Antinatalism thread

Having children isn't categorically wrong, but it can be in specific circumstances and very specific people

WHAT IF CHILDREN WERE BORN DISABLED, BLIND OR SOME OTHER FUCKED UP DISEASE?

Has anyone mentioned the "dilettante and old maid", "the sickeningly sentimental apostle of virginity", Phillipp Mainländer?

Oh hai Nietzsche.

The vast majority of people in prosperous, developed countries experience more pleasure than pain, more contentment than misery. In that situation, antinatalism doesn't really make sense from an ethical standpoint.

It would be different if we were talking about societies where life was brutally violent, short, plagued by disease and suffering and whatnot. I agree that there are environments to which one should NOT add people. But if you live in a halfway decent place, it's not evil to have kids.

But then again, it's not evil to not have kids either. Really, who fucking cares.

"Coward" is the emptiest, weakest insult there is. Your post stands for nothing but a wishful externalization for someone else to surrender themselves into self-harm, sacrificing what little they might have for no gain.

>The vast majority of people in prosperous, developed countries experience more pleasure than pain, more contentment than misery.
That isn't necessarily fulfilling and can be hell in its own way. The problem is the existence of consciousness, particularly the advanced consciousness possessed by humans. It's not just about suffering/pleasure. Read Zapffe.

>The vast majority of people in prosperous, developed countries experience more pleasure than pain, more contentment than misery. In that situation, antinatalism doesn't really make sense from an ethical standpoint.
Not really. Also, USA is a shithole.
Prophet Mani was antinatalist.

Attached: prophetmani.jpg (192x263, 6K)

Imagine being so evil, so egotistic to the point of putting children into this evil, meaningless, chaotic, random, pointless world just so you can have "that" feeling of doing something important, when in reality you're just being a selfish cunt and are not thinking about the future of the children at all.

Attached: kafka.jpg (472x700, 63K)

>USA is a shithole
It really isn't, Americans are just retards who don't know how good they have it and waste it all.

>those people who don’t exist would be really glad they didn’t exist if they existed
The famed self completeing system

Shut up, Joel Osteen. The country is an over-competitive shithole where automation will get rid of most jobs. I have it better than most because I went back for another degree in Computer Science, which I don't enjoy in the least though. You are god-forsaken stupid piece of shit compared to me in all likelihood.

C O W A R D

I knew a ranting Christfag who often went on about how he disliked this world and couldn't wait to go on to the afterlife. I once asked, "what if someone doesn't like the fact that they were born?" He looked at me with an odd, disturbed and serious expression and said that it would be a deep ingratitude to think like that. It was so illogical and self-contradictory.

>The country is an over-competitive shithole where automation will get rid of most jobs.
Luddites are cute, because they were, are, and will always be wrong.

I guess it makes sense if you believe that being porn grants you entry into an eternal paradise if you make the correct decisions.

>being porn
What does being erotic literature grant you?

Why not use the privilege of such a life to try and save more people from suffering?

I am by no means an expert, but I have read a handful of some Pessimist texts: Zapffe, Schopenhauer, Ligotti, and Edgar Saltus' survey of the subject, The Philosophy of Disenchantment. That last one was my favorite, but Ligotti's Consipracy was good too. I enjoy these books when I'm in a bleak mood. For some reason I find them very cozy.

That being said, they all SAY that consciousness is the problem, but desu none of them really prove that point. I don't have a problem with my own consciousness mainly because in my own Epicurean arithmetic, I still enjoy more contentment than misery

It's possible that there will be little gain, but there is also the possibility of immense gain beyond anything you could imagine. But if you don't try, you get nothing.

>immense gain beyond anything you could imagine
am I in an Evangelical church lol

Alright, there's no helping you. Go off and die alone with dignity but don't try to convince others to follow in your evil footsteps

>evil footsteps
Must be nice to force innocents into a life of suffering and then call others evil.

I am not necessarily a Luddite. I just said I went back for another degree in Computer Science. I'm saying automation will replace most jobs, and the USA will become even more competitive. USA has no communal stability.

Life isn't suffering, your life is suffering.

How about this? I am an antinatalist, not because I think life is bleak but because it's awesome and fun and kids are a giant pain in the ass that fuck everything up.

>your life is suffering
But that is exactly the point. Why the FUCK would shitholers and people with genetic disabilities keep breeding and condemning more generations to live in squalor?

Oh dear, I got my bilabial plosives mixed up.

Because for those with greater wills, life like that is not so bad. You are weak in spirit

Everything you're proposing has been tried before all throughout the first half of the 20th century in America, to disastrous and immensely inhumane results. Read War Against the Weak by Edwin Black.

That's fine, just do something meaningful with your life (ideally). Write a classic, make music; make use of your freed time in other words.

Attached: 1566825791471.jpg (131x165, 11K)

>Why the FUCK would shitholers and people with genetic disabilities keep breeding and condemning more generations to live in squalor?

I agree with you, but that's not really antinatalism. Antinatalism says that ALL life is suffering, whether you live in Vermont or fucking botswana.

I am an antinatalist when it comes to poor people, Africans, retards, cripples-- in fact, most of the world. In other words, I'm not an antinatalist at all, just a realist.

>life like that is not so bad
t. healthy first-worlder babby who doesn't even have to try to get by

That projection turned around quickly.

I don't really believe in a moral law.
Moral philosophies are just patch upon patch until they agree with our intuition.
So why not rely on our intuition in our first place?

So I would have to reject antinatalism as it doesn't align with my personal intuitions.

bump

Based. I’ve felt this

It's all known: Zapffe's "The Last Messiah", Lighotti's "The Conspiracy Against the Human Race", Benatar's "Better Never to Have Been", Mainlander's "Philosophy of Redemption"

Maybe now we can add Eugene Thacker, but he is more of a nihilist than antinatalist.

Anything else I left out?

Are you seriously begging us to convince you to pollute the gene pool with your weak mansauce?

Stay away, and don't piss in our pool.

You're not an antinatalist, you're childfree.

Childfree don't have kids because they don't want to spend their time and effort on something they don't want in the first place. Antinatalists believe that life is suffering, therefore it should not be imposed upon innocent human beings.

Childfree does not procreate for his own sake, antinatalist for the sake of the children. It's a subtle but major difference

The only reason I can think of for having kids, its to facilitate the enlightment of souls. If you are going to provide a child with an envirionment specifically catered to them achieving enlightenment (no need to work, high quality education etc.) then bringing them into the world is good because it will result in improvement of a soul if done right.
For 99.9% of people however, they cannot do this, and shouldnt have kids. Although the souls will just incarnate in a different time/place anyway so it makes fuck all difference either way.

>soul
No such thing.

There is if you're S P O O K E D

>Antinatalists believe that life is suffering
I'd also like to add that there are environmentalist antinatalists who think humans are detrimental and should voluntarily stop breeding, plus one movement that even had a specific name which I forgot, which basically proposed that we should (noncruelly) find a way to end all life and then ourselves.

I thought this was a global warming thread by the picture.

Depends. This reminds me of talking to an old man whose main regret was not killing himself thirty years before our meeting. Suffering is not worth it. Ever.

>not killing himself thirty years before our meeting
Interesting, any specific reason why it had to be 30 years?

>suffering is bad
Don't tell me you believe this Yea Forums, I thought this was the high IQ board?

>slave to biological imperative
life is a biological process either accept it or kys

Your argument has some holes in it

Attached: bjcejxl1acpy.jpg (520x588, 121K)

>placing others beings happiness over your own
why do this? Ecological beauty exists in this world for us to enjoy. Obviously we're facing an ecological catastrophe which requires a mass culling of human life in order to avert, i'll grant you in abstract. However, removing all human life has no other purpose than signaling your own virtue

the problem of the anti-natalist is not in the existence of actual human suffering but in their perceiving of said suffering.
there is, after all, no efficient, or even feasible way to determine the amount of suffering experienced by all available humanity.
the anti-natalist assumes that suffering always weight heavier on the scale than whatever state of being should run counter or at least is more beneficial to humanity.
but lacking any means of quantifying said suffering the only logical basis for the anti-natalist to measure suffering is by the perception of suffering held by people.
therefore it only makes sense that to decrease the amount that suffering is perceived is to decrease the state of suffering in the world.
the best way to reach this objective is to eliminate the populace which have to greatest and most intensely felt perception of human suffering, ie: anti-natalists

not the user you're responding to but holy fuck, you're a pussy. grow a pair

Even if we eliminate the currently existing anti-natalists, new ones will continue to arise from the general population, and you might say that to solve it all you need to do is continually eliminate any new anti-natalists that arise, but by eliminating them or forcing them to eliminate themselves you're creating new suffering, and you would still not be able to assure that your own child will not become an anti-natalist who must undergo the pains of elimination.

And there is this retard

Yeah, one time I asked a Christfag why people deserve to go to hell just for existing. And he said "herp, its not for existing, its for being born into sin". And then I said "Then why do people deserve to have to exist in the first place?". This simple dialectic pretty much blew his brain up because he looked at me like that should be considered a non-sequitur. Truth be told, in light of Christian eschatology there is basically nothing to be grateful for. Like if you're going for 5 root canals, are you going to be like "wow, the waiting room has a Nintendo Wii". This world is just a waiting room before a vast majority of us feel unspeakable horror forever. Fuck the whole deal.

Attached: 555.png (690x774, 43K)

Incredible how after billions of years of struggling to exist, faggots like you are going to throw it down the drain.
>Then give up your comfort and go live as a beggar in the streets, Übermensch
Retard take. He's saying that life necessarily includes strife. I'd even go so far as to argue that a life without adversity cannot have luster. I think that's why depressed faggots like OP exist. Effortless existence without challenge leaves one feeling useless and depressed.

Attached: 1559061909814.jpg (850x400, 67K)

Why do people think they can adopt multiple discordant ethical systems at once? This is hardly ever covered but has anyone noticed how an opponent will morph from a virtue ethicist to a consequentialist or utilitarian without considering the antinomy of such action? At any rate antinatalism needn't become some sort of governmental system. Antinatalists can consider themselves as keeping their hands clean while the base-minded surely perpetuate the misery of human existence. That's my attitude at least.

There’s no good argument for it so why would anyone need to formulate an argument against it?

can someone recommend me some fiction with (preferably subtle) antinatalist themes?

There's the problem of suffering. Generally people tend to think that an anti-natalist decides that the suffering outweighs the pain, and therefore you should not have children. But I argue that the position goes beyond that. It's a question of uncertainty. The fact is that we are not certain if the pain will outweigh the joy. Parents may be rich and living in a first world country, but they might get a child with obvious genetic defects or he/she might be prone to mental problems. Why risk it? Specially a hard-hitting question if you don't believe in the concept of soul or karma.

you aren't reacting to main focus of that post which is the difference in suffering actual and suffering perceived. In addition the post corrects the anti-natalists faulty logic and offers the true solution the anti-natalist should adopt.
For instance if I were not an anti-natalist I would obviously not practice in killing anti-natalist since I would believe that suffering is only an ephemeral quality and know that life is for the living.

>Incredible how after billions of years of struggling to exist, faggots like you are going to throw it down the drain.

You're gonna die, faggot.
Your "legacy" doesn't matter, you low IQ ape.

>keeping their hands clean while the base-minded surely perpetuate the misery of human existence
This is the problem with you lot. You focus exclusively on the negative aspects of existing while conveniently excluding all positives. Then you have the nerve to call those who accept the dualistic nature of existence "base-minded." It's pretentious and pessimistic nonsense. Stop jerking yourself off and get some sunlight.

Life is suffering, meaningless, pointless. Why have children? Why perpetuate suffering?

>You're gonna die, faggot.
>Your "legacy" doesn't matter, you low IQ ape.
No shit, retard. My children will continue the struggle. Just because you lack concern for what comes after doesn't mean everyone concerned is mentally impaired, it means you are. I can't believe you have the nerve to call someone else low IQ after subtracting meaning from biological impetuses. Truly a rationalist Redditor.

>it doesn't matter
then why not have fun, go out into the world and fuck everything that moves, eat well, get drunk, feel good.
anti-natalists are just the debbie downers of nihilism
>meaningless
then why assume there is any meaning to suffering. that is then meaningless as well and making some stance against it is just as meaningless

Life has joy, meaning, and purpose. Why not have children? Why not perpetuate joy?

>conveniently excluding all positives

The positives are subordinate to the existence of the being. Its really just a question of what is being accomplished? You make a thing and then it wants to experience benefit (no, not pleasure, that's too simple) and it wont necessarily and ultimately it will experience a continuous harm as it dies. And for me personally, I admit the possibility that there may be a hell or something else to suffer after death.

Actually I know there is a hell from personal revelation but I wont put that forward as an argument, though it is the thrust of my antinatalist ardour

The whole lives. You and I are mere parts.

>In addition the post corrects the anti-natalists faulty logic and offers the true solution the anti-natalist should adopt.
could you clarify or rephrase that?