People who bring others into existence

People who bring others into existence

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=r2LAKaV5g0g
youtube.com/watch?v=81zQr-zr98k
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

hah

...

google anti-natalism

...

...

...

...

More info

Needs to say: Muslims, Jews and Niggers.

Set that bitch to fast and watch evolution in one generation happen.

Join the anti-natalist commiunity on youtube.
youtube.com/watch?v=r2LAKaV5g0g

>tfw

dumb fuck thinks muslim is a race

All sentient life should go extinct

Never specified race you fucking mong

Isn't absence of suffering just not bad? Just like absence of good

If you really thought life was worse than not life, wouldn't you kys? Same with my baby

Nope. Preventing somone to suffer is a good thing (in fact all morality is is a system to prevent suffering. at least that's what i think)
Preventing someone from pleasure isn't bad (unless it causes them to suffer).

I still have some reasons to keep living (I don't want my family to be sad is an example)
There is a huge diffrence between choosing to CONTINUE living and choosing to start a new life.

You never consented to life user, that's not your fault
>if I stopped this large nigger from raping me, it would make him sad so I shouldn't do it
Yeah, I'm totally believing you believe your own bullshit anin

Not to mention you also refuted your own argument. You're positive love for your family is too much to hurt them so you chose to live. By your own admission, there's more positives in life than sufferings

>that level of ignorance
>believing babies are just babies and not angel-tier souls come to rock this world
>being this pleb

Well the analogy is obviously wrong. My parents didn't think about it at all when they decided to bring me (they were religous and that was just the obvious thing to do). I see no reason to be angry with them about that (angry enough to make them grieve? nah). Now I talked with them about that and they seem to agree with anti-natalism

And besides that, I have other reasons to live. I'm a space nerd and want to see people on mars before i die

thank you shlomo

>You never consented to life user
BEING THIS PLEB

Huh? First of all I havn't been through all of "life". I live at my parents house. I never to work or suffer Chemotherapy. I said in life as a whole there is more bad than good. I havn't gotten to the really bad parts of it yet (perhaps when I get there I will end my life. days will tell)

I've never understood anti-natalism. You can always kill yourself if you hate your life soo much.

תבוא בכל יום, ותביא כמה שקלים!

Antinatalism is not about the choise of continuing your life or not. This is up for every man to decide. Antinatalism is about the choise to start a new life (which is always wrong in my opinion. unless you happen to live in a utopia)

My point stands.
If most humans do want to live, what's the problem with bringing another being into existence? Plus, the children can always choose to kill themselves when they grow a bit older.

B-b-but chemotherapy! I haven't done that!
So? The point is still refuted. Your antinatalism only follows logic if life is worse than not life. If you truly believed not life was better than life, you would kill yourself. You won't kill yourself because life is still a positive experience to you. Whether you'll do it down the road means nothing. Your actions disprove what you claim to believe.

There's a video about that (if you don't want to watch just tell me and i'll write a response myself)
youtube.com/watch?v=81zQr-zr98k

Antinatalism first and foremost is derived from the axiom that preventing suffering is the most important thing in the universe. If I were to kill myself (now) I would cause a lot of people suffering. The alternative, at least for now, is for me to suffer a little bit. Of course the second option is the better.
Compare that with not bringing children to the world. If at all it will cause a bit of suffering for the man who decides that (he can still adopt of couse so it shouldn't be that bad)

>humans survive through an ice age, brutal cold living in caves surrounded by terrifying predictors
>struggle to build a settlement, learn agriculture and how to harness animals to their benefit
>Constantly having brutal wars with rape and famine the norm
>struggle through the plague
>crusades
>ww1
>ww2
>cold War, every waking hour filled with fear that it'll be your last
>harnessing electricity, mass production, see outer space, and fly around the world on a regular basis
>warlords in Africa, aids is rampant, disease, children still struggle for rice to survive another day
>2017 + 1
>user can't get a job and move out of parents basement
>parents take care of every aspect of his life patiently waiting for him to grow up
>"well, really life is nothing but suffering so it's wrong to have children since they'll hate their own existence"

Yes, evolution really did do a good job with us gene-replicating gladiators. Just to clarify, all of the things you mentined, wars plagues etc, do you think they somehow oppose my argument? I think the contrary is true. They are all events of unnecessary suffering in huge magnitudes. It's better to stop now the circle of suffering, no?

Idk, the people who struggled through them seem to think otherwise. They didn't just give up.

It's funny you know, just 2 months ago when I argued with my antinatalist friend I said that exact same thing. I'm not an antinatalist because I can't find a job, I'm an antinatalist because I was convinced by the arguments.

What? Which ones of your examples have people that don't think it's unnecessary suffering? WW1? WW2? Plauges?

>implying unnecessary suffering
Kek, I said they didn't give up user. Their actions prove that they thought life was good enough to endure, just like yours do since you haven't killed yourself

Again, if you believed that you would kys.

If that's the case, how do you reach the conclusion that removal of suffering is the greatest good?

Well sure their actions prove they THOUGHT that, but is not a surprise since evolution programmed us to want to live. What I'm asking you is to fly a bit higher and look at the big picture. Do YOU think all that suffering was worth it? All of that for what? 3 billion years of suffering, for what? What justification can you find for that cruel blind process of evolution?

Do you even read what I write? I'll copy it here again, maybe this time you will read
Antinatalism first and foremost is derived from the axiom that preventing suffering is the most important thing in the universe. If I were to kill myself (now) I would cause a lot of people suffering. The alternative, at least for now, is for me to suffer a little bit. Of course the second option is the better.
Compare that with not bringing children to the world. If at all it will cause a bit of suffering for the man who decides that (he can still adopt of couse so it shouldn't be that bad)

Not gonna to watch it

It's quite intuitive I think. When you see black people beating a cat, don't you feel a moral obligation to stop them? Empathy makes sense.

The problem is that this axiom is no axiom at all.

There are a few problems with that.
1. 80% of people are prone to optimism bias. It means they tend to remember the good things in life rather than the bad things in life. That makes them unrealiable (there is plenty of reshearch about that)
2. Most people you will ask havn't been through ALL of life, so they can't answer onjectivly (a 20 yo doesn't know how it feel to die from cancer). Even if you ask people on their deathbed remember point 1
There are more reasons, but that is enough for here

Why do you think so?

Wow edge much fedora

C'mon

Consent is a social construct

Humans should be genetically engineered in labs, free of humans myriad degenerative syndromes and disorders and physical shortcomings, while all individuals should be sterile, and population size should be planned and managed according to resources and qualifications. Thus decoupling and freeing human sexuality from a primitive means of procreation into a method of creating social bonds only, reducing its importance and enabling humankind to develop out of its savage past, toward an era of higher achievement.

I (OP) didn't argue for consent. Can you reply for what I've written up there?

Come on what? You sound like a 14 year old born to a catholic family that got their vidya taken away and turned into a disgruntled pseudo-buddhist.

>They are all events of unnecessary suffering in huge magnitudes.
Depend on the point of view. Some would say that it was a evolutionary necessity.
>It's better to stop now the circle of suffering, no?
Why would it be?
You can't think in the "big picture", not while using senses that were the result of billions of years of evolution. You're effectively using something that only exist because suffering exist.
Actualy, even the concept of suffering itself is merely a subproduct of your self-preservation instinct.
>What justification can you find for that cruel blind process of evolution?
It's not cruel, just natural. Cruelty is subjective and a very human concept. And it's a thing that any human is able to end it if they think being alive is worse than non-existence.

>being this pleb
Sure.. what's a pleb?

This is very tempting, but there is alot that can go wrong in that process (we'll have to trust the bots to do all of that, for once). There is way that is much more sure. With corrent technology we can wipe out most of sentient life on earth. No life no suffering. No suffering no problems (it's called efilism if you're interested)

Well how about commenting on the actual arguments?

Seems logical. All species ebb and flow. This one ebbed hard when it ballooned its population to 8 billion stupid apes and shit up every square inch of the entire planet. Now, like all species, it will find the effects of massive population explosion are a collapse in drive to continue. Adding further pressure for unrealistic, infinite, exponential growth only compounds the resistance to it.

I did, tho

Moral antinatalists are a fucking joke
>muh feelings
>muh bringing someone into the world equals inflicting upon them the total sum of the suffering they'll ever experience
>muh absolute morality
>muh life is always awful
You're a bunch of emo faggots
ON THE OTHER HAND
Practical antinatalism (aka eugenics) is the only way we're ever going to preserve the species. We gotta start sterilizing people and educating them, as well as enforcing standards of education for parents, because your whiny ass discourse and shaky arguments are never going to convince anyone to stop making babies. Sadly, the only way to accomplish something like that is through a ruthless dictatorship because most retards that populate the earth will never agree to stop shitting out babies. It's been so ingrained into their chicken brains that they need to procreate that you cannot apply these systems until the current generations are dead and buried, and they haven't had the chance to teach their idiocy to their kids.
Fucking hell I hate people. If only the actually wanted to make things better.

I'm not the user you were replying to, abdul

This guy right here

I just want to kill you.

Because axioms is a statement supposed to be real. A kind of premise that allow further arguments.
The problem is that only anti-natalists believe it's a axiom at all.
First you need to prove why preventing suffering is the most important thing in the universe, then we can talk about anti-natalism.

All that proves is that we don't like suffering. I'd still rather live than not live because I enjoy the positives more than I hate the negatives

"evolutionary necessity" =\=good. We can stop evolution and solve every single problem by wiping out all sentient life, so there will not be any "necessity" for suffering


>Why would it be?
Hmmmm let me think. Maybe because preventing suffering is the only thing in the universe that is actually important? Don't you agree?
>while using senses that were the result of billions of years of evolution
If you want we can be more philosophical :)
The most fundamental axiom of mortality says this "There is a part of your brain that is good and important (Empathy, conscience, etc) and a part that is less important (passion for sex, food, ect) when in conflict, act as the good part tells you to act."
>Cruelty is subjective
Of course it is. If you were to anthropomorphise evolution, given all the suffering it caused, wouldn't you call it cruel?

The only way to accomplishe that is have a dictator tell them to stop making babies?

No it isn't. That's a way to hope impressionable morons will go along with your plan. The only way to ensure it happens is to engineer a sterility virus and unleash it. Kill no one, but let the last generation or 2 live out their lives to death. No convincing necessary. Easy.

If 1. Is true, then why is pro-natalism a bad thing?
2. Is a very pointless argument. The man with cancer suffer because he thinks suffering a bit is better than dying. He can always kill himself before the suffering begins.

Oh, brave new world!

Horrible idea. A very small elite of wealthy bureaucrats will rule everything forever.
I would rather live in despair than being a eternal lobotomised slave.

as a priviligeged cunt who has dealt with little more than moderate depression am i over or underestimating the amount of suffering i could be exposed to?

Well first of all I never spoke about absoture mortality (there isn't one)
about the "it's not going to convince anyone" part, i beg do differ. I was convinced and know of about 20 people (presonally) that were convinced

True. Children would be raised by the community, as is traditional, and marriage would thus be irrelevant.

Replace the decision-making apparatus of society with a computer and explore new worlds.

Do you know about anything more important?

Why would a dictatorship ever want it? It's easier to sustain yourself in the power of the vast majority of humans are braindead retards.

Well that's your opinion (and i'm not sure youv'e really thought this through, but whatever). Enforcing that opinion on other people and gambling with human life is wrong.

Nope. Flat hierarchy. Humans will be genetically engineered for intelligence and rationality, requiring no hierarchies, and voluntary compliance with an interchangeable matrix-organizational structure laid out by the master computer, like my company.

Its only your opinion that the opposite is true. I'm the one okay with giving the life so it can choose for itself

>as is traditional
Wew

1. Because they are unrealiable! It's like asking a drunk person if he regrets drinking. He will answer no. If you ask him tomorrow in the hangover he will say yes. same thing with optimism bias
2. How would he know how bad is the suffering before it started? Besides as i told you humans aren't robots that do what makes sense, we're full of biases

>"evolutionary necessity" =\=good. We can stop evolution and solve every single problem by wiping out all sentient life, so there will not be any "necessity" for suffering
Good and evil are subjective. You think that wiping life is good because there will be suffering, I think that killing billions is a much more evil thing to do than eliminating suffering.
I say that we should allow others to choose what is good for them. If they think life is inherently bad or evil, then they are free to kill themselves, but if they actualy like living then they should be allowed to live.
>Maybe because preventing suffering is the only thing in the universe that is actually important? Don't you agree?
No, preventing suffering is not even in my top 10.
>The most fundamental axiom of mortality says this "There is a part of your brain that is good and important (Empathy, conscience, etc) and a part that is less important (passion for sex, food, ect) when in conflict, act as the good part tells you to act."
Why is that a axiom?
>If you were to anthropomorphise evolution, given all the suffering it caused, wouldn't you call it cruel?
No. Suffering without reason can be considered cruel, but if that suffering brought evolution, then it's the opposite of cruelty.
Preserving life

come at me, fag
of course not, you don't tell them, you make them
mandatory sterilisation based on certain criterias
failing that, the sterility virus is the best option, I agree
it's never going to be enough
the majority of fuckheads are racing to a shitty future and will never even question it
an enlightened dictatorship could
the problem we've had with dictatorships so far is that they've all ben established by egotistical greedy cunts that wanted it all for themselves and didn't give a shit about the people
but in fact, it's still the most efficient system of government, if you're willing to sacrifice everything and kill thousands or more to accomplish a better world

Who decides what is wrong?

When you force someone into being he can't just "choose" to stop being (as if it's the easiest thing in the world). Suicide is a very hard choice and a lot of suffering needs to happen before it. I think you aren't taking it seriously enough

Not if they engineered everyone's brain to operate on an endorphin high your whole life. Human behavior can be completely tailored by operant hormone levels, set by genetic modification. Wealthy bureaucrats (corporate tycoons, etc) will not exist, bc the primitive behavioral traits that define them will not be used.

Who will create this "master computer"?

it's so sad well never see it

The old race of man, as it dies out.

Women

>1. Because they are unrealiable! It's like asking a drunk person if he regrets drinking. He will answer no. If you ask him tomorrow in the hangover he will say yes. same thing with optimism bias
Does it matter? He still thinks the good part of life outweighs the suffering.
>2. How would he know how bad is the suffering before it started
Why do you think that dying of cancer is suffering?
You mentioned it.

If everyone is created at peak human efficiency and raised by commymunities of equal wealth and education, everyone will be on the same level
No elite, only Citizens

probably zee germans

We'll see it if we want humans to live in interstellar space travel, where humans must survive living for generations in the confines of a ship with limited resources.

When the sterility virus hits on earth, and the last of the species is living out its years, the project will be started on earth. It's been the most logical plan, for 3/4 of a century.

>Good and evil are subjective
I know, that's why I'm asking your SUBJECTIVE opinion.
>I think that killing billions is a much more evil thing to do
Why? One moment of suffering to stop countless generitions of it? How exacly is that evil?
>I say that we should allow others to choose
Do you also think we should allow others to choose wether to make their dogs fight and kill each other? they (the watchers) will enjoy it after all, no?
We shouldn't allow people to choose whether to cause suffering or not. If we can, we should make it impossible for them to cause suffering.
>preventing suffering is not even in my top 10.
What is your top 10 then?
>Why is that a axiom?
Because it has no proof 0.0
>No. Suffering without reason can be considered cruel
And what is that great reason that justifies all the suffering? All evolution does it create machines that repleacte genes. That's the entire goal of evolution. What's so great about that?
>Preserving life

Why is that more important? What's so good about life?

If you were privileged, you'd be able to spell privilege

>an enlightened dictatorship could
>the problem we've had with dictatorships so far is that they've all ben established by egotistical greedy cunts that wanted it all for themselves and didn't give a shit about the people
>but in fact, it's still the most efficient system of government, if you're willing to sacrifice everything and kill thousands or more to accomplish a better world
How do you prevent greedy people from becoming powerful? Why would someone that don't care about power care about power?
What if said "enlightened" dictator is not a perfect being? His flaws could bring doom to all of us.
Who decides what is a "better world"? You? That's how many cruel dictatorships started...

I'm not willing to accept someone rulling as a god over me just because according to himself he is a good guy

>it's never going to be enough
If it becomes a majority in the west (and I see no reason for it not to happen), we could act on it and enforce it etc. days will tell anyone, for now i need to convert Sup Forums

I doubt you or me would live long enough to see it though.
And I doubt humanity as a whole will ever be mature enough to accept that.
I guess I'm just resigned to live my life as good and as fully as I can before gracefully blinking out, having taken what I needed and added what I could.

Who the fuck would engineer it? Why would everyone simple abandon what they have to become lobotomised slaves?
Why would the people that invested in that research use it on themselves?

You seen to have too much faith on wealthy and powerful men.