/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17602947]

The problem with anti-natalism is the assumption that people have the 'right' not to suffer.

[Anonymous No.17602974]

What is a "right"?

[Anonymous No.17602996]

>>17602947
Not a right, is just better than suffering. It's an ethical question.

[Anonymous No.17604124]

Over time people forgot the core functionality of reproduction due to society's distractions and anxieties. Same goes for the purpose of sufferance to an extent, in this case suffering is so engrained in the human experience that it's hard to forget about it unless you're sedated out of your mind or you deal with it like a manchild and surround yourself with comfort and succumb to horrid delusions. Suffering has its purpose and those who state otherwise are yet to embrace suffering as a mentor rather than an overwhelming evil

[Anonymous No.17604225]

>>17604124
It is curious that anti-natalism did not become a prominent area of thought until only recently, during an era of modernity where suffering is nearly nonexistent for many people, or at least the suffering they face is quite inconsequential.
The lack of real suffering in the world and overexposure to comfort has created a thinskinned generation whose reaction to such limited forms of suffering is the conclusion that it is better to have never been.
Almost everything that can be provided has been provided to this selfish generation and so because of this, the only logical path they can take is towards nonexistence.

[Anonymous No.17604295]

>>17602947
the problem with antinatalism is that people assume suffering is inherently bad

[Anonymous No.17604310]

>>17602996
>is just better than suffering
If that where true millions of people would not get roaring drunk or marry.

[Anonymous No.17604315]

>>17602996
If you never suffered you would not know what happiness was.

[Anonymous No.17604391]

monke make babbe

[Anonymous No.17604395]

>>17604310
>or marry
ok boomer

[Anonymous No.17604396]

>>17602947
>The problem with anti-natalism is the assumption that people have the 'right' not to suffer.
I agree entirely anon... hehe

[Anonymous No.17604407]

>>17604225
>It is curious that anti-natalism did not become a prominent area of thought until only recently
I think it is the reverse. Pic related (and this is only a small sample). Sextus describes tribes that would sing dirges of mourning upon the birth of a child.

[Anonymous No.17604440]

>>17604407
Two senators and a prince.

The wretched of the earth keep shitting out kids. They just love life more, that is what allows them to cope with the pain. The ones that don't, die sooner and don't get to bump ugglies as much. The less pain you must endure the less you need to love life to stick with it.

[Anonymous No.17604456]

>>17604440
>The wretched of the earth keep shitting out kids
There's often material incentives for this. A farmer needs children to help work the land and keep him fed once he's no longer able to work. A fat single mother can get some more fodder for collecting welfare checks, etc.

[Anonymous No.17604481]

>>17604225
>It is curious that anti-natalism did not become a prominent area of thought until only recently, during an era of modernity where suffering is nearly nonexistent for many people, or at least the suffering they face is quite inconsequential.
False premise. This is the modernist delusion that life is better now, when really it's much much worse by all meaningful metrics.

[Anonymous No.17604513]

>>17604456
Analyses actually show that children are net sinks of calories until fairly late. On the other hand, the elderly in foraging societies are pretty much net providers until the day they croak. So the economic argument doesn't hold much.

The most reasonable argument imo is basic Darwinism: the people who have more kids also tend to have kids who have more kids. Wether genetic or memetic this proccess is pretty solid. Where infant mortality rates are higher, the advantage to those parents that have more kids is that much greater which and the disadvantage to those parents that don't have many kids is also that much greater. But with lower infant mortality, this trend is softened and a low-propensity to breed isn't as selected against by the environment. Having lots of food sure improved infant mortality rates for the rich and now that level of security, and even higher levels of security, are avaiable to many more people and the low-propensity to breed gets a lot less environmental pressure against it.

[Anonymous No.17604534]

>>17602947
Midwit

[Anonymous No.17604543]

>>17602947
There is no problem, it's horseshit for intellectuals to discuss, it is not related to any meaningful struggle or pleasure of life. Waste of time.

[Anonymous No.17604548]

>>17604513
I was talking about farmers, who generally exist as autonomous kinda family units, not foraging societies.

[Anonymous No.17604558]

Never understoof Anti-Natalism
If they hate being born so much, why dont they just kill themselves?
Feels like they are just complaining for the sake of complaining.

[Anonymous No.17604584]

>>17604548
Foragers have kids constantly though and in smaller, more close-kin-based, societal units. People didn't start having more kids after agriculture, they just were able to support more kids on fewer acres of land than foragers did by growing calory-dense foods.

There isn't really much evidence that kids are net providers in agricultural households either:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4602545?seq=1
https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704289504575313201221533826

[Anonymous No.17604593]

>>17604584
>There isn't really much evidence that kids are net providers in agricultural households either
Freaky. But what about the children as an investment - paying off when they become labouring adults?

[Anonymous No.17604690]

>>17604593
It's one way to look at it, but there just wasn't that much need to have more labouring adults. Each adult overall could satisfy it's own caloric needs and only recently did humans get to live long into disability.
>Of those that reach 15 years of age, 64% continue to live to or past the age of 45.

Assuming land supply was fixed, there would be economic incentives for birth control beyond the agricultural potential. But instead Malthus was mostly accurate in describing how population growth tended to exceed productivity absent some crisis that culled the population before famine had the chance to.

And assuming those children went on to settle new land, they would become their own productive units separate from their parents such that their parents wouldn't really "cash out".

Kids could expect to become each other's support network in crisis, for sure, but most of them would be married off to other families and split their loyalties, and thus their material contributions, there also.

[Anonymous No.17604710]

>>17604690
Interesting. Thanks for the information and analysis anon. I can't remember the context of where I heard this but I remember children being described as almost a material necessity. Can you think of any situations where this would be the case?

[Anonymous No.17604782]

>>17604710
I used to think about it that way also, but I haven't really found a case for that being a widespread reality in foraging or agricultural societies.

Child slavery (as in selling your child to someone who will extract labor from it) existed in many agricultural societies, and still does, but it's not like it's common to most families.

More and more I come to think it comes down to biology and culture: some genes and memes drive people to make more people who will carry those genes and memes and this proccess feeds itself. We have more childless adults in industrial society for the same reason we have more adults with chronic health problems: our environment doesn't select strongly against those traits.

[Anonymous No.17604877]

>>17604225
>>17604481
Wanting to suffer is as lame as wanting to kill yourself is as lame as wanting to die is as lame as not wanting to exist is as lame as wanting to exist is as lame as wanting to live is as lame as wanting to live in comfort is as lame as wanting or expecting anything and everything from experiencing life or death or existence and non existence.

[Anonymous No.17604879]

>>17602947
Rights don't even exist in the first place. You don't have the right to anything.

[Anonymous No.17604883]

>>17602947
The problem with anti-natalism is actually the assumption that people have the 'right' to suffer.

[Anonymous No.17604886]

>>17604877
You're a hack if you place value in something

[Anonymous No.17604909]

>>17604877
Finally someone gets it. Life isn't about suffering or not suffering or all this fucking try hard gay shit.

[Anonymous No.17604917]

>>17604879
Sad that you're such an illiterate that you couldn't even come up with something on your own. No less a paragon of the West than Houellebecq has stated that Europe is well nigh doomed to succumb to the social and religious virility and potency of the Arabic Path. For inherent in such a Path is an order based on natural law, which quiets the troubles of the Western malaise known as liberalism, i.e. the tyranny of the self under the hypnotism of a profane capitalism, and its place restores the splendour and the glory that is the temple of the two sexes in the union of procreation and multiplication: the greatest power that man can wield is the power of passing on his genes to as many nubile women as possible. Islam, and Islam alone, sanctions such an endeavor as the cornerstone of both masculine and feminine sexual understanding. And it is precisely this institutionalization, to its utmost brilliant degree, of natural law that permitted the greatest civilizational conquest the world has ever seen: I speak of course of the Islamic one.

[Anonymous No.17604922]

>>17604917
Gonna cry?

[Anonymous No.17604923]

>>17604407
Those guys weren't anti natalists though. The quotes are passing observations among thousands of others they made and weren't central to their thought.

[Anonymous No.17604997]

>>17604315
Absolute cope. Sure, there needs to be conflict or struggle or hardship for someone to feel fulfilled in life, but there's a difference between needing to work hard and having a chronic disease that causes constant physical pain (only an example). A person who experiences that kind of suffering is not going to be "that much happier" during happy moments, if anything the anticipation of future suffering will ruin the happy moments.

[Anonymous No.17605015]

>>17604997
I have near constant physical pain. I also get head splitting headaches wherein I legitimately consider cutting my nose off or pulling one of my eyes out to release pressure. Gonna piss your pants about it homo? Fucking shit your diaper?
>wah wah pain exists
Boo hoo faggot. Shit hurts sometimes, doesn't mean you gotta be a whiny fag about it.

[Anonymous No.17605034]

>>17605015
Who's the whiny fag? I simply opposed your assertion, you're the one who started bringing your personal problems into it.

[Anonymous No.17605044]

>>17605034
I'm not the guy you were originally replying to. You brought up people who are in constant pain. I'm telling you to stop making up fake fucking faggots up in your head and bitching on their behalf like a fucking woman.

[Anonymous No.17605071]

>>17605015
>>17605044
On your period little baby? You're the one whining bitch.

[Anonymous No.17605087]

>>17605071
Gonna shit your diaper fagass? Full diaper? Leaky diaper? Leaking piss all over the floor?

[Anonymous No.17605092]

>>17605044
When your kid gets cancer, be sure to tell him that he wouldn't be able to understand happiness if he didn't have to do chemo.

[Anonymous No.17605102]

>>17605092
lmao it's always you fucking loser faggots crying about how they should always be happy and spread love and positivity first to wish cancer on people's loved ones

[Anonymous No.17605166]

>>17605102
Seethe, Facebook meme poster

[Anonymous No.17605170]

>>17605092
If you read about some of those kids they have an amazingly positive attitude despite their tragic circumstances.

[Anonymous No.17605173]

>>17605166
>

[Anonymous No.17605184]

>>17605170
to be fair americans love pushing the positivity meme. there's heaps of people with terminal illnesses that aren't POSITIVE, PROACTIVE, HAPPY GO LUCKY, GRATEFUL TO BE ALIVE

[Anonymous No.17605238]

>>17604315
If you never lived you wouldn't have to worry about it

[Anonymous No.17605251]

>>17605238
If you never lived you wouldn't get to ride a dirtbike or smoke cigarettes or piss on the side of a tree or take one of those sick nasty dumps where you feel like a new man after.

[Anonymous No.17605391]

The concept of "right" never even enters into anti-natalism
Why is this board so low IQ now

[Anonymous No.17605396]

>>17605015
>wahhhh I live in constant pain wahhhh
How do I unsubscribe to your blog?

[Anonymous No.17605406]

>>17605396
Nigger, he's the guy I replied to is the one who brought it up in the first place. But I guess it's fine when he wines on the behalf of imaginary faggots he makes up in his fucking head.

[Anonymous No.17605412]

>>17605406
>muh whataboutism
Keep crying "nigger", but go shit up another board with your retarded blog posts. I don't give a single shit about your personal life.

[Anonymous No.17605421]

>>17605238
What will antinatalists do about all the monkeys that haven't evolved into humans yet?

[Anonymous No.17605429]

>>17605421
let climate change sort em out

[Anonymous No.17605431]

>>17605412
>faggot brings up imaginary friend who is in constant pain
>"I'm a real person who suffers from chronic pain and you're wrong"
>"WTF FUCKING BLOGPOSTER"
Go huff exhaust fumes if you're so fucking sad retard. Worse than a fucking cutter.

[Anonymous No.17605434]

>>17605431
write me another little bitch essay I won't read faggot, or better yet kill yourself already, uhhh muh headaches!

[Anonymous No.17605438]

>>17605434
>k-kill yourself
cry about it fucking loser

[Anonymous No.17605439]

>>17605431
Take your meds

[Anonymous No.17605441]

>>17605438
get to work on your next reply whiny bitch boy

[Anonymous No.17605443]

>>17604923
Holy cope

[Anonymous No.17605445]

>>17605441
you think you're gonna win but I ride these out till they're done

[Anonymous No.17605448]

>>17605445
I've already won seeing as I'm not crying on 4chan about my health problems, its only a question of when I get bored of you. Write me another one.

[Anonymous No.17605453]

>I've already won seeing as I'm not crying on 4chan about my health problems, its only a question of when I get bored of you. Write me another one.

[Anonymous No.17605454]

>>17602947
Did you know that the art of story telling, narrative, and writing spans nearly, if not all, forms of art including film and TV and warrants a great deal of discussion which your shitty fucking pseud philosophy threads take away from while also supporting retarded stereotypes of people who own books or care about story-telling, narrative, or writing?

[Anonymous No.17605455]

>>17605453
good boy, write me another one