The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Nemo
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: November 1st, 2019, 10:30 am

is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by Nemo » November 1st, 2019, 11:02 am

Hi everyone, recently I was thinking about antinatalism and is it actually moral to have kids?

I want to say from the beginning that I've always wanted to have kids, to teach them everything, give them love and all my knowledge. You know, standard crap like "give them a better life that I had". Buy antinatalism gives me very important questions, that I cannot just ignore. Otherwise I would be a very stupid person.

The general idea is that having kids is immoral, because life is full of suffering and pain, no matter what. Even if they have heavenly like life, I can't guarantee that. And if they doesn't exist, they don't care. Literally million of kids right now could be born, but no one cares. And neither those unborn kids. So why would I want to bring one to existence? I like the Schopenhauer's idea of "Devil's laughter", about our natural need to procreate. I think that antinatalism is based on weak foundations of moral ethics, which change over time and culture that we live in.

They say that producing offspring is immoral, immoral equals bad, and what is bad? It's generally speaking an act against some code of ethics. But there are plenty of those, so which should I choose? For example, I can say, that living according to nature is the only good and moral way of living. And what's more natural than having sex and making as many babies as one can? I think, or rather, I know that I want those kids for purely selfish reasons.

I want to be some kind of sculptor, or one could say I'm playing a God, to try to create something by my own, to shape it to my will. This complete control of someone's life, at least in first few years of someone's life. But being selfish, necessarily means bad? You just want what's best for your kids.
I think it's all about, what's more important to you. Is it a logical argument about pros and cons of some act, or this natural need to give love, to be immortal on some way, as I believe Plato would say (it could be someone else, I don't recall XD). I wanted to hear others opinion about this topic to destroy my viewpoint and call me a bad person for wanting kids XD

Hope for fruitful debate!

Steve3007
Posts: 5999
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by Steve3007 » November 2nd, 2019, 10:48 am

Nemo wrote:The general idea is that having kids is immoral, because life is full of suffering and pain, no matter what.
Woody Allen wrote:There's an old joke. Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of them says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions." Well, that's essentially how I feel about life - full of loneliness, and misery, and suffering, and unhappiness, and it's all over much too quickly.
I have two kids. Since that's exactly the right number to replace me and their mother, and no more, I don't feel overly guilty on the grounds of overpopulation. Regarding the issue of the pain and suffering that they might well suffer at some point, I defer to the likes of Woody Allen (the 1970's Woody Allen from Annie Hall, before we knew all the stuff we now know about people from the 1970's.)

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 748
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by h_k_s » November 3rd, 2019, 2:00 am

Steve3007 wrote:
November 2nd, 2019, 10:48 am
Nemo wrote:The general idea is that having kids is immoral, because life is full of suffering and pain, no matter what.
Woody Allen wrote:There's an old joke. Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of them says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions." Well, that's essentially how I feel about life - full of loneliness, and misery, and suffering, and unhappiness, and it's all over much too quickly.
I have two kids. Since that's exactly the right number to replace me and their mother, and no more, I don't feel overly guilty on the grounds of overpopulation. Regarding the issue of the pain and suffering that they might well suffer at some point, I defer to the likes of Woody Allen (the 1970's Woody Allen from Annie Hall, before we knew all the stuff we now know about people from the 1970's.)
If couples only have 2 kids, then the population will actually decrease. This is due to accidental deaths, disease, war, crime, etc.

Statistically you need to have 3 kids to break even. Google it and see.

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 748
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by h_k_s » November 3rd, 2019, 2:03 am

Nemo wrote:
November 1st, 2019, 11:02 am
Hi everyone, recently I was thinking about antinatalism and is it actually moral to have kids?

I want to say from the beginning that I've always wanted to have kids, to teach them everything, give them love and all my knowledge. You know, standard crap like "give them a better life that I had". Buy antinatalism gives me very important questions, that I cannot just ignore. Otherwise I would be a very stupid person.

The general idea is that having kids is immoral, because life is full of suffering and pain, no matter what. Even if they have heavenly like life, I can't guarantee that. And if they doesn't exist, they don't care. Literally million of kids right now could be born, but no one cares. And neither those unborn kids. So why would I want to bring one to existence? I like the Schopenhauer's idea of "Devil's laughter", about our natural need to procreate. I think that antinatalism is based on weak foundations of moral ethics, which change over time and culture that we live in.

They say that producing offspring is immoral, immoral equals bad, and what is bad? It's generally speaking an act against some code of ethics. But there are plenty of those, so which should I choose? For example, I can say, that living according to nature is the only good and moral way of living. And what's more natural than having sex and making as many babies as one can? I think, or rather, I know that I want those kids for purely selfish reasons.

I want to be some kind of sculptor, or one could say I'm playing a God, to try to create something by my own, to shape it to my will. This complete control of someone's life, at least in first few years of someone's life. But being selfish, necessarily means bad? You just want what's best for your kids.
I think it's all about, what's more important to you. Is it a logical argument about pros and cons of some act, or this natural need to give love, to be immortal on some way, as I believe Plato would say (it could be someone else, I don't recall XD). I wanted to hear others opinion about this topic to destroy my viewpoint and call me a bad person for wanting kids XD

Hope for fruitful debate!
What's to debate?

Your "anti-natalism" sounds more like extreme pessimism and chronic depression to me.

The population is growing fast and furiously enough however to more than make up for all the priests, nuns, and other de facto celebrates who do not end up having kids.

No worries then, as Johnny Depp would say, in Pirates Of The Caribbean.

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 303
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by Papus79 » November 3rd, 2019, 9:29 pm

I think one of the better arguments against this has been that the last generation under such circumstances would live such horrible lives that the intended prevention of pain and suffering would catch back up full circle in the end (depends I guess what your expectation on the longevity of the human species is) and the other - you'd have to have something beyond a human regime to implement that, like a global pandemic bug that sterilized every man woman and child without exception - short of that it's like trying to get people to not eat, drink, or breathe.

User avatar
Nemo
New Trial Member
Posts: 2
Joined: November 1st, 2019, 10:30 am

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by Nemo » November 4th, 2019, 8:31 am

h_k_s wrote:
November 3rd, 2019, 2:03 am
Nemo wrote:
November 1st, 2019, 11:02 am
Hi everyone, recently I was thinking about antinatalism and is it actually moral to have kids?

I want to say from the beginning that I've always wanted to have kids, to teach them everything, give them love and all my knowledge. You know, standard crap like "give them a better life that I had". Buy antinatalism gives me very important questions, that I cannot just ignore. Otherwise I would be a very stupid person.

The general idea is that having kids is immoral, because life is full of suffering and pain, no matter what. Even if they have heavenly like life, I can't guarantee that. And if they doesn't exist, they don't care. Literally million of kids right now could be born, but no one cares. And neither those unborn kids. So why would I want to bring one to existence? I like the Schopenhauer's idea of "Devil's laughter", about our natural need to procreate. I think that antinatalism is based on weak foundations of moral ethics, which change over time and culture that we live in.

They say that producing offspring is immoral, immoral equals bad, and what is bad? It's generally speaking an act against some code of ethics. But there are plenty of those, so which should I choose? For example, I can say, that living according to nature is the only good and moral way of living. And what's more natural than having sex and making as many babies as one can? I think, or rather, I know that I want those kids for purely selfish reasons.

I want to be some kind of sculptor, or one could say I'm playing a God, to try to create something by my own, to shape it to my will. This complete control of someone's life, at least in first few years of someone's life. But being selfish, necessarily means bad? You just want what's best for your kids.
I think it's all about, what's more important to you. Is it a logical argument about pros and cons of some act, or this natural need to give love, to be immortal on some way, as I believe Plato would say (it could be someone else, I don't recall XD). I wanted to hear others opinion about this topic to destroy my viewpoint and call me a bad person for wanting kids XD

Hope for fruitful debate!
What's to debate?

Your "anti-natalism" sounds more like extreme pessimism and chronic depression to me.

The population is growing fast and furiously enough however to more than make up for all the priests, nuns, and other de facto celebrates who do not end up having kids.

No worries then, as Johnny Depp would say, in Pirates Of The Caribbean.
I think you misunderstand this philosophy, it has nothing to do with overpopulation, or depressed thoughts. Just an argument of
which state is better. Existence or non-existence, but it doesn't talk about suicide, if ur already alive, just live to the fullest. And it's hard to argue that existence is better.
Papus79 wrote:
November 3rd, 2019, 9:29 pm
I think one of the better arguments against this has been that the last generation under such circumstances would live such horrible lives that the intended prevention of pain and suffering would catch back up full circle in the end (depends I guess what your expectation on the longevity of the human species is) and the other - you'd have to have something beyond a human regime to implement that, like a global pandemic bug that sterilized every man woman and child without exception - short of that it's like trying to get people to not eat, drink, or breathe.
You have a point. Reality that antinatalists propose is kind of utopian and will strongly backfire on last generation, that doesn't have younger people to support them. And it will be impossible to convince whole human population for this plan. I guess if it's impossible, then you can just go on making kids

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3757
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by LuckyR » November 4th, 2019, 1:03 pm

The ideas proposed by the OP suffer from an unrealistic view of life. That is that life should have no negatives, therefore since that is obviously not the case, why live?

I understand that if utopia is going to exist anywhere, the mind of a philosopher is going to be the most likely, so the question is predictable, but the answer is clearly where it should be, in the decision making mind of the individual.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Papus79
Posts: 303
Joined: February 19th, 2017, 6:59 pm

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by Papus79 » November 4th, 2019, 1:27 pm

Nemo wrote:
November 4th, 2019, 8:31 am
You have a point. Reality that antinatalists propose is kind of utopian and will strongly backfire on last generation, that doesn't have younger people to support them. And it will be impossible to convince whole human population for this plan. I guess if it's impossible, then you can just go on making kids
I think where antinatalists do have a point - the searing agony of life, on average as our world stands, isn't justifiable. That it's an entertainable position at all should at least shake us out of any complaisant stupor with respect to problems that need to be solved.

Steve3007
Posts: 5999
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by Steve3007 » November 5th, 2019, 4:51 am

h_k_s wrote:If couples only have 2 kids, then the population will actually decrease. This is due to accidental deaths, disease, war, crime, etc.

Statistically you need to have 3 kids to break even. Google it and see.
Yes, I realise that. I think that, as far as global sustainability of the environment is concerned, a gentle, not precipitative, decline in human population is just what the doctor ordered. But I won't pretend that's why I have two kids. I guess that's just a lucky accident.

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3028
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by Felix » November 5th, 2019, 12:11 pm

Actually, human fertility rated are declining precipitously, apparently due to environmental pollutants such as the pseudo-estrogenic compounds in plastics that we are drowning in - so we are inadvertently sterilizing ourselves.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

User avatar
h_k_s
Posts: 748
Joined: November 25th, 2018, 12:09 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Aristotle
Location: Rocky Mountains

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by h_k_s » November 5th, 2019, 9:07 pm

Steve3007 wrote:
November 5th, 2019, 4:51 am
h_k_s wrote:If couples only have 2 kids, then the population will actually decrease. This is due to accidental deaths, disease, war, crime, etc.

Statistically you need to have 3 kids to break even. Google it and see.
Yes, I realise that. I think that, as far as global sustainability of the environment is concerned, a gentle, not precipitative, decline in human population is just what the doctor ordered. But I won't pretend that's why I have two kids. I guess that's just a lucky accident.
I do remember all the educational propaganda in the USA during the 1960's promoting the 2 child nuclear American family.

Not a bad idea. But immigration would keep flooding in anyway. So it would only work on a world wide basis, not for the USA.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3757
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by LuckyR » November 6th, 2019, 1:53 am

Felix wrote:
November 5th, 2019, 12:11 pm
Actually, human fertility rated are declining precipitously, apparently due to environmental pollutants such as the pseudo-estrogenic compounds in plastics that we are drowning in - so we are inadvertently sterilizing ourselves.
A self correcting system, right? Unfortunately the effect you are citing is not making up for the advances in life span.
"As usual... it depends."

User avatar
Felix
Posts: 3028
Joined: February 9th, 2009, 5:45 am

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by Felix » November 6th, 2019, 2:54 am

A self correcting system, right? Unfortunately the effect you are citing is not making up for the advances in life span.
It may be, life span too has begun to decline in developed countries.
"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Steve3007
Posts: 5999
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eratosthenes
Location: UK

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by Steve3007 » November 6th, 2019, 10:03 am

h_k_s wrote:I do remember all the educational propaganda in the USA during the 1960's promoting the 2 child nuclear American family.

Not a bad idea. But immigration would keep flooding in anyway. So it would only work on a world wide basis, not for the USA.
Yes, I think that's an example of one of the many things that can only work with global cooperation.

User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 3757
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

Post by LuckyR » November 6th, 2019, 6:42 pm

Felix wrote:
November 6th, 2019, 2:54 am
A self correcting system, right? Unfortunately the effect you are citing is not making up for the advances in life span.
It may be, life span too has begun to decline in developed countries.
It would be more accurate to say that it no longer lengthening (rather than shortening)
"As usual... it depends."

Post Reply