Do you see women as tools to further your interests? Do you support the porn industry? Why won't you answer? Has one of your moral blind spots been exposed?
I see you are also deleting some of my comments. I wonder why there is no room for antinatalists to ask each other questions, to address social issues and question whether we have got everything right. It's a simple question: What are your thoughts on the sex industry? If you refuse to answer, I will assume you support it and are thus complicit in the eroticisation of violence and objectification/degradation of women, which is what porn is. If you want to object, then take the opportunity and provide a response.
In my mind, the responsible act would be to not have kids. Giving yourself a problem to solve that causes problems for a new person is not responsible. Having an "adventure" , which implies some sort of risk, at the expense of someone else is not responsible.
Doing the things one is "not ready" is what makes one grow into more responsibility. This generation is full of fear. It's not responsibility. It's fear and self-righteous "caution." HOWEVER, what is required is love and real selflessness. Most people are too selfish to end up being more responsible when they do have kids. Having kids makes one more responsible IF the person is actually interested in taking care of their child. It's nuanced but the two sides of this argument (yours and mine) sort of agree. Where one side is incorrect, the other is correct; and vice versa. It's not that people are being responsible, they are being selfish and afraid. Yet, that is why it may be good they're not having kids.
@@KoenigJaeger this is an interesting view. It gets my attention because I think of the selfish people who do have kids. They have them for social clout. The children are treated with about as much care as a photo prop.
@@skylinefever This is a great point...people in wealthier cultures who have kids just for heirs as well. It's impossible to know intent but it would be interesting to see the numbers on who doesn't have them out of fear/selfishness and who does have them for the same reason.
I had no idea who this J Peterson is so I googled him and found his daughter was "diagnosed with severe depression at age 10 and idiopathic hypersomnia at age 21". OBVIOUSLY her upbringing caused her to be severely depressed.. So why would anyone give him any credibility when he himself made his own daughter severely depressed?? I notice that the more a breeder preaches to the masses to breed more babies, the more corrupt and immoral they are.
Depression is a product of many different factors. You are poorly informed. That's why you haven't heard of JP, cause it's impossible to learn about depression today and not know who JP is.
His daughter had severe health issues as a child, among other things requiring both ankle joints to be replaced before she was out of high school. Mikhaila has her own social media presence and has spoken at length about her health problems and how she addressed them through her diet. How did you manage to conduct such one-sided "research"?
@@mariaradulovic3203 "It's impossible to learn about depression today and not know who JP is." This is post-modernism in a nutshell. You mean I could go to a library, learn how neuropsychiatric pathology is linked to the microbiome, immune dysfunction, inflammation, genetic inheritance, environmental pollution, physical injury, disability, social hostility, economic deprivation, poor childhood experienecs, injustice etc. but I wouldn't know anything about depression because I hadn't heard of JP? The guy who gets triggered by the word Marx, denounces Marxism, and even tried to have a debate on it without actually reading a word of Marx's serious academic work? Even if the comment is not well researched, it is better informed than JPs post that is being discussed in this video.
@@mariaradulovic3203Wow.. first part of your comment was spot on, but the second part is incredibly over-presumptuous, and speaks to your own biases more than anything related to being up and up on modern discourse (let alone science) regarding depression..
When he asks "Says who?" but the first line of the Instagram post description is "Research from 2021 by Jennifer Glass, professor of sociology at the University of Texas at Austin shows..."
I have never been able to wrap my head around the fact that so many antinatalists still rely on the existence of procreated humans. All antinatalists should live alone in the wild, because they don't want procreated humans to exist.
He stands up for traditional marriage and taking responsibility for yourself. A message that has been lacking and railed against young men since 2016 when he came on the scene. It’s not hard to see why a lot of people wanted to hear that in an age where men are viewing themselves as victims and that their lives and the lives of their future children are destined for doom and gloom. He didn’t just pop out of nowhere and it’s not like there wasn’t a demand for this kind of message.
Right on. I've read it said of him that "what's true in his work isn't new, and what's new in his work isn't true." His very few accurate takes are an exception and he's not accurate here.
I don't understand how humanity has gotten ourselves into this state of using other people for our(?) their(?) own pleasures / purposes, all while keeping straight faces
That is how societies were created. Everybody has their own role in society. You shouldn't live in a society when you disagree with using (relying on) other people for your own pleasures/purposes.
When humans can use and exploit animals for their own self interests, what makes you think they can't use children for their own benefits? All kind of cruelty is possible in a world there are people who exploit innocent animals.
Excellent video. Whenever I think of Jordan Peterson, which admittedly isn’t very often, I always remember what David Benatar said at the end of their CliffCentral debate in 2018: “If it’s my pessimism that needs to be tested or Jordan’s optimism, I hope that it’s my pessimism that’s tested. So what that means is that rather than the terrible things befalling him that would cure him of his view, I hope the good things befall me to try and cure me of mine.”
Peterson's a narcissist. He's taken his own battles with depression and substance abuse and transmuted them (in his own mind) into some epic quest straight from mythology. He sees all suffering in life as justified, because he personally views his own suffering as having some grand meaning. To be fair? I'm happy for him...in that he's found some meaning to life, however self-referential. But wishing one's own pain onto someone else - because MAYBE something of value will result - is the height of sociopathy. But what do I know? I'm just over here manifesting the spirit of Cain, because I haven't read enough Dostoevsky.
Jordan supports Israel, an apartheid state which is committing genocide against Palestinians. What more needs to be said about an individual like this.
I don’t think he’s ever heard of Tom Leykis. Even though he never admitted to it or realized it. I believe Tom Leykis was anti-Natalist. He was pro abortion, pro birth control and believed having kids would not make one happy. He preached this from late 90s to late 2000’s
I know you didn't talk about it, but since the word was mentioned, I was wondering if you could briefly share your thoughts on pornography, as an industry. I find nobody talks about it even thought it's an industry that causes so much suffering. Why do women have to be subject to objectification and degradation to satisfy male desires? Isn't true consent undermined if someone does this out of financial difficulty? How come so many are silent on a patriarchal industry like porn ? How should anti-natalists approach this?
@@skylinefever The financial exchange already violates consent. Nobody should be made to have sex with strangers just to survive, that's pressure, thus not true consent. Obviously, people like you want to use women as sexual objects to satisfy their urges, so your answer is quite conventional and dismissive of the thousands of women that are abused and degraded in the industry. It also doesn't take into account that many women in the industry are victims of childhood sex abuse.
it's ironic cause peterson lovese talking about how we shouldn't change laws (like with civil rights and the environment) and such even with good intentions because those changes MIGHT cause problems to someone, somewhere at some point. but this concern never EVER occurs to him even for a nanosecond when the issue is people making babies
While I’m not personally an anti-natalist, I’m definitely interested in the arguments you bring up! However, please don’t go out and specifically harass anyone who has/works with kids.
The so called 'study' talks about parents, not kids. So Dr. Peterson addresses the parents but you want him to talk about the kids. I mean....said who? Yes it's relevant. Who is behind this? A journalist or a renowned and cited academic? Dude, know what it takes to conduct a study first before you advise on how Dr. should have reacted.
That depends. What do you mean by "morally"? What do you mean by "bankrupt"? These are bloody important questions, bucko. No, I'm serious! You laugh and mock instead of giving me a counter-argument, but...hey! Where are you going!?
I would 100% consider myself an antinatalist but I still consider myself to be against abortion. That being said I’m pro medical aid in dying(euthanasia). What are your thoughts regarding abortion and medical aid in dying? Apologies if you’ve already covered this in one of your other videos.
i have a theory, tell me where i am wrong, if you look at the animal kingdom reproduction is one of many things they do, they don't look at it the way we do, in fact they dont look at it in any way, this thing 'looking at' is only exclusive to humans. One way to look at it is to think, well life is suffering and meaningless, why bring new life to this world and i don't know much philosophy of language but the statement "life is suffering and meaningless", what does it even mean? Can we reach to any solid conclusion about the meaning of this statement? Second thing is even if we voluntarily extinct ourselves how do we know that evolution won't bring us to back to this stage again where a consciousness ponders its own existence, will our job again be to extinct ourselves, we have made a lot of progress as a species and who knows where we are going, is it not just a matter of faith if you say its nowhere good and peterson says that its good.
So, if we want to have children, we are selfish now? Ask yourself, would you rather not to have been born? I guess your parents were utterly selfish to have brought you into this world? Shame on them! As for you, please do not have kids. That would truly be disastrous. Why? Because you have no idea what unconditional love is otherwise you could not have done this podcast.
@@LawrenceAnton I am not going to bother with another millennial who thinks he has everything figured it out. Get married, have kids and grow up from that endless adolescence. You will eventually understand.
@@House_Of_Cards_ I was reading your comment when my neighbor came over, and we read it together. He said that the comment changed his life and touched his heart. I then rented a projector and showed the comment in a big field. All my villagers watched it, and it changed their lives too. We are all so grateful.
@@House_Of_Cards_ lmao so u basically have no point so u resorted to belittling Lawrence. Btw do u even know why u equate "growing up" to "having kids"? Coz the power that be want you to make another worker for them, whats better than to have you, aka a stupid person pop out and raise those workers for them? Its not like you'll be able to raise someone smarter than the elites. Whats even better is to have you believe what u believe, then belittle the others so you can get everyone to make generations after generations of workers?
Having children is a means to EVERYONE’s end. That is an objective statement. Not controversial in the slightest. This video is the superfluous, ideological babble of pod people. 100% of kids are glad they were born.
Yeah, and then when for example people HERE tell you life isn't as worthy of living as u think, u just disregard them, say they are nihilistic and then say 100% kids are glad they were born. lmao blind are you? Its just logical that if u let / push / force EVERY damn person on earth reproduce, some kids will turn out not wanted, some not cared for, some exploited, some depressed, suicidal, have anger issues, some hungry, homeless, lonely, not supported etc etc. And apparently u think its the kids problem that they are not happy, and u just ignore them, and then keep your narrative of EVERYONE should have kids.
1. u know how to cure cancer? heart attack? depression? diabetes? Suffering of ALL kind? Sorry your kid might not get these if ur super lucky, but s/he will definitely die, and u know that, and u never gotten a "mom/dad go ahead create me I am ok with having to die" card from your kid 2. u know how to create a kid thats gonna be a guaranteed good to the world? u can guarantee the kids not gonna turn out to be a murderer, thief, dictator, drug dealer, bad influence, suicidal pessimistic person etc? If u cannot guarantee, ur just making the world worse for the rest of the existing people in our society
Because it doesn't matter how well off you are, suffering is a constant and no matter what your child will suffer, and all that suffering could be avoided if you just don't have them. As well as all the perceived good in life would be irrelevant because someone who doesn't exist does not need it. Someone who doesn't exist can not be deprived of joy or need joy, but can be saved from harm in an abstract sense. Also, all of this aside, you are using them as a means to an end. You are directly creating a being and putting them in harms way for your own satisfaction. That's just wrong. Some others may argue on the grounds of a lack of consent. I personally don't like the consent argument, I prefer the negative utilitarian and existentialist approach to antinatalism. Stuff in the vain of David Benatar, Schopenhaur, Zapffe, etc
go have a child, if antinatalists trouble you say free will is an illusion, also inspite of the suffering that could come, be courageous because courage is a virtue
Especially if ur very healthy you have more opportunity to learn about life being a trap, nature has made you like this and you might think these are the ideal circumstances for procreation, but it will all lead to death and suffering. It is good to be healthy for your well being, but don't see it as a reason to procreate.
