>>71683>I take you you believe this because you agree that it would be better for these people not to exist than to exist in a state of suffering that also causes inconvenience to others. The question is, how much suffering for the individual and inconvenience for others is too much? My personal answer to that is "any amount".
The amount is any the individual personally doesn't want to bear and what the people they rely on don't want to bear. A simple return to natural values and the lives of animals would show that those who were inept could die quite easily if just left to do so. Any human sense to change this pattern is more human's being very bad at being animals and not accepting their nature.>As the other anon pointed out, the overwhelming majority of humans has an extremely strong survival instinct.
How do you know it is "survival instinct" and not the sincere enjoyment of being alive? As evidence every single day, every single person innately carries within them the ability to overcome this instinct.
Though thinking about it more, are you confusing "survival instinct" with "optimism the future will be better"? Because those are two very different things.>As the other anon pointed out, the overwhelming majority of humans has an extremely strong survival instinct.
And? Suffering is also based on perception. A person who doesn't recognize what is happening to them as negative, is, by definition, not suffering. This statement just implies that humans inherently aren't prone to suffering, which undermines your
argument, not mine.>More importantly for me, the most intense suffering is concentrated on the last decade or so of our lives, so from an utilitarian point of view it makes sense to delay suicide until one reaches a point of negative returns, so to speak.
First, by what measure? The fact that disease occurs more? That fact that others you know are more likely to have already died? What measure are you using for this.
Second problem, even if we were to agree on that premise, this is yet more bitching that doing the right thing is hard. This isn't a point for anti-natlism as much as it is, yet again, a point for letting natural course take place and not prolonging life artificially.
>Most anti-natalists act are only missionary insofar as engaging in relatively sedate conversation online. There are of course those that publish articles and books (Benatar, Ligotti, etc.), but they are no more missionary than any other person who believes that there is something morally wrong with how things are and wish that it would be different.
The degree of which is not important, the matter of importance is that they are engaging in this conversation at all in the first place. Caught in the same trap as the natalist they despise, instead of killing themselves and ending the suffering, they seek relief from their suffering by engaging in discourse. My point isn't that the anti-natalist is special, it's quite the opposite, the anti-natalist assumes the mindset of the natalist when they decide that the boon of emotional comfort of trying to save other's the same pain is worth perpetuating their own pain by not ending their own lives. This falls right in line with natalists that believe that life is worth creating as the happiness outweighs the suffering. If the anti-natalist did not inherently have an optimistic outlook, they wouldn't bother talking about it.>Are you suggesting people feeling bad about the existence of suffering and taking action to prevent the general suffering and ease their minds in the process are egotists?
Aren't they? "I hate my life so everyone else must hate being alive too." In order to espouse views like this means they, egotistically, assume everyone's life is similar to their own. Furthermore, as sense of tonic on their ego they commit the "good work" of spreading the word of anti-natalism.>Couldn't that argument be made "against" every cause?
See now you're getting it. Anti-natalism is not at all special and falls for the same premises it itself espouses to despise in practice and theory. You got it!>Yes, we know. The fact that it's hopeless doesn't mean that we'll engage or condone the behavior we see as the root of all suffering. I know I'll probably not convince anyone, but I'll die with a clean conscience, and that's important to me.
Yeah it's my bad for thinking anyone that joins a movement with "anti" in it's name is actually emboldened by the fact they are an underdog and inherently in a losing game, because that's what being "anti" as opposed to "for" anything is all about. A constant losing position that is ego-tonic in an anti-hero narrative and is only emboldened by resistance. This one is entirely on me and is my bad for forgetting how any "anti" movement works.
I will say, taking it to logical conclusions, it would be interesting to see if an anti-natalist could have intentionally triggered a nuclear war to kill all life whatsoever on earth and actually fulfilling the premise they support. Alas, too scared to live, too scared to die, too scared to kill and too scared to create.
>Personally, my primary motivation for anti-natalism is the idea that it's a violation of consent.
Would you feel better if a religion told you you had consented to being created in the first place?