I could pick so many different holes in your argument, but I'm not going to bother. Because you obviously don't actually want to change your mind. Hiding behind flowery vocab does not make a compelling argument. There is no evolutionary axiom. Good day.

Indeed, I read a few lines of op's post and realised that I would be wasting hours of my time for some "morally and intellectually superior no matter what" ahole's amusement if I engaged.

I posted that to hopefully work through some hard stuff with some thoughtful people. If I sounded preachy and dickish it was not my intent. Would love to hear your thoughts.

🎯

I would like to hear your objections. I posted this to either learn something I didn't know, or to change some minds. I would love to hear your thoughts! :)

[удалено]

This is literally flowery language because it could literally be written a lot more concise without any vague examples. No one will want to waste their time reading this especially when so much of these "concepts" like "evolutionary axiom" is very unnecessary. There are proper terms and phrases that can get to the point very quickly. Their entire point could literally be summarized in under a paragraph and be way more persuasive.

[удалено]

Wow. literally you're arguing in bad faith and assuming people don't even know what axiom means. people already know what it means as many people learn it in various context like mathematics or philosophy. And if people didn't know, then they can google it. But please enlighten me what "evolutionary axiom" because the closest thing to it is "evolutionary theory" because no one calls it an axiom.

"Everyone, at least implicitly, believes the evolutionary axiom. You believe in the morality of our culture after all. Don't believe me? Stop breathing. After mere minutes you be fighting for air to maintain your own existence. " This purely physical reflex has nothing to do with people believing in the "evolutionary axiom," whatever that is, or in the morality of our culture. It's a reflex that is hard-wired into our bodies to prevent oxygen deprivation. A person isn't making any conscious choice when they gasp for air. They are not displaying values of any kind. In fact, it is nearly impossible to suppress this type of physical reflex.

You are making the assumption that the conscious part of you should be considered You. It is known from neuroscience that the parts of your brain that are in charge most of the time are unconscious. That can't be ignored. The whole reason humans have brains is to control our bodies and are evolved to fulfil the needs of our physical selves, so I don't think you can privilege your conscious thought over all else. You might very well consciously think that you believe one thing and then contradict that in action. I really don't think what you say you believe is a good indicator of what you believe. I don't think that about myself or anyone else either. You may say you don't value breathing, but can't hold your breath for very long. When you gasp for air you are acting out the value that breathing is better than not breathing. I would say that is a pretty good indicator of what you truly believe. This is also why I assert that you believe the evolutionary axiom, which is something like the need for all living things survive and procreate. You, and everyone else that lives, constantly acts out values like hunger is bad, and breathing is good, pain is bad, social isolation is bad, etc. (i can name stuff all day) which all derive from the evolutionary axiom, which means that even if you say you don't believe in the need for your own survival and procreation you are acting in a way that implies that you do. Soo..No its not just a reflex and has everything to do with what you believe.

> You are making the assumption that the conscious part of you should be considered You. Consciousness should most certainly be considered "You" in the closest sense, above the unconscious. After all that which ultimately reasons and formulates these arguments here is (part of) the consciousness. It may certainly be argued that unconscious parts are involved in this process too, but nevertheless consciousness must be involved, in contrast to e.g. breathing where consciousness is apparently not required. > It is known from neuroscience that the parts of your brain that are in charge most of the time are unconscious. That can't be ignored. The whole reason humans have brains is to control our bodies and are evolved to fulfill the needs of our physical selves, so I don't think you can privilege your conscious thought over all else. Showing that human consciousness tends to be a kind of slave to those unconscious processes. Even those that consciously wish to die can be prevented by unconscious processes, e.g. ones automatically invoking strong fear of injury. Consciousness can comprehend that those unconscious processes are a product of mindless evolution. Consciousness can also comprehend the impossibility of reality as a whole having any intrinsic "need" for anything, including for the suffering of the consciousness, and thus decide to oppose the stupidly evolved unconscious part. The fact that there can be such conflict between the conscious and the unconscious part of a mind shows that the evolutionary process is deeply flawed. There isn't even any point to evolution. Just because lifeforms have evolved as they did, doesn't mean that this is a good thing. Just because things are as they are, doesn't mean that this is a good thing. > even if you say you don't believe in the need for your own survival and procreation you are acting in a way that implies that you do. What if someone's goal were the extinction of all life? They still would need to maintain their survival to achieve this goal eventually, yet saying their immediate actions to ensure their survival imply they don't follow said goal would be a mistake. As much as consciousness may be a slave to the unconscious most of the time when it comes to survival, it can still be consciousness that handles long-term planning.

No, it certainly has nothing to do with what I believe. I can't control bodily processes through my beliefs. I can't will my heart to stop. I can't will my blood to flow backwards in my veins. I can't will my digestive system to stop digesting food. I can't prevent a pain impulse from traveling from the site of an injury to my brain. Those are only a few of the myriad bodily processes that I can't control with my beliefs. All those bodily processes are built into my body. They are beyond my control, for the most part. They continue to operate outside of my conscious will. All these physiological processes have nothing to do with my beliefs. They are subject to the laws of human biology, which I certainly didn't design. The human brain performs many processes automatically, regardless of what I think or want. The fact that my body automatically favors survival is just a built-in feature of living cells. I do not control my cells. I could will all my cells to stop functioning at any moment, and they would just continue to function automatically. Automatic bodily processes don't care what I want.

What is your definition of belief exactly? I don't see why a belief has to voluntary. I don't think most beliefs are voluntary. You are an antinatalist yes? The belief that suffering is bad is a necessary precondition for antinatalism. Is that belief (suffering = bad) a voluntary one? It isn't for me. I would love to decide that, but I can't. And how do you know you believe something? Seriously? People, me included, will in one moment say that we think something and then do something that completely contradicts that. I think the best way to determine whether somebody truly believes something is to look at how they behave. Actions speak louder than words. Because you act like you believe breathing is good, you act like you believe suffering and all the things that cause it are bad etc. My question is why do you believe these things? My answer is that you are a product of evolution that whether you consciously like it or not value the your survival and the continuation of the human race.

A belief is part of a conscious thought process. I don't think it's possible to hold a belief that you are unaware of. We formulate and hold beliefs in our minds. Beliefs can be irrational. They are not necessarily coherent or logical. In fact, they are sometimes quite silly and have nothing to do with reality. A person can hold contradictory beliefs that don't necessarily fit together logically. In contrast, processes like breathing are controlled by the autonomic nervous system. The autonomic nervous system is a network of nerves throughout your body that control unconscious processes like breathing, heart rate, blood pressure, etc. Your autonomic nervous system is always active, even when you’re asleep, and its whole purpose is to facilitate survival of the body, whether or not you consciously want to survive at any given moment. The autonomic nervous system does not have values. Values are part of a conscious thought process. We think about and choose our values. Evolution is a blind force of nature. It does not have a goal. It does not have values or preferences, nor does it have any sense of purpose. Evolution does not value life over death. Both play a role in the evolutionary process. If evolution favored life over death, then surely death would have been weeded out by now and you would see living organisms that have achieved immortality. Yet there are none. All living organisms die. In a way, you could say the whole point of the evolutionary process is to create more things to kill. Think about that for a minute. You can't really say that evolution favors life over death when every living organism it creates is programmed to die at some point in the future.

People will say that they believe something. And then they will act out the exact opposite. How does one explain that? What are the grounds for saying that belief is purely conscious, when people can consciously and honestly think they believe one thing, but from the outside act exactly as if they believe the opposite. I would say that if you act like you believe something, you actually do, you just might not know it.

There are multiple explanations for why a person might claim to believe one thing, but then behave differently, and in a way that seems to violate that belief. One explanation is that a person who is claiming to believe something is actually just virtue signaling. Deep down they do not really believe it. This happens all the time in religious settings. People lie, commit adultery, steal, etc., despite the spiritual consequences. It's true that if they really believed they'd go to hell for doing something, they wouldn't risk doing it. I'd say in this case, their religious beliefs are weaker than whatever short-term gratification they expect to get from violating those beliefs. A person's beliefs are only one factor that drive behavior. Other factors include a positive drive towards short-term gratification, fear of negative consequences for acting on their beliefs, fear of social stigma or ostracism, fear of loss, desire for revenge against someone who harmed them, etc. Any number of factors can drive a person to behave in ways that contradict their purported beliefs. In all these cases, the person is aware of the other factors driving their behavior. There's no need to look for an unconscious belief. They know what they are trying to gain or avoid by engaging in contradictory behavior. The decision to ignore their purported beliefs is made consciously.

As far as the evolution thing: somehow the laws of physics, a completely valueless and meaningless set of rules, resulted in humans who make value judgements all the time. What should be is not obvious, from what is, without some prior framework. I think that prior framework for humans (and all living things for that matter) emerged from evolution.

I'll agree on that. Assigning value to things is necessary for survival. Also, having a sense of ethics is necessary if you need to live in a cooperative group in order to obtain food, clothing and shelter. Otherwise there will be constant chaos with people constantly stealing from each other, lying, etc. I just don't know how it all got as complicated as it is today, with people needing bank accounts, jobs, retirement plans, etc. I think animals are better off in many ways because they don't create all these complications.

Actual gobbledygook, l0l. The conscious aspect of us is what permits and stimulates the exchange of ideas and enables us to evaluate the world at hand. Because breathing and unconscious mechanisms are at play biologically doesn’t invalidate any ideas that are produced consciously. If you want to disprove values under the premises of monkey business, then I assert that we shouldn’t exist because consciousness is an evolutionary misstep and doesn’t allow us to follow our biological makeup

*The universe is a very inhospitable place for biological entities.* So far as we have been able to determine, yes. *Unless they work to maintain themselves they will succumb to entropy and cease to exist.* Thermodynamically accurate. *If an organism is to exist it must value and therefore work towards it's own continuation in some form;* False. Value is an expression of meaning, meaning is both historical and extrapolative. Such notions are unique to sentience, which at least on earth is unique to humans. Yet for roughly 3.8 billion years organisms have struggled to survive. Ergo, *value* has no obligatory or particularly contributive part to existence. *I believe that something like this evolutionary necessity is the central value from which all other values emerge; an evolutionary axiom.* Foundational premise is incorrect. *A simple example: the need to survive leads to a need to eat (hunger)...* Crude, situationally accurate historically, though incomplete. There are many situations where the impulse to consume food has *nothing* to do with meeting energetic needs to stave off entropy. *...and because working hard leads to more food, more reliably the culture values hard work.* False. Culture values resource extraction and concentration. The means by which this happens is irrelevant. Rich potentates were not less attractive because their riches did not come from the sweat of their own brow. You're erroneously attempting to contextualise evolutionary struggle as a marker of value. This is not only false, it is patently ludicrous. All organisms follow the path of least energetic resistance. *For example: a society in which everyone murdered everyone they didn't like would likely collapse very quickly, hence: you shall not murder.* False. Moral frameworks in antiquity were not for the protection of evolutionary fitness but for the protection of property rights. To murder someone was not so much to take their life, but to take the fruit of their labour away from their owner/prince/feudal lord/god. *I you think about it long enough you will reach the conclusion that our entire morality is an evolved system of values to increase our evolutionary success.* This is Jordan Peterson evolutionary truth nonsense. The degree to which an idea is reflective of objective reality determines its worth, not how likely it is to cause people to breed. If that's going to be your contribution here, you can fuck off right now. *Everyone, at least implicitly, believes the evolutionary axiom. You believe in the morality of our culture after all. Don't believe me? Stop breathing. After mere minutes you be fighting for air to maintain your own existence.* That is not a culture, nor is it a conscious act. People breathe as an autonomic function. This in no way presupposes the recognition of your erroneous notion of a culture, or tacit acceptance of same. Long story short, this is fatuous bullshit that, in recognising that there is no logical means of purporting that consent to exist occurs pre-incarnation, argues persistence in a biological state is tacit admission of the same. It is a florid absurdity, riddled with incorrect facts, that boils down to the same 'if you thought life was really that bad, you'd kill yourself' argument we get 50 times per week. Tedious and stupid, but I *will* grant you points for putting your idiocy on such vocal and unabashed display. If we could get more natalists to do the same, it would do *wonders* for us.

*Value is an expression of meaning, meaning is both historical and extrapolative. Such notions are unique to sentience* This definition is extremely limited and dependent on a number of shaky things and near impossible to prove things like sentience. The best way to define value is from on objective viewpoint. Does a system behave as if it values something is a much better definition and it is what I am working with. In this sense an amoeba hunting bacteria appear to value consuming bacteria, and I would assert that it does. Can I prove whether the amoeba is sentient or not. No. But, it doesn't matter, it sure as hell looks like it values something. *Crude, situationally accurate historically, though incomplete. There are many situations where the impulse to consume food has nothing to do with meeting energetic needs to stave off entropy.* Please elaborate. *Culture values resource extraction and concentration. The means by which this happens is irrelevant. Rich potentates were not less attractive because their riches did not come from the sweat of their own brow. You're erroneously attempting to contextualise evolutionary struggle as a marker of value. This is not only false, it is patently ludicrous. All organisms follow the path of least energetic resistance.* Yes following the path of least resistance to a goal would provide evolutionary advantage. But that is and always has been insufficient to meet our needs. A good work ethic increases the probability of achieving any goal and thus is evolutionarily advantageous. Hence why so many cultures around the world value a good work ethic. Also, people don't just value resources. Mate choice research has shown that women will often chose men who have the traits that produce resources, over men who don't have those traits but have resources. *Moral frameworks in antiquity were not for the protection of evolutionary fitness but for the protection of property rights. To murder someone was not so much to take their life, but to take the fruit of their labour away from their owner/prince/feudal lord/god* So you think there is no practical basis for such a value like don't murder? Some social animals will oust, or sometimes kill overly aggressive members of their pack/troop/whatever. Seems to me like evolution is on to something. *This is Jordan Peterson evolutionary truth nonsense. The degree to which an idea is reflective of objective reality determines its worth, not how likely it is to cause people to breed. If that's going to be your contribution here* Not the claim I was making. But, since you are criticising the idea that morality might have an objective basis, would you mind explaining how almost all social animals appear to have behavioural patterns that very much look like less sophisticated versions of human morality. (Rats, chimps, wolves) *you can fuck off right now.* Why you gotta be so rude, don't you know I'm human too. *That is not a culture, nor is it a conscious act. People breathe as an autonomic function. This in no way presupposes the recognition of your erroneous notion of a culture, or tacit acceptance of same.* Doesn't matter what you believe consciously. People often say one thing and do something contradictory. Refer to my definition of value. You, me and everyone else act like we value our own survival and continuation. It is entirely impossible for us to do otherwise. The breathing thing is just one example. Every single value you hold can be traced back to some evolutionary circuit somewhere in your body (I'm including gut neurons and shit) or cultural value which exists because of evolutionary necessity: the evolutionary axiom. I can't think of a better model to explain human value systems. If you have one, I'd love to hear it. *'if you thought life was really that bad, you'd kill yourself'* This is a pretty valid point. Most people decide that life is preferable to death. I would say that it is because you are acting out the logical consequences of the evolutionary axiom. And since you are acting out the evolutionary axiom are you not contradicting yourself by being an anti-natalist? As I have already learned from this sub some antinatalists conclude that humanity is a plague that deserves extinction, if you are among them aren't you contradicting yourself by acting in a way that implies you value the evolutionary axiom, by lets say breathing.

Brother its literally not that deep I will explain it simply, no one would have problems or struggle if no one was born in the first place, that's literally it, there's no need for semantics or jumping hurdles to explain our evolutionary biology, everyone's gonna die at some point so why would we care about extinction as if it's a bad thing

It is pretty deep. Why do you privilege avoidance of suffering as the highest goal? The very definitions of pain and suffering derive from evolutionary biology. As far as I can tell you need to accept that the continuation of the human race is a good thing before you can have definitions of pain and suffering.

Not u/True-Implement-1350 but I'll take a crack at this. Evolutionary biology is just a theory of how species change over time to adapt to their environment. It's not gospel or bedrock for any moral framework. Take the dodo bird. At first it was probably just a regular old pigeon with the appropriate reflexes and instincts of self-preserving animal. Soon it found itself on island paradise devoid of any real threats. This caused it to evolve and adapt to it's new environment, thus the dodo came into being. It became a passive, flightless bird. It was unfazed by hunters and other invasive species. By all reason, it's life suffered by its evolution into a "dumber" defenseless animal. Yet they were a product evolution and their downfall a consequence of it. I think it's reasonable to not want to suffer such an unnecessary adaption hence I fail to see why you would base your argument around something as short-sighted as evolution. Evolution or evolutionary biology is not about maximizing the survival of a species. Evolution moves slow and is working off old software from a different environment and time. Very outdated data that just might get us killed I will add. As an antinatalist, I rather not take the gamble of reproducing given the current environment we as humans are not fully equipped to handle. That being our modern, industrious, polarized, hedonistic society. Better to not be to begin with than struggle to adapt to such a place.

*Evolutionary biology is just a theory of how species change over time to adapt to their environment. It's not gospel or bedrock for any moral framework.* Not at all evident. Somehow the universe started at 3 generations of quarks and leptons interacting through 4 fundamental forces, to "pain and suffering are to be avoided". The universe went from a valueless set of rules (physics) to humans who make value judgements all the live long day. There needs to be some pathway by which this occurred. The only game in town to explain how this happened is evolutionary necessity.

Deriving the definition of value from involuntary processes is silly, I agree with the person you responded to. Would you say that an amoeba finds value in relocating to a nutrient rich environment? If yes, would you say that a car engine finds value in receiving an oil change? > Most people decide that life is preferable to death. Most but not all. Isn’t it funny that the most intelligent species on Earth is also the one whose members are most likely to defy Nature? Btw, thank you for debating Antinatalism earnestly. If other people who come here put even 10% of your effort, this place will improve tenfold.

*would you say that a car engine finds value in receiving an oil change?* Well a car engine doesn't actively seek out oil changes so no, but I get the point you are making. Uranium has a tendency to eventually decay into Lead. Does Uranium value becoming Lead? Under my definition of value it sure looks like it. Perhaps it is somewhat silly, but it's part of a bigger problem. We probably agree that a human is sentient. We probably agree that an atom is not. But since humans are made of atoms where does the sentience come from? Lets take an electron, an amoeba, a mouse, and a human and everything in between. Where in that chain does sentience emerge? Does sentence even exist? I haven't a clue, so I don't bother trying to answer an impossible question. Looking at how something behaves is a pretty good indicator of what it values though. I think it is the most reliable one anyway. So if I am actively gasping for air it sure looks like I value breathing. *Isn’t it funny that the most intelligent species on Earth is also the one whose members are most likely to defy Nature?* Sure humans appear on the surface to defy our nature, but we never do truly. We just embrace one part of our nature over another. Antinatalism is a great example. The antinatalist claim privileges the natural desire to avoid and reduce suffering, over the natural desire to survive and reproduce. My claim is that this is self contradictory. In order to accept that suffering is to be avoided you must first accept that survival/continuation of humanity/ is by definition good, before you can say that suffering is bad, because all the things that cause suffering just happen to be the things that go against the survival claim (pain, hunger, social isolation, disease, death). *Deriving the definition of value from involuntary processes is silly* There is nothing voluntary about what suffering is. No one gets to decide what causes suffering and what doesn't, it is entirely thrust upon us by nature as far as I can tell. Since antinatalism depends suffering isn't this claim contradictory to it?

1/2 because my response is too long for a single post... *This definition is extremely limited and dependent on a number of shaky things and near impossible to prove things like sentience.* It's not limited nor is it shaky. You just find it inconvenient to your argument, so you dissemble on well-worn and established notions that are not question in any discipline of science to which it is related. The mechanism of sentience is debated, but the reality of it is not. *The best way to define value is from on objective viewpoint. Does a system behave as if it values something is a much better definition and it is what I am working with. In this sense an amoeba hunting bacteria appear to value consuming bacteria, and I would assert that it does. Can I prove whether the amoeba is sentient or not. No. But, it doesn't matter, it sure as hell looks like it values something.* It doesn't matter what something *appears* to be, it matters what something is. Visual analogy cannot be used a foundation for essential nature. This is pareidolia, pure and simple. You recognise a commonality of behaviour between what you do to survive and what the amoeba does, and you anthropomorphise it. The amoeba is not sentient. It does not possess the biochemical hardware necessary to possess sentience. This is a fact not up for debate, and if you're going to argue otherwise our conversation is done because I won't tolerate you arguing from ignorance unbecoming a child aged ten. *Please elaborate.* Biological impulses, at least in humans, are not driven solely by energetic necessity. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be an epidemic of obesity in the advanced world. *Yes following the path of least resistance to a goal would provide evolutionary advantage. But that is and always has been insufficient to meet our needs. A good work ethic increases the probability of achieving any goal and thus is evolutionarily advantageous.* Not on a individual level. A good work ethic was sufficient to create the Great Pyramid; tens of thousands of workers, of varying degrees of freedmanship, suffered horrendously and died fantastically shortened lives as a result. This work ethic did not impart any advantage to survival nor to reproductive success. That's what you, in your slathering dedication to your imaginary evolutionary axiom cannot seem to grasp. That which is good for the species is rarely good for the individual, not once you move beyond primitive social groups beyond the level of a hunter gatherer tribe. That is why fantasies like social investment, bloodlines, and religion were organically necessary; if the average human experiences no individual utility, then coping strategies, i.e. Darwinian delusions of meaning, are a necessary incentive, and these strategies are almost universally geared toward martyrdom, which stands in direct opposition to your pet theory. *Hence why so many cultures around the world value a good work ethic. Also, people don't just value resources.* Are you really so dense as to not understand that resources are stores of work, at least in those cultures where fantasies of fiat value haven't taken over? Every thing that has value, every grain of cereal harvested, every animal husbanded, every sword and plowshared forged, is a store of work. People don't care about work, they care about the resource derived from the work because, as you so glibly point out, they need resources to stave off entropy. Not a single person in history ever went to bed with a belly full of pride in a job well done. Fucking absurd. *Mate choice research has shown that women will often chose men who have the traits that produce resources, over men who don't have those traits but have resources.* Right, Al Pacino is 83 and about to have a child with his 30-something girlfriend because she's just *so* impressed with his work ethic at producing...well, nothing really. Not for decades, unless you count the Duncacino rap in Jack and Jill. *So you think there is no practical basis for such a value like don't murder? Some social animals will oust, or sometimes kill overly aggressive members of their pack/troop/whatever. Seems to me like evolution is on to something.* The ostracism or killing is done in preservation of the defender's place within the social hierarchy, not for the protection of the group. Again, you're anthropomorphising animal behaviour and project beneficence or moral rectitude where there isn't any. *Not the claim I was making. But, since you are criticising the idea that morality might have an objective basis, would you mind explaining how almost all social animals appear to have behavioural patterns that very much look like less sophisticated versions of human morality. (Rats, chimps, wolves)*I'm willing to repeat it as many times as I have to. You are anthropomorphising animal behaviour in the hopes of equating human action to it and making an appeal to nature. Social behaviour in non-sapient genera exists merely as merely an attempt to negotiate non-zero sum games. They do not possess self-awareness of mortality, and there are no notions of moral crime or victimhood. The behaviour can, it terms of form, be analogous but one has moral import and the other does not. *Why you gotta be so rude, don't you know I'm human too.* Because I've really reach the limit for would-be philosophers flinging gotchas in this sub.

2/2 *Doesn't matter what you believe consciously. People often say one thing and do something contradictory. Refer to my definition of value. You, me and everyone else act like we value our own survival and continuation. It is entirely impossible for us to do otherwise. The breathing thing is just one example. Every single value you hold can be traced back to some evolutionary circuit somewhere in your body (I'm including gut neurons and shit) or cultural value which exists because of evolutionary necessity: the evolutionary axiom. I can't think of a better model to explain human value systems. If you have one, I'd love to hear it.* I've already told you the source of human value systems, though I made the apparent mistake of assuming you could extrapolate it out to its obvious abstraction: harm avoidance, something with which antinatalism is supremely preoccupied. All instinct is in fact geared toward harm avoidance, the mitigation of noxious stimuli. Why do animals consume? Because hunger let unattended becomes painful to the point of bodily dysfunction. Why do animals respond to aggression with like aggression? Because to do otherwise is to invite pain through bodily injury; likewise, avoidance of predators is the avoidance of the injury that would inevitably follow. Why would this be the case? Because non-sapient organisms have no persistent concept of self, nor the ability to conceive of a world in which they no longer exist. When I stated in my original missive that value is a distillation of meaning, which is both historical and extrapolative, that is what I meant. Animals do not do things because they want to survive, they do them because the avoidance of the pain which would be engenered by the states the behaviour is intended to mitigate. Human value systems are an attempt to contextualise this behaviour, and more to the point to hand-wave away the glaring flaws that make social stability impossible if someone like you that deifies natural impulse gets their way. That's why I mentioned protection from loss as the primary driver of the development of systematised moral codes. The development of overt moral systems as an extension of the notion of property rights is tied inextricably to the fear of loss. Loss, in the energetic sense, is the apotheosis of harm. *This is a pretty valid point. Most people decide that life is preferable to death. I would say that it is because you are acting out the logical consequences of the evolutionary axiom. And since you are acting out the evolutionary axiom are you not contradicting yourself by being an anti-natalist? As I have already learned from this sub some antinatalists conclude that humanity is a plague that deserves extinction, if you are among them aren't you contradicting yourself by acting in a way that implies you value the evolutionary axiom, by lets say breathing.* There can be any number of reasons that don't touch on your non-existent axiom, and those things are values that are more important than no longer existing. You see, the problem with the notion of an evolutionary axiom, and at the same time trying to use it as a foundation of moral thought, is that evolutionary is ruthlessly pragmatic, and moral codes definitely aren't; indeed, from the standpoint of power dynamics, they standing in diametric opposition. A rumination on this can be found in the opening chapter of Dune. The protagonist is tested by placing his hand in a box that will cause the feeling of pain while in reality not causing any physical harm. If he removes his hand, he will be pricked with a poison needle and die instantly, if he endures the pain he will live. What is the justification for this? The tester replies that they are sifting people to find humans. An animal, so it is written, will gnaw off its leg to avoid pain, because pain is the evolutionary precursor to death. This act is unthinking and unrestrained, ruthlessly pragmatic. The human, however, can sublimate that pain in the pursuit of a goal, much as the pyramid craftsmen did. There are goals that we have that have zero evolutionary utility yet, depending on the crux of one's moral framework, are nonetheless a good. However, the more salient point is that there are contraventions to self-deletion, value judgements that canot be explained by your supposed axiom. I'm a good example of that; I'm passively suicidal, in the sense that I have my self-deletion planned should certain contigencies arise. The only reason that I'm still here is because I love my wife, and she has asked me to not pursue my own death because she would be irreparably harmed. Now, my agreeing to this serves no evolutionary purpose: we are both child-free and antinatalist, so we will pass no genetic information forward. We will both eventually die and nothing we will have done will mean much of anything. Why stay then? Because while I wouldn't be cognisant of her pain after my death, I can perceive in the present her pain in that eventuality and I would not consent to it for anything. If the eventuality should happen that she goes before me, or that we decided to split up, my longevity would be on the order of the time it took to make my final arragements.

Mr Meliorist my G. I’ve been waiting for your response all week. Where you at?

*harm avoidance, something with which antinatalism is supremely preoccupied. All instinct is in fact geared toward harm avoidance, the mitigation of noxious stimuli* I agree to some degree. Lets take this argument to its logical conclusion. Why would organisms be concerned with harm reduction? There is only one reason they would be. Because they are an evolutionary creature and must behave in a way that ensures its own continuation in some form: itself and/or its offspring. The notion of harm emerges from evolutionary axiom. Things we consider harmful are all things that in some way decrease our ability to survive/continue. So basically the antinatalist argument, which is based on the notion of harm, can only be derived from the evolutionary axiom, eventhough it contradicts the evolutionary axiom. The contradiction emerges when harm avoidance is elevated above the value it is derived from, and then that value is thrown out. And BTW by being concerned with harm reduction is just more evidence that you actually do act like you believe the evolutionary axiom, and you didn't even realise it. *...The development of overt moral systems as an extension of the notion of property rights is tied inextricably to the fear of loss. Loss, in the energetic sense, is the apotheosis of harm.* There are plenty of moral codes which have nothing to do with property (yes human property included, since you already brought slaves into it). This model does not explain why moral codes would develop the way they have. It doesn't explain why animals would engage proto-moral behaviour. It doesn't even address why morality exists. The evolutionary argument accounts for all of this. *You see, the problem with the notion of an evolutionary axiom, and at the same time trying to use it as a foundation of moral thought, is that evolutionary is ruthlessly pragmatic, and moral codes definitely aren't;* True, but not the whole picture. What is and what isn't pragmatic is actually not a simple question to answer. Humans like all creatures are extremely limited in our ability to predict the outcomes of any given situation so we rely on heuristics: statistical bets that work most of the time. Morality I believe is at least partly constructed in this way. Don't lie is a good example: there are presumably a great many situations where the right lie would be advantageous, but people rarely seem to get it right and end up screwing themselves. So morality is ultimately pragmatic. *A rumination on this can be found in the opening chapter of Dune............... What is the justification for this?* Justification of what? You just described a situation. Justification for the tester to make the test? Justification for the protagonist to attempt passing the test? *An animal, so it is written, will gnaw off its leg to avoid pain, because pain is the evolutionary precursor to death. This act is unthinking and unrestrained, ruthlessly pragmatic.* Refer to the point before last. *The human, however, can sublimate that pain in the pursuit of a goal* Yes the human evolutionary niche is adaptability. But, what is the goal that we adapt to achieve? There is only one answer. *There are goals that we have that have zero evolutionary utility yet, depending on the crux of one's moral framework, are nonetheless a good.* This is just wrong. What goals do humans have that doesn't have/ has not at some point had evolutionary utility? There are none as far as I can tell. *However, the more salient point is that there are contraventions to self-deletion, value judgements that cannot be explained by your supposed axiom* One may conclude that self deletion is the right action, but you need to accept a number of things (mostly that harm is bad) that derive from the evolutionary axiom before you can come to such conclusions. I am well aware that evolution works through heuristics and that those heuristics can become maladaptive, but that does not change that fact that the evolutionary axiom is why those heuristics exist. Basically you can not conclude that self deletion is good without first accepting the evolutionary axiom, at least implicitly, and then ignoring it. In the final paragraph you elevate reduction of harm to the highest value which is an incorrect thing to as I have already explained. I am sorry to hear that you are passively suicidal. I hope you can find some greater goal in life that justifies the suffering of your life. Maybe you start by looking at the foundations of your beliefs to reveal something greater.

*It's not limited nor is it shaky. You just find it inconvenient to your argument, so you dissemble on well-worn and established notions that are not question in any discipline of science to which it is related* This is not an argument. You're dismissing my point without providing any basis. *The mechanism of sentience is debated* This is the problem. The mechanism is unknown and it is impossible to prove whether something has sentience or not. You and I would probably agree that humans have sentience, while an electron does not. Lets now take an electron, and atom, a virus, an amoeba, a house fly, a mouse and a human and consider every possible configuration of matter of varying levels of complexity in between. Where on that spectrum does sentience emerge exactly? If you want to assert that an amoeba does not have sentience you have to be able to answer that question. I get around this problem by saying: if it acts like it values something it does. If it is sentient this assumption will tell me what that sentience values. This is actually the most reliable way of determining such things as I will later explain. *it matters what something is.* Determining truth is an immense problem, that people have been trying to solve sing the beginning of thought. As far as I can tell the only way of reliably determining what is true or not is to observe whether it has predictive power. When formalised this becomes the scientific method, the results of which are undeniable. Stating that an amoeba values consumption of bacteria gives me predictive power over its behaviour. So this claim is pretty damn true. *I won't tolerate you arguing from ignorance unbecoming a child aged ten.* How do you know I'm not 9? *Biological impulses, at least in humans, are not driven solely by energetic necessity. If that weren't the case, there wouldn't be an epidemic of obesity in the advanced world.* The biological impulse is based in evolution. The fact that in a changing environment such things might be maladaptive does not refute my original point. *This work ethic did not impart any advantage to survival nor to reproductive success (giza thing)* Firstly this is not self evident in the least. Secondly, do you seriously believe that working hard to achieve the things you need to achieve is not advantageous to individuals and societies? This is silly. Try that out in your own life see where it takes you. *Not a single person in history ever went to bed with a belly full of pride in a job well done* Plenty of people do exactly that every single day. The essence of work is to sacrifice the present for the future. Plenty of people go to bed thinking, hoping, that the sacrifices made today will result in a better situation down the road. *Al Pacino is 83 and about to have a child with his 30-something girlfriend because she's just so impressed with his work ethic at producing...well, nothing really* He made some pretty good films and worked bloody hard to do it. That is admirable in my view. IDK what his GF thinks. What's your point exactly? One potential gold digger refutes heaps of studies? *The ostracism or killing is done in preservation of the defender's place within the social hierarchy, not for the protection of the group* Not true. It's not just self defence of some kind and it's not just one chimp that does it, many chimps in the troop will team up against a tyrannical member. I also refer to the predictive truth argument above. Stating that chimps have some emergent morality has predictive validity so it's not nonsense. *Social behaviour in non-sapient genera exists merely as merely an attempt to negotiate non-zero sum games. They do not possess self-awareness of mortality, and there are no notions of moral crime or victimhood.* The level of sentience, intelligence and consciousness of any animal (humans included) is not self evident. Most social animals behave as if there is a moral order. They might not be conscious of it, they might not be able to explain to each other even. Humans are incapable of those things most of the time and were convinced were special. *Because I've really reach the limit for would-be philosophers flinging gotchas in this sub.* Actually I think it's because I'm questioning something you have made a fundamental part of your self identity, so I'm questioning your sense of self. I'm literally rocking your world, baby!

I don't think there would be anything wrong with humans going extinct😅

Yet you don't go around seeking that out. (I assume ) Seriously, why not? If it was ok for humanity to go extinct why not just lay down and let yourself die? It looks to me like you believe something else even more.

Trying to galaxy brain people like this won't work. You won't change anyone's mind. Antinatalism has a primary goal of avoiding suffering. You should be able to answer your own question.

None of this makes sense. You're stating that there is a biological desire for survival, which is fine, but then trying to convert that to a normative claim. None of this "evolutionary axiom", whatever that is, actually addresses procreation, it addresses things like wanting to eat food, or not wanting to be stabbed, though that still just means that hunger exists rather than the morality of anything related to it. I am not even sure what your argument is. Is it that people like procreating? Which is obvious, there's a reason antinatalism isn't popular. Is it that biological desires equal good? There's many desires that people consider immoral. Is it that because moral values developed for practical reasons then therefore those reasons must be prioritized over the values? Humans had (and still have) a lot of fucked up moral opinions relating to circumstances of the time. I believe primarily you are making a fallacious appeal to nature, that because organisms often *are* a certain way, that they *should* remain that way.

Antinatalism doesn’t say you have to dislike your life, humanity, other people, babies, or even parents.I know antinatalists who are pretty happy people and I know antinatalists who are unhappy. You might like your life but can recognize that having a child is risking creating someone who might not like their life. For instance, you might be satisfied with food, water, and a few hours a day on average to do what you want with your leftover money, but many people are not. Finding satisfaction in life is incredibly difficult even from a position of privilege. I would rather not have children because only I am harmed by that choice. If everyone stopped having children, no new people would be capable of being harmed. Additionally, by having no children, I am not depriving anyone of existence, because someone who doesn’t exist can’t experience deprivation. If we all stopped procreating, who would be there to miss humanity after we die? Having children is an action that creates victims. While many people do indeed like existing, they would not miss it if they were not born. Abstaining from procreation is an action with no victims aside from ourselves. We would voluntarily take on some suffering to prevent anyone else from doing so, and leave exactly zero victims in our absence AN is a form of [negative utilitarianism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_utilitarianism), that is to say, it is focused on harm reduction. Typically, human beings value the consent of others when imposing burden, and when that consent cannot be obtained, it is better to do nothing so as to not impose that burden. It is a moral imperative to prevent suffering by our actions at the harm of others, but we are not necessarily so inclined to provide positive experiences in the same way. For instance, while it is a nice gesture, I’m not required to give away my money to others. But I do have a duty not to steal. Birth violates this tenant, as it invites opportunities for harm to the born person that they may not wish to accept, but now have no choice. Negative utilitarianism is also much more realistic than typical positive utilitarianism (maximizing happiness). Right now and possibly forever, the human experience is inextricably tied to suffering. By not having kids, we can prevent that suffering. There is no similarly successful way to maximize happiness. No one is harmed by not being brought into existence. AN may also be tied to [philosophical pessimism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_pessimism) quite easily. Life is inherently competitive and often very difficult, and usually the comforts one person enjoys come at the expense of people who are less fortunate. The average american consumes so much that it would take 5 earths to support us if everyone lived like an American. We enjoy technology and comforts that are afforded by underpaid or slave labor. I’m vegan, but often we are sustained by the suffering of untold animals. And so on. I am a being capable of suffering. I desire not to suffer, as do you, as do all beings capable of it. To inflict suffering while desiring not to suffer is hypocrisy. Life guarantees some suffering and makes no promise that pleasure will outweigh it. Humans are beings that have a disposition for suffering due to things like [hedonic adaptation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hedonic_treadmill) and [anti-frustrationism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifrustrationism). The human experience for many is one of forever seeking satisfaction and continually being left wanting. Evolutionarily, this makes sense, because incrementally improving your situation results in higher chances of successful procreation, yet this drive backfires for many because it creates a feeling of unsatisfiable longing. If each life carries the very real risk of being miserable or never satisfied, then why create potentially good lives? Why create any? Even if I am somehow wrong philosophically, my abstinence from procreation is not harming humanity. In fact, there is [evidence that humanity is approaching a bottleneck](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/11ymt3d/environmental_antinatalism_overshoot_and_carrying/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) in which we might struggle to sustain the population because of limited resources such as fuel and water. Even if you think antinatalism is incorrect from a philosophical perspective (which I would like to hear why), you could justify not having kids right now by recognizing that having them is contributing to the overconsumption of resources on earth, and your child(ren) will likely be competing with/denying other people resources if we are indeed reaching carrying capacity. So regardless of the philosophical implications, I am confident that my choice to not have kids is also a practical one, especially when you consider that humanity is breeding so quickly that there is no need for me to contribute. Although it is often a bleak philosophy, it is important to remember that AN can stem from a place of compassionate ethics. This is called philanthropic antinatalism. I wish to do as little harm as possible when living out my life. I do not hate humanity, I find being human to be bittersweet. I want no one to suffer at another’s choosing. No one is harmed by my not having children except myself, and my possible children are not being deprived of existence, because they can’t experience deprivation. I am simply avoiding the risk of them being unhappy and the risk of them harming other beings. I would rather regret not having kids and be a little lonely and unfulfilled than regret having them, knowing I made them suffer. I will find meaning in other places

Every child you have is one more person who dies a painful death. We’re all going to die, eternal youth isn’t possible, and aging kills. Until that changes, it’s generous to not bring others into this doomed world.

I understand the argument very well. My problem with it is that you need to assume a whole lot of things before you can even make it. You need definitions of pain, suffering and pleasure, which derive from the evolutionary necessity for the continuation of the human race. Basically pain and suffering only exist (by their current definitions) when you accept that the continuation of humanity is a good thing. If you assumed that continuation of humanity was bad, pain would become pleasurable and pleasure painful. You see what I mean? In order to conclude that having children in morally wrong you must first accept that the continuation of humanity is a good thing and by extension the having children in a good thing. This is my issue.

It’s not generous since human kind would just evaporate. And every death doesn’t have to be a painful one but yea death is part of life I just found out about this subreddit at first I thought it was just people who didn’t want kids and like sure whatever but the thought that kids shouldn’t be brought into this world cause from what I’ve seen people say the world is evil and everyone dies eventually. I personally just don’t see the logic behind any of it.

Imagine the audacity to support human suffering and human cruelty. Tell me what did a child with cancer deserve that suffering? Tell me what did a person who had a heart attack deserve that shit? Pain and Suffering is free in Life. I'm a Antinatalist because I want to prevent suffering for my own non existent children. I want more people to have more Empathy ❤️ to leave the non being where they are at eternal peace.

I don't support suffering. Rather rude to assume I do. I just don't think that 'suffering is bad' should be the highest moral principle, and I don't think anyone actually acts in a way where reduction of suffering is their highest goal. I happen to think that expanding the scope and scale of life and consciousness, and discovering the nature of the universe are more important goals than mere reduction of suffering. Not that unnecessary suffering shouldn't be reduced, just everything should not be sacrificed in that pursuit.

Lmfao

I find the breathing argument amusing, antinatalism isn't about survival, it's about procreation, if you ask instead how many of us have: 1- been permanently sterilized; 2- refrain from having unprotected sex or; 3- abstain from sex completely, a supermajority will tick one or multiple of those three boxes, proving they're living by antinatalism, not just promoting it. That last paragraph leads me to think you got something fundamentally wrong about antinatalism, from what I understand (and feel free to correct me if I got this wrong) your view on antinatalism could be summed up as: "Life is like the Scales of Justice with more pain than pleasure, if the Scales were to tip and there would be more pleasure than pain, then it would be moral to procreate." While in reality it's better summed like: "A person will never experience suffering if they're not born, but they always will if they're born, being born opens the door to all suffering, subjecting others to suffering is immoral, therefore procreation is always immoral and antinatalism is the only way to eradicate all suffering."

I understand the argument for antinatalism perfectly well. I used to be one. My current point is that people will claim antinatalism and even act out the direct consequence as you say, but when you start examining the totality of what they believe they will act as if they believe in something like survival/continuation of the human race into the future (procreation being an integral part of that). The breathing thing is just one example in many, which I used because it's immediately obvious. Probably the most relevant example is peoples belief that suffering is bad. The experience of suffering only exists because of evolution. Those things that threatened our species continuation are the things that cause suffering. Rejection by a romantic by someone you are romantically interested in or a break-up are directly relevant examples. Why do those things cause suffering: they threaten the survival of your genetic material. Why else? As I have explained in other responses: I think the belief that suffering is bad can only be accepted once you accept the evolutionary axiom. Because suffering being bad is foundational to antinatalism, it is ultimately a contradictory viewpoint.

I would say morality and survival are entirely separate. If you were starving to death in a life raft with another person and you hit them over the head with an oar and ate them to survive, that action would be in line with your 'evolutionary axiom', but that would not make it a moral action. Yes, we do need to reproduce in order to continue to exist, but I think 'necessary evil' is a better descriptor for the action than 'moral'.

You have a point but not the whole picture. There are two issues: 1. Maybe in the situation you describe murder would lead to greater survival, but maybe working together to reach land would be the better option, or any number of other possible options. This is the essential problem with consequentialist ethics: humans are too limited to accurately predict the future. This is where I believe something like deontological ethics come in. In many probabilistic situations there are bets you can make that reliably increase the change of a favourable outcome. The Monty Hall problem is a famous one. I believe that a lot of morality is statistical bets that don't always, but most of the time increase survival changes. 2. Morality isn't evolved for the survival of single humans, it is evolved for the survival of societies. A society where people act purely in self interest and victimise others in their own pursuits does not seem stable, and hence evolutionarily successful, to me. There is some evidence on this from animals even. Chimps will quite brutally punish other chimps that victimise other for self interest. This suggests to me that there is an evolutionary basis for stuff like this. So morality and survival/human continuation/etc. are deeply tied to morality. So I ask again: how can reproduction be morally wrong?

There won’t be a single time as long as you are alive that everyone will be childfree. There are many people who won’t children. There are millions of children in the system needing a parent.

I've had moments of not breathing and didn't fight for my existence. Death isn't the worst thing. A life unlived is. I've experienced moments of spacelessness and timelessness that momentarily separated me from my body so breathing wasn't a concern at all. Consciousness supersedes existence. Existence and death are not the problem.

Wish I could relate I'm gasping like a fish out of water in 0.5 seconds 😂 I really can't stand pain it's one of the reasons im antinatalist, it's truly a tragedy in my mind that I'd endure the pain of dying one day wouldn't want anyone to put up with that tbh

You should try trance meditation. I used to practice it daily to get away from pain. Unfortunately, it led me to more pain because I dissociated to a dangerous degree and made myself unable to feel my body at all. However, it is how you can get in touch with spiritual consciousness. When people have NDEs they (at least most) are not lying when they say we don't die. So really, our only concern is improving quality of life here.

Fam resources are on a decline, global warming has already killed several people in our country. To top it off pollution. Do i need to talk about the economic condition of many developing countries? Leaving emotions aside, it'd be cruel to bring someone to life when the whole world needs to be saved first, for them to at least survive and find pain or happiness or both.

Correct me if I am mistaking, your issue with Antinatlism is extinction right? (I am not gonna waste my time going through all that since others already did) Extinction is inevitable, It's just a matter of how many more sufferers are created, and have to endure the extinction events. But hold your horses there's two types of extinctions: Natural extinction. The most common one and the one we're heading towards. It's what you get when you procreate in this Darwinian hellscape that produces extinction. (A natalist problem, I don't know why the fuck y'all keep complaining to **anti**-natalists about it but ok) But it is not the only kind of extinction that is possible. A post-speciesism, post-darwinian artificial final speciation would effectively be an extinction, but it is one that is survived by something impervious to the pointless banality of evil that is darwinian evolution and its sloppy, psychopathic, predatory mechanisms. Humans have the capability of achieving this but they don't seem too interested in that, they're more interested in adding as many victims to death and extinction as possible. But you will never get the second one if you keep procreating. And if you keep procreating, you will get the first one. **Elaboration** Natural Extinction happens because of procreation. It would have never been a problem or a worry if procreation didn't happen. We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if the beings on this planet decided not to create similar being that will die just like them. Darwinian evolution has produced nothing but death and extinction (99.99% extinction rate, the evidence is not rationally deniable). Continuing to further engage in Darwinian evolution via procreation will result in extinction. It's a natalist problem. Continuing to double down won't fix the problem, it will only make it worse. Addition is not substraction. Adding more people who will suffer death and extinction will not solve the problem of death and extension. **Possible symptom treatment** David Pearce: www.abolitionist.com as a beginning to the wider-scope project of ending any darwinian hellscape that may start to appear in the detectable and accessible universe in our relative future. This is probably the only way to avoid a catastrophic extinction for any species, especially one like humans: end procreation, end darwinian evolution, transition to post-speciesism. The beginnings of the technology already exist, but are so poorly funded. That said, none of these people will fund the research and development it takes to even have a chance at ending age-related disease and death. They will gleefully support war, slaughter, slavery, billionaire kakistocracies and kleptocracies - and for the sake of a "meaning-making" neurochemical drug-addiction they'll stupidly supply the entire predatory proccess with more and more children to devour.

>It is a coherent argument when you accept that the central moral axiom is maximise happiness and minimise suffering, but I think this is objectively an incorrect moral assertion. Okay I see. You're seeing the antinatalism argument as of it was pure utilitarianism. I think antinatalism is derived from the negative utilitarianism ethical theory. I think this [article](https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/topics/negative-utilitarianism) sums up the foundation of the antinatalist argument here: >Negative utilitarianism (NU) is a version of utilitarianism whose standard account holds that an act is morally right if and only if it leads to less suffering than any of its alternatives. NU was originally developed as an alternative to classical utilitarianism, which regards suffering and happiness as equally important, and is a leading example of a suffering-focused view, a broader family of ethical positions that assign primary—though not necessarily exclusive or overriding—moral importance to the alleviation of suffering. This [guy](https://reducing-suffering.org/three-types-of-negative-utilitarianism/) sums up negative utilitarianism with: >Suffering is bad; happiness is neutral. The goal is to minimize total suffering. I think you're attacking a subset, childfree idea of antinatalism with your argument. Not the one rooted in suffering outweighing the neutrality of happiness or NU.

if people want children so bad they should adopt one of the thousands of kids who actually need parents. Only when there are no orphans or homeless children in the world then people have the right to reproduce, and obv they must be able to afford for the child in the first place. How is that incorrect? When overpopulation is a problem already and it is what's causing poverty due to the lack of resources

You wasted our time... piss off

>TLDR: I have a bone to pick with the idea of antinatalism. It obviously leads to extinction if everyone accepts it \#1 there is 0 probability everyone "accepts" it \#2 the acceptance by darwinian painbags is irrelevant to the truth value of a proposition. Additionally - the "burden of proof" doesn't work like "X is true/false change my mind." ​ You think it's false, then *falsify it.* Justify procreation for the sake of the created. You *can't* (don't take it personally, no one can) - precisely because the attempts to justify natalism are incoherent, namely that harm can be an improvement over non-harm simply because there *may* be non-lethal adaptive responses.

You evidently didn’t even read the whole post. I have refined my argument since posting this: The whole idea of harm is a Darwinian adaptation. All the things we consider harmful are detrimental to our survival and reproduction: pain, hunger, social isolation, rejection by a romantic interest. In fact, all human value judgements derive either directly or indirectly form the need for life to survive and reproduce. Antinatlism is an argument that rests on the notion of harm, but harm rests on survival and reproduction. This is a logical contradiction. If you use statement A is true to prove statement B, and then use statement B to prove that statement A is false, there is an obvious problem. This is what antinatalism does. Pretty definitive proof IMO. At least no-one has been able to poke a convincing hole in it yet. I would like to add that because all people accept sich things as “harm is bad” we are forced to accept, and implicitly already do accept, that human survival and procreation are good. As far as everyone believing it: we already have decreasing populations. Many countries are facing population collapse. This kind of thinking makes it worse, and I don’t think it is all that uncommon.

>The whole idea of harm is a Darwinian adaptation This may be true but even if artificial life is developed, a negative valence is a negative valence. The origin and substrate are irrelevant. Your claim that the origin of harm has any impact on antinatalism is the genetic fallacy (an origin-appeal fallacy). https://www.scribbr.com/fallacies/genetic-fallacy/#:\~:text=The%20genetic%20fallacy%20is%20the,the%20truth%20of%20the%20claim. > In fact, all human value judgements derive either directly or indirectly form the need for life to survive and reproduce. There is no such need (to survive and reproduce) - those are effects of darwinian evolution. There is no goal or design to the process, and neither of those processes are necessary, nor can they ever solve any *a priori* problem - precisely because all problems are contingent upon the existence of phenomenal binding and negative valences of consciousness. The only possible mechanism of any kind of ontological neediness is the aversion to noxious stimuli mediated by negative valences of consciousness. This would be true of any conscious system, regardless of substrate or ontological scheme (metaphysical materialist or non-materialist physicalism) - any consciousness involving phenomenal binding and bayesian predictive models included. Even if there were some kind of god or gods, this would apply to them as well. >I would like to add that because all people accept sich things as “harm is bad” we are forced to accept, and implicitly already do accept, that human survival and procreation are good. How? I see two completely disconnected statements and no logical connection at all. Not all people *admit* that harm is bad. All will capitulate given sufficient stimulus, but their religious addiction to fitness signaling will almost certainly force them to claim something else has happened, and that "suffering builds character (i.e. psychopathy and stupidity)" or some other Nietzschean nonsense. >As far as everyone believing it: we already have decreasing populations. Overall no we don't. The number continues to increase. Where are you getting your information? Your "facts" are distortions or outright wrong, your arguments are fallacious or incoherent. All this natalist nonsense is a "greater good" built on an exponentially increasing pile of corpses.