this post was submitted on 18 Jul 2026
22 points (78.9% liked)
childfree
2500 readers
34 users here now
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
do you want to end all life that suffers?
Not sure what you mean by that. Neither I nor antinatalism advocates for ending existent life. It is just about not causing additional suffering by bringing new beings into existence.
If anything, I believe that we should acknowledge that we are all in this suffering together, and be compassionate to fellow living beings.
It's the logical conclusion of antinatalism. All life "suffers". If you stop bringing new beings into the world that can experience suffering then you're advocating for no life at all after this current generation.
And yes I fully support compassion and empathy, but you can do that while also sustaining the human race and life as we know it.
Got it. Thanks for clearing that up. I thought you were talking about antinatalists ending existent life.
Yes, in the ideal scenario, I think it is best to "end" all life, via gradually phasing out of existence. I think that would cause minimal suffering. I do not realistically think that it could happen in the next generation (or in any generation owing to how extreme and controversial it is perceived by the general population).
Sure, you can be compassionate and empathetic to existing beings, but I see not bringing new beings out of empathy (due to the potentiality of their guaranteed suffering) to be more moral and a purer form of the trait.
yes @thedarkquark@lemmy.world because creating and ending life is the same. every sperm is sacred.....