Poll of the Day > I'm an anti-natalist.

(+) Yeah! (+)

Far-Queue posted...

"I have an asshole opinion with nothing to back it up, so that makes me an expert on the matter." - RK, edgelord Cum Laude, 2021

i also hope to cum laude one day. preferably in 69.

Reigning_King posted...

Fine let's start with a simple one. Three questions.
* Would you agree or disagree that it is unethical to cause a person harm without their consent?
* Would you agree or disagree that all human life contains some degree of harm, regardless of quantity or intensity?
* Would you agree or disagree that an unborn person cannot consent to being born?

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?

---

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.

---

It's a legitimate belief.

I for one argue in the extreme, the prevention of existence itself; if existence never existed, there would be no suffering.

I am having a much harder time with the tachyons, as I need to detect them before I can build a device to create them.

---

KodyKeir posted...

It's a legitimate belief.

For incel edgelord morons, sure

---

Reigning_King posted...

Your sig.

gets you all hot and bothered, huh?

---

KodyKeir posted...

It's a legitimate belief.

Far-Queue posted...

For incel edgelord morons, sure

There are strong environmental reasons to not want to procreate, RK's may be that shallow, but there are relatively sane people that are against bringing more people into this world, only for them to suffer worse then we are.

---

KodyKeir posted...

I for one argue in the extreme, the prevention of existence itself; if existence never existed, there would be no suffering.

Existence does exist however, which means it wasnt possible for it to not exist, and a state of nonexistence may also not be possible.

---

I'm a pretty firm believer that there is nothing unselfish about having a kid in this day and age. If you want to have one, that's fine. But you're not really doing the world any favors by having one.

Mead posted...

Existence does exist however, which means it wasnt possible for it to not exist, and a state of nonexistence may also not be possible.

It exists for now, we are still unclear on the hypothetical pre-existence period, and are really unsure if we can obtain a post existence period, and there is a possibility that such a place outside of time is both, but neither; but if such a place exists, we don't, or do, and possibly both at the same time.

Of course it could be a simulation, despite how much we know, we really know very little.

---

I'm all for edgelord dickheads not existing any more

---

can you draw a sword that represents antinatalism

---

PunishedOni posted...

can you draw a sword that represents antinatalism

that would be so sick

maybe a sword that looks like a dick but is broken?

---

Don't know about all the pretentious bullshit TC is spewing, but it feels irresponsible to bring a child into this current state of the world. Overpopulation, dwindling resources, climate change, crime, wealth gap, etc.
It feels unethical to force another person into existence against their will. I didn't ask my mother to give birth to me.

Wouldn't say I'm for or against abortion, but I am pro cannibalism.

---

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.

sodium-chloride posted...

I'm a pretty firm believer that there is nothing unselfish about having a kid in this day and age. If you want to have one, that's fine. But you're not really doing the world any favors by having one.

Can I ask why the state of the potential child isn't apparently relevant? Each parent who decides to have a child is playing Russian roulette with someone else, Russian roulette where even if they hit a blank the game continues until a bullet is fired. I think the state of the child is more important than if they're doing the world a favor or not.

NemesisOgreKing posted...

It feels unethical to force another person into existence against their will.

So we agree on the main point, not sure why you felt the need to call me out for my "pretentious bullshit" when we are in the same camp. The main difference would be that I only consider the state of the world as a further negative on top of the base negative of human existence. You can't find a single point in human history or prehistory where the evils and pain of existence don't manifest after all, they are an intrinsic part of this world.

Ironically, other than climate change, this era isn't even that bad, relatively speaking, on the other points you mentioned. Things like crime, scarcity, and the wealth gap are lower than they've been for probably 99% of humanity's lifespan. If you feel it's not fair to bring someone into THIS current world, you practically have to agree that it wouldn't be fair to bring someone into most times unless you have some really skewed priorities.

Reigning_King posted...

not sure why you felt the need to call me out for my "pretentious bulls***"

Yeah, why call it "pretentious bullshit" when you more accurately call it "stupid bullshit dreamt up by assholes who don't understand the world around them"?

DirtBasedSoap posted...

that would be so sick

maybe a sword that looks like a dick but is broken?

lmao


---

Far-Queue posted...

Yeah, why call it "pretentious bullshit" when you more accurately call it "stupid bullshit dreamt up by assholes who don't understand the world around them"?

If it's so stupid how is it that you haven't been able to produce even a single half baked counter argument this entire topic? If you want to save face and say something along the lines of "it isn't worth my time" then why are you still here other than to be disruptive and rude? Again all of this coming from the guy calling other people shitposters.

Reigning_King posted...

thus the cons will always outweigh the pros of the activity for the person born

On what basis are you assuming this?

---

Reigning_King posted...

there is no intrinsic value in being born in the first place as opposed to not being born.

please tell me youre 13

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

please tell me youre 13

lmao imagine having parents so awful at raising you that you turn out buying into harebrained goofy horseshit like antinatalism

---

what kind of stupid ass reality does op want to live in where nothing bad happens ever? I dont think he understands why that is so unbelievably stupid.

---

adjl posted...

On what basis are you assuming this?

Any positive events in life only exist because they are the abatement of or delay negative events. Positivity can not exist without negativity existing, and yet negativity can certainly exist without positivity. This is only one aspect of the asymmetrical relationship between pleasure and pain for humans. You might have seen the common matrix posted but for anyone who hasn't it goes like this.

1. The presence of pain is bad
2. The presence of pleasure is good
3. The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone
4. the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is someone for whom this absence is a deprivation

So basically even if you disagree about my first point and claim that life has legitimate goods and legitimate bad, (and you make the bold claim that any sizable portion of the population has more good than bad in their life) there is still the point that nonexistence has no bads and no one is suffering the pain they would if they existed while it isn't a bad thing that they're "missing out" on the good parts of life.

DirtBasedSoap posted...

please tell me youre 13

Instead of insulting me, why not try countering my argument with your own?

DirtBasedSoap posted...

what kind of stupid ass reality does op want to live in where nothing bad happens ever? I dont think he understands why that is so unbelievably stupid.

You apparently don't understand my position, either willfully or because you're so incensed that reason has left you. I never said I wished for a world where nothing bad ever happened, what I want is a world free of suffering. Bad is subjective, what is bad for one person might be good for the next, it logically follows that such a world is incompatible with humanity, it is a complete impossibility if one still has even a single human. A world free of suffering on the other hand is entirely possible, all it would take is a century or so of people no longer breeding and it would be a reality.

Reigning_King posted...

procreation is immoral, unethical and should be avoided.

That's what your mom said, but she only needed a little convincing

---

"I want a world free from suffering, so no one else should be able to have kids in order to support my selfish, narrow-minded, dumbass ideas!" - Edgelord Supreme, discussing his own ignorance with his more intelligent peers, 2021

---

Far-Queue posted...

"I want a world free from suffering, so no one else should be able to have kids in order to support my selfish, narrow-minded, dumbass ideas!" - Edgelord Supreme, discussing his own ignorance with his more intelligent peers, 2021

I'm already here, existing, this world free of suffering would be for the potential people who would otherwise be born. Also why are you implying there is something wrong with wanting less suffering in the world? There are countless different groups, organizations, and individuals who are all trying in a myriad of different ways to reduce the amount of suffering in the world. The only difference in my philosophy is that instead of beating around the bush and trying to eliminate the suffering that arises from life I think we should cut it off at the source. My method is much more extreme but is undeniably more efficient and the only true solution to the problem.

Reigning_King posted...

my philosophy

I wouldn't call some dumb bullshit a "philosophy" lmao

---

Far-Queue posted...

I wouldn't call some dumb bullshit a "philosophy" lmao

Thankfully the meaning of words isn't decided by someone as close minded and juvenile as you. I have to ask once again, why are you still here if my philosophy upsets you so much but you can't actually argue against it?

im going to have 4 kids unless you draw me an antinatalism sword

---

a sword made of UNO cards and it has to follow the same rules

---

Reigning_King posted...

Any positive events in life only exist because they are the abatement of or delay negative events.

Uhh, no. Not at all. I have no idea why you would ever think that.

---

I don't agree with OP. Too finite, too restrictive, unrealistic, unempathetic - any enforcement of this is an infringement upon my rights, I'd say. I am indifferent towards procreation, but there's no goddamn way enforcing that is realistic without fascistic/authoritarian/broken democratic action.

I'll dunk on people popping out hella babies, but gtfo with this anti-natalist shit lol

---

your chain of thoughts isn't philosophy.

---

Reigning_King posted...

Thankfully the meaning of words isn't decided by someone as close minded and juvenile as you. I have to ask once again, why are you still here if my philosophy upsets you so much but you can't actually argue against it?

you don't get to define your own reality entirely here bucko lmao

---

PunishedOni posted...

im going to have 4 kids unless you draw me an antinatalism sword

they don't allow real violence on 4kids tho

---

gonna get impregnated this weekend unless i see a really cool sword to explain antinatalism to me. thats a whole lifetime of suffering for the child that you could have prevented

---

adjl posted...

Uhh, no. Not at all. I have no idea why you would ever think that.

List off a couple of things you think of as positive and I'll break it down for you since your imagination seems to be limited. I'm not saying that as a jab, it's just that even if you disagree with me you shouldn't really have a problem seeing what I'm saying.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I don't agree with OP. Too finite, too restrictive, unrealistic, unempathetic - any enforcement of this is an infringement upon my rights, I'd say. I am indifferent towards procreation, but there's no goddamn way enforcing that is realistic without fascistic/authoritarian/broken democratic action.

I'll dunk on people popping out hella babies, but gtfo with this anti-natalist shit lol

You are correct in so far as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and nearly every national article enshrines the right to reproduce or rather they dictate that no willing couple of legal age should be stopped from procreating by the state. This right is held quite high, unsurprisingly considering how core reproduction is to human and all other life. However that doesn't mean it is beyond reproach, in fact rights exist mostly to allow fringe cases, they say nothing of the moral or optimal way to live your life. One can have a legal right to do something if they feel but a moral duty not to. My opinion is that anyone who looks at the matter clearly should see that such a moral duty exists in preventing needless suffering by not reproduce thus invalidating the right without actually revoking it. That would be the ideal path.

As for the possible practical application of the idea failing that one can imagine in the not too distant future a drug or virus that causes infertility and few if no other symptoms which could covertly be put into the water supply of a nation or maybe distributed with incentives for those who take it. Advancements in A.I. and virtual reality could also help fill the gap for those who want an emotional bond similar to that of a child (people seriously treat their pets like kids, don't tell me this is far fetched). However once again I will say that I have no serious expectation that anything close to that will ever happen.

Reigning_King posted...

List off a couple of things you think of as positive and I'll break it down for you since your imagination seems to be limited. I'm not saying that as a jab, it's just that even if you disagree with me you shouldn't really have a problem seeing what I'm saying.

Literally anything fun? Sure, that can be framed as avoiding the negative experience that would be their absence, but that experience can only be defined as negative by identifying them as a desirable state, so you'd be relying on extremely circular logic to do so.

---

adjl posted...

Literally anything fun? Sure, that can be framed as avoiding the negative experience that would be their absence, but that experience can only be defined as negative by identifying them as a desirable state, so you'd be relying on extremely circular logic to do so.

I'm not saying desirable states don't exist, only that they are desirable only because of the baseline negative that is life, even life in a well off 1st world country. Everything that is fun or good in life is simply a short break from this negativity, a gasp of air before our heads are plunged under the cold water once more.

There is actually a deeper level to this particular part of the problem of life in that all the good and bad we do experience are byproducts of the brain running its program. It's a whole can of worms so I won't get to get too deep into it now, but consider that there is no real reason any of us need to feel that baseline negative I mentioned. We don't necessarily have to feel hunger when our stomachs are empty or pain when we cut ourselves, these negative sensations are created purely by the brain in order to make us act a certain way, in the examples above to eat and to avoid injury. The reason the brain does this is to keep us alive, but to what end?

Reigning_King posted...

but to what end?

Carcinization.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcinisation

---

Please draw us an antinatalist sword

---

Reigning_King posted...

The presence of pain is bad
The presence of pleasure is good
The absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone
the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is someone for whom this absence is a deprivation

this is some in this moment I am enlightened shit lmao


---

TC is Sunny

---

Reigning_King posted...

List off a couple of things you think of as positive and I'll break it down for you since your imagination seems to be limited. I'm not saying that as a jab, it's just that even if you disagree with me you shouldn't really have a problem seeing what I'm saying.

You are correct in so far as the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and nearly every national article enshrines the right to reproduce or rather they dictate that no willing couple of legal age should be stopped from procreating by the state. This right is held quite high, unsurprisingly considering how core reproduction is to human and all other life. However that doesn't mean it is beyond reproach, in fact rights exist mostly to allow fringe cases, they say nothing of the moral or optimal way to live your life. One can have a legal right to do something if they feel but a moral duty not to. My opinion is that anyone who looks at the matter clearly should see that such a moral duty exists in preventing needless suffering by not reproduce thus invalidating the right without actually revoking it. That would be the ideal path.

As for the possible practical application of the idea failing that one can imagine in the not too distant future a drug or virus that causes infertility and few if no other symptoms which could covertly be put into the water supply of a nation or maybe distributed with incentives for those who take it. Advancements in A.I. and virtual reality could also help fill the gap for those who want an emotional bond similar to that of a child (people seriously treat their pets like kids, don't tell me this is far fetched). However once again I will say that I have no serious expectation that anything close to that will ever happen.

yeah you already made your opinion clear, you don't need to repeat yourself in various ways.

I highlighted the part that shows why none of it matters. oh wait, I have to highlight more, because you sound like motherfucking Jim Jones right now. I italicized the sentence after because you should understand that this already happens and has happened frequently throughout history. It's called Eugenics; put a name to your beliefs.

---

You also obviously do not feel strongly enough in your own convictions to be a personal advocate for your belief.

https://youtu.be/81xla-YDoGA

---

Just advocate for adoption instead. A little more proactive.

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

TC is Sunny

TC is a 1700s German philosopher

---

Here. A holy blade piercing the twin evils of ouroboros the eternal recurrence and DNA the mindless program that compels life to replicate. Mind you I had to do this on my old phone without even a stylus so you'd better appreciate the suffering I went through to draw it.

ReturnOfFa posted...

yeah you already made your opinion clear, you don't need to repeat yourself in various ways.

I highlighted the part that shows why none of it matters. oh wait, I have to highlight more, because you sound like motherfucking Jim Jones right now. I italicized the sentence after because you should understand that this already happens and has happened frequently throughout history. It's called Eugenics; put a name to your beliefs.

Apparently I do need to repeat myself since so many of you fail to understand my position.

Case in point at the end of the very post you're quoting I say that I know such a thing will never actually happen on the scale I wish it to happen, only that it might one day be technically possible. I have absolutely no idea how you could possibly think I'm a proponent of eugenics unless you are willingly ignoring my most direct statements like the simple one in the OP. In fact an anti-natalist like myself is further from a eugenicist than the average person is.

ReturnOfFa posted...

You also obviously do not feel strongly enough in your own convictions to be a personal advocate for your belief.

https://youtu.be/81xla-YDoGA

Ah, I was wondering how long it would take for one of you to get so upset that you would tell me directly or indirectly to kill myself, it was inevitable. Really it says something very powerful that the same people who apparently hold life in such high esteem always fall back on that.

Not only is it a disgusting tactic that shows a complete disregard for common decency and honest debate but it also has nothing to do with anti-natalism. I have never once advocated that anyone take their own life or even suggested that life isn't worth living. You people always miss this and jump to the thing you think is the most hurtful while claiming the moral high ground, it's honestly sad.