I'm an ethical consequentialist and vegan, and therefore highly sympathetic to the "misanthropic" component of antinatalism. Our treatment of highly sentient non-human animals inverts all of the consequentialist thought experiments: instead of being clearly morally better to pull the lever killing one human instead of five, if all six humans will continue to eat the "standard American diet" 's worth of torture, it becomes clearly morally better to pull the lever killing five instead of one.
That said, wild animal suffering in what naively gets called "nature" (as if everything that happens in reality weren't equally natural) is also horrific, and contrary to vegan deontologists, equally our responsibility to the extent that we can have a reliable effect on it. If there's any hope of a future that seriously addresses the promotion of well-being everywhere, it will come about through the progress of human ethics, not the elimination of humans. And *that* hope is largely dependent upon the better humans having more kids.
> Note: If you flatly reject the concept of hypothetical consent, you have to condemn Good Samaritans for saving the lives of unconscious strangers.
I like this argument in favor of hypothetical consent. I will use it, along with the "would they consent?" question next time I'm talking with an anti-natalist about this topic.
(4) It would be better if, as a result of there being no new people, humanity became extinct. ? Without people, the concept of "beter" does not exist. Unless he's appealing to a deity's concept of better? I haven't read this person, is he religous?
Bizarrely, I am unable to see the comments on this post, as it demands a paying subscriber; however, I am already a free subscriber with a pledge. Can’t tell what it wants me to do here. I am apparently able to leave comments and I can see that there are 5 comments already, but clicking the option to see the comments redirects me to becoming a ‘paid’ subscriber once again.
The argument ‘you can always commit suicide ‘ isn’t very good . Life can be bad , and people can decide to stay alive anyway not because they prefer being alive over being dead but because they fear the process of dying . People are born with an instinct to fear the process of dying (like jumping off a high building ) greatly . That people find this evil greater than the evil of being alive , doesn’t mean they think it’s good to be alive . Thats why we never think when we hear of someone commuting suicide : ‘he must have been slightly unhappy ‘ . No , we think ‘he must have been very unhappy ‘. Unhappy enough to conquer his inborn fear of dying.
When consent is relevant for infants, the parents give consent on their behalf as their agent or guardian. Clearly they can consent for the infant to be born.
Well, when you put it straight up like that, yes. But so many people combine unthoughtful anti-natalism with environementalism, narcissism, and depression to imbibe Malcolm and Simone Collins's Sterilizing Meme.
I'm an ethical consequentialist and vegan, and therefore highly sympathetic to the "misanthropic" component of antinatalism. Our treatment of highly sentient non-human animals inverts all of the consequentialist thought experiments: instead of being clearly morally better to pull the lever killing one human instead of five, if all six humans will continue to eat the "standard American diet" 's worth of torture, it becomes clearly morally better to pull the lever killing five instead of one.
That said, wild animal suffering in what naively gets called "nature" (as if everything that happens in reality weren't equally natural) is also horrific, and contrary to vegan deontologists, equally our responsibility to the extent that we can have a reliable effect on it. If there's any hope of a future that seriously addresses the promotion of well-being everywhere, it will come about through the progress of human ethics, not the elimination of humans. And *that* hope is largely dependent upon the better humans having more kids.
> Note: If you flatly reject the concept of hypothetical consent, you have to condemn Good Samaritans for saving the lives of unconscious strangers.
I like this argument in favor of hypothetical consent. I will use it, along with the "would they consent?" question next time I'm talking with an anti-natalist about this topic.
(4) It would be better if, as a result of there being no new people, humanity became extinct. ? Without people, the concept of "beter" does not exist. Unless he's appealing to a deity's concept of better? I haven't read this person, is he religous?
Bizarrely, I am unable to see the comments on this post, as it demands a paying subscriber; however, I am already a free subscriber with a pledge. Can’t tell what it wants me to do here. I am apparently able to leave comments and I can see that there are 5 comments already, but clicking the option to see the comments redirects me to becoming a ‘paid’ subscriber once again.
The argument ‘you can always commit suicide ‘ isn’t very good . Life can be bad , and people can decide to stay alive anyway not because they prefer being alive over being dead but because they fear the process of dying . People are born with an instinct to fear the process of dying (like jumping off a high building ) greatly . That people find this evil greater than the evil of being alive , doesn’t mean they think it’s good to be alive . Thats why we never think when we hear of someone commuting suicide : ‘he must have been slightly unhappy ‘ . No , we think ‘he must have been very unhappy ‘. Unhappy enough to conquer his inborn fear of dying.
When consent is relevant for infants, the parents give consent on their behalf as their agent or guardian. Clearly they can consent for the infant to be born.
Well, when you put it straight up like that, yes. But so many people combine unthoughtful anti-natalism with environementalism, narcissism, and depression to imbibe Malcolm and Simone Collins's Sterilizing Meme.
I had no idea such people even existed. My first reaction was, go kill yourself then, solve your own hand-made problem which no one else has.
Life only has “free disposal” if you are completely indifferent to the suffering of the people who love you most.