/lit/ - Literature

No, it's a betrayal of life itself and will lead to genocide if followed properly (thankfully no antinatalist will follow through on this.)

The biological imperative of any individual is to ensure the reproductive success of themselves and their offspring.
Failing that, to ensure the continued existence of their social group.
Failing that, to ensure the continued existence of their species, and as a last resort, life in general.

By ascribing a negative value to existence, the antinatalists betray 4 billion years of evolution and seek to make the universe a less interesting place. Thankfully the majority of people are not susceptible to their rhetoric, and they will die without reproducing.

>>5783471
continental philosophy can't be /true/ or /false/
/thread.

>>5783564
It can however reach positions which are anathematic to the culture it was born in.

>>5783529
From where do you derive this biological imperative? Your ass?
>By ascribing a negative value to existence
To birth*

>>5783529
>implying we are just slaves to our biological imperative
>implying anyone should care about the continued existence of their species
>implying life has any inherit value
>implying the final goal of life isn't death (not only for individuals, but for life itself)

I'm not even an antinatalist, but you are a retard.

>>5783592
>This is the part where the antis try to pretend obvious axioms are arbitrary.

Life has been going on for at least four billion years (longer if you believe in cosmic panspermia)
Every form of life which has not gone extinct, has done so because it reproduced and passed on it's genes to the next generation.
Life on earth has withstood many mass extinctions caused by either one species drastically altering the environment, or a natural disaster such as asteroids or super volcanoes.
After each of these mass extinctions, life rebounded and the end result was even more biodiversity than before.

This tendency for life to continue existing despite all odds is the closest thing that can be observed to any kind of god. And unlike other gods, it does not require you do anything but what most people already feel like doing anyways. There is literally no reason not to participate in it.

>>5783615
Even if you chose to not reproduce, you will simply be freeing up resources for others who do chose to reproduce. Even antinatalists are helping perpetuate life by dying before spreading their disease to others.
And while death is probably inevitable (even for the meta-existence of life itself) it hasn't happened yet, and should not happen just because some depressed kids on /lit/ want it to stop.

>>5783644
>Even if you chose to not reproduce, you will simply be freeing up resources for others who do chose to reproduce.

You know that people get a lot more children in countries with less resources? Your logic doesn't make any sense for 1st world countries.

>it hasn't happened yet, and should not happen just because some depressed kids on /lit/ want it to stop

It doesn't matter if life stops now or in a million years, it only matters for those who are currently living. The universe doesn't care.

>>5783670
>You know that people get a lot more children in countries with less resources? Your logic doesn't make any sense for 1st world countries.
Those countries have different reproductive strategies because they have different economies and different cultures. Because they lack social security programs, having lots of children means they will be more likely to have somebody taking care of them in old age. It also makes it more likely that one of the children will survive to adulthood.
Also consider that the cost of living is a lot less in developing nations, this changes the cost/benefit of child birth. That's not to say that people are perfectly ratonal economic creatures, but that cultures often have reasons for behaving in the way they do.

>It doesn't matter if life stops now or in a million years, it only matters for those who are currently living. The universe doesn't care.
Well I don't care about the universe as a whole as much as the fact that living beings (preferably sentient ones) exist to witness it. This is no more arbitrary than than Auntie Nat's obsession with suffering and non-existence.

>>5783564
antinatalism can and has been formulated in analytic philosophy though. David Benatar is the most famous example.

No, it's fucking retarded

>>5783735
Still, saying that for every child I don't get another one will get one is retarded. There is no correlation between resources and children in first world countries.

I never said Anti-Nat's obsession with suffering is less retarded than your obsession with keeping the species alive, they are both stupid.

>>5783471
cognitivism is make-believe

>>5783529
You don't understand evolution at all

>Is antinatalism correct?

Strange question, that's like asking if vegetarianism is correct. Should one procreate? I think using antinatlist logic it can be shown the answer is no. First, it requires that an assumption/axiom is accepted to be true, and that is "one should not create/cause unnecessary suffering".

>choose not to procreate
>there exists no 'non-existent' child who would be deprived of the good in life if you don't procreate
>a child is not born who will inevitable suffer the trials of this world
>no harm done

>choose to procreate
>a child (potential sufferer) is born, who now has to fend for his survival, suffering his way to death
>harm is created

If you are compassionate, you will choose option one, and cause no harm to a non-existent child. Option two creates a lifetime of harm that didn't have to be.

it is maximum edginess for people who aren't edgy enough

>>5784405
Nice reddit meme.

>>5783644
>This tendency for life to continue existing despite all odds is the closest thing that can be observed to any kind of god
No.

>There is literally no reason not to participate in it.
Why?

>Even if you chose to not reproduce, you will simply be freeing up resources for others who do chose to reproduce.
So?

>>5784389
Is life that bad?

I feel like a lot of antinatalists are depressed and they project their neurochemical imbalances on everyone else.

>>5783471
The answer is no, by default, because any groups who thinks yes will cease to exist in some decades. It is like how the soviets exterminated dissenting demographics, but self-inflicted.

>>5784389

Who cares about being compassionate?I can be compassionate about one thing and not compassionate about another.
Why is being consistent important?Based on what?
You do not have to be consistent, you can just do whatever you want.
I can be against suffering except when it comes to making a kid out of selfish reasons.
call me a hypocrite? aah, we are all hypocrites at some point.

>>5784728
Same guy here.
Life holds no truths no foundations and no fundamental rational reasons for its existence.
Being compassionate is what you do out of self interest anyway.
You believe in some romantic "good"? if anything being good when its not in your interest is completely irrational, just means you are slave to social standards of the society you live in or of your own emotions(and we overcome those all the time). Its for the weak minded.

In general, since there is no reason to really do anything you will make a decision about having a kid because an electorn jumped somewhere in your brain. You are a machine fueled by predetermined physicality or randomness.

At some point because of this or that you will decide to make a kid(or never do). Is it because you decided you are against children on 4chan? maybe or maybe you will change your mind because of some other seemingly stupid reason or just give up to some physiological fueled selfishness.

Dont take shit too seriously you are a fucking robot.

>>5784728

Why even bother claiming compassion is important on an anonymous board? Saying you are compassionate or care about someone else is what you do as a result of self denial or to not get ostracized by society.
Wake up 5784389

>>5784759

The more you philosophize the more you realize that you could have lived your entire life without philosophizing and nothing would have changed about your perception of happiness or fulfillment of life.
The only prerogative of being interested in philosophy is being able to laugh at people taking life seriously without, first, being aware of how ridiculous doing that makes them.

>>5784634
Depressed anti-natalist reporting in, the reasoning stands either way.

There exist 0 happy antinatalists. No matter how smart.
it's just depression plus egomania

>>5784746
>Dont take shit too seriously you are a fucking robot.
yet you feel qualified to speak on life's truths, foundations, motivations, and so on

>>5784772
>The only prerogative of being interested in philosophy is being able to laugh at people taking life seriously
>The more you philosophize the more you realize that you could have lived your entire life without philosophizing and nothing would have changed about your perception of happiness or fulfillment of life.

Then you are most likely too dumb to construct a valid statement and wasted countless hours in self-denial. "Philosophizing" pretty much flipped my life upside down every time i discovered something new about myself and people around me. If you do not change your life style according to some higher principals that you personally believe are true, then you are less of a human being than a redneck with a bible and a pick-up truck.

>>5784746
Retard.
The reason for life is self perpetration. The idea is to reach the greatest level of diversity and ensure your survival.
However as we reached a certain level of reason and higher-thinking we can objectively prove by observing the universe, that the total extinction is inevitable sooner all later.
Taking that into the account we conclude that if there is no clear reason for creating sentient life it should be avoided because it would be just another recipient for possible pain and suffering, and by not being born it cannot be defined as a human being, therefore it has nothing to loose.
We can transcend our biological programming to act in a way that does not initiate violence (since forcing someone into the existence is an act of violence to some extend).

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

And you faggots that argue we should fuck our brains out because "muh nature", should watch a fucking national geographic documentary about lemmings that commit massive suicides for the sake of their natural reactions. Or mouse that die of starvation and exhaustion in the mating season because they glitch out on feromone high.
Nature is a blind engineer. What worked in a jungle 50-000 years ago is not designed to work in your best interest as a human being, Your body just wants to cum into a nice wet pussy.

>>5784906
You don't know shit kiddo...

>>5784981
Fuck sake, you're an idiot.
What do you realistically propose?

Fuck off already

I don't need to see a gorillion threads about Nietzscheniggers and Schopenfaggots arguing who's philosophy is more retarded

>>5784991
What you want? I don't propose a fucking law. I don't have some predesigned path that we should follow as a species.
We are unreasonable species that is instinctively driven to self-perpetration of suffering. Not only by actively reproducing, but by intiating violence of each other.

I will not reproduce because that can be logically proven to be the best course of action that will not leave blood anyones on my hands.

As for the rest of the species... We will keep spinning in our endless cycle of guilt and failure, probably well after next global conflict that will erupt somewhere during this century. Power will flow from one group to another while vast majority of humanity will remain a tax livestock and cannon fodder, until we get struck by a comet, some major pandemic breaks out, climate becomes inhabitable, or deep space radiation kills us. Sooner or later entropy will take its toll.

Antinatalism isn't radical enough.

>>5785040
If what you are against morally is suffering and violence of human beings and you have conceded that the best effort you are doing to help this is to not have kids then this shows a lot.

You could make an effort to prevent what you deem deplorable even if you are a drop in the ocean. You could raise kids with similar values who'd also be drops in the ocean and inspire other drops in the ocean.

If you take this problem of life and look at wanting to resolve anything realistically, preaching antinatalism will achieve fucking zilch. The only tiny affect you'll have is to not have children and and at a push set an example.

Also, the only thing that'll wipe out the entirety of humanity is the Earth becoming uninhabitable

>>5784981

hehe..
"The reason for life is self perpetration". what does this even mean you ignoramus?
Life is just a result of chemistry and physics.
Its a collection of natural phenomena. It's like saying wind blowing a leaf of a tree has a reason.
What was the reason for the wind to blow the leaf off? None, there is no reason behind life as well.
It is not a separate part to the universe nor is there an intelligent entity that created life FOR some reason.
The only reason that can be is reason in the sense of cause and effect(not justification) and the existence of life is not due to replication but due to more basic chemical processes.

"The idea is to reach the greatest level of diversity and ensure your survival"
Who's idea? life's diversity is just a result of yet more natural processes you are just anthropomorphizing these natural processes.
There is no idea just cause and effect, physics.
There is no goal. Life has no goals much like wind has none.

The reasons there is life is physics.
You go ahead and think you can find some meaning and ill keep laughing.

>"human suffering"

Proclaiming on an anonymous board you surrender to obvious artificial social constructs like "causing others pain and suffering is bad".
Save that shit for a priest or your friends who's respect and connection you need to maintain.

You are born on this planet, you have needs You cannot avoid, from here you are caught in a chain which forces you to cooperate with other life forms and from here we can analyze what rational behavior would be on your part.
you set certain goals, for some its very basic, satisfy immediate needs for others more complex.
You abide by social understanding and contracts because you want to enjoy the fruits of society and have evoloved(natural process) to resist self termination.
You proclaim agreement to laws to get respect from other sheeple and to have them help you.
you do it because it is rational, as in it leads you to your self assigned goals.Why do you assign goals? Cause you cant self destruct and you gotta do something and because you have basic needs you cannot escape.

If you can achieve some goal you happen to have in life by killing someone without anyone ever knowing what reason do you have not to do it?
A self aware person realizes there are no reasons. You kill and achieve your goal.
since we do not live in such a hypothetical world we have to weigh in our options and most of us decide such actions are not worth the risk, in modern society.
there are parts where its much more rational to kill others so people do that.

>>5785075
spoken like a true 14 year old
top satire

>>5785079

You go on playing spot the god, thinking life has a goal or "idea".

>>5785135
What's wrong with humans inventing gods or goals for a universe which lacks them?

Are you just some edgy nhialist? Because that's an idea too.

>>5785079

That wasnt me goddamnit.

>>5785075
>Who's idea? life's diversity is just a result of yet more natural processes you are just anthropomorphizing these natural processes.

Ok whatever. Life is a process of chemical reactions that result in exponentially greater diversity and complexity of molecules that life forms consist of.

And yeah now that you put it that way i agree in what you say. Pretty much the entirety of it except:

>If you can achieve some goal you happen to have in life by killing someone without anyone ever knowing what reason do you have not to do it?

Which i don't have to explain away because someone already did.

With your understanding of biology you can easily comprehend "The Objectivist Ethics" from The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand.

I believe that my happiness is the highest moral principle i have in this life, and achievment of it is my goal as long as i do not iniciate force on others.
Forcing someone into existence is an initiation of force so... yeah.

just man up and read job faggets

>>5784981

"Philosophizing" pretty much flipped my life upside down every time i discovered something new about myself and people around me. "

late teens or early 20's.We have been there kid. You are not discovering america. Some people do philosophy some dont.
It is like loving to do any other thing.
Yes, philosophy changed your life like anything anyone does changes his life.
Philosophy does not answer any questions, it asks them.It has its place when we ask questions in the context of life within society or society itself etc..
Metaphysical questions have been relegated to science and science shows us our lives are meaningless, our goals are self imposed.
Your morality about having kids or not Is just a fraud or self deception. You are just posing cause you want to feel morally superior.
At some point you will realize that You do things because you want to but say things that are appropriate towards achieving what you want.
If you truly believe in your "its immoral to bring life into this suffering world" as oppose to "I bring life cause I want to" than you are either young, deluded or just posturing.

>>5785143

There is nothing wrong with it, in fact we cant avoid it unless you can kill yourself, which most of us cant do, but you got to be self aware bout it.
Its the difference between, say, going for a career in finances because you blindly follow what you were told you should do or deciding to follow it because you are actually interested in it and are aware that you do things because you want to not because of societies ideals and norms or because of society's social or ethical agreements.

>>5785071
Raising a child in this, just so it can be outnumbered raped and murdered by violent masses of subhuman apes or lead a life of a tax farm slave is really shitty thing to do.

I used to hope that we can change our nature by systematic education, but after few years and moving halfway around the world...

We are inherently flawed as a species. Our minds are programmed to work in a tribal mentality and no matter how much good will you have in the end our most basic, irrational functions surface.

I learned to live in this system and even manage to prosper depending on how you define it.

But if i had a choice never being born is probably what i would like and there really is no reason to assemble new sentient life forms to this piece of shit sphere that will fall apart sooner or later.

I will try to enjoy the pleasures it offers as much as i can.

>>5785150
I dont read retarded pseudo philosophy by some emo slav who's stuff were taken by communist so she went full retard and wrote some moronic books/started a cult.
Might as well be reading dianetics.

>>5785194
Pretty clear now
this is just simple self pity and lack of will, poorly rationalised. Continue being a sadfag if you like, all the best

>>5785194
>Raising a child in this, just so it can be outnumbered raped and murdered by violent masses of subhuman apes or lead a life of a tax farm slave is really shitty thing to do.
>>5785194
i audibly kekd

>>5785212

"violent masses of subhuman apes or lead a life of a tax farm slave"

Ayn Rand should be raised from the dead and shot

>>5785180
I use word "philosophizing" for any form of higher thinking and science is include in that. Its just a fucking label.

> At some point you will realize that You do things because you want to but say things that are appropriate towards achieving what you want.

I don't need to realize that at some point. I already know it. And i DON'T WANT to cause other people suffering because it makes me uncomfortable.

Its not like there aren't some people that i wouldn't kill if i had a chance that would be 100% free of consequences, but mostly that is because they had initiated violence on me in the past and managed to get away with it. I say it now that if i had an opportunity to get rid of them without anyone uncovering the truth i would do it.

But most folks I approach with a friendly altitude simply because its easier for both of us, i know that if something happens i can count on them to help me out and i actually like to make other people feel good.
I guess I'm just wired that way. Call it social construct or whatever you want.

Creating a recipient for suffering would make me feel uncomfortable == not happy.

>>5785226

But ask yourself why would it make you feel uncomfortable? Because you are still a slave, in your mind, of some indoctrination.

Its one thing saying "I dont want to have kids" and its another saying "I dont want to have kids because of some moral considerations".
the first one makes sense and is rational the other reeks of propaganda.

>>5785240
I mean, both are rational because when you believe some social propaganda is a good foundation for making life decisions than your actions based on that are rational but its the same way religious people praying is rational, because they truly believe that someone is listening to them and might help.
the moment they stop believing the myth, it no longer makes sense to them, the illusion is broken and they realize it is irrational to pray.

>>5785150
>With your understanding of biology you can easily comprehend "The Objectivist Ethics" from The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand.

Not really. My biological philosophy tells you to make the world a nicer place in order to provide a better environment for future generations. If you compare it to Rand either I misrepresented it, or you misread it.

>>5785248
Do you have kids?

>>5785249
Not yet. I'm not sure if I want to or not. But regardless of weather or not i do, I still want to contribute to A) The individuals in my immediate social group, B) My species as a whole, C) Life in general, in that order.

I believe that these traits exist in me because it has proven evolutionary advantageous in the past, and will continue to be so in the future. If people didn't want to have kids or continue existence, they would have died off a long time ago. Nothing forces you to stay alive.

>>5785259
So you wanna contribute to humanity because others do it? lol...
What is this fatalism? existence might be out of our control but we do not know what the future will bring, you can at least entertain the idea that you are not predestined to breed.
we have no choice but to live with the illusion of cosmic free will.
You speak as if you are tied to a sinking ship so there is nothing you can do to change your future.

>>5785240
"I guess I'm just wired this way"

Muh mirror neurons
and also:
It makes life easier not to hurt other people.
A hurt person my hide their resentment for years only to strike when I'll be at my most vulnerable. I know because i did that.
By making other people feel nice around me, i stay in demand and therefore in control of other people.
So there you go if you need a selfish/reasonable explanation.

Also i guess
>>5785200 wasn't you.

Also i feel for my possible children. And say that im a slave or whatever you want... I really dont want people to suffer, because i can imagine myself in their place. There really is no other reason for me not to have children except saving someone from the pointless experience of consciousness.

>>5785259
>If people didn't want to have kids or continue existence, they would have died off a long time ago.

Why should i care about my species or what makes is evolutionary advantageous. Rape is evolutionary advantageous for fucks sake.

>>5785267
and you are indeed tied to a ship but you do not know which one or what will become of it. Maybe You are destined to not have kids and not worry about humanity? Maybe in a year or two you wont care anymore..Is that not possible?

>>5783592
It's inherent; that's his point. He doesn't have to justify it philosophically.

>>5785267
So the only reason to be an Antinatalist is to stamp your feet and tell mother nature to fuck off?
Are you really against something just to rebel against it? I recognize that having sex is pleasurable, I also recognize that many humans find child rearing ultimately enjoyable, and that even if life sucks, happiness exists.
If following these urges means taking part in a tradition started 4 billion years ago by self replicating molecules, that just makes it 'cooler.' I could chose not to, but what would I or anybody else I care about get out of it?

>>5785272
Rape is evolutionaraly advantageous, but socially disadvantageous. Antinatalism is both evolutionaraly AND socially disadvantageous.

>>5785272
I never said dont act morally(I only said you must be aware of the sources of moral and immoral behavior). You have to if you want to be a part of society but society will not judge you if you breed and nobody will be hurt.
You can have a kid if you want , society will not be hurt by it and your kid will(almost) definitely not be sorry for being born(and if things are that rough for him or her they can always end it themselves, they will have that choice).

The Ayn Rand comment was me.

>>5783471

But life is good and to affirm life is the ultimate good. To suffer is part of this good. To not be capable of seeing the good in life is a symptom of a lack of discipline. With discipline we challenge the state of nature and to challenge life is an ends to itself. If you are genuinely compasionate you would not deprive the eminent generation from affirming themselves over the earth and to fufill their duty to challenge life.

>>5785286
You can have kids im not against having kids or in favor of having them. You do what you want to do but be aware of why you do it. You can say you do it because "thats how life works" but thats an idiotic response, again it is acting as if you know your future yet you dont. From your perspective you make the choice so you can decide either way.
If you decide not to have kids why care about humanity's future(even if you have kids it is not rational to care about what happens to them after you die but its very hard to think that way so i can totally understand caring about the future for your kids)? Is life existing after you die important? Why? Because life replicates? What kind of rational sentient person makes a decision based on that?

>>5785291
this is the sound of privilege

>>5785299
I do it because I don't see any reason to buck a system that seems to have been working just fine for 5 billion years.
I understand it's arbitrary and that I could chose not to, but choosing otherwise would be just as arbitrary.

>>5785304
Said the upper middle class white kid on 4chan.

>>5783471
no.

The blood of your fathers has turned to water in your veins. Not your lot is it to be strong as they were. Having tasted neither life’s sorrows nor it’s joy, like a sickling you look at life through a glass. Your skin will shrivel, your muscles grow weak, tedium will devour your flesh destroying desire. Thought will congeal in your skull and horror will stare at you from the mirror. Overcome yourself, overcome yourself. I tremble, I seethe, I clench, I seize the haul.

>>5785279
>inherent
If it was, there's be no disagreement over it.

>>5785291

>But life is good

life is good for you maybe, for some it is torture.

"to affirm life is the ultimate good"
affirming life?
WTH does this sentence even mean.

We constantly weigh our anguish and happiness versus the idea of ending our lives, mostly though, we do it when our life is shit.
Why is it good to fight for life? Because someone said so? You might want to live your life by some slogan or quote, that is your business but one thing is for sure, such simple mindedness only detracts from your right to judge others if they do not wish to keep on living.
How about paraplegics? would you not give up on life if you were one? You cant know what you would do unless you are one arrogant son of a bitch.

>>5785304
Oh yes it is...Can smell it a mile away.

>>5785320
>The blood of your fathers has turned to water in your veins. Not your lot is it to be strong as they were. Having tasted neither life’s sorrows nor it’s joy, like a sickling you look at life through a glass. Your skin will shrivel, your muscles grow weak, tedium will devour your flesh destroying desire. Thought will congeal in your skull and horror will stare at you from the mirror. Overcome yourself, overcome yourself. I tremble, I seethe, I clench, I seize the haul.

nice facebook quote.

I have to go now.

>>5785288
>The Ayn Rand comment was me.
Well too bad. I dont have to say how pathetically shallow it was compared to the rest of out pretty fruitful discussion.

Thank you anyway. Interesting exchange that added a lot, which was a breath of fresh air compared to most of these kind of threads.

Enjoy your life i guess.

>>5784634
>he thinks depression is real

TOP KEK

>>5785339
It is all true though.
Objectivism is pseudo philosophy and she was an insane slav cause of "muh evil communism".
she also did had a small cult following, as in, actual cult.

>>5784634
>neurochemical imbalances
Ayy lmao.

Anti-natalists you have to do an honest appreciation how terrible our species is before you decide to bother trying to convince anyone else. They actually don't things to get better. You can't help them because they don't want to be helped. They legetimarely do not care.

So just do what I am doing; die in silence and weep for those still playing the game. The universe will shut up shop on it's own eventually anyway.

>>5785364

"die in silence and weep for those still playing the game"

4edgy2me

>>5784634
is "neurochemical imbalance" code for "not a normalfag"?

>>5785364
>The universe will shut up shop on it's own eventually anyway.

Whenever I get fed up with things I remind myself of the coming extinction event. Feels good man.

>>5785375

You wont be around for it.

>>5785326

The sufferer is not the starving man. The sufferer is not the sick man. The sufferer is not the man stricken by destitution. The sufferer is the man, who sees his hunger, who see his sickness, who sees his destitution and sees nothing else. He who cannot justify his hunger, suffers from starvation. He who cannot subvert his sickness is subverted by it. He who looses himself when he looses his means cashes in suffering. Let the hungry eat for them to die of dysentery soon after. Cure the sick for them to jump off a bridge on impulse. Lend the destitute millions for them to find polio in their checks. Let us come to admire those stricken by adversity, and deride the sufferer. Suffering is not the product of adversity. Adversity is something to overcome. Meaning is found in adversity and the man stricken with it lives not in suffering, but in meaning. His greatness is that he overcomes adversity and transcends it through affirmation and he transcends his ego, which at all cost inflates his adversity in an attempt to consume his vision. Suffering is a state of being, a culmination of short-sightedness, which inflates adversity through his ego to be the state of nature. Suffering, then, is the result of ignorance caused by egotism. The sufferer fails to realize his ability to denounce suffering by affirming the state of nature which causes adversity, thus transcending his ego. Yet the sufferer loves his ego; he loves to suffer.

>>5785392

Go transcend your ego when you shit and piss yourself and need a machine to be able to breath.

>>5785406

Stephen Hawking has. He doesn't just sit and brood over his circumstance. He became more and achieved more than any of us here. He transcended the impulse of the ego to wallow in its circumstance.

>>5785392

Is this a quote from Roberto Mangabeira Unger?
In any case, go fuck yourself.

>>5785392
>Applause.

>>5785412

Good for him. That was his decision to make and its his life to live, im sure he will be the first to sympathize with someoen who does not want to live like that.

>>5785425
Which is something Auntie-Natalie needs to learn how to do.

>>5785430
You're not making a lick of sense.

>>5785386
Even better.

>>5785425

Ye he would feel even more sympathy, down right respect, for those who, like himself, trascended the mentality brought about by the condition. Why would you wallow in your pithiness when the power to overcome the pity is proven to be there, as exemplified by others? Unless, that is you convince yourself worse off than others. As if your condition were unique and alien to the world, incapable of understanding you. This is all your ego at work.

>>5785370
You say 'edgy' like it's a bad thing.

I find it funny how no one has yet been able to disprove the anti-natalist claim that one is better off not existing and that sparing future generations from life is a good thing.

All you natalists use as counter-arguments are "muh evolution" (it's blind for fucks sake, it doesn't have any inherent meaning behind it), "muh egoism" (as if having children were anything else than a burden) or "muh inherent meaning in existence".

For fucks sake, the fact that we exist is not proof of our existence somehow being necessary, good or even preferable.

The cognitive dissonance of the optimists (natalists) in this thread is astounding.

>>5784389
That child also won't experience suffering, since it doesn't exist :^)

>>5785900
i don t have to diprove your claim. i have pointed out why it is bullshit (with respect to Benatar's four points) in previous threads you can read all of iz in warosu archive.

>>5785917
>i don t have to diprove your claim.
You sure do if you want to claim that your cowardly optimism that requires cognitive dissonance would be the "right" stance to take.

> i have pointed out why it is bullshit (with respect to Benatar's four points)
Oh, I really doubt that.

>>5785900
The fact of suffering doesn't invalidate the goodness of life.
A good reason to live is unnecessary. Life is its own justification.
Accepting that suffering doesn't make life not worth living is part of growing up.
AN begs the question: why is not having kids the best way to confront suffering?

>>5785935
>Life is its own justification.
No, it is not. That would require it to have inherent meaning, which it doesn't (as far as we know).

>Accepting that suffering doesn't make life not worth living is part of growing up.
No, it's part of being a cowardly optimist.

>AN begs the question: why is not having kids the best way to confront suffering?
Really? You're asking why the best way to confront suffering isn't to not force life (and thus suffering) on an innocent sentient being? You are retarded.

>>5785938
> You're asking why the best way to confront suffering isn't to not force life (and thus suffering) on an innocent sentient being? You are retarded.
EDIT: Meant to say this:

Antinatalism isn't about confronting suffering, it's about preventing it. Besides, having a kid essentially means inflicting suffering on a helpless, sentient being, which is a cowardly act and just as morally disgusting as murder.

>>5785927
dont make assumptions. i dont claim that having children is good or bad or anything like that. i only hold that antinatalism is devoid of coherent argument and a mere universalization of personal belief/emotion/opinion (as are those arguments that advocate for procreation btw).

>>5785949
>i only hold that antinatalism is devoid of coherent argument and a mere universalization of personal belief/emotion/opinion (as are those arguments that advocate for procreation btw).
That is false though. Antinatalism is perfectly logical and true, given the premise, and guess what: no philosophy is coherent without first accepting certain axioms (that are rooted in universalization of personal belief/opinion).

The difference is that most people agree that suffering is bad, and that's why I don't understand why they don't see what follows (which is anti-natalism).

>>5785938
>That would require it to have inherent meaning, which it doesn't
Big, edgy assumption. For someone who likes to pretend they're taking the moral high ground, you sure do like to imply that there's no such thing as moral truth.
>You're asking why the best way to confront suffering isn't to not force life (and thus suffering) on an innocent sentient being?
Yes. I'm also asking you to prove that there's no way to justify it, and that the being wouldn't be better off for being.
>Antinatalism isn't about confronting suffering, it's about preventing it
Preventing it for beings that don't exist. They don't care, and they never will.
Why not try to make their lives better instead of shitposting about how much you resent your parents on a Laotian porn BBS?

>>5785955
Most people agree that suffering is just part of life and don't make the pleasure-pain binary the defining aspect of their moral philosophy.
Antinatalism is Buddhism for idiots.

>>5785965
>For someone who likes to pretend they're taking the moral high ground, you sure do like to imply that there's no such thing as moral truth.
I don't claim to take the moral high ground, I just don't understand how natalists can't see the violence they incite when they breed.

>Preventing it for beings that don't exist. They don't care, and they never will.
Doesn't matter, they won't esperience suffering either, so it evens out to zero. Living always has a negative vlalue, as suffering outweighs the possible positives of life.

>Why not try to make their lives better instead of shitposting about how much you resent your parents on a Laotian porn BBS?
Whose lives are you talking about?

>>5785967
>Most people agree that suffering is just part of life
Yes, and that is why life is not preferable to non-existence.

>and don't make the pleasure-pain binary the defining aspect of their moral philosophy.
Well, I do.

>Antinatalism is Buddhism for idiots.
Buddhism is pessimism for idiots.

>>5785984
You most certainly are taking the moral high ground, as am I.
>Living always has a negative vlalue, as suffering outweighs the possible positives of life.
Why is that?
>Whose lives are you talking about?
The people now suffering in the world.
>Yes, and that is why life is not preferable to non-existence.
That doesn't follow from the fact that pain exists.
>Well, I do.
That's nothing but a sign of weakness.
At least we agree that Buddhism isnt the one true faith.

>>5785991
>Why is that?
Because life consists of suffering and any pleasure is simply a temporary relief. You are by default hungry until you eat something (suffering-reward-feeling good), you are by default bored until you do something, you are by default indifferent unless you choose not to be.

>The people now suffering in the world.
Why should I care about them? Most of them are too fucking stupid to understand a concept so simple as anti-natalism, with most of them swinging a "holy book" at my face and then probably hanging me for my claims.

Ignorant, gullible people (i.e. most humans) are not worth saving, they can keep on murdering (breeding) for all I care.

>That doesn't follow from the fact that pain exists.
Sure it does, since the pain in life weighs heavier than the pleasure.

>That's nothing but a sign of weakness.
Hardly, it's a sign of compassion.

>At least we agree that Buddhism isnt the one true faith.
I never said it was, you brought up that dumb "self-help" religion.

>>5785996
>Because life consists of suffering and any pleasure is simply a temporary relief
This is an idiotic dichotomy. The relief can make it worthwhile.
>Why should I care about them?
Because they're alive and suffering and therefore more worthy of your empathy than people who haven't been born and aren't suffering.
>Sure it does, since the pain in life weighs heavier than the pleasure.
Is that necessarily true? It sounds like you're projecting your experience onto everyone.
>Hardly, it's a sign of compassion.
I'm not going to listen to someone who thinks anyone who has children is an Überhitler lecture me about compassion, especially not after you admit you don't think you have a reason to care about living human beings.

>>5785999
>The relief can make it worthwhile.
For a moment, until you weigh both sides against each other in a bigger picture.

>Because they're alive and sufferingand therefore more worthy of your empathy than people who haven't been born and aren't suffering.
Yes, and most of them are making innocent beings suffer (by breeding), so no, they are not worthy of my empaty.

>Is that necessarily true? It sounds like you're projecting your experience onto everyone.
I'm not an optimist, so you will obviously find a hard time agreeing with me. Besides, optimism requires self-deception.

>I'm not going to listen to someone who thinks anyone who has children is an Überhitler lecture me about compassion
I support antinatalism, you support murder. I'm pretty sure you're the shitty person here, not me.

>, especially not after you admit you don't think you have a reason to care about living human beings.
Most people don't care about me, so why should I care about them? I already explained why it's a pointless venture, we are ignorant and stupid as a species (why do you think religion or self-slaveri (statism) exists?), you can't cure that by "helping others".

The system (our human nature) is fucked from the start, and we don't have the tools to fix it. The only thing we seem to be able to do is to self-perpetuate continued suffering by breeding future generations, and we do it with very vague reasoning.

>>5786019
>For a moment, until you weigh both sides against each other in a bigger picture.
On the contrary: your picture isn't big enough.
>uffering.
Yes, and most of them are making innocent beings suffer (by breeding), so no, they are not worthy of my empaty.
You admit, then, that you care about things that don't exist more than things that do exist. Why do you care about preventing suffering if you don't care about sufferers?
>I'm not an optimist
Neither am I.
>I support antinatalism, you support murder
I don't understand how thinking life is good necessarily equates to supporting murder. Why do you care about murder anyway? Don't you not care about living people?
>Most people don't care about me, so why should I care about them?
What is altruism? You're missing the point of empathy entirely.

>>5783471
it is logical to evaluate the antinatialists position as objectively being the more morally reasonable one
however we know that humans are not computers and so this assessment totally fails the test of the real world

>>5785900

>>>5785392

Suffering is a result of the ego, not of the world-as-is. It can subverted with human strenght and the goodness of life lies in trascending it and our own egos. Unless you can reason suffering to be inherit to life and not a result of interpretation, anti-natalism remains an egotistic conclusion.

>>5786034
Antinatalists BTFO

>>5786064
>it is logical to evaluate the antinatialists position as objectively being the more morally reasonable one
not even a little bit

>Because life consists of suffering and any pleasure is simply a temporary relief. You are by default hungry until you eat something (suffering-reward-feeling good), you are by default bored until you do something, you are by default indifferent unless you choose not to be.

nice kitchen sink anthropology you've got there... seriously, that's extremely retarded.

>>5786193
>ur dum
Splendid.

>>5786196
You haven't responded to any of the more elaborate refutations of your position in anythjng like an intelligent or logically sound manner, faggot. Just admit that you're a frustrated virgin who hasn't killed himself only because he's afraid of death.

>>5786210
Calling them elaborate refutations won't make them such and namecalling certainly won't either.

>>5786196
>Splendid.

>>5785996
>Because life consists of suffering and any pleasure is simply a temporary relief. You are by default hungry until you eat something (suffering-reward-feeling good), you are by default bored until you do something, you are by default indifferent unless you choose not to be.

Your 'default' state is a ruse (there is no such thing in the human organism as a 'default state' of hunger or boredom. These things occur at certain points in a human-environment field under certain circumstances, but they are neither 'default', nor would anyone except the most pampered of western society's children think that being hungry or bored is some kind of intolerable hell on earth). The idea that pleasure is merely a temporary relief from suffering has been pulled 100% from your ass. Why not the other way around? Suffering is merely a temporary distraction from pleasure. It's just bullshit to make such claims. This claim is unfounded on multiple different levels. It's not just that the necessary empirical data is missing, there isn't even a consistent methodology that could support the claim you are making.

>>5786210
How can you refute shit when there's disagreement over the premises?

>>5785051
Good points.

Antinatalists: If you could press a button that would instantly and painlessly kill all living beings would you do it?

>>5786274
Yes. Suffering cannot be justified by any amount of pleasure. Have you heard of the false vacuum out of curiosity?

>>5786254
He would rather spout ad hominems, than clarify his position.

>>5786274
I'd do it, but I'm not an antinatalist. I just hate everyone. Antinatalism is still retarded.

>>5786306
Well that's just petty. Also it isn't a punishment, for they'll have no knowledge of their death.

>>5786308
>Also it isn't a punishment, for they'll have no knowledge of their death.
Well, obviously nothing after I push the button matters. It's an extremely egoistic thing to do. It's really not about anyone else but me at all, it's just a personal power trip. I wouldn't actually push the button, but I've felt like doing it in the past.

>>5786254
Your premises and your logic have been refuted multiple times. I'm thebguy that's made all 3 of these antu-anti-natalism threads and I've trounced you people dozens of times. You don't know when you're beaten.

>>5786327
Your heavy typos make it hard to say whether this post is a parody or not, but I'll bite. You cannot _refute_ premises (you can disagree with them, but never refute) and you haven't shown how "one ought not to breed" doesn't follow from the premise "one ought not to cause nor create unnecessary suffering". If you can't understand this then one can wonder how do you even remember to breathe.

>>5786357
I'm on my phone, sorry for the typos.
I've made multiple objections to that premise that you idiots haven't managed to acknowledge or counter. I've made objections to your responses when you've bothered to respond to me. Many others have, as well.

The fact of suffering doesn't negate the goodness of life. Suffering is inevitable and character-building. It makes more sense to help out fellow sufferers than to wish for the extinction of your species. Your arguments are based entirely on resentment and projection of your feelings onto others.

no, it's idiotic

>>5786369
Make all the goddamn objections you want, they're not refutations of the premises nor the logic.
>The fact of suffering doesn't negate the goodness of life.
Again, this is just a opinion-based postulate on your part over which there is disagreement.
>Suffering is inevitable and character-building.
Same with this. Having children is not inevitable ergo the suffering they will be subjected to is not inevitable.
>It makes more sense to help out fellow sufferers
This doesn't address giving birth, spitting out children creates more suffering and adds one more being to world whose suffering needs to be tended to with less resources than before.
> Your arguments are based entirely on resentment and projection of your feelings onto others.
Not only is this false, it doesn't even address the issue at hand.

>>5786384
Are you implying antinatalism is unrefutable?

Asking for voluntary abstaining from breeding isn't going to help since you can't stop the normies by appealing to reason.

The only antinatalism that would have any real consequences would be forced sterilisation or, if more sophisticated means aren't available, humane execution.

any time i've seen an antinatalist irl or in video on youtube or something, they've been fat as fatass sad sacks with no social abilities

It's funny how no one here can even explain the most fundamental element for anti-natalist logic; the nature of suffering. Unless you can prove that suffering isn't causes by the ego anti-natalism is fundamentally flawed. Anti-natalist assume a state of nature which is observably incorrect. They, like good egotist, inflate their interpretation and impose it on the rest of the world, ignoring how almost everyone accepts adversity, and they're actually the minority, too lazy and too weak to act on the most primordial instinc of human nature, the will to live and our ability to overcome circumstances. Yet they neglect the state of nature in favor of what gives them a sense of uniqueness and importance. You choose to wallow and suffer, for it gives you a sense of uniqueness of importance, while the act of overcoming reduces you into a spec in a larger Cosmo of movement and action independent of you. Overcoming requires you to face this Cosmo, to transcend it, yet to transcend it you must first affirm it. The sufferer suffers out off romantic importance.

>>5786664
So romantic, just like one of my Goethe novels.

>>5785967
Fucking this. Consider that the average Antinatalist has a similar upbringing to the Buddha. A spoiled child who is suddenly exposed to the suffering of others, and has a mental breakdown because he can't imagine that other people deal with it.

Unlike the Buddha however, they fail to produce a worthwhile philosophy. They can't progress past the four sights.

>>5786796

Adversity is part of nature. She is only a sufferer if she allows to lose herself with his death. But africans are generally not sufferers. They keep on living, celebrating their heritage, procreating, and generally affirming their conditions and their lives. They trascend their ego as oppose to the new england millionaire who kills himself because his company forecloses. Adversity is not the cause of suffering, this is easily observable.

>>5786664
According to Antinatalists, pleasure is just a temporary illusion caused by chemicals in the brain, but suffering is REAL and PERMANENT.

>>5786816
It's amazing how much Antinatalists like to cherry pick and portray the third world as hell, while claiming to be compassionate and moral. A bunch of spoiled racist fucks is what they are.

>>5786816
That's because they are less developed. Antinatalism, suicidality, depression and pessimism come around when a society is successful enough not to constantly be engaged with day to day problems and survival. It's a side effect of calm contemplation.

Once/if Africa becomes wealthy and secure, they will face the same problems. You're right that in a way adversity is not the cause of suffering. It's actually a distraction from suffering in a way. It's when the problems are solved that people get confronted by the fact that a life without conventional problems is still inherently problematic, so they draw the conclusion that it is life itself that is the problem, because even if you have whatever you could reasonably hope for, it's still dissatisfactory.

>>5786874
So you agree Antinatalism is a philosophy for spoiled rich kids, who are constantly suffering from boredom.

Well, you'll be happy to know, that in developed nations, the birth rate happens to drop to 1 or 2 children per family, slightly below the replacement rate. So people who will grow up feeling bored and tormented by their egos are less likely to be born than people who will have to fight for their lives, (and thus appreciate any happiness they find) will outnumber them by an order of magnitude.

The Antinatalist's problem is that dispute their claim of empathy, they can't imagine any other mindset, and think that the way things are for them is the way things should be.

I wouldn't mind breeders so much if they were just honest and said 'I'm too weak and selfish to transcend my biology"

>>5786914
Why is 'transcending' your biology necessarily worthwhile or meritorious?

>>5786914
What's the point of transcending your biology?

Imagine you were in an infinite empty plane with just yourself and a book. Would you read the book, or would you wander around doing nothing forever?
The book is biology, wandering around forever is transcending it.

>>5786914
But don't you get it anon? Life is an intrinsic value come hell or irreparable brain damage even though no one has an interest in becoming existent before they're already spat out into the world. Because of factually wrong teleological interpretation of evolution and a misreading of Nietzsche's texts I have the (juridical and) moral right to take the risk on behalf of my child never mind the fact that I won't be the receiving party of the potentially morbid consequences.

>>5786935
What does Nietzsche have to do with a psychologically normal desire to reproduce?

>>5786950
You tell me, I see a lot of Nietzschean elements in this thread right from the OP.
>>5786664
>>5785392
>>5785291

>>5786906
>So you agree Antinatalism is a philosophy for spoiled rich kids, who are constantly suffering from boredom.
Yes, but everyone is trying to turn the world into a place full of spoiled rich kids. It's pretty much the inevitable result of progress in the conventional sense of the word. Ennui is the end stage of civilisation.

>Well, you'll be happy to know, [...] will outnumber them by an order of magnitude.
I know, but the ones who struggle attempt to become like the ones who don't have to. And once they do they'll fall prey to the same attitudes.

>The Antinatalist's problem is that dispute their claim of empathy, they can't imagine any other mindset, and think that the way things are for them is the way things should be.
There is a difference between empathy and respecting other people's opinions. I feel empathy for crack whores who get pregnant, but I wouldn't respect their choice to keep using during pregnancy, for example. Empathy doesn't warrant tolerance of immorality.

Of course you can say it's all relative and subjective and all that, and of course it is. But this is no more an argument against antinatalism than against any other ethical stance.

I realise that arguing for antinatalism is both futile and superfluous though. Futile in the sense that you can't simply take away someone's desire to have children with a bit of arguing and superfluous in the sense that life itself will turn on itself regardless of rhetoric. As you say, too much success and efficiency lead to peoples to self-destruct and stop breeding. Then there's also the way we sabotage the environment we need to survive, the possibility of near apocalyptic warfare and if that doesn't work there is always some naturally triggered extinction event. All it takes is a proper volcano or a meteorite. Life doesn't need much arguing against, it's fickle and fragile and relatively short lived.

As Nietzsche said:

"Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of "world history," but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die. One might invent such a fable, and yet he still would not have adequately illustrated how miserable, how shadowy and transient, how aimless and arbitrary the human intellect looks within nature. There were eternities during which it did not exist. And when it is all over with the human intellect, nothing will have happened."

We're already on the way out. Antinatalism is merely the suggestion to quit while you're relatively ahead.

Why do these threads get so many replies?

>>5786963
Antinatalism is the last taboo together with work refusal.

>>5786963
Degeneracy and cultural Marxism.
I blame Adorno.

>>5786971
Kek

>>5786961
>Implying an end of history.

If spoiled rich kids feeling unfulfilled is so horrible, then western civilization will (rightly) collapse, and the survivors will quickly re-discover meaning in life as they struggle to stay alive.
That's the beauty of life. Antinatalists might say it's meaningless, but the way it weeds out people who have no interest in it.

At any rate, I don't think Antinatalism is the only possible mindset for spoiled rich kids. Plenty of people find egoism and hedonism worthwhile. I don't think declining birthrates will destroy western civilization either, a shrinking population is actually advantageous for the aristocracy as it allows more wealth to be concentrated.

If everyone realizes the dream of becoming "A developed western nation" I think the world population would start to shrink (if it hasn't already been reduced by a global catastrophe) But it would not shrink all the way to zero, it would rather stabilize at a smaller population.

>>5786997
>If spoiled rich kids feeling unfulfilled is so horrible, then western civilization will (rightly) collapse, and the survivors will quickly re-discover meaning in life as they struggle to stay alive.
>That's the beauty of life. Antinatalists might say it's meaningless, but the way it weeds out people who have no interest in it.
That is, until they become decadents themselves. They have world-weariness waiting for them at the end of the line as well.

>At any rate, I don't think Antinatalism is the only possible mindset for spoiled rich kids. Plenty of people find egoism and hedonism worthwhile. I don't think declining birthrates will destroy western civilization either, a shrinking population is actually advantageous for the aristocracy as it allows more wealth to be concentrated.
Antinatalism comes after wearing out the egoism and hedonism in my experience. I think Western civilisation will be destroyed by immigrants outbreeding the people who hold the values of said Western civilisation.

>If everyone realizes the dream of becoming "A developed western nation" I think the world population would start to shrink (if it hasn't already been reduced by a global catastrophe) But it would not shrink all the way to zero, it would rather stabilize at a smaller population.
It might for a while, until it does shrink to zero. Extinction is inevitable.

>>5786924
Because nature is a blind, dumb force that doesn't have anyone's best interest in mind

>>5787048
Extinction is followed by replacement.
A similar phenomena is observed in human history. Wars and famines are followed by population booms.

If westerners are outbread by people who like having babies, then those people will continue to grow.

>>5787073
As opposed to another blind, dumb force that dosn't even reward you with dopamine?

>>5787073
And yet we aren't separate from nature.

Is antinatalism spooky?

>>5784373
>>5783615
I'm going to second these guys.

>>5787084
>Extinction is followed by replacement.
Not when you don't have a universe capable of supporting life anymore. Even if for the sake of argument we accept that humans and whatever species follow Homo sapiens sapiens manage to survive everything else, they won't outlive Big Rip, heat death of the universe or the sudden collapse of everything if the universe turns out to be a false vacuum. The odds of any single species surviving even nearly that far is against all odds and empirical evidence.

>>5787105
Very spoopy

>>5787242
What empirical evidence?

>>5787343
The fact that 99+% of species that have ever lived on this planet have gone extinct and that none of their life spans (for obvious reasons) exceeded 4.5 billion years. The oldest species currently alive is sponge (760ish million years) along with other sea-faring species and I don't see them conquering space before our sun burns out.

>>5787242
I'm sorry I won't take events more than 100 trillion years from now into account when I decide weather or not life is worth living in the current cosmological epoch.

>>5787365
Yes, and for each species that has gone extinct, it has been replaced by even more species. As long as the universe is still forming new stars, life will persist for the next 100 trillion years as a stage in the universe's evolution.

>>5787434
That's okay and I can understand your decision, the point however still stands - we are going to go extinct.
>worth living
But what about worth creating?
>>5787437
>life will persist for the next 100 trillion years
Highly unlikely, but I'm sure you have the math to back this up worked out.

>>5787450
I'll admit to getting my sources from wikipedia, but according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_of_an_expanding_universe
the Stelliferous Era (The epoch in which star formation will continue) is around 100 trillion years long.

After that the only stars will be white dwarfs, which will eventually cool into black dwarfs. Nobody is really sure how long this will take, it might be longer than it takes for all protons to decay.

It's possible that some advanced future race (unlikely to be humanity) might survive past the Stelliferous Era by building Matrioshka brains around a white dwarf star, and living as simulations within.
I imagine antinatalism (or rather a philosophy with similar tenants) might be a popular philosophy among the beings that live there. But even then, by removing themselves from the simulation, they would be freeing up resources which would allow more egoistic entities to survive longer.

Might make a good sci-fi novel, But if you are going to use this kind of future to justify antinatalism today, you are out of touch. Even the 5 billion years before the sun turns into a red giant is farther in the future than life has existed on earth.

Bump to prolong this thread's suffering.

>>5784389
option2:

why does it matter whether harm is created since they'll just die in the end?

you're going to die and nothing you're doing now will matter. the good things and the bad things.

so why does it matter whether a child is birthed only to suffer?

Before I go on a tirade against a strawman, how do anti-natalists seek to bring about the end of life?

Is it through violent self-annihilation, or one-by-one suicide?

>>5792608
They don't realize or acknowkedge that the extinction of the species is their ultimate goal, or at least dance around the point when it's brought up.

>>5792618

So what is the PG version of antinatalism then? Like, you just don't want to have kids?

>>5792625
You don't want anyone to suffer, and birth makes people suffer.

>>5792625
More or less. Although they usually end up talking about how all those horrible people in Africa should just stop making babies.

>>5783471
Anti-natalism is the logical conclusion to utilitarianism. If you grant that the elimination of suffering for most people is a valid moral "good" then giving life to new humans clearly is a moral "wrong".

>>5792732
But what if you engineered all life forms to be incapable of experiencing pain?

>>5792732
how is life suffering?

>>5792655

Birth is part of the reason why people suffer but it certainly isn't the whole story.

Besides we still got all these living people to deal with in the meanwhile. And then there are animals... And people who will want to keep giving birth. What do we do about all this?

>>5792738
I think we can all safely say that something fundamentally human would be lost if we could not experience pain in any way.

I can see some seriously disturbing philosophical problems with this. Psychopathic people do not experience emotional pain, only physical pain, so for the sake of argument what kind of pain are you talking about?

>>5792750
>how is life suffering?

The intrinsic absurdity of life is all around you. If you do not see it, it is probably because you have become so inured by distractions that you haven't taken the time to really reflect on what gives your life meaning.

So is this a meme philosophy or what? These are some pretty immediate objections. Surely somebody has a response?

>>5792751
>>5792751

>>5792758
you just gave me a vague answer

>The intrinsic absurdity of life is all around you.
c'mon you expect me to be content with that bullshit answer? what does that even mean?

no one is forcing you to post. if you can't answer then just say you can't

>>5792752
Well, would Antinats be against the creation of this non suffering life form which isn't human?

What _is_ suffering anyways? Specific chemicals in the brain? In what way does the existence of specific emotions in an individual constitute a negative for the human race as a whole.

I mean I don't like getting hurt as much as anybody else, but masochists exist. You can't just say "Everyone feels bad"
Any given emotion and how it is interpreted by the individual is up to that individual. Applying undue value to a range of emotions you classify as "Negative" is stupid. Especially when you are ignoring the fact that those emotions can be experienced as the result of a large verity of arbitrary stimuli, and that most people aren't experiencing them at any given moment.

>labels
>words

live a day without thinking

Lmao @ antinats being unable to answer basic questions about definitions and utility

>>5792964
You seriously overestimate people's willingness to spend time and energy answering every question you can possibly come up with on an anonymous image board, especially when they don't directly address the issue at hand.

>>5793229
>I'm too lazy to respond to the myriad objections raised against my worldview

>>5783471
that was a stupid question and you deserve all the stupid answers youre getting

>>5792658
>how all those horrible people in Africa should just stop making babies.
They should though. Arguing about the morality of having children is one thing, but I'm sure most people would agree it's immoral to have children you can't provide for.

Nietzsche had some sick tats bruh

>>5795481
So did your mom last night

bump

Will these threads never die?

>>5796294
Ask the guy making all these threads to ask stupid questions.

>>5792758
So you suffer because you don't find purpose in life?

Or is it because you're a pseudo-intellectual spoiled middleclass child?

Why haven't you gotten a badass tattoo of Nietzsche to show the world how smart you are /lit/?

>>5796770
that nietzsche looks like porky pig

>get Gravity's Rainbow tattoo
>anon, why do you have a pen tattooed on your arm
>'I-its not a pen, it's a rocket you baka gaijin!!!'

>>5796770
That's actually a nice tattoo

>>5798727
It really isn't.

Bumping containment thread to prevent the unnecessary birth of new Antinatalism threads.

>>5792892

Even masochists have categories of suffering that they aren't willing to endure, the category they enjoy is relatively narrow and specific. If a form of life existed that enjoyed all forms of suffering, it wouldn't last long.

>>5783529
>The universe is less interesting without humans

What a humancentric view you have

These threads have a negative value

>>5796770

*tips fedora

>>5802979
As a human I am not obligated to be anything else.

Also I should add, I don't just mean humans as one particular species of bipedal ape. Any kind of self replicating information capable of evolution and possibly sentience enriches the universe in my opinion.

The idea that the universe would be better off without life, is no less Arbitrary. However I will point out that it is less likely to persist as it is less likely to reproduce, and inherently self-destructive.

>>5803001
>no less Arbitrary

It is arbitrary, but what you're suggesting is that it's desirable to force others to suffer for the sake of your entertainment.

see >>5784389

>>5803458
Caring about suffering is arbitrary.

>>5786134
Not really, he just couldn't argue his case well enough and his opponent didn't actually refute antinatalism, he focused more on peripheral things he said.

>>5786664
Spoken like a pampered spoiled brat who has never suffered the worst agonies this world has to offer.

>>5804231
Spoken like someone who has definitely suffered those agonies.

Stop bumping this fucking thread.
Everyone ITT is a cuckold.

>>5804245
No, but I'm planning on giving myself a taste of them soon in my plan to further commit myself to antinatalism.

>>5804257
That's a fucking terrible and stupid idea. Thanks for keeping yourself out of the breeding pool.

>>5804274
Not really, but you have not suffered from years of mental torment so you might have a hard time understanding. But you're welcome, I'm just doing my part to reduce suffering in this world.

>>5803834

If you believe that's true, then you won't object to an ass raping.

If by antinatalism you mean being a homosexual, then yes.

>>5804550
Homosexuality has been allowed to persist because it increases the possible caregivers for new generations of offspring. It reduces the quantity of people being born, but increases the quality of each one.

The only way to really advance the cause of Anitnatalism would be to engineer a plague that will spread through the entire human population in a dormant mode, before mutating into a new strain which causes sterility.

This plague also has to be 100% effective, or you will just be ensuring a generation of survivors who don't have to compete for resources (and will thus experience rapid population growth)

>>5804598
'Has been allowed' - do you mean in evolutionary terms, or in terms of public policy?

Also if you haven't seen it already there is a British series called Utopia which basically has your sterility idea as the main plot.

>>5785180
>metaphysical questions have been regulated to science
kek

>>5804672
In evolutionary terms yes. From a simplistic view of natural selection, homo or asexuality would seem to be disadvantageous and thus selected against, yet homosexual behavior can be seen in many species of animal.

Another theory for it's "purpose" is that it's simply an outgrowth of the mechanism which allows individuals to form social bonds with creatures which are not it's mates or offspring.

It's likely both are contributing factors. Given this perspective, Homosexuals are actually the foundation of all civilization, rather than it's degeneration.

>>5783529
>biological imperative

As humans we have evolved beyond the confines of certain biological or natural boundaries

>>5806299
>Evolved beyond biology.

Evolution is a biological process. Even our minds and culture are just layers of abstraction over animal instincts. If it's possible for a human to do something, than that thing is by extension part of nature. Minds don't just come out of nowhere.

>>5785194
The species can replaced by a specifically designed successor species. A quick eugenic war and you will feel much much better.