Antinatalism | Is Life Worth Beginning? 

I think I could convince you... But I think I would be doing you a disservice... RU-vid doesn't allow anyone who supports AN to get any views... So your RU-vid career will immediately END the day you become an anti-natalist and I would hate to see that... I think you are a very intelligent and very useful person for people to be exposed to because of your ability to see things clearly and explain yourself so well... I think that your work in atheism and your work now as a vegan is going to be GREAT WORK - work that massively reduces suffering in the world... But ONLY if you keep it a secret if you ever agree with the AN side.... I could be wrong but I feel like RU-vid will demonize you and take away your monetization so you'd be working for free if you came out AN. I do not think you are going to be able to counter the AN argument well enough when you really 'get it' ....so I think you should STOP talking about this immediately and abandon this subject entirely... There are some people who I am glad are antinatalists - but you are not someone who I want to wind up becoming an AN... Not yet... I think long term we may need to seek a plan of extinction... However PEOPLE LIKE YOU breeding is a GOOD THING for that cause lol... Long term anyways... That's just my opinion... I would say more...but like I said I would personally prefer to see you NEVER talk about this again... You WILL lose...

For "preliminary thoughts" you did your homework and it shows and I admire you for it, Alex.

Hey Alex, great video, looking forward for your insights. What do you think about Effective Altruism? www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism/ If you are familiar with it, are you planning on making a video anytime soon?

@@lucioh1575 - Absolutely... This kid is AMAZING. He is also clearly not too worried about the potential backlash that he will receive... He seems very brave - honest - noble and pure in every way... He seeks the TRUTH - and ONLY the truth...at ANY cost... This kid is gonna go down in history as someone who is worth remembering for sure. I just hope he is careful about the timing... Timing is everything sometimes...

Thank you Alex and Jack for having this conversation and being willing to genuinely consider the arguments for Antinatalism. I admire both of your channels! At the moment, my favorite argument for Antinatalism is that *it is unethical to unnecessarily subject another sentient being to both certain harm* (inherent in life), *and the risk of extreme gratuitous suffering* (this risk is also an inherent part of life). This argument doesn't require one to accept Benatar's asymmetry or the 'life is more bad than good' arguments.

I see wat u did there >_>

This discussion is exhibit a of human dysfunctionality when occupying specific places during specific times in which they lack proper adversity.

AHHAHAH good one¡¡

Good one

Aha :^]

He sounds smart. How does it come that this is the first time I hear his name ?

Never thought about it that way.

Which is a miracle.

@@avivastudios2311Yeah... 8 bln ''miracles", so NO.

This is a quote from his book, a character says this and not Sáenz. I don’t think Benny boy was advocating for antinatalism. The book was about Aristotle finding his individuality and growing up.

Yeah, creating a universe. This is not how a gentleman conducts himself.

Lmao that's something from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, no? I miss those books.

The answer is 42

Whales falling anywhere is so wrong.

Bo Bednar mine is Monday

I’ll have as many kids as I can

You can undo that by killing your emotions.my life doesnt suck **YET** but you can always rely on this if your does.

You must be lazy as fuck.

@@thetruth9816 the complete opposite…very active and hate sedentary state of being

@knowledge sets you free uh huh and being conscious is the hard part? Go back to sleep.

Consciousness is the root of all pleasure and suffering. But suffering is easier

Zero sum game argument

You can't be fulfilled if you don't exist

Value doesn't come entirely from having your needs fulfilled, it's the process of having them fulfilled that is also important.

@@marcorock7031 I don't think value exists if there is nobody for it to be valuable for

@@leekaplan4907 Exactly. He's implying that because the absence of life means you never suffer the pain of having unfulfilled desires, it is preferable. But thats that's a subjective judgement. One which apparently common, but they're also people who would value the process of fulfilling their desire even if that meant pain. The consequence is you as anti-natalist are depriving that potential human of it. Choices have consequences, a choice to abstain from procreation mean, less people live. In the same way that a choice to buy fast fashion contributes to child labor. The fact that you did not engage in that decision, does not make it not that the case. The natural of your antinatalism is the deprivation of potential life.

or maybe the most obvious way to say "fuck you" to someone...

If they never existed, then you could not possibly have ever cared about them. So that is a nonsense statement.

How about you just freaking say "I care about you and I don't want you to suffer?" I wish you never would have existed is probably one of the most cruel things you could ever relay to someone. To never exist is to never try. Is to never have an effect on someone else's life. Or your own for that matter. Reconsider giving any credence to such a horrible thing to say.

George Dunbar But they do exist. So I do care. Otherwise every statement “I wish x wouldn’t have happened to you” would be nonsensical. If it didn’t happen I wouldn’t - couldn’t in fact - wish for x not to have happened.

Zephyr is that your real name or did you take it from the name of the dwemer bow in skyrim?

so stupid

@@msa.4499 being stupid

Is that a Shakespeare quote or one of his characters? Big difference

And that's how comedy came to be

Who is it that the antinatilist seeks to benifit? On whose behalf does the antinatilist act? We are ethically engaged to the extent that we interact with other sentiences. Ethics is the art of benefiting sentiences because it is only in the presence of sentience that one is ethically obligated. One is not ethically obligated to the universe as a whole since the universe is ethically indifferent toward us. Hence, it is senseless to act on behalf of the universe, it is senseless to seek the eradication of sentience so that the universe will be better off because the benifit of the universe is not a concern within the ethical domain. When interacting with another sentience one cannot in that relation occupy the subject position of the universe as a whole since the universe's subject position is Absolute Indifference toward sentiences, it's a prima facie incoherent orientation for finite descision makers to assume. Since any finite form is contingent from the POV of the universal, a finite being assuming a universal perspective will inevitably spiral into autophagic, suicidal tautologies. Only a God-agent can make its primary concern the totality of Being. This brings us to a point where the antinatilists get things egregiously wrong: the absence of God means that human intelligence is capable of expanding itself into a universal orientation capable of acting on the totality of Being. The antinatilists move too quickly in reaction to the death of God by occupying the position He left vacant before achieving the capacities attributable to Him. So by prematurely passing a judgement on the human from the viewpoint of God, the antinatilist only sees inadequacy and suffering which would be better eradicated altogether. However, the question becomes, from this God-perspective what would be an adequate state of affairs deserving of preservance? Well, the answer must be Heaven. From God's perspective, existence is only worthy if existence is Heaven. Therefore, the question for us, for finite sentiences endowed with intelligence is, how can Heaven be instantiated in the world? And the answer is: through the expansion of intelligence. Heaven is acheivable through the expansion of capacities to the point that the totality of Being is manipulable by mind. The expansion of capacities proceeds through intelligence reconfiguring self, world, and time. The true goal of ethics should be not the eradication of all life forever, but the expansion of intelligence toward God's subject position such that worlds can be created where sentience exists yet doesn't suffer. This is what rationality actually is: the dynamic principle through which intelligence gains traction on the world, producing more potent spacial orientations and recipes of abstraction which amplify the types and potencies of functions capable of manipulating self+world.

@@JB.zero.zero.1 insofar as we choose to communicate then we are demonstrating our indifference towards death. Death is the absence of communication so even your blah blah blahs betray your faux grimness.

@Stephanie Mujan yup.

@@nrg937 wowww that was so well said Nicholas and really do agree with you on that. I was pondering on that the whole conversation haha. Like wow Antinatalist really must be god to believe in definite and make presumptions with our finite intelligence

@@beau4588 Thank you, Beau. I did not know before seeing this video that secular antinatilists exist. From all the conversations I've subsequently had with these ideologues in this comment section, it seems that secular antinatilism only attracts depressives. You really have to hate the world in order to use rationality as a means to justify rationality's extinction. Ethics is multifaceted, and the antinatilists overlook most of ethics' facets. For instance, for what reason do we formalize our descision making into something we can call an ethic? The reason we formalize our descision making in this way is because formalized descisions construct/structure us into novel modalities - it improves our modes of being. Formalization is construction. We construct to improve. We improve because improvement is favorable to regression, cancellation, etc. Hence, the antinatilist's conclusion (abyss>sentience) is precluded from ethics since ethics - as a type of formalization - has as its modus operandi amelioration. The antinatilist is engaged in logical argument but not ethical argument insofar as the antinatilist allows logical consistency to supersede the goal of enhancing the world for sentiences, reasoners, etc.

That is absolutely an argument

That is one of the irrefutable arguments.

For people arguing that life also has bits of joy and nonexistence will make them unavailable all these happiness or joys are result after fulfillment of desires or need and desires or need only exist only if you exist Existence creates desires , which incase not fulfilled cause suffering Desire for healthy life can be easily deteriorated by uncurable cancar or A,IDS diagnosis

​@@pauldirc.. Nah happiness doesn't just come from fulfilling needs. Ever heard of the Hedonic Treadmill? The idea that after achieving or losing something we return to a base level of happiness. However that base level of happiness can be lower or higher depending on other factors. Dopamine is responsible for temporary pleasure after achieving things, Serotonin is responsible for long term well being. You can be joyful because of your suffering and not because of your suffering.

@@pauldirc.. No, the deep contentment you experience in a meditative state does not require any fulfillment of desires. You conflate positive experience with basic hedonic pleasures.

yet

Honestly I don’t even know why I’m still here. I’m already bored of life, I look forward to the day that I cease to exist.

@@Scriabinfan593 Most people do, life is boring and depressing for somewhat lucky individuals stuck into the modern loophole. And life is horrifying for those born into poverty and war, or mental/physically deformed circumstances.

If you are not born you don't need to reach Nirvana. How can you not understand this?

@@vijrumbhanam9200 No. One can (in most cases) only free themselves of dukkha by practicing throughout multiple lives.

@@theGnostic- Intelligence plays a part in suffering, although I'd argue we suffer a lot and create a lot of suffering compared to less intellectual species. So, how are humans the closest to Nirvana? I guess we have many ways to prevent suffering like health care but in some cases that causes more suffering. For example, prolonging someone's suffering when they would have more pleasure in dying. I'm asking you because I don't know a lot about Nirvana so I want to know the exact reason you think humans are closest.

I'm not saying Buddhism talks about antinatalism. I am talking how I, as person that is also a buddhist, choose to not procreate. My personal findings do not represent my religion, as each person goes to their own journey and experience everything in their own way. I view buddhism more as my philosophy, than the western picture of a religion, again to me.

Grammatically speaking, Buddhism is the cause of your pain. 😊

Yet people dismiss antinatalists as incel mysognists (even though we have many females in our community) or just as depressed people (we have some, but which community doesn't?) or other similar bullshit. Oh, and people telling us to kill ourselves. We get that too.

@Survivalist395 I'm fine with incels, I'm not fine when they are mysoginists. If you want to ask what's wrong with incels, ask people who accused me of being one for expressing my views on the ethics of procreation.

For him to have a case it'd require us to have been "resting in peace" or in "peaceful oblivion" before we existed. He doesn't realize it, but his brand of antinatalism completely depends on such a thing.

@@naturalisted1714his brand of Natalism, and all brands, require a worldview focused solely on pain and pleasure, which is hedonic, and requires that you believe that life is not worth living due to a valuation of pain versus pleasure that provides that literally any pain makes existing even in otherwise perfect pleasure not worth it, and it requires that these things be objectively so. I’ve seen no argument of objectivity, I’ve only ever simply seen it posited as though it’s self evident that any pain makes life worthless. Someone else’s subjective opinion has absolutely no inherent influence on my opinion, and has absolutely no influence on what is objectively true or false. If the argument is that there is no objective truth, how is that going to convince someone who believes there is objective truth, and even if it does what then makes anti-natalism right, when there’s no such thing as right or wrong outside a subjective view, and as such it’s as meaningless as preferring chocolate to vanilla.

Pleased to see this conversation, I admire both your channels! I don't know if I've missed it somewhere, but it's not clear to me if you consider yourself to be an Antinatalist or if it's just a subject you're exploring?

I have to write something to see Hancock's response to Ethicalogical's question. I'm also curious. I'll also ask about something: What do you think about #EFILism to end the suffering of all sentient creatures (mostly, wild animals)?

I'm only a couple minutes in, and although I'm sure this is a fantastic discussion, it would be really awesome if you could invest in some acoustic foam!

This discussion is stupid. life is great for most over 80% it's not great for few 5 % and the other 15% don't know. Logically it's worth it and if they don't like it they can kill themselves lol. This discussion is stupid

@@KAIZORIANEMPIRE You don't grasp it at all.

That's good of you. Some people have terrible genetic diseases, get a kid, it has the disease, and then proceed to make two more with the same disease anyway. That's something I disagree with.

@レイトン教授 - 風子 The drive to pass along your genes is a strong one, and I understand that adoption isn't for everyone. But we should support people who do, because you're right, there are plenty of people who would love to have parents.

U are a conditionnal antinatalist and its good

although people's lives vary, born as a child from a wealthy, loving parents family with super nice siblings and friends is certainly more worth living and enjoying than being born as a poor child, or even worse in the middle of a battlefield, however even though it's not a guarantee that rich kids get no pain etc, but the chance of that happening is very low or perhaps the coping mechanism taught from they well educated parents allow them to deal with the suffering they may experience, in which if we were to push even further towards capability of enduring pain, does it mean people who train themselves to counter pain and suffering mentally and physically such as shaolin monks or navy seal soldiers mean they can then ignore the pain they face and there any potentially born child with the potential of being a monk or joining navy seal etc would therefore be more worth living and embracing the pain and therefore still worth being born under the umbrella of antinatalism

​@@BartvG88so you are pro eugenics?

actually it's not a gamble - you are GUARANTEED to lose by continuing to get older, weaker, sicker until you die - and that's if you are LUCKY and live old enough to suffer.

Like atheism...if you're wrong, you may be cooked.

Right

@@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094 well said

@@brianw.5230 Even not, whatever the belief you're in, the probability of being cooked is the same

Bring them here and teach them to change it

@@vagabaassassina3461 Probably better to adopt?

Agreed! I decided at a very young age that I did not want to put another young human being into this world. Many people say that individuals who choose to not have kids 'must' hate children, but it's actually the opposite And so insted (since I can't see a child without wanting to care for them 😂) I am planning to adopt 😊 Although it will be many years in the future since I'm only 15

@@vagabaassassina3461 You can't change the fundamentals of the game.

Ammeo that is a lot of crap have kids

Very well said. Our intuition tells us that life is worth living, but I think that is just a result of us being a product of evolution, being pro-natalist by virtue of being alive.

And who is the one to be the arbiter and say “Ah you are not actually appreciating your life or having a positive existence, you are merely experiencing Stockholm syndrome and are held hostage by life. You would be better off having not existed, and the same will go for all future sentient beings.”

_Live is a hostage situation and we all suffer from stockholm syndrome_ Interesting thought. At least we can have a stockholm syndrome. But i see this as a variant of the _life as an addiction_ version. see my video: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-f6ELhBnsRiE.html

@@nakodares5982 Well the idea with antinatalism is that you get to decide for you whether life is worth living, but you don't get to put someone else in danger who otherwise would not have existed, because of your subjective perception.

Very good way to put it. Concise, as long as people get it. We have evolved to have psychological methods of convincing ourselves that things are better than they are. However, our perception of good and bad experience is based upon what we are convinced of. So you might argue that someone with Stockholm syndrome is in a bad state, because there is a "better" state they could be in, which is one in which they are aware of what is actually happening to them, even though they are subjectively experiencing bliss while under the spell of the syndrome. But that isn't perfectly analogous to life in general. There is no other place to experience bliss and there is no other place to wake up into; there simply is no other place. You are valuing knowledge of truth over pleasure of experience. Someone people would rather "ignorance is bliss" their way through life.

My exact thought process.

Yea me too I was surprised when I first discovered that there are a lot of people who think like me

No no, think about this rigth, this is not "i wanted or not wanted to have kids" type of escenario, thats perfectly fine, your life your choices, this is more like "having kids is not ok", so its not the same thing, one is a personal opinion that can't be judge by others, the other one is an actually phylosophy that states something pretty damm bold.

I thought i was the only one who have this kind of mindset either.

@@pepinillorick5741 yea ik wut ur saying, but I did think there was no way for me to prevent my kid from sufferin so id rather not make a kid and i also thought it was wrong n stupid for people to bring more people into this world, but idk, if they do its not on me.. so.

Philosophy is far more common place than people think. It's what i forms every decision and every choice you ever make. Can certainly get complex though.

It isn't always tough. It's mostly that people don't wanna put themselves through all that thought and rethinking their perspectives

Indeed!

It’s just that some philosophers don’t write in a very good way lol

It's theoretical philosophy that I find overly tangled up and often useless. But most of philosophy is very interesting and it's at the core of everything we do.

That's a bloody good quote

so why don’t you k*ll yourself? it’s selfish that someone doesn’t cherish the good in life when others with less do.

@@rub3n410 what

Логичный аргумент!

No existence = you can't consent or not to existing because you do not exist yet. No existence = not having people you love No existence = not having good memories No existence = not being proud of anything you've done No existence = no goals No existence = not being able to feel loved No existence = missing the opportunity to be happy *NO EXISTENCE = NO JOY* If you see life as a bad experience, fine. But please don't try yo convince anyone that you're right about it because all you're doing is making people feel a bit more hopeless and helpless.

@@aceiiiiv3201 It is clear you are being emotional and don't understand Benatar's argument. And I don't feel hopeless and helpless embracing this position. If an idea makes you uncomfortable, it doesn't mean it has no merits.

whoa this connection is interesting

Arthur Schopenhauer was influenced by Buddha.

But the radical interconnectivity of being assures that suicide will 1) leave a more painful world, and 2) assure you will return to a realm of greater pain, not less. There is no escaping from existence, and suicide is a false exit. There is only the effort to make that existence more clear and compassionate, or the refusal of that effort.

This

❤💯👍👌🙏

@@julianmarx2002 Show the evidence of that "realm" please.

…the pain of living.

It's just a flawed argument

@@giladkingsley flawed in what way

@@riomatm7740 In the equation of pleasure and pain. Only caring about one side of the equation is flawed thinking. And even if you think it is totally ok to ignore everything that's good in life (which if you do, of course you wouldn't want others to experience life) than it just doesn't make any sense that it isn't worth living hypothetically an almost perfect life that the only bad thing that ever happens in it is the slight discomfort of stepping once on a piece of Lego. I can't see how this argument is taken so seriously.

@@giladkingsley because in real life noone lives an almost perfect life where stepping on a Lego is their biggest problem

@@riomatm7740 that's the theory though

Only if you believe there's a hell. You could believe that there's an afterlife that is not hell where everyone goes.

@@outerspacing9207 in this case it's better but life is still 'malignantly useless' as Thomas Ligotti said

@@konyvnyelv. I'm not arguing life is useful. I was just saying what I said in context.

Look up in an image search: "666 in Greek". What's it look like? We are actually _already in_ hell. The 666 sex act is what brings you here.

Why?

@@SouthPark333Gaming Because you spare a living soul the experience of birth, life, suffering, work, and their eventual experience of death at the expense of your pathetic egotistical desires.

​@@SouthPark333GamingHope you got the answer to your "why"? Lex.cordis explained it aptly.

Antinatalism is more of a "no sentience - no problem" philosophy. It appears man-centered, but in fact solves the issues of all sentient beings.

@Jimmy Lopez Personally I find Antinatalism and EFILism the best things I could have stumbled upon. Both address the core issues, although they don't offer the happiest solutions for getting us gracefully out of this insidious game. The presentation (and the movement itself) is stagnant, as you rightfully observed, but that is a given. It's like selling kryptonite as an energy drink to Superman. You have better chances convincing people that Jesus was an alien, that's for sure. People are scared of talking about subjects like this. You won't find many people willing to hear your message, let alone do something about it. It's a sure way to lose friends and be called crazy. Try it for yourself! I've talked with some parents and was stunned about their answers. All are on some "happy go lucky drugs". They don't care about nothing, not even about their beloved kids. Should they suffer? That's life! Should they get sick? Those are the risks of living! Should they die young? It's impossible!

Who is forcing you to suffer? And what is bad about dying?

100% of ppl alive want to live. If not dey suicide.

Well, the reason why life is special and precious and fun, is because it ends

@@unknownv8462 unless they dont want others to suffer from their death

Key Himself I don’t see how that is relevant to the question of who is forcing you to suffer but what we do should be our best

Stephen Hensley What if your partner wants a child of his/her own? Then you’re hurting them

@@milton7763 The quick answer is that this is much more simple than antinatalist arguments. If partners have disagreements about anything long-term, then they should reach agreement or separate. This is independent of antinatalism and can apply to a great number of disagreements.

@@milton7763 that is like saying that refusing to help someone gamble with someone else's money is hurting them, still wrong

It is suffering that creates humans, not everything is sufferance. It is humans around us which make life fulfilling. The humans who create the pieces of literature for us to find worth in life and to continue living the shining rays of hope in the world. It is humans who got rid of the sufferance. Yes humans create sufferance but sufferance would come in one way or another, it is part of nature.let’s assume the worst in the word sufferance because it vague. As humans progressed we have reduced sufferance, it is because of humans we are able to set foot without being chained or trafficked over seas. Yes it did take a sacrifice but it was for the greater good.

@@milton7763 So it's fine to potentially subject someone else to a life of suffering and definite death, because someone else will be hurt by not having kids? That's why the argument holds.

Yes.

Humans mostly have a biological instinct to breed. We're a narccistic species.

Unfortunately us humans naturally possess a reproductive system. So people feel duty bound,by their own bodies/society to reproduce,against extinction.

@@sariahlace5944 Not all of us. Just the narcicists.

I have to diagree. I think if you can bring a new person into the world and be fairly confident they will have a good life, (becouse you will provide them the care they need) then there is some value in that

@@kylehankins5988 Not true in billions of cases, so a disabled orphan in a war torn, famine hit 3rd world country just needs caring parents to have a good life? There are literally millions of variables that could effect your child which are totally out of your control.

Life and death is beautiful. Suffering is good

@@jsheriff396 Life is boring and empty for somewhat lucky individuals stuck into the modern loophole. Repeating the same routines. And life is horrifying for those born into poverty and war, or mental/physically deformed circumstances. Every baby is a stranger. A person who you do not know yet. A person who may commit atrocities to themselves or others. A person who will eventually have to face the horrors of this world and understand that they are going to eventually die no matter how hard they try. The more humans populate the earth, the worse living conditions will be for future generations. Will it be beautiful then, when children starve from lack of food? When the earth is burning from toxic gas? When little clean air and water remains? Humans are selfish, and only care for themselves. Life is not beautiful, it is pointless.

@@MothJade I truly am sorry you feel this way. Have you not wondered why people who grow up in such conditions continue to survive and not give up? Because despite all the pain, suffering and misery it's worth existing. I suggest you try meditation it will help you understand why life is such an incredible gift and why it's not pointless.

@@jsheriff396 Nothing IS better than life because we don't know anything else, it is instinct in us as animals to be scared of death. If you look down off a cliff your body will produce adrenaline and you will feel the strong feeling to flee. People try to exist because they are afraid of death, because it isn't proven what is on the other side. Death is terrifying and unavoidable, horror movies are scary because you imagine yourself or others having a possibility of death, illness is scary because humans know that if they catch it there is possibility of death. Death is scary, that is why we continue to live. Even suicidal people who attempt say that they regret attempting, because their bodies natural instinct is to escape dying. It is scary.

@@MothJade my life is nice, speak for yourself bruh

Its wild being a supernatural fan and randomly coming across you here

Yup, I think it's mainly because of the blissful ignorance we have as kids, we don't really see things outside of our own little bubble, we are shielded from it all by our parents, and when we get older we see more of the world so we gradually loose that ignorance and become more aware. I remember a few years back when I took two gap years, I worked some but had a lot of free time to find myself, so I started reading books which I though would help me, and the more books I read the more aware and bleak my world view became, and it was heavy books like "The Rape Of Nanking", "Ordinary Men", "When Breath Becomes Air", "Being Mortal" and "The Boy Who Was Raised As A Dog" and the knowledge I gained from that just changed me, it's both a gift and a curse, since it's hard to think about, but Its still liberating to see reality.

When you are a child you are optimistic When you are a young man you think you can answer everything Then reality sets in...

But at the same time I saw things heavily related to antinatalism even as a kid growing up with aspergers

@@exoticcar5482 Perhaps, when you have Aspergers, reality sets in a little early? Most kids can "stay in a dream" until they are mature enough to handle reality (it's probably good for them) I don't know about Aspergers, but growing up with ADD, … yeah, those challenges makes you have to think "is it worth it" WAY too early..

@@busylivingnotdying The reality sets in when you wanna continue focusing on what your interests yet everyone around you is pulling towards a different topic. Also as early as learning about social norms, when you have aspergers norms don't come naturally to you so that's where my deep loathing for society has its roots

Why are you here, just to suffer?

My thoughts on the obligatory nature of experience: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dahDeHkXYcE.html

dude, you're everywhere

DarkFlame On your first phrase: have you adopted? I don’t support the ‘woke’ type of argument of “If you’re not a , you can’t talk about ”, but this is the sort of claim where I only really put stock in people that put their money where their mouth is. On your second phrase: what do you mean ‘some cases’? That goes against the core of this ‘philosophy’ that you claim you adhere to

@@milton7763 My philosophy? Never said it was a philosophy. I said some cases, because I know there are people who would try to abort the baby after it developed into an actual human. I think late term abortions should only be for safety reasons, while trying to save the child. Also, about the adoption thing? Fuck off I can barely afford myself let alone a kid. Plus I'm too young for kids. I'd also be a single parent. Which is a bad idea.

@@milton7763 Why would you need to adopt yourself to say that adoption is more ethical than giving birth?

Cbb Because it’s virtue signaling. I’ve known lots and lots of people that used to constantly reason that way and then when the time came, opt for having children themselves. I’m not opposing the argument per se, but find it rather empty when people are alluding to the virtuous things they will do in the future that they will never end up doing

@@milton7763 Maybe I will. But It'd be a pretty big 180 from the never times I wanted to have a kid of my own. If they are even a tenth the troublemaker I was I'd go insane.

It is possible that a balance of both pleasure and pain is necessary in order to recognise ones own existence. After all it is emotion that gives us perception.

Adam Garland Exactly, you simply cannot have the good/pleasure without the bad/negative/pain. We cannot grow and develop as people without pain, change is pain, it’s stepping out from your comfort zone. You could also argue having the pain makes the pleasure feel even better, somehow elevates it. Have you ever been deathly sick and then returned to normal health and felt the shear appreciation of being able to just breathe, just eat something solid, just move about freely? You could also argue that choosing not to bring a life into the universe because of the probability that painful things may happen, or almost certainly will could also turn out to be a terrible thing. What happens if you choose to abort the next Einstein? What happens if you choose to not have the next world changing individual which could better many more people than it harms?

Thank you for this comment!

You don't have to set objective standards for what exactly constitutes suffering, it's simply whatever a sentient creature subjectively perceives as uncomfortable in varying degrees at any given point in time. The important part is that this is unavoidable, whatever 'this' might specifically mean for a specific individual in a specific situation. Why would I make the decision to create a new sentient being and expose them to the risk of living a life in which the suffering outweighs the pleasure, which is a very real possibility, especially when I also have the option to not procreate and don't re-produce the necessary conditions for more suffering, however that might look like in specific instances, to occur in the first place? To not create a new sentient being can't have harmful consequences to what has not been created, whereas to create a new sentient being will most assuredly have such consequences, most obviously deterioration due to age and ultimately death ofc.

​@@skoigoth That's an interesting point. Many people suffer more than than they experience pleasure for a number of reasons, though. I feel this is a situation that is best assesed on an individual basis rather than generally. Consider a person who has a high probability to experience more suffering than pleasure in the event that they do not have children. Many people experience intense suffering due to their inability to conceive. Would it then be reasonable for them to create a new sentient being who has a lower probability of experiencing more suffering than pleasure?

Also, the act of suicide might bring about enough suffering in the suicidor in the moments before and during that it may not be worth going through with.

I actually think suicide is fine. Yes, it brings more pain to those around you. But I choose to focus my attention on the person who chooses death. Does it ease their own pain? If yes, they should go for it. Why? Because if they continue to live their life, then it is causing themselves more pain. Should you live in pain because your absence would cause pain? I don't know. It gets complicated and you would have to bring in individual rights. I think people should be free to choose when and how they die. The question of whether or not their pain is greater than the one they would cause is to be answered by the individual deciding to kill themselves.

@@harinivasan9609 I agree. Dont let your family hold you back. Pursue your dreams honey

Efilism is also a used term.

@@lucioh1575 I think efilism is an extention of pro mortalism to all living creatures, whereas pro mortalism is only for humans. I could be wrong tho

@@TheRemo176 As long as we agree on what it means in the realm of our conversation, I'm fine with it. At least efilism, according to your definitions proposed here, actually considers non-human suffering, unlike promortalism.

Somebody indeed put that on a reprint of the Magic: The Gathering card "Unsummon" ("Not to be. That is the answer.") But I don't think any antinatalists have infiltrated Wizards of the Coast yet... ^^

You can also be a vegan to be more consistent.

Lucioh lol looks like I’m consistent !

@@vegantina6565 ... I should have read your username.

Lucioh touché

Bea 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Not true. I want only one

My thoughts on the obligatory nature of experience: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-dahDeHkXYcE.html

That's the beauty of rationality and skepticism though right? Facing the hard truth and shunning comforting lies. Kudos to you for doing it.

Derek Yes, indeed. It can be hard to reconcile this with one's existence as a primate. I don't condemn others for wanting to feel save and avoid negative feelings... I mean, it can literally feel like hell. But at the end of the day, I'm glad that I'm in this position. So thank you. Keep searching! :)

So why not go on a murder spree? That will bring the most utilitarian value in the long run right? (Not meaning to insult. Just trying to suggest that pleasure isn’t the sole good and suffering isn’t the sole bad. Consider the idea that there exists a meaning to life that we should pursue in the face of inevitable pointless suffering, and if you’re a nihilist, prove that there is no meaning or that you shouldn’t believe that there is)

Derek there’s nothing trivial about utilitarian and nihilistic world views. I wouldn’t call them rational by any means

Michael Hu I'm by no means passionate or sure of my views. Also don't think that I can prove that there is or isn't a meaning to life. Can you?

I'm an antinatalist, but I also like to discuss ethics generally speaking, if you have any questions you can ask me.

No youre just a loser

The guaranteed suffering comes from guaranteed good, as suffering is the loss/harm of something good and valuable to us.

@@darkengine5931 you get old and diseases latch on.. that's a guarantee

@@no22sill That's a guarantee with mortality. If we grow some plants in a garden, they'll eventually wither and die. That's life. Beauty fades. Love fades. Life fades. But to say it's not worth it because these things don't last forever seems to be missing out.

​@@no22sill I think a difference I have with antinatalists is that they see a guarantee of no suffering if we didn't exist. That's for sure. I can also guarantee no broken hearts if we never fall in love. But I think I have just as much a legitimate criticism that we'd also guarantee no beauty, no love, experience no sense of meaning or purpose, no joy, no creativity, no learning from history, if we didn't exist. I would frame the asymmetry table Benatar proposes in the opposite way in terms of the deprivation of pleasure and meaning from nonexistence. Merry Christmas by the way!

95% of all people in this comment section (including breeders) were brought into existence as a result of alcohol consumption

How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it and why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn't it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager-I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complain Søren Kierkegaard

Stop projecting your weak ass mentality onto others, seek help or stfu

@@seagulfs4123 I now agree with the position

@@richiedaly87 shut up

Are u familiar with Danny Shine?

It depends on what kind of a life you can provide for your kid(s). If you can provide an amazing life the opposite can be argued, you're taking away the kid(s) ability to experience joy.

I guess philosophy is a popularity contest, then ? It's no longer about truth?

You don't need to create new life to influence them of your opinions. We can influence people already in existence. I am proof of this: my parents are not anti-natalists. But I was convinced by anti-natalists to be one.

@@CarnismDebunked and your genetic code will be edited out of existence. Life will go on regardless through other genes.

@@philosophicalharmonics3470 It will, but I don't want to be responsible for any of the suffering that goes on in the world after I'm dead. Do you?

A lifeform which exists in a universe of contrast must do things that are pleasing to some and displeasing to others. This is by Law. And no one is responsible for the actions of others, whether those others are offspring of them or not. Nothing is proven or gained by not allowing contrast lifeforms in a universe of contrast to be the only thing they can be.

The basis of your failing to pass on your genetics is atheism. Evolution is deselecting your ideas lol

What makes you think they will go through the same agony as you? Is mortality too much of a burden to live or am I missing the point?

The Antinatalist Informant lmao what

Read _The Conspiracy Against The Human Race_ by Thomas Ligotti. You'll love it. The showrunners of the show took inspiration from it.

Masterpieces.

If you’re “curious about it” go have ‘a gay experience’ already. Stop bothering me with your random comments

Milton77 lmao what?

Same and I will have no family at all family means nothing to me I free man and I wanna fuck other men bcs I find men sexy and I more into guys, than girls and don't care what anyone think about that

You're implying most people wish they were never born. Do you really think this is true? In my experience at least, absolutely not.

@@michi9955 people who aren't born don't wish they were born though. They can neither wish to be born or not be born. That's more safer for them. Actually it's nothing cause they're non existent.

@@nosphethomahlobo3060 You are right. But from my perception, at least in our developed parts of the world, giving birth on average does more good for the born person, the parents and the relatives than it does bad. So I disagree that its generally immoral to give birth.

@@michi9955 how does it do good for the person that is born? I'm not saying that people should not give birth if they are already pregnant, but to me(and you can correct me if I'm wrong)...if you're not pregnant/haven't impregnated someone, it doesn't really benefit the person who is not born/an unfertilized egg. I can only see it as benefitting the parents and that benefitting is simply bringing pleasure to them but not the child specifically. Like if you decide you wanna fall pregnant/wanna impregnate, that decision is only for your own pleasure cause you can't say that..."no I wanna benefit my prospective child" cause if someone is not born yet, they can neither benefit nor not benefit since they're non existent. Someone can only benefit when they're existing.

Interesting

Additionally, even if Antinatalism becomes a popular philosophy (which I find incredibly unlikely) I think it is a waste of time to put into law particularly due to the practical implications of: - Even if it were illegal, any natalist population will inevitably outlive antinatalist populations since they can procreate and pass on beliefs to their children - Supposing it were successful, any country that instated antinatalist policy will rapidly shrink in power and be overtaken by the remaining natalist countries Also, despite people being very reluctant to accept antinatalism, I usually can convince people with the ideas behind AN that they should definitely adopt (preferably instead of having your own kids) because then you are helping someone who already exists to have a better life instead of risking that someone who doesn't will have a bad life.

Consent only matters if you're imposing suffering which you cannot justify. If we have an ethical duty to prevent terrible lives but none to create happy lives, then there is no justification.

You would need data. If data indicates that people would much rather have lived than not lived, in a specific environment, then you would be allowing a likely positive experience vs an unlikely negative experience. If you refrain from procreation, considering this, you are preventing net positive experiences from occuring, statistically.

@@cloudoftime That doesn't change the fact that its still a risk. I defer to my example of betting someone else's prized possession. However good the odds, it is still inappropriate without first getting their permission.

@@cloudoftime You don't need the positive when you don't exist. You create the need for positives by creating the person. Would you seek pleasure if you were never bored and never missed pleasure or needed it to compensate for some form of suffering?

Yeah it's not that I hate life itself,its the people and society I dislike.

@John Olson "Oh so someone hates life and everything they can't control, so thus he/she is mentally ill" such a stupid assumption

Nature has already pushed the button for us, if we would only admit it. We live only on borrowed time.

​@@Firespectrum122the red button is painless and all at once. So I don't think that's true.

You mean like a nap? Yeah I like naps.

Why do you agree with it?

@Lucioh Because, there’s really no good reason to bring a life into the world when that life will go through completely unnecessary suffering and eventually die for no reason other than my hypothetical desire to have a child. A person’s want to have a child always comes from their own selfish desires to improve their own lives or give their life meaning. But the child is a victim in that pursuit. Life can’t consent to its own creation so I think it’s unethical to create it. There’s no real reason to create a new life, it’s fundamentally pointless... especially when there are children in the foster system who need families. If I wanted a child I would definitely adopt one. It just seems straightforward to me. I agree with the idea that people are better off not being born rather than being born into a messed up world, just to suffer and die within a handful of short decades. And I especially apply antinatalism to animals because we are literally breeding billions of animals just to kill them and keep them in horrible conditions, it’s cruel.

If you don't want have to children fine, but if your negative perspective on living is telling you that humans should go extinct well think again, your life perspective doesn't matter well at least to me

@Richard Daly All species go extinct eventually. It will certainly happen to humans at some point, maybe even sooner because of climate change. Whether it happens 200 years from now or 2,000 years from now, either way none of us will even be there and it doesn’t actually matter.

@@Meccarox well the fact you choose to live means you choose suffering, so suffer on bro

Same, I always thought it sounded rather ludicrous in my head but now that it has a term, it feels somewhat more rational haha

Gaston Rocha same here!

I admire the fact that some of you people have come to this realization on your own. In my case it had to be pointed out to me. Ah the pitfalls of a conditioned mind..

​Weirdly enough, I have always wanted kids. However, pretty recently I started feeling guilty about wanting kids... So I started to think it over, like, why do I feel this way? I realized that I felt this way because wanting to bring another human into this world stems from a selfish desire. From that realization I started to reflect more and more until I decided that I'm not going to have children

No. Don't do it.

@@myawoo Do what?

@@SandyTheDesertFox do not adopt. Only healthy (physical & mental) and rich people should adopt.

@@myawoo First off, i never mentioned adoption. Second, no one should adopt.

@@SandyTheDesertFox why should no one adopt?

its not. life is more important than happiness.

@@angelofslaughter2431 What makes the phenomenon called life important? And who's life? Please give us an argument to work with.

@@chaos98GTVS life is important because its what makes you what you are. As a society life is important as a driving force toward a better civilization, life is also what create more life. Without life you wouldnt exist. So if you hate life that much maybe you should return to nothingness yourself. A life of suffering is far better then non existence.

@@angelofslaughter2431 Trying to understand your argument... so civilization is a product of similar beings working together to make a stable and prefferable (happy) community. If life ceases to be created by us, than it would slowly go extinct with society itself. So is life important for the stability of our society? Or is it important because people tend to think about the future of our society because they want to pass it down for their offspring in it's best shape?

@@chaos98GTVS as a society life is important to sustain itself and every life have a chance to make a better society. as simple as that. and as an individual your individuality were dictated by your life. even if you believe in the afterlife you would be nonexistent if you're not born first. the state of nonexistent is far worse then the state of "suffering" that most edgelords of antinatalism whine about. i rather spent my eternity in hell then become nonexistent.

Danke für die Anregungen, werde mich mit beiden ein wenig näher beschäftigen!

@@MaxMustermann-ij6gi Sehr gerne! Eberhard nimmt in seinem Buch "Antinatalismus" auch Bezug auf mehrere antinatalistischen Philosophen. Ich würde dahingehend dir hauptsächlich dieses empfehlen, zumal es gut strukturiert und argumentativ aufgebaut ist.

It feels dangerous to agree, but I think I’ll have to.

Roedy Green on the other hand, recipients of anal sex go through temporary torture for future pleasure

the upper classes need a baseline of misery to determine how much they can steal before the guillotines roll out. in the US Occupy Wall Street was a tipping point, jobs were created so white kids would stop rebelling.

@@milton7763 sorry you've never been fucked by a good top. 🤣

But the happy people outnumber the unhappy ones... by a lot! democracy baby!

@@BartvG88 how do you know your kids will happy tho

@@BartvG88 democracy doesn't work with suffering. In a gang bang rape there is only 1 person suffering and the majority having great fun. Democracy ? A big country invading a small country can also be perfectly democratic . Slavery is also possible in a democracy.

@@xxxxxxcx156 Nothing in life is certain, but you can definitely make an educated guess, as well as a continious effort by loving your children and being there for them.

@@FarangNick Jup, democracy is the worst system we've had, if it weren't for all the other even worse ones. Some people define democracy not as just majority rule, but majority rule, with consideration for the interests of the minority, with free press and an independent justice system. Anyway, my point still stands, the chance that your child will have a net positive effect on the world is high, especially if you have carefully considered the factors that comes with raising a child. Is it completely a guarantee? no, but it's not immoral to have kids.

yes life is worth living but its unknown how much animals are suffering from the damages humans have done. life doesnt have to be great and can be full of nonstop suffering where existence alone wouldn't been worth it.

Yeah man there are things I love in life but the sad thing is how much pain and suffering there is in this world,This is why I sometimes ask why I was born if I did not have a choice in existing.

Pain is inevitable but you choose to suffer. It seems this comment section is full of depressed people with a shitty life, I feel bad for you, but if somebody has a happy life and is a great person, he will probably raise his son as another great person, that will bring more good in this world than sufferance, so giving birth is immoral only if you do it without the purpose of giving a gift to the society, and if you do it when there are more probability of a life of sufferance ( which is a different thing from a hard life), but this probability is different for each person, each society, each country ecc. For example it would be immoral to give a birth in Congo, but not in Finland.

MARCO_MATE are you saying people born in Finland don’t suffer lol. Get real. I find wishful thinking offensive

@@lepetitchat123 I'm real, there is for sure less sufferance in one of the best country in the world.

MARCO_MATE Lol, Finland? There's a reason Finland has the highest share of metal bands per capita (little sunlight). More "civilised" countries, such as Finland, usually also have higher percentages of "civilisational diseases", such as depression.

@@metalvisionsongcontest7055 Finland is one of the happiest country in the world, where the percentage of depressed people is low.