About Anti-natalists

All I can say about anti-natalists is that in order to be taken seriously, they have to kill themselves first. A live anti-natalist refutes his or her own system of beliefs simply by breathing.

In case you don’t know who anti-natalists are, here is a good definition:

Pro-lifers often talk about the unborn children’s rights. Antinatalism, as I understand it, questions whether we aren’t most egregiously violating these beings’ rights by bringing them into existence in the first place, given the inevitable suffering it will entail for them.

Nothing is funnier than people who try to sell their supremely trivial Mommy issues as some sort of a political and philosophical stance. I generally find attempts to pass off one’s personal inadequacies for  political consciousness to be very annoying.

122 thoughts on “About Anti-natalists”

  1. Bear in mind, this is polemic and designed to be an answer to such views as you quote above. Nietzsche:

    259. To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one’s will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIETY, it would immediately disclose what it really is–namely, a Will to the DENIAL of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is ESSENTIALLY appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation;–but why should one for ever use precisely these words on which for ages a disparaging purpose has been stamped? Even the organization within which, as was previously supposed, the individuals treat each other as equal–it takes place in every healthy aristocracy–must itself, if it be a living and not a dying organization, do all that towards other bodies, which the individuals within it refrain from doing to each other it will have to be the incarnated Will to Power, it will endeavour to grow, to gain ground, attract to itself and acquire ascendancy– not owing to any morality or immorality, but because it LIVES, and because life IS precisely Will to Power. On no point, however, is the ordinary consciousness of Europeans more unwilling to be corrected than on this matter, people now rave everywhere, even under the guise of science, about coming conditions of society in which “the exploiting character” is to be absent–that sounds to my ears as if they promised to invent a mode of life which should refrain from all organic functions. “Exploitation” does not belong to a depraved, or imperfect and primitive society it belongs to the nature of the living being as a primary organic function, it is a consequence of the intrinsic Will to Power, which is precisely the Will to Life–Granting that as a theory this is a novelty–as a reality it is the FUNDAMENTAL FACT of all history let us be so far honest towards ourselves!

    Like

    1. Control yourself, Francois. The position you describe is one of weaklings and hypocrites. Don’t have children if you don’t want, nobody cares. But creating some sort of an identity out of it is ridiculous.

      Like

      1. I am not sure why we could not have a position on the matter. The state and society are not neutrals in this and they are pushing for reproduction.

        Like François said, it is not about people who are already here but it’s the idea than reproducing for ever is stupid, selfish and cruel. You are mocking a position that you don’t understand and do not explain properly.

        You have 100% the right to find it ridiculous, but this is way more deep than what you think.

        What I hate the most in this matter, is that people make babies without even thinking about it. They just don’t see that there is something huge about that decision and that you make that decision over somebody who has no say in it.

        Like

        1. “The state and society are not neutrals in this and they are pushing for reproduction.”

          – You are not serious, are you? Even in Montreal, the most progressive city in North America, try to find a day care without going broke. And in the rest of the continent? There are no maternity leaves in the US. At all. They are not legislated. Is that the state pushing for reproduction? Are you kidding me or something? In Ukraine, my native country, the state is pushing for reproduction with handing out huge sums of money (and I mean HUGE) to people for every baby they make. I disagree with that practice, but that’s what it looks like when the state pushes to reproduce. And the maternity leaves in Ukraine are 3 years long. And daycares are free.

          Here, though? Have you heard of paternity leaves? Do they exist? No, they don’t. People who decide to reproduce are punished daily by the state and society for that decision. It’s their choice, so I don’t suggest we pity them. But saying that the state and society are on the side of parents? Try having a kid and then entering any good restaurant or store with that kid. You won’t even get a reservation. (True story, Montreal, very recent.)

          “Like François said, it is not about people who are already here but it’s the idea than reproducing for ever is stupid, selfish and cruel. You are mocking a position that you don’t understand and do not explain properly.”

          – This has been responded to twice already. Yes, I get this and I find this position hypocritical. Why do I need to repeat the same thing so many times in the same thread?

          Like

      2. “the idea than reproducing for ever is stupid, selfish and cruel”

        Yes let’s just give up entirely on the human race and stop making more of us. The hope of better sex education and access to contraceptives for those who do not want children to make their own reproductive decisions is a castle in the clouds. The dream that new generations can continue the struggle to make life better for all is a foregone conclusion. The time is ripe for us to pass the planet on to the Neo-Dinosaur.

        Anti-natalists do understand that “not being born” does not equal “not suffering”, right? It is a fallacy to attribute any kind of quality or experience to that which does not exist. If you’re so concerned about people not suffering, volunteer for an abuse shelter or something. [If you already do, good for you. :)] None of this lazy, defeatist, nihilistic “oh I can’t see an end to all the problems ever better that humanity fades into the mist” crap.

        Like

      3. What are you babbling on about? Antinatalism has nothing to do with not wanting children. That’s called being Childfree or CF. Again, you demonstrate that you know absolutely zero of what you talk about.

        Like

        1. Francois, once again, I have to ask you to get yourself under control. We are remarking that your behavior and arguments are exactly the same as those of child-free folks who descended on this blog a while ago. Everybody knows these are 2 different movements. Still, we are justified in making comparisons about the behavior of their individual members, aren’t we?

          Try to read carefully before posting comments.

          Like

  2. I knew a woman who had these views. She was very intelligent (probably in the top .1%) and was well-educated in contemporary work in moral philosophy. Eventually she chose to have a child, even though she believed it was unethical. It was a difficult decision.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. “That makes about as much sense as saying that a serial killer killed a bunch of women even though he thought it was unethical. People don’t do things they consider evil.”

        -Of course, they do. All the time. Have you met any people?

        Like

        1. I wish people concentrated on doing something with their lives that equals the achievements of Jefferson instead of getting on a high horse and condemning people from centuries back. Gosh, talking about low-hanging fruit in terms of moral superiority.

          Like

  3. I’m not an anti-natalist, but I don’t think you’re representing their position entirely accurately here (even though it was my description you quoted to explain it). They don’t take a position fervently against all life, to the point of wanting to see it wiped out in every instance where it exists. Where a living conscious being already exists, it deserves autonomy and to make its own decisions about its future, to find satisfaction in life if it can, or end its suffering if it prefers. Anti-natalism only argues against (what it sees as) the irresponsibility of creating new life, and putting more conscious beings in the position of having to experience life’s sufferings and decide whether to continue it.

    That’s probably still not the most helpful definition, but I don’t believe anything in the position necessitates suicide in order to be consistent.

    Like

    1. “Where a living conscious being already exists, it deserves autonomy and to make its own decisions about its future, to find satisfaction in life if it can, or end its suffering if it prefers. Anti-natalism only argues against (what it sees as) the irresponsibility of creating new life”

      – And as I wrote not five minutes ago, this is a position I see as ludicrous and hypocritical. Am I allowed to say on my own blog that I see certain things as ludicrous and hypocritical?

      Gosh, I hope this thread will not be overrun with people who’d come here to share the same boring definition that has been ridiculed in the thread several times already. At least, other weird identity groups I laughed at had a variety of stupid arguments. Is it just going to be the same one repeated ad nauseam here?

      Like

      1. My confusion stems from a failure to grasp the “hypocrisy” that bothers you. I’ve seen other people mistake the point of anti-natalism before, and draw the same conclusion that anyone who holds this view would “have to kill themselves first” before they deserve to be taken seriously. It seemed to stem from a misunderstanding of the idea, but if you’re genuinely addressing the anti-natalist argument itself and not some straw man of it, then the hypocrisy and ludicrousness of it isn’t so obvious to me as it apparently is to you.

        Like

  4. Let’s try and convince the human race to never have any more babies ever again guys because it is morally wrong this is a fantastic and completely consistent idea that would have no obviously foreseen disastrous consequences if it were even possible to implement and people stopped laughing long enough to try.

    Although it’s good for the rest of the world that some people with bad ideas have decided not to reproduce.

    Like

    1. “and people stopped laughing long enough to try”

      – I still can’t stop laughing. Jeez, identity-building is hilarious. Especially when it takes place around something like this.

      Maybe I should start an anti-exercise identity group. Exercise is evil, it brings suffering. And that I know for sure. So not only do I refuse to exercise, I want to prevent everybody from exercising because if they do, their muscles and joints will hurt! Who’s with me, folks? Let’s save the planet from the true evil of exercising!

      Like

  5. Francois Tremblay :

    Pen :
    I think it’s called conflict. The world isn’t black and white.

    Name me one person in this world who commits actions they honestly and clearly consider evil. You will find none.

    I believing that pirating media is wrong and I still do it. I also believe that meat eating is wrong and I do that too.

    Like

  6. writerJames :My confusion stems from a failure to grasp the “hypocrisy” that bothers you. I’ve seen other people mistake the point of anti-natalism before, and draw the same conclusion that anyone who holds this view would “have to kill themselves first” before they deserve to be taken seriously. It seemed to stem from a misunderstanding of the idea, but if you’re genuinely addressing the anti-natalist argument itself and not some straw man of it, then the hypocrisy and ludicrousness of it isn’t so obvious to me as it apparently is to you.

    Clarissa sees hypocrisy everywhere. She does not understand the position, so she calls it being an hypocrite. I don’t have children and I don’t want some. How am I an hypocrite? I am not saying everybody should kill themselves, just stop reproducing. I don’t see the point about reproduction. Most people don’t. They just make excuses for it.

    And Clarissa, the goverment of Quebec have brand new policies on reproduction and families. They want you to have babies and they give $ and ressources for it. The «congés parentaux» are an example for that.

    Maybe it’s not enough for you, but it’s the same with education, health and everything. Everything is underfunded. This is neoliberalism.

    Like

    1. ” I don’t have children and I don’t want some. How am I an hypocrite? ”

      – This is your inalienable right that I fully support. Where did you see any criticism from me to people who don’t have children? I don’t have children either and I’d bite the head off of anybody who’d try to tell me I should have them.

      ” I am not saying everybody should kill themselves, just stop reproducing.”

      – Now this is a problem. If you don’t want anybody to tell you what to do, you should stop telling people what to do. It’s not your place to have a say in anybody else’s life. Reproductive choices of others are none of your or my business. If you think they are, how are you different from Bush, Santorum and Harper?

      “I don’t see the point about reproduction. Most people don’t. ”

      – You have not met “most people” and cannot know about them. Why not just speak for yourself?

      “And Clarissa, the goverment of Quebec have brand new policies on reproduction and families. They want you to have babies and they give $ and ressources for it. ”

      – No, they don’t. My sister recently had a baby in Montreal and I know all about how “helpful” the government of Quebec has been.

      Like

      1. The difference between me and Harper, is that I can’t and don’t want to pass any laws. I am an anarchist and do not work at the goverment.

        «It’s not your place to have a say in anybody else’s life.» The unborn child has no say. How dare the parents take the decision for him or her then? You are not sloving the problem.

        +, my friend has a child. Told me that you cold stop working longer in here than most places when you have a child. +, the cost in helath and education is way less in here than the USA and elswhere in Canada. Important if you want a child.

        At the end of the day, people will make theiw own decisons on the matter. No need to be freaking out.

        Like

        1. “«It’s not your place to have a say in anybody else’s life.» The unborn child has no say. How dare the parents take the decision for him or her then?”

          – Of course, they shouldn’t! I don’t parents deciding whether their children procreate. As for the “unborn child”, this concepts is meaningless. If it’s “unborn”, it isn’t a child. Why are you suddenly slipping into the language of religious fanatics with their “unborn babies” and all this kind of crap. A fetus is a body part of a woman. It isn’t a person.

          “Told me that you cold stop working longer in here than most places when you have a child”

          – Of course. But of you were a high earner, you’ll be punished financially for it. “Better than most” is not evidence that a problem does not exist.

          “At the end of the day, people will make theiw own decisons on the matter. No need to be freaking out.”

          – The problem is that in the US we might soon elect a president who uses teh same rhetoric of “unborn children” that you just did to prevent people from making their own decisions. I know it’s not your goal, of course, but this language is VERY dangerous.

          Like

      2. “The unborn child has no say.”

        When my partner and I get pregnant first thing we’re gonna do is ask the fetus if it doesn’t mind being born. It makes perfect sense to imply the agency or interpret the experience of a thing that can barely be said to exist.

        Oh, wait, damn. According to the anti-natalist position we are corrupt and immoral because we will subject our child to nothing but cruelty and horror from the moment it leaves the womb and its very existence will be a blight on the planet. Never mind then!

        Are you people even thinking things through in your rush to be kick-ass Schopenhauer cutting the overpopulation Gordian knot with your sword of oversimplified, unworkable ideas?

        Like

        1. “Are you people even thinking things through in your rush to be kick-ass Schopenhauer cutting the overpopulation Gordian knot with your sword of oversimplified, unworkable ideas?”

          – No, they are suffering way too much to be able to form a rational thought. 🙂

          Whenever I hear such people, I have very strong suspicions that they are suffering from the “sour grapes” phenomenon.

          Like

        1. I know. I hoped for something more interesting here since these are folks who promote abortion as an obligation of every reasonable woman. I find it super cute when men pontificate on whether women should or should not have abortions.

          Like

  7. writerJames :

    My confusion stems from a failure to grasp the “hypocrisy” that bothers you. I’ve seen other people mistake the point of anti-natalism before, and draw the same conclusion that anyone who holds this view would “have to kill themselves first” before they deserve to be taken seriously. It seemed to stem from a misunderstanding of the idea, but if you’re genuinely addressing the anti-natalist argument itself and not some straw man of it, then the hypocrisy and ludicrousness of it isn’t so obvious to me as it apparently is to you.

    What’s not to understand? The only real responsibility and control one exercises are over one’s own life. Of course, it’s easier to criticize strangers for “irresponsible” decisions they make than to concentrate on your own life and limit yourself to judging it. It’s also easier to project your own miserable experiences of a crappy life onto others and make supremely silly conclusions about life always entailing suffering. Everybody is entitled to their own worldview. And a worldview where suffering is part of every existence is as valid as a worldview where there is no suffering except the one that is freely chosen by an individual. You can’t choose in advance what worldview a person will end up maintaining, can you? Why assume this yet non-existent being will uphold yours?

    How is it not hypocritical to say that beings should be prevented from experiencing the existence you happily choose to continue every second of your life? It’s the same as saying that I want the freedom to have or not to have an abortion while denying this freedom of choice to everybody else.

    Once again, I hope that it is very clear that I support everybody’s right not to have children if they don’t feel like it for whatever reason.

    Like

    1. Happily choose to continue? What crap, to claim their motivation to go on is remotely based on the joy of life. Its bloody difficult and painful to kill oneself. Once born, continuance is hard-wired in us. So we do, because of fear. Some frickin joy, you moron.

      Like

      1. Using the expression “hard-wired” to discuss human beings is evidence of complete intellectual impotence. Are you aware that this is the favorite word of Dr Phil?

        Like

  8. Very happy to see people getting mad over this. Then my job is half done.

    Of course I have a very dark view about humans, whether it’s history, politics or whatever. Humans have been acting like parasites throughout history and this is still what they are doing today.

    I think that humans can do better, as they can learn in the process. But god, are they slow learners. So it’s not all gloom and doom, but I still fail to see why the species should go on forever. Why not adoption? People want their own private «things». Just like a car.

    But humans don’t need anti-natalists, they are about to self-destruct, be it global warming or something else.

    Like

    1. “I still fail to see why the species should go on forever. Why not adoption? People want their own private «things». Just like a car.”

      Ummmm adoption’s cool what are you trying to say?

      “Humans have been acting like parasites throughout history … humans don’t need anti-natalists, they are about to self-destruct, be it global warming or something else.”

      See you write stuff like this and think you’re being all “dude I’m just telling it like it is”, when what people who have thought this through in fact hear is some garbage about how humanity giving up on itself is a valid moral and political position. It must be easy to feel good about doing jack squat about this fucked up world if you just write off the whole shebang with some lazy nihilism.

      “I still fail to see why the species should go on forever.”

      It won’t, most likely. If nothing else the sun will get too big one day. Don’t hurry along there, though. Let’s see how things play out.

      “Very happy to see people getting mad over this. Then my job is half done.”

      Dance, puppets! Dance! Hwa hahahhahahahaaah!

      Like

        1. People should adopt, give birth, stay childless or do whatever they please with their reproductive organs. What is really unhealthy, though, is to have opinions about reproductive choices of others. And I mean ANY opinions.

          In short: Mommy issues.

          Like

      1. I’m willing to bet I have been doing more in my life than you to make this world a better place to live.

        In fact, not having children will probably give me more time to fight back against the state and capitalism, among other issues.

        I never had a car in my life and almost never traveled (do I need to remember you how much planes pollute?). So your children might get the chance to live in a greener world. Have you done the same?

        You should thank me my friend.

        Like

        1. “You should thank me my friend.”

          – We are all very happy that you do what you feel is right for you with your reproductive life. That’s really great and nobody should criticize you for that or force you to be different. All that is being asked of you is that you extend the same treatment you get from us to us. That’s all. Let’s all respect each other’s decisions in the area of reproductive choices.

          Does anybody disagree with this suggestion or find it unreasonable?

          Like

        1. What is the question, David? How I feel about the Nazi Germany? Hate it. How is it relevant to anything?

          I hope you remember how I stopped people when they started accusing you of being a fascist and anti-semite for no reason. I hope you are not doing what they tried to do to you and start hurling accusations of nazism on people who do not identify as nazis. We all know that I have no tolerance for people who bring up nazism and fascism in vain.

          Like

    1. My head has flown off my shoulders and is now screaming an unholy chorus as it spins in a slow circle in the air spewing nauseating lights of the damned from all orifices.

      What the hell are you talking about dude?

      Like

  9. bloggerclarissa :
    People should adopt, give birth, stay childless or do whatever they please with their reproductive organs. What is really unhealthy, though, is to have opinions about reproductive choices of others. And I mean ANY opinions.

    Yes, heavens forbid that anyone try to think rationally about what it means to have children, instead of just mindlessly reproducing. You are an anti-intellectual.

    Like

    1. A very obvious attempt to derail the discussion. I guess you have not a single actual argument, eh?

      I’ve never seen an identity group among all the ones I have ridiculed give up so easily.

      Like

  10. bloggerclarissa :
    What is the question, David? How I feel about the Nazi Germany? Hate it. How is it relevant to anything?
    I hope you remember how I stopped people when they started accusing you of being a fascist and anti-semite for no reason. I hope you are not doing what they tried to do to you and start hurling accusations of nazism on people who do not identify as nazis. We all know that I have no tolerance for people who bring up nazism and fascism in vain.

    And yet you’ve got no problem with people imposing harm on innocents, you fucking hypocrite.

    Like

  11. Could you answer this question (formulated by François)? “What maximum number of children afflicted with spina bifita/Tay-Sachs/leukemia/cancer/Downs Syndrome/etc a year born under a pro-choice scheme do you consider a fair and just tradeoff to prevent the distress of women who would not be allowed to have a child under a pro-abortion scheme?”

    Like

    1. Well first off why don’t you ask those kids if they would rather be alive than dead before you go promoting the end of the human race on their behalf? Then let me respond to your morality-begging impossible-to-answer bullshit question with this one:

      What maximum number of children without chronic, delibilitating disease of any kind, who would go on to live a healthy, comfortable life, certainly flavored with astounding pains but also incredible joys, would you consider a fair and just tradeoff to let a bunch of armchair nihilists feel like they were defending the moral high ground by smugly pretending that willful extinction is humanity’s best bet for itself?

      Hint: there’s no answer because the question, like yours, is unfairly framed and in fact quite ridiculous.

      And equating “pro-abortion” with a policy to end human reproduction entirely? God, where do you get this crap?

      Like

      1. So, are you anti-abortion?

        “What maximum number of children without chronic, delibilitating disease of any kind, who would go on to live a healthy, comfortable life, certainly flavored with astounding pains but also incredible joys, would you consider a fair and just tradeoff to let a bunch of armchair nihilists feel like they were defending the moral high ground by smugly pretending that willful extinction is humanity’s best bet for itself?”

        Zero, because there’s no armchair nihilists here.

        Like

  12. My position about abortion is somewhat an hybrid between pro-choice and pro-abortion. On an ethical sense, I’m pro-abortion. We should promote the principle, especially in the current statist-capitalist state of affairs (I don’t think I would be necessarily an anti-natalist in an Anarchist setting, even if I don’t think anti-natalism would be irrelevant even in this new setting, though), that all women should undergo abortion when they’re pregnant.

    But on a positive sense, I’m pro-choice because I would not support any authority who would decide to make abortion compulsory. (however, I support the idea to have “pro-abortion communities” in an Anarchist setting).

    I’d rather prefer a state who would make abortion compulsory than a Ron-Paul-wet-dreams-state who bans abortion or than a state who promotes procreation and parenting with the use of violence like we have currently.

    Also, I would strongly support a State who would decide to ban birth delivery in its public hospitals or even in its public health system globally, unless some “medical exception”.

    Like

    1. And that’s hypocrisy, David, because under no circumstances could you ever be capable of being pregnant or giving birth. Of course, it’s easy to legislate away in your fantasies when the penalty on YOU will be nil. On a reality you don’t have access to, you should have no opinion. Like I don’t have an opinion on race issues, for example. Have you noticed how many times I refused to discuss racism on this blog? And you know why? Because if something lies completely outside the realm of what I can possibly experience I choose to shut the fuck up and not inflict my unsolicited opinions on folks who can.

      Like

        1. What strangers? Killed by whom?

          I’m sorry, I have no interest in these vague conversations driven by weird identity-politics. All I can say is that I find a self-declared natalist to be as much of a fool as a self-declared anti-natalist.

          Like

      1. Wow, dude. First I was just annoyed but you’ve actually disgusted me with your “ironic” racism. There were other and better ways to respond to Clarissa’s question.

        And no, I’m not anti-abortion. A woman’s right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy and opposition to all human reproduction do not go hand in hand, genius.

        Like

  13. @P. rhoeas

    “Well first off why don’t you ask those kids if they would rather be alive than dead before you go promoting the end of the human race on their behalf?”

    Okay, so why are you pro-choice if you vomit that shit?

    “First I was just annoyed but you’ve actually disgusted me with your “ironic” racism. There were other and better ways to respond to Clarissa’s question.”

    I wrote this racist sarcasm because Clarissa doesn’t understande the point about racism in the natalism concept.

    Like

    1. “Okay, so why are you pro-choice if you vomit that shit”

      Dude, what? Never mind. Let’s drop Francois’s ridiculous question. Just trying to parse it gave me a headache.

      “I wrote this racist sarcasm because Clarissa doesn’t understande the point about racism in the natalism concept.”

      Whether you’re being sarcastic or not, you don’t have to use a hateful slur to communicate your ideas. Especially a no-brain idea like how government control of reproductive health and activity often takes racist forms. The way you phrased it was just insanely confusing.

      “My message was toward P. rhoeas.”

      Whatever you’ve done to make life better for people is wonderful. Choosing to not having children in order to make time to further a humanitarian goal is certainly a worthy reason to make that choice. But how is any humanitarian work you do at all consistent with your position that humans should stop procreating altogether?

      Like

      1. «But how is any humanitarian work you do at all consistent with your position that humans should stop procreating altogether?»

        Like I said, I see life as a prison. But the fact that I am convince this place is a prison do not prevent me to try to make things better, in any way than I can. A strike is probably coming up in Quebec on fees and I will be there, not so much for myself but for others and for the principle. I will do it even if most people could care lesse about me. Even if most people have a me first mentality.

        Once you know life is a prison, you have 2 choices. You kill yourselves, wich I tried and failed or you can try to make the world a better place. Wich I have been doing since Im 17 years old.

        Like

        1. “You kill yourselves, wich I tried and failed or you can try to make the world a better place. Wich I have been doing since Im 17 years old.”

          – I think you made the right choice in the end. And I’m sure that you will succeed, maybe not in everything, but at least partially, and that’s what counts.

          Is the strike about tuition fees?

          Like

    2. I thought P. rhoeas was referring to people who had already been born, seeing as it’s kind of difficult to ask something that’s part of the mother if it would rather be alive. As for the pro-choice jibe, the stance is defined as such: “I have the right to choose. I might choose something different from you, but I still support your right to make your own choice.” Kind of along the lines of “No one can make my choice for me.”

      As for racism, I have no idea how that connects. Kids are dying here, too, because of overcrowding in some areas of the cities. They’re dying in China–is that racism? They’re dying in India, too. They’re dying all over the world; this has absolutely nothing to do with a single race attempting to take control of one or all of the others.

      And if you’re speaking of Africa, which country? Do you speak of the genocides in Rwanda and Darfur? Of starvation? Of apartheid? There’s a lot going on on that continent. I’d suggest being more specific.

      Like

  14. bloggerclarissa :“You should thank me my friend.”
    – We are all very happy that you do what you feel is right for you with your reproductive life. That’s really great and nobody should criticize you for that or force you to be different. All that is being asked of you is that you extend the same treatment you get from us to us. That’s all. Let’s all respect each other’s decisions in the area of reproductive choices.
    Does anybody disagree with this suggestion or find it unreasonable?

    My message was toward P. rhoeas.

    I actually have good friends who have children and I don’t remember bothering them with my ideas. The children are here anyway, so what give?

    I don’t really see the point making children when children are dying elsewhere in the world because they don’t have any parents. And call that mommy issues, but i see no point in life whatsoever. It all ends sooner or later and it has nothing to do with justice or freedom, values that should prevail, but do not most of the time. Life is a prison. I just try to make that prison a better place. But do we really need more prisonners?

    Again, I am not about to pass a law or supporting somebody who will pass a law on this, so no need to go nuts. +, I don’t really talk about that on my own blog, wich is kind of funny. It’s you who started the debate. And then you complain about the debate? Then erease everything cause people have the right to their own opinions.

    That include being anti-natalist. I have the right to express my views wich is all about liberty of expression. Unlike you, I don’t support this politician or another. So you can’t blame me for that.

    You want me to shut up and I am sorry, but I won’t as long as I am alive. Deal with it.

    Like

      1. ““I don’t really see the point making children when children are dying elsewhere in the world because they don’t have any parents.””

        – Cool. Then don’t have them. I support that decision of yours 100%. Just don’t try to dictate to others in matters where you don;t want to be dictated to, that’s all. Remember that if you don;t see the point, it doesn’t mean other people don’t either.

        Like

  15. bloggerclarissa :“You kill yourselves, wich I tried and failed or you can try to make the world a better place. Wich I have been doing since Im 17 years old.”
    – I think you made the right choice in the end. And I’m sure that you will succeed, maybe not in everything, but at least partially, and that’s what counts.
    Is the strike about tuition fees?

    Yes there is a huge raise coming up for post-graduate studies in Quebec. But everything will rise, health care, electricity, taxes. All this in 2012. The strike (if it comes) will be on tuitons fees, but hopefully we will see a broader movement. We need more than students to change things up.

    Like

  16. Well great Bakouchaïev sounds like we’re mostly on the same page after all. 🙂 I’m convinced that everything will end and that there is no afterlife and that all will one day disintegrate into less than atomic dust. But I don’t see, even as a hypothetical, that people should stop having babies as a rule, or that we should in any way hasten the doom of the human species. I don’t see how that’s even consistent with being human. Anti-natalism seems to be trying to place value on non-existence, which, by definition, can have no value, because it’s nothing. It barely makes sense even to say “non-existence has no value” because any sort of valuation of the human condition is simply impossible if there are no people [from my godless heathen perspective]. Who will be there, once the human race is gone, to make the value judgment, “Yes, not existing is better after all”?

    Like

  17. There are several moral considerations overruling the urging of AN’s to commit suicide
    AN is about suffering prevention, not ending life for its own sake.

    Any premature cessation of one’s life – voluntary or not – causes family and friends to suffer even more than “normal” natural expirations do. This is especially true for suicide. Unlike death from murder or an accident, suicide causes resentment, anger, and even feelings of rejection among family and friends; this on top of the natural grief and sadness they would suffer if the person died in a non-suicide way. It follows that – with the suffering prevention ethic – asking us to commit suicide is tantamount to asking us to be the very hypocrites you accuse us of being.

    Also, this suggestion assumes we ought to disregard any pain we cause to others – no matter how anguishing – as a result of following out our viewpoints and philosophies out to their fullest extent. I’m sure you would object to religious people or political activists following out their own views to their fullest extent, no matter how hurtful their actions would be to others (Fred Phelps, Corporate cronyism, “spare the rod” child abuse)*? If not, then you’re committing a Double Standard against ANs.

    Similarly, this asumes it is OK to cause suffering in others if you yourself do not suffer from it. Corporate Psychopaths (a real academic term, not hyperbole) cannot feel suffering at the wrong they do others, yet nobody would consider the psychopath’s lack of such capacity a legitimizer of their actions – precisely because others do suffer. This logic also permits, if not legitimizes, bullying of all sorts. How is an AN committing suicide for the reasons you state any different?.

    The whiner cowardice charge assumes that humanity continuance into the future has an objective, independently confirmable purpose. If it does not, then humanity’s continuance has no real point. Therefore it’s hardly “whiny” to not having kids because of the way life is, for the suffering likewise has no real point either (separate from enduring suffering). Furthermore, if an AN chooses to stay alive for the sake of family,friends,and those he/she helps, then it’s hardly cowardice to remain alive for their sakes, esp if they believe in suffering mitigation. So the “cowardice” and “whiny” charges are both hasty conclusions.
    Also if one of courage’s purposes is to help the organism survive so that others’ may benefit, then an AN staying alive for the sake of suffering mitigation is hardly cowardly – especially if they, like me, are a listening ear and a helping hand (food bank volunteer, and giving fam and friends the benefit of my help and life’s advice).

    So if any individual human life (as opposed to the human species) does have a purpose, it is to alleviate suffering. But this is not a justification to create more people – any more than dragging people from their homeland is justified by the benefit they bring to a foreign land (i.e. slavery). Also, this dragging creates a new center of suffering. So again, it’s causing pain in others for the benefit of the already living.

    Like

    1. “AN is about suffering prevention, not ending life for its own sake.”

      – It’s not your place to judge what constitutes suffering for other people. It is also not your place to alleviate it without request. I already discussed it at length here and I don’t want to repeat myself. Alleviating what you have decided is suffering without any request or sugestion that your officiousness is needed is supremely condescending.

      There was already a jerkwad of major proportions participating in this thread who has decided that all disabled and sick people must be completely miserable and shouldn’t have been born. The idea that maybe many of those disabled people lead a much happier, useful and fuller existence than he does did not even cross his mind. He decided they were suffering, so suffering they must be. Bleh, how stupid.

      Like

      1. You know damned well that was NOT the context of my post about suffering prevention!!! The post was about why your entreats for ANs to commit suicide fail on logical grounds. That post about imposing suffering alleviation on others is just a red herring and nothing more. That is a whole different topic entirely.

        “Nothing is funnier than people who try to sell their supremely trivial Mommy issues as some sort of a political and philosophical stance. I generally find attempts to pass off one’s personal inadequacies for political consciousness to be very annoying”.

        This is sheer rhetoric and nothing more. The truth is, there is no independent confirmation that the human species has any independently confirmed purpose whatsoever. If there is no objective, independently confirmable purpose in humanity’s existence, then all the line about “mommy issues” and “personal inadequacies” is just long on bluster and short on substance.

        Speaking of “mommy issues”, you are guilty of the very imposition you acccused me (w/o a hint of evidence, btw) of. If you’re accusing me of presuming to know how somebody else ought to feel in a situation – then how can you presume to tell other people how they ought to feel about their situation (namely by disparaging their concerns as “mommy issues”, “pesonal inadequacies”, etc)?

        In the end, your whole OP is the result of mere petty personal distaste akin to a six-year-old spitting out spinach – as opposed to the product of the rational though process. The only reason you feel that way is that your knee-jerk, animal-based, impulsive instincts say so; but those kinds of instincts and impulses are no longer a reliable guide for discerning truths from falsehoods – if they ever were one.

        Let’s see you go to francois’ site, or my own (linked in my username), or antinatalism.blogspot.com – or ANY other site in the sidebars of those sites for that matter – and see if you can argue against antinatalism on a level higher than high school insults.

        Like

        1. I dislike nothing more than folks who suffer from verbal diarrhea and who come here to post endless disjointed comments to promote their unpopular sites.

          Go get stuffed, stupid freak. You are such a disgusting ugly freakazoid that you can’t expect normal people to want to waste a second of their time on you.

          Like

          1. bee oh oh atch oh oh

            You just drove me to a near-OD on Zoloft!

            If you post blog entries drawing snarky caricatures on people based on nothing more than personal whims or regurgitating popular opinions and stereotypes about them, you should EXPECT those you attack to deliver you “verbal diarrhea”, little girl! And I do mean GIRL, for that’s exactly how you act, like an angry spoiled 12 year old daddy’s lil’ dahlin’.

            Yeah, being told off by you. What a loss (snif snif tears tears..of laughter!)

            Like

            1. ” little girl! And I do mean GIRL”

              – I don’t find either ‘girl’ or ‘GIRL’ offensive. Just like I don’t find ‘boy” or “BOY” offensive. Maybe these words carry some painful meaning for you but the majority of people don’t have such an intense reaction to them. Did I mention your Mommy issues before? The use of “girl” in block letters as a form of an insult is a classic case of intense Mommy issues.

              In case you haven’t been able to read my short comment and process it, here is a recap: I dislike it intensely when people come to my popular blog to self-promote their unpopular little websites without a direct invitation from me.

              I also don’t enjoy these “oh oh ah ah” fits of hysteria. Please discontinue them.

              Like

  18. Hi there. Nice to meet you.

    “All I can say about anti-natalists is that in order to be taken seriously, they have to kill themselves first. A live anti-natalist refutes his or her own system of beliefs simply by breathing.”

    Antinatalism is not about suicide. It is about non-procreation. The logic entails the assessment of value, in which non-existent consciousness does not (cannot) hold, but which existent consciousness does. Once in existence, such value exists and things such as suicide become a harm due to the value. It is also a harm to tose interconnected to such existing person. Prior to, however, there is no deprivation to not come into existence. There is, however, a prevention of unnecessary harm that comes with all life. This discrepancy is called asymmetry, as the difference between ‘prevention’ and ‘deprivation’ are not symmetrical for non-existence (or non-conscious matter and energy) becoming existent (conscious matter and energy). There is much more to antinatalism, but learning about why such is asymmetrical, and hence unethical is important.

    I suggest that, if you truly wish to criticize antinatalism, that you read a few books on the topic. One I would recommend is David Benatar’s “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence”. Feel free to criticize all you like, but addressing some of the actual arguments being made would make your pro-natalist stance so much stronger. IMO, there are far too many people on the Internet who psycho-analyze rather than address arguments.

    Just some food for thought. 🙂

    Take care,
    ‘Trick

    Like

    1. I don’t have any “pro-natalist stance.” I just ridicule stupid people. It’s an anti-stupidity stance. You didn’t even manage to read a short post and immediately assigned some ridiculous label to me that I don’t deserve and refuse to accept. So who is incapable of addressing actual arguments, eh?

      “IMO, there are far too many people on the Internet who psycho-analyze rather than address arguments.”

      – So what made you want to join their ranks?

      Like

  19. bloggerclarissa :I don’t have any “pro-natalist stance.”

    Okay, my misunderstanding. I did not mean to come off as insulting or to label you. I meant it as the opposing stance to antinatalism. A better choice of word would have been “Feel free to criticize all you like, but addressing some of the actual arguments being made would make your NON-antinatalist stance so much stronger.” Consider this an apology for such word usage and revision to my last comment.

    In regards to psycho-analyzing, I was just addressing these statements within your short post:

    “supremely trivial Mommy issues”
    “to pass off one’s personal inadequacies”

    I don’t feel I have done the same. Regardless, it appears you are getting a whole lot of flack on this topic and truly do not want to come off as yet another attacker. Not my intention at all. My only intention was to point you in the direction of some real arguments made for the topic.

    Thanks,
    ‘Trick

    Like

  20. Hey I know this is a thousand years old, but I’m kinda curious about what you think of this is now. I just want to respond to a few things:

    Anti-stupidity? Antinatalism is an exercise of un-intelligence? I’d argue that antinatalism is only possible for highly intelligent beings. And the whole human race can be included in this one – we’re all pretty damn intelligent. Also you’d be calling folks like Schopenhauer unintelligent which is pretty inaccurate. It’s fine to think he’s a nutcase, but let’s use intelligence not as a compliment but as a description of one’s capacity for abstract thought.

    As for me, I think I’ll have kids, and selfishly. I admit that I want kids for myself. I don’t think I have the moral strength follow through with my beliefs; I’m already too intertwined with society. In addition, I realize that the extreme fear of nonexistence is only prevalent in a small portion of the population and that my kids may never experience it.

    I understand that this philosophical movement can seem wacky and just unreasonable, but think of all the motives behind it. I know what it looks like – a group of anti-kids adults are trying to gain some philosophical validity in their choices to abstain from reproduction. Well, antinatalism explores what it really means to exist as a self-aware, intelligent being. And when I say self-aware I mean it in the scientific and philosophical sense – we are aware of the nature that supposedly as a hold on us. We can shake that hold; we can choose not to reproduce (to go against instinct) for moral purposes. That’s the value that I find in antinatalism, recognizing the ability to make decisions that can free us from the shackles of nature, for better or for worse.

    What antinatalists oppose is the initial thrust into existence…antinatalists have already experienced this, and so killing themselves would not further their moral endeavors in the slightest. They are already alive; they already fear death. I’d argue that some antinatalists enjoy their existence *so* much that they don’t want to put their children through the same fear of non-existence.

    Let’s make a parallel: in a way, antinatalists believe that tis better to never have loved at all than to have loved and lost. See ya, Tennyson. Perhaps they love living and being so much and they experience life so vividly and so deeply that they cannot bear to let it go. And thus they would prefer to never have been born.

    This is most common among creative, intelligent individuals (I don’t mean this as a basic compliment, highly intelligent individuals experience and question the world much differently and are more prone to having thoughts that lead in this direction). So ending their lives would not help them at all; they would love to continue forever, actually.

    I should really emphasize “some” antinatalists. Because this does not apply to all. There are many antinatlist that employ their practices for reasons of environmental preservation and whatnot. Which is a much more “practical” side of the issue and way easier to wrap one’s head around.

    It is fine if you think antinatalism is ridiculous, it really is okay. But like others have said don’t dismiss the philosophy for reasons that are not inherent in its ideas.

    I know you probably wanted to put this post to bed, but I really wanted to share my thoughts/clear some things up. The human race comes up with some pretty strange philosophies, I know. But take some time to give em look and see where they come from

    Like

    1. You are confusing philosophy and psychological issues. All of this empty blabber by the so-called anti-nataliats conceals nothing but a fear to see a mental health specialists.

      And that is very boring.

      Terror of dying that you describe is a well-known form of mental illness. Just go see a doctor already. This will be resolved within a month.

      Like

      1. Nope, fear of death is very natural. I don’t think you can call yourself a living being if you don’t have some sort of fear, unless you are very, very religious. I’d appreciate it if you read my post instead of ordering me to a doctor…is that how you respond to any person who has view different from yours?

        It is the same commenter – I had to switch usernames because the previous email was not mine anymore.

        Like

        1. “Nope, fear of death is very natural.”

          – I don’t like the word “natural.” Nothing is more anti-natural than, say, waiting to use a toilet instead of just taking a dump in the middle of the street. Yet every day we make the anti-natural effort to use the facilities like civilized people that we are. Every single thing we do as human beings is “unnatural” in the extreme. Just like with choosing not to evacuate your bowels whenever it strikes your fancy to do so, you can make a choice not to live besieged by fears.

          ” I’d appreciate it if you read my post instead of ordering me to a doctor…is that how you respond to any person who has view different from yours?”

          – My readers have to prove their mettle to me by dealing with my very direct and aggressive style of communication at first. Once they do that, I become the mostly cuddly, supportive, loving blogger they will ever meet. 🙂 Of course, those who can’t take the heat will find that first stage of dealing with me somewhat uncomfortable.

          I have to commend you, though, on the polite format of this question.

          Like

      2. “Nope, fear of death is very natural.”

        The natural fear of death is not the sentiment described in yoensuu’s post, but a much simpler, to-the-point emotion, one that motivates people to take the actions that will help preserve their life (in the longer or shorter term) and then stops bothering them until the next time action is needed. Anguish at the thought of one’s mortality is definitely not something everybody experiences, or something that needs to be experienced for the rest of one’s life.

        Like

  21. Okay, glad to know there is some method to it all. As you probably know, there are many people who use their quasi-anonymity to further random aggressive motives on the internet, so I am always on guard heh (and probably hypersensitive with web conversations). Cool blog.

    Like

  22. Hello Clarissa, thank you for hosting this virtual salon, I realise this could be derided as a necro, but hell, this literally a topic for every age! Age as in social period, not personal. But yeah that too! Tell the kiddies, nobody’s life is strictly “necessary” and ma n pa don’t demand grandkids. So I though’t I’d come in here and see if we can’t color in each other’s gaps! By the time I’m done you will be pissed at the length more than the lateness 😉 There was also some ‘talking past’ each other ( ok Ifeel it was mostly you stonewalling) that means some things were left undiscussed which should be reiterated to remove nebulosity.

    This is probably a good time to reveal that *drumroll* I take the antinatalist side and I have a point to prove! Goddammit I am a melancholic misanthrope (though it’s pity for the fools as much as hate, and yes self-hate and self-pity to boot, now can we get that out of the way?), morbid, narcissistic (I literally think this state of existence is beneath me/my rational side) stubborn, and half-hearted (in so many ways) in romance…..All I have to “keep it together” is syllogistic reasoning and reality calibration-more of logic+ empiricisim than my word + my balls but hey Tony could afford to talk like that-his life was a movie! lolbut seriously I feel like I’m bangin on a brick wall, these are as much DUE to antinatalism as they caused me to ENTERTAIN it initially. One day I will bow The Internet to my will and they/you will recognise this as a god-damn philosophy. QUit dismissing it out of hand, with several lengths of bullsh -er ad hominems laid end to end thrown at us, after even the kitchen sink.

    In fact, I shouldn’t really be here, a lot of good arguments have been made before my time, but met with sophistry and legalism, cool I can play that, I’vge read all them Nichomanchean, Machiavellian, Munchausean treatise thingies I can spot a bad argument better than articulate a good one. But that very ease of destruction over creation is why I’m an antinatalist. It is better to end an imperfect existence than create a perfect one, in this case it’s more than laziness just that the possible is superior to the impossible. My point is that I want to highlight some of the more crude rationalisations and haute dismissals you have levelled at prior interlocutors. This is easy for me because these reactionary life affirming arguments (first comment excerpted fucking Nietzche!) are abroad the internet before the truth has even made itself presentable. WIll it ever be? I dunno but I have seen these arguments before and they are counterable if a bit worn, so be charitable to antinatalist ideas (they are concerned with common problems after all) and I will color the gaps as I said.

    First, suicide. I have nothing to say to people who lift off except godspeed. Especially the nihilistic ones. As Schopenhauer said, “such courage it must take, for a man to dispose of his life, when he sees nothing better to do with it”. Indeed! One way to put it is, if I built an intellignet robot, I would make it such thant itwould not need to defecate,sleep (that long!) or fear destruction if justified. Because of this meat bag I drag arround, I am saddled with the lot, especially through my enteric, limbic and reptillian nervous sectors in the latter. My rational cortex says fuck this, my body disagrees. That there is the disconnect because my purpose seeking mind is the subject, the tool, of purposeless mindless DNA, and you would do well to allow antinatalists to die peacefully. Read up on Zappfe! Lived to be 90, married like 50 of those years (same woman), great health from climing every sodding mountain in Norway, no kids and some of the most cogent, pungent, poignant absurdist antinatalism, soulful and moving. Also Einstein and relativity (sit on stove vs with girl etc)-what an eternity of time between marking off the date and putting it to your head! And then fighting the fears of being found n vegetated, to pull the trigger! Declining would be no more than the cowardice of your ancestors(whose will to live often defied material conditions or honest expectations of betterment), whereas you will have the grace not to inflict it on your descendants. Also, to use myself as an example, I work/volunteer with rescued dogs and if I killed myself that would cut the quality of their care. For some inexplicable reason that bothers me so I feel good about myself as I help them. HOWEVER, boosting the quality of their care is no reason to bring a new PERSON (‘have a baby’ wuakh!) into the whole mix. What if they are allergic to dogs, like my uncle (by marriage)?

    Hence the glimmer of irrationality in still-live antinatalists is far more justifiable than the howitzer of vulgarity that is breeding. Simply because we oblige no-one else in our decision, and in any case our death is more certain than the birth of any particular child. For us we can afford to quibble about the span, nothing changes as fundamentally as *pushing these deliberations on someone else*, and-touch wood- they reconcile themselves to life (which then turns out as well as it rarely does). I mean, how much risk is acceptable, for how little reward? Look, we have meagre cures in theounces, problems by the pound. We have TONS of prevention, and it only takes a couple grams per condom. See, it’s so much easier to rip a condom out than your head off, the availability of cure doesn’t relieve the duty to prevent, and the objectionability of cure means it should be offered to AS FEW PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE i.e 0. Suicide is supererogatory under antinatalism i.e bonus points.

    However, there is a better and a worse time for it, we do not deny the good, it is indeed available for the salvaging. Under negative utilitarianism/anti-frustrationism, perfect bliss is at least no worse than nonexistence (doesn’t thre term Nirvana overlap both? Hindus. clever buggers, those.). Therefore an active preference for precipitating death may be irrational during the good times. Still, a preference for good +bad times mixed, assuming bliss and nonexistence are balanced is a case of, at best, the good being the enemy of the better. Now if you are born in hell…..see? How hellish does a place have to be before it is acknowledged as such? If hell is pure suffering, perfect imperfection, this place may be worse for the knife-twist the joy allows; this place could be better than it is, the suffering is essentially arbitrary. Plus I wonder how you can’t grasp ‘asking the unborn’ for consent, yet you can only have a serious discussion with a(n) ( electively) dead antinatalist. The unjustifiable hold life has on us implies any “born-to-be” would be under unnecessary duress as well and our very cowardice in the choice that is at best neutral (to be or not? We get zero guidance/explanation) is itself an argument against foisting this on an unsuspecting child as if it were any ‘real’ choice. so argue the philosophy, or do some soul searching on how your limited powers in a finite world can benefit a being bound to *find their conditions sub-optimal*. For the sake of argument, assume that mere existence can’t be praised except poetically (i.e neutral container theory). Especially since beings live by exploitation and expropriation from other beings, there is a certain lack of ‘balance’, apportionment. Living things work for similar goals, not common goals, and they exist to work against each other, almost. As far as goals, some things we strive to attain, some things we wish to avoid. Hence, 1 unit of attainment pays for 2 units of effort, as well as any wasted efforts in disappointment, affliction etc. Balance would imply that good things would either be as easy to attain or hard to avoid as the bad. can we really expect happiness of attainment to magically turn this into a profitable enterprise to be run as a ‘going concern’ or are we living in (have we made life) a(n) (asset-price)bubble, fecundating like goldfish?

    To affirm life like Nietzche is to accept inevitable ‘collateral damage’, and promote the collective over the individual. This is unacceptable because a nebulous ‘humanity’ is not worth concrete, feeling humans.After 3.5 billion years replicatibg molecules are less than cliche and I am less than willing to suffer for their pseudo-agendas. I like to think of life like one of these awkward traditions we pass on here in east Africa, like infibulation of minors. It started inexplicably, and a buncha fuckwits perpetuate it without explaining to the individuals of any iteration how they are thereby benefitted. People are not obliged to find meaning in their ethnicity or society, indeed large groups and the lowst common denominator dynamic means any solitary person even slightly above average will find grounds to disavow some received wisdom. And let’s not discuss Arafat’s “2 for you, 9 for the intfadah” breeding strategy. even less shall we discuss honoring ancestors-not only the silly DNA-Borg gasp at immortality, but they’re dead! If it’s possible for events after your death to disappoint, then my entire philosophy crumbles and I am in for a pounding. So who can argue reproduction is good for future or past generations? Is it good for us at present? Is that even an argument? Kant would havus re-think and recant. So who is it good for, is anyone being ‘used’ and how are we justifed?

    Moreover, can parents possibly owe society a literal pound (or whatever birthweight) of flesh in the form of continuity? This does not give the child’s perspective any weighting, truly out of sight, out of mind. Such thoughtlessness is only ok if existence itself is a good, such that parents discharge a debt to society and ‘enthrall’ their children in a new one -filial piety-in the procreation of said children. If such reasoning is flawed , then perhaps the interests and consent of the children are inconsequential, to be subsumed into a greater project (paying social security!). But going back to life itself being a gooddon’t you think insidious DNA could have rooted this idea in our core after a couple billion years? After all, there is nothing to do but make work of ourselves, for ourselves, and as far as we can tell, by ourselves. Furthermore, DNA could not possibly evolve to consider individual’s interests, and I have no use for any ‘life -force’ or ‘Will to Power” that disregards our ‘petty concerns’. Things cannot exist ‘for the sake’ of other things, considering that there is no reason for there to be something rather than nothing. I.e, if nothing matters, how can you be obliged to be a hero and ignore what is otherwise the better option? As Mitchel Heisman said in his extended essay, the only important question is whether anything is important. We, certainly, are not. So we look to the horizon, Waiting all the while, For Godot.

    Being more pointed, you went long on ridicule and short on analysis for p. rhoeas’ comment “this is a fantastic and completely consistent idea that would have no obviously foreseen disastrous consequences” which is a good summary of successfully propagated-a viral meme of- antinatalism (heh, pun).. I don’t think he was being facetious, is such an idea worthless because it’s counterintuitive?

    And bakouchaiev is right, people don;t know what they are procreating for. If there was a point *we would have found it by now*. How can I not see this point, will no-one show me or am I deficient? If the pointlessness of life is merely me opinion, do you think there are no people holding this opinion who have reproduced regardless? Do you think people should be able to convincingly articulate an objective meaning of life before having kids? Oh, oh wait, you can create meaning out of kids, or kids and meaning at the same time, or something. However Unlike linguistic meaning, you will necer be able to communicate this meaning, rendering it arbitrary and essentially a non-argument. Solipsism/relativism is a philosophy that almost never bolsters any other position, because it argues from the POV of already holding an opinion- YOUR opinion. And any kind of ‘meaning’ available to you and no other sentient life is the worst kind of solipsism. I mean, you don’t even create so much as yourself, and you find many similar beings in your predicament. Any solution you find SHOULD apply to them too. Relativism pretty much says ‘I don’t need to justify myself to you’. Le Grosse Sigh. Assime, for the sake of argument, that you may have to do just that, in the course of argument. Mkay? We are not the arrogant totalitarians you claim. We just argue for the default, null hypothesis, in that absent an elucidated meaning of life, we humbly submit for perusal that life is perhaps meaningless, regardless of our ‘ubermenchausen’ idea of striving to be ‘worthy of our sufferings’ and thereby exit the doldrums of futility by harnessing our own brain farts. It’s either A or B, and while I can’t argue conclusively for B, I have heard pretty good arguments against A. Winning by default says nothing about our arguing skills, but our opponents had 3 billion years’ notice and….nothing!

    I must say, I havfe every sympathy with women and am disgusted by their treatment in my neck of the savannah. However, xome western feminists are hard to support. Yhis view that a fetus is just a mother’s appendage to be brought to term or discarded at her will…women take all the risks so yes they should have all the practical control, but ideally shouldn’t they consider the child’s interest separately from theirs? Since 1 in 2 kids born (more than) is male, I think we should ‘pontificate’ on what women do with their lady bits if only on occasion. Let’s not go full ‘fertility goddess worship’, being equal to men doesn’t say much for women or their decison making ability. Heck, my mum’s got feminist tendenceis and acts like I should owe her eternal fealty for her basic whim to spawn me. Even worse, the culture is to have kids as social security. It gets tiresome! As a concession, feminists should promote the view of children as real goddamn people, often the most hidebound patriarchy gives men overwhelming economic and even life/death power over their kids, I hate to keep pulling examples from Africa but a lot of semi-nomadic tribes need to work large areas of marginal land to get a trading surplus, so men tend to see women as brood mares of cheap labor, then the cheapskate dickhead dies and subdivides the plot amongst his free lab-er sons. It’s all the same hind-brain thinking! Besides, nowadays most people live long, and most life is adulthood. As a linguistic concession, can we come up with a more comprehensive term than ‘having a baby’? Like that one episode of scrubs, this seems to put ideas of ‘a dog that slowly learns to talk’ in individuals pregnant with more potential than progeny, which is a tragedy because you can’t demand the same food-to-loyalty ratio from kids as pets, no matter what sacrifice you make to your kids you owe them no less and they owe you nothing, sure it’s possible to be a bad parent, but the possibility of overpowering 99% of adult females doesn’t mean every woman I pass quietly in an empty parkinglot should mail me cookies the next morning-leaving her unviolated falls squarely within the bounds of minimal self-conduct and she shouldn’t thank me for it. At least, plan for the possibility of ingratitude, and allow smooth, convenient, painless suicide to be provided widely.

    P rhoeas seems to understand that continuation of the species is optional. Good. Now, how to tell this wo/man that it is the lesser option?

    Clarissa u really mean that in your opinion, we can’t have opinions on other peopl’s choices? Mommy issues???>> All topics, including divers facets of human behavior should be up for discussion without fear of being blasted FOR MERE DISCUSSION. Besides, your choice to breed will probably affect me more than most of your other choices, especially when ‘you’ are named legion-demographics, hon. I see slumdwellers pushing out street kids, I’m gonna have opinions. And I mean MANY opinions. Francois has debated this topic more extensively and honestly you even care to know or emulate. Anti-intellectual is harsh, but you almost seem proud of your blind spot/dismissiveness.

    Look, we can make fitful though fruitful stabs at objectivity. Can I, as a black person in Darkest Africa, give you permission to form and express an opinion on racism? I hereby do so. I have learnt more about anthropology, haplogroups, the wild ride of post-Renaissance Europe, and others by accepting the stormfront/vanguard/chimpout results that show up on my googles (what can I say, I google antinatalist sentiments a lot, and Africa is a self-writing argument for antinatalism. Nigerian malthusian enthusiasm is driving WNs apoplectic with each released projection) than I would have by blinkering my goggles, I don’t begrudge them their free speech, it made me smarter faster! Their arguments from anecdote are formally invalid, but by empathy I glimpse their reality as they express/I interpret it and ‘see where they are coming from’. I mean, I don’t believe in ‘Platonic Forms’, but there’s some truth that is at least intersubjective and relatively stable. So to me your gender is a bunch of aliens, and my race is the definitive ‘other’ of yours but by god, this is a wood-chuckin blog on the wood-chuckin internet and we are going to play let’s pretend. Mazel tov!

    On that note, let’s pretend you’re kid was an antinatalist. “Oh well”. No seriously, you don’t know if your kid will be grateful for your *premeditated imposition* please please please no non-identity bullshit, personhood is a vague concept-buddhism has been known to convice GROWN ASS MEN that “they” do not exist. So from this ignorance of how the gift of existence will be received, how does that motivate giving over not giving? Please state which one you accept, positive or neutral container theory of life. If positive, we have a different set of values, and problems (uh oh Repugnant Conclusion bein invoked! It’s like the Kraken summoned by the Flying dutchman of undead pronatalist arguments )

    Firabat’s comment was fair, and called you out for your grating ‘mommy issues’ rhetoric. In fact if you had given a more considered response to his fleshed-out rejoinders, I would probably have stayed lurking. He was getting to the heart of the matter, and you cut him down as a ‘freak/azoid’. We antinatalists are defending our castle in the air, so when the one with the rifle gets hit, the other one picks it up and charges! I commented to bolster the position of a fellow antinatalits, and one of the most prolific, on and off his blog. Antinatalism has such a prestige, from Solon, Sophocles, the Cathars of Languedoc, ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER and others that most people simply cannot argue against it, so they givr in and let their instincts do their thinking. Do you hear? INTELLECTUAL. PRESTIGE. It can’t just be rebuffed with a handful of zoloft, and if you can argue such cold logic as negative utilitarianism to its consistent conclusion, well that’s mental issues most people could use.Normal people have the same reproductive philosophy as yeast, and that’s if they are reflective enough to recognise it as a philosophy. Are you really going to align yourself with ‘normal people’ and thus resolve any existential contentions?

    Um, isn’t it a big thing with feminists how guys ‘infantilise’ women by referring to them as ‘girls’ (all the other one-syllable pronouns seem a bit…insulting but whatever), and the girls even take it back to when grown black men were ‘boys’ in the Antebellum South. Only a historical/social ignoramus could miss the derogatory content. I’m just saying it’s not necessary to deconstruct an insult in order to pretend to ignore it. (but if you decide to deconstruct, you need to do it well. Srsk what are these mummy issues? That we rue birth? But does that rob us of rationality? Didn’t rob Schopenhauer.)

    Believe it or not, I could go on, I am passionate about this and I am always astounded at how little pro-existence/pronatalist arguments have to be substantiated. It’s like how a 20 y.o saying ‘no kids for me!!!’ will be pat on the head about how ‘people change their minds as they mature’ while a 22 y.o fresh out of college, no career/mediocre immediate future, dying to start a family gets people teared up and wistful about their own ‘early days’. Won’t someone alert him about his fickle mind as he matures? Oh, wanting kids is proof that he ahs matured, carry on then. To defend life requres nothing but magical thinking, quantum woo, the kitchiest, pseudo-zen cliches, or some line about our suffering doesn’t matter. Various black groups have bred under slavery, occupation, drought, disease epidemic, civil war….Congo and Somalia have had their populations grow since the 90s, if you have vaguely followed the misery that has emanated. south Asian, Balkan and Nilo-Saharan Muslims surely have some kind of Stockholm Syndrome, because they were never part of the islamic power structure, and essentially their culture was wrecked to where only the converts survived/survivors converted. Europe and America have complacent populations whose societies could be much more efficiently run if there wasn’t such an impetus to subsidise the banking industry and using government regulations to baffle people with bullshhit while siphoning hidden taxes. I have never gotten over my initial shock regarding fractional reserve banking. You should read up on Frederick Soddy and his Economics vs Mechatristics articles. Anyway, sheople have no standards, they are satisfied with so little. indeed, kids are expected to be obedient, show filial piety, and epic coping skills to put up with shit, you would be amazed how many essentially stoic tribal groups there still are out there. Yet they view the burgeoning civilization around them as decadent, so between decandence and deprivation, they can’t wait to extend the offer of a life to be endured to more kids! A parting thought….maybe non-procreation has always been the better choice, but before contraceptives this required abstinece and a staggering degree of self-control. People lacking such were instead left to talk a good game about their choice (people rationalise costly choices after the fact ALL THE TIME and, get even more adamant in their assertions, if anything. Sunk cost fallacy) and thus the culture of unquestioned, mindless breeding was itself born.

    Sorry for the length, next time I will ask for a guest post, lol. I just hope a 2nd look at the raised comments plus any context I helped create can get you to see oir approach

    Like

  23. i summarised my assessments of the preceding comments. I reiterated some arguments by my brothers from other mothers (if only we had our druthers!) and it’s kinda in point-by-point format, which always takes acres. I am sorry about the length but I am single minded regarding loopholes-all this non-identity, relativism, vitalistic mysticism that derails the conversation breaks my heart, I am doing my best to set it straight. I am not the most eloquent, but if I could give you a crash course in negative utilitarianism, the historical pedigree of the concept, maybe an analogy that stands out in your head, out of all that I have written I would be happy. please do read the whole thing, I especially want to see what you have to say about my take on your ‘mummy issues’ rejoinder that I am sorry to say I find wanting-care to flesh it out some?

    Like

    1. People who can’t express their idea in a single short, precise sentence do not have an idea. I’ll give you one more try. Don’t summarize, reiterate or offer crash courses. Just express your opinion.

      Like

  24. jesus christ woman, it wasn’t sparks notes, I gave my own critique. It’s a sign of a good online establishment, whether it’s the economist.com, inmendham’s youtube videos, or even the stormfront threads where they comment on articles, that I referenced earlier, when one learns more from the comments than the article. I merely thought there was more scope for explication with the material in the comments and was more concerned about nuances than establishing new lines of argumentation. And while i am a reductionist, I am averse to your categorical statements about precision-some concepts are messy, some pictures take a literal thousand words to delineate.

    My opinion was that your approach to solid pessimist critiques was a mmostly tangential hand-waving that did not do the most to invalidate the offered arguments. I try to be uo-front about my assumptions, and interpretation of my interlocutors’ assumptions (don’t want strawmans) and I do take my time to build up my premises. But my thinking is displayed all along, and I welcome you to show me what errors my argument hinges on. It can’t be that tiresome to read an interpretation of prior comments, and I do the same for others; your argument rehashes that ‘mummy issues’ brick bat, me n firabat have called u out for it. It seems that your argument against antinatalism depends on ‘mummy issues’ as a valid concept, so for example I was hoping you could say more on that, and how it invalidates past antinatalists (who never had ‘mummy issues’ stop them releasing brilliant treatises on other topics) and their arguments; my entire thrust is to get you to recognise antinatalism as a philosophy and argue against it with due regard/rigor. I want you to be just a little ashamed of your bias to life, as being not in keeping with a coldly rational evaluation. Furthermore, you are trying to cultivate this ‘matter of fact’ air to your interactions, but this topic can be eternally debated, and you certainly have no slam-dunk arguments to be so brisk and dismissive. I daresay, you could learn something from us pessimists-there are 1000 men hacking at the branches of evil, for every single one who is striking at the root. STRIKE. THE. ROOT!

    p.s I am painfully aware of arguing from an underdog position, and even now only felt comfortable with long, cautious reply to ur 3-sentence comment. I’m not blaming you, but please have some understanding for the dynamic at play.

    Like

  25. Well, since you said it, and developed such a reputation for supporting otherwise bald assertions, I surely will seek it. Any places you might recommend? Nah, never mind, you can just delete my comments, you are not worthy, you are not….engagé. Your trite dismissals grow stale, so fuck you and fuck me for putting any effort.

    Like

  26. Clarissa, you’re missing the point. Antinatalism as an articulated position is a faith. Faith cannot be rationally debated. The only valid response to an undesired faith is to simply choose not to have it.

    Where antinatalism is actually a problem is where it is left unsaid as a corollary to a concrete claim, namely that reproductive sex is inherently violent against women. This leads to the horrible idea that violence against women is required for humanity to exist. Acts that would be clearly torture in any other case would be accepted during sex because supposedly sex already is torture.

    In other words, the problem with antinatalism is that it’s used as an excuse for rape culture.

    Like

  27. Also, smokers have no business genuinely speaking out against nicotine addiction, because they still smoke. Everyone knows it’s impossible to grasp the costs of nicotine addiction and remain a smoker!

    Your input is cognitively paralyzed.

    Like

      1. You won’t explain what makes it a false analogy. If your conception of AN consists of cerebral shortcuts like ”egregiously violating these beings’ rights by bringing them into existence in the first place” then one shouldn’t find your unwillingness to properly engage the other constructively critical commenters here at all surprising.

        But really, rights violations? ANs are ‘rights theorists’ now? That’s a first. Are you even aware that natalism can be rejected on non-consequentialist grounds? As in, my child can enjoy an optimally blissful life by sheer happenstance, and this luck wouldn’t whitewash my hubris fueled willingness to cavalierly roll the dice on the possibility of a polar opposite outcome (by choosing to procreate).

        An actual fair-cop summary: Births are genetic lotteries. Some parents draw longish straws for their kids, others draw shortish ones. It’s quite the spectrum, rather than some ‘rights’ violations vs. non-violations binary.

        Per statistical inevitability, we know that a number of individuals in each generation end up with straws so short, they conclude that they’d rather not have been born. This will continue to happen, at least in the foreseeable future. Consider how most of these unfortunate recipients never even find out about AN (much less champion it). Now consider where your maligning of AN fits in with this inevitability.

        To natalists and natal-sympathizers, the unrequited existence of these individuals is permissible egg-cracking, as the familial agenda of the parent is beyond scrutiny. Any argument to the contrary is a roundabout way of saying the non-trivial hardships are an acceptable package-deal for whatever we want to accomplish with our lives. Whereas I simply conclude ”No, I’m not worth it. My agenda isn’t worth it”. There’s nothing to suggest that I’m incapable of holding this view unless I too draw terribly short straws, or have pianos fall on me. I know this because (surprise!) I have avoided both thus far, among other tragedies. How do you account for this? Do you avoid personal-shot derailments and engage the actual topic, or do just create some different caricature?

        My simple request; explain how a random AN (the messenger) necessarily has to be the recipient of a short straw in order to strongly disagree that they’re ”worth it” when it comes to the non-trivial harm that will accompany less fortunate recipients.

        Or simply look into the differences between Moral Externalism and Moral Internalism.

        Or you can ignore all that and just tell me about Benatar’s supremely trivial mommy issues and personal inadequacies and how it’s totally not conjecture on your part.

        I can pull off vulgar conjecture too; Natalists and parents rely on familial relationships as emotional cushions because they’re incapable of finding fulfillment in non-familial relationships, as relationships in non-familial contexts must actually be earned via social merit on an even-playing field. ANs on the other hand are drawn to non-familial relationships precisely because they’re emotionally stable enough to enjoy the challenge of the even-playing field and social merit.

        See, not hard.

        Like

          1. Me: You won’t explain what makes it a false analogy.

            Check.

            ”Crazies”

            When it doubt, double down on the conjecture and the well-poisoning!

            Your attitude mirrors the dismissive attitudes through which anti-fems convince themselves that fems are ‘crazy’. But carry on with your hand-waving.

            Like

            1. All I can say is that your decision not to procreate is the greatest gift you could have done to humanity. Congratulations on making the right choice!

              Like

              1. Did you come up with that one all by yourself?

                Perfect example of why reactionaries shouldn’t dabble in humor. When they do, they will as a rule end up parroting quips which were driven into the ground years ago.

                Stick to… saying nothing.

                Like

  28. I think it’s sad that even now the group of antinatalists is small ..
    Like a little sparkle who shine into the darkness. Like a denied cry of ethical correctness against the unfair overloud cruelty scream of the world.
    It shouldn’t be any longer like that. Antinatalism need to rise and must get teached, must be in works of art, in poems, in storys, in movies, in series. To end this ill circle of suffering and the harm to strive for luck, antinatalists need to work together and even feed second after second the pronatalistic breeders with those views! Then i think there will be a time, when this little sparkle becomes a firework that will illuminate the whole room that we are caged in! Childrens No More! Because We Aren’t Child Molesters!

    https://polldaddy.com/js/rating/rating.js

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.