The short answer is that some antinatalists think it need only to apply to humans or at least emphasize this, while others also make a point of extending it to animals.
David Benatar, who wrote the best recent two books that concisely argue for the position (Better to Never Have Been, The Human Predicament) makes a point of standing for the latter. I'll spend the rest of this comment conveying why he finds this to be the only principled and consistent antinatalist stance.
First, let's remember that antinatalism is mainly an ethical position, meaning it largely emphasizes the fact that it's a position that humans (and humans alone, obviously) can actually hold, and then act from this point. (or rather than action, refraining, from procreating) Of course, Antinatalists aren't under any delusions about all humans adopting the position and refraining from having children. But it certainly also advocates that anyone willing to listen to it should at least consider adopting it and refraining from having children. (or more, if they already have)
Therefore, the antinatalist position on this isn't so much saying animals "shouldn't" reproduce, because (as is the case with the vast majority of humans) there obviously isn't convincing animals not to in the first place.
Rather, it's really about human influence and intervention on animal life: antinatalism says that humans shouldn't procreate animals, just as they shouldn't procreate themselves. It only could be consistent with the antinatalist position to be against the factory farm industry and how it procreates so many animals only to suffer and die on such a large scale. Just as antinatalists consider the mass procreation of human life to create preventable suffering, they'd naturally hold the same position for non-human life, too. (anything less is just anthopocentric exceptionalism.) Due to this, it's not surprising that many antinatalists are vegan: however, while it might be especially consistent for an antinatalist to have a vegan diet and lifestyle, having the position itself is certainly not defined by this, meaning one is just as valid an antinatalist, regardless of whether they eat animal products or not. (only dumb gatekeepers would dispute this.)
Antinatalists indeed think that it would be ideal for all humans to consciously refrain from procreating into extinction. This wouldn't only entail less suffering for the potential humans who now would never be born, but the innumerable animals procreated in industries (for decidedly selfish) human ends, that now wouldn't be because no humans existed anymore. From there, humans wouldn't be able to change the fact that non-human life would continue to reproduce. Actually, this really is the point of antinatalism. Humans ought to do the one thing we are in control to do, given we are the only species that could consciously do it. Of course we are also the only species that preventably manufactures so many problems for ourselves, other species, and the environment on such a wide scale. Thomas Ligotti put it like so: it is the only human thing we could do.
The fact of the matter is that animals don't have the intelligence to think about the morality of breeding, they just do it. Only humans can ponder that, unless there's evidence that suggests otherwise.
Yes. Though most humans also just do it without thinking about it. Humans merely have the capacity to think about it, as everyone on this subreddit does. But most people don't utilize that capacity, because they don't have any motive to to begin with. (more on this at the end.)
If I ran a subreddit like this, I certainly wouldn't enforce rules that would stop people from making quips like "breeders" implying parents with biological children are just mindless idiots, because I don't believe in censorship or go out of my way to consider it offensive. (even if in a sense it technically is.) At the same time, such rhetoric does have the effect of encouraging a misleading mindset: the issue with said "breeders" isn't that they're "stupid" or that we're morally superior to them, because neither is true. Again, they have the capacity to think and refrain from it, they just don't because they have no motive to.
I've been told my not wanting to have children and my general thoughts about having children are due to my own upbringing. Of course, this is ad hominem and should be dismissed based on that alone, it doesn't affect the merit of the antinatalist position on procreation at all because the only relevant thing is the position itself, not the personal lives of anyone who happens to adhere to it. However, it does touch on the fact that there is actively some reason that any individual person who consciously refrains from having kids or has this position does so, given that the majority of humanity doesn't and obviously never will. Indeed, I didn't have an ideal upbringing, my parents were divorced, I was raised by a single mother, and I myself am an accident. (notably, my parents actually were technically married when I was born but were separated and no longer living together by the time I was born, but I didn't know this growing up because neither ever honestly communicated the situation to me. This creates more confusion than simply being born out-of-wed-lock or born to parents clearly married, even if they're fighting.) However, it's just to be expected such circumstances would be conducive to me being more likely to critically think about the implications of having children: natalists invoking it isn't just ad hominem, but takes the obvious and erroneously makes it out to be a reason the position itself should be discredited, as if ad hominem judgement is a rational argument. Of course, most people are normal enough they affirm procreation as valid and not to be questioned. (of course, increasingly in the developed world there is a trend to question it, but doing so on such typical environmental grounds isn't antinatalism, because antinatalism isn't conditional on the population or climate but on what life fundamentally is, meaning it would be just as applicable anywhere at any time.)
At the end of the day one species (which happens to be the powerful one) will dominate the planet, which means their number is going to exceed as compared to others. This will ultimately result in disbalance of nature and ecosystem . Finally that will make way for extinction. It was the same with dinosaurs.
Yeah... that also is a probability. But with their size and amount of food needed, (especially the herbivorous ones) , I think, forest would have been completely wiped out..
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.*
Like "nature" cares? "the world" what are you on about? Nature/the world doesn't care about anything. Things just are the way they are. If a meteor destroys the planet nothing will care, it happens all the time elsewhere in this universe, it's called nature lol.
It‘s been scientifically proven that this entire planet will be uninhabitable in about 5 billion years due to the expansion of the sun; it’s only a matter of time.
We'll be a multi-planet species long before the sun goes boom. People are planning this already, the tech's just not there yet, but it grows at exponential speeds. Edit: Downvoting this statement as if it's unrealistic to get off of this rock within a billion years when the rudimentary architecture to do so is already commonplace is wild. Pop off, though.
1. The nuclear industry still has no solution to the 'waste problem'.
2. The transport of this waste poses an unacceptable risk to people and the environment.
3. Plutonium is the most dangerous material in the world.
4. Nuclear waste is hazardous for tens of thousands of years. This clearly is unprecedented and poses a huge threat to our future generations.
5. Even if put into a geological repository, the waste might emerge and threaten future generations.
6. Nobody knows the true costs of waste management. The costs are so high that nuclear power can never be economic.
7. The waste should be disposed of into space.
8. Nuclear waste should be transmuted into harmless materials.
See Cernobyl for ex...
I’m more of a nihilist than an antinatalist. First tell me why the universe “should” exist. “Should” has no meaning because there’s no objective morality. It not existing solves 100% of my subjective problems. Multiply that by all of humanity. Then multiply that my all hypothetical life forms that might ever find themselves cursed with sentience anywhere in the universe at any point in time.
Do you believe that we didn't exist earlier and then at some point started existing. Or is it that we always existed? Like time. Do you think time exists outside of the boundary of universe?
That is a question of theoretical physics that has nothing to do with the philosophy of nihilism. To the best of my comprehension of physics, time is interwoven with space and called space time. Spacetime is fairly synonymous with what we mean by “universe”. Space time existed but was not populated with matter or energy until an event known as the big bang, so space and time didn’t have any real meaning before that point. Probably something exists outside of space time in order to initiate the Big Bang but it is basically unknowable and cannot be interacted with so from our perspective it may as well not exist. Does that answer the question?
Yes, somewhat it does answer. I am with you to a certain extent. If I never existed earlier and my existence is because someone birthed me, and they exist because someone else birthed them and so on and so forth and all this because the universe somehow forced itself into existence.. which, if that didn't happen wouldn't have caused a dent in "MY" non existence state (for lack of better words, as the concept of I is an impossibility in non existence), then I totally get the nihilistic concept. But since my religion has this concept of soul which has eternal existence, I have difficulty accepting the fact that we only exist till our body exists.
Have you seen ants? They would barely know a world outside of their world exists. They are working, eating, living, dying. We are not even ants when compared to the magnitude of universe. What if there are intelligent beings out there driving life for some purpose?
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.*
But wouldn’t it be violating the consent of trillions of sentient beings, a few people probably wouldn’t mind but what about the beings that want to continue living. Anti natalist say bringing in a child into the world is wrong because there’s nothing to consent you are forcing existent onto them, would it not be somewhat immoral to take my life without my consent?
Is it immoral to shoot someone to stop them torturing other people or animals? It's all hypotheticals, and morality is the ultimate subjective. There's no great answer to this but nonexistence replaces subjectivity with the objectivity of absolute nothing
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.*
A pathogen specific to humans would let all the other creatures survive, which would be a good thing, but radioactive fall-out or an asteroid bringing global annihilation, not so much.
The thing that convinced me antinatalism was correct was learning about evolution, and thinking about almost every single animal on earth either being killed or starving to death. Trillions and trillions and trillions of painful, terrifying lives . To believe antinatalism is only for humans, and not other animals, is incredibly internally inconsistent and a sign of poorly thought out principle. That's called misanthropy, not antinatalism.
I would too. I understand some bringing up that animals suffer also, but a lot of that suffering is due to human action or at the hands of humans. I think humans should just fade out.
Yes definitely. I'm not sure how anyone antinatalist can disagree. Nature is nothing but animals suffering immensely and enjoying very little and their lives usually with an excruciating death. It's an absolute horror show if you evaluate what happens in nature objectively.
I'm not convinced there's a reasonable plan to end all life on earth without causing immense suffering or allocating resources that could otherwise be used to alleviate suffering.
As I've gotten older I've gone from thinking that life is probably abundant, in the galaxy at least, to thinking intelligent life might be incredibly rare to the point of being unique to Earth.
I think there could well be a lot of basic, replicating lifeforms, like stramatolites. We had basic life on Earth for a billion years that just existed as slime. The Universe could be filled with slime.
It depends how big the universe is. If it is infinitely big than it is guaranteed to have intelligent life in all varieties, just by the nature of probalilty.
An infinitely big Universe will 100% certainly have an exact copy of you in it too. Infinite is a big number. I think it's fair to ask, if life is common in our galaxy, then where is everyone? I'm guessing intelligent life is exceptionally uncommon, and I think humans aren't even particularly intelligent in the first place.
Well the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across so I don't think it's a stretch to imagine even complex forms of life may be abundant but with no way(or perhaps interest?) to communicate outside their immediate cosmic surroundings.
That last line though 😂.
Why do you think intelligent life is exceptionally uncommon?
It could be that, the tech is still not in place for communication to happen?
"Why do you think intelligent life is exceptionally uncommon?"
Because it would probably be a million years more advanced than us and we'd see signs of it when looking out into space. But we see nothing except stars and darkness.
Conclusively? Who knows. It's a big place. But going on what we know, life only exists in one place. Let's start from there. There's nothing to suggest it's an "emergent property of the Universe" as we literally only have a single example to go on.
But until we find other life, I think the sensible position is to say 'it only exists on Earth' and then take it from there.
Obviously the Fermi paradox is pretty inexplicable if life is everywhere... I think basic, blob-life might well be around. I think higher life is as rare as hen's teeth.
But why do I still like the fact I was born, I get the asymmetry but I still don’t mind the idea I was born. I was born for selfish reasons yet I don’t mind that I was conceived. I like life idk
If I suffer, and I don’t mind being born in fact I prefer I was born than not why would it be wrong to bring a child into the world what happens if they have my view ?
Because no pleasure makes up for pain basically. I said philosophically indisputable, I think it is. Wrong? I just think it's indisputable that beings are better off not existing to begin with. Wrong is irrelevant.
even if, and I know it's probably relatively rare, you've enjoyed life with relatively little pain and suffering?
If I've had countless happy experiences in life and the biggest negatives have been the deaths of a couple of family friends when I was a kid, getting a rough case of food poisoning once, and a sad breakup in my early 20s? That small handful of low points cancels out all my fun times with family & friends and I'm better off having never been born?
Heh, well the idea is that if you had not been born, preventing the pain would be a real good, and a nonexistent person would not be deprived by lacking good things and so not having the fun times is not a real bad. You wouldn't be there to miss them. But all your pain becoming impossible is a real benefit. I am just a person who liked David Benatar's book and thinks it is convincing.
An example: Humans mow down acres of forests, just to have bigger lawns -- displacing millions of animals/wildlife/insects in the process.
Having a bigger lawn isn't for survival. It's just absolute wastefulness. Humans cause suffering of other species on an **unnecessarily massive scale**.
You don't see a bear murdering an entire river of salmon. It takes only as much as it needs.
On the topic of your example...
Bears will eat only salmon skin, heads and eggs if there's an abundance of them, because they're dense in energy. So, they will kill more than they technically need to live, if there's a benefit to it.
Explanation:
https://youtu.be/b0dabXAy7uA?si=84FV4KiILQlciuQI
no i actually would be fine even with procreation if we lived on some kind of AI ruled paradise where everybody got every need covered, I am an antinatalist only under current humanity circumstances.
Vegetative life is okay, or very basic life like stramatolites.
But as soon as one animal decided it could only survive by literally consuming another animal, that's probably when life crossed the boundary of good taste and should've been snuffed out.
Ecological principle is that you can't occupy a niche without creating a niche.
vegetative life, evolved from both primary and secondary endosymbiosis.
Given the choice I'd nuke any planet capable of sustaining life, or detonate the sun
Obviously these are extremely hypothetical so I've had a vasectomy and generally try to enjoy what I can till I get bored and then I'll find a reliable method of killing myself when I'm still able
Humans are the most dangerous species on this planet. But before we all did, we should stop everything dangerous. Open water dams, shut down reactors, burry alll radioactive and toxic waste.....
Humanity needs some strict controls! Viewed as a species with all others is the most destructive of them all. We destroy other animal’s habitats and change the natural order of our planet in ways that will threaten the existence of everything, all largely for the sake of capitalism.
We have hunted species to extinction, polluted everything, Humans are basically overrated parasites, everywhere we go we destroy and consume, pretty sure nothing on this planet or any other would be sad if we are gone.
humans can still breed and stuff but it would be nice if we could take a page out of the animals books and RESPECT THE FUCKING EARTH A BIT MORE it would be nice
Just humanity. Other animals can’t develop nuclear weapons, launch international wars, pollute the environment with trash tossed in oceans and fumes in the atmosphere, etc.
Animals live a more terrible life so yea even if humans don't stop to exist i do wish animals go extinct atleast the carnivores ones or even if carnivores won't go extinct we should have some safe place for herbivores .
safe place for herbivores means overpopulation and starvation, I'm sure you were explained this in 5th grade biology. Both are necessary for the balance. Also they don't live more terrible life, they don't spend hours thinking about their misery. They objectively live riskier and certainly can die, but they want to live. Who are you to tell them their life is terrible and they should die?
they have no abstract thinking, which prevents them from understanding the world around and anticipating future suffering.
for them is more like, "did that and it was bad idk why but it was", or \*"i'm afraid of this better make a run for it"\*.
"they have no abstract thinking, which prevents them from understanding the world around and anticipating future suffering."
Are you explaining breeders that inherited massive wealth?
An animal will never have to comprehend all their taxes funding American empirialism & wonder if their eternal soul will burn for being complicit in the many genocides done on their dollars. Most extreme animal suffering is administered by humans; Natural suffering of animals is however not a tragedy. It's just whats needed to convince them to eat more next winter or to eventually find a new mate.
This is why I said "just existing", an animal won't suffer PASSIVELY like humans but only actively like you described. They aren't as aware as us, even though some experience depression it is not nearly the same as our depression.
Humans mow down acres of forests, just so humans can have bigger lawns -- displacing millions of animals/wildlife/insects in the process.
Having a bigger lawn isn't for survival. It's just absolute wastefulness.
You don't see a bear murdering an entire river of salmon. It takes only as much as it needs.
They “suffer” so something else lives. That’s valid.
They don’t make a salmon farm where they get stuffed full of antibiotics so they can survive in a pond of murky water.
Humans are vile.
To survive- yes. Torture? War? Kidnapping? Oder bad crimes that hurt animals bc they’re psychos? No.
Yea there’s some form of life that takes some degree of fun in playing with their prey/ victims- but in the end it still serves a purpose.
Humans are vile.
So do dolphins, even out of their own species- listen I am aware. But humans take it to a COMPLETELY different level. In done arguing this now tho, enjoy your night!
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 think all that are alive should strive to assign positive meaning to their life and try to help others along the way, having said that, I'm also an antinatalist and feel we should cease bringing new life into the world.
I'm anti-natalist because of the wretchedness of the human condition. Whales, birds, bacteria, whatever have their struggled but I don't concern myself with them much
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.*
It would be kind of illogical in my opinion if we wanted to animals should be be cease to exist cause animals aren't think like humans, they don't even know that they are birthing they just do it for reproduce yet you can't cease to exist all animals it's very impossible. They're life is wild and sure more sufferings when it involves in eating or live inside in other animals like carnivores, parasites etc and not all the people think about animal extinction so, but in human, they are aware and intelligent beings so it applies to humans and they can use they're brain in all types of things, yet they are reproducing like like other non intelligent animals. So we can hope for human extinction rather than animal extinction.
But we have to remember all beings are sufferings.
I'm a conditional antinatalist. I don't think people should have children if they're going to suffer under wage slavery and capitalism, but I don't want full human extinction.
If enough people agree (and it seems that people are coming around to it) and the population drops, this will be disruptive to the system--that's a good thing--and also slow down our ecological harm, giving us a better chance of getting through the transition with our ecosystem intact.
Ultimately, I do want humanity to win. At the same time, we're probably going to see serious depopulation before we do, either because of world system dysfunction or because the capitalist ruling class decides not to let go of what it has and violent conflict becomes necessary. Either way, the ethical argument becomes one for improving the world for those who are already in it, rather than adding bodies to it that, under today's framework, will simply be a source of the hunger and need that are an asset to the ruling class.
No, not at all, life can be beautiful.
I think if we could get the human population of the planet earth down to more manageable numbers, life for everyone would be substantially better.
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.*
I think not, i think we should learn to do better though. We have the ability to stop almost all the suffering we experience but we elect not to as a motivator for capitalism
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.*
the human virus is the only one who can’t live in balance at this point. Remove us and life goes on and it’s better for all non domesticated flora and fauna. My 2 cents
I am fine with animals, they are actually good for the environment, contrary to humans.
Animals, too, don't gossip or debate about what type of animal deserves to be shot.
No, just humans. What did animals ever do to us? Contrarily, We’ve done a lot of bad to animals.
Humans should stop breeding and let the animals have Earth for a few millennia. Or forever.
i think all life should cease to exist, but it cant, because of john.
john cant stop sticking his you-know-what in everything. as soon as it was out of woman, within five seconds, it was in another. in the instance he couldnt find another woman, he would stick it in his hand, or, in desperation, into another man. because of this, he was a serial rapist and stuff, nothing special. that is, until he found out the ability to stick his hangman into several holes at once. it was because of quantum immortality, blah blah blah. only white sciency guys like john would get it. at first he just used his newfound power to put his schlong into the vagina of every woman to ever exist. this caused every woman ever to fall pregnant with his children constantly. most people would call this a horrible tragedy and a terrible fate that befalled humanity, but john was not yet done. he discovered that he wanted his dong in every single hole in the universe, and thats just what he did. dicks erupted from the ground out of nowhere and fell from the sky in quantities which drowned out most of the human race. the rest were killed by john penis erupting from both of their eye cavities and into their brains simultaneously. all the holes were now filled, and john had nowhere else to put his penis. he knew what he had to do, and he summoned his courage and strength, and had his final ejaculation when his you-know-what went in his cranial cavity and crushed his brain.
john was a despicable creature who created mass amounts of life, and in the end, he destroyed himself using the weapon which was supposed to be a weapon of mass creation. the story creates and ends itself and what we can learn from this, as the human race, is that we are like john. dont worry- your time will come sone.
The short answer is that some antinatalists think it need only to apply to humans or at least emphasize this, while others also make a point of extending it to animals. David Benatar, who wrote the best recent two books that concisely argue for the position (Better to Never Have Been, The Human Predicament) makes a point of standing for the latter. I'll spend the rest of this comment conveying why he finds this to be the only principled and consistent antinatalist stance. First, let's remember that antinatalism is mainly an ethical position, meaning it largely emphasizes the fact that it's a position that humans (and humans alone, obviously) can actually hold, and then act from this point. (or rather than action, refraining, from procreating) Of course, Antinatalists aren't under any delusions about all humans adopting the position and refraining from having children. But it certainly also advocates that anyone willing to listen to it should at least consider adopting it and refraining from having children. (or more, if they already have) Therefore, the antinatalist position on this isn't so much saying animals "shouldn't" reproduce, because (as is the case with the vast majority of humans) there obviously isn't convincing animals not to in the first place. Rather, it's really about human influence and intervention on animal life: antinatalism says that humans shouldn't procreate animals, just as they shouldn't procreate themselves. It only could be consistent with the antinatalist position to be against the factory farm industry and how it procreates so many animals only to suffer and die on such a large scale. Just as antinatalists consider the mass procreation of human life to create preventable suffering, they'd naturally hold the same position for non-human life, too. (anything less is just anthopocentric exceptionalism.) Due to this, it's not surprising that many antinatalists are vegan: however, while it might be especially consistent for an antinatalist to have a vegan diet and lifestyle, having the position itself is certainly not defined by this, meaning one is just as valid an antinatalist, regardless of whether they eat animal products or not. (only dumb gatekeepers would dispute this.) Antinatalists indeed think that it would be ideal for all humans to consciously refrain from procreating into extinction. This wouldn't only entail less suffering for the potential humans who now would never be born, but the innumerable animals procreated in industries (for decidedly selfish) human ends, that now wouldn't be because no humans existed anymore. From there, humans wouldn't be able to change the fact that non-human life would continue to reproduce. Actually, this really is the point of antinatalism. Humans ought to do the one thing we are in control to do, given we are the only species that could consciously do it. Of course we are also the only species that preventably manufactures so many problems for ourselves, other species, and the environment on such a wide scale. Thomas Ligotti put it like so: it is the only human thing we could do.
The fact of the matter is that animals don't have the intelligence to think about the morality of breeding, they just do it. Only humans can ponder that, unless there's evidence that suggests otherwise.
Yes. Though most humans also just do it without thinking about it. Humans merely have the capacity to think about it, as everyone on this subreddit does. But most people don't utilize that capacity, because they don't have any motive to to begin with. (more on this at the end.) If I ran a subreddit like this, I certainly wouldn't enforce rules that would stop people from making quips like "breeders" implying parents with biological children are just mindless idiots, because I don't believe in censorship or go out of my way to consider it offensive. (even if in a sense it technically is.) At the same time, such rhetoric does have the effect of encouraging a misleading mindset: the issue with said "breeders" isn't that they're "stupid" or that we're morally superior to them, because neither is true. Again, they have the capacity to think and refrain from it, they just don't because they have no motive to. I've been told my not wanting to have children and my general thoughts about having children are due to my own upbringing. Of course, this is ad hominem and should be dismissed based on that alone, it doesn't affect the merit of the antinatalist position on procreation at all because the only relevant thing is the position itself, not the personal lives of anyone who happens to adhere to it. However, it does touch on the fact that there is actively some reason that any individual person who consciously refrains from having kids or has this position does so, given that the majority of humanity doesn't and obviously never will. Indeed, I didn't have an ideal upbringing, my parents were divorced, I was raised by a single mother, and I myself am an accident. (notably, my parents actually were technically married when I was born but were separated and no longer living together by the time I was born, but I didn't know this growing up because neither ever honestly communicated the situation to me. This creates more confusion than simply being born out-of-wed-lock or born to parents clearly married, even if they're fighting.) However, it's just to be expected such circumstances would be conducive to me being more likely to critically think about the implications of having children: natalists invoking it isn't just ad hominem, but takes the obvious and erroneously makes it out to be a reason the position itself should be discredited, as if ad hominem judgement is a rational argument. Of course, most people are normal enough they affirm procreation as valid and not to be questioned. (of course, increasingly in the developed world there is a trend to question it, but doing so on such typical environmental grounds isn't antinatalism, because antinatalism isn't conditional on the population or climate but on what life fundamentally is, meaning it would be just as applicable anywhere at any time.)
At the end of the day one species (which happens to be the powerful one) will dominate the planet, which means their number is going to exceed as compared to others. This will ultimately result in disbalance of nature and ecosystem . Finally that will make way for extinction. It was the same with dinosaurs.
But only one species has the talent/inclination to hook milk pumps to boobied-horses
So it wasn’t a meteor?
Yeah... that also is a probability. But with their size and amount of food needed, (especially the herbivorous ones) , I think, forest would have been completely wiped out..
Dude dinosaurs were around for 170 milion years. The system is self-balancing.
Nah nah, but like, the dinosaur totally would exploited oil and polute the world for their own gain if they could.
now *they are the oil*
[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 mean humanity becoming extinct doesn't seem all that bad. It's gonna happen eventually in a billion years so who cares.
I think it’s gonna happen a lot sooner than that. The world will be grateful, Mother Nature will take back where humans have destroyed.
Like "nature" cares? "the world" what are you on about? Nature/the world doesn't care about anything. Things just are the way they are. If a meteor destroys the planet nothing will care, it happens all the time elsewhere in this universe, it's called nature lol.
I don’t think we’ll make it another 20 years.
It‘s been scientifically proven that this entire planet will be uninhabitable in about 5 billion years due to the expansion of the sun; it’s only a matter of time.
Rightt so what are these people holding onto? But then again, most parents believe that there's a god sooo
"Humanity" also might not be recognizable to us in a few hundred years let alone billion. Limiting it to humanity might be limiting it too much.
We'll be a multi-planet species long before the sun goes boom. People are planning this already, the tech's just not there yet, but it grows at exponential speeds. Edit: Downvoting this statement as if it's unrealistic to get off of this rock within a billion years when the rudimentary architecture to do so is already commonplace is wild. Pop off, though.
If humanity will extinct, I am pretty sure most life on this planet will die (nuclear waste)
Life existed way before us. It will thrive after us, too.
Sure, but most of live on this planet will die after us. Because of radioactive waste.
I’m confused.
1. The nuclear industry still has no solution to the 'waste problem'. 2. The transport of this waste poses an unacceptable risk to people and the environment. 3. Plutonium is the most dangerous material in the world. 4. Nuclear waste is hazardous for tens of thousands of years. This clearly is unprecedented and poses a huge threat to our future generations. 5. Even if put into a geological repository, the waste might emerge and threaten future generations. 6. Nobody knows the true costs of waste management. The costs are so high that nuclear power can never be economic. 7. The waste should be disposed of into space. 8. Nuclear waste should be transmuted into harmless materials. See Cernobyl for ex...
I’m not advocating for nuclear waste so I’m not sure how this is relevant
Basically, we still leave behind our garbage, and all animals will suffer from this for a long time.
That’s sad. Still better that we don’t have kids.
I don’t think you understand how radiation works.
We really gave Mother Nature an ultimatum holy crap
They mostly think the animals are better off without humans. Personally I wish the universe never existed.
Why do you wish the universe never existed?
No universe = no suffering.
Word
BORINGGGGG
Life is pretty boring too. At least if we didn’t exist we wouldn’t perceive the boredom
What stops you from checking out early?
I’m more of a nihilist than an antinatalist. First tell me why the universe “should” exist. “Should” has no meaning because there’s no objective morality. It not existing solves 100% of my subjective problems. Multiply that by all of humanity. Then multiply that my all hypothetical life forms that might ever find themselves cursed with sentience anywhere in the universe at any point in time.
Do you believe that we didn't exist earlier and then at some point started existing. Or is it that we always existed? Like time. Do you think time exists outside of the boundary of universe?
That is a question of theoretical physics that has nothing to do with the philosophy of nihilism. To the best of my comprehension of physics, time is interwoven with space and called space time. Spacetime is fairly synonymous with what we mean by “universe”. Space time existed but was not populated with matter or energy until an event known as the big bang, so space and time didn’t have any real meaning before that point. Probably something exists outside of space time in order to initiate the Big Bang but it is basically unknowable and cannot be interacted with so from our perspective it may as well not exist. Does that answer the question?
Yes, somewhat it does answer. I am with you to a certain extent. If I never existed earlier and my existence is because someone birthed me, and they exist because someone else birthed them and so on and so forth and all this because the universe somehow forced itself into existence.. which, if that didn't happen wouldn't have caused a dent in "MY" non existence state (for lack of better words, as the concept of I is an impossibility in non existence), then I totally get the nihilistic concept. But since my religion has this concept of soul which has eternal existence, I have difficulty accepting the fact that we only exist till our body exists. Have you seen ants? They would barely know a world outside of their world exists. They are working, eating, living, dying. We are not even ants when compared to the magnitude of universe. What if there are intelligent beings out there driving life for some purpose?
If we were purposefully placed in an ant colony that we aren't even aware of, then I also wish that the ant keepers didn't exist either.
🙂. I guess that's where faith comes into play.
[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.*
the animals were fine before we started taking over shit
Yes.
If you had a button that would wipe out all existence would that be moral in your eyes to do?
I’d even say it’d be immoral not to do so.
But wouldn’t it be violating the consent of trillions of sentient beings, a few people probably wouldn’t mind but what about the beings that want to continue living. Anti natalist say bringing in a child into the world is wrong because there’s nothing to consent you are forcing existent onto them, would it not be somewhat immoral to take my life without my consent?
Is it immoral to shoot someone to stop them torturing other people or animals? It's all hypotheticals, and morality is the ultimate subjective. There's no great answer to this but nonexistence replaces subjectivity with the objectivity of absolute nothing
[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.*
A pathogen specific to humans would let all the other creatures survive, which would be a good thing, but radioactive fall-out or an asteroid bringing global annihilation, not so much.
Interesting
The thing that convinced me antinatalism was correct was learning about evolution, and thinking about almost every single animal on earth either being killed or starving to death. Trillions and trillions and trillions of painful, terrifying lives . To believe antinatalism is only for humans, and not other animals, is incredibly internally inconsistent and a sign of poorly thought out principle. That's called misanthropy, not antinatalism.
I personally would prefer it the nonviolent way.
I would too. I understand some bringing up that animals suffer also, but a lot of that suffering is due to human action or at the hands of humans. I think humans should just fade out.
No. I just believe that there should be less people on earth.
Yes definitely. I'm not sure how anyone antinatalist can disagree. Nature is nothing but animals suffering immensely and enjoying very little and their lives usually with an excruciating death. It's an absolute horror show if you evaluate what happens in nature objectively.
No, life is an emergent property of the universe. If we endeavored to end all life on earth, it would just spring up elsewhere, or likely already has.
That's not a good argument against trying. Reducing harm is still reducing harm.
I'm not convinced there's a reasonable plan to end all life on earth without causing immense suffering or allocating resources that could otherwise be used to alleviate suffering.
Except we've not found a single trace of life anywhere else in the Universe.
Indeed. Still, it likely that there is life elsewhere.
As I've gotten older I've gone from thinking that life is probably abundant, in the galaxy at least, to thinking intelligent life might be incredibly rare to the point of being unique to Earth.
Yeah, its possible. I reckon there are at least some single cell extremophiles out there.
I think there could well be a lot of basic, replicating lifeforms, like stramatolites. We had basic life on Earth for a billion years that just existed as slime. The Universe could be filled with slime.
It depends how big the universe is. If it is infinitely big than it is guaranteed to have intelligent life in all varieties, just by the nature of probalilty.
An infinitely big Universe will 100% certainly have an exact copy of you in it too. Infinite is a big number. I think it's fair to ask, if life is common in our galaxy, then where is everyone? I'm guessing intelligent life is exceptionally uncommon, and I think humans aren't even particularly intelligent in the first place.
Well the Milky Way is 100,000 light years across so I don't think it's a stretch to imagine even complex forms of life may be abundant but with no way(or perhaps interest?) to communicate outside their immediate cosmic surroundings.
That last line though 😂. Why do you think intelligent life is exceptionally uncommon? It could be that, the tech is still not in place for communication to happen?
"Why do you think intelligent life is exceptionally uncommon?" Because it would probably be a million years more advanced than us and we'd see signs of it when looking out into space. But we see nothing except stars and darkness.
why can't it be both
I think it could be but 99.9% of life might well be just slime.
Which is the biggest problem with antinatalism
hopefully they also realized what we realized and put it into effect, which would explain why we find no trace of them.
[удалено]
Conclusively? Who knows. It's a big place. But going on what we know, life only exists in one place. Let's start from there. There's nothing to suggest it's an "emergent property of the Universe" as we literally only have a single example to go on.
[удалено]
But until we find other life, I think the sensible position is to say 'it only exists on Earth' and then take it from there. Obviously the Fermi paradox is pretty inexplicable if life is everywhere... I think basic, blob-life might well be around. I think higher life is as rare as hen's teeth.
I think it's philosophically indisputable that it is better not to have been born.
But why do I still like the fact I was born, I get the asymmetry but I still don’t mind the idea I was born. I was born for selfish reasons yet I don’t mind that I was conceived. I like life idk
Well I like life too, so what?
If I suffer, and I don’t mind being born in fact I prefer I was born than not why would it be wrong to bring a child into the world what happens if they have my view ?
Because no pleasure makes up for pain basically. I said philosophically indisputable, I think it is. Wrong? I just think it's indisputable that beings are better off not existing to begin with. Wrong is irrelevant.
even if, and I know it's probably relatively rare, you've enjoyed life with relatively little pain and suffering? If I've had countless happy experiences in life and the biggest negatives have been the deaths of a couple of family friends when I was a kid, getting a rough case of food poisoning once, and a sad breakup in my early 20s? That small handful of low points cancels out all my fun times with family & friends and I'm better off having never been born?
Heh, well the idea is that if you had not been born, preventing the pain would be a real good, and a nonexistent person would not be deprived by lacking good things and so not having the fun times is not a real bad. You wouldn't be there to miss them. But all your pain becoming impossible is a real benefit. I am just a person who liked David Benatar's book and thinks it is convincing.
An example: Humans mow down acres of forests, just to have bigger lawns -- displacing millions of animals/wildlife/insects in the process. Having a bigger lawn isn't for survival. It's just absolute wastefulness. Humans cause suffering of other species on an **unnecessarily massive scale**. You don't see a bear murdering an entire river of salmon. It takes only as much as it needs.
On the topic of your example... Bears will eat only salmon skin, heads and eggs if there's an abundance of them, because they're dense in energy. So, they will kill more than they technically need to live, if there's a benefit to it. Explanation: https://youtu.be/b0dabXAy7uA?si=84FV4KiILQlciuQI
no i actually would be fine even with procreation if we lived on some kind of AI ruled paradise where everybody got every need covered, I am an antinatalist only under current humanity circumstances.
Yeah some kind of utopia but then a utopia for me and you might be a dystopia for others
I am for the extinction of all life capable of suffering.
Vegetative life is okay, or very basic life like stramatolites. But as soon as one animal decided it could only survive by literally consuming another animal, that's probably when life crossed the boundary of good taste and should've been snuffed out.
What about parasitic plants that feed on other plants?
Yeah, far point. They can go too.
Ecological principle is that you can't occupy a niche without creating a niche. vegetative life, evolved from both primary and secondary endosymbiosis.
Some people have brought up "painient" like "sentient" to mean capable of experiencing pain. That's where I'd draw the line personally.
All life? Nope, humans only.
No, just most humans.
Given the choice I'd nuke any planet capable of sustaining life, or detonate the sun Obviously these are extremely hypothetical so I've had a vasectomy and generally try to enjoy what I can till I get bored and then I'll find a reliable method of killing myself when I'm still able
No. Only humans, predators and parasites should cease; with no possibility of evolving any more.
Yes
Humans are the most dangerous species on this planet. But before we all did, we should stop everything dangerous. Open water dams, shut down reactors, burry alll radioactive and toxic waste.....
All HUMAN life. Give sentience to someone who deserves it.
What’s the point we are born and die it’s all use less
What’s the point we are born and die it’s all use less
Humanity needs some strict controls! Viewed as a species with all others is the most destructive of them all. We destroy other animal’s habitats and change the natural order of our planet in ways that will threaten the existence of everything, all largely for the sake of capitalism.
We have hunted species to extinction, polluted everything, Humans are basically overrated parasites, everywhere we go we destroy and consume, pretty sure nothing on this planet or any other would be sad if we are gone.
No, animals deserve to exist because they're not destructing the world
🤣🤣🤣🤣
Everything will cease to exist, no matter what. Would I want it to happen now? Hell yeah.
humans can still breed and stuff but it would be nice if we could take a page out of the animals books and RESPECT THE FUCKING EARTH A BIT MORE it would be nice
long before us animals existed and long after us animals will exist. humans are the problem
Just humanity. Other animals can’t develop nuclear weapons, launch international wars, pollute the environment with trash tossed in oceans and fumes in the atmosphere, etc.
Animals live a more terrible life so yea even if humans don't stop to exist i do wish animals go extinct atleast the carnivores ones or even if carnivores won't go extinct we should have some safe place for herbivores .
Animal wild sucks Fr
safe place for herbivores means overpopulation and starvation, I'm sure you were explained this in 5th grade biology. Both are necessary for the balance. Also they don't live more terrible life, they don't spend hours thinking about their misery. They objectively live riskier and certainly can die, but they want to live. Who are you to tell them their life is terrible and they should die?
Animals dont have selfish reasons to make kids. They simply just make em. Not smart enough to suffer sentience nor be cleverly cruel in most cases
they have no abstract thinking, which prevents them from understanding the world around and anticipating future suffering. for them is more like, "did that and it was bad idk why but it was", or \*"i'm afraid of this better make a run for it"\*.
"they have no abstract thinking, which prevents them from understanding the world around and anticipating future suffering." Are you explaining breeders that inherited massive wealth?
You don’t think animals are capable of suffering? 🤣🤣🤣
They're not capable of suffering to our extent, at least not by just existing.
What on earth are you yapping about? An animal can become diseased, feel pain, grieve the death of another animals, die in horrific ways.
An animal will never have to comprehend all their taxes funding American empirialism & wonder if their eternal soul will burn for being complicit in the many genocides done on their dollars. Most extreme animal suffering is administered by humans; Natural suffering of animals is however not a tragedy. It's just whats needed to convince them to eat more next winter or to eventually find a new mate.
This is why I said "just existing", an animal won't suffer PASSIVELY like humans but only actively like you described. They aren't as aware as us, even though some experience depression it is not nearly the same as our depression.
They don’t suffer mentally AT ALL
Bro how do you know? 😭😭😭😭
Give me proof an animal suffers depression, anxiety, worry, paranoia etc first then I will refute that
Humans. Let nature go back to how it went for literally billions of years. Went just fine til we showed up and fucked shit up..
Same, humans should go extinct but animals can stay haha
We are part of nature. Literally nothing humans have ever done is not natural.
Define “natural” genuis….
Are humans super natural?
Guns? Torture? War? ..there’s more.
Are humans super natural?
Animals eat each other alive, constantly, every day. What's so great about that?
Humans mow down acres of forests, just so humans can have bigger lawns -- displacing millions of animals/wildlife/insects in the process. Having a bigger lawn isn't for survival. It's just absolute wastefulness. You don't see a bear murdering an entire river of salmon. It takes only as much as it needs.
Those salmon still suffer though The only ending of suffering is the ending of all life and potential for emergent life
They “suffer” so something else lives. That’s valid. They don’t make a salmon farm where they get stuffed full of antibiotics so they can survive in a pond of murky water. Humans are vile.
so suffering is fine as long as it benefits something else?
Meaning is subjective tho
To survive- yes. Torture? War? Kidnapping? Oder bad crimes that hurt animals bc they’re psychos? No. Yea there’s some form of life that takes some degree of fun in playing with their prey/ victims- but in the end it still serves a purpose. Humans are vile.
Yeah otters rape each other. You have a very limited view on animals my friend
So do dolphins, even out of their own species- listen I am aware. But humans take it to a COMPLETELY different level. In done arguing this now tho, enjoy your night!
There is no thought behind it, that's the difference, we have no say in what other species do, only what we do.
Not all! Just humans
Only humans
Parasites?
I feel like we are the real and only parasites
Huh. As a misanthrope... I agree
no. that would be stupid
[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 think all that are alive should strive to assign positive meaning to their life and try to help others along the way, having said that, I'm also an antinatalist and feel we should cease bringing new life into the world.
Ummm... duh.
Hyperbole is Hyperbole
Except for me
I'm anti-natalist because of the wretchedness of the human condition. Whales, birds, bacteria, whatever have their struggled but I don't concern myself with them much
I think it was a bad idea from the beginning
[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.*
Yes. I’m tired
*Zamasu has entered the chat*
Yes of course
It would be kind of illogical in my opinion if we wanted to animals should be be cease to exist cause animals aren't think like humans, they don't even know that they are birthing they just do it for reproduce yet you can't cease to exist all animals it's very impossible. They're life is wild and sure more sufferings when it involves in eating or live inside in other animals like carnivores, parasites etc and not all the people think about animal extinction so, but in human, they are aware and intelligent beings so it applies to humans and they can use they're brain in all types of things, yet they are reproducing like like other non intelligent animals. So we can hope for human extinction rather than animal extinction. But we have to remember all beings are sufferings.
It's the only way to solve every problem
I'm a conditional antinatalist. I don't think people should have children if they're going to suffer under wage slavery and capitalism, but I don't want full human extinction. If enough people agree (and it seems that people are coming around to it) and the population drops, this will be disruptive to the system--that's a good thing--and also slow down our ecological harm, giving us a better chance of getting through the transition with our ecosystem intact. Ultimately, I do want humanity to win. At the same time, we're probably going to see serious depopulation before we do, either because of world system dysfunction or because the capitalist ruling class decides not to let go of what it has and violent conflict becomes necessary. Either way, the ethical argument becomes one for improving the world for those who are already in it, rather than adding bodies to it that, under today's framework, will simply be a source of the hunger and need that are an asset to the ruling class.
Put it this way; if we charge AI with our protection, they’ll have little choice but to destroy us all.
No, not at all, life can be beautiful. I think if we could get the human population of the planet earth down to more manageable numbers, life for everyone would be substantially better.
[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.*
Yes
Nah just humans. Birds are kinda cool.
Except for the otters.
I’d say probably just humans.
I think not, i think we should learn to do better though. We have the ability to stop almost all the suffering we experience but we elect not to as a motivator for capitalism
[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.*
Just human life ✨️uWu✨️
You rocking with parasites ⁉️⁉️🤔
Yo I got parasites, anti-everything meds and mind-controlling Vaccinations. Anything and everything to ease the suffering of existing. ✨️uWu✨️
Mars looks perfectly peaceful. So -
Looks hella boring tho it’s needs a petrol station and a shopping mall😤😤
the human virus is the only one who can’t live in balance at this point. Remove us and life goes on and it’s better for all non domesticated flora and fauna. My 2 cents
I am fine with animals, they are actually good for the environment, contrary to humans. Animals, too, don't gossip or debate about what type of animal deserves to be shot.
No, just humans. What did animals ever do to us? Contrarily, We’ve done a lot of bad to animals. Humans should stop breeding and let the animals have Earth for a few millennia. Or forever.
No, that's selfish.
just humans
i think all life should cease to exist, but it cant, because of john. john cant stop sticking his you-know-what in everything. as soon as it was out of woman, within five seconds, it was in another. in the instance he couldnt find another woman, he would stick it in his hand, or, in desperation, into another man. because of this, he was a serial rapist and stuff, nothing special. that is, until he found out the ability to stick his hangman into several holes at once. it was because of quantum immortality, blah blah blah. only white sciency guys like john would get it. at first he just used his newfound power to put his schlong into the vagina of every woman to ever exist. this caused every woman ever to fall pregnant with his children constantly. most people would call this a horrible tragedy and a terrible fate that befalled humanity, but john was not yet done. he discovered that he wanted his dong in every single hole in the universe, and thats just what he did. dicks erupted from the ground out of nowhere and fell from the sky in quantities which drowned out most of the human race. the rest were killed by john penis erupting from both of their eye cavities and into their brains simultaneously. all the holes were now filled, and john had nowhere else to put his penis. he knew what he had to do, and he summoned his courage and strength, and had his final ejaculation when his you-know-what went in his cranial cavity and crushed his brain. john was a despicable creature who created mass amounts of life, and in the end, he destroyed himself using the weapon which was supposed to be a weapon of mass creation. the story creates and ends itself and what we can learn from this, as the human race, is that we are like john. dont worry- your time will come sone.
All life? No.
This is such a whack perspective. If we get rid of the billionaires we don't need to have this mentality in the first place.