/lit/ - Literature

>>21875693
>I posted it again!

Suffering is comparative but this world is nothing compared to hell. As for people who can’t reproduce and telling themselves they are moral for their inability to afford it or perhaps find a willing mate, that is really just a way of trying to affirm a sense of dignity from inability to have what has been treasured and sought for by both sexes for the entire history of humanity

>>21875727
>this world is nothing compared to hell
How do you know, (trip)faggot!?
>the entire history of humanity
Just because something is and has been popular doesn't make it right. Are you some kind of a populist/democrat, or something?

>>21875693
Hey you should get help. You are genuinely ill. You are posting about antinatalism every other day.

>>21875760
he wants to make babies but he's an incel. textbook example of reaction formation

>>21875764
Well he suffers more than you, faggot. Because you do not suffer does not mean suffering is not real. You think life is worth living only because of your perception toward it and your own life. It does not mean life in general is worth living. Most people suffer, and becuase you are not one of them does not mean you should be able to create one which probably will suffer. Kys

/deg/ Deadender General

>>21875856
i do suffer. in fact i'm suffering right now. you kill yourself you fucking faggot piece of shit. you don't suffer, you're too fucking stupid to suffer, you fucking idiot. i'm glad you're suffering you fuck, you deserve to suffer and fucking die you pathetic piece of worthless shit. kill yourself

>>21875693
We suffer because it makes us better, simple as

>>21875693
>waah waah life is unbearable!
>no, not THAT unbearable, I'm not going to kms

my problem with the argument of this book is that life is the condition for suffering. without life, there is no suffering. so you're not preventing suffering, and it's reductionist to claim that life is merely suffering. that being said, i'm an antinatalist, as to be born is to die. it's wrong to create life only to die. oh wait, that's his whole argument lmao. guess it's irrefutable

>>21875885
Yea, I'm sure you suffer, you fucking faggot. If you suffer so much, then just kill yourself and stop promoting life creation

>>21875930
i'm not promoting life creation, i'm just saying OP only suffers and is an antinatlist because he can't breed lmao. same with you incel. you kill yourself, what are you a christcuck? bitch

suicide, like not-procreating, doesn't prevent or end suffering, as life is the condition for suffering. that which does not exist cannot suffer. therefore one must embrace suffering

>>21875938
>i'm not promoting life creation, i'm just saying OP only suffers and is an antinatlist because he can't breed lmao
And you came to this conclusion how exactly?

>>21875946
i'm projecting

>>21875693
I thought Benatar was fucking based before reading it, but when I decided to read his books I realized that I was fucking wrong, or at least in what he considers good and bad.
It could be said that suffering is bad
But what is really fucking bad is what is usually considered its opposite (pleasure, happiness, peace, etc.)
In other words, what is "bad" is actually good. And what's good is fucking and unspeakably bad.
After all, isn't it pleasure (both in humans and animals)?
what produces procreation?
I think that deep down Benatar agrees with this, but he adapted to these standards to convince the masses.
Also if this "good" did not exist or as Benatar says in the book. We would not have these "optimistic" adaptation biases. We would already be extinct.

>>21875693
if you were really a nihilist you wouldnt need our validation would you?

>>21876055
>In other words, what is "bad" is actually good. And what's good is fucking and unspeakably bad.
I think you cracked the code, anon.

>look mom I posted it again
fuck off and kys

>>21875693
>The only reason why I flatter myself, is that I understood very early, before the age of twenty, that one should not procreate. My disgust towards marriage, family and all social conventions has its source in this. Crime is to transmit one's frailties to someone else, to force someone to experience the same things we are experiencing, to force someone to the Way of the Cross that may be worse than our own. I could never agree to give life to someone who inherits misfortunes and evil. All parents are irresponsible people, or murderers. Procreation should belong only to beasts. Pity makes you not want to be a "progenitor". This is the cruelest word I know of.
>Emil Cioran, Cahiers 1957-1972, 1997.
What does Cioran really mean about this? Was he antinatalist?

Its a false stsrt, you cannot have "never been born" because if that were true there would be no "you" to have not been born

i reproduced, they seem to be enjoying themselves. if they end up like OP I will accept much of the blame, as I believe OP's parents to should, and should issue all of /lit/ an apology for his ceaseless shitposting.

>>21875693
Debunked by David Pearce

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.

>>21875693
Pride and narcissism are the main reasons normal people have children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeN2RRR3xQ

>>21875749
One might say that life has no pupose, but that's a statement that can only be said in the nihilistic, reletivist time we live in. On a purely biological level our pupose is to reproduce.

I never had a drive to reproduce, have my own children, etc, so maybe I'm just genetically predisposed to antinatalist thought. But it just seems so logical to me. Being a human body creates the conditions for hunger, thirst, capacity for pain, cold, injury, all types of illness and disease and every single human dies in the end, some in horrific agony. We have perpetual biological needs (warmth, air, water, food, etc), social needs, sexual needs, a need for entertainment and a uniquely human need for meaning and a sense of purpose and value. And not to mention all the other random sufferings that can happen to people (bullying, being a victim of crime, being raped, being broken up with, losing friends, loved ones, being drafted into a war). And when you have a child the HOPE is they outlive you. This is best case scenario but necessarily it involves inflicting grief and loss on your children. Likewise children can have all manner of fucked up illnesses, being born downie or with cancer or have like 3 legs.

Just seems like when you create another human there are all manner of harms that will certainly be experienced by them, and all manner of harms they are at risk of.

So if I just don't make a person then there's no harm done, and no risk of harm. there's nothing wrong with not existing

>>21878518
>On a purely biological level our pupose is to reproduce.

you don't understand evolution. there is no teleos or purpose behind it. those that have genes driving them towards procreation have those gene copies show up in subsequent generations, those that don't, don't. evolution is blind, it doesn't want anything.

>>21875693
Lol, your typo actually made your post based.
Yes, suffering is bad! Thats why we must do it!

>>21875921
>it's wrong to create life only to die
Why? I'm genuinely interested why you think that but don't want to make assumptions.

>>21875693
Holy fkn shit this is your 100th post about this deranged ideology

>>21875693
He's right you know

>>21878765
not that guy but thats basically my take as well, im struggling a lot with the fear of death and ill go on a leap here to assume that most people are scared shitless of death while theyre not denying that fact by distraction or dellusions of after lifes. i would love to have children but i cannot bear putting a child into the world for it to have to face the terror of death eventually, i feel like it might even be more merciful for it to die as a child before developing proper comprehension of death and the fact that it is not immortal and will die like everyone else has up to this point.

obviously this take builds upon a lot of projection but this conclusion makes a lot of sense to me personally quite frankly

>he's back

>>21878814
Interesting. I've never understood a fear of death. What is there to fear if you do not believe in afterlife? If you believe then I understand you might be scared of the consequences of this life, but if you do not believe, what is there to be scared of?

>>21878832
>What is there to fear if you do not believe in afterlife?
Nta but pain. I hope to be able to die performing an act that allows me to bettee cope witj the pain i will feel.

>>21878814
Fascinating. I do get the fear of death, so I can somewhat understand where you're coming from. But it's not constantly lingering on my mind, and as such I'm able to mostly enjoy life. Suffering is, of course, a part of that, and I think I have had my fair share of it. But the older I get, the more I feel like the moments of joy and bliss, though few, are worth going through that. Also, in my experience, suffering throughout most of my life made me more resistant to suffering in general. I still dislike it of course, and in the moment wish I wouldn't have to go through it. But there's something of a firm core of believe that suffering is not only a part of life, but also worth going through if you process it right, as it can forge you into a wiser, gentler and more enduring person.
Regarding the question of Anti-Natalism, I think for me personally it boils down to how confident I am in my ability to instill the values and mechanisms that made me survive through hardship and ordeal into any prospective future children. Which, for now, isn't very. In the broader spectrum, I think it is a lost cause, because breeding is our biological imperative and the Anti-Natalist faction will simply remove itself from the gene pool by their own volition. In an incredibly ironic way, they're their own downfall, a built-in stop gap for the passing on of their ideology.

>>21875693
>(((Benatar)))

>>21878837
So you fear your deathbed. That's reasonable, everyone fears that. I thought your fear was of an actual death

>>21878832
If there is no death, then there is an afterlife. You'll probably be reincarnated as a hog in a slaughterhouse at least 1000 times before you find yourself in human form again. If not far longer considering the sheer quantity of insects in existence.

>>21875749
It’s anything but democratic. Read Call of the Wild

>>21878893
>your
Im nts, just putting my 2 cents where it doesnt belong.

For me, its simple. If there is a chance that creating a being subjects it to eternal suffering via religion, technology, or unknown, then its unconscionable.

If eternal suffering is impossible, its okay. From what I've gathered its totally possible, so antinatalism is the godly option. In face of the unknown, the best strategy is to not to gamble with someone else's hell.

>inb4 birthing saves them from suffering
That logic doesn't hold.

>>21878832
well i fear the end of subjective experience. i used to think that the world will just go on without me but i fear that with me this mental projection of the world and so the world itself as i understand it will vanish as well (for me) which kind of makes everything after me completely irrelevant. i fear that i wont be able to neither suffer nor flourish. my enjoyment of anything will come to an end, my time with my significant other, with my friends and with my family will be over in a blink of an eye. i read somewhere that the background of this line of thinking might be some kind of narcicism but idk im just really scared

>>21878859
yea im not against suffering per se at all its just that this kind of suffering im going through feels so ultimate and uncurable as there is no other way to overcome it but to ignore it and go on. life passes whether i care about death or not so the rational decision would be to not think about it but it always lingers in the back of my head when observing life and making decisions, my life here is finite and ultimate, people run through their lifes caring about the most inconsequential bullshit such as their job title, social status in their circle of peers and social status in their circle of their family and a bunch of other craps completely losing touch with the reality of death and the fact that they only have so much time to spend on not living the way they might really really personally want. anyways these are personal struggles most likely and im derailing the thread.

circling back to anti natalism i dont really care about advertising my view and i dont fully agree with benatar and do not really care about that, theres no way of subscribing to a full set of beliefs without being that very person that came up with them, i dont care if my peers have children or not as i agree with your take that its a lost cause anyways, but personally, assuming that ill love them more than anything else i have loved before, i dont know yet if i could bear knowing that my children will die eventually whether they get to cope or not. i mean i could bear it as time goes on whether i get to "bear" it or not but i dont know if i want to yet

>>21878945
Every single soul will be incarnated, if not by the means of your coupling, then by another’s. The consummation of creation itself is simply the crescendo of the consummation of human creation, just as humanity grew within the womb of creation. You may actively participate in this process and transformation, or you may seek to a bench warmer

>>21878957
Bench warmer it is.

>>21878963
Just don’t be certain that you would be if you were a wealthy king in the finest of health and figure who knew his lineage like the alphabet

>>21878967
So status makes one ignorant, indifferent, and cruel?

Why do people fail to realize that THIS existence is just a test?
It's like saying "better to have never learned how to drive" or something.

Atheism is ridiculous.

>>21878954
Well, cherish what you've got. It won't last forever, but it's yours till it lasts

>>21878945
Anti natalists are the most retarded people on the planet, which is impressive when you share a planet with commies

the problem of the anti-natalist is not in the existence of actual human suffering but in their perceiving of said suffering.
there is, after all, no efficient, or even feasible way to determine the amount of suffering experienced by all available humanity.
the anti-natalist assumes that suffering always weighs heavier on the scale than whatever state of being should run counter or at least is more beneficial to humanity.
but lacking any means of quantifying said suffering the only logical basis for the anti-natalist to measure suffering is by the perception of suffering held by people.
therefore it only makes sense that to decrease the amount that suffering is perceived is to decrease the state of suffering in the world.
the best way to reach this objective is to eliminate the populace with the greatest and most intensely felt perception of human suffering, ie: anti-natalists

>>21878980
Rather lack of status and impotency make one tempted to rationalize such as morally superior

>>21879004
If sparing a soul hell makes me a high horse-riding morality signaling douche, well, just call me Bono. I'll take it.

>>21879008
You aren’t, you have no authority over if a soul goes to hell or not.

>>21879018
Maybe not, but I know the best shot within reason.

>>21875693
The pleasure I get from taking a piss outweights the suffering of the entire existences of all anti-natalists, ergo, being is better than non-being even from your viewpoint of retarded hedonist utilitarianism.

>>21878999
>the best way to reach this objective is to eliminate the populace with the greatest and most intensely felt perception of human suffering, ie: anti-natalists
Based

>>21878999
There actually is an efficient and feasible way to determine the total amount of suffering experienced by humanity.
It is the fact that you yourself are human.
If you can't intuitively feel the suffering of your fellow humans through your own experiences it only means you have abandoned some of your own humanity and lived a sheltered life away from the realities of the world.
To put it simply not everything needs to be quantified to justify belief or action. It is your perception that is lacking to think so. Slavish adherence to such logic only assures that nothing is ever accomplished least of all the living of ones life.

>>21879024
No, you know that you lack wealth and sex appeal and see that as a moral strength due to what it denies you, which you would not deny if you had those

>>21879037
Yeah that's where we started, remember? It wouldn't upset the equation if I were a sentient toaster. Either way, the risks are the risks, whether or not I'd personally feel this were I that doesn't change them.

>we need to not breed because my kids will suffer!
>chops balls off
>no kids
>breeders inherit the earth
good job lol

>>21879070
I mean yeah it actually is.
The common assumption people seem to have is that anti-natalism must have this inherent self-selection bias such that it will ultimately filter itself out of existence. But then ask yourself why is it now at the peak of the human population that anti-natalism has become more not less popular? Breeders already inherited the Earth my friend. For the past hundreds of thousands of years they did. Breeding is the natural state of most living things. Anti-natalism is an aberrant reaction caused by flaws in this system not some random flaw itself. If the reaction is caused by the flaws, the reaction increases as the flaws increase like a self-correcting mechanism. If Anti-natalism disappears as a result of it's own practice then of course it would only be because it has successfully completed what it was intended to do.

>>21879136
birthrates are collapsing but it's not because people are anti-natalists, they just like the material comfort of the modern world and having kids would mess with that, plus there's not as much social pressure to breed. so in a sense people are "naturally" anti-natalist but not in a Benatar way. they're just lazy.

>>21879155
Well the world is full of people doing the right things for the wrong reasons. Some might even say this is the ideal state. Because the more different things contributing to a goal being achieved the more likely it will be.
In this day and age it's mostly leftists who care that you meet the right criteria before helping them inadvertently or otherwise...

>>21879155
>lazy
Less lazy, and more efficiency. A population will naturally produce less babies when they have enough people.
I would actually be interested in seeing a birthrate comparison between cities and rural areas.
The question is, is the decline in birthrate because people feel the planet is well populated? Or because their immediate vicinity is crowded.

>>21878986
>Bringing more people into a "test" that causes you to be punished eternally if you fail

>>21879214
>giving more people the oppertunity to achieve eternal reward
Yes.

>>21879246
Not worth the risk, especially since they can't opt out.

>>21879256
L mindset

>>21879256
They can follow basic apostolic church teaching.

This world is in fact hell but the only reason you have come to your beliefs is because you are depressed. Once you improve your life situation you will change your mind on this, I guarantee you. Also you won’t be able to understand this because you are in too deep but it’s funny for me to tell you the truth anyways.

>>21879261
>>21879264
This kind of glib response shows how you aren't actually serious so I'm not going to reply again.

>>21878604
It doesn't have to want anything. The drive to procreate is so strong that it becomes the purpose. This is something that every lifeform in existance shares. A universal, an absolute. Antinatalists coping their way into thinking otherwise doesn't disprove the fact.

>>21879302
>glib
Weird, when my basketball coach yelled that at me he want being very glib. Are you perhaps just a fucking loser?

Fuck all your philosophies. answer me this:
>TO WHAT END
TO WHAT END
>TO WHAT END
TO WHAT END
>TO WHAT END
TO WHAT END

Plato is the GOAT if his Forms made you fall for this shit.

>>21879431
Learn English

>>21879464
L

>>21875693
According to replicated research, those who profess anti-natalist beliefs are more likely to suffer from personality disorders and mental illness.

1/

>>21879796
While this doesn't necessarily mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact (inb4 "REEEEE AD HOM!"); it does add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview).

2/

>>21879801
Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature. This is why the same autist has been repeatedly making these threads for months while ignoring any criticism of his ideological nonsense.

bump

>>21878995
So you can give my potential offspring the no-eternal suffering guarantee? Convince me and I'll happily walk away from this horrible shit.

please

>>21880534
NTA but I can honestly tell you the world will be a better place if you don't breed. You personally.

>>21875693
Why the fuck is this garbage here every day?

Antinatalism is just so obviously correct to me. Procreating creates the condition for suffering and death to occur, whereas not procreating doesn't.

So why would you procreate?

People may give all kinds of reasoning (life is a gift, the good outweighs the bad, etc) but deep down procreating is a base irrational act, and asking "why" is like asking why feel hunger. In my own personal life I've known many women who got pregnant and had kids, and the idea they did it out of some selfless act to "give the gift of life" is nonsense. The got drunk and had unprotected sex. They were married and all their friends were having kids. Their parents wanted grandkids. It was just the 'life path' people are expected to follow. They wanted to experience motherhood. They think babies are cute. They thought it would be good for their relationship. etc etc etc

>>21878604
The evolution (theory) is just a process, or rather an approximated description of that process.
>>21879331
Yet there are lifeforms and whole species that have, or will die out. Whether this is conscious, or not is debatable. You saying that its universal, or absolute is a purely dogmatic speculation on your part.

>>21879246
That's a funny ponzi scheme you got there, rabb-... pastor.

>>21881748
>society is a ponzi scheme
Are slash i am fourteen and this is deep