Last Updated August 13, 2012
Just as with any other philosophical, political, or religious belief system, Antinatalism has a potentially infinite number of objections. Because of this, it’s unreasonable to expect blogs (by their very nature) and certainly a blogspot.com blog to answer every objection to antinatalism in the greatest of details. That would require at least large book to accomplish, and likely several volumes of them. Therefore, I will address only the most commonly-expressed initial reactions to antinatalism. With this said, I will continue.
It should be no surprise that a controversial philosophy like antinatalism has all kinds of misconceptions about both the system itself and its adherents; many of them the product of either logical fallacies or blind spots natural to human thinking. Frequently encountered fallacies about antinatalists and their beliefs include the following, but certainly not limited to them: non sequitors (unwarranted leaps in logic), ad hominem (personal attacks, appeals to caricature, appeals to personal distaste, “Poisoning the Well”, and similar such kneejerk responses), genetic fallacies (assuming the argument is wrong simply because you can prove the cause of the belief; often just another variant of the ad hominem), and general appeals to popular stereotype (self explanatory). These types of arguments are universally considered inadequate, simplistic, or just plain wrong – particularly if they attack the person instead of the argument. Therefore, they have no place in any kind of debate, including this one - except as showcase examples of how personal distaste can blind us to deeper truths.
In fact, I almost chose not to respond to them, especially the ad hominem type of “cheap shots”. Doing so would imply they are in fact worthy of a response (which they aren’t, except to the extent that they offer a teachable moment in recognizing demagoguery and appeals to emotion, dubious appeals to “common sense”, etc). Truly serious and openminded people already see such false arguments for what they are. Therefore, why should I waste time discussing them?
On the other hand, if I did not respond to them, some people would say that it was because I could not respond, thereby giving these opponents the illusion of victory. Therefore, I decided to compromise - make one response to these “cheap shots”, then refuse any second-level responses to my response unless they demonstrate how my rebuttal was wrong-headed without any resort to name calling or appeals to caricature. At any rate, the rest of this blog is likely to address many higher level questions and doubts about antinatalism many of you probably have; and therefore any such objections are likely addressed in other posts.
The objections addressed in this section include the following. Those not finished are designated as a WIP (Work in Progress)
- Why Not Commit Suicide? (Part 1 Complete, Part 2 Complete, Part 3 WIP)
- Antinatalism is Unrealistic (WIP)
- Antinatalism is Nihilistic (WIP)
- Antinatalists Seek Forced Cessation of Breeding (WIP)
- We Are The Universe Getting to Know Itself (WIP)
- Arguments from Caricature (the ad hominem, straw men, red herrings, etc. discussed above) (WIP)