Saturday, July 27, 2013

The online echo chamber of Antinatalism

The antinatalist is in an interesting, but by no means unique position. He or she is, under most forms of antinatalism morally obligated to attempt to convert the natalist to his or her position. As such, the antinatalist forms a blog online, talks with non-antinatalists, and attempt so convert them to the position, under the hopes that at least some non-lives will be saved.

Which raises an interesting question: why are antinatalists avoiding the necessary missionary work?

Time and time again, Antinatalists shut down opposing viewpoints rather than waging war in hopes of converts. Comment filters are put up, trolls and adversaries alike have their comments deleted, or are blocked on youtube, and antinatalists simply refuse to engage online with non-believers.

To name specific examples, Francois Tremblay, Dimasok, Jim, and sadly, Karl who once prided himself on never deleting a comment have comment filters. Sister Y does not, but harshly deletes any comments questioning her racist views, which leads me to believe she has not actually read my blog. She notably did NOT delete obvious troll comments from white supremacist site My Posting Career. Speaking of which:



It is possible antinatalists do all their conversion work IRL, and simply view the internet as their personal therapist who will not judge them for rubbing salt in all their wounds. If so, I would wish that they state this outright, rather than pretend they are engaging in anything other than listening to the reflected sound of their own ideals.

10 comments:

  1. "why are antinatalists avoiding the necessary missionary work?"

    You should fear the rise of a determined missionary antinatalism. The people you focus on now are depressed, sensitive individuals, probably quite confused regarding what to do with the knowledge of life that has come their way. Their antinatalism has a philosophical character - even though it is grounded in countless concrete facts; they have passed judgment on life itself, and deemed it not worthy, too risky, etc.

    Depopulationists like VHEMT have it a little easier. They have a positive value to affirm - the rest of life on Earth... Maybe you need to figure out who your real targets are, in this blog. Are you against anyone who thinks that human birth should end, regardless of the reason why? Are you specifically against right-wing antinatalists? Do you intend to modulate your efforts, according to which factions of antinatalist opinion are more likely to have an impact on the world?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't say I fear the rise of a determined missionary antinatalism. Provided they focus on conversion through arguments and pamphlets and don't go around bombing hospitals, I would be perfectly happy to let them have their say. I think that the human race would be wrong and silly to all consensualy decide to die off, but if everyone agreed, I would think it was okay. My opposition to antinatalism is that of an interested observer probing the weak spots of a young organism.

      Delete
  2. You should fear such a movement precisely because unconditional hate for life is the easiest way to combine despair of life with a will to still do something good. Consider all the people who kill themselves every year. If even one in ten of them instead became an anti-bodhisattva, a fellow-traveler of an organized movement dedicated to ending life on Earth, humanely if possible but violently if not, they would have the capacity to create serious trouble.

    The human race is never going to all consensually agree on anything. If that is the standard of right, then nothing is right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So... blowing up the quiverfull people? What's the endgame here?

      Delete
    2. The endgame is that antinatalism, whether or not it's peaceful or violent, never become culturally hegemonic, and when the human race does finally meet its end - whenever and however that happens - it won't be by choice.

      Delete
    3. I'm saying antinatalism will never win, not while human beings are human beings. It may make a noise, it may obtain some adherents, but it will never decide the fate of the human race. That power is probably reserved for the technological avantgarde and/or the unknown forces of the cosmos.

      Human life will never be stably happy and peaceful, but neither will anyone manage to end it for that reason. But that doesn't mean it will go on forever. Transhumanists will replace Homo sapiens with something else, inscrutable aliens or titanic forces will step in, that's more the sort of ultimate destiny I see for us.

      Trying to refute or affirm antinatalism, moderate it, make it cheerful, get it a hearing, that's all second-tier activity. It still has a point; not everyone gets to decide the fate of the world; quality of life, whether someone is born or not, that all still makes a difference, but it's just a detail in the big picture. That's all I'm saying.

      Delete
  3. I will comment again after I read your article, but antinatalists have to be slandered, esp by people worried about demographic winter in the First World, then the mildest indignation in the comments-deleted. More polite but equally unequivocal comments-deleted. People are far from able to cosider or rebut the antinatalist argument, and we can hardly be convicted of incivillity or disengagement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, but I have been convinced of the ultimate rightness and truth of antinatalism, so you are far too late.

      Furthermore, white genocide is true and inevitable, largely because your fears of cuckolding and inadequacy are well grounded and valid. Sorry.

      Delete