Surely the core arguments that an anti-natalist might bring forward apply to any sentient beings, right? Like, a cat didn’t give prior consent to existing any more than a human did. Ergo, I do think it’s reasonable to point out that there would be no observer that could witness, much less enjoy any benefit from, the anti-natalist ideal world.
How could it be better? There’d be no one around to make that judgment call, so it’s a fundamentally illogical statement.
And I calls em like I sees em Mr. Saturday Morning Cartoon Villain Apologist.
Your human reasoning assumes all existence is human, I feel like we may be seeing a slight bias here.
Surely the core arguments that an anti-natalist might bring forward apply to any sentient beings, right? Like, a cat didn’t give prior consent to existing any more than a human did. Ergo, I do think it’s reasonable to point out that there would be no observer that could witness, much less enjoy any benefit from, the anti-natalist ideal world.
Believe whatever fantasy you want, bud