Antinatalism, simply put, is saying that, if there are actions that increase well-being (good) and those that decrease it (bad), procreating is BAD. Let this sink in. If antinatalist position is correct, every child, every human being has been brought about in an act of evil. I will argue that this is precisely so.
For a strong case against procreating I recommend David Benatar’s “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence”; while his argument serves as a basis for my position, it is not necessary to be familiar with it.
I focus on the morally-philosophical aspect of antinatalism, specifically, the hedonistic dimension, since all possible perspectives collapse into hedonistic argument, for example:
Overpopulation -> access to resources; ability to meet needs in scarcity
Famine -> access to resources; ability to meet needs in scarcity
Religious stance -> maximizing happiness (i.e. going to heaven preferred to hell)
Socio-economics -> increasing productivity, maintaining societal stability, old age security
Psychology -> having children viewed as personal accomplishment, feelgood
Thus I state that having (or not having) offspring as a choice of pleasures. A special mention is due for religious arguments: even though some religious people might claim that there is intrinsic good in being born (for which no evidence is ever presented), I hope that they at least will agree with me on the fact that living pain-free and then gaing to heaven is more desirable than suffering unimaginably before going to heaven, that is to say, that theology is as much in the business of maximising hedonistic good as moral philosophy, but, admittedly, following different assumptions. If we grant that there is variation between morally good pleasures (feeling content after helping others) and immoral pleasures (exhilaration after a murder), it can be demonstrated that procreation ALWAYS is immoral.
Their entire conscious (hedonistically relevant) existence has consisted of nothing but bliss, yet it is starkly clear that nothing is gained or lost over the robots never having been activated. Their existence, blissful as it is, is entirely identical to their non-existence, i.e. pointless. Now, there might be a stream of criticisms, concerning the possibility of conscious robots (irrelevant, since humans are biological robots), the definition of bliss (a brain-state, no doubt, physically maximum possible euphoria understood as pleasure-connected neurotransmitter overload), turning on and off as equivalents (or not) of birth and death (which are irrelevant, since what possible hedonistic gain over pure bliss could the robot gain by experiencing being a baby and if turning off is bad for the robot, it is evermore reinforcing claim for antinatalism – ALL humans die). My goal here is not to denigrate human attempts at virtuous life or equate bliss with a child’s attraction, but to expose the distilled core of reasoning (or lack thereof) – if bliss is attainable (which it is not, but that is a discussion for another time), it is still not an improvement over non-existence.
Firstly, if you do not care about harming others, there is nothing in this discussion of interest to you, I can only hope that you communicate this sentiment with people close to you and urge them to run away as quickly as possible.
For a strong case against procreating I recommend David Benatar’s “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence”; while his argument serves as a basis for my position, it is not necessary to be familiar with it.
I focus on the morally-philosophical aspect of antinatalism, specifically, the hedonistic dimension, since all possible perspectives collapse into hedonistic argument, for example:
Overpopulation -> access to resources; ability to meet needs in scarcity
Famine -> access to resources; ability to meet needs in scarcity
Religious stance -> maximizing happiness (i.e. going to heaven preferred to hell)
Socio-economics -> increasing productivity, maintaining societal stability, old age security
Psychology -> having children viewed as personal accomplishment, feelgood
Thus I state that having (or not having) offspring as a choice of pleasures. A special mention is due for religious arguments: even though some religious people might claim that there is intrinsic good in being born (for which no evidence is ever presented), I hope that they at least will agree with me on the fact that living pain-free and then gaing to heaven is more desirable than suffering unimaginably before going to heaven, that is to say, that theology is as much in the business of maximising hedonistic good as moral philosophy, but, admittedly, following different assumptions. If we grant that there is variation between morally good pleasures (feeling content after helping others) and immoral pleasures (exhilaration after a murder), it can be demonstrated that procreation ALWAYS is immoral.
To do this, I employ a thought experiment that is designed to illustrate that, even though humans strive for better, more enjoyable, healthy, rich lives and I grant that having a better life IS better than having a worse life, it is ultimately and utterly pointless when compared to non-existence. I call it “the pointlessness of bliss”.
Imagine we have perfected cybernetics and AIs, we can create a robot that can experience utter bliss from anything, really. My favourite is the merry-go-round. Imagine a conveyor delivering an endless stream of robots to a merry-go-round. They are seated, turned on, go “Wee!!” for 5 minutes on the merry-go-round and then are turned off.
Their entire conscious (hedonistically relevant) existence has consisted of nothing but bliss, yet it is starkly clear that nothing is gained or lost over the robots never having been activated. Their existence, blissful as it is, is entirely identical to their non-existence, i.e. pointless. Now, there might be a stream of criticisms, concerning the possibility of conscious robots (irrelevant, since humans are biological robots), the definition of bliss (a brain-state, no doubt, physically maximum possible euphoria understood as pleasure-connected neurotransmitter overload), turning on and off as equivalents (or not) of birth and death (which are irrelevant, since what possible hedonistic gain over pure bliss could the robot gain by experiencing being a baby and if turning off is bad for the robot, it is evermore reinforcing claim for antinatalism – ALL humans die). My goal here is not to denigrate human attempts at virtuous life or equate bliss with a child’s attraction, but to expose the distilled core of reasoning (or lack thereof) – if bliss is attainable (which it is not, but that is a discussion for another time), it is still not an improvement over non-existence.
Every mother on earth, thinking that a “good life” is worth having, is gambling the future life of her offspring on a logical fallacy, and losing 100% of the time. It is sickening.
But perhaps there is something outside the hedonistic dimension that is worth discussing? Perhaps there is a purview of human existence that stands on its own, outside pleasure and pain, and can serve as denominator of life worth living or not? What possible experience or action could we grant the robots in “The pointlessness of bliss” to make them having been turned on a worthwhile undertaking? So far, I have not come upon such a concept.
The reality is that humans are born by the hundreds of thousands every day. We produce half as many cars worldwide, luckily, cars are non-conscious. These babies experience untold horrors even before they become aware of their surroundings consciously, which is a blessing in a way. They spend their adolescence desperately adapting to the environment their parents happen to inhabit, some get killed, raped or simply die of hunger. Those that are lucky get indoctrinated in a religion that tells them that they are intrinsically bad and only a lifetime of denying reality will save them from eternal damnation in the hands of otherwise loving super-being. Those that are luckier yet can aspire to learn, act and think in a free and inspiring manner, attaining whatever heights of well-being they happen to set for themselves, enduring the occasional, transient hardships of life to die content in an old age of 80+ in their sleep, painlessly. Those most lucky of us, which are few and so far in between, would have lost nothing, if our mother had aborted. The rest would surely had escaped an agony or two.
Life is a deadly infectious disease best uncontracted. May we live long, gracious lives and die out.
Nav komentāru:
Ierakstīt komentāru