The single, basic argument advanced by Elfists and ANs is that it is better that humanity not exist, however, different justifications are given for this argument, and three main strands of antinatalism may be divined.
Philanthropic Antinatalism says that it is better that humanity not exist because suffering exists. As far as know, only East African professor, Patrick Benatar and blogger Francois Tremblay hold this position.
Misanthropic Antinatalism on the other hand, holds that the world is a wondrous and beautiful place, and as such, a wretched virus like humanity does not deserve to live there. This position is advanced by such bloggers as Dimasok, Karl, and Shadow, as well as the youtube Elfists, who are too numerous to name here.
Finally, Reactionary Antinatalism holds that because the world is wretched cesspool full of minorities and women who do not know their place, the world would be better off not existing, both so that the universe would not have to see the indignity of blacks in the office, as well as freeing white people from having to deal with other races. This position is advanced by Sister Y, Jim Crawford, and Chip Smith, as well as being advanced in a different form by a Continental theorist of Marx and Deleuze, Nick Land.
From such a complex series of views, it is difficult to extract a single theme, but I have been able to see the theme that it is better not to be running through each of them. But what are the problems with each strand of antinatalism? And what is, "is" anyway? These and other questions will be answered in my series of blogposts on the weaknesses of each strand of antinatalism.
(Here I should pause to note that this blog operates under the Principal of Charity or Steelmanning as it is sometimes known by reactionary antinatalists. It seeks to present antinatalism in it's strongest possible form to see if it stands up, and to advance the positions of antinatalism in a stronger, clearer, more consistent way than antinatalists often do. If my descriptions of antinatalism do not precisely match the beliefs of individual antinatalists, so much the worse for the antinatalists!)
"As far as I know, only East African professor, Patrick Benatar holds this position."
ReplyDeleteAgain, factually incorrect. I have written many entries on philanthropic AN arguments.
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/benatars-asymmetry/
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/you-dont-get-to-choose-for-someone-else/
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/pedogyny-the-hatred-of-children/
http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/the-absence-of-possibility-of-consent/
These are only the ones on the first pages of my antinatalist category. There's a lot more.
Thank you, I will edit the post.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, that's all you found? Here's another source:
ReplyDeletehttp://uriupina.com/philosophy-psychology/having-children-irrational-immoral
Irina quotes another thinker using philanthropic arguments, and she supports them herself, which makes two more.
If you had just gone through my blogroll, you'd have found a few examples already... It literally took me twenty seconds to find this one.
"so that the universe would not have to see the indignity of blacks in the office, as well as freeing white people from having to deal with other races. This position is advanced by Sister Y, Jim Crawford, and Chip Smith"
ReplyDeleteAre you brain-damaged, intellectually dishonest or maybe just illiterate?
I wrote this before I saw Chip Smith's brave refusal to apologize for his reading habits.
DeleteCan you provide evidence for, say, Sister Y's alleged racism? I weirdly never saw racism in her post. So thanks.
DeleteJust browse her twitter for a while, you'll find some.
Delete