[ 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: 320 KB, 1079x1349, D217E304-8C49-4381-8CB5-A95509EA39D8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17544386 No.17544386 [Reply] [Original]

Good and non-biased books which defend natalism?

>> No.17544395

>>17544386
Unironically The Origin of Species.

>> No.17544432

>>17544395
Appreciated, but maybe I’ll be a little more specific: books which detail the necessitating of propagation of existence without succumbing to self-reference existence?

>> No.17544492

>>17544432
Sum that with Kant's categorical imperative.

>> No.17544500

>>17544432
And Sapolsky's lectures about the biology of human behavior on yt. Or his Behave book.

>> No.17544503

Natalism needs to defense. Why would it?

>> No.17544517

>>17544503
I think it is something along the lines of having as much children as you can (considering certain standards). Rather than just having some and whatever.

>> No.17544542

>>17544503
I’m trying to be intelligent rather than stupid. Seems barbaric not to question why we would propagate incessantly.
>>17544500
>>17544492
Thanks

>> No.17544558

>>17544542
Do you wish you had never been born? If not, you should have children if you are capable of providing a reasonable life for them.

>> No.17544565

>>17544386
>Be born if your head isn't crushed and your legs aren't suck-teared from your body
>Get clamped
>Foreskin must go because some reason. No anaesthetics used. Severe pain causes trauma that may alter your neural pathways. Penis permanently mutilated
>As a child, you must conform to an ever more restricted "child development route" which favors girls. Any deviation from it will get you labeled ill and broken.
>Forcibly enrolled in school for nine hours a day.
>If you act up or are immature, get put on amphetamines because you have "AD(H)D".
>Your worth to society is determined by the scores you get on your standardized tests.
>You learn nothing of value. You either already know the stuff taught at school or really don't care about it and forget it anyway.
>Go to college. Get crushing college debt. Study something that either makes no money or is flooded by indians/east asians who work for pennies
>Go to work, each day, every week in the year. Do that for at least 45 years.

>> No.17544583

>>17544386
Dumb fucking dog stop making bets you irrational beast of a cosmic gutter, you're too finite the grasp the infinite and anything beyond yourself. Even the self isn't yours, you should face your puppet master with extreme passivity and silence.

>> No.17544587 [DELETED] 

>>17544558
>Do you wish you had never been born?
In a sense.
>If not, you should have children if you are capable of providing a reasonable life for them.
What if that’s what the demons want you to do?

>> No.17544613

>>17544558
>Do you wish you had never been born?
In a sense
>If not, you should have children if you are capable of providing a reasonable life for them.
Seems like jumping the gun. Do your kids want to be born, considering this question cannot be answered by them entirely until late in the developed life after successful hypnotism into life developed by life.

>> No.17544899

>>17544613
>Seems like jumping the gun.
I'm not arguing that "I'm glad I was born" implies my children will also be glad. However, if you myself are happy to be born, in spite of all the negative things that come with it, I think it's reasonable to assume that others are capable of being glad they were born, even if not all people are. The argument against natalism is "some people would be better off not being born, so we shouldn't let anyone be born", but my argument is, "you can't know whether a person will be happy to be born, but nearly every person has the opportunity to be happy they were born, whether or not they seize it. And they always have the option of not existing, if they so choose, and after that point, they'll be none the worse for having existed a brief moment." Obviously, it's possible to construct cases of such intense suffering that it's inconceivable someone would appreciate being born, but for the vast majority of humans, it's possible.

>> No.17544936

>>17544899
The pain a Zebra getting eaten by a hungry lion is far grater than the pleasure of the Lion.

>> No.17544973

>>17544936
maybe, but a zebra runs free its whole life until that point. I don't think the zebra would regret being born.

>> No.17544974

>>17544899
Appealing to emotion is not reasonable - it’s asinine. Without dictating response based upon a relative aspect, why should we support life?

>> No.17544989

>>17544974
There's no appeal to emotion here, are you retarded?

>> No.17544997

>>17544973
Antinatalism is an ultrasoyrian reaction to de Maistre. Just saying. KEK

>> No.17544998

>>17544989
Classic, monke

>> No.17545011

>>17544998
Do you think, "I'm glad I was born" is an appeal to emotion just because it references an emotion? You should really learn what terms mean before you use them.

>> No.17545013

>>17544973
> maybe
Kek
Humans aren't Zebras. Their consciousness is way more brutal than an animal.

>> No.17545021

>>17544936
have sex

>> No.17545023

>>17544899
Chances, anon. There is no certainty in life. Everything that it is worth its time is uncertain. Radical antinatalists are just depressed people who can't see through it. If you can provide a decent development environment for children you probably should have them.

>> No.17545029

>>17545013
Then why reference zebras at all? We were already talking about humans, I gave a valid argument for natalism, then to "disprove" it you (or someone) brought up zebra suffering?

>> No.17545036
File: 13 KB, 200x267, Silenus .jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
17545036

>>17544997
Another faggot who doesn't understand the history of Pessimism. This philosophy as old as humanity you retarded faggot.

>"You, most blessed and happiest among humans, may well consider those blessed and happiest who have departed this life before you, and thus you may consider it unlawful, indeed blasphemous, to speak anything ill or false of them, since they now have been transformed into a better and more refined nature. This thought is indeed so old that the one who first uttered it is no longer known; it has been passed down to us from eternity, and hence doubtless it is true. Moreover, you know what is so often said and passes for a trite expression. What is that, he asked? He answered: It is best not to be born at all; and next to that, it is better to die than to live; and this is confirmed even by divine testimony. Pertinently to this they say that Midas, after hunting, asked his captive Silenus somewhat urgently, what was the most desirable thing among humankind. At first he could offer no response, and was obstinately silent. At length, when Midas would not stop plaguing him, he erupted with these words, though very unwillingly: 'you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature's excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.' It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living."

– Aristotle, Eudemus (354 BCE)

>> No.17545042

> give me a biased book that is non-biased

nb

>> No.17545054

>>17545036
>Aristotle
stopped reading right there

>> No.17545069

>>17545036
It is called being depressed, anon. Have you ever started learning a martial art? Do you ever felt like fighting even when you were sure to lose against a stronger opponent? And that is in an ambient that there is nothing at stake. Consider life, it is at stake, and you get into. "I would rather be nothing, doing things is pointless."

>> No.17545070

>>17545029
The pain of Zebra is a metaphor that pain outweighs the pleasure.

>> No.17545077

>>17545070
I get that, and it's not applicable. We're not comparing the pain of the zebra to the pleasure of the lion -- we're comparing the pain of the zebra at the moment of its death to the pleasure of the zebra throughout its entire life.

>> No.17545089

>>17545069
Those fat weebs that cosplay Guts are way beyond those retards, just saying.

>> No.17545120

>>17545011
I guess I was referring to your painting a happy life as one which sets the standards for a life worth living for me to insinuate you were appealing to emotion.

>> No.17545128

>>17545054
So you read the whole thing.

>> No.17545132

>>17545069
>Lifts some weights. Be a man. Own your masculinity. Be confident and alpha. Get some pussy. We're all gonna make it.
Can't believe meathead cavemen still think like this.
Lifting programs and self improvement fads by gymcels are so full of shit. This shit only works when life is treating you well on average, which is the situation of most first world people. When it decides to treat you a little worse all you powerful supermen bend over like absolute sacks of shit. Hypocrites. Laughable.

This is why pessimism is the only correct worldview, and why it's dishonest to even call it pessimism. It's just realism, and the reality is life can absolutely destroy you no matter how many times you lift weights. All of you lying pieces of shit should be more humble in front of life and just pray it doesn't put you on your knees.

>>17545077
You are taking metaphor way too seriously. Humans suffering is way more greater than that. Disease, suffering, pain, age, decay etc. are the inevitable truths of life. What is the fucking point of suffering in this world anyway? This is a planet where nothing ever solved.

>> No.17545134

If you're defending something, it can't really be unbiased.

>> No.17545201

>>17545134
In a more loosely held pragmata my sloppy hands leant towards meaning defend in a sort of inoculation

>> No.17545267

>>17545128
no idea what year he wrote it though

>> No.17545276

>>17545132
>You are taking metaphor way too seriously
No, you used an inappropriate metaphor and I pointed that out.
None of the suffering you pointed to is an argument against natalism.
>What is the fucking point of suffering in this world anyway?
That's for you to figure out. Many have figured it out, and I'm not going to deny them the right to exist because you're lazy and want to cry about muh suffering.

>> No.17545321

>>17545132
Your (grand) parents probably had it harder than you, anon. And ask them if it was worth it. Plain pessimist is retarded. Even if it is a certain tragic ending, amor fati, anon. I'm not going down without a fight.

>> No.17545326

>>17545276
I am not giving you the main arguments.
If you honestly care about arguments then read The Conspiracy Against the Human Race and Better Never to Have Been.

>> No.17545332

>>17545321
And it is not like I don't love to fight.

>> No.17545335

>>17545276
>That's for you to figure out

Wouldn't it be for you to figure out, since you're the one affirming it?

>> No.17545355

>>17545335
No? It's not my job to give your life meaning. By being born, you have the opportunity to find meaning. What you do with that opportunity is up to you. I'm not trying to argue that all life is worth living.

>> No.17545381

>>17545321
Believe it or not I have no beef with heroic pessimists like Nietzsche. Amor fati and eternal return sound like few of the most horrible ideas to due the shit happened in my life and to the humanity. Fuck this planet.

>> No.17545410

>>17545381
KEK read Don Quijote

>> No.17545433

>>17545381
reminder that in a eternally recurring universe it's not the same 'you' recurring every time

>> No.17545475

>>17545410
Easy for you to laugh mate. What you could do about a terminal illness in early twenties?

>> No.17545505

>>17545475
Heidegger is a bit like that. Check him out.

>> No.17545546

>>17545505
No, thank you. Schopenhauer is enough for me.

>> No.17545685

>>17545381
>>17545381

I second this. Eternal return isn't really an idea to get worried about, even in the face of the greatest suffering, as it's not equivalent to a hell. Hell in various religious contexts is literally eternal, but in the eternal return, the life that you will live 'over and over' isn't a life where your individual psychology is continuous.

>> No.17545697

>>17545685

meant to tag >>17545433

>> No.17545841

>>17544386
>non-biased
you want a book by someone who was never born?

>> No.17545979

>>17545355

But it IS your job to affirm that I must?

>> No.17546006

>>17545979
No, you don't have to. But your unwillingness to do so shouldn't prevent others from existing and doing so

>> No.17546432

>>17545267
KEK!

>> No.17547467

>>17544386
there is no reason to defend the default position of biology and humanity. Antinatalists should defend their decision to go against each and every one of their instincts and they fucking can't.

>> No.17547490

>>17545134
holy fuck this board is filled with retards

>> No.17547574

>>17547467
>Antinatalists should defend their decision
Why persuade a natalist to go against their instinct?