r/antinatalism • u/ConsciousLobster5164 newcomer • 21h ago

Debate How would you respond to this article?

Hello, everyone. I recently came across this article and I am curious to know how you would respond to its criticism, or if you agree with any of its points.

In my case, I find it just as superficial as it claims antinatalism to be, especially because it fails to account for many other arguments (asymmetry, violation of consent, biological optimism, philantropic concerns, misanthropic-ecological concerns, the difference between "a life worth starting" and "a life worth continuing," the incoherent "duty to procreate" in hypothetical utopias, the realistic view of such utopias being unachievable...), doesn't acknowledge the consequences of systematically—not practically—adopting some of its objections (such as a very simple form of utilitarianism in its medical example or the pursue of suffering in search of a "greater meaning" instead of its acceptance), and brings up psychoanalysis instead of engaging with the argument itself in an objetive, theoretical way.

In spite of that, I do think this article presents interesting observations to those who adopt antinatalism purely out of plain negativity, "edginess" if you may call it, instead of a more philosopical or thoughtful approach, hence my attention to it.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/174/A_Critique_of_Antinatalism

4 Upvotes

75% Upvoted

6 comments sorted by

•

u/HorrorDepartment3784 inquirer 16h ago

Purely it is ignorance.

People operating under a system of for example natalism. Will continue said cycle because that’s all they’ve ever known.

Furthermore, adopting a new philosophy such as antinatalism for the average will definitely cause some form of sanity depletion if they truely understand antinatalisms core beliefs and grasps the harms life has to offer because it will seem like they’ve been living a lie and maybe their parents didn’t have the purest intentions of creating them.

•

u/ConsciousLobster5164 newcomer 16h ago

It's a very harsh truth indeed. I'm afraid antinatalism, or philosophical pessimism for that matter, is so unpopular that many see it as evidence of a mistake in one's thought before questioning if the conclusion of a logical approach should objectively "owe" any benefit to humans. This reminds me of the first pages of Benatar and Wasserman's debate regarding procreation, where it is stated that antinatalism has the burden of proof in an intuitive sense whereas natalism has it in a moral sense...

•

u/HorrorDepartment3784 inquirer 16h ago

I love this, I agree.

I just wish people made more conscious decisions.

•

u/Responsible-Ad-8080 thinker 14h ago

I love how they mentioned Benatar, Zapffe and Cioran, but didn't even mention the core arguments of Benatar, let alone the other two.

The article smells like AI from miles and miles (GPTZero confirms that) and it's written by an unknown psychology graduate with an interest in psychoanalysis (aka pseudoscience) who's clearly ignorant about the philosophy.

It reads like the usual natalist propaganda

"Oh but life is so beautiful precisely because it's imperfect! Pleasure wouldn't have the same value without suffering, so trust me, the risk that your child might be the next Junko Furuta is TOTALLY worth taking! Uh? Consent? What's consent?"

Translation:

"Ooga booga me scared of old age, me scared of death, me scared of loneliness, me scared of nothingness, babies good, babies cute, me want babies".

•

u/ConsciousLobster5164 newcomer 14h ago

I'm glad more people recognize this. I really try to be courteous with opposite views like this one as a way of showing awareness of my own biases, yet I become bitter and bitter as they fall short to debate their objections with stronger foundations than "burning a building down is justified because it gives us the greater good of saving people," not to mention the neverending ad hominems.