Why I'm not an Anti-Natalist

We are remarkably well adapted to living. The only filter applied to organisms is whether they could survive. Which organism survives better? - Org A, who enjoys the process of living or Org B, who is indifferent to life. It’s a no brainer.

We are alive today, because we desire to be alive. If a person is born, and their life is only suffering, death will be extraordinarily appealing and there wouldn’t be anything to stop them from seeking death. Death is easy. Life is a game we play that comes pre-installed with an off button that dangles above one’s head.

An organism can kill itself, and then there wont be any recollection of the suffering. One’s identity is really just the accumulation of one’s awareness. If one loses awareness, one loses identity. Given that, as soon as we lose awareness of something, it isn’t real. For real is just what we are aware of. I’m aware, therefore, I am.

The potency of pain is completely relative to one’s happiness. If one’s life was only suffering, losing it would be a blessing. Someone stubs their toe, and there’s pain. It eventually goes away, and all is well. No one reflects sadly on the loss of awareness in relation to a sore toe. Why is this? Because it was unpleasant, period.

One endures suffering for a reason. They endure because there’s something more which they value. If one is suffering, one has to seek what they value and question whether their methods/approach is the smoothest. Suffering highlights malpractice. It is part of the solution, not part of the problem.

We’re all just reacting. If you want children, then you’ll react to that want. If there’s resistance, then you’ll react to that. What doesn’t exist, doesn’t have affect. An unborn child, doesn’t exist, therefore wont resist life. You are selfish. I am selfish. We only need to consider ourselves. If you think it’s a bad for someone to exist,then you’ll follow that path. If you think it’s good for someone to exist, the you’ll follow that path. There’s no real dilemma, except when we’re trying to change each other, and we do that only because we want to also. Again, struggle highlights malpractice, so if it’s not going well, step back and consider what you’re doing.

I say, bring a child into the world, tell them about suicide, say it’s OK to do so and then let them live. If they really want it, they’ll take it. You can be a responsible parent and make sure they don’t overreact, but also empower them. Life is like a roll of a dice, but if it goes well, one can soar and if it goes bad, one can suicide and forget it all.

So the odds are stacked against happiness since if we anticipate only bad, we can cut the rope to life, and if we anticipate good, we can pull and enjoy the process of pulling. There’s no real harm.

Are you sayin if something isn’t remmebered then it never happened/existed?

I think what I meant was that if you’re not aware of something, then for you, it isn’t real. All we have is ourselves, therefore, for all intensive purposes, that something isn’t real.

I see why you pose the question. I don’t deny that in an instant, one can be unaware of something, whilst another is aware of it. So in that instant, it exists. Usually in these instances, one is aware of another, and believes in the other’s experience, then one can become aware, but it is still via one’s own awareness.