Quote from: Fuddy Duddy II on January 06, 2016, 02:22:06 AM

People who can reconcile with meat-eating AT ALL, IN ANY CAPACITY WHATSOEVER

Optimists.

"Realists," or anyone that doesn't identify as a pessimist; doesn't admit that realism and pessimism are basically the same.

Any chance you could give me a rundown of anti-natalism? It sounds like something I'd be opposed to on an axiomatic level so it'd be best if I heard about it from someone I can readily ask questions.

Also if you're up for it, could you go into more depth about the quotes above? These also aren't opinions I understand.

I mean, there's not really much to "run down," really--it's a pretty straight-forward philosophy, if you ask me. As long as you know what an anti-natalist is and what an anti-natalist believes, I can't imagine there's too much else for you to know, but I suppose I can preempt some initial concerns you might have regarding the belief.

Anti-natalism, as you know, is a belief concerned with the ethics of procreation. We're skeptical of it as a commonly-accepted convention of human rights, and we challenge our opposition ("natalists") to state what precisely gives them the right to essentially bring yet another person into the world against its will, or what precisely gives us the right to play dice with another sentient organism's welfare.

Anti-natalists believe that human beings have no such right, and as such, the creation of life--in any form--is a moral crime of the highest order, and we have a moral imperative to "cease & desist," as it were, and go extinct.

To the common man, that very idea will likely seem ludicrous, and this is understandable. We are biologically hardwired to want to survive. But that notion in our minds is just that--a biologically-constructed hardwiring. Not a rationally-constructed hardwiring--not a hardwiring constructed out of reason--but a biological hardwiring.

"If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?"
- Arthur Schopenhauer (father of anti-natalism), 1851

The fact is, life is an imposition--none of us asked to be here, and none of us would ask to be here, if we were granted the ability to just sit and ponder it. We live in a world of hatred, violence, poverty, and neglect. Everything is imperfect. There is absolutely no logical reason any of us would want to be on this planet--and yet, we force well over 100 million people into the world every single year. People who didn't want it, people who didn't ask for it--but we gave it to them anyway, because of this silly, selfish notion in our heads that having children is a-okay.

This is where a lot of people tend to have questions.

You make the world sound so horrible, but I had a pretty good life. It can't be so bad, then, can it?

I'm afraid your personal experience with life is not sufficient evidence for life's purported virtue. Your life makes up less than 0.000000001% (that is not an exaggeration) of all the people who have ever lived. You simply cannot prove that, based on your personal life experience, that your child would have as "good" of a life as yours.

I say "good" in quotation marks, because the fact is, very few people are living "good" lives. People like to lie to themselves a lot, and pretend as though their lives matter. It keeps them sane, and it keeps them out of depression--personally, if I told myself that every day, I'd probably go insane. I prefer the truth of the matter.

A truly "good" life is a life free of all pain, suffering, and discomfort. Negative sensation is brought to its absolute minimum, and positive sensation is racked up to its absolute maximum. That's a good life. None of us have had that.

I've lived a fairly comfortable life myself. I was born in the first world as a straight, white, cisgendered male. My parents have been housing me for two decades, and I'm in college. I've checked my privilege. However, my life is not perfect. My family is poor, and I've been cursed with a number of decidedly disadvantageous personality traits and mood disorders that prevent me from having a more desirable life, but I digress.

Regardless of how my personal life has gone, however, I will not pretend as though I'm the only person in the universe. There's millions and millions of people, and billions and billions of other organisms on this planet, that are living in absolute squalor. As an anti-natalist, I account for all of these lives with humility.

You talk about suffering as though it's unmitigable, but without the bad, there can be no good. Couldn't it be arguing that our suffering ultimately makes us better people in the end?

While it's true that both pain and suffering can be used as heuristic teaching tools to not only prevent us from getting ourselves in dangerous situations, but also to give us valuable life experience that we can pass down to future generations (to keep them safe, and whatnot), I have a fundamental problem with the metaphysical construction of the universe, and I find that it ultimately supports my position in the end. Nobody should want to live in a universe where you must endure any level of adversity, or any degree of negative sensation, simply to "grow" as a person.

That is a fundamentally broken design.

But why would you want the human race to go extinct?

It's not necessarily that we want the human race to go extinct. Extinction is merely the byproduct of not having reproduced after a few decades.

Don't get me wrong--I personally have no sympathy whatsoever for the human race, and I really, really want us to go extinct, and I don't really care how. But anti-natalists who are less angry than myself will tell you that human extinction is not necessarily the "goal"--it's just our responsibility.

Does this mean you're okay with abortion?

Only when she's pregnant.

What if I want to be a father/mother?

The best alternative would be to adopt a child. Our adoption centers are absolutely filled to the brim right now. Many children need to be taken care of, and if you think you're up to the task, that would be your only feasible option.

What if I want my bloodline to continue?

Too bad. That is not a sufficient enough reason to impose life on anybody. That is an incredibly selfish justification.

How is having a child selfish? I think you're selfish for trying to take away my rights/take away the child's right to life!

This is where the arguments start getting very irrational and emotionally-charged.

Wanting to have a kid to extend your bloodline is axiomatically selfish. You are willing to risk it all--maybe your kid will have cancer. Maybe your kid will have two heads. Maybe your kid will have harlequin ichthyosis. You're willing to risk all of that just so you can stick your hand up and say, "I extended my bloodline." Why? What did you accomplish?

As for me being selfish, that's just silly. I'm the only one who's accounting for the fact that children have absolutely no say in their birth, and that should probably give you a little bit of pause.

Why do we need consent from something that doesn't exist yet? We can't do that.

The very fact that we can't do that is precisely what makes it so morally reprehensible in the first place.

The point is that the child will exist, and that's what makes the difference. We simply cannot ask for consent, and we will never, ever be able to--that's just something we're gonna philosophically have to deal with. There's no way around it. You're creating a life without its forethought.

It doesn't matter if they physically cannot consent--like I said, that's precisely why it's so wrong.

If someone isn't happy with their life, why don't they just kill themselves?

Well, you heartless prick, it's not that simple, is it?

First of all, there's the law. If I recall correctly, there are only four or five bumfuck countries in the world where you have the right to die. Now, what's the right to die? The right to die is essentially your right to walk into a hospital and ask to be euthanized.

You can't do this practically anywhere.

"Why do you have to get yourself euthanized anyway? Just buy a gun/a noose/these pills/etc."

Not all of us want to go out like that. That can be very messy, painful, unpleasant, and you're putting the burden of locating your body on somebody (perhaps a loved one, who will likely go into shock). Some of us would rather get the job done with more grace than that. Something a bit more humane than that. In America, we don't have that right.

Additionally, much of what makes suicide so difficult for a lot of people is the number of earthly attachments one may have. By the age you may be legally able to kill yourself (say, age 18), you will most likely have grown attached to a number of people, and killing yourself would likely result in... less than pleasant reactions from all the significant others you've left in your wake.

As for me? I have many things to do here on Earth. There's a lot of stuff I'd like to get done, and stuff that I'm currently in the process of doing. For example--As an anti-natalist, so early in the philosophy's history, it would be a complete and utter waste for me not to use the resources I have at my disposal to spread the good messages that I wish to spread--and they extend far beyond anti-natalism, too.

I wish to spread all my ideas. Veganism, feminism, the works.

I wouldn't make a very good advocate for the causes that I believe in if I were fucking dead, would I?

---

I'll answer your other questions in a separate post.

**The person I called a "heartless prick" was hypothetical. None of those questions were actually asked by anybody--they're just the most common arguments that I see from natalists. So yeah. No ban, please.

Quote from: Fuddy Duddy II on January 06, 2016, 02:22:06 AM

People who can reconcile with meat-eating AT ALL, IN ANY CAPACITY WHATSOEVER

Optimists.

"Realists," or anyone that doesn't identify as a pessimist; doesn't admit that realism and pessimism are basically the same.

Also if you're up for it, could you go into more depth about the quotes above? These also aren't opinions I understand.

Non-vegans bother me because they are tacitly in support of a global holocaust. People who eat meat are honestly no better than Nazis in my eyes--and in some ways, they're worse.

Optimists bother me because they're idiots. There is nothing to have high hopes for on this planet. Everything is terrible, and nothing is ever going to get better.

"Realists" bother me, because they're simply a group of pretentious cocksuckers who think they're "above" the whole optimist/pessimist dichotomy. In reality, "realists" are really just pessimists who don't have the cock to admit it yet.

Pessimism is an outlook where you expect bad shit to happen--but in reality, bad shit always happens. Therefore, pessimism and realism are essentially one in the same token. If you claim to be a realist, and you expect good shit to happen, then you're not a realist. There is nothing "real" about that sentiment.

no one cares

Quote from: Kupoop on January 07, 2016, 10:24:46 AM

no one cares

"Answering Cadenza's question"

Is your name Cadenza?

No?

Then get the fuck out if you don't care.

no

The belief itself makes sense to a degree but I'm always caught on three points about it.

The first one being that the belief system is utterly a futile goal and a hypocrtical one at that, to a shade. In the roughly 400,000 years or so of us being a species there has never been a single uniting cause or ideology that's been held in the hearts and minds of every single person.

Which, in order to work, in theory, anti-natalism needs 100% from people. And that's not possible. And it won't ever be possible. Which means, that so long as the movement exists it'll be slightly hypocritical, as it'll need to pass it's values on to somebody. Which pretty much means using more people to spread the idea. Fill in the blanks on that one.

The second, of course, being the idea of unborn lifeforms having no consent on the matter. When it comes down to things, simply put, we have NO IDEA what, if anything exists after we're dead, or before we're born. I don't really like to make bets on anything so unknown.

But I think it's rather stupid to take any stance on such a massive unkown factor that nobody has any real solid grounds to argue anything for or against.

Which leads to my third point. If the basic concept of anti-natalism is unreachable and unattainable, and hinges on a truthfully, enormous unknown factor as a basis, then that leaves the reality of life. It's there. I'm here. I can choose how to live my time. Most importantly, I can choose what I want to percieve more. Focus on all the negative stuff in the world? Or focus on the positive?

But, ultimately, my time ends at some point, somewhere. And, if we're taking the current standard of universal mathematics into account, then eventually, all life will supposedly end on its own.

No man made intervention required.

When does the number of descendents someone will have outweigh the negative results of murdering them before they can reproduce?

I remain relatively convinced, based on the direction humanity seems to be heading, that in the future the vast majority of humans will be able to live very content, happy lives, and we'll have no need for anti-natalistic philosophy as a means of preventing suffering. It's a viable solution to the current problems that exist today, but I don't view it as the only solution. Plus, if humans were to die out, nature would just keep trucking along and be as "Miserable" as it was before we were around. I'd rather have humanity around and progress towards the point of being able to basically shepherd all life towards the greatest possible means of fulfillment and happiness.

I agree that anti-natalism is a solution, I just don't think it's the solution.

The first one being that the belief system is utterly a futile goal and a hypocrtical one at that, to a shade. In the roughly 400,000 years or so of us being a species there has never been a single uniting cause or ideology that's been held in the hearts and minds of every single person.

Which, in order to work, in theory, anti-natalism needs 100% from people.

This is simply not true. No movement in history has ever needed 100% from anybody, and I see no reason why anti-natalism should be any different.

Let's pretend for a moment that 90% of people are anti-natalists. A tall order, but still less than 100%.

The remaining 10% would have to reproduce so much to overcome the 90%. It would be a futile endeavor. The remaining natalists would eventually be grandfathered nearly out of existence.

As for now, it's not hypocritical in the slightest to assume that an idea would further permeate the zeitgeist the more people talk about it. Just because an anti-natalist doesn't have any kids, doesn't mean he can't pass on the message to future generations. And if all the anti-natalists on Earth die before they can even pick up any momentum, that's okay--ideas never die. The works of anti-natalists will survive.

So, no, I can't say that's much of a concern.

The second, of course, being the idea of unborn lifeforms having no consent on the matter. When it comes down to things, simply put, we have NO IDEA what, if anything exists after we're dead, or before we're born. I don't really like to make bets on anything so unknown.

But I think it's rather stupid to take any stance on such a massive unkown factor that nobody has any real solid grounds to argue anything for or against.

So do I--which is precisely why I'm an anti-natalist.

Because, like you said, it's stupid to take a stance on a massive unknown factor. Anti-natalists aren't taking a stance.

The only ones taking any stance are the natalists. By having a child, you are stating, "I assume this child would be okay with being born."

Anti-natalists do no such thing. None of us are assuming that children don't want to be born. We take a neutral stance--we don't know, so we can't assume anything. By not having a child, you aren't saying, "I assume this child doesn't want to be born." That makes no sense.

Just because you don't do something for someone else doesn't mean that you're assuming that they don't want it to be done. There's a lot of factors that go into it. I've never thrown my mother a surprise birthday party--never in my life, and I probably never will. Am I assuming that she doesn't want a surprise birthday party? No. In all likelihood, she'd probably really appreciate a surprise birthday party. But I don't know that for sure, so I don't throw her one.

So, no. Actions speak volumes of your assumptions--but inaction? You can't honestly tell me that anti-natalists think children don't want to be born. What we're saying is that we can't know--therefore, we have no right to guess.

But, ultimately, my time ends at some point, somewhere. And, if we're taking the current standard of universal mathematics into account, then eventually, all life will supposedly end on its own.

No man made intervention required.

Well, sure--if you spot an injured deer in the woods, and you have a gun, you have a choice--either put it the fuck out of its misery, or fuck around with it. Maybe torture it. Peel its skin off and let it slowly die an agonizing death.

Personally, I'd prefer the former!

Quote from: Pysgnirish on January 07, 2016, 12:26:10 PM

I enjoyed reading that summary. I've got a few questions on the fringe;

If all life isn't worth living, how do you propose teaching this philosophy to other animals who strictly follow the hardwiring?
(Without infringing on an animal's free will or doing so inhumanely).

Fruit asked me the same question a couple weeks ago, and it's a great question to ask, and not one that I have a wonderfully developed answer for. Obviously, going out in the wild and manually sterilizing every animal in existence would be a ridiculously futile endeavor.

We'd have to come up with something like the suppression field from Half-Life 2. Not sure how that works--some form of electromagnetic radiation that's strong enough to kill sperm cells on contact, maybe? I dunno.

Quote

Also, given that the end result is extinction, why deal with "lesser" problems such as sexism, animal cruelty, etc? Why attempt a utopia if the only apparent utopia is simply not existing at all?

Simple enough. An anti-natalist must come to terms with the fact that his ideas are vastly unpopular. People are going to be having children for many, many, many years from now. We're not going to make any real dents in the birthrate any time soon.

So, knowing that, it would be in the anti-natalist's best interest to do his part in making the world a better and more comfortable place to live in for all those inevitable sentient beings.

I mean, if we manage to get rid of hunger, poverty, and everything else that makes the world fucking suck, maybe procreation could be justifiable after all. But that's a tall, tall order.

That's the idea, though. We're not attempting a "utopia"--we're just trying to make the world suck less. The whole reason we're anti-natalists is because the world sucks so much--so why not do something about it?

That all sounds fair enough, thanks for answering.