Antinatalism can be seen as a method to resolve the issue of dukkha. That is, as humans we are caught up in a constant striving, driven by discontentedness and dissatisfaction. Even our pleasures - the goods in life - are themselves impermanent, require work and maintenance, and suffer from habituation (they are not wholly and purely good but are immersed in dukkha). To be born human is to constantly strive, suffer (ranging from minor discontent, to excruciating pain), and then inevitably die. The antinatalist recognizes this, and recognizes this as a problem to be solved. Given his/her belief that the consciousness of new babies do not pre-exist their own birth, the solution is simple - stop reproduction altogether. All presently existing humans will die and reach parinibbana, while the unborn already dwell 'there'. Timeless non-condition for all!

But is it really so simple? Did I just burst from a parinibbanic state, taking form as this body only for this conscious experience to dissolve back into nothingness, eternally?

I started learning martial arts when I was really young. Through a couple teachers with an interest in it, that led to an interest in Zen, which I still have, though a very casual interest. Through interest in Zen, I of course ran into the "To be born human is to constantly . . . suffer" idea, but that never made any sense to me, and it still doesn't--at least not if "suffering" is supposed to have a negative connotation.

But is it really so simple? Did I just burst from a parinibbanic state, taking form as this body only for this conscious experience to dissolve back into nothingness, eternally? — Inyenzi

What's the alternative? Is this a nod to the idea of reincarnation?

"The majority of stable middle class people with access to the internet in a 1st world country like life" is a bit better though I still think it's not as obvious as it seems — khaled

Right, and since most of the people on this forum are middle class 1st worlders, they are going to say they should have more children, because their children will say that they like life. Thus they will say, case closed.

The other argument, like ones that Terrapin tries to argue, is that suffering, or not all forms of it are bad, so it is good that people are born and suffer, if suffer is qualified by certain forms of it which people like Terrapin don't mind.

Those are the basic arguments people will always use to defend natalism.

Minimizing suffering is always good and, hence, Anti-Natalism is true.

I would go further, though, and say that Pro-Mortalism is true. You can get from Anti-Natalism to Pro-Mortalism by realizing that Epicurus was right about the nature of death.

You can get from Anti-Natalism to Pro-Mortalism by realizing that Epicurus was right about the nature of death. — luckswallowsall

I don't think you can. Epicurus maybe correct about the nature of death if we could confirm death is the end to conscious experience but we cannot. Until we can determine PRECISELY the relation between chemical reactions and conscious experience we cannot know death is the end of conscious experience. The "dark screen" version of what life is like after death is just as absurd as the "eternal life in heaven" version, both have no evidence to support them. That's part of the reason why I think pro mortalism doesn't stand, because we do not know the effects of death so murdering someone is yet another case of taking a risk for someone else that they didn't ask you to take

but that never made any sense to me, and it still doesn't--at least not if "suffering" is supposed to have a negative connotation. — Terrapin Station

It might make sense to your child just like it makes sense to many others. That's the point. It doesn't matter what YOU think of life you have no right to take the risk for someone else. You have no right to "put someone in an unusual situation" as you say or even risk putting them there. You said that your policy for beings incapable of giving consent that will develop into beings capable of giving consent is that any modification to the them is wrong as long as it takes them away from statistical norms in a negative direction. Well, birth RISKS taking someone away from the statistical norms in a negative direction so shouldn't it be wrong by your own standard?

Again, (you ignored this because it was a long post but), name me one other situation where people find it ethically acceptable to take someone from a position that risks little harm to a position that risks significantly more harm without consulting with or asking for their consent first.

That's the point. It doesn't matter what YOU think of life you have no right to take the risk for someone else — khaled

You know that rights are something we make up, right?

You know that rights are something we make up, right? — Terrapin Station

Yes. But you expressed a moral principle and by that moral principle you shouldn't be allowed to have children as I've shown. You know we have a very basic desire to be consistent right? That's why people do philosophy in the first place. And I think that desire trumps even the desire to have children. I don't think you're being inconsistent right now.

But you expressed a moral principle — khaled

Actually, I explicitly told you, a number of times, that I do not do principle-based ethics.

And yet you started your comment with "My policy on". That's a moral principle if you ask me if a personal one. If you'd said "My temporary policy on" I wouldn't be talking to you in the first place as there would be no point.


Just saying you're not doing principle based ethics doesn't mean you're not when you literally are.

And yet you started your comment with "My policy on". That's a moral principle if you ask me if a personal one. If you'd said "My temporary policy on" I wouldn't be talking to you in the first place as there would be no point. — khaled

Because I'm not going to restate every single nuance in every single post--that's like having to write "in my opinion" for every sentence. All the way back on page 6, I said to you, "Personally, I'm not a fan of principle-based approaches."

But you're employing a principle based approach when you say "My policy on X is Y". Do you mean to say that your policy towards beings incapable of giving consent that will survive to be consent capable beings (I'll call these "potential people" from now on because this is getting tiring to type every time) is NOT actually consistent and you just sorta do whatever you feel like?


Again, Just saying you're not doing principle based ethics doesn't mean you're not when you literally are.

But you're employing a principle based approach when you say "My policy on X is Y". — khaled

I'm trying to get you to stop talking really. "What will make this guy finally stop responding to me?" basically.

The reason why is because, for example, I told you 20 pages ago that I don't follow a principle-based approach, yet you can't recall that, you don't care that I told you that, etc.

I'm trying to get you to stop talking really. — Terrapin Station

You could do that by not replying but you're still replying. That tells me this isn't actually your goal and instead, you just do not believe in any principle morally (subjective or objective) and are literally just trolling everyone on this thread as you proceed to do principle based ethics while claiming you don't like them.

You could do that by not replying but you're still replying. That tells me this isn't actually your goal and instead, you just do not believe in any principle morally (subjective or objective) and are literally just trolling everyone on this thread as you proceed to do principle based ethics while claiming you don't like them. — khaled

But I'm not doing principle-based ethics. It is amusing to me that you can't understand this, which is probably why I keep responding to you, but on the other hand, you're also annoying, and kind of stupid in select ways--which suggests that you're rather the one trolling.

Speaking of being stupid, you're still bringing up the notion that you're "taking a risk for someone else" by procreating.

There's no way you're not an Aspie, by the way. Maybe that's why you're an antinatalist.

It is amusing to me that you can't understand this — Terrapin Station

“It is immoral to do certain action X to class of being Y when it is abnormal” is principle based ethics. It is amusing to me that you can’t understand this

“It is immoral to do certain action X to class of being Y when it is abnormal” is principle based ethics. It is amusing to me that you can’t understand this — khaled

So re you being stupid, didn't I just write, "I'm not going to restate every single nuance in every single post"?

Speaking of being stupid, you're still bringing up the notion that you're "taking a risk for someone else" by procreating. — Terrapin Station

That’s not what I said is it. I said it risks putting someone in an unfortunate situation. In the way that genetic engineering is wrong to you because it guarantees creating an unpleasant situation for someone.

So re you being stupid, didn't I just write, "I'm not going to restate every single nuance in every single post"? — Terrapin Station

You’ve never stated the nuance between “It is immoral to do X to Y” and a moral principle. Because there is none.

Here's what I mean by "selectively stupid," which suggests trolling. You apparently can remember some things I wrote 15-20 pages ago, but you can't remember something I wrote three or four posts ago, and you can't remember that you just wrote, "It doesn't matter what YOU think of life you have no right to take the risk for someone else. "

You’ve never stated the nuance between “It is immoral to do X to Y” and a moral principle. Because there is none. — khaled

As you hold up a sign announcing that you don't understand what not stating every nuance every time amounts to. Nice.

I elaborated literally one line later:

You have no right to "put someone in an unusual situation" as you say or even risk putting them there. — khaled

You also seem to suffer from not being able to remember very recent posts

Who are you putting in an unusual situation by procreating?

As you hold up a sign announcing that you don't understand what not stating every nuance every time amounts to. Nice. — Terrapin Station

You can’t explain something “every time” if you have never explained it before. Please enlighten my stupid mind with the difference between “having a policy towards certain actions against certain beings” and a moral principle

You can’t explain something “every time” if you have never explained it before. Please enlighten my stupid mind with the difference between “having a policy towards certain actions against certain beings” and a moral principle — khaled

I didn't explain that I don't use a principle-based approach to ethics?

Who are you putting in an unusual situation by procreating? — Terrapin Station

I said risks putting someone in an unusual situation didn’t I? And such unusual situations include: severe depression, abuse, accidents, etc. These are all deviations from statistical norms and having children risks putting someone in said situations

I said risks putting someone — khaled

Procreating risks putting WHO in an unusual situation? Antinatalism is a stance on procreating, isn't it?

I didn't explain that I don't use a principle-based approach to ethics? — Terrapin Station

That’s not what I’m asking you to explain. I’m asking you to explain how having a “policy” towards certain actions against certain classes of beings doesn’t count as a moral principle