/lit/ - Literature

Its very convincing, however if you strongly disagree with the idea you will most likely be very averse to the book. Benatar is a bio-ethicist, so he knows how to explain the idea philosophically and logically. You can also look up a rather funny radio-podcast where Benatar argues with Jordan Peterson about the matter and Peterson starts ranting, skipping his opponent's arguments and points and literally calls Benatar a nazi

>suffering is bad
>pleasure is good
>bad existing is bad
>bad outweighs good
>good isn't worth existing if bad also exists

Does the book address the biological imperative to spread ones genes
https://youtu.be/J0QHnyQbPCc

>>13936518
i'm violently opposed to antinatalism. philosophy this and logic that. if existing is wrong why does he add to it with his words and ideas? let him go full Jain, put on a breathing mask and starve to death

books like this are part of the reason why complex civilizations routinely collapse into authoritarian theocracy. as oswald spengler said by the time people are questioning the rightness of having children, that society is already in deep trouble

i'm pro life btw. and i happen to think even people with downs syndrome serve a purpose which makes life worth living

>>13936835
>i'm violently opposed to antinatalism. philosophy this and logic that. if existing is wrong why does he add to it with his words and ideas? let him go full Jain, put on a breathing mask and starve to death
I vaguely remember Epicurus saying something like that, except in less of a faggy way

>>13936518
Why doesn't this fag and his stupid followers just coordinate a mass suicide, so we don't have to listen to you fags while anymore.

>>13936518
non-existence is impossible
the universe is unimaginably infinite
if you were not born in this life and in this world, you would have been born in another
you don’t actually think that before your birth there was nothingness, and that when you die you’re gonna return to it, do you?

>>13936518
>he doesn’t know that life is worth living
Oh no no no

>>13936906
>claims life is worth living
>dies
checkmate catholicucks

>>13936518
The problem with antinatalism is suffering isn't really that bad.

>>13936835
Stinks of pseud.

>>13936518
Are there ever any healthy-minded and successful individuals promoting antinatalism or is it just a position for ugly losers?

>mistaking depression for existance.

>>13936518
If Antinatalism was completely, 100% right, and David Benatar had never been born, nobody today would know correct reproductive ethics (that no reproduction is ethical). That would be bad because knowing the truth about something is better than not knowing it*.
Therefore Antinatalism must be wrong.

*If You want to argue that knowing the Truth is not always better than not knowing it, Then How do you tell?

>natalist debate
Honestly, I wouldn't even bother getting involved with it. How many anti-natalists arrive at the position through rational argument compared to the number who do by personal experiences? I have never heard of anyone being persuaded (converted) by argument on this subject, in either direction.

>>13936835
how many kids did spergler have?

>>13937071
zappfe maybe, haven’t read him, but he seems like a happy guy

>>13936835
>and i happen to think even people with downs syndrome serve a purpose which makes life worth living
what about incel autists larping as life-affirming theosophy chads, do they serve a purpose which makes life living?

>>13936906
>he thinks life is worth living
>he spends his posting low quality bait on a patagonian origami hook-up site

>>13936518
If you're an Atheist, any other kind of Materialist or Empiricist then one of the following will be true:

1) This book is irrefutable.
2) You don't understand its arguments.
3) You don't understand your own position.

It's the logical conclusion of Atheism.

I'm not an Atheist but I was, and the Anti-natalist position is impossible to deny once you understand it correctly.

>>13937071
Life is optimised for energy conservation. If the easiest route is enough to reach physical satisfaction, the mind stops investing energy. It takes a great amount of depression to reach a genius level understanding of the world. That doesn't mean it's merely a cope (Even though it often is that too).

>>13936906
literal who?

True antinatalists commit sudoku

>>13937690
Where does an atheist get the idea that it's better not to harm than to harm? What if I'm an atheist and don't care about the suffering of others?

Benatar is right but I don't care whether people breed or not. I just want euthanasia to be legal for everyone so I can leave peacefully. I'm too much of a pussy to hang myself. Suggestions for accessible and painless methods?

>>13936835

>Books like this are why civilizations collapse into authoritarian theocracy

I'm pretty sure that every authoritarian theocracy that exists is also inherently natal to boot. You are blindly projecting here, anon.

>>13937071

I'm a pretty guy and I fucking hate existence, so me I guess

>>13937071
>>13938552

Oh wait you said 'successful' as well, in that case, not me

>>13937071
I've seen Benatar in a small conference. He's normal looking and didn't seem depressed. His younger wife/gf? was sitting there not listening to his talk, but checking the tourist map of the city.

>>13937071
not an argument

>>13936518
Such a cuck ideology.

>>13937632
What? Zapffe wasn't happy, he was a nervous wreck, he adopted antinatalism out of necessity to deal with childhood trauma.

>>13936518
>mfw i agree with antinatalist conclusions but disagree with their arguments even more than the people using moronic "common sense" counterarguments against them so i am almost forced to awkwardly defend their shitty arguments partially because they are imputed to me and partially because mine are much more nuanced thus more prone to absurd misunderstanding

>>13939938
Would love to hear your arguments then

>>13936518
I think Benatar does more to discredit antinatalism than anyone. Nevertheless I am still a fervent antinatalist but for entirely different reasons than most.

>>13937071
>If you're biased from having a good life, you're actually more correct than the guy who is biased from having a bad one.

>>13937690
Materialism is the last reason to be an antinatalist. True antinatalism is realizing that by virtue of your existence anything can happen to you.

Diogenes (among others) retroactively refuted antinatalism
>When someone declared that life is an evil Diogenes corrected him: "not life itself, but living ill".

>>13940163
>entirely different reasons than most.
Oh, do tell.

>>13940187
Well I believe in God and hell but I feel little assurance he's anything more than a cosmic despot.

>>13940194
God is just a personification of nature. The reason why the Abrahamic Gods are cunts is the same as why every other God is too, because nature is harsh and the environment in which these faiths were created was very harsh. Death was unjust and random, nature was chaotic and violent and people from other cultures were as likely to kill you as they were to trade with you.

The only way to improve upon this reality is to make incremental changes every generation and basically tame nature and its personifications. You stand on the shoulders of thousands of generations that all disagreed with you and all put up with greater hardships than you ever will, just so that you could have a chance at knowing things they never could.

That is how enlightenment is achieved. The only other choice is to stifle out the light and go back to the chaotic darkness, which would be much closer to giving into a "cosmic despot" than struggling to live and procreate is.

>>13938075
the ol exhaust through the car window trick seems pretty painless. If movies have taught me anything— and I assure you they have— it’s that the suicider just kinda passes out and then dies unconsciously.

>>13940153

One man living for any amount of time is good enough.

>>13940229
Interesting but totally disagree with you. We've created a hell with our progress and technology. The further man strays from nature, the worse it becomes.

>>13940271
>We've created a hell with our progress and technology
By creating the most peaceful, prosperous, long-lived generations that have ever existed?
Granted, we haven't yet reached a balance with nature yet and out technological progress is unsustainable, but your argument is extremely weak because of the aforementioned reasons.

>>13940281
>we haven't yet reached a balance with nature yet and out technological progress is unsustainable
What makes you think we ever will? There's no evidence that will happen.

Depression is at an all time high. Cancer is at an all time high. The gap between the richest and the poorest has never been higher. We live under constant surveillance and are losing rights every year.

People work their entire lives for soulless corporations for basic food and shelter, which they could have provided themselves before modernity. Now instead of building a cabin in a few months, you work 50 years to pay banks.

Science/futurefags are absolutely delusional.

Seems like the argument boils down to:
>causing suffering by bringing someone into existence is very bad
>denying someone pleasure by not bringing them into existence is only mildly bad, or neutral
You can refute that by adopting hedonic utilitarianism but then you're jumping into a rabbit hole with Brian Tomasik at the end.

>>13940309
>Depression is at an all time high. Cancer is at an all time high. The gap between the richest and the poorest has never been higher. We live under constant surveillance and are losing rights every year.
If you had been born in the 1300's, which of these statements do you believe you could not have made? Granted, you'd change "cancer" with some other disease, but still.

And you're factually incorrect as well. Pretty sure feudal society had a much larger gap between the wealthy and the poor and also fewer rights. And while depression and cancer might be issues, they still don't get in the way of the fact that the average lifespan is the largest it's ever been.

>>13940309
>Depression is at an all time high.
We don't actually have data like this. Depression is a modern categorical invention anyway.
>Cancer is at an all time high.
How can you be sure this isn't mainly because more people live long enough to get cancer in the first place?
>The gap between the richest and the poorest has never been higher.
This gap has existed for all of history. At most it temporarily shrank a little bit when the middle class emerged
>We live under constant surveillance and are losing rights every year.
In exchange for more safety than ever, and we aren't losing rights as much as you think, not right now at least
>People work their entire lives for soulless corporations for basic food and shelter, which they could have provided themselves before modernity.
By doing backbreaking labor all day every day.

>>13940341
Tell me what backbreaking labour pre-agrarian Amazonian tribesmen do. I'll wait.

>>13940169
I didn't say that. I just said you're an mentally ill, ugly and unsuccessful loser.

>>13940341
Imagine thinking that procuring your own means of survival, like every other species is a bad thing. Retard.

Sciencefags are insufferable weak faggots. You're right, you wouldn't survive a day in the fields.

>>13936892
Yeah it's actually absurd to think there is just nothing after death

Existence is all there is and ever will be. There HAS to be something being experienced

>>13940365
So are you

>>13940387
Why are you invoking some form of darwinism, when that same process leads to the creation of civilizations in the first place?

>>13940414
Except it doesn't because fully formed humans existed for 100,000 years without ((( civilisation ))).

>>13940423
And how does that disprove that a socioeconomically superior form of organization came along and was adopted by the vast majority of humans due to its higher capability of ensuring survival among its members and also the capability of maintaining greater numbers?

>>13940460
Poorer quality of life for greater quantity is not a good trade-off. It's only superior at enslaving and exploiting.

>>13940503
>Poorer quality of life
Compared to pre-civilization communities?

>>13940281
>By creating the most peaceful, prosperous, long-lived generations that have ever existed?
Yes, the Last Man lives the longest..

>>13940530
Longest and latest aren't the same thing.

>>13940517
Absolutely. Everything about our lives is restricted and artificial in the worst ways possible. We have cheapened humanity and it's a race to the bottom.

>hate antinatalists
>hate Pinker scientism
where do we, higher men, veer to?

>>13940587
Isn't this simply the noble savage meme taken to an even bigger extreme?
I do not understand what values you seek or what natural environment you long after. Maybe you can go into some details.

>>13936518
As a pro-natalist.
Kill yourself, utilitarianism is an ethical cancer.
>>13936906
He was such a Chad.

>>13940610
>Kill yourself, utilitarianism is an ethical cancer.

Agreed. T. Antinatalist

>>13940591
God.

>>13940617
>he is an anti-utilitarian
>he is also an anti-natalist
Are you NazBol too?

>>13940625
Nope. I believe antinatalism can be justified deontologically.

>>13940632
>mfw this nigger is probably serious

>>13940610
anti-natalism is cancer but it has nothing to do with ethics you retard

>>13940643
>reproducing isn't using persons as a means to an end
>Persons are not already satisfied as ends in themselves when they fail to exist.

big HMMMMMM

>>13940654
>I don't know what ethics means
Antinatalism is literally an ethical statement.
>you retard
Nice dunning-krugger effect your retard

You're trapped.

>>13940654
>an ethic has nothing to do with ethics

That would be convenient for you, wouldn't it?

I agree with him mostly, the book is well written. the assymetry makes no sense though

the issue with antitnatalism though is basically the idea that procreation essentially plucks 'potential people' from noncondition into being (and suffering). as if from buddhist nibbana children are taken from

but there is a just a world - just condition, manifestation, born

there is nothing other than being, nothing and nobody and nothing is better off.

as in, benatare basically projects buddhists nibbana prior to his birth, and thinks he was harmed being taken from that 'state' through his parents fucking. it's only logical from the view that benatar is some sort of truly existing self or being separate from 'the world/manifestation', who will cease to exist at death and return to the unborn state he came from

but there are no distinct truly existing egos or selves. there is no benatar even in life, let alone prior to birth or beyond death.

causes, conditions, actions in the world bring about children. child thinks he is distinct from the causal process, thinks he was birthed from non-being

there is just the world.

none of this is to say that we ought have kids though, it's just that there is no 'prior to birth nibbana' that children come from (which is the basis for benatars assymetry)

>>13940625
How could a socialist be anti-utilitarian? You're just stupid and out of your depth, admit it.

>>13940606
Sure, just read Ted Kaczynski's manifesto.

When you really think about it, Natalism is thinking you get to create sapient beings just because you have genitals.

>>13940685
Kaczynski was an idealist who longed for a world that never existed. Although many of his complaints were valid, I still don't see how a return to pre-civilization is to be desired.

>>13940668
>dunning-krugger
i bet you use that phrase irl too

>>13940711
of course a bug couldn't possibly imagine leaving his anthill; not surprising in the least

>>13940690
Yes, a God given apparatus for reproduction surely suggests we are meant to reproduce

>>13940711
>the pre-civ world never existed
lol

>>13940733
Well, I don't see how the issues you see in modern society wouldn't be amplified in primitive communities, unless you irrationally idealize them.

>>13940753
It did, it just wasn't some individualist libertarian utopia.

>>13940679
You're right. This asymmetry is presently felt at the presentation of the argument. It doesn't add up. If you find yourself in a mire of utilitarianism, remember that human lives are incommensurable.

>>13940757
Modern society amplifies the issues in the human condition (Inequality for one). Read Rousseau.

>>13940683
>How could a socialist be anti-utilitarian?
I don't understand. Why is a socialist necessarily a utilitarian (or not an anti-)?

>>13940739
>God Given

Now, that's trouble.

>>13940759
Even Ted doesn't think that. If you read his writings, he heavily criticises the anprims like Zerzan. Maybe you should read him instead of just guessing.

>>13940771
>Socialism is the political stance that the needs of the collective always takes precedence
>utilitarianism is the philosophy that the consequences of moral action must benefit the greatest number of people

Its practically the same thing

>>13940757
If sick men, i.e. bugmen, were to live in primitive communities they would bring ruin to themselves and their surrounding just as they do in modern society. That's because they are inherently sick. Healthy men, however, higher men, would flourish.

>>13940767
How about you make your own arguments and stop appealing to people smarter than you to make them in your place?

How does modern society amplify inequality?
>>13940774
No, he just thought that modern society is undignified while implying that there was great dignity in primitive communities.

>>13940785
>>13940683
Marx, Lenin, Engels, Mao and Gramsci were all oppenly hostile towards utilitarianism.
I would explain to you why marxists dislike utilitarianism and why utilitarians dislike marxism, but you seem like a retard, so you don't deserve my time.
>Socialism is the political stance that the needs of the collective always takes precedence
You need to read less Ayn Rand.
That is not what Socialism is.

>>13940803
>Marx, Lenin, Engels, Mao and Gramsci

Well they did all have a penchant for hypocrisy

>Actually I'm glad I'm alive, this is pretty fun
>Haha yeah right you're just lying to yourself

Every conversation I've had with an antinatalist in a nutshell.

>>13940793
So you want more Darwinian law and a harsher environment to live in?

>>13940823
I wont tell you that. But since when the fuck did personal experience become an item of philosophical argumentation?

>>13940793
Based and true.

>>13940834
>he believes social darwinists and eugenics supporters are capable of rational thinking
Wew lad.
You just posted cringe.

>>13940795
>How about you make your own arguments
I've made the arguments hundreds of times on this board already but you aren't worth the effort since you already outright dismissed people without even reading them or fully comprehending their ideas.

I have several genetic conditions but I intent to breed as much as possible.
So suck it.

>>13940858
>I want to live in an environment where the weak die and the strong survive
>but darwinian law is goofy hehe
What?
>>13940870
>you already outright dismissed people without even reading them or fully comprehending their ideas.
Give an example or you're just coping.

>>13940870
Also I'm tired and going to bed. These guys already wrote the books and answered the very questions you propose.

>>13940870
lololololol

>>13940881
>coping
dilate

>>13936667
based peterson. anti natalists should be executed

>>13940785
>Socialism is the political stance that the needs of the collective always takes precedence
This could be said in some sense of any politics. Do you think that what you wrote represents some equation between socialism and utilitarianism. Ask yourself why is utilitarianism associated with Liberalism? Does a wage slave not receive more utility than a dead revolutionary? No more I'll say but that I don't think you've made yourself familiar enough with the relevant literature.

>>13940810
pigshittingonballs.jpeg

>>13940906
Pretty sure trannies are more often than not antinatalists, so not sure how this applies to me.

>>13940795
>How does modern society amplify inequality?
The entire book by Rousseau is on this very topic. Why should I type out a hundred pages of explanation when you can just go and read it?

>>13940928
I don't know, nigger, why does this entire board exist when we could just go and read the books instead?

>>13940907
>kill the people who don't want to live or reproduce
Playing right into their hands, anon.

>>13940926
>>13940926
>Pretty sure trannies are more often than not antinatalists
True, a great example of it is Chris Korda.

>>13940940
All right. There are differences between men. Tools and arbitrary ownership advance those differences. Slavery compounded that inequality. The establishment of the state and contractual property accelerated it even more.

Now all land is owned and must be leased / purchased from those that have it. The cost of living is increasing and the profits of the richest are increasing also.

For clarification, Rousseau isn't against ownership completely but he believes the land must be used and be necessary. In the current system, the richest just hoard everything to inflate their investments as much as possible.

>>13940974
Pretty sure modern society is more gender equal than any primitive community, since all primitive communities had very strict gender roles that you had no option to avoid or escape from. Or do you believe that if a woman born in 20,000 BC wanted to be anything else than a mother to 9 kids and some fruit picker, she had any valid options?
>Now all land is owned and must be leased / purchased from those that have it.
As opposed to people fighting and killing each other all the time over land? How is that more equal?

>>13940989
Don't give one single fuck about "gender equality". Men and women are different and should be. I believe in gender asymmetry.

People are killing each other over land because of arbitrary claims to ownership which will be enforced by the ruling state or international bodies. Also, it gives them the ability to farm the inhabitants of that land for tax money.

>life is suffering
>thus we shouldn't have more kids
According to such ethical worldview: Explain me why you SHOULDN'T kill yourself then?

>>13940989
>do you believe that if a woman born in 20,000 BC wanted to be anything else than a mother to 9 kids and some fruit picker, she had any valid options
Any woman that doesn't want to be a mother is mentally ill and her opinion is irrelevant.

>>13940989
You don't know much about prehistory or pre-agrarian societies, do you? Look into it, things weren't, like, the 1950s but with rocks and dinosaurs

>>13941029
>Don't give one single fuck about "gender equality".
My point was that it applies to men as well. Pretty sure you gotta be a retard to think there is less class dynamism post-industrial revolution than pre-industrial revolution.
>because of arbitrary claims to ownership which will be enforced by the ruling state or international bodies.
As opposed to killing each other because of arbitrary claims to ownership which are enforced through direct combat?

>>13941041
> Look into it

>>13941044
There's no reason for nomadic people to fight over land. Instead of risking death, you just go somewhere else, or you make some agreement.

>>13941057
Hmmmm....

>>13941044
In the modern world, working people can't even afford real food. And are stuck in cities, choking on fumes and carcinogens. They watch mind numbing TV and have existential crises. At least peasants had fresh air, real food, and faith.

>>13941065
>Steven Pinker
Fuck off kike

>>13941074
Hunger rates are lower and lifespan is longer.

>>13937206
Antinatalism would exist without Benatar tard.
>>13938075
Look up exit bag.
>>13940281
Sado masochist brainlet doesn't understand that antinatalism is a fruit of enlightenment and that civilization is a prison. Smfh.
>>13940460
Its not superior if its going to destroy itself.
>>13940610
Faggot likes chad cock.
>>13940606
One devoid of my progeny.
>>13940632
>always act in such a way that the maxim of your action can be made a universal law.
I don't see why antinatalism cant be other than ignorance and or sado- masochism.
>>13940679
You dont have to be taken out of some void, just not produced in this one. Shit argument.
>>13940842
Wtf? As if we ever had anything else to argue over.
>>13940946
The fact that most states dont allow voluntary suicide is enough to suggest to me that life is a shit gift that the store doesn't want you returning.
>>13940974
Division of labor is a big thing.
>>13941034
If you can and want to you should. Explain why one shouldn't?
>>13941044
you just described imperialism in you last paragraph. Is it better to have national scale imperialism or tribal scale? Dont bring in things like "laws of war" because we all know that shit is not taken seriously.

>>13941079
That graph is made by Keeley, not Pinker.

>>13941080
Famines have largely occurred from monocropping and population booms due to agriculture.

A longer life means "better". This doesn't even deserve a reply.

>>13941083
>One devoid of my progeny.
>implying you will ever have any progeny
KYS, antinatalists are all incels.

>>13941065
>slavery is preferable to war
Wrong.

>>13941065
>uses South American tribes, descendants of the most violent people to ever exist to pretend there would be a similar level of conflict among the highly co-operative and vastly more intelligent pre-civ European peoples

Ok, retard.

>>13941046
He isn't that wrong. Afaik gender roles are less pronounced in nomadic tribal societies, due to the women not constantly shitting out new kids like in a primitive agricultural society. That said primitivism is more or less complete bullshit and the main reason TK is popular is due to anti-social losers on here identifiying with his trouble of integrating into modern society, denigrating those who do as "bugmen". It's just a major cope.

>>13941127
>she thinks her ancestors are any better
i wish i can teleport your ass to the middle-ages, any place and time of your choice

identifying yourself as an antinatalist when buddhism, vedanta, neoplatonism, and the book of ecclesiastes all exist is just intellectually lazy

>>13937690
I love this. What do you call this style of thinking where if you contradict someone you haven't truly understood them

>so what you're saying is 1
>no, no, you misunderstood me- what I was saying was 1 to the power of 1, divided by 1 and subtracted from 2

Benatar keeps affirming and reaffirming that his positions are undeniable, his raving, rabid supporters on Youtube keep gratuitously saying it also, why are anti-natalists so insecure about the stability of their coping mechanism?

>>13940772
This anon be like:
>What? You mean genitals are for something other than masturbation?

If you're not gonna have kids then you need to be serious about how you spend your time. have to go monk mode.

>>13941065
But those tribes had less people in them than Europe and the US and more people in the tribes had to fight

>>13936881
ironically if you read the book you'd know. he address this.

>>13941065

>percentage of tiny populations of people vs percentage of the most massive societies ever

jews are tricky little sophists, aren't they?

>>13941083
And if most states allowed voluntary suicide then life would be considered a cheap gift worth that can be returned or kept without consequences. Get a load and a hold of yourself

>you don't have to be taken out of some void, just not produced in this one
But you are. Benatar argues that you are wronged by being plucked from some fantastical realm of unbeing, which is somehow preferable to life, and put into this horrible world full of suffering and the whinging of weak people like you

>why one shouldn't kill themselves
You shouldn't prey on mentally unstable people to get them to kill themselves. If you want to kill yourself, there's nothing to stop you from doing it. Stop flirting with the idea and advocating for it, just do it faggot.

>>13941111
Nice logic tard. Of course I'm not going to.

>>13941503
dumb cunt. Point is that you shouldn't produce new people in this world not that your taking pre existing people out of nowhere. You just demonstrate your brainletism.

I'm not fucking preying either. If people want to they have no more assured right that to commit suicide. Fucking psued larping life affirmers make me sick.

>>13941083
>You dont have to be taken out of some void, just not produced in this one. Shit argument.

If you read my post I said we shouldn't procreate. I was arguing against benatars assmetry. the assmetry is a shit argument, but there are many more arguments against antinatalism. I just think benatar misses the mark with his "the absence of suffering is good, but the abesence of pleasure is neutral".

good for whom? what? unconditioned, parinibbanic beings?

it's absurd.

but we can see that if we procreate we are creating the condition for harm to exist (embodiment as human), which in my opinion is a bad thing. It is fundamentally not good to be human.

>>13938075
Jump off a bridge dick head, you dont need some doctor to give you morphine. Other people should not have to take on the burden of ending your life for you.

>Remember all ye that existence is pure joy; that all the sorrows are but as shadows; they pass & are done; but there is that which remains.

>>13941297
antinatalism pretty much requires materialism doesn’t it

>>13942799
>Other people should not have to take on the burden of ending your life for you
they charge thousands of dollars. it's not a burden for anyone

>>13941178
>gender roles are less pronounced in nomadic tribal societies, due to the women not constantly shitting out new kids
Makes no sense, because there are examples of female warriors that I can give from agricultural societies, yet no evidence of female warriors from nomadic ones.

>>13941478
>>13941500
How would that affect the per capita, retards?
And yes, those societies are massive because of agriculture.

>>13943386
>no evidence of nomadic ones
Writing was invented in response to agriculture. How would they create any evidence?

>>13943408
Different expectations. There were enough young men to fight the world wars that only their lives were necessary. In the tribal war it was probably all males who could even hold a spear.

Also:

The vast majority of casualties in WWs were civilians (Not included in these stats)

The European population includes countries that were neutral and didn't even fight.

>>13941065
>>13943428
This is a textbook how to misrepresent statistics to say anything. Probably one of the most egregious examples ever.

>>13943418
Any archaeological evidence of women participating in war, maybe being buried with a weapon and having healed injuries clearly from a weapon or something like that.
>>13943428
The stat takes into account how many of the total deaths were caused by war, including any equivalent they had of "civilians" as well.
>The European population includes countries that were neutral and didn't even fight.
Yes, and? You're now saying that none of those pre-agricultural people knew about peace?

>>13943454
Are you a lying fucking kike or are you just pretending to be retarded? They took the aggregate population of Europe including COUNTRIES THAT DIDN'T PARTICIPATE. Then on the other side, they singled out specific tribes which fought. They didn't just say "South America" or whatever. Why? Because that would probably blow their statistics out.

>>13943475
God, you're a fucking retard. They used Europe in the 20th century because that's when the 2 world wars happened, so Europe had an actual higher mortality rate than other times.

Even if you take modern South America, you won't have 10% of men dying in war, you won't even have 1% of them. Even if you confound dying a violent death for any reason, including crime, you still won't have anywhere near 5% of them.

>>13943498
>Even if you take modern South America, you won't have 10% of men dying in war, you won't even have 1% of them.
No shit. That's exactly why the statistics are skewed this way. That's EXACTLY my point.

Let's consider the inverse version of this graph.

It would list specific armies in WW2 and the South American continent at the bottom.

>>13943507
The graph lists how many men died due to war in comparison to the total number of deaths that occurred.
What are you confused by? I don't understand.
>It would list specific armies in WW2 and the South American continent at the bottom.
How is that inverse? That graph doesn't just list the armies, it lists all of the deaths that occurred and what percentage of them were due to war.

>>13943518
How can you still not get it? Practically the entire population of males would have participated in the tribal warfare. In comparison, they use the whole population of Europe (For which the vast majority were not fighting). A completely dishonest use of statistics.

This is the last post I will make. I tried to explain this to you like 5 times already.

>>13940875
Good luck finding a willing participant, anon

>>13943535
Which pretty much proves that they weren't more peaceful, no? If half your male population dies in war, how can you possibly ever make this argument to begin with?

>>13936518
The least convincing thing is that crux of much of his argumentation is
>You actually suffer WAY more than you think, you should probably kill yourself because of it, and every thing else. You're delusional if you think the good outweighs the bad.

I seriously don't think I have suffered so terribly that it makes the enjoyable aspects of life moot. Suffering has made me stronger and so far all my suffering has been transient and followed by pleasant and enjoyable experiences.

>>13943546

see this underrated post
>>13936708

>>13936667
There is no logical argument againts anitnatalism because the ideology itself is deeply illogical.

If you're antinatalist and believe existence isn't worth living then kill yourself. Existence is clearly worthwhile for many people and believing you know better than them is simply narcissism.

Peterson was right.

>>13936708
this is why I don't believe in reincarnation.

>>13944260
>The Sun clearly revolves around the Earth for many people and believing you know better than them is simply narcissism.

>life is not worth living, life is suffering, that's why I am an anti-natalist
>guys, I am clearly not depressed, pro-natalists are totally the depressed ones!
Anti-natalists that refuse to kill themselves are hypocrites.