Nice article (talking about anti-natalism is so in). But I think anti-natalists would push back and argue that, contra what most people claim, life is much worse than we’re letting on.
I really think it is the opposite: if an ethical view commits you to perpetuating a net suffering state (with the added risk of even greater suffering arising) *then* something has gone wrong! Painless, instant annihilation of all sentient life would actually be an extremely great thing. (I can see why this may sound crazy, btw)
Hilarious subtitle!
Nice article (talking about anti-natalism is so in). But I think anti-natalists would push back and argue that, contra what most people claim, life is much worse than we’re letting on.
I’m not exactly sure what to make of that.
Clearly they're not out chugging brewskis and baggin' babes like the rest of us
Hey, synchronicity! I just wrote about antinatalism and touched on the wild animal suffering paradox--surely it'd be irresponsible to go extinct before we destroyed the planet, right? I'm gonna have to edit it to link to this article. https://outlandishclaims.substack.com/i/148106410/babies-arent-an-exception-either .
Wild idea - if an ethical view commits you to nuking everything to death, something has gone wrong
I really think it is the opposite: if an ethical view commits you to perpetuating a net suffering state (with the added risk of even greater suffering arising) *then* something has gone wrong! Painless, instant annihilation of all sentient life would actually be an extremely great thing. (I can see why this may sound crazy, btw)