/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17631505]

>Antinatalism exists
>Dumb people adopt it
>They stop reproducing
>Smart people (like me) reject it
>We keep having children and soon the global IQ will stop decreasing
Wow, philosophy is pretty based

[Anonymous No.17631513]

>>17631505
I mean, yes. Anti-natalism is not a philosophy that is very strong in the face of natural selection.

(Which is why it's irrelevant but that's none of my business)

[Anonymous No.17631526]

>>17631505
The truly dumb people will never stop reproducing in large numbers.

[Anonymous No.17631532]

>>17631513
Actually, it is a pretty good form of natural selection, since only pseuds adopt it.
It's basically volunteer-based castration for pseuds.

[Anonymous No.17631540]

>>17631526
Pseuds are more damaging to the world than retards.

[Anonymous No.17631573]

>>17631540
A pseud is a retard that was born with better chances in life. Retards when reaching critical mass make for a dangerous community that can be easily manipulated into violence. So I would say they are different flavors of the same damage.

[Anonymous No.17631625]

>>17631573
A pseuds and a retard are intellectually very different, though.
A retard has a below average IQ, he usually has no strong opinion, or at least no strong opinion he'll be able to defend. He'll basically work a shitty job, accept that life is unfair and that politics are corrupt, make retarded kids and die in debt.
Pseuds on the other hand have average or slightly above average IQ, they're somewhat smart, but not quite smart enough to truly make it. They usually have very strong ill-informed opinions. They're your typical redditor. Unable to think critically, but convinced that they hold the truth. They'll typically be a vocal minority.
Pseuds are way more damaging to society. If unchallenged, they will influence the political/societal landscape.

[Anonymous No.17631629]

>>17631625
what should i do if i'm your retard archetype? i have no opinions at all and no hobbies or interests. i just clock in and clock out everyday. i accept that ill never be one for politics. life just seems out of my hands

[Anonymous No.17631641]

>>17631629
Do you often browse /lit/?

[Anonymous No.17631652]

[Anonymous No.17631663]

>>17631641
usually just /wg/

[Anonymous No.17631717]

>>17631526
>dumb
There's basically nothing dumber than consciously choosing to make your own bloodline extinct.
You have failed not only as a man, but as an animal.

[Anonymous No.17631763]

>>17631513
it's not very strong philosophically to begin with

>>17631505
wtf i love antinatalists now. keep doing your thing bros.

[Anonymous No.17631818]

>There's basically nothing dumber than consciously choosing to make your own bloodline extinct.
>You have failed not only as a man, but as an animal.

[Anonymous No.17631827]

>>17631818
FUMING

[Anonymous No.17631839]

>>17631505
Stop LARPing. No one on this website is ever going to have sex, let alone have children.

[Anonymous No.17631953]

>>17631717
Only half of your bloodline gets continued though. Part of my issue is I'm not good enough to pass on my genes to any worthy woman, and the women I can get dont have genes worthy of my bloodline.

[Anonymous No.17632018]

>>17631540
This.
Retards live, they live as hard as they can, always and always. The generations of retards are like waves crashing on a beach again and again, they are part of nature, they are shaped by it and they shape it. Those who followed Moses were retard, those who killed Jesus were retard, those who stormed the Roman Empire were retards, the Crusaders were retards, Colomb's sailors were most certainly retards... There will always be retards and that's a good thing.
Retards can also be furiously enthusiastic and genuinely good company. Retards bring joy. I saw a redneck bringing his wife in labour to a hospital once, I have never seen such grace on a face when he said to the doctor "She's giving birth!". If God exists, in was in this room at this moment, at this moment this man was a saint.
Pseuds on the other hand are the poison in the well. They cannot suffer what they don't understand, they despise everything that is high, they only live as a parody of a person. I was going to write "the person they wish to be" - but they want to this parody, nothing more. What they don't comprehend, they mock, they stick together, carefully organising staged conflicts before mocking the retards that engage in the same behaviour with sport. It is because of pseuds that people like Baudelaire or Villiers de l'Isle-Adam died poor and unknown, it is because of pseuds that people like Sully Prudhomme can have a Nobel Prize. Pseuds are salt on Carthage's ground.
Retards are there and we can do nothing but accept them, guide them for the best of men. Pseuds need to be fought with the energy of a pack of dogs.

[Anonymous No.17632022]

>>17632018
why do you talk about retards like you're not one

[Anonymous No.17632048]

>>17631505
>It's another brainlet who doesn't know about the history of pessimist thought
Faggot please
Pessimism is a primitive and a Greek philosophy. Pessimists are way more trad and closer to ancient folk than any esoteric trad larper.

>"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)

[Anonymous No.17632116]

>>17632022
I prefer being a retard than a pseud. I think I am not one but I engage in many retarded behaviour (I like the Tour de France) and I have many retarded friends.

[Anonymous No.17632124]

>>17632048
BASED
A
S
E
D

[Anonymous No.17632127]

Based and picks-up-the-slack-pilled.

[Anonymous No.17632532]

>>17631526
Dumb people breed because they cannot contain the animalistic desire for sex and specie survival
Smart people don’t breed because they are above those tendencies and think of themselves as overmen
Genius level people breed because they realise that they are but part of the animal kingdom and that a Boltzmann brain will pop up in the expanding universe regardless of human extinction so there’s no point in straying from sustainable reproduction.

[Anonymous No.17632550]

>>17632532
Incel cope

[Anonymous No.17633584]

reminder that if antinatalism spread by teaching it to your offspring, it would have already died out but it keeps cropping up because life sucks ass and those who observe this become antinatalists while those who cope themselves into lies keep procreating.

[Anonymous No.17634129]

>>17631540
This.

[Anonymous No.17634163]

>>17631505

yeah except all statistics go against this
smart people have less kids dumb people have more

[Anonymous No.17634182]

This self-suck of a thread.

[Anonymous No.17634217]

It's not like I really have a choice

[Anonymous No.17634232]

>>17631505
Anti natalism isn't for dumb people it's for midwits & smart people. Also you're forgetting that people who don't have kids still live. Look at Merkel and how she let in all the 'Syrians'. Watch/read Dutton(pbuh)

[Jesus No.17634277]

>>17631505
"we". losers need herd to attach on.

[Anonymous No.17634937]

>>17633584
> it keeps cropping up
Bitter, subhuman incels insisting their own shit lives are the universal experience will always exist.

[Anonymous No.17634950]

>>17631505
>4channer parent
you really shouldn't do it

[Anonymous No.17635624]

>>17631652
Worth noting this is when Cicero was in his faggy depressed phase during his exile after he realised his house had been torn down.

[Anonymous No.17636982]

>>17634937
duhh only incels like (You) have shit lives! Mine’s the best cause I’m a Chad!!!!
one day your relatives will develop alzheimers or cancer and you’ll wish you spent more time with them instead of toiling away in wageslavery Mr. Chad

[Anonymous No.17637059]

>>17631717
What about men who go to war and die for their country before getting to have kids? What about great inventors, like Tesla, that benefit humanity but don't go on to have children?

I wouldn't say those people failed. For example, Tesla will be remembered for hundreds of years from now, meanwhile most of your descendants will never know (or care) who you were in a few generations.

Antinatalists are still retards though.

[Anonymous No.17637090]

So is here a single person who actually read Benatar (at least) and can defeat his arguments? Or is the natalist position this puddle-deep "we are chads, and we are successful, and we are enjoying life, only losers are antinatalists"?

[Anonymous No.17637123]

>>17637090
That's because it's hard to explain to someone with clinical depression (aka all antinatalists) that life isn't actually overwhelmingly full of suffering, and on average, is actually kind of fun.

[Anonymous No.17637171]

>>17637123
But this is not exactly Benatar's position and certainly not the strongest argument for the conclusion.
Do you deny that life has any suffering? If not, then why do you prefer your children to suffer, when they could not? There is nothing bad with their absent pleasure, and if you think there is, then I hope you have at least 10 children and are constantly trying to make more, in order to not miss it.

[Anonymous No.17637506]

>>17631526
This

[Anonymous No.17637523]

>>17631505
>Dumb people adopt it
>They stop reproducing
>Smart people (like me) reject it
>We keep having children and soon the global IQ will stop decreasing
The exact opposite is true m8. High IQ people consistently have lower fertility.

https://www.unz.com/akarlin/nor-breeding-their-best/

[Anonymous No.17637553]

>>17631526
Antinatalists are midwits, the population segment that is most needless

[Anonymous No.17637591]

>>17637171
>If not, then why do you prefer your children to suffer, when they could not?
The assumption that life is entirely suffering is deeply flawed. I've suffered plenty, and yet the good far outweighs the bad, I cannot even think of or comprehend a situation so bad that I'd wish to have never been born.
This is the reason people assume antinatalists are monstrous failures and incels, because almost all people are quite happy to exist despite suffering. The logical conclusion here is their lives are particularly fucked up to cause such a reaction.
>There is nothing bad with their absent pleasure
0 + 3 -1 > 0
I've gone trillions of years not existing and I'll go trillions more after I die, 80 years of life is worth it for nothing else than to experience it even if it's a shit life.
>then I hope you have at least 10 children
My gf and I would like to have a big family, but mate, if I had ten kids then life actually *would* be suffering.

[Anonymous No.17637621]

You're still stupid enough to fall for a statistic used to measure intelligence in children.

[Anonymous No.17637653]

>>17637621
>>17637523
>>17637506
>letting yourself go extinct so you can afford more capeshit merchandise
Or
>fathering an entire tribe who will carry on your ideas and traditions
Really, who's the dumbarse in this situation?

[Anonymous No.17637677]

>>17637591
This is the problem. The last time I remember even entertaining the thought was when I was having a hissy fit over getting grounded for forgetting to take out the bins at age 9.
When this is the average person's only experience with it, you can only assume all antinatalists are basically manchildren unable to cope with life.

[Anonymous No.17637830]

>>17631629
Don't worry about it dude, just concentrate on doing the things that you find fulfilling. /out/-type shit is accessible to pretty much every human being and is one of the best things you can possibly do to fill your time, if you're feeling directionless

[Anonymous No.17637838]

>>17637653
You miss my point, of course having children is important, doing it to increase global IQ is the stupid part.

[Anonymous No.17637976]

>>17637653
>Really, who's the dumbarse in this situation?
You're conflating having a high IQ with having good values. Valuing things like family over capeshit and having good mental health is different from being good at solving math problems, pattern recognition, and being good at memorizing miscellania. People who father large numbers of children and value tradition don't do so because they're geniuses.

[Anonymous No.17639113]

Antinatalism is silly but trying to argue with those who believe it is even sillier.

[Anonymous No.17639119]

>>17631505
nobody posting frogs on 4chan is reproducing

[Anonymous No.17639158]

>>17631532
Based

[Anonymous No.17639171]

>>17637653
Geniuses can be some of the most neurotic people on the planet. Retards are simple minded and don't worry about much. Kurt Gödel literally starved himself to death because he was paranoid over people poisoning his food, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a genius.

[Anonymous No.17640394]

>>17637591
>The assumption that life is entirely suffering is deeply flawed.
There is no such assumption. Again, did anyone here read antinatalist book or at least wikipedia article? The point is that there is suffering in life and that now non-existent person would be better off not experiencing that suffering, but he would not be worse not experiencing the pleasure.
>almost all people are quite happy to exist
Yes, because there are a ton of biases and also some decent reasons for this position once you exist. But it would be better if you wouldn't.
>0 + 3 -1 > 0
Non-existent person has no interest in your 3.
>I've gone trillions of years not existing
Do you really not see the problem with this statement?
>if I had ten kids then life actually *would* be suffering
But think of all their missed happiness! Your ancestors probably did have 10 kids at some point and in far worse living conditions, are you implying they shouldn't have?

[Anonymous No.17640490]

>>17632018
>those examples of retards
Interesting selection

[Anonymous No.17640547]

If someone has a genetic condition that will cause his potential children to have a high probability of suffering, is he stupid for not reproducing? Do you seriously think that following your biological instincts makes you smart? On the contrary, it is the easiest thing you can do. It is only another step along the same line of thinking when, even if he does not have a genetic condition, a man decides that the probability of his potential child suffering is too high to be worth the risk.

[Anonymous No.17640574]

>>17640547
>the probability of his potential child suffering is too high
this is not something that can be determined by any sort of objective reasoning or intelligence, it's pretty much entirely a result of personal intuitions about the value of existence, the nature of suffering, etc.

I'd agree that there is not always a correlation between intelligence and reproductive fitness though. Our society appears to have a mildly inverse correlation right now.

[Anonymous No.17640593]

>>17640547
Does suffering invalidate the will to live?
When someone suffer, is it better that he never lived? Is that your point?

[Anonymous No.17640614]

>>17640574
>this is not something that can be determined by any sort of objective reasoning or intelligence, it's pretty much entirely a result of personal intuitions about the value of existence, the nature of suffering, etc.
I agree, my main concern is about the stigma that is placed upon people who decide based upon their personal intuitions or their situation not to have children. When it comes to creating conscious beings, people should not be pressured into behaving in a way that they feel is unethical "lest they be seen as a loser/failure/whatever". I also don't think people think about it enough; if you genuinely believe that your child will have a "good life" that is mostly free of suffering and thus decide to have children, you are in the minority. Most people just have children because they are mindlessly reproducing (which means they are super smart according to OP).

[Anonymous No.17640633]

>>17640614
The problem is that suffering isn't a reason not to live, therefore the argument that you should think about the life you can provide your child before conceiving him/her is flawed.

[Anonymous No.17640644]

>>17640633
And even then, you may have the perfect life ready for your offspring, and something terrible will happen to your child that will give him a life of suffering. Will you regret having that child then?

[Anonymous No.17640654]

>>17631717
>bloodline
totally irrelevant. world might as well explode when I die.

[Anonymous No.17640666]

>>17640614
>Most people just have children because they are mindlessly reproducing
I'd consider this simply the natural state of humans, and not really a sign of intelligence or stupidity, any reasons for having children are mostly rationalizations imo. I would say the same thing about people who don't have children, the reasons they give are to me likely rationalizations for an innate tendency they may not understand entirely themselves. Maybe this is a reductive view of humans but I think almost every single decision people makes really boils down to a kind of instinctive feeling of 'this feels better to me'.

[Anonymous No.17640678]

>>17640593
Someone who does not exist does not have a will to live. Once a person exists, he has an innate will to live, even if he suffers. This is one of the reasons why antinatalists don't "just kill themselves". If you give birth to someone who will certainly suffer, you are creating a being which both has a biological urge to survive and even though its life is suffering.

In some cases, a person's suffering is great enough that it would have been better if he had never lived. On the other hand, it is difficult to claim that a nonentity would have been better off if it had existed. There is no negative impact from denying pleasure to something that does not exist. There is a negative impact from causing something to exist and suffer. Unless you can be very confident that your child will not suffer in your specific situation, not having children is the more ethical choice.

[Anonymous No.17640685]

>>17640666
You're right, Satan. I don't want to have any kids, but when I sit down and try to think about the reason for that, everything feels like a half-assed excuse except the fact that deep inside me I simply feel no reason to. I realized that when I was still a kid myself and it hasn't changed in all the years, despite all the outside pressure.

[Anonymous No.17640689]

>>17640666
Thanks for your input, Satan