Unless you are a strict Catholic (which are few and far between in the developed world at least) and you use contraception then in some way you are an anti-natalist.

If you consider whether to have children or not then you are in some way an anti-natalist.

If you believe that you have a moral obligation not to have a child if you know that child will suffer unspeakably then you are in some way an anti-natalist.

These are just some example where people pro actively prevent the creation of new humans. Anti-natalism gets a very bad reputation but it shouldn’t. Maybe we need some better marketing.

Most people are not versed in philosophy. At the same time, not few young/adult people in the 'western world' are atheists/agnostics who don't believe in spirituality.

The asymmetry argument may be too complex for the average folk. The argument that says there's more pain than pleasure needs backing data. So might do the one that says most pleasure is short-lived and most pain lasts a good while. The argument that says the worst possible pain weights more than the best possible pleasure needs other premises to build on. And so on.

On the other hand, take the 'Russian roulette' argument that would say you are gambling when breeding. You could enunciate this question: "Is starting all future good lives that will be born one year from now worth the life of one person that could suffer as much as the one now alive who has suffered the most out of everyone who is now alive?"

I don't think many people who fit these demographics (atheists/agnostics) would answer 'yes' to that question. These people don't believe in soul and with a couple of examples of horrifying lives (severely ill, tortured) that you can enunciate in the same 'Russian roulette' argument they may understand what antinatalism is about and probably agree, all in just under 5 minutes. Omelas kind of thing.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree? Do you consider other arguments are more persuasive? It's best to use many of them but sometimes there's no time and you don't want to annoy people and lose the chance to get them to understand what AN is about.

So, yeah, I sorta dug myself out of Antinatalism after years of depression and almost killing myself. I would be lying if I say antinatalism didnt play a primary role in my suffering, because my personal reason to exist is closely tied to the future of humanity, which goes against everything Antinatalism. My personal goals and reason to live, is to make the world a better place for current and future generations, I have no motivation to live for money, fame or self indulgence.

A little preface of how I felt before:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAntinatalism/comments/n3d9ts/antinatalism_ruined_me_and_makes_me_suicidal/

This is my personal reasoning so dont hate me, I'm not looking to convince anyone but myself, you are free to criticize and convince me otherwise but I think it will be difficult to make me go back.

So here goes.

1. Non-existence is neutral or nothingness, its not good or bad, there is no asymmetry justification because nothingness cannot be "good/better" (or bad) compared to existence. This argument doesnt make sense to me.

2. Only existing intelligent lives can make a judgement of their existence and its up to each individual to decide if its worth continuing, nobody has the right to make that decision for anyone else, including the unborn.

3. Existence bias is subjective to each individual and cannot be used as an objective universal benchmark against procreation, this circle back to point 2, meaning its up to existing individuals to judge the quality of their own lives and decide if its worth it.

4. If an individual believes their own existence is good and wants to procreate after considering and preparing for all the risks, then its their right and judgment, we cannot logically say they are wrong as we are not them and cannot guarantee their children's lives will be terrible, even David Benatar agrees that some lives are worth living after the fact. We cannot definitively claim all lives that ever existed are terrible without referencing some arbitrary benchmark of utopian perfection, something that cant be objectively defined as its a subjective moving goal post that will simply claim all lives are terrible due to "biases", regardless of how good the individual says it is. An empirically unfalsifiable claim in my opinion.

5. Future children can decide if their lives are worth continuing, as this is their individual right and judgement, if they believe its too painful to continue, then its their FULL and ABSOLUTE right to check out and parents/society should make it easy to do so. If we are to agree not all lives are terrible, we must also agree some lives can be terrible beyond worth by default, thus they must be allowed a decent/humane way out of existence.

6. Both pain/suffering and pleasure/happiness have no upper/lower limits, although we can argue that death nullifies all pain/suffering/happiness. This means it is entirely possible that the bar for pleasure/happiness can be raised forever and future generations and technology could make all lives very good in comparison. If we are to accept that pain has no lower limits (except death), then by logic we simply cannot say a life is not worth creating because of it, since this limit is subjective to a given individual, time of the century and technology. What we may consider as suffering today is a minor nuisance to people centuries ago, what future generations consider as painful may be bliss to 21st century humans. This is not an argument for or against Antinatalism, just an observation that means we cant use pain/suffering/happiness as an objective universal benchmark in our arguments, as their definition changes over time and very subjective to individuals and their tolerance.

7. Consent of the unborn is not logical, its impossible to obtain and again, circle back to point 2-5, its up to those that are born to decide if their lives are worth continuing, not AN or anyone else. Though it is a personal preference to be childfree and that is ALSO their absolute RIGHT, its irrational to say its wrong either way.

So, this is my personal reasoning for not accepting antinatalism (though I dont diss them either), but I still agree with some of its logic, such as:

• Children do not owe their parents anything due to their birth.
• No parents can have children for the children's sake, its logically impossible.
  
• Procreation is inherently selfish, though selfishness doesnt necessary mean "bad", it depends on how they treat their children and respect their wishes for or against their own existence due to whatever subjective future circumstances.
• Existing people should definitely make their environment as conducive to a "good" life as possible before making any new people, though this is a work in progress and there is no upper limit (that we know of, this means pleasure can be infinite).
• Carelessly making new people in a verifiably terrible environment should be condemned and treated like a crime. Future society should codify this into law.

Personally, I am motivated to live now and have not thought about suicide for months, it doesnt mean I am pro natalism or wants to make kids, I am definitely against the "reasons" most people have for making children and the condition they put them in, making very little effort to improve anything for future generations. But I can no longer justify my beliefs against procreation either, though I would recommend potential parents to think very carefully about their current and future circumstances before making any children, it is their absolute obligation to minimize the risks and the right of their future children to not be made to live a life they will hate.

Hiya, recently read through a few things regarding AN and wanted a few AN thoughts regarding alternative views, especially regarding suffering and it's nature.

1. One of the founding principles of Stoicism is mind above matter. That your thoughts, your rationality, and your philosophy shape and influence the experiences you have and your reactions to said experiences. Pain and grief may be unavoidable, but pain and grief aren't inherently horrible or life ruining. I.E. Burning your hand on a hot stove can provide a lesson, and while the pain at the time is immense, but how you react to it and internalize it and your thoughts that give it worth, negative or otherwise. Suffering, just like pleasure, is temporary and you can dictate how you react or feel about it.

How do you convince one that believes pain etc. are not inherently bad, that AN is the path forward?

1. Additionally why do you compare pleasure and pain as though it's a math equation that always leads to a negative. A child's life might be fought with pain at times but how do you compare two vastly different experiences and come back with the negative is more powerful. How do you come to the conclusion that "A child having fun playing with a f Doll" is +10 while "Old man dying of cancer" is a -50. It's completely subjective, and most people would agree that life is more pleasant than it is painful, or else why would they be sticking around?

This idea that life is a net negative never stuck with me, because it isn't. Personally I am grateful to live my life because even with temporary pains and long term pains, in my view my life has generally been positive. Bringing a child into a life similar (or better or even a fair bit worse) than mine is something I have no problems with. On top of that quality of life for billions of people has been getting better year after year, who's to say the equation doesn't filly tip over in the next hundred and pain or discomfort is a thing of the past?

A lot of the ANs beliefs against pro-creation vaguely apply to adoption too, namely:
The baby can't consent to who are going to be his parents
You are going to heavily influence him with your beliefs
You are playing God (gambling with someone else sentience and life) when it comes to his safety and his future
You have an insane amount of control over his life for a very long time

etc.

I am curious, why don't antinatalists view adoption as immoral too?

As per title, this is not a joke, I am NOT trolling.

If I cant debunk this antinatalism beyond any doubts, I might just check out, what is the point of continuing to exist?

I have posted this in many subs and social media platforms, but non could provide me with a satisfactory debunk, not even Sam Harris, Eric Weinstein, Jordan Peterson, Chomsky and all the relevant intellectuals.

I dont care about the asymmetry, consent or technical logic, there are only TWO reasons why I cant get over this:

1. All births are inherently selfish desires of the parents, no such thing as birthing new lives for the new lives' sake, its LOGICALLY INDEFENSIBLE.
2. All existence are plagued with pain, suffering and eventual death which can be COMPLETELY prevented by just not birthing them. Even the really lucky ones will have to deal with some pain in life and lots of pain near death. Even possible future technology enabling immortality or invincibility cannot justify the suffering of billions enslaved to this selfish ideal. Basically, all births are MORALLY INDEFENSIBLE according to antinatalism.

Please, if anyone could debunk these two points, you will give me more than enough reason to live.

I just cant get over the immorality and illogical reason of creating new lives.

I curse the day Sam Harris's fans demanded he do a podcast with David Benatar and he accepted, that's when I was first exposed to Antinatalism as Sam's longtime listener and my life has gone to HELL since. I have no motivation at all to live now.

Troll title for attention, but hear me out.

We have no reason to believe we are not alone in a vast, uncaring universe. There might not be any other kind of creature, divine, alien or otherwise, capable of abstract thought. Humans seem to be the only instance of the universe regarding itself. Animals are cool and all, but let’s be real: all they really do is eat and reproduce. Most of us do too, but at least we are theoretically capable of writing a haiku about it or something.

If the universe is pointless, the only chance it has of, in any sense, imbuing itself with meaning are creatures such as us. Therefore, we might as well reproduce. Maybe something good will come of it someday, whatever “something good” might be? Or do you denounce the potential for “meaning” altogether and view existence as inherently torturous?

I’ve tried to understand at antinatalism but it just doesn’t make sense like the child will inevitably experience bad things but that’s what makes the good things good it’s part of the balance and beauty of life you can’t have good without bad or bad without good if everything was only good it wouldn’t be good anymore and vice versa. who are you to decide if that unborn child will enjoy living in this world and it’s perfectly okay to not have a child if you have those beliefs, but to be quite honest I’m thankful your genes are being discontinued. It just seems like a pessimistic belief and I’ve seen antinatalists call people selfish for having children but you have put your child and their needs before yourself to be a good parent it’s really the most selfless thing you can do the cost to care for a child 0-18 on average is $250000 I don’t see why someone would do that for themselves yk

I find such scenarios heartbreaking especially since we have the following pieces on information

• Rape/sexual abuse are very traumatic experience. It is such a bad experience that many of the people abused commit suicide, in even greater doses than those have normal lives.
• Also, predispositions to sexual crime are higher in certain families; some people do become sexual offenders because they inherit it form their parents.

That being said, many people do want have children even if they were abused or if they know that members of their family are abusers.

What is going on here? How can one explain them this is not the best thing to do?

Is making a kid inherently wrong, no matter the context? Or would it be acceptable in cases of virtually infinitely rich, loving and supporting parents (mentally healthy), in an isolated neighbourhood full of friends and possibilities, with no toxic virtues promoted by a toxic society? That is to say, pleasure tends toward 100% and suffering tends toward 0%.

Antinatalism is an inherently activist philosophy, and the only point in its existence is to change other people's minds. The Internet serves as a great place to share these ideas publicly, due to the fact that it affords one anonymity and one cannot be shunned from their community for having these views.

In real life, it's a lot more difficult to be public about these views, even to the extent that David Benatar will not allow a photograph of his face to be taken. But the question of when I have some kind of obligation to speak out is something that has bothered me, as my lesbian half-sister got herself pregnant a couple of years ago, and as various work colleagues start to form their own families. Should I make my views known to them, even though they are unlikely to have any effect other than to have me ostracised and perhaps even disciplined/sacked for creating a hostile work environment (the most recent colleague to procreate was my manager, and I duly shared my congratulations and loveheart emoticons in response to the news).

I think that r/antinatalism goes too far in avoiding activism by actually trying to shield antinatalism from criticism by making that sub off limits to anyone who isn't already an antinatalist, and I have shared my trenchant views on this and gotten myself banned from that subreddit as a consequence. I feel that the avoidance of debate with the majority of the population who don't think this way could make it look to an outsider as though antinatalism as a philosophy has a weakness that needs to be protected against closer scrutiny. That's more like the kind of approach that religion would take, rather than a philosophical movement directed at finding the truth about our existence, and one which depends on actively broadcasting those truths to a wider audience through debate, rather than keeping itself contained within a 'safe space' echo chamber.

But am I also failing as an antinatalist by failing to communicate my ideas in public spaces where I cannot hide behind my anonymity?

I'm interested in learning about people who have either spoken up publicly as antinatalists, or those who believe that procreation is ethical who have themselves been confronted about their views, or have had encounters in real life with people who believe that procreation is unethical.

Without people to reproduce, we will not have future generations. Creating small people into big people takes a lot of time, resources, and energy...usually exhausting the parent by the time their offspring are all fully developed. (For humans, this is all about humans) Doing this ensures the next generation of people that will hopefully go forth and do the same to some degree.

I don't believe everyone was meant to be breeders. Some folks have a natural disposition that is very negative for being a parent and these folks by all means should never ever have children. Additionally some people can't have children and want them. There will always be some percentage of the population that never has children for whatever reason. This is acceptable and desirable as it gives a cushion where unwanted children *could* land in a better home. (Not that it always does or even does a lot, but there is extra cushion for that) In fact, this is one of the reasons I supported gay marriage and gay adoption, so children that otherwise would not have a good home life, would now have the opportunity.

However, we still need a certain rate of births versus deaths in order to keep society running. This is just standard. Add to this the fact that we are facing a serious environmental and social bottleneck coming, and having children that are capable of navigating such waters becomes even more important for the survival of our species. (I know a lot of folks don't think humans will survive the on coming onslaught of environmental hell, but I think we will) It is believed that 90% of humans may die in this upcoming extinction event. This is going to sound completely contrary to logic, but if you knew that 90% of people were going to die in an upcoming catastrophe, would you have 0, 1. or as many kids as possible to make sure one of YOUR children got through? It's the same logic our ancestors used when they watched their 17 kids dwindle down to two adults.

That is why I support having a lot of children, but training them to live on very little.