Thursday, December 23, 2010

Just Say No To More Kids



Here's another one from Inmendham. His proposed political 'solution' to population control is good fodder for some disagreement and debate here. But the video gets stronger as it goes along, I think, as he gets to the nitty gritty of what it really means to force children into an existence not of their choosing. Enjoy.

25 comments:

Karl said...

Inmendham is a wonderful guy. I highly recommend his YouTube channel for many more such videos. In this one, Gary seems more focused on the environmental aspects of overpopulation, but if you keep track of his more recent videos, you'll see that his position has become more metaphysical in that he concentrates on the innate futility and suffering of life that holds no matter how many people there are swarming over this rock.

Anonymous said...

Not sure where to put this link, so forgive me for placing it here. Just finished watching this documentary about DIGNITAS, the Swiss clinic that provides assisted suicide for terminal folks (including so-called "suicide tourists"). Well done, thought-provoking, and worth the watch if you haven't seen it. They show one ALS sufferer who made the cut, and another person who wanted to die because she couldn't envision life without her spouse (and she didn't make the cut).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxQYTFIZi8A

Anonymous said...

I’ve been watching Inmendham since I caught another video of his posted here recently. I’ve realised that video animates this issue immensely. Other subjects have a mixture of media presenting their perspectives and the variety creates different kinds of opportunities for discussion… Inmendham humanises what can be quite a difficult topic to discuss. If I were not so intellectually messed up by bouts of depression I’d give it a go myself – it helps to have different types of voices out there.

Anonymous said...

If someone was to severly harm their parents as an attempt at revenge for them having brought them into the world would it be justified?

Anonymous said...

^
Justified in what sense?

Subjectively? Anyone can find their own reasons to try to justify anything.

Objectively? In the end,violence is unlikely to be considered justified for the sake of vengeance. Your peers will hold you accountable.

I wonder if someone would try to take legal action against their parents though... That would set a precedent

Nanites said...

If you feel a resentment towards your parents just express it verbally, i know i did! It feels good to let them know that. I still love them of course but they know they will never see any grandchildren...muahahaha.

Karl said...

If I remember rightly, David Benatar in 'Better Never To Have Been' makes reference to an instance where an individual sued his parents due to the harm suffered as the result of having been born. Worth checking out.

Karl said...

On the topic of Inmendham, here's a link to what I consider to be his greatest ever video. It's a fiery response to one of his main antagonists, and is truly surgical as well as being hilarious. There's a link to part 2 below the screen.

http://www.youtube.com/user/inmendham#p/search/1/HXUNTxJ48YM

Karl said...

Ok, that link doesn't appear to be working, but if you go to Inmendham's YouTube channel and put "imposition" into the search box, it'll take you to Part 1.

Ann Sterzinger said...

Hey guys, thanks for the tip... Inmendham is highly entertaining and informative! Good thing, since it's too damn cold to play outside today...

Ann Sterzinger said...

... his outlook seems to blend several of the types of antinatalism that have been laid out elsewhere on this blog in a way that makes intuitive sense to me... after all, the likelihood of convincing ALL the breeders to knock it the fuck off is slim enough that perhaps the best realistic outcome is to not quite kill and fuck (to paraphrase him) the future totally through overbreeding... if you can't quit drinking, after all, the next best solution is to moderate.

jo3 said...

You must be careful as an antinatalist not to overlook the the rights of the the individual. The "freedom to procreate", a never mentioned but long standing liberty is, in my view; inaliable, just as much as freedom of speech, and of thought. With regards to Inmendham`s video, I feel inclined to suggest that antinatalism is not a issue for politicians, but an issue for intellectuals (that is not to say it does not have political connotations). The State cannot and should not intervene to repeal or limit the "freedom to procreate", rather it should be left to intellectals to persuade people(through reason alone) of the preferability of non-existence over existence. We must remember that as antinatalists, as a great and hated minority (much less than 1% of the global population), we will not endear ourselves to those who would be our followers and allies if we transgress, even for a moment, into the realm of authoritarianism; the politicization of a moral issue. Let the philosophers speak, let the politicans listen.

Sister Y said...

Benatar is with you in that (no forced abortions). It's not that there is a moral right to procreate; it's that enforcement of the right not to be born would involve atrocities that cannot be countenanced even in service of an admirable goal.

Also relevant, perhaps, is the directness and certainty of the effects of one's actions. Refusing to commit direct, certain harm is justified, I think, even if by that refusal, more harm occurs through no agency of the actor. Just as we shouldn't forcibly abort people, we shouldn't have babies just because otherwise the future might be dumber/meaner/etc. than if we did have them.

This is the question of agent-relative versus agent-neutral reasons a la Nagel.

Todd said...

JIM

WHEN IS THAT RESPONSE TO ASCHWIN DE WOLF COMING

Er, not that I'm anxious or anything. :) But in all seriousness, take your time. It's just that I'm sorta really looking forward to this one.`

Josep said...

I'm being a bit off-topic, but I'd like to share with you this paper about the great Swiss artist, H.R. Giger, written by S. Groff. I think it could be a great addition to the antinatalism manifesto: antinatalism in art.
Here's a sample:
"Giger discovered how profoundly human life is shaped by events and forces that precede our emergence into the world. He intuited the importance of the birth trauma not only for postnatal life of the individual, but also as source of dangerous emotions that are responsible for many ills of human society. He said about the tapestry of babies he painted: “Babies are beautiful, innocent and, yet, they represent an uncanny threat and beginning of all evil. As carriers of all kinds of plagues, they are predestined to represent the psychological and organic harms of our civilization.”

Josep said...

Sorry! I forgot the link!

http://primal-page.com/grofgige.htm

Shadow said...

I made a post on the phallacy of the parasite I once saw people discussing.

I´m pretty sure there are a lot more things to say, but if you want to check it out, leave me a commment there!

http://antinatalismo.blogspot.com/2011/01/phallacy-of-parasite.html

And if anyone has a blog that wants to see linked in mine, please, let me know, and I instantly link it for you.

Thanks again

jo3 said...

Sister Y,

I like your response, but i found it strange that you transfered the "right" from that of the existent to the non-existent. It seems to me self-evident that the non-existent have no rights, since they have no need of them; rights are granted to indivduals after the unfortunate event of their birth (in an attempt to limit suffering).

Sister Y said...

Benatar calls it something like "a peculiar kind of right that exists only when violated," or something like that.

Sui generis, but not a contradiction.

Compoverde said...

Sister Y.. I am running to the same arguments in my philosophy forum.. As one person states...

0. Suffering is bad, the absence of suffering is good.
0.1 Existence is suffering.
0.2 Statements about qualities or states of nothing are pseudostatements.
1. A potential being is either someone who exists OR does not exist.
2. Someone exists.
3. Someone suffers (from 0.1).
4. Someone existing cannot be non-existent (from 1).
5. Someone does not exist (from 1) (e.g. it is nothing).
6. Nothing does not suffer (from 0.1). (pseudostatement, the negation implies it could suffer but how does nothing do this?)
7. Potential being is either better off being nothing (pseudostatement) OR worse off existing. (from 1, 3 juncto 0 and 1, 6 juncto 0)

I said to him before his response what I write below.. He does not seem to get it based on the response above...


This is where I think you are mischaracterizing the argument. It is not a matter of fucking up lives but rather you are preventing future harm. Let us say that you had one needle holding and egg and one needle holding a sperm to fertilize the egg.. essentially that is a hyper-realized version of what a potential being could be.. No, it doesn't exist yet, but it WILL. By not going ahead, as a potential mobilizer of that potential life into an actual person..you are preventing harm.. I can definitely conceptualize it as something very real that you are preventing...Is the sperm/egg-prebeing-that-could-be (okay, make fun of that term all you want; I laughed when I wrote it) better off never being realized as an actual being? Yes. Of course, you don't need to actually think of the sperm/egg-prebeing-that-could-be to fathom potential beings.. That is just an extreme version to paint a better picture put in your mind so you can fathom how we really are preventing potentials from happening..

As for the "waiting for not to be born".. You seem to always be missing my point about the fact that you don't need an actual person to exist to realize that no harm is occurring.. All that needs to happen, sub specie aeternitatis, is that a harm that could have happened was prevented with no consequences for the opposite (benefit of good was not realized, but does not matter). The situation itself is a better off situation... How about that Benkei? It is better off that there is no suffering that will occur.. You, the parent are preventing this better off situation.. there does not need to be a being that is benefited.. I have changed the semantics to compute in the Benkei logic machine.. I still hold, this is all more semantics than statements of metaphysics..Now its about the state of affairs being better off, forget indeterminate nothing people.. (Even though, I do think there are meaningful ways to get the sense of this idea of potential people like what paragraph one is describing).

Compoverde said...

(continued)Bad is a harm
Good is a benefit
I have created a better state of affairs by not creating more harm (or a platform where all other harms will be enacted to an individual..life itself).
I have not created a worse state of affairs by not having good, because unlike harm which is good "in and of itself' not to have occurred (or keep occurring), in this case, order for there to be a worse state of affairs, there needs to be an actual person existing for "not having good" to be a harm. Since there is not, this is not a worse state of affairs.
Therefore, being that the prevention of a birth is creating a better state of affairs, this is the best course of action..

There, semantically, I have taken away talk of non-being and kept it wholly about "existence" and does not mention non-existent beings.

Also, I stated after his response...

Again, making sure not to discuss potential children, just focusing on states of affairs in existence itself.. no harm was done to anyone (as you point out), therefore by making the decision not to reproduce I am not preventing good, so there at least is no worse state affairs in the outcome of the decision relating to "the good".

If you analyze it closely, I am not discussing qualities or states of nothing, only qualities and states of the outcome of my decision (and that is that no harm has been committed when there could have been..also if I follow the line of decision in regards to "the good" I am still not committing a worse state of affairs in the world).

Benkei, you must realize in this case, that the asymmetry only exists for a situation of decisions regarding reproduction.. Perhaps the only place this asymmetry makes sense.. You do not need to generalize for it to be valid..only in this context. So, by the fact that though my decision could be preventing good as well.. there is no referent there to be deprived and hence, sub species aeternintas, you are not creating worse off for "anything". One way you are creating a better state of affairs, the other way you are simply not creating a worse state of affairs. I realize, the asymmetry does not usually occur in other decisions.

Compoverde said...

If anyone wants to help debate against this argument as well:

I mean this as a completely logical argument and not some wild accusation: I believe that you are missing the main point of the argument. It can be confirmed here that yours/Benatar's argument's singular purpose is to minimize negative utility. However, the purpose of utilitarianism is to balance a scale, to maximize utility and minimize negative utility. Your argument completely ignores the utility side of the scale by claiming that any weight on the negative utility side makes the scale drop to the negative side no matter what characterizes your judgment of utility and how many points can be made on the utility (good) side. The only argument that can explain how schopenhauer1's side of the debate could work would be by giving credence to a judgment of utility that put absolutely no value in utility only a negative value on negative utility. Posting on this website for instance, surely comes with some negative utility so surely one should have avoided it no matter the potential benefit.

Furthermore, the saving grace against my point in terms of conception (which we can note that schopenhauer1 has not yet included in any of his claims) still relies on inescapable falsehood: the theory that every conception would lead to greater negative utility than utility. If you confirm that this is what motivates your philosophy then I claim that your judgment of utility does not come from observation of what is good/utility and bad/negative utility to other entities which is the very standard and defining context of the utilitarian consideration of conception: in that entities judgment of utility is it positive or negative. Thus even if your own value of utility is completely barren, it is not by your own standard of measure that you judge a conception to be of utility or not but by theirs as far as harm to the individual goes (and the argument for societal benefit vs harm is characterized by the same exact logic). If you choose to ignore the entity that is being conceived's judgment of utility and expect your own to suffice as replacement then you have redefined utility from a complete equation of total harm/good entered into a system and redefine it simply to your own good/harm which in case is not utilitarian nor likely to actually overall benefit even you at all.

Compoverde said...

(continued) Supporting my words above via a response to this statement: to consider that it is overall bad to conceive a child because they will be "unequivocally harmed" is only justified if EVERYONE's utility judgment did not believe that any "good" can justify such harm. This is your own evaluated judgment of an equation However, people have been observed to find it overall good to exist despite being also having taken some harm. Given that the overall benefit of a conception includes not only to your view of utility but also to the new child a logical look at utility would have to take into consideration your utility + child's utility = ?. ? is neither positive nor negative (as you claim) because the very definition of good and utility added to a system is a moot point if you consider that the only system is your own perception. This is because the system you refer to in terms of overall good and bad contain more than just yourself and your perceptions, such an equation considers good by whatever context ANY bearer experiences and you are not the ONLY bearer in the system.

Compoverde said...

Forgot the first part. Feel free to repudiate and argue against this...


I mean this as a completely logical argument and not some wild accusation: I believe that you are missing the main point of the argument. It can be confirmed here that yours/Benatar's argument's singular purpose is to minimize negative utility. However, the purpose of utilitarianism is to balance a scale, to maximize utility and minimize negative utility. Your argument completely ignores the utility side of the scale by claiming that any weight on the negative utility side makes the scale drop to the negative side no matter what characterizes your judgment of utility and how many points can be made on the utility (good) side. The only argument that can explain how schopenhauer1's side of the debate could work would be by giving credence to a judgment of utility that put absolutely no value in utility only a negative value on negative utility. Posting on this website for instance, surely comes with some negative utility so surely one should have avoided it no matter the potential benefit.

Furthermore, the saving grace against my point in terms of conception (which we can note that schopenhauer1 has not yet included in any of his claims) still relies on inescapable falsehood: the theory that every conception would lead to greater negative utility than utility. If you confirm that this is what motivates your philosophy then I claim that your judgment of utility does not come from observation of what is good/utility and bad/negative utility to other entities which is the very standard and defining context of the utilitarian consideration of conception: in that entities judgment of utility is it positive or negative. Thus even if your own value of utility is completely barren, it is not by your own standard of measure that you judge a conception to be of utility or not but by theirs as far as harm to the individual goes (and the argument for societal benefit vs harm is characterized by the same exact logic). If you choose to ignore the entity that is being conceived's judgment of utility and expect your own to suffice as replacement then you have redefined utility from a complete equation of total harm/good entered into a system and redefine it simply to your own good/harm which in case is not utilitarian nor likely to actually overall benefit even you at all.

Anonymous said...

Compoverde,

check out the the latest post and comments on tauriq moosa's blog.

http://tauriqmoosa.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/a-further-challenge-to-procreators/