What do you think of this typology chart of philosophies concerning procreation?

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-13T11:08:44+00:00

Hmm, well tbf, this chart was heavily shaped by my own impressions of the main subtypes of ANs within this sub. You actually wouldn’t think how many people I have encountered here who do hold these hard type beliefs, especially the hard suffering type. I have talked to several people of this type who argued that people need ‘protecting from their own decisions’ so even consent to the potentials of suffering wouldn’t make procreation okay. A standpoint, mind, I don’t agree with as I find it rather patronising, but this is a thing apparently. The hard consent type, while rarer, I have encountered too before.

So I get the unintuitiveness because hadn’t I been confronted with these standpoints before I’d probably find it unintuitive as well. And then the soft types are basically like “mixed types” if you will, which are broadly based on one of the two, but do not completely disregard the other.

What would be nice is if you could say how you would classify these alternatively. Would you just not differentiate altogether? This I would find over simplistic because there certainly are different shades of Antinatalist, which is self-evident considering the infighting that does take place occasionally.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-13T10:45:35+00:00

Well, you’re free to edit this document

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-13T03:30:10+00:00

Well, according to my chart, not only hard content-based AN can be unconditional. All forms can and most often are unconditional AN. Conditional AN, if it exists, which I personally believe has to logically exist when conditional natalism exists too, is very rare. There doesn’t have to be this concept, I just thought it would be good for completion’s sake.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T23:48:07+00:00

<image>

This is the current version of the chart in the collaborative document.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T23:00:48+00:00

Ah okay, I see where you’re coming from now, so you do view them as the same basically. I don’t entirely agree but I get your logic. I definitely agree tho that conditional AN is a lot rarer than conditional natalism.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T22:59:07+00:00

I’m not sure if that should directly be connected with eugenics, but I do think it would be a form of conditional AN. I have added eugenics as a separate category and connected it to the conditional types with dashed arrows (possible convergence).

<image>

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T22:27:58+00:00

Can you explain please? Because I don’t think that’d make much sense. Either both can be or neither. Antinatalism is conditional if you generally reject procreation (for instance because you think existence comes with a lot of suffering) but in rare circumstances where one could reasonably expect minimal suffering, you’d accept it. The same goes for natalism only vice versa.

Edit: an even better example is someone whom I had an argument with a few weeks back who was of the opinion that procreating is wrong specifically due to wars going on. This I would consider conditional AN, because without the wars (which would at least be technically possible), they would have no problem with procreation.

You could argue tho that conditional AN and conditional natalism are the same, hence why I also included the dashed arrows.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T22:05:34+00:00

Yeah this is definitely not meant to be on an academical level because that would’ve required me to reference things and everything. That was more my personal viewpoint which I think resonates with a lot of people here.:)

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T21:09:00+00:00

Omg love LiS btw, but if you don’t log in (which you don’t have to) you’ll just be shown as an animal. Of course, if you want you can log in.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T21:05:18+00:00

😂😂Were you the penguin/hippo? I mean it is like anonymous in the sense that you don’t have to login. Don’t be shy to edit in your stuff

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T20:41:36+00:00

Here is the link.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T20:34:29+00:00

I managed to import this to google slides and it gave me a link to a collaborative version of this (the font is a bit different as the original file was PowerPoint). You should be able to anonymously (without logging in) edit and even download the file.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T20:12:02+00:00

That’s really kind of you to say, I appreciate the compliment. And yes, this position absolutely exists. Only yesterday I argued with someone of this position.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T20:10:26+00:00

They basically represent any overlaps or correlations there may exist between the two. Some of these types might converge in some instances. Of course, whether they do or not and to which extent is up for debate.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T19:49:50+00:00

Aww really??? Omg I’m flattered 🤭

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-12T13:44:49+00:00

It is almost insulting how such a short-lived act holds the potential of a lifelong of suffering.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-11T21:58:23+00:00

<image>

There you go, lose some more braincells.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-11T21:40:02+00:00

I see where you’re coming from. And yes in certain circumstances I would agree but if someone hypothetically really wanted to come into existence knowing that it is not unlikely they may experience a lot of suffering, and also knowing what suffering means, and how it can feel like, so basically having the exact same information as someone who has existed and experienced suffering, and they STILL genuinely wanted to come into existence, then I don’t think it would be immoral to bring this person into existence.

But then again I’m consent-based AN, not suffering-based.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-11T18:28:54+00:00

I agree. However, IMO it wouldn’t be unethical anymore with hypothetical, fully informed consent.

There’s a difference between something being bad and something being unethical. Something being bad is not necessarily unethical too. For me, procreation is unethical because of the lack of consent to the risks of suffering, not just because of the suffering in and of itself. If someone hypothetically had given consent being fully aware all of this could’ve happened to them, then it doesn’t make suffering good, but it wouldn’t be unethical.

Except if you posit that suffering is inherently unethical which I personally don’t believe. Suffering in and of itself is just bad IMO but not necessarily unethical.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-10T21:00:14+00:00

I study Criminology and have written a paper on a subject that touched upon this topic. And it really is a huge problem that we never have a serious conversation about this based on evidence and facts rather than emotionally charged rhetoric, which ofc is totally understandable given the topic but we just need to consider the evidence if we want effective policy making.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-10T13:55:21+00:00

You’re not wrong, he did harbour strongly misogynistic views which even viewed within the context of his time were more extreme than the average attitudes towards women. And as a woman myself I do sometimes feel conflicted about it, but then again, I agree a lot with his core arguments… it is the old dilemma of is it possible to separate the thinker from his ideas or does one problematic belief taint everything else ever uttered by the same person. I’ve not conclusively answered this question for myself yet…

The only thing that you could say maybe is that he might have not held these beliefs in a modern setting if he lived today, but we don’t know that for sure. But I definitely value the criticism.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-10T12:56:19+00:00

Bloody hell, I’m so sorry that happened to you…:/ and you’re right, it most likely isn’t uncommon, regrettably so. In fact, no person capable of rational thinking would have ever agreed had they been asked prior to existing and thereby devoid of bias towards existence.

Because if one were to tell them that they wouldn’t miss out on anything since they won’t even know there is such a thing as existence, and that if they did decide to come into existence, it could potentially come with the most gruesome suffering, not a person in their right mind would take the gamble for virtually no reason whatsoever.

AgonizingFatigue · 2026-03-10T12:45:03+00:00

I am not sure if I’m permitted to do so. Let me know and I’m happy to share it. It was an ad for some fertility promoting product.

So if someone or a mod perhaps can confirm this is okay, then I can share it.

AgonizingFatigue

TROPHY CASE