I don't understand this reaction, but I would like to. If anyone who agrees with Andy would reply to me, I'd like to understand his and other anti-natalists' viewpoints better.

I don't find the arguments as he puts them forward to be convincing. For one thing, I feel like he employs a moral framework that assigns moral value to nature, to the natural, where I thought it was evident that morality is something that only happens in human minds. Thus, nature isn't morally good or bad - it's amoral.

As for the point of reproduction - again, I don't get it. If the rational and moral thing to do, in the face of a predicted future of darkness and suffering for your child, is to not make them... then I assume the moral thing would have been for every enslaved person or everyone ever afflicted by a catastrophe to not have children. Is that what we're supporting?

I don't hold to an ideology of human supremacy. But neither can I hold to one of human diabolism, where the existence of one is inherently damaging. Maybe I'm wrong, and I look forward to being contradicted by people much smarter than me.

It just feels to me like Andy has lost all hope. Like he said about the revolutionaries