The one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of children is not to bring them into this world of diseases, crimes, wars, accidents, natural disasters, old age, death, and all the unknown evils the future holds. ☮ At the same time, it's not a bad for them to not come into existence as they are not being deprived of any of the "goods" this world has to offer. To experience deprivation one must exist first. ✨
@@kartik9892 In theory. In practice people will continue having kids no matter what your personal opinion on the matter is. So why not work on actual realistic solutions to minimise or eliminate suffering?
@@alexanderl9721 Iam sure large number of people will continue procreating as part of their natural instincts and i believe the burden is on them and unfortunately on their descendants to make the world better. Personally i dont think its my descendants responsibility to come here, bear the burden of existence and make this world better as they had nothing to do with it to begin with. Its indecent of me to inflict not only the evils of this world but also the burden to fix it. I wish you the best in your life.
Hey mate, I completely understand your position. I myself wouldn't have kids for those same reasons. Well, I can't have kids but even if I did, I don't think I could bring myself to it. I don't think there's anything wrong with the antinatalist position on an individual level. I just don't see it as a realistic solution to minimise suffering on a bigger scale. All the best to you as well.
@@alexanderl9721 Only SOME people will, but A LOT of people WILL PRACTICE it and PREVENT all sorts of HORRORS that would've otherwise exist! Thats what you don't get. So it appears that you have no desire to prevent the future would be adam lanzas of the world.
Technological Progress and Comforts Argument: The speaker’s claim that technological, social, and political advancements (like wheelchairs) improve lives and reduce suffering is indeed correct. However, as Cosmic Antinatalist points out, while these technologies might improve the quality of life, they don’t inherently justify the creation of life in the first place. Creating life brings with it the inherent risks of suffering, disability, and other harms that technological advancements can only mitigate but never entirely prevent. This rebuttal is spot-on because no amount of technological progress can erase the core argument of antinatalism: preventing the creation of beings who will inevitably experience suffering. Loss of Achievements Argument: The speaker mentions that achievements of the past would be lost if there’s no one to value them. Cosmic Antinatalist accurately identifies this argument as akin to a "Ponzi scheme." Creating new beings just so they can value achievements of the past does not address the ethical problem of creating life in the first place. This is not a moral justification for bringing people into existence. Criticism of Benatar: The speaker criticizes David Benatar for focusing on pain and pleasure, seemingly missing the broader point Benatar makes. Benatar uses pain and pleasure as examples of the broader harms and benefits that come with existence, which is not limited to mere sensory experiences. Moreover, Benatar addresses the meaning of life in detail in his book The Human Predicament, so dismissing Benatar based on these claims reveals a lack of engagement with the full scope of his work. Cosmic Antinatalist’s response here also holds up, as it calls out the speaker for misunderstanding Benatar's nuanced arguments. Antinatalism as Abstract Ideology: The speaker claims that antinatalism is simply an abstract ideology, without practical application. However, this overlooks the fact that many ethical stances, while philosophical in nature, influence real-world behaviors and decisions. Antinatalism may not propose a direct, concrete “policy” like other ideologies, but its goal is a shift in personal decision-making-encouraging individuals to recognize the ethical implications of procreation and reduce or stop it voluntarily. There’s already evidence of this as people increasingly choose not to have children based on ethical or environmental concerns. Implementation Leading to More Suffering: The speaker argues that implementing antinatalism would lead to greater suffering, citing low population numbers resulting in more elderly people without adequate care. This assumes that a shrinking population would be abrupt and leave society in chaos, but this is a false dichotomy. Antinatalism doesn’t advocate for an immediate cessation of all births but encourages a gradual decline, allowing society to adapt over time. Additionally, the speaker fails to consider technological advancements that could assist with elderly care, from automation to medical improvements, which could mitigate this issue. Economic Impact: The idea that fewer young people would hurt the economy and leave the elderly without care is rooted in the assumption that current economic systems would remain unchanged. However, economies are dynamic and adaptable. For instance, automation and technological solutions could reduce the need for a large working population to sustain the elderly. Moreover, a declining population could lead to less resource strain, potentially improving quality of life for those who remain. Rather than causing widespread suffering, a gradual population decline could reduce competition for resources and lead to a more sustainable society. Natural Evolution of Society: The speaker notes that more people are already choosing not to have children, suggesting this is a “natural evolution.” This supports the antinatalist position rather than contradicting it. As societies become more educated and aware of the burdens of overpopulation and personal suffering, the choice not to procreate becomes more appealing. Antinatalism, in this sense, is not about “pushing” people to stop having children but encouraging critical thought and ethical consideration in their reproductive choices. Artificial Wombs as a Solution: The speaker briefly mentions artificial wombs as a possible future solution, but this seems tangential to the main argument. Even if artificial wombs could allow for population control, it doesn't address the core ethical concern of antinatalism: the prevention of suffering by avoiding the creation of beings who will inevitably experience harm. Blowing up the Planet as the "Most Efficient Way" to Eliminate Suffering: The speaker posits that the most efficient way to end suffering would be to destroy the planet instantly, killing all life in a millisecond. While this thought experiment fits within the reductive scope of eliminating suffering, it grossly oversimplifies the complexity of ethical considerations. Antinatalism, particularly in its EFIList form, seeks to minimize suffering, but not through violence or forced annihilation. The core principle of antinatalism is preventing harm by avoiding procreation, not justifying mass extinction. Grief and Suffering from Individual Deaths: The speaker notes that killing individuals one by one creates grief and suffering for the loved ones left behind, but they argue that killing everyone simultaneously would eliminate this problem since no one would be left to grieve. This conclusion is overly mechanistic and lacks nuance. Grief and suffering are essential aspects of the human experience, but antinatalism doesn’t advocate eradicating existing people to avoid grief. Instead, it seeks to prevent unnecessary harm by not bringing new life into the world. Killing Against People's Will: The speaker acknowledges that killing everyone against their will contradicts antinatalism’s ethical stance on consent. This is a critical point. Antinatalism is rooted in the idea that one should not impose life on a being who has not consented to it. Applying the same logic, forcing death on individuals who do not want to die would be equally unethical. This aligns with antinatalism’s principle of respecting autonomy, and why mass destruction or violence is antithetical to the movement's true goals. Antinatalism and the Ethical Debate on Existence: The speaker claims that for antinatalism to be successful, it must evolve into a philosophy that views all existence as unethical and calls for its elimination. This seems to conflate antinatalism with misanthropic nihilism. Antinatalism, particularly in its more philosophical variants, doesn’t necessarily claim that all life or existence is unethical; rather, it focuses on the inherent harms of procreation. The idea that "living is unethical" is a more extreme interpretation, not shared by all antinatalists. Many antinatalists are concerned with reducing harm within the framework of voluntary non-procreation rather than promoting destruction. Antinatalism Becoming Destructive: The speaker concludes that antinatalism, when taken to its extreme, becomes "destructive and immoral." This argument rests on a misunderstanding of the movement. Antinatalism doesn't seek to impose violence or destruction; instead, it proposes a path of harm reduction through peaceful, voluntary means. While it may be radical in its suggestion to refrain from procreation, it does not advocate for killing or destruction of life as a method to achieve its aims.
(Part 2) 1. Technological Progress and Societal Improvement: 9:39 The speaker acknowledges various forms of progress, such as technological, social, and political advancements, which they argue improve lives and reduce suffering. They use a wheelchair as an example of how modern innovations help individuals overcome physical limitations. However, they admit that this does not directly refute antinatalism but believe it opens up opportunities for future improvements, which might eventually reduce or eliminate unnecessary suffering. Counterargument: While technology has undeniably improved many aspects of life, the antinatalist argument focuses on the foundational issue of existence itself being inherently risky and filled with potential suffering. The idea that technological advancements will completely eliminate suffering is speculative at best. No matter how advanced society becomes, illness, loss, and death remain unavoidable parts of life. Therefore, the risk of bringing new life into the world-and with it, the potential for suffering-persists regardless of progress. 2. The Industrial Revolution and Reduction of Suffering: 10:25 The speaker refers to life before the Industrial Revolution, highlighting that conditions in Europe were once similar to those in contemporary sub-Saharan Africa, marked by high child mortality rates and widespread poverty. They argue that advances in technology and social structures have improved living conditions and reduced suffering in many parts of the world. Counterargument: Antinatalism doesn’t claim that life hasn’t improved in certain regions, but improvement in material conditions doesn't guarantee the elimination of existential suffering. People still face emotional, psychological, and physical pain, even in wealthier societies. Moreover, global inequality means that the benefits of technological and social progress are not distributed evenly. The fact that some regions have improved doesn't negate the broader reality of human suffering worldwide. 3. A More Efficient Way to Eliminate Suffering: 11:22 The speaker posits that the combination of technological progress and a moral stance focused on reducing unnecessary suffering is a more efficient and realistic solution than antinatalism. They suggest that eliminating suffering without eliminating life, with people consenting to any changes, is a better moral framework than advocating for an end to procreation. Counterargument: Antinatalism is rooted in the belief that life itself is fraught with suffering, and therefore the most ethical action is to prevent new beings from being subjected to it. While efforts to reduce suffering are commendable, they do not address the unpredictability and inevitability of suffering. By choosing not to procreate, antinatalists seek to avoid imposing that risk on future individuals. The notion that consent can be obtained from future generations is inherently flawed-those who do not yet exist cannot consent to existence, and thus, the antinatalist view holds that avoiding the creation of life is the only truly ethical course of action. 4. Moral Standpoint on Reducing Suffering: 12:00 The speaker concludes by asserting that eliminating suffering while maintaining life (with consent) is a more ethical and achievable solution than antinatalism. They argue that preventing suffering through technological means, while respecting individual autonomy, is preferable to antinatalism’s call for the cessation of procreation. Counterargument: While the goal of reducing suffering is shared by both antinatalists and proponents of technological progress, antinatalism goes further by addressing the root cause of suffering: existence itself. Any approach that seeks to mitigate suffering within the framework of continued life cannot guarantee success, as suffering is an inherent part of the human condition. Antinatalists contend that the only way to fully prevent suffering is to prevent life from occurring in the first place, thus ensuring no new beings are exposed to its risks. 1. Existence of Disabled People 12:19 The speaker discusses the idea that while a wheelchair can assist a disabled person, it does not justify the creation of disabled individuals. They express concern that the phrasing might imply that disabled people do not deserve to exist, which they clarify is likely not the intended message. The speaker presumes the antinatalist position is that no one should be born, regardless of their abilities, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality. Counterargument: This statement highlights a common misconception about the antinatalist perspective. Antinatalism does not assert that disabled people should not exist; rather, it questions the ethics of creating new lives when suffering can occur. The value of disabled lives is not diminished by their disabilities; instead, the focus is on the potential suffering that life can entail. Antinatalists typically argue against procreation based on the inherent risks and suffering that come with life, not as a judgment on the worth of those who already exist, regardless of their circumstances. 2. Misinterpretation of Intent 12:39 The speaker cautions about the implications of discussing disability in the context of antinatalism, indicating that it might be misread by some as a suggestion that disabled people do not deserve existence. Counterargument: It is crucial for discussions surrounding antinatalism and disability to be nuanced to avoid perpetuating harmful narratives. The concern raised here is valid, as it reflects a sensitivity towards how language can shape perceptions of worth and existence. Engaging with antinatalist philosophy should involve acknowledging the dignity of all lives, including those of disabled individuals, while critically analyzing the ethical implications of creating new lives in a world where suffering is inevitable. Antinatalism should not be misconstrued as a belief that certain lives are less valuable; rather, it emphasizes a more profound consideration of the ethical implications of existence itself. 3. Core Antinatalist Beliefs 12:55 The speaker reiterates that the presumed antinatalist position advocates for the non-existence of all people, regardless of their identities. Counterargument: This is an essential point in understanding the broader implications of antinatalism. It is not necessarily about denying existence but about questioning the morality of bringing new lives into a world that can be fraught with suffering. This perspective does not inherently negate the value of existing lives, including those of disabled individuals; instead, it promotes a philosophical inquiry into the ethics of procreation and the responsibilities of potential parents. The focus should be on how we discuss these topics without unintentionally devaluing the lives of those already living, fostering a dialogue that is both respectful and critical.
(part 3) 1. Existential Needs and Comforts 13:15 The speaker discusses modern comforts-such as air conditioning and running water-and asserts that these cannot justify creating beings who would need them because non-existent beings have no needs. They agree with this assertion, acknowledging that a person who has not yet been born does not have a need for existence. Counterargument: The argument here underscores a critical aspect of antinatalist thought: the idea that existence cannot be justified solely by the comforts available in life. This perspective argues that creating new beings implies an ethical responsibility, particularly when considering the potential suffering those beings might encounter. Antinatalism maintains that the value of life should not be measured by the comforts it may or may not include. Instead, the focus should be on the inherent risks and ethical implications of bringing new lives into a world that contains suffering. Comforts do not negate the potential harms of existence; therefore, the justification for procreation remains ethically tenuous. 2. Consent and the Creation of Life 13:45 The speaker raises a question regarding whether creating life is wrong due to the lack of consent from those who have not yet been born, or because of the suffering that life entails. Counterargument: This question is pivotal in distinguishing between different strands of antinatalist thought. Many antinatalists do argue that the absence of consent is a significant ethical issue, as it is impossible to ask non-existent individuals whether they wish to come into being. Additionally, the acknowledgment that life contains suffering adds another layer to this argument. If all suffering could be eliminated, the rationale for antinatalism might shift. However, even in a hypothetical scenario where suffering is eradicated, one could argue that the ethical considerations around consent and existence remain pertinent. The conversation then shifts to the broader implications of existence itself-does being alive inherently hold value, or is it only justified through the absence of suffering? These are essential questions for a comprehensive understanding of antinatalism. 3. Potential Discussion on Life Creation 14:45 The speaker expresses interest in discussing the implications of creating life if suffering were eliminated, indicating that they find the distinction between the two reasons for opposing procreation significant. Counterargument: This openness to dialogue is crucial for navigating the complexities of antinatalist philosophy. Exploring the idea of creating life in a suffering-free world raises philosophical questions about the nature of existence and the ethical responsibilities tied to it. Even if suffering were removed, one might still argue against procreation based on the inherent value or lack thereof in existence itself. This leads to deeper inquiries about the purpose of life, the potential for new experiences, and the ethical ramifications of existence without the context of suffering. Engaging in this conversation can help clarify and refine the antinatalist position, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the philosophical underpinnings at play. 1. The Nihilistic Accusation 15:00 The speaker addresses the claim that antinatalism is nihilistic, arguing against the idea that the suffering and achievements of the past become meaningless without future beings to value them. They liken the necessity of creating people to appreciate past values to a Ponzi scheme, asserting that this logic is flawed. Counterargument: The comparison to a Ponzi scheme highlights the problematic nature of relying on future generations to validate the achievements and suffering of past individuals. This perspective questions the ethical implications of procreation as a means of generating value. Antinatalists often argue that existence should not be justified solely by its potential to confer value on past achievements; instead, the ethical consideration revolves around the quality of life and the potential suffering that new individuals may face. Creating individuals merely to value existing achievements can be seen as an exploitation of their existence for the sake of validating past suffering, rather than fostering a genuine appreciation for life itself. 2. Challenging Traditions and Values 15:40 The speaker expresses a belief in the necessity of challenging existing ideas and traditions rather than simply instilling them in future generations. They reject the notion that new lives should merely uphold past values and argue for progress instead. Counterargument: This stance aligns with a broader philosophical outlook that encourages questioning and evolving societal norms and values. Antinatalism can often challenge not just the act of procreation but the underlying assumptions about tradition and societal progress. The notion that new individuals should carry forward and appreciate existing values can be seen as perpetuating systems that may not serve the best interests of future generations. The emphasis on progress and questioning established ideas is critical in shaping a more ethical society, particularly in discussions about the implications of existence and the responsibilities tied to bringing new life into the world. 3. The Future Benefits Argument 16:31 The speaker discusses the potential benefits that future generations may reap from technological, medical, and social advancements. They argue that current efforts will create a better future for those who have not yet been born. Counterargument: While the optimism about future advancements is understandable, antinatalists often question whether these potential benefits justify the act of bringing new lives into existence, especially considering the unknowns and risks associated with life. The argument assumes a linear progression of improvement, which may not account for unforeseen consequences, suffering, or ethical dilemmas that could arise from such advancements. Moreover, the idea that non-existent beings stand to benefit from our progress can be seen as problematic; it raises questions about the ethical validity of creating life with the hope that they will experience a better future, especially when the current state of existence involves suffering and challenges. 4. Hypothetical Longevity and Future Opportunities 17:05 The speaker presents a hypothetical scenario where future advancements allow individuals to live up to 1,000 years and discusses various benefits that future generations might experience. Counterargument: The speculation about technological advancements, such as extreme longevity or medical breakthroughs, raises philosophical questions about the nature of existence itself. Antinatalists may argue that even with advancements, the intrinsic risks of existence-suffering, ethical dilemmas, and potential existential crises-remain. The value of life cannot be assessed solely based on hypothetical benefits; the potential for suffering in the interim is a critical consideration. Moreover, the expectation that future generations will inherently benefit from today’s efforts does not address the immediate ethical implications of procreation in a world where suffering exists. The focus on future advancements can obscure the pressing moral considerations surrounding the act of bringing new lives into existence.
Thank you so much for your in-depth, well reflected commentary. Your bring up many interesting points. Some with which I agree, some with which I disagree. Would you mind if I addressed your points in another video at some point?
@@alexanderl9721 This is not a "well reflected commentary". Someone just put the transcript of your video into ChatGPT and copy-pasted the response from the chat. There is absolutely no reflection there.
A mile wide and an inch deep. Mr. Denseman: Nature itself is at the heart of sentient misery. We'll always only be able to cure around the edges--at best. We are no match for nature itself. Arrogance thinks otherwise.
Seems like a lot of people without faith in humanity. Don’t tell the children. They will become discouraged. It’s bad to discourage children (also known as new people).
people are EVIL, thats clear. Your blatant disregard for others suffering, or even to present an argument against antinatalism prove that. IF YOU ACTUALLY had faith in humanity, you'd act accordingly by having an honorable discussion with antinatalists. Its not about humanity with you, its about GROUP X with you. Your ideological group against another, its not about all humanity.
@@alexanderl9721 people have earned no faith. There are libraries worth of reasons why humanity earns no respect. And by the way, if you have faith in humanity then you have faith in antinatalists as well. And also ALL criminals, ALL the dogmatic religious, etc.
It is evil to force someone into the type of existence that they might hate to exist in and it's extremely abusive to force someone into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will and possibly suffer horribly against their will. Having a kid is like having sex with someone without getting their consent. The parents are like, I don't care if they like it or not I'm going to force them into this extremely unfair and cruel existence anyway and if they don't like it, then too damn bad.. Procreation is the root of all evil.
Tough shit, matter has the will to procreate itself, that is the laws of our universe, and no amount of droning on about consent will change that. Im antinatalist in my own way but you ppl are so annoying. You're asking nature to stop functioning on its most intrinsic levels all because....life is uncomfy and hopeless sometimes? Cry me a river lol, let things take their course. Reproduction is built into nature but so is finiteness, things will end when they're meant to.
@@kellylyons1038 The future p3d0philes of the world certainly appreciate your blatant lack of empathy for the horrors of this world. YOU are part of the problem. You have an attitude that is complacent with anything bad that happens in reality, with no desire to make things less bad.
The one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of children is not to bring them into this world of diseases, crimes, wars, accidents, natural disasters, old age, death, and all the unknown evils the future holds. ☮
At the same time, it's not a bad for them to not come into existence as they are not being deprived of any of the "goods" this world has to offer. To experience deprivation one must exist first. ✨
@@kartik9892 In theory. In practice people will continue having kids no matter what your personal opinion on the matter is. So why not work on actual realistic solutions to minimise or eliminate suffering?
@@alexanderl9721 Iam sure large number of people will continue procreating as part of their natural instincts and i believe the burden is on them and unfortunately on their descendants to make the world better. Personally i dont think its my descendants responsibility to come here, bear the burden of existence and make this world better as they had nothing to do with it to begin with. Its indecent of me to inflict not only the evils of this world but also the burden to fix it.
I wish you the best in your life.
Hey mate, I completely understand your position. I myself wouldn't have kids for those same reasons. Well, I can't have kids but even if I did, I don't think I could bring myself to it. I don't think there's anything wrong with the antinatalist position on an individual level. I just don't see it as a realistic solution to minimise suffering on a bigger scale.
All the best to you as well.
@@alexanderl9721 Only SOME people will, but A LOT of people WILL PRACTICE it and PREVENT all sorts of HORRORS that would've otherwise exist! Thats what you don't get. So it appears that you have no desire to prevent the future would be adam lanzas of the world.
Technological Progress and Comforts Argument: The speaker’s claim that technological, social, and political advancements (like wheelchairs) improve lives and reduce suffering is indeed correct. However, as Cosmic Antinatalist points out, while these technologies might improve the quality of life, they don’t inherently justify the creation of life in the first place. Creating life brings with it the inherent risks of suffering, disability, and other harms that technological advancements can only mitigate but never entirely prevent. This rebuttal is spot-on because no amount of technological progress can erase the core argument of antinatalism: preventing the creation of beings who will inevitably experience suffering.
Loss of Achievements Argument: The speaker mentions that achievements of the past would be lost if there’s no one to value them. Cosmic Antinatalist accurately identifies this argument as akin to a "Ponzi scheme." Creating new beings just so they can value achievements of the past does not address the ethical problem of creating life in the first place. This is not a moral justification for bringing people into existence.
Criticism of Benatar: The speaker criticizes David Benatar for focusing on pain and pleasure, seemingly missing the broader point Benatar makes. Benatar uses pain and pleasure as examples of the broader harms and benefits that come with existence, which is not limited to mere sensory experiences. Moreover, Benatar addresses the meaning of life in detail in his book The Human Predicament, so dismissing Benatar based on these claims reveals a lack of engagement with the full scope of his work. Cosmic Antinatalist’s response here also holds up, as it calls out the speaker for misunderstanding Benatar's nuanced arguments.
Antinatalism as Abstract Ideology: The speaker claims that antinatalism is simply an abstract ideology, without practical application. However, this overlooks the fact that many ethical stances, while philosophical in nature, influence real-world behaviors and decisions. Antinatalism may not propose a direct, concrete “policy” like other ideologies, but its goal is a shift in personal decision-making-encouraging individuals to recognize the ethical implications of procreation and reduce or stop it voluntarily. There’s already evidence of this as people increasingly choose not to have children based on ethical or environmental concerns.
Implementation Leading to More Suffering: The speaker argues that implementing antinatalism would lead to greater suffering, citing low population numbers resulting in more elderly people without adequate care. This assumes that a shrinking population would be abrupt and leave society in chaos, but this is a false dichotomy. Antinatalism doesn’t advocate for an immediate cessation of all births but encourages a gradual decline, allowing society to adapt over time. Additionally, the speaker fails to consider technological advancements that could assist with elderly care, from automation to medical improvements, which could mitigate this issue.
Economic Impact: The idea that fewer young people would hurt the economy and leave the elderly without care is rooted in the assumption that current economic systems would remain unchanged. However, economies are dynamic and adaptable. For instance, automation and technological solutions could reduce the need for a large working population to sustain the elderly. Moreover, a declining population could lead to less resource strain, potentially improving quality of life for those who remain. Rather than causing widespread suffering, a gradual population decline could reduce competition for resources and lead to a more sustainable society.
Natural Evolution of Society: The speaker notes that more people are already choosing not to have children, suggesting this is a “natural evolution.” This supports the antinatalist position rather than contradicting it. As societies become more educated and aware of the burdens of overpopulation and personal suffering, the choice not to procreate becomes more appealing. Antinatalism, in this sense, is not about “pushing” people to stop having children but encouraging critical thought and ethical consideration in their reproductive choices.
Artificial Wombs as a Solution: The speaker briefly mentions artificial wombs as a possible future solution, but this seems tangential to the main argument. Even if artificial wombs could allow for population control, it doesn't address the core ethical concern of antinatalism: the prevention of suffering by avoiding the creation of beings who will inevitably experience harm.
Blowing up the Planet as the "Most Efficient Way" to Eliminate Suffering: The speaker posits that the most efficient way to end suffering would be to destroy the planet instantly, killing all life in a millisecond. While this thought experiment fits within the reductive scope of eliminating suffering, it grossly oversimplifies the complexity of ethical considerations. Antinatalism, particularly in its EFIList form, seeks to minimize suffering, but not through violence or forced annihilation. The core principle of antinatalism is preventing harm by avoiding procreation, not justifying mass extinction.
Grief and Suffering from Individual Deaths: The speaker notes that killing individuals one by one creates grief and suffering for the loved ones left behind, but they argue that killing everyone simultaneously would eliminate this problem since no one would be left to grieve. This conclusion is overly mechanistic and lacks nuance. Grief and suffering are essential aspects of the human experience, but antinatalism doesn’t advocate eradicating existing people to avoid grief. Instead, it seeks to prevent unnecessary harm by not bringing new life into the world.
Killing Against People's Will: The speaker acknowledges that killing everyone against their will contradicts antinatalism’s ethical stance on consent. This is a critical point. Antinatalism is rooted in the idea that one should not impose life on a being who has not consented to it. Applying the same logic, forcing death on individuals who do not want to die would be equally unethical. This aligns with antinatalism’s principle of respecting autonomy, and why mass destruction or violence is antithetical to the movement's true goals.
Antinatalism and the Ethical Debate on Existence: The speaker claims that for antinatalism to be successful, it must evolve into a philosophy that views all existence as unethical and calls for its elimination. This seems to conflate antinatalism with misanthropic nihilism. Antinatalism, particularly in its more philosophical variants, doesn’t necessarily claim that all life or existence is unethical; rather, it focuses on the inherent harms of procreation. The idea that "living is unethical" is a more extreme interpretation, not shared by all antinatalists. Many antinatalists are concerned with reducing harm within the framework of voluntary non-procreation rather than promoting destruction.
Antinatalism Becoming Destructive: The speaker concludes that antinatalism, when taken to its extreme, becomes "destructive and immoral." This argument rests on a misunderstanding of the movement. Antinatalism doesn't seek to impose violence or destruction; instead, it proposes a path of harm reduction through peaceful, voluntary means. While it may be radical in its suggestion to refrain from procreation, it does not advocate for killing or destruction of life as a method to achieve its aims.
(Part 2)
1. Technological Progress and Societal Improvement:
9:39
The speaker acknowledges various forms of progress, such as technological, social, and political advancements, which they argue improve lives and reduce suffering. They use a wheelchair as an example of how modern innovations help individuals overcome physical limitations. However, they admit that this does not directly refute antinatalism but believe it opens up opportunities for future improvements, which might eventually reduce or eliminate unnecessary suffering.
Counterargument:
While technology has undeniably improved many aspects of life, the antinatalist argument focuses on the foundational issue of existence itself being inherently risky and filled with potential suffering. The idea that technological advancements will completely eliminate suffering is speculative at best. No matter how advanced society becomes, illness, loss, and death remain unavoidable parts of life. Therefore, the risk of bringing new life into the world-and with it, the potential for suffering-persists regardless of progress.
2. The Industrial Revolution and Reduction of Suffering:
10:25
The speaker refers to life before the Industrial Revolution, highlighting that conditions in Europe were once similar to those in contemporary sub-Saharan Africa, marked by high child mortality rates and widespread poverty. They argue that advances in technology and social structures have improved living conditions and reduced suffering in many parts of the world.
Counterargument:
Antinatalism doesn’t claim that life hasn’t improved in certain regions, but improvement in material conditions doesn't guarantee the elimination of existential suffering. People still face emotional, psychological, and physical pain, even in wealthier societies. Moreover, global inequality means that the benefits of technological and social progress are not distributed evenly. The fact that some regions have improved doesn't negate the broader reality of human suffering worldwide.
3. A More Efficient Way to Eliminate Suffering:
11:22
The speaker posits that the combination of technological progress and a moral stance focused on reducing unnecessary suffering is a more efficient and realistic solution than antinatalism. They suggest that eliminating suffering without eliminating life, with people consenting to any changes, is a better moral framework than advocating for an end to procreation.
Counterargument:
Antinatalism is rooted in the belief that life itself is fraught with suffering, and therefore the most ethical action is to prevent new beings from being subjected to it. While efforts to reduce suffering are commendable, they do not address the unpredictability and inevitability of suffering. By choosing not to procreate, antinatalists seek to avoid imposing that risk on future individuals. The notion that consent can be obtained from future generations is inherently flawed-those who do not yet exist cannot consent to existence, and thus, the antinatalist view holds that avoiding the creation of life is the only truly ethical course of action.
4. Moral Standpoint on Reducing Suffering:
12:00
The speaker concludes by asserting that eliminating suffering while maintaining life (with consent) is a more ethical and achievable solution than antinatalism. They argue that preventing suffering through technological means, while respecting individual autonomy, is preferable to antinatalism’s call for the cessation of procreation.
Counterargument:
While the goal of reducing suffering is shared by both antinatalists and proponents of technological progress, antinatalism goes further by addressing the root cause of suffering: existence itself. Any approach that seeks to mitigate suffering within the framework of continued life cannot guarantee success, as suffering is an inherent part of the human condition. Antinatalists contend that the only way to fully prevent suffering is to prevent life from occurring in the first place, thus ensuring no new beings are exposed to its risks.
1. Existence of Disabled People
12:19
The speaker discusses the idea that while a wheelchair can assist a disabled person, it does not justify the creation of disabled individuals. They express concern that the phrasing might imply that disabled people do not deserve to exist, which they clarify is likely not the intended message. The speaker presumes the antinatalist position is that no one should be born, regardless of their abilities, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality.
Counterargument:
This statement highlights a common misconception about the antinatalist perspective. Antinatalism does not assert that disabled people should not exist; rather, it questions the ethics of creating new lives when suffering can occur. The value of disabled lives is not diminished by their disabilities; instead, the focus is on the potential suffering that life can entail. Antinatalists typically argue against procreation based on the inherent risks and suffering that come with life, not as a judgment on the worth of those who already exist, regardless of their circumstances.
2. Misinterpretation of Intent
12:39
The speaker cautions about the implications of discussing disability in the context of antinatalism, indicating that it might be misread by some as a suggestion that disabled people do not deserve existence.
Counterargument:
It is crucial for discussions surrounding antinatalism and disability to be nuanced to avoid perpetuating harmful narratives. The concern raised here is valid, as it reflects a sensitivity towards how language can shape perceptions of worth and existence. Engaging with antinatalist philosophy should involve acknowledging the dignity of all lives, including those of disabled individuals, while critically analyzing the ethical implications of creating new lives in a world where suffering is inevitable. Antinatalism should not be misconstrued as a belief that certain lives are less valuable; rather, it emphasizes a more profound consideration of the ethical implications of existence itself.
3. Core Antinatalist Beliefs
12:55
The speaker reiterates that the presumed antinatalist position advocates for the non-existence of all people, regardless of their identities.
Counterargument:
This is an essential point in understanding the broader implications of antinatalism. It is not necessarily about denying existence but about questioning the morality of bringing new lives into a world that can be fraught with suffering. This perspective does not inherently negate the value of existing lives, including those of disabled individuals; instead, it promotes a philosophical inquiry into the ethics of procreation and the responsibilities of potential parents. The focus should be on how we discuss these topics without unintentionally devaluing the lives of those already living, fostering a dialogue that is both respectful and critical.
(part 3)
1. Existential Needs and Comforts
13:15
The speaker discusses modern comforts-such as air conditioning and running water-and asserts that these cannot justify creating beings who would need them because non-existent beings have no needs. They agree with this assertion, acknowledging that a person who has not yet been born does not have a need for existence.
Counterargument:
The argument here underscores a critical aspect of antinatalist thought: the idea that existence cannot be justified solely by the comforts available in life. This perspective argues that creating new beings implies an ethical responsibility, particularly when considering the potential suffering those beings might encounter. Antinatalism maintains that the value of life should not be measured by the comforts it may or may not include. Instead, the focus should be on the inherent risks and ethical implications of bringing new lives into a world that contains suffering. Comforts do not negate the potential harms of existence; therefore, the justification for procreation remains ethically tenuous.
2. Consent and the Creation of Life
13:45
The speaker raises a question regarding whether creating life is wrong due to the lack of consent from those who have not yet been born, or because of the suffering that life entails.
Counterargument:
This question is pivotal in distinguishing between different strands of antinatalist thought. Many antinatalists do argue that the absence of consent is a significant ethical issue, as it is impossible to ask non-existent individuals whether they wish to come into being. Additionally, the acknowledgment that life contains suffering adds another layer to this argument. If all suffering could be eliminated, the rationale for antinatalism might shift. However, even in a hypothetical scenario where suffering is eradicated, one could argue that the ethical considerations around consent and existence remain pertinent. The conversation then shifts to the broader implications of existence itself-does being alive inherently hold value, or is it only justified through the absence of suffering? These are essential questions for a comprehensive understanding of antinatalism.
3. Potential Discussion on Life Creation
14:45
The speaker expresses interest in discussing the implications of creating life if suffering were eliminated, indicating that they find the distinction between the two reasons for opposing procreation significant.
Counterargument:
This openness to dialogue is crucial for navigating the complexities of antinatalist philosophy. Exploring the idea of creating life in a suffering-free world raises philosophical questions about the nature of existence and the ethical responsibilities tied to it. Even if suffering were removed, one might still argue against procreation based on the inherent value or lack thereof in existence itself. This leads to deeper inquiries about the purpose of life, the potential for new experiences, and the ethical ramifications of existence without the context of suffering. Engaging in this conversation can help clarify and refine the antinatalist position, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the philosophical underpinnings at play.
1. The Nihilistic Accusation
15:00
The speaker addresses the claim that antinatalism is nihilistic, arguing against the idea that the suffering and achievements of the past become meaningless without future beings to value them. They liken the necessity of creating people to appreciate past values to a Ponzi scheme, asserting that this logic is flawed.
Counterargument:
The comparison to a Ponzi scheme highlights the problematic nature of relying on future generations to validate the achievements and suffering of past individuals. This perspective questions the ethical implications of procreation as a means of generating value. Antinatalists often argue that existence should not be justified solely by its potential to confer value on past achievements; instead, the ethical consideration revolves around the quality of life and the potential suffering that new individuals may face. Creating individuals merely to value existing achievements can be seen as an exploitation of their existence for the sake of validating past suffering, rather than fostering a genuine appreciation for life itself.
2. Challenging Traditions and Values
15:40
The speaker expresses a belief in the necessity of challenging existing ideas and traditions rather than simply instilling them in future generations. They reject the notion that new lives should merely uphold past values and argue for progress instead.
Counterargument:
This stance aligns with a broader philosophical outlook that encourages questioning and evolving societal norms and values. Antinatalism can often challenge not just the act of procreation but the underlying assumptions about tradition and societal progress. The notion that new individuals should carry forward and appreciate existing values can be seen as perpetuating systems that may not serve the best interests of future generations. The emphasis on progress and questioning established ideas is critical in shaping a more ethical society, particularly in discussions about the implications of existence and the responsibilities tied to bringing new life into the world.
3. The Future Benefits Argument
16:31
The speaker discusses the potential benefits that future generations may reap from technological, medical, and social advancements. They argue that current efforts will create a better future for those who have not yet been born.
Counterargument:
While the optimism about future advancements is understandable, antinatalists often question whether these potential benefits justify the act of bringing new lives into existence, especially considering the unknowns and risks associated with life. The argument assumes a linear progression of improvement, which may not account for unforeseen consequences, suffering, or ethical dilemmas that could arise from such advancements. Moreover, the idea that non-existent beings stand to benefit from our progress can be seen as problematic; it raises questions about the ethical validity of creating life with the hope that they will experience a better future, especially when the current state of existence involves suffering and challenges.
4. Hypothetical Longevity and Future Opportunities
17:05
The speaker presents a hypothetical scenario where future advancements allow individuals to live up to 1,000 years and discusses various benefits that future generations might experience.
Counterargument:
The speculation about technological advancements, such as extreme longevity or medical breakthroughs, raises philosophical questions about the nature of existence itself. Antinatalists may argue that even with advancements, the intrinsic risks of existence-suffering, ethical dilemmas, and potential existential crises-remain. The value of life cannot be assessed solely based on hypothetical benefits; the potential for suffering in the interim is a critical consideration. Moreover, the expectation that future generations will inherently benefit from today’s efforts does not address the immediate ethical implications of procreation in a world where suffering exists. The focus on future advancements can obscure the pressing moral considerations surrounding the act of bringing new lives into existence.
Thank you so much for your in-depth, well reflected commentary. Your bring up many interesting points. Some with which I agree, some with which I disagree. Would you mind if I addressed your points in another video at some point?
@@alexanderl9721 I would be okay with that. Thanks. Glad my review could give you some potential content :)
@@alexanderl9721 This is not a "well reflected commentary". Someone just put the transcript of your video into ChatGPT and copy-pasted the response from the chat. There is absolutely no reflection there.
A mile wide and an inch deep.
Mr. Denseman:
Nature itself is at the heart of sentient misery.
We'll always only be able to cure around the edges--at best.
We are no match for nature itself. Arrogance thinks otherwise.
Why does my comment keep being deleted?
TH-cam being TH-cam. Happens to me quite a lot.
Happens to me all the time. TH-cam really doesn't like the free exchange of ideas and opinions.
Seems like a lot of people without faith in humanity. Don’t tell the children. They will become discouraged. It’s bad to discourage children (also known as new people).
Interesting. I used to have no faith in humanity back when antinatalism was appealing to me.
people are EVIL, thats clear. Your blatant disregard for others suffering, or even to present an argument against antinatalism prove that. IF YOU ACTUALLY had faith in humanity, you'd act accordingly by having an honorable discussion with antinatalists. Its not about humanity with you, its about GROUP X with you. Your ideological group against another, its not about all humanity.
@@alexanderl9721 people have earned no faith. There are libraries worth of reasons why humanity earns no respect. And by the way, if you have faith in humanity then you have faith in antinatalists as well. And also ALL criminals, ALL the dogmatic religious, etc.
5:32 he ain't got no solution
@@MuhTranshumanroght True true. Won't argue with you there.
Nice knowing you ...but I'm gonna move on.
Why?
@@kellylyons1038 Because creating sentient life causes suffering and it's selfish. It's very simple.
It is evil to force someone into the type of existence that they might hate to exist in and it's extremely abusive to force someone into the type of existence where they will suffer against their will and possibly suffer horribly against their will. Having a kid is like having sex with someone without getting their consent. The parents are like, I don't care if they like it or not I'm going to force them into this extremely unfair and cruel existence anyway and if they don't like it, then too damn bad.. Procreation is the root of all evil.
Tough shit, matter has the will to procreate itself, that is the laws of our universe, and no amount of droning on about consent will change that. Im antinatalist in my own way but you ppl are so annoying. You're asking nature to stop functioning on its most intrinsic levels all because....life is uncomfy and hopeless sometimes? Cry me a river lol, let things take their course. Reproduction is built into nature but so is finiteness, things will end when they're meant to.
@@kellylyons1038 The future p3d0philes of the world certainly appreciate your blatant lack of empathy for the horrors of this world. YOU are part of the problem. You have an attitude that is complacent with anything bad that happens in reality, with no desire to make things less bad.
Absolutely too much time on your hands.
Why don't you mind your time and your hands? Cuz you seem to have a lot of time to obsess over what I'm doing with mine.