| Anti-Procreation Movement | |
| home - forum - join | previous - next - members |
| powered by RingsWorld.com | |
From The Charitable Misanthrope...
Our species has evolved the ability to form language and subsequently the ability to self-reflect. (This unique human phenomenon does not apply to humans that lack the usual human capacity to learn and think in language or in a usual human capacity.)
This essay is about the "human condition" and why our unique evolutionary path has lead us to a condition of inherent suffering that cannot be avoided. It also gives the reader the key tool to ease the suffering for future generations.
OUR unique biological evolutionary path has brought Homo Sapiens to a miserable state. We not only suffer, but we are also aware of our suffering. There are three broad categories to the human condition which all humans are unfortunately born with and cannot escape. The first has to do with our mere need to survive. We must work to survive in some form. (In modern Westernized societies, this takes the form of production/consumption and exchange to secure physiological comfort).
The second broad category is the need to escape the emotional state of boredom. Our complex neural processors (the brain/mind) cannot be fully satisfied with just maintaining physical metabolic functions and comfort levels (eating, staying warm, finding shelter, etc...). We humans must have a "goal" of some kind to keep our big brains occupied. In other words, after we have completed all the tasks required to survive (in our individual cultural context) our neural processors have a propensity to eventually get bored. This propensity to get bored is universal and cross-cultural for all human societies and individuals.
The third category is the never ending entertainment that we constantly conjure and create to escape the baseline boredom of existence. Due to our propensity to get bored after (or even during) the process of survivng, our big brains, must formulate mini-goals and diversions to keep us occupied and entertained so as not to remain bored. These mini-goals can get more complex and convoluted in an ever increasing attempt to keep our brains in a state of non-boredom.
The boredom that I describe is not just a temporary state of non-interest but part of a larger emotion connected with a deep despair of ennui (word-weariness). We try to cope with this unique human quality of ennui, but its always there, almost laughing at us in a way, forcing us to formulate a new goal to focus our time and attention on. We must place [insert any contrived goal] to give ourselves a meaning and direction. This could be any of the infinite activities we humans do to allay this baseline boredom. These contrived goals can be endless unto infinitum. Watching TV, telling stories, developing theories, dancing around the fire, mythology, religious expression and practice, art, sports, reading, planning on becoming a hermit, making furniture, starting a business, reflecting on the meaning of words, etc.. ANYTHING that one perceives as one's personal goal at any given time can be a contrived goal.
The reader might be thinking (in a hint of facetiousness), "I am an erudite middle-class person, well versed in your brand of thinking. You are just rehashing trivial, existentialist garbage (almost French (sounding [yuk!]). I am past this juvenile stage in my life that you seem to dwell in. This stuff simply sounds like typical 'teen angst' and offers nothing profound. You are describing stuff that has already been written about a million times over. I understand, it sounds similar Albert Camus' book The Myth of Sisyphus which told us to embrace the absurdity of our human attempt to find 'meaning' in a universe that does not 'care' about our longing for 'meaning, etc.. What you are saying has all been said before... go back to your fantasy world you pseudo-intellectual wannabe beatnik and leave the blog world alone!"
But the argument you make is not so open and shut you "oh so mature know-it-all middle-classer who is now beyond all speculation on existential thinking ;-)". The "absurd" that Camus discusses is just that…absurd. His attempt at telling us life is livable as long as we embrace the absurd cannot be maintained for long since we still must contend with survival, boredom, and contrived mini-goals. I don't believe any real seeker into the nature of humanity can read Camus and truly be satisfied with his premise that we can simply find comfort in the absurd. You must have had some moments of genuine ennui in your contented-middle- class-know-it-all- past-the- juvenile- stage-of- asking- existential- questions- life that led you to believe he is sugar coating the human experience with a poetic but false analogy to the Myth of Sisyphus .
As stated throughout this piece, the human condition is suffering and this is due to the inherent need to survive, baseline boredom, and the contrived goals to escape from the baseline boredom. All of these categories are the common experience of humanity and comprise the inherent suffering of the human condition. To rephrase the situation, wee cannot "just be". We must continually strive for physiological survival and escape from the baseline boredom of existence. This idea may have a ring of familiarity to it, as it sounds very much like Buddhist philosophy. Buddhism does have great insight into the fact of the suffering of existence. Buddhism's first and second Noble Truths are a testament to this . However, as with all religion and supernatural beliefs, It is the mystical elements that I have contention with. Concepts such as reincarnation, karma, and nirvana are unnecessary and do not provide a real solution to the suffering. The only way to truly end the suffering that is inherent in the human condition is to not procreate. Procreation perpetuates the suffering to a future generation.
Please help end future suffering by not procreating!
THANK YOU
Links:http://apmovement.blogspot.com
http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2008/08/my-work-on-antinatalism.html
Philosophical argument against procreation.
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence - a book arguing the morality of not procreating.
http://dontconceive.blogspot.com/
http://condemnedtoexistence.blogspot.com/
66 comments:
I agree, simple as that. I plan not to have children for this reason only.
Interesting page. I saw your comments in the Moral Childfree Guestbook and I decided to come see what this was about. I agree with you. The more sites that tell the truth about life and breeding, the better. The masses are ignorant and the media is doing nothing but further corrupting them and sending them further down the road of ignorance.
I have long felt similarly to what you express in your blog entry. It is ridiculous, selfish, and awful to bring more people into existence only to suffer. I never congratulate people for procreating, because I consider the act to be unethical. I'm always amazed at how many seemingly otherwise thoughtful and intelligent people fall into the procreation pit. I always consider the act to be the result of unquestioning obedience and the lack of imagination about what more worthy causes could be taken on in life. It's good to know we're not alone. May we die barren!
I can't believe that basically everyone I know is so ignorant of the facts you have laid out here so succintly. I think that procreation is entirely selfish & ridiculous! If I had the choice, I would have chosen to remain unborn. Life sucks - bad shit happens constantly! People are tricked by their hormones, which disgusts me because the information is out there if they would only look. I have known from the age of around 16 that I will never have children & that it is the cruelest thing you can do to a person - bring them into a world of shit!!!
Summary of a paper published in http://jme.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/31/10/606 If it is irrational to allow the worst outcome of our actions, and if it is immoral to cause suffering, then it is irrational and immoral to have children
THE IRRATIONALITY OF HAVING CHILDREN In my paper, A rational cure for prereproductive stress syndrome,1 I claimed that it is irrational to have children, if (a) it is irrational to deliberately allow the worst outcome of our actions in a given situation, and if (b) to have children allows this. I argued that having children allows the worst outcome of our reproductive choices (the creation of a possibly bad life, where the alternative is no life), if (c) it makes good sense to restrict the analysis to the comparative value of life versus non-existence of possible future individuals, as experienced by themselves, and if (d) there are individuals who genuinely would prefer non-existence to their own life. My practical conclusion in the paper was modest: (e) "Possible parents could be told that, according to at least one philosopher, it would be all right for them not to reproduce at all."1 This was my suggested "rational cure for prereproductive stress syndrome".
THE IMMORALITY OF HAVING CHILDREN I also claimed in my paper that it is immoral to have children: if (f) it is immoral to bring about avoidable suffering, and if (g) having children has this effect. I took the first statement to be self evidently true, and supported the second by specifying two senses in which it can be said to be true. Having children brings about avoidable suffering in the sense that (h) all human beings suffer at some point in their lives, and in the sense that (j) potential parents cannot guarantee that their child’s life would not become at some point in time (physically, mentally, or socially) overwhelmingly miserable. The truth of these statements was not contested by my critics, although their ethical implications were. My practical conclusion from these premises was even more modest than my inference from the analysis of rationality: (k) "In principle, and in an equal discussion between competent participants, my moral views may entitle me to reproach individuals who decide, or have decided, to have children. There is, however, seldom much point in my doing so."1 M Häyry Centre for Social Ethics and Policy, Institute of Medicine, Law and Bioethics, School of Law, University of Manchester, Williamson Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, UK;
Mother nature has a built-in mechanism that discourages negative people from procreating. Depression ... anxiety ... cynicism ... these characteristics not only lower ones' sex drive, but also make one less desirable to the opposite sex, resulting in a natural decrease in procreation and population until things balance out again.
It is nature's way of keeping balance and order.
When circumstances are shitty in the world, and there aren't enough resources to go around anymore, people start getting depressed, and anxious, and cynical (as perhaps, they should be). Nature encourages procreation first and foremost where there is bounty and optimism.
I say you are a sign of the times, sir.
If you believe this then why not just kill yourself? I'm sure you have an answer for that, which I'd like to see addressed in your rant.
And to expand upon Elise's comment, what you have said applies only to people who are depressed, anxious, and cynical. What of those people who aren't? What if I enjoy my ice cream, driving my car and waking up in the morning? Am I deluding myself? Reality is only as it is perceived and if I feel good then reality must be good for me. And good, I'm assuming, is better than nothing. Better than being dead or never born. Perhaps you allow exceptions, admit that there are some people out there who are better off alive that dead, but insist your philosophy as a general rule? Or are ALL of us feel-gooders deluding ourselves? Clarify.
Well Rob, maybe this quote will convey why I have not commited suicide, "It is better not to have been born than to have lived and died". But also, life has instrumental value in spreading the "good word" of not procreating. This is a sort of "annihilationist Utliitarianism" whereby the greater good for the greater number of people is had by living and spreading the idea that procreating is not good. Of course there is the natural fear of death. (But this is the weaker argument :-).
Perhaps these two quotes can convey the idea that it is better "never to have been" than to have "lived and died".
"It's not worth the bother of killing yourself, since you always kill yourself too late."-E.M. Cioran
"There was a time when time did not yet exist... The rejection of birth is nothing but the nostalgia for this time before time."-E.M. Cioran
Concerning the premises of life being "Suffering". I am not just describing everyday pain but rather the Eastern/Buddhist notion of Suffering. Even in our most satisfied moment we are always Suffering in the Eastern sense. This is part of the third category i mentioned of "mini-goals". We are constantly finding ways to kill time, survive, and give meaning to any given moment. We are never fully satiated. Our state is that of always "becoming" and never "being". The closest state of "just being" is ironically non-existence!
My Friends,
I truly believe that this website is the most enlightening website I have ever come across. The sheer power is invigorating! The unique line of thought presented herein has changed my life! Truly, I believe that this theory should be taught in every grammar school. The time will come for a peaceful revolution of this belief.
Together, we can unite and bring sustainable change to this sufferable world.
-The Hermits Cave
preach on bruthaman! abort abort abort!
I discovered your website first, but I replied before that to the Moral Childfree website, I’ll now respond to your site and elaborate a bit further on my views.
I’m in agreement with you, compoverde.
I have thought this way for several years before I ever saw the few web pages that are on the internet corresponding with my beliefs .Most people who know me in the small post-soviet country in which I’ve resided the last two years know my standpoint on procreation, at least for my own decision, and closer friends of mine know how I think that it’s wrong in general for anyone to foist this unasked for existence upon another human. Most of them are also aware of my charitable acts toward neglected and orphaned children in my locality.
While I do enjoy the company of youngsters in particular and making their lives happier, it’s because they are here now. If the human race somehow went sterile and barren and could no longer (or if they just decided not to) reproduce, and all people reached adulthood, I would not be disappointed. Any future philanthropic endeavors of mine would involve those whom I’ve helped in the past; my peers in age and the elderly. Besides I have plenty of other things to do and enjoy even if the demographics of the human race should age in an unprecedented way.
I just wanted to submit the above second paragraph to assure in advance any detractor to my beliefs that I don’t actually need children, anyone’s children, to have a great purpose in life, thereby not giving breeders the idea that they are actually somehow supplying to me a need to nurture by bringing children they themselves are not even able to or willing to raise themselves, or any new human beings period.
To refrain from procreation for the reasons you, compoverde, have provided is not nihilistic nor pessimistic, it is the epitome of consideration and compassion.
Sincerely,
Sean
Sean, I am glad that you are an advocate for the cause of anti-procreation. It is good to know that there are compassionate people who believe in not procreating the suffering of existence to another generation. Compassion to people already born and compassion to a potential next generation (by not having them) is a good motto.
I don't know why people even do this to themselves and the others they are bringing into this world. I told myself, if it was really about love they would never see the light of day, not because I am selfish, but because I am not selfish and I do care. I can't tell you how dissappointed I was when I finally talked to my dad after 7 years of his absence, about the reason why I'm here. I was so irritated. (I can't say what I really felt) I wanted to vomit. I can't see myself doing the same thing to someone that I would supposedly love. I am an attractive young man who just wants to enjoy his life. And my girlfriend wants children and I can't see why? Why do you want to POTENTIALLY destroy a life while making your own life miserable until its very end? I know you don't run a relationships page, but I love her and I care about her and she says if I don't want children she doesn't want to be with me. Compaverde, please give me some advice.
Jonathan, here is a list of things you should try to do:
Try to explain to your girlfriend why it is better not to have children. Give your best arguments regarding why bringing another existence into this world would be the wrong thing to do. Show her this website and the links on the bottom of this page. Explain that the most compassionate thing she could do is not have a potential child. If the girl still won't see "the light", I am sure there are other females your age that do understand the rightness of anti-procreation. If you can't find any, try becoming a hermit. As a hermit you can contemplate the true meaning of the three categories of life (survival/work, boredom, entertainment).
Here is a thought experiment to contemplate in regards to being alone like a hermit...
Imagine you are a one person economy and you are given the tools to harvest your own garden, maintain a shelter, etc.. Essentially you are just living to keep yourself alive. You have no distractions to divert your attention from the pure understanding that "there is no reason to keep yourself alive other than to keep yourself alive".
Now broaden this one person economy to our economy. This society is a complex, stratified, specialized, market economy. With this behemoth of an economy there is high specialization with goods, services, production, consumption, and resources being used in multi-various infitate ways. In this society, whether we know it or not, we are only living to make goods and services to consume to keep ourselves alive FOR NO REASON EXCEPT TO KEEP OURSELVES ALIVE, (Just like the one person economy.) This multi-various complexity of production, consumptions, distribution (our methods of survival in this society) can distract us from the understanding that this is just a round-about one person economy. Since survival is more complex, and there are seemingly more ways to entertain ourselves, we can more easily become distracted from this understanding of the three categories of existence. However, despite this seeming distraction and distortion that this huge economy creates, we are still just surviving in a more complex way, getting bored, and finding entertainment (and yes I understand that entertainment in this sense is a much broader definition than what is commonly used).
In the end, what this comes down to is that you should not worry about girlfriend issues. It is just another form of entertainment. It is one of the most common forms in human society, but it is entertainment none-the-less. Read more philosophy, and find other forms of entertainment if this one is getting too over dominant in your life. Relationships are not the sole form of entertainment that exists, and it would not be good if the relationship ended up with a new existence to experience the inherent suffering of the world. Better to sacrifice your relationships for the life of a hermit than to have a child.
If people decide to have children it is their choice if it brings them suffering they can make the most out of it.Un saludo to the legend rico campoverde from chaco Taco,(just be glad that Sevoy did not stay with CP from IRA!
I am extremely interested in the site and would love to hear back from sean or jonathan. I would like to see if their stories end on a more positive note then most of ours do or will in the future. :-(
you are silly.
Jeffrey says " I LIKE IT! " Here's to more money in my pocket and a few less mouths to feed!
Hi. Anything that makes people aware of the wrong in breeding is welcome. Please visit my site "Conceiving a Child is a Sin" at http;//dontconceive.blogspot.com
Yeah, right here stated so clearly is reason enough not to reproduce.
Conceiving a Child is a Sin and May 8 Anonymous-
It is nice to know that there are fellow anti-procreation advocates out there. Conceiving..., I will put your website as a link. My only request is that you put this blog as a link on your website as well. Do you think we can make some sort of forum with other groups and advocates out there who are anti-procreation? I know about childfree movements and the VHMET movement, but those groups do not exactly advocate the same issues as us. We believe that it is not good to bring children into this world due to its inherent suffering. If we can make an online coalition of sorts, this would be a logical next step. Please give me your thoughts on this.
compoverde, contact me at andrewtruelove85@hotmail.com
I came up with the same idea as you have, last year in August. I googled the concept, and discovered
Peter Wessel Zapffe,
Arthur Schopenhauer,
EM Cioran,
Thomas Ligotti ('Conspiracy against the human race'),
VHEMT,
Moral Childfree,
Childfree,
M Häyry (guy who wrote an essay),
Church of Euthanasia.
All these groups/individuals advocate voluntary extinction, many of them for the same reason as you. As for me, I started a website about the same idea:
scratchpad.wikia.com/wiki/Discontinuation
Ultimately we all know it's hopeless, but we also know it's true. So my plan is to officially start the philosophy, to add the idea to the collective consciousness of mankind. Some call this idea 'Moral Childfree', you call it the 'Anti-Procreation Movement', and I call it 'Discontinuation'. In any case, contact me, so we can discuss how we will publicize the concept and imbed it into the collective ether of ideas (make it famous enough to get a page on wikipedia, to get a mention in philosophy journals, and maybe even an encyclopedia article some day).
Though this idea is hopeless (so is atheism, for that matter, but that doesn't seem to stop Dawkins and Harris), it is a travesty that it has not yet been officially named and recognized by society as a legitimate philosophy. Let's remedy this.
andrewtruelove85@hotmail.com
Dear Andrew:
First off, I would like to say it was a pleasure reading your comment. I would like to thank you for postingon my blog and showing your support on this important matter. It is great to know there are other people in the world who have a similar philosophy. I also congratulate you for discovering the www.anti-procreationmovment.blogspot.com website, as it must have been a difficult find, especially when searching the world wide web I concur with you that this "anti-procreation movement" which is known under many guises (as you have mentioned) should be much more prominent in the world of ideas and in the general public consciousness. Philosophical Pessimism has been a strain of philosophy that has been around possibly since humans first evolved and has certainly found its way into almost every civilization and culture (even the Epic of Gilgamesh has themes of pessimism in it). This most ancient philosophy, has never properly been given its due and recognition. I would like to join your efforts in mobilizing an anti-procreation movement/philosophy that can make its way into the popular avenues of information, research, and media (such as wikipedia, articles, reference books, periodicals, etc.).
Now that you have prompted me, I will start to brainstorm ideas on how to better promote anti-procreation and maybe this can be a start of a collaborative project. The best option for now is to accumulate as many websites on this movement as we possibly can, contact the movements' authors and architects and ask them if they would like to form some sort of coalition. This coalition can start out designing a well marketed website that carries a library of information and action points regarding philosophical pessimism and anti-procreation as well as containing links to related websites. This is just a first suggestion. I would love to know what you think about this. Please keep me updated on any new ideas you have so that we can mobilize this movement to a new level of awareness. Thanks again.
Dear Andrew:
First off, I would like to say it was a pleasure reading your comment. I would like to thank you for postingon my blog and showing your support on this important matter. It is great to know there are other people in the world who have a similar philosophy. I also congratulate you for discovering the www.anti-procreationmovment.blogspot.com website, as it must have been a difficult find, especially when searching the world wide web I concur with you that this "anti-procreation movement" which is known under many guises (as you have mentioned) should be much more prominent in the world of ideas and in the general public consciousness. Philosophical Pessimism has been a strain of philosophy that has been around possibly since humans first evolved and has certainly found its way into almost every civilization and culture (even the Epic of Gilgamesh has themes of pessimism in it). This most ancient philosophy, has never properly been given its due and recognition. I would like to join your efforts in mobilizing an anti-procreation movement/philosophy that can make its way into the popular avenues of information, research, and media (such as wikipedia, articles, reference books, periodicals, etc.).
Now that you have prompted me, I will start to brainstorm ideas on how to better promote anti-procreation and maybe this can be a start of a collaborative project. The best option for now is to accumulate as many websites on this movement as we possibly can, contact the movements' authors and architects and ask them if they would like to form some sort of coalition. This coalition can start out designing a well marketed website that carries a library of information and action points regarding philosophical pessimism and anti-procreation as well as containing links to related websites. This is just a first suggestion. I would love to know what you think about this. Please keep me updated on any new ideas you have so that we can mobilize this movement to a new level of awareness. Thanks again.
JB, you'd like the last 2 paragraphs in this essay, The Tragedy of the Commons. It's not exactly anti-procreation, but it implores population control for the sake of better enjoying life:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243
I still think your logic is whack ;)
-Dan
Please mail me at dontconceive@hotmail.com. Due to some technical glitch I read your comments on my site only recently and have added your site on my links.
I agree that too many people inhabit the world, which currently has 2.89 times as many people in it as it did the day I was born. Although I'm sure I would have been a good father, it hasn't happened, and I don't regret it.
Overpopulation, as I see it, is the sole cause of global warming; and unless we can reduce the population, no clever energy-saving techniques can save the world from massive weather problems.
However, to attempt to end all procreation, in my view, is not the answer.
Furthermore, it will simply never happen.
To comment more specifically on your original statement:
"Baseline boredom" is akin to Camus' existentialism: "the absurdity of 'being' without purpose."
What if there were no such thing as "being"? What if "existence" is just a poor illusion conjured up by Latin language descendents (who can translate "sum" into "I am," but whose Russian and Hebrew relatives can only translate it into "I," there being no word for "is" in their languages) to talk conveniently about "potential" as if it were "the real thing."
It is not.
"Boredom" is the consequence of an absence of action, not an absence of purpose or motivation. Boredom appears, therefore, if and only if a normal, sincere motivation for action (which can only come from the self) is suppressed or replaced by an external authority (such as an employer), which unfortunately happens to be the case for most human beings.
The "contrived goals" to which you refer are the artificial motivations (such as paychecks) that have been invented and are supplied by "others," be they employers, teachers, or priests.
Most people work because they've been hired to work and will be fired if they don't. They play because a friend has pulled them into a game. They study because they'll be expelled if they don't. They pray because a priest has warned them of God's commands. As soldiers, they kill because a commander has led them to. In all these examples, "authority" has motivated action.
Thus, if one lacks authorized motivation, one needs to motivate oneself, which is terrifying for most people to do. (The preferable alternative is boredom.) To self-motivate requires daily effort. It never happens automatically. It cannot be taught, but it must be learned and practiced, as does any creative or performing art.
It is therefore an art in itself. (I have never met a talented artist who was bored with his "job.") Furthermore, the Buddha, to whom you refer, understood these principles completely. He believed that external authority was no answer to the riddles of the Universe, not even his authority. He urged his audiences to learn various techniques to self-empower themselves. Only through self-empowering activity could a Buddhist be relieved of "existential angst."
Notions such as reincarnation and karma, in my opinion, are "authorized" additions brought to Buddhism by those who followed the Buddha. They therefore have no place in the modern world.
Despite your pessimism, I can testify, as someone who began regularly to "self-empower," keeping daily records of my practice (time started and time finished) since October 1985, that once self-motivated, there's no end to how much one can achieve in life or how much happiness one can know.
Boredom to the self-motivated is as unknown as it is inconceivable to any person, who, like me, regards himself as self-empowered.
Love, when it occurs between two self-empowered partners, takes on a different meaning and purpose than procreation. Sexuality, for each partner (in a "virtual marriage") as the means to populate disappears and turns into something quite different and separate (for each partner, separately, together, or with a "one-night-stand") from any socially or religiously authorized activity, whose sole "legally authorized" purpose would be reproduction. Sexuality becomes, instead, a self-motivated (as opposed to an "aroused" by someone else) activity designed purely for relief and pleasure, not procreation.
Here, I think, is the proper basis for your movement, which, in my opinion, currently suffers from an "existential fallacy" (namely, that "existence" can be real).
"Nopensex" is a word I invented to designate the kind of sex between partners that can fully satisfy and relieve all sexual tension lifelong. "Nopensex" means sex without penetration (that is, "penetration" of anything by anything).
Were nopensex to become a standard practice for all married, unmarried, or one-night-stand couples, with the sole exceptions of occasions when a man and woman desire to have a child, whom they can afford time and money to raise beneficially to adulthood, and who understand and will encourage the value of self-empowerment for their child, we would eliminate many current evils associated with sexuality today, such as abortion, AIDS/HIV, rape, welfare mothers, and, above all, overpopulation.
To deny future citizens of the world a chance for supreme happiness through self-empowerment, simply because you, and millions of others, never learned how, is, in my view, unacceptable. Who are you to decide that life is not worth living?
My friend, you're dead wrong!
Mr. Yaegar,
I am glad that you have presented your point of view. I think I understand what you are saying, but I don't accept your premise. What you seem to be saying, if I understand your gist, is that in different languages, existential words such as "to be" do not exist so therefore the concept does not exist in that culture. I disagree with this. It sounds like a version of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, whereby thought is determined by the language of the thinker. I don't believe that is a true belief. Whatever culture you are looking at, to be born into the physical universe is a basic fact that all cultures understand and perceive, from the Bushmen to Western cultures. The state of being alive dead and not yet born are not shaped by language. In fact these states are so basic, it really counts as one of those concepts that are universal in nature (as opposed to, for the sake of argument, the concept of a refrigerator or something that certain cultures have never seen before).
As to your comments about authority being the source of contrived goals; i don't believe that is true. Authority, or whatever form of indoctrination that societies maintain are not directly related to the fleeing from boredom, rather that fleeing from boredom is a result of a fundamental condition of life that all individual humans have. The self-motivation you discuss is nothing more than our individual or societal ways of finding the best way to kill time.
Thank you for writing this so intelligently. I hope many will read this and be pointed in the right direction. The other links you've provided are helpful too.
kitty,
I am glad you have found this site and that you agree with its contents and message. I always like seeing comments by other people who share these very important views. They may be unpopular and "counter-intuitive" but that does not mean they are wrong. We must educate and explain to people the reasons for anti-procreation. The temptation to treat them as smugly as they treat your philosophy is strong, but it is good to resist it by calmly explaining the validity and soundness of your ideas. I recommend the book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence by David Benatar. His arguments gives a strong logical foundation for non-procreation. Another author is Arthur Schopenhauer the ardent Pessimist. My views most closely resemble his since his views get to the root of human existence, and its inherent suffering.
I went to the cemetery the other day with my mother to visit my great uncle and aunt, who's graves are forgotten and neglected and no one else visits them. The funny thing is that they were hardcore catholics and we are very athiestic. Plus, they's wanted children and couldn't have any.
But anyways, my mother started saying things like "the flowers need replacing" and "you need a sweep", and I walked up the path to the end where you can see over all of the graves because it is situated on a hill. It was the most quiet place I have been in a long time. At home it is loud and people are intrusive. But at the cemetery it was just all dead, and no one wants to spend their time in a sad dead place like that.
It was so overwhelming. I started thinking- how can I grasp the concept of realness when I don't even know what reality is? You know, just when I thought I knew something about life and existence, I come to this place and I just don't know, I don't know anything. My mind started feeling numb like it wasn't attached to my body-I can't explain but it was just this undulating futility permeated me so much that I felt so helpless and feeble, I nearly cried but I didn't because I didn't want my mother to get upset and stressed out.
So anyway she walked up past me and said something about how the chairs were nice...you know, the superficial things...while I stood there...screaming on the inside. I just had to say at least something. So I worked up the courage to ask if she wanted to be cremated and she said she didn't really know, something about how she doesn't like the idea of burning but also the idea of lying in your grave dead. That wasn't really what I wanted to know, so I then asked her if she cared about dying and she said she "tries not to think about it".
As much as I love her, I was so dispondent by what she said. I am always at conflicting feelings about her in my head although I could never tell her the truth because then she would feel so terrible and stressed and guilty and I don't want her to feel like that. I couldn't help but think that it isn't fair. How can you bring another being into this insanity of life, no matter how much you love them, you can never garntee that they will be okay in this place, this life, this universe. How can you not have accepted death and try to put it in the back of your mind (because it renders the most overwhelming feeling of futility) and expect your child to be okay with this shit life that cannot be understood?
So I told her that I think about it all the time...but then I kind of had to drift off on what I was saying because I got the feeling she didn't want to hear what I had to say.
It has been irking me even more ever since because everyone has just carries on with their pathetic mundane pointless lives, while I sit here raging inside because I have to keep it all in.
Ever since I was a young child I knew I never wanted kids. I didn't know anything about life back then and I still don't know anything now, I'm not even an abrasion on the epidermis. Although I always knew that you should never listen to what someone has to say because everything is self proclaimed.
And I look around me and I see everyone and observe what they do. To me everything is insanity. Although growing up, since it has felt pretty lonely, I have felt like a freak and maybe it's me with a problem. I tried being like other people, but I just can't. I can't seem to cave into their fucked up ways and beliefs. I can't do anything about antyhing...and I've realised the brevity of life(and insanity) and the enternity of death, and just the futility and pointlessness I feel is enough to keep me from having children.
I always thought I was the only one who felt this way. As much as life still sucks, it is a little nicer to know that there is someone else who thinks similarly what I think.
And I thank you and appreciate you very much for posting this otherwise I would've gone on thinking I was the freak. I am glad to know that amidst the bullshit I can actually say what I want to, say the things that people are too afraid to hear, here I can say this.
I thank you again,
from May 8th Anonymous
May 8th Anonymous,
Very powerful imagery, you paint a vivid picture of your encounter at the graveyard and its impact on your thoughts and psyche. I am glad you have found this blog, where your sentiments are shared and can be discussed freely. As far as death, I believe it is a return to nothingness. Nothingness is a hard concept to wrap your mind on, because even thinking about nothingess defeats the premise, since what you are thinking about is "something". Nothingness truly is a riddle wrapped in an enigma to our minds which know nothing except existence. This nothingness, however bizzare a concept to our mind, is preferrable to being born, as being born throws you into the inherent sufferings of existence (survival, boredom, entertainment). Before you were born and after you die will be nothingness, this brief blip in between is one of a tragic play. A quote from Shakespeare's Macbeth says:
Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
With our understanding of the inherent suffering of humanity our mission should be to explain coherently and as patiently as possible to others the state of the human condition and the solution to ending it for future generations (non-procreation). Maybe it is time we start meet-up groups in our local areas, promote the concepts we share concerning anti-procreationism and be ready to explain our insights to others. We should be able to cogently expain why existence is suffering, and why it is good to not spread it. In our communal efforts to promote our ideas we will be doing our part in creating a better world.
Most people who want to have kids think its their "right" to have children. This is the wrong way to think. They do not have the wellbeing of their potential child in mind. If they were making a decision purely based on the wellbeing of the potential child, they would abstain from procreating. The understanding of the inherent suffering of human existence would deter this. They will be creating harm to the child by throwing it into existence. Any supposed benefits of being born are desired in the non-existent being since there is no being in the first place to be deprived of the pleasures of existence. On the same token, the potential child would be prevented from the harms of existence, even though that good is not experienced by anyone (Benetar 30). David Benetar's book Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence ( does authored and developed this thesis. For more information on his book, look at the link titled Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence- a book arguing the morality of not procreating in the "links" section of this page.
Your site has provided me with answers that religion never could. God whatever it is seems to remain silent as human suffering goes on. I have no desire to perform the self-centered selfish act of breeding. What a horrible and cruel thing to do to someone. After I am dead and gone they would have to endure all the horrors that life has to offer. Just because we can breed does not mean that we should. The children suffer, die and go hungry because the parents gave into their worthless needs. Having offspring is a lie that many have bought into without thinking about the consequences.
my response: relief. i am glad that there are others that feel as i do and i have (long before reading this) decided to join the non procreation band wagon! continue on not producing future workers, politicians and soccer moms.
And if repeat your words people look at me like i'm crazy..seriously. "You are depressing" "Get a girlfriend" ..and other things. I'm anti-life and i will always be, i can't fake it like other people..i see life as it truly is,meaningless suffering and who wants that?
Nice Blog btw:)
Of course, if you truly are dedicated to the anti-procreation movement, you will not hesitate to either completely refrain from sexual contact or have a vasectomy, correct?
Hello June 8th anonymous and thanks for questions. You do not need to refrain from sexual contact or have a vasectomy. That is an extreme, and although these two activities will definatley result in babies not being born, it is not necessary. Just as laser surgery might be a final correction to eye troubles, it is not necessary or might not be worth the risk in solving the problem when there are other options. Just use contraceptives when being sexually active, and this is good enough.
Hi, Compoverde! Just thought I'd drop in and add a thought. The comments from your readers are so heartfelt. Seeker said:
"Your site has provided me with answers that religion never could. God whatever it is seems to remain silent as human suffering goes on. I have no desire to perform the self-centered selfish act of breeding. What a horrible and cruel thing to do to someone. After I am dead and gone they would have to endure all the horrors that life has to offer. Just because we can breed does not mean that we should. The children suffer, die and go hungry because the parents gave into their worthless needs. Having offspring is a lie that many have bought into without thinking about the consequences."
Seeker, I think one of the reasons you are so profoundly moved by this truth, is because once entertained, this truth becomes so obvious! It's not like religion, or some abstract philosophy or set of beliefs. It's something that's plainly and obviously felt by anyone whose empathy has reached a certain threshold, such that the old lines of rationalization can no longer be embraced. Life should not be, because suffering and death make it unnacceptable...period.
Want to end all pain, depression, anxiety, and all other forms of suffering in a single generation? Stop breeding...it's that simple.
Take care, one and all.
In the global economy, we can vote with our feet to patronize or not patronize a business. I say if everyone got together and didn't breed, it would be a protest vote so to speak....and perhaps then we will get some answers, and if we don't, then we have stopped the vicious cycle.
Thank you Jim and anon. It is important that this issue gets more recognized so that they will make the decision to vote with their feet and not procreate. Is anyone familiar with making webrings? This may be a good way to collaborate all of our sites and strengthen our efforts through collaboration.
Damn, I was beaten to the punchline. I had been thinking of making a second blog of my own about anti-procreation. But, evidently, you've already done, what I believe to be, a pretty fantastic job at asserting such a view. One thing I would've discussed is the overall political aspects of this idea. In a sense, this is still a contrived ideal, but it is a contrived ideal that is self-aware, which is the overall beauty. I say, build a philosophy, an ideology from it. Create a movement and political party. Support any and all forms of birth-control and instill a new outlook on adoption in our culture. Elect officials with similar views who call for stricter regulations on who has children and how many they have. Maybe even self-imposed sterility later on down the line. For fuck's sakes, lets load thousands of cargo planes and bomb Africa with condoms, vaginal diaphragms, and birth-control shots. If we're going to out, let's alleviate the suffering.
Or we could just blow each other up. Same result, I suppose, though, I prefer the former.
Hello nietzche's peachy. Thank you for your comments. Its good to know people out there who are interested and want to contribute to the cause of anti-procreation. As far as political action, I had a website called "Join the Anti-Procreation Revolution". Maybe, if you'd like, you can write a political manifesto of sorts, with platforms and such and I can put it on another blog, siting you as the author. As far as more detailed philosophy/ideology, Please check out my other more detailed blog condemnedtoexistence.blogspot.com and also some of the other sites on the Anti-Procreation Movement webring.
In truth, I would love to write such a political manifesto; anti-procreation is the only true political issue I've ever had a strong opinion on (most of the others have seemed rather futile to me). I just want to establish that we agree on the same anti-procreation. To me anti-procreation in no way equates with pro-suicide. That is to say that while one promulgates the self-induced suicide of our species, the latter promulgates the suicide of the individual. I agree only with the former assertion. In effect, when it comes to how I conduct my personal life, I agree whole-heartedly with Nietzsche; that is, my life is only justifiable or redeemable in the context of eternal recurrence. I live my life fluidly, happily, like an epic narrative in which my corporeal body is but an aggregate of the larger projection of myself. However, where I disagree with Nietzsche, and subsequently agree with Schopenhauer, is how we as a species ought to conduct ourselves. While our individual lives can find cosmic solace in death (everybody inevitably dies after all), our species is self-perpetuating. While it's eventual demise is certain, it is too far from now to not take immediate action.
I was thinking of writing a political manifesto on the above (with more political underpinnings and less about Nietzsche and more on Schopenhauer). What do you think?
Hey Nietzsche's Peachy,
I do agree on the same anti-procreation. You should really look at my other blog for a fuller understanding of my philosophy. I wrote that in a more academic tone. www.condemnedtoexistence.blogspot.com. Maybe you can also look at that for ideas on how you want to shape your manifesto. Also, keep in mind to be realistic with it. Political actions only happen in increments, so if you put forward a plank on your platform, make it something simple but doable. You can't force people to think or do a certain way. Politics in a way, is about forcing large groups to do things. You must find a way to make what is essentially a belief and a philosophy into a political cause of some sort. As far as your interest in Nietzche, I like how you took some ideas from Nietzche and also from Schopenhauer. I tend to disagree with Nietzche. Schopenhauer is my main philosopher as he has a philosophy of Philosophical Pessimism. A contemporary philosopher by the name of David Benatar has written a book called "Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence". This is a great argument for anti-procreation. Also, look at the website antinatalism.blogspot.com. Ask him for some advice to on turning this into a political platform as well. I hope this helps.
Awesome. What I think I might do is create a second blog of my own after all, but this'll include the manifesto as well as more political resources, links, etc. For instance, I'll link to your blog amongst others for the overall philosophy of antinatalism/anti-procreation philosophy while mine will simple concern local, temporal, political action. If you have any suggestions, ideas, etc. feel free to email me (I think you can find a to my email on my Blogger profile). My name is Kyle.
Compoverde – Thank you, for this blog and for your efforts in bringing anti-procreationists together. I am also grateful to the other anti-procreation sites and the people behind them – Moral Childfree, Antinatalism, Discontinuation – as well as all other believers of the truth. I am struck by the wisdom and knowledge displayed by all you wonderful people, as well as your excellent writing skills.
It’s funny – almost 7 billion people in this world, and only a handful recognize the truth – Schopenhauer has rightly observed – “In general, indeed, the wise in all ages have always said the same thing, and the fools, who at all times form the immense majority, have in their way too acted alike, and done just the opposite; and so it will continue. For, as Voltaire says, ‘we shall leave this world as foolish and as wicked as we found it on our arrival’.”
I have been preoccupied with writing my book, an exhaustive argument proving the immorality of procreation, as well as disproving both the Law of Karma and the concept of a benevolent and merciful God. It is almost complete now, and I am contemplating as to what to do with it. I don’t really have the patience to chase publishers, so I guess I might end up releasing it as an e book – any suggestions / assistance in this regard would be greatly appreciated.
Sean – I really enjoyed reading what you have to say – and am borrowing your last line for use in my book – hope you don’t mind.
P S
Conceiving a Child is a Sin-
I am so glad you have taken such a proactive approach to the anti-procreation philosophy. Thanks for your comments and welcome to the anti-procreation blog. As far as your book, are you almost done, do you need me to collaborate, because I would be happy to help in certain areas. It sounds like a great idea, with your treatise on the non-benevolant god and anti- law of karma. I agree with those ideas to the extent taht I don't believe in karma, reincarnation, or any metaphysical pheneomena as such, including a creator/sustainer being that most religions claim as a divinity. As far as publishing, I've never done so myself so I don't know where to direct you. I did a quick search on Google and found this: http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/publishbook/publishbook.html. Maybe it can be of help to you. Otherwise, the e-book sounds like a good idea, just have good SEO methods to get it noticed on the web. My question to you is, how can we expand our base on the ground outside the web. Are there meetups that people like me and you can do in our communities, to discuss the various aspects of anti-procreation philosophy? Also, how do we get people interested enough to go to such meetings and events? Well, I look forward to your suggestions.
You are a great writer...you don't really believe the content, do you?
Anonymous sept25,
If you are addressing me, the author, of course I believe my own writing. It may seem counter-intuitive, but what I have written can be summed up in one simple way. We are constantly deprived of something at all times. We cannot be, we must always move this way or that based on discomfort of some level, whether it be physical, or emotional, we are compelled to seek survival and comfort and flee boredom, its that simple. On a less abstract level, don't forget all those daily, weekly, monthly, yearly annoyances that pile up in our lives from bad circumstances that fall upon us all. Like a hay stack, the annoyances and frustrations might be small if taken as a singularity, but even a ton of hay will eventually be too much to bear.
Do whatever works for you. If you don't want kids, then by all means don't have kids. However, I don't see why you have to judge those who choose to procreate. Not everybody feels the ennui of existence to the extent that you do. I've experienced this feeling myself, but there are many ways of dealing with it. If you're non-religious, define a purpose for yourself. Personally, I'm happy to experience life, and I don't feel guilty for giving my unborn child the same opportunity.
The point of the article is not to show whether life has meaning, or whether there is a point to life or not, it is to show that there is a profound suffering to human life and that if there is a choice between keeping a potential child non-existent or making a new life, it is always a benefit for the potential child to keep the potential child non-existent.
There is a good book about this very subject that recently came out. It's called Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence. When you don't bring a child into existence, it won't feel the bad of existence, which is good. When you don't bring a child into existence it won't feel the good, but that is NOT BAD because the being does not exist and will not be deprived of the feeling of good. This is a brief summary of his argument. Simply put, not experiencing good and not experiencing bad are preferable to experiencing some good and bad. The non-existent being is not being HARMED for not feeling the good (it is neither good nor bad), and is prevented from the harm of the bad of existence (which is good).
Hi compoverde. A very nice, easy to understand summation of Benatar's asymmetry. A lot of people seem to have trouble grasping it, though I'm not sure why. An existant person comes into being, experiences some joys, suffers along the way, then dies. From his point of view, it's as if he never existed, while friends and loved ones experience his death as a loss.
The never-existant person, however, never suffers, never dies, and nobody misses him. He never experiences happiness, of course; but then, he'll never miss it, never having existed in the first place. Life is a circle of agony whose destination is the starting point...non-existence. Why begin the process in the first place?
Katherine's reflex reaction to the argument against procreation is so tired and predictable, it bores the Thinker to tears...
The masses are so very resistant to the concept of asymmetry... Is it that they are not intellectually equipped to comprehend, or because they can't be bothered to try to suss it out in their own heads, or because the truth is too painful for them to bear (perhaps because they have already obediently committed to the path of procreation themselves)?
When the Katherines of the world state that it's ok for us to decide not to have kids, but that we have no right to harp on those who do (for it is a personal choice and an inalienable right, no doubt???), what they fail to consider is that their choice has ramifications beyond those which they alone must confront. After all, they are sentencing an innocent being to life. THAT's what makes it our business. I'm genuinely concerned about the suffering of humans to-be-born. I act in the best interest of these innocent beings when I beseech would-be breeders to reconsider.
Thank you for the very intelligent comment. the movement needs people like you to spread the word. Do you have any suggestions on how to get this idea out to more people? We need to start some sort of movement to get the idea in the mainstream, because as you said, it is our concern; it is future generations that we are trying to save from existence.
Compoverde, my only idea at this point for helping to spread the movement is by educating the people who really matter... the young generation. It has occurred to me that most people grow up assuming they will one day breed. We can probably all remember hearing that familiar refrain from our elders, "When you're a parent..." "When you have kids of your own..." Maybe this sounds like a string of harmless aphorisms, but think about it. We essentially brainwash people from the time they're tiny tots that they WILL go ahead and make babies just as their predecessors did. Little kids tend to be unquestioning, and if society drills the same ideas into their impressionable minds long enough, they ideas will stick. Not only do kids learn this crap in their homes, and while at school... they are also constantly bombarded with the pro-natalist agenda via media, movies, magazines, etc. No wonder so many people obediently breed because it's "what you do" once you've reached a certain age and have married (another societal ritual that's beaten into the heads of young people starting early in childhood). I would love it if there were a way to inject into mainstream school curricula the concept that procreation is a choice, that it has some pretty serious consequences, and that everyone would do well to consider all the pros and cons (for oneself, as well as for one's potential future offspring) before taking that step. It sounds so basic, and yet, I suspect that if kids started thinking much more critically, from a young age, about the choice to reproduce, within a generation or two we'd see birth rates falling much faster. Now... how to facilitate the inclusion of this heretical concept into school curricula??? That's the real question. Society is so very pro-natalist, it would be a difficult sell.
Anon, you're certainly right that the main reason people do not even question natalist views is because they are taught from birth. We should gear the message to younger people. I too wish it was taught in some public setting like in a public school, but at this point there is little to no hope for that. However, a second prime target for the message is college campuses. It is not too late to convince this population as they are not established in the full time adult world quite yet and they are still in a state of relative questioning about values (or we hope that's the case, if not we are doomed). At this stage maybe we can send fliers and such and meet ups to encourage debate about the antinatalist view.
On a side note. Can you look at my new blog and tell me what you think? Its http://apmovement.blogspot.com
I believe society today has become filthier than the landfills we've created.
Sexual garbage contamination is everywhere, infesting the media and society and resulting in something of total acceptance because "it's popular and everybody is doing it". The result: more people (especially teens) sleeping around and procreating. It's revolting!
Have we no other purpose than to overpopulate and destroy this planet? You would think that our impact on wildlife and the Earth's environmental concerns would give people an incentive to stop procreating. But alas, we are talking about a selfish species. Controlling OUR population is out of the question. Procreating cows would fight for their "freedom" to pop out a bunch of kids. Oh, but someone's freedom for abortion is controversial and out of the question. BS!
I have so much sympathy for the poor animals that have to share this planet with human scum. People just make them suffer, hogging all the Earth's natural resources; dumping toxic waste, polluting the air and water, cutting down the rain forest, building on land, killing off animals, etc.
It's time the people who care and feel the same take a stand against this and say "Enough is enough"!
Post a Comment