In the current context, it has more to do with the holistic "how much of human societal effort do we spend on improving our ability to find joy, actualize ourselves, pursue art, science, and betterment of all human life." And while I recognize that on many absolute measures (e.g. (multiple prisoners of war, multiple international displacements, multiple individuals killed as civilians due to who or what they were.) things that cause suffering." If I had reasonably high confidence those specific things you listed were coming I would not have had children, and given my own family's history through those events, I would find myself rather justified in hindsight in doing so. It's less about a specific disaster and more "how much of your life will you get to spend on things that bring you fulfillment and happiness vs. > What level or type of disaster would trigger it? Would you have had kids if you knew that the Black Death was coming or, being a Roman citizen, that the Roman Empire was going to fall? If you were a European in 1920, fully knowing the outcome of WWII, would you intentionally have kids? What if you only had models that these things were coming in a fuzzy way? I realize this is philosophical and subjective. To me at least this question only relevantly includes "those alive while I'm alive." Whether my great great great grandchildren have an amazing time of it has very little bearing on my ability or desire to withstand suffering to achieve it. > How many generations of potential suffering is required before having children is off the table? How many n+ future generations of having potentially joyful and regenerating lives would offset the former generations of suffering? To me at least, humanity and the world is in a context that I don't see the problems that have caused suffering in my life improving, and while I've never been actively suicidal, the thought that eventually I will un-be again is extremely comforting, to the extent that I don't think I'd regret never-having-been, even outside the tautological that I wouldn't be alive to regret it. This may sound heartless, but knowing my kid has a better life than me only goes so far in making me feel like suffering is worth that. It would depend on my confidence levels that N recursive generations would have better or worse outcomes. > Do you think unbeing is preferable to a potentially miserable life that would still likely result in them having their own children that didn't experience their own level of suffering? This question seemed authentic and caring enough that I wanted to try and answer it from my point of view, as I greatly share your desire to build stronger bridges with people and understand others. How can I understand your perspective? Can I understand it? It would help me build stronger bridges if you (or anyone else) could help me intuitively picture it. From what I can see, living-on is the only thing that actually lasts-everything else will fall away, improve, and fall away again, including what we mean by being human itself, but procreation is forever. Like, my position is that I'd like to think that I'd undergo torture for my kids, and that my kids would do so likewise for theirs recursively until the number of generations outnumbered the stars. I get the reasoning on a rational level, but I don't have the gut-sense of it and it hurts my relationship with my family and friends. My brother-in-law sees climate change as catastrophic to any progeny, and my best friend views human life itself as an involuntary evil inflicted on children, but I have difficulties understanding their positions on an intuitive level. My father-in-law told me don't have kids. What level or type of disaster would trigger it? Would you have had kids if you knew that the Black Death was coming or, being a Roman citizen, that the Roman Empire was going to fall? If you were a European in 1920, fully knowing the outcome of WWII, would you intentionally have kids? What if you only had models that these things were coming in a fuzzy way? Can you share your thoughts on the following?ĭo you think unbeing is preferable to a potentially miserable life that would still likely result in them having their own children that didn't experience their own level of suffering? How many generations of potential suffering is required before having children is off the table? How many n+ future generations of having potentially joyful and regenerating lives would offset the former generations of suffering? I don't understand this space of what I can only term ecological or economic antinatalism.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |