/lit/ - Literature

>>15922518
Read more

>>15922498
>bringing new sentient life into the world without its consent is immoral and selfish
And why is this bad, if it does not cause suffering?

>no good argument was ever put forth as to why existing is prefferable to non-existing
Me existing is a good argument, let alone you

>self-aware existence is unnatural
That's a weak argument. So what if it's unnatural? Not reproducing is unnatural, unless I am misunderstanding his definition of "unnatural."

>we SUFFER because there's nothing else for a self-examining spirit to do locked in the trapping of evolution which programmed us for survival without any goal
Luckily, this evolution boogeyman of yours is not without its foresight; it creates goals for us, or at least the mechanisms to mitigate suffering and create goals (religion, helping others, a state).

> even if we become utilitarians and solve all earthly issues like starvation, sickness, crime, perhaps even defeat death, the inherent suffering of a man won't end.
What with science's "progress," it's not unlikely that we will create a utopia of infinite pleasure. I don't subscribe to this belief, and I don't think that man's inherent suffering is something worth fixing altogether. Every time you use the word "suffer," it's more utilitarianism. And note that this "horrifying" belief of yours is merely based on man's current theories. Many atheists I've seen don't see a mechanistic, naturalistic view of the world as "horrifying," and they are glad to go to "nothing" when they die. Others put their hope in transhumanism, but they'll all die all the same, and then again.

>>15922537
>chad my opinion vs virgin your opinion
Deja vu, next

>>15922552
And yet he would be too impotent to do either.

>are you not responsible to him for all the tears he will shed?
No, that was my mother and father, who both begot me. And their parents, and the parents before them, and so on and so forth until you reach the Big Bang that conceived us all. Of course, you can't blame a force of nature.

>Without you he would never have been born, and why is he born?
>For your amusement, not for his?
My life refutes this. All of these arguments seem to be attacking dysfunctional families and the pessimistic failures they produce.

>>15863473
>Don't pretend that suicide is as easy as pressing a button
I'm not arguing it is, I'm arguing that it's the consequence of your beliefs. Of course, you don't want to commit suicide, so you won't argue for it or try to reach a state of mind and self-mastery in which you can self-terminate.

>Without a compelling and present reason
You define what is compelling. To illustrate this point, I don't see "preventing a child's suffering" as a compelling reason to not reproduce, while you do. You don't see preventing future suffering as a compelling reason to commit suicide, but others do.

>I can and will...
You can talk about the unborn, but don't act as if they exist, or we should act according to their interests, seeing as they don't exist. Even if you manage to convince me that they exist in some pseudo-religious pre-existence, how do you know what they want? You can only presume, you can only approach with "better safe than sorry" in mind, not knowing that sometimes the safe option leads to the most sorries (e.g., most unborn want to exist, but you make the safe choice not to bring them into existence).

>>15863495
The suicide "argument" has less to do with anti-natalism and more to do with the other beliefs that undergird it.

>>15863516
The impression that many ANs in this thread gave me is that they don't love life, they are merely programmed by their biology to remain alive. I don't see begetting someone that will hate being born but love life as a problem. Have at me.

>>15863598
Perhaps he was referring to his general understanding of anti-natalist thought based on the ANs in this thread. Of course, your specific beliefs won't match those of the ANs in the thread.

>>15863583
>I don't believe in anything higher, so the whole thing is moot too
Go figure

>I'm terrified of losing loved ones, which will happen, and in possibly tragic ways
Why are you terrified of this? I'm not terrified of losing my loved ones, though I seek to sustain them.

>I'm terrified of aging
Why? Why do you remain in styles of thought that will only lead to further pain, further fear, further slinking away from this life I am expected to believe you "love." Can't you change the way you think? Haven't any of the books you've read thus far helped you in any way?

I've experienced deaths in the family, too. I'll even experience the death of my mother and father, and I'm real close to them. It will be a tragic affair, but it will transform me. Then, I will stop being a boy and become a man. Doubt me, ridicule me, do what you will, as anyone can do that.

>By nature of being, I'm way too attached to the concept of existing, and this attachment grows stronger with every passing year
Why? There's nothing worth living for. What is this "nature" of yours if not a justification for your current identity, like the drunk, or the slave thinks it's his "nature," or he was "destined" to became what he is.

>>15814544