Support NeoGAF

[RocknRola]

This is what I was trying to get at with the coma patient stuff. Sometimes you can't get possibly get consent and that just means you can't do whatever it was you needed consent to do. There's nothing nonsensical about it, I don't think. It's not that you're ever asking a nonexisting person for consent, it's that at some point you've done something to an actual person - you've brought them into existence - and they didn't get a say in it. Yeah, it's impossible for them to have had a say in it. Obviously in this case if you accept the conclusion it means that we're obligated to let humanity go extinct, but while that's of course a big deal you're never stuck without a "solution or answer". It's just kind of a bummer.

Though, again, as somenone already mentioned the coma patient does exist, he/she/they is covered by all of our human rights/duties by default. And yes, while they can't consent to being healed (for a time at least) Human Medicine is based on the premise of "fixing" every human being it can, therefore even if they can't give consent the urge of doctors/nurses/etc is indeed to help them. We have a tendency to view that both as a valuable right and duty across the world.

On the other hand, a thing that does not exist can't be covered by any rights, duties or morals by default. Ergo, any moral(s) we attach to ourselves can't be attached to "nothingness" per say.

I fully agree that many aren't fit to be parents and that couples/anyone looking to have kids should be ready to transform their own lives (in a way) to fully serve the lives of their future children; make sure they have a happy, decent life that allows them to pursue their own goals once they reach adulthood. Asking for consent or pondering about consent about lives that don't yet exist is something that doesn't make sense to me, at all.

Maybe I just don't get it, dunno :S

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=904781

I believe this is the thread.

Wow. Internet keeps on being a box full of surprises.

 

[deeTyrant]

So the basic situation if I understand this right is that:

You have entity A (a child who doesn't exist yet), and entity B (the parents).

Entity A is incapable of making decision. (because it doesn't exist)

The decision will have a tremendous impact on entity A, either positively or negatively. (child could eventually wish he was never born, or love life )

Is it ever moral for entity B to make a decision on entity A's behalf. ( have this child )

Your answer is since we can't ever determine A's preference, and since the decision can have a negative impact on A, its best to just avoid the decision outright.

Which is where people that are getting the 'your ideology is rooted in anxiety' impression are coming from, and frankly its fair.

My answer would be that since we can't determine A's preference, it's silly to get hung up on that.

Instead focus on mitigating the impact of the decision. Parents should determine whether they are fit to be parents, consider the world they are bringing the child into and do their best to ensure their child has the best life possible.

Its impossible to absolutely ensure that the child will appreciate the life they have, but sometimes you have to make decisions where there is a moral uncertainty.

 

[CarpeDeezNutz]

Is this how fedoras go extinct?

 

[Flying Toaster]

Is this how fedoras go extinct?

Did anyone ask fedoras if they wanted to be fedoras in the first place?

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I do believe it is immoral under the assumption of a larger picture where there is no benevolent future ahead for them. However, the practical reality is that we cannot accurately predict whether or not that would turn out to be the case. So ultimately, either you give to your most basic drives and accept the responsibility of having children, or you consider that a waste of time and effort while still trying to ensure a future for those people that do have children, of which some will be closely related to you, so there is no 'genetic extinction' ahead or anything. Under current trends however, I would say it probably should be considered immoral. Additionally, if you feel even a hint of doubt about your capability of being a parent, you should simply not force it.

Frankly the whole idea of 'successful procreation' being somehow 'right' is a delusional religious belief by default. It's the same as being anti-abortion for some type of 'caring' position (you don't care, stop lying. Abortion should be a universal human right), and being 'against' LBGT because you think gender equals procreation, which is bullshit. Most members of any given starting population will actually never breed or even get near breeding age. Even successful survivors might find themselves without a mate for whatever reason or become part of a disaster that wipes out their 'success' in one singular event. There is no such thing as "success" in nature. There is only random chance. How you feel about that is irrelevant. Religious people (and agnostics / semi-atheists) typically do not understand randomness and scale, in part due to these belief system specifically holding back greater understanding. The Catholic church has always reveled in its ability to keep people ignorant, and its views on "life" are no different. It is no authority on anything.

Population size is dependent on the environmental conditions. At this point, human numbers are vastly out of sync with what we can reasonable expect said environment to be able to support on the longer term. If we can save the habitat and our genetic companions on this world, the moral question can switch back to being 'okay / don't care'. But we are not on that road, so the answer has to be that it's immoral at this time.

But morals are pragmatic and ethics cannot tell you what to do with them. Ethics are not morals, since ethics are rules at some point agreed on by a majority based on the past or some belief towards being and future, not practical beliefs to coordinate living with situations in the present as they occur.
This is also why moral 'thought experiments' like utilitarianism ones are a waste of time, since you would never apply an ethical rule to a moral, temporally and spatially unique, situation. You are human, and that comes with the package of being.

 

[The Albatross]

I think that evolution is immoral because the strands of DNA do not consent to being evolved.

 

[Rayis]

I'm with OP, I don't necessarily think it's immoral but I can see why people think it is, in any case I'd rather adopt a child than bring another one to this world.

 

[Miroku129]

I won't have kids because this world is fucked up, but that is.

 

[MultiCore]

Even roaches have kids, OP.

You should lighten up a little.

We're having our 6th kid soon, and they're all amazing.

 

[Kabouter]

I would consider propagating beliefs that would result in the eradication of our species to be immoral. (not to mention crazy)

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

I think that evolution is immoral because the strands of DNA do not consent to being evolved.

This type of reductionism isn't really being honest about being a self-aware being versus not being a self-aware being. If you weren't able to consider the proposition, the discussion would never come up in the first place.

Making it appear as if we are not capable of considering our own disposition towards being is intellectually dishonest.

edit: I missed a part of the OP, namely the consent bit. I did not realize the reference. boop.

 

[CarpeDeezNutz]

Did anyone ask fedoras if they wanted to be fedoras in the first place?

Now that's a true crime.

 

[1st Course]

I mean I get not wanting to have kids in today's climate or whatever, but because you don't have their consent to be born?

What?

It's not that bad. In many ways life is probably easiest/better than it ever been (people live longer, crimes lower, easy/affordable access to food etc). And not to mention societies being more accepting when it come to social issues.

 

[Keri]

I agree with the people who have stated it's only immoral if you know the child will be born into an awful existence (which isn't typically true). Usually, being alive is an amazing thing, even if its not always perfect. And, usually, parents spend their lives trying to mitigate any negatives for their children, so the intent of the parent is almost always to provide a good life.

 

[Daft_Cat]

Consent as a concept presupposes the quality of existence. Without it, the concept becomes contradictory. Put another way, for a thing to be capable of expressing rational consent, that thing must also necessarily "exist". For that reason, the position of antinatalism strikes me as fundamentally illogical.

Beyond that - even as a moral code - if everyone were to come to your position on the same rational grounds, the human race would go extinct. And regardless of whether your ethics is built upon a deontological or utilitarian foundation (aka - whether you judge your actions as "moral" on their own terms, or by their consequences), at its most extreme, antinatalism seems to lead to us to a place that we clearly do not want to go. My question to you is - what good is an ethical principle if it can't be universally followed without resulting in catastrophe?

 

[Sora the Cat]

I just can't get people who think that way, If a fetus could actually choose between living in a shitty world and not living at all he would clearly choose to at least live.

I mean, he even beat all the other sperms on the initial race, wouldn't that count as consent? It seems to me that that little thing wants to at least try. Why would you think you can make that choice for him? He could actually end up loving this world.

 

[Airola]

In the sense that humanity as a species has proven itself to be self-destructive and detrimental to the well-being of pretty much all life around it, yeah, I can feel sympathy for the sentiment that moral humans should just allow their species to die off.

But isn't it ironic that while we've proven to be self-destructive, we are at the same time worrying how overpopulated we are?

Also, wouldn't it be better to just decrease the population than to completely get rid of people? I mean, people usually say how it's bad that we have so many of us here. If we decrease the population there will be a point when mankind isn't destructive anymore. If after reaching that point someone still wants to get rid of humanity, I'd say there is something mentally very wrong with that person. Then it's not anymore about saving the environment and caring for other species. It's full on senseless misanthropy at that point.

We haven't been this big of a burden to earth for that long time. Go back 1000 years and humanity still didn't pose much bigger threat to the environment and other life forms than what other animals do. It absolutely doesn't require human extinction for the world to become as balanced as it once was.

What you talking about no consent? The two parts of a baby are screaming at their parents to be fired from the man cannon into the lady well so they can be smooshed together and form into their true self.

Lol, well said
That's another /thread moment right there

 

[Tremis]

I think the argument for Christian Antinatalism far more compelling than the OP's. Or any religion that truly espouses a place of eternal torment. If there was any minute chance your child would end up there, I feel it would an extremely amoral act to have children.

 

[CREMSteve]

I feel truly sorry for you, OP.

 

[Paracelsus]

The problem to me, and this is not really up for debate here on gaf and anywhere else, is that the people who have the most kids are those who cannot afford them, so you basically fuck up their chances in advance. You're a worker? You don't earn much? At least stop at one kid, two at the very most, and try your best to get them all they need.

I remember at one point working with a butcher trainee: 23 years old, two kids (+1 abortion) and he was always one or two payrolls ahead of the rest, since he couldn't afford them. See, this is one way of living I will never understand.

 

[Battersea Power Station]

OP, I have two kids (a 4 yo and 1.5 yo) and I frequently wonder about whether it was morally right for me to have them. Here's a thing I wrote before our second one was born:


This is a bit of a late night ramble, but it's something that trips me out, even more than two years after my daughter's birth.

Life is different, right? Sure, a physicist can use the Standard Model to describe how particles (waves?) can eventually combine in complex enough structures to form cells, where they're studied by a biologist, but the two scientists can go their whole lives without talking to one another and still have full, successful careers. We separate our appreciation of life from that of all other matter.

And we separate our understanding and appreciation of intelligent life from that of all other life. Intelligent life is sacred to us because it is us. We are it. We think there's more of it out there but for all intents and purposes, humans imply intelligent life and intelligent life implies humans. Without it, we are not human, and without humans there is no intelligent life. A tautology, right?

As such, in modern society, preserving the existence, quality, and agency of one's own life is the basis for all laws. In a rough summary, I don't have a right to take someone's life or to lessen its quality or to hinder the person's agency of that life. Even beyond laws, this is what our moral system is based on.

So what moral right do I have to create someone's life? Why am I able to decide when someone should start existing? It strikes me as an encroachment as large as if I were to decide when she should stop existing. I definitely don't have the right to the latter, so why the former? Of course, one answer might be "because the baby is unable to decide for herself to exist, by her very nature." Yes, but that's only after she exists. If she hadn't begun existing, there would be no one to make that decision.

I'm the one (well, ok, in my case my partner and I are the two) choosing to make a life -- an intelligent life -- appear where none was before. That's a terrific proposition. I am morally wrong if I drive my car over your toe for fun because it would cause you injury. But if I give you a life -- a whole life -- full of countless injuries, and I hope countless joys as well, I am well within my moral rights. The concept is baffling to me, and I'm still unsure how I feel about it.

What's worse is that once this life exists, I'm now in charge of every single thing about it. This person has zero agency in her life, and I get to shape it as I see fit. In many ways, I can decide her destiny for the rest of her life, and she has no choice but to be entrusted to me. Imagine a circumstance right now where someone decides what you will eat, how often you will eat, when you will go somewhere and where that place will be, what your hygiene or lack thereof will consist of, who will speak to you, what you see, what you touch, what air your breathe, where you live, where you sleep, how often you're upset, what words you have to describe your surroundings, when you play, for how long you play, when you're bored -- absolutely everything. Would you ever be ok with this if you could help it? No, but children can't help it. If you were in such circumstances, could you possibly become your own person? No, your personality would be shaped by your agent. And so are children.

It's incredible that we have this right as parents. It's completely unjust. They didn't choose to exist, and in their unsolicited existence, they don't even choose the trajectory their life is set upon.

I don't really know how to end this line of thinking, other than it deeply disturbs me, and it keeps me forever questioning every single choice I make for my daughter. Oh, well. We're not deontologists so we made a second one. He or she is due in a few weeks.

 

[entremet]

I won't have kids because this world is fucked up, but that is.

Where do you live that's so fucked up?

Some of you are being extremely dramatic. No offense. If you have internet access and are posting on a forum that requires a paid email address--work or ISP--you are living a life that is to be envied by other humans in all our history.

We're not medieval serfs. We're not Egyptian slaves doing back breaking work and dying on the job. We're not Bronze Age villagers that needed to worry about their towns being sacked, while women raped by captors.

The world is far from perfect, but it's way better than any other time in history for most people.

 

[Airola]

Population size is dependent on the environmental conditions. At this point, human numbers are vastly out of sync with what we can reasonable expect said environment to be able to support on the longer term.

I'd say the problem isn't in the amount of people we have. Right now we could share lots of land and lots of food with everyone.

The problem lies in industrialization and controlled electricity. We have wanted things to be so easy to us that we have created lots of things that are draining the resources.

We want the stores to have insane amounts of options. Lots of food go to waste every single day. But the machines keep on rolling so that we could have an abundance of things.

Our curiosity mixed with science and the will to have easier life has brought this to us. It's not the amount of people that is the problem. It's the machines we use.

Take out controlled electricity and factories, and environmental problems start to go away. But the problem is that we are so used to have what we have. Even only taking out controlled electricity the human civilization would be in chaos. We think we are the masters of science but we really are slaves to electricity.

 

[Transistor]

Sorry for being selfish by having a child, OP.

Also, to those who don't want kids because the state of the world, I can see where your coming from, but I refuse to believe all hope is lost. The best I can hope to do is raise my daughter to be a good person who's going to help the world.

 

[NeonBlack]

I would never choose so as I wouldn't want to force anyone into existence without consent, as it crosses a threshold in my personal moral code.

What about all of the possible lives damning you for not giving them life?

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

Simple beings desire simple needs, sex and having children is for simpletons I on the other hand have evolved to a realm where I am above it. Why would anyone bring a child into this world unless youre rich.

Suffering is not worth it.

I can't tell if this is sarcasm.

 

[Derwind]

Over the past few months I've come to the conclusion that I'm an Anti-Natalist, not along the lines of a "Childfree" zealot, but to the point that if it were possible for me to have a child, I would never choose so as I wouldn't want to force anyone into existence without consent, as it crosses a threshold in my personal moral code.
But I've found that this belief, like with determinism or nihilism, tend to only draw ire/confusion, from people totally unwilling to see your point so they just shut down and act incredibly dismissive towards anyone peddling them.
Have any anti-natalists here dealt with that?
Have any of you been the people I'm describing?
Why are, or why are you not an anti-natalist?

Whose consent, you really should clarify.

Your consent = makes sense.

Someone who has yet to exist? = whaaa..? 8/

 

[Paracelsus]

Where do you live that's so fucked up?

Some of you are being extremely dramatic. No offense. If you have internet access and are posting on a forum that requires a paid email address--work or ISP--you are living a life that is to be envied by other humans in all our history.

We're not medieval serfs. We're not Egyptian slaves doing back breaking work and dying on the job. We're not Bronze Age villagers that needed to worry about their towns being sacked, while women raped by captors.

The world is far from perfect, but it's way better than any other time in history for most people.

This is a strawman that is setting himself of fire.

Machado can post on neogaf, as other poor southamericans. Do you think Machado cannot complain? Did you miss his "if something goes wrong while I'm waiting for food I might get killed"? Should we consider Machado privileged because people before him didn't even have the internet?

 

[Inferno313]

This is the stupidest shit I've heard all day and I'm having Thanksgiving with Trump supporters.

 

[nortonff]

Consent to be born? How the hell does that work?

 

[mephixto]

I find the act of having a children to be one either solely based around an individual's desires, or the result of social conditioning that "This is just what people do so now I have to do it."
And I don't believe my individual desire would be enough cause to justify creating another, non-consenting human being.

You are making it bigger than it is. You are not creating anything you are just reproducing, dividing, etc cells. Your body reproduce cells all the time without your concent is just his function thats how life work. Reproduction of another human being is just another cell multiplicating but a bit more complex.

I can understand that you choose to not do it, but your reason is silly if you think about it in a logical sense.

 

[Keri]

The problem to me, and this is not really up for debate here on gaf and anywhere else, is that the people who have the most kids are those who cannot afford them, so you basically fuck up their chances in advance. You're a worker? You don't earn much? At least stop at one kid, two at the very most, and try your best to get them all they need.

I agree and would never recommend someone have a child, that they can't afford to care for...but I have to admit I feel a little hypocritical for holding this belief, because my parents definitely couldn't afford to have me, but I'm damn glad they did anyway and my life has turned out well (maybe a good perspective for the OP?).

 

[Kurdel]

I'll entertain your view without calling you outright batshit crazy. So...how does one give consent to be born?

After 11 pages OP still didn't give an answer to this question?

 

[Air]

You are making it bigger than it is. You are not creating anything you are just reproducing, dividing, etc cells. Your body reproduce cells all the time without your concent is just his function does how life work. Reproduction of another human being is just another cell multiplicating but a bit more complex.

I can understan that you choose to not do it, but your reason is silly if you think about it in a logical sense.

This is actually a really good point. Probably the strongest argument in the thread actually (it doesn't help that the ops argument was incoherent).

 

[Octavia]

This thread could have been an interesting read if it was about just the generic sense of bringing a kid in this world, the current climate struggles we face, and more.

But you had to make it weird...

 

[ASIS]

Honest question.

Would it still be immoral to kill recently born babies? Say, babies of two months? Since people of that age obviously cannot consent to anything, much less understand concepts such as rights and such. So I would argue that even at that point the child's life is still in your hands, no?

 

[Raticus79]

I'll entertain your view without calling you outright batshit crazy. So...how does one give consent to be born?

Also, on the flip side of that implication, why are you, without their consent, denying them the right to be born? At least if they're born they have an opportunity to choose to not live afterward... they don't even get a chance with this approach. Therefore, to maximize the overall consent of the unborn, OP should proceed with relentless procreation, abandoning monogamy, sabotaging birth control, etc. It's the right thing to do™.

(lol)

 

[Boem]

So, okay, you don't want children because they can't give consent to being born.

But by choosing not to have children you're also making a decision for them. They can't give consent to you choosing for them never to exist. By your logic, it would be immoral not to keep getting women pregnant 24/7.

Your stance on abortion also really doesn't fit your views here. I get that you're for abortion and that's totally fine (I am too of course), but it just doesn't line up with your philosophy here. You're making a conscious decision without their consent, by either choosing to give someone life or not. Inaction is, both in conception and choosing to abort, a choice. Just like choosing to have children means you're making a choice for those kids without their consent, choosing not to have children is doing exactly the same. Attributing some sense of morality to that doesn't work at all.

Of course, I think the entire concept is a bit weird, because if the entire world would follow your idea of morality the human race would die out. The only thing that separates humans from other lifeforms is our ability to reflect on ourselves, but we are still a part of nature - we aren't above it. Everything within that system is built to survive and breed. In a way, that's really our only function. Is the moral choice to deny that?

I'm not trying to make it sound like I'm against abortion or against people not having kids of course, just trying to follow the OP's logic.

Question for OP: Have you never wanted children and did you later find this philosophy that lined up with that, or did finding this philosophy convince you never to have children? Because if it's the former - it's fine to never want children, but there are plenty of more convincing reasons than this. The morality question, as you present it, just doesn't stand up if you spend some time thinking about it. Like I explained above, you could take your story and say that, because of that theory, everyone is morally obligated to have as many children as possible, and that would make just as much sense. The difference is that that option is a lot more inconvenient to carry out, but ignoring it for that reason makes the morality claims of the entire thing fall apart. Choosing one option because it's easier is definitely not a sound basis for grand statements about morality.

 

[Sapientas]

If your philosophy is based on the idea of consent before birth then that means there's a hypothetical being with rational thought not yet born and given physical form. Who's to say that this hypothetical being didn't want to be born then? Aren't you denying his will without his consent then by not making him?

This thread could have been an interesting read if it was about just the generic sense of bringing a kid in this world, the current climate struggles we face, and more.

But you had to make it weird...

Yup. I legit wanted to see that discussion.

 

[Paracelsus]

Honest question.

Would it still be immoral to kill recently born babies? Say, babies of two months? Since people of that age obviously cannot consent to anything, much less understand concepts such as rights and such. So I would argue that even at that point the child's life is still in your hands, no?

There are studies that show kids of few days already pick up basic signals, whether it's toys or cues of any kind. They won't remember, but they already exist, they are sentient.

A lot of people you will know in your life won't remember a thing before they were 5ish, by the way.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

I'll entertain your view without calling you outright batshit crazy. So...how does one give consent to be born?

After 11 pages OP still didn't give an answer to this question?

There isn't an answer. It's an obvious impossibility.

Supporting antinatalism is calling for the end of our species. Plain and simple.

I would consider propagating beliefs that would result in the eradication of our species to be immoral. (not to mention crazy)

I agree with this.

 

[zeemumu]

So you don't want to bring a child into existence because you don't know if the child wants to exist, but you're still making that choice for them since you never actually got approval from them to force them to not exist.

 

[Paracelsus]

I agree with this.

And given all the economic and global climate, it's arguable you're doing a favor to your planet by not having kids more than having them. We were less than 2bn in 1900, We'll be ten billions in 2030, even if half the planet stopped having kids for a whole generation there would no problem at all. The "saeb ur spishis" drivel is nonsense.

 

[Capra]

But isn't it ironic that while we've proven to be self-destructive, we are at the same time worrying how overpopulated we are?

Also, wouldn't it be better to just decrease the population than to completely get rid of people? I mean, people usually say how it's bad that we have so many of us here. If we decrease the population there will be a point when mankind isn't destructive anymore. If after reaching that point someone still wants to get rid of humanity, I'd say there is something mentally very wrong with that person. Then it's not anymore about saving the environment and caring for other species. It's full on senseless misanthropy at that point.

We haven't been this big of a burden to earth for that long time. Go back 1000 years and humanity still didn't pose much bigger threat to the environment and other life forms than what other animals do. It absolutely doesn't require human extinction for the world to become as balanced as it once was.

That's all true - ideally, we should strive only to go back to a point where our actions as a species do not have such an immensely-negative impact on the environment. However, you could also argue that so long as a species with the power to cause such destruction through negligence exists there will inevitably come a time when it repeats the same mistakes... At which point getting rid of humanity as a whole would mean putting an end to a cycle of destruction fueled by ignorance.

So while human extinction might not be necessary to return the world to a more balanced state, it might ultimately be necessary to ensure that it stays that way... At least until another species with human-like reasoning develops.

 

[the-pi-guy]

If you decide not to have kids, are you then not allowing them to consent to living either?

In fact by your logic, aren't you taking away their ability to consent to anything at all?


I mean, it's your right to have kids or not have kids and you don't need a reason for either. But you've given a reason and it doesn't even seem logically consistent with itself.

 

[y2dvd]

Another poster had a good question for the OP that wasn't answered: Plants and animals aren't giving consent to you eating them. How do you feel about that OP?

 

[Mawnster]

Damn, this thread is still going on? I didn't think I'd wake up to this being remotely alive. Sweet.

 

[ASIS]

There are studies that show kids of few days already pick up basic signals, whether it's toys or cues of any kind. They won't remember, but they already exist, they are sentient.

A lot of people you will know in your life won't remember a thing before they were 5ish, by the way.

Well yes, but they still cannot give their consent to life. At that point it still the same thing as before having the child. The choice is still the parent's.

 

[entremet]

This is a strawman that is setting himself of fire.

Machado can post on neogaf, as other poor southamericans. Do you think Machado cannot complain? Did you miss his "if something goes wrong while I'm waiting for food I might get killed"? Should we consider Machado privileged because people before him didn't even have the internet?

I never said suffering doesn't exists.

And Machado is not alone. Many people here as have suffered as well. Read the job and mental health threads. Suffering is a human problem. No one is immune.

I'm just saying it's still comparative better living as a human today than any other point in history.

The world is not going to shit, which is prominent narrative by the more vocal in this forum.

 

[zoukka]

Even if overpopulation is a bad thing, it's still better to have one child than to have zero. If every person would have only one child, the population would drop to about half. If every person would have two children, the population would stay about the same than what it is now. If every person would have zero children, it would bring human extinction.

If everyone would have only one child, even then it would eventually be important for everyone to have at least two children so that the population wouldn't eventually go near zero.

There is absolutely no value in keeping populations as they are. In fact a drastic cut in population is essential if we want to prevent global crisis.