I’ve been holding off on talking about pollyannaism and other psychological processes simply because I don’t think one needs to know about it in order to accept antinatalism. That’s something I´d rather talk about when discussing philosophical pessimism and not so much antinatalism but you are absolutely right, of course.
What about the premise that life isn’t necessarily bad?
The x-axis represents time, and the y-axis represents standard of living. Obviously, people aren’t born into sophistication, so yes, there are fundamental problems like what’s written in red. Turning point A represents where life starts to turn around from commitment to sophistication, and turning point B represents where that commitment yields fruition.
However, life doesn’t have to remain merely problematic. People can become sophisticated and enjoy what’s written in green.
The problem is that many parents and civilized people don’t care to make the effort towards sophistication. They’re content with myopic suffering.
Perhaps the problem isn’t life itself, but the absence of sophisticated life.
On top of that, antinatalism is self-destructive, and ultimately, the opponents of antinatalism will thrive and prosper, leaving those who suffer behind. Antinatalism needs an approach to deal with its opponents or else it will be left suffering.
It’s a bit late now for antinatalism. It’s like showing up at a party, completely destroying everything and everyone there, and then voluntarily leaving the wrecked space and feeling moral about it.
But on the whole I very much support voluntary, value based restraint in reproduction. There are far too many cynics on the planet.
Good point.
Approach how, through genocide?
Irrelevant. Antinatalism doesn’t say that all lives are bad overall, it says that all lives contain some bad.
It would be great if you wonderful people would actually read the thread before posting in it.
It´s a bit to late to save the environment. Let’s not do anything about it. Let’s pollute the shit out of this world.
Same kind of rationale.
Invaluable contribution.
Hmmm. Good beer.
Portugal’s pretty nice. Good fish.
You don’t understand anti-natalism in the least.
Oh but I do. It’s people who don’t value the experience and effects of human life, who value it negatively. Pretty fucking simple actually.
I am fine with that view, but I loathe the cowards who try to spread it as if it’s something more than the worst kind of apathy imaginable.
In my party-example, my preferred course of action is to fucking clean up the room after you’ve ruined it, not to leave it after you’re done ruining it, head high like some sanctimonious piece of shit.
But I know I should have never entered Volchoks thread. All I have to say is “don’t be fruitful and don’t multiply”. I’m totally fine with that.
…I can’t argue with FC in this one.
And the only question I have for you is: Why don’t you read this thread before asking questions that have already been answered?
Pretty fucking wrong actually. Pretty fucking ignorant as well. Might want to read a thing or two about antinatalism or, you know, read the actual thread you’re participating in…
One GREAT argument for anti-natalism;
Look at Mars. There are no Martians; there is no suffering on Mars and there is no deprivation of Martians because they don’t exist. How often do humans look to Mars and bemoan the lack of pleasures that Martians are not experiencing because they don’t exist?
Answer: Never.
But, if there were Martians and they were suffering as humans do (10,000 people killed in the Philippines due to the hurricane this week) then we surely would pity their condition.
If anti-natalists had their way and the human race gradually died out the Earth would just be another lifeless planet orbiting the sun. What’s wrong with that?
Answer: Nothing. 
As an anarcho primitivist and nihilist I don’t believe humanity will be existentially liberated until the collapse of modern civilization occurs where billions upon billions will die in the aftermath however I don’t wish our extinction whatsoever.
I’ll be content if 5,000 of our species survives the culling to inhabit the new transformed world.
Why would an anti-natalist consider it great that someone wanted to live?
You mingled two issues here. You state the conclusion of antinatalists that life is never worth starting, then move to a moral position (or a practical one, perhaps, but in any case a different kind of conclusion) that continuing is up to each person to decide. Now why wouldn’t an antinatalist also evaluate whether life, in general, is worth continuing? It seems to me that for the same reasons they decide life is not worth starting, they could consider life not worth continuing. The issue of whether each person has the right to decide is a separate issue and a different kind of issue. But it is presented as if it eliminates the issue of anti-natalists evaluating whether life is worth continuing living.
Which is extremely relevent regarding hypocrisy. If the anti-natalist considers life to be worth continuing - which those that continue to live seem to be asserting pretty clearly in relation to their own lives - then the anti-natalist needs to explain why their lives are worth having. Their right to live, even in hypocrisy, is not on the table. That is a separate, moral issue. What is it that makes your life worth continuing?
Does it command people not to have babies?
The antinatalist position is also based on emotion. An emotional reaction to suffering. Worth is always a subjective evaluation in matter like this.
A new functionalism: based on recurring and transfomred systems via new conflict theory is in the works.
Preference to live is not sustainable by an emotional background of increasing entropiy. The reason that the NSA fiasco is fading faster than we can say it, is because virtual reality has to be the final arbitrer. Of the conflict between reality over feelings.
it’s a fight for the finidh beteeen functional probability and emotional uncertainty. Due to diminishing faith and diminishing , self confidence. Which direction will predominate the outcome of the struggle? That is the question.
All the blade runners in the world can not compete against the vast rescources poured into the new ontology, the emergence of the new synthesis of the total transofmation into the man-superman. man requires the total emotional deprivation, in furtherance of the re affirmation of the basic contradicttion. (To be, or not)
, In a new parlance of variable accordance, the gauge of preference, rerefrence, tolarance will be afforded a maximization of utilization of reality matrixes manipulated to compensate and control power.
This synthesis will sublimate as the new ground of faith and self assurance,schematised from a singular to structurally multiple monadic system.
Suffering,worth, are no longer predicative on basis of pain, since pain management will defuse the ontological quest for the old dialectically sought for synthesis. A reapplication of functional analysis will prempt the cynical post modern vacous anti dialectical pathos, giving a Levin type mathematical program, topically ascertained through integrative capabilities.
And hence, all doomsday scenarios will be averted,and all death wish based , destructive feelings canceled out, by de-signaling of the negative probable outcomes.
Antinatalism will become mute, since procreation will be assured by clinical and not by natural means.
It will not be a question of worth,quality or emotions, it will be based on survival of the species,functionally based probable outcomes.
I don’t see how that’s relevant.
On the contrary. I’m “unminging” it. Whether life is worth starting or not and whether life is worth continuing or not are two very distinct questions that are usually mingled together. I don’t state a conclusion and go on to concluded something else like you’re suggesting. They’re conclusions regarding two separate situations: Is it worth starting a life ? Never. Is it worth to continue living once a person is alive ? In some cases it may be (according to antinatalism). It’s not just a matter of leaving the decision up to the person, Antinatalism has no problem saying that in some cases, it may be worth continuing to live.
The antinatalist considers that some lives might be worth continuing.
While I am an antinatalist, my opinions are sometimes “stronger” or more agressive than the basic antinatalist claims and there’s no point in talking about personal matters since my goal with this thread is to destroy some myths regarding antinatalism, and not to expose my personal life. Which is why, the fact that fj and humean claim to be happy and enjoy their lives is completely irrelevant. Antinatalism doesn’t say that it is impossible to enjoy one’s life, or certain things in life and it doesn’t say that you shouldn’t. I think it’s about time we stop with these appeals to emotion.
It asserts that procreating is immoral. There are other claims but that’s the main one.
Antinatalism is based on rational considerations regarding life, non-existence and the nature of reality. Of course suffering causes an emotion reaction in most people, namely pain and discomfort, and if it didn’t we wouldn’t care about it, but it does not follow in any way that Antinatalism is an emotional reaction. Lol.
Is naturalism an emotional reaction ? Is consequentialism an emotional reaction ? You can’t even say that of philosophical pessimism. That really is a cheap argument.
Ya’no when you think about it, the Earth is merely a festering spec of dust in the universe producing ever growing scum. So to save the universe before it gets really bad, shouldn’t we destroy the Earth too?
This view called antinatalism is retarded. You’re better than this, volchok.