Antinatalism Thread

Having children is not ethically defensible. The bad outweighs the good in this world by a long way.

>To do so would cause greater suffering for others around me.
Really exposed the ridiculous presumption there. The source of anti-natalism.

What right do you have to create life?

How is that ridiculous? That's a utilitarian ethical argument about minimizing the suffering of his family and friends while he exists. Unless you're arguing that suffering doesn't actually exist

I believe having only one child is defensible as the right of a species to propagate its DNA is as important as the struggle and suffering endured by the previous generations to carry forward that species. A billion years of living organisms reproduced thier cells and combined thier DNA to get me here. It would be a shame for that line to.be broken just for philosophical reasons alone. I would need a scientific reason why I should break.that chain.of reproduction permanently that wasn't merely a moral conjecture. As far as I can tell there is a biological imperative and a natural right of reproduction inherent in the very structure of life.

That being said, I think the world is a fairly shitty place. It always has been, and will likely be for some time. That is not a valid reason to interupt the unbroken billion year chain of life. Resources in the future will likely be limited and conflict will be rapid and widespread. Therefore having only one child is most socially responsible as it takes the least amount of resources from other couples who also want to propagate thier DNA as a natural right bit also gives everyone equal chances of genetic extinction with only one child. It's both a shared risk and a shared privilege to have one kid. However I think forcing this policy by coercive law or punishment is not likely to be effective but rather education and normative conditioning will be more effective.

I have one child. I will risk genetic extinction in him, and I will also pour everything I can into his success. I think that is a fair trade off given the figures lack of resources and stability.

We still do not know the full details of what can be learned and achieved in the future. There may be various strands of genetic linkages that can provide great value to our civilization. I se no benefit in choosing extinction of those linkages for philosophic reasons. To do so would be to sacrifice whatever contributions can be gained by future civilizations.

The presumption is that ending his life would create more suffering than if he continued it. This is absolutely false.

Pretty safe presumption, having a family member or friend kill themselves is deeply traumatic

>ethically

rofl
Antinatalism is just as spooked as natalism.

That makes a presupposition that our species is of intrinsic worth because we are part of an unbroken chain of evolution and to break that would be unethical. If we look at the impact that humans have had on our world and other animals it has been overwhelmingly negative, and there is no way of knowing if this will change positively if we continue to evolve.

There is also the point that Zapffe made about the possibility of an 'overevolved' consciousness, much like an overevolved set of antlers on a deer, that has led to widespread existential despair, especially after Nietzsche's Death of God.

there is more to life than avoiding pain, this completely disproves antinatalism

spooky m8

It really isn't

and what is the unspooky proof that life is solely about avoiding pain

The negation of pain and suffering is the base for all society.