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.
It’s a natural consequence of negative utilitarianism. But even that aside, I can’t ask any potential offspring for permission so it’s best to leave it alone.
In a society whose official ideology is that “There is No Alternative”, antinatalism is basically a dressed up version of “it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”.
It’s basically just lack of imagination. Doomerist defeatism.
I think you’re misunderstanding anti-natalism if you believe it’s about envisioning the end of the world. It’s not that grand, nor that pessimistic. It was never meant to remedy shitty living conditions. It’s not a tool for embettering society, it’s a philosophical exercise that questions one’s right to create a person and subject them to sentience and suffering.
Imagining non-existence is anything but lacking imagination because it so abstract to our minds. To be anti-natalist, you must first have attempted to imagine that in order to compare it to existence before asking if you feel it is right to subject a human to that.
It’s a philosophical exercise that challenges social conventions about child-rearing. Don’t forget that it’s an excruciating ordeal for women too. There is suffering involved for all parties. Not all kids are born healthy, secure, and provided for.
Ask anyone with disabilities, abusive families, trauma, financial hardship, and generally going though too much shit in life and you’ll find that it was never about a lack of imagination. We suffer because we are able to imagine how things could have been so much better. It is because we can imagine ourselves in a better place that we ask if not being born is necessarily any worse. That isn’t a statement made with just pessimism, it’s made with genuine curiosity towards thinking back what ‘life’ was like before being born, and deciding that it is the greatest gift you can give to your hypothetical children.
You’re contradicting your own argument:
It was never meant to remedy shitty living conditions.
Vs
Ask anyone with disabilities, abusive families, trauma, financial hardship, and generally going though too much shit in life and you’ll find that it was never about a lack of imagination.
This is a contradiction. You are literally picking the antinatalist option because of shitty living conditions.
And of course, the lack of imagination is not whether you can imagine things being better but whether you can imagine things becoming better starting from where we are here and now.
=======
We suffer because we are able to imagine how things could have been so much better. It is because we can imagine ourselves in a better place
If you can imagine such a place, steelman your argument then, try making it without a premise of shitty living conditions. Pick a convivial world, and make an antinatalist argument from that world. Does it still stand?
=======
Finally, the argument that says nonexistence might be better is literally vacuous: False implies True. Nonexistence therefore is trivially whatever you want it to be, but not In any meaningful sense.
You are misinterpreting a crucial point. It’s not about remedying your own shitty living conditions, it’s about not creating one for others.
I don’t know how to state this more simply, but anti-natalism isn’t centered around improving the quality of life for yourself, it’s about not giving the opportunity to suffer for others.
It doesn’t change absolutely anything in my argument, it remains exactly the same. Antinatalism absconds not only the responsibility to improve the world but even the possibility of a better world existing in the future, it assumes à priori that existence is and will remain insufferable.
Nothing about anti-natalism rejects the possibility of improving the world.
To iterate a Buddhist belief, suffering is an inevitable part of existing. The point of anti-natalism is to avoid causing more people to suffer than necessary.
We are no where near the threat of extinction if most of us stop having children. The world is beyond overpopulated and there is no ecologically sound reason to have more kids.
Think of why we sterilize cats and dogs. It’s not because we are absolving ourselves the responsibility of improving their lives, it’s because we do not want them to create more just to suffer on the streets.
Anti-natalism is a response to natalism, a popularly held religious belief that one should have as many children as possible. It’s about rejecting social and cultural pressures to have kids on people who don’t want to.
The world is beyond overpopulated and there is no ecologically sound reason to have more kids.
This is just wrong. There are more than enough resources to go around. More homes than homeless, more food production than food insecure, more clothes than anyone could ever wear in a lifetime; things like transportation, energy, and production could be greatly optimized via collectivisation; and so on. The problem is endless profit-seeking and exploitation, not overpopulation.
The people that have access to these resources, many of which are extracted from the global south, consume way more than their fair share because of the infinite growth drive of capitalism. There is never “enough”, regardless of population; because to stagnate or to shrink is to fail under capitalism. Overconsumption is a problem that could be solved, quite comfortably I might add, if we were enabled collectively to put our minds to it.
You would do more to lessen suffering, by having kids and raising them to fight for that world; because that world is in fact possible; than to prevent their personal suffering by simply not bringing them into existence. Assuming anti-natalism is the only thing stopping you from having kids, of course; not everyone wants or needs to reproduce and I completely agree with destigmatizing that decision, but at least be honest that you just personally don’t want to be a parent. Don’t introduce new stigma for people that do want to be parents.
I take issue with this universal suffering idea. Sounds eugenics-ey. Cause it’s reasonably predictable which children will struggle more than others simply based on material conditions of their parents. It’s less of a “gamble”, for certain people who, often enough, just so happen to be directly responsible for some amount of suffering in the world. Even if I grant you that suffering is universal even in the most optimal conditions, it’s not like someone with optimal means is questioning the ethics of becoming a parent. And if they are, it’s most probably in the hyper-natalist, “populating the world with my superior spawn” direction like the musks of the world. Doesn’t anti-natalism kinda indirectly suggest leaving the world in those kinds of hands?
Also, humans are not cats and dogs and any ideology that leads you to make this comparison, especially w/r to population control and euthanasia, should be rejected just on the face of it. Point blank period.
There’s a certain degree of arrogance in thinking that you are contributing to a greater cause by potentially birthing and raising the next Einstein.
On paper, we may have enough resources to sustain the world population. In practice, we are no where nearly socially and politically progressive enough yet to support said population. Social progress doesn’t happen overnight. Birthing the next Nobel prize winner doesn’t instantly resolve climate change or end world hunger.
Of every person born, there will be far more people putting strain on a system that isn’t able to adequately distribute resources to those who need it. Most people make for dog shit parents.
Basically Malthusian eco-fascism. Nobody should be forced to have kids, having kids is a huge commitment that should be reserved for those who want kids, but the “humans are the virus” crowd just play into reactionary hands and cede all control to those directly responsible for the worst excess.
@Cowbee@lemmy.ml @nutbutter@discuss.tchncs.de
It’s far from oversimplified “eco-fascism” strawman. To illustrate this, I’ll start from this argument of yours:
that should be reserved for those who want kids
Notice your own phrasing, “those who want kids”. The subject behind predicate “wanting” isn’t the object being “wanted”, despite the very object being “wanted” being a living being that’ll be unable to revert this decision imposed unto them.
People often say about “wanting kids” as if they were talking about wanting some kind of material belonging.
Yes, they have no means to decide on the circumstances of their birth, and that’s part of the problem: they can’t choose, neither positively nor negatively, they’re dependent on other’s wills because they got no agency…
…until they reach a certain age, when they’ll suddenly be recognized with agency and then the world will shift the blame upon them: they’ll be required to become a cog in the machine, they’ll be required to “work” and “serve society” in order to fulfill the basic needs (eating food and seeking shelter to protect oneself from elements) that their own body imposed upon them as part of involuntary survival instincts, they’ll be required to “pay” for eating and having a shelter (things that Mother Nature used to give freely), and they’ll be required to accept it as a “matter of fact” of “living among society”.
They can’t opt-out because they’ll be forbidden to live among wildlife as our Homo erectus ancestors did because “we’re different species”.
This leads us to this:
the “humans are the virus” crowd just play into reactionary hands and cede all control to those directly responsible for the worst excess.
IMHO, the fundamentum behind capitalistic greed is human greed.
Billionaires and riches aren’t extraterrestrials nor lizards: as far as Science is concerned, they’re Homo sapiens, differing from the majority of other Homo sapiens insofar they got “enough power” to give agency to their greed.
“Give enough power to a person and you’ll know who they really are” (a popular saying) and “humans are wolves to humans” (Thomas Hobbes).
In this regard, there’s a documentary from Derren Brown called “The Push”. Despite being cinematographic, it precisely depicts what humans are capable of doing to other humans, especially when pressed by life-or-death circumstances. It’s within us.
Finally, I must recall the initial, ecological point: if humans can endanger others from their own species (as we watch daily in capitalist-technofeudalist dystopia), other lifeforms are undeniable under danger that’s posed by human existence.
That’s because humans can’t simply blend with the all other species as one with Mother Earth (just like our ancestors used to do millions of years ago), we humans got this anthropocentric arrogance since the accidental discovery of the fire: now we’re slowly burning ourselves (literally, with fossil fuels) together with all the other lifeforms.
All of the problems you posited are consequences of capitalism and imperialism, the environmental damages included. You’re shifting the blame from genuine systemic failures to humanity genetically. It cedes all responsibility to move onto a better world, preferring to give up and adopt an eco-fascist position.
And all the fundamenta of capitalism and imperalism are consequences of how we humans are our own wolves. Again, billionaires aren’t extraterrestrials or lizards.
It cedes all responsibility to move onto a better world
Some things aren’t reversible. For example, the species that went extinct (some of which we won’t even know they existed because there wasn’t enough time for them to be catalogued by Science) due to “Industrial Revolution”.
A naïve part of me hopes for a better world, where humans could finally coexist with Mother Nature, while we could improve things for all biosphere through Science and Academia, a Science and an Academia detached from capitalistic greed, a sincere pursuit of knowledge and scientific improvement not just for humans, but for all lifeforms, letting go from all our human malice and greed.
However, I can’t help but notice how this is getting farther and farther to be reached as the world is increasingly technofeudalist. I can’t help but see reality as it is: bleak, with a bleaker future awaiting for us, as we get increasingly trapped into a dystopia where the majority of humans would be required to fight against the asymmetrical forces possessing nuclear warheads and real-time control of public opinions from social media.
Sorry if I’m overly realistic and I can’t gaslight myself into hoping for the best, because I’m past this point, I grew tired of hoping for better times as I watch powerless to the dystopia where I was compelled to exist.
My hope now relies beyond this Pale Blue Dot: some supernova within this cosmic vicinity of the Milky Way blasting insurmountable amounts of energy towards here (not enough to vaporize the Earth, but enough to vaporize the machine where we’re forced to be cogs), or some solar CME/flare, powerful enough to free us from ourselves.
And all the fundamenta of capitalism and imperalism are consequences of how we humans are our own wolves.
- It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. — Frederic Jameson
- It is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of imperialism. — Daniel Bessner
Genetic determinism was historically grossly over-applied and is still over-applied in popular (pseudo-)science and in far-right politics.Biological determinism has been associated with movements in science and society including eugenics, scientific racism, and the debates around the heritability of IQ, the basis of sexual orientation, and evolutionary foundations of cooperation in sociobiology.
Where exactly am I saying it’s something to do with human ethnic origins? Where exactly am I nodding or advocating for eugenics or other bigoted concepts?
Because my point is about the innermost human nature, imbued within every human that ever existed, exists and will exist. When, for example, Thomas Hobbes says “Humans are wolves to humans”, he’s not saying about a specific race or gender, he’s talking about the Homo sapiens. All of us, since humans discovered fire and became “fearsome” to other lifeforms holding this warm thing we think we can control.
It goes with saying how the fact that there are bigoted people using this science to try and “validate” eugenics (and how there are bigoted people in the first place) is, ironically enough, another evidence of how humans are wolves to themselves. It’s like I said in a previous reply, billionaires (and far-right figures) aren’t extraterrestrials or lizards, they’re humans with enough power to let their evilness affect other humans. Given enough power, many other humans are likely to pave similar paths.
Yes, not everyone, the end of Derren Brown’s “The Push” documentary shows how there are situations where humans can end up not ceding to their impulses to harm others in order to save their own skin.
But even when we choose to do good and help others (and this includes caring for the wellbeing of the unborn so they don’t suffer the consequences of current humanity’s actions) despite our own wellbeing, our wolves are still there, lurking inside us, because it’s born with us.
This doesn’t invalidate “Homo homini lupus est”, just shows how we sometimes get to be less of a wolf. The first step is letting go of our antropocentrism, our way of seeing the whole cosmos as if it depended and was centered on us humans, and starting to see things anachronistically, beyond human existence, and realizing how we’re just a speck in this cosmic timeline, just wandering star dust.
You aren’t being realistic. Being pessimistic isn’t realism, again you attribute the problems of systems like capitalism and imperialism to humanity, but we know for a fact that tribal societies didn’t have such problems, and neither do socialist states as they exist today. You turn hatred of symptoms of capitalism and imperialism to humanity. It’s eco-fascism.
Removed by mod
You hate humans and don’t want to be called fascist? LMAO
I’m pro-veganism and pro-socialism, so we can move onto a more ethical and environmentally conscious mode of production. Wanting humanity to go extinct is just ecofascism.
Removed by mod
While tribal societies were indeed better insofar they were closer to Nature as today’s humanity, I can’t see a haven in today’s world.
I mean, yeah, things can be going better in, say, China, insofar (AFAIK) Chinese people haven’t to worry about having a shelter and enough food, because they’re not relegated to the whims of capital as we are in the West. I can sort of agree it’s the best we can have in terms of social welfare.
But even China is far from detached, for example, from consequences of climate change. We’ve seen how floods and typhoons and drought have been increasingly hitting the Chinese, because we all exist within the same cosmic boulder called Planet Earth so whatever is done here also affects there and vice-versa.
Even though China is moving more and more to green energy, the way West countries are still "drill baby drill"ing inexorably affects them as well. And also their future, and our future, everyone’s future and every future generations upon whom climate consequences will inexorably hit harder (not to say, for example, about the mess waiting to happen above our heads due to ever-increasing amount of satellites, the Kessler Syndrome, which will also affect us down here if things get beyond control up there).
A better world is neither easy nor impossible, but merely difficult. Your pessimism takes this to be impossible and just cedes all agency to those who would perpetuate the worst excesses when you yourself acknowledge that countries like the PRC are making massive strides forward. It’s better to get organized and try to move towards socialism than it is to say the battle is already lost and we are doomed.
This reply of mine is probably going to diverge a lot from the main subject, but you suggested that I should “get organized and try to move towards socialism”.
Politically speaking, I live in a country (Brazil) where we already have nice relations with PRC and a country that been trying to counteract the Global North through BRICS.
So, to a certain extent, there’s some effort in this regard from the current government in the country I was born in, but Brazil is still a marionette of USian interests since USA pulled Brazil to their side during Cold War (1964 Military Coup, orchestrated by USA).
And Brazilians themselves are politically divided, with a significant part of the country advocating for their own economic slavery (far-right). Partly because people are held captive by a system that conceals knowledge from them, making them too busy with the “rat race” alongside the panis et circensis, so they rely in out-of-the-shelf opinions without pondering broader. When I try to talk with those geographically around me trying to wake 'em up, it’s as if I was talking in Sumerian or Akkadian, anything but contemporary language.
Then, there’s the religious aspect, very strong around here. Brazil is highly christian, while I went to Left-hand Path (highly-personalized syncretic spirituality involving Luciferianism and other esoteric beliefs) a few years ago, quite the opposite… If I couldn’t “convince” people back when I was still a christian, it’s worse now while I’m literally worshiping their “enemy”. Can’t really belong to secularists, either, because I got a belief in the supernatural, even though my belief tries to consider scientific facts.
So I doubt I can “get organized”. My worldview is very atypical, I’m very atypical. In fact, I’m just nobody. You’re likely the second person this week suggesting I got some kind of power when I got none. I can’t even have power over myself, let alone over other people (and I don’t even want to).
While I do talk and participate in discussions regarding the sociopolitical, philosophical and the mundane sometimes, trying to understand and be understood, trying to share knowledge while also trying to learn, open to what I don’t know yet, deep inside I got extensively de-realized and depersonalized, accepting how even the whole cosmos will end someday (Big Freeze / Big Rip / Big Crunch / Big Bounce), and I can’t see purpose except beyond existence.
It’s not about “ceding agency to those who would perpetuate the worst excesses”, it’s just that I went too far into staring at the Darkness and seeing how cosmic existence is pointless and fleeting, so deeply that I can’t simply “unsee” and/or forget Her stare back at me, so everything became fleeting. It’s my inner battle that’s already lost, because ain’t no battle, no spoon, nothing but the nothingness… And my weirdness before others… And Nature, Moon, Earth and Cosmos as closest manifestations of Her principle.
Jesus Christ stop calling it eco-facism! This is not that. Anti-Natalism is not eco-facism. The person you replied to made excellent points.
No they didn’t, and yes, this is eco-fascism. Desiring omnicide of humanity for ecological reasons cedes all agency to the ruling class.
I think existence is preferable to nonexistence. Sure life sucks a lot, but then there’s also the beauty hidden all around us, which when revealed, reminds me that it’s good that I didn’t kms. Similarly, it makes me glad to have been born in the first place.
On a large scale, doomed (see also: the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
On a personal scale, not having children is a perfectly legitimate choice.
My relationship with antinatalism is very complicated.
First off, I personally will not be procreating, for multiple reasons.
Chief among those is the fact that I live in an ever worsening capitalist, patriarchal, xenophobic hellscape; even socialist countries are a long long way away from anything resembling communism, still require a lot of labor from their citizens in exchange for basic necessities (with good reasons), and patriarchy very much persists there. I have hope that we as a species can overcome this eventually, just as we mostly overcame slavery and achieved some semblance of emancipation for many oppressed minorities.
Another, more permanent reason: despite my relative privileges, my own experience of life has been very mixed, and I perceive there to be more suffering than happiness. Suffering is just a way for our body to push our brain to do something the body needs to survive; human beings have a lot of needs to be met, and as long as there are at least a couple that are not you will suffer (not accounting for things like drugs or other extreme dopamine hits which come with their own set of issues). Another big issue is how our bodies normalize the level of suffering to their environment; this is good because it allows us to get by with very little without going insane, but on the flipside even if you have all the basic needs met, the body is always demanding more via suffering. You can observe this by looking at rich people: even though their needs are met with seeming abundance, they crave to experience more and different pleasures, and suffer in the process of trying to achieve them. While frivolous, I think the suffering they experience is still real and similar to that of our own. I don’t feel any compassion for them (after all, for most of them their wealth was stolen from less fortunate), but it’s a good example.
As such, I personally don’t want to bring a new being into this world, mostly to suffer their way through life.
However, I also know for sure that different people experience life differently. I know that people with much worse material conditions than mine perceive themselves (and thus their life) to be overall happy, despite there being plenty of suffering too. I don’t know whether it’s a genetic or learnt trait of their psychology; in any case, I think those people are more likely to produce offspring who experience a happy life, and wish them the best in doing so. My hope is that they bring up their kids in the right way - both so that they are happy, and also able to eventually overcome all the issues in the third paragraph.
I’m not an anti-natalist, but I won’t create a life out of nowhere just for it to become “wasteland thug #3” in the post-apocalyptic movie our future is going to become.
I think humanity is a species of excess. The harm we cause our planet every day by not seeing the bigger picture is hurting pretty much everything on the planet.
I’m not an antinatalist, but I think we could stand to decrease our numbers rather than increase them at least for a couple of centuries.
It’s a very complex issue.
On one have. Having children or not is a deep freedom that feels wrong to constraint, one way or the other. I don’t think messing around with “how many lids” should anyone have is good.
But on the other hand, I reason that resources are not limitless, and human footprint on the environment will be bigger the more humans there are. So O do think that the world would be a nicer place if there was less humans around. Less pollution, less worrying about ending up resources, more available land for each human, less over-crowdled everything.
But I won’t be the one saying anyone to control their biological functions like that. At most I just wish more people realized of this and would voluntarily try to find a stable number of humans on earth that would be an order of magnitude less than we have now.
So yeah, in general I don’t agree with anti-natalism as presented.
The argument for “you can’t consent to being born” does have a direct opposite argument: you also can’t not consent to birth. The birth is what gives the ability to consent or not in the first place. You could argue that by being anti-natalist you’re taking someone’s potential to give consent completely away, which is the same or more unethical, you’re essentially deciding for someone else that they should die/not exist without them getting a say in it?
You can do the same with suffering: life is happiness, everyone I know was happy sometime in their life (even if only as a child), so you’re doing serious harm by not allowing people to have happiness since only people who exist can be happy.
I think anti-natalism is a philosophy mainly held by very traumatized people and/or that live in very bad conditions.
We know (roughly) how to handle trauma, we know (roughly) what makes good conditions. We know roughly what makes people happy or what makes them suffer. We have the potential to create a world where being born is mostly positive for everyone.
In that sense, currently, I think mostly people that are well off should have children, ones that can actually support children properly. However, that is obviously not a permanent solution, since the end goal should be for everyone to be well off and to be able to support children.
But part of the suffering in the world is also caused by too many people. We can’t have infinite population growth while living in a world with finite resources. As such, we need to limit how many children people can have (which is already happening by availability of birth control and smarter people, able to make a choice if they want to have kids).
So in total, I don’t think birth/existence is either good or bad, but it has the potential to be both depending on how we handle it.
I immediately reject any theories that pretend to “know” what they are talking about. I mean WTF are they talking about here ? We have limited senses to sense this world and limited communication capabilities, that was built on top of our fear of death and suddenly these theories trying to claim they “know it all” and this is the “judgment”. WTF. Get off your high horse.
Nobody knows anything. We ALL are just dumb. World is too big to know.
You can look at this through the buddhist worldview:
After you die, you are going to be reborn in the world that you helped create. This could be a smile on another person’s face or a project you helped realize. Especially, also children are a large part of what you helped create, so in a certain sense, a part of you is going to be reborn into them.
Then, the question is, if you could be born again in the year 2030, would you choose to? Would you think such a life is worthwhile?
Answering such a question might give you a hint of what your children would want, if they could be asked.
Capitalists consider unemployed people dead weight.
A tree trunk is dead weight too and that’s what keeps the tree stable.
Same with society. A certain amount of dead weight actually provides benefits. It provides possibilities in case of urgencies and provides a stable environment in peace times.
Hmmm… I believe in not having babies but for different reasons than that. I personally don’t see any reason to have them, especially because many seem to get them because they get pressured into it or are expected to have them or even as a safety net when they get old?
I think that many regret having kids but don’t want to admit it. Kind of like buyers remorse
Also, making decisions in what others should do, with such fundamental rights is not something I would support.
I get it.
edit:
Anti-natalists believe that suffering will always be there and no one should be born EVER.
Oh well idk. I think if I had been born in the Netherlands I might be more inclined to have kids, seems nice over there.
