[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 11 KB, 263x379, Shulamith_Firestone.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11835814 No.11835814[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Stop making babies

>> No.11835827

>>11835814
>browsing /lit/
>making babies

>> No.11835845

Why did her family change their name from Feuerstein?

>> No.11835865

Alright I have an idea
Anti-natalists stop making babies
Natalists keep on making babies

That way we only have to listen to life-denying losers whine until 2080

>> No.11836003

God even from that photo I can tell how tender and pale her skin is

>> No.11836011

It takes two to tango, anon

>> No.11836023

I dont think Ive ever seen a good anti-family hell even anti-nuclear family argument that isnt crackpot shit or muh new invention

>> No.11836200

>Firestone was born Shulamith Bath Shmuel Ben Ari Feuerstein in Ottawa, Canada. She was born on January 7th, 1945 and was the second of six children and the first daughter of Orthodox Jewish parents Kate Weiss, a German, and Sol Feuerstein, a Brooklyn salesman

imagine my shock

>> No.11836207
File: 130 KB, 1024x768, DE8B8B9B-41FE-4FF9-9DAA-8C82848F6BE8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11836207

Stop caring about what women think and get your press up to 225lbs.

>> No.11836208

>>11835814
Okay, but first, let's make a baby!

>> No.11836232

Fucking antinatalist jews are the worst. They tell whites to not have kids while sending 50B per second to Africa.

>> No.11836276

>>11835845
>>11836200
>>11836232
Good point. I never thought of it that way before.

>> No.11836277

>>11836232
>>>/pol/

>> No.11836390

>>11835814
>imagine all the people

>> No.11836398

>>11835814
>born Shulamith Bath Shmuel Ben Ari Feuerstein
Damn she must have been a turbokike

>> No.11836401

>>11835814
No problem since I'm a fucking ugly ass incel and no woman would ever touch me and I have no friends. End my fucking life now.

>> No.11836517

>>11835865
If Antinatalism was hereditary then they wouldn't be here in the first place.

>> No.11836998

Antinatalism means coming to terms with the ecological reality of a finite planet in a hyper-industrialized context that threatens the continuity of life on Earth.
The paedophilic and radical feminist arguments that she uses to justify it are stupid, though.

>> No.11837047

>>11835814
But twitter jezebels are at peak horny this time of year this could be my chance to produce offspring

>> No.11837053

>>11837047
You don't need jezebels

>> No.11837219

>>11836276
If you thought that was a good point, I've got news for you...

>> No.11837254

>>11836232
If you have any awareness whatsoever of literally any data on income versus fertility rates, then you'd know this is the precise opposite of an argument.

Also threadly reminder that the axiological asymmetry is self-evidently true and truly the only thing that matter when it comes to this topic.

>> No.11837275

>>11835814
>Firestone was born Shulamith Bath Shmuel Ben Ari Feuerstein[1] in Ottawa, Canada. She was born on January 7th, 1945[5] and was the second of six children and the first daughter of Orthodox Jewish parents Kate Weiss, a German, and Sol Feuerstein, a Brooklyn salesman.[6]
hmmm

>> No.11837300

>>11836207
Why do you autistic fanboys have so many pictures of him? are you really that gay?

>> No.11837343

>>11835814

Too bad white women bought into that.

>> No.11837403

>>11837343
No, it's good.
Babies are bad, and you should feel bad for making them.

>> No.11837561

>>11835814
Only someone afflicted with the male gaze could beleive child birth to be an evil. True feminists see childbirth for what it truly is; beautiful, empowering, divine.

>> No.11837570

>>11837561
No true scotswoman

>> No.11837756

Having one child, two max, is the most logical decision a person can make when deciding how many children to have. There is no need to have more, the only reason people would have more is for their vain pleasure due to their unwarranted perception of their self-importance.

>> No.11837772

>>11835814
goodbye 4chan

>> No.11837788

>>11837570
Of course she's a feminist. I'm just inverting the feminist argument and imagining a world in which feminsits believe childbirth to be a moral good.

>> No.11837789

>>11837772
Making babies is still unethical even if you do it on 8ch or 2ch

>> No.11837790

>>11835814
No.

>> No.11838059

>>11837790
Yes.

>> No.11838257

>>11835814
she makes me want to make babies, if you can intuit my insinuation

>> No.11838294

>the left: stop having children because it's bad for the country
>also the left: we need to import millions of third-worlders because it's good for the country
?????????????????????

>> No.11838297

>>11838294
>Le confusing le liberals and leftists even though leftists are still super pro-migration anyway

>> No.11838360

>>11838294
I know this is 90% bait but you're twisting the argument.
it's:
>Stop having babies because its bad for the world
>Import third wolders (not millions if youre talking about Syrian refugees) because it's good for the world

In the above argument net population doesnt change by moving people in danger to a safer place. Not that I agree with antinatilists but come on anon be a little more honest

>> No.11838557

but the wee bastards will entertain me. maybe they'll grow up to be actors?

>> No.11838578

>>11835814
>>11835845
>>11836200
Jews acting jewish.
Any goy falling for this parasitiv narative is too retarded to reproduce either way.

>> No.11838589

>>11836998
Funny how antinatalism only gets pused on those people which are most concerned with ecological consequences, while everyone else gets payed to make even more kids with the money and ressources saved by those former.

It's nearly as if it's a genocide excuse hidden beneat a green planket.

>> No.11838593

it'll be hard, but i'll do my best

>> No.11838605

>>11837756
>beeing evolutionary succesfull beyound barely making replacement numbers is most logical
If you want your own blood to die out after 1-2 generations. Making as many babies as you can sustain is the truly logical perspective. This would also lead to niggers and thrd world people stopping in overgrowing the world through gibsmedats and only the usefull members of society getting many kids. Stop with those disgenic anti-natalists nonsense.

>> No.11838610

>>11838360
>people having now much more ressources than even the rich in their homeland will not have more babies and more of which survive than if they woud have stayed in their poor homeland
You are beyond retarded. Go neck yourself to safe the planet.

>> No.11838782

>>11838360
No. Leftshits have quite literally said importing millions of third-world turds is good for the economy. While at the same time saying having children is bad in general for everything.

>> No.11838803

>>11838578
Kikes truly are the great filter. Let's hope humanity (or a better alternative) survives them.

>> No.11838916

>>11838589
Have you read 'The Limits to Growth'? Do you know that sudden fall in global human population? All that human loss seems insignificant compared to how damaged will be the biosphere by then. There's no reason to keep on "humankind" on a planet fucked up by microplastic endocrine disruptors. (I'm not even mentioning the future effects of anthropogenic global warming for obvious reasons)

>>11838605
Why are you saying 'blood'? I know you white nationalists like to speak like Vikings but you can always say 'passing your genes/DNA to your offspring' or something like that.

>> No.11838941

>>11838916
>have you read that one propaganda book witten for europeans? Don't you know that (white) population control is needed to prevent the earth from doing it's thing?
Anon, populations control their own birth rates naturally, that's why europeans stopped getting 13 kids and reduced them to replacement levels. This system only works without disgenic welfare. The problem aren't europeans. The Problem are non-europeans getting money and opportunities to breed more than they aready do and have more survivig offspring. Non-white countries explode and they give not a single fuck about the envoirement. China would start WW3 if they would be pressured to recycle or stop filling the ocean and rivers with toxic shit liek euroeans do. If we would stop giving them money and business their schemes would fall down and their reproduction stopped at a sustainable level.

"Blood" is a methaper for heritage you dense fuck nugget. Everyone knows what is meant besides those which get triggered because it implies knwoing ones heritage and beeing proud of it enough as to want to give it on.

>> No.11838962

>>11838916
>Why are you saying 'blood'? I know you white nationalists like to speak like Vikings but you can always say 'passing your genes/DNA to your offspring' or something like that.

That sounds autistic as fuck you retarded bugperson, blood has been a common way to say this forever and isnt just white nationalist exclusive.

>> No.11839060

>>11835814
antinatalists are always either

>weak life denying faggot
>mentally deranged feminist who hate all things beautiful about family and motherhood

>> No.11839080

>>11838610
>people having now much more ressources than even the rich in their homeland will not have more babies
This is obviously true. If people live in a country with a high quality of healthcare, they don't need to have a high number of children to care for them in their old age, or if infant mortality is lower, then they're less likely to have a high number of children in the expectation that some may die before they reach maturity. Also, in richer countries, there are generally a greater number of life pursuits people can engage besides marriage and reproduction.

Look at literally any data on this, as quality of life improves and societies become more civilised, children per woman decreases sharply: just look at the past two or three hundred years in Western countries, or take a look at which countries in the world just now have high and low birth rates, or you can even look at studies which show that second or third generation immigrants to the West from countries that have higher birthrates are FAR more likely to have a smaller number of offspring than their ancestors.

You are treating as self-evidently false something which is actually undeniably true.

>> No.11839109

>>11839080
>This is obviously true.
For gods ske, anon. Read up on the fucking data. If you translate a people from a high fertility culture (for example muslims) into a low fertility culture and envoirement they will NOT change their behaviour instanty. This process takes generations in which those transplanted will shit up the host countries with their native reproduction rate PLUS more oppourtunities to get more children and more surviving children. This only changes after 3-4 generations as they fall from their native culture and tradition and become "europeanised".

You are actualy producing far more children this way instead of simply a) rising the living standard in their hoem country to get the sam results as in europe or b) not giving them out-side medicine and gibsmedats to prevent breeding and survival above their know-how.

There is really nothing more dangerous than badly educated smugs spouting half trues.

>> No.11839131

>>11839109
(a) is probably true depending on the country because of the intial couple generations who take time to adapt to the Western world, but (b) is not true. People were poor as fuck for the majority of human history and it never stopped them having children and a greater number of resources doesn't really matter.

I will need to go and check the data on this but you even admit yourself that this changes after "3-4 generations" but my impression was that it was quicker than that.

>> No.11839137

>>11839060
You write "life denying" as if that really means anything besides, you know, being an antinatalist.

>> No.11839176

>>11839131
>People were poor as fuck for the majority of human history and it never stopped them having children and a greater number of resources doesn't really matter.
Relative poverty. This means what is poor in our eyes is absolutely sufficient in a persons eyes living in those conditions. Once you actually are "too poor" a woman which is underweight will not get her period and become infertile for the time she can't get enough food. That's how we dealed with reproduction before sttling down and during the ice age. Similarly people in third world countries which can't affort food will not produce more children because a) they die off due to starvation of b) those women will not even be able to concieve.

If the west would stop giving "help" to third world countries those would stop reproducing beyond their sustainable levels and their natural equilibirum would be accomplished similarly to europe.

But pushing all those OVERREPRODUCING people into europe will only lead to europeans producing even less children as a) they have a much higer eco conscience, b) they get indoctriated into not reproducing and c) they have far less money due to beeing taxed more to build a family of their own. This money going straight to those never working immigrants and their children, actually making them reproduce more due too better conditions than at home.

Transplanting such populations therefore is the worst thing possible for both. Practically exterminating the host and not helping the transplanted people, but actually making them grow beyond sustainability and creating a bubble which will burst and make millions, and billions in africa itself, die due to starvation.

This is not theoretical, this is what will happen and regularly happens in the animal kingdom once a predator (lack of money, medicin) dies off and populatiosn eexplode just to be culled once their envoirement can't feed all those additionally born through teh winter. But at this point not onl they will miserably die but their envoirement will be destroyed as well as those animals desperatly chew off everything they can, practucally killing all flora in their reach.

The same also happens with stupid people pressured to farm, they destroy the soil.

People like you which push those shitty things because of muh envoirement will actually be at fault for its actual long term destruction.

>> No.11839184

>>11836232
Throwing money at them is the only way to keep birthrates low

>> No.11839185

>>11836517
Not true btw. Some genes that influence this condition can be passed on yet counter-effected by other genes or societal pressure.

>> No.11839193

>>11835814
She looks like my ex girlfriend

>> No.11839226

>>11837300
There are never enough pictures of based Ripp

>> No.11839262

>>11839193
I want to fuck your girlfriend, bubby.

>> No.11839395

>>11839137
It means you are a pathetic individual who thinks all that matters in life is pleasure.

>> No.11839515

>>11839176
Most of the third world is not in such a state of poverty that the cessation of aid from the first world would lead to a decline in birth rates because of starvation induced infertility. In fact, a lot of aid provided by the first world is related to improving medical care, water quality, and things which - by improving the health of a population - will in the long term lead to a reduction in the rate of population increase. Stopping aid would only slow down the process by which the birth rates in the third world are falling, and in the long term lead to an increase in the total world population.

I don't understand why you think immigration specifically is going to have a direct affect on the environmental awareness of the native population, the tendency of the native population to hold ethical objections to reproducing, or the level of taxes either. Tax money absolutely does not go straight to immigrants and the overwhelming majority of immigrants are in employment as well?

For the record, I am actually not in favour of mass immigration to the Western world at all for a number of reasons. My posts have been responding specifically to the claims that these populations which immigrate are going to reproduce more as a result, and I don't think this is the case.

>> No.11839524

>>11839395
No, I'm not really a hedonist desu because I care more about the reduction/elimination of pain/suffering than I do about the pursuit of pleasure, fulfillment, etc.

>> No.11839561

>>11839185
It's not a condition, it's an opinion. A fucking inconsequential one at that. There will never be more than .0000000001% of antinatalist bitches sticking to their position when the right guy walks by.

>> No.11839616

My grandpa was a sailor and my grandma was a housewife. They lead some normal lives, had two daughters, got sick in old age and died.
We still remember them, but were their lives actually worth something?
I heard some stories about my mom's grandparents but apart from that they really didn't left an impression in the world.
My point being: what's the deal with reproducing to the point that it's an hot topic?
Sure, a life already here is worthy because of all of the relationships it forms, but one that is only supposed it's really that important?

>> No.11839617

>>11839060
>who hate all things beautiful about family and motherhood

Yes, anon. There is nothing quite as beautiful as being trapped with a man whom you may not always love. There is nothing quite like raising a bratty kid to be a spiritless, brain-dead, SSRI-addled drone (just like me!) for the rest of their mediocre life.

>> No.11839630

>>11839515
>Most of the third world is not in such a state of poverty that the cessation of aid from the first world would lead to a decline in birth rates because of starvation induced infertility
Look at how much africa exploded since the 1950. Look how many trillions the west pays them. Now do the math of how big the numbers would be without foreign aid. Many millions will die, we are ast the point of a nice solution. And they are not appreciative of the pill or condoms, so their "culling" will not take place similar to the west.

>will in the long term lead to a reduction in the rate of population increase
Wong, this implies that those people have the same priorties. If that would be the case they would already have fewer births as there has never been so much free education and medicine as since the 1950s, esecially for women and girls, which are the main factor. On the contrary, african women still get FAR more kids than any of them got before the introduction of any of those factors. This is a clear sign of different priorities. You can either say it's culture or deply ingrained r-strategy.

>I don't understand why you think immigration specifically is going to have a direct affect on the environmental awareness of the native population, the tendency of the native population to hold ethical objections to reproducing, or the level of taxes either. Tax money absolutely does not go straight to immigrants and the overwhelming majority of immigrants are in employment as well?
Desu, no offense, but you clearly have not a signe idea how reality looks and don't take it personally when I will not take the time n here to spoonfeed you everything with footnotes. So take my tl;dr and either look it up yourself and dont:
a) Natives in europe pay far more taxes than they suck up again, men more so than women. Example sweden: 80% of all welfare goes to non-native first, seccond and third generation immigrants. This while swedens wage earning population is already in a minority. Sweden also has a housing problem, as there isn't enough room for everyone, so while immigrants get free housing from the welfare office native swedes can't move out and built their own families due to unattainable prices of homes (this reduces the native birth rates additionally to the lack of money because of insane taxes due to more and more immigration and those immigrants not working).
b) People don't simply change just because they change an envoirement. You wouldn't become appreciate f sharia stoning of sluts just because you moved to Dubai. You surely wouldn't just the clit of your infatnt daughter because you moved to africa. And you surely wouldn't start shitting on a street because you mobed to india. You remain in the culture you have grown up in. "Parallel societies" as in europe are practically islands of their home country so most will never change, not even after generations. Therefore most will not stop breeding as much even after the third generation.

>> No.11839633

c) The same goes for envoiremental ideas. The worst pollutars are third world countries, mostly because their people don't give a shit. This attitude will not change just because they live in europe, where they can cosume even more and produce more trash.

>My posts have been responding specifically to the claims that these populations which immigrate are going to reproduce more as a result, and I don't think this is the case.
There are demographic studies out there on europe and germany specifically due to their gastarbeiter and the consulsions are damning. Even the best integrated non-native children of the gastarbeiter will still get 1-2 children more after 50 years of living in germany than the natives. Their thirst gen parents having around 5-7 children, compared to back then 2,1 children germans. Today germanies rep rat is around 1,3, non-natives get between 3-5. The newer the worse, and germany just got around 4 million new non-europeans in the last 5 years. Germans get outbreed and no change will happen in the brains of non-natives, as they start to become the majority culture without the native culture beeing able to slow down their breeding expectations aka everything which made europeans stop reproducing will dissapaer together with them and non-natives will simply have anotehr shit country with similar rep rates.

>> No.11839707

At least poor third worlders see some point to life, even if this could be due to them being uneducated. West has only become more pampered and easier yet we dont want children because they ruin our comfort. Poor people dont even care they will still have kids some try to raise some dont and often these people have somthing unique about their life somthing diffrent even if they just become another statistic out there. Maybe the first world is just to mundane for people. Sad state were in.

>> No.11839927

>>11839616
This is actually part of the antinatalist argument, in a way. A life that doesn't yet exist isn't really missing out on any potential joy and we don't really care about it not existing. However, we know by virtue of creating a life that the consciousness we impose is at some point going to fall victim to pain and suffering. This is what's known as the axiological asymmetry: we don't recognise that absense of pleasure at a net negative in the same way we recognise the presense of pain. There's an inherent asymmetry and it's why I believe that procreation is immoral.

You're correct that if you think you will make any kind of lasting impact on the world, you are fooling yourself and just as your grandparents are slowly being forgotten until no-one remembers them and then no-one has even heard of them, so too will this occur to you and everyone you know and any offspring you may have as well. You're correct that on an individual basis this whole thing is negligible and in the long run it's Ozymandian for us all. I don't think this kind of existential nihilism can be used to excuse any pain or suffering that any person has to endure, though, because ultimately the qualia we are subject to whilst we are still here are of great value because that is all we truly know.

>>11839707
It's actually not that I don't want children because they will ruin my material comfort, for me, at all. I really detest those r/childfree type people that proclaim to hate children and never want to be around or interact with them. I'd go as far as to say I love children, but to such an extent that I don't think I can justify bringing them into a world so full of suffering and so full of malevolence.

>> No.11839948

>>11838941
>>11838962
Ok, you can talk in metaphors if you want, it sounds good to say 'blood' to refer to common ancestry. I'm not going to get into that anymore, it's just your choice.

>>11838941
It is always an easy argument to blame the third world and in fact many times it is not without reason. That said, to think that every ecological problem we have nowadays is fundamentally the fault of the third world is fallacious and simplistic. Pollution and environmental damage are global problems. How many planes have taken off today? What were the destination airports? How many commercial ships are sailing the oceans? Towards which ports are they heading? The industrial revolution (especially the agricultural revolution and the invention of new medicines that eradicated ancient diseases) produced a population boom in the West that could be alleviated through emigration to the colonies; there was a lack of family planning that ended up causing overpopulation and lack of jobs.

The developing countries fail in this like we did in the West: lack of family planning, lack of environmental awareness; and this time, there are no means to alleviate this demographic pressure that exists throughout the Global South.

However, if you think that we must increase our fertility rates to outcompete and surpass those of the Third World countries, then you are wrong.

This is not a competition; it isn't a war consisting of the noble white man vs. the filthy niggers that everybody should hate.

This is about industrialized humankind vs. the rest of the biosphere.

Let's stop offshoring in the Niger Delta; let's stop the Big Oil wherever it threatens Earth's life, be it America, Africa or Asia.

>> No.11839954

>>11839927
If thats all you choose to see from life than thats all you get. Why pursue any kind of knowledge or truth then? What are you getting out of existence and not see what brining another into it personally can say or do for theirs and your own?

>> No.11840001

>>11839954
Knowledge and truth are still worthwhile pursuits, firstly, because because they can greatly improve the material conditions of mankind, and also because they are enjoyable or fulfilling to me, or anyone else, on a personal level (there's probably some evolutionary reason for this). I think the acquisition of knowledge is a greater human good but I also think it fits within the framework, rather than in spite of, a utilitarian system of normative ethics.

>>11839954
>Why not see what brining another into it personally can say or do
I can't bring myself to view this as something I could justify. The creation of life is, by its very definition, non-consensual. It is the imposition of consciousness upon a new entity and they have no choice in whether they wanted to exist or not. They have to live with the consequences of your decision regardless of what they are capable of saying or doing.

>> No.11840020
File: 134 KB, 340x340, 1530541135645.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11840020

>>11839630
>le epick r/K selection meme.

>> No.11840126

>>11840001
Existence as a whole was non-consensual. So why does it truly matter to make mankinds conditions better if we start adapting the ideal of antinatalism? Or do you only feel it on a personal level and just assume that humanity will pick up your slack anyway?

>> No.11840151

>>11839948
>Pollution and environmental damage are global problems.
But only the west is bothering to do anything about it and despite comsumerism we are as more envoirementally friendly than anybody living in a muthood in africa.

>However, if you think that we must increase our fertility rates to outcompete and surpass those of the Third World countries, then you are wrong.
No, I think it is not our problem that the third world has come to late to the table and found it empty of land. It's not the fault of either on, but certainly nothing the west and it's people need to sacrifiice themselves for.

>Let's stop offshoring in the Niger Delta; let's stop the Big Oil wherever it threatens Earth's life, be it America, Africa or Asia.
I'm on the Ted-pill, desu, I know what you mean, but the point is that we can't archive this as long as we flood our countries with people which don't even understand Teds reasoning or give a fuck about the flora and fauna. I wish them well but want them to stay out of my country for our both sake. Because if they will come and flood the west there is only one solution and non of us will like it. In the end the smarter ones will win, no matter the masses of the bodies, but I will not be proud of the necessary deeds and would like the prevent them.

>> No.11840253

>>11839561
Most antinatalists are men, women generally don't entertain serious ethical positions beyond virtue signalling.

>> No.11840336

>>11839954
Because Im already here so I might as well do the ride

>> No.11840357

>>11837561
Cringe snap blaupilled etc

>> No.11840365

>>11840253
He said from his chair in the Shulie thread

>> No.11840417

>>11840151
>despite comsumerism we are as more envoirementally friendly than anybody living in a muthood in africa
It's all a matter of perspective. Possibly a farmer in a Congo village next to the jungle is the main direct threat to the leopard population in that area. However, consumers from the other side of the planet can exert an indirect ecological threat just as dangerous. Fisheries are being decimated on a global scale in all the oceans of the Earth. This concerns us all as a human species, first world and third world have responsibility for what is happening. Is the West more aware of the ecological damage of the planet? Yes it's correct. But it is also true that it is the most industrialized region of all human civilization.

Every human population, one way or another, poses an ecological threat at the present state of civilization.

>I think it is not our problem that the third world has come to late to the table and found it empty of land.
The point is that such table, which is just a metaphor for industrialization in this case, shouldnt even exist to begin with. That table had been set by former colonizers and they just continued making profit of it after decolonization, not exploting slaves nor ivory, but oil and arable lands on this occasion.

>I'm on the Ted-pill
glad to know, do you have any twitter account?

>they will come and flood the west
agreed, mass immigration is disastrous, but there's literally no point in achieving larger populations by mass reproduction either; we have to focus on achieving sustainable family models. Reality is that future doesn't look favourable for this kind of degrowth.

>> No.11840442

Overpopulation is a myth.
No point in procreation though, ppl should just stop.

>> No.11840868
File: 236 KB, 719x750, 1534827495491.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11840868

>>11840417
>It's all a matter of perspective. Possibly a farmer in a Congo village next to the jungle is the main direct threat to the leopard population in that area.
No, I meant envoiremental dangers like burning tires o sell some scraps, their industries shitting up the rivers with hormones and toxins unfiltered and similar fun activities which no european country could do. And to top it off, africans once they have the money consume far more shitty goods than europeans, Same goes for asians. They also are far more into the throw-away culture.

> But it is also true that it is the most industrialized region of all human civilization.
And despite all that they produce less shit together than even a single third world shithole.

>That table had been set by former colonizers and they just continued making profit of it after decolonization, not exploting slaves nor ivory, but oil and arable lands on this occasion.
This has been happening through human existance, not just since the 18th century. Have you never read Herodots Histories? You should.

>glad to know, do you have any twitter account?
I hope that was ironic. Shitposting for books recs is the only electronic past time I have, and that mostly due to the fact that most of those books are forbidden in my country and I possibly could go to jail for my position.

>but there's literally no point in achieving larger populations by mass reproduction either
Never argued that. I argued leaving the native alond and giving them the opportunity to remain at sustainable levels.

You don't need to archive and "family models" nature equals that shit out on itself. Humans can only fuck it up, just like china did, evolutionary cucking itself because due to the lack of women now the chines single-children-boys go out and buy non-chinese stolen women and slaves to marry. A far larger catastrophe than just letting those starve to death or giving those unable to pay for their life a sterilisation for gibsedats as a more human solution.

Everybody with which you argue isn't at fault for over population. It's those to retarded to even grasp responsibility concepts.

>> No.11841184

>>11840126
Any reasonable antinatalist is going to realise that the whole world isn't suddenly going to stop reproducing purely because they changed their mind. It matters to me insofar as I wish to eliminate human suffering, which is the ultimate end goal of antinatalism in the first place. I wish other people would come to same conclusion as I did, but obviously I cannot force them to and would not infringe upon their liberty to reproduce as they see fit in any way.

>> No.11841214

>>11840868
>And despite all that they produce less shit together than even a single third world shithole.
And that's because population correlates to consumption. Keeping low fertility rates would be the ideal for the West and the urgent need for the rest of the world (of course, keeping also immigration under strict control).

>I hope that was ironic.
I've heard there's a quite active community of Neo-Luddites on Twitter. That's why I asked, although it might seem ironic, they do exist.

>I possibly could go to jail for my position.
From what kind of Western country are you from?

>Never argued that. I argued leaving the native alond and giving them the opportunity to remain at sustainable levels. [...] Everybody with which you argue isn't at fault for over population.
Then I completely agree with you, but I always have my eyes open before the presence of some white-nationalists with mixed religious ideas who fall into the same populationist arguments that are driving third world countries to the brink of ecological collapse. I'm not saying you're one of them; I'm speaking based on my previous experiences online.

>> No.11841661

>>11840365
Most.

>> No.11841718

>>11838916
>Why are you saying 'blood'? I know you white nationalists like to speak like Vikings but you can always say 'passing your genes/DNA to your offspring' or something like that.

>what are general, well-understood terms for ideas
>what is a literary speech and metaphor
>what is not abandoning normal word use for new-age language distruction

>> No.11841816

>>11839616
>but were their lives actually worth something?
Is yours?
>but apart from that they really didn't left an impression in the world.
99.99999% of people won't. That's how it works.

Reproduction is literally embedded in our genes. Without all of philosophy's bells and whistles it's, quite literally, the reason for existence. To keep going.

>> No.11841871

>>11841718
Blood, blood relationship, blood relatives, consanguinity, blood family... all those locutions sound good, but we all know that's not the way it works.
I was just pointing that, we can move on with our earthling lives.

>> No.11841878

>>11841871
Cringe

>> No.11841884

>>11841871
>all those locutions sound good, but we all know that's not the way it works.
>I was just pointing that, we can move on with our earthling lives.

It's essentially how it works, and the word works well enough. Changing things just to change them, or because they're "more literal" isn't always the right choice.

>> No.11841886

>>11841816
>"without all that philosophy mumbo jumbo..."
>proceeds to make "non-controversial" philosophical claim
What did she mean by this?

>> No.11841897

>>11841886
he fell for the scientism meme like the vapid modernist he is.

>> No.11841904

>>11841718
You need to clinically sanitize your language to drain it of its rhetorical potency or we won't be taking you seriously.

>> No.11841920

>>11841884
Now I'm curious about why we decided to use the word 'blood' to refer to ancestry instead of any other else.
Any of you know its origin or the reason for this choice?