/lit/ - Literature

>>15314801
>If u don't see the valu of lif u r dumb lmao

There are other ways to contribute to life than just creating life itself. Inheritances are always left behind even if there isn't a direct heir

>>15314801
Not necessarily true, OP. See, it's my understanding that Nietzsche would support antinatalism since only the weakest castes of society would even consider not raising children. Those that are strong implicitly know the importance of passing on their offspring. How else might we reach the overman? The lowest of society, the mob, the superfluous, only stand in our way

>>15315745
Keep coping, incel.

>>15314801
>le meaningless aphorism that offers no argument, just incel rage
Neetshit in the nutshell

https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html

> Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.

> Yet how should rational moral agents behave if - hypothetically - some variant of Benatar's diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?

> In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness - and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence - is not vainly to champion life's eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding - indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.

>>15315823
The most bugman thing I've read all day.