“Elon Musk believes the collapsing birth rate is humanity’s biggest danger. But antinatalists argue having kids is little more than a procreational Ponzi scheme, and the risks are real. This is the case against babies.”
Posted by 2Lore2Law
“Elon Musk believes the collapsing birth rate is humanity’s biggest danger. But antinatalists argue having kids is little more than a procreational Ponzi scheme, and the risks are real. This is the case against babies.”
Posted by 2Lore2Law
5 Comments
This ABC isn’t the same ABC having controversies in the US, it’s Australia’s BBC.
Anyways, I don’t agree with the article, but I’m posting it because it might be the first time I’ve seen antinatalism cited or defended by such a mainstream publication- which I think is interesting in its own right.
>When I booked a flight, Qantas charged me around $20 to “offset” the footprint of my seat, even though the company made $21.9 billion in revenue last financial year.
I know it’s not the central point, but this type of lazy argument makes me instantly turned off by the author.
Especially with airlines, a business known for there great excess profits over the long term…
>Are you a ‘philanthrope’ or a ‘misanthrope’?
>Antinatalism — like any “ism” — is an umbrella term for a range of beliefs and attitudes. Underneath the big antinatalism umbrella are two predominant approaches: the “philanthropic” and the “misanthropic”. Both hope to reduce suffering in the world.
>The philanthropic antinatalist believes every human life involves suffering. From this belief they conclude it is therefore unethical to impose consciousness onto a new human who can’t consent to that inevitable suffering. The solution to this problem, according to the philanthropic antinatalist view, is if a person does not exist in the first place. Only then can they be guaranteed to never suffer.
>Importantly, the philanthropic position is not about some overall weighing-up of happiness versus pain. The philanthropic antinatalist is not arguing that we can tally good days of joy versus bad days of suffering. And they are not arguing that people whose lives involve more suffering somehow have less valuable lives. Instead, they are saying that suffering, to some degree, is an inherent and immutable part of each of our lives.
>Sure, a person who wants to become a parent may believe that the odds are in their favour and that their child will experience enough joy in life to overcome the suffering, but there’s no way to check with someone that they’d take that bet. You may personally feel that the good in your life outweighs the bad — and that’s wonderful — but it doesn’t make it true for others. Your experience also doesn’t negate the suffering others live with.
>By contrast, the philanthropic antinatalist believes there is no harm done if someone simply never comes into existence in the first place.
Both moot and irrelevant points – since an unborn cannot be born to have the consciousness or agency of consent to be asked or surveyed anyway.
It’s in the category of question or dilemma next to mark-to-market accounting, Pascal’s wager, Roko’s Basilisk or the number of angels at a head of a pin,.
“But antinatalists argue having kids is little more than a procreational Ponzi scheme,”
Even if that were true… fucking suck it up? Welcome to the real world? Would you like a sticker for your insight?
Tl:dr they want human civilization to collapse and pass from the Earth because perpetuating it involves non-zero human suffering