Why Antinatalists Should STOP Talking About The Red Button 

Would you press the red button on this video? 😂🔴 Join the supporter community and get perks: patreon.com/lawrenceanton/

I wont stop talking about red button at the parties.

- Another thing that requires modification within many of these pessimistic philosophies is the human bashing and anti-human rhetoric (on a species level) in some subsets of these philosophies. Perhaps this stems from some people's desire to punish or self-punish, or from deep-seated self-hatred. Regardless of the reason, it's clear that such rhetoric does not originate from a place of compassion or self-compassion. - The notion of pressing some hypothetical red button to eliminate all life on Earth is a terrifying and risky concept with potentially disastrous consequences. Instead of dwelling on such an extreme and terrible option, it would be wiser to remain focused on the ethical dilemmas and implications surrounding procreation. - Yes, there is much to criticize in humans, both on an individual and species level. Acknowledged. But it's crucial to remember that each species on this planet possesses both positive and negative attributes. I(You) and I(Me) are similar and interconnected on many levels. We all need care and we are all we got. - Furthermore, the evolution of life forms, including ours, remains an ongoing process. Why anyone would assume that this process of evolution has ceased-for humans-is beyond me. As the speaker points out, our time would be better spent focusing on our collective connection as Earth-dwellers (as a collection of species), working towards mutual improvement rather than to pursue a hateful path of destruction. - Yes life was imposed on us, but here we are. There's much to improve upon, and it will necessitate effort, time, and faith in ourselves. Pursuing the improvement of existence for all, is a far more constructive path. - A voluntary self-exit for individuals is an entirely different matter. That's a choice everyone can advocate for if they want to. For themselves and others that want it. That is a voluntary, personal & individual issue. - He raises good points in advocating for a more compassionate approach towards all species and for keeping the emphasis on progress rather than destruction. By acknowledging our role as stewards of life on Earth, we can collaborate to work towards a positive future for ALL inhabitants of this planet (this includes us). - The red button fantasy is a dangerous illusion-one that must be abandoned. - The anti-human sentiment in pessimistic and associated philosophies needs to cease. It serves no beneficial purpose. The criticisms are acknowledged, but being against humanity is completely irrational and in vain.

For me - the consent argument for antinatalism is one of the strongest therefore the lack of consent for humanity in the Red Button makes it a null/void argument for me.

Oh, interesting that you bring this up. I've made a ramble video about my scepticism about the red button & how unlikely it is (bc it'd be shut down like terrorism). Nice to see a fellow AN talk openly about their scepticism about it.

Mr. Lawrence, could you make a video explaining the differences between antinatalism, efilism and promortalism? The boundaries of these terms seem blurry to some people.

I would press the red button because that's extremly likely the only way that would force all life forms to not have babies.

Red bottom is more related to promortalism and extinctionist

Interesting topic, always wanted to press red button but even after pressing red button, life wouldn't end completely on earth. so I don't think there is any point to press red button.

Mostly it is people who debate Antinatalism who brings the red button. I think Peterson too did it in his debate with Benator. But my thoughts are always the same as yours when people bring it up. It has nothing to do with Antinatalism. If at least they ask would you press a red button to sterilize everything that moves would be much better.

How can you say your against reproduction but not life when the one relies on the other to exist?

I liked the part about the history of the thought experiment, well done for having finding the article about Marie Huot. And yeah, I think you're right when you say the red button is not relevant to antinatalism in particular.

"Don't wish for a world without humans. Wish for a world where humans realize that having kids is selfish and crazy" -Samuel Ungepster

If there was a red button that ends all red button thought experiments I would press it

Make your siblings understand that having kids is a selfish idea before you tell them about antinatalism

ok, understand your point. red button is for me worth thinking about. but currently my own most important topic is AN. and when talking about this to others it will be very usefull to highlight that AN is about not to start an existence but it is not about ending an existence. i think more people can agree to this. nevertheless ending existence is important for me to think about and it was the way I came to AN. thanks and regards from Germany.

Time to make flat earther's dreams come true. Lmaoooooooo

Hi Lawrence, I agree. That question always kinda bothered me but I didn't quite exactly know why, but you have worded it very well! Thanks for this! This was a good follow up to George Martin's interview with Benetar 🌱

I was listening to this, wondering, why does Lawrence sound so agitated about this? Until I realized that I was watching it at 1.25x speed, legacy of viewing some slower persons just before you. When I returned you to normal speed, most of that agitation went away. - On the subject matter. I generally agree with myself that the idea of developing a real-life Red Button is ill-advised. Two comments on that, though. (i) In fall 1998, in a conversation that has been preserved to posterity in the infamous Cowbridge Diaries and somewhere in the Exploring Antinatalism Podcast episode something, I opposed a slightly different idea, and on slightly different grounds. My then-partner - we agreed that it would be nice to get rid of all suffering - argued that we should, from then on, dedicate our lives to advancing the technology in silence and secrecy to avoid any nuclear holocaust mess but to achieve our common goal. That sounded like a lot of work, and as the lazy person that I am, I racked my brain to find an objection. Luckily, I had just done work on the philosophies of paternalism and autonomy, and I was able to resist the suggestion on the grounds that I would have to ask all the people first, and that universal consent would probably not be forthcoming. Whew - a narrow escape. (ii) We all saw David Pearce drifting in and out of the frame when you suggested that the end of suffering could be achieved by other (and he says technological) means. Capital idea, in principle, but just tentatively, if I were tasked to devise objections. (ii - a) Can there be human (or other sentient) life without suffering? Can we conceptualize that? (ii - b) Can technology do the honors? Do we have any idea how, not counting Soma (Brave New World) or other happy substances, which may have their challenges? (ii - c) Is trust in technology even in this better sense safe? Is technology (well, aided by capitalism) not the root of most evil in this world already? - Sorry, just random thoughts evoked by your wonderful analysis - and my initial 1.25x speed. :D

Lawrence, your main concern is, once again, image and propaganda. There is *a lot* wrong with the whole omnicide discussion within AN (among other discussions). Whether it's a good look or not is the least of those problems.

I think It's more to show dedication to particular philosophy and degree you would go with it if you had the opportunity.

I feel attacked 😂 (Can't watch rn but feel attacked already.)

It could be useful in conversations by hearing from antinatalists who would NOT press the button. That alone might help educate others who think these issues are tied together somehow.

While I agree that the topic should be avoided, I think it's understandable why natalists think that it should, one because it's a plausible conclusion based on consequentialist grounds, and an AN should be able to provide all the reasons why they do not think so, to show they have rigorously through through potential implications. To say at 4:30 that one has not learned anything about the antinatalist interlocutors views does not seem to be fair. Ending life would instrumentally avoid firth births, which is what AN is about. One would learn how a given AN balances/considers delivering harms to prevent greater harms (continued perpetuated existence, etc). This is a completely fair thing for non-ANs to bring up, even is the AN has a sufficient rejoinder to it. Sure, an AN may not want it by 'any means', but it's fair to ask what means would be considered acceptable. Again, completely understandable for a Natalists to bring up, and likely counterproductive for an AN to bring up, but should be ready to discuss fairly when pressed. For what it's worth, I haven't found that ANs proactively bring up the topic, but much more natalists that are pushing back against the ideas. If this isn't the typical case, then I'm especially glad you're putting these strategic points out there.

Hey lawrence how can I contact you and talk to you

Hey Naton, could you make a video on generic subjective continuity?

I agree with you, and I think your thoughts are well laid out. There is no perfect, utopian state. We just need to figure out the best way to move forward given the beliefs that we hold.

Fantastic video as always, Lawrence. Ending the world has no more to do with antinatalism than it does with any other social issue. For example, asking an antinatalist if they would end the world to stop procreation would be like asking a racial equality activist if they would end the world to stop racism. It's ultimately a moot point and completely irrelevant to the original issue being discussed.

Well said, and needed to be said.

This was a much-needed video.

All lunatics unrealistic hypotheticals should be avoided even being considered as they are ALL wasteful opportunity costs and diversions from actual reality.......meaning they're virtually always fruitless in any meaningful way.

i sometimes bring up the green button experiment for antinatalism, mostly when discussing the risk argument... if there's a green button in front of you, when you press it, 10 babies will be born, 9 of them will be born healty and are gonna have decent lives, 1 of them will be born disabled and is gonna suffer a lot, would you press the green button? ...and about the red button, i'm guilty as well by discussing it, but i always tell people that the red button has nothing to do with antinatalism, it's EFILism, pro-mortalism.

I rember you made a community post about the red buttom nice to hear your thoughts on it

Great video bro ❤

👋

I mean if we're talking about hypothetical red button that just poofs everyone in an instance sure you could ask would the person leave pleasure despite all of the suffering makes one think doesnt it

It gives them more ammo like talking about predator culling does in the vegan movement. Problem is, I still think it's worth discussing. We can't win! haha

I see where you're coming from that it's not very linked to antinatalism, and maybe you're right it's not very useful, but I think it's a fun question to talk about and a good gauge of whether you can have a meaningful discussion with someone.

Nice video

Inmendham like us to believe he came up with it 🙄

I remember when cosmicskeptic chose to press the red button in a podcast with humane Hancock .

Haven't watched the video yet, but I wholeheartedly disagree. The red button points to the core of everything antinatalism is about (thinking about the worst outcomes, measuring suffering vs pleasure), so I think it's an amazing thought experiment. And any antinatalist who wouldn't press it or who isn't a pro-mortalist is blind imo.

you are wrong at this lawrence, red button is actually about logical conclusion about somethings, so that can be eveything، it's about remove something that can be logically and morally bad thing like, sufferin, pain, illness, exploitation, slavery, war, elysium and...etc so choose the red button to destroy what is a individual choice im antinatalism but i dont have problem with life all antinatalism same like me, i prefer choose red button that can remove all bad things that make life and wolrd u.Gly b. rutal unbearable like extreme suffering, unctrollable pain, weakness, expensive pay for living, slavery, ferocity instict, exploitaton, and...

Great analysis. Very thoughtful.

You bring up some good points and I pretty much agree with you. I'd say it's more so relevant to Efilism and Negative Utilarianism discussions. For Antinatalism and idea for people to stop having children / natling recklessly though, I'd imagine you're correct in that it'd just put people off or dismiss it outright. and makes it that much harder to reach the general public. and also don't want those in movement getting the wrong idea either and causing more harm and suffering, Kinda like vegans talking about killing carnivores/predators in the wild, while we can agree to such thought experiments or scenarios in principle perhaps, I don't think it's useful to ascribe as part of the movement itself, for pragmatic reasons and convincing general public. it should just be a separate philosophical issue/topic. Like "wild-animal-suffering" groups. Or very least left only to marginal meta-discussions within movement. Now As to better to have never been, antinatalism / prevention. Perhaps Better AN rhetoric or useful arguments to deploy could be (something like): The assymetry argument. "The absent martians isn't a tragedy." "In comparison to earth, it is quite peaceful & tranquil on Mars, to any visitor or third-person observer." "If one could have prevented life from ever beginning on earth, would've that been a bad thing or a good thing to do?" "What if aliens prevented life from EVER taking place on earth, think of all the tragedies that would have not taken place." "Say humanity were in such a position that we could prevent an asteroid from seeding a barren mars-like planet with new life, OR allow it to become like what's happened on earth" Now, if used A better formulation to the classic red button I've seen by inmendham is: "if alien technology put all life in an unconscious state of sleep / stasis, undisturbed perpetually, they wouldn't age, wouldn't be harmed. They just would'nt wake up." "The question is, would you press a button to wake up all life or not?, disturb the peace?" "When the fact is, there would be no problems going on, on the planet. No suffering, no war, no tragedy, no conflict. What do you do?"

Totally agree. I think we’re missing the woods for the trees with the red button, there are plenty of good things we could be doing in the world that don’t require debating the killing of all sentient beings in the universe…

what about a sterilization button for all lifeforms ?

That is fallacious...people will always hear what they want and or oromote what they want and pervert anything including their own mothers! The red button is here to stay in our circles and beyond. There is no tangible solution to ending breeding of sentience here.

Dam,Marie the G

Why? There are just honest

There are many inconsistencies and serious lacks of logic in David Benatar's version of academic antinatalism. Without ethics that see red button as the ultimate act of compassion all your efforts are futile.

You appear to be using a definition of antinatalism that has a very limited meaning about a conclusion about procreation. If the reasons to think it's bad to create lives have to do with there not being anything sufficiently positive to outweigh the suffering in the world, then the red button thought experiment is significantly relevant to antinatalism, and it is more relevant to antinatalism than it is to the other subjects you listed. Most people who are anti-war would not say that war is so bad that it would be better if life on Earth didn't exist. There are many antinatalists who think there isn't anything sufficiently positive to outweigh the suffering in the world.

The Earth vs Mars analogy is faulty, because once we remove _all_ planets from the universe, and just imagine all life floating in empty space, we realize that there's just the universe, and there's suffering in it despite the locations of that suffering. We can go further and imagine if consciousness itself could be without there being any biological bodies - so endless empty space (the universe minus matter) with locations of conscious awareness occuring. One could see it as the universe having consciousness strune about... But now let's take this thought experiment further and imagine that there's only one location of consciousness. So there's conscious awareness despite it only being in one location. There's no lack of experience. There's experience, and you and I don't exist in any way to block that experience from being imposed, just as your lack of existing didn't block the consciousness that a brain started doing from being "imposed". There was no you to stop it. So, in my thought experiment, there's no you from stopping this one and only experience from being imposed, because it's the only experience there is!

I would press the red button when all lifeforms in the universe gave me consent to press the red button.

People like this actually exist?

Should replace the red button thought experiment, with a green 🟢or blue 🔵 button kind've thought experiment, reformalize the question. "Would you put all life in a harmless perpetual state of unconscious sleep / stasis? They won't age, or be harmed. Life just wouldn't wake up until you press the wake up button. 🤔 Not my idea, inmendham's.

Lawrence, someone doxed Inmendham by using his real name, in the comments of this video. You should not allow that.