What does leftypol think about antinatalism?

Regardless of how you feel about procreation, roasties will always want it because too much of their plumbing and therefore evolutionary-psychology is dedicated to it. It's not a philosophical question for the roastie–her biology screams at her to dump out a baby like needing to hiccup or take a leak.

It is not.

Babies are cute as fuck. If you believe in the potential of the human race you should have one.

I already addressed this point, even the ones who don't "enjoy" life still find it meaningful and worth continuing because there's more to life than just hedonistic-comfort-enjoyment. Even if they are in poverty or in pain they would rather carry forward and avoid the prospect of dying and returning to "nothingness".

Statistically speaking they will find their life valuable and worth preserving, like virtually all humans do. So it makes sense for people to continue having babies.

It also makes sense for men to want babies and start a family, it makes all their hard-work more meaningful. Instead of simply collecting shekels to spend on distractions/entertainment they can use their money to nurture their family, and when they die they can leave their wealth/empire to their kids, so it doesn't just vanish pointlessly.

I agree, but if you have a baby of your own when there are babies without families that you could adopt you're a piece of shit (in my eyes).

no. utilitarianism is a mental disease.
either way you are taking care of 1 baby and doing it good.

fuck that nigga I'm trying to spread mah seed. propagate the species and all that

its going to be your baby you fucking psychopath
which didn't need care before you decided to spawn it for no fucking reason when there's babies already needing care.

I'd say that the large majority of people, even those with the very worst existences, would rather continue to stay alive than to have never been born or to be killed

how about i impregnate your wife and you adopt the child as your own

oh fuck that. if you have the means and proper equipment to produce a child naturally than you should do it. if those aren't options for whatever reason, then adopt. I wouldn't adopt a kid unless I had no other chance of raising a child as my own

why would i want that user? i already said you shouldn't make new kids, definitely not while there already are kids without homes

why user, do you hate children?
hmm… why?
why?

because when you're going to have kids from people who get them because spreading muh seed that would be a safer option

It doesn't have to be voluntary y'know.

I wouldn't call child birth a gamble. When gambling there's still a chance, no matter how small, to win.

under communism we'll all be intelligent
(checked)
wrong, actually.

I don't "enjoy" life but I still find meaning in doing things like making music and riding my bike, but if I never existed, it would have never mattered to me in the first place. Also, even people who have it very well off are bound to experience suffering at some point in their life. Everybody gets sick, old, and dies, and on top of that, everybody experiences mental suffering such as anxiety and frustration. Existence hurts some people more, but it hurts everybody to a certain extent.

Also, I still feel like you're confusing "death" with "never existing in the first place". Of course most people who exist would prefer to live than die, because they have incredibly powerful survival instincts that are driving them forward, but if they never existed in the first place, they wouldn't have to worry about death or non-being.

Honestly it sounds like what you're basically saying is that men should reproduce to fill that empty void inside. Why not fill it with other things, like writing, picking up a sport or hobby, volunteering, adopting a dog, etc?

I'm gonna sound really edgy here but caring about a child more just because its biologically related to you is wrong. If you want kids why does it have to be /your/ kid?

Anti-natalism is just impossible tbh, even if we managed to kill every mammal on earth life would still probably evolve higher cognition again (humans are very young geologically speaking) before the sun swallowed the earth, and earthlings would still end up colonizing the galaxy, and that's ignoring all possible ayy lmaos out there.
Space Empires are pretty much inevitable.

The "empty void" inside was never empty to begin with, it is just covered in ice for some people, when the ice melts men realize they are full of love, and that abundance of love is best expressed through familial relationships. That's why the family is the building block of every society on earth, always was and always will be.

Those things are fine, but trivial distractions when compared to a loving wife and kids, which are foundational to a healthy and full life.

Not every man should procreate though, some are not cut out for it, some are mentally unstable and abusive and so forth, but most men who have reached a decent level of maturity should start families, it will help them grow and become better people.

We will have to abolish the universe.

that's some abstract kind of meme.

you can do that. I'd prefer to make new kids and save them from the void of nothingness.

Kids that are already existing are already fortunate, no matter what happens to them, they "won" the race so to speak. While kids that don't actually exist need to be created.

I will create them and I will raise them and so I will do more good than you ever will.

imagine being so retarded you believe this

Every moment you ARE conceiving a child you are denying thousands of other children existence, and that's just with one partner.

I really like this trot. We should be friends.

Yes, save those non-existent kids from the blessed state of non-existence!

this is a nightmare scenario

...

If you are having trouble grappling with the "meaningless of existence" then I will tell you that nihilism is a self-refuting conviction, because if nothing matters, then what you believe doesn't matter, so you might as well believe something that makes you feel good.

if you believed this you would be running to non-existence with a smile on your face, but deep down you know it's not true, you also know it's only temporary, for if it were permanent you would not even be here to talk about it, you would have never been born.

it doesn't HAVE to be. if it had to be, and I couldn't​ have a kid, then I just would go without children. but I can go ahead say "well, I have no other option but I still want to impart my bullshit wisdom and shitty ideologies on to a living organism". having a biologically related child is not a necessity. it's a preference. the why is simple tho. if a child is from my DNA and my wife's DNA, I have a genetic roadmap ahead of me in the form of my life, experiences, and genetic traits, along with those of my parents, siblings, and relatives. it's a bit easier to understand a child if that child is related to you in some real way, imo

...

What's the word for being anti-life? I think we should forcibly drive all sentient life to extinction. If possible we should irradiate the planet as thoroughly as possible to prevent multicellular life from being possible ever again.

It's not enough to just elect not to reproduce. We have to prevent anyone and anything else from reproducing. And we also have to stop as many lives as possible before they continue and suffer more. This is the logical conclusion of the anti-natalist argument.

r9k

Efilism?

nigga it's possible for something to be permanent on one side and temporary on the other.
and considering non-existence to be a thing is stretching the concept of thing to its breaking point.

The actual idea hiding behind this bullshit is just the cynical "we can't miss the chance to add warm bodies to the ranks of our tribe."

Indeed. Although if you don't believe that everything should be consensual then you don't have any grounds for condemning actions such as slavery, rape, torture and murder. You either care and respect people's consent or you don't.

Nice buzzwords but if not a "marketplace" then slavery?

Actually suicide rate increases as soon as there are easier methods available. Even if that were true that doesn't excuse them from creating new life against their will. Also death =/= non-existence, you can only experience death if you exist.

Semantic sophistry. The reality is that you're forcing them into existence when you didn't have to in the first place. It's as if I imprisoned someone against their will and then they had to choose whether to leave or stay.

Anti-natalism goes back to the Ancient World.

Then why do you want to subject them to this violent existence you sick fuck? Have you ever noticed how babies cry a lot (even when their physical needs are satisfied)?

Here is where you reveal yourself as the truly sociopath that you are, you don't care about people, you care about preserving this violent and meaningless existence because you are a slave to your survival instinct.

True, which is why anti-natalism is not totally nihilistic since we believe that birth matters and ending existence is a meaningful life purpose.

The prospect of ending existence by stopping reproduction makes me feel good.

Sure thing. Rape is literally a legal fiction like theft and vandalism. Murder and torture are sometimes necessary, such as in war.

I respect your ideological consistency, I can't stand hypocrites. But if that's the case then why are you here on Holla Forums if you don't believe in justice? I guess you're one of those Stirnerite egoists?

From my point of view murder and torture is not only necessary but a moral duty, that is if it's a retributive war against murderers and torturers.

That's super fucking spooked, incredibly inconsistent, and just pragmatically retarded.

where you that guy r/ancap who said that raising a daughter is the ulitimate cuck cause some else is going to fuck her?

I like to differentiate between "hard" and "soft" anti-natalism. The difference being hard anti-natalism believes under no circumstances should humans reproduce, while soft anti-natalism believes they shouldn't reproduce under certain or most circumstances. I'd definitely consider myself a soft anti-natalist but not a hard one. I think it's incredibly selfish and shortsighted to force a child into this current world and subject them to the inevitable intense suffering of Capitalism, while there's millions of already existing orphans who need a parent. Procreation cannot possibly be justified under these circumstances and is just a reflection of a person blindly following basic instincts to the detriment of other humans.

I can understand not wanting to adopt because the child will likely have significant behavioral and psychological problems, but that doesn't justify creating a new human to subject them to suffering instead of helping an already existing one overcome theirs.

no fucking eogist would be dumb enough to call rape a legal fiction like this guy did.

This a book worth reading on the subject.

Rape is a legal fiction created to protect another legal fiction (marriage). Why do you think the idea of spousal rape is still so controversial in many parts of the world, even the west?

The earlier a child is adopted the less likely it is to have trauma due to it, although I feel all the more driven to adopt children aged 7+ simply because at that point they're unlikely to be adopted and are condemned to growing up in an orphanage or foster care. Even adopting a 15 or 16 year old can make an enormous difference in improving their life.

oh shit that guy

I agree. I think you'd have to be incredibly educated and determined to succeed, but if you want to be a parent and actually do the thing that improves the world the most, that would be the option.

It's funny how if I think about it I feel very strongly about this, but in day to day life I don't care because it's so ubiquitous.

Anti-natalism is the logical conclusion of non-marxist materialism. Leftists should reject it.

I don't want any children because… I just don't want to — I'm not interested in the emotional investment, let alone the loss of intimacy and free time associated with it.

Marxism doesn't apply outside of the realm of human economic activity and production and even there it is a tool of analysis and does not prescribe any course of action, it merely outlines the consequences of human economic activity and its growth.
Trying to prescribe behavior through marxism or to try to apply it to issues outside the sphere of historical and socioeconomic relations and processes is 'cultural marxism' tier retarded.
Anti-natalism as an ethical/philosophical position is unrelated to anything which concerns marxism and their spheres do not collide. There is no reason why leftism and anti-natalism are incompatible, certainly given the philosophical positions typically accompanying leftist thought.

Just as spooked as your egoism.

Nope. I respect others consent as far as they respect mine, as soon as they attack me I defend myself and attack back. I believe that people that violate others consent should have their consent violated likewise so they can feel what's like to be violated. Not only that but they should suffer much more than their victims as punishment, for example rapists should be raped so as that all their body orifices become permanently damaged and they naturally die from it, murderers should be slowly and painfully killed, torturers should be tortured as long as their maximum lifespan, thieves should have all their personal possessions taken away, vandals should have their home and all their personal possessions destroyed.

Maybe from your worldview, not from mine. Pragmatism in my worldview would be not to punish oppressors as quickly as possible.

I'm not an anti-natalist but that is a pretty crap argument. I've known suicidal people who are tormented even more by the fact that they feel they can't kill themselves because they have a responsibility to not ruin their family's lives.

Jesus Christ you're an edgelord. It's like you read the Old Testament and thought God actually had the right idea about everything. How can you possibly justify your position without resorting to feels > reals?
Punishment has empirically shown to not work. It is an unjustifiable position. Compare the shitty rape houses of Mexico to the comfy rehabilitation apartments of Scandinavia and see which one works better at preventing recidivism.

No, just this verse from Exodus 21: "23 But if any harm follows, then you shall pay life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." Which was copied from the much older Babylonian Law Code of Hammurabi.

I don't. I proudly own up to my feelings, I hate aggressors and want to see them punished. Every worldview ultimately comes down to feelings, just like yours, the difference is that I'm not a hypocrite or delusional enough in believing my worldview is completely objective and devoid of any subjective view.

Punishment is justice, how else are you going to fairly repay what the victim has suffered?

That's because they don't kill them, that's the only 100% effective method to prevent recidivism.

It doesn't speak well of you that you're system of justice is literally Bronze Age morality.
My world view is based what works to create a better world. Not on satisfying some petty bloodlust.
How does causing more suffering and contributing to the cycle of violence repay the victim? An eye for an eye doesn't return the eye to the first victim.
Just admit you're a Fascist who likes violence and harming scapegoats who "deserve it". At least criminals don't pretend they're doing it for anything except their own satisfaction.

Stupid.

But living is.
But if they have a good life I have robbed them of joy.
Makes no sense.
Because the latter ones are cooler and also I dont experience those, neither will my kids.
Also "should" is a spook and not in my interest.

...

Are you the same person that I debated on this months ago?

Not an argument, just because something is old doesn't mean it's bad, just like something that's new means it's good.

So does mine, revenge creates a better world.

No it doesn't, that's why aggressors must suffer much more than just an "eye for an eye" they must pay with their whole body and soul.

No, I hate initiatory violence but I love retaliatory violence and I absolutely DESPISE scapegoating i.e. blaming innocent people.

Not really. It isn't as if people have no attachment to life. Humans have a drive to live, and hope, the 'things will be okay in the end :)' meme is strong. Killing yourself is hard for many reasons.
Do you really think you have total control of what you want and what you do?

And if they have a bad life you've inflicted serious harm, whether they have a bad life is also totally out of your control.
You aren't robbing someone of anything if the person in question hasn't existed, but you are rolling a dice for them without their consent if you do decide to create them.

As long as you accept that you're creating a person for your own benefit rather than for theirs.

No idea.
N,o, but you can see what kind of world and society they lived in, and the question is do you want to adopt the morality of that world, and therefor the society?
Yes indeed, all the gang warfare through America or the blood feuds are definitely creating a better world.
Why?
Violence is violence, and it all leads to the same thing. It's still scapegoating if you excessively blame a non-innocent.

If you stop yourself from killing yourself it is you who does it, not a magic evil demon. All choices and "consent" exist within the real of your total self, including instincts. To say that instincts arent part of you and consent isnt real because of instincts is stupid and meaningless.

No not really. I have some control.

So chance for positive and chance for negative on a roll, equals out to neutral. Which means it not immoral.

Spooks. I will just blame paternal instincts since that apparently lies outside of rationality and thus can be used to dismiss any agency a person has.

So you don't remember debating someone on Holla Forums on this same subject some time ago?

Yes and no, there are good things and there are bad things.

My view on revenge is retributive aggression/counter-attack, if an associate of the initial aggressor attacks the initial victim in response to the victim's counter-attack then it's not revenge but merely the continuation of the initial aggression.

Because it's fair punishment, therefore justice.

Locking up someone against their own will in a comfy rehabilitation apartment is also violence (violating their will).

No it's not! The definition of scapegoating is blaming innocent people. There is no such thing as "excessive" blame.

The term is "guilty".

You're a human, not a free floating intelligence. You don't choose to have 'instincts', you don't even get to choose what sort of character you have.

Some, if nothing unexpected happens, but you could be hit by a bus tomorrow. Or nuclear war could come. Even if nothing unexpected happens, your control is limited. You could be a richfag monarch and produce a child racked with existential questions, or just some chemical imbalance. Or are you going to pass the cheat code for amor fati down to them?

Neutral is doing nothing. You're choosing to act. If I play Russian roulette with someone else's knee and I only load half the bullets in the cylinder I think they'd question my neutrality.

Do you honestly want to reproduce only out of a cool, detached desire that a new person can experience the joy of life? Fap before you answer this.

I didn't say people are totally controlled by unconscious forces. I didn't say nobody could ever kill themselves, I just said it is hard. Maybe it would require serious willpower for you to not have children, I don't know what it's like in your head. The power drives we don't choose to have have over us alone should give you pause for thought.

Isn't this NAP tier? I could understand if you were only applying this to crimes involving wilful cruelty.

What if a starving man steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family?

What if some dumb kids damage your window while trespassing in factory grounds out of an innocent desire for adventure?

Maybe vaguely.
All are products of each other.
And the entire idea behind the circle of violence with gang warfare and Blood Feuds is no one has any idea what the first aggression was, they're just continually responding to the most recent one. Nor does it matter who started it, only that believing in revenge perpetuates systems like that.
How? What determines fair, and what determines justice? How are either of those things good?
It's not optimal and it is still coercion, but at least it's intentionally designed to improve the situation and rehabilitate the criminal, a person who is simply a product of their circumstances. Blaming a criminal and punishing them takes away the focus on the society that created them: either forcing them into crime for a livelihood, or fucking them up so much they take out their dysfunction on others.
No one is totally innocent. It doesn't matter if the person you're blaming for the crop failure is actually a criminal or not, you're still scapegoating them.

False equivalence. Played infinite amounts of time russian roulette always ends up negatively. Life also has a positive outcome possibility.

No and fapping doesnt change the fact that I still want to be a father some day.

And I still do not agree with your position that killing yourself being hard is not being made hard by your own self. If you cant kill yourself, you didnt want to kill yourself. It is you who stops you from doing is, not some detached idea of "instincts". You are responsible for all your actions.

No, according to NAP it would be okay to shoot someone having a walk on some private-owned forest. This is obviously retarded. NAP is property rights.

It does only apply to wilful cruelty. I am against punishing people that accidentally harm others (which is what current law systems do).

This society is fucked, so we can argue that he didn't consent to live in such a shit society and is right to steal to survive if there aren't any other options.

Accidents happen, he is innocent, insurance pays up.

Fine, load the other chambers with MDMA injector darts.

I think it's a matter of temperament. I don't think appeal to reason changes people's minds about antinatalism.

People who are suffering usually don't kill themselves. Do you really think killing yourself is a trivial thing?

'You' don't decide what 'you' consist of. I didn't decide to have a will to live, it's just there. Deciding it shouldn't be there doesn't change that. You don't decide what you want, you don't decide what 'instincts' you have, you don't decide much about yourself at all. I can decide to want to join the Salvation Army, but my heart isn't going to be in it.

If it's not known who started it then they are all aggressors for perpetuating the conflict and harming innocents in the middle of it.

Not my definition of retaliatory-only revenge.

Retaliation determines justice, similar counter-attack but worse determines fairness. Those things are good because I feel like it.

Of course society is not blameless, one of the big problems of society is not eliminating it's criminal elements (and that includes it's ruling class exploiters). I also don't believe in blank slate.

This a dead end discussion. Let's just agree to disagree. What I find annoying of you is how you are more concerned with me than with the guy I was initially talking to that believes rape and murder is A-OKAY:

Some of you fags shouldn't even call yourselves leftists.

If all that awaits children is exploitation under capitalism and oppressive social/political systems, why have children?

I agree reproduction is coercive, though I only believe it's immoral if the child is subject to coercive life situations (capitalism) or adverse conditions (poverty/overpopulation).

It's objectively correct unless you argue for the existence of a value base aside from pleasure and pain. But especially lefties love their consequentialist utilitarian nonsense and dismiss anything else as "spooky", so that might be difficult.

People do it all the time.

when a child has no interest in consuming food whatsoever, it's called failure to thrive and is considered abnormal
reproduction is no different, reproductive animals have an inherent desire to reproduce. if you have no such desire, you are abnormal by definition

Can we stop this shitty meme?

And they are constantly retaliating. What if the criminal is only retaliating against society, and you're aggressing against his justice?
Those are horrible, arbitrarily defined definitions with absolutely no philosophical basis.
And what makes you above a criminal who believes what he does is good because he feels like it?
Are you implying criminals are what they are because of their genetics?
Only because one of us isn't using reason.
Because he's an idiot that says it doesn't matter while you literally said murder and torture is a moral duty. Someone who is amoral is significantly less dangerous than someone whose morality is vicious and destructive.

That doesn't make it any more or less trivial, silly and by that logic childbirth is even more trivial than suicide, therefore suicide is the more serious action.