Surely it ought to be spared the misery of existence.

I think words get into the Oxford Eng dictionary only by being current and not by being promoted. It's not Google or Twitter. It's odd that the word isn't in Oxford when the OUP published Benatar's book, probably the most famous antinatalist of today.

:D

What does "activism in antinatalism" look like in practice? Do you just not get laid?

thanks for accepting me into this group — Oldphan

Let's not be hasty. You're here; whether you have been "accepted" remains to be seen. On the other hand, we have accepted our resident antinatalists, so there's hope. >:)

What difference does it make to you whether the OED editors have included it or not? You are using the word, other people know what you mean (I guess) so... what's the problem? Do you need the imprimatur of the OED, or something?

Maybe a £100,000 bribe would help.

What difference does it make to you whether they have included it or not? You are using the word, other people know what you mean (I guess) so... what's the problem? Do you need the imprimatur of the OED, or something? — Bitter Crank

It's in Wikipedia, for goodness sake. That reaches more people than the OED.

Yeah, who does the OED think they are, anyway? Just a bunch of linguists in a formerly great imperialist power college town.

Hello everyone, thanks for accepting me into this group, happy to be here. — Oldphan

Welcome. I'm glad you could pass the rigorous entrance requirements.

I don't find antinatalism abhorrent, I find it self-indulgent and arrogant. Still, I have no objection to it being pronounced an official word. I doubt it's being left out is a sign of bias.

This Google Ngram would indicate that antinatalism has been in use (in print) long enough to be noticed and included.

Hello, I am one of those resident antinatalist BC was talking about. Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure how much "press" the concept would get if put in the dictionary, but I guess it's worth a try. I suggest you read up on some past conversations and add some unique topics of your own. What are your beliefs about antinatalism. Are you more of a consequentialist, negative utilitarian, Schopenhauerean variety? Do you agree with Benatar's arguments exactly as he states them or do you have your own critiques while still agreeing with his main arguments? Is it strictly contingent suffering you would like to stop (i.e. most painful experiences) or do you allow for a more subtle "structural suffering" in your worldview whereby there is a sort of lack and instrumental nature to existence?

he just doesn’t like children very much.

What is arrogant about anti-natalism?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I agree, but I don't see why it needs to be capitalized. We also need to figure out whether or not it should have the hyphen. That inconsistency drives me up a wall.

I used to be an antinatalist, but I don't find it abhorrent. In fact, I am greatly predisposed to the idea. I just think the arguments in favor of it don't work.

That spike in usage occurred at that exact moment in 1975 when this humble website began and we signed up our first anti-natalist. The word is his only legacy.

What is arrogant about anti-natalism? — Maw

To decide that your life is not worth living is fine. It's your business. To decide that other people's lives are not worth living, that human life is not worth living, is arrogant.

Anti-natalism is the believe that human life consists primarily of suffering (or, is primarily negative, rather than positive). It is not a subjective view of one's personal life. Thus, from an ethical perspective, to give life to a child would be unethical - a form of negative utilitarianism.

Anti-natalism is the believe that human life consists primarily of suffering (or, is primarily negative, rather than positive). It is not a subjective view of one's personal life. Thus, from an ethical perspective, to give life to a child would be unethical - a form of negative utilitarianism. — Maw

I think you are right in correcting T Clark's notion that it's just some presumptuous opinion and stating that it is more of an ethical position, and thus applies universally. However, while I think a major antinatalist element (David Benatar's for example) is negative utilitarian, much of it can be considered aesthetic in its root. I'll take Schopenhauer's view for example. Schopenhauer's aesthetic/axiological position is that the world is a striving Will. This Will/force is striving-but-for-nothing. As it is manifested in the phenomenal world of individuation, it is contending each other for survival and its own sense of longing-for-nothing (in the form of boredom). This whole vision is really rooted in metaphysics and would be hard to deflate to purely negative utilitarian in its nature. So I tend to call this antinatalism "aesthetic antinatalism" or "aesthetic pessimism". This covers a more existential view than doing a calculus of the good and bads like strict utilitrianism might follow.

Anti-natalism is the believe that human life consists primarily of suffering (or, is primarily negative, rather than positive). It is not a subjective view of one's personal life. Thus, from an ethical perspective, to give life to a child would be unethical - a form of negative utilitarianism. — Maw

Here's what I said above:

To decide that your life is not worth living is fine. It's your business.To decide that other people's lives are not worth living, that human life is not worth living, is arrogant. — T Clark

How is my description of what anti-natalism means different from yours? If human life is not worth living, then mine isn't. It is personal.

How is my description of what anti-natalism means different from yours? If human life is not worth living, then mine isn't. It is personal. — T Clark

As is all ethics, quit singling out antinatalism as if it is the only ethics which applies to you as well and is controversial.. Shall I list all the other ethical systems that claim universality and you would probably disagree with?

Because you're reducing it to a personalized experience, when an anti-natalist would claim that all human life consists primarily of (various form of) suffering. Human life, in itself, is a negative value. It is true that "mine" is, but then it is also true that all "others" are, as well.

As is all ethics, quit singling out antinatalism as if it is the only ethics which applies to you as well and is controversial.. Shall I list all the other ethical systems that claim universality and you would probably disagree with? — schopenhauer1

Are there other philosophies that say "Hey, T Clark, your life is worthless? There are other arrogant philosophies. When they are discussed I point that out, but we're not talking about them here.

Are there other philosophies that say "Hey, T Clark, your life is worthless? There are other arrogant philosophies. When they are discussed I point that out, but we're not talking about them here. — T Clark

The point is, you are singling out antinatalism unduly. Antinatalism doesn't think your particular life is worthless T Clark. That is a distortion. Rather, it is saying that life is sufficiently bad/negative enough to not start a new life.

Similar but not exactly the same is Philosophical Pessimism. This is the belief that generally life is structurally suffering. For example Schopenhauer's philosophy, which is the main exemplar of this thinking, is that there is never any satisfaction in life. Why? Because behind life is a principle called Will, which is a striving principle that has no goal, it just "strives". We as animals are but forms of this Will, that have the illusion that goals that are met will provide satisfaction, but are in fact never satisfied when they reach their goal. Existential boredom is especially reflective of this idea because it belies the emptiness at the end of all endeavors.

Anyways, Philosophical Pessimism doesn't have to agree with Schopenhauer's Will to be called pessimism. As long as there are themes of "striving for nothing", "emptiness", "absurdity", and the general instrumental nature of existence (repetitiousness of putting energy to survive and entertain), I believe it to be sufficiently considered pessimism.

Antinatalism deserves to be singled out as arrogant and presumptuous, so no problem.

Antinatalism deserves to be singled out as arrogant and presumptuous, so no problem. — Roke

I don't think so. You seem to single it out unduly as well, as the only time I ever see your little icon there is when this position arises. You can simply ignore it. Did I or any other antinatlists ever call you out on it? You seek these out not the other way around. There are plenty of philosophies which you can also disagree with and choose to not participate.

I'm performing my own philosophy in this case. It's OK that you don't get it.

I'm performing my own philosophy in this case. It's OK that you don't get it. — Roke

You are right. I don't get what you mean by "performing your own philosophy". Do you mean you are trying to philosophize? And if so, why not start some of your own threads on what you are interested in or perhaps participate in existing threads that interest you?

See, this is the fundamental problem of antinatalism. You don't understand other people. Yet you feel qualified to prescribe them extinction.

It's in Wikipedia, for goodness sake. That reaches more people than the OED. — T Clark

And more things reach Wikipedia than OED reaches people. I wouldn't consider reaching Wikipedia to mean anything.

Antinatalism might not suit your taste, but it's hard to argue that being concerned for the suffering of all conscious beings is arrogant.

Yet you feel qualified to prescribe them extinction. — Roke

As if there is some other possible end to be had.