Debunking Anti-natalism

Let’s not beat around the bush about it; the reality of existence expresses itself often like a kind of cruel joke. A mad, sick and twisted prank inflicted upon us by some kind of a diabolical demiurge.
The struggle for mere existence deafens all illusions we have regarding morality. What’s left is but one ultimate moral: ”kill or be killed”, the ultimate answer to the question of existence itself, the Holy law of the jungle. Welcome to the Desert of the Real.
An eternity upon eternity of magical mysteries to produce nothing but a mere blink of pain…
a brief moment of experiencing suffering in the darkness of it all.
The remedy seems obvious, doesn’t it? JUST STOP THE MADNESS ALREADY!
That’s where anti-natalism comes kicking in. Anti-natalism? What is that exactly? Anti-natalism is a philosophical stance that assigns a negative value to birth. Anti-natalism is in direct opposition to “natalism” or “pro-natalism”. While anti-natalists believe that people should refrain from procreation because it is immoral, natalists believe that human reproduction should be promoted.
In other words, anti-natalists assign an inherent negative value to procreation in and of itself, while natalists assign an inherent positive value to procreation in and of itself.
However, I will try to explain to you here, how according to my point of view, both of these positions are ridiculously flawed and misguided.
The question we must first ask ourselves is birth, is coming into existence, in and of itself , morally positive or negative / necessary or to be avoided? Can we answer that question regardless of the conditions of the existence that a consciousness will experience?
Well no, because it are in fact the conditions of the existence of a consciousness that we use to determine wether the act of procreation is morally positive or negative / necessary or to be avoided. Anti-natalists might argue that the consciousness was never asked for its permission to be created and therefore, they argue, it is by definition immoral to procreate, regardless of the conditions of the existence of a consciousness… but then I ask you, if there was no consciousness to ask for its permission to be created, then how could creating that consciousness in and of itself be either morally negative or positive towards that very consciousness? The way I see it, it can’t.
Its inception in and of itself is perfectly neutral. And even if I’m somehow mistaken, how could procreation possibly be immoral if the consciousness knows nothing else but bliss?
Why would you need ”permission” for that? Regardless of the fact that the whole question of ”permission” is a nonsensical issue to begin with, as I explained.
More importantly, it’s also because we merely impose the potentiality of experiencing suffering upon a consciousness by creating it, instead of actually inflicting the suffering itself upon the consciousness. Alright, we simply cannot answer our question regardless of the conditions of the existence that a consciousness will experience.
OK, so what about those conditions? Didn’t we just establish that we merely impose the potentiality of experiencing suffering upon a consciousness by creating it, instead of actually inflicting the suffering itself upon the consciousness? Well, yes, but, we have to ask ourselves a fundamental question to our problem first: does Life always lead to suffering?
Because that Life always leads to suffering is exactly what anti-natalists pose as they place an inherent negative value on procreation. However, I disagree, because logically, no number of positive outcomes at the level of experimental testing can confirm a theory, but a single counterexample is logically decisive: it shows the theory, from wich the implication is derived, to be false and I highly doubt there hasn’t been one single counterexample to this conjecture in the entire history of Life. There is not an inkling of microbial life to be mentioned? Or a single flower? Or tree? Not one single human being out of the uncountable ones that have ever lived? We even could actually, literally create a brain in a vat wich knows nothing else but bliss, if we were inclined to do so – these things are possible, it’s just not useful, (other than for me to make my point).
So to say that Life equals suffering by definition, simply is ridiculous in my opinion, it simply does not. Just because something sounds dark and morbid, that doesn’t automatically make it true, even if it appeals to our personal situation, for misery does love company – so if you accept this conjecture to be true, you’re doing so based out of emotion, not out of intellectual honesty.
Natalism conversely, espouses perhaps even a more ridiculous proposition. What possible inherent positive value is there to existence for the uncountable consciousnesses who live in a state of suffering from the day of their births until their deaths? I mean, I like Nietzsche’s philosophy very much, but I’m yet to be convinced of his proclamation of the sacredness of suffering. To me suffering is pointless and evil is just banal. While the brain in the vat wich knows nothing else but bliss is somewhat hypothetical, the brain in the vat wich knows nothing else but torture is all but too non-hypothetical, and yes even… common.
So… WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? No natalism, no anti-natalism… what ”-ism” are you proposing then? Well, how about natalneutralism? Life is a balancing act. What happens when an instoppable force meets an immovable object? Well… Life! That is what happens. It’s a balancing out of positive and negative forces, of water and fire, of Boaz and Jachin, of Yin and Yang… A fundamental process of broken symmetry striving desperately towards reaching equilibrium, in other words the Golden Ratio, wich is EVERYWHERE, from the smallest of scales to the biggest. And procreation is just that, procreation, nothing more, nothing less, it IS that balancing out of the forces of creation. There simply is no inherent moral good or wrong about it in and of itself, it is just that, it is completely neutral. This is why according to my point of view, both natalism and anti-natalism are ridiculously flawed and misguided. I hope this arrangement of informative noises has been satisfactory – have a great Life!



from SECTUAL – Discussion Forum http://www.sectual.com/thread-2567.html

Advertisements