/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.21750246]

>makes the 95% /lit/ seethe with no end

How can one idea cause some much butthurt? Why the idea of avoid suffering of another human being cause some much seethe? Are breeders psychopaths?

[Anonymous No.21750251]

>Benatar is the son of Solomon Benatar, a global-health expert who founded the Bioethics Centre at the University of Cape Town.

[Anonymous No.21750277]

>>21750251
>muh joos conspiracy

Take your meds and go back to /pol/ retarded.

[Anonymous No.21750319]

>>21750277
jews being neurotic is hardly a conspiracy

[Anonymous No.21750332]

>>21750251
To be fair he did kill a jew so what are you complaining about?

[Anonymous No.21750360]

>>21750246
People are angry at anything that makes them look morally inferior. Just look how vegans get treated.

[Anonymous No.21750361]

>>21750246
all you have to do is go outside and behold the beauty of nature for one second and the entire philosophy is refuted. life is worth living faggot

[Anonymous No.21750365]

One look at his physiognomy and you understand why the bastard writes his schlock

[Anonymous No.21750374]

>>21750365
Post a picture, afaik he's not a facefag.

[Anonymous No.21750391]

>>21750246
Pointing this out makes anti-natalists seethe.

[Anonymous No.21750401]

>>21750391
>n-no! ad hom! ad hom! not true!
It makes them cope.

[Anonymous No.21750407]

>>21750391
So caring above averagely about prevention of the suffering of innocent children is associated with psychopathy? Seems contradictory.

[Anonymous No.21750415]

>>21750401
The sad fact is these people have personality disorders that taints their ability to judge the value of life. It would be almost be sad but then you remember they try to boost their egos by convincing others life isn't worth living.

[Anonymous No.21750430]

>>21750401
Why do you think ethical statements by normal people are more truth-apt than ethical statements by abnormal people?

Please state your meta-ethics.

[Anonymous No.21750437]

>>21750430
>Please state your meta-ethics
You're genuinely fucking retarded, and you clearly just discovered metaethics.

[Anonymous No.21750444]

>>21750246
Suffering is worth it because life is meaningful :)

[Anonymous No.21750447]

>>21750437
Based.

[Anonymous No.21750457]

>>21750437
Please answer the question. In which philosophical framework do value judgments being more common also automatically makes them more true? In the pictures you post, it seems the author doesn't do anything beyond a silly ad populum.

[Anonymous No.21750487]

>>21750457
>Please answer the question
He doesn't have to.

[Anonymous No.21750500]

>>21750391
Their argument:
>antinatalists central claim is that life is harm
>they argue that you have to be alive to feel pleasure and stress this isn't guaranteed
>they argue that if you're not alive you are guaranteed not to suffer/harm
>[no guarentee of pleasure, risk of suffering/harm, therefore nonexistence is best = basic thread of argument]
>note: they also like to being up that the fact you don't have a choice in coming into existence
>they conclude that not reproducing and ending life is the optimal outcome to reduce harm

Why they're refuted:
>antinatalists can't validate their central claim as they cannot weigh the total value of life in aggregate (the best they can do is assert individual bad things happen)
>[this is all the refutation that is needed: they cannot draw logic, let alone an extreme conclusion, from a central claim they are unable to prove; simple as--but lets go on to point out their bad logic]
>they place the weight of guaranteed outcomes on detractors but they don't have prescience to forsee the outcome/value of individual lives (let alone the aggregate of all life which they are assuming) but...
>antinatalists are attempting to prove their conclusion and thereby the onus is on them produce a stable logic based on a proven premise
>however, any single example of value in life automatically contravienes their premise and contradicts the logic they attempt to assert
>[antinatalists are generally filtered by this because they still affirm their premise even though reason has been given to reject it]
>we may come to the idea of suicide and ending life (which is logically coherent with their outlook while showing their values are actually incosistent)
>suicide automatically means an end to suffering, any harm caused doesn't exist for the victim (aside, the absence of existence means you can't even weigh such anyway)
>denial of suicide is an affirmation that value exists in life (or else why not? note that they won't even admit that suffering is short relative to continued existence, they really want to avoid clearly weighing anything)
>if the antinatalist says it affects others a consistent logic follows that they kill them as well (the sooner the better in fact--stop them from reproducing which puts an end to countless future lives)
>alas, the anti-natalist will assert their original logic no longer applies once they are alive (again, affirming the value of existing and demonstrating their logic can actually be harmful)
>the last bastion is they HAD no choice to exist (convienently it doesn't matter that they have one now) but again there are plenty of examples of lives worth living

[Anonymous No.21750503]

>>21750500
Why antinatalists are retarded:
>no matter how many times you point out how AND why their premise is ungrounded they will still assert you must argue within the logic it sets out
>no matter how many times you point out the logic is inconsistent they retreat to the idea of their unfounded premise and assert it follows naturally
>no matter the absurdities you can show as consistent with their reasoning (i.e. you shouldn't kill yourself let alone others) they will simply change the rules
>life is valuable once it exists and yet we need to stop it from existing...that's what their bullshit boils down to and it's utterly stupid

At this point it's worthwhile to point out antinatalists will ignore strong arguments against their case and use any excuse to stay within their own logic. It must also be noted that trolls responses of "I guess I'll kill myself and others" are retarded: the point is life is valuable and you fail to prove otherwise. You affirm an extreme conclusion, ending all life, based on a demonstrably flawed premise and inconsistent logic. Refuted. Stop making these retarded threads now.

[Anonymous No.21750505]

>>21750487
True, and I suspect he also can't.

[Anonymous No.21750523]

>>21750505
What is the point in effortposting to some retard who just discovered metaethics from yesterday’s shitshow of a thread?

[Anonymous No.21750530]

>>21750500
The suicide argument is a bit disingenuous unless the antinatalist in question would have access to an instant world ending button that would cease all sentient suffering.

As for the quantification of value argument, it's valid against all utilitarian positions which includes most antinatalists. Not all of them are utilitarians though.

[Anonymous No.21750542]

>>21750523
What does it matter who discovered what when? Either you have a coherent argument that goes beyond "bad people like this thing so this thing is le bad" or you don't. Since this question never gets answered in good faith it suggests that even the poster knows there's not much too it.

[Anonymous No.21750544]

>>21750505
He probably can and just doesn't want to accept your obvious attempt at a slide.
>>21750523
Based.

[Anonymous No.21750549]

>>21750542
>antinatalist
>answer in good faith
Pick one.

[Anonymous No.21750552]

>>21750246
Is the only way to get a thread going being as inflammatory as possible?

[Anonymous No.21750564]

>>21750552
People who champion antinatalist beliefs are likely to be depressive Machiavellian psychopaths. Given that the venue of conversation is 4channel...simple as.

[Anonymous No.21750569]

>>21750564
Wouldn't a psychopath enjoy procreation since it's sadistic?

[Anonymous No.21750579]

>>21750569
>WE CARE ABOUT SUFFERING!
You don't. A psycopath who can't breed would covet sexual gratification and likely build up headcanon in an attempt to diminish it's value to pull others down to their incel level (i.e. cope and seethe).

[Anonymous No.21750592]

>>21750579
But getting laid and breeding is trivially easy for psychopaths since they have no scruples about getting what they want with any available means.

[Anonymous No.21750603]

>>21750391
lol, "dark triad traits." what a faggot lol.

[Anonymous No.21750606]

>>21750592
>slide
Longterm stable relationships (i.e. breeding) aren't easy for psychopaths, exactly the opposite, and you operate under the assumption people with personality disorders are naturally chads (they aren't--they're likely to have severe mental illness that place limits on their ability to attract women). Thanks for evidencing antinatalists are retarded incels though.

[Anonymous No.21750612]

>>21750603
>Pointing this out makes anti-natalists seethe.

[Anonymous No.21750636]

>>21750246
How does it make /lit/ seethe

[Anonymous No.21750642]

>>21750606
>you need long term stable relationships to procreate
Lol.

> and you operate under the assumption people with personality disorders are naturally chads (they aren't--they're likely to have severe mental illness that place limits on their ability to attract women).
Other factors being equal, psychopaths are more attractive to women.

[Anonymous No.21750650]

>>21750430
Not the person who posted, but the argument implied seems to be
>ethical statements by healthy people are more truth-apt than ethical statements by unhealthy people
Rather than "normal" or "more common" as you put them.
Antinatalism, being life defying, is unhealthy. This is due to it being in direct opposition to the healthy proliferation of life (at least within the simple realm of life's intrinsic purpose to proliferate). Furthermore, since antinatalism is unhealthy within this framework, there must be an underlying cause to the "disease", in which antinatalism is just a symptom. Depression, combined with "dark triad" attributes, are then the cause of antinatalism. It's not so much a logically coherent argument as it is a biological defect.
Of course someone might be unable to procreate, but that doesn't mean they are unethical, though they are unhealthy. They just don't let their biological defect paint the world for them.

[Anonymous No.21750660]

>>21750636
>YOU CAN'T REFUTE THIS AND IF YOU TRY YOU'RE SEETHING!
>[gets refuted, antinatalists seethe]
>[wait a couple days]
>YOU CAN'T REFUTE THIS AND IF YOU TRY YOU'RE SEETHING!
Antinatalists are retards with faulty reality testing.

[Anonymous No.21750704]

>>21750650
If we go by that argument it would still be a bad one though. The first mistake there is assuming teleology in nature (life does not self-evidently have a built-in purpose), the second is to appeal to said nature as good (what is natural is not self-evidently good). There are huge unwarranted leaps here.

[Anonymous No.21750705]

>>21750642
>still sliding
>ignores the study cited controls for attractiveness
Your argument was that psychopaths would want to have children in order to produce more suffering. Aside from obviously begging the question (i.e. that psycopaths would have those specifics in mind) you neglect the fact that psycopaths simply don't care about the world beyond themselves (i.e. they don't have a worldview that incorporates the feelings and desires of others as being inherently valuable). Therefore, the type of people attracted to anti-natalism are likely to be using it as a coping mechanism for the fact they can't attain the level of gratification they see others enjoying.

Also, with antinatalism there's a specific and pronounced comorbidity with depression (which isn't attractive).

Get it now, retard?

[Anonymous No.21750751]

>>21750705
>Your argument was that psychopaths would want to have children in order to produce more suffering. Aside from obviously begging the question (i.e. that psycopaths would have those specifics in mind) you neglect the fact that psycopaths simply don't care about the world beyond themselves (i.e. they don't have a worldview that incorporates the feelings and desires of others as being inherently valuable).
I was merely asking because sadism is often associated with psychopathy, which would make it at odds with adherence to negative utilitarian views if that is the case.

>Therefore, the type of people attracted to anti-natalism are likely to be using it as a coping mechanism for the fact they can't attain the level of gratification they see others enjoying.
I could see a subset of antinatalist being elaborately sour graping incompetent psychopaths in the way you lay it out desu. I don't think that dismisses antinatalism as a philosophical position just because it can attract some bad apples for alterior reasons though. "Some bad people like thing" is not an argument against the thing itself, it is like a mentioning Hitler was a vegetarian level of argument.

[Anonymous No.21750764]

>>21750751
>I was merely asking
You were sliding.
>I could see a subset of antinatalist being
They're likely to display those tendencies overall. It isn't a particular subset.
>I don't think that dismisses antinatalism as a philosophical position
It raises an illuminating context.
>"Some bad people like thing"
That's a strawman, retard.

[Anonymous No.21750799]

Wordcels breeder can't understand this book, op.

[Anonymous No.21750814]

i am mostly child-free for selfish reasons. i don't want to share my money with some brat kid

[Anonymous No.21750821]

>>21750500
>>21750503
I blame Schopenhauer for igniting this retardation. At least he hided it in eastern mumbo jumbo (even though those eastern attitudes make no sense whatsoever outside belief in transmigration). Anglos couldn't resist making it even worse by casting it in a negative utilitarianism frame.

[Anonymous No.21750826]

Oh I read this when I was like 16 and I loved it. Now I think it's insanely idiotic, emblematic of the absolute lack of standards and rigor of every analytic philosopher out there. Obviously 'minimising suffering' isnt the end goal of ethics, even though I'm not necessarily against anti-natalism this book is just lazy and poor.

[Anonymous No.21750834]

>>21750821
>I blame Schopenhauer for igniting this retardation
He seems to attract the same lot.

[Anonymous No.21750870]

>>21750764
>You were sliding.
What is sliding?
>They're likely to display those tendencies overall. It isn't a particular subset.
So you think that the majority of people who claim to have moral objections to procreation are all acting in bad faith out of sour grapes?
>It raises an illuminating context.
If true it is certainly interesting. Still not an argument against antinatalism as such though. Does the study in your pics actually show percentages? Would like to read more.

Apart from the sour grapes thing the association between "sacrificial utilitarian decisions" and psychopathy does make sense in a way, in that they're likely more "rational" and less "emotional" when it comes to looking for what is good maybe. I wonder if autism correlates with antinatalism and utilitarianism too, I suspect it does.

[Anonymous No.21750888]

>>21750826
>Obviously 'minimising suffering' isnt the end goal of ethics,
How is that obvious?

[Anonymous No.21750891]

>>21750704
>life does not self-evidently have a built-in purpose
I tried to side-step this dilemma by saying "intrinsic", as a means to imply that it's self evident. I'm trying to think of another way to formulate it...
The actions taken by living organisms, one way or another, give aid to the organisms means of reproduction. If an internal or external factor impedes the bodily systems of the organism, the organism may enter a state of unhealth, which includes diminishing its chances to procreate.
Can we agree on a healthy organism being one that is not impeded by any disorder, and an unhealthy one being impeded by some disorder? Regardless of the cause of the disorder.
>(what is natural is not self-evidently good).
I want to avoid a naturalistic fallacy too.
So antinatalism isn't inherently bad, but it can't determine good or bad because it's a symptom of an underlying unhealthy bodily system (which conversely adds to the unhealth). It can't even begin to enter a realm of pure, discursive reasoning because it's prejudiced by disease.
Would it be better to have a prejudice of health or a prejudice of unhealth?

[Anonymous No.21750934]

>>21750870
>What is sliding?
Newfag.
>So you think that the majority of people who claim to have moral objections to procreation are all acting in bad faith out of sour grapes?
Majority? Yes. All? No.
>Still not an argument against antinatalism as such though
It's directly tied to Benatar's quality of life argument. People professing anti-natalist beliefs are likely to be poor judges of what such means for the lionshare of people. Once that is pointed out they're on watch not to be disingenuous retards (i.e. not only do they not have a monopoly on what constitutes value they're also at a poverty when it comes to expressing such).
>Does the study in your pics actually show percentages?
Statistical evidence relating to how the traits/beliefs overlap and correlate (which was replicated). Note that the study doesn't argue these tendencies cause them to be anti-natalists (i.e. "correaltion does not equal causation").
>Would like to read more
Type a sentence from the study into Google. Find it and look at the other research/authors they cite.
>in that they're likely more "rational" and less "emotional" when it comes to looking for what is good maybe.
The paper broaches that subject but it was outside the specific perview of the research. They note that depression sometimes affords people with enhanced reality testing but are careful to point out that, based on the background research relating to anti-natalism, it's likely not the case given the specific subject matter.

[Anonymous No.21750963]

>>21750891
I don't think it's that self-evident desu.The fact that organisms _tend_ to reproduce doesn't mean that they _ought_ to reproduce. You can't derive an ought from an is, and even if you were to try this nonetheless one might also argue the opposite. For example, the vast majority of species that have ever lived are extinct and all organisms die. Should we therefore conclude that the purpose of life is to die out? The vast majority of matter is lifeless, should we therefore conclude that nature prefers lifelessness? The universe is likely headed for heat death, does that mean the intrinsic purpose of existence is entropy? Selectively observing tendencies in the world and concluding that those tendencies must be the intrinsic motivation of the world doesn't really get you anywhere.

>So antinatalism isn't inherently bad, but it can't determine good or bad because it's a symptom of an underlying unhealthy bodily system (which conversely adds to the unhealth). It can't even begin to enter a realm of pure, discursive reasoning because it's prejudiced by disease. Would it be better to have a prejudice of health or a prejudice of unhealth?
Healthy and unhealthy basically mean useful and unuseful in this case and are only meaningful phrases after one has established a purpose. But as I said, it isn't evident that the purpose of people is to procreate. But if you assume that genes "want" to survive, then their meat carrier being infected by the antinatalism meme and refusing to have unprotected intercourse is of course bad for achieving that.

If you really want to take a strict evolutionary perspective on antinatalism you might say that it is simply one of the selection pressures in the form of a meme.

[Anonymous No.21750990]

Kill breeders. Behead breeders. Roundhouse kick a breederefecate in a breeders food. Launch breeders into the sun. Stir fry breeders in a wok. Toss breeders into active volcanoes. Urinate into a breeders gas tank. Judo throw breeders into a wood chipper. Twist breeder heads off. Report breeders to the IRS. Karate chop breeders in half. Curb stomp pregnant breeder. Trap breeders in quicksand. Crush breeders in the trash compactor. Liquefy breeders in a vat of acid. Eat breeders. Dissect breeders. Exterminate breedersin the gas chamber. Stomp breeders skulls with steel toed boots. Cremate breeders in the oven. Lobotomize breeders . Mandatory abortions for breeders. Grind breeder fetuses in the garbage disposal. Drown breeders in fried chicken grease. Vaporize breeders with a ray gun. Kick old breeders down the stairs. Feed breeders to alligators. Slice breeders with a katana.

[Anonymous No.21751003]

>>21750246
we need to keep humanity going, ok?

[Anonymous No.21751006]

>>21750934
>Newfag.
Please explain anyway.

>It's directly tied to Benatar's quality of life argument. People professing anti-natalist beliefs are likely to be poor judges of what such means for the lionshare of people. Once that is pointed out they're on watch not to be disingenuous retards (i.e. not only do they not have a monopoly on what constitutes value they're also at a poverty when it comes to expressing such).
If you indulge Benatar and his assymetry argument, don't specific variations in judgements matter little since even a pinprick is enough suffering to tip the scale, given that a non-existent person can't be deprived of the good in his system but every little bit of preventable suffering is bad?

>The paper broaches that subject but it was outside the specific perview of the research. They note that depression sometimes affords people with enhanced reality testing but are careful to point out that, based on the background research relating to anti-natalism, it's likely not the case given the specific subject matter.
Yeah, from what I've read the depressive realism hypothesis only holds within a subset of very specific controlled experiment and doesn't transfer to real life decision making prowess.

[Anonymous No.21751019]

>>21751003
Why?

[Anonymous No.21751032]

>>21750246
> Why the idea of avoid suffering of another human being cause some much seethe?

Go learn English then come back. Also, what you’re saying only makes sense if you view happiness as being strictly the avoidance of suffering. Not everyone feels that way.

[Anonymous No.21751065]

>>21750888
because if it was you'd kill yourself and everyone else in order to minimise suffering. 'minimising suffering' is passive nihilism, a negation of the value of living. which is something most people do value. most people dont value 'minimising suffering', it makes no sense to posit it at the basis of ethics.

[Anonymous No.21751086]

>>21750246
why not just kill yourself if that's what you really think. why be such an insufferable fag to the point your whining causes others to suffer. practice your own ideology with this one simple trick

[Anonymous No.21751088]

>>21751006
>Please explain anyway.
It's when you advance/argue a subargument, usually only tangentially related to the main point/topic, as a way to avoid admitting that a given post has substance. I was wrong and you weren't intentionally being disingenuous.
>assymetry argument
I think it can be rejected on the grounds that the weight of all life outcomes (positive or negative) can never be adequately qualified. This is compounded by the fact anti-natalists are arguing in favor of an extreme outcome (subtracting all life from reality). It undermines the viability of the strongest version (i.e. in relation to the conclusion) of their argument without even having to get into specific details. However, you can still get into case-by-case arguments but such must now be done in recognition of a valid alternative when it comes to the subject matter.
>only holds within a subset
Pretty much and that perspective is in direct relationship concerning the majority of lay people who express anti-natalist beliefs (i.e. the people you would find repeatedly advocating such on an internet forum while claiming things like "you're seething/coping" and "this argument is irrefutable"). Aside from that it also directly relates to elements of their argument (e.g. how worldview relates weighing quality of life) and broaches the idea that things aren't as simplistic as anti-natalists believe within their rigid ideological schema.

[Anonymous No.21751089]

>>21751065
>because if it was you'd kill yourself and everyone else in order to minimise suffering.
This is a common objection to negative utilitarianism. it is not necessarily the reductio ad absurdum you think it is though, some of them bite the bullet:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_utilitarianism#The_benevolent_world-exploder

> 'minimising suffering' is passive nihilism, a negation of the value of living.
Minimising suffering is not nihilism since it is a normative moral goal. Moral nihilism isn't coherently capable of stating such goals.

>which is something most people do value. most people dont value 'minimising suffering', it makes no sense to posit it at the basis of ethics.
So basically you're saying that negative utilitarianism is wrong because the masses don't agree with it. But it is not at all self-evident that ethics are a democratic endeavour where simply having the numbers means you are correct. Blindly assuming so is a common fallacy.

[Anonymous No.21751109]

>>21750246
>makes the 95% /lit/ seethe with no end

because we already lived through this psyop. Millenials got gaslit into believing that 'marriage isnt worth it goyim' and 'men should go their own way lmao', and now zoomers are being told the same memes but this time its 'lol dont even have kids at all, its what smart people do xd'

its a kind of self destructive cultural subversion designed to ruin your life and make you miss out on easily obtainable oppertunities. You could have happiness, you could have contentment.

>>21750277
>its a conspiracy theory that the upper classes want to destroy the middle classes who compete with them for power and influence

take your euthanasia meds

[Anonymous No.21751156]

>>21751089
>killing everyone totally wouldn't be a solution to negative utilitarianism because just thinking about it makes me or other people sad, or it is possible that it would....
Oestrogen fueled responses that are rebranding "life is shit but I can't pull the trigger because I'm castrated" on a cosmic rather than individual scale. Six of the eight counter arguments in that link fall into this category, and the two that don't are subordination to Rawlsian type bullshit (just as bad) and some contrivance about life evolving again (which falls flat when talking about God doing world annihilation).

[Anonymous No.21751163]

>>21751088
>It's when you advance/argue a subargument, usually only tangentially related to the main point/topic, as a way to avoid admitting that a given post has substance. I was wrong and you weren't intentionally being disingenuous.
I see, thank you.
>I think it can be rejected on the grounds that the weight of all life outcomes (positive or negative) can never be adequately qualified. This is compounded by the fact anti-natalists are arguing in favor of an extreme outcome (subtracting all life from reality). It undermines the viability of the strongest version (i.e. in relation to the conclusion) of their argument without even having to get into specific details. However, you can still get into case-by-case arguments but such must now be done in recognition of a valid alternative when it comes to the subject matter.
To me, the asymmetry argument is pretty elegant when you accept his premises because, when regarding the isolated case of a single hypothetical life, you reduce the measurability of utility problem that conventional utilitarianism struggles with to a simple binary. If suffering is the only bad and one choice results in it and the other doesn't then that is pretty clear. That said, I'm not convinced (his) antinatalism even makes sense within a wider negative utilitarianism framework and in terms of realistic probability of implementation at scale it is not more than a goofy thought experiment.
>Pretty much and that perspective is in direct relationship concerning the majority of lay people who express anti-natalist beliefs (i.e. the people you would find repeatedly advocating such on an internet forum while claiming things like "you're seething/coping" and "this argument is irrefutable"). Aside from that it also directly relates to elements of their argument (e.g. how worldview relates weighing quality of life) and broaches the idea that things aren't as simplistic as anti-natalists believe within their rigid ideological schema.
I wouldn't disagree most of them are sloppy resentful retards desu, but sadly so is most of their opposition in a lot of spaces, including here.

[Anonymous No.21751182]

>>21751156
Yeah the responses are pretty weak. I feel like a sincere negative utilitarian of integrity would smash the button.

[Anonymous No.21751190]

>>21750246
No one is offended by the topic. They are offended because it is autistically spammed by loser spergs

[Anonymous No.21751233]

>>21750246
>makes the 95% /lit/ seethe with no end
What? since when does it do that?

[Anonymous No.21751238]

>>21750500
Welcome back!

[Anonymous No.21751280]

>>21750963
>But as I said, it isn't evident that the purpose of people is to procreate.
No, but people are living and the self-evident purpose of life to proliferate in spite of entropy should be taken into account as an aspect of health to the human organism.
Not that we have to start at this measure even but there needs to be some axioms to build off of. You can't deduce forever, unless you want to feel safe.

[Anonymous No.21751286]

>>21751003
We can. Not like the antinatalists have to.

[Anonymous No.21751299]

>>21750500
>>we may come to the idea of suicide and ending life (which is logically coherent with their outlook while showing their values are actually incosistent)
>>suicide automatically means an end to suffering, any harm caused doesn't exist for the victim (aside, the absence of existence means you can't even weigh such anyway)
>>denial of suicide is an affirmation that value exists in life (or else why not? note that they won't even admit that suffering is short relative to continued existence, they really want to avoid clearly weighing anything)
There are other potential reasons for denying suicide: for instance, the idea that it is unconscionably selfish to end your own life at the expense of people who have spent much of their lives caring for you. This logic makes the denial of suicide coherent with the antinatalist position by showing that it causes significant harm and doesn't have a definite benefit. Moreover, while it's kind of a "slide", one could also make the case that, while harm is not an essential part of life, the conditions of contemporary life are necessarily harmful, with about half of marriages ending in divorce, skyrocketing rates of depression in the developed world, significant problems--global warming, technocracy--on the horizon. This by no means "proves" the antinatalist claim, but certainly motivates it.

[Anonymous No.21751342]

>>21751280
I don't agree that the self-evident purpose of life is to proliferate. Is-ought, muh Hume etc. I don't think there are compelling reasons to make this leap. Evolution and natural selection do not require teleology at all. People often try to smuggle it in out of a sort of intuitive anthropocentric psychological impulse I guess but that only muddies the water.

That said, if you want to play around with the antinatalism meme in an evolutionary context there are multiple ways in which it can have effects. Maybe antinatalism increases the vitality of humanity as a species by being a mindvirus to neurotics who are susceptible to it and thus culling the genepool.. Maybe you can even say that antinatalism benefits the genes of those who spread it in bad faith to demoralise the competition.

[Anonymous No.21751371]

>>21750246
No one is seething and no one is butthurt. That book (and OP, by extension) is literally pic related.

[Anonymous No.21751381]

>>21751163
>elegant when you accept his premises
It has the ability to generate interesting philosophical discussions but, at the same time, it's likely to degenerate into nonsense due to the type of people it attracts.
>I wouldn't disagree most of them are sloppy resentful retards desu, but sadly so is most of their opposition in a lot of spaces, including here.
They reap what they sow.
>>21751299
>This logic makes the denial of suicide coherent with the antinatalist position by showing that it causes significant harm and doesn't have a definite benefit.
Nope. It demonstrates life has value and the perameters anti-natalists initially set out, concerning nonexistence being better than existence, don't necessarily hold true. The point of that subargument is highlighting the changes in anti-natalist rationalization and not that suicide is a good thing (i.e. the anti-natalists have to justify continuing their lives and that's enough to demonstrate value).

[Anonymous No.21751478]

>>21751342
What did Hume say man ought to do?

[Anonymous No.21751489]

lmao i'm just not creating children is all
>government seethes
>/pol/ seethes
>/lit/ seethes
>corporations seethe
>stock market seethes
>my parents seethe

[Anonymous No.21751522]

>>21751489
>they all seethe
Project all you want but the fact is we're happy retards like you don't reproduce. "I'm miserable I'll make others will see it my way" is a self-fulfilling prophecy; if you want to limit your impact all the more power to you in that pathetic and reduced sense.

[Anonymous No.21751523]

>>21751489
Voluntary childlessness and antinatalism are different things though.

[Anonymous No.21751526]

>>21750246
It doesn't make me seethe because it's the logical conclusion for anyone who accepts atheism and Darwinian evolution. There is absolutely no worth to existence at all if God doesn't exist and humans are just animals. Given that most people suffer in life then of course it would be natural to accept that you should just kill yourself or refuse to procreate

[Anonymous No.21751539]

The antinatalists are on the winning side. The sun is literally going to explode.

[Anonymous No.21751544]

>>21751539
>cope on a cosmological scale

[Anonymous No.21751545]

>>21751539
I will be at another sun when that happens
>heat death of the universe
NOT real the party will never end

[Anonymous No.21751548]

>>21751539
but elon musk and his 7 children will make us immortal and explore other solar systems if we buy enough teslas and pay for twitter blue checks and get brain implants

[Anonymous No.21751720]

>>21750246
From a utilitarian standpoint, he's right.
Also from a utilitarian standpoint, it makes more sense to step on a puppy for a billion dollars because I can use the money to fund animal rescue operations.

The answer to antinatalism and Benatar's asymmetry cannot be divined from utilitarian ethics. We must appeal to something both nebulous and foundational. When we crunch the numbers, it makes zero sense to press on, so either we die, or to hell with the numbers.

I suggest we take a beat from Lovecraft and embrace a new dark age. We'll be stupid but we'll be happy.

[Anonymous No.21751744]

>>21751720
It is actually not obvious from a (negative) utilitarian perspective that abstaining from procreation is the correct choice in minimising suffering. The net impact of having children on total suffering in our future light cone is extremely difficult to calculate.

https://reducing-suffering.org/strategic-considerations-moral-antinatalists/

[Anonymous No.21751760]

>>21751744
Yeah, you have to know that Tomasik and the like are dragging this shit into untenable sci-fi bullshit. They're a poison pill for the whole movement.

EA, LW, vitrifyher, Vinding, Pearce, all of them stand as a fantastic example for the populace to never begin to consider the antinatalist position.
They drove me clean out of the community to point where we're seriously considering having kids.

[Anonymous No.21751765]

>>21750606
Takes me about 5 minutes or three pumps anon, whichever comes first. Not sure what you’re doing wrong

[Anonymous No.21751791]

>>21751539
>universe itself proclaims i am right
enjoy your precious descendents languishing in the heat death of the universe. i'm enjoying shangri-la while it's here.
>>21751522
seethe seethe seethe seethe seethe

[Anonymous No.21751798]

>>21751760
>Yeah, you have to know that Tomasik and the like are dragging this shit into untenable sci-fi bullshit.
Yeah it gets really far out. The problem is, there is no clear reasonable cut off point to say "beyond this thinking about consequences is silly". I think utlitarianism by necessity goes there.

[Anonymous No.21751965]

>>21751765
>three pumps spread out over 5 minutes
I can tell you what you're doing wrong.

[Anonymous No.21752047]

>>21750246
David Pearce deboonked Benatar

https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html

>Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.

>Yet how should rational moral agents behave if - hypothetically - some variant of Benatar's diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?

>In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness - and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence - is not vainly to champion life's eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding - indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.

[Anonymous No.21752052]

https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/antinatalism-in-purgatory/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeN2RRR3xQ

>I’m an antinatalist. I think it’s unforgivable to bring new people into this world given that there is suffering. The thing is that lately I’ve been thinking and feeling that people aren’t real. This would partially solve the problem of evil. There is just my suffering and everyone else is a simulation designed to spite me. This should cause me to not feel so antinatalist since the breeders are disgusting alien mockeries of a true human being, namely myself. Yet somehow I still feel very antinatalist. When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust. I suppose that was the intention of the designer(s), to create something that appeared so real that it was actually disturbing. Dr. Miller says I have some sort of syndrome after finding out about my solipsism. I think he’s an imbecile who deserves to be burned on a stake. But out of my bodhisattva-like compassion I would instead grant him a consciousness and send him to heaven forever.

>Like I’ve said before, it’s plausible to me that this is a punishment. My failure at making friends, then my failure at soccer, then my failure in the stock market, then my failure at university, then my crippling depression. The reason I think it’s a punishment may just be projecting a sense of justice to something that is intrinsically devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities. But it may also be that there really is intelligent design (which I now strongly feel is the case) and the reason this isn’t heaven is because the force behind existence isn’t like me. It’s not the sort of thing that would give heaven to its enemies.

[Anonymous No.21752293]

>>21750246
>Babies, is so much a part of human life that it is rarely thought even to require a justification. Indeed, most people do not even think about whether they should or should not make a baby. They just make one. In other words, procreation is usually the consequence of sex rather than the result of a decision to bring people into existence. Those who do indeed decide to have a child might do so for any number of reasons, but among these reasons cannot be the interests of the potential child. One can never have a child for that child’s sake.
Holy shit he's right

[Anonymous No.21752312]

>>21751720
Utilitarianism is retarded

>>21751109
This. Also I fucking hate kikes too, so there’s that

[Anonymous No.21752737]

>>21750251
When JBP was seething about muh heckin nazis in his debate, Benatar outright says that's a fallacy and he also mocks him later on in it for saying MUH HECKIN NAZIS. No one else is based enough to say that.

[Anonymous No.21752751]

Why do brainlets seethe so much about psychopathy? Whenever someone starts talking about le psychopath its either a retard or a roastie.

[Anonymous No.21752759]

>>21750246
psyop bot thread, anyone replying is a fucking retard

[Anonymous No.21753337]

>>21752751
It’s their secret turn on, hence all the true crime slop the effete consume.

[Anonymous No.21753338]

>>21750391
>people who don’t have their judgment clouded by kneejerk emotional reactions are better at making morally correct choices

based psychos

[Anonymous No.21753367]

>>21750246
>Guy writes book ‘Better To Have Never Been’
>Heh fucking pseud, cant you see that by writing a book about the premise that it is better to have never been you’ve collapsed your founding assertion into a state of inherent contradiction
>open book
>it’s all just blank pages

YOOOO

[Anonymous No.21753461]

>>21751109
>dude if you just get married to the first broad you meet you’ll totally be heckin happy
>implying Mgtow wasn’t completely denounced
>implying (((they))) don’t want you to have kids because the birthrate being a real problem
Idiot

[Anonymous No.21753466]

>>21750246
>being cause some much seethe?
Because life is sacred.

[Anonymous No.21753470]

>>21750246
Antinatalists are a bigger cancer than poltards, but nobody calls them out.

[Anonymous No.21753477]

>>21750246
here's how it would work
>Anti-natalism gains traction in mainstream society
>secular society sterilizes itself to death, hardcore fundie breeder jews, muslims and christians take over the planet
gg

[Anonymous No.21753563]

>>21753466
No it's not.

[Anonymous No.21753596]

>>21750500
The fact that all anti-natalists don't kill themselves as soon they have their "revelation" is proofthey don't even believe their own bullshit.

[Anonymous No.21753642]

>>21753596
No.
>Promortalism is the hedonistic position that it is always better to die than to continue living. Promortalism is supported by SOME antinatalists.

[Anonymous No.21753734]

>>21753461
Yeah they need their cattle, if there were not enough of us they’d breed us like livestock

[Anonymous No.21753819]

>>21753470
>t. jewish

[Anonymous No.21753949]

The main problem with antinatalism is that anprims and tedfags and anarchists and other meme ideologies have: It's never going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen. It's a waste of time and just posturing and wordgames.

If you're going to put energy into an ideology choose one that can succeed in the real world.

[Anonymous No.21754985]

>>21752737
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mGV9ZoEYUA
JBP literally BTFO'd Benatar from the beginning of the debate using the first point from >>21750500, kek.

[Anonymous No.21755057]

>>21753734
>>21751109
or not

[Anonymous No.21755445]

Bump for the voluntary human extinction.

[Anonymous No.21756151]

>>21755445
It's already happening. Global fertility rate is barely above replacement according to official numbers and I believe it is worse than they think. Soon world population will start declining.

[Anonymous No.21756160]

>>21756151
>Soon world population will start declining.
there's like 8 billion people and niggers can't stop breeding and we keep paying them to replace us in our own countries
so you'll have bigger problems to worry about, like the world turning into a chimp warzone

[Anonymous No.21756172]

>>21750246
maybe because you are reducing a humans total worth to nothing but suffering. Like that is their only epitaph of note.

[Anonymous No.21756186]

>>21756160
If the chimping gets too bad then whitey starts chimping and then it's over extremely quickly. I'm not too worried.

[Anonymous No.21756202]

>>21756186
>then whitey starts chimping
I strongly doubt it. white people are completely domesticated

[Anonymous No.21756221]

>>21750246
It honestly doesn't make me seethe at all. It just genuinely isn't as profound or interesting as most anti-natalists seem to try and shill it as being.

If anything it's just annoying seeing so many zealots of a worldview that many people grow out of naturally as teenagers. Non-suicidal antinatalism is one of the most banal platitudes you can hold as a pessimist. Show me something spicier, more intelligent. Try to convince me of annihilationism, of human excinction by force. Benatar, Ligotti and the like are agonizingly dull in their worldviews.

[Anonymous No.21756275]

>>21756151
Fertility rates will go back up again in the long run. "Breeders" that keep reproducing will grow exponentially, and the people that don't reproduce in the modern world will be removed from the gene pool.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5X18lqyDO0
https://www.unz.com/akarlin/breeders-revenge/

[Anonymous No.21756307]

>>21756151
the fact that you fundamentally misunderstand why that trend exists and assign it to something as absurd as world-wide adoption of anti-natalist philosophy is proof that /lit/ is /pol/-tier retarded.

[Anonymous No.21756514]

>>21756307
I never said that.

[Anonymous No.21757145]

>>21750246
Do anti-natalists really think their self-defeating philosophy actually makes natalists seethe? Why would I seethe just because you’ve made the decision to sever your bloodline? It doesn’t affect me in the slightest.

[Anonymous No.21757151]

>>21750277
>this jew promoting the worship of death ABSOLUTELY doesn't reinforce the narrative that jews are subversive

>BECAUSE I SAY SO

so fucking pathetic

[Anonymous No.21757767]

>>21757145
if anything it frees up resources

[Anonymous No.21757978]

>>21750361
all i see are endless genocides, wars all around the corner, millions of paramecia being sucked alive by more organised beings, fungii spray gasing literal trillions of bacteria, dragon flies eating grasshopers alive, a litany of worm like species gathering in some bird's corrosive stomach fluids, trees feasting above aliquots and aliquots of what used to be part of the whole, permanent, cyclical milking of terrestrian blood

[Anonymous No.21757995]

>>21757978
you could also meme it into a beautiful cosmic dance like alan watts does

guess it depends on your brain

[Anonymous No.21758007]

>>21757995
I know the power of delusion, whatever

[Anonymous No.21758027]

>>21758007
How is it more delusional than your emotional tone about war and genocide? You are both projecting sentimental language on observed phenomena.

[Anonymous No.21758162]

>>21750246
It's only immoral to procreate if you are poor

[Anonymous No.21758174]

>>21750246
>are breeders psychopaths

getting real tired of your pilpul.

[Anonymous No.21758178]

>>21750606
How long is "long-term" for the sake of procreation? Science has indicated that it's around 2 to 7 years after which relationships start to deteriorate.

[Anonymous No.21758233]

>>21750361
Ironically said nature is being ruined by humans. The only reason why it hasn't perished is due to intervention by other concerned humans. If humans ceased to exist, it would only benefit nature more

[Anonymous No.21758273]

>>21754985
He spent 10 minutes rambling about his daughter and the nazis, then he almost started crying.

It was hilarious, it really shows how much of a hack Peterson is.

[Anonymous No.21758311]

Benatar should write a book about the lost art of fingerblasting your gf.

[Anonymous No.21758318]

>>21758311
the gayest activity after cunnylingus

[Anonymous No.21758404]

I didn't read the thread but antinatalism doesn't apply to me because I'm a male. I don't "bring life into existence" - that is the fault of women and their wombs. I can have no bearing on whether a child is born or not, because I do not have the capacity to give birth. Literally I can't. There is nothing to 'opt-out' of, nothing to prevent. Whether a woman has a child or not has nothing to do with me.

[Anonymous No.21758734]

A voluntary mass extinction just sounds completely untenable, and the unlikely scenario of it actually happening theres the whole evolution thing that can make it all happen all over again anyway. Enjoy life or dont

[Anonymous No.21758775]

>>21758734
There's a good chance it evolves in worse ways the next time too. All things considered humans are generally pretty nice and at worst indifferent.

[Anonymous No.21758782]

>>21758273
No, Benatar got BTFO. The only way you can't see it is if you buy into his arguments. The funny thing is he does the same shit you retards do in these threads (i.e. don't respond directly to the criticism offered and keep reasserting the logic is grounded).
>He spent 10 minutes rambling about his daughter and the nazis, then he almost started crying
He didn't. He referenced the fact that anti-natalism contains the seed of nefarious anti-human arguments (i.e. execution out of compassion) and when Benatar brought up his stupid thought-experiment of cutting off a child's leg Peterson rejected it (rightfully) as absurd. He grounded the same idea in reality (i.e. his daughter has a severe auto-immune disease which lead to multiple surgeries including joint replacement) and offered that irregardless of it she is happy to be alive. He does cry easily but he didn't do it in this interview (cool ad hom, bro).

Also, Peterson offered a far more realistic though experiment (i.e. the sleeping miserable man with no social connections) and Benatar couldn't respond adequately to it. He just asserted the man has an interest in continuing to live because he's already alive (ignoring the perameters of the though experiment and affirming the fact life therefore has value without addressing where that value suddenly came from in light of non-existence being beneficial).

So no, retard. Peterson BTFO'd him. Benatar even got heated multiple times crying that Peterson was jumping around. The reason Benatar (falsely) perceived that because Peterson undermined the structure of his argument.

[Anonymous No.21758798]

>>21758782
>Also, Peterson offered a far more realistic though experiment (i.e. the sleeping miserable man with no social connections) and Benatar couldn't respond adequately to it. H
Did Peterson pull the shoot a sleeping hobo with no friends in the head trick? I thought I invented that.

[Anonymous No.21758816]

>>21758273
>>21758782
P.S. Benatar also couldn't respond to the fact Peterson pointed out his argument is a simplistic Pleasure v. Suffering argument and had noticeable difficulty elaborating on why it isn't such (muh hedonism label). He tried to argue in terms of satisfaction v. dissatisfaction but had no real answer when it was pointed out this could still be reduced to the (simplistic) pleasure/suffering dicotomy he tried to deny. His response was that dissatisfaction can occur after the person has died (i.e. desecrated grave example) and therefore isn't the same thing; this is obviously retarded because non-existence in death automatically precludes such from being a factor in lived experience.

[Anonymous No.21758826]

>>21758798
Yep. Benatar was in trouble right from the beginning because Peterson pointed out the asymmetry argument is ungrounded (which is the point of the pasta that shows up in these threads).

[Anonymous No.21758832]

>benatar btfo sam harris
>sam harris btfo peterson
>peterson btfo benatar

What kind of pseud rock papper scissors is this?

[Anonymous No.21758847]

>>21758826
I would just own up to shooting the hobo and pushing the world destroyer button if I were a dedicated antinatalist desu.

Benatar's main weakness is that he is a lib academic first and foremost who doesn't want to bite bullets.

[Anonymous No.21759076]

God I hate these "debates" and "thought experiments". Its so inane.

Antinatalist:
>yeah I think life contains non-trivial harms so I don't think I'll reproduce

Natalist:
>yeah well humpf well you'd shoot a hobo in the head wouldn't you?? huh?? wouldn't you!! fucking MURDERER!!!!!1

[Anonymous No.21759256]

>>21759076
But in reality it was:
>Antinatalist: consider a person who has a child and cuts off its leg to provide it with an education that--
>Non-retard: no that's stupid and divorced from reality...how about someone who has doesn't enjoy existing at all, is entirely isolated from social existence, and won't even know you killed them?
>Anti-natalist: its wrong because...uh...they has an interest in existing
>Non-retard: they have no interest in that so why is it wrong?
>Antinatalist: ...

[Anonymous No.21759614]

>>21758832
Benatar bfto Peterson though

[Anonymous No.21759637]

I am not an antinatalist but I don't really understand why people are so bothered by the idea

[Anonymous No.21759645]

NOOOOOOO YOU HAVE TO HECKIN APPRECIATE UR LIFE JUST THINK OF ALL THE FAGGOTS WHO WERE NEVER BORN YOU'RE SO LUCKY TO HAVE BEEN BORN UGH YOU CAN'T JUST FUCKING KYS

[Anonymous No.21759658]

>>21759637
yeah same its not that serious its just words motherfuckers lol have kids or dont i dont give shit

[Anonymous No.21759738]

>>21759637
In general people aren't bothered by antinatalism but people like >>21759645 are bothersome. Simple as.

[Anonymous No.21760094]

>antinatalism for thee

[Anonymous No.21760095]

>>21750246
I genuinely admire how you consistently shill this book here even though it impresses literally nobody and it gets routinely torn to shreds by the posters here.

[Anonymous No.21760108]

>>21760095
>it gets routinely torn to shreds by the posters here.
none of the natalists itt have actually read it

[Anonymous No.21760116]

>>21760108
and they still BTFO it

[Anonymous No.21760122]

>>21760116
no, they only focus on the utlitarian argument

[Anonymous No.21760130]

>>21760108
It's a book about a guy coping and seething because people are alive. Sue me for not wanting to read it lol.

[Anonymous No.21760151]

>>21760130
that's fine, it just shows that nobody actually seriously engages with benatars arguments in these threads. including a lot of the antinatalism defenders desu.

https://iep.utm.edu/anti-natalism/

This wiki has good summaries for those actually interested

[Anonymous No.21760166]

>>21760151
>This wiki has good summaries (of the coping and seething) for those actually interested (no one)

[Anonymous No.21760190]

>>21760166
interested enough to come participate in the threads though :^)

[Anonymous No.21760214]

>>21760190
I am just bored waiting for (You)s in an /x/ thread.

[Anonymous No.21760256]

>>21760122
>central premise of the Benatar's argument is fallacious
>NOOOO! WE CAN STILL GET INTO THE DETAILS THAT PROVE HE'S RIGHT!
Cope.

[Anonymous No.21761438]

>>21760256
central premise isn't even utilitarian lol

[Anonymous No.21761755]

>>21759637
People on 4chan are particularly bothered by it because /pol/-culture promotes this bizzare idea that having children is somehow edgy, contrarian and red-pilled despite it being the default normie life choice.

[Anonymous No.21761858]

Most of the people living on earth were unhappy for pretty much of the time. Many solutions were suggested for this problem, but most of these were largely concerned with the movements of small, green pieces of paper, which is odd, because on the whole, it wasn't the small, green pieces of paper which were unhappy. And so the problem remained, and lots of the people were mean, and most of them were miserable, even the ones with digital watches. Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake coming down from the trees in the first place, and some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no-one should ever have left the oceans.

[Anonymous No.21762121]

>>21761755
This, there are literally people who start a family because /pol/ and tradtwitter told them it's "based".

[Anonymous No.21762605]

>>21759637
People just take that shit too personally. Honestly most professional philosophers that even critique Benatar do still concede that his argument is a solid one. It's like Anselm's Argument for God. You might not agree with it but you can appreciate the structure.

[Anonymous No.21762608]

>>21761438
It's hedonist, isn't it? Avoid suffering, maximize pleasure, correct?
Then it is as simple as rejecting ethical hedonism.

[Anonymous No.21762616]

>>21750246
All these feckless fucking losers HAVE to believe that their meaningless existence MUST have some greater meaning or truth behind it and to make them think otherwise is paramount to blasphemy.

There's a reason most of these idiots are christ babbies after all.

[Anonymous No.21762634]

>>21750246
If you're an atheist you can't make moral judgements. Period.
The only logical conclusion is to become a nihilist.
Seethe all you want, there's nothing more retarded than these liberals/antinatalists/vegans who are materialists that will tell you how life is meaningless and good and bad are made up human concepts, until they want to shove their agenda down your throat and tell you how evil you are for not accepting it.

[Anonymous No.21762932]

Antinatalism seems so obvious to me. There is nothing wrong with not being born. Like literally, zero problems, zero suffering, just nothing. It's like buddhist nibbana. Unbound from creation.

But then if you have a child well there's a human body with the capacity to feel harm and deprivation, who has perpetual biological (food water shelter protection hygeine etc) social, existential needs.

I mean maybe I'm just viewing the human body wrong or something? But I just fail to see how being a human is not deprivational at it's core. We lack something (eg food), and so we are motivated to deal with that lack (make money to buy food). You deal with these brute needs first and this is most of our lives. Chores, showering, cooking, maintaining, working to buy these things, and then you have your free time but it's not really free. It's another deprivational state - lack of something to do. SO you fill it with hobbies and interests and relationships etc. But nothing lasts and in the end we all die.

And that's a good life. What about having a retarded or fucked up kid? Who dies in childhood from cancer or raped and murdered or hit by a car? Why risk that?

From my perspective the 'unborn' are protected from all the harms of being harm, whereas if you procreate you make a human who is exposed and will experience non-trivial harm, and ALL children will die in the end.

So from the childs perspective, why make them? They aren't missing out on the good in life because they don't exist. So it's just nothing, neutral. And then you make them and oh shit I broke my arm I have to go to school I have to wage and suffer heartbreak and find food and water and live in cringe society and clown world. It's retarded.

[Anonymous No.21763018]

>>21750246
because upon coming to the conclusion that their life is bad or meaningless they decide the obvious conclusion is to continue to live, and convince everybody else to commit suicide

[Anonymous No.21763477]

>>21762932
Yeah. People will literally pay thousands to have a custom bred malformed pug dragged into existence to cutely have health problems just for their entertainment though, and then claim to love it while experiencing zero cognitive dissonance.. Now imagine that plus strong biological drives at work.

[Anonymous No.21763483]

>>21762608
They pretend their bullshit can't be reduced to a pleasure/pain dicotomy and when you demonstrate it can they label you a hedonist and LARP that their argument is more complicated. Anti-natalists are retards.

[Anonymous No.21763510]

>>21763483
>doesn't know about deontological antinatalism

[Anonymous No.21763565]

>>21763510
>ignores it's still reductive to a pleasure/pain dicotomy and hides behind abstraction

[Anonymous No.21763570]

>>21762932
It's even more retarded when you look at the percentages for unwanted pregnancies.

[Anonymous No.21763580]

>>21763565
That's not how the deontological argument works. And there''s also the liberal argument.

[Anonymous No.21763841]

>>21759637
Well as an antinatalist I am upset by it aswell since I don't want it to be true.
Also the idea of my people (Europeans) not having children and other races having children and outbreeding us is upsetting. But the world is not worth inheriting and all things will pass

[Anonymous No.21763971]

>>21763580
>ignores underlying premise is ALWAYS reductive to a pleasure/pain dicotomy
>hides behind abstraction