I can't guarantee my safety when I go driving. But I can do a lot of things to influence it, minimise risks and so on. Life is a relentless series of gambles. I don't see how what you're saying is supposed to convince anyone of anything.
@@pseudonymousbeing987 Well you are making that choice for yourself plus you somewhat know the risks that you are taking, not really the same for having a kid right? Accurate analogy would be more like you are forcing somebody else to drive and they also dont know the risks.
Imagine you are physically and mentally healthy and you are financially secured and 90% chances you would be same and improve in your upcoming years ,That gives a sense of security to Bring someone and give them Good upbringing. Times where you dont Have to Over work to provide for your kids and you can spend plenty of time with them keeping track of their physical and mental health .Good upbringing could make one enable to get success in their life . Worst case scenario if he suffers any health issue and fail to work ,You still got his back because you been financially strong and you can still feed your kid ! Issue Nowdays is most people are failure and unhappy individuals decide to become parents in hope to be happy but majority fail miserably. Too many reasons behind it including Lack of Assesment and Long term Planning ‘ .
@@JDog2656A Ideal, Semi-Paradisiacal world requires a Ideal Number of People and Strict Guidelines to adhere to. Eugenics, Technology, Civilization Restraints…etc. You would exist in a State of both Progress & Stagnation. The fact that these Homes exist means this is a Very Bad thing.
I used to think this was a solution but adoption is neither that simple nor ethical. It's pretty much always been terrible actually Foster parenting is more ethical, go with that
"In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and has been widely regarded as a bad move." ~ Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
I swear, if I ever find out who did that, I will kick them in the balls and/or ovaries and/or nearest thing such a being would have to genitalia, and then make them clean up the mess they made.
I will never have have children. I can't risk them turning out like me, I wouldn't wish this life upon my worst enemy. It's not that I'm terrible, it's just the world and society sucks at utilizing people like me, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.
Our circumstances are probably different but I relate heavily to the sentiment. My existence feels isolating most of the time. I wish you well, stranger.
ElevatorMan5482 ElevExperiencing Productions to add to that, it's also very sad that people who do not desire to have offspring are looked at as super strange. It's baffling to me that such a large majority of people automatically want to make and raise more humans, and that it's so confusing to them when someone does not.
Antinatalism is the only philosophy that makes sense to me. My great thanks to David Benatar for explaining my frustration and confusion with existence all this years.
The same here. It validates the suffering that so many people experience rather than "it's up to you " and "life what you make of it" tactless attitude..
I'm a little bit surprised that you haven't touched the topic of consent in this regard. Namely, the fact that there is no consent from a new individual for being born, no chance to weigh pros and cons of existing and make an informed choice. I think this is an important issue to consider within this ethical discussion. Nevertheless, great video, thank you!
Well, you are free to remove your consent to existence at any point, so not being able to ask a human egg if it wants to be fertilized doesn't weigh as heavily IMHO. OTOH it's really hard to ask non-existent people if it was ok to not have created them.
But then its like, there is absolutely no way to get consent from a non-person. We are basically asking, do people who don't exist have rights? Are they autonomous? And I don't think we want to say yes to that.
"it's really hard to ask" is a potential excuse for a lot of immoral stuff. It's really hard to ask a drunkenly unconscious person to give you all their money, but it doesn't suddenly become okay to take their money. To be honest, I don't think this reason is enough to leave consent out of the conversation. Maybe there is such a reason, but this is not one.
Odinokov Well, in the case of a drunkenly unconscious person, there actually is a very easy solution in case you have serious doubt about their willingness to part with their money: wait until they sober up and wake up. Then ask them. In the case of for example comatose people or unconscious people who are in urgent need of treatment there is no easy way, so things become complicated. Same with children: no easy way but a decision has to be made nonetheless. You seem to argue that not producing a child is somehow a safer, more warranted choice. That's simply false. You can't ask an egg if it wants to be fertilized, so it can neither consent to being fertilized nor to _not_ being fertilized. Like I said, if anything, not producing a particular human being is a decision you can never undo. Producing a human being is something that person can easily undo at their own leisure. Just don't throw yourself in front of a train because that's a dick's way to go.
My mom told me(im 38 and she 63) that I “cannot” use the “your created me so my life is your fault” anymore bc im an adult. I have mental illness and have problems integrating in our society. She is very Christian. Im a non believer. I dont know what to do. I almost always just want to die. I want to goto sleep and not wake up. I WANT to kill myself but I know this will hurt some people and maybe animals.. My dogs, they wont get “loved” like I love them if I were dead. Being able to understand and accept this philosophy... I feel blessed but absurdly cursed at the same time. Idk what to do anymore, man. I just dont know
Bro I am in the same situation. Mental illness with a difficult mother who refuses to take any accountability for hers and my no good dad option to have me while not even being parents anyway. If I never have exist then I would of never suffered its that simple it's a game to these breeders they think they can just drop you once your "18" like they didn't force you to live.
even if we can guarantee any of that, we cannot just assume that person will like or enjoy being here. that is another assumption pro-natalist love. they just repeat the mantra: life is wonderful and beautiful.
@The Naughty Police Well, I, personally, would rather exist as I am than not exist at all. while I cannot know for certain, I assume any children I might have would also rather exist than not.
@@bennpenn5105 Then be ready to provide for them even when they are grown ups! You bring them into the world, children don’t owe you nothing but you do.
I very much agree with that having children _is_ wrong. We should take care of the ones who already exists, the ones who have been abandoned, the ones who never asked to be brought to this world, but were dumped by the ones who brought them here. They deserve a loving family more than something that doesn't even exist yet. Also parenthood is super glorified, and most parents are miserable but do not feel allowed to say anything about it because parenthood is supposed to be an automatic ~"blessing"~
Your last bit is exactly why your first bit will never be the popular thing to do - everyone wants their mini mes and refuses to admit they are wrong for forcing more trauma victims to be into existence.
"a view that your people should achieve as much as humanly possible" Ah, nice to see Social Darwinism or views similar enough to it are alive & well. If the ingredient to _your_ _people_ stroking their collective egos successfully (that's all this _glory_ talk boils down to) is the involuntary suffering of the out-group, is there any limit on that suffering that would see the out-group's interests start being prioritized ahead? Any point at which you'd be tempted to trade-off some marginal benefit to the in-group in order to, say, prevent The Brazen Bull effect occurring to the out-group? Or is this egoic moral myopia non-negotiable across all circumstances? If the in-group is defined through characterological criteria like "any individual who largely shares my values, ethics, interests, hobbies, sense of humor, artistic taste, etc..." as opposed to generic ethnic or consanguineous criteria, you'd have half an argument, insofar as those _specific_ features of the in-group entail quality-control, while those of the out-group promote ignorance or suffering or some other negative trait.
It is. It's actually one of the most selfish things you can ever do as there is absolutely no selfless reason to breed.. It's an entirely self-serving act for those who have children that only benefits those who do the breeding and not for the person who has existence forced on them.
That argument makes no sense. Nothing has no characteristics on which it can be judged for or compared to. So it is impossible for nothing to be better than something bad.
I'm 23 and this is kind of a more sophisticated argument for why I don't want children. Because it's another mouth to feed. But obviously Benatar went beyond that simplification...
"Absence of pain"... this phrase (or belief) implies there's someone appreciating this absence of pain, or that there *is* an absence of pain that's occuring somewhere. Where is this so-called "absence of pain" he speaks of occuring? Can he point to it? For who is this absence of pain occuring? There are only the consciousnesses/experiences that exist... The ones that are currently occuring... We didn't exist in some sort of deprivation state before being born/conceived. One doesn't get to appreciate their own lack of existence... It's completely absurd and illogical. It's no different than believing that people and animals that died are _resting in peace_ ... Again: there are only the experiences there are-that are currently being done by living brains (as consciousness is a function of living brains). I can't believe this illogic is gaining so much traction.
Nice to see the idea of antinatalism revised in such a cogent way. It was quite a hot topic on RU-vid a few years ago and, to be frank, produced more heat than light, so your more measured approach is one I find really welcome. One thing that emerged from previous discussions is the notion that we are all, to some extent, antinalists, inasmuch as we can probably all think of situations in which bringing a child into the world is probably a bad idea (e.g. when they have a congenital disease, when the circumstances of their upbringing is likely to be deeply unpleasant etc). More rigorous antinatalists such as Benatar simply systematise the idea, suggesting that all procreation entails putting offspring into potentially harmful situations. I believe there have even been legal cases brought against parents by their children who argue that, by being 'non-consensually brought into existence', they have been put deliberately into harm's way. (Although I'm pretty sure none of these have been successful). The Benatar material you introduce is interesting, and as you point out has been critiqued, but I'd be interested in your take on this from a Kantian perspective. When we bring children into the world are we treating them simply as ends, as providers of the satisfactions of parenthood, and disregarding their (potential) agency?
Worldviews aren't heritable. If they were, it would've been impossible for negative views on procreation to have ever sprung up in the first place. This view has only gained more currency in our digital age where information & alternative views are at our fingertips, and where parents can't keep their children indoctrinated as easily as was the case in eras passed. Allow for open inquiry, minimize the social taboos around oppositional views on this topic, and you'll find the household indoctrination factor overridden more & more.
If philosophy leads to infertility, then eventually minds prone to philosophy will phase out of existence' This is also true of non-philisophical thinkers..
I really enjoyed this video. "Is it ethical to have children?" Is a question that my dad and I often discuss since he knows that I don't want children. My biggest reasons for not wanting kids are mostly environmental and financial, but this suffering perspective is one I've never thought of. I found it very fascinating. So glad you're able to continue making thoughtful videos like these. Much love from California.
I'm glad that you have a parent who accepts the fact that you don't want children and will actually discuss it with you. Most of us don't, and I guess it shouldn't be shocking since they had kids so of course they're going to defend having children, but it's nice that you have a parent with an open mind who takes your views into consideration. I wish mine did.
@@ferencgazdag1406 They won't need them if you don't have them. But I guess you get a kick out of watching people struggle to survive don't you? Power hungry sadism ey?
I did not make the choice of being born, my parents did this out of selfish reasons, they wanted an little baby to cuddle and so fully aware they convicted there own children to sure suffering and a guaranteed dead sentence . Breeding is legalised cruelty and murder on your own offspring .
"How can I bring a child into such a terrible world" People say that all the time in movies- right before they go ahead and have a kid. same difference
I'm kind of anti-natalist because I know what a pain life is and I do not wish it upon anyone else. And also because humans seriously damage the planet and all life on it.
I'm not going to kill myself because I am scared of the pain that I will cause others if I pass away. The suicide itself can be painful and scary, so I'd rather not. (I have attempted suicide before but I feel better now.)
because killing one's self is very difficult to do. There are a lot of cognitive mechanisms preventing that action. Like hope. However wanting to not exist but not wanting to die are strangely different feelings and are a kind of suffering too. Compare it to sleeping vs death. One may love sleeping, be totally fine with sleeping 15hrs a day or even with being in a coma but be completely against dying.
Best decision me and my partner have made. Some people don't know how much hard work it is to raise a child and how much attention a child needs. I already am busy with looking after my aging mother, she had me later in life and she's getting more dependent on me.
even before the child is born, the parents keep talking about what they want them to be and what kind of life should they have. that doesn't sound like love or selfless at all to me. it's like constructing a character in video games except that it's not a game.
I'm glad you made this video. I am for the most part against reproduction and have been sterilized, and sometimes I feel as though my views must seem deranged. But, like anyone, I hold that view because I think it is logically and morally sound. You do receive the "what if your parents had never made you?" argument, and it's like...??? So what if they hadn't? I wouldn't be here to care about it. If I was never born I could not possibly regret not having been born. & I am completely willing to accept every counterargument onto my own person. "If creating new lives is wasteful, then your life must be wasteful too." Yup. As an American in this day and age I take up more resources than I have a right to and contribute very little, if anything. "So because I could pass on physical/mental illness I shouldn't reproduce?" It was passed on to me and made me miserable, and is one of many reasons I won't be reproducing in turn. "If we should take care of the lives we already have instead of making new ones, maybe your parents should have adopted instead." Well hey, there's an idea!
you aren't deranged, that's just a bullshit-word conformists use to shame anybody unlike themselves. You would be "deranged" if you wanted to have a kid just to abuse or ignore it, like breeders do.
Thank you! I’ve always wanted kids when I was growing up. I thought it was a thing that’s necessary for happiness, as many people do it. I wanted to have kids because of the happiness it would bring me, that it was a fulfilling life. I know now that it is not fulfilling bringing a child into this world but only glorified selfishness. Largely I spent my life not worrying about it because kids were a long way off, along the way I was actually forced to think about it as I came out as transgender at 15 and obviously wanted hormones. Yea, it was risky to start testosterone blockers and estrogen without doing anything about my future procreation. I don’t ever regret it though. I learned how the future generations don’t have to follow any sort of traditions, how my life is just filled with pain, and other people’s life is filled with pain that they have no control over. Humanity’s future is bleak, we can not procreate without first fixing the world’s problems. High birth rate is always not going to solve the world’s problems, but make new ones. I’m proud of being sterile!
Lonaj Gamer idk I’m happy asl, and all the suffering makes the pleasure worth while. Also, someone can’t just not exist, antinatalist or not, life is inevitable
I have to tell you about what happened to me when I was suffering from ovarian cysts and just wanted to get over with these ovaries that were causing me so much pain. When I was 31 years old, I grew an ovarian cyst(s) that took over all the space in my abdomen. I couldn't breathe or anything. They asked me many times if I wanted to have children and I have never wanted children since I was a little girl. I gave them several reasons why I didn't want to have children (genetic disorders. autism. ecology, no desire for children, age [I was 31], no money to support children, and several other considerations). I wanted them to take out my ovaries because they were already having problems and causing me an excessive amount of pain and suffering. Instead, I woke up from my surgery to remove the ovarian cysts to find that both my ovaries were intact. It's been several years since then and I've suffered an immense amount because they wanted to make sure, as a female in her 30s, that I should be able to have kids. If I wanted to have fucking kids, I would have had them in my 20s. I know I don't want them. I think some people should have kids, but not all of us should. If you are intelligent and don't have any serious genetic diseases that you know of and can provide a good home for a family, then by all means please have children. If you are going to be annoyed by the children that you have, put them up for adoption. But if you are totally messed up like I am, it's probably better not to have any. Humanity will survive without our contribution to the species.
Right. What about the many, many people who consider life to be a good thing ? I, myself, am not very happy right now. I'm lonely, sad and frustrated by pretty much all that surrounds me. Yet I'm glad to be alive, because every now and then I stumble upon something that brings such pleasure to me, I think to myself "Im glad to be alive". My reasoning is pretty much the opposite of Benatar's reasoning. He says (from what I understood) that if there is pain, no matter how small, then all the pleasure is not worth living, a life is only as good as it's worst moments. I, on the other hand, believe that if there is a sufficient amount of pleasure to be had, to cope with all the pain inherent to life, then yes, life is worth living, and I'm glad to be alive. Finally, I think it was Epicurus who, when confronted about the pains of life and the pointlessness of having been created, as would say those who claim that life is not worth living and that all would be better off never being born in the first place, replied: "If non existence is a better state to be in than existence, why do these people keep on living ?"
I'd rather you didn't insinuate those who enjoy life are burdened with a mental disorder such as Stockholm syndrome. People have a variety of reasons for wanting to stay alive, not the least of which is sheer genetic bias. You contain genetic information that has survived since the beginning of humanity, albeit with a few mutations and modifications, and it didn't get there by accident. Those billions of humans before you had some reason to stay alive, at least long enough to have children. Obviously I can't predict what would happen given the situation, but if I were forced to bet I'd say you'd be a lot less ready to 'off yourself' should the opportunity actually arise. Maybe I'm wrong, but since you contain functioning human DNA, statistically I should be correct.
xzonia1 I wasn't taking offence. It's your opinion, if that's actually how you feel, I can't argue with you. Just furthering the discussion, I hope I didn't come across as offended anyway.
You had said "Right. What about the many, many people who consider life to be a good thing?" And the Stockholm Syndrome comment was my answer to that point. Glad to know you weren't offended! I was just trying to answer your points. Is there a justification to having children knowing that they won't all be glad to be alive? Is it right to have kids when you've done no harm to refrain, but might do great harm by choosing to do so? And yes, suicide isn't an easy thing to do, and most people aren't ready to do it... but many people do it every year, so you really can't assume one wouldn't do it if the opportunity arises.
Is there actually any valid justification for bringing a conscious human being unsolicited into existence while it is sure that this innocent child by birth is condemned to death. Furthermore I like to add that all breeders know full well that every new mortal will have to endure suffering in its life no matter how short lived that life may be and jet they push their desire forward and taking the risk (a gamble rather) - not for themselves but on behalf of someone else who has no saying in it - on a possible horrible existence. This is legalised capital criminal behaviour to say at least......
You presuppose there is something wrong with death and the end of life. I disagree. And "breeders"? This is really dehumanizing terminology. Where is all this hate coming from? I am sorry you suffered so much and that despite the suffering you were not able to get past it.
Hello Catvideis, glorifying death and the ending of life is what mortalists do, so I'm not surprised by your confession. How can someone really experience enjoyment I ask myself when you know all the grief and pain there is ? When I'm start laughing I start to feel guilty.....a pointless agony is likely a better description of life, at least the life of someone with a flilantropic attitude . After all, no good deed rests unpunished. To fully enjoy life one has to be totally unscrupulous, non empathetic and super egoistic of character. For such people life is one big roller coaster of joy, unrestrained pleasure and ecstasy. Never the less also for these kind of people there is no garantee, derailing of the roller coaster is not excluded and it is a certainty that the roller coaster ends up in station terminus to.......because one can only live in the moment, the last conscious moment is determinative to conclude what life is.....all the last moments of other people I've witnessed where full of suffer, pain and grief, therefore life is suffering..... that's why I say " it's better never to have been"
It was before my birth that I had no need for my birth. My mother and my father, apparently they were the ones who had a need for my birth. Thanks mom, thanks dad. (Laughing)
That's acknowledging something both a lot of antinatalists and vegans forget: Everything happens because of a preceding cause. "Needless" can never accurately describe an action by any sentient being.
I am strongly considering a vasectomy for these very reasons + the environmentalist angle, but I'd love to have a family with adopted and/or step-children.
I so desperately want to adopt a child (Now do I have the mental stamina to actually parent a kid. Idk we are still trying to figure that out). Any reason to bring in my own biological child into this world is pretty vain and already sets a terrible foundation. While my motivation for adopt is mainly centered around helping the kids, and born out of the desire to help the community.
The problem with adopting kids and paying those huge sums to those agencies is that the agencies have human puppy mills in third world countries where they breed humans for that purpose.
I highly recommend adopting a cat from a shelter instead of a human. Do Not adopt dogs if your religion slanders dogs. That would be horrible for the dogs to live outside and not be allowed in the house with the family. Dogs are social beings same as humans they deserve love.
"Non-existence is not a state that everyone can be in" Yeah, tell that to my girlfriend, who lives in Canada, I swear, she's real, not made-up, and we are totally doing it
I often talk about it too but I just get weird looks from my mom but I still often talk to my parents about philosophy and maybe some classmates or any relatives or people I know or am close with i guess
Some people are lucky; Some people are not. Some people are happy; Some people are not. Some people are successful; Some people are not. Some people live; Some people die. On the grand scheme of everything in this vast universe & existence, Life is random. And we are just nothing more than mere insignificant specks of dust in this indifferent universe.
It might also be interesting to look at 'Better Never To Have Been Believed' by Campbell Brown (if you haven't already done so). In it he argues for an 'asymmetry of obligation', mirroring Benatar's asymmetry, but focused on parental obligations. He asks the following: If a set of potential parents knew with absolute certainty that their offspring would have a life only of unending pleasure, would they have an obligation to produce said offspring? Most folk would say no No. On the other hand, if another set of potential parents were informed that their progeny were guaranteed a life of pain and suffering would they have an obligation to refrain from bringing that person into existence? Intuitively most people would answer in the affirmative. Edited: 'a life only of unending pleasure' substituted for 'an entirely pain-free life.
I think the more moral thing to do in this world is to adopt a child rather than to bring a life into this fucked up life out of non existence. It's true that along with all the pain and suffering human existence brings it also brings some happiness and pleasure. However I don't feel that I have any right to make that decision for someone.
I have never done this as a child but as an adult sometimes I wake up at 3AM in horror knowing that one day we will all be completely gone as if we never existed. How could I put those anxieties onto a new human being. It really is a horrible, daunting feeling.
Em A. I understand your fears but personally death isn’t something we should even be afraid of-something the stoics like to hammer. I don’t identify with antinatalism but am sympathetic to its ideas. I believe teaching children that death should not be feared is something society must change
I'll save people some watching. Yes, breeding is always ethically prolematic, very irrational and a beyond narcassistic act only done for the sake of animal husbandry. It is a behavior that both should and ought to always be avoided neither is it a commendable one either.
@@pavelthefabulous5675 That's called stopping the curse and not spreading it to another unknowing and innocent being, fuckwit. It's the opposite of being a egoistical greedy bastard. But i get that it's hard for you to imagine, with that mindset of yours.
This comment section is needlessly edgy. Don't have them for frivolous reasons, have them when you're ready for the responsibility and if that's too hard for you or you don't believe in it, don't.
we are talking about another human being here, not about new furniture or a new fridge. people just talk about having children like getting a new pair a shoes. by they way, there are no, no frivoulus reasons to force someone to come here. there fixed!
@@Billy-rr7re I'm not sure what you're implying by saying there are no frivolous reasons for having kids straight after admitting that people treat them like furniture. Also thanks? Your tone sounds like you made a point but you've just restated one I made.
@Josip Čuljak Sure. Can I also say that snowflake is such a tired cliche at this stage that it somewhat undermines your point. I'm happy to rebutt arguments if I disagree with them but I'm not tarring all who oppose me with the same banal brush.
***** That sort of ignores everything else about the argument. We can imagine a "hypothetical person". This rebuttal would suggest that a person being created by an evil scientist who would only suffer for years and years would not have been better off not being created.
+Gage Baumgard 'This rebuttal would suggest that a person being created by an evil scientist who would only suffer for years and years would not have been better off not being created.' No, it would suggest that such a comparison is completely meaningless, which is absolutely right.
well, people with high spiritual and mental development, such as buddha, jesus, almost all gurus and sages didn't have children; at least after they become enlightened. so, I think having children is a sign of recklessness and low-awareness. responsible, mature people with a wholesome state of mind don't procreate, not even by mistake. it's clear that no one had a choice to be born or not; in a way, having children is kind of a selfish and violent behavior, often caused by the inability to control ones instincts and fears. in other words, low-awareness and unwholesome state of mind.
That rebuttal is missing the point. A potential person is different from a non-existent person. Take this analogy from physics: Potential energy is not the same as the absence of energy. In the context of antinatalism, the potential person will either suffer or they will not. There is no continued non-existence without a choice, antinatalism only exists at a crossroads.
great video on a fascinating topic. to me Benatar's argument sounds a lot like loss aversion fallacy. I agree with his point that lack of pleasure is not inherently bad, but it sounds like his theory has to go one further and argue that pleasure in any quantity is not actually good, or at least not good in the way that suffering is bad. Without taking the utilitarian position that x amount of pleasure cancels out x amount of suffering, I think you can argue that creating a person who will experience a lot of pleasure is adding good to the hypothetical empty room even if it doesn't outweigh or is even really comparable to the bad introduced by the person's suffering. If we don't want to make it a utility function, we might say you have simultaneously done harm and good, and just as the good doesn't cancel out the harm, neither does the harm negate the good, if that makes any sense? to go back to the old Shakespearean cliche, losing someone you loved is unequivocally bad, and is in no way diminished by having loved them, but that doesn't mean it would be better to stay at a net zero position by never having loved at all (sorry for getting a bit sappy there)
my personal utility function (based on experience and intuition, not actual philosophers or anything) values pleasure only when it comes without suffering at all, so that pleasure can never cancel suffering, but any amount of suffering always overrides pleasure. That seems right to me. I think that may be technically two functions, where the pleasure function is only considered in cases where the suffering function is not involved.
The way you described "the asymmetry between pleasure and pain" seemed like we assumed the axiom "the absence of pain is good while the absence of pleasure is not bad" then proceeded to confirm it by offer examples, each of which tacitly assumed the axioms in the first place.
No matter how "good" all lives inevitably end up with deterioration of the body and mind - and one farewell to another as everyone we know drop off dead and sick around us.
We've hit the point of no return in climate change. I don't want to willingly inflict children and my descendants with having to suffer through that nightmarish reality.
We haven’t reached the point of no return yet, but given just how greedy the corporations are and just how corrupt the governments are, there isn’t really *anything* that anyone can do before it’s too late. That’s why I spend my time on things that make me have fun and engage my thinky bits, because doing anything else would make me fall down the dark pit of depression... again...
This whole "potential exister" point is irrelevant to the point that avoiding FUTURE suffering is important regardless if there is no one to suffer prior or who cares about it prior (the reason we are concerned about things such as the environment 500 years from now when no-one that currently exists will be around), where-as creating future pleasure is not a benefit if there is no one around that wants, needs, or desires it. This is because one is a preventative measure, which is about preventing a future negative state, and the other is a creative measure, about creating a future positive state. The prevention of a value-er is still important even if the creation of a value-er is not. If you want to play the "it's only potential existence" game you have to do so for all far future ethical considerations (and brush them to the side as easily). In regards to value-asymmetry from a state where there is no value-er...this is why it would be an ethical duty not to create clones that will suffer horribly for a week and die a terrible death, where-as it would NOT be an ethical duty to create clones that will be in bliss for a week and die happily and painlessly after the week. In regards to comparisons, if we wanted to, we actually CAN compare the state in which matter and energy form a creature who will suffer, and the same matter and energy not forming a creature who will suffer. We don't have to go into ideas about "nothingness" if we are to be entirely technical (which asserting ideas about "nothingness" being compared to "somethingness" is a game that is played).
I don't think our species should be extinct, but it should stop reproducing for a while. If we reduce our population significantly, we could deal with alternatives to plastics and wood, for example, and by a small number of people the production of harmful things would be severely reduced. We should stay at 2 billion in order to eliminate most of the hunger and suffering in the world, utilitarianism, not anti-natalism. When there are fewer of us, we will be easier to control, and we will have a 10x greater chance of being an organized, planetary society devoid of most of the evil (all of which is impossible to dispose of). Sorry for my English
P1) we have a duty not to do an act that leads to unjustified hard suffering, while we have no duty to do an action that leads to well-being. P2) creating hard suffering can't be justified by creating/maximizing any amount of well-being. P3) preventing any amount of well-being is always justified by preventing hard suffering. P4) creating hard suffering is justified only when it prevents a much bigger hard suffering. P5) the act of procreation leads to create a person who Inevitably experiences hard suffering during the course of his life. It also leads to create a person who experiences well-being during the course of his life. But from (p1) we know that we have a duty not to do an act that leads to unjustified hard suffering, while we have no duty to do an act that leads to well-being. P6) Since procreation leads to unjustified hard suffering, we have a duty not to procreate. Although procreation leads to well-being, we have no duty to procreate. Conclusion: we have a duty not to procreate.
Aww, I was so dissapointed when I realized that the video was ending. I really think this topic lends itself to further analysis. I'm hoping for a part two! Or at the least, an extended discussion of the consequences of such a moral belief in the comment responses video.
It's totally immoral to have children. Why would anybody want to inflict the pain and misery this world has to offer on anyone. Life is basically one miserable bloody day after another. When someone says they are having a baby I cringe. I think the poor little sod don't know whats coming, but his parents do, so why do it?
@@Dan_1348 well yea. Africa, a very big part of Asia, some parts of South America, some parts of Europe and of course a lot of miserable people in more wealthy regions as well.
@@Dan_1348 true. Being rich doesn't instantly mean being happy and being poor (rarely) doesn't make you miserable but as they say "If you're depressed you'd much rather be crying in a ferrari than on a bike".
Went on that anti-natalists train a long time ago, now at 41 my views have only gotten worse. Instead of reproducing at such a rate we could invest those resources into making this world livable, to ending hunger and homelessness. But humans don't do that. A lot of those Breeders seem to have kids as a form of vengeance.
That is why when we are being born into this world, we cry. Because living in this world is just horrible. From very small child, if mother working, child go to childcare where most of the time you spend there, then pre-school you are force to learn, school again, have horrible parents, poor, bullied..in case not so lucky...you will face war..because i see the evil country really like to start a fire to provoke and spread bad news rather than find solution.
Alternatively, there people who don't live nihilistic and pathetic lives, think that there is more happiness than suffering in life and want to create more people to feel.
Yes, of course; I imagine that you would find no antinatalist at the wealthier end of society, while you would find the majority of AN in the labor class. Being a wage slave for a greedy pig is no fun.
Your non existence or America's? Because there is a simple solution to that: leave America and forget about its existence. It will forget about yours. You solve either problem with one move.
Someone who is willing to bring a child into this world is someone who is grossly underestimating the sheer magnitude of the existential trauma that he or she is forcing on another human being. No one can rationally justify forcing that trauma on another human being.
That is your perspective --> you won´t have offspring --> your genes and thoughts/outlook on life will cease to exist with you --> Other people who have a positive, life-affirming outlook will fill up the blank space you left in the gene pool with their offspring.
All you have to do is to provide a convincingly rational justification for two human beings forcing on another human being a measure of existential trauma that includes pain, fear, illness, and death (in which both of those two human beings have the option of not doing that). Short of providing that rational justification you can only be unconvincing.
@Electroencefalografista Your point is irrelevant. You and your genes will have sorted themselves out or been sorted out by nature due to their unfitness, you will have lost at the game of life and not be there while "we" (= just normal people) will continue to exist through our line of descent and have impact. It´s just self-purification by nature to have people like "anti-natalists" (wtf is that cr*p I´m still baffled by that) not multiply their unfit genes and negative/pessimistic perceptions of life (= mental illness).
I disagree. Here's my opinion, so feel free to wreck it with FACTS and LOGIC. Anti-natalism is one of the "final forms" of individualism. I think that if you believe in the advancement of the individual above all else, you would see that nonexistence is the safest and least painful state for each individual person. So in the modern Western context, anti-natalism makes perfect sense. But this is why our Western notion of individualism will fail. Humans are pack animals and originally existed for the good of their collective families and tribes, not themselves. The concepts of "individual rights" are still a great thing, but only because they give individuals the ability to provide for one another in relative peace and stability. Of course there is an imbalance between pain and pleasure. But happiness does not just come from simple pleasure. It also comes from genuine love and camaraderie, which can exist even during a painful time.
A non-existent being has no need for love (a chemical in your brain which had to be created to produce these chemicals) I don't see sentient beings suffering on Mars and I don't see anything on Mars complaining about non-existence
@@fetus1658 What happens to the last survivors of anti-natalism? Will they just be left behind to take care of themselves when the culturally collectivist nations take advantage of them and rob them of everything? When they're too old to shit alone, will they just have to sit around and decompose? Is the answer mass-suicide? You see, some people think that life is actually a net positive. But when people only think of themselves and decide that nonexistence is best for everyone, it denies happy people the ability to be happy. An aged, small population cannot work, cannot defend itself, and is doomed to die alone, surrounded by enemies, and deprived of basic dignities. You drag everybody down with you, even those who do not consent to nonexistence.
@A star No shit Sherlock, I don't want to spend the last weeks of my life shitting myself in a bed alone, slowly dehydrating and starving. I know I'm selfish, but am I wrong?
Pavel the Fabulous The sun will eventually die. Should the last generation of people suffer the end of life on Earth? The sun will enlarge and engulf Mercury and Venus. Earth will be unbearably hot, burning humans and other animals. Perhaps some microbes that are tolerant of extreme temperatures will survive. Either way, the last of us will end up suffering alone, whether we all commit suicide or continue breeding until the end of the sun.
@@abortedbaby1335 You don't know what the fate of humanity will be, and you don't even know whether it will or will not be mass-suffering, and you also assume that the suffering is not worth it. Maybe a gamma-ray burst kills us all in a microsecond, and maybe we're all sedated and hooked up to simulation, so we feel not a single thing. In the words of Nikita Khrushchev, "We will bury you." Translated, it means that we will outlast you, not that we literally bury you. Everyone who rejects your perversion of Western philosophy will ultimately conquer the last of the people who still cling onto it and have no sons to protect them. Maybe it will be really painful for the barbarians like me a million years down the line, when poor old Bob is the last man stuck on Earth and is engulfed by the Sun, but it's likely not as bad as Bob's distant ancestors being shot, raped, and left to bleed out, deprived of all dignity. I am not entirely against you being anti-natalist, as long as you are from a foreign country with many resources.
This is exactly what the mind philosopher Thomas Metzinger believe. He believes too that humans have an existential bias that will go away if we evolve enough.
While I have a personal problem with having children while there are thousands and thousands of already existing children in need of loving homes, I dont think we can really say that having children is necessarily morally wrong (though it might be in certain contexts) because there is no way of qualitatively comparing existence with nonexistence.
I also don't think suffering is always bad. Playing sports, martial arts, exercising and giving birth are all part of suffering that people tend to be proud of going through once they look back. I do martial arts and I suffer every time I roll or spar. Humans are meant to face challenges in life. We'd be bored and try to find reasons to complain if we had no real hardships to face. People who have everything handed to them and spoon fed are miserable. You're weak if you don't suffer.
@@vprez4925 Yeah, to me antinatalism boils down to some kind of pathological perfectionism. It doesn't really compare existence to nonexistence in the end, it compares existence as it is to some imagined perfect existence without any pain and then since that ideal can never be achieved, the conclusion is drawn that it's better to not have anything at all. I'd rather live an imperfect life than be a perfect corpse.
A lot of people didn’t make it to the end of the video and it shows. My heart goes out to antinatalists, most of y’all are DRENCHED in ideology and are in deep deep disillusionment with expectations set on you by a society made up of people who just go through the motions. Anti and pro natalists seem a lot less like champions of philosophy and more like people who have a lot more on their plate than just debating morality. Hope y’all get the help you need and don’t shut yourselves off from alternative worldviews.
Lol finally a rational comment. All these pro natalists and antinatalists engage in their moralistic screaming matches while I’m questioning whether morality or ethics even exist in the first place
While many are generally quick to condemn the sentencing of someone to death, you don't often see comparable condemnation of sentencing someone to life. This is especially pertinent under an economic system under which most parents cannot guarantee their own economic survival by themselves, and appending another life to theirs will further limit the use of their time, attention and financial resources. There are theories on investing that if you can live in a certain amount of money for a year, if you have such an amount invested that that yearly expense amount is 4% of the total, then you might not need to work anymore and are financially independent, having reached a point where your investments reached a critical mass that they can sufficiently self-perpetuate, at least during the curse of a human life. That's usually not a small amount (if, say, you need $1000 a month, that's $12k a year, so roughly a total of $300k invested, which is more than most people manage to save, accumulate or inherit). If that 4% can cover your own expenses and that of an offspring, then sure, go ahead an bring a kid to the world whom you can fully dedicate your attention to (although many a country's law will still make you keep your child under the care and evaluation of strangers for what amount to a vast portion of their formative years) - it will at least be one less layer of problems your family will have to deal with. Of course, then there's the whole issue about where those returns on investment are coming from and what they imply for the rest of the world... Then there's the matter of a world population that currently amounts to billions, and how much of that is basically considered expendable under the current economic system - every person added to the population will add to that potentially expendable pool of exploitable labor and consumers without the means to hold the providers of products and services accountable. in short, the more people there are, the less each individual might matter in the great scheme of things. In a way, it's as if you don't have the budget/influence to see life like the player of a business/civilization simulator, you risk being one of its interchangeable (fungible?) NPCs. At least that's my view nowadays. Not expecting to have kids, nor do I find my genes or qualities that important to the future of the world. Some ideas and concepts last longer than people, and if i can help prop up a few worthwhile ones that help with the common good, I'd say that's a positive balance.
We are also worse off being in relationships. How is this calculable if we don't get into a relationship? Simple, the feelings that are never had, are the feelings that never hurt. You have to expect to be hurt if you want to have a relationship with someone. Totally logical point of view.
There is no evidence that the human spirit or consciousness does or doesn't exist separate from and before or after birth and death. Meaning, we are assuming that consciousness is created by birth when it may already exist. It's a presumption and either is possible. Consciousness may even choose to be born.
I wish my parents didn’t have me. It’s extremely selfish to have children. A non existent void would of been better then this bullshit. Life isn’t worth the pain.
I know I'm very late hopping on the comment train, but I wanted to say thank you for making this video. I wasn't aware that anyone respectable was talking about this and I'm relieved to know I'm not crazy (or at least not alone) in thinking this way. I've thought about this issue a lot and arrived at the anti-natalist position, but from a more existentialist perspective. I find that I worry less about the possibility of pain (in fact a life without pain seems pretty monotonous and meaningless, but that's neither here nor there) than I do about responsibility. Simply existing entails so much responsibility (the flipside to Sartre's radical freedom) that we can't consent to before we come into being: our parents effectively lock us into a contract that it is at least socially unacceptable to back out of. I don't feel like I have the right to make that choice for another being, so I do not intend to have children. So am I crazy for thinking that the whole life cycle is kind of flawed? It reminds me of playing a video game: you play a bunch of hours, complete missions, etc. to unlock new content so that you can keep playing. The cycle only makes sense "in game" and if you accept that there is value in the pursuit. Is reproduction not the same? We work and we struggle and we fight to survive so that we can reproduce so that our descendants can work and struggle and fight. Am I crazy for thinking this is pointless? My therapists tell me I'm wrong but can't seem to tell me why, so I'm hoping you can.
There is a lot to say about it. Don't listen to therapists that more often than not choose to exploit you monetarily instead of actually helping. However simply because life is pointless doesn't make it not worthwhile. Think about a child playing a game. There is no other purpose to his action other than have fun. Such is life, in a sense, if you want to see it that way of course. Life can be viewed as both horrible and incredibly, and it's neither one or the other. It's what we make it out to be
I have finally found the explanation why I hated my parents for bringing me to this world. I always thought they had no right to do so. Now I know I am not alone!!! Thank you!
@@mwnl9096 So quality of life depends only on mindset. You are fucking braindead gtfo internet so no one ever needs to read any stupid nonsense shit you have to say.
I agree that not everyone feels the same. I have my problems. And I have found the joy in conquering them. Everyone is on a path to finding their happiness. For those who haven't found it, I hope and wish they do.
It's extremely cruel to have a child if you are not financially able to care for it comfortably. It's extremely cruel to have a child when you are already single, and planning on staying that way, because you're forcing that child to go without a second parent. In fact, it's damn cruel to have a child in this world at all right now, because this planet it fucked up. Spare your seed.
What I'm baffled by is that people still insist on breeding their own children when there are so many orphans that should be adopted. people breed for very selfish reasons and only for those reasons. Nobody brings a child into the world FOR the child. Almost always the reason for having a baby is to fulfill their own needs. I want a meaning in life. I want to be loved. I want to be like everyone else. I want to make my parents happy. I want that extra welfare check. Oops I don't know what happened. I have nothing else to do in this world. This is selfish.
People have kids because they think it's an automatic truth that they just should. At least my parents did. But they also got married because they thought it was an automatic should. So they did both those things with no real thought while they were very much not emotionally capable of doing either in an ethical way. So yeah. I do feel wronged. Trying to make the most of it now though. Just cuz the beginning sicked doesn't mean I can't make the middle and the end a bit brighter.
First, great point on how "better" presupposes a comparison, and yet, as you suggest, there is, for any 'non-existent person,' nothing to be compared to, and so the word "better" is a kind of cheat. Second, generally stated and all other things being equal, most people (religious or not) find the death of a young child (a five year old) to be more tragic, more harsh, less desirable or less preferable than the death of an older person (an 80 year old). This seems to be the fact, at least generally or categorically considered by most people. Most people do not think to themselves, "Always best to die as soon as possible because there is not much other than (or more than) suffering anyway." Until people find the death of a child less tragic and more desirable than the death of an old person, anti-natalism will be a serious uphill battle. Finally, agreed that those who decide to have children are making one of the most serious decisions one can make. There is perhaps no greater responsibility.,
Excuse me, isn´t the whole point of philosophy to re-think concepts widely agreed-upon and taken for granted? Referring to popular sentiment can hardly be taken as a serious argument in discussing ethics, I´m afraid.
This is such an odd comment, self-refuting in a strange way. That is, you seem to have a popular sentiment about what "the whole point of" philosophy is. Philosophy, to me, refers to making reasoned arguments and engaging in thought experiments to help us get clearer on our values. I did not take a survey and report on it.
The problem with your position is that you believe that it derives its strength from its being widespread. I, on the other hand, do not believe that it is at all relevant whether my idea of the function of philosophy is widespread or not. Let me give you an analogy. Evolutionism is a widespread idea, but that does not undermine it in any way according to what I said in my previous comment - but saying that evolutionism is true because it is widespread is a whole different matter. Hope this clears it up for you.
Literally nothing good happens without life. While many people suffer, and many others are fearful of a doomsday scenario, it's quite depressing to think there are so many people who think we should bring about the extinction of our species willingly by stopping to reproduce. We absolutely should be concerned about overpopulation, and encourage adoption, but to consider procreation as immoral is just irrational. I have to think that people think this because they are personally miserable and assume everyone else is miserable.
I was originally disappointed that no ethical arguments were made from a orphan standpoint or an environmental standpoint, especially considering the dire current state of affairs, but the video was very interesting nonetheless. The feminist argument about potential life not having rights is akin to Peter Singer's philosophy on abortion. Speaking of which, I would very much appreciate a Peter Singer video. In fact, one might argue that you are morally obligated to share some of his philosophies lol, but really. I suggest reading "Writings on an Ethical Life" and "The Life You Can Save." Also, can you link the father's rights and child support video if possible please? Thanks!
