Anti-natalism is the philosophical value judgment that procreation is unethical or unjustifiable. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from making children. Some antinatalists consider coming into existence to always be a serious harm. Their views are not necessarily limited only to humans but may encompass all sentient creatures, arguing that coming into existence is a serious harm for sentient beings in general. There are various reasons why antinatalists believe human reproduction is problematic. The most common arguments for antinatalism include that life entails inevitable suffering, death is inevitable, and humans are born without their consent. Additionally, although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person’s suffering. WIKIPEDIA
If you think, maybe for a few years, like 10-20 years, no one should make babies, and when things get better, we can continue, then you are not an anti-natalist. Anti-natalists believe that suffering will always be there and no one should be born EVER.
This photo was clicked by a friend, at Linnahall.
In a society whose official ideology is that “There is No Alternative”, antinatalism is basically a dressed up version of “it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”.
It’s basically just lack of imagination. Doomerist defeatism.
I think you’re misunderstanding anti-natalism if you believe it’s about envisioning the end of the world. It’s not that grand, nor that pessimistic. It was never meant to remedy shitty living conditions. It’s not a tool for embettering society, it’s a philosophical exercise that questions one’s right to create a person and subject them to sentience and suffering.
Imagining non-existence is anything but lacking imagination because it so abstract to our minds. To be anti-natalist, you must first have attempted to imagine that in order to compare it to existence before asking if you feel it is right to subject a human to that.
It’s a philosophical exercise that challenges social conventions about child-rearing. Don’t forget that it’s an excruciating ordeal for women too. There is suffering involved for all parties. Not all kids are born healthy, secure, and provided for.
Ask anyone with disabilities, abusive families, trauma, financial hardship, and generally going though too much shit in life and you’ll find that it was never about a lack of imagination. We suffer because we are able to imagine how things could have been so much better. It is because we can imagine ourselves in a better place that we ask if not being born is necessarily any worse. That isn’t a statement made with just pessimism, it’s made with genuine curiosity towards thinking back what ‘life’ was like before being born, and deciding that it is the greatest gift you can give to your hypothetical children.
You’re contradicting your own argument:
It was never meant to remedy shitty living conditions.
Vs
Ask anyone with disabilities, abusive families, trauma, financial hardship, and generally going though too much shit in life and you’ll find that it was never about a lack of imagination.
This is a contradiction. You are literally picking the antinatalist option because of shitty living conditions.
And of course, the lack of imagination is not whether you can imagine things being better but whether you can imagine things becoming better starting from where we are here and now.
=======
We suffer because we are able to imagine how things could have been so much better. It is because we can imagine ourselves in a better place
If you can imagine such a place, steelman your argument then, try making it without a premise of shitty living conditions. Pick a convivial world, and make an antinatalist argument from that world. Does it still stand?
=======
Finally, the argument that says nonexistence might be better is literally vacuous: False implies True. Nonexistence therefore is trivially whatever you want it to be, but not In any meaningful sense.
You are misinterpreting a crucial point. It’s not about remedying your own shitty living conditions, it’s about not creating one for others.
I don’t know how to state this more simply, but anti-natalism isn’t centered around improving the quality of life for yourself, it’s about not giving the opportunity to suffer for others.
It doesn’t change absolutely anything in my argument, it remains exactly the same. Antinatalism absconds not only the responsibility to improve the world but even the possibility of a better world existing in the future, it assumes à priori that existence is and will remain insufferable.
Nothing about anti-natalism rejects the possibility of improving the world.
To iterate a Buddhist belief, suffering is an inevitable part of existing. The point of anti-natalism is to avoid causing more people to suffer than necessary.
We are no where near the threat of extinction if most of us stop having children. The world is beyond overpopulated and there is no ecologically sound reason to have more kids.
Think of why we sterilize cats and dogs. It’s not because we are absolving ourselves the responsibility of improving their lives, it’s because we do not want them to create more just to suffer on the streets.
Anti-natalism is a response to natalism, a popularly held religious belief that one should have as many children as possible. It’s about rejecting social and cultural pressures to have kids on people who don’t want to.
The world is beyond overpopulated and there is no ecologically sound reason to have more kids.
This is just wrong. There are more than enough resources to go around. More homes than homeless, more food production than food insecure, more clothes than anyone could ever wear in a lifetime; things like transportation, energy, and production could be greatly optimized via collectivisation; and so on. The problem is endless profit-seeking and exploitation, not overpopulation.
The people that have access to these resources, many of which are extracted from the global south, consume way more than their fair share because of the infinite growth drive of capitalism. There is never “enough”, regardless of population; because to stagnate or to shrink is to fail under capitalism. Overconsumption is a problem that could be solved, quite comfortably I might add, if we were enabled collectively to put our minds to it.
You would do more to lessen suffering, by having kids and raising them to fight for that world; because that world is in fact possible; than to prevent their personal suffering by simply not bringing them into existence. Assuming anti-natalism is the only thing stopping you from having kids, of course; not everyone wants or needs to reproduce and I completely agree with destigmatizing that decision, but at least be honest that you just personally don’t want to be a parent. Don’t introduce new stigma for people that do want to be parents.
I take issue with this universal suffering idea. Sounds eugenics-ey. Cause it’s reasonably predictable which children will struggle more than others simply based on material conditions of their parents. It’s less of a “gamble”, for certain people who, often enough, just so happen to be directly responsible for some amount of suffering in the world. Even if I grant you that suffering is universal even in the most optimal conditions, it’s not like someone with optimal means is questioning the ethics of becoming a parent. And if they are, it’s most probably in the hyper-natalist, “populating the world with my superior spawn” direction like the musks of the world. Doesn’t anti-natalism kinda indirectly suggest leaving the world in those kinds of hands?
Also, humans are not cats and dogs and any ideology that leads you to make this comparison, especially w/r to population control and euthanasia, should be rejected just on the face of it. Point blank period.
There’s a certain degree of arrogance in thinking that you are contributing to a greater cause by potentially birthing and raising the next Einstein.
On paper, we may have enough resources to sustain the world population. In practice, we are no where nearly socially and politically progressive enough yet to support said population. Social progress doesn’t happen overnight. Birthing the next Nobel prize winner doesn’t instantly resolve climate change or end world hunger.
Of every person born, there will be far more people putting strain on a system that isn’t able to adequately distribute resources to those who need it. Most people make for dog shit parents.
I think existence is preferable to nonexistence. Sure life sucks a lot, but then there’s also the beauty hidden all around us, which when revealed, reminds me that it’s good that I didn’t kms. Similarly, it makes me glad to have been born in the first place.
Basically Malthusian eco-fascism. Nobody should be forced to have kids, having kids is a huge commitment that should be reserved for those who want kids, but the “humans are the virus” crowd just play into reactionary hands and cede all control to those directly responsible for the worst excess.
I do not subscribe to the All Life is Suffering idea. Personally enjoy being physically embodied so much. My kids seem glad to exist too. We are the universe looking back at itself, it’s just so wonderful to get any time at all here to experience this.
I would never argue for everyone to have babies, at all. You have your own life, do what you want. But I don’t at all agree with extinction of all life because “suffering”. Yes that is part of life but it’s not all of it, not nearly.
You do not recognize that you are viewing things from a position of tremendous privilege. You need to incorporate that into your understanding. You gambled, and seemingly you won. That’s wonderful. But you cannot extrapolate from that alone and get meaningful understanding, just rationalizations and justifications.
I do recognize how lucky I am now, to be able to see and hear and read and dance, to be living on a world with such a beautiful sky, with the biological equipment to be able to perceive it! To have no chronic pain but to have occasional crippling migraines that give me perspective on how I don’t have chronic pain.
No idea what gives you the impression I don’t know this? Do you believe all life is suffering?
I think it will die out.
I think suffering is just part of the human condition. It has always been there and always will. To think that our times are special enough to warrant a movement like antinatalism, is ridiculously arrogant. It’s like cultusts who commit mass suicide because the aliens will come rescue them.
In fact, suffering has been on a steady decline for ages.To think that our times are special enough to warrant a movement like antinatalism
Antinatalism is a question first asked by ancient Greek philosophers. The modern antinatalism movement is… not so philosophical.
I’m now the mod of antinatalism on lemmy.world because the previous mod bombed a fertility clinic and I don’t want crazies like him running the sub or posting extremist content.
I believe that discussing antinatalism as an answer rather than a thought exercise is a mistake.
I reject antinatalism because I believe that suffering is not always a negative.
Could an artist not suffer for their work that brings great joy to themselves and others? Is that suffering not then worthy and good?
If something is worthy and good then denying others the opportunity to exist and be worthy and good is itself immoral.
Do I get this right? You’re the mod of the antinatalism community on lemmy.world, but you reject antinatalism?
That sounds like a difficult duality to balance, as a mod.
Disagreeing with a philosophical stance doesn’t mean that I need to be biased in moderation.
I find antinatalism to be an interesting philosophical exercise and welcome discussion about that and people’s personal choices based on the philosophy.
…as long as they aren’t bombing stuff.
Which brings up interesting questions about liberty and if you have a right to help people who can’t ask for help or don’t want it.
It depends heavily. If youre choosing not to have kids because you think youre unable to provide a decent quality of life, or because you just dont feel the urge, or because you’re having too much fun looking after #1 then cool.
I accidentally stumbled into r/antinatalism once though, and their reasoning seems to be “too scared to kill myself. Life is suffering. Fuck your cumpet.” Which, you know, its hard to argue against but its not a reason that sits well with me.
cumpet
Yanno for movement that claims to prevent suffering of unborn children , they sure do have contempt for children
I don’t want to die, but if I could un-exist like Marty McFly disappearing from a photograph I would choose it in an instant. I have a pretty privileged life but, even for me, if I try to honestly inventory my experience there appears to be more suffering than pleasure. I don’t think this is unfair or unnatural, I believe suffering is integral to being alive because it’s how organisms respond and adapt to a world that is constantly trying to dis-organize them. Basically you can’t have life without it, given the laws of physics.
I don’t think “humans are a virus” is correct because it’s a pejorative and I don’t think viruses or humans are inherently bad. If I was going to classify anything as bad it would be the capacity to suffer, which is so foundational it actually informs the concept of “bad” rather than they other way around. I think suffering also becomes more acute the more processing power you have. Unfortunately for Agent Smith, the “virus” is intelligence and the machines already caught it.
I admit my ideas are probably half-baked on this because I just don’t feel articulate or intelligent enough to describe it. All I have is my own experience. As far as I can see, it appears that more complex animals have a greater capacity for suffering than less complex ones. It seems that the mechanisms of suffering are “body stuff”, mainly nerves, and more complex organisms simply have more of those in more robust configurations. This might just be cope, because the alternative is horrific. As a kid I looked through a microscope and saw an entire world of rotifers and paramecia ripping each other apart, struggling for energy, and realized that if all organisms can experience the same “level” of suffering than we are truly in Hell. It was literally inconceivable.
I don’t care for the “antinatalist” label. I admit that suffering is hard to quantify and may be totally subjective. This is why I don’t mind what other people choose to believe. It’s none of my business. Based on my subjective experience I will not be doing so. Sometimes people pry into why I don’t have kids and I am forced to expose my beliefs. Suddenly, in their eyes, I become an evangelist. I’m not. They won’t engage with the notion of 'the non-existent mind". They constantly argue from the position of a hypothetical mind that chooses stuff. Eventually they think I’m suicidal because in their mind dying and non-existence are the same. They also get angry and insulted even though I’m leaving more resources for their own children by not having my own which, by their logic, should be good. So I just don’t bother. Do what you want. Maybe they are right.
I think suffering also becomes more acute the more processing power you have.
I think this is right. If you’re more sensitive, you learn more about your environment because you pay more attention to it, but you also perceive pain more intensely. That is why sensitivity is both a blessing and a curse.
While there is the argument of not contributing to overpopulation, in my view anti-natalism is the application of moral utilitarianism to an absurd degree. I also think it can (not will of course) lead to eugenics policies. Indeed, a poor person birthing a child more immoral than a rich person. Certainly the rich child is much more likely to live a better life than the poor. Should we therefore be more willing to regulate the reproductive capabilities of the poor? I think this is where anti-natalism breaks down - forcing it on anyone, or creating policy to support it, is in my view will always be deeply immoral.
I’m not an anti-natalist, but I won’t create a life out of nowhere just for it to become “wasteland thug #3” in the post-apocalyptic movie our future is going to become.
While certainly don’t appreciate being born (and correct about life = suffering no gꝏd outweighing it in my case) , dœsn’t mean procreation inherently unethical (although true peops often have children for selfish reasons)
Tꝏk lꝏk at antinatalist subreddit some years ago (curiosity) , felt more like contempt for (women|children) disguised as philosophical stance . “Breeder” used lots there :
- Implies women’s primary functions producing children (cannot be any thing other) , reduces women to their capacity for pregnancy
- Implies all women “chuse” to have kids
- Derogatory word toward black women during slavery , where they were forced to have children that would later be sold into said slavery
Also don’t think demanding every one stop having children dœs anything to reduce inherent suffering that comes with being living organism
It’s a very complex issue.
On one have. Having children or not is a deep freedom that feels wrong to constraint, one way or the other. I don’t think messing around with “how many lids” should anyone have is good.
But on the other hand, I reason that resources are not limitless, and human footprint on the environment will be bigger the more humans there are. So O do think that the world would be a nicer place if there was less humans around. Less pollution, less worrying about ending up resources, more available land for each human, less over-crowdled everything.
But I won’t be the one saying anyone to control their biological functions like that. At most I just wish more people realized of this and would voluntarily try to find a stable number of humans on earth that would be an order of magnitude less than we have now.
So yeah, in general I don’t agree with anti-natalism as presented.
My relationship with antinatalism is very complicated.
First off, I personally will not be procreating, for multiple reasons.
Chief among those is the fact that I live in an ever worsening capitalist, patriarchal, xenophobic hellscape; even socialist countries are a long long way away from anything resembling communism, still require a lot of labor from their citizens in exchange for basic necessities (with good reasons), and patriarchy very much persists there. I have hope that we as a species can overcome this eventually, just as we mostly overcame slavery and achieved some semblance of emancipation for many oppressed minorities.
Another, more permanent reason: despite my relative privileges, my own experience of life has been very mixed, and I perceive there to be more suffering than happiness. Suffering is just a way for our body to push our brain to do something the body needs to survive; human beings have a lot of needs to be met, and as long as there are at least a couple that are not you will suffer (not accounting for things like drugs or other extreme dopamine hits which come with their own set of issues). Another big issue is how our bodies normalize the level of suffering to their environment; this is good because it allows us to get by with very little without going insane, but on the flipside even if you have all the basic needs met, the body is always demanding more via suffering. You can observe this by looking at rich people: even though their needs are met with seeming abundance, they crave to experience more and different pleasures, and suffer in the process of trying to achieve them. While frivolous, I think the suffering they experience is still real and similar to that of our own. I don’t feel any compassion for them (after all, for most of them their wealth was stolen from less fortunate), but it’s a good example.
As such, I personally don’t want to bring a new being into this world, mostly to suffer their way through life.
However, I also know for sure that different people experience life differently. I know that people with much worse material conditions than mine perceive themselves (and thus their life) to be overall happy, despite there being plenty of suffering too. I don’t know whether it’s a genetic or learnt trait of their psychology; in any case, I think those people are more likely to produce offspring who experience a happy life, and wish them the best in doing so. My hope is that they bring up their kids in the right way - both so that they are happy, and also able to eventually overcome all the issues in the third paragraph.
The argument for “you can’t consent to being born” does have a direct opposite argument: you also can’t not consent to birth. The birth is what gives the ability to consent or not in the first place. You could argue that by being anti-natalist you’re taking someone’s potential to give consent completely away, which is the same or more unethical, you’re essentially deciding for someone else that they should die/not exist without them getting a say in it?
You can do the same with suffering: life is happiness, everyone I know was happy sometime in their life (even if only as a child), so you’re doing serious harm by not allowing people to have happiness since only people who exist can be happy.
I think anti-natalism is a philosophy mainly held by very traumatized people and/or that live in very bad conditions.
We know (roughly) how to handle trauma, we know (roughly) what makes good conditions. We know roughly what makes people happy or what makes them suffer. We have the potential to create a world where being born is mostly positive for everyone.
In that sense, currently, I think mostly people that are well off should have children, ones that can actually support children properly. However, that is obviously not a permanent solution, since the end goal should be for everyone to be well off and to be able to support children.
But part of the suffering in the world is also caused by too many people. We can’t have infinite population growth while living in a world with finite resources. As such, we need to limit how many children people can have (which is already happening by availability of birth control and smarter people, able to make a choice if they want to have kids).
So in total, I don’t think birth/existence is either good or bad, but it has the potential to be both depending on how we handle it.
I think humanity is a species of excess. The harm we cause our planet every day by not seeing the bigger picture is hurting pretty much everything on the planet.
I’m not an antinatalist, but I think we could stand to decrease our numbers rather than increase them at least for a couple of centuries.
