Anti-natalism Thread

[Anonymous No.4659426]

So can anyone give me any *real* reasons why anti-natalism is bullshit? So far I haven't seen any

[Anonymous No.4659431]

it's not you just have different beliefs

i believe the point of life is to procreate so i will never be a anti- natalist

[Anonymous No.4659433]

You can train kids to bring you snacks.

[« 零 » !Ry9.kM3RY. No.4659436]

FIRST, YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT "ANTINATALISM" IS A LEGITIMATE IDEOLOGY, WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE.

IF YOU DESPISE LIFE SO MUCH, YOU OUGHT TO KILL YOURSELF.

[Anonymous No.4659439]

Did the harsh realities of life hurt your feelings? Here's a word you need to learn the meaning of, while at the same time being the best advice you'll ever get: 'adapt'.

[Anonymous No.4659443]

>>4659436
>all caps
didn't read

[Anonymous No.4659444]

>>4659443
He's right though.

[Anonymous No.4659446]

>>4659439
antinatalists are generally people who don't need to adapt, that's the problem

[Anonymous No.4659447]

What else is existence going to do with itself, OP? You want to get rid of life because some people have pain and are afraid of dying?

What's wrong with your life?

[Anonymous No.4659448]

>>4659443

But you replied, you noticed, and probably you did read.

[Anonymous No.4659485]

It's based on vulgar rationality. The kind that argues that living in a capsule hotel is the same as living in a mansion. The kind that argues that jiggling your butt in public is stupid while failing to understand to true purpose of parties. The kind of "logical thinking" that in the ends brings about more misery than relief.

Do us a favor and kill yourself, or are you having second thoughts? Just do it, it's logical, the greatest truth there is, right?

[Anonymous No.4659500]

>>4659444
>>4659446
>>4659447
>>4659448
>>4659485

>all dis ad hominem
>all dis emotional appeals

Why is lit such a shit heap?

[Anonymous No.4659509]

>>4659500
anti-natalism discussion == fags who watch TV more than they read

same goes for the 10+ King in Yellow threads we've been getting. it is just the cancer. no different than the countless Game of Thrones threads we used to get. do not touch it.

[Anonymous No.4659516]

>>4659509
>fags who watch TV
stopped reading right there.

you're a sad, angry, presumptuous little man aren't you?

[Anonymous No.4659522]

>>4659500
Jesus Christ, you guys are as bad as randroids that come in here and demand a refutation of objectivism without giving a single argument beforehand.

[Anonymous No.4659527]

>>4659522
>Jesus Christ, you guys are as bad as
Stopped reading right there. Cool generalizations bro.

>all dees fallacies

[Anonymous No.4659532]

>>4659527
So there won't be any arguments, just lacklustre trolling attempts in this thread?
Good to know.

[Anonymous No.4659535]

>>4659532
>implying you gave ANY arguments to begin with
this is some shit trolling

[Anonymous No.4659602]

>>4659436
>IF YOU DESPISE LIFE SO MUCH, YOU OUGHT TO KILL YOURSELF.
This is completely beside the point and confirms that you are an idiot.

Antinatalism is antibirth. Not prodeath. The antinatalist's birth has already occurred. He can't change that.


But I'm generous so I'll help you out and give the actual reason to refute antinatalism:

Life, and ethics, isn't about maximising pain and minimising pleasure. The world doesnt work that way and even things we do to ourselves is counterproductive to that effort.
It's not why we life nor why we bring people into the world.

[Anonymous No.4659620]

>When I do count the clock that tells the time,
>And see the brave day sunk in hideous night;
>When I behold the violet past prime,
>And sable curls all silver'd o'er with white;
>When lofty trees I see barren of leaves
>Which erst from heat did canopy the herd,
>And summer's green all girded up in sheaves
>Borne on the bier with white and bristly beard,
>Then of thy beauty do I question make,
>That thou among the wastes of time must go,
>Since sweets and beauties do themselves forsake
>And die as fast as they see others grow;
>And nothing 'gainst Time's scythe can make defence
>Save breed, to brave him when he takes thee hence

[Anonymous No.4659624]

>I agree with Sophocles: the greatest luck is not to have been born - but, as the joke goes on, very few people succeed in it.

[Anonymous No.4659629]

>One of the first signs of the beginnings of understanding is the wish to die. This life appears unbearable, another unattainable. One is no longer ashamed of wanting to die; one asks to be moved from the old cell, which one hates, to a new one, which one will only in time come to hate.

[Anonymous No.4659644]

>>4659602
>Life, and ethics, isn't about maximising pain and minimising pleasure. The world doesnt work that way and even things we do to ourselves is counterproductive to that effort.
>It's not why we life nor why we bring people into the world.
This is the most retarded reasoning I've seen in a while.

[Anonymous No.4659650]

>>4659644
Go to bed, Sam Harris.

[Anonymous No.4660236]

>>4659500
antinatalism as a position is based entirely on muh feels

[Anonymous No.4660277]

We are nihilistic thoughts in the mind of God.

[Anonymous No.4660278]

To have and raise a child is one of the great milestones / gifts of life. Edgy young fags and philosophers don't understand that 'cause they're too busy selfishly thinking and despairing.

[Anonymous No.4660290]

>>4660278
Look at this fucking guy. 10/10, incredible.

[Anonymous No.4660299]

>>4660290
refutation: /lit/ style

[Anonymous No.4660300]

>>4660278
personally i didn't want to have kids until i did enough philosophy to realize that i did

[Anonymous No.4660303]

>>4660277
>God

Snort.

[Anonymous No.4660312]

Daily reminder that everybody you've ever met is, at the end of the day, a floating whorl of atoms.

[Anonymous No.4660330]

>>4660312
Every atom you've ever met is a floating whorl of smaller and smaller shit

[Anonymous No.4660511]

>>4659602
>He can't change that.
>lol you shouldnt have children because they'll have a lifetime of suffering!!!!!!!!!!!
>B-B-BUT ANTI-NATALISTS SHOULDNT KILL THEMSELVES TO PREVENT EVEN MORE SUFFERING THAN THEY HAVE ALREADY EXPERIENCED!!!!!

[Anonymous No.4660556]

>>4659426
Antinatalism is a form of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is rubbish.

[Anonymous No.4660559]

>>4659426
Because non-cognitivism.

[Anonymous No.4660588]

>>4660330
>meeting an atom
m8 pls lay of the drugs

[Anonymous No.4660594]

I am happier for having been born. Therefore anti-natalism is demonstrably bullshit.

[Anonymous No.4660598]

>>4659426
read the myth of sisyphus and apply camus' conclusions about suicide towards people having kids

[Anonymous No.4660706]

I'm just gonna leave this collage I made from the last anti-natalist thread here. It's messy, but you get the point.

How can people think this is a legitimate philosophy? It is a non-sequitor. You don't get the choice of being born because you don't exist yet, and therefore denying the choice of something that doesn't exist is inconsequential.

>muh suffering

[Anonymous No.4660713]

Because nothing matters.

[Anonymous No.4660716]

>>4660706
Oh god. These read like the insights of a sheltered 17 year old with zero experience who thinks others truly don't understand the horror of life like he does.

Meanwhile, Holocaust survivors find meaning and enjoy their lives.

[Anonymous No.4660787]

Anti-Natalism suggests what is is not as it should be. (Is does not imply ought, anyone?)

This belief means to be anti-natalist, one has to pre-suppose a teleology of existence. Otherwise, if there is no purpose, then what appears cannot be "wrong" or "right"; these are judgements.

Anti-natalism takes this further, saying there is a purpose, and we're doing it wrong. Do they ever say what would be doing it right?

[Anonymous No.4660796]

>>4660716
If by enjoy you mean some of the most extreme PTSD ever encountered and a life of constant fear and suffering, yes.

[Anonymous No.4660807]

>>4660787
Doing it right would mean having no children at all. Let humanity die a peaceful death.

[Anonymous No.4660819]

>>4660807
So it's HUMANITY that made this big misstep? Not LIFE; that which reproduces itself, no, it's US! It's is WE, WE beings at the centre of the universe, WE are what matter.

So now not only do we have to pre-suppose a teleology of existence, but a teleology of consciousness, meaning that Anti-natalism is thoroughly, narcissistically anthrocentric. Because we are the ONLY creature that could POSSIBLY do or affect anything in this world.

[Anonymous No.4660837]

>>4660796
And yet not resorting to childish anti-natalism because it's philosophy flavor of the month even though the show itself discredits it.

[Anonymous No.4660838]

>>4660819
I'm not sure where you're getting at. Anti-natalism is only about preventing unnecessary pain.
We know better than to base our reasoning on our instincts and our primitive need of reproducing. Any rational being, given time, will come to the conclusion that it is best to stop having children.

[Anonymous No.4660841]

>>4660838
>HURRR FCKIN DURRR GUYS IM RLY NICE Y DOESN SHE LIEK MEEEEE

[Anonymous No.4660858]

>>4660807
Why? Most people would argue that, while life has truly some shitty sides, the positive sides prevail nonetheless.
The mere possibility of suffering does not invalidate a conscious life.

[Anonymous No.4660859]

>>4660787
Go to bed, Faulkner.

To OP, as >>4660706 pointed out, basing a philosophy off the premise that having a child would be denying that child (who, at the time, is non-existent) the choice of being born is complete pseudo-intellectual rubbish.

But, to take it a step further, since "the choice of the unborn" argument is invalid, let's weigh this on a utilitarian scale, since anti-natalism seems to be a form a utilitarianism. To prove that anti-natalism is legitimate, you must prove that the average human existence experiences more pain than good. If the opposite is true, then we obviously having a child is justified. But since the utilitarian calculus of measuring how much good/pain an average human life endures is impossible to measure, we cannot reach a verdict. Therefore, it is impossible to prove anti-natalism.

TL;DR--NOBODY KNOWS HOW MUCH SUFFERING OR PLEASURE A HUMAN BEING WILL EXPERIENCE. IF YOU DONT WANT TO HAVE CHILDREN, THATS PERFECTLY FINE. BUT TO ASSERT THAT NOBODY ANYWHERE SHOULD HAVE CHILDREN IS ARROGANT TRIPE.

I honestly can't imagine anyone over the age of 18 seriously subscribing to this "philosophy". But hey, I can't even fathom their suffering.

[Anonymous No.4660863]

>>4660837
I'm not an antinatalist, just thinking you're taking the Holocaust a tad lightly.

Antinatalism seems like a vain position to me, not because its arguments are unreasonable, but because it's impossible to implement. Saying we all ought to voluntarily go extinct is like saying we all ought to stop being violent and mean and that if we just like, loved each other and lived in peace, maaan, things would be alright. Antinatalism is only childish in as far as it is unreasonably idealistic.

[Anonymous No.4660880]

>>4660863
>you're taking the Holocaust a tad lightly.
My point is that there are people who say "I know true suffering, people shouldn't have children" who have not been through anything besides running out of Cheetos when their mom is at work. Whereas people who have been through something actually awful are happy to see children born.

[Anonymous No.4660887]

>>4660838
But in that case, the only pain that is prevented is that specific pain: that of your children. But if other life carries on, then that life will suffer. And, at some point, the amount of suffering of other life will eclipse the amount of suffering prevented in the absence of humanity.

Again, Anti-natalism is the belief human life and pain is all that matters, and the universe will be at peace when we're gone.

Another point: why should suffering be worse than happiness is good?

Another point: do we not, by "suffering", change? Perhaps by learning a lesson from a mistake. Who are anti-natalists to claim these changes can never compensate for suffering? And if, through change, improvement is possible, removing the pain and the change and the improvement amounts to such a great ethical statement no amount of logic or study could justify it.

Further: I LIKE MY LIFE. I would consider it UNETHICAL to refuse to have a child, to refuse a child the opportunity to also enjoy life. Obviously, not everyone's life is great. But to claim that HUMANITY should cease because you had a shit day is too ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4660893]

>>4660880
We each have our own resilience to suffering. Quit strawmanning disillusioned young people. Certainly, they're probably blinded by youth and ignorance but you have no place to say they have no knowledge of suffering.

>>4660859
I don't think an anti-natalist would treat the measurement of good experience vs bad experience as a value for life. If the good experiences outnumber the bad ones, then death is a bad thing. If bad experiences outnumber good ones, then life is a bad thing. Either way the anti-natalist can say that existence is a negative experience.

[Anonymous No.4660902]

>>4660858
>>4660858

For some of us (dare I say most of us), there is joy to be found in life.
But you can't deny the fact that giving life is like playing Russian roulette with the potential life of a human being.
Will the child be happy? Will he be born "defective"? There's no way to know. Since we can't be sure about the future of our children, it's better to have none at all. You win nothing, but you lose nothing.

The "peace of the universe" has nothing to do with it.

[Anonymous No.4660905]

>>4660880
They aren't happy to see children born because they have suffered, they're happy to see children born because they are people. Almost all people like children being born. This doesn't discredit antinatalism.

Also, most antinatalists subscribe to the notion that life is inherently not worth the deal, not just specifically hard lives. Their idea is that even the best possible life to be had in this world still isn't worth the trade off with the suffering that comes with it. It has little to do with the particular details of their own suffering.

[Anonymous No.4660906]

Anti-natalists: why do you even have to argue for your position? Those like you won't reproduce. People who enjoy existing will. Your kind should be gone pretty soon.

[Anonymous No.4660913]

>>4660887
Saying that humanity should continue because you had a nice day is equally ridiculous. Ethics on this level are always ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.4660921]

>>4660906
Our kind has existed since the dawn of humanity and will likely continue to exist for a long time because faggots like you keep reproducing.
The child of two people who enjoy existing will not necessarily be happy.

[Anonymous No.4660923]

>>4660902
Even if someone has a good life, that person must experience life with the knowledge of death. I think a big part of anti-natalism is the belief that existential dread is it's own reason to be bitter about life.

[Anonymous No.4660926]

>>4660906
Doesn't work like that. Life slanderers pop out of perfectly functional people all the time. You can't exterminate them, they're side branches. Like homosexuals. Of course there are great places for the world weary such as monasteries where they can pursue an ascetic, life denying existence, but now that the monastic life is quite discouraged you have them running wild among the normals.

[Anonymous No.4660928]

>>4660921
Oh well. People with the motivation to take action and affect change in the physical world (since they're not crippled by depression etc.) think human existence is worth continuing.

[Anonymous No.4660934]

Hey guys,

If you embrace egoism none of this will be an issue.

[Anonymous No.4660936]

>>4659426
Because existence is not inherently good or bad, and physical suffering is not inherently good or bad. Anti-natalism is bullshit because it takes the position that being born can be "good" or "bad" and that physical suffering is evil, when neither of these are not the case.

Also, complaining about people trolling ITT and "HURR DURR I CAN DISMISS BECAUSE (logical fallacy here) are shit because it's just a "THIS IS MY BELIEF: REFUTE ME!" thread. OP's not actually presenting why he or anyone else should hold his position. If you want a real refutation, google it. There fucking wikipedia articles on anti-natalism, holy Christ.

[Anonymous No.4660944]

>>4660921
>The child of two people who enjoy existing will not necessarily be happy.
And it won't necessarily live in misery, so what?

[Anonymous No.4660946]

>>4660944
So having children is like playing Russian roulette with the temples of a loved one.

[Anonymous No.4660953]

>>4660921
>yfw those two people who enjoy existing were the product of two other people
>yfw all the people who enjoy existing have been the product of other people
>yfw people who enjoy existing are likely the product of other people who enjoy existing because there's just so damn much of them and they keep existing near each other
>yfw it's statistically more likely that the children of two people who enjoy existing will also enjoy existing

[Anonymous No.4660958]

Nice hyperbole (which ironically uses life as a preferred option as opposed to death...).
But you have to "prove" birth/life is itself the source of misery, independent from social, economic etc. circumstances and medical, technical etc. developments. in order to be able to claim that anti-natalism is a valid point of view.

[Anonymous No.4660959]

>>4660953
Even if there was only a 0.000000001% chance that my child would live a miserable life, I wouldn't take that risk.

[Anonymous No.4660960]

>>4660936
OP probably saw me reduce the last two anti-natalism threads to fat autists screaming MY POSITION IS INDEFENSIBLE SO THAT MAKES YOU OTHER GUYS MAD and figures this is easy shitstorm bait.

[Anonymous No.4660963]

>>4660959
That's cool, and a nice opinion that I respect, but not actually a defense of anti-natalism.

[Anonymous No.4660964]

>>4660946
For you:
>>4660958

[Anonymous No.4660966]

>>4660953
Actually even people who hate life have mostly been reproducing because lel body wants some fuck and social pressures.

[Anonymous No.4660972]

>>4660958
Birth is a source of misery from a purely physical and psychological point of view.
Like when you're hungry. Or when you're tired or depressed. As a human, you're always suffering because you're always looking to satisfy desires.
In some cultures, each birth is seen as a very sad event. Women cry when a child is born, because it will have to suffer.

[Anonymous No.4660975]

>>4660964
>>4660958
Yes, I used the imagine to have it make sense to a natalist. You don't necessarily have to prove that life itself is the problem if it's obvious that non-life would be the definite solution though. If a cobra is approaching you club it to death, you don't find a pair of tweezers to remove its fangs.

[Anonymous No.4660982]

>>4660958
You don't have to prove anything. Life necessitates death and anti-natalists believe both death and life are terrible things created by existence.

[Anonymous No.4660993]

Answer me this antinatalists:

Why should I care? You first have to justify why one is obliged to busy oneself with prevention of hypothetical beings possibly coming out of other people's cunts.

[Anonymous No.4661004]

What people are forgetting in this thread is that procreation isn't the opposite of antinatalism. Natalism is the opposite of antinatalism. The belief that procreation is inherently good. The positions in between are mere apathy and egoism.

So if you're against antinatalism, justify yourself as a natalist. What's so good about spawning people?

[Anonymous No.4661005]

>>4661004
They get to experience life and consciousness.

[Anonymous No.4661013]

>>4661005
that's fucking awful man

[Anonymous No.4661016]

>>4661005
What's inherently good about life and consciousness? And if it's great, isn't it cruel to take it away from them again?

[Anonymous No.4661019]

>>4660993
>tfw no gf

[Anonymous No.4661025]

>>4661019
r u saying that antinatalists dont want people to have what they cant have?

[Anonymous No.4661027]

>>4660972
If you actually add minor inconveniences/basic needs to misery, you really should check your definitions, man.
>As a human, you're always suffering because you're always looking to satisfy desires.
And I don't see anything inherently bad in that. It's a part of life and actually constitutes what and who we are. It is the same reason why Huxley's soma or Dick's empathy boxes are just revolting to us.
Yes, even suffering itself is not inherently bad.

[Anonymous No.4661030]

>>4661016
>What's inherently good about life and consciousness?

It's the only thing we've got. Better to experience it once than never at all.

[Anonymous No.4661033]

>>4661016
What's inherently bad about life and consciousness?

>And if it's great, isn't it cruel to take it away from them again?

It's better to have been lived and lost than to have never lived at all. At least I could experience some cool shit between diving into nothingness again. That's all there is, really.

You can't at the same time claim death to be cruel and not call the nothingness that comes before life cruel as well, it's the same thing.

[Anonymous No.4661037]

>>4660975
Bad metaphor:
Birth: likelihood of a bad life (by _what_ or _whose_ standard exactly, by the way?) completely dependent on biological, social, economic etc. background.

Cobra: likelihood if something bad happening when the snake itself is approaching is very high

[Anonymous No.4661043]

>>4660972
>As a human, you're always suffering because you're always looking to satisfy desires.

And we derive pleasure from satisfying those desires, which is why people don't kill themselves. People actively search for desires to satisfy so they can achieve satifaction through it.

Without a desire to satisfy, there would be no pleasure either. You always experience the good through contrast with the bad.

[Anonymous No.4661050]

>>4661037
Well, people are antinatalists because they consider the chance of a shitty life so great it's not worth the gamble. This is where the essential difference lies between natalists and antinatalists. A completely arbitrary, irrational value judgement.

[Anonymous No.4661053]

>>4661043
We only ever experience small peaks of pleasure with long stretches of dull pain.
There's a disproportion.

Anyway, I'm just spouting off Schopy/buddhism stuff right now. None of it really matters. I'm going to bed.

[Anonymous No.4661057]

>>4661050
People are antinatalists because they have a very skewed view of what constitutes a good or a bad life.

They seem to me selfish as fuck, as they seem to be suffering, they can't conceive that anyone around them might feel different and that even someone with the shittiest life from their point of view would much rather still be alive than to have never existed at all.

>>4661053
I disagree, and I really doubt most people don't experience pleasure on a regular basis, wether it's by reading some book they like, watching a show, hobbies, socialising, etc.
And even if it were so, it is beyond evident that those small peaks are well worth the long stretches of dull pain for most people, otherwise we would've died out long ago.

[Anonymous No.4661083]

>>4661057
This argument could be reversed exactly against natalists. Both are nonsensical positions since universalist ethics are nonsensical. Hell, morality itself is mere arbitrary preference.

[Anonymous No.4661087]

>>4661083
>then why are you posting in a philosophy thread

[Anonymous No.4661094]

>>4661083
Wanna fight?

[Anonymous No.4661096]

>>4661083
And since universalist ethics are nonsensical and are a matter of subjective preference, why are you desiring people not to exist and allow them to put their subjectivity to use?

By denying the chance of birth on them, you're imposing your own.

It would be more logical to allow people to commit suicide if they want to, not disallowing them to exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.4661104]

>>4661053
>We only ever experience small peaks of pleasure with long stretches of dull pain.
The idea that whether or not life is worth living is solely dependent on physical "pleasure" or "pain" is not only totally unprovable or quantifiable, or at least it's never been done before and can't be argued on this quantitative basis, but wrong. "Pleasure" and "Pain" are not synonymous with "Good" and "Bad". Come back when you've at least finished reading the Greeks if you want to grapple with these ideas.

If "pleasure" was the only Good or thing worth living for, or if you seriously believed that, you'd be doing heroin right now, not arguing on the internet whether creating life is "Good" or "moral", and if all pain is evil, then so is working out and stubbing your toe.

I'm willing to wager that you're doing an awful job of representing anti-natalism, or at least I hope you are for their sake.

[Anonymous No.4661107]

>>4660556
best arguement in this whole thread.

[Anonymous No.4661108]

>>4661057
This can go both ways. What seems selfish as fuck to me is having children. It is undeniable that most people have children without thinking of the consequences. They have children because it seems like the natural thing to do. Some also feel like their life wouldn't be complete without a child of their own.

But you're right, there's something that keeps us going forward. It doesn't mean life is worth living. It only means our survival instinct is very strong and does not bow to reason. Even our brain works against us ; ever heard of the Pollyanna principle?

[Anonymous No.4661109]

>>4661104
>implying stubbing my toe is not fucking unadultered evil

Come on.

[Anonymous No.4661118]

>>4661108
>It is undeniable that most people have children without thinking of the consequences.

And what consequences would that be? That they'll give birth to a kid and will get to raise him in any way they think fit? Because I think people are pretty much informed about that one. Again, I disagree with your starting premise that life is suffering as you may be implying to be the consequences.

>Even our brain works against us ; ever heard of the Pollyanna principle?

Yes, but I would see it as working FOR us, and that would be implying you are somehow something other than your body and your brain. It's not working for "you" or "against" you, it IS you, and you are it. And what it's doing is maximizing our pleasure and minimizing our memories of sufferings past. I don't really see what's so bad aobut that.

[Anonymous No.4661126]

>>4661104
I've never said pleasure and pain are synonymous with good and bad. I'm well aware that some pleasure is not good (heroin) and some pain is not bad (working out).

However, can you at least concede that most pleasure is good and most pain is bad? I mean, who in their right mind likes to feel pain? Hunger? Loneliness? Sickness? Old age? The fear of death?

[Anonymous No.4661129]

>>4661108
>Even our brain works against us ; ever heard of the Pollyanna principle?
The Pollyanna principle is not your brain "working against you". It's selective memory. On top of that, a brain cannot "work against itself" anymore than any object can. A rock can't "work against itself". A wheel can't "roll against itself". No object can "work against itself" because that would necessitate not being a part of itself.

Although, this idea of a brain being able to do this is based on some seriously outdated Freudian-level understandings of how the brain works. "Subconscious" and "Conscious" are just convenient terms to illustrate certain ideas. It's easy to make this kind of mistake.

[Anonymous No.4661140]

>>4661108
>Even our brain works against us

This sounds a bit like an early onset of schizophrenia. Is your brain out to get you? What do the voices say?

[Anonymous No.4661143]

>>4661118
I am not my body. I am not my brain. They work without my consent. They do the things they do and I can't control them. And I don't like the fact that some part of my brain is lying to the other and shit like that. It makes me uncomfortable.

[Anonymous No.4661153]

>>4661143
see
>>4661140

But actually I think it's a case of detachment and depersonalization. It's not how the normal person thinks bruv, you have some issues there.

[Anonymous No.4661154]

>>4660278
Anti-natalism at its core is about the kid that you brought into existence, not about how bringing it into existence makes you feel. I would say they would claim that you are being selfish by not considering whether or not your kid would want to be alive and only whether or not it makes mommy and daddy feel good and special.

[Anonymous No.4661159]

>>4661143
But you are. And what's even funnier is that it is your brain thinking that you're not your body or your brain, which means that by stating what you did, your brain is effectively lying to itself once more.

[Anonymous No.4661167]

>>4661143
I get that you're probably just fat and lonely, but this is seriously what the crazy people on /x/ are like, and I before I was stopped taking acid all the time.

[Anonymous No.4661170]

>>4661126
Why would you bother listing the major reason for anti-natalism as pleasure vs. pain when you're going to say "not all pain is bad"?

This is a really fucking ambiguous argument. We're now in a spot where not only can we not quantify anything being said (we cannot accurately consider "how much pain" the average person has or will suffer, so we can't actually make decisions based off that quantification) but now we can't even determine what the subject at hand (whether the pain underwent is "good" or "bad") actually is. This is a no-man's land of useless ambiguity.

Then there's still the fact that a life can be "Good" even if there is a lot of physical pain involved, because we can at least agree that pain is apparently not inherently bad, so I'm not sure where you're headed with this.

The other anon is right, this IS utilitarianism stuff, just extraordinarily limited parts of it. The idea of virtue existing at all discounts it, they're not compatible. You cannot hold simultaneously the idea that Good and Evil is separate from physical pleasure or pain and be an anti-natalist, and I think that's the core to this discussion.

Having trouble finding a sufficiently neutral reaction image that displays my interest, so here's this instead.

[Anonymous No.4661171]

>>4661143
>uses corporeality of human beings as basis for his argumentation
>"I am not my body"

[Anonymous No.4661178]

>>4661154
And natalism at its core is also about the kid that you brought into existence. There are a lot more people who consider life worth living than edgy antinatalists that would see that potential pleasure that the very existance of life provides snuffed out before it's even started.

If the non existance that is before life follows life, and all pain as well as pleasure gets extinguished after it, why deny people to have the chance at a good life? Its most logical application would be to allow people to kill themselves if they don't find their own lives enjoyable.

[Anonymous No.4661179]

>>4661096
I'm not. I consider both antinatalists and their opponents silly cunts.

[Anonymous No.4661182]

>>4661179
Then that's a valid position, worthy of a cynic.
Nothing left to argue there.

[Anonymous No.4661185]

>>4661159
>>4661153
>>4661167
The near total lack of control I have over my own body is what seems strange to me. The heart beats by itself, the brain thinks by itself and so on. Feels alienating, that's all.

[Anonymous No.4661189]

>anti-natalism is not a legitimate philosophy
>no good can come out of trying to make conversation with anti-natalists
>why would you even respond to this thread

sage and move on. Anti-natalism is borderline shitposting. And these threads always inadvertently degenerate into shitposting anyways.

Sage. For the love of all god sage.

[Anonymous No.4661196]

>>4661185
Your main problem is an identity issue. They're not different parts, alien to yourself, that are doing that, your "reason", the "voice in your head", whatever the fuck you might call yourself, because at this point I don't even know anymore, is also a part of that system you think yourself separate from.

I know it's weird and kind of hard to digest.

[Anonymous No.4661208]

Can someone explain to me what could possibly make existence a better choice than non-existence? I feel like people consider non-existence to be 0, and anything happy to be positive, and anything unhappy to be negative, and the logic is that if you are in the positive, you are above 0 and therefor it's better to be positive than 0.. when in actuality non-existence shouldn't even be a number, it should be the lack of any numbers and the awareness of numbers.

[Anonymous No.4661209]

>>4661208
see
>>4661178

[Anonymous No.4661210]

n

[Anonymous No.4661214]

>>4661209
And why is experiencing pleasure as a living thing preferable to non existence?

[Anonymous No.4661219]

>>4661214
Beacuse I know pleasure to be good and I can't really know what non existance is like because it's implied.

So in your chart, existance and pleasure would be a possitive and non exitence is to me an incognita. Between a positive and an incognita, that will be the end result anyway, I'd rather give people the chance at the positive.

[Anonymous No.4661222]

>>4661178
You do not deprive anybody of anything by not having children. They're not born yet.

>Its most logical application would be to allow people to kill themselves if they don't find their own lives enjoyable

You do not seem to understand what kind of suffering leads to suicide. I'm sure you wouldn't want your child to live through that.

[Anonymous No.4661227]

>>4659485
Hey, dont lump up all us anti-social losers with anti-natalists.

[Anonymous No.4661230]

>>4661214
Not him, but I don't think anti-natalism and debunking it relies at all on "pleasure" or "pain". I mentioned it a few posts up if you want to scroll and follow through the discussion I had with the other anon. Anti-natalism seems a limited part of utilitarianism, and the idea that all pleasure is inherently good and pain is inherently bad or evil is false, the idea that pain and pleasure are quantifiable in a concrete manner is false, etc.

See:>>4661170 and the previous posts connected to it.

[Anonymous No.4661235]

>>4659443
No joke, every time I see a post in all caps I have to force myself to read it. Usually I just skip it unless it has quite a few replies.

[Anonymous No.4661236]

>>4661222
If your parents hadn't fucked, you wouldn't have existed. The consequences of reproduction are obvious, and by not giving birth, you'll be depriving life from happening.

>You do not seem to understand what kind of suffering leads to suicide. I'm sure you wouldn't want your child to live through that.

I would, I would be remembering the good moments and while I'd be sad, I don't consider death an inherently bad thing, just like you don't consider the nothingness that comes before it bad. If he's not enjoying life and suffering that much, I'll understand him wanting to put an end to that suffering. I will have felt I at least gave him the chance at pleasure and having a life.

[Anonymous No.4661246]

>>4661236
By that logic, you should have millions of children, and even then, you'd have deprived an infinite number of people their chance of living.

And that last comment about suicide shows how much you're uncaring and selfish. Sure, death isn't a big deal for you (I personally find this hard to swallow), but it is a big deal for most of us.

[Anonymous No.4661250]

>>4661230
I don't give a shit about anti-natalism, I just am having trouble understanding how people are actually claiming that existence is better than non-existence, and as I suspected it's just people like >>4661219 saying

>w-well I you can't know non-existence but I am going to compare it to things and claim it's worse anyways

I never claimed that non-existence was better. I don't believe the two are really comparable in that sense.

[Anonymous No.4661257]

>>4661250
>I don't believe the two are really comparable in that sense.
Then I don't really have anything to say since I'm explicitly arguing against anti-natalism, sorry broski.

[Anonymous No.4661263]

>>4661257
So you're neither a natalist nor an anti-natalist?
Will you choose to have children or not? And what will be your reasoning then?

[Anonymous No.4661265]

>>4661263
>So you're neither a natalist nor an anti-natalist?
What? Are you sure you're responding to the right person? I'm responding to the guy who said neither existence nor non-existence are comparable, so he's neither a natalist nor an anti-natalist, which means I don't have anything to say to him since I'm arguing that anti-natalism is wrong, or at least the way it's being represented ITT is wrong.

[Anonymous No.4661277]

>>4661265
Sorry. I thought you were some other guy.
Your post seemed to imply that it couldn't be proven that existence was better than non-existence or vice-versa, which puts you on the fence.

[Anonymous No.4661407]

>>4661189
cool sage announcement bro

[Anonymous No.4661615]

So guys, lets remove Pain and Pleasure for the moment, as that doesn't seem to be helping things.

What about being conscious? What about experiencing things? I don't want to call these "Good", but if I could miss their absence, I would. Making the choice to not allow my potential children the experience of being conscious appears like an Ultimate Conclusion to the Great Question of Life: DO NOT LIVE. I hearken back to my reading of The Myth of Sisyphus, and it is my genuine recommendation you read it if you have anti-natalist tendencies.

How can one, as an anti-natalist, claim that, using MY REASON and using MY MIND, MY THOUGHTS are that I WANT NO THOUGHTS: and I want NO THOUGHTS to exist, because thoughts make me sad.

"Anti-natalism" is a post-modern conceptualisation of Misology and Misanthropism.

There has not been an argument for anti-natalism that does not devolve into a judgement of the value of life as insufficient for its continuation.

But... why? Because it FEELS BAD MAN? Are people actually that fucking childish?

[Anonymous No.4661709]

>>4661615
Antinatalism is a just a pessimistic hedonism. There's nothing childish about a hedonistic approach to life. If you think it's invalid, you should either accept a form of moral nihilism/scepticism and claim all moral values to be childish or offer some set of virtue ethics as a substitute to their hedonistic ethic that appears superior by whatever arbitrary standards your using to call hedonism a lesser ethical approach.

Also, there is nothing post-modern about antinatalism. It's been around since the Ancients and perhaps before. See the wisdom of Silenus and Hegesias for example.

[Anonymous No.4661719]

I will but first you have to explain to me what anti-natalism means

[Anonymous No.4661733]

>>4661719
Antinatalism is the position that life consists of suffering to the degree that it is immoral to creative living beings and therefore the ethical choice to stop reproducing and let our species die out.

[Anonymous No.4661738]

>>4661709
>Antinatalism is a just a pessimistic hedonism.

Wrong. A(n intensely) pessimist hedonist would kill himself. On the other hand, having kids or not depends from the anti-natalist perspective on how the kids would feel about life, from the hedonist perspective it depends on how you feel about having kids.

[Anonymous No.4661741]

>>4661738
That would be the individualist/egoist variety of pessimistic hedonism. Antinatalism is the collectivist/utilitarian variety.

[Anonymous No.4661767]

>>4659426

It's not bullshit, just too too easy.

The ideas surrounding Antinatalist thought may have some merit, but this doesn't need an Antinatalist position, just a heightened awareness that being born can sometimes suck, that going through life can often be a gruesome experience, and that this is exacerbated by there being more people.

Antinatalism is a monolithic reminder of this and proposes nothing to solve it since its solution is impractical. For instance, shockingly enough, some people who are born and go through life are actually happily attached to living, even if they live otherwise shitty lives.

That said, antinatalism posits that the challenge of happiness is an insurmountable obstacle unless there are less people around, and this just isn't true. More over, it's utterly detrimental.

[Anonymous No.4661784]

>>4661741

There is no such thing as collectivist hedonism.

[Anonymous No.4661786]

>>4661784
There is. It's called utilitarianism.

[Anonymous No.4661797]

What people forget is that your own brain is programmed to want to live. You are born with an innate aversion to dying. Saying that most people want to live doesn't tell you anything, Its complete selection bias. Everyone who is alive either wants to be alive, or doesn't, but has yet to reach the point of suicide.

If there were a human adult with no bias towards death or life, how would they act? Would they kill themselves as a logical reaction to thirst, hunger, etc.? One could argue that all humans have the desire to die without even knowing it. Buddhists consider enlightenment, which is as close to death as one can get without actually dying, to be the pinnacle of experience. People take drugs and get drunk to dull their perceptions of life.

I am a very happy person. I meditate daily and I am happy with very little. That being said, I see no point in having children when the greatest pleasure of all is the peace of freeing yourself from desire, which is a state one can not reach without subjecting themselves to some suffering.

Not wanting is the equivalent of having. Death is never wanting. Life is a cycle of wanting, and then getting, so you may not want for a little longer. Why would you want that (See first sentence)?

[Anonymous No.4661832]

>>4661797

Overlooking the many other issues I have with your post, what you're suggesting isn't an antinatalist stance, if that is what you actually mean to propose, but opting out of the matter entirely. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Anonymous No.4661837]

>>4661786

yeah, apparently I'm wrong. However, I think it's bullshit because pleasure is something experienced. In utilitarianism, it's a fucking abstraction.

[Anonymous No.4662018]

>>4661709
Well, firstly, I started by saying lets take pleasure and pain out of the equation, since the entirety of the thread thus far showed it's unhelpful. Calling it hedonism is putting those things back in there, without actually making claims.

The reason I want to take pleasure and pain out for the moment, is that they do not translate into good and bad. Because of this, it can't go under utilitarianism (which equates pleasure and goodness), since the value judgement is categorized phenomenally (ie, this is painful, THEREFORE it is bad... sensual hedonism).

Now, look, I don't have a problem with hedonism. I don't have a problem with moral valuing.
>or offer some set of virtue ethics as a substitute to their hedonistic ethic that appears superior by whatever arbitrary standards your using to call hedonism a lesser ethical approach.
Okay, so I never said hedonism is lesser. Nevermind that. Okay, so you're saying THOUGHTS versus NOT THOUGHTS is arbitrary. Well, okay, have it your way. I like existing, so that's a sensual judgement as valuing... which is hedonism. Now I'm confused, what are you talking about? It's almost as if you picked up on a few key words, and decided you knew what I was talking about.

You, and others, are still missing the central fucking point: anti-natalism is using mind, thought, reason, to REJECT THOSE THINGS AS INSUFFICIENT. Thus it is self-contradictory, and, I think, hypocritical.

It's fucking stoner philosophy. Man, we should all just like, stop breeding man, cuz like, everyone suffers, so if we didn't exist, no one would suffer. Whoa.

That's fucking deep bro.

[Anonymous No.4662037]

>>4661797
I like what you say up until
>Not wanting is the equivalent of having. Death is never wanting.
Both having, and wanting, imply that there is some kind of thing to be wanted or had. If death is never wanting, it CANNOT be equivalent to having. Rather, death would be the removal of the cycle, through removal of mind-that-wants-to-have.

Further, "want" implies a lack of. This would mean that when alive, one can only "have" life, one cannot "want" it.

Death is the want of life.

[Anonymous No.4662108]

>>4661837
I agree. That's why antinatalism is flawed for all the same reasons utilitarianism is. Virtue ethics aren't less problematic though. All ethical systems are fundamentally flawed.

[Anonymous No.4662134]

>>4662018
>Well, firstly, I started by saying lets take pleasure and pain out of the equation, since the entirety of the thread thus far showed it's unhelpful. Calling it hedonism is putting those things back in there, without actually making claims.
Taking pleasure and pain out of the equation is nonsensical when discussing an ethical stance that is hedonistic. There is no antinatalism that remains if you take away its central notion that suffering should be prevented.

>The reason I want to take pleasure and pain out for the moment, is that they do not translate into good and bad. Because of this, it can't go under utilitarianism (which equates pleasure and goodness), since the value judgement is categorized phenomenally (ie, this is painful, THEREFORE it is bad... sensual hedonism).
Again, antinatalism equates suffering with bad and non-suffering with good. You may not agree, but that's how antinatalism works. You can't discuss a concept after removing its fundamental premises.

>Okay, so I never said hedonism is lesser. Nevermind that. Okay, so you're saying THOUGHTS versus NOT THOUGHTS is arbitrary. Well, okay, have it your way. I like existing, so that's a sensual judgement as valuing... which is hedonism. Now I'm confused, what are you talking about? It's almost as if you picked up on a few key words, and decided you knew what I was talking about.
My point is that you can't come up with an ethical position that's inherently less silly than antinatalism. Criticisms against antinatalism hold up against other ethical positions as well. Antinatalism isn't theoretically more problematic than others.

>You, and others, are still missing the central fucking point: anti-natalism is using mind, thought, reason, to REJECT THOSE THINGS AS INSUFFICIENT. Thus it is self-contradictory, and, I think, hypocritical.
Antinatalists don't consider mind/thought/reason insufficient to make insightful observations. They consider it insufficient to alleviate suffering by other means than extinction. Just because you can diagnose an ailment doesn't mean you can also provide the cure. Nothing hypocritical about this.

>It's fucking stoner philosophy. Man, we should all just like, stop breeding man, cuz like, everyone suffers, so if we didn't exist, no one would suffer. Whoa. That's fucking deep bro.
Okay.

[Anonymous No.4662188]

>>4662134
So, let us say that all humans die out. Why does this mean that suffering stops? Sure, we're not contributing to suffering, but pain is a phenomenon we react to, a phenomenon there's no reason to suppose any other lifeform would not have.

If suffering does not stop, what is the point of anti-natalism?

> is nonsensical when discussing an ethical stance that is hedonistic.
No, I disagree. An ethical standpoint cannot SOLELY RELY on pain or pleasure. What about people with that disorder that prevents pain signals? What about the emotionally stunted? Oh right, they don't matter, amirite? They're just exceptions, amirite?

>You may not agree, but that's how antinatalism works.
But that's my point, I'm trying to explain why anti-natalism DOES NOT work.

>Criticisms against antinatalism hold up against other ethical positions as well
If, as I mentioned, when all humans are extinct, there is still pain or suffering, then anti-natalism CANNOT work. If, on the other hand, everyone was simply hedonistic, seeking always to maximise pleasure, well, there would still be suffering, but there would be more pleasure as well. Hedonism, thus, can work, can achieve (limited) success, whereas anti-natalism is an idealistic impossibility.

>Antinatalists don't consider mind/thought/reason insufficient to make insightful observations. They consider it insufficient to alleviate suffering by other means than extinction.
"I live, but I don't like it. I don't think others should need to live. So I'll make sure they can't make the choice."
>Nothing hypocritical about this.
It is, when the cure for headache is trepanning.

[Anonymous No.4662199]

>>4661733
well that's bullshit then because the shittiest countries in the world by all measures don't have high rates of suicide

[Anonymous No.4662230]

>>4662188
>"I live, but I don't like it. I don't think others should need to live. So I'll make sure they can't make the choice."
This is the perhaps the most retarded straw man I've read regarding AN so far.

[Anonymous No.4662232]

>>4662199

that's because suicide and antinatalism are luxuries

[Anonymous No.4662275]

>>4662037

I meant of want in terms of desire, not in the sense of having or not having.

[Anonymous No.4662287]

>>4662230
It doesn't matter necause anti-natalism is THE strawman philosophy. The key reason being you're all just fat and lonely and trying to dress it up.

[Anonymous No.4662335]

>>4662188
>So, let us say that all humans die out. Why does this mean that suffering stops? Sure, we're not contributing to suffering, but pain is a phenomenon we react to, a phenomenon there's no reason to suppose any other lifeform would not have.
>If suffering does not stop, what is the point of anti-natalism?
Diminishing suffering as far as you can. Doing what you can. There are offshoots of antinatalism that suggest we should destroy the entire planet permanently though.

>No, I disagree. An ethical standpoint cannot SOLELY RELY on pain or pleasure. What about people with that disorder that prevents pain signals? What about the emotionally stunted? Oh right, they don't matter, amirite? They're just exceptions, amirite?
It's pleasure and suffering, not pain and pleasure. Suffering is wider than mere physical pain.

>But that's my point, I'm trying to explain why anti-natalism DOES NOT work.
Virtue ethics don't work either. Universalist ethics don't work because they can't reasonably be implemented. This is an argument against morality in general, not merely antinatalism.

>If, as I mentioned, when all humans are extinct, there is still pain or suffering, then anti-natalism CANNOT work. If, on the other hand, everyone was simply hedonistic, seeking always to maximise pleasure, well, there would still be suffering, but there would be more pleasure as well. Hedonism, thus, can work, can achieve (limited) success, whereas anti-natalism is an idealistic impossibility.
I fully agree with you, but again, this is not an argument against antinatalism specifically but against non-individualistic ethical systems in general. As I said, I consider antinatalism silly too. But I consider morality silly in general.

>"I live, but I don't like it. I don't think others should need to live. So I'll make sure they can't make the choice."
The reversible goes for natalists.

>It is, when the cure for headache is trepanning.
Again, this relies merely on how serious a problem you consider suffering to be. The argument between antinatalists and natalists has a lot of similarities with arguments about drug legalisation. Ultimately it comes down to calculating utility, which isn't possible, so it just becomes a perpetual emotional disputanturilly of gustibus.

[Anonymous No.4662336]

>>4662287
When did handicapped people like you flood /lit/?

[Anonymous No.4662339]

>>4662336
I'm sorry you're upset that I'm not going to sink to debating the philosphy of sad idiots in a serious context.

[Anonymous No.4662421]

>>4659426

Pic related.

[Anonymous No.4662456]

>>4662287
>caring about "phalacies"
>pointing them out
>caring about /lit/ fads
C'mom we had stirner, Nietzsche and many others.
>>4662339
>dabating
American please. Debate classes have killed philosophy in high school. Try not to delve into it anymore.


Facist janitor baning retards when

[Anonymous No.4662558]

>>4662456
>Facist janitor baning retards when
NOW

[Anonymous No.4662616]

>>4662558
Please elaborate

[Anonymous No.4662619]

>>4660511
that's not what I said nor is it a response to what was said.

[Anonymous No.4664088]

>>4659426
>So can anyone give me any *real* reasons why anti-natalism is bullshit? So far I haven't seen any

hurrr I hate my life and life in general, therefore no one should procreate


Why does this need a rebuttal ? It's retarded from start to finish.

[Anonymous No.4664743]

>>4664088
confirmed for not being familiar with antinatalist arguments

[Anonymous No.4664755]

>>4664743
They are all erroneous presumptions and rationalizations.

[Anonymous No.4664759]

>>4664755
That goes for morality in general.

[Anonymous No.4664765]

>>4664755
That goes for normative ethics in general.

[Anonymous No.4664772]

>>4664765
Yeah, so why is anti-natalism superior? It's just like an opinion man.

[Anonymous No.4664785]

>>4664772
I'm not an antinatalist, I just think people lashing out against antinatalism because it hurts their feelies is silly. Why get so angry at an ethical stance without any arguments and without providing an alternative?

[Anonymous No.4664788]

>>4664785
>without providing an alternative?

Nihilism, don't care about any normative statements and just live your life or die.

[Anonymous No.4664798]

>>4664788
Yes, that would work. Still, I don't see why antinatalism would disturb you so much then. Pessimists gonna pest.

[Anonymous No.4667412]

>>4659629
sounds like depression, bro

i've an inquiry- do you like your life?

i am serious.

i can not understand a nihilist or anti-natalist who saw no point in life who didn't enjoy it himself.

such philosophies fall to mere thought experiments if one truly embraces the people in their life.

although i'm making an assumption- are you an anti-natalist because of population density?

even so, i find it impossible to not find something about this life with which to enjoy. if not many things...

do you see it pointless because of the matter we're made of? but we can think and breathe and love...how is that not beautiful?

[Anonymous No.4667443]

>>4667412
who enjoyed it himself*

[Anonymous No.4668130]

>>4667412
>>4667443

Because somewhere someone is suffering even if it happens to not be you, so you don't worry about it. You might argue, "But that's life, you suffer and then you get over it", without questioning why you put so much value in life in the first place (because you are predisposed to want to live).

Is anti-natalism really so radical? All it means is to not have children, which many people do already. What would be the difference if EVERYONE decided tomorrow that it wasn't worth it? Life would go on and then everyone would die, the end, the only difference being there wouldn't be another generation to "continue our legacy". People are simply opposed to the end of the human race because, biologically, the advancement of our species is the only reason we have to exist.

[Anonymous No.4668131]

>>4661222
>basing decisions off worst assumptions possible

[Anonymous No.4668160]

>>4662018
>It's fucking stoner philosophy. Man, we should all just like, stop breeding man, cuz like, everyone suffers, so if we didn't exist, no one would suffer. Whoa.

>That's fucking deep bro.

Hahahaha

/thread

Fuck OP.