Only unevolved people want to have children

Only unevolved people want to have children.
Only people who haven't suffered want to have children.
Nothing is more retarded than having children.
These truths are only denied by unevolved people.(USER WAS IMPREGNATED FOR THIS POST)

Other urls found in this thread:

there's no such thing as 'more evolved' you brainlet

Nice try Holla Forums.

Yeah I'm from 4chan Holla Forums. They never agree with this so I'm trying here. I'm banned from all of 4chan.

Baboons don't belong with people! They belong in zoos! What are those baboon peoples doing with that people person?! ZOOOOOOOOS!

also, fuck you for saging

It's a statement of fact, evolution is a linear process, two species existing at the same time cannot have different levels of evolution

bullshit. Species always evolve from simpler to more complex, never ever the other way around.

Evolution requires procreation. If people didn’t have kids evolution wouldn’t occur. You contradicted yourself.

Stop bumping this Holla Forumstards thread. There are important things to shitpost about.

Anti-natalism is an illness
You're biologically programmed to do a few things, the very most important being survive
Survival implies not only self survival but survival of your genes
Not wanting to pass your genes on is a malfunction as an organism

Nice bump

No, I didn't contradict myself. I said unevolved, not incapable of evolving. Fucking retard.

I know I fucked up.

No, it's to be enlightened.

Pop sci but it suffices to make the point, but even if you were right it still wouldn't mean organisms can be 'more evolved' than each other, evolution acts on all species at the same rate

Lol, you're fucking brainwashed m8. Evolution is slow as fuck in Africa.

Omg, how are you not getting this? I honestly don't know how to explain it to you. Unless a species dies out it's adapted to its environment, evolution is a process of adaptation not a process with an end goal of producing galaxy brain shitposter online. Humans are no more evolved than cockroaches.


Wtf mods I was having fun with this guy


oh christ read a fucking book you bleeding heart liberal brainlet.
if there is such a thing as "more primitive" than the opposite is "more evolved" society progresses with the mode of production and its ideology and unless you're blind it's easy to see that most societies follow stages of development. to say otherwise is completely postmodernist.
if you think i'm spouting right-wing wacko talk then you might want to consider the fact that Karl Marx was influenced by some of the greatest proponents of evolutionism of the 19th century. I'm not even agreeing with OP but you're completely exaggerating to say there aren't less evolved peoples and cultures.

You're being a stupid nigger. He is CLEARLY acknowledging that some are more complex,(otherwise he wouldn't make the cockroach/human comparison), he is just saying that a species can't "evolve more", which is 100% a correct interpretation unless there are multiple origins to life on earth which is a pretty radical conclusion to make for a Holla Forums shot poster to make. He hasn't once said that things don't complexify over time.
Time and time again, geneticists have said that people across the world are more or less the same genetically. Seriously consider ending your life, look into beginning a new one.
These things don't have to come together.

you're using the standard darwinian definition of "evolution" to read OP's post which is pedantic. there are also such things as cultural and social evolution which in that context makes certain people "unevolved" compared to others.

Your deffiniton of enlightened is stupid. Very different from everyone else’s deffiniton of enlightened.

I will procreate because it pleases my ego. Nothing can stop you.

Since our society today is not anarchocommunist, the proletarian lives a life full of negative experiences: debt, hunger, imprisonment, and fighting the wars of the elite.

When the proletarian procreates, their children will almost certainly will become proletarians themselves and will have the same negative experiences as their parents. Therefore with the act of procreation the proletarian forces their children to live a life without satisfaction and full of sorrow. This, however, based on the positions of antinatalism, is something unethical. It is not right to force others to feel sadness.

Moreover, the proletarian if they are a conscious revolutionary has an ethical obligation to not assist the current capitalist system to preserve itself. The existence of new proletarians helps the self-preservation of capitalism, since they become new consumers, new workers, and new soldiers. In short, the birth of new children by proletarians is an act that further promotes capitalism.

In accordance with the above positions, therefore, the proletarian should not create new children, because in that way they force them to live a life in sadness and at the same time they surrender the children to the capitalists who are known to have no mercy and will use them for the continuing preservation of their unjust system (capitalism could not exist without a lot of proletarians).

Therefore we provided a possible answer to the question about the revolutionary properties of antinatalism, supporting the view that antinatalism is a revolutionary philosophy because it refuses to supply new proletarians to the capitalist machine, and we see that a possible act of resistance by the proletariat against the capitalist barbarism is the refusal to bring new proletarians in life.

If being a socialist means I can’t have kids I’m out. I want to have kids. That’s that.