"(Extinction's) the elephant in the room of contemporary antinatalism. We know that it's there but no one wants to talk about it. If no one has children then humankind will cease to exist, fact. But many people who call themselves antinatalists either deny this or try not to talk about it. The idea seems to be too frightening." 23:18 Matti's mindlessly parroting Amanda's made up mythology, almost verbatim. It's extraordinary that he thinks he can get away with saying something so transparently ludicrous. The relevant quote from the book is on p27: "Others who call themselves antinatalists, however, have mitigated the connection (between AN and extinction), to the point that they sometimes seem to be in denial about the fate of the species if reproduction should stop." - Not a single AN is in denial about extinction being the inevitable upshot of everyone subscribing to AN, nor does any AN try to mitigate the connection. In reality the two actual points of contention are: (1) Whether or not wanting to bring about extinction is a reason for subscribing to AN. Extinctionists view AN as a utility to achieving extinction, while others view extinction as incidental to AN which can be weighed up as an objection. Nothing to do with denial or mitigation. (2) The genesis of this belief is Amanda sometimes uses extinction and efilism interchangeably for the purpose of gaslighting. If an AN objects to efilism or the disgusting things efilists say, she’ll covertly poison the well by saying that means they’re against extinction. But being against efilism and the objectionable things efilists say isn’t the same as being against extinction. In reality non-efilist ANs want to mitigate, if not eliminate, connections with efilism, not extinction. Then on pg28: "many members of the antinatalist social media community seem to abhor the idea of human extinction, or being responsible for it, or being seen to be responsible for it." - I've never seen any AN say anything that could be interpreted as abhorring the idea of human extinction, or trying to avoid being seen as responsible for it. Speaking for myself, accepting extinction as a consequence of AN doesn’t mean I don’t lament it. But that's a far cry from abhorrence, which I don't think extinction is. Amanda herself has said she laments it. As for responsibility, what does it mean to say many members of the antinatalist social media community seem to abhor the idea of being responsible for, or being seen to be responsible for human extinction? Where has this sentiment ever been expressed or implied? Matti has the burden of proving that claim, which I know he can't-because it's made up nonsense. And the idea that ANs on social media might consider themselves responsible for extinction is inconceivable hubris. Again, Matti's mindlessly parroting what Amanda has told him without actually investigating to see whether or not it's true. How embarrassing for an "academic" to be Amanda's puppet.
Yes, I second what you say here. Some of this comes from me (and perhaps Mark) challenging Amanda on the idea that antinatalism doesn't mean that extinction is an ideological goal of the philosophy, and I think that confused Amanda, because extinction is very clearly the ideological goal of efilism, and what she apparantly thought antinatalism also meant. She expressed confusion anyone thought differently. With efilism I don't even think extinction necessarily needs to come from anti-natal means, "as long as it's done", and any kind of act utilitarian means is acceptable. Even violent means, "because the alternative of doing nothing is worse", and again "did we stress how URGENT it is?". From there on Amanda continued to act like me or anyone else was either saying extinction had NOTHING to with antinatalism, not even as a consequence, and repeated it over and over even after further explaining, or she would say that people were uncomfortable or too scared talking about it so they just avoided it. It's frustrating because it's not even close to what me and anyone has ever said. I don't know though... if it's now seen as brave to discuss planned and violent means of extinction I admit I do find that uncomfortable and nothing I ever understood to be part of "antinatalism", by anything I read, and I am quite worried what that kind of thinking can inspire. To me it sounds like extremism or fanaticism. If any other beliefsystem justified mass genocide, violation and whatever to get to their ideological goal then it's easy to call it out what it is, but I suppose efilism is somehow the holy exception to that rule.
Curious. It might seem a rational antinatalist (AN) must conditionally believe either or both that 1: most humans/animals live in suffering more than not and/or 2: any suffering, or at least some reasonable amount relative to an amount of happiness, justifies the extinction of the species/es. Not sure either are justified; the former factually, the latter philosophically
Thank you, Ricardo! You are indomitable!
❤
"(Extinction's) the elephant in the room of contemporary antinatalism. We know that it's there but no one wants to talk about it. If no one has children then humankind will cease to exist, fact. But many people who call themselves antinatalists either deny this or try not to talk about it. The idea seems to be too frightening."
23:18
Matti's mindlessly parroting Amanda's made up mythology, almost verbatim. It's extraordinary that he thinks he can get away with saying something so transparently ludicrous.
The relevant quote from the book is on p27: "Others who call themselves antinatalists, however, have mitigated the connection (between AN and extinction), to the point that they sometimes seem to be in denial about the fate of the species if reproduction should stop."
- Not a single AN is in denial about extinction being the inevitable upshot of everyone subscribing to AN, nor does any AN try to mitigate the connection. In reality the two actual points of contention are:
(1) Whether or not wanting to bring about extinction is a reason for subscribing to AN. Extinctionists view AN as a utility to achieving extinction, while others view extinction as incidental to AN which can be weighed up as an objection. Nothing to do with denial or mitigation.
(2) The genesis of this belief is Amanda sometimes uses extinction and efilism interchangeably for the purpose of gaslighting. If an AN objects to efilism or the disgusting things efilists say, she’ll covertly poison the well by saying that means they’re against extinction. But being against efilism and the objectionable things efilists say isn’t the same as being against extinction. In reality non-efilist ANs want to mitigate, if not eliminate, connections with efilism, not extinction.
Then on pg28: "many members of the antinatalist social media community seem to abhor the idea of human extinction, or being responsible for it, or being seen to be responsible for it."
- I've never seen any AN say anything that could be interpreted as abhorring the idea of human extinction, or trying to avoid being seen as responsible for it. Speaking for myself, accepting extinction as a consequence of AN doesn’t mean I don’t lament it. But that's a far cry from abhorrence, which I don't think extinction is. Amanda herself has said she laments it.
As for responsibility, what does it mean to say many members of the antinatalist social media community seem to abhor the idea of being responsible for, or being seen to be responsible for human extinction? Where has this sentiment ever been expressed or implied? Matti has the burden of proving that claim, which I know he can't-because it's made up nonsense. And the idea that ANs on social media might consider themselves responsible for extinction is inconceivable hubris. Again, Matti's mindlessly parroting what Amanda has told him without actually investigating to see whether or not it's true. How embarrassing for an "academic" to be Amanda's puppet.
There's nothing wrong with efilism, Stodfrey.
Yes, I second what you say here.
Some of this comes from me (and perhaps Mark) challenging Amanda on the idea that antinatalism doesn't mean that extinction is an ideological goal of the philosophy, and I think that confused Amanda, because extinction is very clearly the ideological goal of efilism, and what she apparantly thought antinatalism also meant. She expressed confusion anyone thought differently.
With efilism I don't even think extinction necessarily needs to come from anti-natal means, "as long as it's done", and any kind of act utilitarian means is acceptable. Even violent means, "because the alternative of doing nothing is worse", and again "did we stress how URGENT it is?". From there on Amanda continued to act like me or anyone else was either saying extinction had NOTHING to with antinatalism, not even as a consequence, and repeated it over and over even after further explaining, or she would say that people were uncomfortable or too scared talking about it so they just avoided it. It's frustrating because it's not even close to what me and anyone has ever said.
I don't know though... if it's now seen as brave to discuss planned and violent means of extinction I admit I do find that uncomfortable and nothing I ever understood to be part of "antinatalism", by anything I read, and I am quite worried what that kind of thinking can inspire. To me it sounds like extremism or fanaticism. If any other beliefsystem justified mass genocide, violation and whatever to get to their ideological goal then it's easy to call it out what it is, but I suppose efilism is somehow the holy exception to that rule.
@@Svankmajer Hey nice to see you here. Hope you're well.
Curious. It might seem a rational antinatalist (AN) must conditionally believe either or both that 1: most humans/animals live in suffering more than not and/or 2: any suffering, or at least some reasonable amount relative to an amount of happiness, justifies the extinction of the species/es. Not sure either are justified; the former factually, the latter philosophically