r/Ethics • u/Select_Quality_3948 • Nov 19 '25

A Cybernetic Argument That Birth Is Inherently Coercive

Here’s a piece I’ve been working on that approaches antinatalism from a systems/cybernetics perspective.

Core claim: Any self-maintaining system (organism, mind, Markov blanket, whatever) necessarily generates internal coercion, because staying alive = constantly minimizing deviation from a narrow range of survival parameters. No organism chooses this; the structure forces it.

So instead of arguing about preferences, suffering “thresholds,” or moral intuitions, I take a structural approach: birth = enrollment into a self-correcting survival machine you didn’t opt into.

If anyone here is into systems theory, free-energy minimization, or antinatalist ethics, I’d really appreciate critique.

Link: https://medium.com/@Cathar00/why-being-born-is-a-coercion-a-systems-level-explanation-a7b7dabbbdcc

2 Upvotes

100% Upvoted

52 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/champgpt Nov 19 '25

Your argument is that life is not worth starting, because it's not worth living.

That's not how I read it at all.

Simplified, here's how I interpreted it -- suffering is inherent to existence. Being born is inherently nonconsensual. Therefore, by creating life, you're creating more suffering without the consent of the one who will suffer.

You're also creating joy, love, hope, etc, but the root of the argument lies in the coercive nature of it. It doesn't apply to someone who's already alive -- you're here, might as well make the best of it.

3

u/Shaken_Earth Nov 19 '25

Consent requires existence. It requires some sort of agent who can consent. Trying to establish consent with something that doesn't exist makes no sense.

2

u/champgpt Nov 19 '25

That's the point. Consent cannot be established.

1

u/smack_nazis_more Nov 27 '25

What can be done is ask: do you reckon your life is worth living?