• prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 month ago

    I also saw this while browsing all, and don’t subscribe to these kinds of communities.

    However, in a world on the verge of literal destruction due to climate change, I can’t help but think it’s unethical to bring children into it.

    • fishy@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      If everyone subscribed to this logic humanity; the only known intelligent species in the universe would die off. IMO that is the worst possible outcome.

      • deck_dissent@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        The loss is real from the perspective that measures it, and that perspective is worth examining. Culture does not possess subjective experience: the painting does not suffer unobserved, the symphony loses nothing unheard. Once no beings exist there is no perspective from which the loss registers, and the absence of culture is not bad for the non-existent as the absence of pleasure is not. Preserving culture cannot override the consent objection: it would mean manufacturing new beings and forcing them through the full spectrum of suffering so that galleries have visitors and concert halls have audiences. Empirically, most cultural production is already lost: whole civilisations, their languages and traditions, have vanished. The antinatalist only proposes that the final loss happen without generating additional victims to mourn it.