Thanks, but I would have had the vasectomy entirely for self-interested reasons, even if I were convinced by the moral arguments for pronatalism. It's similar to the utilitarian arguments for giving up all of one's spare income to charity: I'm just not going to do that; I like having at least luxuries for myself. I'd be far more likely to do that than raise a child, though.
@@KaneB thanks for the video and concerning your comment: as I know in moral philosophy there is a question or set of questions called “moral motivation” which is about the problem of how is it that people tend to reject following some strategy even if they believe that there is a sound moral argument in favor of the strategy; and bunch of related question about what can be done about it or what is the relation between moral believes and actions. Would you consider making a video on the topic?(or perhaps you’ve already made one)
The % reduction in QOL probably doesn't remain constant the more children are added. 9:30. So if adding one child to the first diminishes the QOL 10% for each child, adding the third might increase it to 20%. Adding a fourth might increase it even further. I've seen examples in real life where it certainly seemed to be the case, especially in large families, that the quality of life of all the kids is severely diminished just by having added so many so quickly. To the point that I could easily imagine had the number of children been half what was produced, the quality of life of the remaining ones would have been much, much higher. Life-changingly better.
What matters - reducing suffering or increasing happiness (within utilitarianism) could drive one towards antinatalism or pronatalism depending on what feels intuitive
Creating new beings for fulfilling your desire for happiness is selfish hence pronatalist are selfish and Narcissistic while antinatalist are companionate as care more about their children and wants prevent their suffering by not bringing them into this cruel world.
As a person who plans to never have children, I would be okay with a tax that goes towards children. In many ways, I already pay a tax like that because my taxes pay for public schools and TANF, plus my salary might be higher if my employer didn’t have to offer parental leave. All of those things I’m happy for my money to go towards, despite never directly benefiting from them.
@@ignotumperignotius630 It is true that family tends to hassle people who opt to adopt. The added stress probably cuts some years off the adopting parent.
@@howtoappearincompletely9739 I'm ok with that. I'm not trying to stop breeding. I just think we should help the kids already here first. I'm not an anti-natalist. I'm currently agnostic about the issue. I just think that whatever is the over all correct position for an all encompassing moral world view, basically all people would agree that we should take care of existing children in need. Or at the very least, that is my axiom/sacred cow. I did misunderstand Ignoti Perignotii . You are correct about that.
I don't know what my life would look like, had my brother not been born -- actually, I don't think there's any fact of the matter here, since that counterfactual story can be told in a variety of different ways -- but I do think that right now, I'm much better off with my brother around. That's the case even if I assess it in purely economic terms. We both live together, so we both split the bills; given the current cost of living, I'd be screwed if I had to live alone. There's also something very nice about having somebody there who I know I can rely on if anything happens to me. If I have a serious medical problem, say, I know that my brother will support me. Of course, I got lucky insofar as I've always had a very good relationship with my brother (despite the fact that we have completely different personalities).
@@KaneB that’s awesome. I think I can pretty affirmatively say my life is improved because of my brother. I was making a joke because I remembered y’all live together.
@FedericoCastro-wm8cl Yeah because then if there was a rule say to off or to cancel then why stop at disability right? Stick up of your disabled mindset.
22:30 Here I would disagree. While we don't distinguish on time, there's significan't debate around "choosing children", especially when it comes to gender or genetic ailments. It seems perfectly plausible for a journalist to ask a woman who had a designer made "CRISPR baby" why they selected for their child to have some particular feature and not others.
Philosophically, what do you think of the view that human behaviour is always guided by a perceived benefit. I am not saying that the end result must be pleasure in one's mind exclusively, but a person needs to at least have positive reasons for themselves to do a self-sacrificing act. Now that is not to say that every behaviour is on balance egoistic because clearly even thought I can experience some personal purpose or benefit, my personal costs could in principle still be outweighed, see martyrs for instance.
Hi Kane B, for the Golden Rule reasoning-argument, can't I deny the "1st premise: It is good that I came into existence"? I think that's what the anti-natalist say, right? So the argument appears to be begging the question. Also, for the rest of the arguments, it seems to hinge on the assumption that current structures or institutions are functioning in the best, optimal manner and that best, optimal manner is supported by a greater quantity of children. This assumption seems doubtable...?
A problem I have with the repugnant conclusion that I'd also apply to pronatalism utilitarianism is that I just don't agree that the life of a hypothetical person matters, especially compared to the life of an actual person. A theoretical sibling your parents could have had isn't real. They can't be disappointed with the life they never had, they aren't jealous of you for the life you're having. You don't need to consider their feelings or the possible good they could bring to the world since they don't exist.
What about extinction without suffering? For example, a matrix-like scenario where everyone uploads their consciousness into a utopia simulation. Do pro-natalists have an objection to that?
@@tontokomaimai i think one would just respond by saying there is a specific independent good that comes from human civilization, that wouldn't be there without it (art, consciousness, deep happiness, pleasure,) and then go on to argue for the existence and prima facie value of such stuff. Then also you would have to say that the bads of birth, if there are any (violating the consent of a person, very likely putting someone under pain/misery) do not outweigh the goods mentioned above.
There is a pronatalist argument going around mostly in vegan circles called the Niche Replacement argument. the idea is that only vegans should reproduce or atleast vegans should be moreso encouraged to reproduce in order to battle the non-vegans, as well as to slowly displace wildlife because wild animals are carnivorous
@@zeebpc both utilitarianism and deontology can be found unappealing though. There would also be utilitarian and deontological arguments against niche replacement (“it would be a violation of inalienable rights to restrict procreation to a certain group”, or “restricting procreation to a certain group would create other undesirable outcomes”)
I feel like this argument overlooks the fact that lots of wild carnivores are super cool. Imagine wanting to replace komodo dragons, leopards, alligators, and falcons with a bunch of Peter Singer clones. No way lol.
My question is, isn't there a duty to take care of the people and make sure they have the resources that they need in order to create the next generation? If you don't invest in today there will be no tomorrow.
Its interesting seeing people in this comment section condition the morality of birth on material wealth, when there is a strong inverse correlation between wealth and births.
Thanks for this, Dr Baker. You did a good job of remaining impartial, given your elsewhere-obvious fundamental disagreement with the position. The social-contractarian argument comes closest to yielding a duty to reproduce, but I don't think any argument here clinches it. I suspect that a duty to one's ancestors to provide them with descendants could be more plausibly defended. BTW, re Anca Gheaus, her family lives in Munich, but her name is Romanian (original form: Gheauș Anca). Gheauș is pronounced "gaa-OOSH". I don't know for sure, but I would assume that that is the pronunciation of her surname which she employs.
You could make the assumption thay the last generation will occur for some foreseeable reason, say that interstellar travel is impossible and we manage to make the earth habitable no matter what the state of the sun is until it goes supernova and destroys the Earth. The last generation, with a know countdown on humanities life, would propare for that in a way that minimised sufgering (eg. A centuries long cultural shift to accept death, celebration of life, etc.). It is thus better that we stall the last generation until it occurs in a context that would create that lower-suffering end
A duty for offspring in the Rg Veda is due to the human may survive death by proxy in the form of their offspring and may obtain individual immortality in heaven contingent upon filial piety in the performance of rituals of sustenance for deceased ancestors. ‘ They (the ancestors) compassed in their bodies (tans) all existing things, and streamed forth offspring in many successive forms. (pra asarayata purudha praja and)’ Rg 10.56.5-6(G) Premise: Humans may achieve a form of immortality through their offspring. Premise: Filial piety, especially in performing rituals for deceased ancestors, is essential for individual immortality in heaven. Conclusion: Therefore, a duty for offspring in the Rg Veda is to ensure the survival of their lineage and perform rituals for their ancestors to secure their own place in heaven.
I think this is a common sentiment in the West, as well. People often talk as if their children will provide them a kind of surrogate immortality -- as if something of themselves will live on through their children. I guess this would be more of a prudential argument for pronatalism.
I don't think the utilitarian position considers the change in quality of life for the future and puts the same amount of happiness for people that aren't born yet. And if we wanna talk about prevention of suffering, if nobody is having children, there is no next generation to suffer. I think that any argument that doesn't take into account the difference in the value of life in the present and future is flawed because anti natalism was born as a response to the economic and environmental forecasts that we are seeing.
Didn't expect all of these arguments to be so well-stated and convincing. I do not want to have children, so initially I was prepared to be totally unimpressed by any pronatalist position.
@@zeebpc Honestly all of them made me stop and think, even silly utilitarian calculus and an appeal to the golden rule. Personally, the most thought-provoking arguments comes after the declining fertility part. If I want to have a functioning human society, then I ought to be for procreation. Objections and responses to this were also presented in this video, but I am still pretty convinced by this argument. Not convinced enough to change my mind about not wanting children though lol I am still conflicted, still thinking about this. The conclusion feels wrong
I am of the opinion that having children is, at its core, a selfish act. However, I will concede that it can - in most cases - turn out to be a good thing for all involved. One exception to this is willingly giving birth to a child with severe disabilities. To me, that is akin to murder. If murder is forcing someone to die, having a child with severe disabilities is forcing someone to live a life that, if given a choice before the fact, no one would choose to live.
Birthing a child _is_ forcing them to die. Having a child is like catching a big fish -- it may be an exciting, happy moment for you, and it feels like an achievement, but for the fish, it is suffocating. It is a death.
@@txlyons2937 After the ordeal of being born, death should be no big thing. Also, it is not like catching a fish. Giving birth is not plucking angels from heaven, it is creating a life.
@@John-ir4id My child shouldn't have to endure the ordeal of being born. My children don't deserve a life sentence in this world, and neither do yours. I have no incentive or obligation to create a life, and neither do you. There are *no* altruistic reasons to have children.
@@txlyons2937 There's no altruistic reason to do anything at all. But everything costs and those who want to have children and live and see the species continue have to accept the fact that life entails selfishness and suffering and they will.
@@John-ir4id _"There's no altruistic reason to do anything at all."_ You are completely wrong. If this statement were true, there would be no volunteers in this world, and no random acts of kindness at all. When I make a donation to a charity, I'm giving my money away to support a cause that I may never personally benefit from, but I do it anyway because I know it is helping others. Having a child, on the other hand, has to be one of the most selfish and narcissistic things anyone can do. Having a child simply creates more need where no need existed before, and did not need to exist. There's no reason to create a child that’s purely for the child's sake -- especially when the child has no say in the matter! For the potential child, birth doesn't solve any problem that it doesn't first create. All positives in life such as happiness, food, or love are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth.
If a pre-birth person cannot be subject to harms or benefits because she doesn't exist, then wouldn't that support Epicurus' claim that death is not a bad thing because there is no one to bear the harm of no longer existing? I've heard someone argue that his dying now would deprive him of the good of seeing his daughter graduate. But when she graduates, he won't be there to not see it.
I reject the concept of self-interest. People care about whatever they care about, which is skewed toward themselves compared to what they would care about if they had the time, space, and capacity to think things through better than they do, but no one ever cares only about themselves. It would be incoherent to do so.
AN is such a fascinating philosophy, forget about extinction and all those red buttons, imagine TELLING a couple which has a few kids that they are SELFISH and that bringing kids into the world was an act of CRUELTY! Now THAT ALONE should be AMAZING enough of a reason to be an antinatalist
Also having this kind of resentment doesn't make you enlightened, more often than not it is just a sign of foolishness. Internet nihilism at it"s peak, just grow up
True antinatalism is an extremely compassionate philosophy perhaps beyond most ppls' ability to comprehend. A true antinatalist love and care so much about life that they won't bring one into it.The irony in this when on the outside looking in.The reasons for not wanting children far out weigh the reasons for wanting them. Thus, an AN have strong grounds to stand on. Antinatalism is the beginning of wisdom and the ending of ALL suffering for those who follow this belief. The philosophy can also be found in the book of Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 ? Words to and from the wise, from a good and loving god. Leave the baby making up to fools bc they love sorrow.They say, "theres a fool born every minute ". That's 60 ppl in 1hr...1,444 in a day...in a week..in a month...in a year. You do the math bc I can't count. Btw. Do anyone know who they are? I think some antinatalist don't want to end life completely. Like most rational beings some antinatalist want thier cake and eat it too. Thats to also say that they want life without suffering. Who wouldnt unless they are a psycho or socio paths. Some if not, most ppl often feel that antinatalist only focus on the bad things in life and not the good or hold a pessimistic philosophical position and not an optimistic one. I tend to disagree bc when you inspect the world, you are inspecting it like you would inspect a house to make sure its livable or a car to make sure its safe to drive. The good things speaks for themselves in any inspection but the bad things sticks out like a sore thumb which becomes the basis for thier reasons why not to procreate. If we turn a blind eye to problems or ignore the bad things in life we are not good inspectors bc a good inspector would seek out to find the bad things in a house or car to make them better or up to reasonable standards etc and offer a solution to the problem if anything needs fixing. Antinatalist in one sense of the belief are peaceful revolutionaries seeking a solution or a means to an end, to end evil without shedding blood for which no single leader have found rather secular or religious. I hear so much love in ppl who truely are or chosen to be childfree and antinatalist, and why some say they would make better leaders bc they understand suffering. Peace out everyone and try to have a good day or night wherever you are in the Babylonian world.
I mean, someone has to... Men can't do it alone. Women can't do it alone.. Many argue, insufficiently, that it is selfish to have children. Some argue that it's selfish to not have children. Both worldviews can be selfish. The selfless perspective is that yes, it is a duty. The number of children is up for debate. It is my view that I would like to honor ALL of the men and women that came before me that made my life possible. One way of honoring them is to continue one's bloodline. Without a God centered Christian ethic, you will have an impossible foundation for getting married and having children. Not everyone will be married and not everyone will have children. That's the world, not God's ideal.
@@farzad228 you can say a passed out drunk woman doesnt have any rights either then because she isnt currently conscious. for me it doesnt matter if theres a conscious being, a rights violation is just an action that would be wrong to commit without consent. and really consider what youre saying here; is it really not a violation to sign your future children up for slavery? human trafficking? etc.. i say yes it is.
@@zeebpc When did I say conciouseness is neccassary for determining a person have rights or not? Again I doesn't say it. But I think for having rights you need personal autonomy. By personal autonomy I mean having the potential to tell what is allowed to do on you and what is not allowed to do on you. And I don't think potential childrens have personal autonomy. So, in a sense they doesn't have any kind of rights. And if talk about my position on the morality of procreation. Then I say having children's in a wealthy and happy eniviroment is a good thing but it's not an obligation. And having children's in a very poor and sad environment is bad thing.
I haven’t heard a single bit of the video yet, but I’m going to guess that whatever reasoning exists behind this concept will be deeply fascistic. Will comment when finished listening to evaluate my prediction.
will watch later, but just from the thumbnail's question _"Is there a duty to have children?"_ the answer is *NO* ...(almost) every time there is a question answerable yes/no, the answer is *NO*
Antinatalism: ua-cam.com/video/4ZXnd9ev_sw/v-deo.html
Philosophical pessimism: ua-cam.com/video/pK91YWOLz_s/v-deo.html
The repugnant conclusion: ua-cam.com/video/j5MgiLLeHV0/v-deo.html
ua-cam.com/video/dn9IcNL8fjA/v-deo.html
The bravery of researching this video with an open mind after a vasectomy is amazing to me
You think a philosopher did a vasectomy on a whim?
Thanks, but I would have had the vasectomy entirely for self-interested reasons, even if I were convinced by the moral arguments for pronatalism. It's similar to the utilitarian arguments for giving up all of one's spare income to charity: I'm just not going to do that; I like having at least luxuries for myself. I'd be far more likely to do that than raise a child, though.
@@KaneB yeah igu
@@KaneB thanks for the video and concerning your comment: as I know in moral philosophy there is a question or set of questions called “moral motivation” which is about the problem of how is it that people tend to reject following some strategy even if they believe that there is a sound moral argument in favor of the strategy; and bunch of related question about what can be done about it or what is the relation between moral believes and actions. Would you consider making a video on the topic?(or perhaps you’ve already made one)
@@KaneBLol, based
Basically "I agree that it would be moral to have children, however, consider the following: I don't want to"
Simple, yet effective
Theres a moral obligation to procreate to create more potential Kane B viewers
I think this might be the most convincing argument for pronatalism.
@@KaneB no need to create new beings existing people are enough to have billions of subscribers
The children yearn for the mines.
The cry of the void - and the echoes of desolation: ua-cam.com/video/WbaY0glxLVA/v-deo.htmlsi=vIYohNGV6kD-yEvH
The % reduction in QOL probably doesn't remain constant the more children are added. 9:30. So if adding one child to the first diminishes the QOL 10% for each child, adding the third might increase it to 20%. Adding a fourth might increase it even further. I've seen examples in real life where it certainly seemed to be the case, especially in large families, that the quality of life of all the kids is severely diminished just by having added so many so quickly. To the point that I could easily imagine had the number of children been half what was produced, the quality of life of the remaining ones would have been much, much higher. Life-changingly better.
What matters - reducing suffering or increasing happiness (within utilitarianism) could drive one towards antinatalism or pronatalism depending on what feels intuitive
The only thing that matters over time is survival of the fittest.
Creating new beings for fulfilling your desire for happiness is selfish hence pronatalist are selfish and Narcissistic while antinatalist are companionate as care more about their children and wants prevent their suffering by not bringing them into this cruel world.
can't wait for the 'why I'm not a pro-natalist' on Patreon for this one
As a person who plans to never have children, I would be okay with a tax that goes towards children. In many ways, I already pay a tax like that because my taxes pay for public schools and TANF, plus my salary might be higher if my employer didn’t have to offer parental leave. All of those things I’m happy for my money to go towards, despite never directly benefiting from them.
Is there a short phrase to describe the ideology of let's-adopt-all-the-orphans-first-before-we-start-breeding-again-ism?
Short-lived
@@ignotumperignotius630 It is true that family tends to hassle people who opt to adopt. The added stress probably cuts some years off the adopting parent.
@@xenoblad I took Ignoti Perignotii point to be rather that the number of orphans to adopt would place only the briefest moratorium on breeding.
@@howtoappearincompletely9739 I'm ok with that. I'm not trying to stop breeding. I just think we should help the kids already here first.
I'm not an anti-natalist. I'm currently agnostic about the issue. I just think that whatever is the over all correct position for an all encompassing moral world view, basically all people would agree that we should take care of existing children in need. Or at the very least, that is my axiom/sacred cow.
I did misunderstand Ignoti Perignotii . You are correct about that.
Biology denialism
Kane: “Has my quality of life been diminished because I have a brother?”
Kane’s brother in the other room: 😥
I feel like in my case it was definitely improved. Utilitarian calculus cannot be just a simple resources in - happiness out affair.
I don't know what my life would look like, had my brother not been born -- actually, I don't think there's any fact of the matter here, since that counterfactual story can be told in a variety of different ways -- but I do think that right now, I'm much better off with my brother around. That's the case even if I assess it in purely economic terms. We both live together, so we both split the bills; given the current cost of living, I'd be screwed if I had to live alone. There's also something very nice about having somebody there who I know I can rely on if anything happens to me. If I have a serious medical problem, say, I know that my brother will support me. Of course, I got lucky insofar as I've always had a very good relationship with my brother (despite the fact that we have completely different personalities).
@@KaneB that’s awesome. I think I can pretty affirmatively say my life is improved because of my brother.
I was making a joke because I remembered y’all live together.
Now that you've covered antinatalism and pronatalism, would you do a video on promortalism?
Children don't get a say so it's done without their consent.
Children don't want to experience a DEATH Sentence.
⚰️☠️🥀
Pronatalist argument:
Kids are cute
Fulfilled life.
Dont cry later why you are lonely.
@FedericoCastro-wm8cl Yeah because then if there was a rule say to off or to cancel then why stop at disability right?
Stick up of your disabled mindset.
@@unknowninfinium4353 stop using another being to fulfill your meaningless life
22:30 Here I would disagree. While we don't distinguish on time, there's significan't debate around "choosing children", especially when it comes to gender or genetic ailments. It seems perfectly plausible for a journalist to ask a woman who had a designer made "CRISPR baby" why they selected for their child to have some particular feature and not others.
Good point!
Philosophically, what do you think of the view that human behaviour is always guided by a perceived benefit. I am not saying that the end result must be pleasure in one's mind exclusively, but a person needs to at least have positive reasons for themselves to do a self-sacrificing act. Now that is not to say that every behaviour is on balance egoistic because clearly even thought I can experience some personal purpose or benefit, my personal costs could in principle still be outweighed, see martyrs for instance.
'children are public goods' is a lib right thing to say in so many ways
Somewhere inside me there will always be an edgy 14 year old ancap.
Hi Kane B, for the Golden Rule reasoning-argument, can't I deny the "1st premise: It is good that I came into existence"? I think that's what the anti-natalist say, right? So the argument appears to be begging the question. Also, for the rest of the arguments, it seems to hinge on the assumption that current structures or institutions are functioning in the best, optimal manner and that best, optimal manner is supported by a greater quantity of children. This assumption seems doubtable...?
i've got no opinion on the matter so here's a comment for the algorithm
Thanks!
Please do a video on TAG
If you mean Jay Dyer's Transcendental argument for God then I definitely agree he should tackle this. He'll one inevitably ask Kane to debate him.
A problem I have with the repugnant conclusion that I'd also apply to pronatalism utilitarianism is that I just don't agree that the life of a hypothetical person matters, especially compared to the life of an actual person. A theoretical sibling your parents could have had isn't real. They can't be disappointed with the life they never had, they aren't jealous of you for the life you're having. You don't need to consider their feelings or the possible good they could bring to the world since they don't exist.
That's why I say having children's is a choice but not an obligation in the case of a good environment.
What about extinction without suffering? For example, a matrix-like scenario where everyone uploads their consciousness into a utopia simulation. Do pro-natalists have an objection to that?
if you like to think that a copy of you is you, then fine with me.. but in reality it can't be you, you will die in your body.
@@nescius2 Yes, you will die but you wouldn't suffer. What is the objection?
@@tontokomaimai i think one would just respond by saying there is a specific independent good that comes from human civilization, that wouldn't be there without it (art, consciousness, deep happiness, pleasure,) and then go on to argue for the existence and prima facie value of such stuff. Then also you would have to say that the bads of birth, if there are any (violating the consent of a person, very likely putting someone under pain/misery) do not outweigh the goods mentioned above.
A pronatalist may argue that the utopia simulation is a gift we must share with future generations
@@tontokomaimai you will suffer twice - as you and as your copy watching you.
There is a pronatalist argument going around mostly in vegan circles called the Niche Replacement argument. the idea is that only vegans should reproduce or atleast vegans should be moreso encouraged to reproduce in order to battle the non-vegans, as well as to slowly displace wildlife because wild animals are carnivorous
but i guess this would just be some flavor of utilitarianism argument, and theres already good reasons to find utilitarianism unappealing so..
@@zeebpc both utilitarianism and deontology can be found unappealing though. There would also be utilitarian and deontological arguments against niche replacement (“it would be a violation of inalienable rights to restrict procreation to a certain group”, or “restricting procreation to a certain group would create other undesirable outcomes”)
I feel like this argument overlooks the fact that lots of wild carnivores are super cool. Imagine wanting to replace komodo dragons, leopards, alligators, and falcons with a bunch of Peter Singer clones. No way lol.
@@KaneB lol
My question is, isn't there a duty to take care of the people and make sure they have the resources that they need in order to create the next generation? If you don't invest in today there will be no tomorrow.
Its interesting seeing people in this comment section condition the morality of birth on material wealth, when there is a strong inverse correlation between wealth and births.
What you mean by inverse correlation between wealth and births?
Thanks for this, Dr Baker. You did a good job of remaining impartial, given your elsewhere-obvious fundamental disagreement with the position.
The social-contractarian argument comes closest to yielding a duty to reproduce, but I don't think any argument here clinches it. I suspect that a duty to one's ancestors to provide them with descendants could be more plausibly defended.
BTW, re Anca Gheaus, her family lives in Munich, but her name is Romanian (original form: Gheauș Anca). Gheauș is pronounced "gaa-OOSH". I don't know for sure, but I would assume that that is the pronunciation of her surname which she employs.
You could make the assumption thay the last generation will occur for some foreseeable reason, say that interstellar travel is impossible and we manage to make the earth habitable no matter what the state of the sun is until it goes supernova and destroys the Earth. The last generation, with a know countdown on humanities life, would propare for that in a way that minimised sufgering (eg. A centuries long cultural shift to accept death, celebration of life, etc.). It is thus better that we stall the last generation until it occurs in a context that would create that lower-suffering end
Not a fan of mushrooms, personally.
A duty for offspring in the Rg Veda is due to the human may survive death by proxy in the form of their offspring and may obtain individual immortality in heaven contingent upon filial piety in the performance of rituals of sustenance for deceased ancestors.
‘ They (the ancestors) compassed in their bodies (tans) all existing things, and streamed forth offspring in many successive forms. (pra asarayata purudha praja and)’ Rg 10.56.5-6(G)
Premise: Humans may achieve a form of immortality through their offspring.
Premise: Filial piety, especially in performing rituals for deceased ancestors, is essential for individual immortality in heaven.
Conclusion: Therefore, a duty for offspring in the Rg Veda is to ensure the survival of their lineage and perform rituals for their ancestors to secure their own place in heaven.
I think this is a common sentiment in the West, as well. People often talk as if their children will provide them a kind of surrogate immortality -- as if something of themselves will live on through their children. I guess this would be more of a prudential argument for pronatalism.
I don't think the utilitarian position considers the change in quality of life for the future and puts the same amount of happiness for people that aren't born yet. And if we wanna talk about prevention of suffering, if nobody is having children, there is no next generation to suffer. I think that any argument that doesn't take into account the difference in the value of life in the present and future is flawed because anti natalism was born as a response to the economic and environmental forecasts that we are seeing.
A duty to avoid cultural changes that the anti-immigration folks might see as negative? Eyeroll.
Didn't expect all of these arguments to be so well-stated and convincing. I do not want to have children, so initially I was prepared to be totally unimpressed by any pronatalist position.
you've never seen a Kane B video then
which one is convincing to you?
@@zeebpc Honestly all of them made me stop and think, even silly utilitarian calculus and an appeal to the golden rule. Personally, the most thought-provoking arguments comes after the declining fertility part. If I want to have a functioning human society, then I ought to be for procreation. Objections and responses to this were also presented in this video, but I am still pretty convinced by this argument. Not convinced enough to change my mind about not wanting children though lol
I am still conflicted, still thinking about this. The conclusion feels wrong
I'm glad to hear that the video was challenging!
I am of the opinion that having children is, at its core, a selfish act. However, I will concede that it can - in most cases - turn out to be a good thing for all involved. One exception to this is willingly giving birth to a child with severe disabilities. To me, that is akin to murder. If murder is forcing someone to die, having a child with severe disabilities is forcing someone to live a life that, if given a choice before the fact, no one would choose to live.
Birthing a child _is_ forcing them to die. Having a child is like catching a big fish -- it may be an exciting, happy moment for you, and it feels like an achievement, but for the fish, it is suffocating. It is a death.
@@txlyons2937 After the ordeal of being born, death should be no big thing. Also, it is not like catching a fish. Giving birth is not plucking angels from heaven, it is creating a life.
@@John-ir4id My child shouldn't have to endure the ordeal of being born. My children don't deserve a life sentence in this world, and neither do yours. I have no incentive or obligation to create a life, and neither do you. There are *no* altruistic reasons to have children.
@@txlyons2937 There's no altruistic reason to do anything at all. But everything costs and those who want to have children and live and see the species continue have to accept the fact that life entails selfishness and suffering and they will.
@@John-ir4id _"There's no altruistic reason to do anything at all."_
You are completely wrong. If this statement were true, there would be no volunteers in this world, and no random acts of kindness at all. When I make a donation to a charity, I'm giving my money away to support a cause that I may never personally benefit from, but I do it anyway because I know it is helping others.
Having a child, on the other hand, has to be one of the most selfish and narcissistic things anyone can do. Having a child simply creates more need where no need existed before, and did not need to exist. There's no reason to create a child that’s purely for the child's sake -- especially when the child has no say in the matter! For the potential child, birth doesn't solve any problem that it doesn't first create. All positives in life such as happiness, food, or love are based on fulfilling needs, which get created by birth.
No. The end.
aw hell nah 😂
If a pre-birth person cannot be subject to harms or benefits because she doesn't exist, then wouldn't that support Epicurus' claim that death is not a bad thing because there is no one to bear the harm of no longer existing? I've heard someone argue that his dying now would deprive him of the good of seeing his daughter graduate. But when she graduates, he won't be there to not see it.
No.
I reject the concept of self-interest. People care about whatever they care about, which is skewed toward themselves compared to what they would care about if they had the time, space, and capacity to think things through better than they do, but no one ever cares only about themselves. It would be incoherent to do so.
AN is such a fascinating philosophy, forget about extinction and all those red buttons, imagine TELLING a couple which has a few kids that they are SELFISH and that bringing kids into the world was an act of CRUELTY! Now THAT ALONE should be AMAZING enough of a reason to be an antinatalist
you can just be an egoist antinatalist and say theres nothing wrong with being selfish, the selfishness isnt the problem here.
Being selfish isn't necessarily bad, important part is how you act. Sure it has retorical value but eeeeh we need a lot more than that mate
Also having this kind of resentment doesn't make you enlightened, more often than not it is just a sign of foolishness. Internet nihilism at it"s peak, just grow up
True antinatalism is an extremely compassionate philosophy perhaps beyond most ppls' ability to comprehend. A true antinatalist love and care so much about life that they won't bring one into it.The irony in this when on the outside looking in.The reasons for not wanting children far out weigh the reasons for wanting them. Thus, an AN have strong grounds to stand on. Antinatalism is the beginning of wisdom and the ending of ALL suffering for those who follow this belief. The philosophy can also be found in the book of Ecclesiastes 4:1-3 ? Words to and from the wise, from a good and loving god. Leave the baby making up to fools bc they love sorrow.They say, "theres a fool born every minute ". That's 60 ppl in 1hr...1,444 in a day...in a week..in a month...in a year. You do the math bc I can't count. Btw. Do anyone know who they are?
I think some antinatalist don't want to end life completely. Like most rational beings some antinatalist want thier cake and eat it too. Thats to also say that they want life without suffering. Who wouldnt unless they are a psycho or socio paths.
Some if not, most ppl often feel that antinatalist only focus on the bad things in life and not the good or hold a pessimistic philosophical position and not an optimistic one. I tend to disagree bc when you inspect the world, you are inspecting it like you would inspect a house to make sure its livable or a car to make sure its safe to drive. The good things speaks for themselves in any inspection but the bad things sticks out like a sore thumb which becomes the basis for thier reasons why not to procreate. If we turn a blind eye to problems or ignore the bad things in life we are not good inspectors bc a good inspector would seek out to find the bad things in a house or car to make them better or up to reasonable standards etc and offer a solution to the problem if anything needs fixing. Antinatalist in one sense of the belief are peaceful revolutionaries seeking a solution or a means to an end, to end evil without shedding blood for which no single leader have found rather secular or religious. I hear so much love in ppl who truely are or chosen to be childfree and antinatalist, and why some say they would make better leaders bc they understand suffering.
Peace out everyone and try to have a good day or night wherever you are in the Babylonian world.
Thanks Eric. Great writing.
The cry of the void - and the echoes of desolation: ua-cam.com/video/WbaY0glxLVA/v-deo.htmlsi=vIYohNGV6kD-yEvH
God I hope not lol
thank god
We need protection of all humans life from moment of conception.
regretting getting them nuts clipped?
Not at all. I just enjoy exploring different positions.
@@KaneB just messing with ya
I mean, someone has to... Men can't do it alone. Women can't do it alone..
Many argue, insufficiently, that it is selfish to have children. Some argue that it's selfish to not have children. Both worldviews can be selfish.
The selfless perspective is that yes, it is a duty. The number of children is up for debate.
It is my view that I would like to honor ALL of the men and women that came before me that made my life possible. One way of honoring them is to continue one's bloodline.
Without a God centered Christian ethic, you will have an impossible foundation for getting married and having children.
Not everyone will be married and not everyone will have children. That's the world, not God's ideal.
I think having childrens in happy, rich environment is a good thing. But It's not an obligation.
i say coming into existence is a rights violation
@@zeebpc Again potential children's doesn't have any kind of rights.
@@farzad228 you can say a passed out drunk woman doesnt have any rights either then because she isnt currently conscious. for me it doesnt matter if theres a conscious being, a rights violation is just an action that would be wrong to commit without consent.
and really consider what youre saying here; is it really not a violation to sign your future children up for slavery? human trafficking? etc.. i say yes it is.
@@zeebpc When did I say conciouseness is neccassary for determining a person have rights or not? Again I doesn't say it. But I think for having rights you need personal autonomy. By personal autonomy I mean having the potential to tell what is allowed to do on you and what is not allowed to do on you. And I don't think potential childrens have personal autonomy. So, in a sense they doesn't have any kind of rights. And if talk about my position on the morality of procreation. Then I say having children's in a wealthy and happy eniviroment is a good thing but it's not an obligation. And having children's in a very poor and sad environment is bad thing.
@farzad1021 I think giving rights based on ability to suffer is much more sensible than basing it on personal autonomy
I haven’t heard a single bit of the video yet, but I’m going to guess that whatever reasoning exists behind this concept will be deeply fascistic. Will comment when finished listening to evaluate my prediction.
define fascistic first
will watch later, but just from the thumbnail's question _"Is there a duty to have children?"_ the answer is *NO* ...(almost) every time there is a question answerable yes/no, the answer is *NO*
This is so dumb I am embarassed to identify as a progressive...
good think _you_ do..
Cioran, Zapffe, Schopenhauer, Michelstaedter, Albert Caraco, Philip Larkin etc. were rightists but all of them were against procreation.