Hacker News Reader

Comment by yboris | Hacker News Reader

Related: Better to Never Have Been by David Benatar

It's a position of antinatalism. Antinatalist philosophy roughly claims that sentient beings are harmed when they are brought into existence, and it is therefore wrong to procreate.

I think everyone ought to consider this philosophy / argument before having children - as to recognize the severity of the act. At the very least, not having children should be the default, and to have a child one needs to think thoroughly and clearly, and to have a clear reason in mind when saying "yes", as it's one of the most important decisions in one's life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Never_to_Have_Been

View on HN

It’s funny, I never knew of the formal philosophy of anti-natalsim (though, as a human, certainly familiar with the concept of never having existed). Yet, the very first thought experiment I had before deciding to have a child was to, in my head, have an answer for them if they ever asked me “why did you have me?” And make sure it was a really good answer.

I do doubt many folks do this but I’d be willing to bet most who have given any thought to their existence probably do.

Would you mind sharing your answer?

Not at all. In fact, she’s already asked us by the tender age of 6.

I think life is an amazing thing. A miracle. And it’s very special. For all the angst and fear that comes with life, there is so so much beauty. I wanted to share that with a person, a new person who would have the ability to see the world like I do (since we share genes, my hope is some of that comes along with it).

Oh the utter lack of system thinking in that.

Go to the desert, tell the rocks not to sit idle anymore.

Go preaching to stars the futility of converting elements into energy.

Can you elaborate on your angle here? If you’re implying that humans are incapable of choosing not to procreate, that seems pretty obviously incorrect, given the vast numbers of people who make that choice. Am I interpreting your comment incorrectly?

It's pretty ironic to what DNA reached after billions of years: writing a Wikipedia article on antinatalism.

> the vast numbers of people who make that choice

Something tells me that this is going to hmmm... auto-regulate in no time. (reaches for popcorn)

>Something tells me that this is going to hmmm... auto-regulate in no time.

That voice misleads you. There are things that can be altered via evolution, and many that aren't - or over such a timescale that it practically doesn't matter. For another example, take a look at the topic of suicide. If it would work in the way that this evil little voice implies, we wouldn't even have heard about a single case.

Another angle to consider is not taking everything at face value, and also separating the contemplation of something from agreeing or supporting it. There's something to be gained from exposing oneself to a wide variety of topics, thoughts and experiences, no matter how outlandish they seem at first. And you'll find that you are free to distance yourself from the undesirable thing, exactly as free as before. But if it leaves a mark, you can learn something new, which can't happen without the experience.

> separating the contemplation of something from agreeing or supporting it

I don't take life advice from people whom I don't trust; it's just too risky. If you have a strong broad argument up your sleeve, it might work better than the "evil" voice.

Yes, let's simply delete the evolution from the model, just leave the self-replication.

So your argument is that, while individual humans are capable of choosing not to procreate, humanity as a whole is incapable.

Sure, but that doesn’t seem to contradict anything in the original comment you were replying to. Just because every single human doesn’t abide by a code of ethics, it doesn’t mean we should abandon ethics entirely imo.

Are you the kind of person who ignores the moral arguments against eating meat by saying "others aren't going to do it"?

I don't understand the criticism. This is an argument in practical ethics; it doesn't matter how unpalatable the conclusion. It took 300 years for people to catch up the utilitarianism arguments Bentham was making in favor of gay rights (for example).

I often pose the philosophical thought experiment: if you had a button that could end human existence instantly, killing everyone with zero suffering, should you use it?

I'd like you to also consider the variation of "end all sentient existence instantly, preventing it from ever restarting"

One concern is wild animal suffering - https://wildanimalsuffering.org/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com