/lit/ - Literature

>>11120729
He's a 100% muh feels so it tends to only work on people who already of similar temperament to him I guess. I'm very sensitive to his approach in certain moods, especially when I'm sick or sleep deprived or alcohol dependent. But the moment I live a robust healthy life again it just seems like arbitrary whining to me because it's just a collection of dramatic value judgements.

I think Benatar is better as an anti-natalist diplomat because he doesn't rely on emotion so much.

Antinatalism isn't actually antinatalist in the consequentialist sense. It's more of a personal virtue signalling. Realistically, some percentage of people becoming antinatalist isn't going to make humanity go extinct. If anything it merely leads to a temporary decrease in resource consumption allowing humanity to live on longer.

If you're a true antinatalist and don't just want to look virtuous the outcome to optimise for is the extinction of humans on this planet to happen as soon as possible. The way to do that is to actually take an accelerationist stance. To hasten the human extinction event we must have more people, more capitalism, more speed!

We will sing of great crowds excited by work, by pleasure, and by riot; we will sing of the multicolored, polyphonic tides of revolution in the modern capitals; we will sing of the vibrant nightly fervor of arsenals and shipyards blazing with violent electric moons; greedy railway stations that devour smoke-plumed serpents; factories hung on clouds by the crooked lines of their smoke; bridges that stride the rivers like giant gymnasts, flashing in the sun with a glitter of knives; adventurous steamers that sniff the horizon; deep-chested locomotives whose wheels paw the tracks like the hooves of enormous steel horses bridled by tubing; and the sleek flight of planes whose propellers chatter in the wind like banners and seem to cheer like an enthusiastic crowd!

>>11120786
I should add that striving to be accelerationist doesn't matter either. Nothing on the individual scale matters. All the mechanisms are already in place. We have already left the Anthropocene, nothing within the power of individuals or clusters thereof can reverse the path of the superorganism. What you do literally does not matter anymore. The projectile is airborne, we can no longer chance its course, all we can do is watch and watching is more fun if you're on the side of the inevitablamorfati.

>>11120801
But you should still be a nice person

>>11120810
It's not mandatory to be frank.

>>11120786
some nice disgusting purple drenched prose

>>11120801
What if everyone just walked away from it all today? Not that they would...but it made me think that the reactors etc would eventually fail wouldn’t they?
Isn’t anarcho-anything ignorant of that fact? If we walk away from modern society we will have to deal with radiation and all sorts of other stuff. You can’t go backwards at least not all of us. You just have to hang on as long as you can.

>>11120868
Theoretically people could take a few decades to collectively deconstruct all the nuclear stuff and build some safe storage things that would hopefully hold out thousands of years or find some way to shoot nuclear waste into space before wandering back into the woods and get to berry picking but as you said, nobody will.

No 'step backwards' on any mentionable scale has ever been voluntary. Luddites are a quaint meme for the most part.

>>11120826
>not recognising that quote

>>11120729
All I know is the prose is great.

>>11121322
MALIGNANTLY USELESS

>>11120868
I worked in a nuclear power plant and you should know that there are mechanisms to prevent nuclear incidents where nothing else is working. It relies on physical mechanisms (gravity, mainly)-not on electronics. I'm a bit drunk so I'm having trouble expressing myself but what I mean is that nuclear incidents (Tchernobyl, Fukushima) happens when the plant is "on". If everyone walk away from society as in your hypothesis, nuclear stuff is somehow neutralized

>>11120786

Physically cringed at that

>>11120729
I was likely an anti-natalist before reading the book, but I hadn't really given the topic much thought prior. I'm not sure that I would call this persuasive necessarily, your mileage is certainly going to vary based on how sympathetic you are with Ligotti's misanthropy from the outset. That said, I have heard people say that they disagreed with the whole argument but still found the read engaging, so it still works on that horror level of being trapped within consciousness, even if you don't buy into it seriously.
All that being said, this book doesn't get nearly enough credit for being as darkly funny as it is.

>>11121322
Did you even read the book? The prose is awful

>>11121871
>my tastes are universal

He convinced me that having children is a net negative act, which is what convinced me to have children, funny enough. Got 3 kids as of now, lulz.

The only antinatalism that makes sense is the "we risk the catastrophic effects of overpopulation if we don't stop having so many kids" type; the type that relies on Benetars asymmetry is retarded as no reason is given for the asymmetry.

i dont read whiney bitches
>>11120729

>>11122551
only because you are blissfully ignorant