Talk:Antinatalism

Table by User000name

	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)

Title and topic

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)

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)

The moral responsibility section is appallingly biased towards hedonism to the point of dogmatism their are other forms of philosophy that would completely disagree such as stoicism 98.250.4.115 (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sophocles, anti-natalist?

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)

Chromancer's recent edits

Chromancer recently removed a lot of content from this article. I disagree with most of the removals, and will address them diff by diff:

• "Unsourced quotation does not bear onto subject of article, does not improve surrounding prose or understanding"

The source is given (the book The Trouble with Being Born). The quote certainly does have relevance to antinatalism, and I think its presence does improve the article. Antinatalism is concerned with the problems of consciousness, and this quote encapsulates that.

• "Quotes are unsourced and do not add further understanding to the article-save this for Wikiquote"

The Peter Wessel quote has a documentary reference, although admittedly a vague one. Again, I find these quotes highly relevant to antinatalism, and I believe they do improve understanding of the topic. When I first found this Wikipedia article, these quotes helped me understand my own antinatalistic leanings.

• "Quote is from a novel of the first American master of irony. We would need a non-primary source to tell if this expounds antinatalist views"

Agreed, but the mere presence of the quote in the article does not imply that Twain was an antinatalist. Again, I think this quote is highly relevant and improves understanding of this article.

• "Removing some uncited proponents, minor changes to lead"

Cioran was cited, but I agree with the rest of this diff.

• "We cannot justify calling Sophocles an antinatalist from a WP:PRIMARY source dramatic work"

Again, mentioning an antinatalistic quote by Sophocles is not the same as calling him an antinatalist. And, again, this quote is important to this topic.

I appreciate that you're trying to improve Wikipedia, Chromancer, but in my opinion your recent changes to this article have, on the balance, degraded it. As mentioned, the first time I came upon this article, it helped me come to terms with my own antinatalistic views, and the quotes, some of which you've removed, were vital here. I've read quite a lot about antinatalism, and I strongly disagree with your comments that those quotes are not relevant to antinatalism.

On a side note, I am exhausted after a long day, so please forgive any mistakes in the above.

I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts here.

—Tommyjb Talk! (22:50, 1 June 2011)

I have reverted your removal of these changes per Wikipedia guidelines. The fact is, that in doing so, I'm well within the usual bounds of consensus, as exemplified in WP:QUOTEFARM. Several previous contributors to this particular article have felt the same way, and you have repeatedly reverted their changes. Removal of quotes and your revert: [1], [2] Removal of quotes and your revert: [3] [4] Here a contributor requests that you provide attribution for the quotes before adding them again, and your revert. [5], [6] You are calling this vandalism, when it's clearly not. It's a case of an editor disagreeing with content you've included, as I did earlier.

I would caution you against ownership of articles, and restate the objections: firstly, anyone may challenge and remove content that is not cited to a reliable source. These quotes note in some cases where they came from, but none of them have reliable secondary sources that give context or describe the author as an antinatalist or a supporter of antinatalism. Secondly, previous precedent and the consensus of editors agree that removal of this content is for the best: that it unduly implies the persons quoted were antinatalists without WP:RS that state they were, that it constitutes a WP:QUOTEFARM that does not improve the article, and that it degrades the article aesthetically and (an extended case of WP:FORK) duplicates content already found at Wikiquote (which is a site that does archive quotes in this fashion, if you'd like to add the material there). Unless consensus changes, I'm going to ask you not to revert these changes again. If you'd like to improve the article, you could add more prose description of specific antinatalist views, cited to reliable sources. I would be happy to help you do so. But standalone quote sections simply aren't appropriate, especially when consensus lies against them. — chro • man • cer  00:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM says the following:

"While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information."

I do not believe that quotations are being overused in this article. I believe the quotations are vital content for the article, and that your removal of them degrades the article. They are not just arbitrary quotations tangentially related to antinatalism — they give a key insight into this topic.

You wrote:

"Several previous contributors to this particular article have felt the same way,"

Who? You've shown only two, one of whom deleted only one quote — the Biblical one — without specifying an edit summary.

"and you have repeatedly reverted their changes."

I reverted the changes of two people, not several people.

"Removal of quotes and your revert: [7], [8]"

I was right to revert that, as it was a content removal without explanation.

"You are calling this vandalism, when it's clearly not."

That was a mistake on my part.

"Secondly, previous precedent and the consensus of editors agree that removal of this content is for the best:"

What consensus? Two people? I reverted those changes pretty quickly, and it's highly plausible that there are people who agree with me but didn't need to say or do anything.

"that it unduly implies the persons quoted were antinatalists"

I disagree, as mentioned previously. These are simply antinatalistic quotes. I also made it clear that the Twain and Sophocles quotes were written in fiction.

I realise that you are trying to improve this article, and that you are an experienced Wikipedian, but I have concerns that you don't know this subject well enough to be removing content here. As mentioned above (and not addressed by you since), you were removing quotes earlier partly on the basis that you felt that the quotes weren't related to antinatalism, which was clearly, to anyone who knows this subject, a mistake.

I am not trying to own this article, as you suggest. I am simply trying to prevent its vital content being removed. In this vein, I have reverted your recent edits, with the exception of the Angelfire removal. I wish there were a way for you to improve this article without removing much of its key content.

—Tommyjb Talk! (13:35, 3 June 2011)

You may feel that this is vital content, but you have provided no sources for it, are repeatedly reverting others' removal of it without providing any, and have not read the full text of WP:QUOTEFARM, specifically:

"Do not insert any number of quotations in a stand-alone quote section."

"Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."

There is more there commenting on the utility of Wikiquote, which these uncited quotations are appropriate for, but the policy here is not ambiguous: this material is not, in its current form, appropriate for Wikipedia. I would like to resolve this dispute without any further reverts, but repeatedly reverting changes (such as my integration of the Schopenhauer quote into the article body and my removal of quotes from fictional works) is not helpful, and neither is ignoring the written-in-stone policy that challenged and removed material must be cited before it is added back in. The burden of proof is on you for inclusion. Bearing that in mind, this is not about winning. Since at this point it is clear you are not going to allow changes, I don't feel that restating my opinion will prove useful, and I have placed a notice at WP:3O looking for another editor to help interpret this policy. — chro • man • cer  21:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

3O

This is in reply to the 3O request. I broadly agree with Chronomancer for the reason given at WP:QUOTEFARM:

"Long quotations crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information. Many direct quotations can be minimized in length by providing an appropriate context in the surrounding text. A summary or paraphrase of a quotation is often better where the original wording could be improved. Consider minimizing the length of a quotation by paraphrasing, by working smaller portions of quotation into the article text, or both. Provided each use of a quotation within an article is legitimate and justified there is no need for an arbitrary limit."

In this case, the contested list of quotations is a mere list without explanation and context. It should therefore be avoided. If these quotations are important for the understanding of a topic, they should be integrated into or paraphrased in prose text, and if not, moved to Wikiquote.  Sandstein  12:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

In my view, the guidelines at WP:QUOTEFARM are too broad and are not appropriate in this case. The end result here is that Antinatalism has gone from probably the best summary of antinatalism on the web to a mere skeleton. It may be possible to integrate the quotes into the article, as you and Chromancer suggest, but this probably won't look good, assuming it's even doable.

In any case, thank you for your assistance, and thanks to Chromancer for requesting 3O assistance.

—Tommyjb Talk! (14:58, 5 June 2011)

I agree that a long list of quotations is a bad idea, but I think it is possible to integrate the quotations into the article: for example, a subsection names "Religious Views", could include the Ecclesiastes verse, as well as a brief description of Catharism and Shakerism, and a subsection names "References in literature" could mention the Sophocles quotation, a reference to This Be The Verse by Larkin, and the Heine quotation. 212.64.8.16 (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC) (TPD)

I can't say reintegrating the quotes sounds like a good idea. I would insist, at a bare minimum, that reliable secondary sources be provided supporting the idea that Sophocles and the writer of Ecclesiastes intended their statements to be interpreted as antinatalism—as a classicist I find that, frankly, impossible to believe. However, some prose—not a quotation—summarizing views of the Cathars and Shakers on antinatalism sounds like an excellent proposition, as the article could use some fleshing out. All together, what the article needs is not a miscellaneous sprinkle of famous people expressing vaguely antinatalist sentiment; it needs a serious treatment of antinatalist groups and views through history. — chro • man • cer  02:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have located a few sources on the Cathars and will be integrating a short summary into the article within the next day or so. — chro • man • cer  02:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "secondary sources": most of the quotations that were deleted (including Sophocles and Ecclesiastes) are cited in David Benatar's "Better Never to Have Been". Regarding "interpreted as antinatalism": ANY statement to the effect that birth is bad IS antinatalism; there's no such thing as an antinatalist "in the modern sense". 212.64.8.16 (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC) (TPD)

Benatar is neither a classicist nor a religious scholar and cannot be consulted as an authority on those subjects. And let's not be disingenuous or naive, here: there is a obvious difference between an advocation of general, nonspecific antinatalism and an ironic or artistic sentiment that one hates one's own specific birth; there's also a separation to be made between his articulation of an ethical philosophy disallowing procreation of any kind from the passing mentions of ancient philosophers who had no such beliefs whatever. Attempting to go off half-cocked interpreting artistry as sincere philosophy will choke this article with irrelevant trivia. — chro • man • cer  19:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

"Benatar is [not] a religious scholar and cannot be consulted as an authority on those subjects";

This is quite mistaken. Benatar is Jewish and has a number of publications and book contributions on religion including in The Journal of Law and Religion, and Ratio.

"there is a obvious difference between an advocation of general, nonspecific antinatalism and an ironic or artistic sentiment that one hates one's own specific birth".

Exactly, which is why Ecclesiastes (and Sophocles, Cioran, Zapffe, etc.) are relevant to this article, and Job and the Lamentations of Jeremiah are NOT, because Ecclesiastes says it is better for everyone not to have been born, whereas Job and Jeremiah only express the personal regret of the author of having been born. (e.g. Jeremiah 20:18: "Wherefore came I forth out of the womb to see labour and sorrow, that my days should be consumed with shame?").

"there's also a separation to be made between his articulation of an ethical philosophy disallowing procreation of any kind from the passing mentions of ancient philosophers who had no such beliefs whatever."

Again mistaken. Benetar does not defend the view that procreation should be "disallowed"; in facts he defends the right to procreative freedom. This is based on the distinction between immorality and illegality. Not all philanthropic antinatalist do, however, but the question of wether or not procreation should be "disallowed" is separate from the question of whether it is better to be born. 212.64.8.16 (talk) 14:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Sophocles was a dramatist. Oedipus is a character. Your confusing what a character in a play says for an articulation of personal philosophy on behalf of the author is precisely why Wikipedia does not allow us to provide commentary on primary sources except by repeating secondary sources; see policy at WP:PRIMARY. Similar problems of interpretation arise if we treat Ecclesiastes, a troubling and subtle work, the meaning of which has been contested for literally millennia, as simple, direct and sincere; that Benatar does so, or that he is a Jew, is neither here nor there. I understand that you might be trying to help, but miscellaneous quotations don't. I'll repeat—what we need is reliable secondary sources discussing historical antinatalism, not the ascription of amalgamated personal statements to antinatalism. Remember that this is a page not on antinatalist sentiment, but on the philosophical position of antinatalism. This is stated in the lead. If it wasn't, it still wouldn't be acceptable to cite any given person's view that having children is a bad idea. — chro • man • cer  18:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I am well aware that Sophocles is not the character that uttered that quote, that's why I suggested a "References in literature" section (see my original comment in this thread) to include just that. Numerous Wikipedia pages have a "References in literature" or "References in popular culture" section (WP:POPCULTURE) which contain much more trivial stuff than this. You also claimed Benetar was not relevant as a secondary source because he was not a relgious scholar, but when I pointed out that he has in fact done scholarly work on Judaism, this is suddenly not relevant?--What? And any "person's view that having children is a bad idea" is precisely what antinatalism is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.64.8.16 (talk) 08:41, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Being of a particular religious conviction does not make one a religious scholar, neither does publishing a couple of journal articles on religious topics. To the best of my knowledge, Benatar is a trained philosopher but has no scholarly credentials in theology. Therefore, he is not a religious scholar, regardless of his personal topics of interest or his religious faith.

ZombiePriest (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC) ZombiePriest (talk) 13:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is an error in that while discussing the view of David Benatar there is this passage:

"If no one exists, nothing bad happens and pain is avoided. They miss out on pleasure, but it seems 'ignorance is bliss' with the nonexistent." I respectfully submit that Professor Benatar in his book makes it quite clear he does NOT agree that "They miss out on pleasure". I believe it is his position that non-existent beings cannot and, therefore, do not ever miss out on anything. The difference reflected as stated in your article would immeasurably undermine and weaken the entire premise of his book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.104.225.214 (talk) 18:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Schopenhauer

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)

The same goes for Žižek. The reference is to a book by Schopenhauer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.72.200.11 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright review.

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)

Criticism of Antinatalism

"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)

Nellas Galadhon (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC) I'm trying to help with this section as well and having some trouble. I've found a couple of sources but none of them are published books or papers. I am new at Wikipedia and could use some advice. I know not all of these sources are any good. I'd like to collaborate on ways to improve the article. And if you are an antinatalist you should want the rebuttals section to be built because it will ultimately strengthen your argument.

-Some arguments for and against on a website

-Stoic scholar Christopher Gill gives tenets that state happiness is within reach of all and the natural life is worth living. Not talking about antinatalism specifically and presumably it's in a book he wrote somewhere but I can't find it. It is here

- Concerns on the implementation of antinatalism from a case study where said implementation was coercive/covert and highly coloured by racism, sexism and classism. More concerns of the effect of bigotry on population policy at this podcast. I think the question of implementation is important as philosophy does not occur in a vaccuum; as stated above with the bit about "faschistic moral parentalism". Why talk about your philosophy if you don't mean to implement it?

- A book arguing that Indigenous groups can and have contributed to biodiversity and ecosystem productivity. I have some quotes.

- Debate with David Benatar on youtube with the CosmicSceptic. Youtube of Matt Dillahunty questioning the concept of asymmetry

- A TED talk with sources about how violent death is declining in human society over time

Does the source criteria change since philosophy is not something we can directly observe in the universe?

Peter Singer

Isn't Peter Singer also a famous representative of antinatalism?--Hubon (talk) 23:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

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)

Schopenhauers first quote has nothing to do with antinatalism?

Am I missing something or is this not the right place for that quote?

The chapter it is taken from is about how pain outweighs pleasure but he also states the necessity of negative experiences etc. which are needed for a valuable life [§148+§149, clearly §152+].

Also antinatalism is not even a subject. So it can not be taken as confirmation of his views and therefore should not be in that article..? FinemLauda (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think you are the one misunderstanding him, because, frankly, he does not say what you claim him to say. What he is saying is that pleasure (including the absence of pain) is not good either, because it only leads to boredom, which is arguably even worse. The latter parts are meant to support the ideas proposed in the earlier part, not contradict them. Even if you got pleasure/freedom from pain you would still be screwed because you would get bored. And while yes, the desire for pleasure is what drives people, it doesn't change the fact that their lives are mostly pain and that logically "man [should] have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence". And while he believed that asceticism (and music) could lessen the suffering of existence somewhat it only does so by stimulating escape from life to a degree and it is not enough to not make life itself a bad thing for him. To sum up here is a quote that should make his opinions on this abundantly clear:

"Human life must be some kind of mistake. The truth of this will be sufficiently obvious if we only remember that man is a compound of needs and necessities hard to satisfy; and that even when they are satisfied, all he obtains is a state of painlessness, where nothing remains to him but abandonment to boredom. This is direct proof that existence has no real value in itself; for what is boredom but the feeling of the emptiness of life? If life--the craving for which is the very essence of our being--were possessed of any positive intrinsic value, there would be no such thing as boredom at all: mere existence would satisfy us in itself, and we should want for nothing. But as it is, we take no delight in existence except when we are struggling for something; and then distance and difficulties to be overcome make our goal look as though it would satisfy us--an illusion which vanishes when we reach it; or else when we are occupied with some purely intellectual interest--when in reality we have stepped forth from life to look upon it from the outside, much after the manner of spectators at a play. And even sensual pleasure itself means nothing but a struggle and aspiration, ceasing the moment its aim is attained. [...] If we turn from contemplating the world as a whole, and, in particular, the generations of men as they live their little hour of mock-existence and then are swept away in rapid succession; if we turn from this, and look at life in its small details, as presented, say, in a comedy, how ridiculous it all seems! It is like a drop of water seen through a microscope, a single drop teeming with infusoria; or a speck of cheese full of mites invisible to the naked eye. How we laugh as they bustle about so eagerly, and struggle with one another in so tiny a space! And whether here, or in the little span of human life, this terrible activity produces a comic effect." (From "On the Vanity of Existence", emphases mine.)

Also, even if you were correct, what you are doing (if you are the one removing the mentions of Schopenhauer from this article) would still only be Original Research.88.95.151.199 (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I can't see situations where removing information can ever be "original research." It may have other problems, like removing properly cited information.

I don't have enough information to have an opinion on this one, but I don't see any citations that say explicitly Hr. Schopenhauer was anit-natalist - and the citations I see are all primary sources from the man himself. It would be best to have secondary sources that would help establish the fact and its importance. The assertion that he is anti-natalist from the primary sources could be construed as original research in itself. --John (User:Jwy/talk)

There are no secondary sources that claim Schopenhauer was an anti-natalist. The primary sources that are used to claim he was one need not be read as saying that he "assigns a negative value to birth." Life has no value for Schopenhauer, as the above quote makes clear, which therefore includes birth. You might read him to say that it is foolish to have children and a tragedy to be born, but is that anti-natalism? Consider that Schopenhauer would not have agreed with the hedonistic and utilitarian principles that David Benatar puts forth in his arguments for anti-natalism. In sum, it's simply misleading to label him an anti-natalist, let alone a "famous exponent" of this position, when this position didn't exist in his day. So I will delete those sections until someone who has a background in his philosophy, like I do, can make a plausible case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisokathorongil (talk • contribs) 15:45, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

With all respect, your - or any editor's - background in philosophy has no direct bearing on the case. Well, perhaps only in that those editors are more likely to know/find the secondary sources necessary to support a position. Its the lack of those that make the case to remove (in my understanding). --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, John, that was effectively my point, if you read what I said. There are no secondary sources that label him an anti-natalist and the primary source quotes provided do not unambiguously make him one either. I will say this, if the definition of anti-natalism is widened, Schopenhauer might again be included. Do we know who wrote it and where it came from? Was it Benatar? No other philosopher to my knowledge uses this word but him. Merriam-Webster's doesn't yet even have an entry for it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hisokathorongil (talk • contribs) 13:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Understood. I was commenting (perhaps unnecessarily and almost snarkily) on your last sentence above. I agree with the argument and action otherwise! --John (User:Jwy/talk) 14:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I rewrite the article on the basis of the article on the Polish Wikipedia. I removed the mention of vegetarianism as a demographic policy, because it is two different things. I also removed Schopenhauer's picture, presented as the main representative presented - his antinatalism is not clear. He wrote about it a little, only conditionally and as a rhetorical question. - Laen1 (User:Laen1/talk) 21:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Its unclear if the sourcing issue has been resolved in the re-write: Still looks like a primary source? --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Links to all the source texts are listed in the section "Advocates". I did not want duplicate footnotes too many times. --Laen1 (User:Laen/talk) 20:17, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

But he's not in that section and has a section of his own... --John (User:Jwy/talk) 15:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I did not understand you before. As for Schopenhauer, in the article is a link to the source text, which he wrote, even to a specific page. Here is a fragment:

"Some of the church fathers have taught that even marital cohabitation should only be allowed when it occurs merely for the sake of the procreation of children, it attributes this view to the Pythagoreans. This is, however, strictly speaking, incorrect. For if the coitus be no longer desired for its own sake, the negation of the Will-to-Live has already appeared, and the propagation of the human race is then superfluous and senseless, inasmuch as its purpose is already attained. Besides, without any subjective passion, without lust and physical pressure, with sheer deliberation, and the cold blooded purpose to place a human being in the world merely in order that he should be there this would be such a very questionable moral action that few would take it upon themselves; one might even say of it indeed that it stood in the same relation to generation from the mere sexual impulse as a cold-blooded deliberate murder does to a death-stroke given in anger." (A. Schopenhauer, Selected Essays of Schopenhauer, G. Bell and Sons, London 1926, "Contributions to the Doctrine of the Affirmation and Nega-tion of the Will-to-live", p. 269) So we have the statement that if the main recommendation of the Schopenhauer's ethics (negation of the will) will be fulfilled, then: "the propagation of the human race is then superfluous and senseless" and is a "very questionable moral action". Schopenhauer in this place compares procreation to "cold-blooded deliberate murder". Here are two other quotations of his authorship: "If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?" (A. Schopenhauer, "Studies In Pessimism, On the Sufferings of the World", Cosimo, Inc., New York 2007, p. 8) "The woman's share in procreation is more guiltless than the man's; for he bestows upon the child its will, which is the first sin, and therefore the root of all evil; the woman, on the contrary, bestows its intellect, which is the pathway to redemption." (Arthur Schopenhauer, "Parerga and paralipomena", §167) The first one is pretty self explanatory rhetorical question and in the second author talks about guilt in the context of procreation. To summarize: I did not mention him in the section "Advocates" because antinatalism is conditional in his case, but I think in the article is worth mentioning about his ethics, taking into account the consequences of that ethics, about which the author writes, and other fragments by the author. --Laen1 (User:Laen1/talk) 20:48, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

But check out what I said above. We need SECONDARY sources "to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." (see WP:PRIMARY) --John (User:Jwy/talk) 04:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

The section "Ethics of Arthur Schopenhauer" contains almost literally quoted words of the author, also the last sentence about procreation, which confirms the above passage, which I cited. At the moment I am not able to cite secondary source in which this passage was commented, but the passage is quite unequivocal and indicates that Schopenhauer in some conditional way condemned procreation: man should deny the will to live (this is the main recommendation of the ethics of Schopenhauer) and "the propagation of the human race is then superfluous and senseless", and procreation is compared to "cold-blooded deliberate murder" (it is worth noting that even unconscious procreation - procreation of a person who did not deny the will to live - is compared to "death-stroke given in anger"). Due to the fact that it seems that he is not unconditional antinatalist, I did not mention him among the advocates, only in the section "Ethics of Arthur Schopenhauer" in which I quote only his own words (clearly related to the subject), nothing more than that. There is no novel interpretations. It seemed to me a good compromise. Of course,instead of a single sentence: "Once we deny the will to live, placing a human being in the world is a superfluous, senseless, and very questionable moral action.", this section can end also with a quote of Schopenhauer, which comes from footnote: "Some of the church fathers have taught that even marital cohabitation should only be allowed when it occurs merely for the sake of the procreation of children, it attributes this view to the Pythagoreans. This is, however, strictly speaking, incorrect. For if the coitus be no longer desired for its own sake, the negation of the Will-to-Live has already appeared, and the propagation of the human race is then superfluous and senseless, inasmuch as its purpose is already attained. Besides, without any subjective passion, without lust and physical pressure, with sheer deliberation, and the cold blooded purpose to place a human being in the world merely in order that he should be there this would be such a very questionable moral action that few would take it upon themselves; one might even say of it indeed that it stood in the same relation to generation from the mere sexual impulse as a cold-blooded deliberate murder does to a death-stroke given in anger." However, this in no way changes the content, but only lengthen the text. But obviously, if it will be better, the quote should be additionally included. --Laen1 (User:Laen1/talk) 18:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

How do we know that is not a "novel interpretation" if there is nothing to compare it with. We need secondary sources. And not just to avoid novel interpretations, but to establish notability. How notable is it that Schopenhauer is "almost" an anti-natalist? In fact, the who page has a similar problem - we are not the ones to label people as "anti-natalist, we are to report what others have established in reputable and reference-able ways. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 19:00, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

If something is literally quoting the author's words, then this something is not interpretation, but it is literally quoting the author's words. Let me explain with an example. Consider the case of Author X who wrote: "The cat jumped up on the fence." Then someone wrote in the article: "Author X wrote that the cat jumped up on the fence." Another someone opposes: "How do we know that is not a novel interpretation if there is nothing to compare it with? We need secondary sources. Nobody has written that Author X wrote that the cat jumped up on the fence, so how do we know that Author X wrote that the cat jumped up on the fence? From the text, who wrote the author? Oh no, it is impossible: since no one wrote that the author wrote this, we can not read this and literally rewrite this." Apart from this example, I have already written that in the section "Ethics of Arthur Schopenhauer" may simply be the above quote by Schopenhauer. Notability and reputability - I'm not an expert on notability and reputability, but I do not know, at least in the field of philosophy, if the reason that someone shouts something loudly and others repeat his words makes this more worthy to write about than about something that someone says quietly. As regards the secondary sources, soon should be published a book, A-Z compendium about antinatalism by German philosopher and author, Karim Akerma, in which should be most of the content, which is in the article. I wrote the article as best I can, but if more experienced Wikipedia editors will agree among themselves that some fragments do not meet the Wikipedia standards, then of course these fragments should be removed. --Laen1 (User:Laen1/talk) 21:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

First, let me take a step back. I've been more terse than usual and have not acknowledged I appreciate the work done on the article, your thoughtful, polite responses (not always the norm here) and hope I'm not making this a bad experience for you as (I now see) you are new to editing. A useful way to understand why there are some of these guidelines is to consider if some nefarious person had an agenda of some sort and cherry-picked primary sources and "forced" them into the article (I am NOT suggesting you are doing this). The secondary/tertiary source guidelines help prevent this in a way the doesn't require other editors to judge the background and motives of other editors.

Back to the issue at hand: the guidelines allow "X wrote about the cat." But it can't be used for notability (for sure) nor for interpretation ("X believes cats are athletes"). As I said before, it is not up to us to be putting the label on people - we report that others did so. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 03:34, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. I understand about what you write, so, as I wrote earlier, "if more experienced Wikipedia editors will agree among themselves that some fragments do not meet the Wikipedia standards, then of course these fragments should be removed." However, in the case of the fragment by Schopenhauer, I can not agree that the ratio between the fragment (a) and the fragment about this fragment in the article (b) looks as follows:
a) "The cat jumped up on the fence."
b) "X believes cats are athletes."
The fragment by Schopenhauer and the fragment about this fragment in the article are as follows:
a) "For if the coitus be no longer desired for its own sake, the negation of the Will-to-Live has already appeared, and the propagation of the human race is then superfluous and senseless, inasmuch as its purpose is already attained. Besides, without any subjective passion, without lust and physical pressure, with sheer deliberation, and the cold blooded purpose to place a human being in the world merely in order that he should be there this would be such a very questionable moral action that few would take it upon themselves; one might even say of it indeed that it stood in the same relation to generation from the mere sexual impulse as a cold-blooded deliberate murder does to a death-stroke given in anger."
b) "Once we deny the will to live, placing a human being in the world is a superfluous, senseless, and very questionable moral action."
It is a literal rewriting of what the author wrote, except that it is write in brief (as I wrote in the article instead of the fragment about this fragment (b) may be simply this fragment (a), in its current form, the text is simply shorter), I think, therefore, that in this case, clearly it looks like this:
a) "The cat jumped up on the fence."
b) "Author X wrote that the cat jumped up on the fence."
When it comes to labeling, it is an interesting issue. Take, for example, the word "vegetarianism". This word has been in use only since 1839. One could therefore argue that any thinker who argued in favor of vegetarianism before 1839, but did not use this word, nor was mentioned in secondary sources as someone who has argued in favor of vegetarianism, could not be included in the scientific article, despite the fact that he writes clearly about it. In this article, these are philosophical arguments against birth presented by certain thinkers. If the article was entitled "Philosophical arguments against birth", then it would be correct, and now, when it is entitled "Antinatalism", this is incorrect? I think it would be a strange conclusion. Apart from the above, in the current version of the article there is no longer "Advocates" section, so there is no labeling. In particular other sections, they are quoted only the arguments. Perhaps, since the article is about "philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth", there is nothing incorrect in that it contains the arguments of thinkers who argued against birth. But as I wrote earlier, if this reasoning is incorrect, and the rules are unequivocal here, then some part of the article should be removed. But if more experienced Wikipedia editors so decides, there will be more questions. When someone writes a book and write in it that the thinkers mentioned in the article were antinatalists or have argued in favor of antinatalism, then the article should return to the previous form? How many authors should written that? Who should decide that these authors are credible? Who should decide whether credible are the ones who will decide? And so on. I think that in its current form, the article does not contain errors or distortions when it comes to the content (the text is supported by the footnotes), and the only problem is the same as the one I cited in the example of vegetarianism. Some solution would be to remove from the article fragments about these groups and thinkers who did not use the word "antinatalism" and about which no one written in this context (but here again the question of when someone should already be added, and when this someone should not yet be added), expand or create a pages about them, and on "Antinatalism" page to attach links to these pages (for example: "See also: Marcionites views about birth." (link to the page)). In practice, the effect, in terms of the content will be the same, but it will be labor intensive, it will make the page less readable and as I mentioned, I think it would be a strange conclusion. --Laen1 (User:Laen1/talk) 13:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Laen1, first let me say that I think the page does look much better than before. It still needs a good bit of work obviously, but I commend your efforts. Second, I see that the definition of anti-natalism has been expanded. Part of my concern about labeling Schopenhauer an anti-natalist is that the definition provided was based on Benatar's negative utilitarian formulations. Schopenhauer was not a utilitarian, at least not a straightforward one. Most scholars view him as a kind of virtue ethicist. At any rate, I think it's clear that Schopenhauer had a negative opinion of procreation, but that's not what's been in dispute, at least for me. My original problem was with the definition provided, which seems to imply, as per Benatar, a negative moral judgment on birth. Birth is different from the decision/motives to procreate, and it's the latter that Schopenhauer has a problem with. So let me just say that now that AN has been expanded with a second formulation that is much broader and more accommodating, I have less qualms in labeling Schopenhauer an anti-natalist.

Third, I want you to notice in the quotes you provided that Schopenhauer is setting up a conditional moral judgment. IF someone has realized the denial of the will and yet still deliberately chooses to have children, THEN he ought to be morally condemned. Schopenhauer still does not, so far as I am aware, morally condemn procreation in general as Benatar does. One commits wrongdoing only when one commits deliberate harm, according to Schopenhauer. Most parents do not have children because they want to deliberately cause harm. Schopenhauer might say they are deluded by the will-to-life and that this state of affairs is tragic, but no wrongdoing has occurred. Thus, his claim is that, if one has realized the denial of the will, then one ought not procreate. But if one procreates without having realized the denial of the will, then no moral judgment can be passed; i.e. no "negative value" judgment assigned to birth. Hisokathorongil (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

"Advocates" section

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)

The problem with that kind of reasoning is that it in some way discriminates against aphoristical and literary authors, which is hard to summarize, but worth mentioning. I corrected according to the recommendations. --Laen1 (User:Laen1/talk) 00:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. That's a vast improvement. -- The Anome (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed the section "List of notable antinatalists" (added by someone) due to the previous recommendations from this discussion. I forgot about them before, and first corrected this section. --Laen1 (User:Laen1/talk) 21:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Tatarkiewicz quotation

The current Tatarkiewicz quotation in this article's "Ancient times" section is stated to be from the book published in 1976 as Analysis of Happiness (which was an English translation of the author's original book, whose Polish title, rendered into English, was On Happiness). The article's identification of the cited passage, as being from Analysis of Happiness, is incorrect. It is not from that book.

I suspect that the article's current translation was prepared either by a computerized translation system, or by a human with limited knowledge of Polish and/or English.

The actual Analysis of Happiness translation is also inaccurate.

I prepared my own translation, which I submitted on 23 November 2016, directly from the original Polish-language text. I will gladly respond to any questions about my translation.

I respectfully suggest that my translation be reinstated.

In any case, the current version should not be misstated as being from Władysław Tatarkiewicz, Analysis of Happiness, The Hague, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1976. (The page given, 261, is also incorrect.)

Nihil novi (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

I have inserted a more complete version of the passage from Tatarkiewicz's book (including the original Greek expression, "Mὴ φῦναι"). I think you should find this translation satisfactory. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Nihil novi (talk) 20:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Ecclesiastes 4:1–3

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)

Corrections

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)

Origin of term

The lead isn't actually supported by sources, although I can see where it's coming from, and it seems superficially reasonable. Any claims that the term was first used by Giraud or Benatar should be supported directly by a source saying that. Finding an example of a use and saying it is 'probably' the first such use is original research. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest just deleting those statements from the lead. I doubt that they are crucial to the article.

Nihil novi (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Deleted.

Laen1 (talk), 11 January 2017 —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

The term was certainly not used for the first time in this sense by Giraud of Benatar. In an article, published in 1999 in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, antinatalism is used in the sense of the article.Yuyuhunter (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The term was first recorded in 1958 according to google Ngram https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Antinatalism&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2CAntinatalism%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bantinatalism%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BAntinatalism%3B%2Cc0#t4%3B%2CAntinatalism%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bantinatalism%3B%2Cc1%3B%3BAntinatalism%3B%2Cc0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Throughthemind (talk • contribs) 13:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

References

Bibliographic practice

In English-language usage, when providing bibliographic information about a book, it is usual practice to first give the place of publication ("Warsaw", "London"), then the name of the publisher ("Paňstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe", "Simon and Schuster").

Nihil novi (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Solved.

Laen1 (talk) 01:17, 04 April 2017 (UTC)

Regarding section headers...

Perhaps placing continental (Zapffe, Schopenhauer) and analytic philosophers (Cabrera, Shiffrin, Larock) in their respective subheadings could fix this problem. Lumping Benatar's arguments into one large section would do wonders too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.221.122.156 (talk) 15:10, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Done as suggested.

Laen1 (talk) 01:17, 04 April 2017 (UTC)

It does not work. I'm not sure if this division is a good idea, so it goes back to the previous version. "Lumping Benatar's arguments into one large section" sounds good and I leave it that way.

Laen1 (talk) 19:44, 08 April 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section

The opening sentence of this section reads: "Criticism of antinatalism may come from views that see positive value in bringing humans into existence." - This is mildly undue and relies on a single source. A better sentence would be: "Opposition to antinatalism comes from views that do not see negative value in bringing humans into existence."

I'm mildly opposed to their being a criticism section here. If this section's purpose is to contain the view of one "David Wasserman", who opposes specifically David Benatar, then it would be better to note the opposition in the Bentar section. I agree with the supplementary essay on neutrality, WP:CSECTION, which advises against opening Criticism sections. Giving ten sections to various different proponents and then three sentences in one section to a critical assessment of the philosophy is false balance. Discussion? Edaham (talk) 05:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote. The current shape can give the impression of false balance and on the other hand mentioning a more detailed criticism of each of the authors in one common section could be a bit chaotic and illegible. I am mildly for introducing the proposed changes in this article (and in its twin sisters, Portuguese article and Polish article).

Laen1 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Both of you should have a close read on the WP:CSECTION on criticism.

"For topics about a particular point of view – such as philosophies (Idealism, Naturalism, Existentialism), political outlooks (Capitalism, Marxism), or religion (Islam, Christianity, Atheism) – it will usually be appropriate to have a "Criticism" section or "Criticism of ..." subarticle. Integrating criticism into the main article can cause confusion because readers may misconstrue the critical material as representative of the philosophy's outlook, the political stance, or the religion's tenets."

It also seems that you keep deleting the criticisms without redirecting them elsewhere. I do not see a false balance with this criticism section, in fact it appears as though the 2 people making the majority changes to the article appear to be in favor of Antinatalism, constantly removing criticism amounts to bias.

AkshayPajeet (talk) 14:12, 30 June 2020(UTC)

Simplify

< 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)

@86.135.129.34: I would say that you are correct, thank you for the suggestion. I will go ahead and make the change on the article. I also encourage you to to be bold when contributing to English Wikipedia and to go ahead and make direct changes to articles, you likely know yourself when something about an article needs to be fixed and can do so by clicking "edit" at the top of a page or at the title of a section. You can read more about editing boldy at WP:BOLD. The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 18:19, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Structuring of the article

Instead of the current mess of sections, how about a more structured article? I propose:
"In religions",
"In philosophy" with subsections for major thinkers, e.g. "Benatar", "Kant", etc.
"Motivations" with subsections for arguments, e.g. "No possibility for obtaining consent", "Environment", etc.
"Implications" with consequences, e.g. "Adoption", "Abortion" and "Voluntary Extinction"
"Criticism",
...

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.158.90.245 (talk) 16:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the sections could be better shorted. What do you think of the following hierarchy, ordering, and set of section names?

1. Religions
2. Philosophies
   1. Theodicy and atheopodicy
   2. Negative ethics
   3. Negative utilitarianism
   4. Kantian perspective
   5. Peter Wessel Zapffe
   6. David Benater
3. Motivations
   1. Impossibility of consent
   2. Death as harm
   3. Harm to non-human animals
   4. Environmental impact
4. Implications
   1. Abortion
   2. Adoption
   3. Non-human animals
5. Realism

—The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 19:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Instead I propose: 1 Arguments 2 Realism 3 Implications

I think there is no need to separate religion from philosophy, the aggregate "Arguments" section seems to be appropriate. When it comes to "Specific motivations" section, this seems to me a strange idea, because things in section "In philosophy", for example "Negative ethics" or "Kantian imperative" can be as well specific motivations as things in section "Specific motivations", for example "Impossibility of consent" or "Death as harm". "Implications" seems to be good idea.

As for the current chronology of the section "Arguments", I see it as follows: 1.1 In religion - these are the earliest arguments 1.2 Theodicy and anthropodicy - it is a religion related issue 1.3 Peter Wessel Zapffe - chronologically oldest works 1.4 Negative ethics - chronologically oldest works 1.5 Kantian imperative - close to Negative ethics and deontology 1.6 Impossibility of consent - close to Negative ethics and deontology 1.7 Death as a harm - mixed issue 1.8 Negative utilitarianism - utilitarianism 1.9 David Benatar - close to utilitarianism, Benatar is close to Vetter 1.10 Harm to non-human animals - arguments related to issues other than humans 1.11 Environmental impact - arguments related to issues other than humans

This is not perfect, but it seems to me the best chronology.

I removed "Suing one's parents" section. This case is mentioned in the article in External links and such one-sentence information is rather a curiosity.

I removed "Cat after sterilization" picture. Cat in cage can be associated darkly and generally such only photo in the article seems unnecessary.

I removed the paragraph about Patricia MacCormack. This paragraph seemed more like a mention of someone's opinion without argument than an encyclopedic entry.

I restored the fragment about the second type of "manipulation" present in "Negative ethics" section. In section "Theodicy and anthropodicy" raising children is mentioned, but in a different context, not in connection with manipulation, and Cabrera devotes much attention to this. User:Laen1(talk) 19:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC+1)

After a longest reflection, it seems to me that the article looks better without "Inmplications" section. "Adoption" is argument as well not only implication, and for two things "Abortion" and "Non-human animals" there is no need to create section I think. User:Laen1(talk) 19:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC+1)

How was the MacCormack entry unencyclopedic? It made a counterargument to the position held by some universal antinatalists discussed in the beginning of the same sub-section. It would have been better to tweak it if you felt it was unencyclopedic rather than purging it. She is a scholar and antinatalist activist, and her book was published by an academic publisher so it seems to me to be WP:DUE material.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not question that she is encyclopedic figure. What I mean is that she only writes on the topic raised in the section: "claim that all life, human and nonhuman, should be ceased is a hubris I am not convinced humans have the right to exert". There is no discussion and arguments here, only one-sentence "I am not convinced" opinion and that is all.

User:Laen1(talk) 21:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC+1)

I think she gets the point across that it is arrogant and downright anthropocentric for universal antinatalists, or "efilists", to make the determination that not only humans but all sentient life should be allowed to go extinct. I was attempting to be as succinct as possible by limiting the material in order to avoid any undue weight issues. I was considering adding a larger quote in a quote box but nixed the idea as it could be seen as somewhat off-topic, which goes like this (p.153): "While the cessation of suffering humans cause is already manipulated in a way that could come under an efilist rhetoric, these 'management' tools usually come in the form of culling populations of nonhumans to redress an imagined environmental balance most usually caused by humans in the first place." I was also considering paraphrasing this and synthesizing it with other material in the chapter, and given the recent removal of the more succinct version I might consider doing this. Nevertheless, I think she can be included in other sections of the article, and you appear to concur with this according to your statement above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 21:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I really liked the previous version, when we had "Implications" (or "Practical implications") section. Things like adoption, famine relief, and even abortion are not arguments in favor of the antinatalist position. It is not the case that you have "adoption" as the starting point and you then conclude that coming into existence is a harm. It's the other way around, you start with the antinatalist conclusion and then you say that to satisfy one's parental interests one can adopt a child. This is what Benatar does in Better Never to Have Been. This was reverted by User:Laen1 in version 1026241056. I suggest we clearly delineate arguments in favor of a position from its implications. Unless we find an unambigious source that uses adoption, famine relief, or abortion as a premise to reach the antinatalist position, there is no reason to lump them together with arguments for antinatalism.

Fantastiera (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

But these things – adoption and famine relief – are not implications, but arguments; this is what most of the authors of the linked texts say: millions of children in orphanages and famine relief are additional arguments for antinatalism. None of these links refer to "Better Never to Have Been", but one of them refers to another Benatar's text, "Famine, Affluence, and Procreation: Peter Singer and Anti-Natalism Lite".

Laen1 (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Buddhism

I removed the short passage and quote about Buddhism. It was an archaic quote from a Hindu lawyer, and was a manifestly biassed and inaccurate representation of Buddhism.

The Buddha was not antinatalist. If anyone wants to show otherwise, then a proper quote from an actual scholar of Buddhism would be required. I doubt if you'll find one though; see above re "was not antinatalist".

There is a genuine discussion to be had about the notion of jāti (usually translated as "birth", but doctrinally always in the sense of "rebirth") and its relationship with the modern idea of antinatalism. But the Buddha never advocated for people to stop having babies. He advocated to stop acting in harmful ways that would produce the suffering of rebirth in the future.

Some stoics view this as Hedonism?

Who? Where? When? How?

Too vague, but I’m leaving it there for now. TheInternetGnome (talk) 09:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Sucks

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)

About anonymous writers "warning" about a dangerous antinatalist-adjacent group

User:Laen1 added a link with the title "Antinatalist Community Letter – a letter written by members of the antinatalist community criticizing a variety of antinatalism that these members consider violent and dangerous". This was added as it is allegedly valuable as it "warns" the readers about some potential danger. And User:Pipsally agrees. The job of an encylopedia is to provide valid information supported by reliable sources. The job of an encyclopedia is *not* to "warn" people about anything. If there is any merit to talk about such a group, I see no reason why editors wouldn't create a proper page about it. A source written by anonymous authors is not a reliable source (Wikipedia:Verifiability). The link itself doesn't fit anything listed in Wikipedia:External links. I see no justification to keep it here. If there is a reason, please provide it here.

Fantastiera (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

The information seems valid and the sources reliable, there are many links in the text. Perhaps the job of an encyclopedia is to warn against fanaticism within a given idea. As far as I know, the authors are anonymous because when they previously criticized under their own names, they faced troubles on a private level. Many novelists use pseudonyms and for decades there has been declarations or letters from scientists or political activists making a specific declaration about a certain topic without specific names attached to it for similar reasons. Maybe User:Pipsally will write something more.

Laen1 (talk) 18:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

The point is not about validity or reliability but about accusations on individuals, usage of their photos without their consent and diversion from philosophy.

The photos come from materials made publicly available by these individuals in the context of the issues referred to.

Laen1 (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I am currently appear to be engaged in an edit war in connection with these changes. I would like to kindly ask someone other to comment, and the history of editing shows that, apart from me, the most involved in the editing of this article is User: C.J. Griffin, so I rely on their opinion as a user generally much more experienced and involved with English Wikipedia than I am. I apologize for possibly taking your time and thank you in advance for possible assistance, regardless of whom you admit right.

Laen1 (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

After a brief look at several pages from this letter, which warns against some in the "efilist" community, I'm reminded of the content above from Patricia MacCormack I attempted to include back in early 2020 which was rejected for basically being an opinion. I'm thinking that perhaps both sources could be included in a new sub-section on efilism and its relationship to antinatalism. That being said, I personally have no objection to the inclusion of this letter in the EL section, but in my experience EL sections are notorious for being deleted/pruned on the regular. If you believe that a source should be included in an article, the best course of action is to add content from the source to the body and include it as a citation, with proper attribution if necessary.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

That document has absolutely no business being anywhere on the Wikipedia page for Antinatalism. It contains serious accusations against individuals that are outright lies, I do not believe it is a good idea for anybody to indulge in this kind of slander and harassment. This is not a resource on the subject of Antinatalism at all, it’s an attempt to hurt individuals within this community, and its is an embarrassment that to see it’s inclusion here even being entertained. VegAntinatalist (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

User: VegAntinatalist, why do you apparently believe it is good idea to say things like

"Just little thoughts of a prego walking down the street, just somebody whacks them with a 2x4 or something. Yeah that entertains me. Yeah they should be hit with 2x4’s."

"This cat had enough fun and games. It’s over. It’s gonna die anyway. It doesn't have anything to do." - Justification of luring, gaining trust and killing of a healthy feral cat.

"I have such contempt for poor people who have kids, I have absolutely no ethical problem personally with every fucking poor person who has a kid being shot in the fuckin’ head. It wouldn’t bother me a bit. I have no sympathy for them, I have no use for them, I think they’re a blight on civilization. They’re a blight. They’re cruel, stupid, evil bastards and I wouldn’t give a shit if they all dropped fuckin’ dead."

"Extermination is the only practical method."

and many similar statements, and to promote and defend the author of such statements, and do you not believe it is good idea to be concerned about it and criticize it? Which of these sample statements are lies (the text contains links to the sources of all such statements)? These individuals founded the organization "Antinatalism International", which promotes the author of these statements and his "philosophy" connected to them - "efilism"; each of these individuals identifies themself with this "philosophy". Attempts to hurt individuals are not such statements, luring, gaining trust and killing healthy feral cat "for their own good", such "philosophy", promoting such a "philosophy" and its creator, but attempt to hurt individuals is concern and criticism of such things? I do not see any entertainment here. User: C.J. Griffin, the problem with Professor MacCormack's book as a source is that she gives a strange definition of "efilism" and mentions Professor David Benatar as "efilist philosopher" while he does not identify himself that way and is concerned about the letter mentioned. What do you think about adding this letter, along with a brief information about it, to the section "Criticism"?--Laen1 (talk) 19:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It's not really the point whether such beliefs and statements are "acceptable". The point is, the document does not discuss antinatalism. It is just a list of quotes made by some people associated with "efilism". The purpose of Wikipedia is to present reliable information about topics. A bunch of quotes made by some people affiliated with "efilism" is not a reliable source of information about "antinatalism". You can create a new Wikipedia entry for "efilism" if you wish to post links about it.

It's impossible to include this document in "Criticism" as it's a document written by anonymous people. Anonymous sources are, in general, not a reliable source (Wikipedia:Verifiability).

Please remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia — not a place to "warn people about dangerous groups of individuals." This could maybe fit an article devoted to this group of individuals. But not to the discussion of an ethical stance towards procreation — antinatalism.

Fantastiera (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

User: Fantastiera "The point is, the document does not discuss antinatalism"

Both for Professor Patricia MacCormack and Professor Masahiro Morioka – according to their publications – "efilism" is a variety of antinatalism.

"It is just a list of quotes made by some people associated with "efilism"."

Almost all quotes are from the creator of "efilism" mentioned by Professor Morioka.

"It's impossible to include this document in "Criticism" as it's a document written by anonymous people. Anonymous sources are, in general, not a reliable source (Wikipedia:Verifiability)."

"As far as I know, the authors are anonymous because when they previously criticized under their own names, they faced troubles on a private level. Many novelists use pseudonyms and for decades there has been declarations or letters from scientists or political activists making a specific declaration about a certain topic without specific names attached to it for similar reasons."

"Please remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia — not a place to "warn people about dangerous groups of individuals.""

Please remember, the only person writing about "warning people about dangerous groups of individuals" is you. I wrote only that "perhaps the job of an encyclopedia is to warn against fanaticism within a given idea".

Laen1 (talk) 21:48, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

"Elifism" listed at Redirects for discussion

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)

Criticism section (again)

"Émile P. Torres argues that the consequence of all humanity adopting antinatalism would not necessarily be extinction: if safe and effective life-extension technologies become available, humans could stop procreating but still survive for as long as the universe remains habitable."

It doesn't sound like a criticism of antinatalism to me, am I missing something? If anything it indirectly vindicates antinatalism by making compatible with the - commonly accepted - view that extinction would be bad (Also, iirc Torres even expressed some - qualified - sympathy for antinatalism during an interview)

Besides, the section itself does indeed look weak and gives the (false?) impression that opponents of antinatalism "haven't done their homework", as it were. For example I'm fairly certain that Benatar never claimed that "pleasure is the only true inherent good and pain the only inherent evil". It almost looks like antinatalism is the dominant view in procreative ethics, whereas afaik it's usually dismissed as outlandish. (I'm new to the subject and hold no degree though, so again feel free to correct me if I missed something obvious) Bonnepoire (talk) 07:41, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

The Torres quotes are kind of a neutral in my eyes. It comes off to me as saying antinatalists are jumping the gun by ignoring potential future immortality. It definitely confuses the tone, maybe a further explanation of why it's a refutation is needed.

I'm inclined to agree with you @ dismissed as outlandish. I can't remember the last time any news of this philosophy has been positive (Outside of the more shock jockey/Vice-like sites). Even other pessimistic philosophies tend to clash with them by my own observations. This suggests it's still heavily criticized and thus warrants a larger criticism section. Perhaps expanding on the sections about stoicism to begin with and working from there. HeptatonicScale (talk) 04:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

A TODO list

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)

Fantastiera (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

A proposal to create a dedicated page for Benatar's axiological asymmetry

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to split the section into a dedicated page Fantastiera (talk) 13:09, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

---

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: @The Editor's Apprentice, C.J. Griffin, AkshayPajeet, TheInternetGnome, Nellas Galadhon, Laen1, VegAntinatalist, Qwerfjkl, Rosguill, EvergreenFir, Bonnepoire, HeptatonicScale, Buzgie, HSellarsian, Tommi1986, Pacifio, Sirhu, Jhawkinson, Sawanhasan, TheVictoryOfTheProletariat, VX187, Mychemicalromanceisrealemo, Throughthemind, and Chris Capoccia:

Voting

Do you Support or Oppose the suggested change?

Fantastiera (talk) 19:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support. Sirhu (talk) Sirhu (talk) 16:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Support Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (talk to the cutest Wikipedian) 15:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• Support Fantastiera (talk) 21:31, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Suggested section: Diversity of views

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)

Efilism Redirect

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)

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)

"Efilism" listed at Redirects for discussion

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 Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 15 § Efilism until a consensus is reached. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:52, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Criticism section

The Criticism section doesn't make any sense. 2804:1530:105:4115:D883:7AB:FE2F:3783 (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

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)