Philosophical Vegan Forum

These people are not good advocates for (rational) anti-natalism. The best arguments from such a perspective, I think, come from philosopher David Benatar (I haven't read his book on the topic but have read articles on his views). Here's a link for those curious:
http://www.philosophy.uct.ac.za/philosophy/staff/benatar/selectedbooks/betternevertohavebeen

Benatar is a compassionate anti-natalist and strict utilitarian and basically his conclusions are based on two premises:
1. Human existence causes suffering such that any happiness gained in a life is out-weighed by the suffering caused (loss of loved ones, fear of death, etc)
2. We should strive to reduce the (net) suffering in this world
Hence, we should not have children in order to decrease suffering.

Now, the only way to tackle this argument without dismissing utilitarianism as a way to base morality (which is difficult as it then leads to reductio ad absurdum arguments of why you should then care about genocide, etc) is to argue that life does not have more suffering than happiness. This is actually surprisingly hard to do, especially when Benatar makes the point that suffering is a worse bad than happiness is a good and since not existing is just an absence of happiness without necessarily causing suffering then it is morally better to not have children. If you reject this argument, then you have to contend with the evident suffering a person will go through, most seriously the death of loved ones and one's own death. Now, someone might claim that people don't think much about either of those issues until it happens to them, which is true for most but then allows Benatar to claim that people don't realise how much suffering there is in life. I am not sure how compassionate anti-natalism could be refuted, and if it is even possible without resorting to hand-waving exercises of "well, life isn't so bad". Other's thoughts?

AKiry wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:48 pmThe best arguments from such a perspective, I think, come from philosopher David Benatar (I haven't read his book on the topic but have read articles on his views). Here's a link for those curious:

There's a thread debunking his most popular argument here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=2215
The asymmetry argument is really bad.

AKiry wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:48 pmBenatar is a compassionate anti-natalist and strict utilitarian and basically his conclusions are based on two premises:
1. Human existence causes suffering such that any happiness gained in a life is out-weighed by the suffering caused (loss of loved ones, fear of death, etc)
2. We should strive to reduce the (net) suffering in this world
Hence, we should not have children in order to decrease suffering.

This is different from his asymmetry argument, and it's pretty much a standard pessimistic anti-natalist argument.

It's pretty easy to answer:
1. Is your life terrible, and would you rather not have been born? In which case, maybe don't have kids, and/or seek professional help (meds seriously can help a lot of people).
2. Is your life OK, and are you either glad or indifferent for having been born? In which case, the same will probably be true for your kids (similar upbringing/country/socioeconomics/genetics), so have kids and gift them the same OK to good life. It's not a bad thing.

AKiry wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:48 pmargue that life does not have more suffering than happiness.

My life does not have more suffering than happiness, nor is that the case for the lives of most people I know.
Inductively, the probability of children who will probably have similar lives having similar feelings is high.
Ethics is based on probability, since we can never know anything for certain.
As such, it's fine to have kids.

AKiry wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:48 pmThis is actually surprisingly hard to do, especially when Benatar makes the point that suffering is a worse bad than happiness is a good

No, that's a nonsense argument of Benatar's.

Suffering and happiness are bad and good respectively; they have clear exchange rates in terms of the informed consent a sentient being will give to experience suffering to reach happiness.

AKiry wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:48 pmand since not existing is just an absence of happiness without necessarily causing suffering then it is morally better to not have children.

What? No, that doesn't make any sense.
I think you're referring to his asymmetry argument. You should read that post I linked above.

Arguments for anti-natalism are case-by-case. If somebody is going to have a terrible life and there's evidence of that, then it makes sense.
See my points 1 and 2 above.

AKiry wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:48 pmNow, someone might claim that people don't think much about either of those issues until it happens to them, which is true for most but then allows Benatar to claim that people don't realise how much suffering there is in life.

It's preferences that matter, not hedonistic experience, so perception is really the important part.

Look up the distinction between preference utilitarianism and classical.

brimstoneSalad wrote:There's a thread debunking his most popular argument here:
http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?t=2215
The asymmetry argument is really bad.

Have you listened to the conversation between him and Sam Harris, Brim? Benatar doesn't seem to be much of a debater.

I think most people would argue that 'my life isn't so bad' so it was not wrong to be born. But how sure of that can we be of that in the future, and are we even sure that we have a correct view of our own suffering? True, most people don't actively have an existential crises very frequently (or even at all) but this doesn't negate the suffering that everyone will eventually experience i.e death, loneliness, old age, etc. So should someone come into being knowing full well that they will experience this kind of suffering? The asymmetry is there, since the absence of being necessitates an absence of suffering which is ultimately what Utilitarians concern themselves with. Happiness is a more difficult concept, since at most moments in time people are not actually actively happy, but experiencing a range of emotions from joy to sadness to stress. Sure, you can reject his main argument in which case his anti-natalist conclusions do not necessarily follow. But this would surely lead to problems in other areas which rely on such asymmetries e.g aborting a disabled fetus so that it won't suffer when born.

DarlBundren wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 11:14 am Have you listened to the conversation between him and Sam Harris, Brim? Benatar doesn't seem to be much of a debater.

I haven't, but I'm not surprised. Can you link to it?

AKiry wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:49 pm I think most people would argue that 'my life isn't so bad' so it was not wrong to be born.

And that should really be the start and end of the discussion. We ask people how they feel about it and we take them at their words unless there is proof otherwise.

You know, like if a woman says "no", you assume she means "no" and not "yes" even if you think she might like it?
This is pretty fundamental to practical ethics. Nobody knows anything for sure, but we have methods of determining correct actions anyway.

If somebody says they want or don't want something, or like or don't like something, you believe them unless there's a very strong reason not to.

AKiry wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:49 pmBut how sure of that can we be of that in the future, and are we even sure that we have a correct view of our own suffering?

You don't have to be sure, it comes down to the default assumption unless and until there is strong evidence to the contrary.
Anti-natalism loses by default just by asking people if they're glad they were born and generally like to be alive.
The anti-natalist position adopts an enormous burden of proof, and unless it can put up substantial FMRI data to back up its claims of suffering vs pleasure along with philosophically proving hedonistic utilitarianism (and disproving preference based frameworks) it has failed.

AKiry wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:49 pmThe asymmetry is there, since the absence of being necessitates an absence of suffering which is ultimately what Utilitarians concern themselves with.

Incorrect. Only negative utilitarians concern themselves exclusively with suffering, and that philosophical view is bunk. Both classical and preference utilitarians take into account positive and negative.

Please read that thread I linked you to on his asymmetry.

AKiry wrote: ↑Tue Dec 12, 2017 12:49 pmBut this would surely lead to problems in other areas which rely on such asymmetries e.g aborting a disabled fetus so that it won't suffer when born.

No it doesn't: see opportunity cost.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I haven't, but I'm not surprised. Can you link to it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1s88Ze41pRU

I am anti-natalist and I maintain that a carnist who decides not to breed will have lighter ecological impact than a vegan with as little as one child. Generally. There is no guarantee that a child raised in a vegan family will adopt a low-impact lifestyle (if there even is such a thing) and this transcends diet choice. It is however guaranteed that said child WILL consume resources. It is possible it will also breed.

It is not up to vegans' kids to save the world in the future. It is up to responsible individuals tho to shape that future today.

Having said all this, I am not advocating voluntary extinction. One child is still a very responsible choice. Two means you don't care, but it's still acceptable as you still don't inflate global population, you merely replace yourself and your fellow parent; whereas three (and god forbid more) is outright arrogance, ignorance and selfishness, expanding global population.

Finally, if someone really wants to have x kids, there is no way in the world to prevent them.

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 am There is no guarantee that a child raised in a vegan family will adopt a low-impact lifestyle (if there even is such a thing) and this transcends diet choice. It is however guaranteed that said child WILL consume resources. It is possible it will also breed.

It is not up to vegans' kids to save the world in the future. It is up to responsible individuals tho to shape that future today.

Having said all this, I am not advocating voluntary extinction. One child is still a very responsible choice. Two means you don't care, but it's still acceptable as you still don't inflate global population, you merely replace yourself and your fellow parent; whereas three (and god forbid more) is outright arrogance, ignorance and selfishness, expanding global population.

Finally, if someone really wants to have x kids, there is no way in the world to prevent them.

I can sympathize with anti-natalism to a certain extent, even though I'm a "breeder" It's not up to the children of vegans to save the world. And there are a whole lot of terrible people out there raising terrible kids. But, unfortunately, the people who are most likely to look at the world and decide it's better not to have kids for altruistic reasons are probably the only people who should be having children in the first place (providing of course that they would actually want their children if they had them). If you believe in natural selection even a little, you probably have to admit that allowing only the most selfish and irresponsible members of society to reproduce is probably a horrible idea.

It's interesting that when I look at friends and family in Latin America, the number of children a family has is directly related to their income and education levels. Wealthier, better educated people rarely have more than two children, no matter how religious they are (I have a girlfriend who is a doctor and refuses to prescribe birth control for "religious reasons", but she herself got an IUD when she was in medical school, and her husband just had a vasectomy after their second child was born). I should note that there is widespread social pressure for smaller families in Latin America, regardless of income or education, because smaller families are aspirational.

I am persuaded by the idea that people who will make decent parents and are more likely to produce good children who will make the world a better place in the future. Certainly a better place than if the only people having children are poorly educated zealots.

ModVegan wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:45 am...

Great points, also:

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 am I maintain that a carnist who decides not to breed will have lighter ecological impact than a vegan with as little as one child.

This is false, and harmfully false: I've seen people use this as a justification for eating meat because they're anti-natalist and they think that gives them a magical pass for any harm they do because they won't have kids to continue the tradition.

The fact is that the most pressing emissions are the immediate ones, not our long term ones. We're courting disaster in the next couple decades; if we survive that it will be because we managed to become more sustainable on a global level.

A carnist today is worse than two carnists in 20 years or four carnists in 40 years.
And that's assuming all of the kids convert to carnism (and they probably will not).

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 amThere is no guarantee that a child raised in a vegan family will adopt a low-impact lifestyle (if there even is such a thing) and this transcends diet choice. It is however guaranteed that said child WILL consume resources.

There's no guarantee that you will continue making efforts to live a low impact lifestyle (and diet is the majority of that).
Does that recommend that all good people commit suicide?

Or are we maybe capable of doing good in the world too, like inspiring our peers to reduce? And when we couple, by inspiring our mates?

A vegan does more than just be vegan; if he or she is in any way social and doesn't live in the woods, he or she can inspire many many others -- sometimes not to go vegan, but to consume less, and that adds up to what is likely a net positive impact (negative harm) from existing in the world.

I would push a button add a billion people to the world today if they were all vegan.
I'd do it if even 10% of them were vegan (which would shift the numbers in our favor, and make a lot more vegan options which would make it easier for veganism to push past the early adopter phase).

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 am It is not up to vegans' kids to save the world in the future. It is up to responsible individuals tho to shape that future today.

We don't have time to wait for them to save the future. We need to be worried about immediate impact.
But having kids probably reduces impact in many ways; people may do less traveling, for instance (and planes are brutal in terms of impact), and they may begin to actually care about the future and start reducing their impacts FOR their children's generation where as before having kids they may not have cared.

Having children changes people, and usually for the better.

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 amHaving said all this, I am not advocating voluntary extinction.

As ModVegan implied, it sounds like you're advocating dysgenics, and breeding empathy, intelligence, and responsibility OUT of the population.
A real life Idiocracy is not going to solve our problems.

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 amOne child is still a very responsible choice. Two means you don't care, but it's still acceptable as you still don't inflate global population, you merely replace yourself and your fellow parent; whereas three (and god forbid more) is outright arrogance, ignorance and selfishness, expanding global population.

In the developed world where populations are failing:

One child is below the replacement rate, and is asking for economic collapse and harm to the human population.
Two is pulling your weight.
Three is altruism, carrying the weight of others who have failed to reproduce and ensuring humanity has a strong future... at least if you're capable of raising them responsibly.

Anti-natalism may be a good idea in areas where the population is growing too fast that don't have the carrying capacity, but again it would be advocating dysgenics if you recommended that only ethical, intelligent and responsible people not reproduce.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 am I maintain that a carnist who decides not to breed will have lighter ecological impact than a vegan with as little as one child.

This is false, and harmfully false: I've seen people use this as a justification for eating meat because they're anti-natalist and they think that gives them a magical pass for any harm they do because they won't have kids to continue the tradition.

Come on now. The idea that a carnist will make environmental decisions based on whether or not he has a child sounds a bit ridiculous.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pmThe fact is that the most pressing emissions are the immediate ones, not our long term ones. We're courting disaster in the next couple decades; if we survive that it will be because we managed to become more sustainable on a global level.

You just illustrated why it's so important that people don't have children now.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pmA carnist today is worse than two carnists in 20 years or four carnists in 40 years.

Possibly the opposite. If someone decides to eat meat, it's probably better that she does so with 7 billion people on the planet than with 10 billion.

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 amThere is no guarantee that a child raised in a vegan family will adopt a low-impact lifestyle (if there even is such a thing) and this transcends diet choice. It is however guaranteed that said child WILL consume resources.

Few things are guaranteed. You need to look at probability and the probability that a child with such an upbringing continues this lifestyle is probably very high. No doubt the same or higher than that of a child with the opposite upbringing.

sykkelmannen wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 am It is not up to vegans' kids to save the world in the future.

I don't understand what that is supposed to mean. Vegans' kids will no doubt have a much more positive impact on the world than non vegans' kids.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pmHaving children changes people, and usually for the better.

Not my experience. The parents I have met usually don't care about anything besides their children. Not all vegan parents raise their kids vegan because they have a doubt about the health superiority of a diet without meat or dairy.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pmOne child is below the replacement rate, and is asking for economic collapse and harm to the human population.

or. . .One child leaves room for one more immigrant child.

Regarding the economy it might be bad in the short term, but probably beneficial after a couple of generations.

brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pmThree is altruism, carrying the weight of others who have failed to reproduce and ensuring humanity has a strong future.

How does overpopulation ensure a strong future? How can young people carry their weight if they can't find jobs?