Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Enlightenment

Antinatalism?

10 posts in this topic

Most intense pleasures in life are much less "good" than most intense suffering is "bad". 

1) the presence of pain is bad;

2) the presence of pleasure is good;

3) the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;

4) the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

Given that life is suffering. What is your view on antinatalism? 

 


"Reality is brutal and it does not care about being fair to you."

                                                                                            -- Leo Gura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess it's neither good nor bad. My experience living in Japan has shown me that life is viewed very differently by different cultures. In Japanese culture young people I've spoken too are very grateful to their parents for giving them life. 

Anti-natalism can definitely be idealogical, feel free to take the ideas from it but do not get sucked into the potential traps of their belief system. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in that whole "life is suffering" shtick. What bothers me about people giving birth is that our planet is already extremely strained, and there are plenty of orphans out there waiting to get adopted into a family. So I can't really find any good reasons why people would choose to give birth. It seems incredibly selfish.

I know being a parent can be very giving, but there sure are a lot better ways to give to the world.


I am myself, heaven and hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Better antinatalism, and law to restrict the number of kids, than wars and hunger. 


... 7 rabbits will live forever.                                                                                                                                                                                                  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anti-natalism is perhaps the most wrong idea a person could possibly have. @Enlightenment You're assuming that pain is bad just because people don't like to feel pain.  In reality, Consciousness is Good as an Absolute without an opposite.

Also, from an evolutionary perspective, people who hold the anti-natalist position would not reproduce, thus the psychological factors leading someone to that position would die out, leading to the position itself ceasing to exist.

You might think I'm making a cheap point there, but I'm actually getting at a core metaphysical insight: Truth is what's Actual.  Therefore, an idea that only works on a conceptual level cannot be True.

@Hellspeed Yes, overpopulation is a problem, but primarily in developing countries.  The fertility rate in Europe is actually below replacement at 1.58 births per woman, with some countries as low as 1.3.  The United States isn't doing much better at 1.76.  People should actually be having more children in these countries.

A fertility rate around 2.0 would ensure a strong workforce to support an aging population.  Most importantly though, when birthrates fall too low, the culture can't maintain itself and will inevitably collapse.  This has been demonstrated throughout history.  So, despite the numerous problems with western culture, it would be a huge setback for mankind if it were allowed to collapse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't anybody care for the death of billions of other potential human lives? Just saying.

(The answer might just give you THE answer) ;)

Edited by Truth Addict

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, bmcnicho said:

You're assuming that pain is bad just because people don't like to feel pain.  In reality, Consciousness is Good as an Absolute without an opposite.

Bad may not be a good word for it. It's just something I (and pretty much everybody) would strongly prefer not to experience. 

53 minutes ago, bmcnicho said:

Also, from an evolutionary perspective, people who hold the anti-natalist position would not reproduce, thus the psychological factors leading someone to that position would die out, leading to the position itself ceasing to exist.

Yes, but it doesn't necessarily make antinatalism wrong. People that were full of love for everybody has died out too because it's not optimal for survival and yet I would prefer to be surrounded by people full of love.

8 minutes ago, Truth Addict said:

Why doesn't anybody care for the death of billions of other potential human lives? Just saying.

I'm not sure what you mean


"Reality is brutal and it does not care about being fair to you."

                                                                                            -- Leo Gura

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@bmcnicho Anti-natalist ideas are not genetic. Anyone can have them as they become increasingly aware of the state of the Earth. I'd say the only psychological factor that I'm aware of is open-mindedness, and that is not going extinct anytime soon.

1 hour ago, bmcnicho said:

Yes, overpopulation is a problem, but primarily in developing countries.

Overpopulation is a global problem, not a local one. Every childbirth, whether it be in a 1st world country or a 3rd world country, has global consequences.

1 hour ago, bmcnicho said:

A fertility rate around 2.0 would ensure a strong workforce to support an aging population.

This problem can be circumvented by immigration and automation. Good thing the A.I. revolution has arrived. Also, this is not a problem if one were to adopt instead of giving birth.


I am myself, heaven and hell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Enlightenment Of course the ego perfers not to feel pain, that's part of it's survival agenda.  However, these value judgements don't apply to Existence in itself.  The same applies to love.  What people usually think of as love is a very conditional type of love.  However, as an absolute, Love is radically unconditional and is identical to the Truth.  Meaning there is nothing that is not Love.

@Commodent Genetic factors could influence it, but generally it would happen on the level of cultural evolution rather than biological evolution.  Although, the boundary between these starts to break down once you factor in group selection, which modern science is very closed off to, since it's locked into the "selfish gene" paradigm.  Howard Bloom makes a great case for group selection, brilliant guy, the epitome of stage yellow.

Mass immigration leads to demographic replacement, which would cause the cultural collapse I mentioned earlier.  As for A.I., do you really trust people to use something of such immense power responsibly, given the low level of consciousness of our society?  Also, I don't think it would be good for us psychologically to outsource all of our responsibilities to machines.

Edited by bmcnicho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Enlightenment

I meant the sperms.

We, humans, don't care for anything that is not relevant to our survival.

Anti-natalism is pure ego. It stems either from moralistic opinions which are grounded in ego, which is groundless. Or a desire for better survival, which is selfish, and also groundless.

The question only has value to us because it affects our survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0