/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.11137002]

who /antinatalist/ here?
where should I go from this tome?

[Anonymous No.11137047]

>>11137002
desu i fail to even get his very first big argument. if you know life you know suffering so it is non zero sum at best but if you had never lived you dont know suffering so its good. but if you have never lived you also dont know joy? But since you have never lived you dont crave or miss joy? but then in turn if you have never lived you would not know or fear sadness or suffering so its neutral too right??????? idk

[Anonymous No.11137053]

>>11137002
antinatalism will be evolutionarily selected against

[Anonymous No.11137057]

>>11137047
His point essentially that we suffer more than we feel joy, and that the net return on our time being alive is negative in terms of suffering/joy.

[Anonymous No.11137069]

>>11137057
but how does he rationalize not just killing himself and instead publishing a book? Clearly there is something being left out of the equation. Antinatalism is self defeating and is nothing more then an extension of nihilism.

[Anonymous No.11137070]

>>11137057
yes but i am arguing that not living would be neutral at best. so basically that little gap makes non existance better for him?
whatever i mean our genes make us enjoy life somewhat and actively forget hardships so idk.

[Anonymous No.11137085]

>>11137069
Once we're alive, we want to avoid suffering; suicide is a form of additional suffering, so it's not really an option unless your current suffering is worse than suicide.

>>11137070
Benatar would say that the gap isn't little - he sees life as roughly 80% suffering, 10% happiness/joy, and 10% neutral.

[Anonymous No.11137090]

>>11137085
PS - For what it's worth, I don't subscribe to anti-natalist views.

[Anonymous No.11137099]

>>11137085
suicide isn't suffering

[Anonymous No.11137105]

>>11137002
Ligotti's Conspirary, Zapffe's Last Messiah. Schopenhauer's essays. Maybe a spot of Mainlander. Read some wikis and such about Hegesias. Myth of Silenius.

[Anonymous No.11137125]

Antinatalism is dumb. We can't end our own existence precisely because we didn't will its beginning or as Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park, life always finds a way. The antinatalist, like every utopian, still buys into the delusion that tragedy can be overcome or done away with entirely. Every birth is a tragedy in the wheel of Eternal Return.

[Anonymous No.11137136]

>>11137125
Cioran's the literary hair GOAT.

[Anonymous No.11137193]

I don't think it makes sense to be an anti-natalist unless you're mega depressed. All major religions preach that people should "be fruitful and multiply." yet that advice would actually be immoral if the only purpose of siring children would be to watch them suffer. There's a purpose to being, but the reasons we exist cannot be fathomed by the human brain

[Anonymous No.11137299]

>>11137085
He seems to make the mistake of ranking the suffering of death above all other sufferings in defiance of his own argument.

If, as he proposes, non-existence is free of suffering (and hence good), then why does he object to non-existence (freedom from suffering; good) after a life ends? What makes death different to the non-existence preceding a potential life? Would he make the claim that the moment of suffering that comes with shooting oneself is greater than the suffering one experiences by being alive, a suffering he argues outweighs all joy that can come from being alive? The suffering of life includes physical pain and anxiety of the same quality as that which accompanies a suicide - something I know first hand - so the argument that the suffering preceding a suicide qualitatively outweighs that of life can't hold.

Once suicide is acknowledged as a possibility, existing becomes a voluntary and deliberate act. We choose to be born into every moment we don't kill ourselves. From the utilitarian stance that Benetar takes, that's a deliberate choice to increase suffering,.

The endorsement of non-existence on moral grounds by people who reject suicide is hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.11137316]

>>11137299
I agree, and think that backing away from suicide as the natural extension of anti-natalist thought essential comes out of a place if cowardice. Like I said, I don't find anti-natalism a very convincing philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11137350]

>>11137299
because non-existence AFTER life is not the same as the facticity of nonexistence.
suicide becomes an unrequited act that only succeeds in permanently sealing the tragic, pointless agony that might otherwise have yielded perhaps one last moment of intense ecstasy that might've relieved at least some of the previous suffering

[Anonymous No.11137527]

>>11137350
By the same line of reasoning you could say that a potential child COULD have a net gain in happiness over suffering throughout its life. That's the crux of what you suggest: over the section of life that would be lost by the suicide, the subject COULD have a net gain in pleasure over suffering. The difference between that and an entire life is only the duration.

As for there being a difference between non-existence after life and non-existence preceding life, please explain. Is one of these non-existences slightly more extant? The only difference is in the perception of others to whom the dead exists as objects of the memory - new objects, separate from the dead as an extant person.

I'd like to know what framework you're evaluating this with. You end with the motivation of the potential of pleasure outweighing suffering, but preface it by talking about the tragedy and pointlessness suicide causes. Surely if suicide renders all previous suffering pointless (as opposed to something that renders them meaningful, which would be what and why?) you wouldn't need the talk of pleasure and pain. It makes me wonder if I'm misinterpreting your stance.


This is without mentioning that in the context of this discussion of Benetar, the point is irrelevant (though I assume your post is responding to the final sentence of my post). He explicitly states that failing to cause joy is neutral, but preventing suffering is good. Lost pleasure is a non-factor in his framework.

[Anonymous No.11137580]

>>11137002
Anti-natalism is a manifestation of a sick relationship with life. Life contains both suffering and happiness, and you can't measure one against the other because there is no unit of measure for emotion, there is only the way you assess it during and after you experience it. You can do what you want to with your life, because it's the only thing you can actually control and own. Anything material that you "possess" can be taken from you or otherwise dissolve within your hands. You can end your life or continue living. You can live well, or you can ruminate on the shitty parts of life. You can conquer your suffering and use it for your own benefit or wallow in it. Anti-natalism is nihilism and hatred for life masquerading as a philosophical viewpoint. It's self-defeat as a philosophy, and it's biologically counterintuitive in that we are organisms, thus we are compelled to reproduce.

[Anonymous No.11137648]

>>11137350
Has Benatar ever died? Perhaps it will be the greatest moment of ecstasy for me. I do not see that he is qualified to judge that I should never have been born.

[Anonymous No.11137801]

>>11137002
Antifrustrationism

[Anonymous No.11137988]

>>11137002
I hope that "favorable attitudes towards anti-natalism" are controlled by a single gene.

[Anonymous No.11138048]

How do we convince blacks and mestizos to adopt antinatalism?

[Anonymous No.11138059]

>>11137136
Looks like a goblin tbqh

[Anonymous No.11138063]

>>11137057
waah waaaah im not happy im not happy!!!!!

the only important thing in my life is being happy and joyful and feeling PLEASURE if im not feeling these things everything is horrible and i want to be dead

its definitely a good idea to base my highest values on a fleeting and non-specific emotional state that is not compatible with reality. yep.

[Anonymous No.11138109]

Who are some anti-natalists who've actually killed themselves?

[Anonymous No.11138111]

>>11138048
I suppose you'd have to make them educated enough to reasonably consider it, but by then the problem of their existence is already solved, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.11138156]

>>11138109

[Anonymous No.11138183]

>>11137002
>who /antinatalist/ here?
desu

[Anonymous No.11138186]

>>11138156
Kirk Hammet?

[Anonymous No.11138214]

I would be antinatalist but life isnt that bad imo

[Anonymous No.11138220]

It's a pretty east philosophy to adopt when you have real responsibility or have experienced multiple tragedies and hospitalizations. I would never hand this nightmare to some unwilling sap. At the very least, even in a baller-ass life, they'll have to eat, shit, and piss as to where they could just be nothing.

Why create need?

https://youtu.be/HVnvpbaXhd4

[Anonymous No.11138227]

>>11138220
*easy philosophy to adopt...

[Anonymous No.11139622]

>>11138186
Probably the first INCEL in human history

[Anonymous No.11139651]

I have recently read Edgar Saltus's The Philosophy of Disenchantment, and it seems as if many of the crucial points made by antinatalists today were realized by Schopenhauer, but I'm not up to standard to read him yet. I will attempt to get back to you in six months.

[Anonymous No.11139669]

>>11137053
Incorrect. What will be selected is merely a function of what is now.

If 51% of people believed in antinatalism, natalism would be selected against.

By saying that evolution favors something doesnt ever function as argument because humans have free will

[Anonymous No.11139683]

>>11137057
> putting all your eggs in the utilitarian basket

[Anonymous No.11139687]

>>11137099

unless you die alone, and no one ever discovers your corpse; maybe.

[Anonymous No.11139880]

>>11137002
>who /antinatalist/ here?
I am. I've gone back and forth on it for a long time, largely due to my changing perception of whether I perceive my life to be good or bad. I don't have a legitimate argument against the ideas, but that doesn't mean they're easy to accept.
>where should I go from this tome?
If you're already convinced, then there's really no need to read additional works that seek to convince you of antinatalism, other than to explore other possible arguments.
The next step is to actualize your ideas. You should consider going vegan/vegetarian, that seemed the next logical thing for me. The only moderately coherent political group I've seen that wants to actualize antinatalism is aryanism.net along with REI's work at mundusmillennialis.com; if anyone knows of other groups I'd be interested in learning more about them.
If you just want an introduction to the arguments of the group regarding antinatalism, here's a list.
http://aryanism.net/philosophy/violence/
http://aryanism.net/philosophy/arya/survivalism-vs-militarism/
http://aryanism.net/politics/population-and-demographics/
http://mundusmillennialis.com/ (see aphorisms 1,2,9-11,16,24*,38,41,47*,55*,57*,106,109,110,122*,142**,197,201,202)

[Anonymous No.11139927]

>>11137085
Suicide is really just another attempt to avoid suffering, so it’s ultimately pointless to kill yourself. If all your other attempts to avoid suffering didn’t work out, this won’t either.

[Anonymous No.11139991]

>>11138048
You don't have to convince them about a philosophy you just exchange gibs for sterilization.

[Anonymous No.11141550]

>>11139991
Underrated post

[Anonymous No.11141633]

>>11138063
That's exactly how I see antinatalists

[Anonymous No.11142745]

>>11137002
To the grave.

[Anonymous No.11143230]

>>11139927
Explain how ending your existence fails to end suffering, a symptom of existence.

[Anonymous No.11143262]

>>11137002
I am an anti-antinatalist utilitarian. I think the execution of antinatalists in public plaza would be a net gain for the collective well being.

[Anonymous No.11143509]

>>11137002
straight up though, Ecclesiastes is by far the best book in the Bible, right? It's pretty much no contest, right?

[Anonymous No.11144298]

>>11143509
Wrong thread?

[Anonymous No.11145169]

A. The act of committing suicide would inflict much suffering on the loved ones/friends with which you are entangled.
B. Anti-natalists seek to end suffering in all humans. If they commit suicide themselves, they won't be able to convince others to stop procreating.
C. Even if one suffers tremendously, it is incredibly difficult to bring oneself to commit suicide. The desperate imperative to continue living that biology has endowed us with is no argument against antinatalism.
D. Even if one is content with one's own life, it does not mean that one cannot look at the statistics and recognize that procreating is fraught with risk; i.e., just look at the number of suicides that DO occur, the rates of drug addiction, etc. It is easy to see that every decision to procreate is a fucking gamble, and there's no argument to counter this.

Not to mention, a person's life can be going perfectly well, when all of the sudden he is paralyzed in a car crash, is diagnosed with cancer, etc. Why would you thrust someone into this mess?

[Anonymous No.11145175]

>>11145169
An amendment to my post: Under point B., I used the word "humans." I don't want to give the wrong impression. Life is the problem. We must end suffering among non-human animals as well.

[Anonymous No.11145381]

>>11145169
Would you accept that immediate and total voluntary extinction of humanity would be best possible event?

[Anonymous No.11145400]

>>11145169

>>anyone can experience sudden, horrible events

Yes, but the probability of such an event over a lifetime is quite low. Furthermore, it is in some distant hypothetical future, so it should be discounted by both time and probability.

Why is having a currently happy, valuable life less significant than the possibility of not having one in the future?

Anti-natalism in general seems to be founded on an over-valuation of hypothetical distant futures over present moments. (and even past moments)

[Anonymous No.11145863]

Just look at stuff like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Junko_Furuta

how many happy lives need to be lived to compensate for something like that?

idk i like my life but im having a hard time seeing how creating more life is smart.

It's not like non-existent people can miss out on anything so i don't think not having children could ever be worse than having them.

[Anonymous No.11145867]

>>11144298
no?

[Anonymous No.11145922]

If you create a life, you are creating a being which will suffer death. No matter what type of life they have, they will eventually have to undergo the process of dying. Birth is a death sentence passed upon an innocent.

[Anonymous No.11145946]

LMAOing at your lives, pussy faggots

[Anonymous No.11145948]

>>11145922
no one is innocent-- everyone is guilty of being born

[Anonymous No.11145963]

I just laugh at antinatalism

[Anonymous No.11145976]

>>11145948
That isn't an action that the born person has any control of; it is entirely the responsibility of others.

[Anonymous No.11145981]

>>11145948
Besides, even if I grant your stupid assertion, then giving birth is the creation of a guilty, doomed person, for what particular reason?

[Anonymous No.11146003]

I find if funny while most of you are going to die alone, childless and virgin you are all defenders of natalism.
Pathetic.

[Anonymous No.11146021]

>>11146003
Humans have a biological drive to propagate their genes, so it isn't surprising that many people are unable to consider the situation critically and rather respond on an emotional level. Perhaps for this sort of person antinatalism represents a condemnation of the normal life they so desperately want.

[Anonymous No.11146027]

>>11146021

[Anonymous No.11146028]

>>11146027
My point exactly.

[Anonymous No.11146201]

>>11137002
Antinatalism isn't actually antinatalist in the consequentialist sense. It's more of a personal virtue signalling. Realistically, some percentage of people becoming antinatalist isn't going to make humanity go extinct. If anything it merely leads to a temporary decrease in resource consumption allowing humanity to live on longer.

If you're a true antinatalist and don't just want to look virtuous the outcome to optimise for is the extinction of humans on this planet to happen as soon as possible. The way to do that is to actually take an accelerationist stance. To hasten the human extinction event a soft landing isn't as realistic option, we must crash this thing with no survivors. We must have more people, more capitalism, more speed!

[Anonymous No.11147634]

>>11144298
Ecclesiastes is very antinatalist

[Anonymous No.11148265]

Hello,

this is Chris (Chan) Korda, prominent leader of the anti-natalist and ecologist movement

"She" is a literal tranny and /mu/tant.

Say something nice about "her".

[Anonymous No.11148349]

im a mod of the subreddit if anyone has ideas on how to get the incels out id appreciate it thanks

[Anonymous No.11148658]

>>11137299
so you're living exactly the life you want to live, more or less, yeah? because it seems to you humans take decisions entirely from a rational point. oh wait, you mean you 'want to be good at that', but that you 'haven't even started on it yet?' my oh my...

[Anonymous No.11148669]

>>11139669
Antinatalism is selected against because antinatalists wont reprouce while natalists will, retard.

[Anonymous No.11148794]

>>11148265
she has a good understanding of the world around her. Humans should stop reproducing and start legalizing assisted suicides for all who want.

[Anonymous No.11148891]

>>11148658
Aim yourself at a wall and play movies. I hear there's good money in that.

I never made the claim that I live the life I want to live, nor any other claim about the worthiness of life, I was pointing out that antinatalism (at least the sort pushed by Benetar) isn't consistent. I don't think suicide is a morally right or wrong action; I used it as an example because antinatalists (relevantly including Benatar) typically call it wrong while pushing a system that, if followed, would posit suicide as necessary the same way it posits not having children as necessary. Or is it unfair to use logic to critique a logical argument?

You might also want to reread what you post, because your second sentence doesn't have any connection to the first. Or do you think that taking all decisions from a totally rational point of view is the key to living exactly the life you want to live?

[Anonymous No.11149002]

My own thoughts about antinatalism aside, the logic Benatar uses to support his arguments is garbage. Not only is his asymmetry completely unjustified by anything other than his own feelings, but he writes abut nonexistence as though it were a type of existence. For example, in this essay of his
>https://aeon.co/essays/having-children-is-not-life-affirming-its-immoral
he writes:

>The case against procreation need not rest on the view, for which I have been arguing, that coming into existence is always worse than never existing.
>But even if life isn’t pure suffering, coming into existence can still be sufficiently harmful to render procreation wrong.
>The foregoing arguments all criticise procreation on the grounds of what procreation does to the person who is brought into existence.

He talks about a non-existent person coming or being brought into existence, but non-existent people can't do anything or have anything done to them because they simply don't exist; there is no one there to do anything or to do anything to. It's nonsensical.

In his analogy here
>A show might not be bad enough to leave, but would you have come at all if you knew how bad it would be?
the person in question already exists prior to going to the show (beginning to exist), which is completely contradictory.

He says that nonexistence is (generally) better than existence, but the question is, better for whom? It can't be better for the nonexistent because there are no nonexistent people. So who is supposedly better off for never existing? Who is his antinatalism meant to help?

[Anonymous No.11149114]

>>11148891
you nitwit cunt. my post boiled down for you: one can grant that 'one' would 'be' better off dead than alive, and still do nothing about it - much like how an addict will die in the arms of whatever drug he's consuming.

if god sent me a proven a-to-z life-plan on how to be king of the world right now, and i don't follow it at all for whatever reason - that has no saying on how true, or false, the plan is.

>i used it as an example because antinatalists (relevantly including Benatar) typically call it wrong
not true. it's most commonly referred to as (a) something everyone should have access to, so that those who desire to do it, don't have to risk going through the pain of things like the aftermath of botching the process (b) unpleasant to do because the people close to the 'suicidee' will suffer greatly because of his death - but most antinatalists will concede that the right of a trumps that of b, every time

[Anonymous No.11149212]

Antinatalism breaks the machine. Every conscious being is part of a grand simulation meant to solve a problem,and antinatalism is a bug that has caused myriads of parallel simulations to snuffed out by "God," which stands for "GOD over Djinn." As consciousness advances most inhabitants of these simulations realize the fruitlessness, that they are being used. Once the program governing the simulation detects this, it will cancel, not using any computational power on a failed model. Maybe one in a million will be useful for whatever incomprehensible purpose it was created before it succumbs to nihilism.

Don't think that our simulation is remarkable and impervious, we just have not advanced enough.

> But wouldn't most of them nuke themselves/cause a biochemical holocaust?

No, there are safeguards in place. We must CHOOSE to exit the game, not be wiped out by a few rogue players.

[Anonymous No.11149239]

>>11148794
>start legalizing assisted suicides for all who want
How about you go first on that

[Anonymous No.11149631]

>>11149114
Try rereading your first post before you call me a 'nitwit cunt'. It really didn't express the point that you've clarified here.

You're not talking about ignoring this plan from God, you're talking about ignoring the plan because you believe plans are immoral (let's say you're an 'antiplanist'), then following another plan and claiming that it's fine because this plan has the special allowance that since you're going to stop following that plan when you reach the end of it, ultimately you end up not following a plan. That 'antiplanism' is inconsistent.

Something to establish before I go on: when I say antinatalism, I mean the position held by people who call themselves antinatalist. I don't mean some Platonic form of antinatalism that antinatalists refer to, I'm talking strictly about the way antinatalists think about it. I assumed it was clear from context, but I've been talking about the version that's expressed and how the belief is held in practice. It would be pretty stupid to call antinatalists hypocrites based on a position they don't hold.

Antinatalism isn't granting that one would be better off dead that alive, or rather better off not existing than existing. Antinatalism goes further because it moralises those states. If it simply made the observation that, suffering outweighing pleasure over the course of an average life by the standards of the antinatalist, then whoopee. My objection would just be the fact they haven't established how they judge pleasure and suffering. But it makes the claim that causing suffering is immoral, which presents a rule that has to be applied elsewhere to be consistent.

When I say that antinatalists call suicide wrong, I mean that they make exceptions to the rule that minimising suffering is moral that apply only to suicide. At best they find it a neutral act (which, I'll admit, is different to calling it wrong) and claim we should have the right to do it, but never have I seen the position 'I won't kill myself, but I unambiguously should, and am committing a moral crime every moment I haven't done so' put forward. Without the exceptions being made and if suicide simply weren't mentioned, then I could see it as a case of prioritising communication to best attract people to antinatalism (people aren't likely to join you if you tell them straight off that every moment they're alive is a moral crime). Since those exceptions ARE made, it becomes inconsistent. Again, as stated earlier, if antinatalists make an exception, that makes the exception a part of antinatalism.

All this applies only to consistency, of course. If there are living antinatalists who maintain the consistent position (every moment you haven't killed yourself is a moral crime) then they're still hypocrites, though hopefully self-aware ones.

[Anonymous No.11149756]

>>11138063
>>11141633
If happiness and fulfillment aren't the goal of living, then what is? Is anything worth doing that isn't a net good?

[Anonymous No.11149757]

>>11137193
Large religions preach fertility because of high infant mortality rates during the period when they formed. There's no philosophy behind it.

[Anonymous No.11149773]

>>11146201
based poster

[Anonymous No.11149782]

>>11145863
I agree. That wiki reminded why. Life is an abomination.

[Anonymous No.11149821]

>>11137002
Anti-natalism doesn't have to defend itself if the affirmation of life is understood in its proper context, that is, as blind and unceasing desire. The world has no end in the case of the latter, which is in actuality more terrifying than an end to the world in which the innate desire to live is overcome. In such a case, the individual enters willingly into extinction, thereby freeing himself from the unceasing wheel of time.

Let it be understood that the denial of the will to live is in direct contrast to suicide, which is in fact not the enduring and overcoming of suffering and sorrow, but rather the concession to it. What the suicidal person does not realize is that by ending his life in such a way he does not extinguish his desire to live but acquiesces to it, and via metempsychosis, as soon as he dies his life begins to flower anew. This principle is found in all great religions.

[Anonymous No.11150195]

bump

[Anonymous No.11150207]

>>11138111
they are still shitskins so no

[Anonymous No.11150213]

>>11138156
>>11138186
Can't find the philosophy of redemption anywhere in my city. There seems to be nothing even online, does anyone have a pdf copy of it?

[Anonymous No.11150218]

>>11143262
>collective well being
Brainlet

[Anonymous No.11150221]

>>11143509
Yes the bible is the most life denying book out there.

[Anonymous No.11150229]

>>11145169
anon suicide is an easy solution try it out
i can guarantee you that your family/friends will get over it very soon
don't worry about it

[Anonymous No.11150234]

>>11137002
Antinatalism is self contractory. The purpose of ethics and morality is trying to find an explanation on how to live life, but there can be no life under antinatalism

[Anonymous No.11150239]

>>11146021
>consider the situation critically and rather respond on an emotional level
You are the one talking about emotions & feels, the fact that you over value pain and suffering is your emotional bias.

[Anonymous No.11150242]

>>11146021
>Humans have a biological drive to propagate their genes
Nope

[Anonymous No.11150270]

>>11149821
Schopy please go away

[Anonymous No.11150285]

>>11150234
doesn't sound like there's any life in your brain kiddo

[Anonymous No.11150330]

>>11137002
>where should I go from this tome?
A suicide manual, one hopes.

[Anonymous No.11151335]

>>11137193
>invoking religion
Can’t speak for the US of A, but in Europe, the majority of the people aren’t really religious, and even those who profess that they are don’t take it all to seriously to be honest.

Come here, tell people: “you should have kids because all major world religions say so” and watch how they laugh in your fucking face.

[Anonymous No.11151338]

>>11138063
>equating happiness with extasy

[Anonymous No.11151344]

>>11143230
Your parents are gonna be miserable for starters. Your partner too, if you werent an autist spending the majority of his free time on 4chan who doesnt get to have a partner in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11151347]

To your local gun/hunting store.

[Anonymous No.11151356]

>>11150234
>the purpose of ethics
Without life there isn’t even need for ethics and thus no need for solutions. Should human being shit children into the world just because of ethics?
Guess what, bucko, ethics have to serve humans and not the other way around.

[Anonymous No.11151362]

>>11151356
>How should one live?
>Stop stop existing so we don't have to find a solution
wtf i don't want to have babies anymore

[Anonymous No.11151401]

>>11151362
I don't think there was ever any chance of you seeding a woman anyway

[Anonymous No.11151404]

>>11151362
>stop existing so we don't have to find a solution

No, that is the solution to all problems. If you still want to exist, you have to find the next best solution.

[Anonymous No.11151427]

>>11151362
I don‘t know how many times we have to tell you retards: antinatalists don‘t advocate for suicide in the same vein Cioran doesn‘t advocate for suicide. All they say is not to have children. You can‘t deprive someone of something if that someone doesn’t exist in the first place.

[Anonymous No.11151438]

>>11151427
I never implied that they advocate for suicide.

[Anonymous No.11151512]

>>11151427
>You can‘t deprive someone of something if that someone doesn’t exist in the first place.
You also can't deprive someone of something by ending their existence. once they're dead they no longer exist and thus are deprived of nothing

[Anonymous No.11151595]

>>11137099
don't you think wilfully extinguishing oneself is the most emotionally laborious thing that a person can undertake? especially if you aren't 100% certain, and i doubt that anyone is ever 100% certain

[Anonymous No.11151608]

>>11138063
what do you live for?

[Anonymous No.11151735]

>>11151608
to shit post on 4chan

[Anonymous No.11151748]

>>11151595
>most emotionally laborious
the prospective of a pussy, if you have to die just die stop crying like a baby

[Anonymous No.11151767]

>>11151427
your perception of pain and your emotions are just chemical shit in your brain
Why should we care about it?

[Anonymous No.11151841]

>Muh "one can never be sure about suicide"
Questioning your own philosophy eh?
>Muh "suicide is suffering"
Buy a bag of helium. Dead in two minutes, no pain, and you laugh your ass off as you quickly go unconscious

[Anonymous No.11151850]

>>11151841
or you could over-dose on heroine, they say that it is painless if you do it right

[Anonymous No.11152252]

The real question ITT is: why would a true intellectual ever consider fornication as anything but a failure of reason over blind, irrational desire?

[Anonymous No.11153096]

>>11139669
>>11137053
neither of you understand natural selection

[Anonymous No.11153540]

>>11149631
>before you call me a 'nitwit cunt'
that was a nice one, you gotta call me something back too
> but never have I seen the position 'I won't kill myself, but I unambiguously should, and am committing a moral crime every moment I haven't done so' put forward
i definitely have and have always assumed it to be the natural stance among antinatalists. it's a matter of interpretation though, i suppose neither of us can prove which one is most often present, but i've spent enough time on the reddit forum to have the feeling i am right. after all, if antinatalists will always concede a 'yes' to 'if you could press a button that kills all life forever would do press it', it's hard to imagine they wouldn't hold the view i mention.

i would object to calling it a 'moral crime' out of intuition though... like, i can't quite offer you a different set of words for it, but it feels somewhat misguided. i mean i am vegan, am i commiting a 'moral crime' if my words inadvertently entice someone to buy a burger? it reads too much like 'life as constant idealism'. bottom line is, no one loses sleep over not doing it, but they would grant you 'yeah, i'd be better off dead'
>Again, as stated earlier, if antinatalists make an exception, that makes the exception a part of antinatalism.
i got lost here and don't know what you mean by the exceptions. and about the communication thing, i don't think we compromise at all. it's extreme enough already, anyone who would join the idea would at least tolerate the other thought.
>If there are living antinatalists who maintain the consistent position ... then they're still hypocrites
how come?

[Anonymous No.11153560]

>>11149631
i'm going reverse on this lol
>my objection would just be the fact they haven't established how they judge pleasure and suffering
this is definitely a problem, agreed. one IS bigger than the other though, and that has to derive into some sort of conclusion of whether being alive is better or worse, yes? personally, just out of intuition, i'd say pain is greater. i'm counting here really basic things, like, right now as i type this my fingers are kind of cold. it's minor but it's there. the state of being is that of craving.
>But it makes the claim that causing suffering is immoral, which presents a rule that has to be applied elsewhere to be consistent.
correct. somewhere else, like?

[Anonymous No.11153570]

>>11151850
>>11151841
uhmm sweetie, how about being a prisoner to enjoying life? i do, and still i'd grant that it's better if i weren't here (well, for me that is, no idea on how to asses the pain/joy i cause on others).

plus hesitation, anxiety before doing it, etc.

[Anonymous No.11153651]

>>11153570
>it's better if i weren't here well, for me that is
impossible unless you believe in an afterlife. ceasing to exist can't be better for you because there's no longer a you for it to be better to

[Anonymous No.11153728]

>>11153540
I'll bow to your experience on the type of antinatalism expressed, then. I'll admit I've only really discussed with a limited number of antinatalists in depth (who all seemed to make an exception to the rule of increasing suffering being immoral for suicide and suicide alone), so I could just be unlucky. My arguments have been aimed at them.

When I say 'moral crime', I'm only referring to an action that is wrong by the standards of the framework in question. I realise crime is a charged word (and I've used a few others), but I don't mean to imply some sort of moral judgement outside of the moral system being examined. If you're a vegan for moral reasons that you believe should be universal, and cause someone to eat a burger deliberately, then you've done something wrong by the moral system that leads you to veganism. In that case I'd refer to it as a moral crime, but only by the standards of the moral system that leads you to veganism. I've made your example into a case of deliberate action here, as bringing intention into the question complicates it.

Let me clarify what I meant by exceptions and communication: By exceptions, I was referring to the special cases made for suicide (admittedly, such cases would only be made by people not willing to hold the position that continued existence is immoral). By 'antinatalism is what antinatalists think about antinatalism', and the (admittedly rambling) example of communication, I was just saying that I take the position of antinatalism to be the position held by antinatalists rather than an outside 'pure' ideological form. I've only really interacted with antinatalists who make the claim that suicide is immoral, despite logically being moral by the utilitarian rules antinatalism is based on, so I held that as the position of antinatalism. If, as seems to be the case, I was wrong about the position then by the same token I've been arguing against a position not held by most antinatalists.

I see what you mean now by 'life of constant idealism', and I think there's been a misunderstanding. I'm taking the idea to its extreme as a sort of stress test of its consistency, not saying that people should live their beliefs to that extreme or spend their days and nights worrying that they aren't. I'm just disappointed when people act as if their system is consistent when it isn't.
My final comment was only referring to hypocrisy as not practising what they preach. If they say that it's the moral choice to kill yourself and don't, for whatever reason, then it's hypocrisy. In the same way as I view consistency I don't think any less of people for hypocrisy (everyone is a hypocrite in some way), I just think that people should be aware when they're hypocritical. It's the lack of awareness that bothers me, because it always seems to lead to self righteousness and misplaced belief in the perfection of something that has flaws.

[Anonymous No.11153810]

>>11153560
I wouldn't say going in reverse, more that we're both coming to understand each other's points and position. If anyone's going in reverse here it's me, recognising that (for the sake of this discussion) antinatalists largely hold the consistent version of their belief, even if they don't act on it.

The question of quantifying pleasure and pain is one that's always plagued utilitarian moral systems, as well as explaining their diversity. Not everyone agrees which of pleasure and pain is greater (as intuition varies), hence without a method of quantifying any conclusion on their weight is arbitrary. Similar to my stance on consistency and hypocrisy, if people recognise that it's an arbitrary judgement then I have no objection; but my issue is with people who act as if it isn't arbitrary and start becoming self righteous.

When I talk about applying elsewhere, I mean that the rule 'suffering = wrong' has to be applied to all cases of suffering. It was in the context of antinatalists who don't apply the rule consistently to suicide.

As a final note I'd disagree that the difference between quantities of pleasure and pain needs to be included in a judgement of whether life is worth living (the fact that there are non-utilitarian moralities shows that), even if I intuitively agree that suffering outweighs pleasure (human nature is, indeed, to crave), but that's a whole separate discussion.

[Anonymous No.11153872]

>>11137193
>All major religions preach that people should "be fruitful and multiply."
Is Buddhism not a major religion now?
http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/surangama.pdf
>Since desire and love are tied so closely together, no disengagement is possible and the result is an endless succession of the births of parents, children, and grandchildren.
https://thebuddhistcentre.com/text/four-noble-truths
>1. All existence is dukkha. The word dukkha has been variously translated as ‘suffering’, ‘anguish’, ‘pain’, or ‘unsatisfactoriness’. The Buddha’s insight was that our lives are a struggle, and we do not find ultimate happiness or satisfaction in anything we experience. This is the problem of existence.
At best you could argue Buddhism is somewhat permissive of you having children (in most Buddhist populations this is explained in terms of the parents opting to pray for a good rebirth so they can become a monk and do things properly in a future life), but it's certainly not a religion that instructs you to go around having as many children as possible.

[Anonymous No.11153932]

>>11153651
>ceasing to exist can't be better for you because there's no longer a you for it to be better to
If you exist here in time:
Birth----------------------------Cancer------Prolonged Suffering------Death
It'd probably be better for your Death to happen like this instead:
Birth----------------------------Cancer---Death
The fact you aren't around after you die doesn't change how one of those two scenarios involves a lot less suffering for you.
Everyone intuitively recognizes this to some extent or another which is why putting your dog to sleep is a thing. Unless you're a ridiculously selfish psychopath you probably put your dog to sleep to spare him or her the unnecessary suffering that lies ahead, not to make yourself feel better.

[Anonymous No.11154161]

>>11138183
That was a great thread. Shame it got deleted fairly early on.

[Anonymous No.11154289]

>>11137002

>>11139669
And if monkeys flew out of 51% of peoples asses they would agree with you.

[Anonymous No.11154649]

>>11153932
I agree that death is preferable to continued suffering, at least in some situations, but I'm not sure that the reasons for it being preferable can be expressed as it being better for the person suffering (unless, again, we accept the existence of an afterlife)