Main website: http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/
Excerpt:
Forms of Antinatalism
Taxonomy: Based on Philosophical Source of Antinatalist Beliefs
Antinatalism can take many forms, based on one's reasons for believing in it. There are at least two basic forms: ecological and philanthropic. Some add two other forms: teleological (purpose-based, or in this case the lack thereof) and misanthropic, though whether they are independent of the ecological or philanthropic is a matter of debate. The basic forms of antinatalism are as follows
Ecological: Humans should stop breeding because our presence damages the biosphere. (e.g., Les U. Knight Pentti Linkola,)
Philanthropic: Humans should stop breeding to prevent other, not-yet-existent people from suffering (however one defines suffering). (e.g., David Benatar)
This suffering can take several forms, classified by which broadly defined stage in their life it occurs. Death - especially a slow, debilitating dying - is particularly undesirable, although humans tend to hate the general notion of dying, regardless of how it occurs. Suffering also exists in preceding remainder of one's life, also undesirable. Despite suffering's presence throughout our lives, also despite that everyone will go through it, humanity still insists on continuing to give birth to more people. In fact, humanity rarely considers the potential person's suffering when deciding to have more children. This because the evolutionary process encoded in us a deeply-encoded survival instinct, undoubtedly the product of our DNA and our brain architecture. Barring the special cases of "heroic sacrifices", suicide, and other situation-specific exceptions, we are "hard wired" to try to survive at all costs. It's true that some (perhaps many) people's lives are not terrible enough to make them wish they never existed. Yet, some lives are, in fact, terrible enough to render them "better to have never been" (to use David Benatar's words). Now we approach the crux of the issue. The central problem with childbirth centers on three facts: (a) generally, we cannot accurately predict whether any person's future life will actually be worth living (b) likewise, we cannot predict whether any not-yet-existent person will agree to the rules of the "game of life", and (c) the inability to give consent to be born or for the prospective parents to ask for the potentially existent person's consent. Due to these factors, one can reasonably think childbirth problematic. This is precisely what philanthropic antinatalism states.
Theological Antinatalism: This is a special case of philanthropic antinatalism because it's likewise a special case of the inability to predict how one's life will turn out. Simply put, we cannot know whether any one person will experience a terrible afterlife. In particular, this is relevant to Christianity and Islam, but the Hindu faiths also warn of unpleasant consequences if one lives their life in a way unpleasant to their deities. These antinatalists hold that the only way to guarantee their children will not have such a terrible fate after their earthly passing is not to have these children in the first place.
+++
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
@ 917-974-6367
What sort of TRUTH is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
__._,_.___
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment