Anti-Natalism and the case for human extinction

[Caveat_lector_1]

(1) The presence of pain is bad.
(2) The presence of pleasure is good.

First, I reject both of these premises as false if you are speaking of them as absolutes.

Physical pain, in my opinion, is, at its base, a good. Take this case here. The girl in question has seriously injured herself because she cannot feel pain. As we can see physical pain prevents damage and, in most cases, does no lasting harm. Now an excess of pain is bad, but then this is true for most things.

Emotional pain can also be a good. Shame and guilt can help to prevent harmful social behaviors. So can fear. Now can they be misused or felt in excess? Yes they can, but I would not want to live in a world where they are absent.

Also pleasure is not necessarily good. Pleasure can come from sources harmful for either the recipient, others, or both and, as pleasure can reinforce this behavior, pleasure, in this case, would not be a good. For example someone may gain pleasure from a harmful addiction; this pleasure would not be a good.

@Blalron

All human lives, virtually without exception, contain some level of suffering within them. Every person who is born is destined to die, and the process of dying can often be a very unpleasant affair. Each death causes several other people to be bereaved. It follows that bringing someone into existence is always a serious harm, and this serious harm could easily be prevented. Vasectomies are only a few hundred bucks and can literally prevent lifetimes of suffering from happening.

Second, though death is often painful I would like to see evidence the majority of times it causes overwhelming pain as, if I’m reading correctly, you seem to be implying. I’ll take myself for an example here. I’ve had close friends die suddenly. Now this made me sad, but to say the pain was overwhelming or even especially bad would not be the case. Now I personally view death, in the current state of the world, as a good (though one to only be obtained at the appropriate time as life is also a good), maybe this makes me weird, but it is a common Catholic teaching.

Also, I don’t see how something can be good or bad for something non-existent. It is not a good for me complement the non-existing person in the room with me or to refrain from hitting them. Nor is it a bad for them for me to try and hit them or to call them names (though I suppose attacking non-existent things could be a bad for me.)

[Der_Trihs]

@mswas

I wish there were more martyrs to the anti-natalism cause, people who would put their money where their mouth is and use suicide as a political statement.

Lacking a time machine, there’s no particular logical connection between opposing new people being born and suicide.

[kanicbird]

Look at societies where reproduction is controlled, are they happy free societies or oppressive places of near slavery?

The 4 points the OP is making are negatively amplified in countries where reproduction is controlled.

[Miller]

@Blalron

Wouldn’t the avoidance of “bad” be considered “good” though?

If I were to get up right now and stab my co-worker to death, that would be bad. The fact that I am not doing that means that I must be doing good. I also have no intention of robbing a bank on my way home tonight - so I’m doubly good for not doing that. When I get home, I will not set fire to the apartment building opposite where I live - once again, a demonstrable good act. In fact, at any given moment, there are an infinite number of bad acts I could be committing, but am not - therefore, at any given moment, I’m also committing an equal number of good acts.

I must be some kind of motherfucking saint, and I’ll I’m doing is sitting at my work computer, typing on the internet.

[mswas]

@Der_Trihs

Lacking a time machine, there’s no particular logical connection between opposing new people being born and suicide.

Well I see it as somewhat hypocritical in many of its manifestations. Obviously there are some ways in which it can be performed unhypocritically. In one of its more common forms it is enviro-extremists who view Humanity as a cancer. They of course consume massive amounts of resources due to their continued life, and expect others not to breed to make up for it, where they could make a solid choice and take matters into their own hands.

[Blalron]

@kanicbird

Look at societies where reproduction is controlled, are they happy free societies or oppressive places of near slavery?

The 4 points the OP is making are negatively amplified in countries where reproduction is controlled.

On the other hand, in countries where birth rates are higher, I contend that few of us would want to be born there. The Congo and Afghanistan aren’t exactly happy vacation spots.

In China, which I concede is not a very good place to live, you also have to factor into account the suffering that would be caused by even more people existing in that country.

[Blalron]

@mswas

Well I see it as somewhat hypocritical in many of its manifestations. Obviously there are some ways in which it can be performed unhypocritically. In one of its more common forms it is enviro-extremists who view Humanity as a cancer. They of course consume massive amounts of resources due to their continued life, and expect others not to breed to make up for it, where they could make a solid choice and take matters into their own hands.

It would only be hypocritical if Anti-Natalists were actually breeding. Being an Anti-Natalist does NOT require one to be a Pro-Mortalist.

As I’ve argued earlier, remaining alive to preach the “Anti-Natal” gospel may prevent more lives than silencing our voices by all us killing ourselves. Of course, that’s exactly what Pro-Natalists would like us to do. I’m not taking the bait.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

Morality is a human construct, and especially so are good and bad; moral reasoning is therefore not applicable in a situation of human absence and thus cannot be used to argue in favour of creating such a situation. To put it another way, to say that the absence of humanity is good would need a standard for good to be measured against that is independent of humanity.

[Blalron]

@ITR_champion

2. I and many others intend to enjoy an eternal life without pain, which is notably absent from Benatar’s analysis.

Even accepting the truth of Christianity, I think this provides an especially strong Anti-Natal argument. The avoidance of having a child grow up and then later turn away from the faith and then suffer eternally in hell would make non-procreating an especially urgent imperative.

[The_Hamster_King]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

Morality is a human construct, and especially so are good and bad; moral reasoning is therefore not applicable in a situation of human absence and thus cannot be used to argue in favour of creating such a situation. To put it another way, to say that the absence of humanity is good would need a standard for good to be measured against that is independent of humanity.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

[mswas]

@Blalron

It would only be hypocritical if Anti-Natalists were actually breeding. Being an Anti-Natalist does NOT require one to be a Pro-Mortalist.

Actually it does. Particularly your argument. If you think the human race should be extinct you are a pro-mortalist.

As I’ve argued earlier, remaining alive to preach the “Anti-Natal” gospel may prevent more lives than silencing our voices by all us killing ourselves. Of course, that’s exactly what Pro-Natalists would like us to do. I’m not taking the bait.

Actually you’re mostly ignored and considered a nutty fringe. No one is really listening to you. If you started killing yourselves en masse and provided some sort of organized framework for a movement to keep the voice moving. That would give the movement a voice.

[mswas]

@Pochacco

Ding ding ding! We have a winner!

Yup, the thread is over.

[mswas]

@Blalron

Even accepting the truth of Christianity, I think this provides an especially strong Anti-Natal argument. The avoidance of having a child grow up and then later turn away from the faith and then suffer eternally in hell would make non-procreating an especially urgent imperative.

I believe this was the view of the Cathars.

[Marley23]

@Blalron

It would only be hypocritical if Anti-Natalists were actually breeding. Being an Anti-Natalist does NOT require one to be a Pro-Mortalist.

“Pro-Mortalist?” When did suicide turn into a political or philosophical position instead of an action?

[Blalron]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

Morality is a human construct, and especially so are good and bad; moral reasoning is therefore not applicable in a situation of human absence and thus cannot be used to argue in favour of creating such a situation. To put it another way, to say that the absence of humanity is good would need a standard for good to be measured against that is independent of humanity.

I deny that in order to harm somebody, they need to be worse off. It’s sufficient to say that an action causes badness in order for it to be bad, especially when the alternative (nonprocreation) would be viewed as “not bad”.

[Blalron]

@mswas

Actually you’re mostly ignored and considered a nutty fringe. No one is really listening to you. If you started killing yourselves en masse and provided some sort of organized framework for a movement to keep the voice moving. That would give the movement a voice.

The anti-slavery movement was also fringe at one point in time. Being a fringe movement is not reason in and of itself to dismiss the movement.

[Blalron]

If procreation can never harm anybody (because in order to harm they need to be worse off) I think accepting that proves that procreation can never benefit anyone either, because you can’t say that coming into existence would make one better off than if one had never existed. In other words, you can never create a child for that child’s own sake. The motivating interest here is the parents desire to be a parent, not some desire to help some disembodied spirit howling out in the void, wishing it was born into a human body.

[Blalron]

@Marley23

“Pro-Mortalist?” When did suicide turn into a political or philosophical position instead of an action?

Never that I’m aware of, I was simply trying to react to the point of view that an anti-natalist has to accept that suicide is always preferable or else he’s being a hypocrite.

[smiling_bandit]

Bah. If I wanted humanity dead I do it myself.

[Miller]

@Blalron

If procreation can never harm anybody (because in order to harm they need to be worse off) I think accepting that proves that procreation can never benefit anyone either, because you can’t say that coming into existence would make one better off than if one had never existed.

It doesn’t prove any such thing, because the act of creating a new person has ramifications that are not restricted merely to that person. Consider this: I think I’m able to raise a child in such a manner that he will grow up to be succesful and happy. I think that I can also instill in him values that I think are important to the betterment of life on this planet. Therefore, me having a child is to the net benefit of the species as a whole.