/lit/ - Literature

>>21723662
Ecclesiastes.

>>21723662
You cannot learn antinatalism from a book. It is a philosophy that you naturally come up with yourself as a result of having shitty parents.

this kills the contemporary fake christian

>>21723885
You can also have good parents but health problems or other things that cause great suffering. Most normies only really get acquainted with true suffering in middle age or later when they have already bred. To be hit with the bad things life has to offer in your formative years instead of the relatively freewheeling vitality and carelessness of normal youth is transformative.

I hate my absent father. I hate my narcissistic mother.

Pessimism is Perennial Truth

Wisdom Of Silenus:
>"You, most blessed and happiest among humans, may well consider those blessed and happiest who have departed this life before you, and thus you may consider it unlawful, indeed blasphemous, to speak anything ill or false of them, since they now have been transformed into a better and more refined nature. This thought is indeed so old that the one who first uttered it is no longer known; it has been passed down to us from eternity, and hence doubtless it is true. Moreover, you know what is so often said and passes for a trite expression. What is that, he asked? He answered: It is best not to be born at all; and next to that, it is better to die than to live; and this is confirmed even by divine testimony. Pertinently to this they say that Midas, after hunting, asked his captive Silenus somewhat urgently, what was the most desirable thing among humankind. At first he could offer no response, and was obstinately silent. At length, when Midas would not stop plaguing him, he erupted with these words, though very unwillingly: 'you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature's excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.' It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living."

Hegesias of Cyrene, Death by Starvation:
>The book was called Death by Starvation or The Death-Persuader. According to the Roman orator Cicero (lived 106 – 43 BC), the entire book was essentially an argument for why everyone should just give up on life and kill themselves.

Ecclesiastes 4:1
>Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed-- and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors-- and they have no comforter.
Ecclesiastes 4:2
>And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive.
Ecclesiastes 4:3
>But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.


THE DIALOGUE OF PESSIMISM, MESOPOTAMIAN WISDOM
>What then is good? To have my neck and yours broken, Or to be thrown into the river, is that good?
>Who is so tall as to ascend to heaven? Who is so broad as to encompass the entire world?

First Two Noble Truth of Buddhism:
>dukkha (suffering, incapable of satisfying, painful) is an innate characteristic of existence in the realm of samsara;
>samudaya (origin, arising) of this dukkha, which arises or "comes together" with taṇhā ("craving, desire or attachment")

>>21723662

>Antinatalism starter pack

Easy ... :)

>>21723662
Fuckin jews’ bootlicker get out my board reeeeeeeeeeee

>>21723943
>Pessimism is Perennial Truth

>Concerning life, the wisest men of all ages have judged alike: it is no good. Always and everywhere one has heard the same sound from their mouths -- a sound full of doubt, full of melancholy, full of weariness of life, full of resistance to life. Even Socrates said, as he died: "To live -- that means to be sick a long time: I owe Asclepius the Savior a rooster." Even Socrates was tired of it. What does that evidence? What does it evince? Formerly one would have said (-- oh, it has been said, and loud enough, and especially by our pessimists): "At least something of all this must be true! The consensus of the sages evidences the truth." Shall we still talk like that today? May we? "At least something must be sick here," we retort. These wisest men of all ages -- they should first be scrutinized closely. Were they all perhaps shaky on their legs? late? tottery? decadents? Could it be that wisdom appears on earth as a raven, inspired by a little whiff of carrion?
https://praxeology.net/twilight.htm

>>21723906
I can LARP as your dad if you pay me.

>>21723662
There’s nothing that makes me seethe more than antinatalism. It’s amor fati to the negative first.
No amount of sterile cerebral argumentation shake off this feeling that antinatalists are deplorable projecting spergs.

>>21724531
There’s nothing that makes me seethe more than antinatalism. It’s amor fati to the negative first.
No amount of sterile cerebral argumentation can shake off my feeling that antinatalists are deplorable projecting spergs.

>>21724549
Too tired to even type a normal post, going to sleep goodnight goodbye

>>21724531
To the tripfag there can be no thing more viscerally terrifying than non-existence of the ego.

>>21723662
Why don't you just fucking kill yourself so I can stop listening to your whining?

>>21725295
I'm not whining, just trying to learn :)

>>21723662
It seems odd to equate existence with suffering, considering you didn’t experience anything else before existence either.
I’ll tell you, I didn’t feel happy for even one second before coming into existence

>>21725357
They solved this argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism#David_Benatar's_arguments

>>21725357
>considering you didn’t experience anything else before existence
Not currently having access to the previous existential/experiencial data base doesn't imply that there was no previous existence. Some people DO also claim to be able to access their previous existence packets.
> Better Never to Have Been
This all presupposes that there was a time that you were not. zero evidence of this. Just because there is generally a memory constraint at the start of a new iteration, this doesn't mean that there were not previous existences with other avatar bodies. And this also implies that you didn't choose to come here in the first place and that when you have children, a willing individuated unit of consciousness is not assigned to that given avatar body as an interface vessel. It might be just bad luck of the draw if the interface avatar has a down syndrome avatar or the like. This would take care of the question 'why would anyone choose to be immersed in a reality with a mentally retarded physiology constraint on the experience and consciousness?'. So this anti-natalism shit might be based on totally false premises. There could be consciousnesses LINING UP to have a go round in this particular reality.

>>21725357
It's nonsensical to talk about experience before existence.

>>21723662
whoops this part of this post
>>21725562
> Better Never to Have Been
This all presupposes that there was a time that you were not. zero evidence of this. Just because there is generally a memory constraint at the start of a new iteration, this doesn't mean that there were not previous existences with other avatar bodies. And this also implies that you didn't choose to come here in the first place and that when you have children, a willing individuated unit of consciousness is not assigned to that given avatar body as an interface vessel. It might be just bad luck of the draw if the interface avatar has a down syndrome avatar or the like. This would take care of the question 'why would anyone choose to be immersed in a reality with a mentally retarded physiology constraint on the experience and consciousness?'. So this anti-natalism shit might be based on totally false premises. There could be consciousnesses LINING UP to have a go round in this particular reality.

Was to you op
By the way, I am constantly having previous experience packet data leaking into my data stream. You CAN query these previous life data bases. You need high amounts of no fap/no coom in general to get a higher quality of consciousness and then you can start accessing the different data bases, including your previous life ones.

>>21725575
What's your evidence that this is your only existence? When you dream and go into a sleep time consciousness based virtual reality, do you remember the waking reality? Or is it that when you become immersed in the sleeping VR, you lose track of the waking data stream and memories? This is the case for me. So we have empirical observation that consciousnesses can constrain the memory of a previous reality and immersion in that reality and then start anew in a different reality with a fresh experience packet. Do you have any evidence that this is you first iteration? How would such a thing even be proven? You seem to be over confident about the idea that this is your first go round. And even if it were, how can you make the claim that others have not pre-existed? Why should anybody believe your claims?

>>21725371
>the presence of pain is bad;
How are they defining bad? How are they verifying that a thing or experience is universally bad?
>the presence of pleasure is good;
How are they defining good? How are they verifying that a thing or experience is universally good?
>the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;
How are they verifying any of these premises?
>the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation
How are they verifying and quantifying all of these universal truth and value claims? This all seems like appeals to subjective opinions being objective and universal facts. This is funny too, because most of these people are atheists and they would need objective morality to ground their idea in.

>>21723906
>>21724508
Can I be the mommy?

>>21725671
Valid criticisms, but they are valid against literally any positive philosophical statement there is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma

>>21725726
I know this concept. Unfortunately, the anti-natalist do not. They think they have some truth. I am not arguing that people SHOULD have children by the way, so let it not be entered into the Akashic data bases that I said that. Neither am I arguing AGAINST creating avatars for consciousnesses to operate (having kids). I am agnostic because it could be that I signed up for this experience, and so did everyone else, and so to argue not to have kids on the basis of people being forced into this thing is based on a faulty premise. I am just simply also just saying that these guys are a bit ironic because they are generally atheist and generally would claim to be moral nihilists yet they want to appeal to transcendent and invariant universal truth claims as if there were clear decidable true false objective answers issued from on high. They also presuppose in a backdoor way a physicalist theory of mind, and that our matter based bodies somehow create mentality at birth, and that our parents have the volition to create consciousnesses and force them into interfacing with reality. These are absolutely baseless claims. There is no satisfactory account of how 'matter' gives rise to mentation. All evidence is to the contrary. In fact, brains, like all matter, are only ever observed as mental objects in mind. So to postulate that observer independent matter objects called brains give rise to a soul/consciousness and force it into interfacing with physicality is a completely unfounded presupposition in the first place. It can be said that parents are the ones who initiate the creation of BODIES for consciousnesses to play, or to control and use for interface units to interact with physicality, but it may be that there is a line of units of consciousnesses waiting for an avatar.

>>21725726
I should say also, with regard to physicalist accounts of mentation, an even HARDER problem with and even WIDER explanatory gap for physicalist accounts of consciousness, that of explaining how particles, or excitations in 'fields', or wave functions, or (insert the explanation of what mater even is), how any of these things give rise to the EXPERIENCER in the first place who EXPERIENCES the mentation. There's so many presuppositions involved in this ideology it crazy. I have always been amazed at this movement. Most of them ALSO deny free will while at the same time appealing to the idea that people should CHOOSE not to have kids.

>>21725831
Refreshing and interesting angle desu. It makes me wonder if there are antinatalists who are not materialists. I guess it would have to take some form of objection to tethering already existing consciousness to a human form because that would be suboptimal for the wellbeing of consciousness or something. Maybe gnostic sects?

>>21724531
Trannies and antifa bulldykes just want to stop chuds from outbreeding them, nobody intelligent is falling for this psyop.

>>21723662
Another thread of this.

How 2 cope with being a literal dead end

>>21723885
Or getting rodgered up the bum at five years old and you end up losing your marbles and your moral compass too

>>21725831
>>21725856
any book recs for more on this worldview?

>>21724506
Neech was a pessimist sure, but to include him in a thread about antinatalism is reaching when you look at stuff like The Gay Science.

>>21728912
I made that reply in opposition to the perennial wisdom idea. He's making the opposing point in that chapter, saying that the shared anti-life wisdom is just the pathology of specific type of decadent person instead of universal truth.

It's worth reading, he basically puts Socrates as a symptom of the downfall of the Greeks.

>>21723662
In order to understand the movement of antinatalism, you must understand what it comes from. In the case of antinatalism, we are not looking for a particular philosophical framework - it is always pedestrian utilitarian hedonism that is at play, which is easily refuted. However, antinatalists do not care: this is because the movement is not motivated by philosophical insight.
But where do we then go in order to understand it? We follow the genealogy of the antinatalists themselves. Who are these antinatalists? They are men who cannot get pussy. Antinatalism is one of the end-state terminal copes of what Heidegger calls being-without-getting-pussy in an unpublished manuscript. The other end-state terminal cope of being-without-getting-pussy is larping as if you believe in catholicism, and very interestingly, one of the first responses to your thread was a hybrid >>21723889 of these two existentiel modifications of being-without-getting-pussy.
But to return to your inquiry, the books needed to understand being-without-getting-pussy is stuff like redpill blogs, PuA manuals and mass shooter manifestos. In here, you will get an insight into the deepest recesses of being-without-getting-pussy, which is the ultimate root of antinatalism.
Hope this helps.

>>21724506
Nietzsche is shitting on anemic conceptions of "wisdom" here, not life. He is a an unapologetic vitalist and you are completely fucking misreading him if you take him to be a pessimist.

>>21728912
He really isn't. He's pessimist about the current state of german culture but does not believe it will only get worse - quite the contrary, he is supremely hopeful about the future.

>>21728978
>Nietzsche is shitting on anemic conceptions of "wisdom" here, not life. He is a an unapologetic vitalist and you are completely fucking misreading him if you take him to be a pessimist.
You're misinterpreting my post, I posted that quote as a refutation of the anon I was replying to.

>>21723662
reddit

>>21728966
The beauty of Catholicism is that they made a whole societal niche for incels and volcels, way better than keeping them as gunpowder among the populace.

>>21728985
ah shit my bad for being retarded

Every anti-natalist is arguing in bad faith.
The core of their argument is that the suffering of life is not justifiable, which is essentially utilitarian and happiness-maxing. Everyone who has ever made this argument is at least a teenager who has left their childhood (almost always a person's easiest, best, most carefree term of life from any utilitarian point of view).

Therefore, anyone who actually agrees with the anti-natalist argument would just kill themselves to spare the excess suffering they are bound to experience for the rest of their lives. If life is only about your own personal experience of pain outweighing pleasure, then it is irrational and nonsequitor to argue with others and attempt to convince them to also hate their lives and despair.

Anti-natalists are insincere nihilists who are deriving pleasure from the affect that their contrarian arguments have on others. That is all.

>>21728999
The other anon made the same mistake so maybe it was my fault. I thought the quote would speak for itself though.

>>21729011
Two wrong assumptions: The first is that all antinatalists are (negative) utilitarians and the second is that the logical step as a (negative) utilitarian is to selfishly commit suicide.

The negative utilitarians aren't mere egoist negative hedonists. If they were then like you said they wouldn't care about whether other people were being born or not at all and just kill themselves. Kind of like Hegesias' philosophy. But the whole point of negative utilitarianism is that it takes all suffering into account, so staying alive and trying to diminish suffering in the world is a valid response to that.

>>21729050
In addition:

A good argument against antinatalists that are negative utilitarians is actually that trying to convince people (realistically only reaching a certain kind of sensitive empathetic person) is not at all a step towards the reduction of suffering in the world in the big picture. Brian Tomasik wrote good stuff about this:

https://reducing-suffering.org/strategic-considerations-moral-antinatalists/

>no you can't go through the phases of life it's not fair
anti-natalism is like if you took Buddhist enlightenment, escaping the cycles of death and rebirth, and throw that off a cliff, and into a dumpster, then some meth-head tries to loot it and sell it on ebay but it just rots in his front lawn for thirty years.
>everyone must die and not reproduce
>and let me tell you why

>>21723662

>>21729125
this is the finished product of materialism and neo-liberalism
>pleasure is worth money
>but life is full of discomfort, that costs money to fix
>so life is a losing monetary proposition

>>21725831
>>21725856
>>21728864
seconding this

lol

>>21723662

>>21731385

>>21731390

>>21725371
This argument is the opposite of true.
Absence of pain is not “good,” it simply is. Nobody feels overjoyed at not having chronic pain. When was the last time you felt joy over having legs that stand, arms that work, or even a nose that isn’t stuffy?
Think, is your nose stuffy right now? How do you feel when it is stuffy? Did you, before seeing my post, take the time to feel grateful for that blessing?
On the other hand, absence of good is bad. Many people with depression do not have horrible issues, they merely have a lack of good that leads to melancholy and eventually depression
Presence of pain: bad
Absence of pain: neutral
Presence of good: good
Absence of good: bad
The asymmetry is on my side. Go have a kid

>>21731420
Absence of good is not bad to a nonexistent person silly.

>>21731385
>>21731390
>>21731397
ad hominem

>>21731530
Absence of pain is not good to a nonexistent person
Presence of pain is not bad to a nonexistent person
Presence of good is not good to a nonexistent person

>>21731553
Yes. I'm thinking nonexistence is great

>>21731553
it's a problem freeee philosophyyyy

>>21731532
Cope.

>>21723662
>Better Never to Have Been
Here's David Pearce's response to it. If suffering ultimately reduces to chemical reactions in your brain, it's theoretically possible to genetically engineer embryos in order to have maximum happiness and minimum suffering.

https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html

>Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.

>Yet how should rational moral agents behave if - hypothetically - some variant of Benatar's diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?

>In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness - and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence - is not vainly to champion life's eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding - indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.

Pessimism is a reactionary ideology, if you buy into this and larp as the decadent aristocrat you have unironically been subverted by your own theory. Regular working class people can't afford pessimism because they are trying to survive, ironically it is a privilege of the privileged to be pessimistic and the most stupid thing of all is these anti-natalist freaks trying to convince others to give up or chop off their nuts and become trannies.

Anti-natalism is the quintesential then trannie negentropic ideology, and I don't use that word lightly, because rather than affirming the excesssive creative nothing we all are in our being, you crawl up back your own ass and become an anal retentive bourgeois neurotic.

>>21723662
Thomas Metzinger's Benevolent Artificial Anti-Natalism (BAAN) thought experiment is worth reading about. The basic idea is that we could create a superintelligent AI with antinatalist values with the explicit goal of ending all life/suffering.

https://www.edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolent-artificial-anti-natalism-baan
https://longtermrisk.org/reply-thomas-metzingers-baan-thought-experiment/
https://qualiacomputing.com/2018/07/23/open-individualism-and-antinatalism-if-god-could-be-killed-itd-be-dead-already/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OlsIZb31Y

>>21732371

This is your brain on utilitarianism, why do these useless parasitic fucks not just kill themselves instead of causing trouble to us and our families by giving the NWO ideas?

It isnt that bad

>>21732394
Good lord, empty and open individualists are morons.

Empty individualism is a non-thing. You can't have a discrete slice of an experience without its relation to the whole. What are you running your one instance on? Nothing, because the significance of the moment is defined by its place in the series. Fucking retards.

Open doesn't even require that much honor to shit upon. If we are indeed everyone, then there is no appreciable artifact for the individual, meaning that you're for some reason clearly individuated. By all appreciable definition, you seemed born of nothing and return to nothing despite how many iterations precede and follow. Its the exact same scenario as closed individualism with a twist that doesn't matter.

https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/antinatalism-in-purgatory/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeN2RRR3xQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnnOhZuny_M

>I’m an antinatalist. I think it’s unforgivable to bring new people into this world given that there is suffering. The thing is that lately I’ve been thinking and feeling that people aren’t real. This would partially solve the problem of evil. There is just my suffering and everyone else is a simulation designed to spite me. This should cause me to not feel so antinatalist since the breeders are disgusting alien mockeries of a true human being, namely myself. Yet somehow I still feel very antinatalist. When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust. I suppose that was the intention of the designer(s), to create something that appeared so real that it was actually disturbing. Dr. Miller says I have some sort of syndrome after finding out about my solipsism. I think he’s an imbecile who deserves to be burned on a stake. But out of my bodhisattva-like compassion I would instead grant him a consciousness and send him to heaven forever.

>>21732431
>first comment
>I’ve always wanted to meet another solipsist
I believe it was totally lost on both the commenter and Mario because they were in actuality brainlets.

>>21732394
>>21732431
https://www.lakemchenryscanner.com/2020/04/16/missing-waukegan-man-found-dead-in-lake-michigan/

>>21732399
>Utilitarianism and NWO ideas related to it are LE BAD because, THEY JUST ARE, OKAY?!

>>21724506
Shut the fuck up nigger. Nietzsche called himself Dionysus. Ironically Dionysus' master was Silenus who is the ancient demigod of philosophical pessimism. It is a pity that we Pessimist lost our one of the greatest Saint when Nietzsche took a vitalist turn. Fuck!!!!!!!!!

Cioran, Zapffe, Schopenhauer, Mainländer etc. they were no dilettantes. They were highly cultured and intelligent people with a melancholic aristocratic flair to their them.

>>21723899
I have a mostly secret condition that plagues me constantly, and holy fuck these words resonate with me. I am different for it and most people will never know why.

>>21723662
Not directly antinatlist, per se, but certainly a good boom for those looking to get into pessimistic philosophy.

When you listen to a song, do you immediately think about how it'll end no matter what?
And no, I will not read the rest of this thread

>>21732628
CRAWLING IN MY SKIN
THESE WOUNDS
THEY WILL NOT
HEEEEEEEUUUUUUUULLLL

>the NWO is trying to psyop us into not having children!
>those globalists won’t trick me! I’ll have at least 5 goyslav- I mean children with my (future) hot aryan wife

>>21732816
Iktf. Normies will never grasp that waking up at their everyday baseline can be a rare good day for some.

>>21723885
>Antinatalism
Reddit atheism tier cringe

>>21732857
So fucking funny dude.

>>21732858
One of the best replies in these threads was an anon explaining that any child you have nowadays is no longer yours to begin with. You can spawn them but they will be conditioned to serve the system and if you refuse they will literally take them away from you.

Bump

>>21723906
One day they will be dead.

Will you still live in their shadow?

Will your thoughts, actions, deeds, still be in response to the abuse they subjected you to? Will every event that occurs in your life continue to be added to an overarching self-narrative that centers around your childhood?

Free yourself. Delete them from your mind. Don’t waste any more time living in the past. You’re in charge of your own story.

>>21732628
Using Nietzsche against antinatalists would not make sense to me. Nietzsche knows and understands the truth of all life. He just decides to take a different direction. Tbh I think the antinatalist is quite virtuous. I just think that they could never expect this to become anything big. I also agree there is no one book for this line of thought.

>>21724531
one of these sentences is so clever there's no way you came up with it

>>21732431
This Mexican kid was a complete pseud, btw

>>21723662
fpbp

I am pro antinatalism for the oppressed and underprivileged people, if you understand my statement.

>>21734647
Then the privileged won't be anymore

>>21723662
Antinatalism is a weapon designed to destroy people. I would try to convince people I hate to adopt it so that their disgusting, subhuman genes go extinct.

Any ideology that I would try to convince someone of specifically to hurt them is evil. If you try to argue it to me, in any context, I will treat it the same as someone actively attempting to convince me to kill myself. There is no difference. This is the beginning and the ending of my opinions on it.

If you aren't capable of understanding this line of reasoning--Anti-Natalism may be for you, because I want your genes to die out too.

>>21734647
>parasite thinks life would be better without a host

Natalism is a weapon designed to torment people. I would try to convince people I hate to adopt it so that their disgusting, subhuman children will be tortured.

Any ideology that I would try to convince someone of specifically to hurt them is evil. If you try to argue it to me, in any context, I will treat it the same as someone actively attempting to convince me to harm myself. There is no difference. This is the beginning and the ending of my opinions on it.

If you aren't capable of understanding this line of reasoning--Natalism may be for you, because I want your offspring to suffer.

>>21734778
You're fucking stupid. All human genes will go extinct, sooner or later

>>21734793
Yours will, and preferably sooner rather than later, so please, adopt this gay mind-virus ideology. Leave no trace, and the rest of us will proceed without your weight around our necks.

>>21734856
There will be no trace of anyone or anything anyway, what don't you understand about this?

>>21734601
He's a cautionary tale. Philosophy in the wrong hands is like a loaded gun. What really did Mario in was that he kept getting his psychotic theories reaffirmed by singularity-types. How can a therapist convince a kid he's gone way wrong when he can just point to LessWrong and say "no, look, these experts say I'm being completely rational!"

>>21734862
You're doing a good job of talking yourself into it, at least. So you'll do as I say, and die out. Good dog.

But, you should recognize from my prior words that obviously it isn't going to work on me, and I will reject out of hand anything you could possibly say. The entire idea is an attack. I already know this. You already know this. Nothing you say or do will convince me even an iota because I already know. Even countenancing the idea is agreeing to take damage from it. I do not, and so I am immune.

>>21734870
who is this kid and what's his story?

>>21734886
I never said I will not have kids, unlucky for you, even tho I agree with antinatalists I also happen to be a conscious egoist

>>21734886
He probably doesn't need to convince you.

Its not like pessimists were like everyone else but heard a really convincing argument and started hating life. Usually something or many things happened that seriously made them doubt the decency of existence.

>>21734886
>The entire idea is an attack. I already know this. You already know this. Nothing you say or do will convince me even an iota because I already know. Even countenancing the idea is agreeing to take damage from it. I do not, and so I am immune.
you're like one of those evangelicals that dismiss dinosaur bones as satan's tricks lol

>>21734890
Watch the vids in the post and visit his blog.

He was a bright autist who got terribly mired in pop-philosophy and AI. Ended up building a sort of solipsistic hell for himself. Eventually drowned himself. I'm not a professional but it has all indicators of pure or existential ocd + bipolar.

>>21723943
You accept the Bible as valid justification for morality?

>>21734907
also /sci/ may or may not have encouraged him as he was their lolcow for a little while

>>21723899
Well said.

>>21734870
>>lesswrong
>uhh dude, it's called updateless decision theory
>dude, I'm post-rational
>dude, I'm participating in an acausal trade with myself 100 years from now in another universe

oh and don't forget all the anthropic measure stuff like in picrel

>>21734891
What people say is irrelevant, what they do matters. So in fact you agree with me, you're just stupid and unable to articulate it clearly.

So I win anyway.

>>21734939
Search their articles by "eternal suffering" sometime and have a ball. It goes waaay beyond Roko's Basilisk.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/CtXaFo3hikGMWW4C9/the-case-against-ai-alignment

>>21734900
There's no hard evidence to dismiss, only a deranged contortion of subjective experiences framed to encourage genetic suicide.

If you don't dismiss such an assault out of hand, you deserve to be assaulted.

>>21734953
>A bunch of postulating based on a technology we have no reason to believe is even possible

I wish we still bullied nerds.

>>21734958
I enjoy the assaults of life slanderers, opening myself up to the best and most convincing rhetoric they have to offer. If you can still affirm life in spite of them, you're all the stronger for it and you won't get caught off guard.

Fearing them and trying to avoid them betrays a certain insecurity, like you're worried they might get to you and have some truth or at least convincing power to them. It's like being scared of listening to vegans because you're afraid they might ruin your chicken nuggies for you.

>>21734953
RB is just a rehash of the Bible with an ai coat of paint on (The Bible was the first infohazard)
they're so obsessed with artificial resurrection (via simulation, or physical bruteforce methods that run through all possible conformal states of a human sized brock of matter) but will dismiss Christianity in the next breath
(yes I got banned from LW, what made you ask that?)

>>21734996
They'll defend their arguments as not being theological as they came from logic and first principles, completely missing the point that so has every theologian, as far as he or she is concerned.

Are there any serious scholarly articles on the tech religions yet? Seems like a fertile field.

>>21734996
>RB is just a rehash of the Bible with an ai coat of paint on (The Bible was the first infohazard)
>(yes I got banned from LW, what made you ask that?)
kek, nice take

>>21732371
This guy is terribly relevant. He gets a lot of traction among antinatalists as almost a bridge between them and techno-utopians.

All of the hedonistic imperative/effective altruism/rationality shit is nightmarish.
I think Mario was just the beginning.

https://youtu.be/vfAFPi89454

>life is suffering, therefore we should not have
babies
millions of years, thousands of ancestors, thousands of stories, thousands of unique experiences, and antinatalists think life is le bad? kinda glad these types won't continue their bloodline

>life is suffering, therefore we should not have babies
millions of years, thousands of ancestors, thousands of stories, thousands of unique experiences, and antinatalists think life is le bad? kinda glad these types won't continue their bloodline

>>21735046
Ever looked into Brian Tomasik? He's one of the most out there examples of this. Worries about insect suffering in water treatment plants so he only wants to drink well water and is concerned about video game characters potentially suffering.

https://reducing-suffering.org

Fascinating feller.

>>21735121
Brian Tomasik thinks that consciousness doesn't exist.

https://longtermrisk.org/the-eliminativist-approach-to-consciousness/#Denying_consciousness_altogether

>>21734953
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffering_risks
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/N4AvpwNs7mZdQESzG/the-dilemma-of-worse-than-death-scenarios

>The dilemma is that it does not seem possible to continue living as normal when considering the prevention of worse than death scenarios. If it is agreed that anything should be done to prevent them then Pascal's Mugging seems inevitable. Suicide speaks for itself, and even the other two options, if taken seriously, would change your life. What I mean by this is that it would seem rational to completely devote your life to these causes. It would be rational to do anything to obtain money to donate to AI safety for example, and you would be obliged to sleep for exactly nine hours a day to improve your mental condition, increasing the probability that you will find a way to prevent the scenarios. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on this dilemma and if you think there are better ways of reducing the probability.

>>21735046
>All of the hedonistic imperative/effective altruism/rationality shit is nightmarish.
Why?

>>21735245
Maybe I'm a brainlet but that idea is simply incoherent to me. If consciousness isn't real than how can an illusion of consciousness exist? Doesn't the very fact that there is something that can be delusional imply that there is something there?

>>21735259
One possible way to explain it is that people like Brian Tomasik and Daniel Dennett are P-zombies.

>>21735252
see >>21735250
they've recreated heaven and hell in their diseased little minds

>>21735280
Yeah, I can't see how someone can write or agree with

>How does the brain go beyond processing information to become subjectively aware of information? The answer is: It doesn’t. The brain has arrived at a conclusion that is not correct. [...]
>You might object that this is a paradox. If awareness is an erroneous impression, isn’t it still an impression? And isn’t an impression a form of awareness?
>But the argument here is that there is no subjective impression; there is only information in a data-processing device.

Since, well, there is a subjective impression. It's literally the one thing I have direct access to.

>>21735121
Yes. I'm heavily involved in this community. I've read all of these blogs and their literature back to front, I just see the flaws which they think they've eliminated, so for me its like reading SCP foundation.

>>21735307
Are you a reformed true believer or did you just deed dive out of morbid curiosity?

>>21723662
It depends on what flavor you're interested in. You'll find versions of antinatalism in many people interested in population ethics, and some dark strains of utilitarianism. These are, though, often bland, and your mileage may vary depending on whether you find utilitarianism or population ethics worthwhile subjects. There is a narrowness in thought and spirit in many of these, I think because they deal in somewhat narrow questions. If you care for such technical stuff, have at it.

But I would highly recommend Ligotti's Conspiracy Against the Human Race. It has an astonishing range, and is written in a very literary style.

>>21735297
>It's literally the one thing I have direct access to.
This whole stupid sideshow only to arrive squarely back at Descartes. For some reason, a group of "intellectuals" failing to grasp the concept of "existential" thought if they simply added computers they would achieve inherently unknowable answers.

There's something to be said about the failure born of hubris or the ego in there but I lack the skills to say it.

>>21735312
Neither really. Just a philosophy of consciousness guy exploring the nooks and crannies. Some of these voices have the right amount of skepticism concerning the subject, but the fanfiction they stuff in those holes should be recognized as such.

>>21735327
What's your opinion on Emillson and the Qualia Research gang?

>>21735330
He's really to a philosopher what Deepak Chopra is to a physicist.

terms of art + my wishy-washy ideas = profundity

>>21735121
https://briantomasik.com/my-dating-profile/

based

>>21735245
this stuff makes civilisational collapse and eternal dark ages look like paradise.

>>21723662
Why don't antinatalists kill themselves or others?

>>21735330
He deboonked all of the common criticisms of The Hedonistic Imperative.

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rE90-AocqFI
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ChL2HNyxFxo
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jsEt7zDxRzY
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GpmAZnGo2Gc
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YJB76qwhlxU

>>21735477
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3xYuJcjbWZQ
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QfJh_kWorBs
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1NwCXFlhJz0
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qGvlEJbNryg
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/elecIbBikUw

>>21735477
>shorts

>>21735280
>computers can't find computers
lol
>zombies
if someone claims to be a zombie just ignore *it* and treat it like a zombie until it stops larping
>qualia dial
superfluous framework
>transparent brain
there's a thing called holomorphic encryption which enables compution on encrypted data. this implies that the internal perspective is fundamentally private. even if a neuroscientist-turned-torturer knew your brain perfectly, he wouldn't be able to prove that you're actually suffering. even if he tested the neuron-stimulaters on himself to know a specific neural stimulation causes himself suffering, he would only know that specific stimulation works for himself, and no one else.

conclusion: Jesus is King. Only God can see out of my eyes with me.

>>21723662
if you hate existence so much why dont you just kiss?

>>21734945
No, I win

>>21733283
So that's a reason to fuck everything over for everyone

Having kids is the most fun and enjoyable thing you can do. Dont fall for these tricks. You will never feel fully alive until you have children.

>>21723662
>Antinatalism
Another thread of this bullshit?

>>21732431
Based beyond belief

>>21734870
>>21734939
LessWrong is a cult and a religion.

>>21732399
kill yourself you dumb stupid npc, I hope your family gets tortured by a gang of africans.

>>21723889
Yeah that book takes the positions of Gnostic morons and equates them with Christians on the sole basis that these morons used the word "Jesus" somewhere in their writings.

Christianity is incompatible with antinatalism and has beeen so from the start, going back all the way to David.

>>21735477
This dude is the literal embodyment of Nietzsche's and Huxley's nightmare vision of the last man that creates humanities downfall.

Almost morbidly fascinating to see such a specimen in real life.

>>21736194
A couple of books being written ruin your life? Fragile.

>>21737250
>Christianity is incompatible with antinatalism and has beeen so from the start, going back all the way to David.
Is it? The majority of Christians unironically believe that the majority of people get tortured for a literal eternity in hell. The logical conclusion of this is that by reproducing, you are potentially subjecting your children to eternal torture. The reasons Christians reproduce is either because their NPCs that do what they're told and don't think about the implications of their religion, or because they are willingly throwing their children under the bus to save themselves.

>>21737270
>has no counterarguments to the points he makes in the shorts

>>21737270
Kek you're a faggot

>>21736699
one or two threads a day and there is someone like you always crying about it

use a word filter faggotr

>>21737876
>The logical conclusion of this is that by reproducing, you are potentially subjecting your children to eternal torture.
The thought of raising your childen to be followers of God never crossed your mind I guess?

>>21737883
It's laughable, he's literally a domesticated, docile humaniod seeking nothing beyond short time pleasure and wants to alter the basic makeup of life itself to be able to stretch this feeling for the whole lifetime of every sentient creature.

This is a straight up petrifying. He's lost every last remnant of the inner fire that is the literal basis of our species.

He's essentially a "soulless", if you will husk seeking pleasure like an amoeba seeks food. No drive, no meaning, no ambition, it would not only be the downfall of humanity it might be the end of complex life in general.

>>21737876
A Christian Argument for Antinatalism

March 13, 2019 by Randal
https://randalrauser.com/2019/03/a-christian-argument-for-antinatalism/

Antinatalism is the philosophical view that the birth of new human beings is, in some sense, a disvalue and should be avoided. However, antinatalists disagree widely on their reasons for assigning a disvalue to the creation of new human life. One person might be an antinatalist because of the anticipated quality of life of the newborn — “I couldn’t bring a new life into a world with all this suffering” — while another person might be an antinatalist because of the impact on planet earth — “Human beings are a plague species!”

One thing is clear, however: antinatalism would seem to be very far from the Christian perspective. After all, children are consistently viewed as a blessing in scripture (e.g. Genesis 1:28; Psalm 127:3).

While this is true, in this article I’m going to present a brief argument for antinatalism from a Christian perspective. That Christian perspective assumes that it is likely or plausible that posthumous judgment for those outside Christ will consist of a resurrection to judgment that leads to the eternal conscious torment of the individual resurrected. With that in mind, the argument proceeds in straightforward fashion.

(1) The belief that there is a reasonable chance (e.g. more than 20%) that your future child would be born with a horrifying and untreatable disease like Stevens-Johnson syndrome would provide a good reason to avoid having children.

(2) Eternal conscious torment is unimaginably worse than Stevens-Johnson syndrome.

(3) Therefore, if the belief that there is a reasonable chance that your future child would be born with Stevens-Johnson syndrome would provide a good reason to avoid having children, then the belief that there is a reasonable chance that your future child would ultimately experience eternal conscious torment provides a good reason to avoid having children.

(4) There is a reasonable chance that your future child would ultimately experience eternal conscious torment.

(5) Therefore, you have a good reason to avoid having children.

I am not an antinatalist, but I do think this is an argument for Christians to consider. And if they reject it, as I do, they should be clear on their basis for doing so.

>>21737876
You can add to the abrahamic hell that God predestines people to go there.

>>21737953
>(3) Therefore, if the belief that there is a reasonable chance that your future child would be born with Stevens-Johnson syndrome would provide a good reason to avoid having children, then the belief that there is a reasonable chance that your future child would ultimately experience eternal conscious torment provides a good reason to avoid having children.
absurd comparison

One is a disease that happens entirely outside of the control of a person, the other thing is nothing more than the consequences of the conscious decisions made by a person themselfs.

>>21737963
That belief is exclusive to Islam

>>21737967
>conscious decisions made by a person themselfs.
Well it sort of stems back to the decision of me to build a thing that can make those kind of decisions. It really wasn't fair to throw them in the game. If my child deserves hell, I should follow.

>>21737976
So we should preemtively chop peoples hands off because they might use them to commit crimes?

>>21737976
>If my child deserves hell, I should follow.
Jesus quite iterally made the opposite statement

"But Jesus told him, “Let the dead bury their own dead. You, however, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.” - Luke 9:60

>>21737982
That's pretty weak compared to creating a being to suffer forever when I had the option not to. Its like a central inequity all stems from if you think about it.

>>21737990
How do we know that though?
Wasn't that a work of man?

>>21737991
So say a Christian couple has a 10% chance of their children ending up in hell, what about the 90% chance of the child becoming part of the eternal kingdom of God?

The pro-side widely outweights the con-side.

Imagine a lottery with 90% chance to win, virtually every person would play it.

>>21737997

If you use the example of hell, you have to automatically assume that the scriptures are true and heaven exists, so that is not an argument

>>21738019
Well no, not really.

They have a 100% of their kid not ending up in hell by not creating them, so that will always be the most logical option. Its between reward, neutrality, and eternal suffering.

Maybe you haven't conceptualized eternal suffering properly.

>>21738019
>you have to automatically assume that the scriptures are true and heaven exists
No, not really. This isn't a 50/50 thing, its an existential mystery. For a hell to exist a heaven need not exist to counterbalance. For all we know it could be all hell or all heaven. I didn't invoke scripture, so it seems you're the one relying on it.

>>21738019
>virtually every person would play it.
With a 1 in 10 chance for eternal damnation? I mean, you believe this? You know that's not the same as simply losing money you've never had, right?

>>21738061
>With a 1 in 10 chance for eternal damnation?
I meant a literal lottery with money to win.

Also it's only "random" for the parents, since thy can only influence a child's development to a certain degree. But it's 100% up to the child and their own actions of where they will spend eternity.

God doesn't send people to hell, their own actions do that and there is a literal free way out.

>>21738064
Its 100% up to the parents. How are you not getting this?

>>21738066
That's the point, it's not.

If you don't believe in scripture, but believe in a higher power or an afterlife, then everything is possible.

The being in charge of reality might create the soul anyway and judge the child for the actions that it would have commited.

Maybe time itself splits at every decision and creates infinite parallel universes, so your decision only created another timeline with the opposite result, meaning you had literally 0 impact.

And if you do belive in the Bible, then it's correct to have children because God said so.

What makes you think that if an afterlife exists, but scripture is not true, your decision to not have children makes any impact on the fate of their soul whatsoever?

>>21738076
That's fine but we're now in a sort of metaphysical hostage situation. That's a far cry from New Testament scripture providing any sort of guidance on the subject. Now that we understand His intentions unknowable, why should we trust any passage where we're told to breed?

>>21738102
Well NT clearly says that heaven and hell exist, confirming the previous scriptures and God clearly said in direct speech in Genesis, that having children is good and since Jesus repeatedly directly quoted the book of Psalsm, we can be very certain that he affirmed the statements made in it.

Thus in the context of eternal fire and the kingdom of God being a certain reality, having children being a good thing is confirmed.

If the Bible is true, having children is a good thing. If the Bible isnt true, then we know nothing about metaphysical topics and for all we know your actions have 0 consequences.

>>21732431
What the fuck, his website is up? I never got to read what he wrote because when I knew he died his site was closed. Or did somebody change my memory?

>>21733376
haha yeah

>>21738249
It's just a wordpress site now. It was vitrifyher.com before.

>>21738283
Okay, you're right. I need to get some sleep.

>>21737932
>The thought of raising your childen to be followers of God never crossed your mind I guess?
That still doesn't guarantee they will definitely be good Christians and will definitely be accepted into heaven, so there's still a good chance their children would end up in hell.

>>21723662
why not just kys if you really fell that way. because then you couldn't spread the word that others shouldn't have kids? good god it's so gay

>>21738174
>>21738076
>Creating new people to have them potentially be tortured forever is good because God said so!
Literal NPC logic. You're admitting that you're willing to mindlessly follow orders even if it means some people are tortured forever because of your actions. Martin Zender is right about your kind being modern-day Eichmanns.

>>21738790
How is the kingdom of God "hedonism"? Do you even know how the Biblical "heaven" is described as?

>mindlessly follow orders

You mean the order to literally keep our species alive? Oh no, how can we follow the basic principle of life that every single organism on the planet follows.

>Martin Zender is right about your kind being modern-day Eichmanns.

meds, bro, meds.

>>21737876
I don't think most Christians believe this. I think most of them just avoid the question.

>>21737967
>the other thing is nothing more than the consequences of the conscious decisions made by a person themselfs.

It's luck all the way down, my boy, there is no free will and there never was.

Bump

>>21738299
>>21737953
>never do anything because there's a chance something bad could happen
If this isn't a microcosm of your personal deficits on the whole I don't know what else could be. No wonder you retards delude yourselves into such a miserable alternate reality.

>>21740049
>something bad
That's one hell of an understatement when it's eternal damnation you're talking about.

>>21740206
Its really the most important aspect of the matter.

Do you think eternal suffering is physically possible? No? Reproduce, its going to suck but at least the kid gets out of the deal at some point.

Yes? Well then the act of reproduction has just become gravely serious and a whole new world of consideration has opened.

>>21739272
if there is no free will than antinatalism is pointless anyway

>>21740206
You again miss the point. If there a metaphysical level to existence, then you have 0 reason to even believe that "being born" has any impact on existence at all and not having children might aswell have no impact on the existence of souls no matter what.

And if Christinanty is true, then the way out of eternal damnation is really really easy. Literally free of charge and you get redpilled on the nature of modern society as a bonus.

Bump

civilization breeds illness and sickness, both for body and mind and it also maintains it. Wheras in nature, it dies and recycles.

>>21723662
>another antinatalist thread where NPC breeders try to desperately cling to their copes and lash out in existential agony and terror once a light is shined upon their pathetic way of life

>>21742786
now this is the most BASED thing ive ever seen

>>21742786
is antinatalism just a side effect of dysgenics?