Asklemmy

50313 readers

587 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago

MODERATORS

What are your opinions on anti-natalism? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 1 day ago by nutbutter@discuss.tchncs.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

109 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 34 points 22 hours ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Rachelhazideas@lemmy.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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.

[–] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 2 points 53 minutes ago* (last edited 53 minutes ago)

You're contradicting your own argument:

It was never meant to remedy shitty living conditions.

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.