Wrestling Forum banner

Let's talk: Antinatalism

3K views 40 replies 18 participants last post by  ErickRowan_Fan 
#1 · (Edited)
"Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism."

Ok, so I've wanted to talk about this with people on this forum for awhile now. I did the usual "PM certain people" to see results but didn't get responses, so I've decided to ask you all what your thoughts on antinatalism were. So yeah, what do you think of antinatalism?

Also just to have everybody who is oblivious to what antinatalism is know what the topic of discussion is, here are a few videos that will get you to understand how antinatalists feel about "life". I highly suggest you watch all videos to understand what antinatalism is all about.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following video is basically about "birth" and is antinatalism in a nutshell.



A video on "life" and is just more on what antinatalists view it as.



Here you got the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.



Antinatalism on television.



------------------------------------------------------------------------

So yeah, discuss antinatalism!

 
See less See more
4 1
#4 · (Edited)
I'm certain that there are people who would be better off not having been born, but I would not go as far as to extend this idea to all of humanity.

Maybe I could act as an outside observer and say that humans are generally doing more bad than good on Earth, but I'm a human being and I know I'm doing good, so that's one good human being out of 7 billion atleast (can't speak for anybody else). The problem with guys like Schopenhauer is that they did not believe in practising what they preached, they only reinforced their belief in humans being useless by acting like scumbags themselves. I agree with many of his other ideas but I'm actually trying to put them into practise, instead of just talking about it.

To me, it's a dangerous idea that can turn out horribly when it's in the wrong hands. I do not mind if another person thrives on misery, but I'm doing alright myself and would rather not get randomly stabbed because some guy watched too much Matrix and decided that "humans are a virus" and should be exterminated.
 
#32 · (Edited)
To assume that all humanity does is cause suffering (in other words the net result of human procreation is negative), or that all existence is suffering and then to eradicate existence as a means of ending suffering is a giant leap of faith and a perversion of reality as we know it. I actually find it cultist, short-sighted and bewildering to be honest with you. I don't even want to get into the morality of it all.

Humans, whether in some sort of supposed ideal balance with other creatures or over-populated to the brink of forcing extinctions of other species (despite not knowing what over-population really is considering that this is an ever-changing/dynamic ecological landscape) are still as much a part of the ecosystem as any other.

We are of this world and maybe the idea that we're "rulers" of this world may make some people feel uncomfortable but nature has always had its apex predators and minnows throughout the ages. At this point in time, humanity is just beginning to understand that. Give it some time, I'm pretty sure it will eventually get it right.
 
#39 ·
Natalism4Lyfe. You can talk about as much as you want how miserable life is, yet people insist on reproducing anyway. In a dirt-poor country like Niger where the average woman has 7.57 children, nobody entertains thought like, "we humans are a pretty awful species, maybe it would be for the best if we died out altogether." I see anti-natalism ideology as the sign of a cultural decline that only deserves derision. The ability to create new people is a boon for any culture, though I have no doubt Ghandi gets irritated when he has to stand in line at the takeout place when he gets lunch in Cairo. It's an ideology reserved for western intellectuals and their third-world sycophants who have enough time to post on professional wrestling message boards. The future belongs to those who show up for it.
 
#5 ·
Excellent, just the man I wanted to see on this thread. So is that all you have to say on antinatalsim?

Oh and, cool signature video. Here's a treat for you.



I'm certain that there are people who would be better off not having been born, but I would not go as far as to extend this idea to all of humanity.

Maybe I could act as an outside observer and say that humans are generally doing more bad than good on Earth, but I'm a human being and I know I'm doing good, so that's one good human being out of 7 billion atleast (can't speak for anybody else). The problem with guys like Schopenhauer is that they did not believe in practising what they preached, they only reinforced their belief in humans being useless by acting like scumbags themselves. I agree with many of his ideas but I'm actually trying to put them into practise, instead of just talking about it.

To me, it's a dangerous idea that can turn out horribly when it's in the wrong hands. I do not mind if another person thrives on misery, but I'm doing alright myself and would rather not get randomly stabbed because some guy watched too much Matrix and decided that "humans are a virus" and should be exterminated.
Schopenhauer did somewhat practice what he believed in, he wasn't an all out scumbag from what I've read about him.

Anyway antinatalism isn't just about humans being "viruses", it's more about a bunch of folks saying reproducing is bad because you make someone go through the "experience" of life & death. Since you know, the child didn't choose to be born.
 
#12 ·
I know it's not "supposed to" be about wishing you were never born, but the idea that the circumstance of being alive is undesirable is admitting that one's life is miserable. Yes for most people it is miserable but that's not an inherent problem with being alive. The focus should be making life better, not on saying "hey, let's just give up on reproducing humans". Most of the world's misery can be traced back to irrational, non-peaceful parenting. People who'd rather try to construct an untenable argument that reproducing is immoral rather than practice and preach peaceful parenting aren't giving anything of value to the world and are in fact hurting rather than helping. Like I said though, they probably just had bad upbringings and are projecting their own inner-misery onto the idea of life itself. I get that that's not the mission statement, I don't care about that.
 
#14 ·
Interesting take on the matter, bad parenting should be vilified non stop but that doesn't stop bad parents from spanking and calling it "discipline". I still think you misunderstand antinatalism, the belief is that all life is suffering (which it literally is, for most of their lives anyway with either pain or boredom) and because life is suffering you don't have to force a child to join your misery.
 
#18 ·
It's a stance that ignores what's good or beautiful in the world. Negative attitudes generally breed negative results.

There will come a time when government will legislate breeding limitations a la China. Just throwing that out there.
 
#19 ·
Completely agree. Yes, life is not all rainbows, butterflies, and scantily-clad women. There are days that life sucks and as I get older I know my death will happen eventually. Nevertheless, I enjoy life and there is so much that I get out of it, as well as the joy my children get out of life. No, they didn't have a choice of being born but I don't regret the decision and they appreciate being alive.

Now, the ones that really scare the shit out of me are the folks in the VHEMT. These extreme nutjobs should do us all a favor and just make themselves extinct.
 
#22 ·
All a bunch of whiners if you ask me
 
#24 · (Edited)
He hasn't affirmed anti-natalism as a belief he holds though. If he does hold it then he has to defend it against the argument I just made. If he ignores my argument then he admits defeat by omission of a response to a pretty damning argument and I'm satisfied either way. In that scenario I'm happy to stop responding.
 
#26 ·
Nothing you said has anything to do with my argument, so I'll just try and make it a little more digestible and if you still don't understand I'll have to stop responding because you're either being intellectually dishonest, or you're incapable of following a logical argument. Not saying you have to agree with it, but you didn't even demonstrate that you understood it, which is necessary for the discussion to continue.

1) The narrator argues we should not reproduce.
2) In doing so, he asserts non-reproduction as a moral rule. To reproduce is wrong, he claims.
3) Thus, he asserts the existence of a moral right and wrong, and thus morality. This is the basis of his argument.
4) Morality is an uniquely human concept. Humans invented morality, only humans understand morality, morality only applies to humans (animals and other life forms can't be held morally responsible for actions when they don't know what morality is).
5) The effect of the narrator's proposed rule, carried to its conclusion, results in the extinction of the human race, and as a result all of its ideas. Morality being one of them.
6) Thus, the narrator is arguing for an action which results in the destruction of the very basis for his argument - morality. Without humans there's no morality, without morality there is no "should" or "should not", and there goes the foundation of his argument.

His argument self-detonates.
 
#28 ·
1) The narrator argues we should not reproduce.
2) In doing so, he asserts non-reproduction as a moral rule. To reproduce is wrong, he claims.
3) Thus, he asserts the existence of a moral right and wrong, and thus morality. This is the basis of his argument.
4) Morality is an uniquely human concept. Humans invented morality, only humans understand morality, morality only applies to humans (animals and other life forms can't be held morally responsible for actions when they don't know what morality is).
5) The effect of the narrator's proposed rule, carried to its conclusion, results in the extinction of the human race, and as a result all of its ideas. Morality being one of them.
6) Thus, the narrator is arguing for an action which results in the destruction of the very basis for his argument - morality. Without humans there's no morality, without morality there is no "should" or "should not", and there goes the foundation of his argument.

His argument self-detonates.
Him saying humans are dead & gone does mean no more moral acts will take place sure, but that'll mean no more immoral acts as well (and they're the majority of acts because of the Sadist King who is a part of everyone). I don't really get why you think a person in his position would care if morality didn't take place after humans were all gone. Humans are gone, no more immorality and the antinatalist movement despite stopping all noble acts for good, they stopped immoral acts between humans for good too. By getting rid of humans he's not really aiming to get rid of morality, he's aiming to get rid of immorality between humans which is everywhere. Basically he cares about humans who are alive from doing stupid shit, or humans making babies so that THEY do stupid shit. Pretty weak for you to give me that "no more humans, no more morality" argument. If humans are gone there won't be a "should not" for humans so we're not being immoral but we are being immoral by contributing to the suffering of the world whilst we wouldn't be if we're all just gone.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top