Debunking TGGP on antinatalism.

I do not endorse Jim Crawford, author of Confessions of an Antinatalist (he is an MRA, as far as I know), but his debunking of a TGGP essay against antinatalism is pretty stellar.

“He (and it is going to be a he, among the weaknesses of women is an inability to reach certain heights of imbecility) says “Shut up about those precious moments, you’re distracting me from the agonies of existence. You know I stubbed my toe this morning?”.”

Nice caricature. In reality, the antinatalist experiences his/her own version of goodness in the world. In fact, there’s no ‘mood’ requirement to get into the club, strictly speaking; although, being a pessimistic philosophy, antinatalism probably draws more than its fair share of depressive personalities. But there are plenty of couples wandering about who live relatively happy existences, and yet choose to remain childless because “we just don’t think it’s a good idea to bring a child into this world right now.” As a matter of fact, one could do away with the fundamental Benatar asymmetry altogether, and rest his antinatalist proclivities on commonsense risk assessment.

Let’s pretend for a moment that life is as unadulteratedly good as the most fervent optimist thinks it is, and do away with any discussion concerning cognitive biases and the like. That is, life is good for some. For no one possessing even a modicum of rationality grounded in real-life experience would argue that SOME lives don’t turn out perfectly horrible…would they? And there lies the problem. Fate is a capricious whore, and doesn’t care who she fucks over. When we bring a new life into the world, we take the very real chance of delivering that life into the open arms of future personal disaster. In my mind, that’s enough of a reason for a sympathetic person to abstain from breeding, and instead adopt some needy child into a more fortuitous situation. Or buy a puppy (although puppies shouldn’t be born, either).

9 thoughts on “Debunking TGGP on antinatalism.

  1. Heretic December 3, 2014 at 01:36 Reply

    I have one point to make that he didn’t mention: antinatalists are not “dating rights before conception” any more than a woman who has an abortion.

    Or you can ask yourself which side is going to have the anti-abortionists. Same difference.

    • Francois Tremblay December 3, 2014 at 01:59 Reply

      Yes, I agree. I’m also not sure that I agree with Crawford that this is just the Non-Identity Problem reformulated. It just seems like a straw man. What pre-conception rights are we defending exactly? How does a rape magically because a rape of two? There is no such thing as a pre-conception person. To equate the Asymmetry with the statement that people pre-conception are still people is.. bizarre.

      • Heretic December 3, 2014 at 15:14 Reply

        The OP criticizing antinatalism is ultimately resorting to religious rhetoric, i.e. “life is for reproducing” and “life is a gift.” As is the root of any natalist argument. I’m not surprised he is also anti-suicide, because natalists love what-ifs and wishful thinking.

        Might I add, he comes off as a woman-hater. He calls himself “childless,” which is used to refer to women who don’t have children, including the childfree. It’s as bad as men who say,”We’re pregnant.”

        It’s not a stretch to imagine antinatalism as an extension of the childfree philosophy. Apparently, people have a problem with collective analysis (as opposed to individualism) when it comes to reproduction. It is safer for them – namely women – to believe they were able to “choose” to have children.

        What I don’t get is the overt or covert labeling of antinatalism as evil and a threat. How is society NOT telling people to reproduce?

        • Francois Tremblay December 3, 2014 at 15:26 Reply

          “Apparently, people have a problem with collective analysis (as opposed to individualism) when it comes to reproduction.”

          When do people NOT have a problem with systemic analysis? Unless it’s economic criticism put under the label “socialism”… but even then people will complain (but the rich deserve to be rich! why do you hate the rich so much? rich rich rich rich rich rich rich rich rich).

          “It is safer for them – namely women – to believe they were able to “choose” to have children.”

          Having children is empowering doncha know. You too can have it all!

          “What I don’t get is the overt or covert labeling of antinatalism as evil and a threat. How is society NOT telling people to reproduce?”

          Well you see, if everyone becomes an antinatalist (??), then humanity will go extinct and that means we lose (????). What are you, some kind of loser?

          “Don’t be a loser
          Be a smarty
          Come and join
          The Natalist Party!”

          • Heretic December 3, 2014 at 15:38 Reply

            LMAO!!!!
            You always make me laugh, Francois. Thanks! :-D
            I’ll have “rich rich rich rich” and the little song in my head now.

        • Francois Tremblay December 3, 2014 at 15:48 Reply

          Thank you! The song of course is borrowed from The Producers, so imagine it with Mel Brooks’ voice. :)

  2. Neil Bishop December 5, 2014 at 12:36 Reply

    What is an “MRA”?

  3. Brian L December 27, 2014 at 14:02 Reply

    Glad someone asked what an MRA was. I didn’t know, myself. Funny it’s brought up, though, because that is what David Benetar writes about in his second biggest outing, after antinatalism. Odd coincidence.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: