The community is called childfree, you’d think everyone here would be at least somewhat opposed to the concept of having children.
The community is called childfree, you’d think everyone here would be at least somewhat opposed to the concept of having children.
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.
The description of the conclusion is accurate: no new beings means no one after this generation, and that is the intended outcome rather than a side effect nobody noticed. What is disputed is that the outcome is a harm. The absence of a generation is not bad for anyone, because there is no one for whom it is a loss. Deprivation needs a subject who is deprived, and after the last being there is none, so the loss registers only from the perspective of beings who already exist and are attached to the continuation. The compassion points the same way rather than against it. Caring about suffering is what makes it hard to justify starting a life whose consent cannot be obtained and whose worst outcomes are permanent. That the species continues is a goal that has to be argued for, and the argument offered is that it continues.