Imagine thinking forcing someone into existence to fulfill your biological legacy is anything other than treating them as a mere means. The asymmetry is literally elementary logic, but I guess it's too much to ask breeders to understand that the absence of pleasure for the non-existent isn't a bad thing. It is so unbelievably exhausting having to constantly spell out that avoiding pain is a categorical good even if nobody is there to experience the absence. You're completely blinded by the Pollyanna principle convincing yourself your life is a gift just because you've habituated to the baseline misery of the world. Every time you procreate you're just kicking off a generational iceberg of suffering because you wanted a mini-me to play Russian roulette with. Keep lying to yourself about how great existing is while you spend half your waking life just trying to stave off basic thirst and anxiety.
Check his early life section.
>>25270898>>25270902Antinatalism is 100% the most rational and correct position. Everything else is emotional, bias, etc.
>>25270898These ramblings are nothing, let /lit/ disprove this:
>>25270933There is no "good" or "not bad" qualifier applicable to the squares 3 and 4.
>>25270944From the perspective of the non-existent person, correct. But from the perspective of existent, from you and I, we can say something about counterfactual case of existence of X
Antinatalism is a philosophy to convince us that all the misery and woe capitalism inflicts on us is just life itself, literally demanding we accept the piss on us as rain, screaming in our faces to accept it as rain, then when try to behave like humans, like flesh and blood instead of mere robots for capital, we are screamed at for that too.
>>25270955>we can say something about counterfactual case of existence of XThe result is still the same. No sane person should concern themselves with the "goodness" of the absence of pain of the non-existent.
>>25270957Then stop creating more slaves to throw into the capitalist machine, I could say the same about life in the Soviet Union where life was so hard that it is above me why people were creating kids in that country.>>25270969>No sane person should concern themselves with the "goodness" of the absence of pain of the non-existent.I keep in mind an idea of a person who could become actual and for that person I care not to inflict any harm. By making that person actual, we do inflict that harm.How's that 'insane'?If you know that your kids will have a down syndrom, will you create them anyway because >No sane person should concern themselves with the "goodness" of the absence of pain of the non-existent.???
>>25270973>it's NOT the fault of capitalists, it is the fault of the slaves for having children! STOP STOP STOP saying it is the fault of labor alienation! STOP! Don't look behind that curtain! It is your father's and mother's fault! Don't you DARE even DREAM that anything could be different or better, you were born for labor alienationNot buying it little brobro. The fault isn't life, it is the exact opposite. The fault is loss of humanity and the expropriation of our life and existence, the transformation of it into capital and the estrangement of us from each other.
>>25270976NTA but he's right in that everyone is participating in the vicious cycle of capitalism andsorry to break it to youwe have greater chances of overthrowing capitalism by stopping to produce wageslaves/consoomerslaves than we have at leading the successful revolution your probably fantasize about daily
>>25270973>I keep in mind an idea of a person who could become actual and for that person I care not to inflict any harm.No human being is capable of inflicting any harm to an imaginary entity. >By making that person actual, we do inflict that harm.For that you'd have to presume that existence is inherently harmful. Not harmful things within existence, but existence as a concept itself. But since you are trying to prove that in the first place "that their is goodness in non-existence" , therefore you are engaging in circular reasoning.
>>25270933'Good' for whom?Pleasure and pain are simply a dual set of stimuli to push us to fulfil our biological imperative. Naturally, most things that give us pleasure are the things that help us procreate (directly or indirectly), and 'pain' is the signal that the present situation is not ideal for creating an offspring.To focus on the personal subjective experience is deeply egocentrical and misses the broader point and purpose (be it only the biological aspect of it).
>>25270978Capitalism will always have its slaves as long as there is humanity. If you refuse to reproduce, they will just ship in the slaves from another country. Still there is nothing wrong with you refusing to reproduce due to capitalism, but that is different, an entirely different ideology. And a revolution might not happen in my lifetime, it may not happen for a hundred years. Or it may be just around the corner, these things are black swans. But it will happen eventually when the capitalist class is too small and too unproductive, and I am absolutely not going to accept an ideology which demands I believe that reality is inherently miserable because such an ideology suggests that those who make is miserable are its rightful owners and rulers. Consciousness, the individual, is not simply a biological human, we emergent properties of human society who find our meaning socially, we are not automatons or robots who just function and suffer. We were not born with language, we learn and grow and this feature we have because we are a collective being.
>>25270902Say what you will, but his support for an apartheid state killing children is consistent with his stated beliefs.
>>25270992> I am absolutely not going to accept an ideology which demands I believe that reality is inherently miserable because such an ideology suggests that those who make is miserable are its rightful owners and rulers.Damn. Well said.
>>25270980>For that you'd have to presume that existence is inherently harmful.>Not harmful things within existence, but existence as a concept itself. It is both.For many, the pill that the existence itself is harmful is too hard to swallow, for those Benatar has chapters about comparing goods/bads of life in more palataple forms.But the real redpill is that all of it is harmful compared to it's absence.>>25270991>most things that give us pleasure are the things that help us procreateabysmal birthrates among Europeans and east Asians beg to differ.
>>25270996>the pill that the existence itself is harmful is too hard to swallow,>all of it is harmful compared to it's absence.Yet to be demonstrated
>>25271000Behold, demonstraton:>>25270933
>>25270996>abysmal birthrates among Europeans and east Asians beg to differ.Sadly, we have replaced these natural stimuli and ways of life with porn. videogames and other meaningless entertainment. Our brains are the same as they were 10.000 years ago, but we have gotten really good at frying them with over-stimulation. When these things desensitize our brains and cloud our minds, it is easy to only see the suffering in the world.
>>25271003Already refuted here>>25270944
When the last conscious being dies the total suffering will be exactly the same as if none had ever existed.>heh, so I guess it doesn't matter if I torture you thenNot beyond my fleeting subjective experience.Good and bad don't real btw
Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder
>>25270992Kek you should be down on your knees thanking capitalists every day for all they do for you. It's not their fault your life sucks
>>25271040This 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?
>>25271040Anti-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.
>>25271045How's that jewish cock taste? You know what? Nevermind
>>25271052Why do leftists think about dick so much?
>>25270933Their argument:>antinatalists central claim is that life is harm>they argue that you have to be alive to feel pleasure and stress this isn't guaranteed>they argue that if you're not alive you are guaranteed not to suffer/harm>[no guarentee of pleasure, risk of suffering/harm, therefore nonexistence is best = basic thread of argument]>note: they also like to being up that the fact you don't have a choice in coming into existence>they conclude that not reproducing and ending life is the optimal outcome to reduce harmWhy they're refuted:>antinatalists can't validate their central claim as they cannot weigh the total value of life in aggregate (the best they can do is assert individual bad things happen)>[this is all the refutation that is needed: they cannot draw logic, let alone an extreme conclusion, from a central claim they are unable to prove; simple as--but lets go on to point out their bad logic]>they place the weight of guaranteed outcomes on detractors but they don't have prescience to forsee the outcome/value of individual lives (let alone the aggregate of all life which they are assuming) but...>antinatalists are attempting to prove their conclusion and thereby the onus is on them produce a stable logic based on a proven premise>however, any single example of value in life automatically contravienes their premise and contradicts the logic they attempt to assert>[antinatalists are generally filtered by this because they still affirm their premise even though reason has been given to reject it]>we may come to the idea of suicide and ending life (which is logically coherent with their outlook while showing their values are actually incosistent)>suicide automatically means an end to suffering, any harm caused doesn't exist for the victim (aside, the absence of existence means you can't even weigh such anyway)>denial of suicide is an affirmation that value exists in life (or else why not? note that they won't even admit that suffering is short relative to continued existence, they really want to avoid clearly weighing anything)>if the antinatalist says it affects others a consistent logic follows that they kill them as well (the sooner the better in fact--stop them from reproducing which puts an end to countless future lives)>alas, the anti-natalist will assert their original logic no longer applies once they are alive (again, affirming the value of existing and demonstrating their logic can actually be harmful)>the last bastion is they HAD no choice to exist (conveniently it doesn't matter that they have one now) but again there are plenty of examples of lives worth living
>>25271057Why antinatalists are retarded:>no matter how many times you point out how AND why their premise is ungrounded they will still assert you must argue within the logic it sets out>no matter how many times you point out the logic is inconsistent they retreat to the idea of their unfounded premise and assert it follows naturally>no matter the absurdities you can show as consistent with their reasoning (i.e. you shouldn't kill yourself let alone others) they will simply change the rules>life is valuable once it exists and yet we need to stop it from existing...that's what their bullshit boils down to and it's utterly stupidAt this point it's worthwhile to point out antinatalists will ignore strong arguments against their case and use any excuse to stay within their own logic. This is because they're ideologically possessed retards too dumb to see how pretentious "I've figured out the totality of existence and have an announcement to make...all life should cease" is in the first place.Get a life, losers.
hijacking to ask if someone here has got an epub of gravity's Rainbow. all the copies on Anna's seem to be broken in one way or another>why this theadwas on top
>>25271055The imagry is inevitable every time you jew cock lovers show up.
>>25271058>>life is valuable once it exists and yet we need to stop it from existing...that's what their bullshit boils down to and it's utterly stupid"urr durr ur stupid"thanks for helping make the thread better anon! If you don't like your morals to be challenged maybe don't click on these threads to begin with
>>25271045Everything good in my life, comes from labor. I don't blame capitalists for everything bad but I do blame them for labor alienation and all the mental diseases that come with it.
>>25270957>the misery and woe capitalism inflicts on usMaterially better off than every pre-existing economic system, stop pretending like you'd find feudalistic or pre-agrarian society any better.
>>25271088Capitalism is just a natural result of labor being more productive. You are not comparing systems, you are comparing stages of labor's productivity.
>>25271077>labor alienation and all the mental diseases that come with it.Retard thinks he'd enjoy being a subsistence level farmer more because then he wouldn't be "alienated" from his labor and wouldn't be working for a 'wage'
>>25271093>labor being more productiveLabor is more productive because of the tools being used. Labor and it turn the laborer is less valuable than ever
>>25271096No, it makes his labor more productive.
>>25271100Increase in productivity has nothing to do with him and his abilities, he's more replaceable than ever and therefore, once again, less valuable than ever.
>>25270898It is a greater crime to not bring a good thing into being than to bring a bad thing into being.
>>25270933This is just a semantics game. You arbitrarily pick words that sound correct but don't add up in the bigger picture. If you add up good + not bad, you end up with a net positive. That is not possible because inexistence is neutral. It's not bad + not good. Inexistence can only be positive in a relative sense, so you'd have to prove that existence is bad. Your chart doesn't do that.
>>25271088>>25271095>Capitalism created industrialisation. When you are in a dumb takes competition and your opponent is an anti-marxists
>>25271105It is a social factor. Social labor as a whole makes, with labor, the tools that make labor much more effective. But they only multiply labor. So labor is actually producing more wealth, it is more productive, socially
>>25270898This argument kinda reminds me of Nick Bostrom's explanation of the problem of AI alignment. In the event we develop a superintelligent general AI (which has essentially god-like properties to us), how do we make sure it doesn't exterminate us? If we give it a simple instruction like "maximize human happiness" or "eliminate all human suffering", it would take the most efficient route - it will kill almost all of humanity (presumably in a painless, lethal injection sort of way), thus eliminating the potential for any subjectively felt human suffering.Conversely, if we tell it to maximize experienced human pleasure, it would still kill most of humanity, insert electrodes into the brain of everyone left alive, and continuously fire the pleasure centers there, thus achieving its goal.This argument serves to prove that the pleasure/suffering dichotomy does not constitute the highest moral imperative of humanity (otherwise we would all agree that these two outcomes are desirable, and would not want to avoid them).In short, Benatar's argument is retarded, and so am I
>>25271151>Tools continue to increase productivity, AI advances, takes away the need for the laborer entirelyOkay now the laborer is entirely useless. >>25271122Capitalism isn't real. All Marxists complaints about "capitalism" are just about profit-maximization, which has always existed.
>>25271066>TO BE BORN IS THW WORST THING EVER!Why?>BECAUSE BEING ALIVE MEANS BADS THINGS CAN HAPPEN!So why don't you kill yourself then? >REEEEEEEEEEEEELol
>>25271172because the absence of pain is better than the presence of sufferingbecause my life is great and I love itplease derailing the thread though and show who the midwits are
>>25271170>capitalism isn't realall our ideological enemies are subilliterate. feelsgoodman
>>25271173>because the absence of pain is better than the presence of sufferingNaw, that's tautological and I disagree it's a valid way to frame such discussion. >because my life is great and I love itPretty convenient that experiencing life is suddenly positive so you don't have to back up your argument. >please derailing the thread though and show who the midwits areWere you shaking when you wrote that? Lol
>>25271170Social labor is never going to be useless
>>25271062there's dozens of copies there at least one's gotta be good
>>25271174Name a single unique thing about it
>>25271170>Capitalism isn't real.Hey you already won the bad takes competition. No need to go for an overkill
>>25271170>>25271180>>25271200How do you midwits manage to make every discussion about communism/capitalism? There's nothing said about economics in the OP and the related stance
>>25271219It's good and just that the anti natalist thread gets derailed. He is going to make another one in a few days anyway
>>25271219Any anti-natalist that hasn't offed themselves isn't buying what they're selling regarding life being unworth living. An anti-natalist that has offed themselves can't be argued with.
>>25271219The OP is about how we can't blame capitalism for the misery it inflicts and instead must blame our parents and say capitalism isn't doing it, life itself is.
>>25271231are you stupid or are you misunderstanding antinatalist arguments on purpose?
>>25270898If the English proverb, "throwing the baby out with the bath water" was turned into a philosophy with an entire book worth of words wasted on it. That would be David Benater's life work.
>>25271244very smart plebbitfag, here's your gold
>David Benatar is the son of Solomon Benatar and Evelyn Benatar (née Goldberg)
>>25271232Nah, it has nothing to do with capitalism. If your baby is eaten by a lion in 20,000 BC, you can't blame the capitalists or the communists for it, but the anti-natalist argument still stands. It is still wrong for other reasons, but the fall of capitalism would not magically fix your shitty life (or anyone else's for that matter).>>25271224I respect that
>>25270898If you applied the anti-natalist logic to the usage of computers and the problem of software bugs, this is the result you will get. 1: computer exists, presence of software:good2: computer exists, it has bugs: bad3: computer does not exist, it has no bugs : good4. Computer does not exist, it has no software: not badFollowing Benater's argument to it's conclusion, we should stop using computers because then we would never have to face the problem of computer bugs.
>>25270898>Keep lying to yourself about how great existing is while you spend half your waking life just trying to stave off basic thirst and anxiety.But existing is great, I don't get your point
>>25271264>computer bugs is the same as human sufferingyou are very intelligent
>>25271278Intelligence is not a pre-requisite to debunk a position as silly as anti-natalism.Computer bugs are not the same as human suffering but Benater's general logic applies to both.According to Benater we should never create or buy a computer because it may contain bugs.
>>25270898Is there a bigger cope than antinatalism?I don't mean the retarded position of calling you a virgin or an incel or anything, what I mean is, you project your hatred of your own life, and your instinct to protect yourself from suffering at all costs onto people who don't exist, just to feel smart.>>25270933There is no one there to experience the (good) of no pain. You're basically just pleasuring yourself by not having kids and instead doing whatever is pleasurable to you, and then telling yourself you're doing what's best for your non-existent kids.The other thing is, this chart seems to believe there is no good that could outweigh any iota of bad. I can only assume you're presupposing materialism, because the temporal, material bad of suffering is nothing compared to the metaphysical good that can be brought about and experienced by a person, even one who suffers greatly for his entire life.
>you don't know the outcome of a life but you do know there are bad things; no life means no bad things--therefore no birth is goodLiterally the most retarded shit ever so it's pretty crazy that people fall for it. I guess it's a bias caused by depression and personality disorder that drowns out the smallest amount of brain power, because all it requires is the smallest amount, needed to dismiss it.
>>25271256Eliminating labor alienation would not end pain, pain is an important part of life and eliminating entirely would be brave new world. But ending labor alienation would make life worth living
>>25270898You're right. Childbirth is a means to support the end of tradition. Eat shit and die.
>>25271300>metaphysical goodsNot worth a iota of suffering by coming into existence, since non-existent has no need in them.
>>25270898Only existing people can have good or evil done upon themYou can't do harm to "someone" that doesn't exist
>>25271303Whether true or not, this has nothing to do with OPs argument, unless >>25271224 is your aim, in which case it worked
>>25271301Why don't these people just take their SSRIs then?
>>25271445It's not like they need to worry about the effects such have on sexual functioning.
Scenario: Anti Natalists have convinced everyone, no more births. Now to prevent intelligent life to ever happen again do they murder all the monkeys? Other mammals? Nuke the whole planet?
>>25271424OP's argument is that the misery capitalism inflicts upon life, is in fact life itself, exonerating capitalism
You're a demonic egotistical faggot.
>>25271519Go find some other board to sully, you coward
>>25271534Kys jew.
>>25270898Your attachment to antinatalism and harm reduction is less "rational and correct" than other's attachment to reproduction.
>>25270898is it ethical to sterilize the entire earth of life?
>>25271496Good premise. I think that even if planet Earth exploded, giving some time an organism could survive and evolve life elsewhere. Life is truly terrifying.
>>25271542You're an evil rat
>>25270898>Every time you procreate you're just kicking off a generational iceberg of suffering because you wanted a mini-me to play Russian roulette with.b-bros, how can we refute this ?
>>25271496life will evolve again in other planets, infinitely many times over and over. extinction is temporary
>>25272099True, and the refutation of this observation is supplied by the final line of Candide: "Let us cultivate our garden." Meaning: let us manage our own affairs as best we can. If we cannot control nature's stupidity elsewhere in the galaxy, then we can at least regulate ourselves, with a view toward minimizing suffering where we can. If we cannot effect omnicide, then we should of course endeavor toward lesser goods, and as well as we can.
reminder, these threads are bought and paid for
>>25271048I'm inclined to believe this anon, being an antinatalist and having extremely low hedonic tone myself
>>25272179Congratulations. You've responded to a copypasta. I remain neutral on whether the content of the idea is true or false. I should simply like you to know that the post has the format of a form letter, a repetition. And a repetition of this type, even at the service of what may be a true idea, undermines its own credibility.https://warosu.org/lit/?task=search&ghost=false&search_text=nature+simply+precludes
>>25270898The important question is OP: is antinatalism objectively correct or not? nothing else matters.
>>25270898I think life can be objectevly more beutifull than nonexistance.
>>25270908The greatest thinkers and artists in history were antinatalists.
>>25271501Ah yes, it's once again the communist's greatest nemesis, reading comprehension
>>25271496First we stop livestock from reproducing. Then we run out and have to eat wildlife. Then we go vegan and use excessive amounts of pesticide to kill smaller animals too. Then we die.
>>25270902Lmao every time
>>25272719If rightoids had reading comprehension. (And basic critical skills) they wouldn't be rightoids.
>>25272794Your (and that of others here) inability to conceive of anything lying outside the left/right divide is quite sad. There are far deeper and more important issues than politics, and all the pain and suffering in the world would not go away if 'your side' wins. Your life and mine would contain the same amount of pain, toil and suffering, but also joy, pleasure and excitement.My parents were born and lived through communist totalitarianism and now in a dysfunctional democratic capitalism, but their laughter sounds the same, their tears flow like they did back then, and their love warms them as it did before. There are many valid arguments for and against capitalism, but the emotional ones like yours are rarely among them. You are not your politics, anon, broaden your horizons a bit; be a communist if you will, but also be a human, a loving son or daughter, spouse and parent, and don't take these online arguments too seriously
