Please note these are my preliminary thoughts on antinatalism, which I would like to develop in response to comments on this discussion, and perhaps make a future video expressing more solidified views. Do send me any resources or arguments you think may be of use. Also, sorry for the audio: Jack's computer was overheating and so you can hear the fans whirring throughout. Hopefully it isn't too distracting.
I think I could convince you... But I think I would be doing you a disservice... UA-cam doesn't allow anyone who supports AN to get any views... So your UA-cam career will immediately END the day you become an anti-natalist and I would hate to see that... I think you are a very intelligent and very useful person for people to be exposed to because of your ability to see things clearly and explain yourself so well... I think that your work in atheism and your work now as a vegan is going to be GREAT WORK - work that massively reduces suffering in the world... But ONLY if you keep it a secret if you ever agree with the AN side.... I could be wrong but I feel like UA-cam will demonize you and take away your monetization so you'd be working for free if you came out AN. I do not think you are going to be able to counter the AN argument well enough when you really 'get it' ....so I think you should STOP talking about this immediately and abandon this subject entirely... There are some people who I am glad are antinatalists - but you are not someone who I want to wind up becoming an AN... Not yet... I think long term we may need to seek a plan of extinction... However PEOPLE LIKE YOU breeding is a GOOD THING for that cause lol... Long term anyways... That's just my opinion... I would say more...but like I said I would personally prefer to see you NEVER talk about this again... You WILL lose...
Hey Alex, great video, looking forward for your insights. What do you think about Effective Altruism? www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism/ If you are familiar with it, are you planning on making a video anytime soon?
@@lucioh1575 - Absolutely... This kid is AMAZING. He is also clearly not too worried about the potential backlash that he will receive... He seems very brave - honest - noble and pure in every way... He seeks the TRUTH - and ONLY the truth...at ANY cost... This kid is gonna go down in history as someone who is worth remembering for sure. I just hope he is careful about the timing... Timing is everything sometimes...
Thank you Alex and Jack for having this conversation and being willing to genuinely consider the arguments for Antinatalism. I admire both of your channels! At the moment, my favorite argument for Antinatalism is that *it is unethical to unnecessarily subject another sentient being to both certain harm* (inherent in life), *and the risk of extreme gratuitous suffering* (this risk is also an inherent part of life). This argument doesn't require one to accept Benatar's asymmetry or the 'life is more bad than good' arguments.
This is a quote from his book, a character says this and not Sáenz. I don’t think Benny boy was advocating for antinatalism. The book was about Aristotle finding his individuality and growing up.
My argument for antinatalism is that any pleasure that we experience comes actually from a need or a desire that it fulfills or an inconvenience that it relieves; having never existed means that you never experience need, desire or inconvenience and therefore you are already in the state of ultimate fulfillment.
@@leekaplan4907 Exactly. He's implying that because the absence of life means you never suffer the pain of having unfulfilled desires, it is preferable. But thats that's a subjective judgement. One which apparently common, but they're also people who would value the process of fulfilling their desire even if that meant pain. The consequence is you as anti-natalist are depriving that potential human of it. Choices have consequences, a choice to abstain from procreation mean, less people live. In the same way that a choice to buy fast fashion contributes to child labor. The fact that you did not engage in that decision, does not make it not that the case. The natural of your antinatalism is the deprivation of potential life.
Who is it that the antinatilist seeks to benifit? On whose behalf does the antinatilist act? We are ethically engaged to the extent that we interact with other sentiences. Ethics is the art of benefiting sentiences because it is only in the presence of sentience that one is ethically obligated. One is not ethically obligated to the universe as a whole since the universe is ethically indifferent toward us. Hence, it is senseless to act on behalf of the universe, it is senseless to seek the eradication of sentience so that the universe will be better off because the benifit of the universe is not a concern within the ethical domain. When interacting with another sentience one cannot in that relation occupy the subject position of the universe as a whole since the universe's subject position is Absolute Indifference toward sentiences, it's a prima facie incoherent orientation for finite descision makers to assume. Since any finite form is contingent from the POV of the universal, a finite being assuming a universal perspective will inevitably spiral into autophagic, suicidal tautologies. Only a God-agent can make its primary concern the totality of Being. This brings us to a point where the antinatilists get things egregiously wrong: the absence of God means that human intelligence is capable of expanding itself into a universal orientation capable of acting on the totality of Being. The antinatilists move too quickly in reaction to the death of God by occupying the position He left vacant before achieving the capacities attributable to Him. So by prematurely passing a judgement on the human from the viewpoint of God, the antinatilist only sees inadequacy and suffering which would be better eradicated altogether. However, the question becomes, from this God-perspective what would be an adequate state of affairs deserving of preservance? Well, the answer must be Heaven. From God's perspective, existence is only worthy if existence is Heaven. Therefore, the question for us, for finite sentiences endowed with intelligence is, how can Heaven be instantiated in the world? And the answer is: through the expansion of intelligence. Heaven is acheivable through the expansion of capacities to the point that the totality of Being is manipulable by mind. The expansion of capacities proceeds through intelligence reconfiguring self, world, and time. The true goal of ethics should be not the eradication of all life forever, but the expansion of intelligence toward God's subject position such that worlds can be created where sentience exists yet doesn't suffer. This is what rationality actually is: the dynamic principle through which intelligence gains traction on the world, producing more potent spacial orientations and recipes of abstraction which amplify the types and potencies of functions capable of manipulating self+world.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 insofar as we choose to communicate then we are demonstrating our indifference towards death. Death is the absence of communication so even your blah blah blahs betray your faux grimness.
@@nrg937 wowww that was so well said Nicholas and really do agree with you on that. I was pondering on that the whole conversation haha. Like wow Antinatalist really must be god to believe in definite and make presumptions with our finite intelligence
@@beau4588 Thank you, Beau. I did not know before seeing this video that secular antinatilists exist. From all the conversations I've subsequently had with these ideologues in this comment section, it seems that secular antinatilism only attracts depressives. You really have to hate the world in order to use rationality as a means to justify rationality's extinction. Ethics is multifaceted, and the antinatilists overlook most of ethics' facets. For instance, for what reason do we formalize our descision making into something we can call an ethic? The reason we formalize our descision making in this way is because formalized descisions construct/structure us into novel modalities - it improves our modes of being. Formalization is construction. We construct to improve. We improve because improvement is favorable to regression, cancellation, etc. Hence, the antinatilist's conclusion (abyss>sentience) is precluded from ethics since ethics - as a type of formalization - has as its modus operandi amelioration. The antinatilist is engaged in logical argument but not ethical argument insofar as the antinatilist allows logical consistency to supersede the goal of enhancing the world for sentiences, reasoners, etc.
How about you just freaking say "I care about you and I don't want you to suffer?" I wish you never would have existed is probably one of the most cruel things you could ever relay to someone. To never exist is to never try. Is to never have an effect on someone else's life. Or your own for that matter. Reconsider giving any credence to such a horrible thing to say.
George Dunbar But they do exist. So I do care. Otherwise every statement “I wish x wouldn’t have happened to you” would be nonsensical. If it didn’t happen I wouldn’t - couldn’t in fact - wish for x not to have happened.
As a Buddhist, life is pain. In Samsara there's no way to avoid pain and suffering, only if you reach Nirvana (enlightenment) you'll be able to stop suffering, as Nirvana is a state of mind, the conscious choice of stop suffering. To me, it's almost impossible, but I try everyday. I am disabled, abused and mentally ill, but I try. An as a teenage woman, I choose to not have children, because I know that no matter how much I try, they will suffer and I don't have the heart to make the conscious choice of letting someone I love have the ability to suffer. I won't change my mind, I won't bring life to this world, and I wish I was never born.
@@theGnostic- Intelligence plays a part in suffering, although I'd argue we suffer a lot and create a lot of suffering compared to less intellectual species. So, how are humans the closest to Nirvana? I guess we have many ways to prevent suffering like health care but in some cases that causes more suffering. For example, prolonging someone's suffering when they would have more pleasure in dying. I'm asking you because I don't know a lot about Nirvana so I want to know the exact reason you think humans are closest.
I'm not saying Buddhism talks about antinatalism. I am talking how I, as person that is also a buddhist, choose to not procreate. My personal findings do not represent my religion, as each person goes to their own journey and experience everything in their own way. I view buddhism more as my philosophy, than the western picture of a religion, again to me.
I read Benatar's book, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence. I was definitely skeptical but curious. On finishing the book, I thought he had made a better case than I had anticipated.
Yet people dismiss antinatalists as incel mysognists (even though we have many females in our community) or just as depressed people (we have some, but which community doesn't?) or other similar bullshit. Oh, and people telling us to kill ourselves. We get that too.
@Survivalist395 I'm fine with incels, I'm not fine when they are mysoginists. If you want to ask what's wrong with incels, ask people who accused me of being one for expressing my views on the ethics of procreation.
For him to have a case it'd require us to have been "resting in peace" or in "peaceful oblivion" before we existed. He doesn't realize it, but his brand of antinatalism completely depends on such a thing.
@@naturalisted1714his brand of Natalism, and all brands, require a worldview focused solely on pain and pleasure, which is hedonic, and requires that you believe that life is not worth living due to a valuation of pain versus pleasure that provides that literally any pain makes existing even in otherwise perfect pleasure not worth it, and it requires that these things be objectively so. I’ve seen no argument of objectivity, I’ve only ever simply seen it posited as though it’s self evident that any pain makes life worthless. Someone else’s subjective opinion has absolutely no inherent influence on my opinion, and has absolutely no influence on what is objectively true or false. If the argument is that there is no objective truth, how is that going to convince someone who believes there is objective truth, and even if it does what then makes anti-natalism right, when there’s no such thing as right or wrong outside a subjective view, and as such it’s as meaningless as preferring chocolate to vanilla.
For people arguing that life also has bits of joy and nonexistence will make them unavailable all these happiness or joys are result after fulfillment of desires or need and desires or need only exist only if you exist Existence creates desires , which incase not fulfilled cause suffering Desire for healthy life can be easily deteriorated by uncurable cancar or A,IDS diagnosis
@@pauldirc.. Nah happiness doesn't just come from fulfilling needs. Ever heard of the Hedonic Treadmill? The idea that after achieving or losing something we return to a base level of happiness. However that base level of happiness can be lower or higher depending on other factors. Dopamine is responsible for temporary pleasure after achieving things, Serotonin is responsible for long term well being. You can be joyful because of your suffering and not because of your suffering.
@@pauldirc.. No, the deep contentment you experience in a meditative state does not require any fulfillment of desires. You conflate positive experience with basic hedonic pleasures.
actually it's not a gamble - you are GUARANTEED to lose by continuing to get older, weaker, sicker until you die - and that's if you are LUCKY and live old enough to suffer.
I was never interested in philosophy because I thought the concepts would be hard to grasp but for what I hear it's nothing more than to apply common sense reasoning to philosophy topics. I'm beginning to like this.
Philosophy is far more common place than people think. It's what i forms every decision and every choice you ever make. Can certainly get complex though.
It's theoretical philosophy that I find overly tangled up and often useless. But most of philosophy is very interesting and it's at the core of everything we do.
Agreed! I decided at a very young age that I did not want to put another young human being into this world. Many people say that individuals who choose to not have kids 'must' hate children, but it's actually the opposite And so insted (since I can't see a child without wanting to care for them 😂) I am planning to adopt 😊 Although it will be many years in the future since I'm only 15
Very well said. Our intuition tells us that life is worth living, but I think that is just a result of us being a product of evolution, being pro-natalist by virtue of being alive.
And who is the one to be the arbiter and say “Ah you are not actually appreciating your life or having a positive existence, you are merely experiencing Stockholm syndrome and are held hostage by life. You would be better off having not existed, and the same will go for all future sentient beings.”
_Live is a hostage situation and we all suffer from stockholm syndrome_ Interesting thought. At least we can have a stockholm syndrome. But i see this as a variant of the _life as an addiction_ version. see my video: ua-cam.com/video/f6ELhBnsRiE/v-deo.html
@@nakodares5982 Well the idea with antinatalism is that you get to decide for you whether life is worth living, but you don't get to put someone else in danger who otherwise would not have existed, because of your subjective perception.
Very good way to put it. Concise, as long as people get it. We have evolved to have psychological methods of convincing ourselves that things are better than they are. However, our perception of good and bad experience is based upon what we are convinced of. So you might argue that someone with Stockholm syndrome is in a bad state, because there is a "better" state they could be in, which is one in which they are aware of what is actually happening to them, even though they are subjectively experiencing bliss while under the spell of the syndrome. But that isn't perfectly analogous to life in general. There is no other place to experience bliss and there is no other place to wake up into; there simply is no other place. You are valuing knowledge of truth over pleasure of experience. Someone people would rather "ignorance is bliss" their way through life.
@@no22sill That's a guarantee with mortality. If we grow some plants in a garden, they'll eventually wither and die. That's life. Beauty fades. Love fades. Life fades. But to say it's not worth it because these things don't last forever seems to be missing out.
@@no22sill I think a difference I have with antinatalists is that they see a guarantee of no suffering if we didn't exist. That's for sure. I can also guarantee no broken hearts if we never fall in love. But I think I have just as much a legitimate criticism that we'd also guarantee no beauty, no love, experience no sense of meaning or purpose, no joy, no creativity, no learning from history, if we didn't exist. I would frame the asymmetry table Benatar proposes in the opposite way in terms of the deprivation of pleasure and meaning from nonexistence. Merry Christmas by the way!
@@Scriabin_fan Most people do, life is boring and depressing for somewhat lucky individuals stuck into the modern loophole. And life is horrifying for those born into poverty and war, or mental/physically deformed circumstances.
I love little more than articulate people thinking out loud for my consideration. More information is better than less, however... “Education: the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.” ― Mark Twain
No existence = not having to deal with useless and overcompetitive school system No existence = not having to fight for good colleges, which have less than 5% selection rate No existence = not having to fight for exploitative jobs, and be overworked and underpaid No existence = not having to deal with unemployment No existence = no possibility of meeting with an accident and getting your limb amputated No existence = not having to deal with diseases like asthma and diabetes, which degrade quality of life No existence = not having to see your loved ones struggle with terminal illnesses and die No existence = not having to die a slow and painful death due to cancer, paralysis, etc. *NO EXISTENCE = NO PROBLEMS*
No existence = you can't consent or not to existing because you do not exist yet. No existence = not having people you love No existence = not having good memories No existence = not being proud of anything you've done No existence = no goals No existence = not being able to feel loved No existence = missing the opportunity to be happy *NO EXISTENCE = NO JOY* If you see life as a bad experience, fine. But please don't try yo convince anyone that you're right about it because all you're doing is making people feel a bit more hopeless and helpless.
@@aceiiiiv3201 It is clear you are being emotional and don't understand Benatar's argument. And I don't feel hopeless and helpless embracing this position. If an idea makes you uncomfortable, it doesn't mean it has no merits.
But the radical interconnectivity of being assures that suicide will 1) leave a more painful world, and 2) assure you will return to a realm of greater pain, not less. There is no escaping from existence, and suicide is a false exit. There is only the effort to make that existence more clear and compassionate, or the refusal of that effort.
Pleased to see this conversation, I admire both your channels! I don't know if I've missed it somewhere, but it's not clear to me if you consider yourself to be an Antinatalist or if it's just a subject you're exploring?
I have to write something to see Hancock's response to Ethicalogical's question. I'm also curious. I'll also ask about something: What do you think about #EFILism to end the suffering of all sentient creatures (mostly, wild animals)?
I'm only a couple minutes in, and although I'm sure this is a fantastic discussion, it would be really awesome if you could invest in some acoustic foam!
This discussion is stupid. life is great for most over 80% it's not great for few 5 % and the other 15% don't know. Logically it's worth it and if they don't like it they can kill themselves lol. This discussion is stupid
We are born, suffer and die. Why bring people into existence, forcing them to suffer, only so they can die anyway? I'd rather not make the same mistake all my predecessors have made
Didn’t know there was a word for this, I just have always thought that if I were to have a kid (which I never plan on doing) that it would automatically make me a bad mother for putting a child into the world that will most likely get my very bad dna😂
That's good of you. Some people have terrible genetic diseases, get a kid, it has the disease, and then proceed to make two more with the same disease anyway. That's something I disagree with.
@レイトン教授 - 風子 The drive to pass along your genes is a strong one, and I understand that adoption isn't for everyone. But we should support people who do, because you're right, there are plenty of people who would love to have parents.
although people's lives vary, born as a child from a wealthy, loving parents family with super nice siblings and friends is certainly more worth living and enjoying than being born as a poor child, or even worse in the middle of a battlefield, however even though it's not a guarantee that rich kids get no pain etc, but the chance of that happening is very low or perhaps the coping mechanism taught from they well educated parents allow them to deal with the suffering they may experience, in which if we were to push even further towards capability of enduring pain, does it mean people who train themselves to counter pain and suffering mentally and physically such as shaolin monks or navy seal soldiers mean they can then ignore the pain they face and there any potentially born child with the potential of being a monk or joining navy seal etc would therefore be more worth living and embracing the pain and therefore still worth being born under the umbrella of antinatalism
Omg I never knew there was a term for my kind of thinking ...ive always never wanted kids for this exact reason/ along with some others but related to this
No no, think about this rigth, this is not "i wanted or not wanted to have kids" type of escenario, thats perfectly fine, your life your choices, this is more like "having kids is not ok", so its not the same thing, one is a personal opinion that can't be judge by others, the other one is an actually phylosophy that states something pretty damm bold.
@@pepinillorick5741 yea ik wut ur saying, but I did think there was no way for me to prevent my kid from sufferin so id rather not make a kid and i also thought it was wrong n stupid for people to bring more people into this world, but idk, if they do its not on me.. so.
I'm interested in hearing Cosmic's ideas on "practical" justifications for antinatalism. If a single person decided to have a child, then there is a possibility that child will live a "horrible" life. For example, die early by disease, trafficked as a slave, or other things which blur the line between the balance of happiness and suffering. Because there is a possibility (although it may be very low), an individual is risking another person's happiness-suffering balance. And of course, the more people that reproduce increases the number of people who will experience these "horrible" lives. In conclusion, an individual who procreates is spinning a roulette wheel with someone else's money and debt. Refusing to play is the only guarantee to never hurt another person.
@@milton7763 The quick answer is that this is much more simple than antinatalist arguments. If partners have disagreements about anything long-term, then they should reach agreement or separate. This is independent of antinatalism and can apply to a great number of disagreements.
It is suffering that creates humans, not everything is sufferance. It is humans around us which make life fulfilling. The humans who create the pieces of literature for us to find worth in life and to continue living the shining rays of hope in the world. It is humans who got rid of the sufferance. Yes humans create sufferance but sufferance would come in one way or another, it is part of nature.let’s assume the worst in the word sufferance because it vague. As humans progressed we have reduced sufferance, it is because of humans we are able to set foot without being chained or trafficked over seas. Yes it did take a sacrifice but it was for the greater good.
@@milton7763 So it's fine to potentially subject someone else to a life of suffering and definite death, because someone else will be hurt by not having kids? That's why the argument holds.
@Jimmy Lopez Personally I find Antinatalism and EFILism the best things I could have stumbled upon. Both address the core issues, although they don't offer the happiest solutions for getting us gracefully out of this insidious game. The presentation (and the movement itself) is stagnant, as you rightfully observed, but that is a given. It's like selling kryptonite as an energy drink to Superman. You have better chances convincing people that Jesus was an alien, that's for sure. People are scared of talking about subjects like this. You won't find many people willing to hear your message, let alone do something about it. It's a sure way to lose friends and be called crazy. Try it for yourself! I've talked with some parents and was stunned about their answers. All are on some "happy go lucky drugs". They don't care about nothing, not even about their beloved kids. Should they suffer? That's life! Should they get sick? Those are the risks of living! Should they die young? It's impossible!
One concept I've seen Sam Harris bring up is where something like "going to the gym" fits into this discussion. The pain/discomfort that someone experiences from exercise is directly linked with a perception of self betterment. Harris points out that this pain/discomfort of exercising would be almost unbearable if it wasn't associated with these anticipated positive effects. The interesting thing is that the pain of exercise modifies the pleasure of the positive effects in some way, not just subtracts from it. I imagine that if there was some treatment people could receive to instantly achieve the health benefits of exercise without any of the pain, without having to go to the gym, and with zero negative side effects, many people would still prefer to go to the gym and feel the pain of it. After all, no one walks out of a gym thinking "I just experienced X amount of pain, put that in the pain pile of my experience. I now perceive Y amount of self betterment, put that in the pleasure pile of my experience." This is otherwise illustrated in the way many people would rather build their own car than buy one. Rather build their own house than buy one. Rather cook a meal than buy the same one at a restaurant. Could it be the case that a life of only pleasure and no pain is not one that is worth living?
It is possible that a balance of both pleasure and pain is necessary in order to recognise ones own existence. After all it is emotion that gives us perception.
Adam Garland Exactly, you simply cannot have the good/pleasure without the bad/negative/pain. We cannot grow and develop as people without pain, change is pain, it’s stepping out from your comfort zone. You could also argue having the pain makes the pleasure feel even better, somehow elevates it. Have you ever been deathly sick and then returned to normal health and felt the shear appreciation of being able to just breathe, just eat something solid, just move about freely? You could also argue that choosing not to bring a life into the universe because of the probability that painful things may happen, or almost certainly will could also turn out to be a terrible thing. What happens if you choose to abort the next Einstein? What happens if you choose to not have the next world changing individual which could better many more people than it harms?
You don't have to set objective standards for what exactly constitutes suffering, it's simply whatever a sentient creature subjectively perceives as uncomfortable in varying degrees at any given point in time. The important part is that this is unavoidable, whatever 'this' might specifically mean for a specific individual in a specific situation. Why would I make the decision to create a new sentient being and expose them to the risk of living a life in which the suffering outweighs the pleasure, which is a very real possibility, especially when I also have the option to not procreate and don't re-produce the necessary conditions for more suffering, however that might look like in specific instances, to occur in the first place? To not create a new sentient being can't have harmful consequences to what has not been created, whereas to create a new sentient being will most assuredly have such consequences, most obviously deterioration due to age and ultimately death ofc.
@@skoigoth That's an interesting point. Many people suffer more than than they experience pleasure for a number of reasons, though. I feel this is a situation that is best assesed on an individual basis rather than generally. Consider a person who has a high probability to experience more suffering than pleasure in the event that they do not have children. Many people experience intense suffering due to their inability to conceive. Would it then be reasonable for them to create a new sentient being who has a lower probability of experiencing more suffering than pleasure?
Alex, do you prefer to see comments here or on Patreon? In any case, I appreciate your willingness to broach this subject. You’ve obviously gotten a decent introduction but I feel like you should consider even stronger arguments, such as the violation of the principle of consent argument. Looking forward to further discussions on this topic.
How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it and why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn't it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager-I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complain Søren Kierkegaard
When you say that it seems to be an argument for suicidality, an anti natalist would say that killing yourself might bring even more suffering those around them and so you shouldn't
Also, the act of suicide might bring about enough suffering in the suicidor in the moments before and during that it may not be worth going through with.
I actually think suicide is fine. Yes, it brings more pain to those around you. But I choose to focus my attention on the person who chooses death. Does it ease their own pain? If yes, they should go for it. Why? Because if they continue to live their life, then it is causing themselves more pain. Should you live in pain because your absence would cause pain? I don't know. It gets complicated and you would have to bring in individual rights. I think people should be free to choose when and how they die. The question of whether or not their pain is greater than the one they would cause is to be answered by the individual deciding to kill themselves.
Sees Alex and Jack together Celebrates : "Yes ! two of favourite UA-cam collaborating " Realises it's about antinatalism : " Oh fu€k ! there goes my will to procreate "
@@riomatm7740 In the equation of pleasure and pain. Only caring about one side of the equation is flawed thinking. And even if you think it is totally ok to ignore everything that's good in life (which if you do, of course you wouldn't want others to experience life) than it just doesn't make any sense that it isn't worth living hypothetically an almost perfect life that the only bad thing that ever happens in it is the slight discomfort of stepping once on a piece of Lego. I can't see how this argument is taken so seriously.
Huh. Didn't know one of my reasons for not wanting kids was an actual thing. Better to adopt. Also one of the reasons I support abortion in some cases.
DarkFlame On your first phrase: have you adopted? I don’t support the ‘woke’ type of argument of “If you’re not a , you can’t talk about ”, but this is the sort of claim where I only really put stock in people that put their money where their mouth is. On your second phrase: what do you mean ‘some cases’? That goes against the core of this ‘philosophy’ that you claim you adhere to
@@milton7763 My philosophy? Never said it was a philosophy. I said some cases, because I know there are people who would try to abort the baby after it developed into an actual human. I think late term abortions should only be for safety reasons, while trying to save the child. Also, about the adoption thing? Fuck off I can barely afford myself let alone a kid. Plus I'm too young for kids. I'd also be a single parent. Which is a bad idea.
Cbb Because it’s virtue signaling. I’ve known lots and lots of people that used to constantly reason that way and then when the time came, opt for having children themselves. I’m not opposing the argument per se, but find it rather empty when people are alluding to the virtuous things they will do in the future that they will never end up doing
@@milton7763 Maybe I will. But It'd be a pretty big 180 from the never times I wanted to have a kid of my own. If they are even a tenth the troublemaker I was I'd go insane.
@@chaos98GTVS life is important because its what makes you what you are. As a society life is important as a driving force toward a better civilization, life is also what create more life. Without life you wouldnt exist. So if you hate life that much maybe you should return to nothingness yourself. A life of suffering is far better then non existence.
@@angelofslaughter2431 Trying to understand your argument... so civilization is a product of similar beings working together to make a stable and prefferable (happy) community. If life ceases to be created by us, than it would slowly go extinct with society itself. So is life important for the stability of our society? Or is it important because people tend to think about the future of our society because they want to pass it down for their offspring in it's best shape?
@@chaos98GTVS as a society life is important to sustain itself and every life have a chance to make a better society. as simple as that. and as an individual your individuality were dictated by your life. even if you believe in the afterlife you would be nonexistent if you're not born first. the state of nonexistent is far worse then the state of "suffering" that most edgelords of antinatalism whine about. i rather spent my eternity in hell then become nonexistent.
I've been so excited to find someone with beliefs that so closely reflect my own. I was initially drawn to your videos about christianity years ago and was super excited when you announced that you became vegan. Now you are talking about Antinatalism, which is one of the topics I am most passionate about! I appreciate you, and watching your new videos is always the highlight of my day. Much love - Lily from Florida
One of the arguments for antinatalism I found most interesting - I think it's in Benatar's book, but it's definitely in Sarah Perry's "Every Cradle is a Grave" - is to think in term of consent. It is generally considered acceptable for someone to personally take on risk (for a potential personal payoff), but not for someone else to make that decision for them and expose them to the potentially negative consequences. For example, if I had a pill that has a 50/50 chance of causing either a fantastic experience, or an awful/painful experience, most would probably say that it would be acceptable for me to choose to take that pill myself. It may also be considered acceptable for me to offer it to someone else, assuming I had adequately explained the risks. But if I were to put it in your food without telling you, I think most would agree that would be wrong, and even if you end up having a great time, I would still have done a Bad Thing. Where it is generally considered acceptable to expose another to serious harm, without consent, tends to be only in the most extreme circumstances. For example, the greater good of a group (i.e. not JUST for the person in question), or because rather than giving a positive experience, it is believed the action will avert an even greater harm to that person. Of course, this argument rests purely on existing social conventions, but trying to explain the difference in this case leads to some interesting places. Perhaps an intuition that existing people experience an inequality of pain/pleasure is at the heart of it? Or maybe a belief that pleasure is somehow more subjective than pain (are we less able to judge what would be a good experience for someone else, than what would be bad one)? Anyway, just some thoughts! The discussion was very interesting, and I'd love to see you go into more depth on this in future.
As a very sensitive individual... I feel like this neutral state, without any sentient life, would be the maximal "good" we can achieve. Even though it's not positive. Wow.... that sounds really pessimistic and sad... and it kind of is!
Derek Yes, indeed. It can be hard to reconcile this with one's existence as a primate. I don't condemn others for wanting to feel save and avoid negative feelings... I mean, it can literally feel like hell. But at the end of the day, I'm glad that I'm in this position. So thank you. Keep searching! :)
So why not go on a murder spree? That will bring the most utilitarian value in the long run right? (Not meaning to insult. Just trying to suggest that pleasure isn’t the sole good and suffering isn’t the sole bad. Consider the idea that there exists a meaning to life that we should pursue in the face of inevitable pointless suffering, and if you’re a nihilist, prove that there is no meaning or that you shouldn’t believe that there is)
As an Atheist, becoming an Anti-Natalist seems the compassionate thing to do. Because if there’s no such thing as an afterlife, is it fair to bring someone into existence who will experience a life they know they’ll have to let go of someday ? A being who will eventually have to go through the same agony as I will, of facing their own mortality and of those they love ?
antinatalism has two great arguments. -its wrong to gamble with human life (parents gamble by default as there are factors outside their control, like genetic mutations, birth defects, social suffering, war, hunger, thirst, ect ect.) So no matter how unlkely you think any of these are, you still are, in fact, gambling with human life. So if you do it, its immoral, no matter if you decide to do it. -you should't decide on someone elses behalf (which has some logical problems, but it has the same amout of problems as pro-natalism) So regardless of prefrence, you still have the problem of them not deciding the prefrence, but you doing it for them.
@@oopsiepoopsie2898 I don't even know where to start. I suggest watching the video atleast.. they put some of your 'arguments' to rest. -Your whole life is a gamble any way. Okey, even if this where true, that antinatalists conflate living beings with giving birth to new beings, that still would leave you with the burden of proof to say why one shoud live in the first place.. "if you whole lifes a gamble". - Plus we have abortion if a child is going to be born with horrible painful birth defects for its life. great you made it less of a gamble. Now control for all other factors and it won't be a gamble. How are you going to solve humanities problems (predictablly?) If not its a gamble, which is the whole claim.. -When we have children these are natural processes. okey.. so its good because its natural? -Being non existent didn’t bother or please me back in 1559. okey.. but this isn' an argument about the unborn, its an argument about those who live deciding and gambling with/for someone else..who is going to be born -We should work on these kids first before having more biological children. Atleast you have 'one' right instinct when it comes to 'good arguments'. Yes its true, adoption is a great solution, as you can give someone else a *potentially* better life, and even ask them, rather then decide for them as they are born, rather then unborn. Nice try tho. Please watch the video now, they explain plenty of the fallacies you tried to pull here. I suggest more relfection on your part next time. I understand its an emotional issue, thats why i anwsered your points instead of being *just* dismissiv.
@@jeremyleyland1047 we might argue about the definition of the word 'gamble', im using this one: 'to bet on an uncertain outcome'. But i find yours to make the whole issue worse in a way, because by your assumption those who have sex, and no regard for the outcome are more moral in this view, then those who have a desired outcome (all other parents who have sex for a reason)
One thing that I hate about life is that I will likely die before my wife, especially as I am 10 years older than her. If I allow myself to actually indulge in that thought, it causes me serious anguish that someday I will die and leave her behind, to suffer my loss. I would never want to inflict that kind of suffering on anyone but it is something we that are alive and in these circumstances have to deal with, the never-existing will never know that kind of pain.
DeadEndFrog ok look this is what it’s gonna come down to, do you think exists is all bad? That world view, seems to think because bad things happen it’s better to not exist. Just because bad things happen doesn’t mean existing is bad, things all over the earth are getting better. Almost every metric is getting better. If you whole argument can be boiled down to “ we things suck so we might as well not have kids “ then it’s weak. That is the antinatalist argument in its most simple form. But things aren’t as simple and pleasure and pain. Basically what you are saying is “ well sir I think they way we can put the best safety measures into this building is by not making one “ is that really a solution to the problem? It’s not about minimizing suffering it’s about getting rid of existence for humans.
This was terribly fascinating. I was hanging onto every word! I think this is definitely an argument worth discussing and I appreciate you guys making this video.
I think the desire to have children is selfish. Most people breed because they don’t want to be alone later in life, like an insurance for their old age. I do not understand this need to love one’s own flesh and blood. We could easily adopt, there are already many kids who are already born and left alone for various reasons. To create a fresh baby because we want to pass on our mediocre genes seems stupid and harmful. I think it is about time we expanded our circle of who we can consider family and start adopting kids because there is an overwhelming no of orphans across the world. Also, I think there should be a licensing system that approves who should and should not have children. If there’s a criteria for everything else, why not for parenting? I reckon most of the people who are birthing kids every other year will not pass the parenting requirements.
Unfortunately us humans naturally possess a reproductive system. So people feel duty bound,by their own bodies/society to reproduce,against extinction.
I have to diagree. I think if you can bring a new person into the world and be fairly confident they will have a good life, (becouse you will provide them the care they need) then there is some value in that
@@kylehankins5988 Not true in billions of cases, so a disabled orphan in a war torn, famine hit 3rd world country just needs caring parents to have a good life? There are literally millions of variables that could effect your child which are totally out of your control.
To be or not to be. That really _is_ the question. So what's the answer? That's easy: _Not_ to be is the answer. But then that's _my_ answer. Your answer to the question may be different from mine.
Somebody indeed put that on a reprint of the Magic: The Gathering card "Unsummon" ("Not to be. That is the answer.") But I don't think any antinatalists have infiltrated Wizards of the Coast yet... ^^
For me it boils down to this: if there's even a 0.001% chance that my child could experience extreme suffering, it's not worth the risk of bringing them into existence. I think we have to give precedence to unhappy people over happy people when weighing up whether it's worth starting life, on the basis that the idea of an unhappy person being forced to bear their unhappiness is much less tolerable than a non-existent happy person being unable to enjoy their happiness.
@@BartvG88 democracy doesn't work with suffering. In a gang bang rape there is only 1 person suffering and the majority having great fun. Democracy ? A big country invading a small country can also be perfectly democratic . Slavery is also possible in a democracy.
@@xxxxxxcx156 Nothing in life is certain, but you can definitely make an educated guess, as well as a continious effort by loving your children and being there for them.
@@FarangNick Jup, democracy is the worst system we've had, if it weren't for all the other even worse ones. Some people define democracy not as just majority rule, but majority rule, with consideration for the interests of the minority, with free press and an independent justice system. Anyway, my point still stands, the chance that your child will have a net positive effect on the world is high, especially if you have carefully considered the factors that comes with raising a child. Is it completely a guarantee? no, but it's not immoral to have kids.
@@SouthPark333Gaming Because you spare a living soul the experience of birth, life, suffering, work, and their eventual experience of death at the expense of your pathetic egotistical desires.
I can recommend authors like Karim Akerma and Günther R. Eberhard on antinatalism, although I believe their works haven't been translated into English yet. But they make strong points how antinatalism is a valid thought and to be considered, apart from the asymmetry argument by David Benatar.
@@MaxMustermann-ij6gi Sehr gerne! Eberhard nimmt in seinem Buch "Antinatalismus" auch Bezug auf mehrere antinatalistischen Philosophen. Ich würde dahingehend dir hauptsächlich dieses empfehlen, zumal es gut strukturiert und argumentativ aufgebaut ist.
As an Antinatalist, I find the concept of consenting to life a lot more convincing than the asymmetry argument (though I agree with both.) When a new being is brought into the world, it is unknown how much pleasure or pain they will experience, and it is also unknown what perspective they will have on that pain/pleasure. Ultimately, you're not making a decision about the objective value of living life, but how likely it is that a new being will *subjectively* find *their own* life to be worth living. In other words, procreation inherently includes the act of gambling with another's experienced wellbeing. There is always a chance, say, that a baby will be born with a horrible defect that causes them to painfully die immediately after birth, or that they are depressed and commit suicide despite a position of privilege. Do we really have the right to enforce that gamble (and infinitely many more) onto someone by bringing them into existence? Even if they were more likely to enjoy life, I can't say so. Say, if I bet a prized possession of yours and knew I had a 99% chance of winning you a trip to Hawaii, even if I win it would still be inappropriate if I did not get your permission first. I hope this comment finds you because I really want to hear your take on this perspective. To be clear, I *probably* would press the button that would kill everybody painlessly, but I DEFINITELY would press a button that would make everyone infertile.
Additionally, even if Antinatalism becomes a popular philosophy (which I find incredibly unlikely) I think it is a waste of time to put into law particularly due to the practical implications of: - Even if it were illegal, any natalist population will inevitably outlive antinatalist populations since they can procreate and pass on beliefs to their children - Supposing it were successful, any country that instated antinatalist policy will rapidly shrink in power and be overtaken by the remaining natalist countries Also, despite people being very reluctant to accept antinatalism, I usually can convince people with the ideas behind AN that they should definitely adopt (preferably instead of having your own kids) because then you are helping someone who already exists to have a better life instead of risking that someone who doesn't will have a bad life.
Consent only matters if you're imposing suffering which you cannot justify. If we have an ethical duty to prevent terrible lives but none to create happy lives, then there is no justification.
You would need data. If data indicates that people would much rather have lived than not lived, in a specific environment, then you would be allowing a likely positive experience vs an unlikely negative experience. If you refrain from procreation, considering this, you are preventing net positive experiences from occuring, statistically.
@@cloudoftime That doesn't change the fact that its still a risk. I defer to my example of betting someone else's prized possession. However good the odds, it is still inappropriate without first getting their permission.
@@cloudoftime You don't need the positive when you don't exist. You create the need for positives by creating the person. Would you seek pleasure if you were never bored and never missed pleasure or needed it to compensate for some form of suffering?
@Lucioh Because, there’s really no good reason to bring a life into the world when that life will go through completely unnecessary suffering and eventually die for no reason other than my hypothetical desire to have a child. A person’s want to have a child always comes from their own selfish desires to improve their own lives or give their life meaning. But the child is a victim in that pursuit. Life can’t consent to its own creation so I think it’s unethical to create it. There’s no real reason to create a new life, it’s fundamentally pointless... especially when there are children in the foster system who need families. If I wanted a child I would definitely adopt one. It just seems straightforward to me. I agree with the idea that people are better off not being born rather than being born into a messed up world, just to suffer and die within a handful of short decades. And I especially apply antinatalism to animals because we are literally breeding billions of animals just to kill them and keep them in horrible conditions, it’s cruel.
If you don't want have to children fine, but if your negative perspective on living is telling you that humans should go extinct well think again, your life perspective doesn't matter well at least to me
@Richard Daly All species go extinct eventually. It will certainly happen to humans at some point, maybe even sooner because of climate change. Whether it happens 200 years from now or 2,000 years from now, either way none of us will even be there and it doesn’t actually matter.
Thanks for posting this conversation. I've got a little better understanding of the asymmetry now. What helped me greatly in this dialogue is the differentiation between preferred and preferable and the place of intuitions. I'm very intuitive myself and am trying to find more solid grounds to guide my actions and stances.
I’ve often wondered why evolution has afflicted so many creatures with subjective consciousness when this ability isn’t necessary for reproductive success. Given that the most prolific life forms on this planet are the simplest; bacteria, viruses, fungi etc.
1. Stopping/preventing bad has priority over experiencing pleasure, especially surplus pleasure. 2. Absent a god of some sort, life's existence serves no purpose that I can see (human, intelligent ET, etc.). 3. Physical comfort does not assure a good life (a number of wealthy celebrities, f. ex. commit suicide, have major depression, in serious debilitating accidents). 4. Even aside from all that, humans themselves commit deliberate hurts, harms, and degradations against others - often on petty grounds. We're also dishonest, judgmental, exploitative, sometimes violent or abusive. All the pleasure in the world will not change that. Why have kids if we're going to be like that?
@@jsheriff396 Life is boring and empty for somewhat lucky individuals stuck into the modern loophole. Repeating the same routines. And life is horrifying for those born into poverty and war, or mental/physically deformed circumstances. Every baby is a stranger. A person who you do not know yet. A person who may commit atrocities to themselves or others. A person who will eventually have to face the horrors of this world and understand that they are going to eventually die no matter how hard they try. The more humans populate the earth, the worse living conditions will be for future generations. Will it be beautiful then, when children starve from lack of food? When the earth is burning from toxic gas? When little clean air and water remains? Humans are selfish, and only care for themselves. Life is not beautiful, it is pointless.
@@MothJade I truly am sorry you feel this way. Have you not wondered why people who grow up in such conditions continue to survive and not give up? Because despite all the pain, suffering and misery it's worth existing. I suggest you try meditation it will help you understand why life is such an incredible gift and why it's not pointless.
@@jsheriff396 Nothing IS better than life because we don't know anything else, it is instinct in us as animals to be scared of death. If you look down off a cliff your body will produce adrenaline and you will feel the strong feeling to flee. People try to exist because they are afraid of death, because it isn't proven what is on the other side. Death is terrifying and unavoidable, horror movies are scary because you imagine yourself or others having a possibility of death, illness is scary because humans know that if they catch it there is possibility of death. Death is scary, that is why we continue to live. Even suicidal people who attempt say that they regret attempting, because their bodies natural instinct is to escape dying. It is scary.
18:00 You can even define it so that the act of being born gives you a pain equivalent to all the pain you are going to experience in life (because you just understood that the reality you entered will be painful and that makes you very sad). After you finish crying out loud you stop feeling the expected pain as intensely as before and you suddenly ignore it and look at the bright side of life. This way, you wouldn't want to be born because of the pain of expecting the pains of your life and yet when you are born and go through the crying phase you don't want to die because the hard part is over.
My main argument against the red button would be: It´s not my decision to make. Never was, never will be.That would put a single moral decision above the decisions/experiences of others without their consent. That makes it unacceptable for me.
Each individual is free to decide if life is a pain/how painful it is, and they are free to end it at any time. Who are you to decide that "pain" for others?
If you say life is pain, and that it isn't worth living, you imply that most people would want nothing more than kill themselves (at least if not hurting others would stop them to). But do you really think that applies to the majority? That everyone is just depressed and cant wait to die? In my view most persons love being alive even though life of course inlcudes painfull moments too.
The first pleasure of starting a life is for the parents at the moment of conception!..They don't deserve to have the evil temptation spell if they are not prepared to understand what they are doing to another human being!...We don't need anymore humans in this world for no reason at all!...We just need to open our eyes and make good choices in our lives, not more suffering!...Life comes with pain 😢
"Each one of us was harmed by being brought into existence. That harm is not negligible, because the quality of even the best lives is very bad-and considerably worse than most people recognize it to be. Although it is obviously too late to prevent our own existence, it is not too late to prevent the existence of future possible people." - David Benatar
@@TheRemo176 As long as we agree on what it means in the realm of our conversation, I'm fine with it. At least efilism, according to your definitions proposed here, actually considers non-human suffering, unlike promortalism.
For people saying you can have pleasure in life I think the suffering outweighs the temporary pleasures in life for most just being around people so it's not just simple as saying there's pleasure in life.
Yeah man there are things I love in life but the sad thing is how much pain and suffering there is in this world,This is why I sometimes ask why I was born if I did not have a choice in existing.
Same and I will have no family at all family means nothing to me I free man and I wanna fuck other men bcs I find men sexy and I more into guys, than girls and don't care what anyone think about that
@@michi9955 people who aren't born don't wish they were born though. They can neither wish to be born or not be born. That's more safer for them. Actually it's nothing cause they're non existent.
@@nosphethomahlobo3060 You are right. But from my perception, at least in our developed parts of the world, giving birth on average does more good for the born person, the parents and the relatives than it does bad. So I disagree that its generally immoral to give birth.
@@michi9955 how does it do good for the person that is born? I'm not saying that people should not give birth if they are already pregnant, but to me(and you can correct me if I'm wrong)...if you're not pregnant/haven't impregnated someone, it doesn't really benefit the person who is not born/an unfertilized egg. I can only see it as benefitting the parents and that benefitting is simply bringing pleasure to them but not the child specifically. Like if you decide you wanna fall pregnant/wanna impregnate, that decision is only for your own pleasure cause you can't say that..."no I wanna benefit my prospective child" cause if someone is not born yet, they can neither benefit nor not benefit since they're non existent. Someone can only benefit when they're existing.
Objectively, life is meaningless. Only a subjective assessment of its events gives meaning to life. If existence is objectively meaningless, creating another life is merely a selfish act.
Thats a contradiction if it requires a subjective assessment to apply meaning then you cant say it is objectively meaningless, only subjecgively meaningless
The argument for antinatalism is simple. Not bringing people into existence is never bad. If it was, we would have a moral duty to have kids. The absence of pleasure isn’t bad because no one exists to realize they are missing out on it. But the absence of suffering is good. It’s good that there aren’t millions of people burning alive right now. Therefore if you don’t have a child nothing bad comes from this. If you do have a child there is a 100% chance that they will suffer to some degree. Could be a lot or could be little. But either way there is a net positive of zero suffering if you have no children and a net negative of suffering if you do. So the moral action would be to have no children as nothing bad happens from not having them and something bad does happen if you have them. It’s super simple and completely logically consistent. This was a good discussion but I didn’t hear anything that refutes this argument.
Jourdain Wong thanks for the reply. It has nothing to do with net quality of life. If I have a child they WILL suffer to some degree. That’s bad. If I don’t have a child they won’t suffer. That’s good. So I choose the good option. Simple as that. When I first heard of antinatalism I fought hard against the logic of it. I wanted to disagree with it. But after actually thinking about it for a long time, it’s just right. At least from what I’ve read and discussed with people.
"Not bringing people into existence is never bad." I think this assumption is untrue. If everyone stops having kids right now, there's a large amount of people who will die in very bad ways, like a 78 year old starving to death alone because everyone is too old to support themselves. This argument works if you assume other people won't be antinatalists, but if everyone is, then it becomes fallacious.
Consent cannot be gained from the unborn, it cannot be a moral obligation. The born have their OWN persistent consent to continue living. Life is inherently positive, growth, learning, and richness of experience is infinitely preferable to non existent, even in the face of the worst suffering, which is always fleeting just the same as pleasure.
"The absence of pain isn't good because no one exists to realise they are free from it. But the absence of pleasure is bad. It's bad that there aren't millions of people crying from joy right now." See my point? If there is no one to experience anything, you cannot add a qualitative assessment to that (non-)existence. Absence is absence. There is no assymmetry. It's all a question of probability of having an overall good existence of the person to be conceived that makes procreation ethical (and if things go bad, self-deletion is still an option).
Ive always seen marriage and having kids as something that should have been considered archaic, like ppl taking a horse and cart to work or ppl using a black and white tv. I simply cannot understand why ppl want kids beyond blatant selfish reasons. There has to be some kind of psychological misfire or form of anxiety that takes hold in ppl at certain points in there lives that causes ppl to completely misjudge a situation. I think its a kind of renunciation of the self, that they need a new master as the self has expired.That they are now a finished article, nothing new can arise, they may go on to deliver in a certain field of work and advance marginally but over all as a person, they have thrown in the towel existentially. So now they replicate. They pass on the baton to the new version while they continue to lay the ground work (perhaps getting a promotion) for the new version to develop, upgrade. This is why I dont respect ppl who want kids. They are essentially saying I need a new version of myself to serve as this one has had its day. Im done. Worse still, to want kids is to have zero capacity to assess human existence and it's frailty, it's nightmarish nature and tendencies, it's horrifyingly limited ability to take control of its environment, the infinite ways and degrees to experience pain and how easily this can be done. I do think the bargaining we ca;l marriage is a kind of sad stalemate where a man offers up his sperm for kids in order to merely have access to sex. This is it.This is what all the fucking hysteria of relationships, marriage, love, so called companionship is all about, all that furor. So the man can bust his nuts in a woman and a woman can indulge in her shameless nature of perpetual adolescence. Life is servitude and decay and ppl want to continue this. Yours, misanthrope.
and the sad reality is that god has created such a thing that if a man and woman live together then kids would be the natural consequence. Why not have a system where we can have our soulmates while stating clearly in the biodata that he or she don't want kids and seeks a partner who also doesn't. Shameful that the society instead of respecting and recognising the noble desire, instead
I agree with much of what you say, but I think you're too harsh on people who have kids. Many believe that their children will have good lives and want to facilitate that. Also, many people don't have access to birth control and that makes it less of a choice.
@@michaelshannon9169nothing that's the point. The decision to have children isn't about ethics. It's such a deeply ingrained instinct that I think calling it immoral is nonsensical.
I’m an antinatalist who also actively desires to die. I don’t have extreme suffering compared to some people but I find the risks of being alive intolerable. I live a mostly productive life and I try to not be miserable and I do live mostly because I feel obligated to live so my parents don’t feel sad... but everyday I fantasize about the relief of non existence. I’ve actually wanted to die since I was a small child and I’m now 30 years old. I feel entitled to euthanasia also.
It sounds like you might be manically depressed, which is a very severe condition. Have you tried going to a therapist? In certain cases, medication such as antidepressants can help, although those need to be taken under strict supervision as they only work for a minority of people suffering from depression and in some cases can actually have the opposite effect
Adam Andrews I know those feels, and have done for nearly all of my 42 years. My heart is with you: it's an alienating experience. I wish I could tell you that having a profound spiritual awakening at age 36 after a lifetime of atheism gave me a newfound love for living, but it's not that simple. I just know better now WHY this human life feels so painful (bc deep down in the subconscious mind, we recall how it feels to be one with divine Love, aka "God"). I know, wrong corner of UA-cam, lol. I could tell you that it's very likely your soul originates from a civilization in the cosmos so highly evolved that this Earthly experience of division and suffering feels incredibly foreign, and that's why this incarnation is so painful and confusing...but I won't force my perceptions onto you. All I can promise is that this material world is only temporary and illusory, and what lies beyond is more beautiful than our human minds can comprehend--the crucial caveat being we cannot get back to such dimensions/realms/frequency of consciousness until we complete our personal soul mission. Suicide, as I now know all too well, only lands us back here to begin again (not as punishment, but bc from a higher plane of existence, we see quitting the game prematurely prevents us from winning it). You are loved, and you are not alone...despite appearances to the contrary. Sending you love across the aether. If you ever want to chat, my email is psycheandcupidforever at gmail. If not, please try to remember this is only the cocoon of darkness required for the caterpillar to become the butterfly. 💙😇🦋
Wish I’d heard about this before I had kids. I think It is immoral to create new life KNOWING what a struggle life is. The amount of Suffering far outweighs the pleasure especially as we age. Who are we to decide on whether someone is born or not, we just playing God.
It depends on what kind of a life you can provide for your kid(s). If you can provide an amazing life the opposite can be argued, you're taking away the kid(s) ability to experience joy.
I am glad you are exposing the views that stem from atheism. It sees like the more someone adheres to atheism, the more they have to deny their intuition and life experience. I must say that you are one of the few atheists that isn’t in denial about the consequences of atheistic views. Please teach your fellow atheists because they don’t handle criticism from Christians very well. God bless you.
John 18:36 Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”
Great content and thanks as always for going to the trouble to make it such high production value! I must say though, in the hopes to maybe get some discussion, that I have to disagree with the analogy made about being in the cinema; mainly on the point that when we are in a movie that we aren't enjoying (but not disliking so much that we'd leave) and would rather not have gone to see it at all, it's because we can think of many more worthwhile things to do with our time. In essence, the reason we'd rather not have started the movie is because of opportunity cost and not because it is a net negative experience (in that case it would likely be bad enough that we would in fact leave). Therefore, if you are using it as an analogy for being born or not a more apt analogy would be to ask if that same person would rather have gone to the movies even though they didn't enjoy it much, or have an hour or two of their time skipped forward with no recollection of it, I think that question would get a significantly different response than the analogy presented. In effect, what I'm saying is that even a movie that isn't great is better than not having existed at all for the duration of the movie
Awesome discussion! Thanks for this! I think one of the major objections to a symmetric total/impersonal view is that it treats people like mere vessels/receptacles for utility. That is, rather than helping people in dire need or suffering horribly, it can be better to create happy people. You could leave them to suffer for it. That puts happiness before people, but we should be putting people before happiness. In my view, the point of ethics isn't to maximize wellbeing, the point is to treat moral patients well, and ensuring they're as well off as possible is how we do that. You don't wrong someone by not bringing them into existence, since they won't be around to give you reason to believe you've wronged them. You do wrong them if they come to exist and would (foreseeably) have a life not worth living or would (foreseeably) be worse off than they* could have been, since they'll be there to give you reason to believe you've wronged them. *or someone else, à la nonidentity problem, under a "wide" view. Here are some papers defending the procreation asymmetry and whose arguments I found pretty persuasive: Johann Frick, "Conditional Reasons and the Procreation Asymmetry" scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/jfrick/files/conditional_reasons_and_the_procreation_asymmetry_v10.pdf Christoph Fehige, "A Pareto Principle for Possible People" www.fehige.info/pdf/A_Pareto_Principle_for_Possible_People.pdf Also, in this paper (and talk), the author describes a theory which implies the asymmetry but is not antinatalist: Teruji Thomas, "The Asymmetry, Uncertainty, and the Long Term" globalprioritiesinstitute.org/teruji-thomas-the-asymmetry-uncertainty-and-the-long-term/
I realised when i was in a mental hospital that my suffering could have been prevented entirely had i just not been born. I wouldn't have missed out on anything because i wouldn't have had a brain capable of conceiving such a thing. Deep down i still believe having children is wrong. And yet i still have such a strong maternal urge. I don't know how i'm gonna learn to cope woth these contradictiry feelings for decades worth to come. Maybe i could make a good foster mother..?
It seems that pain goes with life by definition, pleasure has to be earned by doing specific things. Babies cry when they are born because the only thing they feel is discomfort, they are brought into this world naked and with an empty stomach, states which are associated with pain. We all know from experience that we have to WORK in order to EARN pleasure, otherwise pain comes by default.
Suggestion from someone with recording experience and who is a huge fan: Bring the mics closer to your mouths, lower the gains, and the lower/mid frequencies, raise the volume. This will eliminate a lot of that background noise/static while making your voices much clearer for the audience.
Thanks for finally discussing this important philosophy. More people should be aware of it. Go antinatalist! But this philosophy is more than just the asymmetry argument. Procreation is a gamble and it’s morally wrong to gamble with a non consensual being And life is a net negative in the sense that sentient beings are in a state of constant deprivation. Pleasure is about fulfilling desires. Suffering has to exist before pleasure. Suffering is inevitable and guaranteed (e.g. unfulfilled desires, diseases, getting old, dying) but pleasure is not.Why create need machines that need to be constantly satisfied and when that fails, there is immense pain and suffering ? Be compassionate and become an antinatalist today. Rationality and logic over emotion !
Pain is inevitable but you choose to suffer. It seems this comment section is full of depressed people with a shitty life, I feel bad for you, but if somebody has a happy life and is a great person, he will probably raise his son as another great person, that will bring more good in this world than sufferance, so giving birth is immoral only if you do it without the purpose of giving a gift to the society, and if you do it when there are more probability of a life of sufferance ( which is a different thing from a hard life), but this probability is different for each person, each society, each country ecc. For example it would be immoral to give a birth in Congo, but not in Finland.
MARCO_MATE Lol, Finland? There's a reason Finland has the highest share of metal bands per capita (little sunlight). More "civilised" countries, such as Finland, usually also have higher percentages of "civilisational diseases", such as depression.
That's why I'm gonna adopt humans that were forced into horrific situations rather than have biological kids. I will be teaching them about antinatalism though so they understand the wrong in bringing humans into a burning world.
I see you both attempted to develop hedonistic/preference quantification schemes. I keep seeing this recurring mistake when people are addressing Benatar's arguments. Overall, I think a hedonistic calculus will always fail, but we can still reason about vague inequalities. Topological reasoning can be employed instead, as well as algebraic inequalities (given the supposed asymmetry), and maybe assuming a monotonic ordering of enjoyable and suffering experiential events (but it need not only be subjective e.g., physical damage that is not consciously registered). Rigorous reasoning also need not always be numerical, things can be inherently vague, but ordinately determined. For example biased, or unfair, coins or dice, allows one to reason about unequal probabilities even without assigning numerical probabilities. In the transition to a potential argument for suicidality (if we remove the asymmetry argument) you deemphasized the additional point that was brought up earlier about many other lifeform's preferences being involved in the world that would be impacted by that conception event. The same can be said for suicide or the "red button" thought experiment; even if life is full of suffering, committing suicide might not be preferable to the many other lifeforms connected to the person who commits suicide, and choosing to end everyone's life is violating everyone's autonomy. Just ask yourself, is it preferable to have some other person be in charge of whether you poof out of existence or not? Is having your autonomy stripped away preferable? This is a tough one, but I think maybe one alternative is to make the existence of the red button public and see what arguments come out as a result. More perspectives are better than one when it comes to deliberation. I think it is important to highlight that once you are alive, it's no longer just about you, ever. With that in mind the antinatalist's position isn't solely about what is preferable for the unborn, but also whether the consequences of that conception event to every other lifeform involved is also preferable. Another possibility for why antinatalism might grow in popularity is if the Earth gets shittier for life, especially mammalian life. A very probable possibility, if I may say so myself.
I think another point to add to pushing the button, is the question of weather or not one person should make that decision, even if they come to the conclusion that they morally should press it. It's one thing to say that if you knew it would end the life of all things, and thus prevent an exponential amount of suffering, it's another thing entirely to claim the right to take such an action. Your making a choice for others, which, under certain circumstances may be permissable, could almost never be determined in this case. You could not know all the opinions of people in the world, not could you see all future outcomes. I suppose that doesn't really tell us what the right answer is when it comes to weather or not it is worth snuffing out all life to prevent all suffering. But I think it does provide us an answer that one individual should not be allowed to make such a decision. If people have a right to life (or at least, if we can agree they should), then it should be the choice of every individual whether or not to push the button for themself, rather than one pushing it for all.
it's like Forrest Gump said, you never know what you're going to get in life, and look at his own life, so in other words if you create life you're asking for all kinds of unexpected Pleasures or pains particularly horryfying pains you will never know until you finally get them, and that is can be a very big problem
Please note these are my preliminary thoughts on antinatalism, which I would like to develop in response to comments on this discussion, and perhaps make a future video expressing more solidified views. Do send me any resources or arguments you think may be of use.
Also, sorry for the audio: Jack's computer was overheating and so you can hear the fans whirring throughout. Hopefully it isn't too distracting.
I think I could convince you...
But I think I would be doing you a disservice...
UA-cam doesn't allow anyone who supports AN to get any views... So your UA-cam career will immediately END the day you become an anti-natalist and I would hate to see that...
I think you are a very intelligent and very useful person for people to be exposed to because of your ability to see things clearly and explain yourself so well... I think that your work in atheism and your work now as a vegan is going to be GREAT WORK - work that massively reduces suffering in the world...
But ONLY if you keep it a secret if you ever agree with the AN side....
I could be wrong but I feel like UA-cam will demonize you and take away your monetization so you'd be working for free if you came out AN.
I do not think you are going to be able to counter the AN argument well enough when you really 'get it' ....so I think you should STOP talking about this immediately and abandon this subject entirely...
There are some people who I am glad are antinatalists - but you are not someone who I want to wind up becoming an AN... Not yet...
I think long term we may need to seek a plan of extinction... However PEOPLE LIKE YOU breeding is a GOOD THING for that cause lol... Long term anyways...
That's just my opinion...
I would say more...but like I said I would personally prefer to see you NEVER talk about this again... You WILL lose...
For "preliminary thoughts" you did your homework and it shows and I admire you for it, Alex.
Hey Alex, great video, looking forward for your insights.
What do you think about Effective Altruism?
www.effectivealtruism.org/articles/introduction-to-effective-altruism/
If you are familiar with it, are you planning on making a video anytime soon?
@@lucioh1575 - Absolutely... This kid is AMAZING.
He is also clearly not too worried about the potential backlash that he will receive...
He seems very brave - honest - noble and pure in every way...
He seeks the TRUTH - and ONLY the truth...at ANY cost...
This kid is gonna go down in history as someone who is worth remembering for sure.
I just hope he is careful about the timing...
Timing is everything sometimes...
Thank you Alex and Jack for having this conversation and being willing to genuinely consider the arguments for Antinatalism. I admire both of your channels!
At the moment, my favorite argument for Antinatalism is that *it is unethical to unnecessarily subject another sentient being to both certain harm* (inherent in life), *and the risk of extreme gratuitous suffering* (this risk is also an inherent part of life).
This argument doesn't require one to accept Benatar's asymmetry or the 'life is more bad than good' arguments.
''The problem with my life was that it was someone else's idea.'' - Benjamin Alire Sáenz
He sounds smart. How does it come that this is the first time I hear his name ?
Never thought about it that way.
Which is a miracle.
@@avivastudios2311Yeah... 8 bln ''miracles", so NO.
This is a quote from his book, a character says this and not Sáenz. I don’t think Benny boy was advocating for antinatalism. The book was about Aristotle finding his individuality and growing up.
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move."
Yeah, creating a universe. This is not how a gentleman conducts himself.
Lmao that's something from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, no? I miss those books.
The answer is 42
Whales falling anywhere is so wrong.
Bo Bednar mine is Monday
Natalist: Nothing is better than being alive
Antinatalist: Yes, nothing IS better than being alive
I see wat u did there >_>
This discussion is exhibit a of human dysfunctionality when occupying specific places during specific times in which they lack proper adversity.
AHHAHAH good one¡¡
Good one
Aha :^]
My argument for antinatalism is that any pleasure that we experience comes actually from a need or a desire that it fulfills or an inconvenience that it relieves; having never existed means that you never experience need, desire or inconvenience and therefore you are already in the state of ultimate fulfillment.
Zero sum game argument
You can't be fulfilled if you don't exist
Value doesn't come entirely from having your needs fulfilled, it's the process of having them fulfilled that is also important.
@@marcorock7031 I don't think value exists if there is nobody for it to be valuable for
@@leekaplan4907 Exactly. He's implying that because the absence of life means you never suffer the pain of having unfulfilled desires, it is preferable. But thats that's a subjective judgement. One which apparently common, but they're also people who would value the process of fulfilling their desire even if that meant pain. The consequence is you as anti-natalist are depriving that potential human of it.
Choices have consequences, a choice to abstain from procreation mean, less people live. In the same way that a choice to buy fast fashion contributes to child labor. The fact that you did not engage in that decision, does not make it not that the case. The natural of your antinatalism is the deprivation of potential life.
The hardest thing about life is being conscious
You can undo that by killing your emotions.my life doesnt suck **YET** but you can always rely on this if your does.
You must be lazy as fuck.
@@thetruth9816 the complete opposite…very active and hate sedentary state of being
@knowledge sets you free uh huh and being conscious is the hard part? Go back to sleep.
Consciousness is the root of all pleasure and suffering. But suffering is easier
The question that Benatar asks is not whether life is worth living. He asks if life is worth creating.
Who is it that the antinatilist seeks to benifit? On whose behalf does the antinatilist act? We are ethically engaged to the extent that we interact with other sentiences. Ethics is the art of benefiting sentiences because it is only in the presence of sentience that one is ethically obligated. One is not ethically obligated to the universe as a whole since the universe is ethically indifferent toward us. Hence, it is senseless to act on behalf of the universe, it is senseless to seek the eradication of sentience so that the universe will be better off because the benifit of the universe is not a concern within the ethical domain. When interacting with another sentience one cannot in that relation occupy the subject position of the universe as a whole since the universe's subject position is Absolute Indifference toward sentiences, it's a prima facie incoherent orientation for finite descision makers to assume. Since any finite form is contingent from the POV of the universal, a finite being assuming a universal perspective will inevitably spiral into autophagic, suicidal tautologies. Only a God-agent can make its primary concern the totality of Being.
This brings us to a point where the antinatilists get things egregiously wrong: the absence of God means that human intelligence is capable of expanding itself into a universal orientation capable of acting on the totality of Being. The antinatilists move too quickly in reaction to the death of God by occupying the position He left vacant before achieving the capacities attributable to Him. So by prematurely passing a judgement on the human from the viewpoint of God, the antinatilist only sees inadequacy and suffering which would be better eradicated altogether. However, the question becomes, from this God-perspective what would be an adequate state of affairs deserving of preservance? Well, the answer must be Heaven. From God's perspective, existence is only worthy if existence is Heaven. Therefore, the question for us, for finite sentiences endowed with intelligence is, how can Heaven be instantiated in the world? And the answer is: through the expansion of intelligence. Heaven is acheivable through the expansion of capacities to the point that the totality of Being is manipulable by mind. The expansion of capacities proceeds through intelligence reconfiguring self, world, and time. The true goal of ethics should be not the eradication of all life forever, but the expansion of intelligence toward God's subject position such that worlds can be created where sentience exists yet doesn't suffer. This is what rationality actually is: the dynamic principle through which intelligence gains traction on the world, producing more potent spacial orientations and recipes of abstraction which amplify the types and potencies of functions capable of manipulating self+world.
@@JB.zero.zero.1 insofar as we choose to communicate then we are demonstrating our indifference towards death. Death is the absence of communication so even your blah blah blahs betray your faux grimness.
@Stephanie Mujan yup.
@@nrg937 wowww that was so well said Nicholas and really do agree with you on that. I was pondering on that the whole conversation haha. Like wow Antinatalist really must be god to believe in definite and make presumptions with our finite intelligence
@@beau4588 Thank you, Beau. I did not know before seeing this video that secular antinatilists exist. From all the conversations I've subsequently had with these ideologues in this comment section, it seems that secular antinatilism only attracts depressives. You really have to hate the world in order to use rationality as a means to justify rationality's extinction.
Ethics is multifaceted, and the antinatilists overlook most of ethics' facets. For instance, for what reason do we formalize our descision making into something we can call an ethic? The reason we formalize our descision making in this way is because formalized descisions construct/structure us into novel modalities - it improves our modes of being. Formalization is construction. We construct to improve. We improve because improvement is favorable to regression, cancellation, etc. Hence, the antinatilist's conclusion (abyss>sentience) is precluded from ethics since ethics - as a type of formalization - has as its modus operandi amelioration. The antinatilist is engaged in logical argument but not ethical argument insofar as the antinatilist allows logical consistency to supersede the goal of enhancing the world for sentiences, reasoners, etc.
Don't breed, just adopt if you have that "Paternal" Instinct.
I’ll have as many kids as I can
„I wish you never would have existed“ - probably the most ambiguous way to say „I care about you and don’t want you to suffer“
or maybe the most obvious way to say "fuck you" to someone...
If they never existed, then you could not possibly have ever cared about them. So that is a nonsense statement.
How about you just freaking say "I care about you and I don't want you to suffer?"
I wish you never would have existed is probably one of the most cruel things you could ever relay to someone. To never exist is to never try. Is to never have an effect on someone else's life. Or your own for that matter. Reconsider giving any credence to such a horrible thing to say.
George Dunbar
But they do exist. So I do care.
Otherwise every statement “I wish x wouldn’t have happened to you” would be nonsensical. If it didn’t happen I wouldn’t - couldn’t in fact - wish for x not to have happened.
Zephyr is that your real name or did you take it from the name of the dwemer bow in skyrim?
As a Buddhist, life is pain. In Samsara there's no way to avoid pain and suffering, only if you reach Nirvana (enlightenment) you'll be able to stop suffering, as Nirvana is a state of mind, the conscious choice of stop suffering. To me, it's almost impossible, but I try everyday. I am disabled, abused and mentally ill, but I try.
An as a teenage woman, I choose to not have children, because I know that no matter how much I try, they will suffer and I don't have the heart to make the conscious choice of letting someone I love have the ability to suffer. I won't change my mind, I won't bring life to this world, and I wish I was never born.
If you are not born you don't need to reach Nirvana. How can you not understand this?
@@vijrumbhanam9200 No. One can (in most cases) only free themselves of dukkha by practicing throughout multiple lives.
@@theGnostic- Intelligence plays a part in suffering, although I'd argue we suffer a lot and create a lot of suffering compared to less intellectual species. So, how are humans the closest to Nirvana? I guess we have many ways to prevent suffering like health care but in some cases that causes more suffering. For example, prolonging someone's suffering when they would have more pleasure in dying. I'm asking you because I don't know a lot about Nirvana so I want to know the exact reason you think humans are closest.
I'm not saying Buddhism talks about antinatalism. I am talking how I, as person that is also a buddhist, choose to not procreate. My personal findings do not represent my religion, as each person goes to their own journey and experience everything in their own way. I view buddhism more as my philosophy, than the western picture of a religion, again to me.
Grammatically speaking, Buddhism is the cause of your pain. 😊
I read Benatar's book, Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence. I was definitely skeptical but curious. On finishing the book, I thought he had made a better case than I had anticipated.
Yet people dismiss antinatalists as incel mysognists (even though we have many females in our community) or just as depressed people (we have some, but which community doesn't?) or other similar bullshit.
Oh, and people telling us to kill ourselves. We get that too.
@Survivalist395 I'm fine with incels, I'm not fine when they are mysoginists. If you want to ask what's wrong with incels, ask people who accused me of being one for expressing my views on the ethics of procreation.
For him to have a case it'd require us to have been "resting in peace" or in "peaceful oblivion" before we existed. He doesn't realize it, but his brand of antinatalism completely depends on such a thing.
@@naturalisted1714his brand of Natalism, and all brands, require a worldview focused solely on pain and pleasure, which is hedonic, and requires that you believe that life is not worth living due to a valuation of pain versus pleasure that provides that literally any pain makes existing even in otherwise perfect pleasure not worth it, and it requires that these things be objectively so. I’ve seen no argument of objectivity, I’ve only ever simply seen it posited as though it’s self evident that any pain makes life worthless. Someone else’s subjective opinion has absolutely no inherent influence on my opinion, and has absolutely no influence on what is objectively true or false. If the argument is that there is no objective truth, how is that going to convince someone who believes there is objective truth, and even if it does what then makes anti-natalism right, when there’s no such thing as right or wrong outside a subjective view, and as such it’s as meaningless as preferring chocolate to vanilla.
i know this isnt the argument but when i stub my toe i definitely feel like life is not worth continuing
That is absolutely an argument
That is one of the irrefutable arguments.
For people arguing that life also has bits of joy and nonexistence will make them unavailable
all these happiness or joys are result after fulfillment of desires or need and desires or need only exist only if you exist
Existence creates desires , which incase not fulfilled cause suffering
Desire for healthy life can be easily deteriorated by uncurable cancar or A,IDS diagnosis
@@pauldirc.. Nah happiness doesn't just come from fulfilling needs.
Ever heard of the Hedonic Treadmill? The idea that after achieving or losing something we return to a base level of happiness.
However that base level of happiness can be lower or higher depending on other factors. Dopamine is responsible for temporary pleasure after achieving things, Serotonin is responsible for long term well being.
You can be joyful because of your suffering and not because of your suffering.
@@pauldirc.. No, the deep contentment you experience in a meditative state does not require any fulfillment of desires.
You conflate positive experience with basic hedonic pleasures.
Life is a gamble, at terrible odds - if it was a bet you wouldn't take it.
Tom Stoppard
actually it's not a gamble - you are GUARANTEED to lose by continuing to get older, weaker, sicker until you die - and that's if you are LUCKY and live old enough to suffer.
Like atheism...if you're wrong, you may be cooked.
Right
@@animalsarebeautifulpeople3094 well said
@@brianw.5230 Even not, whatever the belief you're in, the probability of being cooked is the same
I was never interested in philosophy because I thought the concepts would be hard to grasp but for what I hear it's nothing more than to apply common sense reasoning to philosophy topics. I'm beginning to like this.
Philosophy is far more common place than people think. It's what i forms every decision and every choice you ever make. Can certainly get complex though.
It isn't always tough. It's mostly that people don't wanna put themselves through all that thought and rethinking their perspectives
Indeed!
It’s just that some philosophers don’t write in a very good way lol
It's theoretical philosophy that I find overly tangled up and often useless. But most of philosophy is very interesting and it's at the core of everything we do.
I love my potential children so much that i would never bring them to this world of hardships, suffering and struggle for survival.
Bring them here and teach them to change it
@@vagabaassassina3461 Probably better to adopt?
Agreed! I decided at a very young age that I did not want to put another young human being into this world. Many people say that individuals who choose to not have kids 'must' hate children, but it's actually the opposite
And so insted (since I can't see a child without wanting to care for them 😂) I am planning to adopt 😊
Although it will be many years in the future since I'm only 15
@@vagabaassassina3461
You can't change the fundamentals of the game.
Ammeo that is a lot of crap have kids
Live is a hostage situation and we all suffer from stockholm syndrome
Very well said. Our intuition tells us that life is worth living, but I think that is just a result of us being a product of evolution, being pro-natalist by virtue of being alive.
And who is the one to be the arbiter and say “Ah you are not actually appreciating your life or having a positive existence, you are merely experiencing Stockholm syndrome and are held hostage by life. You would be better off having not existed, and the same will go for all future sentient beings.”
_Live is a hostage situation and we all suffer from stockholm syndrome_
Interesting thought. At least we can have a stockholm syndrome.
But i see this as a variant of the _life as an addiction_ version.
see my video: ua-cam.com/video/f6ELhBnsRiE/v-deo.html
@@nakodares5982 Well the idea with antinatalism is that you get to decide for you whether life is worth living, but you don't get to put someone else in danger who otherwise would not have existed, because of your subjective perception.
Very good way to put it. Concise, as long as people get it.
We have evolved to have psychological methods of convincing ourselves that things are better than they are. However, our perception of good and bad experience is based upon what we are convinced of. So you might argue that someone with Stockholm syndrome is in a bad state, because there is a "better" state they could be in, which is one in which they are aware of what is actually happening to them, even though they are subjectively experiencing bliss while under the spell of the syndrome. But that isn't perfectly analogous to life in general. There is no other place to experience bliss and there is no other place to wake up into; there simply is no other place. You are valuing knowledge of truth over pleasure of experience. Someone people would rather "ignorance is bliss" their way through life.
To me it's quite simple. Suffering is 100% guaranteed in this life, but joy is not guaranteed at all! Not having kids is actually a benevolent act.
No youre just a loser
The guaranteed suffering comes from guaranteed good, as suffering is the loss/harm of something good and valuable to us.
@@darkengine5931 you get old and diseases latch on.. that's a guarantee
@@no22sill That's a guarantee with mortality. If we grow some plants in a garden, they'll eventually wither and die. That's life. Beauty fades. Love fades. Life fades. But to say it's not worth it because these things don't last forever seems to be missing out.
@@no22sill I think a difference I have with antinatalists is that they see a guarantee of no suffering if we didn't exist. That's for sure. I can also guarantee no broken hearts if we never fall in love. But I think I have just as much a legitimate criticism that we'd also guarantee no beauty, no love, experience no sense of meaning or purpose, no joy, no creativity, no learning from history, if we didn't exist. I would frame the asymmetry table Benatar proposes in the opposite way in terms of the deprivation of pleasure and meaning from nonexistence.
Merry Christmas by the way!
The only reason I am alive right now is that I've not found anything better to do.
yet
Honestly I don’t even know why I’m still here. I’m already bored of life, I look forward to the day that I cease to exist.
@@Scriabin_fan Most people do, life is boring and depressing for somewhat lucky individuals stuck into the modern loophole. And life is horrifying for those born into poverty and war, or mental/physically deformed circumstances.
Try suicide
I love little more than articulate people thinking out loud for my consideration.
More information is better than less, however...
“Education: the path from cocky ignorance to miserable uncertainty.”
― Mark Twain
That's a bloody good quote
No existence = not having to deal with useless and overcompetitive school system
No existence = not having to fight for good colleges, which have less than 5% selection rate
No existence = not having to fight for exploitative jobs, and be overworked and underpaid
No existence = not having to deal with unemployment
No existence = no possibility of meeting with an accident and getting your limb amputated
No existence = not having to deal with diseases like asthma and diabetes, which degrade quality of life
No existence = not having to see your loved ones struggle with terminal illnesses and die
No existence = not having to die a slow and painful death due to cancer, paralysis, etc.
*NO EXISTENCE = NO PROBLEMS*
so why don’t you k*ll yourself?
it’s selfish that someone doesn’t cherish the good in life when others with less do.
@@rub3n410 what
Логичный аргумент!
No existence = you can't consent or not to existing because you do not exist yet.
No existence = not having people you love
No existence = not having good memories
No existence = not being proud of anything you've done
No existence = no goals
No existence = not being able to feel loved
No existence = missing the opportunity to be happy
*NO EXISTENCE = NO JOY*
If you see life as a bad experience, fine. But please don't try yo convince anyone that you're right about it because all you're doing is making people feel a bit more hopeless and helpless.
@@aceiiiiv3201 It is clear you are being emotional and don't understand Benatar's argument. And I don't feel hopeless and helpless embracing this position. If an idea makes you uncomfortable, it doesn't mean it has no merits.
"Life is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing"
Shakespeare
so stupid
@@makalaadams4 being stupid
Is that a Shakespeare quote or one of his characters? Big difference
And that's how comedy came to be
People who are suicidal dont want to stop living, they want to stop the pain.
But the radical interconnectivity of being assures that suicide will 1) leave a more painful world, and 2) assure you will return to a realm of greater pain, not less. There is no escaping from existence, and suicide is a false exit. There is only the effort to make that existence more clear and compassionate, or the refusal of that effort.
This
❤💯👍👌🙏
@@julianmarx2002 Show the evidence of that "realm" please.
…the pain of living.
I love both of your channels, keep up the good work guys.
Its wild being a supernatural fan and randomly coming across you here
Thanks for coming to London for this! Let’s do this again sometime!
Pleased to see this conversation, I admire both your channels! I don't know if I've missed it somewhere, but it's not clear to me if you consider yourself to be an Antinatalist or if it's just a subject you're exploring?
I have to write something to see Hancock's response to Ethicalogical's question. I'm also curious.
I'll also ask about something: What do you think about #EFILism to end the suffering of all sentient creatures (mostly, wild animals)?
I'm only a couple minutes in, and although I'm sure this is a fantastic discussion, it would be really awesome if you could invest in some acoustic foam!
This discussion is stupid. life is great for most over 80% it's not great for few 5 % and the other 15% don't know. Logically it's worth it and if they don't like it they can kill themselves lol. This discussion is stupid
@@KAIZORIANEMPIRE You don't grasp it at all.
We are born, suffer and die. Why bring people into existence, forcing them to suffer, only so they can die anyway? I'd rather not make the same mistake all my predecessors have made
Who is forcing you to suffer? And what is bad about dying?
100% of ppl alive want to live.
If not dey suicide.
Well, the reason why life is special and precious and fun, is because it ends
@@unknownv8462 unless they dont want others to suffer from their death
Key Himself I don’t see how that is relevant to the question of who is forcing you to suffer but what we do should be our best
This is the Non-Hollywood real-life version of discourse about the Matrix between Morpheus and Neo.
You are literally my favourite UA-camr!! I freaking love the guests and topics on your podcasts!!
Vegan love my friend
Didn’t know there was a word for this, I just have always thought that if I were to have a kid (which I never plan on doing) that it would automatically make me a bad mother for putting a child into the world that will most likely get my very bad dna😂
That's good of you. Some people have terrible genetic diseases, get a kid, it has the disease, and then proceed to make two more with the same disease anyway. That's something I disagree with.
@レイトン教授 - 風子 The drive to pass along your genes is a strong one, and I understand that adoption isn't for everyone. But we should support people who do, because you're right, there are plenty of people who would love to have parents.
U are a conditionnal antinatalist and its good
although people's lives vary, born as a child from a wealthy, loving parents family with super nice siblings and friends is certainly more worth living and enjoying than being born as a poor child, or even worse in the middle of a battlefield, however even though it's not a guarantee that rich kids get no pain etc, but the chance of that happening is very low or perhaps the coping mechanism taught from they well educated parents allow them to deal with the suffering they may experience, in which if we were to push even further towards capability of enduring pain, does it mean people who train themselves to counter pain and suffering mentally and physically such as shaolin monks or navy seal soldiers mean they can then ignore the pain they face and there any potentially born child with the potential of being a monk or joining navy seal etc would therefore be more worth living and embracing the pain and therefore still worth being born under the umbrella of antinatalism
@@BartvG88so you are pro eugenics?
Omg I never knew there was a term for my kind of thinking ...ive always never wanted kids for this exact reason/ along with some others but related to this
My exact thought process.
Yea me too I was surprised when I first discovered that there are a lot of people who think like me
No no, think about this rigth, this is not "i wanted or not wanted to have kids" type of escenario, thats perfectly fine, your life your choices, this is more like "having kids is not ok", so its not the same thing, one is a personal opinion that can't be judge by others, the other one is an actually phylosophy that states something pretty damm bold.
I thought i was the only one who have this kind of mindset either.
@@pepinillorick5741 yea ik wut ur saying, but I did think there was no way for me to prevent my kid from sufferin so id rather not make a kid and i also thought it was wrong n stupid for people to bring more people into this world, but idk, if they do its not on me.. so.
I'm interested in hearing Cosmic's ideas on "practical" justifications for antinatalism. If a single person decided to have a child, then there is a possibility that child will live a "horrible" life. For example, die early by disease, trafficked as a slave, or other things which blur the line between the balance of happiness and suffering.
Because there is a possibility (although it may be very low), an individual is risking another person's happiness-suffering balance. And of course, the more people that reproduce increases the number of people who will experience these "horrible" lives.
In conclusion, an individual who procreates is spinning a roulette wheel with someone else's money and debt. Refusing to play is the only guarantee to never hurt another person.
Stephen Hensley What if your partner wants a child of his/her own? Then you’re hurting them
@@milton7763 The quick answer is that this is much more simple than antinatalist arguments. If partners have disagreements about anything long-term, then they should reach agreement or separate. This is independent of antinatalism and can apply to a great number of disagreements.
@@milton7763 that is like saying that refusing to help someone gamble with someone else's money is hurting them, still wrong
It is suffering that creates humans, not everything is sufferance. It is humans around us which make life fulfilling. The humans who create the pieces of literature for us to find worth in life and to continue living the shining rays of hope in the world. It is humans who got rid of the sufferance. Yes humans create sufferance but sufferance would come in one way or another, it is part of nature.let’s assume the worst in the word sufferance because it vague. As humans progressed we have reduced sufferance, it is because of humans we are able to set foot without being chained or trafficked over seas. Yes it did take a sacrifice but it was for the greater good.
@@milton7763 So it's fine to potentially subject someone else to a life of suffering and definite death, because someone else will be hurt by not having kids? That's why the argument holds.
Adoption is preferable to having your own children.
Yes.
Why complicate things, simply put antinatalism can be summed up in the saying "no man - no problems".
Antinatalism is more of a "no sentience - no problem" philosophy. It appears man-centered, but in fact solves the issues of all sentient beings.
@Jimmy Lopez Personally I find Antinatalism and EFILism the best things I could have stumbled upon. Both address the core issues, although they don't offer the happiest solutions for getting us gracefully out of this insidious game.
The presentation (and the movement itself) is stagnant, as you rightfully observed, but that is a given. It's like selling kryptonite as an energy drink to Superman. You have better chances convincing people that Jesus was an alien, that's for sure. People are scared of talking about subjects like this. You won't find many people willing to hear your message, let alone do something about it. It's a sure way to lose friends and be called crazy. Try it for yourself!
I've talked with some parents and was stunned about their answers. All are on some "happy go lucky drugs". They don't care about nothing, not even about their beloved kids. Should they suffer? That's life! Should they get sick? Those are the risks of living! Should they die young? It's impossible!
One concept I've seen Sam Harris bring up is where something like "going to the gym" fits into this discussion. The pain/discomfort that someone experiences from exercise is directly linked with a perception of self betterment. Harris points out that this pain/discomfort of exercising would be almost unbearable if it wasn't associated with these anticipated positive effects. The interesting thing is that the pain of exercise modifies the pleasure of the positive effects in some way, not just subtracts from it. I imagine that if there was some treatment people could receive to instantly achieve the health benefits of exercise without any of the pain, without having to go to the gym, and with zero negative side effects, many people would still prefer to go to the gym and feel the pain of it. After all, no one walks out of a gym thinking "I just experienced X amount of pain, put that in the pain pile of my experience. I now perceive Y amount of self betterment, put that in the pleasure pile of my experience." This is otherwise illustrated in the way many people would rather build their own car than buy one. Rather build their own house than buy one. Rather cook a meal than buy the same one at a restaurant. Could it be the case that a life of only pleasure and no pain is not one that is worth living?
It is possible that a balance of both pleasure and pain is necessary in order to recognise ones own existence. After all it is emotion that gives us perception.
Adam Garland Exactly, you simply cannot have the good/pleasure without the bad/negative/pain. We cannot grow and develop as people without pain, change is pain, it’s stepping out from your comfort zone. You could also argue having the pain makes the pleasure feel even better, somehow elevates it. Have you ever been deathly sick and then returned to normal health and felt the shear appreciation of being able to just breathe, just eat something solid, just move about freely?
You could also argue that choosing not to bring a life into the universe because of the probability that painful things may happen, or almost certainly will could also turn out to be a terrible thing. What happens if you choose to abort the next Einstein? What happens if you choose to not have the next world changing individual which could better many more people than it harms?
Thank you for this comment!
You don't have to set objective standards for what exactly constitutes suffering, it's simply whatever a sentient creature subjectively perceives as uncomfortable in varying degrees at any given point in time. The important part is that this is unavoidable, whatever 'this' might specifically mean for a specific individual in a specific situation. Why would I make the decision to create a new sentient being and expose them to the risk of living a life in which the suffering outweighs the pleasure, which is a very real possibility, especially when I also have the option to not procreate and don't re-produce the necessary conditions for more suffering, however that might look like in specific instances, to occur in the first place? To not create a new sentient being can't have harmful consequences to what has not been created, whereas to create a new sentient being will most assuredly have such consequences, most obviously deterioration due to age and ultimately death ofc.
@@skoigoth That's an interesting point. Many people suffer more than than they experience pleasure for a number of reasons, though. I feel this is a situation that is best assesed on an individual basis rather than generally. Consider a person who has a high probability to experience more suffering than pleasure in the event that they do not have children. Many people experience intense suffering due to their inability to conceive. Would it then be reasonable for them to create a new sentient being who has a lower probability of experiencing more suffering than pleasure?
I would definitely press the button
Ah, quite an interesting topic we got on our hands.
Why are you here, just to suffer?
My thoughts on the obligatory nature of experience: ua-cam.com/video/dahDeHkXYcE/v-deo.html
dude, you're everywhere
Alex, do you prefer to see comments here or on Patreon?
In any case, I appreciate your willingness to broach this subject. You’ve obviously gotten a decent introduction but I feel like you should consider even stronger arguments, such as the violation of the principle of consent argument.
Looking forward to further discussions on this topic.
How did I get into the world? Why was I not asked about it and why was I not informed of the rules and regulations but just thrust into the ranks as if I had been bought by a peddling shanghaier of human beings? How did I get involved in this big enterprise called actuality? Why should I be involved? Isn't it a matter of choice? And if I am compelled to be involved, where is the manager-I have something to say about this. Is there no manager? To whom shall I make my complain
Søren Kierkegaard
When you say that it seems to be an argument for suicidality, an anti natalist would say that killing yourself might bring even more suffering those around them and so you shouldn't
Also, the act of suicide might bring about enough suffering in the suicidor in the moments before and during that it may not be worth going through with.
I actually think suicide is fine. Yes, it brings more pain to those around you. But I choose to focus my attention on the person who chooses death. Does it ease their own pain? If yes, they should go for it. Why? Because if they continue to live their life, then it is causing themselves more pain. Should you live in pain because your absence would cause pain? I don't know. It gets complicated and you would have to bring in individual rights. I think people should be free to choose when and how they die. The question of whether or not their pain is greater than the one they would cause is to be answered by the individual deciding to kill themselves.
@@harinivasan9609 I agree. Dont let your family hold you back. Pursue your dreams honey
Nice talk. Peter zapffe on the last messiah explain this concept perfectly, as well as the strategies we humans take in order to bare living.
I've thought about this a lot. Nice to listen to you talk about it.
My thoughts on the obligatory nature of experience: ua-cam.com/video/dahDeHkXYcE/v-deo.html
Sees Alex and Jack together Celebrates : "Yes ! two of favourite UA-cam collaborating "
Realises it's about antinatalism : " Oh fu€k ! there goes my will to procreate "
It's just a flawed argument
@@giladkingsley flawed in what way
@@riomatm7740 In the equation of pleasure and pain. Only caring about one side of the equation is flawed thinking.
And even if you think it is totally ok to ignore everything that's good in life (which if you do, of course you wouldn't want others to experience life) than it just doesn't make any sense that it isn't worth living hypothetically an almost perfect life that the only bad thing that ever happens in it is the slight discomfort of stepping once on a piece of Lego. I can't see how this argument is taken so seriously.
@@giladkingsley because in real life noone lives an almost perfect life where stepping on a Lego is their biggest problem
@@riomatm7740 that's the theory though
I wouldn’t ever want to be anything but an antinatalist 🥰
You can also be a vegan to be more consistent.
Lucioh lol looks like I’m consistent !
@@vegantina6565 ... I should have read your username.
Lucioh touché
Bea 🤣🤣🤣🤣
Not true. I want only one
Huh. Didn't know one of my reasons for not wanting kids was an actual thing. Better to adopt.
Also one of the reasons I support abortion in some cases.
DarkFlame
On your first phrase: have you adopted? I don’t support the ‘woke’ type of argument of “If you’re not a , you can’t talk about ”, but this is the sort of claim where I only really put stock in people that put their money where their mouth is.
On your second phrase: what do you mean ‘some cases’? That goes against the core of this ‘philosophy’ that you claim you adhere to
@@milton7763 My philosophy? Never said it was a philosophy. I said some cases, because I know there are people who would try to abort the baby after it developed into an actual human. I think late term abortions should only be for safety reasons, while trying to save the child.
Also, about the adoption thing? Fuck off I can barely afford myself let alone a kid. Plus I'm too young for kids. I'd also be a single parent. Which is a bad idea.
@@milton7763 Why would you need to adopt yourself to say that adoption is more ethical than giving birth?
Cbb Because it’s virtue signaling. I’ve known lots and lots of people that used to constantly reason that way and then when the time came, opt for having children themselves.
I’m not opposing the argument per se, but find it rather empty when people are alluding to the virtuous things they will do in the future that they will never end up doing
@@milton7763 Maybe I will. But It'd be a pretty big 180 from the never times I wanted to have a kid of my own. If they are even a tenth the troublemaker I was I'd go insane.
Silly debate. We all know it is unspeakably cruel to procreate. People simply don't care.
its not. life is more important than happiness.
@@angelofslaughter2431 What makes the phenomenon called life important? And who's life? Please give us an argument to work with.
@@chaos98GTVS life is important because its what makes you what you are. As a society life is important as a driving force toward a better civilization, life is also what create more life. Without life you wouldnt exist. So if you hate life that much maybe you should return to nothingness yourself. A life of suffering is far better then non existence.
@@angelofslaughter2431 Trying to understand your argument... so civilization is a product of similar beings working together to make a stable and prefferable (happy) community. If life ceases to be created by us, than it would slowly go extinct with society itself. So is life important for the stability of our society? Or is it important because people tend to think about the future of our society because they want to pass it down for their offspring in it's best shape?
@@chaos98GTVS as a society life is important to sustain itself and every life have a chance to make a better society. as simple as that. and as an individual your individuality were dictated by your life. even if you believe in the afterlife you would be nonexistent if you're not born first. the state of nonexistent is far worse then the state of "suffering" that most edgelords of antinatalism whine about. i rather spent my eternity in hell then become nonexistent.
I've been so excited to find someone with beliefs that so closely reflect my own. I was initially drawn to your videos about christianity years ago and was super excited when you announced that you became vegan. Now you are talking about Antinatalism, which is one of the topics I am most passionate about! I appreciate you, and watching your new videos is always the highlight of my day. Much love - Lily from Florida
One of the arguments for antinatalism I found most interesting - I think it's in Benatar's book, but it's definitely in Sarah Perry's "Every Cradle is a Grave" - is to think in term of consent. It is generally considered acceptable for someone to personally take on risk (for a potential personal payoff), but not for someone else to make that decision for them and expose them to the potentially negative consequences.
For example, if I had a pill that has a 50/50 chance of causing either a fantastic experience, or an awful/painful experience, most would probably say that it would be acceptable for me to choose to take that pill myself. It may also be considered acceptable for me to offer it to someone else, assuming I had adequately explained the risks. But if I were to put it in your food without telling you, I think most would agree that would be wrong, and even if you end up having a great time, I would still have done a Bad Thing.
Where it is generally considered acceptable to expose another to serious harm, without consent, tends to be only in the most extreme circumstances. For example, the greater good of a group (i.e. not JUST for the person in question), or because rather than giving a positive experience, it is believed the action will avert an even greater harm to that person.
Of course, this argument rests purely on existing social conventions, but trying to explain the difference in this case leads to some interesting places. Perhaps an intuition that existing people experience an inequality of pain/pleasure is at the heart of it? Or maybe a belief that pleasure is somehow more subjective than pain (are we less able to judge what would be a good experience for someone else, than what would be bad one)?
Anyway, just some thoughts! The discussion was very interesting, and I'd love to see you go into more depth on this in future.
Interesting
As a very sensitive individual... I feel like this neutral state, without any sentient life, would be the maximal "good" we can achieve. Even though it's not positive. Wow.... that sounds really pessimistic and sad... and it kind of is!
That's the beauty of rationality and skepticism though right? Facing the hard truth and shunning comforting lies. Kudos to you for doing it.
Derek Yes, indeed. It can be hard to reconcile this with one's existence as a primate. I don't condemn others for wanting to feel save and avoid negative feelings... I mean, it can literally feel like hell. But at the end of the day, I'm glad that I'm in this position. So thank you.
Keep searching! :)
So why not go on a murder spree? That will bring the most utilitarian value in the long run right? (Not meaning to insult. Just trying to suggest that pleasure isn’t the sole good and suffering isn’t the sole bad. Consider the idea that there exists a meaning to life that we should pursue in the face of inevitable pointless suffering, and if you’re a nihilist, prove that there is no meaning or that you shouldn’t believe that there is)
Derek there’s nothing trivial about utilitarian and nihilistic world views. I wouldn’t call them rational by any means
Michael Hu I'm by no means passionate or sure of my views. Also don't think that I can prove that there is or isn't a meaning to life. Can you?
As an Atheist, becoming an Anti-Natalist seems the compassionate thing to do. Because if there’s no such thing as an afterlife, is it fair to bring someone into existence who will experience a life they know they’ll have to let go of someday ? A being who will eventually have to go through the same agony as I will, of facing their own mortality and of those they love ?
The basis of your failing to pass on your genetics is atheism. Evolution is deselecting your ideas lol
What makes you think they will go through the same agony as you? Is mortality too much of a burden to live or am I missing the point?
The Antinatalist Informant lmao what
antinatalism has two great arguments.
-its wrong to gamble with human life (parents gamble by default as there are factors outside their control, like genetic mutations, birth defects, social suffering, war, hunger, thirst, ect ect.) So no matter how unlkely you think any of these are, you still are, in fact, gambling with human life. So if you do it, its immoral, no matter if you decide to do it.
-you should't decide on someone elses behalf (which has some logical problems, but it has the same amout of problems as pro-natalism)
So regardless of prefrence, you still have the problem of them not deciding the prefrence, but you doing it for them.
Isn't it only a gamble if you have a desired outcome?
@@oopsiepoopsie2898 I don't even know where to start. I suggest watching the video atleast.. they put some of your 'arguments' to rest.
-Your whole life is a gamble any way.
Okey, even if this where true, that antinatalists conflate living beings with giving birth to new beings, that still would leave you with the burden of proof to say why one shoud live in the first place.. "if you whole lifes a gamble".
- Plus we have abortion if a child is going to be born with horrible painful birth defects for its life.
great you made it less of a gamble. Now control for all other factors and it won't be a gamble. How are you going to solve humanities problems (predictablly?) If not its a gamble, which is the whole claim..
-When we have children these are natural processes.
okey.. so its good because its natural?
-Being non existent didn’t bother or please me back in 1559.
okey.. but this isn' an argument about the unborn, its an argument about those who live deciding and gambling with/for someone else..who is going to be born
-We should work on these kids first before having more biological children.
Atleast you have 'one' right instinct when it comes to 'good arguments'. Yes its true, adoption is a great solution, as you can give someone else a *potentially* better life, and even ask them, rather then decide for them as they are born, rather then unborn.
Nice try tho. Please watch the video now, they explain plenty of the fallacies you tried to pull here. I suggest more relfection on your part next time. I understand its an emotional issue, thats why i anwsered your points instead of being *just* dismissiv.
@@jeremyleyland1047 we might argue about the definition of the word 'gamble', im using this one: 'to bet on an uncertain outcome'. But i find yours to make the whole issue worse in a way, because by your assumption those who have sex, and no regard for the outcome are more moral in this view, then those who have a desired outcome (all other parents who have sex for a reason)
One thing that I hate about life is that I will likely die before my wife, especially as I am 10 years older than her. If I allow myself to actually indulge in that thought, it causes me serious anguish that someday I will die and leave her behind, to suffer my loss. I would never want to inflict that kind of suffering on anyone but it is something we that are alive and in these circumstances have to deal with, the never-existing will never know that kind of pain.
DeadEndFrog ok look this is what it’s gonna come down to, do you think exists is all bad? That world view, seems to think because bad things happen it’s better to not exist. Just because bad things happen doesn’t mean existing is bad, things all over the earth are getting better. Almost every metric is getting better. If you whole argument can be boiled down to “ we things suck so we might as well not have kids “ then it’s weak. That is the antinatalist argument in its most simple form. But things aren’t as simple and pleasure and pain. Basically what you are saying is “ well sir I think they way we can put the best safety measures into this building is by not making one “ is that really a solution to the problem? It’s not about minimizing suffering it’s about getting rid of existence for humans.
This was terribly fascinating. I was hanging onto every word! I think this is definitely an argument worth discussing and I appreciate you guys making this video.
I'm an antinatalist, but I also like to discuss ethics generally speaking, if you have any questions you can ask me.
I think the desire to have children is selfish. Most people breed because they don’t want to be alone later in life, like an insurance for their old age. I do not understand this need to love one’s own flesh and blood. We could easily adopt, there are already many kids who are already born and left alone for various reasons. To create a fresh baby because we want to pass on our mediocre genes seems stupid and harmful. I think it is about time we expanded our circle of who we can consider family and start adopting kids because there is an overwhelming no of orphans across the world.
Also, I think there should be a licensing system that approves who should and should not have children. If there’s a criteria for everything else, why not for parenting? I reckon most of the people who are birthing kids every other year will not pass the parenting requirements.
Humans mostly have a biological instinct to breed. We're a narccistic species.
Unfortunately us humans naturally possess a reproductive system.
So people feel duty bound,by their own bodies/society to reproduce,against extinction.
@@sariahlace5944 Not all of us. Just the narcicists.
I have to diagree. I think if you can bring a new person into the world and be fairly confident they will have a good life, (becouse you will provide them the care they need) then there is some value in that
@@kylehankins5988 Not true in billions of cases, so a disabled orphan in a war torn, famine hit 3rd world country just needs caring parents to have a good life? There are literally millions of variables that could effect your child which are totally out of your control.
To be or not to be. That really _is_ the question. So what's the answer? That's easy: _Not_ to be is the answer. But then that's _my_ answer. Your answer to the question may be different from mine.
Somebody indeed put that on a reprint of the Magic: The Gathering card "Unsummon" ("Not to be. That is the answer.") But I don't think any antinatalists have infiltrated Wizards of the Coast yet... ^^
For me it boils down to this: if there's even a 0.001% chance that my child could experience extreme suffering, it's not worth the risk of bringing them into existence. I think we have to give precedence to unhappy people over happy people when weighing up whether it's worth starting life, on the basis that the idea of an unhappy person being forced to bear their unhappiness is much less tolerable than a non-existent happy person being unable to enjoy their happiness.
But the happy people outnumber the unhappy ones... by a lot! democracy baby!
@@BartvG88 how do you know your kids will happy tho
@@BartvG88 democracy doesn't work with suffering. In a gang bang rape there is only 1 person suffering and the majority having great fun. Democracy ? A big country invading a small country can also be perfectly democratic . Slavery is also possible in a democracy.
@@xxxxxxcx156 Nothing in life is certain, but you can definitely make an educated guess, as well as a continious effort by loving your children and being there for them.
@@FarangNick Jup, democracy is the worst system we've had, if it weren't for all the other even worse ones. Some people define democracy not as just majority rule, but majority rule, with consideration for the interests of the minority, with free press and an independent justice system. Anyway, my point still stands, the chance that your child will have a net positive effect on the world is high, especially if you have carefully considered the factors that comes with raising a child. Is it completely a guarantee? no, but it's not immoral to have kids.
This reminds me of some of the Buddhist teachngs....life is suffering, the goal of Nirvana is essentially to "blow out", don't be reborn. Interesting.
whoa this connection is interesting
Arthur Schopenhauer was influenced by Buddha.
Not bringing the child to rhe world is the most selfless act one can do.
Why?
@@SouthPark333Gaming Because you spare a living soul the experience of birth, life, suffering, work, and their eventual experience of death at the expense of your pathetic egotistical desires.
@@SouthPark333GamingHope you got the answer to your "why"? Lex.cordis explained it aptly.
Considering how annoying and expensive kids are uhhhhhh… i highly doubt its literally the most selfless thing to not have them
I can recommend authors like Karim Akerma and Günther R. Eberhard on antinatalism, although I believe their works haven't been translated into English yet.
But they make strong points how antinatalism is a valid thought and to be considered, apart from the asymmetry argument by David Benatar.
Danke für die Anregungen, werde mich mit beiden ein wenig näher beschäftigen!
@@MaxMustermann-ij6gi Sehr gerne! Eberhard nimmt in seinem Buch "Antinatalismus" auch Bezug auf mehrere antinatalistischen Philosophen. Ich würde dahingehend dir hauptsächlich dieses empfehlen, zumal es gut strukturiert und argumentativ aufgebaut ist.
As an Antinatalist, I find the concept of consenting to life a lot more convincing than the asymmetry argument (though I agree with both.)
When a new being is brought into the world, it is unknown how much pleasure or pain they will experience, and it is also unknown what perspective they will have on that pain/pleasure. Ultimately, you're not making a decision about the objective value of living life, but how likely it is that a new being will *subjectively* find *their own* life to be worth living.
In other words, procreation inherently includes the act of gambling with another's experienced wellbeing. There is always a chance, say, that a baby will be born with a horrible defect that causes them to painfully die immediately after birth, or that they are depressed and commit suicide despite a position of privilege. Do we really have the right to enforce that gamble (and infinitely many more) onto someone by bringing them into existence? Even if they were more likely to enjoy life, I can't say so. Say, if I bet a prized possession of yours and knew I had a 99% chance of winning you a trip to Hawaii, even if I win it would still be inappropriate if I did not get your permission first.
I hope this comment finds you because I really want to hear your take on this perspective. To be clear, I *probably* would press the button that would kill everybody painlessly, but I DEFINITELY would press a button that would make everyone infertile.
Additionally, even if Antinatalism becomes a popular philosophy (which I find incredibly unlikely) I think it is a waste of time to put into law particularly due to the practical implications of:
- Even if it were illegal, any natalist population will inevitably outlive antinatalist populations since they can procreate and pass on beliefs to their children
- Supposing it were successful, any country that instated antinatalist policy will rapidly shrink in power and be overtaken by the remaining natalist countries
Also, despite people being very reluctant to accept antinatalism, I usually can convince people with the ideas behind AN that they should definitely adopt (preferably instead of having your own kids) because then you are helping someone who already exists to have a better life instead of risking that someone who doesn't will have a bad life.
Consent only matters if you're imposing suffering which you cannot justify.
If we have an ethical duty to prevent terrible lives but none to create happy lives, then there is no justification.
You would need data. If data indicates that people would much rather have lived than not lived, in a specific environment, then you would be allowing a likely positive experience vs an unlikely negative experience. If you refrain from procreation, considering this, you are preventing net positive experiences from occuring, statistically.
@@cloudoftime That doesn't change the fact that its still a risk. I defer to my example of betting someone else's prized possession. However good the odds, it is still inappropriate without first getting their permission.
@@cloudoftime You don't need the positive when you don't exist. You create the need for positives by creating the person.
Would you seek pleasure if you were never bored and never missed pleasure or needed it to compensate for some form of suffering?
I've recently heard of antinatalism and I agree with it. I'm definitely not having children.
Why do you agree with it?
@Lucioh
Because, there’s really no good reason to bring a life into the world when that life will go through completely unnecessary suffering and eventually die for no reason other than my hypothetical desire to have a child. A person’s want to have a child always comes from their own selfish desires to improve their own lives or give their life meaning. But the child is a victim in that pursuit. Life can’t consent to its own creation so I think it’s unethical to create it.
There’s no real reason to create a new life, it’s fundamentally pointless... especially when there are children in the foster system who need families. If I wanted a child I would definitely adopt one. It just seems straightforward to me.
I agree with the idea that people are better off not being born rather than being born into a messed up world, just to suffer and die within a handful of short decades.
And I especially apply antinatalism to animals because we are literally breeding billions of animals just to kill them and keep them in horrible conditions, it’s cruel.
If you don't want have to children fine, but if your negative perspective on living is telling you that humans should go extinct well think again, your life perspective doesn't matter well at least to me
@Richard Daly
All species go extinct eventually. It will certainly happen to humans at some point, maybe even sooner because of climate change. Whether it happens 200 years from now or 2,000 years from now, either way none of us will even be there and it doesn’t actually matter.
@@Meccarox well the fact you choose to live means you choose suffering, so suffer on bro
We humans have existed for so long as to question *if* we should exist for any longer.
Thanks for posting this conversation. I've got a little better understanding of the asymmetry now. What helped me greatly in this dialogue is the differentiation between preferred and preferable and the place of intuitions. I'm very intuitive myself and am trying to find more solid grounds to guide my actions and stances.
I’ve often wondered why evolution has afflicted so many creatures with subjective consciousness when this ability isn’t necessary for reproductive success. Given that the most prolific life forms on this planet are the simplest; bacteria, viruses, fungi etc.
How can anyone claim that they have the right to enforce existence on another?
Even if you believe in an afterlife of eternal justice, that implies that bringing a child into the world means risking they'll go to hell
Only if you believe there's a hell. You could believe that there's an afterlife that is not hell where everyone goes.
@@outerspacing9207 in this case it's better but life is still 'malignantly useless' as Thomas Ligotti said
@@konyvnyelv. I'm not arguing life is useful. I was just saying what I said in context.
Look up in an image search: "666 in Greek". What's it look like? We are actually _already in_ hell. The 666 sex act is what brings you here.
1. Stopping/preventing bad has priority over experiencing pleasure, especially surplus pleasure.
2. Absent a god of some sort, life's existence serves no purpose that I can see (human, intelligent ET, etc.).
3. Physical comfort does not assure a good life (a number of wealthy celebrities, f. ex. commit suicide, have major depression, in serious debilitating accidents).
4. Even aside from all that, humans themselves commit deliberate hurts, harms, and degradations against others - often on petty grounds. We're also dishonest, judgmental, exploitative, sometimes violent or abusive. All the pleasure in the world will not change that. Why have kids if we're going to be like that?
Every cradle is a future grave. No need to breed.
Life and death is beautiful. Suffering is good
@@jsheriff396 Life is boring and empty for somewhat lucky individuals stuck into the modern loophole. Repeating the same routines. And life is horrifying for those born into poverty and war, or mental/physically deformed circumstances.
Every baby is a stranger. A person who you do not know yet. A person who may commit atrocities to themselves or others. A person who will eventually have to face the horrors of this world and understand that they are going to eventually die no matter how hard they try.
The more humans populate the earth, the worse living conditions will be for future generations. Will it be beautiful then, when children starve from lack of food? When the earth is burning from toxic gas? When little clean air and water remains?
Humans are selfish, and only care for themselves. Life is not beautiful, it is pointless.
@@MothJade I truly am sorry you feel this way. Have you not wondered why people who grow up in such conditions continue to survive and not give up? Because despite all the pain, suffering and misery it's worth existing. I suggest you try meditation it will help you understand why life is such an incredible gift and why it's not pointless.
@@jsheriff396 Nothing IS better than life because we don't know anything else, it is instinct in us as animals to be scared of death. If you look down off a cliff your body will produce adrenaline and you will feel the strong feeling to flee. People try to exist because they are afraid of death, because it isn't proven what is on the other side.
Death is terrifying and unavoidable, horror movies are scary because you imagine yourself or others having a possibility of death, illness is scary because humans know that if they catch it there is possibility of death. Death is scary, that is why we continue to live. Even suicidal people who attempt say that they regret attempting, because their bodies natural instinct is to escape dying. It is scary.
@@MothJade my life is nice, speak for yourself bruh
18:00
You can even define it so that the act of being born gives you a pain equivalent to all the pain you are going to experience in life (because you just understood that the reality you entered will be painful and that makes you very sad).
After you finish crying out loud you stop feeling the expected pain as intensely as before and you suddenly ignore it and look at the bright side of life.
This way, you wouldn't want to be born because of the pain of expecting the pains of your life and yet when you are born and go through the crying phase you don't want to die because the hard part is over.
My main argument against the red button would be: It´s not my decision to make. Never was, never will be.That would put a single moral decision above the decisions/experiences of others without their consent. That makes it unacceptable for me.
Nature has already pushed the button for us, if we would only admit it. We live only on borrowed time.
@@Firespectrum122the red button is painless and all at once. So I don't think that's true.
been waiting for you to talk about this topic! First heard about it in season 1 of true detective, been curious ever since.
Read _The Conspiracy Against The Human Race_ by Thomas Ligotti. You'll love it. The showrunners of the show took inspiration from it.
Masterpieces.
If you’re “curious about it” go have ‘a gay experience’ already. Stop bothering me with your random comments
Milton77 lmao what?
Answer: no, it is not. Life is pain. Don't inflict it on others for your own selfish desire to procreate.
Each individual is free to decide if life is a pain/how painful it is, and they are free to end it at any time. Who are you to decide that "pain" for others?
I'm not deciding anything for anyone. I stated my opinion.
If you say life is pain, and that it isn't worth living, you imply that most people would want nothing more than kill themselves (at least if not hurting others would stop them to). But do you really think that applies to the majority? That everyone is just depressed and cant wait to die? In my view most persons love being alive even though life of course inlcudes painfull moments too.
@USERZ123 Well, I respect your opinion, and wish you all the best nontheless.
@USERZ123 i think you can change your live but you must surely belief in it
Damm, I've just seen the antinatalist subreddit and thought it was very interesting, I didn't expect you to just drop a video on this topic :O
The first pleasure of starting a life is for the parents at the moment of conception!..They don't deserve to have the evil temptation spell if they are not prepared to understand what they are doing to another human being!...We don't need anymore humans in this world for no reason at all!...We just need to open our eyes and make good choices in our lives, not more suffering!...Life comes with pain 😢
"Each one of us was harmed by being brought into existence. That harm is not negligible, because the quality of even the best lives is very bad-and considerably worse than most people recognize it to be. Although it is obviously too late to prevent our own existence, it is not too late to prevent the existence of future possible people." - David Benatar
Couldn’t have said it any better
Excellent topic of discussion.......terrific guest...... one of my favorite UA-camrs!
Hey mate! I see you're here too
We love a vegan comment section legend
@@xburningindigo HAHA RIGHT??
What's up! :P
@@1w3sp Hello!
19:08 I think this position is called “pro mortalism”
Efilism is also a used term.
@@lucioh1575 I think efilism is an extention of pro mortalism to all living creatures, whereas pro mortalism is only for humans. I could be wrong tho
@@TheRemo176 As long as we agree on what it means in the realm of our conversation, I'm fine with it.
At least efilism, according to your definitions proposed here, actually considers non-human suffering, unlike promortalism.
I feel so high listening to this discussion
My thoughts on the obligatory nature of experience: ua-cam.com/video/dahDeHkXYcE/v-deo.html
For people saying you can have pleasure in life I think the suffering outweighs the temporary pleasures in life for most just being around people so it's not just simple as saying there's pleasure in life.
Yeah man there are things I love in life but the sad thing is how much pain and suffering there is in this world,This is why I sometimes ask why I was born if I did not have a choice in existing.
So glad I’m an anti natalist, imagine forcing existence and risks of suffering, pain, and trauma on another life
Same and I will have no family at all family means nothing to me I free man and I wanna fuck other men bcs I find men sexy and I more into guys, than girls and don't care what anyone think about that
You're implying most people wish they were never born. Do you really think this is true? In my experience at least, absolutely not.
@@michi9955 people who aren't born don't wish they were born though. They can neither wish to be born or not be born. That's more safer for them. Actually it's nothing cause they're non existent.
@@nosphethomahlobo3060 You are right. But from my perception, at least in our developed parts of the world, giving birth on average does more good for the born person, the parents and the relatives than it does bad. So I disagree that its generally immoral to give birth.
@@michi9955 how does it do good for the person that is born? I'm not saying that people should not give birth if they are already pregnant, but to me(and you can correct me if I'm wrong)...if you're not pregnant/haven't impregnated someone, it doesn't really benefit the person who is not born/an unfertilized egg. I can only see it as benefitting the parents and that benefitting is simply bringing pleasure to them but not the child specifically. Like if you decide you wanna fall pregnant/wanna impregnate, that decision is only for your own pleasure cause you can't say that..."no I wanna benefit my prospective child" cause if someone is not born yet, they can neither benefit nor not benefit since they're non existent.
Someone can only benefit when they're existing.
Objectively, life is meaningless. Only a subjective assessment of its events gives meaning to life. If existence is objectively meaningless, creating another life is merely a selfish act.
getting genuine pleasure and satisfaction is the only thing that makes life worth it in my opinion. and even for some people pleasure is meaningless
Every single act is a selfish one.
@@samuelfraley8737 everything obeys the laws of physics, chemistry, biology etc, these laws have no will thus nothing is selfish act.
Thats a contradiction if it requires a subjective assessment to apply meaning then you cant say it is objectively meaningless, only subjecgively meaningless
@@buddytheelf6416 no
The argument for antinatalism is simple. Not bringing people into existence is never bad. If it was, we would have a moral duty to have kids. The absence of pleasure isn’t bad because no one exists to realize they are missing out on it. But the absence of suffering is good. It’s good that there aren’t millions of people burning alive right now. Therefore if you don’t have a child nothing bad comes from this. If you do have a child there is a 100% chance that they will suffer to some degree. Could be a lot or could be little. But either way there is a net positive of zero suffering if you have no children and a net negative of suffering if you do. So the moral action would be to have no children as nothing bad happens from not having them and something bad does happen if you have them. It’s super simple and completely logically consistent.
This was a good discussion but I didn’t hear anything that refutes this argument.
Jourdain Wong thanks for the reply. It has nothing to do with net quality of life. If I have a child they WILL suffer to some degree. That’s bad. If I don’t have a child they won’t suffer. That’s good. So I choose the good option. Simple as that.
When I first heard of antinatalism I fought hard against the logic of it. I wanted to disagree with it. But after actually thinking about it for a long time, it’s just right. At least from what I’ve read and discussed with people.
"Not bringing people into existence is never bad."
I think this assumption is untrue. If everyone stops having kids right now, there's a large amount of people who will die in very bad ways, like a 78 year old starving to death alone because everyone is too old to support themselves.
This argument works if you assume other people won't be antinatalists, but if everyone is, then it becomes fallacious.
Consent cannot be gained from the unborn, it cannot be a moral obligation.
The born have their OWN persistent consent to continue living.
Life is inherently positive, growth, learning, and richness of experience is infinitely preferable to non existent, even in the face of the worst suffering, which is always fleeting just the same as pleasure.
"The absence of pain isn't good because no one exists to realise they are free from it. But the absence of pleasure is bad. It's bad that there aren't millions of people crying from joy right now."
See my point? If there is no one to experience anything, you cannot add a qualitative assessment to that (non-)existence.
Absence is absence. There is no assymmetry. It's all a question of probability of having an overall good existence of the person to be conceived that makes procreation ethical (and if things go bad, self-deletion is still an option).
We have evolved to try to survive to matter how intense the suffering. The balance of pleasure and pain has nothing to do with it.
Ive always seen marriage and having kids as something that should have been considered archaic, like ppl taking a horse and cart to work or ppl using a black and white tv. I simply cannot understand why ppl want kids beyond blatant selfish reasons. There has to be some kind of psychological misfire or form of anxiety that takes hold in ppl at certain points in there lives that causes ppl to completely misjudge a situation. I think its a kind of renunciation of the self, that they need a new master as the self has expired.That they are now a finished article, nothing new can arise, they may go on to deliver in a certain field of work and advance marginally but over all as a person, they have thrown in the towel existentially. So now they replicate. They pass on the baton to the new version while they continue to lay the ground work (perhaps getting a promotion) for the new version to develop, upgrade.
This is why I dont respect ppl who want kids. They are essentially saying I need a new version of myself to serve as this one has had its day. Im done.
Worse still, to want kids is to have zero capacity to assess human existence and it's frailty, it's nightmarish nature and tendencies, it's horrifyingly limited ability to take control of its environment, the infinite ways and degrees to experience pain and how easily this can be done.
I do think the bargaining we ca;l marriage is a kind of sad stalemate where a man offers up his sperm for kids in order to merely have access to sex. This is it.This is what all the fucking hysteria of relationships, marriage, love, so called companionship is all about, all that furor. So the man can bust his nuts in a woman and a woman can indulge in her shameless nature of perpetual adolescence.
Life is servitude and decay and ppl want to continue this.
Yours, misanthrope.
and the sad reality is that god has created such a thing that if a man and woman live together then kids would be the natural consequence.
Why not have a system where we can have our soulmates while stating clearly in the biodata that he or she don't want kids and seeks a partner who also doesn't.
Shameful that the society instead of respecting and recognising the noble desire, instead
I agree with much of what you say, but I think you're too harsh on people who have kids. Many believe that their children will have good lives and want to facilitate that. Also, many people don't have access to birth control and that makes it less of a choice.
Two things that are obvious:
1. Society needs people to have kids to function
2. People have different wants and preferences than you do
@@La0bouchere What has this to do with ethics?
@@michaelshannon9169nothing that's the point. The decision to have children isn't about ethics. It's such a deeply ingrained instinct that I think calling it immoral is nonsensical.
This is such a good talk. The best talk on antinatalism that I've heard so far. Very nice!
I really love just listening to this. There is so much to learn and debate from this video!
I’m an antinatalist who also actively desires to die. I don’t have extreme suffering compared to some people but I find the risks of being alive intolerable. I live a mostly productive life and I try to not be miserable and I do live mostly because I feel obligated to live so my parents don’t feel sad... but everyday I fantasize about the relief of non existence. I’ve actually wanted to die since I was a small child and I’m now 30 years old. I feel entitled to euthanasia also.
It sounds like you might be manically depressed, which is a very severe condition. Have you tried going to a therapist? In certain cases, medication such as antidepressants can help, although those need to be taken under strict supervision as they only work for a minority of people suffering from depression and in some cases can actually have the opposite effect
Make your life worth living
@@markvega5036 the fucks wrong with you
It appears to me that you need cannabis
Adam Andrews I know those feels, and have done for nearly all of my 42 years. My heart is with you: it's an alienating experience. I wish I could tell you that having a profound spiritual awakening at age 36 after a lifetime of atheism gave me a newfound love for living, but it's not that simple. I just know better now WHY this human life feels so painful (bc deep down in the subconscious mind, we recall how it feels to be one with divine Love, aka "God"). I know, wrong corner of UA-cam, lol. I could tell you that it's very likely your soul originates from a civilization in the cosmos so highly evolved that this Earthly experience of division and suffering feels incredibly foreign, and that's why this incarnation is so painful and confusing...but I won't force my perceptions onto you. All I can promise is that this material world is only temporary and illusory, and what lies beyond is more beautiful than our human minds can comprehend--the crucial caveat being we cannot get back to such dimensions/realms/frequency of consciousness until we complete our personal soul mission. Suicide, as I now know all too well, only lands us back here to begin again (not as punishment, but bc from a higher plane of existence, we see quitting the game prematurely prevents us from winning it). You are loved, and you are not alone...despite appearances to the contrary.
Sending you love across the aether. If you ever want to chat, my email is psycheandcupidforever at gmail. If not, please try to remember this is only the cocoon of darkness required for the caterpillar to become the butterfly. 💙😇🦋
Wish I’d heard about this before I had kids. I think It is immoral to create new life KNOWING what a struggle life is. The amount of Suffering far outweighs the pleasure especially as we age. Who are we to decide on whether someone is born or not, we just playing God.
Are u familiar with Danny Shine?
It depends on what kind of a life you can provide for your kid(s). If you can provide an amazing life the opposite can be argued, you're taking away the kid(s) ability to experience joy.
I agree with this as I have been miserable and anxious my whole life
AY I just started thinking about this subject. Then I found out there was a movement to describe this.
I am glad you are exposing the views that stem from atheism. It sees like the more someone adheres to atheism, the more they have to deny their intuition and life experience. I must say that you are one of the few atheists that isn’t in denial about the consequences of atheistic views. Please teach your fellow atheists because they don’t handle criticism from Christians very well. God bless you.
John 18:36
Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here.”
Great content and thanks as always for going to the trouble to make it such high production value! I must say though, in the hopes to maybe get some discussion, that I have to disagree with the analogy made about being in the cinema; mainly on the point that when we are in a movie that we aren't enjoying (but not disliking so much that we'd leave) and would rather not have gone to see it at all, it's because we can think of many more worthwhile things to do with our time. In essence, the reason we'd rather not have started the movie is because of opportunity cost and not because it is a net negative experience (in that case it would likely be bad enough that we would in fact leave). Therefore, if you are using it as an analogy for being born or not a more apt analogy would be to ask if that same person would rather have gone to the movies even though they didn't enjoy it much, or have an hour or two of their time skipped forward with no recollection of it, I think that question would get a significantly different response than the analogy presented. In effect, what I'm saying is that even a movie that isn't great is better than not having existed at all for the duration of the movie
You mean like a nap? Yeah I like naps.
I like how I was forced to be here due to other people's urges who subsequently rejected their responsibility
Awesome discussion! Thanks for this!
I think one of the major objections to a symmetric total/impersonal view is that it treats people like mere vessels/receptacles for utility. That is, rather than helping people in dire need or suffering horribly, it can be better to create happy people. You could leave them to suffer for it. That puts happiness before people, but we should be putting people before happiness. In my view, the point of ethics isn't to maximize wellbeing, the point is to treat moral patients well, and ensuring they're as well off as possible is how we do that.
You don't wrong someone by not bringing them into existence, since they won't be around to give you reason to believe you've wronged them. You do wrong them if they come to exist and would (foreseeably) have a life not worth living or would (foreseeably) be worse off than they* could have been, since they'll be there to give you reason to believe you've wronged them.
*or someone else, à la nonidentity problem, under a "wide" view.
Here are some papers defending the procreation asymmetry and whose arguments I found pretty persuasive:
Johann Frick, "Conditional Reasons and the Procreation Asymmetry"
scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/jfrick/files/conditional_reasons_and_the_procreation_asymmetry_v10.pdf
Christoph Fehige, "A Pareto Principle for Possible People"
www.fehige.info/pdf/A_Pareto_Principle_for_Possible_People.pdf
Also, in this paper (and talk), the author describes a theory which implies the asymmetry but is not antinatalist:
Teruji Thomas, "The Asymmetry, Uncertainty, and the Long Term"
globalprioritiesinstitute.org/teruji-thomas-the-asymmetry-uncertainty-and-the-long-term/
I realised when i was in a mental hospital that my suffering could have been prevented entirely had i just not been born. I wouldn't have missed out on anything because i wouldn't have had a brain capable of conceiving such a thing. Deep down i still believe having children is wrong. And yet i still have such a strong maternal urge. I don't know how i'm gonna learn to cope woth these contradictiry feelings for decades worth to come. Maybe i could make a good foster mother..?
No. Don't do it.
@@myawoo Do what?
@@SandyTheDesertFox do not adopt. Only healthy (physical & mental) and rich people should adopt.
@@myawoo First off, i never mentioned adoption. Second, no one should adopt.
@@SandyTheDesertFox why should no one adopt?
It seems that pain goes with life by definition, pleasure has to be earned by doing specific things. Babies cry when they are born because the only thing they feel is discomfort, they are brought into this world naked and with an empty stomach, states which are associated with pain. We all know from experience that we have to WORK in order to EARN pleasure, otherwise pain comes by default.
Suggestion from someone with recording experience and who is a huge fan: Bring the mics closer to your mouths, lower the gains, and the lower/mid frequencies, raise the volume. This will eliminate a lot of that background noise/static while making your voices much clearer for the audience.
just learned about antinatalism a couple of days ago and seeing one of my fav youtuber doing a video on it.
Thanks for finally discussing this important philosophy. More people should be aware of it. Go antinatalist! But this philosophy is more than just the asymmetry argument. Procreation is a gamble and it’s morally wrong to gamble with a non consensual being
And life is a net negative in the sense that sentient beings are in a state of constant deprivation. Pleasure is about fulfilling desires. Suffering has to exist before pleasure. Suffering is inevitable and guaranteed (e.g. unfulfilled desires, diseases, getting old, dying) but pleasure is not.Why create need machines that need to be constantly satisfied and when that fails, there is immense pain and suffering ?
Be compassionate and become an antinatalist today. Rationality and logic over emotion !
Pain is inevitable but you choose to suffer.
It seems this comment section is full of depressed people with a shitty life, I feel bad for you, but if somebody has a happy life and is a great person, he will probably raise his son as another great person, that will bring more good in this world than sufferance, so giving birth is immoral only if you do it without the purpose of giving a gift to the society, and if you do it when there are more probability of a life of sufferance ( which is a different thing from a hard life), but this probability is different for each person, each society, each country ecc.
For example it would be immoral to give a birth in Congo, but not in Finland.
MARCO_MATE are you saying people born in Finland don’t suffer lol. Get real. I find wishful thinking offensive
@@lepetitchat123 I'm real, there is for sure less sufferance in one of the best country in the world.
MARCO_MATE Lol, Finland? There's a reason Finland has the highest share of metal bands per capita (little sunlight). More "civilised" countries, such as Finland, usually also have higher percentages of "civilisational diseases", such as depression.
@@metalvisionsongcontest7055 Finland is one of the happiest country in the world, where the percentage of depressed people is low.
I was brought into this world by two very unstable people. I didn’t make the same mistake.
95% of all people in this comment section (including breeders) were brought into existence as a result of alcohol consumption
That's why I'm gonna adopt humans that were forced into horrific situations rather than have biological kids. I will be teaching them about antinatalism though so they understand the wrong in bringing humans into a burning world.
You are a good human.
@@ChowMeinChowdown Thank you.
I see you both attempted to develop hedonistic/preference quantification schemes. I keep seeing this recurring mistake when people are addressing Benatar's arguments. Overall, I think a hedonistic calculus will always fail, but we can still reason about vague inequalities. Topological reasoning can be employed instead, as well as algebraic inequalities (given the supposed asymmetry), and maybe assuming a monotonic ordering of enjoyable and suffering experiential events (but it need not only be subjective e.g., physical damage that is not consciously registered). Rigorous reasoning also need not always be numerical, things can be inherently vague, but ordinately determined. For example biased, or unfair, coins or dice, allows one to reason about unequal probabilities even without assigning numerical probabilities.
In the transition to a potential argument for suicidality (if we remove the asymmetry argument) you deemphasized the additional point that was brought up earlier about many other lifeform's preferences being involved in the world that would be impacted by that conception event. The same can be said for suicide or the "red button" thought experiment; even if life is full of suffering, committing suicide might not be preferable to the many other lifeforms connected to the person who commits suicide, and choosing to end everyone's life is violating everyone's autonomy. Just ask yourself, is it preferable to have some other person be in charge of whether you poof out of existence or not? Is having your autonomy stripped away preferable? This is a tough one, but I think maybe one alternative is to make the existence of the red button public and see what arguments come out as a result. More perspectives are better than one when it comes to deliberation.
I think it is important to highlight that once you are alive, it's no longer just about you, ever. With that in mind the antinatalist's position isn't solely about what is preferable for the unborn, but also whether the consequences of that conception event to every other lifeform involved is also preferable.
Another possibility for why antinatalism might grow in popularity is if the Earth gets shittier for life, especially mammalian life. A very probable possibility, if I may say so myself.
I think another point to add to pushing the button, is the question of weather or not one person should make that decision, even if they come to the conclusion that they morally should press it. It's one thing to say that if you knew it would end the life of all things, and thus prevent an exponential amount of suffering, it's another thing entirely to claim the right to take such an action. Your making a choice for others, which, under certain circumstances may be permissable, could almost never be determined in this case. You could not know all the opinions of people in the world, not could you see all future outcomes. I suppose that doesn't really tell us what the right answer is when it comes to weather or not it is worth snuffing out all life to prevent all suffering. But I think it does provide us an answer that one individual should not be allowed to make such a decision. If people have a right to life (or at least, if we can agree they should), then it should be the choice of every individual whether or not to push the button for themself, rather than one pushing it for all.
it's like Forrest Gump said, you never know what you're going to get in life, and look at his own life, so in other words if you create life you're asking for all kinds of unexpected Pleasures or pains particularly horryfying pains you will never know until you finally get them, and that is can be a very big problem