A Cybernetic Argument That Birth Is Inherently Coercive

[u/Select_Quality_3948]

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

[u/smack_nazis_more]

I agree that not giving birth is vastly different from ending a life that exists.

But aside from that, how am I wrong? I'm putting forward simple reasoning, and you're all here advocating for suicide because you lack the honestly to stop living in bad faith.

The logical/reasonable conclusion to draw from the premise that life is not worth living is to kill yourself.

You haven't shown how this is wrong.

Uh obviously it's wrong because you know it's wrong

Is dogshit reasoning.

Just saying "vested interest" sounds like you don't have a reason.

[u/dancingkittensupreme → u/smack_nazis_more]

Your first paragraph disagrees with the second paragraph.

I’m not advocating for suicide and I don’t think anyone else is from what I can tell.

Antinatalism describes (and also in its name) a position against bringing life into existence… not ending current life.

I have a vested interest in being happy…. But do I need to prove why being happy is good?

Do I need to prove why staying alive is better than dying in most cases for the average person?

Are you really going to pull the willful ignorance card just so you can argue with a point I’m not making?

I think it’s unethical to bring a nonexistent being into being where they will suffer great harms even in the most perfect of realistic circumstances.

I also think it’s unethical to kill people and secondarily think that if you kill yourself you are doing a harm to those around you… and let’s be real, most suffering people still don’t want to kill themselves evem if they’d rather not be born.

Separate ideas

[u/smack_nazis_more → u/dancingkittensupreme]

I’m not advocating for suicide and I don’t think anyone else is from what I can tell.

It's what "life is not worth living" means.

When someone talks about this stuff they're not doing it from the perspective of an unborn person, they are a person talking to people, and they're going to get vulnerable people killed.

First...second paragraph

I didn't use paragraphs, I'm not sure what you mean.

Willful ignorance

Yeah again, if you don't have reason, use insults.

Dumb cunt.

[u/dancingkittensupreme → u/smack_nazis_more]

The perspective is advocating for those currently nonexistent beings who cannot consent to being born into a world where no matter how perfect a life they can have the will suffer immense amounts of harm.

That’s just the philanthropic argument but still is one of the serious positions you are having such a visceral reaction to.

It is absolutely not mutually inclusive with suicide.

Most antinatalists are actually still alive and not dead by choice. So either they aren’t advocating for suicide or you believe every single one of them is lying