Natalism/Antinatalism: Is Life Worth Living?

[Sundiata]

Hello everyone!

I'm beginning this thread because I would like to investigate a belief with you. Specifically, the belief that life is good, worth living, and worth creating. My personal position is that life is good but that position is deeply rooted in my Catholic faith. I also recognize that someone without my same faith can live a life of high quality. However, does that make life inherently good in their eyes, regardless of its quality? I struggle to see the room for neutrality on this subject.

I would also like to contrast my perspective with the antinatalist belief, that life is not good, not worth living, and that procreation is somehow immoral. Naturally, this discussion is going to lead to heavy subject matter. There are two suicide hotlines below for anyone who is struggling with such thoughts.

USA SUICIDE HOTLINE: 1-800-273-8255

MOD EDIT: Resources in addition to the US one, above


So, let's aim to discuss the following...

1) Is life worth living for you?

2) What makes life worth living for you?

3) Would you want to live forever if you got to choose when you stopped aging?

4) Is it right to procreate, acknowledging the state of the world?

5) Do you intend to procreate? If you've already done so, do you plan on doing so again?

I'm fine if comments don't directly address the three questions but do address the general theme of discussion. The questions above are largely just a tool for guiding discussion.

Thank you.

[Albrenia]

1) Absolutely.

2) The love of those close to you. The experiences one can have throughout life. The amazing things we can learn. The good one can do for others. The defeats and successes life throws at you. Last but not least, the fun one can have along the way.

3) Probably not forever, but I'd happily accept a vastly increased life span. Much like the capitalist faction leader in Alpha Centauri says "I don't want to live forever, a few thousand years will do me just fine."

4) Depends on the circumstances. I don't think those who avoid having kids are doing anything wrong since the world's population is enormous, but I also don't think those having kids are doing anything wrong either as long as they can care for the lives they bring into this world.

[Atheris]

1) Yes. I've gone through many phases through my life where I've thought of suicide and, one night, I nearly slit my wrists. My views have changed drastically since then.

2) The love of my family, friends, and people close to me. What has happened to me through the ages. The fun I have now, the thing I'll miss

3) It depends if I'm immortal or invulnerable. If I'm immortal, then yes. If I'm invulnerable, then no. I want to die at some point in my life.

4) It's natural. It's very much okay - especially if we get Moon and Mars bases.

[Sundiata]

1) Absolutely.

2) The love of those close to you. The experiences one can have throughout life. The amazing things we can learn. The good one can do for others. The defeats and successes life throws at you. Last but not least, the fun one can have along the way.

3) Probably not forever, but I'd happily accept a vastly increased life span. Much like the capitalist faction leader in Alpha Centauri says "I don't want to live forever, a few thousand years will do me just fine."

2) I really appreciate your second answer. It reminds me that even though life doesn't stay constantly pleasurable, there are some things that remain relatively stable. It also reminded me of the responsibility that we each have to the communities with which we belong, and how our level of responsibility rises with our level of power/influence.

3) With respect to your third answer, why a few 1000 years? I personally can't imagine what I would do for that long.

[Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles]

1) Is life worth living?

It's difficult to answer this question without some knowledge of the values and circumstances of the person doing the living.

2) What makes life worth living?

The experience, values, and circumstances of the person doing the living. As alluded above, combinations of these factors will vary widely, so a blanket response is difficult. More info needed.

3) Would you want to live forever?

Well, if the physicists are correct (and there's good reason to think they are) the mass and energies from which my consciousness emerges is approximately 13.8 billion years old. If I understand correctly, cosmological consensus holds that the universe will continue expanding indefinitely, and current mass will sustain star formation for a few tens to hundreds of thousands of trillions of years. But, eventually, all will be black holes, and eventually totally empty space once those evaporate away in Hawking Radiation.

The take away is that the mass and energies that make me have, do, and will exist continuously within this period of time, meaning I've already effectively achieved practical immortality. True, my consciousness, as this particular person at least, is not continuous for this entire time. But I'm not sure that's a meaningful observation, since my consciousness as this particular person is not continuous over the course of this particular person either (e.g. my memories stop at approximately kindergarten and I've breaks in consciousness regularly via general anesthetic, sleep, etc.). But the stuff that makes the consciousness is effectively immortal, if thermodynamics is a thing.

[Cekoviu]

1) Yes.

2) The potential of good and the ability to be saved.

3) Not by manmade means.

4) It's neither right nor wrong, but it should be heavily considered.

[Albrenia]

3) With respect to your third answer, why a few 1000 years? I personally can't imagine what I would do for that long.

I'd play it by ear, mostly, but I could imagine a good few hundred years spent travelling the world (and others if possible), having careers and hobbies in everything I find interesting, living in cultures which fascinate me to the point I can pass as a local, and so on.

Also a lot of books to read. So many books.

[Sundiata]

It's difficult to answer this question without some knowledge of the values and circumstances of the person doing the living.

That's a fair point. Is life worth living for you?

[Tinhampton]

I: YES

II: People, places, online NationStatal people, the job(!), and the husband... actually, scratch that, I am married to a person! Also, coffee

III: No, but I'd happily take infinite reincarnation (as a human being) in different parallel universes

IV: YES

V: Apparently this fifth question got added while I wasn't looking. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, wouldn't want another kid.

[Kowani]

Let's aim to discuss the following:

1) Is life worth living for you?

2) What makes life worth living for you?

3) Would you want to live forever if you got to choose the age you stop aging?

4) Is it right to procreate, acknowledging the state of the world?

1) Yes.

2) I enjoy it.

3) A very long time, yes. Forever, no.

4) Neither right nor wrong, it merely is.

[Wizlandia]

1) Is life worth living?
Yes. IMO the fact that the vast majority of people don't commit suicide, coupled with the fact that many suicide survivors end up being happy that their suicide attempt failed, points to the fact that in general life is worth living.

3) Would you want to live forever if you got to choose the age you stop ageing?
Personally yes.

4) Is it right to procreate, acknowledging the state of the world?
Yes. I personally accept the repugnant conclusion, the principle that under utilitarianism, for any given population and average utility, there exists a larger population with near zero average utility (I'd define a life with zero utility as a life in which a person would be indifferent between death and continued existence) that is morally preferable. So procreation would be a morally good act.

Torbjörn Tännsjö argues that under Rawls original position of equality for any given population and average utility, there exists a larger population with near zero average utility that is morally preferable. I personally agree with this line of thinking.

When taking a stand on the repugnant conclusion, we should be careful not to ask ourselves, in what world we want to live, in a world where a few very happy persons live, the A-world, or, in a Z-world where very many, moderately happy persons, live. It is very natural to prefer to live in the world where each person is very happy. This does not answer the question of which of these worlds is the better one, however. The question ‘In which world would I like to live?’ is clearly biased. If at all we should discuss the matter from the point of view of what world we would opt for, if we were offered a choice, we should think of ourselves in a Rawlsian manner forced to make our choice behind a veil of ignorance. And somehow our very existence should be at stake in our choice.

Is it possible to take the decision about the number of people who will live behind a veil of ignorance? Derek Parfit has argued that this is not possible: We can imagine a different possible history, in which we never existed. But we cannot assume that, in the actual history of the world, it might be true that we never exist. Even if this is true, there is a possibility of constructing a suitable contractual situation. We could profit here from our bias for the future. This means that we may hold it to be an open question whether, after the contractual situation, we will continue to exist or not. When my option has been made then either the veil of ignorance is simply lifted and I have to live with my option – or I, the contracting party, am taken away. If I make the wrong option it may well be that, all of a sudden, I perish. I never get out of the original position.

How in more detail are we to conceive of the probabilities? There is no fixed answer to this question. Following Rawls, at any rate, we should model the conditions of the original position to satisfy our intuitions about justice as fairness. Then I suggest the following. The risk that I will perish is lower if I opt for a more extensive population. If I opt for the most extensive, possible population, I know that I will continue to exist.

Even if this does not settle the matter completely, I find the following line of argument quite plausible: Suppose we have to chose between a world where 10 billion people live very happy lives and a world where 10100 billion people live lives that are just worth living. Suppose also that no world with more than 10100 billion people is possible. Now, if, behind a veil of ignorance, I opt for a world where 10 billion very happy people live, the probability that I will be one among them may quite reasonably be assumed to be 10 billion to 10100 billion, i.e. negligible. If, on the other hand, I opt for the larger population, then I am almost certain that I will (continue to) live. On this interpretation of the original position, I would not hesitate to opt for the larger population.

I personally agree with Tännsjö's line of thinking, and think that government policy should not only aim at making people happy but also making happy people. To this end I would support a significant increase in the Child Tax Credit as it'd promote procreation without being illiberal or intrusive.

[Rojava Free State]

Fuck fronting for the world, life is hard.

My goal in life is simple and primitive and that is to procreate. Once I've done that, I feel I've fulfilled my primary duty to myself and to my family and ancestors.

[Rojava Free State]

1. Yes it is worth living, despite it being difficult. I remember Oasis lead singer Liam Gallagher said that he enjoyed life because when you wake up in the morning, you don't know where you'll be by that evening and that's amazing.

2. I live for the sunsets, the good times, the Marijuana and the chance to have a family.

3. No, I don't wanna live forever, because then existence would become boring.

4. Yes, the meaning of life for all beings is to reproduce.

[Nakena]

1) Yes it is

2) Because I got a mission to fullfill and doing my part

3) Why not? Maybe not forever but a few hundred years would be neat I am sure.

4) It's necessary.

About four also, the whole talk of "oh my, why we should set children into this horrible world?" struck me always as completly idiotic and fractally wrong, because people who say such have no perspective.

Fuck fronting for the world, life is hard.

My goal in life is simple and primitive and that is to procreate. Once I've done that, I feel I've fulfilled my primary duty to myself and to my family and ancestors.

Thats a good perspective.

[Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles]

That's a fair point. Is life worth living for you?

What does "worth" mean? More specifically, I'm trying to determine if this is a "does life have meaning without God?" type question in disguise.

If the question is whether there is some higher purpose for my existing, I'd venture no, there isn't. My consciousness is an emergent property of physics in our present universe, which I get to enjoy or suffer whether I really like it or not.

If the question is merely "can you stand doing so," then, well, I'm still typing, so probably yes.

[Wizlandia]

About four also, the whole talk of "oh my, why we should set children into this horrible world?" struck me always as completly idiotic and fractally wrong, because people who say such have no perspective.

Agreed. I find it ironic how people generally don't want to die/are happy being alive, but a significant portion of them view it immoral to bring children into this "horrible world."

[Albrenia]

About four also, the whole talk of "oh my, why we should set children into this horrible world?" struck me always as completly idiotic and fractally wrong, because people who say such have no perspective.

Agreed. I find it ironic how people generally don't want to die/are happy being alive, but a significant portion of them view it immoral to bring children into this "horrible world."

It does seem quite odd. Myself as I said above as long as one is going to properly care for one's young it's not a bad thing at all.

[Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles]

About four also, the whole talk of "oh my, why we should set children into this horrible world?" struck me always as completly idiotic and fractally wrong, because people who say such have no perspective.

Agreed. I find it ironic how people generally don't want to die/are happy being alive, but a significant portion of them view it immoral to bring children into this "horrible world."

Or they just don't want to change diapers, which strikes me as an entirely practical and rational perspective.

[Wizlandia]

Agreed. I find it ironic how people generally don't want to die/are happy being alive, but a significant portion of them view it immoral to bring children into this "horrible world."

Or they just don't want to change diapers, which strikes me as an entirely practical and rational perspective.

I was specifically addressing the attitude that it's immoral to bring children into the world, not a lack of desire to have children.

[Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles]

I was specifically addressing the attitude that it's immoral to bring children into the world, not a lack of desire to have children.

The future one is necessarily exposing a new consciousness too is a relevant factor to consider, and probably shouldn't be dismissed easily.

Also, I'm not sure that someone not wanting to die, but also not wanting to bring children into existence, is necessarily contradictory. Arguably, dying involves at least some suffering on top of what one already endures. Concurrently, the avoidance of procreation might involve a desire to avoid afflicting additional suffering upon a new consciousness. Thus, both attitudes may easily involve a desire to avoid additional suffering all around. This would be perfectly consistent.

Also, changing diapers involves significant levels of unnecessary suffering, and is thus probably immoral.

[Wizlandia]

I was specifically addressing the attitude that it's immoral to bring children into the world, not a lack of desire to have children.

The future one is necessarily exposing a new consciousness too is a relevant factor to consider, and probably shouldn't be dismissed easily.

Sure. But I don't think that's an excuse to err on the side of limiting new consciousness from emerging. Ultimately, my position is that if (from a retrospective viewpoint) the new consciousness is happy it's existing, then it's moral to bring that consciousness into the world. I'd argue that the vast amount of people are happy having existed and continuing to exist, so that in general a new consciousness will prefer existence to non-existence.

Also, I'm not sure that someone not wanting to die, but also not wanting to bring children into existence, is necessarily contradictory. Arguably, dying involves at least some suffering on top of what one already endures.

Sure. But replace generic dying with painless death+no suffering+no hurt family/friends and I still bet 99% of people won't take you up on that offer.

Concurrently, the avoidance of procreation might involve a desire to avoid afflicting additional suffering upon a new consciousness. Thus, both attitudes may easily involve a desire to avoid additional suffering all around. This would be perfectly consistent.

I'll agree that it's not inherently contradictory, but its pretty unintuitive. IMO for most people the pleasure of living more than compensates for the additional suffering, hence why very few people (relative to the population) attempt suicide, which would take away both the pleasure and the suffering of life.

Also, changing diapers involves significant levels of unnecessary suffering, and is thus probably immoral.

True lol.

[Purple Rats]

1) Is life worth living for you?

Life in general, I guess so. My life? Well, I wouldn't say it's worth it, but there are still some kind of wondering "what will happen next?", "what will happen, if I do xx". I have been only 13 countries so far, and I would like to explore more and I haven't even achieved anything in my life, so it kind of keeps me going still, the "maybe something interesting will happen" thought.

2) What makes life worth living for you?

If you can create your freedom between worlds of others without these different worlds affecting each other negatively?
Or maybe if you just feel some kind of inner peace and don't be bother so much of other worlds anymore.
("worlds" as other people mindset, lifestyle, actions etc)

3) Would you want to live forever if you got to choose the age you stop aging?

No. As 1. if I would live forever, but others not, then I really would not want to lose so many people. Imagine: losing all your family, friends die, you make new ones, they die. You still have memories of them...
2. if no one would die- where do we put all these people? Invade other planets and destroy these ones too?

4) Is it right to procreate, acknowledging the state of the world?

yes, but I would not do it. I used to really want kids, but older I get, more pessimistic i get as well. And I don't really think it's good environment to grow up if you have to live with mother who's so sick of society.

[Nattily Dressed Anarchists on Bicycles]

Sure. But I don't think that's an excuse to err on the side of limiting new consciousness from emerging. Ultimately, my position is that if (from a retrospective viewpoint) the new consciousness is happy it's existing, then it's moral to bring that consciousness into the world. I'd argue that the vast amount of people are happy having existed and continuing to exist, so that in general a new consciousness will prefer existence to non-existence.

The problem here is that we cannot know whether the new consciousness is happy until we've already brought it into existence, in which case the question is moot. The deed is done. The experience of others might be happy (or, at least, they might claim it's happy...) but this is no guarantee for a new consciousness. Past performance does not guarantee future returns, as the investors say.

The advantage of abstaining from bring the new consciousness into existance is that it guarantees non-suffering until such time as we can guarantee a happy conscious experience. If one's goal is to maximize happiness, then this is basically the only choice.

Thus, those who choose not to procreate have probably simply assessed their personal situation and determined they can make no such guarantee. This strikes me as a mature and responsible position to take.

Sure. But replace generic dying with painless death+no suffering+no hurt family/friends and I still bet 99% of people won't take you up on that offer.

Probably the only way to meet these criteria is to not-exist, and I'm pretty sure non-existent people tend not to reproduce.

I'll agree that it's not inherently contradictory, but its pretty unintuitive. IMO for most people the pleasure of living more than compensates for the additional suffering, hence why very few people (relative to the population) attempt suicide, which would take away both the pleasure and the suffering of life.

The problem with the aggregate is that they are not individuals. And vice versa.

And besides which, "happiness" and "pleasure" are not fixed binary points, but probably continuous spectra. I'm personally not so miserable that I want to do myself in, but I'm also not farting rainbows on a magic unicorn either. I'm somewhere in between. "Life is good, but kids aren't in the picture" is probably a legit point somewhere in that spread.

[Wizlandia]

The problem here is that we cannot know whether the new consciousness is happy until we've already brought it into existence, in which case the question is moot. The deed is done. The experience of others might be happy (or, at least, they might claim it's happy...) but this is no guarantee for a new consciousness.

Sure, but I'm willing to base actions on expected utility, which I believe to be positive. I think requiring guarantees in unnecessarily restrictive - most actions don't have guaranteed positive results, doesn't mean we shouldn't take them.

Past performance does not guarantee future returns, as the investors say.

I mean, I don't see any reason why future people should all of a sudden prefer non-existence. If anything, the world is becoming more prosperous, which should imply that expected utility is higher for the next generation.

The advantage of abstaining from bring the new consciousness into existance is that it guarantees non-suffering until such time as we can guarantee a happy conscious experience. If one's goal is to maximize happiness, then this is basically the only choice.

Not really. This is like saying if one's goal is to maximise wealth, then you shouldn't invest it because there's no guarantee the firm/stock/bank doesn't go under (or lose value). I don't think we should be infinitely risk averse.

Sure. But replace generic dying with painless death+no suffering+no hurt family/friends and I still bet 99% of people won't take you up on that offer.

Probably the only way to meet these criteria is to not-exist, and I'm pretty sure non-existent people tend not to reproduce.

It's a hypothetical. But regardless, I don't quite see the point here?

I'll agree that it's not inherently contradictory, but its pretty unintuitive. IMO for most people the pleasure of living more than compensates for the additional suffering, hence why very few people (relative to the population) attempt suicide, which would take away both the pleasure and the suffering of life.

The problem with the aggregate is that they are not individuals. And vice versa.

Don't see what your point is here either. Could you elaborate?

[Wizlandia]

And besides which, "happiness" and "pleasure" are not fixed binary points, but probably continuous spectra. I'm personally not so miserable that I want to do myself in, but I'm also not farting rainbows on a magic unicorn either. I'm somewhere in between. "Life is good, but kids aren't in the picture" is probably a legit point somewhere in that spread.

I agree with this. The point is that the typical person prefers to have existed/continue to exist than not exist/stop existing (i.e. dying), which implies the net pleasure is positive (or alternatively the net suffering is negative).

Edit: One possible counter to this could be that the utility of the very few people who prefer death/nonexistence to continued existence experienced is so great in the negative direction that it outweighs the utility of those who prefer living, thus making net utility (and consequently expected utility of a child) negative.