Only if the undesirable lesser races disappear would I be in favour of this. But if it's just high IQ white people who aren't breeding, then no they need to reproduce to keep our nations white and superior ensuring an altruistic functional society that sends me $733 in direct deposit every 1st of the month.
Stop thinking of antinatalism in utilitarian terms. The beauty is antinatalists get to have theor cake and eat it too. Obviously no number of people of any race would go extinct ver a philosophy. Even if we, or normfags who find the antinatalist position compelling, there will be plenty of cruel idiots left over to replenish the population. Of course I don’t find the dystopian vision of Children of Men an halcyon future either. Rather I accept antinatalism as a matter of virtue or a deontology and acknowledge my respinsibility to not have children (not that I could mind) and also to promote the philosophy to whoever has the ears to receive it.
>You guys are all in favour of antinatalism, right?
No, I don't care if other people breed and I find the moralistic arguments of antinatalist irrational.
I also don't see value in human extinction be it voluntary or not.
I don't find it offensive, but I don't like some of the people here who push it here as a coping mechanism or as a means to declare they are superior to others due to their passivity by working backwards to find validation without effort. Such reasoning fills me with contempt even if I feel indifferent towards antinatalism it's self.
As for it being counterfactual, to my knowledge it doesn't claim to be based on external facts, but is a abstract philosophy/opinion. Therefore I don't see it as counterfactual.
We had some fantastic antinatalism threads in 2016
I really wished i archived them now, i can't seem to retrieve them through search..
Have any archivewizzies saved a yearly copy of each board?
How can you stoop to the ultimate low that normalfaggots stoop to and dismiss antinatalism as a coping mechanism?
no shit, even in the worst conditions possible norpers will still spawn demons.
i don't care about antinatalism or natalism. i know antinatalism will never accomplish anything meaningful. natalism will always be the default and overpower it. i don't care though. im not suffering or in pain, my life is enjoyable enough, compared to how people in the past lived, it is outright luxury and i feel like a king. i feel no responsibility or duty for either cause. i don't see how it can benefit nw. i selfishly pursue my interests and avoid uninteresting things. i view empathy negatively because it seems to degrade my own experiences
I have more pleasant things to think about other than someone making children every second.
>>163802>bla bla bla>there will be plenty of cruel idiots left over to replenish the population
You fucking said it, it will replenish but society will become more cruel
I can understand a bit normalfags who have children and feel fullfilled when doing so… if they can give their children a good life.
What I don´t get at all is poor people who have like 8 children, who are exposed since birth to toxins, bad nutrition, and after growing up a little they are exposed to crime, violence, etc. You see this a lot in South America poverty zones, they don't even have land to work in where they could use all those children, they just have 10 children to live in a small tin house living through the joys of having ass parasites infections all their lives. I can't get why the fuck the people in those conditions breed, it's terrible.
>>163800>You guys are all in favour of antinatalism, right?
Irrelevant, see, >>163802
Antinatalism is a matter of virtue, not practicality or utility.
>>163840>Antinatalism is a matter of virtue, not practicality or utility.
aka nothing useful
yes i am. peoples putrid (and my) genes shouldnt pollute this earth
I'm not against it but I do hate the term and people who call themselves antinatalists.
Anti natalism is extreme SJWism. It's a symptom of a decadant and defeatist society. You have no ideals, no life force and try to philosophize a way to justify this state of being, that's it.
Well, some of us just see it already justified as this reality is merely a cluster of suffering?
What do you live for? Why would you birng anyone to this dangerous, unstable, cursed world?
that's why no shame from some of us when being anti-natalists. We highly suspect from what this world offers.
You want to bet? To give it a try?
Why has nobody else to suffer it?
the beautiful thing is, when some worhty person comes out from these idiots and follows a honourable path that someone without offsprinf just left away after passing away.
That's a wizzie's heirloom.
Do it yourself is the only way here.
If truly OP, this race, you have no need of slaying other varieties, just being discreet about your power level while looking poor and staying cohesionated in ghettos, or familiar entreprises, clans and so on.
Or even bigger organizative structures.
You have some lovely /pol/ish scent xD
Yes, I would take that bet. A person has 2 parents, 4 grandparents, 8 great-grandparents and so on, if you go back far enough it's a lot of people. They all had children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, so I suppose most lived fulfilled lives, they didn't die alone, depressed and impoverished with their family there to support them. They didn't see reality as "merely a cluster of suffering", they didn't see the world all that "dangerous, unstable, cursed", they took what the world offered. So maybe they had it right.
Any virgin who is not an anti-natalist contradicts Kantian ethics and the categorical imperative of wishing everyone do as you do
>the replies ITT
I would describe myself as efilist because some antinatalists naively limit their hatred of life to humans due to misanthropy or delusional nature love. I no longer debate it here or on any other imageboards (hell I don't debate and rarely even discuss anything on imageboards anymore, they're so fucking dogshit) because people are already set in their ways and it's a waste of time trying to convince them. Plus it's kind of a moot point to talk about it here because no one is breeding anyways, besides maybe a few late bloomer wizkids who will norm it up in the future, and me talking logic to them won't do shit.
Regarding antinatalist literature, I read Ligotti's book a few years ago and it was pretty hard-hitting, but even then I could see it was a bit of a weak argument. Benatar's was much better and he gave some great and detailed descriptions of the asymmetry argument and dismantled retarded anti-abortion rhetoric, but I can't say I gave much of a fuck about the arguments on human rights and right to give birth or whatever. Never read Cioran, not that interested. Planning to read Schoppy after Kant and some secondary texts on Hinduism and Buddhism but I think he goes beyond whining, plus I enjoyed reading some of his essays when I was younger. Thomas Bernhard doesn't focus directly on antinatalism but he was pretty misanthropic and really fucking railed on idiots in some of his books. I tried Ligotti's short stories (Theatro Grotesco or whatever) but the first one was boring and cliche so I dropped it.
Regarding youtube and AN/efilist videos - Inmendham is hit or miss. A lot of times he's stupidly dogmatic and some of his views fucking baffle me (especially ones concerning castration and radical feminism). However when he's good he's really good. I don't usually judge videos by the like-dislike ratio but for him I do because the ones that are 80-90% likes or more are usually the real slammers where he's making some pretty good philosophical points rather than just ragging on some random idiot on youtube or raging. I still watch him out of habit but I think he's kind of exhausted his content at this point, and mostly it's just some mildly entertaining videos of him ragging on idiots. I wish he would work more on publishing a book or campaigning or really anything rather than doing his alt-physics stuff, though I don't know much about physics so I can't make a judgement there.
Outside of him I only watch "OED Loves Me Not", an older guy in Japan making antinatalist videos. He doesn't bring anything new to the table for the philosophy but I like listening to the perspective of someone in a fairly different culture. Plus he does a lot of videos focused on books, history, or stories from his family that are interesting.
In daily life I don't think about efilism constantly though and I've also moved on from the pessimistic texts or videos of "woe is life" because it's kind of just the same shit. Sometimes I hold arguments in my head while driving or lying in bed to refine and test my beliefs because I have no one offline or online to have constructive discussions with. When reading something pro-life I'll often think about efilism and whether the author makes a good case against it. The answer has always been "no", despite my respect for those authors and philosophers.
Ironically despite my beliefs I've come out better than pretty much all of the optimistic pro-life normalfags I knew from school or through my parents' friends. Majority are either drug addicts, low tier wageslaves, or drowning in college debt. Some borderline suicidal.
I don't abide by Kantian ethics and don't accept it's reasoning as valid.
I don't watch TV, yet don't demand that everyone else in the world also cease in watching TV.
SEE i told people here it was 2016, that was the best year, people were active here and still replied, thanks for sharing
I can’t tell you how infuriating it is to find even on a place like this where most of the posters are contemplating suicide, antinatalism is not widely accepted. Why are you defending life? What do you get out of it?
First off I should really hope that /dep/ is not the majority of posters on this site. Second off, it is equally annoying when antinatalists say that suicide is bad or that they wouldn't kill them self.
You didn't post this on /dep/.
Some of us wizards actually quite enjoy life, or at least don't see it as nothing but pain and suffering.
The idea that being pro wizard must imply support of an ideology that will lead to the extinction of wizardry is paradoxical. Wizardry doesn't necessarily have to mean that other classes of humans should not exist, and even then, propagation of an ideally wizardly society would be technically possibly through artificial means.
But putting wizardry aside entirely, the normalfag support for rampant unchecked breeding will undoubtedly lead to total catastrophe of some form or another, especially once automation kicks into gear. A global sentiment further in the direction of antinatalism is desperately needed.
Of course, when you can only get decent moral people to believe in said morals it will have a dysgenic result, which is why it shouldn't be about "breeding itself is bad" so much as "those who breed irresponsibly are bad". An intense shame and ostracism (of the sort currently directed at us) should be directed at those who have no interest in providing a comfortable NEETlife for their offspring, and those who spawn illegitimate children regarded as outright evil beings who should be sterilized if not outright exterminated. If normalfags could only be made to understand this there would be no issue with our "altruistic" societies sending sympathy and aid to savages so they can flood the earth.
>>163878>the normalfag support for rampant unchecked breeding will undoubtedly lead to total catastrophe of some form or another
Birth rates are universally down and going down all over the world.
Birth control is widely available with almost no stigma except in very small hyper religious communities.
Abortion is at the highest levels it has ever been in both developed and developing nations. With 94% to 98% being done for lifestyle convenience.
Normies are already in the process of solving the problem. I wouldn't worry about it.
>especially once automation kicks into gear
It already has. Nearly all manufacture and the like is ether partially or fully automated. The present is service based economy for developed nations. Predictions are if most services are automated then the economy with transition to a creative and information economy. Though that is just a guess and could be wrong.
> which is why it shouldn't be about "breeding itself is bad" so much as "those who breed irresponsibly are bad".
The solution is to stop subsidizing bad behavor. Get rid of welfare for all but the "disabled"(neetbux that wizards can potentially qualify for) and make breeders fend for themselves financially rather then using their kid farm to become welfare queens.
That is the only step required in a modern economy to fix the problem.
No need for the effort of shame or violating their body. Just stop giving them money for being stupid and they will ether stop being stupid or die.
I'd consider myself an efilist, which is essentially an enhanced, more universal version of antinatalism. >>163868
>Some borderline suicidal.
Speaking of myself, I'm very much suicidal and have fantasized about both suicide & death nearly every day for many years now. Efilism is actually a source of comfort for me, but, even so, I'm still just a useless piece of shit who's pretty much equal to some zoned out junkie who's fried his brain. Mostly given how constantly abusing modern entertainment ravaged my dopamine receptors, leading to rather painful predicaments like chronic anhedonia & ennui. All in all, the world simply wasn't made for me to exist in it. Which is fine by me since this world is empty & without merit. A senseless engine of chaos, futility & misery, just like the larger universe itself.
The pseudo-anonymous user Karl and his blog, 'Say No To Life', was my main gateway into efilism. Glynos is a good spokesperson for efilism/antinatalism as well.
The world is not structured in principles. Thus I am not an antinatalist. Cases can be argued where birth is bad. Cases can be argued where birth is okay/ good. If you are an antinatalist but don't want to suicide you admit that life is better than death. That is cognitive dissonance.
>>163884>Get rid of welfare for all but the "disabled"(neetbux that wizards can potentially qualify for) and make breeders fend for themselves financially rather then using their kid farm to become welfare queens.
dumb solution based on the ridiculous notion that only the economically successful are morally righteous people, unless you'd be willing to defend the idea people such as famous youtubers are capable of breeding responsibly.
>>163886>If you are an antinatalist but don't want to suicide you admit that life is better than death.
generally agree with the rest of your post, but this argument is full of holes. firstly, no one is responsible for their own life, but suicide is the responsibility of your own death, so they aren't even comparable states. secondly, the antinatalist position is simply that is better to not have been than to have been, which presupposes life altogether. death is not the opposite of life as it is exactly part of life, i.e. the finality of life. therefore, you could still argue within an antinatalist framework that death is just as bad as life without appearing axiomatically unsound. being unborn and having never existed is not at all equivalent to death, so this argument doesn't really make any sense at all
Its not cognitive dissonance because I believe in hell. Killing myself only gets me there faster. I know when Mr. Bone’s Wild Ride started; with my earthly birth. But I have no idea when of if it ends. Its actually this uncertainty that pushes me into antinatalism.
Even if its “cognitive dissonance” to believe suicide is a sure way of ending your existence, saying antinatalists or efilists are obligated to commit suicide is the appeal to hypocrisy fallacy or Tu Quoque.
Sure, I'll answer. First you're judging the value of existence in terms of pain and pleasure, or happiness and suffering. They are states of mind which were evolved in billions of years. And they serve a purpose. That purpose is not judging the value of life. That purpose is serving life and helping the survival of the species. What you're doing is perverting this tool to instead serve your end because you feel particularly bad about your own situation in life therefore you want to negate it somehow out of resentment.
That's an obvious take. Let's say your argument is correct and life is suffering and it's a valid judgement of value. Who is to say your day to day experience of life is the only layer of existence? How do you know your suffering is actually meaningless and doesn't contribute to a higher state of being? What if it serves the universal mind to gain experience and get smarter, and it's a lot important than your temporary suffering? You simply don't have the necessary information to make that judgement.
>>163884>groids are only ballooning the population at horrific rates now instead of astronomically horrific rates like last century because we are okay with vile thots slaughtering their children so all is well
Even if the most optimistic projections of declining birthrates play out we are fucked for the next 100 years. And even if birth control has helped with the problem, a lack of stigma against it means a lack of stigma against thots/Chadthots leading to the insane increase in illegitimacy among the many who choose not to utilize it, as well as an increase in all the most offensive aspects of normalfaggotry and anti-wizard sentiment that comes with it.
>The solution is to stop subsidizing bad behavor
That is in line with what I was saying. But how are you ever going to get normalfags on board with this without shaming and an understanding that such people do not deserve their sympathy?>>163910
It shouldn't be so much about whether the successful are all morally righteous or not, but that breeders who bring lives into poverty knowing they can't provide them with the ability to NEET have proven themselves as morally reprehensible and undeserving of support. Their innocent offspring perhaps would be another story (until which point they decide to breed as well).
Yes. People born now or in the near future will not survive to die a natural death anyway. There will only be suffering from here on out as the ecosystems we depend on for survival collapse.
>>163945>But how are you ever going to get normalfags on board with this without shaming and an understanding that such people do not deserve their sympathy?
Given the way things are going, economically they don't really have a choice as the welfare state is going to collapse in most of the developed world due to simple mathematics. They only have a choice in if it will be a soft well planed transition or a hard crash from trying to delay the inevitable.
The Social Security Trust Fund Will Run Out of Money by 2035 in the US. Other programs will run out around that time too.
It is basically game over for using the government as a substitute for a provider and father.
>>163911>no one is responsible for their own life
If a person is not responsible for their own life then it is arbitrary to claim that a person is responsible for the effects that their life has on others. Therefore, someone holding the view that people are not responsible for their lives cannot simultaneously hold the view that reproduction holds negative moral value without being in violation of their own beliefs. Moral value requires agency, which is a form of responsibility.
Does anyone else have any?
All -isms are in place to keep people downhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74NCfS3h2JY>Fighting against ism and skism
i meant no one is responsible for the creation of their own life. given that i meant that, your whole post is unrelated, and it also fails to address the other point i bring up so it's both null and void.
Why should I care if normalcattle choose to bring more life into the world? I am alive for a time, and then I die. It's all ephemeral, and after I die there is most likely nothing and life will go on without me.
True, a lot of mental weight would be lifted if one just pursues comfiness and disregards the rest
But high-thinkers can't help but ponder these issues anon
I think eugenics and cloning are a better solution than antinatalism.
I'd like to see you try not to care in the 3rd world.
Reads like a normalfag honestly.
Why are you even here?
i find it funny you think of wizchan as /dep/, like comparing rats to a bird. but it is more hilarious you want everyone to support your pointless ideology. natalism and antinatalism are completely meaningless for us wizards. we are not reproducing. you can claim to be antinatalist and feel special, antinatalist wizards, natalist wizards, and wizards that are nrither of the two are all not reproducing. if you want your dumb ideology to matter, try convincing people that actually reproduce
one does not have to defend life to to reject antinatalism. you are mistaking antinatalism and natalism for some crucial dichotomy. you can also reject all of it
/dep/ appears to unfortunately be the majority of posters here, so he's not too far off base.
>>164935>morality is meaningless and useless for wizards
We should not ignore injustice. Reproduction is the worst of crimes and we should call it such.
of course> counterfactual
not a single argument against it with any weight, I'd be a bit of a retard to not support it.
This is also my position, I neutral if normal people wanted to breed and create more people like i neutral if a bird ir rabbit wanted to reproduce. It's just life manifesting itself.
Benatar's assymetry is irrefutable. There is no need for need to be. Procreation is potentially the worst act one can do. Because it encompasses a variety of negative potential (some with a more or less probabilistic degree) subjective experiences uncluding torture, severe mental problems, etc etc no need to make a list.
I don't care about antinatalism. It is yet another ideology based on the thought of "helping others". I hate normals, they might as well reproduce and continue the cycle of suffering for as long as they want. After all, normals like suffering. I think people could have lived happily if they wanted to but they don't want to. They crave suffering for some reason. Well, let them have it. In fact, I want to increase their suffering, not erase it/lessen it. They deserve to suffer.
people punish themselves even though they suffer because they're addicted to releasing deprivations they make mistakes and can't prevent their own sufering by circumstance that is the fate of all sentience to suffer they have no cchoice to compete and get angry if you don't because you aren't motivated by addictions but most humans are dishonest trash knowing full well this isnt worth it and consensual slavery "love" isn't unconditional , they are bigoted and evil
after my friend from the shakpardon UAC spacestation jetted off to mars antinatalism seems perplex
beep beep contact me on starnet
Its ludicrous to think interstellar travel is possible, this isnt star trek there is no life anywhere else
Yeah, I'm an antinatalist and a misanthrope… life is a prison
I am inclined to support pessimistic philosophies, having works from Schopenhauer, Ligotti, Benetar, Cioran, etc.. However, while the responses against anti-natalism ITT are rather odd, I do not, myself, support it inasmuch as I do not see an intellectual practice of anti-natalism gaining traction. My reasons are built upon personal experiences and a general discontent; those very experiences would not resonate with normals, who tend to follow along the duties of life without cause for concern. Any attempt will be fruitless, as the dread of life comes infrequently to them (either in the often-described "midlife crisis" concept, or in the midsts of death).
Exactly. Most people aren't thinking about it at all. They just learn it the hard way when they complain about how expensive it is to raise 3 kids. In some places people are getting smarter and having less or no children, but most children are accidents. there's still a weird god complex that some other people have though where they want to pass their genes down due to superiority even though a lot of geniuses never had children at all.
This guy was pretty bad ass. He was a wizard and openly shat on religion even though it was almost 1000 years ago.
Yes, the best thing about AN is it breaks the 'eternal recurrence' multiverse "theory" that many wizzies are being memed into believing. No life, no return. Bazinga!
I am in favour of it but its not like I want to be, I wish I did live in a world and existence that was a positive one but I can't be blind either.>>163855
Here is why I hate rightards
nope, i fully support it
Eh even then you will evolve from evolution again.
Most antinatalists are losers who want something to feel good for once in their life and this idea is the fittest as it takes literally zero effort at the same time validates their suffering as normalcy. A poet they quoted says something like shut the mind as to not think, shut the eyes as to not see the sun; shows how bias toward the negative they are, show them happiness and they will screech as if their eyes were burnt by the sun.
Can you explain this more? You make it sounds as if AN want their suffering when it is in fact the most despicable thing to them that they want to ride the world of.
He's referring to how depcrabs like antinatalists refer to happy people as "delusional" or "coping". If they really wanted happiness they'd try and pursue happiness, not just wallow and whine.
No, only those who are economically poor or genetically shit (weak, short, ugly, low iq, etc) shouldnt breed. The economically well and genetically good should have (more than they're having) kids
>>163910>if you don't kill yourself you don't want to die
tired of this retarded argument. Survival instinct is unfortunately a very strong thing and even the most suicidal struggle to overcome that
So, just another name for "I want to live"?
Yes,the will to live is hard coded into your body, not your consciousness.
Antinatalism is the morally correct attitude. However, it is delusional to expect ordinary people to understand this. Most people desire children, not just sex. It is important to remember this. They need a family that gives them stability and a sense of belonging. I'd even say that lots of people live for the sake of their family only. Instead of the crazy hatred that some people here have towards them, we should pity normals. We should practice mercy, forgiveness and love towards them. They are poor and lost souls who just drift along with life. They are the broken, weak and sick ones. Not us.
>>163800>You guys are all in favour of antinatalism, right? I mean, do any of you actually find it offensive or counterfactual?
no, antinatalism doesn't seem useful to me
It's useful as a rationalization and moralization of behavior one is already passively engaged in.
To put it another way. People here aren't wizards/celibate because they are antinatalist.
Some became antinatalist because it says what they were already doing was moral. So they could be considered moral passively without having to do anything, change themselves, or make any effort. Hell, it allows some to feel morally superior to the vast majority of other people for once in their lives.
So it is pushed here because it is useful and convenient. Thing is very few sincerely believe it.
This thing could be interpreted as you say too, certainly. However, there is the other side of the coin too. I mean, people here generally went through shittier things than normal people. We experienced suffering and desperation more fully, sooner, and for longer periods than normals.
Chances are, if you post here, that you are in a bad financial situation or about to face homelessness or shitty wageslaving jobs. Because even if you have a trade or went to uni you are so socially retarded and/or hate being around others that you realize you can't function on your own in society in the long run. My example is pretty good: I was considered smart by teachers in high school and all that but I just don't like being in a community. I didn't go to university or college because I knew that I would despise the atmosphere and the fact that I would have to be around normals all day and live among them in a dorm. I tried other things but I can't stand being around others. Most people are needlessly aggressive, dominating and like to bully "weird" people like me. I also don't have anything that I would seriously like to do as a job. I'm a weak person by society's standards but not weak enough to be considered for bux, apparently. As a healthy male society treats you like dirt if you are weak or if you simply don't want to be an asshole like normals. I hate this social darwinistic meatgrinder that we call society. I just want to exist in peace and tranquility. But no, I'm forced to interact with this evil society if I don't want to die as a homeless person. The best part is that I never asked for this life. It was pushed onto me. And since suicide requires a great deal of courage and initiative I'm stuck here.
You can say that some people are just anitinatalists here because they can't get sex. But that doesn't change the fact that life is horrible. Doesn't change the fact that there is literally no reason to exist and to procreate.
In my opinion it’s an unrealistic utopian kind of idea. Most people will never stop reproducing or even hear of antinatalism, so it will never effect the world in any meaningful way. It’s like saying something like “driving cars is bad because it pollutes”. It’s true but it doesn’t mean people will stop driving cars anytime soon.
I can't decide.
Having children is a quality challenge.
No, having children is a natural desire and the ultimate purpose of sex so I have no issue with it by itself. I occasionally feel the urge myself, even though I am 100% wizard, will likely stay 100% wizard, and know the idyllic life I am dreaming of is mostly just fantasy in today's fucked up world.
I am strongly in favor of social order and personal responsibility; of a kind of eugenics where genetic diseases are removed, forbidding immigrants from having children, only having the children when you have the time and resources to look after them (both have taxed employment minimum the previous 2 years, plus a combined savings of $5000). Also both the mother AND the father must be together for at least 2 years, both must clearly agree to have the child, and stay in the child's life, and be free of drugs (including smoking and alcoholism) and no recent criminal history (minimum 4 years).
In other words, I would make both men AND succubi get a reversible vasectomy near birth; and you can only get it reversed if you are both a citizen of the country, you both consent to having a child, show means of supporting the child, and both have a drug and genetic screen and a criminal check done. The child is scanned during pregnancy for genetic defects and an abortion becomes available if needed.
I don't like seeing irresponsible unstable parents, baby traps, people having to grow up in misery because of their disabilities, children (particularly boys) growing up mentally stunted because of single mothers/absent fathers or bad parents who just sit their child in front of a screen, and the ridiculous unchecked population growth. This is to say nothing of the horrors of bad parents with addiction, poverty, etc. I want responsible parents who will be active in their child's life (but not a helicopter) and bring them up confident, strong, happy and mature. I think my conditions would remove a huge percentage of irresponsible pregnancies and probably make it more expensive to have children, and I'm all in favor of a lower global population. But I would still want those who can, and willing, to have 2 children (provided they can pass all the conditions) get some help and advice by having free hospital visits, parent classes, childcare, tax credits, etc.
By my own rules I would not be allowed to have children, nor would I exist, and I'm okay with that. Not that it would matter anyway as no government in the world would be brave enough to enact controversial conditions like this, not even China.
There is only "massive unchecked population growth" in Africa, the ME, India, and China. In the west population growth is nearly 100% fueled by immigrants and minorities, in many places the western native population has negative population growth.
Your policies would lead to economic contraction, population collapse, age extension crisis, and then total failure. You either need to massively increase reproduction rates among natives or increase immigration.
>>174882>In the west population growth is nearly 100% fueled by immigrants and minorities, in many places the western native population has negative population growth.
I'm aware. My country is already 30% non-native, with the Z and A generation having higher percentages.>Your policies would lead to economic contraction, population collapse, age extension crisis, and then total failure.
I disagree with the last one. It will be difficult for a few generations, especially without robotics and automation keeping up, but after that I think it will become stable again. And the rest are not necessarily bad things. Hopefully with a much lower population there will be a far more responsible and sustainable population, both as parents and in economics.>You either need to massively increase reproduction rates among natives or increase immigration.
The only reasons we "need" these is because of the current retarded economic system where we *must* have constant growth, both in population and in the economy, to feed the debt monster that we have created. It is an unsustainable system with only one inevitable outcome: failure. So since the economy is going to fail anyway, some predict it will even fail in the 2030s, we might as well use the reset.
I'm an antinatalist in my society. It is a kind of cruelty to force kids to grow up in this insane hellhole remnant of western civilization, especially in its cities. On the other hand, having children in a pre-industrial agrarian society with benevolent leadership would not be cruel. Also, raising kids is far less of a burden in such an environment as they are properly utilized: given clear purpose and tasks as soon as they can take instructions. The post-industrial revolution west is a thoroughly vampiric apparatus. I think many people have an inkling of this, whether they realize it consciously or not, which is one reason why birthrates decline in the first world. The Amish are onto something and 90% of teens do not leave the church after rumspringa. The rumspringa gives the kids a choice in what lifestyle makes them most happy. I wish all kids could have this choice but it will never happen because those who steer this culture see their tenants as less than human.
Adding to this, I would say for a millionaire in the west, or anyone who has enough money to ensure that their kids would be set for life despite work status, having kids would not be cruel.
You guys who advocate for elitist and rich people to have children are delusional.
First: even if you could somehow make sure that people with strong genes could reproduce only, keep in mind that there are numerous diseases and viruses in the world that can't be cured and can kill you or cause you intense suffering.
Second: Natural disasters will struck you regardless of who you are.
Third: Accidents. Literally all it takes is taking a wrong step and falling the wrong way and you end up as a vegetable the rest of your life.
Fourth: Conflict. It is the default state of nature. People will always end up fighting each other eventually and causing suffering to others around them.
In short, life is despair. Your fictional utopia is what it is, just a dream. Life is inherently evil and suffering, if you can't comprehend this then you are either ignorant or delude yourself actively.
a moral statement can't be counterfactual, I generelly agree with the sentiment, but ultimetly I know people will keep reproducing
Omnicide is a the ultimate moral act. It'd erase all suffering, now and forever.
No you idiot, ever heard of evolution
The first 3 of your points are irrelevant to most people for %90+ of their lives. Most people,throughout their lifetime or at least until near the end of it, do not lose their lives over accidents or natural disasters. We live in 2020 so we're pretty covered on natural disaster part. As for diseases, same applies. Most people don't ever go through any disease of that severity, or at least any disease that causes death or irreversible damage until they get old.
As for fourth,conflict can be handled well by the individual if they were given the tools,support structures etc. when they are young.Absence of childhood trauma etc. also contributes.Conflict is not bad if you can handle it without suffering irreversible damage, if anything it's good because it helps you mature and provides you with life experience.
Though I agree that life is mostly filled with suffering, it doesn't have to be the case.There are plenty of people who go through life happily without suffering from any of those because they simply won the birth lottery.Life can be pretty good if you are lucky to be born in a rich family with huge social connections,all problems can be diminished or most often,outright solved with money and connections.
I agree that life is shitty as fuck for most people and most people ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BREED UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE,but this is just sour grapes.
If you base your philosophy on utilitarian values then you'll have to account for the actual consequences of propagating it. If only the most intelligent people are even capable of considering it then propagating it will lead to the population becoming dumber, which will cause even more suffering. Nuking the entire planet would be another thing
What guarantee do the parents with great circumstances have that their children will also have good circumstances? Can we even quantify or calculate what constitutes a "good life"? No, it's completely impossible. What gives anyone the right to gamble with the welfare of another when they don't know if their life will be good, or if it's even possible for life to be good? And to what end would you want life to continue? What's there to be gained, and what's lost by letting it all die? It's a massive gamble taken with someone else's chips and without anyone knowing what the grand prize is or if there even is one. The only counter-argument I can see is that it's all hopeless because life will spring up again anyway even if it were all destroyed, and even if the entire universe were destroyed there might be a new one or infinite others.
I really don't give a fuck. People can have children for all I care, I'm going to be dead within the next 20 years anyway. And militant antinatalists are so fucking obnoxious, kinda like militant atheists or vegans
>>163876>atinatalists say that suicide is bad or that they wouldn't kill them self
This part is really not difficult to grasp. The entire thing is about trying to prevent suffering, and suicide is something that will likely cause profound suffering for someone who cared about the person killing themselves. Accepting antinatalism also doesn't make you suicidal; most people who have the privilege to even know about the philosophy and then be intelligent enough to understand and accept it probably live pretty decent lives - which doesn't prevent them from recognizing that life as a whole is a shit show. Then, if you're one of the few people who were fortunate enough to understand, it becomes your duty to explain it to the rest so that something might be done.
The problem is that retards won't be impressed with anti-natalism. It's usually just depressed 100+IQs. This of course means that it will only succeed in eliminating higher empathy and intelligence individuals and thereby increasing suffering further.
[Last 50 Posts]
Of course it will never be done voluntarily by everyone, and even if it were that still wouldn't help all the animal life that's suffering. We have hydrogen bombs though