Talk:Antinatalism

message: If a being exists                     	If a being does not exist
Pain Metric    	There is some pain, which is bad.     	There is no pain, which is good.
Pleasure Metric	There is some pleasure, which is good.	There is no pleasure, which is not bad.
source - User000name (talk) 19:14, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table by User000name 

message: :This article's title is a bit strange, it just makes a philosophical statement which is in fact an antitheisis of a previous statement, all in the name of schopenhauerian provocation, with grave pessimism and little originality. At best, it should allow for a wholly philosophical rebuttal or counter-reaction to some of Schopenhauer's ideas, which are not terribly different from those of Malthus, since they tend to equate nature and culture in the same moral category. Under this strange philosophy, it is a categoric moral imperative to save baby chimpanzees and gorillas, but a yet ever contrary duty/obligation to annihilate fetuses and embryos. 69.157.229.153 (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the general idea behind antinatalism is to prevent the suffering of "potential people" by causing them to not exist at all. If you view a fetus as a legitimate being, then by this philosophy it'd too late to prevent it from existing, because... it's already there. Killing it would go against the hedonism that antinatalism is based upon. 'Course, this is all just personal conjecture, but I doubt Schopenhauer and company had fetuses in mind; abortion seems to follow the letter but not the spirit. 168.150.239.106 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Title and topic

message: This encapsulates just what is so silly about so many Wikipedia articles: it claims that Sophocles was an anti-natalist simply because one of his characters made an anti-natalist remark in Oedipus at Colonus.  (And is it even clear that the character is an anti-natalist?  Maybe he was just feeling depressed.)  But, out of a desire to display some sort of scholarship, even if faux scholarship, some Wikipedian confidently asserts that Sophocles was an anti-natalist.  Ridiculous... 99.67.54.165 (talk) 20:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sophocles, anti-natalist? 

message: Does anyone have any actual proof that Schopenhauer was an antinatalist?  Quotations and citations are required, especially if his image is going to be highlighted on the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.231.176.94 (talk) 07:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schopenhauer 

message: This
* abstract_S1477175612000206 THE IMMORALITY OF PROCREATION
is a relevant source, arguing the procreation is immoral due to lack of informed consent. However, it was used to support a direct quote from the article, attributed but not quoted or rewritten, so I have removed it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright review. 

message: "Antinatalism has been soundly criticized from a variety of philosophic perspectives. From critique of the Benatarian asymmetry, to forcefully expressed concerns that antinatalism intrinsically engenders fascistic moral parentalism, to arguments that antinatalism is so profoundly counterintuitive that it can safely be rejected, to a contra-antinatal ethics grounded in a theistic metaphysics, the purported arguments in favor of antinatalism have been consistently countered such that it remains at the periphery of respectable intellectual discourse."
I hesitate to delete this outright, because I think it's at least a decent starting point to a rather empty section. It definitely doesn't meet the manual of style however. I added a  template, will do some research when I have time to beef it up and conform it to style. Feel free to play with it as well, people. Insidiae (talk) 07:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of Antinatalism 

message: Isn't Peter Singer also a famous representative of antinatalism?--Hubon (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Surprisingly, no. But you're on to something because Benatar recently (c. 2020) published a paper in which he contends that the views Singer expressed in "Famine, Affluence and Morality" actually lead to (at least a mild form of) antinatalism. Although as far as I know Singer has always been pretty dismissive of antinatalism and never seriously engaged with it. 2A01:E0A:14A:B1C0:3079:1C58:D02E:7ACF (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Singer 

message: The "Advocates" section is really just a data dump, so studded with cites that it's hard to read, and at the same time it's really not very informative. Its contents should be split up into mentions within the context of the relevant sections in the article, with new sections or subsections being created if needed to add context. If someone who holds this philosophical position cannot be fitted into context in this way, we should consider whether or not they are actually worth mentioning in this article. -- The Anome (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. That's a vast improvement. -- The Anome (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Advocates" section 

message: I have moved the Ecclesiastes quotation to follow Tatarkiewicz's discussion of Sophocles, Theognis and Homer, because they all lived before the author of Ecclesiastes.
I have also changed the Ecclesiastes translation to the more familiar and more poetic 1611 King James Version.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks.
Nihil novi (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ecclesiastes 4:1–3 

message: Thank you for help, Nihil Novi, especially for pointing out the mistake with Tatarkiewicz. The article in its present form is a translation of my article from Polish Wikipedia. I correct a few things: multiple links, links in the quotation and aesthetics.
Laen1 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: < Only twenty per two thousand male chinook salmon survive into adulthood >
Is that one in a hundred (and better worded thus) or am I missing something?
86.135.129.34 (talk) 07:17, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplify 

message: Who? Where? When? How?
Too vague, but I’m leaving it there for now. TheInternetGnome (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some stoics view this as Hedonism? 

message: Sucks that I can't just oppose procreation and have a term for it. --78.77.209.35 (talk) 02:45, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sucks 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Elifism and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 24#Elifism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:51, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Elifism" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: A list of things to add or change.
* [ ] Add a criticism from: Pallies, Daniel (2023). Pessimism and procreation. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research. https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.13007
* [ ] Add a criticism from: Lee, Byeong D. (2023). A Kantian critique of Benatar's argument from the cosmic perspective. Philosophical Forum 54 (3):185-198. https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/phil.12341
* [ ] Add a citation to Antinatalism#Peter Wessel Zapffe: Moen, Ole Martin (2021). Pessimism Counts in Favor of Biomedical Enhancement: A Lesson from the Anti-Natalist Philosophy of P. W. Zapffe. Neuroethics 14 (2):315-325. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12152-021-09458-8
* [ ] Add criticisms from: Weinberg, Rivka (2016). The risk of a lifetime: how, when, and why procreation may be permissible. Consult Rivka Weinberg#Career for a short overview. Fantastiera (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A TODO list 

message: Benatar's axiological asymmetry is the most known argument for antinatalism. It would make sense to have a dedicated page for it. Some benefits:
* The argument could be explained in more detail
* It would be convenient to refer to that page from various other pages (e.g. Antinatalism and Better Never to Have Been and Philosophical pessimism)
* It would be possible to include various objections to it and responses from Benatar
The current subsection on the argument could then be trimmed down and we could refer to the main page of the argument.
I am asking for help, since I wouldn't be able to do all of that on my own.
=== Discussion ===
Please share your opinions. I'm calling editors who would be interested in this: 
=== Voting ===
Do you Support or Oppose the suggested change?
Fantastiera (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A proposal to create a dedicated page for Benatar's axiological asymmetry 

message: Do you Support or Oppose the suggested change?
Fantastiera (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Support Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voting 

message: I suggest creating a new section, called Diversity of views or Varieties of positions or something like that. Since antinatalism is a family of connected positions, it would be beneficial and informative to present this diversity. I can think of a couple of things, but we'll surely find more:
* Focus on those who (potentially) come into existence (Benatar)
* Focus on those who bring others into existence (Cabrera)
* Inclusion of non-human animals (Benatar, Akerma)
* Exclusion of non-human animals (Cabrera)
Feel free to share your opinions and add to the above list. Fantastiera (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested section: Diversity of views 

message: I think efilism should redirect to philosophical pessimism instead as it appears to be more a precise description of efilist philosophy than mere antinatalism. Ganondox (talk) 11:15, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It may appear like that to you. However, there is no support for something like that in the literature. And since Wikipedia is based on quality sources (rather than our opinions as editors of various pages), there is no reason to redirect "efilism" to Philosophical pessimism. So, I vote "no" to the suggestion. Fantastiera (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efilism Redirect 

message: The redirect Efilism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Efilism]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The Criticism section doesn't make any sense. 2804:1530:105:4115:D883:7AB:FE2F:3783 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: There already is a discussion section on that — #Criticism section. It neither makes sense to create a duplicate nor to voice such an unsupported opinion. Fantastiera (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism section