ANTINATALISM

The amount of suffering in the world – experienced by every single living creature – far, far outweighs pleasure, happiness and contentment. Anything done in an attempt to readdress the balance between the vast negativity and the paltry positivity – decreasing the former and increasing the latter – is just a trivial act of damage limitation; an act akin to attempting to paint the entire surface of the moon using only a toothbrush and one small tin of paint. Futile efforts within a futile existence. Futile suffering is all there is, and all there will ever be.

---

“To deny the truth of that statement would mean having to argue that never coming into existence is a good thing. And if you are going to argue that, then you have to explain: where does this good come from, and to whom is it good?”

It’s good because there was no being that was brought into existence to live a life of suffering. If a person comes into existence they will suffer. Period. There is no arguing against that. That’s why we can say it’s good. Because we avoided inflicting suffer on somebody. I’m kind of tired of arguing about this, l0l. I’m not actually an anti-natalist, but just playing devil’s advocate here. I have been reading Benatar’s book, though. If I don’t sound as convincing it’s because this not something that I have thought about deeply enough.

---

I don’t think I am treating people as “mere vessels of happiness”. I acknowledge that both suffering and happiness exist, and I claim not only that the former is bad, but also that the latter is good. It seems to me that Prof. Benatar is treating people as mere vessels of suffering, considering their suffering to be their only morally relevant quality. But I haven’t read his book, so it is possible that I am misrepresenting him. For what it’s worth, I agree with the second and third sentences in your comment. I have never, to the best of my knowledge, stated that non-existence, in itself, is a moral problem.

I don’t think it is nonsensical at all. We exist and are capable of consulting our moral intuitions and logical faculties in assessing statements such as this. Think of comparing two possible worlds, one in which a person is born and experiences almost nothing but excruciating pain before dying, and one in which this person did not come into being at all. I maintain that the second world is preferable to the first, it is good that no such person was brought into existence to experience that pain.

I agree with the guy who came on and said that “life doesn’t change.” Great point. Not only is life suffering, but it’s also the same old mundane traditions and pointless routines. Eternal return, Samsara , ouroboros.

---

Even without all the bad… If we all disappeared, none of us would complain. The cosmos would not miss us… The universe does not require our services. So what difference would it make if we voluntarily went extinct?

We are all going to die anyway. The only reason we procreate is because the lizard brain says to. We all act like the cosmos needs us! The cosmos is in a deficit because the doo-doo bird is gone… What ever shall we do?! Even if I don’t actually want to press the red button: what is our logical reason for existing? Simply to exist? We are slaves to the lizard king! He rules our lives, lies to us and tricks us. A lizard brain in a monkey’s body.

---

More abortions, less traffic.

There’s a sharp logic to this that I can’t entirely disagree with. For instance I feel like it should be almost a duty not to have any children at this time, at least for a while. But only because overpopulation is accelerating at uncontrolled speeds and is a real danger for life on earth as a whole. I have not entirely given up on our world though. Pleasure throughout evolution has always been short lived because long lasting bliss was not conducive to our survival on this planet.

The sensation of an orgasm, or the taste of sweetness only last just enough so that we continue to strive towards them but not be impeded by them (in an evolutionary sense). Suffering has no natural biological turn off switch akin to how pleasure does, hence the disparity, I think. Psychologically, isn’t suffering more focused on too? It seems to me that the “inner critic” is a psychological mechanism to quickly apprehend what is wrong in order to fix it and that takes precedence over the good feelings. We seem to be conditioned to always be on the lookout for bad feelings.

But human evolution is partial awareness. We grew to see only what we need to see. In a real sense we are living in a sort of hallucination or a fractured and thus distorted reality.

Maybe we have the potential to transcend these old evolutionary ways that seem to bog us down. There must be an ultimate reality and this seemingly illusory existence can’t be it. Why not strive for a higher meaning rather than throwing in the towel? Break free from our programming. Existence is not over. Our story is not finished. Perhaps this is just where we’re at. We’ve evolved in a darwinian sense but now is the time for a spiritual evolution. Suffering is not all bad, it’s how we grow. Sure it can be overwhelming but there would be no pleasure without it.

There’s no one without the other. If the world is so awful and not worth living why do you continue to live your life? Fear of the transition of death and the ripple effect of suicide? I mean, as far as we know we only get one chance and then back to the safety of non existence. Isn’t it worth the shot?

---

Not that novel. See Feinberg’s ‘Wrongful Life and the Counterfactual Element in Harming” or Shiffrin’s “Wrongful Life, Procreative Responsibility, and the Significance of Harm” and many others. Second, it’s not very hard to challenge either. See the direct replies: DeGrazia’s “Is It Wrong to Impose the Harms of Human Life?”, Boonin’s “Better to Be”, and Weinberg’s “Is Having Children Always Wrong?.”

Moreover, if you just don’t accept negative utilitarianism as a sane and/or practical ethic, the whole thing is out the window.

---

A: damn I wish I had a bf like you

B: Be respectful. We’re here to end suffering not seeking pleasure

A: What did I say that was disrespectful? For simply wanting a partner that shares my existential dread?

Well, it is a kind of antinatalism actually, but yes, there’s a difference between those advocating for antinatalism for extinction and those for reducing the population. No value in extinction? I’d say that eliminating suffering is a pretty valuable thing (the only valuable thing, probably).

Compare Mars and Earth. Mars is not a worse place for not harbouring sentient life. The problem of suffering is non-existent on Mars, and its lack of pleasurable experiences isn’t a problem as there’s no-one to be deprived of said pleasure. Earth on the other hand has about a billion years of suffering, horrific rates of attrition, and some pretty smart monkeys living some interesting and relatively comfortable lives (even the best of which have to deal with sickness, boredom, frustration, the death of relatives and the death of themselves).

Extinction is inevitable anyway – the best life affirmers can do is prolong our existence – at a real ethical cost of more suffering, more death. If there’s no need to bring something into existence, how can continuing our existence be justified?

Simply put – Coming into existence has no advantages over not coming into existence. Not coming into existence cannot be a problem. Coming into existence is always a problem. Therefore, there is an ethical duty not to procreate.

---

instead of the tree of life, maybe we should start calling it the pyramid of life

well they have the same structure, ancestors on top of the pyramid, children at the bottom, with the pyramid larger at the bottom =D also relates to the whole thing being a pyramid (or ponzi) scheme, often people have children (late investors) to pay their parents (early investors)

Who is ‘WE’? Crackkers are funny people. Delusion, denial, PRE-traumatic stress syndrome, narcism, pride, racism. Then pretend WE are all in it.

---

“I could never find two people who are perfectly equal: one will always be more valuable than the other. And many people, as a matter of fact, simply have no value.”
― Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail? – A Radical Approach To The Environmental Crisis

“…the chief cause for the impending collapse of the world – the cause sufficient in and by itself – is the enormous growth of the human population: the human flood. The worst enemy of life is too much life: the excess of human life.”
― Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail? – A Radical Approach To The Environmental Crisis

“I believe that human brilliance manifests itself only in flashes, among rare individuals. For this reason, humanity as a whole is enormously destructive: the creation of something as devastating as Western culture, which is now allowed to spread throughout the world, offers sufficient proof of this fact.”
― Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail?

“The difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is a matter of perspective: it all depends on the observer and the verdict of history.”
― Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail?

“The coming years will prove increasingly cynical and cruel. People will definitely not slip into oblivion while hugging each other. The final stages in the life of humanity will be marked by the monstrous war of all against all: the amount of suffering will be maximal.”
― Pentti Linkola, Can Life Prevail?

“What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides.”

“The most central and irrational faith among people is the faith in technology and economical growth. Its priests believe until their death that material prosperity bring enjoyment and happiness – even though all the proofs in history have shown that only lack and attempt cause a life worth living, that the material prosperity doesn’t bring anything else than despair. These priests believe in technology still when they choke in their gas masks.”