Philosophical Vegan Forum

Anon0045 wrote:After watching several youtube videos on antinatalism, I'm quite disappointed with the rationalizations people use. It's really perplexing. Of course, being in the majority, it's easy to be condescending as well. I would understand the attitude versus antinatalists if people actually had good arguments.

What arguments are you talking about?

I don't think it's good to have kids.

1) There is a good chance the kids won't stay vegan, and in that case, they would discount the good you do by being a vegan (discounting activism).
2) Overpopulation is a major issue.
3) There are many people who are in orphanages or who need foster parents. It's similar to why you shouldn't buy pets when you can adopt- there are many dogs in shelters who need owners, so why create more dogs?

What's the point? Is it because you think there is some extra special connection between you and your child just because you gave birth to that person? If so, it seems kind of selfish.

EquALLity wrote: 1) There is a good chance the kids won't stay vegan, and in that case, they would discount the good you do by being a vegan (discounting activism).

What is this chance? And how does the harm done by them if they don't stay vegan compare to the good done if they do and influence others?
Assuming it's a 75% chance they stop being vegan (which is unlikely, since they grew up with it -- that's the adult recidivism rate), do you really think that does more harm than the 25% chance they stay vegan and influence others?

How many other people have you influenced so far? How many will you influence in your life?

I'd take an extra billion people on the planet any day if 250 million of them are well informed ethical vegans. That would put our odds of success MUCH higher than they are now.

Looking at the consequences, having kids is probably a very strong net good for vegans.

Again, the 75% is for adults.
What do you think the chances are for vegan kids growing up today?

We don't have statistics, but famous case studies show remarkable success:
http://www.happyhealthylonglife.com/hap ... styns.html

What's the acid test, here? Are the Esselstyn's adult kids on board with the plant-based diet?

Absolutely! That includes Jane, Ted, Zeb & Rip & the grandkids. And all of them great cooks, as well.

That's four for four, and the next generation too. I think one of them quit temporarily as a rebellious teen, and then returned later on to a plant based diet. They're all influential in their communities, and Rip works with his father and promotes plant based for the next generation.

EquALLity wrote: 2) Overpopulation is a major issue.

It isn't, actually. Overpopulation in undeveloped countries is a major issue, because they don't have the infrastructure or resources to provide for them (healthcare, education, etc.). Resource waste like eating meat is a major issue. The world can support a lot more conscientious consumers in developed countries.

We should easily be fine with well over 30 billion people if we start living more sustainably.

In fact, the faster our population grows, the sooner we will be forced to start being more sustainable, and the sooner meat will not be an option for anybody anymore. If the population fell, then meat eaters might excuse their now sustainable practices of cruelty -- which could continue indefinitely -- because the Earth is no longer burdened by their numbers.

It's a common carnist argument that meat isn't the problem, it's just the human population. There's no reason we should lend credibility to that argument. It's not the population that's the problem -- it's the meat eating.

I'll take ending the practice of animal agriculture over population reduction any day.

EquALLity wrote: 3) There are many people who are in orphanages or who need foster parents. It's similar to why you shouldn't buy pets when you can adopt- there are many dogs in shelters who need owners, so why create more dogs?

There are some parallels, and this is a good question to ask, but there are also a lot of differences.

-Unadopted children will not be euthanized, unadopted dogs and cats will be.

-Puppy and kitten mills are industries plagued with cruelty, having a child is not (it's a choice)

-Adoption of babies is unreasonably expensive and time consuming (tens of thousands of dollars), adopting a puppy or kitten from a shelter is cheaper than buying from a breeder.

-Adoption of older children is more dangerous, they can have developmental and behavioral problems that are hard for some parents to deal with; older cats and dogs are less likely to be maladjusted or mistreated (often the owner just got too old to take care of them)

-Adopted children (even babies) are likely to have lower IQs (well under the average, and even borderline retardation), which can pose long term problems in education, and limit the good they can do in the world -- they will not likely perform well in school, they won't go into STEM, they won't be effective advocates. A dog is a dog, his or her IQ is pretty much irrelevant since he or she doesn't need to grow up to perform in society.

EquALLity wrote: What's the point? Is it because you think there is some extra special connection between you and your child just because you gave birth to that person? If so, it seems kind of selfish.

That would be silly. For some people that may be the case, but for reasonable people there are compelling reasons to procreate instead of adopting, both practical and financial.

Fostering as many children as you can may be the greatest of goods, but it's also much more difficult. Just because somebody isn't a saint, doesn't mean we should condemn a lesser good as an evil.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Adoption of babies is unreasonably expensive and time consuming (tens of thousands of dollars)

Do you think it should be easier? I thought these measures were put into place to protect children from human traffickers?

Cirion Spellbinder wrote:

brimstoneSalad wrote:Adoption of babies is unreasonably expensive and time consuming (tens of thousands of dollars)

Do you think it should be easier? I thought these measures were put into place to protect children from human traffickers?

Adopting children from developing nations must be made easier. I would perhaps consider it myself if it weren't so expensive and complicated. There are many impoverished parents who would prefer to give away their child rather than giving them a life in poverty.

Cirion Spellbinder wrote: Do you think it should be easier? I thought these measures were put into place to protect children from human traffickers?

Yes.

It's kind of like the insane security at airports, except for instead of inconveniencing millions of people, you're discouraging adoption.
Human trafficking is a small risk, but compare cost and benefit in the context of that risk: people can be unreasonable when it comes to risk assessment, particularly if it involves children.

brimstoneSalad wrote: What arguments are you talking about?

From youtube:

The bad ones

1. It is not selfish for parents to want their kids to have children.
   It depends on what perspective you have. Parents want what's best for their kids, and they might have got a lot out of having kids themselves in retrorespect, and want their own kids to experience the same. In that way it is unselfish. However, as I've tried to explain in previous post, there are more global issues with having kids.
   I also think that our psychology works in a way that people who invest a lot of time and energy into something, will want to rationalize that what they've been doing is a good thing and encourage others to do the same.

• It is not selfish to want to have children yourself
  There is pressure from parents and society, and has even become a "status thing" to have kids. Most parents also seem to really want to have kids for emotional reasons, because they think it will be rewarding for themselves.
  None of us is perfect, we eat, travel, want space and energy, which leads to harm and death. So we're already in debt, so to speak just by living. Relative to meat eaters, vegans are doing a lot less harm, which is good, but adding more vegans to this world would only be a positive thing if :
  • the recidivism rate is low on average
  • or the conversion rate by people raised vegan is relatively high on average (at a minimum "pay" for themselves and the children that do not become vegans)
  • The alternative is worse, which I don't see.
  More vegans isn't necessarily good. You have not saved money by buying 2 shoes for the price of one.

• Advocating for antinatalism, means you advocate for the eradication of the human race.
  For me at least, this is not the case. I'm more interested in the equation above. The eradication of the human race would mean more carnivores, omnivores by other species, causing more harm, eventually. Like being against palm oil usage, we know everyone else won't stop buying palm oil, so we make a sacrifice ourselves for the animals and/or environment (palm oil production can be sustainable, but isn't currently). People will be having kids even if vegans don't.

• Life is a blessing: non-existence is worse than existing.
  Why? People won't kill themselves for obvious reasons if they're miserable, they'll adapt to their situations because they're forced to do it anyway. No reason to complain, it's not like it's going to make things better. We need to find a way to justify our existence, like it seems valuable. That will make us feel better. Try and forget the negative, and hold on to the positive experiences.

• There is a chance that the child could be the next Gary Yourovski
  Vegan raised children will have issues like everyone else, just trying to find their place in this world and endure. What is going to motivate them to become activists? They didn't become vegans by their own insight. That hopefully comes later. Basically, you're playing with the life of the child to have a good life and the animals/environment/even people that the child is going to negatively affect by just living.

The good/decent ones:

1. Having no one to care for, means we'll more easily become more indifferent to what we're doing to the environment or even other people/creatures
   This seems reasonable. I didn't even consider veganism until someone gave me a house pet as a present. I don't see how having human children will do much good for other species of animals though.

• Advocating for even more unpopular restrictions other than following a vegan diet might turn more people away from veganism.
  I have no objection to this. In theory however, I don't think having children is ethical. No need to be very outspoken about it, but not encourage people either to have kids.

• Extermination of the human race, means there will be a void to fill, and lead to other species being dominant on earth, causing suffering and death
  This is a good point. Perhaps they won't factory farm other species of animals, but there still will be a lot of unnecessary suffering and death. For human beings, at least there is hope that we can change. Knowing how our psychology works, and seeing how slow progress can be, makes it seem impossible, but it does seem possible. With no hope, even better would be to deny every species of animal the chance to exist.

• Some people are better suited to have kids than others.
  No disagreement from me.

• There are examples of vegans having kids that lead to more people becoming vegans.
  This is a fact. Statistics weigh heavier than anecdotes though.

• The economy will be negatively affected by people having less kids.
  Yes, there will have to be an adjustment period, just like when more people become vegans.

Anon0045 wrote: From youtube:

The bad ones[...]
The good/decent ones:[...]

So you apparently think that the existence of a single bad argument, or more bad arguments than good, invalidates an idea.

You're an atheist right? I'm about to blow you mind and turn you into a theist.

God is Dog spelled backwards. Dogs exist, and since God is the reverse of Dog, God doesn't exist.

There, a bad argument for atheism! You'll now become a theist, right?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Anon0045 wrote: From youtube:

The bad ones[...]
The good/decent ones:[...]

So you apparently think that the existence of a single bad argument, or more bad arguments than good, invalidates an idea.

No, why would you think that? Some arguments have more weight than others, I just wanted to be fair and show what I agree with and what I don't. If you read this thread, you'll see what arguments I think carries more weight.

Anon0045 wrote: No, why would you think that?

Because you're being rude to people who are optimistic, and dismissing arguments without any kind of counterargument beyond your assertion that you have faith that it's harmful.

Anon0045 wrote: After watching several youtube videos on antinatalism, I'm quite disappointed with the rationalizations people use. It's really perplexing. Of course, being in the majority, it's easy to be condescending as well. I would understand the attitude versus antinatalists if people actually had good arguments.

You're saying people DON'T have good arguments here; so apparently you think a 'bad' argument cancels out a good one.
Or did you misspeak, and do you owe the majority an apology, since there are actually good arguments?

And those aren't even the half of them; did you read my post here? https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... 785#p20692

Anon0045 wrote:We don't have the numbers for the variables, so if you're positive, you'll assume the best, but if you're more of a pessimist like me, you don't.

Which is to say you have no argument whatsoever, and you are operating on faith; so you have no basis to criticize others who are doing the same.

You're being RUDE. Unless or until you have the numbers, you shouldn't advocate the kind of certainty (and insults to others who disagree with you) like you are here.
I can respect somebody who does the research and presents some hard data: that's useful. Making assertions is not.

Antinatalists aren't just making the personal decision not to have children; they claim it is morally wrong for others to have children, and try to guilt and shame others.

You'd make a good Christian acting like this.
In my view, you owe the majority an apology: that behavior is unacceptable, and you won't make friends acting like that. It's a great way to drive yet another wedge in the vegan community, though: is that what you're trying to do?

Furthermore, and more importantly, you're harming veganism as a whole by promoting this alienating faith based anti-child garbage as a vegan position, because it pushes it more into the fringe and puts people off veganism.
You might as well promote the position that all vegans should just kill themselves, since they can't help but do harm and it's only theoretical that the good we can do while temporarily vegan will offset the harm (you don't have the numbers to prove otherwise, so you should kill yourself, right?).
Recidivism is around 75%. The safe assumption is that you will give up being vegan in a few years and start eating meat again, so you should kill yourself while you're still vegan and before you backslide and become another careless consumer again.

Is that a good message for vegans to promote?
Go vegan, then kill yourself.
Do you think that's helpful?

I think it's bullshit, just like antinatalism.

This is worse than the Flat Earth vegans:
https://theveganatheist.com/forum/viewt ... f=7&t=1829

If you don't know, then just don't take a position on it (and keep your faith to yourself), and don't push people to follow your faith based anti-child agenda. Veganism needs to be about veganism, not piling all of this other speculative garbage on top and making it harder to spread. Veganism should remain primarily neutral on such controversial positions as this.

Don't want to have kids? Then don't have kids and shut up about it.
Want to adopt or foster? Then do that, and raise them vegan to the best of your ability.
Want to have kids? Then do that, and again raise them vegan to the best of your ability.

The thing you should not do is stand on some moral pedestal and condemn others for acting differently, and you certainly should not be advocating that as a necessary conclusion of veganism, dragging the whole philosophy into the same pit of faith based pessimism you've fallen into.