What does /his/ think about antinatalism?

>>1486066

Cowardice.

>>1486066
Antinatalists should practice what they preach and literally kill themselves.

>>1486066

I'm not interested in having kids myself, but even so I have a really hard time taking antinatalism seriously when literally every antinatalist I know is a permavirgin with an obvious case of sour grapes.

>>1486076
This. If life is so unbearable that you don't think other people should be born into it, you might as well just kill yourself .

Can it be reconciled with Buddhism?

>retards who haven't read Schopenhauer itt
>>1486076
What's the point in that? Antinatalism is against birth. Suicide doesn't change that, it's a non-answer.

>>1486066
Fantastic

It's the weak voluntarily removing their weak genes from the gene pool, more power to them

>>1486076
On a more serious note, from what I've read it seems that the idea of antinatalism stems from the notion that the evil (suffering) in the world outweighs the good (pleasure) in it, either by there simply being more evil than good or by evil being more undesirable than good is desirable.

After a google search, I've found that the reason most antinatalists give for not committing suicide is that they are being altruistic by remaining alive despite their great suffering and spreading antinatalist ideas for the good (or is it for not-bad?) of the people who will be born if their parents aren't made antinatalists beforehand, or else to not increase the suffering of those who would mourn their death.

But antinatalism as an altruistic philosophy makes no sense to me; It does nothing to help the people who have already been born, and the people who haven't been/won't be born can't be helped by antinatalism because they don't even exist. It doesn't do anything for the good of anyone, and in fact doesn't care about individuals at all (as proven by antinatalists ignoring the fact that most people prefer being alive to not being alive) but rather about some abstract measurement of the total amount of suffering in the present and in possible futures.

A true antinatalist wouldn't hesitate to press a button which would kill every last human being on earth, because even if it caused them to suffer a painful death, it would prevent the suffering of untold numbers of potential human beings. Hell, even killing just one person could prevent potential millions of people from being born to experience suffering, whereas it would only cause any meaningful suffering to that one person and those who were close to them.

>>1486261
>Antinatalism is against birth.
As a way to prevent suffering (which it claims is an inherent part of life) before it happens, something which could also be accomplished by suicide or even murder.

it's natural selection
*tips fedora*

>>1486300

It isn't, tho. "The weak" don't study philosophy, they have teen pregnancies multiple babydaddies, it's "the educated" who buy into stupidity like antinatalism, thus ensuring the future is worse than the present.

It's a pretty reasonable and empathetic stance and I think the overall low quality of knee-jerk responses to it attests to that fact, at least a little. Existence bothers everyone to some extent, nonexistence bothers no one. People need to realize that criticizing AN via the nonidentity problem leads to more repugnant conclusions than voluntary extinction.

>>1486400
>despite all odds, your genes have come together to form you after billions of years of struggle
>somehow you think you have teh right to just check out

Pure cowardice. We don't own our lives, they belong to the untold billions of our ancestors and to the even greater numbers of our descendants.

>>1486408
All I'm seeing is retardation, unwarranted ontological commitments and non sequiturs from a flawed understanding of probabilities.

>>1486333
>People who reproduce less aren't the evolutionary weak.

Lmfao.

Ever notice anti natalists are repugnant autists nobody would want to reproduce with anyway?

Sour grapes basically.

>>1486435
Have you talked to every antinatalist on the planet?

>>1486453
Yep, they all suck.

>>1486400
nonexistence doesn't not bother anyone because there's not really anyone there for it not to bother

if someone's not suffering they've got to exist, antinatalism seems to me like preventing the imaginary suffering of imaginary people

>>1486417
He didn't say evolutionary. Evolutionary strength is merely the ability to create as much offspring as possible.
He probably meant intellectually, and the intellectually weak do certainly have a tendency to reproduce as much as possible, be it intentional or not.

You can look at it all and say "the human race is shit and shouldn't breed." Then keep living because your self-preservation instinct forces you.

>>1486066
Or do you mean antenatalism?

>>1486261
I read Nietzsche and he said Schopenhauer was a big fat stupid idiot.

I think proddies should indeed get the fuck out and kill themselves.

Suffering isn't a negative in life, it makes other moments all the better because you have suffered and triumphed over that suffering.

Non-existence isn't the lack of suffering, it's the lack of anything at all so you can't compare it as a better alternative.

>>1486453
They are usually big gay nerds who hate life and think everyone else should as well.

It's a flawed value judgement, I don't especially buy it

>>1486066
It's sound in itself.