Backslash is a cultural intelligence unit powered by a global network of over 350 Culture Spotters from 70 offices across the TBWA collective. Together, we closely observe and analyze worldwide developments so that TBWA-and our clients-can better understand and anticipate cultural change.
Through a dynamic hybrid of strategy, data, and journalism, Backslash turns today’s stories into tomorrow’s opportunities.
900k us for that. Better to build with rammed earth, like David Easton. Lots of misinformation here, for one thing no earthship ever built will produce enough food for even one person let alone a family. This is a business, lots of work and 2x the price of a rammed earth house.
It's funny that people worry about bringing children into the world because of the effects global warming . It's the huge carbon footprint of kids in the developing world in particular that are the cause of the problem in the first place ! The latest figure I can see is that if all the people in the developing world achieved the lifestyle of those in the developed world then we need something like 3 1/2 planet earths . Here's the political- industrial solution : change your car to an EV ! What a con !
I still don't understand why antinatalists keep relying on the existence of procreated humans when procreation is unethical. Antinatalists should live alone in the wild (doing all of their own work) when they don't want humans to procreate!
All life not just people, should stop existing. Conscious existence is the root of suffering. Since we can't convince the non-human animals to stop reproducing, atleast we as humans should stop this selfish act asap.
@@GhostofFHBradley Ask instead, From whose point of view will be a problem if humans didn't exist? Wasn't there a time when humans never existed? What's the problem with non existence?
@@religionofpeace782 Nice! Although dodging the question doesn't answer it. It seems to me that, if something is good, it is good from _someone's point of view:_ there's no view from nowhere. I can see the logic behind the claim that it might be good, from some people's point of view, if other people didn't exist. (Lots of people have thought that over the years.) But I don't follow the logic behind the claim that it would be good if _no one_ existed - since there'd be no one from whose point of view that state of affairs would be either good or bad. I'll certainly grant you that there's no problem with nonexistence - although I don't see how you move from the premise _(1) There's no problem with not existing_ to your conclusion that _(C) It _ought_ to be the case that humans (etc.) didn't exist._
@@GhostofFHBradley Don't grant me anything.. grant the boon of non-existence to your potential child. Let him be at peace as he is now...argue how much ever you want to, discuss, boast, make merry, cry, laugh whatever...just DON'T PROCREATE. That's the only thing I am saying.
People, you don’t have to use “climate change” as the reason everywhere you go to sound more logical because you’re afraid to say your decision came from the heart. Antinatalism and childfree lifestyles are an evolutionary response to the environment we all are in now. It’s as simple as that.
All this fake "professor" is is just a philosopher. Not a real professor. Not a physical scientist or mathematician or historian. Antinatalism has NOTHING to do with AOC. The fact that reducing population reduces human contribution to global warming is just mathematical fact. NOT some fact that AOC came up with.
Stop having babies. The government and corporations will just make them WAGE slaves.. so they will make them pay BILLS and TAXES until they are old. And when they are old, they will NOT BE TAKEN CARED FOR.. The government is a SCAM.
I'm glad that my homosexuality has intuitively lead me to realize how we are still struggling to move away from a long history of ultra-natalism which was meant to maximize reproduction not for the sake of human survival or happiness, but rather to increase productivity and create a steady supply of cannon fodder for wars of expansion.
Reynolds es un visionario, va a pasar mucho tiempo antes que la sociedad comprenda el valor de su aporte, y más tiempo les va a tomar aún a los arquitectos.
It's great to see some fair, accurate reporting on antinatalism, instead of the usual hysteria and nonsense. Antinatalism is a philosophy that is based around preventing suffering, and this world could greatly benefit from it. More and more people are choosing not to have children. We need to have conversations about how to get the population down to sustainable levels, while maintaining the best possible quality of life. Alex and Dietz do an amazing job with Stop Having Kids. Lawrence Anton is also worth checking out.
As soon as you see an idiot on RU-vid care what a professor wears and think that says a thing about what the professor actually teaches, you can just disregard anything they say. By contrast, if I discover somebody eats animals, I disregard anything they say.
As soon as you see a person believe in the bible, or eat animals, or vote conservative (republican in the USA) or vote centrist/democrat in the USA, you can just disregard anything they say.
This is the dumbest and most vile movement/comment section. If you truly believed in its merit, you would follow its rational conclusion and kill yourself.
Unbelievable! They do nothing productive but earn millions whole people who actually pick your potatoes, strawberries, dig your garden or teach your children earn peanuts!
it doesn't matter that harms outweigh the benefits or vice versa. i fail to see how its anyone's call to put those two on a scale when its about another person's welfare. Harm is a thing, and is by itself the reason its immoral to make a person.
maybe the correct question to ask is, do you have the right to create another human without consent from said human?. no one thinks about this other person they will put in this place just because of selfish reasons and because they feel like it.
The people having the most children are almost always, if not absolutely always the garbage, the most scummiest and backwards people. They are the most religious, most reactionary, most illiterate trash.
At some point Homo Sapiens will be extinct anyway. Either by evolution, or it will be self-inflicted. Reducing suffering in the mean time makes sense, though.
It's really too bad that our government, local and states, don't really take idea of these awesome homes and put them everywhere. Most areas near me would not allow them to be built
Honestly it’s not just “too bad”, it’s our corrupt government leaving us to rot while corporations line their greedy pockets. There’s no value in the life of a politician.
It is possible that some animals in fact can suffer more than humans. Humans can for example understand that some suffering is a temporaly state, or that some suffering is not lethal. They can rationalise suffering too.
@@KYLE1654-v7m Yeah, at a physical level humans and animals both suffer the same way, but at a psychological level humans suffer some horrendously gruesome shit like depression and schizophrenia and bipolar.
continuing to reproduce in spite of the clearly obvious and widespread fact that your species is destroying the planet, and therefore the species itself. even the Devil isn’t that evil
Sending people off to wars is cruel and sick in my opinion. How can people be okay with killing humans sending them to slaughterhouses?! This is why am against human procreation of any kind. Humankind is hypocrisy.
Search for "cluster headaches". The fact that existence can suddenly turn into something that unbearably painful is terryfing enough to not bring anyone into this world.
@@Yayo-cy7fkNo. There is a small chance your children will have a good, happy life. There is a 100% chance that they will suffer and die. Only a fool would take those odds.
antinatalism because: no one is asking you to bring them here to perpetuate your damn genes no one is asking you to bring them here to perpetuate your damn religion or beliefs no one is asking you to bring them here to become a slave to keep the economy no one is asking you to bring them here to take care of you when old no one is asking you to bring them here to perpetuate your damn culture. no one is asking you to bring them here to perpetuate your damn race no one is asking you to bring them here to die for a flag or a stupid country no one is asking you to bring them here to keep you company. no one is asking you to bring them here to save your damn relationship no one is asking you to bring them here to help you play house. no one is asking you to bring them here to "admire" a sunset no one is asking....to come here.
Although, you can't really imagine the world without consciousness. Consciousness and the world are interrelated, one doesn't make sense without the other. Where were we before we were born? Where we will be after we die? The answer is nothingness. It cannot be talked about because there is nothing to talk about. Consciousness is all there is. Where there is consciousness, there will be a world (and vice versa). So, whether antinatalism is going to solve anything is debatable.
The Asymmetry Argument only works if "non-existence" is a state, and has something to offer the person that doesn't exist: peace. So it'd require that the person existed-in some form-in order to benefit from not being born. There's no way around it; Benatar believes we were resting in peace.
No. Benatar has clearly stated that he doesn't believe that non-existence is literally good for a non-existent being, but rather it is good in terms of the suffering that bringing a being into the world would miss out on. For example, if you knew you had a genetic problem with fertility that'd guarantee a future child to suffer its whole life until the age of 4 and die, then it'd be good to not have that child, and the reasoning above explains that view. Now this was talking solely about the pain, but what about the pleasure? This is where the asymmetry comes in. One might think that if you don't have a child then that child will miss out on all of the pleasures of life, but this isn't valid because the child doesn't exist yet and so can't miss out. This might seem like a double standard in that I'm saying non existence makes pleasures irrelevant, but not for suffering so I'll explain this here. When we criticise having a child, we're criticising it once the child exists and so it will suffer and it is valid. But when one tries to criticise not having a child, we're criticising it in a state of non-existence which means that the criticism isn't valid (no child exists to miss out).
@@LumberLopper Benatar can deny it, but his argument _requires_ there to be such a state. Sure, if I hadn't been born, then this particular life wouldn't suffer, but my lack of existing wouldn't be a thing... a thing for which Benatar can imply or suggest is preferable. I explain why in many of my 📽️, but I'll sum it up here: We should ask "what was it that caused _this_ life to come after said (before birth) non-existence?" And the answer is: the coming to existence of a life. That's all "you" are is *a life* . I'm "a life", my cat is _a life_ , and every individual living being on Earth, and wherever life may be, is _a life_ . So I'm going to do a thought experiment now: Imagine a universe that's completely devoid of all life. But let's pretend-for the sake of this thought experiment-that before you come to exist that there really was "nothingness", the "black void" many people talk about. And so there's the void, but then you-a life-is born. So it was merely the birth of *a life* that is what ended/stopped the "nothingness". Now rewind the thought experiment, and imagine that-instead of you coming to exist-some other life comes to exist, and so now "nothingness" was ended, but it was a completely different life that was responsible for ending the nothingness. You don't exist in this scenario. The only experience there is is of that one and only life that exists. Your lack of existing isn't doing anything to stop that life from being the one imposed, just as your lack of existing didn't do anything to stop _this_ life (the one reading this) from being imposed. It was merely the beginning of consciousness that's what's responsible for ending said nothingness. It doesn't matter which brain is responsible for ending said nothingness. So that thought experiment should convey that _if it isn't one life it's another_ . If you hadn't been born, then instead of this life, it would have been some other life that did the imposing. No escape, because there'd be no you to do the escaping.
Just as your lack of existing wasn't able to stop the imposition of a life, via the birth of a life (the one reading this right now); your lack of existing wouldn't have stopped the imposition of a life via the birth of some other life. If it wasn't _this_ life, then it would have been some other life, one that _was_ born. The same goes for death. _That_ non-existence will _also_ be followed by a life, because there will be lives (animals, insects, humans, etc.) after _this_ one ends. There's no escaping conscious experience, because "consciousness is always present for itself", as philosopher Tom Clark said. No "resting in peace".
We are on a prison planet being operated by malevolent entities called the archons. Our physical body is not our true selves. People continue to reincarnate here because they accept the flesh as truth when it isn't. In order to escape from this cycle of death and rebirth we need to attain gnosis.
