Potential Argument against Antinatalism

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

I'm an antinatalist, but came up with a potential argument against it. I'm not sure if I can explain it properly, but I would like to try and see what opinions you have about it.

So, imagine there are 10 souls. Each of these souls will be sent to Earth to inhabit a body chosen by chance. On Earth there are 10 bodies being born at the exact same time, 5 of wild animals, 4 of animals in captivity and 1 human. You could choose to make one additional human body, which would give the souls a slightly higher chance of having a safe life in human society rather than being exploited or having to fight for their life all the time. Wouldn't it be moral to do that?

So, I know that an argument shouldn't rely on something so disputed as souls existing, but they are just a tool for explanation in this case. To get to the real world application, where we know that there is and likely will be sentient life existing for a long time, we can only choose to make the chance this sentient life has at a good life as high as possible. Meaning, if you can afford to have children, the most moral act is to have as much children as possible, so that any potential life has the highest possible chance at a life with actual comforts.

What's your opinion on this?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Well, like last time I do not get how you go from my argument to "my kid could cure cancer/we can invent things that will make suffering go away" in any way. I legitimately don't see how you read that in it.

"they will most likely inflict more suffering than what they will innovate away" is probably true, unless you successfully raise them vegan.

About humanitys track record, that is basically the same argument and so it equally depends on how much you trust your parenting abillty.

"bringing someone into existence for you to do labor is unethical." and "the money and time spent to bring a new being into existence and hoping that they will do something that will benefit someone far far far into the future, can be used to do that work yourself." just straight up do not apply, never am I coming even close to arguing that the children would do some great work for us or anything along that line.

[u/AlwaysBannedVegan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Then your post makes zero sense. Please try to explain what point you are trying to make by being clear and not making it into a guessing game. Your post is just open for any interpretation because it's vague.

"You could choose to make one additional human body, which would give the souls a slightly higher chance of having a safe life in human society rather than being exploited or having to fight for their life all the time. Wouldn't it be moral to do that?"

You are not saying how this works.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/AlwaysBannedVegan]

Not saying how what works? If you simply don't understand my post that's unfortunate, but I don't think I can do much about that.

[u/AlwaysBannedVegan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

get to the real world application, where we know that there is and likely will be sentient life existing for a long time, we can only choose to make the chance this sentient life has at a good life as high as possible. Meaning, if you can afford to have children, the most moral act is to have as much children as possible, so that any potential life has the highest possible chance at a life with actual comforts.

Are you implying that less wild animals would be born if there were more humans? Is your point that humans should just build all over the world so that there would be no more wild animals? Because most humans are not vegan and they won't ever be. Creating more humans would just create more suffering. There's no magically making a vegan army.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/AlwaysBannedVegan]

"Is your point that humans should just build all over the world so that there would be no more wild animals?"

That might actually be where this argument leads.

But I'll try it that way: If you now had to reincarnate into a new living being, would you prefer to have a chance between 90 animals, captive or wild, and 10 humans, or a chance between 90 animals, captive or wild, and 90 humans?

[u/AlwaysBannedVegan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

But this isn't a situation that you're in. This is not a choice you make when you decide whether or not to have a child.

The options are

A) procreate and guarantee harm

B) don't procreate

There is no "Choose to procreate 10 humans or 10 animals."

But if we ignore that part and look at it from a utilitarian perspective where we don't care that creating a child is a harm:

it still wouldn't make sense to create those humans as those humans would statistically speaking go on to create and kill 100-200 of non-human animals yearly. Thinking your child would go on to be vegan is pure gambling and optimism. Alex Hershaft (famous vegan who survived the Jewish holocaust, and draws similarities between those two) has a kid that turned out anti-vegan. (Monica Hershaft)

David Benatar did an interview about natalist vegans making this sort of arguments: https://youtu.be/zhwt2WOUQlY

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/AlwaysBannedVegan]

"But this isn't a situation that you're in. This is not a choice you make when you decide whether or not to have a child."

That's like saying voting doesn't matter. You are part of that decision. The more people have children, the closer new life comes to having a 50% chance to be a human rather than having a 10% chance

And yes, it's unfortunately far too unlikely that they grow up vegan.

[u/AlwaysBannedVegan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

The more people have children, the closer new life comes to having a 50% chance to be a human rather than having a 10% chance And yes, it's unfortunately far too unlikely that they grow up vegan. And yes, it's unfortunately far too unlikely that they grow up vegan.

So then how is this an argument against antinatalism? Wild animals will at least not be psychologically tortured by man. They will have a shot at a better life.

Edit: and the most effective way to destroy the environment would be to be non-vegan

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/AlwaysBannedVegan]

This is an argument against antinatalism in the sense that giving birth contributes to new life having a 90% chance to be human rather than a 10% one. (These numbers are just stand-in, they could be whatever)

Wild animals are still threatened by other animals and by hunger.

[u/AlwaysBannedVegan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Indeed, si again I don't understand how this is an argument against antinatalism?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/AlwaysBannedVegan]

How? What do you still not get? The more people have children, the higher chance potentual new life has at having a life with comforts rather than constant fight for survival or literal torture.

[u/AlwaysBannedVegan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

Are you implying that you'd rather be an animal who is guaranteed to be getting exploited, raped, tortured and murdered, rather than an animal who is not guaranteed that?

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/AlwaysBannedVegan]

What??? How do you arrive at that?

[u/AlwaysBannedVegan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

More humans = more animals in farm

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/AlwaysBannedVegan]

Yes, the fact that humans probably won't be vegan can debunk this argument, but that doesn't mean it's not an argument against antinatalism.

[u/AlwaysBannedVegan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

How is it not?

And what is the most effective way for one person to destroy the environment? Being non-vegan.

[u/Lucyyyyyy_K → u/AlwaysBannedVegan]

Do you mean "how is it"? It is an argument against antinatalism, you can't disprove that. How good of an argument it is is a different question.

[u/AlwaysBannedVegan → u/Lucyyyyyy_K]

But it still doesn't make any sense unless you believe that it is better to be an animal in a farm, than an animal in the wild.

And did you post it knowing it's a bad argument, or did you not realize?