Antinatalism

Anyone here /antinatalist/? I happened to turn antinatalist a few years ago when I realized the planet was completely fuarrrked if we didn't reduce the population (and since I'm anti-authoritarian, forcing people to die or to not have children is out of question). So I came to believe that our best hope was to convince people that having children was the worst idea possible in this time. However, I didn't suspect how egoist people would be when it comes to their offspring. It's like they'll just have children even if they know their children will probably go through the worst crisis the humanity ever known. So I tried to look into more basic arguments; moral antinatalism, the one where you compare the benefits and downsides of being born with those of not being born. And while I find these arguments as persuasives as the ecological ones, they seem to be too abstract for your average person to understand. So, in short, what are some good anti-natalist arguments I should use around me in the hope I'll even convince one person not to have kids?

>So, in short, what are some good anti-natalist arguments I should use around me in the hope I'll even convince one person not to have kids? The more people, the more people we have to kill, because climate change is killing people anyway.

>>59853 I have argued a lot about this. Main arguments I hear from natalists are: 1) Not giving birth will make my non existent child miss out on what could possibly be a good life. Non existent beings can't miss out on anything because they don't exist. Were aware before you were born? Can you remember it at all? Were you waiting to be born before you were conceived? Trust me it wouldn't have mattered to you at all if you had never been born. 2) I'm an optimist, I believe that good things will happen and will make sure that my kid will have a life where the good things outweigh the bad things. The fact that you are an optimist doesn't matter because we are not talking about you , we are talking about you potential offspring that you don't know anything about, you don't know what they'll be like. They might suffer from depression, just because you don't doesn't mean they won't. If that weren't true then happy parents would never have kids that commit suicide or have a bad life that makes them wish they'd rather be dead. You do play some role in your child's life but there are still too many unpredictable variables out of your control that makes it impossible to guarantee their happiness (I'm not going to list every bad thing that can happen to anyone and is outside of our control). 3) I want my bloodline to continue At least you are being straightforward in admitting how selfish you are. It's your choice if you want you can risk creating a human and hope for the best or just not make them and they won't exist so there won't be any possibility of them [Insert every bad thing here]. You WANT to make kids, once again, your kids don't want to be created they don't want anything because they don't exist so you are not denying them a possibility of a good life. Because these possibilities only exist once they are alive, you decide if you want to create these possibilities. 4) If everyone stops reproducing humans will go extinct That's your concern, you don't know if your child will care about that so this is another selfish reason. 5) So why don't you kill yourself? I'm happy why would I kill myself? Like I said me being happy doesn't guarantee my kids being happy because they will be different people with different values, they're not going to be clones of me and my wife. And even if I wasn't happy, suicide would hurt a lot of people in my life, it would ruin my parents' lives so why would I do that? I can't believe people still ask this question because the answer is basically the same as natalists'.

>>59853 This planet can hold 9 billion people. If you really want to save the planet you should focus your efforts on raising the poor out of poverty. Turns out that when you have billions of people who are preoccupied with surviving, you don't exactly have time to give soykaf about the environment.

>>59855 >Trust me lol like you'd know better than me about this. our experiences are awful similar, right ? You're not like a demon or something, right ? >because we are not talking about you this is dumb, the optimist isn't characterized by his own happy contentment but by his general faith that things work out. This is like attacking a christian wanting to baptize his kid because he doesn't know if the kid's a christian. Its not about what the kid believes, kid doesn't even exist at this point. >bloodline this is pretty incoherent. If I want my bloodline to continue then I want my bloodline to contine. Basically the only way to do this is to have more kids. Don't really care if half of them are born with one arm or two noses, the solution is always more kids. >extinction, don't know if your kid will care what the fuarrrk man it doesn't matter, if they don't exist they don't exist. Their non existence is a requirement for human extinction. >suicide would hurt a lot of people in my life a lot of folks parents are pretty into the idea of grandkids. Not having kids would certainly hurt some peoples parents in a similar fashion to not having grandkids. Frankly it might be the same fashion very nearly. Maybe yours arent, but plenty are. >if I'm happy why would I kill myself If you're that happy why would you not want kids ? Sounds pretty bizzare. Why even are you an antinatalist lain?

>>59857 nine billion ? Im sure it could hold 30 easy, and that's not even a high estimate.

>>59857 Being pro-ecology and pro-equality aren't really at odds with one other. Decolonization can help with both. The problem isn't too much people, the problem is that first-world lifestyles are hugely wasteful, besides being predicated on mass exploitation.

>>59857 source on the 9 billion? Because even if we all go vegan, the current agricultural system that barely produces enough food also manages to ruin all fertile soil in a few dozen years. So unless, like, half of the humanity goes back to making its own food (which would cause other problems, such as land use and death of most biodiversity), it's unlikely we can stay 7 billion without problem.

>>59858 >If you're that happy why would you not want kids ? Sounds pretty bizzare. Why even are you an antinatalist lain? Did you not read my post? I give up talking about this because every time I do I get a response like this that just ignores everything I say.

>>59853 anti/antinatalist/ here. Just to get this out of way: I just want to have children and find antinatalists physically sickening. So anything i am going to say is rationalization, but true underlying reason is elsewhere. >I happened to turn antinatalist a few years ago when I realized the planet was completely fuarrrked if we didn't reduce the population What do you mean by planet? Other species? Why would you place survival of other species above survival of your own bloodline? >However, I didn't suspect how egoist people would be when it comes to their offspring. I mean, surviving and procreating are two most important instincts evolution has given us. >So I tried to look into more basic arguments; moral antinatalism, the one where you compare the benefits and downsides of being born with those of not being born. Value judgements are inherently subjective. You could argue that not having children leads to minimizing suffering and that is true, as suffering is inherent part of life. But i would see this as argument against avoiding suffering. Also, consider that you are inflicting suffering on many other people just by virtue of existing - if you rent flat, you drive rents up (by miniscule amount). If you have friends or family, you will at some point hurt them by your actions. But somehow, you conclude that it is worth it to engage in these relationships. The matrix in your picture also seems biased. if absence of pain is good, then surely absence of pleasure be bad, no? Or perhaps absence of pain is not-good. Also, it builds on hedonistic worldview (pain/pleasure), but there may be other moral frameworks, that would give you different results. >>59855 >[kids are] not going to be clones of me and my wife. I mean... they kind of are.

>>59858 >this is pretty incoherent. If I want my bloodline to continue then I want my bloodline to contine. Basically the only way to do this is to have more kids. Don't really care if half of them are born with one arm or two noses, the solution is always more kids. This is the problem tho, you are being selfish because you want your bloodline to continue so you are willing to make them even if they are born with life ruining defects? This is just a question about basic morality, if you think doing what you just said is fine then I can't persuade you otherwise.

>>59864 >I mean... they kind of are. The point was that (I'm happy + my wife is happy) != my kids will be happy

>>59866 Sure, but there is certainly correlation. If you want to be absolutely sure you're not going to cause any unhappiness to other people, you would have to live absolutely meaningless life without having impact on anything. I would consider such life wasted. It seems that focusing on minimizing unhappiness and ignoring possible happiness is misguided.

>>59867 >If you want to be absolutely sure you're not going to cause any unhappiness to other people, you would have to live absolutely meaningless life without having impact on anything. This only applies when those people already exist. Because if you don't try to bring happiness to those people they might end up worse off. Your kids won't be in a worse position if you don't create them because existence is the first requirement for "good" and "bad" life. There is a correlation between the parents' happiness and the kids' but this is not just about happiness in terms of mental health, they could be born with conditions that ruin their life from the beginning and you can't control that.

>>59865 this all depends how you count suffering. I think a big fuel for antinatalism is declining religiosity; christianity has good easy answers that make the suffering minimizer not fret about problems like this. An innocent, one armed kid who dies at the age of 4 months can go to heaven, and four months of intense suffering isnt that much compared to infinite life. Infinite suffering on the other hand is pretty easily avaliable, but there's a way to avoid it. And any suffering in life is pretty meaningless against the backdrop of litterally going to Hell. Suffering litterally every moment of your life basically doesn't matter. Your kid suffering litterally every moment of his life doesn't matter. Just gotta follow the rules and things work out in the end.

>>59855 So, antinatalists do not want people to breed. This means you're (attempting to) impose your will on them. I'm liking the concept of eugenics lately and I agree with imposing will on people to not breed. Mine is just more specified. Good luck.

>>59869 >Infinite suffering on the other hand is pretty easily avaliable, but there's a way to avoid it. And any suffering in life is pretty meaningless against the backdrop of litterally going to Hell. I don't understand what you are trying to say. The only way this makes sense is if you think that children are in hell before they are born. If not then you are ok with them suffering because you think they will go to heaven in the end.

>>59870 I'm not imposing anything I'm just sharing my thoughts there are many people who impose these views and are very annoying.

> I realized the planet was completely fuarrrked if we didn't reduce the population The planet's not fuarrrked, we are. >t's like they'll just have children even if they know their children will probably go through the worst crisis the humanity ever known. Survival instincts trump morality. If they have enough food and shelter but they suspect it will go away in the future, the rational thing to do from a genetic standpoint is to have as many offspring as possible right now and hope that some of them survive the bad times.

>>59871 nah. If the kids already are in Hell, suffering minimizer position would be that everyone needs to be having as many kids as possible right now. It might even be worth it for everyone alive to kill all nearly all of their kids (but required for sustainance) once reaching a stable population (as high as possible), just so that you can remove as many souls from hell as possible even perhaps while consigning yourself to Hell. With just the concepts of Hell and Heaven and the non existance till birth of kids, though, you throw in the idea of INFINITE SUFFERING, along with a path to avoid it. If God commands you on pain of Hell to have kids, then you'd better do it unless you're sure your kids are going to hell (because if you don't you sure as hell are going to Hell). The Infinite suffering of Hell also completely outweights all earthly suffering. You could have a flock of malformed kids who all die miserable deaths, drawn out deaths, after miserable lives, and this is entierly irrelevant because its so small compared to a single person going to Hell. The autistic suffering minimizer might still consider it undesierable though, but once again, if God wishes for him to have kids, then the uncertain chance that his kids might turn out bad is worth the risk if its going to stop the certain infinite suffering he will experience.

This is such a load of Malthusian/Neo-eugenics nonsense. Since the 60s we're heading towards a global demographic cliff and things are only about to get worse as old people live longer and longer, exerting a larger and larger economic pressure on those in the reproductive age thus creating a demographic feedback loop. We can solve and/or survive climate change but not without people.

>>59855 I want to have kids, main reason is "to continue my bloodline" call it selfish or whatever you wish. I live in a country where natality rate is so low that I feel I am helping my community by having kids. Population distribution is different in the world and I don't want to give up on my reproduction rights and make this place suffering increase just because people are overpopulation other parts of the world.

Antinatalism is a childish non idea thought up by living in a despondent, depressed and spiritually dead culture. It is really not the planet you should be concerned for (for even if it is struck by an asteroid it will rejuvenate), but rather the foreseeable future in which the very soul and potential of humanity is corrupted beyond repair. The existence of humanity in it's current state is miraculous. The earth will heal. But there may never be another human race again. Intellectually gifted, but confused people will waste their life with irrelevant discourse meanwhile dysgenics are breeding like rabbits - this is what antinatalism ultimately achieves. The downfall of humanity will be met through the degradation of it's people. Yes, there is one conclusion you can draw from anti natalism. It is that on the topic of propagation of the human race, quality should be given priority over quantity.

>>59877 So you think that god and afterlife exists and that's why you are willing to put them through suffering, because of your beliefs. You seem to understand that your kids might go to hell/heaven based on how they live their lives (which you can't completely control) but you just ignore the fact that if they don't exist neither do these possibilities. >With just the concepts of Hell and Heaven and the non existance till birth of kids, though, you throw in the idea of INFINITE SUFFERING, along with a path to avoid it. There's no need to avoid it, as you said they are not in hell before they are born so you just have to not make them. You just ignore the fact that they don't exist until you want them to. >If God commands you on pain of Hell to have kids, then you'd better do it unless you're sure your kids are going to hell (because if you don't you sure as hell are going to Hell). I don't know if you actually believe this stuff, if you do then we have nothing to discuss here anymore.

>>59853 Op, if non-existence is better than existence, then please swiftly an hero so that my numerous children may have incrementally more resources when they accept ownership of the future by nature of showing up.

>>59853 I can't say I feel any gratitude for being forced into existence, but it's nonsensical to reduce all of existence into dichotomous monolithic notions of pain and pleasure.

Cool to see my thread got some traction >>59864 >Why would you place survival of other species above survival of your own bloodline Why would you place survival of your own bloodline above survival of other species? (please don't answer with a theological argument) Also, when I say the planet is fuarked, I don't mean other species. I mean life as we know it. Because the consequences of overpopulation is also desertification of soils, water shortages, waste overload,... >surviving and procreating are two most important instincts evolution has given us can you source that procreating is an actual instinct for humans? We aren't going through heat like cats, and the only thing making us reproduce is basically because if feels good. Also, sexual intercourse became distinct from 'having a baby' as soon as culture appeared. >The matrix in your picture also seems biased I used a random result from google image when I typed anti-natalism, and yeah it's a little confused in its presentation, sadly the only content I know that dives into the moral argument and pre-debunks a few counter-arguments is not in english >>59865 >you are willing to make them even if they are born with life ruining defects? that's just one side of the problem though. Because yeah the pursue of bloodline may be considered more important morally than the well-being of the offspring, but you also have to take into account that the overpopulation you caused may have negative effects on you. Then you need to think if these negative effects overcome the positive one(s?) of the bloodline stuff >>59870 there's a difference between advocating for something and imposing lainon. If you go this way, we might as well consider that every debate about what to do between two or more humans is people trying to impose their will on others >>59910 you don't belong here if you seriously think this. Read a fuarrrking book. There are several fine natalists trying to come with actual arguments in this thread, don't ruin their side of the debate >>59911 Then isn't all theory obsolete since it always reduces everything into concepts?

>>59915 >We aren't going through heat like cats It's called being horny. >Also, sexual intercourse became distinct from 'having a baby' as soon as culture appeared. They're still very highly correlated, and it is well known that baby-making sex is usually the most gratifying sex for straight people.

>>59915 >Then isn't all theory obsolete since it always reduces everything into concepts? You can't be serious.

I just think that life is pretty bad and pointless, both inherently and as a result of human activity. I don't really care about preserving my bloodline or upholding systems that view humanity as resources and tools, and I don't feel like there is any philosophical or religious imperative for me to have kids. Obviously there are concerns about retirement and the entire "who'll care for me once I'm old" but I don't think I'll live to that age either way.

>>59864 From this post i gather that breeders are basically animals, they dont use logic and go with their dumb animalistic instinct, they do not value other forms of life, and cant understand how overbreeding can possibly have negative conscequences.

>>59862 Check out Hans Rosling's work

>>59853 Correct me OP if I'm wrong here but I don't like to argue when I don't know exactly what you are aiming at or how you came to the conclusion that what you argue is the most efficient or reasonable way to achieve that goal. For all I know you might have heard that reducing the population is the ONLY way to achieve your goal. > So I came to believe that our best hope was to convince people that having children was the worst idea possible in this time. Can you give specify whats your goal here since I can only guess from your post. I'm not sure if you are proposing to reduce the population for the flourishing of humanity or something else. >when I realized the planet was completely fuarrrked if we didn't reduce the population How did you arrive to this conclusion? Why is it that this is the only option? >what are some good anti-natalist arguments I should use around me in the hope I'll even convince one person not to have kids? This is why I'm interested to hear why you think this way. If you can't convince other people with the arguments at your disposal how did you convince yourself in the first place?

>>59930 Calling them animals is degrading towards nature, breeders are more like a disease that went out of control. All they do is eat, soykaf, fuarrrk sleep and talk stupid inane crap, at the same time they expect all the world to be supporting them in being vermin, almost everyone around here is like this. They dont give a flying fuarrrk about the world they live in or where their food comes from as long as someone funds their little soykafs. The worst part is how proud they are that they are just animals and everyone else should serve them. This is as far as humanity gets, the brreeders are the lowest common denominator and will outbreed any sort of organism, no matter what filth they live in. There will never be a humanity of intelligent or caring individuals, just lowlife fuarrrking scum soykafting out more scum, this planet is doomed to be a ghetto. No matter how much people think or argue, unless there is some event that wipes out humanity in one sweep, i think it will just keep going on until the ecosystem is destroyed and unable to sustain life. Human beings are terrible creatures that should not be allowed to live, if there were order in this place.

>>59883 How is correctly considering the state of things dysgenics? To choose not to experience human suffering is obviously eugenics. Should humans be a species who make their suffering?

I dont really care for antinatalists. They mostly tend to be rather limp wristed, relying social pressure/shaming in order to achieve their goals. Which is what exactly? Trying to stop living existence? If yes, shouldnt they be doing everything in their power to work towards glassing the planet? Locally, suffering is like kicking dead whales down the beach but think of all the lives that didnt have to exist to suffer. Or perhaps they arent satisfied with the current state of global affairs? Then shouldn't resources be spent to taking down said system and trying to help create and foster individuals that could help towards this end? I'm not proposing to have good answers to these questions but antinatlism seems like an odd self defeating cope or cartoonishly evil.

>>60110 >Which is what exactly? Trying to stop living existence? If yes, shouldnt they be doing everything in their power to work towards glassing the planet? please do not post in this thread again

>>59853 The USA has a lot more antinatalists, sadly not because of the altruistic value of bettering lives by not inducing suffering, but because people are so hedonistic and selfish that they don't want to deal with having to deal with pregnancy (viewing children as parasites to themselves instead of independent suffering entities)

>>60131 That's not anti-natalist which is an ideology, that's just not wanting to be parents themselves. People like that shouldn't be parents anyway so there's no problem. They'd end up being deadbeats or being stuck with children they resent and I'm sure you know what happens to children in these situations. This is why restricting access to abortion is a mistake.

>>60110 This is a good reply

>>60111 Right back at you, sad excuse for a man

>>60111 post wrist >inb4 body too short for mentally ill tranny mods

Anti-anti-natalism is the narrative wherein, we prefer killing population over restricting natality with communication such as anti-natalist philosophy. And that whole thing is really about making the presentation, that we're not killing people.

>>59853 Anti-natalism is either a sign of depression and self-loathing or a sign of anti-human sentiment. Plus, a lot of "anti-natalists" have a rules for thee but not for me approach. They want your genetic line and the genetic lines of your close relatives to end but support themselves or their relatives having numerous offspring. I am not suggesting that everyone should become parents but I'd like to see genetically decent people at least donated sperm and eggs and many people should become parents while others become mentors and cool uncles.

>>60165 Anti-anti-anti-natalism is the philosophy by which we call anti-antinatalists a faget

>>60167 >Plus, a lot of "anti-natalists" have a rules for thee but not for me approach you're the only one who talked about rules itt. >>60168 based

>>59853 I think that minimizing suffering argument with anti-natalism leads to nowhere, because by being contrarian in its nature it imposes eternal conflict with the world around you, thus making the carrier of this notion suffer. You're but a drop of water in a river of this life: you aren't changing anything with your personal choice. By not having children you impose suffering on yourself and your partner, because you are going against everyone and everything around you, the nature itself. You are simply left in conflict, disappointed that everyone is not convinced of the benefits of anti-natalism.

>>60171 So you're saying, because spooks organize psyops, we're supposed to accept the psyops as reality.

I feel like we could push an anti-natalist agenda using the current situation with abortion in the US. If we started calling anti-abortion users "natalists", maybe people would get curious and maybe discover anti-natalism? >>60171 >By not having children you impose suffering on yourself and your partner But I don't. There's nothing that makes you suffer if you don't have a child, the exact same way that nothing makes you suffer if you don't have a billion-dollar yacht. Don't mix suffering and potential happiness. And then, to come back to the original argument, it is highly egoistical and morally compromised to put your child through potential suffering just because it makes you and your partner happier

Anti-antinatalism does appear correlated with normalization of child abuse. Government's organization appears correlated with anti-socialization schemes, which is correlated with capital yield.

>>60174 pills lainon, don't forget your pills

>>60175 ..rriiiiiiiiiiiiight

>>60173 >But I don't Genesis 30 is probably worth a read. 'Give me children or I will die' is one banger quote.

>>60172 Yes, to some extent. Note, I said "Personal" there. By yourself you aren't changing anything, but by imposing your will you do. If you don't amass enough power to oppose the popular narrative, you will be swept by it or left miserable. Also I don't see suffering as something bad, but OP does. This is why I made that argument. But that's getting off topic. >>60173 As I said, by not having children you are going against the pack and the nature, which has many implications: real world and psychological. For example, it is harder to conform. Of course if anti-natalism becomes a big thing you will have your group, but it may be perceived as outcasts by the rest of the society. Isn't this suffering? A big group of people suffer isolation, because a certain idea-virus has plagued their heads. And it's only this side of the argument. Many believe that having children is intrinsic to nature, and by extension to human nature. To refute the original argument, your thinking is too egocentric. What makes You or Your children special? What makes Your choice special? When you are talking about the great and eternal, the planet, the humanity, the minimizing suffering, there is no difference between you and someone else. You are not only you the voice in your head, but also the perceived you. You are someones stranger, friend, etc. By carrying this contrarian notion of anti-natalism (Note the anti!), of which you simply cannot convince all other people, you do impose frustration on at least a single person in this world, which just happens to be you. But you are in contact with the wider society, in fact right now. You carry these negative emotions with you, spreading them, spreading suffering. Isn't that egoistical? Don't get me wrong, there are good cases for anti-natalism as personal choice. Suppose you hate children, then surely just don't. But being "altruist" and attaching virtue to it is just wrong.

Imagine how much of a self-hating weak glitterboy you must be to hold the belief that no one should reproduce because of the suffering their children will inevitably undergo. Suffering is a necessary aspect of existence itself, to be against it is to be against the basic operations of the universe. If you find this to be too much for you, and wish to cease your participation in the reality experiment, then good, that means the filter is working. You will die with no legacy of your own, no meaningful impact on the tides of time. You and your """philosophy""" are exactly what the universe wants to cull. They are simply not suited for existance. Antinatalism is a cope beyond copes, an intellectual plague which can only find suitable hosts among the dregs and the dead.

>>60186 >Suffering is a necessary aspect of existence itself, to be against it is to be against the basic operations of the universe did you figure this out by yourself? breaking news, the whole nature/culture stuff has been discussed for centuries and humanity isn't in the former

>>60173 >sacrificing your freedom, time and resources to bring another life into the world is egotistical Strange definition of egotistical. >morally compromised to put your child through potential suffering Yet you make effort to keep yourself alive everyday. How is moral to keep something you want and deny it to others at the same time?

>>60189 What are you trying to say? If culture isn't part of the natural world where is it? There can be as much talk as you care to have, you're not going to win an argument against entropy.

>>59853 > Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person’s genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn’t matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training. In either case they ARE passed on. > The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problems, hence they are apt to have few or no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least accept the industrial system. To ensure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation should reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the important problem is to get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world’s population necessarily will decrease, whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world’s population to keep increasing almost indefinitely. > Ted Kaczynski

>>60235 >because once the industrial system is gone the world’s population necessarily will decrease It's funny how people openly advocate for genocide but then think they will be unaffected for some reason.

>>60246 >It's funny how people openly advocate for genocide but then think they will be unaffected for some reason. what do we have here a litteral illiterate ? Hi can you read this fam ? In that paragraph he directly stated a few points, lets put em in bullets for those of you who can't parse prose: >People who are worried about long term environmental problems have fewer kids >This hands the world over wholesale to the people who do not care about these problems >proposed sollution is to have more kids. >>CONS: somewhat increases the population and thereby environmental burden short term >>PROS: the future belongs to those who show up; short term this increases the power of people inclined to environmentalism >In the end, many will die, but that's the point. Cant genocide without an army, and the more feet on your children, the more sabots in the machines. Its not even shorter or better cause Dr. Kaczynski is pretty direct. People have power, so have more people.

>>60247 >what do we have here a litteral illiterate ? Hi can you read this fam ? Someone is upset.

>>60247 >[_] You work to end industrial society which will directly lead to your death (insane) >[_] You work to end industrial society and think you will survive for some reason (delusional) Pick one.

>what are some good anti-natalist arguments I should use around me in the hope I'll even convince one person not to have kids? First, there's no point in trying to convince anyone. People should be free to choose whatever. And that is exactly the point. When you put a human in the world you're literally condemning a soul for aprox. 80 years of hard experiences. Also can't you imagine a better world with 10% of the population we have now? The math is simple: people are demanding, needy, don't know what they want. Less people, less problems, less unnecessary complexity and necessities in this world.

>>60174 They want to inflate the population to get more slaves. That's why modern white straight people are being lead to not procreate and poor third worlders are multiplying like rabbits so the kids can be raised by pedo gay couples in progressive countries, lol. They thrive on human suffering.

>>60254 >When you put a human in the world you're literally condemning a soul for aprox. 80 years of hard experiences. You just keep reposting the same soykaf as if no one will notice it's always you. If life is so terrible then why do you keep yourself alive?

>>60257 Bad guessing, you're fuarrrking stupid. First time posting on /hum/ in months. Also I'm not anti-natalist, just making conversation. I like my life, asshole, learn to interpret soykaf.

>>60258 >you're literally condemning a soul for aprox. 80 years of hard experiences >I like my life One of these must be a lie in that case. >Also can't you imagine a better world with 10% of the population we have now? So in otherwords you just want a better life for yourself and fuarrrk the future. Did you drink bооmer blood recently? You also have the same problem as >>60235, what makes you think you are so special you will be part of the chosen 10%? >just making conversation You are awfully touchy for someone who supposedly has no agenda.

>>60256 I know this is satire but it's pretty close to what the tinfoil right actually believes these days.

>>60251 >[_] You accept the fact that everyone dies sooner or later, and work to do what you beleive is right for posterity. (somewhat reasonable)

>>60261 >everyone dies sooner or later therefor it's ok for me to murder you right now I really doubt those are the rules you want to consent to.

>>60262 My consent is not an issue, those are the laws under which we all live whether we like it or not.

>>60264 >those are the laws under which we all live whether we like it or not Not sure if you misread the post or you are just desperate to blindly disagree with everything I say.

>>60262 >>everyone dies sooner or later therefor it's ok for me to murder you right now This is actually true for most people

>>60265 if I understand what you're going for, then sure, I'd object to you trying to steal my life before I've lived it, in a similar way to how I'd object to you stealing my bread before I've eaten it, but scaled to the rarity and replaceability of each. In the context of my post >>60261 and the post it was quoting >>60251 , I think you'll understand that my comment was more about loosing your own life for a cause, than murdering others (though the inclusion of both, in the topic at large, is warranted). My argument is essentially that you shouldn't place too much value on your own life. Much like bread, its used and then its gone, and even if you never eat it eventually its no longer any good. Bread is meant to be enjoyed and eaten, and lives are meant to be lived and died. Its not delusional or insane to set out on some pursuit which will end surely in your death, that is litterally what everyone who ever gets out of bed in the morning is doing.

>>59853 the meer fact that you're considering these things is perhaps an indication that they're somewhat necessary. and not just that, but the question of killing off large swathes of humanity for fertalizer, too. etc. Do we run ourselves into the ground similar to Easter Island, or do we surpass limitations, and even master reality? i would say that the temptations and utility of outsized populations for our collective leveraging to scale up everything and anything we are addicted to will keep us on the path of ever growing populations. this time in afrika. We do what we can do, and sometimes we kill ourselves. Regardless, what we do, will be done, the question is, what will that be? Personally, a brave new world is an attractive possibility that has a lot of traction. More realistically, the machine will take over and replace DNA's function, and humanity will be relegated to ball eunachry

>>59853 I personally wonder if people who were natalist or are seriously suicidal just killed themselves how many resource problems would be solved. Soykaf thoughts but I am sure rent would be cheaper at the end of it.

>>60738 none of what you said makes sense

>>59854 Honestly, killing a bunch of people is probably the best you can do for the environment.

You are not doing the universe any favors either by reproducing or not reproducing. Your kid isn't going to be the next Marie Curie or Stephen Hawking, nor is he or she single handedly tipping the population balance towards eco-apocalypse. Out of billions of people already, your genes aren't that important to humanity or the planet no matter what you tell yourself. I do worry that some of you might have one half of a school shooter swimming in your gonads though.

i mean im not gonna shame anyone for deciding to have kids but personally i wouldn't (not that i'd make a good parent in the first place)

>>60738 >98% of earth's population kills themselves hmm yes this will be good for the economy

>>60190 >>sacrificing your freedom, time and resources to bring another life into the world is egotistical >Strange definition of egotistical. school shooters sacrifice their time, money and lives/freedom to kill people. Are they also selfless? >Yet you make effort to keep yourself alive everyday I suggest you come back to the pic in OP and realize there's a big difference between not being born and being killed. I wish it was only you tbdesu, but half of the answers ITT are people going "why don't you off yourself if you're antinatalist" and I genuinely can't believe people on this website are this retarded

>So, in short, what are some good anti-natalist arguments I should use "so, in short, I'm too stupid to hold my own opinion or ague for myself so I need other people to tell me what to think in order to force my beliefs on other people, without ever understanding them" this thread is what I call a certified reddit moment

>>62069 >there's a big difference between not being born and being killed Do people not realize the absolute holocaust of thousands of innocent souls that occurs every time they make another deposit into a crusty cumsock whilst enjoying hentai? These atrocities are occurring daily, every second, around the world.

Anti-natalism is a philosophy that simultaneously cannot be argued with, because it exploits one of several flaws in the naive utilitarianism many people profess to believe, and a philosophy that can never achieve any of its goals, since reproduction is a basic evolutionary imperative.

>>62079 >a philosophy that can never achieve any of its goals, since reproduction is a basic evolutionary imperative But the thing is, this communication is what could help us achieve restricting natality with respect for human life, in contrast to taking life, and it keeps getting blown up. You're contributing to your claim. It's still what people do. We're people discussing this problem, and people cause that it's not achievable. Humanity, apart from evolutionary imperative, designs itself. Yet we're fuarrrking up with this soykaf. Utilitarianism isn't belief. >>62071 What the fuarrrk are you even on an imageboard then?

>>62078 I do when I can. Besides, you cannot argue in a good faith with someone holding a self-defeating, self-destructing worldview. Consider that good faith is ironically procreational that adds value and reasons to live to this world, something your opponent is fighting back against. Really makes you think, huh.

Anti-antinatalism seems to keep getting down to: we're unethical and we wish to design humanity (which we do regardless of intent) to be unethical. I don't wish for us to be unethical species, so I guess that's where we differ. >>62081 >self-defeating, self-destructing worldview But it isn't like this, reality is what it is and really we're overly optimistic about humanity's ethical potential. Human civilization is unethical from top to bottom, why wouldn't we want to change things for the better? Humans filter humans for increased unethical humanity, it's really bad designing. Here's to killing people then.

It's like this discussion keeps going towards: we can't achieve ethical humanity. But really we organize unethically. Obviously it seems like things can be different. Anti-antinatalists are truly pessimistic.

>>62080 Nope, those who reproduce shall give the earth to their progeny regardless of any communication. Also, I can't tell if you're an anti-natalist or just a eugenicist. The two ideas are very different.

>>62084 Those who reproduce could be diminished with respectable communication given conditions of overpopulation and ethical concerns, was the point. However it keeps getting blown up. Antinatalism being like eugenics is conditional.

i probably won't have any, but im not gonna get all preachy at someone who *is*

>>62082 If you read books for example, you can sample the sense of wonder and awe most authors invariably have. Except if it exclusively rails about all the bad in the world. To them, their frail existence even having come about is a miracle and they cherish the opportunity to live life. Life was never going to be effortless and without any suffering. Arguably life is suffering. There is a case to be made that suffering is what ascribes meaning to our experiences in the first place. Suffering is the opportunity to overcome hardship, feel accomplished and maybe attain tranquility. This is a very stoic point of view, but I find it fitting precisely because many documented stoics historically suffered big hardships. The founder Zeno called being in a shipwreck and somehow landing in Athens the best possible thing that could have happened to him. Musonius was exiled not just once but twice, to an arid land where many would have dreaded living. He used it as an opportunity to overcome the challenge of living there and study the unique ecology there. Some modern day stoics include war veterans like James Stockdale who have suffered for years and years in prisoner-of-war camps after being captured by an enemy in a war they knew was fabricated and initiated unnecessarily by their own country. A lot of soykaf happens, but these people somehow overcome these struggles and find their own profound sense of meaning. It's not bad design. Life is possible only under very certain circumstances and our lives can be lost in mere moments. That we are able to live is miraculous in the first place and in my view, antinatalism exists to deny this miracle. The life of animals is often many times more cruel, but that doesn't mean there is an ethical argument to be made that all those animals existing to experience cruelty should be exterminated to relieve them of their fate.

>>62143 this is meaningless as soon as you realize the "sense of life" you will maybe someday find in your life if you don't die under a bridge first is an illusion. Life is absolutely meaningless and the only reason why you think you have a purpose or some soykaf is because your evoluted brain realized it was a good idea to keep you alive and create offspring. In the end, we don't need life, no one needs life. Not being born = not suffering, and by not being born you don't miss out on anything. You just don't exist. Your life on earth is a life of slavery. You're a slave of biology, a slave of evolution, and a slave of your body's chemistry. So yeah, if you're lucky, you'll live a fine life and be mostly happy. At no point I find this worth the potential suffering

You needn't worry, you're wasting your breath. If someone could possibly be persuaded by you, that person will be persuaded anyway by the same propaganda that persuaded you. And that propaganda gets quite a lot more airtime and has a bigger PR machine than you. So, don't fret it. This dude is interesting: >>59930 >and cant understand how overbreeding can possibly have negative conscequences. Because one of the (or probably just the) biggest problems with anti-natalist, eugenicist, malthusians etc is that these people don't seem to understand the "negative consequences" of their proposal. I wonder about what's the outcome they seek. That normal everyday people stop having kids? Not everyone will. The people who control the media that black-pilled them (and everyone above them) won't become anti-natalists. People with no access to such propaganda won't either. So the outcome would be the eradication of that middle rung of the pyramid scheme. In other words, anti-natalism proposes the eradication of anti-natalists, as they try to drag everyone else along with them. They don't seem to think things through before, like that >>59870 lainon said, "starting to like" eugenics and stuff like that.

I have a documentary to recommend to lainons interested in this discussion, I'm quite sure you'll like it. It's a two-parter, the first part is 1 hour long and the second one is 2 hours. Its pace is similar to the first Lord of the Rings movie, the setup is epic, then it drags along for some fifteen or twenty minutes, and then it gets epic again for the last three quarters of the thing. https://corbettreport.com/bigoil/

>>62148 Corbett has nice podcasts, used to listen to them.

>>62145 I think you didn't get the point. Not everyone loathes existence. I agree that acquiring meaning through suffering is a perception instilled withing us by our brain, a mere byproduct of of being human. But would you call it an illusion? Is it not rather reality? Just like everything else you perceive is strongly correlated with reality and has at least a material basis, why wouldn't a felt sense of meaning be real as well? Your language says everything about your perception of the world. Life is not slavery, life is life. It's true that you cannot forsake your biology, you'll never be able to go without eating for years on end. So are you a slave to eating? Arguably to a certain degree, but this is a silly way of looking at things. If this is such a dealbreaker, why are you even alive? Unending lumps of matter randomly bouncing around for eons until it starts moving purposefully and forms an intelligence of its own, how can it not excite you that we exist in the first place anyways? Whatever your set of beliefs, whether this is just a simulation or a creation, that there is even life is so strange. Do you know what an ego is? Consider a glass filled with water. If that glass was a human being and the water its inner organs, it would start writing in pain and screaming at you while you remove the water from the glass. But the glass is (probably) not conscious, it has no real boundary between what composes its own being and the external world, it's all part of a sea of matter and energy. Would it have been better if beings with an ego would have never formed? Maybe, but it was not meant to be. If existence is truly meaningless suffering, and if you'd rather be that glass that doesn't care about its water content, doesn't even care whether the glass itself is shattered or not, you can easily transition to such a state of existence: just discard your ego and die. Your constituent parts become functionally identical to that glass. What happens to your consciousness in that case is a truly fascinating question, but it doesn't seem to really matter. Anyone can choose to be like that glass and many people do. If we didn't come about, everything would have been and remained like that glass, dead and (by itself) inert. But we did come about and so this rollercoaster of existence is available to us. Phrased like that, existence seems to me more like an option specifically made available to us rather than an enslavement device. It might be tricky to relate to, but some people consider their lives to be a series of choices in which they choose to live as opposed to dying by their own hand. The latter option is always available to them, but they don't yet have any reason to exit this world. And yet this is just another lens through which to look at the same thing. Whether you use encouraging or disencouraging language to describe life, life is just life. Why not use encouraging language? >if you're lucky, you'll live a fine life and be mostly happy People in the worst possible circumstances can have lives that are much more purposeful than one devoid of any hardship. Yes, some people who suffer say afterwards that they had a good time suffering. That's remarkable. Some of the most unbelievable human feats emerge on the basis of such suffering. You don't get to choose whether suffering is inherently good or bad, meaningful or meaningless. Everyone chooses for themselves. Celebrities and other rich kids often have everything one could with for and yet they choose to die, nothing left to live for, their own existence deeply depressing. Meanwhile some of the most impoverished (in any possible sense of the word) will reach a state of contentedness that few will be able to relate to. But in other instances it just the other way around. This seeming paradox is easily explained away if one accepts that people just choose their own meaning. I just happen to believe that suffering makes it easier to find meaning. Even you find some kind of purpose in telling people that they shouldn't bother existing, even though this strange advice is targeted at people not yet existing.

>>59854 >People somehow don't think this is a cult. Have you ever wondered how people in the past rationalized undertaking massive atrocities against humanity? 'Cause you're doing it right now lmao. Philosophizing oneself into preferring nonexistence is a hideous miscarriage (no pun intended) of philosophy. You should all just read pic related and take a leap already. Reddit ass

They got you taking a vow to abstain from sexual reproduction in order to prevent the eschatology of the end times. I'm gonna go out on a limb here, but I bet for most of you they got you addicted to mood-altering drugs for which you are reliant to the state. They are gonna get you to self-flagellate with austerity and voluntarily end your own bloodlines as a religious rite against the inherent sins of mankind and the apocalypse while they jet around the globe eating caviar and sipping champagne and pumping blood out of kids to artificially prolong their lives You're going through cult manipulative abuse. They got you GOOD. They BROKE your ass.

>>62158 Oh and I forgot; they have you going around proselytizing, trying to spread the cult. Trying to find strategies to convert the heathens. It's so obvious to everyone outside of it

>>62151 >I think you didn't get the point. Not everyone loathes existence this is pottery. Start by saying *I* didn't get the point and immediately stating something that I literally never said. Honestly this doesn't make me want to continue to read your long ass post if you didn't even get what I said right, but I'll continue for the sake of muh quality posting >how can it not excite you that we exist in the first place anyways because it's not excisting, it's a very neutral fact, and if we didn't exist we wouldn't be here to care about it. seeing life as a miracle is a scientific religion as far as I care, because first I don't really see what's so incredible about it, and also because seeing the apparition of suffering as something good is not something I understand >Whether you use encouraging or disencouraging language to describe life, life is just life. Why not use encouraging language? because I don't see why it should be. Life is just life like you said. As an alive being with an *ego* (to reuse what you said), I have moral beliefs, and one of them is to reduce suffering. If going against life is required to attain this goal, I don't see no reason why I should restrain myself >People in the worst possible circumstances can have lives that are much more purposeful than one devoid of any hardship here again, I didn't talk about purpose in live, only happiness. Maybe for you happiness comes from finding a purpose in your life. I doubt this is everyone's case. And in the end, again, it's not what anti-natalism seeks to address. Anti-natalism fight stops the moment someone is born, what happens in their life after isn't really related. The only reality is that, no matter how easy or purposeful your life is, this potential suffering is still there and will follow you until you die. >u don't get to choose whether suffering is inherently good or bad, meaningful or meaningless. Everyone chooses for themselves. then I guess we're at an axiomatic moral disagreement. I argue that suffering is inherently bad and should be avoided at all cost. >>62158 >they got you addicted to mood-altering drugs for which you are reliant to the state lmao yes, the state, the drugs, no control, you're immune to propaganda, no immanentizing the eschaton you need some chaos in your fnord life lainon

>>62158 >pumping blood out of kids to artificially prolong their lives Qberts? On my Lainchan?

>>62157 >Have you ever wondered how people in the past rationalized undertaking massive atrocities against humanity? 'Cause you're doing it right now lmao. Anti-antinatalism is rationalizing undertaking massive atrocities against humanity, and you're doing it right now lmao, because we're creating massive atrocities against humanity by breeding irresponsibly. >Philosophizing oneself into preferring nonexistence is a hideous miscarriage (no pun intended) of philosophy. It's all about improving existence, really. Some prefer nonexistence, given existence, that's where we can improve. >>62158 Right. Those in power are indeed the problem. I'm not in a cult however, I barely see other people. People and state ruined me. It's like my reproductive rights were taken from me by unethical humanity anyway, and we're just bound to our conditions.

>>62231 >I barely see other people. People and state ruined me. It's like my reproductive rights were taken from me Funny you say this, talking about antinatalism on imageboards actually feels like hitting a wall, and I'm starting to realize it may have something to do with most people here being incels (not talking about you specifically) and mixing up "having sex" and "making kids" I'm pretty sure there's a big reactance part causing people to block away any similar idea because they feel threatened in their liberty to have kids (and by extent, have sex).

It is the duty of every intelligent person to find another intelligent person to pair with and make intelligent offspring. If anyone is to not have children let it be those who have nothing to offer but their labor anyway. I have had six myself.

>>62231 >we're creating massive atrocities against humanity by breeding irresponsibly. I am sure none of us here is breeding irresponsibly. I mean, we are by not reproducing. The world can sustain 20 and maybe even 30 billion people, the problem is not number. Look at Japan: it overpopulated but it work well. >>63364 This. Idiocracy is real. Intelligent people focus on a career and don't want kids because the housing market isn't good enough, because they need to stay late at work and kids will be an issue, because climate change or whatever and the simpleton have 6 kids with 4 different women. Do this for 3 generation and good luck maintaining our technological level.

>>59869 I'm also Christian, but I'm also anti-natalist. Creating a being that will have to live in pain and misery untill it dies so that it can go to a better place sounds like a sin to me. If they were never created they would not need to go through agony to get to somewhere nicer. People who don't exist don't know about heaven, nor can they go to it.

>>63390 Let me introduce you to the unreal theology: The top race that can do everything reduced itself to mortals because infinite existence is boring and struggle is the only entertainment to regain as there is nothing to gain once you have already attained everything.

>>63385 >The world can sustain 20 and maybe even 30 billion people it literally can't anon, we're only 7 billion and we don't have more than 20 years before the global collapse >>63390 based

If life is bad, you should be working towards ending life(all of it, after all, animals can evolve). The idea that you are only responsible for specific limited things in a giant self correcting system is insane:if you hung out with a post Apocalypse rape gang but refused to rape yourself, handed the women tissues, and patted yourself on the back, that would be insane. Far better to try to betray them, or at least plant the seeds of their failure. For antinatalists, what this means is getting anti life beliefs into the hands which will execute on them, or otherwise causing a mass extinction event. Not having kids as an antinatalist is a good idea because it keeps you from drifting from the cause, but it does nothing for human suffering, where low birth rate groups will only be out competed. If antinatalists persist in only caring about local suffering, and not the entire system, they should consider the most local system of all- themselves- you are not the same person you were 10 years ago, and your parents at age 5 were more similar to you at age 5 than you are to the person you will have changed into in 30 years. Why don't you see a responsibility to prevent this future self's suffering? Personally, I think absense of pleasure is bad, and this is why I dislike dying. Saying my parents shouldn't have had me because one day my pleasures will end is counterproductive. I have only developed these beliefs however, because those who could not stand pain were out competed by my ancestors, and I will indeed fail to reproduce should this world become intolerable for me to live in-at which point the most pain tolerant part of humanity will become the whole of the human race, and life will go on. I would call such people's lives not worth living, but they will, by definition, see things differently. Really it's silly to call others' lives worth living or not, since all you can judge is their value to you, value being subjective. 'Will they be useful to me' is the judgement parents make anyways, though they're seldom so direct about it. 'Wanting their kids to be better off than them' is usually because they cannot achieve such things themselves and want to feel the pleasure of knowing they achieved through their children. This is why those who have lots of cool projects have less children, and those who benefit most have the most children. This is also the failure of "SMART PEOPLE HAVE CHILDREN NOW" types. If you were to make it worth their while, they would, but for all the talk, I don't see people paying smart people to have kids and handling the downsides for them. I think the first government that does this will see a jump in a generation.

>>60190 >sacrificing your freedom, time and resources to bring another life into the world is egotistical >Strange definition of egotistical. Pardon me for cutting in but I think you don't understand the meaning of the word. Giving up time and resources for others is one thing but if you have brought another being into existence so you can have a legacy or so you can mold them into your own image, that is ego at work. My neighbour had two girls who he ignored almost completely, and then when the third child was a son he suddenly took an interest in being a father. He even dressed the kid exactly like himself like the kid was a doll or something. he was also caught doing coke in front of this four year old. Now? He separated from his wife and doesn't come around at all. He didn't even visit at christmas.

>>63696 You made me realize that I'm not actually anti-natalist, but just anatalist. agnostinatlist if you will

>>63696 >Why don't you see a responsibility to prevent this future self's suffering I still don't understand how natalists can't even fathom this. Preventing one from existing, and ending an existing life, these are two things with widely different moral implications. All of you natalists ITT are either saying "antinatalists should kill themselves if they hate living so much" and it's probably the most retarded takes I've seen on this website. And your post is just that, but diluted over 10 lines. And about your latest paragraph yes, you just found out about morality! Read more about it here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

>>63762 I'm flattered! Everyone is born intelectually anatalist really; our ancestors saw having children as good because they lived in a world which rewarded them for doing so through instinct and kids providing them resources. No one in the middle ages was ranting about the importance of having kids in itself, they just did it because that's what happy people did, and they were horny/lonely. Today, society and the economy do not reward having children with greater happiness than not (self reporting says the reverse), and, being the expected-pleasure maximising machines our minds are, we come to see it as bad. Should tomorrow the world's governments make having children punishable with torture, or give out millions for each child had, our views will both shift, and we will turn to philosophy for a rationalization. This does not make natalists or antinatalists fundamentally wrong- indeed, both parties form their views based on local conditions, and are probably picking the choice which makes them happiest. >>64148 >I still don't understand how natalists can't even fathom this. Likely rationalization/learning. People including ourselves commit all manner of acts against each other when it leads to our expected happiness, usually competition for scarce resources IE keeping slaves. So long as people associate having children with pleasure, the most paultry justification will be sufficient. Great example here- >>63723 >Preventing one from existing, and ending an existing life, these are two things with widely different moral implications. Ending a existing life by definition does not ex-post-facto end the life lived, but only prevents future life from being lived by that body. I can recall many people who, after their deaths, still existed in the past, and I know you can too. If two things are the same, they have the same attributes, including morality. Thus, your statement is incorrect. >All of you natalists ITT are either saying "antinatalists should kill themselves if they hate living so much" NEVER!!! Suicide is one of the worst actions a (correct) antinatalist can commit! If the next generation's living is wrong, and humanity's existence a hell we damn our children to, to exit without rescuing the rest of us, or to only end their direct family line while allowing it to be replaced by the less saavy and more fecund would be an act of supreme selfishness. Instead, the duty of the true antinatalist is to end life which can evolve into this hell by triggering a mass extinction event, perhaps by exacerbating climate change/resource depletion, or starting a nuclear war. >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality If you're agreeing that it stems from fitness inducing instincts and pleasure inducing learning, I'm right with you. See my reply to the first part of your post.

>>64148 I understand the point of view of the most radical, moral antinatalist argument, where bringing life into the world is always egotistical because you can't assure a suffer-free life, and a yet unexisting life can't consent to existing, therefore making it inherently egotistical to bring new life in a purely theoretical sense. What I don't fully understand is the ecological moral view you seem to have, even though I may be confusing and mixing some of the arguments made by different antinatalist posters. Saying that overpopulation is a problem and that's why we shouldn't reproduce to fix it means you're giving some kind of value to life, which seems to me like it would go against the previous argument. Unless, I guess, you only value the alredy existing life, which has not agreed to exist but ended up existing anyway, in which case long term consequences do not matter, and according to what I understand of the previous point, current life should just make the most out of the existance they have relunctantly been given and not reproduce. I can see the logic behind both points of view on their own, but can't help but see them incompatible within the same set of rules. If there is something I'm missing, or like I said I'm mixing different point of views I'd like it if you would explain your point of view. Maybe I'm mixing anatalist and strictly antinatalist point of views like >>64219 mentions?

>>64148 >Preventing one from existing, and ending an existing life, these are two things with widely different moral implications. If the antinatalists notion of morality is to prevent suffering, they aren't. If your goal is to prevent future suffering, ending your own life as soon as possible is as important as preventing children from being born. Fascinating how antinatalists just keep dodging this point with more and more mental acrobatics.

>>64229 Basically everyone alive has formed strong emotional and practical ties with the people and communities around them, even if they fail to comprehend it. Death might end suffering for one person but it causes many other people to suffer, an effect that spreads contagiously. That goes double for lives ended intentionally.

>>64219 >we damn our children >our, we dude dont talk like that if youve sworn off the continuation of humanity. They're not your children, don't presume ownership of that which you neither want nor have contributed to the creation of.

>people will keep having children >if extreme overpopulation actually happens it will make living on earth kinda harder >antinatalists start growing in numbers, convincing more people to not have children >they eventually die of old age without having children >the number of humans on earth drops and helps easing the overpopulation problem >now I can live a better life with my children, and so they will with their own Well, now antinatalism starts to sound good. Go out there and convince more people to join your cause! You'll do the world a favor

Antinatalism is under eugenics. If you're immature enough to fall for it, you cull yourself out of the gene pool, that's the dynamic going on. Here's a drink to the children who won't be born because their parents were intellectually or emotionally susceptible enough to fall for this and other psychological dynamics. Some of these children could've grown up to be intelligent people, and we will never know of them. Cheers.

For those interested in antinatalism, you should check out the Voluntary Human Extinction MovemenT (https://www.vhemt.org/) it's pretty interesting.

I think distributing free birth control to areas where birth rates are very high is very good idea.

Antinatalist is like beginning of the movie idiocracy. "smart" people go around and not have children while idiots just breed like rats. Why don't you antinatalist idiots go to lets say India or China or Africa and spread your ideology there instead of spreading it to lainchan of all places? Lainchan is filled with sexually deviant degenerates who are incels at best and will probably not have children, but are really intelligent.

>>65948 I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're refering to as antinatalism, is in fact, eugenism, Idiocracy is not about antinatalism at all, it is about eugenism[^1]. No, seriously, idiocracy is funny but it isn't true that idiots will replace smart ppl, there is more to the equation than having more children. For instance, you life expectancy is lower if your IQ is lower, your are also more prone to health problems (mental and physical), your probability of social success is lower etc. And the global IQ is rising thanks to better education and health, see Flynn effect[^2]. While it is true that in our society, poor people have smaller IQs because of bad childhood environment[^3], the goal of antinatalism is to lower the worldwide population globally. In that sense, it is not eugenic because there is no criteria upon the choice of not having childrens. I believe eugenics and antinatalism adress two separate issue, one on the quantity of people and the other, the quality of people. Eugenism is historically bad but I think we should modernise the concept now that we have access to tools like CRISPR/Cas9, eugenism should be about aiming to cure health issue related to DNA or abortion of future really unhealthy feotus, not white power and nazism. See also: https://wiki.beparanoid.de/wiki/Malthusianism?lang=en [^1]: http://www.salon.com/2016/03/05/idiocracys_curdled_politics_the_beloved_dystopian_comedy_is_really_a_celebration_of_eugenics_partner/ and https://paleofuture.com/blog/2014/7/29/idiocracy-is-a-cruel-movie-about-eugenics [^2]: https://wiki.beparanoid.de/wiki/Flynn_effect?lang=en [^3]: https://www.foodnavigator.com/Article/2011/02/08/Poor-childhood-diet-linked-to-low-IQ-suggests-study and https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/feb/07/diet-children-iq

Relevant xkcd: https://xkcd.com/603/

>>65952 Posting xkcd may somehow be even more harmful to an argument than misused reference to the Flynn effect.

>>65951 Dysgenics* Eugenics is selective breeding for positive traits. Dysgenics is for negative traits. Eugenics has negative connotations due to muh nahtzees but actually it is wrongfully used word. Eugenics is, for example, used to breed bananas that are more tasty, to help animals get domesticated and to in humans lets say women like men who are taller therefore we will have higher humans over longer time (aside the "muh better food and health"). Dysgenics is selective breeding of certain dog breeds to make them aggressive. Dysgenics is making a systemic governmental hierarchy of giving dumb poor people money so they can fuarrrk and make more dumb poor people. Into to idiocracy is a couple of smart people being fearful of having children and dumb people just fuarrrking all the time. Smart people are more conscious about consequences of having children. Instead of having a system that culls dumb people we subsidize their lives. Therefore over time no of dumb people > no of smart people. This is at best a dysgenic system and at worst antinatalist (since smart people have higher proclivity towards it). Just linking wrongful usage of word Eugenics and few wikipedia pages doesn't persuade me. To imply that bad childhood environment is 100% of cause for lower IQ is dumb. I can find a study that promotes my ideas as well but I am not willing to those lengths just to debate another idiot on net. In fact my pure logic alone can end your ideas.

>>65964 Thanks, I didn't know about dysgenics. I am not very good at english so when I said > Idiocracy [...] is about eugenism. I meant that the movie promotes eugenism. Of course, the movie is a dystopian dysgenic society but it is portrayed as being our future, which we don't want. The way idiocracy portray IQ leaves only eugenism as a solution while there are many other solutions to this nonexistent problem. Wikipedia seems to have 4 references that state that > genetic studies have shown no evidence for dysgenic effects in human populations. So we are fine. I do agree that eugenism can be good tho but we need social and economical changes too. > Dysgenics is making a systemic governmental hierarchy of giving dumb poor people money so they can fuarrrk and make more dumb poor people. I do not understand your point, giving them money will make them have fewer children, this link between income and the number of children as been shown by numerous studies. > Smart people are more conscious about consequences of having children. Smart people will indeed be able to more easily see bad consequences but smart ppl will also be able to see good consequences even if they are more prone to antinatalist's views. This argument alone does not prove that smart people will disappear because they will always be in minority, a minority in power and that is the problem in idiocracy, that dumb people rules. > Therefore over time no of dumb people > no of smart people. No trend like that has been shown, but even if it is true, the major problem with idiocracy is that the power is given to idiots, I think that this is not currently possible in our societies. If you look at someone like trump who appears idiotic (and maybe is idk), he is surrounded by smart ppl who advise him how to act, the same goes for musk, they are not really in charge, they are just here for their persona, not their brain. What I mean is that societies incentivize smartness for people in charge. > To imply that bad childhood environment is 100% of cause for lower IQ is dumb. Yes, please excuse me if it appears I said that, I wanted to say that it was linked and that by changing our economical system (and reducing poverty) we could improve IQ. Please end my ideas with your logic, I wish to get better ideas by being proven wrong. >>65955 Why am I wrongly referencing the Flynn effect?