Imagine forcing someone into a gym and then to get out you have to go through a very dangerous corridor where people may stop you from exiting to put you in the gym's mental ward.
oh yeah, the classic, if you ask me i am ok so everything is ok in the world. everything is perfect. as long as i am ok, who cares if a minority, or half the population have to suffer. i am going to do what i was told to do.
@@MunchinYou-jy6km Agreed! It is completely understandable that most folks are thoughtless about procreation when natalism is Orthodox. It's just taxing to be unorthodox about something so fundamental. Empathy is crucial in all things.
The Bible is against human procreation in many places... 'For, behold, the days are coming, in which they shall say, Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.' Luke 23.29 'Man that is born of a woman is of few days and full of trouble. He comes forth like a flower, and is cut down: he flees also as a shadow, and continues not.' Job 14: 1,2 'Behold, I was shapen in wickedness: and in sin hath my mother conceived me.' Psalms, Chapter 51.5 'Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? Give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.' Hosea 9.14
@@agustinbernal9706 They (all the participants of the middle east conflict) should try Atheism first and then Antinatalism. It will take some time going from the meaning of life is killing others to the meaning of life is perpetual (also non violent such can be achieved in vr) hedonic bliss touted by their false prophets and gods as achievable only after death.
13:12 "he created you"...i always reply on that with; no, my parents created me, without my consent. thanks for sharing this video, and respect to Nimrod for doing this tour.
People do not create other people. If they did then they would be able to choose exactly how the baby will be, but that's not the case. The baby is forced to be whatever way that its type of genetics and its types of life experiences will program it to be throughout its life.
@@AnonymousWon-uu5yn That's like saying a doll-maker doesn't create the toy dolls, because the doll will only be like the materials and tools the maker had in use 😂😂😂
@@eric-jr2nf A doll maker doesn't create a doll, they only design the doll. If they created the doll then they would have created the atoms that the doll is made out of. And if someone was able to create a baby then they would be able to create the atoms that the baby is made out of and they would be able to choose everything about the baby, like what color of hair it will have, what gender it will be, how intelligent it will be, how tall it will be, how many arms and legs it will have. Everything about the baby would be able to be chosen if people had the ability to create babies. But they don't have that ability.
@@tubbyrainbow111 Thinking that there is a creator at all( which is already an ill-defined and poorly conceived/coherent concept) is a mark of one's hubris.
Think about a child which your parents never brought into existence that child didn't have any problems he or she is in nothingness where they don't need anything or have any any desires they are in the best state
some will cry if someone off himself. so what? we can make all good and justify it by saying, that is life, life is hard, deal with it. isn't that one way they justify procreation?. isn't that how they justify perpetuation of suffering?
People are so terrified about that because it incites major existential malaise in them. It really just comes down to one's own self interests as an animal with primal self-preservation as their core instinctual desire. As the antinatalist/promortalist Jiwoon Hwang wrote: “One naive pro-natalist assumption is that because death is a bad thing, procreation, which can be considered the antonym of death is a good thing, but the naive defect in that assumption is that it ignores the obvious fact that procreation is an essential (and the ultimate cause) of death”
With this religious couple, I would go from angle of "Do God give humans free will?, Do not creating new peoples to expose them to suffering could be in agreement with goodness of God? I'm atheist, so I'm not specialist in this, But i bet there is many antynatalistic arguments that could be taken from site of theist.
It's all fine and dandy until they realize that true libertarian free will is metaphysically impossible under any worldview, but especially ones that include an omniscient disembodied mind that has a plan for a specific collection of specks of dust inhabiting a slighter larger speck of dust within one of countless billions of galaxies that are scattered throughout a nigh infinite expanse of a virtually empty and completely brutal cosmos. I guess some have to go to great lengths to distract themselves within the meat-grinder we call reality.
Wow, way to blame a god for you creating people. She has nothing to do with it? Seriously? No responsibility whatsoever. And no. Reproduction is not the purpose of anyone's life. If it were, only future children would matter, with no personal purpose to ourselves.
“way to blame a god for you creating people” They always do that, as if they never made any decision or took any actions in the process. Also, even if God does tell humanity to breed, lets suppose its true, I see no reason why the kids should then be owned by any other human on this earth. Yet parents think they own their kids, therefore can spank, punish, force kids to pay parents, obey parents etc all they want, then they say shxt like God is love, therefore I love (my kids) etc. I wonder why God doesn't speak to us, maybe humanity'd take His every word and twist them to fit their own narratives if He does.
If I said that Russel's Teapot is the justification for why I committed mass genocide, people would think that I'm clinically insane. But when it comes to god beliefs, anything can be excused if my imaginary friend told me to do something( and such people also believe in free will, because of course they do.) Gosh, humanity is so pathetic.
They think sex feels good, and sex creates people, therefore we are designed to create people. In reality, sex just feels good, it continues to if you use protection. Reproduction may have pressured this adaptation, however, in first person experience, reproduction is a byproduct of the pleasure. Animals do not care about the procreation, they just seek pleasure.
@@zack49 Anything, any behavior that promotes reproductive fitness will be selected for. The same way as the primordial cell that once upon a time divided (ie. using the process of asexual reproduction cloning) the human multi cellular being expresses the same exact "desire" in the form of sexual reproductivity.
@@Firestorm12345678910 Nothing untrue about that. The mistake just happens when people mistake that "desire" for something morally valuable, and anything extrapolated to be unaligned with that morally-weighted tendency of life as evil or degenerate.
"God made the world for us" is such a bullshit argument, especially when you consider that the world "God created" wasn't even good enough for Humanity. Human ingenuity created the world humans love today. The world God created had humanity dying at an early age, filled with undrinkable water & predators that humans can't defend themselves from naturally. Everything that benefits humans today was created because the World "God" created for us wasn't enough.
I would add that even assuming that this is true, that is not an argument against antinatalism as what doesnt exist cannot be deprived of anything i.e., nothing is lost by humanity not coming into existence and experiencing a "world made for us" (whether by God or otherwise) By the way - the world is not made for us. The life system which arises from this world is more inefficient and murderous than anything humans have ever produced. francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/life-is-a-cancer-machine/ The only logical thing to do is to stop feeding the mechanism.
@@AnAntinatalistSpeaks I concur. Unfortunately, humanity will never voluntarily stop feeding the mechanism. I think the best compromise would be to allow people to have the right to a peaceful, humane exit via euthanasia. People shouldn't be labeled "mentally ill" and forced to do brutal things to themselves just to get out of here. You always hear natalists say things like "you can't have the good without the bad". If they acknowledge this then why can't they accept that you can't have people who love life and are happy to have been born without having people who hate life and wish they were never born?
"They can leave at any time." I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of parents would be deeply upset for the rest of their lives if any of their children did that.
Why should that matter? If your position is we shouldn't breed because life is hell and suffering, then a self exit seems perfectly logical. If I think the building is on fire, and everyone else loves living in the building on fire, while I hate it, then why should I not leave the building? Because I might upset the tenets that got me a place in the building to begin with?
@@juniper-ug3hs By the time someone realizes the building is on fire, which could be at any point in their life, they may have also brought other people besides their parents into their life, such as a spouse, friends, and children, and some people will endure the suffering to avoid inflicting suffering on others, including people that they voluntarily brought into their lives (unlike their parents). To some people, the thought of causing that suffering to someone else would be too much to bear. Also, a lot of suffering can happen to a person before they reach the age at which they would even consider that as an option or are driven by desperation to consider that as an option, and just because suffering is temporary doesn't void it entirely. It's not that every antinatalist thinks life is unbearable for themself or even the majority of people, just that there is the possibility, and not everyone is comfortable with bringing someone into existence in light of that possibility. So if what you're saying is why don't antinatalists just remove themselves, I don't think that was what the guy in the video was saying, and I don't know if that is entirely relevant to antinatalism. What I think he was saying was you can feel comfortable with bringing someone else into existence because "they can just leave" if they don't end up liking existence, but I personally don't. Antinatalists can even enjoy life while recognizing there are people that find it so unbearable they resort to removing themselves and not want to put someone else in that position. I do respect others' decisions, but different people are comfortable with different things.
@randomperson6017 that seems like a lot of cope to not follow the logical implication of your worldview. On one hand you acknowledge the meaningless indifference of the universe and suffering. So much that you think others shouldn't risk bringing the next generation into existence. But others shouldn't self exit for personal reasons, because they might bring suffering upon others, or they realized too late it was pointless? I would respect your worldview more if more of it's proponents actually leaned into the nihilism instead of tipping their toes in. Since most people don't wish they were never born, and don't see themselves as slaves (I'm not being hyperbolic, most antinatalists I read online winge and moan about being "slaves" in the best time to be alive). Wouldn't it make more sense to bring as many people into the world we can? And those that are antinatalists or struggle to cope with existence can self exit anytime they choose. Then, the rest of us who like the status quo of you know, evolution, can live out our worldviews as well.
@@juniper-ug3hs There is always the possibility of a lot of suffering in any life brought into existence. I agree it is a relatively low possibility and that most people enjoy life as a whole, and that is why I understand why many choose to have children, but I see the worst things that people are capable of doing and the accidents that can occur and to me any possibility at all is too high for me. People disagree about what level of risk is acceptable for a lot of things, and the risk someone is willing to take on for their self might be different from what risk they are willing to give to another person. Are you a parent? If your child killed themself would you be completely unbothered?
@randomperson6017 no I wouldn't be okay if my kids committed suicide. But if my kid was an antinatalist I would be highly concerned. Antinatalists tend at least in my experience to be incredibly risk averse, neurotic, and have poor mental health. After watching Nimrod, Lawrence Anton, etc. They seem to have poor mental health and do not have lives I would want. Antinatalism is not evolutionary fit IMO. And I think there will be plenty people who followed antinatalism when they were younger that will regret their choice when they are old and facing a future of dying alone on the floor. You can try to substitute friends, community, government programs, etc for family, but it is not the same. I've seen lots of people die and most who didn't have kids died alone. It's pretty bleak tbh.
I’m new to this antinatalist viewpoint. Been vegan for years (for the animals, nothing to do with health or environment. Just don’t think we have the right to torture other beings for no good reason). And I chose not to have kids because, I mean, just look at the state of civilisation… But I still can’t quite get my head round antinatalism yet. I guess I am just very use to viewing myself as the weirdo and feeling guilty for NOT having kids. I’ve never looked at it as the most responsible or ethical decision.
What can you do with such a short life span anyways? Live it up until you are 35 or save it up until 85 and then living it up in a retirement home with an unlimited supply of pills and a fancy gold lined bed pan that you worked hard to save up for. Meanwhile God and the Devil are laughing it up as immortals?
6:00 "My practical advice is not that you should kill yourself" Intuitively, this is clear to me, but actually I wonder how you can argue rationally against it. If you would be dead, you cannot feel bad about it and cannot miss life, assuming that there is no afterlife. Is the only reason against killing yourself that there are other persons who will miss you?
@@evasivestable Don't worry, i am not even close to it. I just meant it as a kind of thought experiment. Intuitively, i feel that life is worth living and you should make the best out of it. But i just wondered if there is some kind of logical paradox to argue for anti natalism but against suicide. A person cannot care about being dead, logically, because they do not exist then, but still want to continue living and fight for it. So if you argue you should not reproduce because life contains suffering and an unborn person cannot miss life, then you could actually with the same logic argue for suicide I think.
@@JakobRobert00 the specific argument you are talking about for antinatalism is through philosophical pessimism the idea that life is inherently negative yet most antinatalists don't really hold this position as it is almost objectively false. A better argument arises from the risk imposed on the life itself and to others, being succumbed to excess misery, depression and even suicide. Yes many people do value their lives and are anti-death but this view ignores the millions of people condemned to suffering and those who take their own lives having had no ultimate good purpose for their existence. To undergo such a risk is immoral as nothing can be guaranteed about how someone's life may turn out. You can still maintain a positive view on life in itself, be completely against death and be an antinatalist at the same time. As far as I know anti natalists aren't against life, they are against potential bad life which is low in proportion but can very well be turned around. Suicide is a mostly separate topic. I personally don't think every life is worth living given long term suffering
@@JakobRobert00 with that being said popular antinatalistic ideas such as Benatars asymmetry theory imply non existence being superior to existence yet I believe he is still strongly opposed to suicide. Schopenhauer the father of pessimism believed that suicide should remain an option but also opposed the act itself viewing it futile(you can read extensively on this through his essay titled on suicide). It's quite Interesting how some of the most important and influential antinatalists didn't outright support suicide or view it as an effective 'solution' in life. Almost like antinatalism isn't pro death? Hmmmm
Why would you assume they don't know about street epistemology? Because you operate under the assumption that people may or may not know what street epistemology is? Perhaps they are less likely to know about it in your mind? Hypothetically if not knowing about street epistemology wasn't an option would you continue to believe these guys may or may not be familiar with street epistemology, yes or no?
Some day a charismatic antinatalist will help the movement. Right now, although this is good work, none of you have the "star" or attractive quality to really bring others in. None of you are charming or seem like interesting people, at least how it's presented. So hopefully someone will come along soon to put antinatalism more in the spotlight
I don't mean this as some kind of snide insult... But if antinatilists are so convinced at the broad injustice of existence, why continue existing when there are relatively painless alternatives? It seems that the existence of people who claim that existence can't be agreed to is a bit of a contradiction wheb those people could (but have not) "opt out".
@@VtKal-cv1uf right... Yes. I understand those are different in some ways. My question is: if every antinatalist finds their own life worth continuing rather than the alternative, why are they so convinced that there is some imperative to prevent others from being born? Every antinatalist who would go out to speak with strangers about their ideas surely has found some kind of reason to continue living, so besides some vague suggestions about "consent", which I don't find personally or philosophically compelling, what leads them to believe no new life should begin? A life is worth continuing for the exact same reason a life is worth starting - for the vast majority of humans, some kind of satisfaction with the experience of consciousness outweighs cumulative suffering. And if it doesn't, every person (present and future) is free to discontinue that experience.
@@Knite_el6767 Because life is always a guaranteed harm. All living beings experience suffering/ are capable of experiencing suffering to some degree and all will eventually face the dread of dying or death. On the other hand, there is no deprivation for someone that doesn't exist, and the absence of pleasure isn't terrible either.
Can I birth a child in most dangerous country on earth? What level of risk is acceptable to you to force your view on some new being? Can I birth a child in a minefield? What if the risk is Same as life? Say each Each mine they may step in is a different risk, e.g Cancer, ALS, Alzheimers, car accident, paralyzed, etc. With life you draw a child without their consent in over 10,000 different "lotteries" of risk, just a fact of probability. What RISK is acceptable for breeder to impose on the victim who can't consent? 1 in 3 chance kid step on a mine leg blown off, or run over or car crash. 1 in 10, 1 in 100? 50-50 chance?
Maybe it’s because I’m American but, to me, he comes off a bit too strong here. A lot of these people were forced to be on the defense, which closes their mind
@@eric-jr2nf most people have never thought about any of this and these topics can be ego shattering for people (ego as in their sense of self, not casual use)
There's nothing wrong with having views like this, however, once a risk of those with power imposing this amongst us arises, I will fight against this will all my life. Also, I just realized, allowing a society to be highly educated and industrial is much more effective in achieving anti-natalist goals than activism. Watching further I heard that the practical goal is human extinction. 😬 I thought I was pessimistic, but this takes the cake. I tried to be open but I can't. This is stupid and childish.
The logical conclusion of these nut-jobs is something very evil and sinister. Right now they are just in their edgy teenager phase, but down the road if they did somehow get power they would need force to push their goals further on people unwilling to accept their dogma.
well, i get you but why don't you consider extinction as one outcome among many instead? such an outcome might be very likely even if we're pro-natalists as we are now(i am thinking of resource-consumption and the ecological disaster), see, i think to not bring the new forth is a disease, but many pro-natalists haven't bothered with newness either - just creating a world which is just as likely f#cked as the old one. i am no AntiNatalist, but their arguments are flattering.
