No video :(

Antinatalism is Based on FAITH - DEBATE | Wolf McNally VS Lawrence Anton

Подписаться 4,1 тыс.

Просмотров 1,7 тыс.

50% 1

Wolf McNally recently invited me on his podcast to discuss the ethics of procreation. We spoke about a range of things including whether antinatalism is faith-based.
Thank you to Wolf for allowing me to re-upload this.
Original Video: • 90: Is having children...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Note~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In the video I feel I did not succinctly articulate the point about unsatisfied desires in life. I have left a quote by David Benatar below that encapsulates the point I was trying to make:
“When it comes to the satisfaction of desires, things are also stacked against us. Many desires are never satisfied. And even when they are satisfied, it is often after a long period of dissatisfaction. Nor does satisfaction last, for the satisfaction of a desire leads to a new desire - which itself needs to be satisfied some time in the future. When one can fulfil one’s more basic desires, such as hunger, on a regular basis, higher-level desires arise. There is a treadmill and an escalator of desire.
In other words, life is a state of continual striving. We have to expend effort to ward off unpleasantness - for example, to prevent pain, assuage thirst, and minimise frustration. In the absence of our strivings, the unpleasantness comes all too easily, for that is the default.”
Source: aeon.co/essays/having-childre...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~INFO~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Subscribe - join the cult!
❤️ | Make a Donation: streamlabs.com/lawrenceanton/
💪 | Patreon: / lawrenceanton
👉 | Follow me on X: / lawrence_anton1
📣 | An Antinatalist Handbook: antinatalisthandbook.org
✊ | Antinatalist Advocacy: antinatalistadvocacy.org
📧 | Contact Me: lawrenceant@protonmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~LINKS~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
WOLF'S LINKS
RU-vid: ‪@bewareofwolfpodcast‬
Twitter: / wolfmcnally
Have Kids Right (Website): havekidsright.com
Outro Music // The Last Time - Kayou. // Provided by ‪@LofiGirl‬

Опубликовано:

5 мар 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 68

@LawrenceAnton 5 месяцев назад

Is antinatalism based on faith? 🧠 Join the supporter community and get perks: patreon.com/lawrenceanton/

@Cheesygarlicccc 5 месяцев назад

Antinatalism is based on compassion and logic

@kodak-5677 5 месяцев назад

yup

@LouisGedo 5 месяцев назад

Tru dat

@env0x 5 месяцев назад

more like trauma and despair

@FinalFantasy8911debater 5 месяцев назад

@@env0x Wrong. One doesn't need to experience trauma and despair to be an antinatalist. Just like one doesn't need to believe in satanism to be an atheist. You need to learn to follow logic and reason over your own blind feelings. You are living proof that people make up falsehoods to explain things they don't understand. You need to learn to understand what the objective truth is in order to be on the right side.

@TheFettuck 4 месяца назад

Why would you have compassion for nothing?

@void.defender 5 месяцев назад

Responsible natalism is an oxymoron

@FinalFantasy8911debater 5 месяцев назад

Thats right.

@ihateexcessivelylongandpoi4490 5 месяцев назад

It's kinda like saying "ethical genocide" or something like that.

@TheFettuck 4 месяца назад

Relying on the unborn is also an oxymoron.

@lovethyneibor22736 5 месяцев назад

"what's wrong with suffering?" says a man who probably asks for anesthesia everytime he gets his tooth worked on

@MunchinYou-jy6km 5 месяцев назад

Well said! In contrast, the "cheese" is often hard to obtain, has to be obtained frequently, can only be eaten in moderation otherwise various consequences ensue, has always be protected and is really not in your full control once obtained, and is always subject to psychological adaptation and decay. You can replace cheese with probably everything that is considered a benefit or a good

@dr.brennstab2201 5 месяцев назад

life is like a game where the only winning move is to not play.

@luohuashijie 4 месяца назад

Can't lose if you don't play.

@naturalisted1714 4 месяца назад

Considering my lack of existing did nothing to stop a life from being imposed - is not playing an option?

@TheFettuck 4 месяца назад

You clearly don't want to win because you are still playing.

@dr.brennstab2201 4 месяца назад

@@TheFettuck I'm waiting for the game over message each day. I'm too much of a coward to do it myself.

@AramisNailz 5 месяцев назад

Its always frustrating to see somone claim something is a fallacy despite presenting no evidence that what they are objecting to is actually false.

@natashawilson1687 5 месяцев назад

His programming analogy actually works in favor of the antinatalist argument. For example, if I have a function that takes in an argument of a particular datatype, say a DataFrame. And I am thinking about creating and assigning an object that will go into that function as an argument that has a list datatype. Without running the program, I can figure out that will cause a bug in the program just upon examination. Therefore, I can choose not to bring that object into existence and rather bring one into existence of the right type. The object did not need exist in the program, and the program did not need to be run with the object having the incorrect datatype in order for me to anticipate and avoid the bug. In the same way, I can hypothesize about the life of a potential human being, without him or her existing, and get some idea of what kinds of suffering could potentially befall him or her just by the data of existence (mine and all of humanity thus far). People do this all the time when they think of the positive benefits of procreating. They think of what good things they will do for their children. They organize their work and financial life around preparing for a family. They even imagine their retirement being one where they get to hang out and play with their grandchildren, and they imagine that their child or grandchildren are happy and healthy in those imaginings (I have never met anyone who has imagined taking care of a child dying of cancer). So, if we can imagine positive images of future children, why can't we imagine the reality of all possible human experiences for those children? In my opinion, this is the beginning of the antinatalist argument.

@natashawilson1687 5 месяцев назад

57:14, Wolf McNally committed the category error by asking Lawrence, in general, about his committment to future humans, and not specifying what he meant by "committment." Lawrence's take actually clarified the categories: in the sense of being committed to the "existence" of future human beings through procreation, Lawrence is not committed to that, in the other sense of the wellbeing of future human beings, he is committed to their wellbeing, given their future existence (because of the actions of other human beings0.

@mariaradulovic3203 5 месяцев назад

It's based on pure rationality.

@Billy-rr7re 5 месяцев назад

people know this is not a good place. you hear them saying, life is hard but, they do not care, they have no other choice. no other choice but to submit to this circus and yet, they still prefer to think about this as something special. because they are not willing to and refuse to accept reality, they come up with stupid disney fantasy cliche phrases to try to justify this. to try to make themselves feel better about this shit show. they are not willing to acknowledge reality even when it is staring at them in the eyes. they just try to look the other way and convince themselves that this, for some magical reason, is all worth it. then they feel entitled to force more humans to come here because, not doing it would mean to accept defeat and acknowledge what they prefer to ignore. not doing it would mean they are not special, it would mean their fairy tale does not exist. apparently that is a pill really hard and, almost impossible to swallow by the common pedestrian. the fact they are not a super special snow flakes terrifies them

@xenocrates2559 4 месяца назад

Great conversation. You have a real knack for staying on point and summarizing your views in a way that is accessible to a casual listener. I was pleased that Buddhist views were mentioned early on; I think the Buddhist analysis of suffering is not given enough attention in antinatalism (though I'm new to this stream of thought, so I might be wrong about that). In a famous summary the Buddha is quoted as saying, "The Noble Truth of suffering is this: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief, and despair are suffering, association with the unpleasant is suffering, dissociation from the pleasant is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering. In brief, the five aggregates of attachment are suffering." The five aggregates are form, feeling, perception, impulses, and consciousness. Notice that the Buddha refers to birth as suffering as the first item in the list. // I was frustrated with Wolf's approach to 'reason' because it is rooted in the limitations imposed by analytic philosophy. For example, Wolf rules out metaphorical statements as having truth value, which is an analytic view but a view that in my opinion severely constrains the range of philosophical discussion. Wolf also became fixated on the meaning of certain words in a typically analytic way; that is to say to define a word in such a way as to support your own view and not allow other meanings their say or participation. // Even so I thought it was worthwhile; thanks for posting this.

@jezah8142 5 месяцев назад

One point that needed to be made more clear here , that is the distinction between instrumental suffering and pointless, unnecessary suffering that doesnt lead to any positive outcome

@johnferranti3566 4 месяца назад

And on top of that. When bringing a being into existence, there is no way of knowing how much of the either form of suffering will occur for them

@TheFettuck 4 месяца назад

@@johnferranti3566 Lawrence is clearly trying to avoid the argument that existing humans shouldn't actually exist. He doesn't want to admit the hypocrisy in his logic, because he is still relying on humans which shouldn't exist.

@johnferranti3566 4 месяца назад

@@TheFettuck idk what that has to do with me but ok

@joshuarenfro8488 4 месяца назад

@Lawrence Anton: Thank you for your work. I've noticed in a few of your videos that your interlocutors (and perhaps sometimes you?) speak of axiology and axioms in nearby sentences. This makes sense in that both come from the Greek for what's worthwhile, but the axiological asymmetry in Benatar is not axiomatic in the normal sense of the word, that is, as something that one must take on board without reason or evidence as the a priori principles of a system of thought, as in Euclidean geometry. This is important, I think, in terms of helping to persuade people. As you note, axiology is about values. Axioms are about where things "bottom out" as you helpfully put it in various places. To note this difference between the axiological asymmetry and first principles or axioms, what if you referred to an evaluative (or valuational?) asymmetry and to postulates (or premises). Maybe that helps make it clearer that a value is really quite distinct from a premise. There's nothing necessarily 'faith-based' about values, whereas it's understandable (though sometimes incorrect) when people refer to premises as 'faith-based.' An valuational asymmetry and a premise don't need to have much of anything to do with one another. Unfortunately, the similarity in English of axiological and axiom might be leading us a bit astray.

@moralitywithoutaddiction797 4 месяца назад

1.5 hours in - if I hear him say "incoherent" one more time... I've had to change the way I phrase the consent argument to something like "Procreation violates the principle of taking no action if you can't get consent because by procreating, moral agents (parents) harm moral patients (progeny). The fact that the moral patients don't currently exist does not make this principle incoherent because the criteria by which this principle applies is met if procreation occurs (moral agents harming moral patient(s)).".

@kanilana1007 5 месяцев назад

(45:45) This, to me, is a distraction. I don't see how the fact that the prior state is nothing vs something makes bringing a person into being less harmful when ultimately the action still results in a being that is likely to experience a lot of harm over their lifetime.

@naturalisted1714 5 месяцев назад

What prior *state* of nothing? There was no such prior state protecting us before we existed. Why didn't not existing stop _this_ life from being "imposed"? Clearly, not existing is futile. The evidence for this is that every living sentient being didn't exist and their lack of existing didn't stop a life from being "imposed".

@joepvans5035 5 месяцев назад

Yeah if you create a child it will suffer, where there was no suffering before. You cant erase these facts with silly little word games.

@naturalisted1714 5 месяцев назад

What prior state of nothing?

@naturalisted1714 5 месяцев назад

@quantumwaver You're assuming that I'm implying nothing can be said about Friday even if today isn't Friday. I'm merely asking about what she means by "the prior state". I want to hear her explain what she means by _that_ specific wording.

@naturalisted1714 5 месяцев назад

@quantumwaver That's my point. Friday isn't currently in a state. It simply doesn't exist.

@LouisGedo 5 месяцев назад

Excellent discussion. I wish WM didn't assume such a ridiculous thing as that AN is a religion......... this was frustrating to see.

@daym8 5 месяцев назад

This is one great video and worth sitting through the whole debate. I just as some random dude who wishes to share his thoughts believes ...that there is always something on this planet that will strike you. Furthermore , people believing in the notion that it's absolutely fine to except challenges, is just being selfish... parents mean this for their kids. Besides, this life cannot proceed without money and earning it is basically slavery starting of from the indoctrination camp... school later college if so just to be programmed to serve the elite by joining their companies and paid peanuts as a participant. Just don't do it ,don't have kids medicine and medical expenses are unaffordable and your kid has to go through the torment later on or may be physically challenged. just to earn,slave,burn💲and ultimately die ,life is just a game a dangerous one,don't play it.🎮

@MarioPucci_mamio 5 месяцев назад

"Man is Wolf to Man" finds here a nice fit.

@combinero.YT_deletes_comments. 5 месяцев назад

r/antinatalism need more moderators, people are complaining about lack of moderators and their activity.

@birdieculture 5 месяцев назад

1:00:45 1. "Throughout history having kids is good" because throughout history people have never had to consider morality of having kids. They had kids to make their tribes / countries / nations more powerful, to then fought wars against other nations. Also kids are weak, powerless and so they were great to be used as tools for whatever the powers wanted. So they would have made sure that the common men thought having kids was good So was having kids morally good? It was irrelevant to this specific conversation. 2. Suffering is not always bad I think we can classify different types of suffering. There are definitely meaningless suffering, justified suffering and actually "good" ones that build character, help people learn / succeed etc. I don't think this Wolf guy would think suffering derived from torturing, for example builds character, it builds hatred at best. All "suffering" that don't give humanity further knowledge can go imo. i.e. repeated people getting cancer, why is that good? So please don't lump all "suffering" together.

@daym8 5 месяцев назад

Wolf has an excellent video of typewriter symphony on his channel it's pretty entertaining.

@DylanRDunn 5 месяцев назад

Wow

@AnonymousWon-uu5yn 5 месяцев назад

Wolf is such a dolt.

@filrabat1965 4 месяца назад

Non-conscious matter that could become conscious matter: Humans, via intercourse or some other means of enabling gamete union, do partake in a necessary but by-itself insufficient step in transforming non-conscious matter into conscious matter. If after the gamete union, the normal course of events would have that fertilized ovum transform into a conscious self-aware person, that that seems an imposition. A sculptor can take a stone, and impose "statue-ness" onto it. An assembly line worker can take car parts and impose "car-ness onto it".

@davidadiwego4608 5 месяцев назад

We don't know enough to know that human existence and its pain is pointless, worthless. It is reasonable for us to assume that we are merely unintended victims of sheer random chaos, or a random eddy of order in the sea of chaos. Then again, it was perfectly reasonable for ancient astronomers to see the apparent retrograde motion of the planets and assume that they did in fact go back and forth.

@billg9502 5 месяцев назад

Great discussion , it's always better not to breed , especially today .

@MelonPantsOfficial 5 месяцев назад

MelonPants here from Bias in Birth. Antinatalism is based on logic depending on what arguments you make for it. Just as I have said publicly before, most antinatalists seem to make the wrong arguments, such as consent arguments, etc. in a metaphorical and/or emotional appeal manner. An ethical framework regarding reduction of and prevention of negative feeling is not "illogical". Some statements antinatalists make come across as incoherent because they're not specific and literal. This is why I emphasize using specifics, consensus on definitions, and contextual thinking in my discussions. Overall I think this was a fun listen and Lawrence is very good at speaking. I think Wolf was moreso looking for the hard specifics of everything though. Which, I requested to have a debate with him, but he has declined unfortunately. There is a demand regarding hard specific logic from antinatalists, so I think it would be much better for antinatalists to lean more into that as opposed to emotional activism and metaphorical comparisons, which has its place and can be beneficial, don't get me wrong, but every approach has its place.

@zeebpc 4 месяца назад

31:30 death its self is bad with or without suffering. for example if you get shot in the head during sleep and never feel it and never suffer, thats still wrong

@TheFettuck 4 месяца назад

Death is only the end of life. Death itself has nothing to do with morals and ethics.

@naturalisted1714 5 месяцев назад

Great conversation. He raised great points. His points should make us ponder: Why didn't not existing stop _this_ life from being "imposed"? Clearly, not existing is futile. The evidence for this is that every living sentient being didn't exist and their lack of existing didn't stop a life from being "imposed".

@env0x 5 месяцев назад

exactly. antinatalism is intrinsically flawed because it assumes that life wouldn't still exist in much worse conditions if it weren't existing on planet earth. it's a big universe out there and earth could very well be the most habitable place. and if we all stopped existing here then existence would just continue on, quite possibly in a state of pure hell on some other planets or universes, for all other lifeforms in the universe/multiverse/etc. TLDR: be grateful you're not suffering in pure agony for all eternity, because that possibility is equally as likely as this one.

@zeebpc 4 месяца назад

Can you turn your argument into premises and a conclusion? All ive seen you do is make claims. I suspect you cant turn your claims into a basic argument with premises and a conclusion because all you really do is gibberate nonsense

@zeebpc 4 месяца назад

World A: I create offspring and sell them into sex slavery World B: I dont procreate Which world do you prefer? If you say anything other than "Both worlds are equal" then you are contradicting yourself and just stfu with your gibberish