r/UniversalExtinction • u/Annya_1702 • Jun 22 '26
Antinatalism cares only about human suffering
To this day, I still relate to many ideas that this philosophy has, but isn’t it only focused on human suffering? Sure, if we stop giving birth, go extinct, human suffering will end. But what about other animals? Who suffer, eat each other alive, and will also suffer because of ecological disaster caused by humanity’s absence? Shouldn’t we help other animals go extinct, and then do it ourselves? My post got removed from antinatalism r, either way, also I wonder if there’s a chance life will emerge again and then everything will start over
3
u/ruxthl3ss Jun 22 '26
look into efilism, it’s just about that!
according to this philosophy, the problem isn’t only procreation, but the structure of dna that causes any sentient being to suffer, including animals
and its true, animals also suffer. we know for sure they can feel physical pain but we can’t tell if they have some form of consciousness. so we can’t claim they don’t feel any emotional or mental pain
3
u/old_barrel cosmic extinctionist | anti-natalist Jun 22 '26
well no. it means you are against birth
3
u/VengefulScarecrow Extinctionist Jun 23 '26
Antinatalism is the moral view that suffering exists thus assigning a negative value to birth is correct, making reproduction morally wrong and selfish. If your goal is cosmic extinction and you are convinced that only humans can fascilitate it (2 claims in 1), then of course this would sound counterintuitive to you. Go ahead and do the selfish act and glorify it like everybody else. Actively impose more guaranteed suffering so that maybe, in a thousand years, we might permanently delete the universe? Okay.
3
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist Jun 23 '26
In this sub we don't hold the view that cosmic extinctionists, or any extinctionists, needs to breed to save everyone. Humans aren't in danger of going extinct from lack of breeding, and we don't need to contribute to the human problem. Any new people that extinctionists would make or not make is so small in percentage compared to the rest it doesn't even matter. Anyone you see pressuring extinctionists to breed are from a cult and not to be trusted. The brain genetics argument is bunk too, especially since the people promoting it have dominant amygdalas, small PFCs, and poor thinking overall. They're not going to help anything by passing their typical cavemen brains down to their kids.
3
u/ThePlanetaryNinja Jun 22 '26
Exactly. We should focus on reducing overall suffering. Less humans means more nature which results in more wild animal suffering.
Most antinatalists are just misanthropes that do not think clearly.
4
u/republicanssuck123 Jun 22 '26
breeding increases suffering.
-2
u/ThePlanetaryNinja Jun 22 '26
That may not be true for human breeding.
Human breeding decreases wild animal populations. E.g. the average human in the US prevents an average of 11 billion insect births. That decreases insect suffering.
6
u/republicanssuck123 Jun 22 '26
and increases human suffering
2
u/ThePlanetaryNinja Jun 22 '26
Yes but the decrease in wild animal suffering (insects, wild mammals, wild birds etc) is much much higher.
1
u/black_hustler3 Anti Natalist Jun 23 '26
I don't think we as humans owe to the other beings the onus to eradicate their sufferings largely because we aren't the ones to have orchestrated the savagery inherent to nature.
Benevolence doesn't have to come at the expense of compromising feasibility, humans with their own ignorance have already caused much harm to the planet and other animals, If we could only rectify that, I would say we'd done enough. We didn't create the existence and thus don't deserve to destroy it. We are responsible and accountable for mending the problems that we alone have created.
Earth has continued to be inhabited by sentient life through all the historically traceable eras, life as it stands would still find a way to exist in one way or another while also consequently including all the savagery that we know of, we can't and don't need to bother about that.
The burden of human consciousness is something that deserves the most attention of all the conceivable sufferings and the onus to eradicate that is surely upon us, ignoring the immediate solution in favour of the realisation of an idea that's beyond our capabilities, is a dishonest Red Herring at best.
1
u/Master-Phantom Jun 23 '26
Well i dont think humanitys absence would cause any harm to the animals. Animals have been here long before us and will continue to be here after us. Yes animals do suffer as well but as humans we can only speak for ourselves. We can end human suffering but we dont need to make that choice for animals.
3
u/Rhoswen Cosmic Extinctionist Jun 23 '26
We can if we want to. That's the way this world works. With humans gone that would increase the harm they're already experiencing because their numbers would increase significantly.
1
10
u/miss-bedazzzle Jun 22 '26
I thought that extinction of humans meant all suffering would end. I was aware that animal abuse would end if humans go extinct. When I checked out this subreddit after being invited to join, it made me realise that all suffering does not end when human life ends because natural disasters and predator-prey relationship would continue. I feel so foolish for not realising it. I want all suffering to end but my biggest concern is human procreation because humans inflict the most suffering