Arguments against anti-natalism?

[Anonymous No.15234121]

I’ve read this book and cannot find arguments to refute it. Even Nietzsche, Kant, Schopenhauer, Aristotle’s books cannot convince me. Anti-Natalism seems to me right now the logical conclusion of the moral philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15234125]

>moral
>philosophy

[Anonymous No.15234156]

>>15234121
>t. utilitarian bugmen

[Anonymous No.15234167]

>>15234121
The problem with antinatalism is that there is no real distinction between the perception of suffering and actual suffering. Thus, the best way to lower the level of suffering in society is not to end the society, but only those who see the most suffering in it; antinatalists.

[Anonymous No.15234168]

the only answer I've got is that letting humanity die out is only a temporary fix. Somewhere out there in the universe intelligent life is gonna emerge again, if it hasn't already and it's back to square one for those poor bastards.

[Anonymous No.15234173]

>>15234121

[Anonymous No.15234176]

>>15234167
this is retarded, the difference between perception and actuality is the phenomenal experience. we should obliviously be trying to minimize that

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.15234177]

>>15234121
You’re a schizophrenic.
>burns book.

[Anonymous No.15234181]

>>15234121
>kill yourself for the good of humanity
>instantly wake up again as a human being, except this time you are born without an arm

[Anonymous No.15234199]

>>15234176
So you're saying that people can suffer even if they don't percieve that they are?

[Anonymous No.15234204]

>>15234121
Hint: Examine the axioms and premises of the argument. You will find a great deal to disagree with if you don't let yourself be taken in by the author.

[Anonymous No.15234245]

>>15234199
I'm saying that it doesn't follow from anitnatalism that removing antinatalists solves the problem as you suggested. because their perception of one's suffering is very much distinct from the experience one has of suffering

[Anonymous No.15234253]

>>15234176
why is it obvious that we should minimize that

[Anonymous No.15234287]

The simple argument, at least on the individual level, is that most people struggle but enjoy life. Most people would rather exist then to not. It's really that simple. Most people don't want to kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.15234295]

>>15234168
Therefore, it is our duty to create a swarm of non-sentient bots to destroy all life in the universe

[Anonymous No.15234307]

>>15234295
if it can do it quick and painlessly, maybe

[Anonymous No.15234329]

>>15234245
If you're experiencing suffering, that counts as perception of suffering.

[spoon No.15234376]

theres no arguing against a narcissist.
This anti-natalism is 100% ego and 100% resentment.
Its quite possible the worst form of nostalgia.

[Anonymous No.15234710]

>>15234121
>Arguments against anti-natalism
The fact that not everyone suffers at the same degree. The real logical conclusion is being selective with reproduction (i.e. eugenics) to minimize possible suffering, de-stigmatize suicide, and make euthanasia on demand legal.

[Anonymous No.15234783]

>>15234121
> (((David Benatar)))
There's your argument

[Anonymous No.15235384]

>>15234121
None, it's true.

[Anonymous No.15235390]

Life is good, and worth passing down.

[Anonymous No.15235405]

>>15234710
A lot of peoples sufferings is self inflicted, and plenty of people with genetic defects are happy and enjoy being alive

[Anonymous No.15235450]

>>15234121
Benatar's argument:
>pleasure for the existing is good, pain for the existing is bad, absence of pleasure for the non-existent is not-bad, and absence of pain for the non-existent is good. Therefore, it is claimed, birth is always a harm.
It doesn't work because non-existence is not predicable; it cannot have qualities or subjects or values ("pleasure for the non-existent is not-bad"). It's a contradictio in adjecto. What he's referring to is retroactive non-existence. But the condition for retroactive non-existence is existence itself. Thus, for his argument for non-existence to work, he must presuppose existence, in which case it isn't actually working at all.

[Anonymous No.15235486]

You're arbitrarily assuming suffering has moral valence. Deny that axiom and the entire edifice collapses.

[Anonymous No.15235489]

>>15234121
Evolution and the emergence of positive properties and qualia. The ones who do become antinatalists, are often ones in depression or in a state where they do not honor the positive aspects of life enough to pass it on. However, they ignore two very important factors; humans will evolve, evolution hasn't stopped, and not all humans are the same - they project their own values onto all else. Current state of affairs is not perpetual, even if you were to seek repeating it forever.

[Anonymous No.15235521]

>>15235489
Even something as anti-human as a jew is evolving; circumcision has been toned down for the majority of them, and they've split their camp. I doubt they will be able to maintain host killing properties for many iterations after this. Same happens to viruses, they become less hostile as time goes on, and eventually become either passing neutral matter, or a symbiotic evolutionary spiral.

Heck, maybe they'll learn to farm humans without the need to ruin the farm...

[Anonymous No.15235554]

>>15234121
Anti-natalism is immoral because only people of mid- or high- intelligence are at all familiar with what it is. High intelligence individuals are sometimes said to be prone to depressive tendencies so anti-ntalism might be more likely to appeal to them.
(Not saying being an anti-natalist makes you an intelllectual).
Thus, if anti-natalism is promulgated, its less likely to reach stupid people. Since intelligence is largely hereditary (see Robert Plomin), less intelligent people too stupid to even consider Benetar's arguments would outbreed the more intelligent, making the world a worse place (less civic virtue, popular sovereignty via democracy being used destructively) and probably leading to fascism (not saying fascists are stupid necessarily, but fascism is oft an outgrowth of the failures of democracy.

That is why anti-natalism is immoral and actively harmful.

[Anonymous No.15235606]

>>15235554
Or am I wrong?

[Anonymous No.15235655]

>>15235450
>pleasure for the existing is good, pain for the existing is bad, absence of pleasure for the non-existent is not-bad, and absence of pain for the non-existent is good
What the fuck is this Benthamite nonsense

[Anonymous No.15235661]

>>15235655
That's literally his argument.

[Anonymous No.15235689]

>>15235486
/thread

[Anonymous No.15235704]

>>15235661
Have the past 250 years of social and political consisted of nothing more than the repetition and extension of the same collection of illogical theses in different forms?

[Anonymous No.15235746]

the problem of the anti-natalist is not in the existence of actual human suffering but in their perceiving of said suffering.
there is, after all, no efficient, or even feasible way to determine the amount of suffering experienced by all available humanity.
the anti-natalist assumes that suffering always weight heavier on the scale than whatever state of being should run counter or at least is more beneficial to humanity.
but lacking any means of quantifying said suffering the only logical basis for the anti-natalist to measure suffering is by the perception of suffering held by people.
therefore it only makes sense that to decrease the amount that suffering is perceived is to decrease the state of suffering in the world.
the best way to reach this objective is to eliminate the populace with the greatest and most intensely felt perception of human suffering, ie: anti-natalists

[Anonymous No.15235842]

>>15234121
It is one rational endpoint if the metaphysics of becoming. It is only strictly refuted within the metaphysics of being, in which it is choosing the ultimate evil of non-existence.

[Anonymous No.15235858]

>this is the logical conclusion of the 'moral' philosophy

[Anonymous No.15235869]

>>15235858
Doesn't antinatalism posit itself as the moral option?

[Anonymous No.15236086]

>>15234121
jesus

[Anonymous No.15236096]

>>15234121

Well then off yourself faggot ahahahaha
like lmao why do you think anyone would care to convince you ahahhahaha

like who fuckin cares off yourself ahahhaha

ol lord u

[a wandering commentator No.15236130]

>>15234121
Because suffering isn’t quantifiable. It’s purely subjective.
If it were quantifiable, then the suffering in existence wouldn’t be worthed it and you’d kill yourself. But instead you’ll weasel out of it by exploiting the subjectivity in suffering and claim that “the suffering in suicide is too great”. Ignoring all the people who do in fact suicide without the need of some shitty cooe philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15236135]

Because suffering isn’t quantifiable. It’s purely subjective.
If it were quantifiable, then the suffering in existence wouldn’t be worthed it and you’d kill yourself. But instead you’ll weasel out of it by exploiting the subjectivity in suffering and claim that “the suffering in suicide is too great”. Ignoring all the people who do in fact suicide without the need of some shitty cope philosophy.

[Anonymous No.15236197]

>>15234783
It's not a very good one. I agree with some JQ stuff, but just saying "he a joo" is not an argument.

[Anonymous No.15236433]

>>15234121
Fortunately antinatalism seems to be self refuting. Pragmatically and evolutionarily those who are prone to anti-natalistic thinking will be eventually be wiped out of the gene pool, leaving the strong to take their place.

[Anonymous No.15236547]

>>15235521
> 2 (two) thousand years

[Anonymous No.15236593]

Its anti intellectual if you take it to the ultimate conclusion

[Anonymous No.15236603]

>>15234121
What do you mean EVEN Schopenhauer? If anything reading him will make you a bigger anti natalist.

[Anonymous No.15236609]

>>15234181
reincarnation does not exist lol

[Anonymous No.15236633]

>>15236609
You're a physio-chemical, biological antennae to higher phenomena, including hunger and 'you'. One antennae goes out, another will eventually pop in, or you'll mold one to receive you.

[Anonymous No.15236643]

>>15236547
They've been a recorded menace for 3,000 years. To themselves (genital mutilation) and others.

[Anonymous No.15236648]

>>15236633
bro thats just like words yo. Get your head out of your own asshole your brain is all out of oxygen man

[Anonymous No.15236659]

>>15236648
I'm sure you can explain hunger with chemical compounds and chemical compounds alone. I'm sure you have the experiencer well thought out and defined.

[Anonymous No.15236703]

>>15234121
Don't you wanna see more humans suffer all the incoming climate, economic, political and energy catastrophes?
Fuck you for preaching antinatalism. Let the humanity suffer.

[Anonymous No.15236717]

>>15236659
I am not a biologist or anything but I assume its kind of a response to your body's state that arose through evolution, like sleepiness. In any case even if we don't have complete knowledge reasoning reactionarily like that seems dumb to me. You can make up any kind of magical system to fill the blanks.

[Anonymous No.15236755]

>>15236717
>its kind of a response
Of what, and to what? Chemicals don't desire to live. Biological radios that connect their chemical antennae to the Platonic realms localize the feeling. One of those Platonic truths is you. The consciousness. It's localized, some say trapped, to this world.

[Anonymous No.15236758]

>>15234121
>Nietzsche, Kant, Schopenhauer
technically all of these men were antinatalists lmaooo

[Anonymous No.15236764]

>>15236758
Besides schopy, zero game

[Anonymous No.15236779]

>>15236755
Oh, and biology has adapted primarily to producing consciousness, and then the physical bodies are selected based on their staying power across generations; desire to produce more generations, exists and can only exist in relation to an authentic experience, which requires and authentic experiencer.
The complex chemical machine we're in, has multiple switches to change the radio frequency, from fear to hunger to various things - to which the operator, the player, then utilizes to move the body. Or not.

[Anonymous No.15236790]

>>15236755
>Chemicals don't desire to live
if they didnt they wouldnt yet here we are

[Anonymous No.15236807]

>>15236764
his daughter died i think and rest of his life he preached to embrace pessimism and live an ascetic life.

[Anonymous No.15236810]

>>15234121
Its cringe

[Anonymous No.15236826]

>>15236790
Chemicals are a list of properties, that doesn't seem to include experience. If it does, however, then we live in a Universe where life is a basic building block, together with consciousness.
Regardless, idealism and its fullest manifestation cannot be escaped.

[Anonymous No.15236846]

>>15236790
Pixels don't desire to "live"; within a video game environment they are the same as any other pixels. However, the player does and the AI pretends to, for the player's perspective.
>Zoom in, find building blocks
>Oh no, we're just pixels!

[Anonymous No.15236876]

>>15234167
Except suffering is not a genetically heritable condition so you could never remove it, or you would have to perpetually keep removing those who suffer, often against their will. So retarded.

[Anonymous No.15236922]

>>15234181
Why waste your time on words. Learn to astral project to the materialist's location and btfo his arguments with your paranormally obtained information.

[Anonymous No.15237017]

>>15234167
this poster has confirmed <95 iq, not even AN.

[Anonymous No.15237037]

>>15234177
you're technically an antinatalist you fucking faggot

[Anonymous No.15237114]

>>15235450
but what if two people were planning to have a child together, however just before they actually conceive, they discover they both have a rare genetic mutation that would lead their child to live in constant extreme horrible pain. would we not say that their discovering their mutations and deciding not to have it was a good as compared to a bad in not discovering it and having it?

>non-existence is not predicable; it cannot have qualities or subjects or values
not non-existence itself as a concept, but one thing having the property of non-existence seems to make perfect sense. Especially when you start to get more accurate about what you mean by existence in the particular discussion.
>What he's referring to is retroactive non-existence
there's nothing retroactive about deciding whether to create more life or not.

[Anonymous No.15237138]

>>15234121
Teens on this board shit themselves in reactionary upheaval after a wikipedia search of anti-natalism, but I've yet to see this board produce a total refutation of Benatar's three main arguments in the book.

On this point: remember the time Jordan Peterson debated Benatar and made an ass of himself: https://youtu.be/vsyZcKUP_-k

[Anonymous No.15237161]

>>15235554
>>15235606
some would say lower intelligence wouldn't necessarily entail higher suffering. other than that it's only an argument for not implementing AN on the basis of it wouldn't work and would only make things worse, not an argument against AN itself. From a practical perspective this is of course what matters, but in the interest of pure philosophy you're not hitting the nail on the head.

[Anonymous No.15237509]

>>15234168
Stories and novels for this feel?

[Anonymous No.15237576]

>>15234168
Maybe humans are one of the more suffering oriented species, as a result of our retarded evolutionary history?
Females suffer every month due to our stupid biology. They make men and their children suffer for it as well. Some of our traditions are oriented to ensuring repetition of traumas and the reduction of pleasure - circumcision, among others, like Spartan childhood.

Humans had a stage of heavy rapine and warfare, I doubt many other species that evolve high qualities are like this. Imagine if troodons had evolved into humanoid forms; mating seasons, laying eggs, choosing the most beautiful mate; no warfare, high intelligence, high caring instincts for offspring.

It's just that mammals are trash that inherited way too much from the nest thieves.

[Anonymous No.15237799]

>>15234121
Struggle and suffering is the only thing that makes life meaningful.
Those who confront it ascend above bugmen, like you, who don't.

[Anonymous No.15238166]

>>15235554
I agree.

It's smart people's duty to get married and have kids so we don't get outbred by the stupid. But unfortunately they're all selfish and think fuckall about humanity as a whole, and if they don't have kids it's not their problem because their nonexistent kids won't have to deal with it.