So antinatalism is basically 'muh feels' right?

Oh, right, I forgot.

this

based suomi tom waits

apanatalism master race

It depends on what you consider as beneficial, especially since everything comes at a cost.

I mean think about it, no matter what there will always be a "loser"

>tfw you want to raise a child and teach her about eastern philosophy
>tfw qt3.14 gf doesn't want kids but you know that you can't leave her and expect to be happy

Yeah... you have a point.

>So clearly, the solution is to lower the population of responsible, intelligent forward-thinking westerners, rather than simply let africans and chinese starve/civil war each other to death, right?

>responsible, intelligent forward-thinking westerners

this was your error

Guy has never gambled before. Guy plays slot machine and finds out it's fun.

He gets a dopamine buzz when he wins, but the pleasure from a win isn't overpowering enough to counteract the disphoria from losing. Not this day, however, because Beginner's Luck.

Eventually he'll realize that the statistical probabilities of slot machines will leave him in the nevative.

Oh, and then he dies.

Overpopulation is the most pressing issue on this planet.

It really isn't:

fastcoexist.com/3016331/visualized/think-the-world-is-crowded-you-could-fit-the-entire-human-race-in-new-zealand

Agricultural methods/etc maybe, but overpopulation is a meme that needs to die.

Population density, isn't the only aspect of overpopulation. the temporal scale is more important than the spatial.

Physical space is not the issue. Waste, consumption, production, inflation, extinction, deforestation, ect, are.

>not realising overpopulating is accelerationist antinatalism

Antinatalism is worse than 'muh feels,' it's completely ignorant of human nature. Only individuals of a sufficient intelligence could understand the appeal of antinatalism, leaving the stupid to reproduce like rabbits because that's what stupid does.

>just to answer OP's question, all morality is muh feels

Not because of any overpopulation meme, but it would be good to reduce human population by 90%, just assuming you could target the right 90%.

Overpopulation is a myth.
If you take away china, inda, and africa, the world is just fine the way it is.

It is better for both us and Africa if Africa is smaller, the chinese as well MUST be stopped for what I think are rather obvious reasons. We of course must be culled to an extent as well, but this process will I believe happen naturally as one begins to rely less on foreign labor and immigration and thus have to naturally scale back western economy.

All of this is of course impossible with the current state of humanist, democratic and liberal thinking.

Gee thanks for that.

>25 year old virgin
>will never even have to grapple with the anxiety and responsibilities of procreation

Suckers.

are you finnish?

The problem in overpopulation isn't that there are too many people, it's that these people all want to live a good, comfortable, expensive life. They want a car and air conditioning and chemicals with which to clean their houses. This is the problem.

Also antinatalism isn't rooted solely in ecology. People like Cioran also made the case that it's irresponsible to have children because you're then taking all of the risks of the real world, like rape or murder or mental illness, you're taking this risks for your child without your child's consent.

No, but I have many finnish friends and greatly value many aspects of the finnish people and their lifestyle.

Linkola is one modern writer that not only resonates with me, but has that very peculiar finnish style. I don't know the language that well, but reading him in english is kind of like listening to one of my friends speak.

no, it's the ethically correct stance, and overpopulation is not even a factor.

>""""correct"""" opinions

Ask most people if you wish they were born

Intelligent people like me would say "No!"

Ergo antinatalism is correct.

>He doesn't embrace the eternal recurrence

who's talking about opinions?

I suppose but in a world where free will is an impossibility and an interventionist demiurge is an unlikelihood, the human being doesn't seem to amount to much more than a recepticle for sensory experience and if the sensory experience is necessarily a bad one, why should we countenance it?

Chinese are a lot smarter than Amerilards

I don't care what those jackasses do. I just don't want to be culpible for some individual's life experiences. As long as there is no blood on my hands the rest of you jackasses can keep running around with your heads cut off.

antinatalism is what happens when you purfiy slave morality down to its most basic form.

All Nietzsche really was was an ideological bully.

Wouldn't it be fighting fire with fire?

Does religion not promise eternal punishment for those who do not believe?

Whatever. My point is the words "slave morality" do not magically humiliate me from my position.

I'm a different user to the one who posted the pic.

>westerners
>responsible

haaaaaaaaaaaaaaah

I was speaking rhetorically

You're such a little bitch.

Yes, and what is your point?

It's the exact opposite of "muh feels". It's autism, but it is rational.

>it's irresponsible to have children because you're then taking all of the risks of the real world, like rape or murder or mental illness, you're taking this risks for your child without your child's consent.
This.

you're right in theory, in practice this will never happen and intelligent westerners understand the fact life is pretty shit and always will be

Western countries and Japan have total fertility rates well below replacement. We aren't the problem, the gooks, indians, sandniggers and niggers popping out 5 kids per woman are.

Pretty ironic that NEETzsche was the epitome of slave morality, railing against everything on paper because his actual life was an impotent heap of sadness.

>is actual life was an impotent heap of sadness
explains why he's liked here

No it's not, this man puts forward a very sound rationale for anti-natalism:
youtube.com/watch?v=sbZ8joGgc2s

Antinatalism =/= not having kids

only good thing about procreation is sex. you might as well kill yourself if you're a wage slave and you impregnate a girl by accident. you will have to pay child support to her

That's not what Slave Morality is user

>calls himself an antinatalist
>can't even deny himself pleasures of the flesh

He's a shit-tier meme caveman

>denying instinctual Wills

>countenancing naturalistic fallacies

>artificially applying punctilio

Sublimating your frustration with your submissive position into a theory where those actually in charge are weak and bad and wrong and lonely little losers like yourself are strong and good and right is pretty much the epitome of slave morality.

You're 70 years late. The Chinese civil war ended in 1949 you fucking retard. They're actually having an ageing population problem right now and will practically face the same stagnation Japan is from their labourer-worker portion but yeah dehumanise people smarter and more responsible than you. The only reason I could imagine that you didn't mention middle easterners or other shitskins is cuz you're one yourself

How does it feel being on the other side of the "muh feels" coin? You haven't enunciated the obvious reasons is because there isn't one. It's because you feel they're a threat towards 'the West' (which for the notice, isn't a coherent entity and thus wouldn't be able to collaborate; Americans and various European states have seperate agendas. The CIA actually logged the fact that American operations in Iraq and Afghanistan would trigger refugee crises in Europe, and probably checked it in as an auxiliary reason). The fact is they're the only country in the world that has legislative population control, and an authoritative government that has climate change goals which have already succeeded pre-emptively in the short term this year, while the republican congress of the US has repeatedly vetoed any resolution

>"It is therefore just as little necessary for the saint to be a philosopher as for the philosopher to be a saint; just as it is not necessary for a perfectly beautiful person to be a great sculptor, or for a great sculptor to be himself a beautiful person. In general, it is a strange demand on a moralist that he should commend no other virtue than that which he himself possesses. To repeat abstractly, universally, and distinctly in concepts the whole inner nature of the world, and thus to deposit it as a reflected image in permanent concepts always ready for the faculty of reason, this and nothing else is philosophy."

Well if you call yourself an antinatalist controlling your dick is a little more than a matter of decorum

>"beneficial"

whoa, are there gooks on Veeky Forums?

>human nature

we get the occasional korean every now and then

This is an awful metaphor and I sincerely hope you're trolling. Many positive experiences do not require a substantial wager nor are all experiences statistically unlikely to result in some form of pleasure or at least indifference.

One thing I don't understand about antinatalism is they argue for it mostly solely based on the fact that existence is the source of all negative feelings (suffering and death), but it's also the source of everything positive that's ever happened to anyone, so what the fuck. Ceasing procreation protects against suffering but it also denies the unborn any positive feelings or experiences at all.

>it also denies the unborn any positive feelings or experiences at all.

the unborn don't exist, so there is literally no one who is being denied anything or missing out on anything

Then there's also no way to commit violence against them, dumbshit.

You should try to be more receptive to what people say.

it's pretty simple. no existence means no suffering. existence means suffering. so, no existence is better than existence.

you then respond: but the non-existent people miss out on the good stuff.

but that is stupid, because there are no non-existent people. that's what it is to not exist. so, without existence, no one misses out on anything good and no one suffers.

>no existence is better than existence.
In order to say that, you must be making the claim that no suffering is better than suffering. Which I can absolutely guarantee that you are unable to back up without contradicting yourself or using circular logic.

Both Natalism and Antinatalism are, yes. There is no objective value to either.

It's circular logic because it's a fucking tautology.

It's only a tautology if you're solipsist scum who thinks that you can eliminate all bad things by making everyone unable to perceive bad things.

lrn2word

What's your alternate concept for "things that are bad" that does not depend on suffering?

Things that cause suffering.

Like birth? :^)

Only if you use a very shallow definition of it.

why is that man wearing slices of beef on his head?

it was the style at the time

Nobody can consent to having life imposed on them, with all its potential suffering or pleasures. Make all the claims about suffering versus not suffering you like, inflicting those beliefs on another by giving birth is quite unethical, don't you think?

We are life. It isn't imposed.

It is by accident of nature that we are alive. We didn't pre-exist.

How is life not imposed? We're not slaves to our instinct, we can make the decision to not procreate.

I'm talking about you, me as individuals having been born, not about you and me fucking and making babies.

The birds and the bees is an old story, are we still talking about that?

We have no control over our creation. You're speaking about procreation.

Yes, I realise that. I'm no expert but it seems to me that the entire premise of antinatalism is that further procreation - which we do have control over - is unethical. It doesn't really speak to things beyond our control. What relevance does our creation have to antinatalism beyond recognising that it was not a choice and embracing the voluntary termination of your life if you're unable to tolerate or find reason to stay alive?

Oh, my bad. I guess we were agreeing. I did not see the bigger context. Many apologies.

But, I would say that antinatalism is a perfect argument for the social influence of homosexuality for the betterment of society.

Nah no need to apologise for discussion.

I'm gay myself so I recognise that it's obviously quite easy for me to align with antinatalism, but I'm not really sure how homosexuality would exert enough social influence to affect reproduction rates, unless the actual proportion of homosexuality increased.

As "gay is okay" is becoming more of the social scene, surveys are showing a larger part of the population is gay then previous stats showed. I remember the Kinsey report noted % of homosexual population stats wouldn't be accurate due to people not admitting to it, for understandable reasoning.

Homosexuality can be smart for nature for people to enjoy their sexuality without making unwanted babies, which is what has been happening and that is of course horrible for the children who become the people of this world that, from their point of view, didn't want them in the first place.

It just seems a step in the right direction for us all.

Nope.