An Unpopular Conviction

Star Forge wrote: Actually, couldn't be more the opposite. This is actually the first time I've ever shared this view, either online or otherwise. I think my first post, or the first few at the very most sum up what I believe. It's just that this debate went in circles. People kept asking the same stuff and I guess I can't blame them, because reproduction is just one of those cultural norms that has been pressed upon generation after generation.

By the way, the modern antinatalists, which are mainly atheistic and often anarchist, are not by any means the first ones to bring up this issue. The Cathars (not the Star Wars race, but the Gnostic sect that got killed off in the middle ages) believed as I do. The Russian Skoptsy did also, though they are an extreme example, and did it for other reasons. I think the Shakers were the best example. Imagine, in the 1700s, a society where women were equals in every regard, and were not oppressed by reproduction. Also, the Shakers loved kids. They took in orphans and abandoned kids all the time, even though they didn't reproduce. Kind of dispells the myth that antinatalism is a destructive death cult.

Also, no. Animal reproduction does not bother me. It's not done with intent, or by sentient beings. Evil requires intent.

Well, I hope I have changed at least one person's mind. But again, we live in an era where we're told that sex is as necessary as eating and as trivial as farting. Where abstinence and childlessness are considered negative, and the result of some personal flaw or disability. I'd rather be right, even if I'm the only one.

I can agree with you on that. If I ever put out the vibe that I was trying to prove you wrong or change your mind, I apologize. Same goes if I ever made you feel like I was attacking you. I guess I didn't see your whole point and I should have been more inquisitive about that. I do see your point now and I do share part of your view in that I don't view childlessness or abstinence as negative. I've also noticed how, in today's society, sex is either over- or underrated enough to manipulate the masses. I would also argue in favor of the opinion that almost everybody has at least a hint of anti-natalist in them. Though I have five children, I am not trying to have anymore and am also actively seeking to end my ability to do so.

Thank you for your seemingly controversial topic and I hope to see more, like Zeke mentioned. In the future, I'll be more patient in replying so as to think things through more before clicking 'Submit'.

-Luthien

Forge, I also have an interesting question (this is not a challenge in any way, just a curiosity on my part, about your rationale): 'What are your feelings on the reproduction of mentally impaired humans, in various levels of impairment?' I ask this, because at some level, intent can probably be negated, and then I wonder about your views of human reproduction. Seriously, just very curious now after thinking about this for a few hours.

I say sterilize everyone, and if at some future date they meet specified criteria, then their saved reproductive material can be combined with the mate of their choice.

Desolous wrote: I say sterilize everyone, and if at some future date they meet specified criteria, then their saved reproductive material can be combined with the mate of their choice.

Personally, I'd rather move offworld into space colonies then limit peoples freedoms to perform otherwise normal bodily functions. I have no problem mining dead chunks of space rock in asteriod belts etc for raw materials. Leave Earth to the animals, insects and plants... but perhaps have a few establishments for the creation of human life - because I think it would be a better idea if human life was gestated, born and bought up for the first 2-3 years surrounded by a complex natural environment. I guess the problem would be people sneaking back to live here, but clearly humanities influence on the planet is disproportionate and not compatible with concepts of human morality and desires.

LOL, I'd rather move offworld into space colonies...

Sounds like the Ithorians, not a bad idea at all in my opinion.

When I first read this topic I was appalled. And in shock because what I read was in such contradiction of what I believe that I did not read what was being said, only the words. As I have read the replies over the life of this thread I believe I have a better understanding of what the original statement was meant to convey.

All though I still do not agree it has brought some interesting conversation and caused a lot of thought. And I'm not certain I have ever seen a thread grow so quickly. So, kudos to Star Forge for getting everyone involved. And I don't mean that sarcastically...

I also read a reference to Buddha. Granted I am NOT the fore most authority on the subject, I believe I can shed some light on an important concept that was quickly passed over.

I assume you are referring to the Buddha's First Noble Truth - Life is Dukkha?

The use of the word “suffering” is a narrow definition of the original Pali word, 'dukkha'.

The word, “dukkha”, embraces anything that is temporary (including joyful states).

I believe that Buddha felt that the human mind had very strong tendencies to be fooled by a number of illusions. As long as it is fooled by these illusions, the human being cannot help but suffer.

In fact, Buddha attributes the cause of all suffering to these particular illusions. They include (a) the illusion that you are an individual self, separate & distinct from the rest of the world, and (b) the illusion that things can be permanent, or have inherent existence.

Why do these illusions cause the human to suffer? Very quickly, Illusion (a) makes you feel small, vulnerable, threatened, ie you can have enemies out there, or you can have a lack of what you need. This leads to fear, greed, violence, anger etc and therefore you suffer. So, life as we know it in this world, includes:

Suffering or pain (dukkha-dukkha)
Impermanence or change (viparinama-dukkha)
Conditioned states (samkhara-dukkha)

On the other hand, if you perceive yourself as one with the universe, there is never any lack; you would never hurt anyone else, because you know they are part of yourself etc etc.

As for Illusion (b), well, for example, think of things that have made you sad. The death of a loved one? The loss of your youth? The failure to be successful in your career? All of these things made you sad, because you had attachment - to your loved one, to your youthfulness, to your desire to be successful.

But if you truly understood that everything is transient, that none of these things are permanent or would have been permanent anyway, then none of these things would have upset you.

Your own death would not upset you.

I hope this helps some. And if I made it seam that I was attacking you or your belief I sincerely apologize.

May the Force be with you my friend; in all your journeys and endeavors.

I knew from the beginning this would cause controversy, though that was not my intent. I just hope everyone realizes that I'm not doing this to feel more enlightened or to feel like my opinion is better. Antinatalism is just simply a huge, massive, important moral position to me. It was before I even knew about the term "antinatalism," or that there was ever another single person on the planet who felt the same way.

To many of us, this is a foreign concept...

But it is interesting...

I'm going to make a longer post tomorrow...

As long as people think it through and don't simply disagree based on their initial reaction, I am content.

Star Forge wrote: As long as people think it through and don't simply disagree based on their initial reaction, I am content.

You have expressed concern over members who might take offence and retaliate

This may include myself. As such I just wanted to say that if that's what it appeared as though I was doing then I was not

I don't really get angry when I'm discussing

I hope you didn't think I might have been attacking you

But I did enjoy this topic and certainly wouldn't mind other members or indeed yourself posing something similar in future