@@roninsjourney7560 it is simple, antinatalism is correct about life being a negative but the method goes against the final goal. The World is going to end if we keep increasing the global temperature, for doing that, there is no better way than increasing the number of humans. That will speed up the general demise of earth and life is going to be over sooner. So we should stop preaching antinatalism and convince breeders to keep doing their stuff.
@@roninsjourney7560I’m not the OP but here’s my opinion. Antinatalism is the philosophical belief that suffering outweighs the positive and therefore it’s unethical and immoral to bring life into existence, because we know that they will suffer. There is another argument to this that some antinatalists will use and that is: It is impossible to gain consent from the new life in regards to wether or not they want to be born, and therefore it’s unethical. My view is this: If there is one thing that is guaranteed in life, it is suffering. If you choose to refrain from bringing life into this world, you are preventing countless suffering, but you are also preventing all of their happiness. Life gives us the opportunity to love and be loved. Happiness would not be so good if we were never sad. Living in a home but not feel like a privilege if there were not homeless people that would trade places. So I have accepted that when I have children, they will suffer in their life, because I know that I am also giving them the opportunity to love and be loved. And I will teach them the way the world actually is in a safe way that is good for kids. Finally: All life on earth reproduces without gaining consent from the following generation because that is impossible. So there is no argument for why we should need consent from our children to bring them into the world.
On your point regarding plant life - “seems very strongly to want to survive, thrive and reproduce” - everything I have read and witnessed in that regard shows that it is more likely they have evolved a need, rather than a desire, to thrive etc. For plants to want something seems very unlikely, but to respond to stimuli is feasible and advantageous.
I have struggled with how to stay alive by eating other species (of plants, fungi, or animals) for a long time now. It surely seems like the basis of life here on Earth is the consumption of other species by whatever species is in question. Plants and fungi and animals all seem to require the death of other plants, fungi and/or animals to continue living. Life seems to be the sort of thing that causes any particular species to want to survive such that that species will consume other species (or even other members of its own species) in order to survive. It could be considered something like morally whacked (for lack of a good scientific term)! People who claim to survive and thrive without consuming any plants, fungi, or animals (breatharians) seem to be not telling the truth. I’m not calling them liars; I’m saying that they seem to have all been proven fakes. Not eating would seem like the moral high ground; but it doesn’t seem possible (as per your illustration that Jains who stopped eating all together die).
You misrepresented veganism by saying that it's all about consent (that animals cannot consent to being eaten). This mistake led you to another, that is, wondering about the consent of plants, which makes as much sense as thinking about the consent of rain and rocks. I have never met a vegan that would base his views on consent.
If you think - as I believe you do, basing on this video - that there is no counter argument to veganism and no argument in favor of carnism, yet you still consume animal products, then what even is the value in rational thought, if it doesn't move us to behave in other ("better") ways?...
So, what is that specific nutrient that you were lacking on a plant-based diet?
I've been using your videos to sleep because your voice is so calming.
I'm glad it helps!
Vegans and antinatalism are about compassion I guess
Veganism maybe, antinatalism is a total NO
@@elCamaradaR What do you disagree with about antinatalism?
@@roninsjourney7560 it is simple, antinatalism is correct about life being a negative but the method goes against the final goal.
The World is going to end if we keep increasing the global temperature, for doing that, there is no better way than increasing the number of humans. That will speed up the general demise of earth and life is going to be over sooner.
So we should stop preaching antinatalism and convince breeders to keep doing their stuff.
@@elCamaradaR why you say that ?
@@roninsjourney7560I’m not the OP but here’s my opinion.
Antinatalism is the philosophical belief that suffering outweighs the positive and therefore it’s unethical and immoral to bring life into existence, because we know that they will suffer.
There is another argument to this that some antinatalists will use and that is: It is impossible to gain consent from the new life in regards to wether or not they want to be born, and therefore it’s unethical.
My view is this: If there is one thing that is guaranteed in life, it is suffering. If you choose to refrain from bringing life into this world, you are preventing countless suffering, but you are also preventing all of their happiness. Life gives us the opportunity to love and be loved. Happiness would not be so good if we were never sad. Living in a home but not feel like a privilege if there were not homeless people that would trade places. So I have accepted that when I have children, they will suffer in their life, because I know that I am also giving them the opportunity to love and be loved. And I will teach them the way the world actually is in a safe way that is good for kids.
Finally: All life on earth reproduces without gaining consent from the following generation because that is impossible. So there is no argument for why we should need consent from our children to bring them into the world.
Antinatalism simply means love ❤
How?
On your point regarding plant life - “seems very strongly to want to survive, thrive and reproduce” - everything I have read and witnessed in that regard shows that it is more likely they have evolved a need, rather than a desire, to thrive etc. For plants to want something seems very unlikely, but to respond to stimuli is feasible and advantageous.
I have struggled with how to stay alive by eating other species (of plants, fungi, or animals) for a long time now. It surely seems like the basis of life here on Earth is the consumption of other species by whatever species is in question. Plants and fungi and animals all seem to require the death of other plants, fungi and/or animals to continue living. Life seems to be the sort of thing that causes any particular species to want to survive such that that species will consume other species (or even other members of its own species) in order to survive. It could be considered something like morally whacked (for lack of a good scientific term)! People who claim to survive and thrive without consuming any plants, fungi, or animals (breatharians) seem to be not telling the truth. I’m not calling them liars; I’m saying that they seem to have all been proven fakes. Not eating would seem like the moral high ground; but it doesn’t seem possible (as per your illustration that Jains who stopped eating all together die).
You misrepresented veganism by saying that it's all about consent (that animals cannot consent to being eaten). This mistake led you to another, that is, wondering about the consent of plants, which makes as much sense as thinking about the consent of rain and rocks.
I have never met a vegan that would base his views on consent.
If you think - as I believe you do, basing on this video - that there is no counter argument to veganism and no argument in favor of carnism, yet you still consume animal products, then what even is the value in rational thought, if it doesn't move us to behave in other ("better") ways?...