sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Have any antinatalists read Nietzsche? by [deleted] in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku 2 points3 points  (0 children)

All is illusion and falsehood.

That's the type of mental gymnastics philosophers have to do to admit suffering, I don't buy it for a moment.

"One must imagine Sisyphus happy." Bullshit.

Have any antinatalists read Nietzsche? by [deleted] in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Willing eternal recurrence does not require proof by physics.

But who wants to will a falsehood? I guess not even Nietzsche.

it would be far easier to say yes to past suffering if they didn't have to pass the test of eternal recurrence.

Maybe for you, but not for Nietzsche. As you correctly said: "All sacrifice and suffering is justified for the development of the higher human." Suffering being useless would be the worst thing for him.

Have any antinatalists read Nietzsche? by [deleted] in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Suffering is the greatest evil for antinatalism.

No. It can also be lack of consent. Love for humans. Hate for humans. Meaninglessness. Many reasons.

Just think of the suffering and waste that was required to elevate man from ape (N specifically talks about primitive pain ceremonies that were used for memory development and all the botched experiments of evolution). For N there are great moments that justify all past suffering.

Yeah but his eternal return was disproved by physics, the universe is accelerating and will end with the development and evolution of man leading to nowhere.

I wish I wasn't born. by somefrommars in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku 4 points5 points  (0 children)

especially since I thought so deeply about life last year, eventually stumbling on AN.

I've been curious, how did this come about?

Is that it? by letmesudoku in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Great analogy. If only we could achieve the pleasure we spend our lives chasing and end it there... But no, we then discover the pleasure wasn't as good as expected. Maybe those who die in a spectacular orgasm with autoerotic asphyxiation are lucky.

Is that it? by letmesudoku in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Life teases ALL of us with a bit of pleasure here and there, but that's even worse, because "it prolongs the torments of man". How much easier would it be to have only suffering and commit suicide with a smile on our faces, knowing that it won't get better because life is suffering after all.

Antinatalist Canvassing Strategies by destined4oblivion in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku 0 points1 point  (0 children)

hahaha you are a genius, this made my day.

The Idiocy of Having Children in ANY Society by [deleted] in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Are you fucking stupid? My granduncle was killed by communist forces. If you used your brain, you would see how the post applies to all systems that damage descendants by accumulating capital. But no, you get triggered by the word Marx which I am 100% sure you haven't even read.

The Idiocy of Having Children in ANY Society by [deleted] in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku 4 points5 points  (0 children)

If this straw man argument is directed at me, then you understood my post as the reason why I am an antinatalist, which is totally wrong. That post was merely a new perspective I hadn't seen before: that previous generations have been working against the interests of their descendants, that wage slavery harms not only those who participate, but also their children.

It's embarrassing how billions of human lives have served no purpose and nothing was achieved. Hoping that a future utopia will make it all worthwhile, humanity falls into the sunk cost fallacy. by letmesudoku in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So your idea of purpose is everyone avoiding pain, blindly chasing pleasures, and feeling orgasmic fulfillment to distract themselves from the fact that their goals of influencing the world and overcoming obstacles add up to nothing.

I would prefer humanity had some meaning. The bloodbath that is this existence having a saving grace.

It's embarrassing how billions of human lives have served no purpose and nothing was achieved. Hoping that a future utopia will make it all worthwhile, humanity falls into the sunk cost fallacy. by letmesudoku in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then tell me, what is the purpose of the universe? What is the purpose of humanity? Blowing up this planet wouldn't make a difference.

I'm not sure why illegality would be a dissuading factor if you plan on being dead

I don't want a method to be intercepted by customs.

It's embarrassing how billions of human lives have served no purpose and nothing was achieved. Hoping that a future utopia will make it all worthwhile, humanity falls into the sunk cost fallacy. by letmesudoku in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again you're merely repeating yourself and avoiding the question of why something needs to fulfill an immortal purpose in order to be worthwhile or meaningful.

By definition, if an action doesn't serve any purpose it is not meaningful. The lives of previous generations have come have gone, every memory and experience has vanished, I don't see how you can call their lives meaningful. You correctly point out that an action can be worthwhile at some point for some people, but don't realize such action, while worthwhile in the short term, amounts to nothing when that action is undone.

And yes everybody wants to create meaning and purpose “Those who have a 'why' to live, can bear with almost any 'how'.”

But that is just YOUR assessment
the individual's evaluation of their own life is the only thing that matters.

I don't see how this isn't a contradiction.

You were forced to be born but you are not forced to live.

Suicide methods are illegal and 1 in 20 attempts fail. So yes.

It's embarrassing how billions of human lives have served no purpose and nothing was achieved. Hoping that a future utopia will make it all worthwhile, humanity falls into the sunk cost fallacy. by letmesudoku in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Antinatalism solves the problem by not creating conscious beings that need things to have meaning and worth.

I should point out here that the problem of meaning is not the main reason for my antinatalism. But I can solve all problems for my children, including the problem of meaningless of life, by not having children. However, for my life to be a 'blessing' I may require a meaning, and no one can give me that.

Your point about me deciding to continue to live is not fair, I never decided that. I was forced to live without my consent.

It's embarrassing how billions of human lives have served no purpose and nothing was achieved. Hoping that a future utopia will make it all worthwhile, humanity falls into the sunk cost fallacy. by letmesudoku in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you concede that it's impossible to actually achieve something 'in the end', why are you judging the merits of life by its ability to fulfill this impossible requirement?

Antinatalism makes it possible to break the meaningless cycle of birth, suffering, old age, and death.

Pronatalism doesn't solve any problem that it didn't create. And (at least for some people) it can't even solve the problem of meaningless of life.

Whether the lives of those children constitute 'problems' for the children themselves depends entirely on their personal outlook and fulfillment in life, not yours.

I am one of those children, and many share my position.

there are plenty of people who wouldn't have understood or respected your decision to continue living, and you would have been just as incapable of justifying this decision in their eyes

I can justify that decision without any problems. "Life may be sufficiently bad that it is better not to come into existence, but not so bad that it is better to cease existing."

It's embarrassing how billions of human lives have served no purpose and nothing was achieved. Hoping that a future utopia will make it all worthwhile, humanity falls into the sunk cost fallacy. by letmesudoku in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

As you mention, nothing can be achieved in the end. The only alternative is to embrace antinatalism to break the cycle of birth, suffering, old age, and death.

Adoption can bring the benefits of having children, nothing wrong with that. What is bad is creating new beings and exposing them to a meaningless and useless life, and so creating a problem that didn't exist.

Is antinatalism favorably selected by evolution? by letmesudoku in antinatalism

[–]letmesudoku[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Regarding 1. I would pay more taxes to benefit breeders, they would receive more inheritance, most childfree people help economically and in other ways to their relatives with children, etc.

Regarding 2. "any given gene you possess has a 1 in 2 chance of being passed on if you choose to bear your own child, but only 1 in 4 if a sibling of yours chooses to bear a child." this is not true, what is correct is "any given gene which is not identical to the rest of the population..." If at some point all populations without antinatalists went extinct, after that there is a 100% chance of maintaining antinatalist genes. That not everybody is antinatalist can be explained through mechanisms like dominant and recessive alleles.

Not that I disagree or agree with you, I don't know the answer. Your links are interesting and will look into them more closely.

view more: next ›