LogFAQs > #956293005

adjl posted...

So your position is literally "nobody should ever procreate because something bad will most likely happen to every person that is born"? That's what we should take away from this?

My position is, nobody can, with a clean conscience, procreate because something bad is guaranteed to happen to every person that is born, harm without their consent at that and thus the cons will always outweigh the pros of the activity for the person born as there is no intrinsic value in being born in the first place as opposed to not being born.

Far-Queue posted...

It's the take away from someone whose parents didn't raise them to cope with adversity. RK clearly has poor coping skills and doesn't realize that not everyone is so ill-equipped to navigate the ups and downs of life, so he sees antinatalism as a viable solution to what he interprets as a life of pain and suffering.

The rest of humanity doesn't need to suffer because your parents are bad at their job, King.

You continue to miss the point. Even in a hypothetical and yet virtually impossible "blessed" life where a person only suffers to smallest amount of pain, say a paper cut, in their entire life my point that not being born would be superior still stands. I mean I guess coping skills do factor in somewhat since most people grossly overrate the quality of their lives which is one of the reason this concept is so difficult to understand for them, but there is a fundamental mathematical matrix at the heart of anti-natalism that the philosophy is built on.

Also would you care to explain how humanity could suffer if it ceased to exist? My philosophy is all about truly stopping human suffering, while nearly all others claim to be while ignoring the root cause to it staring them directly in the face, our existence.