Two thoughts on this.
1. This book has had such a positive effect on my life. It's akin to attaining a new habit, like keeping your room clean, or working out. So could anyone suggest another book that has this level of life-changing immediacy?
2. Has anyone here read it and still feel like procreation isn't immoral?
Other urls found in this thread:
uglatto.com
twitter.com
If you don't want to exist you can stop at any time.
I enjoy living.
Then don't fucking whine about it.
Do I bother responding you rationally or are you gonna keep being an idiot?
This repeating 'I haven't even read a 300 page book with a plethora of good arguments, but I just debunked it with two sentences' shit really gets to me.
Do I need to read it? I disagree with the fundamental starting point of the argument, I don't think any of the points will convince me.
You cannot sweepingly say "life is mostly suffering and pain, and therefore everyone would be better off not living it". Experience is fundamentally subjective, and to a large extent people decide for themselves whether their life is "good" or "bad", and whether or not it is worth living. In my opinion it is not one's place to decide for someone else whether they would be better off existing or not.
Why are suffering and pain bad things that humans shouldn't experience?
If you look at it another way, isn't it immoral not to procreate? Individuals are denied even the chance to decide if they want to exist or not. Something that exists can decide to cease to do so, but something that does not exist can, obviously, never choose to do so.
>I disagree with the fundamental starting point of the argument, I don't think any of the points will convince me.
You've never read a text that proposes something you don't agree with? Seems pretty limited. Not to mention, if everyone acted like you do, this book would have been read by 0 people. It's not meant to be pleasant, you know...
>You cannot sweepingly say
It's quite an advanced argument. He doesn't "just say it", it's tackled from many points of view.
>Experience is fundamentally subjective
No. You feel hungry, I feel hungry, that's a negative for both of us. You can rationalize it for yourself in that it's worth it, but biologically, that experience can't be anything but negative.
Refer to the chart linked here anyhow, the argument isn't so much about how much negativity there is in one's life, but that any negativity is bad, and we can avoid making lives that experience it.
>to a large extent people decide for themselves whether their life is "good" or "bad"
Yes, but we aren't reliable sources for it. You go ask people in India without jobs, shitting on the street, no house, hungry - "life is a miracle, I'm grateful for it", but you wouldn't conceive if you knew that's how your kid is gonna end up, would you? Same for a kid with down syndrome, or similar illness.
>Why are suffering and pain bad things that humans shouldn't experience?
What do you mean, "why is pain bad"? Because physiologically we're programmed to sense it as a negative event. In moral philosophy, if inflicting pain isn't isn't considered bad, I don't know what is.
>Something that exists can decide to cease to do so, but something that does not exist can, obviously, never choose to do so.
This would mean something if it were simple, but it isn't - suicide is a long, difficult, painful process, that damages not only the individually (prior to pulling the trigger), but the people around him/her, too. We aren't robots. People all around the world are infinitely miserable, and still don't kill themselves - why wouldn't you want to avoid the creation of those beings?
By the way, literally all you mention is better argued against in the book, in case you're interested.
>No. You feel hungry, I feel hungry, that's a negative for both of us. You can rationalize it for yourself in that it's worth it, but biologically, that experience can't be anything but negative.
The fact that you can "rationalize it" is what I mean when I say experience is subjective. If you don't feel anything is wrong, is there really something wrong? Why?
>Yes, but we aren't reliable sources for it.
Why not? Again, if you don't feel like your life is horrible, why is it horrible? Why can someone from an outside perspective decide it is? You can say that these things are 'bad' from the outside, "objective" point of view, but what is the experience of life, other than one's subjective feelings and perceptions?
>In moral philosophy, if inflicting pain isn't isn't considered bad, I don't know what is.
I suppose this is where I'll just disagree with you entirely. In the first place I don't think experiences can be codified as bad or good, but I'll entertain the idea. Suffering can build character, and I think in many cases people feel they have ultimately benefited from past suffering. You'll of course say they shouldn't have had to suffer in the first place and that their personal growth and sense of satisfaction was not worth the suffering, I'm just saying how many feel. Perhaps I cannot make an unbiased decision (nor can anyone), but it was possible to have an existence that was only comprised of pleasure and completely void of pain I wouldn't choose it.
>People all around the world are infinitely miserable, and still don't kill themselves - why wouldn't you want to avoid the creation of those beings?
Are they truly so infinitely miserable as you say, if they don't want to kill themselves? You cannot be more miserable than you are. Your mind isn't hiding a secret, objective suffering from you, you are simply not experiencing it at all. If they feel their lives are worth living, why are they wrong?
>if you don't feel like your life is horrible, why is it horrible?
Ignorance is bliss.
If ignorance is bliss, then what's wrong with it?
More on suffering:
I also don't think suffering and pleasure can be so cleanly divided into two categories. I believe people enjoy and derive pleasure from some forms of suffering, for example, and purposely put themselves in position to suffer more. I also think suffering is what makes life and existence so interesting and ultimately worthwhile to me.
>This would mean something if it were simple, but it isn't - suicide is a long, difficult, painful process, that damages not only the individually (prior to pulling the trigger), but the people around him/her, too. We aren't robots.
This might sound cold to you, but if after a loved one commits suicide, the suffering you feel is not so great that you wish to end your life, that means it's still worth living. If it does make you feel the need to end your life you can do that, and others around you will react as they will.
According to you, nothing. But then again, you insist that suffering can be good because it can build character and it can benefit you. But how can not knowing something benefit you? I would say that the struggle, that is to say, knowing, is what truly benefits you and hardens you, whereas ignorance is similar to stasis, where you cannot advance but you can't go back either. Does that make sense?
I don't disagree, but I don't see how it would make such an existence morally unacceptable.
My advice to all antinatalists. Just resign and relax. Free will probably doesn't exist and the desire to make babies is so ingrained in the masses that it's futile to waste time trying to convince them. Nothing really matters. Just don't be a dick and let people keep doing dumb, self-destructive shit. Try to find a way to find happiness or commit suicide. Me, I'm going to keep getting government money and do drugs until I die or decide to kill myself.
>If you don't feel anything is wrong, is there really something wrong?
I think that what's important here is that this state of 'not feeling that anything is wrong' happens after the fact. You do feel that it's wrong when you're hungry, always. So, for the sake of an example, let's reduce a life to 4 events: (1) One is hungry (2) One is sad (3) One feels cold (4) One kisses a girl. In (4) you say "man, I'm so glad I experienced all of that, just so I could have this!", but if you take these states separately, your life was compromised of 3 negative states, and 1 positive one.
>Why not?
We are preconditioned by ourselves, and then by society, in that life is worth it. It's also referred to as the Pollyanna principle. People simply tend to be optimistic about life. I'm pretty sure this is proven, but I don't have a source (you can infer it by instinct, though).
>Why can someone from an outside perspective decide it is?
So for example you wouldn't stab someone because you decide that stabbing him is bad - why can't you make the same assessment about life, and decide not to procreate?
>What is the experience of life, other than one's subjective feelings and perceptions?
But the net is negative, even if in your latest state you think that it's worth it. But let's assume you don't believe the net to be negative, and that for every time you feel like your posture isn't right, or your on the street and it bothers you people are looking at you, you have positive experiences that outweigh these. Even then, you had some pain, and a life of no pain is better than one with pain, yes? So from the two choices, it's more moral to go for the "life" without pain - that is, not to conceive.
Wow thanks man that was some shitty advice
Sorry dude. Good luck convincing 7 billion people not to have kids! :^)
He's got a point. Why worry so much about others? I bet you worry about your sister's eating disorder when it's obvious she doesn't want to change. The point is, just focus on yourself my nigger.
>I disagree with the fundamental starting point of the argument, I don't think any of the points will convince me.
Didn't even read book AND said nothing will change his opinion. Why bother replying to this troll any longer?
If Trump and Hillary can convince a whole nation to vote for them, I do not think our efforts are unreachable.
our goals are unreachable*
Sorry, was busy counting stars.
cont.
Your third quote I think I answered it by arguing that people overestimate how good life is, and that they become attached to the latest state of being ("I'm happy now, it's worth it!").
>Are they truly so infinitely miserable as you say, if they don't want to kill themselves?
They do want to kill themselves, but they don't do it. It's this very same correlation what I'm saying. Just because you're alive doesn't mean you want to keep living.
>I believe people enjoy and derive pleasure from some forms of suffering
Do you mean to say people will derive pleasure from their own suffering? How come? That would still divide it into positive and negative, anyhow.
>I also think suffering is what makes life and existence so interesting and ultimately worthwhile to me.
I mean, that's what most people think, but again, it's just rationalizing the pain. I don't see why you would choose the life with pain over the one with no pain - I wonder if you actually would, given the chance.
>others around you will react as they will
Most of the time, that's negative, which is what makes so many people keep enduring a life so filled with pain ("can't leave my daughter behind").
I'm not an antinatalist. Your advice is just shitty
>Free will probably doesn't exist
>probably
Vague
>Nothing really matters
Vague and you wouldn't type anything if you actually believed that
>let people keep doing dumb, self-destructive shit
Terrible idea, we should be improving the lives of others
>commit suicide
Worst advice you could possibly give
>I'm going to keep getting government money
Greedy, lazy
>do drugs until I die or decide to kill myself
What is wrong with you
You could at least put effort into giving advice, or at least say something true, for example: get a job and stop doing drugs
how do you get money from the government?
that's because trump and hillary have millions of dollars of campaign teams behind them that help them uphold an image that appeals to broad demographics, if either of them starting spouting some sort of antinatalist rhetoric they'd both be laughed out of the political arena as insane, i can already imagine the genocide and nazi comparisons
Our publicity is being funded free by existence itself. 30 years from now our sponsors global warming, overpopulation, long-overdue pandemic, and economical crisis are gonna show up.
>implying all the stormfags at /pol/ would not commit sudoku if Trump told them to
I meant that with the correct propaganda and a good face for your campaign, you can convience people of almost anything.
like I said man, have fun on your hopeless crusade, if campaigning for antinatalism gives you meaning more power to you. I'm just honestly too tired and resigned to give a shit about most things these days to be truly bothered to try and convince people. I'm not overly satisfied with my lot in life, but I'm comfortable, so I'll take what I can get.
disability
Damn that sounds comfy. How old are you user?
19
Self-diagnosed autism is not a disability, user-kun.
Suck a dildo lmaoo
these
hey, they keep giving me money every month so I'll take it, work sucks and I'd rather avoid at all costs personally
How does it feel to be a poor fag
I bet you shower biweekly
>(1) One is hungry (2) One is sad (3) One feels cold (4) One kisses a girl. In (4) you say "man, I'm so glad I experienced all of that, just so I could have this!", but if you take these states separately, your life was compromised of 3 negative states, and 1 positive one.
But just how negative were the other three states? You also imply that each state has an equal net value and affect on the person.
>We are preconditioned by ourselves, and then by society, in that life is worth it. It's also referred to as the Pollyanna principle. People simply tend to be optimistic about life. I'm pretty sure this is proven, but I don't have a source (you can infer it by instinct, though).
And so? How is this wrong?
>So for example you wouldn't stab someone because you decide that stabbing him is bad - why can't you make the same assessment about life, and decide not to procreate?
I don't think stabbing someone and procreating are properly analogous. Stabbing someone is a simple action with an immediate and certain result. Procreation is not.
>But the net is negative, even if in your latest state you think that it's worth it.
But you don't experience life as the net sum of your experiences. Uou experience it from state to state. The current state is everything there is. Even then, the positive/negative dichotomy is such an extremely black and white perspective of how to see existence. Suffering and pleasure are not so easily quantifiable as your arguments imply, and it's not a number game that falls simply into "it's bad" or "it's good".
>Even then, you had some pain, and a life of no pain is better than one with pain, yes?
I specifically said I didn't feel that way in my previous post. And not conceiving doesn't mean going for a life without pain, it means nothing. People who make this argument, though they acknowledge that unconceived lives do not exist at all, they talk as if they have done some one a favor by not procreating. You haven't. You haven't done anything good or bad, you simply haven't done anything at all.
>They do want to kill themselves, but they don't do it.
Do you know that? You don't. It's a mistake to assume that all people living "miserable" lives do not find joys within. Even the worst of the worst, if they feel there is some reason to keep living, that means continued existence is worth suffering to them, for whatever reason it may be.
>I mean, that's what most people think, but again, it's just rationalizing the pain.
And again, so what? If pain can be rationalized away, is it actually that big of a deal in the first place?
>I wonder if you actually would, given the chance.
I wouldn't. A life of nothing but pleasure seems to be just about as much "nothing" to me as not existing at all.
considering my parents still slip me a decent amount of cash as well and I shower every 1-2 days, pretty good my man. No work, supportive family, a pretty decent circle of friends I get to see, and my own place, and all the free and time and solitude i crave. Pretty much living the NEET dream.
>Procreation is not
Dude, if I busted a nut inside a girl you bet your ass my orgasm (simple action = sex, result = cum) is going to immediate.
And how long do you think this is going to last? Is this a physical ability or what? At the very least you should be studying, but whatever. No point in convincing a NEET anything.
I mean all the possibilities of what may happen in the life of that child you dumbass. If you stab someone either they feel pain and recover or they die and that's the end of them.
Can you even read I said I'm not an antinatalist
Rest of my life. Parents are pretty set so they'll be able to support me until they at least kick the bucket and they have pretty great life insurance policies so that should cover me into my twilight years if I last that long. Disability sucks, but I've been luckier than most and can pretty much live with ease for the rest of my days.
oh well, then I hope that you don't have kids, but if you do try not to fuck them up I guess.
I also forgot to say what I think is the most important thing of all: not all of life can be described simply in terms of pleasure and pain, which this argument seems to rely upon. Pleasure and pain are not the only component of human experience and not the only factors to be taken into account.
Do you at least have a girlfriend to suck your dick every now and then?
not atm, but I'm not too interested in romance or sex right now anyway, sexual urges are more annoying to me then anything these days
>But just how negative were the other three states? You also imply that each state has an equal net value and affect on the person.
I do think that life is more filled with negative events, yes.
>stabbing someone is a simple action with an immediate and certain result. Procreation is not.
How is procreation not immediate? A person starts feeling pain from before it comes out of the womb, even. The result is certain: pain will be felt, and to cause pain is bad.
>The current state is everything there is.
This is an interesting though. I will make a note of this and think about it later.
>Even then, the positive/negative dichotomy is such an extremely black and white perspective of how to see existence.
What else, then? Suffering is bad, pleasure is good, I don't see how it can be any different. You may think of previous suffering and feel relieved that you don't endure it anymore, but that doesn't twist that previous suffering into something good - but rather it makes a new (positive) experience.
>You haven't done anything good or bad, you simply haven't done anything at all.
Well, there are two stances you can take: you either procreate, or you don't. If you accept that procreation is a damage to the person born, then you can only compare it with "him" not being born. The same way you can decide not to stab someone. You don't say that "I didn't do this 'hypothetical non-existent non-stabbed person' a favor by not stabbing him", you did do this 'non-stabbed' person a favor by let him stay not-stabbed, just like how you do a non-person a favor by letting it "exist" as a non-person.
>It's a mistake to assume that all people living "miserable" lives do not find joys within.
What? You really don't think there are people who are absolutely miserable, hate every second of their lives, who still don't kill themselves? I read a lot of thoughts from suicidal people (I frequent r/suicidewatch), and this is what I've gathered.
>if they feel there is some reason to keep living, that means continued existence is worth suffering to them
Or it can mean they just don't do anything about it (which I believe is the majority). I can think something isn't worth it, and not take any action on stopping it, right?
>If pain can be rationalized away, is it actually that big of a deal in the first place?
But it isn't rationalized away, it's still there. You seem to assume everyone who does this has some sort of ability to completely ignore the pain. You still have it, you just think that it's worth it. The mind can only do so much.
Someone is being tortured by an group of people, but he keeps thinking "it's worth it, it will end soon and I'll go home" like a mantra - would you say this rationalization can make that pain go away, and thus justify his existence?
Please take a look at this part of the book when you can: uglatto.com
And also I'm going to sleep. I enjoyed this exchange, hope this is still up tomorrow.
If you're anti-natalist and don't commit suicide you're a hypocrite and an edgelord.
Would it not be in the best interest of antinatalism to continue to exist in order further the cause? Who will teach the world to not procreate if all the followers of the system kill themselves? The battles is over before it begins and nothing has been accomplished.
not really
True
a comment
I can sympathise with antinatalism, but ultimately it's a posturing bullshit position. It's kind of like how hippies would say 'if we are all nice to eachother there would be no war'.
Which is true, but also impossible. So you might as well not entertain the concept at all.
Antinatalists can't win, because you can't stop all people from reproducing. On the other hand antinatalists can't lose, because humanity will inevitably go extinct.
The most 'realistic' way to actually try to realise the goals of antinatalism would be an accelerationist approach to involuntary human extinction, and the best chance we have now to realise that is to hasten the birth of artificial superintelligence that will inherit the earth at our expense.
Coldness be my God. Praise GnoN!
But you wouldn't use this justification to procreate yourself, right? If you wouldn't, then you're an antinatalist. If you would, then that's just stupid, for you don't need the whole population to do it for it to have an effect (just you not procreating is a tremendous lift taken from an hypothetical person, that will never be born).
>If a being does not exist, the concept of pain and pleasure do not exist either. Erase the right boxes and that's accurate.
>which is good
>which is not bad
How? There is nothing there to value it being good or bad. I was interested but you're really making this book sound retarded.
I would feel bad about creating a kid, but I also don't want to procreate out of personal preference so it's hard for me to determine how much of this is compassion and how much of it is egoism. I like to live as free from obligations as I can so not having a child is obviously part of that. It's easy to take the moral high ground when it's so well aligned with my preferences.
I would personally prefer it if humanity would cease to exist rather soon and if we could go about it as humanely as possible, but I don't take a high and mighty moral realist stance about it. I realise all preferences are irrational and arbitrary and meta-ethically I lean towards an emotivist tier "tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger" approach.
So I guess I'm a moral nihilist with antinatalist sentiments without elevating those sentiments beyond the status of being just that.
Read the book, you stupid nigger.
All your questions/arguments are literally tackled in like the first 20 pages.
This.
>I do think that life is more filled with negative events, yes.
I notice that mild discomfort seems to count towards the negative.
>What else, then? Suffering is bad, pleasure is good, I don't see how it can be any different
I think the core issue I have with this way of thinking is that it assumes all of experience can be codified into a binary spectrum of pleasure and pain, with nothing outside of it. And I simply don't think this is true at all. I don't think all experiences can be simplified into "this was pleasurable" or "this was painful". There are more dimensions to existence than that. My personal feelings at least, are that existence (or consciousness, since that's what we're really talking about) is a very interesting state. It's fascinating that I can even entertain a concept such as "interesting" and apply it to anything. Most things don't get to be conscious at all, and it really is very short, so you might as well ride it out until you sink back into nonexistence. That's just my personal take however, I don't think it necessarily should apply to everyone.
>you did do this 'non-stabbed' person a favor by let him stay not-stabbed, just like how you do a non-person a favor by letting it "exist" as a non-person.
What? No you haven't. Saying "I've decided to live my whole life without ever murdering someone, think of all the people I'm benefiting" is ridiculous. You've benefited no one. You haven't harmed anyone either, you just didn't do anything. You're not doing something good simply by refraining from doing something bad.
>What? You really don't think there are people who are absolutely miserable, hate every second of their lives, who still don't kill themselves?
Here I was specifically referring to people living in extreme poverty, but yes, I do think that a lot of people who are suicidal, perhaps even the majority, don't actually want to die. They are simply under intense suffering to the point they can't see a better avenue to stop it. The thought process isn't "I want to stop existing", but "I want to feel less pain". What they truly want is a less painful existence, and existences that are not so painful as to induce chronic and lasting suicidal desire are fairly common and achievable for many suicidal people.
>would you say this rationalization can make that pain go away, and thus justify his existence?
It wouldn't make the pain go away, but I also don't see why it means he would be better off having not existed at all. If he feels it is worth it, why is that wrong? You call it a rationalization, but if it is possible your brain to cope with the pain, that means the pain is not unbearable. If the pain is not unbearable, I don't see that as a reason to stop existing.
This.
Continued:
>It's the core basis of the argument that even if your life was pure joy, and it has 1 millisecond of pain, it's worse than non-existence
If this is the best argument then it seems a bit silly to me honestly. If such an experience did exist (though it of course doesn't), then the asymmetry would be reversed in such an extreme scenario and the pleasure actually would outweigh the pain. I notice that mild discomfort seems to count towards the negative, because everything is simplified into a positive or negative impact, as if emotions were a math problem. I'm not sure if anyone have ever thought "my back itches, oh why must I be forced to exist in this cruel, cruel world", and that's because the truth is, mild pain and suffering really isn't that bad, to the point that even calling it "bad" feels silly. Your argument might make sense if we lived in some sort of vacuum in which we only felt alternating pain and pleasure and the was absolutely nothing else, but as it is it seems far too simplistic.
>pain is bad
>no pain is good
>pleasure is good
>no pleasure is neutral
yeah ok buddy, whatever you say
Literally child-tier logic.
It's more like
>pain is bad
>no pain is good
>pleasure is good
>no pleasure is good/neutral
Makes sense to me at least.
>Pain is bad
>Being born is bad because you're forcing suffering onto others
Reminder that this guy endorses both corporal punishment of children and male infant circumcision. He also turned around and wrote a book about sexism against men, despite continuing to condone infant circumcision.
I'm not required to give a shit what this guy thinks, and I'm more inclined to believe his books are just retarded sensationalism for the sake of sales.
No pain is only good when it comes right after pain though. After that it is also neutral.
No pain and no pleasure are often the same thing too.
I will always suggest this book to any man.
Essential to becoming the strongest version of yourself.
Damnit I got to the thread late :(
>a book about men
Sounds gay desu
It's never too late user, what did you want to say?
Don't be a new age beta faggot, it's a good read. This too if you are a man is an essential tool.
Someone replied to my post above, it's all good. Thank You for the (You).
>(((Benatar)))
>Benatar argues from the uncontroversial premise that pain is, in itself, a bad thing.[3] Nevertheless, he offers qualified defences of the corporal punishment of children[4] and the circumcision of male infants
Yes, literate 1st world goy, it's immoral for you to reproduce! Life is suffering! Pain is bad! But if you still do it feel free to give your babby boy a dose of kosher genital-mutilating pain!
>implying not being forced into existence and committing suicide once you're already born and have family and people who care about you is the same thing
You can't force someone into existence though, since their was nothing to force in the first place.
>the whole point of antinatalism is "helping" people who don't exist by making sure they'll never exist
I'm sure the infinite amount of potential human beings who will never be born really appreciate the efforts of the antinatalist movement.
Also don't forget that people who are happy to be alive think it's better to exist than to not are just lying to themselves.
This chart doesn't actually make sense. Have you noticed?
> Implying ''''''''pain'''''''''''''''''' is bad
> Implying nobody suffers from the lack of humans existing
wew lad
>> Implying ''''''''pain'''''''''''''''''' is bad
this
I'n from Poland. My shitty government is giving out money to families. 500pln (about 100 pounds) for each child, starting with the second one. Yeah, families with just one child don't get a dime.
Now, a new legislation is being discussed. The government proposed giving 4k PLN (so £800) to a mother that gives birth to a child with a genetic disease. Plus there's an ongoin debate about abortion and whether raped girls should be obliged to give birth.
I find it tragic and I am not able to relax.
The animals that would suffer from a lack of humans existing would also be better off not existing. The most moral thing is for the entire universe to be cold, dark and empty, devoid of conscious beings and thus devoid of pain.
I wonder if moralists realize that morals don't exist without humans?