This is an overgeneralisation which completely misses the nuance. Antinatalism does not postulate that it's morally wrong to procreate, only that it is morally wrong to bring another human consciousness into a soup of suffering, which... yeah, kinda'! I mean, is the world not presently a soup of suffering, with extra helpings on the way?

Personally, I doubt most people who subscribe to Antinatalism would do so if society weren't literally a hell hole right now.

[–] TheCoolerMia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 22 points 4 months ago (3 children)

if "a soup of suffering" means "life/the world" u just said "its not that its morally wrong to give birth, but that its morally wrong to give birth"? :p

[–] Arkaelus@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (2 children)

The world as it is now, yes. But this is far from the only option, thus the world is not an inevitable soup of suffering. So, no.

[–] Katrisia@lemm.ee 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Unless you're both an antinatalist and a philosophical pessimist and believe that the world will always be that soup. But yeah, that's not the case for all antinatalists. A friend of mine calls himself a "temporary antinatalist".

[–] Arkaelus@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

True. I guess the distinction, though semantically redundant, seems to be contextually necessary nowadays...

load more comments (2 replies)