What do you think about Antinatalism, /his/?
Particularly the sorts that value the (albeit peaceful and voluntary) eradication of the human race?
Coming from a secular perspective that cares little for marriage, cultural dominance, faith, etc. I think they bring up good points but like all ideologists are so overwhelmed by the notion that they can actually somehow enforce their ideas. To this sort of Antinatalist I have three main refutations:
1) The only surefire way to enforce antintalism is militarily, through mass sterilization, and that in and of itself poses ethical problems, and people will doubtless slip through the cracks and have as many kids as they damn well please, anyway.
2) If properly enforced, humankind would be destined to a century-long, slow, painful decline in which we sit inside a crumbled infrastructure we can no longer maintain, fighting over remaining resources, going mad with impending doom. If the goal of antinatalism is to prevent suffering, why this?
3) Antinatalists are usually a little smarter than the average population, if a bit depressed and/or crazed. I like to think of it as the negative correlation between intelligence and happiness. One goes up while the other goes down. But shouldn't people who want to prevent suffering and care about brainy ideas be the ones reproducing? As it stands we have so many careless people reproducing. Shouldn't there be more stuck-up intellectuals who don't want kids having kids? That is, if antinatalists want more people who think like them and can enforce their ideology, the surest path is to out-reproduce one's opponents?
>>1378189
/r9k/-tier "ideology" that seems to believe that one meme about being better off never having been alive.
Not really the answer to the population problem.
>>1378193
>/r9k/-tier "ideology
Now gents I want a clean thread that actually analyzes this idea for what it is and doesn't just assign it to a board on this site.
Antinatalism has been around since ancient Greece, and it warrants more consideration than what you're giving it.
By all means, have scorn, though.
PS: They're not trying to solve the population problem, they're trying to solve something a bit grander in scope than that.
Also I forgot my fourth point:
4) Assuming one believes in evolution, life will inevitably arise somewhere else in the universe. What good is the suicide of a species if others will arise? If the process of life is automatic and cumulative, what good can come of destroying it? It makes one think of a man trying to kill a forest of Khudzu with a pair of scissors alone.
Bill Hicks is on that list? Man, I need to rewatch his vídeos, I had the impression that he was joking
>>1378203
Bill Hicks was wound a liiiiiiiiiittle tight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AetJWKjVqOI
>be millionaire
>tall
>muscular
>perfect health
>supermodel gf
>lambo
>stub toe on platinum plated hot tub
>oh shit, I am experiencing suffering, t'would have been better that I never existed at all
>>1378189
For what purpose?
We're the first species with any hope of spreading life on Earth beyond this fragile biosphere, and it probably doesn't have enough time left in it to evolve another one. Indeed, the closest we have to evidence of the divine, is that there's only been four global extinction events, and not four million, given everything we know that can go horribly wrong. We're, in all likelihood, the story of life's last, best chance for survival. Even if we're simultaneously a threat, there's no sign of anyone else stepping up to the plate anytime soon.
As life is the only thing that can make value judgments, it seems judging itself as having negative value is rather self-defeating.
>>1378261
Is that Nujabes?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrO9PTpuSSs
Obviously that sort of joy is relegated, logistically, and by necessity, to very few individuals. Antinatalists instead are focusing on actual massive suffering, both preventable (war etc.) and unavoidable (natural disaster, disease).
A better refutation of Antinatalism might be that technology will eventually develop to such a level that most of today's pains will be preventable.
>>1378261
None of those things are actually a benefit over nonexistence nor anything intrinsically positive, pleasure is just the temporary absence of suffering.
>>1378389
Suffering is just the temporary absence of pleasure.
>>1378393
But that's not how human consciousness works, the default state of an unentertained nervous system is boredom, which is a form of suffering.
So if I understand correctly Antibatalism is the belief that reproduction is wrong because it brings suffering to the birthed?
What if their happiness? Without suffering there cannot be happiness, and without happiness there cannot be suffering. To only consider the one is akin to the blind men describing the elephant.
>>1378400
Still temporary.
>>1378409
Because of a fundamental asymmetry between pleasure and pain and existence/nonexistence.
https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2013/02/11/benatars-asymmetry/
David Benatar spells the argument out in BNTHB, a summary can be read from the above link.
Antinatalists are just latent helicopter parents who can't get laid. I'm glad they don't reproduce.
>>1378425
What of nature? Do antinatalists feel an obligation to the world at large in the same sense that perhaps a utilitarian would? In that sense should reproduction be measured case by case as to whether it is good, or bad?
>>1378203
Why do Americans consider comedians to be public intellectuals?
>>1378400
>default state is boredom.
>>1378443
Americans in general believe that people's thoughts are valuable whether they're intellectual in the academic sense or not. We have frequently chosen to distinguish "book smarts" from "street smarts."
It sounds crude and dumb, but trust me, it's a useful and egalitarian way of looking at people. That is not to say we lend credence to any moron, but rather that we give people a chance. We also respect humor, sincerity, and autodidacticism.
Of course I'm talking out of my ass and so are you and "Americans" aren't any one way, collectively
Anyway, consider Diogenes. He's pure vulgar street comedian and yet is remembered as an influential philosopher. He is both these things.
Anyway words like "intellectual" and "pseudo-intellectual" carry a lot of baggage and tend to say more about the motives of the person using the word than the properties of those to whom the word is being applied.
>>1378464
I know little of Diogenes other than he was a "smelly, homeless dude who talked shit to Alexander the Great after his dad's money laundering scheme failed which he may, or may not, have been aware of."
For that reason I find it difficult to think of him as anything other than an aspie who people found intriguing.
>>1378476
True.
And yet, the example Diogenes sets helps answer your question does it not?
People respect crude cunning and street smarts because of its immediate short term ramifications.
For this reason comedians are treated as intellectuals
>>1378490
I am not >>1378443.
Although I can see how one would view Diogenes, and only see how "free" he is. Americans do tend to view outlaws and vagabonds with a sort of mix between disdain, envy, and admiration in my experience. Just look at how romanticized Cowboys, bikers, mobsters, carnies, soldiers, etc are. Pretty much doing anything only because you want to, and damn the consequence, is part of the "American Dream".
>no mention of the most famous antinatalist of all time
What do you think the total IQ is of everyone in this thread?
>>1378520
>You don't know something that I do!
>That means I'm smarter than you!
Learn the difference between knowledge and intelligence please.
>>1378520
>Rust Cole
>Edgy Antinatalist Sherlock.
lol
Let the children of the natalists claw at each other in the filth, eating mud for it's moisture, like it's Hell on Earth, I'll be long gone.
>>1378581
*dibs bedora*
>>1378274
>might be that technology will
It might. But not at it's current rate, and given our priority toward instant gratification/profit. Suffering is money.
Literally "I don't life so we shouldn't have it"
>>1378199
>they're trying to solve something a bit grander in scope than that.
Nah, muh potential suffering is emo bullshit that proves too much.
I was an Antinatalist when I had severe depression. that's all I ever need to know about the ideology.
Why is the reduction of suffering at all cost an honourable goal?
Anyway, this ideology will never amount to anything because the cultures and classes that subscribe to it are doomed to extinction. What's more, their numbers will be replaced by breeders in a few generations, so they wont even succeed in reducing the number of people in the world, they can only decide it won't be their people.
It's essentially moot.
It's for people who didn't find Nihilism only edgy enough.
>>1378189
Life's little problems cause more suffering than life's little joys cause happiness, and the suffering lasts longer, and is recalled more often.
It is even worse when considering huge tragedies and the happiest celebrations, the first ones often destroying lives, causing decades of depression and misery, while the latter are a flash, often forgotten, seldom remembered.
Since every person cause, experience, and be a part of more unhappiness than happiness in his life, birth is a net loss. Every birth brings more unhappiness than it brings happiness, and thus it is best for people to not be born.
Still though, I am not going to kill myself any time soon. Rather I am working at being an exception, avoiding pain and suffering and unhappiness, avoiding risk and stress, even at the cost of a slow, dull life.
I find I am happy about as often (or rarely) as unhappy, and most of the time I am pleasantly content, without any strong emotion, with my simple, plain, gray status quo.
>>1378189
It's really kind of pointless and stupid 2bh
>all these people getting upset and spewing insults simply because they don't like it
I really wish reddit would leave.
OP, I believe that antinatalism is most definitely a rational and logical stance. It's something I am a strong advocate for. Why must humans continue forcing others into this world, if only to avail nothing aside from the continuation of the human race, which itself only ensures the continuation of the human race? It's a vicious and purposeless cycle. For without finality, purpose cannot exist, as purpose is naught but then end of which the means are intended to reach. All of this suffering which has ultimately ended in no sort of gain.
>inb4 muh happiness sometimes dudeeeee
Anyone who says this should seriously never attempt to engage in any kind of intelligent discussion again. The possibility of happiness is outweighed my the possibility of suffering, as happiness is ultimately not needed. By preventing existence from occurring, you prevent the possibility for both suffering and happiness. But a nonexistent being has no desire, no consciousness. They aren't even there. So it cannot be argued that "potential happiness" is a justification for forcing another being into the world.
So, lets say I create a strong AI
If she (lets say "its" a girl) doesnt have the ability to feel pain; everything is cool.
If she does, then I just forced an artificial life to suffer?
How could I know for sure that she will suffer? How could I know that the way/strenght of her suffering will be equal to my experience? Maybe she has more or less tolerance. Maybe she enjoys the learning that this suffering brings; and overcoming the suffering is the goal in her life (solving a paradox with a paradox?)
It assumes suffering is evil without good cause.
>>1379057
Wouldn't the same possibilities apply to suffering? So denying someone happiness because in your words:
>They might suffer dudddeee
Is just as wrong?
I don't agree with it cause the main line of reasoning seems to be that you shouldn't bring people into the world primarily because of the suffering involved. I don't consider suffering to be an objection to life. If anything if this world became a meaningless hedonistic pleasure dome (seems to be headed that way in some places) I would find that far more objectionable.
>>1378189
>good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering
no, everyone who isn't retarded knows this is impossible.
Good parents will teach their children how to deal with suffering in a healthy way.
>>1379272
No. Again, why should a nonexistent being, simply an idea, need happiness? You aren't denying anyone anything, as "they" do not and will never exist. But if you force them into existence, they will exist, and they WILL suffer.
>>1378189
If these anti-natalist pricks believed what they say, they'd kill themselves. They don't, thus proving them to be edgelord faggots.
Sure, life is full of suffering, but it's STILL better than the alternative.
>>1379491
>better than the alternative
No.
>>1379503
Death is better? So Anon is kind of right. Why don't you kill yourself? Not even memeing.
>>1379446
The only part of this philosophy that baffles me is the reasoning behind why it takes a stance against reproduction. A utilitarian would say that it depends on the world population, the education of the parents, their wealth, etc. Your philosophy seems to just spout that kids are bad because people suffer, and kids are people; however, people also do good for themselves, and the world at large. Shouldn't reproduction itself be a neutral act, and the actual raising of the child be the morality that is measured?
>>1379552
Not even an argument. That's always the only thing you people say.
>le just kill yourself
It's tiring. Either engage in the argument, or leave.
>>1379566
>forcing someone into existence sor no reason other than to "validate" your own and continue this meaningless cycle of suffering
This is inherently immoral.
>>1379559
I have the right to do as I please as granted to me by nature. That is selfish, but as an absurdist I view the world as orderly due to the individual chaos. The only way I can see bringing a child into the world as evil is if the child would negatively impact the world. I'm certainly not encouraging over reproduction, or abuse of a child. I just fail to see how a philosophy that claims to be against suffering can be so hard line as to argue with others which ironically causes them some small amount of suffering on the basis of whether someone else should have a child.
>>1379491
>but it's STILL better than the alternative
The fact that you say this means you don't understand the argument at all. You must think people exist in some void somewhere waiting to be born.
>>1379576
You're making assumptions. What if my reasoning is to give someone else a life, and hopefully a better one? Am I still immoral for trying? How? Why?
>>1378189
I cannot wrap my mind around it. Life is pretty great and the only part about it I disagree with is the dying part.
>>1379573
It wasn't an argument, sit. It was a legitimate question to someone who claims that death is better than life. Thank you for answering.
If your relatives will suffer anyway hen does it matter how they suffer if you suicide?
>>1379600
Would I truly be the cause of their suffering? I certainly wouldn't be the one abusing my own child.
>>1379605
Yes. Are you not the one who forced them into the world? Without existence, one cannot suffer.
>>1379559
mere reproduction has literally nothing to do with morality.
>>1379612
Not an argument
>>1379611
I cannot think of it as anything other than a neutral act because I measure the intent as much as the end result.
I am an absurdist with some utilitarian beliefs. I do not claim to have the answers, if I can claim even one; however, I'd like to explain my stance.
As I stated I have utilitarian beliefs concerning morality. I believe the most moral action is that which brings the most joy, and the least suffering. In an overpopulated world, or in a disagreeable situation such as joblessness, poverty, etc I certainly agree that purposely having a child is an immoral action; however in the opposite conditions I view it as a good action.
In a world that is neither over not under populated, in conditions agreeable, but not in the extreme, I would call it a good action because, assuming it was consensual, the child immediately brings joy to at leaf TWO people even at the expense of the one( the child's, assuming it knows only suffering).
>>1379583
No, I think the fact that anti-natalists don;t kill themselves proves that they don't actually believe what they say. If bringing a person into existence is such a terrible thing to do, why don't they ill themselves? Is it because NOT existing would be worse?
>>1379629
The end result literally does not matter. At the very beginning, you forced them into the world without regard for their suffering. You're a cunt any way you look at it. Your sins don't just get absolved out of nowhere.
>>1379613
I just agree with >>1379613
Mere reproduction seems a biological imperative rather than something one can simply choose to do, or not to do. I understand that we are not driven to literally have babies with the first woman that allows us, but to say we are not driven to reproduce at a subconscious level is foolish. Are we inherently evil?
>>1379569
If you believed what you say, you would kill your relatives to "spare" them the "misery" of existence.
>>1379629
>I believe the most moral action is that which brings the most joy, and the least suffering.
What if the action that brings the most joy also brings the most suffering?
They are not mutually exclusive you know.
>>1379655
but what about my relatives' relative ?
>>1379650
Aha! Now you are insulting me over what I hoped was a civil discussion. Are you not causing me suffering with intent?
We can agree to disagree on reproduction as most philosophers do.
How do antinatalist feel about one's actions once one exists? How is morality then measured beyond not reproducing?
>>1379650
>you forced them into the world
simultaneously this implies that they existed before they entered the world and that they were better off not being better off cause they didn't exist.
You are attempting to qualify non-existence in terms that imply existential quality.
>it's always been this way, and everyone does it, so it must be good
being a natalist is literally wishfull thinking, you don't actually have any argument besides morbid "tradition" to continue yourself until the end of times
>>1379677
impressive mental gymnastics
>>1379656
Then I must measure the intent to determine if the action was good, or bad.
>>1379647
Because I want to live
If someone enjoys rape does that make all rape okay?
Should people go on raping cause some people might enjoy it?
Should people murder cause some people might want to be killed?
So then why should you force people to exist in the world cause some people might enjoy it?
>>1379679
Who are you speaking to? Is this straw manning?
>>1379677
>this implies that they existed before
What? No. It implies that they didn't exist before.
>>1379699
>So then why should you force people to exist in the world cause some people might enjoy it?
Because those that don't are free to kill themselves.
>>1379701
then prove me wrong, i'm just depressed dude waiting for someone to show me how deluded i am
>>1379664
I doubt you're suffering, and even if you were, I don't really care. Anyone who forces others into existence is an asshole imo.
>>1379708
>I'm deppresed
>therefore, other people shouldn't exist
Infantile narcissism. If you hate life that much just kill yourself. Don't pretend you have altruistic motives because you don't, most people enjoy life.
>>1379692
What makes you so sure your measurements are reliable?
Assuming you have ever been wrong before at least once, it seems clear to me that human judgement is most fallible. We are incapable of knowing the full and complete scope of our actions, and are therefore incapable of truly measuring their consequences.
This is the biggest mark against Utilitarianism for me, we can never truly be certain that our actions will actually produce a greater amount of good than bad. We are of a certain essential ignorance.
>>1379703
How could you ever apply force to that which does not already exist?
>>1379708
I can't offer you objective proof in a world I cannot even prove exists outside of my perception, sir. Prove to me you're real.
>>1379716
For someone who seem to loathe suffering so much you sure are trying to cause me grief. It appears antinatalists may actually just hate babies going by your example.
>>1379707
What about the suffering they cause on their families and friends by dying?
No one is ever simply "free to kill themselves"
>>1379726
A fairly reasonable argument. Can we agree it is then a neutral action if it caused equal suffering and pleasure?
>>1379741
What a pathetic excuse. People die all the time, your relatives will get over it. Claiming "I have to keep living for my family" is pure narcissism, it's just a lame excuse to not have to go thru with the edgy philosophy you claim to follow.
>>1379559
life is good, therefore creating life is good
>>1379742
Makes sense.
>>1379726
The matter with which to create it exists, sure, but the consciousness itself does not. Please, no more memes
>>1379749
life is bad
creating bad things is bad
creating life is bad
>>1379749
>life is good
(citation needed)
>>1379769
>life is bad
Kill yourself then. The solution to your "problem" is within your grasp.
>>1379772
>Goodness is a human construct
>Goodness exists
>therefore, human life is at least partially goodf
>>1378209
Topkek
>>1378189
>Antinatalists
>not killing themselves immediately to further their beliefs
>In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
The alternative, whether you are speaking of life or the universe, is nothing.
Now, I get where you might say an individual's suffering is so great he may not be able to go on, or that someone is causing so much suffering he needs to die - or even a group of someones - or even that you may not wish to bring another child into the world for fear that it would do more harm than good...
...But when you take anti-natalism to a genocidal conclusion, and say the universe would be better off with no life in it at all... Well, at that point, while yes, you are eliminating the potential for suffering, you are also eliminating the potential for good, and everything inbetween... In addition to eliminating the only mechanism by which the universe may be judged.
Not to mention tossing away the efforts of countless generations that fought against all odds to bring us here.
It seems, to destroy the effort of a billion years plus of struggle, ya better have some better reasoning than "suffering=bad".
>>1379848
>ya better have some better reasoning than "suffering=bad".
Especially given that there are mechanisms within the universe to alleviate suffering, such as meditation, drugs, masturbation, and drugs.
>>1379871
No simple biological function carries moral weight, it's not immoral to digest food, poop, or give birth.
>If a rapist rapes someone and then the person he rapes gets their memories of the rape erased that doesn't make rape a good thing.
We punish rape because it's tremendously dysgenic, the act of rape is what is bad, the awful memories are just a consequence, not an evil in themselves. So while it would be nice for the rapee to have the trauma erased from her mind, the raper is still the moral evil in this scenario.
>>1379848
>also eliminating the potential for good, and everything inbetween... In addition to eliminating the only mechanism by which the universe may be judged.
>Not to mention tossing away the efforts of countless generations that fought against all odds to bring us here.
So why should anyone care about this? Why is the "struggle" (read: mindless and unempathetic fucking without birth control that results in, when put into cosmic perspective unimaginably vast amounts of, needless suffering and death) something to be continued?
>>1379881
How does this differ from procreation?
>>1379887
>How does this differ from procreation?
The element of choice-- which is tied intimately to evolutionary fitness-- is circumvented. t is thus a perversion of the natural order.
>>1379905
>natural order
Yawn.
>>1379913
Violation of nature is one of the core foundations of morality.
>>1379921
Are you always this cryptic?
>>1379924
What's cryptic about that? We're talking about whether life is good, good is a human concept founded in morality, one of the sources of human morality is the natural order. This is why things like homosex, zoophilia and incest are considered moral concerns while preferences in art or music are not.
>>1379573
No, it's a logical endpoint of your line of thought.
You just fool yourself into thinking you are spared because "i will somehow minimise my suffering or shit".
But in the end, antinatalism exists in such a retarded area of negative utilitarianism, vague statements and buzzwords, it's not even funny.
Or maybe stop being a pussy and accept things sometimes suck, but the good is worth it.
If it wasn't they'd have killed themselves already.
>>1379921
>Violation of nature is one of the core foundations of morality.
A lotta primates eat their babies... And the ability to rape suggests a certain degree of determination and physical fitness. The "natural order" is a pretty shit moral foundation. If anything, morality largely entails temperance and redirection of natural tendencies.
>>1379932
Natural order arguments are totally baseless, they make appeals to a dubious state of time that likely never existed in the first place-- and if it did, it's a totally arbitrary period to found our beliefs from. You can construct moral arguments without any "natural order" appeal
>>1379887
>So why should anyone care about this?
Because the alternative is no one can care about anything at all.
And all things being equal as a result, one may has well go with the instinctive inclination and continue it, if for no other reason than that there'll be someone around to see the end result.
At least life can strive to find or create a point to it all... But with no life to give rise to consciousness and to make such judgements, there's, effectively, nothing at all.
>>1379994
>And all things being equal as a result
But they're not, do you breathe through your mouth?
>>1380007
When you're left with nothing, all things are equal.
This is good.
People who are too weak in the mind and body to overcome suffering (signals created by their bodies) and choose to not reproduce will slowly change Humans into a stronger species, unafraid of suffering or pain and thus no longer opposed by the illusory limitations that our own bodies impose upon us, our unresting triumphant will shall lead us to an inevitable (slow) ascension to universal domination. Eugenics can also speed up the process.
If antinatalists want to see mankind go extinct they oughta start with themselves
>>1380032
That's an awfully positive outlook.
Alternatively, it's not a good sign when your society is causing numerous individuals to not only form the opinion that the world would be better off if everyone was dead, but also to defend said defeatist opinion.
(Also eugenics bad, ya lose way too many opportunities for advancement that way and open yourself to the vulnerabilities caused by genetic homogenization.)
>>1380032
>philosophy is genetic
>ability to overcome suffering is entirely genetic
That's total pseudoscience, friend
>>1380101
The more successful this philosophy becomes the more doomed it is (nonbelievers tend to resist being forcefully sterilized, who knew).
Anti-natalism is however beneficial as those who cannot overcome struggle willingly choose death without offspring.
Humans don't naturally just kneel over when faced with adversity. The species has usually persevered and become stronger because of it. Otherwise we wouldn't have humans. Unfortunately those who give up will continue to be born, but with time their numbers will decrease as the suffering proves to be more then they can handle.
>came into this thread thinking it was about anti-nationalism
>wrong
>read posts
>wtf am I reading
>realize this is just /his/ version of tfwnogf
The only antinativist argument I cant seem to counter is the argument against having a child when one could adopt. That is, it's unethical to bring a child into the world when there are so many abandoned, suffering children ripe for the picking, so to speak.
What does /his/ think about this?
>>1380446
If you're going to spend the time and money raising a child, why make it someone else's and not your own?
>>1380471
Right but what does it mean for a child to be your own? The obvious answer is genetics, but why does that matter beyond some primal, reptilian urge?
>>1378199
>they're trying to solve the population problem
There is no population problem. When will you retards get it through your skulls. Population of nations stagnate over time. The more developed they are, the less kids will be had. The reason so many have children in poorer countries is half od them will die before adulthood. The reason developed countries have so little is less stress and financial burden on the parents. That's it.
>>1379887
>when put into cosmic perspective
LOL
>>1380536
>There is no population problem.
Yeah, carrying capacities are a Marxist/Satanic myth.
>>1380584
Satanists believe that having children, and as many as possible, is the single highest responsibility of a male. Only that said male isn't supposed to care about anyone or anything outside of his family, unless it of direct benefit to him or said.
Marx opposed and criticized the Malthusian theory of population, so wrong there too.
And while it is a myth, to a degree, only in nations where women's lib is a thing does the population stabilize or decrease, as there is every financial motive against having children as a result. Even in such instances though, population *concentration* remains a problem, as near everyone ends up working in the same key population centers, and globally, even raw population will one day be a problem. Though, one way or the other, it will take care of itself - it's just a matter of how unpleasant said correction will be.
The level of antinatalism OP is describing, however, calls for the end of all life so as to prevent suffering, which is quite another can of artist's shit.
Parents don't act in their children's best interests, they act in the specie's
>/thread
>>1381131
>specie's
>>1381143
>anons's
>>1379559
Suffering isn't wrong, therefore bringing someone into a life that will include suffering isn't wrong
Extinctionist antinatalists have an ideology incompatible with the construction of the Machine. They want everyone dead before we can get off the planet, and that's just sad.
What's a few billion years of suffering for a few trillion (or eternity) of fun?
