’s against the gamble of a bad/painful/sad/cruel life compared to the smaller possibility of a good or great existence. Most people die in fear or pain, a lot of people are treated horribly antinatalism looks at these and says why should I risk you having to experience torment when you definitely now (nonexistent) don’t have to experience anything vs I bring you into a world where there are more bad experiences than there are good and there is no going back.
Indeed. I view it is an extremely compassionate philosophy.
Another reason I believe in antinatalism is because quantum physics says that if something can be done once it absolutely will happen again which I apply to my existence as if I can come into being exactly as I am I will come back at some point and possibly not even as my current life and I believe in eternal recurrence and universal consciousness and a new idea has come to mind what if instead of repeating just my life exactly the same I do reincarnate into every living being and live their lives? Time is a human construct so everything is technically happening all at once we just only experience parts of it and see it as a moving image. That would mean when I die I live every single action and experience and what terrifies me about that is that I will live every prison sentence, every painful disgusting terrifying action, experience all pain and every death and do this for eternity. So for me to not bring a life into this world is to either one spare me from living that life, two stop a being from having to possibly experience the tragedies of life, or three if other people do exist but they repeat everything as well keep them from having to live a nightmare that cant be undone
Deep
People that are happy are delusional
Makes sense to me!
People that say pain is good never experienced true pain
Soo true. True suffering doesn't bring anything to you except trauma, and there's nothing good enough in life to compensate for it.
Bringing someone into existence is like playing Russian roulette with their life.
But in life all chambers are loaded; we gonna all die.
@@billjones3868 pretty sure he meant proverbially, like they’re either gonna luck out and be happy or get unlucky and be miserable
Suffering is guaranteed.
@Humanity Galatica do you want to appologies if your kids suffering like got cancer, mentall ill, proverty, and say i don't want to live if i can choice in the beginning?
@Humanity Galatica wake up from your delusion and enjoy your life, dont harm another Person( your children) with probability of suffering, they dont need that, and in the end they suffer because of death.
Benetar is such an incredible interlocutor, well-spoken, unemotional, quite intelligent.
@Dao the Eternal Nameless Beyond Thought There are a number of behaviours one could adopt in order to alleviate the suffering of one's existence, and mindfulness is just one of them. Religions (unfortunately) seem much easier for people to adopt but they are dripping wet with the problems of past existences.
So he is a robot?
@John White People will often justify their decision to have children to the death, selfish and thoughless as it sometimes was. Its too hard to accept you were wrong or did the wrong thing
'quite intelligent'
Jesus man.....patronizing much?
@John Toas
Wow. You're so basic.
-YOUNG ME: why do people procreate when there’s so much suffering?
-ADULT ME: vasectomy done & I’m vegan.
I’m reducing cruelty & suffering wherever I can. Plus I’m open to “adoption” if needed.
We need more guys like you that think about the ramifications of procreation.
We need more people to think like you.
Your kindness and decency are invaluable.
That's great of you man...🙏
You mutilated your genitals why?
@@justjoking5841 No mutilation necessary, and it’s an excellent form of non-drug, non-condom, permanent birth-control for couples. You lay down, they give you a local anesthetic, make a tiny incision, they pull and suture shut the _vas deferens_ (sperm canal) and close the incision, then repeat on the other side. My surgeon and I were even chatting about sports during the quick 45mins procedure. Here’s the best part, Testosterone production is uninterrupted because it uses blood vessels for delivery and _not_ the sperm canal. And yes, you still _ejaculate_ just like before, since the seminal fluid is produced by a separate organ. Let me know if you got additional questions.
Benatar makes perfect sense to me..
Absolutely totally perfect sense. I hold Dr. Benatar in the highest regard. He is highly intelligent and compassionate. I am 100% in favor of antinatalism.
Catherine O'Brien you will more and more sure about it when time passes and you are getting older!!
Only the intelligent people can understand and accept that, the others just don’t use intelligence and use animals instincts instead
@@FB-jg2xq I couldn't possibly be more sure of it than I am now and have been for about 10 years when I realized how immoral it is to create a new person.
I'm not at all convinced by Benetar's premises that pain is bad and pleasure is good. The main problem is that Benetar doesn't define what he means by "good" and "bad". How do you define these things without referring them to each other, or indeed back to life itself?
Also, to say that pain is always bad and pleasure is always good is very shortsighted. For example, marathon runners tremendous feeling of accomplishment (I wouldn't say pleasure) from running a marathon, but this usually involves a good deal of pain.
Stoicism takes the view that pain and pleasure are "indifferents". That is, they are irrelevant to the attainment of the only true good - virtue - which is its own reward. It's not the things that life throws at us that are good or bad, but our reactions to them. Hence pain can be a great opportunity to increase one's virtue, and to live a flourishing life. Equally, even small amounts of pleasure can actually harm our character. Life certainly contains a lot of suffering, but what matters most is how we acquit ourselves. Virtue, not pleasure, is the only true good.
So I don't accept Benetar's asymmetry argument because it's founded on faulty premises and simplistic assumptions. Sure, not ever being born means no loss (of pleasure) for the non-existent person, but it does lessen the opportunity for the presence of virtue in the world.
I dont mind doing anything as long as I can choose to participate and leave without fuss. Life unfortunately doesnt play out like this.
Always morally wrong to gamble with someone else's life.
Antinatalist Outreach
So all parents are immoral?
@@mr.c2485 immoral in terms of creating life yes. Moral in other ways, hopefully.
Antinatalist Outreach
Agreed. Many propagate for all the wrong reasons. Some are ignorant to the ramifications of bringing another life into the world...which are many. But there are those who express their love to one another by sharing , nurturing, maturing, sacrificing for, etc. a life outside their own.
Perhaps all that is a selfish endeavor?....up for debate.
@@mr.c2485 it is just the selfish gene at work, causing all suffering and death. The only thing that needs to happen is people waking up to the crudeness of their desire to have kids and how it is morally wrong to drag someone to this hellworld.
Antinatalist Outreach
I feel ya. Here’s a fun fact.
If animals like ants, earthworms, bees, etc. were to be eliminated from the planet, we all die, probably inside of a few short years.
However, if humans were eliminated, the planet would thrive beautifully and harmoniously. Go figure!?!?
Wish I could articulate myself as calmly and effortlessly as Benatar.
And I was positively surprised by Blackshaw openness and acceptance of the view.
Agreed, Blacksaw was very civil and open to the discussion.
It's strange to me that the one saying "let's not bring kids into a world where they will suffer" is the "controversial" opinion. Knowing the impact another kid will have on the planet in developed countries, knowing how hard it is to stay financially solvent and be able to provide a healthy environment for a child, not knowing if there will be a worthwhile life for any children that grow up, all these things, are becoming normal to think about for anyone considering having kids.
Plus, who does having many children benefit? The more workers there are, the worse wages will be. What will my child's life be, in reality? To serve a military industrial complex/enrich some corporate ceo? Is that a life worth living, one where they have little free time, and are always worried about the cost of food and rent? With little upward mobility? or maybe to join the military to die on foreign soil over mineral rights? I am a person who wants to have kids, but when I look at all they will have to face, I am not sure if I want them anymore. "oh but they could become the ceo!" yeah, maybe. And then they will exploit other humans, humans that I also care about. There is no winning here. I don't know about you, but if I know I can't win a game, I prefer not to play it at all.
Think about how life was just 400 years ago. How many circumstances and things that were considered to be a part of everyday life, that to us today are considered to be high suffering just isn't present in our modern day life?
It is clear then, that life tends towards improvement and expansion, and that we can carry this legacy our ancestors have set before us onto our children.
While we have had tremendous advancements in, for example, technology in the first world , one could say that other things are worse off. One of today's most notable struggle and challenge is an unprecedented one, that is the state of our mental health and how it relates to the unexplored territory of overstimulation (too much social media, too much society, too much external junk in our minds and so on).
See this as a game you CAN win. For you and your presence are the focal point and the result due to thousands upon thousands of years where your ancestors survived and overcame many challenges.
Then again if you truly do NOT desire to have children then it's perfectly alright, I'm just saying that one has to honestly gauge the trajectory of humankind, and how one can choose to play a part of it if they'd like to. Be careful to not fall into a dogma of any kind - antinatalism is no exception of an alluring dogma.
You're not wrong.
@@MattiasWalc I do not think that the gains made by humanity are sustainable. There is no guarantee that things will improve. In fact, it's the opposite. It is likely too late to reverse the effects of climate change that we have set into motion, whether we accept the reality or not.
@@MattiasWalc That's a statistical delusion. There is no such trend. There are BILLIONS of people living in horrid circumstances today in 2021, that's easily more than there were a thousand years ago. You can't win either, you can only lose less. And there's a very easy way to guarantee no loss that you'd be insane to dismiss.
Think about this.... By you not reproducing to pass on your ideals (which will undoubtedly be archived or buried in some library nobody goes to) someone else will reproduce. Those kids will carry on their parent's ideals with them and your ideals will inevitably die out because it is scientifically and logically (based on evolution) unreasonable to continue. Speaking in favor of evolution: it is entirely detrimental.
I was an anti natalist before i even knew what it was
Same. I remember becoming one as a Christian and I thought for sure I was the first Christian in history to think of it, and also the worst because of it lol
Same here :-)
*What I really appreciated about this particular show is that these lads, though being on a different ethical pathway, were scratching their heads in thought, rather than folding their arms like William Lane Craig, let's say, and just disregard the lad's proposition. These guys are thinkers, and I totally respect that. These kinds of shows are a extremely rare to witness.*
Benatar's asymmetry argument states that:
1. The presence of harm is bad.
2. the presence of benefit is good.
3. The absence of harm is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
4. the absence of benefit is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.
His asymmetry is the BEST explanation for those four widely-accepted asymmetries:
1. The asymmetry of procreational (reasons and) duties: While we have a duty to avoid bringing into exis-tence people who would lead miserable lives, we have no duty to bring into existence those who would lead happy lives.
2. The prospective beneficence asymmetry: It is strange to cite as a reason for having a child the fact that the child will thereby be benefited, whereas it is not simi-larly strange to cite as a reason for not having a child that that child will suffer.
3. The retrospective beneficence asymmetry: One can regret having brought a suffering child into existence, and one can regret it for the sake of that child. However, when one fails to bring a happy child into existence, one cannot regret that for the sake of the child one did not bring into existence.
4. The asymmetry of distant suffering and absent happy people: We are rightly sad for suffering people in distant places, but we are not similarly sad for the absence of what would have been happy people on uninhabited is-lands or areas of earth or on other planets.
Isn't Benatar's Asymmetry Argument summed up by a simple analogy:
if I get some free coupon in the mail, and I benefit, I still owe the sender nothing: that was THEIR choice, whereas if that sender harms me (clogs up my mailbox with junk mail) then they DO owe cleaning up the mess THEY caused.
I 100% agree with Benatar.
@@romainroch1686 Magnusson`s criticism of the axiological asymmetry has been refuted by Elias Muusav. His paper is also free online.
@@Downshifting07 Could you provide a link to his refutation? I can't seem to find anything on it or even on Elias Muusav in general. Thanks!
@@Downshifting07 Never mind! Just found it. Thank you
Benatar is right. theres a lot of suffering that comes with procreation that doesnt have to exist
and there is also many good things to.....
The good isnt worth the bad@@mr-fishman2249
@@mr-fishman2249 He argues that those good things are only a benefit for one if one already exists
Yes but people always ignore this...
Before I’d heard of anti Natalism, I asked my mother if she would’ve gone through with having me if she knew with certainty that I was going to die in a fire at 50, after a reasonably good life, and she couldn’t answer.
@@edwardmacedo3409 Dying in a fire at 50 is hardly the worst case scenario when it comes to life. I can think of thousands of ways a persons life can be and probably will be worse than that.
@@edwardmacedo3409 Umm...... that's not even CLOSE to the worst-case scenarios many people experience in this life. Just had to point that out specifically.
not even close to a worst case life scenario. many dont even get to 50
@@edwardmacedo3409 Your explanation of your initial statement makes it even worse, and it's certainly not correct.
@@edwardmacedo3409 You claim that dying in a fire is one of the worse ways to die which is incorrect. Dying from a fire will take less than 10 minutes and you will black out from smoke inhalation well before that point. Dying slowly from a terminal disease would be much worse. Dying from being tortured would be much worse. Living your life in constant pain and dying from old age is worse. I can go on if you really need me to give more examples.
Wouldn’t antinatalism be a good philosophy for Christians to hold onto? For every life that is created in a Christian family, there is a real possibility that the child will not end up becoming a Christian, and according to the Bible, this would result in them being sentenced to eternal suffering and punishment (Hell). If a Christian were to choose not to procreate, this would 100% spare a created soul from the perils of eternal punishment.
Say that to the breeding christians. They will probably throw bibles at you, haha!
Yup. It is so simple. I dont see the controversy around antinatalism that isn't ultimately rooted in selfish and emotional reasoning.
They'd say : God wants us to breed
Actually there is a long history of antinatalist stances in christian thought-St. Augustine, St. Gregory, Kant, various Christian sects (e.g. the Cathars, the Bogomils, the Shakers, etc) have all taken exclusively antinatalist positions.
amen
For those who believe in eternal damnation, the risk of procreation potentially leading to a damned soul (even in spite of trying to lead them to a righteous life) is surely too great to risk?
The first commandment God gives Man is to be fruitful and multiply. Your hypothetical is meaningless in that context.
@@VACatholic of course. So the question is what we choose to reject in that case - our own logic, or the Christian worldview.
@@agh0x01 Actually the only question is what we choose to reject, our own logic and the Christian worldview, or some nonsense spouted by a fool.
@@VACatholic could you be more specific - who is the fool, and what nonsense do you refer to?
@@agh0x01 David Benatar is a fool, and the idea of anti-natalism is nonsense. It's just more of the anti-human propaganda pushed by Marxists since Marxism began. It's the same people who push the false climate hysteria, and demand westerners reduce their birthrates while replacing them with migrants (see: UN Replacement Migration for documentation of my claim).
The only way to get anything interesting out of anti-natalism is to be an atheist. The only way to be an atheist is to ignore the evidence for Christianity (I've yet to see an atheist who knows all of the arguments for Christianity, but feel free to start by debunking the 5 reasons to believe in God from William Lane Craig if you want).
So ultimately it's just anti-human propaganda from someone who claims expertise but, in fact, is just a sophist who defines words, ideas, and concepts in such a way as to be useful, while deriding and being intellectually dishonest about the criticism. For instance claiming that "everyone knows there is no God because of the problem of evil", is just the mindless ramblings of a fool who hasn't engaged with any of the literature, and doesn't understand what he's talking about.
I don't see how you can justify horrific lives by other people having generally good lives. Simply put you can't justify the extreme pain and suffering of one person with the pleasure and joy of another person. 1000 good lives to me don't justify one horrific life. From this perspective the world is only as good as the worst life lived and it only seems to make sense it would be best there was no world at all. My only way to justify existence over all is to consider that all consciousness is one and everyone and everything lives on after/ outside this seemingly one lifetime. This would include something akin to karma or the laws of probability that allow for all the suffering and agony some people experience in one lifetime to be just a speck in the eternal cycle allowing for another lifetime to somehow make up for it.
where did you get the info of 1000 lives happy to one life unhappy ?
Well said!
@@shobhitsadwal756 it was sort of a random large number I just pulled out to show no amount of good lives don't justify one bad life
Good thing you are not the creator then
@@patricksee10 and lucky your life isn't one of the worst lives lived...
I care about my unborn children enough to not birth them in a world where they will suffer, and more importantly, where they will sin. If you're a good Christian, adopt a child.
Aren’t Christians supposed to go forth and multiple?
@@rovert46 it's funny that that verse is accepted blindly, but the statement from Ecclesiastes that to be dead is to better than to be alive, and that best of all is never to have been, is totally ignored. If God exists and truly wants new beings to come about, he clearly wants or is indifferent to billions or trillions of more people going to hell. What a kindly being.
@@rovert46 from what i understand, god told adam & eve specifically to be fruitful & multiply. it wasn't like it was some command to all mankind to make babies. i mean if it was why would he create women who are infertile?
"Go multiply" was valid when there was milion ppl on Earth.
@@rovert46 yeah when we only had 50 million people on the planet. We have 8 billion now
After 45 years on this planet I've finally figured out the meanings to life. So simple.
Power
Money
Sex
Is that worth creating? I think not
Rather they are the means to live life: energy, agency, reproduction.
culversketch I agree that objectively life is meaningless, but do we live or experience life as objective beings? I don’t think so.
@@rovert46 What difference does it make?
I agree. I'm not procreating
Its actually fkn true especially power and money
I became an anti-natalist this year I actually have been for years, I just wasn’t aware of the philosophy. It seems like a lot of people are learning about it and it seems to be growing, I hope we get enough people so we can have a mercy death option for anyone who would want it.
Doesn't his argument apply to christianity as well? A being that doesn't exist does not "miss out" on the eternal life with God but the being does indeed get the relief of not suffering.
I think this was a very interesting topic but I would have liked more discussion about the view in a theistic world view. I believe that it does make sense if you're a christian
It's an interesting thought, if we all choose to stop reproducing by using our own free will, does that mean God's prophecy of the second coming of Jesus would never happen? In addition to, if we stop reproducing, that means there are less souls for God to send to Hell. A person could be unconvinced of the Christian's god existence, therefore be sent to hell for all eternity. Wouldn't stopping the reproduction of the human race be one of the most moral actions someone could take?
@@mogman28 thanks I'll look it up!
@@mikelipinski7615 indeed hope to get more content about this!
Amineye Fury
Yes...if this were a numbers game. However, if it were indeed about the numbers then God is immoral for not drowning everyone in the flood.
Just throw in the towel and call it a bad idea.
@@mr.c2485 did you even listen to the conversation. He is not in favor of killing. Once someone has gained their consciousness it should be up to the individual
The crime of forcing life into existence is one of the WORST crimes.
username checks out lmao. You probably think dog owners are Hitler too, right?
lol
Agree, Breeding is the worst crime.
Antinatalism is the result of people who cannot adapt to life which leads to them wanting to ultimately destroy it instead.
@@X8X8X6X4X you're a selfish piece of sh*t who don't care about suffering.
International crisis right in front our doors, earthquakes, tsunamis, pandemics, this is the best moment to think what how important to not bring someone to this world.
actually, it is the perfect time to question wether we should be bringing people here. how can someone look at a worldwide pandemic and think "hmmm, perfect time to have a child!"
@@dadellacannella Human is the only animal that knows will dead soon or later. The only animal that knows they children will die and even knowing that, they just don’t care.
Wish I could be one of David Benatars students
The host says, that most of the people are happy to be alive...
Which kind of people? Most of the people I know suffering because of what is going on this planet.
And the people from poor countries are even suffering more.
Almost everyone I see are unhappy complaining and angry. Need I say anymore?!
@@andyokus5735 Maybe that says more about you than about them?
My mother had 6 kids.. she was always unhappy. At 70 years old she’s still unhappy. My father was unhappy too!! Everybody I know is unhappy with life!!
A very respectful discussion, free of the usual outraged spluttering that goes on in response to this topic. Thank you, thank you, thank you.
Wherever Benatar is involved it's usually calm and respectful.
This is a very difficult topic to discuss with people as they get very offended by the subject matter as I have experienced, which further supports David's position of optimism bias, which I surmise has something to do with the illusion of self and ego. One area that I wish Benetar would address is that since most of the discussion is done between educated people in developed countries who benefit from the pillaging of poor countries, people supporting procreation have a vested interest in furthering the species because they are not suffering, further supporting their optimism bias. To quote Voltaire... "The comfort of the rich depends upon an abundant supply of the poor".
And yet the highest natality rate are..... in poor countries. Bravo. I know a lot of poor people and they don't regret being born. Don't think everybody is as deppressed as you..
@@veganworldorder9394
They do regret it, they are simply too stupid to be able to articulate it, and suffer from social pressure to signal reproductive fitness.
No one is glad to be alive. That is impossible - that's a subset/set issue. They are only glad for the occasional relief to their suffering, and the ability to engage in the metanarrative denial of death.
The Jackanapes “no one is glad to be alive” please speak for yourself, not everyone is as depressed and disappointed with life as you. i don’t suffer whatsoever in life and i’m extremely happy with my existence... unless you consider minor inconveniences to be “suffering”.
@@pinkfoxgloves
Way to demonstrate everything I wrote is true.
Bwa ha ha ha... and an ad hominem to boot.
It is *impossible* to be glad to be alive. You don't know all of the conditions of your own life, you haven't lived them yet, and you have yet to experience *dying*
The fact that you refrain from suicide is all the evidence needed - you are already aware that dying is worse than being alive, and that being alive a necessary but insufficient condition for all the worst things possible in experience.
To claim one is glad to be alive is to take an *a posteriori* inference, and a subset of being alive, and pretend that it is in fact _a priori_ and the set of all subsets. This is a contradiction.
Further - you must restrict your dataset to your current feelings to make the delusional, ignorant (non-pejorative usage of the word) argumet response "I don't suffer..."
You suffer a helpless set of epistemic limitations - one of which is a delusional blindness to the glut of agony and suffering that is the rest of life. Indeed, showing that in ignorance, the suffering of others is the easiest to bear... I got mine, fuck everything else, eh? LOL - idiot.
The Jackanapes it isn’t impossible to be glad to be alive... it’s a subjective emotion and no one can tell somebody that they aren’t happy to be alive just because they haven’t ”experienced dying” yet. you’re basically saying we aren’t capable of feeling any emotion about life aside from despair. where did i say that dying is worse than being alive? it depends on the circumstance... if i was ailing from cancer or in a vegetative state then being dead is better than being alive. your entire argument is based on generalizations and pessimism, and dictating how other people feel about life because you’re convinced there’s no joy to be had in the world... not everyone suffers, not everyone hates their life, and not everyone is destined to be miserable. it’s kind of comical that you’re trying to convince me that i hate my life or that my children will hate theirs solely because others happen to suffer. it’s all circumstantial.
Well, existence is vastly overrated, no question about that. Also, most inhabitants of this planet would probably benefit greatly from humans' disappearance, which can be used as a moral argument for extinction. A world without human self-absorption and self-glorification doesn't come out as too wrong to me.
I've never understood the "nature will be better off without us" argument. Nature is the monster that has created us, and every other creature on this planet suffers just as much meaningless death and pain as we do. As the most intelligent species, it's our moral responsibility to annihilate the Earth and the universe if it's possible. Nobody is interested in a universe that even a five-year-old could do a better job of designing.
All inhabitants of this planet should go extinct, not just humans. We aren't special and neither are the other species. All sentient beings suffer. Nature is not cute, it's cruel.
@@aured605 so glad you brought up that argument. I also find it infuriating the romanticisation of nature, and the condemnation of mankind (which exists at the hands of nature). They are nothing but desperate appeals to nature.
No. Humans will simply embrace their nihilistic misanthropic views and become machines instead. Or simply plug their mind into a digital world and let machines work for them.
@@aured605 Actually Bennatar answers this ,
Nature is not a monster either , if we destroy forests and trees , thats just nature happening
Antinatalism is one of the hardest to accept but morally truest position to take. 1) Do not cause unnecessary suffering. 2) Life is unnecessary. 3) A sentient being experiences suffering. 4) Therefore, procreation is an act of unnecessary suffering.
I've read an argument for a guy called David jacquemotte. It goes as follows:
1- we have a moral prohibition against creating new, foreseeable, unjustified suffering.
2- we have a moral permission (but not obligation) to create new foreseeable joy.
3- all sentient beings will experience some joy and some suffering.
4- moral prohibition always outweighs moral permission.
C: we are always morally prohibited from creating new sentient beings.
I think we also could present this argument:
1- creating suffering can't be justified by creating any amount of well-being.
2- creating suffering can be justified by preventing much bigger suffering.
3- bringing a person into existence creates suffering without preventing much bigger suffering.
C: bringing a person into existence can't be justified.
What do you think of those two arguments?
If I can have good certainty that the life I give will be net positive, I see no moral problem doing it.
@K If it is not excessive, I don't care.
BennDesmond How can you determine, let alone guarantee, that the life they experience will be a net positive?
@@OmarAli-rp9vc They both seem ethical and logical. Makes me think of the phrase from the Hypocratic oath "First do no harm". Based on that all doctors should be antinatalists?
How refreshing to hear two people, holding opposing viewpoints, debate with one another with deep respect, and without any trace of rancour. I'm so glad I came across this. I hadn't heard of David Benatar before, even though my personal beliefs would fall under the anti-natalist umbrella, so I'm very glad to have been introduced to his well structured and robust arguments. I think there's a misconception that anti-natalists must be depressed. I'm generally fairly happy, and am living the best life I can; I've had many wonderful experiences and adventures, but if I could have chosen to have foregone it all, I would have.
Good to hear that. Thanks for sharing.
I greatly appreciated listening to David Benatar. His students are fortunate.
🤣
@@juanfelipearteaga9022 Christian brainwashed superstitious fool spotted
For an atheist he sure has alot of religious undertones. Benatar predicts the end of the world or extinction and says we need to act to reach a state of bliss with no suffering. When asked if people should end their lives he says no. That’s smart because if he did that it would make him seem like a cult leader and no one would take him seriously.
David is both compassionate and smart at the same time.
Why did you keep the title of the video when the first thing David explains is that is not the point of anti-natalism. This is misrepresenting and makes honest discussion more difficult.
@Oners82 Indeed. Which also means that he cannot be a nihilist.
@Oners82 I'm an amoralistic antinatalist and I'm not the only one either.
Antinatalism and moralism are not linked at the hip nor are they required to be. Moralists have no valid monopoly where opposing birth goes. Amoralists like me are able to validly oppose birth too.
To paraphrase Max Stirner: nice spooks, nerd.
If there's one thing amoralists like me hate it's being expected to comply with abstractions like moralism.
I mean, seriously, was my avatar of Max Stirner not a dead enough giveaway that appealing to reification was going to have zero effect on someone like me?
Also nice false dichotomy but I'm neither a nihilist or a misanthrope.
Dude, for the second and last time I'm an antinatalist who isn't a moralist. I'm not a troll.
If you can't accept the simple and verifible existential fact antinatalists come in different varieties, such as amoralistic, then you better fucking believe you're not getting any arguments or even an attempt at it from me.
Bye.
This was a very respectful conversation that didn't devolve into straw-manning and ad hominem attacks. Good on all three of you. We need more critical debate and less scathing criticism.
I only wish to have kids through adoption. There are existing children who are orphans and need care.
this is admirable
Great thought 👌
Followers of antinatalism don’t need to defend themselves. The people imposing life to satisfy themselves need to defend themselves.
ATHEISTS SHOULD MAKE THEIR OWN DICTIONARY 📗....And ALL THE MEANING OF ALL THE WORDS IN ATHEISM DICTIONARY ARE NIHIL /MEANINGLESS
According to ATHEISTIC IDEOLOGY ➡KILLING BABY/EATING BABY IS NO DIFFERENT AS LOVING, CARING & RAISING A BABY
@@recellenc4690 well you're an obvious troll
The antinatilist's Best Possible World is a world without sentience. So it is actually the antinatilist who must defend their goals to intelligent sentiences.
Antinatalists are defending a heavily counterintuitive position. They bear a burden of proof if they want to convince people that we should stop reproducing.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have the end of sin!
Doing the Lord's work.
@@blorkpovud1576 Which Lord?
Huge Benatar fan. Powerful thinkers from across all beliefs sling all kinds of mud at him but as far as I'm concerned no one has even come close to knocking his primary position down.
@Oners82 Please explain why
If you reject his definition of Good or bad he is debunked. If you reject atheism he is debunked. If you are a moral relativist he is debunked.
If you reject importance of pleasure and pain and accept Aristotle virtue ethics he is debunked.
David Benatar depends on many assumptions and he has not been well debunked because there is no serious engagement. If this philosophy goes mainstream it will be suffer a few devastating objections.
@@antipositivism3128 ok so how would you even know where the golden mean actually is? Can you prove that antinatalism isn't a good?
If someone has the slightest kindness and with the minimal ability to think, she wont bring a child to this world
I really enjoyed the discussion. Thank you!
We can have A.I. taking care of the last generation of elderly. The transition into extinction can be peaceful and comfortable.
And what happens to the AI? What happens to all those animals suffering?
@Humanity Galatica why?
@Humanity Galatica omg no it isn’t. But I’m gonna hope you’re a troll now so I’ll stop commenting to you
If it’s not conscious and won’t become conscious, I think that makes sense
@@ulasyucesu43 Umm, I’m sorry if I mislead you somehow but I didn’t answer you lol . Sorry about that
But you figure since we're already here, might as well live out our personal lives. Going to be adopting a few children as well, they're already here too so I'll help them live their lives to the fullest
Yes!! Everyone that is currently here should try to enjoy as much as possible
So the title suggest a debate between Benatar and Blackshaw, or at least that's what I would expect when using the word "vs." . From where I'm standing, it seemed to me that the host and Blackshaw were just asking David questions (whil looking a bit unprepared), instead of presenting their arguments. As usual, Benatar is handling the discussion with his characteristic profesionalism and well structured presentation of ideas.
THE BEST EXISTENCE IS NONE EXISTENCE.
KNOW LIFE, KNOW PAIN.
NO LIFE, NO PAIN.
I never thought I'd gain so much respect for a Christian philosopher. Thanks for being understanding, truly.
David benatar is the man 🎖️
Thank You very much., David.
I'm a Christian. And I'm an antinatalist. As were the first generation of Christians - apparently!
Genesis 1:27-28
Thus God created the man in his image: in the image of God created he him: he created them male and female. And God blessed them, and God said to them, Bring forth fruit and multiply
@@mmartinu327 Clearly you believe these words quoted carry authority. Does that authority extend to all the inhabitants of planet earth, or only some? Similarly, do all the word of the OT carry the same weight of authority?
@@andrewfisherman3811“ Clearly you believe these words quoted carry authority“
Yes? I clearly believe these words quoted carry authority FOR YOU.
And is it not upon you to answer those questions?
@@mmartinu327 I claim to be a Christian. The authority I recognise is Jesus Christ. The words you quote were written by a human being who lived several thousand years before JC stepped foot on this earth. Clearly these words had authority to those who submit to the authority of the Torah. Why should it be thought that I am obliged to submit to that authority today?
Here's something important left out of the euthanasia and suicide prevention discussion: Depression and suicidal ideation are HERITABLE traits.
Consider a person with a genetic propensity toward depression and suicide. Now imagine that this person is prevented from killing themself temporarily, giving them just enough time to procreate. See where I'm going with this? Natural selection would have allowed those genes to die out, but due to "eusocial" intervention, the genes not only survive but perpetuate into many future generations. Ironically, suicide intervention could cause a shift in allele frequencies which cause the human population to gradually accumulate nihilistic/depressive/suicidal traits, eventually reaching a tipping point where antinatalism becomes the mainstream view.
You don’t have to be depressed or suicidal to be convinced of antinatalism my guy. It’s literally just compassion. Like you say suicidal ideation and depression are heritable, I agree. I should know, as I did get em both from my mom and grandpa who both decided having kids was a cool idea. But anyways, if that’s true, why would passing those genes on be good for the kid? Do you really think that a life spent wishing you were dead is better than never existing?
I get that there’s some irony in me commenting this as I say I’m depressed, and I’ll even grant that maybe depressed people or people who’ve known more pain than average people are more inclined to accept antinatalism. But I’d say that’s because they’re better able to see the thing in full. They know how bad life can be, and they don’t want anyone else to ever have to feel like they do. But you don’t need to have had a terrible life to come to that conclusion. Just recognizing that life can suck and if you have a kid its life can suck is enough.
(And I thought your argument for suicidal ideation being selected for in a compassionate society was pretty cool. It would be cool to see some study done on it)
Schopenhauer, the godfather of this ideology, has a full family history of suicide and insanity.
Not all antinatalists are suicidal. Some antinatalists have just been through or have directly witnessed trauma, physical abuse, mental abuse, chronic pain, premature death, insecurities, bullying, murder, rape, sickness etc. Some people have been through tremendous suffering or have seen others suffer and they realise that they don't want to pass on suffering to more generations. As a kid, one of my class mates died at the age of 9 from sickle cell disease. It's fair to assume that she must have suffered from the disease before she died.
I wholeheartedly agree with David Benatar. And I won't be having any children of my own
👍
Yet here you are, living it up. Enjoying all the positives that also come with your existence. Existence for me, but not for thee. A selfish, psychotic worldview.
A person who never existed can't be deprived of pleasures they never had...can't this same train of thought be applied to children who get murdered? The parents of those children always lament the future that was taken from that child, but that child never had that future in order to be deprived of it - same as an unborn person who never had a future they could be deprived of. Isn't one of the core reasons murder is illegal is because it deprived the victim of an unrealized future?
If you are only here to talk about why you personally think that abortion is wrong, then you misunderstood the point of the video. Anti-natalism philosophy does not require abortion. It doesn't even require birth control. It just requires not making more people. The debate can rage on for when a person starts to "exist" but if you know what you think about it, if you know when YOU think "sentient life" begins, then you can think about whether anti-natalist makes sense from that perspective. And you can do it without dragging anyone into the constantly raging debate about when we should define the start of human life.
Antinatalism is the answer to life.
No it's not
@@massimocasella4201 it's not???
It really is. It answers everything. The rest is madness.
@@playonwords55 it's too bad that most ppl will never get it.
@@ambissionzazaridah4112 actually they get it but as they say , "truth is hard to digest" people try to prove it wrong by providing various shit arguments and fallacies.
Saying AN necessitates suicide is hasty, and proves shallow once you dig deeper into what it entails -especially its negative effects on others and on the world. It does so on at least three counts, if not more.
(1) It causes more avoidable anguish to others (especially family and friends) than it eliminates for ourselves
(2) It's denies the future our suffering prevention efforts. Less effective to just stop a bad than to do that plus support things opposing the bad. You can't do the latter if dead.
(3) Saying feelings of others don't matter concerning suicide has ripple effects far outside the AN issue. If we can disregard feelings of others even in matters as traumatic as suicide, it's difficult to justify condemnations of unmistakably bad acts practically assured to be less emotionally damaging than suicide (theft, vandalism, bigotry, harassment, battery not requiring hospitalization).
Thus the "off yourself" admonition just doesn't stand up under closer scrutiny.
So many enlighten folks on this comment section . I feel like Im happy after a long time
I think the best thing would be not bringing people into existence in the first place but if you must have children, I hope you don't, but if you do don't ruin peoples lives with things like circumcision or getting them addicted to foods that ruin your health like dairy
does circumcision really ruin people's lives?
@@stellagyan6593 Based on the scientific studies of how circumcision permanently alters nuerologic function and leaves people with things like PTSD I'd say yes. It's just as ludicrous as FGM
@@michaelwatts5481 Can babies get ptsd? Or are you talking about adults who choose to do it?
Justin helped to create both religious and atheistic anti-natalists with this discussion. Even Bruce acknowledged the power of the argument at the very end, only to be quickly silenced by the claim that it's only a position to be adopted by naturalists(!?) Which was a point addressed numerous times by all parties in the discussion. Facepalm!
Yes. End of discussion. We should’ve never existed
Don't agree. Not everyone is as deppressed as you. I fucking enjoy my life and I know a lot of people who do too.
@@veganworldorder9394 You may be surprised, but you have no moral right to claim your life as being acceptable just because you like it. You are not alone in this world, your presence here has negative consequence on others.
All you are saying, is that it is okay to cause harm as long as someone benefits from it. This is the justification one would use to excuse rape to give an extreme example. Morality is unforgiving, and for us, to live often means to be immoral. Wait until you are the last living being capable of suffering, then make your claim that you are alright with living and all will be well. Until then, don't try to ignore everyone else.
@@dopaminecloud Stop strawmaning me. I don't claim that. I know I have very few bad consequences on other sentient beings in this world.
I am not saying that you can cause harm if someone else is benefiting from it either. Again, don't strawman me.
AZI THE MLG PRO who is "we"? Speak for yourself!
I agreed would be better if we all would never exist
Buddhists agree that life is suffering, saying that nirvana is an escape from the endless cycle of birth and rebirth. I wonder what the Buddhist perspective on Antinatalism is.
There are many schools of Buddhist thought. But going back to the original manuscripts, it is not explicitly stated but strongly implied that procreation is wrong.
@@ChowMeinChowdown Interesting. Perhaps these stricter aspects of Buddhism are intended only for monks and not for lay people.
In contrast, it doesn't seem like Christian monks are celibate for Antinatalist reasons.
he (buddha) did come to that realization and subsequently came up with another coping mechanism. that said, inventing another mechanism to be able to cope with all the shit that life throws at you is in no way a permanent solution to the problem. the only permanent solution is a peaceful exit.
Attaining nirvana requires one to be on the noble path through many lifetimes. So I don't see how Buddhists would accept antinatalism.
Yeah Buddhists and antinatalists agree on how the world is on a descriptive level. You will hear Buddhists say that being born is entering the field of dukkha.
But their prescription or methodology on how to overcome this predicament is different.
My Dad was a committed antinatalist.
Nobody's perfect
Cavorting Druids
Then why are you here?
@@mr.c2485 Glad you got the joke!
Some folk do become committed antinatalists after giving birth you know.
Jim Crawford, author of "Confessions of an Antinatalist" is a prominent example that spings to my mind.
I think a brief way to show the implausibility of antinatalism is with Tina Rulli's Hangnail Case. As Rulli puts it, on Benatar's view "A life with a hangnail’s worth of pain for an otherwise
extremely happy person is one that is worse than nonexistence". Imagine the most amazing life possible, with no pain other than a hangnail. Benatar says this life is not worth starting. I think many people would find this deeply implausible.
Tina Rulli, “The Ethics of Procreation and Adoption,” Philosophy Compass 11 (2016), 306.
It is not worth starting because it has no advantage over non-existence but one disadvantage (the hangnail). People find it implausible because they implicitly compare it with other _existing_ beings.
@@gonzobatano5352 I appreciate your response. I also don't think that goods in life are reasons to begin a life. But if we take Melinda Roberts's view of the Asymmetry, what matters is if someone will come into existence for other reasons. If a being will come into existence, because parents want to have a child, then benefits and harms count, and we should make sure the benefits will outweigh the harms and do as much as we can to have benefits in the person's life. If the being never will come into existence, then the harms and benefits don't count. But if we could bring someone into existence with only a hangnail's worth of pain, this would surely be at the very least *permissible*, if the parents desired to have a child. A hangnail!?
On Roberts's view, there is no reason to bring someone into existence except if parents want to have a child. But it is permissible to have a child if benefits outweigh harms and parents work to bring about benefits in the child's life. And surely a life with only a hangnail's worth of pain would be permissible to start.
To bring out the implausibility further, we can also do what Jeff McMahan does. McMahan says Benatar's argument can't distinguish between different amounts of pain in lives which we would want to plausibly distinguish. If we compare two lives, one that is amazing but with one hangnail, and another that is full of terrible pain, Benetar says both are equally not worth starting. But surely if we could choose to start one of these lives, or if we had to choose, the hangnail life is at least more permissible to start while the other life, if it contained more pain than enjoyment (assuming hedonism) would be impermissible to start. Benetar's view can't distinguish between them, both are not worth starting, but that's a deeply implausible judgment.
I think Benatar's argument sounds good to those who recognize the world is full of suffering when heard in isolation. Benetar gets a lot of press because his view is controversial and edgy. But there are so many other theorists who have way more plausible views of the Asymmetry. Now it still could be that Benetar's "Quality-of-Life" argument goes forward. That is, it might still be that his view that the vast majority of lives contain more harm then benefit is true, which would mean even on a view like Roberts's the life shouldn't go forward. I don't think this is plausible either, but it's independent of the implausibility of his treatment of the Asymmetry.
In other words, one could still be an antinatalist while rejecting Benetar's treatment of the Asymmetry, and I think we should reject it.
Melinda Roberts, “The Asymmetry: A Solution,” Theoria 77 (2011): 333-367.
Jeff McMahan, “Causing People to Exist and Saving People’s Lives,” The Journal of Ethics 17, Special Issue: The Benefits and Harms of Existence and Non-Existence (June 2013): 5-35.
"But it is permissible to have a child if benefits outweigh harms and parents work to bring about benefits in the child's life. And surely a life with only a hangnail's worth of pain would be permissible to start."
Benatar does not deny that it can be morally permissible to bring a sentient life into existence if the harm is very minuscule and the benefit to other beings is big enough. It is still not worth starting from the point of view of that being which is brought into existence, though.
"To bring out the implausibility further, we can also do what Jeff McMahan does. McMahan says Benatar's argument can't distinguish between different amounts of pain in lives which we would want to plausibly distinguish. If we compare two lives, one that is amazing but with one hangnail, and another that is full of terrible pain, Benetar says both are equally not worth starting. But surely if we could choose to start one of these lives, or if we had to choose, the hangnail life is at least more permissible to start while the other life, if it contained more pain than enjoyment (assuming hedonism) would be impermissible to start. Benetar's view can't distinguish between them, both are not worth starting, but that's a deeply implausible judgment."
I fail to see why McMahan's conclusion follows from Benatar's view. Surely Benatar can say that the one life with only a hangnail is better than the one with terrible suffering in it. He just needs to compare those two scenarios where both beings exist. Their lives are both not worth starting, but Benatar is not committed in any way to saying that bringing the second being into existence is not much worse than bringing the first one into existence.
@@gonzobatano5352 Thanks for your response.
Yes, and I would say that view that says the hangnail life is impermissible to start is pretty implausible. As Benatar says, he thinks a minuscule pain, like a pinprick, would make it impermissible to start a life:
"One of the implications of my
argument is that a life filled with good and containing only the most minute quantity of bad-a life of utter bliss adulterated only by the pain of a single pin-prick-is worse than no life at all." (Better Never to Have Been, p. 48)
Since Benatar is only relying on plausibility judgments or intuitions in his arguments, and this is an implication of his argument, we should reject it if we don't share his intuition and if we find an alternative account of the Asymmetry, like Roberts's, more plausible instead.
On Benatar's view of the Asymmetry, both the pinprick/hangnail life and the life with more pain than enjoyment are wrong to start. Now he could go further and say if he had to pick he would choose the pinprick life to start. But it just seems more plausible that the life with more pain in it than enjoyment is impermissible to start but the life with a hangnail is entirely permissible to start.
But what percentage of people enjoy that kind of existence? Zero.
I would really like more discussion on David's "happy slave" thought experiment. Teasing out specifically what's wrong in that example, and whether it's analogous to real life.
How interesting! For the past 50-years it never even once occurred to me that there might be even one other person who thought pretty much exactly like I did, and still do. Bullying victim here.
Bless you. I'm a victim of bullying too. Cue a lifetime of trauma and mental health struggles
Another point on antinatalism is that if one becomes an antinatalist that doesn't mean the whole world would.
There are many orphans, and it's better to improve an orphan's life than not do that and bring a new life into existence.
It's not about suffering that's (arguably) reasonable: indeed it's about suffering that isn't.
Every time I see a couple who’s just had a baby, all I can think to myself is “You’ve doomed that baby to die one day.”
More than death, he is doomed to suffer for an indefinite period of time. And that's just pure hell. Death could infact be liberating though, but a suffering life! Oh that's hell
finding a different path, away from the pre defined one which, for some reason, most think is the only path. the path that was engraved in their head from birth by the world around them.
Isn't it wonderful that David was born, so he could encourage the rest of us to not procreate ??
Existence for me, but not for thee.
Well done to Dr. Benatar. Another win for the antinatalists. Antinatalism still remains undefeated.
I must admit it's really made me think. The arguments are hard to deny.
I think being an atheist helps someone to fully commit to these ideals because they don't believe in an afterlife. If you are religious, not specifically christian than life has purpose and it continues into the afterlife.
My biggest problem with antinatilism is that nobody knows if we asked for life because we can't prove what is happing prior to being born. And I think that's the biggest flaw and argument to be made.
I wonder if there is an afterlife would David Benatar want to exist because in it we serve a much greater purpose we can't even comprehend in our current state?
Overall I tend to agree with a lot of what antinatilism stands for because I think in general too many people have children to satisfy their own personal needs and wants without thinking about what it means to bring another life into this world.
@finalfantasy8911 I agree there is no good logical reason to hold out some sort of possibility that someone can consent to being born because its all speculative and depends on a person faith. But nobody knows what is happening before or after birth. You may think someone cant consent before birth but can you prove it?
@finalfantasy8911 Based on science...what science you mean the same science that is always changing and evolving because people make new discoveries every day? Your claim only holds true because of the evidence available to you now and even that is subjective.
Like I said it all depends on a persons beliefs because you can't prove you didn't exist prior to sperm to egg or however you want to word it.
@finalfantasy8911 Explain what existed before the universe then before the big bang
@finalfantasy8911 Because you're talking about when something comes into existence. You can't say what existed before the universe because you don't know. There are theories but no actually agreement or conclusive evidence that proves what actually took place. I think that's relevant
Just a disclaimer I am in no way advocating for reproduction or children I have none of my own and don't plan to I just see how religious some people can be and think having children is a "blessing"
@finalfantasy8911 The correlation I make with the Universe and birth is just one with many questions. An example I'll give, but don't buy into is reincarnation. It seems absurd to think we are all alive and decide to come back with no recollection of our past lives to possibly fill some void or gain some knowledge to help a greater good or higher power. I guess I am really just a very deep thinker
I was raised Catholic and antinatilism is just very new and foreign to me but it interesting and I feel like it shares a lot of ideals I have and could never share with friends or family
I am curious as how you came to be atheist and what made you decide
Loved this conversation!
"on a naturalist basis, there feels like there's a lot to it there..." haha love how the host throws in that at the end. He really doesn't want his religion tied into the antinatalist views
Amazing discussion that I would love to continue to explore more on
Dostoevsky: "Without God, all things are permitted." Indeed, an atheistic/materialistic conception of the universe, a universe in which there can be no hope and no purpose, practically necessitates a disdain for life and all the beauty it contains. With such a view, one is capable only of seeing darkness and despair. With such an outlook, one can reason his way to almost any moral position, no matter how foolish or wicked.
Tyler Pedersen With God, all things are still permitted because nothing supercedes God's will. And on top of that, death is not even a final repose with God but a horrible chance of being tortured for eternity. Are we going to call hell beauty now? By simply not being born into the right religion to worship the right God follows a horrible, horrible faith of being burned conscious forever.
@@neocyte85 It also presents the chance for eternal life and eternal happiness over merely becoming a mere corpse past its expiration date. A rotting carcass eaten from the inside out by worms, carnivores, and parasites before being turned into fecal matter.
@Val I wouldn't say holiness/moral purity/perfect wisdom are human qualities. They definitely transcend our categories.
It's true, but humans are victims of the one who forced them into this world and let them be ignorant and confused.
And yet as quality of life improves, religious belief decreases 🤔
I gaved up on wanting to be human a long time ago. Had no idea what I was exhibiting was any of these statements from a young age. Never liked any of the kids or 20-30 some thing being unsympathetic too self-interested about their livilyhood.
That said I'm willing to let everyone gamble with the outcomes of their lives to the bitter end.
21:27 This is a very interesting question, raised by Benatar.
Honestly thank you. What a great conversation! Mind opening stuff 🙏👁
I really enjoyed this, thanks for sharing it. I wish you had elaborated more on what David calls “the theistic gambit” as a defeater for antinatalism.
Yes. We should.
Bruce has a open minded. He takes the philosophy for what it is. Logically and openly
Yeah a good man with compassion. Much unlike the mindless religiously bigoted fools.
Life is not worth living. It IS however, worth dying for.
Name one thing that you think is worth dying for.
@@user-pv9pv4xf9c,
Good values, fairness, decency, and well-being of other sentient beings. Besides cessation of one's own suffering.
Krwiomocz.Bogurodzicy Ⓥ
Well stated! Thank you!
///////
History is full of people who allowed themselves to be martyred for a variety of reasons. Rights, justice, love, community, family...just to name a few. If you have nothing to die for then what exactly is “living”? Perhaps I should have said, life is not worth living if you have nothing to die for.
For god , i will not bring one more sinner in this world .
I'm replying with the assumption that you might be Christian: That goes against God's command in Genesis to be fruitful and multiply.
@@robertd7717 Another christian with a twisted understanding of the bible. God says that to Adam , not humans
This comment is spooky.
thats a good point if there is a god, it really is..
In my opinion it is so easy to understand the concept of antinatalism when you think about bringing someone who you genuinely love to where it is corrupted in all extensions. We always want the best for our loved ones.
I'm commenting part way through whilst listening. I'm loving this conversation.
I wanted/want to be a mother. Longed to be in fact. I oozed maternal instinct from a tender age. But unfortunately I have a history of trauma that has prevented me from meeting a husband etc. I'm a Christian, so no sex before marriage for me.
I'm sad about my situation, but comforted that I've been responsible, and haven't caused anyone else to suffer. I increasingly worry about the future of today's children.
I say this without any judgement towards those who've got children. I would have too if my life had gone to plan. I guess we adjust our narrative to suit our circumstances...
The scariest thing about antinatalists is that they are right
@Humanity Galatica why
@Humanity Galatica Well, no, we put sentient well-being above all else. In so doing, avoiding suffering naturally comes out as a main goal. And given that human life is mainly comprised of long gaps of feeling no memorable emotion interspersed with varying amounts of joy and sorrow depending mainly on your wealth and genetics, I think it makes perfect sense to say that life isn’t worth the trouble.
That’s not actually my main argument, though, and if you’ve got the time and desire, I’d love to hear what you’ve got say about my main one. It’s that we ought not conceive because that forces life on someone incapable of consenting to it. Two premises needed are that 1) Forcing a potentially bad situation on someone without their consent is immoral, and 2) Life at least always has the potential to be bad on the whole. I don’t really think that 2 is debatable, it seems obviously true. You could always have a kid with some sort of genetic disease that makes their life a living hell, so that possibility is always there. But I can see a debate happening around premise 1. But yeah, if you’ve got time and want to, I’d love to hear what you think of that
@Humanity Galatica anyway if you want to reduce suffering without go extinct you can have one child instead of two, two instead of three, three instead of four. We don't need to be billions and billions and billions on the planet. It's also a environmental issue
@Humanity Galatica which reason? You said you want expansion of humankind but that immediately brings more problems. The core of antinatalism is that non existence of man is the only way to solve any problem of man
@Humanity Galatica any human problem comes from the fact that we exist
many people in comment section doesnt understand the point of antinatalism.
Fingers in ears screaming LALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOUUUUU!!!
@@sisypheanexistence8955 Can you blame them? This philosophy has more or less ruined my life, so I honestly can understand anyone who doesn't want anything to do with it.
Ps, I personally think it's a bit arrogant to claim that everyone who doesn't agree with you is willfully ignorant.
@@frederikleidl6861 How did it ruin your life?
@@jimgiann2740 I was living a mostly decent life and was somewhat interested in philosophy. I had already heard about antinatalism, but it was mostly in the context of environmentalism.
Then I came across Benatars asymmetry and Thomas Ligotti and since then my mental well-being took a nosedive.
Getting told that essentially you are better off nonexistent, your mother and every other parent is a vile monster, life is a waking nightmare whether you agree or not, if you think your life is decent you are wrong and don't even realize how bad you and everybody has it and the sooner the world ends the better, can take a toll on one, especially if one has low self esteem and depression too begin with.
I'll never be able to become a "true" antinatalist who is proud about "losing the rose-tinted glasses" and "seeing the ugly truth", and tries to spread it, and frankly, I don't want to. Partly because I don't want to be responsible for making anybody else go through what I went and am still going through.
@@frederikleidl6861 i am truly sorry to hear that. I've been suffering with severe depression for the last two years but i have to say even though i kinda agree with this philosophy i certainly have noticed the damage it has caused my mental state. Stay strong and i hope you get better soon.
I am not an anti-natalist. But.....I agree with the entire philosophy of it.
I completely understand that it is a VERY controvesial topic of discussion, but to me it is a really easy, logically sound argument. Most, and I emphasize the word 'most' really high level thinkers really battle to grasp this topic, and I have no idea why. I say they cannot grasp it because whenever they talk about it, they completely derail the points which are those of antinatalism. I would understand if they disagreed with the entire philosophy, because anti-natalism goes against all that humans are genetically 'designed' for, which is to spreadperpetually their DNA.
But MANY of them don't get it. And I dont know why.
Domzdream personally I disagree with anti natalism for a lot of reasons but you’re right people really don’t understand the argument at all. The common misconception is that the antinatalist desires to kill people and eradicate life by means of force which is not true
Self proclaimed higher thinkers resent antinatalism because they didn’t think of it first themselves. Embracing AN renders all their other work and thinking obsolete and moot. Like Jordan Peterson. JP suffers cognitive dissonance when it comes to accepting AN. AN is the pinnacle of evolved thinking and consciousness. Great thinkers will reject it because their ego won’t allow them to accept that it’s logically irrefutable.
@@playonwords55 well said actually!
great conversation, glad bruce was as understanding as he was
Just because the sheep march on just one direction it doesn't mean that we all are, I took my boots off a long time ago.
All is well that, well... Ends.
lol even some teenagers can argue inarticulately for anti natalism while being emotional roughly "I never asked to be born!"
Yes and they are right.
@Humanity Galatica howso
@Humanity Galatica but really no one ever chose to be born
@Humanity Galatica Nah, I’m pretty sure the person bullying a hypothetical teenager going through emotional pain and likely suicidal ideation is the most pathetic, personally
Even worse
Giving birth itself is painful
(like extremely painful)
This is it for me personally. I take the woman’s perspective as a guy with a ton of empathy. I would absolutely not want to deal with carrying extra weight that kicks you for the better part of 9 months, is very inconvenient and often painful, and near the end giving birth is the worse part. To top it off, you now have a communication issue with the baby in addition to probably hundreds of sleepless nights, a now decidedly disgusting environment 24/7, and as I type this, I can’t think of a single benefit, other than to stroke your own ego that you created it. I realize only unsuccessful and dumb people have children, as harsh as that sounds. Brilliant minds, philosophers, people with accomplishments, they don’t care about having children because they are confident in their lives.
Howdie Mikovski is another one who get it and speak about the prison cave in which we live,the suffering that didn't help us to evolve.Are many worlds out there, some are free and harmonious, outside from underworlds, are humans that live in harmonious spiritual evolved worlds,human luminousus.
Bruce seems to be a great guy. Very open and accepting. Not a bigoted mindless religious bull like most religious people are.
If we follow evidence and start with the most reasonable assumption there's no gods, or afterlives or souls (the absolute weakest idea theism people have proposed) then we are left with dog eat dog world. We have social systems and structures in societies, many of which are corrupt and oppressive. We have families and friends and love and care for them, and try to make the world better for them. Millions of our own kinds suffer and die each year from a variety of afflictions. No one asked to be born. And we have the entirety of animal kingdom with predators and short lived deaths. This is a truly harsh reality we are in whatever you believe. Those who were born into privileged lives due to nothing other than luck have a hard time seeing this position.
Zapp Brannigan so much wisdom in one short post. Kudos my friend.
@@trevagraham1605 Thank you for the kind words :)
This was very cordial, sincere, logical, and I rather enjoyed listening to this conversation. So much better than David's debate with Jordan Peterson: who was totally illogical, incoherent, and behaved like a jerk throughout the whole discussion.
Anyone who argues that antinatalism and Christianity are compatible would have to also argue that God was morally wrong to create a universe with sentient life. Then there is a contradiction, since everything God does is morally correct. Hence antinatalism and Christianity are incompatible.
What about these quotes from the Bible. “For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.” Luke 23.29 “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” Genesis 3.16 “Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.” Hosea 9.14 “Their root is dried up and they shall bear no fruit: yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb.” Hosea 9.16
Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 “And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.”
@@txlyons2937 Exactly.
wonderful episode. great to see such a deep dialogue between the three of you. i agree with david, but definitely appreciate the comments from the christian scholars as well.
This life affirming stance is very much a modern consequence of the industrial revolution in which women who were once vital to the family became obsolete from an economic standpoint. This created a profound uncertainty about their usefulness. Thus the sacredness of motherhood and of childhood was amplified and a different meaning given to motherhood in which childbearing has been turned into a freedom rather than something that just happens. Apart from that most of the ancient world religions stand out in their strongly negative view of existence. Liberating human beings from their bondage to earthly existence has been their chief concern. Take Buddhism's Nirvana (extinction) or Hinduism's Moksha (release). Both have a great deal in common in their view of human existence and in their approach to transcending the evil of existence. Even Christianity has a negative view of worldly existence and the search for salvation from it. In the Fall of Adam Christianity symbolises mans affirmation of the will to live. His sin bequeathed to all of us in time through the bond of generations causing us all to partake of suffering and eternal death. On the other hand Christ, God becomes man, symbolises salvation through the denial of the will...a "Kenosis", a self emptying of oneself from existence.
Zeb Kaylique
I always say.....life is not worth living. It is, however, worth dying for.