Antinatalism/Efilism

[A Good Friend]

Is life a bad thing?

Should we expose others to a lifetime of boredom, satisfying urges, or suffering?

Why create need where there once was none?

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVnvpbaXhd4[/video]




more vids,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jHbBHq5MGA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8rCtZaaaX4

reading material,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=efilism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifrustrationism

 

[idkwattodowithlife]

I agree with Antinatalism (to some degree).

Some people aren't mentally capable (or mentally compitable) to have children. There's too many narcissists and sociopaths walking around our societies as is.

 

[A Good Friend]

I agree with Antinatalism (to some degree).
Some people aren't mentally capable (or mentally compitable) to have children. There's too many narcissists and sociopaths walking around our societies as is.

I really like what he says about "getting the bad medical reports" in that first video. I think it's mostly a meme that people look back on their life and are grateful too have lived it. I think they're more interested in the suffering their body is going through when they die. And even when we're not suffering, we're on a treadmill chasing after satisfaction that never seems lasting, or to arrive at all.

Maybe it'd be better to never create this situation in the first place. Spare a potential person the suffering. Life's not 50/50. Nobody seems ever truly satisfied. Normalfags rope more than incels.

 

[Kointo1]

It's absurd to think it's innately anything. It's not malevolent nor benevolent.

 

[idkwattodowithlife]

I agree with Antinatalism (to some degree).
Some people aren't mentally capable (or mentally compitable) to have children. There's too many narcissists and sociopaths walking around our societies as is.

I really like what he says about "getting the bad medical reports" in that first video. I think it's mostly a meme that people look back on their life and are grateful too have lived it. I think they're more interested in the suffering their body is going through when they die. And even when we're not suffering, we're on a treadmill chasing after satisfaction that never seems lasting, or to arrive at all.
Maybe it'd be better to never create this situation in the first place. Spare a potential person the suffering. Life's not 50/50. Nobody seems ever truly satisfied. Normalfags rope more than incels.

Yeahprettymuch/10.

A lot of people are begging for Euthanasia to come out anyways...

 

[A Good Friend]

It's absurd to think it's innately anything. It's not malevolent nor benevolent.

You may feel different about that one day. But I made the thread for all opinions, not in the hope that everyone shared mine.

It's pretty hard to not find life to be a negative when you've been through and seen some of the stuff I have. I was made a pessimist. Years of painful medical problems and losing people will do that shit to you. Try working in a nursing home sometime and come out with the idea that life isn't inherently negative. (not all those people are old, btw)

 

[Kointo1]

You may feel different about that one day.

I won't. Good and bad are merely human concepts.

---

It's pretty hard to not find life to be a negative when you've been through and seen some of the stuff I have. I was made a pessimist. Years of painful medical problems and losing people will do that shit to you. Try working in a nursing home sometime and come out with the idea that life isn't inherently negative. (not all those people are old, btw)

You're basing your ideas off of emotions. They are nothing but chemical reactions and filters.

 

[A Good Friend]

@Kointo

>You're basing your ideas off of emotions
actually, I'm basing them off anecdotal evidence, which is just as bad


but, if I were to poll the planet, or just take a survey of suffering vs. pleasure occurring under the sun on any given day, I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers came out in favor of suffering

 

[kodoku]

People who have kids and don't make 100k$ a year or have hereditary illnesses are retarded. You seriously have to be mentally disabled too if you want your kid to WORK and get a mediocre or incel life and expose him to emotional and physical suffering.  I'm all in for voluntary extinction aswell

 

[A Good Friend]

People who have kids and don't make 100k$ a year or have hereditary illnesses are retarded. I'm all in for voluntary extinction aswell

It goes wrong for rich, healthy people too. Eventually we all break down, and despite what movies and tv tell us, it's not in some comfortable bed, slowly drifting off. Mostly we die clutching our chests in great agony or choking on our own fluids and tissues.

 

[Kointo1]

@Kointo

>You're basing your ideas off of emotions
actually, I'm basing them off anecdotal evidence, which is just as bad

Anecdotal evidence involves emotions.

---

but, if I were to poll the planet, or just take a survey of suffering vs. pleasure occurring under the sun on any given day, I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers came out in favor of suffering

Probably.

 

[A Good Friend]

@Kointo
>You're basing your ideas off of emotions
actually, I'm basing them off anecdotal evidence, which is just as bad

Anecdotal evidence involves emotions.

Not by definition. If you say all cats are blue because you've only ever seen blue cats, you didn't do so for emotional reasons. You may have made a graph with large samples, but on your island, cats are always blue, and you've never been off your island.

So you're using pure reason, not emotion, and still coming out wrong because your sample size of cats wasn't large enough.

 

[Kointo1]

Not by definition. If you say all cats are blue because you've only ever seen blue cats, you didn't do so for emotional reasons. You may have made a graph with large samples, but on your island, cats are always blue, and you've never been off your island.

So you're using pure reason, not emotion, and still coming out wrong because your sample size of cats wasn't large enough.

Yeah, but in this case your anecdotes involve emotions.

 

[kodoku]

It goes wrong for rich, healthy people too. Eventually we all break down, and despite what movies and tv tell us, it's not in some comfortable bed, slowly drifting off. Mostly we die clutching our chests in great agony or choking on our own fluids and tissues.

Atleast rich people have better chances of giving their offspring a better quality of life and enjoy even a little of their time here, how can a guy suffer in a boat full of bitches?. First I'd like to encourage poor people to stop breeding, I live really near subhuman places and people won't stop fucking like rabbits and having 6 kids despite not even earning 300$ a month, my thoughts and english are weak but I'm glad there are people that truly support antinatalism    . Well us as incels are all supporting it

 

[A Good Friend]

Not by definition. If you say all cats are blue because you've only ever seen blue cats, you didn't do so for emotional reasons. You may have made a graph with large samples, but on your island, cats are always blue, and you've never been off your island.
So you're using pure reason, not emotion, and still coming out wrong because your sample size of cats wasn't large enough.

Yeah, but in this case your anecdotes involve emotions.

True, but anecdotal arguments need not involve emotion. I could just as easily not been touched by these things and come to a similar conclusion based on all the fucked up shit.

Atleast rich people have better chances of giving their offspring a better quality of life and enjoy even a little of their time here, how can a guy suffer in a boat full of bitches?. First I'd like to encourage poor people to stop breeding, I live really near subhuman places and people won't stop fucking like rabbits and having 6 kids despite not even earning 300$ a month, my thoughts and english are weak but I'm glad there are people that truly support antinatalism . Well us as incels are all supporting it

I agree there are levels to suffering. Money would always help, oh god would it help.

But a guy in a boatfull of bitches could suffer if he had a chronic pain condition, or just a kidney stone come loose. Or maybe he's been doing this for years and the novelty is begging to wear off.

 

[Vision]

Are you a subscriber to /r/antinatalism too? I am

 

[KyloRen]

The universal struggle is of life vs. death. Approximately 22% of all stars in the universe are like our sun. And out of all those, 20% have Earth-sized planets. In total, about 4.4% is most likely suitable for life to exist. That leaves out 95.6% death traps. Note, that this figure is probably higher considering that there are a ton of factors limiting the availability of life to evolve.

Taking it a step further, these are just planets, most of the universe is empty space, literal nothingness. Such rarity of life, and the rare limits of which life can emerge from, make it valuable.

Yes, life, occasionally, sucks, but we're part of a cosmic minority. We're in a struggle for survival. I'd rather fight it out than give up.

 

[nausea]

You're basing your ideas off of emotions. They are nothing but chemical reactions and filters.

and here it comes, @Kointo in full force

---

https://incels.is/Thread-repost-WARNING-SUI-INDUCING-AND-GRAPHIC

 

[Kointo1]

and here it comes, @Kointo in full force

It's logic and reasoning.

 

[A Good Friend]

Are you a subscriber to /r/antinatalism too? I am

I've checked it out, and there's some good stuff, but they have the wrong idea about suffering. They take it too literally. I would say wiping my ass or having to eat represents unneeded burden, therefore suffering.

The universal struggle is of life vs. death. Approximately 22% of all stars in the universe are like our sun. And out of all those, 20% have Earth-sized planets. In total, about 4.4% is most likely suitable for life to exist. That leaves out 95.6% death traps. Note, that this figure is probably higher considering that there are a ton of factors limiting the availability of life to evolve.
Taking it a step further, these are just planets, most of the universe is empty space, literal nothingness. Such rarity of life, and the rare limits of which life can emerge from, make it valuable.
Yes, life, occasionally, sucks, but we're part of a cosmic minority. We're in a struggle for survival. I'd rather fight it out than give up.

The odds were against us, but in the here and now, is there really a need for this? If this is a random accident and there is no measure of intelligence behind it, why do we cling to the fact that the outcome of the process is benevolent? It's almost an article of faith that most, even those that have done away with religion, still believe in some "balance" or even an abundance of positives attached to living. If it's an accidental thing, why need it be good?

 

[KyloRen]

The odds were against us, but in the here and now, is there really a need for this? If this is a random accident and there is no measure of intelligence behind it, why do we cling to the fact that the outcome of the process is benevolent? It's almost an article of faith that most, even those that have done away with religion, still believe in some "balance" or even an abundance of positives attached to living. If it's an accidental thing, why need it be good?

The need for it, is the fact that we don't know 100% about our universe. There might be a way of escaping this universe into another one, or into another dimension. Again, unlikely, but we don't know for sure. Such acts may bring about immortality, which represents the ultimate "fuck you" to God/Nature whatever it is you believe or don't believe in. Thanks to our intellect and ability, we can proclaim "God is dead" and we would then become our own Gods. Perhaps looking over other universes, where life exists, and where we could reign.

Holy fuck this was so autistic to type out.

 

[A Good Friend]

The odds were against us, but in the here and now, is there really a need for this? If this is a random accident and there is no measure of intelligence behind it, why do we cling to the fact that the outcome of the process is benevolent? It's almost an article of faith that most, even those that have done away with religion, still believe in some "balance" or even an abundance of positives attached to living. If it's an accidental thing, why need it be good?

The need for it, is the fact that we don't know 100% about our universe. There might be a way of escaping this universe into another one, or into another dimension. Again, unlikely, but we don't know for sure. Such acts may bring about immortality, which represents the ultimate "fuck you" to God/Nature whatever it is you believe or don't believe in. Thanks to our intellect and ability, we can proclaim "God is dead" and we would then become our own Gods. Perhaps looking over other universes, where life exists, and where we could reign.
Holy fuck this was so autistic to type out.

But does that necessitate the legions of dead, or the suffering that came before it? How much human suffering is worth a future person's utopia? We're still just putting a big (very hypothetical) band-aid on the problem. In fact, by saying we might be able to escape, we make the unpleasantness of life implicit. After all, what are we escaping?

 

[KyloRen]

But does that necessitate the legions of dead, or the suffering that came before it? How much human suffering is worth a future person's utopia? We're still just putting a big (very hypothetical) band-aid on the problem. In fact, by saying we might be able to escape, we make the unpleasantness of life implicit. After all, what are we escaping?

Yes it does necessitate the legions of dead, because without them, this hypothetical situation wouldn't have been possible.

Again, my autism alert: We're escaping the physicality and "transcending" into something else, entirely. 

If you're worried about keeping people alive who don't wish to, then it should be inculcated into the minds of folks that they are free to take their life whenever they wish. Thus, if they do remain alive, they implicitly give consent to continue on this "goal" of advancing life.

 

[A Good Friend]

But does that necessitate the legions of dead, or the suffering that came before it? How much human suffering is worth a future person's utopia? We're still just putting a big (very hypothetical) band-aid on the problem. In fact, by saying we might be able to escape, we make the unpleasantness of life implicit. After all, what are we escaping?

Yes it does necessitate the legions of dead, because without them, this hypothetical situation wouldn't have been possible.
Again, my autism alert: We're escaping the physicality and "transcending" into something else, entirely.
If you're worried about keeping people alive who don't wish to, then it should be inculcated into the minds of folks that they are free to take their life whenever they wish. Thus, if they do remain alive, they implicitly give consent to continue on this "goal" of advancing life.

You dove us into the hypothetical by deferring the suffering of yesterday and today into a possible future reward.

Taking a life is not the same as never creating one. Suicide is a decision that comes with severe emotional strain, and you're going to be pulling a fish out of water, or rather an organism with a level of awareness like ours, out of the struggle that birthed him and is very likely his only real purpose; To add numbers to the struggle. I don't see how a chance process is necessary.

 

[KyloRen]

You dove us into the hypothetical by deferring the suffering of yesterday and today into a possible future reward.

Taking a life is not the same as never creating one. Suicide is a decision that comes with severe emotional strain, and you're going to be pulling a fish out of water, or rather an organism with a level of awareness like ours, out of the struggle that birthed him and is very likely his only real purpose; To add numbers to the struggle. I don't see how a chance process is necessary.

Suicide is such an emotional strain because, in my view, society has placed that strain upon us. Taking away such societal pressures can alleviate the concerns you're having in regards to this hypothetical situation. I see this struggle as necessary, because what else is there? Life is meaningless, yes, but I'd rather "Wager" to fight for a hypothetical situation than none at all.

Again, this is just my view. I would gladly have kids so they could continue this struggle. If they decide to do nothing productive with their lives, so be it, but I would be damned if I didn't try to persuade them.

Fundamentally, it all comes down to what one believes is the future of intelligent life.

 

[ArtoriasWolf]

Incels should never reproduce.

 

[nausea]

so, I reviewed OP posts lately, are you into antinatalism now?

 

[A Good Friend]

You dove us into the hypothetical by deferring the suffering of yesterday and today into a possible future reward.
Taking a life is not the same as never creating one. Suicide is a decision that comes with severe emotional strain, and you're going to be pulling a fish out of water, or rather an organism with a level of awareness like ours, out of the struggle that birthed him and is very likely his only real purpose; To add numbers to the struggle. I don't see how a chance process is necessary.

Suicide is such an emotional strain because, in my view, society has placed that strain upon us. Taking away such societal pressures can alleviate the concerns you're having in regards to this hypothetical situation. I see this struggle as necessary, because what else is there? Life is meaningless, yes, but I'd rather "Wager" to fight for a hypothetical situation than none at all.
Again, this is just my view. I would gladly have kids so they could continue this struggle. If they decide to do nothing productive with their lives, so be it, but I would be damned if I didn't try to persuade them.
Fundamentally, it all comes down to what one believes is the future of intelligent life.

Idk man, I think the strain would remain even if the taboo was gone. Living and reproducing is all we know. You could say we're addicted.

Check out the anitfrustrationism link. There's a good pdf out there somewhere by the founder, I'll try and find it. Also, David Benatar's asymmetry argument is like the standard model of AN.

In order for it to work, you have to set suffering as "objectively bad." It's a bit of an academic blindspot, but many philosophers push this "subjective suffering" nonsense and "prove" it with informal logic. I can prove my argument by hitting one of them in the spine with a ball-peen hammer and shattering a disc. Suffering matters.

so, I reviewed OP posts lately, are you into antinatalism now?

I don't jump into anything fully, but I realized some years ago that we should base our lives around reducing suffering whenever possible. The simplest step is never creating a need to be met.

 

[KyloRen]

Idk man, I think the strain would remain even if the taboo was gone. Living and reproducing is all we know. You could say we're addicted. 

Quite possibly.

Check out the anitfrustrationism link. There's a good pdf out there somewhere by the founder, I'll try and find it. Also, David Benatar's asymmetry argument is like the standard model of AN.

In order for it to work, you have to set suffering as "objectively bad." It's a bit of an academic blindspot, but many philosophers push this "subjective suffering" nonsense and "prove" it with informal logic. I can prove my argument by hitting one of them in the spine with a ball-peen hammer and shattering a disc. Suffering matters.

Suffering has its uses. It's meant to tell you when something is wrong, so you can fix it. In your example, a bad spine can kill you, you need to see a doc and get meds for it. Overall, yes, you're right that suffering is bad because in all cases (real or not) it indicates that something is wrong.

Again, I hate jumping back in to this philosophy shit, but how do we define something as "wrong" or "right?" Different people have different thoughts of what makes something right or wrong. I, for instance, am suffering through fasting and a strict diet. The end result will be a better looking body. The suffering is bad, but what matters here is the end result of that suffering. 

Then again, this is just my perspective.

I don't jump into anything fully, but I realized some years ago that we should base our lives around reducing suffering whenever possible. The simplest step is never creating a need to be met.

That is a very good point. Never creating a need to be met. I wish that were possible.

 

[A Good Friend]

@kyloren

>suffering has its uses

That's the thing, we've already set a thing in motion here. Was it necessary to set it in motion? That's the question Antifrustrationists ask.

All of these uses of suffering are to serve the survival of the organism so that it may reproduce and care for the product until it reproduces. Is this a purpose in itself?

>how do we define something as "wrong" or "right?"

That's when we get into "subjective suffering." I say there are objectively negative states for a being that possesses a central nervous system. That's what's at stake is creating a new CNS. Is it worth it to bring one into being? Are we doing this for the child's sake or our own?

It's unethical to subject something to what I define as suffering, even if it's my arbitrary definition. The only way I can assure a minimum of suffering is to never do it in the first place. Now, maybe his life won't be suffering in the traditional sense, but he will have to eat, shit, breathe, work, maybe he'll be an incel, as to where if he never was created, there would be no negative. Now, his life might be pretty good as far as lives go, but remember, there are millions of chronic pain sufferers and no chronic pleasure sufferers.

 

[Kointo1]

@subsaharan, I think you'd enjoy this thread.

 

[KyloRen]

@kyloren

>suffering has its uses

That's the thing, we've already set a thing in motion here. Was it necessary to set it in motion? That's the question Antifrustrationists ask.

All of these uses of suffering are to serve the survival of the organism so that it may reproduce and care for the product until it reproduces. Is this a purpose in itself?

Was this completely necessary? No? I mean, if nothing existed, then there is no need for things to exist. 

Yes, reproduction and caring for offspring are a purpose. But, to me, that is not the purpose itself. The purpose is to, now that we're in this fight for survival, to see it through.

>how do we define something as "wrong" or "right?" 

That's when we get into "subjective suffering." I say there are objectively negative states for a being that possesses a central nervous system. That's what's at stake is creating a new CNS. Is it worth it to bring one into being? Are we doing this for the child's sake or our own?

It's unethical to subject something to what I define as suffering, even if it's my arbitrary definition. The only way I can assure a minimum of suffering is to never do it in the first place. Now, maybe his life won't be suffering in the traditional sense, but he will have to eat, shit, breathe, work, maybe he'll be an incel, as to where if he never was created, there would be no negative. Now, his life might be pretty good as far as lives go, but remember, there are millions of chronic pain sufferers and no chronic pleasure sufferers.

You're right in that sense, we're creating something that will eventually suffer (one way or another). So, in your mind, it's best to not create it in the first place. I can have some disagreements because, again, in my mind, we're already in this fight, and I am the one who wants to see it through.

Let's continue that line of thought. What jurisdiction do I have to create life? What gives me the power to do so? Is it ethical to do so?


I need more time to think about it.

 

[TheRealChincel]

This is the logical conclusion of life. Everything suffers needlessly and there's no consent.

 

[A Good Friend]

What jurisdiction do I have to create life? What gives me the power to do so? Is it ethical to do so?

Truthfully, this is the jumping-off point to get to antinatalism. It's where I started.

 

[nausea]

get to antinatalism. It's where I started.

you fully embraced it?