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.

 

[Mitt Doggy Dogg]

When were kids ever rational, and empathic? Kids are demon monsters, that's why they have parents to beat there ass and teach them right from wrong. Also just stop having kids til humans go extinct is probably the worst solution to any problem.

 

[WonderWino]

In the late 1960s Paul Ehrlich warned of the coming population bomb and advocated zero population growth.

They also used to warn that global cooling would turn the planet into frozen hellhole by 2000 too. Now they're claiming the opposite and pretending they never said that to begin with

 

[LeChampion1992]

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

I have realized this the right should unironically give the socialists and Marxists and nihilists a taste of their own medicine. We should encourage mass euthanasia of these groups. The world would significantly improve.

 

[Sister Miriam Godwinson]

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

It's not Auschwitz if you put "Ethics Correction Center" over the entrance.

 

[Beautiful Loser]

View attachment 5675432
Say the faggot too afraid to kill himsef to improve the planet like they supposedly believe.

Kill nihilists. Behead nihilists. Roundhouse kick a nihilists into the concrete. Slam dunk a nihilists baby into the trashcan. Crucify filthy nihilists. Defecate in a nihilists food. Launch nihilists into the sun. Stir fry nihilists in a wok. Toss nihilists into active volcanoes. Urinate into a nihilists gas tank. Judo throw nihilists into a wood chipper. Twist nihilists heads off. Report nihilists to the IRS. Karate chop nihilists in half. Curb stomp pregnant black nihilists. Trap nihilists in quicksand. Crush nihilists in the trash compactor. Liquefy nihilists in a vat of acid. Eat nihilists. Dissect nihilists. Exterminate nihilists in the gas chamber. Stomp nihilists skulls with steel toed boots. Cremate nihilists in the oven. Lobotomize nihilists. Mandatory abortions for nihilists. Grind nihilists fetuses in the garbage disposal. Drown nihilists in fried chicken grease. Vaporize nihilists with a ray gun. Kick old nihilists down the stairs. Feed nihilists to alligators. Slice nihilists with a katana.

 

[Syikeblade]

Reminds me of r/efilism which is apparently a philosophy where life is suffering and everything must die.
Also funny how when you ask why they don't kill themselves they cry about it.

 

[ZazietheBeast]

You know, Pol Pot may have had a point when he purged academia. Also, watch as they never talk about the reasons to why no-one wants to have kids.

It involves globohomo and their agenda. Much like China.

 

[Need for Sped]

Be the change you want to see and kill yourself, faggot

 

[Crocodylus Acutus]

Let me read a letter I recently received. "Dear Dr. Breen. Why has the Combine seen fit to suppress our reproductive cycle? Sincerely, A Concerned Citizen."

Thank you for writing, Concerned. Of course, your question touches on one of the most basic biological impulses, with all its associated hopes and fears for the future of the species. I also detect some unspoken questions. Do our benefactors really know what's best for us? What gives them the right to make this kind of decision for mankind? Will they ever deactivate the suppression field and let us breed again?

Allow me to address the anxieties underlying your concerns, rather than try to answer every possible question you might have left unvoiced. First, let us consider the fact that for the first time ever, as a species, immortality is in our reach. This simple fact has far-reaching implications. It requires radical rethinking and revision of our genetic imperatives. It also requires planning and forethought that run in direct opposition to our neural pre-sets.

(I was going to post the whole speech, but holy shit it's long)

 

[Fareal]

Well, even if the bioethicists are right, the human species is frequently lacking in rationality and compassion, so I don't think the idea will catch on.

 

[PS1gamenwatch]

Has he encouraged this?

 

[JustSomeDong]

this is just nihilism with extra steps

Bio/Neuroethics are just the PC versions of eugenics. Find your nearest med school and audit a bioethics class sometime. See for yourself.

 

[FuckedOffToff]

It's not Auschwitz if you put "Ethics Correction Center" over the entrance.

"Kindness makes you free"

 

[The Ugly One]

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”.

We do not have enough bullying in modern society.

 

[Diana Moon Glampers]

I mean, it's true for all animals, right? Lots more creatures have a capacity for pain than pleasure.

So we should kill all the animals, as many as we can, because otherwise they will suffer and create offspring who will also suffer. Even plants may be able to experience pain and suffering to some degree, so we'd better kill all of them, too. Better safe than sorry.

These people need to stop pretending at a human exceptionalism that does not exist in this area. According to their own precepts, the best Earth would be a cold, dead world that is all rock and dust. They also want to be praised as the ultimate arbiters of ethics.

How can you call yourself a "bioethicist" when your "ethics" is effectively anti-biological?

 

[TowinKarz]

They also used to warn that global cooling would turn the planet into frozen hellhole by 2000 too. Now they're claiming the opposite and pretending they never said that to begin with

There's a reason I call him "The Human Klaxon"

Every 'we'll be dead in x years unless we adopt massive social control measures this instant with no debate" idea that environmentalists tout (resource depletion, climate collapse, famine, disease, animal extinction) can be traced back to him.

Though he felt overpopulation, not carbon emissions, would be the cause.

Either way, he, like the others, are 30 years overdue for any of their predictions to come true, yet he's still held up as an important figure and hasn't lost any academic credibility despite the fact he said the US would suffer "mild" starvation in the 1990's as a "last chance" warning to get our shit in order before total biosphere death in 2000.


And once again, ethicists prove they have no value to society whatsoever, they have only two settings:

1. Advocating you stick your dick in everything
2. Advocating you stick your dick in nothing.

 

[The Ugly One]

I mean, it's true for all animals, right? Lots more creatures have a capacity for pain than pleasure.

So we should kill all the animals, as many as we can, because otherwise they will suffer and create offspring who will also suffer. Even plants may be able to experience pain and suffering to some degree, so we'd better kill all of them, too. Better safe than sorry.

These people need to stop pretending at a human exceptionalism that does not exist in this area. According to their own precepts, the best Earth would be a cold, dead world that is all rock and dust. They also want to be praised as the ultimate arbiters of ethics.

How can you call yourself a "bioethicist" when your "ethics" is effectively anti-biological?

And none of these "voluntary human extinction" hacks advocate for mass sterilization in Africa, or even just cutting back on the food aid so they reproduce less.

 

[VargReallyDidNothingWrong]

This is the same old tired bullshit faggotry antinatalists always talk about. WOE IS ME THE WORLD AND EXISTENCE IS SUFFERING WE SHOULD NEVER MAKE SOMEONE ELSE SUFFER LIKE THAT

Just kill yourself if it's that bad.

 

[frozen_runner]

For some reason this Stonetoss comic immediately came to mind.

 

[X Prime]

All arguments from bioethicists should be discarded out of hand.

Some of them have advocated for pedophilia. It is very clear that it's a job hinging on post-hoc justifications.