all 4 comments

[–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I agree. Fortunately, antinatalism isn't a commonly used word, so I had to look up.


Please correct me if I'm mistaken, but the gist of Antinatalism is:
Suffering is a fundamental part of all aspects of life; therefore preventing/discouraging the creation of human life is contributes to a reduction in net universal suffering.


Does this philosophy apply solely to human life? If so, then this notion sounds like a backdoor version of globalist eugenics/Agenda 21 bullshit, that is masquerading as eastern wisdom.

If it applys to all life, then it is nihilism at it's absolute worst.


Either way, I'm fine with these folks selectively breeding themselves out of the gene pool. Or better yet, they could look around and see that "the struggle" really isn't that bad.


Personally, I suspect that suffering is hyperbole, and the term "struggle" is a far more appropriate description for three concept. People can learn to enjoy/appreciate a seemingly insurmountable struggle. Suffering is by it's very definition universally unpleasant.


I suspect that the teachings of antinatalism are likely analogous to those priests who frightening their parishioners with sermons of Armageddon, and the End of Days. That is, until they notice that he's been planting trees in his garden.
It's all bullshit. ;-)

What do you think?

[–]Mnemonic[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I can understand it for population control and the religious use: {There is a reason the coolest religions are quoted there}

But the philosophy says it's morally 'bad' and that is were it becomes a numbers game.

I've listened to this podcast about a year ago, the first time I've come across Anti-natalism in modern times: And one of the few times I was 100% on Sam's side. (Funny thing: It's Sam Harris would has written and debates extensively that suffering can be measured and morality should be geared towards reducing it)

I myself am not pro nor anti, it's all really/heavily depended upon the personal context of the people involved. Though overall it's Wisdom to know that nature finds its way, through extinction of sentient life or not.

[–]RavAshi 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

7.7 billions of people and counting makes me thinking to put myself out of the gene pool.

Automation (job scarcity) and climate chaos would only make me not to have them. What awaits them? Would they eventually eat each other?

Better to regret not having kids than to regret their existence

And I would say optimists are delusional fools. Realists would become pessimists. You need to read Reddit Collapse to red pill.

[–]wizzwizz4 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Oh, I'm pessimistic. But I'd give it half a chance that we pull through and escape this planet.