You’re describing a philosophical position known as anti-natalism.
Not only is life pure suffering, it also damages the environment - since humans are in competition with other species for survival, every human being that survives means another animal of another species that has to die. And it takes tremendous resources - think fossil fuels and minerals - to keep a human being reasonably happy and healthy, resources which are both non-renewable and cause damage to the environment when they are extracted and/or used.
And it takes tremendous resources - think fossil fuels and minerals - to keep a human being reasonably happy and healthy, resources which are both non-renewable and cause damage to the environment when they are extracted and/or used.
yeah this is an extremely West/First World-centric way of looking at it
Humans are animals. We are also part of the environment. I think humans are a normal and natural part of life on this planet. Simply for the reason that we can’t say what is a “normal natural life” and what is not. How would we decide?
This is called naturalistic fallacy and it sucks. As a vegetarian I hear it almost every time I’m unfortunate enough to be involved in dietary discussions: “bUt HUmaNs eVolVEd tO eAt MEaT”
There’s no such thing as “natural” as everything is “natural”.
that is not at all what they are trying to say. i think their point is that human beings (the species) is a part and product of nature and not a phenomenon detached from nature, even though we process a disproportionate capacity to mold and many times hard nature. (for this part keep in mind I am vegan myself) some animals dying for humans is not a solid ground for anti-natalism unless you have hold a mutated form of malthusian hatred for the human population.
I’m not sure what you’re implying here - we seem to be in an agreement. I was agreeing with Stoned_ape and naming the fallacy original poster used to argue in favor of anti-natalism
I would argue that it doesn’t matter what’s natural or not - killing is wrong, and unless you’re vegan, having children is killing since the greater the human population the greater the number of animals that need to die to feed it.
Vegans are also killing natural life. They only exclude some animals from the killing. Jainists go further, but they also can not live without disturbing and possibly killing other life. Source: I grow crops in my garden, and I can’t do any simple thing there without wrecking havoc on small and tiny animals.
It is just how it is. I understand why vegans do it. But the reason can’t be “to not harm any animal”. It’s just not possible. Literally not possible. You’d have to live on the ISS to pull that off… and we wouldn’t have that station without disturbing and killing a great deal of life on planet earth.
This is mostly my reasoning on not having children. I don’t understand why, if in most parts of the world, the bible is such a big thing, why do people have children? To elaborate, there is a section in the bible detailing the “end of times” and how there will be widespread ruin and suffering and such. With this knowledge and the prevalence of religiosity, why would people birth children knowing that their children could experience all that suffering? I suppose it may very well be how others have commented, in that it’s just simply being part of a “natural order” to have kids. idk
You’re describing a philosophical position known as anti-natalism.
Not only is life pure suffering, it also damages the environment - since humans are in competition with other species for survival, every human being that survives means another animal of another species that has to die. And it takes tremendous resources - think fossil fuels and minerals - to keep a human being reasonably happy and healthy, resources which are both non-renewable and cause damage to the environment when they are extracted and/or used.
yeah this is an extremely West/First World-centric way of looking at it
Humans are animals. We are also part of the environment. I think humans are a normal and natural part of life on this planet. Simply for the reason that we can’t say what is a “normal natural life” and what is not. How would we decide?
This is called naturalistic fallacy and it sucks. As a vegetarian I hear it almost every time I’m unfortunate enough to be involved in dietary discussions: “bUt HUmaNs eVolVEd tO eAt MEaT”
There’s no such thing as “natural” as everything is “natural”.
that is not at all what they are trying to say. i think their point is that human beings (the species) is a part and product of nature and not a phenomenon detached from nature, even though we process a disproportionate capacity to mold and many times hard nature. (for this part keep in mind I am vegan myself) some animals dying for humans is not a solid ground for anti-natalism unless you have hold a mutated form of malthusian hatred for the human population.
I’m not sure what you’re implying here - we seem to be in an agreement. I was agreeing with Stoned_ape and naming the fallacy original poster used to argue in favor of anti-natalism
Alright my bad then
I would argue that it doesn’t matter what’s natural or not - killing is wrong, and unless you’re vegan, having children is killing since the greater the human population the greater the number of animals that need to die to feed it.
Vegans are also killing natural life. They only exclude some animals from the killing. Jainists go further, but they also can not live without disturbing and possibly killing other life. Source: I grow crops in my garden, and I can’t do any simple thing there without wrecking havoc on small and tiny animals.
It is just how it is. I understand why vegans do it. But the reason can’t be “to not harm any animal”. It’s just not possible. Literally not possible. You’d have to live on the ISS to pull that off… and we wouldn’t have that station without disturbing and killing a great deal of life on planet earth.
deleted by creator
This is mostly my reasoning on not having children. I don’t understand why, if in most parts of the world, the bible is such a big thing, why do people have children? To elaborate, there is a section in the bible detailing the “end of times” and how there will be widespread ruin and suffering and such. With this knowledge and the prevalence of religiosity, why would people birth children knowing that their children could experience all that suffering? I suppose it may very well be how others have commented, in that it’s just simply being part of a “natural order” to have kids. idk