Let's discuss why you stopped being an antinatalist or are you still an antinatalist, give your strongest arguments for and against

>>24463139 (OP)
here we go again

>>24463139 (OP)
no, it buckbroke me.
The sight of a pregnant woman who couldn't contain her primal solipsistic urge to conceive evokes in me visceral response. Same with men who talk of breeding as an imperative too.

Before I got into all this anti-natalist stuff not only was I OK with pregnancy, I thought there was some joy in creating a family unit. I was just as oblivious as all the other breeders of that this joy was at the expense of bads that would be imposed upon the created person.
So all these people, they really are just uninformed and mustn't be blamed

>>24463139 (OP)
Being an anti-natalist is like being an anti-foodist or an anti-sleepist. It goes against a basic biological imperative that every healthy person has. I went through a phase where I bought into the modern anti-natalist propaganda to some degree (like believing that we shouldn't have too many children because of overpopulation, or being overly concerned with the difficulty of raising children), but then I fixed my failing health. I changed my diet started exercising regularly, fixed my sleep schedule, started getting more sunlight, and did some other things like yoga and taking supplements. Suddenly, I felt that drive to procreate and realized that a life like without children is an empty one. I threw off the ubiquitous anti-natalist propaganda of our culture and embraced nature and reality. Also, I felt vital and happy to be alive again for the first time since my teens, and I naturally wanted to share that and the beauty of this world with my future children. Being focused on the negative aspects of life is an incredibly unnatural state. Most of us are only in it because of the poisoning of our food system and other destructive post-industrial lifestyle habits like spending all day indoors.

Tl;dr: Not wanting children is the result of a hormone imbalance. A very small percentage of people can lead happy childless lives.

https://www.reddit.com/r/regretfulparents/

Antinatalism is just self-defeating mental masturbation. No matter the argument, It's only relevant when you're actually in position to have kids, i.e when your SO wants kids. At which point you either take that step with them, or they leave to make their life with someone else. And then it's back to square one, in which antinatalist musings have zero effect on reality.

When you're back against the wall, if you don't impregnate that broad, someone else will do. There will be the same amount of suffering in the end, but you'll be left alone with your dick in your hand.

>>24463139 (OP)
All non-whites should be encouraged to read this and apply its contents to their lives.

>>24463357
>>24463427
Biorobots. Thinking man can reason, and he finds reason in picrel:

>>24463139 (OP)
>OP posts the same thread with the same book cover so he can argue for anti-natalism
>gets relentlessly mocked and btfo in the replies
>stops replying to his own thread and waits for it to get archived
>posts another thread a week later
Get a fucking job

>>24463429
>All non-whites should be encouraged to read this and apply its contents to their lives.
I just showed all my white acquaintances your post and they became anti-natalists out of solidarity.

>>24463139 (OP)
>>24463434
Why is the absence of pain good if there is no person to experience either pain or its absence in the first place?
>inb4 you've misunderstood it, it's an axiomatic argument (Benatar's typical response to any sort of criticism)
I understand that it's axiomatic, I'm not trying to argue on the basis of a supposed incoherence between axioms 3 and 4 (as Benatar's critics often do), I am specifically questioning the validity of axiom 3. How is the absence of pain good when there is no person to enjoy that absence? What is the "good" in reference to? It can't be God or some other transcendent source of values, as the existence of any such entity would undermine Benatar's pessimistic framework. It can't be the hedonic preferences of a person, as such a person would not exist under this scenario, and thus could not have preferences either way. How can axiom 3 possibly be justified?

>>24463493
(3) can say something about a counterfactual case in which a person who
does actually exist never did exist. Of the pain of an existing person,
(3) says that the absence of this pain would have been good even if
this could only have been achieved by the absence of the person
who now suffers it. In other words, judged in terms of the interests
of a person who now exists, the absence of the pain would have
been good even though this person would then not have existed.
Consider next what (3) says of the absent pain of one who never
exists—of pain, the absence of which is ensured by not making
a potential person actual. Claim (3) says that this absence is good
when judged in terms of the interests of the person who would
otherwise have existed. We may not know who that person would
have been, but we can still say that whoever that person would
have been, the avoidance of his or her pains is good when judged
in terms of his or her potential interests. If there is any (obviously
loose) sense in which the absent pain is good for the person who
could have existed but does not exist, this is it. Clearly (3) does not
entail the absurd literal claim that there is some actual person for
whom the absent pain is good.

excerpt from the book.

aka
>What is the "good" in reference to
the person that would otherwise have existed.

Antinatalism is an anti-white psy-op btw

>>24463536
Only in so far as white people have enough intellectual capability to arrive to these conclusions.
The point is to embrace it but ensure total extinction, of the browns also.

Birthrates are falling worldwide rapidly anyway, way below replacement level even in shitholes like Iran.

hey asshole if youre going to keep making the same threads over and over again can you at least use the same exact image so my filter catches it?

>>24463541
>shitholes like Iran
Kys, Jew. Cyrus/Kourosh (if he even existed) made a mistake freeing your kind. Should have been exterminated.
Iran could have been better than its neighbors if it weren't for Pissrael.

>>24463837
Was Pissrael responsible for it's birthrates plummeting to 1.44 per woman from 6 after the Islamic Revolution and in Tehran to 1.15?

>>24463357
All you can think about is yourself but what about the child? Childbearing is an immoral act

>>24463434
>It's bad to follow your biological instincts because... muh freedom
Lol yeah, ok, you are free to not have kids and be miserable. Enjoy.
>>24463896
The world is awesome and beautiful and my child will get to experience that. Not everyone is as blackpilled as you.

>>24463943
>my child will get to experience that
I pray that your child does not hate you for bringing them into this world to suffer

>>24463954
Fuck off, you don't care about the suffering of others. You're a mentally ill depressive with a sick fascination toward pain and misery. You cope via self-indoctrinating into a laughably simplistic ideology that affords you a false sense of moral and intellectual superiority for being a failure; it's exactly what one expects from a loser with a personality disorder.

>>24463845
Idgaf about that. Let's focus on the important point:

I argue that Jewishness embodies everything that’s wrong with the human species. When someone acts with malicious intent, they fundamentally become Jewish in spirit, and many Jews even glorify themselves as agents of destruction (e.g., Maurice Samuel, Michael Laitman, etc.)

Personally, I remain child-free out of misanthropy. The fact that humanity has produced something as nefarious and repulsive as Jews, and failed to purge it immediately, proves our species would be better off extinct. That said, my antinatalism is not rooted in nihilism.

>>24463943
>you are free to not have kids and be miserable
That's what we're talking about: a selfish solipsistic view where breeders only care about their own pleasure.
>The world is awesome and beautiful and my child will get to experience that.
Except that person wouldn't have been deprived of any joys if they didn't exist but they will experience bads of it.

Again, you dont' care about any of that: only about your own pleasure of creating a family unit.
>>24463994
idgaf about Jews, they are living organisms as anyone else and should go extinct for their own sake. Funnily, if we take our anti-semitism and anti-natalism to it's Benatarian conclusions of morality, then it follows that it's Aryans who have to go and Jews who should inherit the earth because then no Aryan will ever suffer while Jews will continue being harmed by getting brought into existence.

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

>>24464057
This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact (inb4 crying about ad hom); 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).

Say you're designing a logo and you want to market test for the most appealing shade of red. Would you want most of those in your sample population to suffer from protanopia?

>>24464057
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.

Also note that the more you talk to them the more you'll realize a sick fascination with harm, violence, and death. These people don't want to reduce harm, they want to justify their resentment and spread their misery.

>>24463139 (OP)
I stopped being an antinatalist when I stopped being a christian. Once I learned there was no hell, I stopped seeing it as immoral to bring someone into existence.

Their argument:
>antinatalists central claim is that life is harm
>they argue that you have to be alive to feel pleasure and stress this isn't guaranteed
>they argue that if you're not alive you are guaranteed not to suffer/harm
>[no guarantee of pleasure, risk of suffering/harm, therefore nonexistence is best = basic thread of argument]
>note: they also like to being up that the fact you don't have a choice in coming into existence
>they conclude that not reproducing and ending life is the optimal outcome to reduce harm

Why they're refuted:
>antinatalists can't validate their central claim as they cannot weigh the total value of life in aggregate (the best they can do is assert individual bad things happen)
>[this is all the refutation that is needed: they cannot draw logic, let alone an extreme conclusion, from a central claim they are unable to prove; simple as--but lets go on to point out their bad logic]
>they place the weight of guaranteed outcomes on detractors but they don't have prescience to foresee the outcome/value of individual lives (let alone the aggregate of all life which they are assuming) but...
>antinatalists are attempting to prove their conclusion and thereby the onus is on them produce a stable logic based on a proven premise
>however, any single example of value in life automatically contravenes their premise and contradicts the logic they attempt to assert
>[antinatalists are generally filtered by this because they still affirm their premise even though reason has been given to reject it]
>we may come to the idea of suicide and ending life (which is logically coherent with their outlook while showing their values are actually inconsistent)
>suicide automatically means an end to suffering, any harm caused doesn't exist for the victim (aside, the absence of existence means you can't even weigh such anyway)
>denial of suicide is an affirmation that value exists in life (or else why not? note that they won't even admit that suffering is short relative to continued existence, they really want to avoid clearly weighing anything)
>if the antinatalist says it affects others a consistent logic follows that they kill them as well (the sooner the better in fact--stop them from reproducing which puts an end to countless future lives)
>alas, the anti-natalist will assert their original logic no longer applies once they are alive (again, affirming the value of existing and demonstrating their logic can actually be harmful)
>the last bastion is they HAD no choice to exist (conveniently it doesn't matter that they have one now) but again there are plenty of examples of lives worth living

>>24464062
Christianity merely amplifies the asymmetry argument.
The person you bring into existence still would suffer, just not necessarily eternally.

>Benatar/interviewer go for a walk in the park
>surrounded by lovers and families enjoying a nice sunny day
>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: "life is unacceptable"
>interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)

Benatar is a mentally unstable weasel so it's no wonder he mostly avoids interviews. 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.

This is the figurehead of anti-natalism. A sniffling sad sack who can't even hold it together in a park on a sunny summer afternoon and finish an interview without having a nervous breakdown. Remember this the next time this loser makes another one of his "I CAN'T BREED" threads as if it's anyone else's problem but his own. Remember this the next time one of these losers starts sperging delusions about how he really cares about suffering when the reality is anti-natalists are just depressive headcases attempting to intellectualize their pathetic nature while mentally masturbating about their delusions all because absolutely no one wants to fuck them.

>>24464024
My views are closer to Ulrich Horstmann, but I only apply it to humans. The average human state of mind is defined by rapaciousness and exploiting the earth and sentient beings.
I think some chemical that sterilizes all human beings should be released, but Jews should experience pain by being enslaved and die pitifully. Maybe doing creative tor- like having their whore women give birth to kids and then stomping it in front of them would be cool before finally sending them all to hell. Jews suffering is good.
I'm interested in the potential of non-human beings reaching sapience and creating advanced civilization. I find the asymmetry argument crap, and I could write a better book arguing for the extinction of mankind.
I care about enlightenment, which is "higher," and care to the Earth. Humans have failed both, so they should go extinct. However, Jews and other Jewlike people profit and encourage these bad things to an alarming degree, so they should suffer before being wiped out.

>>24463139 (OP)
How many times do you have to lose in these threads before you give up?

>>24464150
Ideologically possessed people are incapable of knowing they're wrong. OP basically self-indoctrinated himself into a cult.

>>24464150
Ideologically possessed people are incapable of knowing they're wrong. OP basically self-indoctrinated into a cult.

>>24464132
Doesn't make much sense to me. Such violence seems to be asinine and senseless in light of approaching extinction. I would rather us all hold hands and be spiritual.

arent you people bored of this conversation yet? Its gotta be the same 5 guys in these threads talking about the same shit for years now...

>>24463993
You must think Jesus was also a depressive loser.

>>24464880
>comparing himself to Jesus
Lol, meds.

>>24463139 (OP)
4Chan is the only argument for antinatalism you need

>antinatalism
It only makes sense if you include the NDE soul trap angle to cut "anchors" before you are asked reincarnate so you don't end up here again. That is the only reason you should even look at the topic. These topics attract people who NEED to start families. They are all seething spiteful jack asses, the women are complete insane spinsters. It will never happen, everything will fuck, devour, and shit forever in this realm. You guys need to get laid or find some skill to feel pride in because it sucks being a hateful prick all day. I used to be one. I go with the flow because I have zero clue what this reality but it will mirror your thoughts back at you.

>>24464908
If you have children I pray that they do not become the depressive losers you scorn because then they would truly hate you for bringing them into this world only to offer them misery and a life of 4chan shitposting

To build upon the question in the OP, and as I'm skimming through Ligotti's Conspiracy Against the Human Race, I'd be grateful if some anon's could offer some insight into this observation of mine (I'm not trained in philosophical reasoning and don't have much depth of metaphysical thought if I'm honest with myself):
The main pessimist argument as I understand it is that nonexistence is better than existence for the sole reason that existence entails suffering, whether there's only a drop of it, or there's nothing else. I'm wondering where the confidence that suffering is exclusive to existence comes from. I'm also doubtful of the fact that all suffering is bad. We're resilient creatures and much of our suffering can actually be enjoyed, "sublimated" even as Zapffe would say. Not all of it can, of course, like brain cancer, locked-in syndrome, chronic pain, but those are not necessarily guaranteed.

I'm on the fence with this subject as a whole. I've been shown the extremes of the suffering spectrum at a young age, and had to shed some naivete, which today makes me more of an instinctive pessimist.

>>24464024
> Funnily, if we take our anti-semitism and anti-natalism to it's Benatarian conclusions of morality, then it follows that it's Aryans who have to go and Jews who should inherit the earth because then no Aryan will ever suffer while Jews will continue being harmed by getting brought into existence.
>The conclusion of my ideology is that Whites should be exterminated and Jews should multiply
This should be a warning sign that your ideology is Jewish, foreign, and retarded. Anti-natalism is quite literally a weapon designed to destroy you.

>>24465555
everyone who capitalizes white is a fucking retard. no exceptions

>>24463139 (OP)
>LIFE IS GOOD!!
>N-No akshuall...
>*Bludgeons your skull in.*

>>24463993
>you're depressed
>you're coping
>false sense of moral and intellectual superiority
>you're a failure
>you're a loser
there needs to be a natalist bingo card.

>sick fascination toward pain and misery
sick fascination with*. fucking retard

>>24465254
Additionaly I was thinking that many of the worst pains put us in a states of unawareness so to speak, meaning that we become the pain, that there's no us left, only the pain, and that I believe is common to all higher order organisms. This would go against Ligotti's claim that consciousness was a cruel mistake and the heart of the curse suffered by human beings since they awoke to their own existence. That only leaves dread to seperate us from animals, fear of the coming moral and physical pain.

>>24465254
>I'm wondering where the confidence that suffering is exclusive to existence comes from.
Do you mean that suffering may be some kind of a default state prior to conception? But to whom would it be attributed? To all possible combinations of living matter that doesn't yet exists?
Doesn't seem.. likely, but it's more of a question of a religious belief then I guess.
>I'm also doubtful of the fact that all suffering is bad.
All suffering is bad because even when you choose to experience some, you don't choose suffering itself but only to get some pleasure in the future that would follow it. I.e. it's never the suffering itself that you pursue. Suffering in this case merely a mean to arrive at our destination: pleasure, but in no way a goal in itself.

I feel like we can substitute 'suffering' for plain 'bad', and see how bad can never be the goal and would always be, well, bad for us.

>X never exists:
>(3) Absence of bad (good)
>(4) Absence of good (not bad)

Bad is unavoidable, undesirable condition of existence, so it's absence will forever be counterfactually good for anyone who is or would become actual.

>>24465120
You're too much of a retard to be this condescending. Find a different angle, brainlet.

>>24463139 (OP)
i just live my life

>>24464057
>>24464058
>>24464060
Makes sense.

>>24463139 (OP)
>Let's discuss why you stopped being an antinatalist

I think the fundamental shift came for me when I realised that transcendence is impossible. You can thank Kant for that.

My interpretation is that it is impossible to escape the human condition. Because at the end of the day, you are what you are, a human. Everything you think and everything you do is only human and is bound by the realities of your body and brain. Even those Buddhist monks or Satvik gurus who seek transcendence, their goals and beliefs are not beyond human but human itself as it comes out of a mere man. So even the instinct to try to transcendend beyond the human condition is human itself.

Therefore, every belief/philosophy/ethic is subservient to it. The anti-natalist, in his drive to deny the human need for reproduction, claims that he has transcended beyond human biological impulses to some greater transcendent ethical goal. But he doesn't realise that those ethical goals are part of the human condition itself and not independent of it. So how can they justify the extinction of the very species from which they emanate? It's a contradiction. Upon realising this holding onto anti-natalism became untenable for me.

The anti-natalist, in the end, even in his choices,beliefs and actions is still as much subject to human condition (both material and immaterial) as everyone else. Without the modern material conditions their ideology wouldn't even take form (just like it didn't for most of history). Free access to unlimited porn and birth control being some of those conditions.

If a higher alien species was studying us their biologists would classify anti-natalists as mental defects whose defeciency would simply be bread out of the gene pool, much like any other human whose genes got filtered by natural selection. They certainly won't be seen as beings who have transcended their humanity (including biological reality) into something new.

>>24466154
I don't think antinatalists are particularly looking at transcendance, nor how they're judged. They just hurt. Life is more tragic than it is good for a lot of people and we're not all equally resistant to pain. They wouldn't want a child of theirs to be as miserable as they are, which is perfectly understandable. Fancy words and philosophies help shelter the ego under a varnish of logic and self-righteousness, but beneath all that I don't believe there's much else than jealousy for those lucky enough to have it mostly good in life, and a genuine sadness for those billions to be born to horrid circumstances, birth defects, or general outsized suffering.

Hopefully there's no transcendental mistake either way in choosing to reproduce or not.

>>24466088
I feel sorry for your children and you when they hate you. Hopefully they don't murder while you sleep, like that poor lady.

>>24465567
I care a lot about your opinions on grammar.

>>24466866
I feel sorry for your parents for raising such a loser. Get a grip and stop talking about other people's kids, weirdo.

>>24466823
>I don't think antinatalists are particularly looking at transcendance, nor how they're judged

You are right about the material conditions they are coming from but their philosophy is one of transcendence. Because they believe that removal of human suffering is a goal on whose alter humanity itself must be sacrificed. In a world where humans do not exist how can "removal of human pain" as a goal hold meaning. Except when the goal is transcendent itself.

This is corroborated by anti-natalists gloating about not being like the other normie breeders who succumb to their base biological impulses instead of adhering to the anti-natalist's transcendent goal in solving human pain by removing humans altogether.

Remember, many anti-natalists, especially the kind that frequent threads, do not see it as a personal distaste of breeding and disdain for pain but a universal ethical principle which everyone should employ (usually based on faulty utilitarian reasoning). But even if the opposite were true, my argument would still hold. Since not having children is not the logical way of ensuring that the child you care about doesn't lead a painful life. As it doesn't exist in the first place.

>Hopefully there's no transcendental mistake either way in choosing to reproduce or not.
I don't think there is. I respect both choices

>>24467219
>Since not having children is not the logical way of ensuring that the child you care about doesn't lead a painful life. As it doesn't exist in the first place.
I agree with the rest but this doesn't make sense to me. The potential for pain is there, like a ball being held at arms length at the top of a building.
The only way to not make it fall is to keep holding it.
The only way to prevent pain is to not conceive. To me this is not about the recipient of the pain existing or not. This is about a gravity potential and the action needed to release it.

Did the antinatalists post their suicide notes ITT or are still being hypocrites?

>>24467274
I guess I would say that pain is a part of life . And yes without life there would be no pain. But that doesn't mean life is pain itself. Now someone for whom this actually holds true, I guess they would prefer to not exist at all. But for all the other humans, it seems that despite their pain they would prefer to hold onto life and everything else it offers. So I'd assume the same for my future children.

>>24463139 (OP)
Why should I even attempt to justify an arbitrary, irrational feeling I have against having children? It's impossible.

I just don't want to.

What the fuck do I put as the keyword to filter out this retard making the same thread every week

>>24467309
At the end of the day this is about an intuition, about how much pain you see and how much pain you feel. Those who think it's worth it are basing their position on emotion (your attitude towards dread) just like those that don't. The debate sparks anger on both sides every time because it's an emotional one, both sides justifying the total annihilation of the other out of a visceral rejection.

We can't stop suffering, unless we kill all life forms. That's something antinatalists are unable to achieve, so they either cope, learn from people who deal effectively with suffering, or die do spare themselves the trouble. I wish them all good luck, I know it's not a comfortable position, I share much of their uneasiness.

If you want to be a drain on society, that's fine. Just please kill yourself before reaching retirement age.

>>24463357
base

Natalists be Iike
>Dude having kids is like le biologically imperative
>therefore we should import infinity Africans and supply them with alcohol and drugs so they engage in more sex btw also let’s ban contraception and abortion so we have infinity drug addict nigger babies on welfare robbing taxpayers and creating enormous burdens on our transportation and healthcare infrastructure
>also hunger is natural too… better give them unlimited EBT cards to purchase goyslop so their retarded spawn grow up with nutrient deficiency and 70 IQ and start carjacking people at 12 years old

>>24463139 (OP)
Of course I'm anti-natalist, it's the most rational position. When you think about it long enough and account for all life in this world, you can only come to that conclusion.

>>24463139 (OP)
The world is a nasty, somewhat vile place filled with pitfalls and constant conflict, mental and physical. Why would you bring someone here? Not much of a gift, is it?

>>24463357
Food and sleep sustain the already-existing organism; procreation creates a new one, dragged into a world where it now must eat, sleep, suffer, and die. There is no ethical symmetry here. I also went through that "natural life" phase, fixing my diet, lifting weights, going outside, getting enough sleep, did all the self-help rituals. Sure, I felt better, but the world remained the same. I still saw the same warzones, slaughterhouses, and millions barely surviving while the rest of us scrolled past. Except now I just felt healthier while noticing it. That new vitality didn't awaken a desire to "share life", it made the horror of imposing it on someone else even more obvious.
And no, being attuned to the suffering built into life isn't "unnatural". What's unnatural is the delusion that feeling good on a sunny day makes the whole of reality morally acceptable. Beauty obviously still exists, even if you're an anti-natalist/pessimist (I find it in nature, art, and rare moments of human decency), but it's the exception, not the rule. When you take into account all life on Earth, there's a lot more suffering and destruction than pleasure or beauty. To claim you want children so they can experience that beauty is hilariously naive and narcissistic. I actually love my children so much, I'm going to spare them the burden of existence.
If your urge to have children only kicked in after a smoothie and some yoga, maybe it's not a "basic biological imperative". Maybe it's just an impulse dressed up as revelation. Wanting to reproduce because you feel good now is like throwing someone else into a pit because you finally learned how to climb out of it.
>Not wanting children is the result of a hormone imbalance. A very small percentage of people can lead happy childless lives
This is just a cope to pathologize dissent. Anti-natalism isn't a medical condition, it's the result of thinking past your hormones.

>>24467288
Anti-natalist is about preventing suffering, not escaping it personally. Suicide doesn't solve the problem because it just removes one victim. You don't have to want to die to think it's wrong to create more life.

>>24467288
Anti-natalism is about preventing suffering, not escaping it personally. Suicide doesn't solve the problem because it just removes one victim. You don't have to want to die to think it's wrong to create more life.

>>24469430
well said. the "i feel good, therefore reality good" crowd accusing others of narcissism are just animals capable of speech. extrapolating your post-workout endorphins to the state of the world, lol. i don't even want to understand them anymore

>images(5).jpg
bro couldnt find the 4 more images of his antinatalism book

>>24468078
>Those who think it's worth it are basing their position on emotion (your attitude towards dread) just like those that don't. The debate sparks anger on both sides every time because it's an emotional one, both sides justifying the total annihilation of the other out of a visceral rejection.
Their plight, as you have described, may have garnered more sympathy if they were not pretending that their ideology is based of bullet proof logic and universal transcendental principles.

Most anti-natalists, atleast on this board, seem to lack the awareness that their worldview directly flows from their own shitty unhealthy lives. Because of the reasons I've stated (transcendence is impossible) , I don't have to live a particularly happy life to see the logical pitfalls in anti-natalism or oppose it. As I said, an hyper intelligent alien species studying us will not classify anti-natalists as transcended humans who've overcome their biological urges for universal principles. Instead, since they are still just biological humans and still subject to the same biological forces and principles, hence they would be classified as rejects of Darwinism whose genes shall be weeded out. As long as humans are a biological species, some genetic rejects will always prop up within it. Anti-natalists being just one of many.

I.e. they are not above human biology but still subject to it. Just in a different way, having the same final effect as a eunuch or a downie who may never breed.

You make a good point about these people making a choice based on their life expriences. But looking at third worlders breeding like rabbits its obvious that this is not the complete picture to explain the anti-natalist mindset

>>24470497
I don't see how any antinatalist talk about anythting transcendent as their reason, but as you can see life has no purpose, I fail to see how more humans mean anything and what you call "healthy" is not very meaningful. biology is purely accidental and we are now overpopulated not because any biological reasons, you can name biology as the reason for anything if you describe all life and everything about life as biological but antinatalists are too. Let's call anything we don't like unhealthy then?

You have no argument but only put a label on anyone who comes to a specific conclusion as unhealthy

Anti-natalism is based to the degree that some humans are just fundamentally broken and shouldn’t reproduce. The problem is that the one’s that recognize this in themselves are capable of having kids with manageable if heavy caveats. Sometimes, even if you can control your mental issues, you fail (suicide, etc.). The other one’s will never recognize this and continue the cycle.

My main issue with anti-natalism is that most of the arguments are for third worlders. Even low class Americans have an ok life compared to the rest of the world.

>>24471002
what is the male circumcision percentage again? 90%?

Nihilism is an understandable place for people to stumble in their self education. It's the second great filter, the second major obstacle you face in your progress, and a lot of people fail to move on from it.

Antinatalism, though, is more like a cul-de-sac of stupidity. If you wind up there you probably weren't going anywhere anyway.

>>24471085
I wasn't circumcised nor was any other male in my family. Circumcision is a choice. Your parents failed, do you intend to fail your children?

>>24469389
All life on this world reproduces mindlessly. Animals bred into captivity just to be slaughtered continue to breed and that is possibly the most macabre, extreme example you could use to justify not breeding. Yet they defy your so-called logical conclusion, because it's not logical at all, it's anti-logic spawned of deep-seated narcissism and maudlin navel-gazing. You project your misery onto the entire species and declare it to be profundity, then in your narcissistic despair you decide it is not enough to simply kill yourself the entire species must commit collective suicide with you, to assuage your ego.

>>24471148
what is the percentage in America? you dodge the question bro

>>24469450
>Anti-natalism is about preventing suffering
No it's not. It's about being mentally ill and having a personality disorder that causes you to be obsessed with violence and misery.

>>24471243
disorder implies there is a normal order of things which isn't true. the only constant is change and suffering, and those like you with Stockholm Syndrome

>>24469430
>There is no ethical symmetry here.
I didn't invoke morals because it isn't a moral question. Only mentally ill people hate children and don't want to procreate.
>I still saw the same warzones, slaughterhouses, and millions barely surviving while the rest of us scrolled past.
The anti-natalist focus on the negatives of life is baffling. Are you expecting your children to end up in a warzone or "slaughterhouse?" (Lol how is that even relevant? Are you a chicken or a pig? Your children are going to be human, not animal livestock).
>And no, being attuned to the suffering built into life isn't "unnatural"
Being a pessimist to the point where you hate human life and want it to end is absolutely unnatural. 99.9999% of human beings throughout history were not like you.
>When you take into account all life on Earth, there's a lot more suffering and destruction than pleasure or beauty.
Not in any way quantifiable. This is just your opinion (again, stemming from your personal focus on suffering), and I disagree.
>If your urge to have children only kicked in after a smoothie and some yoga, maybe it's not a "basic biological imperative".
You missed the point completely. I was in an incredibly unhealthy state - as many modern humans are - and I found my way to good health. Good health IS the natural state. How many wild animals eat industrially-produced, turbo-processed, chemical-laden "foods" and get 0 sunlight for days, weeks, or months at a time? Modernity creates sickness, and we have to take great pains to fight against it. That's just the way of the world these days.
>This is just a cope to pathologize dissent. Anti-natalism isn't a medical condition, it's the result of thinking past your hormones.
No. Your entire post and ideology is derived from your hyper-focusing on the negative aspects of life and flippant disregard for the positives. It isn't based on logic and reason.

>>24471085
>>24471179
You can just not circumcise your sons. Problem solved. Did you really think this was an epic gotcha?

>>24471568
when natalists are stupid it's not a bug but a feature

>>24471350
>disorder implies there is a normal order of things which isn't true
This statement reveals the depth of your dysfunction as a human being.

>>24471179
I don't see the relevance of it. Do you base all your decisions in life on what percentage of the American population opts to do? That seems like a desperate attempt to obviate any and all responsibility for your life, to externalize all morality.

>>24471684
You haven't yet explained why the frequency of circumcision matters at all to your own life decisions.

>>24471688
>Americans live so good
>what is the percentage of mutilation at birth?
>I don't see the relevance. why do you care? bla bla your morality bla bla have you thought about not doing it?
you can't even understand a simple sentence

>>24471686
have you got your dose of escapism, medication, masturbation and alcohol today? I'm sure that's normal in society

>>24471558
Firstly, yes, it absolutely is a moral question. Denying that doesn't make it go away. Morality is precisely what's at stake when you decide to bring a new sentient being into the world, knowing they will suffer and cause more suffering. Trying to reduce anti-natalism to "mental illness" is childish and pathetic. It's a weak attempt to pathologize an old philosophical stance because you can't refute it.
And no, I don't "hate children". That's another worthless strawman. Realizing that life entails inevitable suffering and that creating new life is ethically questionable is not "hatred". If anything, it's closer to compassion.
As for the "warzones and slaughterhouses" line; you're clearly too dense to understand. I'm not saying my hypothetical child will be a pig or a prisoner of war. I'm pointing out that if I create a human, they will suffer and contribute to systems of suffering, directly or indirectly. They'll eat animals, they'll rely on exploitation, their existence will multiply harm. This really isn't hard to grasp.
You keep appealing to emotion with claims like "you hate life!!!", but like I said, I find beauty in nature, art, and rare moments of human decency, but that doesn't mean I ignore the larger picture. I'm not pro-annihilation, but if existence ended painlessly, I wouldn't mourn it. That's not "hatred", it's simply understanding that nonexistence contains no suffering.
Your "99.9999% of people weren't like you" line is just herd instinct dressed up as an argument. Most people throughout history believed in bloodletting, burning witches, etc. too. Truth isn't determined by majority opinion.
"Not in any way quantifiable" is laughable. Just look at factory farms, ecosystems collapsing, systemic violence, chronic illness, exploitation, death, etc. and stack that up against fleeting moments of joy and beauty. Take into account ALL LIFE, not just your selfish, personal experience. If you genuinely believe pleasure outweighs suffering in the grand calculus of existence, you're either stupid, intellectually dishonest, or worse, evil.
The same good health transformation I went through just gave me more clarity, not less. I didn't start ignoring suffering once I felt better, I noticed it more soberly.
Finally, your claim that I "flippantly disregard the positives" is a lie. I clearly acknowledged the positives, I just weigh them honestly. And no, my worldview isn't based on a bad mood. It's based on reality, rational analysis, and a moral commitment not to create avoidable harm. You can't say the same.
So once again: anti-natalism is the most logical, most ethical, and most intellectually honest position. Anything else is either cowardice, delusion, or moral failure.

>>24471243
Cool non-argument meme, anon! I accept your concession.

>>24472055
Proof fedoras are mentally ill and have personality disorders: >>24464057.

Lol.

>>24472055
>Proof antinatalists are mentally ill and have personality disorders: >>24464057
Why waste time debating sad sack retards too dumb to figure out they indoctrinated themselves into the most pathetic cope of an ideology imaginable? Lol.

Your entire schtick revolves around the fact you lost at life! Lol, depressive loser.

Antinatalists look at the 99.9999999999999999% of the universe that is barren rocks and say
>wow! so moral!
And then look at earth and wish it was likewise.

>>24471699
I still do not see the relevance that circumcision has to do with deciding whether life is worth living. You are totally incoherent.

>>24472402
Anti-natalists argue for hours about why life is horrible and not worth living then will perform an Olympic mental gymnastics routine to justify why they haven't committed suicide yet.

>>24471699
>>have you got your dose of escapism, medication, masturbation and alcohol today?
Seriously every post you make just reveals how badly warped your perspective on everything is. It's uncanny. Can you make a single post that doesn't expose your complete mental deficiency?

>>24470567
>I don't see how any antinatalist talk about anythting transcendent as their reason
Anti-natalists believe that the moral goal of removing human pain will still hold true in a universe where humans and human experience doesn't exist. Which means their goal is Transcendent.

>but as you can see life has no purpose
That's nihilism. Which btw is opposed to anti-natalism as well. Because if nothing is meaningful then the purpose of removing human pain is meaningless as well. Having children is as meaningless as not having children. So do what you want.

>Let's call anything we don't like unhealthy then?
I'm not saying that anti-natalists are unhealthy because they believe in anti-natalism. Plenty of healthy people decide to never have children, that child rearing not for them personally. What I'm saying is that the ideology of anti-natalism, which makes not having children a moral imperative, comes from other unhealthy parts of their lives. Misfortune, mental retardation, autism, childhood abuse, depression, not getting enough sunlight, bad diet etc.

>>24470567
>You have no argument but only put a label on anyone who comes to a specific conclusion as unhealthy
Anti-natalists are mentally ill and have personality disorders, retard. This was found in multiple studies where affirmations of anti-natalist beliefs and diagnostics for mental illness and personality disorder were tested independently.

The reason you are antinatalist is that you are mentally ill. The reason you keep making these threads is that you have a personality disorder. The reason you're a retard is that you're incapable of escaping a laughably simplistic ideology no matter how many times you're BTFO ITTs.

If you're so obsessed with suffering why haven't you donated money to any causes or donated your time to those in need? Fuck, instead of jerking yourself off in these pathetic pity party threads you could be at an old age home spending time with the elderly. You don't do that though--you'd rather project you've tallied the sum total of all existence and found it wanting.

Fuck you, retard. Fuck you.

Eternal reminder that suicide is the only intellectually honest logical endpoint of antinatalism. Antinatalists' arguments against suicide are all obvious nonsense and cope.
>erm but it'll hurt my mom's feelings
If your parents did something wrong by bringing you into this world then you have the right to correct that wrong by taking yourself out of this world. If, on the other hand, your parents have the right to obligate you to exist for their own benefit then they didn't do anything wrong by obligating you to exist for their own benefit. And that's not even getting into the fact that any obligation you might have to your parents will obviously end upon their deaths.
>tee hee but I need to spread the word of antinatalism
This point is simple narcissism. You aren't needed for anything. If we concede that it's true then it implies that you can be obligated to exist to prevent harm to others, which reinforces the earlier point that your parents had the right to obligate you to exist and therefore didn't do anything wrong.
>ummmm but death is harmful???
If existence is harmful then death is a release from harm. Even if death is also harmful, it's only one moment of harm compared against several decades of harm. Moreover the harm of death is unavoidable whereas the harm of life may be avoided if you so choose. To die as soon as possible is to endure as little harm as possible, which seems obviously desirable under a worldview that constantly harps on and on about harm.

Anti-natalist anon's survival instinct is of course too strong to honestly consider any of these counter-arguments, but the obvious logical endpoint of his ideology must be exposed to prevent people with more intellectual consistency from falling victim to it.

>>24463139 (OP)
Nihilism is retarded.
Anyone who says otherwise is a faggot.
The end.

>>24463139 (OP)
I fluctuate
I'm not antinatalist but I am a nihilist and have no intention of reproducing
my life is a sorry state
>>24463357
I do wonder if i can fix my life, but I've always been depressed, sort of, even when I lived in a beautiful part of the world and hiked a fair bit, often I'd walk 3 hours a day, up and down hills, I've always eaten healthy, I rode my bike, I was studying something I believed in, I was still depressed and didn't want children, I'd still get overwhelmed and just stay inside sometimes
now I'm just more depressed, don't do anything, and still don't want children
somewhere along the lines I had some hope and wanted children but it faded
some people just shouldn't have children, I think I'm one of them
I look at more dysgenic people than myself, actual idiots who live like slobs, and am disgusted by the fact they have children, and their children are idiots too, it's sad
I also have a big family, honestly fuck that noise, no one seems to enjoy it, but it's rewarding, yet they all look bombed out and tired of it all and complain about it all the time and say with bated breath "oh yeah of course I love them though" idk seems more headache and likely heartache. i'm just not cut out for this world and that's sort of fine even if it sucks

>>24472114
Still not hearing an argument. What you're doing is just a genetic fallacy: attacking the origin instead of the argument. The truth or falsehood of a claim depends on its logical coherence and supporting evidence, not on who makes it. You don't get to dismiss a moral argument because you're uncomfortable with the personality of the person making it. Good ideas aren't invalidated by the mental state of their originators, they're judged by logic, consistency, and evidence. Anti-natalism doesn't ask you to be miserable, it asks you to stop imposing misery, which is the bare minimum of ethical awareness.

>>24472441
>>24472976
see >>24469450

>commit suicide
>some faggot breeds you back in
oh no, I won't die until ALL get sterilized.

>>24463139 (OP)
used to be until I had direct religious experience via a friend.

>>24471558
>re you expecting your children to end up in a warzone or "slaughterhouse?" (Lol how is that even relevant? Are you a chicken or a pig? Your children are going to be human, not animal livestock

this board is dead. you're a child. utterly blind to what it takes to sustain you.

>... We live in a world where the basic interaction is one of feeding off one another, emotionally and physically. Inter-being is inter-eating. If we’re jewels [reflecting off one another], we’re jewels with teeth—and those teeth are diamond-tipped, strong enough to shred other jewels to pieces. This is what it means to be a being, someone who has taken on becoming in a world where other beings have also become and have their sights on the same sources of food.

>>24472966
you're so easily provoked, and stupid to boot.

>If you're so obsessed with suffering why haven't you donated money to any causes or donated your time to those in need?

suffering is an ontological problem, not social, political, or economic. you're like one of those people who thinks omelas is an allegory for sweatshops in asia or something. constitutively incapable of seeing the bigger picture, or beyond your own personal horizon. what makes you like this?

>>24472444
but he's correct. if life were intrinsically good and harmless, and not stressful, impermanent and unsatisfactory, you would never feel the need to distract yourself with sensuality. this is self-evident.

these threads are a repeat of that schopenhauer thread we had some months back where this board collectively shit a gasket when forced to confront the fact that the pleasure of consumption does not outweigh the pain of being consumed.

How many times do we have to have this exaxct thread?

>>24463139 (OP)
I am neutral about it.
I do not plan to reproduce, but I am not particularly bothered by people who do reproduce. I would advise them against reproduction, but it ultimately doesn't matter.
Existence is a problem that will solve itself. Roughly 99.9% of species that ever existed on this planet are already extinct. There have already been several mass-extinction events (yes, even without humans burning fossil fuels). We will likely die in the next.

Even from an individual perspective, human life only lasts a century at best. You have been dead for billions of years before birth, and you will be dead forever after your death. So what difference does it make if you are alive and suffer for a century? The moral thing to do would be to prevent the birth of a child, but even if the child does get born the harm to him is negligible: only one century of suffering at most, compared to an eternity of non-suffering after death. Does it really matter?

>>24472966
>antinatalism is wrong because [ad-hominem], and [what-aboutism], and [ad-hominem]

>>24472467
>the moral goal of removing human pain will still hold true in a universe where humans and human experience doesn't exist. Which means their goal is Transcendent.
you must admit there was a time where you didn't exist (in this form at least) and all problems can come if there is life, not only human life, but life in general. to criticize life you must view it from outside of our experience as living beings, but not necessarily transcendent.

>>but as you can see life has no purpose
>That's nihilism
this comment was about biology in particular, an organism has no purpose or meaning, any moral consideration doesn't matter

>What I'm saying is that the ideology of anti-natalism, which makes not having children a moral imperative, comes from other unhealthy parts of their lives. Misfortune, mental retardation, autism, childhood abuse, depression, not getting enough sunlight, bad diet etc.
this is too complex to generalize - what anti-natalism means for every individual and how they choose to go about what they believe. There's no "real anti-natalism" with a set of actions, you can use this argument for any activity - "It's OK to build Lego of Star Wars ships in your home but if you build Star Wars ships in public you are suddenly insane and it's unhealthy, and all people who say "you should buy Lego" are mentally ill manchildren.

see? you can say anything about anyone using the mental illness label. you can assume any activity to have a deep rooted psychological issue if you try hard enough and there is no healthiness and normalcy standard. All animals are violent, how much violence is normal?

why are antinatalists so miserable? why are they not striving to make the lives of people around them better?
surely making sure that others who suffer the plague of life have a more pleasant, less awful existence is the ultimate good?
and yet every one I ever hear about is wallowing in misery and self-hatred rather than trying to make sure others suffer less while they're on this mortal coil
please answer me, OP
why are you sitting around promoting your ideology moaning about the actions of people you can't control rather than running a soup kitchen or helping people?
if the world is so bad and awful, why are you not improving it?

>>24473341
>why are they not striving to make the lives of people around them better?
>if the world is so bad and awful, why are you not improving it?
Doesn't follow. We may or may not improve things, but the point still stands: it's better to never have been.

>>24473343
so what? you exist, I exist, this is how it is for us
non-existence is infinite goodness, in your eyes, but unattainable for us
but, if we must exist, is it not better to help?
if you had to choose between someone suffering two bad things versus one bad thing, the latter is better, surely?

>>24473345
I do help as much as I can.
What are you trying to say?
This doesn't address anti-natalism in the slightest.

>>24473347
then that's good
my assumption was you were like the bulk of antinatalists I see
I think your whole ideology is wholly irrelevant
people will breed or they won't
I care not

>>24473348
sheesh that was your input?
I thought you were to twist this strive to improve the world of mine into something that could be used as a cudgel against our idea itself.
boring.

>>24473348
sheesh that was your input?
I thought you were to twist this strive to improve the world of mine into something that could be used as a cudgel against our idea itself, but no, just a generalization
boring.

natalists keep falling for what I'm about to start calling the fallacy of the full belly: the assumption that health is internally self-sustaining, self-sufficient. being blind to what it takes for you to survive, day in and day out. all life's in the red, all life is in perpetual debt to itself. only monks, and then maybe only Jains, are in the yellow. mature antinatalism isn't just about fearing what might befall your child if they were born, but also about taking into the account suffering their existence would implicate even if they lived perfectly happy, productive lives. this is a cold, hard fact that can't be remedied by building schools or hospitals or going to the gym.

>>24473350
yeah, sorry to disappoint
I don't have much of a dog in the race
there is not much difference between an antinatalist and someone who just doesn't want children from my point of view
it might be an ideology, but it doesn't say anything beyond "the world is imperfect and that sucks"
which, yes, is something a lot of ideologies can be boiled down to, but that is textually all yours is
"the world sucks, so I choose non-existence"
there is nothing to be reduced to, that's what it is
if you want a cudgel, the best I can do is say that human suffering can be mitigated in a vast majority of cases given more resources or compassion, or less conflict and violence
and that things have improved as time has gone by, and there is no reason that we couldn't reduce human suffering or enhance human pleasure to the point that the good outweighs the bad
as to your point regarding the taking of resources to sustain people, this is true
even in the complete absence of human life, this is so
even without life itself, entropy does the job regardless
at least with life there is a cycle
a man dies and his rotting body feeds the soil in recompense for the animals and plants he ate
he could be a conservationist or scientist and bring or preserve more life than he takes
though, to truly match such that he takes is near-impossible, I imagine

I generalise anntinatalists, it is true, but you generalise the whole of life
by your own ideology, is it not sensible to commit suicide, so that you can minimise your own life-impact, and take less from the world? not that I suggest you do so, but this seems a valid solution for you

>>24473360
there would be nothing to suffer in a lifeless universe, so it's a moot point

>or enhance human pleasure to the point that the good outweighs the bad
even if it were possible, you'd be offsourcing that suffering to the rest of life, since this isn't even conceivable without highly advanced infrastructure l. Again, all you can think about is human pleasure, human suffering, human life. you're embedded so deep into the systems that sustain human life that you don't even see them anymore. the human being is not a closed system.

>>24473365
I specifically mentioned human life because minimising all life suffering is impossible
animals are semi-doable
carnivores need to hunt, and that requires a victim
you could, create artificial meat and put the pieces on some kind of robot programmed to act as a prey animal, and thus solve the issue
but as you mentioned, you'd need advanced infrastructure, which requires displacing animals
and, even if you could perfectly avoid destruction of habitat or disturbing creatures, there's always a deeper level
certain bacteria that requires particular environments to survive
at some point you need to draw the line as to what you care about, beyond which you don't care about suffering
if you don't, then I can understand your position

>>24463357
>Being an anti-prison is like being an anti-lockdown or an anti-cavity search. It goes against a basic carceral imperative that every healthy person has. I went through a phase where I bought into the modern anti-prison propaganda to some degree (like believing that we shouldn't have too many convicts because of overcrowding, or being overly concerned with the difficulty of punishing convicts), but then I fixed my failing health. I changed my diet started exercising regularly, fixed my sleep schedule, started getting more sunlight, and did some other things like shower rape and taking contraband. Suddenly, I felt that drive to do my time and realized that a prison without convicts is an empty one. I threw off the ubiquitous anti-prison propaganda of our culture and embraced cells and yards. Also, I felt vital and happy to be in solitary again for the first time since my teens, and I naturally wanted to share that and the beauty of this prison with my future cellmates. Being focused on the negative aspects of prison is an incredibly unnatural state. Most of us are only in it because of the poisoning of our food system and other destructive post-industrial lifestyle habits like spending all day indoors.
>Tl;dr: Not wanting cellmates is the result of a hormone imbalance. A very small percentage of people can lead happy cellmateless lives.

>>24473367
perhaps "don't care about" was too harsh
rather, "beyond which you won't try to optimise away"

>>24473367
Voluntary human extinction is not feasible. Best we can hope for is cooling down the high entropy boil of civilization back to the low simmer or pastoral/nomadic society. The law of the jungle would be a genuine improvement. Jungles are savage environments but they're nowhere near as energy-hungry or destructive to life as the average modern city.

>>24473379
in such a setting, you would no longer be an antinatalist, correct?
it seems like your position is less about the suffering inherent to existence, and more of a utilitarian view, where existence is okay so long as you put more into the system than you take away

I have been a philosophical anti-natalist for a while, at least in terms of attitude. I don't bring it up offline or discuss it non-anonymously, though. I presume that the world exists and will continue to be populated regardless of anything I do or say, so, there is no purpose in bringing up anti-natalism unless someone is specifically curious about the topic.

I don't hate much of anything, and certainly not life (generally, or my own). My outlook is that this realm of existence is transient by its nature, and that the endpoint is departure. It feels like something to be overcome rather than fully embraced through reproduction.

Avoiding potential suffering is one consideration, but only part of the larger issue, which is that perceived reality in this realm of being is obviously deficient in many different ways. Sort of like a mediocre game which is fine for what it is, but doesn't merit a second playthrough.

>>24473283
>existence is harmful
>i don't want to escape harm though
there's an inconsistency here

>>24473393
what is our purpose here, if this is a kind of middle stage? are we in a waiting room of sorts?

>>24473382
maybe, maybe not. it wouldn't be okay, but it wouldn't be as not okay as it is today, to put it crudely. It helps to think in gradients, and especially goldilocks gradients.

in any case, the mature "antinatalist" religions like Jainism and Buddhism predate the rise of industrial civilization. I hesitate to characterize them as antinatalist, though what motivates them is an overwhelming awareness of life's impact on itself. It's just that their understanding of the problem and solution transcend "just stop having babies, bro." Benatar is impoverished in this regard. What precedes life is a pre-ontological urge to life and becoming. benatar's hamstrung by his rationalism, and indeed he is limited by his desire for non-becoming.

>>24473370
>post-workout exhaustion justifies cosmic suffering
it's just so silly and childish, isn't it?

>>24473403
probably a waiting room or antechamber for those who are able to will themselves to a dimension of the mind that isn't defined by hunger, or the need for external sustenance of any sort.

>>24463139 (OP)
Anti-natalism is a meme ideology like neo-paganism or nihilism or the unabomber. Its goals are purely material which is already cringe but then they also aren't actionable unless you literally have access to all the nukes on Earth and drop as many as is needed to guarantee our extinction. If your ideology has material goals that it can't materially achieve then what's the next step? Turn it into a religion where the only dogmas are "life sucks, kill yourself and take people with you"? The only thing you can produce through antinatalism is suffering and preventing suffering is its supposed foundation. Meme ideology.

>>24473487
>Nanda, I do not extol the production of a new existence even a little bit; nor do I extol the production of a new existence for even a moment.

buddhism is not a meme ideology.

>>24473487
you know what meme means?

>>24473487
>another one confuses anti-natalism and pro mortalism

>>24472036
>Just look at factory farms, ecosystems collapsing, systemic violence, chronic illness, exploitation, death, etc. and stack that up against fleeting moments of joy and beauty. Take into account ALL LIFE, not just your selfish, personal experience.
I assume you're vegan then? Or planning your own suicide? Because that's the only way you could be logically consistent and not be a hypocrite, considering how much suffering you're causing simply by eating meat.

I'm not personally concerned with the suffering of other beings to the point where I would deprive myself or my children of the chance to exist. Life consumes life; that is just the way of the world. I have no problem eating meat, and my children will also be eating it - considering that humans need meat for optimal health. Sounds like you are just a moralfag who hasn't accepted reality. Btw, I don't support factory farming. I just buy local meat from local ranchers who let their cows roam around and eat grass as God intended. You could do the same.

The rest of your comment is just you not understanding (or pretending not to understand) the context of my statements and denying your own emotional appeals, so it's not even worth responding to. Try being intellectually honest if you want to convert people to your gay ideology.
>>24473179
People definitely need a purpose in life. Being healthy is necessary but not sufficient to have a positive attitude and general hope for the future. We need friends, goals, competition (as men), and progression in some actionable skill to be mentally healthy.
>I look at more dysgenic people than myself, actual idiots who live like slobs, and am disgusted by the fact they have children, and their children are idiots too, it's sad
All the more reason to have children yourself and increase the number of intelligent, good-looking people in the world. Too many retards are procreating and the world keeps getting worse. Coincidence?
>>24473312
Again, are you vegan? I don't buy any of these vegan arguments as I already stated above. I don't feel guilty about existing and neither should you. Lions are not immoral for eating gazelles; they are simply following their natural instincts. And if they didn't, they would starve and die a horrible, painful death.

>>24473693
>local meat from local ranchers
>it's just the way it is
>lions eating gazelles
you're a parody of yourself. this is the high water mark of american/ized traditionalism: steak and animal documentaries. kek

>>24473370
>Life is a prison
Again, you can only feel this way if you have the wrong hormones pumping through your body. Take a moment and really examine how insane it is to think the world is a prison. You can literally go outside right now, breathe fresh air, go hunting or skydiving or play a sport - do whatever the fuck you want. How is that in any way comparable to prison?

If your children end up feeling like prisoners then you or your ancestors fucked up somewhere along the way.

>>24473716
>how is that in any way comparable to prison?
Go sit in a secluded area for a month without food or human contact. Your dependence on food and others will become apparent very quickly.

>>24473714
>Replies within 10 minutes of my post
>Says literally nothing of value
Why are you even here?

>>24473720
I don't base my philosophy of life on barbecues. You and those like you are sick and wilfully ignorant. There's no reasoning with your type

>>24473314
>I don't have to donate money to a worthy cause or lend my time at a seniors home because it's "ontological"
As I said: you're a loser who doesn't do fuck all when it comes to alleviating suffering: you fetishize violence and misery and mentally masturbate to them. You're a complete and total loser who failed at life and think you can make that the fault of existence itself instead of taking any initiative that doesn't play into your vulnerable narcissism.
>the bigger picture
That is the big picture when it comes to your life, loser. You pretend you have a moral high ground because you're a pretentious pseud but the reality is you've never done anything for anyone but yourself. Not only are you not a good person you're also a sick and demented one. Not sick and demented in an interesting way--sick and demented in a pathetically annoying way.

You're an idiot. The cope cult of ideology into which you've self-indoctrinated is laughably simplistic and thereby outs you as a dimit to people smarter than yourself. That's about half of the population, midwit. As far as the other half go they can sense something is off and don't want to have anything to do with a creep such as yourself let alone hear the nonsense coming out of his little twerp mouth.

So when I tell you to fuck off don't confuse this with you somehow accepting me. The only argument you have for antinatalism is that annoying, pretentious, self-pitying, pathetic, and unfoundedly condescending faggots like (You) should never have been born.

That's the reality you're in, loser. You can either do something to change it or keep on being swatted just like the insect you in fact are.

>>24473337
>ad-hominem

>>24473983
you talk like a teenager

>>24474002
You behave like one.

>>24474002
You think like one.

>>24474008
I don't accuse people who are under no illusions about life of "mentally masturbating to suffering." you're just a kid, man.

>>24474017
>under no illusions about life
Lol, you're deluded mentally ill losers with personality disorders that have bought into a cult of ideology (and a faggy one at that). Oh, you've got all of existence figured and you can now make grand pronouncements on the way things should be? Yeah, that doesn't sound like angsty teenage childishness at all...
>mentally masturbating to suffering
That's what you retards do. You mentally masturbate to the idea you've weighed the sum total of reality and found it wanting. You pontificate an imaginary moral high ground and when anyone calls out your bullshit you retread to thought terminating cliches "durrr, if I didn't exist 'not bad'".

You're the ideological equivalent of yelling "FUCK YOU MOM, I DIDN'T ASK TO BE BORN" because you were asked to take out the garbage but want to finish listening to some faggy emo album. You're human waste and your nonsense is pure trash.

>>24474038
it has nothing to do with needing to do the laundry or listening to emo music. as I said, you're a child.

Life is very hard. Why would you want to put someone through this for possibly 74+ years? Life is not a gift.

>>24474042
>it has nothing to do with needing to do the laundry or listening to emo music
That's called an analogy, brainlet. You guys are a bunch of faggots who never outgrew their teenage angst.

Again, you think you've weighed the sum total of what it is to exist based on a single book that expresses a simplistic ideology. You then make grand pronouncements concerning the remedy for the human condition and imagine you've found you way to an insurmountable moral high ground. That's teenager behaviour, lol.

>>24474042
Oh, you also imagine yourselves to be highly attuned to human suffering and thereby seeking to alleviate it. Meanwhile, you've never donated money to a worthy cause or donated your time at a seniors home. This is because you're a bunch of pretentious sad sacks who make grand pronouncements about reality solely as an exercise in meaningless mental masturbation that only glorifies your misplaced sense in your character.

>>24474051
Experience is a gift. Most people who have it, don't want to part with it

>>24474249
>inb4 "bad thing happen tho" and "not here not bad!!"

i cant sleep or enjoy anything since im completely consumed by the thought that im going to get seriously ill and die.

all i can wonder is why did i have to be born? idont know what to do anymore, im completely miserable in serious pain constantly.

>>24463139 (OP)
It doesn't particularly matter since humanity is currently testing the antinatalist theory in either case

>>24473403
I don't make any direct epistemic claims about the nature of reality, since I fundamentally don't know. And many aspects may simply be unknowable, due to the embedded nature of perception within the existing system (ie, you can't get a bird's-eye view of a surface from the ground itself, but you also have no apparent means of leaving the ground).

It seems like a lot of anti-natalists tend toward atheism, but I am not. I don't rule out higher purpose or design at all. But I don't adopt specific religious creeds which demand procreation, since I don't see evidence for that particular mandate.

I suspect that once reproduction becomes an active 'choice,' it changes the nature of your interaction with reality. You are no longer simply embedded biologically with your default routines; you can begin to abstract things out a bit and potentially move beyond current reality.

>>24474249
>sleep is a gift. most people who are sleeping, want to keep staying in bed.

Thread reminds me of a post I read somewhere of how as animals we recall the wrongs done to us and the pains in life but the joy and happiness is effervescent and only savored in passing

>>24473716
>Again, you can only feel this way if you have the wrong hormones pumping through your body. Take a moment and really examine how insane it is to think the prison is a prison. You can literally go outside in the yard right now, breathe fresh air, go shanking or raping or play a sport - do whatever the fuck you want. How is that in any way comparable to prison?
>If your future cellmates end up feeling like prisoners then you or your past cellmates fucked up somewhere along the way.