I am not proud to be here at all, I haven't touched any hearts. The world we live in is a disgusting place and it makes my depression and anxiety go crazy. I have had thoughts about suicide and still do.
In regards to #9, being alive not only guarantees that I will suffer, which is a strong argument in and of itself, but it also guarantees that my existence will also cause suffering in other sentient beings. This aspect is often overlooked in the suffering argument. We are all active and passive participants in this unavoidable cycle.
True it is basically impossible to live without exploiting another....be it animal, human, plant, resource, space, time, money, energy..just to name the basics....
I dont give a damn if my biological clock is ticking I'm 32 years old and not married and no kids I would be happy if my doctor told me that I'm unable to have kids
One of the things that is kind of covered by other arguments, but holds great importance to me, is frustration and disappointment. These things are really significant, there are whole philosophies, like stoicism and buddhism, that state that desires and expectations are the root cause of suffering, but I disagree with that. There's nothing wrong about wanting good things. Those are the most pure and innocent things in the world - our dreams and wishes, and the inspiration that comes with them. But what is really bad is life that has nothing to do with happiness. We're taught from the very beginning of our lives that our desires are bad, that we should be realistic, should deprive ourselves of good things and "grow up and understand that life ain't no fairytale". Before you start to enjoy life, you need to go through years of lowering your expectations until they are finally on the bottom of the ocean, like "can I just be somewhat healthy and get some entertainment in between endless responsibilities please?" Long before we die physically, we kill our deepest dreams. For the most part, enduring suffering gets you literally nothing other than a chance that maybe the suffering will end one day so you could be back at "ok" state. It's not a ladder to heaven, it's a river of shit that you try not to drown in, but you will one day (death). Why the fuck put someone here?
Indeed. Plus, I get sick of the people saying "Lower your expectations" like we have someone sort of volume dial on our lives, and can just turn it down at will. If live worked like motivational slogans, human suffering genuinely might go down.
Great video Lawrence 👍🏻 As someone who lost a close friend to suicide a few years ago, I can attest that it's a horrible thing to go through. For the person who does the act (including the painful years leading up to it as well) ,and to everyone who cared about them or even just knew them in their life. If mental illness was contagious - this is it. When people jokingly or not suggest such a thing as an "argument" against antinatalism, I find it offensive on every level of my being. It's not the same as talking about the right to die in dignity, it's malicious and evil even if they don't really mean it.
Suicide from my perspective would not be necessary if this existence was ideal for all myself included, lolz. this existence is clearly not ideal,not even close 😂
"10 reasons you shouldn't procreate" or "10 reasons you shouldn't create new life" might be a better title, because we all didn't have own choice about our own birth, now it sounds like that we made our own choice. english isn't my native language, so it could be me reading it wrong. i think this are the 10 main reasons why not to create new life, another reason is to adopt a child instead of creating a new one, and there are more reasons not to procreate, anyway, great video as always, thanks.
There are just way too many reasons to not impose this evil life on someone and force them into this terrible garbage world. If I have to elaborate on every single one of them, it might take the entire day.... if you get my drift Suffering and pain is ultimately guaranteed to happen to them and you never know and will never be able to predict what magnitude or level of the severity of suffering and misery this person may experience throughout their life. And the chances of someone going through rampant, constant, long term suffering and pain is far greater than their chances of living an amazing life, experiencing tons of pleasure and Joy. Personally, these are few of the main reasons I am an antinatalist.
Even if I were, a nataliast I couldn't argue,with these points It's all true it isn't any wonder why christians will state,that we're committing blasphemy,by poundering over such things but we do, have to question everything because we've been neglected,and given zero answers,,from a so call creator.
only death and suffering are guaranteed in life. everything else is optional or rather, non existent. suffering will get to you on its own. you do not need to make any effort to suffer. we all come with an expiration date but, that date is a surprise. the thing about death is that it is actually not a bad thing. it will set you free. it will free you from suffering.
Yea, but will there exist lives after you die? We know animals and humans will exist after you die. That's the very situation that resulted in you: a life coming to exist. And we know lives will exist (at least here on Earth) after you and I die.
I think in Benatar's Asymetry 'pleasure' should be replaced with 'less pain', because there is no such thing as pure unadulterated pleasure. It is always tainted with pain lurking in the background, waiting to take over when the pleasure has gone.
@8.54 - I discovered via hypnotherapy that I actually existed in another dimension before entering my foetus which I actually watched grow - I put a mark on its forehead - I was born with a big red 'V' on my forehead which stayed for several weeks - I know that sounds hard to believe. I am now 69 and still not managed to find an answer to this and I am terrified that this happens to me again as I hate it here. Speaking for myself I know that I am 'trapped' in something and I truly believe that this life that I am trapped in is just a horrific cycle. Thank you for this by the way I just wish that this sort of stuff had been around when I was young I was a very lonely vegan/ARA/anti-natalist back in the 60/70/80's
That would be pretty fucked up. But remember - just because you saw/heard/felt something, it doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Especially considering you were under hypnosis.
@@Chris-Ian - Unfortunately my mother did confirm that I was born with a huge red 'V' on my forehead. The reality of this has actually been very difficult to live with as I did not believe in this sort of thing - past lives, other dimensions, aliens, god etc etc etc
Some dude made a response of this video, and after I pointed out inconsistencies in his philosophy, he blocked me. The dude is a coward, yet he persists in attempting to disprove asymmetry. Whenever I try to engage in conversation with him, he flees until he ultimately decided to block me.
Seems like I cannot post his link, but he is in this comment section. Naturailsted is his handle. If you click him you will see his videos and the one where he is responding to you.
One question I have since I'm genuinely curious about the case for Antinatalism is with the third to last point. I do find it philosophically sound and logically consistent, where ie, good things wouldn't have to exist if there were no states of suffering to begin with(needs wouldn't need to be fulfilled and risk suffering if they aren't met if they weren't created to begin with). Nonexistent people would have no need for things like love. However, I can't help but feel that if you take this to the logical conclusion, ie life has no distinct advantages and only disadvantages by virtue of existence, there really isn't much to prevent the forceful ending of all life. We have already established that nonexistence is indeed better than existing at all since it doesn't come with the bells and whistles of the disadvantages. Will it not be a moral obligation to destroy as much sentient life as possible since it would be, according to this philosophical view, much better for a human? I know you don't think so since you believe some lives are indeed worth living but again, we've already established nonexistence is better. Unless of course you concede nonexistence ISN'T better than a fulfilled, good life. If one is not actively ending sentient life, under this definition, they are extremely immoral as they are perpetuating a worse state of existence for everyone. I'm sure this is an objection you've heard before. How would you resolve this dilemma? Unless of course, you're willing to bite the bullet and call yourself too morally weak to fully enact the most virtuous thing despite having the ability and sacrifice the ability to call others immoral, stop or condemn actions that lead to loss of life. I think you have a debate on this with somebody but it would be nice to post a cliffnotes response here. It seems to me at the very least, you can't use the third to last point, alongside the last point, which is just general terrible human behavior that permeates all relationships and how said terrible things culminate in terrible actions like genocide.
Also look up agriculture taking polluting over 70% of land and sea, with animals being rped into existance and if still up 3 trillion mrdered a year, and passed off as "food", along with processed stuff?
Hey Lawrence, I have thought a lot about antinatalism myself. There was a time when I was reading Schopenhauer and studying Buddhism, when I too flirted with the idea of antinatalism. But I finally figured out the problems with antinatalism. As metaphysically neutral and universal antinatalism may sound to us at first, it relies on at least four implicit and highly speculative metaphysical assumptions that one must subscribe to for the general conclusion of antinatalism to hold: 1) Suffering is ontological in nature: suffering is an essential, objective (as opposed to subjective) feature of existence and therefore inevitable - ultimately there is nothing one can do about it except to mitigate it and smooth its sharpest edges. 2) Asymmetry of suffering and pleasure: suffering outweighs pleasure - or to put it with Schopenhauer: "life is a business that doesn't cover it's cost." 3) Nihilism: there is ultimately no meaning to life and suffering, in other words, nothing which transcends or justifies it. 4) The assumption of finiteness: In order for the ethics of antinatalism to hold, one must assume the finiteness of life and the world. In an infinite world, the total amount of suffering would always be the same (i.e. infinite) regardless of whether we reproduce and give birth or not. However, the assumption of finiteness also includes implicit assumptions about the nature of the self and consciousness, namely that they are not essential (and therefore infinite), but rather accidental and finite. To make this point clear, imagine a view in which self and consciousness are seen as underived and unborn. On this view, it would not make sense to believe that suffering could be avoided by not giving birth or killing oneself, since such things would only affect the way self and consciousness empirically manifest in the world, not self and consciousness itself. What I wanted to show you is that the philosophy of antinatalism is based on many implicit metaphysical assumptions, not least of which are heavily influenced by culture. It must be understood that antinatalism, especially in its modern western form such as you promote it, is the consequence of a long tradition of a certain type of metaphysical and anthropological thinking. Although I know very well the appeal of philosophical pessimism and anti-natalism, I have personally come to the conclusion that it is absurd and even kind of hubristic to believe that, as an individual living under certain cultural conditions and prejudices, one can make general statements about the value of life and existence. Although I am not a proponent of Nietzschean ethics, I would like to conclude my comment with an excerpt from an aphorism from his book “The Twilight of Idols,” in which, in my opinion, he provides the most convincing epistemological and psychological argument against any attempt to determine the objective value of life and existence: "The condemnation of life by a living creature is after all but the symptom of a definite kind of life: the question as to whether the condemnation is justified or not is not even raised. In order even to approach the problem of the value of life, one would need to be placed outside life, and moreover know it as well as one, as many, as all in fact, who have lived it These are reasons enough to prove to us that this problem is an inaccessible one to us. When we speak of values, we speak under the inspiration, and through the optics of life: life itself urges us to determine values: life itself values through us when we determine values. From which it follows that even that morality which is antagonistic to life [...] and the condemnation of life, is only a valuation of life-of what life? of what kind of life? But I have already answered this question: it is the valuation of declining, of enfeebled, of exhausted and of condemned life. Morality, as it has been understood hitherto-as it was finally formulated by Schopenhauer in the words “The Denial of the Will to Life,” is the instinct of degeneration itself, which converts itself into an imperative: it says: “Perish!” It is the verdict of those who are already doomed." Please don't take this as a personal insult. I would like to hear what your opinion is on the points I have raised. With kind regards Descartes
Being born into this cruel world ......its similar to go to the hell... actually their is no hell.The world itself is a fucking hell.Regrate to being born just for my parents selffishness its lead to suffer me hard and hard in day by day..😢😢😢😢
Most people are guaranteed to suffer because of the way we designed the world to have everything revolve around money. And for most people, is a very difficult thing to aquire. It involves giving up most of the time and freedom in your life to someone else. Sitting in a desk cubicle just to increase the numbers in your bank account in the fleeting hope to someday escape a life of sitting in a desk cubicle is not a good life. Its low-key suffering on a daily basis. This is existence for most people. For this reason alone, I wouldn't have kids. Unless I could somehow guarentee they'd never have to endure the rat race
That whole thing about having a purpose or ambition is purely a social construct. All those children who say that they want to become a doctor, an engineer or whatever the f.. are just saying whatever is taught to them. In reality nobody has a clue as to what they want in life. That's why overly ambitious people either don't achieve anything because they never had any other options in mind because of what people might say or are still sad just because they feel that whatever they achieved wasn't worth it.
Excellent examples of why antinatalism is a position of compassion for other individuals that never get a say in their forced existence and it's frustrating when natalists misrepresent our position as one of malice. For example, it would've been far more compassionate of a choice by my parents to have not had me considering that 17 years after bringing me into existence my father gave up on life, subjecting me and my brother and mother to the anguish of that decision he made that day.
If no one has the right in a democracy to impose their vision of the world on another person, why manufacture an existence to try to make them believe the same thing as you (most of the time it works).
By no means resentful, i just find antinatalism a sober decision, and also good karma if you believe in that. It also unloads a bunch of weight, i always thought i was alone in this mindstate.
If we existed in some realm where we sign "soul contracts" before we came to Earth, then the question becomes: did we choose to exist in _that_ realm? Also, did we have the choice to _not_ sign a "soul contract"?
Personally I don't agree with benatar pre birth asymmetry. But I do agree with the asymmetry of pain pleasure in life. With the heavy caveat that we have a heavy self interest in avoiding pain, which actually allows us to avoid alot of life's pains. Also we do have consistent pleasure not just pains. I'm always amazed how food sex sleep it never loses it's charm
We don't have "chronic" pleasure. Those pleasures you listed can be taken away without your consent. Insomnia, hunger, and no sex are very common for many people. You won't be walking around with your body in intense pleasure during a day but you will be in pain.
As Schopenhauer pointed out 200 years ago, "pleasure" is merely negated suffering. We have a reward system creating dopamine, which wasn't known at his times, but the "reward" is very limited. Suffering is unlimited. And unless you're a very primitive human being, food and sex WILL lose their charm.
@@francisdec1615 but think of it food does not lose it's pleasure formany for there whole lifetime and it also for many is more of a top up system from neutrality rather than an alleviation of pain
@@cafelife1252 yes I agree the risks are asymmetric towards pain in life. But as I said are self interest in avoiding pain and seeking pleasure should be considered as it will navigate us away from demise as long as we can.and so many also incur many days of primitive pleasure's
Why don't you agree with the pre birth asymmetry? I think it's quite intuitive. Let me give you an analogy I've used for a long time: Let's assume that before conceiving a child, you knew that the child is going to live a horrible life filled with suffering. Wouldn't you agree that it's wrong to bring that child into existence? On the other hand, let's assume you were about to conceive a child, and you knew 100% that the child would live an extremely happy life. Would you be morally REQUIRED to bring that child into existence? I think that the answer is no, because there's no one to be deprived of the happy life they will experience. There can be no harm to not being born, but there is a possibility for massive harm when one is born. That's why I think antinatalism is a no-brainer
this is a quantum computer simulation game and your avatar is being controlled by your over-soul. if the suffering gets too bad for the over-soul, it simply disconnects from the game and a copy of the personality is created in the avatar and ran by energy (creating an npc). some over-souls choose to come here to suffer big time. it really builds character. others disconnect when it gets too hot. so, there ya go, that blows away all the anti-natalist points in one fell swoop. if you don't have suffering, you ain't got jack man.
I'm sorry what is npc? Proof or it ain't happen. How did that computer exist in the first place? Why does it need to create a world that makes you suffer to build character, for what? What about all the suffering that ruins you even more & begets evil?
Brother, who's consent are you violating when you give birth? There is no person before the existence of the person, and so to suggest that you are violating "someone's" consent is simply logically impossible. Secondly, all the other points presuppose that there is only one sort of suffering and one sort of happiness, and no such thing as meaningfulness, which is separate from happiness. So there you go.
@@Sarahizahhsum who said anything about work? What I am saying is that in order to force someone to do aomething there has to be someone there in the first place. You cant be said to cause harm to nonexistent things, cause all nonexistent things are nonexistent in the same sense.
This is absurd, i’m here so the best possible way to take it easier is to not list anything! i would not have a child though and if i could i would adopt a child.
it's simply not possible to not be alive. If you're not alive you're not being. It's so embarrassing to me that this is what South African Philosophy is known for.
My refutation: I like being alive and prefer it over non existence. All of these points are subjective, so my refutation is subjective as well. Ought/is fallacy
The thing is, "non-existence" isn't a state. And because non-existence isn't a state, if you weren't born, then instead of _this_ life, it would have been some _other_ life. If it isn't one life it's another. Not existing doesn't = some sort of state of protection. Just as not existing didn't protect you from _this_ life being imposed, non-existence wouldn't have impeded some other life from being the one that was imposed instead. So this turns the idea of life being "a gift", into a trivial statement. If life is imposed no matter what, then it's not a gift. It's forced... Which is horrible considering just how horrible life can be.
@@LawrenceAnton My question for you, is that your justification for why someone should not create new people, is based on some form of suffering. How do you epistemically justify why this position is objectively the case in your worldview? In other words, why is it objectively moral that one does not create life due to avoiding suffering?
Existing is a state. There is clearly a distinction between existing and non existing things, and there is a distinction between what a thing is, and that a thing is. A unicorn for example, is something that has a “what” but does not exist, so they are in a state of non existence. For myself, I dont have to exist, yet I do so i view it as a gift. You say “forced” because it’s horrible because life can be horrible. That doesn’t follow necessarily. Life can be great as well, so I view it as great. It sounds life your position bouls down to subjectivity so you have no grounds to tell someone what the ought to do
Antinatalism is the most stupid shit i ever heard of. All arguments are very subjective while people who believe this shit believe in the “objective” worldview of atheism. Personally I do believe I chose to come here, not to experience the pleasures of the material world. But to learn from my experience here. If you believe antinatalism is somehow a rational and moral view of life you should look a little more criticaly at what your worldview is. If you want a starting point to counter this toxic worldview I would start looking for people who had near death experiences talking about their experiences behind the veil of this material world. If you still believe antinatalism is rational why not make the world a better place and start with yourself..
So are u saying EVERYONE makes the decision to be born? What about children who are severely abused or killed by their parents? Put in the microwave by their parents? What about the ones who are drowned by their parents? Did they make that decision to be born? What kind of learning experience is that supposed to be? All the NDE and reincarnation philosophies are the exact reason why NOBODY should continue breeding. If u don't exist, u don't need a learning experience. Of course, it's not realistic to expect such a stupid society to STOP breeding, but we can reach as many people as possible. I pray that this world will eventually be completely destroyed!
"If you believe antinatalism is rational why not make the world a better place and start with yourself ". Being antinatalist and trying to make the world a better place are not incompatible. Follow your own advice: look critically at your worldview. By the way, how do the near-death experiences prove antinatalism wrong?
Are there any more reasons you can think of? 🤔
Join the supporter community and get perks: patreon.com/lawrenceanton/
My man Schopenhauer was right all alone.
I find it shocking that so few people even consider how awful it is to be saddled with life.
I find the fact that I have to wake up every day of my life and suffer just because my parents thought it'd be cute to have a baby genuinely abhorent.
If it isn't one life it's another.
Same
@@naturalisted1714nah nah nah
That just isn't true
I was the cutest baby at the maternity ward, said the midwife. What does that help me now 😐
@@francisdec1615Yes. I have the same question. Those people are not gonna help us now. Only our money can help us
I am not proud to be here at all, I haven't touched any hearts. The world we live in is a disgusting place and it makes my depression and anxiety go crazy. I have had thoughts about suicide and still do.
not the best place to spend your time
I'm the same way.
makes sense
Me too
ive had thoughts of worse. That I cant say because the fbi lol jk hahaha. xD haha
I just say I was dragged out of nonexistence without my permission, and refuse to violate the consent of others.
Spot on.
my consent gets violated all the time. First being born. Second being a slave to the government. 3rd needing a job.
In regards to #9, being alive not only guarantees that I will suffer, which is a strong argument in and of itself, but it also guarantees that my existence will also cause suffering in other sentient beings. This aspect is often overlooked in the suffering argument. We are all active and passive participants in this unavoidable cycle.
Well put 👏 💯❤️👍
True it is basically impossible to live without exploiting another....be it animal, human, plant, resource, space, time, money, energy..just to name the basics....
Even if you want to genuinely help people, you will often hurt them one way or the other.
@@francisdec1615How? Explain?
I think about how many rich jerks do not suffer because they have people to suffer for them.
Please do video about the legal choice to access medical death w dignity. This would be less suffering.
I just found out a child dies from hunger every 10 seconds.
And still there are people who say life is beautiful
1
2
3
4
I dont give a damn if my biological clock is ticking I'm 32 years old and not married and no kids I would be happy if my doctor told me that I'm unable to have kids
Same, then I wouldn't have to worry about getting pregnant. I'd still use protection, but the worry would lessen.
One of the things that is kind of covered by other arguments, but holds great importance to me, is frustration and disappointment. These things are really significant, there are whole philosophies, like stoicism and buddhism, that state that desires and expectations are the root cause of suffering, but I disagree with that. There's nothing wrong about wanting good things. Those are the most pure and innocent things in the world - our dreams and wishes, and the inspiration that comes with them.
But what is really bad is life that has nothing to do with happiness. We're taught from the very beginning of our lives that our desires are bad, that we should be realistic, should deprive ourselves of good things and "grow up and understand that life ain't no fairytale".
Before you start to enjoy life, you need to go through years of lowering your expectations until they are finally on the bottom of the ocean, like "can I just be somewhat healthy and get some entertainment in between endless responsibilities please?"
Long before we die physically, we kill our deepest dreams. For the most part, enduring suffering gets you literally nothing other than a chance that maybe the suffering will end one day so you could be back at "ok" state. It's not a ladder to heaven, it's a river of shit that you try not to drown in, but you will one day (death).
Why the fuck put someone here?
Indeed. Plus, I get sick of the people saying "Lower your expectations" like we have someone sort of volume dial on our lives, and can just turn it down at will.
If live worked like motivational slogans, human suffering genuinely might go down.
Hey Mary, maybe the philosophy of Charles Eisenstein is something for you, highly recommend it! Kind regards, Descartes.
Great video Lawrence 👍🏻
As someone who lost a close friend to suicide a few years ago, I can attest that it's a horrible thing to go through.
For the person who does the act (including the painful years leading up to it as well) ,and to everyone who cared about them or even just knew them in their life.
If mental illness was contagious - this is it.
When people jokingly or not suggest such a thing as an "argument" against antinatalism, I find it offensive on every level of my being.
It's not the same as talking about the right to die in dignity, it's malicious and evil even if they don't really mean it.
Suicide from my perspective would not be necessary if this existence was ideal for all myself included, lolz. this existence is clearly not ideal,not even close 😂
"You just aren't grateful enough, life is ideal for everyone "
- Them
@@lifeisoverrated96 😂🤣👍❤️
🤣❤️
"10 reasons you shouldn't procreate" or "10 reasons you shouldn't create new life" might be a better title, because we all didn't have own choice about our own birth, now it sounds like that we made our own choice.
english isn't my native language, so it could be me reading it wrong.
i think this are the 10 main reasons why not to create new life, another reason is to adopt a child instead of creating a new one, and there are more reasons not to procreate, anyway, great video as always, thanks.
There are just way too many reasons to not impose this evil life on someone and force them into this terrible garbage world.
If I have to elaborate on every single one of them, it might take the entire day.... if you get my drift
Suffering and pain is ultimately guaranteed to happen to them and you never know and will never be able to predict what magnitude or level of the severity of suffering and misery this person may experience throughout their life.
And the chances of someone going through rampant, constant, long term suffering and pain is far greater than their chances of living an amazing life, experiencing tons of pleasure and Joy.
Personally, these are few of the main reasons I am an antinatalist.
I too have similiar reasons
Even if I were, a nataliast
I couldn't argue,with these points
It's all true
it isn't any wonder why christians will state,that we're committing blasphemy,by poundering over such things
but we do, have to question everything
because we've been neglected,and given zero answers,,from a so call creator.
But you're an honest person. No honest person who has really thought existence through will be a natalist.
only death and suffering are guaranteed in life. everything else is optional or rather, non existent. suffering will get to you on its own. you do not need to make any effort to suffer. we all come with an expiration date but, that date is a surprise. the thing about death is that it is actually not a bad thing. it will set you free. it will free you from suffering.
Yea, but will there exist lives after you die? We know animals and humans will exist after you die. That's the very situation that resulted in you: a life coming to exist. And we know lives will exist (at least here on Earth) after you and I die.
How about people who believe in eternal torment in Hell for most people? Actually, another good argument not to reproduce.
Honestly, if i knew it would be like this i would have never consented to being born.
You got to consent?
@@LawrenceAnton i wish i did..
No natalist can stand this arguments .
The catch is - natalists are totally dishonest people. But yes, no *honest* person can object to this.
wHaT aBoUt AlL tHE bEaUtY oF eXiStEnCe? 😅😅😅
Your channel is very amazing @@antinatalistwitch111
Thank you @@potter5647
Pronatalists be like :
*"LiFfe iSss BEAUTIFULLL!!!"*
😊❤
I think in Benatar's Asymetry 'pleasure' should be replaced with 'less pain', because there is no such thing as pure unadulterated pleasure. It is always tainted with pain lurking in the background, waiting to take over when the pleasure has gone.
@8.54 - I discovered via hypnotherapy that I actually existed in another dimension before entering my foetus which I actually watched grow - I put a mark on its forehead - I was born with a big red 'V' on my forehead which stayed for several weeks - I know that sounds hard to believe. I am now 69 and still not managed to find an answer to this and I am terrified that this happens to me again as I hate it here. Speaking for myself I know that I am 'trapped' in something and I truly believe that this life that I am trapped in is just a horrific cycle. Thank you for this by the way I just wish that this sort of stuff had been around when I was young I was a very lonely vegan/ARA/anti-natalist back in the 60/70/80's
That would be pretty fucked up. But remember - just because you saw/heard/felt something, it doesn't necessarily mean it's true. Especially considering you were under hypnosis.
@@Chris-Ian - Unfortunately my mother did confirm that I was born with a huge red 'V' on my forehead. The reality of this has actually been very difficult to live with as I did not believe in this sort of thing - past lives, other dimensions, aliens, god etc etc etc
Some dude made a response of this video, and after I pointed out inconsistencies in his philosophy, he blocked me. The dude is a coward, yet he persists in attempting to disprove asymmetry. Whenever I try to engage in conversation with him, he flees until he ultimately decided to block me.
What is the name of the video? I’ll check it out.
@@LawrenceAnton ruclips.net/video/IHFK3W4S2e0/видео.htmlsi=mQkxyz0kqbl0pSYe
@@LawrenceAnton ruclips.net/video/IHFK3W4S2e0/видео.htmlsi=s04ex1SZcY_sJv1_
Seems like I cannot post his link, but he is in this comment section. Naturailsted is his handle. If you click him you will see his videos and the one where he is responding to you.
@@phantomknight1395 Ah right yes I am aware of him!
And now, china with its more than a billion people is complaining about not having enough new people lol
There is never enough cannon fodder for the monster at the top.
Our own families can behave toxic with us apart from dicrimination, crimes and torture by outsiders
Amazing as always mate ❤🔥
Thanks 🔥
Extremely compelling video
One of your best
"My existence is not worth another suffering and vice-versa"
I don’t need this video to already know 15 reasons
Thank you for sharing this video.
I'd rather complete the statement into "You SHOULDN'T Have Been BORN"&"and shouldn't Birth any New Being. "
Perfect points , Iam proud of this video 🙌✨
One question I have since I'm genuinely curious about the case for Antinatalism is with the third to last point. I do find it philosophically sound and logically consistent, where ie, good things wouldn't have to exist if there were no states of suffering to begin with(needs wouldn't need to be fulfilled and risk suffering if they aren't met if they weren't created to begin with). Nonexistent people would have no need for things like love. However, I can't help but feel that if you take this to the logical conclusion, ie life has no distinct advantages and only disadvantages by virtue of existence, there really isn't much to prevent the forceful ending of all life. We have already established that nonexistence is indeed better than existing at all since it doesn't come with the bells and whistles of the disadvantages. Will it not be a moral obligation to destroy as much sentient life as possible since it would be, according to this philosophical view, much better for a human? I know you don't think so since you believe some lives are indeed worth living but again, we've already established nonexistence is better. Unless of course you concede nonexistence ISN'T better than a fulfilled, good life. If one is not actively ending sentient life, under this definition, they are extremely immoral as they are perpetuating a worse state of existence for everyone. I'm sure this is an objection you've heard before. How would you resolve this dilemma? Unless of course, you're willing to bite the bullet and call yourself too morally weak to fully enact the most virtuous thing despite having the ability and sacrifice the ability to call others immoral, stop or condemn actions that lead to loss of life. I think you have a debate on this with somebody but it would be nice to post a cliffnotes response here.
It seems to me at the very least, you can't use the third to last point, alongside the last point, which is just general terrible human behavior that permeates all relationships and how said terrible things culminate in terrible actions like genocide.
Also look up agriculture taking polluting over 70% of land and sea, with animals being rped into existance and if still up 3 trillion mrdered a year, and passed off as "food", along with processed stuff?
Hey Lawrence, I have thought a lot about antinatalism myself. There was a time when I was reading Schopenhauer and studying Buddhism, when I too flirted with the idea of antinatalism.
But I finally figured out the problems with antinatalism. As metaphysically neutral and universal antinatalism may sound to us at first, it relies on at least four implicit and highly speculative metaphysical assumptions that one must subscribe to for the general conclusion of antinatalism to hold:
1) Suffering is ontological in nature: suffering is an essential, objective (as opposed to subjective) feature of existence and therefore inevitable - ultimately there is nothing one can do about it except to mitigate it and smooth its sharpest edges.
2) Asymmetry of suffering and pleasure: suffering outweighs pleasure - or to put it with Schopenhauer: "life is a business that doesn't cover it's cost."
3) Nihilism: there is ultimately no meaning to life and suffering, in other words, nothing which transcends or justifies it.
4) The assumption of finiteness: In order for the ethics of antinatalism to hold, one must assume the finiteness of life and the world. In an infinite world, the total amount of suffering would always be the same (i.e. infinite) regardless of whether we reproduce and give birth or not. However, the assumption of finiteness also includes implicit assumptions about the nature of the self and consciousness, namely that they are not essential (and therefore infinite), but rather accidental and finite. To make this point clear, imagine a view in which self and consciousness are seen as underived and unborn. On this view, it would not make sense to believe that suffering could be avoided by not giving birth or killing oneself, since such things would only affect the way self and consciousness empirically manifest in the world, not self and consciousness itself.
What I wanted to show you is that the philosophy of antinatalism is based on many implicit metaphysical assumptions, not least of which are heavily influenced by culture. It must be understood that antinatalism, especially in its modern western form such as you promote it, is the consequence of a long tradition of a certain type of metaphysical and anthropological thinking.
Although I know very well the appeal of philosophical pessimism and anti-natalism, I have personally come to the conclusion that it is absurd and even kind of hubristic to believe that, as an individual living under certain cultural conditions and prejudices, one can make general statements about the value of life and existence. Although I am not a proponent of Nietzschean ethics, I would like to conclude my comment with an excerpt from an aphorism from his book “The Twilight of Idols,” in which, in my opinion, he provides the most convincing epistemological and psychological argument against any attempt to determine the objective value of life and existence:
"The condemnation of life by a living creature is after all but the symptom of a definite kind of life: the question as to whether the condemnation is justified or not is not even raised. In order even to approach the problem of the value of life, one would need to be placed outside life, and moreover know it as well as one, as many, as all in fact, who have lived it These are reasons enough to prove to us that this problem is an inaccessible one to us. When we speak of values, we speak under the inspiration, and through the optics of life: life itself urges us to determine values: life itself values through us when we determine values. From which it follows that even that morality which is antagonistic to life [...] and the condemnation of life, is only a valuation of life-of what life? of what kind of life? But I have already answered this question: it is the valuation of declining, of enfeebled, of exhausted and of condemned life. Morality, as it has been understood hitherto-as it was finally formulated by Schopenhauer in the words “The Denial of the Will to Life,” is the instinct of degeneration itself, which converts itself into an imperative: it says: “Perish!” It is the verdict of those who are already doomed."
Please don't take this as a personal insult. I would like to hear what your opinion is on the points I have raised.
With kind regards
Descartes
Pretty good analysis imo 👍
Listening this took me to a trance of non existence......utmost security and peace
Born to lose. All of us.
Being born into this cruel world ......its similar to go to the hell... actually their is no hell.The world itself is a fucking hell.Regrate to being born just for my parents selffishness its lead to suffer me hard and hard in day by day..😢😢😢😢
Edit:- Bring born into this world is wrose than a painful death...
I would love to see a debate about antinatalism between you and destiny
These are some preety solid points
Look at how many rich celebrities are depressed despite having more access to pleasure. 😮
paparazzi , scandal etc
it is actually really hard being a person known around the world?
Very true
Imagine a thing called chronic pleasure!
Human beings who can think like you make me very happy.
Have a nice day and evening.
Most people are guaranteed to suffer because of the way we designed the world to have everything revolve around money. And for most people, is a very difficult thing to aquire. It involves giving up most of the time and freedom in your life to someone else. Sitting in a desk cubicle just to increase the numbers in your bank account in the fleeting hope to someday escape a life of sitting in a desk cubicle is not a good life. Its low-key suffering on a daily basis. This is existence for most people.
For this reason alone, I wouldn't have kids. Unless I could somehow guarentee they'd never have to endure the rat race
amazing video ☘️
Cheers 🔥
Excellent work.
Cheers Will ❤️
If everyone has a purpose in life, why does nothing good ever happen?
That whole thing about having a purpose or ambition is purely a social construct. All those children who say that they want to become a doctor, an engineer or whatever the f.. are just saying whatever is taught to them. In reality nobody has a clue as to what they want in life. That's why overly ambitious people either don't achieve anything because they never had any other options in mind because of what people might say or are still sad just because they feel that whatever they achieved wasn't worth it.
The biggest reason. - We are all most likely going to hell for eternity after we die. If we aren’t born we can’t be damned by a righteous Judge
You'd think more Christians would be AN but alas they aren't
Don’t worry dude, hell is only in this consciousness x
I love the first reason not to bring a life into existence. Hell is other people. Paul satre.
That quote by Sartre is misattributed as being misanthropic.
@@MyDeadRespect thanks You for the info 💯
This should have been the TEN Commandments.
Excellent examples of why antinatalism is a position of compassion for other individuals that never get a say in their forced existence and it's frustrating when natalists misrepresent our position as one of malice. For example, it would've been far more compassionate of a choice by my parents to have not had me considering that 17 years after bringing me into existence my father gave up on life, subjecting me and my brother and mother to the anguish of that decision he made that day.
If no one has the right in a democracy to impose their vision of the world on another person, why manufacture an existence to try to make them believe the same thing as you (most of the time it works).
Life is great it is
no doubt
but what's greater than that is non existence
period.
❤❤🎉🎉🎉
If go down rabbit holes and look at nature its not really that great of place and ive even been to freaking Hawaii
What do you think of animal suffering
Lawrence is vegan.
By no means resentful, i just find antinatalism a sober decision, and also good karma if you believe in that. It also unloads a bunch of weight, i always thought i was alone in this mindstate.
Good teeth
Pronatalists be like :
*"LiFfe iSss BEAUTIFULLL!!!"*
😊❤
Or what if not taught well, and with soul contracts, our obligation is to stop colonialism from being allowed on this planet and collectively?
If we existed in some realm where we sign "soul contracts" before we came to Earth, then the question becomes: did we choose to exist in _that_ realm? Also, did we have the choice to _not_ sign a "soul contract"?
RUclips recommended this to me
Think about that
My condolences 😂
Personally I don't agree with benatar pre birth asymmetry.
But I do agree with the asymmetry of pain pleasure in life. With the heavy caveat that we have a heavy self interest in avoiding pain, which actually allows us to avoid alot of life's pains.
Also we do have consistent pleasure not just pains.
I'm always amazed how food sex sleep it never loses it's charm
We don't have "chronic" pleasure. Those pleasures you listed can be taken away without your consent. Insomnia, hunger, and no sex are very common for many people. You won't be walking around with your body in intense pleasure during a day but you will be in pain.
As Schopenhauer pointed out 200 years ago, "pleasure" is merely negated suffering. We have a reward system creating dopamine, which wasn't known at his times, but the "reward" is very limited. Suffering is unlimited. And unless you're a very primitive human being, food and sex WILL lose their charm.
@@francisdec1615 but think of it food does not lose it's pleasure formany for there whole lifetime and it also for many is more of a top up system from neutrality rather than an alleviation of pain
@@cafelife1252 yes I agree the risks are asymmetric towards pain in life. But as I said are self interest in avoiding pain and seeking pleasure should be considered as it will navigate us away from demise as long as we can.and so many also incur many days of primitive pleasure's
Why don't you agree with the pre birth asymmetry? I think it's quite intuitive.
Let me give you an analogy I've used for a long time: Let's assume that before conceiving a child, you knew that the child is going to live a horrible life filled with suffering. Wouldn't you agree that it's wrong to bring that child into existence?
On the other hand, let's assume you were about to conceive a child, and you knew 100% that the child would live an extremely happy life. Would you be morally REQUIRED to bring that child into existence? I think that the answer is no, because there's no one to be deprived of the happy life they will experience.
There can be no harm to not being born, but there is a possibility for massive harm when one is born. That's why I think antinatalism is a no-brainer
this is a quantum computer simulation game and your avatar is being controlled by your over-soul. if the suffering gets too bad for the over-soul, it simply disconnects from the game and a copy of the personality is created in the avatar and ran by energy (creating an npc). some over-souls choose to come here to suffer big time. it really builds character. others disconnect when it gets too hot. so, there ya go, that blows away all the anti-natalist points in one fell swoop. if you don't have suffering, you ain't got jack man.
get off the copium and delusionium
I'm sorry what is npc? Proof or it ain't happen. How did that computer exist in the first place? Why does it need to create a world that makes you suffer to build character, for what? What about all the suffering that ruins you even more & begets evil?
don't try to reason with NPCs high on copium and delusionium@@p.channel.2023
weed?
Maybe the universe is a simulation perhaps but what's the proof of what you said regarding souls choosing to go through tortures.
Brother, who's consent are you violating when you give birth? There is no person before the existence of the person, and so to suggest that you are violating "someone's" consent is simply logically impossible. Secondly, all the other points presuppose that there is only one sort of suffering and one sort of happiness, and no such thing as meaningfulness, which is separate from happiness. So there you go.
Ok. And so its okay to force someone here to have to work? Like really? Yall will do anything to justify harming people.
@@Sarahizahhsum who said anything about work? What I am saying is that in order to force someone to do aomething there has to be someone there in the first place. You cant be said to cause harm to nonexistent things, cause all nonexistent things are nonexistent in the same sense.
I just saw a woman being charged as a criminal for having a miscarriage. That’s enough to make me wish I was never born. 🫠
This is absurd, i’m here so the best possible way to take it easier is to not list anything! i would not have a child though and if i could i would adopt a child.
it's simply not possible to not be alive. If you're not alive you're not being. It's so embarrassing to me that this is what South African Philosophy is known for.
Apartheids for you?
What's so terrible about not being? Antinatalism is a very rational philosophy
Non-existence cannot be better unless it's an active perpetual positive state.
My refutation:
I like being alive and prefer it over non existence. All of these points are subjective, so my refutation is subjective as well. Ought/is fallacy
My refutation: ruclips.net/video/AgtcI_Bx9t4/видео.htmlsi=m0Fwb9yk3pyz8KCz
The thing is, "non-existence" isn't a state. And because non-existence isn't a state, if you weren't born, then instead of _this_ life, it would have been some _other_ life. If it isn't one life it's another. Not existing doesn't = some sort of state of protection. Just as not existing didn't protect you from _this_ life being imposed, non-existence wouldn't have impeded some other life from being the one that was imposed instead.
So this turns the idea of life being "a gift", into a trivial statement. If life is imposed no matter what, then it's not a gift. It's forced... Which is horrible considering just how horrible life can be.
@@LawrenceAnton My question for you, is that your justification for why someone should not create new people, is based on some form of suffering. How do you epistemically justify why this position is objectively the case in your worldview? In other words, why is it objectively moral that one does not create life due to avoiding suffering?
Existing is a state. There is clearly a distinction between existing and non existing things, and there is a distinction between what a thing is, and that a thing is.
A unicorn for example, is something that has a “what” but does not exist, so they are in a state of non existence.
For myself, I dont have to exist, yet I do so i view it as a gift. You say “forced” because it’s horrible because life can be horrible. That doesn’t follow necessarily. Life can be great as well, so I view it as great. It sounds life your position bouls down to subjectivity so you have no grounds to tell someone what the ought to do
it is time to get off the copium and delusionium. @@dylpickle7454
read genesis 6:6 in the bible
Antinatalism is the most stupid shit i ever heard of. All arguments are very subjective while people who believe this shit believe in the “objective” worldview of atheism.
Personally I do believe I chose to come here, not to experience the pleasures of the material world. But to learn from my experience here.
If you believe antinatalism is somehow a rational and moral view of life you should look a little more criticaly at what your worldview is.
If you want a starting point to counter this toxic worldview I would start looking for people who had near death experiences talking about their experiences behind the veil of this material world.
If you still believe antinatalism is rational why not make the world a better place and start with yourself..
So are u saying EVERYONE makes the decision to be born? What about children who are severely abused or killed by their parents? Put in the microwave by their parents? What about the ones who are drowned by their parents? Did they make that decision to be born? What kind of learning experience is that supposed to be? All the NDE and reincarnation philosophies are the exact reason why NOBODY should continue breeding. If u don't exist, u don't need a learning experience.
Of course, it's not realistic to expect such a stupid society to STOP breeding, but we can reach as many people as possible. I pray that this world will eventually be completely destroyed!
Birth rates are falling in most places 😊. Childfree & DINK lifestyles are growing. So maybe we are reaching some people. We must keep going!!!! 🎉
You dont gotta be atheist to be AN. You can be misotheist for exmaple.
"If you believe antinatalism is rational why not make the world a better place and start with yourself ". Being antinatalist and trying to make the world a better place are not incompatible.
Follow your own advice: look critically at your worldview.
By the way, how do the near-death experiences prove antinatalism wrong?
Not all anti-natalists are atheists