@schopenhauer1 just curious, but have you ever heard of non-academic philosopher David Pearce? Like you he is an anti-Natalist, but also a negative utilitarian. However, he’s not in favour of any world exploder arguments because he believes that transhumanism will solve what he calls “the Darwinian predicament”; and with future technologies we can bio-engineer suffering out of our existence. Personally I think this belongs in the realm of science fiction, but these ideas are nonetheless interesting

@schopenhauer1


If I was to pretend I was an anti-natalist, this more deontological approach seems a lot more consistent to follow. The negative utilitarian one I mentioned completely disregards the preferences of existing beings in favour of reducing them to mere vessels of utility juice (not sure if that came out right, lol) which I don’t really like. I respect David Benatar himself for saying he wouldn’t press the universe exploder ether

@schopenhauer1 Agreed. Not only this, but Inmendham has stated many times his anti-natalist world-exploding conclusion is not moral philosophy, but “scientific fact” that other humans are too delusional too realize, and that we ought to end all life because pain and pleasure are natural. While Pollyannism is a thing, this reeks of arrogance and the naturalistic fallacy. Crazies are everywhere.

I know it’s been a while since anyone commented here, but I’m going to anyway. I’m not an anti-natalist or a pessimist, but I’d say I am at times charitable towards the view (a lot of what I’ve learned on it is thanks to @schopenhauer1, whose done a fantastic job explaining their viewpoint). @Zn0n mentioned something about efilism, and in my opinion antinatalists should distance themselves away from that movement.

The YouTuber Inmendham (the creator of efilism) has argued once that he would murder a woman if he ended up getting her pregnant to prevent further suffering, and has also stated it’s a moral good to kill the outdoor cats that roam near his property. Not only that, but in the various debates he’s had on YouTube he never argues in good faith, and usually ends up leaving the debate in a fiery, screaming rage littered with abusive remarks. His actions are anything BUT ethical, and he makes antinatalists out to be a super villain death cult. Luckily Inmendham is very obscure and rarely gets attention these days, but I don’t think it’s a good thing for antinatalists to accept his conclusions