Anti-natalism is the philosophical value judgment that procreation is unethical or unjustifiable. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from making children. Some antinatalists consider coming into existence to always be a serious harm. Their views are not necessarily limited only to humans but may encompass all sentient creatures, arguing that coming into existence is a serious harm for sentient beings in general. There are various reasons why antinatalists believe human reproduction is problematic. The most common arguments for antinatalism include that life entails inevitable suffering, death is inevitable, and humans are born without their consent. Additionally, although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person’s suffering. WIKIPEDIA

If you think, maybe for a few years, like 10-20 years, no one should make babies, and when things get better, we can continue, then you are not an anti-natalist. Anti-natalists believe that suffering will always be there and no one should be born EVER.

This photo was clicked by a friend, at Linnahall.

  • 𝕮𝕬𝕭𝕭𝕬𝕲𝕰@feddit.ukEnglish
    11·
    6 days ago

    You’re moving the goalposts.

    You made two key points;

    1. That suffering can be beneficial and
    2. That denying someone the opportunity to experience something beneficial is immoral, somtomhave kids is moral positive.

    My primary objections are

    1. That suffering is always bad (although we disagree on the definitions of suffering, somits likely to be a moot point)
    2. Having children on the basis of it being morally good presents a number of very upsetting and dangerous implications.

    Gaza was an example of a point, and of my own views on suffering; that suffering is something you cannot escape and that you do not choose, not something that’s difficult or temporarily painful you can choose to do which will ultimately produce some good. I’d posit that everyone experiences some form of suffering in their lives, to varying degrees, and the minimisation of this can only ever be a net positive.

    Personally I don’t want children for a number of reasons, but boiling it down to a moral reason is reductive, unhelpful, and can be dangerous.

    • Cypher@lemmy.world
      11·
      6 days ago

      I’m not moving any goalposts, my responses are keeping in mind the original arguments of antinatalism, that sufferring is inevtiable and that all sufferring should be avoided.

      The oldest writing on this (that I am aware of) is Sophocles’s Oedipus at Colonus, written shortly before Sophocles’s death in 406 BC:

      Not to be born is, beyond all estimation, best; but when a man has seen the light of day, this is next best by far, that with utmost speed he should go back from where he came. For when he has seen youth go by, with its easy merry-making, what hard affliction is foreign to him, what suffering does he not know? Envy, factions, strife, battles, and murders. Last of all falls to his lot old age, blamed, weak, unsociable, friendless, wherein dwells every misery among miseries

      Look at the examples given, something as simple as envy being defined as sufferring. Loneliness in old age? This doesn’t seem to match how you are defining sufferring, and so our approaches differ.

      suffering is something you cannot escape and that you do not choose, not something that’s difficult or temporarily painful

      Torture is temporarily painful and we all agree that’s sufferring and not something you would choose.

      Relationship breakups, especially one you didn’t choose to end, can be difficult but many people would agree that they sufferred during and after a breakup.

      The premise is that sufferring is an inevitablility which you seem to agree with but sufferring as you’re defining it doesn’t seem to be a guaranteed experience.

      You could conceivably live your entire life and never experience something that you cannot escape and that you do not choose, not something that’s difficult or temporarily painful. You could even choose a peaceful death to wrap up your sufferring free life with the way you’ve defined sufferring, even if it’s still unlikely it is a possibility, which goes against the original antinatalist claim that sufferring is inevitable.

      Obviously sufferring comes in degrees of severity. I would never agree that not being born would be better than going through a breakup, or that its a moral imperative not to create new life because they might experience relationship difficulties.

      However I would agree never being born would be preferrable to the death suffered by Hisaschi Ouchi, who was kept alive for as long as possible against his wishes so that doctors could study how extreme radiation poisoning would progress.

      Personally I don’t want children for a number of reasons

      I respect that and have zero interest in your reasons, it is your choice.

      boiling it down to a moral reason is reductive, unhelpful, and can be dangerous.

      It can certainly be dangerous, and I volunteered to moderate a space for discussion on the topic to try and mitigate some of that danger. To, potentially, reduce sufferring ;)