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

(+) Yeah! (+)

This philosophy is based on subjective concepts(pleasure, pain, morality) and concepts that only have meaning to living humans. Say when humanity is all gone what have you done to prevent something like humanity from evolving again? How do you know evolution won't lead to more sapient beings? You want to wipe out all animals? Can you be sure that abiogenesis isn't happening all the time on earth? I'm with the others in this topic, this is just edgelordism. I've heard philosophical arguments for the existence of God that make more sense to me than antinatalism.

---

kind9 posted...

This philosophy is based on subjective concepts(pleasure, pain, morality) and concepts that only have meaning to living humans.

You say that as if most philosophies can't also be described that way, I'm not sure what your point is.

kind9 posted...

Say when humanity is all gone what have you done to prevent something like humanity from evolving again? How do you know evolution won't lead to more sapient beings? You want to wipe out all animals? Can you be sure that abiogenesis isn't happening all the time on earth?

Given the age of the earth, life on earth, and the age/state of our sun it's actually very safe to assume that if humanity suddenly went extinct that nothing comperable would replace us. Regardless this philosophy is human focused as a matter of practicality. There very well might be sentient aliens suffering as we do but it isn't realistic or worthwhile to consider them given we don't know for sure if they exist and couldn't do anything to help them even if they did. The concerns you bring up are similarly beyond the scope of the idea except one point on animals that are breed by humans specifically as food since our extinction would put an end to that as a byproduct.

kind9 posted...

this is just edgelordism.

Care to elaborate? I'm not advocating for mass killings or Thanos snaps here, I'm also not saying that life is unbearably horrible or that it isn't worth living (in most cases). Please tell me what's so edgy about my stance other than the fact that it is naturally unpopular.

Reigning_King posted...

You say that as if most philosophies can't also be described that way, I'm not sure what your point is.

I'm not just describing it that way, it's a fact. It's not sound or practical philosophy. Can you name more philosophies that can be described that way and aren't totally fringe beliefs? Philosophy is one of the most used and abused fields of study so just because it's philosophy doesn't mean it's anything.

Reigning_King posted...

The concerns you bring up are similarly beyond the scope of the idea except one point on animals that are breed by humans specifically as food since our extinction would put an end to that as a byproduct.

Huh? I didn't make a point about breeding animals. I asked if you extend antinatalism to all other animals. Because evolution from extant animals into intelligent, human-like beings doesn't seem so far-fetched to me and would happen long before the sun dies in 5-6 billion years.

Reigning_King posted...

Please tell me what's so edgy about my stance other than the fact that it is naturally unpopular.

It's not just unpopular, my dude, it's extremism.

---

Reigning_King posted...

you can't actually argue against it?

*won't

I've yet to see a post from you with anything resembling an intelligent thought in this topic. No point arguing with a staggeringly ignorant edgelord clown

That sword is cool as fuck, though. You should stick to what you're good at

---

Reigning_King posted...

Far-Queue posted...

That sword is cool as fuck, though

---

Reigning_King posted...

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.

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.

Disagreeing with a position does not equal a failure to understand it. You're really starting to seem like Sunny.

---

'You people', and then a condescending diatribe. So butthurt. Obviously not a real philosopher. Likely Sunny.

---

You fail to refute my points and rely on emotional pleas with haughty presumptions.

---

I am not telling you to kill yourself, that is gross. I know it's a line I'm riding, but if you actually believed your 'philosophy', mass human extinction is the most effective way of achieving it. Why isn't mass human suicide part of your ideals when it clearly aligns with them?

---

because they are fake ideals cooked up in your head/lifted from others who never realistically considered them

---

And because RK here wants other people to solve his problems for him. He's incapable of helping himself.

Again, poor parenting has left him confused and impotent. It's sad.

---

Reigning_King posted...

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.

very cool sword! the "DNA" thing inspired me to research how babies are made and it's totally disgusting -- im anti-natalist now too

---

PunishedOni posted...

the "DNA" thing inspired me to research how babies are made and it's totally disgusting -- im anti-natalist now too

lmao

---

ReturnOfFa posted...

'You people', and then a condescending diatribe. So butthurt. Obviously not a real philosopher. Likely Sunny.

Holy shit, was Sleeping King sunny?
---

Far-Queue posted...

And because RK here wants other people to solve his problems for him. He's incapable of helping himself.

Again, poor parenting has left him confused and impotent. It's sad.

internet users calling other internet users sad and incapable. classic gamefaqs. yeah cool sword though

---

Naruto_fan_42 posted...

internet users calling other internet users sad and incapable

Im confused. Everyone that uses the internet is sad and incapable?

---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

Im confused. Everyone that uses the internet is sad and incapable?

so most of humanity is sad and incapable and were all hypocrites

---

Naruto_fan_42 posted...

so most of humanity is sad and incapable and were all hypocrites

Spoken like a true antinatalist

---

Most people are actually pretty cool

they just dont stand out and its always angry people and idiots doing stuff and representing our species

---

kind9 posted...

I'm not just describing it that way, it's a fact. It's not sound or practical philosophy. Can you name more philosophies that can be described that way and aren't totally fringe beliefs? Philosophy is one of the most used and abused fields of study so just because it's philosophy doesn't mean it's anything.

Huh? I didn't make a point about breeding animals. I asked if you extend antinatalism to all other animals. Because evolution from extant animals into intelligent, human-like beings doesn't seem so far-fetched to me and would happen long before the sun dies in 5-6 billion years.

It's not just unpopular, my dude, it's extremism.

I could give some examples but what is the point given that last sentence of yours in the first paragraph, you clearly don't know much about or respect philosophy, and beyond that it isn't really relevant. I'll keep referring to my thoughts as a philosophy but if you don't like that just mentally sub out the word for something else, it doesn't really matter.

Once again you don't seem to know what you're on about. The sun won't consume the earth for another 5-6 billion years as you say but will be close enough and hot enough to boil the oceans away in a "mere" 1 billion. Life as we know it will be impossible long before that even too as even a few degrees difference throws off the balance catastrophically. Basically there is zero chance of a comparable species to humanity evolving on this planet before it is destroyed, thankfully.

Asking people to think about someone other than themselves when they want to breed and refraining if they come to the conclusion that doing so would not be in the best interests of their potential child is common decency, so I suppose that must be extremism these days. The funny thing is most people would actually agree with that statement in "extreme" cases, that is most people would say a person has a moral duty not to reproduce in such a situation where their child is guaranteed to needlessly suffer and die young, say from some latent genetic disorder the parents share. All I'm saying is that mindset should be expanded to all births as life only promises needless suffering and death for everyone and nothing more.

...I suppose it is extreme in the same way as when the majority of humanity participated in slavery saying such a thing as "maybe consider how your slaves feel about being slaves and release them if you think it's unfair to them" would be considered extreme and would provoke violent and bewildered responses not just from slave owners but nearly anyone not a slave themselves since those words pleading for the moral treatment of fellow humans threatens the structure of the society they were accustomed to. So fine, I suppose I can accept the label of extreme but I don't think that makes me wrong at all.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Disagreeing with a position does not equal a failure to understand it. You're really starting to seem like Sunny.

It's hard to tell when most of the posts in this topic are just "you're wrong lmao!" without any elaboration or counter arguments presents, I'm looking for an honest and straightforward debate but no such thing has appeared.

ReturnOfFa posted...

I am not telling you to kill yourself, that is gross. I know it's a line I'm riding, but if you actually believed your 'philosophy', mass human extinction is the most effective way of achieving it. Why isn't mass human suicide part of your ideals when it clearly aligns with them?

You say stuff like this and then seriously want me to believe you don't fail to understand my position? I'll tell you outright that you're wrong. You've failed to understand that you don't even understand.

Absolutely no killing or suicide is necessary for a future without humanity, I have already given multiple other ways such a thing could be accomplished. They are unrealistic as I mentioned then but your "ideas" are even more so than mine. How on earth would everyone be convinced to commit suicide or how would a group go about killing all of humanity? Even launching all nukes we have across the earth wouldn't technically guarantee the destruction of humanity, not withstanding the technical infeasibility of such a plan.

Reigning_King posted...

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.

That's not remotely true. There's a very substantial range of "good" beyond "I can briefly forget how miserable I am." You don't need to be sad to enjoy happy; happy is intrinsically enjoyable.

---

TC has been wrong throughout the entire topic. Nothing they've posted is well thought-out or sensible.


---

Chances are good that if you fall into that "I can briefly forget how miserable I am" demographic, that you're suffering from depression or some other disorder, which is not a great place to be postulating solutions for mankind's many maladies from.

---

adjl posted...

That's not remotely true. There's a very substantial range of "good" beyond "I can briefly forget how miserable I am." You don't need to be sad to enjoy happy; happy is intrinsically enjoyable.

I never used the word misery, negative can refer to any harm no matter how slight. Hunger, thirst, fatigue, sleepiness, bowel and bladder distention, even a mere itch can be seen as negative. Once again I ask you for a list of what you consider intrinsically enjoyable so I can break it down for you.

Another facet here (not the one about brain states that you've ignored) is that people are known to be bad judges of the quality of their lives because of various psychological mechanisms. One is called Pollyannaism, or the general bent towards optimism humanity has, another is the high adaptability of humanity. People can become accustomed to nearly any situation, things that they might have said they would rather die than go through a few years before finding themselves in such a situation. The point I'm making is that people tend not to realize how much negativity is in their lives to begin with and from that point they still evaluate themselves higher than their peers would. This has to be taken into account when discussing how positive or negative a life is which was the orginal focus of this reply chain.

Mad_Max posted...

TC has been wrong throughout the entire topic. Nothing they've posted is well thought-out or sensible.

What an amazing counter argument, I now see the error of my ways /s

Instead of just replying to people I'll pose another question, well more of a thought experiment.

Say you desire Outcome X and will do anything to avoid Outcome Y.
You believe that by following Plan A you will obtain Outcome X.
Later you learn objectively and without question that following Plan A will result in Outcome Y, not X.

Would you still follow Plan A or attempt to construct a Plan B?

Also this isn't some sneaky trick question, just take it at face value.

Reigning_King posted...

What an amazing counter argument

Thank you. Being amazing comes naturally to me.

---

Reigning_King posted...

I never used the word misery, negative can refer to any harm no matter how slight. Hunger, thirst, fatigue, sleepiness, bowel and bladder distention, even a mere itch can be seen as negative. Once again I ask you for a list of what you consider intrinsically enjoyable so I can break it down for you.

Consider the difference between eating stale bread and eating a slice of bread so fresh it's still slightly warm. Their ability to stave off hunger is identical, but the latter offers a positive experience that goes well beyond merely preventing hunger. Heck, consider dessert as a fundamental concept: That's food you're eating because it's fun to eat, not to sustain yourself (though the caloric content does help). Similarly, there's a world of difference between dealing with boredom by playing your favourite game and dealing with it by playing Solitaire or Minesweeper.

Again, there's a very substantial range of "good" beyond "this fixes that unpleasantness I felt." Happiness is intrinsically enjoyable.

Reigning_King posted...

Another facet here (not the one about brain states that you've ignored) is that people are known to be bad judges of the quality of their lives because of various psychological mechanisms. One is called Pollyannaism, or the general bent towards optimism humanity has, another is the high adaptability of humanity. People can become accustomed to nearly any situation, things that they might have said they would rather die than go through a few years before finding themselves in such a situation. The point I'm making is that people tend not to realize how much negativity is in their lives to begin with and from that point they still evaluate themselves higher than their peers would. This has to be taken into account when discussing how positive or negative a life is which was the orginal focus of this reply chain.

If you don't care about any of the ways in which your life could be said to measurably suck, is there actually any reason to say that your life sucks? At its most basic definition, "harm" is simply "something I would prefer not to experience." Therefore, somebody who doesn't care enough to have a preference hasn't actually experienced harm. Insisting that they have and should therefore be miserable is profoundly arrogant.

---

The people who should be having kids aren't and the people who shouldn't are.

---

Zareth posted...

The people who should be having kids aren't and the people who shouldn't are.

Cool generalization

---

If the should shouldnt types wouldnt, we couldnt shouldnt but would

---

The missile knows where it is at all times, it knows this because it also knows where it isn't

---

adjl posted...

Consider the difference between eating stale bread and eating a slice of bread so fresh it's still slightly warm. Their ability to stave off hunger is identical, but the latter offers a positive experience that goes well beyond merely preventing hunger. Heck, consider dessert as a fundamental concept: That's food you're eating because it's fun to eat, not to sustain yourself (though the caloric content does help). Similarly, there's a world of difference between dealing with boredom by playing your favourite game and dealing with it by playing Solitaire or Minesweeper.

Again, there's a very substantial range of "good" beyond "this fixes that unpleasantness I felt." Happiness is intrinsically enjoyable.

If you don't care about any of the ways in which your life could be said to measurably suck, is there actually any reason to say that your life sucks? At its most basic definition, "harm" is simply "something I would prefer not to experience." Therefore, somebody who doesn't care enough to have a preference hasn't actually experienced harm. Insisting that they have and should therefore be miserable is profoundly arrogant.

Eating fresh bread is more rewarding than eating stale bread because the brain knows that the fresh bread is "better" in that it is less likely to have any complications like mold spores or being difficult to digest. Millions of years of evolution have given us a preference for fresh food for reasons like this, the intrinsic reward you speak of is just a bonus to try to help us avoid getting sick in addition to filling our stomachs. Dessert is the same, people might eat it "because it's fun" but the only reason it is fun is because the calorie count as you mention, such things would have helped stave off starvation and grant energy for other tasks to avoid the negative base line. It isn't intrinsically good, it's only felt as such because it has a purpose in helping avoid negativity, these days many people eat and overeat simply to stave off boredom. As for you game example, a preference for a certain game exists because of the type of negativity a person is trying to abate. Some love online games because it helps the avoid feeling lonely, some love competitive games because they want to "prove" they're better at a task than others to bolster their self esteem, some like story driven games for the escapism which let's them destress. All of these are about avoiding not just boredom but other negative which is why they are found to be more enjoyable for those people than something simple like solitaire.

I never actually said that ALL good in the world was about rising above the baseline negative, or fixing it as you put it. Quite a lot of it is about trying to maintain a position above it or at least not sink too low under the line. What I mean is that getting something like a raise at work is enjoyable not just because of the short term things like feeling appreciated but also the long term understanding that having more money will help one maintain their position relative to the line, also this is probably obvious but most of these feelings I've mentioned are on the subconscious or unconscious level so the most people sense on the surface is just happiness which is what you're getting at.

• Try thinking about it this way, why does anyone do ANYTHING? Hunger comes naturally without any action, we have to go out of our way to satisfy that hunger, every single thing we do is to satisfy some desire or another. Desires, wants, needs, deprivations, negativity in other words, that comes to us naturally. Many of these desires we can only partly satisfy if at all, plenty of people have starved to death after all, and of those who do get their daily bread, the need to empty their bowels will result soon after because of it. Even if we could somehow satisfy them all then we would be left with boredom yet another negative. Life is a trial of trying to avoid and reject the negativity inherent to it, but as with all human endeavors it can only be done imperfectly.

So say you have a beggar in some filthy slum in some war torn 3rd world country who is blind and missing both his legs but has been in his position for so long and so many of the people who have been around him his whole life are also in awful positions or even worse ones that he doesn't see his lot as particularly bad... you would say that he honestly wouldn't be better off with his sight, legs, and money?

---

Metalsonic66 posted...

I'm more of an Arcanum kind of guy
(very situational spoilers for a 20 year old PC game)
https://youtu.be/cMZi217RUUY

Reigning_King posted...

Eating fresh bread is more rewarding than eating stale bread because the brain knows that the fresh bread is "better" in that it is less likely to have any complications like mold spores or being difficult to digest.

So now you're not even citing actual harm, you're relying on the brain subconsciously perceiving harm and thereby assigning greater positive feelings to something that better avoids that.

Reigning_King posted...

So say you have a beggar in some filthy slum in some war torn 3rd world country who is blind and missing both his legs but has been in his position for so long and so many of the people who have been around him his whole life are also in awful positions or even worse ones that he doesn't see his lot as particularly bad... you would say that he honestly wouldn't be better off with his sight, legs, and money?

"Not suffering" and "not having room to improve" are two very, very different things. Winning a million dollars is not suffering, but I'd still be better off if I won $2 million.

The position you're trying to argue seems to amount to "everyone's life sucks and if they think it doesn't it's because their brain has tricked them into enjoying their Sisyphean struggle against their inevitable suffering and death," which is an utterly useless way to look at anything. Yes, you can find measurable harm and negativity in everyone's life if you take a sufficiently vague, high-level approach to it. Nobody cares. Nobody is actually unhappy because sometimes they need to poop. The idea that they ought to be is thoroughly ridiculous.

---

Who will care for the final generation of elderly? Sounds like a lot of suffering. Inconsistent paradoxical and performative.

---

adjl posted...

So now you're not even citing actual harm, you're relying on the brain subconsciously perceiving harm and thereby assigning greater positive feelings to something that better avoids that.

"Not suffering" and "not having room to improve" are two very, very different things. Winning a million dollars is not suffering, but I'd still be better off if I won $2 million.

The position you're trying to argue seems to amount to "everyone's life sucks and if they think it doesn't it's because their brain has tricked them into enjoying their Sisyphean struggle against their inevitable suffering and death," which is an utterly useless way to look at anything. Yes, you can find measurable harm and negativity in everyone's life if you take a sufficiently vague, high-level approach to it. Nobody cares. Nobody is actually unhappy because sometimes they need to poop. The idea that they ought to be is thoroughly ridiculous.

As I said in the very post you're replying to, "goodness" can also be granted for preemptively avoiding harm, and I don't get your point about the brain anticipating harm as somehow not real harm. If someone points a gun at you but hasn't actually shot you yet and your brain causes you feel an overwhelming amount of fear in anticipation of being shot and to try to make you do whatever you need to to avoid that outcome is that fear somehow not actual harm?

You have a very bad habit of not actually answering my questions (although I do appreciate that you're at least trying to be civil unlike everyone else). In my hypothetical would the man be better off or not? In his assessment he's perfectly fine but how many others would say that he is correct? Is self evaluation the end all be all for if someone is suffering? Keep in mind the documented psychological phenomena I've already pointed out before answering.

You can it a useless mindset only because you refuse to accept that there is only one solution to the problem. Nobody cares because they too refuse to accept the solution, actively or passively humanity has accepted that suffering, and bring more children into existence to suffer (with no end goal or point to any of this I should point out) is a better alternative to extinction. This is completely illogical and immoral, but understandable I suppose. All I want to do is help people see the error of their ways.

Also on the issue of pooping being a harm, it absolutely is. As I've said another aspect of human psychology is that when evaluating our quality of life we compare it to that of our peers to form a base line even if another group would put our peer group far above or below their own. That is the reason rich people, even the super filthy rich don't report themselves to be much happier if at all than those in poverty unless they are specifically asked to compare themselves across groups. Anyways, all humans poop, we are all in the poop peer group together so it isn't seen as a positive or a negative but that absolutely doesn't mean that it isn't. A being similar to a human in all ways except that they never needed to poop with no downside would be inarguably more efficient and suffer less than a normal human. This goes for all natural processes. In the past when life expectancy was low a man dying at 35 might not be seen as anything particularly tragic, and a man dying at 60 could have been considered to have lived a good long life. Now the reaction to both would be very different, the family would suffer more grief than their ancient counterpart most probably. Today if a man reaches 100 years old it is a major milestone to be celebrated and no one ever feels bad because so and so didn't live to be 200 instead because such a thing is (currently) impossible. Why shouldn't the inability to live to 200 or go without pooping be seen as a harm? Because you lack the imagination to envision a future where such a thing is possible and our time is looked back on as pitiful for having had to suffer such things?

ReturnOfFa posted...

Who will care for the final generation of elderly? Sounds like a lot of suffering. Inconsistent paradoxical and performative.

The extinction could be gradual, but I'm not a fan of that route since while a baby being born for a specific purpose and for the benefit of the remainder of humanity is assuredly better than one being born for the common reasons (or no reason) it is still selfish.

Since this plan could only ever work with global collaboration in the first place I believe that by combining the resources and knowledge of all countries we could build automated facilities for the final generation to live out their final days in relative comfort. If we started tomorrow we would have a solid 50 years or so to do it, and probably longer than that.

Even in a situation where something like that didn't happen and everyone was just left to find for themselves the amount of suffering would be large but magnitudes smaller than the amount our normal everyday way of living produces and the most important thing is that it would be a finite amount of suffering.

Feel bad for TC, honestly. Imagine being so consumed with suffering that you don't see a point to existing any more. Like, I've cut off a finger. Lost my mother to a car accident. I've experienced some pretty hefty pain and trauma in my life, but I have never sunk so low that I'd want all of humanity to die off. I enjoy life, despite the "sad bits". He must be miserable. Poor fella :(

And trying to pass it off like it's some noble effort, preventing potential future suffering in unborn children?? That's some flawed rationale if I've ever heard it.

"Someone might stub their toe, so I better cut every human being's feet off"

That's stupid.

And that half-baked "well you only perceive joy because you suffer and vice versa blah blah blah" - that's all bullshit. You still experience joy and happiness, and many people go through life feeling happy a majority of the time. Why would you want to rob future people of a life of happiness and fulfillment, just to avoid a small percentage of suffering.

Imagine feeling so hopeless that you'd rather give up on humanity, rather than work to make life better and address the problems we face.

And the gall to think that because you can't enjoy life, that somehow think you know what's best for everyone else. If you're so miserable, focus on your own problems. Where do you get off feeling like you can speak for the entire world on this matter?

Seriously, tell your cousin or sister or aunt or whomever that they should get a hysterectomy so they prevent their unborn children from suffering, and see what kind of a reaction you get.

This is one of the dumbest topics I've seen on this board. And there's been a lot of dumb topics on this board.

---

Mad_Max posted...

And that half-baked "well you only perceive joy because you suffer and vice versa blah blah blah" -

"Gotta have a little sadness once in a while so you know when the good times come."

-Bob Ross
---Michael Scott

---

Mad_Max posted...

Feel bad for TC, honestly. Imagine being so consumed with suffering that you don't see a point to existing any more. Like, I've cut off a finger. Lost my mother to a car accident. I've experienced some pretty hefty pain and trauma in my life, but I have never sunk so low that I'd want all of humanity to die off. I enjoy life, despite the "sad bits". He must be miserable. Poor fella :(

And trying to pass it off like it's some noble effort, preventing potential future suffering in unborn children?? That's some flawed rationale if I've ever heard it.

"Someone might stub their toe, so I better cut every human being's feet off"

That's stupid.

And that half-baked "well you only perceive joy because you suffer and vice versa blah blah blah" - that's all bullshit. You still experience joy and happiness, and many people go through life feeling happy a majority of the time. Why would you want to rob future people of a life of happiness and fulfillment, just to avoid a small percentage of suffering.

Imagine feeling so hopeless that you'd rather give up on humanity, rather than work to make life better and address the problems we face.

And the gall to think that because you can't enjoy life, that somehow think you know what's best for everyone else. If you're so miserable, focus on your own problems. Where do you get off feeling like you can speak for the entire world on this matter?

Seriously, tell your cousin or sister or aunt or whomever that they should get a hysterectomy so they prevent their unborn children from suffering, and see what kind of a reaction you get.

This is one of the dumbest topics I've seen on this board. And there's been a lot of dumb topics on this board.

Keep your fake sympathy, I've never once said I find life to be disagreeable. Someone can be an anti-natalist and love life, there is no conflict of interest there. So many of you seem to have trouble distinguishing between those currently living and those yet to live, current humanity can do as they please with their own lives but by bringing another human into existence they are immorally involving someone else.

What is so flawed about that line of thought? It is undeniable that all humans suffer, it is undeniable that all humans are born, it is therefore undeniable that all humans who are born suffer. Truthfully the burden of explaining why this is acceptable should fall on the people bringing these humans into existence, I shouldn't even need to point these simple facts out.

In your "example" the act of cutting off all feet would cause immeasurably more suffering than the occasional stubbed toe. If you honestly believe that is a valid analogy for what I'm saying then you are effectively saying that the non-act of not being born is far more painful and debilitating than the suffering inherent to life. You're going to need to explain this, do you believe that before being born everyone has a soul that is tortured endlessly in some hellscape or something? How can someone who doesn't exist feel pain? Also by your logic people would have a moral duty to have as many children as they possibly could since they would be "saving them" from "having their feet cut off" in exchange for life as a human which is only like "stubbing a toe". Please explain yourself here.

I see you go on to literally say that the extinction of humanity would "rob" future people of the chance to experience happiness... so you do actually think people have a duty to have as many children as they can? I mean otherwise those people are being immoral for "robbing" their potential children right? Tell me, every time you see a woman who isn't pregnant do you feel sad for her potential child who could have fun one day if only she got knocked up? Sorry but that sounds insane to me.

As I've pointed out all problems humanity face are intrinsically tied to being alive. Anyone who claims to be a humanitarian and doesn't advocate for human extinction is incredibly inefficient and ineffectual at best and a blatant hypocrite at worse. Human suffering will exist as long a single human does, if you're cool with pointless suffering then fine but some people aren't.

There is a very simple formula that shows I am correct, at least from the moral perspective. I posted it ages ago (post #26) and only a single person even acknowledged it and only to futilely try to poke holes in it. I'm not saying everyone has to do the morally correct thing in every instance but they should at least be able to admit they are acting selfishly (having a child) openly. That is the first step to change.

Unfortunately even that is too much for most given the reactions I've gotten itt. The average person is too indoctrinated by breeder society and has vested interests in continuing it, not to mention wanting to avoid the cognitive dissonance the truth of my philosophy brings them.

Every part of this entire topic is bad

---

Mead posted...

Every part of this entire topic is bad

Don't insult my sword drawing.

Reigning_King posted...

Don't insult my sword drawing.

I dont have any positive comments regarding it

---

I don't know if the anti natalist perspective means much versus just hoping for the mass and quick extinction of all humankind (and all life). If you're being an absolute realist humanist who hates human suffering then life is inherently evil because it brings about suffering inherently and the world is a really unfair, cruel, and unjust place (not to mention all the horrific things we lucky 1st worlders don't see on a daily basis and ignore the fact that they exist). You can't really stop people from procreating even if you adopt this perspective, so you have to hope for a global extinction event (or bring it about yourself with global thermonuclear war, but you'd have to be one hell of a powerful human with luck on their side too to bring that extinction about yourself. And even then global thermonuclear war could leave survivors. Maybe in the future when we understand science to the point where we could annihilate the earth in a quick fell swoop). The quickest death that could be imparted to all life on this planet is probably spaghettification by a wandering black hole or gamma ray burst. Not sure how quick exactly and how much pain would be caused by either extinction event in the moments before death.

---

Reigning_King posted...

Don't insult my sword drawing.

Don't be a man-baby.

---

Reigning_King posted...

The extinction could be gradual, but I'm not a fan of that route since while a baby being born for a specific purpose and for the benefit of the remainder of humanity is assuredly better than one being born for the common reasons (or no reason) it is still selfish.

Since this plan could only ever work with global collaboration in the first place I believe that by combining the resources and knowledge of all countries we could build automated facilities for the final generation to live out their final days in relative comfort. If we started tomorrow we would have a solid 50 years or so to do it, and probably longer than that.

Even in a situation where something like that didn't happen and everyone was just left to find for themselves the amount of suffering would be large but magnitudes smaller than the amount our normal everyday way of living produces and the most important thing is that it would be a finite amount of suffering.

This isn't philosophy, this is fantasy.

You will never convince the human species to stop creating babies. There is no kernel of realism contained.

---

you can't even be empathetic to another living being that shared personal stories just now

you contribute to suffering cheers

---

Apparently being anti-natalist is completely rational in contrast to mass suicide/mass extinction. Splitting hairs. Both are impossible and undesirable.

PS the animal kingdom also creates suffering, even though they are of nature. Should they be controlled? Will they create magical peace Earth after humans peacefully die off? LOL NO MOTHERFUCKER!!!

---