I have recently been exposed to the concept of antinatalism and well, it doesn't sit right with me. But that is about all I have. I cannot find a rational argument against it and on the internet at least it usually seems like the antinatalist is trying to engage other people in thoughtful discussion but they just insist he is depressed and that he should kill himself. If anything that kind of knee-jerk reaction just pushes me further into this philosophy of total cynicism. So I am asking here what are some actual logical moral arguments against antinatalism? Why is it wrong?
read better to have never been or whatever the fuck it's called
then kill yourself lol idk
>>7801720
Anti-natalism denies the creation of its greatest jewels: human beings. That alone BTFO the entire concept of anti-natalism.
>>7801745
>greatest Jewels
this is the kind of shit I am talking about.
>>7801748
Are you saying the statement is false?
we probably don't exist, if you want to be rational about it.
>>7801755
I don't know. Is meaningless emotional drivel false?
>>7801720
I suggest reading Chesterton and possibly Joseph de Maistre.
The best argument against it is that it's perfectly logical and makes complete sense. Children, like many countless illogicalities of the world, are what makes life worth living. The people who live their lives in pursuit of pleasure and cold hard logic will end up finding neither. The people I know who try to live that way are suicidal and without any pleasure in the world while those that embrace the world in all its strange fuckery seem to find meaning and purpose in even the worst circumstances.
>>7801759
Alright. Let me demonstrate it to you.
What is the objective of an ideology such as anti-natalism? The ideology, just like nihilism, is pragmatically useless; as it denies reality. On top of that, under epistemological solipsism and the problem of induction, it is equally as unprovable as everything else; so it is not true either. Nihilism is therefore entirely useless as a concept, and is the very paroxysm of meaningless emotional drivel.
Anti-natalism is not born out of rationality. Anti-natalism is born out of self-hatred that is later applied to humanity at large. Since it is entirely useless from both a pragmatic and a epistemological perspective, the only thing that can explain a subject believing in it is unfounded cynism.
As for my statement, it has nothing to do with emotions; it follows logic.
Cont in next post.
>>7801763
but what about the idea of sacrifice? Is my own personal satisfaction supposed to be the precedent for everything I do? That seems antipodal to the vast majority of moral thought. If anything this kind of for-granted self indulgence is what has made our culture so unprincipled and abysmal in the first place.
>>7801759
There could have been nothing at all. But that is not the ultimate nature of reality. In reality; things exists. The universe exist. Cogito ergo sum proves the existence of the self.
From this reality, I will postulate the following : It is preferable for there to be something rather than nothing at all. The very existence of the Universe proves that meaning is preferrable over non-meaning, as there is no meaning in nothing existing, but there can be meaning when things exists.
From this, I will postulate this second statement: It is preferable for there to be more rather than less. There is more meaning in a reality such as ours where many different kinds of things exists rather than a reality where the only thing that exist is a floating speck of dust in a void of nothingness.
Humans are by definitions the most complex object in the Universe (that we know of), and we are therefore the most meaningful thing in the Universe. Natality ensures the survival of human beings; and so anti-natalism is the very negation of the Universe's own quest to find meaning. Anti-natalism goes against creation.
It is far and away the most retarded ideology one can come up with.
>>7801789
The universe isn't on a quest to find meaning, you dong
>>7801767
>denies reality
No
>epidemiological solipsism
No, its reconcilable with the current secular understanding of human nature. That is as far as treating it as a moral precept. Of course practically speaking naturalistic arguments work.
>problem of induction
applies to all ontological meta-narratives, including everything in >>7801789
>Humans are by definitions the most complex object in the Universe
Who ARE YOU?
>It is far and away the most retarded ideology one can come up with.
>mfw
>>7801789
>he thinks the Universe cares
>he thinks the Universe has agency
>he thinks the Universe exists beyond meaningless physical interactions
BRUH
>>7801770
Sure you can scream at the top of your lungs for sacrifice and responsibility but deaf ears will remain deaf.
The fact remains that looking for pleasure only brings pain. In the end humans don't even really want indulgence. Put a man in a room with everything he ever wanted and eventually he'll hang himself.
Let the dogs chase their tails while they can. There's a reason Buddhists don't kill apostates: they actually believe in what they're saying.
>>7801797
> Asks for people to discuss the concept of anti-natalism with him
> Replies with meme arrows
> Doesn't even bother to propose arguments for his claims
> A priori assumptions
> Fallacies
You sound like a retard that just wants /lit/ to confirm your own cynism so you can justify slitting your wrists.
1) Yes it denies reality you dumb fuck. It uses moral arguments to prove the wrongness of natalism; which implies objective morality, which necessarily translate to my logical conclusion being true.
2) I said epistemological solipsism you dumb fuck. Not epidemiological. Do you even know what it means?
3) You literally cannot disagree with the statement the Humans are the most complex object in the Universe.
>>7801801
If a creator exist, then the Universe necessarily has agency.
If a creator does not exist, then the only logical conclusion for the existence of the Universe is what I postulated.
Try harder.
>>7801813
Look at this guy, he's seen the whole universe and has intimate knowledge of its contents
>>7801807
I think there are plenty of things one can do to enjoy life without having children being one of them. And since procreation is so fraught with moral implications that do not exist in the case of having an ice cream cone or BASE jumping then why is that particular act necessarily justified? And if all acts are justified insofar as they enhance personal experience does this justify murder, rape and other forms of encroachment on other people? And how is procreation not another form of encroachment?
>>7801819
> '' I'm unable to form any coherent logical arguments in favor of my belief of which the sole purpose is to justify my inadequacy and cynsm''
> Someone is trying to do just that
> O-o-oh s-s-hit
> Better use ad hominem to discredit my opponent
>>7801813
>meme arrows
They are quotations dumbass. They are also great for synthesizing sarcasm with argument by analogy. They are probably the most important rhetorical construct of the 21st century.
>>7801813
>3) You literally cannot disagree with the statement the Humans are the most complex object in the Universe.
Biologically, humans are not very complex, we just have big brains. We have language but some other animals have human language-like constructs: elephants, some songbirds, whales, dolphins, etc.
Plants have much, much bigger genomes (Humans have a 3.2 Gbp genome, bread wheat's genome is 5 times larger), they have a more complex defense system, they have chloroplasts which enable photosynthesis, a process much more complex (in the number of involved proteins) than our mitochondrial breathing. Most plants are more complex than humans (except those that have secondarily lost most of the above traits as part of a parasitic lifestyle, for example).
Many bacteria can use complex energy pathways we humans don't have, like sulphur breathing.
>>7801831
There is nothing logical about thinking that humans are the most complex thing in the universe. Also that was my first post ITT, I'm not your opponent.
>>7801839
The human sexual system is very simple and wasteful, too - female period is a waste of resources similar to what gymnosperms do, an "older" evolutionary group compared to the angiosperms (flowering plants) do. Gymnosperms build up the receptacle for the pollen and then throw it away when no pollen arrives, similar to the human's period. Angiosperms only build most of it up when the pollen arrives, a strategy less wasteful and a bit more complex than in humans since it involves the detection of the male element.
>>7801839
How is any of that relevant? You cannot define complexity based on the size of the genome.
An object is necessarily more complex than a part of its components. A human is always more complex than bacterias, because bacterias are parts of what constitutes a human being.
The language of other animals does not compare at all to what humans possesses.
The human brain is still not understood by neuroscientists. The hard problem of consciousness remains.
If you also include the byproduct of the existence of a thing as part of its complexity, then would also have to include every single thing that exists thanks to human beings as part of a human being complexity.
>>7801851
confirmed by glorious 1950s SF
>>7801829
>I think there are plenty of things one can do to enjoy life without having children being one of them
This is perfectly true but I think the impetus to deny yourself having children is usually indicative of a worldview in which nothing in life will end up being enjoyable.
>And since procreation is so fraught with moral implications
I'm sorry are you trying to say that it's morally incorrect to have a child?
Did you really compare having a child to murder?
>>7801853
>. A human is always more complex than bacterias, because bacterias are parts of what constitutes a human being.
Yes, all bacteria in existence live inside humans, of course!
>The human brain is still not understood by neuroscientists. The hard problem of consciousness remains.
The brain of Caenorhabditis elegans isn't understood either, and that one has exactly 302 neurons
>The hard problem of consciousness remains.
We don't know whether consciousness is unique to humans
>If you also include the byproduct of the existence of a thing as part of its complexity, then would also have to include every single thing that exists thanks to human beings as part of a human being complexity.
Are you high?
>>7801839
Cont. My point is that defining complexity by exlusively examining the inner biological functions of a thing is a reductive approach.
Human complexity is not only found in our bodies, but also in our actions.
Plants have no conception of the categorical imperative you see.
>>7801720
The way out is to take some kind of anti-humanist position on the world. Find some value system that supercedes humanism and humanity and it's suffering (and your own suffering for that matter) can be seen as simply casualties on the way to a greater end.
>>7801859
So you're saying that humans have some divine non-biological spark that other animals lack? Is this hidden Christposting?
>Yes it denies reality
First off I don't know if you know this but the jury is out on the idea of "objective morality" no matter how many dead French goobers told you otherwise. But as I say, antinatalism doesn't just build from a void filled in by its own ideology. Rather with our current understanding of the universe and human nature we have lost our pride of place as a representation of the divine and now even the most complex questions need to be answered in practical utilitarian terms.
>I've never heard of autocorrect
If you read the post you'd know I was not talking about epidemiology. I could see maybe calling me a "dumb fuck" if I didn't know what "epistemology" was but if I don't copy/paste then I am just an autistic fuck. Jesus, get it right.
>you literally cannot disagree
I disddssssiddssssiddsiissddsds
Holy shit you are right!
Also I really find antinatalism to be a downer and I would love for someone more intelligent than yourself to disabuse me of the notion that it is logically rigorous and objective.
>>7801853
Why don't you go ahead a define complexity for us then, since you're the one who brought it up in the first place.
>>7801858
1) That's now what I was implying at all you dinsegenuous faggot and you know it perfectly.
2) How is that relevant to what I said? Signicantly more research is done on the human brain as of late.
3) It's incredibly obvious it is.
>>7801866
I'm insure as to the definition of complexity. What makes you think you hold the truth in the matter?
>>7801856
Yes I did. It disgusts me but when you think about it who the hell has ever been murdered or brutally tortured who was not born in the first place. All forms of abuse are subordinate to the act of creating consciouness which can experience the abuse.
Also what is "good" is only born out of a need for there to be something "good" in the first place.
>>7801869
Man, you keep talking about being logical and rigorous and stuff, but in literally every post you make you say something like, "It's completely obvious that..." without backing it up at all.
>doesn't deny being high
>>7801865
There is no such thing as the jury being out when it comes to philosophy. This lost of pride that you speak of is neither universally true, nor is it necessarily permenant. It could entirely be a temporary thing.
Nothing is ever out in Philosophy, period; no matter how many modern neuroscientists and hack like Sam Harris would have you believe otherwise.
Why do you use autocorrect?
>dude its like there has to be something because its like better
>humans are so cool wow it is important to preserve this coolness more than it is to avoid suffering
>muh evolution you have to reproduce it's like the meaning of life and shit
i sure am convinced so hard right now
>>7801879
I have to fight fire with fire lad. Literally no one has bothered to clarify the assumptions that permits his positions.
It would be uneven as fuck if I were to post a fucking paragraph everytime someone mentions something only to get meme arrow'd.
>>7801881
>neuroscience is wrong
You better start quoting W.V.O Quine and Feyarabend quick if you want to get out of this one alive.
>>7801869
>Signicantly more research is done on the human brain as of late.
That is completely untrue - C. elegans is *the* model organism of neurologists.
The expressed aim is to first simulate/understand the simple brain before you tackle the bigger one, see for example http://news.mit.edu/2010/brain-mapping
>>7801876
If the act of being created is so horrible then murder would be a blessing. You can't look down at both at once.
Generally people enjoy and desire to live. If this was not the case then they could easily and simply kill themselves and all their suffering and joy would be nothing more than a brief and forgotten fever dream in the cold universe.
>>7801884
Very intelligent reply there bud.
Are you even looking to discuss?
How are the arguments for anti-natalism any more convincing?
'' wow we should not give birth because life is like suffering and shit''
'' we shouldn't give birth because it's not done with the consent of the one being created''
Do you actually think these are even remotely strong arguments?
>>7801893
>generally, people enjoy life
that's a nice perspective from some middle class first world fuck
however, even for fucks like you not being born still would result in a much better suffering outcome
>>7801893
>if the act of shooting someone up with heroin is so horrible then abruptly depriving them of it should be a blessing
a "rational" argument against antinatalism?
it's a fucking miserable way to live your life. there is nothing rational about denying your biological need to procreate be it for the emotional rewards or physiological rewards.
sure, any fool with critical thinking can bend their logic to see antinatalism as holding "truth" in some manner, but to suggest it to be rational? No, not at all.
you also have to believe in hella spooks for it so...
;^)
>>7801896
I don't know, you seem to be having a tough time refuting them within relevant terms
>>7801889
Daily reminder that reductionism does not follow from materialism.
Daily reminder that science is oriented and can be manipulated.
Daily reminder that your average neuroscientist knows less about philosophy than a college student fresh off his first class about rationality.
Daily reminder that current results are inconclusive as fuck and literally show nothing about consciousness.
>>7801907
''Within relevant terms''
I've actually got the perfect picture for this one lad.
>>7801720
God said be fruitful and multiply or something like that
>>7801915
well you can't just pull shit out of your ass like
>humans are the most complex thing in the universe and the universe is trying to understand itself through US!
>>7801720
there are no logical moral arguments
get rekd
>>7801915
nice meme you fuck
anyway yes "life is suffering so we shouldn't have children" is a strong argument, and no, your inane ramblings about how this suffering is justified because "yo being is better than not being" are not an attempt at ethics
>>7801931
not that guy but can you explain to me how you or your philosophy (antinatalism?) came to the conclusion that life is suffering? and not just come to the understanding that suffering does occur through life. i really want to see the proof for life = suffering pls
>>7801923
How the fuck is that pulling shit out my ass? It's a valid argument.
It's like if a meat eater was discussing with a vegan trying to prove that eating meat is unethical and before the vegan was able to put forth any argument the meat eater just went : '' I a priori rule out any arguments that involves ethical, environmental or medical concerns''
What the fuck are you going to discuss with? You ruling them out a priori does not meant they are false or not valid, it just means you're biased.
It seems like you didn't make this thread to be challenged, but to be reassured in your beliefs.
>>7801934
life = suffering is a shorthand for living creatures experience unplesant feels, and since you are probably alive, you should know this to be true
>>7801931
>there is no pleasure which is not bad
Why do antinatalist cucks do this?
>>7801940
how is it bad if nobody is experiencing the deprivation of pleasure you dumb shit
Are you concerned that an unborn child will never feel what its like to eat ice cream wow
>>7801881
>Nothing is ever out in Philosophy,
Kantian metaphysics exists
>>7801931
1) How do you prove that life is suffering? How do you even prove that suffering exists objectively and is not a subjective experience? How do you prove it actually exists in the first place?
2) How can you prove that having no pain is equal in value to having pleasure?
3) The assertion that no pleasure is not bad is absolutely retarded. What a shitty argument.
>>7801893
>murder would be a blessing.
Wrong, there would be no being around to be relieved from life.
>>7801938
okay so where does the logical jump take place that enables that bc we experience unpleasantness, it should override everything else we feel and should thus be the deciding factor in whether or not we procreate?
>>7801934
Life is a balance sheet of diminishing returns. "pleasure" is an arbitrary cut off in each person's brain at which point the conditions it sees itself in render it adaptable enough to produce endorphins. When you eat a steak or have sex you are actually only suffering less but its not like there is something above "0" on the scale and there are never positive returns at any point because of basic thermodynamics.
In short pain can be looked at as a reaction to the onslaught of entropy trying to break down, not just you, but any and all ordered states in the universe whereas pleasure is the arbitrary point where the brain gets to cuck itself with self-delusion that this is not happening
stop watching inmendham videos and get a girlfriend
>>7801950
you should notice that plenty of things are considered unethical for the reason of them being unpleasant and you don't object to those values
>>7801954
This is the most inane piece of shit post I've ever seen.
''Muh scientific reductionism'' '' Muh chemicals''
'' Muh life is suffering because experiences are unpleasent in my own subjective perception of reality''
Literally all of it is unprovable. Are these your strongest arguments? If yes, your ideology is indeed utter fucking garbage.
>>7801959
>YOU CANT KNOW NUFFIN!
'' Muh endorphin equals happiness meme''
Literally 12 years old that does not know about the riddle of induction or that none of the research show a causal link between the two. It's like he never took a stats class.
>>7801955
Why would I watch inmendham? He is the most obnoxious cunt on the face of youtube.
>mfw he tries to refute quantum physics and calls Einstein "an idiot"
>>7801963
There is literally not a single piece of evidence that shows a CAUSAL link between emotional states and brain chemistry. Try harder you uneducated swine.
Isn't it about time for you to inject heroin and cry yourself to sleep and wallow in your own self-pity?
>>7801965
>>7801959
Can you explain why someone who has all their needs met, has friends and a loving family should be able to experience boredom which in turn leads that person to potentially shit their stable life up or else stew in a state of ennui and depression? Its like you don't even realize that human existence is characterized by endless NEED.
>>7801970
There's that emotional language again, like clockwork.
>Ahh ideas I don't like! I better tell this guy to kill himself!
The only difference is that this is pretty commonplace in any 4chan argument and it isn't being done with as nearly as much passive-aggressive subtlety as on other forums.
>>7801974
Define boredom. Prove the existence of boredom. Prove that this pathetic attempt at emotional drivel isn't just you describing your own situation and attempting to find pity out of anons like a christians would beg for god in rough times.
As for me, I have very few of my needs met and yet feel a constant sense of happiness. I do not feel boredom.
How do you explain that?
>>7801954
anon, your definitions of pleasure and pain are dishonest, as well as that of life.
i'm not sure where you learned that 'pleasure' is interchangeable with say something like 'not in pain' or who even taught you that the sensations we experience while eating steak or sex are no different than our baseline endorphin levels - if that is even how neurochemistry works. (if so citation pls).
>>7801956
i can notice these things and i can also object to many of these things. i do not know the purpose of your assumptions? you are welcome to object to these values as well but if we agree to disagree then what was the point of the thread? i wanted you to explain the logical jump, but if its just bc u can, well, that's not explaining anon.
>>7801976
>Ahh ideas I don't like! I better tell this guy to kill himself!
He says, as he literally answers your posts with a we wuz kangs level of meme. Doesn't get more retarded than this lads.
You're the one who is totally afraid of considering any other ideas than his preconceived beliefs. Stay dumb anti-natalist cuck.
>>7801970
We don't need to get into the minutiae of brain chemistry. Its pretty obvious that what is considered pleasure needs be some arbitrary level of stability whereby the individual feels comfortable whereas suffering is any other state INCLUDING most importantly,the default state.
>>7801985
>we don't need to
>it's pretty obvious
jesus christ
>>7801985
> It's pretty obvious
So you admit to having no evidence? I'm glad to see you slowly fall apart.
>>7801985
>We don't need to get into the minutiae of brain chemistry. Its pretty obvious
AHAHAHAHHAHAHAAHHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH
HOLY FUCK YOU CANNOT MAKE THIS UP
well to truly live, you must be under the tutelage....of Randy Tutelage
>>7801999
How the fuck is that relevant to anything at all?
Are you retarded mate?
Also daily reminder that joy and happiness are two distinct concept. This is literally philosophy 101.
>>7801999
yup, you got us man. you got us.
nice trips btw desu senpai
>>7801767
>Objective of an ideology
What the fuck mate. Stopped reading there.
>>7802004
if you are going to take issue with the phrase "its pretty obvious that" then you ought to be taking issue with the postulate it is asserting. In this case it was that when one is not experiencing pain it is because an arbitrary subjective set of circumstances are being met.
>>7802013
Yea, I meant ''goal'' there, but the word objective doesn't seem to carry this meaning in English. Sorry about that lad.
http://www.linternaute.com/dictionnaire/fr/definition/objectif/
Proof
>>7802020
The postulate is false. Not experiencing pain is the default condition of human life.
Not having your arbritrary set of circumstances met does not correlate to pain.
>>7802004
>joy and happiness are two distinct concepts
who gives a fuck anyway? We could just as well put it all under the umbrella of the "not pain" or the "Jergenschlut" for that matter. The point is any of that is by no means equivalent to what "suffering" actually is which is a reaction to anything but whatever constitutes the "jergenschlut" for you personally, subjectively and arbitrarily. That even goes for this annecdotal motherfucker. >>7801980
>>7802029
>default condition
>having food to eat every day
>having potable water
>having social supports
No, you idiot. A default condition would be the absence of anything because it takes concerted effort to acquire these things.
>>7802035
Except it doesn't. Pain is not a neutral state that exists whenever happiness it not present. The non presence of joy does NOT correlate to pain. Period.
Your entire argument revolves around this false assumption.
>>7802037
> Implying any of these things represents suffering
>>7802045
>hunger
>thirst
>loneliness
>these are not forms of suffering
OH fuck you are right! They are actually the "Blumenflatch"
>>7802037
> Implying effort isn't a pleasurable thing on its own.
>>7801980
>Prove the existence of [abstract concept]
>>7802051
.
my best expectations
your head
>>7802047
1) How do you expect to prove that any of these experiences are unpleasent without resorting to your own personal feelings?
2) The experiences of acquiring these things is pleasurable, which evens out with whatever unpleasentness is felt when not having them.
3) Loneliness is not a objective form of suffering. Period.
4) The effort needed to acquire them is also pleasurable in and of itself.
>>7802055
So your entire argument is only valid when your opponent is willing to accept that you're unable to provide a definition or a proof of existence for the abstract concept you're talking about?
No wonders it only works on idiots like you.
>>7802069
>everyone on the opposite side of the argument is one guy
>>7802064
my personal feelings are how long can you exist without food and water?
>>7802074
How is that relevant to what I said?
>>7802076
because you can't just act like hunger and thirst are things that only I experience (quite the opposite is the case btw)
>>7802078
I could if I wanted to, but I won't take the discussion in such a direction. My points were multiples anyway. On one end I said that you cannot prove wether a feeling is either positive or negative objectively.
On the other, I make it clear that the experience of acquiring these things is pleasurable; always; and that this pleasure is superior to whatever displeasure is felt when not having them.
>>7802083
well I think the problem is that, predictably we are getting into further layers of abstraction and all you want to do is breakdown the idea of having this discussion inside of any sort of syllogistic framework until one of us says "What did you mean by "mean"". Go ahead and claim the objectivity of neuroscience is specious but what you are doing right now is being a jerk off.
>>7802092
The only thing I hope to claim is that anti-natalism is neither rational, nor logical, nor is it correct.
I already proposed arguments earlier in the thread but they were either meme arrow'd or discarded a priori because they didn't fit with whoever's I was discussing with at the time arbritrary sets of rules.
The objectivity of neuroscience is very sketchy.
>>7802098
You have done nothing of the sort. You have tried to uproot the very idea of anything being "rational" "logical" or "correct" which isn't even the low-hanging fruit. Its the fruit that is rotting in the sun on the ground
>>7802105
That is not have I done at all. The first post that I made showed that anti-natalism was both pragmatically useless and epistemologically unsound.
Then I made a series of postulates that explained how anti-natalism is a immoral act. And then I challenged, throughout various posts, your definition of pain and suffering and the validity of the assumptions that allow your ideology to be legitimate.
>>7802110
This is kind of like that scene from Wolf of Wallstreet where dicapprio thought that he had calmly driven his car home while he was hopped up on quaaludes
>>7802118
And while I've been doing this, you literally have not made a single sound argument for your cause.
>>7802118
Expected a tougher challenge desu lads. If this is all the faith you have in anti-natalism, then it's no wonder people on the internet do not bother dicussing it.
Both you and others have completely failed to propose any sensible arguments in favor of anti-natalism, relying instead in high school tier scientific reductionism.
I'll say it again. Reductionism does NOT follow from materialism. There no causal links between brain chemistry and emotional states. Your definition of pain and suffering is innacurate.
There's a lot more, but the rest can be found in the 20+ posts I made in this thread.
>>7801720
If you prescribe to antintalism this is a sure sign you don't have even the smallest shred of human dignity. Life is worth living period, see I just disproved it, no antitalist can tell me otherwise without being objectively false and resorting to base emotions proving their status as subhuman scum. Seriously it seems that you have the ability to disagree with this shit so that should be good enough, in fact that is the the only real argument against such pure dog shit. Why waste time debating morons. The truth is there are only neutral events we as humans have the ability to hold opinions about the current situation we are in and make inferences based on how we feel, little more. Of course Virtue according to Socrates basically means that we can be happy as long as we hold true and eight opinion but I seriously digress.
>>7802190
GET THIS HOTHEAD OUT OF HERE
>>7802190
Okay so I agree its worth living once you are born but I am thinking how can you say you have the right to gamble with innumerable variables on behalf of another person? I don't really agree with that other guy that life is always suffering but I just feel like one has to assume certain responsibility. It seems like the parents of a child are directly responsible for genetic shortcomings and contingencies in the person's life. I don't see how if I have a child and my child is murdered I am not at least in part responsible for the murder.
>>7802228
Because it's your body and you have the right to bring another life into this world if you so choose. Denying this is basically auto sadism and directly inverse to our natural instincts.So yes you must assume responsibility. For one thing don't blame your parents for so called genetic shortcomings unless you are actually retarded, and make good decisions, thankfully most parents teach their kids this stuff. You aren't responsible for his hypothetical death but he would be that's actually quite simple. You can take the gamble because the payoff is the most unique and beautiful thing in our known universe. Why not just argue that you would have liked to have lost the sperm race because you didn't want to inconvenience your other little sperm brothers.
>>Humans are by definitions the most complex object in the Universe
>
>Who ARE YOU?
That's not a misleading quotation at all...
>Humans are by definitions the most complex object in the Universe (THAT WE KNOW OF)
>>7802250
Okay, never mind you are even dumber than the other guy who at least padded his posts with ten dollar words to give them the illusion of consideration
>>7802251
that's equally not true.
>>7802254
Haha just kill yourself you clearly can't justify your meager existence so just do it faggot. And you are a real shitty cynic by the way. Why not just ask yourself this question it's really a matter of vitalism and self preservation but you seem to dense to actually grasp such difficult subjects. Get fucked nerd.
>>7802262
*too sorry
>>7802264
Ido notaccept your apology
>>7802268
Oh wow like I give a shit. Also I wasn't apologizing to you. So try not to victimize yourself so much and you might feel better about life.
>>7802269
But it seems I still acted like you were apologizing to me purely to be obnoxious.
>>7801901
>that's a nice perspective from some middle class first world fuck
Yeah look at all the third world countries and their horrible suicide problems. These people just hate life.
>>7802273
I think you may be right.
>>7801720
Antinatalism makes perfect sense from utilitarian position. In fact argument similar to those antinatalists make were used to poke holes in utilitarian models for a long time.
It's also is true. Having children is kinda selfish. But people want to have children and some people enjoy having children and everybody is doing it so it's not like they are gonna be convinced by philosophical arguments. I mean, people pay good money for all sorts of misshapen inbred dogs who start suffer from all sort of congenial illnesses a couple years in. They don't give a shit they're creating an animal doomed to suffer for all that painfull genetic shit just because it looks cool.
>>7802291
Do you believe in the preservation of the human race. Because if you don't you seem pretty fucking selfish. Especially if you won't ever have kids yourself.
>>7802295
What's so important about preserving human race, logically speaking? I care whether people suffer or don't.
Sorry what is the point of procreating if you can just adopt an existing child? Do people actually consciously want to propagate their own genes or something?
>>7802307
Because it's in our best interest to preserve ourselves. Because living is good and we should continue to improve the general quality of living. Because otherwise we would not have gotten where we are now. This is basically why civilization exists. If you care about people you wouldn't even think about this like you do. People have a natural proclivity to stay alive.
>>7802320
>Because it's in our best interest to preserve ourselves. Because living is good
So much idealogy, holy shit.
>>7802447
So you think it isn't? Literally can't argue against this turbofag.
Which authors/works do you guys recommend in regards to this subject? I'm looking for pro-arguments mostly.
>>7802318
>Sorry what is the point of procreating if you can just adopt an existing child?
Your wife is going to get pregnant eventually and multiple times as is.
>Do people actually consciously want to propagate their own genes or something?
This too.
>>7802465
schopenhauer
>>7801869
look at this guy being wrong lmfao
>>7802274
they are busy surviving, idiot, that doesn't make them enjoy life.
it doesn't matter whether you think your life is horrid - this doesn't necessarily lead to you comitting suicide
The fact that living things resist death to every extent is proof enough anti-natalism is wrong. If you truly believe in it you literally have to kill yourself to avoid logical inconsistency. That's how ridiculous it is.
>>7802449
Stay spooked
>>7802486
If you kill yourself there isn't a "you" left to be relieved.
>>7802250
>i can choose not to put in the world a being that could or could not suffer
>he suffers
>it's not my responsability
can you elaborate? i'm a convinced anti-natalist and i don't get people who say it's ok to have children
>>7802486
>The fact that living things resist death to every extent is proof enough anti-natalism is wrong
the "living" does a lot of things that rational human beings with a culture don't do
>>7801931
>implying the existence of a human doesn't create net utility in the universe
Regardless, this is a stupid argument because pain and pleasure are stupid and spooky things to base an ethical system off of. Utilitarianism is only useful as a means to create social stability.
>>7801974
They probably spent too much time listening to autistic, depressed SADBOIS like Schopenhauer.
If they learnt their goddamn place in the universe they wouldn't have that problem.
>>7801999
>implying gathering and eating food is not the default state
The universe is not static. Choosing not to eat (and reproduce) is a deviation from the natural movement of the universe, which is why you suffer.
>>7802228
>natural " rights "
Is it just me, or is it getting spooky in here?
Obviously you should abort babies with genetic defects. The fact that bad things will happen in a person's life is obvious and therefore not worthy of consideration.
>>7801720
I don't pretend to side with antinatalists because all you can guarantee a child is pain or whatever they say. But population control is a huge fucking problem right now and only getting worse and 99% of people are too stupid to have a kid.
>>7802051
>Implying it is.
>>7802167
>There no causal links between brain chemistry and emotional states.
How the fuck does that contradict antinatalism?
>>7801767
>very paroxysm
How has no one called this retarded pseud retarded yet
Holy shit buddy
You are dumb
>>7801818
Wrong on both counts
Obviously so
>>7801874
fucking weasel
>>7801928
And yet cooperation exists
>>7801946
I've been saying it but you're hella dumb bro
I don't feel like wasting all my time here so I'll only nitpick your first response
>1) How do you prove that life is suffering?
See: buddha
>How do you even prove that suffering exists objectively and is not a subjective experience?
Subjective experience exists. What kind of person needs an objective proof of the self evident. At the end of the day subjective experience is the only thing humans have.
Let me call you retarded one more time here, you fuckin stupid ass retard
I don't know anything about it but isn't it all just based on the premise that it's ethical to prevent suffering? And just prevent suffering regardless of the lesser suffering caused or joy taken as long as the math just checks out? How about you just don't agree with that premise? I mean do you really believe you have to base all of your actions on whether or not they might cause suffering to sentient beings throughout all of the millions of years of future ahead? I mean why not blow up this planet right now and save all those species and offspring and their offspring from suffering?
>>7803061
>I mean why not blow up this planet right now and save all those species and offspring and their offspring from suffering?
I have no (non practical) objections to this.
>I mean why not blow up this planet right now and save all those species and offspring and their offspring from suffering?
any intelligent person on this world would do that, given the chance
>implying suffering is bad
>>7803166
Because any intelligent person wants to reduce all suffering? If you're so clever why not try to push technology to the limits and let's see if we can find other species to save from their suffering?original scfi idea, do not steal
Why is it even important if anyone thinks humanity should die out right now?
No one can change that it won't die out in the near future and no one can change that it will die out eventually.
What drives the natalist mind? To answer this question let us look into the psyche of the average natalist. "We can't deny humans their life.", he says. But what does he mean by this? It appears that the natalist forms in his subconscious mind the archetype of a hypothetical being not yet conceived. He attributes to this being an ontologically objective existence. This appears to be the mechanism through which it is possible to think of the act of "not conceiving children" as an act of "denying children their chance to life". In a vile perversion of the cartesian argument the natalist argues: "If I can think of this entity, it actually exists." To attone for the sins of his pathetic life the natalist, in a sadomasochistic way, assumes the role of the child-to-be's protector. This is what truely compells the natalist to attack the anti-natalist argument in a way so brutish and savage, that a pub fight with flying fists and stools appears rhetorically sound next to it.
>>7803166
No, because life is a process of change procreation represents the hope, the dream of life without suffering, life beyond pain
That's the argument against antinatalists, and it's not a knockdown argument. Either position is reasonable.
>this entire thread
https://youtu.be/ZK2iV3_iFjw
>>7802320
>create civilization
>people are still suffering and in entirely new ways
>voluntary extinction
>nobody is suffering
>>7802486
Not all antinatalism is cynical. I just believe its morally dubious to try to create something with the complexity and potential for suffering as another human. I am directly responsible if my child is born with cerebral palsy. I am directly responsible if my child is taken (even as an adult) by Islamic extremists and tortured.
Am I not responsible if I end up shooting someone with a gun with mostly empty chambers? Can I claim my ignorance of which chambers had bullets in them justifies the act of shooting someone?
>>7802642
tell that to people starving in China asshole
>>7802642
>Choosing not to eat (and reproduce) is a deviation from the natural movement of the universe
How many unfounded assumptions about can you cram into one sentence
>>7803507
>Am I not responsible if I end up shooting someone with a gun with mostly empty chambers? Can I claim my ignorance of which chambers had bullets in them justifies the act of shooting someone?
>>7803525
I am not comparing creating a child to murder. IIt seems as though, in the event things go horribly for the person I had a hand in creating, I am not absolved of the guilt simply because there was the potential for a benign existence instead.
nah
>>7803001
How is that a proof you fucking retarded mongoloid? Do you even know what a proof is you turbo autist?
The lack of causal link between emotional states and brain chemistry entirely BTFO anti-natalism, as anti-natalism bases its entire movement around the definition of happiness (and meaning) as strict chemical interactions. The goal here is to unlegitimize human emotions by removing them from the divine.
The anti-natalist speak in utilitarian terms. It believes that creating a human being creates more suffering than pleasure. It follows a simple formula: life contains both pleasure and suffering (evens out), but non existence contains no suffering and no pleasure. The anti-natalist believes that lack of suffering is better than lack of pleasure because nobody can experience the deprivation of pleasure as they do not exist.
What allows this logic is 1) the conception of the human race as selfish and being useless to the Universe 2) the Universe as randomly existing and 3) human happiness being a thing of chemicals.
All of these assertions have been BTFO within this thread, starting from my very first post. The anti-natalist cucks, rather than trying to propose more arguments, have simply fallen down to the level of meme arrows and sophisms in a effort to not lose face.
As can be seen from OP's post, a anti-natalism, much like a nihilist, doesn't actually want to discuss anything. The OP didn't bother to point any arguments, and has simply been fed opposition and has still not bothered to counter-attack. He does not care about being proven wrong, as even if he were to be proven wrong out of any doubts he would still hold unto his belief like a desperate man.
>>7803740
Its kind of dumb to actually try to have arguments where you try to ignore widely respected science and what about the entirely separate position that it is unethical to gamble with the circumstances of someone's existence? Maybe not all life is suffering but a lot of it is and there are no real good indicators as to how much or how little your offspring will suffer.
If my offspring doesn't like life I'm fine with them choosing suicide. I'll do my best not to create something that will suffer greatly and be physically unable to kill itself. With modern science it's quite easy.
>>7803769
I'm not ignoring it, I am challenging it. Can't you make the difference? My arguments still stands.
Wouldn't I prevent more suffering by ensuring the survival of a civilization that produces members actively seeking to end all suffering rather than have it die out and leave things to the other monkeys and hope they figure it out eventually?
>>7803831
>by ensuring the survival of a civilization that produces members actively seeking to end all suffering
Then please go do that. Even biological immortality ends with the death of the Universe.
>>7803507
There is always a risk that an ambulance driver will run over a pedestrian in the course of his duties. Does it therefore make sense to never drive an ambulance?
Here again we see the main problem with antinatalism: Pain is given enormous value whilst pleasure is given none at all.
There is no objective way to prove that life contains greater suffering than happiness. Therefore, antinatalism is merely an opinion. An opinion not shared by the vast majority of living organisms (including humans). The only people who share this opinion are depressive, autistic SADBOIIS.
>>7803793
It's not really a challenge. The odds are pretty high that not one of your kids gets tortured/raped/leukemia/aids/schizophrenia/and-so-on. But what about all of your grandchildren? What about all of your great-grandchilden? Your great-great-grandchildren? No matter how you see it, if you continue the chain ad infinitum you will create a human who will suffer a terrible fate.
Is it worth it to do so just to satisfy your biological imperative? Do you really think all the happiness of all the offspring you'll create is even worth one tear of the human you'd condemn to such a miserable existence? Cause if you think so, you might be a sociopath.
>>7803869
It's theorized that the Universe would actually be reborn after some time. It doesn't really die.
>>7803900
>There is always a risk that an ambulance driver will run over a pedestrian in the course of his duties. Does it therefore make sense to never drive an ambulance?
This is such a massive strawman that I'm not even going to bother commenting.
>>7803904
If it collapses and expands again then I doubt any form of life would survive.
>>7803902
> Do you really think all the happiness of all the offspring you'll create is even worth one tear of the human you'd condemn to such a miserable existence?
It absolutely is. Are you retarded? It doesn't make me a sociopath, it makes me logical.
As the previous poster pointed out : ''Here again we see the main problem with antinatalism: Pain is given enormous value whilst pleasure is given none at all.
There is no objective way to prove that life contains greater suffering than happiness. Therefore, antinatalism is merely an opinion. ''
>>7803905
It's far more accurate than the original analogy.
Stating that a life without suffering is equivalent to an "empty chamber" suggests that a life without suffering has no value whatsoever.
>>7803902
Also, it's entirely possible to be both happy and suffering at the same time. People have managed to be happy whilst suffering a great deal. Happiness is a concept that goes beyond the mere feeling of joy; happiness does not mean joy lad.
>>7803911
No one who is not born yet, even if he had a wonderful life, would get any harm for not being born.
But someone who'd have a miserable life would have all the pain if he would be born.
>>7803916
Of course there are, but you can't deny the existence of people who suffer a lot more than they get happiness, no matter how you define that happiness. And there is no reason why you should risk creating such a being because a happy person would get any harm for not being born.
>>7803934
wouldn't
>>7803934
>harm is bad
>not being harmed is more important than x
>this is true because of reasons
>>7803987
>I don't even know what X is but its definitely NOT a spook
>>7803997
x in this case being happiness, fulfilling one's biological purpose etc.
in other words:
>implying Spook A is more important than Spook B
>>7802570
Because your child is likely to have a positive experience of life and it really is spookier to deny your right continue your lineage. Also it's your responsibility to educate your child not spoofed all his life.
>>7804018
but that's what you are doing as well. This is why Stirner memes should never seriously be posted.
>>7804032
You've missed my point. Unless you can prove that suffering is somehow more important than the other things I've mentioned, your argument is nothing but spookiness.
>>7804029
*to sorry
>>7803929
Other humans would be harmed from it. Humanity would be harmed from it. The universe itself would be harmed from it.
Your assumption is flawed. As I've said earlier, it's perfectly possible to be happy even in dire situations. Happiness is something you create for yourself. It is your responsability to be happy.
>>7804097
>Other humans would be harmed from it
>Happiness is something you create for yourself. It is your responsability to be happy
Seems contradictory.
>Humanity would be harmed from it.
How?
>The universe itself would be harmed from it.
The universe is not alive, it's like saying a rock would be harmed.
>>7804125
1) Not really. You are responsible for being happy, and you can also benefits from outside factors, such has other humans.
2) This is because you can only think of harm in biochemicals factors. It seems you can only conceive of harm as something like cutting your finger while slicing tomatoes.
The universe would be harmed because it would lose; as far as we know, the only creatures that are capable of reflecting on it, of contemplating creation. It would be a loss of meaning for the Universe.
>>7804179
>1) Not really. You are responsible for being happy, and you can also benefits from outside factors, such has other humans.
If there wouldn't be any more humans, no one would be harmed.
>The universe would be harmed because it would lose; as far as we know, the only creatures that are capable of reflecting on it, of contemplating creation. It would be a loss of meaning for the Universe.
Meaning is a human concept. The universe has no meaning in itself, things have only meaning for humans.
>>7804187
1) There would also be no pleasure at all. It would be a great loss.
2) Meaning is a concept that transcend humans. If a creator exists, then the Universe necessarily has meaning and anti-natalism is dumb from the get go.
If the Universe has no creator, then its very existence is the proof that its goal is self-examination through living creatures. Humans are the most competent at this, and our existence is therefore fundamental; it's extremely important.
>>7803902
>Do you really think all the happiness of all the offspring you'll create is even worth one tear of the human you'd condemn to such a miserable existence?
Yes. Both you and I chose to be alive and doing fairly well now, aren't we?
>>7804234
>1) There would also be no pleasure at all. It would be a great loss.
Who would lose out if there was no one left?
>Meaning is a concept that transcend humans
How?
>If a creator exists, then the Universe necessarily has meaning and anti-natalism is dumb from the get go.
If a creator exists, and this is a really big if, then we are nothing more but his puppets. Why would you follow the will of this creator? Do you like being a slave?
>If the Universe has no creator, then its very existence is the proof that its goal is self-examination through living creatures
How? Goal is the same human concept as meaning.
>>7804256
>Yes. Both you and I chose to be alive and doing fairly well now, aren't we?
I don't have leukemia. I have never been raped. Doesn't mean this stuff doesn't happen. I don't my non-hellish life justifies another ones hell.
>>7804362
*think
>>7804362
1) Meaning would be lost. I already told you.
2) Because : ''If the Universe has no creator, then its very existence is the proof that its goal is self-examination through living creatures.''
3) If the creator exists, then he gave us free will. We are not his puppets in any way.
4) Same thing for meaning.
6) A person can still be happy living what you call a ''hellish'' life.
Why is it that suicide rates are at the lowest in countries where people mostly live ''hellish', lives? Happiness can be found everywhere lad.
>>7804424
Another thing I'd like to add. I have no link to them, but I heard that research shows that happiness is determined like so : 10% genetics, 20 (maybe 30) % is living conditions, and the rest is up to you.
>>7804362
On average people don't have leukemia or are raped. In fact most rape victims or even people with leukemia absolutely don't want to die because to them the pleasure of life outweigh the suffering. By seeking extremes of suffering you do already implicitly accept that not *all* suffering needs to be prevented, such as when you burned your mouth on that hot food or had a crush on someone who didn't like you. That's all suffering but you don't argue for preventing and ending that, do you? Because the pleasures and joy you experience outweighs the pain to you. If it was common place for people to commit suicide and absolutely regret the life they lived before that where all those years they just hoped to be able to end their lives, to a point where that was more likely to happen to a child than not, I might see your point. But that's not the case, first world or second or third.
I don't agree with the premise that we need to prevent "suffering" either or that we can just define and condemn suffering without and opposite power. But I agree that we need to respect people's wishes and desires. And I certainly don't assume that most people alive desire to die, so I won't assume that I'm respecting my future children's wishes by not creating them.
>>7804424
>If the Universe has no creator, then its very existence is the proof that its goal is self-examination through living creatures.
I don't get this at all. Am I missing something painfully obvious?
>Why is it that suicide rates are at the lowest in countries where people mostly live ''hellish', lives? Happiness can be found everywhere lad.
So you say hellish countries are much better than ours because the low suicide rate imply the greatest happiness? Are you making fun of me this whole time?
>>7804458
It's exactly those extreme cases I only care about. I try to formulate my as clearly as I am able to so you can attack me right were you disagrees.
Premise 1: There are people, and always will be people, who's lives are so bad (no matter how you define bad) that it would be better for them to never been born (even if only 1 in a billion lives is that bad).
Premise 2: There is no harm in not being born, even if that being would have a happy life.
Conclusion: To prevent a life such in my first premise people should stop procreating.
>>7804460
That is not what I am saying. I asked you a question.
You talk a lot about suffering and living conditions. You mention things like diseases, and traumatic events like rapes. You say these things represent suffering,
Why is it, then, that countries where these things are the most prevalent show both the highest birthrate and lowest suicide rate? These are the countries where anti-natalism should be the most prevalent, and yet it is the total opposite. Our countries are much better in every aspect, so why do we have higher sucide rates? Why are depressions increasingly common?
I'll tell you. It has nothing to do with physical sufferings like hunger, or thirst, or any other such things. It has to do with a lack of meaning within the individuals. Meaning can only be found in a society that encourages the continuation of the human species.
As for the other thing, it boils down to this.
1) The Universe is logical. It follows natural laws.
2) The existence of the Universe is illogical if it has no creator. Why is it that mostly everything within the Universe would be logical, but the Universe itself wouldn't be?
3) What could possibly be the logical explanatio for the existence of the Universe? In other words, what motivates the existence of the Universe?
4) A quest for meaning.
The Universe itself has no ways of finding meaning, but living creatures do. Humans are the most competent when it comes to reflection and contemplation.
Therefore, the very existence of the Universe is the proof that its goal is self-examination through living creatures.
>>7804052
In the hypothetical world where everyone is a voluntary celibate antinatalist and the population numbers are dwindling you are in the same position
>guys we cant just give up on our struggle. Besides life is beautiful!
>Hurr durr Spooks
>>7804491
1) You can still find happiness living a bad life.
2) The pleasure felt by that billion FAR outweights whatever suffering that one person has.
>>7804535
I really want to know how good the evidence that people are not suffering in the third world is. Of course suicide rate is one metric but I think suicide is borne out of many factors such as a lack of personal moral accountability. And some footage of a bunch of Dindus dancing around a campfire is hardly substantial evidence that most of the third world is in good spirits.
>>7804530
>guys we cant just give up on our struggle. Besides life is beautiful!
In that case, I would be no more right or wrong than you are now.
The relative values of life, suffering, happiness, fulfillment etc. are all subjective because nothing has inherent value. Therefore, I will say again, your position is nothing more than an unverifiable opinion.
>>7804569
I am not saying people in the third world are not suffering. I am saying that despite their suferring, they have lower suicide rates and higher birth rates. They also tend to rank pretty high in happiness surveys.
This implies that their pleasure is greater than their suffering.
>>7801931
late to the discussion but it seems to me that if no pleasure is not bad, then no pain should also be merely "not bad," as pain and pleasure are both deviations from the 0 position
this would imply that both sides of the 4x4 come out to 0 net
this image also implies a disbelief in the value of autonomy, but it seems to me that the ideas your defending don't support that anyway
>>7804572
Oh, I thought your position was hypocritical when in fact it is actually irrelevant and cringingly edgy.
>>7804525
>>7804535
I think you don't get my point and I think it's because I can't express myself that good in English. I don't get yours either and I think I miss something in the subtext. Furthermore I don't have the educational background most of you people here have so I'm unable to use the same "tools" you guys do. I'm not even interested in philosophy and I abused this thread by posting my mere opinions with no solid foundation. I'm sorry I wasted your time.
>>7804587
smells like a strawman
>>7804583
>autonomy
>he believes "free will" is even possible
>>7804606
I never said I was wrong, I just admitted I'm too stupid to argue with.
>>7804586
>Life is what you make of it
>Cringingly edgy
>Life = shit and humanity should stop existing
>Not cringingly edgy
>>7804587
You haven't wasted anyone's time lad. English is my second language as well, it can be hard sometimes.
>>7804625
My position is not that life is shit just that it can be, even quite possibly for ones own offspring and therefore there is no inherent right to reproduce.
>>7804634
>""""""""""""inherent""""""""""""
>""""""""""""""""""""""right""""""""""""""""""""""
>>7804656
>more stirner memes
>life is what you make of it
>mfw
>>7804706
You don't have to be an Egoist to see that "natural rights" are nonsense upon stilts.
Rights are a social construct to improve social stability. Whilst there is consensus that people have a right to reproduce, people have a right to reproduce.
>>7804721
>social construct
what does this even mean anymore
>>7801759
There's only one argument for this, and it needs no words, but an image:
Anti-natalism is the Lincoln Park of philosophy
>>7805575
Ayy LMAO?
Human suffering is a product of the human brain and body. Its function is to protect the human's life. It's inherently not any different than the feeling of taking a piss or food in your mouth or wind in your hair. I absolutely don't see how you can argue for the prevention of suffering while taking it out of this evolutionary context where it developed purely to ensure the individual's survival so that its genes survive to the next generation.
anti-natalists are edgy dumbass losers who probably would never have researched this shit were it not for that hbo show true detective. a literal meme philosophy
>>7806087
>different feelings are not inherently different
wheeew, boy
>>7806291
They aren't inherently more or less ethically relevant.
>>7802840
not that guy, but it means that living in perpetual need of something isnt reason to think that life is equivalent to suffering
>>7801832
is this sarcasm?
i have trouble keeping track, since irony is dead everywhere except 4chan
>>7801763
This post sure is spooky
