💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › anonymous-anti-natalism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 06:23:36. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Anti Natalism Author: Anonymous Language: en Topics: antinatalism, anti natalism, anti-natalism, philosophy, theory, Natalism
Antinatalism and my arguments for it
First Argument: The Russian Roulette Analogy.
Antinatalism is a tenable position following the assumption that we
ought to minimize harm (negative utilitarianism). If bringing someone
into existence through procreation makes it possible that that person
will be subjected to the possibility of terrible harm (such as accidents
that leave a person paralyzed from the neck down), then it follows that
we should not create new humans because of the said possibility. This is
compounded by uncertainty about what the future might be. No matter how
loving or caring the parents are, they cannot say with 100% confidence
and certainty that the child will not contract a debilitating disease
that will greatly reduce the quality of its remaining life.
Now, this uncertainty can be compared to a game of Russian roulette. If
there is a 33% chance that a person dies in a game of Russian roulette
(since there are two bullets in the barrel and the barrel has six
rounds), then it is sound to think that playing such a game is a bad
thing because of the odds of dying from it. The same judgment applies if
there is only one bullet in the barrel (16% chance) because ultimately,
the chance of dying in the game is higher than it not playing the game
altogether.
If playing such a game is a bad thing and the chances of a person
suffering from terrible harm are akin to that, then we can then say that
the natalist stance allows for the possibility of terrible suffering,
similar to a game of Russian Roulette. Add to that the more problematic
situation in which life's Russian Roulette is being played by unwilling
participants. Parents who choose to conceive do so without thinking
about the very real possibility of terrible harm that will be
experienced by the potential child. It's as if the potential child was
forced to play a cruel and merciless game of chance.
If we can't eliminate the possibility of terrible harm, how then can we
possibly say that procreation is a good thing? This, of course, comes
with the knowledge that there are no safeguards for life, and the one
playing life's Russian Roulette was never asked for consent before it.
Second Argument: Biological Needs
This argument goes against the grain of thought about the existence of
pleasure in life. I've read somewhere on the internet about a natalist
counter-argument on the possibility of self-actualization and happiness
derived from Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs. The response that went
on in my head was that of the lowest tier in Maslow's pyramid: that of
biological needs. Happiness cannot be possible if a person's existence
is constantly threatened (if hunger and thirst are not being satisfied).
One might simply ask, is happiness or pleasure really important in the
grand scheme of things if these biological needs are not met? And a
further question can be drilled in: what is the value of these needs?
Animals also feel hunger, thirst and they can be deprived of sleep. If
these needs are nonexistent (as in the case of extinct animals, or
hypothetical aliens on Mars), then deprivation is not something to be
bothered about. We will require happiness, self-esteem, success, you
name it, the moment that these biological needs were already met. But if
no one will feel hunger, thirst, and the need for sex, then there will
also be no one who will need to experience the pleasures of life. To
bring a person into existence is to give rise to these biological needs.
So the question is, what's the value of these biological needs? Are they
intrinsically significant? If so, then the biological needs of a
countless number of animals are also intrinsically significant. If they
are not significant, if they lack value, why then must we bring these
needs into existence?