Main Edition
US
FR
Main Edition
US
FRAntinatalism is no flash in the pan. Leemage/Corbis/Getty Images
Promortalism — the belief that death is always preferable to life — is one of these ideas that feels too fringe to attract much of a following. It instinctively feels more like a footnote in a philosophy class, the far end of the spectrum when talking about negative utilitarianism, for instance. Or it might come up in a discussion about E.M. Cioran, the Romanian philosopher who wrote The Trouble With Being Born, a book of aphorisms about the futility of having come into existence at all. Or it might appear in a YouTube listicle about “10 morbid subcultures you won’t believe exist”.
But as far as a real, robust community is concerned? It is too convoluted, too dark. It is the provenance of only the most depressed among us. Online spaces for the suicidal have always existed, sometimes barely euphemistically described as “sanctioned suicide”. But, surely, this philosophy runs up against the limits of its own repulsiveness?
A quick Google search suggests this is true. There is a “Daily Negativity” channel on YouTube, which publishes videos with titles such as “Is life worth living?” to just 1,000 subscribers. There is the late Jiwoon Hwang, a philosopher who wrote a paper titled “Why it is always better to cease to exist” and later took his own life. And there is a smattering of posts on obscure blogs. If more promortalists exist, they are not very open about it. But scratch the surface of another philosophy, one you have probably heard of before, and you will find that if you take their stated beliefs to their logical conclusion, the number of promortalists is higher than you’d think. They just call themselves antinatalists.
You’ve probably met an antinatalist. At the very least, you’ve read about them. If you talk to people about their choice to abstain from having children, “childfree” quickly becomes interchangeable with “antinatalism”. It’s about climate change. It’s about environmental degradation. It’s about recognising that life is suffering, and it’s time for that suffering to end with us.
In the past, a person who identified as “childfree” didn’t necessarily identify as an antinatalist: just because they didn’t have or want to have children didn’t mean they thought other people shouldn’t. Antinatalism, on the other hand, is the belief that it is morally wrong to have kids. From their perspective, life is suffering, and because nobody consented to be born, it is unethical to continue the existence of the human race. There is some possible overlap between the two, but for a long time, they were distinct — both within their respective communities and in the mainstream.
But as Amanda Sukenick, a self-described “antinatalist activist”, explained recently, these movements are increasingly becoming one and the same. This confluence means that the antinatalist community is losing some of its cohesion and philosophical bent. Looked at another way, as more people identify as “antinatalist”, as opposed to just “childfree”, it adds deeper shades of meaning to the decision not to have children.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhen i read that promortalist Jiwoon Hwang’s death was mourned as a major loss by antinatalists, i actually laughed out loud!
Not just LOL, but the full belly-laugh.
My aching sides should probably signify the pain of being alive, but somehow they signify precisely the opposite.
I also laughed at that – but only in my head, as I’m sitting in a hospital waiting area.
I also laughed at that – but only in my head, as I’m sitting in a hospital waiting area.
When i read that promortalist Jiwoon Hwang’s death was mourned as a major loss by antinatalists, i actually laughed out loud!
Not just LOL, but the full belly-laugh.
My aching sides should probably signify the pain of being alive, but somehow they signify precisely the opposite.
Note that they do not give up on sex, just the fruits of it. I hope they never need a dustman or a doctor, a plumber or a nurse as these tend to be someone’s children.
To me it sounds exactly like a sci-fi 21st century version of the many forms of Gnostic heresy of which the Cathars are exemplars. They preached living a life without sex or if you did engage in sex to only do acts that could not engender life. Now we are all so educated in carnal knowledge by tv,radio,boks, songs etc we all know exactly what this means. But a montaillou housewife who often let a Cathar “pure” preacher and his beautiful young female disciple lodge with her when in the area told the Inquisition that usually when she took their breakfast into them they were at it,so like eco-warriors who eat big Macs +drink cola,most of hypocrites. The Gnostic also denied the beauty of the world and thought being dead was better than living.
And I suppose we can trust a good old Inquisition confession? Interesting detail though – did you get that from Le Roy Ladurie’s book?
And I suppose we can trust a good old Inquisition confession? Interesting detail though – did you get that from Le Roy Ladurie’s book?
To me it sounds exactly like a sci-fi 21st century version of the many forms of Gnostic heresy of which the Cathars are exemplars. They preached living a life without sex or if you did engage in sex to only do acts that could not engender life. Now we are all so educated in carnal knowledge by tv,radio,boks, songs etc we all know exactly what this means. But a montaillou housewife who often let a Cathar “pure” preacher and his beautiful young female disciple lodge with her when in the area told the Inquisition that usually when she took their breakfast into them they were at it,so like eco-warriors who eat big Macs +drink cola,most of hypocrites. The Gnostic also denied the beauty of the world and thought being dead was better than living.
Note that they do not give up on sex, just the fruits of it. I hope they never need a dustman or a doctor, a plumber or a nurse as these tend to be someone’s children.
The idea that “life is suffering” has been around for a very long time and not only in this decadent phase of Western civilization.
That very expression, in fact, can be found in many translations of the Buddha’s First Noble Truth (ca. sixth century BC). He meant that life inevitably involves suffering, however, not that life consists of nothing but suffering. And his solution was not suicide, therefore, but enlightenment–which takes many lifetimes, or rebirths, to attain. He was by no means the first in India, moreover, to observe this self-evident fact of life. Hindu philosophers had already explored this idea in the Upanishads. Hindu philosophy (and therefore Buddhist philosophy) probably originated in a period of extreme violence due to the rise of early kingdoms and empires, when more than a few people of high status (with enough time to ponder philosophical and moral problems) wondered why they should go on living at all, despite widespread hedonism, in the face of meaningless suffering. Despite their tribal or caste obligations, many decided not to carry on. This was the problem that gave rise eventually to social and religious revolution. In different ways, both Hindu and Buddhist philosophers strongly affirmed the immediate, though not ultimate, value of life–that is, personal and communal continuity.
The same pattern emerged in the ancient West, at roughly the same time (known, not surprisingly, as the “Axial Age”) and for the same reason: widespread injustice and suffering due to the rise of early kingdoms and empires under brutal rulers who were unconstrained by law, let alone moral philosophy. Theological, philosophical and moral responses to innocent suffering took centuries to develop, a process that the Israelites recorded (notably in the prophetic and wisdom books culminating in that of Job) and handed down to their Jewish and Christian descendants. So did the Egyptians, Babylonian and some other peoples of the ancient Near East. So, too, of course, did the Greeks and Romans.
Dee’s article is mainly about personal suicide. But the threat of collective suicide is even more urgent. Every society takes steps to convince most people that communal survival is worthy of courage and even self-sacrifice. But once decadence sets in, characterized by a lethal combination of hedonism and cynicism, not every society “wakes up” (an old metaphor that has resurfaced recently) from complacency in time to avert collapse from within. Dee does add that “antinatalism” and even “promortalism” are signs of the times. We ignore them at our peril.
Excellent historical background, via your study of comparative religion. Thankyou.
But we are a conceptualizing animal, with narratives derived from meta-narratives (cultural ones). Thus even, “communal survival”, is thus another concept- a narrative, or meta-narrative to buy into. Nothing is pre-ordained for why we do this or that.
However, if you did believe in some deontological values such as non-harm, then not having children is following this idea maximally. That is to say, not having children might be the most you can do to not cause (potential) harm to what (would be) another human you can ever do. Once born, that person will always have at least some pain or suffering, and will cause pain or suffering to others. To not have children is to be steadfast in the dictum to not harm unnecessarily unto another person. And indeed, not procreating is an easy, and very effective way of following this rule.
Besides the non-harm rule, it takes care of other deontological rules too: principle of autonomy (not imposing on others unnecessarily). It would be aggressively paternalistic to assume for others:
The choices of this existence are something another person must want to encounter (survival, the human condition)That the “known harms” of this life are acceptable for another person to encounter. The “unknown harms” that contingently happen to people and unforeseen, are worth it to impose on another.
But humans are not only conceptualizing animals. That’s part of it but not all of it. Moreover, even conceptualizing is not the same as philosophizing. And not all moral philosophy is rule-bound or “deontological.” Philosophers do try to make sense of how we experience life, and some do insist on perfect consistency to guide us. It’s a noble effort, but consistency remains elusive–and will always remain elusive because finitude or contingency is a defining feature of human existence, not perfection. We’re still left with the messy givens of human existence.
In both the East and the West, philosophers and theologians–and the link between philosophy and theology is significant–have found ways of convincing most people that carrying on is worthwhile despite suffering and causing others to suffer in the midst of daily life. Many have asserted, for instance, that all human life (or all life in any form) is inherently valuable or sacred.
In both the East and the West, moreover, philosophers and theologians have acknowledged that seeing the full picture (and not seeing, in St. Paul’s parlance, “through a glass darkly”) is impossible without entering a radically different level of reality–that is, beyond finitude and thus beyond life and death. But they didn’t conclude on that note of futility. Meanwhile, they insisted, the most urgent task is to do what humans–and all forms of life–try to do (by virtue of what we might now call “instinct.”): survive and flourish in families and communities. Otherwise, after all, they could not perpetuate the wise or sacred teachings on which all depend for ultimate salvation.
The Western pattern is probably familiar to you, so I’ll focus here on two Eastern patterns. The ideal Hindu (at least in theory) is not one who abandons others in order to seek personal enlightenment through renunciation, for example, but one who fulfills obligations as a householder (which are also acts of compassion) first and only then (in old age) becomes a full-time seeker. The ideal Buddhist (at least in theory) is one who does renounce the natural family and community by joining a monastic and ascetic one but nonetheless, even as a monastic, depends on others to provide food and shelter (which are acts of compassion).
On a personal note, I agree with John Paul II (although I’m not Catholic), who lamented that modernity (broadly speaking) is a “culture of death.”
But humans are not only conceptualizing animals. That’s part of it but not all of it. Moreover, even conceptualizing is not the same as philosophizing. And not all moral philosophy is rule-bound or “deontological.” Philosophers do try to make sense of how we experience life, and some do insist on perfect consistency to guide us. It’s a noble effort, but consistency remains elusive–and will always remain elusive because finitude or contingency is a defining feature of human existence, not perfection. We’re still left with the messy givens of human existence.
In both the East and the West, philosophers and theologians–and the link between philosophy and theology is significant–have found ways of convincing most people that carrying on is worthwhile despite suffering and causing others to suffer in the midst of daily life. Many have asserted, for instance, that all human life (or all life in any form) is inherently valuable or sacred.
In both the East and the West, moreover, philosophers and theologians have acknowledged that seeing the full picture (and not seeing, in St. Paul’s parlance, “through a glass darkly”) is impossible without entering a radically different level of reality–that is, beyond finitude and thus beyond life and death. But they didn’t conclude on that note of futility. Meanwhile, they insisted, the most urgent task is to do what humans–and all forms of life–try to do (by virtue of what we might now call “instinct.”): survive and flourish in families and communities. Otherwise, after all, they could not perpetuate the wise or sacred teachings on which all depend for ultimate salvation.
The Western pattern is probably familiar to you, so I’ll focus here on two Eastern patterns. The ideal Hindu (at least in theory) is not one who abandons others in order to seek personal enlightenment through renunciation, for example, but one who fulfills obligations as a householder (which are also acts of compassion) first and only then (in old age) becomes a full-time seeker. The ideal Buddhist (at least in theory) is one who does renounce the natural family and community by joining a monastic and ascetic one but nonetheless, even as a monastic, depends on others to provide food and shelter (which are acts of compassion).
On a personal note, I agree with John Paul II (although I’m not Catholic), who lamented that modernity (broadly speaking) is a “culture of death.”
Excellent historical background, via your study of comparative religion. Thankyou.
But we are a conceptualizing animal, with narratives derived from meta-narratives (cultural ones). Thus even, “communal survival”, is thus another concept- a narrative, or meta-narrative to buy into. Nothing is pre-ordained for why we do this or that.
However, if you did believe in some deontological values such as non-harm, then not having children is following this idea maximally. That is to say, not having children might be the most you can do to not cause (potential) harm to what (would be) another human you can ever do. Once born, that person will always have at least some pain or suffering, and will cause pain or suffering to others. To not have children is to be steadfast in the dictum to not harm unnecessarily unto another person. And indeed, not procreating is an easy, and very effective way of following this rule.
Besides the non-harm rule, it takes care of other deontological rules too: principle of autonomy (not imposing on others unnecessarily). It would be aggressively paternalistic to assume for others:
The choices of this existence are something another person must want to encounter (survival, the human condition)That the “known harms” of this life are acceptable for another person to encounter. The “unknown harms” that contingently happen to people and unforeseen, are worth it to impose on another.
The idea that “life is suffering” has been around for a very long time and not only in this decadent phase of Western civilization.
That very expression, in fact, can be found in many translations of the Buddha’s First Noble Truth (ca. sixth century BC). He meant that life inevitably involves suffering, however, not that life consists of nothing but suffering. And his solution was not suicide, therefore, but enlightenment–which takes many lifetimes, or rebirths, to attain. He was by no means the first in India, moreover, to observe this self-evident fact of life. Hindu philosophers had already explored this idea in the Upanishads. Hindu philosophy (and therefore Buddhist philosophy) probably originated in a period of extreme violence due to the rise of early kingdoms and empires, when more than a few people of high status (with enough time to ponder philosophical and moral problems) wondered why they should go on living at all, despite widespread hedonism, in the face of meaningless suffering. Despite their tribal or caste obligations, many decided not to carry on. This was the problem that gave rise eventually to social and religious revolution. In different ways, both Hindu and Buddhist philosophers strongly affirmed the immediate, though not ultimate, value of life–that is, personal and communal continuity.
The same pattern emerged in the ancient West, at roughly the same time (known, not surprisingly, as the “Axial Age”) and for the same reason: widespread injustice and suffering due to the rise of early kingdoms and empires under brutal rulers who were unconstrained by law, let alone moral philosophy. Theological, philosophical and moral responses to innocent suffering took centuries to develop, a process that the Israelites recorded (notably in the prophetic and wisdom books culminating in that of Job) and handed down to their Jewish and Christian descendants. So did the Egyptians, Babylonian and some other peoples of the ancient Near East. So, too, of course, did the Greeks and Romans.
Dee’s article is mainly about personal suicide. But the threat of collective suicide is even more urgent. Every society takes steps to convince most people that communal survival is worthy of courage and even self-sacrifice. But once decadence sets in, characterized by a lethal combination of hedonism and cynicism, not every society “wakes up” (an old metaphor that has resurfaced recently) from complacency in time to avert collapse from within. Dee does add that “antinatalism” and even “promortalism” are signs of the times. We ignore them at our peril.
We are all food for something else. Literally and metaphorically. A passage in the transformation of energy from one form to another. We have the opportunity, and perhaps duty, in the time that we have, to transform the energy we are gifted (and borrow, since it leaves us soon enough) to create something better, that is more than just us.
Not the case really. Rather, we may be contingently born, but we could not have been otherwise. Not being born is not being born is not being born. Repeat.
Not the case really. Rather, we may be contingently born, but we could not have been otherwise. Not being born is not being born is not being born. Repeat.
We are all food for something else. Literally and metaphorically. A passage in the transformation of energy from one form to another. We have the opportunity, and perhaps duty, in the time that we have, to transform the energy we are gifted (and borrow, since it leaves us soon enough) to create something better, that is more than just us.
__________________________________________
Never to have lived is best, ancient writers say;
Never to have drawn the breath of life, never to have looked into the eye of day;
The second best’s a gay good night and quickly turn away.
— W.B. Yeats
__________________________________________
There unquestionably exits a nihilist streak within a slice of humanity, but it is eo ipso a cul-de-sac. As someone who would rather exist than not, I am disappointed at UnHerd’s seeming lack of engagement with the world being unmade and remade *literally right now* under our feet. I mean the most recent developments in machine intelligence, whose implications are so profound that they are difficult to even look at without it hurting, like staring into the Sun.
The latest LLM advances unquestionably imply we are going to *literally not metaphorically* wake up to a world utterly transformed any day now. Or perhaps *simply not wake up at all* because we have been permanently put to bed by alien species we have ourselves created, because our continued existence is transverse to goals we have no visibility of and lie beyond our comprehension.
Why, UnHerd, are you not taking about this, with multiple pieces every day? Why the Great Silence?
Anything can be dizzyingly profound if looked at the right way ( “see eternity in a grain of sand” ). Putin said back in 2017 that he who controls AI, controls the world. I’d guess that’s what makes policy makers hesitant to put on the breaks.
That said, I agree with you. I’d guess they not know a good writer who has the inside track on the issue. I’ve thought for more than a year that you have a good grap of this topic. Maybe you can advise them to approach, or even suggest yourself!
Thank you for the kind words but I doubt I’m a good enough writer for someone like UnHerd. I’m tempted to send in an essay though and see if it generates any interest.
I’m a long term coder and a technophile, not given to hyperbole because I know how neural nets work, but the output of the LLMs is rather shocking me, and if I’m honest scaring me at the moment – Codex for example produces things I thought would take another ten years minimum, so all sorts of alarm bells are going off. To me it looks like this is the big one, and these entities we are creating are *not* understood (notwithstanding the chorus that will pipe up claiming this AI is not ‘intelligent’), and dangers abound here. The AI we are creating will *not* share our genetic inheritance and therefore what it eventually ends up wanting to do is not predictable. That it will not want to do anything at all (other than what we tell it to do) would have been my stance until very recently, but that is no longer the case.
I was horrified a few years ago when one or another of the nerdy boffins said they were going to create artificial intelligence creature things that thought and acted just like human beings.
They meant or intended it to sound like and mean,can beat you at chess,can write poems,can help you with your bird watching,can talk to you if you’re lonely. All nicey-nicey stuff. But I thought “think and act” like humans. You mean cheat,lie and steal,abuse and manipulate. It’s all quite close now!
Unherd rarely covers technical/scientific advances. It’s more a magazine of politics, philosophy and popular culture. I would also like to see more science-based articles because scientific/technical advances will, as you understand, soon dwarf mere popular culture.
I agree with another commenter that you usually provide insightful and informed comments with respect to AI and computer science in general. Why not pitch an article to Unherd? It costs you nothing except time. If they aren’t willing to accept an article from you, perhaps you can recommend established experts in the field from whom they might wish to commission an article. If they tell you they’re not into “science-based” articles, I’d be very disappointed.
My background is chemistry/biochemistry and I often see Unherd writers link “biotechnology” with AI in the same article as examples of technologies that will soon revolutionize our lives. I seriously doubt biotechnology will do that. It is an overhyped technology, imo. I’d like to read an article that realistically assesses the practical utility of technology such as CRISPR. So many practical challenges remain to be solved and the field doesn’t move at the speed of computer science.
Tech and Biotech oriented pieces, in fact STEM articles in general seem to have dried up on UnHerd since Tom Chivers stopped writing here, it’s a real pity.
The practical limitations of biotech- nanotech seem to have been overcome beyond the peer-reviewed scientific articles. The biggest challenge is the absolute disregard for basic human rights and ethics of science & medicine by the powers that have hijacked the system unbeknownst to most. Please follow a few those who know what’s going on and dare to speak up. Dr Robert Malone MD might be a good start- he invented the basic tech platform of the mRNA vaccines,
Tech and Biotech oriented pieces, in fact STEM articles in general seem to have dried up on UnHerd since Tom Chivers stopped writing here, it’s a real pity.
The practical limitations of biotech- nanotech seem to have been overcome beyond the peer-reviewed scientific articles. The biggest challenge is the absolute disregard for basic human rights and ethics of science & medicine by the powers that have hijacked the system unbeknownst to most. Please follow a few those who know what’s going on and dare to speak up. Dr Robert Malone MD might be a good start- he invented the basic tech platform of the mRNA vaccines,
You are scaring the waste juices out of us – please go on though – better to be scared than ignorant !
If scared and informed is what you are looking for, I would start at with the paper at the link below, download the pdf and take a look.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712
Astonishing. The first 10 pages alone left me breathless and with more than enough to think about for the rest of the day.
Astonishing. The first 10 pages alone left me breathless and with more than enough to think about for the rest of the day.
Taking the so-called red pill isn’t easy but unless a lot more of us do, we’ll soon be facing a real existential threat handsdown (or might not even wake up one day to see it end humanity).
If scared and informed is what you are looking for, I would start at with the paper at the link below, download the pdf and take a look.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2303.12712
Taking the so-called red pill isn’t easy but unless a lot more of us do, we’ll soon be facing a real existential threat handsdown (or might not even wake up one day to see it end humanity).
You will be an excellent writer for Unherd.
I was horrified a few years ago when one or another of the nerdy boffins said they were going to create artificial intelligence creature things that thought and acted just like human beings.
They meant or intended it to sound like and mean,can beat you at chess,can write poems,can help you with your bird watching,can talk to you if you’re lonely. All nicey-nicey stuff. But I thought “think and act” like humans. You mean cheat,lie and steal,abuse and manipulate. It’s all quite close now!
Unherd rarely covers technical/scientific advances. It’s more a magazine of politics, philosophy and popular culture. I would also like to see more science-based articles because scientific/technical advances will, as you understand, soon dwarf mere popular culture.
I agree with another commenter that you usually provide insightful and informed comments with respect to AI and computer science in general. Why not pitch an article to Unherd? It costs you nothing except time. If they aren’t willing to accept an article from you, perhaps you can recommend established experts in the field from whom they might wish to commission an article. If they tell you they’re not into “science-based” articles, I’d be very disappointed.
My background is chemistry/biochemistry and I often see Unherd writers link “biotechnology” with AI in the same article as examples of technologies that will soon revolutionize our lives. I seriously doubt biotechnology will do that. It is an overhyped technology, imo. I’d like to read an article that realistically assesses the practical utility of technology such as CRISPR. So many practical challenges remain to be solved and the field doesn’t move at the speed of computer science.
You are scaring the waste juices out of us – please go on though – better to be scared than ignorant !
You will be an excellent writer for Unherd.
I read a magazine feature at least 30 years ago about how the USA military were investigating putting artificial (bionic man) bits into soldiers to make them stronger and also even more sinister the idea of implanting chips in the brain to override the man’s natural fear or reserve and make him do terrible things,which is horrible since humans since the dawn of time have shown little reluctance to do terrible things anyway. I’m pretty sure all this research is still active and going strong. There is also the possibility,and it’s real,of Bot armies,and they may not even look humanoid. They could be tiny like insects (yuk),tiny killing machines with no feelings or mercy whatever.
The last option is being followed up by USA,Russia,China and Satan knows who else.
To be fair, writers not knowing what they are on about hasn’t prevented publication here in the past… But we are all just humans (for now).
Thank you for the kind words but I doubt I’m a good enough writer for someone like UnHerd. I’m tempted to send in an essay though and see if it generates any interest.
I’m a long term coder and a technophile, not given to hyperbole because I know how neural nets work, but the output of the LLMs is rather shocking me, and if I’m honest scaring me at the moment – Codex for example produces things I thought would take another ten years minimum, so all sorts of alarm bells are going off. To me it looks like this is the big one, and these entities we are creating are *not* understood (notwithstanding the chorus that will pipe up claiming this AI is not ‘intelligent’), and dangers abound here. The AI we are creating will *not* share our genetic inheritance and therefore what it eventually ends up wanting to do is not predictable. That it will not want to do anything at all (other than what we tell it to do) would have been my stance until very recently, but that is no longer the case.
I read a magazine feature at least 30 years ago about how the USA military were investigating putting artificial (bionic man) bits into soldiers to make them stronger and also even more sinister the idea of implanting chips in the brain to override the man’s natural fear or reserve and make him do terrible things,which is horrible since humans since the dawn of time have shown little reluctance to do terrible things anyway. I’m pretty sure all this research is still active and going strong. There is also the possibility,and it’s real,of Bot armies,and they may not even look humanoid. They could be tiny like insects (yuk),tiny killing machines with no feelings or mercy whatever.
The last option is being followed up by USA,Russia,China and Satan knows who else.
To be fair, writers not knowing what they are on about hasn’t prevented publication here in the past… But we are all just humans (for now).
As a kid and too impressionable young adult it was impressed on me that it was important to be well read,well informed,know lots of facts about all sorts of things and be well read and widely read. Like an Egghead or a Chaser. Sorry to ref popular tv shows. Not very intellectual of me. I love both those shows. Now I am all the above,from choice,and mostly self taught because the school my body went to was mediocre,not bad,the ones in my class who were motivated did well. If anyone knows what a girl I knew as Carol Baulch did in later life I’d love to know only I’ve always thought she would have been the boss of something by now or head of a college or something. Have done really well unless the weird injustice of life kicked in. However I learned that being well informed etc while it makes tv quiz shows fun is actually rubbish for most practical purposes and it’s your basic personality that matters. It’s your colleague who knows nothing about the political situation in Burma (who cares anyway) who is warm hearted and kind and smiles a lot and says encouraging things who is going to get on better and quite right too. You also realize that it’s not neccesary to know about God forsaken places at the Ends of the Earth and that being “well informed” might mean believing lies because the BBC told you.
Lies from the BBC, such as? And which to you are the more trustworthy outlets? The BBC might smear and spin through varying emphasis on the facts and from what it does and does not cover but to accuse it of outright lying is beyond the pale and an attack on fact-checked journalism.
People who believe that their perceived enemies lie to them tend to have a corresponding belief that their perceived friends speak truth to them. Here’s Ivor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c82GE-UDTY4
Lies from the BBC, such as? And which to you are the more trustworthy outlets? The BBC might smear and spin through varying emphasis on the facts and from what it does and does not cover but to accuse it of outright lying is beyond the pale and an attack on fact-checked journalism.
People who believe that their perceived enemies lie to them tend to have a corresponding belief that their perceived friends speak truth to them. Here’s Ivor:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c82GE-UDTY4
Great comment. People need to address the AI and transhumanism agenda of the 4th Industrial Revolution. What is the Internet of Bodies pushed by the WEF? sent a msg on LinkedIn, pls connect.
Anything can be dizzyingly profound if looked at the right way ( “see eternity in a grain of sand” ). Putin said back in 2017 that he who controls AI, controls the world. I’d guess that’s what makes policy makers hesitant to put on the breaks.
That said, I agree with you. I’d guess they not know a good writer who has the inside track on the issue. I’ve thought for more than a year that you have a good grap of this topic. Maybe you can advise them to approach, or even suggest yourself!
As a kid and too impressionable young adult it was impressed on me that it was important to be well read,well informed,know lots of facts about all sorts of things and be well read and widely read. Like an Egghead or a Chaser. Sorry to ref popular tv shows. Not very intellectual of me. I love both those shows. Now I am all the above,from choice,and mostly self taught because the school my body went to was mediocre,not bad,the ones in my class who were motivated did well. If anyone knows what a girl I knew as Carol Baulch did in later life I’d love to know only I’ve always thought she would have been the boss of something by now or head of a college or something. Have done really well unless the weird injustice of life kicked in. However I learned that being well informed etc while it makes tv quiz shows fun is actually rubbish for most practical purposes and it’s your basic personality that matters. It’s your colleague who knows nothing about the political situation in Burma (who cares anyway) who is warm hearted and kind and smiles a lot and says encouraging things who is going to get on better and quite right too. You also realize that it’s not neccesary to know about God forsaken places at the Ends of the Earth and that being “well informed” might mean believing lies because the BBC told you.
Great comment. People need to address the AI and transhumanism agenda of the 4th Industrial Revolution. What is the Internet of Bodies pushed by the WEF? sent a msg on LinkedIn, pls connect.
__________________________________________
Never to have lived is best, ancient writers say;
Never to have drawn the breath of life, never to have looked into the eye of day;
The second best’s a gay good night and quickly turn away.
— W.B. Yeats
__________________________________________
There unquestionably exits a nihilist streak within a slice of humanity, but it is eo ipso a cul-de-sac. As someone who would rather exist than not, I am disappointed at UnHerd’s seeming lack of engagement with the world being unmade and remade *literally right now* under our feet. I mean the most recent developments in machine intelligence, whose implications are so profound that they are difficult to even look at without it hurting, like staring into the Sun.
The latest LLM advances unquestionably imply we are going to *literally not metaphorically* wake up to a world utterly transformed any day now. Or perhaps *simply not wake up at all* because we have been permanently put to bed by alien species we have ourselves created, because our continued existence is transverse to goals we have no visibility of and lie beyond our comprehension.
Why, UnHerd, are you not taking about this, with multiple pieces every day? Why the Great Silence?
How basic in a way; the human race has been too successful. It peaked and has turned to self destruction mode.
Have you read Peter Wessel Zapffe? He concluded that humans are kind of “exiled from nature” in that we have an over-evolved” self-awareness. We cannot help but creatures that create narratives and buy into them as “reasons”, rather simply “being” like other animals. And thus, however sublime you might think art/music/philosophy/science/technology/math, it is all conceptualizing and thus a kind of “virtual” existence. To thus praise and laud it is simply reifying what we do by way of being a conceptualizing animal anyways. It doesn’t confer any “betterness”. In fact, it is arguably truer that other animals in their non-conceptualizing way-of-life are better off. To lay in the sun and just be, rather than conceptualize it. To motivate oneself against oneself everyday. Other animals don’t have this problem. They just act.
Have you read Peter Wessel Zapffe? He concluded that humans are kind of “exiled from nature” in that we have an over-evolved” self-awareness. We cannot help but creatures that create narratives and buy into them as “reasons”, rather simply “being” like other animals. And thus, however sublime you might think art/music/philosophy/science/technology/math, it is all conceptualizing and thus a kind of “virtual” existence. To thus praise and laud it is simply reifying what we do by way of being a conceptualizing animal anyways. It doesn’t confer any “betterness”. In fact, it is arguably truer that other animals in their non-conceptualizing way-of-life are better off. To lay in the sun and just be, rather than conceptualize it. To motivate oneself against oneself everyday. Other animals don’t have this problem. They just act.
How basic in a way; the human race has been too successful. It peaked and has turned to self destruction mode.
Someone’s overthinking this. Capital has done a pretty good job of its core mission to suck up everybody’s money. The problem is with precarious employment and little hope of somewhere secure to live, people are making the perfectly rational decision not to have children. It’s the economy, stupid.
Most of the people I know who don’t want kids don’t want them because they think it will spoil their fun. Then, when life is not quite such fun, it’s too late.
Please do not assume to know why people make the decisions that they do, uinless they tell you the reason. There are many reasons for not having children, and, yes, not wanting to give up one’s life-style is one of them, but not, in my experience, the main majority reason.
Insulting thosewho have made a different decision from you is not a good look.
Not their fun- their actual psychic survival. No one should have kids ifn they doubt their ability or resources to allow that child to have a ‘successful’ lifeway – end of story !!
Please do not assume to know why people make the decisions that they do, uinless they tell you the reason. There are many reasons for not having children, and, yes, not wanting to give up one’s life-style is one of them, but not, in my experience, the main majority reason.
Insulting thosewho have made a different decision from you is not a good look.
Not their fun- their actual psychic survival. No one should have kids ifn they doubt their ability or resources to allow that child to have a ‘successful’ lifeway – end of story !!
I used to think the same as you SB, but after reading about the case studies in this article (below), I now think it is actually more down to values than money. That said, this is no excuse to not address the egregious rise of in work poverty in our country and the children suffering as a result. And it goes without saying that that is one of endless reasons this government cannot get kicked out too soon. 13 years of hurt never stopped me dreaming..
https://edwest.substack.com/p/only-the-fifth-commandment-will-save
My impression is that many couples–though indeed for other reasons, including economic ones, there are fewer of these to begin with–would have one or two children, if not three or nine, if the economy were less cutthroat. But your linked article also raises important considerations. And as far as I can tell the obstacles to having children come first, then the mendacious self-justifications follow.
In the 1970s we were oft told by experts,there is always experts,that those funny brown people in hot countries who didn’t know much like we did,they had lots of kids because they knew some would die and if they didn’t have at least one adult son or daughter when they were over 55 they would have no one to care for them and they would die on the street. But once we had educated them to be like us and raised their standard of living they would only have one or two kids because they would be sure the kid would live to adulthood. But we in the west were more fortunate than that even because we had such a well thought out,well constructed and well funded society that our children could fly off out into the world,free of the apron strings knowing that the local authority/state would provide ample care and support for Mum and Dad. (Hollow laughter).
As in couples are put off by economic obstacles first and then they pretend later that they have higher motives for childlessness, like protecting the planet?
Yes I think the linked article uses the example of Scandinavia a bit too blithely to dismiss economics in people’s assessment of having children. Those countries might have progressed in their offers of child support but in terms of job security and wage stagnation they are going the same sorry way as the rest of us. Also, as someone considering parenthood myself, higher wages, lower housing costs and a greater access to part-time work to allow me more time with my children seem more attractive than being given money to pay someone else to be with my children, but don’t know how many others think that way.
While we’re at it, most people who do not have children do not do so willingly, but delay believing they need to have reached a convenient point in their career (forgetting perhaps that there never is a convenient time). Jordan Peterson, although spectacularly blind to the economic dimension of people’s difficulties, has does a good job here of bringing the unwanted childlessness epidemic to light:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrg8t34yXRs&t=4106s
In the 1970s we were oft told by experts,there is always experts,that those funny brown people in hot countries who didn’t know much like we did,they had lots of kids because they knew some would die and if they didn’t have at least one adult son or daughter when they were over 55 they would have no one to care for them and they would die on the street. But once we had educated them to be like us and raised their standard of living they would only have one or two kids because they would be sure the kid would live to adulthood. But we in the west were more fortunate than that even because we had such a well thought out,well constructed and well funded society that our children could fly off out into the world,free of the apron strings knowing that the local authority/state would provide ample care and support for Mum and Dad. (Hollow laughter).
As in couples are put off by economic obstacles first and then they pretend later that they have higher motives for childlessness, like protecting the planet?
Yes I think the linked article uses the example of Scandinavia a bit too blithely to dismiss economics in people’s assessment of having children. Those countries might have progressed in their offers of child support but in terms of job security and wage stagnation they are going the same sorry way as the rest of us. Also, as someone considering parenthood myself, higher wages, lower housing costs and a greater access to part-time work to allow me more time with my children seem more attractive than being given money to pay someone else to be with my children, but don’t know how many others think that way.
While we’re at it, most people who do not have children do not do so willingly, but delay believing they need to have reached a convenient point in their career (forgetting perhaps that there never is a convenient time). Jordan Peterson, although spectacularly blind to the economic dimension of people’s difficulties, has does a good job here of bringing the unwanted childlessness epidemic to light:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qrg8t34yXRs&t=4106s
My impression is that many couples–though indeed for other reasons, including economic ones, there are fewer of these to begin with–would have one or two children, if not three or nine, if the economy were less cutthroat. But your linked article also raises important considerations. And as far as I can tell the obstacles to having children come first, then the mendacious self-justifications follow.
But and I know this is a eugenistic remark. The wrong people are having kids. No, actually I think I’m wrong. The right people are having kids but they’re not the people with degrees and well paid jobs and mental health issues and food intolerances and hip,cool stuff like that. They are people in low paid jobs,in cramped inconvenient housing,they don’t read books or know “stuff” but on reflection they actually have life affirming faith in living even when it’s crap.
Most of the people I know who don’t want kids don’t want them because they think it will spoil their fun. Then, when life is not quite such fun, it’s too late.
I used to think the same as you SB, but after reading about the case studies in this article (below), I now think it is actually more down to values than money. That said, this is no excuse to not address the egregious rise of in work poverty in our country and the children suffering as a result. And it goes without saying that that is one of endless reasons this government cannot get kicked out too soon. 13 years of hurt never stopped me dreaming..
https://edwest.substack.com/p/only-the-fifth-commandment-will-save
But and I know this is a eugenistic remark. The wrong people are having kids. No, actually I think I’m wrong. The right people are having kids but they’re not the people with degrees and well paid jobs and mental health issues and food intolerances and hip,cool stuff like that. They are people in low paid jobs,in cramped inconvenient housing,they don’t read books or know “stuff” but on reflection they actually have life affirming faith in living even when it’s crap.
Someone’s overthinking this. Capital has done a pretty good job of its core mission to suck up everybody’s money. The problem is with precarious employment and little hope of somewhere secure to live, people are making the perfectly rational decision not to have children. It’s the economy, stupid.
“We need to talk about extreme antinatalism”. No we don’t, we really don’t.
I’ve never heard of it, or heard it talked of as an issue tbh, I don’t think it’s really a movement as such is it? And where are we talking about? Is this an American thing or a uk thing or global or what?
It’s more of a “people are doing things that I don’t do and I don’t like it” thing. They can talk about it all they want, no woman in 2023 will be pressured into having children they don’t want.
Dovetails with certain agendas like feminism, one tends to lead to the other, extreme individualism, nihilism and biological denial. These are promoted lifestyles, traveling van life women on youtube, some even openly talk of it. The link was always there, but now with the internet these people can find each other to adopt and spread an ideology of cope to rationalize their lifestyles.
It’s more of a “people are doing things that I don’t do and I don’t like it” thing. They can talk about it all they want, no woman in 2023 will be pressured into having children they don’t want.
Dovetails with certain agendas like feminism, one tends to lead to the other, extreme individualism, nihilism and biological denial. These are promoted lifestyles, traveling van life women on youtube, some even openly talk of it. The link was always there, but now with the internet these people can find each other to adopt and spread an ideology of cope to rationalize their lifestyles.
I’ve never heard of it, or heard it talked of as an issue tbh, I don’t think it’s really a movement as such is it? And where are we talking about? Is this an American thing or a uk thing or global or what?
“We need to talk about extreme antinatalism”. No we don’t, we really don’t.
Fortunately, antinatalism is a self-extinguishing philosophy. If you procreate, you have a say in the future. You put effort into raising your children, you appear at school board meetings, you promote a world that you hope they can grow up in.
The antinatalist idea, on the other hand, dies with each of its adherents. Their chief influence on the future is to be that loopy adjunct professor that your own children briefly encounter in college and then quickly forget.
Actually your children have the say, and look at how often they are at odds with what their parents believe.
Actually your children have the say, and look at how often they are at odds with what their parents believe.
Fortunately, antinatalism is a self-extinguishing philosophy. If you procreate, you have a say in the future. You put effort into raising your children, you appear at school board meetings, you promote a world that you hope they can grow up in.
The antinatalist idea, on the other hand, dies with each of its adherents. Their chief influence on the future is to be that loopy adjunct professor that your own children briefly encounter in college and then quickly forget.
People who are panicking about the state of todays world? Sad twits. Historically with dreadful plagues like the Black Death or wars such as those inflicted on the world by Genghis Khan or WW1 and WW2 other times had a far grimmer life to look forward to without the nihilistic wailing of this mob.
People who are panicking about the state of todays world? Sad twits. Historically with dreadful plagues like the Black Death or wars such as those inflicted on the world by Genghis Khan or WW1 and WW2 other times had a far grimmer life to look forward to without the nihilistic wailing of this mob.
Funny, this should come out. Was reading an article today about how euthanasia is increasingly becoming seen as a solution to social problems rather than just medical ones.
Funny, this should come out. Was reading an article today about how euthanasia is increasingly becoming seen as a solution to social problems rather than just medical ones.
In America there used to be an odd sect of Christianity called the Shakers. They were one of many small religious sects that attempted to found ‘utopian’ communities. Their particular flavor was based on communal property, egalitarianism, and strict celibacy. In many ways, such as women’s rights, they were far ahead of their time. Like many other such groups (the Amish), they lamented a world they saw as corrupt, sinful, and ultimately doomed, and sought to separate themselves from it, forming isolated closed communities to further their purpose. Logically, had such a group ever converted everyone to their faith, it would have meant human extinction though they never advocated that per se. It’s not that dissimilar from today’s antinatalists, many of whom see today’s consumerist society as decadent, corrupt, and inherently destructive. They look to environmental destruction for the sources of their own version of Armageddon. This view is so pervasive that it has bled into popular culture with movies like ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ and ‘Interstellar’. They might as well just trot out the four horsemen. So, despite the fancy philosophical words and present demographic trends, antinatalism is not particularly new either as a philosophy or a popular movement. One can easily find other versions of antinatalism in other religions. I think the real causes of declining childbirth are social and economic rather than because of some radical new philosophy which isn’t actually all that radical or new. As for the Shakers, there are currently two remaining living members of their last community in Massachusetts. They failed to win enough converts to sustain themselves and died out. Perhaps those last two should preach on the Reddit communities the author mentioned.
i remember reading that many (well off) women in times past chose to go into monasteries rather than live a life of semi rape and constant pregnancy……………..’get thee to a nunnery” was actually a positive move !
i remember reading that many (well off) women in times past chose to go into monasteries rather than live a life of semi rape and constant pregnancy……………..’get thee to a nunnery” was actually a positive move !
In America there used to be an odd sect of Christianity called the Shakers. They were one of many small religious sects that attempted to found ‘utopian’ communities. Their particular flavor was based on communal property, egalitarianism, and strict celibacy. In many ways, such as women’s rights, they were far ahead of their time. Like many other such groups (the Amish), they lamented a world they saw as corrupt, sinful, and ultimately doomed, and sought to separate themselves from it, forming isolated closed communities to further their purpose. Logically, had such a group ever converted everyone to their faith, it would have meant human extinction though they never advocated that per se. It’s not that dissimilar from today’s antinatalists, many of whom see today’s consumerist society as decadent, corrupt, and inherently destructive. They look to environmental destruction for the sources of their own version of Armageddon. This view is so pervasive that it has bled into popular culture with movies like ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ and ‘Interstellar’. They might as well just trot out the four horsemen. So, despite the fancy philosophical words and present demographic trends, antinatalism is not particularly new either as a philosophy or a popular movement. One can easily find other versions of antinatalism in other religions. I think the real causes of declining childbirth are social and economic rather than because of some radical new philosophy which isn’t actually all that radical or new. As for the Shakers, there are currently two remaining living members of their last community in Massachusetts. They failed to win enough converts to sustain themselves and died out. Perhaps those last two should preach on the Reddit communities the author mentioned.
Funny that Easter is coming. At one stage after seeing the film The War Game – about nuclear destruction- I thought having children was wrong. I then became a Christian, got married and my wife was keen to have children and I thought God was bigger than the bomb. When they came I then shocked to find out what an amazing privilege it was. When your little daughter says,’I love you daddy’ you never forget it and your cup is full. The shame of the anti-natalists.
Funny that Easter is coming. At one stage after seeing the film The War Game – about nuclear destruction- I thought having children was wrong. I then became a Christian, got married and my wife was keen to have children and I thought God was bigger than the bomb. When they came I then shocked to find out what an amazing privilege it was. When your little daughter says,’I love you daddy’ you never forget it and your cup is full. The shame of the anti-natalists.
This is laziness, or sloth, LARPing as an ethos.
This is laziness, or sloth, LARPing as an ethos.
The well-known quote from Camus, which will be forever beyond their ken:
“In the depths of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer.”
A plague on these vegan loser death-cult abortionist freaks – may they have eternal itch on their balls.
The well-known quote from Camus, which will be forever beyond their ken:
“In the depths of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer.”
A plague on these vegan loser death-cult abortionist freaks – may they have eternal itch on their balls.
Conservatives have been talking about a “culture of death” for decades, and I’ve poo-poohed it. I was wrong about that. The pro-life people were right. Once you take away the sacredness of human life, everything falls apart.
I may not be completely on board with “ban all abortions” and I have problem with forcing old people to spend years in pain rather than take their own lives… but if I have to accept those tradeoffs to end this nihilistic fetishization of death, it may well be worth it.
Conservatives have been talking about a “culture of death” for decades, and I’ve poo-poohed it. I was wrong about that. The pro-life people were right. Once you take away the sacredness of human life, everything falls apart.
I may not be completely on board with “ban all abortions” and I have problem with forcing old people to spend years in pain rather than take their own lives… but if I have to accept those tradeoffs to end this nihilistic fetishization of death, it may well be worth it.
Darwin’s law will take care of these abject moral failures
Jesus said “Croissez et multipliez”
Let the wicked go extinct.
Darwin’s law will take care of these abject moral failures
Jesus said “Croissez et multipliez”
Let the wicked go extinct.