He means,by refusing to bring future generations In a prison world like this in which we live is an act of true Love. Are many worlds out there, free worlds where is a pleasure to see your future generations have a harmonious life instead a slave, mediocre vampiristic life based on domination, control and competition.
I have read Better to Never have Been, and agree with most he says. I've also just finished reading The Case Against Children, by Elizabeth Barber. "Human life is not a gift, but a needless perpetuation of suffering... INDEED! In 1851, Schopenhauer wrote: "would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence? Or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood."
From an early age onward, i questioned why i was born. I came from trauma and abuse in a child hating culture, and thus, suffered enough for two lifetimes. I had two sons i couldn't bond with, as my mother couldn't bond with me decades ago...this continues until somebody in the family has the brains to stop breeding. Alas, one of my sons has five children i've never met, and suspect they're not happy, healthy children. Both sons had severe ADHD and conduct disorder😢this sort of thing runs in families, as do other very serious diseases and birth defects. Then there is the problem of not liking your kid(s), or them not liking their mother,😢 which is what happened to me, and i will therefore regret having children until i die, which is in the foreseeable future.😢If only someone explained to me in my youth why to NEVER HAVE CHILDREN.
There are only the experiences that are being done by living brains. There are no black voids that people come out of in order to "come into existence". He imagines a state of non-existence that somehow allows the non-existent person or animal to enjoy non-experience, or _an experience of no experience_ ... *Right now, there are only the experiences that there are* there are no "unborn children" currently in some sort of state of deprivation from the experiences that are occuring right now. The only what to block other experience, is to be born and have your own experience... Otherwise, if you hadn't been born, then instead of "your" experience right now, it'd simply be one of the experiences that _are_ occuring right now... This makes Benatar's Antinatalism futile. If you hadn't been born, there's still experience occuring - it's being done by other brains. Imagine this brain is you, and you're all alone in the universe. I'll put lines above and below to represent the universe: ______________________________________________ 🧠 ______________________________________________ Now imagine you die. So there's no brain doing consciousness/experience: ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ But then, a few years later (or longer) a completely different and new brain comes to exist somewhere else in the universe: ______________________________________________ 🧠 ______________________________________________ So now that's the _only_ experience/consciousness that's occuring. You're not in a state of deprivation being spared from the only experience there is. You don't exist at all. There's only that living brain and the consciousness it's doing. You didn't go into that new brain - it's a simple matter of there being experience after the first experience ended. So the second experience came after the first. So if you died right now you wouldn't be spared from experience because you won't exist anymore - and there will be brains doing consciousness at that point in time. Which means that experience is unavoidable, because only experience is what's experienced. You cannot have a non-experience.
"Every child that is not produced is a child that is spared all the suffering of a life" How can u say " IS a child that IS" "is" = verb to be How can u use verb to be on a non-being? That's logically wrong, from a logical perspective i see several contradictions with antinatalism...
That has to do with the flaws of english not the argument. Fine the rephrasing game it is: Every human that isn't produced results in 1 less human to suffer. If u produce a human u are the cause for its suffering. simple.
True. There are only the experiences that are being done by living brains. There are no black voids that people come out of in order to "come into existence". He imagines a state of non-existence that somehow allows the non-existent person or animal to enjoy non-experience, or _an experience of no experience_ ... *Right now, there are only the experiences that there are* there are no "unborn children" currently in some sort of state of deprivation from the experiences that are occuring right now. The only what to block other experience, is to be born and have your own experience... Otherwise, if you hadn't been born, then instead of "your" experience right now, it'd simply be one of the experiences that _are_ occuring right now... This makes Benatar's Antinatalism futile. If you hadn't been born, there's still experience occuring - it's being done by other brains. Imagine this brain is you, and you're all alone in the universe. I'll put lines above and below to represent the universe: ______________________________________________ 🧠 ______________________________________________ Now imagine you die. So there's no brain doing consciousness/experience: ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ But then, a few years later (or longer) a completely different and new brain comes to exist somewhere else in the universe: ______________________________________________ 🧠 ______________________________________________ So now that's the _only_ experience/consciousness that's occuring. You're not in a state of deprivation being spared from the only experience there is. You don't exist at all. There's only that living brain and the consciousness it's doing. You didn't go into that new brain - it's a simple matter of there being experience after the first experience ended. So the second experience came after the first. So if you died right now you wouldn't be spared from experience because you won't exist anymore - and there will be brains doing consciousness at that point in time. Which means that experience is unavoidable, because only experience is what's experienced. You cannot have a non-experience.
@@naturalisted1714 The problem with those people is with the sentence you mentioned "come into existence", they do not see that coming into existence is itself a state or experience meaning that the identity of the person is already present (that is more clear when they say "he is not suffering if doesn't exist"), but any state or experience can not be achieved if not existing necessarily, you can not experience or be in a state if you are not. Look how ridiculous this sentence is : you can not experience if you are not. This sounds like a stupid loop, and of course it will because when considering any starting point of anything outside existence, every sentence we try to say about it will be meaningless. Concerning identity, that is used to distinguish the thing for all other *already existing things*, therefore there is no "he is not suffering if not existing", because identity requires existence, and a non existing identity is like saying : he is not being. This sentence is obviously meaningless, how can any non-existing operate any verb or action? How can we he occupy any state? It can't be, because he is not "he" yet, therfore any verb is impossible to be assigned to the subject. Again, the reason for this is forgetting that when talking about a human we must assume its existence. The is no non existing humans. Finally, there is no one in the non-existing world, there is no one there to fear his suffering. (I'm using the term "there" just for clarification while knowing that the sentence is contradictory at first but that's how antinatalism talk, the second thing to keep in mind is when saying "there" we mean space, and space as we all know is a property of the *existeng* world). Conclusion : Never speak seriously about non existing, it's just a soup of contradictions, and this is what antinatalism all about. Small note about the subject of identity, you can not also say "he" talking about non-existing because the subject "he" is by definition the one who literally practice a verb, a verb means at least a submission to time which is also a property of the physical existing world. And again, as they say all the ways leads to Rome, we are in the same conclusion, we can not talk about a non existing being.
