/lit/ - Literature

? When you reproduce 50% of you lives on and you have the freedom to brainwash it as you see fit, make a rough meat clone of yourself. You can do this over and over until you get it right. And you think becoming immortal like this is a bad thing? I suppose you also oppose owning property or land? Hunting or killing animals? Growing food in a garden?

Fuck is your problem zoomer WiFi scramble your brain during pregnancy? You got no brain?

>>14615981
Which philosopher is this?

>>14615986
Darwin. Careful he was a notorious sexist and racist.

>>14615965
seems it would be trivial to construct an argument based on the evolutionary need to reproduce meaning you won't feel fulfilled without having children.

>>14615992
I don't think Darwin spoke out in favor of reproduction for the sake of brainwashing and cloning yourself and calling it immortality. In fact, I'm pretty sure the mechanism of reproduction and development of offspring he observed was environmental, not parental

>>14615997
I am not sure what you are saying with how you worded this, but there is no such thing as evolutionary need, there is only an observed pattern of generational change due to environmental factors, and I absolutely feel fulfilled and will continue to feel fulfilled without having children, as many have before me.

>>14615965
Read the Bible.

>>14616004
There is not nature vs nurture in Darwinism everything is nature. The distinction is a false one invented by Marxists later possibly as a joke.

Eg. The environment evolved life which continued to adapt as an extension of it. A man is just as much of nature as a mountain or a river or a tree. You only exist as a unique genetic sequence which can continue or be snuffed out depending on successful reproduction. Under Darwinism a 16 year old boy who gets five women pregnant then dies is fitter than ten men who live to be 100. Because time doesn't end in 100 years and reproductive events will continue. Nothing of you will survive except that which you make of yourself. This is a bitter pill to swallow if you hate yourself though.

>>14616069
Yeah, I agree, I'm saying does anyone even try to refute this? Does anyone try to support it? In a /lit/ format I mean. It seems oddly absent. (i.e not e.g btw)

>>14616066
>race, culture, society
I mean, I guess I forgot to add religion, but Bible still fits in these categories

>>14615965
>natalism v. anti-natalism
What about selective natalism?

>>14615965
>to sacrifice one's own individuality, and consequently one's freedom, will
WOW IT'S ALMOST AS IF IN ORDER TO IMPROVE ONES LIFE AND THE SOCIETY IN GENERAL WORK AND SACRIFICE IS REQUIRED?

>>14616116
All artists are failed scientists trying to discover truth in a fiction they have imprisoned themselves in. All scientists are failed artists trying to create something beautiful from ugly truths. Philosophers never engage with each other directly let alone across disciplines. Darwin sits unrefuted and unquestioned as the bedrock of biological sciences, he is gravity. It's there in everything written in the past 150 years.

>>14616133
You're basically making it impossible to recommend anything. What do you want, a mathematical equation that proves it's morally justifiable to be a coomer? You've reduced this thread to nothing but shit posting with your extremely dumb questions. Don't worry about natalism and be satisfied with the fact that we'd all be better off if you did not reproduce.

>>14616148
The truly ascendant Chad would select himself instead of play genetic lottery, and then reproduce only greatness until the world could no longer fit to hold it
>>14616156
it is almost like that. it's not like that, but it's almost like that. there is a complex but definite distinction.
>>14616170
you're gonna have to source me on that, because, and I might be wrong, but it sounds like you pulled all of that out of your own asshole

>>14615981

How would this be relevant for the individual?

>>14616181
I have not received a single recommendation except
>muh Bible
Sorry if I pinpointed a fundamental distinction between reason and social mores but your inability to provide coherent refutation is not my inability to ask legitimate questions. I am well satisfied agreeing that I would be better off if I did not reproduce, but unfortunately many other people actually want me to reproduce, and I am posting this thread to prove that I am justified in my refusal. And I think I have accomplished that.

>>14615965
You /lit/-goers need to understand something;
Just because someone who has made a name for themself, or put their words on paper does not make what they say valuable, nor does it mean that you should seek these type of people for knowledge. You must search for valid knowledge itself.

With natalism vs. anti-natalism (along with any argument really) it is important to start from a completely neutral standpoint.

We can tell life is negative because if you go to a completely neutral point (Doing nothing, lying down, not eating, not drinking water, not relieving yourself.) you will suffer dehydration, boredom, starvation, bed sores, etc. Life is a constant requirement to be maintained or it punishes you. Furthermore none of us consented to this as far as we know. Life is a non-consensual prison on an individual that guarantees suffering. Any person that has stopped to consider while understand that they and everyone around them has experience suffering in their lives. So if you considering creating more humans you implicitly understand that these beings are guaranteed suffering.

From this comes the argument that there are only two types of people/groups/organizations/societies; Those who say suffering is necessary and those who say it is unnecessary.

People in the former category will take an "Ends justify the means stance" saying that yes humans suffer, but this suffering is how we learn and grow. Even if people in latter category were to accept this reasoning, the question then becomes suffering for WHAT; what is the end goal of humanity? What would justify all this pain and sorrow? The only acceptable answer would be the cessation of suffering, which ironically is prevented merely by not creating anything in the first place.

Thus the folly of those in the former is that they delude themselves into thinking that creation is some virtuous act, when in reality it is the highest form of self-service, it is a distraction from their own pain and suffering, a conduit by which they can distract themselves and create an identity apart from a one that knows its end is certain, and that its purpose can only either be meaningless or in service of evil.

Hermes Trismestigus
Plato

>>14616012
This is nonsense, consider your evolutionary need for food or to avoid fire

>>14616272
I agree. I asked for sources because I wanted answers from people who read, hence why I asked /lit/ even though that's not a guarantee (see above). I also asked for sources because I'm pretty sure there aren't any which argue from an individual standpoint, which further proves the point. I already know that natalism is all from people who go to church and hear "be fruitful and multiply" or got to /pol/ and read "why aren't you having white babies anon?" or go along with society and find themselves stuck in nuclear family social spheres that talk about "omg hes still single hes going to be foreveralone he and so and so would make such cute babies" or elite class eugenic economic principles. But yeah I totally agree with you, except maybe your taste in reaction images.
>>14616307
hm ok
>need food to not die or pain
>need to avoid fire to not die or pain
>need babby to... not die or pain?
hmmmmmmm idk anon

>>14616272
Counterargument: kys

>anti-natalists are still SEETHING over Kant

>>14616302
>Hermetics
religion
>Plato
"Plato's Republic, which passes proverbially as an empty ideal, is in essence nothing but an interpretation of the nature of Greek ethical life."
-Hegel
society

>>14616343
and this is why Kant is for people who kant into philosophy lmao

>>14616329
>>need babby to... not die or pain?
It's more like 'need baby to get the happy chemicals'. You can argue against it but you have to admit it's a reasonable idea at least. I assume you don't want to live as a hermit, you desire social contact of some sort, that's another evolutionary need.

>>14616331
Response: Suicide should be recognized as perhaps the wisest, or perhaps the only wise thing to do in this existence.

TL:DR I plan to.

>"life is suffering" arguments

Get over yourself. Something existing is infinitely better than nothing existing from an aesthetic standpoint. Sure, it's not easy, but if you really thought life wasn't worth living, you would have killed yourself by now. Anything else is dishonesty.

>>14616431
Then we are in agreement. This was a fruitful discussion anon, good luck.

>>14616401
it's not reasonable, it's popular. reason is derived from individual thought, not consensus, that's politics. same goes with the stupid meme "humans are social creatures" or the concept of "evolutionary need," which I have already addressed. I would enjoy living as a hermit, I desire no social contact, and find only worthwhile exchanges of language either from those who have the presence and faculty of mind to write well, or with those whose identity I don't need to be afflicted with knowing.

>>14616431
>>14616466
Is this samefagging? Or are you just equal levels of faggot? Check my header dumbfuck(s)

>>14616491
You're proposing a blank slate version of humans that is no more reasonable than what Im proposing, and honestly quite a lot less. It would make humans the only animal that has no evolved predispositions. Granted this is possible but what evidence do you have for it compared to the abundance of evidence that most people want the same sorts of things?

>>14616496
Thread's themes are bullshit, I will talk about whatever I please.

>>14616452
The main 3 things that hold people who have reached this stage back from committing suicide are as follows:

1.) Access to a guaranteed/instant/painless/etc form of suicide. All suicide methods have a chance to fail, will inflict some sort of pain, and will most likely not be instant. The best method I've found is high power firearm shot into the mouth (double-barreled shotgun for example). However even this is not guaranteed to kill you, and may leave you a brain damaged cripple, thus not executing you and leaving you in a far worse form of suffering.

2.) No one knows what lies beyond this existence. Considering all the factors as play, suicide is very probable to be the answer, as all other answers would logically line up with more suffering. I.E. Religions will tell you that the reason this life is filled with evil and suffering is because it is a test to get into "heaven". However if a creator truly cared if we got into "heaven" it merely would have sent us there to begin with, or not created us at all to spare us not only the guarantee of suffering, but also spare us in the knowledge that many of us would not survive the trials and be doomed to more suffering. In fact it could be surmised that this creator being is dependent on the suffering of beings, or at least certain beings, so that if one does not kill themselves and instead endures all of life's suffering, then they will instead be "promoted" to even more suffering in the "afterlife" because this life was a test, a test to make sure you will not choose self-annihilation in the face of great suffering. Thus those who do not kill themselves actually go to hell instead of the other way around. However even this cannot be ascertained because no one knows for certain what lies beyond this life, or even if this life is truly as it seems. All that can be said is that the gaurantee and experience of suffering is real enough that it can be considered "As good as real", for it does not matter if you are being electrocuted or merely have the exact sensation of being electrocuted, it is still negative.

3.) The suicidal person will feel responsible for the suffering of those they leave behind when they kill themselves. This is more a matter of social condition and inherent brain psychology rather than a matter-of-fact reality. As in if those who suffered after the suicide did not want to suffer, they could also kill themselves.

>>14616509
No I'm proposing a version of humans that by sheer force of their faculty of will and ingenuity can upon a blank slate envision a being beyond and greater than themselves yet also derived from the self, and then can strive to become it. This is the apex of writing, an inscribed manifestation of greater man, a means of channeling thought and imagination into concrete form of language by which the mind forms its existence, establishing a template or marker for progression up that endless mountain of progress made possible by freedom of mind. reproduction can only be valid against such a pursuit when it has been exhausted or willfully resigned, surrendered, which I am not sure that it can be in the former or should be in the latter.

>>14616574
How did this sort of human appear in history if not through having evolved and thereby being constrained in its nature, including this desire to create some greater version of itself?

>>14616599
there is no constraint, but you have to understand exactly what freedom means in relation to the individual to understand that any perceived constraints do not diminish freedom, for these would be things fashioned in the past, and will only deals with the future, in which is found true freedom. what you call a constraint is instead a precedent, and precedents are only limits on themselves and those who cling to them.

>"It seems you too have abandoned me. No, it seems rather as though you are gradually forgetting me. But I am happy. I have become pregnant, as I had hoped. I feel as if I had now lost everything. Nevertheless, the little being within me has become the source of my solitary smiles. I cannot possibly think of it in terms of a 'hideous mistake' or anything of the sort. Recently I have come to understand why such things as war, peace, unions, trade, politics exist in the world. I don't suppose you know. That's why you will always be unhappy. I'll tell you why--it is so that women will give birth to healthy babies. From the first I never set much stock by your character or your sense of responsibility. The only thing in my mind was to succeed in the adventure of my wholehearted love. Now that my desire has been fulfilled, there is in my heart the stillness of a marsh in a forest. I think I have won. Even if Mary gives birth to a child who is not her husband's, if she has a shining pride, they become a holy mother and child. I disregarded the old morality with a clear conscience, and I will have as a result the satisfaction of a good baby."

>>14616624
Radical free will in other words, the freedom to create without any input from past states?

>>14616636
>he is my Jesus and I am Mary
that kid is fucked lmao

>>14616624
"There is no constraint, but you have to understand exactly what freedom means in relation to the individual to understand that any perceived constraints do not diminish freedom..."

Patently false at best, lies at worst.

Constraints cannot be anything other than opposition on an individual level. Either a being has the ability to do something or they do not, limiting oneself being the very thing that sets you free is a contradiction.

>>14616662
No, Kazuko is equipped to be a good mother. It's a momentary comparison, not a delusion.

>>14616636
From what source have you transferred this delusion?

>>14616680
"The Setting Sun" by Osamu Dazai. Why is it a delusion? I think it's beautiful.

>>14616645
The derivation is always in the precedent, but it is the manner in which you confront the precedent that defines your freedom. A slave cannot flee his master, that is what makes him a slave. But that inability to flee is in the mind. Slavery is a mentality. That's what makes a master a slave, as well; he cannot flee. The freedom to the past is in the freedom to fly from it, to fly to other pasts, to immerse and enmesh yourself in them that you might acquire growth and knowledge to aid in the synthesis of the future, and then at last fly again as you see around you others who have been bound to these precedent states, ones which were not made for you as a free man. The ability to manipulate the past becomes your freedom within it, for there are many pasts, infinite when you consider the fact that it is continually being generated by every aspect of the present universe. The freedom to the past is not in mutability, it is in mobility.

>>14616666
Opposition is made irrelevant by the infinite and multiplicitous nature of existence. If you find opposition, it is in you, not in the thing which you yourself determined to be in opposition to you. What you call opposition a free man understands as resistance.

>>14616731
Are you not constrained to a specific set of imagined pasts? If not this seems the same act of radical free breakage from one state to a new one that is completely unconstrained

>>14616721
I do not know the full context of what she is saying, for I have not read the book, I am currently switching between these and the passage in question on Google. However what I find to be delusion is not her claim that all of society is built upon the production of healthy offspring, nor that a woman would feel her great calling and victory would be in the production and care of said healthy offspring. It is more so that she sees them in both as "victims of a transitional period in morality." and that this production of offspring is some sort of objective good in a world that is often changing.

She is wrong about being a victim of transitional morality. She is a victim of delusion, as we all are. The suffering that she and her recipient both endure, albeit in different fashions, were always predestined, and they cannot be prevented no matter the resources, the people, or the actions. By creating another life she has merely doomed another being to suffering, albeit may be in a different fashion than hers and her recipients. This is a classic post-action fallacy in which the damage has already been done; the child is born, and killing it would also be an evil in itself, as would keeping it in this world. By labeling its existence an objective good, the mother may not only redeem herself of the ultimate evil of creation, but justify all further actions in the service of the offspring, thus giving her "purpose" that eludes nearly all humans.

I'm very interested on how you think of it?
Is there more context I am missing?

>>14616772
>Are you not constrained to a specific set of imagined pasts?
Not so far. If anything, and yes, this is experiential, as you immerse yourself in the past it opens up exponentially like a root system. It is possible to be more tightly constrained if one dedicates themselves to a specific set of imagined pasts, which is what systems of thought tend to enforce, but it is always possible to go back, and being aware of this hazard allows one to watch out for and avoid committing to any one specific set so as to not have hampered mobility. But it's not inevitable to fall down rabbit holes, it's just the farther down you fall the more difficult it becomes to crawl back out.

>>14616800
>it's not inevitable
I meant it is inevitable

>>14616758
Opposition is not necessarily in oneself, although all beings do possess opposition within themselves. You are taking factors that are beyond the individual, and using the factors within the individual to write them off.

You write about how a person can change the past, a person cannot change the past, they can only change their perception of the past, and the perception of others, this does not change the reality of what was.

You argument seems to boil down to ignorance. "Opposition is made irrelevant by the infinite and multiplicitous nature of existence." You cannot ignore any piece of existence, nor its implications, for if you do not view all pieces simultaneously and their implications, you may find your conclusion is vastly different than what is objective.

I do not believe we will reach agreement however, as you have already stated a sort of "Myth of Sisyphus/Ubermensch" mentality in the face of the "Endless Mountain of Progress"

Am I wrong in assuming you are the type person that would say the struggle itself IS the goal? Or would you say that suffering itself does not exist, that it is merely a symptom of the mind?

This merely all goes back to, either you agree suffering exists; which you most certainly would if you were at the whims of those in this argument (There is some sort of physical, mental, emotional pain or discomfort one could administer to you that you would find intolerable, and would gladly part with on the condition that you merely admit that it is indeed causing you pain). So hypothetically if you then agreed suffering exists, the next question would be, why suffer?

What is your answer?

>>14616800
This is a rather interesting schema, but this is still radical free will, just along a specific path(the branching tree of possible pasts), you're invoking some kind of break between just typical A causes B, even of the probabilistic kind, are you not?

anyone able to be persuaded by mental wankery (with a nice -ism at the end) to abandon life has never been an intellectual to begin with

>>14616815
No because you break from nothing, abandon nothing, hold everything even if it hurts or is difficult to reconcile because you must understand from your experience that it is real and therefore necessary to maintain if a fuller picture of the greater future is to be envisioned and sought, and the meaning of the whole endeavor vanishes completely when you except even the slightest bit from your process. This is similar to the moral problem "If God exists, then all is permitted." Where some people take this to mean nihilistic degeneracy becomes the highest ideal, this instead proposes to take the responsibility for the future as provided by the present and informed by the past as gifts, universal gifts for which we were made by the spirit which, from whoever or wherever or however, we all have access to. It's not about about the freedom for freedom's sake or the will for the will's sake, it's about the all and your relation to it and how that defines your fullest capacity as form meets function, possibility meets purpose, and all is maximally enjoyed.

>>14616452

There is nothing to say that performing the act, killing "myself", would have the intended effect. It is nothing but a mere suggestion of the very world they hate, so they would be right in being skeptical and not doing it.

>>14615981
I subscribe to the genetic inheritance of consciousnesses, it's remeregence - reincarnation through your blood line. It ends whenever specific genetic propagation ceases. This is actually the worst fate for promiscuous people because your anteroidioprimogeniture reemergence, will be destined to lives you did not have any control over. A sad offspring of single mothers, brought up by step-families, simpletons or orphaned. Now imagine your wife leaving you. Just think, the splitting apart of the family unit and inability to exert influence in instilling good habits for your future reemergence in your self, you get nothing, you lose absolutely everything. It's actually better to have no kids at all than to condemn yourself to such a miserable hell to be repeated for ages. Just think of all the copulating conquistadors who had to suffer tens, if not hundreds, of miserable lives since their exploits. Ah! If they had known this was to be their lot, it would have scared them off more than the divine threats of hell itself.

>>14616881
This sounds more or less like your choice is to follow some petty continuation of your own particularity, or to move 'vertically' into acting more and more in accordance with the All(God?). This All is not therefore unconstrained but predetermined, but you have the option to try to fulfill it?

>>14616833
>life=society
yes, of course, a society that has only ever eroded and destroyed life unceasingly from within and without is definitive of a life and all other definitions of life are inferior

>>14616891
You are so close to the reality.
You cannot determine the progression of your offspring or their fates, therefore even if the next iteration would be relatively "good" you do not know the fate of the next, and the next. Furthermore suffering IS guaranteed for ALL iterations. Therefore not reproducing is the superior option. If you truly wish to instill your knowledge or wisdom or legacy upon another, there are plenty of orphans the world over with good enough genes to prove your successor, why not help them and create a new paradigm?

>>14615965
>meaningless from an individual point of view
it's fulfilling. simple as.

>>14616908
not fulfill it, to be a part of it. the fulfillment is inherent in the engaging of process. you seem to be completely misunderstanding all of this, and I am just going to adopt the assumption it is not deliberate.
>petty
the use of this word in this manner is petty
>continuation of your particularity
if you don't understand the concept of the particular's relation to the whole, you have read an insubstantial amount. it's one of the predominant concepts of philosophy and literature in recent history. why you feel need to call it "yours" belies your fundamental misconceptions. find the use of possessives in what I'm say anon, I implore you. nothing belongs to me. possession negates freedom, it is the same conceptual relationship as slave-master.
>'vertically'
movement is not vertical. 3 dimensional space doesn't apply to this kind of movement. the movement is in resolutions of uncertain states. it is a quantum movement.
>not unconstrained but predetermined
okay now I think you might be doing it intentionally. short answer: no, it's in between. if you haven't got it by now you won't, and i'm not suggesting you do. i'm not arguing it as the only way to live, i'm arguing it as a valid way to live. do what you want. this is philosophy, not religion.

>>14616960
You are correct I don't understand what you're saying at all. I can't envision in my head what this 'branching into the past to be part of the All, not constrained by your own past but not radically free either' is. The resolution of quantum states follows a probability distribution, is this what you're saying our actions does?

>>14616779
The recipient of the letter led her on during a period of weakness in which her entire immediate family died around her. Her mother passed of old age and the deprivations of the early occupation period. Her brother, who was already depressed and unwell before he was spirited away to fight in the war, has killed himself. Her family's comfortable existence has been ripped out from under them by the war. She was in a period of absolute loneliness and despair and he took advantage of it to fuck her. Out of loneliness and a sense of having no other option, she goes along with him and tries to love him. He doesn't love her, though. To him, she is just a fuck he has a couple times. She abandons the sense that she has been made an unclean woman by these extraordinary events and takes comfort in the fact that she will give birth to a healthy baby who she can pour all of her love and attention into and do her best to raised into a good, happy adult. I am gnostic and believe the material world is an imperfect and corrupted mirror of the immaterial world of the forms in which God dwells. Because it is corrupt and unclean, we are forced to harm and deprive other living beings simply to consume calories. We are separated from God and God weeps for us. God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent, and is therefore only capable of reaching out into the material through rare miracles, messengers like Jesus and Shakyamuni, at times spiritual guidance of our immaterial souls. When our material bodies die, He is able to save and purify our ascending immaterial souls. He loves all of us as his own children; we are all forgiven and we shall all be purified and guided to what is right in the Pure Land of Heaven. This does not mean that we should kill each other or stop having babies, though. The relationship between Creation and God is the highest filial relationship. To do the right thing is to serve God in this world and to serve God is the highest expression of filial piety. It is our duty to do our best while we are here to make the world a better place, one for which our Father doesn't have to weep for so often. That is the way I see it.

>>14616993
>God is omniscient and omnibenevolent, but not omnipotent
Then he isn't the highest good and therefore not God. Gnosticism is a retarded meme.

>>14616989
a probability distribution is just a representation of a transversal of the all, but the all is just a representation of being. this is where the language starts to break down. because the logical concepts which form even its most basic grammatical structures are inaccurate and often opposite to reality. Idk. I've asked all the same questions you're asking before, and asked them over and over and over and over again, and this is just what I got so far. I still ask your questions sometimes, just not as often anymore. anyway, you were a good sport. thanks for indulging my celibate neet thread. OP out.

>>14616993
I once nearly created a religious very similar to the gnostic ideals.

I stopped once I realized a few things from a text I had found.

It is impossible for any system or being to be 100% perfect, and since nothing can be 100% perfect, the imperfections will slowly grow over time. In my theology before this change in my perspective I too subscribed to a duality of planes; the material and spiritual, the material subject to entropy and decay, and the spiritual the opposite. However this begs the question, why does our realm exist? If god is all-knowing it would have known that this act of creation would cause ultimately pointless suffering, that having beings suffer merely to "save' them is equally if not better served by not creating them at all.

This is a point towards God's omnibenevolence, why does it choose creation? In my theology before my philosophy change, I had reasoned likewise with you that God knew all, but could not influence all, the evil exist outside of its own existence, and that it was trying the best it could with the power it could to set things right. That suffering was necessary for its ultimately goal. That its own suicide in the fact of all existence would create a new form of existence/non-existence that would cause the cessation of suffering. However, this does not make complete sense.

I will spare you all the details, but essentially even if heaven existed as a realm of ever-deeper peace/bliss/happiness/ecstacy/home/etc, it will still reach a "limit" so to speak, where it cannot progress further in the direction. At that point that conclusion is nothingness. So if the end of all things is ultimately nothing, and we are headed that way, the question becomes, how much suffering must we endure to get there? How much suffering are you willing to allow? How much suffering will God?

If you wish to learn some more things, there is a text I would offer to you;

everdeeperhonesty.com


This text is heavily flawed, as all things are. However it speaks more truth than virtually all things I have been taught or consumed to this point. This text is one of my final objectives. I wish to remove a great deal of imperfections from it, and submit it to the populace so those that can make a difference; will.

I have always been a fool, a loser, many things that have made me stray from humanity and its goals, perhaps even my own. However deep in my heart, whether through my tutelage, or genetics, or "soul" I have wanted things to be better. I fear that I am not the man that can make these things happen, in fact, I'm quite certain of it. However I will use whatever I have in my power to assist the one that will.

My end is most likely near, anon, I plan on making a prayer to God, the being I have wept to exist since I was a child, to make sense of this place. I will pray for the children, I will pray for myself, I will pray for everyone. Then I will gamble my life.

>>14617013
I don't agree. If you have ten people in a room and one of them is the most good in the room, does that necessarily mean they are the most powerful? You are free to accuse me of whatever you like and believe whatever you wish, but I know I have faith in God. That is one of the very few things I know.

>>14617013
but what is god was merely an impersonal entity. one that didn't think or reason but is simply the force that contains everything. everything is random chaos that leads to many possibilities. and the sheer vastness of this force means even very unlikely outcomes can become manifest.
there is no good and evil only possibilities. one such possibility is our reality. and even though pain is at the center of our existence this wasn't intentional it was merely a possibility that manifested. unfortunate for us but hey, shit happens.

>>14617060
why do you have to gamble your life ?

>>14617038
alright have a good one

>>14617060
>If god is all-knowing it would have known that this act of creation...
I believe God did not make this world to be one of pointless suffering, but rather that it was corrupted by something that arose after the Creation. Something very powerful that concealed itself from God.
>essentially if heaven existed as a realm of ever-deeper peace/bliss/happiness/ecstasy/home/etc, it will still reach a limit where it cannot progress further in the direction
I don't think I agree. I believe that the Pure Land is either the end (hard stop), or that our souls will perhaps go back into the flow of things.
>everdeeperhonesty
I will check it out!
>My end is most likely near, anon, I plan on making a prayer to God, the being I have wept to exist since I was a child, to make sense of this place. I will pray for the children, I will pray for myself, I will pray for everyone. Then I will gamble my life.
This seems a bit melodramatic. I don't think you should "gamble your life" if that means what I think it means. You should take a nap. When you wake up, go outside and do a good deed. It will help you to feel better. That's God inside of you.

>>14617107
I believe that killing oneself may not be the correct answer. I also believe that living without regard to this suffering is also not correct.

So I will take everything I have and then some and gamble it, therefore placing myself into a position where my life is actually worthless monetarily speaking than my death. The resulting sadness and self-hate will fuel my ability to commit suicide. More importantly however, the outcome of the gamble will be decided by an extremely small, but very random outcome of action that if god had any sort of meaningful power in our world, could influence. So in essence I will be leaving my fate and destiny in the hands of whatever one may call "God"

>>14617119
1) If God knew everything, then it would have known that said corruption would happen.

2)The Pure Land cannot be the end, for all things continue to change, or at the very least this pure land would then be vastly difference in terms of the material plane (I.E. Completely static) however if the Pure Land is absolutely static in nature, how is it different from nothingness (Completely static)?

3) Appreciate it

4)I try my best to be calm in the face of the world, and to be helpful in my small way, but I also recognize the potentials my life holds, and what they can mean for others. Ultimately I must take responsibility for my life, for good or for bad, and make the best possible decision I can for both my body and my soul.

>>14617149
I cannot stop you from doing what you say, but I would ask that you at least try what I suggested just I have resolved to try on the ideas on your website. Rest; take a nap and have a "soft reboot." Then, when you get up, go outside and do some good deeds like volunteering at a charitable place like a food bank or the local library, or buying food for a homeless person. I think it will help you.

>>14617168
If my gamble is successful I already have what I consider to be a good idea on how to help the world as much as I can. Thank you.

>>14616215
you are a dividual (half your mother, half your father). this division occurs all the time in your body when the cells divide to keep you alive. the division continues when you have sex and do the pregnancy.

>>14616272
>durr, I want to be selfish and never have any responsibilities
>kids obviously require a bit of responsibility
>I know, I'll say everyone else is selfish, not me, I'm the good guy

>my parents are assholes, I wish I was never born, that'd show them
>I stubbed my toe, ow, why must I live this horrible life?!
>No-one should ever be born 'cause they'll get owies too
Anti natalists never grew up and just try to justify their narcissism.
Kids are great, they are their own reward. To see them grow up and you teach them about life and help them with their struggles is very rewarding.
Also, you gain a lot of wisdom from the experience. Have you ever had to think of a way to explain a concept so a 4 year old can understand it? If you can't find a way, you don't understand that concept.

>>14616012
How old are you?

>>14616666
>throw boards in a pile
>"the constraints of a blue print don't give me freedom"
Fucking retard, these "constraints" allow you to do something useful instead of being blown around every which way.

>>14616909
Now I know you're a 3edgy5me lord faggit, saged.

>>14619794
Anti-natalist doesn't imply hedonism. Personally I think this world is a freakish hellscape at times and it makes me paranoid and anxious that anyone would want to bring children into it. That's about the only reason I have for siding more with anti-natalism.
The alternative is to cleanse the earth but it seems more and more like that won't happen. The best thing to do is to raise a generation of militaristic ubermensch chads who don't give a fuck about hell and will fight fearlessly to make a golden planet.

>>14619933
>t. 14 year old "woe is me" lord

>>14619957
yes

>>14615965
So a child may experience the joy's of a parents love, where in thousands go without food and care, and often know only mistreatment.

>>14619933
>freakish hellscape
i bet your room definitely is sweaty

>>14615965
>From an individual standpoint
If you like kids you find a cute gf and you cum inside her pussy, if.you don't you cum on her face SIMPLE

>>14618539

What is your first hand experience of any of this shit?

>>14620925
>first hand experience

what? my gf sneaked me into the lab she interned in during her post-grad for some late night sex and she showed me cell division under a microscope, also she was doing IVF stuff for chickens i think or maybe rats. beyond actually 'seeing' it what else do you count as first hand experience?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TplrVWRFV8E

are you saying this is faked somehow? that sex doesn't produce children and that entire process is a sham? those are some wild ass claims pendejo. you can measure dna now, they have tests for it. new people are combinations of old people.

Natalist retards will inherit this garbage ball planet because genes are everything and nothing surpasses them. Even the genetically unfit are capable of great achievements requiring no exact genetic traits. Can a man born without hands, because of a genetic defect, still paint well without them? Yes, for he may learn to use his feet. And it has been done before.

>>14620989

As far as your individual incentive to reproduce, as the OP asked.

>>14619842
The Blueprints KNOWLEDGE is what gives freedom, not its RESTRAINTS.

For example if you had the knowledge of the blueprint you could construct the thing spoken of, however you could also construct many things within the purview of the materials being used. When you dedicate yourself to the blueprint, you gain KNOWLEDGE which gives you the ability to build said thing, however if you restrain yourself to only what the blueprint tells you to build, then you lower your choices to only one.

Also;
"Fucking retard"
Stay seething

>>14619794
I plan on adopting.
Am I still as selfish as you say?

You seem to assume a lot.

>>14617069
>If you have ten people in a room and one of them is the most good in the room, does that necessarily mean they are the most powerful
We are talking about the highest good, not the most good. Big difference.
>but I know I have faith in God
You have a 5 year old's understanding of God.

>>14621137
>individual incentive to reproduce
you're a human being you can resist urges. wtf are you even asking? there is an innate urge to fuck, and if you want you can suppress it or render the sex sterile. incentive? living things want to live and reproduce, it's axiomatic.

>>14619840
30ish, hence pressures to reproduce
>>14619864
oh fuck he figured it out guys RUN
>trenchcoat and fedora collapses to floor as hundreds of tiny sticks flee into the nearby gutter drain

>>14622275
just do what everyone else does and say you are sterile and cannot afford an adoption.

>>14616813
>Opposition is not necessarily in oneself
define opposition, and I will logically prove to you how it is necessarily in oneself
>You write about how a person can change the past, a person cannot change the past, they can only change their perception of the past, and the perception of others, this does not change the reality of what was
It literally does, just not in the way you think, because of the stagnant maladaptive nature of an oppositional mindset
>You argument seems to boil down to ignorance
In a sense, yes, but not passive ignorance; willful ignorance. I cannot ignore any piece of existence, true, but I can ignore the meaning which it presents to me if it presents no satisfying outcomes, such as opposition. Ignoring false dichotomies or no-win situations is essential for growth, even if it appears that they are immutable.
>the type of person that would say the struggle IS the goal
I am the type of person who thinks that the goal is being human. Which means the goal was met at the beginning, it is continually being met as it faces struggle, and it will be met when it finds satisfaction. I do not see the point in striving for something greater when you are already the greatest motherfucking thing in existence, the hands-down supreme being of the observable world, a goddamn hotblooded free-minded fuck you to death motherfucking human being. I see people giving up their humanity left and right in exchange for pittance and confusion and decay, and that's just not going to be me, because I know how great this absurd, inexplicable, uncomfortable, difficult, beautiful, persistent, unpredictable, majestic thing is. The point I have found in suffering is that, when survived, it makes you suffer less when you confront those same circumstances. It makes you stronger. I don't like it, I try to avoid it and run from it when I feel like it is overtaking me, but I would never sacrifice my freedom as a human being to it.
>>14622332
Then they would try to shack me up with a single mother trust me these people are wily and persistent. At the core of it what they really want is for me to have "responsibility," which I have found out actually means "confinement" because they hate that I'm not like them. I am actually not against having kids, but in my situation doing so would mean letting these assholes bog me down. I mean, really, its some really involved shit. If I can manage to gain a significant degree of financial independence I could consider it, but its very unlikely, so my best bet is innawoods4lyf.

>>14622384
>>14616813
>fuck you to death
just want to clarify, I meant like a fuck-you to Death, not fuck (you) to death

life is equal parts suffering and bliss. just because there's more suffering doesn't mean it's valued more than the precious little happiness we get.

anti natalists wish to cease suffering, but by wishing to cease suffering you also cease joy.

suicide is always an option, we always have a choice, yet we keep on living. i wonder why, if life is something to be avoided. death cultists don't actually want to die, they just want to deny life to others.

>>14622470
>they just want to deny life to others
Thats so fucking good.

These threads give me a sense that every natalist on /lit/ has never truly suffered an actual day in their lives.

>>14615965
Literally any reputable biologist and all biology textbooks
>>14616148
No because one should strive to preserve one’s own genetic material above others regardless of any objective advantages or disadvantages

>>14624584
haha keep going

>>14615965
Hypernatalism is the only to bring about the future. We need to prepare the earth to accommodate ~ at least ~ 50 billion to create enough industry (with the complexities involved) to support the first truly intrasolar supply chains.
See tesla's "problem of increasing human energy" for a very early perspective on this.

We're a bit too far off from general AI (which has a lot of hairyness of the "humans are irrelevant now" variety), and technology gets exponentially more complicated; to increase the number of outliers pushing it forward linearly, we need exponential growth, to say nothing of how many worker bees are needed in the rube-golbergian supply chains of tomorrow.

Dicks out lads.

>>14625398
That's cool, just make sure you keep track of that net terminal gene