Thursday, 5 September 2013

More

With the world's population spiralling towards 10 billion, we can safely expect more misery, more war, more starvation, more suicide, more hunger, more poverty, more delusion, more religion, more inequality, more prejudice, more reproduction, more rape, more domestic violence, more and more and more....

139 comments:

  1. If I only could destroy this horrible world... I wouldn't think twice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would prefer for people to just stop breeding. I don't feel comfortable when it comes to suffering and murder.

      Delete
  2. More of The Same Shit™ is what makes life so beautiful and interesting.

    NOT.

    The gnostics were right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm curious, do you actually believe in a higher plane of existence after you die? That those "not saved or enlightened" are doomed to be reborn until the Demiurge's salvation (he too eventually gets redemption through sofia and ascends/becomes one with the true god or something like that? I see gnostics more as the first antinatalists that needed to convince people with the tools available in those days (evil god, the soul,etc). Still we are all on the same side (no procreation) so i see no harm in being one.

      Delete
    2. The gnostics were right.

      =)

      Delete
    3. re: prophetofdoom

      I don't know.

      I know the gnostics were correct as far as possible under the limits of human capacity for discerning the nature of Being, its form and its meaning (if any). Which; as far as the most rigorous ontological analysis can come to, shows a universe either designed for the purpose of suffering or, at best, fundamentally flawed, and in either case without any transcendent goal -- at all.

      Where I part from gnostic metaphysics is with their going further in mythologizing the matter. The demiurge as a working concept is fine, and probably true, but ultimately the who, the how and the why are beyond anyone's knowing.

      Then there's another layer to our problem that encompasses the free-will debate...

      Point-blank: If the theory of timeless block-universe determinism is true, then the whole damn show, even ourselves, our feelings and dreams, are contrivances of the dark god. Then nothing makes sense anymore.

      With a world like this, who needs drugs?

      Delete
    4. Why do you not have a blog?

      Delete
    5. Because there's nothing left to say, or that wasn't already better told by people besides me.

      Delete
  3. I can agree that some people shouldn't have kids. But if you are rich and have good genes, your children will almost certainly have a good life. If you can provide, food, good education, a house, and a good family etc.. then it's moral having kids.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How many people are rich with 'good' (ie, normal) genes in the world at present? And regardless of wealth, no one can guarantee that their children will have good lives.

      Delete
    2. "If you can"

      Like Karl said you cannot guarantee the child's happiness or a life without strife. All ending in death. So why bother? The only reason is a selfish one, FOR YOU. The non existence are not deprived of anything, they DO NOT EXIST. Coming into life aka the imposition you are constantly deprived and are chasing needs in a vicious cycle( i like it, i'm bored of it, i need something new repeat100000000000x).

      Don't call procreation moral, call it for what it is: another need to satisfy, another toy to keep you busy which will eventually break in the process (and you too). You impose all the terrible shit that can happen in life, you are taking those chances for your needs. I call that immoral no matter how godlike you think you are.

      I know antinatalism is completely hopeless though= the plumber at my house started talking about his kids, he was scared that World War 3 was gonna happen because of the syria thing. The kids also did not belong in sport clubs and were bullied. One had a high iq and depressed (aged 9). He was also talking about having a new kid. I asked "aren't you afraid the baby will grow up to have the same problemes as their brothers?" He replied :" My wife wants a girl"..............................................................

      YES, HOPELESS.

      Delete
    3. Nicely put, PoD. Great story about the plumber, pity he won't fix his own leaky pipe:-)

      And yes, AN is pretty hopeless. That's why I'm more resigned these days, the dance into chaos won't end until the sun goes nova or an asteroid hits. No point in tearing one's hair out over human behaviour; it is what it is.

      Delete
    4. But if you are rich and have good genes, your children will almost certainly have a good life.

      I have to disagree with this statement. Rich children with good genes are not exempt from catastrophe (Jon Benet Ramsey), nor are they exempt from causing catastrophe (Joran van der Sloot). They are born with the odds in their favour but still anything under the sun can go wrong.

      Delete
    5. I think we are the ones responsible for our suffering. Not our parents. If I cut my finger I can't blame my parents for it.
      My suffering depends on my choices.

      Delete
    6. A certain amount of suffering, but no one controls the structures of existence and the wider soci-economic factors that can lead to a lot of misery.

      Delete
    7. Anonymous, it is not moral to deliberately create a being who will suffer. There is no excuse for that. Do not let your "need to breed" genetics override your humanity.

      Delete
    8. Anonymous 4:55 the parents are 100% responsible for what happens to their children.

      Keep in mind as well that you don't choose the kind of brain you have nor do you have full control over what happens to you.

      Therefore, you don't even have full control over how you react to bad circumstances. You don't.

      Societies like to pretend that there is something such as individual responsibility and free will when there is no such thing.

      Parents feel guilty about their kids getting hurt and don't want to take responsibility for what they've done so they will blame EVERYTHING for their children's misery, including the children themselves often. However, nothing would happen to the children if they weren't forced into existence in the first place. That is the key. That is the thing you need to understand.

      You can love your parents but don't absolve them of their responsibilities. You have your own responsibilities, of course, but don't absolve them of the fact that they forced these responsibilities onto you.

      Don't allow yourself to shoulder all of the blame of the horrors of reality. It's not fair to you and, most importantly, it's not true.

      Delete
  4. You could also say, LESS delusion that life has any intrinsic worth, LESS judgement for those who choose not to add to the numbers, LESS people being deluded by the chimera of 'success.'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're more optimistic than I am, David. As far as I can see, the deluded always significantly outweigh the undeluded. And with space and resources becoming more precious, for the undeluded life may become an even more pointless and bitter struggle.

      Delete
  5. Agreed.

    Maybe others have radically different tastes from me.

    Maybe they are awash in bliss, and I was just born without the sensibility to take in all the beauty and love the world has to offer.

    Maybe there's no bliss, but they get by well enough, with comparable amounts of both.

    Maybe they are more mature than me, and can appreciate life despite the fact that it's miserable.

    Maybe they find joy in misery, maybe they see some higher end to it.

    Maybe they have spiritual aphorisms that keep them afloat.

    Maybe all of the above things: but I doubt I am so different.

    So here is my question:

    Do pessimistic people like myself simply lack emotional maturity?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think so. There's nothing wrong with making the best of what's on offer, but that doesn't imply having to delude oneself about the bigger picture.

      Delete
    2. Ann Sterzinger has a great link to a blog on her site, it's http://mister-mean-spirited.blogspot.be/

      You should check out the post : "Zero Sum Game". Great writing, no one is truly innnocent, the game is build so there are losers and winners no matter what.

      Delete
    3. Uh, that is clearly misanthropic egotism and this blog is about philanthropic antinatalism.

      I can see how you could get confused by the hate, but it's hate directed at the people antinatalists are supposed to be compassionate towards, so supporting this guy is basically giving the finger to everything antinatalism is supposed to stand for.

      Delete
    4. I explictely mentioned the "Zero Sum Game" post on the nature of the game. This blog is not only restricted to the Philanthropic antinatalists: you have the Efilists, the misanthrope ANs,the religious ANs,the vhemts, you even have people that support the overpopulation to speed up mankind's demise but do not personally procreate (let the others do the dirty work) etc... Personally i think you can combine a phil&misa outlook on life.

      Delete
    5. The author of this blog also has a fair share of misanthropy:-) But the fact that I view the oncoming chaos as something to regret should clear me from the charge of all-consuming hatred!

      Delete
    6. "Do pessimistic people like myself simply lack emotional maturity?"

      Nope. Honestly, there's no "right way" to interpret reality/life. But it's certainly common for highly empathetic and intelligent people to not have optimistic delusions about reality. (And that's not a bad thing)

      Also, it must be kept in mind that some of these optimistic people become pessimistic after they receive more than they can handle in life. And some people are actually pessimistic but are good at pretending to be optimistic.

      The people with the pronatalist mindsets who deliberately breed lack emotional maturity, actually. They weigh their emotional feelings about breeding (this is the "need to breed" gene talking) over the very real negative possibilities in store for their children. Only with breeding is emotional immaturity universally accepted.

      We live in a topsy-turvy world where not wanting to cause harm to children is considered a bad/crazy/selfish thing. Always remember that.

      Delete
  6. I tend to always look at it as a mere continuation, but you're right: the levels of all this stuff will increase as more people are around.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @ foxinabox5,

    "More of The Same Shit™ is what makes life so beautiful and interesting.

    NOT.

    The gnostics were right"

    ********

    The problem of course is that you're offering value judgements as FACTS.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What´s the matter with you, Elie?

      And yeah, the gnostics were right.

      Delete
    2. 'Life is good' isn't just a popular consumer brand -- it's the very value judgment implicit in your objection.

      I'm sure you also think a fact is anything society agrees on.

      Delete
  8. Thumbs up to both Anon and fox!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Why does the human race constantly praise its "highly evolved intelligence" but cannot see this simple fact...that stopping procreation would solve all of its woes. Instead we've got scientists, doctors, politicians, teachers running around frantically trying to keep the machine running, never stopping to analyze and realize...we don't NEED the machine. We don't NEED life to exist on earth and would be better off if it didn't (and what's even more important, our fellow beings the animals would be better off without us). Done! No more problems to solve! I have always been an extremely low IQ person and have always lamented that fact but if there's one thing I can do it is to see and to state the obvious. This practical ability is what our "smart" people are lacking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you've just disproved your statement that you've a low IQ:-)

      Delete
    2. yEP!=)
      Way to go, Anon.

      We don´t need the machine.

      Delete
    3. The machine is fun. That's the only reason we preserve it.

      Delete
    4. Fun for some, hell for many...

      Delete
    5. I think many are aware of life's futility and meaninglessness. But like anon said, the machine is fun. People just want to keep this shit going because they are hedonistic.
      No nihilism and pessimism will ever work against this.

      Delete
    6. I'm a low IQ person, too. Dropped out of school, father is an electrician, i. e. an idiot. Live with my parents, am on disability. Die-hard antinatalist. Whenever I see young mother's with their children, I think to myself: who are they doing this for? What's the point? What are people living for? We will die and be forgotten, this is the truth. Just think of your grandparents: who knows them still? No one, right? They are dead and forgotten, and rightly so. But even Einstein and Newton will be forgotten one day, when no one will be around anymore to remember these greats. People should just let it go, it is not worth it. It's the pointlessness mostly that gets me, but the suffering too. And with life being pointless, why suffer? For whom? Why should I have to live? I can't even earn money, am dependent on other people (parents), so why not let me go? Trying to kill myself failed: I hanged myself but survived, thankfully without any lasting damage (I was unconscious, though). Sorry, English is not my native language, and my IQ is so low, oh so low. I'm at a loss for words. This life is creepy, feels unreal. If only I could be with Cioran! What a man! He's my soul mate. Thanks for reading! Bye.

      Delete
    7. Another person claiming to have a low IQ, who doesn't! Amen to all those words, my friend. (And your English is excellent).

      Delete
    8. Thanks for the nice words, Karl. This is highly appreciated, as my self-esteem is pretty low. My life has been on of constant failure, regarded as an idiot by my teachers and so on. You're a good man, Karl. Thanks.

      Delete
    9. Anonymous, there are multiple kinds of intelligence. You have one of the few that truly matters. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise.

      Delete
  10. Pop open the bubbly.Cannibalism will be commonplace soon.
    Harsh.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I am lucky to have a happy life and I feel really sorry for you guys. You all clearly suffer from extreme depression at the point you question your own existence. Most people don't understand how painful is to suffer from such an horrible illness like depression. Anyway, I don't want to have kids. I could have a depressed kid who will regret existence. This is terrible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't suffer from depression. AN isn't personal, it's based on objective perspective. The fact that you say you won't be procreating yourself proves this.

      Delete
    2. I've read a few times you saying that you prefer never had been born. The only people who regret existence are extremely depressed people. This is not sane.
      Many people experience too much suffering and still are glad to be alive.

      Delete
    3. And many people don't. And nor am I depressed. Sorry to burst your safety-bubble cliches:-)

      Delete
    4. In an upside down world, a violent world, an unjust world, a filthy world,
      Where good is proclaimed to be evil, and evil good,
      Depression is health.
      To be content with things as they are
      is soulless madness and barbarity.
      For to be happy in this mad world
      Is to have let its madness seep into your soul
      and blind your eyes.
      Does the blood of innocents haunt you?
      Do their silenced screams reach you?
      To be a real, thinking, feeling, human being in this world
      Is to be heartsick and to know, in the core of our being,
      That this world is cursed
      And set for destruction.
      Rightfully so.

      Anon, I ask you, is it possible to view the video below, baby chicks ground up alive, and not feel a righteous indignation and depression and complete rejection of a world that does such things! I, for one, would rather be ground with them, than live in a world drenched in innocent blood.

      http://boingboing.net/2009/09/01/baby-chicks-ground-u.html

      Delete
    5. Anon, I can't appreciate your position enough. I really like that while you yourself are happy with your life, you won't have a kid seeing as there's a chance your kid may not be that happy. Karl, really, if that isn't good enough, I don't know what is!

      Delete
    6. Anonymous, I applaud you for doing the moral thing by not breeding, but you do not know everything there is to know about life. Therefore it is of EXTREME arrogance to assume that complete strangers are suffering from depression.

      It is of extreme arrogance to tell us that you know all that it means to be sane. You do not.

      We are VERY sane. What we suffer from is being too damned smart and too empathetic for this world.

      We do not have the optimistic delusions (ignoring the absolute horror of a dying and suffering gazelle being eaten by a lion; ignoring the absolute horror of a crushed human body that is still alive and suffering) that most people have (which often leads to the harmful act of reproduction).

      This is not something that can be cured nor do we need curing. Do not pity us. Our thoughts aren't horrible. The world is the horror. Because if things weren't so fucked up, we would not feel the way we do.

      P.S. "Glad to be alive" = "I am glad I'm not dead because death scares the shit out of me and I confuse non-existence with death." Learn more about anti-natalism and keep an open mind.

      Delete
  12. "I have always been an extremely low IQ person and have always lamented that fact but if there's one thing I can do it is to see and to state the obvious. This practical ability is what our "smart" people are lacking."

    This quote made my day, LOL. My friend, I think you are being humble about your IQ.

    Earlier someone commented about life being good if you have a good family, good genes, a decent amount of money, etc. This is a common misconception. Keep in mind that some of the darkest thinkers in history possessed these so-called "blessings" (Heraclitus and the Buddha come to mind), but it didn't change what they thought of life. First, if you are born with all these things, how can you be happy with them when you realize so many others were NOT born with the same luck and are possibly bereft of even basic necessities like food and water? So life is good, as long as it doesn't fuck "me" over, only "others"?

    In addition, none of these blessings will make you immune to life's vicissitudes, sickness, old age, and of course death.

    Also, you are more likely to educate yourself if you are born into a wealthier family. I think that the more you find out about how life works, the less desirable it will seem. Perhaps this is why ultimately many impoverished people are relatively happier than rich people: they have no time to think about life and consequently don't realize how the game works.

    I think the only way life would be (sort of) acceptable is if you were given some kind of means to escape it easily; like, an instant-death pill you could swallow if life became unbearable. So those who see life for what it is could quickly escape, and those who love it can live as much as they fucking want, until death inevitably catches up with them as well. Personally, I would feel much better about life if I knew I had a quick, painless method of escape. Too bad suicide isn't as romantic and easy as the movies make it out to be. I think it's a joke to call ourselves "free" if society exerts so much effort in preventing its inhabitants from freeing themselves of life, the most wretched penitentiary of all.

    To Harsh, re. cannibalism:
    "Sometimes I wish I were a cannibal – less for the pleasure of eating someone than for the pleasure of vomiting him." (Cioran)

    I hope this blog exists for a long time so that it can continue to wake future readers from their slumber of delusion, and provide a sense of camaraderie and solace to the clear-minded.

    --E.M. Mouse

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I totally agree with this comment. A death pill is the only thing that makes sense. Whether for those who just don't like this world or for those who find themselves in an incurable medical condition that they can't deal with.

      I probably would have taken such a pill long ago if it were available. I really believe I am NOT meant for this world; everything about this world is completely against my inner ethics and beliefs. Sometimes I look around in a daze because I really can't believe that this is the world I live in and this life is the one that people champion.

      There have been many times when I've felt literally trapped. Particularly when I'm at work. Maybe that's what people mean by anxiety attacks.

      Delete
    2. Amen to those two above comments.

      Delete
  13. The most horrifying thing about the population boom is that it underscores, shoves right in your face, the fact of how worthless your life is. Seven fucking billion right now. If you died today a meaningless fraction of the population would be sad; the rest would be unaware, indifferent, or happy because suddenly a job opened up. But who knows: there could be a silver lining as it gets even worse. Maybe something will click in the average person's brain when we do hit ten billion, a sudden realization of how little they and their children and their children's children mean to the rest of humanity; how the piles and piles and piles of our shouting mouths and cadavers drown each other out and lay bare our insignificance. How many walking corpses need to be stacked against the sun before we notice they are, to twist Diogenes, standing in our sunlight?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True, Ann. Copernicus may have disproved geocentricism, but it seems nothing can dispel egocentricism.

      Delete
  14. To Ann-You are being optimistic here ,10,20 billion, whatever the dopes will never realise the truth.They breed like rats but are not as cute!
    Anon(6.6.13)-Dont feel sorry for us-most of us feel better after becoming antinatalist as we dont have any false hope unlike the romatic saps.
    EMM-Thanks for the quote.
    Every day we face a new crisis-still we keep reproducing.The other day I met a girl-pretty intelligent,says she know lifes a flawed game & yet says she wants to have kids.
    Sex is one of the most filthy human activies-I personally really like the celibate monks & nuns.God,I hate girls-particulary pretty one,who think of themselves as baby making machine.
    H.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 'I hate girls- remember it takes two to tango, anonymous.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, thank you for being an intelligent antinatalist, but I have some concerns about you. I feel the need to tell you because I care about you.

      The fact that you hate females, particularly beautiful ones, who see themselves as broodmares leads me to believe that you have some misogyny issues. Now, I'm not saying you are a bad person or wish harm on females because you're not and you don't, but this is something you might want to do some introspection on. All societies have severe misogynistic socialization. I have had to deal with my misogynistic socialization as well and I still am.

      Please keep in mind that females in all cultures have been brainwashed from day one to see themselves as objects of males and as caretakers of babies/children/males. Many societies flat out say a woman is NOTHING if she does not want or have kids. Imagine growing up hearing that and never hearing it cease. It's the kind of thing that causes insanity.

      Now I don't want to imply that I'm fully excusing the female role in reproduction, but this is important information because it's a huge reason why we are continuing to breed.

      Also, like Karl said, it takes two to tangle and the male side of reproduction is just as important and arguably more so. While females are the obvious symbol of reproduction (because of pregnant bellies) I would be careful no to focus all of my anger at them.

      They would not be pregnant if males did not have penile-vaginal sex with them. Many males believe that penile-vaginal sex is a necessity when it is not and a dangerously large amount of males can get dangerous when they are denied it. (A substantial amount of females experience(d) pregnancy via coercion or force. Certainly in some societies, females can't even live independently from males and are forced to have penile vaginal sex in order to survive)

      If this information has sparked your curiosity, I would recommend looking into radical feminism. I truly believe that combing antinatalism with radical feminism has the power to substantially affect breeding by waking up the females to the brainwashing they received. Fellow antinatalist Francois Tremplay, who is a male, seems to feel that radical feminism is important as well. I wish you well.

      P.S. I consider myself a celibate and asexual person and I too admire celibate monks and nuns. If you have not heard of it, I would recommend AVEN, which is a forum for asexuals and celibates and those who support them.

      Delete
    3. I read that sentence as saying he hates females who identify as breeders, rather than that he hates females.

      Delete
    4. Anon, please read my post again. My fixation is mainly on the fact that he particularly hates *pretty* women who see themselves as broodmares. (And the lack of focus on the role of males in reproduction) I do believe the person I was responding to has misogyny issues; but, of course, most people (including myself) have them as a result of growing up in our fucked up societies. I'm just trying to be helpful.

      Delete
  15. Dear Karl,

    In today's New York Times there was an opinion piece by Pico Iyer titled "The Value of Suffering".

    Here is the link:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/08/opinion/sunday/the-value-of-suffering.html?ref=opinion

    And here are just 2 of the popular comments:

    "What a beautiful, moving piece, thank you. Why are our attitudes to suffering so different in the west? Running away from it seems to be our civilization's raison d'être. What is needed is to get to know suffering. If we give it its due respect then our hearts will grow bigger with the sadness, pain or confusion. It doesn't exclude pain-killers, but it might pre-empt them. It is liberating and gives value to our shared experience"

    "The understanding of how universal grief and suffering are. From this, there comes a softening of your perception and a deepening of your understanding and appreciation of life"

    Ugh.

    Why not do a separate entry on his piece so more of your readers can see it?

    Thanks,

    Nicholas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Nicholas. I'll take a look.

      Delete
    2. I can't fucking stand Pico Iyer. The classic stereotype of the self-promoting, imbecilic Laputan who should be writing for a university instead of filling the heads of newspaper readers with utter rubbish.

      I suppose it would have ruined his cute little argument about suffering being really great if he cited Japan's suicide statistics. And a lot of the Japanese I know who are my age (mid-twenties) are hardly thinking about the spiritual benefits of suffering; they are freaking out because they can't find jobs (the Japanese economy has been in decline since the early 90's) and are suffering from symptoms of anomie like every dweller of every modern society.

      Maybe Pico Iyer should stop burying his nose in fucking Issa and read/watch something MODERN. Why not start with Osamu Dazai's "No Longer Human"???? A book that is a lot more popular with Japanese younger people, for a reason. Or watch dramas like Byaku-yakou (Journey under the Midnight Sun) or Tsubasa no Oreta Tenshitachi?

      Thanks for posting this Nicholas. I myself second your request: I would like to see Karl bring down this buffoon and this incredibly stupid article in a future post.

      Delete
    3. Nicholas,

      Thanks for posting the article.

      The [allegéd] benefits of suffering are mostly a sop.

      Back in the days of untreatable AIDS when those with the disease experienced rampant suffering, there were some people who managed to claim that "AIDS was the best thing that ever happened to them." Either through their own suffering (that happened to not be fatal) or through someone else's suffering which was fatal, they had finally found "meaning in life".

      I don't doubt that suffering sobered up some of these guys, but mostly I thought them full of shit.

      I've witnessed the deaths of others from causes other than AIDS; age, cancers of various kinds, ordinary infections, the assortment of diseases and injuries that can kill us off. The sufferers endured to the best of their ability--which was considerable. Suffering--and knowing that death will come soon--is likely different when suffering is not likely to lead to death in the near future. Benefits? Insight? Blessings? Baloney.

      If one must suffer, and many will, we should endure it as well as we can. Suffering patiently might be easier on us than suffering with rants and raves. But if one must rant and rave, then howl. I try to do my best with such suffering as I have had to put up with. If there is worse to come (probably is) I hope I can rise to the occasion. I've seen ordinary people who were not spiritually gifted in any way suffer like saints. I hope I can do as well.

      But please, oh please, don't rush in to tell me that the pain has such great value, or that I will be a better person for it, or that Jesus is preparing me for heaven, or some such nonsense.

      Suffering just IS. It doesn't have a purpose.

      Delete
  16. My antinatalism is more motivated by misanthropy than by anything. I understand the immorality of procreation and I know that there are innocent people out there suffering.
    But Unhappily antinatalism will never work. This human scum will never go voluntarily extinct.
    So I spend my days dreaming about destruction,wars,asteroids falling on earth,natural catastrophes etc...I am hoping for WW3 come and kill billion of people.
    This would be so beautiful...I would be jumping of happiness.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can't find beauty in the suffering and death that would come from WW3. I would hope we could go into extinction peacefully without suffering and murder.

      Delete
  17. The issue here is that of 'more' with regards to population growth causing more of the factors listed in the original post.

    Perhaps some of these factors could be addressed irrespective of population growth. But I suppose that's unlikely given the lumpen nature of humanity.

    But I find that one thing has been overlooked so far in the original post and the comments posted: that is with 'the world's population spiralling towards 10 billion', the point at which human life becomes unsustainable upon this ball of dirt will be reached 'more' quickly, and hopefully, human extinction will follow.

    Or am I being too, or 'more', optimistic than I should be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am afraid you are too optimistic, good sir. :-)

      Human beings can be as resilient as cockroaches. Even if there is some kind of widespread human extinction, it just takes one Adam and one Eve to start the stupid farce all over again.

      Delete
  18. Why is all antinatalist a misanthrope?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not all are. It's just hard not to get frustrated when you see what's going on. The problem, though, is that the world is the result of million of impersonal factors; there is no one person or group to blame.

      Delete
    2. "Why is all antinatalist a misanthrope?"

      This is a loaded question. Antinatalists, like most thinking and empathetic people, get frustrated because of humanity's glaring flaws and this can come across as misanthropy, but I'd say that antinatalists, as a whole, are the opposite of misanthropes.

      We often come to antinatalism because we love humans so much that we don't want them to suffer unnecessarily.

      Pronatalists come across as the misanthropes because they will deliberately breed while knowing that their child will experience pain. That seems like a hateful act towards humans. They say that their belief that the human race should continue should override human pain. That seems like hate and disdain towards humans to me.

      Delete
    3. I beg to differ. I am a misanthrope through and through, antinatalist/efilist and pro-mortalist. I

      Delete
    4. I am not getting the vibe that *most* antinatalists are full-on misanthropes. And even though you are a misanthrope, you detest suffering which shows a high level of empathy. One of my main points is that antinatalists tend to have high levels of empathy. Pronatalists come across as more misanthropic to me because they actively harm others and consider it a good thing. We may have to agree to disagree if you want to.

      Delete
  19. Thanks E. M. Mouse.

    I can't stand him either, though the excursion into etymology was amusing in a sad way (the unnamed word Pico Iyer was talking about being IMO the most important in Greek philosophy: pathos).

    Overall, I'm really tired of these stories - they don't move me. Nor does the Dalai Lama.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Do you guys think procreation should be criminalized?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no question in my mind that bringing a life into this world with no certainty about whether it will enjoy it, is a criminal act.

      The real question about antinatalism is where should the line be drawn between the right of the living to pursue their own happiness and the duty to prevent bringing into existence new (ultimately) unhappy sentient beings (under current circumstances, the best option being not to procreate).

      Sterilization? Assassination? Painlessly? Painfully? On what scale?

      "Tell me, if a serial killer tortures and kills a child, can you blame the parents for harm?"

      Yes, they have their own share of the blame, because they're one of the main links in the casual chain that led to that event. The easiest way this could have been avoided... no child, and no killer in the first place... Antinatalism.

      James S.

      Delete
    2. Of course! Only I can't think what should be the sentence. Better will be to make people sterile without hurting them.

      At the same time, suicide should be legalised, and peaceful means provided for it.

      Delete
  21. What hellish world is this to live in...
    I can't conceive why people bring innocent children into this hellhole.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ego extension, pure and fucking simple. Commonly justified by some religious belief, whether it's in god or muh evolution.

      Unless it's for the free labor; but any economically sensible person would hire labor instead, whose only cost is an hourly wage.

      It's all a deflection of the truth. And they have the nerve to call childless people vain. No... Living vicariously by one's children is the /original/ narcissism.

      Delete
  22. I am sorry but I don't want the extinction of my species.
    That's why we procreate. Many of us don't want to go extinct.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd bet a million dollars the real number of people who've reproduced based on a sincere idealization about humanity, in all its history, isn't more than three.

      Nobody is so forward-thinking.

      Would that they were so, they'd acknowledge the inevitability of human extinction, the ultimate futility of the cycle of birth and death, and gracefully bow out with a clear conscience.

      But now I'm just idealizing...

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, fear of extinction = fear of death. I'm sorry but you are going to die. You need to accept that fact and STOP believing the delusion that the continuation of the human race means immortality. It doesn't. All it means is that you are creating more people who will die. You have "need to breed" genes, which most people have. Do NOT let these genes override your sense of humanity. Life is not a play, game, show, or movie. If you want to play with another person's life, pick up the Sims game and have a blast. Don't play with human lives.

      Delete
    3. foxinabox, it's way more than three. They actually are afraid of extinction. Extinction to most humans means death and humans are collectively afraid of death.

      The "need to breed" gene/desire that most have is actually unconscious (that's how people go about breeding even after seeing the horrors of reality up close; this is nature's trick) and it takes real mental work to become aware of it. (ANs and childfree people see through nature's trick even if they don't realize it) That's why they can't see the futility of continuing the species. They aren't thinking. They can't think.

      They truly confuse the pseudo-immortality that results from reproduction ("living on" through their children/descendants) with real immortality. That's the reason people often flip the fuck out when others say they are not breeding. Not breedng = death in their minds. It touches on what they unconsciously know to be true (that they too will die) and they flip out without fully realizing why.

      This is the main reason they breed. The other main reason they breed is because they are deeply afraid of suffering. Creating a child gives them someone to take care of them. (They hope) This is where the "Who will take care of you when you are old?" bingo comes from. Listen to the horror in their voices when they ask. That's the fear of suffering and death nice and clear. Creating a child also permanently attaches a male to a female and vice versa and many will throw a child under a bus so that they aren't without a romantic and/or sexual partner.

      Delete
    4. Most people have joyful lives and are happy to exist.
      You are just projecting JJ. You are suffering and you think your life is bad, hence you think procreating is wrong.

      Delete
    5. JJ, I meant breeding in the name of ideologies like race or human evolution, and not simply using those rationales, as 'anonymous' does, as covers for self-interest: specifically; but not limited to, those you mentioned. And I stand by my bet.

      Rephrasing anonymous: People don't want their *personal* extinction. That's why they procreate... in part.

      But mostly they're just stupid fucking animals.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous, most people "like" living because they are afraid of non-existence because they confuse it with death which most people are afraid of (as designed by nature!).

      Please don't play armchair psychologist. It is a VERY rude and disrespectful thing to do.

      Currently, I am not receiving more than I can handle in life so I wouldn't say I'm suffering too much. Keep this sentence in mind when you read the next sentences.

      ANTINATALISM IS NOT ABOUT ME. It's not about how sad or happy or ambivalent I am about MY life. It's about not forcing OTHER PEOPLE TO SUFFER AND DIE. Suffering and death ARE GUARANTEED in life. GUARANTEED.

      There is NO need to create people who will suffer and die. None. It is NOT worth it. WE ARE BETTER THAN THAT. We are not mindless animals. Or do you like rape? Do you like murder? Do you like starvation? Do you like cancer? Do you like seizures? Do you like schizophrenia? Do you like menstrual cramps? Because Jesus Christ if you don't like the shit stop condoning the continuation of it! Antinatalists are one of the few groups who see through the bullshit..and it's really not that hard to see through because it's so fucking obvious.

      Antinatalism is about GIVING A SHIT ABOUT PEOPLE BESIDE YOURSELF. IT'S ABOUT BEING SELFLESS. It's about BASIC EMPATHY.

      If you are not going to make even an ounce of an effort to understand antinatalism, please just stop posting on antinatalist forums because we do not want to hear the mindless nonsense that most people spout already.

      I'm sorry to hurt your feelings, but you are saying the SAME shit almost every other human unthinkingly says on this planet. And that kind of mindlessness is NOT a good thing. It's the kind of shit that leads to sacrificing children to "nature gods" because you think it'll cause the crops to start growing. Seriously.

      Open your mind to new ways of thinking. Please. For your own sake and for the sake of others. Think outside of yourself. You have the potential.

      Delete
  23. It seems that with the worlds population increasing we can expect more evil (evil increasing at a compound rate per head of population as we fight each other for personal space and resources and make more species other than us extinct faster) and actually more comment. 65 comments here? If that is not a record it is very high. I am looking forward to a life of less, there is good in the world-e.g. when people freely choose to not breed, and more of that sort of less-ness along with more quietly thoughtful recycling and more modestly of expectation would be good and I will look forward to that sort of goodness, without being utopian about it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen to all that. (Actually had 200+ comments on a post in January). A mission for modesty indeed.

      Delete
  24. And more joy, more happiness, more art, more beauty, and more....other good things too.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you think these things are worth children being raped, tortured, and murdered? Do you think these things are worth children screaming in pain because their bodies are ravaging them? Because that's what you are saying. You are saying that the pain of others is worth your SUBJECTIVE idea of beauty. That is all kinds of fucked up.

      Life is not a movie or a show for your entertainment. Do not let your "need to breed" genes override your humanity. If you want more of these things, create them YOURSELF. Help to inspire others who are currently living to create them. There is NO need to gamble with other people's lives. None.

      You are not a mindless animal. You have the potential to look at horror and say "No, I will not cause more." Do it.

      Delete
  25. I am a natalist-I think we should all have as many kids as possible as they are very cute &the Bible tells to have children-they are God's gift.Please follow Jesus &say yes to eternal life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think the God of the bible said that many or most of these children are ending up in hellfire after they've grown up and died (Matthew 7:13, Matthew 23:33). Jesus also proclaimed barren women as blessed at least in some circumstances/ time periods (Luke 23:29). Poor Job cursed his birth (Job 3:3). "Be fruitful and multiply" is not the sum total of what the bible has to say about children. For instance, Judas was better off "never born" (Matthew 26:24) and there are plenty of instances in the bible of other children and adults whose lives were not a blessing (2 kings 2:23-24 describes bully children being consumed by bears). The "rich man" from a parable Jesus told who ended up in hell, in "agony" and with no means to even get a drop of water.
      And of course the book of Revelations, which has the spirits of the damned "tormented with burning sulphur" forever and ever and ever amen.

      I don't know whether to believe the bible or not but there is more than enough torture/burnings/rapings/slaughter/pain in there to conclude that antinatalism is the best and safest approach. But I didn't need the bible to convince me. One good look at "nature red in tooth and claw" was enough.

      Delete
    2. Floob Boober Bab Boober Bubs15 September 2013 at 10:55

      Jesus and Paul were both childfree and recommended celibacy.

      Delete
    3. But kids are so cuddly!

      Delete
    4. Anonymous, children are not toys. They are human beings and they do not deserve to suffer because you lack the ability to see their humanity.

      I'm sorry but there is no God, Jesus, or eternal life. You are going to die, that will be it, and you need to accept that.

      Creating a being who will suffer and die is cruel and especially so if you believe in the concept of hell. If you don't have children, please do not create them. If you do, please stop. Love them and accept them, but please stop.

      Your beliefs are not worth hurting children. You are not a mindless animal, so please pay attention to the horrors of life and say no to the needless continuation of them.

      Delete
  26. He who persistently performs acts leading to future births becomes equal to the gods; but he who is intent on the performance of those causing the cessation of existence, is doomed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Appeal to egotism. We're under no illusions that AN is not gonna catch on with the majority. Still doesn't change the fact that it's the right thing to do, regardless of whether we fade away or not.

      Delete
    2. AN is the wrong this to do -you are depressed filrabat-you need medication & therapy.

      Delete
    3. Anon, you confuse depression with a strong level of empathy and sympathy for human beings and the confusion is deeply offensive. Harming children because your genes mindlessly tell you to breed is the wrong thing to do.

      ANs are harming no one so we are not wrong. People who breed are. The little girls and boys found in ditches with their throats slit and their sex organs damaged existed. Do you understand? They felt REAL pain and horror and terror. The selfish wants of their parents were not worth it.

      You need to keep an open mind and start giving an actual shit about your fellow human beings instead of playing armchair psychiatrist and clamping onto the typical pronatalist mindset.

      The mental health field cannot fix the awareness of the horrors of reality, which is what filrabat has. Nor does this awareness need fixing.

      Delete
    4. "He who persistently performs acts leading to future births becomes equal to the gods; but he who is intent on the performance of those causing the cessation of existence, is doomed."

      No idea what you are trying to say with this sentence. All I can say is that I don't like children being raped, tortured, and murdered. Therefore, I will do everything in my power to advocate the prevention of this horror regardless of what impact I have. I feel it's better to do something with the knowledge I have than do nothing.

      I hope you have the empathy level to understand that. I hope you have the empathy level to understand that life is not a game and it is not anyone's right to gamble with other people's lives. We are humans, not mindless animals. We need to start acting like it.

      P.S. I'd rather forgo the possibility of being a god than watching a child scream in pain because cancer is ravaging his/her body. I'm not an extraordinary person, either.

      Delete
  27. Its wonderful to have kids-I have three already- missus is in the family way again.
    All my kids are the salt o f the earth-blue eyed &blond.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's not wonderful for kids to suffer and die. Ever. The eye color and hair color of your children is irrelevant to the horrors of life. I do hope that they do not suffer much. I hope that you stop having children and one day understand what antinatalism is.

      Delete
    2. Hi, Anonymous, to be clear, antinatalism is not about whether or not it is wonderful to be a parent. It is about whether or not it is in a child's, and the world's, best interest that we procreate. To use a horrifying example: Aztec parents thought it was wonderful to have kids. They loved their kids. And yet, when it served their needs, sometimes they brutally sacrificed those same kids that they "loved" so much. That's the horror of human nature. We tend to look out for ourselves at the expense of the wellbeing of other lives. With antinatalism we are not willing to sacrifice anybody's life for the sake of our happiness.

      Link to information on Aztec child sacrifice:

      http://castle.eiu.edu/~historia/archives/2005/Thoele.pdf

      Delete
  28. Karl, is there a way for disabling anonymous (but not unregistered) comments? The number of different Anonymouses is confusing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The freedom of the Anonymice is something I cherish.

      Delete
    2. Now that you can't argue -you will turn into an AN Nazi ,eh?

      Delete
    3. Karl, people could as a last resort always type "Anonymous" as their name in the Name/URL box. No need for an Anonymous option per se.

      Delete
  29. Make babies,not rabies!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This sentence doesn't make sense as babies can and do get rabies.

      Here's a better sentence: Your life, you handle. Other lives? Don't gamble.

      Delete
  30. So...

    Premise: Life contains more pain than pleasure.

    Conclusion: Life is, on the whole, bad/not worth living.

    Now, we need to do what Benatar does not do: supply and defend the missing premise(s). One way of escaping this line of thought is to notice that several thinkers throughout history (particularly in the existentialist tradition) have embraced (1) while consistently rejecting (2). One route into their approach is to ask why you have accepted (1) but presumably don't think that it is now rational for you to kill yourself... a question which Camus said was the only "truly serious" philosophical question.

    One thing that consistently suprises me is that no-one I know of has taken him to task for his uncritical acceptance of a fairly crude form of hedonism. (This, by the way, is a view which enables him to claim that "science" supports his evaluative conclusions by showing that we systematically suppress memories of unpleasant experiences.) Yet, when you go to the literature on what makes a life worth living or meaningful, you do not find many defenses of hedonism: it's a tough one to defend. A second undefended premise is moralism: agents are always required to pay significant attention to what is morally permitted in deliberation. Against this, we might say that certain decisions might just be personal enough that agents aren't required to think too deeply about general moral justification. Third is what has been called the "overridingness" thesis: if X is morally impermissible, then no-one is ever justified in doing X. As far as I know, Benatar does not defend these latter premises, which are almost as vulnerable to counterexample as hedonism is (see Williams' One Thought Too Many and Gauguin, Slote's protective parent, Wolf's Moral Saint...)

    In short: the road to Schopenhauer-style pessimism isn't nearly this easy.

    ReplyDelete
  31. To JJ-There are millions of babies getting born every year-dont you see-we have NO FREE WILL-a lot of guys just cant stop themselves from making babies-they are not the tormentors-they are the victims-may be they are not strong enough to fight their Will-there is NO FREE will,only its illusion.Thus AN is doomed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know if you realize it but you're making a rather strong case for locking a substantial amount of males up..... (Not being judgmental or anything but just saying) I know there are men out there who are peaceful, empathetic, and harmless but there seems to be a lot of men who are out-of-control sexually. Its very scary.

      Delete
  32. Here is a real challenge.... Is anybody equipped to rebut Elizabeth Harman's critique of David Benatar's book Better Never To Have Been?

    Read here:

    http://www.princeton.edu/~eharman/Benatar.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  33. See, Marc, while David Benatar is ESSENTIALLY correct, some of his claims like "By bringing someone into existence, one does not benefit her at all by causing the good aspects of her life" are quite questionable.

    As is Elizabeth Harman's treatment of "life worth living" like a measurable truth.

    These philosophy PhDs have their own way of thinking and their own kinds of arguments. As I see it, it is pretty much pointless to tell that life is bad FOR those who are "happy", rich and powerful ... ambitious, greedy, ruthless, basically, full of "vitality".

    Ms Harman doesn't seem to make the claim that no life is bad -- she seems to by and large accept the "compassionate human's" viewpoint that some lives are indeed better not produced. Having accepted that, reproduction is still immoral. The problem is we don't know BEFOREHAND what our child's going to experience. And as JJ pointed out, "Your life, you handle. Other lives? Don't gamble." Also see Sister Y's "Rape doctor hypothetical"

    Besides, both Ms Harman and Mr Benatar largely ignore the effect of a new life on OTHER sentient beings. Humans, especially the kind these two people commonly move around, typically cause a lot more trouble to other creatures than they experience themselves. But the works in question revolve entirely around effects of creation of life on its owner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree, Srikant. As you say, there are people full of vitality, energy and ego who wholeheartedly enjoy every moment of their existence and would gladly live forever, even if they are aware of the world's misery. That's why I think the Pollyanna aspect in regard to thinking one's life is better than it is doesn't apply to everyone,. There ARE genuinely happy people, and best of luck to them. The problem comes when they think their happiness will automatically extend to their offspring.

      Delete
    2. Even if someone's life is pure bliss, they wouldn't be deprived of happiness if they didn't exist. There are no good things in existence in comparision to non-existence because there is no deprivation.

      Delete
    3. Sure, but people don't think like that. They view existence and happiness as absolutes, not potentials in comparision to non-existence.

      Delete
    4. Or rather, in comparision to never-having-come-into-existence.

      Delete
    5. I completely agree, Karl. That you love life has cannot be a guarantee that your child will too -- I know because my father is a life-lover, and I'm not.

      Funnily, Jay Soundar aka mymiseryandme just became a natalist, a comment he made on one of Gary's response videos:

      "if someone thinks life is worth it they may 'impose' it on another sentient being with the reasonable expectation that they too will find life worthy (in some way) -- after all anecdotal evidence suggests most people are 'happy' to be alive."

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6OpFVyNbpk

      By the way, what do you think of tranquil's argument that life cannot require a justficiation if it's deemd absurd?

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssYvVqM_CHg

      Thanks! And thanks for providing a great blog, hope you will stay with us for a long time! :-)

      Delete
    6. Thanks, Anonymous. Haven't watched the videos yet. I admire Jay's honesty, if nothing else, and his guts in standing up to Gary who seems to think he's God these days.

      Delete
    7. Honesty in regards to what Karl? Did you see what kind of bullshit he is spewing off right now about spiritual dimensions and what not? He turned from a paragon of rationality to an irrational piece fo turd as I commented elsewhere. If he was a sycophant of Gary, that's his problem. I see nothing to admire in him abandoning seeing Gary as a "God figure" and while I do admit that Gary could occasionally use a less vitriolic rhetoric when addressing fellow antinatalists (like Derived Energy), no one forced Jay to look up to him and that was done by his own volition so his honesty in backing away from it and then adopting a new-age, theistic perspective is mindbogglingly disgusting.

      Nothing to admire here at all IMHO.

      Delete
    8. I haven't watched any of his vids, or Gary's in a long time. I was simply referring to his willingness to state his position rather than slink off. And I hate the way some ANs talk about Gary as if he were a god. Benatar, Jim Crawford, and others were around years before he latched on to AN, and in my opinion, bar constantly re-iterating the core AN thesis, he's brought nothing new to the debate. And I can't stand his Pollyanna, social reform bullshit, or his colossal egotism.

      Delete
    9. Im not antinatalist but I believe Karl, Derived Energy and Gary will become pronatalist someday. It's just a matter of finding a girlfriend.

      Delete
    10. DE has a girlfriend, as do I and many other ANs, so I don't think being single/attached has anything to do with the matter.

      Delete
    11. I personally had girlfriends, but found it utterly impossible to balance out my antinatalist/efilist temperament with the sort of entertainment bullshit they always want to engage in because they're experience machines and are built this way irrespective of whether they agree with you or not.

      I really found this whole charade of sentient life malignantly useless and futile, and while being an antinatalist/efilist doesn't necessarily preclude one from having a girlfriend/boyfriend, I think its definitely not for every one of us.

      Delete
    12. True, Karl, Gary is a narcissist. He even referred to himself as a "renaissance man" I can't stand people who praise themselves, and boy are there many antinatalists on YouTube who think highly of themselves. I much prefer modest thinkers like Karl or Benatar, they are actually my favorite ANs and sort of role models for me.

      Delete
    13. Thanks, Anonymous. As far as I can see, Gary is involved in his own daily soap opera, with his supporting cast of friends and villains. It's a bit like a daytime soap where the same plotline is repeated over and over.

      I did watch Dima's last video on suicide, which I thought was more interesting, thought-provoking, and debate enhancing than anything Gary's said in years.

      Delete
    14. As for Girlfriends, only narcissists have girlfriends. A real hard man lives alone, up there in the mountains or even in a monastry and endures life alone, with all his strength.

      Delete
  34. Karl,

    You will probably see this soon enough, if you haven't already, but I thought I'd pass it along anyway, since I just found it (haven't read it yet), and immediately thought of you: The barbarism of reason: John Gray on the Notebooks of Leopardi.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hadn't seen it, Jeff. A great review. Thanks a million!

      Delete
    2. Karl, yet another simple yet truthful, comprehendable post that has sparked more than 100 fascinating comments. Sincere Thank You for your blogging!

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the nice words, Michael:-) Appreciate it.

      Delete
  35. Antinatalists have convinced me to not procreate. I don't want to bring children to this world for my own pleasure at the cost of harming them.
    I think I was brainwashed by society into thinking that "Our purpose is to procreate", "Life is a gift", " Children give meaning to our lives" etc...
    Now I can see that the truth is that it's extremely selfish to bring children to a world full of kidnappers, psychopaths, murderers, diseases, racism, brutality, wars.. etc..
    It's immoral to bring children to a world like this. The most humane decision is not to conceive children and protect them from the misery and pain of this world.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Also, there is good news for Zapffe fans: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx7HN0HP1VM

    ReplyDelete
  37. There was a Nobel Prize winner ( a writer whose name is Ivo Andric to whom you may or may not be familiar with) from my country who wrote: "In this world goodness is a naked orphan."
    What is the most gruesome part of this existence is precisely it's treatment of beings that are genuinely good and/or have talents and mental gifts. Gifted people have always been the greatest sufferers in the world. Those who are born brilliant end up completely devastated and usually with mental illnesses. That is something I personaly regard to be the hardest and the worst possibility life has created for people.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dima wrote:

    I think the PC nature of academia prevents Benatar from elaborating on either the meaninglessness of existence or the misanthropic argument for antinatalism. If he did so, it would be far easier for smug critics to label him a 'crank' and write him off without having to engage his arguments.

    Because Benatar is an academic, he can't openly advocate suicide. Otherwise, I see no reason why he would go so far out of his way to argue against pro-mortalism.

    ---------

    He specifically does not recommend suicide. He acknowledges that suicide is a complicated, uncertain, often messy and painful business. Suicide isn't a realistic solution to suffering in most cases. He specifically acknowledges that.

    Myself, I don't think anti-natalism necessarily

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dima wrote:

    I think the PC nature of academia prevents Benatar from elaborating on either the meaninglessness of existence or the misanthropic argument for antinatalism. If he did so, it would be far easier for smug critics to label him a 'crank' and write him off without having to engage his arguments.

    Because Benatar is an academic, he can't openly advocate suicide. Otherwise, I see no reason why he would go so far out of his way to argue against pro-mortalism.

    ---------

    He specifically does not recommend suicide. He acknowledges that suicide is a complicated, uncertain, often messy and painful business. Suicide isn't a realistic solution to suffering in most cases. He specifically acknowledges that.

    Myself, I don't think anti-natalism necessarily

    ReplyDelete