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 — Albero

Based on what you said, agreed. Certainly Antinatalism is about alleviating suffering as much as possible. It should be a passive and (not sure if right term) "gentle" philosophy. I am totally against negative utilitarianism to its logical conclusion, such as the "Big Red Button" scenarios. If you are unfamiliar, that is something like, if you can end everything painlessly with one red button, would you do it? Of course no, because there is individual human agency. Ethics is nothing if it doesn't start at the level of individual agent for whom which it is their very suffering you are trying to prevent. It is not some monstrously anti-human/life credo. Thus, anyone that characterizes antinatalism as thus is doing it a deep disservice. However, that being said, I don't think @Zn0n was that way, he simply referenced an idea associated with the YouTuber you mentioned. To be fair, any philosophy can be twisted to make it on the villainous side- this is no different. Nationalism in regard to pride in country can be okay in small doses. Taken to the extreme, it leads to xenophobia and bigotry. It goes the same with anything.

Edited to provide context.

@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.

Yeah seems that way to me as well and indeed crazies are everywhere.

I would like to say that I think a strong antinatalism takes into account the dignity of what could be the potential person, and not treating them as an mere means to an end. Thus, preventing future suffering is one way of honoring this. No ONE is deprived, yet the consideration of not creating unnecessary harm is perfectly kept. The child is not used for some vision of what the child should do or become. He is not living for a third-party reason. Often what is thought to be "for the sake of the child" is really just visions of what the child may or may not do in a social setting. This would be using the child as a "player" in a game. People think this is moral, but I think it should be questioned.

If I was to force something like work for you to deal with, and say "sure you can try to get out of it if you want" but by doing so you will surely die a slow death, that really isn't much of a choice. I foisted circumstances that are basically inescapable and thus have ignored any regards for you, the player of this game, just looking at you as someone who will "surely" want to play.

@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

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 — Albero

Yep. I really don't like most utilitarian arguments in the realm of ethics that "aggregate" things and have no regard for the individual person. Thus, any "greatest good for greatest amount" or "Least harm for greatest amount" will lead to silly conclusions and as I said, discount the individual. This itself is unethical, as it uses people for a strict principle.

However, in the realm of government and politics, I don't have as much problem with utilitarianism, and I don't think there is a way around it when you are dealing with large populations.

@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

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 — Albero

Yes I've heard of him. Can you explain his actual NU argument though? As far as I know, he is mainly saying that we should strive for a transhuman end point where there is no suffering. However, to get to this point, it seems like he would allow more people to be born to do so. This again sounds like aggregate utilitarianism whereby people are used for a greater cause. Perhaps I am wrong, about allowing more people born for this cause. It does sound like science fiction either way, and doesn't justify creating more people, even if it is for the sake of reducing future suffering.

no idea what his justification is. Like you said, I suppose a strict negative utilitarian outlook wouldn’t care about such justifications as long as global suffering is eliminated. It seems to me that not caring about rights and justifications is pretty much an issue with positive utilitarianism as well. He does have a website though, so maybe it’s on there

David identifies as a 'soft antinatalist'. While he acknowledges that procreating is wrong, he believes that as the genes of the optimists will be passed on as opposed to that of the pessimist, antinatalism is doomed to failure, and genetically editing out suffering is our only hope.

that sounds strange to me. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe this isn’t suited for this forum, but are optimistic or pessimistic dispositions genetically inherited?

that sounds strange to me. Maybe I’m wrong, and maybe this isn’t suited for this forum, but are optimistic or pessimistic dispositions genetically inherited? — Albero

That's a good question, cause if that is accurate, its a very Lamarckian error in his understanding of inheritance.

Yes, optimism and pessimism are inheritable.

Yes, optimism and pessimism are inheritable. — Down The Rabbit Hole

That seems too blanketed. One can be a pessimist born of (more) optimist parents (obviously, optimistic enough to at least have children). But I can believe that part of the dispositions for being of pessimistic temperament is genetic.

When I say inheritable, I don't mean that they are always inherited. It just means that we have an increased chance of inheriting the optimistic/pessimistic trait of our parents.

I have been meaning to read up on gene editing, but it seems clear that this has better potential to eliminate suffering than promoting antinatalism.

I have been meaning to read up on gene editing, but it seems clear that this has better potential to eliminate suffering than promoting antinatalism. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Right, well that might not be true, first (sci fi) and meanwhile not creating new people who will then be used in this scheme is an imperative if you dont want to use people.

@schopenhauer1 I don’t think Pearce specifically wants people to procreate solely for his ideas to come into fruition, but simply that he understands people aren’t going to stop procreating any time soon. I suppose he means if people are going to be coming into existence, might as well stop suffering from existing entirely rather than prevent it. The issue I have though, is that I don’t know how Mr Pearce even defines “elimination of suffering.” Does he want our bodies to never get hurt? Turn our pain receptors off? I’m sure he explains it but it all sounds fantastical