/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.22535348]

Help me /lit/, I'm starting to develop an anti-natalist stance, not in the hedonist
>But muh free time
>But muh traveling
>But muh disposable income
more in the Schopenhauerian sense of
>Stop creating meat for the meat grinder, reject maya, embrace celibacy
this, of course is merely the philosophical level. On a more personal one I've adopted a form of self imposed eugenics, even if I could find a gf (which I can not as a subhuman), the act of procreation on my end would be an act of child abuse. By choosing to have children I would, merely by this choice, be a horrible parent.
I don't want to be this guy whoever. It's way too Rick and Morty for my taste. Convince me otherwise /lit/.

[Anonymous No.22535350]

>>22535348
*however
no bully pls /lit/.

[Anonymous No.22535354]

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.

[Anonymous No.22535371]

>>22535354
Ah yes, genetic engineering will be the solution to all our ills.
Thanks for pointing out the one group of people who're actually more retarded than the anti-natalists anon.

[Anonymous No.22535372]

Pride is the main reason people have children.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeN2RRR3xQ

[Anonymous No.22535378]

>>22535371
How is it retarded? There are already people like Jo Cameron who are genetically predisposed to be abnormally happy and feel almost no pain or anxiety and are functional, so there's no technical reason why genetically engineering people to have Jo Cameron's genetics would be impossible.

[Anonymous No.22535380]

>>22535348
if you kid is born male, their genetics will be relevant. and this guy can be replaced by shitting on him.

[Anonymous No.22535383]

>>22535348
There is unironically nothing wrong with anti-natalism. It has a bad reputation due to some mutant onions reddit creatures who espouse it but there are noble, respectable forms of it as well.

[Anonymous No.22535386]

>>22535378
>Hierarchies are celestial, in hell everyone is equal
Having a society filled with genetically equal or abnormally happy individuals won't result in the utopia you think it will.

[Anonymous No.22535400]

>>22535386
I never said anything about genetic equality. You can still have genetic diversity while having everyone be genetically predisposed to having a much higher hedonic set point. So what's your actual argument for why it wouldn't be utopian?

[Anonymous No.22535408]

take your hedonistic imperative with a side of generic subjective continuity and open individualism. The truth shall set you free

[Anonymous No.22535409]

>>22535400
Suffering is ultimately derived from two things, mortality and inequality. Regardless of how abnormally happy you engineer the population to be, they still won't be happy.
>They'll be happier on average though
Doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.22535421]

>>22535409
>Suffering is ultimately derived from two things, mortality and inequality.
Suffering is caused by nociceptors and the limbic system. It isn't some sort of magical process.
>Regardless of how abnormally happy you engineer the population to be, they still won't be happy.
This is an oxymoron and a baseless assertion

[Anonymous No.22535425]

>>22535408
Open Individualism in the materialist sense can't adequately answer Benj Hellie's vertiginous question.

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

[Anonymous No.22535430]

>>22535372
rest easy king

[Anonymous No.22535432]

>>22535408
>generic subjective continuity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o90u_Fx4KQE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hpqEmsF2F0

[Anonymous No.22535447]

>>22535408
https://qualiacomputing.com/2018/07/23/open-individualism-and-antinatalism-if-god-could-be-killed-itd-be-dead-already/

[Anonymous No.22535449]

>>22535425
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question
Holy shit dude I'm glad I stumbled on your post. I have experienced the mystery of that question from a very young age, literally as far back as I can remember, but I thought it was just me who saw it as a problem at all and everyone else thought it was just nonsense. It is so validating and gratifying to see it has a name and other people feel it.

[Anonymous No.22535474]

>>22535425
The question is not well founded. The characteristic of an experience is that it feels local and present. Time does not flow; there exists a collection of experiences which are related to each other and so every experience is actualized with the illusion that time is flowing. The truth is that all experiences are equally real, but every experience is limited to itself. If you could choose to “teleport” to any experience of any creature, then you would completely forgot that you teleported from your life to that moment of the other creature, because you would immediately assume the experience of that moment and nothing else. Open individualism says that you are always doing this for all conscious organisms at all times, and is essentially equivalent to empty individualism which rejects the self. There are just experiences.
>>22535348
Anti-natalism is not something to be refuted by words. It is something to be out-bred

[Anonymous No.22535480]

>>22535425
proper cogitation upon that question is partially what lead me away from closed individualism. do you think there's something that answers it satisfactorily?

[Anonymous No.22535489]

>>22535348
>>Stop creating meat for the meat grinder, reject maya, embrace celibacy
All I have to say about this is fuck you, I love embodied existence. Reincarnate me a thousand times. I will gladly jump into the meat grinder again and again to feel the rush of the wind as I fall into it

[Anonymous No.22535490]

>>22535474
>Anti-natalism is not something to be refuted by words. It is something to be out-bred
kek, based and primordialtruthpilled.
The meat grinder must grind on.

[Anonymous No.22535494]

>>22535489
>Reincarnate me a thousand times
That's not how this works.

[Anonymous No.22535504]

>>22535494
Don't care

[Anonymous No.22535509]

>>22535490
holy cope lmao

[Anonymous No.22535518]

>>22535354
>Any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive
Good to know, I'll make sure to adopt some kids to help pass on my genes.

[Anonymous No.22535519]

>>22535348
Research NDEs anon. They will convince you that life is a beautiful thing and that it is not bad if the species continues.

NDEs are actually solid proof of life after death, because anyone can have them if they come close to and survive death. And they are so extremely real to those who have them: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U00ibBGZp7o

As this NDEr described their NDE:

>"Now, what heaven looks like? 'OMG' doesn't even describe how beautiful this place is. Heaven is, there are no words. I mean, I could sit here and just not say anything and just cry, and that would be what heaven looks like. There are mountains of beauty, there are things in this realm, you can't even describe how beautiful this place is. There are colors you can't even imagine, there are sounds you can't even create. There are beauties upon this world that you think are beautiful here. Amplify it over there times a billion. There are, it's incredibly beautiful, there's no words to describe how beautiful this place is, it's incredibly gorgeous."

And importantly, even dogmatic skeptics have this reaction, because the NDE convinces everyone:
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

So anyone would be convinced if they had an NDE, we already know this, no one's skepticism is unique.

[Anonymous No.22535522]

>>22535519
silly title

[Anonymous No.22535527]

>>22535509
Anti-natalism is a subjective problem. In the same way that the existence of happy, life-affirming individuals does not prove that life itself is meaningful, the existence of depressed, nihilistic, antinatalists doesn’t prove that life is meaningless or too much suffering. Rather than wanting to admit that you are weak, you blame the whole world and declare that it is objectively true that life sucks, when all this really means is that YOUR life sucks. And it sucks, presumably, because you are genetically inferior, or at least those who were responsible for your upbringing are genetically inferior. Which is why I said antinatalism is not something that can be refuted through rational arguments. You can’t refute the hatred of oneself. All you can do is try to replace them.

[Anonymous No.22535558]

>>22535474
>If you could choose to “teleport” to any experience of any creature, then you would completely forgot that you teleported from your life to that moment of the other creature, because you would immediately assume the experience of that moment and nothing else. Open individualism says that you are always doing this for all conscious organisms at all times, and is essentially equivalent to empty individualism which rejects the self
But, come on dude, that's just preposterous.

[Anonymous No.22535584]

>>22535474
>If you could choose to “teleport” to any experience of any creature, then you would completely forgot that you teleported from your life to that moment of the other creature, because you would immediately assume the experience of that moment and nothing else.
This doesn't mean that the vertiginous question isn't well founded. Even if you were to teleport in this way and forget that you were something else, reality would still be ontologically different than it was before the teleportation.

>Open individualism says that you are always doing this for all conscious organisms at all times, and is essentially equivalent to empty individualism which rejects the self. There are just experiences.
Even if that did happen, the fact of the matter is that I am experiencing being THIS person NOW, so the question is still meaningful.

[Anonymous No.22535604]

>>22535348
Perhaps if you're born with depression genes and/or in the worst circumstances, the latter of which obviously doesn't apply since here you are with the means to reflect on even passably literary themes. As for myself, I'm not at all cut out for fatherhood, and knew that about myself since 12 or so, in part because my father was self-evidently good. Sometimes I resented the comparison, but in the long term let it be: He grew up in circumstances harsher that I did, and still retained a sense of play silliness that only increased with his prosperity. Overall I've had a good life, even a rare one by planetary standards, but am incapable of making more of such, except a little, in conversation, which is better than most can do.

[Anonymous No.22535612]

>>22535474
"Your" consciousness teleporting from being to being would imply that consciousness is unique among aspects of reality in that it would lack any consistency. Everything else about reality seems to have some degree of consistency, e.g. the sun rises every day. If everything else is to some degree consistent, it would make more sense for consciousness to also have some degree of consistency, rather than to just bounce around randomly.

Similarly, you could ask similar questions about all of epistemology and physical reality. Suppose that instead of the sun rising everyday, the universe was only created yesterday and created all of the memories and physical evidence to make it look like the sun has been rising for all of history. You wouldn't be able to tell the difference. Yet most people reject this possibility due to it rising everyday being a simpler explanation. Rejecting inductive reasoning and Occam's razor means rejecting all epistemology.

[Anonymous No.22535617]

>>22535584
>This doesn't mean that the vertiginous question isn't well founded. Even if you were to teleport in this way and forget that you were something else, reality would still be ontologically different than it was before the teleportation.
I think he's saying that actually there is no ontological difference from one moment to the next, because, as he says, "you are always doing this for all conscious organisms at all times". In other words, the continuous ontological state is one of a paradoxical unified simultaneous dispersion across all perspectives. That's why I said it was preposterous, because clearly we are not everyone at all times, we are always just us.

[Anonymous No.22535626]

>>22535519
Here's a possible mechanism for how NDEs and quantum immortality could potentially work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jdcvSOOjI

[Anonymous No.22535652]

>>22535612
Suppose there are infinite universes, or rather infinite experiences, of a world that is inconsistent. This does not erase the existence of the world of existences that *is* consistent. It MUST be experienced. You are currently experiencing it, led to believe that only this world exists, and only the experiences of this world. The truth is you experience the other worlds too, but your current experience is defined to portray a consistent world. From each local index of experience, you are trapped, and cannot see anything else. That’s why you are YOU in THIS moment in THIS world.

[Anonymous No.22535685]

>>22535494
Prove it, nigga.

[Anonymous No.22535815]

>>22535348
Antinatalism is a basic and absolute truth. The problem is that it cannot work on a large scale (even Benatar resignedly accepts it).

[Anonymous No.22535917]

>>22535494
>>22535685
Mechanisms for how reincarnation might be possible:
https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w13yLq16QiM

[Anonymous No.22535927]

>>22535815
>Antinatalism is a basic and absolute truth.
Unless the future converges toward something like David Pearce's utopia where suffering is abolished. Suffering ultimately exists because we evolved and not intelligently designed.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx3rdVQZ3mo

[Anonymous No.22535936]

>>22535815
>The problem is that it cannot work on a large scale (even Benatar resignedly accepts it).
There's a thought experiment created by THomas Metzinger called BAAN, or Benevolent Artificial Anti-Natalism. The basic idea is to create a superintelligent AI that's programmed to destroy all sentient life. That's realistically the only way something like EFILism could be implemented.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30OlsIZb31Y
https://www.edge.org/conversation/thomas_metzinger-benevolent-artificial-anti-natalism-baan
https://longtermrisk.org/reply-thomas-metzingers-baan-thought-experiment/

[Anonymous No.22535948]

>>22535936
What if it evolves on another planet? What if le AI can't achieve interstellar travel?

[Anonymous No.22535967]

Fucking hell, you're a bunch of pussies. Even pussies for not killing yourselves already, but needing to talk and seek validation for your shit worldview.
I'm by no means Chad or the brutal school bully, but you make me feel like it, in comparison.

[Anonymous No.22536082]

Protip: never, ever discuss antinatalism with anyone except in a strict academic setting. The quality of the discussion WILL be horrific. On 4chan, on reddit, on any blog site or philosophy forum. It's a total waste of time.

There's about 20 or so free academic papers you can read online, as well as download for free better never to have been, every cradle is a grave and multiple of julio caberas books, as well as many pesimisstic authors.

Just don't bother discussing it. It's utterly pointless. Of course that procreation imposes a condition with inevitable, non trivial harms and risks of horrific harms is a self evident truth. Children do not "pre-exist" their birth and thus have no interest in being born or being bequeathed whatever it is people value in life, with which the hold "outweighs" the harms. Procreation fosters, in an imposing way, a trade off for a benefit that was never needed nor desired in the first place, at grave risk the trade off will not obtain for the child and in fact whom will endure great misery and suffering. Why impose this risk? Why chance this harm? Non-existence does not require improvement.

Of course people just respond to these self-evident truths in the same boring predictable manner:
>kys
>You're weak
>You're pathetic
>You're selfish
>I like being born
>You're depressed
>I will put breed you
>I'll be a good parent
>the condom broke
>God says multiply
>life is good
>bla bla
>I want a baby
>I want a family
>I don't care about suffering
>suffering is actually good
>etc

Never any argument. Never any consideration given to what is best for the potential child. Just selfish ramblings and insults and hatred.

Read my post and save yourself hours wasted discussing this with idiots. Also it's funny to me hearing the "we will outbreed you" in this thread when you know it's a white saying it! The future is indian chinese and African lol. Whites are a footnote.

[Anonymous No.22536093]

>>22536082
Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder.

[Anonymous No.22536097]

>>22536093
This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact; it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview)

[Anonymous No.22536099]

>>22536093
Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature.

[Anonymous No.22536103]

>>22536093
Reminder the guy who wrote that is a mentally unstable retard. No wonder he mostly avoids interviews:
>they go for a walk in the park
>interviewer forwards the idea that life can be improved
>Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way)
>Benatar literally starts crying and basically says "life is unacceptable"
>interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)
Benatar is pretty unstable. On top of that he admits that his ideas are damaging while using the excuse that his work is academic and only meant for those that seek it out (note that these people are likely to have personality disorders and mental illness). Benatar objectively creates suffering and given that he's under the delusion that his work is toward the opposite: he's delusional and irrational.

[Anonymous No.22536108]

>>22536082
>never, ever discuss antinatalism with anyone except in a strict academic setting.
Wow, because the basic idea behind it is so incredibly dense? Kek, you're so edgy and black pilled.

[Anonymous No.22536109]

>>22536093
Lol I actually read that study. They paid people (read: indians) 30 cents to complete an online survey that asked them various questions. The results were a weak association between answering questions one way ans answering sone other questions another. The whole notion of "dark triad" is just some bullshit invented by female and/or Jewish (((psychologists))).

[Anonymous No.22536118]

>>22536108
No because the quality of discussion you'll get is so poor as to be a complete waste of time.

[Anonymous No.22536119]

>>22536109
>making shit up because he doesn't want a replicated study demonstrating the fact that anti-natalists are mentally ill rejects with personality disorders

[Anonymous No.22536124]

>>22536118
>because people will point out valid reasons to reject the axioms of anti-natalism, deny the anti-natalist monopoly on their interpretation, and when confeonted we'll make shit up to save face when it's pointed out we have a defective emotional outlook and our sense of reality is contaminated by mental illness

[Anonymous No.22536131]

>>22535348
>more in the Schopenhauerian sense
Kek.

[Anonymous No.22536132]

>>22535348
This is really one mentally ill anon who spams this topic, isn’t it?

[Anonymous No.22536147]

>>22536119

[Anonymous No.22536164]

>>22535348
Why exactly should we stop creating meat for the meat grinder, reject maya, embrace celibacy

[Anonymous No.22536341]

>>22535400
The hedonistic imperative has a very high chance of causing a catastrophic amount of harm due to the use of far-reaching and poorly understood technology.
>Inb4 muh race of as of yet imaginary transhumanistic superbeings will fix it
Might as well ask god to do it for you at that point.

[Anonymous No.22536360]

>>22536082
I have argued and won against anti-natalists pretty effectively. Mostly by rejecting their priors (not that suffering is >le good, but rather that it's prevention isn't the prime and ultimate value) and arguing that you cannot really say someone that wouldn't exist otherwise would be disinterested in the goods bequeathed to them by living.
>The future is indian chinese and African lol. Whites are a footnote.
The LEAST resentful antinatalist, possibly ever. The huwhite man is literally rent-free.

[Anonymous No.22536379]

>>22535354
never expected to see this here in this cesspool of christfaggery and mysticism. incredibly based.

[Anonymous No.22536388]

>>22536379
t. will inject psychoactive drugs, install neural implants and reprogram his brain to become 12% more productive at work
captcha: XXS0Y

[Anonymous No.22536398]

>>22536388
oh no debunked!

[Anonymous No.22536466]

>>22535348
>le existing even is a bad
>I will continue to exist and write a book about it about existing le bad
>pls buy my book about there shouldn't have been me or anyone
Utterly pathetic

>>22535519
I don't NOT want an afterlife to be real but can we be serious about this? All posts I've seen about it never seem to examine the actual sceptic angle: it's NEAR death, how is it not a chemical hallucination by the brain maybe having a reaction to its imminent demise? Which could be very similar between people of different backgrounds.

Also, why is it
>believers and non believers have the same percentage of reports, so it's not a faith thing
And not
>here's the percentage of people who almost died that DO report NDEs.

I see employed the classic roundabout way of talking about nonsense, so I haven't like read a book about it. Are my concerns above covered by this "research"?

[Anonymous No.22536606]

oh no no no OP
you should talk about anti-natalism with other people, especially here, because it's like the one thing that makes them seethe above all else.
This shitters can't withstand facing their contradictions
>>22535354
>Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners
ah yeah, the genes convey ideas, I had almost forgotten about this take

[Anonymous No.22536610]

why do people, when talking about anti-natalism, just like this faggot >>22536466 here, always think not-being is the same as dying?
What's so difficult to understand for natalist brainlets?

[Anonymous No.22536785]

>>22535348
The faggots on this site die virgins, they are antinatalists on a practical level, stop posting here, Op.

[Anonymous No.22536834]

>>22535408
That picture is the biggest load of conflationary bullshit I've ever read. Whoever made it is either wilfully or unwilfully ignoring the distinction between the immanent (phenomena) and the transcendent (noumena), moving seamlessly and without justification from conclusions about the former to conclusions about the latter. It is either the product of philosophical illiteracy or utter stupidity.

[Anonymous No.22536944]

>>22536834
no one cares that you wasted your life reading philosophy, fag. You’re not as cool as you think you are. You can’t even put forth an actual idea, you just flaunt terminology and say the other guy is wrong. Get your head out of your ass

[Anonymous No.22536947]

>>22536944
What are you even doing in this thread?

[Anonymous No.22536955]

>>22536947
actually making posts with substance and not being vague or pretending to be superior for knowing big words. You can’t even explain what the “transcendent” is

[Anonymous No.22536965]

>>22536955
If you expect me to indulge the ignorance of someone with as shit an attitude as you I'm afraid you're mistaken. You clearly expect to gain something from posting in this explicitly philosophical thread, because you keep doing so, but I have no idea what you think that is, and I doubt you do either.

[Anonymous No.22536994]

>>22536965
and what exactly did you hope to gain by saying “that pic is dumb look at me I’m smart” without elaborating?

[Anonymous No.22537026]

>no u can't just be economically and socially successful spreading your seed and dying happy
>this condemns me to a fate worse than death
>life as OP

[Anonymous No.22537972]

>>22536147
>doesn't know people are usually paid for their participation in studies
>still made shit up about the sample
>can't acknowledge that it was replicated
Anti-natalists are proven to be mentally ill rejects with personality disorders. They're the last people you'd want representing a nonbias quality of life argument. Cope.

[Anonymous No.22538168]

>>22536360
>and arguing that you cannot really say someone that wouldn't exist otherwise would be disinterested in the goods bequeathed to them by living.

I can imagine a hypothetical person that is to be born. I can say of this person, they have an interest in avoiding harm and an interest in gaining pleasure (this is what the benatar asymmetry fails on), and so I can judge life to be good and say YES to procreation. Life is a benefit that if someone existed and had interests, they would desire.

But people don't exist prior to their birth, and so have no interests at all. And so procreation imposes on someone else a condition where the possibility (read= inevitability) of harm will be experienced in order to "trade off" for an overall benefit. A benefit that was never needed nor wanted. This is an inherently risky thing to do because we all know that for many people m, this trade off doesn't 'obtain' for the person and so their life, and 'coming into existence' is of negative value. Which was entirely needless to risk because not being born harms nothing. There is no deprivation of the benefit in life, its not a "state" that needs improving upon. Essentially procreation is just a paternalistic imposition- "volunteering" another human to come into existence because the parent judges life to be a benefit. That is incredibly risky, for no reason from the 'non-perspective' of the child to be. The downsides of getting I'm it wrong can be absolutely horrific. Rape murder mental illness childhood bone marrow cancer etc etc.

So whats the need for this risk on another person's behalf? Of course I know the answer... "but, I want kids". That's basically it. On the real world these types of considerations are basically absent anyway. Procreation is either Africans or jeets nigging or whites getting drunk oopsie! Even planned pregnancies have about as much thought as "I want to be a mother! Babies are cute!"

[Anonymous No.22538296]

>>22538168
>And so procreation imposes on someone else a condition where the possibility (read= inevitability) of harm will be experienced in order to "trade off" for an overall benefit
You can't weigh the totality of human experience in order to declare the sum comes out to a negative. You don't have a monopoly on interpreting quality of life and counter-arguments to the anti-natalist position are equally valid. What's more, the anti-natalist position and be shown to be logically consistent with outcomes it proposes it's against by increasing suffering.

Anti-natalism is a non-starter. You have to indoctrinate yourself into a rigid acceptance of its axioms, while denying the right of others to reject them or even interpret them differently, in order to uphold it. That's why discussions with anti-natalists are pointless--theyre mentally ill rejects with personality disorders who have indoctrinated themselves into a simplistic cult as a cope for their defective worldview.

[Anonymous No.22538300]

Here's my irrefutable, simple (even for breeder tards to understand) argument to not have children:

>nothing is harmed by not being born
>everyone who is born experiences harm
>procreation is imposed (no child creates itself or wills himself into existence - the parent decides for them)
>procreation therefore creates a first person capacity and guaranteed experience of being harmed, without that persons acquiescence

This would be analogous to me surgically giving you a second stomach without your consent (I find you unconscious and do the surgery). You now feel hunger in two different places in your chest, and have double the appetite. Afterwards you may say, boy I'm glad you did that because now I can eat twice as much. I love eating! This doesn't mean the surgery wasn't immoral. And this doesn't mean that the surgery doesn't go horrific for people - they die in the operating room. They suffer lifelong crippling health effects from the surgery. Their need for twice the amount of food is a severe burden to them. Some people starve to death twice as fast. This extra need for food has horrific effects on animals and the environment.

What is the difference between this analogy and procreation? It's the exact same thing. The doctor says "I judge a second stomach confers overall benefits and you will thank me", and the parent says the same about life. It's a paternalistic imposition that exposes people to harm suffering burden and death for a benefit that is not guaranteed and was never needed nor wanted in the first place.

[Anonymous No.22538309]

>>22538296
Not an argument

[Anonymous No.22538320]

>>22538300
I suppose this is how one thinks when he knows his children will be losers like he was.

[Anonymous No.22538347]

>>22538300
I think the analogy is pretty bad. We perform operations of children and uncounscious people all the time in ways we have reason to believe will improve their lives. The fact that it sometimes goes wrong doesn't make it immoral. Depending on how often and how much, I guess.

[Anonymous No.22538364]

>>22538347
You miss the point. The surgery in the analogy is done to confer a pure benefit.

Nobody operates on a child except in cases where not operating will be a greater harm. Such as removing tumors or fixing broken bones etc.

In cases where a child's body is violated for a pure benefit, society is generally disapproving. For example in the case of piercing a babies ears. And this is just in the case of a small needle prick. Yet in the case of procreation itself the harms are nowhere near comparable to a needle prick - they can be absolutely horrific, and everyone will die. It's makes no sense to condemn one but not the other.

[Anonymous No.22538428]

>>22538364
>Nobody operates on a child except in cases where not operating will be a greater harm.
The problem with the analogy is that "greater harm" is such a relative term. Where does the line go between reducing harm and adding happiness? It's not intuitive.

Whereas the difference between potentially creating suffering out of nothing is intuitively more problematic than abstaining from potentially creating happiness out of nothing.

[Anonymous No.22538469]

>>22538309
>That's why discussions with anti-natalists are pointless--theyre mentally ill rejects with personality disorders who have indoctrinated themselves into a simplistic cult as a cope for their defective worldview.
Thanks for proving that point by admitting you're filtered by the others.

[Anonymous No.22538629]

>>22535354
>any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive
What if I adopt girls to raise them into wives for myself? Checkmate

[Anonymous No.22538656]

>>22535425
what the fuck is this gibberish

[Anonymous No.22538695]

>>22537972
>>22536119
What guarantee do you have that your child will not end up having these mental disorders and resenting life? How can it be ethical to take such a risk on behalf of somebody else? Personally I just feel that it's only prudent to mind your business and avoid imposing things on other people, and an entire life to live is quite the imposition.

[Anonymous No.22538706]

>>22538296
>You can't weigh the totality of human experience in order to declare the sum comes out to a negative
You can't determine whether life is a good or bad thing, so how can you justify imposing that risk and uncertainty on another? Seems like extremely irresponsible borderline malicious behaviour to me.

[Anonymous No.22539049]

>>22538695
>What guarantee do you have that your child will not end up having these mental disorders and resenting life?
You have to prove the sum total of existence adds up to a negative if you're arguing the totality of life is bad and shouldn't exist. What evidence do you have that a random child won't grow up in a loving family to become someone who enriches the lives around him? None. Anti-natalism relies on an interpretation of reality distorted by mental illness and negative ideation. It attracts those with personality disorders and mental illness. All they can do is fall back on "we can't be sure" while trying to assert an extreme conclusion of which they are immoveably sure.
>You can't determine whether life is a good or bad thing, so how can you justify imposing that risk and uncertainty on another?
You can't weigh the sum total of all existence and yet you want to prescribe that nothing should exist. What's more, anti-natalist ideology is harmful and it's logic can be extended to reprehensible actions.

[Anonymous No.22539143]

>>22539049
>if you're arguing the totality of life is bad and shouldn't exist
>trying to assert an extreme conclusion
No, I didn't assert anything like that. I see you're really intent on putting words in people's mouths on top of putting conscious experience where there needn't be any.
>and yet you want to prescribe that nothing should exist
No, I didn't do that. My argument is only in regards to the simple subjective decision one must make. You have no way of determining whether life is good and whether bringing a new life into this world is good. It's just a choice, a leap of faith either way. And you have no reasonable justification for taking this leap of faith on behalf of another person. The only sane course of action seems to be to remain passive and leave well enough alone.

[Anonymous No.22539310]

The problem is natalists take as the default axiomatic position that procreation is justified. And so you need to argue against that position.

But obviously in all other moral situations we would start from the principle of "first, do no harm", and "it is wrong to impose harm on others without justification".

The default position should be antinatalism and we need extreme justification to overcome it. But irl people are the result of 4 billion years of natural selection and have inbuilt sexual and procreative drives and so the morality of their behaviour just is a non-starter. They breed because they can, the want to, or out of irresponsibility.

So why bother arguing antinatalism? Anyone with half a brain already understands how morally dubious procreation is. And anyone without one will never be swayed by the arguments - they weren't *argued* into procreation in the first place. It's not a rational deliberate decision based on weighing up the harms and benefits for the child and with a consideration of the imposition it involves and the risks being taken.

Here's what the upper few percent of deliberate considerate births think:
>when will we have babies
>can we afford them
>should we screen for diseases
>will we be good parents

That's it. No talk or consideration of whether it's necessary, beneficial or a harm to the child to be. Most births are nothing like this though, it's just "oopsie I forgot a condom!", or "all my friends are having babies and I want one too!" Or even worse the selfish ones "I need someone to look after me when I'm older".

[Anonymous No.22539318]

>>22539310
>suffering bad
how effeminate

[Anonymous No.22539344]

>>22539143
>>22539310
Are you the same guy from /his/? Or maybe it was /tv/? I recognize your arguments
>The default position should be antinatalism and we need extreme justification to overcome it.
Surely you must realize how insane this sounds right? You yourself understand that people have hardwired evolutionary instincts demanding they reproduce. Furthermore, your argument can easily be turned around. You claim that it’s impossible to know whether a child’s life will be worth living, so it’s better to not give them that chance. I believe that it’s better to give them the chance, to live and suffer and grow, rather than ruling out existence by default. Most people probably feel the same way. You should consider the position that other posters ITT have proposed, that your worldview is heavily distorted by your subjective experiences and that it does not apply to the vast majority
TL;DR touch grass

[Anonymous No.22539377]

>>22539143
>No, I didn't assert anything like that.
You're avoiding it and pretending it isn't a necessary condition to accept your argument. Again, you can't weigh the sum total of human existence and affirm that it's a net negative. All you can do is retreat to "we can't be 100% sure this hypothetical life will be good" in order to assert a false conclusion upon which you are certain. Using ambiguity in order to affirm an extreme conclusion? Sorry, not good enough.
>You have no way of determining whether life is good and whether bringing a new life into this world is good.
As predicted an anti-natalist will retreat to the idea that one must accept their tautologies and interpret them their way. You can't assert that a given life will be bad just as I can't assert a given life will be good. The fact ambiguity exists doesn't affirm the anti-natalist position as I can construct various value systems that justify the creation of a life. You're laughably simplistic "durr it can't consent, checkmate" doesn't impose the anti-natalist conclusion.

Anti-natalists are so retarded and lack self-awareness of how mental illness affects their worldview. It's astounding. Always the same thing:
>muh tautology
I reject it because a), b), c)...
>no, you have to accept it and conclude anti-natalism
No, I reject it and argue against anti-natalism because a), b), c)....
>muh tautology tho!
You're mentally ill.

[Anonymous No.22539400]

>>22539344
It's telling that 30% of the WikiHow for "how to be an anti-natalist" is devoted to instructing them not to be annoying.

[Anonymous No.22539430]

>>22539400
Fucking kek, they’re like vegans or JWs. Autistic cultists with no self awareness or ability to introspect

[Anonymous No.22539437]

>>22539310
>No talk or consideration of whether it's necessary, beneficial or a harm to the child to be
You posted this from your mom's house didn't you

[Anonymous No.22539494]

Why did you post this here? You'd have to be a fucking retard to expect decent quality discussion on 4chan - /lit/ of all places!

These are people who think they're well read because they skimmed a SEP article, and get their morality from Jordan Peterson...

[Anonymous No.22539590]

>>22539494
>Jordan Peterson
BTFO'd David Benatar in a debate. Anti-natalists are below Petersonians.

[Anonymous No.22539670]

>>22538656
Found the NPC. It's the question of why I'm me and not something else, something NPCs are inherently incapable of understanding because they can't directly observe being themselves.

[Anonymous No.22539672]

>>22539494
>>22539590
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maXXTXIgpu8

>Jordan Peterson is evil and stupid. He has a daughter and says, “We are here to suffer so learn to suffer like a man.” A potential paradise could be like a never ending DMT trip with the constant pleasure level of heroin. If you get bored then it’s not paradise. There don’t even have to be human bodies. His is just a severe lack of imagination. And there is no sense in which suffering or mediocrity create meaning. All the meaning you need would be packaged into the paradise experience. But I am not experiencing such meaning and perhaps never will. That’s why despite the abundant grace and mercy I think I am not subject to a fully benevolent God. Perhaps God is like Jordan Peterson and I therefore consider him my enemy.

[Anonymous No.22539682]

>>22539672
>posts narcissistic failed e-celeb who an heroed
Don't care.

[Anonymous No.22539686]

>>22539670
>[further explanation needed]
>[why?]
>[importance?]
Best Wikipedia annotations ever. You guys are pseuds.

[Anonymous No.22539726]

>>22539590
Benatar won in that debate though

[Anonymous No.22539934]

>>22538300
I have an even simpler attempt at a refutation.
Reducing harm is not the prime imperative.
Mind you, whatever you want to fill it with is not my problem but the rejection of this prior already makes the whole ideology fall apart.

[Anonymous No.22539953]

>>22536082
>everyone who disagrees with me is wrong because I say so!
>I am very intelligent. Breeders are low iq
>fuck white people
Youre not as convincing as you think you are, anon.

[Anonymous No.22540059]

I don't know why antinatalism gets so much hate on 4chan? You would think a website that loves riling people up, being edgy, and generally being filled with doomers depressives and miscreants would LOVE this philosophy!

1. It makes people absolutely cope and seethe
2. It rejects society, culture, and the normie values that underpin it
3. It's edgy as fuck
4. It's anti religion, anti-black chink and jeet, and anti-woman (women cause birth)

You'd think they'd love it? I don't get it.

[Anonymous No.22540064]

>>22539953
Abloo bloo did whitey get offended? ;_;
Maybe whitey needs to go molest sum kids to feel betta?? Poor white boy.

[Anonymous No.22540077]

>>22540059
Because the actual "edgy" reproductively-conscious, and logical position is eugenics.
Antinatalism has a literal 1000000+ member subreddit called r/childfree.

[Anonymous No.22540091]

>>22540064
This is either bait/a weird form of false flagging or a bad case of resentiment.
>>22540059
>1. It makes people absolutely cope and seethe
Very few people can meme themselves into being completely anti-life. Especially if the original proposers of that ideology are not even funny.
>2. It rejects society, culture, and the normie values that underpin it
It rejects the values of literally all life. Regardless see response to point 1.
>3. It's edgy as fuck
Are you joking? Come back to me once it's as edgy as eugenics(soft and active), colonialism, neo-nazism, Ethnic nationalism in the first world, etc.
>4. It's anti religion, anti-black chink and jeet, and anti-woman (women cause birth)
It's anti-white-men, too. You missed that part.

[Anonymous No.22540101]

>>22536606
>ah yeah, the genes convey ideas, I had almost forgotten about this take
Ideas are largely heritable. Even if 50% of your children rebel against you, 50% will think like you
You really think you will convince most people to join you? Lol
Antinatalism does not convince low IQ people, it's a mind virus for the high IQ. At most, you will end up creating a world with only low IQ people
There's literally no way you can win without an authoritarian dictatorship that forcibly sterilizes the human race

[Anonymous No.22540242]

Antinatalism, despite offering a solution to the problem of human suffering, is ultimately futile. Yes, no humans no suffering. But humans won't stop reproducing and you will never convince them that the death of a 5 year old is less tragic than the death of a 80 year old.

That's basically what antinatlaism boils down to. Human life is bad and shouldn't be started. So if it ends quicker it's better. But thisnia completely unintuitive to people amd so either they just continue breeding never hearing of antinatalism, or they hear and think "what a bunch if crazy retards do they want us all to go extinct??" The antinatalist says yes and the response is "you're crazy depressed dangerous you first kys etc"

So in my opinion it's a good idea, but no hope of succeeding so we need to find a different solution.

[Anonymous No.22540255]

>>22539344
>so it’s better to not give them that chance
Give who a chance? They don't exist, they're not waiting in lines hoping you let them be born. There is no "them." No harm can be done by not having children, and endless potential for harm is enabled by having a child. How is this so hard to understand?
>>22539377
>Using ambiguity in order to affirm an extreme conclusion?
Your position is the extreme one, advocating the creation of a new conscious experience in a harmful world which you can't prove is not entirely harmful, and doing that for no clear reason. It's insanity.
>I can construct various value systems that justify the creation of a life
You can "construct various value systems" to justify anything.
>The fact ambiguity exists doesn't affirm the anti-natalist position
It's not ambiguity, it's complete ignorance. There's no way to know, so inaction is simply the default safe position. It's fine if you believe life is fine and dandy, but justify to me how you can take this leap of faith in affirming life completely on behalf of another person.

[Anonymous No.22540287]

>>22539670
>why I'm me and not something else
Because if you were something else then you wouldn't be you, you would be something else.

[Anonymous No.22540293]

I think every argument for antinatalism has flaws and can be attacked, but as a cumulative argument it makes a good case. David benatar was right in his book to present the asymmetry and then say actually if you don't agree here's another argument about quality of life.

For me these are the main arguments:
>risk
>Consent
>not being born harms nobody, existing harms everyone
>a rejection of the paternalistic imposition of a supposed benefit for the child's own good
>a rejection of the inherent power imbalances of parent child relationships
>the harm of death and its unknown

On the whole basically procreation is when a parent volunteers another person to come into existence as a mortal body in an uncertain risky world who will face harm need and suffering of all kinds and the risk of all manner of other sufferings, and it does this in order to gamble that the child will be overall benefitted by his existence when though this isn't assured and cannot be ensured by the parent despite all their best efforts, and it does all this to improve upon a non state that never needed to be benefitted or improved

Why do this, beyond selfish instrumental reasons that benefit the parent, or society or whatever? From the non existent child to be, they have no stake in coming into being.

[Anonymous No.22540340]

>>22540293
I don't mean any offence but are you autistic?

[Anonymous No.22540389]

I am going to admit that I haven't read any of the posts in this thread.

Surely a successful anti-natalist argument must presuppose a very narrow range of value systems among its audience in order to expect any persuasive success? As in, readers pretty much have to be utilitarians or nihilists of some sort, for as soon as any intrinsic value related to human life other than happiness/non-suffering is raised, surely the argument falls apart under the absurdity of trying to apply a comparative analysis to qualitatively different values. Say, for example, that you believe in the innate value of human life, distinct from the values of happiness or non-suffering. None of the anti-natalist's analyses of the calculus of happiness/suffering in life will ever stand as a complete argument for you, and it's not clearly how such an analysis would even interact with the rest of the landscape of value, for how do you measure a value like life itself against a value like suffering?

[Anonymous No.22540415]

>>22536994
Ok, I'll put it in retard language for you: The pic conflates time as experienced by a person and time as it applies to that person. It makes the unjustified leap that because, at the point of death, time as experienced will in a sense "stop" (but only because there will be no more experience and so experience of anything at all will stop), therefore time as it acts on that dying/dead person will also stop.

[Anonymous No.22540610]

>>22540077
Childfree isn't antinatalism.
Not even practically. For example the antinatalists would be willing to adopt, the childfree would not, because they do not have children for financial reasons. Basically speaking antinatalism is altruistic/moral and childfree is selfish/a decision

[Anonymous No.22540644]

>>22540610
Cant not having kids for financial reasons be moral/altruistic? If you are living in poverty and can barely afford yourself wouldn't, not having kids be moral if you couldn't provide for them?

[Anonymous No.22540697]

>>22540644
Yes I guess, but guys who consider themselves childfree often brag that they have money to spend on their pleasures that could have been wasted on their children if they had had them.
Poorfags are the population that has the most children anyways

[Anonymous No.22541150]

>>22539726
If you're a Benatard instantly convinced by merely repeating axioms instead of responding to criticism just like every single other anti-natalist retard in existence.

[Anonymous No.22541195]

>>22540255
>no you
You're advocating that we should fundementally change how we view procreation so as to extinguish human life, retard. That's a humongous proposition toward an extreme conclusion.
>You can "construct various value systems" to justify anything.
Correct but the point is that anti-natalists reject any value systems that refuse to accept their tautology (i.e. give valid reasons to reject it) and demand it also be interpreted according to their ideology (which, for the majority of them, is a worldview stemming from mental illness and personality disorders).
>It's not ambiguity, it's complete ignorance
It is ambiguity. I can bring up the ability to diagnose disorders in utero or the fact we can weigh the quality of life for a fetus based on their family. However, the actual point your avoiding to address is that you're acting as if you have a well-founded conclusion when it's actually based on an ambiguous potentiality.
>justify to me how you can take this leap of faith in affirming life completely on behalf of another person
Simple, I don't. I'm not a dictator and would never want to be one. Thanks for highlighting the fact anti-natalism has those seeds within it though.

Again, arguing with anti-natalists is pointless because they're mindless ideologues who have adopted a simplistic worldview. You can give valid reason to reject their tautological foundation and they will simply restate it. You can point to logical inconsistencies as their ideology coheres with horrendous moral outcomes but they will simply demand you interpret it as they do. Anti-natalists have a distorted view of reality stemming from mental illnesses and personality disorders; they are the absolute last people to listen to when it comes to anything to do with the idea of quality of life.

[Anonymous No.22541243]

>>22540287
>Why is the sky blue?
>Because if the sky was green, it wouldn't be blue

[Anonymous No.22541260]

>>22541195
>more irrelevant deflection where you refuse to adress any point, more gibberish, more mental illness ad homs
It's like talking to a particularly obtuse brick wall. I'm tired

[Anonymous No.22541262]

>>22541150
I'm not really an antinatalist, but you must be a complete idiot if you think Peterson won. Benatar buck broke him

[Anonymous No.22541267]

>>22535348
I wish I'd never been born.

[Anonymous No.22541268]

>>22541243
"why am I me" assumes that you could be someone else, which you can't. Your organism created an experience that something regards as "itself". Unless you believe in souls there's nothing deeper to it

[Anonymous No.22541290]

>>22541243
That analogy doesn't fit. "Why is the sky blue" is a reasonable question with a reasonable answer. This question is more like:
>why is the sky the sky instead of being the ground
It's a nonsensical stoner brain fart, why would anyone take this shit seriously for even a second? Lol, lmao even

[Anonymous No.22541332]

>>22541262
You're making an argument about asymmetry and you can't quantify the elements you're weighing individually let alone at a scale suitable for your conclusion
>I don't have to do that because it isn't arithmetical
You do have to because you'representing the idea of weighing the outcomes of experience to present a conclusion that affirms the negative
>Something can be vaguely true though
But I can validly argue that one single instance of experiencing love outweighs all the suffering I've experienced; your argument is subjective and unquantifiable
>I can put someone in a lab and say I'll give him the best pleasure if he allows me to give him the worst suffering and he'll refuse
That only shows you can construct an experiment where you make life unbearable for someone; it obviously doesn't follow that all human experience is asymmetrical towards desiring death

That's just the first exchange. If you think Benatar won that you've simply indoctrinated yourself with his beliefs and fail to understand he was unable to meet criticism without acceptance of his axioms.

[Anonymous No.22541369]

>>22541332
>But I can validly argue that one single instance of experiencing love outweighs all the suffering I've experienced
So he didn't suffer, not even enough to use that word

[Anonymous No.22541372]

>>22541268
>"why am I me" assumes that you could be someone else, which you can't.
But how do you know that I can't?

[Anonymous No.22541387]

>>22541290
Because conscious beings have direct experience of being themselves. Unless you believe I am the only conscious being, this implies that conscious beings have a token identity or haecceity. The sky, on the other hand, does not have a token identity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type%E2%80%93token_distinction
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haecceity

[Anonymous No.22541402]

>>22535348
Why is there an "anti-natalism" thread in the catalog at all times? Consider assisted suicide.

[Anonymous No.22541412]

I cant think of a good reason to have kids. There never has been one. Life used to be so cruel, brutal and violent and people shat out babies en masse because 50% of them would die of a terrible disease in childhood. Think about how fucked up that is. Modernity is way better and more comfortable, but we are still just fucking tax cattle most of us. There is no point. Add to the the divorce rates, the influence of social engineering and technology, the promiscuity and unaccountability of women, the takeover of the world by third world populations, big brother society, the fucking cost of having a family.
If you have kids, youre doomed to wageslave until old age. There is a small narrow window of making a comfortable escape to enjoy watching the world burn in comfort, but having children cannot be part of that plan. Its meat grinder or freedom.

[Anonymous No.22541430]

>>22536082
Posters who reply like this already have kids and cannot take any other position. They feel attacked and lash out for their poor decision making. They know they are being selfish, prideful fucks, altough their genes are worth shirt and so are their off-spring. Nothing special, but breeders cannot accept this fact so they attack you out of hurt. Buyers remorse.

[Anonymous No.22541572]

Whats the point of antinatalism? It seems like an externalized suicide method to me. All of humanity must go extinct to prevent suffering.

But why care? You may think "i regret my birth, i have been harmed by coming into existence", but if that is true, your suffering ends when you die. What's the need to prevent the suffering of others? It won't affect you.

Just go like this: "not my problem".

For me I agree with antinatalism, in that I see my own birth as regrettable and that I have been harmed, by my parents, who imposed life on me. But my parents cannot reproduce me again so it's a one off problem. I won't reproduce because out of empathy I dont want my child to suffer the same issue. But I think that's about the extent of my alignment with antinatalism. Essentially I just think when I die the problem is over. I couldn't really give a shit about the billions of Africans and dalits breeding like rats. Like I'm not here crying about it. Intellectually inguess I can think "suffering can be prevented if humanity ceases reproduction", but thats not my problem. I don't feel their pain. And honestly most people deserve their suffering.

Why care about this shit? My suffering is over when I die. The rest of the world's suffering is not my problem. I mean really, who actually cares about niggers and chinks and their spawn? I don't. I only have empathy for myself and my own kids I'll never have. maybe for other whites who also feel like me, but they won't have kids either.

Wild animal suffering isn't my problem
Animal agriculture isn't my problem
Human suffering isn't my problem

The only thing that's my problem is *my problems*, which dissolve when I die. I didn't make the world I'm not here to fix it.

[Anonymous No.22541580]

>>22541387
So?

[Anonymous No.22541604]

>>22536082
You're the one without an argument lol. You can't give a single reason why we should maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. You just assert this utilitarianism as "self-evidently true". You're correct, there is no point in discussing this with people like you whose arguments boil down to "it's self evident".

[Anonymous No.22541612]

>>22541369
>so he didn't suffer, not even enough to use that word
Sure he did. The point is that the perimeters set by Benatar can't be quantitatively justified, they're inherently subjective on an individual qualitative level, and Benatar's thought experiments fail to represent reality--they're set up to beg the question of his prefabricated worldview. You can see this in how you attempt to deflect to "he didn't actually suffer though" (which is an entirely subjective argument that attempts to beg the question of your conclusion).

Benatar also repeatedly fails to answer Peterson's criticism about his pre-assumed perimeterization (it literally filters Benatar; you can hear his frustration/confusion everytime he claims Peterson is jumping around) and he repeatedly avoids the unconscious miserable man with no social connections thought experiment. When he finally does get to it (after the third time Peterson points out he's avoiding it) all he can do is assert the man has an interest in continuing his existence without defining what constitutes the interest.

Bentar is completely BTFO in this debate and the only way you can say otherwise is if you filter out Peterson's criticism and just accept Benatar's restatement of his central premise (i.e. he doesn't actually answer to any of the criticism).

Anti-natalism is an ideology that depends on the acceptance of certain tautologies and demands you interpret their outcome in a specific way. It can't answer when someone presents a valid reason to reject its initial assumptions, presents an alternative narrative to its outlook, or demonstrates it can be logically consistent with morally repugnant outcomes. What's more, it's been shown that the adoption of anti-natalists views is linked to mental illnesses and personality disorders--its quite literally an ideology that incubates within a defective worldview.

[Anonymous No.22541626]

>>22541604
>You can't give a single reason why we should maximize pleasure and minimize suffering
So suffering isn't bad? Do you actively seek out suffering and see it as a good thing? If not then you're a dishonest rat pretending to hold a position just for the sake of the argument, if yes then you're insane and nobody should waste their time discussing issues of ethics with you.

[Anonymous No.22541758]

>>22541369
I'm doing my best to steelman your position, specifically show me where I don't understand your argument
>[fails to do this and just begs his premise by restating it while ignoring Peterson's perspective]
...[Later]...
>You keep going backwards
If you don't like where I've taken the conversation go ahead and direct it accordingly
>You keep bringing up multiple arguments by going back and I can't address everything at once
Go ahead and direct the conversation to your liking
>Everytime you run into a wall with one of your arguments you jump back
I don't see that so give me an example of a wall I ran into
>Uh, when the podcast is finished and we go back and listen to it you'll see...
No, give me just one example of a wall I ran into and then chose to deflect...

This is Benatar being BTFO. He's completely filtered by Peterson's refusal to allow him to monopolize the interpretation of his axioms and the counter-narrarive Peterson builds; Benatar simply can't deal with someone who has built an argument based on validly rejecting his interpretation of reality. He's literally mindbroken and projecting his confusion.

The only way you don't see this is if you agree with Benatar initially and filter out everything Peterson says. It's a great example of an ideologically possessed person having a meltdown.

[Anonymous No.22541772]

>>22541612
I haven't actually seen the interview, I just wanted to butthurt you. But the comments are kino and the consensus is that Benatar won, that's why I said it.

[Anonymous No.22541789]

>>22541626
>Do you actively seek out suffering and see it as a good thing?
That does not follow at all from anything I said. Pleasure and pain inform my actions, but I don't consider maximizing pleasure/minimizing suffering as ends in and of themselves. They help me reach my other goals.
Living just to maximize pleasure and minimize pain is the most pathetic thing I can imagine, something dreamed up by enlightenment brainlets a few centuries ago.
Indeed, since I reject your axioms, there is no discussion to be had here, cya.

[Anonymous No.22541816]

>>22541789
suffering sucks
murder sucks
torture sucks
doing things to people unconsensually sucks
rape sucks
life sucks
you suck

[Anonymous No.22541833]

>>22541772
Not him but I've listened to the whole thing before and most of it just Peterson refusing or being incapable of differentiating between starting a life for someone else, and already existent people killing themselves. Also it's pretty clear he hasnt read benatars book. The guy has the patience of a Saint.

Also the funniest part is Petersons debate tactic was a sort of nietzchean approach of embracing suffering, it makes us stronger bla bla, and then of course you see his personal life where he's a drug addict and too weak to withdraw so needs to be put into a coma to avoid suffering LOL

total waste of time debate btw, don't bother. Consensus is benatar "won" because Peterson didn't even really understand what's being debated.

[Anonymous No.22541835]

>>22541772
>I'm retarded on purpose and like to imagine I have control over a strangers emotions
Work on yourself, anon. Go outside and talk to a real person.

[Anonymous No.22541871]

>>22541833
>most of it just Peterson refusing or being incapable of differentiating between starting a life for someone else, and already existent people killing themselves
That's not true at all. The first part is Peterson criticizing the fact Benatar is making an unfounded quantitative argument to which Benatar merely states he isn't ("uh...it's vaguely true") before projecting it back onto Peterson. Related to that is Peterson demonstrating the interpretation of Benatar's premises are subjective to which Benatar retreats to his asymmetrical argument (which, remember, he hasn't presented a retort that it isn't well-founded quantitatively so he's basically trying to have his cake and eat it too). Then Benatar tries to argue an absurd theoretical about a parent creating good by cutting off their child's leg (he immediately gives up as soon as Peterson points out it's absurd and gives a real world example of a child who was born with a disorder that caused pain). Then Benatar repeatedly ignores the sleeping miserable mad example until being forced to confirm his circular argument (the suicidal man with no social connections who won't even know he has died has an interest to continue existing because he just does). Then at the end Benatar breaks down and projects his behavior into Peterson; he's confused by the alternative framework that has pointed out the premise can be rightfully rejected while accepting certain terms in a manner contrary to Benatar's ideological core. He then gets roasted that his views logically cohere with certain atrocities and he literally gives a fedora tip about religion causing bad things lol.

Benatar was completely obliterated to the point he was reduced to admitting his own confusion. You don't have to be pro-Peterson to see that but you sure as hell have to be a programmed Benatard to pretend otherwise.

[Anonymous No.22541893]

>>22535348
In a way, even suffering is better than non existence.

[Anonymous No.22541918]

>>22541871
Oh, I left out the part where Peterson pointed out Benatar was reducing things to a an oversimplified dicotomy (e.g. pain/pleasure) and all Benatar could do was project the idea Peterson is the simplistic hedonist (after it was pointed out to him Peterson is willing to accept for the sake of argument that existence entails more bad things than good things, kek) and saying his (admittedly "vague") argument has more weight because losing knowledge is something that's bad but not painful (he didn't present a counter-argument when it was shown this is still reductive and can be adequately formulated as painful--Benatar literally retreats to good/bad without realizing it's the oversimplified dicotomy itself that is being rejected, kek).

[Anonymous No.22541934]

>>22541871
>That's not true at all. The first part is Peterson criticizing the fact Benatar is making an unfounded quantitative argument to which Benatar merely states he isn't

Oh yeah I remember now. Peterson, who hasn't read the book, accuses benatar of making an unfounded utilitarian assumption that the bad outweighs the good for all lives, therefore we shouldn't procreate. Peterson goes on like you just can't measure this you just can't know!! But that's not benatars argument and never was, and he repeatedly tries to explain this but Peterson can't understand LOL

Also if you actually read benatars book, which you havent, he says under an epicurean view of death, death isn't harmful, and he also is incredibly permissive of suicide and right to die. He personally does not hold an epicurean view of death and sees death itself as a harm. Obviously killing someone without their consent is wrong.

Either way it's irrelevant and just shows again Peterson doesn't understand rhe distinction between ending already existent lives and imposing lives on others. How is this suicidal man with no relatives even relevant? Antinatalism is anti birth not pro death. Obviously Peterson just wanted to get some sort of admission that benatar wants to kill people or something so he could dismiss the argument.

All of these youtube intellectuals are such fucking losers lol. Peterson, Sam Harris. Don't even bother reading someone's easily read book, go on a debate, make a fool of rhemselves, have their little minions praise them because they lack father figures and then go to the next grift. It's pathetic

[Anonymous No.22542106]

>>22541934
>Peterson, who hasn't read the book
It says he has in the podcast. I think the problem is you don't like the (multi-pronged) rationale he gives for rejecting it.
>Peterson goes on like you just can't measure this you just can't know
No, Peterson argues that Benatar is making an inherently quantitative argument and uses sleight of hand to shift between such and his qualitative justifications. If you listen, Benatar never actually gives a real answer to this and flails around when the fact his ideology forces things into an entirely subjective and oversimplified dicotomy. Benatar doesn't provide an adequate response as to why the basis of his position cannot be construed as quantitative ("it's vague but you have to accept it as true") and retreats to individual qualitative arguments which are inherently subjective and can therefore be met with equally valid representations that contradict those that glaringly presuppose Benatar's interpretation of reality. Your instinct here is to run back to a tautology (nonexistence means you can't experience bad things therefore not being born is better than being born) but one simply doesn't have to accept that premise while giving valid affirmations against the qualify of life argument as well.
>He personally does not hold an epicurean view of death and sees death itself as a harm.
He also admits that his work creates suffering in the world (>>22536103) and I take this as evidence that he's selectively considerate in line with personal bias.
>Obviously killing someone without their consent is wrong.
And yet all you can do is state "obviously" but when pressed on the details of such playing out in reality he could give no answer. "It just is! This person with no interest in existing with no social connections to cause harm and whose death will be unnoticed even by him still wants to exist." You're contradicting the perimeters of the though experient. He doesn't want to exist. "You have to accept how I interpret that things magically change between nonexistence and existing." But this person actively doesn't want to exist. "It's just different, ok?!" It's a bad argument that completely begs the question, anon. Dressing it up by name dropping Epicurean philosophy doesn't make it better.

1/

[Anonymous No.22542109]

>>22541934
>>22542106
>Either way it's irrelevant and just shows again Peterson doesn't understand rhe distinction between ending already existent lives and imposing lives on others.
That's the simplistic tautology that you retreat to as affirming your beliefs. Again, I can create an equally valid system of values that posits existence as a benefit while interpreting the quality of life argument in a positive way. The problem is you want to make a quantitative argument about the negativity of existence overall and are unable to do so. You then pretend your argument doesn't depend on it while retreating to subjective quality of life arguments (keyword: subjective). When your premise is rejected and valid alternatives to your quality of life argument are given you retreat to your tautology. It's bad argumentation that represents being ideologically possessed and filtered by criticism.
>Obviously Peterson just wanted to get some sort of admission that benatar wants to kill people or something so he could dismiss the argument.
No, Peterson makes the case that key points of anti-natalist ideology are reflected in historical examples of the rationale given for murder and genocide. He points out that this betrays the existence of unintended consequences and the only answer Benatar can give is "they're not thinking about it right then!" Kek, he can't actually address the examples directly and resorts to "not real anti-natalism" just like a retarded teenaged commie.
>All of these youtube intellectuals are such fucking losers lol.
I'm not big on them but they're obviously smarter than a pseud like you who confuses cynicism for intelligence and contrarianism for wisdom.

/End

[Anonymous No.22542413]

>>22542109
>>22542106
how do you justify imposing life without the possibility of consent

[Anonymous No.22542483]

>>22541572
Well, from reading your post you ARE antinatalist (and that's kinda based)

[Anonymous No.22542495]

>>22542413
>muh tautology though
How do you still do the same shit after it's been predicted and pointed out to you.
>I reject your premise because...
>I find it fundementally flawed because...
>I also disagree with your characterization of quality of life because...
>I also find the relationship between professing anti-natalist beliefs and mental illness/personality disorders to be a red flag...
>...countless details and subarguments related to the above...
>MUH TAUTOLOGY THOUGH! ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSENT TO EXISTENCE!

You guys are just a total and complete lost cause. Imagine buying into an anti-life ideology to square your intellectual narcissism with your distorted depressive worldview.

[Anonymous No.22542505]

>>22540389
Can't tell if no one's replied to this because no one has an answer to it or because the answer is too obvious to bother typing.

[Anonymous No.22542512]

>>22542495
tautology? I don't think you know what that word means

[Anonymous No.22542514]

>>22542413
The notion of imposition is incoherent in this context, as is the notion of consent, for before a new life is created there is no one for anything to be imposed upon and no one give or withhold consent.

[Anonymous No.22542516]

>>22542514
>there is no one for anything to be imposed upon
it was imposed on everyone who was ever born
>no one give or withhold consent
that's the problem

[Anonymous No.22542526]

>>22542516
>it was imposed on everyone who was ever born
At no point in your life was life imposed upon you, for life is your nature. You may as well say evenness is imposed on the number 2.

[Anonymous No.22542549]

>>22542516
>that's the problem
Yeh, it's a problem for your argument.

[Anonymous No.22542575]

>>22542526
>>22542549
no one comes into existence consensually; the impossibility of a not yet existing person giving consent is not a problem with the argument, it's the point
it's like saying that consenting to sexual acts is impossible for children, therefore it's okay to fuck them because the concept of consent doesn't even apply

[Anonymous No.22542590]

>the impossibility of a not yet existing person giving consent is not a problem with the argument, it's the point
It is a problem, because its not that its impossible, its that its incoherent - there's no such thing as a "not yet existing person" about whom one can say they are unable to give consent to existing.

[Anonymous No.22542593]

>>22542575
See >>22542590

[Anonymous No.22542602]

>>22542575
Further to the point, it's also incoherent to talk of the processing of "coming into existence" - the only things about which we can coherently speak of as engaging in processes of any kind are things that exist.

[Anonymous No.22542606]

>>22542590
and once a child is born, they were born without the ability to consent

[Anonymous No.22542626]

>>22542602
What do you think someone means when they say someone has come into existence?

[Anonymous No.22542627]

>>22542606
Birth is a natural biological process - no one imposes it on an in utero fetus, it just inevitably happens. The only alternative to birth for a fetus is abortion which, needless to say, the fetus is also unable to consent to.

[Anonymous No.22542632]

>>22535348
You are coping for lack of GF. That's all.

[Anonymous No.22542634]

>>22542627
>it just inevitably happens
wear a condom if you really can't help yourself from doing the sex thing

[Anonymous No.22542639]

>>22542626
That now there is someone, and before now there was not that someone.

[Anonymous No.22542642]

>>22542627
>>22542634
also as an aside, I think me bashing your skull in with a hammer would be a perfectly natural physical process, and me burning you alive would be a perfectly natural chemical process as well

[Anonymous No.22542648]

>>22542639
And do you think that person coming into existence was necessary or contingent?

[Anonymous No.22542652]

>>22542634
I'm talking about after conception, which i the point at which the notion of consent becomes intelligible.

[Anonymous No.22542654]

>>22535348
Are you jewish?

[Anonymous No.22542658]

>>22542648
There's no such thing as "coming into existence", anon, as I've already explained, but as for there being someone when before there wasn't someone, why do you expect me to be able to say whether it is necessary or contingent? I would need to know whether we live in a fatalistic world, which I don't.

[Anonymous No.22542680]

>>22542512
>doesn't respond to the fact he doesn't respond
>just projection of his intellectual narcissism
A tautology is a statement that is necessarily true given its form. It's also informally used to point out someone retstating the exact same thing and just shifting their words. It's tautological that the unborn (i.e. unconscious) cannot consent (i.e. requires consciousness). However, for all the reasons I've laid out above (
>I reject your premise because...
>I find it fundementally flawed because...
>I also disagree with your characterization of quality of life because...
>I also find the relationship between professing anti-natalist beliefs and mental illness/personality disorders to be a red flag...
>...countless details and subarguments related to the above...
) I reject making your tautological assertion the foundation of the discussion and predict(ed) you would fall back to it. Your behavior is representative of ideological possession.

Relying on the continued assertion of a tautology to carry the weight of your argument is bad form. You don't have the justification to hold it up as an unbreakable pillar that justifies anti-natalist beliefs and you don't have a monopoly on how it should be interpreted. What you're doing is the familiar pattern of Benatards: ignore all criticism and fall back to a tautological stance you assume proves the logical foundation of all your arguments. Anti-natalists are ideologically possessed retards who have a distorted view of reality.

[Anonymous No.22542685]

>>22542642
But that is something you are choosing to do, so morally comes into the equation in terms of the rightness or wrongness of your action. The pregnant mother is not able to choose whether or not to start birthing at the 40th week of pregnancy - it will happen regardless of what she wants. That is, unless she terminates the pregnancy. I hope I'm not telling you anything you don't already know.

[Anonymous No.22542688]

>>22542505
Anti-natalists don't respond to it when it's pointed out in a post specifically directed to them. Do you honestly expect a Benatard to take notice of a point they're filtered by and compose an adequate response?

[Anonymous No.22542692]

>>22542575
>anti-natalist randomly brings up having sex with children
Mental illness + personality disorder.

[Anonymous No.22542707]

>>22542685
the literal act of birth itself is not the issue, it's the coming into existence of a new individual when there's no need for it, no way to be certain it's the right thing to do, no way to ask them if they want to exist before it's far too late and survival instincts, emotional attachments and fear of death have gotten hold of them to keep them in this prison

[Anonymous No.22542717]

>>22542707
But as I keep pointing out, there is no such thing as "coming into existence" - the notion is fundamentally incoherent, for there must first be an existent something in order for that thing to engage in any process at all. And there is no being about which we might say there is "no way to ask them if they want to exist". Are you able to grasp this?

[Anonymous No.22542736]

>>22542717
>there is no such thing as "coming into existence"
so how do we exist in this world as individuals? what are you even saying my man, this is schizophrenic
>And there is no being about which we might say there is "no way to ask them if they want to exist"
the being(s) are all those who have been born (conceived) without being able to give consent to their own existence, as in all living creatures in the world

[Anonymous No.22542746]

>>22542736
>so how do we exist in this world as individuals? what are you even saying my man, this is schizophrenic
It isn't, it's basic logic - to talk about something doing something, there must actually be something to do it.
>the being(s) are all those who have been born (conceived) without being able to give consent to their own existence, as in all living creatures in the world
...Anon, birth is not the same as conception.

[Anonymous No.22542752]

>>22535527
This is assuming all anti natalists hate their life
Why does it always have to be about anti natalists themselves and not about the meat grinder

[Anonymous No.22542767]

>>22542746
how do we exist as individuals whose lives had a beginning at one point if we never came into existence? pls explain your views, I'm fascinated

[Anonymous No.22542780]

>>22542717
Pretty sure coming into existence just means being born. That's the way most people seem to use the phrase as opposed to your idiosyncratic way. The whole "you always exist because you're made of matter and matter has existed since forever" nonsense is not what people mean at all. I'd also say it definitely makes sense to talk about people who don't physically exist being unable to consent as being a big problem. Your mother could have said fuck this little baby, I'm going to drink and smoke during my whole pregnancy. It's not like he can say no or ask me not to. He's unable to consent, he hasn't been born let alone conceived yet, so it doesn't matter. Him being a fetal alcohol syndrome baby is just going to be a part of his nature. Now she can change her mind and decide to never have a baby, but I would still argue her deciding to do drugs during her potential pregnancy was still a bad thing to do precisely because we can discuss potential people- people who haven't been born but may be born.

[Anonymous No.22542792]

>>22542767
I already have. >>22542639
If you could do me a favour though, could you please explain, or even suggest or outline, how something could come into existence if there wasn't anything to do it?

[Anonymous No.22542802]

>>22542780
>Pretty sure coming into existence just means being born. That's the way most people seem to use the phrase as opposed to your idiosyncratic way
Well that's fin with me, as I've already address this. But to reiterate, once conceived, either carrying the conceived human through to birth or terminating the conceived human involves committing to a course of action without the conceived human's consent, so consent cannot be used as a reason against giving birth, as it also applies against termination.

[Anonymous No.22542826]

>>22542792
>"there is no such thing as coming into existence"
>how do we exist as individuals whose lives had a beginning at one point if we never came into existence?
>"coming into existence means that now there is someone, and before now there was not that someone"
huh? what?
explain your ideas about how an individual comes to be in this world if our existence as individuals somehow doesn't have a beginning in your mind

[Anonymous No.22542828]

>>22542802
Benatar writes about abortion in his book. I think he naturally prefers no conception over abortion. And may even be against later term abortions.

[Anonymous No.22542856]

>>22542826
Obviously our existence has a beginning. That's what I said, in very plain, simple language. And as I've already said and explained "coming to be", or "coming into existence", are totally incoherent notions -- in order for something to "come to be" or "come to exist", there must be something to come to be, or come to exist, hence something must already exist in order for it to come to be, or come to exist. The whole notion is nonsensical. I cannot explain it any clearer and it is basic logic, so if you can't grasp it there's nothing more I can do for you. Just don't be surprised if no one takes your argument from consent seriously.

[Anonymous No.22542865]

>>22542856
lol

[Anonymous No.22542868]

How come this whole debate is so anthropocentric? It doesn't make any sense at all. If you're already doing utilitarian calculus why stop at humans? You could argue for mass sterilization campaigns for most sentient animals way easier than for humans. Very few people give shits about anything other than cetaceans, primates and fluffy looking carnivores. There's a huge sentience space to eradicate besides those and humans and it's fairly overlooked.

Animal farms have near 1/10th of neuronal mass of humanity combined if we only take into account pigs(150m humanbrain), cattle(500m HB) and chickens(50m HB). Factory mammals outmass wild mammals 15/1. Rough distribution of arguably somewhat sentient and somewhat weighted(lower value for fish, exclude insects etc) brain mass ratio is propably in 1/1 in humans and all other animals combined. All this absolutely pales in comparison to historical and hypothetical non human future, former of which lasted 500 million years as would the latter, were the humans to disappear.

By going voluntarily extinct the total homo sapiens experience would be out experienced in less than a thousand years and this would go on for a half a billion years unless other civilisation appears. This becomes way way worse if you discount pleasurable experiences or other similar aspects of cognition and just use the Benatars table(and broaden it to arguably sentient animals) since numbers wise other animals are way more plentiful and have faster reproduction cycles.

A non solution to suffering, self correcting, info hazardous to very depressed people and gay idea overall. One good thing about it though personally. I occasionally check out r/antinatalism as an quick depression med/ pick me up. Those people manage to make suffering and brooding so cringe that i just can't go through it anymore and my mood instantly improves.

Either kill every cell on planet earth or strive to achieve pan species utopia by applying the hedonistic imperative. Every other option is a non solution if you want to rid the planet of suffering. Universal solutions are a tad bit more challenging.

[Anonymous No.22542871]

>>22542856
are you genuinely autistic or have you been trolling from the beginning?

[Anonymous No.22542874]

>>22542828
But then when we speak of conception we go back to the issue of it being meaningless to speak of a problem of consent when there isn't anything to either grant or fail to grant consent.

[Anonymous No.22542880]

>>22542871
It's literally basic logic, dude. I can't state it any more clearly. Hold on to your argument from consent if you want, but it is fatally flawed and no one has to take it seriously.

[Anonymous No.22542896]

>>22542880
you agree that our existence has a beginning one sentence and deny that we come into existence the next, when that means exactly the same thing
you are either trolling or retarded in a very special way

[Anonymous No.22542906]

>>22542874
Do you think it would be okay for a mother to decide to continue her previous habits of heavy drinking and smoking even while she's pregnant? To emphasis, the baby hasn't been conceived of yet, but she has already decided she's going to continue her drug use.

[Anonymous No.22542914]

>>22542896
No it doesn't - at one point in time, before conception, there isn't a human being in the womb, and at a later time, at the point of conception, there is a human being in the womb. Or, to pre-empt an objection I can envisage you making, if you want to suggest that the human being is just an arrangement of pre-existent material atoms, then you really are saying we have all existed since the beginning of the universe, and the anti-natalist argument is completely redundant anyway.

[Anonymous No.22542919]

>>22542906
No, because that would cause harm to the baby. But we aren't arguing about bringing harm into the world, we are talking about consent. I am only concerned here to show that the anti-natalist argument from consent makes no logical sense. The argument from harm I can understand.

[Anonymous No.22542925]

>>22542914
>at one point in time, before conception, there isn't a human being in the womb, and at a later time, at the point of conception, there is a human being in the womb
that's what we call coming into existence
>if you want to suggest that the human being is just an arrangement of pre-existent material atoms, then you really are saying we have all existed since the beginning of the universe, and the anti-natalist argument is completely redundant anyway.
no, that's what I was expecting your beliefs to be given the nonsense about "there's no such thing as coming into existence"

[Anonymous No.22542928]

>>22542914
> then you really are saying we have all existed since the beginning of the universe, and the anti-natalist argument is completely redundant anyway.
There might be a total of 8 people in the whole world who would argue something like this. Come on. The most commonly held position in philosophy for continued personhood is the psychological view and my psychology has definitely not existed since the beginning of time.

[Anonymous No.22542929]

>>22535348
>By choosing to have children I would, merely by this choice, be a horrible parent.
But it's not like you could be a good parent without having children, is it? In the same way you couldn't get buff without going to the gym, where you'll inevitably feel out of place at first. You grow by adopting responsibility and rising above.

[Anonymous No.22542972]

>>22542925
>that's what we call coming into existence
Well that's fine then, but if that's really what you mean by coming into existence then consent does not logically apply to coming into existence, for "coming into existence" is only a time interval between two distinct states, not a process that something undergoes (and so not something done to something which that thing might not consent to). I'm getting tired of saying the same thing over and over again, and I have to sneaking suspicion that the only people who are arguing with me are anti-natalists who will refuse under any circumstances to admit their argument doesn't make sense, so I think I'll call it a day gents.

[Anonymous No.22542984]

>>22542919
Well yeah, if something isn't born let alone conceived of course it can't consent. But you now seem to have no problem with making moral decisions in regards to potential people. So why not extend that to the idea of consent and say well since it can't give us a yes or a no, and the world is full of evils, why force a yes?

[Anonymous No.22542997]

>>22542984
>if something isn't born let alone conceived of course it can't consent
You still don't get it. If something isn't conceived yet then there is no "it". But as I said, I'm out, this is going nowhere.

[Anonymous No.22543003]

>>22542997
You can't have your cake and eat it too. Earlier you seemed fine with discussing a potential person in regards to reducing harm. But in regards to consent you act like it's some great absurdity.

[Anonymous No.22543010]

>>22542752
>This is assuming all anti natalists hate their life
Replicated studies indicate they do and you're on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.22543019]

>>22542914
Kek, you got them (just don't expect them to realize it).

[Anonymous No.22543025]

>>22543003
Yeh because the moral logic of consent requires a person to either give or not give consent - Action A was wrong because it was done without person P's consent. There needs to actually *be* a person P.

[Anonymous No.22543026]

>>22542919
Got them again.

[Anonymous No.22543210]

>>22543025
It seems pretty straightforward to me that one can discuss potential people even in terms of consent and that others can grant consent (or not grant consent) upon someone's behalf in certain situations.

As an aside, if you're this >>22542919 anon... you wouldn't happen to be a Christian gypsy who is fond of writing his own poetry, right?

[Anonymous No.22543271]

>>22543210
Well sure, you can discuss consent however you like, but it won't necessary have any moral significance. If for example I decide to add an extension to the east side of my house, and you are my neighbour to the west side, you might start trying to discuss with me the fact that I did not ask for your consent to build the extension beforehand, that I should have, and that not asking for your consent was wrong. But since my building the extension does not have an effect on you, it doesn't actually matter that I did not ask for your consent - you are not part of the moral equation. Only people who my decision has an effect on are a valid part of the moral equation when it comes to consenting to my decision. So with sexual acts that cause a human being to exist, let's say for the sake of discussion you are the human being that was caused to exist by a previous sexual act of mine. You might when you grow up ask "why did you undertake an act that caused me to exist without my consent? That was wrong of you", but a comparable response applies - the act I performed was between me and your mother, it caused no effects on anyone else whom I failed to obtain consent from, and in fact it was not even possible for the act to have an effect on *you*, to cause a change in *your* personal circumstances (which I did not obtain your consent for), rather it caused the *beginning* of circumstances that could be referred to as "yours" at all; it caused the *beginning* of your existence as a being with moral rights.

[Anonymous No.22543273]

>>22543210
And no, I'm not a Christian gypsy who writes poetry.

[Anonymous No.22543323]

>>22543271
Yup, I understand your position. I just ultimately don't agree. I think the morally responsible action would be to behave as if that child really did exist in some potential sense, even before any act of procreation because to do otherwise to me seems to be akin to the ostrich sticking his head in the sand. The father and the mother know what the outcome is gong to be when they have sex- another person. Even though the act is only between the two of them, they should still have thoughts towards the future of what their actions will lead to. It seems intellectually and morally irresponsible to pretend otherwise. It's not some relatively harmless action, it's an action that will lead to a whole new person experiencing the evils of the world, much of which will be outside the parent's control to prevent. Evils that the child never asked to be apart of.

Well that's my spiel, I'm going to go cook my beans now.

[Anonymous No.22543331]

>>22535371
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mziOfnCWJzA

[Anonymous No.22544299]

>>22543323
>The father and the mother know what the outcome is gong to be when they have sex- another person. Even though the act is only between the two of them, they should still have thoughts towards the future of what their actions will lead to. It seems intellectually and morally irresponsible to pretend otherwise. It's not some relatively harmless action, it's an action that will lead to a whole new person experiencing the evils of the world, much of which will be outside the parent's control to prevent.
But if that's really your argument then the so-called "argument from consent" isn't ultimately distinguishable from the argument from harm, which has a completely different form and is much less powerful: The power of the argument from consent was supposed to be there there was something innately morally problematic with "bringing someone into existence" -- You were doing something of huge significance to someone, namely bringing them into existence, without obtaining their consent, and regardless of the life they would go on to lead this is supposed to be a natalist problem. But if actually there's no fundamental problem of consent (which there isn't, for the reasons I've given), and the problem is really just that of the rightness or wrongness of causing a life that will experience suffering, then we are back to the happiness/suffering calculus of the argument from harm, with all its attendant contingency and murkiness - It is only an argument that will be persuasive to people who think life is actually not worth living, and there you can only really expect the argument to be persuasive if the potential parents are utilitarians who have lives they haven't been happy with. It might for instance be persuasive to secular gen-zers living in a shitty apartment in a crowded city like New York or London working a miserable job, but it is unlikely to work against anyone with religious views, or just any view other than utilitarianism (and so who believe there are values other than happiness), and it is also unlikely to work against any prospective parents regardless of ethical views who have had lives they are content with, for example middle or upper class Scandinavian families, which tend to report high levels of overall wellbeing and life satisfaction. So your argument doesn't have universal application and is really just the fairly mundane notion that couples who think life sucks are justified in not to have kids.

[Anonymous No.22544303]

>>22544299
>then the so-called "argument from consent" isn't ultimately distinguishable from the argument from harm.
Sorry, I clearly meant to write *indistinguishable* there.

[Anonymous No.22544470]

>>22541195
What is your fixation on inserting literally every post of yours "mental illness and personality disorders"
Really strange behaviour, are you projecting or are you AI?

[Anonymous No.22544515]

>>22544299
Not him but the consent argument speaks to how to ones parents essentially "volunteer" their children into existence. We are born by the cause of another, and not ourselves. The decision is made for us. It is not that there isna literal unborn whose consent is violated but rather that procreation imposes a condition (human embodiment) where prior there existed no need nondesire no interest in this condition

Obviously, being human involves great harm, not least of which is inevitable death. And so in any other context doing an action that leads to the death of someone or the assurance they will suffer would not to he very carefully considered and it is only in extreme circumstances like you're going to die, where we allow trained medical doctors to do this.

I think this half/benefit calculus is just irrelevant when the "unborn" have no need nor desire for pleasure. Procreation is a paternalisic imposition of a condition where one must trade off the harms of life for its benefits (at great risk this trade off will not be worth it) where prior there was no need for this benefit in the first place. Nothing is harmed by not being born, yet one is born through the actions and desires of ones parents, and in the best case scenario (most procreative reasoning is just selfishness or irresponsibility) this is done to altruistically foster upon someone the possibility of an overall positive after subtracting the harms? It's absurd to me. You create someone that will suffer, die, feel need pain harm lack grief (you're supposed to die before your kid) exposure to all manner of risks and injuries etc and for what? The chance the pleasures in life outweigh this? Why? There's no need for pleasure to behin with

People just have real trouble thinking about the non perspective of the unborn child. They think, "but if i were not born, I wouldn't exist! That's a bad thing ! I don't wanna die!!!!". But obviously there is no you if you didn't exist and so it couldn't be bad. Then mommy got fucked by daddy and you came into the world a screaming shitting little fgt who will spend its life coping and dealing with its needs and desires and repeat mantras to himself that it's all worth it life is good woo hoo so much FUN FUN FUN all the while you work and age and die

[Anonymous No.22544617]

>>22543271
>aboriginals were not humans until they were colonized so colonizing them is alright since colonization was the beginning of their status as human

Indeed, only a lifesucker thinks like this.

[Anonymous No.22544626]

>>22542514
>congenital aids is pathologically incoherent since there is no healthy body prior to conception

Lifesucking will absolutely doom you.

[Anonymous No.22545473]

>>22544470
>>22536093

[Anonymous No.22545648]

>>22544617
>>22544626
>If I pretend he said something completely different, I win!

[Anonymous No.22545710]

>>22544515
>It is not that there isna literal unborn whose consent is violated but rather that procreation imposes a condition (human embodiment) where prior there existed no need non-desire no interest in this condition
Sorry, but no, beginning to exist does not "impose a condition" of "human embodiment", it is the bare state of being itself. Existence wasn't done to you, rather, existing is what allows anything to be done to you at all.

> And so in any other context doing an action that leads to the death of someone or the assurance they will suffer would not to he very carefully considered and it is only in extreme circumstances like you're going to die, where we allow trained medical doctors to do this.
No, because in any case where anyone saves another person's life, for instance a man saving a child learning to swim from drowning in a swimming pool, this condition is met, and yet few if any men would think twice before acting to save the drowning child, and few if any children would be ungrateful for the man's action.

>You create someone that will suffer, die, feel need pain harm lack grief (you're supposed to die before your kid) exposure to all manner of risks and injuries etc and for what? The chance the pleasures in life outweigh this? Why? There's no need for pleasure to behin with
I'm struggling to follow your argument. Are you saying that it is morally wrong to cause someone to exist because it is not necessary for someone to exist? If so, I don't see any persuasive reasoning in that. I do things all the time that aren't necessary, but the mere fact that they aren't necessary doesn't strike me as a moral reason to not do them.
>People just have real trouble thinking about the non perspective of the unborn child. They think, "but if i were not born, I wouldn't exist! That's a bad thing ! I don't wanna die!!!!". But obviously there is no you if you didn't exist and so it couldn't be bad. Then mommy got fucked by daddy and you came into the world a screaming shitting little fgt who will spend its life coping and dealing with its needs and desires and repeat mantras to himself that it's all worth it life is good woo hoo so much FUN FUN FUN all the while you work and age and die
From reading that, I think the real conceptual difficulty is yours in understanding that a great many people actually value their lives. A lot of the things you have said only make much of any sense as an actual argument under the assumption that life has no real meaning or value, and that it is fundamentally miserable. But again, this only applies to a subset of people as an accurate description of their view of life (I suspect if you polled the general human population you would find it to be a minority subset), and so, again, the anti-natalist argument is actually very modest and mundane in nature.

[Anonymous No.22545819]

Pessimism is a blackhole.

[Anonymous No.22545834]

An open letter for fellow Pessimists/Antinatalists

Asceticmaxxing through Monastic Exploitation

>Philosophical Pessimist bros I have thinking about available solutions to Pessimistic question other than suicide, we all desire asceticmaxxing and denial of Will-to-Live so finally I have discovered a cheat code called "LARP". Yes, we all know Schopenhauer's doctrine is the Truth and denial of Will-to-Live is greatest virtue. But this world works on wagies' tears and blood and it will keep deny us the blessing of NEETdom. So if someone isn't from rich family like Schopenhauer he can't live an ascetic/monastic lifestyle. NEET lifestyle depends upon countries and economic situation. So not all of us are fortunate enough to live that lifestyle, at some point we will succumb to demons of economics, politics, modernity and warfare industry.

>What we should do is exploit the ascetic orders by joining them for NEET lifestyles to eat two times a days and for some shelter over our heads. The best options are Buddhist monasteries. If there are no Buddhist monasteries, then cucking abrahamic institutions is another option. In the case of joining a christcuck monastery, we should larp as quietist monks. There are also quietist fakirs/dervish in the situation of joining a Sufi order. Quietism will act as a religioncuck repellent and silence is always mysterious so they will assume you have occult powers or some shit.

>If we stay low key, do bare minimum of religious rituals and keep doing meditation regularly then it will be win win situation for us. Freedom from this evil society, freedom from evil female, freedom from degeneracy, freedom from normalfag baggage, freedom from politics freedom from material belongings and freedom to live a NEET lifestyle. If this doesn't work out then suicide is always an option. You shed most of baggage after meditation so death will be light, like a death of some animal of long ago, so quiet and devoid of any humanoid bullshit.

What do you think?

[Anonymous No.22545850]

>>22545834
>What do you think?
tl;dr

[Anonymous No.22545874]

>>22545850
it's just 3 paras and you're on a lit forum ffs

[Anonymous No.22545884]

>>22545834
Just go the Ciroan route and leech off of a french lady and eat at the college cafeteria for 50 years. Suicide is pointless. If Schop didnt rope, neither will I.

[Anonymous No.22545941]

>>22545884
have you read the whole thing? i have discussed both of these things

>Just go the Ciroan route and leech off of a french lady and eat at the college cafeteria for 50 years.
Too late, read what Cioran has to say about this

"For the younger generation of today,all this is impossible. Some times young
people come to me and say, "We would like to live like you!" but it is too
late, far too late! I came to Paris in another epoch, during a time when there
were still hotel rooms to be had for nothing and more nothing. All that is gone and one is today simply "fichu.""

[Anonymous No.22545982]

>>22545874
>pretentious boring sperg that will repeat itself and go nowhere
tl;dr is constructive criticism.

[Anonymous No.22545996]

>>22545884
but you should still try
you can also sell my bullshit contemporary art. remember Cioran that he did everything to protect his freedom of no work

>>22545982
yes i know but im not creative enough to shorten it

[Anonymous No.22545998]

>>22536082
I've also come to this conclusion. the only people worth discussing pessimism with are dead philosophers.

[Anonymous No.22546002]

>>22545996
*sell some bullshit

[Anonymous No.22546017]

>>22545941
ah, damn...

[Anonymous No.22546223]

>>22545648

It's the same lifesucking blueprint. You must agree with those statements if you are a lifesuckers,

[Anonymous No.22546227]

>>22545648

It's the same lifesucking blueprint. You must agree with those statements if you are a lifesucker.

[Anonymous No.22546231]

>>22535348
>OMG DAD! I DIDNT ASK TO BE BORN!
Anti-natalists are basically 16 year old girls who've been told they have to look after their brother instead of going to the mall with their friends.

[Anonymous No.22546237]

>>22546227
>lifesucking
If you don't kys you're a hypocrite.

[Anonymous No.22546239]

>>22546223
>>22546227
Bot or schizo?

[Anonymous No.22546348]

>>22545941
brutal

[Anonymous No.22546368]

>>22545834
i cant rather be like ug krishna but thats not happening its suifications or rope

[Anonymous No.22546449]

>>22546368
try that monastic life or NEETbux lifestyle to shed the garbage before suicide. Cioran use to make a fool of himself by singing for strangers so they can buy him dinner, hanging out failures, whores, bums etc. exhaust most possibilities and in the mean time take care of your health. suicide is an option but there's no need do it quickly

[Anonymous No.22546458]

>>22546449
yeah i have gun so...

[Anonymous No.22546494]

>>22546449
might try neetbux but i heard its hard to get

[Anonymous No.22546495]

>>22536131
what a headcase holy shit

[Anonymous No.22546512]

>>22546494
watch documentaries on retards and try to act like them. do a FULL research on neetbux procedure and become a parasite like a pro

[Anonymous No.22546534]

>>22546512
alright will look in to it so what are you doing to cope pessmistbro? neet bux monkmaxx suicide?

[Anonymous No.22546609]

>>22546534
i was born in a 3rd world shithole so no neebux or monkmaxxing. i have tried to do artmaxxing but i suck dick at networking so that didn't workout. i regret for not exhausting the possibilities, not going "all the way" in artmaxxing. so now im stuck in a limbo where i really want to exhaust the remaining possibilities but at the same time i don't have much possibilities but i still have high ambition and my own heightened sense of futility and awareness of death doesn't allow me to do much. im totally egged in a fucking painful. i can't live and i can't die. brutal limbo pessimistbro. that's the tragic sense of my life.

im just a shitty pessimist. im only a pessimist when i reflect but in the day to day life im same as any other person. despite a brutal past and my pessimist views i cannot accept death. so im just waiting-for-godot-maxxing. there's something very ungraceful about all of this.

[Anonymous No.22546627]

>>22546609
good luck pessmist bro im in the usa its grim here but at least i have some stuff to look to forward like new music and eng trans of mainlanders redemption

[Anonymous No.22546650]

>>22546627
thanks
>im in the usa
usa is an interesting place. lots of opportunities to exhaust from coast to coast
>eng trans of mainlanders redemption
that's cool. also i was listenting to a podcast about zapffe and the professor said that eng translation of zapffe's on tragic is ready and complete and the translator is looking for the publisher or something like that.

[Anonymous No.22546665]

>>22545473
Yes, you have made that point quite clear by now
I'm trying to verify if you are not a language model

[Anonymous No.22546696]

keep living the life of a clear-eyed pessimist instead of wallowing in the self delusional happiness of a human pig.

[Anonymous No.22546703]

>>22546696
too based

the only obligation of a pessimist is to be self-sufficient

[Anonymous No.22546741]

>>22546703
>>22546696
For God's sake whatever you do, don't start enjoying life!

[Anonymous No.22546764]

>>22546741
oof

im guilty of enjoying life. now whenever i start enjoying life i remind myself that this pleasure is the invitation for more suffering. the best state is state of no suffering rather than pleasure, Schopenhauer was right. pessimist's drama is of everyday with an extremely high intensity, much much more than life affirmer.

Pessimist have live long, I don't know why is that. Ligotti is pushing 70s despite being a lifelong sick and suicidal mfer

[Anonymous No.22546957]

>>22535348
Imagine deciding to believe things on the basis of how fashionable they are on an Andean crab-hocking agora.

[Anonymous No.22546970]

>>22535378
How do you know this guy isn't just a grifter?

[Anonymous No.22547008]

>>22535490
>implying Cardi B is a better musician than Jan Dismas Zelenka

[Anonymous No.22547014]

>>22535527
>the meaning is meaningless because it makes me le sad

[Anonymous No.22547041]

Anti-natalist arguments have been so comprehensively shat on in this thread its unreal.
Actually makes me proud of /lit/.

[Anonymous No.22547073]

>>22547041
Lol imagine samefag praising your shitty posts hahaha

[Anonymous No.22547090]

>>22547073
Lol you seriously think it's just been one guy responding to you guys? Lmao even.

[Anonymous No.22547165]

>>22547090
I mean, may as well be.

[Anonymous No.22547210]

>>22547041
Point these antinatalism-refuting posts out. I'm too lazy to read the whole thread.

[Anonymous No.22547241]

>>22535348
>Help me /lit/, I'm starting to develop an anti-natalist stance, not in the hedonist
>>But muh free time
>>But muh traveling
>>But muh disposable income
>more in the Schopenhauerian sense of
>>Stop creating meat for the meat grinder, reject maya, embrace celibacy
they're both hedonism you tard, as they fundamentally base their understanding of morality in the experience of pain and pleasure. for you to be non-hedonistic, you would need to reject this basis, and as far as i know, there isn't really anyway to make a non-hedonistic argument for anti-natalism. now stop posting this thread you retarded faggot.

[Anonymous No.22547464]

>>22547241
Who said anything about escaping hedonism? The only way to do that is to completely act against your own interests for the express purpose of proving hedonism wrong. If anything, antinatalism is one of the LEAST hedonistic philosophies albeit.

[Anonymous No.22547615]

>>22536131
Genetic fallacy

[Anonymous No.22547778]

>>22546665
>>22536093

[Anonymous No.22547827]

>>22547615
>Schopenhauer writes the equivalent of a 19th century self-help book
>it contains horrible advice that will make one miserable
>anti-natalist Benatards love him
>(they're mentally ill social rejects too retarded to figure out this is what leads them to trumpet Benatar)
Anti-natalists are disfunctional malformed idiots clinging to a simplistic ideology they confuse for a philosophical worldview. Instead of improving their lot they wallow in misery while trying to pretend it's reality that's horrible and not simply their brain. Anti-natalism is a pathetic and mastabatory cope for retarded pseuds who can't accept reality is great outside their heads.

[Anonymous No.22548085]

>>22536082
Posts like this inspire me to have 20 kids. I loathe antinatalists so much, it's like every fiber of my being is screaming at me to sprint in the opposite direction. Is it possible to make an antinatalist argument without sounding like a whiny, resentful faggot?

[Anonymous No.22548114]

>>22548085
not an argument

[Anonymous No.22548130]

>>22535348
>eugenics
The best gene is the most adaptive gene, having children is the most adaptive thing you can do therefore having as many kids as possible is the most eugenic thing you can do - it's stupid I know, but Darwinism is stupid

[Anonymous No.22548143]

>>22540415
Provide proof that an objective, transcendent 'time' exists. Show me proof that anything exists save that which is in consciousness

[Anonymous No.22548298]

>>22546237

Causality is not real.

[Anonymous No.22548409]

>>22548143
Whenever you sleep, or are otherwise made unconscious for a period of time (being knocked out, getting completely wasted, being put under general anaesthetic in hospital, etc), time itself does not pause to wait for you to pick up where you left off. Other people and things have clearly been getting on with objective reality in the meantime (people and objects are in different places, the tasks of other people are in more advanced stages of fruition, world events have developed, clocks have moved forward, etc).

[Anonymous No.22548470]

>>22548130
That's not how it works.
R-selection can be maladaptative.

[Anonymous No.22548511]

>>22535348
I like how every month the bait attached to this picture gets more verbose and navel-gazing. One day you might even iterate it into a captivating post.

[Anonymous No.22548544]

>>22548409
>>22540415
sleep is not some total loss of the self, you just forget most of it
presuming you just disappear when you die, from your perspective there is nothing being experienced, so it doesn't matter how much time passes in the universe
>therefore time as it acts on that dying/dead person will also stop
the premise is that there is no immortal soul and when we die we die, so there is no "dead person" for time to "act upon"

[Anonymous No.22548554]

>>22548544
>presuming you just disappear when you die, from your perspective there is nothing being experienced, so it doesn't matter how much time passes in the universe
Well ok yes, that's the Epicurean argument, but it has nothing to do with >>22535408
>the premise is that there is no immortal soul and when we die we die, so there is no "dead person" for time to "act upon"
No, the image is saying there is literally "no time" beyond the bounds of your life. But clearly there is - time passes regardless of whether you are alive, conscious, existing, or not.

[Anonymous No.22548556]

>>22548554
so you're just being obtuse and quibbling over imprecise wording
ok

[Anonymous No.22548565]

>>22548556
Clearly not if you actually look at the image and read its argument, you fucking retard. It's explicit conclusion is "life is infinite. just as matter can't be destroyed, only transformed, such is the same with consciousness", the exact opposite of "there is no immortal soul and when we die we die". Holy fuck what is the point even engaging with you morons.

[Anonymous No.22548599]

>>22548565
>"life is infinite. just as matter can't be destroyed, only transformed, such is the same with consciousness", the exact opposite of "there is no immortal soul and when we die we die"
the latter is the premise which leads to the former
could a purely material universe without a god to watch over it and without anything experiencing it still be considered to even exist? not in any sense that we mean when we say existence

[Anonymous No.22548605]

>>22548599
>This is the person I've been replying to
Yep, I'm out.

[Anonymous No.22548609]

I didn't put much stock in what the pessimists wrote about strong emotional resistance to their ideas before. I mean, surely most people have engaged with these thoughts at some point? But this thread changed my mind. What an absolute shitshow. I can't imagine how awful trying to discuss it with normies would be. Psychoanalysis can say more about these reply chains than logic of argumentation. For God's sake, please read the pertinent texts before trying to refute them with some totally based one-line idea you got from a meme.

[Anonymous No.22548954]

>>22548609
>No one finds the anti-natalist arguments persuasive
>T-that's your fault for not having the right feelings

[Anonymous No.22549142]

>>22548954
Case in point, thank you. IDGAF which stance you take on the topic, I'm saying your way of engaging with it is below the dignity of a five year old. Fucking hell. Wish I could find a new forum, but it looks like I'll be stuck in this shithole forever.

[Anonymous No.22549389]

>>22549142
>IDGAF which stance you take on the topic
NTA but you obviously do.

[Anonymous No.22549507]

>>22548609
>totally based one-line idea you got from a meme.
If you're talking about >>22536124 it's from the book. Anti-natalism isn't complicated, anon. There are basically two core arguments you have to contend with: the asymmetry argument and the quality of life argument. The asymmetry argument is flawed methodologically (it can't be proven; even Benatar admits it's only "vaguely true") and the quality of life argument is subjective (and when you take into account the proclivity anti-natalists have toward mental illness and personality disorder the fact their conclusions are rooted in their bias becomes obvious).

The real problem is that anti-natalism is so simplistic at its core that it's easy to become ideologically possessed by it. I didn't go into detail above but you can give well-thought out reasons to reject the asymmetry argument and anti-natalists will just retreat to asserting it's basic form which is tautological. You can explain the subjectivity of the quality of life argument but anti-natalists with just do one of two things: they'll insist that it's objective without responding to detailed arguments as to why it's subjective and/or minimize its importance in regard to their position as a whole (note that for the latter you can also make a good faith argument as to why it's central to accepting their conclusion and they will just insist it is not without directly addressing what you say).

That's the problem with these threads. When you have a discussion with an anti-natalist you're speaking to someone who has self-indoctrinated into an ideology they believe cannot be disproven. They won't allow the core principle to be directly criticized, they will deflect by insisting on their tautology while attempting to monopolize how outcomes related to it are to be interpreted. Even after you point out this behaviour to them they won't address it because ideologues are incapable of arguing in good faith. They get BTFO every single time they make one of these stupid threads but will always come back again and fall into the same insufferable pattern.

[Anonymous No.22549578]

>>22549507
There's more to antinatalism than just benatars book. I'm an antinatalist and never even understood the asymmetry argument, let alone used it.

Nobody ever gives an argument in these threads for *why* we should procreate. The default position should be to not to, but natalists just take it as default to produce children and need some type of systematic philosophy with zero flaws to reject it.

It's as if they just start with the axiom that they will reproduce. But in moral theory you should start with an attitude of "first do no harm", and then you need good reasons to go against that. Obviously making a child creates the very condition for harm to be experienced and it does this in the context of inevitable death. So we should need overwhelmingly good reasons to subject someone else to this , but there aren't any.

Of course in the real world people are just basically animals and reproduce like any other and nobody even thinks about this beyond "I want a baby!".

[Anonymous No.22549919]

>>22549578
>There's more to antinatalism than just benatars book.
But he's the most well-known anti-natalist and threads about the subject almost always have a picture of his book in the header. You can say there's more to it than him but he's both the academic and popular figurehead.
>Nobody ever gives an argument in these threads for *why* we should procreate.
Sure they do. There's the base animalistic instinct to procreate, a higher form that rationalizes procreation in seeing life as a value/existence as an opportunity, or even simply not sharing the pessimistic mindset of anti-natalists (who, again it must be pointed out, have a proclivity toward mental illness and personality disorders which color their view of reality). For anti-natalists it almost always comes down to an argument toward uncertainty of outcomes (which isn't sufficient to warrant the firmness with which they hold their conclusion nor does it justify the extreme change it prescribes) and the inability of the unborn to consent (which is tautological, various reasons can be given to affirm the cause or even reject this idea altogether).
>natalists just take it as default to produce children and need some type of systematic philosophy with zero flaws to reject it
First, like it or not it is the default and you have to overcome that by way of more than a simple dismissal. Second, that's a strawman because people know every life is sure to have a certain amount of suffering and are vigilant over their child's life before they're even born. The point is they don't share your values or negative view of existence and uncertainty is met with acceptance instead of a pessimism driven by fear.
>It's as if they just start with the axiom that they will reproduce
As stated it is the default setting. However, various arguments exist (I touched on a few by way of general overview) that you seem to be ideologically blind to. I think the way you characterize a "default setting" is a projection. Especially given you go on to demand a default setting for conversations involving morality in your very next sentence:
>But in moral theory you should start with an attitude of "first do no harm", and then you need good reasons to go against that.
See?
>Obviously making a child creates the very condition for harm to be experienced and it does this in the context of inevitable death.
This is style of argumentation to which I refered. You make a tautological assertion that life will entail harm and let it carry the weight of your conclusion which is actually a prescription based on a subjective outlook. It's also related to Benatar's quality of life argument; I'll say now that one can disagree with him but he did a great service by collecting the relevant threads together (well, "great service" only in a sense because even he admits his work creates suffering and negativity).

/1

[Anonymous No.22549923]

>>22549578
>>22549919
>So we should need overwhelmingly good reasons to subject someone else to this , but there aren't any.
We need overwhelmingly good reasons to overturn the status quo and, again, there are plenty of reasons to bring life into existence and it's likely you're simply filtered by them because of your mental constitution.
>Of course in the real world people are just basically animals and reproduce
See what I mean? This line, which is a blatant example of dehumanization, is a good excuse to bring up the abhorrent moral outcomes that cohere with the logic of anti-natalism. Anti-natalist arguments are reflected within genocidal ideologies and such can be easily seen with appeal to the historical record and rationalizations that were used. So when a anti-natalist argues their ideas are solely moralistic and about reducing harm it's pretty laughable.

/end

[Anonymous No.22550846]

>>22547778
So... not ai, just projecting

[Anonymous No.22550853]

[Anonymous No.22550881]

>>22549578
>But in moral theory you should start with an attitude of "first do no harm", and then you need good reasons to go against that
If there is any axiomatic moral starting point it is presumably the golden rule; "act as though your action would become the general rule". If we start our moral reflection there, we immediately see that anti-natalism prescribes the end to the human race and, when taken to its logical conclusion, the end of all sentient life. But that is an end point with no knowledge, no love, no wisdom, no enlightenment, no affection, no hope, no nothing beyond mindless matter. To anyone with even the dimmest positive feeling towards life that is just abhorrent.

[Anonymous No.22550943]

>>22550846
>>22536093
>The results of the study indicate that the dark triad personality traits of Machiavellianism and psychopathy are strongly associated with anti-natalist views.
>Further, depression is found to be both standing independently in a relationship with anti-natalist views as well as functioning as a mediator in the relationships between Machiavellianism/psychopathy and anti-natalist views.
>This pattern was replicated in a follow-up study.

[Anonymous No.22551049]

>>22549923
I'm not out here screaming at pregnant women or some shit. I'm just saying procreating is morally problematic because it imposes/creates the condition for harm to be experienced (guaranteed) where prior there was no need nor desire for this. What reason is there to do this other than sexual irresponsibility, or an aggressive paternalistic attitude that "I will volunteer you for life because I judge the benefits outweigh the costs!" When we know that this cannot be guaranteed and the cost to the potential child for not being 'volunteered' into life is literally zero, nothing. Why expose someone to harm when there is no need to? To confer a benefit you judge is worthwhile, that may not 'obtain' for the child anyway?

There's no reason other than "I want kids", "humanity must continue", and blind biological function.

Of course in the end everyone will just do what they like and I don't really even see this as a bad thing. People have a right to bodily autonomy and reproduction is a bodily function.

It's kind of like how abortion is child-murder and clearly immoral, but should be legal anyway. Same with procreation, it's clearly immoral but it should still be legal.

At the end of the day the world is not my problem, other people's suffering isn't my problem. I won't have kids because it's wrong and I don't think anyone else should, but I have no control over the what people do.

[Anonymous No.22551063]

>>22551049
>asserts his tautology
>doesn't interact with arguments as to why it can be rejected
>monopolizes the interpretation of the tautology vis-a-vis reality
>doesn't interact with counter-arguments
Same thing everytime.

[Anonymous No.22551074]

>>22551049
P.S. I know your next instinct is likely some variation of "no you" so let's just skip that part.

[Anonymous No.22551114]

>>22551049
>I'm not out here screaming at pregnant women or some shit. I'm just saying procreating is morally problematic because it imposes/creates the condition for harm to be experienced (guaranteed) where prior there was no need nor desire for this. What reason is there to do this other than sexual irresponsibility, or an aggressive paternalistic attitude that "I will volunteer you for life because I judge the benefits outweigh the costs!" When we know that this cannot be guaranteed and the cost to the potential child for not being 'volunteered' into life is literally zero, nothing. Why expose someone to harm when there is no need to? To confer a benefit you judge is worthwhile, that may not 'obtain' for the child anyway?
And do you have anything *at all* to say to someone who sees life, the ability to experience the world, to learn about it, to feel emotions, to know other people, to have relationships with them, to make moral decisions, etc, as inherently good, and doesn't reduce all value to happiness-versus-harm?

[Anonymous No.22551200]

>>22551114
Thats good? What does that have to do with reproduction ??

[Anonymous No.22551217]

>>22551114
It's like talking to a wall with these retards, anon. Same pattern every time.

[Anonymous No.22551221]

>>22551200
Increasing the good?

[Anonymous No.22551311]

Does anyone have the meme of that autist who started an anti-natalist thread seething about his family because his sister was pregnant? The one where he make a fucking spreadsheet of bad things that could happen during her pregnancy and to her child.

[Anonymous No.22551436]

Personally I am "antinatalist" in a very specific sense. Basically inregret being born, I think it was wrong to procreate me, because I have been needlessly harmed without my consent by being brought into being. What I take from this is that I will not have my own children because I don't want to make this condition for someone else. Even if there lives were good like normies I just don't see why I would risk it in the first place when I can't guarantee that.

Rationally I think, we could prevent ALL suffering within a generation if we just stopped procreating. Now yes our lives may suck for the next 100 years or so but that is nothing compared to the billions of lives which all contain suffering which we will prevent by just taking on a burden.

But that's where my antinatalism ends I guess. It's just a sort of thought experiment. I personally judge the moon is in a better state of affairs than this earth, because it's without life.

But in terms of actually doing something about it? Nah. Worlds not my responsibility. And half the people are literal jeets niggers and chinks and I really aren't moved by their suffering. Especially niglet suffering. Tbh I couldn't care less. The only suffering I am motivated to actually prevent is that of my potential children. Rest of the world I have no obligations to. If you want to have kids I'm not crying about it. Not my problem.

Thays the issue with antinatalists. They think the world's suffering is their problem to solve and they present a solution. It's an elegant solution, but it will never be adopted and more fundamentally, why is anyone obligated to the suffering of others? Your kid is your responsibility not mine.

[Anonymous No.22551443]

>>22551311
i got you senpai
remember to find satisfaction in seeing your children have a better life

[Anonymous No.22551446]

>>22551114
NTA but I would say to that person that even if someone thought those things were all well and good (which isn't actually true anyways*), that to act like those things trump suffering is naive. Further, I would say that you can only say those silly things because you are fortunate enough to find yourself in a moment free from great suffering. Then, to drive the point home, push them into a giant blender and ask them after being diced up a bit if they still feel that way. If they remain resolute, turn the blender back on. Keep repeating this until you get the correct answer. The truth is that is does *mainly* reduce down to suffering. You can cope about it all you want, but at least have the decency to not bring a new life into this world so you can force your cope onto it too. It's not asking for it.

inb4
>*gasp* I knew it! Antinatalists are le heckin dark triad!!!1!!

*
>life
Image a baby born without kidneys. It suffers and dies within ten minutes of being born. You would say it experiencing life was inherently good.
>the ability to experience the world
Brian was super excited to experience the world. Too bad he developed a non-operable brain tumor at the age of 16. I guess he'll just have to experience the world in a different way. A way that is now confined to a hospital bed and filled with confusion, pain, grief, dread, and terror before eventually lapsing into a state of dementia and choking on his own spit as his organs shut down. But hey, he got to experience the world in such a unique way at least, so all that must also be inherently good.
>emotions
Imagine a man who receives a head injury. He can now only experience an endless storm of rage and grief that leads to suicide. You would say that him experiencing those emotions was inherently good.
>to know other people, to have relationships with them
Imagine all the children who have been abducted by serial killers. It was sure nice for those kids to have the opportunity to get to know them and to experience the myriad fun things those nice gentlemen did to them before murdering them, right?

Why am I going through all this? To show you that things like experiencing life, emotions, other people etc. are not *inherently* good things. They *can* be good in certain scenarios for those who already exist, but they are not inherently good.

[Anonymous No.22551543]

>>22551443
Lol, thanks.

[Anonymous No.22551755]

>>22551443
fucking kek

[Anonymous No.22551804]

>>22535348
>Wow this AI thing sure could do away with a lot of jobs!
>Heh, the elites will probably want the middle and lower classes to conform, die and have way less kids lol
>Well, time to get back to my meditation
> life is suffering and desire is causing that!
>I wouldnt wanna bring kids to this hellhole lol
Another one fell for it guys! pack it up!

[Anonymous No.22551821]

>>22551446
The reduction of suffering is not inherently good, either.

[Anonymous No.22551927]

>>22551821
Sure, while we're here we sometimes suffer to prevent some greater suffering. What a nice situation, right? A problem that wouldn't exist if there wasn't anything around that could suffer.

[Anonymous No.22551935]

>>22549923
NTA
I think you're taking anti-natalism as too prescriptive, which leads towards your strong sentiment against it. I understand that this could be in response to the more vehement anti-natalists, but I wouldn't describe their political attitudes as representative of the philosophical viewpoint. It seems to me that you don't see the anti-natalist arguments as strong enough to justify any action against natalist actions. Benatar, who you describe as the most infamous of the anti-natalists, and thus the key representative of the viewpoint, would largely agree with you there. So if you recognize his argument as the definitive popular view of anti-natalism, I don't really get the imperative to lump all the eugenicist idiots in the same category. Being able to philosophically justify an action's morality is quite a bit different from trying to enforce law upon that action.

[Anonymous No.22551986]

>>22536606
>ah yeah, the genes convey ideas
They can, yes. Depression has a substantial genetic component, and you have to be a depressed loser to be an anti-natalist.

[Anonymous No.22551989]

>>22535386
If everyone is happy, why wouldn't such a world be utopic regardless of other conditions and qualifiers?

[Anonymous No.22551992]

>>22551935
You're way off base.

[Anonymous No.22552244]

>>22551927
The complete eradication of life is one of those things that prove the reduction of suffering isn't inherently good (and it's definitely not good by itself, something has to benefit for it to be good, which anti-natalism doesn't accomplish).
You didn't even address my assertion properly.

[Anonymous No.22552252]

>>22552244
Off-topic but I really think these types of philosophical systems (utilitarianism, anti-natalism, etc.) are a kind of mind-virus (idk what to call it) that only autists and rationalistic types are susceptible to.

[Anonymous No.22552423]

>>22551986
you've never met an anti-natalist in your life lol

[Anonymous No.22552609]

>>22551443
Jesus kekking Christ.
>Baby shaken by uncle
>Baby crushed by uncle
Is he talking about the potential harm to the baby if he, the anti-natalist, starts torturing it?

[Anonymous No.22552633]

>>22551446
>Natalist asks how non-utilitarian value systems fit into the anti-natalist philosophy
>Anti-natalist replies that those value systems are illegitimate because they are not founded on utilitarianism
Holy shit the other anon >>22551063
was actually right.

Also, the anti-natalist propensity (not just in this specific post but in this thread generally) to imagine either horrendous things happening to people or the anti-natalist himself doing horrendous things to people has been genuinely eye-opening to me. I feel very sorry for you guys, but your awful life experience does not invalidate it for other people.