lostundead
Student
- Mar 18, 2021
- 192
First of all I would consider myself to be a theoretical/metaphysical antinatalist. Meaning if I take a step back and look at the world with all the laws of nature that we are bound to forever, I can with utmost certainty conclude that it would be better if life never came into existence and if there was a peacful way to put an end to this, that would be great. Even if we were to reach a state of utopia at some point in the future that still wouldnt justify all the suffering of humans in the past, who dont get to partake in that utopia. Moreover there will always be a chance that we return to a state of suffering again.
Now, the issue for me arises when you take antinatalism into the practical realm: This philosophy is built on the maxim that we should do everything in our power to minimize all suffering in the world right? If everyone lived by that, they would come to the same conclusion that having children is immoral. This "ideal scenario", where everyone would suddenly stop having children however, would turn the world into a complete hellhole, which would force people to have children again, en masse.
Of course that scenario would never happen so lets go through a much more realistic one real quick: The only people who would even listen to antinatalist arguments and have the will to put them into practice are those with high IQs and good morality which are exactly the people we need more of, in order to reduce suffering on this planet. The most ignorant fools on the other hand will just keep spreading like flies and their intelligence and morality will prevail. Thus the cycle continues...
So whats even the point of advocating for antinatalism? I really dont see how it could reduce suffering in the long run.
Now, the issue for me arises when you take antinatalism into the practical realm: This philosophy is built on the maxim that we should do everything in our power to minimize all suffering in the world right? If everyone lived by that, they would come to the same conclusion that having children is immoral. This "ideal scenario", where everyone would suddenly stop having children however, would turn the world into a complete hellhole, which would force people to have children again, en masse.
Of course that scenario would never happen so lets go through a much more realistic one real quick: The only people who would even listen to antinatalist arguments and have the will to put them into practice are those with high IQs and good morality which are exactly the people we need more of, in order to reduce suffering on this planet. The most ignorant fools on the other hand will just keep spreading like flies and their intelligence and morality will prevail. Thus the cycle continues...
So whats even the point of advocating for antinatalism? I really dont see how it could reduce suffering in the long run.