What do you think of antinatalism?

I’m not going to read your overly long, rambling post.

I will simply say it is because you touch yourself at night.

I think antinatalists are pessimists and a bit ridiculous. If someone doesn’t want a child they absolutely should not have one, but those who want and can have children should have as many as they can

I joke and say I want 8 of the little monkeys running around but I think our realistic plan is more like 4 or 5, I think more than that starts stretching your time a little too thin.

I think humans need to understand we are animals and we are going to instinctively procreate regardless of any kind of philosophical regard we have for it. The drive to reproduce is one of the strongest drives for a living creature. We would like to think we have become smart enough to overcome our animal instincts and have risen above the animal kingdom, but we haven't: we're still big, hungry, horny apes. It's not just that we just don't *want* to stop, we *can't* stop. It's been hardwired into us after billions of years of evolution to keep reproducing.

I personally cannot have children because of the medications I take. I will probably end up adopting or taking in foster children, many of whom exist and need loving homes with people who will understand their needs. I understand where these people are coming from, I just don't think humans are capable of having that level of self control at a scale it would ever make a difference.

I understand this concept and see their point, ESPECIALLY if a child is brought into an abusive home. I do however not agree that any pain or suffering makes life not worth living. Theres abuse and torture and then theres normal pain and suffering. So I would say I would put this plan into action for sick abusive people but not healthy kind ones. But that's all theoretical and theres nothing I can do to enforce that so. Cest la vie.

I think the human race should go extinct.

in my opinion, nonexistence means sparing a living being from this sick world full of pain and suffering. It doesn't matter how much people try to convince me otherwise, i'm not having kids, but i'm not an antinatalist, if people want to put kids in this mess, that's their problem.

I've seen this idea before, and no it's not that hard to argue against it. Any positives of nonexistence are cancelled out by the fact that you don't exist. 0 != 1. It also assumes that all negative emotions are automatically drawbacks of existence. They aren't. Positive emotions are made more positive by the existence of negative emotions, and some emotions that we regularly think of as negative can feel good to have. That's why when you ask the vast majority of people, regardless of how imperfect their lives are, whether they would rather be dead, the answer is "No." The total values of their lives and how they perceive their lives (which is important, since there's no perception in nonexistence) is above 0. This goes above simply a fear of death, it's an acknowledgement of value, in themselves and/or others around them.

There's simply too much about life that antinatalism doesn't take into account because it distills everything into a cauldron of simple emotions that can be described in words. Pride, fear, joy, pain. Everyone experiences pain, yet even if presented with a painless death and devoid from any social pressures (which is another point), people do not want to die. Therefore, it seems obvious to me that most people are living in a state above 0, yet 95% of them are not rich. Financial instability, trauma, disability, disease, many of them fail to put someone fully in the negatives. So they aren't just above 0, they are pretty far above 0.

However, social pressures are a thing and they deserve to be included in the calculation. With enough cajoling, someone can be steered into suicide, just as they can be steered against suicide. That means that their perceived value of their lives can actually be influenced by outside pressures. Someone at an "objective" -10 could be convinced that their lives are actually at +10. An antinatalist might argue that that's morally wrong, but frankly, most other ideals would argue that that's morally right. If someone believes that their lives are above 0, is that necessarily the same as it actually being above 0? You can agree or disagree, but it's important to the discussion.

When you don't exist, you don't perceive anything, so you stay exactly at 0. When you're born into the world, your perceptions, influences, and experiences tend to steadily rise that number (on average) until it's somewhere comfortable. Hence, being born is *nearly* always a net positive.

Lastly, some notes. I put "0" at the point between life and death, not necessarily happiness and unhappiness. You may not necessarily feel happy, I sure don't, but that doesn't mean you'd rather not be alive. Otherwise I wouldn't be here to type this!
Also, there's always exceptions. There is a suicide rate. Some people are abused from the moment they're born, and I don't mean just by their parents. Some are born with diseases that simply cannot be survived. Sometimes it's preventable, sometimes it's not.

I feel it's important, though, not to generalize this stuff into the territory of eugenics. Happiness is not dependent on perfection, it never has been. The idea of asking someone whether they want to be born, disregarding the silliness of the idea, is like asking someone at the entrance of a pitch-black, nondescript building whether they want to come inside. Describing to them what it might be like does absolutely nothing to prepare them for what they will actually perceive. Not to mention, they would have every reason to distrust what you have to say about it.

...I like how I said this wouldn't be that hard to argue against and then wrote an essay...

I think it's horrible, and generally the people who subscribe to if are the saddest people in the world.

You've portrayed antinatalists in a different light to how they are. Antinatalists are generally people who say you shouldn't breed because there's so much suffering in the world (and for them there probably is), or the world's overpopulated, or the climate. It's just shitty reasons not to breed, and unfortunatley they persist because the most wretched part of each generation takes up there cause, so it's not even as if their philosophy dies out in time.

I am an antinatalist, but I am not an antinatalist because I think having children is "immoral". Really, I just see having children as a waste of money and 18 years. I just don't understand a reason to have kids.

I partially am an antinatalist due to growing up with siblings.