[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 42 KB, 830x589, waltwhitman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13624430 No.13624430 [Reply] [Original]

Why do so few writers and other influential people throughout history not have children?

>> No.13624432

OP here, also if anyone can list great writers with families I'd be very interested

>> No.13624434
File: 27 KB, 220x302, died a virgin btw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13624434

Contrary to popular belief, high IQ actually cripples your chances at reproductive success.

>> No.13624598
File: 9 KB, 220x273, 220px-Alexander_Pope_by_Michreael_Dahl.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13624598

Because most great minds come to understand there's more worth in pumping and dumping.

>> No.13624641

>>13624430
antinatalism is the only way to save this dying planet

>> No.13624661

Genius is a group selected trait

>> No.13624672

The books are their children. The impulse to leave something behind after death is fulfilled.

>> No.13624770

>>13624432
Bertrand Russell, though that might not count, if we're going for "great."

>> No.13624784

>>13624430
Children are annoying

>> No.13624789

Well for starters, Walt Whitman was gay

>> No.13624794

>>13624430
Does John Green not have children?

>> No.13624805

>>13624430
why would you produce offspring in such an inherently terrible world? you'd have to be a retard, and you can't be a genius and a retard, so of course most of them doesn't want more beings to suffer in this forsaken land. the ones that did have children were probably not thinking deeply enough about existence.

>> No.13624822

>>13624805
If the world is so terrible that you see it as logical that life should not be created in order to avoid the negatives of existence, then you have no justification for living yourself. Yet here you are, which must mean you don't truly believe that the world is so negative that creating new life is unjustified.

>> No.13624824

>>13624430
Abstinence brings success

Children hamper success (wealth gained through interest is unnatural don’t mention it)

The need is fulfilled by their work (even the dumbest of us are intellectual to to the point where they have kids to cope)

Being smarter makes it harder to relate to women

>> No.13624832

>>13624822
You can be too afraid to kill yourself and still think you'd be better off dead.

>> No.13624837

>>13624822
>herp derp is just the way it is, i guess we should keep it that way despite the awful consequences herp derp durrr

>> No.13624848

>>13624822
that's exactly what i'm unironically planning. i'm just waiting for me to finish my literary masterpiece that will change my country's literature, and then i'll drown myself, which's how i want to go.

>> No.13624865

>>13624832
I don't really see how. Your fear of what comes next is implicitly greater than your urge to not exist otherwise you would have the constitution to end your existence. If you're on the roof of a burning building you can either burn or jump. Now you might say "obviously I'll jump that way I at least have a chance and even if I die it will be quicker than burning" but then you get up there and you're unable to jump? What you thought you wanted wasn't what you actually wanted.

>>13624837
No clue what you're trying to say, retard. Don't infer things from my post that weren't written there.

>>13624848
The world will only actually know whether you're a true-believing antinatalist when your lungs are filled up with water.

>> No.13624871

>>13624865
>The world will only actually know whether you're a true-believing antinatalist when your lungs are filled up with water.
that's what i'm hoping for, brother. i want to go out like Hart Crane, but i'm not going to do it out of desperation like him, such a beautiful soul overpowered by the world's suffering; i'm doing it out of logical necessity

>> No.13624875

>>13624824
>The need is fulfilled by their work (even the dumbest of us are intellectual to to the point where they have kids to cope)
>Being smarter makes it harder to relate to women

Explain these 2 for a midwit..

>> No.13624880

>>13624871
Why, I don’t see how suicide is an effective answer for antinatalism, it should at least be a suicide shooting

>> No.13624892

>>13624871
I don't mind if you're a devoted antinatalist. I do take issue if you're trying to convince other people to suffer with you and if that's your intention with your writing then I only really hope for torture for you.

>> No.13624915

>>13624880
it would only increase suffering in the world, especially in the families of those that would die from such a horrible thing. i don't see where you got that from, since antinatalists are antinatalists exactly because things like that are such common in this world. the only thing close to that would be peaceful and consensual extinction, with humanity coming together to live the last lives of this race on the planet
>>13624892
i don't want to convince anyone, i just follow my own logic, my literature has nothing to do with antinatalism. though i don't see how antinatalism leads to suffering. if anything, it leads to exactly the contrary of that.

>> No.13624921

>>13624915
But they wouldn’t have kids? Stopping all those births is better than the tears of the family, which will come anyway mind you. Don’t be squeamish, commit to something for once in your life and end lives.

>> No.13624928

>>13624915
>my literature has nothing to do with antinatalism
Then carry on just know that you won't be an actual antinatalist until you're dead

>> No.13624944

Whitman wanted kids, he was just too much of flaming homo

>> No.13624961

>>13624921
>But they wouldn’t have kids?
not necessarily, i can't know who will have kids or not.
>Stopping all those births is better than the tears of the family
not really since suffering is subjective so the net worth suffering of the family could be potentially bigger than the suffering of a new baby born. maybe that baby will be born on wealth and with good brain chemistry that will allow him to live a happy life. not only that but antinatalism is about how immoral it's to bring a child on this life exactly because of the potential suffering, so it's a question if a violation of consent. and by putting consent in such a important position we obviously wouldn't violate consent by killling people at all

>> No.13624970

>>13624598
Or they happen to be a dwarf.

>> No.13624974
File: 126 KB, 680x510, EBXt8FVWkAAwovx.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13624974

>> No.13624978

>>13624961
You can kill women with 80% sureness that they will have kids, men 60%

>> No.13624984

>>13624961
>suffering is subjective so the net worth suffering
Conflicting ideas btw

>> No.13624985

>>13624978
that would violate their consent just as it's a violation of consent to bring a concious being into this world.

>> No.13624998

>>13624984
it's subjective just as a disease is subjective, it's felt differently by different people, but it's measured in the same way: we know the causes and how to treat potential suffering.

>> No.13625068

You mean so many?

>> No.13625097

>>13624822
>Why don't you just kill yourself huhuhu
The issue, retard, is that of consent. I recognize that although life is full of suffering, the occasional moments of elation that I feel makes it worthwhile. But who am I to impose this justification on someone who isn't myself?

>> No.13625150
File: 141 KB, 814x1190, Dickens_Gurney_head.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13625150

>>13624430
Dickens had 2 wives a mistress and 10 children
Leo Tolstoy had 14 kids i think
Mark Twain had 4