N
noname223
Angelic
- Aug 18, 2020
- 4,992
Or would it basically end in a dictatorship? I have this thought also when I think about certain climate change groups. They seemingly want to achieve their goals no matter what. Of course not all climate change activists are like that.
What do you think about antinatalists? I don't have much insider knowledge about the movement. I don't even know whether one should call it a movement or not? However I could imagine some antinatalists think this goal is very essential and should be achieve by almost any? means. There is also this thought experiment would you press the red button if all humans would disappear then. Without pain or something like that. It is really years ago I read about it. But I think David Benatar said he would not do it. I am not sure whether my memories are correct. But I think the line of argumentation was humans who already live often want to go on living. And ending their life would be therefore immoral. But this thought experiment is not part of antinatalism.
The question I had in mind is how could antinatalism be practically implemented. Personally I was once very convinced about antinatalism. Now I am not that sure anymore. I have some doubts for example about the implementation process. However I have to say I am absolutely convinced that I never want to procreate and in my case I think procreation would probably be immoral. I am just not sure whether no parents shoul procreate. I mean if the parents are very smart, have good genes, live in a wealthy and secure country, are wealthy themselves I think maybe procreation would not be that bad in this example. Even though one could argument due to the fact there is capitalism on this planet the rich are always living at the expense of poor people. And in most cases one perpetuates an evil and unfair system. It is very complicated but this is not fully the core of this thread.
I want to elaborate on the implementation process. How do you think should antinatalism be implemented? There are for sure some antinatalists here. Maybe you don't even want that this philosophy spreads and rather think of it as a personal choice. However some would probably argue that this debate has to be fought with the best arguments. And other people should be convinced by persuasive arguments. Some people (not sure how many) might even argument for the implementation by force. Or that it should be discussed for example in schools.
I have doubts about the implementation of antinatalism. I think I am against force as a mean. So I would go for arguments. I think climate antinatalism becomes more and more popular. Not the moral approach which I often read here in this forum. With the argument life often consists of suffering. There is more bad than good in life etc. I am pretty sure due to the fact procreation is a human instinct one could never persuade all humans not to procreate. I don't have any clue how many people would become antinatalists if it was discussed frequently in school. So the end of humankind could probably never be achieved if the means were simply arguments.
There are some practical problems. My country already has way too many old people who want their pensions and way too less young people who work. My solution would be more (well-regulated)I immigration of new people. However there are some problems. Many people would not want that many foreigners and maybe/ probably it would be counterproductive for societies to have such a huge amount of migrants. One could argument maybe AI can replace most workers. (A naive hope which I have). So this argument is not my main concern.
My biggest concern is the following. Maybe the wrong people would stop to procreate. This argument is touchy because one can interpret as racist, anti-poor people, anti people with bad genes, anti people with low IQ etc. So I rather circumvent some elaborations on these details. I don't have enough knowledge to make a nuance statement on it. One could say there are poor, disabled, with very low IQ people who enjoy life. And this does not mean the people must have horrible lives. But personally I think these traits usually mean more obstacles . And there are not that few people who basically break when facing such conditions. Misery, pain and daily suffering can be the result of it. Many people on here are broken people like me. And there is not much/ enough help from the society for them.
Now to the core of my core argument. The wrong people stop to procreate. There are certain considerations which demand moral thinking and self-reflection when making the decision to procreate or not. I think there are porbably some good arguments why this earth does not need even more humans. But if the educated and smart people stop to procreate who will raise the new generation? However this does not mean only idiots without moralitiy would procreate. But when antinatalism would really become very popular I would be scared about that effect. When most people who procreate would not care about the environment the new generations would be trained to be even more selfish. Parents often influence their children a lot. Maybe there would be a lack of parents who teach their kids ethics, important values, human rights etc. I mean one can argument for sure is already a huge lack of responsible parents on this planet.
One could also talk about the relative amount of pain and the absolute pain which are the results of procreating. Maybe there is more absolute pain when one procreates. But the child can still help other people or the society with paying taxes. As I said young people are desperately needed in many countries.
So I think this thread is a little bit long. But I think the topic might be popular in this forum. And I wanted to make a nuanced stance on it.
How would you implement antinatalism? Or maybe you think this philosophy is stupid?
What do you think about antinatalists? I don't have much insider knowledge about the movement. I don't even know whether one should call it a movement or not? However I could imagine some antinatalists think this goal is very essential and should be achieve by almost any? means. There is also this thought experiment would you press the red button if all humans would disappear then. Without pain or something like that. It is really years ago I read about it. But I think David Benatar said he would not do it. I am not sure whether my memories are correct. But I think the line of argumentation was humans who already live often want to go on living. And ending their life would be therefore immoral. But this thought experiment is not part of antinatalism.
The question I had in mind is how could antinatalism be practically implemented. Personally I was once very convinced about antinatalism. Now I am not that sure anymore. I have some doubts for example about the implementation process. However I have to say I am absolutely convinced that I never want to procreate and in my case I think procreation would probably be immoral. I am just not sure whether no parents shoul procreate. I mean if the parents are very smart, have good genes, live in a wealthy and secure country, are wealthy themselves I think maybe procreation would not be that bad in this example. Even though one could argument due to the fact there is capitalism on this planet the rich are always living at the expense of poor people. And in most cases one perpetuates an evil and unfair system. It is very complicated but this is not fully the core of this thread.
I want to elaborate on the implementation process. How do you think should antinatalism be implemented? There are for sure some antinatalists here. Maybe you don't even want that this philosophy spreads and rather think of it as a personal choice. However some would probably argue that this debate has to be fought with the best arguments. And other people should be convinced by persuasive arguments. Some people (not sure how many) might even argument for the implementation by force. Or that it should be discussed for example in schools.
I have doubts about the implementation of antinatalism. I think I am against force as a mean. So I would go for arguments. I think climate antinatalism becomes more and more popular. Not the moral approach which I often read here in this forum. With the argument life often consists of suffering. There is more bad than good in life etc. I am pretty sure due to the fact procreation is a human instinct one could never persuade all humans not to procreate. I don't have any clue how many people would become antinatalists if it was discussed frequently in school. So the end of humankind could probably never be achieved if the means were simply arguments.
There are some practical problems. My country already has way too many old people who want their pensions and way too less young people who work. My solution would be more (well-regulated)I immigration of new people. However there are some problems. Many people would not want that many foreigners and maybe/ probably it would be counterproductive for societies to have such a huge amount of migrants. One could argument maybe AI can replace most workers. (A naive hope which I have). So this argument is not my main concern.
My biggest concern is the following. Maybe the wrong people would stop to procreate. This argument is touchy because one can interpret as racist, anti-poor people, anti people with bad genes, anti people with low IQ etc. So I rather circumvent some elaborations on these details. I don't have enough knowledge to make a nuance statement on it. One could say there are poor, disabled, with very low IQ people who enjoy life. And this does not mean the people must have horrible lives. But personally I think these traits usually mean more obstacles . And there are not that few people who basically break when facing such conditions. Misery, pain and daily suffering can be the result of it. Many people on here are broken people like me. And there is not much/ enough help from the society for them.
Now to the core of my core argument. The wrong people stop to procreate. There are certain considerations which demand moral thinking and self-reflection when making the decision to procreate or not. I think there are porbably some good arguments why this earth does not need even more humans. But if the educated and smart people stop to procreate who will raise the new generation? However this does not mean only idiots without moralitiy would procreate. But when antinatalism would really become very popular I would be scared about that effect. When most people who procreate would not care about the environment the new generations would be trained to be even more selfish. Parents often influence their children a lot. Maybe there would be a lack of parents who teach their kids ethics, important values, human rights etc. I mean one can argument for sure is already a huge lack of responsible parents on this planet.
One could also talk about the relative amount of pain and the absolute pain which are the results of procreating. Maybe there is more absolute pain when one procreates. But the child can still help other people or the society with paying taxes. As I said young people are desperately needed in many countries.
So I think this thread is a little bit long. But I think the topic might be popular in this forum. And I wanted to make a nuanced stance on it.
How would you implement antinatalism? Or maybe you think this philosophy is stupid?