You literally cannot refute this.
>>18346209Antinatalism is only valid if non-existence is preferable to existence itself, but the fact that suffering people usually choose to prolong their torment if it means extending their lifespan proves the opposite.
>>18346241[citation needed]135 people suicide per day so what do you think about that lmao
Is he… You know…?
>>18346253Compared to how many are born and don't commit suicide? Drop in the bucket.
>>18346209He's ugly, so I shouldn't listen to him.
>>18346209I have found happiness in my life, and I bring children so that they may experience it too. And as someone who has seen starving, dehydrated third world children play and laugh while waiting for aid, I think that even when the worst of suffering is afflicted upon these innocent souls, they can be happy. After all, they do not know or care about Singer’s utilitarian calculi or think about happiness in the abstract, but instead as experience. And as adults, we forget this.
>>18347046>I bring childrenConsidering this is 4chan, I doubt this is true. But even if it is, what will you tell them when shit really hits the fan? When they can't find a home because of the housing crisis, when they can't find a job because of AI, when the climate catastrophe really kicks off in the next few decades, etc.
Anti-natalism refutes itself by self-abolishing in practice. Why waste time on this shit when the task it sets out to accomplish is Sisyphean?
>>18347155Imagine whining about climate change instead of finding an obscure country to hunker down in with millions of dollars and creating a playbook for future generations to be barbarian nomads pillaging survivor settlements.
>>18347155>when shit really hits the fanNothing ever happens
>>1834703550% of the population has depression or some mental illness lmaoYou/they are coping with being forced to exist
>>18346209Why would I refute this? You can absolutely minimize by having nothing to damage. The result is then, of course, is the same as complete damage though.>>18346253Most people who fail suicide regret trying.>>18347199And we should assume from this they would prefer not being born?
>>18347205>Most people who fail suicide regret trying.Then why is it so common for people to reattempt after failing the first time?
>>18347211For the same reasons they attempted it the first time. For the same reasons why people relapse into drug abuse. For the same reasons people return to abusive relationships. Sometimes we don't seek solutions, but comfort. Knowing full well it's wrong.
>>18347199>50% of the population has depression or some mental illnessCool stats you pulled out your ass
Antinatalism only exists in neoliberal societies all hopped up on pathological individualism who can't even understand that they lack the natural feeling of purpose and belonging that comes with being a part of a collective or working as a collective to make society less shit
>>18347421I mean yeah, if people were working together to make this planet less shit, and there was proof of actual progress towards that goal, I'm sure more people would be having kids. But as it is now, the future is NOT looking good. I'd argue that it's morally wrong to have a kid with the way things are going.
>>18346209He's a jew
>>18347437The future is looking excellent. You sound like a coward.
>>18346253>135 people suicide per dayI thought it was more than that
>>18347421It'd be even shittier to live in a society where your only purpose is to work in a clump in a factory or whatever like a fucking ant
>>18346209I just find you as a person disgusting , when talking to other people you are the best more efficient best idiology that just destroys all those bastard fools.but when finnaly talking to yourself you talk about how everything is a fundamental mistake that you hate everything in the long run , that you want to destroy everything.this ideas would not even be close to being respected in any time period exept 5 years ago.I think their is wisdom in not having children you can't take care of , and hell their might be wisdom in destroying this word fundamentally.but can I pleace take it from somone who isn't a nigger?
>>18346209brainlet take. so stupid that I bet you're an atheist to believe this garbage is worthy of a thread
>>18347490
>>18346253>135 people suicide per day so what do you think about that lmaoThat's actually pretty low, like 150000 to 170000 die a day, it's less than 1% of people choosing to exit on their own terms.
>>18347508Not my Problem
>>18347514Based zambia
>>18346209If life is so terrible that bringing children into the world is "inflicting suffering" on them then why don't you kill yourself right now?You literally cannot refute this.
>>18347521What do those two things have to do with each other? Even if I think having kids is a bad idea, maybe I enjoy my own life enough to want to continue.But to answer your question, I do in fact plan to an hero sometime in the next couple months.
>>18347199>50% of the population has depression or some mental illness lmaoThe National Institute of Mental Health puts that number closer to 17%. Even then, it doesn't matter because the modern overpathologized view of the human mind is bunk anyway.
>>18347155That's fine, as I too had suffered and grew up in a cramped, rented apartment, and climate disasters batter the ancestral land I grew up in as I type this. You are continuing to speak of happiness as an abstract mathematical quantity, and as though climate change and AI or the western housing crisis are all somehow the worst catastrophes to befall humanity. They aren't, and even if they were history shows we still found happiness, ambition and strength to power through such times.
>>18346253That's a very small number of people.
>>18347531This Anon speaks the truth.
>>18347526Why the next couple of months and not now? Not trying to be vindictive, I am genuinely curious.
>>18347549Just need to wait for some other things to happen first.
>>18346209I'll only agree with an antinatalist when he kills himselfall fields redditroon
>>18347199>50% of the population has depression or some mental illness*50% of the troon population
>>18346973jewish? of course he isBenatar is a jewish surname and his father's name is Solomon
OP's quote is just a shitty version of Schopenhauer's pessimism, but even he recognized the Will to Live as a powerful force.If life is so bad, stop being a professional quotemaker and kill yourself. Oh? You don't actually believe your Gnostic ideas? You just want to make other people depressed and suicidal? Very cool!
>>18346209thats not david benatar, thats peter singer. is this bait?
>>18346209Harm reduction isn't harm elimination. Otherwise the moral good would be the genocide of all of humanity. The goal isn't for humanity to have zero suffering, but to minimize it. Some amount of suffering is good for personal growth, but too much suffering destroys your ability to function.That wasn't even though to refute.
>>18347750The thing is, you'll never know how much suffering a person will endure before they're born.My little sister spent over a quarter of her life just lying in a hospital bed, only to end up dying anyways. Obviously, my parents had no way of knowing this before she was born, but if somehow they did, the morally correct thing would have been to not conceive her.
>>18346209Thats Peter Singer not David Benatar. Doesn't matter though, both are jews.
>>18347508>Just 2 more years until climate barges in your home with a gun to kill you!Nigger they have been bitching about this since the 30's. It's not gonna happen. Climate deaths are at an all time low and you are being scared by people who do not have your interest at heart. Exactly the type of gullibility that these antinatalist platitudes aim to hit.
>>18347808no, you don't understand, by the year 2000 the polar ice caps will have melted and Florida and New York (the twin Israels of America) will be underwater!!!!!!!!
>>18346209The problem (as evidenced by the replies in this thread) is that the average person's opinions regarding life and reproduction are subject to the most extreme Stockholm syndrome imaginable. At its core, accepting antinatalism means accepting that existence was forced on you without your consent. It's a bit similar to the responses you see around circumcision debates. There are always circumcised guys who go to great lengths to defend their circumcision for various reasons; this borne out of a refusal to confront the reality that they were mutilated by their parents while they were defenseless infants.The harm caused by circumcision is of course of infinitesimal comparted to that caused by existence. If people are so hesitant to accept that they were wronged in a lesser way, imagine how much more so they must be when it comes to their entire existence. Every negative experience, emotion, pain, etc. experienced throughout your entire life is a direct result of your parent's decision to reproduce. But what can you do, now that you're here? Rather than confront the admittedly depressing reality that you had the suffering of existence forced upon you against your will, people will instead cope that they love it and they're glad they were born.But these people are attached to existence in the same way hostages can become attached to their captors. Life is objectively a net negative experience but though the trick of selective memory, people convince themselves that not only way being born a good thing, but it was so good that they feel justified in making that decision on the behalf of their children, bringing them into the world without the slightest shred of consent.Most people aren't smart enough to step outside this sort of programming and consider this topic logically, which is why reproduction is inversely correlated with intelligence and education.
>>18347750>Otherwise the moral good would be the genocide of all of humanity.The objective moral good is the genocide of every living thing, of life itself.
My child's smile makes me forget about all the bullshit in the worldEnjoy playing vidya at 80 I guess
>>18347944>i can do whatever i want to other people without their consent and it's justified as long as it makes me personally happypure evil
The Virgin Anti-natalist:>"Life is inherently shit so you shouldn't have children"The Chad Natal-realist:>"Life is inherently shit, which is why you should want to have children, as experiencing hardship and overcoming it is better than not experiencing anything at all"
>child smiles>pure evilA mammal has to be severely abused to not have children. I cannot even imagine what conditions it takes to make them denounce the very idea in general. I would legit like to do psychological research on anti-natalists.
>>18347835>At its core, accepting antinatalism means accepting that existence was forced on you without your consent.The fundamental problem is that it's physically impossible to get consent for giving birth, so the entire premise of antinatalism is completely nonsense and the definition of begging the question. I think if you were to ask the majority of people whether or not they would've consented to being brought into this world, the vast majority of people would say yes. I don't care about how cynical your views on life are, because the premise is fundamentally flawed, this can be disregarded. It's not possible to consent to bringing children into this world, so there's no way of knowing whether or not they want to be alive unless they're actually born. A more sensible question you should be asking is why haven't you killed yourself? Unironically, why haven't you killed yourself? Because while you can't consent to being born, you can consent to ending your own life. Antinatalism in effect just puts the burden on the parents for their child having a mental disorder that makes them a suicidal retard.
>>18347961>The fundamental problem is that it's physically impossible to get consent for giving birth, so the entire premise of antinatalism is completely nonsense and the definition of begging the question.Nonsense. If you accept that people should not have things imposed on them without their consent, then the only logical conclusion is that reproduction is inherently immoral. That's the end of the debate, honestly. I'll humor the rest of your post but unless you can address this basic argument then we're done here. Here, I'll break it down for you:>forcing someone to do something without their consent is immoral>it's impossible for someone to consent to being born>therefore reproduction is immoral>I think if you were to ask the majority of people whether or not they would've consented to being brought into this worldI addressed this from multiple angles in my previous post. Once you've been born, it's too late to take it back and no one is making an objective decision when answering a question like that. If you were to take an unborn person without any attachment to their life or identity and show them a potential life with all its ups and downs and ask them if they want to experience it, I imagine you'd get a much high amount of "no", especially when you consider the very significant number of lives that end in abject misery. You might consent to being born a white guy in a first world country. Would you consent to being born a lower caste woman in rural India?>why haven't you killed yourself?If I wanted chatgpt-tier discussion then I could go there to get this sort of basic midwit take regurgitated at me. You aren't even asking the right question. It would be more logical for me to start killing other people rather than myself, as each person I killed would prevent countless more from being born.That said, I believe in karmic rebirth. If I kill myself then I'll just be reborn so it's best to spend my time working to break out of that cycle.
>>18347566What like life insurance to go through? You are killing yourself, no reason to be secretive.
>>18347992>If you accept that people should not have things imposed on them without their consentWe don't. And the Anon exactly described why - it leads to a contradiction. Application of consent is fairly limited. Any principle, when exaggerated past its purpose, results in cosmic lamentation.
>>18348005>it leads to a contradiction.In what way is it a contradiction? All I'm seeing here is that you disagree on an emotional level with the logical conclusion. And that's fine, but emotional disagreement with a logical proposition doesn't disprove it. You don't like the conclusion, but calling it something it isn't - a contradiction - is not how to engage with it. Let me help you out. You have two options here. One, which you seem to be gravitating towards, is rejecting my first proposition, and taking the position that forcibly doing something to a person without their consent isn't immoral. This is a valid debate tactic but you'd need to provide some support for this claim. In what situations and why is it ok to do things to people without their consent? A common response would be if it's for their own good, in which case you'd need to argue that rolling the dice on a random person being born, not knowing what they will experience or how their life will turn out, is nonetheless for their own good. I don't think you're interested in honest debate so I don't expect to see you attempt that argument, but I'd be interested to see it.You second option would be rejecting my second proposition, in which case you'd need to argue that it is somehow possible for someone to consent to being born. I don't think either of us believe that, so we're back to the first.
>>18348033>>it leads to a contradiction.>In what way is it a contradiction?See the very first sentence of >>18347961. It leads to a physical impossibility, meaning you're seeking an inapplicable application. >emotional>debate tactic>I don't think you're interested in honest debateYou seem to be over-invested a little bit. This is a discussion, not a debate, and not one with much emotional investment on the table. Anti-natalism has exhausted its shock-factor and hardly gained any convincing power as it never meets its burden.>In what situations and why is it ok to do things to people without their consent?Before people are mature or sane, in most. Pre-natal children are neither btw.>you'd need to argue that rolling the dice on a random person being born, not knowing what they will experience or how their life will turn out, is nonetheless for their own good"Knowing" is a nice sounding but ultimately a self-defeating standard for AN. You never truly "know" neither the future, nor the inner life of a person (for example when they say "I consent.")>you'd need to argue>you'd need to provide some supportAnti-natalism isn't the default position. I'll be glad to discuss why some of the (imho obvious) statements hold water, but in the end it's you who needs to establish that the analysis that led to your conclusions is valid, sound and relevant, ie. non-misleading.
>>18348047>See the very first sentence of >>18347961. It leads to a physical impossibilityThis is not a contradiction of any kind and I'm honestly a bit disappointed to see you continuing to claim that it is. I forget that people on 4chan like to larp as being more educated and intelligent than they actually are. You guys always have a nice window dressing that leads me to believe I'll be able to have a stimulating discussion and then you pull the dressing aside and there's nothing there.Consent is a human invention. It is a mental concept. That you would refer to this scenario as a "physical impossibility" is frankly embarrassing. There's nothing physical about it. What I'm describing is an inherent quality of giving birth, that it must be done without consent. That's not my opinion or a "contradiction"; it's simply how things are.>and not one with much emotional investmentThat's funny because every time I try to have a calm and rational discussion of the topic, at least on this site, people like you instantly pop up with posts that are extremely emotional. Or are we going to pretend that your first reply to me wasn't full of personal insults coupled with telling me to kill myself? That's not how an unemotional person responds.>it's you who needs to establish that the analysis that led to your conclusions is validI explained my position very succinctly:>forcing someone to do something without their consent is immoral>it's impossible for someone to consent to being born>therefore reproduction is immoraland you have shown a lack of desire to engage with it honestly that, unfortunately, seems to stem from a lack of ability. I'm sorry you weren't able to discuss this idea without resorting to disingenuous 4chan nonsense. I'll hope for better luck next time but I'm beginning to suspect that there aren't any intelligent people left on this site.
>>18348106>>inapplicable application>not a contradiction of any kindAs you wish.>nothing physical about consentBesides the consenting part, sure.>are we going to pretend that your first reply to me wasn't full of personal insults coupled with telling me to kill myself?My first post was >>18348005, I imply this by saying 'the Anon' when referencing the other posts. I'm actually glad you're confusing me with someone else, I thought your accusations of emotionality were projection, now I see it's just a misunderstanding.>>it's you who needs to establish that the analysis that led to your conclusions is valid>I explained my position very succinctly:You did. Now you need to establish that the analysis that led to this position is valid, sound and relevant. Re-iterating the individual steps doesn't achieve this. Any number of positions can be arrived at by misleading and incomplete selection of premises.
>>18347992>If you accept that people should not have things imposed on them without their consentI don't believe in that in a work sense. As a kid all I wanted to do was be lazy, my father pushed me to do sports and work hard and it benefited my life in the long run by having a good attitude about work and having a good competitive spirit. Those benefits helped better in the long run then the fledgling pleasure I got from just sitting and watching TV. Life isn't about dodging all suffering. Some suffering is actually good for the body.
>>18348033>you'd need to argue that rolling the dice on a random person being born, not knowing what they will experience or how their life will turn out, is nonetheless for their own goodI can solve this with basic math. Something>nothing. No matter how you twist your view, it cannot disregard the truth that something is always greater than nothing.
>>18347951Why does consent matter to someone who doesn't exist?
