What do you guys think about antinatalism? It's a philosophy which states that it's immoral to have children, since they will experience suffering during their lives. That it's immoral to force children to be born without their consent, and that by being born you are involuntarily woken up from an eternity of peaceful non-existance. When we die, we are freed from the prison that is life, and can go back to our peaceful state of non-existance. I agree with this philosophy, since I had been thinking about this for quite a while before finding and reading about it.
I know you guys don't like Reddit, but I recommend that you check out the subreddit for antinatalism if you're interested in learning more.
What do you think?
Good and evil is a supernatural concept, therefore, not real. The idea of right and wrong is purely the choice of the individual. So antinatalism is just another bullshit theory where people try to impose moral order on an amoral universe.
having children in this society is an exercise in narcissism. there are already too many people, we do not need any more, we're full.
>Good and evil is a supernatural concept, therefore, not real.
Well, if your posting here, chances are you would be fine having children. It's the people in poor shit holes in Africa, China, and India that are having to many kids in a vicious cycle of
>have kids to help farm
>need to feed kids with more farm
>have more kids to help farm
All these bullshit philosophies are based around Utilitarianism so any argument can be propped up on the premise that "we shouldn't, because *sadness*".
Well guess what, the world economy is your Utility Monster. It begs for people so they can consume and produce. If you truly find solace in non-existence, kill yourself.
>having children in this society is an exercise in narcissism.
It's not even narcissism, it's purely mechanical. People don't really fucking think when the breed, they just do it.
Science has fucking SHOWN AND PROVEN that pair bonding and having children makes you worse off as an individual. You get sicker, age faster, accumulate more stress, and have less time for yourself. Yet, people still do it.
no, i realized a while ago that i am unfit to have children. i do not like babies or children, they just annoy me. shit genetics should be eradicated from the earth and that includes myself
Well, if you value genetic quality then sure. What I'm saying is that if you were to have kids, you really wouldn't be making the world that much shittier or condemning them to a life of pure misery beyond a reasonable doubt.
Even people like us who are "miserable" still live pretty damn good all things considered. Sure
But we don't have to worry about a bunch of nasty diseases, we don't live in an active war zone, we have access to clean water, and you probably don't have to worry about starving to death.
i was thinking more about the people who choose to have kids, not just fall into it.
you have to be pretty full of yourself to want to make a little version of yourself. if they weren't narcissists they'd adopt. most people don't adopt because the whole passing down your own genes thing.
that's bullshit. its okay to have children as long as you are ready to be a parent, and lets face there aren't alot of people suited to be parents
there is barely any forward thinking when making children,especially when woman have the option to raise them for free
I think this kind of discussion is useless to have on /r9k/ because you're all satanic, life hating, love hating people. Not only that but you twist arguments to fit into your worldview and rationalize your hatred of everything good and pure.
Well I hate women and I think that they are all whores. But I fucking fucking Hate those annoying cunts of children.... Aaaah I wish that I can kill them all..
Abortion should be legal.
And 1 child policy worldwide. Now in society women prefer to improve social and economic instead of having children is fine by me.
It's fucking disgusting that women having children at the age of 15 16 17 ... Fucking whore. They all must die.
That's just the way the universe is man, gotta have a bit of pain to know what pleasure is. If you accept that's the way it is you can just relax and know life isn't so bad after all since most of our suffering is feeling bad that we suffer.
babby's first philosophy
regards, a parent with a philosophy degree
But that's a retarded thought to have. It's literally impossible for anyone to give consent to be born, so if it's immoral to birth someone without their consent, then what you're saying is it's immoral to propagate the species and that for humans to be good and moral we'd have to facilitate our own extinction.
And what's wrong with extinction? There isn't a single logical reason to care about the propagation of the species in the abstract, and if you think it's ok to violate individual rights just to reach an arbitrary collectivist goal, you really are a retarded sack of shit.
>and they say white genocide's not real
>tfw they're making ''''philosophies'''' about not breeding and encouraging it
I'm this guy with the degree >>26271119
About 50% of philosophy taught in colleges now is post 18th century Jews. They often advocate some kind of self-destructive altruism.
Other more shady stuff that is taught is critical theory, a whole branch of philosophy that is basically Jews Jewing
It's retarded arbitrary morals like this that go against common sense that cause people not to report child trafficking because of fear of being labeled racist.
USE YOUR COMMON SENSE
Okay, you are a nutjob and I'm not replying to you anymore. Your beliefs are unrealistic, unenforceable head in the cloud misanthropist bullshit. If you think life is better without all us all, get things started and kill yourself.
Name one reason to care about extinction that doesn't invole some delusion about "nature" having a will.
By definition, extinctin is something that can only happen after you have died. But once you're dead, nothing matters anymore. Therefore, extinction shouldn't matter to anybody, because nobody will ever experience it.
If it doesn't matter, why support philosophies in which the endgame is self-imposed extinction? If the earth is nothing more than a cold, uncaring rock in a cold, uncaring universe then why should we work toward our own demise? Overpopulation and overconsumption when there are other people to suffer the effects of it.
Extinction is not a goal in and of itself, dipshit. It's a side effect of following the only morally option, which is to refuse to violate other people's rights by forcing into an existence they cannot consent to.
Anti-natalism fails on a number of levels.
1) Suffering != evil. Does an olympic level athlete pushing himself to be stronger to compete 'suffer'?
Is it evil?
2) Anti-natalism is "I slept through the discussion of the Naturalistic Fallacy my Freshman year, the philosophy". It is, essentially, a reductio ad absurdum of the Naturalism Fallacy and reduces all of existence to 'feeling nice vs. feeling bad' where a single instance of feeling bad renders all other aspects of life meaningless. In the end, anti-natalism is the belief that if you stub your tow and it hurts, it would be better to have never been born, which is ridiculous
3) The majority of people report that the are happy with their lives. An overwhelming majority. This means people, even the desperately poor and the disabled, report that the good in their life outweighs the bad. This indicates that Reality disagrees with the Theory of anti-natalists.
4) Despite how easy it is to commit suicide (painlessly!) the vast majority of people never contemplate it, let alone attempt it. Indeed, humans will fight *hard* to continue life even in the face of great pain, showing that in Reality people hold positive value to existence.
Anti-natalism is the Objectivism of /r9k/
It's not wrong because of suffering. Reproducing would still be wrong even if there was no suffering, because you can't consent to being born. It's not right to force someone to exist just because you decided to make a person.
I just don't want to breed because I have schizophrenia.
I don't think it is wrong to prevent a potential ill fag from being born, really.
A case can be made not to have babies, especially going into the 21st century.
It very well could be the case that the later part of this century is defined by resource wars and massive global disintegration driven by climate collapse.
It would suck to be alive.
That's not true for everyone if put my pain/pleasure ratio at 3/7 and if you're speaking for yourself it's not necessary for you either, most of our suffering is in our minds not a product of our circumstances.
If you have this ideology, how the hell are you gonna keep it alive if you never reproduce?
Check and mate atheists
I love this meme. Where did you learn that? Fox news?
Fact of the matter is the US alone throws out millions of pounds of edible food a year and we have millions of square kilometers of usable space that isn't facilitated.
>you can't consent to being born
How can any right precede existence?
People aren't disembodied spirits hanging out in a waiting room with Beetlejuice waiting to get called up.
Saying 'someone who doesn't exist can't do something' is like saying 'a door that isn't there can't be opened'
1) No shit
2) so what?
In the absence of a person there is an absence of *rights*, you dolt.
>I bet you struggle with the Sunk Costs fallacy
The only thing that matters is that there is a person who exists now who didn't exist before, and they had no say in the matter whatsoever. They exist just because you decided that you wanted to make them, and that's that. No one has the right to make that choice on the behalf of someone else.
>No one has the right to make that choice on the behalf of someone else.
Based on what? I argue that I DO have the right to make that choice based on the law of my country and the law of my God. What law in particular states that I don't have the right to bring someone into existence without their express consent?
I was waiting for this. If we weren't the advanced species we are, rape and murder would be okay if it means passing your genes or getting rid of nuisances/competition or what have you. But what has to be factored in is civilization - it does work against nature in ways to keep people safe, and that's what's great about being human. But civilization also requires one of our most basic processes (breeding) to be upheld. There is potential of rape and murder if someone is born yes, but there's also potential of that NOT happening. There's potential for suffering or prosperity. Most people will certainly experience both. Anti-natalism is just a glass-half-empty philosophy.
A country is an arbitray construct with no inherent authority other than what you choose to give it, so law has no impact on morality. There is no logical reason to believe God exists, so that argument is just based on assumptions with no support. If you want to say something is moral just because your imaginary friend told you so, there isn't any way to carry on a rational discussion because you can just make up anything else you want and say that God told you it was true.
The quality of your life is irrelevant to whether reproduction is moral. Even if there was no suffering ever, you still don't have the right to force existence onto another person.
Man made law is irrelevant to this discussion. If you're talking about natural rights, then you're the one making the positive claim that you have the right to force someone to exist without their input in the matter, so try supporting it.
We're advanced, that's why we're able to comprehend and rationalize why our lives are pointless and worthless. If you don't kill because you think it's wrong to impose something on another person, you shouldn't impose life either.
>The quality of your life is irrelevant to whether reproduction is moral.
Yet that is the entire basis of anti-natalism.
>you still don't have the right to force existence onto another person
>you don't have the right
Says. Fucking. Who?
While I don't think it's immoral to have children, it's a difficult subject and I think it's impossible to come to a conclusion, a logical conclusion, about the whole thing. There are a lot of good reasons not to have kids and really no reasons to have kids that aren't incredibly selfish. But I guess you pay for that when you have kids because, if you're doing it right, nothing will ever again be just about you.
I would say it is immoral for some people to have children, but those people do not know it is immoral and I don't know if it's anyone's place to say that sort of thing. Because morals are not universal. Even though I believe mine should be, so does everyone else on the planet.
And everyone experiences some degree of suffering in their lives. I've experienced a shit ton of it. And while the bad stuff is bad, the good stuff is great, and makes it all worth while. But the possibility of something awful happening in the future makes me wonder if I really want to go on. And some of that bad stuff is inevitable, but it's all still imaginary... so it's just fear and anxiety, for now, but it won't be. Or maybe it will always be.
I don't know. The whole discussion hurts my head and makes me feel like I'm running around in nonsensical circles.
I think some people just should not have kids, like old people, people with diseases, really ugly people, poor people, low iq people etc
only the best should breed so that we are evolving in a good direction at least
you might as well say we should nuke the whole planet and end the suffering of all sentient creatures
So if there is no man made law that states that it's wrong to bring another into existence and there is no divine law that makes such a claim (because there is no God), then the argument that it's immoral to bring someone into existence without their consent doesn't seem to have a leg to stand on.
>tries to sound smart
>Good and evil is a supernatural concept
>If you don't kill because you think it's wrong to impose something on another person
Maybe I don't kill because I don't want to go to jail.
>you shouldn't impose life either
I will never understand how terms like "force" and "impose" can be used seriously in this argument.
>I will never understand how terms like "force" and "impose" can be used seriously in this argument.
They're not used seriously. This just some NT with too much time on his hands arguing an indefensible position for entertainment.
>That it's immoral to force children to be born without their consent
there is no such thing as consent though if you don't even have a brain and heart that you use to give consent for something.
also, this is all hogwash. if it's already immoral to have children, everything is already slightly immoral. so how many bacteria life forms have you wiped out today? or was it something bigger like an ant you stepped on outside? see, this is all fucking stupid.
>Maybe I don't kill because I don't want to go to jail.
So what you're trying to say is, you're a sociopath without a moral compass?
And you're surprised you can't understand our point of "it's immoral to force life"?
Are you serious right now?
not OP, but this is a free choice with nothing really degenerate about it.
this is just do or don't. it's only degenerate in the sense that you choose not to have children if you're white nowadays because the birthrates of white people are too low anyway.
>So what you're trying to say is, you're a sociopath without a moral compass?
I was being sarcastic since the guy decided to use assumptions to make a point.
>And you're surprised you can't understand our point of "it's immoral to force life"?
>I will never understand how terms like "force" and "impose" can be used seriously in this argument.
When does the """"""""""""forcing"""""""""""" of life begin? If we go ahead and abandon the ridiculousness of a baby's ability to consent to life, we can go so far as to ask how one can consent to CONCEPTION without even existing? It's just fucking stupid, isn't it?
If anything, this thread is proof of how normie-infested this board has become. A normie will never understand antinatalism because they believe society's pro-reproduction propaganda so completely and unquestioningly that the idea that someone wouldn't agree with it is utterly incomprehensible to them. That's why all they can respond with is "it's just natural", "it's just how it is", "I have the right to do this because I just do, that's how it's always been", etc. Only someone who's never fit in well question if society could be fundamentally wrong about something like this.
It's schopenhauerian garbage, children suffer and children flourish, pain and pleasure are different intensities of the same sensation.
There is no way of knowing the nature of non-existence and peace is not preferable to war even if it were a peaceful existence. Strife is the ultimate justice.
Antinatalism is horse shit
I've read several books on the topic
It is justification for failure and fear
Embracing your primal urges and keeping them satisfied is the secret to happiness
Believe it or not, this involves having children
So don't get your balls snipped yet. Wait at least 10 years
Don't start. There's been a lot of good discussion from both sides. Well somewhat...mostly AN's getting btfo
>You can't, that's why it's immoral
That's like saying you can't disprove God therefore he exists. Try a little harder.
No they just come to the white people and have them pay for it.
At some point I'm a mammal and I just want to reproduce. It's the reason why we're made with funny parts that have sex. I want to make a kid and get in the same line with all the people that came before me, that allowed my existence, and pass that on to someone who'll live after me.
Borders on ancestor worship but fine by me. My whole family was fucking based.
That's a dead-end philosophy.
When they develop a way to transfer a persons consciousness into a new human body, then I'll agree with it. People will make their choice to continue on.
Until we run out of consciousnesses to transplant, of course.
It seems stupid.
So my parents decision to have a kid was immoral because I did not/could not consent. As it stands now, I am happy with how my life has turned out. Sure, it hasn't all been perfect, but the positives (family, friends, alchohol) i feel far outweigh the negatives. (Bullied at school, poor to the point of being homeless for a year)
If my parents had done the "moral" thing and not had me they would have essentially denied life to some one who would have wanted to be born.
So if you would all be kind enough to stop being stupid and using morals as if it doesn't just mean "i think that x is bad or good" then maybe this thread could be interesting.
Well if you're not a Chad/STacy pair. That means top 5% of male population and at least top 25% of female population, you shouldn't have children, because their life is going to be shit. But if you have children irregardless, you shouldn't expect anything good from them.
Enjoy having this pathetically faux-philosophical attitude to a vital human function, just because you're either too pathetic to find a suitable mate OR too much of a self-centred faggot.
Also, enjoy circlejerking eachother with idiotic life views while negros and sand-niggers spawn 5 children, on average, and slowly invade Europe and decimate the European culture.
>r9k is so normie nowadays the average posters wants to live
truly the board is dead
It's as simple as killing yourself. If you really wanted to die you've had plenty of chances.
This board has no topic, it is just a slower /b/. Fuck off with your dilusional ownership.
I am antinatalist because :
The profusion human beings only harms the environment and fauna. It increases wealth/income inequality among people.
Procreation has no benefit to me besides satisfying my natural urges and my ego. It will not prolong my life, improve my health.
Raising children is a Sisyphean feat in our society. Everything in our culture is against children's essential needs for developing into healthy adults.
More on the last point:
Modern politics and popular social thought has hollowed out the concept of identity. It conflates things like race and sex with identity and forces everyone into restrictive groups. Then people are expected to toe the party line for their little group or ousted and harrassed. It uses that to promulgate stated equality rather than actual equality so people are beholden to moral relativism and political correctness.
How is a child supposed to form a strong, healthy identity when everything from race, sex, country etc are treated as mercurial and subjective? Now people can just think they are a new gender and demand everyone acknowledge their imagined reality. Reality is no longer based on facts that everyone can plainly see. Instead everyone's subjective reality is forced onto others. How can people have any idea of who they are and who others are when every interaction is a game of Calvinball?
>No one has the right to make that choice on the behalf of someone else
There *IS NO* someone else to consult until after the decision is made and that is not certain.
You are arguing it it wrong to not open a door before it exists, or that it is immoral to make a chair if that chair will someday break unless you ask the chair before the tree the wodd comes from grows.
>Does an olympic level athlete pushing himself to be stronger to compete 'suffer'?
He isn't though. No one is forcing him to train hard, he is training on his own volition. If someone held a gun up to his fucking head and "said run nigger run, if you don't get gold I'll blow your brains out" he would be suffering.
>3) The majority of people report that the are happy with their lives. An overwhelming majority. This means people, even the desperately poor and the disabled, report that the good in their life outweighs the bad. This indicates that Reality disagrees with the Theory of anti-natalists.
That's a cultural thing. Many cultures shame and ostracize those not satisfied with their situation, as it's consider impolite to say you are NOT happy.
>humans will fight *hard* to continue life even in the face of great pain, showing that in Reality people hold positive value to existence.
.Because we are hard wired too, it takes A LOT of will power to self terminate. Suicide is already a moot point anyway, since you're already here.
If the belief that death is returning to a peaceful state of non-existence wouldn't the philosophy surrounding this also promote prompt self-termination? On the merit of avoiding suffering any individual who is brought into the world can end their life at any point in time with little trouble.
>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?
-- Arthur Schopenhauer, Studies in Pessimism: The Essays
Think of all the terrible things that could happen to your child. Rape, torture, disease, etc. Regardless of how good a parent you are and how protective you are, these things may still happen (and do all the time). The only way to secure a world without suffering is by refusing to reproduce.
It has nothing to do with "finding a mate" or whatever. Life is brutal and miserable, and there is no reason to continue propagating it. The potential suffering your children may endure is absolutely mind boggling