/lit/ - Literature

>>3959257
An Essay on the Principle of Population

There aren't any because there aren't any intelligent antinatalists.

>>3959294
>only intelligent people can make good books
You ivory tower bastards have your heads so far up your own ass its astounding.

Your biography.

>>3959257
Well, I don't remember if Schopenhauer directly addressed this issue in particular. but his whole philosophy implies antinatalism.

Luis Bulffi de Quintana wrote an interesting book about this, but I don't know if there's an English translation. It was titled something like "huelga de vientres". And I sincerely bet my cock, my balls and my four extremities that he's way more intelligent than this fag >>3959294

>>3959339
>Luis Bulffi de Quintana

Looks like someone's losing their cock, balls, and four extremities. Anyone who wastes their time writing about antinatalism at length automatically loses all credibility. >>3959294
Is definitely more intelligent than Quintana. Though, to be frank, I'm not sure you're capable of discerning intelligence anyway. Your name is AnalCrust and you call people fags.

>>3959375
>writing about x = losing all credibility (even if I don't know shit about him)
>credibility = intelligence
>Your name is AnalCrust and you call people fags = not capable of deiscerning intelligence
You sure are an ace spotting who's intelligent and who's not. Congratulations.
irrefutable arguments. I'm appalled.

>>3959257
>Anti-natalist
>good
As pointed out, it is one or the other.

Ok. Now I'm curious. Why do you think we should perpetuate our species? Is perpetuation inherently good? Is it potentially good but depends on certain circumstances? Do you see perpetuation as our duty from a patriotic, universalist or whatever perspective? Is a permanently increasing demography inherently good?

If you can read pt-br, there's Júlio Cabrera, he has a great book named "The Negative Ethics", he uses Kant, Schopenhauer and some existencialists, i think.

>>3959673
It's fucking instinctual

>>3959673

Good for whom?

>>3959743
No shit.
>>3959761
That's what I'm asking. If it's inherently good it's good for everyone. If not, then I'm asking under what conditions it is.

My question was why antinatalism is (according to some extraordinarily intelligent posters) OBVIOUSLY stupid.

>>3959827

>If it's inherently good it's good for everyone.

Well I certainly don't think anything is 'inherently good'

>If not, then I'm asking under what conditions it is.

The perpetuation of our species is good for the individuals that come into existence and experience things because of it. It's also good towards several other goals such as understanding the universe and discovering new things to experience.

Of course overpopulation is an awful thing but measures to curb that can be taken.

>>3959257

>>3959843
Then, it could be considered good for those individuals as long as they can live in what you would call good conditions.

But what about the ones who know chances are their descendence will live under shitty circumstances (will be poor, undeducated and have shit-jobs if job at all, during all their lives)?
What if our decadent system could be changed if people just decided not to have descendence until the social conditions they desire are achieved?

>mfw people don't realise antinatalism is just an amusing party trick

>>3959884

>But what about the ones who know chances are their descendence will live under shitty circumstances (will be poor, undeducated and have shit-jobs if job at all, during all their lives)?

Well as I said something has to be done about overpopulation but when taking into consideration the amazing ability humans have to adjust to their situation I don't see a problem with the fact that some people will lead 'worse' lives.

Studies find that people who win the lottery and people who lose a limb in an accident are not really different at all in their happiness levels a few years after the event has occurred. Things like that simply don't have much to do with happiness (unless you go to the extremes).

>>3959304
So... did you just consent that antinatalists are unintelligent?

pfft

>>3959920
Well, humans (once alive) can adapt their preferences, true. But the problem that calls my attention is how due to peculiarities of our system rather than resource limitation, increasing the demography (I'm talking about middle and low classes) only perpetuates undesireable conditions.

Tha fascists argued against neo-malthusianism that we have a duty towards our nation to procreate as much as possible, since the state needs workers and soldiers. Demography is seen, not only from the antinatalist perspective, but also from the natalist perspective, like a tool for the state.

Also, one often thinks about procreating from an egoistic perspective (if he doesn't exist, he doesn't really need to: not being born isn't goo, but neither bad). Why do it if yo don't really want to contribute to the system giving birth to new individuals?

>>3959920
>>3959304
>>3959375
>never met anyone who was clinically depressed

life is not for everyone, there's barely enough goodness thrown around in the world for normal people much less the unfortunate

>>3960131
>goodness
what are you, twelve?

>>3960167
>what are you twelve?

what are you, in your late teens? you know what I meat

>>3960167
I think his argument comes from this book, which uses similar vocabulary.
The author argues that there is an asymmetry between pleasure and pain. Pain is always a positive value, whereas pleasure is a neutral value (pleasure is the absence of pain as Schopenhauer would most likely say). A non-being doesn't know pain nor pleasure; the fact that he doesn't know pain is good, and the fact that he doesn't know pleasure doesn't matter, since it's impossible to deprive a non-being of anything. It is thus ethically unacceptable to conceive children, since a harm would inevitably be done.

>>3960202
does he make an argument that was not made in early nietzsche

>>3960207
Since when is Nietzsche considered an anti-natalist? I don't recall reading this argument in any of Nietzsche's books (most of them are life-affirming).

>>3960202
>pleasure is the absence of pain
Pleasure is more than the absence of pain. If it weren't, masochism would be impossible in the most literal sense.

>>3960214
yes, but he still makes fundamentally the same arguments in his early work. he just tends to build from them instead of just ending there (almost say he treats them as the thesis of a dialectic) but the arguments aren't different

"the best thing for human beings is never to have been born; having been born, the best thing is to die as soon as possible)

>>3960214
Early Nietzsche was a bit of a Schopenhaurerian cunt. Later he did a 180.

>>3960177
>what I meat

best typo ever. Thanks /lit.

>>3959673
Although I'm not precisely a natalist, I'd say not being an anti-natalist is preferrable because:

-anti-natalist philosophy is hard to spread, anti-natalist policy hard to implement (it is likely to stay a marginal movement with not much consequences on the way we procreate or don't procreate)
-trying to implement anti-natalist policies or to spread anti-natalists view could end up worsening the life conditions of many people without really curbing the birth rate
-we, as sheltered westerners, tend to overplay the despair of poor, uneducated or destitute people (of course there's a suffering we can barely imagine in those country, but surprinsingly, it seems that a given citizen in Somalia is more likely to consider himself "happy" or "hopeful" or "optimistic" than one in the U.S)
-likewise, we tend to downplay the possibility of access to some forms of knowledge, wisdom, understanding or enlightenment in poor countries (through religion, observation and life experience, conversations, etc.-the more elaborated ways of attaining knowledge or spiritual bewilderment are only the most efficient, not necessarily the most fulfilling)
-as you say, not being born is neither good nor bad, and in most cases it would be impossible to find out wether depriving someone of all possibilities of life is better than letting him struggle with his life. In such ignorance, it seems sensible to take the easiest way, namely non-antinatalism.
-we even managed to find some signification or comfort in suffering (there's a reason sado-masochist exist, any oldfag will tell you that pain is a good teacher, entire religions have very successfully thrived on making a spiritual sense out of suffering, etc.). To which extent those comforts are fraud, it's up for you to decide, but you can't deny that many people found strength in it.

TL;DR: The path of anti-natalism is long, hard, and discutably rewarding, the path of non-anti-natalism is much easier and at least as arguably rewarding. The destitute are not all absolutely unhappy or foolish and unable of happiness or wisdom. And we are able to build sense and wisdom out of pain, despair death and disillusionment.

My argument is not very consistent precisely because it's not a real argument, but a laundry list of the sensible reasons we should not suscribe to anti-natalism. I guess one could find others, and better, answers to your question, but those are the first that come to my mind.

That said, I find anti-natalism to be very interesting and even quite fascinating. I'm glad we have such thinkers among us-but again, it happened because they were born.

>>3960220

>having been born, the best thing is to die as soon as possible

This second part is a common piece of Ancient Greek wisdom. It reminds me of an old Greek story our Literature Teacher once told us.

A woman went in pilgrimage to a great sanctuary with her two eighteen years old sons. She loves them, they love her, they are both healthy and strong, and together, they have a wonderful day along the sacred path of the temple. They pray and eat, and visit and participate in the rites, and they are infinitely happy to be together. Towards the end of the day, the mother comes to a tiny temple, and pray the god of Fortune to give her sons the best possible life, so as to thanks them for the happy day she spent with them.

On the morning, the two boys were found dead in their bed, without trace of struggle or suffering. The god ad granted the wish.

>>3960250
yeah it's "the wisdom of silenus" in Nietzsche, it comes in the context of The Birth of Tragedy which is essentially an extensive essay on Greek philosophy and art

>>3959398
>Natalist
>Good
>Implying something this retarded

>>3960237
>anti-natalist policy
Well, I never tried to argue in favor of that since it rises too many problems and often ends up in very crazy scenarios.
The point isn't the birth rate itself: the whole point is precisely making the world a "better" (inb4what do you mean by better?) place.
> tend to overplay the despair of poor
Well, this is true, but I was talking in a very wide sense, thinking about *our middle/low classes, and the situation of pessimism and unsatisfaction of our occidental culture.
>we tend to downplay the possibility of access to some forms of knowledge
When I was talking about education I meant education in our sense: the possibility of having access to a likeable job.
>In such ignorance
I prefer just not to talk in terms of how good/bad would life be for the hypothetical individual. As I said before, procreating uses to be a selfish decision: the common question is "do YOU want to be parent?"
>we even managed to find some signification or comfort in suffering
My problem wasn't necessarily a question of pleasure/suffering. I doin't like the utilitarian approach. We can talk about dignity or take other moral formulas.

Well, I can't say I disagree with your perspective. It's difficult to take strong positions in such questions without getting in muddy ways.

Personally, I take antinatalism from an individualist perspective and only as a possible means to an end (not as some way to extinct our species).

"If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence? Or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood."

--schopenhaeur