[ 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: 115 KB, 1024x1024, 1509916785947.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13959036 No.13959036 [Reply] [Original]

Is there much literature on the ethics of procreation?

>> No.13959042

>>13959036
Benatar

>> No.13959048

the bible

>> No.13959052

>yet another antinatalist spam post by this Kantian frogposter
Oh boy, I wonder which one of our janitors is an antinatalist

>> No.13959053

>>13959036
Any journal or book on eugenics but that's apparently evil now.

>> No.13959086

The correct answer to "the procreation question" depends entirely on metapgysics.
If atheism is true, press >>13959042
If theism is true, press >>13959048 (and then probably go read some supplemental material)
Everything else is desperate tryhard equivocational nonsense.

>> No.13959094

>>13959053
I wouldn't mind if half the population got sterilized.
I'm not planning on having kids anyway, so whatever.
Normalfags crying about their "human rights" being violated would be fun.
>NO, HOW DARE YOU STERILIZE ME, I MUST BREED
Most people shouldn't reproduce, as their genetic quality is trash. Unless you're a highly intelligent, attractive, rich couple, don't even think about it.

>> No.13959101

>>13959094
I wouldn't mind if you got sterilised.

>> No.13959132

>>13959101
I'm getting a vasectomy in the near future, so no worries.

>> No.13959346

>>13959086
So an atheist who wants to have children is irrational?

>> No.13959353

>>13959346
Yes

>> No.13959475

>>13959353
Are you an incel?

>> No.13959497

>>13959346
an atheist is irrational period
an atheist who wants to have children is thoughtless at best and immoral at worst

>> No.13959508

>>13959353
anon people were procreating before the concept of god existed

>> No.13959884

>>13959508
Many would argue that the first moment the concept of god existed was the genesis of the first person.

>> No.13959908

>>13959497
>an atheist is irrational period
explain

>> No.13960058

>>13959884
Why are humans prone to developing a concept of God?

>> No.13960448

>>13960058
because they are cowards

>> No.13960467
File: 135 KB, 1022x727, do it for ted.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13960467

>>13959036
204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person’s genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn’t matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training. In either case they ARE passed on.

205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problems, hence they are apt to have few or no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least accept the industrial system. To insure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation should reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the important problem is to get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world’s population necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world’s population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.

>> No.13960478
File: 64 KB, 800x1067, David_Pearce.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13960478

>>13959036
https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html

>Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.