/lit/ - Literature

>>10303339
You're over thinking it. Anti-natalism is a jewish meme geared toward whites only. Since jews are paranoid freaks who feel, and rightfully so, that the greatest threat to their recently acquired power within our societies comes from whites, they try to gaslight us into believing that procreation is unnatural and immoral, all the while telling us to subsidize the breeding habits of third world populations that we now have to import due to low birth rates. It's jewish psychological mindwar.

>>10303459
I thought /lit/ was dead until CoC became a meme and people started reading it. That book single-handedly resurrected intelligent discussion around here.

Literally every case I've seen is just some materialistic 30s couple who can't separate from their self-absorbedness.
It's one thing to not want to have kids, it's another to parrot fedora shit to convince yourself you're superior instead of just of a different opinion.

Babies aren't cheap. It also kills the relationship slowly but surely if they're not really prepared to care for their progeny. Anti-natalism is just a categorization for an idea widly spread
Anyway, I wouldn't want to bring a human being to see the state of things, maybe if society were different.

>>10303488
I agree with all your points, but once kids are gone away from college, parents get a sense of satisfaction from seeing their kid be succesful. all the troubles from their early days are long gone. David Benatar for example,is pretty one sided on the happiness treadmill, but parental satisfaction like that can last for a long time

i know that's not the case for a lot of people,but essays dealing with this are so sweeping to all the population

>>10303339
It's just materialists--see:

>>10303488
>Babies aren't cheap.

>>10303339
Ultimately it's a value judgement and behind the sophistry all value judgements just come down to 'muh feels'.

I feel bad when I make people I love suffer though, so I refrain from spawning a hypothetical child into sufferland since I would inevitably care about that child a lot and would feel very bad for making it suffer and wouldn't be able to forgive myself.

Parents obviously don't share this intuition, so I feel like they're pretty irresponsible people by nature. They take unnecessary risks with other people's lives without consent and are basically existential rapists.

>>10303561
>I love suffer though, so I refrain from spawning a hypothetical child into sufferland since I would inevitably care about that child a lot and would feel very bad for making it suffer and wouldn't be able to forgive myself.

but even that is pretty iffy, you can fight with your parents a lot, same with your chlld, but you can still feel highly proud of them in the long run.
like i said, these anti-natalists think of happiness as a treadmill, but satisfaction can and does exist long term.

i'm not saying one's child won't suffer, but i'mfeeling this sense of long term satisfaction in both parent and child is overlooked

>>10303608
I guess it can but I would argue only in people with no great sense of responsibility.

I'd be perpetually horrified if I knew there was someone walking around whose suffering can be directly and completely be linked back to my actions.

Most people don't feel this at all though, if someone has a child that gets cancer they don't feel guilt but self-pity, as if they didn't bring it about and are somehow duped, even though they were aware of the child cancer scenario existing in the world and opted into at least the possibility of it when they chose to have a child. But somehow the very idea that you are responsible for what happens to the persons you create is alien to most people, it doesn't enter into their heads.

I am too acutely aware of the possible consequences of my actions to play fast and loose with someone else's life. I think there has to be some sort of ignorance, insensitivity, hubris or lacking imagination to deliberately have a child.

I'm a big fan of the Kantian form of it, but I'm not too well-versed on the other forms (other than the pessimistic philosophy kind, which is alright i guess)

>>10303640
>Kantian form of it,
pls elaborate

>>10303339
It's not a meme and you are not fully understanding anti-natalism. To an anti-natalist, forcing into the world a being that is inevitably going to feel some degree of suffering is unacceptable, because the alternative is to not bring them into the world and therefore not directly produce suffering.

>>10303662
Natalism is of contradictory format to his deontological ethics

>>10303339
Bugs..
easy on the junji ito

>lifecucks will defend this

Anti-natalism is great if it convinces liberals and nu-males to stop reproducing.

>>10303488
>babies arent cheap
>it also kills the relationship slowly
>anti-natalism is a widely spread idea
When you positively confirm a bias without controlling for socio-psychological conditions, and proceed strictly through reification as a result, everything and anything makes sense.

Babies are cheap; child care can be expensive but does not need to be. Babies do not kill relationships; apathetic parents who refuse to adapt do, and it's very easy to maintain a healthy relationship as long as you don't center your entire life around the child. Anti-natalism isn't as widely spread as you think, especially given that the reason why fewer people aren't having children is entirely due to distractions and not any significant thought on the subject.

Even the idea, "Society sucks!!!" false apart under the barest of scrutiny. You feel like society sucks because you're too busy paying attention to the comparatively non-existent negativity instead of focusing on the other 80% of human interaction and experience that is by-and-large neutral to good, by anyone's definition.

Anti-natalism as a least-harm practice is raw stupidity founded in willful ignorance.

>>10303561
>value judgment is only sophistry
>emotions arent a meaningful purpose
>sufferland
>parents. . .are basically existential rapists

Give me like 15 minutes, I've gotta stretch out before I climb into this fucking mental gymnasium.

>>10303339
I don't understand it. If life is so unbearable and full of suffering that you wouldn't bring a new life into the world then why would you cling on to your own life?

>>10305611
Congratulations, you've found the inherent contradiction that makes antinatalism a load of nonsense.

>>10303339
People get hung up on the singular conclusion of procreation being wrong and don't engage in population- and normative ethics in general (though why would they, most people here barely got out of high school). There's lots of ways to conclude AN, most common being some combination of negative utilitarianism+denying intrinsic benefits of existence over not. One way is to appeal to there being no duty to create the pleasures contained within a prospective life but a duty not to create any of its sufferings, because, prima facie, duties require victims. If you procreate, you've caused a lifetime of suffering and death on the person created but if you don't, there's no one who's thereby deprived of life's positives.

It is not just a meme, but I haven't seen an anti-natalist yet who is not a hopeless loser.

>>10305677
Seems vacuous, since I doubt you've seen any.

>>10305690
Most Marxists are antinatalists. It's an interesting correlation, the people who happen to hold an anti-power, anti-life ideology such as Marxism are generally the same people who see life as a pit of misery and suffering. If you've seen a Marxist, you've probably seen an anti-natalist.

>>10305704
fuck off /pol/

>>10305715
Not the person you replied to but are there even any right wing anti-natalist arguments?

>>10305715
I see words, but I see no argument :^)

>>10305726
What the hell is a "right-wing argument"? Moral arguments concern morality, not politics.

>>10305715
>Leftypol in charge of critical thinking

>>10305730
Politics is a subcategory of morality brainlet

>>10305737
Nope, case in point moral error theorists participate in politics too.

>>10305749
Yeah because they're full of shit hypocrites, go figure

>>10305758
Way to beg the question.

>>10305765

>>10305749
>good and bad are just social constructs man
>But Donald Trump is evil!

Yeah those guys are real hard hitters

>>10305534
>a decent lunch with another wageslave couple justifies cerebral palsy

Breeders, everyone

>>10305798
>Implying cerebral palsy needs a justification
Just drown it in the tub and say it was an accident

>>10305791
t.

My way of justifying natalism is the following:

I accept the premise that life is as a whole suffering
It is possible therefore that life is pointless and not worth living
It is however fathomable that there is a greater purpose to life beyond pleasure

If life is pointless, creating life is equally pointless
If however there is a purpose to life, propelling life is purposeful
Therefore I choose to act in faith of the purpose that can be, and bring life into the world in pursuit of it, if it is there to pursue

>ITT: Leftists try desperately to defend antinatalism with memes but are defeated easily with sound logical arguments
About what I expected

>>10305810
>It is however fathomable that there is a greater purpose to life beyond pleasure
Okay great,we'd still need to establish whether it is actually there, even possibly.
>If life is pointless, creating life is equally pointless
This doesn't follow.
>If however there is a purpose to life, propelling life is purposeful
This doesn't either.
>>10305815
Sound means valid +true premises, arguably none have been presented so far.

>>10305611
>>10305641
Because humans are conditioned to survive against the odds. The act of suicide is caused by immense distress. Having your life threatened unwillingly also causes suffering. By not being born in the first place, both outcomes are avoided.

>>10305849
But killing yourself quickly, like shooting yourself in the head with a shotgun, will quickly put an end to your suffering.

>>10305847
>Okay great,we'd still need to establish whether it is actually there, even possibly.

Nonsensical proposition, the very capability to articulate it with no apparent interior contradictions precludes it as a possibility

>>10305584
kek

Anon may make silly claims but I'm not having children for the same reasons. We are not free, and I'm not bringing a child into a prison state.

>>10305875
Yeah no.

>>10305883
Duuh if ya say so

To all the antinatalists, think about suicide as like a painful operation. Short term suffering for a long term gain. It's similar to something simple like putting your dislocated shoulder back into place. A quick death followed by an eternity of no suffering.

>>10305864
That still takes a significant amount of will driven by despair. The emotional and existential fear of death can be greater then a dissatisfaction with life.

>>10305895
Why not just go to a hospital and have them euthanize you? They could anaesthetise you so you wouldn't see death coming.

My question is how do antinatalists know that mankind will never overcome suffering ?

>>10305895
Also, why would you fear death, the loss of life, if you don't value life to begin with?

>>10305909
How do you know that the true suffering hasn't even begun?

>>10305903
But that's still anticipating death. Unless something else kills you spontaneously and unknowingly, there is always a fear.

>>10305922
Well couldn't you hire someone to do that? And what is there to fear?

>>10305915
I imagine it has not; i'm thinking climate change and technocratic hegemony will create further suffering and yet i am raising a son with the idea that perhaps his life will be something he can enjoy and treasure just as i do mine.

>>10305922
Also would an antinatalist be happy for me to murder them if I didn't tell them I was going to do it? Would that be a great gift?

>>10303459
Go back to /pol/ brainlet. If I as a Jew had half the power you said I had you nazi scum would be sent to an island to buttfuck each other.

>>10305932
I agree but to me pleasure and pain are irrelevant to the matter. I would raise a child in the face of a holocaust because I believe faith in the value of life is more important than enduring pain

>>10305914
Cognitive dissonance. Exerting the effort to accelerate the inevitable is not necessarily more desirable then apathy.

>>10305944
That is true. Life must live on.

>>10305946
You already said death is categorically preferable to life though

>>10305946
So life can't be that bad then. Not so unbearable and full of suffering.

>>10305928
Still anticipation, and fear is only controlled by the human condition.
>>10305940
They wouldn't feel anything about anything because they'd be dead. But if it means less suffering then the alternative, it may have a positive value.

>>10305965
But the human condition also makes humans desire children. If death is preferable to life I do not see how you could be so cowardly as to not find a quick painless possibly assisted way to die?

>>10305973
forget the question mark

>>10305973
Its almost like they're just angsty teens with a hang up on Mom and Dad they can't get over

>>10305903
>Why not just go to a hospital and have them euthanize you?
You can't do this outside Holland and Switzerland, and even there it's a really long process.

>>10305961
Non-existence is. Death is typically a negative process resulting from existing in the first place. A hypothetical scenario where life ceases to exist in a blink could be an equivalent. However, if you do exist then there are moral reasons to stay alive such as to prevent the grief of your elders if you die before them or working to ease the suffering of others.
>>10305962
To many it may not be bad, but to those who suffer, not existing would be preferable. If a choice is made to not give birth to someone who would otherwise have a good life, they would have had to exist to care about the loss of a positive experience. On the other hand, preventing a bad life would save them from suffering even if they are not there to know what they have been saved from.

>>10306028
>However, if you do exist then there are moral reasons to stay alive such as to prevent the grief of your elders if you die before them or working to ease the suffering of others.

Ok but what if having children is necessary to prevent the grief and suffering of others?

>>10306042
It would be fine to give birth for that reason, but it means that a negative value of child birth is situational. There would be difficulty in trying to measure the happiness outcome to determine when child birth preferable. There does not seem to be a clear way to resolve the moral dilemma. It's up to would-be parents to make a moral judgement based on whether the lack of a child would be a bigger emotional problem to them then the fundamental trials of existence would be to a newborn.

>>10306135
In which case you're basically proposing absolutely nothing

>It's a 4chan doesn't understand anti-natalism episode

>>10306177
>You just don't get it maaaaan!

>>10306182
Most posters in this thread don't

>>10306193
What is it then, oh wise man.

>>10306213
Stop talking like a retard

>>10303459

W O K E
O K
K O
E K O W

>>10306229
Kill yourself.

>>10306258
You did it again, great job

>>10306265
Calling someone a retard is not explaining your argument, idiot.

>>10305876
Which of my claims are silly?

>>10305726
There are Christian forms of antinatalism.

>>10306713
Celibacy isn't anti-natalism if that's what you mean. It's purpose is not to stop having children but to avoid lust and be able to better serve god and people who are not in your family.

What are some examples?

>>10306765
Celibacy is de facto antinatalism if it is expected for all believers and not just the clergy like with the Skoptsy, Shakers, Priscillians, certain Cathars, gnostic types.

I also remember reading about some obscure Calvinist antinatalist logic that since the vast majority of people will not be part of the elect having a child has an almost certain chance of sending said child to hell forever but I can't find it at the moment.

>>10305890
>A quick death followed by an eternity of no suffering.

Vel non.

>>10303339
>>10303561
>>10305646

>Because the only measurement of life is pleasure
The Englsih were a mistake

>>10303339 (OP)
>>10303561
>>10305646

>Because the only measurement of life is pleasure
The English were a mistake

Of course it is. Anyone who truly believes it, wouldn’t be arguing about it online, they’d be jumping off a bridge.

>>10307733
>equating condoms and abortion

>>10307716
The only measurement of life that is undeniable for everyone is suffering.

>>10305941
get out

>>10303339
POSTING NOTALKINGPLZ REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>10306865
Technically celebrates could artificially inseminate

>>10309346
I agree, which is why no one on /lit/ should ever reproduce. Bunch of brainlets.

>>10309346
>one OUGHT to maximise evolutionary fitness

the spookiest spook of all

>>10309556
Good goyim

>>10309560
goyim is plural you putz

>>10303459
>You're over thinking it. Now watch as I put on my tinfoil hat and contort myself into a pretzel to promote the white genocide jewish-nazi conspiracy.

>>10303339
Does anyone remember that one lit poster who always posted pictures of cartoons in this style and wrote very quirky and replaced you with ye?

>>10303339
Anti-natalism doesn't work if you believe existence is capable of have any value other than >50% pleasure v. pain. If you decide to ascribe any value to life on any other terms anti-natalism goes away.

>>10303459
at last i truly see

>>10303459
>>10303459
>jewish psychological mindwar
holy shit you are fucken so far gone if you think you're not masturbating yourself into another dimension with this silly dumb crap.
t. 4 kids married 13 years

>>10306135
>difficulty in trying to measure the happiness outcome
eat the gun now, this is a fucked up vale of tears, if you measure the variables you are faced with one conclusion: eat the gun now there's nothing in it for you except calamity.
Having children is a neutral thing. It solves and causes problems. People are programmed with powerful instincts and urges and end up having babies.

>>10303459
>Schopenhauer was jewish

>>10311870
Did Schopenhauer promote antinatalism? Maybe they got the idea from him.

Yes, it's telling you not have kids so there will be more resources for the kids you won't have.

>>10311706
Even on those terms it requires having a narrow view of what constitutes "pleasure". As Mark the Shark Twain once said even selflessness is selfish coz u do it to make yourself feel cool[sic]

>>10309728
Accept your royal we you scum