Antinatalists, attack!

[Comrade Tulayev]

You would have to specify reasons to believe it doesn't matter whether or not conscious life is created before I could be specific about how I think they are bad reasons. I have not heard any good reasons for thinking that, and I don't think there are any. Creating conscious life is an extremely consequential act, and the decision is not made by the being directly implicated. I think a position that says it doesn't matter whether such a consequential act happens or not should have to have very good reasons.

I'm not sure I really understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that the middle position, by default, automatically assumes that other people bringing life into this world is NOT a consequential act? I don't see that it necessarily means that.

[Nemonymous]

Quote Originally Posted by Druidic

Quote 1. Life is good 2. Life is suffering 3. Suffering is good--Nemonymous I think the problem here is .2... Life is a lot of things, suffering certainly one of them. My Problem with the Good Mother was her view of Suffering as Good. It led to horrible pain management. Also, there was never any attempt to determine the curable from the terminal. When it was pointed out to one worker that a dying boy could be saved by a certain operation, the worker's response was "If we did that for him. we'd have to do it for all the others." I know you wrote your post with a twinkle in your eye but some people do believe .3

Thanks. With a twinkle in my other eye, I'd ask whether .2 isn't a general truth for some participants on this thread? In fact, I believe it myself.

As an aside - intriguingly my Dad often used an expression when talking to me about a certain event before I was born:
"You weren't even a twinkle in my eye when that happened."

[Druidic]

There is suffering and there is Suffering.

1.) You want a cigarette? Can't have one Go suffer.

2.) Too bad the Demoral shots have no effect on the pain from that massive abdominal lymphocele...

If you're unfortunate to fall into that 2nd grade of Suffering then you can truly say Life (yours) is Unspeakable Suffering.

I have no time for the other one.

[Mr. Cheev]

Quote Originally Posted by gveranon

Well, Unilever is a multinational company based in Rotterdam and London. From the "film" (as they call it), it looks like they want to project an image of kitschy globalism, not one of any particular nationalism. Look up Project Sunlight if you can bear to see more of what they claim to be about. Religion isn't mentioned, but it's a fair bet that, at least in their advertising, they would be more in line with a vague, bland ecumenism than with any particular religion. Elmer Gantry would need to be put through a pretty strenuous makeover and re-education before he'd be allowed anywhere near their cameras. The video does seem to be eerily in the spirit of early 20th-century propaganda films. But Orwell's satire owed as much to New Soviet Man as it did to right-wing fascist movements of the time. And that style of propaganda was used even by FDR's administration in the New Deal era: I'm not saying the WPA was a bad thing; many economically desperate people benefited from it during the Great Depression, including one of my grandfathers. But the propaganda is a little disturbing. The tone of it is clearly meant to carry the day, the week, the century. Dissent on even the tiniest of particulars would be unconscionable. And Unilever's video is far from anti-liberal. Many contemporary American liberals would have no problem with Unilever's initiatives, such as they are -- would take them at face value and admire them. The current administration is well-stocked, in the highest places, with warm-and-fuzzy technocrats who are in a very profitable revolving door between government and big business. Audacity of Hope, Yes We Can, We Are the Ones We've Been Waiting For -- any of those Obama-isms would fit perfectly in Unilever's video. (By the way, my comments aren't coming from a partisan angle. There is no one to vote for here.)

I pretty much agree with everything you said, gveranon, "liberalism" wasn't the right word to use. It was just a kneejerk reaction to the constant barrage of religious crap we Americans must constantly endure in our media. But "the dark murdering armies of scientific materialist anti-natalists" is a mouthful. I definitely get a distinct and nauseating whiff of God underlying that piece of trash propaganda. And the gratuitous emotion didn't exactly have my eyes welling up with tears. I hope this is just a scam, rarely have I seen something so disgusting. If these people are for real, I am sincerely curious to know how many billions of human beings will satisfy them? They won't be happy until the planet is writhing with humanity. And to what aim? Their view of the future seems be that of humanity sitting at the table, and everything else being served up to stuff their fat pious faces.

They have their video, I have mine. This is also supposed to be inspiring, but I take away from it a completely different message.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=p1HdUnvV5yU

Quote Originally Posted by Druidic

Mother Teresa believed suffering was Christ-like, that it brought one closer to God. A woman who worked in one of her death hotels said anyone who got an aspirin was lucky. If Hitchens had done nothing else, his exposure of Mother Teresa would demand respect. The average people of Calcutta don’t all share the worshipful view of this saint that some assume.

True. The millions of dollars her charity brought in weren't squandered on pain killers for the poor wretches in her care. Most of that money went straight to the Vatican. She notoriously said that when you feel pain, that is Jesus kissing you. She was insane, and so is anyone that agrees with her statement. If that number be in the millions, then so be it.

[Druidic]

Quote

The millions of dollars her charity brought in weren't squandered on pain killers for the poor wretches in her care. Most of that money went straight to the Vatican. -- Mr. Cheev

Thank you, Mr. Cheev
You answered my own question: Why didn't she use all the money she pulled in to improve those places? Make conditions more humane? Why did she just want to build more?

The Death Hotels became mere collection centers for donations. From average well-meaning folk to despots looking to buy some good PR.
Don’t know why I didn’t see that before.

[Gray House]

Quote Originally Posted by Comrade Tulayev

I'm not sure I really understand where you are coming from. Are you suggesting that the middle position, by default, automatically assumes that other people bringing life into this world is NOT a consequential act? I don't see that it necessarily means that.

To say creating conscious life or not makes no ethical difference is to say it is not an ethically consequential act.

[gveranon]

Just looking at my own, probably instinctive reactions, I'm not inclined to be a commited antinatalist, but I find pronatalist propaganda to be shockingly irresponsible at best. Many people are already thoughtless about reproducing; encouraging them to throw caution to the winds and just go ahead is . . . well, a lot of adjectives come to mind. Do they even have enough money? And what will their children's prospects be in a world that has little place or regard for the non-rich?

Thinking more about what might be behind the Unilever video . . . This is just a suspicion, but it might not be motivated as much by globalist cheer as it seems to be. Who, after all, will be most likely to watch it? Recently there has been much talk about demographics in Europe -- low birth rates among Europeans and large numbers of immigrants who are (choosing my words carefully) culturally not European. Although Unilever markets worldwide, its financial prospects might not look as bright if a future Europe is no longer culturally European and "first world." And executives at Unilever are just as likely as other Europeans to simply be anxious about demographics. So . . . all you gloomy Europeans, make babies!

Putting Unilever aside, I do think future pronatalist propaganda wil be driven, either covertly or overtly, by cold demographic calculation as much as it is by optimistic secular or religious visions. Whereas most antinatalist writing I've seen has been ethical argument based on suffering and the involuntary nature of birth, those considerations don't enter in to political arguments about power and predominance. Putin's recent call for Russians to have more babies (incentivized by rubles) is an example. So are discussions in the U. S. about changing demographics of age cohorts and racial groups. Look for more of this sort of political pronatalist talk. It has nothing to do with the ethics of life and everything to do with how many game pieces you have on the board.

[Comrade Tulayev]

Quote Originally Posted by Gray House

Quote Originally Posted by Comrade Tulayev I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say that that middle position is "unreasonable" as it pertains to the question of anti-natalism/natalism? Unreasonable in what sense? You would have to specify reasons to believe it doesn't matter whether or not conscious life is created before I could be specific about how I think they are bad reasons. I have not heard any good reasons for thinking that, and I don't think there are any. Creating conscious life is an extremely consequential act, and the decision is not made by the being directly implicated. I think a position that says it doesn't matter whether such a consequential act happens or not should have to have very good reasons.

I think you are reading into this "makes no difference to me" far to literally. I think when most people say this, practically speaking, it doesn't mean that they don't think there isn't an ethical consequence, it just means that while they may have made a certain moral/ethical decision for themselves, it is not for them to dictate the terms of that ethical behavior to another party.

In the case of the anti-natalist/natalist question, it seems like a fairly basic question to take that practical middle road. One could theoretically make the philosophical decision not to have children for all of the anti-natalist reasons, but at the same time not dictate those reasons to other parties who choose to make a different decision.

Are you suggesting that such a person would be unreasonable in such an approach?

[Malone]

In the case of the anti-natalist/natalist question, it seems like a fairly basic question to take that practical middle road. One could theoretically make the philosophical decision not to have children for all of the anti-natalist reasons, but at the same time not dictate those reasons to other parties who choose to make a different decision.

Are you suggesting that such a person would be unreasonable in such an approach?

You seem to be determined to reduce antinatalism to a form of personal 'lifestyle choice'. It's a philosophical position. If one arrives at a philosophical, non-personal stance whereby one considers it wrong to procreate, then one is assuming that the conclusion holds for everyone.

[Comrade Tulayev]

Quote Originally Posted by Malone

In the case of the anti-natalist/natalist question, it seems like a fairly basic question to take that practical middle road. One could theoretically make the philosophical decision not to have children for all of the anti-natalist reasons, but at the same time not dictate those reasons to other parties who choose to make a different decision. Are you suggesting that such a person would be unreasonable in such an approach? You seem to be determined to reduce antinatalism to a form of personal 'lifestyle choice'. It's a philosophical position. If one arrives at a philosophical, non-personal stance whereby one considers it wrong to procreate, then one is assuming that the conclusion holds for everyone.

I don't think I need to do much reducing here. As a practical matter of living in a very diverse and heterogeneous society where people hold all sorts of belief/philosophical/religio/ systems, most of these kinds of philosophies are simply "personal decisions", no? What is your religion or non-religion? What is your work philosophy on taking excessive sick days? etc.

I can imagine, given how religious the US is, that indeed, the natalist "personal choice" is often imposed on everyone else (much like that ridiculous commercial from the OP). But I can also imagine that many other people who are "natalists" simply hold that belief as nothing more than a personal choice, and really don't give a fig whether someone outside of their little family unit chooses to have a kid or not, even if they personally believe that in doing so has a positive ethical consequence for our society. They simply take the view that their personal belief works for them no matter how well ethically/morally/rationally justified but doesn't necessarily have to work for someone else.

I'm making the simple observation that such a view on natalism/antinatalism is a practical middle road that many hew to so as to reasonably maintain their own view/ideas/philosophies in a heterogenous society. I think this may have been what Murony was driving at with regards to taking the middle road.