How do you stop being an anti-natalist? It just makes too much sense. I find myself agreeing with all the deeply pessimist philosophers and not even someone like Kiierkegaard can make me feel better.
>>24842518By having children?
>>24842518Any belief is dismantled by understanding why it exists in the first place. Why do you agree with them?
>>24842534I had a kid 7 years ago and I regret it daily. So much of my energy is spent pretending.
>>24842518You don’t. It’s the end point of philosophy; everything else is simply a cope.
>>24842546I think this quote sums it up the best. I don’t think that I could handle the guilt of making that fire even worse.
By being interested in something intellectually. You think autists who have suffered day in day out would give up their life or choose to not have been born if that meant no more trains or plastic chair collections? Men by nature desire to know. I think anti-natalists are just bores who never realized how fascinating reality is. I get up every day looking forward to reading about things I’m interested in. Sorry you turned out to be a philistine maybe grow a pair and read shit that isn’t wheepy.
You can't, once you see past human egoist solipsist hedonistic imperatives and there's no biological mechanism in your DNA to prevent you from looking over existential fence, it's over.Just accept that majority are completely genetically cock-blocked from EVER coming to the same conclusions and maybe reproduce for the sole reason of ensuring that genes (yours) that are capable of looking through this bullshit remain so maybe your posterity will invent a way to mass sterilize humanity. But it's really is the endpoint of all philosophy.>>24842585You don't understand it
>>24842575Is it the classic, death is worse than the highest pleasure thing? That's not true yknow. We flicker for a moment and there's value in that, this can only get lost if you've never felt it or forgotten it completely. Fall in love with someone in love with you, rest will be worth it, even when it doesn't work out. Have a child and stare in his innocent eyes, your eyes will change too. Buy a puppy and see what he sees in you, how he just wants your love. Any harm—future, present, is worthless currency compared. Death is a moment, unexperienced, preceded by fickle fears of a fickle mind, any less suffering isn't suffering at all.
People can't consent to not being born. But they can choose to leave this world once they are. Why rob your children of living if you personally don't like it? Let them make the decision themselves.It's all meaningless anyways, since they'll go back to non-existence. So might as well have them. Still, if my parents never had me I'd be pissed, if I could.Also it's only something ever shilled by whites, to other whites. Weird huh?But nothing's gonna change your mind let's be honest. You hate the world and the people living in it. Many such cases.
>>24842588I find it funny how the weakest of bodies feel life is meaningless and those with a tough life appreciate each little thing they can get. Have you never laughed to the point of pain and tears? How is it not worth a painful life before and after? And we are give us so much more.For the record, I do understand you. Your ideas do make total sense when seen as consequences of materialism, you don't feel the love of life, only it's indifference. But that's not all there is. Yes a lion eats the baby dear, but then the mother cries. It had love in its heart, like us all.>>24842596Yeah but death>life to these people, they don't think anything is above their hedonism and of course that also makes them miserable, including killing themselves, so they are in a perpetual checkmate, where nothing they do makes them happy and they are too clueless to know that's neither true for all nor the fault of the world.
I can't imagine a bigger waste of time than agonizing about this. It only matters at the second when you nut in a vagina and the stars align. In the end you aren't even making the decision anyway, if you don't knock her up she'll find someone else.
>>24842589>We flicker for a moment and there's value in thatAccording to who?>Have a child and stare in his innocent eyes, your eyes will change too. Buy a puppy and see what he sees in you, how he just wants your love.I hate babies and dogs just love you because they’re reliant on you. They’ll leave you for someone with different/better/more food.
>>24842588And I realize this: I just advocated to inflict harm by making someone actual because I am just as all the others: I put ours, the ego of the existing, even if with sole reason to prevent others who are less conscious of our predicament of conceiving over the benefits of my and your own unborn but still have given an 'advice' to reproduce, despite accepting all the premises of AN. Our bioimperatives are close-to impenetrable black wall. >>24842589>>24842596>Have a child and stare in his innocent eyes>your eyes will change tooHedonistic solipsist view, where your eyes are important so you created the child for yourself, because only your ego exists.You can't vault over it. I think it's genetic. You will never understand what I just said.>>24842604>materialistGive me the name of your religion and I will tell you exactly why it's better to never have been.
>>24842575Carrying wood to a burning house is ethically neutral at worst, and if your ethics are guided by aesthetics it is good a la Mishimas golden pavilion. The house is already lost, and no more suffering is incurred by fueling the fire. Also that quote about the suffering of the devoured is retarded. The glory of the devourer is prolonged and the suffering of the devourer ceises. Once the roles reverse so does the duration of suffering. The fact that this trivial observation is never brought up shows that antintalists are taken seriously by nobody.Antintalists are homonculi on life support that cant imagine any self sustaining life. Also they cant into analogues apparently
>>24842612Stop saying no one will ever understand you, you're not particularly a brilliant individual. You have never inspired hope, character or transcendence in another being. You're a vain failure crying like a baby without his toys. Seeing your child isn't a matter of genetics, adopt one, it doesn't matter, it's their character that appeals. They aren't filled with filth like you, and on in some amounts me.>Give me the name of your religionThis is beyond religiosity. Materialism doesn't make rational sense.
>>24842628>You're a vain failure crying like a baby without his toys.That's every single natalist when they are presented with moral arguments against their breeding toys.>noo, I MUST reproduce to feel good! And I will talk of metaphysics to justify myself, to make it look like it's not my ego that needs a scratch but something outside of it! Let me have my reproductive toys and also feel moral about playing with them!>adopt oneA solution to reduce the harm that's already been done, sure, something I very much might consider.But creating a new person? Only to scratch a biological itch that we have.>>24842628Give me the framework of what's beyond materialism and religiousity. It can be pried open, and we'll see that it's better to never have been to never seen the insides of whatever is there.
>>24842607>According to who?Well you if you ever experienced these things; and if the love from another makes you feel nothing, then that's tough luck, but certainly not a true judgement for all humanity. That just means you're depressed and that give you no right to take the rest of us with you, so your ideology has no place.>babies and dogsThis is hilariously wrong, which you'd know if you had existence experience with either (and hence with love), kids care for their fragile parents in old age, dogs stop eating when you die, they want to die with you. Your kids don't grow up traumatised because you're not rich but because you never gave them attention, love and kindness. Also convenient to remove a wife from the equation, someone who chooses to become dependent on you. Lovers are grateful of what they get, unlike you.
>>24842654>against their breeding toys.You're just exposing the lack of love experiences you've had man. Babies are not toys, they are hard to handle, another baby would never put that kind of effort. Maintaining your family, taking care of your parents, none of this is as fun as playing football or tennis. Yet we endure.>Only to scratch a biological itch that we have.The biological itch is not all there is to it no. It's passing the baton of the loveliness. "Go and make the world prettier!" we may not always succeed in instilling that in kids, but that's the point.>Give me the framework of what's beyond materialism and religiousity.Well simply speaking, materialism has no epistemological or ethical grounds. This is just some goo chemicals in your head, why should anyone be converted to your ideology?
>>24842668Prove me you aren't a solipsist egoist, who merely uses procreation as purely materialistic means to satisfy your immediate desires.You can talk to me about metaphysics all day long, I can never be certain you're not just trying to uphold your image in face of moral implications of AN arguments.
>>24842691>Prove me you aren't a solipsist egoist, who merely uses procreation as purely materialistic means to satisfy your immediate desires.I'm no solipsist, I try my best to model other people's thoughts and feelings, I think I do it better than people do it for themselves. Other than that I don't think it's my job to prove what I'm not or that that even matters. Arguments, ideally, are about logic, not rhetoric, so I feel no need to waste time on your fallacious ad hominems.And what desires do you speak of? Sexual? I can have loads of sex without impregnating a lady, do you think I have immediate desires of childbearing? >in face of moral implications of AN arguments.I have no interest in saving my face ever. I think most people are too undeveloped for me to care about their perceptions. You included.
It's a conclusive deduction based on inconclusive information. To presume you know the nature of life and death to the degree that you could characterize them as good or evil, if such things are even quantifiable in the world outside the purview of human moralism, has to be built on at least one pillar of ignorance or arrogance, if not each with a corner to themselves. As a genuine belief it holds no more water than religious faith. The base manipulation of some fundamental function of the human psyche to arrive at a desired end. To take yourself seriously as a philosopher you have to accept you are ultimately a lame, blind ape grasping at straws. Your only power is in prompting people to ask questions themselves, not in providing answers. There are no answers, there is no solving philosophy or metaphysics, it's a thought experiment writ large.You stop being anti-natalist by realizing you're ill equipped to become one without willful stupidity. I say this as the most nihilistic person I know. I wouldn't wish life on anyone, but it's not my place to say whether living is worthwhile or not. If you insist upon yourself in this position, stop paying lip service, go learn how to tie a knot, and make your thesis.
>>24842518>How do you stop being an anti-natalist?Why do you want to stop being an anti-natalist?
So you are mad because you couldn't consent to being born? But you refuse to kill yourself because you wish you never had to make the choice in the first place? So you were never actually cared about consent. Especially when most people oppose anti-natalism and are glad they were born. Therefore, you are just egotistical and cowardly.
>>24842596>It's all meaningless anyways, since they'll go back to non-existence. So might as well have them.Yeah dude life is pain, sickness, boredom, old age and death, but it ends in annihilation anyway so might as well just suffer and bring other beings into existence to suffer too haha
>>24842518>NOOOO YOU CAN'T DO THAT!!! THAT'S WRONG!!And? I'm an evilchad. I'm evilmaxxing. Fuck you nigger.
>>24842850It's a sad life
>>24842875I'm not suffering though. What about that? Is my view of the world not a refutation to yours, which hinges on the fact that you think you hold all the answers over what is objectively good or bad? I'm having plenty of fun living, and wouldn't wish I never existed.
>>24842518It's tough because I would not want to reproduce unless I could guarantee my offspring a good life or at least have a son I could forge into an independent warrior but the former is partly dependent on worldly conditions I cannot control. The minimum breaking point is that I would not subject my spawn to more than I have endured in my own life, which is quite substantial and probably too much to ask for weaker, lesser sorts.
I believe in reincarnation. I believe that we are here for self-realisation, aka we are God experiencing itself, and we are on a journey in the goop that is samsara to eventually realise this. Some part of us keeps on going, even if our physical body dies.In this viewpoint, having children, setting them up well, is a great thing. Despite how horrible the world is, there is a lot of learning to be done, and potential for wisdom and growth. The child's soul is gonna have to reincarnate in some point or another anyway.
>>24842885Well I think you’re right that my own misery colors my worldview. Most normies especially seem to be pretty content with life. But I think that their low level of culture and intellectuality allows them to more easily make friends and see goals as worthwhile. I mean most animals are utterly content if they aren’t in immediate danger or pain. And while of course humans aren’t like other animals, we’re not too far off, especially normies. Mediocrity is happiness. Anyway I don’t deny that there are contented people out there. But I think that contentment is highly conditional, temporary, and rare.
>>24842897I also believe, but it’s the most horrifying idea of all. We will have to suffer every rape, murder, torture that’s ever been committed. Every time hyenas brutally devour a wildebeest in the Savannah we are the hyenas and the wildebeest. And we aren’t making a profit in this deal.
>>24842938>I think that contentment is highly conditional, temporary, and rareThat's something I think none of us can know for sure if you're speaking for most people and I'll explain why (though you already seem to agree that most normies seem content). If you're speaking for your own experiences, then yeah, that is simply your world view and I respect it. I know what was enough to make me content with it, and even if I think that might be enough for most people, I know that it is very possible that it might not be the case, and that it is highly depended on the situation you found yourself upon at birth. Which is why I believe anti-natalism to be wrong, because it hinges on a sort of universal experience of life which seems to disregard the plurality of human living experiences.
i'm anti-natalist because i've never met, seen, read, listened to, or otherwise been made aware of a human being who isn't a giant piece of fucking shit. making more of us is insane.
>>24842518It’s all determinism. You don’t even get to choose if you are or aren’t pro anti-natalism. I don’t even worry about it, not that I get to choose that either. All we can do is wait for our final breath and see what became of our lives. I know it’s Reddit atheist cringe but I can’t help believing that
>>24842628You are a bore
JIDF shill thread
>>24842973Its because you're a moron
>>24842979Medicine ain't candy.
>>24842971I agree with you and like I said I accept that most people get a good deal of fun out of life and find some form of contentment. But I think there are some strong points to be made about this universe being essentially a dark, cruel, and hellish place.Firstly, the whole of nature is just one brutal death struggle in which everything is trying to kill or outcompete everything else and multiply as much as possible without limit. What kind of world is that? It’s the same in society. People are polite and friendly as long as it costs them nothing. But we are basically selfish, and almost nobody will hesitate to fuck over other people in order to save themselves.Secondly, who is the happiest person we can imagine? A loving couple on their wedding day, or holding their newborn child? A skilled carpenter totally immersed in building a beautiful piece of furniture? Someone moved to tears by a great book or movie? Now we can imagine the unhappiest person. And it’s immediately obvious that these pleasures can never match the intensity that suffering reaches. The worst gore/rape thread on /gif/ is just the faintest taste of the horror and depravity and brutal violence that has always been inseparable from life. The pleasures are short and weak, we often fail to notice them and quickly get used to them. The suffering can be and often is deep, nightmarish, chronic. We are not compensated.Thirdly, contentment is an extremely fragile state, it has to be constantly and carefully propped up by a million conditions, strong relationships, meaningful work, a healthy body and mind, wealth, novelty, weather and seasons, etc. etc. As soon as suffering is gone, boredom fills the vacuum. Hence the miserable depressed bourgeoisie stereotype. Suffering on the other hand is not so fragile. It’s often instant, gruesome, and horrific. A drunk driver can shatter your body or a mugger can shank you in an alleyway or your wife can leave you, and there goes the happiness you so carefully cultivated and maintained at so much cost.I could go on but I don’t want to bore you. I’m just saying there’s plenty of evidence that we’re not exactly living in the garden of Eden. Life is and always has been suffering with brief intervals of relief. Whether life is worth living is a different question.
>>24843051Well you're not boring me lol, but this is gonna the last response for today since it's 5am here, I'll come back tomorrow if you responded, and still want me to respond. I do believe a lot of what you said is true though. Sorry if everything is a bit rambly.While it’s true that competition and cruelty are part of nature, nature also exhibits cooperation, symbiosis, mutualism. It’s not only brutal competition. I also think multiplying as much as possible, without limit, is good for me, it's the objective of life, the goal given to us by whoever, the meaning. But I get what you mean, and it makes sense. The "cost" threshold is interesting but genuinely costly altruism does exist (though less frequently). Many will, but the system often incentivises selfishness (especially with no rewards of an after-life)Historically, societies with higher norms of cooperation, shared culture and social supports mitigate the raw "survival of the fittest" animal model. For more info about social life in the middle-ages (idk about Rome, don't know much about it) I recommend Huizinga's The Waning of the Middle Ages to see what we really lost in this regard.But I'm gonna say what I said before in an unrelated thread, sorry if it's a bit long but it's related to what we're talking about (from Clouscard's books). It's basically that the rise of capitalism led to a breakdown of natural human compassion. People became more concerned with status, wealth, and power, which led to competition and a kind of social "war" where individuals looked out for their own interests at the expense of others.Today, the state and economic powers work together to manage and shape the public psyche through ideological control by pushing selfishness to maintain profit-making.In modern capitalism, people consume more than they produce, and in fact, the act of consumption itself has become a defining characteristic of the self. Individuals are encouraged not to produce, but to buy and consume goods that fulfill their desires and sense of identity (which is a significant departure from the earlier ideal of independence through work).In more traditional or pre-capitalist times, relationships, particularly romantic love, were often imbued with spiritual, emotional, or sacred significance. Love was seen as something transformative and deeply meaningful, tied to a sense of commitment, mutual care, and long-term connection. It was often intertwined with cultural and religious values, and could be viewed as an expression of humanity's higher aspirations. (See Clouscard and Huizinga specifically for the middle-ages).1/2
>>24843051In the capitalist system, love and relationships are increasingly defined by consumerist values, with partners often seen as commodities that serve each other's pleasure or emotional satisfaction. In this sense, love becomes another form of consumption, where individual desires drive relationships rather than deeper spiritual or emotional commitments. This commodification of love leads to a dissolution of deep emotional bonds and a shift towards more superficial, short-term connections.Everything revolves around the illusion of "freedom" to do whatever one wants. But the individual is caught in the cycle of consuming more than they produce, ultimately leading to endless short-term satisfaction, frustation and selfishness. Everything is allowed, nothing is possible. So in this sense I do absolutely believe that since modern relationships are as shallow as they are, we are today driven towards "animalistic" instincts that are antithesis to civilizations, and hurt us in the short, or long term.And it is true that at a primal state, we are more competitive against the people from outside, though I'd argue protective over the group (before capitalism). Just as Lions will kill to protect their kin, bees and ants will quite literally kill themselves for the queen. As I stated, cooperation.But as I said, I think history proves that competition is the opposite of civilization, which might be a point that sets humans apart from other animals, that we are able to stand above all the violence of the animal kingdom. Nature is brutal, but humans have the capacity to put an end to that brutality, which is why I believe humans are the only animals who are truly able to do "good", and I'd argue that in this day and age, especially in the west (or even in the east), most people live quite comfortable lives away from that brutality you see on /gif/, thanks to the innate qualities of the men who have built these safe spaces.And though I do think it's a little bit absurd for us to push such a doctrine as we're living the lap of luxury, I do also believe that the best happiness probably cannot match the worst of pains in terms of intensity. Although I have no proof of any of it, it's just speculation. But I'd argue, in a "group", the feeling of contentment is much more present, more consistantly than pains. Though when pain arrives, it is brutal. And I would also argue, from personal experience so you know it might be wrong, that pain makes you appreciate the little things in life more. It makes you appreciate the next points of happiness more than the last ones, in which you might have felt ungrateful. It all stems from different points of view.As for your point about boredom settling in, it is true, though as creative beings, I think it is the number one stimulant for creativity. But it is nonetheless always settling in.2/3 FUCK
>>24843051As we attempt to escape pains and boredom, we strive to create that garden of Eden. I do agree that the world in its primal state can be ugly, and painful. But I also believe that if there is ever a "point" to it all, humans were put on this earth to mitigate pains as much as possible, or at least that is one facet of it.I do not know which of us is more correct, but I know you said plenty of correct things. Though I can't claim that you objectively, completely are, which is why I disagree with anti-natalism, that I find to be purely subjective doctrine.
>>24842518As an anti-natalist, do you secretly wish to be killed in your sleep? I mean, if existence is such a hardship, and annihilation an assurance, wouldn't you want to be gifted that annihilation without forewarning, to literally cease to exist without consultation or dread? If someone confesses to be anti-natalist, I think there should be an open warrant out to kill them, it's the only thing morally consistent with their philosophy.
>>24842518By treating sexual reproduction like a black man. Find em, fuck em, forget em. And make the taxpayers fund your mistakes.
>>24842518My life was so miserable when I was stuffing my head with this antinatalist garbage. My life is now better because I don't read this retarded bullshit anymore. This is my argument against this dogshit belief. Life is weird, you might become christcuck next year. The only "lesson" that can be gained from life is to take it less seriously. It all might be a dream anyway, a bad one but a dream nonetheless. If you see a younger relative of yours reading this garbage then just give him a smack on the head and burn that garbage in front of him. Keep an eye on him and try to make them chill. This shit is cancer for young people if you are not careful. It is written by PhD retards while they demoralize the fuck out of 18 years olds.
>>24842518If all goyim are dead, who will work for free? Does rationality count as antinatalism? Even if robots did all the jobs, the shabbat candles won't turn themselves. You need a living soul of a shabbo goyim to perish, you need proles, its the law of the Almighty. The existence itself has an evil side you cannot shave off. The tesseract will be turned. Where's anti natalism now?Captcha:JYDN
Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder
>>24843763This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact (inb4 crying about ad hom); it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview).Say you're designing a logo and you want to market test for the most appealing shade of red. Would you want most of those in your sample population to suffer from protanopia?
>>24843763Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature.Also note that the more you talk to them the more you'll realize a sick fascination with harm, violence, and death. These people don't want to reduce harm, they want to justify their resentment and spread their misery.
>>24842518Well, what does it matter? If you're an anti-natalist, then it is your moral obligation to bring life into this world anyway. You were only able to be an anti-natalist because you had time to think about it. Instinctually, you want kids. If you doom the future to the third world countries and cultures where they have no time and no care except to live by their instincts, then you do much worse than bring someone into this world. You bring billions, and you bring them in squalor and polluted conditions. Humanity must reach a safe enough collective lifestyle to be reflective enough to devise killing itself. Nature has persisted and tortured us for unfathomably long precisesly because of our low population and lack of safety. You'd perpetuate nature by not adding to its cancer named "humanity?"
>>24843768>Also note that the more you talk to them the more you'll realize a sick fascination with harm, violence, and death. These people don't want to reduce harm, they want to justify their resentment and spread their misery.Right on the money. When I was an antinatalist I wanted to see everyone as neurotic and miserable as myself. I wanted to make other people suffer as much as myself if not more. ANs are sick pieces of shit. Look at the their biggest ambassador on YouTube, that woman is obese, transsexual, lives in a secluded apartment and wears t-shirts despite being in her 50s. I have yet to see any substantial art coming out of this scene of total misery. All they have is few painting by 16th century christcucks who were scared of death and hell. Antinatalists are fit for nothing golems, they can't make art, they can't work, they can't even write book. Sharing roastie approved memes of plebbit is the their biggest achievement. Their PR is as bad as peadophiles.
>>24842518imagine trying to convince a rabbit or a deer or a coyote not to breed because it only creates more suffering. bit silly no?
>>24844455Well most of those creatures don't have a concept of consent either. I also don't think we should as well, but repealing those laws would get a bunch of pink haired harpies immolating themselves on tik tok and we don't need that.
