Think about it. We always tend to think of life as a blessing, a miracle. But maybe it’s a tragedy. By chance, DNA started reproducing itself and that has since produced an endless cycle of suffering for all life forms. And sure, some people can claim to be happy or satisfied, but what about the vast majority? Can the happiness and contentment of a minority really counterbalance the suffering of an overwhelming majority? Maybe, as an intellectual species, we should take the collective noble decision of ending all life simultaneously, possibly using nukes.
I pose three questions:
If you could wipe out all life today by pressing a single button then would you press it?
If you could go back in time and stop the event that first produced life, should you do it?
By reproducing, are we not guilty of bringing new life in this unpredictable world which can be very cruel? In no way can we guarantee the quality of life for a new born child. Who are we then to be taking risks on behalf of this child, the consequences of which he alone shall have to face in the future?
I answered something this before to the last forum’s resident antinatalist.
If it (life) happened before, it can happen again.
If one really wished to, hypothetically engage in this anti-hero gray area morality mission of “ending all suffering by ending all life” he or she would have to progress in life long enough for humanity to become advanced enough to explore all the reaches of the known and unknown universe and ensure the building blocks for such, the minerals, materials, any sort of entropy is destroyed. This would require technology and innovation simply not within the reach of our current species. Therefore, the idea of ending all life on this one planet is simply not logically conducive to any sort of true mission statement that proclaims to be aligned with such.
Your questions are interesting. They have been discussed in nauseating detail many, many a time. Allow me to utilize the art of brevity.
No. Even if I subscribed to such views, the second sentence of this post makes that little more than a band-aid on a wound, in a manner of speaking.
See above answer.
We are “responsible” per cause and effect, as in, without our initial action (coitus) the end result (a human life) would not have occurred, sure.
We may not be able to guarantee anything, but things can be “virtually” or otherwise reasonably assured beyond the shadow of a doubt in some situations.
You are assuming in your last question that he or she will be “alone” in facing the future. The existence of society and community—something you are actively participating in right now—begs to differ.
This is not how it works. The development of life was not random at all. You should do a little reading on abiogenesis. Doesn’t mean life was inevitable (I don’t think) but it probably wasn’t as wildly unlikely as you seem to think it was
You have no authority or credibility in judging the lives of the “overwhelming majority” of people. That represents the monumental arrogance of anti-natalists and the bankruptcy of their philosophy.
Isn’t everyone just as arrogant as an anti-natalist when they choose to conceive a child? Reiterating my third question, what gives parents the right to bet on their unborn child’s future?
Do we not love our non-existent children enough to spare bringing them into this potentially cruel world for our own selfish desires of parenthood and companionship?
Also, my philosophy isn’t based on an arrogant or conceited assumption, according to me, since I think it is easily provable as it is the very fundamental nature of all life forms; all of life seems to follow this pattern: A win for those chosen by natural selection and misery for those rejected by it. In a typical evolution cycle, there will always be defects or odd balls that will have to suffer the consequences of nature’s constant experimentation which is so important to evolution. How can you then say that my claim about suffering is wrong?
Whether you’re aware of it or not, you’re influenced by, or grappling with, nihilism. As Nietszche foresaw, nihilism was to become an ‘epidemic of the modern world’, caused by the collapse of ancient verities and the dizzying vertigo induced by scientific discovery. What if the world is an illusion? What if nothing has any meaning? What if life is a fluke, a bad joke?
Better to shake that feeling, nothing good can come of it. Find a pet to look after, or something.
You have a funny, amusing way of by-passing the sort of elephant in the room theme of this argument.
Let me first pose you two questions, just to clarify your views a bit.
If this hypothetical button could end all life everywhere in the universe, and ensure it never starts again, would you press it now?
Even if we can’t help every fish in the ocean, our help makes a difference to the ones we do help. Even if it seems rather futile to you, would you not care to at least spare the life forms on Earth of suffering by ending them, assuming you could?
Now, on a personal level, since I’m 24 and started getting some pressure from parents and family to get married and have kids… You speak of reasonable confidence about the future, so I want to ask, in this era of AI and so much uncertainty (I work in tech), would it not be selfish of me to have kids? I don’t want to watch them struggle in this hyper-competitive world in any way I had to. Are kids only the luxury for the super rich who have this reasonable confidence? And yet the super rich will want everyone to have kids so the world economy can keep moving steadily.
And isn’t that true for all of us? What is the cost of this reasonable confidence? Isn’t it indirectly related to the exploitation and suffering of several others? We need the bottom percentile of the population to keep reproducing, to keep doing the dirty jobs that can’t be yet replaced. In factories or farms or even just sitting at home unemployed, wondering why they had to be born. Maybe not all of them will feel a lot of suffering, but some always will.
Is it wrong to say life is a fluke? Why should I just drop the idea and move on? Is your solution just ignoring the problem?
Calling this an epidemic seems to imply to me that he saw it as a disease, when it is nothing but the truth. Are we afraid of confronting the truth? Why are we so desperate to protect ancient traditions?
I didn’t really think any of the objections were very strong so far. Couple of them were evasive more than anything and one questioned the authority upon which the anti-natalist decides what’s good for others. To which I’ve already replied that indecision is in itself a decision. Besides, the act of reproduction is not even indecision, it’s a very direct act of choosing for an unborn child what he or she can’t choose for themselves
Also, as I’ve said in the same comment, suffering isn’t an assumption of the anti-natalist. It is a reality enforced by natural selection or evolution. Individuals are sacrificed for the sake of the continuation of life. If you’re the one being sacrificed then it’s a terrible experience while if you’re on the good side of it, you have the luxury of ignorance or delusion to cope with the unethicality of it all. If I had that button today I don’t see why I should hesitate. I want to see it, but can’t.
Isn’t the following statement justification enough? This is not a complicated issue. People celebrate when new life is born. They fear their own deaths, and mourn the dead.
IMHO your responses to the objections were reasonable. I share a similar POV, but you know of course that POVs differ.
As for antinatalism, it’s just that (nonexistence, no pleasure) is not bad while (existence, pain) is. Here again POVs differ. There may be other arguments floating out there though; I’m not aware of them.
Great questions. I’m familiar with a few of the famous pessimists, and I can understand the temptation to throw out the good with the bad, because the bad is judged to be so bad that the good doesn’t balance it out.
I’d be reluctant though to decide for all others. Timing looks relevant. If I just visited a scene of great cruelty and misery, then I’d be more inclined to stop the horror at any cost. On the other hand, if I just saw new lovers cooing at one another in the park, on a sunny day in light jacket weather, I’d want to protect the endless recurrence of that kind of event.
Question 3 is a classic. As a non-parent, somewhat motivated by those concerns, I have felt the ethical burden of possible parenthood. But calling it “guilty” is no trivial thing.
This is one of those cases where the question at hand is not the question that really matters…
Yes, life is tragic and it can be incredibly cruel. Nothing follows from that though.
Would you be open to investigating the psychology and ideology that are giving birth to the questions in the first place? I feel that it would be incredibly beneficial for you to question the validity of egocentrism.
Here’s a sobering thought (and I say this with zero disrespect): You’re 24. In the grand scheme of a human life, you’re a baby. Why are you so eager to dismiss life on such a massive scale, without even having lived a meaningful chunk of it?
