Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 192 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,514 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Anyone here familiar with the term?
What do you think about this philosophical position rejecting the reproduction as ethically wrong? They argue that people should abstain from procreation because it is morally bad.

I ve been close to this approach all my life, (even though I am not radical about it) so it was interesting to find out that there was indeed similar reactions to life and reproduction.

If you are new to the term:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

also: David Benatar speaking on anti-natalism, hosted by Sam Harris at his podcast series. I am not fond of Harris tbh, who failed to challange Benatar on the issue as well.
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
52,638 Posts
Re: Antinatalism - thoughts?

Careful now. You don't want to de-justify your own existence, right?

Of course there is population science, ecological footprint and resource consumption with more humans. But I wouldn't attach a moral value to that.

Even for atheists, according to Richard Dawkins the purpose of life is to make more copies of yourself and pass on your DNA...

uSl5Ah3f6Fg

Nevertheless, in many ways, antinatalism wouldn't be 'right' or 'wrong' under such a naturalistic view as the universe doesn't really care about what happens to us. Living and dying is a part of nature.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,705 Posts
Re: Antinatalism - thoughts?

I sympathize with the idea. I don't fear my own death but I fear and worry about the death of others close to me, so having kids, just makes me worry more, especially with what's going on today. In addition, bringing someone into this world is hard to consider when the world is already dark enough and added to the fact that there are many kids needing adoption.

But while I can't go full on it is because I follow one of the organized religions, and the idea of marriage is to churn out whipper-snappers. I still struggle with that concept, but I'm not married yet, so that's for future me and future Mrs. Bilentsob to worry about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,069 Posts
Re: Antinatalism - thoughts?

It's ok, who needs more people? so long as it isn't a mispelling of antinadalism. Already enough of that around here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,514 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Re: Antinatalism - thoughts?

It's ok, who needs more people? so long as it isn't a mispelling of antinadalism. Already enough of that around here.
It's non tennis section, why would it be anti-nadalism lol. :lol: And I support Rafa.

its origin (copy pasting):

Natalism is a belief that promotes the reproduction of sentient life. The term comes from the Latin adjective for "birth", nātālis.

Natalism promotes child-bearing and parenthood as desirable for social reasons and to ensure the continuance of humanity. Natalism in public policy typically seeks to create financial and social incentives for populations to reproduce, such as providing tax incentives that reward having and supporting children. Adherents of more stringent takes on natalism may seek to limit access to abortion and contraception, as well. The opposite of natalism is antinatalism.
 

·
Administrator | Chaos Theory
Joined
·
52,638 Posts
Re: Antinatalism - thoughts?

De-justifying is only about birth, not ''continuing to life'' once we are born, we should toughen up and continue living, because annihilation is even worse.

but life/world is esentially a bad place, so reproducing is ethically and moraly wrong for the person who is starting the life, who never asked to be born and deal with this stuff.

so antinatalists never promote suicides and whatnot, but more focused on reproduction/breed.
But who is to say the world is essentially a bad place? Where does this standard come from? None of us choose who our parents would be, where we would grow up, our sex, the time of history in which we are born and the circumstances we are born in. That is not up to us.

There is an interesting paradox:

"Again I looked, and I considered all the oppression taking place under the sun. I saw the tears of the oppressed, and they had no comforter; the power lay in the hands of their oppressors, and there was no comforter. So I admired the dead, who had already died, above the living, who are still alive. But better than both is he who has not yet existed, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 4:1-3

So I took all this to heart and concluded that the righteous and the wise, as well as their deeds, are in God’s hands. Man does not know what lies ahead, whether love or hate. It is the same for all: There is a common fate for the righteous and the wicked, for the good and the bad,a for the clean and the unclean, for the one who sacrifices and the one who does not. As it is for the good, so it is for the sinner; as it is for the one who makes a vow, so it is for the one who refuses to take a vow. This is an evil in everything that is done under the sun: There is one fate for everyone. Furthermore, the hearts of men are full of evil and madness while they are alive, and afterward they join the dead. There is hope, however, for anyone who is among the living; for even a live dog is better than a dead lion. For the living know that they will die, but the dead know nothing. They have no further reward, because the memory of them is forgotten. Their love, their hate, and their envy have already vanished, and they will never again have a share in all that is done under the sun. Ecclesiastes 9:1-6

Should we not try to make the most of our circumstances regardless of how life goes? Why not deal with the things that make the world a bad place as much as we can?

I do think parents should be responsible but that's a different matter altogether. Certainly it's deeper than the surface dictates, because one could propose it is morally better for wealthier or more well off people to have children than others for the sake of being able to 'cater' for them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,069 Posts
Re: Antinatalism - thoughts?

It's non tennis section, why would it be anti-nadalism lol. :lol: And I support Rafa.

its origin (copy pasting):

Natalism is a belief that promotes the reproduction of sentient life. The term comes from the Latin adjective for "birth", nātālis.

Natalism promotes child-bearing and parenthood as desirable for social reasons and to ensure the continuance of humanity. Natalism in public policy typically seeks to create financial and social incentives for populations to reproduce, such as providing tax incentives that reward having and supporting children. Adherents of more stringent takes on natalism may seek to limit access to abortion and contraception, as well. The opposite of natalism is antinatalism.
Yes, I was just kidding.

But in truth I find natalism awful, and it's everywhere in milder forms. Most people find the ultimate meaning of their existence in their children, in reproduction. It's in the genes to do so, but can also thank religion for this. Probably used mainly to spread more adherents of each particular religion, in the West, The Big 3, the lasting Catholic ban on abortion, ...etc.etc.
Huge subject and I can't even begin to address it here, but I will say this much: there is an unimaginable amount of pressure and mythology around the act of reproduction, and that changes with the political climate ... "Family values" that started with Regan in the 80s, during the huge swing back to the right, from the previously progressive decades of the 60s and 70s.
Marx and engels: Origin of the family, Private Property , and the State, probably still relevant. But my critical awareness of this comes from all around me. I just remember reading that book while in college and it was revelatory.

What humanity needs now is less people, not more. The earth is being destroyed and the main underlying factor is sheer population. (Of course, disregard for the environment and financial greed are the causes, but with smaller populations, nature could withstand this, to a point).
I once read a calculation arrived at by environmental scientists on what was the maximum population the earth could accommodate, in terms of resources. It was something like 8 billion. We'll be past that in no time.

But keep having children at an alarming rate! CHina has learned its lesson, but others have not.
The biggest thing an individual can do to reduce their carbon footprint is NOT reproduce.
Yet childless adults are looked upon as somewhat deficient.

But I am very happy that Maria and Sebastion had a child ...who is about to hopefully win his 12th FO!!!!!!
 

·
-Lifetime Scientist-
Joined
·
12,202 Posts
Re: Antinatalism - thoughts?

But in truth I find natalism awful, and it's everywhere in milder forms. Most people find the ultimate meaning of their existence in their children, in reproduction. It's in the genes to do so, but can also thank religion for this. Probably used mainly to spread more adherents of each particular religion, in the West, The Big 3, the lasting Catholic ban on abortion, ...etc.etc.
Huge subject and I can't even begin to address it here, but I will say this much: there is an unimaginable amount of pressure and mythology around the act of reproduction, and that changes with the political climate ... "Family values" that started with Regan in the 80s, during the huge swing back to the right, from the previously progressive decades of the 60s and 70s.
Marx and engels: Origin of the family, Private Property , and the State, probably still relevant. But my critical awareness of this comes from all around me. I just remember reading that book while in college and it was revelatory.

What humanity needs now is less people, not more. The earth is being destroyed and the main underlying factor is sheer population. (Of course, disregard for the environment and financial greed are the causes, but with smaller populations, nature could withstand this, to a point).
I once read a calculation arrived at by environmental scientists on what was the maximum population the earth could accommodate, in terms of resources. It was something like 8 billion. We'll be past that in no time.

But keep having children at an alarming rate! CHina has learned its lesson, but others have not.
The biggest thing an individual can do to reduce their carbon footprint is NOT reproduce.
Yet childless adults are looked upon as somewhat deficient.

But I am very happy that Maria and Sebastion had a child ...who is about to hopefully win his 12th FO!!!!!!
Agree with most of it. I'm not against reproduction but definitely against it being a dominant ideology.

It's a real dillema these days if you're aware of the critical situation the planet is in: on one hand new people are needed, specially if raised by knowledgeable individuals, in order to have a timely renewal of values in accordance to the sustainability of the ecosystems but on the other hand it's hard to make the decision to bring a new person into a world that is likely to become almost inhabitable in the coming decades.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,937 Posts
Re: Antinatalism - thoughts?

For chinese, indians and africans that's ok, there are already too many of them, lets icelanders and estonians have more kids, they have comparatively small populations and their women are hot.
Sounds exactly like that Baselinegod racist we had here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,514 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Re: Anti-natalism - thoughts?

Thanks for inputs, guys. I would recommend you to read David Benatar's book: 'Better Never to Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence'
 

·
-Lifetime Scientist-
Joined
·
12,202 Posts
Re: Antinatalism - thoughts?

Careful now. You don't want to de-justify your own existence, right?

Of course there is population science, ecological footprint and resource consumption with more humans. But I wouldn't attach a moral value to that.

Even for atheists, according to Richard Dawkins the purpose of life is to make more copies of yourself and pass on your DNA...

Nevertheless, in many ways, antinatalism wouldn't be 'right' or 'wrong' under such a naturalistic view as the universe doesn't really care about what happens to us. Living and dying is a part of nature.
Dawkins is wrong on two accounts. First, DNA has no purpose for self-replication, it just happens. Second, the propagation of DNA is not a self-sustainable process, it depends on other conditions (cancer is a clear example of this).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,194 Posts
Re: Antinatalism - thoughts?

Yes, I was just kidding.

But in truth I find natalism awful, and it's everywhere in milder forms. Most people find the ultimate meaning of their existence in their children, in reproduction. It's in the genes to do so, but can also thank religion for this. Probably used mainly to spread more adherents of each particular religion, in the West, The Big 3, the lasting Catholic ban on abortion, ...etc.etc.
Huge subject and I can't even begin to address it here, but I will say this much: there is an unimaginable amount of pressure and mythology around the act of reproduction, and that changes with the political climate ... "Family values" that started with Regan in the 80s, during the huge swing back to the right, from the previously progressive decades of the 60s and 70s.
Marx and engels: Origin of the family, Private Property , and the State, probably still relevant. But my critical awareness of this comes from all around me. I just remember reading that book while in college and it was revelatory.

What humanity needs now is less people, not more. The earth is being destroyed and the main underlying factor is sheer population. (Of course, disregard for the environment and financial greed are the causes, but with smaller populations, nature could withstand this, to a point).
I once read a calculation arrived at by environmental scientists on what was the maximum population the earth could accommodate, in terms of resources. It was something like 8 billion. We'll be past that in no time.

But keep having children at an alarming rate! CHina has learned its lesson, but others have not.
The biggest thing an individual can do to reduce their carbon footprint is NOT reproduce.
Yet childless adults are looked upon as somewhat deficient.

But I am very happy that Maria and Sebastion had a child ...who is about to hopefully win his 12th FO!!!!!!
Carrying capacity is something impossible to determine because technology developements are constant and food production gets more efficient.

But it's easy to determine that currently, counting political, cultural factors, some countries are well above their carrying capacity.

And then there are places which could take fivefold more people and feed them. And these are the same places where people have enough time and information to discuss topics such as anti-natalism. While less developed countries keep on growing their population.

Their growth is in no small part what makes right wing, conservative parties drive the 'family values' message home in many countries. The fear of being outnumbered is very vivid in today's West.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,069 Posts
Re: Antinatalism - thoughts?

Carrying capacity is something impossible to determine because technology developements are constant and food production gets more efficient.

But it's easy to determine that currently, counting political, cultural factors, some countries are well above their carrying capacity.

And then there are places which could take fivefold more people and feed them. And these are the same places where people have enough time and information to discuss topics such as anti-natalism. While less developed countries keep on growing their population.

Their growth is in no small part what makes right wing, conservative parties drive the 'family values' message home in many countries. The fear of being outnumbered is very vivid in today's West.
"Carry capacity" is pretty obvious and obviously we don't need scientists to tell us--oceans are overfished, turning too acidic, coral is dying out; forests destroyed, dustbowls created, too many resources ripped out of the earth, too many rivers diverted, too much fossil fuels burned and too much shit in the atmosphere--ozone holes--too much melt of the artic ice cap etc. etc. etc. mass extinctions, unprecedented numbers of wildfires, hurricanes tornados, flooding, we are living in an apocalypse, it's very plain.

Of course I know all about birth rates in poorer, less developed countries, and fear of being out numbered in the wealthier, well let's just say West, 1rst world, whatever you know who we're talking about.
But China is getting very wealthy and powerful and they don't fear being out numbered, so really the whole subject is vast, too much for a tennis forum, too much for any forum.

I just know reproducing less would be the best thing for the planet. The countries you assume that could feed fivefold their poopulation: could they also employ them? I live in a pretty rich, well off country, and jobs are not easy to find, at all. We are developing an internal third world of people who live on the streets, or those who just barely stay afloat with no hope of anything more. The political will in the West right now for any kind of compassionate democratic socialism is nil, unfortunately. Instead you have "family values" and rampant materialism, and impossibly polarized politics which makes any way forward nearly impossible, and nothing like natalism or anti-natalism (maybe students are using it in universities)I never heard this word until here and now. To speak against the family is kind of like hearsay--people would regard you as a freak or lunatic. But just 30 years ago many people were questioning "the family" as the be all of existence, and regarded other choices as valid.

Anyway, huge subject.
Personally, I'm not big on families. But without them, it is very hard to survive--financially, in particular.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,771 Posts
Re: Anti-natalism - thoughts?

Thanks for inputs, guys. I would recommend you to read David Benatar's book: 'Better Never to Have Been: The Harm Of Coming Into Existence'
An excellent book and one that reinforced my hostility to procreation. The only real logical argument against anti-natalism is that great suffering would eventually occur due to de-population. But that suffering would be temporary and it's rather selfish to bring someone into the world only to reduce the suffering of those already alive.

I do think that while the philosophy is logically sound, it will only ever appeal to misanthropes with depressive personalities. Same applies to Schopenhauer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,514 Posts
Discussion Starter #17 (Edited)
Re: Anti-natalism - thoughts?

An excellent book and one that reinforced my hostility to procreation. The only real logical argument against anti-natalism is that great suffering would eventually occur due to de-population. But that suffering would be temporary and it's rather selfish to bring someone into the world only to reduce the suffering of those already alive.

I do think that while the philosophy is logically sound, it will only ever appeal to misanthropes with depressive personalities. Same applies to Schopenhauer.
I am thrilled there are people here who read the book! never thought.

I am glad we are on same boat about procreation, it is just meaningless throwing souls into this hell. And you are spot on about selfishness. People like boasting about giving so much to their children, yet they are doing all for themselves, because they don't wanna be lonely in this cruel world, because they want someone to stay beside them when they get old, because they wanna see things they failed to do being done by their children. (hence putting them an immense, undeserved pressure)

It just frustrates me. You don't know if you are going to live long enough to be a good parent for the kid, you don't know if he/she will will be born with a terrible disease, so on and so forth.

And I also love Schopenhauer.
The biggest thing an individual can do to reduce their carbon footprint is NOT reproduce.
Yet childless adults are looked upon as somewhat deficient.
This is very true. Thanks for the whole post Roxi which was great, just wanted to highlight this bit.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,077 Posts
Re: Anti-natalism - thoughts?

Anyone here familiar with the term?
What do you think about this philosophical position rejecting the reproduction as ethically wrong? They argue that people should abstain from procreation because it is morally bad.
I think it's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. :lol: And I say that as someone who has no intention of procreating, however I have nothing against those who do want, perfectly normal thing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,514 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
Re: Anti-natalism - thoughts?

I think it's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. :lol: And I say that as someone who has no intention of procreating, however I have nothing against those who do want, perfectly normal thing.
Fair enough mate, I have some friends who have kids (yeah at 25-26 like me, they were in a great rush :lol:), and never I say stuff to upset them or become a hostile person towards procreation in society. I think it is morally wrong but I can see their intentions, it's been like this for ages, it is in our genes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,634 Posts
Re: Anti-natalism - thoughts?

Yes, I was just kidding.


Huge subject and I can't even begin to address it here, but I will say this much: there is an unimaginable amount of pressure and mythology around the act of reproduction, and that changes with the political climate ... "Family values" that started with Regan in the 80s, during the huge swing back to the right, from the previously progressive decades of the 60s and 70s.
Marx and engels: Origin of the family, Private Property , and the State, probably still relevant. But my critical awareness of this comes from all around me. I just remember reading that book while in college and it was revelatory.
off topic:

Reagan came as a reaction...people grew tired with prolonged anti-Americanism that resulted from the Vietnam war and the counterculture. Ordinary people just wanted to feel good again as Americans below their American flag, although they got the message and took it...we might have been bad guys, but hey, enough is enough. It is true that critical thinking that blossomed especially in the 70s suffered a heavy blow as a consequence, with Reagan. Just as an example, popular culture that used to include top cinema works of art that questioned literally everything, and attracted attention of the millions, seamlessly retrogressed to popcorn movies and light fun. No message except have fun disco music started its rule as well. Oscar for "Rocky" anticipated Reagan and going back to "old values". That was perhaps all very unfortunate, but what happened previously in the 60s and 70s went too far - deep introspection and awareness will never work for a long time, not to mention the active self-hate that is still being promoted by the left all around the world. It doesn't work. Reagan is nowadays mostly remembered as a great president :shrug:

There is one saying by Marx that I've always loved, about history that repeats itself as farce, I think we are seeing it today again with Trump. It was again a reaction of some people who were either ridiculed or ignored and looked down on, and now the progressives are scratching their collective head and wonder how that was even possible. It's funny they can't see the link to themselves. I am personally more afraid of opinionated people who would change things than practical no-nonsense people, so maybe that makes me conservative but I have never identified like that, always as liberal. I guess, my point is that If I was a politician I would try to make people be more critical, who needs zombies, but without antagonizing them by imposing all kinds of guilt, just let them be. Of course, it's just my imagination and history has shown that people generally never learn.

I'm sorry for this Roxitova, I couldn't help it. :wink2:

I have little interest in the topic itself, I can only say that once (25 or so years ago) I had a girlfriend with exactly that philosophy, I didn't mind that at all, but it makes me think if things would have turned out exactly the same if she had had different views..who knows.
 
1 - 20 of 192 Posts
Top