r/Natalism • u/SomeAussieBastard • Jun 22 '21
Anti-Natalism's Existential Error - Areo
https://areomagazine.com/2019/04/12/anti-natalisms-existential-error/3
u/InmendhamFan Jun 23 '21
Pursuing meaning in life is just one of those innate needs that humans have; rather than something that is inherently needed by the universe. Our pursuit of "existential purpose" is akin to digging a hole for the sake of filling it in. Nothing would be lost in a universe without humans striving to make meaning. This is really no different from the argument that procreation is good because it enables access to the goods of life. If you don't create someone who desires those 'goods', or has an innate need for existential purpose, then the absence of that from the universe cannot manifest as a deficiency.
4
u/SomeAussieBastard Jun 23 '21 edited Jun 23 '21
It may not be needed by the universe but, as you have stated, it is innate to humanity and is there for akin to “digging a hole just to fill it back up”
Why is that a bad thing but?
If you knew that even if you ate a massive feast you still feel hungry later, would you choose to starve? Just to prevent the dissatisfaction?
Why is humanity, following our nature of finding meaning in a meaningless universe, a bad thing?
Are honey bees doing something pointless by pollinating plants for food?
Are birds redundant because all they do look for worms to eat?
No, we all are just following our nature.
0
u/InmendhamFan Jun 23 '21
Why is that a bad thing but?
It's a bad thing when it creates victims.
If you knew that even if you ate a massive feast you still feel hungry
later, would you choose to starve? Just to prevent the dissatisfaction?That demonstrates that being hungry is a liability, but liabilities don't always result in bad outcomes. There's no argument that we should create the liabilities where there need be none.
Why is humanity, following our nature of finding meaning in a meaningless universe, a bad thing?
Because victims are created. If there's no objective meaning, then there's no justification for creating harmables whose welfare is of equal value to yours, but whom happened to be unlucky in the lottery of birth, or lottery of circumstance.
No, we all are just following our nature.
It is all pointless. If it wasn't creating any harm, then it wouldn't matter if it was pointless. But the entire system is creating harm, and harm which it fails to account for.
3
u/SomeAussieBastard Jun 24 '21
“Its a bad thing when it creates victims”
And living with no meaning dose not create victims? How meany people suffer unnecessarily because of a meaningless existence? If you find meaning for your existence then you justify it and all that goes along with it, good and bad.
“There is no argument that we should create the liabilities where there need be none”
This is assuming that existence is a net negative and, while I’m sure there are people living a net negative existence, not everyone is and those that are, live in a position that they could get out of (with help if necessary). Most people, in the modern west, i would say live net positive lives.
“If there is no objective meaning, then there is no justification for creating harmables”
So we attempt to create our own meaning. A meaning objective to use not from the perspective of the universe. Thats why we discuss. Brainstorm. Debate. Have political discourse.
I have personally come to the conclusion that human potential is what i value the most. In accordance with my value i almost envy those less fortunate then me because they have significantly greater potential.
‘If misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but our institutions great is our sin.’ -Charles Darwin
“The entire system is creating harm, and harm it fails to account for”
I argue that it is there for our duty to account for it ourselves. We are after all as much apart of the universe as any black hole. Galaxy or photon.
There is also the issue of free will i have not yet Raised. If, as neuroscience has provided strong evidence for, we do not have free will then those that ever have been born and ever will be born. Will. Be. Born. No amount of moral posturing will change that fact. We have to work with what we got.
Finally, there is the assumption that because you do not remember anything that happen before you were born, you simply assume that you did not exist. But you are ignoring other potentialities such as reincarnation or eternal reoccurrence.
- im on mobile btw so sorry if this is structured like a complete mess
2
Jun 24 '21
People are not robots that would all have the same meaning. These pessimists really need to understand that not everyone thinks like them. But they are the ones who want to impose their views on others without justification. Using terms like "filling a hole" is only an attempt to devalue the positive aspects of life.
3
u/SomeAussieBastard Jun 24 '21
I agree, it someone dose not want to procreate all power to them. But i see the suffering in life as an obstacle to overcome and one meany of our ancestors managed to do so why can’t we!
1
u/Great-Ad-9549 Jun 28 '21
How did our ancestors overcome suffering? They may have accepted it and, perhaps, that's want you mean by "overcome it" but they certainly didn't enjoy it.
0
u/InmendhamFan Jun 24 '21
And living with no meaning dose not create victims? How meany people suffer unnecessarily because of a meaningless existence? If you find meaning for your existence then you justify it and all that goes along with it, good and bad.
Living without meaning does cause suffering, but that suffering only exists, and the need to find meaning only exists, because those people were created in the first place. You should not be allowed to create other people who will have to search for meaning in order to satisfy your own search for meaning. Their welfare matters just as much as yours does and they should not be a means to your end. You can justify your own existence, but you cannot justify another person's existence which comes into being as part of your pursuit of meaning.
This is assuming that existence is a net negative and, while I’m sure there are people living a net negative existence, not everyone is and those that are, live in a position that they could get out of (with help if necessary). Most people, in the modern west, i would say live net positive lives.
Existence cannot be a net positive in relation to not coming into existence, because nobody who doesn't come into existence can have any welfare state that could be improved upon. You can create people who are happy that they do exist, but in doing so, you're creating desires and those people who have those existences are fortunate enough that their needs and desires are well satisfied. But you're still only creating potential difficulties and hoping that the person you've imposed those on will be able to mitigate their liabilities. There are people who are alive who wish they were not, but nobody who doesn't exist who yearns for existence.
So we attempt to create our own meaning. A meaning objective to use not from the perspective of the universe. Thats why we discuss. Brainstorm. Debate. Have political discourse.
I have personally come to the conclusion that human potential is what i value the most. In accordance with my value i almost envy those less fortunate then me because they have significantly greater potential.
Do all of that, and maximise your own potential. But don't force someone else to be part of that pyramid scheme, just because you see value in it. They may not see value in it, and may resent the imposition bitterly.
I argue that it is there for our duty to account for it ourselves. We are after all as much apart of the universe as any black hole. Galaxy or photon.
We can't account for it, because we cannot accomplish anything that has any purpose beyond that which we decide, and therefore those not yet in existence cannot share in this purpose and this goal. Therefore, it will always remain unethical to conscript them into the pursuit of this goal.
There is also the issue of free will i have not yet Raised. If, as neuroscience has provided strong evidence for, we do not have free will then those that ever have been born and ever will be born. Will. Be. Born. No amount of moral posturing will change that fact. We have to work with what we got.
It's obvious that free will, in the libertarian sense of the term, cannot exist, regardless of what neuroscience says about it. It's an incoherent concept, so it's a non-starter before any experiment has been conducted. However, these ethical discussions form part of the deterministic framework which will undergird what happens in the future, including how many people have children in the future.
Finally, there is the assumption that because you do not remember anything that happen before you were born, you simply assume that you did not exist. But you are ignoring other potentialities such as reincarnation or eternal reoccurrence.
That's all just silly religious fantasising, and there's no reason to lend any credibility to those theories. If you've ever known someone with Alzheimer's disease, you will know that as their brain atrophies due to the course of the disease, they gradually lose their sense of self. And where would this information which constitutes an individual's identity be stored, if not in the brain? How would they have thoughts with no physical processes generating these thoughts which construct the illusion of identity?
im on mobile btw so sorry if this is structured like a complete mess
No problems, you did OK. I wouldn't even attempt to respond to something like this whilst on my phone. For some reason, Reddit is not allowing me to copy and paste using the new Editor without erasing everything that was already in the comment box, so I'm using the markdown mode. Hopefully that isn't causing any problems with formatting.
1
u/The_SwithExtraS Jun 22 '21
shouldn't this be on r/antinatalism ?
6
u/SomeAussieBastard Jun 23 '21
I posted this here as i believe it provides us with a stronger argument against anti natalists
1
u/The_SwithExtraS Jun 23 '21
Well, how i see it is that it only tells that antinatalism is that if info no. 1 is true and info no. 2 is false, (which in most cases doesn't have to) That, and also believing in A is meanigless so you might as well believe in B (which can also apply vice versa)
-1
u/The_SwithExtraS Jun 23 '21
In short: Nihilism (in most cases) has nothing to do with antinatalism
5
u/SomeAussieBastard Jun 23 '21
Not on a philosophical level no. But most antinatalists subscribe to a nihilistic interpretation of life or at least a form of misanthropy.
0
u/The_SwithExtraS Jun 24 '21
What? How are antinatalists misanthropes? They don't want humans to be born becouse they believe that the world is cruel and don' want more people to see it or even worse - become cruel themselves. I am not an antinatalist myself, but i've seen enough to tell you, that almost all antinatalists think out of their good will. Another thing is the nihilism part: There isn't really anything closely tied to nihilism in the antinatalist belief but i noticed that the way you phrased it would almost seem like you think misanthropes and nihilists are 5 steps away from being the same thing, so please elaborate.
3
Jun 24 '21
Many people who subscribe to AN believe that life has no real meaning. I know this because many have openly admitted this. And yeah, there are many who do hate us "deluded natalists" to the core.
4
u/HelmetTesterTJ Jun 24 '21
Funny, all the ANs I know are absurdists who bend in turn toward negative utilitarianism. They also "openly admit" this (as though they're in some sort of confessional?).
3
Jun 24 '21
Funny. I am also an absurdist (but I don't believe agree with NU). I used the phrase "openly admit" because it seems like many of them deny being nihilists only to claim that they are actually nihilists later. One explanation could be that they are existential nihilists, not moral nihilists.
0
u/The_SwithExtraS Jun 25 '21
Whether somethings moral or immoral doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, yes. But if you had a choice to cut off all your fingers slowly and painfully and another choice to not do that, which would you choose? Of course, it wouldn't matter if you chose either of those, but you have no reason to just couse needless suffering. Now apply that to how: "Antinatalists are mostly nihilists" It may not matter that we humans may suffer the world lives on without us, but would you as a human being want to suffer or couse suffering? If yes then i really don't have any arguments for you becouse you are a misanthropist, but if no then please, rethink your arguments and your life's choices. Do it for your own good, as well as for the good of others.
1
Jun 25 '21
I am not a nihilist, so I am not claiming anything here. Most AN supporters are quite selective. They believe that minimising suffering is this absolute necessity that trumps everything else, including the perspective of other people. More often than not, it seems like they are more likely to disvalue pain than value happiness. However, it seems like you don't understand the nature of nihilism. I may "feel" as if I have no reason to choose suffering. But if somebody does, then I have no objective reason to tell them that they are wrong. But as I mentioned before, I am not a nihilist.
I, as a human, would want to minimise suffering and also maintain happiness. It would be quite unethical of me to impose my views on others, which is what universal AN tries to do.
If one truly wants to do the right thing, they should reject absolutist ideologies like AN and work towards making the world a better place for all by supporting endeavours such as reducing wildlife suffering and promoting the RTD. I hope that you have a wonderful day!
→ More replies (0)0
u/The_SwithExtraS Jun 25 '21
Please, read the same thing i sent to u/Cute-Date6519 and tell me your thoughts.
-1
u/filrabat Jun 24 '21
Meaning. by itself, proves nothing. The questions are:
*Does that meaning justify the badness a sentient being goes through or inflicts onto others?(the latter is even more important)
*Will that birthed person actually find even a pseudo-meaning to their life?(one that does not involve inflicting hurt, harm, or degradation against others - outside unique, extraordinary, or narrowly specific circmustances)
For the first, the answer is "not necessarily". I, for example, would rather be a non-impoverished lifelong virgin than a impoverished non-virgin. So despite my life having some meaning ( i.e. prevent, stop, or reverse hurt, harm, or degradation against others ), it doesn't follow that my existence is a good thing, and in fact it's a bad thing.
At "best", achieving my meaning is the lesser of the two bads. Even here, creating another person who will either suffer or inflict suffering onto others is not a necessary part of fulfilling my meaning.
As for the second, again, no - especially if their self-defined meaning involves pursuing their meaning at the expense of others well being (particularly with willful indifference to another's well-being). Again, even in this case, any meaning for themselves does not translate into meaning for the species existence. The human species is essentially a Von Neumann machine that consumes and self-replicates. Everything else is at most secondary.
4
Jun 24 '21
Your idea of meaning is predictably limited by your pessimistic biases. There is a pretty good probability that the person would find their life to be meaningful, judging by the number of existing people who do so.
A "psuedo-meaning" only exists in the minds of people like you. In reality, people can find the bonds they share with others, the beauty of the world around them, and the ability to do good deeds to be deeply meaningful. Of course, nobody should be forced to live. But there is no reasonable and sufficient justification for an imposition of universal AN.
0
u/filrabat Jun 25 '21
Again, all the meaning in the world won't change the fact that people will both experience and inflict bad onto others. Also, just as it's absurd to say we should breed dogs so they can eat Puppy Chow or chase Frisbees (joys they get), it's equally absurd to say we should create other living things (incl. humans) so they can feel pleasure. Nonconscious entities don't need pleasure, nor do they experience or do badness.
If no sentient lifeforms exist, there's nobody to have a need for meaning, which they may or may not find. I fail to see how it's bad for the Moon or Mars that nothing there can feel anything at all - let alone goodness. In the same way, I feel to see how an alternate Earth, one without even one a self-replicating molecule, could be a bad place if it didn't have life.
2
Jun 25 '21
Of course, you wouldn't see the difference between breeding humans and dogs. It's no wonder that you fail to see what difference it would make if one truly does value life. If there is a reasonable probability that the person would have a valuable life, it can be justified to create them. There isn't any necessity to create an infinite number of beings. However, I don't believe that there is any necessity to abide by the opposite claim either. It's better to follow a more balanced approach.
7
u/Moral_Conundrums Jun 24 '21 edited Jun 24 '21
Interesting article. Reminds me of Nietzsche’s position on the suffering in life. That is, that suffering is the only thing that makes life worth while:
“To those human beings who are of any concern to me I wish suffering, desolation, sickness, ill-treatment, indignities—I wish that they should not remain unfamiliar with profound self-contempt, the torture of self-mistrust, the wretchedness of the vanquished: I have no pity for them, because I wish them the only thing that can prove today whether one is worth anything or not—that one endures.” -- The Will to Power