My argument is "it's better never to be a child". Being transhumanist, I assert it's better for new people to be produced adults right away, skipping the childhood part and believe it will be possible. But is this antinatalist position?

According to wikipedia:

Antinatalism, or anti-natalism, is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth.

I am not sure that producing adult humans (who can be in the future nothing similar to us) can be called birth. Therefore, I don't assume antinatalism covers such kind of creation. Is it right to understand antinatalism as such or not? Or is it right to think there is no agreement on what antinatalism (in general; if my position is a trend withing antinatalism it's wrong) is?

  • 1
    The basic problem I see is this idea that "basic notions and knowledge" are uploadable, which is a naive misconception about the computational theory of mind. It is ability to interpret that makes whatever is uploadable "knowledge", and it is that that needs to be "developed". And even the software/hardware split of von Neumann's architecture is likely unworkable at high levels of intelligence, the hardware has to be "co-developed", so even "replicating adult minds" is likely a fantasy. – Conifold Jul 11 '18 at 18:20
  • 1
    Nature does not replicate or upload minds, which is why "identical" twins are not even close to identical, supervenience of mental on physical does not imply "uploadability". And transhumanism is a broad cultural movement for technology driven transformation of human condition and is not tied to any particular technological capacity, especially one with dubious physical realizability. – Conifold Jul 11 '18 at 19:11
  • 1
    If what you have to do to "replicate mind" is to produce an atom by atom "carbon copy" of its physical substrate then first, quantum effects make this impossible, and second, even if it were possible it would be pointless. Workable "uploadability" presupposes substantial implementation independence of functions, and insensitivity to physical perturbation, and both are likely false beyond the baseline functionality of von Neumann computers. Which is why even simple artificial neuro-nets are "trained" and not "uploaded". Your "random adults" are an analog of a monkey typing up Britannica. – Conifold Jul 11 '18 at 19:26
  • 1
    It is not antinatalist. Antinatalism isn't about birth or being a child, it's about being brought into existence without consent. It doesn't matter how old or how conscious the person is, it's about the lack of consent which antinatalists view as an impermissible moral transgression. Thinking it has to do with being a literal child or mentally underdeveloped is missing the forest for the trees. – Not_Here Jan 4 at 7:20
  • 1
    @CriglCragl I found from experience that staying anonymous makes things easier, so I'll keep the air of mystery for now. – Conifold Jan 13 at 22:18

Wow, this is a really interesting question.

The wikipedia definition suggests that an antinatalist would discourage the production of sentient beings (to avoid their potential suffering). This abstraction therefore covers the creation of human life --regardless of its age, knowledge or intellect upon invocation-- as well as discouraging the production of sentient AI.

So your position is not antinatalist per se.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.