/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12503398]

how do you refute antinatalism?

i think it has a point, not because life is mostly suffering or shit like that, but because it can potentially be really bad. im pretty good so i'm not complaining but i'm also "lucky" i don't have some terrible genetic disease, wasn't kidnapped & raped by some pedophile when i was a kid and i didn't need to grow up in some shitty orphanage because my parents randomly died in a car crash.

my point is, how do you justify having kids when you can't guarantee they will have a good life?
would you have kids if you knew that you had terminal cancer and you won't be there on your kids 3rd birthday?
if your answer is "no", how do you justify having kids, ever, when cancer could appear at any moment?

[Anonymous No.12503423]

>>12503398
>my point is, how do you justify having kids when you can't guarantee they will have a good life?
Because all human life is a gift from God and is inherently valuable. The possibility of suffering does not change that. That’s what the Incarnation taught us.
>I believe like a child that suffering will be healed and made up for, that all the humiliating absurdity of human contradictions will vanish like a pitiful mirage, like the despicable fabrication of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man, that in the world's finale, at the moment of eternal harmony, something so precious will come to pass that it will suffice for all hearts, for the comforting of all resentments, for the atonement of all the crimes of humanity, for all the blood that they've shed; that it will make it not only possible to forgive but to justify all that has happened.
>t. Dostoyevsky

I would point out that even from a humanistic or pagan point of view, the possibility of risk doesn’t justify cowardice. τοῖς τολμῶσιν ἡ τύχη ξύμφορος

[Anonymous No.12503428]

>>12503398

[Anonymous No.12503429]

>>12503398
Once you realise the mind is immaterial, then the question of being born or not is irrelevant, since there's no need for a body to experience life

[Anonymous No.12503432]

>>12503398
anon there has never been a guarantee for anything. I can't even guarantee that i'll live tomorrow, however if you base your judgment on the chance that something bad MAY happen then you'll just be paralyzed with fear.

[Anonymous No.12503435]

how do you refute natalism?

i think it has a point, not because life is mostly a pleasure or shit like that, but because it can potentially be really good. im pretty bad so i'm complaining and i'm also "unlucky" i have a terrible genetic disease, was kidnapped & raped by some pedophile when i was a kid and i grew up in some shitty orphanage because my parents randomly died in a car crash.

my point is, how do you justify not having kids when you can't guarantee they will have a bad life?
would you not have kids if you knew that you had a pony and you would be there on your kids 3rd birthday?
if your answer is "yes", how do you justify not having kids, ever, when nothing could happen at any moment?

[Anonymous No.12503452]

You can have children due to an egoistic purpose and therefore don't care about the responsibility for this decision

[Anonymous No.12503454]

Antinatalism always seemed to be a kind of hypocritical stance for me. It claims that existence is suffering and therefore you shouldn’t have children so they can avoid the suffering. But, at the same time, most antinatalists eat meat, buy products from China, don’t adopt, litter, and a multitude of other things that increase suffering. It seems to me like the majority of antinatalists have some ulterior motive for not wanting children and therefore use antinatalism as an empty rationalization for their already pre-determined stance.

Also, if antinatalism rests on the assumption that existence is suffering and one should seek to minimize the suffering in the universe, then the logical conclusion to that would be not only self anhiniaton, but the anhiliation of every other human being as well.

I won’t get into religious arguments, but that’s really what makes antinatalism put a bad taste in my mouth

[Anonymous No.12503459]

>>12503398
Honestly, the best way of refuting antinatalism is just by showing why it doesn't work when universalised (IE, is mass human sterilisation/extinction really such a good idea?). Antinatalism is morally permissible, but only in the particular judgement of a subject, and never as a universal moral law. Also if there is a genetic component to the antinatal belief then its essentially just nature weeding out self-destructive tendencies and nipping them in the bud.

[Anonymous No.12503462]

>>12503398
>how do you refute antinatalism?
Antinatalists will always be replaced by natalists.
The universe optimizes against extinction. Who are you to go against the universe?

[Anonymous No.12503472]

>>12503398
You sort of can if you look at the big picture (or more like the medium picture, because the true big picture is heat death; the small picture is individual suffering). So I guess this medium picture is that life seems rare in the universe, is complex and sometimes beautiful, and we might as well go as far as we can in art and science. It's all we've got. Of course, this collapses when you consider eventual extinction and heat death, and also the terrible things that happen to people on a daily basis.

[Anonymous No.12503475]

>>12503454
God isn't real, life is suffering, and life is meaningless. It can't be refuted especially with your christcuckery. As for pre determined motives sure whatever. Having no children or not adopting is cheaper anyways

[Anonymous No.12503491]

>>12503398
I love life.

[Anonymous No.12503495]

>>12503398
How do you explain using the board dedicated to literature for threads about philosophy, when there is a dedicated board for that?
Anyway, to answer your question, there are a great deal of refutable points:
>lol life is suffer, if you have kids you evil
One should first demonstrate that never being born is better than being alive: for what we know, the antithesis to life could be a screaming hell of agony and making people born we literally save, even for a brief time, millions of souls from that hell. Really, claiming that never being born would be better than being alive is mere speculation and defining someone evil only because he/she has children is arbitrary and groundless
>lol but carbon footprint, bro
This is a common fallacy (pass the term, I know i just used it inappropriately, english is not my first language): we still have very unconsisting data about human carbon footprint and how much it is responsible of climate changes and/or ambiental disaster; anyone who claimes otherwhise is bullshitting you.
Anyway, let's assume they are right and that just by living, humans hurt Earth and all its creatures.
I could argue that we are Earth's creatures too, why should we consider ourselves separated from the rest?
Dogs, cats, fishes, even ants must have carbon footprints and they are millions, billions more than us. Let's kill them instead, why should human lives be considered less important than ants? Let's kill all the ants and we can reduce the carbon footprint, problem solved
>lol kids are boring and make your life hell
This is stupid and who says this is stupid.
I'm a med student, I practice in a hospital and I see a lot of people everyday: there is nothing on this planet as sad and miserable as someone who is 50-60yo and never got kids. I remember this old woman who literally began to cry when I spent some minutes talking with her because since her husband died she had noone to talk to and she was so happy someone took time to actually talk to her.

Get a wife, get some children and possibly a dog, anon, it's probably your best shot at being happy

[Anonymous No.12503503]

on august 16 2035, lets send a message in outer space and kill ourselves afterwards
the face of aliens that would come to visit us with hopes of meeting another species will be epic

[Anonymous No.12503511]

>>12503475
oh yeah? If you're so smart prove god's not real lol

[Anonymous No.12503516]

>>12503398
There are autistic utilitarian arguments for how we prevent millions of hours of animal and insect suffering by reducing their numbers, or by killing them somewhat humanely compared to being devoured in the wild. Human-only antinatalism is interesting to discuss when you consider our effect on animals and insects.

[Anonymous No.12503528]

>>12503516
And suffering is forgotten when we die, it's as if it never happened. (I don't really believe this, I'm playing devil's advocate.)

[Anonymous No.12503534]

how to refute it is so fucking simple i cant believe none of you niggas did it before me, just make someone listen to this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcIyNyVdNBc

[Anonymous No.12503548]

>>12503475
Does anyone have an argument for why life is suffering? It seems for most people it has ups and downs, so it can't be all suffering. All people say to this point is that life is 'ultimately' suffering, just because we die. If that were true, parties are ultimately suffering because they end, never mind the fun you may have had.

[Anonymous No.12503554]

>>12503423
epic

>>12503432
im not "paralyzed with fear" the issue is that having a child is a choice affecting another person. you're essentially risking someone else's life for no reason
you know we tell parents it's not their fault if something bad happens to their child, but technically it is always their fault

>>12503435
>how do you justify not having kids, ever, when nothing could happen at any moment?
not having kids doesn't hurt them because they don't exist, they are not missing out on anything

>>12503454
no one is perfect, im sure you are also against unnecessary suffering but still do many of those things you listed

>How do you explain using the board dedicated to literature for threads about philosophy,
i fell like /his/ is worse for this than /lit/

>One should first demonstrate that never being born is better than being alive: for what we know, the antithesis to life could be a screaming hell of agony and making people born we literally save, even for a brief time, millions of souls from that hell. Really, claiming that never being born would be better than being alive is mere speculation and defining someone evil only because he/she has children is arbitrary and groundless

yeah but maybe hell is real and we are creating millions of people who go to hell after they die
this is useless talk, also who are you quoting?

>>12503503
kek

[Anonymous No.12503557]

>>12503462
>we live in a universe

[Anonymous No.12503569]

>>12503554
what? How is it a parents fault if something happens to the kid later in life? If you break your ankle are you going to blame your parents for birthing you and making you feel that pain? that's such an absurd claim.
Look, while i get that anti-natalists are trying to reduce suffering the key isn't to just not have more people to experience suffering.

[Anonymous No.12503571]

>>12503554
I'm quoting myself and I concur, it's useless talk but it's not me who is trying to prove that being born is bad. As I said, to claim that life is suffering and we would be better off never being born, one must first demonstrate that never being born is actually better than being alive, something that no one can do.
To answer to your question, if you believe in hell (and for the sake of this argument I'll assume your are refering to the christian concept of hell), one would be better off being born, having a chance to life and try to live it ethically thus not going to hell than never being born and thus never escaping the void or, as we can assume, the screaming hell of agony I talked of above

[Anonymous No.12503592]

>>12503548
Better question: why is suffering bad?

[Anonymous No.12503595]

>>12503398
I thought Chad was supposed to be higher on the hierarchy than Thad.

[Anonymous No.12503598]

>>12503454
But you are very directly responsible for your child's suffering and not for the other things you mentioned

[Anonymous No.12503606]

>>12503398
The antinatalist position logically implies you should breed as much as possible and indoctrinate your offspring into its teachings.
Antinatalism is an unpopular position for obvious evolutionary reasons. People without a propensity to breed wouldn't have spread their genes.
Which isn't to say humans can't be reasoned out of breeding. But antinatalists should realize that just as genes die out if it isn't seeded into others, ideologies can also similarly die out. And one of the most effective ways of ingraining an ideology is being imbedded in it since childhood. Thus we see Europeans being overwhelmingly Christian and the Middle East being overwhelmingly Muslim.
It is not enough to say, "I just won't take part in this messed up system. I want my hands clean of any further suffering!" You have to take initiative. Inaction toward an evil, when you know fully well what measures you can take to prevent it, is only marginally better than having committed the evil itself. If antinatalists do not act, the world will proceed as if they and their ideology never existed.
Therefore, antinatalists, fuck like rabbits! Have many children who share your dispositions and beliefs so that they may sow the seeds that lead to the eventual end of breeding.

[Anonymous No.12503615]

>>12503398
How can you be a virgin and have a child?

[Anonymous No.12503627]

>>12503511
Do your part and prove he's real.

[Anonymous No.12503631]

>>12503615
Virginity/inceldom can be a spiritual state, not just a physical one.

[Anonymous No.12503635]

>>12503398
>my point is, how do you justify having kids when you can't guarantee they will have a good life?
Cant you simply say that you are egoist and dont care about that stuff? You just want to have the kid to bring more "colour" to your life and dont really care in the long run if he fucks it up or not.
If we are simply talking about being egoist or not then its easy to resolve since the problem revolves around morality and morality is subjective from person to person. Simply admiting to the antinatalist that you are doing something imoral to him should shut him up.
Any thoughts?

[Anonymous No.12503638]

>>12503627
that's not how faith works ;)

[Anonymous No.12503654]

>>12503454
>logical conclusion to that would be not only self annihilation, but the annihilation of every other human being as well.
You say that like it's a bad thing. Which it might be. I think people's freedom to hurt themselves is an important one, so I wouldn't go around annihilating the unwilling.

[Anonymous No.12503657]

>>12503511
Since the universe is pre-determined and true free will is nothing but a ilusion then how can the religous man-made gods judge people by their doings if they were pre-determined by him to make sins n shit?

[Anonymous No.12503661]

>>12503657
>the universe is pre-determined and true free will is nothing but a ilusion
it is?

[Anonymous No.12503667]

>>12503398
>>12503398
If I ever meet an antinatalist in real life i will punch them in the face, there is nobody I hate more, bunch of fucking faggots and hypocrites "I never consented to being born" fucking idiots you can't consent to being born, kill yourself if it's that bad, also they are nearly always left wing white cucks.

antinatialism is retarded since the average person has a pretty good life

[Anonymous No.12503671]

>>12503631
t. schizophrenic

[Anonymous No.12503676]

>>12503667
B A S E D
A
S
E
D

[Anonymous No.12503684]

>>12503671
Don't talk to me neurotypie

[Anonymous No.12503691]

>>12503423
>of the impotent and infinitely small Euclidean mind of man

At least you're honest.

[Anonymous No.12503693]

>>12503667
>>12503676
based /pol/cel electionfriend

[Anonymous No.12503696]

>>12503495
/lit/ is the dedicated board for philosophy

[Anonymous No.12503697]

>>12503661
Well, there are far more arguements in favour of determinism than free-will desu senpai.
Free will mainly argues that "but muh it feels authentic bro".
Science also shows that the universive is pre-determined since if you knew the position and speed of all eletrons and protons in the universe then you could predict all the shit that would happen, specially inside the brains of people.
Quantum scientists may say that some things at the quantum level may indeed happen randomly, but we are not 100% sure. Even if true, that would only mean that all human actions are controlled by random forces of the universe and we continue to not have any free will.
Take notice that im not saying a "god" may not exist, im merely trying to disprove that man-made religious gods that were built based around the thoughts of free-will.

[Anonymous No.12503716]

>houses are expensive
>work market is garbage
>women are garbage
>the state controls how you raise your kids

why would you have kids? they wont even be yours to mold as you wish, they will be raised by a mix of youtubers and the state

[Anonymous No.12503718]

>>12503716
Not all of us are gay

[Anonymous No.12503719]

>>12503697
>Science also shows that the universive is pre-determined since if you knew the position and speed of all eletrons and protons in the universe then you could predict all the shit that would happen, specially inside the brains of people.


this is your brain on reductionism, convincing itself its just the sum of its parts

[Anonymous No.12503752]

>>12503719
>this is your brain on reductionism, convincing itself its just the sum of its parts
Were did i state something that is untrue? care to point out?
Thinking you have some sort of "soul" that has true free will is nothing more than a massive cope, since that would imply that all living things have souls, which should in this case be the all the cells in your body and in your brain aswell. Many times scientists cant even distiguish when a thing can be considered a alive or not or 1 living being or 2. Viruses werent considered living things until recently for example.
Saying that all living things have a soul may sound easy in day-to-day life, but as soon as you step into smaller things you will see just how imprecise your defenitions are.
Saying that only "humans" have souls may aswell even be more retarded and easy to brainstrom.

[Anonymous No.12503810]

>>12503398
Begging the question.

[Anonymous No.12503816]

>>12503697
Any books where I can read more into determinism? It's really interesting

[Anonymous No.12503836]

>>12503423
God doesn’t exist, so that line of reasoning is pretty fucked from the get go.

[Anonymous No.12503845]

Avoiding suffering isn't the objective meaning of life

[Anonymous No.12503848]

Having kids isn't something you have to justify.

[Anonymous No.12503856]

>>12503816
I honestly dont know any. All im saying is from what i got thaught during high school and in mixed with shit that i learned with my STEM degree. You should go and ask in another thread.

[Anonymous No.12503864]

>>12503511
I tried to believe for a long time but I just couldn’t access any kind of spiritual experience. I feel like whether or not you believe in god is just a personality trait. Some people get really worked up while talking to themselves, some people can’t. I think that’s why you get a lot of sjw types getting into astronomy...Christianity is a no-go for them, so they have to fill in the blank with bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12503867]

serious question, whats difference between antinatalism and suicidal person? like whats the difference between bringing about existence and existing?

[Anonymous No.12503869]

>>12503638
It doesn’t.

[Anonymous No.12503879]

If you support antinatalism, then you should support a WW3. We could easily wipe out all life on Earth with nuclear weapons. No more having kids when everyone's dead.

[Anonymous No.12503888]

>>12503879
I think you mean to say if you support anti-natalism you support nuking Earth

[Anonymous No.12503893]

>>12503879
This.
You can cry about how many lives you're ending, but if life is such suffering anyway, think of the potential suffering of the unborn as you press the launch button. It's for the greater good.
DO IT

[Anonymous No.12503897]

>>12503879
>Peacefully phasing out of existence is the same as being slaughtered

Yikes, honey

[Anonymous No.12503899]

>>12503867
They're not mutually exclusive, someone who is suicidal isn't satisfied with their lives but someone who believes in anti-Natalism holds it fundamentally true that life on the whole is more unsatisfying than not. You can be suicidal about your life without holding those general beliefs, you get me? That's what I thought it was anyway

[Anonymous No.12503900]

lool nice spooks nerd haha

[Anonymous No.12503901]

>>12503752
the "soul" emerges from the interaction of everything, it is the world soul

[Anonymous No.12503916]

>>12503893
>if you wouldn't singlehandedly and ruthlessly murder the entire human race you don't really believe it

[Anonymous No.12503922]

>>12503491
elaborate

[Anonymous No.12503926]

>>12503879
Human extinction will come eventually whether anyone wants it to or not. Advocating peaceful withdrawal is obviously not equivalent to advocating wholesale slaughter.
Sounds like you have some hang ups.

[Anonymous No.12503928]

>>12503491
This is the single most patrician answer, fabulously done old chap

[Anonymous No.12503931]

>>12503901
If that is the super vague and useless defenition you give to soul that's fair enough. But it doesnt disprove determinism in anyway.

[Anonymous No.12503935]

>>12503491
lucky

[Anonymous No.12503979]

>>12503398
A lack of suffering is unnatural and as problematic as excess suffering.
It is bad to suffer terribly.
It is bad to not suffer at all.

Who thinks spoiled and sheltered children somehow have an advantage over those who overcome hardship?
They are in fact disadvantaged.
Does suffering even have an intrinsic negative quality aside from weak peoples subjective experience?
>boohoo it hurts
But this is bad how? Pain is just an alert system telling you to change your environment or situation.

[Anonymous No.12503998]

If you're admitting that life is or has suffering you're also claiming that the opposite is true, bliss is one half of the same coin of which suffering resides on. Logically, you could say you wouldn't allow a child to exist because life is blissful. It takes a wise individual to deduce that life is a balance of a near infinite amount of concepts and that you cannot have the one without the other. If it's possible to have a bad day, then, by comparison, you must have had good days.

I'd consider myself anti-natalistic, but I don't use the idea of guaranteed suffering nor bliss as justification for not fostering life.

[Anonymous No.12504010]

>>12503979
cont.
The neverborn also have no advantage over the dead; as such people will always end up in the same state, whether they existed or not.
This automatically means the born have an advantage; any number his higher than zero and any argument saying neverborn have it better fails since everybody reaches that state eventually, and there is no sooner or later; it's a state outside time.

Finally, the meaning of life at the most fundamental level is progress. Its continuation and evolution, like a self-perpetuating chemical reaction.
Part of this is overcoming hardship and adversary; there is no evolution when faced with no obstacles.

[Anonymous No.12504013]

It's just an idea some dude made up. It's subjective, so you can just choose not to follow it. There's nothing to refute. "Don't have kids, because it could suffer" is clearly an opinion.

[Anonymous No.12504029]

>>12503864
>I think that’s why you get a lot of sjw types getting into astronomy
>astronomy

These are the types of people who write sentences like that and then can't even tell the difference between astronomy and astrology.

That's a cringe from me.

[Anonymous No.12504031]

>>12503398
I'd rather be than not be. If you don't like being you have the opportunity to call it quits (generally). Seems like a good gamble to me.

[Anonymous No.12504037]

>>12503475
Then kill yourself. If you don't then you're living out the proposition that living is better than not living.

[Anonymous No.12504045]

>>12503836
Can you prove it?

[Anonymous No.12504060]

>>12504037
This is a brainlet argument, not being able to overcome biological self preservation doesn't mean you don't actually believe

[Anonymous No.12504061]

>>12503398
Life isnt that bad.

[Anonymous No.12504071]

>>12504061
/thread

[Anonymous No.12504072]

antinatalism is literally just emos projecting how shitty and pathetic they are on everyone. the majority of life is good

[Anonymous No.12504078]

>>12503900
parenthood is a spook

[Anonymous No.12504080]

[Anonymous No.12504118]

>>12504080
>being this much of a brainlet
Although he does prove some people should not have been born because they inflict suffering on others.
>Minority Report

[Anonymous No.12504178]

>>12503432
>>12503554
Every time you take a car onto the road, you are putting yourself and other road users at risk, because you can't be certain you won't be involved in an accident. Are you anti-motorist?

[Anonymous No.12504219]

>>12503398
>how do you refute antinatalism?
I just ignore it.

Not everything deserves my attention.

[Anonymous No.12504226]

Also: if you're going to do something radically different to what all humans have always done forever, you better be damn fucking sure you're right.

Otherwise you're in for a world of totally unnecessary and avoidable suffering.

Generally speaking, it's smarter to follow the herd.

[Anonymous No.12504306]

>>12504226
is dis nigga 4 real

[Anonymous No.12504315]

I'm not even an anti natalist but it's amazing how people struggle to argue it
>>12504178
This is such a bad comparison. Fuck cars and driving I wish I could just walk or ride a bike. If I have a kid I wish they could just ride a bike and not have to sit in traffic

>>12504226
What are you even talking about?

[Anonymous No.12504320]

>>12504315
>What are you even talking about?
Enjoy being 60 years old with no family. Hope your gamble paid off.

[Anonymous No.12504324]

>>12504320
>I'm not even anti natalist

[Anonymous No.12504326]

>>12504324
You asked me what I'm talking about. That's what I'm talking about. Turn on your brain.

[Anonymous No.12504330]

>>12504060
If you don't act it out you don't believe it. Your intellect isn't a thing apart from the rest of your being.

[Anonymous No.12504332]

>>12504326
>Not having grandchildren is equivalent to unnecessary and unavoidable suffering

Just stop posting.

[Anonymous No.12504345]

>>12504332
If you're an anti-natalist you'll be missing more than just grandchildren.

[Anonymous No.12504351]

>>12503423
Holy fuck I hate faggots like you so much

Stop deluding yourself. The bible is a collection of near eastern myths and then books obviously written by men with an agenda

[Anonymous No.12504352]

>>12503432
But by not having a kid, the avoidance of it's suffering is guaranteed

[Anonymous No.12504357]

>morally permissible, but only in the particular judgement of a subject, and never as a universal moral law
Shouldn't these be 1-1 for an ideal philosophy though? I think it should be.

I think anti-natalism is fine morally. It's just a voluntary human extinction to avoid suffering, which we are able to comprehend due to our cognitive powers.

[Anonymous No.12504372]

The real world result of mainstream antinatalism in a practical sense, as in a handful of nerds deciding not to breed, is decellerationist. This mild lull in breeding, if it does anything at all, does nothing but take some pressure off the kettle. It allows for life to continue longer.

A real antinatalism, a stance that strives to meaningfully prevent birth, realises that preventing birth is a fools errand on any meaningful scale. A real antinatalism would realise that life is something that must play itself out for it to stop.

Consequentialist antinatalism is an accelerationist natalism. It seeks to intensify birth, to grow humanity, to increase economic activity, to maximise entropy. The only way to an end of life is to use it up, and for those who would see it used up sooner than later the required activity would be to cultivate it to an extreme.

[Anonymous No.12504384]

>>12503836
So kill yourself faggot suffering is the default state of existence and any transient pleasures you indulge will only create more misery as they snowball. Your only hope for happiness in this world is through the unattainable pursuit of virtue which will only cause more suffering to bring about. Your existence isn't a matter of enjoyment but cowardice, cowardice of actualizing your presumed nonexistence after you depart from this earthly coil.

>>12503423
AVE MARIA, gratia plena, Dominus tecum. Benedicta tu in mulieribus, et benedictus fructus ventris tui, Iesus. Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, ora pro nobis peccatoribus, nunc, et in hora mortis nostrae. Amen. Mary, Mother of God, pray for the understanding of those duped by modernism into disbelief, that they may be saved from corporeal and eternal punishment.

[Anonymous No.12504396]

>>12503454
>comparing human suffering to anything else
...

[Anonymous No.12504399]

>>12504226
>>12504320

What are you even saying? This is why Philosophers hate Anglos and why Anglo Philosophy is a catastrophe. Wallowing in lukewarm phlegm for nothing.

[Anonymous No.12504401]

>>12504399
>What are you even saying?
Not engaging in family is probably a mistake.

[Anonymous No.12504403]

People having kids is just their retarded lizard brain telling them to do so or being narcissistic (muh genes, muh legacy) or in love (messes up anyone's head). It is wrong and should be looked down upon, in particular if it's not the person's first child or the following things apply: Mental illness, low intelligence, ugliness, poverty, genetic diseases, living in a shithole, not wanting kids in the first place.
Fuck breeders.

[Anonymous No.12504406]

I see how people could decide to not have children, but the fact that antinatalists basically just bring up autistic utilitarian arguments every time prevents me from taking it too seriously
>>12504399
Utilitarianism is a large part of why I hate anglo philosophy

[Anonymous No.12504408]

>>12503454
>It seems to me like the majority of antinatalists have some ulterior motive for not wanting children and therefore use antinatalism as an empty rationalization for their already pre-determined stance.

This is a neat summary of ethics in general.

[Anonymous No.12504411]

>>12503428
Is there a chart for antinatalist literature?

[Anonymous No.12504412]

>>12503454
>Also, if antinatalism rests on the assumption that existence is suffering and one should seek to minimize the suffering in the universe, then the logical conclusion to that would be not only self anhiniaton, but the anhiliation of every other human being as well.

You have discovered the next level.

[Anonymous No.12504415]

https://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/n/nietzsche/friedrich/n67a/chapter9.html

[Anonymous No.12504423]

>>12504320
>>12504345
Are you attempting to say that natalist behaviors are big sources of happiness for a lot of people? That's pretty obvious.
>>12504330
I see what you're getting at and could agree to disagree honestly. I think it's unreasonable to call someone a faker or something for that though, some people just lean in a general direction

[Anonymous No.12504426]

>>12504226
Even if I'm in for a world of unnecessary suffering, at least my kids won't be.

[Anonymous No.12504431]

>>12504423
>Are you attempting to say that natalist behaviors are big sources of happiness for a lot of people? That's pretty obvious.
No, I'm saying that assuming that natalist behaviours will not be a big source of happiness to you (and that the lack of them not a source of misery) seems to smack of hubris considering the historical and present scale and depth of human engagement in natalist behaviour.

[Anonymous No.12504439]

I love my life. Please kill yourself before you cause someone else of value to do so first.

[Anonymous No.12504442]

>>12504431
That's more cogent but an anti natalist could recognize that a kid might make them happy and still find it morally wrong on a number of grounds

[Anonymous No.12504447]

>>12504423
I don't understand how you construe belief except as the thing you act upon. Being rationally convinced of a thing may give rise to you believing it, but is not itself belief. What name would you give to the thing that underpins your actions if not belief? (Not rhetorical, I want to know where the disagreement lies).

[Anonymous No.12504454]

>>12504399
Probably a /pol/tard as well. A finely dissolved paste of wannabe Germanic autism and anemic Anglo bleating. These people would feel more at home gossiping on some village plaza or starting a pogrom.

[Anonymous No.12504456]

>>12504442
>an anti natalist could recognize that a kid might make them happy and still find it morally wrong on a number of grounds
Sure, but I haven't met one that does.

In light of the fact that it seems blindingly obvious to me and almost everyone that family is the primary source of meaning and happiness in life, you'd think that "it will make me happy but it's wrong" would be the most common stance among anti-natalists. But it's not.

It feels like they turn their desire to not have kids (rather, their desire to believe that they desire to not have kids) into a moral stance after the fact.

I'm suspicious of their motives and integrity.

[Anonymous No.12504461]

>>12504010
Set a boundary on "obstacles" here, please.
What if the said "obstacles" are of a such degree that prevent any useful outcome (for the evolution, or, according to you, the greater good) out of that individual?

[Anonymous No.12504474]

>>12503606
Interesting argument, thanks.

[Anonymous No.12504485]

>>12503423
Fpbp.

OP BTFO

[Anonymous No.12504495]

>>12503897
Nuclear bombs peacefully phase you out of existence, dumbass

[Anonymous No.12504546]

>>12504447
Let me know if I misread you but people in the real world outside of logic arguments have hopes and doubts and are also inherently ignorant about certain things.

[Anonymous No.12504558]

>>12504351
An agenda of what anon?

[Anonymous No.12504572]

>>12504060
And if a woman is unable to overcome the biological drive to have children that's morally unacceptable?

[Anonymous No.12504575]

>>12504061
Based

[Anonymous No.12504651]

>>12503697
>Science also shows that the universive is pre-determined since if you knew the position and speed of all eletrons and protons in the universe then you could predict all the shit that would happen, specially inside the brains of people.
You're taking this idea on faith. You yourself have never conducted any of those experiments and are only assuming the testimony of scientists to be true because you were told to believe this was the case when you were at an impressionable age. There is nothing a scientist could tell you that you wouldn't believe, because you axiomatically take any idea with the label "science" to be true.

[Anonymous No.12504708]

>>12504651
t. Flat Earth society

[Anonymous No.12504720]

>>12503697
>Quantum scientists may say that some things at the quantum level may indeed happen randomly, but we are not 100% sure
We actually are 100% sure that it is truly random and that "the universe" is stochastic
t. Mathematical physicist grad student

[Anonymous No.12504759]

>>12504708
Where's the lie?

[Anonymous No.12504820]

>>12504759
Would like to see where is the lie in the other anon's post. All you say is "hurr you will believe everything ""science"" says bruh" and dont even tackle the subject of the matter. Desdaining the fields of science just because "it may not be 100% correct" is as dumb as believing in a jew that was put on a cross and his story written down on a book for you to blindly believe and follow. So in the end there isnt much diference between your beliefs in god and the beliefs in ""science"".
The "science" falacy that you are talking about comes more often from social sciences and other fields that are more often then not, funded and twisted with a interest in mind.

[Anonymous No.12504830]

>>12504820
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grievance_Studies_affair

[Anonymous No.12504847]

>>12504439
I wouldn’t worry, people are rarely convinced by arguments.

[Anonymous No.12504869]

>>12504820
Again, where's the lie?

[Anonymous No.12504899]

>>12503615
Spermbank

[Anonymous No.12504940]

>>12504869
>Being this much of a dumb fuck
I asked you to tell where is the lie in the other post since you are the one with the "attacker" role here.
If everything you have to say is "you cant trust everything science says" then there is no lie in there, congrats.
But it shows just the same if not higher level of ignorance in believing in everything that the jew killed by the romans reportedly sayed.
Christfags crouch themselves like verms and avoid debate every time the topic of determinism is brought in.

[Anonymous No.12504985]

>>12504940
>in believing in everything that the jew killed by the romans reportedly sayed
Mind showing in my posts where I indicated that I was a Christian? It's a strange conclusion to jump to, considering I'm not a Christian.

[Anonymous No.12505040]

>>12504985
My bad anon. Maybe i was too harsh and jumped too quickly to conclusions.

[Anonymous No.12505080]

>>12505040
Again, how is a scientific worldview not equally faith based (faith in the testimony of scientists) as any religious outlook? Theoretically any person could carry out quantum mechanical experiments and interpret them to arrive at the same results as a scientist trained to do so. How many people actually do that? In the same way, any normal person can practice meditation and devotional service just the same way as a yogi can and see if he reaches the same conclusions.

[Anonymous No.12505206]

>>12505080
>Again, how is a scientific worldview not equally faith based (faith in the testimony of scientists) as any religious outlook?
I guess the scientific worldview as more predominance since the stuff that they say corresponds more clearly to the reality we live in (or atleast our preception of reality). Stuff like the earth being in fact round, rockets working and so on...
>Theoretically any person could carry out quantum mechanical experiments and interpret them to arrive at the same results as a scientist trained to do so.
I dont think its that simple. More "objective" stuff like quantums leaves almost no space for "twisted" results. The scientific method is pretty strict on that, since to claim a discovery you need to make reports showing your experiments and the theories and how they are backed up. So trying to fit a subjective opinion in there is super dificult since shit like this gets checked by various people. The problem more often comes from sciences more directly linked to humans, like social sciences and some fields of biology that can have coorporate and ideological interests behind. Social sciences are super prone to this, and its been countless of times shit being brought up in the reddit front page with a shit ton of upvotes of people falling for clickbait titles or experiments being very poorly done, just to fit a social movement.

[Anonymous No.12505235]

>>12505206
>More "objective" stuff like quantums leaves almost no space for "twisted" results.
How do you know it's objective? You still have no more reason to trust the scientific establishment than anything else you haven't independently and personally verified.
>The scientific method is pretty strict on that, since to claim a discovery you need to make reports showing your experiments and the theories and how they are backed up.
In the strictest, most abstract sense, this is true of the scientific method.
>So trying to fit a subjective opinion in there is super dificult since shit like this gets checked by various people.
You don't really know that. How much experience do you have working in a scientific field and trying to get papers published? I've spent 2 years working in a chemical research setting and believe me, the journal institutions are just as corrupt as any other institution. What do you think "this gets checked by various people" means? Tell me specifically what you think happens in the peer review process.

[Anonymous No.12505254]

>>12505206
Me (>>12505235) again. Read these articles if you want more insight into the peer review process and scientific institutions.

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/21/peer-review-replication-and-publication-bias/

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/22/expert-speech/

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/21/research-falsification-high-scores/

[Anonymous No.12505344]

>>12505235
>How do you know it's objective? You still have no more reason to trust the scientific establishment than anything else you haven't independently and personally verified.
Honestly i dont like touch the word "objective" very much. But i just think they are more "objective" since you can more easily verify formulas and see if they infact apply to what they say, its just that.
>You don't really know that. How much experience do you have working in a scientific field and trying to get papers published? I've spent 2 years working...
Its obvious you have more experience than me in that, i am a STEM fag myself but im only in the early years of my course, i know there as always been a certain level of curroption on that, but i never got the big impression you are giving me right now. There might be some similarities in science and religion when it comes to having faith in them. But i honestly prefer to have faith in something that can be right and changed if wrong, rather than something that already came tied up with various obvious lies about the world and universe. Thanks for the info though.

[Anonymous No.12505771]

Things like antinatalism are cabal proof that the Enlightenment was a huge mistake

>muh reason

Just off yourself, redditor

[Anonymous No.12505810]

>>12503398
>It’s said that if people practice chastity the human race will come to an end. But according to church teachings the end of the world must come. According to science, man’s life on earth and the very earth itself will come to an end. So why does it perturb people that a moral, good life will also lead to the end of the human race?

>Indeed, all human life is nothing more than a battle with sins and the gradual liberation from them. If people were to liberate themselves from all sins, including lust, there would be no life. Therefore the end of the human race would be something that must be.

>The most important thing is that whether or not the human race comes to an end is none of our business. Our business consists of one thing: to live well. And to live well concerning sexual relations means to live a pure life.

[Anonymous No.12505887]

>>12503667
pull up den i stg ima break your nose

[Anonymous No.12505961]

>>12503398
>if your answer is "no", how do you justify having kids, ever, when cancer could appear at any moment?
How do you even justify getting out of bed at that point.

[Anonymous No.12505981]

>>12503454
>Also, if antinatalism rests on the assumption that existence is suffering and one should seek to minimize the suffering in the universe, then the logical conclusion to that would be not only self anhiniaton, but the anhiliation of every other human being as well

Welcome to the black pill my friend.

[Anonymous No.12506576]

It presupposes that life is suffering, which it isn't. It's such a histrionic, self-pitying answer.

[Anonymous No.12506899]

>>12503429
the mind is electricity, anon. consciousness requires waking.

[Anonymous No.12506951]

>>12504351
Low quality bait

[Anonymous No.12507055]

>>12504461
I agree it was vague, but I was also understating it.
A lack of obstacles might actually cause an evolutionary regression; a weakening of species' in the face of reduced pressure, like the immune system atrophying with a lack of pathogens.
Of course this is core to what I was getting at to begin with, but expressing it like that does simplify the matter.

[Anonymous No.12507138]

>>12503423
>human life is a gift from God
>that he takes away abruptly and turns into tormenting death forever.

Hell is the biggest reason for anyone to be an antinatalist.

[Anonymous No.12507195]

>>12503398
You're absolutely right OP. Here I fixed Brainletar's asymmetry. This also doesn't run into the "person-affecting" problem if we consider the columns to represent different realities or worlds as opposed to the potential individual himself.

[Anonymous No.12507208]

>>12506576
buddhism presupposes life is suffering, antinatalism presupposes that life is more suffering than not

[Anonymous No.12508399]

>>12503398
>muh universal humanity
No, I don't care about you or 'humanity'. I will be as I am regardless, which includes reproduction and enjoyment of all that it entails, my only duty is to me and mine, anything else is cuckoldry. Antinatalism is just a slavish reaffirmation of the poor character of contemporary man while pretending to be some scary and necessary truth. No, it's as uninspired and weak as anything else topical in mass culture. Which misanthropy very much is.

Also, much like hedonism it has no basis as it only considers a single vague linear quality as the sum of all things. As a reaction to this basis, it falls short because that basis is undeveloped, hedonism would extend far beyond its own scope that it really has no observation or point or form of its own. No, the basis is irrelevant, you just want to believe in it regardless. So do so, but don't speak of refutations for what amounts to a half-arsed version of misanthropy, as if misanthropy wasn't lazy enough. It's misanthropy but you're the pretend 'good guy' rather than just the disheartened and abrasive and righteous (superior, enlightened).

[Anonymous No.12508405]

>>12507208
No. 'Suffering' as in a translation of a specific notion in Buddhism. And Buddhism does not presuppose that specific notion either, it develops it from more fundamental axioms.

[Anonymous No.12508419]

>>12505810
>live well
Fucking brainlet slav

[Anonymous No.12508432]

>>12506576
Antinatalism presupposes that non-existence is a state of being preferrable to existence, that's all. Which it is, unless you can demonstrate some inherent value to being alive.

[Anonymous No.12508573]

>>12508399
You should realize that natalism and hedonism go hand in hand. Also, anti-natalism is not necessarily misanthropic. I'm sure you can see why if you thought about it.

[Anonymous No.12508589]

>>12503398
When Izanagi and Izanami formed the earth did they decide to stop there? No they had children, children are part of a successful life like the gods showed us

[Anonymous No.12508696]

>>12508399
Unspeakably based.

[Anonymous No.12508706]

>>12508399
>FUG U MOM I DO WAT I WANT
Truly powerful statement. Antinatalism BTFO

[Anonymous No.12509034]

>>12503398
Without suffering there is no heroism, which provides the ultimate sense of meaning. Can’t really argue for why heroism is meaningful, that’s just my empirical experience.

[Anonymous No.12509040]

>>12503398
Because we're imbued with an inate desire to proliferate, and a lack thereof is indicative of some sort genetic/psychological malignancy.

[Anonymous No.12509051]

>>12504408
the kek or truth
Nietzsche said something like this too

[Anonymous No.12509178]

>>12504384
Christians LARPers really are full of shit.

[Anonymous No.12509741]

>>12509040
weakest „argument“ in this thread, congrats