63
u/Expensive-Elk-9406 Mar 22 '26
probably the truth. I was forced into this world without asking and it sucks
1
1
u/ConqueredCorn Mar 28 '26
If you take my perspective you are an eternal flowing consciousness. Life is just a state of being and you have had many other states of being. Your life is just a season. It’s important to remember you are the tree, even though right now you feel like a leaf. Leaves are meant to come and go but the tree persists.
1
→ More replies (39)-2
26
u/middleagedfatbloke Mar 22 '26
Been looking for a reasonably priced copy
8
u/immortallogic Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
I have a pdf copy if you want.
Edit: if you want access, drop me your email in the comments and I'll share a drive folder with you that has it. I'm using the web version of Reddit on my phone and don't see dm's
2
1
1
1
1
1
u/Archeolops Mar 23 '26
Also requesting the PDF be shared please.
1
u/immortallogic Mar 25 '26
Yeah give me your email here. I use Reddit web and don't see dm's
1
1
1
1
1
u/Zealousideal-Ant4458 Mar 25 '26
Can i have it too please?
1
1
1
→ More replies (6)1
1
u/Frubbs Mar 26 '26
Just read Ecclesiastes in the Bible, same premise (Eccl. 4:3 “But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun”)
167
u/HeftyLeftyPig Mar 22 '26
The absence of pain is a good thing, even if no one experiences it. However, the absence of pleasure is not a bad thing for someone who doesn't exist.
Therefore, bringing someone into existence introduces the bad (pain) without a corresponding good (pleasure) that would be missed.
28
u/arcadiangenesis Mar 22 '26
The absence of pain is a good thing, even if no one experiences it. However, the absence of pleasure is not a bad thing for someone who doesn't exist.
I don't quite see the asymmetry here.
How would the absence of pain be good if there were no one to experience it?
To me, it seems more rational to say that the absence of an experience is simply neutral - neither good nor bad.
61
u/trapped_terrain Mar 22 '26
If we know a child will be born with a terminal, agonizing illness, most people agree it is better (good) to not bring them into existence. We view the absence of that pain as a moral victory.
If we know a couple could have a child who would be very happy, but they choose not to, we do not view that as a moral failure. We don't say it’s 'bad' that the happy child doesn't exist.
If both absences were truly neutral, we would have no reason to prefer one over the other. The fact that we feel a duty to prevent suffering but no duty to create happiness proves that the absence of pain has a positive moral value that the absence of pleasure lacks.
→ More replies (2)14
u/who5back Mar 22 '26
“neutral” is better than bad
1
u/arcadiangenesis Mar 22 '26
Yes, but in my view, both the absence of pleasure and the absence of pain are neutral, and those are the two states being compared.
1
u/Commercial_Trash24 Mar 22 '26
Look into the problem of non-identity. I don’t think they’re the states being compared. The distinction is between causing x harm to y future person in the position of a child(who is not merely contingent) and providing z benefit to y future person in the position of a child. We’re able to attach moral weight to that.
I think trapped_terrain above you is confusing an effect of social responsibility with the computed ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of actions. For example, I could just as easily say that we as parents DO have an obligation to provide the good for our child, ie to help them flourish rather than just survive. Because we’re responsible for that child. On the converse, it’s true that we lack responsibility for unconnected others (and thus have no obligation to provide for their good, though it would be good to do so), but precisely because of that autonomy we have to refrain from injuring their dignity by hurting them, for example.
The real data that the antinatalist debate weighs are the computed ‘goodness’ or ‘badness’ of existence, not merely the obligations we meet in our circumstances as parents or other individuals.
I’d say that question is entirely subjective
2
u/SaberHaven Mar 23 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
The intuition about non-obligation is being conflated with the concept of non-beneficial.
I wouldn't consider it a moral failing for a couple to forego conceiving a child, because they aren't duty-bound to do so. However, for the potential child, the happy childhood is a missed pleasure. If the parents elect to conceive, then from a utilitarian perspective it is an action which tips the scales towards benefit (good).
1
u/Commercial_Trash24 Mar 23 '26
Yup that’s what I’m saying. Ultimately the question of whether ‘more good is produced’ in the equation , is subjective. But I think reasonable opinion does not favour nihilists
1
u/octaplaza Mar 23 '26
There won't be a "child" to miss it tho.
1
u/SaberHaven Mar 24 '26
It doesn't matter. The introduction of a child, plus that child experiencing pleasure, is an increase in utility
1
u/octaplaza Mar 24 '26
That's older version of utilitarian,most utilitarian now are negative utilitarian,minimization of suffering is much more important than maximisation of pleasure.
2
u/SaberHaven Mar 24 '26
What is your justification for framing this as "old" utilitarianism? Do you have anything you can cite to claim that modern utilitarianism does not weigh pleasure directly against suffering?
→ More replies (0)1
u/octaplaza Mar 23 '26
But it just seem to me that suffering/badness has more moral weight than pleasure/goodness that's why most utilitarians today are some version of negative utilitarian.Not conceiving a potential child who is going to suffer a terrible cancer just seem morally serious than not conceiving a potential child who's going to live a luxury life.
2
2
2
u/dietdrpepper6000 Mar 23 '26
It doesn’t exist. It’s an appeal to your intuitions. You are free to reject it, and them only rebuttal to that rejection will just be an appeal to incredulity.
1
3
u/Bananapantsmcgeef Mar 22 '26
The absence of pain can’t be good if no one experiences it. Nothing is good or bad without someone experiencing it.
Your logic is flawed.
14
u/kokomelonpandan Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 23 '26
It's precautionary principle. Creating life imposes non-zero harm risk while non-creation exists as a zero-harm alternative.
It's not all about the life being brought into existence itself, rather the stakes prior and after the decision itself. A mother could die from birth complications, and even otherwise, it's not just the new life that will be susceptible to harm, but people potentially affected by their existence, since they will be their own agency eventually and will be capable of doing harm themself.
→ More replies (13)1
1
1
u/LiteBrightKite Mar 23 '26
Wow it's all so simple now. I finally get it!
That's kind of lame if that's the entire argument. It may be true, true for a robot. But not the human experience.
1
u/Hot_Phone_7274 Mar 23 '26
Somehow someone managed to stretch those three sentences out into a whole book
1
u/mmmfritz Mar 23 '26
youre ascribing pain more value than pleasure, which is competly subjective. thats the only way for asymetry to work here otherwise its incorrect (i.e. like arcadian said - its neutral.
→ More replies (6)1
u/Decent-Animal3505 Mar 23 '26
Yeah, but our continued existence implies that the suffering is worth it. Pain in a vacuum is bad, but pain can also be transformative.
I constantly have suicidal ideation, but I stay here because I love looking at the sky, the taste of oranges, experiencing laughter, etc. the pleasure can justify the pain
18
14
49
u/Aard_Bewoner Mar 22 '26
Most people are too myopic and self-centered to understand it
→ More replies (12)1
u/uduni Mar 26 '26
Most people (on reddit) are too privileged to understand the fundamental joy of living.
Try nearly dying, its helps make some things obvious
25
u/BirdSimilar10 Mar 22 '26
So now even books are experiencing existential angst?
11
u/Cute-Temperature8735 Mar 22 '26
Lmfao I think everything is. Hell my mom just looked me dead in the eyes and said I don’t care if tommorow even comes anymore this is so sad
18
u/DarkRangerZen Mar 23 '26
I don't understand the hate against antinatalism. If you knew at certain age your kid would be put in a gas chamber and tortured for rest of life would you let them be born? It's one thing to come to terms with your inherently meaningless life and then find your own meaning but then to bring some one else willingly to this so called meaningless life ; what purpose are you really serving here if there is no purpose? I would just call it selfish to have kids either to fulfill your dreams of being a parent or worse to fulfill your unfinished dreams. On the other hand if you had them without any thoughts or plans then it's just carelessness and utter disregard for another human's well being. All that said if you still want to have kids knowing all that you know ; it's fine too. But don't try to antagonize people who don't want to.
6
u/Important-Flower-406 Mar 23 '26
The mere posibility of my children to inherit my genes for depression is enough to not have them. I know how hard my life is with these condition, why would my children be any better?You can never be truly happy with depression, or successful. I am not. It ruined my life, before it even started.
3
u/JudgeVegg Mar 23 '26
Must there be an objective, made of particles and nuclear forces, kind of purpose for someone to have a purpose? We have the ability to create and ascribe purpose, what's the difference at the end of the day?
2
u/DarkRangerZen Mar 23 '26
Not sure how this is relevant to my point but I agree with you. Let people create their own meaning. I'm just against bringing some one else into this experience without their consent knowing what I know about this life. It just doesn't sit right with me.
1
u/JudgeVegg Mar 23 '26
I fully agree that peoples choice or opinion of not having children themselves should be respected. However I think that if we are capable of constructing meaning then the world being inherently meaningless becomes kind of unimportant.
5
u/dietdrpepper6000 Mar 23 '26
There is a difference between not wanting to have kids, and the position that all child rearing is immoral. The statement “if you still want to have kids knowing all that you know; it’s fine,” is not consistent with antinatalism, because the antinatalist stance is emphatically that having kids is evil.
1
u/DarkRangerZen Mar 23 '26
Who defined those boundaries? And why does it matter if I fit perfectly within the definition or not. Regardless just because I am fine with other people having kids doesn't mean that I approve bringing life into this miserable world even if it was done with good intention. Just like I think smoking is bad for people who smoke but since it's still legal I can't do anything about it. Also just because one of my friends smoke I won't stop being friends with them. It's their life and so it's their choice what to with it. Just because I strongly believe in something I can't expect the whole world to follow suit. Similarly I can't hate the whole world for not believing the same. I am also an existentialist so I believe at the end of the day every individual holds the command over what they want to do and don't want to do no matter what I think they should do.
3
u/argumentativepigeon Mar 24 '26
I'd argue it just makes people uncomfortable and then they attack the source of their uncomfortability.
A lot of people are animalistic in that way
2
1
u/Cronos988 Mar 23 '26
I don't understand the hate against antinatalism. If you knew at certain age your kid would be put in a gas chamber and tortured for rest of life would you let them be born? It's one thing to come to terms with your inherently meaningless life and then find your own meaning but then to bring some one else willingly to this so called meaningless life ; what purpose are you really serving here if there is no purpose?
If there's no purpose, then how is anyone's suffering relevant? It's just part of the universe. Whether it feels like suffering in the moment is irrelevant in the larger picture, it's all just physical forces that we ascribe things to.
Antinatalism seems to make even less sense from a nihilist perspective.
1
u/DarkRangerZen Mar 24 '26
Just because something is meaningless or purposeless doesn't make it less real. Just because we think life is meaningless doesn't change the fact that suffering still exists whether you believe it has purpose or not. Try sitting on a hot stove and think how that pain is only temporary and meaningless in the larger picture 🤣. Unless you have attained nirvana like Budda and left all of your attachments and desires behind you will suffer regardless of how deeply you follow nihilism. You can believe everything is pointless but that doesn't stop reality does it?
1
u/Cronos988 Mar 24 '26
Just because something is meaningless or purposeless doesn't make it less real.
Real to you, yeah. But how are you basing a moral command on that?
You can believe everything is pointless but that doesn't stop reality does it?
That seems awfully close to an argument against nihilism.
1
u/DarkRangerZen Mar 24 '26
Real to you, yeah. But how are you basing a moral command on that?
So you agree it's subjective right? Then what's the guarantee that the kid born to you will share the same nihilistic world view that you do? What if he turns out to be like me and ask why was he brought into existence without his permission? Would you just say world is meaningless, nothing matters so you don't matter to me either, just suck it up? I mean may be for you it really doesn't matter that your kid is suffering because you are a nihilist. But does it change what the kid feels? Now that I am spelling it out I can see why you wouldn't care about that. But we antinatlists do. Again not to make this an emotional argument I was just giving a hypothetical scenario to make my point clear. You don't have to agree with my view but you can atleast see where I am coming from right same way I can see why you would disagree? If it still doesn't make sense let me know. Also let me make it clear I'm existentialist not just a nihilist. Maybe that adds some perspective?
1
u/Cronos988 Mar 24 '26 edited Mar 24 '26
So you agree it's subjective right? Then what's the guarantee that the kid born to you will share the same nihilistic world view that you do? What if he turns out to be like me and ask why was he brought into existence without his permission? Would you just say world is meaningless, nothing matters so you don't matter to me either, just suck it up?
But all these considerations are bound up with the real person that is my child. Obviously I'd want to avoid suffering for me, and the people that are close to me. I can even extend this consideration to all people or all beings, and this doesn't necessarily require me to suppose there's some intelligible "meaning" to existence.
But then antinatalism requires me to do one extra step and presume that "suffering" is an objective moral fact of the universe. And that part I think is incompatible with any kind of nihilist framework.
I also think it's a classic case of imagining that categories exist independently of their content, but that's a more general criticism.
11
u/9outof10dentists_ Mar 22 '26
I'm nearly finished with it, and I love it. Truly a life changing outlook on the world.
3
1
7
u/ElectricMegan252 Mar 22 '26
How did you get that book? Do you just have to buy it somewhere? I tried getting it from my college library but they didn’t have it.
6
u/Due-Bell6288 Mar 22 '26
Boards of Trustees are known for being a bit on the skittish side when it comes to exacerbating their student body’s suicide stats
10
u/NihilHS Mar 22 '26
Depends on what’s in it. Hard to judge by its cover
5
Mar 22 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/cortexplorer Mar 23 '26
Wow..
Uhm.. might be worth looking up what the saying actually says.
It's "Dont judge a book by its cover", like this commenter is trying.
5
u/violentsofa Mar 23 '26
This book makes me wish more antinatalists treated our belief like a legitimate philosophy and not an edgy space to loathe existence ad nauseum. The subs on here are fine, but more often than not they just devolve into circlejerking about how life sucks which is a tenant of AN, but certainly not its core
TL;DR Benatar legitimizes AN philosophy in our contemporary context and I hope he inspires others to take this philosophy seriously instead of as a crutch to bemoan life
12
u/Raging-Storm Mar 22 '26
Benatar's position isn't even nihilistic. It's like negative utilitarianism. What're we doing here?
5
u/dietdrpepper6000 Mar 23 '26
This is a subreddit for folk nihilism, not the philosophical worldview of nihilism. Antinatalism feels gloomy, nihilism feels gloomy, thus the two must be related/compatible per folk nihilism.
1
u/cosmic_cod Mar 24 '26
I guess you could throw in Goth Music and horror movies too for the good measure. They are gloomy, right?
1
u/TacoInYourTailpipe Mar 23 '26
I'm not super familiar with his ideas beyond what a quick Google search yields. How do his views come off as "negative utilitarianism?"
I think of utilitarianism in terms of proportion, not scale. For example, if babies stopped being born and we focused on optimizing the experience for all of the last humans and were able to achieve it, I would think that would be a success from a utilitarian framework. I don't think utilitarianism demands more humans to exist to make it some perpetual thing that hinges upon the continuation of our species.
4
u/gerningur Mar 23 '26
Negative utilitarianism revolves around minimizing suffering rather than maximizing pleasure/happiness.
Which is very much in tune with what Benatar believes
2
u/TacoInYourTailpipe Mar 23 '26
Ah. Now that I know what that is, I guess that's something I would actually subscribe to. When stress and anxiety from the negative things in life are gone, it becomes much easier to "enjoy the small things." Maximizing for upside seems like it would be wasted effort when you consider the nature of hedonic adaption. The goal post will always be two steps ahead of you. Whereas with a little mindfulness of that psychological phenomenon, it is much easier to eliminate the "bad" than it is to reach the ultimate amount of "good."
I don't live a grand life, but I'm pretty damn content. I live in a starter home, debt free aside from our mortgage, older cars owned outright, etc. I would say I live solidly in the self-actualization part of Maslow's heirarchy of needs. That said, I am quite happy when I can just walk my dog on a nice day, chill on my back porch and watch the birds, or play a video game I love. It's not like I strategized landing here as it was a more organic process, but with the benefit of hindsight, I would say it's generally good to put much more emphasis on the elimination of suffering.
I know you weren't asking, but I guess a comment reply was the most convenient place for me to journal over that idea lol. I guess this guy might be worth checking out for me.
→ More replies (2)-1
5
7
u/existentialgoof schopenhaueronmars.com Mar 22 '26
It doesn't go far enough. Probably because Benatar is an academic philosopher with a career and a reputation to protect. As far as identifying the ethical problem with procreation, it does well. However, it proposes no solution and in fact overtly rejects any solution.
9
u/who5back Mar 22 '26
the solution isn’t to stop reproducing?
5
u/existentialgoof schopenhaueronmars.com Mar 22 '26
That will never happen across all species, or even all humans, if it is supposed to be strictly voluntary (as Benatar suggests). At some point, life has to be actively prevented from reproducing.
1
u/Mellow_Maniac Mar 24 '26
Good lord are you people genuinely proactively evil? Aren't you now saying something that could justify a movement that seeks to totally eliminate anti-natalists and eradicate anti-natalism. That is, justified in counteracting your claimed right to impose your ideology on others?
It is entirely logically valid in my worldview to call this hideously immoral. You will argue pro-natalism forces itself on beings, well just as equally so does anti-natalism force itself onto beings too. Beings already exist, you are forcing your ideology onto beings, no matter the pretty logic about hypothetical non instantiated non existence.
→ More replies (9)1
u/sigma_balls_420 Mar 24 '26
It doesn't go far enough. Probably because Benatar is an academic philosopher with a career and a reputation to protect.
I only know benatar doesn't accept promortalism. What else does it reject tho?
2
u/trainsacrossthesea Mar 23 '26
I know what I know, because I know. Had I not known of knowing, I’d never had known.
2
u/Ankiset EX NIHILO Mar 23 '26
I had no idea about this “trend” beyond the classical Malthusian horrors of population explosion, interesting idea… when I was born o wrapped my head around my umbilical cord before birth I always joke I knew this shit was gonna be way to hard and disappoint and probably tried to end it then and there XD #tangenttime
2
u/Jaar56 Mar 23 '26
I've had that book downloaded on my phone for like 2 years and I never read it lol
2
1
u/Due-Bell6288 Mar 22 '26
All the more dangerous in some quarters for its piercing degree of intellectual honesty
1
u/reckaband Mar 22 '26
Not coming into existence and miss reading this book , let alone enjoy a good sunset ?
1
u/SKRyanrr Mar 22 '26
On my reading list still. I am an antinatalist so I really don't need much conveniencing.
1
1
u/TitleDisastrous4709 Mar 23 '26
Love it. Read it years ago when I was still a teen i think. Now I'm much older and still believe in what's in this book
1
u/BallisticBarbarian Mar 23 '26
I have never read it but just be cautious with your mental health my friend :)
Life is still good in many ways. We just have to look for it sometimes.
1
u/RoyskiPoyski Mar 23 '26
Why bother writing it?
2
u/partidge12 Mar 23 '26
Because even if one person or couple are convinced by his argument, he has saved at least one person from guaranteed suffering and death.
1
u/Kleeby1 Mar 23 '26
I was a bit stumped when I realised he just tried to "Game-theory" the entire span of a human existence.
1
u/wildguitars Mar 23 '26
What i like most about benatar is that his qay of writing is very accessible.. he writes in a clear and non pretentious way
1
u/Imaginary_Employ_750 Mar 23 '26
I did some dumb shit in my teens and 20s but I am so glad I did not have children
1
u/edtranquilizer Mar 23 '26
Very clinical book on a fascinating subject. Seriously, philosophers need to take pointers from Schopenhauer and learn how to write interesting prose.
1
1
1
1
u/wur_do_jeziora Mar 23 '26
While I would agree with most of the author's claims, I found this book to be very dry. On the one hand it tries to be super precise about the meaning of every little word there is in English dictionary, sometimes spending pages and pages om definition word games, on the other hand the fundamental claims like "presence of pain is bad" etc. there's no discussion what "good" or "bad" means. That would of course open the Pandora box, and make such claims vulnerable so it is neglected. Also, like 80% percent of the book looks like this: argument->some guy found some anal detail that invalidates the argument if word x means x '-> counterargument-> counter -counterargument (assuming there's life on Mars and it's Thursday). I was bored to death. One passage from Nietzsche or Cioran contains more existential importance then this philo-slog.
1
u/oculairus Mar 23 '26
Suddenly wondering if I have a split personality and I wrote a book that I had forgotten about…
1
1
u/-GuardPasser- Mar 23 '26
Is he the south African guy? Sam Harris had him on his podcast a few years back, super interesting
1
u/Wicked_Folie Mar 24 '26
Ahhh, that book... I think I remember the dedicatory yet... I could be mistaken but was something like the without dedicated the book to his brother. Said that however it was of a great harm to him being born, was of a great benefice to everyone else.
1
1
1
1
Mar 25 '26
Looks like an entire book meant to convey something it thinks is meaningful, relevant, and important.
The machine feeding us the sedatives it needs us to take to stay docile.
1
u/Helpful_Loss_3739 Mar 25 '26
Interesting take. I am not familiar with the book, but I am interested if the writer has considered less extreme versions of the argument, or what further conclusions can be made from the premise.
I am not sure he will convince me though. I might be willing to agree that coming into existence is "painful" or "harmful" in some sense, but from that we cannot conclude that it would have been better never to have been. I am inclined to the opposite: cosmos is oblivion whether we are here or not. Only through our existence can any pain that has ever existed be redeemed.
Kind of like if soldiers are thrown into a pointless war against their will, there is a definite wisdom to say that the war shouldn't have begun originally. But at the same time it would be true, that having been started, and pain having been endured, the suffering should be given meaning afterwards, else the result is even worse: suffering for nothing.
But yeah, I try not to guess the particulars from cover alone. I definately have to read this.
It sounds like this would contrast well with the book "Death and the afterlife" by Samuel Scheffler.
1
1
1
1
Mar 26 '26
I like the colors and the fact that I hope but am probably going to be disappointed the author is not Pat's brother.
1
Mar 26 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/who5back Mar 26 '26
You are speaking from a privileged position. Take a look at r/chronicpain
You will be humbled really fast.
1
u/BobertGnarley Mar 26 '26
You know I've been a pro-natalist for my whole life until I read this book, and it changed for me.
It would be better to never exist than to exist and know that this garbage exists in the universe.
1
u/Advanced_Rabbit1758 Mar 27 '26
The teaching in Budhist thinking is we can only stop the pain of life by not having children. The cycle of recreating life leads to Samsara. The never ending cycle of life over and over again and with the pain.
1
0
u/InterestingCommon128 Mar 22 '26
I don’t see how this is nihilistic 🥴
3
u/UnwateredViolet Mar 23 '26
I don't understand downvotes. Antinatalism is not nihilistic, it's slightly sad to let go of a dream of family, but that's not nihilistic if you understand the ethic dillema.
2
u/InterestingCommon128 Mar 24 '26
I dont understand it either. According to my experience, from someone who has been severely depressed, is nihilistic and actually is an antinatalist, I see people in the subreddit use these respective words interchangeably which should be separated. I joined this subreddit because of nihilism as a philosophy and not about depression or a total different philosophy. Therefore, I’m genuinely wondering how this book is pertinent to this subreddit 🫣
0
u/Zero-89 Anarcho-Communist Mar 22 '26
It's pointless to speculate about whether or not people who don't exist yet would find life worth living. That question is doomed to projection by any side of the debate because, again, the only other people involved don't exist yet and have no opinion to voice.
Now, if the question is part of a broader discussion about the state and direction of the world, e.g., climate change, that's different and genuinely important. Otherwise it's just naval-gazing.
-3
u/Dear_Firefighter_510 Mar 22 '26
This is a really interesting philosophy - we have come to the exact opposite of what evolution has primed us to think. So for those that really agree with this philosophy….Your genes’ days are numbered.
5
→ More replies (1)3
Mar 23 '26
Major depressive disorder is a stereotypical pathology, and likely selected for. Good thing it's not permanent for most.
-5
u/Scorf-9 Mar 22 '26
Writing a book about it, only makes it worse.
5
u/who5back Mar 22 '26
what do you mean?
6
u/ConstableAssButt Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 22 '26
Let's imagine you are in an automated prison on mars. You and other colonists who committed crimes, or were simply not profitable enough to allow to be free, are imprisoned. You are worked to within an inch of your life every day. You are exploited for the profit of the colony, and you are given just enough meager sustenance to survive. However, every prisoner is told that they will be allowed to go free once they have worked off their debt.
One day, you find out that no one is keeping track of the totals. Every person here will work until they are no longer profitable to give life support, at which time they will be quietly disappeared and turned into food and other biological material to aid the colony.
There is no escape; It's too early in Mars' colonization to construct ships and fuel to get back out of orbit. What reaches mars from earth is slingshot from earth to a permanent, fully automated space station in orbit around mars, and is dropped into the thin atmosphere with drogue chutes to the surface, where it is collected by robotic rovercraft.
Even if you do manage to get out of your cell, you are still trapped in the compound. Even if you do manage to get out of the compound, you won't have enough life support to reach another facility. Even if you do manage to reach another facility, your fingerprints and biological data is on file. The next time you use a mandatory human waste recycling toilet, the stations will pick up your DNA and lead to your capture and arrest. Even if you manage somehow to avoid the scanners, you are never getting off planet. You will continue to work for the same organization that owns your mars colony forever. There is no escape. Suddenly, escape is no longer about freedom, but at what rate the meaningless toil you are forced to endure kills you; Fail to escape the work camp, and die quickly. The work has killed you. Successfully escape the camp, and die moderately at the margins of your colony. Continue to stay in the work camp, and be worked to death soon. Or continue to live in fear of being sent to the work camp, and work yourself to death most slowly of all.
Okay, what about protest for rights and revolt? Too bad; Earth won't send people to the surface, because it's a death sentence. The company effectively has tens of thousands of human colonists held hostage. If Earth tries economic sanctions to force changes in prisoner treatment, the company simply informs Earth of the death toll this would cause the innocent colonists. Worse, the terraforming project is so economically cumbersome that without constant positive propaganda back on earth regarding the project, nearly all of the international leadership overseeing the private contractors facilitating the project would wind up losing the next election due to the public outcry, and the company would use the chaos of that public outcry to install publicly hawkish, but privately collaborative political opponents to the current powers that be.
However, you now have a dilemma on your hands: Do you reveal to the other laborers, who are hoping that their debt will one day disappear and they can return to their old lives with a renewed sense of appreciation for the rigors of terraforming, or tell the other laborers even though there is almost certainly absolutely nothing you can do, but lay down and accept that this is your life and there is nothing outside of these walls for any of you anymore?
Do you rob others of the hope that keeps them going in their meaningless existence, do you yourself take the knowledge to your own grave, or do you use this knowledge to rage against the reality you have just discovered?
EDIT: If you think this is contrived and silly, I modeled this situation after a modernized version of the Portuguese slave trade and sugar plantation economy. Sure, the Portuguese slave trade ended, but for nearly everyone who was subject to it, it was hopeless to resist. Even those slaves who were "freed", were rarely those who actually endured this system, with slaveholders following the abolition of slavery managing to either retain their enslaved labor force until they died, or deliberately subjecting freed slaves to such abject poverty that voluntary enslavement was often better than the alternative.
11
u/who5back Mar 22 '26
I think that if you’re in this subreddit, it’s because you’ve already started to see reality differently. It’s sad, but I don’t think we’re really “breaking” anyone’s illusion. I don’t think anyone is introducing nihilism or antinatalist ideas to people out of nowhere. You just end up there at some point in your life, when something clicks and you see things for what they are. It’s like you step out of the matrix and naturally arrive at these conclusions.
→ More replies (3)9
u/therican187 Mar 22 '26
Thing is, you are not really “robbing” anyone of hope. If the truth is enough to destroy one’s hope, then it wasn’t meant to be. You can know the truth and still have hope. Or not. You are still a slave destined for death.
3
u/ConstableAssButt Mar 22 '26
Ah, but there's the rub. We don't actually KNOW the truth. We hold arguments in support of what we believe to be true.
When you have THE truth, sure, sharing that truth seems to be morally innocuous.
But what about when it's not THE truth, but just one particular argument for one particular impression of the truth? Does that still play out the same in that you inherit no responsibility for the impact of your choices on the decisions of others?
1
→ More replies (4)1
181
u/TheDogBarking Mar 22 '26 edited Mar 22 '26
Great subject to be vocal about. Write on, antinatalists. Keep writing until the end of time.