Procreation is immoral

Procreation is immoral.

>discuss

Other urls found in this thread:

townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/04/26/bill-nye-the-eugenics-guy-maybe-we-should-penalize-people-with-extra-kids-n2318527
youtu.be/OCSZYJywQPM
youtu.be/eUd6Z_zyXZM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

well, that could be elaborated on to make a point.

it's been proven that there is not enough food being created to sustain the population at its current rate of growth for much longer,

and the same could be argued for residency / shelter.

i think it was freud (among others?) who proposed that we should not breed unless we are genetically superior, otherwise we end up with a huge "shit genes that don't evolve us as a species" to "good genes that strengthen our evolutionary dna" ratio, which ends up negating all the evolutionary benefits of natural selection.

The simple fact of bringing another mouth to feed in the world guarantees suffering and inevitable death is more than enough of a reason to not procreate. You're just adding more insult to injury with more facts about how shit this planet is.

hmm, you agree with my stance yet disagree with my inclusion of information?

or you're saying people shouldn't procreate, even if they have superior genes?

the idea there is that, this combined with lesser genes being stopped from procreating, would lessen the suffering.

there would end up being less people, more food for the people that remain, and the people that remain would have a lot less fucked up problems

I don't disagree with the additional details.

I'm just saying that it is always wrong to procreate, regardless of the details, when human suffering and death are both a guarantee.

A non-existent thing cannot desire so it is not missing out on anything and a non-existent thing cannot suffer while it also has no want of pleasure.

"Personally, I would not care for immortality in the least. There is nothing better than oblivion, since in oblivion there is no wish unfulfilled. We had it before we were born yet did not complain. Shall we whine because we know it will return? It is Elysium enough for me, at any rate."
- HP Lovecraft

...

In an overpopulated society, doing so is pretty foolish. Especially if you live in poverty. I can never understand conservatives who insist it's our duty in life to procreate, yet throw hissy fits about the welfare state.

I agree. They say abortion is immoral, but I believe bringing a life into this world if you don't have the tools, i.e. money, parental skills, commitment to 18+ years of responsibility or like others said, genetics, that's far worse.

For example, it was wrong of my parents to have children.

All the rekt/gore threads make me think that life simply isn't worth it for the price you have to pay.

Life is a burden that requires constant maintenance with little to no reward.

Agreed. Also, there's no real way out that isn't painful or terrifying.

Nobody asks to be born and if you don't like it, tough shit. Can't kill yourself.

t. someone who survived an attempted suicide

You can most likely thank religion for giving your parents the incentive to bring you into the world.

But a castle built on quicksand will not stand.

it's only immoral if...
>you're not married
>you're not white

You aren't really embracing the subject matter on a philosophical level.

Try to do a little philosophy.

having offspring is hitting ffw on our extinction- if it hastes our inevitable and merciful end it can't be all that bad

That's an interesting point in terms of antinatalism that I'd never considered before. I'm assuming you're talking about nuclear war becoming inevitable with more overpopulation and resource scarcity.

I don't think perpetuating this cycle of suffering is a wise decision, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's immoral. It's too deeply ingrained in every living organism to procreate, and so saying it's immoral is a little ridiculous.

I do think people should think a bit more deeply about it and apply more logic. Perhaps read some Schopenhaur

>saying it's immoral is a little ridiculous.

You aren't providing an argument for why you think this.

Surely plenty of things we take for granted are blatantly false.

>you aren't providing an argument for why you think this.
Sure I did. Because it's an essential thing for all life. And the idea that life is a bad thing is ultimately a matter of perspective--a perspective I agree with, but a perspective nonetheless.

I might say procreation is negetive or a mistake or unwise, but morality is for fags.

i'm more concerned with the amount of unnecessary suffering, of our own and what we engender in other species, that we create daily

existence should be left to more basic creatures who truly only exist in the present, without any knowledge of their own mortality

Dude, have you read Zapffe?

You make the exact point he does about human consciousness being an error of evolution, like stag's horns that grow too large that they can't lift them off the ground (he makes this analogy).

If we just hook everyone who is born up to an experience machine, we're all good.

Maybe we could lobotomize newborns so that they couldn't feel pain or desire?

I don't think procreation is immoral in a vacuum, but alas it doesn't exist in a vacuum.

I think what he's trying to say is that the purpose of calling something immoral is to put the subject into a spotlight, causing change. In this case there is no way people will stop fucking. It's ingrained in our culture

Schaupenhaur was Polish

never have, but maybe i should. where should i start?

i first had this moment of clarity after dropping L in 2008- that life as we know it was a cruel byproduct of existence that was never intended, and because of it we would all suffer the worst possible fate by being drug through the entire gamut of sensation of existing only to have it all, painfully, ripped away from you.. all without your consent

No genetic composition is objectively "superior".
And you would have a hard time getting anyone to agree on whose genes were "superior". Everyone would just argue for their own and we'd get no where.

>I think what he's trying to say is that the purpose of calling something immoral is to put the subject into a spotlight, causing change
Yeah, never gonna happen. As long as human beings exist, we'll be fucking and poppin em out left and right. Also, human beings are intrinsically selfish, and they'll do anything to convince themselves that what they want to do is right--especially if what they want to do is as essential for life as eating and breathing. Preservation of the species is too deeply ingrained.

I think his main work is called The Last Messiah

no

i'll pick it up

just wiki'd him- ya im on board with his mode of thought

YOu guys are arguing about nothing. Morals are subjective and differ from one person to another. This is pretty much like saying
>Chocolate taste good
You can't argue a side because it's a personal preference and subjective experience that arises mostly out of nurture and interaction with your environment.

>YOu guys are arguing about nothing.
This is a subjective statement. Should I disregard it because of that?

>You can't aruge about anything! Nothing matters because Rick and Morty said so112!21!!!

Please, tell me more, you unbridled genius.

kek

Bill Nye: Punish white people for having children

townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2017/04/26/bill-nye-the-eugenics-guy-maybe-we-should-penalize-people-with-extra-kids-n2318527

i'd say nature has a fair influence as well

also, you're engaging our argument about nothing. if subjectivity is the subject, who here is wasting their time- the ones who are getting something out of this or you?

By this rationale there’s no such things no such thing as universal truth. I guess the law of gravity is a matter of taste.

fwqfqw

it's definitely stupid, that's for sure

Like a 0... going around and around...

rick and morty is shit

Oh yeah absolutely it does. If a person that currently believes procreation is immoral were to have been born a different way (as in their brains are configured differently) then they would believe that it is a moral thing to do. However, no one person's subjective opinion is more valid than another so the question shouldn't be "Is procreation immoral" but rather "Do you THINK procreation should be considered immoral". Keep in mind, we as a species sometimes have different personal and societal morals.

They are. I have no where to be or anything better to do for the next hour

agree

Not user, but ethics really is the lamest, dumbest branch of philosophy. We have laws to protect us from ourselves because morality does a shit job.
>inb4 laws are based on morals
The best laws are the most practical, not the most moral.

so, for you, it all boils down to a matter of semantics?

boring. at least have a willing suspension of disbelief

You know utilitarianism or pragmatism addresses your concerns rather well

Not exactly. Think of it like this.

If a girl witnesses violence they have a negative sensation (generally fear and anxiety) and will want to avoid that trigger. They then make a mental law that violence is bad and that is their morals.

Take a big dude for example that doesn't feel anxiety and fear during a violent encounter because he isn't scared would more than likely believe that Might is Right therefore violence is ok.

Obviously it isn't so black and white, but what Im trying to say is that it all depends on personal experience or in other words conditioning. Morals are simply one way of explaining our experiences. They have nothing to do with what is actually right or wrong.

Thanks, I'm familiar with philosophy 101

Utilitarianism is deeply flawed because "utility" is very subjective, and happiness is extremely relative and often based on pernicious desires.

As for pragmatism, sure, I guess.

/thread

i agree that morality is subjective, but the prompt here is if you specifically feel that breeding is immoral or not- not whether you want to dice up how the question was phrased

sure, morality differs between others.. that's not the question at hand. we're not, or shouldn't be, splitting hairs over redundant concerns

Everything we think and feel is subjective, but we are all objectively thinking and feeling.

So if morality is subjective why the hell would you need to ask? Basically the question is do you like sex? If you've lurked on Sup Forums for more than 10 minutes you'd know it's a pretty resounding yes.

So either youre new here in which case fuck you

Or youre doing it because you have no one to talk to in which case fuck you.

Or both, in which case fuck you more.

It's not. Discussion over.

>feeling objectively
Makes sense...

This opinion makes me want to murder those who hold it.

What? Never said that.

Which is another reason the world is shit and not worth bringing those who would suffer at your hands into it.

this reply is dizzyingly incoherent

But youre also devoiding your potential child of pleasures like getting his dick sucked or knowing what its like to have a kid. All because you have had trouble adjusting to life and experienced all the negative aspects.

So in a way you're actually being selfish. Which the majority of our species agrees is wrong.

I'll allow that if it's a personal thing, your opinion for you because of a certain experience, whatever. But if you're saying "life is hard, I don't want my kid to have to deal with that" then you are essentially saying "I won't play the game, because I can't win." Nevermind any of the good times you might have had, the friends you'd have made, your positive impact on the world.

Ever heard "It's not the destination, it's the journey"? You remove any possibility of that journey happening.

It's a massively selfish argument made by those who want to be spoonfed everything and then just die.

arguably not worth it

What doesn't exist doesn't care.

Human life simply isn't worth the price you have to pay for living it.

I'd rather have been a frog or something that just doesn't give a fuck, life wouldn't be so disappointing, it'd be mostly just reflex and eating flies. Simple, sane. Not too complicated.

Funny thing is, there's an easy argument for you to make, that would take A LOT of thought to disprove, and you've not touched it

To a degree. If everyone had only one child, the population would decrease by 40% by 2020. This is a population size more fit for social programs and nationwide programs. The possibility for a larger wealth distribution too. At Least that's what the mushroom told me.

>Pic sorta related

Life is disappointing because you're living hedonistically, not working towards anything, just waiting for that next hit.

When it doesn't come, you cry.

If you see failure as a learning experience rather than just a disappointment or waste of time, you'll go much farther.
Whether that be life or becoming an hero

this

Consequence dettered rather then goal driven thinking.

>download a car
>go to prison
>your life is charted out, no thinking required
>niggers do it all the time, really NO thinking
>profit?

Alternatively

>join military
>like prison, but they pay you to shoot commies
>takes more thinking, but your life is still regimented

Can somebody tell Tony Robbins to get the fuck out of the thread?

...

...

Procreation is irrelevant to the nature and the universe, like all human acts and lifes.

So procreation is amoral, as in, neither moral nor immoral?

>lifes

Amoral: It only response as primal instincts. All our acts are amorals, in despite of pretending apply any kind of ethic

All this talk of food being scarce like it depends on which country decides that it's science and agriculture should go more into each other. Did you Sweden supplies Europe with 90% of it's produce? Shit dog being an amrifag kinda sucks

It is impossible to obtain consent from the person being brought into this hellscape.

That alone makes it immoral.

If you accidentally conceive a fetus, is it then
Immoral to kill it because it can't consent to being aborted
Or
Immoral to let it live because it hasn't consented to being alive?

Immoral to keep it.
Abortion is its ticket out of hell.

If you want to go extinct then procreation is defiantly immoral. As a biological creature not procreating is immoral

K then. Imma just leave these here and go to bed because now it's just bait.
youtu.be/OCSZYJywQPM
youtu.be/eUd6Z_zyXZM

Antibort fags don't like that a moral argument can be made FOR abortion.

This gets their jimmies rustled.

/thread

Teens like to do immoral things

There can be no MORAL argument for murder of innocent people.

It doesnt work so. If you live in poverty/poor countries, you have to have children in order they will take care of you in old age.

Fetus is not a human being. Therefore, you cant murder it.

If we're thinking on a larger scale, morality is irrelevant. I think that it's irresponsible to procreate if you have a genetic illness or are in poverty. But I also think that it's pointless to think about things that may happen when you're not alive. Just live life as you want, so be it if humans go extinct. If you care about the future of civilization I would say maybe. However, I suppose that if you're smart enough to ask yourself this question, it would benefit humanity if you were to procreate considering that the dumb will have no problem procreating since emotion plays a role far greater than intelligence in reproduction.