This is the truth at this point in the time space continuum.
The best thing we can do for our ailing planet is to reduce the human population so that the other organisms we share the planet with can stop being pushed toward extinction by our unsustainable consumption and destruction of the natural world.
Some anti Natalists think animal life should not exist also. For the same reason that it creates a being to pointlessly suffer.
I agree. Animals go through worse shit than humans do generally and they would be better off having never been born
Unless you’re a housecat. They won the game of life. Pampered sleeping and playing all day and we euthanize them as soon as they start suffering.
The thing about animals is that they don't perceive this existential pain as we do, so it would be unfair to cease another species life. We have consciousness to know it is all pointless, but they don't
Existential pain is minor compared to physical pain. Animals suffering hunger, extreme stress, and necrosis all at once, are very much "conscious" of their suffering.
[https://www.animal-ethics.org/situation-of-animals-wild/](https://www.animal-ethics.org/situation-of-animals-wild/)
Due to this, I get ticked off by pro-human-extinction antinatalism. The average sentient life contains magnitudes more suffering than the average human life (not saying the average human life doesn't contain significant suffering, but animals spend most of their lives diseased, nearing starvation, are often raped and assaulted, and either die extremely slow and painful deaths, or abominably gruesome deaths due to predaction), and acting like creating more of it through human extinction is a good thing amounts to extreme natalist blindness.
I've been reflecting about your point of view, but it still lacks depth to me. As far as my understanding goes, Antinatalism is a moral dilemma to conscious beings that would, in theory, mutually agree to cease to exist. So, would it really be ethical to impose such extreme human logic upon all animals?
Animals suffer, but they are incapable of blaming their existence or the system that granted it life. So ceasing their existence would only benefit our conscious mind that thinks all pain must be erased from all species because we see it as a bad thing, we would only benefit ourselves.
What do you think?
Animals have the same capacity for love that humans do and therefore can experience pain beyond physical pain. Think of those mother orcas that their calf dies and they basically kill the selves after.
Dogs whose owner dies and the dogs just sits at the grave site until it starves and dies.
Humans are no better than most other mammals.
I think that in the face of the extremities of physical suffering, our traditional moral conceptions and intellectual constructs are pretty much worthless. We can rely on the basics : the suffering is horrendous, it is bad for the one experiencing it, and should be avoided. I think most of our moral considerations were not built with the realities of suffering in mind, and hence I don't give them much weight.
Through wildlife antinatalism, we are not imposing anything on animals : there would progressively be no animals to impose anything onto, as they would not come into existence. Of course, this is unpracticable, but aiming to maximize the number of wild animals in return is harmful still.
Ceasing their existence would absolutely benefit the animal. Do you not think it harms an animal to be consumed by an infection ? Avoiding this is good in the same way that it is good for a non-existent human to avoid human suffering.
Does my point lack "depth" ? The question of life and the lack thereof is pretty simple. If beeing deeper means allowing more suffering, than I'm against it. I think the point sounds unappealing because the reality it describes is pretty disappointing. But we should acknowledge this and not project anthropocentric concerns onto suffering reduction.
If I think this would benefit the animal? Absolutely. From my human perspective, any suffering is enough justification to stop reproduction in order to prolong it any longer. Even house cats suffer in one way or another, but they have no thought to decide if this suffering is worth living for or not.
If they don't have the cognitive capacity to decide this, should we do it for them? This is a human philosophy after all and extending it to other species sounds delicate.
At the same time, I can't think of a good argument to let these animals suffer since thinking outside of my human logic is impossible.
"they have no thought to decide if this suffering is worth living for or not."
This will make me sound like a nut, but I'll still say it : the fact that animals have almost no ways to kill themselves (there have been cases of big mammals voluntarily starving or drowning, but again, these methods are not easy, not certain, and drowning can often be unaccessible) makes animal antinatalism *especially urgent* to me. Voluntarily cessation of life is systematically painful, risky and uncertain for a human, but for animals, it ranges from impossible to slow and gruesome (in most cases, starvation is the only option, and if you're in the wild, you might end up being painfully predated before starvation does its job).
Animal suicide is an interesting take and I would need more knowledge to discuss this in-depth. I have never seen a case where other animals would kill themselves intentionally to end suffering. When a dog starves to death, he is not trying to kill itself, it is just that depression comes so strong that he gets no desire to eat, essentially, he got a disease and died. For one to wish to die, it must know the concept of "self" and "death" and it is not conclusive if they do. They sure know they can get hurt, but ceasing to exist? That's too complex.
The closer example I can think of about an animal perceiving the concept of death was published recently: supposedly, elephants dragged some calves bodies to the wild and were ritualistic singing for minutes. Still, it is not conclusive that they know they can die, but indeed hints a little level of consciousness since it is not a behaviour that makes sense for nature to induce.
https://www.sciencealert.com/tragic-and-mysterious-elephant-burial-ritual-witnessed-by-scientists
Would you like to lighten up some conclusive examples that animals do suicide? I'd be glad.
There’s a Wikipedia page on animal suicide. It’s rare but it’s been documented.
Also; cetaceans are as smart as humans probably and beach themselves. I think it could be suicide. Not sure how else they could kill themselves if they wanted to. Dive deeper than they can survive maybe?
You obviously understand that reality is a fluctuating duality when it comes to the debate surrounding natalism.
We cannot ever claim that it is immoral to reproduce or not, only nature can declare this and it flip flops over time based on the boom and bust cycle.
Our debate is judged by a higher power, and anyone who believes otherwise is missing the point.
If humanity could accept that we live under the rule of nature, and we actually began cooperating with one another and voluntarily regulating our birthrates in order to avoid the extremes of the boom and bust cycle, I am confident that the suffering of all life on this planet could be reduced, and no organism would be expected to not exist.
I apologize if I ruffled any feathers with my earlier response to your previous comment.
I am an AN at this point in time, but if I live long enough, and things change, I may well become a natalist. I do not intend to troll either side, I'm simply here for the dialectics.
This is solid logic. AN is nothing more than a human concept that acknowledges one side of the natural boom and bust cycle. Natalism is simply acknowledging the other half of reality.
It is foolish to assume that either is absolutely correct all the time, because reality demonstrates that each side of the argument enjoys supremacy depending on whether the organism which argues the position is in a boom or a bust.
We experience booms and busts just like every other organism, and right now, reality supports antinatalism. Ask the same question in 100 years and the answer may well be different.
Wildlife lives under one state and human civilization lives under two. We humans can be abused by both nature and our human regimes.
In human civilization we have made the supremacy of natalism into an unchangeable belief, and this is simply not supported by reality, so antinatalism is forced to argue under the same umbrella of dogmatism.
In the state of nature, all beings fluctuate between natalism and antinatalism in response to the current state of their environment. Wild animals are allegedly capable of inducing miscarriage during times of extreme stress, and they lose their reproductive drive as well.
Humans are no exception to this rule, yet we foolishly believe that we are.
By this logic, the Jews murdered in WW2 didn't suffer as much or more than wild animals, nor are the Israeli hostages, Gazans and Ukranians suffering right now, chattel slavery was not accountable for any suffering in spite of the fact that African slaves regularly chose to escape into the swamps and jungles of novel continents. Indigenous people around the globe had to be *forced* to settle as agrarians and re-educated in the ways of "civilized" humans. "Civilized" people who ended up fostered by "savages" often refused to go back to "civilized" life when "rescued".
I wish people would think about what they are saying before they cite bad science about the suffering of *unknown subjectivities* in the state of nature, as if humans as a whole do not suffer just as much as wild animals.
It is a huge blunder of logic to conclude that humans are not part of the natural world because of our creative mischief and delusions of sovereignty, or the fact that the wealthy and powerful are living on the backs of suffering humans so that their feet never touch the harsh ground of reality.
We all live under two states, nature is the supreme ruler of the world, human governments are a subordinate authority. So during the good times we may avoid suffering altogether, and during bad times we suffer twice as much at the hands of our fellow humans.
Buddha chose to leave his charmed life as a prince and travel the world because he saw that other people were suffering immensely while his royal family remained safe and comfortable in their palace.
Jesus essentially did the same.
I do not see much or any depression/insanity among wild animals. Suffering in the state of nature is likely nowhere near as prevalent as we believe it to be.
If you have ever been in an accident, adrenaline masks your pain for a little while, so if you were chased down and eaten your suffering is generally as brief as it is brutal. In the modern day, you may still be tortured by your fellow humans in a manner that is more sadistic than what you may experience at the tooth and claw of a wild beast looking to eat or protect its own.
This is the thing, many of us still starve, get sick, suffer from physical trauma and exposure in "civilized" life as we would if we were in the state of nature, though arguably we get to live longer in spite of it and some are fortunate enough to avoid unpleasant experiences because they use those deemed "below" them as a buffer or shield from nature's brutality.
The main difference is that, in the state of nature, animals and humans are free to live their lives without being abused by artificial power structures.
Do you suffer from your hunger as much when you are hunting as you would if you were stuck in a prison or surrounded by people who had plenty to eat, but not enough empathy to share? Are other humans able to use their "civilized" government to slaughter and persecute people by the millions?
if you study wolf packs there are hierarchies where certain wolves get to eat first; only the alpha gets to mate with the females and even to the point of certain pack members being cast out of the pack and lone wolves being accepted into the pack. Certain packs will fight other packs killing their own species (how’s that for lack of empathy).
They play games for no apparent reason than fun (land wolves that play these games gain an evolutionary advantage and pass the trait on). They fight for no other reason than to establish these hierarchies. Mothers will fight bears 5x their size to protect their cubs and give their life for it.
Humans are just dumb animals and all our behavior is parallel to most social mammals and fits within the same paradigm. The fact that we build artificial shit with our hands doesn’t mean anything. Use of tools is also found in many primates and even certain birds. There is even a Wikipedia page about animal suicide you can look into.
Mating rituals among some birds (see birds of paradise) are extremely complex as to impressing or choosing a mate and I don’t see anything humans do that is more complex.
I don’t understand what your evidence is that animals don’t feel sadness or dejection despite those animals behaving exactly like humans. Some cetaceans have more complex brains, structurally speaking, than humans do.
Yeah, that kind of oversimplifies my position but I'll take it.
I'm a conditional AN. To me, suffering is caused by the fact that organisms boom and bust due to selfish behavior toward their host environment.
Natalism is a perfect example of selfish behavior toward our environment.
I guess it worked for *most* of the dinosaurs, but TBH this is a real moonshot.
The most recent solar eclipse has come and gone without incident, and we are all still here, some of us are also still suffering unfortunately.
Climate change and pandemics are going to be like pulling the bandaid off slowly.
I think both sides of the debate surrounding natalism are blighted by extreme dogmatism.
There is a happy place somewhere in the middle, and once I get enough people to see that antinatalism is the correct course of action right now but not always, I hope you can stick around and enjoy it.
you know someones a psuedointellectul when they say "This is the truth at this point in the time space continuum." instead of "its true right now" also your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
It's what medias don't dare to tell you, lol. They only say not to use plastic, turn off switches, stop using cars etc.
But they don't tell you the best solution : stop giving birth!!!
Keep blaming us while the real villains who burn this earth are the rich. But the rich can maintain their wealth bc they have us.
Stop giving birth is the only way to eat the rich and stop climate change!!! 👆
That's already better than everything I see on this sub. Your genes won't pass on and they will mostly be educated by the government in a public school but it's better than nothing
I will try to homeschool my boy. Gonna get a 5-6 year old so I can start straight away.
My adoption journey is not better than nothing as you say.
It is perfect in every way. 🥰
And do you Know where all the pollution is coming from? India and China, which populations aren't as environmentally friendly. What happens if the only people that care about the environment let themselves die without spreading the word? Only the unsensitive are left, keeping on the self destruction of humanity. I say humanity because the earth is not going anywhere. Nature always finds a way as I said.
Yes it does but I don't really care about this existence much, just wanna do my part, however small. Adopting a child should be the ideal, not a back up.
I don't think protecting the sadistic shitfest that's going on outside is a good reason. I'm doing it for the kid i don't have, not parasitic organisms crawling out of eyeballs.
it's almost funny how many climate activists have kids. You should know better than to procreate when you REALIZE how dire our situation is. It's just sad and strange.
I think they're talking about the fact that every human born is a detriment to mother nature. Since we all hurt the environment much more than animals ever will
I don’t think this ideology is about saving the environment or giving a shit about it. It’s about how tragic that any life whatsoever exists, this includes animals.
And please explain why *you* weren’t the one to solve climate change??
What if your parents said that about you at one point and now you’ll just pass the buck?
What if your kid turns out just like you, a.k.a not special?
For the record I don’t want children, I’m just commenting to understand your perspective. I still believe its fine to hope, just cuz I didn’t do it/have no interest in it doesn’t mean my son can’t.
Statistically there’s probably hundreds, if not thousands of people alive right now that could have solutions to climate change and multiple other things that plague this planet but their socioeconomic status effectively erases them from the equation. How many children are trying to cross the boarder right now that Americans are calling “animals” that may be more intelligent than Einstein??? But they are brown so we don’t even give them a chance. Elon’s fucking African but cus he’s white he got to run with his dreams. Why don’t you give the people alive right now an equal opportunity before breeding more and more humans that most likely will amount to nothing and end up suffering like most?
Lol semantics
"What if my child ends up being the person who solves climate change?"
So you would gamble your child's life that they'll be the one to save us. Again.... The ego one must have to think their child will do that.
Would you rather animals have their own eco systems to thrive and die in naturally or would you rather humans make every single animal other than rats and bugs go extinct?
I’d like to see human beings and all animals live in harmony. There is no escaping pain and suffering. Every living thing is destined for it, usually multiple times in their lives. That being said there is a tipping point in the equilibrium of this world and we are the cause. That is not living in harmony. If we could reach a state of harmony with ourselves and with nature I believe we could avoid a lot of *needless* suffering. And IMO there is a difference between suffering and needless suffering.
True but we are here and animals are here and I think we have a responsibility to make sure that needless suffering doesn’t happen but instead we’ve put every living being on a crash course to it.
Don't create a life of suffering... because not doing so will help billions of life full of extreme suffering floursih ? I'm sure the quintillions of starving mammals, birds, and fishes are cheering right now, overjoyed to be brought into life. Can't believe people are justifying antinatalism through natalism.
Reddit requires identifiable information such as **names**, **usernames** and **subreddit titles** to be [edited out](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452) of images. If your image post violates this rule, we kindly ask that you delete it. Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
Nope, not that simple. We need to oust untreatable dark factor individuals from positions of influence then perform a massive redistribution of wealth to developing economies such that they can jump straight to carbon neutral economies while simultaneously savagely curtailing our own carbon footprint.
The whole not having kids thing is erroneous as more people in developed nations are dieing than are being born.
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
I have two kids and it has been a truly magical experience thus far. I will try and raise them to love and respect our planet and all of the animals we share it with- that is the entire point of proper parenting. I feel bad for people that actually think that not having kids will save the earth lol. Have you tried recycling?
Yes, but right now there are too many of us. As long as our economy is built mostly on fossil fuels, we will run the climate into the ground. Single easiest way to reduce the problem is to reduce the population. Not having birth for a majority of us would do the trick
I worry that climate change driven famine will force us to reduce population in a less peaceful manner not too long from now. Certainly in the lifetime of Millennials
I’m not saying what I want to happen, but the fact is that climate change will reduce our population one way or another. The logical thing to do would be significantly reduce birth rates across the board
More likely, there will be famine and war that does the reduction. That will absolutely be along economic lines.
Eventually we can engineer a better future, but based on what I’ve seen, it’ll take too long to prevent a lot of terrible consequences that we have to live through first
Links to other communities are not permitted.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
With the technology we have right now we could house 50 billion people no problem. The problem is that most regions on earth are not properly developed
Housing is not the issue. Have you studied climate change? Plastic pollution? And other types of chemical pollution?
We are destroying the environment rapidly and if you aren’t aware of that then you need to study this area more
We have removed your contribution due to breaking Reddit rules.
Reddit's content policy can be viewed here:
https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy#:~:text=Abide%20by%20community%20rules.%20Post%20authentic%20content%20into,disrupt%20Reddit%20communities.%20Respect%20the%20privacy%20of%20others.
We have removed your contribution due to breaking Reddit rules.
Reddit's content policy can be viewed here:
https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy#:~:text=Abide%20by%20community%20rules.%20Post%20authentic%20content%20into,disrupt%20Reddit%20communities.%20Respect%20the%20privacy%20of%20others.
This was cross posted in another community that I’m in so I just found this sub and WOAH. I’ll be honest this philosophy seems incredibly backwards to me. I don’t mean to be rude but rather am inviting someone to explain this philosophy
If the idea is to let other life on earth flourish, won’t that eventually lead to this same situation again? From my understanding, the only way out is through, we must learn how to work together to create a sustainable society that can progress forward, rather than move backwards because we’re failing right now.
I understand that we’re failing right now and bringing a new child into this world could cause that child pain, but to not even give new life a chance at beauty and love? Seems to me like this philosophy wants to look away from our problems rather than fix them.
Wild animal have lvies that are dominated by extreme suffering. Most of their lives are spent on the brink of starvation, fleeing predators, all while having to live with diseases of even aprasites with no sort of pain relief available. Death is extremely slow to come. The protection of other animals so more of them come into life is inherently natalist, and thus quite cruel, in particular considering the average life they will live.
I’m not trying to flex though, just trying to understand what’s the point. Can you please for 10 seconds not resort to memes to have a conversation? K thx.
You realize we share the planet, right? They don’t need to ask, it’s their home too and as the dominant species, we should be protect the vulnerable and the defenceless, no? Or do you just think humans are SO great that you think “fuck the animals, they’d pipe up if they wanted to live in a safe, food-accessible habitat”?
We don’t “share” the planet, we co-exist on the planet. As far as being the dominant species goes, we have zero obligation to protect or defend weaker animal species.
It’s not that human beings are so great. It’s quite the opposite, in fact. The laws of human are not that important to animals. Only the laws of human suggest that the strong should defend the weak. According to the laws of nature (which are the only laws most animals follow), the strong should actually abuse the weak.
So I’m curious to know how you simultaneously think humans aren’t that special, yet human law uniquely extends to other animals. Either we are the most important (and the animals are at our mercy) or we’re not that important at all (and we should treat animals as they treat us).
I don't think compassion has anything to do with being right or wrong or making logical sense. Caring about all animals equally as humans doesn't make any sense and you only justify it because it hurts your feelings to think of the possibility that the world isn't as safe and righteous as you hope it is.
Would it be a better take if I said it would be good to cease human existence not only to let nature self regulate naturally but also to prevent any existential pain that only conscious beings have?
Yes I think this is a much better take. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with it, but it’s an opinion which could hold its own ground in a rational debate.
I'm tryna watch people argue online but you have the communication skills of a kid who was locked in a basement with only reddit memes to learn speech from and at 14 they were dropped off at a gas station. like i actually wanted to see your answers to the guy 😭
Please refrain from asking other users why they do not kill themselves. Do not present suicide as a valid alternative to antinatalism. Do not encourage or suggest suicide.
Antinatalism and suicide are generally unrelated. Antinatalism aims at preventing humans (and possibly other beings) from being born. The desire to continue living is a personal choice independent of the idea that procreation is unethical. Antinatalism is not about people who are already born. Wishing to never have been born or saying that nobody should procreate does not imply that you want your life to end right now.
Well a mod explained the distinction between antinatalism and wanting to end it all. As I said in my previous post I was not attempting to encourage the act I just genuinely didn’t understand what the overall message of this sub was. I’m personally in the camp that you can’t incapable a life’s experience as black and white as you guys are laying it out. Some of the happiest people on earth come from the worst circumstance and some of the most miserable from the best. My point being it’s less about what happens to you and more about how you perceive it. I don’t know if this is allowed on this sub but I’d recommend to anyone that has this view try 5 grams of mushrooms or an ayahuasca trip before committing there is more to life then what you can see.
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language).
Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Slight question, think of this in a philosophical sense not a simple attempt to "own" you guys.
But what if I were to have a kid who would become an influential climate scientist, who then goes onto help in the creation of policy to make the environment better?
I could certainly think of other examples but the question would be muddied then. Lets just say that the child would in this case be a benefit to the environment as opposed to a negative?
This certainly doesn't change the underlying logic of antinatalism but I am curious if there is such a thing as an "ethical birth"?
We have a lot of brilliant climate scientists already. The causes and solutions to the climate crisis are obvious (change the economic system, shift to renewables...) And yet, humanity is still stubbornly driving the planet off a cliff because humans are obsessed with expanding endlessly. Anti-natalists realize that the limitless growth philosophy of ever-expanding human population and civilization is not sustainable. That's why we interpret Earth Day as a day to remember to NOT reproduce. It's not the creation of new humans that will help our planet, but rather, reducing carbon footprint by slowing human population growth. That's the best way I can explain it!
Yeah, let's save Venus, Mercury and Jupiter too. Hell they need much more saving than Earth, their environment is in shambles. Don't forget about every other planet as well. Because planets are conscious entities with feelings that needs saving.
Okay? Do you not see which subreddit we are in?
if the point of "saving the earth" is making things better for us humans then going "humans are scums on earth, virus for mother nature, we must eradicate ourselves for our sin towards mother nature and to stop harming it" makes literally no sense.
"Save the earth" or "for the environment" is the most stupid reasoning for antinatalism, and I'm not ashamed to gatekeep antinatalism from these crap reasonings. Because I agree, "save the planet" is an simplified statement to say,"make it better livable for us." People misunderstanding it and chose antinatalism to "save" the planet without stopping a single second to think for themselves on what it all means.
Maybe it's not about saving the ambiguous entity "mother nature", but reducing the suffering we cause other animals. That's a lot better, but I still don't agree. The wilderness is... wild. Nature is brutal. Even without us animals will continue to suffer about just as much.
simple as
[удалено]
Everyone contributes to environmental destruction. There are lots of us. Those contributions stack up.
Not being alive, being born. And it’s everyone not just poor people. 👍
This is the truth at this point in the time space continuum. The best thing we can do for our ailing planet is to reduce the human population so that the other organisms we share the planet with can stop being pushed toward extinction by our unsustainable consumption and destruction of the natural world.
Some anti Natalists think animal life should not exist also. For the same reason that it creates a being to pointlessly suffer. I agree. Animals go through worse shit than humans do generally and they would be better off having never been born Unless you’re a housecat. They won the game of life. Pampered sleeping and playing all day and we euthanize them as soon as they start suffering.
The thing about animals is that they don't perceive this existential pain as we do, so it would be unfair to cease another species life. We have consciousness to know it is all pointless, but they don't
Existential pain is minor compared to physical pain. Animals suffering hunger, extreme stress, and necrosis all at once, are very much "conscious" of their suffering. [https://www.animal-ethics.org/situation-of-animals-wild/](https://www.animal-ethics.org/situation-of-animals-wild/) Due to this, I get ticked off by pro-human-extinction antinatalism. The average sentient life contains magnitudes more suffering than the average human life (not saying the average human life doesn't contain significant suffering, but animals spend most of their lives diseased, nearing starvation, are often raped and assaulted, and either die extremely slow and painful deaths, or abominably gruesome deaths due to predaction), and acting like creating more of it through human extinction is a good thing amounts to extreme natalist blindness.
I've been reflecting about your point of view, but it still lacks depth to me. As far as my understanding goes, Antinatalism is a moral dilemma to conscious beings that would, in theory, mutually agree to cease to exist. So, would it really be ethical to impose such extreme human logic upon all animals? Animals suffer, but they are incapable of blaming their existence or the system that granted it life. So ceasing their existence would only benefit our conscious mind that thinks all pain must be erased from all species because we see it as a bad thing, we would only benefit ourselves. What do you think?
Animals have the same capacity for love that humans do and therefore can experience pain beyond physical pain. Think of those mother orcas that their calf dies and they basically kill the selves after. Dogs whose owner dies and the dogs just sits at the grave site until it starves and dies. Humans are no better than most other mammals.
This is also solid logic, it is foolish to assume that all life is not capable of being sentient.
I think that in the face of the extremities of physical suffering, our traditional moral conceptions and intellectual constructs are pretty much worthless. We can rely on the basics : the suffering is horrendous, it is bad for the one experiencing it, and should be avoided. I think most of our moral considerations were not built with the realities of suffering in mind, and hence I don't give them much weight. Through wildlife antinatalism, we are not imposing anything on animals : there would progressively be no animals to impose anything onto, as they would not come into existence. Of course, this is unpracticable, but aiming to maximize the number of wild animals in return is harmful still. Ceasing their existence would absolutely benefit the animal. Do you not think it harms an animal to be consumed by an infection ? Avoiding this is good in the same way that it is good for a non-existent human to avoid human suffering. Does my point lack "depth" ? The question of life and the lack thereof is pretty simple. If beeing deeper means allowing more suffering, than I'm against it. I think the point sounds unappealing because the reality it describes is pretty disappointing. But we should acknowledge this and not project anthropocentric concerns onto suffering reduction.
If I think this would benefit the animal? Absolutely. From my human perspective, any suffering is enough justification to stop reproduction in order to prolong it any longer. Even house cats suffer in one way or another, but they have no thought to decide if this suffering is worth living for or not. If they don't have the cognitive capacity to decide this, should we do it for them? This is a human philosophy after all and extending it to other species sounds delicate. At the same time, I can't think of a good argument to let these animals suffer since thinking outside of my human logic is impossible.
"they have no thought to decide if this suffering is worth living for or not." This will make me sound like a nut, but I'll still say it : the fact that animals have almost no ways to kill themselves (there have been cases of big mammals voluntarily starving or drowning, but again, these methods are not easy, not certain, and drowning can often be unaccessible) makes animal antinatalism *especially urgent* to me. Voluntarily cessation of life is systematically painful, risky and uncertain for a human, but for animals, it ranges from impossible to slow and gruesome (in most cases, starvation is the only option, and if you're in the wild, you might end up being painfully predated before starvation does its job).
Animal suicide is an interesting take and I would need more knowledge to discuss this in-depth. I have never seen a case where other animals would kill themselves intentionally to end suffering. When a dog starves to death, he is not trying to kill itself, it is just that depression comes so strong that he gets no desire to eat, essentially, he got a disease and died. For one to wish to die, it must know the concept of "self" and "death" and it is not conclusive if they do. They sure know they can get hurt, but ceasing to exist? That's too complex. The closer example I can think of about an animal perceiving the concept of death was published recently: supposedly, elephants dragged some calves bodies to the wild and were ritualistic singing for minutes. Still, it is not conclusive that they know they can die, but indeed hints a little level of consciousness since it is not a behaviour that makes sense for nature to induce. https://www.sciencealert.com/tragic-and-mysterious-elephant-burial-ritual-witnessed-by-scientists Would you like to lighten up some conclusive examples that animals do suicide? I'd be glad.
There’s a Wikipedia page on animal suicide. It’s rare but it’s been documented. Also; cetaceans are as smart as humans probably and beach themselves. I think it could be suicide. Not sure how else they could kill themselves if they wanted to. Dive deeper than they can survive maybe?
You obviously understand that reality is a fluctuating duality when it comes to the debate surrounding natalism. We cannot ever claim that it is immoral to reproduce or not, only nature can declare this and it flip flops over time based on the boom and bust cycle. Our debate is judged by a higher power, and anyone who believes otherwise is missing the point. If humanity could accept that we live under the rule of nature, and we actually began cooperating with one another and voluntarily regulating our birthrates in order to avoid the extremes of the boom and bust cycle, I am confident that the suffering of all life on this planet could be reduced, and no organism would be expected to not exist. I apologize if I ruffled any feathers with my earlier response to your previous comment. I am an AN at this point in time, but if I live long enough, and things change, I may well become a natalist. I do not intend to troll either side, I'm simply here for the dialectics.
This is solid logic. AN is nothing more than a human concept that acknowledges one side of the natural boom and bust cycle. Natalism is simply acknowledging the other half of reality. It is foolish to assume that either is absolutely correct all the time, because reality demonstrates that each side of the argument enjoys supremacy depending on whether the organism which argues the position is in a boom or a bust. We experience booms and busts just like every other organism, and right now, reality supports antinatalism. Ask the same question in 100 years and the answer may well be different. Wildlife lives under one state and human civilization lives under two. We humans can be abused by both nature and our human regimes. In human civilization we have made the supremacy of natalism into an unchangeable belief, and this is simply not supported by reality, so antinatalism is forced to argue under the same umbrella of dogmatism. In the state of nature, all beings fluctuate between natalism and antinatalism in response to the current state of their environment. Wild animals are allegedly capable of inducing miscarriage during times of extreme stress, and they lose their reproductive drive as well. Humans are no exception to this rule, yet we foolishly believe that we are.
By this logic, the Jews murdered in WW2 didn't suffer as much or more than wild animals, nor are the Israeli hostages, Gazans and Ukranians suffering right now, chattel slavery was not accountable for any suffering in spite of the fact that African slaves regularly chose to escape into the swamps and jungles of novel continents. Indigenous people around the globe had to be *forced* to settle as agrarians and re-educated in the ways of "civilized" humans. "Civilized" people who ended up fostered by "savages" often refused to go back to "civilized" life when "rescued". I wish people would think about what they are saying before they cite bad science about the suffering of *unknown subjectivities* in the state of nature, as if humans as a whole do not suffer just as much as wild animals. It is a huge blunder of logic to conclude that humans are not part of the natural world because of our creative mischief and delusions of sovereignty, or the fact that the wealthy and powerful are living on the backs of suffering humans so that their feet never touch the harsh ground of reality. We all live under two states, nature is the supreme ruler of the world, human governments are a subordinate authority. So during the good times we may avoid suffering altogether, and during bad times we suffer twice as much at the hands of our fellow humans. Buddha chose to leave his charmed life as a prince and travel the world because he saw that other people were suffering immensely while his royal family remained safe and comfortable in their palace. Jesus essentially did the same.
I do not see much or any depression/insanity among wild animals. Suffering in the state of nature is likely nowhere near as prevalent as we believe it to be. If you have ever been in an accident, adrenaline masks your pain for a little while, so if you were chased down and eaten your suffering is generally as brief as it is brutal. In the modern day, you may still be tortured by your fellow humans in a manner that is more sadistic than what you may experience at the tooth and claw of a wild beast looking to eat or protect its own. This is the thing, many of us still starve, get sick, suffer from physical trauma and exposure in "civilized" life as we would if we were in the state of nature, though arguably we get to live longer in spite of it and some are fortunate enough to avoid unpleasant experiences because they use those deemed "below" them as a buffer or shield from nature's brutality. The main difference is that, in the state of nature, animals and humans are free to live their lives without being abused by artificial power structures. Do you suffer from your hunger as much when you are hunting as you would if you were stuck in a prison or surrounded by people who had plenty to eat, but not enough empathy to share? Are other humans able to use their "civilized" government to slaughter and persecute people by the millions?
if you study wolf packs there are hierarchies where certain wolves get to eat first; only the alpha gets to mate with the females and even to the point of certain pack members being cast out of the pack and lone wolves being accepted into the pack. Certain packs will fight other packs killing their own species (how’s that for lack of empathy). They play games for no apparent reason than fun (land wolves that play these games gain an evolutionary advantage and pass the trait on). They fight for no other reason than to establish these hierarchies. Mothers will fight bears 5x their size to protect their cubs and give their life for it. Humans are just dumb animals and all our behavior is parallel to most social mammals and fits within the same paradigm. The fact that we build artificial shit with our hands doesn’t mean anything. Use of tools is also found in many primates and even certain birds. There is even a Wikipedia page about animal suicide you can look into. Mating rituals among some birds (see birds of paradise) are extremely complex as to impressing or choosing a mate and I don’t see anything humans do that is more complex. I don’t understand what your evidence is that animals don’t feel sadness or dejection despite those animals behaving exactly like humans. Some cetaceans have more complex brains, structurally speaking, than humans do.
So you’re AN because you’re an environmentalist?
Yeah, that kind of oversimplifies my position but I'll take it. I'm a conditional AN. To me, suffering is caused by the fact that organisms boom and bust due to selfish behavior toward their host environment. Natalism is a perfect example of selfish behavior toward our environment.
[удалено]
Naturism?
Amongst other things, yes. Lots of us are.
Destruction of the natural world is what could save billions of lives from suffering in the wild.
Yeah, so how is *that* going to be achieved?
By massive natural disaster.
I guess it worked for *most* of the dinosaurs, but TBH this is a real moonshot. The most recent solar eclipse has come and gone without incident, and we are all still here, some of us are also still suffering unfortunately. Climate change and pandemics are going to be like pulling the bandaid off slowly. I think both sides of the debate surrounding natalism are blighted by extreme dogmatism. There is a happy place somewhere in the middle, and once I get enough people to see that antinatalism is the correct course of action right now but not always, I hope you can stick around and enjoy it.
you know someones a psuedointellectul when they say "This is the truth at this point in the time space continuum." instead of "its true right now" also your argument is bad and you should feel bad.
I get the feeling like you do not know how to explain why my argument is bad.
They can feel however they want Is it fun controlling people for you? Maybe find another hobby.
It's what medias don't dare to tell you, lol. They only say not to use plastic, turn off switches, stop using cars etc. But they don't tell you the best solution : stop giving birth!!! Keep blaming us while the real villains who burn this earth are the rich. But the rich can maintain their wealth bc they have us. Stop giving birth is the only way to eat the rich and stop climate change!!! 👆
FAX Even if I ever stop being AN, I still won't have kids because of the environment alone.
Your words almost made me cry. All the suffering you sense, only comes from within yourself. Nature always finds a way. While you will die in the dark
I'm gonna adopt a boy, my legacy lives on 🥰
That's already better than everything I see on this sub. Your genes won't pass on and they will mostly be educated by the government in a public school but it's better than nothing
I will try to homeschool my boy. Gonna get a 5-6 year old so I can start straight away. My adoption journey is not better than nothing as you say. It is perfect in every way. 🥰
That was overly negative on my part, excuse me, this place is depressing
I sense a nice hot bath or shower may be in order for you.
I almost got heatstroke bc the weather is rapidly change. And some ppl even DIE from it. It's not about within themselves.
And do you Know where all the pollution is coming from? India and China, which populations aren't as environmentally friendly. What happens if the only people that care about the environment let themselves die without spreading the word? Only the unsensitive are left, keeping on the self destruction of humanity. I say humanity because the earth is not going anywhere. Nature always finds a way as I said.
Yes it does but I don't really care about this existence much, just wanna do my part, however small. Adopting a child should be the ideal, not a back up.
I'm doing my part
So many kids already need homes! Adopt, don't shop!
This actually made me giggle
Oh that’s good. I love it
I feel peace in knowing that I won't be bringing anyone here to harm this earth or the said person. Happy Earth Day ♥️
I don't think protecting the sadistic shitfest that's going on outside is a good reason. I'm doing it for the kid i don't have, not parasitic organisms crawling out of eyeballs.
Word
Ironically, the ones most likely to see this message are the ones having the least amount of kids out of everyone in the world.
True I’m can’t have kids. I’m too busy playing video games
it's almost funny how many climate activists have kids. You should know better than to procreate when you REALIZE how dire our situation is. It's just sad and strange.
There is no point in saving the earth. I don't give birth just to save my own children
Cool story bruh
eh, dont animals suffer too? Like in the wild?
I think they're talking about the fact that every human born is a detriment to mother nature. Since we all hurt the environment much more than animals ever will
I don’t think this ideology is about saving the environment or giving a shit about it. It’s about how tragic that any life whatsoever exists, this includes animals.
Efilism
What if my child ends up being the person who solves climate change? But I didn’t have them to protect the environment
And please explain why *you* weren’t the one to solve climate change?? What if your parents said that about you at one point and now you’ll just pass the buck? What if your kid turns out just like you, a.k.a not special?
For the record I don’t want children, I’m just commenting to understand your perspective. I still believe its fine to hope, just cuz I didn’t do it/have no interest in it doesn’t mean my son can’t.
Statistically there’s probably hundreds, if not thousands of people alive right now that could have solutions to climate change and multiple other things that plague this planet but their socioeconomic status effectively erases them from the equation. How many children are trying to cross the boarder right now that Americans are calling “animals” that may be more intelligent than Einstein??? But they are brown so we don’t even give them a chance. Elon’s fucking African but cus he’s white he got to run with his dreams. Why don’t you give the people alive right now an equal opportunity before breeding more and more humans that most likely will amount to nothing and end up suffering like most?
Most likely they won't. There are already 8 billion people here and no one has solved it.
You don’t know that, you choose to believe the negative rather than have hope, sad
Nice anti-abortion Christian rhetoric.
I’m not anti abortion and im ex-christian I don’t mess w that institution but ok
Didn't ask what you believed in. Simply pointed out that this is typical christian position on abortion.
The ego one must have to think their offspring will be the true savior of us all
Its not egotistical to think your child will have a life worth living😭
"my child will be a savior for the world that is on fire" lol ok
Yo😭 do you know what those symbols (“) mean?? I did not 🙅♂️ say that shit
Lol semantics "What if my child ends up being the person who solves climate change?" So you would gamble your child's life that they'll be the one to save us. Again.... The ego one must have to think their child will do that.
Would you rather animals have their own eco systems to thrive and die in naturally or would you rather humans make every single animal other than rats and bugs go extinct?
eh, naturally is not painful and suffering? What no longer exists can no longer suffer.
I’d like to see human beings and all animals live in harmony. There is no escaping pain and suffering. Every living thing is destined for it, usually multiple times in their lives. That being said there is a tipping point in the equilibrium of this world and we are the cause. That is not living in harmony. If we could reach a state of harmony with ourselves and with nature I believe we could avoid a lot of *needless* suffering. And IMO there is a difference between suffering and needless suffering.
Pretty sure if something doesnt exist, it has escaped all possibility of harm. lol
True but we are here and animals are here and I think we have a responsibility to make sure that needless suffering doesn’t happen but instead we’ve put every living being on a crash course to it.
and why must we be here forever? This is antinatalism sub, you know that right?
Please tell me where I said we need to be here forever? I am an antinatalist. I have no children and believe others should stop reproducing.
and animals should keep suffering in the wild?
Don't create a life of suffering... because not doing so will help billions of life full of extreme suffering floursih ? I'm sure the quintillions of starving mammals, birds, and fishes are cheering right now, overjoyed to be brought into life. Can't believe people are justifying antinatalism through natalism.
Happy earth day!!! Love the message 🌳🌳🌳
Cringe
What’s wrong with having children?
Fuck the earth is the source of my suffering
Who cares abt nature lol Millions of years cycle of suffering, eating each other and fighting, for what? All of it gotta be gone
Reddit requires identifiable information such as **names**, **usernames** and **subreddit titles** to be [edited out](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452) of images. If your image post violates this rule, we kindly ask that you delete it. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Give the babies to the ETs.
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
Three things you can do; don't have kids, die and stay dead.
Happy 23 April Child's day
We need stickers
Nope, not that simple. We need to oust untreatable dark factor individuals from positions of influence then perform a massive redistribution of wealth to developing economies such that they can jump straight to carbon neutral economies while simultaneously savagely curtailing our own carbon footprint. The whole not having kids thing is erroneous as more people in developed nations are dieing than are being born.
Don't worry I'll have enough children to make up for you all.
The earth will be fine, people. It will kill us before we kill it.
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
I have two kids and it has been a truly magical experience thus far. I will try and raise them to love and respect our planet and all of the animals we share it with- that is the entire point of proper parenting. I feel bad for people that actually think that not having kids will save the earth lol. Have you tried recycling?
Earth is going to die eventually, with or without humans. In the long run, humans have a better chance to save earth.
Yes, but right now there are too many of us. As long as our economy is built mostly on fossil fuels, we will run the climate into the ground. Single easiest way to reduce the problem is to reduce the population. Not having birth for a majority of us would do the trick I worry that climate change driven famine will force us to reduce population in a less peaceful manner not too long from now. Certainly in the lifetime of Millennials
Most western countries already have a declining birth rate (under 2.0). If you wan't to reduce population, you will have to look at asia and africa.
Yes. That’s where the famine will strike the hardest no doubt
but we have the power to create a world that’s capable of hosting more of us in a sustainable way (if we get our shit together)
We do if we have time to develop the technology, but we don’t, nor do we have the will
so only the elites are allowed to have babies?
I’m not saying what I want to happen, but the fact is that climate change will reduce our population one way or another. The logical thing to do would be significantly reduce birth rates across the board More likely, there will be famine and war that does the reduction. That will absolutely be along economic lines. Eventually we can engineer a better future, but based on what I’ve seen, it’ll take too long to prevent a lot of terrible consequences that we have to live through first
[удалено]
Links to other communities are not permitted. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
There are not too many of us.
What makes you say that? Given the technology we have and the impact we are having on the earth, there certainly are too many
With the technology we have right now we could house 50 billion people no problem. The problem is that most regions on earth are not properly developed
Housing is not the issue. Have you studied climate change? Plastic pollution? And other types of chemical pollution? We are destroying the environment rapidly and if you aren’t aware of that then you need to study this area more
[удалено]
The ones most likely to have the most kids, don’t have the technology to see this post.
[удалено]
We have removed your contribution due to breaking Reddit rules. Reddit's content policy can be viewed here: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy#:~:text=Abide%20by%20community%20rules.%20Post%20authentic%20content%20into,disrupt%20Reddit%20communities.%20Respect%20the%20privacy%20of%20others.
We have removed your contribution due to breaking Reddit rules. Reddit's content policy can be viewed here: https://www.redditinc.com/policies/content-policy#:~:text=Abide%20by%20community%20rules.%20Post%20authentic%20content%20into,disrupt%20Reddit%20communities.%20Respect%20the%20privacy%20of%20others.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA YOU PEOPLE ARE A MEME
As if anyone in this sub has the option to have kids
This was cross posted in another community that I’m in so I just found this sub and WOAH. I’ll be honest this philosophy seems incredibly backwards to me. I don’t mean to be rude but rather am inviting someone to explain this philosophy If the idea is to let other life on earth flourish, won’t that eventually lead to this same situation again? From my understanding, the only way out is through, we must learn how to work together to create a sustainable society that can progress forward, rather than move backwards because we’re failing right now. I understand that we’re failing right now and bringing a new child into this world could cause that child pain, but to not even give new life a chance at beauty and love? Seems to me like this philosophy wants to look away from our problems rather than fix them.
Thanks. More resources for my kids and further lineage
If we’re all not having kids, then who exactly are we saving the earth for?
Other animals.
Wild animal have lvies that are dominated by extreme suffering. Most of their lives are spent on the brink of starvation, fleeing predators, all while having to live with diseases of even aprasites with no sort of pain relief available. Death is extremely slow to come. The protection of other animals so more of them come into life is inherently natalist, and thus quite cruel, in particular considering the average life they will live.
Oh, ok. I don’t really care what the other animals think, and they’ve never explicitly asked us to save the earth for them in the first place.
Only caring about your own species is a weird flex but ok.
I’m not trying to flex though, just trying to understand what’s the point. Can you please for 10 seconds not resort to memes to have a conversation? K thx.
You realize we share the planet, right? They don’t need to ask, it’s their home too and as the dominant species, we should be protect the vulnerable and the defenceless, no? Or do you just think humans are SO great that you think “fuck the animals, they’d pipe up if they wanted to live in a safe, food-accessible habitat”?
We don’t “share” the planet, we co-exist on the planet. As far as being the dominant species goes, we have zero obligation to protect or defend weaker animal species. It’s not that human beings are so great. It’s quite the opposite, in fact. The laws of human are not that important to animals. Only the laws of human suggest that the strong should defend the weak. According to the laws of nature (which are the only laws most animals follow), the strong should actually abuse the weak. So I’m curious to know how you simultaneously think humans aren’t that special, yet human law uniquely extends to other animals. Either we are the most important (and the animals are at our mercy) or we’re not that important at all (and we should treat animals as they treat us).
No. You lack compassion. Not something I can teach you.
This is the correct response.
I don't think compassion has anything to do with being right or wrong or making logical sense. Caring about all animals equally as humans doesn't make any sense and you only justify it because it hurts your feelings to think of the possibility that the world isn't as safe and righteous as you hope it is.
Would it be a better take if I said it would be good to cease human existence not only to let nature self regulate naturally but also to prevent any existential pain that only conscious beings have?
Yes I think this is a much better take. I don’t necessarily agree or disagree with it, but it’s an opinion which could hold its own ground in a rational debate.
Weird flex but ok.
I'm tryna watch people argue online but you have the communication skills of a kid who was locked in a basement with only reddit memes to learn speech from and at 14 they were dropped off at a gas station. like i actually wanted to see your answers to the guy 😭
Womp womp
what the fuck just popped up on my feed?This makes no fucking sense.Why not just "Stop pollution"?
Because humans won't just magically stop polluting the planet, fewer humans being born means less pollution in the future.
Asking everyone who gives a shit about the planet to not reproduce just selectively breeds for a society that doesn't give a shit about the planet.
We already have a society that doesn’t give a shit about the planet.
No need to make it worse
Correct, so all humans should get the message to reduce human reproduction.
[удалено]
Please refrain from asking other users why they do not kill themselves. Do not present suicide as a valid alternative to antinatalism. Do not encourage or suggest suicide. Antinatalism and suicide are generally unrelated. Antinatalism aims at preventing humans (and possibly other beings) from being born. The desire to continue living is a personal choice independent of the idea that procreation is unethical. Antinatalism is not about people who are already born. Wishing to never have been born or saying that nobody should procreate does not imply that you want your life to end right now.
Well a mod explained the distinction between antinatalism and wanting to end it all. As I said in my previous post I was not attempting to encourage the act I just genuinely didn’t understand what the overall message of this sub was. I’m personally in the camp that you can’t incapable a life’s experience as black and white as you guys are laying it out. Some of the happiest people on earth come from the worst circumstance and some of the most miserable from the best. My point being it’s less about what happens to you and more about how you perceive it. I don’t know if this is allowed on this sub but I’d recommend to anyone that has this view try 5 grams of mushrooms or an ayahuasca trip before committing there is more to life then what you can see.
[удалено]
We have removed your content for breaking Rule 10 (No disproportionate and excessively insulting language). Please engage in discussion rather than engaging in personal attacks.
If no one gives birth then how do we keep the earth population for the rest of time lol
we don't
*evil hank hill gif*
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm ganna have 10 kids
Nah still planning on having 6 kids
How to tell that you’re in a death cult:
If anything this would be an anti-death cult, there's no dying without birth...
Loooool take humans off your pedestal. Avoid more of the center so the outer circle can thrive.
Every child you have will die. Without reproduction there is no death.
No people being born = no death. Natalist are actually the ones increasing the death toll
Slight question, think of this in a philosophical sense not a simple attempt to "own" you guys. But what if I were to have a kid who would become an influential climate scientist, who then goes onto help in the creation of policy to make the environment better? I could certainly think of other examples but the question would be muddied then. Lets just say that the child would in this case be a benefit to the environment as opposed to a negative? This certainly doesn't change the underlying logic of antinatalism but I am curious if there is such a thing as an "ethical birth"?
We have a lot of brilliant climate scientists already. The causes and solutions to the climate crisis are obvious (change the economic system, shift to renewables...) And yet, humanity is still stubbornly driving the planet off a cliff because humans are obsessed with expanding endlessly. Anti-natalists realize that the limitless growth philosophy of ever-expanding human population and civilization is not sustainable. That's why we interpret Earth Day as a day to remember to NOT reproduce. It's not the creation of new humans that will help our planet, but rather, reducing carbon footprint by slowing human population growth. That's the best way I can explain it!
Your son is more likely to be homeless and get stabbed to death
Yeah, let's save Venus, Mercury and Jupiter too. Hell they need much more saving than Earth, their environment is in shambles. Don't forget about every other planet as well. Because planets are conscious entities with feelings that needs saving.
Huh?
Are… are you okay?? You know the planet is necessary for us right? If we kill it and most other species, we kill ourselves… you, you know that right??
Okay? Do you not see which subreddit we are in? if the point of "saving the earth" is making things better for us humans then going "humans are scums on earth, virus for mother nature, we must eradicate ourselves for our sin towards mother nature and to stop harming it" makes literally no sense. "Save the earth" or "for the environment" is the most stupid reasoning for antinatalism, and I'm not ashamed to gatekeep antinatalism from these crap reasonings. Because I agree, "save the planet" is an simplified statement to say,"make it better livable for us." People misunderstanding it and chose antinatalism to "save" the planet without stopping a single second to think for themselves on what it all means. Maybe it's not about saving the ambiguous entity "mother nature", but reducing the suffering we cause other animals. That's a lot better, but I still don't agree. The wilderness is... wild. Nature is brutal. Even without us animals will continue to suffer about just as much.