/lit/ - Literature

>>4320745
Anti-natalism is just cosmopolitanism throwing a tantrum. For cool cosmopolitanism see pic related.

>>3961957
>stop thinking you need things you don't
>become a master of frugality and live a life of simple pleasures
>live on welfare/disability

>>3531849
>Modern man isn't entirely able to negotiate his specific working hours outside of the usual scope of normal business, unfortunately. If we could work a normal job from 11am - 4pm 3 days a week, I'm sure many people would. Corporate culture dictates this isn't really an option.
That's true, a lot of jobs don't permit working part time. Which is a shame. It's becoming more accepted though. Thanks mothers.

>I'm sure if you tried REALLY hard you could get a job, even if it was manual labour paid in cash.
I already did manual labour. I was still lucky to get the job though and when I was fired they replaced me within a day. There's lots of people striving even for such a job. I'll gladly let them have it.

>Why does the fact that jobs are becoming automated mean it's morally acceptable for you to profit off of the earnings of others while contributing nothing to society? I am legimiately interested in your moral reasoning
Automatisation leads to fewer jobs and higher production. It makes it both harder to get a job and less straining on the economy to mooch. Less labour can support more people. I'm rarely in need of moral justifications myself, but as I said, there is (nearly) always a greater amount of people applying for jobs than there are vacancies. Let's say there's me and four other guys. We're all on welfare but they actually want the job and I don't. Why not let them have it? Would it be more ethical to take it for myself as a less motivated and probably therefore less qualified person? I don't think so.