I watched the video a couple of times. I struggle to see why a new term (vexan / voluntarily extinctionist antinatalism) is even needed. I cannot find here anything new that I would not already get from David Benatar or Julio Cabrera. Benatar talks about what would happen if people stopped reproducing. He is also extending his views to other animals or sentient machines or aliens. Cabrera focuses a lot on the manipulative aspect of procreation and social life in general. What's new here? The only thing that is "new" is the weak preference for others to not reproduce, stated as "I would be pleased to see others acting like me in this respect" and as "I wouldn't mean if others acted the same", which hardly qualifies as an ethical position at all. Only later we're getting a leap into "No moral right to create new (non)human sufferers". But then again, this is already properly addressed in the literature, and with rigorous and careful argumentation. Again, what's new here?
Thank you for watching the video, and more than once to boot! And my apologies for wasting your time - not at all intended. - You are absolutely correct - there is nothing new under the sun in this "vexan" thing apart from a term that may or may not be usable in distinguishing different forms of AN. After I released this presentation, I have realized that, yes, David Benatar and Julio Cabrera, both great ANs, fit the category, as do, with some variation, Patricia MacCormack, and, with fancy footwork, maybe some forms of efilism (the jury is out on the latter). And, of course, the great Les U. Knight. I would add, with pleasure and respect, the formidable Marie Huot, but what I have seen of her writing may support iexan (= involuntarily extinctionist antinatalism) and that would be against my vexan grain. - As said, apologies for wasting your time - this is not a playlist that tries to tell you the universal truth, just a channel for me to clarify my thoughts on AN. I have, after all, been on this road for forty years and counting, but still learning new things every day, thanks to the supportive community. - I wish you all the best in your explorations into the mysteries of AN! Let's keep in touch! 🙂
@@mattihayry5060 Thank you for the response. I do not feel I wasted my time. Going through such things and thinking them through is valuable. We could surely fit many other philosophers (Eduard von Hartmann and Kurnig) as being extinctionists of some kind or antinatalists of some kind.
@@WackyConundrum Excellent that you did not feel that your time was wasted. I have serious gaps in the likes of Kurnig and von Hartmann but I will try to learn more about them and the rest of this interesting philosophy and movement. 🙂
That sounds about right to me, I might be a vexan. I just didn't understand the justification for sterilizing domesticated animals. Is it because the manipulative aspect is compensated by the reduction of potential suffering?
Something like that. Pay no heed, though. That is the part that is mightily unclear to me, as well. Just as a clarification, Marie Huot and @thecosmicantinalist target/ed stray animals, not pets. For pets, if we take the manipulation path that I suggest there, they should not even exist. The picture always gets dimmer in the fringes, sorry. 🙂
@@mattihayry5060 That's perfectly fine. Surely, it's a good thing to be humble and to recognize we don't have an clear answer for everything; ethics shouldn't be regarded as something easy. I also like how you somehow mix negative utilitarianism with deontologic principles.(Would this be a correct description of your ethics?) That seems a wise thing to do. Thank you very much for your answer :)
@@Antcraft15 Thanks! - I haven't thought about being in the business of doing a mixture of negative utilitarianism and some kind of Kantian avoidance of doing the wrong thing. But now that you mention it, it is there. Wow. R. M. Hare tried it with positive utilitarianism and some more fleshy type of Kantianism - I always thought that it just made him a slightly weird rule utilitarian with Kantian pretenses. Vestigia terrent. 😅
@@mattihayry5060 As for your question: a vexan has to be a vegan because everybody has to be a vegan anyway, and a vegan has to be a vexan because everybody has to be a vexan anyway. So, here you go, that's my homework teach, peace out!
![Роберт Сапольски - Биология религиозности [Vert Dider]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/7l1NhZ4EbEE/mqdefault.jpg)
00:00 Matti’s comeback to antinatalism
02:35 VEXAN Voluntarily Extinctionist Antinatalism
05:11 Further explanation - 2 justifications
06:34 Suffering
08:29 Manipulation
10:22 Objections
12:08 Alternatives : External
13:58 Alternative : Internal involuntary extinctionist antinatalism
16:44 Alternative : Non-extinctionist antinatalism
16:44 Alternative : Anthropocentrism
20:17 Tensions : Extinctionism Vs Antinatalism
22:08 Sterilization of stray animals vs wild animals
I watched the video a couple of times. I struggle to see why a new term (vexan / voluntarily extinctionist antinatalism) is even needed. I cannot find here anything new that I would not already get from David Benatar or Julio Cabrera. Benatar talks about what would happen if people stopped reproducing. He is also extending his views to other animals or sentient machines or aliens. Cabrera focuses a lot on the manipulative aspect of procreation and social life in general. What's new here? The only thing that is "new" is the weak preference for others to not reproduce, stated as "I would be pleased to see others acting like me in this respect" and as "I wouldn't mean if others acted the same", which hardly qualifies as an ethical position at all. Only later we're getting a leap into "No moral right to create new (non)human sufferers". But then again, this is already properly addressed in the literature, and with rigorous and careful argumentation. Again, what's new here?
Thank you for watching the video, and more than once to boot! And my apologies for wasting your time - not at all intended. - You are absolutely correct - there is nothing new under the sun in this "vexan" thing apart from a term that may or may not be usable in distinguishing different forms of AN. After I released this presentation, I have realized that, yes, David Benatar and Julio Cabrera, both great ANs, fit the category, as do, with some variation, Patricia MacCormack, and, with fancy footwork, maybe some forms of efilism (the jury is out on the latter). And, of course, the great Les U. Knight. I would add, with pleasure and respect, the formidable Marie Huot, but what I have seen of her writing may support iexan (= involuntarily extinctionist antinatalism) and that would be against my vexan grain. - As said, apologies for wasting your time - this is not a playlist that tries to tell you the universal truth, just a channel for me to clarify my thoughts on AN. I have, after all, been on this road for forty years and counting, but still learning new things every day, thanks to the supportive community. - I wish you all the best in your explorations into the mysteries of AN! Let's keep in touch! 🙂
@@mattihayry5060 Thank you for the response. I do not feel I wasted my time. Going through such things and thinking them through is valuable. We could surely fit many other philosophers (Eduard von Hartmann and Kurnig) as being extinctionists of some kind or antinatalists of some kind.
@@WackyConundrum Excellent that you did not feel that your time was wasted. I have serious gaps in the likes of Kurnig and von Hartmann but I will try to learn more about them and the rest of this interesting philosophy and movement. 🙂
That sounds about right to me, I might be a vexan. I just didn't understand the justification for sterilizing domesticated animals. Is it because the manipulative aspect is compensated by the reduction of potential suffering?
Something like that. Pay no heed, though. That is the part that is mightily unclear to me, as well. Just as a clarification, Marie Huot and @thecosmicantinalist target/ed stray animals, not pets. For pets, if we take the manipulation path that I suggest there, they should not even exist. The picture always gets dimmer in the fringes, sorry. 🙂
@@mattihayry5060 That's perfectly fine. Surely, it's a good thing to be humble and to recognize we don't have an clear answer for everything; ethics shouldn't be regarded as something easy.
I also like how you somehow mix negative utilitarianism with deontologic principles.(Would this be a correct description of your ethics?) That seems a wise thing to do.
Thank you very much for your answer :)
@@Antcraft15 Thanks! - I haven't thought about being in the business of doing a mixture of negative utilitarianism and some kind of Kantian avoidance of doing the wrong thing. But now that you mention it, it is there. Wow. R. M. Hare tried it with positive utilitarianism and some more fleshy type of Kantianism - I always thought that it just made him a slightly weird rule utilitarian with Kantian pretenses. Vestigia terrent. 😅
@@mattihayry5060 As for your question: a vexan has to be a vegan because everybody has to be a vegan anyway, and a vegan has to be a vexan because everybody has to be a vexan anyway. So, here you go, that's my homework teach, peace out!
@@Antcraft15 And there you go. Academically, I would have to ask you some more questions. Morally, you are spot on! 😇
9:00