Are anti-natalists the only good people?

You give value to things based on a human perspective. Why does it matter if animals are killed anyway? That's the nature of world and being a consumer. And in the end, what's the point of reducing suffering of animals or caring about them at all? If there was never life to begin with there would never be any suffering at all. It can be argued that the existence of life in of itself is valuable and due to humans being the only animal that can give affection to a wide array of creatures, I'd say people are actually the best on the planet due to the potential to do so much good in the world for all sentient living things

>You give value to things based on a human perspective
Because all humans share the same values?

>Why does it matter if animals are killed anyway?
The nazis said the same about the people in concentration camps.

>what's the point of reducing suffering of animals or caring about them at all?
It's called strength and compassion. Protecting those who are weak and speaking for those who don't have a voice.

>If there was never life to begin with there would never be any suffering at all.
Yes, and this is why one must find meaning in the suffering.

>due to humans being the only animal that can give affection to a wide array of creatures
Not true at all.

>people are actually the best on the planet due to the potential to do so much good in the world for all sentient living things
What use is that potential if humans do the exact opposite and spend the majority of their existence causing nothing but destruction, agony and death?

You're just in denial.

Attached: 1549673770675.jpg (3189x1702, 1.6M)

no antinatalists make no sense. no gumption, no actual sincere care for what they're talking about, antinatalism is complaining about people having kids like that will stop it. the true antinatalist would be out purging the earth of life.

yes
>everyone suffers
>nothing wrong with doing that to someone else
>bringing joy to people requires having kids
>"what's it matter" is any kind of argument against whether bringing more people into the world is justified

The more I see people fall apart trying to argue against anti-natalism the more vindicated I feel. The only competent argument I can think of against it is that it is futile to believe that we can will humanity out of existence, and it is therefore cowardice to refuse to see trying to improve the human condition as the only option. This just causes the timeless argument about forced sacrifice. Is a phd physicist obligated to research forever? Is a doctor obligated to work 20 hour days as long as there are still people to help? 24 hour days? None at all? From this point of view, birth is forcing someone to suffer and work towards a hypothetical future without suffering which will likely never exist.

Stop being 15, you ass

No, but they are the only enlightened people possibly.
That is not to say that every reason for not having kids is noble, because I am sure that's not true.

anti-natalists are a contradiction. they claim life is some horrible experience, yet they choose to live regardless.
the only people who believe in anti-natalism are edgy teens and miserable manchildren

Attached: 1525422470957.png (824x720, 430K)

I am antinatalist and I don't think life is a horrible experience. I think life will become horrible the more people populate the earth. I already live in a horribly overpopulated area.

was this supposed to be some sort of new argument? Stop thinking every thought you have is some divine gift to humanity.
>ending something that has existed is the same as it never having existed in the first place
honestly, read that and explain to me how so many people can't grasp this. Even existentialism answered the same question elegantly. Embarrassing.

malthusian meltdown is babies first apocalypse you need to get learned.

>they claim life is some horrible experience
That isn't true at all. Where ITT did you read that?
>yet they choose to live regardless
You know self-preservation instinct is real. It is pretty much impossible for a healthy person to kill himself.

>the only people who believe in anti-natalism are edgy teens and miserable manchildren
Herp? Herp derp?

Attached: 1551000290856.jpg (724x697, 238K)

Case in point. This person is just a depressing, negative asshole.

Not even Jesus had children, think about that.

I am not referring to food shortages, I am talking about shortages of space, sanitation, etc.

Your mother is a whore (who likes it in the ass originally)

food shortages is a way better argument than both of those, like i said get learned.

>That isn't true at all. Where ITT did you read that?
user, that's entire point of anti-natalism. it suggests that because suffering exists life is therefore too bad to be experienced by anyone.
>It is pretty much impossible for a healthy person to kill himself.
the fact that acknowledge healthy people prefer to live dismantles the anti-natalist assertion.

Food shortages are manufactured. Grocery stores and farms discard tons of food every day that is illegal for anybody to take home.

I think being anti-natalist is probably associated with high levels of empathy and selflessness, which I suppose are considered positive traits in people.
I'm anti-natalist but I don't really talk about it, or try to convince other people. I don't feel the need to justify it to anyone else and it seems like a futile endeavor either way. But I will say that some of the retorts to the anti-natalist position from people in this thread are really fucking poor. You clearly haven't seriously read or considered the arguments at all. If feels like you're just making a knee-jerk reaction to a position that you find unappealing.

Attached: picard.jpg (720x540, 88K)

>that's the entire point
agency is the core of the belief, not suffering. Although I do think it is wrong to say that suffering isn't involved at all.
>the fact that people can't kill themselves at will proves anything
jesus christ man... Do you believe that the mind is incapable of thinking about anything beyond its direct experience? We can imagine a better world even if we will never see it. I'll add that people still, comically, fail to see the difference between ending something that has existed and never having existed at all. Ending one's existence would simply cause more pain. Never having existed would prevent all pain.

This is the population red pill. There was a ted talk on it. Population balances out as a society gets more developed.
Good watch if you have time
youtu.be/FACK2knC08E

>that's entire point of anti-natalism. it suggests that because suffering exists life is therefore too bad to be experienced by anyone
No it's absolutely not. The reasons to be anti-natalist can be varied and the one you mentioned I imagine to be one of the least common.

>the fact that acknowledge healthy people prefer to live dismantles the anti-natalist assertion
No it doesn't. What makes you even think that? Just because you don't agree with their idea (or rather ideology) doesn't mean they're 'unhealthy'. In fact the way you're automatically presuming someone 'isn't right' because they're anti-nat could potentially prove their point that humans are self-absorbed shit heads.

It is doubtful that people haven't thought about things like this before. The arguments people make against it are so poor they are beginning to sound like people who already believe it but are in denial. This might be what someone like a vegan feels though so I'm not sure honestly.

yeah but there's still going to be a climate change induced mass extinction event, and if not the singularity.

They objectively hate life, which isn't really good at all. They understand the gravity of suffering that life entails, but have no solution for it other than voluntary self extinction. Antinatalism has to be among the most pro-suicide ideologies, in that it rejects life affirmation in favor of fatalism.

This is like saying that vegans hate animals.

You just proved 's point, you dumb shit.

the only other response is forcing trillions of our progeny to suffer in search of a hypothetical end to suffering that likely doesn't exist in the first place.
>but muh meaning despite suffering
the only meaning I can find would be working to end that suffering for others which is cyclical and bleak.

>Ending one's existence would simply cause more pain. Never having existed would prevent all pain.
none of these claims consider the net joy of someone though, which is crux of the problem with anti-natalism. it automatically considers life bad because of the existence of one element of it without taking the actual experiences of other people into account.

Vegans would prevent animals from existing to stop them endlessly devouring eachother to sustain themselves?

Of course antinatalism is the final blackpill once you strip away all the feel-good justification for life.
It's just too cold and bleak for most to accept.

no, vegans want to protect animals. anti-natalists want to protect children & future adults from the pain of the apocalypse.

They don't have the energy to do that on a so i diet.
That and it would require them getting off their ass and doing something.

looking at the "net" value of life is this entire argument (although agency is the core argument of anti-natalism). People have done some thinking and realized that everything we do is meant to delay and ease suffering since the beginning.

No, most of them are bitter, angry, depressed pieces of shit.

>They objectively hate life
Another non-fact bullshit argument. I don't hate life. In fact I would like to preserve it as best as I can, but not under these circumstances.

Humanity COULD BE fantastic and perhaps it will someday reach that point where we could stop believing in sorcerers in the sky, stop killing each other and rob from each other, stop being greedy and learn to distribute resources, stop keeping and mass murdering animals when there is clearly no need to, stop investing in war and start investing in science and evolution. Sort out the problems we face on this planet and then someday (maybe) bring life to other planets. That would be great, but this will never happen because humans are inherently too weak and undisciplined to work towards that society and instead are stuck in the cave man mind set of acquiring and hoarding resources without remorse for casualties of any kind and in the process kill all males and rape all females. (that was sarcasm, but you get the idea)

I love the potential life we could build, but I am disappointed in the failed reality we are in now and I don't see how humanity could change its course. Maybe (hopefully) I'm wrong, considering how vastly improved humanity is compared to 500 years ago, and maybe I'm too pessimistic, but I just lost hope in humanity and it rather looks like it is devolving backwards to the stone age.

Attached: 5028c21bdb9c1f18d1e1a8181651b114.jpg (788x1200, 124K)

Whats up Gary.
The point is that civilization is already on a downturn and is past it's peak. The process of rising and falling will likely never correct itself before the virtual extinction of our species.

>anti-natalists want to protect children & future adults from the pain of the apocalypse
Nigga WTF did I just read? Is your blood sugar alright?

Attached: 7f62b58c9cb79d0497479dfc89799702.jpg (236x288, 8K)

are you ignoring the empathy it requires to think about any of this in the first place? Absolutely all of anti-natalism's arguments stem from looking at people suffering and asking if that should have been done to them.
>eww yer like depressed and stuff, gross piece of shit
I'm questioning why you're on this board. Getting away from knee-jerk condemnations like this is its entire purpose. Fuck off.

If the west doesn't start shutting there doors to niggers and muzzies, they're gonna be hit with a flood climate refugees the likes of which will make 2016 looks like nothing.

...and in ease suffering, you can find joy which is a pleasant experience.
just because you can't find joy in your miserable life that doesn't mean other people can't. the problem with your thinking is you see suffering as a default feeling, and (if we want get more philosophical) implying that suffering is an entirely bad thing.

Attached: 1385969012061.jpg (340x480, 44K)

>are you ignoring the empathy it requires to think about any of this in the first place? Absolutely all of anti-natalism's arguments stem from looking at people suffering and asking if that should have been done to them.

The problem is that you only look at the suffering. You never look at people's joy and say "yeah, that looks pretty great, that's why people should have kids."

But the suffering is so much more abundant than the joy.

anti-natalism can coexist with these people who find it reasonable to have kids. Given the right ratio of anti-natalists to "non-anti-natalists", populations can maintain a healthy, sustainable homestasis

No, it really isn't. The media just makes the suffering more visible because it makes them more money.

Populations are stable or even dropping already in most developed countries.

>finding joy in easing suffering isn't cyclical as hell.
Should a doctor that enjoys healing people run around stabbing people to give himself more people to fix? It honestly seems selfish to not see this.
>suffering isn't the default feeling
wait around for a few hours without doing a thing and it will find you. Hungry, tired, bored, anxious, and on it goes.
>but these are easily fixed
by putting in more effort to delay them for a few hours more.

I am looking at joy. I am looking at it and seeing it as the temporary veneer it is. I feel better after I've eaten because I've staved off hunger once again. There is no real joy and no real victory there.

Not that guy, but I think there is a fundamental difference in the joy you're describing and the notion of suffering, because what we feel as 'joy' is nearly always a societal construct and/or part of our biological cognition while suffering is more of an omnipresent constituent of reality of being. This becomes a lot more apparent as you age.

But I think you really don't get the point of anti-natalism being a highly varied ideology. The ending means may be more or less the same among all anti-natalists, but the causality can be highly diverse in reasoning. I'm not representative at all, but I suspect that 'ending life for the sheer sake of ending suffering associated with being' as you describe it isn't really all that common. I guess most anti-natalists are driven by socio-ecologic thoughts. Maybe I'm wrong though.

Attached: 44654.jpg (480x360, 13K)

>I am looking at joy. I am looking at it and seeing it as the temporary veneer it is. I feel better after I've eaten because I've staved off hunger once again. There is no real joy and no real victory there.

Why does joy have to be permanent to have value? Suffering isn't permanent either. Nothing about our existence is permanent. Change is the only constant.

I want to use a time machine and go back to the 80s and lick Jennifer Connely's asshole.

Attached: 4da138bb20eff7d52ad56181cbe8d55b.jpg (1227x1399, 150K)

And we hate constant change, for some strange reason. The human condition is to plow through shitty times, till we die.

because suffering is permanently the default state. It is a guaranteed part of existence. I guess you could say that it isn't permanent because death exists, but then you would be making my argument for me. I should also note that the core argument of anti-natalism is that life is forced on people without consent. While I believe that it is true, it does not depend on life being suffering.

>Should a doctor that enjoys healing people run around stabbing people to give himself more people to fix?
that's a horrible retort. the doctor could just cure people in other places.
>wait around for a few hours without doing a thing
you've already acknowledged agency exists, yet you ignore it when considering suffering. the reality is we have means to make suffering not the default feeling in our lives.
>by putting in more effort to delay them for a few hours more.
which is an issue because....?

Attached: 1461608933023.gif (300x300, 1.49M)

Only if they're white/asian

although it sounds like a strawman, the argument is that it would be better for the doctor to not have to heal anyone at all, regardless of whether he enjoys it or not.
>the reality is we have the means to make suffering not the default feeling in our lives
>just don't feel hunger bro, literally just don't die
are you arguing for people being heroine addicts or something? Not sure what this is supposed to mean.
>which is an issue because
because I've been forced to endlessly put effort into not suffering and dying horribly before I die horribly anyway after I've done it long enough.

The problem being that only a select minority of people have the means to live a life well lived, and that number diminishes to some extent the more people there are

money and privilege can't change the reality of what life is. If anything, all they have done for humanity is allow us to think about things like this in the first place.

>the argument is that it would be better for the doctor to not have to heal anyone at all, regardless of whether he enjoys it or not.
why
>just don't feel hunger bro
the irony here is that you've only weaken your own argument by using this example since eating is something that is both an enjoyable process and prevents suffering. it can even be a passion for some.
>because I've been forced to endlessly put effort into not suffering
>because I've been forced to endlessly put effort into not suffering
why is this a bad thing? if you don't want to sustain yourself, then don't.

you're implying people can't enjoy life without wealth, which is narrow-minded to say the least.

An argument that always makes my blood boil:
If you really believed in what you're saying you would have killed yourself.

>why
>why is it preferable for people not to be stabbed. I mean the doctor sure does like fixing people up again.
I uhhh...
>eating is enjoyable
which was the point. Eating can be enjoyable, but it is only a temporary delay of hunger. Your statement was that we have the means to make joy, not suffering, the default state. We do not.
>if you dont want to sustain yourself then dont
>I've been forced
how do people still not understand the difference between ending something that has existed and it never having existed at all
I mean honestly, here comes the same argument again. I could just quote the numerous times I and others have explained this above I guess. It just seems like willful ignorance at this point.

>anti-natalist
>good people
lol, its the very opposite
>"WAAAAH MY DADDY DIDNT LOVE ME! BAN FAMILIES! "
It's alway something like this

WAAAAAH I want kids so someone is going to be forced into all of this because of it. Get some empathy and our points will make sense.

I've never heard a good, sound argument in favour of anti-natalism so no, I don't think so

>why is it preferable for people not to be stabbed
no, why would it "be better for the doctor to not have to heal anyone at all"? the doctor provides an amazing service that helps people live.
>Your statement was that we have the means to make joy, not suffering, the default state. We do not.
we have the means for both suffering and joy, however most people dont intentionally cause their own suffering. again, you haven't yet explained what's inherit wrong with sustaining yourself. i've already given you an example of how sustaining can be an enjoyable experience.
>how do people still not understand the difference between ending something that has existed and it never having existed at all
this ignores the giant elephant in the room which is you suggesting that sustaining is bad because you believe suffering is a default feeling all the while you continue to sustain yourself. the problem is your argument is built almost solely on your own assertions, so there's no room for anything of that.

with that being said, since i could see this going in circles because you other perspectives are not part of your considerations, i'm going stop replying to you.

also i'm well aware of all the grammatical errors in this post, but you're crazy if you thing im going to correct them

Attached: 1412691324415.gif (245x138, 397K)

Life is bad for the most part and exposing another human being through it when there's already almost 8 billion of us is cruel.

>I've never heard a good, sound argument in favour of anti-natalism
That's only because they don't compute with your conceptions of life, that's it.

you really just don't seem to be able to imagine a life without suffering I guess.
>why would it be better for the doctor not to have to heal anyone at all?
because people not getting stabbed is better than people getting stabbed. I hope that helped.
>he misses the point that agency matters again
There's nothing I can say anymore that wont just be insults. At best you're just willfully ignorant.

Anyone who believes humans are inherently bad need to either off themselves or the government needs to shoot them on the spot. You are only going to hold the rest of us normal people back, and if you can't even off yourself to fix the problem you're claiming exists, you should be GLAD someone else is doing it!

oh I forgot one
>the problem your argument is based on your own assertions
that's literally what an argument is. You argue against the support of someone's conclusion (assertions) or the conclusion itself. Come on man, what the fuck.

>Waaaah I'm so worthless but people are inherently good so I deserve to live
>Government plz

I'm bringing you all with me faggots

its a kindness.

i wont create any decendents who will live in a world of resource wars, islamic takeover amd ever increasing chaos.

i wont subject offspring of my offspring to that.

having a family creates bonds to the earth and makes it more likely to reincarnate back on earth, by not having any i increase my chances of escaping forever

Attached: 3380BB95-01D8-4AF1-86B0-55D5FF79CEAF.jpg (850x480, 46K)

how are people this reactionary and... simplistic on this board.
>help me government, that guy is weird
I hope all of this, and most of the posts in this thread, are bait. What the fuck.

discord
=|+|--|17|--|+|=
.gg/Bsyufq6

Attached: 17.jpg (373x287, 40K)

children are just attachments that will betray you and break your heart

pets are better and they dont outlive you.

>He thinks any of that shit is gonna happen
>He still buys into the islamic takeover garbage in 2019
Bruh islam has never been more irrelevent, all religion will be gone within 10 years for the most part anyway. Y'know what you do have to worry about? Not dying alone. Unless you genuinely think you'll be happy in 30 years that you took some bullshit made up morality some kikes wrote up to trick white people into not breeding, rethink all this.

i dont lose anything if dont breed

i lose everything if i do and your wrong about what you say

a post industrial is inevitable, civilisation has peaked.

oh i dont plan to live past 40, i am well aware of the suffering of old age.

as a nihilist, i persue sensory pleasure in the present, with no regard to the future, as i am encouraging many cancers in my body with narcotics and nicotin

Man, you should first demonstrate anything that exists on the other side is actually better than all of this.
By what we know, on the other side may only be just infinite abysses of screaming chaos and giving birth to someone we just simply save, even for a little while, that soul from the clutches of that insanity.
We just don't know and if you cant prove that what there is there on the other side is actually better than life, I'll keep giving life a shot

youtube.com/watch?v=scMGk1Z0ibw

thread theme
>god isn't dead but I'll get that bastard someday

Attached: musicfrog.jpg (354x286, 25K)

"i lose everything" you lose nothing you retard

Possibly (originally original)

>endless hypotheticals
baseless. Stick with what we know. This is shit, let's try something else.

i would be subjecting my offspring to a terrible world and even enslavement

So? Your offspring wouldn't be like you, they'd be happy they even got the chance to exist. They wouldn't find your dead ghost and yell at you. Pussy, stop caring about dumb shit, nihilism is for weak fags, egoism is where it's at.

Ei I'm not the one trying to prove that life is the worst, burden of proof is not on me

not when you're suggesting it isn't worse than a million random other things. The default is there is nothing after life.

i dont care about anyone else, but i care about anything that shares my dna

it also prevents them from becoming traitors or being owned by the enemy

(conversion or being taken as sex slaves) i wont be alive to teach or control all of my future offspring.

it acts as a pre emptive punishment as well as protection.

my line ends at my hand. no one elses

it also means that nothing except my life can be taken from me.

having daughters is almost surefire humilation for a man.

having sons is almost surefire disappointment

Sounds like you have autism. Maybe you're right about letting the neurotypicals reproduce while you sit this one out champ :)

A burden of proof so gigantic as proving that life is better than some hypothesized "other life" is a burden no robot worth their salt will take

well your probably right about that one.
if a child was too much like me, id grow to resent it.

i have a lot of unmedicated mental illness since i quit my meds

Attached: 1E4179F0-7AC0-44DF-83AF-E9D9ABDD5ED3.gif (220x154, 354K)

>having daughters is almost surefire humilation for a man
>having sons is almost surefire disappointment
Holy fuck it hurts so much. I can't imagine having a whore for a daughter, but I the disappointing son.