Last edited:
Cope
What if the manlet is good looking?
Almost, I don't like antinatalism, because most of them don't seem to be humanists and "lazy nihilists". You have to work multiple strategies to decrease human suffering. Saying to end humanity, because existence is so bad, while not fighting for a better existence ist just bs.
Fair enough.
No, not really. I don't see the problem with people reproducing if they have good genes and earn a sufficiently large income. It all depends if the parents are capable of giving the child a decent life.
no i love natalie
The problem is I don't have faith in humanity at all.
What would be good strategies to decrease human suffering?
Last edited:
S
i am ot
but anyway in the future because of overpopulation there will be eugenics laws so not everyone will be able to reproduce.
government is preoccupied of the rise of incels in the whole population
but anyway in the future because of overpopulation there will be eugenics laws so not everyone will be able to reproduce.
government is preoccupied of the rise of incels in the whole population
Life is pure suffering (except for foid), so don't reproduce.
I see where you're coming from and you're right. At this point for me, Third Reich's downfall was the biggest mistake of all time. It's a matter of time for eugenism to make a come back.
I'm not an antinatalist, in fact I reject it. Antinatalists have the same philosophy as Arthur Schopenhauer, he believed that human existence brung suffering to the world and suggested people live like Sages in a small cabin alone for the rest of their lives in order to mitigate suffering. Though I have an admiration for Schopenhauer's works, I personally am in favor of his counterpart Friedrich Nietzsche. There's a common misconception that Nietzsche is a nihilist, this is wrong as his works worked towards understanding and combating nihilism especially Schopenhauer's pessimistic proto nihilism. Nietzsche believed that through suffering one can find purpose, I find this to be true as those such as antinatalists usually are nihilists and those whom accepted suffering are those who found a purpose (such as myself).
Fair enough.
What purpose you found?
Yeah, true. That's why they shouldn't have son in first place. If they're irresponsible without no values to follow then I don't see how they would be capable of raising a son.
I can't think of a single good reason for having children
Yes but i also enjoy seeing foids suffer when they push some whiny toddler out of their cunts and are stuck as single mothers when their baby daddy ditches them because of that good personality
Generally, no. People should reproduce but only under heavy restrictions.
Anti-nataliats are too selfish and self-centered to comprehend the thought of caring for another human. If you think life is so bad, kill yourself, but you won’t because you enjoy life.
Anti-nataliats are too selfish and self-centered to comprehend the thought of caring for another human. If you think life is so bad, kill yourself, but you won’t because you enjoy life.
Last edited:
My purpose is to restore my family's wealth. I'm the descendant of an aristocrat that lost his wealth more than 100 years ago. I'll need to acquire as much wealth as I can attain, return to my greatgrandparents country and become a multimillionaire aristocrat living in a mansion whilst running a plantation.
Short, poor, ugly, mentally ill and with genetic diseases should not be allowed to have kids, healthy middle-class should have 1 kid and rich people 2 max.
Interesting. Still, It's hard for most people to find a "purpose" or goals.
Fair enough.
Last edited:
Fuck this world and all the people in it
Yeah just have a decrepit aging society, with hardly any Young people Theory. What could possibly go wrong?
Maby with gene editing and pumping HGH
Old people would die eventually, maybe 2 kids per middle class would be sustainable not to decrease population too much.
Yes. Overpopulation is destroying the world. All those dumb carbon taxes should be converted to "overpopulation" taxes. Right now you get a tax savings for having children, which is completely backwards. Child tax credits should be converted to tax payments. It should cost a absolute fuck ton of money to have children. Because it's people who procreate that are the direct cause of overpopulation and pollution and resource depletion. The taxes that procreators pay should be equivalent to the environmental damage that they and all their descendents wil cause.
I shouldn't reproduce not should any other human.
Not at all.
Lol facts
G
In this age yes
Yes
How ironic you agreeing with him. As a Christian you're just as selfish and self-centered as any antinatalist. Look at you fucktard, you're a fucking christian, the most self-centered and selfish people on earth.
Everything you said is contradictory to scripture, no basis in realityBiggest example “love your neighbour like you love yourself”
Jfl, Christians have literally God complex issues.
N
eugenics > Antinatalist more realistic
This.
Antinatalism is an absolute cope. Every animal every little creature on earth "wants" to breed and you can't cope with antinatalism.
? What you’re saying is literally contradictory to the whole basis of the religion. You obviously hate Christians for some unknown reason (I’m guessing you don’t like being told the way you live is wrong), so you slander us to deal with your guilty conscience. What a joke.
We can overcome this type of urge.
Humans are animals and have physiological needs, but doesn't necessarily need to breed when having sexual intercourse.
Why christians get butthurt when someone claims to be an atheist then?
Your ego = God
Thats why.
Last edited:
Y
I like the idea of ending the cycle of more potential suffering through not reproducing but tbhngl no because I didn't have any choice in the matter and the decision was made for me.
Can you stay away from all sexual toughts? No.
You can cascrate yourself but the sex drive will be there. You can only chemically manage your sex drive with pills (or naturally, age)
Sex drive is influenced by psychological, biological, and social factors. Lets say you socially isolated yourself, changed your biology etc. i can agree that if you can stay away from all sexual toughts but if you can't completely get rid of those you can't be anti-natalist.
Do you have a normal working endocrin system? Then you can't be an "anti-natalist". Bec. atleast one of the factors are already there.
Schopenhauer is cringe but his view on women is
This.
Over population is a myth, we could fit everyone into the USA with plenty of room for everyone
M
I hate this life so yes
I am 100%
The happiest people on earth live in small tribes in the middle of the forest, we need do decrease AT LEAST tenfold
The happiest people on earth live in small tribes in the middle of the forest, we need do decrease AT LEAST tenfold
D
Yes, for many reasons.
1. I HATE children and everything about them.
2. I would be a bad parent.
3. I don't want to MAKE someone to live in this horrible place called Earth.
4. I don't want to spread my shitty genes.
5. I believe in rebirth cycle that continues through reproduction and I want to stop it for myself already.
1. I HATE children and everything about them.
2. I would be a bad parent.
3. I don't want to MAKE someone to live in this horrible place called Earth.
4. I don't want to spread my shitty genes.
5. I believe in rebirth cycle that continues through reproduction and I want to stop it for myself already.
It's not a cope, it's an educated conclusion for majority of antinatalists. Actually getting a information that some girl is pregnant with my child would be crushing to me and I would have to do the inevitable (but I am calm about it as I'm not having sex and never will). What you are talking about is literally normoid thinking, doing everything on impulses and animalistic nature that pushes them to have children, EXACTLY like animals, so it's a great thing you compared this to animal behaviour.
What a retarded logic. Oh, pedo LGBTQWERTYUIOP feminism pushing leftards are breathing, this is why I don't accept breathing, it must be evil. Great conclusion. Just because some idiot took a piece of truth and twisted it for his own agenda, doesn't mean we should reject the truth. And actually bringing sentient beings to this world DOES create suffering, there is no doubt about it, but as I understand he meant suffering of animals probably and shit like this.
Last edited:
Youd have massive overpopulation that way. Most of the world lives in horrendous poverty and cramped spaces. It's not feasible for everyone to live 1st world in suburban homes. Also most people don't provide any value to society. There is no valid reason for having a high population. It provides no benefit and will 100% lead to catastrophe. Humans are not going extinct. We could have just 100 million humans and be just fine. Also, to get the population under 1 billion will probably take over 100 or 200 years, so we should be prepared. If there is any sort of planet wide emergency that impacts food supplies then billions of people will starve and it could very put all of humanity in jeopardy.
Fair
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
