Thinking about it here, what is lurking behind my objection to this reasoning seems to be Hume's guillotine: that one cannot derive an ought from an is. So my objection is that one cannot go from the claim "being is intrinsically good" to "therefore, one ought to procreate." — Thorongil

If Being is intrinsically good, then Hume's Guillotine fails. In fact, Hume's Guillotine basically is a denial of the idea that Being is intrinsically good.

If Being is intrinsically good, then Hume's Guillotine fails. In fact, Hume's Guillotine basically is a denial of the idea that Being is intrinsically good. — Pneumenon

But that still doesn't get one to an ought.

This is indeed a disagreement. I would reverse this order — Thorongil

I see it like this: If it's good to help people, then it's good to help people whether or not the universe is material or immaterial, whether it was created by God or has existed in infinite time, whether or not I am a brain the vat or an embodied mind participating in the world.

These kinds of questions don't bear on the decisions I have to make or the values I hold. The factual situation does matter in considering what to do, but facts have to be reconciled with any fundamental ontology and can be rationally believed while believing in any sort of fundamental ontology.

And I suspect that ontological commitments, at least, are often held in the face of beliefs about their ethical implications anyways. So by starting with ethics I begin with what matters for many people (not saying you or universally, just commonly)

Well, I disagree, so I don't see this conversation going any further. — Thorongil

I can see that you disagree. And that you failed to provide a counter-argument. So yes, you have bowed out as far as any conversation goes.

Why have children? "Because I want to be a more selfless person." That is inherently selfish. — Thorongil

Word play. My argument was that selfhood is fluid. So we can (socially) construct a contracted definition of the self - as a solipsistic soul stuff. Or we can recognise that selves arise contextually to serve purposes, and so a social-level of self is also a thing.

Now you can refuse to accept the validity of social psychology here - despite the evidence. You can assert that selfhood is "inherent" and not contextual. And that would indeed be the mainstream unscientific point of view.

But there - I've called it as it is.

Word play. My argument was that selfhood is fluid. So we can (socially) construct a contracted definition of the self - as a solipsistic soul stuff. Or we can recognise that selves arise contextually to serve purposes, and so a social-level of self is also a thing. — apokrisis

The objection I will raise here is that you are making it seem as though because the self is socially constructed, it must be within our control to destroy this same self.

So yeah, we can see how selves serve contextual purposes, etc etc. But that doesn't mean it fails to be an enduring concept that breaks its own limits.

The objection I will raise here is that you are making it seem as though because the self is socially constructed, it must be within our control to destroy this same self. — darthbarracuda

I don't follow. It is not about a destruction. It would be about a fluid negotiation.

If the self is contextual, then it is the product of some dynamical balance. What I am saying is that it is not a substantial and located object - a mind or soul that inheres in a body. It is instead a relation between bodies and their worlds. And with linguistically/culturally evolved humans, it is then the self that forms as a result of that higher level of interplay between a social creature and its social world.

That is explicit in a general theory like anthropology. Society is understood as a dynamical system - the balancing of the complementary tendencies of competition and co-operation, or differentiation and integration.

So selfhood exists fluidly as this negotiation. I am more a singular psychological self to the degree I express a competitive and differentiated state of being. And I am more a collective social self to the degree I express the counter-tendencies of a co-operative and integrative state of being.

Thus personal identity is not monadic - a single inherent stuff. It is the balancing of the two complementary tendencies which form the third thing of a body in a relation with its world, a person in a relation with their society.

And where we stand on this spectrum at any moment - competitive vs co-operative, differentiated vs integrated - is a pragmatic issue. We would want the self which is the most effective and best adapted in terms of the long run goals - the long run evolutionary goals that shaped the whole system in play.

So this is the science-based framework through which I would view the "philosophy" of antinatalism.

Antinatalism depends on a theistic/romantic metaphysical model - one that treats mind or identity as something inherent to a body. A soul stuff of some sort or other. But I am arguing from the point of view where the mind or the self is emergent from the pragmatism of a modelling relation.

And so the locus of "the self" is a fluid thing - one poised between two complementary directions. And the optimal balance is a constant negotiation - one we are expected to actively partake in, especially in a civilised society. We are meant to be free to choose whether to be more competitive or more co-operative, more differentiated or more integrated, as best suits the prevailing context or situation.

That is what we want people in general to be good at doing. Striking the healthy balance which sees the whole flourish.

Antinatalism is instead about curling up in the corner and wishing you were dead. It is giving up on the possibility of "controlling things" - or rather, being a properly active part of the negotiations always going on "out there" in the real social world.

And I still agree that it may be the case the real social world has rather spun out of control in many regards. Maybe the problems aren't even fixable.

That could be argued. But still I would say it is excessively pessimistic. Most people don't feel that their life is that bad.

And so the locus of "the self" is a fluid thing - one poised between two complementary directions. And the optimal balance is a constant negotiation - one we are expected to actively partake in, especially in a civilised society. We are meant to be free to choose whether to be more competitive or more co-operative, more differentiated or more integrated, as best suits the prevailing context or situation.

That is what we want people in general to be good at doing. Striking the healthy balance which sees the whole flourish. — apokrisis

You sneak in a lot of YOUR preferences as what OUGHT to be. You are creating an ought from an apokrisis :lol: . No one has to "want" or "expected to partake" in anything. That is your preference writ large. What people do have is the ability to evaluate life and then choose not to procreate it to a future person. That is a fact.

Also, your idea about people being able to cooperate or compete in nice balanced ways is a bit idealistic. Rather, some people have the dice loaded not as good as others, and their coping strategies don't work as well because of this loaded dice. Some people's exact circumstances cannot be compared to the group's in the same way. A lot of factors may make everyone's situation different to a degree that any particular set of strategies may not work on that individual. Anyways, I'm going off the main point which is again, just because identity may be created from group dynamics, does not negate the fact that someone can evaluate LIFE (in total) and deem it an existence that they do not want a future person to have to experience.

Edit: And I already told you my ethic which is that if life has structural and contingent suffering (as I've outlined it elsewhere) no X reason is convincing as to why a new person should exist. No one needs to fulfill X reason in the first place. Certainly there is no ought that derives from the idea that people's identities are created by group dynamics. That is besides the point.

You sneak in a lot of YOUR preferences as what OUGHT to be. — schopenhauer1

Alternatively, I simply speak to our best science-backed understanding of the reality. It makes a change to the literary or religious ways of addressing life's essential questions.

Anyways, I'm going off the main point which is again, just because identity may be created from group dynamics, does not negate the fact that someone can evaluate LIFE (in total) and deem it an existence that they do not want a future person to have to experience. — schopenhauer1

Sure. But why wouldn't those people be regarded as in need of the appropriate therapeutic help?

Diversity of views and experience may be healthy. My model already speaks to differentiation and competition as a fundamental part of the equation.

But antinatalism - in its monotonic obsessiveness - is then one-sided, and so unhealthy and irrational.

One would be crazy to agree with its view of existence.

And I already told you my ethic which is that if life has structural and contingent suffering — schopenhauer1

You have indeed told me that repeatedly and obsessively. My reasonable reply remains the same. On the whole, life seems pretty good for me and my family. I don't claim that this holds as a universal human view, but most folk - if asked - tend to appreciate the fact of having the chance to have lived.

So it is you who is guilty of mistaking a model of reality for reality.

Life may have to contain the possibility of suffering, but only so it can contain its "other" of flourishing. If you want to talk about structure, you would need to face up to its irreducible complexity in this regard.

Your antinatalism is reductionist and simplistic. It is not in fact structuralism. Like religion and literature, it treats experience like a monadic substance.

So this is the science-based framework through which I would view the "philosophy" of antinatalism.

Antinatalism depends on a theistic/romantic metaphysical model - one that treats mind or identity as something inherent to a body. A soul stuff of some sort or other. But I am arguing from the point of view where the mind or the self is emergent from the pragmatism of a modelling relation. — apokrisis

Yet there is a difference between science of life and life as it is lived. You say the self is fluid, but the self we value as a self is precisely the differentiating self. It's rather akin to religious interpretations of the cosmos - we cannot help but wonder "where it all came from" or "why it's all here", even if something like the anthropic principle dissolves these issues. And so similarly we cannot help but see the self as a soul-like resident of the body. As it stands, there are individual, different physical bodies that are often reflective and solitary - most notably in the moments of pain, suffering and anguish. Coincidentally enough these are exactly the things antinatalists tend to be concerned about.

To say the antinatalist point doesn't work because soul-like selves do not exist in reality is akin to saying the antinatalist point doesn't work because there is no such thing as free will, or God, or whatever, and this risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Antinatalism is instead about curling up in the corner and wishing you were dead. It is giving up on the possibility of "controlling things" - or rather, being a properly active part of the negotiations always going on "out there" in the real social world. — apokrisis

This is about as true as the claim that pragmatism is about incessantly accusing others of romanticism and sentimentality. :meh:

Antinatalism is about taking control of one of the few things we actually do have control over. Life is not "working". It's not up to standards and it never will be. The pragmatic solution is to conserve what resources you do have and stop wasting them on future progeny. Of course, that's a pragmatic, intra-wordly justification - but I've already explained in this thread why I don't regard intra-wordly ethics as anything more than a prejudice.

Yet there is a difference between science of life and life as it is lived. — darthbarracuda

Only the difference between the theory and its application. If the theory is right.

You say the self is fluid, but the self we value as a self is precisely the differentiating self. — darthbarracuda

Really? Do you speak for the entirety of humanity throughout human history on this score? A little presumptive and not much supported by the evidence.

My argument is that most people should construct their identity in a way that does express the possibilities of (fruitful) differentiation. But balance would involve also expressing a matching desire for (fruitful) integration.

And so similarly we cannot help but see the self as a soul-like resident of the body. — darthbarracuda

Why does that have to be so? I absolutely don't see it that way. A rational science like positive psychology certainly wouldn't teach things to be that way.

It is only if you can't escape the clutches of literature and religion that you would be trapped in such a myopic view of personal identity.

To say the antinatalist point doesn't work because soul-like selves do not exist in reality is akin to saying the antinatalist point doesn't work because there is no such thing as free will, or God, or whatever, and this risks throwing the baby out with the bathwater. — darthbarracuda

The only risk is folk building bad morality from bad metaphysics.

So your precious thing - the differentiate and competitive aspect of personal identity - is not getting chucked out here. Instead you are being introduced to its complementary twin that also wants to share the bath.

You seem to have tipped this other poor baby out. I found it crawling around on the slippery floor and return it to you. :)

Antinatalism is about taking control of one of the few things we actually do have control over. — darthbarracuda

It's attacking the symptoms rather than the causes.

Life is not "working". It's not up to standards and it never will be. — darthbarracuda

But whose standards? Sure, you can decide that it ain't up to your standards. But as an antinatalist - indeed a strident antinatalist like Schop - you are trying to force your standards on me. And the whole of humanity if you could.

So just note how you choose the third person voice. You already presume that objectively, for any possible person, life doesn't work. Thus you hope to win by rhetoric an argument you can't sustain by logic.

The pragmatic solution is to conserve what resources you do have and stop wasting them on future progeny. — darthbarracuda

That is utilitarianism - and many people do understand pragmatism to be nothing more than a selfish instrumentality.

So we have gone around the complete circle that is the limits of your metaphysics. We are selfish inherently. Therefore pragmatism can only be the instrument for satisfying the desires of this self. That is all pragmatism could mean.

Damn. You seem to have toppled your favourite baby's neglected twin out of the bathtub again. I've tripped over him crawling about on the wet floor.

Why does that have to be so? I absolutely don't see it that way. A rational science like positive psychology certainly wouldn't teach things to be that way.

It is only if you can't escape the clutches of literature and religion that you would be trapped in such a myopic view of personal identity. — apokrisis

This sounds too good to be true, probably because it is. Alongside positive psychology, we have theories such as depressive realism and terror management theory. But those don't make people feel good.

Literature and, to an extent, religion, are treasures that are manifestations of hopes and dreams of real human beings. They ought to be taken as testimonies of the experiences of real people, not dismissed as being somehow fake or opaque.

So just note how you choose the third person voice. You already presume that objectively, for any possible person, life doesn't work. Thus you hope to win by rhetoric an argument you can't sustain by logic. — apokrisis

First off, antinatalism need not depend on the claim that everyone's lives suck. I don't know why you keep bringing this up, apart from as a rhetorical strategy. That, or you never took the time to really understand the antinatalist point of view.

That being said, I do think even the best lives are still quite atrocious. And I'm allowed this opinion. I'm not telling people to kill themselves. The strong argument is that life necessarily is horrible for the person living it and thus birth is always a harm to the person being born. The weaker argument draws from the indisputable fact that many people have horrible lives and that this reality depends on them having been born. Any counterargument to this will require some form of justification of this reality - basically you need to provide a theodicy.

I can see that you disagree. And that you failed to provide a counter-argument. So yes, you have bowed out as far as any conversation goes. — apokrisis

Yeah, I don't feel like going down the rabbit hole of disputing the claim that the self is "socially constructed." Social constructionism tries my patience severely.

Social constructionism tries my patience severely. — Thorongil

Sounds legit.

as an experiment:

like this:

I'll have kids

& then

see how much of their time they spend thinking about

[qualified antinatalist thing]

and then see if they realize that

[qualified antinatalist thing]

is just a conceptual [safe space]

and see if they can figure out how to leave the [conceptual [safe space] ]

and get to to the place where ...

[....fades and crackles because we're still in the conceptual safe space... ]

tldr: get over it, you were already born. don't have kids if you don't want to. Find something else to focus on, or you'll never feel better

Alongside positive psychology, — darthbarracuda

Alongside? In what sense are they treated with the same scientific/therapeutic respect?

But those don't make people feel good. — darthbarracuda

Ah. So they are better because they don't paper over the essential badness of existence! For people in a hole, they are a help to dig the hole deeper.

Literature and, to an extent, religion, are treasures that are manifestations of hopes and dreams of real human beings. They ought to be taken as testimonies of the experiences of real people, not dismissed as being somehow fake or opaque. — darthbarracuda

I was talking about them as a metaphysical-strength basis for generalised theories. But if you want to understand them in terms of the social construction of the "human condition", they are good anthropological data. That's exactly what anthropologists do.

First off, antinatalism need not depend on the claim that everyone's lives suck. I don't know why you keep bringing this up... — darthbarracuda

Probably because antinatalists keep mentioning it. Although I agree, you might take the more interesting position that basically life is 99% OK for you, but the 1% that sucks then makes the very idea of living an intolerable burden. Even the possibility of dying slowly in a mangled car wreck means an otherwise cheerful life is a metaphysical no no.

That being said, I do think even the best lives are still quite atrocious. — darthbarracuda

There you go.

Any counterargument to this will require some form of justification of this reality - basically you need to provide a theodicy. — darthbarracuda

Well I can't get over the hopeless irrationality of a view that says a 99% full glass is still a cosmic tragedy in its 1% emptiness.

I mean I scrapped a knuckle doing some gardening this afternoon. It bled a little.

Even worse, the fibre cable installers cut through the underlawn irrigation despite me telling them exactly where to look out for it. Oh, the agony.

And yet I don't regret having been born. It's been another great day.

I accept one part of antinatalism. We ought to consider long and hard about bringing kids into the world. The future could be quite dicey.

But then that just commits you morally to doing the best that you can for them if you do. There is nothing particular to fear about life as a journey in itself. The variety of that journey, the challenges it presents, is pretty much the point.

To build a cult around persuading everyone to stop having kids seems weird. Frankly it is weird. It has value only as an illustration of what bad philosophy looks like.

[....fades and crackles because we're still in the conceptual safe space] — csalisbury

Given you are posting in a thread dominated by the like-minded, which of us would be in that conceptual safe space? ;)

idk I didn't read the whole thread, just posted at the end

And?

And what? I don't follow.

Yeah. Apologies. I reread and see you were being anti-antinatalist there. :blush:

And funny that this type of thinking can only take hold (even in a minor way) in the top ten percent of countries by level of quality of life in just about every indicator. I vote for mandatory "holidays" in the DRC to cure the malcontents of their malaise. If life is not much more likely to be a gift than a curse when we are born into the relative privilege and wealth we in developed countries enjoy, then we really are... But that's not the case, thankfully.

I would say it non-selfish to give another being a chance at rectifying the world.

tldr: get over it, you were already born. don't have kids if you don't want to. Find something else to focus on, or you'll never feel better — csalisbury

Then you have missed the point of philosophical pessimism. You are never out of it. Existence is always something that is to be grappled with- not just a fanciful thought experiment for the depressed personality types. The ethics of phil. pess. is such that the aesthetics of existence is not simply hand waved and ignored, as that is the core of the issue. Hence darth's point about intra-worldly affairs. This is looking at the whole pie perspective, not trying to subsume, isolate, distract, and ignore it.

Then you have missed the point of philosophical pessimism.

I don't think so; it's very straightforward, isn't it? I just think its wrong.

& I think a preoccupation with it is a literal addiction.

What a feeling to read the great pessimists the first time and be like 'whoa yes exactly' right? But each time you return to those texts, they lose a bit of their power, until you find yourself almost mechanically repeating pessimistic passages, or slogans - not because it really helps anymore, but because its become painful not to.

There is a – let us say – a machine. It evolved itself (I am severely scientific) out of a chaos of scraps of iron and behold! – it knits. I am horrified at the horrible work and stand appalled. I feel it ought to embroider – but it goes on knitting. You come and say: “this is all right; it’s only a question of the right kind of oil. Let us use this – for instance – celestial oil and the machine shall embroider a most beautiful design in purple and gold”. Will it? Alas no. You cannot by any special lubrication make embroidery with a knitting machine. And the most withering thought is that the infamous thing has made itself; made itself without thought, without conscience, without foresight, without eyes, without heart. It is a tragic accident – and it has happened. You can’t interfere with it. The last drop of bitterness is in the suspicion that you can’t even smash it. In virtue of that truth one and immortal which lurks in the force that made it spring into existence it is what it is – and it is indestructible!
It knits us in and it knits us out. It has knitted time space, pain, death, corruption, despair and all the illusions – and nothing matters.” — Conrad

Beautiful, right?

But spot the performative contradiction.

And, having spotted it --- what is the significance of the contradiction?

(hint: phil pess isn't doing what it needs to pretend its doing)

But spot the performative contradiction.

And, having spotted it --- what is the significance of the contradiction?

(hint: phil pess isn't doing what it needs to pretend its doing) — csalisbury

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the quote. What I do know is that when you are born, and you take on an identity and your personality shapes, the "you" (fictional or otherwise as apo keeps reiterating) must make decisions. There is the burden to exist, the condemned to be free. By this I mean even the choice to not exist anymore is something that has to be decided upon, and carried forth. In this way, everything is a burden. You claim pessimists obssesively focus on one major point, but it is THE major point. You can put your attention into all sorts of intra-wordly affairs- the mechanics of building structures, the science of plastics, the intricacies of the circulatory system, the sewer construction down the street, the computer engineering and programming of the computer you are using, the electrical system which almost everything plugged in runs on, the art projects in the art district, etc. etc. The complexity of the world masks the simplicty of the existential situation of being born.

The case could be made that human procreation is essential to human flourishing (in an objective sense).

What are the reasons birds want to fly, fish want to swim, dogs want lick their own balls, my mouse nibbling on my shoes and humans want to procreate? The biological answer is not going to satisfy you. You are looking for a spiritual answer -- or basically a philosophical answer. You don't want an explanation, you want a justification. A philosophical normative case to procreate.

But I do not foresee a fruitful discussion based on the premises you have provided. All "Reasons" can be taken down as mere rationalisations. For example, even if you accept my first sentence, you could still reject the notion of human flourishing, by questioning the idea as to why we would want humans to flourish in a non-selfish way beyond any subjective rhetoric. As long as the context of the debate remains in the restrictions of subjectivity, the result of the discussion will be inevitable, namely nihilism.

What are the reasons birds want to fly, fish want to swim, dogs want lick their own balls, my mouse nibbling on my shoes and humans want to procreate? The biological answer is not going to satisfy you. You are looking for a spiritual answer -- or basically a philosophical answer. You don't want an explanation, you want a justification. A philosophical normative case to procreate. — Kitty

Indeed.

But I do not foresee a fruitful discussion based on the premises you have provided. All "Reasons" can be taken down as mere rationalisations. For example, even if you accept my first sentence, you could still reject the notion of human flourishing, by questioning the idea as to why we would want humans to flourish in a non-selfish way beyond any subjective rhetoric. As long as the context of the debate remains in the restrictions of subjectivity, the result of the discussion will be inevitable, namely nihilism. — Kitty

That's fair. It is true that I need to sort out my metaphysics before ultimately deciding this issue.

That we have to make decisions - yeah. But ‘burden’ and ‘condemned’ are very freighted terms. These hint at attitudes or dispositions. The same attitudes and dispositions, I’d speculate, that lead one back to keep restating same point, as if by compulsion.There are ways to say the same thing in wildly different terms, but those aren’t the ones you’ve chosen.

Note also: i can, with equal justification, flip this focus on condemnation and burden such that [obsessive focus on one thing] is an attempt to repress the complexity of life in order to focus on a single more managable concern.

[no, thats not the same!]

It really is though.

Its important to ask: what are you doing when you devote so much time to repeating the few tenets of a philosophy you already are comfortable with? Why are you choosing this?

About ‘burdens’ - when we avoid difficult choices in life, they become inflated. They grow bigger and bigger and bigger. The more we avoid them, the more burdensome they become, and the harder it is to ignore them, but also the more painful it is to confront them. So we’re more tempted to find some other easier form of relief, which leads us to ignore the choices we’re not confronting, which makes them grow bigger, which makes the crutch more appealing...this is the spiral of addiction, and part of addiction is misunderstanding or romanticizing the thing ones addicted to. Pessimism likes to pretend its the ultimate confrontation with the ultimate horror. Its not: its a justification for not confronting anything.

Alongside? In what sense are they treated with the same scientific/therapeutic respect? — apokrisis

Terror management theory has been around for a while, and depressive realism is only slightly younger than positive psychology, as far as I am aware.

Ah. So they are better because they don't paper over the essential badness of existence! For people in a hole, they are a help to dig the hole deeper. — apokrisis

No, I think TMT, et al are important because they fundamentally put into question some of the things about positive psychology. Incidentally, Ernest Becker would have wanted TMT to help create a more meaningful and positive society.

Probably because antinatalists keep mentioning it. Although I agree, you might take the more interesting position that basically life is 99% OK for you, but the 1% that sucks then makes the very idea of living an intolerable burden. Even the possibility of dying slowly in a mangled car wreck means an otherwise cheerful life is a metaphysical no no. — apokrisis

Yeah, dying slowly and in great pain sounds awful.

Well I can't get over the hopeless irrationality of a view that says a 99% full glass is still a cosmic tragedy in its 1% emptiness.

I mean I scrapped a knuckle doing some gardening this afternoon. It bled a little.

Even worse, the fibre cable installers cut through the underlawn irrigation despite me telling them exactly where to look out for it. Oh, the agony.

And yet I don't regret having been born. It's been another great day. — apokrisis

You persistently bring up the most unimportant aches and pains as a reductio of antinatalism. It would be absurd if little finger scrapes and boo-boos were what we were concerned about.

Instead of taking the 1% to mean the minor aches and pains you may experience, instead take the 1% to mean the percentage of individuals with, say, debilitating neurological disorders which cause intolerable pain and premature death. Think about innocent children who die from medical complications in their early youth - think about how terrified this child must be, to have just barely come into this world before being violently yanked out of it again. Consider the countless individuals who have and will be tortured by governments. Or wild animals, where the rules are that you run or you die. If not anything else, consider what your progeny will think about the world you bring them into. Will they ever feel appalled, even if they're not personally experiencing the brunt of it?

The antinatalist point is that it does not make sense to mourn the existence of these terrible things, yet accept and even support an institution that single-handedly perpetuates them (procreation). The basic point is that very bad things only happen to people who are born.

You may object that technology + human will = a better future where these horrible things do not occur to people who are born. But this is going to lead to a more broader pessimistic point, which is that problems seem to find a way of popping back up again. Solving one problem creates the opportunity for another problem to fill the role. There is nothing new under the sun, as Ecclesiastes has it.

I accept one part of antinatalism. We ought to consider long and hard about bringing kids into the world. The future could be quite dicey.

But then that just commits you morally to doing the best that you can for them if you do. There is nothing particular to fear about life as a journey in itself. The variety of that journey, the challenges it presents, is pretty much the point.

To build a cult around persuading everyone to stop having kids seems weird. Frankly it is weird. It has value only as an illustration of what bad philosophy looks like. — apokrisis

Another way of putting the antinatalist point could be: the best parent is the one who never is one (biologically, speaking at least). As Cabrera said: "Because I love you, you will not be born!"

The current way of looking at things has it that you can be irresponsible as a parent of a child by how you provide for them and treat them, but hardly ever is it considered that having children tout court is irresponsible. This is what makes antinatalism a radical position, one that may seem "weird". It questions a fundamental, fundamental assumption of affirmative societies, that life is good and having children is also good. It is a culture of parenting, made and perpetuated by parents.

Antinatalism, at least in the way I'm presenting it, is an ethical orientation that doesn't require any sophisticated metaphysics beyond what the average person already believes. Antinatalism is a final consequence of taking the contemporary ethical categories and applying them radically and consistently.

With respect to antinatalism being a "cult" - I admit that many prominent and "vocal" antinatalists on the internet are cultish and probably narcissists/schizoids/avoidants. Separate the substance from the shit.

I can’t do it! -> guilt -> but its not my fault! Its unfair to demand something of someone that that person cant give -> im not guilty, the universe is. Youve condemned me, well i condemn you back!

[antinatalism is subtler. Its a condemnation not of existence, but of the part of existence we can consider responsible for existence - however the focus on it is serving the same function - the feeling of guilt is placed elsewhere]

Go back to the beginning - why cant you do it? Frustration is always bound up with self-condemnation. The trick is to realize that youre the one making impossible demands on yourself, even if doesnt seem like it. Thats the first step of healing. addictions want you to think you cant get better, but you can