Why is anti-natalism so popular these days despite the quality of life being better than ever?

Why is anti-natalism so popular these days despite the quality of life being better than ever?

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

Yakub: World's Greatest Dad Shirt $21.68

Ape Out Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=60E8C2A49DD981E9878264BDB3E61245
    https://libgen.is/book/index.php?md5=D60746444D2AB929AB62802799C0F779

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Better quality of life allows people to reflect on their actions and stop behaving like animals

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      People have too much time on their hands to think. Living organisms were never supposed to attain higher-level consciousness. Back in the day, people who lived in caves followed their basal instincts of trying to survive. You can see when people started thinking, they started having existential problems, like Ecclesiastes .

      Children are an expensive lifestyle-choice which competes with nice apartments, vacations, constantly caring for pets, playing eight hours of video games a day, and other pursuits in an excessively developed culture.

      All of these, we truly live in a time of all times.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >make pro anti-natalist meme
        >dress the Chad like he's a depressed basement dweller
        Lol

        • 1 month ago
          Cult of Passion

          >depressed basement dweller
          I am.

          I 3AM grind at the gym alone a lot.

          I havnt had sex in years.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because incels exist

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People have too much time on their hands to think. Living organisms were never supposed to attain higher-level consciousness. Back in the day, people who lived in caves followed their basal instincts of trying to survive. You can see when people started thinking, they started having existential problems, like Ecclesiastes .

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Children are an expensive lifestyle-choice which competes with nice apartments, vacations, constantly caring for pets, playing eight hours of video games a day, and other pursuits in an excessively developed culture.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Benatar/interviewer go for a walk in the park
    >interviewer forwards the idea that life can be improved
    >Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way)
    >Benatar literally starts crying: "life is unacceptable"
    >interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)

    Benatar is a mentally unstable weasel. No wonder he mostly avoids interviews. On top of that he admits that his ideas are damaging while using the excuse that his work is academic and only meant for those that seek it out (note that these people are likely to have personality disorders and mental illness). Benatar objectively creates suffering and given that he's under the delusion that his work is toward the opposite: he's delusional and irrational.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Benatar literally starts crying: "life is unacceptable"

      He's just like me

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Theres a lot of antinatalist academics. I wonder why?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There's a lot of gender studies academics. I wonder why?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Lack of a proper husband, that's easy

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There's a lot of gender studies academics. I wonder why?

        Academia is for ugly people, that's why.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Observer syndrome. They haven't bitten into life so they fade away thinking too much about all that's wrong with the world.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        I'm an academic (not anti-natalist) and I think it's a sort of sour grapes deal. You spend your 20s in grad school and your 30s fighting to get tenure and by the time your "life starts" you're 35. Lots of people in this position don't have kids and never will in the few short years before you (if you're a guy) become a pretty old dad who won't be there for your kids for as long as you'd like. Rather than go "oops this might have been a frickup, I made a bad life choice" people are inclined to rationalize it as a net positive: they've actually done something ethically sound and kind by not having children, rather than just missing out on it chasing the phd and tenure.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >people are inclined to rationalize it as a net positive: they've actually done something ethically sound and kind by not having children
          The worst thing about anti-natalism isn't even what it advocates for, it's how redundant it is. You have people in a low-fertility, increasingly ageing culture, heaping praise and virtue on what it was they were already doing, as if it were some noble cause and not the result of their pursuit of status, wealth, or individual satisifaction. They should instead advocate for an "effective" anti-natalism and encourage wars in Africa and sterilizations of people using child tax credits, not pat themselves on the back for doing their part by doing nothing at all. They should donate their estates to the IDF or the Russian and Ukrainian armed forces, the true heroes of anti natalism

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm with you. I think you saw a similar phenomenon with covid too. Shut-ins were boasting openly about how heroic they were for...sitting in their underwear on the couch like they've always done and have continued to do ever since. The world just passes these people by and I want to grab them and scream that this is their one chance to be alive and see the world and improve it along the way.
            And we both know why no one is going to advocate for the anti-natalism that would actually fix some problems lul. Imagine trying to run for office on the platform of "there's too many poor Africans, we gotta start sterilizing these people or they'll outnumber us a hundred to one and our current infrastructure simply can't support the amount of global welfare we'll need."
            I'd really love to see someone try though. Imagine an otherwise mainstream neoliberal American politician peddling the typical bullshit about democracy and tax cuts for the middle class and just weaving in "we need way less Indians, we're going to be waist-deep in Rajeshes doing the needful by 2050 if we don't cut their birthrate to replacement level"

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Indian fertility peaked already it really is just Africa (and MENA) that hasn't gotten the memo yet that if you stop reproducing you can live like a petty king, but there is a tremendous cultural gulf between people who value cash and people who value children

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >rationalize it as a net positive

          Yes but people who have children do the same thing and rationalize that as a positive. Whatever life decision you make, you will tend to rationalize it. Your emotional wellbeing depends upon it.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way)

      why have child who sentient when nobody values sentience anyway and commits philosophical death ---moron !

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >quality of life being better than ever?
    Lol the pride of people today is astounding

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Quality of life better than ever? Ha, materially and in terms of comfort sure. In terms of positive experiences, I doubt the quality of life has ever been LOWER. People seem miserable, on average. There’s a strong pull towards conformity and the path of least resistance, which if you follow as a man is very shallow. Is the average person making good money, has fulfilling relationships romantic and otherwise, and genuinely lives a life that excites them? Or are they working a job they hate, don’t really enjoy their time off, scared of living how they really want etc. And also a complete garbage mentality which is the culmination of the complete focus on science instead of knowing our self better. Of course, a lot of people are thriving and can take advantage of all the material benefits. Also, please stop posting this book. Most of the people who post it aren’t genuine, they would change their views if they were living better.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Do you think medieval peasants were not conforming? That they just lived as they wanted? They might have been happier but not for those reasons.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People do not feel life is worth living as their lives become simpler and more isolated.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      There's a few billion too many people on the planet and we're destroying it. Huge parts of the earth will be literally uninhabitable by the end of the century and it will collapse society in countries that are still functioning with all the migration. It makes sense to have a pessimistic view of the future.

      Quality of life better than ever? Ha, materially and in terms of comfort sure. In terms of positive experiences, I doubt the quality of life has ever been LOWER. People seem miserable, on average. There’s a strong pull towards conformity and the path of least resistance, which if you follow as a man is very shallow. Is the average person making good money, has fulfilling relationships romantic and otherwise, and genuinely lives a life that excites them? Or are they working a job they hate, don’t really enjoy their time off, scared of living how they really want etc. And also a complete garbage mentality which is the culmination of the complete focus on science instead of knowing our self better. Of course, a lot of people are thriving and can take advantage of all the material benefits. Also, please stop posting this book. Most of the people who post it aren’t genuine, they would change their views if they were living better.

      >quality of life being better than ever?
      Lol the pride of people today is astounding

      Children are an expensive lifestyle-choice which competes with nice apartments, vacations, constantly caring for pets, playing eight hours of video games a day, and other pursuits in an excessively developed culture.

      https://editions-hache.com/essais/pdf/kaczynski2.pdf
      THE POWER PROCESS
      33. Human beings have a need (probably based in biology) for something that we will call the “power process.” This is closely related to the need for power (which is widely recognized) but is not quite the same thing. The power process has four elements. The three most clear-cut of these we call goal, effort and attainment of goal. (Everyone needs to have goals whose attainment requires effort, and needs to succeed in attaining at least some of his goals.) The fourth element is more difficult to define and may not be necessary for everyone. We call it autonomy and will discuss it later (paragraphs 42-44).

      34. Consider the hypothetical case of a man who can have anything he wants just by wishing for it. Such a man has power, but he will develop serious psychological problems. At first he will have a lot of fun, but by and by he will become acutely bored and demoralized. Eventually he may become clinically depressed. History shows that leisured aristocracies tend to become decadent. This is not true of fighting aristocracies that have to struggle to maintain their power. But leisured, secure aristocracies that have no need to exert themselves usually become bored, hedonistic and demoralized, even though they have power. This shows that power is not enough. One must have goals toward which to exercise one’s power.

      35. Everyone has goals; if nothing else, to obtain the physical necessities of life: food, water and whatever clothing and shelter are made necessary by the climate. But the leisured aristocrat obtains these things without effort. Hence his boredom and demoralization.

      36. Nonattainment of important goals results in death if the goals are physical necessities, and in frustration if nonattainment of the goals is compatible with survival. Consistent failure to attain goals throughout life results in defeatism, low self-esteem or depression.

      37, Thus, in order to avoid serious psychological problems, a human being needs goals whose attainment requires effort, and he must have a reasonable rate of success in attaining his goals.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Ellul
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desmond_Morris
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Seligman

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There's a few billion too many people on the planet and we're destroying it. Huge parts of the earth will be literally uninhabitable by the end of the century and it will collapse society in countries that are still functioning with all the migration. It makes sense to have a pessimistic view of the future.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      see

      People come up with endless cope to deny this but the fact is that humans have proven to be an indescribably destructive force and anyone who has the slightest amount of love for this planet or any of the living things that inhabit it, humans included, must recognize that a decreased human population size is in every way a positive thing. Reproducing as a human is objectively immoral.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >humans have proven to be an indescribably destructive force
        very cool, humans

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >destroying the planet is cool
          Sadly, most people agree with you which is another one of the many reasons why anyone who chooses to have children is going directly to hell.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >god is going to punish you for reproducing
            first i have heard of this one
            but more importantly, why do you care about the future if you want no part in it?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >why do you care about the future if you want no part in it?
            >sociopaths be like
            This is like asking why an old man would plant a tree if he's not going to be alive to see it when it's fully grown. That fact that people like you (and most people are like you) don't see the purpose of doing something unless it's going to be of direct personal benefit is one of the many reasons why the world is in such a terrible state. What a sad fricking boomer mentality,
            >what does it matter if I frick up the planet? i'm not going to be alive to see the consequences of my actions!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All altruism is selfish, meerkats go on gaurd duty for the tribe because they think itll get them laid. Old men plant trees because they have a feel good notion about a legacy. It doesnt matter how we feel about it though, good deeds are still good deeds because they extend beyond ourselves, irregardless of the motive.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Kys, Zoomer pseud shithead.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I dunno that post comes off as a millennial libertarian

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just doubling down on outing yourself as a sociopath, huh? Well, like I said, you're not alone in being a selfish piece of shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Very true

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Self interest as Adam Smith describe, everyone does and there is nothing wrong with it or i am wrong?.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I never could tolerate this argument, and it annoys me because it's a sentiment i see frequently. It's a poor attmept at deconstruction and reduction of greatness. It actually does not matter for any practical reason if an action is done out of "true" altruism. At any moment you have any number of potential actions you can take. Choosing one that benefits others in the long term is altruistic. Your statement about why someone engages im altruistic behavior does not in any way detract from the inherent value of altruistic actions. The real question is why people like you feel such a strong compulsion to immediately try and tear down altruism. What sort of spirit drives such a thing?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Even if altruism gives someone pleasure you still have to be a virtuous person first to feel that pleasure from doing the thing. Some people are happy stealing money to buy drugs, others are happy helping others, the latter person is better.
            I actually think you can't do anything that feels bad on every level to you. The conscious experience of any decision is that what has been decided somehow feels better, more right, more reasonable etc. than the alternative. That pisitive feeling is like the equivalent of a boolean "true" in a computer.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Altruism giving pleasure makes the act egoistic. Pleasure of the self is not altruistic; altruism is without the self as a factor of the act, which is why it's inherently apathetic.

            People really cannot accept that they act selfishly. Acting selfishly isn't inherently good or bad. If you save a life and it brings you joy from having done so, I don't see reason to frame this as negative.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Actually all selfishness is altruistic. Even when you think you're trying to help yourself, you're ultimately doing to help others. Everything we do is to help others.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Just doubling down on outing yourself as a sociopath, huh? Well, like I said, you're not alone in being a selfish piece of shit.

            you could relieve us of your carbon footprint right now instead of accusing the rest of us of crimes against the planet, if you really wanted to, you oh-holier-than-thou nihilist

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you don't like the way humanity has affected the planet? why not just have a nice day?
            It would be nice to see one of you people come up with a real argument for once instead of always falling back in this lazy cope. Aside from being hopelessly cliched, it's also hopelessly moronic, which you would realize if you'd stop raging long enough to use your brain.

            If someone thinks that humans are negative influence on the planet and the world would be better off with far less of them (this is still an objective fact that you haven't once tried to deny, by the way - all you've done is make sad attempts at personal insults) then why would you arrive at suicide as the best option? If someone is far gone enough to want to actively remove people from the world then suicide removes one. Even a casual murderer could kill more than one person, so the next time you decide to forgo debate in favor of moronic reductionist arguments, ask instead
            >If people are so terrible and need to be removed then why aren't you a serial killer?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again, if you think life is so harmful, why live? You are wallowing in your misery and chastising others for being happier—it's a form of slave morality. Care for "the earth" would require that you live and innovate, not encourage life to die out for the sake of nothing. You are a nihilist, plain and simple, and we are better off with you being quiet.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Again, if you think life is so harmful, why live?
            Son, please actually read my posts before responding to them. At no point did I ever claim to be "miserable". I live a very happy life and a big part of that happiness comes from knowing that I spend my time not only working against any harm I may cause in the course of my life, but by working against the harm caused by other people as well. My existence is very much a positive one, especially when it comes to the effect my life has on this planet and the creatures that inhabit it.

            You're not smart enough to be having this debate and even if you were, you're not taking the time to actually understand what's being discussed to be able to respond intelligently. I never said that all human life needs to disappear, or that humans are inherently damaging to the planet. I only ever said that we need far less of them and, as I've reminded you multiple times, you have yet to respond to that very basic and undeniable point.

            If all you can do is insult me personally then you're even dumber than you seem. If you want any more responses, then instead of trying so desperately to insult and label me, try coming up with a counterpoint to my very simple claim that you've been dancing around since you know you can't deny it:
            > humans are a net negative influence on the planet and the world would be better off with far less of them

            >Care for "the earth" would require that you live and innovate
            It's a common misconception that scientific progress will someday reach a magical breakpoint where its benefits outweigh its harms. It has never happened and it will never happen. For every past problem caused by technology that technology discovers a way to fix, a dozen other new problems have been created in the meantime. There is no "innovation" that will ever be able to counteract the unavoidable damages caused by massive overpopulation.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >humans are inherently damaging to the planet
            >we need far less of them
            you first... I'll go after you, I promise

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How embarrassing for you to have reached this level of dishonesty. I said the literal opposite of what you're implying I said.

            >Again, if you think life is so harmful, why live?
            Son, please actually read my posts before responding to them. At no point did I ever claim to be "miserable". I live a very happy life and a big part of that happiness comes from knowing that I spend my time not only working against any harm I may cause in the course of my life, but by working against the harm caused by other people as well. My existence is very much a positive one, especially when it comes to the effect my life has on this planet and the creatures that inhabit it.

            You're not smart enough to be having this debate and even if you were, you're not taking the time to actually understand what's being discussed to be able to respond intelligently. I never said that all human life needs to disappear, or that humans are inherently damaging to the planet. I only ever said that we need far less of them and, as I've reminded you multiple times, you have yet to respond to that very basic and undeniable point.

            If all you can do is insult me personally then you're even dumber than you seem. If you want any more responses, then instead of trying so desperately to insult and label me, try coming up with a counterpoint to my very simple claim that you've been dancing around since you know you can't deny it:
            > humans are a net negative influence on the planet and the world would be better off with far less of them

            >Care for "the earth" would require that you live and innovate
            It's a common misconception that scientific progress will someday reach a magical breakpoint where its benefits outweigh its harms. It has never happened and it will never happen. For every past problem caused by technology that technology discovers a way to fix, a dozen other new problems have been created in the meantime. There is no "innovation" that will ever be able to counteract the unavoidable damages caused by massive overpopulation.

            >I never said that...humans are inherently damaging to the planet.

            I'm supposed to kill myself? Why would I do that when I can use my life to counteract the harm being caused by other people? I'm sorry that you're such a bitter and unhappy person that you spend your time engaging in this sort of negativity, truly. I hope you find some way to be a little happier in your life.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm sorry that you're such a bitter and unhappy person that you spend your time engaging in this sort of negativity, truly. I hope you find some way to be a little happier in your life.
            holy projection, go support a volunteer IDF or Ukrainian legion and do not-God's work if you want me to take your anti-natalism more seriously

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You can kys if that true.

            I don't know why you guys try to engage in philosophical debate when this level of moronation is all you have to offer. Why even bother? Is it just your monkey brains raging when you see people disagreeing with things you believe but you can't articulate why you disagree with them?

            Personal attacks have never and will never be an argument. If you disagree with the claim that humans are a net negative influence on the planet then please, by all means, put your tiny little brains to work and suggest some reasons why you think this is not the case. When all you do is make these sad little attempts to insult me, you're just letting everyone know that you have nothing else to offer. You are waving around a flag that says
            >This guy is actually completely right, I can't prove him wrong, but his position makes me uncomfortable so I'm just going to insult him personally instead

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Personal attacks have never and will never be an argument.
            there are no arguments to be had against self-extinction advocates (nihilists), merely calling them what they are is sufficient

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            There are no arguments because you have none; the best you seem to be able to do is lying about other people's positions so that you can label them with some category that you imagine qualifies as a denial of their worldview.

            >self-extinction advocates (nihilists),
            see

            see

            People come up with endless cope to deny this but the fact is that humans have proven to be an indescribably destructive force and anyone who has the slightest amount of love for this planet or any of the living things that inhabit it, humans included, must recognize that a decreased human population size is in every way a positive thing. Reproducing as a human is objectively immoral.

            >a decreased human population size is in every way a positive thing.
            That's neither a call for extinction nor nihilism. But you're too much of a slimy little israelite to engage honestly with that position. All you can do is pretend that I said
            >all human life is evil! mankind must go extinct!!!
            and argue against that lie instead.

            Pretty pathetic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >lying about other people's positions
            I am more interested in the consequences of the idea and the values underlying it. Sorry if that offends you... I know you enjoy converting existing conditions of your inactive life into virtues and claiming they are rational/superior. But again, I cannot take the theoretical anti-natalist "seriously," he has changed nothing about himself to endorse this worldview. Please consider joining the armed forces or contributing to the military-industrial complex in some way shape or form, please be EFFECTIVE in your ideology if you consider it to be so well-thought and critical to the non-survival of humanity. Join the army, get some experience, join a pmc, there is a whole life-abolishing career you could be pursuing instead of fake monasticism

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >i'm sorry i can't respond to your actual position but all i know how to do is provide a generic, stereotypical response to a generic, stereotypical position
            Midwits LOVE to debate but they always do this exact same shit. What's the point? If you're not going to attempt any kind of critical thinking then you might as well just be bots regurgitating the same generic responses at each other.

            Do you imagine that this absurd straw manning constitutes an effective argument? If you can't defend your position without resorting to personal attacks (and yes, all of these fantasies you keep having about my personal life are no different than personal attacks - you are desperately avoiding addressing my actual argument by inventing imaginary scenarios about the sort of life I lead) then you need to recognize that you don't have very firm beliefs.

            The reasons why this topic makes you so angry and defensive is because emotionally, you feel that I (or all these imaginary "anti-natalists" that you think are in this thread) are wrong, but intellectually, you can't explain why. You "know" that you're right but when you're pressed to explain why that is, exactly, you have nothing to say. For your own sake, spend some time putting some actual thought into the things you believe so that you can at the very least explain why you believe them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you know reducing the population is the right thing to do
            If that's so, i ask you once more, why preach to low fertility people who can't even manage to replace themselves? Oh great anti-prophet, you shepherd of geldings, why not go forth into the pagan wilds of Africa and Latin America, to Palestine and beyond, and preach this true gospel? And if you can't be so personally efficacious, why not ensure your wealth goes to furthering the cause? Lobby your congressman to get rid of tax incentives for the married and those with dependents. Join the armed forces of a country at war. There is so much more you could do instead of arguing with a bunch of celibate people about why you are intellectually superior to them for behaving the exact same way they do

            https://i.imgur.com/ZG5qUCM.jpg

            >Please consider joining the armed forces
            No.

            You don't need to be on the ground. Drone pilots are helping keep the population down by putting UAV's up. All I offer you is a modest proposal...

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >gets called out for impotent personal attacks
            >doubles down on them, but with bigger words this time
            Son, no amount of verbosity can mask the very obvious fact that there is no intelligent thought behind your posts. How do you know that I'm not already doing all of these things you keep suggesting, or even something more effective?

            You have no way of knowing how I spend my life and I have no way of proving to you that I spend my life in any particular way. An intelligent person, upon realizing this, would recognize that the only meaningful discussion at this point is over ideas and yet here you are once again, desperately avoiding intelligent thought in favor of what, your 20th consecutive post filled with pure personal attacks and not a single shred of intelligent thought?

            You keep trying to focus on my personal life because you're incapable of refuting my arguments. If I'm wrong, then all you need to do is provide one(1) post with something other than personal attacks. For added difficulty, try addressing my actual arguments rather than inventing some "anti-natalist" straw man to direct your rebuttal towards. Here, I'll even give you a succinct version to respond to:
            >the world would be a better place in virtually every aspect, for virtually every living creature, if there were less humans
            Moment of truth, anon. A literal child could come up with a rebuttal for this. Are you smarter than a child?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >How do you know that I'm not already doing all of these things you keep suggesting, or even something more effective?
            Based if true.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Son,
            i thought you didn't believe in having sons, but again, i implore you to venture to the Sahel and make spiritual sons of the people there rather than the geldings of the developed nations
            >A literal child could come up with a rebuttal for this. Are you smarter than a child?
            Uhhhh why is everything you say peppered with natalist vocabulary? You wouldn't happen to be entirely dishonest, would you?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he couldn't come up with a rebuttal
            Can't say I'm surprised. I'll take your lack of rebuttal as your tacit acknowledgement that I'm right. I accept your concession and I'm glad that I was able to help you understand that you were wrong.

            If you're not actually conceding then you're still welcome to provide a simple rebuttal. Here's my position once again:
            >the world would be a better place in virtually every aspect, for virtually every living creature, if there were less humans
            That said, I'll consider both a lack of response and a response avoiding this very simple request to be equivalent to your loss. Either way, I implore you once again to spend some time actually thinking about why you believe the things you believe. For your own sake, at the very least.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again, why are you telling people who won't even bother to replace themselves to have fewer children? If this is so important go obstruct food deliveries in Palestine and make sure you convince the most fecund to save the planet (for nobody in particular except maybe a handful of decadent westerners) before they save their bloodline

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Thank you for confirming that you concede the argument and accept that I'm right. Better luck next time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you concede the argument and accept that I'm right
            immaterial, I am asking about the practical applications of your values and your motives for holding them; as far as I can tell you want to feel superior to the other celibates by having a neo-stoicism to justify your present state, you have no interest in being an effective anti-natalist

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            War sucks

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Please consider joining the armed forces
            No.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Every second people and animals kill, rape, torture one each others, etc.
            >Dude you should have a nice day for that, ok!

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >some people are bad so there should be fewer people overall
            >uhhh no i'm not going to bring that number down myself i'm not an effective anti-natalist i'm just a self-therapeutic turbo-doomer
            >hopefully if the most conscientious people have no children then the future will be more green and wholesome for the children of the violent, callous, and exploitative people

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            They're right, though. I have more respect for someone who admits they give up and refuses to reproduce because of the state of affairs than I do for people who acknowledge the issues, and their response is to pop out babies (lets be honest, for selfish reasons) and then shrug their shoulders and say "hopefully the future generations will figure it out". Its the height of selfish delusion. Either fight for a better future, or give up and languish in hedonistic despair. The middle path is weak and pathetic. Deserving of contempt.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            withdrawing from the gene pool and encouraging other people to do so is not actually saving the planet, it's this

            >people are inclined to rationalize it as a net positive: they've actually done something ethically sound and kind by not having children
            The worst thing about anti-natalism isn't even what it advocates for, it's how redundant it is. You have people in a low-fertility, increasingly ageing culture, heaping praise and virtue on what it was they were already doing, as if it were some noble cause and not the result of their pursuit of status, wealth, or individual satisifaction. They should instead advocate for an "effective" anti-natalism and encourage wars in Africa and sterilizations of people using child tax credits, not pat themselves on the back for doing their part by doing nothing at all. They should donate their estates to the IDF or the Russian and Ukrainian armed forces, the true heroes of anti natalism

            it's telling people who are already low fertility to begin with to keep doing nothing, that is the selfish delusion—i want to see you guys advocate for some EFFECTIVE anti-natalism, for more war in the Middle East, more war in Africa, more war in Europe, whatever it takes to solve this terrible crisis you have moralized for us as a great apocalypse to be averted; you refusing to have the children you were never going to have anyway is you doing nothing, and you should fly to Canada as soon as you are ready to retire, and will your childfree estate to Raytheon and Lockheed

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It makes sense why all life on the planet would die in less than 1000 years anyway. Killing people is pointless at this point.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >less than 1000 years
            how do you know all life will end less than one roman empire from now?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >He doesn't know

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>uhhh no i'm not going to bring that number down myself
            Choosing not to reproduce is literally bringing that number down.

            >hopefully if the most conscientious people have no children then the future will be more green and wholesome for the children of the violent, callous, and exploitative people
            Nobody expects these choices to have any noticeable effect. Adult morality means doing the right thing regardless of whether or not it's going to make any difference.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        You can kys if that true.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Kys if there are too many people. (Btw, there aren't, it's a myth)

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Dear Mr Pornwank

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    True Detective came out, this is the real reason. It took Rust Cohl saying it for people to think of the idea why should humans exist

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    OP please stop spamming this book. This is your 50th thread.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Cost of living, imo. I'd love to have a family but shit is crazy out here.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    The standard of dual income households. I am not going on an incel rant here, it isn't about women specifically working just that the fact of life (at least in the USA) is that a single income means a pretty shitty standard of living unless one person is making over six figures. The massive cost of childcare for children under school age and the added duties you have to attend to for childcare on top of a full day's work and your household chores make the thought of having a child almost nightmarish. Unless you are very close to your family (very rare these days) and they are willing and able to relieve you of some of the burden it makes more sense to get a pet to fill the emotional void.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    life is shit and i want to die

    kill me kill me kill me

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      never have truer words been spoken

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Quality of life is not really better. Having a family of your own is much better than any microprocessor gadget or whatever we have now

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >despite the quality of life being better than ever

      Fact check: Mostly false. You shouldn't blindly accept the narrative the ruling political parties brainwash you with by media exposure.

      Quality of life is not better.
      You like many people (read idiots) equate convenience with quality of life.
      Your life is more convenient than ever and you might be surprised to learn that actually makes it worse.

      By quality of life, usually, they mean in material terms. Wealth, education, health, etc.
      It is hard to say quality of life is not higher (in those terms) than a century ago. On the average, people are indeed wealthier, living longer, a larger percentage of the population goes to university.
      If you were to argue with a liberal progressive, he would claim people are living better than ever. Would also claim there is less discrimination and that people have more freedom than ever to live the way they want.
      They would also say "You wouldn't be able to live without the material comforts of today. I doubt you would rather live in the 19th century, without modern medicine, electricity, etc".

      But of course people are unhappy, even with all of this.

      And to understand why, you need to read Plato, the Stoics, Plotinus and the Doctors of the Church.

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >despite the quality of life being better than ever

    Fact check: Mostly false. You shouldn't blindly accept the narrative the ruling political parties brainwash you with by media exposure.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Quality of life is not better.
    You like many people (read idiots) equate convenience with quality of life.
    Your life is more convenient than ever and you might be surprised to learn that actually makes it worse.

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Anti-natalists are moronic mentally ill incels so miserable with regard to their own lives that they seek to project their resentment onto existence as a whole.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Asymmetry argument
    Is a tautology that can be rejected and/or interpreted differently. Anti-natalists aren't very bright so they're completely filtered by this fact and will assert its validity while attempting to monopolize its interpretation. This is the core of their ideological belief structure and they are unable to be anything other than disingenuous when responding to criticism directed toward it.

    >Quality of life argument
    Is the real justification for anti-natalism. Whenever you point out it's subjective and unquantifiable anti-natalists will just deflect back to the asymmetry tautology while pretending it isn't central to their argument (yet whenever they bring up their anti-natalist bullshit they always sperg on and on about quality of life). Even Benatard himself admits it's only "vaguely true."

    >Suicide
    Deep down anti-natalists don't actually believe their own bullshit and make excuses so as to avoid the logical conclusion of their worldview. What's more when they reduce their argument back to a tautological stance, as moronic ideologues are wont to do, they betray the fact it coheres with morally atrocious outcomes (like mass murder and suicide).

    >Anti-natalists
    Are ideologically possessed sad sacks who project their negative ideation out onto the world. They don't actually care about the reduction of harm and are simply obsessed by violence and misery. They are prone to mental illness and personality disorder and let their resentment guide their experience of the world.

    Anti-natalists are annoying morons and the only thing they have right is that they themselves shouldn't breed (note: most of them only come to this conclusion because they know they'll never find a willing partner that will put up with their bullshit).

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Based.

      Basically took the words out of my mouth. The problem anti-natalists have is that 99% of them are undoubtedly materialist atheists in the consequentialist morality sense. I don’t even give a frick if someone believes in a god or not, that’s beside the point. What I’m talking about is the ethos of the supremely self-important Redditor who simultaneously takes the most extreme moral position, “humanity should not exist because the suffering outweighs the good” while at the same time refusing to posit what makes a position good or moral - if you’re stuck in the infinite regress of consequentialist morality of course you’re going to come to the conclusion that life isn’t worth it. Deontology and consequentialism usually at least agree on life having value as a first principle. If you can’t even bring yourself to acknowledge that then obviously you’re trapped in a dead end tunnel.

      Regarding babies with cancer - if you stopped and thought about it for two seconds beyond Reddit-tier philosophy, you’d realize the inherent tragedy of such a situation is ONLY PROPORTIONAL to the inherent BEAUTY, INNOCENCE, VULNERABILITY and TRANSCENDENCE that we INHERENTLY ascribe to children. If children came out of the womb as indestructible twenty foot tall automata made out of titanium, the tragedy wouldn’t exist - therefore you contradict yourself because your premise that human life is meaningless is based on the inherent meaningfulness of the subject you advocate for the removal of. Therefore you have become an agent of your own misery and destruction based on a rejection of a premise you inherently accept due to moronation and homosexuality.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >There is nothing wrong with babies with cancer because... LE BEAUTY
        Peak edgelord take

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Hey dumbfrick, did you miss the part where I said a baby with cancer is inherently tragic? Jesus Christ you frickers can’t even read. Let me spell this out for you in the most basic possible terms.

          1. Human tragedy is proportional to the level of virtue, meaning, innocence, wisdom, beauty, or transcendence that inherent to its loss.
          2. An anti-natalist feels misery or anger towards the unfairness of reality in proportion to the loss or suffering endured by subjects that exhibit these traits and the degree to which they express them.
          3. This means the anti-natalist NECESSARILY ascribes value to humanity, because if he didn’t, there wouldn’t be a sense of unfairness.
          4. Despite inherently ascribing value to humanity, (because his argument wouldn’t be consistent without it) he seeks to terminate it. THIS is the CONTRADICTION, moron.
          5. If he ascribed no inherent value to a subject, his argument would be incoherent. Do you ever hear about an anti-natalist saying rocks shouldn’t exist because of the inherent suffering of their lives? No, because nobody ascribes meaningful traits of beauty, innocence, transcendence, etc. to fricking rocks. The argument would make no sense.

          tl;dr - You’re a moron and have never actually thought about the principles behind your philosophy beyond Reddit talking points. You’re gay and moronic and you deserve your misery until you can learn to use your brain.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >LE TRAGEDY
            Oh my science other nietzschean redditor!
            >Antinatalism contradicts itself because it attributes value to things.
            It attributes a negative value and does not contradict itself because sub specie aeternitatis there is no meaning to life.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lmao okay I didn’t realize you were going to go down the route of teenage active nihilism. Fricking kek. I thought we were having a serious discussion.

            Go throw yourself off your roof then since everything is meaningless. Gargle bleach, assault a cop, drive your car into the ocean. If everything is meaningless these actions should be as ordinary to you as buying groceries.

            But we both know you won’t.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If life has no meaning then commit crimes or commit suicide lmao
            People already do this every minute that passes and I don't see them being nihilistic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            All cognac is brandy but not all brandy is cognac.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >while at the same time refusing to posit what makes a position good or moral
        There's no reason whatsoever to assert this based on what that Anon said. Also you don't get what the terms 'deontological', 'consequentialist' etc. actually mean which is just embarrassing.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          K keep me posted

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because you're a stupid fricking tranmy homosexual eat shit b***h frick you frick you frick you. Also me think it's because you have no b***hes. inb4 ESL inb4 cope inb4 seethe inb4 troony chaser

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Why is anti-natalism so popular
    it isn't, you just made this thread for cheap (You) farming.

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    quality not quantity

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because things are actually worse than ever.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because there are more suicides, murders, rapes, torture, etc. per minute than ever before.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >quality of life being better than ever
    It has been sliding for years

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Why does IQfy have better antinatalism threads than IQfy? Is it that the population skews older and more mature, therefore positions are less likely to be bombarded with feckless sophistries?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      because kino > libro

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Calling things feckless sophistry is feckless sophistry.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Admit it, they look good together. Copyrighted btw.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      IQfy keeps obsessing over black people being featured in movies and shows. They make a thread every hour to complain about that black woman being cast as Juliet.

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    See what I mean? You have morons ITT still pushing the naive destructive angle, and confusing nihilism with pessimism. You haven't even begun a discussion. You don't have to explain to a smart person why a world without meaning doesn't and sometimes cannot necessitate wildly destructive actions to the self or others.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah but sometimes it’s fun to operate on both levels anon. Sparring with rhetoric is fun especially if you know it’s meaningless.

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Post-industrial problems.

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Overpopulation isn't the issue. Technology and industry is the issue. A large population is only hamrful because modern system is built on industrial processes creating massive amounts of waste, destroying natural habitats, and most importantly: disrupting natural systems.

    This latter point needs to be emphatically highlighted. We live in a closed system, it is intricate and complex, and we can only approximately predict and model it's behavior. The extent to which anthropogenic activities alter and disrupt the natural balance will almost certainly have horrific effects at some point.

    The other anon was correct in his analysis. For every invention, several new problems are created as a result. It's a matter of scale. As far as telling antinatalists to kill themselves, that is really missing the point. Any random citizen is almost negligible insofar as how much they personally contribute. It's a matter of scale. If you truly felt compelled to try and take action, the best thing you could do would be to try and disrupt or dismantle industrial society. Rather than killing yourself (or other people), you could destroy/disable a single jet/factory/boat/whatever and have a much larger impact on the environment than killing even 10,000 people.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >A large population is only hamrful because modern system is built on industrial processes
      The extinct megafauna of Australia and North America would beg to differ.

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Because of propaganda
    >do not marry and reproduce goy, earth is too overpopulated, you should be focusing on work and hedonism instead!

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    First I bit into this way of thinking because, to me, this was the logical conclusion to all life and all knowledge and all philosophy. this was the thing you're supposed to believe because you're "intelligent".
    But the more you just live your life doing whatever the frick you want, the more you observe what kind of people govern and thrive, the more you realize how disempowering and poisonous this belief system is.
    You got wealthy, smart and young people swallowing this shit 24/7 because it's all over mass fricking media (Rick and Morty and the THOUSANDS of talking heads on youtube going "life is le bad") and fricking wasting their lives getting drugged and amusing themselves to death. It feels like literal propaganda at times. You get mocked for having beliefs of any kind, you get attacked for any convictions, you literally get told you're a moron for even wanting to try to change something.

    Isn't it great for whoever is in charge that the middle-top class (you know, the ones who START REVOLUTIONS) literally want to fricking die all the time while the proles enjoy their bread and circus (and their contact with intellectual life is le life is meaningless!) and the real rich keep making more money and making all the decisions?

    Oh yes yes yes. I'm sure one day we will all as a species threat Benatar's and Ligotti's homosexual books and The Last Messiah as the absolute peak of truth they are, we will come around and walk into midnight brothers and sisters.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >i'm soooo smart you guys, didn't you know that i'm highly intelligent?
      >anyway, children at the only possible source of meaning or purpose in life, you can either choose to reproduce or to be a mindless hedonist, no gray area at all
      >by the way, have you heard about the israelites?
      god i miss when internet access had a high enough barrier to entry that midwits couldn't figure it out
      smartphones were such a fricking mistake

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        There is no point in engaging with you at all beyond mockery.
        You bring nothing of value to the table, your ideas are those of a mentally ill, self-defeating, suicidal animal. Your solution to all problems in life (life which you hate) is to shrug and wait for death (because you're such a homosexual you wont even have a nice day).

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >cope
          >insult
          >insult
          >insult
          >strawman
          >insult
          How embarrassing for you. Imagine feeling so deeply about a topic yet having absolutely nothing intelligent to say about it. You call me an animal yet you're the one who can't envision any meaning or purpose to life past reproduction.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >you're the one who can't envision any meaning or purpose to life past reproduction
            Where the frick did I say that? I'm saying that anti-natalism is a disempowering belief based on pessimism and nihilism.
            The argument is not to stop having kids so you can have a fuller life, the argument is that life is so fricking miserable that you shouldn't inflict it on someone else. How many people do you know that live miserable lives, never even bothering to try an make a change, because what the frick is le point?
            >You call me an animal
            Oh I wasn't aware I was talking with a being of pure light. But maybe you are one, considering you're an anti-natalist who has found a meaning and purpose beyond what the fricking dumb animals do (have sex). Do tell me enlightened one, what purpose have you found beyond hedonism and reproduction?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >the argument is that life is so fricking miserable that you shouldn't inflict it on someone else.
            And here you are, once again, inventing this complete and utter straw man. At no point have I ever said anything of the sort. See

            There are no arguments because you have none; the best you seem to be able to do is lying about other people's positions so that you can label them with some category that you imagine qualifies as a denial of their worldview.

            >self-extinction advocates (nihilists),
            see
            [...]
            >a decreased human population size is in every way a positive thing.
            That's neither a call for extinction nor nihilism. But you're too much of a slimy little israelite to engage honestly with that position. All you can do is pretend that I said
            >all human life is evil! mankind must go extinct!!!
            and argue against that lie instead.

            Pretty pathetic.

            Why are you like this? You really don't know any other way to have a debate than to be a disingenuous israelite?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I kneel. There are way too many people on this planet and it would be better off if there were less.
            Unfortunately, the only people not having kids are the ones educated/resourceful enough to pay for higher education and who could maybe do something about it (but of course not, having hope is for moronic fricking animals). The proles are having kids by the dozen and will never give a frick until the collapse hits them. The ultra-rich have a couple of kids that will inherit the world and will go to mars.
            >inventing this complete and utter straw man
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benatar%27s_asymmetry_argument
            So what's your purpose in life, homosexual?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >o-ok, but some guy named david said some stuff, what do you think about that???
            >justify your existence to me!
            lmao no, i don't think i will
            i will however accept your concession

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I am not like the other anti-natalists! I am not a pessimistic nearly suicidal homosexual!
            >I will do literally nothing at all tho
            Ok.

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >quality of life being better than ever

  35. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    we have this thread every month

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      we should have it every day

  36. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No one hold this views, everyone is concerned with population decline and the general attitude is a conservative one with natalism in mind. You feel is big because you spend way too much in this eco chamber.

  37. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Does anyone ever talk about how the 1990s in America were basically the garden of eden and it has been decline since then? Living decline feels like shit, it does not matter if things were worse in the father past if things are getting worse compared to the immediate 30 years ago

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The boomers were supposed to retire making it so that the value of working class labor would go up and cash out their houses so that the generation coming up under them could expand into adulthood. Instead, we got mass immigration and foreigners outside the country buying investment properties to use as Air BnBs.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *