A Response to VegAnn (Antinatalism, Adoption, Altruism)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- I've been subscribed to VegAnn, a vegan UA-camr, for a year or two. She's shown a certain interest in antinatalism in a previous video, and we had a brief comment exchange there. This time I decided to answer her in video format. Nothing new here if you are already an antinatalist. I am trying to draw some comparisons between veganism and antinatalism to help her see things from another perspective (which she should be able to relate to). Her original video is here: • Video . I invite you all to comment on her video and encourage her to think on these issues as well as those I didn't mention here (I didn't want to make a very long video).
Dan Gilbert: What Your Mother Didn't Tell You (Why having children makes most people less happy than they previously were)
• Prof. Dan Gilbert -- T...
Books mentioned:
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
www.amazon.com...
By choosing to forego having your own biological children, you can make a life-or-death difference for someone in need of a family right now, or make an even greater difference for a lot of people/animals in need through charity, using those resources you would have spent on your child (who is not harmed by not coming into the world).
I recommend using GiveWell if you can afford it.
www.givewell.org/
For vegans wanting to contribute more towards the reduction of non-animal suffering, I highly recommend donating to Vegan Outreach, as they are an outstanding non-profit.
veganoutreach.org/
Great vid. I really wish these vegan UA-camrs would take the time to understand the difference between 'childfree' and 'antinatalist'. Is it too much to expect that someone understand the position they're arguing against?
Thanks glynos. Yes, especially when they think it's a trend! A trend! I've yet to have met a single antinatalist in real life, what a trend. It's a trend to uncritically have babies alright.
Unfortunately, getting the position wrong is somewhat of the norm. In the digital age, people's attention spans are severely impaired, and as a result they are often too quick to level criticisms after having had a cursory glance on some issue or another.
" It's a trend to uncritically have babies alright."
and
"In the digital age, people's attention spans are severely impaired, and as a result they are often too quick to level criticisms after having had a cursory glance on some issue or another."
Do you see the inconsistency here?
:-)
+Anekantavad The fact that those sentences are still up means that I don't see any inconsistencies. I edit my posts when I find mistakes. I spend a good amount of time to think before I write, just so you know.
Feel free to point out this inconsistency to me. I'm pretty sure it's only an inconsistency because you are making an (incorrect) assumption. Maybe you are assuming that I believe that everyone who has children does so uncritically.
Well, in the first statement, you impute a "trend" to other peoples' behaviour. In the second, you say " are often too quick to level criticisms after having had a cursory glance on some issue or another."
You condemn something that you then go on to engage in.
Now, this is not a refutation of what you say, mind you. I am merely pointing out that the idea that The Other Guy swallows everything blindly is very, very common these days, and probably always has been.
Be careful of assigning motive. And be careful when thinking that others aren't as reflective as you are.
:-)
Saying that it was "a trend alright" is obviously tongue-in-cheek. There is a biological basis for such behavior, but most people live in environments where they are pressured into having children. That does lead to a lot of it being done uncritically.
"You condemn something that you then go on to engage in. "
You have failed to demonstrate how I have engaged in that. You can't know that my criticism was cursory, since you don't know how much time I have spent finding out exactly how much thought people put behind having children, in general. Honestly, you just sound defensive, as if I was targeting you. I wasn't targeting anyone specifically, but well, if the hat fits. . .
Infinite growth on a planet with finite resources. She is insane!
No not infinite growth. We sustain our population by 2,4 kids per couple. But birth rate often goes up in low SES areas. That is why we need to address the world system and lift others up out of poverty. Thats the solution.
There is more to it than just poverty. The entire world cannot live like the west. Most of the developing world is starting to resmble the west over the last 20 years The problem with this is we will would need 2 more earth size planets to sustain the standard of living that the U.S. currently has. The U.S. has roughly 5% of the population and it consumes 25% of the resources extracted. The numbers dont add up. We will destroy this planet and it has already started. Peak oil, climate change etc...
I agree that our system needs to change. And it usually does when suddenly it fucks up majorly. I dont think we are at that point yet where they start taking drastic measures. Things will have to adjust accordingly.
My position is we are already out of time. People will never change. Enjoy the ride.
Didn`t you see what he commenter above just told you? We can`t keep/sustain the *currently existing number of population*, even disregarding antinatalism, purely from a sustainability perspective, the world`s population needs to drop, dramatically! To have all people on earth live in similar wellbeing, then we are ALREADY beyond carrying capacity!
Not even arguing antinatalism: Overpopulation is not only about running out of literal "space", rather about the collateral effects of keeping up with the increasing levels of consumption, the "carbon footprint" (making a child creates a bigger one than driving a SUV with a bad carburetor for 10 years), the accompanying need for more food production which in turn leads to more deforestation, etc. Basically its about the exploitation of resources beyond carrying capacity. And there is ample evidence that the current population of earth could already not afford the western lifestyle for all people. Which leads me to another observation: this girl speaks about the poor countries as if they were hermetically sealed off from the west, she does not seem to realize how short-sighted and even cruel her treatment of those third world people is - she does not realize that those places can simply not become so rich, that they are condemned by western consumerism to an economic well they can simply not escape - if they were to live in an equal comfort to the west, then a serious crisis in literally all resources would occur, yet those people deserve no less, don`t they?. So, how can the solution be to rather than try to stabilize the current humanitarian crisis, rather than try to bring down reproduction everywhere and concentrate on adoption, which incidentally is also an ethical thing to do, regardless of who pops them out...lets just pretend instead that we live on a different planet with endless resources and let the "savages" die of hunger and are absolutely unaffected by our choices here in the west? Sure, those places could use more condoms, but so do we.
And all this with that angelic innocent girlish voice...nightmare!
Hypatia Holy crap, your posts made my day. I didn't want to be too harsh on her, but yes, her treatment of the poor and the non-solution she proposed was deeply demoralizing.
I think she has had a very good life but she was too sheltered. Chronic misery and suffering is more of an abstraction to fortunate people like her. Yet she should know better as a vegan... But it seems the Borg is taking over.
Thanks:) Yes indeed, but I also counter-intuitively feel a degree of sorry for her, because...well, she is in for a rude awakening I am afraid.
I do realize that hypatia, and maybe its because I am not english that it came across wrong? What I meant to say is that the world needs to take responsibility for the system that is also in the poverty nations. I dont mean that it isj ust up to them since its all inter connected. It is just that poverty, low SES, causes birthrates to go up. So all nations have a responsibility and the west also has influence there. I know that :) I dont get how you got that I meant it hat way...
I also pointed to the poor fate of the parents who often give their children up for adoption because of poverty, and that it is the situation they are in we need to stop. To help them out.
If thats so, I definitely misunderstood, English is also my third language, but I still find your conclusion about the ethics of child-bearing on a planet, which is kinda destroyed, far from a reasonable one - from the perspective of a new generation which knowingly have to deal with all the fallout of our previous irresponsibilities, from an increasingly hot world, to an increasingly broken system of capitalist exploitation.
And look around, do you really see the overall trends to go in the desired direction? I certainly can`t see that. Its sad perhaps, but I do not see how it could be answered, if I imagine my potentially suffering kid will ask me why I dragged him or her into this particular world of misery, knowing full well the chances and risks in advance?
How could my short term personal fulfillment trump (sic!) the most basic interests of a potential human being whose pains will be her own? What personal right could justify the potential bad life my progeny will almost surely inherit? How can I account not only to her but to those already existing from whom I take the resources away only to create a new bundle of needs who does not even need to come into existence? Why should I create a new need, when there are too many needs not yet satisfied all over the place?
I see no inclination from our social, economical, humanitarian, political system to even attempt to address these issues, quite the contrary, it seems we are accelerating towards disasters of all kinds: social, environmental, ethical, existential. Until I myself do not feel great about what our species does and how we prepare for the future, how could I go ahead in spite of what I know, and make a kid regardless? No matter how shining my own imagined utopia is, if all the facts points into the direction of a dystopia instead. And I did not even mention any of the deeper, philosophical arguments for antinatalism yet.
Ps: it is also a form of protest: I refuse becoming a breeding mare, especially for a system with which I disagree on too many accounts and which tends to transform new people into mere engines of growing and reproducing itself, mere wage slaves and "exploitees" and one which tramples on the best of our natures. We can skip a generation or two, and we will still have plenty of people to repopulate the planet if our species redeems itself and actually does a step or two in the direction of utopia. Because in case of a dystopia, I am glad being an observer from a distance than someone begging for my child`s wellbeing and getting none.
+Ann "I also pointed to the poor fate of the parents who often give their children up for adoption because of poverty, and that it is the situation they are in we need to stop. To help them out."
That's a problem though. You focused on the parents and neglected talking about the children. Not once did you talk about their situation and what they have to endure - and what we can do to help if we want children. To me, it just showed how you have never considered adoption -- it's just so implausible for you. Would you feel the same disconnect if there was an abandoned child crying in front of your home? I don't think so. Yet, you do not wish to help, preferring to pass down your genes instead. I wonder why? Do you feel like you wouldn't love an adopted child as much? There are actually studies on this showing that there is no difference: the strength of the bond between a mother and her child is the same regardless of genes.
Even if we take your argument that we only a have a responsibility to help the parents, we can actually do that! We can use the resources that we are lucky to have because we have been born in the right place and transfer some of that to them, all the while staying comfortable. How is sinking a minimum of $250k on a new life, which doesn't even count the costs of higher education, help them at all?
That talk by Dan Gilbert is a great find. I'll be spreading that around.
Interestingly enough, strict hedonists would object to his "heroin crowds out other worthwhile pursuits" analogy, because they contend all such pursuits are only instrumentally beneficial. So, in a weird way, if parenthood gives most parents a high equivalent to that of heroin, the high itself would still have to be viewed as a good _for_ the parent (only complicated by the interests of the child, if one is AN or something). Whereas I'd go further in arguing that people's ideally rational preferences matter, and are often far more polished than the sort of myopic highs one gets from parenthood or in-group validation.
I'll check back in to see if you get a better reply than you did with Unnatural Vegan. The person you're responding to seems more introspective, on first glance anyway.
" if parenthood gives most parents a high equivalent to that of heroin"
Have you ever considered that it might be a "high" that you yourself simply aren't equipped to experience?
How do you measure the value of that which you don't experience?
Priests.
(puts on devil mask)
heh heh ......
"How do you measure the value of that which you don't experience?"
It isn't as big of a mystery as you want to believe it is. Attachment, bonding and love can be experienced by people who do not have biological children. There isn't something inherently magical about it once there is a blood relationship.
Dan Gilbert (the person who analogized children to heroin) does have children, btw. He used the scientific method in order to find out the answer to the question you just asked. The other person whose book I mentioned (40 reasons not to have kids) also has children. They do love their children, so you can't say they were not "equipped" for it and that this is what informed their views. Pretty bad argument here, even for you.
"It isn't as big of a mystery as you want to believe it is."
First of all, you don't know what I want to believe it is. Secondly, are you saying you can evaluate someone else's quality of life more accurately than they can?
If so, I want evidence of that please. Take as long as you want. I can (literally) wait forever for an answer to that one.
Thanks.
:-)
In that sense, I'm both "childfree" and "antinatalist" 😊: I think I would be worse off with kids, and the kids would be worse off in general by being born - but especially when being born to a parent who doesn't want them. That said, I don't think altruism necessarily follows from antinatalism. It can also lead to the conclusion "Life is suffering, everyone who is born is already doomed to suffer, and therefore, nobody can be expected to voluntarily suffer even more for the benefit of others".
Well constructed video. Certainly more cogent than most on this topi, thanks.
Well argued and thought provoking video. I'm both an antinatalist and of the belief that having kids would improve my live considerably. Will be watching the Dan Gilbert video next.
One little point of disagreement: at 8:28 you appear to argue in effect that (1) Insofar as an activity "takes care of your genes" it is not selfless, and (2) any appetite which is "programmed by evolution" is not a selfless one. I say "arguments", but they're really on the level of bare assertion - it's as if you believe their truth is self-evident. I'd suggest however that they're neither self-evidently true nor true simpliciter.
Regarding (1) - It seems to me that insofar as it's relevant here, the concept of self quite uncontroversialy and unambiguously divides the world into those things which are my-self and those which are not. Other people might share some or all of my genes but they're not me - even partially. Caring about their fate is not the same thing as caring about my own fate.
"any appetite which is "programmed by evolution" is not a selfless one. I say "arguments", but they're really on the level of bare assertion"
Yet giving into an automated process requires no effort mentally - you just follow the trajectory set out for you by foreign forces in relation to your cognitive considerations - you just let yourself arrive where you are pushed - yet regarding "selflessness" we expect a certain degree of resistance of will, that it is mobilized to act based on a principle situated above and beyond what is at our nature`s behest. I think its quite intuitive given the concept`s usual meaning. To say that doing the thing which we are programmed with is selfless is like saying that a falling rock *wants to* fall down - the idea is that the rock would fall even if it didn`t wish to, so its wish does nothing to qualify it as an act of self-mobilization, which selflessness, aka denying the self (which in this instance means our biological tendencies) in favor of a purely cognitive principle implies - especially if that wish is programmed into it by the thrower and not generated autonomously by the thrown. In my conception carrying out an inclination can never also be qualified as an act of ethical dimension. The latter needs at minimum a process of reasoning, the logical conclusion of which itself will constitute the point of anchor with the help of which and in relation to our natural, effortless path, now we find ourselves in a situation of choice. The subsequent path chosen and the reasonable justification that it can garner will ultimately qualify our action into the dimension of ethical action.
"Yet giving into an automated process requires no effort mentally"
But calling it an "automated process" does. And not a little mental gymnastics.
:-)
My Neo-efil party members, inmendhamian efilists, antinatalists, und others... I, as Fuhrer of the American Neo-efil People's Party will begin by saying that yes, the Pollyanna is also a man, but the tick is also an animal. I, too, lived alone in the woods. It was the Black Forest several decades ago in Germany. There I suffered greatly from an unfortunate tic in speech und dyslexia. In my humble abode, I read many books despite this terrible reading affliction. One day, I was having difficulty with reading the word 'live'. As I read it incorrectly, a flash of insight overcame me. I thought of it backwards und came up with the word 'evil'. I will now elaborate on what this insight was. Life und dyslexia = efil, und live und dyslexia = evil. 'Efil' is the reverse spelling of 'life', und it is the reversal of 'life' into 'nonlife', und this say-nein-to-babies is how to do it, which is impossible und unworkable in the grand scheme of things. 'Evil' is the reverse spelling of 'live', und it is the reversal of 'live' into 'nonliving', und the Neo-efil Endlosung is how to do it, which is 'nicht' impossible und 'nicht' unworkable in the grand scheme of things. We Second Reich Neo-efilists are the new, advanced version of efilism. Our Neo-efil Endlosung is the painless extermination of all sentient life. This will take much time in terms of attaining political power, technological power, und military power. Hence, our sacred Neo-efil Endlosung is formally called EVIL ENDLOSUNG. To kill sentient life is to follow the EVIL code of conduct, which is threefold: "1. The sentient being must nicht see it coming. 2. The sentient being must nicht feel pain. 3. There are no surviving sentient beings to mourn the exterminated ones." It is now incumbent upon me to reveal to all of you that we are using the term 'Neo-efil' for introductory und transitional purposes. We, in time, will be changing our official title to EVILISM, however, of course, our use of the term 'Neo-efil' still has practical use until we have taken more control. As Evilists, we must nicht capitulate to mindless solutions to the very real pain and suffering throughout the world; we must nicht allow ourselves to be intimidated by efilist bullies who only want to tear us down so they can comfortably wallow in vain complaining und despair; we must nicht lose our focus on the great German pessimists who had well established the justifiable rejection of this poisonous world way before those around us right now; we must nicht lose our concentration on that deadly foe: the Pollyanna, und nicht allow them to drain our will, resolve, und courage; we must nicht lose sight that the Evilist is either the first soldier in the world, or he is no soldier at all. No soldiers at all we cannot be, und we do nicht wish to be! Therefore, we shall be only the first! (end of speech...May 14, 2017)
Yes, it is. I follow them because they entertain me. I do believe they both classify themselves as entertainers. I am not ashamed of being entertained by crass humor. I don't come to youtube to do my "learnin'" do you? In answer to your question, I found you under someone's video making a ridiculous comment and clicked your channel. Just in a salty mood I suppose wondering why people click on videos, watch them and then, incessantly, complain. Dishing it out ever so heartily yet getting very insulted when it happens to you. Your channel should be called "do better."
I do come to UA-cam to do some learning and discuss things that actually matter. Not strictly that, but mostly. It's a diverse platform: if you're only using it to entertain yourself, you're missing out. If all you watch is crass content, then it's fair to say that's a fairly accurate representation of who you are.
I probably got suckered into clicking on the video you're referring to due to the click-bait title and did not watch more than one minute of it. Sorry if I dropped some truth bombs that you didn't appreciate on my way out of there.
Show us your mathematical models of cause and effect. Otherwise, neither of you has anything important to say.
-- Me, a lifelong antinatalist animal rights vegan
"Now you find yourself arguing with the mirror." Accurate. I really try strive for self improvement.
I was referring to Ms Anikatasteis.
:-)
"I really strive for self improvement"
Oh? Is that why you follow people like Trisha Paytas and Shane Dawson? Yeah, pretty thoughtful and inspiring stuff there. I have to wonder how you found your way to my channel.
You'll like the video I posted. I mixed up the references and I look stupid. I don't care, however. The point is how meta-communication isn't what it seems. How overt empathy can be used as a cover for hate.
But have a laugh. It's fun to watch people commit gaffes like this :-)
Insufferably boring. None of this is altruistic if you do it for personal ego stroking. Quite the opposite.
Nice try, but that's an appeal to motives. You don't know why I do what I do. Apparently, you can't make a counter-argument to anything I've said so you make personal attacks instead. That's a form of ego-stroking. Do better.
Isn't that cute? Now you find yourself arguing with the mirror.
:-)
devoting to a job gives you pleasure? paying for your house gives you pleasure? wtfff?
Here's a video response, if you are interested. In it I apologize for messing up the comments section in this video. I won't say it isn't a harsh response, but it isn't hostile - believe it or not.
watch?v=Ksncm5gHevQ
Your comment was marked as spam, but I approved it, even though I have absolutely no interest in your response or further interaction with you.
You don't? Why did you respond to my video?
:-)
When you said you had responded to my video, I thought you had actually *responded* to my video, i.e. that you had some criticisms of my views and arguments. That's what I had no interest in listening to, because I don't value your feedback.
But when I saw the description of your video and how you had it all confused and it made you look stupid, I had to figure out what that was all about. So I watched. I laughed. I cringed. The rest is history.
I do have some criticisms of your arguments. Can't force you to debate me, though. That's out of my hands.
:-)
People in the 'third world' are suffering, yes. But it must be noted that they (generally) suffer in a different *way* than people with 'first world problems'. The scramble for the basics can act as a palliative or distraction from the metaphysical questions that torture people in the wealthier parts of the world. I have traveled extensively, and I can assure you that people in the 'third world' are not living in some sort of hell. People measure everything by their own experiences, and tend to consider themselves in a fairly positive light.
Where antinatalism gets insane is where someone makes the case that they can assess someone *else's* life in a more accurate manner than the person living that life. There is an argument - nothing short of lunatic IMO - that essentially says: "You just *think* you are living a reasonably good life. I *know* you aren't."
Who gets to set an absolute standard by which we can measure the value of everyone's life? Or put in starker terms: Who gets to have the final say in matters of Good and Evil?
Priests. That's who. Let's not kid ourselves. There *are* atheist priests out there, and people who make these kinds of absolute value statements are finding their voice, even *after* the death of god.
No thanks.
"People in the 'third world' are suffering, yes. But it must be noted that they (generally) suffer in a different way than people with 'first world problems'. The scramble for the basics can act as a palliative or distraction from the metaphysical questions that torture people in the wealthier parts of the world. I have traveled extensively, and I can assure you that people in the 'third world' are not living in some sort of hell."
I have seen you make this case before, and I do not find it convincing. Not one bit. Suffering is suffering -- as long as it's unwanted. I do not care that you have traveled to many places to see it in front of you -- I have seen plenty of it with this thing called a computer. It is some sort of hell in many places -- and I wouldn't trade my existential crises for one day in their shoes (or, well, lack of shoes).
"Where antinatalism gets insane is where someone makes the case that they can assess someone else's life in a more accurate manner than the person living that life. There is an argument - nothing short of lunatic IMO - that essentially says: "You just think you are living a reasonably good life. I know you aren't."
It's presumptuous. Borderline megalomaniacal. But ludicrous? I don't think so. Again, the scientific method becomes of use here. People like Dan Gilbert and Tali Sharot have built pretty solid cases for why people's self-reports aren't exactly to be trusted. Philosophers have known much of that for a long time, but now it's been 'verified' and made easily digestible for the masses. We don't have any excuses not to know about this.
"Who gets to set an absolute standard by which we can measure the value of everyone's life? Or put in starker terms: Who gets to have the final say in matters of Good and Evil?"
No one. We first start from an axiom and see that our conclusions are reasonable. Then we live accordingly. It's the best we can do. Again - not letting the perfect becoming an enemy of the better.
"Suffering is suffering"
Really? And who gets to make these sweeping statements? Again, you have - probably without realizing it - donned the cassock of the priest.
"It is some sort of hell in many places -- and I wouldn't trade my existential crises for one day in their shoes"
Just a bunch of bald assertions. Who gets to make such absolute statements? Who gets to tell me I am suffering less than someone else? Imagine the power such a person has!
"Again, the scientific method becomes of use here."
If anything, the scientific method is a *handicap* here. The scientific method relies on falsification, and we cannot falsify an experience. Period. If we could, it wouldn't *be* an experience.
And suffering is an experience.
"People like Dan Gilbert and Tali Sharot have built pretty solid cases for why people's self-reports aren't exactly to be trusted."
So, if "people" can't be trusted to accurately self-report, are you saying *others* can be trusted to accurately our *own* self-assessment?
Sheer lunacy.
"{We first start from an axiom and see that our conclusions are reasonable. It's the best we can do."
I agree. But an axiom is not a fact.
"Again - not letting the perfect becoming an enemy of the better."
I agree. But I would argue that *you* are saying that the "better" might not be any more accessible than the good, at least in absolute terms.
Yes, it's 'insane' to suggest that people can overestimate how good their lives are. It's not like there's a ton of literature on the subject of optimism bias or anything. And how dare those damn PRIESTS suggest that suffering is bad. What extremists they are!
"Really? And who gets to make these sweeping statements? Again, you have - probably without realizing it - donned the cassock of the priest."
No, that's a straw man. You like to attack positions that you feel comfortable attacking. This is why you love to come back to the priests -- you can use your borrowed beliefs (largely coming from Nietzsche's work) in order to do away with an argument without much effort. This is why I have never liked arguing with you -- there is nothing productive that ever comes out of it, because you are unwilling to get things right. I say suffering is suffering, and you immediately misrepresent what I said, now it is as if I said "all suffering is equal, all the time". I even bothered to qualify it as "unwanted suffering"! The suffering of a chopped leg is the same suffering whether it happens to you or to me. That is the point I was making. In the greater context of this video, my argument is that a suffering child in another part of the world is no less worthy of being paid attention to than a child here who would be in the same situation experiencing the same amount of deprivation.
You do much of the same right afterward. I give you *my* personal point of view, saying that my existential suffering did not come close to the suffering that has been experienced by less fortunate people in other parts of the world, and suddenly I am making "bald assertions" and speaking in absolute terms? This is a waste of my time. It seems you've convinced yourself that your great intellect has allowed you to suffer more than the people who haven't been able to afford the basic necessities. I see no reason why this has been even brought up and why I'd want to debate you on that. Good day to you.
"Yes, it's 'insane' to suggest that people can overestimate how good their lives are. It's not like there's a ton of literature on the subject of optimism bias or anything."
Nice try, glynos. Care to answer what I actually said, not what you say I said?