Final Post

Hi everyone,

As stated in the title, this will be my final post.  I've discussed the fundamental points of antinatalism, which are simply expanded upon in efilism (otherwise known as antinatalism plus).  I hope all of my fellow antinatalists/efilists took something valuable away from this blog, and for everyone that is not an antinatalist, I hope that at the bare minimum you have a better understanding of the philosophy, and I thank you for at least taking the time to consider the arguments.  Sorry if this is disappointing, but if you're interested in reading further on the philosophy, please check out both my video bar and blog roll.  Well, that's about everything I have to say.

Goodbye and Take Care,
Anthony

Words of Wisdom, Vol. 1

Arthur Schopenhauer

"You can ignore reality, but you cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality."

-Ayn Rand

"Knowing is not enough, we must apply.  Willing is not enough, we must do."

-Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

"The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice."

-Arthur Schopenhauer

"If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist?  Would not a man rather have so much sympathy for the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?"

-Arthur Schopenhauer

The Nature of Values & Morality

Given that antinatalism deals in the realm of moral philosophy, I think it is important to dive into what defines morality.  Morality basically deals with what human beings should and shouldn't do, with certain actions being held as good/right and others as bad/wrong.  Taking this further, what is considered good or bad comes down to one's Values, and unlike many people, I believe values are entirely subjective.

To illustrate the subjectivity of values (moral or otherwise), let's examine the tastiness of ice cream.  If I proclaimed that ice cream is the best frozen treat in all of existence, is this a fact?  I would argue that it is simply an opinion based on how much I value ice cream.  And even if every person agreed with my proclamation, this would still only amount to everyone sharing a common value, not an objective fact that ice cream is the best frozen treat.  I would also state that ideas of good or bad do not exist independent of people's opinions, and are in no way in the realm of facts.  It's a fact that things exist, how good or bad these things are is a matter of opinion.

Applying this back to morality, no action is good or bad independent of what a value-attributing being thinks of it.  However, IF one has certain values, then their is a logical route one SHOULD go.  And bringing this back to antinatalism, if one values acting on their empathy and preventing needless suffering, then becoming an antinatalist is the correct position to take.  But, antinatalism is ultimately an opinion on what one should do given the facts of existence.

Suffering Examined

Given that the concept of suffering is so significant in antinatalism, I think it's important to go into greater detail on its nature.  Suffering amounts to any unpleasant experience a sentient being has in their life, ranging from the easily tolerable to horrifically unpleasant.  And for the antinatalist suffering is a bad thing, and imposing any level of suffering as a result of procreation (with the constant vulnerability to immense suffering) is wrong to do.

Suffering comes in many forms, including:
-Pain (mild discomfort to excruciating pain)
-A Plethora of Unpleasant Emotional States (sorrow, fear, anxiety, disgust, etc.)
-Boredom
-Longing

*Within each of these are ranges of intensity, with greater intensity amounting to greater suffering

With every new birth, every horror capable of being endured in life is made possible again [wretched illnesses, acts of violence, excruciating pain, horrible deformities and mutilations, starvation, torture, sexual assault, wrongful imprisonment, harm from natural disasters, etc.].  And while hopefully one can avoid these severe sources of suffering, some level of suffering is inevitable as a sentient being.  It is as the Buddha said, "LIFE IS SUFFERING" (I'm not a Buddhist by the way, but it's an excellent point in my opinion).

To bring children into this world is to impose needless suffering and vulnerability onto them.  Suffering they never asked for, and a life they never needed in the peace of nonexistence.  Please seriously consider what has been written.

Defining Antinatalism

So, what exactly is the philosophy of antinatalism?  To start with, people choose not to have children for various reasons, but I'll be discussing the most common ethical argument against procreation, known as Philanthropic Antinatalism (This is my argument as well).  Essentially, given that suffering is an inherent part of sentient life, along with a constant vulnerability to horrific suffering, procreation is considered morally wrong given the fact that it is an imposition of suffering.  Suffering is of course held to be a bad thing according to this line of reasoning, and preventing suffering is held to be a good thing.

A common counter to this position is that even though suffering is a part of life, most people also experience pleasure/joy, so the equation is said to balance.  But I would argue that the pleasure possible for the living is not in any way relevant to the question of procreation, as the nonexistent are not being deprived of any joy.  Sentience (capacity to feel) is needed to be deprived.  Thus, if a person is never born they never experience any harm, and they're never deprived of any possible joy.  The only reasons for not being an antinatalist that I can see would be if one thinks imposing suffering is a good thing, if one is apathetic to other's suffering, or if one values having a child more than preventing that child's needless suffering.

As I'm sure you've deduced, if no one is procreating then the human race will die out.  Antinatalists, including myself, are very aware of this, and conclude that there is no compelling reason to continue imposing suffering with every new birth for the sake of humanity's survival.

I know this is a lot to take in, so I'll end things here.  I hope I've summarized the philosophy well enough for everyone to grasp, and I look forward to reading the comments.

Introduction

Hello everyone, 

My name is Anthony and welcome to Rebel Against Suffering.  As I'm sure you've probably deduced by now, I'm an antinatalist/efilist.  In setting a foundation for the writing to come, I wanted to share my reasons for making this blog, and what I hope to accomplish.  What motivated me to make this blog was that I wanted to contribute something to this movement before I inevitability cease to be, whenever that may be.  While I've struggled with thoughts of futility in pursuing such an endeavor, I've come to realize that sitting back doing nothing does absolutely nothing to help prevent the needless suffering that is imposed with every birth as a result of mass ignorance and delusion relating to the human condition, and really the condition of all life.  That said, while my hope is to plant a seed for thought and reflection on this philosophy in others that hopefully grows into preventative action, I can find solace with simply providing the best possible information I can and letting things fall in place where they may.  

I look forward to conversing and sharing ideas with everyone (antinatalist or not), and hope to create a place for substantive discussion on this philosophy, as well as related topics (vegetarianism, suicide/right to die, AN philosophers, AN vloggers, etc).

-Take Care