Are there any philosophers that support omnicide or am I the first one?

>Yes
Assuming you're not joking, were you serious in that post? And by this thread, I'm guessing you still have the same beliefs three years later? What have you done to promote or put your ideology into action?

>That was my understanding as well. As far as I know Benatar is the only openly antinatalist academic, actually.

Yeah, I just wanted to make it even clearer to any lurker the versions of antinatalism the OP picture would apply to aren't popular in professional philosophy or academia. Because even I don't see how those who are antinatalists based on environmental reasons can stop at "don't have kids!" and not conclude mass murder without being hypocrites/lacking.

Accelerate entropy.

Ultimately people who take the anti-life position have already won, all we have to do is quicken the pace. The sooner the better of course, but I realise a single person can do little.

>accelerate entropy
You didn't get me. I'll suffer to spite you. What you gonna do, faggot? I will consciously suffer and cause suffering on to me to make mockery of your meme.

Whatcha
gonna
do
cuck?

i'll take this one step further and also cause suffering for others.

u mad, OP?

Do you accept the possibility of extraterrestrial life? Why does it matter if humans cease to exist when it would only mean the removal of our agency? Suffering cannot be eliminated so focus on doing good to yourself and those around you.

>am I the first one

You aren't a philosopher, kid.

I was serious in that post in the sense that I consider consciousness and suffering to be things that ideally shouldn't exist and the reasoning in that post still strike me as being right in principle, but I do realise the futility of such a position and the impotence of arguments in the face of biological drives. I also realise they are based on a sort of intuitive emotional position of myself that a lot of people don't share and I don't consider moral positions to ultimately be truth-apt.

As far as the methods to end sentient existence and thereby suffering go I think actually has a very compelling point. Having a few mass shootings here and there to prevent people from breeding would merely be a symbolical act that ultimately would prolong the misery, whereas accelerating the process might in theory lead to less suffering, like ripping off a band-aid.

i just love how every antinatalist is a suburban basement dweller very concerned with suffering, and who's compassionate response to that suffering is to end all life

also
> I consider consciousness [and suffering] to be things that ideally shouldn't exist

back to the drawing board. you literally think you are the first person to come up with antinatalism

It seems unlikely we are going to be able to reach other planets. It would be unreasonable to perpetuate human life in order to kill everything in the galaxy if we don't see any viable means of colonizing space. In that case, you would be perpetuating suffering on earth for no good reason. The conclusion would be to just do what is within your power and hope other civs will do the same.

This makes indeed more sense than antinatalism, but I'll personally stick with a philosophy of life.

The assumption that advanced civilisations come to antinatalist conclusions would actually solve the Fermi paradox.

Don't you feel like your ideology is debunked when its apparent main goal is in fact the exact opposite of its logical conclusion?

Also how can you claim there is an objective idea of suffering?

Finally Benatar's assymetry is riddled with uproven axioms.

It's very reasonable to suggest we can reach other planets, and moreso that we can eliminate life on other planets. Even destroying one planet that harbors life would be worth it, as you would be preventing billions of years of suffering.

Alright lads, I will also suffer just to spite OP and his edgy philosophy. Any other takers?

All axioms are unproven. The notion of proof itself requires axioms.

I'd love to suffer to spite OP like you lad but I have such a positive outlook on life that I struggle to feel sad.

Physical pain would work, but to be considered ''suffering'' it would have to be pretty serious, as pain in the physical sense can actually be pleasurable sometimes.

I do plan on having children though, so that'll work.

Way to miss the point. Asking for the proof of the proof that guarantees that 1+2=3 is not the same thing as asking for say, a proof that ''pain'' is bad (why use this term?) or that non-existence does not causes ''harm'' (it does).

Why do you at one point pretend to care for universal suffering, then retreat to what 'you can get your hands on'? Why are you measuring suffering as a magnitude? It either exists or it does not. Since you have already admitted that humans exterminating all life in the universe is impossible it follows that suffering is a constant and will never cease to exist. The removal of human potentiality to do good is all you are advocating for. If you really cared about suffering you would get of your ass and go help people who are in your immediate grasp.

This is the high school atheism of Philosophy.

i support OPcide

am i the first philosopher to support it?

I'm going to take a short moment out of my morning to show you what a moron you are.

You're welcome.

If you believe life evolves naturally and spontaneously out of matter, then the destruction of life is a pointless act.

It will always exist.

If you believe life was created, then the creator(s) are beyond your power to destroy and can simply create again (which may have happened somewhere else already for all you know).

Either way, your nihilistic teen-angst will solve nothing.

Nor could it possibly be an ethical solution, as you're proposing, because it requires the complete disregard for the wishes and concerns of others - which is literally the only reason the field of ethics even exists.

If you would like to end your own suffering however, feel free to kys in any way you find appealing.

I don't suffer though

I just had a nice wank to some Thai ladyboys, it was swell and now i'm gonna make me some hamburgers

No. This guy was. It's becoming quite a trend.

There is only one cide the Op is likely to commit I think.

Your dumb philosophy relies on utilitarian principles and in that sense, your philosophy is dumb.

I hope you never grow out of your stupid little idea OP or you will suffer a lot when you look back at how retarded and cringy you were.

Nietzsche.

Be the superman of your dreams, even and especially if it includes the murder of innocent others.

>Don't you feel like your ideology is debunked when its apparent main goal is in fact the exact opposite of its logical conclusion?
The goal is not opposite, the way of getting there is likely just counter-intuitive.

You should get out more. Get some friends, go see your family members.

Of course you'll become this edgy if you spend all your time in that dank and stinky basement.

Finally, according to the rules of this "movement" of yours, you should start with killing yourself. Seriously.

hehe top kek

If the publisher does not care enough to give a book decent cover art then the book is not worth it.

How about this: It's not up to you to decide the adventures of other sentient beings. They're called "sentient" for a reason, you know.

The farthest antinatalism can go is being a personal choice; you cannot systematically force it on other people.

>It's not up to you
>You cannot

>using greentext to rebuke (or is it support?) someone's opinion

Come on, you can use a computer so it's safe to assume you can write a one-paragraph response.

>it's safe to assume
I can tell you believe that based on your previous post

Penti Linkola.

Don't be an edgelord. has a double meaning. re-write it so it's clear what you meant.

Don't be a fag.

Everyone here take "ending the human suffering" as a moral decision.

Firstly, the human suffering comes with sentience, and is propagated by it. You can't stop two sentient beings from producing more sentient beings. It's NOT your call.

Secondly, every being is free to exist even if it comes with suffering. Antinatalism therefore can never be more than a PERSONAL FUCKING DECISION REEEEEEEEEEE

>Firstly, the human suffering comes with sentience, and is propagated by it. You can't stop two sentient beings from producing more sentient beings. It's NOT your call.
The lifestyle that enables you to flood this board with your shitposts comes at the expense of the third world. Your decadence in a very real sense is participatory in the deaths and undermining of other sapients. You are aware of this in a general and unconcerned sense, so clearly you're a hypocrite mongoloid retard who should go fuck themselves.

Has philosophy even explained why suffering is bad in the first place?

dude, fuck no. i though of that shit in the shower at like twelve, and if i did, of course it's not a new thought.

There was that one guy who wrote a book about the necessity of suicide, published it, made a pile of its copies and hung himself on it. I encourage you to follow in his footsteps.

He advocates killing most of humanity (because of environmental reasons) but not all.

If the goal is OMNIcide how the fuck does it help the cause if those who advocate it kill themselves?

Path of least resistance. Though one can try to make a military career in USA (or Russia) and then trigger a nuclear war. But that wouldn't be very Veeky Forums

*tips Victorian hat*

That would actually be pretty cool.

The ending of the human race came from a Chan poster that enrolled in the military and triggered nuclear obliteration.

Truly makes me reflect.

Shutup Seymour

That image is bullshit. Stirner would jump out of his chair and DDT Marx.

this is what the latest dan brown movie is about : - )

everything in this thread is an example of how Pride can make a man, even a young man, completely mad.

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

>It's not up to you to decide the adventures of other sentient beings.
Tell that to parents.

this, materialism/utilitarianism is the mental illness of the 21st century.

my autism meter is off the charts!

>calling yourself a "philosopher"
kys
also,
>thinking you can somehow justify the destruction of other sentient beings
Edgy

I myself have recently arrived at an, as you put it, omnicidal point of view by conceiving that it is possible that biological immortality may theoretically be achieved in the coming decades, so that, it might be possible that an individual human being's useful life span is extended to an arbitrarily long extent. This seems to me to be an abhorrent possibility that must be prevented by any means possible, and I have therefore been purposefully making a nuisance of myself in Veeky Forums threads on the above topic for the past few weeks.

A piece of futurism pop-science which has made the rounds in the news media over the past year or two is the idea that the very rich and powerful will ontologically diverge from the rest of the species via access to such things as the above. The recent "Bogdanoff" meme around Veeky Forums is a symptom of this idea, which has deep roots and cultural fears, which naturally I of course naturally share, or else I wouldn't be explicating my views in this way.

Now, if we further assume that humans, left to their own devices, will always manage to tinker again-and-again until such time as they get a scheme such as the above figured out, then we must conclude based on that assumption that intelligent beings given sufficient time and resources will hack death, so that some get to live arbitrarily long lives while everyone else in history has lived at most for a few decades, and then dies. In other words, perpetual equilibrium is impossible - you have to either eliminate the possiblity, or eventually it will come to pass for some lucky Elect. That musn't happen, and the basis for the latter statement is my value system, which seems perverse to most, but which they really ought to share.

I have thus come to the conclusion by considering the progression of science, and certain ideas of basic fairness which will appeal to those on the left to a certain extent, up until the point that I make a feel-sy argument for human extinction, which is not at all based on any environmental considerations. I say, I have come to the conclusion that the extinction of the human species is called for, at-a-stroke.

And if it cannot be effected, then we may at least console ourselves as to the meaninglessness of the universe, and how nothing but a void awaits in either case. But life does have certain pleasures, otherwise I wouldn't value life to begin with. I instead am personally very happy at the thought that every rich man, every prick, however perfectly he has pricked himself out over life, yet dies someday. For that one prick to be able to cheat death is to me intolerable, and thus the species must end.

As a matter of fact there is one, the Finnish ecologist Pentti Linkola. He was one of the first "deep ecologists," having come to the conclusion that care for the environment and our industrial humanism are incompatible.

>biological immortality may theoretically

immortality is a meme. while unbelievably long lives are theoretically not impossible, immortality is not; the atoms composing your body themselves have an age (half-life x 2) that dissolves them into something else. Particles decay; humans are made of particles.

You could start ending yourself, it would also end your perceptions of "everything", you know, all life as you know.

well, that is not an omnicide, Op is refering to end all life, not just human one

Not only that, Pentti Linkola does NOT want to destroy all humanity - just most of us, in order to avoid ecological catastrophe.

Stirner and Marx were actually good friends.