Feeling of moral superiority: "I saved the planet."

I guess sustenance. Absolute antinatalist is quite impossible because there will be always Kids (even more in so religious countries) but I would consider give a chance ti selective antinatalism as you explained previously.

So you wanna do eugenics? Do you think you're wise enough to decide who should and should not breed?

I guess people who are irresponsible with their own lives shouldn't have the right of breed not only Kids but animals. Having kid is a serious issue that not all the people are ready or capable to do it so.
Imagine someone who in their regular days has a lot of problems which make them not living properly: Bankruptcy, drug addiction, violence, etc... And then they want have kids? Hmm... I still think it is not the best option in context like this

Yes. Any "social scores" - there are 100 of them? You can have a child. Not? Better to sterilize right away, because you still won't be able to earn 100 points. :)
Bad, very bad.

I guess people who are irresponsible with their own lives shouldn't have the right of breed not only Kids but animals. Having kid is a serious issue that not all the people are ready or capable to do it so. Imagine someone who in their regular days has a lot of problems which make them not living properly: Bankruptcy, drug addiction, violence, etc... And then they want have kids? Hmm... I still think it is not the best option in context like this — javi2541997

I agree that some people are not fit to be parents, but nonetheless strongly object to state machinery that imposes its will on women's bodies. How can you possibly justify the idea that the state has a right to decide who can and cannot breed? It's a primary biological function, and inherent to a person's very human-ness that they have the capacity to reproduce. The state has no right to that. It's bad enough with anti-abortion laws. How would you deal with unsanctioned pregnancy? Would women become criminally liable for the natural functioning of their bodies? Would you be happy ordering terminations of unapproved pregnancies by court order?

Could be a couple things depending on the AN:

Catharsis- I can't prevent my life, but I can prevent future suffering. The emotional element of satisfaction that one is following an ethical guideline such as preventing a future sufferer from having to experience suffering. Sharing one's vision of what is the case and the simple, yet novel approach to the solution.

Duty- If it is truly ethical to not create future sufferers, some might find it part of their duty to let people know what is the ethical case.

How would you deal with unsanctioned pregnancy? Would women become criminally liable for the natural functioning of their bodies? Would you be happy ordering terminations of unapproved pregnancies by court order?

Oh no. I do not want a holocaust of pregnant women. Neither I want laws which order to courts punish all them who despite they are irresponsible they have kids. It is an Utopia. We can't avoid biology and the instinct of having kids from women. Nevertheless, I guess it is at least so critically flawed. We cannot sit here and then spreading kids out of nowhere for no reason. I think it doesn't depend on laws but in sexual education. What do you think? Probably with a proper sexual education people would be more matured at the time of thinking about having kids.

Before you posted this, you should read just about any AN argument, as this is probably the most common question ANs get asked, and also the most commonly rebutted.

Most ANs recognize the distinction of what it means to prevent someone from coming into existence in the first place and ending an existence that is already here. As long as one recognizes this distinction, then this argument doesn't make sense. Clearly, an axiom concerned with things like "Harm" and "Consent" and "Forcing" would not do the very things to someone that they feel procreating itself is doing. Most ANs aren't complete negative utilitarians where the outcome is all that matters. Not all ethics is barbarically one-sided like that.

I guess it is not about killing humans who already born but preventing the future of some parents (not all true) of having kids if they have lack of responsibility

I guess it is not about killing humans who already born but preventing the future of some parents (not all true) of having kids if they have lack of responsibility — javi2541997

Hi Javi, to be fair, he is talking about "absolute antinatalism".. that is antintalism that thinks NO parents should ever have children because they want to prevent a future person from suffering. It doesn't matter the background of the parent, or the circumstances. All birth should be prevented if possible.

I already gave my answer as to the difference between beginning a life, and continuing a life that is already here and how ANs would not use the very things they are against (not forcing a situation onto someone, not getting consent, not harming) to prevent current suffering. The nonexistence of an actual person prior to birth makes all the difference here.

I already gave my answer as to the difference between beginning a life, and continuing a life that is already here and how ANs would not use the very things they are against (not forcing a situation onto someone, not getting consent, not harming) to prevent current suffering. The nonexistence of an actual person prior to birth makes all the difference here.

Hello! Yes I understand your point now. It is interesting this point because somehow remembers me an utopianism because it is impossible here preventing now having kids in the long run (we have some countries that literally promote this actions due to religious beliefs...) I accept the fact that not accepting all births is quite totalitarian and impossitive.
Also the fact of non-existence person before birth. it is similar to random probabilities. We only can argue here that probably only win those who will never experience in their consciousness that they ever existed/born.

Most ANs recognize the distinction of what it means to prevent someone from coming into existence in the first place and ending an existence that is already here. — schopenhauer1

A distinction that is close to trivial. If life isn't worth living, it's not worth living, full stop, with nukes.

What do antinatalists get if other people aren't born at all, ever? — baker

I don't think antinatalism is about "getting something".

One can come to moral conclusions that one does not like, but still recognize them as being true.

A hard on presumably. For them to fuck themselves with, as there are no children available.

A distinction that is close to trivial. If life isn't worth living, it's not worth living, full stop, with nukes. — baker

No not at all. There is a distinction between a life worth STARTING and CONTINUTING. Different considerations, mainly involving the fact that in one case, no one exists with fears, goals, interests, and dignity. The other one does.

There's also the political preference to not keep this survival-comfort-entertainment seeking via cultural institutions thing going. Rather, voting with our prevention of more people having to do it.

I am going to recommend to you, if you don't mind, a book which is about this topic and the story is pure brilliant. The book is called The Sailor Who Fell From Grace with the Sea by Yukio Mishima.

[img]http://

Cool, why do you recommend it in this case?

The story has a lot of symbolism about Japan in the 60's (if I remember it properly) but the most interesting fact is a group of friends who appear in the book and have a deeply conversation about anti-natalism in Japan. I remember even a quote when a friend of Naboru Kuroda (main character) told to him: having children in nowadays is something we cannot allow. This is why this debate remembered me about Mishima book.

Oh interesting. That does sound relevant.

There must be some painful dissonance involved in explicitly waging war against potential suffering in some abstract future while doing nothing to alleviate flesh-and-blood suffering in the concrete present. The amount of suffering he has prevented remains zero, but he no longer has to feel worse for doing nothing.

Strawman bro. You can still alleviate suffering for already existing person. One doesnt exclude the other. But its also a broader philosophical claim about existence itself. Its not always about the practical aims, but the aesthetic understanding. Its like art or music..theres aesthetic elements involved in having a worldview. Its not about simple utilitarian outcomes.

For example clearly you think the human project is worth perpetuating. Thats an aesthetic, a worldview, whether ya know it or not. All human decisions have justifications..even.if subtle or assumed.

Also, for the thousandth time, there IS a distinction between an ethic surrounding non-existence an people being put into existence, and people who already exist. It is a different emphasis. Preventing future people means not putting people here IN THE FIRST PLACE. Many ethics already deal with current suffering. What makes AN distinct is its prevention aspect. You are overlooking the actual argument by somehow saying the prevention aspect is illegitimate, but you haven't made an argument against it. Why shouldn't people prevent suffering, just because people already suffer? In fact, this in the long run will prevent the current suffering from continuing. The very suffering you are concerned with.

How can one alleviate the suffering of a child while at the same time wishing it was never born?

Prevent a future child. This prevents what is occurring now, occurring to someone else in the future. It just takes looking a little bit into the future.. next generation. By ignoring this, you are perpetuating the current suffering.

And don't start making the move to utopianism.. especially funny if you do being you seem to be an arch-conservative.. anyways go on.

I’m not a conservative. But I do know the difference between the abstract “future child” and the real one. I also know the difference between preventing life and preventing suffering.

Oh no. I do not want a holocaust of pregnant women. — javi2541997

Then I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of your suggestion that:

I guess people who are irresponsible with their own lives shouldn't have the right of breed — javi2541997

Neither I want laws which order to courts punish all them who despite they are irresponsible they have kids. It is an Utopia. — javi2541997

If it's a utopia, why is it full of irresponsible people having kids?

We can't avoid biology and the instinct of having kids from women. Nevertheless, I guess it is at least so critically flawed. We cannot sit here and then spreading kids out of nowhere for no reason. I think it doesn't depend on laws but in sexual education. What do you think? Probably with a proper sexual education people would be more matured at the time of thinking about having kids. — javi2541997

There is not a problem with over-population. The earth can support many more people than we currently have. The problem is the misapplication of technology - most fundamentally, energy technology. What we need, to secure the future - is massive amounts of clean energy from magma. Then we meet our energy needs without polluting, capture and sequester carbon, desalinate water to irrigate land for agriculture - while protecting forests and natural water sources from over-exploitation. With that kind of energy at our disposal, we can continue to grow into the future, sustainably. It would be a better world - with better development of resources, and less poverty.

With regard to reproduction, I would simply give women control over their own bodies, with education, contraception and medical care - and if people were still incapable of raising their children properly, then the state should step in and remove the children from danger. But preventing "irresponsible" people from breeding is a non-starter. It's eugenics. It's morally abhorrent, totalitarian and wide open to abuse.

I feel like there is no conversation about how antinatalism is based on the assertion that suffering is equivalent to an objective "bad." Why would suffering, a mental state for an individual, be bad for the universe at whole?

Then I'm not sure you've thought through the implications of your suggestion that: — counterpunch

It is not the same when someone is already pregnant than other does not. We are speaking here about preventing it not sacrifice all of those who are already pregnant.

If it's a utopia, why is it full of irresponsible people having kids? — counterpunch

It is an utopia because despite of irresponsible of some parents they will end up having kids. It is like a natural decision. We don't have and not improve the scenario where the people should consider more about having kids because it isn't a simple issue. That's why is an utopia. I trying to put arguments in something that won't work at all.

With regard to reproduction, I would simply give women control over their own bodies, with education, contraception and medical care - and if people were still incapable of raising their children properly, then the state should step in and remove the children from danger. But preventing "irresponsible" people from breeding is a non-starter. It's eugenics. It's morally abhorrent, totalitarian and wide open to abuse. — counterpunch

I am agree with you in this point. I also said it previously. I think the key is all about a good sex education system. This would prevent not only unnecessary borns but sexual illnesses.
What I want to say, despite it could sound quite totalitarian, is that some parents do not deserve have kids because these will have a bad life. If someone has already a dangerous background or life all this stimulus will affect their kids too. This is the reality.
Imagine a child born in a broken family with a lot of violence, drugs, bankruptcy, etc... Around him all the days. These stimulus will only make him a delinquent or probably a killer because their parents are not responsible enough to make the child a normal person because the life of the parents are not even normal.
Also you can say here that this literally could happens in rich or wealthy families too. Sure yes, but the ratio is lower we have to be honest.

What I want to say, despite it could sound quite totalitarian, is that some parents do not deserve have kids because these will have a bad life. — javi2541997

True, but trying to prevent humans breeding is a very bad idea.
Freedom is the answer - not oppression.