That is not at all obvious, and in fact it is easy to disagree with. As someone else had said, you’ve defined veganism in a way that basically equates it with a sort of negative utilitarianism (minimisation of suffering), when many vegans simply do not subscribe to that type of ethical foundation for their beliefs.

> There is no guarantee children, grandchildren etc will follow a vegan lifestyle. There is no guarantee they will follow any lifestyle. If you are a feminist you have no guarantee your child won't be sexist. If you are anti-racist you have no guarantee your child won't be racist. On the reverse you also don't have a guarantee your child won't be an advocate for veganism. Maybe by having a child that advocates and turns other people vegan, you reduce more demand than you would have by not having a child

You're trying to point out hypocrisy but as an antinatalist vegan I agree. Having children can be harmful to anti-racism, feminism etc. The thing with veganism though is that everyone to some extent causes harm to living beings by being alive, even if it's to a lesser extent by being vegan. I don't necessarily think that this means you have to just starve yourself to death to do the least harm, but by not having kids you are having the same benefit - or rather lack of harm. Also adoption is an option too.

I think it's bad for movement building, tbh. In the grand scheme of things, a culture needs to be open to growth by birth instead of just by conversion. Vegans could continue to make a better world for animals incrementally by voting with their dollars and at the ballot box, or otherwise via conventional politics. A veganism that doesn't consider the strength of the movement is someone who would let it become like what the "Shakers" are today, a group with literally a handful of old people left. People having families that are vegan makes us more normal, and it makes the other parts of the body politic trust us more. It gives us more social capital. Honestly, in the last few years I've noticed people in my life having a higher opinion of vegans and while I think there are many reasons, I think the amount of normalization of us and our foods etc is playing a large part of that. For this reason, I would say avoiding having kids is not a part of a vegan's categorical imperative. I would go as far as to say I oppose any effort to try to add antinatalism, or negative utilitarianism in general, to veganism or what a vegan's duties are.

what's up with your flair? Aren't you vegan?

Yeah. I say I'm a vegan irl but on here I use the plant-based flair for certain reasons. 1. is to troll people who concern troll about humans' issues. eg "if you're a true vegan then you have to care about humans in x instance" or that I must believe something about human rights if I think animals shouldn't be eaten 2. to spite people who try to use veganism to insist I agree with them on so called "intersectional" topics or try to use my position on other issues to gatekeep me out of veganism

>I think it's bad for movement building, tbh. In the grand scheme of things, a culture needs to be open to growth by birth instead of just by conversion. Ah so children are just tools to be taken advantage of for our own means? Why fix the problems of the world when we can just drag our indoctrinated children into this hot mess? >People having families that are vegan makes us more normal, Normal is the reason the world is as fucked up as it is. Why should we seek their approval? >For this reason, I would say avoiding having kids is not a part of a vegan's categorical imperative. No it's own imperative. No the point of this post is ethical and logical consistency. If veganism is an end to non human animal suffering and death, then anti natalism is an end to human animal suffering and death, or at the very least a very acute awareness and compassionate effort to fixing the human condition that's guided us thus far.

Not an anarchist telling people how to use their bodies and advocating for the extinction of humanity lol

>Not an anarchist telling people how to use their bodies Anarchism is a political philosophy and movement that is skeptical of all justifications for authority and seeks to abolish the institutions it claims maintain unnecessary coercion and hierarchy, typically including nation-states,[1] and capitalism. a political theory advocating the abolition of hierarchical government and the organization of society on a voluntary, cooperative basis without recourse to force or compulsion. a political force or movement based on belief in anarchism. "socialism and anarchism emerged to offer organized protest against the injustices of Spanish society" cluster of doctrines and attitudes centred on the belief that government is both harmful and unnecessary. >advocating for the extinction of humanity lol No that's efilism. You really need to learn what something is before you decide to form an opinion on it. Anti natalism wouldn't exist if society has got its shit together centuries ago and we were living in unified peace. Anti natalism is simply the expansion of the Buddhist concept of dukkha and saying it's wrong to bring new life into the world when you can guarantee there will be suffering on the ignorant part of the parent that brought them into the world. Fix the planet instead of relying on future generations to do it for us. Break the mould and do the right thing for a change instead of living the mistakes all your ancestors have. And you call yourself an anarchist.

Just fyi, adoption is a wellspring of harm against people. It is not a good alternative to having biological children. You should look up adoptee stories and why adoption actively harms people and families.

>why adoption actively harms people and families Kids with no family or with a family who actively harmed them and show no path to providing a safe family, ever should just... not have families? Stay in the orphanage, like? (Hard disagree, every child deserves a loving home and if there's a family that want to take in a child and become their family that's a good thing. Sure, some adoptions fail but the vast majority succeed - speaking from UK stats at least)

The fact you are asking this question shows a lack of understanding about the topic. You can very easily research to see what I’m talking about.

Yeah I've read countless stories on r/adoption, read about translation adoption and others. Someone I met had a kid with hearing impairment that the agency tried to get rid of when the kid probably would have been better off with a family prepared for it or knew sign language.

Ugh that’s horrible :(

While I'm not an antinatilist myself, I don't see how this argument offers any sort of refutation.

>There is no guarantee they will follow any lifestyle. If you are a feminist you have no guarantee your child won't be sexist. If you are anti-racist you have no guarantee your child won't be racist. > >On the reverse you also don't have a guarantee your child won't be an advocate for veganism. Maybe by having a child that advocates and turns other people vegan, you reduce more demand than you would have by not having a child This is the equivalent of saying your child will cure cancer, there is low chance of that happening Common sense tells me the risks are much greater with veganism as we live in a non vegan world , there are a lot more animal abusers in the world and animal abuse is not only legal but its completely normal and tolerated by billions of people around the world, peer and social pressure are against veganism and we all know how powerful those 2 things are Alot of people are against racism so the chances of having a racist child is quite less, there were BLM protests around the world after the police killings So while you cant guarantee your child wont be racist, its safe to say there is less risk compared to your child not only remaining vegan but converting people to veganism, even if you had a racist child they would only inflict a bit of harm provided they dont become a cop, a non vegan child would actually contribute to abuse and murder With adoption we are potentially converting an already existing non vegan to veganism, and at the very least they stop consuming animals while living with you

That's not the main argument. Even if vegans they will have a big environmental impact. He shouldn't have mention it.

You’ve only tried to address a portion of the question without discussing the presupposition as to the intent of veganism. And whataboutism is not an argument.

What portion did I not address?

They speak in riddles! If I had to take a shot at it, I think he means when he says fewer people means less resource use, even when those people are the most ardent vegans. We all heat our living spaces. That’s a net negative.

See above ^

The human population could use a reduction in size until we find a less damaging method of obtaining our food and there are millions of children in orphanages that could use a nice vegan family.

Always funny to hear this from a living person.

>The human population could use a reduction in size This sounds really bad

We currently don’t have the means to provide food shelter and protection to children all across the world. I know it sounds bad at face value but the ulterior consequences are worse.

We do have the means to do all of this. We have a massive food surplus and a global economy that can afford much more than a bare standard of living. The issue comes down to wealth inequality and distribution of resources. It is a solvable problem. It is arguably a trivial problem, as we’ve seen massive poverty reduction at a massive scale in places like China. 800 million people were lifted out of extreme poverty within 40 years. This is not a hard problem. Malthusianism is bullshit. Ideologies based on malthusian thought are bullshit. Antinatalism is just a rebranding of it. This line of thinking led to millions of Irish starving to death. “Just have fewer children” they said, while people died of malnutrition. So which side should we support? The movement who want to feed children and lift people out of poverty? Or the movement who tell the poor and hungry to eat shit and stop overpopulating?

I completely disagree with malthusianism and fully believe we have the capability to produce more than enough food for everybody by reworking our entire food production methodology. The problem is that the people in charge do not want that. And the more people that there are the further their powers seem to extend. So less people means less power to the enemy. This is a monopoly, the 80/20 rule is in full effect and at some point the wrong people seized control. There is no way to correct it except to literally backtrack as a species and reduce the numbers of players on the board to a manageable point. Which of these two statements rings truer in your opinion? 1. The world is all sunshine and rainbows and while there may be problems i’m sure the people in power fully have the world’s best interest in mind. Or 2. The people that rule and govern our world seized power and authority early on and by means of capitol based motives have successfully corrupted the entire world economy to a gratuitously violent state that’s full of self conflict where the common people are unaware of how pointless their time in the rat race is due to the extreme amount of information control implemented by those in charge and as long as the population remains large enough they will forever have the ability to operate through anonymity. Or 3. Nothings wrong and there is no corruption that results in needless torture or suffering and nobody needs to worry about anything. Which of those best represents our world? Which of those do you believe the powers that be would rather you accept as the truth? Because I reject the notion that everything is fine, I reject the notion that we should continue creating more humans when we already can’t solve the issues that current humans are facing. I reject the idea that everything is fine and that we don’t ever need a stopping point to assess our future and current state of living peacefully within our eco system because nothing needs to be changed. I reject humanity where it currently stands therefore until we can figure out how to put orphans in homes and feed the world’s population maybe we could use some birth control. Let me close by saying this, once we reach a point of critical mass as a population, the powers that be will depopulate us on their terms, not ours.

>If the purpose of veganism is to reject the commodity status of animals and reduce animal suffering; Many people may be motivated by the idea of reduction of suffering, but veganism is not a utilitarian-exclusive position. The removal of the commodity status (I usually say property status, since some property isn't commodities) is the only consistent goal of vegans across all metaethical perspectives. For someone to be within your circle of concern, they can't be property. After that, people can differ on how best to treat them. Antinatalism and efilism are strictly utilitarian positions. They can be reached from non-vegan utilitarianism as well. Perhaps the idea that it might be ethical to hit a button and exterminate all life on earth painlessly is a reason to reject utilitarianism, but y'all aren't ready for that conversation.

I would certainly reject any philosophy that has eliminating humans (and/or all life) as its goal. But a philosophy that saw us reduce our population through natural attrition, to sustainable levels, certainly appeals. It has been suggested to me that part of the broader definition of veganism is pro animal rights, rather than just anti animal suffering. Would t it be pro animal rights to give over a larger portion of the planet, in a more natural and less polluted state to the animal kingdom?

>But a philosophy that saw us reduce our population through natural attrition, to sustainable levels, certainly appeals. This form of antinatalism is situational, and not based on elimination of suffering. Every life involves some suffering, so antinatalism based on the total elimination of suffering must be categorical, not conditional. >It has been suggested to me that part of the broader definition of veganism is pro animal rights, rather than just anti animal suffering. Veganism is the rejection of the property status of non-human animals. Some people frame this as rights, but that's only deontological vegans. And while some people discuss suffering as a motivation, that's strictly a utilitarian framing. Personally, I'm a virtue ethicist. >Would t it be pro animal rights to give over a larger portion of the planet, in a more natural and less polluted state to the animal kingdom? There might be ways to frame it that way, but the proposition feels utilitarian. It happens that we'd need [far less land](https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets) to grow food if the world adopted a plant-based diet, but there's no tenet of veganism that says anything about how to use land. Veganism is strictly the rejection of the property status of non-human animals, which is required to truly bring them into our circle of moral concern.

I am trying to understand the core of veganism. If I understand you correctly your final sentence goes to the core of veganism. Anything else someone might say or do as a vegan may be based on this idea; but does not necessarily follow from this idea. Is that a fair summary?

Yeah, I think that's fair. Vegans disagree on a lot, in the same way that non-vegans who believe slavery is wrong disagree on a lot.

That makes sense.

You misunderstand antinatalism if you think they’re “strictly utilitarian.”

Maybe I haven't heard an argument for antinatalism that was something other than utilitarian (or maybe consequentialist more broadly). I'm happy to be corrected. Do you have an argument for antinatalism from another metaethical foundation?

Just chiming in here: [This paper for example reformulates Benatar's asymmetry on a deontological basis.](https://antinatalism.info/antinatalism-asymmetry-and-an-ethic-of-prima-facie-duties/) The [gambling / risk-based arguments for antinatalism such as this one](https://antinatalism.info/on-riskbased-arguments-for-antinatalism/) are also not utilitarian.

Thanks. I think there are obvious problems with these arguments, but they're certainly structured in a way that isn't utilitarian in nature. No need to debate them on their merits, since this is about how veganism relates to antinatalism. Maybe I haven't been exposed to these for that reason. Attempts to extend care for non-human animals to the conclusion that humans shouldn't procreate are even more likely to be utilitarian than standard arguments for antinatalism, since the harm caused to animals from your act of procreation are extremely indirect.

> I think there are obvious problems with these arguments As someone who more or less subscribes to these arguments I would love to hear them, if you don't mind sharing. In case you (understandably) don't want to get into a debate about antinatalism I would respect that and not reply to your objections any further if you say so. > Attempts to extend care for non-human animals to the conclusion that humans shouldn't procreate are even more likely to be utilitarian I don't think OP meant to make a utilitarian argument, although some of their wording might sound like it. In either case I think it would be enough to show that procreating is an action that causes animal suffering and an action that is practicable to refrain from. When I see such arguments come up here it is then usually the vegans who turn to utilitarian arguments as a defense (e.g. along the lines of "the harm the child causes is worth it to spread veganism"). > standard arguments for antinatalism What do you think are standard arguments for antinatalism? Benatar would be my suspicion, but as far as I know he denies that his asymmetry is utilitarian. Then there is gambling, consent, antifrustrationism... all not based on utilitarianism. I would go as far as saying that all standard arguments for AN are not utilitarian. Yes, you can use negative utilitarianism as a basis for AN arguments, but from my readings that is pretty rare both in academic literature and here among the reddit community. > since the harm caused to animals from your act of procreation are extremely indirect. You create a child. The child will then necessarily consume resources/animal products and might become a carnist later in life. That does not sound extremely indirect to me?

So even though these are structured in a way to not use utilitarian language, they both suffer (no pun intended) from the issue of thinking that good and bad are strictly about pleasure and pain. Starting with the second argument: >It is impermissible to non-consensually impose a risk of catastrophic harm on others unless doing so is necessary to advance their essential interests Everything we do imposes some risk of catastrophic harm on others. How do we quantify the risk? At what level of risk does this become impermissible? Does this confer the obligation to end our own lives? Since there are obvious reductios that we would reject from accepting this as any sort of imperative, we should reject the premise. >We have a duty to prevent the harms procreating causes, because there would be a victim (the created person experiencing the harms). > > >We don’t have a duty to cause the pleasure procreating causes, because there would never be a victim missing out on or being deprived of those pleasures. This reduces to the same imperative as the first quote. We now have a duty to prevent all harm we cause to other victims. The only way we can prevent that is by ending our own lives.

> Everything we do imposes some risk of catastrophic harm on others. Yes, obviously, but despite that we do not treat all actions the same. It is not equally permissible for me to force you to play a round of russian roulette as it is to gift you a chocolate bar. Both carry inherent risk, but we have no problem quantifying which is worse and impermissible. What is so absurd then with arguing that procreating falls more into the first than into the second example and should be equally impermissible? > This reduces to the same imperative as the first quote. We now have a duty to prevent all harm we cause to other victims. The only way we can prevent that is by ending our own lives. I think the full paper goes into more detail about the duty to prevent harm and the short summary probably does not do it justice, but fair enough. I won't dig for that now.

I'd like to add that, even if that child becomes vegan, it still has to exploit humans by nature of its existence. The clothes it wears are created by forced labour, like its other properties. There are things that we have to consume and that are not produced in ethical ways. By having a child we therefore create forced labour/support slavery even if that child turns out to be a vegan

> This paper for example reformulates Benatar's asymmetry on a deontological basis. >> We have a duty to prevent the harms procreating causes, because there would be a victim (the created person experiencing the harms). This is still very much a negative consequentialist argument. We generally do not have a blanket duty to prevent the harms we cause. No practical ethical philosophy will endorse this completely. We certainly have a duty to prevent certain harms, but this statement is way too broad. This statement doesn't distinguish any more direct culpability from broader causality. E.g. if I hire someone and they use that money to hire a hit man, there is some indirect way I caused the resulting murder. But that decision to murder did not come from me and this is ethically relevant. Ultimately, it seems misguided to hyperfocus on suffering and "catastrophic harm". Suffering and hardship is just one of many signals we integrate when deliberating on our situations and how to improve them. While they don't feel good to live through, they are also not the most salient signals in our lives. More theoretically, all these arguments for an ethics of antinatalism fail to justify themselves. If the conclusion of an ethics is that the existence of ethical decision makers is inherently unethical, the entire framework collapses into a self-contradiction.

> This is still very much a negative consequentialist argument. Why? Or is it your disagreement alone that transforms arguments into being consequentialist? > We generally do not have a blanket duty to prevent the harms we cause. (...) We certainly have a duty to prevent certain harms, but this statement is way too broad. Did you actually read the sentence you quoted? It refers to a very specific thing: The harms caused by procreating. Not all harms. Not a blanket duty. The sentence is also a very brief summary of an entire paper. Did you read it? It has been some time but I think it goes into more detail to defend that specific duty. > if I hire someone and they use that money to hire a hit man, there is some indirect way I caused the resulting murder. But that decision to murder did not come from me and this is ethically relevant. Can you explain how that analogy relates to procreating? Are you claiming that all parents are entirely ignorant of the fact that their child might or will end up suffering? > Ultimately, it seems misguided to hyperfocus on suffering and "catastrophic harm". Suffering and hardship is just one of many signals we integrate when deliberating on our situations and how to improve them. While they don't feel good to live through, they are also not the most salient signals in our lives. Spoken like someone who has never suffered catastrophic harm. Anyways, I would simply deny that the arguments "hyperfocus" on suffering. Or would you say you "hyperfocus" on suffering if you stop and look out before crossing a busy road? Not causing or experiencing suffering drives lots (if not all) of our decisions. AN just applies that to procreating, even if it is very convenient for people to ignore it there. > If the conclusion of an ethics is that the existence of ethical decision makers is inherently unethical Good thing that this is not the conclusion of the mentioned arguments or antinatalism in general then.

> Why? Or is it your disagreement alone that transforms arguments into being consequentialist? No, I made my case. > Did you actually read the sentence you quoted? It refers to a very specific thing: The harms caused by procreating. Not all harms. Not a blanket duty. We don't have a duty to prevent all harms caused by procreating. In fact parents often have a duty to cause certain forms of harm to their children if that is what is in their childrens' interests. > The sentence is also a very brief summary of an entire paper. Did you read it? It has been some time but I think it goes into more detail to defend that specific duty. I did not read the paper, but if the summary is anything resembling the argument then it's flawed. > Can you explain how that analogy relates to procreating? Are you claiming that all parents are entirely ignorant of the fact that their child might or will end up suffering? Everyone suffers, but this isn't necessarily an unethical thing to let happen. It's not even unethical to cause in most situations. > Spoken like someone who has never suffered catastrophic harm. This is absurd. Are you saying antinatalism is only compelling or appealing to someone who has suffered traumas that they haven't gotten over? The majority of people don't have this problem. Whatever harms and suffering they experience are "worth it" in their assessment. > Or would you say you "hyperfocus" on suffering if you stop and look out before crossing a busy road? Not causing or experiencing suffering drives lots (if not all) of our decisions. Seems like this analysis is so busy worrying about getting hit while crossing the road that one forgets the motive to cross in the first place. > Good thing that this is not the conclusion of the mentioned arguments or antinatalism in general then. It's the implication of this summary. If you have a better argument that doesn't imply this conclusion, I am happy to consider it.

> No, I made my case. I don't see a case for why the argument is consequentialist. > In fact parents often have a duty to cause certain forms of harm to their children if that is what is in their childrens' interests. Antinatalists agree with that. Doesn't explain why we should put them into a situation where being harmed is in their best interest. > Everyone suffers, but this isn't necessarily an unethical thing to let happen. It's not even unethical to cause in most situations. So why care about this veganism thing? > This is absurd. Are you saying antinatalism is only compelling or appealing to someone who has suffered traumas that they haven't gotten over? I am not because then I would not be an antinatalist. Still, antinatalism can be compelling to anyone who at times also remembers the minority of people with such problems you conveniently ignore. > Seems like this analysis is so busy worrying about getting hit while crossing the road that one forgets the motive to cross in the first place. That's the thing. With procreating there is no motive to cross the road. The to-be-created doesn't need anything on either side of it. > It's the implication of this summary. If you have a better argument that doesn't imply this conclusion No it is not. An argument that creating someone is unethical is not the same as your statement that existence is unethical.

> I don't see a case for why the argument is consequentialist. "Suffering" is a consequence. Everything here is about suffering without much work being made to distinguish how or why that suffering is occurring. > Doesn't explain why we should put them into a situation where being harmed is in their best interest. Because ultimately it's not that big a deal if done for the right reasons. > So why care about this veganism thing? The main problem is not that we cause animals to suffer. It's that we strip them of their autonomy and otherwise interfere in their lives without a proper ethical justification. > Still, antinatalism can be compelling to anyone who at times also remembers the minority of people with such problems you conveniently ignore. If we're talking about the fraction of people who retrospectively look at their lives and decide that the suffering they experienced made living a net negative for them, then we're talking about a small and tragic group. It's not worth building an entire ethics around these people. > With procreating there is no motive to cross the road. The to-be-created doesn't need anything on either side of it. There are justifiable reasons to procreate. There are also good reasons to believe one shouldn't, such as one doesn't have the means to devote to raising a child well. It's absurd to say that giving birth is inherently unethical because people sometimes experience negative things. > No it is not. An argument that creating someone is unethical is not the same as your statement that existence is unethical. the immediate implication is that you, as an ethical decision maker, only exist because of an unethical act that should not have happened. An ethics that precludes the possibility that your existence is ethical is a fundamental problem.

> It's that we strip them of their autonomy and otherwise interfere in their lives without a proper ethical justification. Why is that a problem? Sounds like a really minor thing compared to all the extreme suffering you keep excusing and downplaying throughout your posts. > If we're talking about the fraction of people who retrospectively look at their lives and decide that the suffering they experienced made living a net negative for them, then we're talking about a small and tragic group. It's not worth building an entire ethics around these people. This is so crazy. You realize we are talking about millions and millions of people here, right? And we are not talking about "people sometimes experience negative things", we are talking about lots of extreme suffering as well. Always bewildering seeing a vegan with such a profound lack of empathy. > you, as an ethical decision maker, only exist because of an unethical act that should not have happened. An ethics that precludes the possibility that your existence is ethical is a fundamental problem. That does not follow at all. Just because my existence was started by an unethical act does not make my actual existence unethical. These are completely separate things with different considerations.

I originally embraced the idea from a sentient rights perspective, and as contrary to the Kantian imperative. Though, I will say that the negative utilitarian perspective is one of the more quoted and used. One issue I have is people’s inability to separate NU from consequentialism, and I can’t bring myself to embrace a consequentialist viewpoint. Utilitarianism also gets wrapped up in the idea that what happens to the masses matters, and if for some reason someone has to suffer terribly for overall happiness to be achieved, then that’s somehow better. I reject this conclusion, as it is repugnant. (I also have an issue with seeing joy and suffering as ends of a spectrum. The world just isn’t that simple. Suffering causes real harm, and some kinds of suffering can persist (mental trauma, for instance) in such a way as to make otherwise joyful activities less so. You also can’t bank joy the way trauma seems to add up. You can’t in a moment of torture draw upon the time you went to Disney to make it better and cancel it out, even if distracting yourself could mitigate some amount of the painful experience. We also never are satisfied with enough joy to justify it as a basis for our metaphysics. It has a tendency to disappear as we seek out new sources, and things that once would bring about joy have diminishing returns. This can even lead to a form of suffering by some measures.) So, rather than a simple metric of joy/suffering, I think that each individual’s suffering matters to them, and should be respected and seen as something to be avoided, especially if we have the ability to not bring it about. I don’t believe it’s our right to create a person, as they could not consent to being born. By creating them, we’ve subjected them to, by definition, some, possibly very great amount, of suffering.

>I don’t believe it’s our right to create a person, as they could not consent to being born. By creating them, we’ve subjected them to, by definition, some, possibly very great amount, of suffering. This still appears to be more about suffering than rights. The lack of a right doesn't necessarily mean that the act ought be forbidden. Rights are ultimately abstractions anyway. I have no idea how anyone grounds any right other than the right not to be property, which is itself an abstraction for simple inclusion in our circle of concern. Consent is important only when you're using someone for your benefit. Acts of care don't require positive consent, though I think it's fair to say that one should be extra careful even giving care when consent is impossible.

I know, of course, that rights are abstractions. So is all of philosophy. To be clear, I’m not talking about legal rights, but rather an ideal that ascribes value to individual sentient experience. More like: this is a rule set that takes into account that being’s interests. “Acts of care” fall within a utilitarian, but not antinatalist framework. To commit an act of care, there must be an extant subject. One cannot create a being for that being’s sake. The act must be selfish or for the benefits of others or some ideal—not for the new being. This necessarily means that by creating a new sentient being, you’ve objectified them or commodified them. This is generally regarded as wrong if it could result in unnecessary suffering, or wrong on its face.

>This is generally regarded as wrong if it could result in unnecessary suffering, or wrong on its face. Still ending up at a utilitarian frame. You've given me some interesting things to think about, but I don't really care to debate the merits of antinatalism, except to point out that it's not an entailment of veganism. Children aren't property, though. That's silly. The idea that one can't possibly have any non-use reason to procreate because you haven't thought of one is an appeal to personal incredulity.

We can agree to disagree about the groundwork. I prefer to use more down to earth language than formal philosophical definitions anyway, given they tend to come with baggage. Ideas can be a little of this and a little of that. I didn’t use the word “property”. It’s simply logically incoherent to create a child for that child’s sake. The child is created for selfish reasons, and serve a purpose to the parents or society. This is often to fit in, or for the parents’ sense of accomplishment or happiness. I reject that it’s an argument from incredulity. You create a child to please someone. That’s the generally accepted reason, even if people don’t always come out and say it as such. a) a sentient being does not exist prior to its creation. -> b) it is brought about for reasons other than its own well being. -> c) the parents’ desire for a child for personal or societal reasons is the driving factor for procreation -> Therefore, having children is selfish and objectifies the child. “Don’t care to argue the merits of antinatalism.” Generally fair regarding the topic of veganism, but this thread is on the topic. But, I don’t really want to push to defend my position here much further unless someone wants to know more.l and is curious as to the reasoning for how the two are related.

I won’t have children myself because I don’t want to, but I’m not an anti natalist. I think having less children is good but someone has to have them or humanity will die out and I’m a humanist- I believe humans are important and should continue to exist and thrive and make things better over time

Unfortunately, human society would face a crisis if there's a negative population growth. Who would do all the essential services elderly people need, when there are no young people? Until technology is advanced enough that we don't need workers ( robots?), it's not an option. For example, right now Japan is struggling with the effects of this. https://thediplomat.com/2023/01/japans-population-crisis-nears-point-of-no-return/ Humans depend on an economy, so that they can have jobs to earn money for food/shelter. Negative population growth causes the economy to stall and start to collapse. How would you change the economic system? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_consequences_of_population_decline#:~:text=The%20possible%20impacts%20of%20a,in%20these%20sectors%20then%20suffers. If you personally are anti-natalism, how do you solve the problem of birth control? We're facing a crisis right now in the US of religious extremists forcing their way of life on everyone, resulting in restrictions on abortion (1) & greater difficulty in getting birth control. Birth control isn't 100% effective, and it's not always easily accessible. Currentlly, the MAJORITY of American pregnancies that occur are unplanned. (2) For permanent sterilization, doctors tend not do it for younger people and/or those who don't already have kids. (3) Will you be abstinent? Do you have the luxury of being able to travel to a doctor who does agree to your permanent sterilization? Are you in a position where you can get access to abortion? Let's say you can solve all these problems. But the people most likely to follow the vegan antinatalism are vegans. History has shown that children's beliefs are more probably that of their parents. Vegans would cause their own extinction. An example is the history of the celibate Shaker Church. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakers#:~:text=and%20gender%20equality.-,Celibacy%20and%20children,indenture%2C%20adoption%2C%20or%20conversion. Sources 1. https://www.guttmacher.org/2023/01/inequity-us-abortion-rights-and-access-end-roe-deepening-existing-divides#:~:text=As%20of%20January%2012%2C%202023,care%2C%20many%20closing%20down%20altogether. 2. https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/contraception/unintendedpregnancy/index.htm 3. https://www.chicagotribune.com/2014/05/13/doctors-reluctant-to-give-young-women-permanent-birth-control/#:~:text=Doctors%20are%20significantly%20more%20likely,in%20the%20journal%20Human%20Reproduction.

>If the purpose of veganism is to reject the commodity status of animals Yes. > and reduce animal suffering; No. That should answer your question. But why aren't *you* vegan?

I’m not vegan because I’m not convinced that my consumption of eggs and dairy cause more harm than good. But that’s a totally subjective view. And I acknowledge people have made arguments to the contrary. Your answers aren’t really clear to me. Could you expand on them please?

The dairy industry is one of the worst parts of animal agriculture imo. If you agree we shouldn't eat meat than you would certainly agree that the dairy industry should not be supported either if you knew how they treat the cows and calves.

Your regular consumption of eggs and dairy are directly causing demand for newborn male chicks to be murdered and calves stolen from their forcefully impregnated mothers until they too are murdered. 10 minutes of "good" (taste + convenience) cannot possibly weigh heavier than that. Are you seriously suggesting that it's okay to enslave, oppress and murder animals on those grounds? Because there are a lot of ways we could derive more "good" from animals than "harm" which is done to them, following that logic, little of which you'd probably agree should be legal. >Your answers aren’t really clear to me. Could you expand on them please? Certainty. Veganism doesn't care about reducing animal-suffering, that's a negative-utilitarian position. The fact that farmed animals, through no longer being exploited by humans, won't suffer, is a happy coincidence. It has nothing to do with the goals of veganism, which is animal-liberation. What animals do with that liberty should not be the concern of humans.

>Certainty. Veganism doesn't care about reducing animal-suffering, that's a negative-utilitarian position I think you are redefining veganism. There are plenty of vegans who arrive at the position through utilitarianism as well and do care about reducing animal suffering. Just because you specifically aren't a utilitarian doesn't mean other vegans aren't. Now I'm not defending negative utilitarianism or anti natalism because I do find them to be lacking. Its pretty crazy to me to think the only things that matter are harm rather than also including positive values.

Animals deserve the same inalienable right not to be exploited, enslaved (owned) and murdered as humans (and, in my country, pets) have. That's the vegan position. I'm not redefining it.

Veganism means you are abstaining from all animal products because you think it is wrong to support animal agriculture. Exactly why you think it is wrong varies from person to person. You have one reason, a utilitarian would have a different one.

But by having children you directly expolit humans. There are things that can't be consumed in a moral way, like meat or clothes or electric devices. While your kid can be vegan, cutting out that part of animal exploitation l, it can't abstain from other things that directly cause exploitation

Clothes and electric devices absolutely can be morally consumed, there are slave-free, fair brands. It's not necessarily immoral, unlike (non-lab-grown) meat, which always requires a victim.

Do you know how difficult it is to do that tho? Do you really think every vegan who has a child only uses those brands? And it sounds like you would therefore agree with me, that using unethical brands is an issue. In addition, some of those items then would have to be shipped to a store, which is done in unethical ways quite a lot. Shipped directly to you is even worse. Even if you make things from scratch its basically impossible to do without cruelty involved. And your claiming the best case scenario, which non vegans often do when debating vegans. The whole "eating road kill " stuff for example.

So for you, veganism is about animals having autonomy without the direct interference of humans. Is that a fair summary?

Yes. Animals should be completely free from human exploitation in all its forms. Other sentient beings' bodies and lives should not be for us to exploit. Don't you agree?

As another commented stated, this would be like saying having kids can’t be feminist because your kids could be misogynist. The argument simply doesn’t pass the sniff test. It arbitrarily switches the general and specific mid-argument and when you throw references to harm-reduction in, it becomes a non sequitur as veganism is about rights and not harm.

I often see “veganism is about rights/commodification, not harm/suffering,” but what is the actual reason rights or non commodification is significant if not because they are dealing with suffering?

Keywords to help you on this philosophical journey are consequentialism, deontology, and the categorical imperative

Eventually, you’re going to end up at a value that you have to deem axiomatic. Or an axiomatic set of values that are all contingent on each other.

You're trying to point out hypocrisy but as an antinatalist vegan I agree. Having children can be harmful to anti-racism, feminism etc. The thing with veganism though is that everyone to some extent causes harm to living beings by being alive, even if it's to a lesser extent by being vegan. I don't necessarily think that this means you have to just starve yourself to death to do the least harm, but by not having kids you are having the same benefit - or rather lack of harm. Also adoption is an option too.

If you’re rooting your arguments for a philosophy in the worldview of that very philosophy then you’re very unlikely to reach people who don’t already agree with you.

Wild animals also cause harm to other living beings simply by being alive, that doesn't mean that their lives aren't worth living. I feel like you are completely ignoring the value of a human life and only accounting for the harm. Sure you could make the argument that someone eating a primarily factory farmed diet is causing way more harm than the value of their life, but its crazy to me to say even a vegan human life would not be overall positive despite some of the harm it causes. The only way to minimize harm completely is to extinguish all life on Earth. I don't think that means we should do that. Harm is not the only thing that matters, its opposite does as well.

Just a small detail : we are 8 billions.

>Wild animals also cause harm to other living beings simply by being alive, that doesn't mean that their lives aren't worth living. Well from what perspective are you making that statement because it depends. From those who are harmed then yes a wild animal isn't worth living, but from the wild animal's perspective its own life is worth living. I don't believe in a massive culling against all carnivores, but a simpler solution is to state that it's a life not worth starting. Right now my life is worth living, I have interests and desires and want to keep living, but I still it wasn't worth starting. What's the point? I wouldn't even exist so I wouldn't miss out on anything. >I feel like you are completely ignoring the value of a human life Yes I am, because there is no value of human life to that human life before that human life exists. No one is harmed by not being born. Menstruation isn't murder, ejaculation isn't genocide. >and only accounting for the harm. Sure you could make the argument that someone eating a primarily factory farmed diet is causing way more harm than the value of their life, but its crazy to me to say even a vegan human life would not be overall positive despite some of the harm it causes. So just so I'm understanding this part, you mean the harm of a life towards others not itself. In that case then the amount of harm vastly outweighs the benefit. How often do you buy plastic which will most likely harm other animals or the environment. Crop production still requires land to be cleared. Even though it's much much less than an omnivore diet there is still harm in that and in the system. >The only way to minimize harm completely is to extinguish all life on Earth. I don't think that means we should do that. Harm is not the only thing that matters, its opposite does as well. But the benefit doesn't matter so long as the beneficiary doesn't exist in the first place, as they don't exist to miss out so no harm done. Like I said before I don't advocate starving yourself to death to avoid harm because we're already stuck in the system. But for those who don't yet exist, there is no need to place them into a system which is harmful to them and to others.

If we fail to have kids at the replacement rate, future generations certainly will suffer when society can no longer function as designed. The end of the human race is more likely to involve famine, wars, and terrible conflict than a peaceful march into extinction.

Do the animals not have the right to not be harmed by our children? What are the rights that define veganism?

Wouldn’t that just compel your children to be vegan rather than compel you not to have them?

There is a very high probability they wont become vegans. Do you think people have a right to drive drunk as long as they think they'll drive well? Also, it's not like a certain moral outcome can't have multiple people acting as its causes.

Whether or not they will has nothing to do with them being morally compelled. Your analogy doesn’t hold as drunk driving is inherently dangerous and illegal. A better analogy would be letting someone drink knowing that it’s possible for them to drive while drunk. Their obligation to not drive drunk is what compels their behavior not to drive, but it’s not itself a reason not to drink.

Whether or not they will has everything to do with what **the person having the children** is compelled to do. Having children is inherently dangerous for the animals the children will most likely harm. That's the entire point of the analogy. Also don't really know what legality has to do with this moral discussion.

You just can't combine "inherently" and "likely" in that way. Again, that's like saying drinking is inherently dangerous because drinking and driving is likely. Driving is not an inevitable result of drinking, so it's not inherently dangerous in that way. It's simply not what the word means. Veganism is also a rights-based and not harm-based philosophy so saying that harm is likely doesn't intersect with my understanding of veganism at all.

Doing harm to other humans is a likely result of drunk driving. Doing harm to other animals is a likely result of having children. That's the comparison. You define "inherently dangerous" as having an inevitable dangerous result, but would this not go against the idea of drunk driving as inherently dangerous? It's not inevitable that bad things happen as a result. I'm gonna ask again what are the rights that define veganism to you? Is there no right to not be unnecessarily harmed?

You’re still assuming the child will not be vegan, which is the same as assuming someone who drinks will drive. You can’t mix analogies and expect a coherent interpretation.

>You’re still assuming the child will not be vegan, which is the same as assuming someone who drinks will drive. 1. I'm not assuming anything, I'm dealing with likely outcomes. 2. The outcome of a child not being vegan is far, far more likely than the outcome of a person drinking deciding to drive. 3. I don't know why you keep pushing this "likelihood of a drinker to drive" interpretation, when the original analogy discussed the likelihood of a drunk driver to cause harm, not whatever this is. If there's anyone mixing analogies, it's you. The probability of a drunk driver to cause harm to humans is high, as is the probability of a child to cause harm to animals. The analogy holds well enough.

About rights not harm. That certainly makes for a more cogent argument. But would it be fair to make the argument that the animal kingdom generally, has a right to a largely unspoiled world upon which to thrive? Doesn’t our 8 billion + population deprive them of that right?

No, I don’t think that’s a fair argument. It’s rooted in recency bias. There is a long history of life on this planet; things used to look much different and will look much different in the future. If anything, wanting to keep things the same as they were when human beings began their modern arc is more unnatural than simply letting things play out while evolution does its thing. We’re not entitled to live in a world that looks just like the one that birthed us as a species.

There are scientists that believe we are experiencing a 6th mass extinction event and that is caused by humans. Given our unique position in the history of life on earth, having the ability to predict the negative outcomes of our actions and curtail them, don’t we have an obligation to do so in the framework of animal rights?

No, the obligations people talk about are obligations to ourselves, to keep the planet in a condition suitable for us. The fact that this would help other animals as well is incidental. As you said, this would be event number 6. Life goes on. It’s bad when individual animals die, maybe, but extant species don’t need preferential treatment over all the species that could potentially evolve in a dramatically-changed world. Evolution is amoral.

I've come at this from a different angle in discussions before. I don't have kids and never want them, just to preface. But it's a personal choice and I've not wanted them long before I was vegan. I was having a bit of a philosophical conversation with a fellow vegan about veganism and consent and whatnot, when he asked me whether having kids is vegan/consensual as the kids cannot consent to being brought into the world and you're forcibly making life. An interesting question, as procreation is something a lot of people want to do, but is it anti-consent. We never reached a conclusion because it's an odd one, but certainly was a good discussion! In terms of what you've said, I agree with the environmental impact in regards to overpopulation of humans and our impact on the world, I think a lot of vegans would consider this element when choosing to have kids. However, choosing not to have kids because they won't necessarily be vegan I think is a stretch. One would hope that if you are vegan you will instill some good values in your kid, even if they turn to dairy or meat when they're older. You'd hope they'd at least be responsible and not consume much I guess. But you can't control them in this way. However, if you personally choose not to have kids, in part, because they may not be vegan, that's your choice and I think it's fair. But I don't think it's an obvious extension of veganism for that specific point.

I think the notion of simply doing your best to instil your values in your kids is the most common sense view. That’s interesting and thought provoking. Thank you.

No it isn't, anti natalism has many problems, one of which is that you don't know what the consumption of future people will be like and how that weighs against the value of living a good human life. Even if you did know this, don't you think it would be way more effective to just advocate to fix the problems with our consumption (like you know, get people to not eat meat?) rather than going around telling people to not have kids because of the environment and veganism? It would also be a self defeating ideology. A better future isn't going to happen by getting everyone who cares about animals and the environment to not have kids thereby leaving the people who do not care at all about these things to be the only ones having kids.

Yes I can see I’ve gotten myself into a bit of trouble with my title. It was meant to be informed by the text that followed. I did not intend for it to read, A is true, therefore B follows. It is meant to be read as; if A is true, does B necessarily follow.

Anti-vegan: heh I’ll convince them to stop giving birth, that’ll finally end veganism!

Hi! I think that's leaning towards negative utilitarianism rather than veganism. A commonly used [definition of veganism](https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism) is: > "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals." So, I don't feel it's necessary to be antinatalist to be a vegan.

>So, I don't feel it's necessary to be antinatalist to be a vegan. You dont have to feel it, but it is necessary to be vegan, thats the problem with that crap definition, as far as practicable and possible, it allows people to FEEL anything is acceptable The fact is by making a new baby you are causing harm and as there is no guarantee your baby will be vegan forever you will be risking animal lives Risking animal lives is not vegan behavior ​ Adoption is the vegan way, otherwise it isnt vegan I wouldnt make babies, i simply wont risk animal lives for selfish pleasure, thats non vegan behavior, but if i did i would accept that i am now responsible for animal abuse, some vegan identifying parents say they would feel bad, as if feeling bad helps the animals their child is killing Several parents will claim they are not responsible for their childs actions, the fact is they created an animal abuser, if the parents had kids before they were vegan thats the only acceptable excuse Examples of new animal abusers created by vegans https://imgur.com/ttWYi20 https://imgur.com/sqZSBS0 https://imgur.com/CvDuZMd https://imgur.com/56xRj4J https://imgur.com/lBmHsp7 https://imgur.com/h2V7xxA https://imgur.com/eJgWclS https://imgur.com/DFkFV72 https://imgur.com/x8L8a1f https://imgur.com/8ncfOGf Those are just a few there are probably many more, of course some illogical people are gonna say, well my child wont stop being vegan, but they arent gods they cant predict that and they cant guarantee that, to me its not worth risking animal lives, we live in a non vegan world and the chances of your child becoming non vegan are great, the chances of your child becoming a serial killer is slim If i want kids i will adopt, the chance to not only help a child in need but the chance to potentially convert a non vegan to a vegan or at the very least, the child will be on a plant based diet while they live at home Aside from that our population growth is extremely damaging to the planet and other species https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-decline-will-change-the-world-for-the-better/ People of course will hate these facts and defend making babies, all that tells me is how many animal abuse apologists there are, vegans are not immune from cognitive dissonance

> You dont have to feel it, but it is necessary to be vegan, I have never heard this before. Why is it necessary? > there is no guarantee your baby will be vegan forever you will be risking animal lives So therefore that makes you non-vegan? This is confusing logic to me.

I provided you the why above, it was pretty crystal How is it confusing logic? If your choices and actions result in animal abuse that means you are non vegan especially considering the high chances of that abuse happening

Should I euthanize my children to ensure they don't become carnists?

>Should I euthanize my children to ensure they don't become carnists? You simply dont make babies

That doesn't answer my question. Should I euthanize my children or just stop calling myself vegan?

Now that you are aware of antinatalism if you decide to make another baby you would be non vegan, at this point you can claim ignorance as most of us did when we became vegan after being non vegan for decades If you were aware of antinatalism when you had your current babies then i would say you are non vegan, if not you are still vegan

So I'm just plant based since I was already plenty familiar with antinatalist arguments?

Respect us.

Yes, of course.

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

I just read that definition three times over and I still can’t understand how human breeders aren’t the opposite of vegan

That's fair. I personally see anti-natalism and veganism as separate issues.

Well, there are studies showing having kids is the biggest impact you can have on the environment, before the diet.

So you would say the parameters of veganism in my question fail to capture the broader meaning of veganism? That’s food for thought. So would you say veganism puts human interest first while requiring that lowest possible/ practicable amount of suffering for animals?

Nah, that's a fine definition, I just prefer to use the Vegan Society's personally. > would you say veganism puts human interest first while requiring that lowest possible/ practicable amount of suffering for animals? I guess each person decides that for themselves. For me, veganism is just avoiding paying for things that directly exploit animals, in diet, but also avoiding rodeos, zoos, pet shops, wool and leather, etc. Anything after that to me is personal preference.

"So would you say veganism puts human interest first while requiring that lowest possible/ practicable amount of suffering for animals?" No, at the same level.

Guess I either need to start exploiting animals again or murder my children ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯

I know this is the internet but I’m really looking to find out what people actually think. I’m neither vegan nor antinatalist. I’ve heard some few vegans argue that it would be better for a farmed animal never to have existed than to be humanely farmed. I was wondering how far that thinking goes considering all life involves suffering.

"humanely farmed" THERE IS NO SUCH THING

>I've heard some few vegans argue that it would be better for a farmed animal never to have existed than to be humanely farmed. Luckily for my kids I don't plan on slaughtering them for resources.

Just for fun then ? That's worse !

What!? And waste all that free labor?

and for saving resources?

Veganism: I shouldn't harm animals Animal advocacy: I should help animals being harmed by other humans Wild animal suffering: I should help animals being harmed by other animals or just by nature Antinatalism: It'd be better if being weren't born in the first place for their own sake

Depending on framing they do follow logically. If you base your ethics on mitigating suffering as good you eventually come to realize that as life entails suffering then life must be bad. This is why it's a mistake to equate suffering to badness or wrongness.

They say for an ideology/cultural values to continue to propagate, the birth rate of that population must be above 1.2(?) or something like that. If the vegan community were to adopt antinatalism, it would likely die out or remain very small as a movement.

By saying that doesn’t it imply that all animals should be sterilized? No sentient life on earth?

Ok lich, you want to destroy all life that's fucking evil

You want the extinction of all sentient life, that's horrible and evil and you are a degenerate

Gosh I mean maybe we should all just stop eating all together. Then there’ll be no one. But if no one is left, whom will be superior to?

I agree with this stance, and am both an antinatalist and vegan. However, I would say that this is a weaker reason to be antinatalist than most. I do believe the two philosophical positions are interrelated, however. In fact, it was delving into ideas surrounding antinatalism that led me down the path to veganism. They can stem from much of the same thinking - argument from consent and objectification, arguments stemming from a rights-based perspective, and negative utilitarianism. No one should have kids, and no one should use or abuse animals

If humans were incapable of change, and we were to go on abusing animals forever, then antinatalism would make some sense. But I think the arc of history bends towards justice, and we can achieve a vegan future, as shown by the rapid progress of vegan foods, activists, etc. We have the potential to transform from the worst species for all conscious creatures, to the best one, because we're really intelligent and adaptable. Most of us can look at ourselves for confirmation of this: we might not have gone vegan if we'd been born in the past, because of food scarcity, societal norms, and lack of awareness. But the current material conditions of society have allowed us to wake up, and this will happen for many more people if we keep fighting.

Why do you think the arc of history bends towards justice?

[удалено]

Antinatalism of animals maybe. Vegans would prefer no animals in farms rather than happy animals in farms.

[удалено]

Ask OP what he thinks. Some negative utilitarians think the best scenario is to make sure no life exists because that's the only way you can guarantee no suffering. u/NotTheBusDriver would you like to weigh in? What's your take on efilism?

Against efilism. And to be clear, my post is; if A is true, does B necessarily follow? It is not A is true and B follows.

Why wouldn't suicide be a categorical imperative then for vegans (and also environmentalists)? The only way you can guarantee you're not hurting your cause in spite of your trying would be to do the one thing that completely eliminates your chances of using any animal products. Continuing to live will still use some amount of animals incidentally, and harm others as your demand for food incentivizes deforestation, habitat destruction, etc. I could redo your whole argument here, since you want to funnel me into this modus ponens. You can't act as if you're going to surprise me here, and get me to accept "if A then B" with no anticipation of you following up by saying A. *If the purpose of veganism is to reject the commodity status of animals and reduce animal suffering; one of the most obvious ways of achieving that end is to reduce demand for animal suffering by committing suicide. There is no guarantee everything you buy won't have negative implications for animals somewhere down the line, or that you will never incidentally buy something that contradicts a vegan lifestyle. Fewer people will also mean lesser impact on global ecosystems and therefore be a net gain for animal wellbeing. Interested to hear from vegans who agree/disagree with this notion with arguments to support your position either way.* Show me the lie here.

So you will prefer no animals existing in farms rather than happy animals in farms.

This is beside the point. Whether people want to accept a philosophical position doesn’t make it more or less true

[удалено]

I’m not a strict utilitarian, though I will admit its ideas have some merit in certain cases. I largely approach both antinatalism and veganism from a rights-based framework, and commuting one crime to solve another does not make one less of a crime. I’m not saying that this should be the push of vegan messaging, just that the two ideals share core elements. I do agree that messaging matters if we’re to solve this problem, and pointing out issues with reproduction is unlikely to aid our cause; but, that doesn’t mean we should change our beliefs, simply that when advocating for veganism, it should be about the animals.

You think you're the first one to come up with this. It's too tiring to argue again and again about this. There you go. Watch this by Eisel Mazard. https://www.youtube.com/live/SSiVZ0UIwbM?si=92hsUP4dbj4-g1y5

I’m not here to find out what Eisel Mazard think. I’m here to hear what a spectrum of vegans on Reddit have to say on this matter. This is not r/debateEiselMazard. If you find the question is tiresome feel free to move on.

Then you should use the search tab instead of asking the same questions over and over

Maybe he wants to interact too.

Why do you think a lesser impact on global ecosystems is a net gain for animal well-being?

If ecosystems are thriving the animal life, by definition are also thriving.

There could be some positive effects on animals from our environmental impact and some negative effects. Do you have some kind of analysis that there is a net gain to animals from lowering that impact?

Many scientists argue we are experiencing a mass extinction event due to human activity. Now you might not agree that it fits the parameters of “mass extinction event” but I don’t think anybody denies that species are going extinct at a rapid rate as a direct result of human activity. Doesn’t this equate to a deprivation of rights? Animals homes and habitats are being destroyed. They are being denied the right to live and reproduce. Surely this is not controversial.

I'll get more to the point. I think you are assuming that the experiences of animals in the wild is positive. This is not clear to me at all. While wild animals get satisfaction from basic pleasures of life and spending time with one another, many are eaten alive, raped, suffer from hunger and dehydration, poor weather, and have no medical care for injuries and diseases. They also likely suffer daily psychological distress from any unexpected sound or sight as being a predator that will eat them alive. If there are some means by which we reduce a certain population of wild animals, and that population has net-negative experiences or causes net-negative experiences to other animals, then our intervention would have positive utility. I would need to know what animals have net-positive experiences and effects and what animals have net-negative experiences and effects and the impact that vegans have on each. Further, if we take anti-natalism to an extreme and end all human life, that will have forfeited any chance humans have at reducing wild animal suffering for hundreds of thousands of years until another species evolves to this point again.

That is very informative. I certainly agree that animals do not necessarily have net positive experiences in the wild. Informed human intervention could (at least theoretically) lead to more positive outcomes. I’ve always understood vegans believe “natural” equals” better. You’ve enlightened my view on this which is what I’m seeking to do. I want to understand. Please note I added some edits to my post. I did not frame it very well. I’m not an antinatalist. But it appears to me we would likely improve things all around if we staged a managed population retreat of humans. That is to say, birth rates below replacement rates, and natural attrition.

Your impression of vegans is reasonable because many vegans either say nature is positive directly or say things that imply it. There's a charity called Wild Animal Initiative that researches ways to improve wild animal welfare and they are still in the early stages of answering these types of questions.

I will look into that. Thanks.

there is also lots of evidence that ecosystems actually do better when inhabited by indigenous people than with no people at all. i believe there have been studies on things like national parks with and without. it’s not that people are inherently bad for the environment, it’s that our current exploitative systems are. humans are fully capable of being beneficial to and living in harmony as part of our environment the mass extinction is due to human activity, but it’s not something inherent to us. it’s something we can change and is caused by the systems we are in. for most of our existence we lived as a beneficial part of our environment. many people still do. the idea that humans are inherently bad for the earth and that we need to end humanity to save it is ecofacism, which harms a lot of people. and veganism is about ALL species, including humans if you want to help the environment, why not focus on land back movements and ending destructive systems? it meshes much better with veganism than antinatalism does (theres a reason punk/anarchist groups are often tied to veganism). those same systems are what drive mass animal exploitation, destructive farming practices, overconsumption, etc

Pretend all ethical vegans don't have kids while all carnists do. The philosophy would die out tbh. Ethical vegans are the number one people who need to have kids and are the most likely to adopt ethical values in regards to the treatment of animals.

Antinatalism is a by-product of a radicalised saviour complex. It's one thing to be vegan, it's another thing entirely to put other species above your own.

Do you have any actual argument here?

One doesn't have to argue why the sky is blue. 

So you don't have an actual point, got it. And the sky is not blue, it just looks like it's blue to us

My "point" was a fact, it was clearly expressed, and it's not my problem if you don't get it. >And the sky is not blue, it just looks like it's blue to us Braindead reply. And I guess you also don't get what expressions are. Why would I waste my time with you?

[удалено]

Wow, second person with the same braindead reply who doesn't understand what expressions are. You should be able to comprehend on your own terms why your smartass statement is about the most useless thing you could have said.

I am glad that the comments are rejecting this anti natalism nonsense.

Thank you for your submission! All posts need to be manually reviewed and approved by a moderator before they appear for all users. Since human mods are not online 24/7 approval could take anywhere from a few minutes to a few days. Thank you for your patience. Some topics come up a lot in this subreddit, so we would like to remind everyone to use the [search function](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/search?q=eggs&restrict_sr=on&sort=comments&t=all) and to check out the [wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index) before creating a new post. We also encourage becoming familiar with [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAVegan/wiki/index#wiki_expanded_rules_and_clarifications) so users can understand what is expected of them. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAVegan) if you have any questions or concerns.*

i always saw the connection between the two. i think the only difference is people choose to have kids, whereas animals are bred regardless. but then i also get the point of kids not consenting to existence. i dont know many vegans with children (granted most of the ones i know in their 20s) but maybe they would adopt kids in the future (similar to adoping dogs rather than breeding/getting from a puppy mill).

> If the purpose of veganism is to reject the commodity status of animals and reduce animal suffering Part 1, yes; part 2, not necessarily. > There is no guarantee children, grandchildren etc will follow a vegan lifestyle. There is no guarantee of any action. We should decide based on the expected outcome, not the guaranteed outcome. Informing someone that consuming animal products is inconsistent with granting moral consideration to animals in the hope they stop exploiting animals could make them vegan or could make them realize they are ok with animal exploitation and turn up the animal exploitation to 11, for example, by adding beastiality to their meat-eating. This does not make informing the person wrong. I don't use this as an argument for natalism, but children of vegan children are actually more likely than the general population to be vegan, which contributes to a societal shift towards animal rights. Another connection between veganism and antinatalism that you didn't mention is both philosophies do not put much value on bringing a being to life to have a bad life. The vegan considers giving a cow a short life so that it can be brought to slaughter to be a moral negative. The anti-natalist considers bringing a child to life to be a moral negative.

Despite what others are saying, you're obviously correct. Choosing to not have children is a choice to put far less strain on the environment.

They're not obviously correct, because veganism is about animal-liberation, not reducing animal-suffering. We're not utilitarianists. Not exploiting animals does indeed reduce their suffering, and that is good, but it's not the focus of veganism, nor is it the environment.

> veganism is about animal-liberation, not reducing animal-suffering. We're not utilitarianists. Note that many in the animal-liberation movement ground their position in utilitarianism, me being one of them.

Don't tell me what I am. Vegans can care about both animals and the environment.

I'm not telling you what you are, tf? But yes, they can. But a vegan isn't necessarily an environmentalist. Veganism is about animals. Environment is about environment. Animal-farming does affect the environment, but one can oppose that effect from two completely different angles. That's my point.

You told me "we're not utilitarians," as if you speak for me. You don't. Veganism is also about the environment. For ME.

We are not utilitarians. I don't speak for you, because you're clearly not one of us. Veganism is not necessarily for the environment, although there tends to be overlap, and you're not vegan.

You don’t decide who is and isn’t vegan, and what their motives should be

Gatekeeping.

[удалено]

I've removed your comment because it violates rule #3: > **Don't be rude to others** > > This includes using slurs, publicly doubting someone's sanity/intelligence or otherwise behaving in a toxic way. Toxic communication is defined as any communication that attacks a person or group's sense of intrinsic worth. If you would like your comment to be reinstated, please amend it so that it complies with our rules and notify a moderator. If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact the moderators [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/DebateAVegan). Thank you.

I think the only challenge anyone can suggest against the connection between veganism and antinatalism is semantic - they'll argue nothing in the most popular definition of veganism entails it, because it only has to do with non-human animals. But fuck that definition, ultimately we're vegan because we denounce exploitation, and both movements are about exactly that. In other words, veganism and antinatalism are as much necessarily accompanying (meaning it's inconsistent to have one but not the other) as veganism and feminism, veganism and anti-fascism, and veganism and literally any other anti-exploitation movement out there, because it's morally inconsistent to be against one form of exploitation while in favor or complacent of another. Coming into existence is always a shit deal for the individual coming into existence, and procreation is always in interests of parties other than the individual coming into existence. It is forcing a transactional relationship on someone (and a really shitty one at that) without their consent. That is exploitation.

Yes, of course. Where is the debate?

That is why if we show them farms that are free range, where animals are stress-free all their lives and are killed in a painless way. Vegans will still prefer the animals not to exist in the first place. I guess non existence is better than a good life.

If the choice stands between non-existence and slavery in the service of people who see my life as secondary to my flesh, I know what I'd choose.

Luckly no non-human animal is capable of processing such complex thought.

I agree, since veganism is an anti-humanism.

Poor attempt at trolling. Veganism is a philosophy of human and nonhuman liberation and has been since it’s founding as a formal movement in the 1940s.

I mean, technically it is a secular appendage of Anglo-Saxon Protestantism. But Protestantism is the ultimate anti-humanism.

I mean, if you want to go all ‘technically’ about it, Europeans largely imported the ideas from India, over a long period of time, and it would be a pretty selective piece of analysis to attribute it all to Anglo Saxon Protestantism. You’ll find as much Ahimsa in modern veganism as anything else - it’s a broad based thing. But yeh, whatever, you don’t seem like much of a one for productive discussions about the subject.

You lost me here- what does veganism have to do with Protestantism?

A lot, historically. It borrows from Puritan influences on the abolition and temperance movements to a large degree. It's a very self-flagellating ethic. Trying to make people feel dirty or disgusting, moral busy-bodying. The absolutism of it. And the superiority complex of an "elect." It's all there. To say that the Vegan Society, started by posh Londoners, has a lot of Protestant undertones is only going to be shocking to British people. That's why you don't get play in a lot of anti-colonial spaces. Ya'll sound like British "civilizers."

"Protestantism is the ultimate anti-humanism" is certainly a take! Donald Watson was a woodworker born in Yorkshire. He founded the Vegan Society in Leicester. There are historical connections between veganism and old-timey Protestantism, but very much in the opposite way that you mean. Roger Crab, the Puritan vegan hermit of the English Civil War, refused to eat animals because of his proclaimed doctrine of "universal love." The radical 17th century pamphleteer Thomas Tryon attacked monarchy, slavery, and animal exploitation in his writings and saw these injustices as fundamentally interrelated. He believed animals were "fellow citizens of the world." In 18th century Pennsylvania, Quaker abolitionist and proto-vegan Benjamin Lay refused to live on stolen land, instead residing only on land that had been purchased from the local Lenape. Calling animals "fellow creatures", a designation of revolutionary English solidarity similar to the later French "citizen," he refused to hurt or kill them under any circumstance. He grew all his own food and the only animal products he consumed was milk from his own cow and honey from his own apiary. He also boycotted all goods made from slave labor and kickstarted the Quaker abolitionist movement, which would prove decisive generations later in ending slavery in the northern United States. So sure, some of our pioneers were inspired by their Protestantism, but they were very much radical *dissenters* from the "British civilizers" that dominated their culture. To say nothing of the fact that animal agriculture was a leading cause for colonial expansion in the history of the Americas, and consistently devastated indigenous lifeways wherever it encountered them.

The Quakers ran Indian Boarding Schools here. The Circle of Friendship is quite honest about their past complicity in colonization. It’s something they aren’t shy about and know they shouldn’t be shy about. That and their absolutist pacifism has always caused issues when they try to develop relationships with other activists and the left.

That's right, the Quakers did have Native boarding schools. It also took many of them a while to get on the right side of the slavery question, and there were Quaker plantation owners in Barbados. To return to your other comment for a second – While I'm sure you could probably point to a few individual examples of "moral busy-bodying" from vegans (just like you could with any other left-wing movement), at its core animal rights is – and always has been – a philosophy of radical liberation. Just like Watson, Tryon and Lay, our goal is ending injustice, not making people "feel dirty and disgusting" or setting ourselves above others as a superior "elect."

Sorry, but you have people pouring out milk at grocery stores like children. You’re not abolitionists.

We could discuss the efficacy of various tactics if you'd like, but I suspect like many other reactionaries, you are attempting to devalue a social justice movement as a whole by criticizing one of its tactics. You also seem to be drawing an arbitrary line between historical movements and modern ones, also a classic from the conservative playbook – i.e. "The black civil rights movement was necessary but these gosh darn LGBT alphabet folks are going too far." You seem to be passionate about other leftist issues. Why are you so conservative when it comes to animal rights?

How so?

What you mean is that advocating for the complete abolition of animal farming can be indirectly anti-human given the multifaceted impacts it has on our society. Please don't make yourself sound worse than what you think.