Reproducing is a basic, selfish and futile act

[BeHereNow]

There are two main strands to why you should not reproduce:

1) Even under the best of conditions you are inflicting guaranteed suffering onto the life you are creating. Your motivations are selfish.

2) There is no intrinsic meaning to life, therefore reproduction is mere perpetuation of consciousness, which is absurd.

Humans should commence a managed extinction beginning immediately.

 

[Hairful]

 

[disfiguredyoungman]

Anti natalism is getting popular these days.

Paging pro life activist @disfiguredyoungman

I wonder who could be behind that? I perpetuate strict anti-life activism against Anti-Natalists though.

 

[Regan]

If you want to reduce "guaranteed suffering" you probably should reproduce as much as possible.

The more people there are, the bigger our environmental footprint, the fewer animals are born in the wild. Therefore, by personally reproducing and encouraging other humans to reproduce, you're probably reducing how many conscious beings are born on net, therefore reducing guaranteed suffering in the future. Human-centric anti-natalism is selfish because it increases wild animal populations. Hardcore pro-natalism is the true anti-natalism.

 

[losingbattle88]

If ur bald or balding you should refrain from reproducing.

 

[BurningCoals]

Hardcore pro-natalism is the true anti-natalism.

Nah, that would be efilism.

 

[Regan]

Nah, that would be efilism.

If we are arguing for anti-natalism by saying that "Even under the best of conditions you are inflicting guaranteed suffering onto the life you are creating. Your motivations are selfish.", it's difficult to see why a very similar argument can't be made in favour of efilism.

"You shouldn't have kids because that creates guaranteed suffering." is a small step away from "You shouldn't allow other beings to have kids because that creates guaranteed suffering."

 

[Regan]

Nah, that would be efilism.

In any case, I don't think that über-antinatalism is the best argument for human natalism. The best argument for human natalism is that having more people means that a cure for hair loss is likely to be found sooner. More people = more people working on the problem, and also more people = a bigger market for hair loss cures, making it more worthwhile to cure hair loss.

People who don't have kids are being selfish mainly because they are feeding the ancient horror known as male pattern hair loss. It's your personal choice, but I personally find it unacceptable.

 

[BurningCoals]

If we are arguing for anti-natalism by saying that "Even under the best of conditions you are inflicting guaranteed suffering onto the life you are creating. Your motivations are selfish.", it's difficult to see why a very similar argument can't be made in favour of efilism.

"You shouldn't have kids because that creates guaranteed suffering." is a small step away from "You shouldn't allow other beings to have kids because that creates guaranteed suffering."

I guess a difference could be the directness, by having children yourself you directly cause someone to live and from there will suffer, while other beings reproducing isn't caused directly by you. But I do agree that it is a difficult topic and question, there's not a clear cut answer to it.

 

[BurningCoals]

In any case, I don't think that über-antinatalism is the best argument for human natalism. The best argument for human natalism is that having more people means that a cure for hair loss is likely to be found sooner. More people = more people working on the problem, and also more people = a bigger market for hair loss cures, making it more worthwhile to cure hair loss.

People who don't have kids are being selfish mainly because they are feeding the ancient horror known as male pattern hair loss. It's your personal choice, but I personally find it unacceptable.

Male pattern baldness is the overarching enemy of Earth's lore.

 

[Regan]

I guess a difference could be the directness, by having children yourself you directly cause someone to live and from there will suffer, while other beings reproducing isn't caused directly by you. But I do agree that it is a difficult topic and question, there's not a clear cut answer to it.

Well, I could also argue that by giving birth, you aren't directly causing anyone's suffering either ; ) The hair loss, tooth ache, and cancer caused that man's suffering. What me? I didn't do it. I just gave birth to him.

Or I could argue that if your action causally leads to suffering that otherwise would not have occured, you are directly causing the suffering, and that everything else is intellectual myopia that must be overcome.

Reminds me of that scene from Collateral,

"You killed him?"
"No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him."

 

[Regan]

F*ck, Tom Cruise has a fantastic head of hair in that movie.

 

[BurningCoals]

Well, I could also argue that by giving birth, you aren't directly causing anyone's suffering either ; ) The hair loss, tooth ache, and cancer caused that man's suffering. What me? I didn't do it. I just gave birth to him.

Or I could argue that if your action causally leads to suffering that otherwise would not have occured, you are directly causing the suffering, and that everything else is intellectual myopia that must be overcome.

Reminds me of that scene from Collateral,

"You killed him?"
"No, I shot him. The bullets and the fall killed him."

The "does guns or people kill people" debate I guess

 

[BurningCoals]

F*ck, Tom Cruise has a fantastic head of hair in that movie.

 

[Regan]

The "does guns or people kill people" debate I guess

I think in that movie it's probably closer to moral nihilism versus non-nihilism or something. Tom Cruise was definitely an utter nihilist who used arguments like the above to undermine our most powerful moral convictions.

 

[Likewise]

Is it for real?

 

[jensyy]

Maybe some people really shouldn't...
I am translating an interesting text about reproduction at the moment (not alone, with the help of these guys https://pickwriters.cоm/czech-translation-services) and the author of that text has a similar opinion. She says that people with the certain disease and disabilities should never have kids.