user, are you a natalist or an anti-natalist? Do you base your position on some kind of Marxist analysis?
Now I realise that this place is perhaps one of the worst places for leftist discussion for most of the time, however, there are some effortposters here that simply carry this shithole and allow it to slightly rise above your usual Internet cesspool when they interject so I thought I'd try my luck. Hopefully, at least one of them will grace us with their presence, though I fucking doubt it.
Contemporary anti-natalism is maladaptive behavior at best and a pathetic first world cope at worst.
first post best post.
Communism fixes all problems.
Malthusian nonsense that nearly always is used to attack the proletariat, especially in the Third World. The problems we are dealing with regards to climate change, famines, lack of necessary resources, etc. stem not from some "overpopulation" but from the inefficiencies of capitalism with its distribution issues, imperialism, and need for excessive growth. This leads us to actually waste an exorbitant resources and even food while people starve and lack necessities like healthcare and clean water.
Most anti-natalists I've heard don't focus on problems that are caused purely by capitalism. The crux of their argument states that human existence can't be void of suffering. The economic system is ultimately irrelevant. So my question is, assuming that you accept the postulate that human existence without suffering is impossible (where suffering is defined as an experience of unpleasantness and aversion associated with the perception of harm or threat of harm in an individual no matter how intense), and that bringing a child to life is ultimately a contract that only the parents sign and the aforementioned child had no say in it, why do you find natalism ethical?
I wouldn't wish my genetics on anyone.
it's not a very interesting topic. it's what happens when you overphilosophize existence. they can kill themselves if they wish and not create offspring.
I find the entire argument stupid and infantile. There is no way to justify living or not living through reason alone.
What other user said about Malthusian bullshit is entirely correct.
This shit was figured out centuries if not millennia ago.
Anti-natalists don't find living to be unjustifiable, nor do they try to justify not living. Like I said before, the argument is that bringing a person to life is unethical because human existence can't be void of suffering and because the person who's brought to life has no say in that.
Anti-natalism isn't inherently about economics as well, so I'm not sure why you keep calling Malthusian.
to the labour camp with you
Uh, did you read what I wrote? There is no way to justify life by reason. Suffering or happiness has nothing to do with it.
The only reason this infantile argument keeps going is because some people have a population control agenda, or are such sadshits they need to drag down other people around them. People figured this shit out a long time ago.
I think that you need to realise that no one's trying to justify life here. And as far as I know justifying living or not living isn't an anti-natalist concern.
I don't think there's any reason to even address what you said after your inane unfounded, and ultimately irrelevant assertion that there's no way to justify life by reason seeing as it's just a bunch of appeals to motive.
You are justifying a hypothetical life (or arguing for its non-existence).
Besides that, "suffering" is an infantile basis to make that ethical decision in the first place. I am under no obligation to prevent others' suffering or even my own. I don't like suffering so I try to avoid it, but that's just my personal feelings.
Civilization as it is constructed inflicts deliberate suffering routinely in order to pressure people to do things they don't want to do, that are not in their interest. Political economy wouldn't exist if it were not at its core a method to effectively coerce others through force within a society.
Would you say that you have no obligation to avoid causing another to suffer though?
Learn2read boyo.
Maybe you should take your own advice mate, seeing as how you didn't touch on my questions subject in your post. Preventing suffering isn't the same thing as avoiding causing it.
My sides.
Let me rephrase then.
I am under no obligation to avoid causing suffering to others, or myself.
Do you even know what suffering is?
I see then. No point taking this any further since we subscribe to very differing ethical principles. Also, there's a very real and substantial difference between avoiding causing something and preventing it. Pushing someone to their death isn't the same as walking away from someone who's stuck on a ledge.
Keep telling yourself whatever you like, but you're still being a selfish ninny about the whole thing. I have very real reasons for not wanting to have children. I'm not guessing that there's a possibility they might suffer a little, I know for a fact that they WILL suffer tremendously even if I did everything exactly right with what is in my own power. It is more interesting to me to analyze why that situation is true rather than navel-gaze about whether life is suffering or not. Humanity figured out a long time ago that life is suffering, and almost all people learn this in some way or another.
At any rate you still can't justify having a child for any reason other than "I feel like it", so the whole argument about ethics is silly in the first place. There is no ethical purpose to life, and there is no ethical purpose to non-life. Life just is. The universe logically isn't even supposed to exist in the first place, and my guess is that the absurdity of existence is a large reason why there is so much suffering in an existence that is not supposed to be here.
Rolled 9, 7, 1, 6, 2, 7 + 69 = 101 (6d9)
anti, and I base it on negative utilitarianism not marxian analysis.
Having children is maladaptive, it lessens your lifespan and sucks away your money.
anti-natalism is not a death cult.
fucking lol.
not an argument