Hi mate it's John here, thanks very much for the nuanced take on my debate with Amanda. I've added a couple points of clarification below - let me know your thoughts! - Goal of sperm donation: If it's true that there is a genetic component to people acting ethically (i.e. empathy, sensitivity to suffering etc) then my sperm donation arguments would apply much wider than the issue of WAS, such as veganism, AN, and other social issues. My argument about sperm donation is presented as an alternative to procreation for people who argue that AN might make these 'good traits' go extinct (i.e. you can pass on your 'compassionate genes' without increasing the number of beings unfortunately brought into existence). As such, I've never tried to frame this as an action in response to WAS, but definitely see how it might come across that way in the discussion with Amanda! - Shifting the goalposts: I can definitely see that it looks like I shifted the goalposts when changing the motivation behind sperm donation from (1) passing on 'compassionate genes', to (2) acquring money that can be donated. The reason I did this is because Amanda and my other critics seem to object to sperm donation in general, regardless of the motivation. Therefore, I thought it could make the conversation much neater to avoid concerns about eugenics by moving the motivation away from genes. I realise now it might have just added more confusion! I also appreciated both your nuanced take on an extremely sensitive topic in eugenics, which captures everything from the evils of the Nazis to David Pearce's suffering-free utopia, and also the fact you kept your arguments within a consequentialist framework, rather than rehashing the ongoing consequentialism vs deontology debate. Lastly, thank you very much for your kind words at the beginning, and all of the support and interest you've taken in my efforts in the AN space!
> "My argument about sperm donation is presented as an alternative to procreation for people who argue that AN might make these 'good traits' go extinct." - This relates to point 1 of my other comment under this video. If "sperm donation is presented as an alternative to procreation", then you believe sperm donation is something other than procreation. How do you square that circle? > "Amanda and my other critics seem to object to sperm donation in general, regardless of the motivation." - No. This is false. The objection to your sperm donation comments doesn't have anything to do with motivation, or even whether or not sperm donation is "good or bad/right or wrong". The objection is against your insistence that sperm donation doesn't violate or conflict with AN. It's a category problem, wholly unconcerned with motivation or right/wrong. > "I also appreciated... the fact you kept your arguments within a consequentialist framework, rather than rehashing the ongoing consequentialism vs deontology debate" - Why do you not want this particular discussion? After all, you're the one who brought it to the fore with your sperm donation comments. As I say in point 6 of my other comment, you define AN as "a conclusion that it's wrong to bring sentient beings into existence". This is a rule based definition, begging the question: To what extent does a categorical proscription of procreation limit the compatibility of antinatalism and consequentialism?. Seeking to realize the right kinds of outcomes on a case by case basis is antithetical to committing to categorical rules. I understand your response to this will be that your definition isn't categorical, and that you treat AN as a rebuttable presumption, to accommodate your consequentialist sensibilities. But then you run into difficulties differentiating AN from not-AN. It's also apparent you don't understand how rebuttable presumptions work. You believe rebutting a presumption results in expanding its scope. This is, of course, nonsense because rebutting a presumption means overriding it in favor of something else. I figure you're opposed to clarifying such matters because I'm the one asking the questions. I even tried to reach out to you in private offering you the opportunity to have a private discussion, but you refused because of my "online behavior", whatever that means. Perhaps you're put off by me asking questions which expose your blather as literal cancer. Whatever the reason, your refusal to clarify/rectify demonstrably fatal flaws in your case proves you're a bad faith actor-no matter how much you try to present yourself as "the nice guy", the "Mr Rogers of Antinatalism". You don't need to respond to me directly. But you do need to respond to the issues raised if you want to avoid falling flat on your face and if you want to maintain the perception of being a good faith participant.
You have an amazing ability to explain someone's views and arguments in a straightforward way even when those views are contrary to your own. That is a real gift. I wonder if you would consider writing a book about antinatalism? Just a suggestion. // When I was listening to the opening section about John and others using sperm banks, my reaction was that this would be, from my perspective, an example of someone not walking their talk. I tend to have a minimalist view of AN in that I think if someone refrains from having (more) children, then they are antinatalist (even if they refrain for something like religious reasons such as those following a monastic path.) I see everything else as additions to this core; not that making additions is wrong, but it often leads to contention and disagreements. In AN circles I have noticed that these disagreements are often based on contrafactuals, which I think is a legacy from analytic philosophy. I think it is an overused approach; but that's just me. // Thanks again for your weekly presentations.
I guess I can see how there could be a genetic component to the capacity for empathy / compassion, but I find the idea of a gene for compassion to be absurd. We are social animals, so we all come with the capacity for empathy.
My comment disappears if I try to respond to John, so I'll post in main. Hi John I'm in the process of writing up an analysis of this sperm donation stuff. These are the questions I wanted to ask you on discord. 1: At 41m22s in your conversation with Mark you differentiate between procreation and bringing into existence. 4 mins later at 45m11s you differentiate between bringing into existence and participating in bringing beings into existence. So, according to you, "procreation", "bringing beings into existence", and "participating in bringing beings into existence" are different from each other. What do each of these terms mean? 2: In the holocaust hypothetical you use in your conversation with Mark, where the choice is to have a child or someone will rerun the holocaust, you said, ""It might be the least bad of the two choices to procreate or to let the holocaust happen, if that makes sense. So this is how I understand antinatalism" 42m17s. My understanding is that you believe if procreating is the lesser of two evils, then procreating neither conflicts with nor violates AN. Is my understanding correct? 3: Imagine a situation where Child1 is born with a seriously debilitating condition needing a donor to remedy, and the only way to get a suitable donor is to have Child2 using IVF to ensure a suitable genetic match. In this scenario Child2 will reduce the suffering and increase the wellbeing of Child1, the parents, and non-nuclear family members. Child2 will experience more or less the same kinds and amounts of benefits and harms as most first world westerners over the course of his life. So, Child2 reduces the overall suffering and increases the overall wellbeing of the family. Also, in this scenario the parents were going to have a second child anyway, satisfying your condition about not increasing the amount of procreation. Does having Child2 using IVF in this scenario violate or conflict with AN? 4: At 53m30s in your conversation with Mark you say, "My approach to who gets their antinatalist card, who's allowed in the community, is basically anyone who says they're an antinatalist". This means you define antinatalist as anyone who says they're an antinatalist. Your claim can therefore be articulated as "If it is true that compassion is partly inherited, and people who say they're antinatalists are more compassionate, and donating to sperm banks does not increase the amount of procreation occurring, then people who say they're antinatalists would do better to donate to sperm banks than having their own children to pass on their compassionate genes." I'm sure you appreciate the semantic shift. What else, apart from declaring yourself to be an antinatalist, makes someone an antinatalist? If "nothing else", how do you respond to me saying "I'm vegan just because I say I am"? 5: How do you differentiate between consequentialism and antinatalism? Alternatively, do you differentiate between consequentialism and antinatalism? [EDIT: 6: At 13m10s of your ExploringAN episode you define antinatalism as "a conclusion that it's wrong to bring sentient beings into existence". Sperm donation is bringing sentient beings into existence. Sperm donation therefore conflicts with your own definition of antinatalism. How do you square this away with your claim that sperm donation doesn't conflict with antinatalism?]
instead of donating sperm and such, isn't it better to create an infertility virus in a lab. a virus that affects the hormones or something, put the effort in something like that, just my thoughts.
Good call on cautioning against forming a cult of personality around Benatar. Veganism can fall prey to that as well, it's important to keep our eyes on the arguments.
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.920 | 3 พ.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/KwiW2M_kAg4/mqdefault.jpg)
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( หมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์โจ๊ะๆ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3krsyfWUeHU/mqdefault.jpg)
Fantastic episode. Thanks!
Thankyou @BovineBluestocking!
Great episode as always!
Another brilliant episode! 🎯Thank you and congratulations! 🚀
Hi mate it's John here, thanks very much for the nuanced take on my debate with Amanda. I've added a couple points of clarification below - let me know your thoughts!
- Goal of sperm donation: If it's true that there is a genetic component to people acting ethically (i.e. empathy, sensitivity to suffering etc) then my sperm donation arguments would apply much wider than the issue of WAS, such as veganism, AN, and other social issues. My argument about sperm donation is presented as an alternative to procreation for people who argue that AN might make these 'good traits' go extinct (i.e. you can pass on your 'compassionate genes' without increasing the number of beings unfortunately brought into existence). As such, I've never tried to frame this as an action in response to WAS, but definitely see how it might come across that way in the discussion with Amanda!
- Shifting the goalposts: I can definitely see that it looks like I shifted the goalposts when changing the motivation behind sperm donation from (1) passing on 'compassionate genes', to (2) acquring money that can be donated. The reason I did this is because Amanda and my other critics seem to object to sperm donation in general, regardless of the motivation. Therefore, I thought it could make the conversation much neater to avoid concerns about eugenics by moving the motivation away from genes. I realise now it might have just added more confusion!
I also appreciated both your nuanced take on an extremely sensitive topic in eugenics, which captures everything from the evils of the Nazis to David Pearce's suffering-free utopia, and also the fact you kept your arguments within a consequentialist framework, rather than rehashing the ongoing consequentialism vs deontology debate. Lastly, thank you very much for your kind words at the beginning, and all of the support and interest you've taken in my efforts in the AN space!
> "My argument about sperm donation is presented as an alternative to procreation for people who argue that AN might make these 'good traits' go extinct."
- This relates to point 1 of my other comment under this video. If "sperm donation is presented as an alternative to procreation", then you believe sperm donation is something other than procreation. How do you square that circle?
> "Amanda and my other critics seem to object to sperm donation in general, regardless of the motivation."
- No. This is false. The objection to your sperm donation comments doesn't have anything to do with motivation, or even whether or not sperm donation is "good or bad/right or wrong". The objection is against your insistence that sperm donation doesn't violate or conflict with AN. It's a category problem, wholly unconcerned with motivation or right/wrong.
> "I also appreciated... the fact you kept your arguments within a consequentialist framework, rather than rehashing the ongoing consequentialism vs deontology debate"
- Why do you not want this particular discussion? After all, you're the one who brought it to the fore with your sperm donation comments.
As I say in point 6 of my other comment, you define AN as "a conclusion that it's wrong to bring sentient beings into existence". This is a rule based definition, begging the question: To what extent does a categorical proscription of procreation limit the compatibility of antinatalism and consequentialism?. Seeking to realize the right kinds of outcomes on a case by case basis is antithetical to committing to categorical rules.
I understand your response to this will be that your definition isn't categorical, and that you treat AN as a rebuttable presumption, to accommodate your consequentialist sensibilities. But then you run into difficulties differentiating AN from not-AN. It's also apparent you don't understand how rebuttable presumptions work. You believe rebutting a presumption results in expanding its scope. This is, of course, nonsense because rebutting a presumption means overriding it in favor of something else.
I figure you're opposed to clarifying such matters because I'm the one asking the questions. I even tried to reach out to you in private offering you the opportunity to have a private discussion, but you refused because of my "online behavior", whatever that means. Perhaps you're put off by me asking questions which expose your blather as literal cancer. Whatever the reason, your refusal to clarify/rectify demonstrably fatal flaws in your case proves you're a bad faith actor-no matter how much you try to present yourself as "the nice guy", the "Mr Rogers of Antinatalism".
You don't need to respond to me directly. But you do need to respond to the issues raised if you want to avoid falling flat on your face and if you want to maintain the perception of being a good faith participant.
You have an amazing ability to explain someone's views and arguments in a straightforward way even when those views are contrary to your own. That is a real gift. I wonder if you would consider writing a book about antinatalism? Just a suggestion. // When I was listening to the opening section about John and others using sperm banks, my reaction was that this would be, from my perspective, an example of someone not walking their talk. I tend to have a minimalist view of AN in that I think if someone refrains from having (more) children, then they are antinatalist (even if they refrain for something like religious reasons such as those following a monastic path.) I see everything else as additions to this core; not that making additions is wrong, but it often leads to contention and disagreements. In AN circles I have noticed that these disagreements are often based on contrafactuals, which I think is a legacy from analytic philosophy. I think it is an overused approach; but that's just me. // Thanks again for your weekly presentations.
thank you for making these
Always enjoy the episodes. Keep up the great work.
👋 Looking forward to watching this
I guess I can see how there could be a genetic component to the capacity for empathy / compassion, but I find the idea of a gene for compassion to be absurd. We are social animals, so we all come with the capacity for empathy.
My comment disappears if I try to respond to John, so I'll post in main.
Hi John
I'm in the process of writing up an analysis of this sperm donation stuff. These are the questions I wanted to ask you on discord.
1: At 41m22s in your conversation with Mark you differentiate between procreation and bringing into existence. 4 mins later at 45m11s you differentiate between bringing into existence and participating in bringing beings into existence.
So, according to you, "procreation", "bringing beings into existence", and "participating in bringing beings into existence" are different from each other.
What do each of these terms mean?
2: In the holocaust hypothetical you use in your conversation with Mark, where the choice is to have a child or someone will rerun the holocaust, you said, ""It might be the least bad of the two choices to procreate or to let the holocaust happen, if that makes sense. So this is how I understand antinatalism" 42m17s.
My understanding is that you believe if procreating is the lesser of two evils, then procreating neither conflicts with nor violates AN.
Is my understanding correct?
3: Imagine a situation where Child1 is born with a seriously debilitating condition needing a donor to remedy, and the only way to get a suitable donor is to have Child2 using IVF to ensure a suitable genetic match.
In this scenario Child2 will reduce the suffering and increase the wellbeing of Child1, the parents, and non-nuclear family members. Child2 will experience more or less the same kinds and amounts of benefits and harms as most first world westerners over the course of his life. So, Child2 reduces the overall suffering and increases the overall wellbeing of the family.
Also, in this scenario the parents were going to have a second child anyway, satisfying your condition about not increasing the amount of procreation.
Does having Child2 using IVF in this scenario violate or conflict with AN?
4: At 53m30s in your conversation with Mark you say, "My approach to who gets their antinatalist card, who's allowed in the community, is basically anyone who says they're an antinatalist".
This means you define antinatalist as anyone who says they're an antinatalist. Your claim can therefore be articulated as "If it is true that compassion is partly inherited, and people who say they're antinatalists are more compassionate, and donating to sperm banks does not increase the amount of procreation occurring, then people who say they're antinatalists would do better to donate to sperm banks than having their own children to pass on their compassionate genes."
I'm sure you appreciate the semantic shift.
What else, apart from declaring yourself to be an antinatalist, makes someone an antinatalist?
If "nothing else", how do you respond to me saying "I'm vegan just because I say I am"?
5: How do you differentiate between consequentialism and antinatalism? Alternatively, do you differentiate between consequentialism and antinatalism?
[EDIT:
6: At 13m10s of your ExploringAN episode you define antinatalism as "a conclusion that it's wrong to bring sentient beings into existence". Sperm donation is bringing sentient beings into existence. Sperm donation therefore conflicts with your own definition of antinatalism.
How do you square this away with your claim that sperm donation doesn't conflict with antinatalism?]
instead of donating sperm and such, isn't it better to create an infertility virus in a lab.
a virus that affects the hormones or something, put the effort in something like that, just my thoughts.
Good call on cautioning against forming a cult of personality around Benatar. Veganism can fall prey to that as well, it's important to keep our eyes on the arguments.
Good video..
Can the fussion of "perfect" gamets of a man and a woman actually yield "perfect" direct and indirect non-suffering entity?
Excellent question.
articulate video