diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'content/entry/antinatalism.md')
| -rw-r--r-- | content/entry/antinatalism.md | 12 |
1 files changed, 6 insertions, 6 deletions
diff --git a/content/entry/antinatalism.md b/content/entry/antinatalism.md index ed45131..1935b21 100644 --- a/content/entry/antinatalism.md +++ b/content/entry/antinatalism.md @@ -13,7 +13,7 @@ Besides not contributing to climate change, there's also the legitimate concern He has a few other reasons on his article in favor of not having children or having only a small family. I agree with him that natalist pressure is a very Bad Thing. Having children shouldn't be something to be proud of or celebrated. It should be discouraged at least until the climate and ecological crises are averted. # David Benatar's Antinatalism -Stallman says in his article that he doesn't wish for humanity to go extinct. He just wants the population to reach a sustainable level. But there are some who take it much further. They do want humanity to go extinct. According to them, it would be the best thing that could possibly happen. What distinguishes the antinatalism coming from Stallman from the antinatalism coming from people like David Benatar who want [voluntary human extinction](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement) is Benatar argues that procreating is always morally wrong or at best morally neutral. +Stallman says in his article that he doesn't wish for humanity to go extinct. He just wants the population to reach a sustainable level. But there are some who take it much further. They do want humanity to go extinct. According to them, it would be the best thing that could possibly happen. What distinguishes the antinatalism coming from Stallman from the antinatalism coming from people like David Benatar who want [voluntary human extinction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement) is Benatar argues that procreating is always morally wrong or at best morally neutral. ## Nihilism There is often confusion that antinatalists like Benatar are just nihilists. That's not the case at all. They're often very compassionate people who have a deep concern for the suffering of all life. Many of them are even vegans. And that compassion for the suffering of others is why they believe humanity, and in some cases all animals, should go extinct. @@ -24,7 +24,7 @@ Some people who I think are unable to cope with the conclusion of Benatar's argu I've had similar experiences as Benatar where people psychologized my atheism. They assumed that I was an atheist because I was depressed. I wrote about this in my post [Dealing With Close-Minded People](/2021/08/28/dealing-with-close-minded-people/). It turns out this happens to atheists a lot. I know firsthand how frustrating it can be to be psychologized, so I'm going stick strictly to the arguments. I'm not going to speculate on the psychology of Benatar. ## Asymmetry of Harms/Benefits -According to Benatar, one way to arrive at antinatalism is through his asymmetry argument ([copied from Wikipedia](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Asymmetry_between_harms_and_benefits), license: CC-BY-SA 3.0): +According to Benatar, one way to arrive at antinatalism is through his asymmetry argument ([copied from Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Asymmetry_between_harms_and_benefits), license: CC-BY-SA 3.0): 1. The presence of pain is bad 2. The presence of pleasure is good @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ But Benatar has more than just the asymmetry argument. And the rest of his argum If your quality of life is extremely low and you cannot support a child and you voluntarily bring a child into the world, I agree. If responsibility means anything, you're partially responsible for their suffering. By the same token, if you have strong reasons to believe your child will be extremely happy and you give birth to an extremely happy child, all else being equal, you can take partial credit for their happiness. -Certainly the potential suffering of descendants is cause for some people not to have children. But if you want to make the case that nobody should have children because of the suffering of descendants, we have to talk about [depressive realism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism). +Certainly the potential suffering of descendants is cause for some people not to have children. But if you want to make the case that nobody should have children because of the suffering of descendants, we have to talk about [depressive realism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depressive_realism). ### Depressive Realism Depressive realism is the idea that depressed people are the ones who see the world most clearly. It's the optimists who are kidding themselves. This is in contrast to conventional wisdom which says depressed people have a negative cognitive bias. @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ However there is the possibility that future technology might deliver us eternal Anyway, there are a lot of unknowns about the future. We don't know how good eternal bliss would be. We don't know how bad eternal hell would be. We don't know the probabilities of either becoming a reality. We can't reason based on possible future deliverance. It's too uncertain. All we can reason on is what's happening right now and what has happened in the past. -Benatar has cited [historical evidence](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Consequences_of_procreation) trying to show that the rare moments of bliss we experience do not offset all our suffering and [the additional suffering we cause other animals](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Misanthropy). This seems to be a plausible hypothesis. But we also shouldn't forget that humans have made a lot of progress in quality of life over the years as well. +Benatar has cited [historical evidence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Consequences_of_procreation) trying to show that the rare moments of bliss we experience do not offset all our suffering and [the additional suffering we cause other animals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Misanthropy). This seems to be a plausible hypothesis. But we also shouldn't forget that humans have made a lot of progress in quality of life over the years as well. ## Famine Relief David Benatar also argues that: @@ -184,10 +184,10 @@ To create a new being and increase overconsumption and overpopulation without co I still didn't address the popular arguments other antinatalists make. I'll quickly say something about those. ## Kantian Imperative -There is the Kantian Imperative. I'm not going to address [Kantian antinatalism](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Kantian_imperative) because I don't respect it enough to spend time arguing against it. See my criticism of Kant in [metaethics](/2020/10/11/metaethics/). +There is the Kantian Imperative. I'm not going to address [Kantian antinatalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Kantian_imperative) because I don't respect it enough to spend time arguing against it. See my criticism of Kant in [metaethics](/2020/10/11/metaethics/). ## Impossibility of Consent -There's also the Impossibility of Consent argument. The argument for not procreating based on [impossibility of consent](https://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Impossibility_of_consent) merely smuggles in the usual reasons we care about consent and takes them completely out of context, the same as Benatar's 4 other asymmetries do. +There's also the Impossibility of Consent argument. The argument for not procreating based on [impossibility of consent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#Impossibility_of_consent) merely smuggles in the usual reasons we care about consent and takes them completely out of context, the same as Benatar's 4 other asymmetries do. For instance, we care about sexual consent because without it, there's no bodily autonomy. We care about medical consent for treatment for the same reasons. The common denominator for consent is it gives individuals control over their lives. Control over your own life generally leads to less suffering. |