Antinatalism and the VHEMT

Two topics:

One: Antinatalism is a philosophy that argues against human existence and/or concludes that humans should not procreate out of compassion to the unborn. The basic premises are as follows: (1) life is full of suffering and this is unavoidable, and (2) children do not give consent to be born, and this consent is impossible, therefore, (3) parents' decision to bring children into the world is selfish.

Two: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement argues that humans should "live long and die out". In other words, they believe that humans that are presently alive should continue to exist until natural death, but not reproduce, so that the inevitable extinction of mankind might be brought about in the next century. Their premises are as follows: (1) mankind has irreverently brought about the possibility of a large-scale ecological disaster through our selfish existence, and (2) we carry with us the possibility to continue harm to the environment in many ways, and display no sign of stopping even with our enhanced consciousness.

What do you think of these arguments? I am not posting in direct support, however, I am also not openly opposing either of them. I would like to see thoughtful discussion about these arguments, providing questions for thought, reasonable support, or reasonable disagreement. For more information on antinatalism, there is a wikipedia page and multiple YouTube channels. For more information on the VHEMT, search their name on google and you should find their website.

Antinatalism  seems like some kind of horse shit based on one side of a rubex cube. some horse shit leagal talk that’d have three quarters of the population die off . could it be even classed as a philosophy. its not very deep or imaginitive

not having kids messes with people mentally.

Personally, I don't want to have kids but I don't see it as a decision based on some greater life(anti-life)philosophy, also I can't see any justification in choosing not to do something based solely on a philosophy. I'm guessing that whoever follows either of these modes of thinking/living already has some sort of aversion to having kids and probably just needs something to further rationalize and/or romanticize it.

Overall, both ideas seem far fetched and in my mind resonate with the phrase "save the world, kill yourself"(or, in this case, just don't reproduce) which is somewhat moral but highly absurd, not to mention bound to fail...very much like these "philosophies".

They have too much time on their minds, over thinking and coming up with bullshit.

Just like any other brainwashing controlling cult.  These kind of people make me sick.  

they’d much rather make you dead Magda, but I reckon they wouldbtake some comfort in your nausea. on a slightly different note, I won some money off your co horts:  5:15 at Cheltnam

lepperochan said:they’d much rather make you dead Magda, but I reckon they wouldbtake some comfort in your nausea. on a slightly different note, I won some money off your co horts:  5:15 at Cheltnam

I would much rather make them dead with my nausea.  

Good stuff you, I hope you took them for a lot. :)

heh, fat chance, fiver each way on Wait for me at 10/ 1

anyhow, missus, you should know better than to clog up threads with your chatter ...I might have to slap you with some sanctions

shit i forgot lepp is a fn cop now..................

That's not too bad for a tenner, did you get it at a 5th or a quarter?

Anyway, sorry for going off topic (should make for an interesting discussion).  Mr lep admins fault.  I will jump off here now.

There are many memes/ideas/philosophies that carry the idea of no more procreation. Some viruses are memes in that way, killing or sterilising their host.

The idea/philosophy is full of weak assumptions, and here a just a few;

- that we are 'bad' for nature. We are from and created by nature, and like all species we strive for primacy over resources.
- many things 'damage' the environment, and they are also natural.
- what does 'damage' actually mean? Grass killed the forests. Meteors killed the dinosaurs. Volcanic eruptions caused many mass extinctions prior to dinosaurs. Intelligence can be viewed as an extinction event, but does that make it wrong, any more than a meteorite is 'wrong'?
- many other species wipe out/invade/conquer, and we are no different. Does the fact that we are 'aware' actually change, or need to change, that?
- we do not have to worry about 'the planet', or 'life', because we are not capable of wiping it out. Even if we nuked this place back to an ashtry, within 100 million years the earth would be again teeming with life. It is a human vanity that we are endangering 'life'. We are fucking the place up right now, yeah sure, and any species fool enough to not adapt fast enough will die out, no question, but that has always been the case.
- the idea that children don't choose to be born is intellectual wank at its finest. Life recreates. That is the very essence of life. If we choose to not have more children, or at least to match birth rates with the ability of the earth to carry us, then good, we need to do that, but assigning any thing like choice-of-the-unborn to the natural urge to procreate is overthinking something pretty simple.
- This argument assumes that we/you/humans are in control of what is happening, but we are mostly not. There is ten times more genetic material on you and in you that is not you (viruses/bacteria) than there is stuff that actually 'is' you, and all of that material can communicate with itself (this is fact, not science fiction or tech-drivel). This begs the question of who we actually exist for, and in many respects we are merely a seemingly free-to-choose being, when in fact we are an evolved carrier for all the stuff that outnumbers us. Life made us that way, so stop pretending you are in charge of as much as you think you are.
- Buddhists talk about life as suffering, and offer a simple solution; let shit go. If you place value on things like money, job status, how pretty you are, then yes, life leads to suffering when these things go/leave/wither, but if you remain free from attachment you are also free from suffering. Simple, and in no way is "life is suffering' inevitable. At the very least, suffering is what gives all things beauty.

There is so much to say here, but I'm done. The idea sounds smart, but a good philosopher would tear it a new arsehole. Think more clearly.  

And that^^^ is what I mean by interesting discussion.  I couldn't agree more.

Albert Camus, establishing in the 40s the" philosophy of the absurd" by such novels as "The Outsider" and "A Happy Death", argues in his work "The Myth Of Sisyphus" that the only basic and real philosophical problem is that of suicide, and he argues his points quite successfully. He does so though, from the individual's perspective and not from the society's as a whole. Finally he concludes that the only solution to the problem is life itself and he determines that the happiest moment in Sisyphus life, his "raison d' etre", so to speak, is when he sees the rock that he so laboriously pushed to the top of the hill to be rolling down the valley again, in perfect consciousness that his torment has to restart. This is a real philosophical thesis to me. Let us not play with such words. VHEMT's proposition cannot under any circumstances be elevated to the position of a philosophical thesis. It is just pure bullshit. But we should not make the mistake to call it naïve either. "Sinister" is the word I would use. They are sinister and they should extinct themselves (or somebody should do it for them) and leave the rest of humanity enjoy life.

"There is so much to say here, but I'm done. The idea sounds smart, but a good philosopher would tear it a new arsehole. Think more clearly." - Well, you seem to be an utterly fantastic philosopher hemi, who not only tore it a new arsehole but surgically inserted a new one and tore that one out! (That wasn't sarcasm or offense to you by the way.)

Okay lets start with Antinatalism.

(1) life is full of suffering and this is unavoidable.
(A) Wrong, anybody who can accept life as it is and learn to live with it, to enjoy it, to have it become bearable can become an 'ubermensch' as Neitzsche would put it. Also, as hemi stated, there is the capability to negate suffering by following the Buddhist path and living a content life free of desire and suffering.
(B) Suffering is part of life, life is bittersweet; pain and joy. A somewhat manic depressive existence if you think about it, except that the manic and depressive are not always extremes. Pain and suffering for humans as animals is a reason to evolve and avoid danger; to overcome a specific danger or to flag up a danger and protect the self.
(C) Mundanity and small things. Mundanity and a bleak boring existence, a too-comfortable life has little suffering and is therefore not a life of great suffering that warrants an end. Especially not when a change would be an easier and better solution. Though of course mundanity can lead to depression and despair which are dangerous and annoying, but are concievably solveable. Small problems are not really suffering, a setback and annoyance maybe, but not a case of suffering; not compared to those less fortunate.
(D) Avoidance. Suffering is avoidable, a comfortable life or a simple life can remove or reduce suffering to become obselete or manageable. However, a joy of little blessings, of focussing and revelling on small things can be a solution and balance to all this constant suffering.
(E) Change. Although the world and life has suffering which is sometimes unavoidable, it is not set in stone. Charity, ambition, desire, equality, attention, technology, the list goes on for things that change the world and life and can combat sufferings on a single basis. For instance, life is not medieval or dark ages in its medicine; there is the capability and possibility of surviving diseases rather than wiping out all life.

(2) children do not give consent to be born, and this consent is impossible
(A) A lack of consent is not always dissent. People who do not vote are not always automatically disagreeing to the action that is voted for. It is in fact babies that are not giving consent to be born, this too is impossible as for all babies so far born they cannot say 'yes' let alone state their consent and logically reason why.
(B) The consent to be born lies not with the child, the outcome of the action, but the parents as the producers of the action. They consent to create life, to create a child, the responsibility for this lies with them, to a point. However, they do not then have complete control over everything involved, seeing as miscarriages can happen.

(3)parents' decision to bring children into the world is selfish.
(A) It is only selfish if the parents view and treat the child as an extension of themselves or an object to own. Otherwise the child is by and large an entirely new being that the parents have come together form.
(B) Not all births are based on consent, harking back to past threads and discussions about rape; that wasn't consent.
(C) Possibility. A child that is supposedly brought selfishly into the world may well make the world a better place, either as a by-product of their own selfishness or entirely selflessly. The outcome then balances and justifies the deed in theory.

Now for VHEMT, Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

(1) mankind has irreverently brought about the possibility of a large-scale ecological disaster through our selfish existence
(A) Possiblity. Similar to 3C above, there is the possibility of solving, reversing, or adpating to anything the human race has caused.
(B) Natural Disasters. There are far worse natural disasters that can affect the world. Such as an asteroid crashing into earth to muck up the orbit to make the planet too hot or cold for life as we know it. Besides that, the Sun in the far far future will most likely burn itself out so earth as no light and heat to sustain life. Or the Sun goes all emo, and turns inwards as it collapses down to create a black hole and then stretch-destroys the earth.
(C) Awareness. The environment and human impact upon it has not always been at this level or this awareness. Ancestors can hardly be blamed for consequences they did not expect or know of.

(2) we carry with us the possibility to continue harm to the environment in many ways, and display no sign of stopping even with our enhanced consciousness.
(A) Emphasis on possibility. We also have the possibility to solve or even improve it.
(B) Change, evolution, progress. It is the sign of not stopping that is a chance and possibility of ending up somewhere better, in better circumstances.
(C) Our conciousness is enhanced compared to animals or plant life, but cannot be said to be at its total limit so (B) above is still relevant and possible.
(D) Humanity, fudge yeah! As the dominant species, as a self-aware species, it is both our right and responsibility to live on this earth. To give up and fade away is to whimp out of our responsibilities, and be ashamed of a right that fortunate circumstances have led to.
(E) Total Annihilation. Complete eradication of the human race would logically be a last resort after all else fails: seek to solve the problem rather than de-exist and leave the problems still about.
(F) Life as we know it. So far we are the only self-aware species we know of, not just in our Solar System, or Galaxy, but of all of Space. So as of now we have the responsibility, and the innate instinct to survive and prosper, regardless of whether this is for good or bad.
(G) Life as we don't know it. Could be that out there are races who can solve or help solve our problems.
(H) Life as what we become. We could rise above and beyond our problems, disadvantages and setbacks.

All in all the ideas seem very stupid and counter-productive. You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater: you don't remove everything in order to get rid of one thing, especially if the thing could solve the problems.
Sounds like people with too much time and not enough logical thought.
Give me a Nihilist and Nihilism to these paltry ideas and pseudo-philosophy any day: now there is a philosophical idea that is grim and destructive with some logic and altogether backbone.

Thesis ends.

Additional, I wish people would not refer to some modes of belief and or thought as 'philosophy', when they really are more 'religion'. And are ideas on solving a problem and of living life a certain way, rather than study and thought of a problem itself and what life itself is; thats more philosophy.

I'm pretty sure Lord V just hit that one clean outta the park...

(Side note: I like the idea that intelligence itself may turn out to be an extinction event, and that is why we see no signs of life in the broader universe....the pattern is that life produces/gets/selects in an arms-race of sorts, and sooner or later a species plays the 'big brain' card, and soon after ends itself. Brains might turn out to be an evolutionary dead-end...love it


(nod to Viddax for elevating a lowly engineer to the lofty heights of philosopher, if only for a moment...)