thought experiment

[Anonymous No.14092739]

if you had the power to make everyone infertile with a push of a button, would you do it? assuming you agree with Schopenhauer's position against reproduction

[Anonymous No.14092937]

[Anonymous No.14092967]

Honestly, I've become too selfish to answer "yes." I want a younger generation keeping material production going into my old age and death, even if that generation is also brought into a horrible world in order to suffer.

[Anonymous No.14092973]

No. There is no burden of existence he's just being melodramatic and expressing unusual sentiments for the sake of being remembered

[Anonymous No.14093016]

i would but not for the sake of the coming generations. i just want to see the world burn.

[Anonymous No.14093020]

Children are great, my kids bring so much joy to everyone around them. Life without children would continue to be equally hard, but with one less source of happiness

[Anonymous No.14093024]

>>14092739
I don’t know who that is. But I do agree with putting an end to the mass rate of repudiation that we’re in(probably not with the author agrees with). Would I elaborate? Ask.

[Anonymous No.14093085]

>>14093024
>>14093020
Schopenhauer and Benatar's point is that life is not worth living and it's morally wrong to bring a child to such existence. it's not about population control, preserving the environment or their use for you.
the only counter argument acceptable is one which proves that you can have a child for the child's sake, but you can't since no one existed to benefit in the first place. people give these reasons for why they had children
>like babies and children
>to find meaning and hope
>fear of loneliness at old age
>to carry their family name
>social pressure..
it's either these or an accidental pregnancy. All of which are based on what value they get out of the child.

[Anonymous No.14093120]

>>14093085
With your green text, you’re considering the culture of humanity in general. But here’s a response from a product of that culture. As humans, no matter a homeless bum who lives in the New York tunnels or a successful university Professor, we produce filth. Toxic or Landfill. Even the most startiving savage Nigger in Africa will produce filth one way or another. But our mother, Earth, can’t take it all at once. Every single human being on Earth and their between, the wild, produces filth at a rate that our Mother can’t produce for. Therefore; war is necessary for the human race to maintaine. The more ancient tend to suffer from the most modern, but that’s because of culture. But at the end, aren’t our culture beliefs the same? Life is subjective.

[Anonymous No.14093147]

>>14093120
people like you sound like pagan earth worshipers (ergo retards)

i am antinatalist leaning but why would you give a fuck about a planet you dont intend to inhabit or one that will become inhospitable to people you dont want inhabiting it.

seems like antinatalism is an ideology by upper middle class whites to virtue signal

[Anonymous No.14093154]

>>14093085
>is that life is not worth living and it's morally wrong to bring a child to such existence.
That's their opinion. Can equally say life is a joyous gift and it's our moral duty to share it as widely as possible. They can't prove their side is correct any more than mine

[Anonymous No.14093195]

>>14092739

Unless you're a mystic of sorts and believe some supreme being(s) put us here, then you probably believe humans are here as part of a natural process. By pushing a button that would eventually lead us to extinction doesn't mean the result will be permanent. Humans or beings like us could respawn in the future. Antinatalism is like a very strong antiviral but there's still no cure for the common cold. That being said, I'm not having a kid but that's for selfish reasons.

[Anonymous No.14093359]

>>14092967
Peak boomer mindset, how did you achieve it?

[Anonymous No.14094462]

>>14092739
If I had the power to make every non-white infertile in exchange of my left arm I'd be called One Armed Jack from then on.

[Anonymous No.14094481]

>>14094462

Racist. Non-whites did not destroy the world.
I can never tell if this stuff is just blind elitism or simple denial of the suffering they have caused.

[Anonymous No.14094513]

>>14094481
>Non-whites did not destroy the world.
Is that why china has 200% more emission than 10 years ago and why usa and europe has -4% since?

Non-whites destroy whites, their countries, their job market and their future, that's enough for me. I'd be fucking One Armed Jack no matter how much you cry about it.

[Anonymous No.14094520]

>>14094481
>Racist
you sure got him good

[Anonymous No.14094541]

>>14094513
>rapidly developing country of 1.2 BILLION has increased emissions
wow shocker. China is also doing a ton to clean up its pollution and combat climate change, but who cares because yellow man bad am I right?

[Anonymous No.14094543]

>>14094513

China has only been an economic power for 20 years.

The vast majority of carbon emissions in total Throughout human history have come from the west.
Per capita output of carbon since 1800 is almost exclusively western.... and white.


Numbers of dead by war disease and genocide exacerbated by western lifestyles dwarfs that of the east and china.

The east only became dangerous when they adopted western greed, selfishness, and irresponsibility.

Genocide yourself whitey!

[Anonymous No.14094550]

No because even if the world sucks now it could conceivably become a nice place with sufficient technological and societal progress. Doing this could prevent hundreds of thousands of years of peaceful, happy existence for humanity.

[Anonymous No.14094555]

>>14094543
>The east only became dangerous when they adopted western greed, selfishness, and irresponsibility.
lol you people really believe this, delusional fucking subhumans

[Anonymous No.14094582]

>>14094555

>Name calling

This is your argument? No wonder you voted for a moron. If this is what convinces you then I say good riddance to the white race.
When you were the underdogs in the world, you had to get smarter, but since your forefathers gave you everything, you no longer have to work.

You don't make anything yourself and don't even know how to do it anymore.

You have become what you overthrew to get where you are.
So sad when the children are spoiled and stupid. Your ancestors must be so ashamed.

[Anonymous No.14094584]

>>14094541
>China is also doing a ton to clean up its pollution and combat climate change
lmao, source.
>>14094543
>we were in stone age before whitey found us
>therefore they were the ones doing the emissions
No shit sherlock.

[Anonymous No.14094614]

>>14094582
>I say good riddance to the white race.
We already know that's how you feel you seething sack of shit, kill yourself

[Anonymous No.14094630]

>>14093359
By having the reality of the world crush all of my ideals, and therefore discovering that everything horrible about the world is our own fault. I hate the actual baby boomers, but I also realize that every subsequent generation is following in their footsteps, and will be at least as bad when they get to be that age.

[Anonymous No.14094765]

>>14094481
>Racist
kek

[Anonymous No.14094833]

>>14092739
Yes. Preventing a prospective parent from reproducing is no different than disarming a prospective murderer. There are no reproductive rights, least of all the fact that you have reproductive organs.

[Anonymous No.14095078]

>>14094582

[Anonymous No.14095219]

>>14094513
>Is that why china has 200% more emission than 10 years ago

hmmmmmmmmmmmm i wonder where the majority of chinese products end up, and which companies ordered them.

[Anonymous No.14095236]

No, I wouldn't because I was born into this world

[Anonymous No.14095251]

>>14093085
you have not considered the possibility that this earth is a purgatory for lost souls to conceptually redeem themself. there is no evidence for such a position but its every bit as reasonable as Schopenhauer since it is also predicated on intuition and emotion.

[Anonymous No.14095258]

>>14095219
>it's your fault someone offers to sell you something you want lol
Interesting logic, must be leftist.

[Anonymous No.14095336]

>>14092739
Morality is Subjective
To take away the subject would be to take away morality.

[Anonymous No.14096920]

>>14095258
>Muh china pollutes 10000x more than the west.
>b-but it's their fault that it is us who use their slave labour and industries not ours
lmao

[Anonymous No.14096948]

>>14094833
Based take

[Anonymous No.14098489]

>>14095336
>Morality is Subjective
Why partake in arguments on 4chan then? if there is no underlying truth for morality, all of your positions can be dismissed on the grounds of your subjectivity

[Anonymous No.14098625]

>>14096920
We don't use their slave labour, they use their slave labour and then make things which they sell to us.
If we were the ones using their slave labour, we wouldn't pay them.

Are you retarded or brown?

[Anonymous No.14099257]

>>14098489
Because I'm not intent on finding "the truth" but instead what is better or worse for me on my subjective's objective scale (survival) as most people have.

My positions can't be proven true or false and this statement itself can't be proven true or false, and so it is indeterminate kinda like reality.

Our subjective illudes itself into thinking of objective scales and measures like Benatar's scale or mine. For the sake of maintaining logos as we should and similarly antinatalism is something which ends logos and so just like relativism, subjectivism, eleatic thought, and other logos-ending thought it shouldn't be put into practice until destroyed or be put on hold until it's never-coming verifiability.

[Anonymous No.14099469]

>>14095336
>>14099257
>Morality is subjective
More like I don't want to talk about this subject anymore, so let's reduce each others arguments to simply saying that they can be interpreted an infinite number of ways, each individually correct. So why argue? It's like chucking the chessboard because the loser realizes that he's playing a dumb game and wants the winner to realize that as well by being a bad sport. Sure, the loser is right, but really?

[Anonymous No.14099693]

>>14099257
>what is better or worse for me on my subjective's objective scale (survival)
Once you have specified survival as your scale (no choice of your own), you would agree that there is an optimal way we could live to ensure the survival of the species whether we aware of it or not, right? Our ignorance and lack of tools to prove that something is true doesn't mean there is no truth. Reality exists independent to whether we are correctly perceiving it or not.

[Anonymous No.14099728]

>>14099469

Lmao imagine thinking that logos can only be maintained by binary. You can't even read and accuse me of playing an eristical game (while I haven't) while you do the same.

>to simply saying that they can be interpreted an infinite number of ways, each individually correct

>can't be proven true or false, and so it is indeterminate

I get it you watched a five-minute youtube clip on Protagoras and think you know everything about relativistic philosophy.

If you want an "objective" statement I'll repeat myself. We ought' not to take away humanity out of reality because without humans there is nothing to be valued since there is no valuer, and morality is something to be acted upon and so to be moral is to act and have an actor (this what you accuse to be the "well everything is subjective so everyone is right" type strawman")

But also, antinatalism and this sterilization eliminates logos because it assumes it knows the end-all of everything, but this isn't wise because to know we must admit we don't know (there is always something to be learned). So to eliminate all possibilities of understanding is an unwise decision because there is always something to learn, and so because it is unwise it's immoral. And here is some pseudo-objective moral scale for you if you want it.

[Anonymous No.14099763]

>>14099693
>. Reality exists independent to whether we are correctly perceiving it or not.

>optimal way
Perhaps there are true things that make it better or worse, however, these "true things" are hinged upon a subjective belief. (which is an interesting point you've made)

I believe that there is truth like an independent reality however concepts like morality since they are subject-constructed are subjective in themselves.

>Reality exists independent to whether we are correctly perceiving it or not.

Agree, perhaps I should've specified that there is an objective reality that is unobservable and doesn't have the subjective attributed attributes like morality, but like being and time.

There are true things but there are indeterminate value-ideas

[Anonymous No.14100009]

what does it matter?

there's 50 billion other mammals suffering and breeding, 120 trillion insect species doing the same

etc

makes no difference

[Anonymous No.14100019]

>>14095251
if so, what does individual redemption have to do with sticking your dick in vaginas and having kids?

[Anonymous No.14100024]

>>14092739
>assuming you agree with Schopenhauer's position against reproduction
why are we assuming this?

I'd rather do something zainy. Push a button and everyone wakes up with the wrong junk the next morning, or maybe just half of all men and women. See how strong the bonds of marriage are.

[Anonymous No.14100035]

>>14092739
nah it's gotta be a switch, I'll flip a switch but push a button like some fucking schmuck, get out of here you cuckold

[Anonymous No.14100209]

>>14100009
Insects don't appear to suffer as they lack the necessary structures to. For some spiders it seems the case is different.

[Anonymous No.14100224]

>>14092739
I'd make it so female orgasm is necessary for conception. Elegant and restraining enough.

[Anonymous No.14100248]

>>14092739
Who is going to pay for my retirement
Best regards,
Bob

[Anonymous No.14100989]

>>14100019
I merely hypothesising that there could be a situation in which it is ethical to reproduce. Schopenhauers main argument is predicated on a generalisation, this is fine as philosophy and science are built upon the concept of generalisations, but the SCOPE of the generalisation S. is making is far too great to take credibly. You could spend a thousand years investigating the lives of every person you ever met or read about, and still only understand a fraction of their state of being. To assume that life is misery is simply too wide a generalisation. Am I suffering? Yes. Can I say everyone who is living suffers? No. You cannot possibly make such an evaluation, it is so broad in its scope it may as well be religion.

[Anonymous No.14101002]

>>14092739
No.

I think prego chicks are the hottest fucking thing. It's my kink.

[Anonymous No.14101126]

>>14092739
Lads, I want to live le epic cool hedonist traveler lifestyle, which involves no children, what are some entry level anti-natalism books I can read so I have a response when people question my lifestyle other than "I don't want responsibility lmao".

[Anonymous No.14101175]

I would make white people infertile so racism and discrimination will finally end

[Anonymous No.14101177]

>>14100989
>I merely hypothesising that there could be a situation in which it is ethical to reproduce
you'd be very likely to confuse utility with ethics, if that were the case. under virtue/trascendental ethics, such a problem does not exist. the only thing that matters is the individual's choices and principles, because the material world has no precise value. the human race will die if I don't
>COOOOOOOOOM
so what? if there is a need for another stage for beings to prove their worth (and if they need to do so through empirical/physical acts), then it will be arranged just like this one, either by creation/evolution, whatever you believe.

[Anonymous No.14101188]

>>14094481
>Racist
Fuck you, we shall never kneel to the hordes of blind sheep. However, it is the blind sheep who shall wake up to the impending doom.

[Anonymous No.14101194]

Being is intrinsically good. The concept of goodness is relative to a thing's intrinsic nature of trying to continue to exist. Pleasure and pain are increasing your being and decreasing your being - becoming stronger and becoming weaker. Why do think being sick sucks and nutting, or which is essential to the act of reproduction feels good? Or why healthy people are beautiful and unhealthy people aren't beautiful? Or why romantic love itself is so connected to the urge to reproduce? It's privation that's bad. Complete non being isn't pain though, it's just non existence. Existence isn't in itself bad, quite the opposite, but being a limited being necessarily involves pain because some things make you physically and mentally weaker by chance or by your own doing.
So anti-natalism and suicidal thoughts, by trying to eliminate the suffering, only increase it, when the way to happiness and pleasure exists for those patient and willing to put in the effort.

[Anonymous No.14101821]

>>14094543
>he east only became dangerous when they adopted western greed, selfishness, and irresponsibility.
this is culture, like the horrid violence of black American culture that's been adopted world wide, they both can be overcame, but try and think it has nothing to do with skin but with choices

[Anonymous No.14101966]

Yes.