14/08/2024 To my unborn child,

Today I am 21, and you are unborn. You will never be born, because I want to keep it this way. I don't want you to come into this world.

Today, I am a mess. I am not in the right mind nor place to do a lot of things I should have been doing (or at least that's what I think). I don't have regrets, not really. Do you know why? A long time ago, when I was a kid as curious and adorable as you would have grown to be, I'm sure, I learned about something called the Butterfly Effect. From what I gather, it means that even a tiny and seemingly insignificant event has the power to change the entire course of the future. This is why I chose not to have a single regret. I don't want to change the past, no matter how bad things might seem today, because they could very well be worse had they happened differently. From this, you might think your “parent” is someone who plays it safe, and you would not be too wrong (I sure try to play it safe, haha). The truth is, I've seen people waste their present in regret of the past when they could have used it to change what they still have: the future. I said something earlier, about not being in the mind nor place to do things I should have been doing. I have always wanted a lot, I think. I have wanted a lot because I have felt a lot. I also think it is because I am unkind to myself that I frequently feel ‘less than’ or upset with myself about things that shouldn't matter so much. I do think that I, and everyone in any of the worlds who has had the misfortune of being born, deserves gentleness in life. One non-existent-day, my child, if you ever feel that love is true, you will come to find that it is built upon gentleness. But alas, today I find it hard to be gentle to my own self. I hope that I heal through this, and find my kindness once more.

I'm sure you are curious to know why I never want you to come into this world. I could tell you about every single misfortune anyone has ever faced in their lives - or at the very least my own account, but that is not the only reason. I don't want you to come here because you never asked for it. That's really it, if you ask me. “This world is full of suffering but it is also full of the overcoming of it” but you never asked for any of this. I never asked for any of this, and here I am. Here I will admit one thing, I certainly am one of those who believes that parents should want only the best for their children (unlike so many others), but I also have no special place among this crowd, not in my opinion. I am, after all, doing the only thing they do which is to make a decision best for their children to the best of their abilities. I do not know for certain if this is the right thing to do, but I sure as hell don't see any other option. I do not know if I am committing a great crime against you by depriving you of this experience called life, of having your own agreement or disagreement to it. I have come to know that I know very little. Only thing I know is that I will not play God with your life.

Another thing I'd like to admit is that for most of my life, I've been quite fearful of death. Classic fear of the unknown. What scares me the most is the idea that I would be reborn as every sentient living being that's ever existed! Of course, I still don't know what really happens after death, but I have also come to realize that the way one deals with this question greatly affects what happens while they're alive. I know it is a question of belief and one won't be superior to the other because we couldn't really know what happens after death. And since it is open for us to believe as we see fit, let me promise you that once I'm through with this world, I will see you, and I will see Him, and we will finally know that we have never been separate.

With love, to the edge of the Universe and beyond,

Father.

I'm a sterilisation mentally challenged 26 year old. I didn't understand at 16 why it was best fome to be sterilisation but I understand more now. I wouldn’t be able to be a dad and look after a child I'm a bit like a kid myself. I would encourage people like me to get sterilisation it's best

I won't go into details but in my late teens I was in court for doing something bad in a sexual way. It was deemed it would be in my best interests and safer if I was sterilisation by vasectomy. I had it done and understand why. I think it's best with intellectual disabilities to have this done.

Looking for as comprehensive list as possible for use encounter arguing those who make the "life is good" argument. Thanks!

Responses to "who dont you commit suicide" by antinatalists have been unsuccefull at refuting this argument

if one thinks not existing is better than existing, the best thing to do seems to be suicide

https://www.instagram.com/proextinction?upcoming_event_id=18330036205180313

I'm 30 years old and I've been a staunch antinatalist for about a decade now. But I'm starting to believe that constructing rigorous philosophical arguments for antinatalism is completely pointless and a waste of time. I feel like, at the end of the day, antinatalism is a conclusion you have to come to on your own through your own lived experience and your own ability to reason, and it can't be spoonfed to you in the context of a debate. This is why all arguments between natalists and antinatalists just end at an impasse: there is just a fundamental disconnect between the two that can't be resolved. When I first became an antinatalist, I used to watch debates on youtube (like David Benatar vs Jordan Peterson), but I soon realized that nothing good ever comes from that, either for me or for the people engaged in the debate. I think natalists that are hell-bent on having kids are gonna do it regardless of any logical argument that is presented to them. Am I too cynical or do you think there is value in continuing to push these types of classical arguments?

I have just published a book version of my essay collection titled “Minimalist Axiologies: Alternatives to ‘Good Minus Bad’ Views of Value”. You can download it for free in your format of choice, including Kindle, paperback PDF, or a free EPUB version from the Center for Reducing Suffering (CRS) website. There is also a minimum-priced paperback version for those who like to read on paper.

Relation to antinatalism:

• In this book, I explore how we can have intuitive and reasonable views of positive value consistent with the belief that problems such as extreme suffering cannot be counterbalanced by the creation of any other things. Specifically, I explore theories of value, wellbeing, and ethics that reject the “plus-minus” logic of moral counterbalancing, as they reject the idea of ‘intrinsic’, ‘final’, or ‘independent’ positive value in the first place.

• These views seem to be a common (even if not necessarily the most common) reason why people endorse antinatalist views. At the same time, these views are often discussed in ways that focus almost exclusively on what they are against (e.g. the negative “contents” of individual lives). In this book, I also focus on the perhaps neglected positive aspects of these views, such as how they remain compatible with the possibility of highly worthwhile lives (from a consequentialist perspective) thanks to the overall positive roles that we can have for others. For example, our life as a whole could help prevent much more extreme suffering than it causes or contains.

• (Of course, the degree to which we can determine whether any particular life has overall positive or negative roles, even if we have a fully clear view of value, is a complex empirical question, beyond the scope of this book. One of my main points, from a consequentialist perspective, is simply that a more complete view would take into account not only a life’s “contents”, but also its negative and positive externalities for all sentient beings.)

https://preview.redd.it/pdfgxadbd8ed1.jpg?width=4000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=367269b1d226df5f44772b694d5ce1bf1c26a35a

To see whether the book could be for you, below is the full Preface. (The EA forum post also contains a high-quality AI narration of the preface.)

Preface

Can suffering be counterbalanced by the creation of other things?

Our answer to this question depends on how we think about the notion of positive value.

In this book, I explore ethical views that reject the idea of intrinsic positive value, and which instead understand positive value in relational terms. Previously, these views have been called purely negative or purely suffering-focused views, and they often have roots in Buddhist or Epicurean philosophy. As a broad category of views, I call them minimalist views. The term “minimalist axiologies” specifically refers to minimalist views of value: views that essentially say “the less this, the better”. Overall, I aim to highlight how these views are compatible with sensible and nuanced notions of positive value, wellbeing, and lives worth living.

A key point throughout the book is that many of our seemingly intrinsic positive values can be considered valuable thanks to their helpful roles for reducing problems such as involuntary suffering. Thus, minimalist views are more compatible with our everyday intuitions about positive value than is usually recognized.

This book is a collection of six essays that have previously been published online. Each of the essays is a standalone piece, and they can be read in any order depending on the reader’s interests. So if you are interested in a specific topic, it makes sense to just read one or two essays, or even to just skim the book for new points or references. At the same time, the six essays all complement each other, and together they provide a more cohesive picture.

Since I wanted to keep the essays readable as standalone pieces, the book includes significant repetition of key points and definitions between chapters. Additionally, many core points are repeated even within the same chapters. This is partly because in my 13 years of following discussions on these topics, I have found that those key points are often missed and rarely pieced together. Thus, it seems useful to highlight how the core points and pieces relate to each other, so that we can better see these views in a more complete way.

I will admit upfront that the book is not for everyone. The style is often concise, intended to quickly cover a lot of ground at a high level. To fill the gaps, the book is densely referenced with footnotes that point to further reading. The content is oriented toward people who have some existing interest in topics such as philosophy of wellbeing, normative ethics, or value theory. As such, the book may not be a suitable first introduction to these fields, but it can complement existing introductions.

I should also clarify that my focus is broader than just a defense of my own views. I present a wide range of minimalist views, not just the views that I endorse most strongly. This is partly because many of the main points I make apply to minimalist views in general, and partly because I wish to convey the diversity of minimalist views.

Thus, the book is perhaps better seen as an introduction to and defense of minimalist views more broadly, and not necessarily a defense of any specific minimalist view. My own current view is a consequentialist, welfarist, and experience-focused view, with a priority to the prevention of unbearable suffering. Yet there are many minimalist views that do not accept any of these stances, as will be illustrated in the book. Again, what unites all these views is their rejection of the idea of intrinsic positive value whose creation could by itself counterbalance suffering elsewhere.

The book does not seek to present any novel theory of wellbeing, morality, or value. However, I believe that the book offers many new angles from which minimalist views can be approached in productive ways. My hope is that it will catalyze further reflection on fundamental values, help people understand minimalist views better, and perhaps even help resolve some of the deep conflicts that we may experience between seemingly opposed values.

All of the essays are a result of my work for the Center for Reducing Suffering (CRS), a nonprofit organization devoted to reducing suffering. The essays have benefited from the close attention of my editor and CRS colleague Magnus Vinding, to whom I also directly owe a dozen of the paragraphs in the book. I am also grateful to the donors of CRS who made this work possible.

All CRS books are available for free in various formats:
https://centerforreducingsuffering.org/books

i have been an antinatalist for years but i am considering adopting just for the simple fact that ik i could do right by a child. so thinking about the fact that there are some children, whether i think they should’ve been born or not, who are suffering at the hands of unfit parents.

We finically stable and think we would do very well raising a child and we just feel awful for these children but at the same time neither of us has a passion or desire for having children or raising them. But i am confident we’d be good parents if we did adopt

just wondering if anyone else has struggled with this and would very much appreciate some guidance

thank yall

if you had to choose to kill ten people for the life of one person of prestige or vis versa, which would you run over the tracks with? but if you had the option to run over both parties would you choose this third option?

by option three suffering could be completely removed from either party but it would inflict suffering onto the people they've known

this question wouldn't work in a natalist sub for obvious reasons, since everyone would find a fitting justifiable reason for any action done towards or for either choice, yet none would obviously choose option three.

so which option would you choose from an antinatalist's viewpoint?

also, no friendly fire, I am heavily inclined towards antinatalism but I enjoy challenging my thinking<3

this was copied and pasted from another discussion in which I tried to explain how I view it,

I am heavily inclined towards antinatalism and agree with most of it

no, not every reason is wrong either, it is not the same on either side both have good and bad, by saying any reason is a good reason is the very reason most people here hate their parents (excluding those that have real bad experiences such as abuse ect) but narcissistic tiktok kids who find everything to be ungrateful just to relate or be on a trend, that is no valid reason to hate people who are different from us parents or not, unless they ahve harmed us intentionally

no human is perfect, by the very belief of antinatalism we're still negative affectors of other humans that have been brought into what we glorify as a hellhole of suffering, we're still hurting others and are just as guilty as any natalist, by not adopting too we're just bystanders to the effect in various ways. and the only solution to our problem is practically completely living life in isolation to avoid all of the negatives and the self negatives we're imposing and impacting on other individuals who are a part of this cycle too.

by this, saying bringing individuals into a suffering lifeless pit, is that by adult consciousness they are still children since no change can be acquired by their actions either, yes they are birth without concent yet by the very followers of the philosophy the expectations are that human development is not in place and children should aquire no experiences whatsoever everything is in conclusion just a suffering or survival case even happiness,

which means the children conceived, all of us in existence even our parents and natalists, are still children to the end of our lives because we do not believe that human development exists.

the middle ground should be found between this or both are just pointless philosophies existing and as much as one can argue either side is unconditional, no human stands completely unconditional on beliefs, we embrace change. but obviously this may be a bit off topic, yetit relates to the topic.

I do believe parents can be antinatalist and have children, because how is it that antinatalists can be parents through adoption, adoption is still parenting and what is the most crucial part of a child's development into adulthood? it's good unconditional love from parents, the only thing is our philosophy looks at every single little pessimistic thing as if it is possible to occur to one human life every single day of their existence.

can you see how humorous both philosophies are in this extremity of binary views, and in isolation from each other, imagine a whole movie of two characters just experiencing literally the life of one side's view, that's not life either.

people will always be diverse in opinions, but should not be lacking in education and an ethical position to do as they please if it involves affecting another being's life or else they do not qualify to be parents or stand on any philosophical, ideological or anything that influences the world's change.

which is why even though antinatalists exist, the biggest source that should be removed is the natalistic ignorant perception of life, that it's purely for reproduction and not considering the complete life of the being.

sp the same goes for antinatalists, an unrealistic expectation from those who want to and will eventually become parents, is that anything that a human being sacrifices if it is with no expectation to receive anything back, it is still as selfless. obviously the parents to be should be more than above financially equipped and educated including having the ability to unconditionally love and provide for the child and equip them to avoid struggling acquiring any position they desire to be in life, to live a fulfilling life, then can they be parents to their own or adopted children.

they just need to be educated before making any choices and hopefully politics would enforce that only those ethically equipped are allowed to have kids, politics in third world countries are disgustingly enabling a broader effect of overpopulation amoung uneducated and more inclined to poverty people to have children for a social grant from the government.

so if that is possible to create an incentive, it's as much as possible to create a punishment on the very matter to minimize suffering because we can't stop people from having kids either.

To me, in a certain way, "all roads lead to antinatalism", but I get the impression that we all have something which we find particularly crucial which sits at the core of our antinatalism. Coincidentally, these things could also functionas being what we consider to be the best, or clearest, anti-natalist argument. For me, it's this short article by Simon Knutsson, and the more generous links included, which would best justify why I find antinatalism so important - I always have it at the back of my mind when I discuss the subject, but it could also function as my straightforward answer to "why are you an antinatalist ?" or "what made you an antinatalist ?".

https://www.simonknutsson.com/the-seriousness-of-suffering-supplement

Curious to see if you have some personal equivalents. Something that seems to you concise, evident, clear and above all crucial.