/lit/ - Literature

>>10923254
I'm not an antinatalist but it seems the only purpose it has is to absolve themselves of moral blame, not actually reduce the suffering in the world.

haha i didnt read ur post but i dare anyone to name a bigger faggot than peter singer

>>10923254
I like the idea of anti natalism, but it backed by moral prepositions that ultimately lead to its downfall. Due to the stoic, moral,and intelligent character of most anti-natalists, this leads to a libertarian approach where having no kids is a voluntary thing. This leads to antinatalists dying out while the pro natalists live on. The only way for it to work is for an Authoritarian movement to mass sterilize everybody, which I support because I am of Egoist thought.

>>10923254
It's not.

>>10923395
>I have the right to force my meme philosophy on everybody

>>10923372
OP here, I somehow got Benatar and Singer confused, I'm not even that tired. JUST.

>>10923254
I'm sure most people don't like being in pain, suffering, etc. Anti-natalism suggests at least that people should not procreate to prevent the suffering of yet another being (of any species), to simply sterilizing everything forcably for the 'greater good'. It makes sense but it falls apart when you don't care about everyone else suffering

>>10923365
isn’t absolving ourself of moral blame how we collectively stop being shitty?

>>10923410
If I had the power and competence to, then yes, I would have the right to force my meme philosophy on everyone

>>10923424
No that's singer. There no photo of benetar yet

>>10923365
>>10923395
This. It's like veganism, which suffers from a similar dilemma. Choosing to be vegan is the privilege of bougie first worlders overburdened with guilt and does little to get at the root of the problem of animal suffering. Just so with AN's. You can choose not to reproduce and to be morally opposed to reproduction. But guess what, you can't be the volcel police and stop everyone from fucking, and it's an inherently unpopular position so AN will never succeed except in I suppose preventing some depressed and anxious first worlders from passing their mental illness on to the next generation.

>>10923433
Yeah, but with antinatalism, it won't stop other people from doing it. In the end, it only helps themselves not others

>>10923434
No, you don't because its not the same as, say, murder. There is both a massive and a reasonable disagreement around it. You have to prove without a doubt that's it's absolutely. wrong. Until then it should be treated like abortion

>>10923410
Isn't this what governments do every day?

>>10923439
Veganism isn't that unrealistic, from what I understand. E.g. If your goal is to just reduce the number of factories that supply your country with meat or to call for better practices then not buying the corporations' products and encouraging other people to do the same is as effective as a literally who can get.

>>10923452
There is no wrong or right, personally it would please me if all people (except me and a few women) were sterilized, because I like nature and animals.

Going back to my point, if I somehow had the power to do that I would have the right to do it

Might makes right

>>10923455
Yes with things that are obviously wrong and are viewed wrong by everybody. Procreation isn't one of those things.

>>10923463
Ok if you believe procreation in humans is wrong wouldn't the same apply to animals? What makes us different from them?

>>10923429
This is why I call it lofty, all it takes is for a few hundred people(or thousand, I forget) to not give a shit about the potential suffering and anti-natalism falls apart. You need near-complete adherence to the philosophy for the philosophy to do any good.

>>10923470
I don't think its wrong, I just don't like it

People pollute the planet, animals don't

You're misunderstanding that I agree with Anti-Natalists that all beings should stop reproducing because thats just bringing in more beings that will suffer. Notice how I used the word 'should' meaning that there is a moral imperative to end suffering. I don't care about others suffering.

>>10923464
that people don’t think procreation is wrong is their nature. just like it’s the nature of serial killers to skin people alive. the only humane solution to our problems is total thermonuclear war. as Agent Smith said, “the purpose of life, is to end.”

>>10923488
No it's not the same as skinning people alive, its more like abortion or the death penalty where there is a reasonable disagreement about its morality.

I've read some books related to anti-natalist philosophy and explored some internet communities which revolve around such sentiments, and I believe that most people who are enamoured by anti-natalism are depressed. They seem to vehemently believe that "life is suffering" (I agree, somewhat) and that the best course of action would be the cessation of existence. However, they absolutely refuse the idea that the suffering could be overcome in any way. I personally found out about anti-natalism through buddhism when I was having a rough time in life and maybe a bit depressed, but not actively suicidal, and I felt that it made perfect sense. As I dealt with my shit and got better, it sort of dawned on me that existence is, ironically, "not that bad". Exactly like normies according to Ligotti would say. So I guess if every waking hour is mental agony for you, you would sooner or later come to agree that all life is suffering and it would be better to just end it all. The problem is that you lack the balls to kill yourself or your depression is mild enough to not push you over the edge. You try to rationalize it in order to cope with it somehow and this is how you get anti-natalism. Healthy people don't get it because they've never been through the same limbo.

Tl;dr: if you're sane, don't bother with this shit. If you're depressed, get help.

>>10923567
/thread/

>>10923480
>I don't care about others suffering.
18+ website

>>10923470
They same does apply to animals, but for obvious reasons they won't be moved by any amount of arguments and mass sterilizing even a single wild species of mammal isn't feasible in the least.

>>10924463
What about painless omnicide?

>>10923254
>The people who won't be reached by it likely aren't like this.
As long as the more benefited, smarter people in the world have their minds changed for the better, even to the extent of antinatalism

>>10924467
Sure if everyone is cool with it, most people have a strong interest (to put it mildly) in continuing to exist though, antinatalist or not.

>>10923410
>rights
>brendedwojk.jpg

>>10923824
you do not either anon, you all care because you suffer trough others, if you were to stop suffering for others you wouldn't be able to care anymore.

you are not able to care about ants enough to care about their suffering, anon just doesn't care enough about other humans

>>10924471
There's a problem with that, that OP literally talked about. The suffering brought on by these people not having children outweighs the potential suffering of these people having children because in a single generation you'll have a species of dumbasses, if all the smart people stop fucking. If you care about human suffering then you don't want that.

>Antinatalism thread
Sage and report

>>10923436
There is

>>10923570
>tries to discredit arguments by bringing in personalities of people from reddit
You know the way out.

>>10924572
I'm not trying to discredit it I'm backing up his comment with proof

>>10924568
Where? The closest I've seen of him is a blurry clip in a video

>>10924514
>rights shouldn't be factored into the morality of an action

>>10923254
anti-natalism is a rightwing psyop to compound the already low birthrates of cosmopolitan progressives.

>>10923254
>and actively damaging at worst.

Damaging who, exactly?

>would fuck over mankind because shitty people don't subscribe to it.

I suppose you believe in eugenics too

>Given this, why are there still people pushing anti-natalism?

Because if you believe in a moral position or 'reality' (if you disregard any moral position, of course there's no discussion to be had) it posits and explains how creating life is unnecessarily cruel.

>>10924627
>I suppose you believe in eugenics too
?

>>10924612
the less of those fuckers the better, I hope they mass castrate themselves in a cult pact and leave the nations to the wolves

Revolutionary anti-natalism makes sense. Having kids is just throwing them into the grinder to reproduce capitalist relations and suffer in some neoliberal shithole country. We know it's only going to get worse, so why would you submit your offspring to it?
#No kids until socialism desu

Anti-natalism is the only consistent position if you're not a moral nihilist. If you are against torturing and killing living people, then you should obviously be against bringing people into existence who are thereby condemned to torture and death. I'd like to emphasize that life itself is the problem, whether it be human or otherwise. In the unlikely scenario that we manage to orchestrate a peaceful extinction of the human race, it would be our responsibility to eliminate other life on this planet as painlessly as possible. Anti-natalists who only want to end humankind are stupid.

>>10925159
It's funny how hard this is for people to grasp.

http://revelatormagazine.com/fiction/more-dark

>>10925159
>Anti-natalists who only want to end humankind are stupid.
These don't exist. Sentient life is what should not further its existence by procreating. (if you don't think this, you're not an anti-natalist)

>it would be our responsibility to eliminate other life on this planet as painlessly as possible
This view does not correspond with the anti-natalist view held by Benatar, nor any other prominent philosopher in the field, which is why they advocate ceasing to procreate, not killing sentient beings.

>>10925159
Life has a personal value beyond suffering, happiness or preference satisfaction. A thought experiment: rate your personal life suffering, happiness, preference satisfaction and personal life value from 1 to 10. They'll be different right?

>>10925731
you're conflating the antinatalist position with a hedonistic one, when "pleasure" or "satisfaction", "pain/suffering" are mentioned it isn't meant in a hedonistic manner.

>>10924519
>anon just doesn't care enough about other humans
yes, that's why it's very likely that he's an underage edgelord

Childhood is thinking procreation is good
Adolescence is thinking anti-natalism is ideal
Adulthood is realizing that non-white anti-natalism is the final red pill

>>10924627
>Damaging who, exactly
The generation after a hypothetical mass anti-natalism movement. They will largely be without the kind of peers who the types of people who would hold anti-natalist views would spawn.
>I suppose you believe in eugenics too
Personality and intelligence being linked to whose genetics you have, who your peers are, who raised you and how they raised you is just documented fact.
>it posits and explains how creating life is unnecessarily cruel.
If any amount of people above or at the amount needed to prevent us from going extinct still reproduce then everyone who didn't fuck just let the kinda folks who don't know or don't care that creating life is unnecessary suffering set the standard for human conduct and morals through their children. The only way that anti-natalism makes sense is if no one fucks.

That said, while anti-natalism shouldn't be followed it does have some valuable things to say. E.g. Being thoughtful of reproduction which leads to just being a decent fucking parent. You're basically playing god so you damn well better be a good one.

>>10924843

>wanting your kids to live under any kind of Marxism

>>10926017
>Signaling for the millionth time that he knows nothing about Marxism

Since you wont read anything with a positive spin, go watch some Richard Wolff lectures on youtube. Don't speak/write on this again till you understand.

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/166094856