What do you make of antinatalism?
Personally I agree with it, and practice antinatalism (I don't, and wont have children).
Human life is fundamentally bad. We are biological machines who must constantly struggle to maintain bodily homeostasis (of warmth, ph, blood pressure, hydration, blood glucose, etc, etc,), and we must also constantly struggle to maintain our mood, which relies on things like self-esteem, social contact, having things to look forward to, etc, etc.
If we don't maintain all these things within a narrow range, we will suffer. Eventually we will die. Even if we maintain perfectly we will eventually die anyway.
Essentially, life involves a perpetual struggle to avoid suffering. What we are rewarded with, for this struggle is not pleasure but rather a state of "not feeling bad". This soon turns into boredom, which must be struggled against. If you want to experience pleasure you must first struggle to maintain homeostasis, and then work to produce pleasure. Pleasure is not guaranteed in life, only suffering. The amount of suffering in life far outweighs the pleasure. Children cannot consent to being born. Non-existence children are not harmed by not being born. Non-existent children are not suffering, which is a good thing. We should leave them with their non-existence. There's no need to disturb them. The prevention of suffering is a far greater concern than the production of pleasure. For example we should give starving people food rather than entertainment, and people would think you're mad for doing the other way round. This should also apply to our thoughts about having children. It is more important to prevent our children from suffering, than it is to have them experience pleasure. Therefore we should not have children at all, because it prevents EVERY experience of suffering that a child would have. And because the child does not exist, they are not harmed by not experiencing pleasure. Because they can't feel deprivation.
people can suicide if they want so there is no need
>>953457
well that's like saying confining people to concentration camps in ww2 wasn't wrong because they could have suicided if they wanted to
I'm not talking about suicide, I'm talking about STARTING a life.
>>953451
>life is bad because it just leads to death anyway
"Why fix your car if it's just going to break again?" Because it's the same stupid reasoning. It's better to have lived and lost then to never have lived at all.
Life was never about the destination it's always been about the journey. How do people like you even find the will to live? I seriously don't understand.
>>953522
That reasoning is just as ridiculous as the antinatalist stance. The truth is that life is a horrible, absurd and violent existence with no meaning save only what we give it.
>>953583
What's the problem with my reasoning?
>The truth is that life is a horrible, absurd and violent existence with no meaning save only what we give it.
what sort of horrible violence have you personally encountered in your daily life?
>>953583
Absurdity and violence should be embraced senpai.
Antinatalism is a problem that eats itself anyway
>>953451
The way I figure it, regardless of whatever balance of pleasure or pain a person gets, their parents will never have the right to force somebody to exist against without their consent, and they can never consent
>>953598
The fact that you think your reasoning is any better than the one your arguing against. Life isn't a journey or some aspiration for greater thing, it just is and we all have to deal with it.
>>953451
>For example we should give starving people food rather than entertainment, and people would think you're mad for doing the other way round.
This example you give is counter to your point. If it's really better to avoid suffering than it is to experience pleasure, you should kill the starving people and not feed them. But as you say, most "people would think you're mad for doing" that.
Anti-natalism is less a coherent philosophy and more a collection of self-serving aphorisms for sad people. The common claim "no one consents to being born and therefore being born is bad" is retarded. People don't have an existence before they are born, therefore there is nothing that is capable of giving consent, and so no rights have been violated since there isn't anything to have those rights until after the human is born.
The fixation on suffering is a symptom of narcissism. Anti-natalists can't square what >>953457 said. For 99% of humans, if their suffering becomes too intense, they have the option of killing themselves, and yet 99% of humans don't kill themselves. Anti-natalists project their own feelings onto the whole of humanity, when it's pretty clear the rest of humanity doesn't feel the same way.
Interestingly enough, I've never known an anti-natalist who killed themselves. The prevention of suffering is so important, yet when it comes to the obvious way to prevent their own suffering, they somehow determine that, naw, they can deal with a little suffering, it's not so bad.
>>953522
how did you get that from my post?
life is bad not just because we die, it's bad because it's filled with a shitload of suffering, for some people life is literal hell
>>953634
>"life is bad not just because we die, it's bad because it's filled with a shitload of suffering"
>hasn't killed themselves to prevent their own suffering
>>953626
>The fact that you think your reasoning is any better than the one your arguing against
"your argument is bad because I say it is"
>Life isn't a journey
Yes it is?
>or some aspiration for greater thing
When did I say this? I literally said that it wasn't about the end but how you get there that is meaningful. We are mostly in agreement and it seems like you just enjoy disagreeing with people.
>>953477
the nazis were denying jews a better life and freedom outside the concentration camps, that is why it was wrong
starting a new life is different, there is no alternative to reality and they have to exist first before choosing whether they want to live in this reality
>>953629
>This example you give is counter to your point. If it's really better to avoid suffering than it is to experience pleasure, you should kill the starving people and not feed them. But as you say, most "people would think you're mad for doing" that.
it's just an example of why the *prevention* (note I said prevention, not cessation) of suffering is more important than te creation of pleasure. Of course the best of all possible scenario is for the starving people to have never been born in the first place.
Sure you might say well killing them would *prevent* their future suffering, but again it's just an example lets not get too off track. But to address the killing, once people are already alive it's not up to me to make life and death decisions for other people without their consent. It would only be good to kill the starving people if they gave consent to it, and could not do it themselves (as killing someone would make ME suffer).
Yes the point here is that from the antinatalist perspective death is not a bad thing. But also consent is taken seriously (hence the non ability of pre-children to consent to being born is a big argument for antinatalism), so we can't just go around killing people (even though, yes, it would end their suffering (although it might hurt).
> People don't have an existence before they are born, therefore there is nothing that is capable of giving consent, and so no rights have been violated since there isn't anything to have those rights until after the human is born.
fair point but ""no one consents to being born and therefore being born is bad" " is not all antinatalism is. The consent issue is but one argument among many for why we shouldn't have children.
The most important argument is that people are not insignificantly harmed by being born - some people greatly. majority of lives contain a fair amount of suffering , the worst contain unimaginable. The fact that your child WILL suffer, is why he shouldn't be born
>>953634
But anon, how can you understand what is bad without knowing what is good? Surely life must have some good in it for you to be capable of understanding why other times it's not good.
>>953629
>The fixation on suffering is a symptom of narcissism. Anti-natalists can't square what >>953457 said. For 99% of humans, if their suffering becomes too intense, they have the option of killing themselves, and yet 99% of humans don't kill themselves. Anti-natalists project their own feelings onto the whole of humanity, when it's pretty clear the rest of humanity doesn't feel the same way.
>Interestingly enough, I've never known an anti-natalist who killed themselves. The prevention of suffering is so important, yet when it comes to the obvious way to prevent their own suffering, they somehow determine that, naw, they can deal with a little suffering, it's not so bad.
This sort of angry, whiny "insult the antinatalist", 'jus kill urself' response seems to be so common among the reactions to the philosophy. I wonder what drives it? I suspect people find it easier to simply attack the person who argues that life might not be all great, than it is to consider what they're saying, or at least accept the possibility.
People find it quite firghtenening -the idea that life might not actually completely be a beautiful gold and chocolate coated gift - that to merely consider the possibility is simply too much for them. It's just easier to write off whoever is making the suggestion as mentally ill, narcissistic, cowards - really anything, so long as it's suffuciently 'othering' enough of the antinatalist that he can be written off in ones mind.
It's a sort of defensive attack, and I see it quite a lot. You lash out in order to protect yourself from the harm of comprehending that you were wronged by being brought into existence. The sanctity and purity of life must be protected at all cost.
>>953648
We aren't in agreement on anything, I'm making a simple point that seems to be going over your head. Life just is, there's no meaning to it and any view on how it should be is just as valid and equally ridiculous as the next one because human perspective is completely irrelevant in the face of existence. If all human life were to simply be extinguished it would have no effect whatsoever to the universe, so whether or not we exist or we don't is irrelevant and antinatalism is just a good a viewpoint as any.
The problem I have with anti-natalism is that it assumes that suffering is inherently evil, and that there's nothing about life that outweighs the suffering present within it. But the fact is, there's nothing inherently evil about suffering; indeed, what causes us suffering can actually make us greater for it (or in the case of existence, makes us at all). Further, the idea that there's nothing about life that outweighs its suffering is self-evident in that most people choose to live it out to its end rather than terminate themselves.
>>953686
Your absolutely right about the reasoning for the negative reaction. Though I'm not an atheist myself I know it's also the reason why so many people and institutions attack the viewpoint, the thought of there not being life after death absolutely terrifies people just as the idea of life not being a good thing scares them shit less.
>Human life is fundamentally bad.
If that's the case, why are you still alive? Aren't you living proof that this is false?
Also, you don't seem familiar with the is-ought gap
>>953657
>The fact that your child WILL suffer, is why he shouldn't be born
This goes back to the whole narcissism and projecting thing. Since everyone suffers in their life, why isn't everyone an anti-natalist by default? It's because most people don't have a negative utilitarian outlook on life. They would say that their good experiences are greater than or more important than their negative ones. Therefore they don't see having children as an immoral act. It's the anti-natalist's misanthropic opinion they project on the whole of humanity. Who are you to say that decreasing person X's suffering is more important than increasing person X's pleasure?
Another problem with anti-natalism is that it's weirdly fatalistic. When confronted with the existence of suffering, the normal response is to try and prevent that suffering, to remove the factors that are causing the suffering. Not to eliminate the people who experience the suffering. This is why as a species we didn't just give up when we encountered the first disease, but instead worked to treat diseases. Wouldn't the more optimal solution be to work with others towards making the world a less terrible place than fatalistically being resigned to it?
>>fair point but ""no one consents to being born and therefore being born is bad" " is not all antinatalism is. The consent issue is but one argument among many for why we shouldn't have children.
The argument is so bad you shouldn't be using it.
>>953690
You seem to not understand my point then. I never said their was some "greater purpose," and that is why the journey is important and not the end. I guess we aren't in full agreement though, because I believe their is a meaning to life. The purpose of life is to live. This is simply realized from the fact that living is better than non-living and existence is generally good. This worldview of mine is in complete opposition with antinatalism. But the problem with antinatalists is that they believe life and suffering are one and the same which is simply not the case. Living is good, suffering is bad, stop acting like all life is suffering.
>>953451
kill yourself then.
>>953686
The 'jus kill urself' response is valid and it's entirely unsurprising that you didn't actually confront the argument. Antinatislism has two main premises, that life is suffering and that it is better to prevent suffering than increase pleasure. That applies to all human life, even the life of the antinatalist who holds those views. This means that you suffer and that it's better to prevent your suffering than it is to increase your pleasure. Not existing would reduce your suffering to zero, therefore suicide is the antinatalist's optimal course of action.
But, no, for some reason antinatalists continue to persist in living a life they consider to be unacceptable and that they resent for even having. This is nothing but pure hypocrisy.
OP is retard. Life is hard for him. He suffer much. Wow. :(
>>953704
Trying to find meaning in the journey is a greater purpose. Life is neither good nor bad, just as death and nonexistence is neither good nor bad for they both exist in the same context. Life is suffering for every moment of joy is fleeting, the instant your born entropy starts setting in and life in a nutshell is about managing the terror of death, culture is built around mitigating the fear of death and nonexistence by giving meaning to life where it has none. However suffering is not necessarily bad, it just is.
>>953718
Why do you have to bully OP?
2. Death is nothing to us; for that which has been dissolved into its elements experiences no sensations, and that which has no sensation is nothing to us.
5. It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and honorably and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and honorably and justly without living pleasantly. Whenever any one of these is lacking, when, for instance, the man is not able to live wisely, though he lives honorably and justly, it is impossible for him to live a pleasant life.
21. He who understands the limits of life knows that it is easy to obtain that which removes the pain of want and makes the whole of life complete and perfect. Thus he has no longer any need of things which involve struggle.
Why the fuck are you worrying about any of that? Help others when you can, live simply, grow a garden, have friends over for dinner and conversation, and chill out buddy.
>>953713
>The 'jus kill urself' response is valid
It would be valid argument to a 5-year old and since your saying it's valid that must imply your have the reasoning of a 5-yeard old. I'll tell you the same thing that Thales said when confronted with the exact same question: "There's no fucking point."
>>953659
god the amount of times I've heard this retarded argument...
>you need to know what good is before you comprehend you're suffering
>a life of unimaginable pain wouldn't be bad for the sufferer if they had never experienced pleasure before
>>953695
>Further, the idea that there's nothing about life that outweighs its suffering is self-evident in that most people choose to live it out to its end rather than terminate themselves.
is like saying if you sat through the entirety of adam sandlers "jack and jill" then you self-evidently think the movie was more good than bad
>>953744
>"There's no fucking point."
Interesting. "There's no fucking point" in reducing your own suffering, but reducing the hypothetical suffering of people who don't exist has all the fucking point, apparently. If there really is "no fucking point" in preventing the suffering of someone who is already alive, then there is no need for antinatalism, since the suffering of someone once alive has "no point."
>>953735
Epicurus is a spook, hedonist.
>>953756
I didn't say good, you leapt to that conclusion all on your own. I said there was something that outweighs their suffering. In the case of the film-goers, there would likewise also be something that self-evidently outweighed their distaste for the film that kept them there.
>>953698
this is the same sort of argument as
I really love chocolate icecream!
>ThEN WHY DON'T YOU MARRY IT THE FACT THAT YOU AREN'T MARRIED TO IT PROVES YOU DON'T REALLY LOVE IT!!!!!
a heroin addict doesn't have to quit the stuff before he can proclaim it's bad
same with life, I can hold whatever opinion I want about it. The idea that I have to prove that I believe my opinion by killing myself, is simply ridiculous. That's too high a standard of proof.
Do you believe in god?
>yes
well if that's the fucking case then why do you own any posessions at all huh? why haven't you given everything to the poor and spend your entire life in servitude of those in need? why aren't you praying right fucking now?
again, that's asking too high a standard of proof. I can accept that people believe in god without them doing the above, and you should be able to accept that I think I was harmed by being brought into existence without me having to kill myself to prove it.
it's silly, what you're asking
>>953728
I guess the idea that suffering is not inherently evil is true, however I still firmly believe that existence is better than non-existence.
>>953765
Why don't you say that to my face over a simple meal of wine, cheese, and fresh baked bread, motherfucker? it'll be so ataraxia-tastic your goddamn head will explode.
>>953700
>Who are you to say that decreasing person X's suffering is more important than increasing person X's pleasure?
because the very condition of experiencing pleasure is predicated upon a small or 0 amount of suffering being experienced???
silly question. if someone breaks their leg in front of you do you tell the people who have rushed over to help
>Who are you to say that decreasing person X's suffering is more important than increasing person X's pleasure?!! Have you even asked the person what's more important!!?? jeezz..
>>953780
If someone breaks their leg, you decrease their suffering because you can't increase their pleasure.
>>953758
I'm not OP and neutral to his stance on antinatalism but find it a completely valid viewpoint nonetheless. You and OP suffer from the same flawed reasoning, in that you believe that life has any meaning and you view the human existence from a human perspective instead of stepping outside of it. Good, bad, suffering, etc. abstract ideas formed from minds attempting to cope with existence and the dilemma of self-awareness. If all ideas are the product of hysterical minds then that must mean that his antinatalist stance is just as valid as any other viewpoint.
>>953774
Your premises lead to the inevitable conclusion that it is better to not-exist, than to exist. You're the one making these claims. By choosing to persist in living you're tacitly accepting that life has value beyond suffering.
Don't bitch at us because your own beliefs logically lead to suicide. Examine why you don't wish to die, and perhaps you'll see the flaw in your beliefs.
>>953782
>you can't increase their pleasure
Whats keeping me from tearing off their trousers and giving them a mind-blowing handjob?
>>953700
>This is why as a species we didn't just give up when we encountered the first disease, but instead worked to treat diseases. Wouldn't the more optimal solution be to work with others towards making the world a less terrible place than fatalistically being resigned to it?
so your idea of working towards making the world a less terrible place is to bring children into it? and just hope that for some reason an increased number of children will magically fix it?
>The argument is so bad you shouldn't be using it.
Actually no it isn't a bad argument. Or do you just think that it's okay to rape sleeping people because they can't consent? I mean at the time they're unconscious, so you're not violating any conscious humans rights, right? so it's allgood! rape away!!
>>953730
I guess it's just my nature.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JA2bv3AchI
>>953713
yawn, ok so you're just an idiot?
>>953735
what are you on about? What we're talking about here is whether it's immoral to bring children into the world.
>>953784
Not all viewpoints are equally valid. Don't be stupid.
>>953788
>so your idea of working towards making the world a less terrible place is to bring children into it? and just hope that for some reason an increased number of children will magically fix it?
Cool strawman, bro. I don't recall ever saying something like "Just having kids will magically make the world a better place and it's all you have to do hurrrrrrrrrrr"
>>953788
There's a fundamental difference between being unconscious and being non-existent. I wouldn't be surprised if someone with your flawed views honestly couldn't tell what that was.
>>953792
Keep on not addressing the issue. Your premises lead to the inescapable conclusion that suicide is your best option. Why don't you take it?
>>953782
you've argued yourself into a corner.
I'm not going to bother arguing against what you've claimed:
>If someone breaks their leg, you decrease their suffering because you can't increase their pleasure.
because it's just obviously wrong to me. and I don't believe you can hold that position seriously
Antinatialism is a natural, and somewhat clever, reaction to suffering, but it doesn't go very far beyond being a reaction. There's just as much of a reason to assign a negative value to birth as there is to assign a positive value to it. Ultimately, expecting the rest of mankind to stop doing what it's been doing since it first came about is just as absurd as expecting any other mammal to do the same. If you personally don't want to have a child, that's perfectly fine. People are people, and people will behave the way that people do; choosing not to have kids is just another variant of this.
Yes, we're biological machines. Yes, life is a perpetual struggle to avoid suffering. No, pleasure is not guaranteed in life. So what? Why must we wallow in sadness over the fact that we are a result of a biological process? Why must we place so much importance on what is immediately unpleasurable? Why must we expect pleasure to be anything more than what it is?
>>953779
I'm literally going to make you realise that you're my property. You ready?
>>953785
it appears you fail in reading comprehension
antinatialism is to do with whether it's moral to bring children into the world
really has nothing to do with whether it's better to not-exist than to exist. or whether life has no value other suffering. and really has nothing to do with suicide either.
we are talking about the morality of bringing children into the world. try to stay on topic.
>>953810
>Yes, life is a perpetual struggle to avoid suffering
oh am i laffin
>>953451
>Personally I agree with it, and practice antinatalism (I don't, and wont have children).
t. European
>>953814
>Let's ignore all the implications of my beliefs and stick to a single topic I was happy to stray from until I started getting pushback.
>>953808
>Cool strawman, bro. I don't recall ever saying something like "Just having kids will magically make the world a better place and it's all you have to do hurrrrrrrrrrr"
then what are you talking about? we're talking about anti-natalism - whether it's okay to bring children into the world or not.
>Keep on not addressing the issue. Your premises lead to the inescapable conclusion that suicide is your best option. Why don't you take it?
So let's be clear here, you seriously think that the claim
>it is immoral to bring children into the world
directly leads to the conclusion that
>I ought violently and lethally self-harm my body so bad that I die
please do tell me why that conclusion follows, this ought be good.
can't you see that they are entirely unrelated? or do you just need an excuse to say "hurr kill yourself lol"
>>953822
Laffs are a spook.
>>953808
>Not all viewpoints are equally valid. Don't be stupid.
And you're wrong. Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean that it's stupid or less in value.
>>953451
I agree with you, don't have children. Earth is already overpopulated
Let the glorious, joyful stalions like me to take care of the future of our species to keep on the circle of life, like any other life form. Like the deepest desire in our hearts.
I like anti-natalism in theory because I think there Are too many people and it's unsustainable.
But I'd like to have a son, so It's a moot point
>>953810
>So what? Why must we wallow in sadness over the fact that we are a result of a biological process? Why must we place so much importance on what is immediately unpleasurable? Why must we expect pleasure to be anything more than what it is?
Nobody is saying you should do any of that. At all.
Antinatalism quite clearly is not what you think it is. Antinatalism is just the philosophical position that it is immoral to have children. It has nothing to do with expecting people to wallow in sadness, or focus on their misery. I don't know where you got those ideas.
>>953838
>Earth is already overpopulated
Obliviously next wars will solve this small problem.
>>953812
Knock yourself out broseph, I'm making lentils and chilling out in the sun.
>>953838
I think you're right. idiotic people will just continue to have children regardless.
But this does not mean that the compassionate among us shouldn't take the issue seriously. Just because billions are doing an immoral action, doesn't mean it's okay to do one more. A wrong is a wrong, and it's more important when it's you're own children you're harming.
>>953809
Well, you can't in any substantial sense. The broken leg is almost assuredly going to override any attempt to bring them pleasure. Regardless, for most ailments, you would presumably attempt to do both.
Also, I'm not the original guy. You must be new to anonymous posting. I welcome newfags, now GTFO.
>>953850
What makes it immoral. You still haven't made a case for suffering being inherently evil.
>>953843
I was pointing that out because you were stating those facts as if they were inherently negative. I exaggerated a little, but I don't see them as being negative. They're just facts.
>>953451
All you have to do is read a few books by Dostoevsky. Even from a pleb like him, you should come away with a lot regarding your inquiry.
>>953774
>believing in "god" is now synonymous with being a Christian
wew our numbers just jumped quite a bit
>>953834
>please do tell me why that conclusion follows, this ought be good.
Sure. Your anti-natalism is based on these two premises from the OP:
>Pleasure is not guaranteed in life, only suffering.
>The prevention of suffering is a far greater concern than the production of pleasure.
Premise one clearly applies to all life, including adults, thus premise two also applies to all life including adults. There's nothing in your OP that differentiates children from adults in terms of suffering, your premises apply to all human life equally. What you're doing is trying desperately to not look at the implications of what you are saying. There is nothing in your premises that fundamentally limit the prevention of suffering just to children. If it is as you say:
>Pleasure is not guaranteed in life, only suffering.
>The prevention of suffering is a far greater concern than the production of pleasure.
Then the optimal solution to prevent suffering in life, is to prevent it or end it. Your choosing to not end your life implies that your premises are wrong, since they apply to all life, not just children. You are arbitrarily making a distinction that is not there.
>>953814
>really has nothing to do with whether it's better to not-exist than to exist.
Oh? because you use the term "non-existent" or some variant like 3 or 4 times, even going so far as to say "Non-existent children are not suffering, which is a good thing. We should leave them with their non-existence. There's no need to disturb them." You are explicitly stating that it is better for children to not-exist than to exist.
>>953686
>>953697
>you only disagree because it is 2edgy4u
Time to end this shit thread
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with suffering
OP's point is therefore completely invalid and if he had a bad day can kill himself anytime he likes
>if you regard suffering and pain generally as evil, as detestable, as deserving of annihilation, and as blots on existence, well, you have then, besides your religion of compassion, yet another religion in your heart (and this is perhaps the mother of the former) the religion of smug ease.Ah, how little you know of human happiness - you comfortable and benevolent people! For happiness and unhappiness are brother and sister - or even twins who grow up together - or in your case - remain small together!
itt: op learns that 4chan is not the place to discuss philosophy
Funny how 4chan claims to be superior, and yet the discussion I had about the exact same thing over on reddit was of a far high quality..
>>953960
Shoo shoo life denier, back to deaddit
>>953451
>I don't, and wont have children
A lot of powerful people want you to do just that.
The argument that actual antinatalists cannot not suicide is too strong, I agree. You can believe in something without following its implications to the logical extreme. The weaker more tenable response is that antinatalists ought to want to immediately and painlessly die and ought to want an immediate and painless death for everyone in existence. We're not saying you should kill yourself, and we're not saying you're not an antinatalist, just that you should want to immediately and painlessly die.
>>954032
>A lot of powerful people want you to do just that.
>implying corporations want people to stop breeding customers
>implying the State wants people to stop breeding tax slaves
Yeah, no.
>>953659
You are taught what ought to be good by your peers; you are also taught what ought to be bad. If these two things come into conflict, one is bound to suffer while sorting out the roots of such cognitive dissonance.
We suffer because people can't agree on what ought to be.
>>953707
Why don't we all just go to war, the last man alive gets to decide the meaning of life.
>>953774
>if I never link my opinions to any consequences whatsoever, people still have to take me and my opinions seriously
>>953690
How about you stop being a whiny cuck boy sulking in your own artificially produced nihilism and try and have some fun.
>>953960
Look op, no one here is trying to deny you your personal choice of not having children. But it's rather dumb to take this personal choice that you've arrived at, likely due to your personal circumstances either a hatred of children or an experience of trauma growing up, and universalize it into a fuckin' philosophy for the whole world.
Man I'm diagnosed bipolar and even I don't think life is fundamentally bad. Maybe if I were starving or schizophrenic, but most antinatalists, at least the ones on this board, seem to be First Worlders, which baffles me. Don't get me wrong, it's not your duty to have children, and I won't, but I'm not against it on principle.
>>953885
>edgy
Stop using big words you don't understand
>>953960
>4chan
>superior to anything
>kek
The average IQ of the faggots who browse this site is around room temperature. Occasionally you'll find people with actual cognitive abilities but those are rare encounters.
>>954700
Well you know what they say it's always the least intelligent people who are the happiest.
I want to have children to further my family legacy. I cannot become immortal, but I can live vicariously through my off spring as my ancestors live through me.
Sure they may suffer, but what is the suffering? An artist suffers to paint a beautiful portrait but in the end, he feels rewarded by creating a beautiful piece of art that will last when he is dead and gone.
