I hope this stuff dies. I was thinking, if you are into antinatalism then shoot yourself! Not really but it does make sense in a bad sort of way. No? If a person was sure of anything then surprise and mystery are gone. I can just see a person in the before life being asked if they want to take a spin of the wheel of fortune/misfortune. If they are born then screwed up... fix it!!! That is the beauty of it all ain't it anyway? btw Love those outer space telescopes!! Love Edith Shorts
Western civilization has its flaws, but it is, by far, the greatest system in history. It has the highest levels of technology, science, respect for human rights, standards of living, happiness, and legitimacy of any political organization in history.
So I ask you, why is it so busy trying to find ways to flagellate itself and commit slow suicide? When there are real problems in the world, why do we waste time asking really bizarre questions about whether life is "consensual" or not?
Breeders and pronatalists are too mentally inferior to real humans
(defined as those organisms who can do formal mathematical modeling)
to comprehend their logical inconsistency and hypocrisy of complaining about antinatalists, while it was breedism that brought antinatalists into this world.
So, you breeders and pronatalists have NOTHING to complain about there being too many ANs in the world!
on the point about inflicting birth on some as being immoral, what follows? eventually there is no people, then morality doesnt exist. which is better, immoral or amoral?
The rebuttal where you mentioned animal suffering may work if utilitarianism is accepted in a collective sense. But Liam's moral argument is deontological. In other words, his antinatalism argument does not criticize procreation on the grounds that it has a negative net yield of summed utility. It is all about choice and gambling at the expense of others.
Less violence?? Wouldn't that equal less deaths?? And if we continue our current reproduction methods(which is a lack of any form of restriction), wouldn't we start to over populate even more?? Wouldn't that equal more suffering, due to less resources??? Is this not a sound argument for antinatalism??? I'm confused.
@apumpkinful hehe ok! so not worth it then?? I'm glad I'm alive, I get to dream of what if! From listening to inmendham talk , even if the whole world was populated by nothing but "Garys" , we'd still be hopeless!
Music,love, harvesting,science, space,co-operation...... abolishing the monetary system! :) hehe
@apumpkinful: Logical fallacy? No more a fallacy than the argument for "antinatalism". Methinks you are using too narrow a definition of logical fallacy. Where is the illogic in stating that a behaviour or reflex is involuntary? Where is this assertation untestable? #2 cannot be an "appeal to nature" since it speaks only to responsibility. #3 could be called an "appeal to emotions", since it speaks to moral outrage, but that same refutating statement also negates the argument for "antinatalism".
@TheAuspicious life = possibility? What possibility? To become conscious and be ravaged apart by animals? To become conscious as a retard in a wheel chair its whole life? Or to be dealt the best possible hand out of a deck of a billion cards. The best hand you can get is becoming conscious in a meaningless and pointless universe without ever wanting such an imposition and then having to spend your whole life fighting for energy amongst all the other savages while you wait to suffer and die?
Too many assumptions in his argument. He argues to act upon uncertainty = immorality, is it a certainty that uncertainty is immoral? regardless of that point, he never explains his reasoning... how certain should one have to be for "life" to be a "good" idea? does 99.99999% certainty still equate to immorality?
@egokick: Heh. It's worse than that. Who decides what a good or bad idea is? Who (as you said) decides what immorality or morality is? The very assumptions about whether someone would choose to be born into this world with the possibility of suffering is so flawed it does not even deserve to be ELEVATED to the status of a logical fallacy. Kant would be laughing his ass off at this one :P
He didn't talk about implementing anything or the practicality of doing that. He gave 5 points that lead to the conclusion that procreation is immoral. You did not address his logic or conclusion. You said you don't believe that procreation is immoral but did not tell us why. What you believe goes against the logic he presented. I think it only fair that you find a flaw in his logic to justify your belief.
justice and morality do not exist, only fulfilled or unhappy individuals. anyone who is of the age to have existential feelings about life is also old enouh to kill themselves. if someone doesent like life they they can end it quickly and painlessly. antinatalists need to stfu.
@beavisisgood87 'quickly and painlessly' No, this is wrong. If it was possible quickly and painlessly, then there would be not such a high amount of failures. But if you, on the other hand, are in possession of Nembutal, then it would be quick and painlessly.
I can't see anything resembling an upside to anti-natalism. It's a philosophy with nothing to offer, because if it were fully realized there would be no around to benefit from the absence of pain & suffering. Who is an anti-natalist future for? All the people that will never be?
Focusing all our resources into making sure the planet becomes completely void of any life is the idea, and I think it's a good one... if a practical way of accomplishing this was thought out (I'm sure it's possible in some way or another), then I'd get behind it right away.
The real problem is people, I just can't imagine a large enough percentage of people would support this... though that's not an excuse not to do advocate it or not to do ones best to make it more realistic.
@laffer35 "The real problem is people, I just can't imagine a large enough percentage of people would support this... though that's not an excuse not to do advocate it or not to do ones best to make it more realistic."
I can imagine it but I look at the people around me and think it's not likely either. Still if it's not discussed then the probability of it happening goes from slim to zero....and some individuals choosing not to procreate is still good even if it's not everyone.
Here's a counter argument: 1) Life is as involuntary as breathing or combustion. It is the result of obeying the laws of physics and their dependant laws of chemistry and thence evolution of species. 2) Since it is our atoms doing the obeyance of these laws, we cannot be held responsible. 3) Stopping this process would involve interfering with these laws and remove choice for life forms that may or may not have chosen to exist. 4) Therefore, "antinatalism" is merely "nihilisms" apologetics.
suicide has popped up a lot in the comments. I imagine it'd be a lot easier to discuss people's rite to suicide rather than their rite not to exist before they have even begun to exist. It'd also be a lot more relevant and un-hypothetical.
In my opinion antinatalism is valid, but my practical stance is also to attempt to lower population and solve the remaining problems with technology, simply because it possesses a higher potential success rate.
The world is however significantly more monstrous than it has ever been in recent centuries, mostly due to industrial farming, war etc. The human experiment is thus far a humiliating failure of the highest order, with little hope of improving to a decent standard in the near future.
You still have not addressed the argument of whether it is ethical or not to to have a child. You simply transferred the problem to a secondary problem (that of other life, and the difficulty of implantation of a solution for such). A fallacy.
So no, this video response is still insufficient at addressing the single point being made. We will start here: If a solution is hypothetically viable (simplistic enough) for the rest of life, is it then unethical to propagate a new human life?
@trick0171 False dichotomy. It is neither ethical nor unethical to have a child. Biology nor life needs your approval. Get over yourself - as you anti-natalists fancy yourselves moral arbiters when it comes to existence. Yet... you are too depressed to live a full life. Maybe this is where the "holier-than-thou-breeders" attitudes come from.
Any action that causes unnecessary harm (pain and suffering) and that, via a conscious decision, can be not actioned, is an unethical action per a consequentialist ethic. It is not a false dichotomy when talking about concerns of harm. Harm is the largest concern with ANY logical and rational ethical stance.
“Biology nor life needs your approval”
Neither does torture or any other harm you can think of. So what. Doesn’t make it not unethical.
This is psycho-babble nonsense. I love my life. The fact that you think you know the psychology of all antinatalists is an obvious symptom that you have no concern with addressing the argument but rather with applying Ad-Homs using your speculation of ones character.
You still have not addressed the argument of whether it is ethical or not to to have a child. You simply transferred the problem to a secondary problem (that of other life, and the difficulty of implantation of a solution for such). A fallacy.
So no, this video response is still insufficient at addressing the single point being made. We will start here: If a solution is hypothetically viable (simplistic enough) for the rest of life, is it then unethical to propagate a new human life?
When I was listening to the redhead guy discribe antinatalism, my eyebrows were furrowed, and I was like, "This is a joke, right?" Do people actually believe that it is it just some pholosophical mental wanking?
No no, its a serious philosophical position. Although I don't agree with all of antinatalism's core tenants, I do sympathize with some of it.
There probably is more suffering in the world than pleasure. And as far as we know, human life(or indeed life in general) isn't leading anywhere. We're genetically programmed by our genes to procreate. Its not a sensible logical conclusion. Of course, its a pretty steep conclusion to END all life.. but still.
Even when taking into account the people who are doing positive things like caring for pets, becoming vegetarians etc, you still have more negatives than positives left due to all the retarded meat lovers, cutting down of trees, destruction of environment and hunting etc. A lot of animals are suffering because of humans in the first place.
If you can't eradicate suffering completely , at least try and reduce it.
By the same token, not giving birth to someone is depriving him or her of the opportunity to live a great life. Antinatalism is an interesting response to the idea that we should be grateful to be alive. We would need a reason to feel grateful, so we would need happiness as compensation for having been brought into the world. We come into the world immediately being owed something, implying that life is a negative thing to do to someone.
@PluralOfEverything ''not giving birth is depriving him or her of the opportunity to live a great life.''
Depriving who?
''Yeah, what they should say is that life is imposed on nonliving matter .'' The imposition is experienced as such after someone realizes they have to experience pain, suffering and die as a result of being born when thery were not in a deprivational state prior to their birth
''There are enough ways out''
Fear of death and concern for those who would be left behind!
@DerivedEnergy Anti-natalists think Life and Person are separate - you can't have a person w/o life, and you can't have life w/o a living being. The two are inseparable. People don't exist without life, hoping to NOT be born. That's basically what all anti-natalist arguments boil down to... that, and a lot of emo "Woe is Me" crap. Buck up, or check out. That easy.
@CrudOMatic If suicide was legalized, and fast-acting barbiturates widely available, then yes, it would be easy. Otherwise it is not. Living in a country with strict gun control makes things even worse.
If I was born just a few decades earlier, I might have been able to obtain Veronal, like Jean or Kurt.
@DerivedEnergy ...then you have other anti-natalists who want the human race to die because they are psychotic, nihilistic greener hippies who have never made anything out of their lives, and thus hate other's success - then they use the Earth as their excuse to wish for our suicide or eventual genocide by his group's hand.
You have a lot of these crazy, self-loathing, people hating Hitlers in your movement. Just look at the Earth First hippies that sing campfire songs about all people dying.
@CrudOMatic ''then you have other anti-natalists who want the human race to die because they are psychotic, nihilistic greener hippies who have never made anything out of their lives, and thus hate other's success''
Point well made and conceded. However, how does that weaken the argument that parents create sentient beings who will suffer and die due to their own selfish desires to become a mummy or a daddy?
The premise doesn't even make sense. By saying that life is imposed on a person they separate the person from "life" as if one could exist without the other. That may not be intentional but that's what it boils down to, and it renders the basis of their position absurd.
@rozeboosje Yeah, what they should say is that life is imposed on nonliving matter or that people are forced into existence. There are enough ways out, though, that nobody should really be complaining too much.
@PluralOfEverything Even that second one doesn't work. It sort of conjures up an image of a person "existing" outside existence and then being forced into existence. In reality, personhood is an emergent property of matter coming together into a living entity. Nothing is being "forced" on anything.
@rozeboosje You don't really present any argument as to why it renders the basis of the position absurd.
@EquitoErgoSum An addictions could be considered as a mental illness aswell, which is the basis of all human behaviour, addiction to consumption and reproduction... addiction to life...
@rozeboosje The fact that you just state that "this is how it is" instead of explaining why, which is the only thing that would be an actual argument.
But I just said that in my previous comment so I don't really understand why you're behaving this way...
Antinatalism boils down to the same tired potential life arguments used by pro lifers who oppose condoms and birth control. The only people who have value or autonomy are the ones that exist or will exist. The imposition premise is a non starter because babies aren't capable of making decisions. Babies lack a belief in God, but by giving birth to them you aren't imposing atheism on them, they can't have beliefs about God. Indoctrination imposes belief, making suicide illegal imposes life.
@CrudOMatic It wasn't an argument, it was a distinction between what is an imposition and what isn't i.e. preventing someone from committing suicide imposes life onto an unwilling subject. Try to keep up.
How about that it's cruel to impose suffering on others even if we won't be around to experience the suffering? In this case, our suicides would impose anguish and torment on family and friends, possibly for years, perhaps forever. To suggest that non-hypocritical ANs should off themselves is a priori assume that we shouldn't care about the consequences others would experience due to our actions ( by definition, Selfish!!). Also failed attempts can leave the person worse off.
Um. In every moment of our lives, we demonstrate that we prefer life to it's alternative, death or non-existence. Instead of killing myself, I'm sitting here typing. Instead of killing myself, I eat food that keeps me alive. Everytime we do anything else than killing ourselves, we're saying that we prefer life. We're like that unborn infant but we have a choice. So why would it be immoral to give life to a new human being when we obviously prefer it.
@Zerafinel That is an excellent point. Some people create new life unexpectedly, so it's not even always the parents' fault that a baby is born. It's just the way things go on this planet.
@PluralOfEverything Antinatalism is a self-detonating position. People only discuss it because they overlook the inherent inconsistency in making the argument. It's like opening your mouth and saying, I don't have a mouth and I can't speak.
@Zerafinel As long as humane ways of killing yourself aren't available to you, your comparison makes no sense. 'Suicidal' people don't prefer existing, and if suicide was legalized, would kill themselves, of course. There is a reason Dignitas or EXIT don't shoot their clients in the head or throw them off of high rise buildings: it is inhumane. Kevorkian was right on this one. But if you somehow know how to get access to Nembutal, please let me and Sister Y know, I'd love to get my hands on 'em.
The enforcing of anti-natalism is a null-point. If something is correct, it is correct, implementation is an irrelevancy, practicality has no place in this type of discussion.
"OH WOES IS ME! LIFE IS SO HORRIBLE! HOW DARE YOU HAVE BABIES BECAUSE I KNOW THEY WILL ALL BE MISERABLE LIKE ME! WE NEED TO STOP BREEDING AND LET THE HUMAN RACE DIE, BECAUSE BREEDING IS IMMORAL AND INHUMANE! BOO HOO HOO!"
If their life is that miserable, they shouldn't try to project themselves onto other people (who aren't emo pussies and have no problem with life), and insist the human race commit genetic suicide. Just kill yourself, problem solved.
@CrudOMatic This is of course not the argument, but, you knew that. :) And killing oneself humanely is of course not possible, not now, no. As long as access to fast-acting barbiturates remains illegal, a quick and painless way to go is out of the question. There is a reason Dignitas or EXIT don't shoot their clients in the head or hand them: it is inhumane. I also don't see where the angriness comes from: if you love life, why be so upset? If 'suicide' was so easy, not only more people would ..
... choose to committ suicide, but there would also be no failures. Which is totally wrong, of course. I notice that there is a lot of confusion about the subject of suicide: killing oneself humanely is hard, otherwise Sister Y from The View from Hell wouldn't be with us anymore. After a failed hanging attempt, complete with blackout, gruesome pain and forced hospitalisation, I demand Nembutal or similarly lethal doses; everything else is out of the question. Kevorkian said it best ...
... but then again, it was his profession, so no surprise. 'icing' is, btw, no humane method, sorry. And Winchesters are a) inhumane and b) hard to get your hands on in countries with strict gun regulation.
Deal with it: a humane suicide is hard to bring about without access to barbiturates, and a lot is done to prevent people from committing suicide. Or is Veronal still getting produced? Of course not. OTC stuff is of no use, you'll just become unconscious and vomit, that's all.
@CrudOMatic Humans die everyday on their own. they also come up with stupid phrases like "shotgun mouthwash" You are a shining example of why antinatalists exist in the first place.....motherfucker.
You are of course entirely correct about your comparison and its practicality. The thing is, antinatalism on YouTube is not about that at all. It is about talking, and converting. It is about creating a new Gospel, Church and lifestyle: rather than marrying and having a children and preaching the word of The Bible, now it is about not having children and preaching antinatalism. For ANs, this is the only route available for us as a species if all past religious dogma is discarded for good.
@tranquil87 And it allows young people with virtually no philosophical background to make them feel like they are authorities on philosophy and psychology because they can recite somebody else's premises; it gives them a great feeling of significance because they can spew somebody else's dogma and believe confidently that they are part of the most important movement that was ever created.
@tranquil87 'virtually no philosophical background ' This is a bit too pretentious for my tastes. The argument is easily understood, requiring only a basic understanding of logic. It is also a dubious criteria: was Wittgenstein, who had no philosophical training and barely read classical works, not a a philosopher?
if inmendham was really into antinatalism, he'd read a f'ing book on the subject. He's like a broken record that doesn't care to educate himself on the subject and thinks that he can win arguments by shouting over people who disagree with. He's a terrible person and should be ridiculed, not taken seriously.
I don't know how you could construe any of the things imendham has done as just "shouting over people". Have you actually watched the myriad of videos he has on the subject?
@magus12345678 Yeah I have. He also repeats himself, rambling endlessly, he's not focused, he doesn't care to learn anything about the subject. He's pointless to debate with because he already thinks he knows everything there is and that's why he prides himself on never reading any books.
He's rude & obnoxious and if you want more proof, go to his Stickam room on Saturdays. See how he treats people who disagree with him.
On top of all that, he files false DMCAs on people who make fun of him.
That seems mostly like a bunch of hate-imendham-bullshit, he might not be "nice", but he isn't rambly in anyway shape or form, most of his videos have been direct responses to "objections" to the argument. I don't care if he is nice about it or not, and he HAS read books on the subject he has even talked about them.
@magus12345678 He's an asshole with rarely a clear well spoken thought. Saying "not nice" is like saying the temperature of the surface of the sun is "a little warm."
You cannot withhold consent or consent to remain unborn either. We don't apply consent to the unborn or young children and there's no reason given why "unborn" should be the default position. The only way you could show that is to demonstrate that being born is likely to be unwanted; but the opposite is true. Most people prefer having been born and of those that claim not to their problems can mostly be traced to events after birth.
His second premise brings up force. This is an equivocation as it fails to distinguish between legitimate force and aggression. We force children to read and eat healthy food; we can't be totally sure that won't have adverse effects but doesn't mean that's immoral. I'm not even sure if force is the right word to use for childbirth. Childbirth seems to be something different. I think the moral concept of force is being grafted on.
I think his third premise is too absolute. Sure we cannot be absolutely sure the life will be worth living but what can we be sure off? Can we be sure that AN will not lead to greater suffering or that not bringing certain children into the world will be more harmful that not; we can't have such certainty for almost anything (including antinatalism) so it doesn't follow that doing those things is immoral.
The 4th premise is the same and the conclusions is "Therefore it's immoral" WHAT?
@shlockofgod "I think his third premise is too absolute." please, don't give him the joy of addressing these premises by saying they are "his". You should try to get used to removing as much as possible the speaker out of it all, because you're giving them the gratification they want from spewing premises that aren't their own.
Even if they did manage to somehow destroy all life on earth, this would not prevent intelligent life from reemerging in the universe, if it doesn't already exist somewhere other than earth... and so antinatalism as a means to end suffering fails.
jameywc2 1 week ago
Pronatalism is unconscionable. Antinatalism is impractical. What a dilemma.
bizzee1 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Anti-natalists..
You want to end all life...because you assume that everyone's life is PAINFUL.
Yet you won't use the option of suicide to end your own life...because it's PAINFUL.
JohnPurchaseArt 3 weeks ago
Western civilization has its flaws, but it is, by far, the greatest system in history. It has the highest levels of technology, science, respect for human rights, standards of living, happiness, and legitimacy of any political organization in history.
So I ask you, why is it so busy trying to find ways to flagellate itself and commit slow suicide? When there are real problems in the world, why do we waste time asking really bizarre questions about whether life is "consensual" or not?
unhealthytruthseeker 4 weeks ago
I really like how you articulated things here, a lot simlar to the more wordy way I attempted to so I wanted to connect it here
Roenazarrek 2 months ago
You sound a lot like ragingamish. Seriously, search on YT for his vids. You sound fucking exactly like him.
footosaur76 2 months ago
Breeders and pronatalists are too mentally inferior to real humans
(defined as those organisms who can do formal mathematical modeling)
to comprehend their logical inconsistency and hypocrisy of complaining about antinatalists, while it was breedism that brought antinatalists into this world.
So, you breeders and pronatalists have NOTHING to complain about there being too many ANs in the world!
mphello 2 months ago
on the point about inflicting birth on some as being immoral, what follows? eventually there is no people, then morality doesnt exist. which is better, immoral or amoral?
TheAist 3 months ago
The rebuttal where you mentioned animal suffering may work if utilitarianism is accepted in a collective sense. But Liam's moral argument is deontological. In other words, his antinatalism argument does not criticize procreation on the grounds that it has a negative net yield of summed utility. It is all about choice and gambling at the expense of others.
streetmagicstyle 3 months ago
Ape, he says at the outset that this is a bad idea, or did I not hear him correctly? He just wanted your thoughts on the topic.
fatbear711 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RawBurrito rofl you just said you don't think moron.
AriFeannor 5 months ago
Failed video.
AriFeannor 5 months ago
Oh noes! You got sucked into the debateinmendham vortex!
CousinoMacul 5 months ago 4
@CousinoMacul lol, indeed...
RabidApe 5 months ago
Less violence?? Wouldn't that equal less deaths?? And if we continue our current reproduction methods(which is a lack of any form of restriction), wouldn't we start to over populate even more?? Wouldn't that equal more suffering, due to less resources??? Is this not a sound argument for antinatalism??? I'm confused.
enfomy 5 months ago
This kind of video is why I am subscribed to rabidape. Rare to see you tubers be like my bad guys I apologize. Nice to see you making content again.
vomitvulture 5 months ago
@apumpkinful hehe ok! so not worth it then?? I'm glad I'm alive, I get to dream of what if! From listening to inmendham talk , even if the whole world was populated by nothing but "Garys" , we'd still be hopeless!
Music,love, harvesting,science, space,co-operation...... abolishing the monetary system! :) hehe
And ohh yeah, speed! :) Lots of balls out Racing!
TheAuspicious 5 months ago
@apumpkinful: Logical fallacy? No more a fallacy than the argument for "antinatalism". Methinks you are using too narrow a definition of logical fallacy. Where is the illogic in stating that a behaviour or reflex is involuntary? Where is this assertation untestable? #2 cannot be an "appeal to nature" since it speaks only to responsibility. #3 could be called an "appeal to emotions", since it speaks to moral outrage, but that same refutating statement also negates the argument for "antinatalism".
RyuDarragh 5 months ago
@apumpkinful What comment of mine were you referring to? Could you quote it please?
shlockofgod 5 months ago
Great video. Beat their arguments easily
BENY0HAMA 5 months ago
life = possibilities, no life = no possibilities...
It's about not focusing on what isn't worth it, but dreaming of what is and could be worth it!
*Formula to escape bitterness! ....and maybe for some, suicide!!
TheAuspicious 5 months ago
@TheAuspicious life = possibility? What possibility? To become conscious and be ravaged apart by animals? To become conscious as a retard in a wheel chair its whole life? Or to be dealt the best possible hand out of a deck of a billion cards. The best hand you can get is becoming conscious in a meaningless and pointless universe without ever wanting such an imposition and then having to spend your whole life fighting for energy amongst all the other savages while you wait to suffer and die?
CantWeedThis 4 months ago 3
@CantWeedThis Hehe , don't you enjoy debating this with me??
TheAuspicious 4 months ago
Geeesh! Have some babies, more than a few. Sure some will suffer and die and get blown to bits! meh
Otherwise the planet will be overrun with inbred muslims and whoever is left will be forced to sniff ass 5 times a day.
thruthem 5 months ago in playlist More videos from RabidApe
This is a difficult subject to discuss, how can you not be emotional when it comes to your own mortality.
WiseWeeabo 5 months ago
Too many assumptions in his argument. He argues to act upon uncertainty = immorality, is it a certainty that uncertainty is immoral? regardless of that point, he never explains his reasoning... how certain should one have to be for "life" to be a "good" idea? does 99.99999% certainty still equate to immorality?
egokick 5 months ago
@egokick: Heh. It's worse than that. Who decides what a good or bad idea is? Who (as you said) decides what immorality or morality is? The very assumptions about whether someone would choose to be born into this world with the possibility of suffering is so flawed it does not even deserve to be ELEVATED to the status of a logical fallacy. Kant would be laughing his ass off at this one :P
RyuDarragh 5 months ago
He didn't talk about implementing anything or the practicality of doing that. He gave 5 points that lead to the conclusion that procreation is immoral. You did not address his logic or conclusion. You said you don't believe that procreation is immoral but did not tell us why. What you believe goes against the logic he presented. I think it only fair that you find a flaw in his logic to justify your belief.
WarmWeatherGuy 5 months ago
justice and morality do not exist, only fulfilled or unhappy individuals. anyone who is of the age to have existential feelings about life is also old enouh to kill themselves. if someone doesent like life they they can end it quickly and painlessly. antinatalists need to stfu.
beavisisgood87 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@beavisisgood87 'quickly and painlessly' No, this is wrong. If it was possible quickly and painlessly, then there would be not such a high amount of failures. But if you, on the other hand, are in possession of Nembutal, then it would be quick and painlessly.
LeMerdealepen 5 months ago
@ClintoRichardDawkins
“You may as well spend your time wondering whether the existence of pain is ‘ethical’”
No, I spend my time asking if causing needless pain and suffering is ethical. “Causing” being the key word for ethical questions.
It is not “life” in general that is unethical, it is the producing life that can be harmed that is unethical.
“…because it is here to stay” is a meaningless statement (and is not even true). It is not a logical argument.
Thanks.
trick0171 5 months ago
I can't see anything resembling an upside to anti-natalism. It's a philosophy with nothing to offer, because if it were fully realized there would be no around to benefit from the absence of pain & suffering. Who is an anti-natalist future for? All the people that will never be?
army103 5 months ago
Focusing all our resources into making sure the planet becomes completely void of any life is the idea, and I think it's a good one... if a practical way of accomplishing this was thought out (I'm sure it's possible in some way or another), then I'd get behind it right away.
The real problem is people, I just can't imagine a large enough percentage of people would support this... though that's not an excuse not to do advocate it or not to do ones best to make it more realistic.
laffer35 5 months ago
@laffer35 "The real problem is people, I just can't imagine a large enough percentage of people would support this... though that's not an excuse not to do advocate it or not to do ones best to make it more realistic."
I can imagine it but I look at the people around me and think it's not likely either. Still if it's not discussed then the probability of it happening goes from slim to zero....and some individuals choosing not to procreate is still good even if it's not everyone.
FreeLongPig 5 months ago
Here's a counter argument: 1) Life is as involuntary as breathing or combustion. It is the result of obeying the laws of physics and their dependant laws of chemistry and thence evolution of species. 2) Since it is our atoms doing the obeyance of these laws, we cannot be held responsible. 3) Stopping this process would involve interfering with these laws and remove choice for life forms that may or may not have chosen to exist. 4) Therefore, "antinatalism" is merely "nihilisms" apologetics.
RyuDarragh 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@RyuDarragh Of course one can be held responsible, anything else is moral nihilism. Or may I murder you?
LeMerdealepen 5 months ago
Anti-natalism is fucking pathetic. Makes absolutely no sense. I don't even want to hear anymore crap supporting that idea. I had enough.
LtShock 5 months ago
3:07 Meow!
gpokriff2 5 months ago
great video man!
taratasarar 5 months ago
"Antinatalism? OK, you first."
Smidge204 5 months ago
suicide has popped up a lot in the comments. I imagine it'd be a lot easier to discuss people's rite to suicide rather than their rite not to exist before they have even begun to exist. It'd also be a lot more relevant and un-hypothetical.
mooxim 5 months ago
Antinatalism is a eqvivalent thing in philosophy than Two girls and a Cup was in yt.
BeyondWrittenWords 5 months ago
In my opinion antinatalism is valid, but my practical stance is also to attempt to lower population and solve the remaining problems with technology, simply because it possesses a higher potential success rate.
The world is however significantly more monstrous than it has ever been in recent centuries, mostly due to industrial farming, war etc. The human experiment is thus far a humiliating failure of the highest order, with little hope of improving to a decent standard in the near future.
IdaMiaDot 5 months ago
Antinatalism is a mental illness.
EquitoErgoSum 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You still have not addressed the argument of whether it is ethical or not to to have a child. You simply transferred the problem to a secondary problem (that of other life, and the difficulty of implantation of a solution for such). A fallacy.
So no, this video response is still insufficient at addressing the single point being made. We will start here: If a solution is hypothetically viable (simplistic enough) for the rest of life, is it then unethical to propagate a new human life?
Thanks.
trick0171 5 months ago
@trick0171 False dichotomy. It is neither ethical nor unethical to have a child. Biology nor life needs your approval. Get over yourself - as you anti-natalists fancy yourselves moral arbiters when it comes to existence. Yet... you are too depressed to live a full life. Maybe this is where the "holier-than-thou-breeders" attitudes come from.
CrudOMatic 5 months ago
@CrudOMatic
Any action that causes unnecessary harm (pain and suffering) and that, via a conscious decision, can be not actioned, is an unethical action per a consequentialist ethic. It is not a false dichotomy when talking about concerns of harm. Harm is the largest concern with ANY logical and rational ethical stance.
“Biology nor life needs your approval”
Neither does torture or any other harm you can think of. So what. Doesn’t make it not unethical.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 5 months ago
“Yet you are too depressed to live a full life”
This is psycho-babble nonsense. I love my life. The fact that you think you know the psychology of all antinatalists is an obvious symptom that you have no concern with addressing the argument but rather with applying Ad-Homs using your speculation of ones character.
(END 2)
trick0171 5 months ago
You still have not addressed the argument of whether it is ethical or not to to have a child. You simply transferred the problem to a secondary problem (that of other life, and the difficulty of implantation of a solution for such). A fallacy.
So no, this video response is still insufficient at addressing the single point being made. We will start here: If a solution is hypothetically viable (simplistic enough) for the rest of life, is it then unethical to propagate a new human life?
Thanks.
trick0171 5 months ago
This topic may be beyond your ability to fully grasp.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
When I was listening to the redhead guy discribe antinatalism, my eyebrows were furrowed, and I was like, "This is a joke, right?" Do people actually believe that it is it just some pholosophical mental wanking?
dechha1981 5 months ago
@dechha1981
No no, its a serious philosophical position. Although I don't agree with all of antinatalism's core tenants, I do sympathize with some of it.
There probably is more suffering in the world than pleasure. And as far as we know, human life(or indeed life in general) isn't leading anywhere. We're genetically programmed by our genes to procreate. Its not a sensible logical conclusion. Of course, its a pretty steep conclusion to END all life.. but still.
Svankmajer 5 months ago
HOLY SHIT, RABID APE IS ALIVE!!!
DackIsBack 5 months ago
So RabidApe you still have no case lol.
Even when taking into account the people who are doing positive things like caring for pets, becoming vegetarians etc, you still have more negatives than positives left due to all the retarded meat lovers, cutting down of trees, destruction of environment and hunting etc. A lot of animals are suffering because of humans in the first place.
If you can't eradicate suffering completely , at least try and reduce it.
gunners2009nl 5 months ago
By the same token, not giving birth to someone is depriving him or her of the opportunity to live a great life. Antinatalism is an interesting response to the idea that we should be grateful to be alive. We would need a reason to feel grateful, so we would need happiness as compensation for having been brought into the world. We come into the world immediately being owed something, implying that life is a negative thing to do to someone.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@PluralOfEverything ''not giving birth is depriving him or her of the opportunity to live a great life.''
Depriving who?
''Yeah, what they should say is that life is imposed on nonliving matter .'' The imposition is experienced as such after someone realizes they have to experience pain, suffering and die as a result of being born when thery were not in a deprivational state prior to their birth
''There are enough ways out''
Fear of death and concern for those who would be left behind!
DerivedEnergy 5 months ago
@DerivedEnergy Anti-natalists think Life and Person are separate - you can't have a person w/o life, and you can't have life w/o a living being. The two are inseparable. People don't exist without life, hoping to NOT be born. That's basically what all anti-natalist arguments boil down to... that, and a lot of emo "Woe is Me" crap. Buck up, or check out. That easy.
CrudOMatic 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrudOMatic If suicide was legalized, and fast-acting barbiturates widely available, then yes, it would be easy. Otherwise it is not. Living in a country with strict gun control makes things even worse.
If I was born just a few decades earlier, I might have been able to obtain Veronal, like Jean or Kurt.
LeMerdealepen 5 months ago
@DerivedEnergy ...then you have other anti-natalists who want the human race to die because they are psychotic, nihilistic greener hippies who have never made anything out of their lives, and thus hate other's success - then they use the Earth as their excuse to wish for our suicide or eventual genocide by his group's hand.
You have a lot of these crazy, self-loathing, people hating Hitlers in your movement. Just look at the Earth First hippies that sing campfire songs about all people dying.
CrudOMatic 5 months ago
@CrudOMatic ''then you have other anti-natalists who want the human race to die because they are psychotic, nihilistic greener hippies who have never made anything out of their lives, and thus hate other's success''
Point well made and conceded. However, how does that weaken the argument that parents create sentient beings who will suffer and die due to their own selfish desires to become a mummy or a daddy?
DerivedEnergy 5 months ago
The premise doesn't even make sense. By saying that life is imposed on a person they separate the person from "life" as if one could exist without the other. That may not be intentional but that's what it boils down to, and it renders the basis of their position absurd.
rozeboosje 5 months ago
@rozeboosje Yeah, what they should say is that life is imposed on nonliving matter or that people are forced into existence. There are enough ways out, though, that nobody should really be complaining too much.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything Even that second one doesn't work. It sort of conjures up an image of a person "existing" outside existence and then being forced into existence. In reality, personhood is an emergent property of matter coming together into a living entity. Nothing is being "forced" on anything.
rozeboosje 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rozeboosje The non-identity problem has been addressed multiple times, you are not serious, are you?
LeMerdealepen 5 months ago
@rozeboosje You don't really present any argument as to why it renders the basis of the position absurd.
@EquitoErgoSum An addictions could be considered as a mental illness aswell, which is the basis of all human behaviour, addiction to consumption and reproduction... addiction to life...
WiseWeeabo 5 months ago
@WiseWeeabo What part of my previous comment was too difficult for you?
rozeboosje 5 months ago
@rozeboosje The fact that you just state that "this is how it is" instead of explaining why, which is the only thing that would be an actual argument.
But I just said that in my previous comment so I don't really understand why you're behaving this way...
WiseWeeabo 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@WiseWeeabo Of course you don't.
rozeboosje 5 months ago
Antinatalism boils down to the same tired potential life arguments used by pro lifers who oppose condoms and birth control. The only people who have value or autonomy are the ones that exist or will exist. The imposition premise is a non starter because babies aren't capable of making decisions. Babies lack a belief in God, but by giving birth to them you aren't imposing atheism on them, they can't have beliefs about God. Indoctrination imposes belief, making suicide illegal imposes life.
DrOman5596 5 months ago
@DrOman5596 Suicide being illegal stops no one from icing themselves. Your argument is weak.
CrudOMatic 5 months ago
@CrudOMatic It wasn't an argument, it was a distinction between what is an imposition and what isn't i.e. preventing someone from committing suicide imposes life onto an unwilling subject. Try to keep up.
DrOman5596 5 months ago
@CrudOMatic
How about that it's cruel to impose suffering on others even if we won't be around to experience the suffering? In this case, our suicides would impose anguish and torment on family and friends, possibly for years, perhaps forever. To suggest that non-hypocritical ANs should off themselves is a priori assume that we shouldn't care about the consequences others would experience due to our actions ( by definition, Selfish!!). Also failed attempts can leave the person worse off.
filrabat 4 months ago
Um. In every moment of our lives, we demonstrate that we prefer life to it's alternative, death or non-existence. Instead of killing myself, I'm sitting here typing. Instead of killing myself, I eat food that keeps me alive. Everytime we do anything else than killing ourselves, we're saying that we prefer life. We're like that unborn infant but we have a choice. So why would it be immoral to give life to a new human being when we obviously prefer it.
Zerafinel 5 months ago
@Zerafinel That is an excellent point. Some people create new life unexpectedly, so it's not even always the parents' fault that a baby is born. It's just the way things go on this planet.
PluralOfEverything 5 months ago
@PluralOfEverything Antinatalism is a self-detonating position. People only discuss it because they overlook the inherent inconsistency in making the argument. It's like opening your mouth and saying, I don't have a mouth and I can't speak.
Zerafinel 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Zerafinel As long as humane ways of killing yourself aren't available to you, your comparison makes no sense. 'Suicidal' people don't prefer existing, and if suicide was legalized, would kill themselves, of course. There is a reason Dignitas or EXIT don't shoot their clients in the head or throw them off of high rise buildings: it is inhumane. Kevorkian was right on this one. But if you somehow know how to get access to Nembutal, please let me and Sister Y know, I'd love to get my hands on 'em.
LeMerdealepen 5 months ago
The enforcing of anti-natalism is a null-point. If something is correct, it is correct, implementation is an irrelevancy, practicality has no place in this type of discussion.
magus12345678 5 months ago
The cure for Anti-Natalism is Shotgun Mouthwash. You want the human race to die? THEN LEAD BY EXAMPLE. Winchester, motherfuckers!
CrudOMatic 5 months ago
@CrudOMatic
How does that solve any problems? How is that even an argument?
KoningStoma 5 months ago
@KoningStoma Anti-natalist argument:
"OH WOES IS ME! LIFE IS SO HORRIBLE! HOW DARE YOU HAVE BABIES BECAUSE I KNOW THEY WILL ALL BE MISERABLE LIKE ME! WE NEED TO STOP BREEDING AND LET THE HUMAN RACE DIE, BECAUSE BREEDING IS IMMORAL AND INHUMANE! BOO HOO HOO!"
If their life is that miserable, they shouldn't try to project themselves onto other people (who aren't emo pussies and have no problem with life), and insist the human race commit genetic suicide. Just kill yourself, problem solved.
CrudOMatic 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@CrudOMatic This is of course not the argument, but, you knew that. :) And killing oneself humanely is of course not possible, not now, no. As long as access to fast-acting barbiturates remains illegal, a quick and painless way to go is out of the question. There is a reason Dignitas or EXIT don't shoot their clients in the head or hand them: it is inhumane. I also don't see where the angriness comes from: if you love life, why be so upset? If 'suicide' was so easy, not only more people would ..
LeMerdealepen 5 months ago
... choose to committ suicide, but there would also be no failures. Which is totally wrong, of course. I notice that there is a lot of confusion about the subject of suicide: killing oneself humanely is hard, otherwise Sister Y from The View from Hell wouldn't be with us anymore. After a failed hanging attempt, complete with blackout, gruesome pain and forced hospitalisation, I demand Nembutal or similarly lethal doses; everything else is out of the question. Kevorkian said it best ...
LeMerdealepen 5 months ago
... but then again, it was his profession, so no surprise. 'icing' is, btw, no humane method, sorry. And Winchesters are a) inhumane and b) hard to get your hands on in countries with strict gun regulation.
Deal with it: a humane suicide is hard to bring about without access to barbiturates, and a lot is done to prevent people from committing suicide. Or is Veronal still getting produced? Of course not. OTC stuff is of no use, you'll just become unconscious and vomit, that's all.
LeMerdealepen 5 months ago
@CrudOMatic Humans die everyday on their own. they also come up with stupid phrases like "shotgun mouthwash" You are a shining example of why antinatalists exist in the first place.....motherfucker.
wideosvatcher 5 months ago
@wideosvatcher Don't whine to me about it, emo. You can't handle life, check out. Quit being a pussy.
CrudOMatic 5 months ago
You are of course entirely correct about your comparison and its practicality. The thing is, antinatalism on YouTube is not about that at all. It is about talking, and converting. It is about creating a new Gospel, Church and lifestyle: rather than marrying and having a children and preaching the word of The Bible, now it is about not having children and preaching antinatalism. For ANs, this is the only route available for us as a species if all past religious dogma is discarded for good.
tranquil87 5 months ago
@tranquil87 And it allows young people with virtually no philosophical background to make them feel like they are authorities on philosophy and psychology because they can recite somebody else's premises; it gives them a great feeling of significance because they can spew somebody else's dogma and believe confidently that they are part of the most important movement that was ever created.
tranquil87 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@tranquil87 'virtually no philosophical background ' This is a bit too pretentious for my tastes. The argument is easily understood, requiring only a basic understanding of logic. It is also a dubious criteria: was Wittgenstein, who had no philosophical training and barely read classical works, not a a philosopher?
Sure he was.
LeMerdealepen 5 months ago
if inmendham was really into antinatalism, he'd read a f'ing book on the subject. He's like a broken record that doesn't care to educate himself on the subject and thinks that he can win arguments by shouting over people who disagree with. He's a terrible person and should be ridiculed, not taken seriously.
daedamot 5 months ago
@daedamot
I don't know how you could construe any of the things imendham has done as just "shouting over people". Have you actually watched the myriad of videos he has on the subject?
magus12345678 5 months ago
@magus12345678 Yeah I have. He also repeats himself, rambling endlessly, he's not focused, he doesn't care to learn anything about the subject. He's pointless to debate with because he already thinks he knows everything there is and that's why he prides himself on never reading any books.
He's rude & obnoxious and if you want more proof, go to his Stickam room on Saturdays. See how he treats people who disagree with him.
On top of all that, he files false DMCAs on people who make fun of him.
daedamot 5 months ago
@daedamot
That seems mostly like a bunch of hate-imendham-bullshit, he might not be "nice", but he isn't rambly in anyway shape or form, most of his videos have been direct responses to "objections" to the argument. I don't care if he is nice about it or not, and he HAS read books on the subject he has even talked about them.
magus12345678 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@magus12345678 He's an asshole with rarely a clear well spoken thought. Saying "not nice" is like saying the temperature of the surface of the sun is "a little warm."
bamboo4tameshigiri 5 months ago
Who argued that we should end life via crashing the moon etc. Just stop having kids.
probableerror 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@probableerror "Who argued that we should end life via crashing the moon etc. Just stop having kids."
Antinatalists like Jaysounder did in videos that people like inmendham favourited.
Just stop having kids leaves most life on the planet possibly for billions more years.
It wouldn't end life at all. In fact it would only end the one species that can actually counter the cruelty of natural selection
shlockofgod 5 months ago
You cannot withhold consent or consent to remain unborn either. We don't apply consent to the unborn or young children and there's no reason given why "unborn" should be the default position. The only way you could show that is to demonstrate that being born is likely to be unwanted; but the opposite is true. Most people prefer having been born and of those that claim not to their problems can mostly be traced to events after birth.
shlockofgod 5 months ago
His second premise brings up force. This is an equivocation as it fails to distinguish between legitimate force and aggression. We force children to read and eat healthy food; we can't be totally sure that won't have adverse effects but doesn't mean that's immoral. I'm not even sure if force is the right word to use for childbirth. Childbirth seems to be something different. I think the moral concept of force is being grafted on.
shlockofgod 5 months ago
I think his third premise is too absolute. Sure we cannot be absolutely sure the life will be worth living but what can we be sure off? Can we be sure that AN will not lead to greater suffering or that not bringing certain children into the world will be more harmful that not; we can't have such certainty for almost anything (including antinatalism) so it doesn't follow that doing those things is immoral.
The 4th premise is the same and the conclusions is "Therefore it's immoral" WHAT?
shlockofgod 5 months ago
@shlockofgod "I think his third premise is too absolute." please, don't give him the joy of addressing these premises by saying they are "his". You should try to get used to removing as much as possible the speaker out of it all, because you're giving them the gratification they want from spewing premises that aren't their own.
tranquil87 5 months ago
Even if they did manage to somehow destroy all life on earth, this would not prevent intelligent life from reemerging in the universe, if it doesn't already exist somewhere other than earth... and so antinatalism as a means to end suffering fails.
br0kenmech 5 months ago
@br0kenmech We need to destroy the universe
coaxx 5 months ago