Anti-Natalism and the Asymmetry - Christopher Belshaw

Anti-Natalism and the Asymmetry - Christopher Belshaw
In the Journal of controversial ideas journalofcontr... - Christopher Belshaw suggests that "We shouldn’t start the lives of these babies, and if started then - so long as we are thinking just of them - we should end them. And this even when good parts outweigh and outnumber the bad"

[@FactsCountdown]

My neighbour lady were giving birth to twins but one of those twins died before birth and other one is born malnourished so their parents are responsible for the death of that child and suffering of their children but my neighbour are too selfish and unconscious even to release.

[@RubiscoTalks]

today I explained about not having children in my future, he was shocked and thought it was abnormal. yes we exist!

[@joepvans5035]

By the way, in the same journal, there are two more articles about this. One is a response by McMahan called "Thou Shalt Not Create; But If Thou Dost, Thou Shalt Kill? A Comment on Belshaw" and the other is a response to that by Belshaw.

[@Life-Is-A-Curse]

there's no "good" in life, we have to chase "good" to satisfy our selfish wants and needs.
it's like a drugs addict chasing their heroin shots, or a drunk person tells you how great alcohol is.
and someone else is most likely gonna pay the price for the happiness of that individual.
as always, thanks for the video, i hope you're doing good and everything is going well :)

[@NoOne-ix7dg]

Or when one knows that he is an addict, dissatisfied with it, but can do nothing to stop being an addict.

[@mattihayry5060]

Thank you Tejas! You have entirely removed my need to read new papers on antinatalism myself. 😅 - But let me get this straight. So Belshaw is saying, is he, that we should not have children because the first couple of years in their lives would contain bads uncompensated for by the expectation of goods? If he is - I am always on a lookout for counterarguments - then could we have children if we could guarantee (by a Happy-Infant Machine that we just invented) that the first two years of our offspring's lives would NOT contain any bads? That would take us back to the Rivka Weinberg-type view that meticulous parenting is enough. 🚀

[@bilalbaig8586]

The man who wrote this paper is literally insane.

[@eightrice]

although we're bound by the duality of this world, we should strive to transcend it, not base an entire school of thought on the bad-good paradigm

[@elCamaradaR]

that's part of benatar's arguments, not every single anti natalism , aproches the subject in the same way. Besides that, is irrelevant if we build up our premises in relationship with the good and bad paradigm. If everything about it is correct, the argument is valid.

[@eightrice]

this is the craziest stuff I've ever heard. Of course you don't get to decide for someone else what is "good" and what is "bad". As people living in atrocious conditions can testify to, it is better to be than not to be.

[@elCamaradaR]

you decide for others when you produce a human , because you already decide that life is going to bee good for him even if it is atrocius, so better never to have been

[@omg28374]

People can choose to live their own lives and do with it what they want; but they don’t have a right to create victims, people who will arrive on this planet and find life and this world to be hellish and full of pointless, wasted suffering. That’s the argument.

[@nullethosechoes]

I could've sworn that I wrote a comment. In short, I disagree with the high value peope put on being able to think about the future. Consequences matter, not some random attribute.

[@LouisGedo]

👋

[@AbhishekVerma-hi5uv]

Israel is watching this.