Anti-natalism is the philosophical idea that choosing to have children is an unethical act. Mark explains what anti-natalism is, as well as what it isn’t, and describes how he came to subscribe to anti-natalist thought.
Learn more about anti-natalism from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Support Podcast for Inquiry on Patreon, subscribe wherever you listen to podcasts (Spotify Apple Google Deezer Player.fm), or listen here:
A video recording is also available:
What a great example of casuistry/sophistry, and l say that as a Humanistic Misanthrope (or Misanthropic Humanist?)! I hate people, but don't want them to suffer - unfortunately, philosophical antinatalism doesn't logically follow...
ReplyDeleteAxiomatic asymmetry doesn't apply, as suffering isn't separate from joy and joy isn't separate from suffering; both contain the other and wouldn't make sense without their opposite... If depriving an entity that does not exist of joy is absurd, then so is preventing the suffering of said potential entity, which is perfectly symmetrical. Furthermore, deontologically, the deprivation of joy cannot be justified to serve the end of elimination of suffering...
In instances where it becomes known that inchoate beings would mostly suffer without much, if any, joy, due to unavoidable disease, severe disabilities, living conditions such as environmental degradation etc., it is probably better to prevent existence, just as euthanasia is preferable for existing beings who suffer unbearably, but that is circumstantial/situational/idiosyncratic, not general. And what if we had the means to maximize joy and minimize suffering through genetic/technological enhancement to create designer/transhuman babies and ensure a world in which it's worth living for them? In fact, wealthy people in the First World are already well on their way to doing just that by having fewer and better kids, as they have the means to invest more in each to guarantee a good life and to maximize joy. So we are already experiencing limited antinatalism, and certainly never miss any of the potential people who are never born... By contrast, the poor, especially in the Third World, can't afford to have few children, even though they know most/all will suffer, because putting all their eggs in one basket is suboptimal when they know they can offer their offspring nothing, and thus playing the numbers game is a better strategy. All they need is for one to succeed by fluke to guarantee the family's future!
Finally, there's the no-small-matter that ontologically, the null set also exists, and thus we have being without beings. How do we know that entities are a teleological end as opposed to a transition? After Parmenides, via one of Dan Dennett's students: Only one thing exists, and it isn't you...
Find a place inside where there's joy, and the joy will burn out the pain - Joseph Campbell