Anti-natalist argument is anti-high IQ one

The usual argument against "overpopulation" is "stop having so many kids, think about the planet". This argument in itself is understood only by higher IQ populace that are self concious and can feel guilt on behalf of their selfishness. Not mentioning that this argument of overpopulation isn't pushed to countries with extremely high birthrates, only those with sub-replacement ones. So, people who keep talking about "overpopulation" don't really care about overpopulation because they keep saying that to mostly white european countries that have below 2 children on family, not subsaharant countries with above 3 children per family or India, or middle east. They push this argument, and this is mostly just speculation, because the powers that be don't like high IQ populace. You don't really need beurocrats when you can sort your life out by yourself. You don't really need cops when you can protect yourself with your own handgun. So in essence, talking about overpopulation will only have effect to high IQ people that can understand that argument and hear that argument in first place. Not to mentiom that these people who talk about worries of overpopulation have control of at least 1 life, and that is their own. So, anti-natalist argument of saving the world is anti-white and anti-highIQ because it isn't pushed on non-white countries. Because these people don't go to Nigerians that have 7 children per family average and say "hey, dont have so many children". Because when white countries have lower birthrates politicians then call for influx of these lower IQ livestock to replace us. So even if there is lower resource consumption by those in developed countries, it then gets leveled off by those imported migrants from the third world.

>>7484 You have been talking with pseudo-antinatalists. Antinatalists want to stop all procreation, no matter where, because giving birth and allowing people to be born is inherently immoral.

>>7485 All anti-natalist are primarily based in western civilized countries. As such they don't really have contact with mass birth rate people they oppose.

>>7485 How exactly do they rationalize their position? What's exactly "immoral" about procreation?

>>7484 >high/low IQ populace I can't take this discussion seriously

>>7488 Their explanation is that procreation is forcing a person into this world against their will. There's also the matter of not being capable of feeling pain, so you're subjecting people to a painful life without their consent. I'm 80% certain you're that guy who has made like 8 boilerplate right wing threads in the past 2 weeks. Posting these soykafty memes from politically incorrect convinces no one. I legitimately don't want to defend right wing positions here anymore since people will think I'm that guy who made 3 bitter confrontational threads in a single weekend.

Oh man, I love Idiocracy too! It's like Orwell for the 21st century.

hey OP quantity < quality every single time don't worry about it

>>7494 Are you talking about population now or OP's constant flooding of the site with shttty threads?

>>7485 Isn’t that basically Buddhism? >>7490 >subjecting people to painful life without consent That assumes that people are in a less painful state before they’re born. That’s a lot to assume with no real evidence. For all we know, after you get killed you become a spectator and watch your group get shrekt until the respawn timer finishes, or the round ends.

>>7489 IQ is best correlation for intelligence we have. All psychologists use it for a good reason. >>7494 >>7495 Any reason why you think this thread is low quality? Anti-naturalists are inherently anti-white because they push for less white children which will get replaced by immigrants.

>>7490 Your assumptions that life is inherently riddled with pain tells more about you than anything actually

>>7497 I guess it seems high quality to you but that's probably true compared to where you usually post.

>>7498 I don't believe that, I just know what antinatalists think.

>>7497 >IQ is best correlation for intelligence we have Says who? if you would've made your homework you would know that IQ supposedly doesn't measures overall inteligence. So please clear yourself in what are we measuring here

>>7499 You still didn't answer, why do you think it is low quality? What makes it low quality? You deflecting to an offhanded insult doesn't make it true. >>7501 >overall intelligence The fluid intelligence is highly correlated with pattern recognition and spatial awareness at young age. This is what IQ tests are evaluating. Fluid intelligence is the only intelligence that is meant by word intelligence. And please, don't give me that "emotional intelligence" nonsense.

>>7502 >at young age you're saying only kids and probably mature teens are the only valuable information from the ones who take this test and it is not taking note for the ones who are mature and more than mentally ready to raise a family. And I really have my doubts if those mature users where given the test when they were kids. This is why I think this IQ crap is totally useless because I've heard that this test must be made at a young age and there are still people of my age who make the test and feel like a damn genius for having more spatial awareness and be able to recognize patterns in a test that is suppose FOR SPECIAL SNOWFLAKES KIDS!! >emotional intelligence I don't know what is that and it sounds stupid to me too.

>>7502 Your deflection of a deflection doesn't make it false either.

>>7503 The IQ test is indeed a deeply flawed way to measure anything but your lack of knowledge on the subject is not helping. It is certainly not a "special snowflake" thing as the average score, within any age group, is always 100. If there are gifted testees, there will by definition be retards as well. Which makes me wonder... if you are 97 and others in your age bracket are drooling on their bibs and wetting their Depends as dementia sets in but you maintain all your cognitive function, does your relative IQ skyrocket before you die?

>all these non-arguments trying to evade the fact that n!ggers are dumb and I'm better than everyone because I have a white penis smhtbh 👌🏿

you are proposing that no one should procreate even though there situation is more than ideal? You are nuts OP. I live in a third world country I believe more than just a simple and worthless IQ measures is more of a cultural myth that the majority falsely believe in (and by majority I mean tha 45% of the population who live in poverty and have no education) that by having kids and I mean more than 5 kids, one of them magically will put out the poverty that the family is in. And this obvously backfires giving birth a whole generation with no future at all and with high probability that this will happen again I believe only applies in my country though, I am not doing any broad judgements.

> people who keep talking about "overpopulation" don't really care about overpopulation because they keep saying that to mostly white european countries What people? You made that up. NGOs have struggled for decades to bring birth control and abortion rights to impoverished countries, some shttty religious constraints are usually working against them. White people are still having kids. If they have two instead of ten now, it's because they know it's all they can reasonably afford without going into poverty. This whole thread is based on nonsense pulled out of OP's fat ass.

>>7507 That is not what OP said though. Otherwise it sounds pretty reasonable.

From an environmental positions, the argument could be made that it's more beneficial to reduce procreation in the first world because children born in rich countries consume many more resources than children born in poor countries. I've even seen estimated hundreds of times more resources. Therefore the impact of potential child not born in the west is far greater. But I'm not an environmentalist so I'm just playing devils advocate here. I say don't have kids if you're not a capable parent. Race doesn't come into it. I never plan on having kids anyway so it doesn't matter to me.

>>7508 This... So much confusion so much lies in this thread WOW let it die already

>>7508 >>7508 >What people? Look at any left leaning "save the world" video or article online and you will see idiots who pour with "you are hurting the planet with your sensless breading". The fastest example I can give you: https://m.huffingtonpost.ca/2017/08/01/third-royal-baby_a_23059681/ >NGOs have struggled for decades to bring birth control and abortion rights to impoverished countries And you think NGOs and people that fund them are doing so merely out of generosity? They have private vested interests behind them. Maybe political? Maybe condom company is funding them? Who knows. My point is that Anti-natalism as a movement started and is being pushed primarily in native white countries. >White people are still having kids. If they have two instead of ten now... They have less than 2 on average. About 1.5 per household. Below replacement rates. Which means more old people than young people. Which means that countries need to import new young people to be sustainable. Or cut off pensions of old people and make youngs work overtime. >>7512 It takes little to no effort to say "you are lying" compared to proving yorself logically and giving proof for your claims. This is why you fuarrrkwads are like parasites in any argument. No contructive discussion with you, because you suck out the energy and time... and for what? You won't change your way of thinking... why even bother with saying "youre lying" in first place if you aren't willing to have your position changed?

>>7511 Again, as I mentioned it before. First world countries can't sustain themselves with lowered birthrates. There are more old people than young ones. They will end up importing immigrants to solve this problem. In fact that is what every economist is saying on this issue. So any way you flip it there will be that first worlder that will consume much more than third worlder... but there are much more third worlders relatively, which means they spend more collectively.

>>7506 Because believing that race is much more than skin deep is somehow unbelievable to the point of absurdity.

>>7503 >you're saying only kids and probably mature teens are the only valuable information from the ones who take this test and it is not taking note for the ones who are mature and more than mentally ready to raise a family. Wtf do you mean by this abomination of a sentence? Are you a mestizo by any chance? You write like one

>>7504 What did I deflect? >>7505 Yea yea yea, intelligence is relative, I know. There is no objective way to measure intelligence other than maybe thickness of outer layer of cerebral cortex (which was found to be a highly corelated factor with intelligence) and number of neural pathways in white matter. But even though it isn't ovjective we can still get ranked between orselves who is smartest. My point is that more smart people should breed and less dumb people, but in todays political system it is the opposite because the ruling class like having dumb cattle to rule over.

>>7514 Im agreeing with someone saying that OP is lying. What else do you need? I am indeed listening and this is interesting to research and I am more willing to debate. the problem is that you are not convincing anyone pal >>7517 >Wtf do you mean by this abomination of a sentence? Are you a mestizo by any chance? You write like one ooh. spicy now were getting somewhere. Yes I am

>>7518 This low-effort crusade is doing nothing for your cause. Sort out your own life first, then worry about politics.

>>7523 Ah, the individualist approach? Didn't you see those individualism v humanism v ethnocentrism simulations? Didn't you see that no matter how much you push those that ethnocentrism wins every time? Also, to imply that my life isn't sorted is pathetic in it's own right but I won't get into that. >>7522 How do you know I am not convincing anyone? To know that you have to ask everyone... and I assume that you asked no one and basing that on your own biased assumptions.

>>7518 there is the good and the bad in every group such as in the rich groups and the poor ones. talking about the rich ruling class specifically. not everyone is born with the same interest of learning to become more intelligent but still this is not a good enough reason to tell them not to breed. let's say if a billonaire by inheritance which is not the most brilliant indivudal in the world. As long as he/she has enough resources to have and maintain 10 offsprings there is no one who can tell him/she otherwise

>>7526 Two thirds, that is 66% of 100 richest people on planet earth are self made billionaires. Wtf you talking about?

>>7527 >let's say Goddamnit Lain I am trying my best to get on your shoes and understand you. can you please just fuarrrking read!

>>7528 Yea, because putting a "lets say" before what you believe is majority case for rich people is really believable? My point is that rich people don't stay rich either way. If they have 10 children then nobody will be left with anything before Stacy spends it all in Bahamas and Chad goes on hunting trips in safariland. The rich ruling class I am talking about is people that pass on their ideology and way of live to their children and keep it that way. That truly believe everyone else is a fuarrrking nobody. That everyone is under them. That even the smart people who are above them are too smart to stop and see what is going on. Smart people are being bred out like it is plague times. There is no need for smart people in technological world of today. Only dumb cattle bringing tax dollars to status quo government and multinational conglomerates.

>>7529 Most people are perfectly content being goyim/n!ggercattle/normal users, and the world accommodates them. Who are you to invalidate their preferences, or force them into a different way of life? The biblical metaphor is spot-on: most people ARE sheep. If you realize this, you’re probably not a sheep yourself; you can be a shepard or you can be a wolf, as you prefer. In either case, the sheep will always be sheep. And that’s okay.

>>7496 How can someone possibly feel pain if they do not exist? No pain is less pain than (nigh) certain pain. >For all we know, after you get killed you become a spectator and watch your group get shrekt until the respawn timer finishes, or the round ends. What reason do we have to believe that something happens to people who are not born yet? Some ancient stories made up by people trying to explain their world with magic? For all we know, brains that haven't been conceived cannot function, and we have no reason to believe otherwise. If we are to entertain the idea that souls exist, we might equally well consider all the unpleasant afterlives of various mythologies and religions which only befall on the souls of people who are born. I hope you will teach all your children, grandchildren and all your successors in general to pay their respects to Hades, Osiris, Nyarlathotep, the god of death of some Aborigine tribe which no longer exists, etc, or you will be responsible for their eternal suffering. >>7498 Just because you think that pain is not that bad, does that give you the right to force someone to be born without their consent, and then indoctrinate them into believing that they should stay alive and avoid dying?

>>7537 >Just because you think that pain is not that bad That's what I call a strawman

No it's not about IQ. Humanity doesn't exist for any reason so it's wrong to create something just so it can get old, die, and just consume and invent needs in the time it's alive. There's no reason you exist. None. Life was the worst accident in the history of everything. So stop making more of it. Also overpopulation is a problem. Other animals whose comfort matters just as much as our comfort are being wiped out. Over 80% of the natural environment in my sate is gone. How couldn't overpopulation be a problem with all the evidence caused by the Anthropocene? As for people, the less Chinese and Indians, the better we'll be. Atheism is going to spread to the 3rd world eventually just like antinatalism. Of course rightists would oppose antinatalism because they can't get their idea of life right in the first place. They justify inequality. They're scared of this argument because it calls out all of life's problems, which right wingers always neglect or shrug off as natural. It doesn't respect religion that tells people to value families and breed, or a God to make life worth it. I'm not surprised you made this whole thing a racial narrative. When we argue, it's always in the consideration of pain and suffering. For you morons in the world it's about race, IQ points, and sex. Fantastic.

>>7539 >There's no reason you exist. None. So? Just like light banishes the darkness, a creator banishes the lack of reason by creating one. >Also overpopulation is a problem. Other animals whose comfort matters just as much as our comfort are being wiped out. True. What are you going to do about it? Even if you and I both off'd ourselves, it would not make a difference. Lesser beings, that lack the brain capacity to understand the situation at hand, will continue their journey down the path of devastation. Only people who acknowledge the matter can create change.

>>9731 who exactly are these "lesser beings"? >So? Just like light banishes the darkness, a creator banishes the lack of reason by creating one. what creator? yes, you can make your own reason to excuse your existance... but that doesn't change the fact there's no purpose in life. >>7496 > For all we know, after you get killed [...] occam's razor? >>7497 there's also lots of different ways how to measure IQ >Anti-naturalists are inherently anti-white oh come on... sure this must be a big conspiracy... >>7503 actually it compares your results to your age group, not to children >>7484 i still don't understand why you are making this a race issue

>>9731 >>9733 First of all read the timestamp on the posts you're trying to respond to. Second this is obviously a troll thread parodying a film called Idiocracy.

There is no high IQ side here. High IQ people prefer to study alone or with likeminded people who know what the definitions of compromise and consensus are, instead of trying to shove their useless opinions into faces of other argumentative retards and then calling them names. Fact is, nobody really cares whats inside your head, but certain kind of histrionic people can complain about anything. Or this whole farce is just irony atop layers of irony and memetic depression, in which case srry broski hurr durr im retarded xddddddd

White people are still breeding and if there is some anti-natalist conspiracy as you believe, it's not successful. Remove the tinfoil and rejoin reality guys.

>>7484 It is a descent analysis that you made. I will add that the anti-natalist also are selfish in that they would be more than willing to artificially extend their own lives using plenty of natural resources and heavy manufacturing instead of accepting death so that there can be more room for more children. In fact, I argue that if overpopulation were really this severe threat, then we should suspend the manufacturing of certain heart medicines and blood pressure pills to indirectly kill off much of the elderly and anyone who chooses to become morbidly obese. Many of the anti-natalists will bitch about it just like how they will bitch about anything that puts natural selection back in power.

>>9822 >>9811 I cannot argue fro all anti-natalists, but I think that a good portion of them would say that >let people who are living live (do not increase their suffering) >do not introduce new people to the system (do not add people to a system of suffering, increasing overall suffering) but from a different perspective, anti-natalism can argue that natural selection is good, because it can be used to weed out suffering. almost everybody in a first world country would have died for one reason or another before 30 (certain viruses, injuries, or medical conditions) were it not for modern medicine. Modern medicine allows those with inferior genes to continue to breed genetic error code into the system, increasing suffering in the whole system (increases in cancer, asthma, allergies, multi generation obesity, and other genetic diseases) which some anti-natalists would argue could be stopped by the reintroduction of Darwinist policies

>>9823 There is no anti-natalist propaganda reaching mainstream masses. The only people who think not having children is a political act are extremist eco hippies. Middle class families stop at one or two kids because they have a mortgage, daycare, car payments. It's the simple reality of the economy. The real imbalance here is that access to abortion is restricted in many third world countries due to religious yahoos in charge.

>>9830 Killing a child shouldn't be the choice of the common woman. The choice of who gets to live should be decided by if it benefits the gene pool.

>>9831 define "benefits gene pool". You need some measure of good and bad. Such a measure can never be objective.

>>9832 Benifits would mean to get closer to the goal of creating the ideal human. While of course there is no one perfect man, you can rank people based on positive traits such strength or problem solving or lack of mental illness, and let those with the top 20% scores breed with the other "elites". Over the course of many generations, the effects would be amplified. This would be stopped before the population gets below 20 million people. There is no objective way to do this, but it would be based on the values of society. If you go the nihilistic route, then you would say that values aren't real because they don't naturally exist, but they are in fact real precisely because they were made by humans, just like numbers. In fact, they are more real than numbers because they are derived from our nature while numbers are completely invented. Eugenics is fulfilling nature and human evolution which did come about naturally.

>>9833 >lack of mental illness Monocultures are unhealthy. Systematically weeding out people who diverge from the norm might not be the best idea for the long-term survival of the species. The only thing I can think of that's close to universally undesirable is mental retardation, and that's selected against anyway.

>>7484 >Not mentioning that this argument of overpopulation isn't pushed to countries with extremely high birthrates, only those with sub-replacement ones. So, people who keep talking about "overpopulation" don't really care about overpopulation because they keep saying that to mostly white european countries Except thats wrong. China famously had a 1 child policy for the longest, and India has been paying poor people to sterilize them. Also, has any European Government at all asked its citizens to limit its number of children ? Because certainly the idea is in our cultural milieu since Malthus but is that the same thing as an organized anti-white conspiracy pushing it? It may be more apart of the European cultural milieu because the Europeans invented it, and the whole science/ analytic worldview was a European invention. > because the powers that be don't like high IQ populace Citation needed. Getting rid of 'high IQ' people effectively means having incompetent people and threatens the survival of a government. Governments have been so desperate for good talent they have pardoned war criminals, and instituted elaborate public education programs. >ou don't really need beurocrats when you can sort your life out by yourself. We don't live in , and nor does anyone who is intellectually honest desire to live in , a subsistence farming economy. At some level management personal are necessary. I am not saying as large a bureaucracy as exists now should it exist - it shouldn't. But the idea that you can 'sort things out yourself'. Is comical. Your posting on the internet through a computer powered by electricity - and there are so many layers of management that make that possible for you, you have no idea. You simply can't sort the world out yourself, unless you live an isolated life. >You don't really need cops when you can protect yourself with your own handgun. Your an ahisotrical idiot. Hand guns, weapons, and self defense where invented long before police, and yet police are hear. It turns out, people deciding who is right by fight to the death is unpleasant, unnecessarily costly to society, and permits untold evil. Removing LE from the picture would result in the formation of gangs that would prevent a handgun , or even single individual from defending themselves. Then citizens would team up and form a militia, that would over time evolve into the police. There is a huge economic incentive not have violent gangs resolving disputes, and extorting people. If you want that, go to prison. Or move to a small village society where social bonds can prevent some amount of crime. > Because these people don't go to Nigerians that have 7 children per family average and say "hey, dont have so many children". Who are these people ? As far as I can tell there isn't an organized government action prevent people in the west from having 7 children. Birth rates naturally fall as child mortality rates fall in a phenomea that has occured across centuries and across cultures and countries called the 'Demographic Transition' . There is no conspiracy, it turns out women just want a lot less kids in a society where they don't die before adult hood. Places in the 3rd world, where childhood mortality is high, where children are needed accessory workers for subsistance farming do want those kids. That will change, and no government need impose it. Also the wierdo's like you who might have something to say to Nigerians unable to contact them, and probably unable to speak to them if you could contact them. It seems like you have a bizarre desire to live in a 3rd world country. You don't want any government interference in anything, you want no police, you want to 'take care of everything yourself'. Go ahead then, move to Somalia - don't forget your handgun, you can protect yourself...

>>9832 Is it good thing to steal? Is it bad when I break your kneecaps? There you go dum dum, you got it figured out now

>>9837 >Is it bad when I break your kneecaps? Already encoded in DNA. >Is it good thing to steal? Already encoded in cultural milleu >There you go dum dum, you got it figured out now Who knew! Eugenicists don't want to alter DNA, because everything they thought should objectively be there is actually there!

>>9823 So... this whole debate is framed around the arguments of a movement of propagandists that may or may not even exist. All your counter-arguments are directed at the theoretical arguments of some imaginary group of "anti-natalists" and what you think they would say. Even if you provide links and citations now you will not be able to prove that these radical fringe elements (which admittedly do exist) are having any effect on government policy or individual choice. If you could demonstrate that, you would have already done it. It's time to let this thread sink and disappear.

>>9833 what is an "ideal human". Tell me some of its traits. Why are those traits ideal and not others? >you can rank people based on positive traits such strength or problem solving or lack of mental illness but the things you rate for might not be actual environmental/societal needs. Why do humans need to be strong? Is problem-solving ability even genetic at all? Do you think that real needs can be known? Do you think society can be planned? The Soviets tried that with little success. Also crazy people have contributed greatly to society, seems like a poor choice to weed them out of the gene pool. >but they are in fact real precisely because they were made by humans, just like numbers. In fact, they are more real than numbers because they are derived from our nature while numbers are completely invented. You're making an assumption about the reality of numbers(and many other things besides) that I don't think is settled at all. I'm willing to die on the hill of Platonism. I don't think values aren't real, but I don't understand why you think societal *values* are always the same as societal *needs* and I further don't understand why planning is necessary when already existing social/environmental factors will tend to work just fine. Most important: this all leads to a conclusion of predestination("you must be this way because of your lineage") that is extremely repulsive to me. Individual freedom is more important than societal efficiency imo. >>9837 I don't think either of those things are good, but I also don't think they are universally bad or good.

>>7484 The arguments you describe are not anti-nativist, they stand for a lower nativity. That can be achieved by other ways than rationally convincing others. For example, you can incentivize a lower natality. Countries with high natality are actively hurt by it ; they have incentives, as a collective, to create incentives, to the individual families that compose the collective, for lower nativities, and could be helped in doing so by countries with lower-natality too. That probably won't happen, but that would solve the natality problem, and everyone knows it.

Well you better be damn sure IQ isnt just the most important thing but will always be the most important thing before making such big claims.

>>9837 how do we decide who gets to join "the genepool"? is it nation? the contingently defined ethnicity? should we just make it your extended family? perhaps you should just be interested in doing nothing but cloning yourself? or maybe we should find the one guy who is a Greek demigod and just clone him all day? do you see how silly this is? there is a reason why we don't reproduce via mitosis anymore.

>>9871 >>9837 as one last thing it should go without saying that the measure of a man's worth goes beyond whatever their genes are or what ever trait you are trying to maximize for such kind of thinking inevitably ends up with some inhuman logic where it's perfectly justifiable to murder innocents because they are "undesirables"

>>9871 Not him here >how do we decide who gets to join "the genepool"? Highly developed empathy should be the requirement, enough to not be psychopath, racist like OP or other empathy-deprived primitive who harms others.

>>9901 *developed enough to not be psychopath

>>7497 >. All psychologists use it for a good reason. physcology is not a science. read about scientific methodology. >IQ is best correlation for intelligence we have wrong. even if that's the case it must be very easy to change. yesterdays subhuman (from roman perspective) can be so called 'master race' nowadays, despite the fact they were beaten and absorbed until their culture became something very similar to present day creole cultures.

>>10459 >even if that's the case it must be very easy to change. yesterdays subhuman (from roman perspective) can be so called 'master race' nowadays Historical comparisons are not helpful because evolution and advances in medicine and nutrition get in the way. You can also say the tallest people from roman perspective are manlets by todays standards. Its's not much of an argument for anything.

>>7484 because it's raciss To me it is crystal clear that Africa and Asia have the greatest out of hand population problems, yet you can't say it and stay politically correct. I don't like to give credit twitter soykafstorms as an indicator of the populace (botting made it hard to believe anything on that soykaf), but I've heard irl people complain pic related like he was wrong in any way. He was mainly advocating birth control. Holy fuarrrk, that's basic soykaf on a civilized society that is concerned with their prospects for the future. I'm astounded btw, stop saying "high IQ people" and say intelligent like a normal person, it's just cringy. high IQ = high intelligence coefficient So instead of saying they are intellingent you are saying they have a high score in tests that are supposed to parametrize intellingence It's like saying "length measure" instead of length, plus sounding pretentious in the process Also, in the process you imply too much validity to the tests themselves, that, while I think they serve their purpose, is a terrible way to describe the person and their thought processes

>>7484 You are somewhat correct. The old Green movement were anti-natalist for everyone - they made no distinction. However, with the co-opting of the ecological movement by liberalism (either outright by neoliberalism or as a boogeyman by neoconservative as a means to rally the base), anti-natalism has been recast as racism, not because it is racist but because anti-natalism (a justified position) would demolish the Ponzi scheme on which liberalism is based - endless growth, requiring endlessly growing consumption which means endlessly growing populations. The old vanguard of the ecological movement still exists as Deep Ecologists (termed "ecofascists" by subterfuges who attempt to tarnish the position with snarl words) like Arne Næss or Kaarlo Pentti Linkola. Give them a read.

>>10508 what kind of liberalism needs endlessly growing consumption?

>>10510 The one coopted by capitalism and other human stupidities, just like any other idology.

>>7484 Also, why the fuarrrk do antinatalists care about the environment? They want nothing to procreate so what's the point in saving the planet if nothing's going to be there to enjoy it?

>>7484 Anyone who preaches "voluntary" antinatalism is a moron. The actual antinatalism wants population control for everyone regardless of IQ.

>>7485 >lol morals Thats gay, I'm going to have kids, because I wan't more people to suffer