[DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism

Fed up talking videogames? Why?

Which do you prefer?

Natalism
23
88%
Anti-Natalism
3
12%
 
Total votes: 26
User avatar
MagicMarker
Member
Joined in 2014

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by MagicMarker » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:53 pm

[iup=3527351]Lucien[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3527319]MagicMarker[/iup] wrote:How do you regret being born? Thats just ridiculous to me. If you regret being born in that sense, sounds to me like depression, to feeling suicidal or something, so it must be a mental health thing.


Let us say I hold my position purely because of my brain chemistry; that would do nothing to alter objective reality. If I was made to think as you do, that wouldn't stop things being true.

Chemical depression could lead to such thoughts though, I do agree with you.

AN is for the most part a held belief similar to say "don't eat meat"; I severely doubt such things can be (or should be) easily medicated away. Many ANs I'd wager are existentially depressed as an aside; we've been presented with a situation we find disheartening.


Brain chemistry = having/feeling depressed maybe?

User avatar
Ironhide
Fiend
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Ironhide » Thu Aug 07, 2014 3:58 pm

The whole purpose for any living organism is to reproduce.

We may currently be in a situation of overpopulation but this won't last forever as war, disease and climate change are all constant threats to our survival and any one of them could be catastrophic.

On the other hand though, there are plenty of people who really shouldn't be allowed to have kids.

Image
User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Skarjo » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:00 pm

I don't know if I'd call myself either, purely because I don't think that procreation is inherently un/ethical nor life inherently un/pleasant.

I don't think we should take policies or measures to incentivise nor discourage breeding; I just think life should be allowed to run its course.

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Dual
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Dual » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:14 pm

[iup=3527364]Lucien[/iup] wrote:
Some ANs just want a reduction in human numbers. For myself, I'd like the race to disappear. Not going to build a death star or anything though.


But that's absurd. We're the best species in the universe. Why are you being like this? Species-traitor.

User avatar
Ironhide
Fiend
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Ironhide » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:16 pm

As someone with a seriously debilitating medical condition with no effective treatment or currently viable cure, my life isn't exactly brilliant and I often feel overwhelmingly frustrated by my situation but I can't think of a single moment where I have actually regretted being born.

Anti-natalists must have seriously strawberry floated up lives to feel that way.

Image
User avatar
rudderless
Member
Joined in 2009

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by rudderless » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:26 pm

[iup=3527394]Ironhide[/iup] wrote:As someone with a seriously debilitating medical condition with no effective treatment or currently viable cure, my life isn't exactly brilliant and I often feel overwhelmingly frustrated by my situation but I can't think of a single moment where I have actually regretted being born.


Ditto.

EDIT: I think it's reasonable to want a smaller, sustainable population. I think current environmental realities are such that people should think carefully before having a whole bunch of kids. But it's a bit odd to want the entire human race to die out.

[iup=3595962]KB[/iup] wrote:People like Glen Whelan have a proper face!
User avatar
Eighthours
Emeritus
Emeritus
Joined in 2008
Location: Bristol

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Eighthours » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:36 pm

[iup=3527364]Lucien[/iup] wrote:For myself, I'd like the race to disappear.


Whoa. That is some serious gooseberry fool, man. Sorry you feel this way.

User avatar
Floex
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Floex » Thu Aug 07, 2014 4:40 pm

Some of you guys would love the program Utopia.

User avatar
MagicMarker
Member
Joined in 2014

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by MagicMarker » Thu Aug 07, 2014 5:04 pm

Have you thought of counselling? CBT maybe?

User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Skarjo » Thu Aug 07, 2014 6:08 pm

[iup=3527369]Ironhide[/iup] wrote:The whole purpose for any living organism is to reproduce.


That's an interesting statement, but I disagree.

First, there's a difference between function and purpose. There's no doubt that most (not all) living things are functionally developed to aid reproduction (however, vast numbers of organisms in eusocial structures do not have the ability to reproduce at all, and exist only to aid the individuals whose sole function is to reproduce (ants and bees are examples of such social structures)). But is that the same as their purpose being to reproduce? Is our purpose nothing more than the activity of our sex organs?

Second, suggesting that the purpose of living organism is to reproduce is extremely problematic if we consider the infertile, or the voluntarily childless. Are their lives suddenly without purpose because they haven't or can't reproduce? What of the worker bees and ants who will also never reproduce? Are they too without purpose?

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Hypes
Member
Joined in 2009
Location: Beyond the wall

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Hypes » Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:13 pm

Seriously Lucien, you don't own any automatic weapons do you? :|

User avatar
That
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by That » Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:19 pm

[iup=3527506]Hyperion[/iup] wrote:Seriously Lucien, you don't own any automatic weapons do you? :|


There's no need for that kind of cruel comment. He has an odd world-view, and is possibly depressed, but he doesn't seem to have the makings of a psychopath.

Image
User avatar
Vermin
Member
Joined in 2008
AKA: TimeGhost

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Vermin » Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:33 pm

Lucien just seems to be suffering from the Human Condition. Nothing odd about that.

What a strawberry floating ridiculous poll, btw.

User avatar
Meep
Member
Joined in 2010
Location: Belfast

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Meep » Thu Aug 07, 2014 7:54 pm

I just believe that the world should be managed to sustain the most people possible at the best quality of life possible. If achievable, having a large amount of humans is desirable as technological progress is dependent on having large population centres with well developed communication structures. The reason technological progress only really took off in the last couple of hundred years is because it took so long for the human population and its communications to reach the required size and level of sophistication.

If we were to reduce the size of the current population we would actually be slowing our rate of progress and diminishing our collective ability to problem solve, which I can only see as a many thing.

PS. Global population growth is actually slowing and, if current trends continue, will eventually level off. This is an inconvenient fact for overpopulation nuts. In reality, what we should be concerned about is what this slow down will mean for our ability to innovate and improve our condition.

User avatar
Ironhide
Fiend
Joined in 2008
Location: Autobot City

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Ironhide » Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:22 pm

[iup=3527466]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3527369]Ironhide[/iup] wrote:The whole purpose for any living organism is to reproduce.


ting statement, but I disagree.

First, there's a difference between function and purpose. There's no doubt that most (not all) living things are functionally developed to aid reproduction (however, vast numbers of organisms in eusocial structures do not have the ability to reproduce at all, and exist only to aid the individuals whose sole function is to reproduce (ants and bees are examples of such social structures)). But is that the same as their purpose being to reproduce? Is our purpose nothing more than the activity of our sex organs?

Second, suggesting that the purpose of living organism is to reproduce is extremely problematic if we consider the infertile, or the voluntarily childless. Are their lives suddenly without purpose because they haven't or can't reproduce? What of the worker bees and ants who will also never reproduce? Are they too without purpose?


I really ought to have phrased that as 'primary purpose' as it's entirely possible to be a valuable member of society without producing offspring, worker bees and ants may not reproduce but they are important all the same as they perform tasks that benefit the colony.

Image
User avatar
Dual
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Dual » Thu Aug 07, 2014 10:28 pm

You know those worker ants would get down with the queen if they could.

User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Skarjo » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:48 am

On the flipside, how much joy is there in the world that countless billions will get to enjoy?

Life is far too complex a series of experiences and emotions to try and reduce the act of being alive and making a life into some net-ethical position.

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
That
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by That » Fri Aug 08, 2014 1:59 am

Meep's reasoning, I think, is probably that we ought to maximise population such as to maximise the rate of scientific and cultural advancement, and thus raise the average standard of living ever-higher. Artificially limiting our population carries with it the risk of slowing our rate of discovery and postponing the advances of the future.

I can't help but think that global over-population is an essentially technical problem with a corresponding technical solution - we should aim to develop more efficient production methods as and when the need arises. (Similarly, for example, while I do support 'green' measures in the here and now, I feel that ultimately the solution to climate change lies in exerting technological control over the climate via geoengineering.)

Image
User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by Skarjo » Fri Aug 08, 2014 2:21 am

[iup=3527709]Lucien[/iup] wrote:
[iup=3527506]Hyperion[/iup] wrote:Seriously Lucien, you don't own any automatic weapons do you? :|


Thanks for your concern Hyperion. You don't need to worry; anti-natalists generally focus on meta-ethics and suffering. A good percentage are vegan for that reason (and I'm going down that road, even though it's not too tasty). :(

I'd say this though: shooters will show up. Serial killers. Hitlers. But they only come through natalism, not anti-natalism, because if you're in the latter category, you haven't created any new life.

[iup=3527708]Skarjo[/iup] wrote:On the flipside, how much joy is there in the world that countless billions will get to enjoy?

Life is far too complex a series of experiences and emotions to try and reduce the act of being alive and making a life into some net-ethical position.


I agree. Using net-ethics you could say 'most humans are glad to be alive'. If 99.9% of humans (or all lifeforms) were happy, I still personally couldn't take the 0.1% risk I'd create an awful life.

Despite what I said to Meep there, I do respect people have their various ideas on the issues. :)


I'd take that chance in a heartbeat.

Not yet though, so thank you contraceptive science. DO NOT FAIL ME.

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
That
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Dr. Nyaaa~!
Joined in 2008

PostRe: [DISCUSSION] Natalism vs Anti-Natalism
by That » Fri Aug 08, 2014 3:42 am

Sure, what I would hope for my child would be distinct from (albeit somewhat related to) my philosophical view on the future of the race as a whole. My individual (as you put it) reasoning would be more akin to what I posted on Page 1 (... it got bottom-paged so no worries if you missed it - I'll repost ...).

Essentially: I enjoy a comfortable existence - it isn't utopianly comfortable or devoid of suffering, but I live more comfortably and suffer less than, say, my grandparents and my parents. On the whole, though I've suffered from periods of crippling depression, I'd still say I'm glad to be alive and have on balance enjoyed my life so far. I would hope only that my child carries on the trend by enjoying more happiness and less discomfort than I do.

If I thought the circumstances of my children's lives might be significantly worse than my own, I might consider not having children. But as things stand, I live a fairly normal, pleasant existence and I have no reason to suspect my children's existences won't be as good if not better - so I have no qualms about bringing them into the world! :)

Image

Return to “Stuff”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Benzin, Google [Bot] and 322 guests