/lit/ - Literature

Anti-natalism makes me want to dump my cum into a nice lady.

>>10466641

>>10468641
>
First of all, that OP is my hero.

Second, why is /lit so ignorant about this? 99% of the replies in that thread were "LOL why don't you kys?"

>>10468668
what do you think about the replies about there being no basis to prefer pleasure over pain. that was me

>>10468677
If you're asking this question, I assume that you agree the world contains a lot of pain/suffering

It's OK if you think that we shouldn't prefer pleasure over pain, but clearly, many people don't share this view.

So why should you get to make this choice for another person (the person that gets born into this world)?

>>10468736
it isn't simply a matter of a difference of opinion. by moving the discussion to discussing whether or not I'm justified in making that choice for another person you're skipping over the most important part of this debate which is whether or not my view is actually correct. even if we both agreed that I have no justification for making that decision for another person that says nothing about the truth of my position.

>>10468629
Benatar
>Derives from Ben-Atar, a Hebrew name signifying descendance from Atar
Wasserman
> German (Wassermann) and Jewish (Ashkenazic): German topographic name or Jewish ornamental or occupational name from Middle High German wazzer, German Wasser, Yiddish vaser ‘water’ + Middle High German -man ‘man’, Yiddish -man (see Wasser). This surname is also established in Sweden.

Yes white bigoted goyim, don't breed. Oy vey, remember the sixteen gorillion.

>>10468892
wew lad

Antinatalism is literally a psy-op to lower the birthrates of certain pale, genteel demographics perceived as ethnic rivals by a certain mercantile tribe of Khazarian extraction.

>>10468796
If by your position, you mean "no basis to prefer pleasure over pain", then sure you're right. This is a matter of preference and therefore there can't be a fact of the matter. But I don't see how this advances the pro-natalist position.

To add, we avoid pain, not simply as a matter of preference but also due to an instinctual/neurobiological drive which a biologist may explain better.

>>10468892
>>10468993

So glad that /pol could join us.

well, i already have 1 kid. and my wife and i are trying for another. so that should say more about my stance than any philosophical rhetoric.

not that i claim everyone should have kids. i don't care what choices individuals make on this subject, and i understand that some people don't want them. that's fine. i just know that for me having a kid has been the most amazing and rewarding thing i have ever experienced.

The judgement that life is shit is subjective judgement.
Therefore, it would immoral for me to project my own subjective judgement and not create more beings, giving them the sacred choice of deciding if life is worth it or not.

Now excuse me while I impregnate my wife for 5th time, lads.

>>10468892

>>10468629
Nothing inherently terrible about life. Gay pessimism.

Suffering happens. Get over it pussies. Life is full of good shit too to balance it out. Can't think of anything more pussified than deliberately not wanting to carry on your lineage. Antinatalism is sick to the core.

>>10469424
>most amazing and rewarding thing i have ever experienced
How very selfish, you ironically have backed up Benatar's point you brainlet

>>10468629
anti-natalists place all the emphasis on suffering but they give no points to pleasure, to them a pleasurable existence is neutral, but a life of suffering is a negative, and somehow it's also a positive thing to "give" somebody who doesn't exist a life of non-suffering, by not bringing them into existence. Sam Harris rightly pointed this out in his podcast with Benatar

>>10469493
If you took any amount of time to attempt to understand the anti-natalist's argument then you would not find the points you have just made compelling. My guess is you've already had your life ruined by getting married and having a child or that you are underage. Having to deal with people like you that think 'get over it pussies' amounts to a decent argument only serves to back up the point that life is suffering. Try educating yourself

>be born
>wow life is good
>thanks mom and dad

>be born
>wow life is shit
>kms

So, what's wrong with this again?

>>10468629
>the (((authors))) of this book.
What a surprise

There is a certain point where evolution selects against intelligence. Most highly intelligent people either breed below replacement rate or not at all.

When you're too smart conscience backfires. Life seems to favour a ~60 to ~110 IQ pleb who can't really oversee the consequences of his actions.

The irony is that the same lack of foresight that causes people to breed is also the lack of foresight that causes them to ruin the environment in which their children have to live.

Intelligent life is a fragile new gimmick that won't last anyway. Take the Medea hypothesis pill.

>>10469560
Benatar uses this analogy to help brainlets understand his point 'a performance at the theater, for example, might not be bad enough to leave, but if you knew in advance that it would be as bad as it is, you would not have come in the first place.' Though I would recommend actually engaging with the material yourself.

Most people are stuck at the theater but for various reasons don't have the willpower or desire to go ahead and commit suicide. It is, after all, completely against our nature

>>10469593
So, people shouldn't make plays because of the possibility that some people might not enjoy it, despite the evidence that most people find plays enjoyable?

If you were born and had to live forever, anti-natalism would make sense. But you're free to leave at any time or just wait out the play if you're too much of a pussy to leave.

>>10469545
Pleasure is dopamine and serotonin. It gets no points because the pleasure you get isn't special its a combination of different neurotransmitters. In the absence of these there is only suffering. Suffering is the default state

>>10469611
Make no mistake you are not 'free' to leave at any time. Your subjective perception of reality has to reach such a low-point that every fiber of your being fights to end itself. Suicide is not a free choice like everything else that humans 'choose' to do.
How long do I have to wait for people to catch up to modern science and realize that free will doesn't exist?

I like it. I'm astonished at the number of people who fail to understand the very simple core argument of it, though.

>>10469665
They understand the core argument but respond with the equivalence of cupping their hands over their ears and screaming 'lalalala'. I imagine most of them are saddled with bringing up a child they don't really want and are trying to justify their decisions

how much of a fucking shitty life do you have to have to become an antinatalist? i've had numerous shitty periods in my life and i'm still incredibly glad i was born.

>>10469703
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7wIQckNS9o

>>10469619
>Pleasure is dopamine and serotonin
suffering is the same thing, without transmitters how could you possibly suffer? If I'm on fire or my dog dies I can't feel pain or suffering without those same receptors. if you want to argue suffering goes beyond that then I can argue that pleasure also goes beyond dopamine and serotonin

>>10469715
Why did you ignore the rest of his post? The first sentence of his that you're responding to is just the first part of his argument

>>10469710
Too bad the book is in English.
Maybe you should translate it and hand out copies in third world shitholes instead of convincing first world young males (likely white) that they shouldn't reproduce.

Fuck off, rabbi.

>>10469731
suffering isn't the default state if suffering also relies on neurotransmitters and biology. Rocks don't suffer, they are in a neutral state. Somebody who doesn't exist is in a neutral state, and their life could either be good or bad with positives and negatives which tip the scale in either direction

Reasons to have children
>Economic growth
>Fulfillment of natural order
>Family
>The joy of life

Arguably certain classes of people are not going to get the full value out of these reasons, but no one in this thread can make that argument for themselves.

>>10469710
These conditions are imposed upon them by their own government's stupid policies, and have nothing to do with large families.

Ironically for the purpose of your argument, the children in the video seem quite happy.

I cannot fathom the kind of little bitch who would unironically be anti-natalist (barring edgy teenagers)

>>10468677
>no basis to prefer pleasure over pain
I think the practice of putting terminally ill pets to sleep is pretty strong evidence against that claim.
I guess you could argue people do this because they're selfish and not because they care about their pets, but I think that would be a pretty silly argument to try to make. Most people aren't psychopaths and have their pets put to sleep because they love them and want to spare them suffering, not because they'd prefer getting out of having to take care of them.

>>10469774
s-screw you man, i f-felt real suffering, you don't know what it's like.
fuck you mom and dad im not giving you grandchildren haha life is pain :(

>>10469785
>I am miserable and unsuccessful, my life is not worth passing on
Its absolutely pathetic

>>10469774
Having a reaction like that is probably the least mature stance you could take. Antinatalist writers aren't teenagers, they're mostly old guy academics. And their motivation isn't to be "edgy," it's to prevent suffering.

There's just two things here I don't get:

1) Why is there this overall assumption that choosing not to have children is some form of suffering? It's not like forcing yourself to remain abstinent despite your growing urges, there just literally is no urge. Some people just don't want to have kids.

2) Why does everyone shit on people who don't want to have kids? So what if they don't want to have kids? What's the worst fate you could imagine for them - cutting off their lineage and denying them successors? Whoops, they already chose to do that and are totally okay with it. So, basically, you already won.

>>10469794
Why are you assuming the antinatalist has a miserable or unsuccessful life?
Most of these writers are well educated, wealthy, and don't have cancer, so you're probably missing the mark there.
This is a common lazy line of attack people make on this topic, trying to shift the focus to the person you're arguing with instead of dealing with the actual merits of their argument.

>>10469807
>Why does everyone shit on people who don't want to have kids?

Because they extend that personal choice to everyone else.
Same thing with vegans, they have to tell everybody they're immoral because they like burgers.
Fuck off.

>>10469834
The appropriate food stance is to be a meat eater who knows it's morally questionable but who does it anyway because the alternative of a vegetable heavy diet would involve trashing your intestines with undigestible plant matter. I don't get the meat eaters who feel the need to be all edgy and post about how they like that animals are being slaughtered for their amusement, it just sounds like you're trying way too hard to convince yourself it doesn't matter by going in the opposite direction and acting like animal suffering has no sort of moral significance.

>>10469025
Well said

>>10469834
Okay, now that's understandable.
That's not a "no kids" person thing, that's just an obnoxious person thing.
Like you said - It's also vegans, LGBT "allies", bronies, stoners, furries, soccer moms, etc.

There are plenty of reasonable people around you who don't want kids, and expectedly - you wouldn't even know about it. It's the "squeaky wheel" thing: A few loud, proud assholes ruin the overall image of the group they claim to represent.

>>10469732
Third world populations will decrease once they finished their demographic transition. As for a lot of other matters, first world population should lead and make an example of it.

>>10469774
Because you're not an edgy brat for insulting the stance instead of criticize it, right ?
Try harder and start by using arguments.

>>10469938
>and make an example of it

>Wealthy white North Americans and Europeans start moving into third-world nations, buying tons of property
>Taking advantage of every one of the country's meager resources thanks to a stronger currency and lots more of it
>Setting up 1960's-era-suburb-looking communities with white-run convenience and grocery stores that sell imported goods from North America and Europe
>Everybody and their future families only speak English and extremely minor or broken versions of local languages
>Not "colonizing"! Just moving in! Don't mind us!

>Ethiopian guy gets lost in the wrong neighborhood, walks into laundromat, rows of blue, green, and hazel eyes all stare him down until he awkwardly leaves
>Cops, punks, and greasers alike eyeball him until he makes his way to the next neighborhood

>>10469984
I was just speaking about the demographic aspect, you extrapolate.

>>10468677
a nonentity doesn't need to have a preference in the first place.

>>10468796
So if you take all of someone's finances and invest them in lottery tickets and they win a million dollars then your initial decision is rendered ethical?

>>10468892
>the whole point of existence is getting into a dick-measuring contest with the other races.

This is the kind of thing that makes it easy to go on being an antinatalist.

>>10468641
>redirecting to false-flag bait

I understand the arguments antinatalists make but they don't make sense whatsoever. They rest on the assumption that life is commonly enough not worth living to the point that creating life is flatly unethical. In reality only 13 out of 100000 people decide that it's bad enough that they choose to cease living by killing themselves, which is the logical decision once someone concludes life is a net negative. If antinatalists believe that suffering outweighs pleasure (and that pleasure is all that matters in life, which is so fucking retarded I won't even get into it), why don't they kill themselves? Not being edgy, that's the only logical thing to do in their case, unless they get satisfaction from feeling like martyrs by chastising everyone outside their cult.

>>10470170
Gee I've never heard that argument before. You sure aren't dumb or anything.

>>10470170
>meanwhile he tells some guy who's contemplating suicide to keep fighting until the end and some other normie bullshit

Normies are fucking weasels

>>10470170
Life is a trap and every person once in existance has extreme instinctive and cultural biases against taking his own life or death in general.

It's like getting people forcibly hooked on heroin and saying 'well they can quit later on if they decide they don't like it, if they don't quit they're obviously having fun'.

>>10470193
Then truly, what's the reasoning behind it? I know a few "antinatalist" couples and when I ask them about it they just screech about breeders and fuck trophies.
They're also rich early-30s alkies in open relationships. Huh.
>>10470214
>instincts not to kill yourself
Huh wonder if there's a reason for that.
Thinking it's a good thing to prevent further life is mental illness, not enlightenment.

I might consider it if someone could give me a reasonable rebuttal to the argument that existence is infinitely better than not existing.

Also children are the only thing one can truly create, a life without them seems pointless.

>>10470230
>Huh wonder if there's a reason for that.
selection bias. if your genes have made it this far you're obviously offspring of those who valued survival.

doesn't mean it's morally right though. is/ought.

>>10470230
Speaking personally I don't have confidence that I have any reliable way of eliminating my consciousness from the continuum of the universe. In fact this is mostly the reason that I am an antinatalist. Now how are you going to deploy the "like omg literally kys" argument against me?

>>10470234
I can't speak for everyone, but I know that I have no biological desire to create offspring. I get horny, I love sex, I've had relationships and am in a long-term one, but never have I had the desire to start a family. I even had to break up with a woman who was hot in one of those ways where it hits all my buttons, because I couldn't force myself to want to have kids just for her, despite my best efforts to.

One of my biggest reasons for not having kids is due to overpopulation in my continent. Our birth rates exponentially outweigh our death rates and are only spreading apart faster and farther over time. I see the growing mass of people with no desire for kids as our species' natural way of controlling our population. Like the "beautiful ones" of lab-controlled intentionally overpopulated mouse enclosures. Once space and food started becoming too scarce due to the rapidly-growing population, some mice just stopped giving a fuck about mating, wouldn't try it, would refuse others' advances, and just spent all their time cleaning and entertaining themselves until they had silky smooth fur, better physiques, and lived longer per individual.

ITT: If you hated [alcohol/drugs/bad habit so much], you would stop

>>10468641
kek
>For example I explain in the document that her baby could potentially of course gain pleasure from its first ever burp but could also gain pain from accidentally burping up its own stomach juices due to a rupture in the belly from birth defects, as well as other things. She was enraged like the bitch she is.
leged

>>10470234
>I might consider it if someone could give me a reasonable rebuttal to the argument that existence is infinitely better than not existing.

That's actually a claim, not an argument. An argument consists of premises leading to a conclusion.

I used to think that /lit was pretty smart but this has been a letdown.

Is "antinatalism" something wilting late-30s spinsters and cucks use to stave off the cognitive dissonance of having created nothing with their time on earth other than pursuit of "pleasure" and materialism?

>>10470627
Having a kid is just another self-indulgence, it's not like you're doing anyone a favour with your brats.

>>10470627
Yeah
It's one thing to decide not to have kids (though I'll never understand why), turning it into a "movement" and using euphoric "arguments" to demonize everyone you deem inferior to you screams doubling down from insecurity.
The only guy I know who calls himself an anti natalist posts Facebook statuses about mandatory euthanasia for people over 80 and uses "breeder" as an insult.

>>10470170
>They rest on the assumption that life is commonly enough not worth living
This isn't the argument. You don't understand it as well as you seem to think you do.

>>10468629
this was always the next logical step of MGTOW: to become a part of VHEMT
http://www.vhemt.org/

>>10470579
I was referring to the argument not trying to state it, how was intro logic this semester, nigger.

>>10470667

>>10468629

i think anti natlism make some good points. but also i think its kinda pointless. like people are always going to breed. its unstoppable. its like being anti shitting, because its smelly and gross. well yeah, but it happens.

It views all life as suffering more than "pleasure", when it's pretty clear, to me, that being born in upper-class with great genetics is fucking heaven. The suffering this person will experience is insignificant compared to the good.

>>10469811
this

>>10468629
Christian anti-natalism is pretty interesting. I agree on the basis that it's immoral to imprison a divine immortal soul within flesh. The issue of natalism hinges more on someone's ontological views than anything else.

>>10468629
>>10471190
I meant to add that there is misanthropic anti-natalism as well as philanthropic anti-natalism. That's a little less vague and polarizing than saying "Christian anti-natalism".

>>10471190
well it sure beats the hell (kek) out of the alternative

>>10471209
absolutely disgusting, I agree

>>10471163
>more than
That's wrong.
The asymmetry of pleasure and pain argument still works even with massive amounts of pleasure and very little pain because the point is:
A) We all recognize it at least makes sense (whether you personally choose to do this or not) to want to use euthanasia as a way to stop suffering e.g. with terminally ill pets and
B) The state of wanting pleasure is dependent on a new life being created, meaning nobody "misses out" on anything good by never having been born, much like how nobody suffers from heroin withdrawals when they've never even tried heroin to begin with.
We tend to assume pleasure and pain are somehow equal opposites, but this argument challenges that assumption by showing how the elimination of pain through cessation of life can be good while the loss of pleasure from prevention of life is not bad since you need to be alive to be able to feel like you've missed out on something good in the first place.

>>10469424
>most amazing and rewarding thing i have ever experienced
kek, parenthood really lobotomizes parents, as expected (biologically speaking)

>>10469710
yes because giving birth to 13 children in bangladesh is the same as responsibly raising two children in the first world

>>10469619
suffering is just brain chemicals too.

>>10471344
how is one CATEGORICALLY different?

>>10471350
that's not what the categorical imperative means patrick.

>>10469480
Any antinatalist have anything to say to this?

>>10471524
consent tho

that's right goyim, no one should have kids

>>10469807
By not having kids you are not living up to your potential. Same as a genius who doesn't do anything with his intellect. The responsibility of caring for a life you took part in creating is character building and a major part of human experience. If you try to rationalize not having a kid, instead of taking the leap of faith and experiencing if for yourself, then how can an antinatalist know that it truly isn't worth it?

>>10471548
>maybe if I use a philosophical term like "leap of faith" my comment will look intellectually rigorous

>>10470304
With enough will power you can. That's how people begin to break addictions.

>>10470646
Except it isn't self-indulgence. Having a child is given sacred significance, even for people that claim they aren't religious. If you had a child and seriously took responsibility for them you might know

>>10471229
Why isn't it that even the smallest pleasures of life, not in some scientific way, but in an experiential way, outweigh even the harshest suffering?

>>10471530
If they find it worth it tho they can live on, if not they can become an antinatalist or commit suicide.

>>10471550
I'm not trying to speak intellectually exactly. There are a lot of things in life you must do to know. Rationalizing not doing something is a great way to squander your potential and miss out on life's greatest joys, the things that make it all worth it.

>>10471597
Thank you for the sophistry Tony Robbins

>>10471586
Okay so its rational to be an antinatalist then, this implication is built into your argument.

>>10471619
It's just what came to mind when I thought of an objection. Why decide for someone else whether they shouldn't live because it isn't worth it, like that anon said>>10469480 No consent either way

>>10471218
Which one fingered his sister?

>>10471612
Had to look him up. I don't particularly like self-help motivational speakers but for some they really help. My point with that post is that the antinatalist doesn't know whether or not having a kid will change his views. He may very well find that having a kid was the greatest decision they've ever made, even if they did so against their rationalizing. I also don't think the qualia of experience is reducable to some kind of measurement between pleasure and pain.

>>10471636
the fact that there is no possible consent means procreation contravenes the practical imperative by exploiting other personal agents in the pursuit of ones personal philosophical agenda.

>>10471686
I don't know if you're trying to sound smart and I don't mean to come off as dismissive, but could you rephrase this? I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at

>>10469528
Do you have the slightest understanding why people may find it rewarding to have kids? Obviously not, but if you did, you wouldn't call it selfish.
>>10470304
Are you saying we should force you addicts whose "bad habit" (=living) is somehow stronger than your will to quit to, you know, quit? Because that's what we do to junkies where I live.

>>10471190
Oddly enough it was trying to become Christian that turned me into an antinatalist. I felt like aren't there already enough people that need to be saved from eternal torment already?

>>10471694
I'm not trying to sound smart but I am trying to appeal to authority because a lot of people here think Kant is the god of moral philosophy.

>>10471761
>Be fruitful and multiply
You might just be looking for an excuse

>>10469528
How is it selfish to serve a child?

>>10471766
At least my conscience persecutes me

>>10471779
What is that supposed to mean?

>>10471766
>I've never actually read the Bible starter quote deck

>>10471792
It's a joke only tangentially related. Lighten up anon

>>10469014
>then sure you're right. This is a matter of preference and therefore there can't be a fact of the matter.
that is what I'm arguing against. I'm not saying that it is a matter of preference. You understood me wrong.
>To add, we avoid pain, not simply as a matter of preference but also due to an instinctual/neurobiological drive which a biologist may explain better.
And my argument is that those drives don't give the antinatalist position any firm basis. Just because humans tend to do that doesn't mean it is right for humans to do that. Your job is to explain why it is right for us to do that because that would give those drives a firm foundation.

>>10471652
>HE may very well find that having a kid was the greatest decision THEY'VE ever made, even if THEY did so against their rationalizing.

There's a difference between anti-natalists and you, they have empathy and aren't selfish.

>>10471746
People find it rewarding to have children because they're selfish and it's an ego trip for them and also a way for them to deal with their fear of death. See how you constantly talk about how rewarding it is for the parents and you don't mention the unborn child.

>>10471769
You're not serving a child idiot. You're ripping a child from the void so you can lord over them for a few years then set them "free" so they can become another slave for the techno-capitalist archons and continue the cycle

>>10471867
I'm a moral nihilist, pleasure and suffering are biological phenomenons.

>>10472038
then your antinatalist position conflicts with your moral nihilism

>>10472047
No. I'm not an anti-natalist, I'm an omnicidist. I don't care about consent or any of the silly humanist or liberal biases

>>10472054
then your omnicidist position conflicts with your moral nihilism

Its just an edgy version utilitarianism and hence fails for the same reasons

>>10472054
Life will arise again you know. The decent thing to do is create a single god-like entity (preferably non-sentient) which watches the universe for signs of life and erases them before sentience arises. Now the question is whether that entity will automatically be sentient, thus suffering.

>>10471867
>I'm not saying that it is a matter of preference. You understood me wrong.

Then I don't understand you at all. Are you saying that it's objectively right to prefer pain over pleasure?

>Your job is to explain why it is right for us to do that because that would give those drives a firm foundation.

I have already said that there can't be a fact of the matter on this. Your problem seems to be that since I can't prove objectively that we should avoid pain then we shouldn't. But we don't always need to have objective reasons for acting. For example, if I prefer chocolate over vanilla, it would be absurd for you tell me that I shouldn't prefer one over the other just because I can't prove that it's better.

>Your job is to explain why it is right for us to do that because that would give those drives a firm foundation.

You also seem to think that if I can't do this then pro-natalism wins by default but it's not clear why this would be the case.

>>10471094
Why don't you state the supposed argument double nigger?

>>10472056
No it doesnt, it's just my will

>>10471867
>Just because humans tend to do that doesn't mean it is right for humans to do that.

Wouldn't this logic apply to procreation as well?

Some of you are saying things like "it's so fulfilling" "it's a sacred duty" etc. But at the end of the day, if you can't explain how bringing that child into this world is for its benefit, then you are simply using that child as a means to an end.

>>10471769
If serving a child is your sole motivation for procreation, then you could just as well adopt

>>10472114
>Then I don't understand you at all. Are you saying that it's objectively right to prefer pain over pleasure?
No. I'm saying that since antinatalism is a moral position you need to justify the moral stance that it is right/good to prefer pleasure over pain. My position is that you are unable to morally justify your preference for pleasure over pain. You have only pointed to the trends in human behavior which does not provide a justification for that moral preference.
>I have already said that there can't be a fact of the matter on this.
You have only made that assertion but never made an argument for it. You just misunderstood me to be saying that it is a matter of opinion and agreed that that misunderstanding of what I said. I disagree with that and that is because this isn't just a discussion about making choices its a discussion about morality.
>Your problem seems to be that since I can't prove objectively that we should avoid pain then we shouldn't.
My problem is that you are arguing for a moral position without justifying the moral position. So if you can't justify your moral preferences then there is no moral reason to hold that position.
>But we don't always need to have objective reasons for acting. For example, if I prefer chocolate over vanilla, it would be absurd for you tell me that I shouldn't prefer one over the other just because I can't prove that it's better.
That example is entirely different because it has nothing to do with morality. In that case it is just a matter of opinion and one would not need to justify any moral preferences.
>You also seem to think that if I can't do this then pro-natalism wins by default but it's not clear why this would be the case.
Nope I don't think that, not sure where you got that from.

>>10472136
Yeah. I'm not trying to argue that it is morally right to procreate btw.

>>10472137
You do understand that by basic fucking logic, you can't benefit a thing that doesn't exist. You're trying to create a comparative dichotomy where not giving birth is the moral high road, but NOT doing a thing is not and cannot be a moral anything. You've not done a thing, there is no causality.

I suppose you could make the argument that killing already-born babies is morally superior to not killing already-born babies (or the same argument with abortions) but that's a hilarious fucking hill to die on, advocating for eugenic mass killings.

If you don't want a kid, don't have kids. If you have reason to believe someone you actually know should not have a child, voice that opinion at your own risk. You can't turn it into a moral ideal at any rate.

>>10472146
>NOT doing a thing cannot be moral
Imagine being this stupid. When the mutually exclusive alternatives are doing something immoral and not doing said thing, then the latter thing sure as shit is the (comparatively) moral choice.

>>10472168
No, anon, you misunderstand.
There is a difference between ALLOWING AN ALTERNATIVE TO TAKE PLACE, like letting a child be born, and NOT PRESENTING ANY EVENT AT ALL, like just not having a child.
If I understand the basic antinatal position, which claims that it is morally WRONG (i.e. less Good than an alternative) to birth a child, then I have to point out that just not birthing a child at all cannot be more good because it isn't anything. Its a noncomparative.

Let me put it like this, there's a moral comparative between blowing up the Twin Towers and not blowing up the Twin Towers. But there's no moral comparative between not blowing up the Twin Towers and having never constructed the Twin Towers in the first place, because the latter involves no causality. There's no way to judge the outcome of an event that doesn't happen.

>>10472146
>you can't benefit a thing that doesn't exist.
>you can't ask for its consent

Yeah, that's kind of the intractable problem.

Why is the continued existence of the human race considered to be some sort of sacred constant that should be upheld at all costs, even if said cost is miserable people who have to carry the combined baggage of previous generations and be griefstruck to the point of emotional instability by their departure?

>>10472181
But not procreating is something, it's ignoring your biological drives and social pressures because of moral principles. Requiring the good to be backed by something causal is pretty ridiculous considering moral properties aren't causal ones to begin with, unless you're a naturalist ie. a retard.

>>10472194
>it's ignoring your biological drives and social pressures because of moral principles
If that's your basis for morality then why not flog yourself with whips and chop your balls off to really bury those biological and social drives?

At least
>>10472186
Is honest enough to admit that his moral judgment relies on estimating the positive and negative effects of being born and weighing that against whatever kind of nebulous desire an unborn child might have.

Which, again, is why its totally cool if you don't want to have kids but patently ridiculous to try and morally foist your ideas onto others with unfalsifiable garbage reasoning.

>>10472193
>even if said cost is miserable people who have to carry the combined baggage of previous generations and be griefstruck to the point of emotional instability by their departure?
Operant word being *If*. Unless you can prove that that's the case, then you really only have a collection of unhappy individuals seeking a scapegoat who you'd expect to have killed themselves by now - though I'd recommend Camus' Myth of Sisyphus as a good counterpoint to both scenarios.

We treat life as valuable because THAT IS ALL THERE IS.

>>10472206
>unfalsifiable
I knew I was talking with a brainlet!

>>10472213
Have you been paying attention to global affairs at all during the last decade? Unemployment rates are the highest they have ever been (excluding times of economical crises, of course) all across the globe, people (especially young males) are becoming social outcasts in record numbers, political tensions are high, terrorism is rampant and the planet is buckling under the pressure we put it under, causing all kinds of weather phenomenon that claim lives and destroy property. And that's just to mention a few of the issues plaguing society.

It is not even debatable at this point. The world, in its current state, is a bad place to be in for the majority of those who are in it. Being economically stable and having a roof over your head is no longer a guarantee for a happy life and hasn't been for quite some time.

Forcing someone else to partake of life in this environment and then die, leaving all of it to be their problem is not only irresponsible, it's downright evil.

>>10472206
All I can say is at least my argument is unfalsifiable.

>>10472213
>If
Except that suffering is guaranteed. If in no other form, then through the deaths of loved ones.

>>10472181
>its better to stab someone than not stab someone because stabbing someone is a tangible act while not stabbing someone is a mere abstraction

Hegel?

>>10472229
But you can't actually demonstrate that any given baby picked at random will guaranteed have a 'bad' life. I absolutely agree with the sentiment that parents are hugely responsible for the developmental safety and success of their children and that all parents need to assess whether they think they can provide a level of quality of life to their child, but that doesn't change the fact that you're just making a weak statistical argument. It also doesn't change the fact that adults are responsible for their own lives regardless of what they went through as children, unless they're actually mentally disabled or etc. Adults do have the choice to remove themselves from this environment at any time, though again I'll cite Camus as to why that's a pretty silly decision.

And, again, you can't argue that not having a kid at all is morally better than having a kid, because not having a kid is a non event. You can't draw any kind of conclusions from it because there's no A to B to C chain of causality. Its nonsense.

>>10472242
No, it isn't. Rationally we can say that all people will experience some level of unhappiness, not accounting for extremes like people whose brains don't function correctly, but you can't objectively prove every person born will experience more Bad than Good 100% of the time. And as soon as that number drops to even 99% it becomes impossible to delineate which kid in a group of 100 at random will have the decent life and should be allowed to be born.

>>10472257
Or, you could just abstain from having kids and you wouldn't have to worry about whether or not they will have a good or bad life.

>>10472251
>going this far out of your way to be a retard
It is better to prevent someone being stabbed than to allow someone to be stabbed.

But, it is not better to prevent this theoretical stabbing from ever happening at all, than it is to stop the person from being stabbed. Because if the event never transpired, we cannot make a moral judgment on it, because it has no consequences.

>>10472257
>No chain of causality

What about Don't procreate -> No children -> No suffering?

>>10472261
brb, stabbing my nan so the event can transpire

>>10472260
Which is an individual's choice that you are free to make as an individual. I'm not restricting that point, I'm just pointing out that the 'moral' justification for it is trashcan philosophy.
Which is fairly redundant, as people wouldn't be seeking a moral justification for a personal decision if they didn't have some kind of internalized complex about it.

>>10472263
hurr durr thats unfalsifiable noncausal trashcan philosophy i am very smart

>>10472257
You cannot prove that there will be more bad than good, but bad is guaranteed, while good is a roll of the dice.

There are no inevitable joys in life, but there are inevitable sorrows and pains.

>>10472263
You're still arguing that there's a definite link between children being born and suffering in the world, even though that's unverifiable nonsense. You'd still need to prove that suffering is a constant and intrinsic state of living.
And then you've slid right off the slope of 'why don't we just kill everyone?'

>>10472271
I can literally flip that notion around and it holds the same value. Ultimately all you're saying is
>life is good and bad but not life is not good or bad so not life is less bad and less bad is more good

>>10472272
its like you don't even care about consent. Harvey?

>>10472272
There IS a definite link between human suffering and children being born. Human suffering can only exist if there are humans to suffer.

>>10472275
What the fuck are you on about? You cannot flip it around because then it wouldn't be true. There are zero (0) good things that are bound to happen to a person during their lifetime, while there are several bad things that are bound to happen to a person during their lifetime.

This is an indisputable fact.

>>10472281
Correlation does not imply causation bud. Even if all the people in a country like Japan just stopped reproducing, Japanese people would have an equally shitty time of it and after a few decades they'd all just die.
So if you're so worried about reducing the total amount of suffering in the world, why not just kill everyone?

I also find it interesting that you don't consider Happiness to be a distinct separate concept from Suffering when factoring in all this. I mean, how does your math work exactly? Is Happiness not worth a little more Suffering to you? It seems to me that your perspective on that issue informs your level of devotion to the core ideal of antinatalism.

>>10472299
because consent. I say "hey can I kill you" and they say "can you just not?" and that argument is pretty much BTFO at that point.

>>10472299
Killing someone causes suffering, both in the moment and in the relatives and acquaintances of that person. It is better to allow the people that are alive now to live out (or not, as it may turn out) their lives in a way they see fit and not reproduce.

That way humans will fade out in a gradual, natural progression and human suffering will be eliminated.

>>10472284
>This is an indisputable fact
Lmao what the fuck my guy
First off you assume that everyone considers the same things equally bad, which is just blatantly false. Some people are much less or more negatively affected by different 'bad' events in their lives. The same is also true of 'good' events.
And yes, it is a reversible statement. The only people that have gone through their entire lives, however short, never experiencing happiness or sadness are outliers with extreme neurological conditions who aren't worth counting. Its some real My Chemical Romance shit to say "some sizable number of the population have NEVER experienced happiness" and you know it.

And since you can't predict what any given theoretical child will subjectively experience, you can't objectively assert that no kids should be born on a moral ground.

>>10472299
you seem to think happiness is not subordinate to need

>>10472308
>>10472309
Okay but causing populations to fall apart and widespread economic and eventually food/resource crashes due to massively lowering birthrates is not consensual, unless you're actually counting of everyone on earth individually coming to the conclusion that we should all do this, which is just utopian as fuck and obviously never going to happen.
So what's endgame, exactly? Your ideology literally dies with you by design.

>>10472315
There are malnourished AIDS infected niglets all over Africa who sing and dance and have a grand old time not killing themselves guy. Suffering and Happiness aren't cumulative scores that build up, they're experiences.

>>10472311
I am not claiming that there is no happiness in life, you mong. I am simply saying that happiness is not GUARANTEED like suffering is. There are no events that are bound to happen in a persons lifetime that could be construed as life-changing and positive at the same time. Meanwhile, there are several events that can be construed as life-changing and negative at the same time and which are also inevitable.

Deaths of loved ones, deterioration of health (both physical and mental), your own death and the mental complications of coming into terms with it (if you'll ever do) etc.

There is both happiness and suffering in most peoples lives, but only suffering is guaranteed.

>>10472316
there are consequences to building a civilization off a vital ponzi scheme.

>>10472321
they are fucking idiots just like you

>>10472316
The endgame is to end human suffering, with the added bonus of the planet surviving and thriving after we are gone.

>>10472328
Yeah but that's not going to happen now is it?

>>10472352
That doesn't mean it isn't an ideal worth striving for, now does it?

>>10472322
I disagree. It is statistically impossible to have no positive thing ever happen to you, except in the case of outliers. The difficulty is that its much harder to say what things WILL be positive for any given individual, because I think there is a much greater variety of positive experiences to draw from and they follow a much less clear system of logic than events that cause negative experiences.

Lets take the model I think you stated, which is that happiness is dependent on need. I don't agree with that, because we see people with no needs being met still experience happiness. Sadness is what I consider to be need-dependent, which makes it much easier to definitively say what situations cause most people sadness, namely the ones where needs are not being met (though obviously there are outliers).

So we're back to trying to determine how much happiness one needs, proportionate to their sadness, in order to have a life worth living. Which is pretty inherently subjective.

>>10472362
How are you striving for an ideal through inaction, anon. Don't tell me you've convinced yourself that you're a moral crusader come to spread the good word about not having babies.
Though if you have, I'd love to know how often you spout your ideology irl.

I don't agree with the suffering of a child being a bad thing. First of all in the period where parents are mostly responsible for their child (0-18) are not years where crazy amount of suffering takes place. Second suffering is most of the time not a constant state, our drive to avoid suffering helps us to learn and overcome things. The asymmetric judgement between suffering and pleasure is pleasure might be partially true, but to call suffering the default state is ridiculous. Kids get over their suffering and most kids don't think back at their life and think "I wish I was never born". Suffering is part of life and even sometimes enjoyable in a sadistic way, just like people get enjoyment out of really sad and emotional movies. The ability to feel and experience is great, rewarding and mysterious. Comparing it to non-existing is difficult and relies on meta physical assumptions so I'm not gonna do that. The "your parents created you and therefore cause of your suffering" is a bit childish, most parents would support and help their children get out of states of suffering.

>>10472363
It is statistically unlikely, but it is possible, while it is impossible to lead a life where no suffering occurs. Suffering is an integral, irremovable part of human existence, while happiness is not guaranteed to be so (it is likely that there will be happiness, but it is not guaranteed)

>>10472367
By consciously not procreating, you are actively working towards voluntary extinction, however slight a dent your inaction caused in birth rates. It's not a crusade, just a conscious decision to not contribute.

>>10472420
It's not an argument about whether or not you can get over suffering, but rather if you should suffer in the first place. Is it moral to force suffering upon an individual on the grounds that "He'll get over it eventually" and, if they do, would that make the causation of their suffering suddenly ethical?

>>10472352
It is, it's just a matter of when. Antinatalists tend to advocate for a controlled and gentle ending while natalists advocate to keep breeding until circumstances take us out another way.

>>10472443
First of all there are many grades of suffering, a child does not really suffer. They might break a bone, bump their toe, first breakup, etc. Those moments of suffering aren't bad and make life not worth living. Also parents aren't the ones forcing these moments of suffering on the child because they merely created them, most suffering is partially the result of the actions of the child. People are most of the time responsible for their own suffering and thus choose suffering, just because your parents created you doesn't mean they where wrong. If the child fully grows up he can have the choice to try to minimize suffering by becoming Buddhist or something.
Child's don't have to overcome suffering alone, parents help children with that. Children cause more suffering for the parents than the parents cause the child but people take children anyway because they can withstand a bit of suffering. There are many routes children can take, if the child chooses a route with much suffering than he's responsible not the parents.

>>10472505
The act of creation enables everything that comes afterwards. The creator is always partially responsible for whatever happens to the created.

>>10472420
>the period where parents are mostly responsible for their child (0-18) are not years where crazy amount of suffering takes place
>>10472505
>First of all there are many grades of suffering, a child does not really suffer. They might break a bone, bump their toe, first breakup, etc.
Why are you using extremely recent Western civilization children free of both chronic and terminal illness as the entire population for childhood experiences?
Even if you limit to just extremely recent Western civilization you're still talking about ridiculously trivial shit like "first breakup" when a significant number of children up to age 18 in developed nations right now are dealing with things like Ulcerative Colitis where their immune system attacks their intestines and makes them have painful incomplete blood filled diarrhea bowel movements 30 times a day to the point where fistula (abscessed damage to the point where connections open up between bodily structures that shouldn't have them) form and leak fecal matter into their scrotum.
Don't even get me started on third world country or historical childhood disease.
You could only have this insane outlook on the situation by being completely sheltered from real world problems. Maybe try volunteering at a hospital in your spare time for a while.

>>10472523
>partially
Maybe, but when you reach an age of maturity you can't blame all your personal suffering on your parents except if you suffered from bad parenting. Also this could be argued against from both a determenistic view and an indetermenistic. Anyway it's expected from adults to take responsibility for their own actions whether they believe in free will or not. The older a kid gets the more responsibility they need to take.
>>10472575
True, I'm arguing from a first world perspective. Also the example you use could have many causes, I'm thinking it's mainly caused by bad nutrition and diet, in which case you could blame the parents for bad parenting. Also your using a highly specific health example, I'm using trivial shit because that's what happens to most kids in the first world. When taking kids there are of course risks involved, like for example a predisposition for certain diseases, but many parents are willing to take that risk.

>>10472645
>You can't blame all of your suffering on your parents

Yes you can. Had they not conceived you, you would not be here to suffer. The actual source of that suffering is irrelevant in the context of this argument.

All your bad decisions are enabled by the fact that you live, and you live because you were conceived.

>>10472143
It's not the "sole motivation." Human motivation isn't always so simple

>>10468629
You're one year late. Last christmas this board held significant support for AN and (((Benatars))) BNTHB was pushed alot, including by myself. Now however soyboy AN has been replaced by Chad identitarianism, and BNTHB by CofC. This is a healthy change.

>>10472033
What a pessimistic view. You know that most people in western countries (I cant speak for third worlders) are likely happy to be born. Your view of the world isn't truthful, since most people don't share your view and are either content or happy

Forget about suffering. Imposing life on others is like killing people; it means to condemn others to death and the absurdity of life. You could not suffer and still find life as overrated shit.

>>10472030
Hello, arm chair psychologist. How do you know that having children is a solely selfish, ego trip? I think the motivations for having a child is far more complicated. I also think the being is fundamentally good, so having a child is good.

>>10472025
The child that does not exist cannot consent to being made, nor to being withheld from being. You can't consent either way so the consent part I think is a bit ridiculous and is just reaching. I have strong reason to believe that the journey of life is a worthwhile experience and children, everyone really, should be grateful for the miracle of their existence.

>>10472137
Why so pessimistic? Life has both good and bad moments, but there's no reason to assume that no matter what it isn't worth it. Being is fundamentally better than non-being, which I believe a priori. A child cannot benefit from being born because there was no child before conception for the comparison to be made.

>>10472736
>Being is fundamentally better than non-being
>A state in which suffering is possible is better than a state in which it is not possible

>>10472193
Life is sacred because it is God's creation, and we are made in His image.

>>10472651

>Had they not conceived you, you would not be here to suffer.
We don't know if there is more than mere existence, from certain religious and meta-physical views you might always exist.
>The actual source of that suffering is irrelevant in the context of this argument.
The source is not irrelevant, since by realizing the source of all your suffering, you essentially free yourself of suffering and could avoid it. This is why I said that if a person really wants to avoid all possible suffering they can choose to do so.
>All your bad decisions are enabled by the fact that you live, and you live because you were conceived.
All decisions are enabled by our reality, conceiving life forms in relatively suffering free parts of the world shouldn't be seen as something bad. Because of our physicality we can endure and overcome suffering and our essential for development and developing personality. Not all suffering can be seen as morally bad and since children in the first world on average suffer lightly we can conclude that conceiving children is not a morally bad thing per se.

>>10468629

>tfw i always thought this and thought i was pretty much alone until the sam harris interview

i guess i wasn't the first guy to have autism

>>10472260
Isn't life "what you make it"? There is a certain amount of individual control over the quality of your life.

>>10472751
Reality is all we know of, however, and thus must be taken as the full extent of existence until something arises to challenge that view.

You can realize that the source of your suffering is [insert source here], that doesn't erase suffering you have already lived through nor does it automatically mean that you will be rid of said suffering. What if the source of your suffering is something that is completely out of your hands, for example?

All decisions are indeed enabled by the surrounding reality, so if you bring forth something that is capable of one day making decisions into said reality from the ether, you are enabling that creation's suffering.

>>10472326
Or you're the idiot for adopting some weird set of presuppositions and turning on being.

>>10472420
I agree. I think being is fundamentally good and that suffering isn't completely negative. There's no consent to be talked about with regards to the child since there is no child to consent before they are born.

>>10472437
I think it's dishonest to describe the possibility of happiness as statistically unlikely. It's probably other way around: it's statistically likely that happiness will be experience. I also don't believe that suffering and happiness can be measured and compared, since there's no reason to believe that a unit of pleasure is equivalent to a unit of pain, or however it's calculated.

>>10471310
>kek, parenthood really lobotomizes parents, as expected (biologically speaking)
Only manchildren or sterile DINKS think this. It's a Peter Pan complex indicative of millennials and is the main reason why the white population will see a large drop over the next generation.

>>10472443
You cannot force being on a non-entity. There no forcing because there is no consent to be had or not from a child when they do not yet exist.

>>10472478
I don't think natalists advocate for their viewpoint. It's a widely held assumption that being is good. I also don't think that the overpopulation meme is going to happen any time soon or in a way that people expect.

>>10472801
Yet a person is made manifest without their consent.

>>10472575
I don't see why you're trying to compare the lives of children or anyone at all. The qualia of anyone's given life isn't something you can calculate, even if someone is suffering horribly from a disease, seeing their family or having a favorite meal could still make life worth it to an individual.

>>10472774
>What if the source of your suffering is something that is completely out of your hands, for example?
If you know the source of the suffering you can avoid it in most cases if you can't than you'll need mental strength to endure it. If you really want to remove yourself from suffering you could become a Buddhist monk.
>you are enabling that creation's suffering.
You are missing the point that not all suffering could be labeled as morally bad. I'm arguing that the suffering, especially during the first yearso of a child, are insignificant and not a bad thing. There are many cases where suffering could be seen as good and even enjoyable. Saying that all suffering is morally bad isn't true. We humans are pretty durable, so I don't see how getting kids is bad because of some light suffering the child undergoes during his development into an adult. Do you condem sports and work because the results are not worth the suffering?

>>10472651
Yes, but if the parents never conceived, the child would never experience life, which is likely good to experience, both the pleasure and the pain.

>>10472819
A person is a combination of both parents' gametes. The only consent that can exist is that of the parents.

If two people decide to kiss and consent to it, it is not as if the kiss is in itself an entity that requires a priori consent. A baby and its spirit/soul does not magically come into existence.

>>10472708
Or more likely you could be experience the journey of life, both the good and bad, and find that it justified itself

>>10472795
>the main reason why the white population will see a large drop over the next generation.
that happens in any advanced and highly urbanised country or region. the same happens in asia.

whites used to have huge families when they were dumb, poor and uneducated as well.

>>10472740
Yes, that's what I'm saying. Suffering isn't completely negative. We learn from suffering and it makes the pleasures that much better. You can't just measure pain simply

>>10472811
the overpopulation meme started with the neolithic revolution.

>>10472852
Birth rate is inversely proportional to infant mortality rate.

>>10472819
They had no consent to give or not prior to their existence, so I think it's silly to stay on this point.

I am highly educated (BSc, MSc and PhD) and was never very paternal or interested in kids. But when I hit 29 I realized me and my wife weren't getting any younger and why should we leave the reproduction to the stupid and poor. I would rather leave my imprint on future generations. Not to mention a bit of pro-white sentiments too.

We now have two children under 2.5 years of age and will likely have a third child in a year. It is difficult balancing a career, life, and two young children, but it is worth it.

>>10468629
>What does /lit think about antinatalism?
>This book provides a nice summary for the arguments for and against. Personally found the antinatalist more compelling.

Gay bullshit, any man who doesn't want children is a social cuck

>>10472874
Congratulations, anon. I'm sure the hardship just makes the happiness that much greater.

>>10472873
Sure, but they could feel as if life was forced upon them afterwards. The safe bet then is to not conceive.

>>10472828
Becoming a buddhist monk doesn't make dying to cancer any less painful

>>10472883
Why take the safe bet? Why not take risks?

>>10472891
It allows the sufferer to transcend their pain through psychological and spiritual development I think is what that anon was going for.

>>10472891
Actually it does. There have been scientific studies that show that people who meditate feel less and endure pain better than those who do not. Also I think Buddhist monk would accept the fact that this life is temporary and that getting cancer is only an illusion of the Maya.

It goes against the natural ways of men and woman. But so do most things in the modern world. You won't catch Jamal and Muhammad reading it though

>>10472900
Because it is not your well-being you are risking, but that of someone else.

>>10468629
>deh wurld is overpopulated!!!!
>You europeans need to welcome the new europeans. Thats right bigot, we need more people

>>10472930
You're not risking the well being of a non-entity. Yes, a child could suffer more of the time than they feel happiness, but I don't think that pain and happiness or pleasure are equivalent, nor do I think they are even measurable. To worry about the possibility of suffering for your child is pointless, since they will undoubtedly suffer. It's better to worry about making then into the kind of person that can withstand and overcome their suffering, which is what any decent parent does, and children can still become that sort of person without good parenting.

>>10472891
it literally does.

>>10472873
>it's okay to fuck minors because they can't consent

yikes!

>>10472883
They could also love their life

Youre not making any points

Either choice is something forced on another. You are in control of that person, if they come into being or not, either way, period.

You speculating only about one perspective they may have shows how weak your argument is. Its just some excuse for a guilt trip

>>10472952
More accurately:
>It's okay to fuck minors that don't exist

>>10472974
More accurately would be 'it's okay to fuck minors to make them exist'.

>>10469557
I am not wasting my time with an ideology that argues humans should voluntarily end themselves. Do you know how fucking insane you sound.

>>10472952
Youre equating too different kinds of consent to try and make the other anon feel guilty.

A minor not being able to give consent because they lack the intelligence or experience, as deemed by the state, to make decisions is not the same as a being we are imagining, a fictional being, not having consent because it literally doesnt exist

The first consent is what we mean so that society can move forward. Children can and do give consent, they obviously have a will and do as they please, just like any animal. However the state recognizes the difference in cognitive ability and so they say they dont have consent to get rid of that problem.

A fictional being literally has no will and so cannot consent

Get a grip

>>10472987
Like I said before. There is no consenting required for a non-entity. The child can't consent until they exist, and they cannot consent even when they are young, as is shown by your "fucking minors" jab. I don't see what you're trying to get at, because the consent point isn't convincing

>>10472952
Youre falsely equating two different kinds of consent to try and make the other anon feel guilty.

A minor not being able to give consent because they lack the intelligence or experience, as deemed by the state, to make decisions is not the same as a being we are imagining, a fictional being, not having consent because it literally doesnt exist

The first kind of consent is what we mean so that society can move forward. Children can and do give consent, they obviously have a will and do as they please, just like any animal. They literally can and do consent. However the state recognizes the difference in their cognitive ability compared to adults and recognize that children can be abused if their consent is seen as equal to an adults consent. So they say they dont have consent to get rid of the problem of a child being tricked into giving consent for something ultimately would not want to consent to.

A fictional being literally has no will and so cannot consent. This is not, in any way, the same as the former

Get a grip

>>10469485
The Western world was propagandized for decades to stop reproducing on account of the Eastern world overpopulating the planet. Now that our birth rates have plummeted, we are being admonished by way of people like Barbara Specter that we have surrendered our existence and that our nations can only survive if the native populations make way for a different genetic base. You can call it paranoia all you want but, if you trace the political movements of proponents of population control and proponents of mass immigration, the roots all lead to the same unified political mass. The fact that these two seemingly contradictory political movements are actually unified is defacto evidence that their entire existence is based on fraud.

>>10472958
They could, but why gamble with their happiness like that?

>>10473038
Happiness isn't entirely out of one's control. It's not quite gambling

>>10470012
>I was just speaking about the demographic aspect, you extrapolate.
>just
That view is myopic.

Consider the following: I find a girl passed out on a bench. I want to have sex with her but she is unable to consent. According to pro-natalists, I should just fuck her anyway because it's impossible to obtain consent.

I think that these replies:
>>10472420
>>10472443
>>10472505
>>10472523
>>10472651
>>10472751
>>10472774
>>10472828
Sum up perfectly why getting children isn't necessarily morally bad.

>>10473061
Not equivalent. The girl exists and either can or cannot give consent (if she is a minor). But a child that does not yet exist doesn't need to be asked if they consent, since they don't exist. It would be more like asking your child that you haven't yet conceived if they want a puppy or not.

>>10473061
You are simply twisting to situation to look bad for the pronatalist by setting up the girl to most likely not want to have sex. That isnt the same as choosing if someone should be born

A more similar situation is just normal romance.

You see a girl who is just standing there and you want to have sex with her. So you choose to ask her if she wants to have sex.

Choosing to ask, rather than not ask, that is choosing to have a child, rather than not.

She could say no, the child could be unhappy, she could say yes, the child could be happy, that is the risk, get a fucking grip

>>10472991
Why is that insane? Why is continued human existence something that should be preserved? Can you give even one good argument for that?

>>10473146
There isn't and people are afraid so they come up with shit to justify living/procreation.

>>10473146
Because we are created in God's image and being is fundamentally just and good.

>>10473146
>>10473146
Samefagging?

>>10473146
>>10473179
Sorry. I botched the first one. This looks like samefagging.

>>10473056
It is gambling because you cannot know whether or not the person is capable of acquiring happiness. Even if their suffering comes from themselves, you enabled them to be a fuckup by conceiving them.

>>10473188
That isn't an argument. It's an empty statement.

>>10473202
>oh shit my opponent has a point, let's attack the his character

>>10473227
attack his character**

>>10470073
>when the others races outbreed you and now want to torture you as a "revenge" and you cry about how much of a defender you was but nobody cares and experience the most inhumane pain ever and regret doing all of that but its too late

here's a chart I made

>>10473323
>Other races outbreed you and gain enough power to stage violent coups within a single lifetime

No

>>10473376
>What is Germany, USofA, France or any 1st world country
>being this naive
You're clearly completely clueless and hopefully someone will stop all of that otherwise people like you will cry the loudest and its not like it has never happened before.

>>10468629

I'm a /pol/lack and I'm against antinatalism for very obvious reasons.

>>10473401
>Minor civil unrest centralized into small areas that pose no threat to the police forces utilized to keep them in check, let alone the armed forces who haven't even been called in once

Call me when the ghettos organize and begin to gun people down without anyone being able to stop them and maybe you'll have a point then.

>>10468892
What are you talking about ?

I'm sure these two good fellows openly condemn the current policy in Israel concerning natality.

>>10470688
Or instead MGTOW can form communities of men raising kids themselves without women. Either from daliences or even artificial wombs. The new Spartan warriors

>>10473146
Who will observe the beauty of the universe? We know of no other sapients. Until we contact aliens the loss of our intelligence would be an immeasurably tragic loss for the entire universe.

>>10473440
Loss for who, exactly? If we are the only sapients, then there would be no one to mourn our loss.

>>10473208
Or you can have faith in their strength

>>10473459
Having faith doesn't change that you are rolling the dice. Having faith that you'll roll two sixes does not prevent you from rolling snake eyes.

>>10473376

>Other races outbreed you and gain enough power to stage violent coups within a single lifetime

Oh, so I guess if it doesn't happen within your lifetime you're ok with it ?

Why would you defend antinatalism in the first place then ?

Antinatalism: "the food here is terrible and the portions are so small."

>>10473211
It isn't an argument, it's a claim I make and believe on faith. Kind of like having a kid. It's a leap of faith, since you cannot know for certain whether they will die early or be successful and happy, but if you don't take the plunge then you miss out on something important in life, and the child misses out on life period.

>>10473447
All future inhabitants of the universe wide utopia we might create.

(Also Roko's basilisk is going to be super pissed with antinatalists)

>>10473465
Faith is different than gambling tho. To compare faith to the anticipation of luck on gambling is not equivalent.

>>10473466
Because the goal of antinatalism (or rather the voluntary extinction movement) is to reduce total suffering in the world, even if it does not lead to complete extinction.

Less humans = less suffering. Simple math.

>>10473488
How do you measure suffering? I don't see how it is so simple to categorize, since suffering can have positive effects

>>10473482
But procreation is a gamble in the sense that you cannot know what kind of life the person you created will have, and just go ahead with it anyway. Just like rolling the dice with something on the line.

>>10473488
Animals suffer too.

>>10473488

So, you're generally concerned about the suffering in the world, but you're not concerned with your own race being tortured and genocided as long as it doesn't happen during your lifetime ?

Sorry, still doesn't make any sense.

>>10473477
But that utopia does not exist at this point. If you think that it is not sound to argue that procreation is unethical because of the potential (and guaranteed) suffering the new person will experience, why would you argue yourself that procreation is ethical because of the potential (and only potential, not guaranteed) greatness the new person and the species as a whole can achieve?

>>10473488
But it only manifests in populations that are permissive enough of education to have individuals of an intellect superior enough to arrive at the conclusion that life is suffering. Therefore, societies that do not condone or sponsor higher education will inevitably become dominant, leading to greater suffering in the living population.

>>10473499
Because I hope that my race and the human species as a whole stops reproducing and dies out after whatever is the youngest generation now. I am not concerned about the future because my ideal future should be one in which we are all dead.

>>10473494
It's also different from gambling in that it's likely that they won't have some terrible disease or complication, and if they don't then it is also likely they will have a decent life. To worry about those unlikely events, and then to conclude that their life wouldn't be worth it if they did have serious problems is just unfounded worrying. Faith in your children's well-being is not gambling. The odds are different and I think intuition plays a real part in some cases

>>10473533
Why don't you see a problem with everyone dying off? It seems you've trampled upon a necessary axiom without thinking of the foolishness of doing so. The suffering of the world might get exponentially worse as less people work to keep the world going as it has, whereas we could work to improving the state of the world if we did not die off. Your reason is like the transportation on a journey, not a guide.

>>10473537
It isn't just diseases and other physical complications that you have to worry about. The human body and mind is such a complex system that there are literally millions of things that can go wrong with it, and a majority of those malfunctions eventually leads to poor quality of life.

Even disregarding all that and assuming that through some miracle a child is completely healthy, both body and mind, traumatic events and accidents can still fuck them up, and there is at least one traumatic event that every single person has to go through in their lives, and while people tend to get over it, no one emerges completely unscathed.

>>10473556
It isn't a miracle for a child to develop properly, and even the idea that there is an ideal way to develope discounts the variability in human beings personalities and character. Again, you are worrying about unlikely outcomes. Even if such outcomes were to happen, someone with terrible circumstances and experiences can live a worthwhile life. If you believe that you are withholding suffering from some potential child, then you are also withholding a potentially fulfilling and worthwhile life.

>>10473555
As people die and none are born to replace them, it will only make things easier for the age group that is left to keep society running without having to care for the elderly or the young. Sure, at some point we would reach a point in time where everyone is too old to keep society going, but at that point they have all lived long lives already. And then they would die, and we would be nothing but an ugly memory. A faulty footnote in the annals of evolution.

>>10473488
Is this b8?

>>10473574
You're discounting the suffering of not fulfilling your biological purpose, if you think of it like that, and of all the other things that could happen. The world would certainly not turn out like you think it will if antinatalism was applied universally. Neither of us know how bad it could be, but suspect it would turn out far worse. The economy would likely fail, goods and services would fade out over time and towards the end we might go back to some feudalist system with local controlling parties. Who knows what would happen without the joy, innocence and freshness of children was removed from human experience. It just seems to me that you aren't taking into account all the existential and material suffering that could arise from antinatalism

>>10473556
You should really study population genetics, evolutionary biology, etc. You have no clue what you are talking about.

>>10473592
How exactly would the economy fail except at the very end when the age groups that were capable of working get too old to keep it going?

>>10473330
You did not make that. You are a pasta chef.

>>10472144
>you need to justify the moral stance that it is right/good to prefer pleasure over pain.

Antinatalists take this for granted.

>You have only made that assertion but never made an argument for it.

You're right. I can revise this to "It doesn't seem to me that there can be a fact of the matter"


>That example is entirely different because it has nothing to do with morality.

I don't think morality enjoys a privileged position. In any case, if you want to claim that something is wrong, you should be able to establish objectivity


>Nope I don't think that, not sure where you got that from.

My bad then

>>10473407
>Call me when it's too late and we are both already dead and then we will start the discussion.

>>10473616
As the population lowers there would be less people to work and sustain the system. The younger generation picks up the slack for their elders in the economy. I also don't know how it would affect the economy exactly, since I'm just speculating, but so are you when you suggest that suffering wouldn't in some way increase because of antinatalism. Neither of us know what would happen. I'm just putting forth the idea that things could become worse instead of better.

>>10473590
>Is this b8?
It is both bait and their primary supposition all rolled into one. It is very efficient.

>>10473654
The system would also have to support less people as things progressed. It would be a gradual reduction in scope, in need of resources.

>>10473664
Yes, but people in older age would need more resources as their health declines. To afford these resources there would need to be an entire working economy, which wouldn't happen if there were absolutely no laborers. Luxuries would diminish as well, which are some of the small pleasures of life. The economy is something nobody completely understands and I'm certain that both of our predictions are either wrong totally or significantly. It's not the point tho. Suffering may increase if antinatalist thought was universally put into practice. Earlier I also mentioned the existential suffering of life without children or some kind of hope for a better future.

>>10473693
That's only if the system stayed the same in regards to senior care. Administration of euthanasia after a certain age would probably be put into effect.

>>10473719
That sounds peachy

>>10473623
>Antinatalists take [the moral stance that it is right/good to prefer pleasure over pain] for granted.
>"It doesn't seem to me that there can be a fact of the matter"
I'm starting to think that we are talking about two different things. You're essentially saying "I believe x is true". I agree that is something which can't be a matter of fact and is just your opinion. To state your beliefs is not to claim that what you believe is true independent of your beliefs. Additionally, you're saying:
>I don't think morality enjoys a privileged position.
Now, if all you're saying here is that "I don't think that stating my beliefs about moraltiy is any different than stating my beliefs about anything else" then I agree with you. To state your beliefs about morality is not to claim that what you believe is true independent of your beliefs.

However, I have not been trying to argue against that. I have been trying to argue against you claiming that your preference for pleasure over pain is true independent of what your believe. But now it seems like are saying you never tried to argue that. You went on to say:
>if you want to claim that something is wrong, you should be able to establish objectivity
I understand this to mean "if you want to claim that your preference for pleasure over pain is true independent of what you believe then you should establish that preference objectively" and that is basically what I have been arguing this whole time. If you aren't trying to make a claim that what you believe is true independent of what you believe then of course you don't need to establish that preference to be objective. And if all you're doing is just telling people what you believe then that isn't productive at all in a thread about arguments about antinatalism.

>>10473753
I think most people would choose that over rotting in some old folks home where they lose all sense of self and just lie in bed in a vegetative state waiting for death, to be honest.

>>10473719
>Administration of euthanasia after a certain age would probably be put into effect.
Once the argument progresses to a certain point, the truths behind it begin to leak.

>>10473799
What are these truths you are implying exist behind the scenes?

>>10473805
>What are these truths you are implying exist behind the scenes?
I am not implying anything. I greentexted the pertinent section regarding:
>Administration of euthanasia
>euthanasia
Euthanasia will be a component of future anti-natalism.

>>10473829
And? What is the problem with that? It wouldn't be forced, just offered as an alternative to living at home because there is no manpower to keep old folks homes running.

>>10473524
The certain suffer of a few billion pretranshumans is miniscule, compared to even a small possibility of the vast potential of a sapient universe.

Plus my disagreement is that a human life, even now, is more pain than pleasure. In fact The Repugnant Conclusion is that it is immoral to do anything less than have as many children as would still have slightly not crappy lives.

>>10473851
Dang,
>is not more pain than pleasure. What i get for phone posting.

>>10472321
Actually that whole idea of third world happiness is something of a myth. The happiest countries are fully developed socialist states like Finland. Furthermore there is a simple explanation why someone whose hopes and dreams are still tangible things like security and food can be happy. For the first world we're barely holding onto the cliffside by these weeds of "muh fulfillment" or "muh true love" and we're quickly realizing how the will constantly games us by overwhelming us with this disconsolate feeling even when all our needs and wants are accounted for..

>>10472420
>to call suffering the default state is ridiculous

You wouldn't say life is chracterized by need and want? Those needs and wants are a minor mundane form of suffering even if they are quickly alleviated because they represent an experiential deficit and the best we can manage is to nullify them with proportional satiety.

>>10472811
>I think, I believe, I feel

>>10473792
That's not what it's like being old. That's just a meme

>>10472751
Oh yes, religion that certainly makes life a lot more appealing, innit?

>>10473840
How many people do you think would seriously so this of it were offered?

>>10473996
Well I certainly don't know, but neither does the antinatalist

>>10474029
I've worked in a nursing home. The vast majority of the tenants there were suffering from dementia or parkison's, and a few even asked the staff to kill them, several times. It is possible to reach old age graciously, but also rare.

>>10474039
If the alternative is living alone, with no amenities that would be offered in a nursing home, probably quite a few. It's also notable that old people tend to adopt a more accepting view on death and some even just want to get it over with instead of waiting for it for years, popping pills and watching daytime television.

>>10474047
but ironically enough the only ones not talking about feefees in the thread are antinatalists. Even though that is allegedly the whole reason for their philosophy..

>>10474191
I've known many old people living in their own homes with family nearby or staying with them in their homes. I think you're just pulling from your own experience.

>>10473208
Everyone is capable of acquiring happiness. Even if someone was prpfoundly mentally ill enough to somehow never feel any positive emotion (which gets into an entirely different argument about the subjectivity of feelings), do you actually think such a case is likely enough to flatly claim that bringing anything into creation is unethical?
That's like not permitting a tour group to taste a fine wine- nearly all of them would enjoy it, but one may have an allergic reaction. Therefor, it's unethical to bar everyone because of a minute risk? Not to mention that in this example the allergic person could weigh whether they'd rather taste the wine or avoid allergy symptoms, and would be free to decline trying it (suicide).

>US population down to 200,000
>Those brainlets who actually care about surviving now live in fear of being killed by marauders over the limited remaining resources since the current system is dependent on an enormous population
>Or starving to death
>Or dying of a flu
>Or killed by radscorpions
Very good system
Is a small number of people suffering greatly better than a large number living mediocre lives? The end goal of antinatalism/VE is retarded because you can't quantify or even really define suffering.

>>10473719
>Spend first half of thread crying about consent from non-entities
>Euthanizing the elderly is fine though
So antinatalism is just the same senseless fedora shit as "gas the genetically inferior" and that nice stuff?

>>10474612
Again, it would most likely not be forced, just an alternative to growing old in your own home as there would eventually be too few people to staff nursing homes.

>>10474513
How old though? It is entirely possible to reach something like 75 and still be in good health, but 80 is really the cut-off point for most people, at least men. That's when things start going downhill or you get lucky/have incredible genetics and go on to be a spry 90 year old.

>>10474550
Capable on a theoretical level, perhaps. But not in practice. Not everyone is truly capable of grasping opportunities and taking control over their lives to such a degree that they would improve it.

If everyone was capable of that, we wouldn't be having an epidemic of social outcasts and shut-ins in pretty much every society that isn't tribal.

>>10474797
That's a severely reductionist approach to modern societal problems and you know that.

>>10474591
most of your post sounded pro-AN. Never try to form an argument again thx

I sympathize with AN, but I see it as more of a taste-based argument. People who want to make new life in the world and froth at the mouth trying to defend their preferences are like people who like McDonalds' or something. Shit taste.

>>10476231
I'm an antinatalist but if you see it as a matter of taste I don't see how you can be sympathetic. As a matter of taste, its pretty tasteless.

>>10475248
>thinks reductionism is a bad thing and not which every science aspires to since the intrinsic propability of simple hypotheses is higher than complex ones' and empirical evidence alone can't decide between underdetermined theories