Welcome admin !

It is currently Sun Oct 22, 2017 6:03 pm
Pathway:  Board index General Discussion Forum and Lounge Current Events & Politics

In Defense of Antinatalism

In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:49 pm

This topic will be different from the norm.

I will post an interesting post I've read from a redditer and then substantiate it with relevant ecological and anti-progressivist information in red. I am adding more weight to his three-piece argument. The red will be in my own words, but I will be supplementing his black and bolded premises. I'm pretty sure some people have been wondering what my political views really are exactly, and it's pretty much identical to the "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" (VHEMT). This movement simply encourages people to not procreate for ecological reasons, but I also go an extra step further and accept it for philosophical reasons too.

Quote taken from this redditer here.

Look at these pictures before responding. Click "Load the entire album, 28 images total (18 remaining)" to see the rest.

I am a strong proponent of antinatalism. I know of a variety of arguments, all supporting each other depending on what premises you agree on. I'll summarize them below.

1, Asymmetry: Supported by David Benatar, asymmetry views life as always worse than nonexistence, and so it is always immoral to impose it on a child. This asymmetry comes from examinations of positive mental states and negative mental states. Nonexistent beings cannot be deprived of good things, as deprivation is a mental state requiring existence, but they can be spared bad things, which, even if they cannot appreciate being spared, is desirable. I feel as if this argument is too subjective and easy to simply disagree with, but I personally believe in it.

2, Consent: Imagine this thought experiment. You have a golden brick, and the only way to deliver it to a recipient is to throw it through their window without asking. Now most people will love the gift, as it will easily pay for the window, and make them quite wealthy, at least for a short time. But, there is a tiny chance you will kill their child, or some other horrible outcome. Therefore, due to a lack of consent, it is always immoral to throw the brick, even if you get away with it most of the time. The analogy being obvious, the only thing that is required is to use statistics to show that there is a non-negligible chance of someone experiencing significant suffering during their lives, and more importantly, not seeing it as worthwhile. This argument's weakness is that it requires one to reject the creation of countless happy people for a single miserable person. I stand firm, however, with the observation that there will always be people that experience significant amounts of suffering even in first world countries, (mental illness, abuse, financial calamities, illness, etc.) and that no amount of happy people can ever justify the suffering in others.


Moreover, with increasing environmental damage, there is the possibility of an imminent collapse in the upcoming decades. Every great civilization comes to an end within the recursive rhythms of history and the warnings always loom in the background foreshadowing greater chaos. As William Blake said, "A Dog starv’d at his Master’s Gate / Predicts the ruin of the State." The "ruin of the State" has historically devolved into riots and bloodshed, and no amount of happiness can justify the pain in enduring it. The biggest concerns are:

1. Peak oil
2. Peak phosphorus
3. Peak water
4. Climate change making us use even more water
5. Climate change creating positive feedback loops and releasing even more methane
6. Ocean acidification
7. Overfishing helping climate change and ocean acidification with extinction of marine species
8. plant and animal die-offs (i.e., 75 to 90 percent drops in fish harvests, up to 90 percent of deep sea fishing areas now dead zones, deforestation and damage to coral reefs, amphibian biodiversity die-off which formed massive part of ecosystem, etc)
9. conflict ("the twentieth century being one of the bloodiest in human history, twentyfold increase in small arms production worldwide, militarization in China, Russia, and other countries, invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, etc., future resource wars").
Sources: this, this, and this which provide good sources.

Eventually these will come to bite us in the ass, especially the amphibian die-out considering how integral they are to the ecosystem. Therefore, the golden brick has a higher probability to "smash our brains in". As a consequence, it is best not to have a kid. Consider this added thought-experiment: if a German Jew closely before the Holocaust had forenotice of its future occurrence, then giving birth to kids would be immoral; if a Persian had strong suspicions of impending genocidal Mongol invasions (i.e., wiped out about 10-15 million Persian), then giving birth to kids would also be immoral.

All of these present environmental issues have a high chance of leading to the collapse of global capitalism. It is summarized as "a collapse of global capitalism, prompted by increasing money supply (much of which involves numbers in bank accounts), to fuel increasing production which involves increasing resource consumption, to meet increasing per capita demand and population," and it won't be pretty...


3, Big Picture: Look at the human race as a whole, and of all the horrible things that have happened. Every massacre, every child watching their parents die, every mental illness, every person tortured, etc. Now ask yourself, was the whole thing worth it? Can there ever be enough happy people born to make the Holocaust "okay" if you had to choose between all or nothing? Now consider that all these massacres, abusive childhoods, mental illnesses, and horrifying acts of war, and realize that they will all likely happen again. We can't turn back the clock, but we can still stop now. This is also a bit weak, due to reasons discussed below.

Science will not help mitigate our environmental damage that occurs at an alarming rate. Those who actually know science beyond secondary sources, that is read primary journal articles and understand the methods & designs in-depth, generally are more pessimistic about mankind's ability to reach an envisioned postcyberpunk future. Many of these obstacles are simply insurmountable within our post-industrial capitalist lifestyle and other technical limitations (e.g., we definitely won't have advanced neural augmentations as Ray Kurzweil predicts).

Note, consider how "the average person generates 4.3 pounds of waste per day. This is 1.6 pounds more than most produced back in 1960". These damages are summative and have long-term consequences, making the system more unstable than we've originally believed.

As someone with a strong background in Neuroscience, I can tell you stuff like being able to reverse-engineer the brain or making a stem-cell reconstruction of the brain are all exaggerated. We will not have a Transhumanist future.

I recommend reading English philosophy John Gray if you want more arguments against progressivism. His books are very good too, but the Wikipedia is good for an introduction.

We are not living in more "peaceful" times. Personally, I don't accept Stephen Pinker's stats we are living in more peaceful times. Mankind's nature is one of warfare and brutality. To quote John Gray

"...the numbers do not add up. Pinker’s method for assessing the relative ferocity of different centuries is to calculate the total of violent deaths not as an absolute quantity, but as a percentage of global population. But statistical comparisons like that are notoriously vacuous. Population sample sizes can vary by billions, but a single life remains a static sum, so the smaller the sample the larger the percentage each life represents. Obviously, though, a remote Inuit village of one hundred souls where someone gets killed in a fistfight is not twice as violent as a nation of 200 million that exterminates one million of its citizens. And even where the orders of magnitude are not quite so divergent, comparison on a global scale is useless, especially since over the past century modern medicine has reduced infant mortality and radically extended life spans nearly everywhere (meaning, for one thing, there are now far more persons too young or too old to fight). So Pinker’s assertion that a person would be thirty-five times more likely to be murdered in the Middle Ages than now is empirically meaningless.

In the end, what Pinker calls a “decline of violence” in modernity actually has been, in real body counts, a continual and extravagant increase in violence that has been outstripped by an even more exorbitant demographic explosion. Well, not to put too fine a point on it: So what? What on earth can he truly imagine that tells us about “progress” or “Enlightenment”—or about the past, the present, or the future? By all means, praise the modern world for what is good about it, but spare us the mythology."
- John Gray

Or in other words, it's individuals who suffer and die, not percentages and proportions, and there are more individuals suffering than ever before.

Source: http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magaz ... tT8_vkkV84


Now I will summarize counter argument I've heard, and my responses to them.

1, Non-Identity: The counter argument is, that an unborn child does not exist, and therefore, there is no entity that can be harmed with creation. I respond in two ways: one, the entity does already exist - you are arranging atoms into the form of an entity that can feel pain. Second, with a thought experiment: if it is never wrong to create life, is it then okay to create a child in hell? Of course not. However, I've also heard the utilitarian counter-counter-counter argument, that it's still wrong to create a child in hell, because net utility goes down. I respond to this, (fourth-degree counter argument,) with a thought experiment with a person being tortured for 100 years, but infinity people with ice cream cones - the utility comes out positive no matter how you weight them, (assuming finite weightings,) and so clearly utilitarianism can't be applied in this way. My last comment is that childbirth is a special case: it's an action that generates its victim, and so it deserves special consideration, and cannot be brushed aside because of its unique nature.

Consider also the fact that a few other animals are considered "non-human persons" and could be generated as victims: "non-human persons" include great apes (e.g., chimpanzees+orangutans), elephants, dolphins, whales, and corvids. They are established to possess a "theory of mind" (i.e., "capable of modeling the thinking of others and attribute mental beliefs, desires, and intentions to both oneself and others") (source). In other words, they can link each instance of a mental state sequentially and continuously in their thought. Unlike other animals, they do not experience mental states as isolated points of disparate events. These animals should definitely not be considered primitive.

Now consider how humans are destroying the environment and even abuse these "non-human persons" through whaling (e.g., this just recently), slavery of elephants, and so forth. Their environmental damage also has consequences such as dolphins dying in fisherman nets, elephants dying from deforestation, and so forth. This is stuff everyone ought to know! They suffer a comparable level as us, if not more. By bringing a child into this world, you don't just make it hard for humans but also non-human persons.

Even intensive family factory is kinda disgusting. Even though the animals exploited have no "theory of mind", they presumably possess some degree of metacognition (i.e., awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes). You can read more about animal consciousness here. In short: our way of living is unsustainable and destructive.


2, Futility: Humanity will never voluntarily go extinct, so you might as well have kids if you deem yourself a good parent. This is really only a counter argument to point 3 above. People will never stop killing each other. People will never stop torturing each other, and abusing their children, and stealing from old people, etc. This doesn't make it okay for one person - personally, you can still do the right thing, even if everyone around you does not. However, a friend of mine brought up an interesting thought experiment. Would I sterilize 99% of the human race if I could? That 1% would likely keep going, albeit in a world of plunging quality. So, childbirth is a strange immoral action - the more people do it, the less bad it gets, (ignoring problems like overpopulation, which would support my argument as a whole anyway,) from an economic standpoint. I replied that no, I wouldn't, because that 1% would probably keep going, but many generations would suffer until the world was back up to where it is now.

Human beings, historically, have been best at coming up with creative torture methods. The Nordic people came up with "blood eagle", my Persian ancestors with "scaphism", East Asians with "lingchi", and so forth. There is no end to torture methods and even Americans continue to do it. In the recent declassified CIA document, an innocent mentally handicapped man was tortured for potential information from his family. Turns out, he was innocent. Stuff like illegal organ trade, sex trafficking and tourism, and so forth are all problems too.

It is futile to attempt to change mankind's violent nature. This is discussed here where I post sources debunking Stephen Pinker's claim we're living in less violent times


3, Alternate Values: You can easily reject asymmetry and reject the worth of consent, saying that "it's okay that some people suffer - as a whole we're getting better." While I think that this is not intuitive to throw people under the bus just so we can keep going with our ice cream and iPods, I run out of arguments quite quickly when you start rejecting these critical kernels. After all, this is an ethics discussion - we can only prove each other inconsistent or intuitive.

Watch the end of the film Starry Eyes (2014). If you're okay with accepting the risk of something like the ending happening, which I won't spoil, then you're insane. And that is what mankind is as a whole: an insane, parasitic manic-breeding species that doesn't know what it means to be free. Without kids, there is a higher chance for mystical insight or "gnosis", as the Ch'an Buddhist and Gnostic Christian traditions put emphasis on. War is basically equivalent to the end of Starry Eyes but on a massive scale, and to bring children into that is inherently immoral.

In conclusion: having children is intrinsically immoral.


Finally, there is another argument I will not get into. It has to do with how children are not an extension of an "egocentric field". They are not truly owned or "mine" so-to-speak, but this is far more nuanced and difficult to get into. I think one thing to consider is how the phenomenal property of mineness generates illusions for conventional purposes. To quote Thomas Metzinger, "All representational states which are embedded into the currently active self-model gain the additional property of phenomenal mineness (i.e., nonconceptual sense of ownership)." This nonconceptual sense of ownership is extended to the family unit and even tool we use. For example, hold a stick for a long time and eventually you'll feel as if its tip is a part of "yourself". That's an illusion perpetuated by the brain.

Do we share a "link", besides some genetic material, with those we call our children? It's a serious metaphysical question, but modern empirical science generally points to "no".
Last edited by Samsaric Spiral on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Mon Oct 19, 2015 6:50 pm

"Reproduction and the carbon legacies of individuals": An American woman driving a more fuel-efficient car, improving the energy efficiency of her house, recycling, and making similar lifestyle changes would save 486 tons of CO2 emissions during her lifetime, while choosing to have one less child would save 9,441 tons.

http://t.biologicaldiversity.org/progra ... nStudy.pdf
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby partofit22 on Mon Oct 19, 2015 9:30 pm

Samsaric Spiral wrote:Do we share a "link", besides some genetic material, with those we call our children? It's a serious metaphysical question, but modern empirical science generally points to "no".


I don't believe that people (any age) belong to anyone but do believe the shared link is responsibility-
partofit22
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby fukasetsu on Tue Oct 20, 2015 12:31 am

Samsaric Spiral wrote:
Do we share a "link", besides some genetic material, with those we call our children? It's a serious metaphysical question, but modern empirical science generally points to "no".


Everything is connected to everything, nevertheless such inquiries are born from confusion so they need no "yes or no" answer, when it is seen on what the question depends, then the question no longer arises and there's no yearning for either confirming or denying. To all dualistic questions the answer is simple, there can be no quarrel among the imaginative, yes or no do not apply.
Everyone for President!
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7259
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:21 am

The crux of the argument does not rest on that though.
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby fukasetsu on Tue Oct 20, 2015 2:27 am

Samsaric Spiral wrote:The crux of the argument does not rest on that though.


(That's ) Not my cup of tea anymore friend, just follow your heart without passing judgment on humanoid stuff or be too concerned whether someone understands your views or not, your actions matter not talk and views.
Everyone for President!
User avatar
fukasetsu
 
Posts: 7259
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:17 am
Location: The Netherlands

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Tue Oct 20, 2015 9:56 pm

I think early Chan had antinatalistic leanings though.
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby desert_woodworker on Wed Oct 21, 2015 12:38 am

SS,

Samsaric Spiral wrote:I think early Chan had antinatalistic leanings though.

Let's not be in the dark about the reasons for it, however.

First of all, monastics in that milieu were (supposed to be) celibate. This allowed full dedication of energies to the practice, and to service. And, it prevented nepotism in the running of monasteries. Overall, a good policy, I'd say.

But let's be clear that there was no concern about overpopulating the world and outstripping the capabilities of food cultivation, then, in those days. Maybe not until Malthus (1766 -1834), in the ...West!

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7244
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Michaeljc on Wed Oct 21, 2015 1:00 am

We have the OX-tiger by the tail

Get used to it

There is an even more direct means to achieve the objective: commit suicide

m
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:23 am

Michaeljc wrote:We have the OX-tiger by the tail

Get used to it

There is an even more direct means to achieve the objective: commit suicide


Antinatalism does not entail omnicide or suicidal/murderous urges. It is simply a logical entailment of negative consequentialism, as the first post illustrated. Schopenhauer shared similar views, and he was a Western philosophy heavily influenced by Dharmic religions.

It is actually more compassionate to refrain from having children for all the reasons enumerated. The crux of the argument did not solely rest on ecological concerns. There are ethical arguments irrespective of our environmental crises there. Read the Reddit post here without my additions, or simply read the bolded paragraphs without the red text in the quote in Post #1.

Also, I have reported your message, Michaeljc. Your condescending tone and hinting suicide is the best objective are not appreciated.

desert_woodworker wrote:But let's be clear that there was no concern about overpopulating the world and outstripping the capabilities of food cultivation, then, in those days. Maybe not until Malthus (1766 -1834), in the ...West!


The crux of the argument did not solely rest on ecological concerns. There are ethical arguments irrespective of our environmental crises there. Read the Reddit post here without my additions, or simply read the bolded paragraphs without the red text in the quote in Post #1.

Here, let me give you two quotes, and I want you to think about their symbiotic relationship:

1. From the essay, "Look at the human race as a whole, and of all the horrible things that have happened. Every massacre, every child watching their parents die, every mental illness, every person tortured, etc. Now ask yourself, was the whole thing worth it?"

2. From Nietzsche's Will to Power, "If we affirm one moment, we thus affirm not only ourselves but all existence. For nothing is self-sufficient, neither in us ourselves nor in things..."

Let's say human history can be seen as both infinite suffering and infinite pleasure, and it is all reflected in this present moment. Now ask yourself, "Can there ever be enough happy people born to make the Holocaust okay if you had to choose between all or nothing?" Now consider that all these massacres, abusive childhoods, mental illnesses, and horrifying acts of war, and realize that they will all likely happen again.

I've already successfully encouraged three people in real life to become antinatalists. It's not okay that some people suffer - as a whole we're still messed up. There is something fundamentally flawed with mankind's self-consciousness, and I did go into it a bit by mentioning mankind's general creativity in torture methods. I mean, if you don't read my post fully, you won't understand what I'm talking about.
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Michaeljc on Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:50 am

Also, I have reported your message, Michaeljc. Your condescending tone and hinting suicide is the best objective are not appreciated


Oh come on!

Refrain from having children (as a general policy relating to others) to save the planet yet you/I live merrily on :blush:

I have seen some wacky ideas on this forum but this one takes the cake
User avatar
Michaeljc
 
Posts: 3670
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 3:36 pm
Location: Raglan New Zealand

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Wed Oct 21, 2015 4:33 pm

Michaeljc wrote:
Also, I have reported your message, Michaeljc. Your condescending tone and hinting suicide is the best objective are not appreciated


Oh come on!

Refrain from having children (as a general policy relating to others) to save the planet yet you/I live merrily on :blush:

I have seen some wacky ideas on this forum but this one takes the cake


I said it twice, and I'll say it twice now: the crux of the argument did not solely rest on saving the planet. There are ethical arguments irrespective of our environmental crises there. Read the Reddit post here without my additions, or simply read the bolded paragraphs without the red text in the quote in Post #1.

Also, this may come to a surprise to you, but I do not care about saving the planet. I think nature is blind and unintentionally cruel, like a young mischievous child, and I like Lars von Tier's Antichrist. The only reason I argue for antinatalism is to prevent suffering. Nothing other than suffering arises, nothing other than suffering ceases, there is no person to be found (from an older Pali sutta). If you read the argument closely, you'd see that's the only reason I really care.

These views may be bleak, but I stick to life because of responsibility and attachment. When one has wisdom and ethnical insight, I believe bringing children into this world is irresponsible, but if we do, we then paradoxically become responsible for them. However, given the arguments I provided, there are no guarantees in life and the potential for great suffering and catastrophe becomes like a vacuum to all meaning. I go deeper into this stuff in 1st post, the black bolded and not red text.

I think Von Hartmann was a good Bodhisattva:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rober ... n_Hartmann
Last edited by Samsaric Spiral on Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby desert_woodworker on Wed Oct 21, 2015 5:46 pm

SS,

I'm no fan of Niet-zsche's point(s) of view, not now, not ever (and I say to it, "niet!" :) ).

Some Buddhists sense that we can "create a Pure Land on earth", and work toward it. This sounds good to me, and has always sounded good. It won't be enjoyed, though, if there are no people to enjoy it and continue it. But enjoyment is not entirely the only point. I think we have to be clear, instead, that there is NO point, other than sharing, communication, study, understanding, appreciation, and shared work. The EXPERIENCE of these things.

I won't consider the question you raise after your consideration of selected elements of History, asking, "Was it worth it?" I know you're serious about this matter. I am too. For myself, I make decisions about bringing children into the world and raising them only for myself and for my family. For others, I make no such decisions, nor arguments "for" or "against".

I'll say, however, that it would probably be better for all species and all beings if the Human population of the earth were much smaller than it is now. It will probably be so in the future.

--Joe
User avatar
desert_woodworker
 
Posts: 7244
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2012 5:09 am
Location: southern Arizona, USA

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Wed Oct 21, 2015 6:20 pm

desert_woodworker wrote:SS,

I'm no fan of Niet-zsche's point(s) of view, not now, not ever (and I say to it, "niet!" :) ).


Nietzsche has more of an amor fati view of life unlike Schopenhauer. Nietzsche is more about the transvulation of values (i.e., "look beyond the traditional values and undergo the transformation necessary to obtain new, true values") whereas Schopenhauer is more about the denial of the will (i.e., not really different from older Ch'an, check here).

Nietzsche would mock me for this, but Schopenhauer would praise my argument, I feel.

Some Buddhists sense that we can "create a Pure Land on earth", and work toward it. This sounds good to me, and has always sounded good. It won't be enjoyed, though, if there are no people to enjoy it and continue it. But enjoyment is not entirely the only point. I think we have to be clear, instead, that there is NO point, other than sharing, communication, study, understanding, appreciation, and shared work. The EXPERIENCE of these things.


I think the experience of immense suffering can make one understand there is no point, and therefore, they choose not to procreate, since that requires the illusion of a point to sapient organisms. Furthermore, if they do make the mistake of procreating, they can encourage their kids not to continue it. I recommend watching Lars von Trier's Melancholia and Ingmar Bergman's Virgin Spring, which are masterpieces.

The point is life is a blind and self-devouring Ouroboros. Why bring a child into this carnivorous universe only to have everything he holds dear upended? Look at the yellow brick thought experiment.

Even the selfish reason of wanting someone to tend to your needs when you're older seems a bit spurious at best.

I won't consider the question you raise after your consideration of selected elements of History, asking, "Was it worth it?" I know you're serious about this matter. I am too. For myself, I make decisions about bringing children into the world and raising them only for myself and for my family. For others, I make no such decisions, nor arguments "for" or "against".


I believe with more honest self-reflection, people would reconsider having kids. Truth is, the solidarity we feel with groups is an illusion, for the aloneness is the more basic fact of existence. Even familial unities do not coalesce. I discussed this in another topic where I argued difference is constitutive and foundation using Dharmakirti's arguments to substantiate my own:

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=11293

My fiance's father told her not to have kids either because it brings more Dukkha. They are East Asian Buddhists. I don't want to disclose too much of my personal info, but Dharmic religions are a bit more open to this kind of dialogue and practitioners should consider it more seriously. Only the Japanese during Meiji era made Zen more commodified for families, allowing monks to marry and have children, and as a process, it made it more naive and a "feel good message". There is no justification for having kids within Buddhist paradigm.

However, at the same time, it is false there is also no justification for not having kids within Buddhist paradigm. See, when one learns about human history, the horrifying aloneness of Dukkha, and so forth, one develops compassion from the praxis of Buddhist practice and meditation/Zazen. Therefore, they avoid the flippant attitude of a Marquis de Sade by becoming strict negative consequentialists (i.e., "focuses on minimizing bad consequences rather than promoting good consequences. This may actually require active intervention to prevent harm from being done, or may only require passive avoidance of bad outcomes). If you read my argument fully and give it consideration, you'd see one consequence is not having kids.

I'll say, however, that it would probably be better for all species and all beings if the Human population of the earth were much smaller than it is now. It will probably be so in the future.


Refraining from having children is not equivalent to murder or omnicide. By encouraging one not to have kids, one is being more compassionate. Fact is, I cannot guarantee a happy life to anyone.

When one has a kid, within my ethics, the best thing is simply to encourage one's own kid not to perpetuate the error(s).

There are experiences that could make me wish I was never born. I hope I never experience them, but the potential is strong there. I believe, having kids when such scenarios are highly likely is unethical. I went more in-depth in the first post if you give it more consideration.

it is best for all sapient organisms to not procreate

Also, somewhat relevant, from True Detective, Season 1:

Rustin Cohle: I'd consider myself a realist, alright? But in philosophical terms I'm what's called a pessimist... I think human consciousness is a tragic misstep in evolution. We became too self-aware. Nature created an aspect of nature separate from itself - we are creatures that should not exist by natural law... We are things that labor under the illusion of having a self, that accretion of sensory experience and feelings, programmed with total assurance that we are each somebody, when in fact everbody's nobody... I think the honorable thing for our species to do is to deny our programming. Stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction - one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal.



It's just a paraphrased rip-off from Thomas Ligotti's philosophical text The Conspiracy Against the Human Race, but it is still good pop-culture reference to get my points across.
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby macdougdoug on Wed Oct 21, 2015 8:22 pm

Howdy!

Is the belief also akin to the movie 'minority report' where one arrests potential criminals before they commit the crime?

Anyways, one should probably act according to one's beliefs in order to avoid an ulcer. Sharing one's beliefs with likeminded individuals is also very rewarding - people who believe the opposite however would rather bite their arm off than renounce their belief/identity. Our principals and ideology give us a sense of pride and belonging, especially if one has the best ideologies.

Remember however that these ideologies depend on our experience of society, culture etc and cannot be the same for everyone (thank Gött) and often develop in the same person over time. Proper zazen should be having some sort of softening effect on the walls of our world view (zazen coupled I suppose with a firm comprehension of our psychological self) letting us function more efficiently no matter the beliefs of any of our friends.

Sorry, gotta go. I'll just say I didn't want kids, til i became a father, but then I was no longer the same person and neither was the world.
User avatar
macdougdoug
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Mar 01, 2013 7:11 pm
Location: France

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Wed Oct 21, 2015 9:05 pm

macdougdoug wrote:Is the belief also akin to the movie 'minority report' where one arrests potential criminals before they commit the crime?


False equivalence.

Our principals and ideology give us a sense of pride and belonging, especially if one has the best ideologies.


That sense of pride and belonging are delusions for the sake of orienting ourselves for conventional purposes.

Buddhist practice is about cessation of dukkha, and desiring children involves perpetuating dukkha based off delusions such as continuing one's lineage, and so forth.

Proper zazen should be having some sort of softening effect on the walls of our world view (zazen coupled I suppose with a firm comprehension of our psychological self) letting us function more efficiently no matter the beliefs of any of our friends.


I am not an exclusionist. I am simply challenging some commonly held assumptions. Just because one doesn't concur doesn't mean I condemn and ostracize them.

I'll just say I didn't want kids, til i became a father, but then I was no longer the same person and neither was the world.


Irrelevant personal information.

In the constant struggle and strife, what is mankind moving towards? An illusory dream with no end in sight. My hands are like sand and all these accomplishments are nothing more than sand too. It's just an illusion that anything is being held onto. Even the narratives you tell yourself, they're not grounded in anything substantive, for ultimately, it is difference that is constitutive, not identity. I recommend reading this where I give arguments from Dharmakirti:

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=11293
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby partofit22 on Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:28 am

How's the diving coming along?
partofit22
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby another_being on Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:27 pm

macdougdoug: "I'll just say I didn't want kids, til i became a father, but then I was no longer the same person and neither was the world."

One of the things written here that made a connection and rings true.
"Some people think they are enlightened, some people think they are not enlightened." -- Denko
User avatar
another_being
 
Posts: 888
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2011 6:21 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby partofit22 on Thu Oct 22, 2015 9:59 pm

When I became a parent I was no longer same either although I can't say I never wanted to become one- Now they're grown (mostly)- But continue to teach me-

partofit22
 
Posts: 4900
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:36 pm

Re: In Defense of Antinatalism

Postby Samsaric Spiral on Thu Oct 22, 2015 10:24 pm

another_being wrote:macdougdoug: "I'll just say I didn't want kids, til i became a father, but then I was no longer the same person and neither was the world."

One of the things written here that made a connection and rings true.


The world is never the same thing and you are never the same person, with or without procreating, that's the scary thing. Same applies to everyone else.

In some sense, one can say no kids were ever begotten for there is "no one" or "no thing" to have them, just change without core.
Samsaric Spiral
 
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 2:48 pm

Next

Return to Current Events & Politics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 157 on Mon Sep 19, 2016 8:44 am

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest