/lit/ - Literature

>>16208607
>>16207321
Both of you are idiots.
Every single life form, ever since the first once, has only been selected by nature due to its ability to replicate itself. You think a billion years of selective pressure has no influence on the idea that you must procreate? Your body has a trillion hard wired systems to reward you for every tiny little step you take in the direction of having a child. That is the literal, unironic only thing your entire organism was built to do.

It literally just rewards whatever you do that brings you a step closer to passing your genes along, and punishes anything you do that threatens that. It is culture that follows this, and not the other way around.

Dumb people that say having children is the meaning of life are accidentally correct. It is the unique purpose that biological life forms evolved to fulfill.

At the same time. This is, in my opinion, an argument in favor of antinatalism. This is exactly the reason no "natalist" person cna ever come up with a really good reason for having children. It literally isn't necessary. There is no need for you in particular to have one, but you will anyway. And that child might starve, be born with defects, have horrible diseases, whatever the fuck, or maybe live nicely and make the same bet you made one day, but all of you are just doing this for a biological push guided by a bunch of cells and tingles in your brain.

IF YOU WOULD PUT YOUR SICK OLD DOG OR A RUN OVER DEER OUT OF MISERY BUT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND ANTINATALISM YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

Do you read books concurrently, or do you only read one at a time?