I'm thinking you definitely can be an antinatalist without being a pessimist. Life doesn't have to be suffering, not even for most people, but the undeniable fact is that not existing has never hurt anyone. A lot of people do fine but there's still no point in forcing people into life.

File: 1.64 MB, 1661x3051, saturn-devouring-one-of-his-children-1823[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 15:13:44 2014 No.5250386 [DELETED]

I'm thinking you definitely can be an antinatalist without being a pessimist. Life doesn't have to be suffering, not even for most people, but the undeniable fact is that not existing has never hurt anyone.

A lot of people do fine but there's still no point in forcing people into life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 15:57:24 2014 No.5250592 File: 73 KB, 720x562, 1402009040698.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] bump

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 16:04:03 2014 No.5250623 Whoever thinks antinatalism is wrong, has not thought thoroughly about their life or the general mindset thereof.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 18:18:00 2014 No.5251421 I want kids though

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 18:19:06 2014 No.5251425 >>5250623 I guess that makes Sartre, Camus, Kant, et.al less smart than you, anon.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 19:40:34 2014 No.5251817 >>5251425 Did they ever actually address antinatalism?

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 19:50:44 2014 No.5251858

>>5250623
what's wrong with having a bunch of children and forcing your dreams on them?

By not reproducing you're giving a big middle finger to all the sacrifices your ancestors gave just so that you could exist. It says that all suffering that happened before you was worthless, even the suffering they went through to decrease future suffering.

It's allowing life to be conquered because the universe has not perfected itself into harmony yet.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 19:52:06 2014 No.5251864 >>5251858 Why keep propagating suffering? There is no end goal - only endless toil.

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 19:54:21 2014 No.5251876

i don't get this

i get population reduction, but whatever point your life had would be completely erased if you failed to produce a next generation

you're making life worse but ensuring you have no future

lots of times people work just so their kids might have a better life.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 19:56:53 2014 No.5251888 >>5251858 You're worried about offending people that no longer exist. That's strange.

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 19:59:35 2014 No.5251897

>>5251876
How am I making life worse by not continuing life?

Lots of times those kids still have a shit life anyways and would have been better off not conceived. You can never ask someone if they want to be brought into existence. And don't say then kill yourself. All organisms have a will to live - thank billions of years of only individuals with the strongest will to live reproducing during hard times for that - and because of it life is an obligation, not a "take it or leave it" once you're here.

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 20:52:59 2014 No.5252157

>>5251425
Sartre was a googly-eyed moron who thought you could have Marxism without class struggle, meaning without determinism, and psychology without the unconscious. Oh, and he probably hates you for being on /lit/ because this is just a bourgeois substitute for engagement with the world.

As for Kant, he argued that it is immoral to use other people as a means. Since there is no way to have a child for the benefit of the child (as the child does not exist yet), you are inherently using that child as a means for your own fulfillment.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 20:55:08 2014 No.5252170 File: 89 KB, 400x400, 1407291820069.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5250592

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 21:15:53 2014 No.5252266 >>5252157 I'm bourgeoisie?! :D WOOO!

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 21:49:38 2014 No.5252398 >>5250386 >Not existing didn't hurt anyone I am about to get my daily beatings because someone was not born to stop it

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 21:52:50 2014 No.5252406 >>5252398 The point of antinatalism is of course that NO ONE should ever have been born.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 21:59:03 2014 No.5252426 >>5252398 Would be nice to never have been born then, eh?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:05:44 2014 No.5252455 >>5252398 >tfw my penis is posting on 4chan Shut up and enjoy it. No one was ever going to save you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:08:24 2014 No.5252467 >>5252398 Sucks you were born bro

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:08:57 2014 No.5252470

Ok, let me start out by saying that I am not completely against anti-natalism. In fact in many cases I would consider myself an anti-natalist. But I cannot generalize this and state that all people should not have children. In some cases it is good to have children. For example, if you were Bill Gates, would you think it's bad to have children? Would you not think that not having children would be a hatred towards life? Sure life is in many respects suffering, even if you are a rich parent and happen to be able, at this moment in time, to satisfy all of your (future) child's needs. But I have found that always under this suffering there is a current of joy. Not an absence of suffering, but a joyousness despite the suffering. Isn't anti-natalism at least in these cases life-denying? Isn't this radical anti-natalism a rejection of life?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:14:19 2014 No.5252497 >>5250386 >the undeniable fact is that not existing has never hurt anyone. Because there is nobody that "not exists". The whole sentence is very close to nonsense.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:16:53 2014 No.5252507 >>5252406 Then it is inherently a pessimistic position. Unless you're making a point that there is no "should" in the first place.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:23:38 2014 No.5252528 >>5252497 You cant be this retarded.

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:25:31 2014 No.5252536

>>5250386
>I'm thinking you definitely can be an antinatalist without being a pessimist.
Antinatalism is hatred towards life, it wants to stop life. Not in the sense that you dismiss those that could exist, they don't exist anyway. But in the sense that you prevent life itself to move forward in time.
And you can't even stop life, not you at least. You can just kill higher forms of it because they are easier to grasp.

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:27:27 2014 No.5252542
File: 19 KB, 320x502, Better.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I recently bought pic related, because I've been thinking a lot about whether it would be right or wrong for me to ever have children. Are there any books or philosophies that are specifically of the opposite view, that having children is an essentially good or morally correct thing to do?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:31:26 2014 No.5252550 >>5252528 Oh, but I am. However, can you diagnose why I am by looking at that post, doc?

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:43:50 2014 No.5252604

>>5252542
Why would someone write an argument that asserts the default position? Just read any book in which the characters talk about the miracle of childbirth or the mother discovers that her baby is the most precious gift or the presence of a child miraculously turns the jerk dad into a caring person, or watch the fourth season of Archer (god that show went downhill), or go to your facebook feed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:46:13 2014 No.5252612 >>5250386 You can be an optimist antinatalist is you're a misanthrope. As in, life is great, I hope these cunts won't get to enjoy it,

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:48:06 2014 No.5252622

>>5251858
>because the universe has not perfected itself into harmony yet.
That harmony you're anticipating is entropy. Antinatalists are just ahead of the curve. The extinction even is inevitable, we're just trying not to fuck over too many people before it happens.

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:49:42 2014 No.5252633

>>5251421
adopt some, the urge to rear children is normal
>>5251858
>It says that all suffering that happened before you was worthless
It was unequivocally worthless, suffering does not give value to a thing
>>5251876
>whatever point your life had would be completely erased if you failed to produce a next generation
>you're making life worse but ensuring you have no future
Your life has absolutely no point. When you perpetuate life you perpetuate suffering needlessly. Only the existing can suffer so you cannot possible make life worse by making no one.
>>5252470
>In some cases it is good to have children
Don't fucking say you are remotely antinatalist if you honestly think that. It is always a serious hard to force a person to live.
>>5252497
It's pretty common to talk about potential beings you silly cunt.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:49:44 2014 No.5252634 >>5252604 There has to be at least one pedant out there who thought he had to prove why it's OK for him to breed, right?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:51:58 2014 No.5252645 >>5252633 >It's pretty common to talk about potential beings you silly cunt. So? They are still potential, not actual. There is no aspect of being hurt to it.

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:54:53 2014 No.5252660

>>5252634
Sade has a few of those characters, but they mostly argue so from either an appeal to nature or general nihilism/egoism. One of them systematically impregnates his enslaved harem so that he can harvest the babies and drown them because that's what gets him off.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:56:27 2014 No.5252668 >>5252497 >Because there is nobody that "not exists". That's the point. It's inherently unproblematic.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:57:58 2014 No.5252676 >>5252668 Yes, unproblematic in the sense that it can't even be applied to any case for it to become problematic. It has no meaning.

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 22:58:23 2014 No.5252678

>>5252604
Because the default position doesn't examine the idea logically and that book does. The default position is just the culturally reinforced nonsense that we keep telling ourselves because we are completely slaves to our genes. Obviously as a 'thing' we have it in our head that 'thing' is good, but we need to consider honestly the possibility and likelihood that it isn't.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:01:16 2014 No.5252698 >>5252645 There is though, a potential but non existent being cannot possibly be hurt, which is the entire point. Actualized humans are always harmed.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:03:17 2014 No.5252705 >>5252542 >Better Never To Have Been The author needs to be slapped by a Nietzsche's book. Even if I were to kill myself, which I might, I couldn't ever bring myself to think like this.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:06:50 2014 No.5252714 >>5252705 Why?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:10:53 2014 No.5252736 >>5252705 You have clearly never read it. Pirate it or something, it makes its point using ideas that almost anyone could agree with.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:12:30 2014 No.5252742 So do natalists just don't follow the news or something? Do they apply censorship when it comes to world history? How do they do it?

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:13:32 2014 No.5252746 >>5252676 Meaninglessness is unproblematic as well.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:15:28 2014 No.5252754 >>5252736 Neither have you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:15:47 2014 No.5252757 >>5252714 I would hate to not be born and thus never experience anything, not any sensation or thought or memory or emotion or whatever. >>5252736 What are those ideas? Not looking for any "proofs" or anything like that, just ideas themselves.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:18:04 2014 No.5252770 >>5252705 Even Nietzsche didn't buy into his own pro-life shit, he was constantly drugged out of his mind and suicidal.

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:23:46 2014 No.5252799

>>5252770
He couldn't believe it to the fullest in his body. Nobody does, because it is not a rational thing. It is a subconscious thing, mind has little power here. You have to force yourself to believe it and it is hard, the times are not ready anyway.
But I do believe he did enjoy life by which I mean that a relatively large part of him did affirm even the suffering. However, he was still way too reactive and resentful to be close to his ideal.

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:29:09 2014 No.5252816

>>5251858
>tfw my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather helped kill off the Neanderthals and fought off a rival to attain his mate
>tfw I stare at a computer screen scrolling through and clicking on trash

Thank you Ooglahk-tuk. I'll never forget you.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:33:02 2014 No.5252828 >>5252816 >le arbitrary application of value face

Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:37:41 2014 No.5252842

>>5252742
It is a two-stage process.
1. Ignore as much of the bad as possible
2. Dismiss whatever gets through by blaming some pessimistic tendency that doesn't exist

For example, everybody "knows" that the news is sensationalist and always looking for a horror story. The truth is that media routinely downplays or outright ignores atrocities, genocide, rape and murder. If the news were really as sensationalist and negative-obsessed as the common wisdom claims, they could fill every available second of air time with fresh death and murder.
There are more slaves today than at any other point in human history. There are ongoing genocides. There are serial killers targeting prostitutes. But nobody wants to pay attention to that.

Another example, if you do a google search or look at Wikipedia, you'd be forgiven for assuming that our memories are naturally bleak. After all, that's what the first couple dozen results say, and the wikipedia page is for "Negativity Bias." Obviously, the case must be closed, right?
No. The studies that support the negativity bias are often ridiculous (a Ferrari, which if you were really into cars might be a nice thing to look at, versus a mutilated face, which is horrible and instinctively revolting).
Nor are they comprehensive. http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/gpr-72203.pdf <- An article about positivity bias.

The study helps show the same thing happening in memory. Bad memories have a short shelf life and their affect diminishes faster than good memories, but the few that survive are targeted with relentless fury.

You can see it in philosophy as well, Schopenhaur? Invisible. Mainlander and Horstmann and who knows how many others? Untranslated.
But everyone knows about Nietzsche. And everyone also "knows" that Mr. Amor Fati was some kind of pessimist and nihilist (even though neither of these are true).

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:46:07 2014 No.5252870 I occasionally rip into my parents for having kids, the selfish, amoral little cunts. Not that they will ever have the capacity to understand what I am saying to them. Plebs gunna pleb.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:50:14 2014 No.5252884 >>5252770 Just want to add, Nietzsche wasn't pro-life in the sense of what we today call pro-life. The point is that once you're alive, there's no point in not affirming it even if you end up killing yourself.

>>	Anonymous Wed Aug 6 23:51:05 2014 No.5252886 >>5251858 >the universe has not perfected itself into harmony yet. >implying this will ever happen

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:01:55 2014 No.5252932

>not existing has never hurt anyone.

This is stupid. If you dont exist theres mo way for you to get hurt or "not get hurt". Not existing is an irrelevant concept. Life is meaningless, but determined. People exist because that's what it is. People suffer because that's what happened. People enjoy or hate life just because life happens. Everything that must happen will happen. Suffering is worthless and meaningless. Being a anti-natalist is as inherently meaningless as being pro-natalism. There's no anti-natalist argument that isnt based on emotion. No one's forcing anyone to exist. People just come to exist because that's the way the universe unfolded. There's barely anyone alive who would want to have never existed. Even to experience suffering is a priviledge of the living.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:04:12 2014 No.5252941 >>5250386 >but the undeniable fact is that not existing has never hurt anyone It's also undeniable that not existing has never benefited anyone either.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:06:24 2014 No.5252950 >>5252932 >Even to experience suffering is a priviledge of the living. Well put.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:07:43 2014 No.5252960 >>5250386 Real antinatalism is war, it's not like humanity hasn't tried it.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:10:35 2014 No.5252972

>>5252157
>Since there is no way to have a child for the benefit of the child

This reasoning is flawed withing the antinatalist argument, which considers the benefit or harm to potential beings.

You can't say it's impossible to benefit or harm a being, and then go on to say it is immoral to bring forth a child into the word because of the potential harm to it.

Further, your argument from the categorical imperative has no bearing on accidental children, where the anti natalist would generally say abort.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:12:07 2014 No.5252980 >>5252757 >I would hate to not be born and thus never experience anything You can't hate not experiencing anything.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:13:30 2014 No.5252986

>>5252742
>>5252842
What bearing does some kid suffering in africa have on my decision to reproduce?

I'm happy, I live in a society that enables happiness, and I can teach my child to be happy.

I'm just going to ignore both your laughably immature, "the world is going to hell" talk. Things are generally getting better.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:13:43 2014 No.5252988 >>5252980 I was referring to book's title.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:14:47 2014 No.5252993 >>5252842 Thanks for the link/information/post m8, looks interesting.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:19:31 2014 No.5253014 >>5252986 >I'm happy, I live in a society that enables happiness, and I can teach my child to be happy. That's what the parents of every miserable kid thought. >young child gets leukemia >w-wait a minute this wasn't part of my fantasy!

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:21:12 2014 No.5253022

>>5252986
I dislike these antinatalist pessimists, but you're delusional too. The world is pretty shitty and it is not getting better. Current society does not enable happiness, it makes it very hard. And we should fight to change that in the name of life.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:22:29 2014 No.5253028

>>5252988
That doesn't change anything about that statement. There is literally nothing bad about not coming into existence. There's also nothing good about it, but that isn't a problem because the absence of fun stuff doesn't bother you when you don't exist.

It's the perfect cure all for everything. The good part is that it's ultimately inevitable.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:25:01 2014 No.5253044 >>5250386 Anti-natalists are retards anyway. Evolution.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:26:02 2014 No.5253049

>>5253014
>That's what the parents of every miserable kid thought.
[citation needed]

If your entire argument is happiness denial, how far up your ass does your head have to be? Why does leukemia, an extremely rare occurrence, have more than an extremely small bearing on my decision to reproduce?

Should I plan to win the lottery tomorrow too, or is it only bad rare occurrences that I should expect to happen consistently?

>>5253022
Just by virtue of being able to shit post on 4chan, you're in the top 20% of the world wealth wise. If you aren't happy, it isn't society's fault, as you literally have no major obstacles to living caused by society. No, you just suck.

Bear in mind, that I'm not talking about kids in africa, or chinese sweat shops, or whatever horror story you want to point to to say the world sucks.

I'm a white guy living in a white neighborhood in small town america, and things are pretty darn nifty here with all my fucking privilege. Why should I not reproduce?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:26:18 2014 No.5253051

>>5253028
>There is literally nothing bad about not coming into existence.
I wasn't trying to refute that. I was trying to refute disliking your own existence. Which is what author did. I just worded it in a weird way and you didn't understand the context and meaning because of it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:27:54 2014 No.5253061 >>5253049 Read a sociology book.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:30:35 2014 No.5253075 >>5253049 I hope your children get cancer and die slowly and painfully before your eyes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:33:47 2014 No.5253093 >>5253049 In 20 years or so your nifty white neighborhood will be a barren wasteland thanks to global climate change. >nut uh! Read the literature. It's true. We're all fucked. >muh luburl conspiracy Get a clue fucktard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:43:18 2014 No.5253139 >>5253044 Evolution doesn't prescribe survival, it describes it. All species die out eventually by the way.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:44:15 2014 No.5253143 >>5252828 >le the values you place on objects aren't universal and therefore are completely invalid face

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:48:22 2014 No.5253154

>>5253049
Leukemia is just one example, countless bad things can happen to your child, so many that some of them are bound to happen.

You should take all of them into consideration, because your child is a person you will presumably love very much, and you wouldn't want them to suffer. If you more concious of all the bad shit that happens to people, you wouldn't be so careless about reproduction.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:50:14 2014 No.5253161 >>5253051 He actually argues that coming into existence is a bad thing whether you enjoy your life or not.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:52:50 2014 No.5253171 If you're responsible for giving life to a human being than you're also responsible for its death. All parents are inadvertently murderers.

>>	Fandroid !p6ktXMpsfc Thu Aug 7 00:54:57 2014 No.5253176 >>5253044 >Evolution. That did the dinosaurs good.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:57:30 2014 No.5253191 >>5253161 He argues that in the name of what? >>5253171 Nice argument, but there's no such thing as responsibility for past actions. It is a man made creation that can only make its author sad.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:57:30 2014 No.5253193 >>5253154 I could slip and fall in the shower soooo I don't think I'm going to be so careless about bathing and hygiene in the future.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 00:59:29 2014 No.5253198 >>5253193 thats a good idea anon

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 01:00:54 2014 No.5253204 >>5253191 >there's no such thing as responsibility for past actions. It is a man made creation that can only make its author sad. I'm not following, could you clarify for me?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 01:20:25 2014 No.5253280

>>5253204
Let's say I kill your mother right now. You will judge me tomorrow, but your mother is dead and my past self along with her, there is nothing you can do about it. I will be punished and people may look at it as retribution. But it is not, I am a different person each moment and to make me feel guilty because of it is a work of reactive and resentful morals.
So it is not that I should be punished because of my past. Rather I should be taught or destroyed for the future. Not just for others, but for myself, to not be so reactive and weak anymore to take someone's life.

The only concept of responsibility that is of value is making a promise in the present to become something in the future, thus becoming responsible for my future self — not the other way around where my future self would be responsible for *my* promise in *his* past.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 01:29:24 2014 No.5253327

>>5253280
>The only concept of responsibility that is of value is making a promise in the present to become something in the future, thus becoming responsible for my future self

But if the you in the future isn't the same you that exists in the present then there's no reason you in the future have a responsibility to keep that promise since it wasn't really *you* who made it.
The promise would become void.

Also I'm curious, are you a moral nihilist by any chance?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 01:31:22 2014 No.5253334 >>5253191 >He argues that in the name of what? Just read the book silly, i'm not writing a summary for you./

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 01:32:30 2014 No.5253340 >>5253204 he's saying the holocaust is okay because the past doesn't real

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 01:37:46 2014 No.5253368 >>5253340 Yeah I get that now. Makes me wonder if he read Galveston by the guy who wrote True Detective, there's a section where the protagonist goes on about the same idea.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 01:44:36 2014 No.5253393

>>5253327
>The promise would become void.
Yes. But I choose to believe in it. That's why I said this concept of responsibility is of value, not that it is true.

>Also I'm curious, are you a moral nihilist by any chance?
No, I think morals do exist as reality and can be described in psychological terms. But they are not universal across history, what we have is more like an evolution of morals through individual beings and cultures.

>>5253340
Nope, not saying that. Holocaust is a lesson for how many lives can weak forces destroy. As Hannah Arendt says, the evil of holocaust is banal and it can happen again. We need to develop new morals in ourselves.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 01:49:18 2014 No.5253409 >>5253393 So you believe in morals as a reality but not responsibility? Unless you want to believe it?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 01:56:42 2014 No.5253447

>>5253409
Let me put it this way: we should change our psychology in such a way that "responsibility of the future" becomes part of it. And we should remove "responsibility of the past" from our psychology.

Along with many other things of course. We should remove any reactive societal forms and conceptions that disable people from bringing their lives to full power, like capital, racism, sexism and various other forms of very generalized and wide spread power relations.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 02:09:57 2014 No.5253508

>>5253334
I think you can answer this pretty easily.
>He actually argues that coming into existence is a bad thing whether you enjoy your life or not.
If he says that existence is a bad thing and if he puts this assertion above the value of enjoyment of life, he has to have some higher values.
What are his higher values? What is more valuable to him than enjoyment of life? If nothing, than he is just a nihilist and should be ignored.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 02:57:57 2014 No.5253665 >>5253049 At first, I was inclined to disagree, but you actually have some solid points here. Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 03:14:18 2014 No.5253705 >>5252932 You're so fucking stupid. Sooo fucking stupid. Did you know that? Like, holy shit, dude.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 03:17:19 2014 No.5253718

>>5253049
>[citation needed]
>I'm a white guy living in a white neighborhood in small town america

I guess you don't really need to into philosophy of any kind, at all, ever.

Go be a "productive member of society" (i bet you write that here often)

>Norlamfags will be normal fags

Working 9to5
Having a wife and kids.
A house in the suburbs.
Working 50hrs/week for your salary to live in the weekends.
Never thinking about life untill they become 80 or some traumatic event lands on them.

Ignorance is bliss.

>awaits a fedora to appear on my head

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 03:48:03 2014 No.5253803 [DELETED]

People are a resource to one other. A father has a son not because of some abstract moral principle, not because of net suffering or net pleasure, but because he hopes that in his old age that the love and support he afforded to his offspring will be balanced. To quell a burden that was bestowed by chance, that's no one's fault. And that son who expends his energy caring for his father has justified himself, and justifies the creation of his own son who may do the same for him.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 03:55:46 2014 No.5253822

>>5253803
>To quell a burden that was bestowed by chance, that's no one's fault

Except we don't live in the middle ages anymore. If you can read these words, you choose to have a kid. It is 100% within your control and 100% your "fault." Birth control, abortion, vasectomy, etc. It is all there at your fingertips.

As for the investment idea? Once again, we don't live in the middle ages. A modern kid costs a quarter of a million dollars by the time they're 18. And that just gives you one high school graduate (who may or may not be a moron, drug addict, criminal, etc).
Your future is better secured by buying stock.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 04:20:18 2014 No.5253909

this birth, reproduction, death is a cycle that's no one's fault since it started pre-sentience, but it seems in my opinion to be a setup that's a necessary evil. the act of reproducing is ultimately for one's wellbeing, to have a child in the hopes that when you're a frail old man they can assist you. but the child who grows to be able to take care of the parents is compensated by their own ability to reproduce. Therefore in the reproductive continuum, no one gets abandoned. by not reproducing, you're taking a burden that could be well-distributed enough to be a virtual non-burden and are putting the burden on society instead (I don't have a son to take care of my old ass so I'll have to depend on the services of x,y, and z.) Now the caretakers are stretched over multiple reproducers. It's supply and demand, essentially, and when demand gets high (many old people with limited strong offspring to care for them) that means suffering. And when supply gets high (many strong offspring with limited old people to care for) then there's minimal possible suffering. And so supply must meet or exceed demand to stave off suffering. You could argue in hypotheticals if it would be good to just erase everyone, but that's not real life and you'd in practice have to cause prolonged strain and basically starve people of themselves in order to take humanity out of the equation. No one is going to agree to that, and for good reason.

/thread

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 04:41:34 2014 No.5253972

>>5253909
>The costs of raising a child from birth to age 17, including housing, food, clothing, health care, education, and other expenses, will come to $241,080 for a child born in 2012
http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?contentidonly=true&contentid=2013/08/0160.xml

That's roughly $14k/year.
Investing that money into a mutual fund, you could expect at least a 5% return annually, and would have $417,000+ on hand by the time the kid would have been 17. Let that money ride until retirement, and you'll have a healthy income to pay for people and/or robots who will take care of you.
If you don't have $14k/year to invest, then you're putting the burden of paying for your child on society. If you do have that money, but instead burn it up on your kids and expect to guilt them into taking care of you, then you're a burden on your children. Or, at least, you're hoping to be a burden on your children. If they turn out successful enough to pay for you, and they feel like taking care of you, and so on.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 04:53:30 2014 No.5254005 I think you antinatalists should create your own society where you can all slowly dye out while the rest of us continue to enjoy life.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 04:58:31 2014 No.5254015 >>5254005 >optimist's idea of empathy Everything wrong with the world right here. Current ANs are just ahead of the curve, the idea itself will never be extinguished before humanity as a whole is.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 05:03:07 2014 No.5254030 >>5254015 >empathy A tool to kill all love for life if overused. Not only that, why should I have empathy for each and everyone? We are enemies here.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 05:11:24 2014 No.5254059
File: 216 KB, 1179x742, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>we are all going to suffer and die for no reason
>most people will perpetuate this cycle through birth
>mfw i don't want to stop people from having kids but I still see the whole thing as being wrong

>>	இڿڰۣ-ڰۣ— Thu Aug 7 05:21:16 2014 No.5254085 File: 114 KB, 600x800, 267.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] The only use of anti-natalism is stopping potentially terrible parents from having the inclination to become so. Live and let live.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 05:23:06 2014 No.5254091

>>5253972
There's no 'guilt' required in human beings taking care of each other. People are professional livers. A rice farmer in China doesn't give a fuck about your mutual funds, he just wants to make a family that will aid him when he's starving or ill, with the surprisingly fair trade that his offspring will get the same deal when they're old. And I wouldn't expect someone who wants everyone on the planet to die to understand that.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 05:25:37 2014 No.5254102 >>5254085 The only use of anti-natalism is stopping anti-natalists from reproducing.

>>	இڿڰۣ-ڰۣ— Thu Aug 7 05:28:51 2014 No.5254110 >>5254102 Yes you've discerned the meaning.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 05:47:27 2014 No.5254175

>>5254091
>A rice farmer in China doesn't give a fuck about your mutual funds

Nobody on 4chan is a rice farmer in China.
You are a resident of the first world using terrible logic to justify a bad decision. A bad decision that you will probably get government assistance to pay for.

The average age at which people have a child is 25. Assuming that the child becomes totally sufficient after taking $240000 in the first 17 years of his life, and assuming that the investing non-parent quits investing at the age of 42, the investing non-parent will have $1.3 million in capital by the time they retire at 65.
Do you really expect this random 40 year old to have $1.3 million on hand to give to his parents when they retire?

In America, it is the people having children that are a burden on society.

>the surprisingly fair trade that his offspring will get the same deal when they're old

That's not a "fair trade," that is kicking your debt to the next generation. That's assuming that because someone did shitty by you, you should do shitty by someone else, and because you made a mistake, everyone else should keep making the mistake on and on, forever and ever. All so you don't feel like the last person to get fucked over.
But, then, I wouldn't expect a pro-natalist to understand anything about taking moral responsibility.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 05:50:25 2014 No.5254187 >>5254085 WRONG The only use of anti-natalism is to have a legit reason for hating women.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 05:54:52 2014 No.5254197 >>5252536 >he thinks I can't completely disintegrate the planet

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 05:59:56 2014 No.5254213 >>5254085 >Live and let live. If by live you mean work and if by let live you mean pay taxes so Kamile Kebab can get her pregnancy, birth, and child paid for, then no thanks. :^)

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:08:07 2014 No.5254231

>>5254175
>Nobody on 4chan is a rice farmer in China.
So that means this discussion excludes everyone that is not a 4chan user? What is antinatalisms goal? Human extinction. Your effort, if I'm understanding correctly, is to convince EVERYONE, all 7 billion people in the world, 774 million of which are illiterate, that it is their moral duty to cease all reproductive sex, and you're expecting 100% of people to be convinced and for the human race to cease. I'm not a 'pro-natalist', I'm just not a fucking retard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:08:13 2014 No.5254232 >>5254197 I'd like to see you try.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:10:02 2014 No.5254242 >>5254187 How does that work?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:20:58 2014 No.5254266

>>5253139
Hmmm... If life has existed for billions of years, and there is still life here now, does that not mean that one of the lifeforms from the beginning just evolved a lot?

Like, my ancestor from 800 million years ago was not "human" by any stretch of the imagination, but he was still my great great... etc grandfather. Doesn't that mean some species don't die out?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:21:05 2014 No.5254267 File: 458 KB, 3508x2480, coolface_HUGE.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5254242 The valuable traits of women are their childbearing and -rearing abilities.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:21:59 2014 No.5254269 >>5254232 Could humans do it?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:22:17 2014 No.5254270

>>5254242
It doesn't.
People just jump through hoops to connect anti-natalism to misogyny or racism or fedoras or whatever other ridiculous thing they can think of. Same reason the Protestants used to write tracts "revealing" the secret Satanic rituals conducted in Catholic monasteries.

>>5254231
>my argument was systematically taken apart
>now I'm gonna squirm around and spout nonsense

You are certainly acting like a fucking retard.

And even if you were a subsistence farmer, it would still be better not to have children and force them into a life of (at best) economic exploitation, an oppressive government, back-breaking labor, disease, and famine periods. At worst, they might live to see their government collapse, and enjoy living through the ensuing decades-long genocide and/or civil war.
It is nobler to accept the responsibility for yourself, make the best of it, and not pass the bad deal on any further.

But, hey, whatever. Just keep kicking that can down the road. I'm sure someone will pick it up someday.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:24:08 2014 No.5254276 >>5254266 >he was still my great great... etc grandfather Ahh yes, Nonno Amoeba, I remember him dearly.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:26:48 2014 No.5254281 >>5252634 Shakespeare's sonnets 1-18.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:30:46 2014 No.5254293 >>5254269 Possibly. Should we start a solar terrorist group?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:32:16 2014 No.5254295 >>5254266 A species is a taxonomic classification, not the individual. Your logic would make all creatures the same species, since at some point everything living descended from the same bunch of proteins or whatever it was that first lived.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:39:44 2014 No.5254312 >>5254295 Yes! We are all kin. The other anon made it seem like all species die out, which is not the case. Some simply change - AKA all the ones alive right now.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:42:44 2014 No.5254318 >>5251858 >THINK OF OUR ANCESTORS looool fuck you grandpa

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:47:33 2014 No.5254330 File: 2.13 MB, 2068x2782, editorial_cartoon_depicting_charles_darwin_as_an_ape_1871.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5254312 I ain't no monkey's uncle

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 06:54:30 2014 No.5254357
File: 1.13 MB, 1500x1500, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Reminder that if you reproduce, you are throwing your children into an unrelenting machine.

Reminder that even those who run the machine are miserable... Forgive them father, for they know not what they do.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 07:15:33 2014 No.5254426

>>5254270
The goal of your philosophy is physically unattainable. Life will only get stronger as generations unfold, perpetuating and expanding until the final hour. And I think that is the truly noble path. Your idealistic daydreams of global suicide do not make you a special snowflake. You are not fighting against any cosmic injustice. You are another meaningless organ-pod that willingly submits to delusion because it sorts your chemicals in a way that makes your existence semi-bearable. End of discussion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 07:19:57 2014 No.5254435 >>5252828 >le arbitrary application of value face >le I just discovered value statements kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 08:08:06 2014 No.5254556 I'm interested in what values do anti-natalists hold. What do they value more life?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 08:10:24 2014 No.5254564 >>5254357 Go away, slave.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 09:32:29 2014 No.5254822 >>5253193 Yes, let's compare something frivolous to cancer, famine, war, ebola, super vulcano eruptions and all the other jolly stuff this boiling shitheap has in store for you before it freezes over, gets hit by a comet or taken out by the sun dying.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 09:42:34 2014 No.5254856 If you make people you are evil That is one of the only things I've ever been able to believe

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 09:46:24 2014 No.5254872 >>5254856 OK, you've got evil. Now tell me what is good in your value system.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 09:48:27 2014 No.5254876 File: 1021 KB, 196x165, 47c983c6-3f89-4fc7-992b-afcbe6a2a.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 09:51:54 2014 No.5254887 >>5254876 Cute.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 10:59:58 2014 No.5255196 >>5254876 natalists want to increase the likelyhood that this child will be sexually abused

>>	« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » Thu Aug 7 11:08:54 2014 No.5255224 >>5254876 He's gotta clean the mud off, you see? I remember that logic. >>5255196 Go away robot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:13:17 2014 No.5255242 Antinatalism is the mosy fanciful form of pessimism. It's so counterintuitive and irational. Worst than solipsism.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:17:38 2014 No.5255260 >>5255242 youre making it sound as if its a bad thing anon

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:18:12 2014 No.5255263

>>5254426
Nihilism, the last retreat of the mentally and morally bankrupt.

Ok, chief, I can't know nothing and all action is vain and I may as well never get out of bed or do or think anything because a bloo bloo bloo. Not sure how you imagine that squares with your earlier arguments that having kids is a moral obligation, but whatever.
Got it. Do you have anything of value to say, or will you continue regressing by shitting in your hand and throwing it at me?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:21:19 2014 No.5255276 >>5255242 How is it more irrational than other value judgements to the point of it's irrationality being an argument against it specifically? How is counterintuitivity wrong? Why do you assume it is counterintuitive at all?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:22:42 2014 No.5255280 >>5254426 >don't bother with ethics because it's all just chemicals man It does not follow.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:23:14 2014 No.5255283 >>5250386 This assumes that death is the end of consciousness when it might be simply the end of the body and the consciousness continues in a state that has no ability to influence existence. You could just be locked forever experiencing your death.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:34:12 2014 No.5255335 ATTENTION, ANTI-NATALISTS! How do you define GOOD and BAD? What VALUES do you hold? What is THE HIGHEST VALUE above everything else for you?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:39:23 2014 No.5255358 >>5255335 You really need to go out and get some fresh air and stop repeating yourself, no one's here for you to interrogate.

>>	Anonymouse !7tLDpBrPEk Thu Aug 7 11:40:04 2014 No.5255360 >>5250386 Of course you can. From an ecological perspective, it's an absolute must.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:44:10 2014 No.5255375

Anti-natalism is the ultimate form of moralistic reasoning. It's the final conclusion of moral philosophy. While other forms of moral philosophy (utilitarianism, deontology) try to "solve" "moral problems" (how can I maximize happiness, what is Moral Law, how ought I to act), anti-natalism dissolves the problems; If there are no humans, there are no moral problems.

Even though I am emotionally an anti-natalist, I can't find any way to justify it, because any argument comes down to "muh feelings", as is the case with any type of moral philosophy, however much people try to disguise behind walls of academic prose.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:48:38 2014 No.5255393 >>5255358 >no one's here for you to interrogate You want us to disappear from the world but you're also going to play a victim now? I just want to know where you're coming from. And I'm not asking you for any arguments or reasoning.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:50:07 2014 No.5255402 >>5254267 Ever heard of this thing called sex?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:51:08 2014 No.5255409

>>5255335
>How do you define GOOD and BAD?
Good: My pleasure
Bad: Anything which tries to deprive me of pleasure
>What VALUES do you hold?
Intellectual pleasure/spiritual pleasure, physical pleasure/sensory pleasure.
>What is THE HIGHEST VALUE above everything else for you?
To sustain the greatest average pleasure over the entirety of my life as possible and extending my life as long as possible, and in continuation of this, to prevent others from limiting or reducing my pleasure.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:51:41 2014 No.5255414 >>5255375 So it comes down to this: I don't want any problems, therefore fuck life?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:53:31 2014 No.5255426 >>5255335 My ethics are rooted in compassion.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:55:11 2014 No.5255433 >>5255402 Yes Anon but that would just be reducing all women to be nothing more than common whores and that would be wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:55:36 2014 No.5255434 >>5255375 If all ethics come down to muh feelings, why wouldn't you consider that sufficient justification?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:56:12 2014 No.5255438 >>5255409 Thanks. Are you anti-natalist because you can't realize your highest value? >>5255426 You mean universal compassion? How does it lead to anti-natalism?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:57:25 2014 No.5255444 >>5255414 It rather comes down to "I don't want to inflict suffering on others for my own entertainment".

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:59:21 2014 No.5255458 >>5255438 No not at all, but my highest value is not in reproducing and that is in fact somewhere below shitposting on /lit/.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 11:59:35 2014 No.5255460

>>5255414
If you want to say that, I guess you can. Rhetorically, it sounds like you're placing a high value judgment on life and trivializing my viewpoint. I'm never going to have a child for the same reason I'm never going to torture my dog: there is no particular reason to do it and there's a strong emotional roadblock preventing me from doing it.

>>5255434
I don't know.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:01:15 2014 No.5255472

>>5255444
Is it not arrogant to see yourself as having so much power in inflicting pain in others?

I think this comes from liberal individualization, where the individual is seen as responsible for any problems in society and even nature, instead of social structures taking the responsibility.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:02:46 2014 No.5255481 >>5255472 >Is it not arrogant to see yourself as having so much power in inflicting pain in others? No, it's just common sense. By giving birth to X, you're directly responsible for all the bad that X has to face.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:03:10 2014 No.5255484 >>5255472 >social structures taking the responsibility Name one time that has ever fucking happened.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:04:45 2014 No.5255497

>>5255438
>You mean universal compassion? How does it lead to anti-natalism?
Compassion in the dictionary sense: "a feeling of deep sympathy and sorrow for another who is stricken by misfortune, accompanied by a strong desire to alleviate the suffering."

From that position you start to investigate suffering and misery and try to find solutions for it. When you arrive at the point where you see that for sentient beings these things are inescapable and omnipresent aspects of life, the only way to really be compassionate is to prevent more sentient beings to be exposed to this suffering.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:06:06 2014 No.5255507

>>5255481
You're just going in circles and ignoring what I've said. It is not you who are fully responsible for your child to suffer, it is mostly the world itself because it is the world that inflicts suffering onto your child. Instead of stopping all life, we should change the world.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:09:42 2014 No.5255528 >>5255484 Throughout the history m8. Have you ever heard of fucking socialism? It works pretty well if capitalism stops fucking it up. Otherwise look at anything before "neo-liberalism" and after 18th century.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:10:39 2014 No.5255535

>>5255507
See
>>5255497
We cannot change the world. Even if from this second onward everyone started living in their own VR pods in which they'll experience a constant euphoric orgasm, the subtle changes in the amount of pleasure would become the new suffering and there we go, the cycle continues.

The human race will go extinct, fact.
Nothing we do will amount to anything since the universe will expand forever with only the occasional free elementary particle floating here and there, fact.
We have no reason beyond self-indulgence and biological urges to keep this cycle going, fact.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:13:23 2014 No.5255555

>>5255507
If I have a child, I can be certain that he is going to suffer. If I have a child, I am enabling the creation of "moral problems."

If I don't have a child, I am not enabling the creation of "moral problems."

>Instead of stopping all life, we should change the world.
This is so naive that I don't know how to respond. For one, do you think you can change the world overnight, so that when your pregnant wife gives birth your child will be born into a utopia and never suffer? If not, then why have a child, by the same reasoning above? So he can make the world a better place for his child and so on? Just end the chain now. Also, why even believe you can "change the world" at all? Doesn't seem to have worked so far.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:13:42 2014 No.5255559 >>5255497 So you're saying fuck to life because there is suffering?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:13:45 2014 No.5255560 >>5255472 I don't think it's overly assuming to hold yourself responsible for your reproductive behaviour.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:15:45 2014 No.5255572 >>5255555 >For one, do you think you can change the world overnight No, I would be idiot to think that :)

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:16:46 2014 No.5255580 >>5255535 >>5255559

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:16:48 2014 No.5255582 >>5255559 Fuck to currently non-existing life that has no reason to exist and isn't even a benefit for the recipient over non-existence, yes.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:21:41 2014 No.5255618 >>5255582 >isn't even a benefit for the recipient over non-existence You don't know that. And yes, it has reason to exist because it can create one. Why should it not?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:22:32 2014 No.5255622

>>5255559
I'm saying no to reproduction because I consider, as Schoppy said, life to be a business that does not cover the cost. Not merely because "there is suffering", but because suffering is inescapably present in such an all encompassing way.

Of course I realise this is ultimately an arbitrary value judgement. But even if you would put life being worth the bother at 50/50 odds, I still don't consider it prudent to unwarrantedly force it on someone. It's kind of like shoving your dick up a sleeping girl because you reckon there's a decent chance she'll enjoy it.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:24:08 2014 No.5255633 >>5255618 >You don't know that. Yes I can and even by definition. By not giving birth to potential planned baby X, there is no one who's being deprived so being born is not a benefit for that non-existent person over non-existence.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:28:03 2014 No.5255652

>>5255622
>I'm saying no to reproduction because I consider, as Schoppy said, life to be a business that does not cover the cost.
For you perhaps. But not necessarily for your child, she or he could be stronger than you.

>It's kind of like shoving your dick up a sleeping girl because you reckon there's a decent chance she'll enjoy it.
Very poor analogy. Rape is one single experience, where two persons are in direct relation, and you are intentionally inflicting pain on someone else.
Life is a whole timeline and multiplicity of experiences and relations with the world, in which you will be mostly absent.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:31:37 2014 No.5255668 >>5255528 >socialism So promoting shit genetics to survive just as if they were my own? Especially in this age of near-zero natural selection occurring due to technological medicine?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:32:40 2014 No.5255672

>>5255652
>For you perhaps. But not necessarily for your child, she or he could be stronger than you.

People as dense as this show that large-scale voluntary anti-natalism is impossible. The "average person" is too stupidly optimistic or incapable of compassion/empathy/whatever. The only way for widespread anti-natalism to become feasible is if it's imposed on people, either by involuntary sterilization or nuclear warfare. (Or we could just wait, since in 10^27 years all matter will disintegrate into elementary particles. ) Well, whatever the case, I'm never having children, so I'm "doing my part."

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:38:21 2014 No.5255700

>>5255672
>whatever the case, I'm never having children, so I'm "doing my part."
Don't worry, Shaniqua is making up for your lost ground, she loves having children. It's great that she lives in a country where her reproduction and parenting is paid for. Her distant relative Chiamaka in Africa gets to only keep 4 babies after having 8.
;_;

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:39:55 2014 No.5255708 >>5255672 Call me dense all you want. You're pessimism stems from your weak will and your wishes are nothing but such a triumph of slave morality that was never seen before. The only thing that reminds of it is Holocaust. Throw away your Schopie.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:43:09 2014 No.5255719 File: 1.27 MB, 600x329, 1407371548414.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5255708 >You're pessimism >weak will >slave morality >Holocaust >Schopie

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:44:04 2014 No.5255724

The end of humanity isn't a project people can work on. Those who want it to continue will always be the most numerous. If anything, it will happen through external forces/blind excesses.

The conclusion of antinatalism should be either to personally give up on contributing to society or to refuse responsibility for what people do with the product of your work. If your work help people and they use that help to make more children, just assume that it doesn't concern you.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:47:09 2014 No.5255732

>>5255652
>For you perhaps. But not necessarily for your child, she or he could be stronger than you.
The point is that I'm not willing to take the gamble with someone else's life. Also, why let petty passive aggressive implications enter into the conversation?

>Very poor analogy. Rape is one single experience, where two persons are in direct relation, and you are intentionally inflicting pain on someone else.
Life is a whole timeline and multiplicity of experiences and relations with the world, in which you will be mostly absent.
The point of course, was considering the lack of consent to be unproblematic because you're guessing that it will be worth their while. Surely you can see the problem with that?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:48:06 2014 No.5255736

>>5255708
And just to add this: the reason why there is so much suffering in the world is precisely because people can't affirm their portion of suffering, so they put it on the others e.g. colonialism of non-western countries. Our whole society is one big swamp of reactive forces making each other suffer for doing anything out of order and capital is only a mechanism of that, its power being based on recognition from others.
Once you remove this much reactiveness, resentment, judgment and generalized power relations, you remove a large portion of nonsensical suffering.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:49:27 2014 No.5255739 >>5255708 >antinatalists >overcoming one of the most fundamental and strong desires of humanity by sheer willpower >weak willed

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:53:30 2014 No.5255759 >>5255736 Removing this is just about as impractical as antinatalism though.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 12:53:58 2014 No.5255761

>>5255732
>The point of course, was considering the lack of consent to be unproblematic because you're guessing that it will be worth their while. Surely you can see the problem with that?
Fuck this fascism of the word consent - it is not possible in pure form ever and this is good because then we have spontaneity instead of being dead information machines. After your child is thrown into the world, you have nothing to do with it, you're not forcing him into existence, only his body is doing that from then on. You're trying to take the role of a God here.

>>5255739
Is that what you call "overcoming"? All this weak reactive forces getting together into one buzzing army and destroying any individual force that is strong enough to live by its own will?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:08:40 2014 No.5255819

>>5255761
>Fuck this fascism of the word consent - it is not possible in pure form ever and this is good because then we have spontaneity instead of being dead information machines. After your child is thrown into the world, you have nothing to do with it, you're not forcing him into existence, only his body is doing that from then on. You're trying to take the role of a God here.
That's like saying that you're not responsible for landmines blowing up people because it only happens after you put them there and you have nothing to do with them. I'm trying to take responsibility for my actions, that's all. If that's aspiration to divinity, what is wrong with that? What's wrong with the attempt to forge something greater out of yourself?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:11:44 2014 No.5255832 >>5255409 if you don't care about other people, do you just not believe that having a kid would make you happier?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:14:41 2014 No.5255846 >>5255819 Bad analogy, so much simplification. You can't even really find a good one, life and world is too complex to simplify it into one in a sensible way.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:18:19 2014 No.5255859

>>5255761
You are outright saying,
>I don't have to take moral responsibility for anything because of reactive forces/post-structuralism/whatever
>I won't raise my kid or take any responsibility for his life or well-being, because it is the world's fault if his life turns to shit

And then you want to accuse other people of being weak?
You need to grow some balls yourself, man. The world as a whole, fine, no one expects you to be the messiah, but to insist that the things you specifically choose to do can't be your fault is sheer cowardice.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:18:56 2014 No.5255862

>>5255846
>>5255761

If someone has a child, then the existence of new "moral problems" inextricably follows. This is indisputable. The way to prevent these new "moral problems" from "coming into existence" is to not have a child. This follows readily by the contrapositive.

You've made me angry, so I really hope you're trolling.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:19:54 2014 No.5255867 >>5255846 >can't know le nothing You could have said that at the start instead of coming up with all kinds of half baked Nietzscheanisms.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:23:41 2014 No.5255887 >>5255859 I'm not saying that at all. I'm just saying don't be such a liberal individualist and try to change the world instead of throwing yourself off it because you can't solve everything yourself.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:25:19 2014 No.5255894 >>5255867 No, just don't simplify things. Analogies are always poor arguments. Why not discuss the thing itself instead of referring to something else?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:30:02 2014 No.5255916

>>5255894
The analogies are an attempt to demonstrate to you how children are in fact a direct result of the actions of their parents. If you refuse to accept accountability for this, you're refusing moral agency at all. Which is fine of course, but this makes any discussion of prescriptive ethics nonsensical so it's not worth bothering with.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:33:56 2014 No.5255934
File: 218 KB, 500x652, 1397586397830.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Guys, I have a question: why is it necessarily better to avoid bringing a child into the world? You act as if it would be a merciful gesture in a world full of suffering, but aren;t you essentially making this choice for them? If you allow them to be born then they can at least decide for themselves when they come of age.
Also, as hard as this may be to believe, the vast majority of people want to live, and enjoy living. Odds are the child would enjoy living as well, so wouldn't it be in fact selfish to deny them this opportunity?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:37:12 2014 No.5255949

>>5255934
>them
Bzzzt, wrong. There is no one we're doing a choice for.
>the vast majority of people want to live, and enjoy living
Which requires them to be alive in the first place. The non-existent don't have an interest in commenced nor continued existence.
>Odds are the child would enjoy living as well
Yet the odds for the child to suffer something of the most severe order aren't all that low, eg. 9% for Americans are battling with major depression at this very minute and that's relatively minor still.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:38:28 2014 No.5255955

>>5255887
>After your child is thrown into the world, you have nothing to do with it
>Life is a whole timeline and multiplicity of experiences and relations with the world, in which you will be mostly absent
>the individual is seen as responsible for any problems in society and even nature, instead of social structures taking the responsibility

Your words.

You are doing exactly what you are criticizing others for doing. You are refusing to affirm your part in suffering, instead you brush your hands and walk away. What happens to others is their problem, not mine. It is a matter of their individual strength and has nothing to do with me. It isn't my job to stop it.
And it isn't your job. But you could have stopped it anyway.

>try to change the world instead of throwing yourself off it because you can't solve everything yourself
You seem to have confused antinatalism with suicide.
Antinatalism is exactly trying to change the world. It probably won't become very popular, but poststructuralism is never going to become popular either.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 13:40:22 2014 No.5255969 >>5255934 Nobody regrets not being born, a lot of people regret being born. Therefore the former is the sensible choice. Nothing bad can come of it. Hypothetical beings can't be deprived of things.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 14:03:11 2014 No.5256041

>>5255949
>Bzzzt, wrong. There is no one we're doing a choice for.
Fine, the child exists as sperm in your cock, and could potentially become a new life-form. You're making the choice whether that sperm can become a living child.
>Which requires them to be alive in the first place. The non-existent don't have an interest in commenced nor continued existence.
No shit. That's the point in having a child; so they can choose themselves.
>Yet the odds for the child to suffer something of the most severe order aren't all that low, eg. 9% for Americans are battling with major depression at this very minute and that's relatively minor still.
This doesn't refute anything I said. Life contains suffering. But for most individuals, the pleasure would be enough to keep them enjoying life.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 14:09:47 2014 No.5256075

>>5256041
>Fine, the child exists as sperm in your cock, and could potentially become a new life-form. You're making the choice whether that sperm can become a living child.
A sperm cell is not a person.
>No shit. That's the point in having a child; so they can choose themselves.
How dense are you? The point is to not have a child so they are never faced with the choice in the first place.
>This doesn't refute anything I said. Life contains suffering. But for most individuals, the pleasure would be enough to keep them enjoying life.
Doesn't matter. There are two possible actions: one action will guarantee that another person suffers; the other action produces neither suffering nor pleasure. If you accept any type of moral framework, you are morally obligated to choose the latter (not having children) as opposed to the former (having children).

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 14:10:43 2014 No.5256079 >>5256041 If you're going to start considering the livelihoods of each individual sperm, then every ejaculation makes you a mass murderer.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 14:19:41 2014 No.5256117

>>5256075
>A sperm cell is not a person.
But it has the potential to be, and you're choosing whether this sperm cell becomes a person. Why is this even relevant? You know exactly what I mean.
>How dense are you? The point is to not have a child so they are never faced with the choice in the first place.
And depriving them of the choice completely is considered more compassionate in your eyes, despite the fact they could live a wonderful life, and if not then at least a decent life?
lol
>If you accept any type of moral framework, you are morally obligated to choose the latter (not having children) as opposed to the former (having children).
Nope. As hard as it might be to believe, some people have more good in their lives than bad, and as I've pointed out already, this seems to be most people.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 14:21:37 2014 No.5256125 >>5256117 >But it has the potential to be See >>5256079 >And depriving them of the choice completely is considered more compassionate in your eyes Literally. No. One. Is. Being. Deprived.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 14:24:04 2014 No.5256136 >>5256079 Not every individual sperm, just the sperm that could become a child.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 14:33:25 2014 No.5256171

>>5256117
>But it has the potential to be, and you're choosing whether this sperm cell becomes a person. Why is this even relevant? You know exactly what I mean.
It follows that people should have as many children as possible to minimize this "deprivation." Men should go around impregnating as many women as possible, and women should accept as much sperm as possible.

>And depriving them of the choice completely is considered more compassionate in your eyes, despite the fact they could live a wonderful life, and if not then at least a decent life?
lol
Can't deprive a non-existent being.
lol

>Nope. As hard as it might be to believe, some people have more good in their lives than bad, and as I've pointed out already, this seems to be most people.
If they do they're delusion fucks, but that doesn't matter. It's all about chances. There are two buttons. One button, when pressed, does absolutely nothing. The other has a 10% chance of making your life miserable. Which button do you press?

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 14:38:56 2014 No.5256195

>>5256171
>It follows that people should have as many children as possible to minimize this "deprivation." Men should go around impregnating as many women as possible, and women should accept as much sperm as possible.
That's not what I said or implied, and you know that. Stop twisting my words.
>If they do they're delusion fucks
You're not the supreme judge of what is good and what isn't. Don't call people "delusional" because they've made a success of life that you evidently haven't.
>The other has a 10% chance of making your life miserable.
And of course, you only mention the possibility of life being miserable, not the possibility of it being good. Bravo.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 14:42:52 2014 No.5256219

>>5256195
>That's not what I said or implied, and you know that. Stop twisting my words.
I'm not twisting your words. You say that if a sperm has the potential to become a child, you are depriving the child by not having it. Every sperm has the potential to become a child.

>And of course, you only mention the possibility of life being miserable, not the possibility of it being good. Bravo.
Because it's not relevant fucktard.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 15:06:57 2014 No.5256292 The solution to antinatalist feelings is just stop caring about other people's suffering

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 15:09:10 2014 No.5256300

>>5256195
>And of course, you only mention the possibility of life being miserable, not the possibility of it being good. Bravo.
There's a difference between "I'm willing to take my chances" and "I'm willing to take your chances.". It's the difference between driving without a seatbelt or letting your child ride in the car without a seatbelt.

Is it really so hard to note the ethical distinction between gambling with your life and gambling with that of another person?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 15:10:15 2014 No.5256304 >>5256292 How do I into psychopathy?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 15:13:02 2014 No.5256315 Why do antinatalists want to be antinatalists so badly?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 15:41:20 2014 No.5256417 >>5255283 >don't exist for billions years >be born with a conscious brain and body >when this brain and body return to dust, the consciousness will somehow stick around I don't think so bud

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 15:43:30 2014 No.5256432

>>5256304
You don't even need psychopathy just don't think about it. I don't mean to be edgy but most of us do not really 'care' about the suffering of the hundreds of millions without clean water living in poverty and danger. It doesn't truly bother us. Just extend this callousness to future bebbies who you want to save from the turrible plight of being.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 15:43:47 2014 No.5256435 Suffering is still an experience

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 15:51:30 2014 No.5256477

>>5256432
I do not care about others, but I do care about my own children. I would love them more than any other person - and they will suffer if they come into existence - therefore I spare them the anguish and distress of existence out of mercy, even if it means I die alone.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 15:54:31 2014 No.5256495

>>5256477
Suffering is really not that bad m80. Especially if you know things will get better, if you have hope then its possible to get on with it.

If its that much of an issue for you though then yeah don't have kids, although you should consider that your kids may not view suffering as dramatically as you do.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 15:55:10 2014 No.5256498 >>5256432 I get that, there's no point in getting too worked up about all the troubles in the world that you won't be able to help anyway. But I could never forgive myself for having a child. So the least I can do is get snipped or be celibate.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 15:58:11 2014 No.5256512

>>5256498
To be clear here, are you a nihilist? Do you not believe living is meaningful or at least 'good' at times? If so then I see your position. If not then I'd say the suffering can be forgiven for the joys of living. Personal decision though of course.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 16:05:25 2014 No.5256556

>>5256512
I do think life is without meaning, but of course's there's also fun to be had if you're lucky. But I don't think the joys of life outweigh the horrors to the point that I'd recommend it to anyone.

Especially not since most people are expected to work at some point in their lives. Convicting a person to 40 years or so of forced labour is a horrible thing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 16:15:41 2014 No.5256612 Anyone else feel good that life isn't going to be THAT much longer? I'm 24, and if I drudge it out to 75, I'm already 32% done!

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 16:17:45 2014 No.5256628 >>5256612 Joke's on you, medical technology will provide us the possibility to live for centuries, and our survival instincts won't allow us to refuse.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 16:22:48 2014 No.5256664 File: 73 KB, 1466x534, societalproblem.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5256628 The 21st century will probably have more havoc than you think.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 17:33:22 2014 No.5257012 >>5256435 So all experiences are good experiences?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 18:47:17 2014 No.5257384 File: 183 KB, 670x554, sadness.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Reminder reproduction is only bad now because we're living in dystopia.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 19:30:11 2014 No.5257572

anti-natalism is pretty silly, both short term and long term.

Short term: It generalizes to all people something that is highly affected by specifics. It points to a chinese sweat shop as evidence that everyone should stop reproducing, instead of just chinese people. My children won't have to work in a chinese sweat shop. In fact, they're more likely to exploit sweat shop labor for their own happiness. Chinese sweat shops then are an argument for me to reproduce, because they make the happiness of my children more likely, at the expense of the happiness of chinese children. So short term, all natalism can really justifiy is that people in exploited countries with terrible living conditions should stop reproducing as much as they do. And collectively, the world goes "duh".

Long term, Anti-natalism ignores technological progress, and the potential it has to increase pleasure at the expense of suffering. Even if you think the world is going to go BNW, a life on soma is preferable to not existing.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 19:31:35 2014 No.5257576 >>5256664 feels bad man ;_;

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 19:40:03 2014 No.5257602 >>5257384 I knew Ted Kaczynski browsed /lit/

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 21:08:06 2014 No.5257907 >>5257572 You don't understand the concept if you think it has anything to do with a good or bad relative life.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 21:21:29 2014 No.5257960

>>5257572
Antinatalism is a general position against birth, not merely regarding your own children. It's also based on universally applicable negative characteristics of life. An antinatalist would consider the life of a billionaire's child not worth it either.

You don't seem very familiar with the subject.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 21:33:12 2014 No.5257996

>>5257960
It has no point if it isn't a command against birth for the individual, but it has no sense if it preaches a billionaire isn't more likely to be happy than not.

The former is about as worthwhile as infinite doubt, and the latter the purview of people with genuine difficulties grasping reality, most likely because of their own depression.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 21:37:40 2014 No.5258010 >>5257996 And if you take the point of utilitarian anti-natalism, that is a birth lowers the total unhappiness of every being, then you ignore the potential for technology to change that.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 21:51:06 2014 No.5258056

>>5257996
It's a command against the birth of every individual. Also, billionaires, apart from being ensured the necessities of life, aren't any happier than your average pleb.

>>5258010
There's no technology that can establish a level of suffering lower than non-existence, since that state per definition implies the absence of suffering.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 21:52:52 2014 No.5258064 >>5258056 This nigger is correct.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 22:15:05 2014 No.5258156

>>5258056
>There's no technology that can establish a level of suffering lower than non-existence, since that state per definition implies the absence of suffering.

that's also a retarded formulation of anti-natalism, since it ignores everything about how humans value things. If happiness>suffering, antinatalism is wrong. The guy who first preached it even argued that suffering outweighed happiness.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 22:20:22 2014 No.5258175 >>5258156 It is better to avoid pain than pursue pleasure. This is what the wise have always taught, in all societies. "It is not wise to eat all that ice cream." =avoid pain instead of seek pleasure. Antinatalism is this taken to the conclusive end.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 22:22:22 2014 No.5258185 The best way to fix suffering is to get rid of the thing which suffers. Just like the best way to fix a leak is to level your house. Just like the best way to fix a car is to light it on fire.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 22:25:23 2014 No.5258201

>>5258185
You were trying to mock antinatalism but you failed. If most houses get leaks, the best way to prevent leakage is to not build one. If most cars break, the best way to prevent it is to not use one. If all people suffer, the best way to prevent it is to not birth them.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 22:31:31 2014 No.5258225 >>5258201 Be careful out there, kids. Post like these just go to show you that if you abuse analogies enough you'll eventually start regressing from life itself. Analogies: Not Even Once.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 22:35:24 2014 No.5258246

>>5258156
>>5258175

The pain/suffering - pleasure/happiness dichotomy is stupid and makes anti-natalists look like fools. I agree with Ted Kaczynski that life as a hunter-gatherer would have been much more fulfilling / satisfying despite being more painful and entailing more suffering. I'm an anti-natalist not because life is full of suffering but because I imagine my son going on to lead an empty, unfulfilling, miserable, life full of shit. The thought obviously would have never occurred to me had I been a Native American or Eskimo or whatever (in that case, Buffalo Chad Cock of Thunder would have taken several wives and I'd have been unable to get even one).

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 22:37:03 2014 No.5258253 File: 42 KB, 446x400, 1389427971900.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5258201 ayy lmao

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 22:38:25 2014 No.5258257 You make an enormous leap from "not existing has never hurt anyone" to "no point in forcing people into life". It almost seems non sequiturial.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 22:41:08 2014 No.5258267 Antinatalism is the final intellectual sickness of the secular age. Prove me wrong.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 22:42:50 2014 No.5258274 >>5258246 Exactly! Life now is more analogous with a mindless march than a dance.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 23:03:41 2014 No.5258335

>>5258257
You're right, mane. I think what these kids are forgetting is that death does not grant 'non-suffering,' it grants a zero state where the phenomena particular to non-suffering are absent, because suffering and non suffering are aspects of conscious reality--disappearing after death into a literal nothing. As elements of this reality, pleasure and pain can only be dealt with in this reality. That's why I always laughed at the title of Benatar's book, Better Never to Have Been, because there's no reference frame for non-existence--it isn't a state--so how would the phenomenon of 'better' work when one side is incomprehensible?

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 23:05:41 2014 No.5258342 >>5258335 The literal nothingness is the whole point. Benananatar is just an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Aug 7 23:05:49 2014 No.5258344 >>5258267 Prove yourself right

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 23:11:14 2014 No.5258359

>>5258246
The pleasure of ice cream becomes less pleasurable as you continue to enjoy it. Further, there is pleasure in having good physical form that ice cream runs counter to.

>>5258246
You may live a mindless, empty life, but that doesn't mean all people do. Moreover, it's entirely possible to find the savage life you claim to desire, yet you choose not to seek it.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 23:16:02 2014 No.5258372

>>5258359
>You may live a mindless, empty life, but that doesn't mean all people do.
So what? It's "muh feeling", so I'm an anti-natalist. I don't care what other people do, but I'm never having children. Discussing ethics is futile; I've stated my opinion and my "reason" (what a way to debase the word), and that's pretty much all there is to it.

> Moreover, it's entirely possible to find the savage life you claim to desire, yet you choose not to seek it.
No it's not. Every bit of land is owned by someone. There's nowhere to go, and if you somehow found a place, it would soon be "conquered" by technological society. Plus, I'm too much of a wimp. I grew up in front of screens, and I don't have the knowledge/experience to survive in the wild.

Anonymous Thu Aug 7 23:44:31 2014 No.5258449

>>5258342
Right, but the use of literal nothingness as an equal to non-suffering is preposterous. If there is nothingness, then there can be no phenomena within it, and that includes that phenomena of 'non-suffering.' Non-suffering is only available in this reality because it is predicated on sensation and/or sentience.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 00:11:44 2014 No.5258527

>>5258372
>No it's not. Every bit of land is owned by someone. There's nowhere to go, and if you somehow found a place, it would soon be "conquered" by technological society.

There are vast tracts of wilderness that may be owned, but have no enforcement. Particularly in canada.
>Plus, I'm too much of a wimp. I grew up in front of screens, and I don't have the knowledge/experience to survive in the wild

That's entirely changeable, and you could raise your child away from computer screens. The fact that you don't bespeaks a preference for computer screens over the wilderness that you seem to be in denial about.

Either that, or you're acting irrationally.

>So what? It's "muh feeling", so I'm an anti-natalist. I don't care what other people do, but I'm never having children. Discussing ethics is futile; I've stated my opinion and my "reason" (what a way to debase the word), and that's pretty much all there is to it.

Frankly I think it's less about you wanting to have children and more being unable to have children. But more to the point, the world isn't empty because it's that way, it's only empty to you because you choose to percieve it that way, like some sort of half-hearted nihilism, but no less immature for it.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 00:49:23 2014 No.5258695

>>5258527
>There are vast tracts of wilderness that may be owned, but have no enforcement. Particularly in canada.
I didn't know that. I'll check it out, but it might be too cold.

>That's entirely changeable, and you could raise your child away from computer screens. The fact that you don't bespeaks a preference for computer screens over the wilderness that you seem to be in denial about.

What is it about people that prompts them to play armchair psychologist? Did their mamas tell them that they were ohsosmart as children and did that cause them to foster a Benevolent Wiseman here let me help you with your problems because I don't have any problems of my own complex? A child has nothing to do with it; I'm not having a child because life is shit regardless of how you live. I've already had this thought, and there's no going back. Had I lived without language as a savage, I'd have never had this thought, obviously.

>Frankly I think it's less about you wanting to have children and more being unable to have children. But more to the point, the world isn't empty because it's that way, it's only empty to you because you choose to percieve it that way, like some sort of half-hearted nihilism, but no less immature for it.

Oh look it's cutsie mista freud sittin in his big pluffy arm chair again. Except you're saying things even triter than Freud: "it's only empty because you choose to perceive it that way"... hmmm, try again with that one buddy. Your world is only happy-go-lucky let's all fuck and have kids because you choose to perceive it that way -- see how anyone can say that and convey nothing of significance? Half-hearted nihilism, immature? Looks like you've been awfully well socialized. you've done a remarkable job absorbing all the family-rearing psycho-shit that's been shoved in your face since you were a kid staying up late watching Full House -- look at how happy families and children make us, etc etc. I don't particularly mind that your argument is from "muh feelings", because all of ethics is, but it's pathetic for two reasons: your feelings are trite, almost word-for-word regurgitations of the how-can-anyone-take-this-seriously propaganda that you've been chomping on since you were a tot, and second, because you're trying to impose "yuh feelings" on "muh feelings."

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 00:54:26 2014 No.5258721

>>5258527
Not him, but there are two biomes left on this planet where you could get away with it. Tundra and desert. The nomads in Australia, Arabia, Nunavut, and Greenland all had tribes that worked together. Good fucking luck surviving in either on your own. Also, they grew up in them from birth. Imagine putting one of them in the modern world at age. They would never be competent.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 00:55:28 2014 No.5258726 >>5258721 at age 18+**

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 00:59:39 2014 No.5258740

Do non-anti-natalists (natalists?) feel that people are morally/ethically obligated to have children (what a ridiculous notion)? If not, why do they get their jimmies so rustled when people say they aren't having kids? They keep saying "but you're depriving him of ..." or "but you don't know he's going to be miserable" as if they desperately, desperately want you to have children. Maybe they feel guilty about having/wanting children (anyone on 4chan should) and try to do some mental gymnastics so they can "sleep at night" and not be up thinking about how their kid will be bullied all through elementary school, never make any friends, graduate from highschool with like a 2.8 and woohoo only 4 sleep-deprived years and now there's purple crescents under his eyes but and then and go to a shit-tier state uni where he still doesn't make any friends and gets bullied but less explicitly then gets a "run of the mill" "soul-crushing" data-entry job where whiny fat artificial scarlet heads from HR try to get him fired for being white and male so he goes home to his dog and feels like shit for leaving him [his dog] in a 300sqft apartment all day rotting away so he [child] can enjoy the presence of the dog for like 10 minutes everynight but even so the dog is still so damn happy to see him and but so the kid [have to go DFW if there's going to be a suicide, don't we?] shoots the dog in the back of the head when it's not looking and feels even shittier then shoots himself as he leans out the window and splat --- gee, you could have saved him a lot of trouble had you not just brought him into the world in the first place, right? What a pathetic, maudlin existence.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:06:17 2014 No.5258758

>>5258740
Natalists are selfish. They have kids for "fulfillment" and expect the kids to work as soon as they're able, and look after them (the parents) when they're old.

Anti-natalists are the compassionate ones, as you demonstrated in your story, that applies to many people, and if dulled down, could be applied to all people.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:22:04 2014 No.5258806

>>5258740
Natialists get mad when anti natalists implicitly call their acts of having children wrong. Or just come right out and say it like the dipshit below you. But don't despair, you're a dipshit too.

If you don't want to have children, that's great, but stop entertaining this ridiculous notion that everyone has lead as unhappy a life as you, and therefore everyone shouldn't have kids.

>>5258695
>What is it about people that prompts them to play armchair psychologist?

There's nothing armchair psychologist about it. People satisfy their preferences, unless something is coercing them not to. If you don't leave civilization, you prefer civilization, unless coerced. But there's nothing keeping you here. So you must prefer civilization.

The same can be said of every anti-natalist argument really, by analogy to suicide: if non existence will save you suffering, you must prefer non-existence. Yet anti-natalists aren't a self fixing problem, so they must just be in denial about their preference for existing.

>Your world is only happy-go-lucky let's all fuck and have kids because you choose to perceive it that way

Right. And when given the choice, why the hell would you not choose the happier option, all other considerations being equal? Only an irrational twat would.

>how-can-anyone-take-this-seriously

Nobody takes it seriously though. I'm really surprised you thought I was taking you seriously. I mean, come on, some friendless loser posts on 4chan that he's choosing not to have kids? Yeah guys, I totally don't want to do that cool thing you guys didn't invite me to! I'm too hip for you haha....

Your philosphy is a joke anon, and a bad one at that.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:31:04 2014 No.5258828

>>5258740
Maybe they feel eager about having/wanting children (anyone on 4chan should) and try to "sleep at night" and not be up thinking about how their kid will be prodigious all through elementary school, make many friends, graduate from highschool with like a 4.0 and woohoo only 4 sleep-deprived years and now there's purple crescents under his eyes marking his determination and then he goes to a world renowned uni where he makes life-long friends and connections and gets socially accepted but less explicitly then gets a prestigious job where decent working class people from HR abide by his discretions so he goes home to his dog and feels thankful for its companionship [his dog] waiting in a 300sqft apartment all day until both can enjoy the presence of each other. the dog is so damn happy to see him and but so the kid [being a rational and responsible human] pours dogfood into one bowl and water in the other when it's not looking and feels at ease then reads at his spot by the window and is grateful for his parents' guidance and role in his success, he could have never have been happy and well-adjusted had you not just brought him into the world in the first place, right? What a fulfilled, worthwhile existence.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:31:45 2014 No.5258830

>>5258806
>here's nothing armchair psychologist about it. People satisfy their preferences, unless something is coercing them not to. If you don't leave civilization, you prefer civilization, unless coerced. But there's nothing keeping you here. So you must prefer civilization.

What a ridiculously simplified notion. So simplified, in fact, that it has no basis at all in reality. "But there's nothing keeping you here." Incredible that someone could be this stupid, but this type of reductive psychological reasoning fits right between the armchair and the psychologist. Let me recapitulate: lack of feasible land (tundra and desert would kill a lone, inexperienced person), familial relations back here in society, lack of transportation to get out of civilization, lack of knowledge about how to survive, and the list goes on and on. It's really, essentialyl impossible, so I've decided to contribute to technological society and lead civilization a little bit closer to its "destruction" as edgy as that sounds.

> Yet anti-natalists aren't a self fixing problem, so they must just be in denial about their preference for existing.

Again the reductive armchair psychology. Suicide isn't an effortless act. You can have no will to live and be miserable but be unable to kill yourself because of strong biological, instinctual impulses that run to the contrary and deep social conditioning. I hope you're just a retarded STEM major who doesn't plan to make a career out of language, because then speaking with broad, sweeping generalities with no regard for what they ostensibly represent would be excusable as naive.

> Yet anti-natalists aren't a self fixing problem, so they must just be in denial about their preference for existing.
You're placing an unjustifiable value judgment on happiness that I don't share. Your notion of "happiness" is a product of advertisement companies an d sitcoms. Most people can't delude themselves into believing something that is so very clearly false, so consider yourself lucky on that account.

>Nobody takes it seriously though. I'm really surprised you thought I was taking you seriously. I mean, come on, some friendless loser posts on 4chan that he's choosing not to have kids? Yeah guys, I totally don't want to do that cool thing you guys didn't invite me to! I'm too hip for you haha....

No; I said specifically that no one could take the Full House Happy Family propaganda seriously (although you do). Good job calling my philosophy a joke when all you've been able to do is recite quotes from 80s sitcoms about how happy life is and how great children are.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:34:03 2014 No.5258834

>>5258806
>If you don't want to have children, that's great, but stop entertaining this ridiculous notion that everyone has lead as unhappy a life as you, and therefore everyone shouldn't have kids
Stop entertaining the notion that it's okay to coerce and force another human to come into existence without any consent on his part, especially when he may go on to lead a terrible life. You're playing slots with the life of another person just so you can tell your mother-in-law you're expecting. It's disgusting to use another person as a mean's to an end.

>>5258828
This is probably more "depressing."

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:36:42 2014 No.5258840

>>5258806
Life is an obligation once born, seeing as every mammal has a relentless inner will to live.

But it's fine. I'm sure you'll have the happy family you dream of. Your son will never be bullied, sick, depressed, beaten up, heart broken, or suicidal. Your daughter will never be neurotic, a whore, a cutter, depressed, or on psychological meds. I'm sure you'll have the white picket fence - wholesome family everyone who reproduces imagines.

Fucking double digit IQ sadist.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:37:03 2014 No.5258842

>>5258806
>There's nothing armchair psychologist about it. People satisfy their preferences, unless something is coercing them not to. If you don't leave civilization, you prefer civilization, unless coerced. But there's nothing keeping you here. So you must prefer civilization.

Tell that to the Native Americans (those ones who still survive). Tell that to the aboriginal australians. Tell that to the people in prisons and asylums. Tell that to the Indians. Tell that to Kaczynski. Tell that to Christopher Knight.
Really, just tell that to pretty much anyone who has ever tried to resist or escape Western civilization.

>The same can be said of every anti-natalist argument really, by analogy to suicide: if non existence will save you suffering, you must prefer non-existence. Yet anti-natalists aren't a self fixing problem, so they must just be in denial about their preference for existing.
>Nobody takes it seriously though. I'm really surprised you thought I was taking you seriously. I mean, come on, some friendless loser posts on 4chan that he's choosing not to have kids? Yeah guys, I totally don't want to do that cool thing you guys didn't invite me to! I'm too hip for you haha....

Le ebin y dun u jus kill urself, lelz
And then, le ebin ur on 4chinz ur a loozer no1 heer getz lade

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:43:20 2014 No.5258861

>>5258828
Then he'll get a nice, rare, excruciatingly painful pancreatic cancer, or become broke from a divorce, or never see his kids because of a divorce, or get crippled in a car accident, or be at the wrong place at the wrong time and be convicted of a crime, or maybe get into a life of crime because of bad choices, or have a predisposition to depression, or have a low IQ like his father (you) and never understand why so many people disagree with him. Along with his low IQ he will probably be terrified of death - again like his father.

Schopenhauer was right.

LIFE IS A BUSINESS THAT DOES NOT COVER THE COSTS.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:44:51 2014 No.5258866

>>5258830
>(tundra and desert would kill a lone, inexperienced person

So get experienced. Go innawoods for a day, then two days, then 3, then 4, then, well you get the point. You're doing no work towards your stated goal.

>Suicide isn't an effortless act.
It can be, you just aren't doing it right. Try heroin. Just take it, a little more and more at a time, and slip away. It's probably the happiest way to die.

> Your notion of "happiness" is a product of advertisement companies an d sitcoms

It's funny you speak of generalizations and armchair psychologists, and then assume that I (and probably anyone who disagrees with you) only finds happiness in the antiquated american dream. I've already stated: I choose to be happy. It's that simple.

>Good job calling my philosophy a joke when all you've been able to do is recite quotes from 80s sitcoms about how happy life is and how great children are.

Find one.

>Stop entertaining the notion that it's okay to coerce and force another human to come into existence without any consent on his part, especially when he may go on to lead a terrible life. You're playing slots with the life of another person just so you can tell your mother-in-law you're expecting. It's disgusting to use another person as a mean's to an end.

That's some extreme kantianism, and also some mighty big assumptions: You can influence the odds, and make it more likely than not that your child will be happy. That ruins any form of utilitarian anti-natalism. Kantian anti-natalism is just retarded: It's impossible to use something that doesn't exist yet, because there's nothing to use. You're using the idea of a child maybe, but ideas aren't people (I'm sorry, but not even your fanfiction characters are).

>>5258840
Ah, the same old "some bad things may happen to your kids, so that erases every happy thing that will ever happen to them ever" argument. If those things happen, they happen. I can do my best to prevent them, or at least mitigate them by making the children happier than the suffering they would otherwise feel. And more than likely succeed.

>>5258842
No anti-natalists do, that's for sure.

>Tell that to the Native Americans (those ones who still survive). Tell that to the aboriginal australians. Tell that to the people in prisons and asylums. Tell that to the Indians. Tell that to Kaczynski. Tell that to Christopher Knight.

Oh, you're saying people who were coerced? You mean people I already disqualified by saying "unless something is coercing them not to." Tell me, what force equivalent to all the tortures and horrendous things our government did to the native americans is keeping you from going innawoods besides your own damn laziness?

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:51:25 2014 No.5258895

>>5258866
>So get experienced. Go innawoods for a day, then two days, then 3, then 4, then, well you get the point. You're doing no work towards your stated goal

I made it very clear: all life is miserable, but some situations are better than others. Going innawoods does not change the fact that I have realized life is miserable. Having been born innawoods would have. There is no solution because there is no problem; there is only life, and life is inherently bad. The only way to "solve" it is to prevent it from existing in the first place - to dissolve the "problem."

>It can be, you just aren't doing it right. Try heroin. Just take it, a little more and more at a time, and slip away. It's probably the happiest way to die.
You're conflating the experience of the action that leads to death with suicide itself, which necessarily involves overcoming a biological urge to live. It's impossible to take a huge dose of heroin without realizing you're killing yourself; that makes it effectively no different from hanging.

>Find one.
Here you go:
>I choose to be happy. It's that simple.
Can't take you seriously after that one.

>Oh, you're saying people who were coerced? You mean people I already disqualified by saying "unless something is coercing them not to." Tell me, what force equivalent to all the tortures and horrendous things our government did to the native americans is keeping you from going innawoods besides your own damn laziness?

I'm not replying to you in 5 different posts. Those are different people. People who live in technological society are just as coerced into staying in it (since there's NOWHERE to go except places where living is IMPOSSIBLE like I continue to try to bash through your head).

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:51:50 2014 No.5258898

>>5258866
>No anti-natalists do, that's for sure.

I follow several antinatalist blogs. Many of them are run by married people.
See, this great new thing was invented called "birth control." Maybe you've heard of it?

>Oh, you're saying people who were coerced? You mean people I already disqualified by saying "unless something is coercing them not to." Tell me, what force equivalent to all the tortures and horrendous things our government did to the native americans is keeping you from going innawoods besides your own damn laziness?

I guess you haven't heard of birth control. You don't seem to have heard of anything. What does it feel like to be living under a rock?
Civilization is inherently coercive, as anyone who is not a property-owning member of it is considered a non-person.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:52:41 2014 No.5258903 >>5258866 You can't survive alone in the tundra dumbshit. CAN'T BE DONE. There is a reason the inuit stuck to the shores. Which now are patrolled by wildlife officers. So get fucked.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:54:32 2014 No.5258909

>>5258861
You're certainly right, anon. Just promise me that you'll stick to you your guns and take your superior genes out of the pool. It is not the people who seek success and who do not fear death who are the optimum humans, it is people like you, who are afraid of everything, even life itself, who are great. So be godlike and don't reproduce, okay? Same goes for your whole party. Godspeed.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 01:57:03 2014 No.5258926 >>5258909 aye aye captain

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 02:06:58 2014 No.5258962

Antinatalism is about as far from a new idea that you can get.

Not to be born is, beyond all estimation, best; but when a man has seen the light of day, this is next best by far, that with utmost speed he should go back from where he came. - Sophocles, early 5th century BC.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 02:12:25 2014 No.5258980

>>5258909
>It is not the people who seek success and who do not fear death who are the optimum humans, it is people like you, who are afraid of everything, even life itself, who are great.

Please quit making this argument. It doesn't follow at all.
Just because I have developed the mechanisms to enjoy the moronic tragedy that is life, doesn't mean I have the right to inflict life on someone else. I'm also a masochist, does that mean I have the right to run around the street flogging people with a cat o' nine tails? I'm in the Navy, so I guess that means I should support the institution of mandatory national service. While we're at it, I love spicy food and enjoy jerking of with haberno oil on my hands, so I'd better stock up on pepper spray and start sharing the love. I use m4m on craigslist, so I'd better start raping dudes to make sure they enjoy the same pleasures I have. Right?

Right?

I am "happy," but that is because I have developed coping mechanisms. Unlike you, I can recognize that they are only coping mechanisms and that they are only ways of coping until I die, or those mechanisms fail and I kill myself. It doesn't hurt me (as it apparently hurts all the people who are offended by antinatalism) to acknowledge this reality and not inflict it on others.

All antinatalism requires is that you somehow recognize that life is a bad deal, and so you make the best of it while not passing it on.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 02:41:39 2014 No.5259061 >>5258980 Just wanted to say that was a great post.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 02:45:05 2014 No.5259072

>>5258980
>Weak willed shrimp dicks don't want the responsibility of children
>Their inferior genes are wiped from existence
>Having purged the incompetent cowards, the will of man grows
>Humans advance faster without the burden of infantile genes polluting the pool
>My children will directly benefit from your death,
>and I think that's hilarious.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 02:47:01 2014 No.5259077 File: 47 KB, 468x528, NEETch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5259072 >implying you'll have children

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 02:53:49 2014 No.5259105

>>5259072
Actually antinatalists are quite a bit more intelligent than the average population. Most people who reproduce do not even ask WHY they want children. They are closer to animals than rational humans. So your Utopia will be similar to the movie "Idiocracy".

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 07:45:32 2014 No.5259852 >>5258449 The absence of phenomena is unproblematic. There is no suffering. You might say "there is no none suffering either". Well, who cares? Solves the problem anyway.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 08:19:53 2014 No.5259906 >>5259072 >implying I won't castrate a few people like you before I check out kek

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 08:27:27 2014 No.5259936
File: 184 KB, 1800x820, Birth_rate_figures_for_countries.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5259072
Pic related, you can see what type of countries you get with people who think like you. Birth rate is inversely related to intelligence and civilisation.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 08:54:19 2014 No.5260024 >>5259077 >implying anti-natalism isn't the most fedora of all philosophies.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 09:00:18 2014 No.5260035 >>5260024 It isn't.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 09:03:05 2014 No.5260049 >>5260035 >i didn't want to reproduce anyway. All you people with your reproduction are so unenlightened, I can't see how you could ever be euphoric at all!

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 09:05:12 2014 No.5260057 File: 163 KB, 533x400, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5260049 If you something half-way intelligent to post, an argument perhaps, please do so.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 09:07:27 2014 No.5260067

>>5260057
Why? There's no half way intelligent argument for anti-natalism. It either involves denying that happiness can cancel out suffering, or that happiness can exist in any great number. Both of which are absolutely retarded.

No, i come into this topic to mock nerds who will never get laid. And don't bring up one of your idols. I don't care who he is, he isn't an anti-natalist: he's just a young guy who found a way to make money rationalizing nerd's inability to get some for them.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 09:09:17 2014 No.5260073 File: 10 KB, 300x300, image.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>5260067 >here let me build a straw man >haha and down it goes >lel nerds >lalala not listening Run along, laddie.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 09:12:37 2014 No.5260084 >>5260024 Far from it it. If anything, it's closer related to Christian and Dharmic ideals.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 09:13:39 2014 No.5260088

>>5260067
“Pleasure is never as pleasant as we expected it to be and pain is always more painful. The pain in the world always outweighs the pleasure. If you don't believe it, compare the respective feelings of two animals, one of which is eating the other.”

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:21:22 2014 No.5260272 Life, to the nonexistent, is a construct.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:37:04 2014 No.5260344

>>5250386
"not existing has never hurt anyone".
Meaningless statement and an appeal to emotion.
"There's no point in forcing people into life"
Meaningless statement: before conception there is no one in existence and, thus, procreation is not an act of coercion.

"Life doesn't have to be suffering"
Who claimed it was?

"You can be an antinatalist without beinf a pessimist"
Sure. And? That has no bearing of of being an antinatalist is logical, ethical, or even self-consistent.

You know, I think the existence of this post actively harmed me.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:38:06 2014 No.5260348 >>5250623 Unsupportable statement

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:42:10 2014 No.5260361

>>5252157
>"...there is no way to have a child for the benefit of the child (as the child does not exist yet)"
Is this what passes for argumentation on your world?
By this "logic" I could argue
"building a hospital cannot be for the benefit of future sick people because they do not exist yet"
or
"storing grain in anticipation of future famine is illogical because their isn't a famine yet"
This is no more than blather

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:46:08 2014 No.5260372 >>5252742 Actually, we just fail to hate people. Are you one of those guys that worries that he shouldn't eat bananas because they are 'unsustainable'?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:49:27 2014 No.5260388 >>5260084 >I have no idea what Christian theology is about FTFY

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:53:21 2014 No.5260403

We're already here.

Unless we intentionally scorch the Earth (we won't) we're not going anywhere.

We've come quite a long way since the beginning of the universe, and life is steadily increasing in complexity.

You might argue that it is "improving". You might argue that it isn't.

But given all the work that has already been done, and our curiosity about where all of it is going (which I will assume you have, too)

Why end it now?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:55:51 2014 No.5260413 >>5260403 Why end it at all? Why debate it? Why start it for that matter? Why anything? WHY?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:56:42 2014 No.5260418 >>5250386 >this thread is still up /lit/ confirmed for most depressed board

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:57:17 2014 No.5260421 >>5260372 Why would you hurt people you don't hate? Pure sadism?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:58:00 2014 No.5260424 >>5260418 >you have to be depressed to be an anti-natalist

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:58:19 2014 No.5260426 >>5260388 >saints and sages >not celibate

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 10:58:55 2014 No.5260431

What a retarded position of life, you're basically forcing your pathetic depression onto everyone else.
I enjoy life. I'm grateful for it, and if I died tomorrow I would be able to say "It was a fun ride with many bumps".
Lots of people have it bad, but I don't see them being suicidal at all, human beings are resilient. If anything depression seems like a middle class phenomenon born from the realization that a material life doesn't bring you happiness.

You're a fucking child, and you're screaming for everyone to accept your childish outlook on life. Man cannot be a judge of life as he is the player, I think Freddy said something like that?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:01:09 2014 No.5260440 >>5260421 Are you referring to the antinatalist concept that merely existing is hurtful?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:02:16 2014 No.5260446 >>5260426 >Many saints were married >Many sages weren't celibate >The first commandment of God is "Be fruitful and multiply" You're just confirming your profound ignorance of the topic at hand

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:02:42 2014 No.5260450
File: 247 KB, 513x742, disguy3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5260431
>forcing your pathetic depression onto everyone else
>forcing
>depression

>if I died tomorrow I would be able to say "It was a fun ride with many bumps"
>If I died tomorrow I would be able
>died
>able

>If anything depression seems like a middle class phenomenon
>depression
>phenomenon

>You're a fucking child
>You're

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:03:21 2014 No.5260454 >>5260431 >What a retarded position of life Man cannot be a judge of life as he is the player.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:05:07 2014 No.5260462 >>5260403 >Why end it now? Euthanasia. Either it ends in a way that we can control, humane and painlessly, or it will end horribly a bit later.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:06:51 2014 No.5260467 >>5260440 Yes, human life is a painful ordeal.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:09:50 2014 No.5260479 >>5260450 >anon used "you're" properly, you dolt

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:11:22 2014 No.5260484 >>5260479 >being this hungry for bait

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:12:44 2014 No.5260496

>>5260467
unsupported assertion
Indeed, I would counter that this seems obviously false.
The vast majority of humans speak of happiness, joy, humor, etc. and go on to have and raise children whom they usually delight in.

It appears that it isn't that life is a painful ordeal, I think that *you* are a whiner

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:12:48 2014 No.5260497 >>5258828 hello david are you not supposed to be dead?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:13:57 2014 No.5260506 >>5260484 Sop pretending its bait - we all know you just fucked up

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:14:39 2014 No.5260507 >>5260506 >me >him

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:26:10 2014 No.5260557
File: 25 KB, 254x223, natalism.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>5260496
That's because they both deliberately and unintentionally shut out the negative things they experience and that they cause to justify their continued existence. The vast majority of people function by mechanisms that will facilitate survival, not human happiness. They're driven by instinct and the rest is a posteriori justification. Hence people continuing reproducing in poverty, during homelessness, during famine, in prison, in concentration camps et cetera.

These aren't actions based on sensible assessment of the circumstances which lead to the conclusion that life is good fun. They're the actions of people who will reproduce whatever the cost.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:26:27 2014 No.5260561 would i be considered an anti natalist for having a child through adoption?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:27:52 2014 No.5260573 >>5260561 Yeah. AN is just about giving birth.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:29:28 2014 No.5260582 >>5260561 doing that wouldn't make you an aniti-natalist but I believe it is something an anti-natalist could justify (looking after already existing people instead of creating new ones)

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:31:00 2014 No.5260592

>>5260561
You ever heard the statement that charity is the pressure valve of capitalism? Adoption is the pressure valve of natalism. You're facilitating careless reproduction by adopting a child, just like you are facilitating reckless abandonment of animals by adopting a pet.

You're engaging in reverse eugenics too, because you are harbouring the genetic material of people who are unable to care for their offspring.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:42:09 2014 No.5260647

>>5260557
>All those happy people who laugh and enjoy life? yeah, they're really miserable and suicidal, they are just too stupid to realize it and just lie to themselves to avoid the truth
Yeah, right
Let me counter
"All those negative antinatalists are deliberately and unintentionall shutting out all of the positive things they experience to justify their warped worldview. They justify their refusal to improve their lives and attitudes by claiming to have an unassailable truth claim and filter all experience of themselves and others through this paradigm.
This leads them to irrational, illogical behavior such as claiming to be able to discern the motives and even read the minds of people they will never meet or making sweeping claims that only they are capable of properly thinking."

You're not a genius, your the anhedonic result of the First World's failure to challenge your mind and body in a meaningful way.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 11:52:21 2014 No.5260693

>>5260647
So you consider reproducing in a concentration camp equally sensible to refraining from it? It's all just relative? Of course complete relativism is one of the best defences of natalism, but it's at the same time a valid defence of every horrible act under the sun you would presumably disapprove of. Unless you don't and your relativism or moral nihilism is consistent, then I have nothing to argue against that and consider it a valid position.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 12:13:09 2014 No.5260806

>>5260693
>unless you consider all of life equal to the most negative extreme you are engaged in relativism
Bzzzzt! False. Indeed, comparing life in general to a concentration camp means you are disengaged from reality.
And if you AREN'T comparing all life to a concentration camp then you are simply acknowledging the reality that bad things and bad times are temporary and localized.
Either weakens or refutes your argument.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 12:23:08 2014 No.5260853 >>5254005 Why do you think antinatalists can't enjoy love as much as you do? How do they hinder your enjoyment of life?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 12:28:17 2014 No.5260881 >>5254030 > We are enemies here. Holy shit, man. Did antinatalists abort you child? Did they decide not to give birth to the possible love of you life?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 12:30:30 2014 No.5260889 >>5260853 1) because they never shut up about how terrible life is 2) the constant whining is annoying as shit

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 12:54:14 2014 No.5260980

>>5260806
My point was that people reproduce, not because life is fun, but because they are driven to it. The fun part is a rationalisation made in retrospect. Therefore the argument is that life is nice enough to bring people into is suspect, since reproducing people and people so inclined obviously lack the clarity of judgement to make that call, given that they continue their behaviour under the most excruciating circumstances.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 13:04:02 2014 No.5261015 >>5260889 Only when you come into these threads silly. Or do they harass you with pamphlets irl?

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 18:10:12 2014 No.5262211 >>5251864 Whilst I have no wish to have children, life really isn't that bad. I mean sure, I've suffered my fair share, but I've also gained pleasure from life.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 18:11:19 2014 No.5262216 >>5252406 I disagree, we give context to the universe and by observing it, we change it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 18:19:36 2014 No.5262248 >>5255196 They also want to increase the likelihood that he will fall in love.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 18:24:02 2014 No.5262260 >>5262248 Men love women, women love their children. Men → women → children There is no reciprocity, meaning there is no love. You'll see what I mean one day.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 18:28:20 2014 No.5262275

>>5262260
>You'll see what I mean one day
You say that like I didn't go through the same phase you're going through right now, when I was seventeen or so.

Guess what: in the same way you think people have no right to give birth to a potential vessel for suffering; you also have no right to take prevent a potential vessel for bliss.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 18:34:30 2014 No.5262296 >>5262275 People can give birth all they want. But whatever happens to your kid is your fault. I think life has too much suffering, and I would love my children immensely, so I spare them that. Have 1000 kids, idgaf.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 18:36:31 2014 No.5262304

>>5262296
>whatever happens to your kid is your fault
At least partially, yes, I agree. I just don't feel that the average person's suffering is all that bad and the happiness that usually follows more than makes up for it.

Also, I'm never going to have kids, I have no desire to.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 18:39:58 2014 No.5262317 >>5262304 See >>5260088 The pleasure does not cover the pains. But I think you subconsciously know this >I'm never going to have kids, I have no desire to.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 18:43:31 2014 No.5262332

>>5262317
>The pleasure does not cover the pains. But I think you subconsciously know this
I have multiple hereditary diseases which were put in place by the chance genetics of my parent's paring.

While I ultimately enjoy life, I think it's stupid to breed until someone finds a way to fix my genes. I would, however, happily adopt.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 19:05:13 2014 No.5262416

>>5262332
See, if only your parents had thought about birth.

Read this >>5260592 it addresses adoption. The VAST majority of children in foster care are the offspring of parents who made horrible decisions. Low mental aptitude is passed on genetically. We've already lost 10 IQ points on average since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 19:09:07 2014 No.5262442

>>5262317
That quote is retarded. I'm not going to sire an antelope only to have it being eaten by a lion.

I'm going to sire a human at the top of the food chain. And animal's suffering isn't as valuable as a human's happiness in almost every formulation of utilitarianism.

Anonymous Fri Aug 8 19:13:23 2014 No.5262464

>>5262442
He was saying that all things equal, suffering is more powerful than pleasure. And he's right. The pleasure your boss gets from making money off of you is less than your suffering. The pleasure you get from wal-mart supplies is less than the suffering of the slaves who made it. The pleasure from the food you eat is less than the toil of the Mexican farmhand.

>>	Anonymous Fri Aug 8 19:17:44 2014 No.5262485 >>5262416 >See, if only your parents had thought about birth. I'm still happy I was born though. It's not like they could have known either, they both had latent genes that could have only activated when combined with one another.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature