Antinatalism is growing in popularity

[Blackhawk]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

"Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is the ethical view that negatively values coming into existence and procreation, and judges procreation as morally wrong. Antinatalists argue that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally wrong (some also recognize the procreation of other sentient beings as morally wrong). In scholarly and in literary writings, various ethical foundations have been presented for antinatalism. Some of the earliest surviving formulations of the idea that it would be better not to have been born come from ancient Greece."

 

 

https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/5670/anti-natalism-is-global-and-growing

"The decision to not have kids on ethical grounds is no longer a fringe, Western trend. 

"Life is full of suffering” is a sentiment that resonates with many. The doctrines of most of the major religions of the world concede or assert it. 

But if life is full of suffering, and suffering is avoidable, a simple syllogistic conclusion that follows is “life is avoidable”. Obviously, this stand has few takers. But that is changing, all over the world. The idea is often seen as a trait of highly-developed societies who have achieved relative stability and prosperity in terms of living standards, and can focus on finer ethical and lifestyle issues and concerns. 

Google Trends Analytics indicates that “antinatalism” as a search term has steadily grown in search volume in this decade."

 

 

For example Arthur Schopenhauer was a antinatalist.

 

 

This guy sued his parents for giving birth to him without his consent: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/anti-natalists-childfree-population-climate-change

 

 

Another thing is that without humans also the environment would be saved.

 

I think Buddhism is a form of antinatalism, since it recognizes that life is suffering and it advocates celibacy and it's about stopping the cycle of rebirth (Samsara) https://www.quora.com/Does-Buddhism-have-antinatalism-ideas

 

David Benatar has written a book about this subject, titled "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence". https://www.amazon.com/Better-Never-Have-Been-Existence-ebook/dp/B000TODSCY/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8

 

I found this somewhere on the internet:

"If a being exists, suffering is bad and pleasure is good.  However, if a being does not exist, missing out on pleasure isn't bad, however missing out on suffering is good. 
In other words, life is suffering. Suffering is bad.  Therefore, it's better to not be born, so that we never experience suffering."

 

A more extreme version of antinatalism is efilism. Which says that all sentient life should be exterminated in a humane and painless way. This person has a idea with self-replicating nanobots which could euthanize all life on earth, and they would also make sure that life can't re-emerge: https://www.theantinatalist.com/frontpage/on-efilism-1

 

 

I know everyone in this forum will be against antinatalism, because you are invested survival, so you will immediately violently attack this.

I will try to not argue for antinatalism, at least not without getting a permission from Leo first, because I would probably get banned if I would argue for antinatalism. I just wanted to bring up this topic and ask you all: what is your thoughts about this whole antinatalism thing?

Edited May 3, 2021 by Blackhawk

[LfcCharlie4]

Personally, I am not an anti-Natalist, I believe if you don’t want to have children for whatever reason, that’s your choice & your right, you shouldn’t be forced too, but I also believe it’s the same the other way round. 
 

To me, saying all our problems could be solved by simply making ourselves extinct, is similar to telling a depressed person they may as well kill themselves. 
 

Wouldn’t a better solution be to invest in technology & holistic solutions to the worlds problems, so as a species we can evolve instead of giving up? 
 

Also, aspects of Buddhism may support this, but true spirituality certainly does not, if anything it supports finding solutions to your problems (unhappiness for example) And then spending a lifetime expressing this in innumerable ways, including having a family if you wish. 
 

Sure, you can argue life is suffering from one perspective, but isn’t it also amazing, joyous, fun, enjoyable, loving & pretty damn good from another? Is me loving life being “over invested” in survival, or optimising the cards I was dealt? 
 

To me, a far better philosophy is Non-Duality which recognises the issues many of us are facing, then gives us the tasks of finding the solutions & living that understanding for the rest of this human experience. 
 

Also, from the little I have seen from these small AN communities, they seem rather wrapped up in the ideology, and come across a little cultish at times. 
 

Idk, I guess I just feel instead of preaching how unfair it is you were born & how we should exterminate ourselves, why not make the most of our time here & find creative solutions for the worlds issues? 
 

Maybe I’m just too much of an optimist  but sorry to say, (touch wood that everything is okay etc) I very much plan on having my own family, and having children in the future, and I don’t think it’s right to attack me for that, personally

[DocWatts]

While I do think that for people living in developed nations with access to contraceptives, it's incredibly irresponsible to have more than 2 or 3 kids, considering the impact that each additional person who lives a first world lifestyle has on the planet.

I doubt that most thoughtful people would object to every single one of the more limited (and defensible) claims that 'weak' versions of anti-natalism propose.

That said, the stronger claim that it's unethical to bring any new people in to this world seems incomprehensible to the point of being dishonest.

Edited May 3, 2021 by DocWatts

[lmfao]

@Blackhawk I once listened to David Benator when he went on Sam Harris' podcast. First time I heard of anti-natalism. That was definitely interesting. 

The philosophy is something I am empathetic towards. 

It's not something I'd passionately argue or advocate for. But it's very logical and acknowledges the problem of suffering. 

Before I heard of anti-natalism I questioned the idea that I'd ever want kids when I'm older. My life has been a lot of suffering, I have a lot of mental problems, and I don't want to pass them on to someone else. Life is hard. 

All thinking aside, having kids just doesn't resonate for me rn. For reasons besides inherently anti-natalistic ones. Moreso that my personality and desire for it isn't there rn. 

--

Efilism sounds reprehensible. That's just a fancy justification for murder.

--

Whilst much of anti-natalism makes some very reasonable questions and observations, its mixed in with much depression/apathy and victim mentality. Which I don't find to be very helpful for anyone still alive

 

16 minutes ago, LfcCharlie4 said:

 

[integral]

@DocWatts We should restrict 3rd word countries to 0 children per family. Solving world hunger.

Having a dialog with our unborn children would make sense, Ask them if they want to be born? Moving away from "I want children" I focused perspectives. People have no awareness they are bringing a life into this world.

Edited May 3, 2021 by integral

[snowyowl]

I never heard of this as a named philosophy (only individuals not wanting to have children), so thanks @Blackhawk  for bringing to my attention. Leo did a video on something a bit similar, 'Reproduction is an illusion' I think. 

To sum up, the arguments seem to be that: humans are damaging the environment too much; and human suffering can be avoided by not being born in the first place. 

Firstly, I've no problem with individuals choosing not to breed and think that religions which pressure us into having children are at a pretty low level of development.  Humans are still a relatively young species in evolutionary terms, so it may be that we can improve ourselves to stop the environmental damage and reduce suffering. Although I'd say that most of the eco-damage has been caused in roughly the same time frame as our scientific and political improvements, only a couple of hundred years or so. Anti-natalism is a pessimistic philosophy; I'd like to at least try and be optimistic that we are seeing the beginnings of eco-awareness - why not give it a chance to succeed at least? This is all very new IMO. 

The issue of suffering is much older of course. But the judgement of whether suffering is too much to make life worthwhile compared to love and happiness must be an individual determination; who am I to deprive future generations of having this choice for themselves? Most parents I know (myself included) are so glad they are, despite the difficulties. Having happy children can enable me to endure many hardships, and being a good dad & husband is really my main aim in life, more so than enlightenment. That may be taken away from me in future, I don't know, but for now at least it puts my individual life into a greater context than just a separate me. 

"I think Buddhism is a form of antinatalism, since it recognizes that life is suffering and it advocates celibacy and it's about stopping the cycle of rebirth (Samsara)"

Hang on a mo. IMO 'Life is suffering' is a shorthand form of Buddhism: the context is that life in the perspective of the Three Fires (greed, hatred and delusion) is suffering. Snuff out the 3 fires and you snuff out the suffering, which then reveals Nirvana. I recently heard an Alan Watts talk where he translates dukkha not as suffering, but as frustration, which I think is better. Thanissaro Bhikkhu calls it stress, better than suffering too because even enlightened people still have physical bodies which experience pain. Pain is a survival mechanism, unfortunately. So too is pleasure. Chasing pleasure and avoiding pain beyond their basic survival function ('greed and hatred' in Buddhism) becomes toxic and backfires on us. 

Also Buddhism doesn't advocate celibacy for everyone does it, just for monks & nuns, and the cycle of rebirth (samsara) only makes sense if there's a self to be reborn - once you see that there is no separate self to begin with you're cured of the delusion and life can carry on without clinging to something which is only imaginary.

Edited May 4, 2021 by snowyowl

[DocWatts]

Sure, life is going to be synonymous with suffering to some degree, but that's not all that life is.

I do wonder if this misguided view is restricted to humans, or if in thier utilitarian calculus it would be better if life in general didn't exist, since the natural world is full of suffering.

Hell, maybe by extension it would have been better if there were Nothing rather than Something, and there was no Cosmos to speak of... 

Edited May 4, 2021 by DocWatts

[Preety_India]

Suffering is a natural part of human existence. 

The only solution is holism+ technology. 

 

[Forestluv]

Is anti-Natalism restricted to personal choice or does it extend to all of humanity? If so, it is advocating for the extinction of the human species.

Or does anti-natalism extend to all procreation? If so, that would advocate for the extinction of nearly all life forms on earth. But Heine guy don’t care. He didn’t want to be born in the first place. 

[Leo Gura]

Another silly ideology.

[diamondpenguin]

Honestly this natalism is just boring as hell. This thread puts me to sleep. 

Edited May 4, 2021 by diamondpenguin