Anti-Natalism - A solution for ending materialistic human suffering

[Emerald]

12 minutes ago, Something Funny said:

@Emerald It doesn't matter how many people adopt it. I don't care about that. You are basically evaluating a philosophy by its popularity. What matters is if it's true.

Is it true that having kids is unethical? I don't believe it is, but not because "it's a fringe ideology that will be ignored by people of low development".

Yeah, and if they abolished slavery in feudal societies, they would also collapse, plunging into chaos. Abolishing slavery = more suffering. 

This shows the issue with our current economical system, not antinatalism.
 

But the purported aim of antinatalism is to reduce/eliminate suffering.

That is the aim of the ideology... to reduce/eliminate the suffering of sentient beings through non-existence.

So, if the practical outcomes of people adopting an antinatalist ideology (in the most 'successful' realistic application of antinatalism, from an antinatalist perspective) is that it creates more suffering... then the philosophy is moot.

It means that the philosophy is unrealistic and doesn't do what it intends to do.

And if you aren't evaluating a philosophy based on its practical application within reality, you're just doing mental masturbation.

It's similar to Libertarianism. The idea is, "If everyone abides the nonaggression principle, we could run the government and society like this." 

But the problem is that people don't abide the nonaggression principle. And people will never universally adopt and practice the nonaggression principle. So, Libertarianism can never practically work.

With the antinatalist ideology, the best possible realistic scenario (from an antinatalist perspective) is a steeper drop in birth rates. And the effect of a steeper drop in birth rates, is that people will suffer.

So, the ideology ends up practically doing the opposite of what it intends to do. That is why it is a moot ideology.

Edited yesterday at 04:25 PM by Emerald

[Something Funny]

1 minute ago, Emerald said:

But the purported aim of antinatalism is to reduce/eliminate suffering.

That is the aim of the ideology... to reduce/eliminate the suffering of sentient beings through non-existence.

So, if the practical outcomes of people adopting an antinatalist ideology (in the most 'successful' realistic application of antinatalism, from an antinatalist perspective) is that it creates more suffering... then the philosophy is moot.

It means that the philosophy is unrealistic and doesn't do what it intends to do.

And if you aren't evaluating a philosophy based on its practical application within reality, you're just doing mental masturbation.

It's similar to Libertarianism. The idea is, "If everyone abides the nonaggression principle, we could run the government and society like this." 

But the problem is that people don't abide the nonaggression principle. And people will never universally adopt and practice the nonaggression principle. So, Libertarianism can never practically work.

With the antinatalist ideology, the best possible scenario (from an antinatalist perspective) is a steeper drop in birth rates. And the effect of a steeper drop in birth rates, is that people will suffer.

So, the ideology ends up practically doing the opposite of what it intends to do. That is why it is a moot ideology.

What you are missing here is that yes, in the short term people will suffer from lower birth rates. But this is a direct result of us being dependent on the infinite economic growth and not being able to redistribute wealth properly. It just highlights the bigger issue that we will need to overcome one way or another. 

It is super dumb that we are a 1000 times more productive per person then we used to be 200 years ago, but we still need to have positive birth rates to support ourselves and sustain the economy. It's literally a retarded. I don't count this as an issue with antinatalism.

[Something Funny]

@Emerald I will focus on the counter arguments, because like I've already said, everything else is noise and doesn't matter.

I agree that global antinatalism to a point where everyone sits down and decided to go extinct is no realistic. And that trying to enforce it would also be disastrous. And also that people who feel morally superior because they are antinatalists and judge others for having kids are dumb. We don't have to argue about this.

I am interested in knowing if the arguments I've mentioned for antinatalism are true or not. 

16 minutes ago, Emerald said:

1. Every decision you make... including the decision to donate to charity... is one that you make because it feels right to you or makes you feel good. There is no such thing as a selfless decision. And having children is no different. But that doesn't mean that you see your children as a mere tool of your happiness. Good parenting is a one-way street where you give care and they receive it to grow into themselves as people. The benefit that I get is that my children are really cool people to be around and it's amazing to watch them grow... and I'm glad to know them as people and to have them as my family. They are very much wanted by me... but their existence doesn't belong to me.

Agreed. And also doing something selfishly, doesn't mean that it's a bad thing to do.

17 minutes ago, Emerald said:

2. You don't know that the person you bring into this world won't value their life tremendously either. And you rob so many of them a chance to live and exist and experience if (hypothetically) society adopts an anti-natalist ideology. I am glad that my parents procreated and had me. I'm quite sure that my kids are also glad that I procreated and had them... as they don't wish not to exist. Most people prefer to live and want to continue existing... even if they encounter suffering in their lives. Most people do not attempt suicide or commit suicide. So, you are setting up a situation where people who would want to exist are disallowed from existence for the sake of an ideology.

Robbing those potential people doesn't matter because they don't exist, they won't care if they would have enjoyed it or not. What matters is the opinion of people who do exist and who were brought here against their consent. 

And since on one side we have a lot of "potential people" who might have enjoyed life but whose opinion doesn't matter and a actual person who is suffering, and whose opinion matters because they exist, I could argue that we should prioritize playing it safe and not giving birth to anyone. 

20 minutes ago, Emerald said:

3. A non-existent person cannot consent to existence (if we look from an Earthly perspective). So, that is a moot point. You have to exist to consent. Consenting only happens in the domain of existence. So, you cannot consent to existence. Therefore, you are simply acting as the ultimate authority and assume that everyone who exists is non-consenting

I don't assume, they quite literally didn't consent. Unless we get into spirituality. If we stick to materialism, they didn't consent. None of them. Some of them happen to enjoy it here, some don't.

What I am arguing is that you don't have a right to make that bet. 

[zazen]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

Your line of thinking only works in abortion arguments where the termination happens before the being can devevlop sentience. So of course, with there being no sentience  - no violation of consent happens , but if its entailed that it will be proctected and nurtured until it develops sentience, then consent violations necessarily come up.

This is the difference - its wrong to use heroin when you are pregnant and you have the intention to have/keep the kid vs its not wrong to use heroin when you are pregnant and have the intention to abort the fetus before it can develop sentience.

So consent only comes into question once there’s sentience? If consent doesn’t apply before sentience, then it certainly doesn’t apply before existence.

But anti-natalism talks about beings that don’t yet exist at all, not ones that haven’t yet developed consciousness. If there’s no sentience, there’s no subject - and if there’s no subject, there’s no possibility of consent or its violation.

1 hour ago, Basman said:

The underlying issue is that suffering is conditional and not a constant. It is also a matter of degree. You should avoid unnecessary suffering, which is anti-natalisms strongest point in a generel sense, being conscious of one's choices, especially relative to conception. But suffering is just part of life. It doesn't define it. Anti-natalism is a bit edgy.

I feel that the current wave of anti-natalism is in part to being more informed with the internet but also due to economic exclusion and feeling pessimistic about the future. 

Agreed. It's difficult for many people to get by on their own let alone support a family, if they can even partner up with someone to begin with. The problem comes when suffering is taken and universalized as a moral stance in the form of a philosophy in order to cope with that suffering. People feel a need to identity their stance and choices as ''positions''.

They journey from identifying as childless - which sounds negative (because less implies lack), then it becomes childfree (which sounds more noble because ''freedom''), but then that sound selfish so it must go the next step and become a ethical concern that shows how much you care - anti-natalism.

Lifestyle choices are elevated into ''identities'' and moral philosophies as a compensation for being metaphysically displaced and uprooted from any sort of transcendent identity or belonging - that a mechanised, scientifically rational, materialist culture stripped from them. That's why we have all kinds of subgroups propping up and peoples identities tied to them.

It's not simply ''I don't want to have children due to my personal circumstance not being viable'' instead its ''having children is unethical due to lack of consent and introducing them to a life of suffering they have no say in'' and subjecting this moral standard onto others who fall short of it. The philosophy itself is self-negating and self-terminating if adopted at scale and if it were to be a universal ethic or truth. But it’s just a circumstantial choice in a persons life.

Edited 23 hours ago by zazen

[Emerald]

Just now, Something Funny said:

What you are missing here is that yes, in the short term people will suffer from lower birth rates. But this is a direct result of us being dependent on the infinite economic growth and not being able to redistribute wealth properly. It just highlights the bigger issue that we will need to overcome one way or another. 

It is super dumb that we are a 1000 times more productive per person then we used to be 200 years ago, but we still need to have positive birth rates to support ourselves and sustain the economy. It's literally a retarded. I don't count this as an issue with antinatalism.

That's a slightly different issue.

I think it would be good if our population drops gradually to about half of what it is now over the next 10-15 generations or so, as that would be better for the planet.

That more gradual drop is already happening because of birth control, family planning, women's rights and bodily autonomy, and lifestyle differences in a post-industrial world. In fact, it's happening a little bit too fast to avoid the difficulties associated with population drop... especially in places like South Korea.

But I think it will be manageable in most countries at this rate.

But antinatalism plays no role in this drop. These kinds of ebbs and flows of birth rates come from more organic, non-ideological feedback loops within human nature and nature more generally. It's how the feedback loops of nature play out through human lifestyles and technological shifts.

We just don't think of it as nature, but it is. That's why it happens in such a widespread way in post-industrial nations.

Nature says... once humans are post-industrial that means the population has exploded. And in post-industrial societies people choose to have smaller families or opt not to have kids altogether.

Nature is intelligent like that. Within the flow, there is a seed of the ebb. Within the ebb, is the seed of the flow.

And having our population gradually drop requires us to eventually transcend the Capitalist system for a system that doesn't rely on the principle of infinite expansion... which will also eventually not work (just like Antinatalism and Libertarianism). What goes up must come down.

But a steep drop in birth rates is not the way to do it. You have to taper it over many generations.

And if (hypothetically) antinatalism gets adopted in the most maximal way that's realistically possible, that steep drop in birth rates would lead to a lot of human suffering.

There would still be humans coming into existence, because most people aren't ideological about having kids. But the birth rate would put undue suffering onto those new people to take care of the massive aging population.

[Something Funny]

3 minutes ago, Emerald said:

But antinatalism plays no role in this drop

I didn't say that it does.

 

4 minutes ago, Emerald said:

And if (hypothetically) antinatalism gets adopted in the most maximal way that's realistically possible, that steep drop in birth rates would lead to a lot of human suffering.

There would still be humans coming into existence, because most people aren't ideological about having kids. But the birth rate would put undue suffering onto those new people to take care of the massive aging population

Crabs in the bucket. Suffering of existing people doesn't justify bringing more people in to take their burden.

[zazen]

What’s the premise of anti-natalism?

Is it basically that life is suffering and that it’s unethical to bring a life into this world of suffering that it is unable to consent to?

Like what Emerald and somethingfunny are discussing above - let’s say we live in a post-scarcity society of abundance due to technological breakthroughs. Does anti-natalism still apply or not?

Suffering may be reduced on a material level, but that doesn’t guarantee psychological well being which we may suffer from a lack of despite material wealth. It also doesn’t solve the consent problem because we still can’t get consent from a non-being ticking off a box: to be or not to be?

So then it’s not about the conditions of life but about life itself - it’s a metaphysical claim about life which believes that suffering in any form, invalidates the value of existence itself.

There’s a difference between a metaphysical claim and a circumstantial lifestyle choice being made based upon conditions.

[zurew]

2 hours ago, zazen said:

If there’s no sentience, there’s no subject - and if there’s no subject, there’s no possibility of consent or its violation.

So its okay to make your future kid a heroin addict because he isn't sentient yet.

[zazen]

32 minutes ago, zurew said:

So it’s okay to make your future kid a heroin addict because he isn't sentient yet.

Obviously not lol what a stretch. You’re conflating consent with moral responsibility.

My point was that there’s “no possibility of consent or its violation before sentience” - not that this grants license for harm.

The absence of consent doesn’t create permission - it simply means the concept of consent doesn’t yet apply.

[zurew]

9 minutes ago, zazen said:

Obviously not lol what a stretch. 

Its not a stretch at all, because you gave that weird reply to the heroin example, so I just draw your attention to what was the implication of your reply.

19 minutes ago, zazen said:

My point was that there’s “no possibility of consent or its violation before sentience”

Yes, and its a stupid statement , because it doesnt engage with how time works.

What you failed to track is  that you can violate future consent in the present right now, if its guaranteed that the being that is violated will become sentient.

[zazen]

22 minutes ago, zurew said:

Its not a stretch at all, because you gave that weird reply to the heroin example, so I just draw your attention to what was the implication of your reply.

Yes, and its a stupid statement , because it doesnt engage with how time works.

What you failed to track is  that you can violate future consent in the present right now, if it’s guaranteed that the being that is violated will become sentient.

On the heroin point - you assumed an implication that wasn’t there - didn’t know I had to spell out an obvious nuance as a caveat.

Consent is a concept that applies to relationships between existing and capable beings in the present. It can’t apply to those incapable of it or not existing to exercise it.

By your logic, every present act would violate the “future consent” of beings who will one day exist - filling a gas tank would become a consent violation against future generations affected by climate change.

That logic collapses into paralysis: how could we act at all if every future consequence counted as a consent violation from beings who don’t yet exist?

What you’re actually describing isn’t consent but responsibility. If you create a being, you’re responsible for their welfare. That’s why using heroin while pregnant is wrong - not because of “violated consent,” but because it harms someone’s well being.

Likewise, if you create a being under good conditions where they can flourish, you’ve fulfilled your responsibility. You’re conflating moral responsibility with consent.

And as for calling things stupid - by your own logic, you’re presently violating the future consent of your kids not to look stupid on a forum for trying to word salad your way through a flopped gotcha.

[zurew]

53 minutes ago, zazen said:

By your logic, every present act would violate the “future consent” of beings who will one day exist - filling a gas tank would become a consent violation against future generations affected by climate change.

Yes it is future violation of consent. 

53 minutes ago, zazen said:

That logic collapses into paralysis: how could we act at all if every future consequence counted as a consent violation from beings who don’t yet exist?

No it doesnt collapses 1) because no one cares about all types of violation of consent the same. 2) You can only think ahead a few steps ahead.

What you are bringing up is a pragmatic and epistemic issue, that doesnt at all engage with the problem that is invoked. The problem at hand is that you reasonably know epistemically what kind of consent you will necessarily violate in the future.

 

53 minutes ago, zazen said:

What you’re actually describing isn’t consent but responsibility. If you create a being, you’re responsible for their welfare. That’s why using heroin while pregnant is wrong - not because of “violated consent,” but because it harms someone’s well being.

If your brain can track the fact that your action in the present can violate and harm a being who isnt sentient right now, but will be in the future, then you should be able to cognize and apply that to consent as well. What you failed to track is that the heroin example is compatible with both btw, because it isnt just bad because of the physical harm ,but because of the potential psychological harm as well. If you know beforehand that doing heroin wont do any physical damage to the kid, but the kid realizing that you did heroin while you were pregnant with him will reasonably do psychological damage to him, thats still bad, right?

 

You necessarily subjugate a being to a set of experiences in the future and you know that before that being actually becomes sentient.  You also know that generally most sentient beings dont like or not okay with the kind of experiences that you necessarily subjugate that future sentient being to.

Lets get into rape examples. There is an unconscious person and you can decide to have sex with that person without him/her knowing about it. Its added to the example that after he/she wakes up you tell him/her what you did. Is this only bad if they end up disliking what you did and its cool and good if they like it in the end?

If you dont like the sleeping example, we can change it to comatosed people.

53 minutes ago, zazen said:

And as for calling things stupid - by your own logic, you’re presently violating the future consent of your kids not to look stupid on a forum for trying to word salad your way through a flopped gotcha.

Yes what you said was stupid and you got butthurt about it.

Edited 19 hours ago by zurew

[zurew]

Also I shouldnt have even granted the moral responsibility part that you brought up.

Because given your starting logic, there is nothing to have moral responsibility for, since its just a clump of cells right , its not a developed sentient human being yet , so what is being violated and harmed in the present?

Ohh the fact time works in one way and that you have responsibility for the future kid who isn't just a clump of cells anymore, right?

So even when it comes to just physical harm ,your own starting point completely collapses if you want to talk about welfare.

[zazen]

@zurew For the third time - your conflating moral responsibility with consent. Consent applies between subjects that already exist and can willfully agree. Responsibility applies to outcomes you set in motion that will affect beings once they come into existence.

You’re trying to discuss temporal consent which is incoherent, compared to temporal ethics (ethics across time) which deals with how our present actions affect future beings or states of the world.

Temporal ethics is real but about responsibility and foresight - consent is bounded to subjects that exist and are capable of consent in the present. If we pollute a river that causes future harm - it’s an act of irresponsibility, not non-consensuality - because no one was present to grant it or not.

——————

Your rape example proves my point. There’s no such thing as retroactive consent - only retroactive acceptance (forgivness), evaluation or interpretation after the fact.

You’re trying to use temporal consent (how the person feels after waking up) to judge temporal ethics (the morality of the act when it was performed). Someone who is unconscious still exists as a subject with right to bodily autonomy. Their capacity for consent exists even when they’re not currently exercising it - and that anyone overriding it makes it unethical to begin with.

The act was unethical the moment it began because it was done without consent. The subsequent reaction can bring about forgiveness  or trauma - but it can’t retroactively change the immoral nature of the initial choice. Consent is the necessary condition that must be present before the act, not a lucky outcome that might appear after.

To have the same action (sex with an unconscious person) either be morally good or evil based on a random dice roll of the victim's subsequent feelings and their consent - is a dangerous foundation for ethics, which is why it’s legally useless.

If someone says afterward “I guess it was fine” or “I changed my mind” that doesn’t legally transform a non-consensual act into a consensual one. Likewise, if someone later says “I regret it” that alone doesn’t make a consensual act rape - there has to be evidence that consent was absent at the time.

Law deals in objective facts and consent being present, not later feelings.

Your claiming that consent can be violated before the capacity for consent exists, as long as that capacity will eventually exist lol. That leads to all kinds of absurdities, stoopid.

I can be a ass don’t make me show it:

 

Edited 17 hours ago by zazen

[Basman]

33 minutes ago, zurew said:

Yes it is future violation of consent. 

No it doesnt collapses 1) because no one cares about all types of violation of consent the same. 2) You can only think ahead a few steps ahead.

What you are bringing up is a pragmatic and epistemic issue, that doesnt at all engage with the problem that is invoked. The problem at hand is that you reasonably know epistemically what kind of consent you will necessarily violate in the future.

No one is really upset that they where born. Those rare exceptions who wish they weren't born have more so an issue with the extreme suffering that they might be experiencing rather than existing in of itself. 

The moralization of suffering to the degree to which where other experiences that are inherent in life become tertiary (like love or beauty) isn't fully justified in my opinion and is arguably the result of how we tend to judge ethics by giving suffering primacy. Something is ethical because it consciously minimizes suffering. But you could also argue that the deprivation of inherently positive and meaningfully charged experiences is a kind of responsibilty in of itself which we can't ethically deny or leave unacknowledged. How do you decide what is best for others? That is the crux of the issue. I find the anti-natalist approach to be overly simplistic and essentially deterministic, treating life as if defined by suffering.

Responsibility is the strongest argument of anti-natalism, but the magical degree of primacy given to consent consequently treats humans beings pessimistically, as if humans don't want to live, outside of rare cases of extreme suffering. Anti-natalism fails on this point because it can't prove that humans dissavow life by nature.

There's also a degree of concept creep present here relative to concent. It is not really a consent issue but one of responsibility. Consent is between existing parties who can reasonably communicate with each other. Animals and future generations can't consent because the former lacks the intelligence to communicate on human terms and the latter doesn't currently exist. When parties can't consent it becomes a matter of responsibility. The whole discussion has actually nothing to do with consent directly. Future generations dealing with the consequences of past actions isn't a question of consent but of responsibility. With the kind of magical primacy which consent is being treated with you could think it reasonable to complain that you didn't consent to being rained on today. 

[zurew]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Your rape example proves my point. There’s no such thing as retroactive consent - only retroactive acceptance (forgivness), evaluation or interpretation after the fact.

The act was unethical the moment it began because it was done without consent. The subsequent reaction can bring about forgiveness  or trauma - but it can’t retroactively change the immoral nature of the initial choice. Consent is the necessary condition that must be present before the act, not a lucky outcome that might appear after.

Just to be clear, under your view  -  it wasnt rape , because there wasnt any conscious subject who could agree or disagree to the act.  You had to appeal to bodily autonomy so that you dont need to bite the bullet. I can change the example where we start with a p-zombie who isnt a subject and who never had the capacity to consent. Since its not a subject it doesnt have bodily autonomy. That p-zombie gets raped a 1000 times and after that it gains sentience and is reminded how the rape was done. Its guaranteed that once it gains sentience it will be reminded of what people did with its body. And all the rapists know this information before they rape the p-zombie. Is the act of having sex with the p-zombie in this example a violation of future consent or not?

 

Also again under your view, the mother who is using heroin during pregnancy isnt doing anything bad, since its just a clump of cells and there isnt anyone (a subject) who is being harmed.

What kind of moral responsibility are you talking about there, the welfare of a clump of cells?

 

 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Your claiming that consent can be violated before the capacity for consent exists, as long as that capacity will eventually exist lol.

Yes and its very obvious that this is the case. 

 

I can easily generate more examples. 

One psychopath pays 10 million dollars to a dude to rape the next future sentient person. Its guaranteed that the rape will happen but the person who will be raped is just a clump of cells right now. Is the act of paying 10 million dollars to the future rapist a violation of future consent or not?

Edited 16 hours ago by zurew

[zurew]

47 minutes ago, Basman said:

No one is really upset that they where born. Those rare exceptions who wish they weren't born have more so an issue with the extreme suffering that they might be experiencing rather than existing in of itself. 

Im not an anti natalist, im just trying to establish there (the thing you responded to) that there is such a thing as future violation of consent, which zazen still denies.

[Basman]

6 minutes ago, zurew said:

Im not an anti natalist, im just trying to establish there (the thing you responded to) that there is such a thing as future violation of consent, which zazen still denies.

Future generations cannot possibly consent for or against anything, therefor it is a matter of responsibility. Consent isn't a question if it is not a viable form of communication in the first place.

[zurew]

So under your view this is not a violation of future consent - One psychopath pays 10 million dollars to a dude to rape the next future sentient person. Its guaranteed that the rape will happen but the person who will be raped is just a clump of cells right now. 

Edited 17 hours ago by zurew

[Emerald]

6 hours ago, Something Funny said:

I didn't say that it does.

Crabs in the bucket. Suffering of existing people doesn't justify bringing more people in to take their burden.

But the vast majority of people who currently exist, prefer existence over non-existence... even if suffering is involved.

So, we can logically assume that the currently existing majority's preference for existence would remain in all future-born people.

So, the question is "Why are you trying to impose a moral philosophy that most people don't agree with, that would cause people who would most likely want to exist to not exist against their own preference for existence?"

And you might say, "They don't exist yet to have a preference for existence. So, it's against their consent to bring them into existence."

But then I would say, "Likewise, they don't exist yet to prefer non-existence. And non-existent people definitionally cannot consent to things because existence is required for consent. Yet, if we look at currently existing people, most of them value their lives and want to exist."

That's why the philosophy of antinatalism is a moot point. Not only is it unrealistic and unpopular as a philosophy (which is an issue because antinatalism requires unanimous support and participation to achieve its stated aims of eradicating human suffering through eradicating human existence)... it's also (based on its own faulty logic of the lack of consent of non-existent people) forcing the non-existence decision onto non-existent people that the non-existent people didn't consent to.

The idea of non-existent people consenting or not consenting is a silly notion to begin with, because they can't consent. But if they can't consent to existence... they also can't consent to non-existence.

But it's truly a moot point because you're talking about the preferences of people who don't exist yet... and the non-consent of people who don't exist yet.

So, in the same way that non-existent people can't deny consent and say "no" to existence... non-existent people also can't consent and say "yes" to existence.

So, you are assuming a preference for non-existence in people who can't yet speak for themselves. And you're foisting the current and historical less popular option (non-existence) onto every would-be person who doesn't get to be because society listened to the antinatalists.