Will music ever be another gateway to antinatalism?
TO BE OR NOT TO BE
To be or not to be
See for yourself
Being spelling hell
Why not favour stringent void?
So strange, same old game
Life doesn’t match human dignity
Why perpetuate the race?
Song by song we got it wrong
Song by song place duties on
More people to come
Cradle to grave, just one thing is save
Rainbows, time flows from formation to decay
Francois Tremblay’s comment on the last post has lead to some further clarifications. Francois said:
“I think you got the correlation backwards here. It’s atheism that helps people open their minds enough so they can hold to other non-religious positions. All ANs I know except one started off as atheists.”
This is an important topic which would require more elaborations than what follows:
Other points of departure towards antinatalism seem thinkable and even occurred in history. Think of Christian antinatalism: Life in this world is vain and worthless. Leave your family and earthly goods, Jesus said – and do not procreate since the end is nigh. In the same manner quite a few Church Fathers were in favour of strict antinatalism while at the same time sticking with God’s existence.
Or think of Manicheism as a kind of inverted Christianism: Our world is the product of a malevolent creator. According to Manicheism one must abstain from procreation in order to not perpetuate this world. At the same time Manicheism, as antinatalism, sticks with a supreme being outside evil creation.
There is at least a logical pathway leading from vegetarianism towards zoo-antinatalism which will eventually morph into anthropo-antinatalism: Vegetarians – inadvertently or not – opt for non-procreation among farm animals. One can easily agree on this with any vegetarian. This agreed, vegetarians will have to defend restricting antinatalism on suffering farm animals and they are prone to admit that their antinatalism’s scope will have to encompass all sentient beings. Looked at from this angle vegetarianism is a gateway to antinatalism.
Let us take the phrase “Parents might have only good intentions regarding their offspring”. Why is it then that a vast majority of parents seem to contribute at full speed to the deterioration of their children’s living conditions? I am not talking here about a general course of civilization but rather about personal decisions which are within everyone’s cruising range:
The decision to drive a car/to eat meat/to use one-way products when other options are at hand is a decision which – if universalised – deteriorates children’s living conditions considerably.
All these decisions are being made before the background of information age. No one could claim: I was poorly informed on the inextricable bound between consumer decisions and one’s children’s living conditions. The conclusion seems inevitable, therefore, that the above mentioned phrase on parents’ good intentions needs revision. It should read: When it comes to consumerist behaviour people as a rule decide to their children’s detriment.
An antinatalist triad reads as follows:
ANTINATALISM – ATHEISM – VEGETARIANISM
Atheism is a consequence of antinatalism inasmuch as “God” said:
“Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”
Vegetarianism is a consequence of antinatalism inasmuch as a (strict) vegetarian diet reduces the demand for and the production of ever more sentient and suffering beings.
If you so wish listen to the song NO GOD