Antinatalism | Life on the Edge 

Yes. One look at history should be enough to tell us that procreation isn't worth it.

and natalists justify by saying because the world has always been horrible it is completely permissible to procreate.

We all have suffered that misfortune. Let's do better for our unborn.

@@anonymouswon7000 they were selfish and all they cared about was their own desires and not the harms their child and the future adult will go through. Anger is justified.

@@anonymouswon7000 mine too. They thought they were giving me an opportunity and a gift but they were wrong. I know it's impossible to attack our parents for bringing us here but we were wronged. They miscalculated. There is such a thing as gross negligence where someone should have known better but didn't think hard enough about it. That is also a very bad thing.

You have to forgive them, indoctrination was a part of their upbringing... you too could have done the same thing but you were lucky enough to know what you know when you did...

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". So you shouldn't be angry at your parents, because if it were not this life it would have been some other life. There's no escaping conscious experience, because consciousness is something brains do. So even if there's only one brain in the universe, there'd be conscious experience as opposed to you being safe from that conscious experience... Because there'd be no you to block that conscious experience, just as there was no you to block _this_ conscious experience (via the brain that's reading this right now). There's no escape.

Most people don't think about it, but I do.

Because YOU are ethical. YOU should be given the technology to live young and free forever.@@mariettaberry1711

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.

LOGIC!

Actually there are. Suppose I have a high IQ and mate with a high IQ woman, then surely my children are more likely to have high IQ's. In which case they would benefit everyone else contribute to attenuating the suffering of currently existing humans. Moreover, currently existing humans who are on welfare, and will be on welfare into the future require taxpayers in order to continue to benefit. Not having children will reduce the population of taxpayers thus leading to the collapse of the welfare state, nationalized healthcare etc, causing a lot more suffering than otherwise would be.

@@name7505 ​ Neither of the reasons you offered were truly altruistic, and I will explain why: 1. High IQ parents will spawn high IQ children. There’s no guarantee that your child will have a high IQ, or that they will go on to make any great human achievement in their lifetime. Have you considered the opposite possibility? Sure, your child could be a great scientist someday, but they could also be simple-minded, or an addict, or even the next serial killer, or the victim of one. I’ll bet you also didn’t consider the fact that, in order for your child to succeed, many other children would have to fail. As your child grows up, they’ll have to step over their peers to succeed, and even survive. I’ve actually heard smug parents tell me, “Your kids will work for mine one day!” In any case, your child never asked to be born, and your suggestion that you’d be doing humanity a favor by having a child because _you’re just so smart_ - that’s not altruism. It’s arrogance. 2. Collapse of welfare state. I once heard a wise man say that the goal of any public welfare program should be to eliminate, as quickly as possible, the need for its own continued existence. People currently living on welfare are a problem, because they are freeloaders living off of the worksweat of others. The more children a single, unemployed welfare mom has, the more she gets paid. She’s married to the state, with no motivation to improve or escape her situation, and her children will grow up and perpetuate the cycle. It is evil when you bring a child into this world without a competent plan to support them, other than simply collecting a government check every month. Supporting this lifestyle is not altruism; it is enabling a destructive system. Your suggestion that people should spawn more future taxpayers to support the welfare state is asinine. As birthrates continue to decline, there will eventually be fewer and fewer people on welfare, and fewer taxpayers supporting them. I have no problem with this, and neither should you.

@@name7505 Neither of the reasons you put forward are altruistic, and I will explain why: 1. High IQ parents will spawn high IQ children. There’s no guarantee that your child will have a high IQ, or that they will go on to make any great human achievement in their lifetime. Have you considered the opposite possibility? Sure, your child could be a great scientist someday, but they could also be simple-minded, or an addict, or even a criminal, or the victim of one. I’ll bet you also didn’t consider the fact that, in order for your child to succeed, many other children would have to fail. As your child grows up, they’ll have to step over their peers to succeed, and even survive. I’ve actually heard smug parents tell me, “Your kids will work for mine one day!” In any case, your child never asked to be born, and your suggestion that you’d be doing humanity a favor by having a child because _you’re just so smart_ - that’s not altruism. It’s arrogance. 2. Collapse of welfare state. I once heard a wise man say that the goal of any public welfare program should be to eliminate, as quickly as possible, the need for its own continued existence. People currently living on welfare are a problem, because they are freeloaders living off of the worksweat of others. The more children a single, unemployed welfare mom has, the more she gets paid. She’s married to the state, with no motivation to improve or escape her situation, and her children will grow up and perpetuate the cycle. It is evil when you bring a child into this world without a competent plan to support them, other than simply collecting a government check every month. Supporting this lifestyle is not altruism; it is enabling a destructive system. Your suggestion that people should spawn more future taxpayers to support the welfare state is asinine. But as birthrates continue to decline, there will eventually be fewer and fewer people on welfare, and fewer taxpayers supporting them. I have no problem with this, and neither should you.

Parents are just stupid and immoral beings.

🎯

Great observation. We are underpaid expendable wage slaves which get disposed of as soon as we are no longer productive enough. Why pass that on??

Absolute truth

Pets are better than children. A century from now, no one will know or care who you were anyway.

I think that in general animals may suffer less than us humans...

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.

Humans suffer more because they are more self conscious about it.

​@@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.

@@KYLE1654-v7mno

Agreed!

@@Yayo-cy7fk So nowadays empathy it's called craziness, apparently.

​@@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.

It was posted only a day ago… it is excelente and like he said it’s growing. Give it time. This video is great and I can’t wait to see more awaken to this compassionate philosophy. ❤

LOGIC!

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.

@@religionofpeace782 Thanks. From whose point of view would it be a good thing if humans didn't exist?

@@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.

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.

That still doesn't justify natalism.

Please prove that "consciousness is alway present for itself". Do you mean that it doesn't need a body to exist?

Your twisted up “logic” is just more proof of how humanity has unfortunately gone sour…

Exactly@@Kuato

Asymmetry works in conscious life, as the worst forms of suffering are almost infinitely worse than the most sublime pleasures.

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).

Argue whichever way you want to..discuss as much..create as many philosophies..do whatever the hell you want to..just DON'T PROCREATE that's all.

@@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.

may I ask are you a parent?