Antinatalism and the VHEMT
Quite a lot of reactions here. First of all, I really would like to thank hemihead and viddax for providing some food for thought and expressing their thoughts in an organized and logical way.
Second, I would like to say that there seems to be quick dismissal of this concept of antinatalism, calling it weak, poorly thought out, religious, and bullshit. The VHEMT is certainly an off-shoot of some radical individuals who most likely will not outlive the domain name of their website. Their founder acknowledges that his argument rest on crucial assumptions that most disagree with, and he is not adamant that this is even a full-fledged philosophy. He admits that it's his own personal belief but that he's found others who are like-minded, and so he made a group. I could hardly think of them as "sinister", mostly because I feel no pressure from them to accept any of their beliefs and because they are a small group of non-connected individuals making personal choices.
On to antinatalism, I suppose I should have mentioned that there is a spectrum of belief on the subject. Many adopt this as a personal reason to not have kids, but do not extend it as a universal concept. There are some with more extreme views who do. However, the discussion of this concept (I will call it thus so as to not offend those who don't accept the world "philosophy", even though this is simply the word used on wikipedia and in the literature I have come into contact with to refer to antinatalism), brings to the table questions that I consider important: "what are the costs of existence?", "should we assume that existence is always positive and that every birth is a victory?", "should potential parents think about the tribulations and suffering that their children will face when considering having children?", and "are we entitled through our birth to anything, especially happiness?".
Yes, of course it makes assumptions. That's in the nature of arguments. Do I personally agree with the assumptions? It depends. Some arguments I've heard on the topic make more sense than others; some sound fanatical and sound more like a person bitching about their own existence. However, and this might just be my way of viewing things, but I am not able to simply explain this topic away by contradicting a few assumptions and call it nonsense. I gain nothing by calling the idea stupid after considering it for less than a day, and neither do any of you. I really do appreciate the thoughts on the matter, and I will quickly point out a few (not all) of the counters of yours that I agree with:
1) Suffering is a part of life and should not be universally viewed as bad. Paths such as Buddhism teach protection against those bad feelings through the acceptance of suffering. This combines some statements from hemihead and viddax. I will be the first to point out that antinatalism is certainly a concept that seems more suited to Western thought and the view that suffering is bad, no doubt. I agree that a change of perspective can have great implications when it comes to the concept of suffering.
2) The idea that we are bad for nature assumes that our existence is not part of natural processes, which is somewhat impossible to accept, seeing as we are also natural. Our "dominance", whether deserved or not, is arguably an ecological niche on the grand scale and should not be wontonly categorized as a problem (although I do think that problems arise when we are careless with the environment, but that is another issue that has also been politicized heavily).
3) The argument in hornyatmorn's post about absurdity. Yes, Camus more or less declared a moratorium on the existence/inexistence debate, concluding that suicide is not the answer to absurdity and that living with the absurd, or flowing with the current of things without pretending about some great meaning will most likely benefit the organism.
These, and more of the arguments you all have used, make sense to me and seem reasonable. I more than accept your disagreement, as I think any non-fanatic here would. However, I suppose I am asking for some respect. I think there's some important things to talk about here. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have posted this for discussion. I think the concept raises some important questions that call to mind things many take for granted. I am offended that, by simply mentioning this and by wanting to work through some of these assumptions and arguments as a thinker, I am being lumped in with cults, murderers, stupid, religious zealots, and non-thinkers. If it's over for you, and you truly view this idea as harmful to even talk about beyond a single post, that's fine.
Have a good day.
Second, I would like to say that there seems to be quick dismissal of this concept of antinatalism, calling it weak, poorly thought out, religious, and bullshit. The VHEMT is certainly an off-shoot of some radical individuals who most likely will not outlive the domain name of their website. Their founder acknowledges that his argument rest on crucial assumptions that most disagree with, and he is not adamant that this is even a full-fledged philosophy. He admits that it's his own personal belief but that he's found others who are like-minded, and so he made a group. I could hardly think of them as "sinister", mostly because I feel no pressure from them to accept any of their beliefs and because they are a small group of non-connected individuals making personal choices.
On to antinatalism, I suppose I should have mentioned that there is a spectrum of belief on the subject. Many adopt this as a personal reason to not have kids, but do not extend it as a universal concept. There are some with more extreme views who do. However, the discussion of this concept (I will call it thus so as to not offend those who don't accept the world "philosophy", even though this is simply the word used on wikipedia and in the literature I have come into contact with to refer to antinatalism), brings to the table questions that I consider important: "what are the costs of existence?", "should we assume that existence is always positive and that every birth is a victory?", "should potential parents think about the tribulations and suffering that their children will face when considering having children?", and "are we entitled through our birth to anything, especially happiness?".
Yes, of course it makes assumptions. That's in the nature of arguments. Do I personally agree with the assumptions? It depends. Some arguments I've heard on the topic make more sense than others; some sound fanatical and sound more like a person bitching about their own existence. However, and this might just be my way of viewing things, but I am not able to simply explain this topic away by contradicting a few assumptions and call it nonsense. I gain nothing by calling the idea stupid after considering it for less than a day, and neither do any of you. I really do appreciate the thoughts on the matter, and I will quickly point out a few (not all) of the counters of yours that I agree with:
1) Suffering is a part of life and should not be universally viewed as bad. Paths such as Buddhism teach protection against those bad feelings through the acceptance of suffering. This combines some statements from hemihead and viddax. I will be the first to point out that antinatalism is certainly a concept that seems more suited to Western thought and the view that suffering is bad, no doubt. I agree that a change of perspective can have great implications when it comes to the concept of suffering.
2) The idea that we are bad for nature assumes that our existence is not part of natural processes, which is somewhat impossible to accept, seeing as we are also natural. Our "dominance", whether deserved or not, is arguably an ecological niche on the grand scale and should not be wontonly categorized as a problem (although I do think that problems arise when we are careless with the environment, but that is another issue that has also been politicized heavily).
3) The argument in hornyatmorn's post about absurdity. Yes, Camus more or less declared a moratorium on the existence/inexistence debate, concluding that suicide is not the answer to absurdity and that living with the absurd, or flowing with the current of things without pretending about some great meaning will most likely benefit the organism.
These, and more of the arguments you all have used, make sense to me and seem reasonable. I more than accept your disagreement, as I think any non-fanatic here would. However, I suppose I am asking for some respect. I think there's some important things to talk about here. If I didn't think so, I wouldn't have posted this for discussion. I think the concept raises some important questions that call to mind things many take for granted. I am offended that, by simply mentioning this and by wanting to work through some of these assumptions and arguments as a thinker, I am being lumped in with cults, murderers, stupid, religious zealots, and non-thinkers. If it's over for you, and you truly view this idea as harmful to even talk about beyond a single post, that's fine.
Have a good day.
First of all, if you open a topic in a public forum for discussion, then expect a variety of views, whether that be one word or multiple words.
You don't get to dictate required responses if it is in the confines of the subject matter.
Secondly. You seem to be trying to reinforce these groups philosophies somewhat. Which to my eyes, smacks preachy.
Thirdly. Nowhere in the replies to your OP, has anyone "lumped YOU in with cults, murderers, stupid, religious zealots, and non-thinkers"
This statement " Antinatalism is a philosophy that argues against human existence and/or concludes that humans should not procreate out of compassion to the unborn" knocked this one off the platform for me and therefore did not merit anymore of my time.
The second philosophy. Those are already being brainwashed into that way of thinking.
It may not seem like there is any pressure from these groups to take on board their concept, because it doesn't work like that. The power of suggestion is cunning, a slow manipulative action, that goes unnoticed to those susceptible to such an infection. Methods of hypnotism are used. Things can be planted into a persons mind without them even knowing it is there and all it takes is a trigger to release that (fact)
So, I found "bullshit" packed my views on those philosophies into one word for me. And that is, respectfully, my opinion.
'Bows out of this discussion'
You don't get to dictate required responses if it is in the confines of the subject matter.
Secondly. You seem to be trying to reinforce these groups philosophies somewhat. Which to my eyes, smacks preachy.
Thirdly. Nowhere in the replies to your OP, has anyone "lumped YOU in with cults, murderers, stupid, religious zealots, and non-thinkers"
This statement " Antinatalism is a philosophy that argues against human existence and/or concludes that humans should not procreate out of compassion to the unborn" knocked this one off the platform for me and therefore did not merit anymore of my time.
The second philosophy. Those are already being brainwashed into that way of thinking.
It may not seem like there is any pressure from these groups to take on board their concept, because it doesn't work like that. The power of suggestion is cunning, a slow manipulative action, that goes unnoticed to those susceptible to such an infection. Methods of hypnotism are used. Things can be planted into a persons mind without them even knowing it is there and all it takes is a trigger to release that (fact)
So, I found "bullshit" packed my views on those philosophies into one word for me. And that is, respectfully, my opinion.
'Bows out of this discussion'
Fear not Prosh, the anthology artillery of argument was not specifically aimed at you. They were more aimed squarely at the ideas and lines you proposed, but evidently did not fully support or believe in.
I think an incredibly good reason for a disrespectful response, is that death although inevitable to the human race is something that we do not actively seek or even favour. After all, it seems we only die once, but that once is enough to remove us forever; no turning back.
Although you say that Antinatalism and VHEMT bring important questions to the table, the identity and the topic on this thread do not focus on these important things and instead focus on what the two (Anti and VHEMT) are. So of course there is talk about the two (Ani, VHEMT) and a reasonable response to them.
Plus given that in history and the present there have been groups, organizations, countries, people, more active in the destruction of the human species (Refer to any war), talk and theory about such a thing seems very weak and passive-aggressive. All talk and no action. Plus there is always the old habit of hating/disliking what we do not understand or like.
So it sounds like you actually wanted to discuss the important-table-questions rather than Anti and VHEMT but seemed to give them too much of an introduction. Besides you dug too deep for a rsponse and woke a dragon that brought fire and flame to the orginal topics.
Oh, and an engineer is far more useful to society and the world than a philosopher most days so it is far better to be an engineer!
I think an incredibly good reason for a disrespectful response, is that death although inevitable to the human race is something that we do not actively seek or even favour. After all, it seems we only die once, but that once is enough to remove us forever; no turning back.
Although you say that Antinatalism and VHEMT bring important questions to the table, the identity and the topic on this thread do not focus on these important things and instead focus on what the two (Anti and VHEMT) are. So of course there is talk about the two (Ani, VHEMT) and a reasonable response to them.
Plus given that in history and the present there have been groups, organizations, countries, people, more active in the destruction of the human species (Refer to any war), talk and theory about such a thing seems very weak and passive-aggressive. All talk and no action. Plus there is always the old habit of hating/disliking what we do not understand or like.
So it sounds like you actually wanted to discuss the important-table-questions rather than Anti and VHEMT but seemed to give them too much of an introduction. Besides you dug too deep for a rsponse and woke a dragon that brought fire and flame to the orginal topics.
Oh, and an engineer is far more useful to society and the world than a philosopher most days so it is far better to be an engineer!
I do want most of the human race gone, but not because of any cult belief or moral stance, nor attempts to "save the planet" by killing off one of its own. The planet don't need saving. Every trace of our entire existence as a species will be completely erased eventually. I don't give us that much respect to think it's even an issue.
I want the human race (mostly) gone so I can be free to roam the planet at my leisure, without having to encounter too many tourists. Humans = laws, & laws = trespassing charges & far, far worse, depending on where you are. This prevents me from travelling the world with the freedom I'd prefer. There are a great many things I would love to see without tourists around. Might never spend the night in the same place again. Sure, it'd probably be a short life, but a grand life, & very fulfilling. (Well, for me and a scant few others. Any a fine DU folk would be welcome in my imaginary utopia, & I wouldn't wish anyone reading this dead.)
Like I said, I have no argument, & used your forum thread as an excuse for a rant (they have a tendency to make me feel better). I have no moral or philosophical stance. I should have this freedom to travel unimpeded simply because I'm special, & I deserve it. Just at the expense of a great portion of the human race.
An even better outcome would be a ~disappearance~ of most of the human race (as in...no bodies left behind), because all those tourists are going to start to get pretty rank rather quickly. There would be a lot of work involved in that.
Damn good thing I never found that genie lamp, eh?
I want the human race (mostly) gone so I can be free to roam the planet at my leisure, without having to encounter too many tourists. Humans = laws, & laws = trespassing charges & far, far worse, depending on where you are. This prevents me from travelling the world with the freedom I'd prefer. There are a great many things I would love to see without tourists around. Might never spend the night in the same place again. Sure, it'd probably be a short life, but a grand life, & very fulfilling. (Well, for me and a scant few others. Any a fine DU folk would be welcome in my imaginary utopia, & I wouldn't wish anyone reading this dead.)
Like I said, I have no argument, & used your forum thread as an excuse for a rant (they have a tendency to make me feel better). I have no moral or philosophical stance. I should have this freedom to travel unimpeded simply because I'm special, & I deserve it. Just at the expense of a great portion of the human race.
An even better outcome would be a ~disappearance~ of most of the human race (as in...no bodies left behind), because all those tourists are going to start to get pretty rank rather quickly. There would be a lot of work involved in that.
Damn good thing I never found that genie lamp, eh?
