/lit/ - Literature

>>17070466
To the dogmatist his dogma is irrefutable, yes.

Concerning anti-natalism I ask you: why wait anon? Why let time do it for you? Why not one last act of bravery to inspire millions and give your life atleast a semblance of impact?

>>17070466
yes
>>17070474
see pic related; you aren't engaging with the actual argument

"The Last Messiah" is a 1933 essay by the Norwegian philosopher Peter Wessel Zapffe.

>>17070486
That isn't an argument. That's a post hoc bald assertion that doesn't follow from the premise based in cowardice and hypocrisy.

>>17070486
Not the anon you responded to

But that snippet doesn't really refute >>17070474

>>17070466

Never seen an antinatalist argument that didn't rely on blindly accepted premises. Antinatalists simply act as if these were unassailable facts that couldn't be simply refused straight up.

>>17070486
No I get that argument. I get that it's fundamental to anti-natalism. But it begs the question, like with every other nihilist or life-denying philosophy, why keep living at all? Why continue to inflict so much suffering on yourself when the sweet embrace of death awaits? To prove how big your balls are or something?
Honestly tell me. I want to understand.

>>17070466
No, antinatalists refute themselves by refusing to kill themselves. If life was truly endless suffering and was truly worthless in the end, they wouldn't hesitate.

>>17070491
kino

>The tragedy of a species becoming unfit for life by overevolving one ability is not confined to humankind. Thus it is thought, for instance, that certain deer in paleontological times succumbed as they acquired overly-heavy horns. The mutations must be considered blind, they work, are thrown forth, without any contact of interest with their environment.

>In depressive states, the mind may be seen in the image of such an antler, in all its fantastic splendour pinning its bearer to the ground.
>>17070466
Yes.

>>17070486

Correlation between belief and action demands that a worldview as far reaching in consequences as antinatalism would lead to as far reaching consequences in real life. If you believe life is immoral in principle, it is perfectly reasonable to ask you why you do not act against life.

>>17070466
I was reading that last night
based 10/10 irrefutable transcendental truth
we're the unlucky ones among all possible worlds to be cursed with the certainty of death

>>17070517
and you refute yourself by telling antinatalists to kill themselves

>>17070535

I dont pretend that all life has value.
Yours doesnt'. Mine does.
See?

>>17070535
How? He just sounds like a pragmatist

>>17070505
Anti-natalists engage pls

>>17070535
Elaborate

>>17070544
why you don't value my life?

>>17070549
by telling other people to kill themselves as a life affirmer

>>17070505
Not him but killing yourself, or dying, is very different from never being born. Dying can involve a lot of fear, pain, worry about loved ones and so on. Not being born doesn't involve any suffering while killing yourself does. Antinatalists don't claim that dying is better than living, but that never being brought into life at all is better than living.

>>17070573
>as a life affirmer
The idiot is you if you didn't know that life feeds on life by necessity. The death of a man leads to remembrance, contemplation, sorrow and, through the overcoming of sorrow, the attainment of greater meaning and more intimate connection.

>>17070505
because death is scarier than life

Anti-natalism only makes sense if you think no one should ever have to suffer. Any able-minded person can see that this is completely stupid.

>>17070523
Should I read anything else by him? Last Messiah covers more ground then The Denial of Death in a few short paragraphs. The man was a genius

>>17070492
>>17070500
>>17070505
>>17070532
The premise is "it would be better never to have been born." The premise is not "it would be better, now that we are born, to kill ourselves." If you cant tell the difference between these premises, you are too low IQ to engage on this subject, because you cant understand what the subject actually is.

Irrefutable how? Logically? Morally? Ethically? The answer to all of them is no, it’s refutable but whether you choose to engage in it anyway or accept it’s refutability is ultimately an act of free will.

>>17070575
>>17070588
>>17070603
Is it inaccurate to say that fundamentally speaking the claim boils down to non-existence>existence?

>>17070585
what you are really trying to say?

>>17070590
Why?

I used to be a natalist. Then I had my third kid.

>>17070624
Why what?

>>17070615
As long as existence involves suffering it's about right.

>>17070615
more like consciousness < (existence or nonexistence who cares, we're not conscious anyway)

>>17070623
It seems like nothing more than castrated whining to call all life not just worthless but evil, and then never do anything to end that evil

>>17070466
All opinions essentially are.

>>17070591
I think most of his shit isn't even available in translation yet.
his writing on deep ecology would be interesting because he is considered a pioneer thinker in that field.

>>17070635
>we're not conscious
You're an actual sad clown

>>17070632
Okay so then since this whole argument is about the total amount of suffering experienced by all living beings, surely the ideal solution MUST BE for everyone to commit suicide. Since there is no existence without suffering.

>>17070603
Why would it be better not to be born? Suffering?

Why not just kill yourself?

See how we're going to go in circles here

>>17070573
>by telling other people to kill themselves as a life affirmer
I do not tell others to kill themselves, I ask why those who believe life to be worthless don't kill themselves.

I am not telling you to kill yourself, in fact, I know that even if I do you won't. I affirm life by showing you that you won't kill yourself.

>>17070466
Go kill yourself

>>17070636
I am doing my part by not bringing more sentient sinister meat puppets into in this shithole of a planet.
my shoulders are too weak to carry the weight of history. in this world nothing ever solved.

>>17070466
No, because of the 99.999999946% of women who will definitely outbreed them. It doesn't matter what is better to have never been or that. Antinatalism is cope until they recognize females as the primary existential threat and act on it, and they just won't.

There is no valid argument for naturalism that does not involve implicit hedonism. The human race cannot transcend the situation it is on. Your only argument could be the joy of gives one to be a parent. I am almost completely removed from life, emotionally. I will pretend things are good until I die, for the benefit of weaker minds. But here I tell the truth. The human race isn't going anywhere. There is no end goal and there is no afterlife. Having children is irrelevant. The final answer is "do whatever you want" neither of you has a provable argument

>>17070573
>why you don't value my life?

Because I don't know you. As far as I'm concerned your existence is limited to the production of the text published on this site, and that's it. I have no emotional connection to the individual components of the "community" made by this board.
My cat is worth more to me than you can ever hope to. A random passerby I see in the street is potentially worth more by pure physical proximity and the possibility of my empathy engaging.
*I* don't value your life. But *you* should, and you are absolutely retarded to argue otherwise.

>>17070687
The final answer should be "do what makes you happy" not "do whatever you want"

>>17070678
See it's more bitchboi whining.
>The struggle alone is enough to fill a man's heart
And your lot would give that up because you fail to attain happiness. Yet I, in my schizo-mysticism, am not just overcoming my apathy and depression, I am regaining emotions so deep and beautiful I never thought it possible to feel such bliss through rage or sorrow.

Cuz in the end it really is just a subjective matter, innit?

>>17070678
>I do my part by doing nothing

>>17070649
No, the solution is for us to die out by not reproducing. As I told you, killing yourself may be a worse option than just living on until you die.

>>17070697
No it should be "do whatever fills you with passion"

>>17070708
That's the same thing

>>17070706
Why would that be if the endpoint is null and void through both means?

>>17070659
>I affirm life by showing you that you won't kill yourself.
then please and don't betray you position by adding more fuel to fire. you actually know how hard it is to answer that question.

pic related is an elaborated answer to your question. if you really need answer.

>>17070712
It's the same thing as "do what you want" bro. Because all men want is happiness.

Do what thou wilt, love under will
That kinda jazz

>>17070693
rude

>>17070697
>>17070708
well, you might think having a kid will make you happy, or getting your balls disconnected from your hole. but the fact is neither will make you happy, because happiness is an impossible goal. so i say do what you want, which you will do anyways - using whatever philosophic rationalization you might require

>>17070732
I guess it depends on how you measure "happiness" for me its a full life with ups and downs, love and passions, failures and success. That whole thing.

I don't mean it in the sense of walking around with a smile on your face.

>>17070732
>happiness is an impossible goal
Only it's not an you would know that if you ever took up meditation. Continue wallowing in your misery, I will continue following my own philosophy :)

I wonder anon, can you even type out a smiling emoticon without feeling like a fraud?

>>17070700
I feel blissful all the time. in fact my internal monologue is completely different to my philosophy.
but nothing really fill the abyss of loneliness and all the pain in the world and of the world.

>>17070705
yes, I am ashamed of my weakness.

>>17070714
Because the endpoint is not all that matters. If it was, antinatalists wouldn't be against bringing people into existence, since they would eventually be brought out of it again. I'm not sure if antinatalists have much of an opinion on what existing individuals should do at all, except not bring more people into it.

>>17070776
>I feel blissful all the time
Yet pain and suffering even more? How come?

Antinatalism is thinly veiled religious fundamentalism. It's hard to call it philosophy.

>>17070717

> But anon, if we don't pursue the chain of life, we can't ever hope to have one of us defeat the Demiurge, accumulate all the Emanations like so many dragonballs and ascend to Godhood , to only then retroactively erase all forms of suffering from every potential timeline. And if we quit right now we have all the past sufferings on our hands!!!

Once again, my sophisticated synthesis of pseud-ism and Gnosticism is unbeatable.

>>17070786
one thing is every new pleasure you experience is another pleasure you will be spent wanting when you do not have it. the second is the amount of sugar you eaten before eating a chilli is directly proportional to the brutality of chilli's painful hotness.

Doing drugs is a legitimate life decision. The only problem is losing control of your habits and then not optimizing hedonism in the long-term. It's embarrassing and in inconveniencing to others. Same with having a kid. It's an incredible challenge. If you fail, you've robbed someone of a childhood and possibly their entire life. It's an extremely high-pressure mode to play in. Some don't realize what they signed up for. It is unfortunate that those who question the value of existence itself are usually the best parents. People who take the creation of life lightly are unlikely to meet their full potential as parents.


Basically if you're against factory farming for moral reasons you should be against human reproduction as well, under current conditions.
THE primary disconnect here is that people do not acknowledge the domesticated sapien as livestock. It certainly is livestock, but acknowledgement is bad for business. So, make them think life is good. Encourage the healthy to breed. discourage the troublemakers. No matter what you do, antinatalists lose. Thru don't even want you to breed. You're too dysfunctional. You're hurting productivity with your weird behavior. luckily you will willing choose to go extinct. no conflict. the system marches on. your sacrifice will mean absolutely nothing. one less baby from you makes room for one more from someone else. resources are limited.

>>17070823
>we can't ever hope to have one of us defeat the Demiurge
the only argument for the preservation of life is that we will eventually turn into some gene edited monsters, then space faring machines, then some kind of universal super intelligence that discovers how to avoid universal heat death.
is that the same as what you are talking about?

>>17070826
So then don't eat chillis???
>every new pleasure you experience is another pleasure you will be spent wanting when you do not have it
This is negated by discipline, which is a trait anyone can acquire.

Honestly I think you people just need a sincere heart-felt hug or three. You can cry on my shoulder if you want, I don't mind. Infact I would cherish the honour.

>>17070776
>believes life should be prevented
>too weak to prevent lives of others
>weaker still to end own life
>too weak to do anything at all in support of beliefs

You're a shell of a man, you believe in nothing.

>>17070714
Not who you're replying to, but isn't humanity's inevitable endpoint going to be null and void? No matter how many brats we sire and no matter if we endure for tens of millions of years...homo sapiens has a finite shelf life.

>>17070761
hmm yeah good point. i am mentally well, compared to most people. I am slightly ahedonic but I think it's due to experience not depression.
my state is approaching "lack of want" type happiness. but as an argument for natalism it doesn't seem adequate. it's more like a cope for how painful life could be

>>17070771
meditation is mental auto-fellatio. I've had the real thing and at some point you get sick of the taste

>>17070874
Sure, assuming that the soul isn't real and/or immortal. But such is life.
>the king is dead; long live the king
And humanity not only has had a pretty good run so far, we're the unopposed apex predator on this planet. Which is breddy fuggen cool desu

>>17070882
>mental auto-fellatio
Atheistic "meditation" is not the same as actual meditation. Just like california wine-mom stretching is not yoga.
>the real thing
Do pray tell what

>>17070858
>So then don't eat chillis???
bold of you to assume life care about muh feeling.
have you ever been outside anon? have seen the way people behave when their mask comes off? have you ever seen how disgustingly we treat each other?

>>17070863
>you believe in nothing.
amen to vanity and tears brother

Help me, I don't want to be an anti-natalist but it seems like such a no brainer to me. Of course not existing is better than existing - existing involves suffering which is bad, not existing involves missing out on happiness but if you don't exist you won't miss it so it's completely neutral. I guess this is because I don't see anything inherently valuable in living beside the happiness we may experience.

>>17070854
>the only argument for the preservation of life is that we will eventually turn into some gene edited monsters, then space faring machines, then some kind of universal super intelligence that discovers how to avoid universal heat death.
>is that the same as what you are talking about?

Well, once we manage to freely move into the 4th to 13th dimension, I don't know how much universal heat death will matter, but let's say you are going in the right direction... about 3~4 steps and then stop moving...? What I suggest would make us immune to time itself.

>>17070905
There is no counter argument. People will just say "y not kill self LOL" because they're too low-IQ to understand what you said, or they know you're right and it gives them cognitive dissonance.

>>17070905
>I guess this is because I don't see anything inherently valuable in living beside the happiness we may experience.

Well, I would say that's not necessarily wrong, but that it is also possible to be happy without feeling a constant euphoria, that contentment, peace and contemplation can be, to a certain mind, perfectly sufficient to happiness.

>>17070897
>have you ever been outside anon? have seen the way people behave when their mask comes off? have you ever seen how disgustingly we treat each other?

So *you* take off your mask and reveal your miserable self. Why bother argue with someone's view when it is so clearly informed by their psychological defects?

>>17070466
God this book is such midwit cringe. If you’re smart enough to think yourself into not having children but not smart enough to think yourself out of this bloodline ending hole then you’re line probably should end with you. It’s such a weak philosophy. It’s like pacifism.

>>17070897
>have you ever been outside anon
I am boy scout who's spent literal weeks living in forests, so yes lol.
>how people behave when their masks come off
The only person I really ever felt betrayed by in that way is my mother, but that's complicated business having to do with gaslighting and even less savoury things I don't care to mention right now. Everyone else, as faulty and petty as they are, are quite alright in my book. None so good that he is without fault. None so evil that he is worth naught.
>how disgustingly we treat each other
I could say that's part of the predatory life we have inherited from our ancestors, but it would be a simplistic answer. Instead I tell you the following: I have lied to people (a lot), in most cases out of pure shame at my circumstances, yet too often simply to evade punishment. I have stolen, I have killed ants and other insects that by all accounts didn't "deserve" it other than by mere virtue of having been in my room and line of sight. I have not given to homeless people when I could afford it. However, I have also done the opposite. I have let lies slide, I have let thieves go unpunished, and I have endured senseless bullying in my childhood. I am not a saint surely, but I am not evil either. And I know not of a single man who is truly evil. Ultimately what drives me is the will to power, and trust me when I tell you there is little on this earth that is as intoxicating yet simultaneously stabilizing as power.

Truth exists, love exists, beauty exists. Free will is real, and meaning is real. They exist and are attainable.

>>17070922
Logically I'm buying it but emotionally I just can't get behind it. Maybe I'm just trying to cope.
>>17070940
I don't think that matters for the argument though.

>>17070975
>If you’re smart enough to think yourself into not having children but not smart enough to think yourself out of this bloodline ending hole then you’re line probably should end with you.
What? Are you saying we should not have kids but still continue our bloodline somehow?

>>17070466
Someday my many descendants will read about this monstrous ideology of "antinatalism", a relic of the distant past that was refuted by the utter failure of any of its practitioners to reproduce and pass their sick mind virus on to their children. A coterie of hopeless losers who have given up on any chance of ever being loved or admired, and are thus willing to settle for invoking revulsion, so desperate are they to have any emotional impact on other human beings.

>>17071011
No I’m saying that if you’re only smart enough to convince yourself of anti-natalism, but not smart enough to push through it to the other side, then your bloodline probably should end with you.

>>17071028
The simple fact is this: I don't need to "refute" your edgy teenage ranting, I'm just going to continue donating to sperm banks and creampieing my wife.

>>17071034
>but not smart enough to push through it to the other side
What does this mean?

>>17070985
>I don't think that matters for the argument though.

I don't see how it doesn't...?
The argument rests on the (fairly natural) intuition that there is an ontological inadequacy between happiness and suffering, that no amount of the first can compensate for the second. This is, in appearance, correct, because it relies on assumptions which are shared by our natural attitude. Once suspended, you can submit the objects of the debate (happiness and suffering) to Free Variation, which reveals that (at least to me, but this is implied by any phenomenological reduction) this ontological inadequacy is in fact much more subtle than implied by any antinatalist argument. Existence is suffering when it is put to the question, otherwise to the restive mind, the contemplative or the laborious one, existence is infinitely more neutral than what any existentialist text can express (because again existentialist thought is thought *itself* suffering).

>dude do you have clinical depression
>nah I just don't enjoy life or anything in it and I long for death but I'm too cowardly to kill myself
>...oh you're an antinatalist that's so cool

>>17070983
>Truth exists, love exists, beauty exists
I have seen it all. everything is decaying and wrapped up in pain and death.
you are a lovely person anon. but I have my sorry reasons for my pessimism that I don't want to go into the details.

>>17071044
There are, in my opinion and experience, a number of philosophies that most reasonably intelligent people will wander into at various points in their lives. These sort of philosophical "holes" require less intelligence to fall into than they do to climb out. I personally believe anti-natalism is one of these philosophical holes.

>>17070590
T.bugman

>>17071057
I'm sorry but I don't understand this.

>>17070603
>The premise is "it would be better never to have been born."
This fucking meme is epistemologically unsound. How do you warrant this claim? Why is it "better"? You don't know this, it's a baseless assumption. It might as well be worse. 'Never having been born' is an unknown.

>>17071084
And what kind of philosophy do you think one would use to climb out of anti-natalism?

>>17071105
I think any variant of either emotional-power or life-affirmation would do. You could also move (backwards IMO) and return to any number of religions but with a more intellectual approach to faith. A number of philosophers have returned to faith at points in their lives.

>>17071104
>it's a baseless assumption
what do you remember before your birth?

>>17071116
I just don't see with what arguments you could move over to those. But whatever, thank you for explaining it.

>>17071131
Any Nietzschean will-to-power would do.

>>17071157
Nietzsche himself was technically an antinatalist

>>17070631
Why is it stupid to you that no one should ever have to suffer?

>>17071127
I don't remember much from being newborn either - doesn't mean I wasn't at one point.

This thread is super interesting but I want to hear more from this guy>>17070681

>>17071157
Nietzsche was influenced by the philosphies of Schopenhauer and Mainländer, both antinatalists

>>17071222
you have evidence from your parents, relatives, hospital records, photos etc. w
hat evidence do you have of your existence before your birth?

>>17070717
>someone actually saved my post
Thanks.
Unfortunately, I remember that thread degrading into the usual "My kids are going to be world leaders and you're going to seethe about it". I don't exactly understand why I would be mad about some stranger making poorly thought out choices that only affect his life and his dears' lives, but whatever. I know it's not going to dispel all the misunderstanding about the topic either, as evidenced by the subsequent threads.

>>17071166
>>17071240
That may be true, but in my reading of Nietzsche I took him to be relatively life affirming. Both through his idea of master morality and the Superman vs. last man. I’m not super educated on the subject though, I just read books.

>>17071265
ayy anon what's up?
are you still reading reading philosophy and religion in the search of an answer?

>>17071094

What part?
I'll admit I started to write this with a different idea, and then switched back to basic husserlian phenomenology talk.

> antinatalist arguments rests, at their basis, on an ontological argument (suffering > happiness)
> all ontological statements are initially suspect we they are "made within the natural attitude".
> the natural attitude is simply the sum of all ontological biases affecting our everyday operations. Bad metaphysics starts right from the natural attitude, good metaphysics suspend these biases, and operates free variation (simply put, try to imagine as many points-of-view on the question and by seeing what can't be changed, you'll have reduced it to its essential components).
> The natural attitude values suffering over happiness because it is operationally more efficient. On the material scale, our neurology attempts on a very basic level to reduce randomness to a specific baseline. If happiness and suffering were valued as equal opposites, we would have about the same functional drives to reduce one as the other. Suffering would lose its urgency and happiness would be much more finite as an experience.
> While the material scale may be informative, it does not limit the phenomenological analysis, so you are free to introspect as many cases of the value of happiness and suffering as you want and attempt to extract some irreducible facts.
> Is suffering always an argument in favour of antinatalism for the one that suffers? Is happiness always an argument in favour of rejecting antinatalism for the one that is happy? Is the question of suffering and happiness of specific import to the experience of suffering and happiness?

Fuck I'm high.

>>17071254
I'm not the one making a claim here. I'm not (necessarily) arguing for some kind of pre-existence, I'm merely pointing out the fact that antinatalists are making speculative metaphysical claims - 'being alive' is worse than an unknown - and expect people to accept their unwarranted premises.

>>17071307
>> antinatalist arguments rests, at their basis, on an ontological argument (suffering > happiness)
What do you mean by this, that anti-natalists think suffering is more important to alleviate than happiness is to attain?

>>17071305
An answer, you say? Who knows when it will come. I surely wish luck to everyone in this journey as well. In fact, I'd be glad to be disproven (that is, as long as the refutation is logically sound and tackles correctly represented problems).
Besides, I'm sadly too busy with my daily grind every single day to have time for "leisure" reading. They say busyness keeps the mind away from such thoughts, but frankly I have never found the matter any less pressing.

>>17071080
Everyone has reason for pessimism.
>I have seen it all
I don't believe that, considering you're most likely an atheist who doesn't believe in metaphysics.
>everything is decaying
Does the tree decay when it is still a seed? Is it decaying while it is still growing?

>>17071351
what's wrong with making that claim? when we can trust the collective memory

>>17071416
being in this uncertain position how do you view the romantic relationships?

>>17071414
>that anti-natalists think suffering is more important to alleviate than happiness is to attain?

I have seen antinatalists make that argument. But more often it is that happiness and suffering are simply not polar opposites. Suffering is elevated to the status of a necessary feature of your relationship to the universe (a bit like the Absurd with Camus) while happiness is relegated to a mere accident of it. They don't really compare one to the other, despite the linguistic usage to the contrary (again according to them).

>>17070466
Yes but only if it also applies to niggers.

>>17070627
underrated

>>17071445
The claim is nonsensical. Antinatalism isn't a philosophy, it's a language problem. 'Better never to have been born' doesn't mean anything. 'Worse never to have been born' is an equally valid statement. The logical form is exactly the same, 'If I weren't born, I would not have been born'. Getting rid of this tautology, the remaining "argument" can be boiled down to 'I'm unhappy, therefore nobody should have children.'

>>17071632
>muh abstractions
kindly fuck off

>>17070830
that book is absurd. The points made in that book range from the plausible in a vacuum to actual posed science.

>>17071501
>how do you view the romantic relationships?
I think it all boils down to the possibility of viewing them as bringers of purpose in life or not, beyond the mechanical act of species reproduction (that's a biological impulse, but it tells me very little about the existential views I should adopt).
Can a man, with a woman, establish a connection carrying a conceptually autonomous identity so strong that, on his deathbed, he can safely say his life was, despite all the downsides and his own imminent death, worth living and so will be the fate of all of his descendants who will find similar love?
It would be wonderful if that were the case. Sadly, the more I look around and see the tenuity of "romantic" relationships, the more I think the ideal may be a fantasy better suited for fictional happily ever afters.

>>17071732
thank you for answering my question anon
I also wish you luck on your journey to find answers.

please read this interview of Borges, very similar to our struggle despite knowing the. it's really comforting

>https://kottke.org/18/11/borges-on-gods-nonexistence-and-the-meaning-of-life

>>17071652
>>abstractions
Funny, coming from someone whose entire worldview could be summed up as
>oh, no think of muh non-existent children and their potential suffering!

>>17071732
>>17071823
>conceptually autonomous
I specified this because romantic love definitely "feels real", but all of this may be just a simple trick of conditioning. Does it have autonomy with regards to what is commonly understood to be the underlying, prime factor (i.e. urge to reproduce)? If not, then it's just another self-lie.
This may seem just another "love is just chemicals bro" observation (it probably is), but in that case I guess "romantic love" could be swapped with any other chemical. It wouldn't be any more special than any other chosen way to live.
But, observably, "romantic" love can be a truly powerful drive (could anyone say "I'm glad that I lived AND died, because I got to experience arts."? Surely they are great, but do they defeat the sense of meaninglessness that death brings on your final day?). This is why I feel it's fundamental to inquire its nature.
>please read this interview of Borges
I will, thank you.

>>17070466
the part i find incredibly amusing about active antinatalists

is the most effective group towards antinatalist type goals have nothing to do with them-

anti vaxxers

its like spending all your life running trying to beat a specific time mark

only to find out that special olympics competitors hardly ever take longer than your peak

>>17071057
Stop being 20, talk normal

A lot of normal people have never felt severe mental pain. I know this because I was depressed for a decade and thought things could not get any lower. Then I had a psychotic episode and realized my prior depression was the tip of the iceberg, and resisting suicide was an actual effortful challenge.
It changed my opinion on suicide and torture completely. I used to think any form of existence was a gift, even if your existence was something like hell. Now I know this is not true and there are many fates worse than death.
Is having children immoral? Eventually one of your descendants will suffer a horrible fate. The worst you can imagine.. Maybe a great great great grandchild. You are technically responsible. Do all the happy lives you caused make-up for this one horrible life? I don't know.

Antinatalism is retarded and thats all the refutation an idea of that caliber needs.
But if you truly wish to humored, antinatalism is a concept that revolves around purely contrarian ideals. Much like being anti-nazi, anti-racist, or anti-communist only without the backing of even the weakest of philosophies. It as an idea exists only to counter being alive, a truth not an ideal, by laying out "truths" of being alive and only of which "memento mori" is actually true. The rest are all deceptions aimed at converting more spineless cowards to its cult, few of which if any, would actually follow through on it and cease existing for our sake and theirs.

>>17070505
Well I'm an antinatalist (I had a vasectomy in my mid 20's because of it), and I continue to live because I have a vested interest in it. I have attachments, relationships, things I enjoy, etc. Also, dying is not as easy as blink twice and it's done. It's a desperate, lethal, violent self harm. It leaves a corpse, pains your loved ones, etc, and my life isn't bad enough to resort to that. I don't think there's anything wrong with suicide other than it being tragic.

I mean there's a huge difference between killing your body, and creating a body for another person to inhabit/be/deal with it's burdens.

The whole point of antinatalism is we can avoid death, dying, suicide, harm etc entirely in the first place, if we just don't breed the next crop of human bodies. Just be done with it.

The antinatalist is saying, "lets not make more bodies", and people's argument against this is "kill your own body". It doesn't really relate or even make sense. I want an eradication of human suffering, not just my own. Suicide harms others as well, although it is a solitary act, the effects aren't.

It was immoral for me to even be put in this situation anyway, where I must either cope and deal with life, or violenty harm myself in a desperate act to escape it.

>>17070486
Him stating his opinion with no actual reasoning is not an argument. I read this entire book and it's mostly over emotional larping. There isn't any philosophy in it.

>>17070466
Yeah I can watch this

>fucks wife
>have 3 kids

Bitch

>>17073399
That doesn't refute the argument at all

it's as if someone claimed murder is wrong, and your response is yeah.. well I just knifed three people so suck on that!

okay? Antinatalists aren't sitting here crying because your had children, it's an abstract moral theory.

your post is also similar to the "for every animal you don't eat, I'll eat 3!" argument that morons make.

>>17073375
Your entire philosophy is a bad joke that presupposes that death is even a tragedy, that because life is not a joy ride from beginning to end it must be avoided. Its based in hedonistic ideals only found in the lost or weakest of minds.

>>17073387
youre too low-iq sorry. you said it yourself, you read a whole book and couldnt even extract its arguments. thats on you. try a different thread

>>17073717
He doesn't ground his reasoning in anything other than 'muh feelings'. Everything he says will always come back to complete arbitrariness. It's a good trick desu, if you just beg the question over and over and never actually attempt to prove what you are saying, nobody can ever refute you.

>>17073694
>that presupposes that death is even a tragedy

Wait, if life is so great that how ISNT death a tragedy?

>that because life is not a joy ride from beginning to end it must be avoided

More like, we shouldn't impose a life/body on another person, knowing that they will suffer and eventually die in the end. We cannot get their consent, and there is simply no reason, for the childs sake, to impose life with it's chores and grind where we needn't do it. The child-to-be is not out there in some hell, suffering from lack of human existence. It simply doesn't exist at all, there is nothing even being referred to.

>Its based in hedonistic ideals

Not necessarily. There's arguments for antinatalism based on consent, or even misanthropy. Also you didn't make an argument for why we shouldn't take into a potential child/persons suffering when we non-consensually create them, you just said those that care about this are lost and weak.

>>17073765
Life isn't so great, but its not so bad either. Death exists at the end of the road for everyone, some a lot shorter of a road than others. It exists as a motivator too, for people to make the most of the life they have. Whether its to accomplish a goal or to find a way to be happy differs from person to person. Niether being born nor dying are inherently good or bad.
Suffering too is a part of life, and your argument of all its chores and hardships speaks volumes of your immaturity and immediately nullifies any counter against "Its not based in hedonism". If you're oh so moral for sparing a child suffering, then you're a horrible person who should rot in hell for robbing the child of the joys of life. It goes both ways and your arguments against life's difficulties spare no thought to whether or not someone might actually enjoy being alive.
Lastly, your arguments over a child's consent are nonsensical. Of course you can't get consent from a child, but even if you could they'd still be a fucking child with no sense or whats good or bad about the world. If its a crime to bring a child into a world where they might suffer, learn, and grow, then its a crime to leave them unborn where they'll never smile, laugh, or feel joy.
Your half-baked logic reeks of an emo teenager who's pissed at the world for existing and its nothing short of an embarassment.

>>17073871
>Death exists at the end of the road for everyone
>Suffering too is a part of life

These aren't arguments. The antinatalist premise is that these are bad, and shouldn't be imposed on another person where there is no need. Your response is basically, "those are parts of life". No shit? It is precisely because the antinatalists understands those are part of life, that he sees it as wrong to create more life.

> any counter against "Its not based in hedonism"

Again, aside from various insults you've not argued why we shouldn't take the childs potential suffering into account when considering creating them. You just keep repeating "hedonism bad", as if that proves the point. Why is it bad, to prevent the suffering of your child? Spell it out.

>If you're oh so moral for sparing a child suffering, then you're a horrible person who should rot in hell for robbing the child of the joys of life

You're speaking as if the child pre-exists it's own birth, which I clearly explained in my previous post that it doesn't. It is only in a poetic sense that ones potential child is 'spared', the suffering of it's life. In reality nothing actually exists, nor is better nor worse off staying 'unborn'. Likewise, there exists nothing to "rob" of the joys of life. You must exist in the first place to be deprived of the good in life.

>spare no thought to whether or not someone might actually enjoy being alive.

Wait, I thought hedonism is bad? Now you're talking about the childs enjoyment?

>Lastly, your arguments over a child's consent are nonsensical. Of course you can't get consent from a child, but even if you could they'd still be a fucking child with no sense or whats good or bad about the world.

You miss the point. I'm talking about the impossibility of a child-to-be, being able to consent to being born, not an actual child. The point is that by definition procreation is an imposition. Nobody chooses to be born.

>If its a crime to bring a child into a world where they might suffer, learn, and grow, then its a crime to leave them unborn where they'll never smile, laugh, or feel joy.

Again, you seem to think non-existent nothings actually exist, and are out there in the aether somewhere suffering because daddy wont creampie mommy.

>Your half-baked logic reeks of an emo teenager who's pissed at the world for existing and its nothing short of an embarassment.

Serious question, because I get this attitude a lot when debating antinatalism, but why do you react this way? The impotent rage and insults I mean. Your posts are littered with various snide insults. Why? Why does the concept of antinatalism induce this reaction in you?

>>17070466
No, mainly because the premises it's based on are refutable. Using a myriad of arguments from different philosophies and ways of thinking.
>>17070533
Read Candide, unironically.

>>17071672
I agree with this anon

>>17071092
That’s like opposite of bugman view smart guy

>>17070466
any organism that wants to die is, by definition, weak and sick. A species full of lifeforms like that would go extinct. Everything about the character life should have been selecting against suicidal or anti-natalist tendencies in a species. Is this merely an arbitrary value claim about life? Yes! But all moral valuations are arbitrary, to the degree that they cannot be demonstrated objectively. The anti-natalist is being just as arbitrary by arguing that life is bad because life involves suffering, by starting from the axiomatic position that suffering is bad and it would be better if no one had to suffer. I could elaborate further, but really it comes down to this point. All the philosophical posturing doesn't change the fact that anti-natalists are simply trying to justify the feeling they have about life. That ever-troublesome ought/is chasm means that no matter how many observations they draw about the dissatisfactory nature of life, they can't ever get to the claim that it ought be otherwise.

>>17070575
>but that never being brought into life at all is better than living

It's not even that, someone could have the best life ever and really enjoy their life, but it's the fact its a gamble and that no one gets a choice in it that makes it wrong.

>>17073947
Congratufuckinglations on making yourself out to be an even bigger retard than before. You ignore half the fucking statements, logic, and arguments to frame an insincere context. Your entire morality argument is based on a theoretical child's experience and yet you attack me for using said theoretical child's experience as well. You cannot claim moral superiority for willful ignorance. Hedonism likewise is basing your experience of life on attaining joy, not having it and therefore view suffering as an exclusive evil that must be avoided and not part of life's experience. But of course you will ignore this, because "sparing" a theoretical child the pain of suffering is an argument you're willing to defend to the death, even if it means avoiding any actual arguments.
As for the vitriol, its because you and yours are a slimey bunch that have been refuted on this board time and time again and like Hitler's strawman of a Jew, you come back time and time again asking the same stupid fucking questions that got refuted the last thirty threads while pretending you were of course, correct in your retarded beliefs. Get ye gone you shitheel and don't come back until you're willing to actually read the fucking replies you get. This will be your last (You) from me.

>>17071652
Take your meds schizo. That was a perfectly coherent and grounded argument

>>17070517
You misunderstand the argument. An anti-natalist might enjoy his life and not want to kill himself, or an anti-natalist might be too scared to kill himself, or an anti-natalist might have loved ones that he doesn't want to hurt in the process. The point is, it shouldn't be our choice to bring someone into this world against their will, they might enjoy being alive but we can't know that and even if they would enjoy living they aren't missing out by not being born because they don't exist so there's no one to miss out on anything. Anti-natalists aren't saying life is only bad, they aren't saying their own lives are bad or that they don't enjoy living, they are saying that bringing someone into this world without their permission and so that they might face all manner of horrors is morally wrong. Again, once they are born they might even have a good life and not want to kill themselves but it's not the point

>>17074044
>suffering is bad and it would be better if no one had to suffer.

So your argument is that this above claim is arbitrary, and even if the statement were truth-apt, you wouldn't be able to derive "therefore don't have children" from it, AND THEREFORE, antinatalism is wrong and we should breed?

That makes zero sense.

Also,

>they can't ever get to the claim that it ought be otherwise.

Sure I can. Watch me make a statement: "life contains suffering and we shouldn't impose that on others". This is a true statement. What makes it true? My fucking judgment. You think I need some god, or some 'objective morality' inbuilt into the fabric of the world to decide what's right or wrong? Get fucked I'll make my own choices. You can choose different I guess, but you'll be wrong.

Also evolution has no teleos. It is completely blind. Species don't have a purpose to survive and reproduce, it's just a selection bias that gives the illusion that they do. Also also, antinatalism is a moral theory, not something genetic lol. You don't 'pass on' through your fucking sperm/egg, moral theories. Why would you think this?

>>17074104
I'll fucking spare them the pain to come.

>17074115
>My judgement makes something true
Absolute brainlet in our midst. God isn't real because I say he is. Nor would I make the argument that he exists because I said so. To do so is beyond folly and goes simply into foolish territory.

>>17074133
No, my judgment is the source of *moral* fact. Why would I trust anyone or anything else?

>>17070466
Don't buy into teenager philosophy

>>17074349
>haha they kids
>me big man
here's your (You)

>>17070486
So the argument is you are a bitch. Understood.

>>17070466
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.

Exist:
- presence of pain: bad (-1)
- presence of pleasure: good (+1)
->0
Don't exist:
- absence of pain: good (+1)
- absence of pleasure: not bad (+0)
->1
I think this is the easiest anti-natalistic "argument" I've seen. But I don't think it's necessarily prescriptive. Maybe some people who agree with this kind of argument could also think that it's important to keep the human race going until they figure out a way to end the continuation of as many life-forms as possible, and so forth.

>>17074418
ctrl-f low-iq

>>17074431
Global Rule 13 bub

>>17074427
I’m not entirely convinced that non-existence isn’t neutral. Someone not born won’t begrudge missing out on happiness of course, and that’s the argument. But they won’t be thankful for being spared suffering either. So why is that counted as a good thing?