If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence? or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood.
Before any moralfag retards reply and shit up this thread, yes a rational human being would never do that. Unfortunately being human IS being irrational. More suffering, yay.
this is the logical conclusion of secular thought
>NOOO le human life is LE SACRED because a dead jew said so billion years ago>therefore we must be ensure to import infinity africans and give them welfare so they can have 8 children and live in government housing Zeke didn’t go far enough. If god gave me a wish I would wish for all humans to instantly die
>>24942789>>24942785Anti-natalism is a subset of hedonism, in its simplest form (suffering = evil)Hedonism is not a rational philosophical position, but an emotional one.
>>24942795the logical conclusion of secular thought is to free ourselves from the blind, instinctual self-perpetuation of our animal genes, think about what really makes us glad to be alive, and try to create a world that's worth bringing new consciousnesses into.
>>24942817why
>an act of pure reasoncontradiction in terms. since hobbes action has been understood as the deliberation of freedom of thought. you're not actually free to do just exactly whatever you like - you can only actually do one thing at any given point in the gridwork of deliberation. so an act of pure reason is impossible: reasoning being a product of the interconnection of sense, memory, and imagination, hence entirely on the side of the subject (transcendental argument does nothing to remedy this), whereas action presents itself in the state of nature directly, ie, without imaginary mediation of any sort. therefore no act can be "of" pure reason in any respect. each and every act is delimited by its conditioning under nature. thats actually what makes it an act in the first place, as something different from thoughts about acts.
>>24942816You’re a buffoon. All of evolution is to prevent suffering. Aversion to suffering is programmed into every living being, every cell of every organism, and every atom attempting to achieve a lower resting energy state. It’s a physical law of the universe, your gay little god commanding you to pay for African welfare in the name of dem starving kids is what’s irrational and emotional.
>>24942840>All of evolution is to prevent suffering.If that were the case, why did animals evolve a sense of suffering, and why did this sense of suffering not evolve away?>your gay little god commanding you to pay for African welfare in the name of dem starving kids is what’s irrational and emotional.I'm an atheist.
>Zeke didn’t go far enough. If god gave me a wish I would wish for all humans to instantly die
>>24942820why is it the logical conclusion? idk, probably it's not, it's just another possible conclusion, but i hate the kind of reductionism on display in the post i was replying to - as if reason was always on one side of an uncrossable gulf, and the mysteries of life on the other. reducing rationality to dumb utilitarian pain/pleasure calculations, as anti-natalists do, is another kind of reductionism i hate.
>>24942785Probably not. Human reason is incredibly impotent. I don't know why people think their reason is any better than their intuition or emotion. No intellectual achievement came about with only one of the three.
>>24942853how else would you know what to avoid? with no sense of suffering there would be no incentive to avoid it.to answer the question directly, if an animal had no sense of suffering they are more likely to die (think about feeling pain, hunger, being too cold etc). suffering i.e feeling too cold/feeling pain tells an organism that this state of affairs is not conducive to living/reproducing
>>24942785>Would not a man rather have so much sympathyNo, humans are selfish by nature and they think only of themselves. They are also optimistic (delusional) by nature and hence don't really think about the suffering they are imposing on their children.The more likely reason they don't have kids is that having kids takes away from their current pleasure (their budget for hedonism).
>>24942887You said "All of evolution is to prevent suffering" which is contradicted by evolution evolving suffering. You then have given me an explanation on why lifeforms evolved suffering.>suffering i.e feeling too cold/feeling pain tells an organism that this state of affairs is not conducive to living/reproducingIt is an extremely common occurrence for organisms to reproduce despite being in a state of suffering. The act of giving birth is for many animals an act of suffering.You are not approaching the whole issue rationally.
>>24942891>No, humans are selfish by naturegod, hobbes really fucked the default understanding of human nature, eh? >the more likely reason...please read some papers on hedonism and u will understand the actual arguments, which are a lot stronger than your dumb assumption
>>24942895>you saidim not him>it is a common occurrence...yes because evolution doesnt happen in one generation, and within the context of a population living in a state of suffering there will still be a subset of "fit" organisms that reproduce
>>24942895NTA but you have a comprehension problem
>>24942853>why did animals evolve a sense of sufferingThey never did entropy is a physical law, they evolved aversion to it>and why did this sense of suffering not evolve away?In the past 100 years the average quality of life has risen DRAMATICALLY and it’s all thanks to science and rationalism not because africas population ballooned 10x
As per Spinoza, yes.
>>24942785Vagina on my pp feels good
>>24942840The thing about avoiding suffering is that you learn nothing by avoiding it. Only by having your heart broken and suffering in this world do you gain any kind of insight or knowledge.
>>24942911
>>24942907So? What's your point?>>24942909My point is that hedonism (suffering as Great Evil) is an instinct-based position, not logic-based. But if you take instincts as justification for morality, then you also have to accept reproduction as Good.Of course, I do not believe instincts alone to be enough to justify a moral position.
>>24942935if you dont see how what i said responded to what you said i recommend you get off the literature board because you obviously cant read
>>24942926Kek are you a woman? Listen toots, knowledge is gained through observation of the world, not daydreaming away shopping for lipstick and tampons.
>>24942940Making decision based on suffering (if to reproduce or not) is an emotion-based decision, i.e. not logical, which was the whole point of OP's post.
>>24942797>>NOOO le human life is LE SACRED because a dead jew said so billion years agono, because *I* say so. Please die if you wish but don't drag us with you>>therefore we must be ensure to import infinity africans and give them welfare so they can have 8 children and live in government housingso you're a doomer chud. Why don't you embrace eugenics? It affirms life but also its will to evolve into higher forms.Read Nietzsche
>>24942785Absolutely not. There is no reason to give birth to a child beyond selfish self-fulfillment, which at the root stems from animalistic desires that we are all ingrained with.
>>24942946hmm, i think that acknowledging that suffering exists and still having kids is moreso an emotional decision. to be fair having a desire to have kids is such an npc, unconsciously operating based on biological urges type take.to recognize that suffering is a brute fact and thus not want to create an organism that will suffer seems like logic to me. in fact:1- suffering is a brute fact about the lived experience2- suffering is bad3- it would be bad to impart suffering onto another beingc) i will not have kids.the conclusion follows from the truth of 2 & 3, which themselves require 1 to be true.
>>24942955>don't drag us with youThat’s you and your insane breeder worship. More goyslaves for greater israel huh? >Noooo being responsible is bad, having a good quality of life is bad, we must make infinity more brown slaves and drag everyone down with us.I’m directly quoting you btw>Why don't you embrace eugenics?I am a eugenicist though, but way more aggressive unlike Zeke I cut straight to the point like based Eren
>>24942962this is the right answer
>>24942785I think the end point for any intelligent person is the realization that reproduction is objectively immoral. There are many arguments to be made in favor of this point but the most basic and irrefutable one is that reproduction imposes existence on a nonconsenting being. That, in and of itself, is sufficient to make the act an objective moral wrong.
>>24942964Both Avoid Suffering and Reproduce are instinct-based decision making.>suffering is badThis is instinct-based judgement. The same way that 'Reproducing is good' is an instinct-based judgement, proven by the fact that life forms take actions to reproduce.This is the intrinsic contradiction of the anti-natalist position.Do you have a logic-based explanation for the 'suffering is bad' judgement?
>>24942967unc gonna be outbred :cry: :cry: :cry:
>>24942987Imagine wasting your life raising a daughter that will hate you and take bbc because on average black cum has the highest concentration of sperm to semen
>>24942985can we skip this dialogue tree because "suffering is bad" is just ones of those things that you can either accept as a brute fact or have 100 years (literally) worth of metaethical discussion
>>24943033It's fine, if you accept the "reproduction is good" based on the same fundamental principles.
>>24943052i mean if you think that "reproduction is good" is a brute fact then whatever, but know i dont think it is
>>24943010Have you tried not being a racist asshole and maybe she will not hate you?
>>24942785The act of living life itself is unreasonable.In short, KYS
>>24943114This. An anti-natalist that hasn't killed themselves is just a liar.
>>24943188I love life. I don’t want more niggerspawn babies draining my tax dollars. The two are not mutually exclusive.You’re confusing anti-natalism and nihilism. A common slip for the retarded.
>>24943194>OP is about how perpetuating life is unreasonable because of suffering, in a word, anti-natalism>Another post responds to OP telling them to kys >I respond that anti-natalists are disingenuous>You, a fourth person, "noooo you're retarded I hate niggers"Yeah, we all do, but that has nothing to do with the conversation you butted into, retard.
>>24943010unc out here crashing out fr :skull: :skull: :skull:
>>24943272See your 3rd point is a non sequitur to the 2nd point. Again you don’t understand that anti natalists aren’t anti life because you’re illiterate, stupid, and probably christian but I repeat myself.Maybe you should stay out of anti natalist threads until you have a grasp on what our positions even are. Start here, and don’t stop until your dialator dislodges itself and you realize the truth
>>24943289>nooooo you don't understand anti-natalism it's actually about NIGGERSAs a staunch support for any and all means of birth control for black populations, this isn't funny.
>>24943301Don’t say that, you got us all laughing confusing anti natalism with nihilism. Maybe you can join your fellow racist comedian Sam Hyde and make a living off being an unfunny loser.
>>24943301>this isn't funny.
>>24943309>you got us all laughing confusing anti natalism with nihilismOP makes an ethical and moral argument against procreation. Any argument argument that rests on moral duties, obligations or values is operating outside of nihilism. So are you actually retarded or are you just pretending to be retarded?
>>24942840Rather emotional response from the one defending his outlook as non-emotional, and entirely rational
>>24942840>All of evolution is to prevent sufferingbased double retard. First, suffering is a tool that appears very useful to avoid animals from hurting themselves and dying. Second, evolution has no intent it's a consequence of random events, treating evolution as a power with a will is stupid.
Board full of anti-natalist incels, I think it's over for /lit/Reminder that anti-natalism was a Reddit thing before
>>24943335>evolution has no intent it's a consequence of random eventsI guess that explains why you evolved to be born retarded and with a micropenis
>>24942785suffering is good
>>24943326I don’t care about your feewies or your neovagina, I just think it’s hilarious you typed this with a straight face and thought it was some kind of slam dunk>An anti-natalist that hasn't killed themselves is just a liar.I bet you made this face after posting too. What a retard you are, this is up there with the I am enlightened r/atheism quote. You should actually read literature like I linked you but you’re too dumb and stupid!
>>24943355So it's firmly actual mental retardation. How old are you?
>>2494335833. Name 3 anti natalist thinkers
>>24943359>33Fuck man, I was trying to give you an out but there's no excuse for this.>Name 3 anti natalist thinkersWhy? You think they're all nihilists anyway.
>>24943363You haven’t read 3 nihilists or 3 anti natalists. How old are you, 3?
>>24943367You don't know the difference between anti-natalism and nihilism and you're trying to criticize me?
