/lit/ - Literature

Natalistfags still can't refute this. Literally impossible.

Is antinatalism just secular buddhism? Both try to end the cycle of rebirth and suffering, it's just that the former does so in a scientifically sound way without pajeet magical baggage.

What are some good antinatalist works beside pic related?

If you're okay with procreation you should be okay with rape since you think that forcing experiences on people without their consent is acceptable behaviour.

What is the meaning of life, in the sense of telos of life, that meaning that existentialists and nihilists have raved on about? The key is to break down 'teleology' itself and what it studies and to go to the etymology ('true meaning') of it. Teleology is the study of "ends", "purposes", "goals", "design". The two most relevant etymologies are to be studied in "purpose" and "design", purpose from old French "purposer" (to put forth), design from Latin "designo" (to mark), estimate from Latin aestimo (to estimate), end from Proto-Germanic "*andijaz". And so the general sense is life is God, the universe or whatever cosmic entity you appeal to, calculating, marking, estimating, proposing, which all are very literary/numerary actions. In particular, "proposing" relates to the universe as if it were making a business proposition. "In the beginning, was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God."

So then, what is the near-objective telos of life in one sentence, without that emotional seeking of "why, why, why, for what purpose"? The telos of life quite simply, is that the Universe refuses to just shut the fuck up.

Favorite pessimistic literature.

"Whether or not one accepts the pessimistic view I have presented of ordinary healthy life, the optimist is surely on very weak ground when one considers the amout of unequivocal suffering the world contains. (I shall focus here only on human suffering, but the picture becomes still more obscene when we consider the uffering of the trilions of animals who share our planet - including the bilions who are brought into existence each year, only to be maltreated and killed for human consumption or other use.) Consider first, natural disasters. More than fifteen milion people are thought to have died from such disasters in the last 1,000 years. [...] Approximately 20,000 people die every day from hunge. An estimated 840 milion people suffer from hunger and malnutrition without dying from it. That is a sizeable proportion of the approximately 6.3 bilion people who currently live."
And there is more obviously. How can you say that suffering is always positive?