Antinatalism This Week | 31st March 2024 #antinatalism #antinatalist

hello and welcome to antinatalism this week now  before we go ahead just a warning you might have guessed from the thumbnail that we are going to be  talking about red button later on in the video but before that let's have a look at some news let's  start with David Benetar a new book is going to be out called very practical ethics by David  Benetar as you can see on the screen and I'm sorry the actual Links of the book are not working  for me so I had to make do with some snapshots of the book

looking at the description of the book  it's says that it is going to be talking about everyday problems that Ordinary People face  in their everyday lives so no red button no thought experiments no trolley problems probably  and no um specific uh specialized problems that people in certain professions face but Pro  everyday life problems looking at the table of the contents it says it's talking about sex  environment smoking giving Aid to charity and so on consuming animals language humor [ __

 ]  forgiveness and conclusion so it I I'm curious to know how much of this relates to antinatalism  specifically because it's going to be written by David bitar and I think possible candidates would  be sex then environment if you're talking about ecological antinatalism U giving Aid might be if  you're talking about effective altruism and things like that consuming animals could be one other  possible candidate where antinatalism might come in so eager to know where antinatalism pops up so  in

teresting book and as you can see on the screen screen it's going to be available for about $35  and I think there is an ebook also available once the link starts working for me I'll probably  try and update once more and also try to see if I can get access to the book also last week  we looked at a new book called on extinction beginning again at the End by Ben wear they have  written a new article called the sickness of life on the problems with antinatalism the article  is more of a criticism

on certain flavors of antinatalism they start with ethical human Centric  antinatalism the article says that the problem with antinatalism is not that its pessimism  is too radical but rather that its pessimism isn't radical enough and this is because it says  that antinatalism does not consider the misery caused by structural issues of human society so  it says while antinatalism harps on the Pains of existence anxiety boredom Melancholy loneliness  chronic disease bement it has nothing to say

about how human misery is unequal distributed  along lines of class race gender and geography or how it might be exacerbated by such trifling  matters as the Relentless exploitation of Labor crippling inequality or the continued expansion  of a permanent War economy the second point it makes his anti-et lists enjoy wallowing in their  own pessimism and so it says unhappiness we might say always has a hole in it and it is through  this hole that happiness and enjoyment emerge as as a kind of lib

idinal leakage or affective  ooze now this is ironical because pessimism is supposed to be a stand against pleasure or  happiness or optimism and so the article says this is precisely what antinatalism cannot grasp  or perhaps does not want to know it does not see that pessimism is the fixed Point around which  its own enjoyment circulates and thirdly and to my surprise the author brings up why don't you kill  yourselves argument the author says if strict ly speaking the anti net list should see

k to return  to source as quickly as possible then why we might ask do they carry on living is it not because  the Surplus satisfaction found in their own Bleak worldview is itself a precious treasure that they  wish to protect at all costs before we go further I just want to review these three points I don't  think antinatalism ignores the misery caused by the structural issues within human society that  there is a lot of Injustice in the world that there is a lot of inequality wealth inequalit

y in  the world almost to the degree of embarrassment is considered within antinatalism when antinatalists  talk about state of the World when they ask why should I bring a child in this kind of the world  part of that state of the world refers to this structural issues in human society as for the  wallowing in their own pessimism as a source of happiness I think there is a degree of Truth in  it it's partially true if you go and look at the internet forums and the posts that anti-et list  make

on those forums and the the memes they post you can say that yeah they are enjoying putting  all these negative and pessimistic memes but that is a consequence of the state of the world that  these anti- netlists are living in rather than the arguments for antinatalism and thirdly I don't  even need to address why don't you kill yourself argument but just for the completeness I would  say that antinatalism is against creation of New Life starting new life it is not for killing or  ending existin

g life I am surprised that an author of this caliber who can write in such a flowery  language even brings up this kind of argument moving on the author refers to environmental or  ecological antinatalism and then they also refer to Lee edelman's 2004 no future book in which they  propose a theory they say that child or children in general is a symbol of future generations and  we should reject that and the way to reject that is that they propose a queer Theory um in which  they say that we shou

ld reject all of this through through what they call as Death Drive the author  says that both of these theories and movements the ecological antinatalism and Lee ements death  drive and queer Theory are as self-destructive as capitalism itself and then they pour in more  criticism on ecological antinatalism firstly they say that ecological antinatalism partially  stems from Western pathology of species shaming and then they say because capitalism has  eliminated meaning in individual life and i

ndividuality itself ecological antinatalism is  rather a response or a reaction to this desire of dying meaningfully and finally they say that  ecological antinatalism is as heroic implying that it is as Hollow as transhumanism itself they  say that the affirmation of human self-extinction is just as heroic as any form of tech utopianism  that claims that it too can solve all of Nature's problems so this article completely ignores the  core arguments of centric ethical antinatalism this article

I think is a very good example of a  beautifully written bad article on antinatalism so after recording my summary my summary video  about Ben wear's article I found out that there was an article summarizing that article in Spanish  language which I got translated through Google translate and as you can see on the screen this is  the article Ben wear more pessimistic than anate lists and I read through the summary and more  or less it seemed to coincide with what I said there might be some some

differences I not going  to summarize the summary again but you can have a look and read through and see what you think so of  the notable videos this week there is one by tofu dog and she is reviewing antinatalism rejectionist  Philosophy from Buddhism to manitar by Ken KES or Ramesh Mishra As We Know It uh it was a very good  video I think that tofu tofu dogs Channel deserves more subscribers and more views so very good and  looking at the comment it's comments it looks like she's also going t

o review other books like better  never to have been so looking forward to that Lawrence did a live stream addressing to different  um aspects and topics which achara Prashant covers achara Prashant is a Indian spiritual teacher  preacher in India and I would not comment on the contents of the video because it's a two  and more than two hours long video very good video but more than that looking at the comments  it looks like Lawrence was trolled a little bit and this is the case with India and

I'm going to  make some sweeping generalizations about India and Indians here that's because I think I know more  about India than any other country India is a thriving market for Spiritual preachers anybody  who wears the cloak of spirituality they don't have to be religious just the word spirituality  has some appeal within Indians and then through that you can preach whatever you want achara  Prashant is doing that for antinatalism veganism I'm not saying that he is using spirituality  only t

o preach this but he does talk about these two things in favor of these two things  and um antinatalism and veganism although his main um I I should not say business but his main  goal or his main profession or his main work is to preach about spirituality and people then you  know they they they become disciples rather than followers and then anybody who disagrees with  their preacher they go and troll it this is the problem problem with India and Indians at the  moment I'm not saying it's the

problem only with India maybe there are other countries also but it  is definitely a problem with India and Lawrence seemed to have got some heat of it but anyway  still nice effort there was a discussion about antinatalism a debate SL discussion on the topic  of antinatalism with alas by Lawrence so elas is um sort of he doesn't agree with antinatalism  some of the points I'm not going to talk about each and every detail because it's again in a two  hour long video you can watch it but some mai

n points which are brought up there was that one  is about intrinsic value of Consciousness that we don't know and Consciousness can have an intrinsic  value similar to the way we treat suffering having a negative intrinsic value so Consciousness  or existence being into existence being into a conscious existence might be a positive intrinsic  value which can then act against antinatalism is one of the claims of elas the other one is  is maybe along with this intrinsic value of Consciousness one

of the reasons why all of these  conscious being exists might be because there is some really Cosmic grander meaning to all of this  what is whatever is happening on the earth and if we go with the antinatalism line there is a risk  of not fulfilling that Cosmic meaning if there ever exists such a cosmic meaning I thought this  line of argument was similar to Pascal's vaser that you know you it is better better to believe  in God even if there might not be any God because if there is a God and

you don't believe it and  you die then you're going to suffer but if there isn't a God you still believe it you die you  know it's not harmful so it's rather better to believe in God that is the outline of Pascal's  vure and this argument seems to be in line with that there were many things other than this  discuss they went back and forth about David banar's asymmetry but I think most of the things  which they discussed has been discussed in other places in other papers and videos also they  al

so talked about some aspects of advocacy of antinatalism whether advocacy whether advocating  for antinatalism would be dangerous and this is also something which has already been addressed  by David Benetar in chapter six on population and Extinction but overall interesting video a  two-hour debate back and forth discussion always an interesting discussion at least for somebody  like me so Lawrence made a video saying why antet lists should stop talking about the red button  so we talked about

the red button I discussed that with Lawrence let's see how that discussion  went okay yeah I can I can um I can summarize what I said I need to remember what I said now um yeah  I can I can summarize what I said and then we can just go through your notes because then you'll  bring up everything that you wanted to discuss anyway um so do you want me to summarize it now  should I just go straight into it yeah yeah great per se I'm it's just saying it's different  from antinatalism um so just to s

ummarize the main points that I made in that video if I'm  remembering correctly are that um the red button thought experiment fundamentally why it's  not about antinatalism is because it asks the question of you know would you be willing  to end all lives to be able to achieve your desired outcome right which um to me is very  different from what antinatalism is about um a second reason is that this red button thought  experiment it I've only ever seen it being brought up in conversations aroun

d antinatalism but it  actually it can be applied to anything and I I say I give some examples in in the uh in the  video like of sex trafficking or slavery you know I've never heard anyone talk to someone  who's advocating against sex trafficking and said you know oh well would would you go as far  as to press a red button to achieve your aims or whatever um and then there are a few other things  I said like I proposed an alternative I said I think it yeah I think it confuses antinatalism  and

pro moralism and it confuses it for people who are trying to understand antinatalism  um I think it yeah it gives people I think it's unnecessary inflammatory because it's asking  someone if they would essentially sign off on Geno well not genocide because that's a specific ethnic  group but I think the word is on the side um when I just I really don't think you need to go that  far when you're trying to understand how the other person thinks about antinatalism but I think that  is by and large

what I spoke about um so yeah we can just go from whatever you want to talk about  Tes okay let's talk about red button now um no thanks for this Lawrence and of course thanks for  the earlier video as well um some of the things I thought was the main point was the red button is  not useful and the red button is counterproductive and then the red button is not brought in other  problems and then finally you also talked about some alternatives to red button yeah and I  thought I should explore th

ese three or four points um one part I want to explore is whether  it is really not useful or not and secondly if that is an enough Reon reason for us not to  address red button so um in terms of utility use book about the red button doesn't really tell  us anything about antinatalism itself because red but antinatalism is not about ending existing life  whereas red button is about and all it can tell us is the convictions of anti-at list rather than  the arguments for anti- nativism yes um righ

t that was one now a few points on that one is that  um the red button tells you with on the scale of all the ethical problems and ethics that one holds  where does one stand in terms of antinatalism so of course I agree it tells more about the anti  netlist than anti nism but it still tells that um about anti netlist and that in itself I think  isn't that valuable you think so um do you mean it it tell it gives us information about where the  anti-natalist prioritizes antinatalism on the list o

f ethical issues that we should be addressing  saying uh that plus it gives us um it gives us an idea of the urgency that the anti-natalist  feels about this issue right um so I think so in answer to your question yes I think if the the  question that someone gives to the red button thought experiment will give you some information  to those things but it it will also you'd have to I don't think it would give you it on a silver  platter you'd really have to ask further questions because if someo

ne says for example that they  would press the red button because they're an anti-natalist and they they they want to end all  lives in pursuit of preventing any future births um that could tell you about um urg the urgency  but you'd also have to ask further questions about um you know uh how do they view uh death for  example do they view death as a harm CU if they don't view death as a harm then it's going to it  you know it wouldn't really be that big a deal uh to them whereas if they view d

eath as a harm then  it would be a massive deal for them to press the red button um and so then so I think I agree with  you that it would give some and I even say this in the video it doesn't tell you anything about  the principles but it tells you how far someone's willing to go for the principles so I do say in  the video that that I I agree with you here um but I think you would need to ask further questions  to actually get a full answer to what you want to know right right and that actuall

y it's good  that you brought up death in that because on an individual level the equivalent question is  why don't you kill yourself if you don't want to start a new life and the general response or what  we would recommend is to answer that question to face that question and answer it and say that it  is not about ending existing life so our response to that question seems to be different than our  recommendation for red button my point is whether red button is good or not whether we would pre

ss  it or not is a different thing but if we are um if you're facing the question of why don't you kill  yourself we're taking that up we should also take up the questions on a higher species level or the  human level or the life you know what I mean yeah so I guess this will depend on the person so um  I if someone posed both of those things to me if they posed why don't you kill yourself and the  red button if someone directly asked me those then I would answer their question it's not like I 

would just say no I'm not talking about that let's move on the point of my video was that I don't  think it's a useful thing for us to actively be bringing up if someone asks you it directly then  you know if want to dodge the question that's up to you or if you want to answer it that's up to  you so that wasn't really what I was talking about in the video but if someone yeah if someone asked  me about you know uh why haven't I killed myself I and the red button I think I would answer them  in p

retty much the same way I would say the fact you're asking me that question means that you  fundamentally misunderstand what antinatalism is about because just because I think that it  would have been better never to have come into exist ju yeah just because I think it would have  been better never to have come into existence doesn't mean that I want to end my own life  likewise just because I think it's better to not to come into existence it doesn't mean I  want to end all lives if you get wha

t I mean so I'd answer them in pretty much the same way  right right right um I agree with you that we should not be bringing up actively in terms of  like if you're having stop having kids campaign you should not be going on the street and say I'm  going to press red button without anybody asking that I agree but when when we are um you know like  when an academic literature is being produced The Book is being written or even serious video is  being done um so one analogy I can think of is in c

ase of vegan or plant-based or animal rights  scenarios um stranded island is a famous thought experiment you know that if you're standed on  you know the experiment yes just for anybody who doesn't know if you're standed on an island with  a pig and nothing else would you eat that pig is an experiment put up by those who are defending  eating meat and thought experiments usually try and evaluate your intuitions those are the tools  to bring out your intuitions I think Daniel D said this so ther

e is an analogy there now um I don't  think when you're doing vegan Outreach you should rather put posters about stranded Islands but  when you're writing about it so for example if I remember correctly Tom ran in his animal rights  the case for animal rights has this section about he talks about the standard Island if I remember  right I might be wrong um the point is at in those places um should those you know red button  experiments also be brought up so that these intuitions could be evaluat

ed at least um yeah so  I think if someone um uh writes an article about the red button or something like that um I don't  think antinatalist should necessarily ignore it like I said if someone asks us about the red  button I think it's completely fine to give a response the response I'd advise is if someone  asks you about the red button I think the first thing you should say to them is what information  are you hoping to get out of my answer to this question because then that will Enlighten yo

u as  to whether they've actually understood if it's relevant to antinatalism or if it's only relevant  to your tolerance for ending the lives of others right to achieve your ethical ideals so I think  that's an important first thing to ask depending on answer is is then going to change how you  obviously move forward with the conversation but to talk about what you also said about um  should we discuss the red button willingly and bring it up so that we can sort of test people's  intuitions I t

hink this can be um interesting in a I think it depends what intuition the first  of all it depends what intuitions you're talking about about so I'm not sure it would give us  any information about our intuitions that are relevant to antinatalism um but I'm open to there  being some you know I might be wrong on this which is why at the end of my video I said look if you  disagree with me put in the comments um so yeah I I'm yet to kind of see what intuitions it would  test that would be relevan

t to antinatalism rather than the individual person's propensity for ending  lives um and the other thing thing is I think if we do want to test our intuitions with the red  button it would probably be best to start by doing that in very private areas um And discussing it  in yeah no in private conversations and stuff like that until we're really sure that it actually has  real value because if I mean maybe the damage is already done you know because like the red button  has been spoken about ad

ium online I know I know many of those videos will have been taken down um  but there will still be some up there but I think a lot of the discussion around the red button that  I've seen today and I'm I obvious I haven't seen all of it has been what I view is quite sloppy  like it's just it's brought up because it's a it's a it's a catching sort of thought experiment  it sounds cool and people like to ask it because you know they want to push things really far you  know and I can understand tha

t because it's fun to do that sometimes but often when I see it  deployed in a conversation I'm thinking how is this actually relevant to the conversation  really um so I think it can be fine to bring up if you want to test intuitions as long as the  intuitions are actually relevant to antinatalism and also just be wary about what situation you're  doing it in and also think are there any less controversial ways of testing those intuitions  like the alternative I give in the uh in the video abou

t comparing Earth to Mars and a button that  removes suffering but doesn't you know commit you to killing everyone um so yeah so I think there  are two or three Roots why red button I mean we reach out to red button one is that U when we are  talking about antinatalism Extinction is at least a theoretical consequence we have to face yes  and um whether you think it has a consequence a tolerable consequence or whether you think it  as a goal in both cases Extinction is present in the conversation

yes and then what Extinction  would mean is that you are okay for this place to be devoid of either life or Humanity depending  on what kind of anties you are yeah so if you're okay with that then would you be okay if and I'm  talking about the instant Vanishing variation of the red button here would you be okay if instantly  everybody vanishes and there's no U physical or mental suffering happening because nobody knows  that they are just going to go in an instant so it comes through an Extinc

tion route that's one I  can think of the other roote of course is negative utilitarian route that if you just want to avoid  all the suffering okay prevent all the suffering of create by not creating new beings but the  existing beings are still going to suffer in their rest of the life so if you use this vanish  variant experience uh um vanish variation of red button you still avoid that rest of the suffering  um now it depends on whether you consider that suffering or saving or that suffering

outweighing  the other values like autonomy and rights and preferences and so on so it depends the answer  depends on what your preferences are and the third route I can think of is if you're a Centric  antinatalist yeah where you're saying that it would be better if there is no C being existing  on this Earth and this also ties ties into your alternative where you're comparing Earth and  Mars so I know there you are suggesting only the comparison but that sort of raises a question  like okay y

ou are proposing this but how how are you going to achieve this Mars State on the earth  yes but I think so that question about how are you going to achieve I don't think that's part  of antinatalism right antinatalism is just an ethical CR it's an ethical position on something  but how are you actually going to realize that is a separate question right so if we um if we  for example I don't know anti-slavery right if you ask the vast majority the if you ask everyone  the vast majority of people

say yes I'm ethically against slavery right but just because they're  ethically against slavery hasn't committed them to also being forc some specific route towards  that right like that's a separate separate question the actual route towards it now it will  be informed by their opposition to slavery but I don't think being opposed to something on ethical  grounds necessarily means that as part of that um there's a road map laid out on on how to get there  right I think the road map has to be l

ayered on top of the ethical position but it's not part of  the ethical position itself if that makes sense yeah yeah yeah that um I sort of agree I was just  saying where this this red button right where it comes from yeah comes from this question like  how the first thing is okay if you turn to Mars instantaneously what happens you know and then  how well no but that but that's not it's not about if we turn to Mars instantaneously it's comparing  right it's comparing the two states um that's t

he first statement yeah and then this is a different  statement there's a leap in between right right right and and also I wanted to say a quick bit on  the extinction and the negative utilitarianism so obviously I'm not um I'm I I know you're just  presenting these as ways that people might be getting to the red button from antinatalism right  so I'm I'm not saying this in response to you I'm saying it in response to the to the points so  the first one about Extinction is yes you know bar some

sort of radical life extending technology  antinatalism in in with the eth the negative uh duties that come from that of not procreating  will result in extinction right but um and and I I think you know this is widely recognized in  antinatalist circles there are different forms of Extinction obviously there's there's dying out  Extinction but there's also killing off Extinction right and those are two very different things  antinatalism will only lead to dying altic the red button deals with k

illing off Extinction  and those are two very very different things so I understand why people see antinatalism they  see Extinction they see the red button and they lump them all together but I just wanted to pass  those two things out very quickly on the negative utilitarianism I understand that for many people  negative utilitarianism and antinatalism intersect but they are obviously the same thing so you can  get to an antinatalist confu conclusion using negative utilitarian logic but just b

ecause you  can get to both antinatalism and the red button using negative utilitarian logic doesn't mean that  the red button and antinatalism are necessarily linked they're just stemming from the same core  set of principles um if that makes sense so that that's what I say on each of those three right  right I also um I actually want to come to the part where you say antinatalism is not the end  State ideology right yeah but before that and I might be repeating myself but just want to make  it

clear that you know David Benetar talks a lot about death whether it is in better never to have  been or whether it is in the human predicament he talks about that even more and um that's death of  an individual and uh then you get into scenarios of how that death happens the process of dying  which one of the options of process of dying would be dying instantaneously that is also addressed  in the human predicament and he says that is bad as well because of blah blah reasons because it's  anat

ion and preference frustration and so on but my point is it's addressed it Benetar is not  responding to anybody he himself has brought these points up in case of individual death now in  the same light I would I would be very happy if he writes on red button but yeah isn't that analogous  that on an individual death if you write so much you can build up a case writing about red button  on a species level or on a life level do you mean a case for pushing it or a case for talking  about it in the

context of antinatalism so in case of Benetar he has opposed the individual  death he says death is bad even if you kill somebody instantly it is bad for that particular  person is what his is analogously he can build a case that pushing the red button even if it is  instant Vanishing is still bad and yeah which I think he talks about in his recent interview with  George Martin right yes yeah carnism Deb correct so yeah that's his opinion but my point is in  the case of human predicament and in

the case of individual death he has written it actively  all right so you mean he he is discussing so if I if I'm understanding what you're saying is  he is discussing topics that aren't specifically antinatalism but they're related they they are  seem to be related to it and so if he's doing that what's the harm in doing the same with the  red button yes okay so I think for so when when David benitar and you probably know it better than  me so correct me where where I'm wrong when he discusses

death he I don't I don't know if he says  this explicitly but it's sort of it in what he's saying is that this is a separate conversation to  antinatalism the only way maybe not the only way but the only way that's coming to my mind at the  moment that death is related to antinatalism is that if you believe death is a harm it's one  of the harms included in the harms of coming into existence right yes so so that that is how  that would um that would relate but apart from that discussions on the

ethics of death or the  philosophy of death or however you want to put it like obviously I think it's fine for anti-al  to discuss multiple um topics right so if if if someone wants to discuss antinatalism and death  then they can discuss those two things obviously they're free to do that but they just need to make  sure that they're not causing any confusion that the two are linked unless they make clear how  they're NE they are linked like what I was just saying there with death being a harm

blah blah  blah the same can be true of the red button if if if benitar wants to write an article on the red  button I see no ISS with that the only the only reason I see it as an issue is if he is writing  it um and conflating it with antinatalism and and this is why I this is one of the confusions I  think people got in in the comments responding to my video is that I'm not saying for anti-natalist  to never discuss the red button what I'm saying is in conversations about antinatalism it doesn

't  seem to be relevant to me and so I think we should leave it by the wayside and I would say the same  to benitar like if he publishes an article on the red button that's you know that's completely fine  it would be interesting but if he's publishing on the red button and saying that that is part  of antinatalism then unless he lays out very good reasons I'd then take issue with it right if  that makes sense yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah I mean yeah uh we can go on but I just want to move  on to th

at um the end State yes yeah yeah so you said that antinatalism is not an endstate  ideology yeah right but if you look at Benetar I'm coming back to Benetar even mati yeah but  let's look at Benetar first so in better never to have been there's a whole chapter dedicated  for extinction population and Extinction yeah right and if you look at some Snippets he says  while talking about population Benetar says the central question of population is how many people  should there be and my answer to t

his question is zero yeah and in another place he says um here he  is talking about the cumulative number of humans that have existed and that will exist in future  and in that context it says many might wish to focus on a question of how many more people there  may be in the cumulative sense rather than at some specified time in future and the ideal answer  here again is zero yeah this to me at least I to me it seems like he is in some way addressing  the end state if not describing how the sho

uld be so I think there's a difference when you're  discussing when you're discussing Extinction as part of antinatalism there's a difference between  it being a consequence and a goal right so someone may be an anti-natalist and an extinctionist and  to be honest you know for anyone watching because I I know I personally have friends who I think  maybe find my position on this annoying because and I do understand because I think it is very  nitpicky and it's a it's almost the a distinction with

out a difference or a difference without  distinction you put it but um I think there is a philosophical difference between um Extinction  being a a goal or or a part of antinatalism and it being a consequence um and I think I mean I would  have to go back and read better than never to have been again to get the full context of of these  quotes but those quotes to me seem completely in line with benitar talking about Extinction as a  consequence of antinatalism right and he I know that in his bo

ok he does explicitly say that a  killing killing off Extinction which would also achieve you know a zero future people is bad and  he's against that so that would make me think that he's talking more about a dying off um Extinction  which is more a consequence of antinatalism um if you get what I mean yeah yeah um I actually don't  I mean we can get back on after you know both of us go through that chapter six again there's a  lot there but I don't think at least as far as that chapter is conce

rned he's talking or he's  addressing Extinction only as a consequence but but even even then let's for the sake of argument  accept that we take it as a consequence I think that consequence should still be addressed  seriously yeah no no I I agree cuz I think um it's like you know when when I mean maybe it's  not directly analogous but you know when if we're talking about veganism people say oh well if we  all became vegan then the animals would just be overtake the Earth blah blah blah right s

o even  though obviously that is a lot more stupid than someone's concern about if we're all stop having  children then we'll go extinct because that will happen whereas animals aren't overrunning the  Earth that wouldn't obviously happen but the fact that people bring these up I I I agree we  should we should deal with them we should talk about them um I just don't know how if we're going  back to the red button how the red button would contribute to that discussion um because again  when peopl

e bring up Extinction with antinatalism especially in this context they would be talking  about dying off Extinction rather than killing off um Extinction right right right um I just want to  since you brought of veganism so this website via it seems to be an animal welfare or animal rights  I don't know some which is concerned animals yeah yeah they're they're they're one of the biggest  animal organizations in the UK they're based out of Bristol they're very active in the UK so yeah  know righ

t and they have this article um an year old article do we do vegans want farmed animals to  go extinct and if you scroll down so on the next page they actually talk about these creatures  um which are bred by us for as farmed animals they will go extinct and and they say then so be  it that is okay but before that they also answer the so just the sentence before that paragraph  they already answer the prospective question a red button equivalent question in this case that  they say that that is

not to say we ought to exterminate these animals quite the contrary  yeah so my point is um you know red button experiment or equivalent arguments are brought in  the scenarios of other problems when the problems are stretched at a universal level yeah oh well  kind of I don't think so in this case right because they're preemptively saying this is not  what we mean right they're not they're not writing an article saying if there was this hypothetical  red button that we could push and it would e

nd all lives on Earth so therefore there would be no  more animals exploited you know that that's not something that they're like and they're in fact  they're explicitly saying the opposite they're saying we're not talking about killing animals off  we're talking about simply essentially ceasing to procreate but procreate the animals and then they  die off and you know so I think personally and I don't know if I'm just twisting this in my head  to be convenient but personally I think they're say

ing the exact same thing that I was saying  in the video they're preventing the red button scenario to be asked in the first place is that  exactly yeah yeah they're preemptively bringing up so someone doesn't bring up this hypothetical  yeah red button yeah that also is one way to look at it yeah age but convenient for me the point I  wanted to make was that this the problems that you had presented in the video like sex trafficking or  other problems they were relatively local problems in the s

ense of antinatalism is probably one  of the biggest Universal problems or Universal Solutions the way you look at it I can't think  anything bigger than you know no being there anything bigger than no life being there well  remember antinatalism is specifically about not coming into existence so if if antinatalism were  to be realized it would simply mean that there are no more beings coming into well it depends on  your definition of antinatalism but it would mean that there are no more at lea

st on on the minimal  level that all antinatalists agree on it would mean that there are no moral agents bringing any  beings into existence anymore right so and that would achieve an anti-natalist world if if we  restrict it to the core bit of antinatalism we all agree on but there would still be beings in  existence yeah so it's you know you've turned off the tap but there's Al there's still water in  the bath kind of thing and you know someone could say that turning off the tap is the the big

gest  bit to do but there would that and that would realize antinatalism but that wouldn't solve an  again it depends on your ethical worldview but if you view beings continuing being in existence  especially if they're ones that suffer a lot and don't have moral agency then you would still see  a moral issue with there being you know existence so it I don't think it's as universal as so I  think that you're prescribing it as universal but that's because you're lumping together the  very things

that I was saying we should separate if you get what I mean yeah no I just want to give  a little clarification if I remember this was like years ago when Amanda was interviewing David  paneta and she said this is the biggest issue in the universe and Bena said what do you mean  I don't think this is the biggest issue um and what I think what she meant at the time and what  I also mean here is that we should not bring new beings into existence even if the consequence  of that is eventually we'll

have a world where no life is there or no sentient life is there  the that's the statement but the underlying to that is that because it would have it would U how  do I word it it would have been better had we not come into existence yes yeah so the the beings  which are existing today we are saying that it would have been better had they also not come  into existence yes so sorry go ahead no I was just going to say but we have to remember as  well that um because you were saying you know if we

stop bringing new beings into existence  then it will lead to a universe where there's no sentient beings anymore but that's actually not  the case because most of the sentient beings that come into existence are brought aren't brought  into existence by us right so we bring humans into existence and domesticated animals but we  don't bring wild animals into existence so if we Define antinatalism as not bringing you know  not bringing new sentient beings into existence then it it there would st

ill be sentient beings  coming into existence it and and there would be you know you'd need a further step to say we  should intervene right now this gets into tricky territory because some people say that intervening  in the lives of others is part of antinatalism and some people say it isn't personally I don't think  it is that's not to say it's wrong I personally do think we should intervene in the wild and  help wild animals I just think it's separate from antinatalism which I've said before

in other  conversations yeah so but that is not the that is not my point I can say coming into sentient  existence is harmful right whether whoever is bringing them into existence yes yeah I agree  yeah right and in that sense then it includes the future beings as well as the beings who have  come into existence and therefore it encompasses the entire sentient Universe yes I agree with  you yeah in that sense I meant Universal you know what yeah no no and I agree and and in that  sense I'm exac

tly the same as you but I think to to get to to fully get to antinatalism as I  think most people understand it I think that's an important part but another important part is  then the negative Duty that comes from that of I should not you know I should not be bringing any  new senum beings into existence like you know with veganism one important part of it is to recognize  the moral value of of other sentient beings but an but an also important part is the negative Duty  that comes with that of

you know don't participate in their exploitation or owning them as property  and this sort of stuff yeah yeah yeah so that was a discussion thank you to Lawrence for coming  here and providing the clarification there were some main points to take away the biggest point  was that in Lawrence's opinion red button is not within the Realms of antinatalism you can talk  about red button as a related subject you can talk along with antinatalism but red button in and  of it self does not fall within t

he arguments for antinatalism that was his main point now when  you think when you talk about um red button as a related subject along with antinatalism the  question comes up when do you do that and when to not do that there are two extremes to start with  one extreme is when you're doing a street activism like stop having kids of course red button is  not a good starting point over there on the other hand when there is academic literature produced by  philosophers like David Benetar read by bu

tton can and should be discussed as a at least a related  topic um but there are many scenarios which fall within this range somewhere in the middle and what  do we do there and one case can be put for that you know we can evaluate the utility of red button  against the harmfulness of discussing red button against the damage to the pr of antinatalism  that red button thought experiment can do for example if there are some anti-et lists who are  discussing some nuanced detailed topics seriously i

n a closed room they can bring up red button  thought experiment and discuss that but then that meeting might be recorded put on internet  and there is always a chance that somebody runs away with it saying that antet lists are mass  murders they just want to commit mass murder this has happened in the past so in which scenario  should we discuss red button and which scenario should we not is very tricky it's very difficult  I don't think there is a straightforward formula to it Lawrence's side

I think is that just not to  take that risk and not to discuss at all so those are the two different sides um what do you think  which side you are on let me know in the comments