Serious My views on anti-natalism and effillsm

[Homegrownman326]

I'm an anti-natalist and effilist. Why? It's simple, life is shit. We all suffer, many of us intensely, but for whatever reason, people still have this desire to perpetuate life. It's been common for me to hear "life is hard" or "life is suffering" from people, but those same people still hold strong natalist views. Can they not put two and two together? That maybe it's not worth perpetuating? I've also raised the point that none of us chose to be alive, and then I'm blamed for all my problems, many of which stem from genetics that I have no control over. If I had a choice, I would've never chosen to be alive. It's always better to have never been, and I believe that's the zenith of human thought. We live in a world that's 85% negative just by being born. We live in a world of filth, evil, death, and decay with no hope of salvation. We live in a world where the mind is subject to matter rather than the master of it, the opposite of Idealism. We live in a Godless world with no morality or justice. I'm the type of person who's perpetually dissatisfied with life. I think it's just the result of my intellect. You can predict dissatisfaction, failure, and loss far before they happen, but you can't do anything. My grandparents will pass in a few years; it could be any day now. I'm powerless to do anything. I've had plenty of people in my life die, I wish I could prevent it from happening again. The world is wholly nihilistic; that's not my opinion, it's an objective fact. The mere existence of death alone is glaring evidence of that. When you're left alive to see how little people care about the dead, it hits even harder. This idea of legacy and this care about people remembering you is a load of bullshit; in time, your descendants will die off, too. A woman will never truly love you; you're just an object to her. If you're Chad, she loves you for your genetics; if you're a normie, she tolerates you for your money. If you're one of us? Well, we know the answer already. The point is that a woman will never love you for you, and that I mean mind. That brings me to my next point: two minds can never truly meet. You can never really meet or know another person; every consciousness is separate and completely so. Isolation is the default, and it lasts for the duration of life; you're entirely alone at the end of the day. I've seen a lot of "happy endings" go to shit in my life; incel ideals often aren't as pretty in reality. Countless divorces, cancer, death, cheating, etc. Getting the girl isn't the end of life's struggles; it's only the beginning, and sometimes it makes life even worse. Now I'm not admonishing our position, of course, just making a point.

My two main points to make are that 1. Every Cradle is a Coffin and 2. The decision to have kids should be made on your deathbed. Every parent is a murderer; murder is an action that results in someone's death. Therefore, natalism is murder; your child will die if you make them, if you don't make them, there's no suffering and no death. Regarding effilism, I think it's rather obvious. Life is an irrational, meaningless endeavor, rife with suffering. Why should it continue to exist in any form? There's no rational, objective argument for why life should exist at all.

 

[AdolfRizzler]

zamasu was right!
all living beings should be eradicated

 

[RealSchizo]

I'm an anti-natalist and effilist. Why? It's simple, life is shit. We all suffer, many of us intensely, but for whatever reason, people still have this desire to perpetuate life. It's been common for me to hear "life is hard" or "life is suffering" from people, but those same people still hold strong natalist views. Can they not put two and two together? That maybe it's not worth perpetuating? I've also raised the point that none of us chose to be alive, and then I'm blamed for all my problems, many of which stem from genetics that I have no control over. If I had a choice, I would've never chosen to be alive. It's always better to have never been, and I believe that's the zenith of human thought. We live in a world that's 85% negative just by being born. We live in a world of filth, evil, death, and decay with no hope of salvation. We live in a world where the mind is subject to matter rather than the master of it, the opposite of Idealism. We live in a Godless world with no morality or justice. I'm the type of person who's perpetually dissatisfied with life. I think it's just the result of my intellect. You can predict dissatisfaction, failure, and loss far before they happen, but you can't do anything. My grandparents will pass in a few years; it could be any day now. I'm powerless to do anything. I've had plenty of people in my life die, I wish I could prevent it from happening again. The world is wholly nihilistic; that's not my opinion, it's an objective fact. The mere existence of death alone is glaring evidence of that. When you're left alive to see how little people care about the dead, it hits even harder. This idea of legacy and this care about people remembering you is a load of bullshit; in time, your descendants will die off, too. A woman will never truly love you; you're just an object to her. If you're Chad, she loves you for your genetics; if you're a normie, she tolerates you for your money. If you're one of us? Well, we know the answer already. The point is that a woman will never love you for you, and that I mean mind. That brings me to my next point: two minds can never truly meet. You can never really meet or know another person; every consciousness is separate and completely so. Isolation is the default, and it lasts for the duration of life; you're entirely alone at the end of the day. I've seen a lot of "happy endings" go to shit in my life; incel ideals often aren't as pretty in reality. Countless divorces, cancer, death, cheating, etc. Getting the girl isn't the end of life's struggles; it's only the beginning, and sometimes it makes life even worse. Now I'm not admonishing our position, of course, just making a point.

My two main points to make are that 1. Every Cradle is a Coffin and 2. The decision to have kids should be made on your deathbed. Every parent is a murderer; murder is an action that results in someone's death. Therefore, natalism is murder; your child will die if you make them, if you don't make them, there's no suffering and no death. Regarding effilism, I think it's rather obvious. Life is an irrational, meaningless endeavor, rife with suffering. Why should it continue to exist in any form? There's no rational, objective argument for why life should exist at all.

 

[FBI]

@four1298

 

[anon65]

The 2nd to last point is objectively true and irrefutable with one edit. Homicide is any action that causes a person to die, murder deals with intent. So every birth/conception is a homicide technically.

 

[Homegrownman326]

The 2nd to last point is objectively true and irrefutable with one edit. Homicide is any action that causes a person to die, murder deals with intent. So every birth/conception is a homicide technically.

Any rational person could deduce that being alive causes death by proxy. Therefore, if a parent acknowledges this and still decides to reproduce anyway, that counts as murder.

 

[Emba]

That's very convenient

 

[Glassness]

Honestly a good piece of writing I don't agree but I still enjoyed reading and understanding the points

 

[IWWorkER]

Antinatalist with hitler avi... jfl

 

[Homegrownman326]

Antinatalist with hitler avi... jfl

I'm anti-semitic, therefore I support Nazism, and I'm also anti-humanity on top of that. Even in a Utopia, so long as death continues to exist, suffering too will continue to persist. A human being can endure ceaseless suffering so long as there's a reason; death strips meaning from life, so it's a demotivator. If Hitler were alive today, he wouldn't even consider outbreeding these shitskins as feasible. Whites are too high inhibition to outcompete nons when it comes to breeding, even if white women had no rights. Africans will be starving and thirsty, and still breed ceaselessly. When given more food and water, they continue to breed so that their population once again becomes too large to be sustainable. You can't compete with that as a high-IQ, high-inhibition species. The only way to compete is to keep their population in check.

 

[IWWorkER]

I'm anti-semitic, therefore I support Nazism

Im also antisemitic but I dont support nazis, I dont hate nazis but Im not gonna move a finger for them. At the end of the day, nazis are just another brand of sexhaving/mogging normies.

A human being can endure ceaseless suffering so long as there's a reason; death strips meaning from life, so it's a demotivator

Thats the opposite of national-socialism though. If you dont see yourself as just an individual, but as a part of a nation, death isnt demotivating anymore, as death only affect the individuals, but the nation can keep on surviving, if the people wills it.

If Hitler were alive today, he wouldn't even consider outbreeding these shitskins as feasible.

There is no need to outbreed because...

Africans will be starving and thirsty, and still breed ceaselessly. When given more food and water, they continue to breed so that their population once again becomes too large to be sustainable.

...african birth rates are falling fast.
the Total Fertility Rate in Africa went from almost 7 to 4 in 40 years, and it keeps falling as fast as ever. Most of North Africa and a few countries in the south are already under or close to replacement rate.

Spoiler: Source + Rambling

Read these:

To the surprise of demographers, African fertility is falling

by LOUIS T. MARCH – will Africa also go down the path of growing old before growing rich?

www.mercatornet.com

« Atlas de l’Afrique AFD » : la fécondité en baisse continue depuis 40 ans

Dans son « Atlas de l'Afrique AFD » publié fin août 2020, l'Agence française de développement (AFD) interroge les dynamiques en cours sur le continent. Aujourd’hui, zoom sur l’évolution de la fécondité en Afrique, où le nombre d’enfants par femme baisse depuis 40 ans.

www.afd.fr

It's a major whitepill to be honest, it really makes me want to keep on living to see what will happen.
In 20 to 30 years, with African birth rates collapsing, along with the rest of the world's, and boomers finally dying, we can expect a drastic population reduction.
Perhaps the Georgia Guidestones' commandements will be followed, and humanity will be reduced to less than half a billion. This would be about 6% of the current population, it would be amazing!
I truly hope this is what the élite planned for humanity, this is as close to Total Normie Death as we can hope.
One can dream...

 

[Homegrownman326]

Im also antisemitic but I dont support nazis, I dont hate nazis but Im not gonna move a finger for them. At the end of the day, nazis are just another brand of sexhaving/mogging normies.

Thats the opposite of national-socialism though. If you dont see yourself as just an individual, but as a part of a nation, death isnt demotivating anymore, as death only affect the individuals, but the nation can keep on surviving, if the people wills it.

There is no need to outbreed because...

...african birth rates are falling fast.
the Total Fertility Rate in Africa went from almost 7 to 4 in 40 years, and it keeps falling as fast as ever. Most of North Africa and a few countries in the south are already under or close to replacement rate.

Spoiler: Source + Rambling

Read these:

To the surprise of demographers, African fertility is falling

by LOUIS T. MARCH – will Africa also go down the path of growing old before growing rich?

www.mercatornet.com

« Atlas de l’Afrique AFD » : la fécondité en baisse continue depuis 40 ans

Dans son « Atlas de l'Afrique AFD » publié fin août 2020, l'Agence française de développement (AFD) interroge les dynamiques en cours sur le continent. Aujourd’hui, zoom sur l’évolution de la fécondité en Afrique, où le nombre d’enfants par femme baisse depuis 40 ans.

www.afd.fr

It's a major whitepill to be honest, it really makes me want to keep on living to see what will happen.
In 20 to 30 years, with African birth rates collapsing, along with the rest of the world's, and boomers finally dying, we can expect a drastic population reduction.
Perhaps the Georgia Guidestones' commandements will be followed, and humanity will be reduced to less than half a billion. This would be about 6% of the current population, it would be amazing!
I truly hope this is what the élite planned for humanity, this is as close to Total Normie Death as we can hope.
One can dream...

Africa has the fastest-growing population of all the continents, and it isn't projected to stop growing anytime soon. The entire legacy cope of having children equaling genetic continuity is flawed because in only a few generations, your DNA accounts for less than one percent if it wasn't filtered out of the evolutionary process. The individual's DNA means nothing while the race's means everything. We don't live in ethnocentric nations anymore, at least in white countries, so it's not a feasible outlook for me. If i did live in an ethno-state, I would think that way.

 

[lifesucksandyoudie]

All sexhavers are latent psychopaths. It is known.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

I only agree with efilist theory in abstract, that is, the principle of preventing harm is irrefutable if we accept a consequence based moral framework:

[1] The existence of sentient life inherently produces suffering.
[2] Suffering is a negative value; its elimination is a moral good.
[3] Happiness and pleasure, while positive, cannot morally outweigh the negative value of suffering, particularly because an absence of suffering is always preferable to the experience of suffering, regardless of how much pleasure is present. the presence of pain is bad, but the presence of pleasure is good; however, the absence of pain is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad.
[4] Individuals cannot consent to their own creation, and therefore, bringing them into a world with guaranteed suffering is an unethical act.
[5] The most effective way to eliminate all future suffering for all sentient life is to terminate all sentient life.

The problem is, I can only agree with this if the option to eliminate all living beings instantly and painlessly was feasible, as that would effectively eliminate suffering—yet that is entirely intangible and detached from reality, thus the concept only functions within a theoretical thought process. Half-measures such as abortion and promotion of anti-natalist ideology seem to be far more deleterious in the long-term as far as I'm concerned, as not only do they violate my personal, largely deontological view of morality, but they lead to self-destructive societies that are simply going to be replaced by other, possible worse ones.

That's the reason why I would rather adopt a pragmatic view, one that isn't inherently anti-life and recognizes the practical limits of such ideas. When it comes to questions of why life must persist one must simply promote religion or embrace the absurdity of existence.

 

[Homegrownman326]

I only agree with efilist theory in abstract, that is, the principle of preventing harm is irrefutable if we accept a consequence based moral framework:

[1] The existence of sentient life inherently produces suffering.
[2] Suffering is a negative value; its elimination is a moral good.
[3] Happiness and pleasure, while positive, cannot morally outweigh the negative value of suffering, particularly because an absence of suffering is always preferable to the experience of suffering, regardless of how much pleasure is present. the presence of pain is bad, but the presence of pleasure is good; however, the absence of pain is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad.
[4] Individuals cannot consent to their own creation, and therefore, bringing them into a world with guaranteed suffering is an unethical act.
[5] The most effective way to eliminate all future suffering for all sentient life is to terminate all sentient life.

The problem is, I can only agree with this if the option to eliminate all living beings instantly and painlessly was feasible, as that would effectively eliminate suffering—yet that is entirely intangible and detached from reality, thus the concept only functions within a theoretical thought process. Half-measures such as abortion and promotion of anti-natalist ideology seem to be far more deleterious in the long-term as far as I'm concerned, as not only do they violate my personal, largely deontological view of morality, but they lead to self-destructive societies that are simply going to be replaced by other, possible worse ones.

That's the reason why I would rather adopt a pragmatic view, one that isn't inherently anti-life and recognizes the practical limits of such ideas. When it comes to questions of why life must persist one must simply promote religion or embrace the absurdity of existence.

Would you rather kill 8 billion people now, or allow 989 billion people to live, suffer, and die aimlessly when that's preventable? The suffering of the 989 billion far exceeds the suffering of the 8 billion present people dying. The 8 billion people now alive will suffer and die anyway, regardless of your action or inaction.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

Would you rather kill 8 billion people now, or allow 989 billion people to live, suffer, and die aimlessly when that's preventable? The suffering of the 989 billion far exceeds the suffering of the 8 billion present people dying. The 8 billion people now alive will suffer and die anyway, regardless of your action or inaction.

If I could eliminate all living beings instantly with the press of a button, I would. However, my stance is precisely that this framing is a theoretical fantasy. In the real world, there is no button that painlessly ends all life. Every actual attempt at “ending” life on a global scale would involve colossal, drawn-out suffering.

 

[Ricecel Sungnodius]

View attachment 1560126

Don't avi post, especially on ID.

 

[Homegrownman326]

If I could eliminate all living beings instantly with the press of a button, I would. However, my stance is precisely that this framing is a theoretical fantasy. In the real world, there is no button that painlessly ends all life. Every actual attempt at “ending” life on a global scale would involve colossal, drawn-out suffering.

You can create a disease that can wipe out all life. You can nuke the whole world. You didn't really address my points at all. That the amount of suffering that would exist from ending all life would be minute compared to the future suffering that will exist, and that everything alive now will die anyway.

 

[IWWorkER]

The existence of sentient life inherently produces suffering.

Happiness and pleasure, while positive, cannot morally outweigh the negative value of suffering

I disagree. We suffer because we are incels. Chad doesn't even think about this shit, and has no problem with being alive.

 

[Homegrownman326]

I disagree. We suffer because we are incels. Chad doesn't even think about this shit, and has no problem with being alive.

Chad still ages and dies; this idea that Chads and women are immune to suffering is a fallacy. In their prime, perhaps, but the age and death pill always collects.

 

[psycho123]

life is unfair. people are born and thrown into life without choice forced to endure suffering, expectations, and the weight of simply existing. all our of problems simply could’ve been avoided by not being born.

 

[IWWorkER]

Chad still ages and dies; this idea that Chads and women are immune to suffering is a fallacy. In their prime, perhaps, but the age and death pill always collects.

Cope. Some people have a perfect life from birth to death.

 

[H8mychudlife]

I only agree with efilist theory in abstract, that is, the principle of preventing harm is irrefutable if we accept a consequence based moral framework:

[1] The existence of sentient life inherently produces suffering.
[2] Suffering is a negative value; its elimination is a moral good.
[3] Happiness and pleasure, while positive, cannot morally outweigh the negative value of suffering, particularly because an absence of suffering is always preferable to the experience of suffering, regardless of how much pleasure is present. the presence of pain is bad, but the presence of pleasure is good; however, the absence of pain is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad.
[4] Individuals cannot consent to their own creation, and therefore, bringing them into a world with guaranteed suffering is an unethical act.
[5] The most effective way to eliminate all future suffering for all sentient life is to terminate all sentient life.

The problem is, I can only agree with this if the option to eliminate all living beings instantly and painlessly was feasible, as that would effectively eliminate suffering—yet that is entirely intangible and detached from reality, thus the concept only functions within a theoretical thought process. Half-measures such as abortion and promotion of anti-natalist ideology seem to be far more deleterious in the long-term as far as I'm concerned, as not only do they violate my personal, largely deontological view of morality, but they lead to self-destructive societies that are simply going to be replaced by other, possible worse ones.

That's the reason why I would rather adopt a pragmatic view, one that isn't inherently anti-life and recognizes the practical limits of such ideas. When it comes to questions of why life must persist one must simply promote religion or embrace the absurdity of existence.

Excellenty put, there's no practical method of realising this theory.

 

[H8mychudlife]

Cope. Some people have a perfect life from birth to death.

Everyone suffers, it's more to due with the degree one suffers, even if you're genetically perfect, one accident can leave you crippled or handicapped.

 

[IWWorkER]

even if you're genetically perfect, one accident can leave you crippled or handicapped

And do you think everyone who is genetically perfect will get into an accident ?

 

[H8mychudlife]

And do you think everyone who is genetically perfect will get into an accident ?

No, but there is always a probability. I'm trying to say that even genetically superior people can suffer greatly and as stated in this thread by others, the reaper comes for everyone. Very few people in this world die painlessly.

This isn't just limited to accidents, mental health (as much as it is memed) can serverely impact people badly. Even chads and stacies can fall into depression.

 

[IWWorkER]

No, but there is always a probability. I'm trying to say that even genetically superior people can suffer greatly and as stated in this thread by others, the reaper comes for everyone. Very few people in this world die painlessly.

This isn't just limited to accidents, mental health (as much as it is memed) can serverely impact people badly. Even chads and stacies can fall into depression.

OP's argument was that the negative outweight the positive. Do you really think chads and stacies believe that their lives were more negative than positive ?

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

You can create a disease that can wipe out all life. You can nuke the whole world. You didn't really address my points at all. That the amount of suffering that would exist from ending all life would be minute compared to the future suffering that will exist, and that everything alive now will die anyway.

The issue with your examples (disease, nukes, etc.) is that they don’t create a painless, instantaneous end. They create exactly the opposite. It's arguably the worst suffering imaginable on a global scale.

There’s a massive moral difference between the concept of life vanishing altogether from existence, versus lives being deliberately ended through catastrophic violence. Under my moral framework, those acts remain morally forbidden regardless of any speculative utilitarian tally. The only reason I would press the said button is because it meets a threshold of suffering prevention, but more importantly, it eliminates the concept of life itself, along with any intersubjective notion of morality; that is the only scenario wherein I would side with the idea of efilist theory—but it's entirely unfeasible.

Those means you mentioned violate deontological duties (to avoid using people as mere instruments, to avoid intentionally inflicting harm) regardless of the projected downstream calculus. Utilitarianistic ethics are also fragile when regarding large numbers like you mentioned, as aggregation of harms implies that a million people stubbing their toe (for the example), is worse than one person being murdered with a bullet into his head, but that makes no sense (though this is more of a criticism of utilitarianism).

 

[Zaraj11]

There are people who like living, it would be unfair to kill them

 

[H8mychudlife]

OP's argument was that the negative outweight the positive. Do you really think chads and stacies believe that their lives were more negative than positive ?

No, but you claimed some people's lives are perfect at birth. I'm just saying shit things can happen to anyone.

I agree that chads and stacies life is worth living.

 

[D.R.]

I've been thinking a lot about the subject lately and came to the conclusion I'm only an antinatalist/extinctionist in practice if it is impossible to transform life into a net gain/positive.

In principle, I think standardutilitarianism makes more sense than negative utilitarianism or the benatar asymmetry. Clearly whenever we are talking about good or bad,what we are really trying to capture is pleasure/wellbeing/comfortand pain/suffering/discomfort.

So some retard might say ''no I don't think pleasure is good, I think chocolate is good'' – but the only reason why they think it is good is because they derive pleasure from eating it, or some nutrient from it improves their wellbeing, or because they crave chocolate, which is a form of suffering, and it goes away when they eat chocolate. Clearly pleasure is all that is good and suffering is all that is bad, everything else is some association nonsense like ''I think chocolate=good because pleasure''.

So you see where I'm going, I obviously agree suffering=bad, but I can't get around pleasure also equalling good. So whether having a kid or not is good depends on the reality we live in, if it's a utopia then it is good to breed.

The question is whether we can create a reality where pleasure outweighs pain, I'm inclined to agree that inpractice right now life is more negative than positive because:

1: Evolution made deprivation/sufferingthe default state (eat or hunger, drink or thirst, so basically obtain pleasure or suffer, obtain the carrot or be punished with thewhip) because it worked, a chronically blissed out organism would just die happily and not be bothered to try to survive it seems. It seems we are automatically desire engines, we are not automatically happiness engines.

This means the desire (suffering) forhappiness is guaranteed when you have a kid, but the happiness is not guaranteed, so you're basically just setting a forest fire and hopingthe rain will extinguish it again.

2: Pleasure is often fleeting and proportional to suffering, i.e. extreme thirst=extreme temporary pleasure from drinking water, moderate thirst=moderate temporary pleasure from drinking water, mild thirst=mild temporary pleasure from drinking water.

3: Pain is more painful than pleasure is pleasurable. No one would take 20 minutes of the worst possible pain in hell to win 20 minutes of the best possible pleasure in heaven. A good experiment to see if life is running a profit would also be to ask yourself if you would consent to live through all the bad lives (all the animals being eaten alive, all the gang rapes, all the cancer, etc) to preserve the good ones (we can even make it so that you also experience all the good ones afterwards) – or else, if you don't, the supervillain is gonna push the big red button to evaporate all life on earth.

That said, if life can be turned into a vessel for happiness rather than suffering, then there is no reason to be antinatalist/extinctionist, and some suggest we are able to do this, like David Pearce with the hedonistic imperative for instance.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v07VZIQyoMc


Is this possible? I'm skeptical, but who knows, in the past some also thought anesthesia or airplanes will never exist. And of course it also contains other risks again once we have genetic engineering and super technology to increase pleasure,it seems obvious it could be abused obviously.

 

[lnceI]

Sounds like moralfaggotry to me

 

[IWWorkER]

you claimed some people's lives are perfect at birth

Yeah because it's obviously true.

I agree that chads and stacies life is worth living.

Which is what I was telling OP in the first place.
Glad we agree then.

 

[Homegrownman326]

I've been thinking a lot about the subject lately and came to the conclusion I'm only an antinatalist/extinctionist in practice if it is impossible to transform life into a net gain/positive.

In principle, I think standardutilitarianism makes more sense than negative utilitarianism or the benatar asymmetry. Clearly whenever we are talking about good or bad,what we are really trying to capture is pleasure/wellbeing/comfortand pain/suffering/discomfort.

So some retard might say ''no I don't think pleasure is good, I think chocolate is good'' – but the only reason why they think it is good is because they derive pleasure from eating it, or some nutrient from it improves their wellbeing, or because they crave chocolate, which is a form of suffering, and it goes away when they eat chocolate. Clearly pleasure is all that is good and suffering is all that is bad, everything else is some association nonsense like ''I think chocolate=good because pleasure''.

So you see where I'm going, I obviously agree suffering=bad, but I can't get around pleasure also equalling good. So whether having a kid or not is good depends on the reality we live in, if it's a utopia then it is good to breed.

The question is whether we can create a reality where pleasure outweighs pain, I'm inclined to agree that inpractice right now life is more negative than positive because:

1: Evolution made deprivation/sufferingthe default state (eat or hunger, drink or thirst, so basically obtain pleasure or suffer, obtain the carrot or be punished with thewhip) because it worked, a chronically blissed out organism would just die happily and not be bothered to try to survive it seems. It seems we are automatically desire engines, we are not automatically happiness engines.

This means the desire (suffering) forhappiness is guaranteed when you have a kid, but the happiness is not guaranteed, so you're basically just setting a forest fire and hopingthe rain will extinguish it again.

2: Pleasure is often fleeting and proportional to suffering, i.e. extreme thirst=extreme temporary pleasure from drinking water, moderate thirst=moderate temporary pleasure from drinking water, mild thirst=mild temporary pleasure from drinking water.

3: Pain is more painful than pleasure is pleasurable. No one would take 20 minutes of the worst possible pain in hell to win 20 minutes of the best possible pleasure in heaven. A good experiment to see if life is running a profit would also be to ask yourself if you would consent to live through all the bad lives (all the animals being eaten alive, all the gang rapes, all the cancer, etc) to preserve the good ones (we can even make it so that you also experience all the good ones afterwards) – or else, if you don't, the supervillain is gonna push the big red button to evaporate all life on earth.

That said, if life can be turned into a vessel for happiness rather than suffering, then there is no reason to be antinatalist/extinctionist, and some suggest we are able to do this, like David Pearce with the hedonistic imperative for instance.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v07VZIQyoMc


Is this possible? I'm skeptical, but who knows, in the past some also thought anesthesia or airplanes will never exist. And of course it also contains other risks again once we have genetic engineering and super technology to increase pleasure,it seems obvious it could be abused obviously.

Transhumanism would be the only solution to make life somewhat salvageable. There are so many changes I'd like to make and endure.

 

[Homegrownman326]

The issue with your examples (disease, nukes, etc.) is that they don’t create a painless, instantaneous end. They create exactly the opposite. It's arguably the worst suffering imaginable on a global scale.

There’s a massive moral difference between the concept of life vanishing altogether from existence, versus lives being deliberately ended through catastrophic violence. Under my moral framework, those acts remain morally forbidden regardless of any speculative utilitarian tally. The only reason I would press the said button is because it meets a threshold of suffering prevention, but more importantly, it eliminates the concept of life itself, along with any intersubjective notion of morality; that is the only scenario wherein I would side with the idea of efilist theory—but it's entirely unfeasible.

Those means you mentioned violate deontological duties (to avoid using people as mere instruments, to avoid intentionally inflicting harm) regardless of the projected downstream calculus. Utilitarianistic ethics are also fragile when regarding large numbers like you mentioned, as aggregation of harms implies that a million people stubbing their toe (for the example), is worse than one person being murdered with a bullet into his head, but that makes no sense (though this is more of a criticism of utilitarianism).

My point is that if you end all life now, despite the suffering that will occur, it would prevent all future life. That future life will suffer and enormously so in comparison to the suffering that will occur as a result of ending all present life. It's about the ends justifying the means, and in this case, it's not even a debate. 989 billion human lives suffering in the future that can be prevented by ending the present 8 billion now.

 

[AtrociousCitizen]

My point is that if you end all life now, despite the suffering that will occur, it would prevent all future life. That future life will suffer and enormously so in comparison to the suffering that will occur as a result of ending all present life. It's about the ends justifying the means, and in this case, it's not even a debate. 989 billion human lives suffering in the future that can be prevented by ending the present 8 billion now.

The first problem I am seeing is that—within your own utilitarianistic moral calculus—you are assuming the total future suffering of all potential lives is both measurable and greater than the suffering caused by ending existing lives, but there’s no way to justify those numbers with any certainty.

Even if we grant your numbers, you seem to be ignoring the moral distinction between actively killing and allowing hypothetical suffering. Ending all current life would require intentional mass killing in unoptimal ways, which is ethically catastrophic, far beyond the abstract tally of future suffering. This isn’t just a theoretical button press that erases all notion of life; any real attempt would cause unimaginable pain and horror.

Also, as I said, utilitarian aggregation at this scale is fragile and doesn't make sense: summing suffering across hypothetical futures as a reason to commit morally horrific acts in the present is a flawed method. A million trivial harms do not morally outweigh a single act of extreme violence against persons and sentient beings.

This same logic can be used to justify any morally repugnant acts, which inevitably leads you to an ethical collapse—a situation wherein many loathsome acts can be justified with soi-disant prevention of suffering; shooting people in the head is morally good, as it prevents them from any potential suffering they may go through in the future; women killing unwanted infants is also fine, as the infant was just doomed to live a life of suffering. You get the point—I simply cannot accept such outrageous conclusions.

 

[Ricecel Sungnodius]

Im also antisemitic

Why

 

[IWWorkER]

Why

Goes hand in hand with anti-capitalism. I hate rich people and their armies of propagandists, lawyers, juges, journalists, humorists, artists, etc. They are useless parasites, and so many of them are jewish.
Richest people in France:

https://photo.capital.fr/les-20-francais-les-plus-riches-en-2016-17031#les-30-familles-les-plus-riches-de-france-f4ekj

Wertheimer, Meyers, Dassault (formerly Bloch), Dreyfus, Drahi, etc

Turn on the TV and all you can see is:

Cohen, Goldstein, Levi, Saldmann, etc

Want to watch some "humorist" to change your mind ? Here's some for you Goy:

Elmaleh, Adams, Boon, Essebag, Mezrahi, Palmade (ran over a family while driving on cocaine, freed from jail in less than 3 weeks), etc

And its the same everywhere, in justice, law, finance, art, bureaucracy (government and corporations), etc. I've seen them myself at work, kikes obsessed with profit and pushing the workers faster and faster, only to make more benefits, which they wont share with us, obviously.
And so many people were arrested for simply asking "who runs the media ?" (former Army Général Delawarde, for example).

It's really annoying to see other leftists claim they fight "the elite" (intentionally vague) but they call you a nazi if you start looking in more detail what this "elite" is made of.

But whatever, I mostly consider myself anti-capitalist, anti-semitism just naturally comes along.

 

[Homegrownman326]

Why

I'm anti-semetic because Jews hate whites and are ethnically replacing us in our own countries with shitskins. If Jews didn't do what they do, I'd be indifferent to them. I'd view the Orthodox like the Amish and reform like anyone else. I've gotten along with many Jews over the years because of their high verbal IQ and intelligence; goyim are usually underwhelming.

 

[Itsoverm8]

Sounds like moralfaggotry to me

Nope it’s called being fucking logical a lot of us wouldn’t even have to exist to suffer had our parents been aware of this. Goes hand in hand with the black pill.

 

[Homegrownman326]

The first problem I am seeing is that—within your own utilitarianistic moral calculus—you are assuming the total future suffering of all potential lives is both measurable and greater than the suffering caused by ending existing lives, but there’s no way to justify those numbers with any certainty.

Even if we grant your numbers, you seem to be ignoring the moral distinction between actively killing and allowing hypothetical suffering. Ending all current life would require intentional mass killing in unoptimal ways, which is ethically catastrophic, far beyond the abstract tally of future suffering. This isn’t just a theoretical button press that erases all notion of life; any real attempt would cause unimaginable pain and horror.

Also, as I said, utilitarian aggregation at this scale is fragile and doesn't make sense: summing suffering across hypothetical futures as a reason to commit morally horrific acts in the present is a flawed method. A million trivial harms do not morally outweigh a single act of extreme violence against persons and sentient beings.

This same logic can be used to justify any morally repugnant acts, which inevitably leads you to an ethical collapse—a situation wherein many loathsome acts can be justified with soi-disant prevention of suffering; shooting people in the head is morally good, as it prevents them from any potential suffering they may go through in the future; women killing unwanted infants is also fine, as the infant was just doomed to live a life of suffering. You get the point—I simply cannot accept such outrageous conclusions.

Life in its current form is undeniably rife with suffering; its continuation is guaranteed to bring the same amount of suffering with it. If it's possible for suffering to be reduced due to transhumanism or some evolutionary process, the opposite may also occur. Life can just as easily get bad in the future as it could get good. But let's assume the continuation of life has the same amount of suffering as it does now. We can both agree that life is overwhelmingly negative even in the best of circumstances. The future suffering isn't just hypothetical but guaranteed; so long as people and animals copulate, there will be people in the future, and they will suffer. This hypothetical is similar to "killing baby Hitler". If killing him prevents WW2 and the Holocaust, that's a moral good, but baby Hitler is also innocent. But if it's guaranteed that he will rise to power, then most people would agree that he should be killed. If ending all life now prevents eons of suffering and death, that's guaranteed; the only moral action is to end all life in spite of present immorality.

 

[Homegrownman326]

Nope it’s called being fucking logical a lot of us wouldn’t even have to exist to suffer had our parents been aware of this. Goes hand in hand with the black pill.

I hate when people say "just kill yourself". I get that a lot when talking about anti-natalism and how I regret being born. There's a difference between coming into existence and dying. Being born is being created from nothing; dying is having your present life ended forever. I would've chosen to never come into existence, but now that I exist, I'd prefer to be immortal.

 

[Genetics_subhuman]

Id love to live a life where I can shut foids mouths

 

[Itsoverm8]

Id love to live a life where I can shut foids mouths

By sticking my incel dick inside of it