Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again, the difference in argument is that you cannot show harm. The veg can. Whether these arguments should happen or not, or who has the right to argue is besides the point. If you're going to make a statement about a population and cannot substantiate it or if your argument folds under scrutiny it's going to get called out.
Everyone is harmed by procreation. We all suffer and die. Even the luckiest person in the world who has the most enchanting and blissful life isn't free from harm, it may be minimal harm. But it's still harm. When you create life you are creating a window of opportunity for the occurrence of harm.
There is a real possibility of creating a severely harmed person who would regret her existence. Some people experience suffering and regard it as bad, this is an objective and empirical fact. They were harmed by being brought into life.
from where does ... misery and suffering spring? From other humans, of course. A rock can't cause you suffering unless it's thrown by another person at your head, for example.
Not entirely and arguably not mostly from Other People. Some of it is inherent. Existential angst is inherent in being self-aware. The dread of death, anxiety about one's own safety and that of loved ones, lack of full self-determination and free will, a limited menu of choices, threat of accident and war and natural disaster, famine, disease, and many other things have either nothing to do with others or are only indirectly or partially to do with others. One can even plausibly argue that human-caused suffering such as betrayal, broken promises, emotional unavailability where availability is legitimately expected / needed, and so forth, are actually expressions of personality breakdown and dysfunction caused by deeper sources of suffering.
Once can argue that existential angst is a chosen and modifiable response and you would be partially right, technically and in theory. In practice, however, it's actually natural and understandable and it is modifiable only at great effort and by adopting non-intuitive and time consuming to acquire framing mechanisms for thinking about life which still cannot solve most of the actual issues (e.g., years of practicing Zen Buddhism). It is a little like the choice between a pain-killer that actually deadens pain, vs a narcotic that does nothing about the pain but causes you not to care that it is there. A true pain-killer for, say, death would be some mechanism by which science would grant at least biological immortality to people, democratically and affordably. A narcotic would be something like religion, which to varying degrees causes you to not care that you're going to die like everyone else, even though you're well aware that you will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhelmete
So now, as an adult who believe suffering and misery are so monumentally pervasive as to proscribe (sic) antinatalism...how are YOU AND YOUR CONTINUED LIFE not part of the problem?
As I mentioned above, not all suffering is inflicted by people, it's not clear that the portion that IS inflicted by people isn't associated with deeper and more inherent causes anyway, and my guess is that someone who looks unflinchingly at the human condition is apt to have more compassion and empathy concerning it and less likely to contribute to whatever part of the problem that is other-caused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhelmete
So why are you still here? The misery you create affects actual live human beings, not ones that haven't been born yet.
This is a clever way to couch the standard "why don't you just go off yourself and quit disturbing my slumber" response but as I mentioned above, it is based on a fundamentally false assumption that suffering is not inherent in the natural order if you are a being who is self aware (that is, a human being, and perhaps at lower amplitudes, certain other species such as dolphins, orcas and the like).
The pessimist rejoinder to this and to your footnote about Misanthrope Island is basically, why don't you just go back to sleep and let those of us who want to discuss the nature of existence, hash it out.
Everyone is harmed by procreation. We all suffer and die. Even the luckiest person in the world who has the most enchanting and blissful life isn't free from harm, it may be minimal harm. But it's still harm. When you create life you are creating a window of opportunity for the occurrence of harm.
There is a real possibility of creating a severely harmed person who would regret her existence. Some people experience suffering and regard it as bad, this is an objective and empirical fact. They were harmed by being brought into life.
You have already stated that you are only making an argument, not to impose your will and values on other by preventing them from procreating, but to contribute to the collective societal debate concerning the matter, in hopes of influencing general standards of morality in the direction of less, or at least far more aware, procreation. Don't procreate, or at least accept the moral responsibility for doing so. Yes?
My interaction with Braunwyn has led me to consider that if (as I believe) morality is an emergent property of implied and explicit social contracts, enforced by things like laws, peer pressure, and the like; and if morality tends to reflect society's instinctive need to sustain itself over the long term, then no moral consensus is likely to arise that would involve the extinction of the society, if not the human race. Thus technically, there will never be anything immoral as far as society is concerned, about making babies.
A thought-experiment that I have seen advanced regarding the required mindset: if there were a button that, if pressed, would instantaneously and painlessly wink the entire human race (yourself included) out of existence, and you knew it, and had the opportunity to press it, would you do so without hesitation?
In other words, do you regard the human experiment as such a self-evidently ghastly abomination that you would consider the instantaneous cessation of all human suffering the most altruistic conceivable act? Would this be true even if it were contrary to the will of most of those humans? Would this be true even if you would also put a stop to all happiness, all fulfillment, all hope? Even though you would interrupt, not just the unremitting suffering of Calcutta street beggars and Soviet gulag prisoners, but the happy explorations of little babies in affluent nations, the lovemaking of young lovers, the blissful serenity of advanced meditators?
What makes pessimistic philosophy and its stepchild, antinatalism, so rarely expressed and so univerasally reviled is that it rains on a human parade which, I am forced to admit, most people participate in with often significant degrees of willingness. That they do this, in my opinion, based on faulty perceptions, deliberately blinkered awareness and peer pressure, is in some ways irrelevant. If their life were THAT awful they would give the finger to the system and at a minimum crusade like banshees for antinatalism with the open goal of ending the human experiment. But there isn't a very long line queued up out there for that particular assignment.
Unlike Ligotti, I am not prepared to call existence MALIGNANTLY USELESS. Impersonally pointless in inherent terms, is more like it. But that is MY realization, not everyone else's. Certainly not Ligotti's. The button I would press without hesitation is one that would do what I describe above only for those who would also press the button for themselves and those like them. Even better, if it'd work going forward to those who freely and stably reach the same viewpoint at a later time.
Ironically, by doing so, we would be performing a sort of instantaneous form of natural selection in which only those both willing and able to limit their awareness through rationalization, filtering, compartmentalization, religion and the like, would remain. I say, let them have it to themselves -- if they can deny or ignore the pain or pretend better days are just around the corner, that life makes sense -- they are welcome to it.
Of course no such button exists, or is remotely likely to exist, so no worries, it's just a thought experiment. But I hope it will clarify the extent to which you are (un)willing to go in your belief in your own righteous mission. For my part, I don't believe that it's my place, no matter how convinced I am of my rightness, to impose my values on anyone else. Ultimately the only "button" available to me is my own rational suicide, and the irony is that even that button cannot be pressed without disturbing the trajectory of others. My wife, my children, my stepchildren, my grandchildren, and even my clients and creditors would all be harmed in various ways by the pressing of that button. So for me even that "button" does not exist, unless at some future time the sheer agony of my existence renders me more or less irredeemably non-functional anyway, such that the harm of pressing the button would be basically negligible.
Hence we are all ethically obliged for the most part to carry on to the bitter end. I look forward to what Stephen King called in some of his novels "the clearing at the end of the path". I believe that oblivion awaits -- that I will return to the no-thing that I started out as. As a moral being, I have no other viable choice so long as I am at all functional and can contribute anything to my loved ones.
Because of this, the only thing I can legitimately do regarding my fellow humans is to urge them to pay more balanced attention to the harm of existence, not just the dribs and drabs of bliss and joy and even prosaic self-actualization, and to be content without children, or with a smaller and better cared-for number.
Not entirely and arguably not mostly from Other People. Some of it is inherent. Existential angst is inherent in being self-aware. The dread of death, anxiety about one's own safety and that of loved ones, lack of full self-determination and free will, a limited menu of choices, threat of accident and war and natural disaster, famine, disease, and many other things have either nothing to do with others or are only indirectly or partially to do with others. One can even plausibly argue that human-caused suffering such as betrayal, broken promises, emotional unavailability where availability is legitimately expected / needed, and so forth, are actually expressions of personality breakdown and dysfunction caused by deeper sources of suffering.
Once can argue that existential angst is a chosen and modifiable response and you would be partially right, technically and in theory. In practice, however, it's actually natural and understandable and it is modifiable only at great effort and by adopting non-intuitive and time consuming to acquire framing mechanisms for thinking about life which still cannot solve most of the actual issues (e.g., years of practicing Zen Buddhism). It is a little like the choice between a pain-killer that actually deadens pain, vs a narcotic that does nothing about the pain but causes you not to care that it is there. A true pain-killer for, say, death would be some mechanism by which science would grant at least biological immortality to people, democratically and affordably. A narcotic would be something like religion, which to varying degrees causes you to not care that you're going to die like everyone else, even though you're well aware that you will.
As I mentioned above, not all suffering is inflicted by people, it's not clear that the portion that IS inflicted by people isn't associated with deeper and more inherent causes anyway, and my guess is that someone who looks unflinchingly at the human condition is apt to have more compassion and empathy concerning it and less likely to contribute to whatever part of the problem that is other-caused.
This is a clever way to couch the standard "why don't you just go off yourself and quit disturbing my slumber" response but as I mentioned above, it is based on a fundamentally false assumption that suffering is not inherent in the natural order if you are a being who is self aware (that is, a human being, and perhaps at lower amplitudes, certain other species such as dolphins, orcas and the like).
The pessimist rejoinder to this and to your footnote about Misanthrope Island is basically, why don't you just go back to sleep and let those of us who want to discuss the nature of existence, hash it out.
Would you say that the ANs here on this thread are claiming 'existential angst' as why they see the world as being full of suffering and misery? Because they certainly post otherwise. Just a couple examples:
"because we live in a world full of pain, misery, suffering, violence, bullies, and children are vulnerable to everything"
"On a daily basis, people are being tortured, murdered, suffering and dying from incurable diseases, people are lying ,cheating, stealing. Children are being raped and abused. A WW3 can start anytime. No matter where you live, we are all surronded by misery"
These sentiments don't really point to someone having a contemplative session of existential angst. It's pretty mundane black cloud sheet.
Don't get me wrong, I believe there are 1000 reasons not to have kids (and, frankly, that most people should think thrice before having kids and then think twice more) and if obeyed would result in a huge net loss of suffering. But this isn't what's being espoused here under the monniker of AN. Unfortunately it appears to be just your everyday boo hoo life stinks tripe. And misery loves company
Would you say that the ANs here on this thread are claiming 'existential angst' as why they see the world as being full of suffering and misery? Because they certainly post otherwise. Just a couple examples:
"because we live in a world full of pain, misery, suffering, violence, bullies, and children are vulnerable to everything"
"On a daily basis, people are being tortured, murdered, suffering and dying from incurable diseases, people are lying ,cheating, stealing. Children are being raped and abused. A WW3 can start anytime. No matter where you live, we are all surronded by misery"
These sentiments don't really point to someone having a contemplative session of existential angst. It's pretty mundane black cloud sheet.
I don't know that existential suffering has to be understood or contemplated to be suffering. It only has to be experienced. I have no way of knowing how many people who find existence or the uncertainty of existence unsatisfactory, can also articulate it at a meta level. The tendency is to talk about specifics: "things aren't going well at work, my wife is dissatisfied, I am dissatisfied, and I'm getting old" ... or even more vaguely, "I'm very unhappy and anxious", or still more, "my life sucks and it's everyone else's fault". How many 45 year olds expressing these issues recognize their own middle-age crisis when they are going through it? How many of them would even be able to think of it in terms of "my existence is futile"? No, they still think it's workable, so they buy the sports car and do the comb-over and woo the trophy 2nd wife. Their level of understanding or not understanding this really has nothing to do with whether or not it's suffering, except to make the suffering even worse, for themselves and others in their paths.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elhelmete
Don't get me wrong, I believe there are 1000 reasons not to have kids (and, frankly, that most people should think thrice before having kids and then think twice more) and if obeyed would result in a huge net loss of suffering. But this isn't what's being espoused here under the monniker of AN. Unfortunately it appears to be just your everyday boo hoo life stinks tripe. And misery loves company
There is some of that going on. But when you think about it, a good percentage of posts on forums of any kind on any topic are the hand-wringing of youthful idealism meeting with brick walls. Particularly that of privileged youth, I suspect, who are finding out about the Real World. That is why I used to love another forum I was on before it went belly up some years back, it was only for people 40 and older. The level of overwrought-ness was much, much lower there than it often is anywhere else.
Everyone is harmed by procreation. We all suffer and die. Even the luckiest person in the world who has the most enchanting and blissful life isn't free from harm, it may be minimal harm. But it's still harm. When you create life you are creating a window of opportunity for the occurrence of harm.
The harm in the veg argument is needless torture and death of a specific animal who can be identified, not the natural order of life or creatures who only exist as potential. So, now the argument is that life shouldn't be because it doesn't last forever and we're back to any and all harm is reason for non-existence. If that works for you, great. Don't have kids.
Quote:
There is a real possibility of creating a severely harmed person who would regret her existence. Some people experience suffering and regard it as bad, this is an objective and empirical fact. They were harmed by being brought into life.
That real possibility was a problem for your parents to contend with, not mine. Why should I not exist because some other person has been harmed? There is no reasonable argument for it other than your personal preferences and that's not good enough. You need to bring more to the table.
Look braunwyn, slavery wasn't considered immoral by society many years ago. Since there is no objective morality abolitionists could think that it'd be pointless to argue for the abolition of slavery. Abolitionism was just a point of view and non-abolitionists couldn't be forced to agree with it.
Luckily, the disbelief of non-abolitionists didn't prevent the abolitionists from having victory. For that to have been possible, abolitionists understood that they had to gain strenght in numbers, which they later proceeded by making compelling arguments.
Procreation isn't considered immoral by society. But antinatalists try to persuade the public at large. Surely we can't force people to agree with our arguments. But it doesn't mean we can't debate the morality of procreation. Procreation is an ethical issue that needs to receive attention.
Yes. Luckly, slaves didn't conform with the point of view of non-abolitionists. What would you expect of a tortured slave, to be conformed with his suffering just because there is no "objective morality"? Would you expect them to say, ok there is no right and wrong, let's respect non-abolitionists point of view, we can't impose our point of view on them. We'll just resign to our fates"
No. They weren't conformed.They fought for abolitionism and emerged victorious.
In comparsion with procreation. What do you expect of an unhappy person harmed by procreation? To be conformed with her or his misery? To say "okay, I have to respect breeders' opinions,I will not fight for antinatalism because there is nothing inherently right or wrong, I will just sit here and accept my misery and do nothing to prevent it for other people." Never!
I understand antinatalists, they can change this reality. They can claim their rights.
It's wrong to have children because we live in a world full of pain, misery, suffering, violence, bullies, and children are vulnerable to everything. Why do people have children in a world like this? Are they blind and in denial? Parents are aware of all misery that contains in this world and still choose to procreate to please themselves. Having children is an extremely selfish act and it's wrong.
We also live in a world full of happiness, love, optimism, and hope. At least that is how it is at my house.
Only selfish if you cannot properly raise them and are not able to dedicate your life to raising them properly.
We also live in a world full of happiness, love, optimism, and hope. At least that is how it is at my house.
Only selfish if you cannot properly raise them and are not able to dedicate your life to raising them properly.
You may be capable of properly raising a child and fully dedicated to doing it properly, and still have a poor outcome. Your child can have difficulties that have nothing to do with your capability and intent. Perhaps they will experience a horrible disease or accident. Perhaps they will have the genes express for major clinical depression. Perhaps they'll be fine until they're in their early twenties, at which point they will develop paranoid schizophrenia. None of this is due to your incapability or lack of dedication. And I know more than one excellent parent whose child is, in the exercise of the child's own freedom of choice, a demon seed. (Perversely, I also know a terrible set of parents that produced a child who is a prince amongst men, although who knows how much overcompensation THAT took on the part of the child.). This stuff just happens. Or not ... as the case may be.
All the above said, it is also entirely possible for a person to THINK they are capable and fully committed to child-rearing, but in fact their efforts are misguided and their level of commitment still falls short -- or maybe they ARE pretty good but some other blunder such as poor mate selection short circuits the whole thing. So general bad luck and the child's unwise use of its free will are not the only things that can mess things up.
We tend to underestimate difficulty and overestimate luck. There is a reason we have evolved that way; it's because there is a lot of difficulty and a deficit of luck. The only good news is that it is likely your child will also underestimate difficulty and overestimate luck, and they will be cheered on by the rest of society which mostly does the same. But none of that changes that difficulty and calamity exist, often disproportionately to ease and good fortune.
I was quite clearly referring to one poster in this thread and you know that, so I'm not sure why you are charging me with making assumptions about all antinatalists. My tense was singular, not plural.
Does not matter one bit. Working with kids is not parenting. Having nieces and nephews is not parenting. If you think otherwise you are either lying to yourself or you simply do not have the experience to know any better. I do and have experienced all of the above
Statistically, children tend to end up just like their parents for better or worse. That's just the way of it. That is why I say parents have more control and responsibility than many are willing to admit. Every cell in my daughter's body was dictated by me; by the choices her father and I made years before we even met; by every morsel I put into my body during gestation; by my approaches to stress and awareness of hormones and chemistry, and by every morsel that goes into her body after birth. Her neural development is largely dependent on what I decide to expose her to as well as the environments I decide to expose her to; whether there is or is not religion (no); whether compassion is a part of her daily routine (yes); whether she will be exposed to the sciences or TV. People just don't randomly turn out how they are. The programming starts long before conception.
Anyhow, you should be well aware of the statistics. We don't still have a world full of Christians and Muslims because children are independent individuals with their own value system. Unless a person does a whole lot of LSD or engages in some other life altering experiences it's unlikely s/he will deviate far from her roots. My daughter has a greater chance of ending up like both of her parents rather than an antinatalist who cannot substantiate arguments he wishes to inflict on others. That is just not the kind of interaction she is going to be raised with.
Why don't you try reading the thread before assuming. Two posters in this thread have made matter of fact statements of why parents, parent. That is simply not information they or you are privy to. You likely have no idea what I'm talking about though and why bother when assuming is the norm.
I have been reading the thread all along. I have posted also. You have made several generalizations about antinatalists, it was not just those two posters who you were referring to.
You are using having children as a measure of expertise but all you have is a nine month old baby. Your child is not even old enough to speak up against the things you want her to be. She will also have a lot of external influences. We just don't stop creating our values when we turn 18. Life goes on and your influence over her will keep getting smaller the older she gets.
Your child might share some of your values but she will not be your carbon copy. I have never seen a person who had the same exact values as their parents. If that were true siblings would be all clones of each other. You seem to be implying antinatalist were raised with certain values and that must be the reason why they turn out that way. My guess is you must not know many antinatalists in real life and you had already made up your mind about them way before the first post was written. It is very easy to demonize a group you hardly know but they might turn out to be just as normal as everybody else.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
