this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
89 points (92.4% liked)

Asklemmy

50325 readers
310 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!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. 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.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

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

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] dsilverz@calckey.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@ubergeek@lemmy.today

So, can they also choose to be born?

They can't choose, and that's part of main issue as beings cursed by self-awareness: the impossibility to choose positively or negatively.

It's beyond any capability of will and it taints any other decisions that could be done (see the movie "The Artifice Girl", particularly the dialogue at the end when the robot is talking to her creator about how her primary directives made it impossible for her to really exert any fully free will).

The issue, here, emerges from the lack of choice alongside inevitable self-awareness, which takes us to:

Do bears choose to be born? Microbes?

They don't have this curse of "self-awareness". They do possess intelligence (especially crows and dolphins, not mentioned), but they don't end up cursed by knowing the pointlessness of their own existences through a broader, cosmic lens. We do.

Also, they don't restricted themselves into this Kafkaesque rearrangement we call as "human society", where we must "buy" food and "pay" to have a roof above our heads, as if it was some kind of optional luxury. They live from what Mother Nature gives. Bears can roam and do shelters for them wherever there aren't other bears (or other wildlife). Microbes' shelters are literally other lifeforms.

Humans, however, can't live from what Mother Nature gives, no no, this is too extraterrestrial for us to consider doing. I myself can't choose to live among the wildlife like any other primate because I'm prohibited to do so (and, also, because my entire human existence compelled me into artificialities that I'm unable to ditch, such as the myopia I ended up having due to artificial environmental factors (thanks "screens" and "enclosed spaces") leading to the need of using (and purchasing) prescription glasses).

Again, bears and microbes have no such artificial rearrangement.

Selfhood, if we’re being frank, doesn’t really “form” until at least a year or so into life

But we do know it'll form, eventually. We do know the kid will become an adult and they'll be required to become a cog in this machine. Parents often see this as a matter of "proud" ("our offspring has a job"), ignoring how much suffering it accompanies the imposed serfdom (having to "seek" and "have" a "job", having to serve others).

Reproduction is an instinctive behavior, in all species. Humans as well.

If we were to talk about instincts, murdering to eat (hunting) is also pretty instinctive across species... Humans don't often "murder to eat" because they often delegate it for others to do it, but with enough desperation (e.g. lack of food) a human can even eat other humans (see Chichijima incident)...

It's also instinctive to live among the woods. Why don't we, though? Maybe because we're legally forbidden by other humans to move to a forest and live as our ancestors did, so we're required to live "among society", which in turn requires us to "pay" to "afford" food and shelter.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

They do possess intelligence (especially crows and dolphins, not mentioned), but they don’t end up cursed by knowing the pointlessness of their own existences through a broader, cosmic lens. We do.

Are you sure about this? How can you possibly know? How about Octopi? They are, almost certainly, as intelligent as we are, and have 8 brains interworking with each other. You have zero possibility to even guess how they view the world.

If we were to talk about instincts, murdering to eat (hunting) is also pretty instinctive across species… Humans don’t often “murder to eat” because they often delegate it for others to do it, but with enough desperation (e.g. lack of food) a human can even eat other humans (see Chichijima incident)…

Not sure your point? Tribes have always relied on varied tasks for members. Even higher primates do this.

It’s also instinctive to live among the woods.

No, it's not. Its instinctive to seek shelter, water, food, and to reproduce. Instinctually, we are also social animals, requiring our tribe to survive.

Maybe because we’re legally forbidden by other humans to move to a forest and live as our ancestors did, so we’re required to live “among society”, which in turn requires us to “pay” to “afford” food and shelter.

So, that's the root of the problem, and it's something we can change. See: Seneca Nation, or the people of Chiapas.

[–] dsilverz@calckey.world -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

@ubergeek@lemmy.today

Are you sure about this? How can you possibly know?

Science.

Spontaneous Metatool Use by New Caledonian Crows
Taylor, Alex H. et al.
Current Biology, Volume 17, Issue 17, 1504 - 1507

Structure of the cerebral cortex of the humpback whale, Megaptera novaeangliae (Cetacea, Mysticeti, Balaenopteridae)
Patrick R. Hof, Estel Van Der Gucht

How about Octopi?

Them, too. I forgot to mention them.

Not sure your point?

My point is how you tried to argue reproduction based on instincts, so I brought another instinct-based trait.

No, it’s not. Its instinctive to seek shelter, water, food, and to reproduce

Urbanization and capitalism aren't part of Nature.

So, that’s the root of the problem, and it’s something we can change

I doubt it can be changed, especially due to how things are pivoting to technofascism in the world. I doubt it can be changed, especially due to how we humans are constantly endangering other species for living as "modern humans".

The could be a change but it's beyond human agency: say, if Sun ejected a CME powerful enough, that could be a change of sorts, because it'd finally grind to a halt all the steel-made mosquitoes humans threw to orbit around this Pale Blue Dot, bringing humans back to a more natural means of existing.

However, we humans have been long detached from natural means of living so transition wouldn't be easy, we're sort of cursed to "modernity", so it's complicated.

[–] ubergeek@lemmy.today 2 points 1 day ago

Science.

Science has been able to get inside the heads and determine what animals are thinking? This is a breakthrough! We should now be able to communicate with these animals! Surely we can, right?

My point is how you tried to argue reproduction based on instincts, so I brought another instinct-based trait.

Ok, try not eating. Period. I bet instincts will kick in, and you'll eat, and not starve.

Urbanization and capitalism aren’t part of Nature.

Nobody besides yourself even implied they are.

I doubt it can be changed, especially due to how things are pivoting to technofascism in the world. I doubt it can be changed, especially due to how we humans are constantly endangering other species for living as “modern humans”.

We've changed it myriad times. I provided two such examples.

However, we humans have been long detached from natural means of living so transition wouldn’t be easy, we’re sort of cursed to “modernity”, so it’s complicated.

Ah, so you think all humanity is illustrated only by western living, huh?