Antinatalism is a form of depression, not enlightenment

[DelonLover1999]

I'm not here to argue for marriage and the nuclear family, i don't really care tbh. But many people here seem to be firmly anti-natalist precisely because they don't see any inherent value in life. Aka 'Why would you a bring a child into this fucked up world?' theory. The thing is, though, that's just a manifestation of a state of either deep depression, or deep hypocrisy and cynicism.

The argument is pretty simple: If you had children, do you feel like you would have a responsibility (and even a desire) to care for them deeply?

Most antinatalists would say yes. That's where the idea comes from, to be empathetic to the unborn by keeping 'them' that way. But the problem is, does the antinalist himself legitimately feel like his life isn't worth living? If yes, then he's in a deeply depressed and potentially suicidal state. If not, then he's a hypocrite. If he could find a way to enjoy life to the point where he feels it's worth to wake up again every day, why won't his children be able to do the same in their own way? As a father, he would even be of great help. He's cut from the same cloth, and only a couple decades older, meaning he could potentially offer practical insight and advice.

So either the radical antinatalist is a depressive in disguise, or a hypocrite. Someone who proclaims a 'loss of hope' he clearly doesn't show in his life.
Note that this doesn't mean that the he actively wants to have kids, it just shows that he must have other reasons other than 'muh life sucks'.

Spoiler: Tags

@HarrierDuBois @poopoohead @Klasik01 @khvirgin @emeraldglass @MaestheticMaso @Amnesia @john2 @John Cracovizk @Heinrich Schmidt @Mr. President @Debetro @6ft4

 

[High Cortisol Chad]

There's a difference between life already started and whether or not it's worth to continue existing, and potential life that has not been started yet and if it's worth it to bring it to existance

 

[DelonLover1999]

There's a difference between life already started and whether or not it's worth to continue existing, and potential life that has not been started yet and if it's worth it to bring it to existance

yes, but the key is potential. You can still make a judgement call and decide that bringing kids into existence is not worth it. But you can't do that by arguing that life is pointless without being a hypocrite, cause that's like saying 'once the kid is born, i have no hope for his life, because I don't have hope for life in general', which is pretty much equivalent to saying 'I don't have hope for my own life'. Ergo hypocrisy and or depression.

 

[MTMM]

i wont get kids unless i make 5 figures a month,my wife is tall,she does 3 iq tests before,she is htb

 

[khvirgin]

Antinatalism is a self solving problem, thats why its pointless to debate it

 

[emeraldglass]

I'm not here to argue for marriage and the nuclear family, i don't really care tbh. But many people here seem to be firmly anti-natalist precisely because they don't see any inherent value in life. Aka 'Why would you a bring a child into this fucked up world?' theory. The thing is, though, that's just a manifestation of a state of either deep depression, or deep hypocrisy and cynicism.

The argument is pretty simple: If you had children, do you feel like you would have a responsibility (and even a desire) to care for them deeply?

Most antinatalists would say yes. That's where the idea comes from, to be empathetic to the unborn by keeping 'them' that way. But the problem is, does the antinalist himself legitimately feel like his life isn't worth living? If yes, then he's in a deeply depressed and potentially suicidal state. If not, then he's a hypocrite. If he could find a way to enjoy life to the point where he feels it's worth to wake up again every day, why won't his children be able to do the same in their own way? As a father, he would even be of great help. He's cut from the same cloth, and only a couple decades older, meaning he could potentially offer practical insight and advice.

So either the radical antinatalist is a depressive in disguise, or a hypocrite. Someone who proclaims a 'loss of hope' he clearly doesn't show in his life.
Note that this doesn't mean that the he actively wants to have kids, it just shows that he must have other reasons other than 'muh life sucks'.

Spoiler: Tags

@HarrierDuBois @poopoohead @Klasik01 @khvirgin @emeraldglass @MaestheticMaso @Amnesia @john2 @John Cracovizk @Heinrich Schmidt @Mr. President @Debetro @6ft4

He who thinks like this is a hypocrite because if he despises life to such an extent, he should end his own life. If he does, he wouldn't be a hypocrite, but if he refuses, he is one because if life is detestable, why continue living? They express hatred for life yet fear death immensely. There's a difference for those who opt out of having kids because they fear they wouldn't provide proper care, which is justified, but those who reject parenthood because they claim life is harmful and detrimental are merely masking their laziness since having children is a natural inclination.

 

[Klasik01]

This reminds me of the pro abortion arguments from feminists: they say abortion should be legal because if a woman had an unwanted children parents won't take care of the baby. This might or not might be true depending on the parents, many poor people have children and they take care of them in the same way that an abortist might take care of her baby: no human in this world is guaranteed to have a decent quality of life. There's no such thing as "the world is too fucked up to have babies" the world is you (your life), the world is different for each individual based on personal and not personal facts like intelligence, family, money and so on... Antinatalists don't use this argument, they operate by politics that reduce the amount of people: LGBT, abortion, housing prices and ideology. If you don't get it imagine now a country where most people are woke left liberal, where abortion is unbanned, where house prices aren't affordable and where dating is ruined by feminism = no families, no more children (Aka south korea in the future) a country needs conservative values, remember that China is a "communist" country and they operate in conservative social laws, same as Russia.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Depression barely affects fecundity.

Fecundity of Patients With Schizophrenia, Autism, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Anorexia Nervosa, or Substance Abuse vs Their Unaffected Siblings

To examine the reproductive fitness of patients with schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders vs their unaffected siblings, Power et al studied 2.3 million individuals among the 1950 to 1970 birth cohort in Sweden. Fertility ratios, reflecting the mean number of children compared with that...

jamanetwork.com

But if your argument is that antinatalism corrrelates with a very niche form of depression then I agree. "True" antinatalism is generally a combination of high intelligence and depression.

 

[scrunchables]

Antinatalism is gay. Destroy all life in general.

 

[DelonLover1999]

Depression barely affects fecundity.

Fecundity of Patients With Schizophrenia, Autism, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Anorexia Nervosa, or Substance Abuse vs Their Unaffected Siblings

To examine the reproductive fitness of patients with schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders vs their unaffected siblings, Power et al studied 2.3 million individuals among the 1950 to 1970 birth cohort in Sweden. Fertility ratios, reflecting the mean number of children compared with that...

jamanetwork.com

But if your argument is that antinatalism corrrelates with a very niche form of depression then I agree. "True" antinatalism is generally a combination of high intelligence and depression.

The argument is not about causal correlation.

It's not a scientific argument, just pure propositional logic, really.

 

[douche]

I'm not an anti natalist but debunk this frame of logic op

Presence of harm = Bad
Absence of harm = Good
Presence of benefit = Good
Absence of benefit = Not bad
Therefore can be concluded that creating new life is irrational/unethical

 

[News]

I'm a douchebag

 

[douche]

"True" antinatalism is generally a combination of high intelligence and depression.

Define true antinatalism

 

[douche]

I'm not an anti natalist but debunk this frame of logic op

Presence of harm = Bad
Absence of harm = Good
Presence of benefit = Good
Absence of benefit = Not bad
Therefore can be concluded that creating new life is irrational/unethical

also @khvirgin

 

[DelonLover1999]

I'm not an anti natalist but debunk this frame of logic op

Presence of harm = Bad
Absence of harm = Good
Presence of benefit = Good
Absence of benefit = Not bad
Therefore can be concluded that creating new life is irrational/unethical

Absence of harm is only good when it pre supposes existence. You could extrapolate that logic and say:

In every human action, there is a possibility of the emergence of harm. Therefore, it's bad to take that risk.

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Define true antinatalism

Suffering is inherent (to sentience).

 

[DelonLover1999]

Suffering is inherent (to sentience).

How is this antinatalism? jfl

 

[douche]

Absence of harm is only good when it pre supposes existence

So would you define the absence of harm, when not 'pre supposing' existence as bad, not bad, good, something else?

You could extrapolate that logic and say:

In every human action, there is a possibility of the emergence of harm. Therefore, it's bad to take that risk.

No because the outcome of the presence of benefit may outweigh the presence of harm for that specific risk, making it rational. Defining something, risk in this case, as wholly bad due to a probability makes no sense

 

[DelonLover1999]

So would you define the absence of harm, when not 'pre supposing' existence as bad, not bad, good, something else?

No because the outcome of the presence of benefit may outweigh the presence of harm for that specific risk, making it rational. Defining something, risk in this case, as wholly bad due to a probability makes no sense

Neutral, in respect to a third party observer. Bad to the non-existing part, if such a paradoxical argument could be made.
I think philosophically, not existing is about as bad as it gets.

 

[DelonLover1999]

No because the outcome of the presence of benefit may outweigh the presence of harm for that specific risk, making it rational. Defining something, risk in this case, as wholly bad due to a probability makes no sense

Same could be said for having a child.

 

[Shogun]

Depression barely affects fecundity.

Fecundity of Patients With Schizophrenia, Autism, Bipolar Disorder, Depression, Anorexia Nervosa, or Substance Abuse vs Their Unaffected Siblings

To examine the reproductive fitness of patients with schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders vs their unaffected siblings, Power et al studied 2.3 million individuals among the 1950 to 1970 birth cohort in Sweden. Fertility ratios, reflecting the mean number of children compared with that...

jamanetwork.com

But if your argument is that antinatalism corrrelates with a very niche form of depression then I agree. "True" antinatalism is generally a combination of high intelligence and depression.

Never heard of a Chad advertising antinatalism. Its always neckbeards and other sub5 breeds that advertise antinatalism

 

[douche]

Suffering is inherent (to sentience).

Debatable. but what if the pleasure is greater than the suffering? Does 'true' anti natalism still stand or is it based on the pretence that because all sentient organisms suffer (to some arbitrary extent) then the pleasure of existence is futile

 

[bourgeoizyzz]

I'm not here to argue for marriage and the nuclear family, i don't really care tbh. But many people here seem to be firmly anti-natalist precisely because they don't see any inherent value in life. Aka 'Why would you a bring a child into this fucked up world?' theory. The thing is, though, that's just a manifestation of a state of either deep depression, or deep hypocrisy and cynicism.

The argument is pretty simple: If you had children, do you feel like you would have a responsibility (and even a desire) to care for them deeply?

Most antinatalists would say yes. That's where the idea comes from, to be empathetic to the unborn by keeping 'them' that way. But the problem is, does the antinalist himself legitimately feel like his life isn't worth living? If yes, then he's in a deeply depressed and potentially suicidal state. If not, then he's a hypocrite. If he could find a way to enjoy life to the point where he feels it's worth to wake up again every day, why won't his children be able to do the same in their own way? As a father, he would even be of great help. He's cut from the same cloth, and only a couple decades older, meaning he could potentially offer practical insight and advice.

So either the radical antinatalist is a depressive in disguise, or a hypocrite. Someone who proclaims a 'loss of hope' he clearly doesn't show in his life.
Note that this doesn't mean that the he actively wants to have kids, it just shows that he must have other reasons other than 'muh life sucks'.

Spoiler: Tags

@HarrierDuBois @poopoohead @Klasik01 @khvirgin @emeraldglass @MaestheticMaso @Amnesia @john2 @John Cracovizk @Heinrich Schmidt @Mr. President @Debetro @6ft4

depression is enlightenment retard

that's why ethniks never experience depression

 

[DelonLover1999]

depression is enlightenment retard

that's why ethniks never experience depression

Way to dilute things my nigga

 

[douche]

Neutral, in respect to a third party observer. Bad to the non-existing part, if such a paradoxical argument could be made.
I think philosophically, not existing is about as bad as it gets.

No, the absence of harm for an individual, yourself. What would you define it as?

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Never heard of a Chad advertising antinatalism.

Because they would be a fraction of a fraction of the human population.

 

[DelonLover1999]

No, the absence of harm for an individual, yourself. What would you define it as?

I can't do it while not pre supposing my own existence.

Cogito ergo sum

 

[Reckless Turtle]

Debatable. but what if the pleasure is greater than the suffering? Does 'true' anti natalism still stand or is it based on the pretence that because all sentient organisms suffer (to some arbitrary extent) then the pleasure of existence is futile

The recognition of the inherent baseline of suffering leads to the lack of breeding. Pleasure is irrelevant because it can only be assessed relative to suffering.

 

[douche]

I can't do while not pre supposing my own existence.

Cogito ergo sum

Yes you can. Is you currently not being engulfed in flames a good, neutral or bad thing?

 

[DelonLover1999]

Yes you can. Is you currently not being engulfed in flames a good, neutral or bad thing?

good, but only because I exist and am not engulfed in flames.

 

[douche]

good, but only because I exist and am not engulfed in flames.

The anti natalism framework is relative to life/existence so you yourself have concluded that absence of harm = good. Arguing that absence of harm = bad (wrong) for non existing life doesn't refute it

 

[douche]

The recognition of the inherent baseline of suffering leads to the lack of breeding. Pleasure is irrelevant because it can only be assessed relative to suffering.

So when an organism isn't experience pleasure, it's suffering? There's no intermediate state of existence where suffering and pleasure do not exist

 

[Reckless Turtle]

So when an organism isn't experience pleasure, it's suffering? There's no intermediate state of existence where suffering and pleasure do not exist

As long as something is sentient, it's suffering. It may or may not be experiencing pleasure. Again, pleasure can only be assessed relative to suffering.

 

[douche]

As long as something is sentient, it's suffering. It may or may not be experiencing pleasure. Again, pleasure can only be assessed relative to suffering.

What's your definition of suffering

 

[douche]

Also @Reckless Turtle What's your reason for continuing to exist despite the apparent baseline of suffering?

 

[Reckless Turtle]

What's your definition of suffering

The spectrum of the condition of sentience. It could be argued that suffering is normally distributed. "Pleasure" simply exists on that spectrum (as a state of comparatively low suffering).

Also @Reckless Turtle What's your reason for continuing to exist despite the apparent baseline of suffering?

Survival instinct, which is a spectrum as well.

 

[douche]

Survival instinct, which is a spectrum as well.

It's an extremely easy task to overcome that survival instinct, rationalising your existence with 'survival instinct' is lazy imo unless you consider yourself an insentient cat or something

 

[dreamcake1mo]

I guess i can call myself an antinatalist. My motivation behind not having kids isnt the potential for a bad"life". , i simply dont see any benefit. Especially when theres adoption. I think, if a human is faced with the decision to intentually bring a child in the world, they should almost always reject the option to. My point being is that since humans are not the instructors of such a process, they are rarely qualified to make the decision with intent.

My main reasoning behind this is because consciousness. I guess this is where the whole "life is fucked up" point comes into play. Life can be either very fucked up, or very good, depending on pretty much random variables, and depending on the person. In most cases, life is both to varying degrees. This is pandoras box to me. How can another person gauge anothers suffering? They cant. Life is more than just an external look of flesh, its consciousness. Like i said, the option to rather not bring a life into neither of these choices is simply the ideal choice. Maybe not objectively for the human species, but consciously the best choice. I find it the morally correct one, as the choice to not do so is the one more in alignment to an individuals capability. That and the option to help and already existing life into a better state of life.

Am i a hypocrite?

 

[Reckless Turtle]

It's an extremely easy task to overcome that survival instinct

Speak for yourself.

unless you consider yourself an insentient cat or something

Most cats are sentient.