I am a radical anti-natalist and a member of the voluntary human extinction movement. Ask me anything

I am a radical anti-natalist and a member of the voluntary human extinction movement. Ask me anything.

Whats an anti-natalist?

How does it feel to know that I plan on having kids and there is nothing you can do about it?

You support human extinction?

Okay. Start with yourself.

Did you ever eat you own poo?

Do you think the Hulk would be able to make a good cake?

Why haven't you killed yourself then

basically, i consider birth to be a bad thing.
It's called the voluntary human extinction movement for a reason, not the coercive human extinction movement.
i don't support suicide as a method of achieving extinction, i just think it would be best if humanity stopped breeding and died out, rather than sentencing another generation to life.
no
no but nice dubs

I believe the planet would be better off if humans never evolved past primates
I believe voluntary human extinction is bullshit
And I still understand that even if OP believes in it, he'll need to be alive to convince others.

OP, if you reach your 40's and see that you haven't brought enough numbers to your cause, would you consider a heir or two to continue running the movement?

Are you ugly as fuck?

Why is it rainy everyday here?

"sentencing another generation to life"
some people enjoy life, user

Do think a fish soda could be tasty?

I have already pledged to never give birth, to avoid bringing more suffering both to my offspring and to the world.
kind of, but it's not like i plan on getting a woman pregnant anyway.

Is Trump the founder of Sup Forums?

do you consider yourself depressed or unhappy? Or are you enjoying life, just worrying about the planet?

Would you be opposed to enjoying your time left on the planet, if you knew how?

Basically, is the voluntary human extinction movement a big cry for help?

if i didn't need help, i wouldn't be posting on Sup Forums. i can't speak for other anti-natalists, but i genuinely think that the planet would be better off without us. how many species have gone extinct at the hands of humans? how many more things must die so that humans can live? why must we selfishly insist on bringing new humans into this world, when we are already a blight upon it? I think that voluntarily failing to reproduce is the only moral thing to do. my life is alright, i just want to help cure the disease that is my species.

...

would you adopt a kid

You dodged the psychic health part of the question, but the rule of all omnivores is someone dies so we live.

I'm the one that mentioned earlier that the planet might actually be better off if humans never evolved past primates - that being said, our problem as humans, isn't that we should stop existing - or for that matter, that food shouldn't have faces - we just need to be a bit better balanced. And although I don't think my happy go lucky hippy movement of green balance will go anywhere either, voluntary extinction is bullshit. It's like building a house, realize you built it wrong and decide houses shouldn't be built anymore. We need improvement, not extinction.

what if humans become self sufitant and help the world what would you say then

Don't be a nature cuck. Continue your bloodline.

sure, why not
i am aware of the natural order of necessary death. however, i also believe that humans are the ultimate harbingers of unnecessary death. taking this knowledge to its logical conclusion, fewer humans means a more prosperous earth, and fewer unnecessary deaths. i'm not suggesting that we should stop building houses, i'm suggesting that we should stop being the planet's slaughter house.
then i would probably stop supporting voluntary human extinction.

Question since you depopulating the earth which groups would you consider to remove particularly of those that contribute absolutely nothing such as niggers? They reproduce very much and spread massive amounts of stds and commit some of the most violent crime on the planet?

What is the end goal of a prosperous Earth? What is achieved?

And that is the problem with self extinction - how will we ever reach self sufficiency if we go extinct first

You got to have seen people going greener over the last 100 years though - it might have started with greenpeace and vegans, but not all those guys are insufferable assholes - their movement is growing though, and if their numbers grow large enough there will be no insufferable assholes either, since they will have less people to feel superior over.

Troll better

What are you thoughts on races that don't contribute anything likes niggers, spics, muzzies, or pajeets. They are quite literally a cancer on the planet and really if the planet was full of whites and Asians the world would be statistically a better place

If you want human extinction why dont you kill yourself and everyone around your vicinity?

a state of nature has vast amounts of death and suffering. before humans, countless animals were born in horrific conditions only to die painfully.

the logical conclusion of anti-natalism is to sterilize the universe of all life. start with yourself.

Life on earth does not have an end goal, imo, just as life in general does not have one

Sure, developing interstellar flight might be nice if we wanna survive the event of our sun burning out, but even that is just a temporary goal - then there would still be no end goal

Who's say I'm trolling? It's a serious question pertaining to ops beliefs. If your against overpopulation than removing of useless groups of people is the only solution. Many western academics in the early days used to be think and believe this constantly even Charles Darwin

the end goal is moar paperclipz

Of course whites and asians are the people who contributed most towards industrialization of the planet - I think he's not a fan.

i'm a meat-eater, but objectively speaking i think most arguments in favour of veganism are true. vegans tend to share my philosophy of foregoing the regime of the most dangerous force on earth, in favour of a greater good.

Thoughts on eugenics?

crispr is more useful and ethical

Nothing better than watching an insane man ramble about nonsensical beliefs. Kill off the most complicated thing in the universe cause it makes you upset. Lol

surely the desire for prosperity is a noble goal. to advocate the extinction of the species that gets in the way of that prosperity is the only righteous thing to do, then.

What is the end-goal? Is it simply just extinction for the sake of it or what?
And is it mainly white people in this movement? Because you won't get very far it that's the case, all other races basically out do whites in population numbers globally.

i don't know the racial makeup of the movement, but i'm sure any race is capable of recognising the greater good of the planet.

define prosperity. animals before humans did not live idyllic lives of leisure. nature is cruel and unforgiving.

he's making a point similar to ones made about disarmament and the prisoner's dilemma more generally. the first ones to do so are at an extreme disadvantage and open the field for more ruthless individuals who don't hold your lofty ideals.

We ARE primates dumbass. I'm glad you're not breeding

Cycle of life is another term for endless murders and the eating of that sweet murdered flesh.

So, what is achieved when humanity voluntarily goes extinct, and why is it better than humanity continuing to exist when there is no alleged end goal?

The end goal's right there in the name: Human. Extinction. It's modern progressivism taken to it's logical self-hating end.

This

OP go out in a blaze of fire, the news is boring rn

prosperity=the minimisation of unnecessary deaths. once humanity is gone, earth can return to a natural state in which deaths are mostly necessary and unavoidable. as i said, humanity is the ultimate harbinger of unnecessary death. a natural world would be no paradise, but at least we have the option to remove a negative thing.

>adoption doesn't exist
lol

That doesn't answer the real question being posed.

Does your voluntary look like that?

Who's to say humans aren't natural? We didn't just get sentience from the power if fucking god nigga, that was evolution, and evolution is pretty damn natural. We were ment to dominate and destroy and build and live, like nature intended. You really think even humans are capable of destroying an environment? Nigga the environment will kill us, if anything

Why haven't you killed yourself?

>you really think even humans are capable of destroying an environment?
most rainforests say yes.

>but i'm sure any race is capable of recognising the greater good of the planet.
I wouldn't be so sure. Look at those poor African nations (congoloids, negroids et cetera) that constantly keep reproducing despite the suffering their offspring go through. Starvation, disease, civil wars, etc. You don't even hear about half the shit that goes on through the African continent.

Hey.

Fuck off back to reedit

by those conditions, a sterilized earth with immortal humans is ideal. death would be minimized and we could live off synthetic meat.

would it be better if they stopped reproducing?
i already know your answer is going to be "yes", and that's how i feel about the entire human race.

Y tho?
Only a beings capable of empathy, compassion and reason would even begin to consider voluntary extinction to save their planet.
therefore, you'd be making an empathetic, compassionate, and rational species go extinct, one that has the capacity to develop technologies that could end suffering for themselves and other species, to seed and protect life across the cosmos.

how is this movement not inherently self-defeating?

It's nihilism founded on self-hate and hate of others. Do you expect a reason other than oops all gone?

That wasn't OP, I don't believe in this voluntarily extinction malarkey - I just also think talking "end goals" of humanity is silly as well, and kind of is the reverse end of the scale of idiocy where OP is on the other end.

Survival in and of it self is sort of a goal, sure, but I still don't believe there is a "point" to life in general - that path ends with religion.

>natalist

Something I should have mentioned is that it is technically impossible to destroy an environment as an environment is a place. It is where a organism lives, it's habitat. It will only change, either killing us or we adapt to the change. That's also why humans are hard to kill, as a species. We have a strong ability to adapt to an environment. It isn't instant, of course, but your body gets used to an environment, a habitat, a setting physically and mentally over time.

>Voluntary human extinction

Maximum cuckoldry, please consider suicide rather than attempting to propagate this cancerous ideology since there is ultimately no point in you doing so other than self-righteous masochism.

nihilism is amoral. I, however, have a moral compass. my moral compass screams "death to humanity".
...well, okay, but that's impossible.

nature doesnt intend anything. our intelligence was only marginally adaptive for most of our evolutionary history. it was only after the invention of agriculture that we really started taking off.

and with the vast power we have now its very much in our capability to destroy environments.

Nihilism is amoral.

This is a crude understanding of Nihilism. Nihilism distinguishes morality into two distinct categories, Master and Slave morality.
Courage, for example, would be indicative of Master Morality.

>master and slave morality
this is a rorschach blot test that everybody defines differently. this dichotomy is meaningless in practice.

Read

real quick just want to know your thoughts in the lgbt community. I'd assume you'd be pro lgbt since there isn't a lot of procreation coming out of that camp but I'd love to know your thoughts

I guess not.

I'd agree in so far as there need not be any intrinsic meaning to existence for existence to persist in existing.

Wouldn't that mean that your compass is immoral, not moral? I'm making the great assumption that there is some ultimate guiding principle to adhere to here, that somehow it can be known or is universally evident if not incontrovertible that humanity must go extinct and that this is the "gooder" choice, and not of course that morality may be subjective.

its a near future possibility. crispr, augmentations, and personalized medicine will extend human lifetimes significantly.

we can already destroy a significant fraction of life on earth with nuclear weapons. genetic engineering of viruses is also being talked about to make arbitrary species infertile, such as mosquitoes. it's plausible we could create an earth exclusively for humans.

No, it isn't, it came from critiquing various world religions, many of which decided to disregard concepts such as Pride to be sinful. This is Slave-talk, and intended to reduce one into an untermensch. Nihilism is entirely about harnessing Master qualities in order to transcend such limiting cultural distinctions.

He comments on the inherently meaningless of nature because the Master knows that morality is ultimately malleable, except that key qualities remain fixed.

how about you get that extinction ball rolling starting with yourself buddy

You lack the courage of your conviction is all.

Same as everyone else. Move along.

You fucktarded edgelord, that or just some faggot grasping for attention, either way allow me to piss some enlightenment on you: The existential realization of the pointlessness of reality is etched into the minds of -everyone- and there are zero exceptions to this, however the base survival instinct, national/family obligation, faith factors, and the aforementioned coupled with a sense of rationality prevents people from 'accepting' the primordial truth of death, an example being "Life is what you make of it" logic. Rationalization of the destruction of ones self and by extension the human race is a farce as it does not meld with logic or reason, no, it is a disregard to the blockades that anchor us to life, to seek oblivion for the sake of oblivion itself. Those people who have truly come to this realization are not alive anymore.

Tl;dr consider this anons suggestion.

environments are not simply places. they are complex ecologies with many interdependent components ranging from temperature, energy, food and chemicals available, to lifeforms presently inhabiting and shaping the environment, to 2nd and 3rd order effects of different populations.

by changing any particular variable, you are changing the environment. if we raised the temperature of the earth by 100C we'd still have a place call earth, but the environment of earth would be fucked.

Wait, if you're typing this, how are you still alive?

nonsense, immortality is science fiction. our cells can regenerate endlessly, but each time they regenerate, it slightly damages our DNA. this is what causes our bodies to break down as we get older- because the "script" for our genetic makeup is constantly being damaged. even if you could stop this from happening, you will never break the rule of entropy which says that every arrangement of particles must eventually disperse, including us.

nihilism isn't about anything. it's the absence of objective values.

what you're repeating are nietzsche's opinions.

i use the word immortal loosely. if we manage to repair our telomeres and extend our lifetimes to a million that's basically immortal from our current perspective. though if you want to be a pedantic faggot, yes it's still possible to die. but it would be orders of magnitude less death than compared to now, or a state of nature with animals constantly murdering each other.

it's not immortality if you die at the end, though.

Because I have not accepted it, understanding and relinquishment are not the same thing in this.

>It's the absence of objective values

Like I've said, this is a very limited perspective.
Yes, values aren't objective, they aren't instilled by any divine creator, they can't be replicated through the clergy.
Value is created. Those who create value are Masters. This is difficult to refute, and automatically contradicts your presupposition that Nihilism is fundamentally "about nothing."
If anything, the "nothingness" its attempting to illustrate is that mankind holds the reins to its own destiny because there is nothing else but man to do so.

>What you're repeating are Nietzsche's opinions.

Well you were severely wrong about what Nihilism is about so I was obligated to correct.

>Hurr durr think for yourself, man.

Then don't subscribe to any ideology, least of all one designed as an a passive suicide cult.

OP here, the guy you're replying to is not me. anyway, why can't i invent a value which says that values are objective, or that nihilism is false? also, isn't it contradictory to say that values aren't objective, but nihilism has core principles behind it?

Our cells can become such that they do not damage or cap the DNA sequence when they replicate, ironically because of damage to the DNA sequence before or during replication. Think the HeLa cell line. It is no more science fiction than Trilobites surviving without water in their eggs for incredible periods of time, or reptiles regenerating lost limbs. As with regards to entropy, you forget that the human body is essentially negentropy- the attempt to make order from chaos. While, eventually, in a universe that experiences heat death we will no longer be able to be human beings, in a universe where heat death never occurs, we live on without a point in which our lives can end. Either way, what follows is that our cells can regenerate endlessly without capping or shortening the programming sequence that enables their propagation, with some help.

Yes, we could reverse aging and repair damage if we found out enough about DNA, which is an ongoing process as we speak.

you're repeating nietzsche's proposed solution to nihilism. his call for the creation of new values was a response to the death of god and decline of religion as the primary source of morality and meaning. nietzsche would not call his philosophy nihilistic and abhorred nihilism. he even predicted that this decline of perceived objective meaning would give rise to totalitarianism.

and i'd say that values have much more to do with your own personality. there have been a number of studies that show that if you can competently argue you are more likely to support free speech, if you are easily disgusted you are more likely to be authoritarian, if you're conscientious more likely to be conservative, enjoy new ideas and experiences more likely to be liberal, etc.

>Why can't I invent a value which says that values are objective?
You'd be hard-pressed to do so since we can prove that values are not objective. You, being an adherent of voluntary extinction, are a testament to this fact, since you've successfully (in accordance with your own livelihood and by no means anyone else's) negated the value of human life itself.
>Or that Nihilism is false?

Then you would have to substantiate an argument that value is derived from something other than the human psyche.
This is impossible, since the human psyche is the only means of which value is defined.

>Also isn't it contradictory to say that values aren't objective

No. This is internally constructed. That is all it's capable of doing, you can only refute it subjectively, and you will fail doing so.

vampires are immortal yet they can still die from the sun

are you suggesting that humanity is free from the laws of entropy, simply because we are an orderly species? the entire universe is order out of chaos, but entropy still exists. even if you reverse aging and permanently cure everything that would lead to natural death, your being will eventually return to the chaos from whence it came.

I don't think there was a coherent standpoint in here and you were just droning on about details about Nihlism that I already understand, and do nothing to contradict what I have said earlier.

Except this portion

>Nietzsche would not call his philosophy Nihilistic.
In the sense that he is attempting to return value creation to the hands of individuals, yes he would.

yeah, in a trillion trillion trillion years

and vampires are fantasy creatures, what's your point?

you are operating with your own little headcanon then.

it doesn't matter when it will happen, it just matters that it will happen.

that immortal creatures can die. they just dont die from old age and disease.

What in the fuck are you even trying to say with this?

it matters when the argument is about unnecessary deaths. living for such absurd lengths of time would reduce the amount of deaths.

>are you suggesting that humanity is free from the laws of entropy, simply because we are an orderly species
I don't think I said that? I did say that there was an attempt to make order from chaos, feel free to prove to me that human bodies are not doing this, I'd be willing to accept otherwise.

>the entire universe is order out of chaos
Or conversely, chaos out of order, assuming the alleged big bang from a singularity.

>but entropy still exists
>your being will eventually return to the chaos from whence it came
Why? What processes occur such that this would happen barring heat death and accidental death by being ripped apart at the subatomic level, assuming that one is not falling apart at the seams and consistently cycling matter and energy in the forms of food and waste, into the shape of a human?