Science No more kids anywhere, ever, is rational and compassionate, says bioethicist

Link (Archive)

No more kids anywhere, ever, is rational and compassionate, says bioethicist​

In the late 1960s Paul Ehrlich warned of the coming population bomb and advocated zero population growth. This became almost an article of religious belief in some circles. Sixty years later attention has shifted from limiting the population to eliminating it.

One of the leading theorists of human extinction is the Finnish philosopher Matti Häyry. He has been mulling over the pros and cons of allowing humankind to flourish on Planet Earth for at least 20 years. His recent retrospective in the Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics is an interesting insight into a controversial, not to say incendiary, theory. He explains:

Antinatalism is an emerging philosophy and I am an antinatalist philosopher—or, at least, I think I am. Being antinatalist means, to me, that I do not have children, I do not intend to have children, and I would be pleased if everyone acted like me in this respect…
I would be pleased to see no one to have children, because that would be a rational thing to do. Reproduction carries risks to the possible future individuals. All lives are occasionally miserable, some lives are predominantly miserable, and individuals may think, justifiably, that their lives have no meaning. My reason suggests that it would be unwise and unkind to bring new people into existence and thereby expose them to these risks. Arthur Schopenhauer agreed with me, many others have disagreed.

Häyry is not a philosopher king, merely a philosopher. He has no desire to impose his views on others. He describes his approach as “conflict-responsive need-based negative utilitarianism” and says that he wants “to be kind and not to be unkind”.

Some of his considerations deserve to be quoted:

• Since reproduction would inflict suffering on the future individuals and their offspring, it is kindest not to bring them into existence.
• Although reproduction may bring joy to breeders, balancing the joy against the suffering inflicted tips the scales in favor of abstinence.
• Since blaming-and-shaming breeders makes them suffer, using it as a tactic is not kind and should be balanced with other factors.
• When breeders celebrate their children, it would be unkind and probably counterproductive to curb their joy.
• It would be unkind to force breeders to abstain. It is unkind to manipulate new beings into accepting the breeders’ morality.

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

super weird that every hot take from "Scientists" seems to be an exact, mirrored, negative inversion of what God says....

why is that?

 

[Geddy Lee's Fee and See]

super weird that every hot take from "Scientists" seems to be an exact, mirrored, negative inversion of what God says....

why is that?

Academia is just full of fucking 20 IQ retards that want to whore themselves out in a popularity contest rather than actually study the natural order God set in motion, news at 11.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

He should start with himself.

 

[Duke Nukem]

Academia is just full of fucking 20 IQ retards that want to whore themselves out in a popularity contest rather than actually study the natural order God set in motion, news at 11.

But I thought academics were supposed to be smart people! Boy was I mistaken.

 

[God of Nothing]

this is just nihilism with extra steps

 

[Heed Not]

We really need to purge academia of navel-gazing pessimist faggots and make it a purely technical endeavor.

 

[Chad Holdenford]

Bioethicism sounds like the fancy word a dystopian authoritarian regime would come up with to describe forced populational control.

 

[Bland Crumbs]

Just kill yourself.

 

[Rome's rightful successor]

One of the leading theorists of human extinction is the Finnish philosopher Matti Häyry.

Why is it that these anti-natalist types always come from sparsely populated white countries? You'd think they would come from a place that's actually overpopulated like India or Bangladesh but they just don't.

 

[batterybee]

Ok, start with africa.

 

[God of Nothing]

Why is it that these anti-natalist types always come from sparsely populated white countries? You'd think they would come from a place that's actually overpopulated like India or Bangladesh but they just don't.

really makes you think

Ok, start with africa.

racist

 

[Gremperor]

If you make statements like this and don't immediately follow it up with suicide then you're just attention whoring.

 

[ZeCommissar]

How weak of a person do you have to be that you think suffering, even mild suffering is justification for no human being to ever exist again ever? Overcoming adversity is unquestionably what makes us human. Animals overcome adversity too, but no animal has ever went from living in caves to sailing across the solar system like we have. I'm sure its really fucking terrible and unfair to be born an untouchable in India in a very conservative community. These niggers are talking about "muh suffering" as they live in a first world nation in modern times. Yeah alot of shit sucks, but its not "Your whole village got burned, and all of the women including your wife and daughter were taken as war brides and raped. Oh and you died from a toe infection that would be easily treated 600 years later" suffering some of our ancestors went through.

No wonder Finns have a higher suicide rate with faggots like this running around. If life is so full of suffering I suggest the simple purchase of rope and chair to alleviate your ills.

 

[Watcher]

The issue with this "have fewer kids" message is that it's only ever directed at white people. It's never directed at say, Arabs or Jews. Because it would be perceived as genocidal rhetoric. While he might say "everywhere" he really means "white people". As whites would be the only ones receptive to his message. Other races are going to reproduce regardless.

 

[Battlefield2142EU]

No more kids anywhere, ever, is rational and compassionate, says bioethicist

Say the faggot too afraid to kill himsef to improve the planet like they supposedly believe.

 

[Kane Lives]

Funny how the chickenshits who advocate for less humans don't start with themselves first. Do us a favour, take your own advice.

 

[Maratus volans]

Bioethicists are a massive joke. Everything you see attributed to them is either, "No shit, Sherlock" levels of obvious or something straight out of the mouth of the edgiest twelve year old kid you know, with zero middle ground. I can't decide if this is one of those professions that attracts smug fedora-tipping oh-so-clever retards like flies to shit or if it's just so boring that they occasionally take the most contrarian positions they can think of for laughs, but either way it's safe to completely ignore them.

 

[Absolutego]

I don't understand what it is about learning too much that makes retards start embracing the views of Thomas Malthus

 

[jertzog]

"Yeah, we'll get around to it after all the White countries are swarming with the people who have no cultural or ingrained controls on their breeding."