Is anti-natalism immoral?

More laughable

anti-natalism is the only moral ideology, it’s also based as fuck and redpilled as fuck
h*Mans are a disease that needs to be wiped out

>h*Mans are a disease that needs to be wiped out

Humans are literally the only chance for all life from this planet, which is bound to become uninhabitable at some point in the future.

Go fuck yourself and do not fabricate any morals to your egotistic ideology.

t. human

>Humans are literally the only chance for all life from this planet
Give me one (1) good reason life should be preserved.

There is nothing to do in the universe except spread like cancer. AI would be more suited for that task anyway for obvious reasons.

I like this post.

redpill us about death next

Attached: 1479738717849.png (627x502, 245K)

>Humans are literally the only chance for all life from this planet
There will be no (non-domesticated) life left until the point where humans start to save anything tho.

Attached: species-extinction-and-human-population.png (576x363, 73K)

Nobody ever consented to being born, and most people will grow up to be unhappy in a slowly dying world. If you are confident you can provide your child a good existence, okay, but most people should just save their time/energy/money.

70% of all the birds right now are farmed chicken. How is that helping them in anyway?
twitter.com/bengoldsmith/status/998658066676699141

Anti natalists make their tribe and future unsafe and unstable it is a táctic to destroy your enemy to destroy their source of resistente, reproduction, enuchs and castration is a sign of complete extermination and defeat.

You must have 8 children minimum or more if you are a European to survive.

Attached: Screenshot_2018-06-05-01-33-29.png (720x1280, 575K)

schoenauer doesn't think suicide is a solution as all existence (the universe) is suffering, it basically only terminates (prematurely) one type of suffering

human pursuits according to him gives greater clarification to this idea, that is the more humans focus of pursuits, the more we can see how chaotic (suffering) existence is, it enhances our suffering

he provides only a certain alleviation, the mysterious math-art realm, that is there are art (no eroticism) or math theorems(painting, music) etc that you can focus on for a moment so enlightening and even fleeting that you are immediately transfixed, and only to be dropped again like lead onto the floor of existence

i don't understand how the second type relates to what you said about schopenhauer.

no one wants another to be like a maggot

Oh i undestand now, you mean they simply don't want to pass on the suffering. I guess my original assumption was kind of close but not completely so i dind't understood it.

not pass on per se but be born into it
as he thinks all existence is (leads to) suffering as nothing is inherently satisfiable, that is speaking beyond human undertaking, such as friendship but also animals, trees and so on
it's a little bit misantropic but on the universal level, with the caveat that it's not hate but pity

>a little bit
I can understand how human suffering is brought upon(will>desire(suffering)>satisfying the desire followe by a bleak moment of happiness>desire(suffering) until inf) but how does the explain the suffering of animals or non sentient things like plants and the universe

it's because it is inherently meaningless, that is a repetition of a fruitless endeavor on and on, not suffering in pain or sadness but suffering in bearing the immeasurable weight of meaningless existence

Good thread, based anerican philosophy poster!

>"To marry is to halve your rights and double your duties."
Based. I'am assuming he died without ever marrying or having children

Of course not wtf

No. Unfortunately niggers don't understand the concept, shit out 5+ kids, wonder why their neighborhoods can't support new gang members and then blame the white man for being racist.

he was very derisive of women, his anti women essay is cringy even now, he died bitter old man but he influence a lot, mostly neetchee who didn't agree with his world will -> suffering gimmick and thought that the world will was life, will to live and so on, that struggle (suffering in schopenhauer terms) was the key to being another level of existence

but he was a superb writer

ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/essays/chapter5.html

I dont buy Schopys argument. Firstly its not clear that all desire is suffering. I desire right now to finish this comment yet I am not suffering. People desire to win in a competitive game yet dont suffer. People desire to eat yet most find it a fun and worthwhile experience, etc etc. Secondly life does not seem to be a series of quick satisfactions than striving. Rather it seems to be a series of tasks that occupy ones mind. Right now I am occupied with listening to music and writing this comment. Or I could be occupied with reading a book, watching tv, eating, etc. Even doing nothing can occupy my mind as I can daydream and not be "striving". Point being that life does not mostly consist of "striving" but rather being occupied with some task. The striving Schopy is describing happens between tasks making it far less frequent.

first world problems: the post

??

My point is that you live in the first world, therefore you don't even know what suffering is, since everything had been handed to you on a silver platter

Happiness is relative though not absolute. South American countries have life satisfaction ratings on par with America despite being far far poorer.

ourworldindata.org/grapher/happiness-cantril-ladder?country=DNK

Arent Magyars first world now, too?

holy shit, you were phone all along?

Anti-natalism is useful when you want to pretend that you are doing something good by just not doing anything.

>Happiness is relative though not absolute.
I guess.
>South American countries have life satisfaction ratings on par with America despite being far far poorer.
That's only because their education is so poor, they simply aren't aware of their own reality. Ignorance is bliss and all that.
definitely not

Attached: get me out of here.png (972x576, 35K)

>That's only because their education is so poor, they simply aren't aware of their own reality. Ignorance is bliss and all that.

That doesn't matter though. What determines a "satisfactory life" is entirely subjective.

desire leads to suffering, desire is just desire but it's endless unfulfillment leads to the cycle of more desired unfulfillment, sisyphus and the stone and so on, this is the suffering
these goals that you mentioned, competition, eating etc even neetchee would not approve, they are slave morality, they don't make existence meaningful, they don't negate the repetition of needing to feel good, ofc in modern day terms we can explain it in terms of brain chemistry but way back then people needed purpose, and god wasn't there to answer them

To see what it'll lead to.

Antinatalists on imageboards or on reddit seem like a bunch of bitter shitposters, and their prophet Benatar is an example of bad sophist. There is some worth in discussing it though, to question some intuitions.

The average African woman has 5 kids. They're amassing in India too. Thanks for the positive example breederfags.

For the lulz

For people who have mental or physical illnesses, I would say no. You shouldn't roll the dice with the possibly of inflicting a lifetime of pain upon your child, that's not fair.

t. the product of an autistic and BPD parents

>quotes Shakespeare

Into the trash it goes.

I support free abortions for brown eyed females.

Funny (((coincidence))) how it's only White people who get suckered into this.

Attached: 1534455234789.png (557x625, 343K)

>BPD
no such thing

>on reddit
Most of them are just typical millenioids who are terrified of any form of responsibility and too self-centered to view children positively.