The Exploring Antinatalism Podcast #88 - Antinatalism New Zealand (Vito T. Strati)

[@tofudog4u]

Thank you, this was very interesting! I think that pointing out that there may actually be no 'good' reason to procreate in the first place (especially now that we have explicit control over it, for the first time ever) is often the best first step in opening the conversation around antinatalism. Sounds like if someone accepts this without going further to antinatalism, that would make them an anatalist. Seems like it has a lot of potential, looking forward to reading the paper one day!

[@vitotstrati]

Thanks tofudog. Appreciate it! Keep up the good work :))

[@higherentropy903]

This was really interesting. Made me "realize" that my friend is an Anatalist. Now there's a term for it, which is neat. Thank you to both of you! 🖤

[@liambrodie124]

Really enjoying this conversation x

[@Antcraft15]

Hey, this anatalist term sounds pretty good. I also like the idea of defining antinatalism as an opposition against _intentional_ procreation specifically

[@vitotstrati]

Glad you agree!

[@higherentropy903]

1:30:00 The harm of A-Natalism would lie in the passive-ness. By neither opposing Natalism, nor supporting Natalism, A-Natalism seems like an indifferent position when someone DOES plan on reproducing. Their indifference and lack of opposing would passively make people act how they already planned on acting - to reproduce. Natalists already don't care about their own burden of proof. Anti-Natalism seems more actively demand such proof. A-Natalism such a "mild" position, that it might lack the strength to make people realize that there are INDEED great, real risks when creating a new life.

[@thecosmicantinatalist]

@vito Please publish your paper - have you sent it to David Benatar ?

[@vitotstrati]

I haven't!

[@naturalisted1714]

​​@@vitotstratiIn the section about why your an antinatalist, you didn't really pinpoint why. You alluded to Benatar's Asymmetry Argument, and it being better to not exist, but I didn't hear the exact reason. Is it because you believe not existing is better or preferable? If so, I think it's important to recognize that you didn't exist, yet a life was still imposed. This is true for all of us, and so not existing is incapable of stopping a life from being imposed. And therefore cannot be better or preferable. If I died tomorrow, there'd be nothing left of me to stop the imposition happening again (but it'd be done with some other, completely different life, unrelated to me - perhaps an elephant, or an alien somewhere, etc. it'd be just as random as the life that was imposed on me [a human life]). So if there was only one life in the universe, then that would be the life doing the imposition. It'd be _the_ experience, because it'd be the only experience there is. There'd be no way for you to escape it, because there'd be no you to escape it, just as there was no you to escape the imposition of the life that's reading this right now.

[@atalo7753]

@@vitotstrati Vito, where can i find your paper?

[@vitotstrati]

@@atalo7753 I'll ask Amanda to put a link in the description once it's published!

[@ZakLylak]

Older breeders are still an important group to make aware of antinatalism as they normalise and encourage natalism - per your comments - 'when are you going to have children; if you had kids you would understand etc.'. If you want to reach the younger generation you also need to reach those influencing them and creating normative social structures.

[@vitotstrati]

Agreed!

[@ZakLylak]

I don't think accidental procreators acting under the influence of neurochemicals should be let off the hook any more than drunk drivers should. If you get in the car and drive it, you've made an immoral decision.

[@vitotstrati]

But social context is still important. If everyone around me is telling me I should drink and drive, or giving me financial incentives to do so, then they've also done something wrong and hold some of the blame/responsibility

[@ZakLylak]

@@vitotstrati Totally agree. That's why it's important to admonish poor behaviour. It was only when enough people drew attention to the hazards of drink driving that proper legislation was put in place to discourage and punish those who did it, but just because it was tolerated prior, doesn't mean it was ever okay. Everybody knew it was stupid, but most did it until enough people called them out for being 'immoral'. Now, as a result of that public anger, most people will avoid doing it.

[@lovethyneibor22736]

AN is such a fascinating philosophy, forget about extinction and all those red buttons, imagine TELLING a couple which has a few kids that they are SELFISH and that bringing kids into the world was an act of CRUELTY! Now THAT ALONE should be AMAZING enough of a reason to be an antinatalist

[@mariaradulovic3203]

How would that change anything? I'm saying that to breeders every day.

[@lovethyneibor22736]

@@mariaradulovic3203 on a global scale it prlly won't change much, however i rlly enjoy seeing the pissdoff face of someone when they are told that they are selfish and cruel for having kids, wbu?

[@naturalisted1714]

​@@lovethyneibor22736So you enjoy pissing people off? So why would you have a problem with someone causing others to suffer?

[@lovethyneibor22736]

There's a difference between pissin someone off and actually hurting someone, telling someone the truth might make them a bit agitated but it won't bring about the amount of pain a birth can bring about both to a lady and her child

[@low3242]

why you're such a spiteful moralist?

[@maxwelldillon4805]

Either you or youtube removed my comment here. Lame...

[@polydex108]

This one is up. I hate when that happens. Try it again.

[@exploringantinatalismpodcast]

Wasn't me, try again?