Is having a child ethnically correct nowadays?

I meant ethically. Phone autocorrected it

The answer is no. Never was and never will be irregardless of the current situation. It is better to have never been.

Attached: 2018-11-25 15_44_26-Window.png (541x123, 16K)

Life and experience is a gift. If someone doesn't like it, well they can always give it back.

Attached: 1517829469188.jpg (708x959, 79K)

Never was.

Attached: 111gorilla-finger.jpg (560x373, 77K)

You're just trying to find excuses to avoid raising children. There will always be a need for intelligent and well educated individuals who can help solve the world's problems. If only low iq people keep having children it's only a matter of time until humanity sinks into idiocracy.

Fuck off Jew.

>give it back

user I...

Even when I was kid it was unethical...

Yea. I only came here to ask when has it ever been ethical.

Only if you and your girlfriend are white.

who are we to oppose natural selection. Humans aren't special. If humanity sinks into idiocracy it doesn't matter, in the idiocracy movie the only people who are upset is the audience and the dude from the past.

Sorry for not being active, long day.
I actually do want children. 3 to be exact, but I'm just unsure if it's fair to them.
Yes, me and my girlfriend are white, but how does that have anything to do with it?

>irregardless
opinion discarded

>There will always be a need for intelligent and well educated individuals who can help solve the world's problems.
What if YOU are one of the world's most serious problems?

Doubtful. Do attend the Bilderberg meeting every year?

I would say it's ethically correct to breed if you're white, because your child has the highest chance of making the world a better place for all people.

Do I? No.
Do you?

I think this fits a bit more but whatever.
I tried to adopt anti-natalism, but couldn't. Listened to David Benatar try and defend his stance for more than an hour, but I'm just not convinced.
"Life is suffering, so don't create more life" they say. And while suffering is much more powerful than pleasure (for example, I could torture you for ages, but I can only make you euphoric for a couple of hours at best. This is an obvious consequence of evolution), it's doesn't mean life isn't worth living.

David Benatar's argument is (and I'm just making up this quote, hopefully it's accurate):
>If someone isn't born, all the joys that person would have had is unimportant. He can't say "Damn, I wish I had lived!" because he doesn't exist.
>So not being born isn't a bad thing. You can not know what you're missing out when you don't exist.
>On the other hand, when someone isn't born, he won't suffer at all. So you are keeping him away from potential suffering.
>Therefore, not only not being born a not-bad thing, it's also a good thing! Hence, make no babies.

The obvious flaw of this argument is that he says "Missing out on life's joys isn't bad because you won't know you missed out on anything."
But he doesn't also say "Missing out on life's suffering isn't good because you won't know you avoided anything". He says that it's /good/ the non-existent individual avoided suffering, but it's /neutral/ that the non-existent person avoided joy & pleasure.

So anti-natalism is out of the picture.

But there's more. I firmly believe that it's unethical to make babies when there are so many children up for adoption. This is more straight forward- why create more conscious beings, when other conscious beings are suffering and need your attention?

I know some Jow Forumstards may bring up race, but I'll come to that in another reply.

Attached: fetus.jpg (600x600, 28K)

People may claim IQ is important (and Jow Forumstards will equate that to race), but we already know high-IQ people make less children. So we are already actively selecting ourselves to be dumber, and this is already being empirically observed in Europe.
If IQ is of importance, we need to take other measures. Mainly eugenics, strictly enforced by the government or "favored" by the government via tax cuts etc. But this has all kinds of ethical and moral problems, so the next safest bet is gene editing.
So assuming IQ is important in this debate; race has nothing to do with it even if "white = high IQ" is granted. The worst possible scenario isn't stopped by propagating whiteness, and the best possible scenario doesn't involve propagating whiteness either.

>irregardless
a worthless comment from a worthless person.

>be white people
>work out that fucking people over is a quick way to make a buck
>invade every other white culture and corrupt it with this philosophy
>still not enough
>find other races
>relent slightly on your mistreatment of your own race
>enslave black people instead
>hook asians on opium
>trickle down economics
>school shooting
>global warming

everythingwentbetterthanexpected.jpg

but then you are using your child as a means to make other people happy, which is cringe and bluepilled.

>is it fair to have children and put them into this world, with all the problems amassing?
If you live in a first world economy and can meaningfully contribute to global society, yes.
If you're a third worlder that just exists and soaks up resources, no.

If you are liberal no and you really shouldn't either.

When having kids is unethical, only the unethical will have kids. And that is no bueno for your system of ethics.

>being this revisionist

>be literally every race on the planet, including whites
>fuck your own people over through tribal and dynastic warring everywhere
>conquer, rape, and enslave other peoples as you come across them, including your own people
>do this for thousands of years

>be whites
>be doing the same thing as everyone else
>be better at it
>inadvertently genocide an entire continent through biological warfare
>whoops.png
>realize you don't have to enslave other peoples because they enslave themselves just fine
>buy enslaved Africans from other Africans
>also be the first people in history to grow a conscience
>start massively improving the quality of life for your own people
>stop enslaving other people
>actually fight yourself to free enslaved blacks
>singlehandedly mechanize the world and ratchet economic growth up to 11
>be at the forefront of every humanitarian effort ever devised
>work towards a global, peaceful, united world, where the sins of our forefathers are left in the past so we can escape the cycle of violence
>be criticized at every turn by the useless descendants of minorities that suckle at the teat of your welfare state

Actually maximizing the existence of human life is the greatest moral imperative, not the minimization of human suffering

>Actually maximizing the existence of human life is the greatest moral imperative
that is a load of shit, I am an atheist, but this new religion of humanism is more full of hubris than the old religions.

It is sad that few men have abandoned the ancient myths without falling into hubris. Does humanity really need a sky daddy to acknowledge the worthlessness of humanity? SAD!

having kids to enforce your system of ethics is unethical.

fuck all the dumbass breeders who follow me.
Whites who care only for birthrates are undergoing niggification. They despise the other races, but their stated goal is to become just like them. To achieve victory by outbreeding them. This is how muzzies and Africans think. If you want to avoid niggification, lower the fertility of those who breed like animals. To adopt breeding uncontrollably as a tactic, is unbecoming and a step towards barbarism.

tl;dr help develop a contraception vaccine and distribute it to the third world.
>but what if the refuse the vaccine?
BuT WhAt If tHeY ReFuse the vAcciINe? that is loser talk. putting in this vaccine in with the other vaccines is much more easier than gunning people down at the border.

www.researchgate.net/project/immunocontraception

the working model for the vaccine is you take it once and it lasts indefinitely, and to have it reversed you take an antidote. They are close to having it done. but they need funding. if you want this highly effective tool to be made available you should help fund it.

Is this an insider look to a white supremacists?
No single "race" has taken humanity to where it is now and white people certainly were not these saviors that you make them out to be. I can't see how you believe "white people" want peace in the world when all these "white countries" are doing is destabilization where ever they go. I truly hope that you open your eyes and see that it doesn't matter where you're from, almost every person still behaves like an animal whether black, white, brown, or yellow. There have been and there are few humans on this earth.

>you are using your child as a means to make other people happy

Ever heard of the pursuit of happiness?
>when you come to the gripping realization that you never got to that level of happiness you felt entitled to
>primal subconscious tells you kids will make you happy
>happy in the fact that chasing the magic dragon of happiness is no longer your problem
And the cycle repeats

What's wrong with doing what you're programed to do?

delusion is inauthentic. I can't stop brainlets from choosing that path, and it would be delusional to think I can. But I won't refuse to call a spade a spade. scribd.com/doc/282530385/Herman-Tennessen-Happiness-is-for-the-Pigs

>No single "race" has taken humanity to where it is now
Yeah, but whites (and asians, to a somewhat lesser but still significant excent) have done so far, far beyond any other race.

> can't see how you believe "white people" want peace in the world when all these "white countries" are doing is destabilization where ever they go.
No shit, like every other fucking country on Earth. On the other hand, white countries were the ones who started the fucking UN, white countries are the ones that have even made an ATTEMPT to be better than animals.
What, you're going to tell me that only whites have committed genocide, right?

>I truly hope that you open your eyes and see that it doesn't matter where you're from, almost every person still behaves like an animal whether black, white, brown, or yellow.
No shit, and of course there are utterly trash whites that are worse than the most deviant of apes, but you're a facetious pedant if you're talking all-or-nothing. Since you're on /sci/, I assume you have at least a modicum of statistical knowledge. If 25% of whites are human and 10% of blacks are human, guess what, that's a point in the favor of whites.
Fuck you and your wishful, anti-scientific insistence on equality.

Why does Jow Forums try so hard to spread to other boards?

Attached: what is that garbage.jpg (431x486, 32K)

> (You)
>Yeah, but whites (and asians, to a somewhat lesser but still significant excent) have done so far, far beyond any other race.
You clearly haven't studied enough history based on this comment. Science builds upon itself. Currently, the west is dominating this field but it's foundation's are built upon what was discovered by Muslims from the 8th to 14th century. They themselves built upon knowledge that was previously known.

>No shit, like every other fucking country on Earth. On the other hand, white countries were the ones who started the fucking UN, white countries are the ones that have even made an ATTEMPT to be better than animals.
Cyrus the Great issued the charter of human rights 2500 years ago, setting the example for basic humans to this age. Clearly, he was not white.

>What, you're going to tell me that only whites have committed genocide, right?
I never said that whites are the only ones that commuted genocide and it's idiotic to say so.

>No shit, and of course there are utterly trash whites that are worse than the most deviant of apes, but you're a facetious pedant if you're talking all-or-nothing. Since you're on /sci/, I assume you have at least a modicum of statistical knowledge. If 25% of whites are human and 10% of blacks are human, guess what, that's a point in the favor of whites.
You can't make up numbers on "who acts like a human" and thus there is no "point in the favor of whites." Who really knows what the numbers are for such a broad, variable meaning.

>Fuck you and your wishful, anti-scientific insistence on equality.
Attacking me will not do anything. Rather it shows how turbulent and hateful your thoughts are. Believing that one should be treated with respect as long it is reciprocated is not wishful at all. Not once did I mention equality. I simply stated that "whites" don't deserve to be raised to the pedestal that you want to put them on.

Even without climate change, it is wrong to procreate. But it doesn't matter because the vast majority of humans have babies because they got the feels and bang-banged without a single fuck given about contraceptives.

Attached: 4987524560.jpg (690x517, 134K)

I honestly shouldn't be responding; this is the wrong board for this discussion, apologies. I was trying to decide to even type out the reply above, but keeping this going for the sake of getting the last word in is wrong. With full unironic sincerity, go to Jow Forums. There will absolutely be a vast majority of shitposters that just meme at you, but if you're genuinely curious why people think this way and want to genuinely argue about it, there will be some honest posters to talk with.

204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a social attitude is a direct outcome of a person’s genetic constitution, but it appears that personality traits are partly inherited and that certain personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but the objections are feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view it doesn’t matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through childhood training. In either case they ARE passed on.

205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial system are also concerned about the population problems, hence they are apt to have few or no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support or at least accept the industrial system. To insure the strength of the next generation of revolutionaries the present generation should reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the important problem is to get rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world’s population necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world’s population to keep increasing almost indefinitely.

Attached: tedhowbadthingsreallyare.png (352x390, 359K)

>being an unironic malthusian commie

I believe you are replying to the wrong person. What is said would not bode very well in pol.

No, I'm replying to the right person. I'm , and I let myself get carried away.
And no, you're right, it wouldn't go well over there, but you're free to say your perspective and they're free to say there's. They're going to call you names, absolutely, but you'll get an insight into why those things are believed if you're genuinely curious why someone would every believe them.

>malthusian commie
Marx raped Malthus though.

>imblying commies are just tankies

I see. It's good to have a civil discussion. I don't see too many people behaving as you did whether they are right or left leaning. Good on you sir.

>Literally the safest and most affluent/comfortable period in world history
>duh huh I saw this shet about the world getting too hot and water getting bottled and stuff, is it safe to have a kid?

Not for you, no

If it is white than yes

Jow Forums was always the heart of Jow Forums, we just didnt know it yet

India is out of water, and china limited reproduction to one child at some point. i can't imagine being in your feeble mind if you really don't see the problem.

Are you Indian or Chinese?

I would say that the major ethical issues for bringing a child into the world are economical. Climate change while bad at least isn't actively planning against your own interests. Meanwhile the current economy literally depends on rat race ponzi schemes, debt, war/mercenaries, international labor abuse (dangerous conditions, cheap or prison labor) and slavery/sex slavery. Meaning that if you aren't born a part of the fortunate top 1-10% of the world you are effectively doomed from the start.

And unlike idiots such as who can't into global history. Race has nothing to do with it, humanity has shown time and time again that it cannot function as a civilization without dooming the majority of its own kind to some type of abusive servitude or labor. Even with the advent of automation/a.i. humanity needs at least 90% of it's species to turn to abusive forms of consumerism that rarely looks out for the interest or health of said population.

Ethically speaking it is unfair to bring children into a world where 9 times out of 10 you are fucked. But then again if no one brings said children into the world the chance for any kind of ""redemption"" or ""advancement"" for humanity is zero. I guess it's a good thing nature allowed sex and fear of death to trap us here.

non sequiter

>If, instead, we chose the lifestyle of people in the USA as the benchmark, then the world population would need to be reduced to 1.9 billion.
gizmodo.com/whats-the-ideal-number-of-humans-on-earth-1821527028

>mfw Amerifats would gladly glass a majority of the world than experience even a mild decline in their "standard of living."
Thank Jesus for China.

Attached: zombie face094589045890250983409.jpg (947x720, 91K)

youre an idiot

Is it ethical to let the idiots inherit the Earth?

Attached: bp1.jpg (990x684, 497K)

And that's good; less people, higher standard of living. Breed more murricans and let the 3rd worlders die out.

yup, but not just any murrican

>Breed more murricans

Attached: face dont like it.png (824x720, 1M)

How do you determine who breeds then? IQ?

>less people, higher standard of living. Breed more murricans and let the 3rd worlders die out.

That's not how it works you idiot. Even if only the top 1% of murricans were allowed to breed while the rest of the world dies, the majority of that 1% will have to serve and be abused labor wise by the 0.1% aka """their 1%""".

If you base your decisions on being "ethical" to other people, then you are a genetic dead end anyways.

>implying we wouldn't have fully automatic gay space communism by then

>Implying the way things are going we aren't going to end up with something at least as bad as Partially Employed Don't Ask Don't Tell Intercontinental Neofeudalism with Population Thinning

Curious you didn't mention who was on the other side of that argument, jp fanboy.

Attached: bucko2.jpg (226x292, 15K)

Also it's impossible to have a rational argument over antinatalism without answering the question of why creating a preference to be satisfied benefits that prefer-er or anyone else.

fehige.info/pdf/A_Pareto_Principle_for_Possible_People.pdf

You do realize that by rearing another persons infant you are contributing to the problem? You are being exploited by the genes of the parents which preys on your "morality". Objective morality dosen't exist. What do you think these people who are putting their children up for adoption are voting for subconsciously, the answer is obviously going to be on increasing empathy and providing free resources. It's all a fucking game don't you see that?

>/sci/ - Science & Math
>morality

Attached: 1456522953085.jpg (336x258, 26K)

>/sci/ - Science & Math
>frogposting

>le high IQ board
>"frogposting"posting

Attached: 1489789980915.png (800x778, 328K)

>You have a robot army that caters to your every whim.
>Your every physical need catered for by mathematically created golems that not only hunt and feed you, but exercise you as well, so in the event they are destroyed, you can rebuild them yourself.
>Your IQ is 200+

I believe these prerequisites meet the criteria of ethical if the children inherit these abillities.

In short:

Hah! Your lack of understanding of verbal nuance and context as applied to the interpretation of spoken language betrays you as the neanderthal you are.
Those of us with 400,000...000+ IQ can easily deduce what someone is going to say, what they meant to say, and the situational-dependent meta-interpretation of what they meant to say within the first couple of words they utter. We can then easily intuit the exact reply that will provide the highest chance of a beneficial outcome in future.
Those of us with 400,000...000+ IQ see the worlds as endlessly shifting entangled threads of probability, and we navigate them as easily as a skilled sea-captain navigates a placid lake. The IQlets beneath us are no better than slaves, never understanding that they are either unimportant to us, or evey step they make has been planned for them.
Imagine spending your entire life as a puppet! But of course, that suggestion was rhetorical. I don't expect an IQlet to truly be able to envision the consequences of such an actuality.

Let me translate all this into socially incapable robot for you, as you likely missed some of the finer details of what I have said and are struggling to make heads or tails of my diction:
YOU
ARE
LESSER
THAN
ME
IN
EVERY
WAY

I perfected quantumn gravity years ago.

My very intellect itself was so great that war was fought over its existence by nth dimensional beings for being too over powered.

I was so cunning I made it exist through advanced multilayered trans-universal negotiations that would put politicians to shame. I have lied myself out of death and back into it merely to steal his scythe.

To me, your modernist utopia is so petty and obsolete it makes it look like a dilapidated favella. What use has a being made of light for architecture when the entire electromagnetic spectrum is his home?

I know more inane secrets than a fictional wizard and mastered illiusion at the age of six. I found quantumn physics in this universe so trivial that I grew bored and began exploring other worlds. I broke through multiverse with a THOUGHT EXPERIMENT. I can read the minds of lesser beings through working algorithms to reverse information based on their remaining heat signatures. Every electron bows to my whim and dances exactly how I wish it to. I have destroyed and created entire universes.

To you I would be a god. The last time I visited someone on your par of intelligence, it was to laugh at their futile efforts to even begin to comprehend the perpetually expanding conciousness of my being.

I can see past, present and future at once and before you have even blinked I know your intent and your every fiber of your existence.
There was never a need for me to be a student because just by being in PROXIMITY to myself, everything gains master status.

BEHOLD, A MAN BECOME IMMORTAL.

Attached: ea639ca57db43956c91cefb062c62811.jpg (750x1000, 505K)

>>You have a robot army that caters to your every whim.
>>Your every physical need catered for by mathematically created golems that not only hunt and feed you, but exercise you as well, so in the event they are destroyed, you can rebuild them yourself.
>>Your IQ is 200+
Seems a lot of bother to just make life okay. A little overbudget considering we had no obligation to create the thing. Wouldn't just not making a person be easier?

._.

youtu.be/aDMsGl_XxTk

>Easier?
Yes.

>Fun?
No.

>fun

You have a twisted idea of fun...

>muh Jow Forums boogeyman
Russian bots is still the current narrative why there are people on internets with different interests and opinions than you, come on.

Attached: 1533303441463.png (278x259, 63K)

Only two things may happen if you go down this road. Either dead end at entropy, or you overcome entropy, become God, then give birth to yourself after breaking space and time...

>I believe these prerequisites meet the criteria of ethical if the children inherit these abillities.

Stopped reading here. That's nice and all but we don't currently have these prerequisites and will likely never reach that level. So its a silly argument that we should hold out so that things get better without any evidence that they will.

...or you could just be a normal country and not enslave people in the first place.

>ethnically correct

Yeah, no kids for the white goyim, right?

>lower the fertility of those who breed like animals

This already naturally occurs? Look at the birth rate in all the first world countries its barely reaching placement. The reason why the birth rate is higher in third world countries is because they rarely survive into adulthood due to lack of access to health care &c.

>but we already know high-IQ people make less children

Jews in Israel have the highest birth rate in the world and supposedly have the highest IQ. Yet (((they))) are the biggest supporters of anti-natalist policies when they are outside of Israel. It’s all policy.

be white people
>work out that fucking people over is a quick way to make a buck
Jews
>invade every other white culture and corrupt it with this philosophy
Jews
>still not enough
>find other races
Lots of different groups discovered other people’s
>relent slightly on your mistreatment of your own race
Anglos and Jews
>enslave black people instead
Jews and Muslims
>hook asians on opium
Jews through Anglos
>trickle down economics
>school shooting
Jews overrespresented yet again
>global warming
Jewish hoax

>Painting privatization as inherently bad.
I know it wasn't ethical to birth you.

Literal NPC.
Shitskins in India, China, Africa infest the world by the billions yet you think having one white kid in a declining population society is ""unethical"

Kill yourself