/lit/ - Literature

>>20872299
I wasn't the anon you were talking to but it's perfectly logical that you can't "gamble" with that which doesn't exist. All of your arguments boil down to a gay little cope whining about pain. Creation of anything, whether it's a human life or another object always has a post-hoc "risk" associated with it. If your main argument is against the systems which force us to live with the waste that comes out of this process (i.e. in most cases, people who should have died in childbirth), then your problem isn't with reproduction itself but the dysgenic, wasteful, and unethical system of values that we attach to the process. I'm not an optimist, I do believe that all life is ultimately tragic from an aesthetic human perspective. Emphasis on the human part however. It's ironic because you claim to be an objective and unbiased arbiter of the "universe" yet with your denial of anything above us you inevitably set yourself up to have an anthropocentric and myopic view of what you consider objective and thereby sever yourself from the full picture of reality.
You create your own hell. And in this hell, there is no point for you of being right or winning this debate anyway.