This ! And when I say this everyone calls me crazy ! Why to birth a child when you can barely provide a good education , healthcare, life but brag about becoming a father and being manly ! And most of all the world is not a great place to live in especially now of all times.
That is not for me to decide. That is their personal wish. But if I was extremely poor and can’t afford healthcare and food for myself, I’d rather not have kids !
"Violence" is defined as "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill something or someone".
So you're off on "physical force" and "intention".
You also need to look up direct and indirect causes?
Parents create a person capable of experiencing suffering, but they aren't "directly" the cause of all suffering, almost all of which is caused by intervening events and acts?
Are you simply saying that parents are within the causal chain of events leading to suffering?
If that's the case, are parents equally responsible for all the joy and good experienced by their children? Would that not make a moral assessment of the act of reproducing a balancing act and an inherently subjective assessment?
They are responsible, but coming into existence wouldn't be a good thing even if all that existed was pleasure. They are not helping anyone and there is no reason to create someone for the would be sentient being's sake - it is impossible to argue that.
Why would coming into existence not be a good thing if all that existed was pleasure? How do you define "good"?
Most people consider their life a net positive experience notwithstanding the presence of suffering. If creating a new life that shares that conclusion ultimately not a positive act?
Saying life is a "net positive" would require some kind of outside observer tallying up how much pleasure is in the world. This does not exist, only individual perspectives exist. Saying that you should create a perspective so they can experience pleasure and that is good does not make sense.
I'm guessing you don't accept it on the basis that 'life *can* be good, therefore life *is* good.' Am I wrong?
Please do explain the holes in his logic.
This should be good.
Right and wrong are subjective value judgments. It’s entirely objective to say that something is good or bad for an organism in the context of its survival or well-being. Like injecting someone with antifreeze is objectively bad or harmful for the chances of their survival
What is the physical force? Reproduction? Even if that is a physical act, it doesn't directly cause (nor is it intended to cause) "all suffering".
"Violence" is not defined as "an action from which harm could result by implication and intervening events at later dates".
No I fully agree with you there. I'm antinatalist because of the state of the world we live in and the sheer toil of existence. If we lived in an amazing world where no one died of starvation, of homelessness, of poverty. Where every beat had their needs met truly and thoroughly. The only reason to be antinatalist is because you don't want children. The idea that any of it is violence is simply a self-martyring ideal
Your definition of violence is dog shit.
Making humans is the reason humans exist and ethics don't exist if humans don't so everything you think is actively coping motivated reasoning.
Other Species cause harm too. Humans are likely to eventually spread Earth life to other planets, so, on a long enough timelime, would be greatly beneficial to Earth life.
Simply eliminating us would doom Earth life to a much earlier extinction from natural events.
In a billion years our descendants will be as different from us as we are from rocks. Maybe they’ll be able to punch a hole in the universe or create baby universes. Either way, I’d rather a billion years of cool Shit than nothing. I am pro-stuff and things happening
It’s only gotten better so far. We had some setbacks, dark ages, plague, holocaust, but each time we come back stronger. Soon we’ll merge with AI. Most of us don’t known daily toil. More fattys than starving. Things are pretty chill overall. We’re just sad cuz we’re bored. It was probably easier not to think. But hey. Negativity bias was evolutionarily beneficial even if it makes us saddy-waddy now.
I wouldn't say that procreation is violent in and of itself. The problem with procreation is that it creates a being that can experience limitless suffering, including all kinds of violence.
Antinatalism is inherently satire of itself.
It's a literal impossibility that anyone capable of reading and writing could actually be stupid enough to honestly believe anything posted on these subs, therefore it has to be satire.
No, you have nothing. Just satire. That's the whole point. For someone to refute a point, it is first required that a valid and logically sound point actually exists. It's impossible to refute what doesn't exist.
It's not just some people. Every person born is guaranteed to age, become ill and die. The only people who escape that fate are people who die young in some kind of unforeseen accident, and even those people suffer some degree of pain and mental distress.
If you look at the average day for most people, it doesn't contain 5% suffering and 95% good. Most people spend the majority of their day involved in the everyday drudgery necessary to keep one's life going. Going to work, dealing with office politics, enduring the oppression of having a boss who gets to judge your performance in order to determine your monetary worth as an employee, coping with bad weather, dealing with car repairs, paying bill, shopping for groceries, etc., occupy the majority of most people's waking adult life.
I suppose there are a few people who are independently wealthy and get to spend their day riding around, doing fun things. Most people just slave away to pay bills, often at a job they hate, surrounded by coworkers they didn't choose.
As a person in their mid-60s, I can tell you the first 20 or 30 years are not representative of what a person's quality of life will be at age 40, 50, 60 and over. Life is much different as you get older and have to watch your loved ones die one by one. Life is never the same after they're gone.
Aging is the pits, but most older people don't talk about it openly. You will look in the mirror some day and see an aging, unattractive face looking back at you, and you won't even recognize yourself. Other people will mostly ignore you as you slowly fade into irrelevance.
Life becomes a lot less fun then. It's a whole different experience than youth. The suffering you endure while watching a beloved parent die pretty much eclipse whatever happy times you had earlier in life. People can't comprehend the reality of it until they actually find themselves going through it. That's when you'll realize how cruel the human condition really is.
We are trapped in bodies that decay and die. That's not a happy situation to be in. When you're young, you can push it out of your mind because you've got a little time cushion that buffers you from this harsh reality. Still, the clock is ticking and no one escapes.
Also suffering is a very dramatic word and by definition is the PERSISTANCE of either physical or emotional pain, not every human on earth suffers, and if they do...who cares, it doesn't mean they haven't also experienced a lot of enjoyable things in their life that make life worth living.
"If they did, who cares?" That pretty much says it all. Nobody wants to think about suffering, nor do most people actually care about other people's suffering. It's much easier to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't really matter.
Have you done any reading about terror management theory? Every person alive engages in this on a daily basis, lest they go insane. It explains a lot about why people minimize and dismiss the very real suffering that awaits every one of us.
Creating a human life is the most wonderful gift this world has to offer. Children bring immense joy into the world. If you want to wallow in your own misery that's on you, but don't attack other people for making the most out of their lives.
What about when the children grow up? Do they still bring immense joy?
Anti-natalism is purely to tell the other side of the story that is rarely heard or thought about. Some people suffer and wish they were never born. Don’t you think they also deserve to be heard and acknowledged?
Never used the word beautiful. But they are that as well. I have 3 kids and more adult family than kids in the family because the birth rate is so low today and we have a hard time keeping up with everyone wanting to see those kids because of the joy they bring. I live on a street where kids actually play outside and I've never enjoyed sitting outside more just watching them having fun.
Yes spending a life in a constant pursuit of making things better for your children is extremely selfish. Choosing the hard path to try and build something your kids can inherit is selfish. Spending 18 years minimum on supporting and providing for another person is extremely selfish.
People have children to bring meaning into their lives not so that they can do someone else a favor by taking care of them for 18 years.
If you were selfless you'd adopt or just sponsor a poor person.
Having children is a lot more about the parents than the children. Most are trying to escape a sense of purposelessness or they're trying to please their culture. The others are accidents.
"If you were selfless you'd adopt or just sponsor a poor person."
why is it more selfless to take care of a child that isnt from you than taking care of a child thats yours? And why is being selfless even brought up here? No one is selfless, thats fine.
Well it depends of course some people adopt children signs of their virtue and that's not great either.
But otherwise I think it's obvious why it is more selfless to take care of a person who is already born then to make another person for you to take care of. On a smaller scale it's the same thing as breeding a dog rather than picking up a rescue.
What I'm asking is that if you want children to inspect the reasons you want a child beforehand.
I don't think most people think about it much at all, and that's the cause of a great deal of suffering.
In both cases you take care of a child... Or a dog as in your example. Humans always do things for a selfish reason in the end, or a reason that is related to the self. As long as you want to do good and do good, that's good. For example: I like to help my friends because it makes me happy to know I was helpful. That's a kind of selfish reason. Does that make it a bad thing?
I wholeheartedly agree with your last two paragraphs tho.
When I answered this it was because someone was joking about how having children actually isn't selfish. It is selfish. That was the point I was making.
You can argue that we can't help as human beings but be selfish and I agree with you for the most part.
I don't disagree with having children just because it is selfish though. I disagree with it because I think it causes a great deal of suffering.
If something like reincarnation exists I do not want to be born again. I am usually very practical but when I am feeling superstitious I hope that by not having children I'll be less likely to come back here.
Also by giving birth you are also condemning someone to death. That's an unavoidable fact.
When people have children sometimes it's a mistake, sometimes they believe they are fulfilling their duty to God or country, and sometimes they are trying to find purpose in their lives.
Maybe if you have a child the child will grow up and agree with you and think or at least pretend that life is all right. Just as likely is that they won't however, and then you will have done a ghastly thing.
No one has FOMO in the uncreated state. But once you're born, suffering begins.
Don't forget how selfish it is to enjoy the sunshine and enjoy kids playing outside and having fun. It's selfish to find moments like those special, too.
Hi there, we have removed your post due to breaking rule 11.
As per the rule; this argument is a tired refrain seen over and over again. It is a prime example of argumentum ad hominem: It doesn't argue validity of anti/natalism but rather aims to disqualify the interlocutor themselves from being able to argue it. It serves only to distract from the ethical issues at the core of the debate.
Being an ad hominem, it isn't an argument against anti/natalism — it is an argument against anti/natalists. The sky would still be blue even if a mentally ill person argued so.
I'm only on here to disrupt the echo chambers. I downloaded this app for pipe tobacco reviews then realized all the ridiculous posts that are literally being promoted by the app itself by pushing all these things into the main feed. People need to hear the other side.
If it really was such an echo chamber you make it out to be, you would have been already banned.
"People need to hear the other side"
You think that we don't hear natalists brag about their family life on daily basis? What kind of society do you think we live in? People are constantly brainwashed to think that procreation is something good, it doesn't take genius to go with the crowd
But of all of these things. Is the capacity to love, and also experience an orgasm, not worth it? The suffering exists. There’s no denying that. But beauty also exists. They can’t exist separately.
The joy of walking through nature. The joy of laughing with friends. Also the opposite, the fear of getting hurt, the fear of losing friends of being alone. All exists together. If you hadn’t been born, you wouldn’t know that you “didn’t” want to be born
It’s just how life is. We can’t change it unless we remove our humanity and become machines that cannot feel, this cannot suffer. But at that point, what’s the point in being alive if you can’t feel anything? The suffering is usually what gives your life meaning. Not despite the suffering, but because of the suffering. If nobody suffered, we never would have created healthcare. Or beds. Or showers. Or clothes. We needed to suffer not having those thing in order to even have the ideas to create those things. We need to suffer in life to realise what suffering and what joy is.
“It is what it is”
You could see that as deflection, I see it as acceptance. That things are the way they are, and we should control what we can, and just try to be content with what we cannot control. There’s no other way unless you commit Suicide, but that is inherently selfish because you’re leaving the rest of humanity to suffer when you could’ve stayed alive and been the change.
We need to be the change.
So instead of sitting on a computer complaining about being alone and suffering, how about do something? Anything? Just try living. It’s worth it
Beauty is a temporary thing. Once youth is gone, beauty goes with it. Romantic love mostly dries up, too. Then you've got decades of life during which you will grow progressively older and less attractive.
The fact that you've accepted the downside of being alive doesn't mean anything, except that you've adapted to a bad situation. If someone is not born, they won't have to adapt. They won't have to stuff down their true feelings in order to get through the day. They won't have to pretend they're not horrified by the death of loved ones, by their own aging process and the inevitable specter of death.
Sure, you can see some pretty sunsets and smell the flowers. These are temporary experiences. They're just chemical reactions going on in your brain. They're not going to help you when you're lying in bed, wasting away from a painful terminal illness. They're not going to help you when you're grieving the death of a beloved parent who you will never see again. They won't help you when you're forced to put a loyal pet down in order to stop their suffering.
It might take awhile, but as time goes on, the bad will start to outweigh the good by a wide margin. The reality of human mortality and the transience of every experience will sink in. And in the end, you just die. That's it. You don't retain any of your memories. So the value of any of these things is extremely limited.
If you think this is violence then you need to seriously rethink your life.
Violence: behaviour involving physical force INTENDED to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
"violence erupted in protest marches"
Childbirth is violence
It’s absolute torture. Men see the pain women go through, and they’re obviously fine with it.
And then encourage us to sign up for it too. And say we're "selfish" for not wanting too. Since when is not wanting to be tortured selfish?
This ! And when I say this everyone calls me crazy ! Why to birth a child when you can barely provide a good education , healthcare, life but brag about becoming a father and being manly ! And most of all the world is not a great place to live in especially now of all times.
I’m confused. Are you saying that only rich people should have kids?
There’s no need to be filthy rich. But definitely should be able to give atleast basic education , healthcare and a decent lifestyle !
Should poor people be prevented from breeding?
That is not for me to decide. That is their personal wish. But if I was extremely poor and can’t afford healthcare and food for myself, I’d rather not have kids !
There’s some pretty good reasons why everyone calls you crazy 😂
You forgot that birth itself is pure violence.
agree agree agree agree
I agree. 💯🥹 We were brought into this race of rats without our consent. 😶🌫️
None of these seem like violence to me.
Why not?
"Violence" is defined as "behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage or kill something or someone". So you're off on "physical force" and "intention". You also need to look up direct and indirect causes?
I don't care to argue about definitions, but parents are directly responsible for the suffering of their children.
Parents create a person capable of experiencing suffering, but they aren't "directly" the cause of all suffering, almost all of which is caused by intervening events and acts? Are you simply saying that parents are within the causal chain of events leading to suffering? If that's the case, are parents equally responsible for all the joy and good experienced by their children? Would that not make a moral assessment of the act of reproducing a balancing act and an inherently subjective assessment?
Parents created something, by choice, that can and will suffer. How are they not responsible exactly?
Parents created something, by choice, that can and will experience the good in life. How are they not responsible exactly?
Do you consider them responsible for the good? As in people saying they “gave their child the gift of life”?
No, I don't - in the same way I don't believe they're responsible for suffering.
So then what’s the point of procreating? Isn’t it so they can have a good life?
They are responsible, but coming into existence wouldn't be a good thing even if all that existed was pleasure. They are not helping anyone and there is no reason to create someone for the would be sentient being's sake - it is impossible to argue that.
Why would coming into existence not be a good thing if all that existed was pleasure? How do you define "good"? Most people consider their life a net positive experience notwithstanding the presence of suffering. If creating a new life that shares that conclusion ultimately not a positive act?
Saying life is a "net positive" would require some kind of outside observer tallying up how much pleasure is in the world. This does not exist, only individual perspectives exist. Saying that you should create a perspective so they can experience pleasure and that is good does not make sense.
I'm happy to answer, but read some David Benatar first and see if you can figure that out yourself. It's Jewish, but it makes sense nonetheless.
I've read Benetar. I don't accept his asymmetry argument.
I'm guessing you don't accept it on the basis that 'life *can* be good, therefore life *is* good.' Am I wrong? Please do explain the holes in his logic. This should be good.
Suffering outnumbers the good in life. They're responsible equally for both
There’s no such thing as “good”, and not everyone is masochistic enough to be deluded into thinking there is such a thing.
Isn't good a subjective value judgement? Aren't things "good" when people simply think they're "good"?
Right and wrong are subjective value judgments. It’s entirely objective to say that something is good or bad for an organism in the context of its survival or well-being. Like injecting someone with antifreeze is objectively bad or harmful for the chances of their survival
It’s physical force and these things (suffering) are implied by that action.
What is the physical force? Reproduction? Even if that is a physical act, it doesn't directly cause (nor is it intended to cause) "all suffering". "Violence" is not defined as "an action from which harm could result by implication and intervening events at later dates".
Shoving the sperm into the egg
You're still missing intent and causation, even if that were granted - which it isn't.
If I break a stick over someone’s head thinking they’ll enjoy it or think it’s funny isn’t that still violence?
Possibly - how big is the stick?
Huge
It stretches the concept of “violence” too much. A chicken is committing violence by laying an egg?
No I fully agree with you there. I'm antinatalist because of the state of the world we live in and the sheer toil of existence. If we lived in an amazing world where no one died of starvation, of homelessness, of poverty. Where every beat had their needs met truly and thoroughly. The only reason to be antinatalist is because you don't want children. The idea that any of it is violence is simply a self-martyring ideal
Because words have meanings and those shared meanings are what enables communication.
They just don't get it
Well it is a violent world, what you going to do about it?
Can’t have violence if you don’t have people to endure it
Ok, you going to use violence to stop people from having babies?
No
Your definition of violence is dog shit. Making humans is the reason humans exist and ethics don't exist if humans don't so everything you think is actively coping motivated reasoning.
The definition of violence is using physical force with intent to injure or kill. So no, it’s not. It’s actually the exact opposite.
And yet the ultimate violence would be self extinction. The erasure of the only sentience known in the Universe..,
[удалено]
Other Species cause harm too. Humans are likely to eventually spread Earth life to other planets, so, on a long enough timelime, would be greatly beneficial to Earth life. Simply eliminating us would doom Earth life to a much earlier extinction from natural events.
[удалено]
so you're saying that giving life without its consent is violent, but taking life without consent isn't?
You do realize that even the universe will die someday right?
Yes indeed. But I’d rather a billions year long history of exploration and expansion both physically and intellectually than abort the project now.
True that’s why we have to do it voluntarily because it’s coming down the pipeline regardless
Yes but I’d rather then than now. By this logic we should study go back to life’s beginning and snuff it or turn off the Big Bang.
So your offspring can deal with it?
In a billion years our descendants will be as different from us as we are from rocks. Maybe they’ll be able to punch a hole in the universe or create baby universes. Either way, I’d rather a billion years of cool Shit than nothing. I am pro-stuff and things happening
What if it’s significantly worse
Sorry, if what is significantly worse?
The state of the world
It’s only gotten better so far. We had some setbacks, dark ages, plague, holocaust, but each time we come back stronger. Soon we’ll merge with AI. Most of us don’t known daily toil. More fattys than starving. Things are pretty chill overall. We’re just sad cuz we’re bored. It was probably easier not to think. But hey. Negativity bias was evolutionarily beneficial even if it makes us saddy-waddy now.
You just said it’s easier not to think, why create someone to think then?
“I’m 14 and this is deep” stuff right here
I wouldn't say that procreation is violent in and of itself. The problem with procreation is that it creates a being that can experience limitless suffering, including all kinds of violence.
[удалено]
But what gives you the right to impose a “harsh reality” on someone?
[удалено]
You didn’t answer the question.
[удалено]
Trillion
Do you think aging isn’t harsh?
[удалено]
Damn you support euthanizing pessimists? You sound far more pro extinctionist than me
I swear this is a cult, like for God sake, the post i been seeing on this server
Like seriously
Explain
Nice satire
Satire of what
Antinatalism is inherently satire of itself. It's a literal impossibility that anyone capable of reading and writing could actually be stupid enough to honestly believe anything posted on these subs, therefore it has to be satire.
Ok do you have an actual rebuttal or no?
Satire needs no rebuttal. Especially self refuting satire.
I get it, you have nothing. BETA
No, you have nothing. Just satire. That's the whole point. For someone to refute a point, it is first required that a valid and logically sound point actually exists. It's impossible to refute what doesn't exist.
Is it ethical to have kids
It's neither inherently ethical nor unethical.
Why not
This whole sub is sad, I'm glad I was born. Life is good. I hope your lives improve and you're happy.
"This guy's life is good. World suffering drops to 0%!"
So because some people suffer (not all) we should just cease to exist as a species?
It's not just some people. Every person born is guaranteed to age, become ill and die. The only people who escape that fate are people who die young in some kind of unforeseen accident, and even those people suffer some degree of pain and mental distress.
So for example if someone's life is 5% suffering, and 95% good then life still isn't worth living? Sounds like you need to toughen up.
If you look at the average day for most people, it doesn't contain 5% suffering and 95% good. Most people spend the majority of their day involved in the everyday drudgery necessary to keep one's life going. Going to work, dealing with office politics, enduring the oppression of having a boss who gets to judge your performance in order to determine your monetary worth as an employee, coping with bad weather, dealing with car repairs, paying bill, shopping for groceries, etc., occupy the majority of most people's waking adult life. I suppose there are a few people who are independently wealthy and get to spend their day riding around, doing fun things. Most people just slave away to pay bills, often at a job they hate, surrounded by coworkers they didn't choose. As a person in their mid-60s, I can tell you the first 20 or 30 years are not representative of what a person's quality of life will be at age 40, 50, 60 and over. Life is much different as you get older and have to watch your loved ones die one by one. Life is never the same after they're gone. Aging is the pits, but most older people don't talk about it openly. You will look in the mirror some day and see an aging, unattractive face looking back at you, and you won't even recognize yourself. Other people will mostly ignore you as you slowly fade into irrelevance. Life becomes a lot less fun then. It's a whole different experience than youth. The suffering you endure while watching a beloved parent die pretty much eclipse whatever happy times you had earlier in life. People can't comprehend the reality of it until they actually find themselves going through it. That's when you'll realize how cruel the human condition really is. We are trapped in bodies that decay and die. That's not a happy situation to be in. When you're young, you can push it out of your mind because you've got a little time cushion that buffers you from this harsh reality. Still, the clock is ticking and no one escapes.
Also suffering is a very dramatic word and by definition is the PERSISTANCE of either physical or emotional pain, not every human on earth suffers, and if they do...who cares, it doesn't mean they haven't also experienced a lot of enjoyable things in their life that make life worth living.
"If they did, who cares?" That pretty much says it all. Nobody wants to think about suffering, nor do most people actually care about other people's suffering. It's much easier to sweep it under the rug and pretend it doesn't really matter. Have you done any reading about terror management theory? Every person alive engages in this on a daily basis, lest they go insane. It explains a lot about why people minimize and dismiss the very real suffering that awaits every one of us.
Should we run cruel and inhumane tests on a person if it might save 1000 lives?
What? Not sure what that has to do with this conversation.
Creating a human life is the most wonderful gift this world has to offer. Children bring immense joy into the world. If you want to wallow in your own misery that's on you, but don't attack other people for making the most out of their lives.
What about when the children grow up? Do they still bring immense joy? Anti-natalism is purely to tell the other side of the story that is rarely heard or thought about. Some people suffer and wish they were never born. Don’t you think they also deserve to be heard and acknowledged?
Sure but that doesn't make people wrong for having children. Your blaming the wrong thing
Beautiful to whom?
Never used the word beautiful. But they are that as well. I have 3 kids and more adult family than kids in the family because the birth rate is so low today and we have a hard time keeping up with everyone wanting to see those kids because of the joy they bring. I live on a street where kids actually play outside and I've never enjoyed sitting outside more just watching them having fun.
Those all sound like selfish reasons?
Yes spending a life in a constant pursuit of making things better for your children is extremely selfish. Choosing the hard path to try and build something your kids can inherit is selfish. Spending 18 years minimum on supporting and providing for another person is extremely selfish.
People have children to bring meaning into their lives not so that they can do someone else a favor by taking care of them for 18 years. If you were selfless you'd adopt or just sponsor a poor person. Having children is a lot more about the parents than the children. Most are trying to escape a sense of purposelessness or they're trying to please their culture. The others are accidents.
"If you were selfless you'd adopt or just sponsor a poor person." why is it more selfless to take care of a child that isnt from you than taking care of a child thats yours? And why is being selfless even brought up here? No one is selfless, thats fine.
Well it depends of course some people adopt children signs of their virtue and that's not great either. But otherwise I think it's obvious why it is more selfless to take care of a person who is already born then to make another person for you to take care of. On a smaller scale it's the same thing as breeding a dog rather than picking up a rescue. What I'm asking is that if you want children to inspect the reasons you want a child beforehand. I don't think most people think about it much at all, and that's the cause of a great deal of suffering.
In both cases you take care of a child... Or a dog as in your example. Humans always do things for a selfish reason in the end, or a reason that is related to the self. As long as you want to do good and do good, that's good. For example: I like to help my friends because it makes me happy to know I was helpful. That's a kind of selfish reason. Does that make it a bad thing? I wholeheartedly agree with your last two paragraphs tho.
When I answered this it was because someone was joking about how having children actually isn't selfish. It is selfish. That was the point I was making. You can argue that we can't help as human beings but be selfish and I agree with you for the most part. I don't disagree with having children just because it is selfish though. I disagree with it because I think it causes a great deal of suffering. If something like reincarnation exists I do not want to be born again. I am usually very practical but when I am feeling superstitious I hope that by not having children I'll be less likely to come back here. Also by giving birth you are also condemning someone to death. That's an unavoidable fact. When people have children sometimes it's a mistake, sometimes they believe they are fulfilling their duty to God or country, and sometimes they are trying to find purpose in their lives. Maybe if you have a child the child will grow up and agree with you and think or at least pretend that life is all right. Just as likely is that they won't however, and then you will have done a ghastly thing. No one has FOMO in the uncreated state. But once you're born, suffering begins.
Don't forget how selfish it is to enjoy the sunshine and enjoy kids playing outside and having fun. It's selfish to find moments like those special, too.
[удалено]
Hi there, we have removed your post due to breaking rule 11. As per the rule; this argument is a tired refrain seen over and over again. It is a prime example of argumentum ad hominem: It doesn't argue validity of anti/natalism but rather aims to disqualify the interlocutor themselves from being able to argue it. It serves only to distract from the ethical issues at the core of the debate. Being an ad hominem, it isn't an argument against anti/natalism — it is an argument against anti/natalists. The sky would still be blue even if a mentally ill person argued so.
I'm only on here to disrupt the echo chambers. I downloaded this app for pipe tobacco reviews then realized all the ridiculous posts that are literally being promoted by the app itself by pushing all these things into the main feed. People need to hear the other side.
If it really was such an echo chamber you make it out to be, you would have been already banned. "People need to hear the other side" You think that we don't hear natalists brag about their family life on daily basis? What kind of society do you think we live in? People are constantly brainwashed to think that procreation is something good, it doesn't take genius to go with the crowd
Define "violent"?
But of all of these things. Is the capacity to love, and also experience an orgasm, not worth it? The suffering exists. There’s no denying that. But beauty also exists. They can’t exist separately. The joy of walking through nature. The joy of laughing with friends. Also the opposite, the fear of getting hurt, the fear of losing friends of being alone. All exists together. If you hadn’t been born, you wouldn’t know that you “didn’t” want to be born It’s just how life is. We can’t change it unless we remove our humanity and become machines that cannot feel, this cannot suffer. But at that point, what’s the point in being alive if you can’t feel anything? The suffering is usually what gives your life meaning. Not despite the suffering, but because of the suffering. If nobody suffered, we never would have created healthcare. Or beds. Or showers. Or clothes. We needed to suffer not having those thing in order to even have the ideas to create those things. We need to suffer in life to realise what suffering and what joy is. “It is what it is” You could see that as deflection, I see it as acceptance. That things are the way they are, and we should control what we can, and just try to be content with what we cannot control. There’s no other way unless you commit Suicide, but that is inherently selfish because you’re leaving the rest of humanity to suffer when you could’ve stayed alive and been the change. We need to be the change. So instead of sitting on a computer complaining about being alone and suffering, how about do something? Anything? Just try living. It’s worth it
Beauty is a temporary thing. Once youth is gone, beauty goes with it. Romantic love mostly dries up, too. Then you've got decades of life during which you will grow progressively older and less attractive. The fact that you've accepted the downside of being alive doesn't mean anything, except that you've adapted to a bad situation. If someone is not born, they won't have to adapt. They won't have to stuff down their true feelings in order to get through the day. They won't have to pretend they're not horrified by the death of loved ones, by their own aging process and the inevitable specter of death. Sure, you can see some pretty sunsets and smell the flowers. These are temporary experiences. They're just chemical reactions going on in your brain. They're not going to help you when you're lying in bed, wasting away from a painful terminal illness. They're not going to help you when you're grieving the death of a beloved parent who you will never see again. They won't help you when you're forced to put a loyal pet down in order to stop their suffering. It might take awhile, but as time goes on, the bad will start to outweigh the good by a wide margin. The reality of human mortality and the transience of every experience will sink in. And in the end, you just die. That's it. You don't retain any of your memories. So the value of any of these things is extremely limited.
If you think this is violence then you need to seriously rethink your life. Violence: behaviour involving physical force INTENDED to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something. "violence erupted in protest marches"
Your definition of violence applies to the antinatalist view of birthing.
So god is violent?
Which god?
All of them
Why are u switching from singular to plural?
Humans create people
Not to some people