I think it's debatable whether the world would be better off, but it's kind of moot at this point, yeah?
We're here. We're living, breathing beings, and more importantly, we're sentient beings. The only ones known to exist. We, as sentient beings, have a right to exist; and, as individuals - so long as we do not bring harm to others - we maintain that right in perpetuity for all time. No one, through any means, has the right to take that away from us.
Further, their primary argument is flawed, I think -
“The core philosophy of antinatalism is to recognise that being born means to suffer, as well as feel pleasure, but that the foregoing of pleasure is not as bad as the presence of suffering,” explains Nadeem Ali, Founder of The Antinatalist Party, told The Independent. "It is better that unnecessary pleasure is foregone than that unnecessary suffering is created," he adds.
This is not unlike utilitarian thinking - maximize happiness while minimizing pain and suffering. On the surface it seems fine, but when you apply certain thought experiments to it (like the utility monster thought experiment), it kind of breaks apart. This philosophy also seems to ignore that not all suffering is bad - dieting for losing weight requires suffering, but gives you pleasure in the end - a healthier life, and presumably a longer one. A tough workout regimen is similar. So the idea that all suffering must be put to an end is itself mistaken.
I think it's debatable whether the world would be better off, but it's kind of moot at this point, yeah?
We're here. We're living, breathing beings, and more importantly, we're _sentient_ beings. The only ones known to exist. We, as sentient beings, have a right to exist; and, as individuals - so long as we do not bring harm to others - we maintain that right in perpetuity for all time. No one, through any means, has the right to take that away from us.
Further, their primary argument is flawed, I think -
> “The core philosophy of antinatalism is to recognise that being born means to suffer, as well as feel pleasure, but that the foregoing of pleasure is not as bad as the presence of suffering,” explains Nadeem Ali, Founder of The Antinatalist Party, told The Independent. "It is better that unnecessary pleasure is foregone than that unnecessary suffering is created," he adds.
This is not unlike utilitarian thinking - maximize happiness while minimizing pain and suffering. On the surface it seems fine, but when you apply certain thought experiments to it (like the [utility monster](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_monster) thought experiment), it kind of breaks apart. This philosophy also seems to ignore that not all suffering is bad - dieting for losing weight requires suffering, but gives you pleasure in the end - a healthier life, and presumably a longer one. A tough workout regimen is similar. So the idea that all suffering must be put to an end is itself mistaken.
I think it's debatable whether the world would be better off, but it's kind of moot at this point, yeah?
We're here. We're living, breathing beings, and more importantly, we're sentient beings. The only ones known to exist. We, as sentient beings, have a right to exist; and, as individuals - so long as we do not bring harm to others - we maintain that right in perpetuity for all time. No one, through any means, has the right to take that away from us.
Further, their primary argument is flawed, I think -
This is not unlike utilitarian thinking - maximize happiness while minimizing pain and suffering. On the surface it seems fine, but when you apply certain thought experiments to it (like the utility monster thought experiment), it kind of breaks apart. This philosophy also seems to ignore that not all suffering is bad - dieting for losing weight requires suffering, but gives you pleasure in the end - a healthier life, and presumably a longer one. A tough workout regimen is similar. So the idea that all suffering must be put to an end is itself mistaken.