for you to become an anti-natalist?

Note: I'm not talking about how bad your life has to get; I'm talking about how bad life has to get. How many more holocausts, how many more world wars, how many more plagues, how many more genocides, violent protests, presidencies, how many more people have to starve, how many more people have to get raped, murdered, stolen from, extorted, exploited, etc., how many more animals need to get killed, how much more money has to get wasted on frivolous entertainments at the cost of even more suffering, how much of all that shit NEEDS to happen for YOU to say something like, "Okay, okay. No more. This 'life' thing is getting out of control. This is too stupid. We should stop perpetuating the species. It's not worth it anymore."

Meta suggested that I make another anti-natalist thread, but I thought I'd just put this little spin on it.

A lot of the people I've discussed this with often get caught on this snag.

Usually, I can get people to concede the following premises:
- sentient life is the only thing in the universe that has any objective value
- sentient life is heavily prone to suffering in a wide variety of forms; this is what gives life its value
- suffering is (invariably) a negative value experience
- all suffering ought to be minimized, if not outright eradicated

but what people tend to have trouble with is the following premise:
- all the suffering in the world outweighs the "good" in the world
- there could never be a "good" that makes life, as a whole, "worth it"

A lot of people think that the "good outweighs the bad", and that "without the bad, there can be no good--therefore, the bad has some degree of positive value." Both of these assertions are, from my perspective, insane. Even more insane, however, is the assertion that there is "balance" in the world. That's even worse.

So, I just have to ask... call it a thought experiment, I don't know, but how bad does it have to get for you to concede that "replication for the sake of replication" with regard to the human condition is a fundamentally insidious prospect that should be eschewed in favor of anti-natalism?

Personally, I think we're already there. We've been there since abiogenesis.
Or, well, "asapiogenesis", if you will.

Nothing. It's not even theoretically possible.

I would be an anti-natalist if I didn't see it, as I've said before, as the 'ultimate scepticism'.

I don't see it as even remotely feasible, so I really assign the idea any utility. I have no decent argument against it, except the notion that my promulgation of it would essentially be a waste of time.

I would be an anti-natalist if I didn't see it, as I've said before, as the 'ultimate scepticism'.

I don't see it as even remotely feasible, so I really assign the idea any utility. I have no decent argument against it, except the notion that my promulgation of it would essentially be a waste of time.

Though you do, of course, realize that it's that sort of defeatist mentality that "makes" it a waste of time, similar to how a lot of third party proponents in America will refuse to vote for who they actually believe in, simply because of their (self-fulfilling) prophecy that their third party candidate will never get into office, because... no one "else" votes for them. That's gotta some type of cognitive bias.

"Argument from futility", is that a thing? That ought to be a logical fallacy, right?

For me?

Life could be hell, but I would never want all of humanity gone either, just because suffering exists.

For me?

Life could be hell, but I would never want all of humanity gone either, just because suffering exists.

Wonderful--now I get to ask my favorite question in the world.

Why?

Lmao. You guys lack any sense of humor. I'm out.

>said something blatantly ignorant
>wasn't anything even remotely hinting it was meant to be humourous
>gets called out
>makes the ex-post claim it was a joke
>all while in serious

Good, leave.

For the record, I'm not an anti-natalist but I still don't plan on having children.

I'll become an anti-natalist when we can put our minds into superior, far lasting robot bodies.

Quote from: Numb Digger on February 03, 2015, 08:02:30 AM

Enjoy what little of life you can, even if it is full of suffering.

You see, though, that's precisely what I'm saying. Like, yeah. Do that.

But why drag others into it? You don't have to have kids to enjoy your life--I would argue that kids tend to do the exact opposite.

I wasn't planning on having kids for the precise reason that they have a tendency to make life unenjoyable - not to mention the fact that I think there are too many people on the planet. So I suppose I am contributing to the cause of anti-natalism unwillingly.

Would anti-natalism apply to animals? Surely we can't know if an animal wants to be born willingly, and I'm guessing you won't exactly have a good time if you aren't born human in this world.

Of course, I would advocate the demise of humans if we ever develop robotics that are superior to our species.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 08:07:20 AM

For the record, I'm not an anti-natalist but I still don't plan on having children.

C

Would you advocate that others have children?

I'm not going to actively promote or encourage pro-creation, no, but I'm not going to chastise people for having kids, either. I'd rather manage the fallout, so to speak. I do think, however,   that the choice to have a child should be subject to massive moral, personal and financial considerations; large, somewhat poor working-class families make my blood boil.

My own decision to not have children is born mostly from personal and moral considerations.

I'm not going to chastise people for having kids, either.

Neither would I. I hope I never gave the impression that I did, because I don't, and I never have. That would be obnoxious and fruitless--it's not like there's an undo button. If there was, then procreation wouldn't be an issue for me at all. But no, strictly, what I try to do is incite trepidation within people who do want to start a family down the line. That's all I really can do, apart from engaging in... Whatever this is. Internet polemics.

That's stupid, and not the natural cycle of things.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature

Creating or giving life is not evil my any means whatsoever, and probably the dumbest of all your ideology. Life is what you make of it. If you're going to say that it's bad and evil, then I guess it is.

[insert nonsensical, ambiguous platitude here]
"life is what you make of it, durr"

That's philosophy to you. You're such a waste of time.

Life is chaos.

Wrong. Everything is determined. If you fail to predict an event accurately, then all that means is that there are outlying variables that you failed to account for. Period. There is no chaos. At all.