What are the best arguments against Antinatalism?
I've pretty much bought into it, but I would prefer to hold a more positive view of human life.
Why should conscious life perpetuate itself if suffering caused by consciousness will never be eradicated?
How can a parent morally have a child without being able to guarantee a net-positive life for it?
Why is humanity trying to 'progress'? What end-point are we trying to reach if even post-scarcity societies will still face conflicts and sadness?
Suffering is not caused by consciousness. Suffering is caused by the wrong kind of consciousness which is cultivated by society for its own sake. In order to truly overcome suffering without devaluing life itself one must learn to appreciate his own suffering as not something to be escaped but rather to be embraced and endured.
The best argument is to just go on living and reproducing and let the annoying, depressive, Schopenhauer cucks with weak psychologies whine.
The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute that it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive, many others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear, others are slowly being devoured from within by rasping parasites, thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst, and disease. It must be so. If there ever is a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in the population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.
*threat of violence*
When we will we start giving Africa foreign aid?
Best way of combating overpopulation, seriously.
>That image
Literally who gives a fuck? The only places where overpopulation occurs is in third world shitholes. The only job the West has to do is cut off support for these countries and we can see the population dropping like flies.
This.
Without hardship and suffering, comfort and pleasure are LITERALLY meaningless.
stop*
Western interventionism is seen as oppresive and morally unacceptable. As long as this is the case, people outside of western influence will continue to suck and endure tribal wars. Providing resources only postpones the problem.
Global anglo domination in the honored tradition of the British Empire needs to happen again.
>we don't have absolute perfection, let's all kill ourselves
there is no logical basis for this, this isn't some truth that society can't accept, your sole motivation is to pretend you are edgy and deep
Here's my question for antinatalists: if you truly believe the world is over-populated, why not self-select on the matter and kill yourself? Like seriously. Or is the whole antinatalist argument "stop having more people so I feel like there is more room for me,"?
I have to keep myself alive to encourage others to join my mass-extinction cult, killing myself won't help with that.
Overpopulation is only a problem in third world shitholes, how about you fedoras go campaign there.
where the fuck do you readditors get those funny definitions of antinatalism involving "perfection" and "overpopulation"
its fundamentally about how reproduction is not ethically "worth it" from a (negative) utilitarian framework
go do a Google search before you try to talk its impossible for discourse to happen when you don't even know what to talk about
If anti-natalists, or rather anti-life-ists are serious about ending all life, making philosophical arguments against breeding is nowhere enough. You will only get a few people on the internet persuaded, and only those who think about ethics philosphically rather than tradition/instinct etc.
If reproduction isn't worth it, then living isn't worth it. Yet you still choose to live, as do most people.
If life is so horribly, awfully, terrible, why continue it? Why be a hypocrite if you truly believe there should be no more people? Why continue to be, yourself?
No it's not that we don't get it. It's that it's a colossally stupid ideal to invest your time pursuing. And by the way: by killing yourself you would both perceive no more suffering AND end your own contribution to suffering. It's the ONLY active way to support the ideology.
As I understand it the point is that causing suffering is a greater moral evil than causing pleasure is a moral good. Not that life sucks for everyone.
benatar makes a wonderful distinction between a life not worth continuing and a life not worth starting in "better never to have been" , so instead of me copypasting from there I reccomend you read him instead
also friend "why not kill yourself hypocrite" is really not the airtight argument against antinatalism you imagine it to be, it also stems from you conflating the idea of continuing life with starting it, I have integrity because I advocate not starting lives and have not started any myself
Look, I get you are super bummed that stuff you don't like happens. However those of us with a less shallow perception just see "waaaaaah waaaaah life is suffering waaaaah."
Your whole argument depends on other people only keeping inventory of the negative while taking anything that's not negative for granted. Your assertion of a primarily negative experience for all life is COMPLETELY baseless and even your definition of suffering is vague at best.
you don't need to measure whether experience of life is entirely negative or a bit negative when talking about the ethical implications of reproduction - the outcome in case of reproduction is ALWAYS worse, and this is even more obvious if you don't subscribe to funny versions of utilitarianism that believe pleasure can balance suffering
>it's an inescapable fact
It really isn't. There's no intrinsic reason why Earth couldn't support 12 billion sustainably, or be irreparably damaged by 1 billion.
How did you arrive at those numbers? Oh wait, I know, you pulled them straight out your arse. Could just as easily argue that the top-right rating should be 0, or the bottom-left should be 4.5953
Negative utilitarianism (which anti-natalism is based on) is quite a funny form of utilitarianism.
en.wikipedia.org
>the outcome in case of reproduction is ALWAYS worse
[Citation needed]
The only time a Christ-fags bullshit actually improved a thread.
If that were true, then simply living is also a moral evil, regardless of whether you have intentions to bring more joy or more suffering to the world. Even if your life is absolutely awesome, it is a clear moral evil to sustain the society (through capitalism, creation of hegemony, etc.) that allows for the causing of suffering.
I don't waste time with shit books when there are so many good books I haven't yet read, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
its not funny, I myself am very sad about the world not exploding
Your use of dramatic absolutes is enough to show me that this is a concept you are obsessed with and thus pointless to debate. You can only validate your perspective by projecting on to the general populace some imagined crime so that you can polarize against it as "the moral choice."
Unfortunately, there is no morality. Only morale.
And I would add that the way all life would be destroyed wouldn't even need to be anywhere near painless in order to be preferable from a negative utilitarian standpoint.
well its not really obsession to point out the obvious - if you exist you suffer more than if you don't
this doesn't mean that one ought to make others stop existing, they probably wouldn't like that
if you agree that avoiding suffering is good, you should agree that reproduction is bad
>If that were true, then simply living is also a moral evil, regardless of whether you have intentions to bring more joy or more suffering to the world. Even if your life is absolutely awesome, it is a clear moral evil to sustain the society (through capitalism, creation of hegemony, etc.) that allows for the causing of suffering.
Certainly living wouldn't be impossible to justify if you'd focus on your energies on reducing suffering.
That's just it. I don't agree. Some suffering and/or deterioration is necessary for growth and the avoidance of suffering on a personal level usually results in greater suffering for others. Reality doesn't work on a black/white good/bad scale. That's how children and simpletons think.
>What are the best arguments against Antinatalism?
Literally evolution. Shitty people with low IQ are going to breed regardless unless we sterilize them. It's the high IQ, successful populations that are effected by anti-natalist drivel, and will lead to the entire world resembling India in time
Just by acquiring the means necessary to reduce suffering (through money, power, influence) you'd be creating more suffering.
"Progress" itself is a creation of the mind, so asking what it strives toward seems redundant as there is no divine driving force behind natural selection, which while humans will insist we have moved beyond, is simply not true. Humanity will continue to exist because it simply has no choice. You are an energy black hole, consuming what is around you. There is no reason for this, it simply is. Don't value consciousness as this all important thing, existence will continue. Morality itself is a human delusion, there is no right or wrong. There just is. There isn't an answer, and until you can accept that "suffering" is all you will know.
Christfag detected
I don't know if you're aware of the fact, that what you're saying is precisely antinatalist argument.
>stopping breeding is the way to stop overpopulation
Yawn..
>Implying it was not global Anglo domination that led to all this shit
Is that meme really how see the world?
It's all just assumptions of values
That "pleasure" is equivalent to "suffering", and that "suffering" is inherently a negative, also that "no pain" is good
Just kill yourself
Anti natalism just boils down to "pain/sadness=bad"
It's 100% spooked.
It assumes that suffering is inherently evil without sound basis. But the fact is suffering is not inherently evil, indeed what makes one suffer can sometimes be the key to making them great, or in the case of birth, making them at all.
Further, it's demonstrable that life is a net positive, otherwise suicide would be considerably more common than it is.
Anti-natalism should be used against enemies of the white race. Racially targetting viruses, methods of forced sterilization (I've heard there are viral cancers which attack ovaries, which may prove useful).
We want to encourage anti-natalism amongst non-european peoples and encourage pro-natal policies amongst whites.
Honestly, if you don't intent to have children, you should be denied healthcare, pension, benefits and any form of social investment. Into life after the age of 40 or so. Only exception is on medical condition or if you are deemed inferior to the breeding standard by the state.
Offer enormous loans, 250k USD to young newly wed couples to purchases homes/houses with. For every child they have, take 125k away from that loan. Make the loan interest free for the first 5 years. No payment for the first two years, unless the wife is pregnant and restart the no payment period for each pregnancy. Offer an additional 125k for each subsequent child.
Not sure about you, but I intend to have a shitload of children. Large families are great fun, and sure they can be tough or miserable at times. But that family will remain with you forever.
this. people need to shit out more babies so overpopulation drives us faster to colonize mars. I'm tired of waiting for this shit.
this, If they want childless lives and never knowing the joy of seeing someone grow up, it's their decition, I might not be able to provide a 1% life to my future kids, but I will give them the best life I can.
Also my problem with anti natalism is that it's pretty much only pushed in first world countries but third world shitholes are still pumping runts like rabbits, over population wouldn't be a problem if Indians and Chinks had been responsible and didn't had 12 kids per family
Best answer to that pic is to stop giving aid to third world countries that breed like rabbits.
Because overpopulation is a myth
Fact: You could fit the worlds population into a housing development the size of Texas and it would have the population density of New Jersey.
Fact: you could wipe out 90% of the population and still not put a dent in anthropogenic climate change if you're not targeting the ones doing the lion's share of the polluting.
Fact: Population scaremongers have been peddling catastrophic collapse in food production since Thomas Malthus literally advocated starving off the poor and needy, always failing to take into account the ever accelerating efficiently of food production which helps humans squeeze more and better food out of fewer acres of land.
Fact: The total population of humans is expected to level off sometime around the mid 21st century and then begin a terminal decline as more and more societies reach developed status. Population DECLINE is a more dangerous specter to the human race than overpopulation.
overpopulation is a myth and malthus was an evil doomsayer
If we were overpopulated, then an increase in labour allocated to agriculture would give diminishing returns. In fact, its literally the opposite; the more labour, the more output.
By DEFINITION we are not experiencing overpopulation. Allocation=/=production.
you dont need to argue against something thats factually wrong lol
but muh human rights! and muh historical guilt! and of course it's morally right to help shitholes because muh colonialism
this, nessecity is the mother of initiave
hello /pol/
Guys, I'm getting real spooked by this thread
He just wants to start the race war.
Giving aid to third world countries does not work because
>Just sending them food for free means that the local farmers there are out competed and cannot grow to actually support the population
>The third world countries usually have oppressive governments that accept the financial aid to spend on the dictator or divvy between the corrupt officials
>A lot of the time money is basically useless because there isn't an infrastructure there, and the society and culture is at a point where doing things like just building public schools and what not won't help because agrarian families need children to work their farms (and urban poor families need children to prostitute unfortunately)
That's why the only moral solution is to engage in actual free trade with them so that there is competition, emergent infrastructures, and all of the things that built first world nations in their industrial revolutions at different times.
This is also the reason why "sweatshops" and factories for cheap labor should not be opposed, since it offers a work alternative and brings capital to nations that would otherwise be stuck as famine infested agrarian societies. The children working in the sweatshops is sad yes, but it's better that they would have something of a steady wage in conditions better than the uncertainty of a farm or be stuck as child prostitutes (which is a big problem in those countries, especially that prematurely banned child labor.)
How can you seriously type that with a straight face? You /pol/cucks never cease to amaze me
>if you exist you suffer more than if you don't
that's a huge assumption that you couldn't possibly measure
"Muh potential suffering" is the fallacy of proving too much
>You could fit the worlds population into a housing development the size of Texas
space obviously isn't in short supply, population is limited by fresh water and food
> anthropogenic climate change
>lion's share of the polluting
are we talking about CO2 emissions, pollution or overpopulation?
>Thomas Malthus
he successfully predicted the irish potato famine and no one listened
>advocated starving off the poor and needy
quote?
>the ever accelerating efficiently of food production
and a few decades later population will catch up to it
>The total population of humans is expected to level off sometime around the mid 21st century
some people will use contraceptives, but others will keep on breeding and future generations will be composed of these people
Overpopulation is a meme, the ones overpopulating are panjeets and africans
Irish Potato Famine was caused by the protectionist Corn Laws which didn't let them import food.
It's a problem in developing countries, developed countries can handle having more citizens.
Because you get demographic collapse if your population fails to replenish itself. If everyone has one or no babies, then they get old and retire, where did your workforce go? You then need to import people from places that are having plenty of babies, and mass immigration almost inevitably leads to a breakdown of social cohesion.
Just because people in India are having like eight babies doesn't mean that people in the west have to have less to make up for it. People in India need to stop having so many fucking babies, and if they don't, they're going to face the issues involved with overpopulation in their countries first.
Not to sound edgy, but a good old fashioned famine or disease will probably curb overpopulation before a decision on the part of people will. I'd rather a famine if only because that can be localized and just knock out the offending party, disease could spread (and with all our dumbass abuses of antibiotics it's probably a matter of time until we end up with something both deadly and highly resistant).
>here are questions of uncertain/certain values
>but don't you dare answer with answers that appeal to uncertain/certain values
pls die
He predicted that the British landlords would take all the food the Irish had grown to sell in England, and then make it illegal for them to fish for food?
So, as in every thread about it, OP succeeded in baiting everyone, then painfully trying to make to rationalise his shitty theory with lots of buzzwords, vague statements and funky versions of negative utilitarianism.
*tried.
>space obviously isn't in short supply, population is limited by fresh water and food
Which are problems to be solved with civic planners and infrastructure development, not population control
>are we talking about CO2 emissions, pollution or overpopulation?
If you nuked the entire population of India and Africa there'd still be unsustainable levels of pollution and CO2 being belched into the atmosphere despite the population being objectively lower because you didn't touch the places where most of the pollution is happening.
>quote?
It's properly cited in the link I provided
>he successfully predicted the irish potato famine and no one listened
Even a broken clock is right twice a day, and the Irish potato famine was not caused by overpopulation, it was caused by a virus which wiped out enough of the crop to jack up global potato prices, making it more lucrative for the remaining farmers to sell their stocks oversees rather than distribute them to the starving Irish, while the English government took an attitude that God was punishing the Irish for whatever unspecified reason (probably relating to being Catholic) while ignoring the fact that the Irish Potato Famine was a man-made famine
>and a few decades later population will catch up to it
Which they've been saying since the 1850's, and despite all their dire warnings efficiency continues to climb for food production... to the point where our poor are suffering from an obesity epidemic.
>some people will use contraceptives, but others will keep on breeding and future generations will be composed of these people
virtually every single developed country has seen their population growth shrink below sustainable levels. Literally the only thing keeping western civilization growing is immigration.
OP here.
I really regret posting an OP image which wasn't related to the argument of antinatalism. I'll try posting a nice relaxing meme which won't distract some of you /pol/acks.
how is a picture of a pregnant woman not related to anti-natalism?
You mean, that some lives are worth living? Oh, then I'll just keep doing what I'm doing even if you tell me not to breed.
Because people shifted the argument to arguing about which kinds of people should be depopulated and/or saying that antinatalists think their life sucks when in reality many people with good lives, genes, and money don't want to have kids because of beliefs about suffering and the purposes we assign to our lives.
>Get btfo
>/p-pol/ ;_;
And those people are stupid
End of story
it's good to mention sources but this irritates me to no end when people simply say people are wrong without being specific and just refering them to a source. I'm fine doing my own research from what people have refered me to but it doesn't help a conversation to not at least give your rebuttal based on the source in a brief, condensed form
>suffering caused by consciousness will never be eradicated?
I wouldn't take that as a given.
There's a more than trivial chance that a child born today will live to see a cure for mortality, the automation of most work, and the introduction of universal basic income.
low IQ people go to
>How can a parent morally have a child without being able to guarantee a net-positive life for it?
You can't. Having children in our nowadays world is cruelty. It hurts the planet, and will just lead to more and more unemployment as automation increases.
Nature created us to have children, like every other animal. But it also created us with a consciousness that has evolved so highly, that we can see the goodness of not acting like animals.
>falling for the labor meme
you realize more people means a greater strain on natural resources and therefore less for everyone? It's not like "dude more labor lmao" can create water and fossil fuels.
You seem triggered friend
no pain is not bad
also why do you assume hedonism is the only purpose in life and the only good?
>you disagree with me therefore you are from reddit
this is just another way of saying "2edgy4u", doesn't matter how edgy it is or how many normies can't handle the truth if it actually is wrong, kyo
If I turn out to be barren I'll become antinatalist
End welfare
End foreign aid
Problem solved
Sounds like eugenics advocacy to me.
>It's the high IQ, successful populations that are effected by anti-natalist drivel
actually they will instantly realize it is fedora tipping nonsense, but low IQ people will still outbreed them regardless
I can't soundly refute you, but just some points
>But the fact is suffering is not inherently evil, indeed what makes one suffer can sometimes be the key to making them great, or in the case of birth, making them at all.
sometimes is the key word. I'd say that it's not justifiable to impose (as in, done without consent) life on someone with the possibility that their experience will be negative. I guess it comes down to whether you think never existing is more desirable than your life being net-negative, and also how you feel about the notion of imposition
>otherwise suicide would be considerably more common than it is
I don't think this constitutes an effective argument because it fails to consider a survival instinct and the irrationality of fear
Why not settle for a less extreme solution? Let's say only people living in advanced western countries should reproduce. This would solve many problems.
>no fault divorce means a woman can take half my shit and then take child support and alimony on top of that
>please have heaps of kids
No.
>sometimes is the key word. I'd say that it's not justifiable to impose (as in, done without consent) life on someone with the possibility that their experience will be negative. I guess it comes down to whether you think never existing is more desirable than your life being net-negative, and also how you feel about the notion of imposition
The net negativity of life is absolutely necessary for them to become great. If they never are, they will never achieve this greatness. It's as legitimate to bring a child into being as it is to force your child to learn, exercise, or eat right.
>I don't think this constitutes an effective argument because it fails to consider a survival instinct and the irrationality of fear
I think it's a perfectly fine argument. People kill themselves all the time over stupid shit. The survival instinct isn't as strong as you make it out to be. If they overall effect of life weren't positive, no one would ever tough life out through the shitty things to get to the good things. Barring something truly excessive, the misery and frustration that characterizes life is vastly outweighed by even one experience with the sublime.
Hmm, I accidentally contradicted myself.
>the negativity of life
That's how the first line should read. The net in there was another thought that I abandoned and forgot to edit out.
omg no its not you selfish pricks !!!! just because all the land rights are owned dose not certify the planet as over pop !!! we have yet to build down into the ground , we have yet to colonize Utah even !!!! you people I hate your self conceded types . you ever think that we will develop new ways to live closer? do you ever think enough to fight the urge to not invent? fuck you waste of space open your eyes see the truth that god hides to control you . and know that you are god.
>we have yet to colonize Utah even !!!!
You do realize that almost all arable is already in use word-wide? The difficulty is not housing, but maintaining people, with food, things, natural resources, etc.
We owe nothing to our fellow man, and thus ought not feel any sense of guilt for overpopulating the world so long as we have the necessary wealth to support ourselves and our children.
Invention is born of necessity, and we're probably not going to run off and colonize other planets/asteroids/space without some pressing need to do so. Overpopulation could be that need. In a way, overpopulation could serve as the necessary evil which ensures mankind's long term survival, in the event Earth is ever rendered uninhabitable.
The planet isn't actually overpopulated. That's merely the perception many city-folk have. Truthfully much of our planet's surface is flat out empty.
Oi m80 that's bullshit though. Africa just needs to get its shit together or get re-colonized so it can serve as the global breadbasket it ought to.
It's pushed in countries were it's enforceable user. Also if it's a ressource argument, rich country's children cost much more ressources than poor one's.
The English government sent £10 million in aid to Ireland during the potato famine, equivalent to about one sixth of annual government spending at the time. Maybe they could have done more, but you can hardly argue that they caused it
Only if given from the perspective that pleasure and growth are not equal to suffering and stagnation.
there arent any, but then again no one realy needs them
one set of reasons for x are in this context as good as any other set of reasons for y, its realy a question of a specific ethical stance
vaginal penetration folloved by ejaculation and succesfull insemination can and does result in pregnancy, circa 9 months later you get another human being, there are 7.5+ billion various human beings on the planet
these are simply facts, on their own they have no real meaning, no conclusion or stance is automaticaly implicit in them
the simple fact theres so many other people in the world could just as well be the basic incentive to breed as many of your own people as quickly as you possibly can, even in a organised way, surely being part of a numerous and well organised population is preferable in such a situation than to be part of a disorganised and dwindling population, no?
who are these humans refered to any way, all humans generaly, humans living in bad conditions, humans in some region of the world, humans of a certain group? which ones?? this becomes all the more important if you put the basic value of human life, or life generaly, into question
its all a matter of perspective, besides, history shows us overpopulation is rarely a longterm problem