lostundead

lostundead

Member
Mar 18, 2021
68
First of all I would consider myself to be a theoretical/metaphysical antinatalist. Meaning if I take a step back and look at the world with all the laws of nature that we are bound to forever, I can with utmost certainty conclude that it would be better if life never came into existence and if there was a peacful way to put an end to this, that would be great. Even if we were to reach a state of utopia at some point in the future that still wouldnt justify all the suffering of humans in the past, who dont get to partake in that utopia. Moreover there will always be a chance that we return to a state of suffering again.

Now, the issue for me arises when you take antinatalism into the practical realm: This philosophy is built on the maxim that we should do everything in our power to minimize all suffering in the world right? If everyone lived by that, they would come to the same conclusion that having children is immoral. This "ideal scenario", where everyone would suddenly stop having children however, would turn the world into a complete hellhole, which would force people to have children again, en masse.

Of course that scenario would never happen so lets go through a much more realistic one real quick: The only people who would even listen to antinatalist arguments and have the will to put them into practice are those with high IQs and good morality which are exactly the people we need more of, in order to reduce suffering on this planet. The most ignorant fools on the other hand will just keep spreading like flies and their intelligence and morality will prevail. Thus the cycle continues...

So whats even the point of advocating for antinatalism? I really dont see how it could reduce suffering in the long run.
 
Angst Filled Fuck Up

Angst Filled Fuck Up

Super duper enlightened
Sep 9, 2018
1,614
At our current rate of decline in fertility, we won't have to worry about this in the future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amumu
lostundead

lostundead

Member
Mar 18, 2021
68
At our current rate of decline in fertility, we won't have to worry about this in the future.
Which will eventually lead to economic stagnation and force people to have children again. Our capitalst system only works through constant growth.
 
Futile

Futile

Tired of being lonely
Sep 3, 2020
497
Which will eventually lead to economic stagnation and force people to have children again. Our capitalst system only works through constant growth.
I don't think so, the myth of endless growth is dying fast enough and most capitalists & billionaires are realizing that it's better to go on a "fake" model of economics based on debts that won't be paid and investments in things that we will never see in our lifetimes
 
Circles

Circles

There's a difference between existing and living.
Sep 3, 2018
1,485
Oh no this topic again. Grabs popcorn.

At the end of the day choosing to be an antinatalist is an individuals choice and we can’t expect everyone around us to hop on the bandwagon. And unless you force people to not have kids via mass sterilization or giving birthing licenses only to people who are capable of taking care of their children and being decent parents or whatever else. I just don’t see a realistic way how antinatalism could become more accepted and widespread. The only realistic solutions I’ve heard in any rational discussion is through education and teaching people more about safe sex, sex in general, etc. And it shows to some degree as the more developed a country becomes birth rates go down because of educating people more. I sure there’s other factors besides that but still. But even then lower birth rates isn’t going to stop most people from reproducing in my opinion cause we are animals that are hardwired by evolution to have sex and have babies. And until we can get rid of that part of our biology, humans will keep having kids.

If the whole solution of antinatalism is to make all humans or all life go extinct then we’ll end having to wait a long time before that happens. And until a black hole, an asteroid, nuclear war or whatever else comes by and destroys this planet to dust then all we can do is make the individual choice and at best spread the word and educate others about it without getting emotionally toxic towards people who want kids cause that’s their individual choice and we can’t control that.
 
Last edited:
Angst Filled Fuck Up

Angst Filled Fuck Up

Super duper enlightened
Sep 9, 2018
1,614
I don't think so, the myth of endless growth is dying fast enough and most capitalists & billionaires are realizing that it's better to go on a "fake" model of economics based on debts that won't be paid and investments in things that we will never see in our lifetimes

Yeah, my guess is that "they" are planning sneaky ways to reduce the population while maxing out the printing presses and blowing up the current financial system, forcing us to go 100% digital. That's what it feels like, anyway. But it makes sense. Get rid of the useless eaters while increasing surveillance and control.
 
deflationary

deflationary

Fussy exister. Living in the epilogue
Mar 11, 2020
460
Isn't that kind of the practical problem with everything related to morality? You can't prevent all murders so why even bother? :)
 
callme

callme

Warlock
Aug 15, 2021
728
Oh no this topic again. Grabs popcorn.

At the end of the day choosing to be an antinatalist is an individuals choice and we can’t expect everyone around us to hop on the bandwagon. And unless you force people to not have kids via mass sterilization or giving birthing licenses only to people who are capable of taking care of their children and being decent parents or whatever else. I just don’t see a realistic way how antinatalism could become more accepted and widespread. The only realistic solutions I’ve heard in any rational discussion is through education and teaching people more about safe sex, sex in general, etc. And it shows to some degree as the more developed a country becomes birth rates go down because of educating people more. I sure there’s other factors besides that but still. But even then lower birth rates isn’t going to stop most people from reproducing in my opinion cause we are animals that are hardwired by evolution to have sex and have babies. And until we can get rid of that part of our biology, humans will keep having kids.

If the whole solution of antinatalism is to make all humans or all life go extinct then we’ll end having to wait a long time before that happens. And until a black hole, an asteroid, nuclear war or whatever else comes by and destroys this planet to dust then all we can do is make the individual choice and at best spread the word and educate others about it without getting emotionally toxic towards people who want kids cause that’s their individual choice and we can’t control that.

It's also people's voluntary choice to kill their children and put them in trash bags. Their voluntary actions don't matter as a part of society. This final comment doesn't fit all the rest, which just reads as a short argument for authority. Such a situation is unavoidable of course, because it's natural. Problem is people will do whatever authority tells them to do, which is any arbitrary action that's always going to be a 50-50 - you smoke, I don't, but smoking allowed in public, I'm screwed. I work an pay taxes, you are currently unemployed - I get to vote for school system reforms, you don't. A solution is only the one they choose to follow because they are told so by the guvnor.

The problem is this situation today is blown way out of proportion in favor of the people in charge. If we don't do the same as them and by force of convining arguments, by way of a sizeable population saying the opposite, we are toast. This is the final advantage, a part of society ideally hard to pin down, with their arguments against a pretty well defined political class.
 
  • Like
Reactions: blueclover_.
T

The Disinherited

Member
Jul 17, 2021
10
OP could you elaborate on how the "ideal" situation would result in the world becoming a complete hellhole?, Thanks.
(I disagree because if people voluntarily stopped reproducing it would imply fulfillment or contentment with existence on the part of everyone as noone would feel like they have unfinished business that their little genetic replicants must carry out on their behalf. It implies contentment also with being alone and thus there's no need to have the gaping hole in one's heart/life filled by starting a family.....Involuntary antinatalism however is basically genocide and I would therefore agree that it would lead to the world becoming a hellhole)

Can anyone link me some good threads from this year with no more than 100 posts / replies (so that I can read them thoroughly and in not too long a time) on topics like antinatalism, life or no life after death, God or no God, Good / Bad or indifferent universe etc. I'm interested in what people on here believe, I'm probably the most optimistic person on here when it comes to abstract topics.
And so I disagree with Antinatalism, I genuinely DON'T believe it's better to have never been. This post is long so I'll stop here but if anyone has made it this far and wants me to give my reasons, I can return tomorrow to do so.
 
mlha

mlha

Ex falso quodlibet
Nov 7, 2021
71
OP could you elaborate on how the "ideal" situation would result in the world becoming a complete hellhole?, Thanks.
(I disagree because if people voluntarily stopped reproducing it would imply fulfillment or contentment with existence on the part of everyone as noone would feel like they have unfinished business that their little genetic replicants must carry out on their behalf. It implies contentment also with being alone and thus there's no need to have the gaping hole in one's heart/life filled by starting a family
They probably meant it from the logistical point of view, the society will break up if there are only few people remaining, the quality of life goes down. Unless there's a plan to make maintenance-free facilities to help these last people with everything.
 
NumbItAll

NumbItAll

Waiting for the bus...
May 20, 2018
394
For me it's more of a personal belief than a serious political movement. I don't expect to talk anyone out of having kids if that's what they really want. I don't mind voicing my contrarian opinion though for those who are willing to listen.
 
lostundead

lostundead

Member
Mar 18, 2021
68
For me it's more of a personal belief than a serious political movement. I don't expect to talk anyone out of having kids if that's what they really want. I don't mind voicing my contrarian opinion though for those who are willing to listen.
Fair enough. I got the impression many antinatalists saw it as some sort of solution to the worlds problems but maybe thats just reddit losers idk.
 
CFLoser

CFLoser

whatever doesn't kill you makes you weaker
Dec 5, 2018
526
Good always wins in the end, as shitty as the world is up to that point (it's 99.9999% suffering) Antinatalism will win in the end or morph into like, liuving in computers or some dumb shit (never upload your conciousness, that is what hell really is).
 
Angst Filled Fuck Up

Angst Filled Fuck Up

Super duper enlightened
Sep 9, 2018
1,614
Are you thinking the same thing as me?

That the Annunaki have returned from planet Nibiru and infiltrated the highest echelons of society in the form of shapeshifting lizards to wreak havoc on the world, depopulating humankind and enslaving the survivors til the end of their miserable days? Of course.
 
Last edited:
lostundead

lostundead

Member
Mar 18, 2021
68
That the Annunaki have returned from planet Nibiru and infiltrated the highest echelons of society in the form of shapeshifting lizards to wreak havoc on the world, depopulating humankind and enslaving the survivors til the end of their miserable days? Of course.
Let me guess: Now you'll try to sell us supplements that prevent them from manipulating our genes and turning us into obediant sex slaves, right?
 
L

Life sucks

Enlightened
Apr 18, 2018
1,873
First of all I would consider myself to be a theoretical/metaphysical antinatalist. Meaning if I take a step back and look at the world with all the laws of nature that we are bound to forever, I can with utmost certainty conclude that it would be better if life never came into existence and if there was a peacful way to put an end to this, that would be great. Even if we were to reach a state of utopia at some point in the future that still wouldnt justify all the suffering of humans in the past, who dont get to partake in that utopia. Moreover there will always be a chance that we return to a state of suffering again.

Now, the issue for me arises when you take antinatalism into the practical realm: This philosophy is built on the maxim that we should do everything in our power to minimize all suffering in the world right? If everyone lived by that, they would come to the same conclusion that having children is immoral. This "ideal scenario", where everyone would suddenly stop having children however, would turn the world into a complete hellhole, which would force people to have children again, en masse.

Of course that scenario would never happen so lets go through a much more realistic one real quick: The only people who would even listen to antinatalist arguments and have the will to put them into practice are those with high IQs and good morality which are exactly the people we need more of, in order to reduce suffering on this planet. The most ignorant fools on the other hand will just keep spreading like flies and their intelligence and morality will prevail. Thus the cycle continues...

So whats even the point of advocating for antinatalism? I really dont see how it could reduce suffering in the long run.

Negative utilitarianism is just one type/idea of antinatalism. There are a lot of other reasons/types.

Think about it from personal perspective rather than global. If someone reproduces, there is the probability of more reproduction, after decades and centuries, one or two child are now hundreds and thousands and going to increase. By preventing the reproduction, n=0. By continuing the reproduction, n is a probabilistic function that keeps increasing and look how it increased, about 7 billion on earth. It's better from personal perspective, at least, to not create a monstrous reproductive function. Imagine that in the far future, millions or more people are existing or suffering because of the choice of reproducing one person. All of the problems (wars, suffering, etc) in our world happened because someone else reproduced. Billions are reproduced by millions, millions by thousands, until it goes to the few persons who thought its only one or few childs. Do you think it's ok to be the reason for the existence of hundreds, thousands, millions or more in the future?
 
lostundead

lostundead

Member
Mar 18, 2021
68
Negative utilitarianism is just one type/idea of antinatalism. There are a lot of other reasons/types.

Think about it from personal perspective rather than global. If someone reproduces, there is the probability of more reproduction, after decades and centuries, one or two child are now hundreds and thousands and going to increase. By preventing the reproduction, n=0. By continuing the reproduction, n is a probabilistic function that keeps increasing and look how it increased, about 7 billion on earth. It's better from personal perspective, at least, to not create a monstrous reproductive function. Imagine that in the far future, millions or more people are existing or suffering because of the choice of reproducing one person. All of the problems (wars, suffering, etc) in our world happened because someone else reproduced. Billions are reproduced by millions, millions by thousands, until it goes to the few persons who thought its only one or few childs. Do you think it's ok to be the reason for the existence of hundreds, thousands, millions or more in the future?
I totally understand where you're coming from but I simply don't care about being ethically pure, all I want is for this inhumane level of suffering that I've seen and experienced to end and I don't see antinatalism even making a dent in that.

What you are describing with the probalistic function won't make a difference t=∞ because human population doesnt grow to n=∞ but instead we reach a population ceiling at some point due to our finite recources. Thus your choice not to have children wont make a differnce in the total amount of suffering in 100k+ years because people will keep having kids until that cealing is reached and the cycle begins a new.

To make my point clear let me give an example: The population ceiling is lets say 10 billion.Your decision not to have kids will prevent 1000 people from being brought into existence up to that point. Well, that n=1000 gap will now simply be filled by others until 10 billion is reached and you only delayed it for a tiny amount of time.

The only "solution" I see is transhumanism, which will never happen if intelligent people stop having kids.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: deflationary
deflationary

deflationary

Fussy exister. Living in the epilogue
Mar 11, 2020
460
I totally understand where you're coming from but I simply don't care about being ethically pure, all I want is for this inhumane level of suffering that I've seen and experienced to end and I don't see antinatalism even making a dent in that.

What you are describing with the probalistic function won't make a difference t=∞ because human population doesnt grow to n=∞ but instead we reach a population ceiling at some point due to our finite recources. Thus your choice not to have children wont make a differnce in the total amount of suffering in 100k+ years because people will keep having kids until that cealing is reached and the cycle begins a new.

To make my point clear let me give an example: The population ceiling is lets say 10 billion.Your decision not to have kids will prevent 1000 people from being brought into existence up to that point. Well, that n=1000 gap will now simply be filled by others until 10 billion is reached and you only delayed it for a tiny amount of time.

The only "solution" I see is transhumanism, which will never happen if intelligent people stop having kids.
This is probably the best argument against antinatalism I've ever heard.

I don't think it's still watertight though. Intelligent people having kids also increases the likelihood of people eventually leaving the Earth and spreading our infection to other planets. Elon Musk's wet dream come true. 🤮

It also seems pretty certain that the population ceiling won't stay the same for the next 100k years. It's pretty much impossible to imagine human life staying something like it is rn for that duration. Civilization is either gonna be destroyed or it's gonna "flourish". It won't stay like this. So either the ceiling won't be reached or it will keep getting lifted. In either case it's better not to contribute your own human sacrifices. But tbh all of this seems too speculative to be of any practical use in one's decision making. All you can control are your own actions and your own moral purity, which you said you don't care about. The rest of the planet is gonna keep on doing its thing.

I think the only solution is to wait for our technological capabilities to ripen for a while longer and then hope that some benevolent world exploder comes along eventually. And the best solution individually is to simply stop caring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lostundead
L

Life sucks

Enlightened
Apr 18, 2018
1,873
I totally understand where you're coming from but I simply don't care about being ethically pure, all I want is for this inhumane level of suffering that I've seen and experienced to end and I don't see antinatalism even making a dent in that.

I'm not even coming from an ethical point of view. Remove one's personality aside, and by reproducing, it's the same phenomena that someone else made before long time. By doing the same phenomena that you want to end is a contradiction.

What you are describing with the probalistic function won't make a difference t=∞ because human population doesnt grow to n=∞ but instead we reach a population ceiling at some point due to our finite recources. Thus your choice not to have children wont make a differnce in the total amount of suffering in 100k+ years because people will keep having kids until that cealing is reached and the cycle begins a new.

It makes a difference.

1- The assumption of the ceiling isn't important. It's a probabilistic function that could stay or go up and down. Additionally, such a ceiling isn't there theoretically. 7 billion already functions as a practical arbitrarily large number.

2- The probabilistic function doesn't need to grow, even by maintaining itself (i.e. keeping two children continuously) would cause continuous and endless suffering.

3- The choice of not having a child, reduces the growth by half with someone else. Someone else needs at least 3 children to make a growth. By not reproducing that becomes 1.5

4- The assumption that the people will keep reproducing and stops because of the ceiling isn't true. Humans are indoctrinated animals and won't stop, does that mean not confronting them and letting them to cause more suffering?

To make my point clear let me give an example: The population ceiling is lets say 10 billion.Your decision not to have kids will prevent 1000 people from being brought into existence up to that point. Well, that n=1000 gap will now simply be filled by others until 10 billion is reached and you only delayed it for a tiny amount of time.

1- Your decision by not reproducing makes 0 being with no probability of continuation or growth. If you say that 1000 only would stay, those 1000 are going to replicate the exact number for unlimited time. To understand this point clearly, look at how many humans has even lived. The ancestors didn't cause the suffering of 7 billions but 100+ billions.

2- The gap isn't easily replaced. As mentioned before, it cuts the growth by half with someone else. If only one person doesn't reproduce, that could be very small but there are antinatalists, childfree, people who die or ctb, people with illnesses, etc. There are already many conditions that prevents reproduction and by not reproducing, it makes significant reduction. by insisting that there is a ceiling, this works in favor for not reproducing, because the more people who not reproduce and the more they could stop and control the suffering.

3- It's easier to control a smaller group. By not reproducing, it's still a reduction even if its small. Smaller groups means less problems and conflicts and less needs for resources and reproducing.

4- The mentality that it's ok to reproduce because it doesn't matter is a part of natalist indoctrination. The assumption is that people would automatically reproduce and we can't stop them is a part and a remnant of natalist indoctrination. Would you as a person reproduce? It doesn't matter, right? But no, humans can stop reproducing and if you look at history, there is a reason for natalist indoctrination, misogyny and sexual oppression that happened throughout the history using tools like religions and traditions. All of that is to ensure reproduction. As a clear example of how natalism is conditional and how it uses indoctrination and oppressing, look at Facism in Italy and how women were oppressed and used as tools for reproduction to increase the army size.

5- This point is the most important. The assumption of the ceiling and an endless cycle isn't going to happen. The extinction of the species is inevitable. That means at some point in the future, the extinction of human will happen 100%. If one wants to end the suffering of everything, it's better not to prolong it. What humans do isn't an endless cycle, it's prolonging and delaying the inevitable. So it's otherwise, by reproducing they are delaying the inevitable extinction.

The only "solution" I see is transhumanism, which will never happen if intelligent people stop having kids.

While antinatalism in its current form isn't a full solution but that doesn't mean it's ok to reproduce just because others are going to. As mentioned before, the delayed thing is humans extinction, not the endless cycle of reproducing. If it doesn't matter that people reproduce, then nothing matters because humans are going to be extinct anyway. But that's not the problem, we want to eliminate the finite (but arbitrarily large) suffering, we don't want to wait for extinction and cause more suffering. Why would someone reproduce and delay the inevitable?

Its better to not reproduce and try even if it's a small thing. There are also many things that one can do to stop or reduce reproduction. As for a universal solution, the impossibility (because it's practically impossible to deal with 7 billions) doesn't mean we shouldn't try. It's better to not make someone suffer and die later and be a part of a species that is going to be extinct.

Sorry for the long reply.
 
Last edited:
Pluto

Pluto

Faux human
Dec 27, 2020
428
The only people who would even listen to antinatalist arguments and have the will to put them into practice are those with high IQs and good morality which are exactly the people we need more of, in order to reduce suffering on this planet. The most ignorant fools on the other hand will just keep spreading like flies and their intelligence and morality will prevail.
A twist on this argument could be: people who CTB are often sensitive, thoughtful and victims of abuse, while the abusers will be the ones to live on and thrive; a reverse of what should happen if justice were to prevail.

The underlying assumption that all life is bad and purposeless may be a consensus within this community, but is not necessarily a universal truth. I'm not going to present a contrarian argument to this, but if there is even 1 person on the planet who has a happy, productive, ethical lifetime and leaves the world a better place, there will be a place for more nuanced debate.

It is possible to have a middle ground. Procreation by a couple of highly loving, politically progressive, ecologically sensitive, consistently compassionate, financially healthy, emotionally stable, socially responsible, intellectually engaged individuals can easily be a net positive benefit for society. Indeed, massively so in the case of extreme examples like Abraham Lincoln abolishing slavery in the US, Elon Musk initiating the demise of fossil-fuel-powered automobiles and so on.

But even a decent, intelligent person who will push society forward by voting intelligently and consuming responsibly is part of reducing suffering. And to ensure that they are not merely born as soldiers for enlightening society, let's not forget that anyone raised by educated, loving parents will be in a state of mind more joyful than probably any of us on this forum can imagine.

Bottom line: I think procreating is OK if done by the right people. Sadly this is often not the case. Many of us (myself included) know what it feels like to be born to idiot parents, but no amount of preaching anti-natalism is going to undo that fact, nor does it change the fact that a simple life=bad formula does not stand up to scrutiny. And even if it did, humanity is in the process of driving much of the life on Earth to extinction, so that should be a good thing, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: lostundead
stygal

stygal

.
Oct 29, 2020
1,682
In my opinion it’s clearly a matter of most people thinking: ...but my pension and who will care for me when I’m old??
Those problems could be solved by making euthanasia legal.
Plus having less QuAlItY in life (whatever that means - probably less useless shit to buy because no new wage slaves) is something I would happily agree on if everyone would promise not to reproduce as of rn.

There is no need to continue this fucked up circle and putting a new person in this rat race. After all: we all ended up here.

Of course antinatalism will never be something that the entire world population will adhere to - but same goes for every other ethic principle. And just because of that I wouldn’t call it useless because you as an individual have to start making a difference at one point.

Luckily microplastic is doing its job when it comes to infertility. So soon nobody has to a choice anymore.
 
  • Love
  • Like
Reactions: Skathon and DocNo
blueclover_.

blueclover_.

Better Never to Have Been: 2006, David Benatar
Oct 11, 2021
412
Yeah, my guess is that "they" are planning sneaky ways to reduce the population while maxing out the printing presses and blowing up the current financial system, forcing us to go 100% digital. That's what it feels like, anyway. But it makes sense. Get rid of the useless eaters while increasing surveillance and control.
Lmao stop this conspiracy theory bullshit. i'd love to press the red button and boom, humanity extinct. But just keeping the population in control so we won't ruin the planet is enough.
Fair enough. I got the impression many antinatalists saw it as some sort of solution to the worlds problems but maybe thats just reddit losers idk.
I do think it's a world problem. But it doesn't mean I'm a big bad wolf who wants to kill babies. As much as i'd like to get all the infinity stones and kill everyone painlessly in a second, it is not realistic. We just don't encourage breeding while you're in a terrible situation just because you want to and the kid has to live a hard and miserable life.
 
Last edited: