Make Antinatalism a Word In The Dictionary
Hello everyone, thanks for accepting me into this group, happy to be here. I'm an Antinatalist, and am highly interested in activism around Antinatalism. My current project is to try and get the word Antinatalism included into the Oxford English Dictionary. Even if you are not an Antinatalist, and even if you are someone who finds the idea abhorrent, the fact is that Antinatalism has grown a lot as a modern philosophy over the last few years, usage of the term has grown tremendously, and I thinking it's high time that this important modern philosophical term is recognized by the Dictionary. If you would like to help make this happen, please visit the link below and sign the petition! Thanks so much to anyone that supports this effort! https://www.change.org/p/oed-uk-oup-com-make-antinatalism-a-word-in-the-dictionary
Comments (44)
Let's not be hasty. You're here; whether you have been "accepted" remains to be seen. On the other hand, we have accepted our resident antinatalists, so there's hope. >:)
What difference does it make to you whether the OED editors have included it or not? You are using the word, other people know what you mean (I guess) so... what's the problem? Do you need the imprimatur of the OED, or something?
Maybe a £100,000 bribe would help.
It's in Wikipedia, for goodness sake. That reaches more people than the OED.
Welcome. I'm glad you could pass the rigorous entrance requirements.
I don't find antinatalism abhorrent, I find it self-indulgent and arrogant. Still, I have no objection to it being pronounced an official word. I doubt it's being left out is a sign of bias.
Hello, I am one of those resident antinatalist BC was talking about. Welcome to the forum. I'm not sure how much "press" the concept would get if put in the dictionary, but I guess it's worth a try. I suggest you read up on some past conversations and add some unique topics of your own. What are your beliefs about antinatalism. Are you more of a consequentialist, negative utilitarian, Schopenhauerean variety? Do you agree with Benatar's arguments exactly as he states them or do you have your own critiques while still agreeing with his main arguments? Is it strictly contingent suffering you would like to stop (i.e. most painful experiences) or do you allow for a more subtle "structural suffering" in your worldview whereby there is a sort of lack and instrumental nature to existence?
What is arrogant about anti-natalism?
I used to be an antinatalist, but I don't find it abhorrent. In fact, I am greatly predisposed to the idea. I just think the arguments in favor of it don't work.
To decide that your life is not worth living is fine. It's your business. To decide that other people's lives are not worth living, that human life is not worth living, is arrogant.
Anti-natalism is the believe that human life consists primarily of suffering (or, is primarily negative, rather than positive). It is not a subjective view of one's personal life. Thus, from an ethical perspective, to give life to a child would be unethical - a form of negative utilitarianism.
I think you are right in correcting T Clark's notion that it's just some presumptuous opinion and stating that it is more of an ethical position, and thus applies universally. However, while I think a major antinatalist element (David Benatar's for example) is negative utilitarian, much of it can be considered aesthetic in its root. I'll take Schopenhauer's view for example. Schopenhauer's aesthetic/axiological position is that the world is a striving Will. This Will/force is striving-but-for-nothing. As it is manifested in the phenomenal world of individuation, it is contending each other for survival and its own sense of longing-for-nothing (in the form of boredom). This whole vision is really rooted in metaphysics and would be hard to deflate to purely negative utilitarian in its nature. So I tend to call this antinatalism "aesthetic antinatalism" or "aesthetic pessimism". This covers a more existential view than doing a calculus of the good and bads like strict utilitrianism might follow.
Here's what I said above:
Quoting T Clark
How is my description of what anti-natalism means different from yours? If human life is not worth living, then mine isn't. It is personal.
As is all ethics, quit singling out antinatalism as if it is the only ethics which applies to you as well and is controversial.. Shall I list all the other ethical systems that claim universality and you would probably disagree with?
Because you're reducing it to a personalized experience, when an anti-natalist would claim that all human life consists primarily of (various form of) suffering. Human life, in itself, is a negative value. It is true that "mine" is, but then it is also true that all "others" are, as well.
Are there other philosophies that say "Hey, T Clark, your life is worthless? There are other arrogant philosophies. When they are discussed I point that out, but we're not talking about them here.
The point is, you are singling out antinatalism unduly. Antinatalism doesn't think your particular life is worthless T Clark. That is a distortion. Rather, it is saying that life is sufficiently bad/negative enough to not start a new life.
Similar but not exactly the same is Philosophical Pessimism. This is the belief that generally life is structurally suffering. For example Schopenhauer's philosophy, which is the main exemplar of this thinking, is that there is never any satisfaction in life. Why? Because behind life is a principle called Will, which is a striving principle that has no goal, it just "strives". We as animals are but forms of this Will, that have the illusion that goals that are met will provide satisfaction, but are in fact never satisfied when they reach their goal. Existential boredom is especially reflective of this idea because it belies the emptiness at the end of all endeavors.
Anyways, Philosophical Pessimism doesn't have to agree with Schopenhauer's Will to be called pessimism. As long as there are themes of "striving for nothing", "emptiness", "absurdity", and the general instrumental nature of existence (repetitiousness of putting energy to survive and entertain), I believe it to be sufficiently considered pessimism.
I don't think so. You seem to single it out unduly as well, as the only time I ever see your little icon there is when this position arises. You can simply ignore it. Did I or any other antinatlists ever call you out on it? You seek these out not the other way around. There are plenty of philosophies which you can also disagree with and choose to not participate.
I'm performing my own philosophy in this case. It's OK that you don't get it.
You are right. I don't get what you mean by "performing your own philosophy". Do you mean you are trying to philosophize? And if so, why not start some of your own threads on what you are interested in or perhaps participate in existing threads that interest you?
See, this is the fundamental problem of antinatalism. You don't understand other people. Yet you feel qualified to prescribe them extinction.
And more things reach Wikipedia than OED reaches people. I wouldn't consider reaching Wikipedia to mean anything.
Antinatalism might not suit your taste, but it's hard to argue that being concerned for the suffering of all conscious beings is arrogant.
Quoting Roke
As if there is some other possible end to be had.
I was being a bit tongue in cheek. Anyway, I have no problem with the word being included in OED. Does anyone claim prejudice on the part of the editors is keeping it out?
How could you know I am singling out anti-natalism unless you know the history of my posts?
Quoting schopenhauer1
This isn't reasonable and it's not the way the forum works. You deserve to be treated with respect and civility, although I admit you won't always be, but if you put your ideas up here, it is reasonable people should give you their opinions, even strongly worded ones, if they disagree with them. It's clear, and I'm sure you are aware,anti-natalism raises a lot of hackles. You should thicken your skin a bit if you want to be a credible advocate.
I haven't checked your posts in general. Do you participate in discussions about other subjects? That might make people more likely to pay attention with an open mind when you come back to anti-natalism.
First, why not just let Roke speak? By continuing this, you are continuing the kind of postings that don't add anything to the conversation, just "You are this and you are that". Doesn't do much.
Also the ad hom to thicken my skin is not necessary to say being that I pretty readily defend my position almost every time I'm on here, so I think you are not considering that perhaps. Yes, I do participate in other discussions. But my point to Roke was that the only time I really see him is when he wants to respond to antinatalism, but usually more in a trolling way.. There are ways to engage that aren't trolling. I've had epic debates with Thorongil and apokrisis, ones that frustrated me even, but I wouldn't call most of it trolling. Sometimes there was some of that, but it was at a minimum and usually after we have both had lengthy substantive posts. That is not to say, right now one of them won't display troll-like behavior or at any point in the future, but I'm just saying one can engage in a style that is not just trying to provoke for the sake of provoking but actually has an argument that engages the topic. Being that I don't think there is real engagement with the topic, respect for the other debators, or anything of the sort, I suggested that he start his own threads on topics he does want to engage in rather than always trolling on a topic he doesn't even like to discuss.
I'd imagine a lot of it has things in common with activism about any other social issue. Although certainly I think there's something "more" to the antinatalist point than any other moral problem, since all moral problems would seem to depend on there being people who are born.
That being said from my own experiences it's that people who are concerned about "activism" about antinatalism are not actually very serious and/or decent in what they do and who they are. As soon as someone tries selling antinatalist windshield stickers, I'm out :vomit:
It's true. Anti-natalism raises my hackles. Something that bothers me even more is people using the term "ad hominem" incorrectly. I did not attack you personally. "Thicken your skin" just means "be less sensitive." Ad hominem doesn't mean saying something you don't like.
Quoting schopenhauer1
I think I misunderstood where you were coming from on this. Your response seems reasonable to me.
Needless? Reproduction is one of the primary criteria for being alive.
Adolescent immaturity can be defined in the main by raging hormones. At the same time, reproduction is a part of the cyclic time I have in mind. I choose to not recognize it as an issue (Antinatalism). There are some irreducibles in the chain of being. So I'm just trying to state the contradictory paradoxes that relate to the complexity of the grievance of antinatalists. I'm thankful to have lived, even if it is possible I may have been a happy soul in the Otherworld before born.
Sexual obsession is a hangover from from a much more foolish age of adolescence. Hormones result in many bad judgments whether a child or and adult. You could say tempering hormones is a right of passage from childhood to adulthood. With humans, the body matures much faster than the mind, there are parallels between adolescent stupidity and inability to get over hormones (and the dominations of libido).
Wait, what? My being alive depends on my ability to reproduce?
Not necessarily you in particular, but humanity as a group.
Christ save us...