Respectfully, Professor Anton, you are far too nice for these antinatalist crybabies, and you are far too intelligent to bother with them. Simple solution: they should all commit mass suicide, and make this world a better place. If they can't justify their own lives by doing something constructive, than they are obligated to kill themselves, which will significantly lower the population, and the amount of suffering in the world.
so antho you're a meritocrat. so what? what about the obvious reasons for anti-N: ecological degradation, 925 million seriously undernourished humans, 21,000 of which die a day, border controls that keep them from migrating as wild animals do when the plains dry up. we are part of this globalised world. inside our borders, we are kept safe to breed the next generation of meritocrats. you outght to go deeper if you call yourself a philosopher,
@gallaco1 So, what are YOU doing to help the suffering? Do you donate time and money? Are you a member of the Peace Corps? Are you a doctor? What do you do to justify your existence?
I have arguments with myself all of the time about whether I should have kids. I used to really think that people shouldn't have any more kids, but it's just certain people that shouldn't.
I have a very different philosophy that is derived from the same central principle that life=suffering. Perhaps it will help you to inspire purpose and meaning in your own life. Let me know what you think.
It's the video on my channel called "The Meaning of Life".
@Silenus6 hiw is ttat hypocracy? Children are stupid. You are arguing over something that doesn't exist because you were possibly raped as child and now hate sex. Life is a bitch and then you die, be a moppyy winey bitch about it and just grow the fuck up.
@Pinochimon But I'm being seriouse calm the hell down, if stuff like this upsets you... Stop YouTube searching it. Seriously watch how much better. Your life gets
@Pinochimon I mean how would you feel If people kept going to your videos and disagreeing with everything you had to say, I'm sure you wouldnt be happy about it
Sex is evil.... what a crock shit these virgin basement dwellers have come up with. No one has sex with you so, you get butthurt and force people no not have sex, because you never got any. I smell a sexually frustrated virgin....
@swa5297 baww cry me a river you mentally fucked retard. Your logic doesn't make sense, go take your happy pills ad get six from watching porn. I bet tat's the reason why, you got rapped as akid. God isbullshit, but life is what you make it. Forcing people to not have sex is ignorant. That is why you have no life.
@tranquil87 Children are stupid please fuck off you moppy little bitch. Life sucks. suffer ling happens act like an adult and not an autistic faggot. Btw how can someting determain anything if it doesn't exist? Antinatalfags are moppy mentally retard idiots that need to be put away. Btw kill yourself. We will nfuck if we want to. BTW I'm coming to your house and having gay sex inront of you.
Antinatalism is a cop out of living if you have a problem with life do sum thing about it stand up and stop the suffering that they bang on about, ending it all is just a coward's way out
@funhouse21 You can't change the nature of the universe and there's no good reason why sentience should exist, we LOSE no matter what we do so it's not the cowards way out dumbass, it's the ONLY way out.
We all DIE sooner or later, the universe enters heat death, so it's all meaningless, so why force new sentient to struggle through the shit when our doom is inevitable?
When there is no more life on this planet, eventually consciousness will happen somewhere else, and I will be there to see it. But I won't know it. I don't see our lives as a flash between two infinite slabs of darkness. Who gives a fuck anyway I'm gonna fetch a McFlurry.
Here's the irony/hypocrisy of your position: You say we don't have the right to choose for other people, and yet that's precisely what procreation represents; a choice made on another's behalf and w/o their consent. Also, why do you call it choosing for others when we say to them "You shouldn't have children", but you don't call it that when you say to us "You shouldn't say that"? Have they more of a right to breed than we have to speak against breeding?
I think it makes perfect sense to take an extreme, or unambiguous, position. It's not our job to mitigate and water-down our views, since the people with whom we disagree will no doubt accomplish that for us. Moreover, they represent the vast majority of people, so, seeing that we are a minority, isn't it reasonable for us to take an unequivocal stance, if only to make our values clearly audible? "A false balance is abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight." (~ Proverbs 11:1)
Every person who has a child is speaking for another person, the child. A person when they become a parent doesn't know that the child will agree with their decision when they grow up. The parent always makes the choice for the child. You can say the parent has a right to make choices for another person because it's their genetics, but the child might later disagree that the parent had such a right. It's irrelevant, though. Ultimately others choose life for us all. We are just born & here we are
We are the first animal that we domesticated, so regardless of how badly we might want to deny it, since a primate long ago first spoke a sound symbol, and was understood by the tribe, we have never stopped practicing a eugenic art. Eugenics as a science was not even possible before the locomotive, so as humans cut back on genetic blending due to reduced transportation, eugenics needs to be elevated to a kindness unseen since the advent of agriculture. Failure to do so may bring our extinction.
Never knew you were adopted. Just finished watching your other video explaining it. I am very happy that things worked out great for you and you're where you are today. You post such excellent videos and I always love going back and rewatching/listening to what you have to say. Thank you.
Let's cut the BS and initiate a debate regarding a conflict between deontological and negative utilitarian based ethics that would inevitably occur if an AN meme was let loose in the western world and gained a firm foothold. Your ideas of saturating the universe with an (human?) intelligence is at best an utterly pointless and grotesque endeavour and at worst an 'quest' that could have negative consequences that we can barely even BEGIN to comprehend for sentience emerging in the future. Thanks
The ethical implications of my Zargarg videos are startingly obvious to anyone who hasn't erected a barrier of psychological defense mechanisms in order to deny the assymetry The distinction between the absence of pleasant mental states and the absence of negative mental states in potential future generations is blindingly obvious to someone who hasn't been indoctrinated into a belief that that the human race must procreate indefinitely.
Since Malthus & the now solidified eugenics movement begun in the late 19th cent. (Margaret Sanger & the Rockefellers), we've witnessed population reduction through wars, planned famines, genocide, natural disasters, etc. America was the first country to legally sterilize the "unfit." The last forced sterilization occurred in Oregon in 1981. Countries, like China, are in direct violation of the U. N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many govts. still make pop. reduction thru unjust laws.
A very eloquent, comprehensive, and, as far as I under it, existential perspective. Not to sound too trivial about it, but life is what we make of it. The caveat being that we need the proper tools and materials as well, to increase the odds of making a life worth living. I think this idea of there being one ideal way of being happy or worthy has been foisted on us to be more easily be controlled. Falsifying this idea is an important step to making more really fulfilling lives.
Antinatalism doesn't inherently require that the current generation commit suicide. If it is your contention that your life is worth living then by all means continue living. The controversy is generated when assuming responsibility to introduce a new consciousness into a world which is, as a general rule; quite insidious.
The "better world" is always welcome. However, a quick analysis of history will reveal that - contrary to commonly held notions of accomplishment and progress instilled by scientific endeavors and the advancement of culture - the world has become a steadily more horrific over the last twenty thousand years; with no sign of this improving. Of the last five hundred million or so years, the most monstrous period was easily the last few centuries; and in particular the most recent century.
@IdaMiaDot thats all very well, but just how are you gonna get everyone to go along with antinatalism?. Of the last five hundred million or so years, the most monstrous period was easily the last few centuries; and in particular the most recent century.
pretty bold statement there, any thing to back that up
how do you know how horrific it was when the dinosaurs roamed the place for millions of years , we have no way of telling.
@CHASCHARLTON It's unlikely we would convince everyone. But lowering the population by a significant percentage would be hugely beneficial. Also, the suffering inflicted by dinosaurs would need to top the current suffering in nature, alongside the billions of added humans suffering due to lack of food and disease etc; as well as the billions of added animals that spend their lives in cages under human care. You also need to account for wars, radiation poisoning, concentration camps etc
@CHASCHARLTON I meant that if you sampled just 100 or 200 years from history and compared it to any other 100 or 200 years it's probably been most horrific in recent years. The 21st century obviously can't compare to hundreds of millions or billions of years of suffering. Also promoting population reduction rather than antinatalism would arguably be an advisable political tactic; but antinatalism is the most logically defensible position.
On the other hand I've realized that our differences are the promotion of "book culture"... as you recently emphasized the importance of this to you, as you have all along, I think I understood the meaning. I think we are probably similar in terms of the value we place on books in our own lives and education... but in promoting an idea of book culture, this is where we differ and talk past each other.
@pyrrho314 : I guess this should be a PM, as it's out of context... I thought this before watching this vid. But I do not believe in promoting a book intellectualism, I want to promote a bookless intellectualism where we treat each other's positions like references, and be responsible about that. I believe in book cultures, like book clubs, and the role of books in culture. But THIS medium is also for direct conversation.
my mom has told me if abortion was legal I probably wouldn't have been born... and she is conservative now and uses that as an argument against abortion... lol, but anyway, I too have considered my own possible non-existence. My desire to exist is not an argument against abortion, imo, but I still am glad I got this low probability chance, and it came off.
I appreciated Frankl's work more the older I became. You're right, but the religious camp and secular camp are, inherently, so very diametrically opposed to one another. That skew is the entire issue. I read the book you cited, in college, not catholic but fresh out of catholic high school, and can remember thinking he was a total nut in some ways. Consciousness, nature, etc. will never resonate, but for concepts of natural law, with religious people the same as seculars/naturalists/agnostics.
Antinatalist: I would appreciate if I didn't exist, if I didn't exist I wouldn't know of suffering. This being a relief to my own conscious mind in this life, I will still spout the knowledge of suffering to everyone else and remind them to revalue their lives and grow a few IQ's to my liking. I don't care if people know what suffering is, they only THINK they know what suffering is. You dreamers, you rainbow-chasing hypocrites, dim-wits, half-wits, asshole, fucknuts.
Antinatalist: "Empathy"? What on earth are you saying? I have too much Empathy to "enjoy life". Merely "Enjoy life" is a track stuck on repeat trying to brainwash me to do practical things to make a real difference. I know that "difference" is just an unnecessary desire and need, I don't have to make any difference, I only have to know that I can make a difference and the difference I could make is futile.
Antinatalist: I argue that in a theoretically constructed/pseudo-philosophical world where we have once and for all ended the "suffering" as we know it, we, as a human species will never again find new ways of "suffering". We already know what suffering is; A word to describe what we know. Selective to the meaning of Empiricism (suffering) and Psychology (suffering) to pervertedly prove my points (suffering), I choose my own intro- and retrospection (suffering) before everything (suffering).
Antinatalist: But since the truth is I cannot turn this theoretical construct into reality, life is therefore futile and pointless to experience. Contrasts? Real Philosophy? Comparisons? Real Psychology? What the hell are those anyway, I have all the information I need to convince myself and everyone else how life is futile and why: Suffering = bad. I don't care if they don't understand me, I will yell and I will repeat the same verse over and over until people around me start to agree with me.
The whole story is about Gene Wars and Meme Wars. Procreators and Breeders want to win the former. Whereas, independently and not necessarily conflicting, the Content creators and Power holders want to win the Latter. Gene wars exist for about 2-3 billion years. Meme wars exist for about 5 thousand years, since the invention of the Written word. It's all simple.
This "anti-natalism" stuff is irrelevant. Reminiscent of the confusion between theory and fact that causes existential crises over "determinism" and the like.
This is weasel IDEALISM; neglecting that existence is prior to (and prevails over) opinion. Our task is economy - this crypto-theology and its "oughts" are begging permission for the MOTHER of reasons (life).
Real wisdom (science) is about economy. This crap is "playing god" for the irreligious.
@swa5297 Absolutely right on all your comments. Most people just want to distort what is, at it's heart, an elegant and logically irrefutable theory (Benatarian assymetry).
I'm mapping out the psychological defense mechanisms people employ through my discourse analysis work and it's proven to be very revealing so far.
If you're interested please feel free to check out my channel some time.
I checked out your channel and you have some interesting material on there ... you seem to be hitting the nail right on the head. I subscribed as I'm interested to see where you take the rest of your work.
Also, from looking at your quotes and your general line of thinking, I assume that you've read Ligotti's Conspiracy Against the Human Race. If not, I highly recommend it
@swa5297 I don't see how that DOESN'T give them the right to do it. If the child is so unhappy with his life and sufers endlessly he has the option to OPT-OUT!
@tranquil87 No he really doesn't. Opting out of life isn't as straight forward as you make it out to be. For one, nobody lives in a vacuum. Often times people refrain from killing themselves because of family members or close friends who would be emotionally devestated. Also there are a limited amount of appealing means by which somebody can make an exit. To many blowing your own brains out with a gun or jumping off a skyscraper just isn't an option.
@tranquil87 Finally, even if one makes the rational decision that life is no longer worth living, he's still a biological organism which is driven by a fundamental drive towards survival, making it difficult if not impossible to carry out the act.
The question really is, should we continue to create the NEED for pleasure, when there is not even the slightest bit of desire for it from non-existence. Also, you can't argue that it should be up to the parents to choose whether or not they want kids, as by making a decision to have children they are making the choice for that person, the same thing which you tried to eradicate by giving the decision to the parents.
I don't think it is even logical to ask whether your'e happy with your parent's decision to give birth to you. Each and every one of us instinctually seeks pleasure and that can't be had in non-existence. Therefore I don't think the question should ever be asked "Would this person have been better off had they not been born?". Obviously they wouldn't because as an existing human being who's highest value is the "good" things in life, "they" would not have those had they not been born.
You said that "I'm glad that she didn't make the choice for me" and "I don't think other people can decide for other people". Your mother choosing to not abort you WAS making a choice for you ... she decided that she wanted to create a new life, you. You had no say in it whatsoever. The question of whether or not you feel that was a good choice is a futile one. As an existing being who a) is "programmed" to value pleasure b) is "programmed" to avoid and be afraid of their own non-existence,
That being said, I think it is obviously much more urgent to cease from procreating beings who exerience a life full of an abundance of suffering. Still, in the end, even the smallest amount of suffering is wholly uneccessary and I don't see any reason to create a new life form just so that they can experience it (even if it is accompanied with some pleasure along the way).
I think that there is a very legitimate reason as to why antinatalists take the apparently "extreme" position of everyone refraining from procreation as they realise that even the slightest bit of suffering, no matter how trivial, makes the whole life experiment not worth starting. I think that this insight is fundamental to the antinatalist position which is why they (we) insist on following it to its logical conclusion.
I don't understand. Since when is it inherently good to "have witnessed the very fact of existence" and "bear self-consciousness"? I think that anybody who holds this position is obviously a little biased as they are evaluating its worth from the viewpoint of ... a self-conscious organism witnessing the fact of existence. I think that from this viewpoint one is unable to make a rational assessment of the situation and its ramifications. Are these goods in themselves, or do we just value them?
You're are too healthy minded for the maladaptive intellects of the misanthropists to appreciate much less understand you. Nevertheless, this is a good video and well said.
''TO HAVE WITNESSED THE VERY FACT OF EXISTENCE! To bear self-consciousness! Who could imagine these coming without a very hefty price?''
These 'gifts' were neither needed nor desired by you prior to your birth. If you had never come into existence, perhaps because another sperm impregnated the egg from which you coalesced into existence, then you would not have even known about existence LET ALONE coveted it.
Never lose sight of the destiction between STARTING a new life and CONTINUING one that is already in existence, Professor. This is a common manifestation of a psychological defense mechanism that is used in order to reject the Benatarian assymetry and which I have encountered frequently in my research on the subject of antinatalism so far.
The either/or attack is a straw man. There's plenty of room for debate about how we can strategically bring new human beings into the world in order to stagger out the extinction of the human race in a way that minimises the suffering in the world during the discontinuation process. No one's asking anybody to jump from a high building. A polite request is merely being made to refrain from bringing more sentient beings capable of suffering into the world. Thank you.
It's not about whether a new life's worth LIVING. It's about whether a potential life's ever worth STARTING for the sake of the person you're bringing into existence.
The answer is a resounding 'NO'.
YOU choose life but many people would NOT have wanted to have been born if they had been given a choice.
Love is only something that is needed if there is a sentient being who would be deprived of said love if they do not receive it. It therefore cannot be cited as a reason to start life.
@TWITfromURANUS 1) A lot more than the little boy in my two Zargarg video for starters. We can argue numbers but about a million people currently committ suicide anually. Many, many more attempt to committ suicide anually but fail. Without doing a worldwide survey that is immune from the social desirability effect it is difficult to say with any kind of accuracy or authority.
@TWITfromURANUS I accept this but I don't think it negates my arguments as comprehensively as you may think If someone wants to kill themselves or feigns a false desire to kill themselves then clearly they are suffering in a meaningful way This suffering would not have occured if they hadn't been born - a good thing. They wouldn't have been deprived of joy if they hadn't been born - neutral + their own subjective appraisal of the life they currently lead would not have any bearing on the matter
@DerivedEnergy "I accept this but I don't think it negates..."
I wouldn't presume to 'negate your arguments comprehensively' because they can only ever amount to your subjective assessment. & that has it's validity. But in exactly the same sense, you can't negate mine...
I honestly appreciate your aim here (I've chosen not to breed --partly for ethical reasons myself; although they differ from yours), but your view is skewed if you think it's in any way objective.
@TWITfromURANUS 2) Yes and No. From a rational and logical position absolutely 100% no. From a subjective day-to-day appraisal of my consciousness sometimes yes and sometimes no. However, I recognise that the latter response is irrational and although I can see no immorality in my employing irrational reasons to alleviate the intellectual regret I have for my own birth, to use the same kind of irrationality when contemplating the ethics of procreation is pernicious to future potential children.
@TWITfromURANUS 3) Nobody. However, there are strong social sanctions against expressing such feelings to the general public or even to friends and loved ones. Even if the whole world population didn't regret the fact of their own existence but still experienced some suffering, their views would still be irrational because existence does not confer any advantage over non-existence and if they hadn't come into existence they wouldn't be deprived of joy or experience any suffering.
@DerivedEnergy "Even if the whole world population didn't regret the fact of their own existence but still experienced some suffering, their views would still be irrational..."
Such drivel. From where 'on high' do you make these judgements?
Look at what you also said: "I can see no immorality in my employing irrational reasons"
So it's fine for you but nobody else? Self-important much? Too much inmendham in your life, chuck.
Life ISN'T completely rational. & Thank Fuck, I say.
The real crux of the antinatalist argument is the ethics involved with forcing a new existence. One that does not care about "quality of life" until it exists. The point that the antinatalist (such as myself) makes is that it is unethical to roll the dice of good and bad quality of life for something that does not care about either while not existing.
That it is unethical to place a large potential for harm into existence for pleasure that a nonexistence does not care about ...until it begins existing. We also hold the right to die, the right to abortion, etc, but those are all seperate issuesn than antinatalism. The antinatalist problem is one about, it is ethical to create the (large) potential for more harms unnecessarily (unnecessary to a nonexistence).
Also, it is not about ending the next generations life, but rather starting it when prior to it only those in existence care about "beautiful projects" etc. It is not worth the "project" for the unjustice, especially when the project is merely to minimize the unjustices.
Anyway...I'm ranting. The point that needs to be concidered is if it is "ethical" to create unnecessary harms for unnecessary pleasures of something that only cares about those things once they are put into play. Once they exist. We certainly can tell people it is selfish to roll such dice for their own satisfaction.
If life did not arise there would be nothing worth removing. If it is extinguished, it will rise again. Once removed and twice raised, life will always find a way...
"If life did not arise there would be nothing worth removing."
That is the very point. A nonexistence does not hold any conceptions of "worth".
"Once removed and twice raised, life will always find a way..."
This is another problem for consideration, but it is important not to conflate issues. Right now the only point I made was if it was ethical to add a new existence. The consideration regarding all (new) life on earth happening is another problem in need of a solution.
Antinatalism is not about removal of already existing life. It also is not against alleviating suffering for already existing life and supports that endeavor. Again, it is only about the ethics of placing new life that, when not existing, does not "prefer existence". There is no "preference" for it, only what you hold and impose ON it. :)
Quality of life for people who already exist is very important!
In this video, I agree with every word you said... for a change :) (in other videos there are moments, where I could express the same thoughts in a different way, look at things from a different angle, non-confrontationally, but not here)
The video I'm uploading tomorrow really addresses many of the issues you're discussing here. Really enjoyed your rational ideas you present. I don't think it's practical to believe you can "have it all" either. That's not to say that people should be forced into any lifestyle, but parenthood is something that requires serious sacrifice, so it's not for everyone.
Respectfully, Professor Anton, you are far too nice for these antinatalist crybabies, and you are far too intelligent to bother with them. Simple solution: they should all commit mass suicide, and make this world a better place. If they can't justify their own lives by doing something constructive, than they are obligated to kill themselves, which will significantly lower the population, and the amount of suffering in the world.
Qntkka 2 weeks ago
so antho you're a meritocrat. so what? what about the obvious reasons for anti-N: ecological degradation, 925 million seriously undernourished humans, 21,000 of which die a day, border controls that keep them from migrating as wild animals do when the plains dry up. we are part of this globalised world. inside our borders, we are kept safe to breed the next generation of meritocrats. you outght to go deeper if you call yourself a philosopher,
gallaco1 1 month ago
@gallaco1 So, what are YOU doing to help the suffering? Do you donate time and money? Are you a member of the Peace Corps? Are you a doctor? What do you do to justify your existence?
Qntkka 2 weeks ago
Oh dear, Ma and Pa Kent couldn't have kids either.
(Not to lessen your experience or anything, I've just come to appreciate the ways in which these experiences have become mythologized.)
DannyPhantomBeast 1 month ago in playlist ☂ ☼ BEGIN HERE, if you like.
You're adopted!?
Do you feel any kinship with Superman?
DannyPhantomBeast 1 month ago in playlist ☂ ☼ BEGIN HERE, if you like.
@DannyPhantomBeast /watch?v=7f2xSF4fWTM
Professoranton 1 month ago in playlist ☂ ☼ BEGIN HERE, if you like.
I have arguments with myself all of the time about whether I should have kids. I used to really think that people shouldn't have any more kids, but it's just certain people that shouldn't.
pixiepollen 1 month ago in playlist ☂ ☼ BEGIN HERE, if you like.
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a very different philosophy that is derived from the same central principle that life=suffering. Perhaps it will help you to inspire purpose and meaning in your own life. Let me know what you think.
It's the video on my channel called "The Meaning of Life".
jlhe2011 2 months ago
Sub me If you agree ( LOL )
owlflame 2 months ago
@Pinochimon your own advice that's all Im saying. You neverleave positive (or spell checked) comments, so just leave people alone
owlflame 2 months ago
@Silenus6 hiw is ttat hypocracy? Children are stupid. You are arguing over something that doesn't exist because you were possibly raped as child and now hate sex. Life is a bitch and then you die, be a moppyy winey bitch about it and just grow the fuck up.
Pinochimon 2 months ago
@Pinochimon But I'm being seriouse calm the hell down, if stuff like this upsets you... Stop YouTube searching it. Seriously watch how much better. Your life gets
owlflame 2 months ago
@Pinochimon I mean how would you feel If people kept going to your videos and disagreeing with everything you had to say, I'm sure you wouldnt be happy about it
owlflame 2 months ago
Sex is evil.... what a crock shit these virgin basement dwellers have come up with. No one has sex with you so, you get butthurt and force people no not have sex, because you never got any. I smell a sexually frustrated virgin....
Pinochimon 2 months ago
@swa5297 baww cry me a river you mentally fucked retard. Your logic doesn't make sense, go take your happy pills ad get six from watching porn. I bet tat's the reason why, you got rapped as akid. God isbullshit, but life is what you make it. Forcing people to not have sex is ignorant. That is why you have no life.
Pinochimon 2 months ago
@tranquil87 Children are stupid please fuck off you moppy little bitch. Life sucks. suffer ling happens act like an adult and not an autistic faggot. Btw how can someting determain anything if it doesn't exist? Antinatalfags are moppy mentally retard idiots that need to be put away. Btw kill yourself. We will nfuck if we want to. BTW I'm coming to your house and having gay sex inront of you.
Pinochimon 2 months ago
Antinatalism is a cop out of living if you have a problem with life do sum thing about it stand up and stop the suffering that they bang on about, ending it all is just a coward's way out
funhouse21 2 months ago
@funhouse21 You can't change the nature of the universe and there's no good reason why sentience should exist, we LOSE no matter what we do so it's not the cowards way out dumbass, it's the ONLY way out.
We all DIE sooner or later, the universe enters heat death, so it's all meaningless, so why force new sentient to struggle through the shit when our doom is inevitable?
BeardedBill86 1 month ago
@BeardedBill86 tehn my friend you miss out on the greatest adventurer of all and that is life
funhouse21 1 month ago
@funhouse21 Great adventure ride you have there, ricketty and unsafe, ending crashing and burning.
If I'd never of existed I wouldn't care about what I'd missed out on.
BeardedBill86 1 month ago
@BeardedBill86 but the you would not get to complane about how life sucks
funhouse21 1 month ago
@funhouse21 Did you miss the part where I said I wouldn't care because I wouldn't exist to care?
BeardedBill86 1 month ago
@BeardedBill86 but surly you do or you would not of bothered to comment in the first place
funhouse21 1 month ago
@funhouse21 ...Yeah because I exist at the moment.
BeardedBill86 1 month ago
When there is no more life on this planet, eventually consciousness will happen somewhere else, and I will be there to see it. But I won't know it. I don't see our lives as a flash between two infinite slabs of darkness. Who gives a fuck anyway I'm gonna fetch a McFlurry.
Tengent 2 months ago
Here's the irony/hypocrisy of your position: You say we don't have the right to choose for other people, and yet that's precisely what procreation represents; a choice made on another's behalf and w/o their consent. Also, why do you call it choosing for others when we say to them "You shouldn't have children", but you don't call it that when you say to us "You shouldn't say that"? Have they more of a right to breed than we have to speak against breeding?
Silenus6 6 months ago
I think it makes perfect sense to take an extreme, or unambiguous, position. It's not our job to mitigate and water-down our views, since the people with whom we disagree will no doubt accomplish that for us. Moreover, they represent the vast majority of people, so, seeing that we are a minority, isn't it reasonable for us to take an unequivocal stance, if only to make our values clearly audible? "A false balance is abomination to the Lord, but a just weight is his delight." (~ Proverbs 11:1)
Silenus6 6 months ago
You are such a badass.
SwineBeforeSwine 7 months ago
an anti-natalist song. "Puissance - Grace of God"
greenghost2008 8 months ago
Comment removed
StormGoesBOOM 8 months ago
I am probably just stating the obvious here but you didn't mention that many many people have both successful careers and quality family life.
feedtherich 8 months ago
ok what the hell is all this antinatalism shit i keep seeing on anton and pyhrro's videos? what is it?
i keep seeing it all the damn time
natmanprime 9 months ago
Every person who has a child is speaking for another person, the child. A person when they become a parent doesn't know that the child will agree with their decision when they grow up. The parent always makes the choice for the child. You can say the parent has a right to make choices for another person because it's their genetics, but the child might later disagree that the parent had such a right. It's irrelevant, though. Ultimately others choose life for us all. We are just born & here we are
MarmaladeINFP 9 months ago
We are the first animal that we domesticated, so regardless of how badly we might want to deny it, since a primate long ago first spoke a sound symbol, and was understood by the tribe, we have never stopped practicing a eugenic art. Eugenics as a science was not even possible before the locomotive, so as humans cut back on genetic blending due to reduced transportation, eugenics needs to be elevated to a kindness unseen since the advent of agriculture. Failure to do so may bring our extinction.
DonQuixotedeKaw 9 months ago
Life is an never ending itch that I need to scratch, thanks for giving me a back scratcher bro.
saguarodundee 9 months ago
This is truly great video. Nice job.
natedaug1 9 months ago
Never knew you were adopted. Just finished watching your other video explaining it. I am very happy that things worked out great for you and you're where you are today. You post such excellent videos and I always love going back and rewatching/listening to what you have to say. Thank you.
TheFaceMeIter 9 months ago
Superb video, Corey.
EnglishGoethe 9 months ago
Let's cut the BS and initiate a debate regarding a conflict between deontological and negative utilitarian based ethics that would inevitably occur if an AN meme was let loose in the western world and gained a firm foothold. Your ideas of saturating the universe with an (human?) intelligence is at best an utterly pointless and grotesque endeavour and at worst an 'quest' that could have negative consequences that we can barely even BEGIN to comprehend for sentience emerging in the future. Thanks
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
Professor, why won't you respond to my video?
The ethical implications of my Zargarg videos are startingly obvious to anyone who hasn't erected a barrier of psychological defense mechanisms in order to deny the assymetry The distinction between the absence of pleasant mental states and the absence of negative mental states in potential future generations is blindingly obvious to someone who hasn't been indoctrinated into a belief that that the human race must procreate indefinitely.
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
Since Malthus & the now solidified eugenics movement begun in the late 19th cent. (Margaret Sanger & the Rockefellers), we've witnessed population reduction through wars, planned famines, genocide, natural disasters, etc. America was the first country to legally sterilize the "unfit." The last forced sterilization occurred in Oregon in 1981. Countries, like China, are in direct violation of the U. N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Many govts. still make pop. reduction thru unjust laws.
BrotherWoody1 9 months ago
beautiful video
thecindypwns 9 months ago
A very eloquent, comprehensive, and, as far as I under it, existential perspective. Not to sound too trivial about it, but life is what we make of it. The caveat being that we need the proper tools and materials as well, to increase the odds of making a life worth living. I think this idea of there being one ideal way of being happy or worthy has been foisted on us to be more easily be controlled. Falsifying this idea is an important step to making more really fulfilling lives.
NAVYGOLDEIGHTFOUR 9 months ago
Antinatalism doesn't inherently require that the current generation commit suicide. If it is your contention that your life is worth living then by all means continue living. The controversy is generated when assuming responsibility to introduce a new consciousness into a world which is, as a general rule; quite insidious.
IdaMiaDot 9 months ago
@IdaMiaDot The controversy is generated when you assume that conciousness is insidious and s tart playing semantics games.
xplah 9 months ago
The "better world" is always welcome. However, a quick analysis of history will reveal that - contrary to commonly held notions of accomplishment and progress instilled by scientific endeavors and the advancement of culture - the world has become a steadily more horrific over the last twenty thousand years; with no sign of this improving. Of the last five hundred million or so years, the most monstrous period was easily the last few centuries; and in particular the most recent century.
IdaMiaDot 9 months ago
@IdaMiaDot thats all very well, but just how are you gonna get everyone to go along with antinatalism?. Of the last five hundred million or so years, the most monstrous period was easily the last few centuries; and in particular the most recent century.
pretty bold statement there, any thing to back that up
how do you know how horrific it was when the dinosaurs roamed the place for millions of years , we have no way of telling.
CHASCHARLTON 9 months ago
@CHASCHARLTON It's unlikely we would convince everyone. But lowering the population by a significant percentage would be hugely beneficial. Also, the suffering inflicted by dinosaurs would need to top the current suffering in nature, alongside the billions of added humans suffering due to lack of food and disease etc; as well as the billions of added animals that spend their lives in cages under human care. You also need to account for wars, radiation poisoning, concentration camps etc
IdaMiaDot 9 months ago
@IdaMiaDot then why not promote population reduction? its a lot more palatable to people than full blown antinatalism,
and your talking 200 years against millions even billions of years of suffering ,animals and homo-sapiens eaten alive by huge predators
CHASCHARLTON 9 months ago
@CHASCHARLTON I meant that if you sampled just 100 or 200 years from history and compared it to any other 100 or 200 years it's probably been most horrific in recent years. The 21st century obviously can't compare to hundreds of millions or billions of years of suffering. Also promoting population reduction rather than antinatalism would arguably be an advisable political tactic; but antinatalism is the most logically defensible position.
IdaMiaDot 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@IdaMiaDot okay sorry i missunderstood you,
"but antinatalism is the most logically defensible position." but thats the most unatainable, why not push for the more realistic goal ?
CHASCHARLTON 9 months ago
Love is margin for error
alowlyapprentice 9 months ago
Good first 3 minutes. attention span exceeded. bye.
juliecranford 9 months ago
@juliecranford LOL XD
alowlyapprentice 9 months ago 2
thoughts against birth ?? gosh wish I had TIME.
.
.O.
babylonIZfallin 9 months ago
I agree with you far more than usual.
On the other hand I've realized that our differences are the promotion of "book culture"... as you recently emphasized the importance of this to you, as you have all along, I think I understood the meaning. I think we are probably similar in terms of the value we place on books in our own lives and education... but in promoting an idea of book culture, this is where we differ and talk past each other.
pyrrho314 9 months ago
@pyrrho314 : I guess this should be a PM, as it's out of context... I thought this before watching this vid. But I do not believe in promoting a book intellectualism, I want to promote a bookless intellectualism where we treat each other's positions like references, and be responsible about that. I believe in book cultures, like book clubs, and the role of books in culture. But THIS medium is also for direct conversation.
pyrrho314 9 months ago
Awesome vid.
PawnBACM 9 months ago
@PawnBACM Yes, antinatalism is certainly a minority position. Good job the truth isn't a popularity contest.
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
my mom has told me if abortion was legal I probably wouldn't have been born... and she is conservative now and uses that as an argument against abortion... lol, but anyway, I too have considered my own possible non-existence. My desire to exist is not an argument against abortion, imo, but I still am glad I got this low probability chance, and it came off.
pyrrho314 9 months ago
I appreciated Frankl's work more the older I became. You're right, but the religious camp and secular camp are, inherently, so very diametrically opposed to one another. That skew is the entire issue. I read the book you cited, in college, not catholic but fresh out of catholic high school, and can remember thinking he was a total nut in some ways. Consciousness, nature, etc. will never resonate, but for concepts of natural law, with religious people the same as seculars/naturalists/agnostics.
PawnBACM 9 months ago
Antinatalist: I would appreciate if I didn't exist, if I didn't exist I wouldn't know of suffering. This being a relief to my own conscious mind in this life, I will still spout the knowledge of suffering to everyone else and remind them to revalue their lives and grow a few IQ's to my liking. I don't care if people know what suffering is, they only THINK they know what suffering is. You dreamers, you rainbow-chasing hypocrites, dim-wits, half-wits, asshole, fucknuts.
Rexonius 9 months ago
Antinatalist: "Empathy"? What on earth are you saying? I have too much Empathy to "enjoy life". Merely "Enjoy life" is a track stuck on repeat trying to brainwash me to do practical things to make a real difference. I know that "difference" is just an unnecessary desire and need, I don't have to make any difference, I only have to know that I can make a difference and the difference I could make is futile.
Rexonius 9 months ago
Antinatalist: I argue that in a theoretically constructed/pseudo-philosophical world where we have once and for all ended the "suffering" as we know it, we, as a human species will never again find new ways of "suffering". We already know what suffering is; A word to describe what we know. Selective to the meaning of Empiricism (suffering) and Psychology (suffering) to pervertedly prove my points (suffering), I choose my own intro- and retrospection (suffering) before everything (suffering).
Rexonius 9 months ago
Antinatalist: But since the truth is I cannot turn this theoretical construct into reality, life is therefore futile and pointless to experience. Contrasts? Real Philosophy? Comparisons? Real Psychology? What the hell are those anyway, I have all the information I need to convince myself and everyone else how life is futile and why: Suffering = bad. I don't care if they don't understand me, I will yell and I will repeat the same verse over and over until people around me start to agree with me.
Rexonius 9 months ago
The whole story is about Gene Wars and Meme Wars. Procreators and Breeders want to win the former. Whereas, independently and not necessarily conflicting, the Content creators and Power holders want to win the Latter. Gene wars exist for about 2-3 billion years. Meme wars exist for about 5 thousand years, since the invention of the Written word. It's all simple.
Neueregel 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I can't wait for Garys response to this horrible video
japanezeboi 9 months ago
@japanezeboi why horrible? In fact Gary tend to be extremist on this issue, not prof,anton
Neueregel 9 months ago
Isn't "either or" the same thing as the false dichotomy?
FlowCell 9 months ago
This "anti-natalism" stuff is irrelevant. Reminiscent of the confusion between theory and fact that causes existential crises over "determinism" and the like.
This is weasel IDEALISM; neglecting that existence is prior to (and prevails over) opinion. Our task is economy - this crypto-theology and its "oughts" are begging permission for the MOTHER of reasons (life).
Real wisdom (science) is about economy. This crap is "playing god" for the irreligious.
OuTofJoY 9 months ago
Just because two human beings deem life "worth living" I don't see how that then gives them the right to create another human being...
swa5297 9 months ago
@swa5297 Absolutely right on all your comments. Most people just want to distort what is, at it's heart, an elegant and logically irrefutable theory (Benatarian assymetry).
I'm mapping out the psychological defense mechanisms people employ through my discourse analysis work and it's proven to be very revealing so far.
If you're interested please feel free to check out my channel some time.
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
@DerivedEnergy
I checked out your channel and you have some interesting material on there ... you seem to be hitting the nail right on the head. I subscribed as I'm interested to see where you take the rest of your work.
Also, from looking at your quotes and your general line of thinking, I assume that you've read Ligotti's Conspiracy Against the Human Race. If not, I highly recommend it
swa5297 9 months ago
@swa5297 I don't see how that DOESN'T give them the right to do it. If the child is so unhappy with his life and sufers endlessly he has the option to OPT-OUT!
tranquil87 9 months ago
@tranquil87 No he really doesn't. Opting out of life isn't as straight forward as you make it out to be. For one, nobody lives in a vacuum. Often times people refrain from killing themselves because of family members or close friends who would be emotionally devestated. Also there are a limited amount of appealing means by which somebody can make an exit. To many blowing your own brains out with a gun or jumping off a skyscraper just isn't an option.
swa5297 9 months ago
@tranquil87 Finally, even if one makes the rational decision that life is no longer worth living, he's still a biological organism which is driven by a fundamental drive towards survival, making it difficult if not impossible to carry out the act.
swa5297 9 months ago
The question really is, should we continue to create the NEED for pleasure, when there is not even the slightest bit of desire for it from non-existence. Also, you can't argue that it should be up to the parents to choose whether or not they want kids, as by making a decision to have children they are making the choice for that person, the same thing which you tried to eradicate by giving the decision to the parents.
swa5297 9 months ago
I don't think it is even logical to ask whether your'e happy with your parent's decision to give birth to you. Each and every one of us instinctually seeks pleasure and that can't be had in non-existence. Therefore I don't think the question should ever be asked "Would this person have been better off had they not been born?". Obviously they wouldn't because as an existing human being who's highest value is the "good" things in life, "they" would not have those had they not been born.
swa5297 9 months ago
You said that "I'm glad that she didn't make the choice for me" and "I don't think other people can decide for other people". Your mother choosing to not abort you WAS making a choice for you ... she decided that she wanted to create a new life, you. You had no say in it whatsoever. The question of whether or not you feel that was a good choice is a futile one. As an existing being who a) is "programmed" to value pleasure b) is "programmed" to avoid and be afraid of their own non-existence,
swa5297 9 months ago
That being said, I think it is obviously much more urgent to cease from procreating beings who exerience a life full of an abundance of suffering. Still, in the end, even the smallest amount of suffering is wholly uneccessary and I don't see any reason to create a new life form just so that they can experience it (even if it is accompanied with some pleasure along the way).
swa5297 9 months ago
I think that there is a very legitimate reason as to why antinatalists take the apparently "extreme" position of everyone refraining from procreation as they realise that even the slightest bit of suffering, no matter how trivial, makes the whole life experiment not worth starting. I think that this insight is fundamental to the antinatalist position which is why they (we) insist on following it to its logical conclusion.
swa5297 9 months ago
I don't understand. Since when is it inherently good to "have witnessed the very fact of existence" and "bear self-consciousness"? I think that anybody who holds this position is obviously a little biased as they are evaluating its worth from the viewpoint of ... a self-conscious organism witnessing the fact of existence. I think that from this viewpoint one is unable to make a rational assessment of the situation and its ramifications. Are these goods in themselves, or do we just value them?
swa5297 9 months ago
You're are too healthy minded for the maladaptive intellects of the misanthropists to appreciate much less understand you. Nevertheless, this is a good video and well said.
DanaGarrett 9 months ago
@DanaGarrett Please vote in my two Zargarg videos. Thank you.
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
@DanaGarrett Agreed.
tranquil87 9 months ago
''TO HAVE WITNESSED THE VERY FACT OF EXISTENCE! To bear self-consciousness! Who could imagine these coming without a very hefty price?''
These 'gifts' were neither needed nor desired by you prior to your birth. If you had never come into existence, perhaps because another sperm impregnated the egg from which you coalesced into existence, then you would not have even known about existence LET ALONE coveted it.
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
Never lose sight of the destiction between STARTING a new life and CONTINUING one that is already in existence, Professor. This is a common manifestation of a psychological defense mechanism that is used in order to reject the Benatarian assymetry and which I have encountered frequently in my research on the subject of antinatalism so far.
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
The either/or attack is a straw man. There's plenty of room for debate about how we can strategically bring new human beings into the world in order to stagger out the extinction of the human race in a way that minimises the suffering in the world during the discontinuation process. No one's asking anybody to jump from a high building. A polite request is merely being made to refrain from bringing more sentient beings capable of suffering into the world. Thank you.
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
It's not about whether a new life's worth LIVING. It's about whether a potential life's ever worth STARTING for the sake of the person you're bringing into existence.
The answer is a resounding 'NO'.
YOU choose life but many people would NOT have wanted to have been born if they had been given a choice.
Love is only something that is needed if there is a sentient being who would be deprived of said love if they do not receive it. It therefore cannot be cited as a reason to start life.
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
@DerivedEnergy "many people would NOT have wanted to have been born if they had been given a choice"
1. what is meant by "many"?
2. are you one of them?
3. how many people do you know who have said that?
just curious. Thanks
TWITfromURANUS 9 months ago
@TWITfromURANUS 1) A lot more than the little boy in my two Zargarg video for starters. We can argue numbers but about a million people currently committ suicide anually. Many, many more attempt to committ suicide anually but fail. Without doing a worldwide survey that is immune from the social desirability effect it is difficult to say with any kind of accuracy or authority.
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
@DerivedEnergy Killing oneself (or the apparent desire to) is not necessarily tantamount to wishing one had never been born in the first place.
An answer to my second question would be appreciated. Thanks
TWITfromURANUS 9 months ago
@TWITfromURANUS I accept this but I don't think it negates my arguments as comprehensively as you may think If someone wants to kill themselves or feigns a false desire to kill themselves then clearly they are suffering in a meaningful way This suffering would not have occured if they hadn't been born - a good thing. They wouldn't have been deprived of joy if they hadn't been born - neutral + their own subjective appraisal of the life they currently lead would not have any bearing on the matter
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
@DerivedEnergy "I accept this but I don't think it negates..."
I wouldn't presume to 'negate your arguments comprehensively' because they can only ever amount to your subjective assessment. & that has it's validity. But in exactly the same sense, you can't negate mine...
I honestly appreciate your aim here (I've chosen not to breed --partly for ethical reasons myself; although they differ from yours), but your view is skewed if you think it's in any way objective.
TWITfromURANUS 9 months ago
@TWITfromURANUS correction: its validity
TWITfromURANUS 9 months ago
@TWITfromURANUS 2) Yes and No. From a rational and logical position absolutely 100% no. From a subjective day-to-day appraisal of my consciousness sometimes yes and sometimes no. However, I recognise that the latter response is irrational and although I can see no immorality in my employing irrational reasons to alleviate the intellectual regret I have for my own birth, to use the same kind of irrationality when contemplating the ethics of procreation is pernicious to future potential children.
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
@TWITfromURANUS 3) Nobody. However, there are strong social sanctions against expressing such feelings to the general public or even to friends and loved ones. Even if the whole world population didn't regret the fact of their own existence but still experienced some suffering, their views would still be irrational because existence does not confer any advantage over non-existence and if they hadn't come into existence they wouldn't be deprived of joy or experience any suffering.
DerivedEnergy 9 months ago
@DerivedEnergy "Even if the whole world population didn't regret the fact of their own existence but still experienced some suffering, their views would still be irrational..."
Such drivel. From where 'on high' do you make these judgements?
Look at what you also said: "I can see no immorality in my employing irrational reasons"
So it's fine for you but nobody else? Self-important much? Too much inmendham in your life, chuck.
Life ISN'T completely rational. & Thank Fuck, I say.
TWITfromURANUS 9 months ago
The real crux of the antinatalist argument is the ethics involved with forcing a new existence. One that does not care about "quality of life" until it exists. The point that the antinatalist (such as myself) makes is that it is unethical to roll the dice of good and bad quality of life for something that does not care about either while not existing.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 9 months ago
That it is unethical to place a large potential for harm into existence for pleasure that a nonexistence does not care about ...until it begins existing. We also hold the right to die, the right to abortion, etc, but those are all seperate issuesn than antinatalism. The antinatalist problem is one about, it is ethical to create the (large) potential for more harms unnecessarily (unnecessary to a nonexistence).
(MORE 2)
trick0171 9 months ago
Also, it is not about ending the next generations life, but rather starting it when prior to it only those in existence care about "beautiful projects" etc. It is not worth the "project" for the unjustice, especially when the project is merely to minimize the unjustices.
(MORE 3)
trick0171 9 months ago
Anyway...I'm ranting. The point that needs to be concidered is if it is "ethical" to create unnecessary harms for unnecessary pleasures of something that only cares about those things once they are put into play. Once they exist. We certainly can tell people it is selfish to roll such dice for their own satisfaction.
Thanks,
'Trick
(END 4)
trick0171 9 months ago
If life did not arise there would be nothing worth removing. If it is extinguished, it will rise again. Once removed and twice raised, life will always find a way...
Monolith1618 9 months ago
@Monolith1618
"If life did not arise there would be nothing worth removing."
That is the very point. A nonexistence does not hold any conceptions of "worth".
"Once removed and twice raised, life will always find a way..."
This is another problem for consideration, but it is important not to conflate issues. Right now the only point I made was if it was ethical to add a new existence. The consideration regarding all (new) life on earth happening is another problem in need of a solution.
trick0171 9 months ago
@trick0171 I prefer existence and am working on reorganizing the process of life to alleviate suffering. I suppose I'll have to live and let die ;D
Monolith1618 9 months ago
@Monolith1618
Antinatalism is not about removal of already existing life. It also is not against alleviating suffering for already existing life and supports that endeavor. Again, it is only about the ethics of placing new life that, when not existing, does not "prefer existence". There is no "preference" for it, only what you hold and impose ON it. :)
trick0171 9 months ago
Quality of life for people who already exist is very important!
In this video, I agree with every word you said... for a change :) (in other videos there are moments, where I could express the same thoughts in a different way, look at things from a different angle, non-confrontationally, but not here)
Fav'ed
dewinthemorning 9 months ago
Shit. Your real parents were ass crack. Be comfortable in knowing that they were absolutely. The rest of us have to guess.
Koluhseeuhm 9 months ago
The video I'm uploading tomorrow really addresses many of the issues you're discussing here. Really enjoyed your rational ideas you present. I don't think it's practical to believe you can "have it all" either. That's not to say that people should be forced into any lifestyle, but parenthood is something that requires serious sacrifice, so it's not for everyone.
RockingMrE 9 months ago
@RockingMrE Great video btw. I really agree with you in every sense.
RockingMrE 9 months ago