Tuesday, 24 December 2013

Random end of year thoughts

So the end of another year, one less before the final consumation. A sad year in that we lost Sundog and Kirk, two brave fighters, utterly fearless, courageous men, who had no hesitation in speaking their thoughts, in spite of the opprobium and disdain of the status quo. I salute them.

**********************************

Then the bust up at the Ligotti site over AN. That was a very revealing exchange. It seems ultimately that opponents of AN will retreat into the currently fashionable intellectual agnosticism that rules in liberal ideology: "We don't know enough to judge". ANs are then labelled as dogmatic, but as a friend commented wisely:

I think what bothers me in the antinatalism debate is what I consider a kind of faux-agnosticism about life .

I think many people might have to admit they're less agnostic than they believe themselves to be. For example, when someone consciously decides to have a kid, and goes through with it, I consider that a gesture in support of the idea that life is essentially good and worthwhile, regardless of whether the parent in question wishes to regard themselves as agnostic about it or not.

It's particularly annoying, since antianatalism is often dismissed as a kind of belief system, while people who procreate are more allowed to call themselves agnostic about life, somehow. I would think antinatalism is more agnostic, actually, since it is erring on the side of not bringing someone into life, since we don't know if it will end up being worthwhile for that person.
 
Sums it up nicely. Not to reproduce is often considered 'dogmatic', whereas to procreate is considered 'open-minded' and 'non-judgemental'. Ah, 'tis a topsy-turvy world we live in, to be sure.
 
(Incidentally, and on a more political note, I'm sure the 'analysis-paralysis' that dominates western thinking must delight our rulers, as they demonstrate absolutely no doubts or hesitations in making their life and death decisions that affect us all, usually for the worst, and, of course, afterwards they can always justify themselves with the 'someone had to take tough decisions' line, which is a perfect way of getting away with it.)
 
**************************************
 
Two days ago I was obliged to enter the huge Apple store in central London. My god, what an experience. I don't think I've seen a more crowded shop in my life. What really struck me was that most people were interested in the trinkets and accessories that go with their iProducts. An extra bauble here, another there, and let's be picky about what colour it is. I've rarely felt more alienated from my own culture and was so relieved to get out of there.
 
I then came home and put on Al-Jazeera and watched a big report on the current slaughter in both the Sudan and the Central African Republic. Comparing the narcissism of the Apple store with the slaughter in Africa, and then reflecting on the west's savage imperialism and raping of that benighted continent, all I can say is that if the African countries ever got their act together and united to invade Europe in a revenge crusade, I could only say we'd get what we deserve. To quote the greatest chronicler of western decadence, Michel Houellebecq, on the mindset of those of those in the 'advanced' world: 'I know only that every single one of us reeks of selfishness, masochism, and death'.

******************************************

Anyway, putting such cheery thoughts aside, I hope everyone has a relaxing holiday and a peaceful year ahead. Thanks for reading!


 
 

109 comments:

  1. Complements of the Season to you too Karl.

    And keep up the good work with your blog.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Alas, Christmas is by far the most stressful time of the year for me. In a few hours, I will attend a family gathering of about 20 shiny happy people. Strictly to "keep peace in the family". The same shallow bs is chattered about every year by people I have zero in common with. I would pay if there was a way to avoid it. I'm debating whether to take a few extra anti-anxiety meds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you take anxiety meds also, Unknown?

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. Yes, Raf. My anxiety condition is a genetic "gift" from my mother which was passed to her by my grandfather.

      Delete
    3. I can empathise, Anonymous. Enforced socialising is hell itself.

      Delete
  3. Its pretty hopeless-antinatalism is a lost cause.Sad,but true.The world is getting worse-baby making factory is doing great.
    Millions living in slums-without the basic necessacities .Hells right here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Antinatalism may be a lost cause - but let´s do our part anyways, Anon. Let´s keep raising the flag. Until the very end.

      The world is getting worse, I concur. And hell is right here. But let´s keep denouncing it, even if it´s the only thing we can do.

      Delete
  4. From me as well. And to us all, fellow AN´s.

    ReplyDelete
  5. And just to bring it up more - the same Houellebecq (what a tough name to write!) wrote - "H.P Lovecraft - Against the World, Against Life". Another thing that links your post to mine, and talks about justly the importance of Lovecraft´s philosophic aspect to his works. =)

    ReplyDelete
  6. If I might offer an appropriate quote from the Master Lovecraft:

    'It is good to be a cynic—it is better to be a contented cat — and it is best not to exist at all. Universal suicide is the most logical thing in the world—we reject it only because of our primitive cowardice and childish fear of the dark. If we were sensible we would seek death—the same blissful blank which we enjoyed before we existed.'

    ReplyDelete
  7. Happy Holidays to you as well and all the readers of this thoughtful, funny, insightful, intelligent and comforting blog. i.e. your friends quote is really brilliant. A port in a storm. I would be grateful if you can take all of these disparate topics and expound further in a nice long book! And I apolgize to you, Karl, if I am speaking out of line.

    I have been reading through the Archives and soaking in as much as I can. Your writing regarding religion and religious persons being simpatico are really spot on.

    My dad is in an ICU unit at the moment and I am trying to draw comfort though religion or in my case the thought of God existing. I don't think God exists, but I consider myself agnostic and It is nice to know that at least here we're not condemned for hoping or deluding ourselves that our suffering is for a reason.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi, Michael.

      Thanks for your nice words and I'm sorry to hear about your father.

      Yes, it would be nice if there were a central core of Good/Love at the centre of Being, but I very much doubt it, and, in fact, don't believe it. To be honest, my attitude toward organised religion has probably hardened since I wrote those posts, but I would never blame anyone for wanting to believe in a better scenario. Who in their right mind wouldn't want there to be one?

      Anyway, hope you're doing ok, and thanks for reading.

      Delete
  8. I wish you Karl and everyone who is on our wavelength a peaceful year indeed, even though I know that unfortunately it will be anything but peaceful...

    With that being said, don't breed and bide your time till death with the least amount of worries possible...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Karl,

    This seems a bit harsh to me:

    http://saynotolife.blogspot.com/2011/06/pollyannism-of-richard-dawkins.html

    Dawkins is saying that there is no design, and there is a lot of suffering, but the universe is also wonderful.

    What's wrong with that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I almost feel like paraphrasing Christine Keeler from the dock 'He would say that wouldn't he?'. But seriously Dawkins has a moral difficulty here with design. If there is no design and there is pain then the pain is random-and there is no 'need' to explain it but what is science for? It is too important to be mere human playfulness at it's best. If there were design-or a mix of design and limited randomness- then for it to be justifiable to humans and science the design would have to produce more pleasure and order than it did pain-the reverse would be moral chaos and scientific sado- masochism. As it is I believe we humans have a sado-masochistic relationship with many animals in the world anyway. Not just battery hens, and angorra rabbits who's fur is snatched off them by their chinese breeders, but all the animals we try and save from extinction we have nearly rendered extinct before we have campaigns to make amends.

      Delete
    2. Elie, how can a universe that contains unquantifiable misery, murder, rape, starvation, mental distress, sadism, torture, inequality etc etc etc be 'wonderful'? To affirm such a set-up is a source of 'wonder' is totally insane. Sure, there are pretty pictures from the Hubble space telescope (all touched up, by the way) to gush over, but so what?

      The universe would be better without us in it.

      Delete
    3. With or without us; it is a problem either way. It's systemic: the very essence of existence is suffering. Particles of matter; energy itself is a travesty and mar against the beauty of Oblivion. The Atheists are as bad as the religious in this aspect.

      Delete
  10. Karl,

    Just a brief note.

    Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker (Harvard) retweeted this article today:

    5 Amazing Pieces of Good News Nobody Is Reporting

    http://www.cracked.com/article_20731_5-amazing-pieces-good-news-nobody-reporting.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All of these contingent facts are highly selective and totally ignore the misery of the world.

      Nor do they do one thing to alleviate life's total pointlessness.

      Delete
    2. Another thing is that they completely ignore what's happening to other creatures on the planet.

      But in any case, I think that our population has grown so much, and "statistics organizations" have grown so much more distant from the poorest, that they've completely stopped counting them.

      Delete
    3. While the article referenced by Nicholas Lederer is not written by Pinker (only recommended by him), it's in the same vein as Pinker's tendentious, ideological hackjob The Better Angels of Our Nature. Unsurprisingly, Pinker is eager to promulgate the false belief that life on earth has become incontestably better thanks to Western democracy and its jaunty handmaiden, neoliberalism. For a thorough and extensive deconstruction of Pinker's bullshit, read "Reality Denial" by Edward S. Herman and David Peterson, available here: http://coldtype.net/Assets.12/PDFs/0812.PinkerCrit.pdf .

      Delete
    4. Thanks, CP. Looks like a juicy read.

      Delete
  11. Despite everything (and there certainly is quite A LOT of everything), and my subsequently being so unyielding in my pessimism and suicidal ideation, this post and the comments following made me feel oddly warm inside.
    I've been lurking around AN blogs for a couple of years, since I was 20 or so, and I've probably read every single post- some multiple times when necessary. Thank you all for having been here for me. I feel not quite so alone when I read your words.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are welcome, Emily. When things get rough and you want to talk, drop us a line would you?

      We can at least hear - or read - you.

      This goes for all, as well, of course.

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. Thanks, Emily. Glad the blog has brought some comfort.

      Delete
  12. "I never wanted to live. I wanted to be happy. Living was always accidental.”

    ― Darnell Lamont Walker

    ReplyDelete
  13. The masochism is all that keeps our Western world spinning: to summon more suffering for whatever burst of pleasure it may yield; a season overtime for an extra week at a holiday resort. It's the eau de cologne that distracts from our selfishness and the death that is the lifeblood of our "developed" way of life.

    It will only have taken one generation, from my father boarding the Western world, to his son abandoning its remanning. Living on top of life, one can find nothing but emptiness to look up at.

    Another undeserved year ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, the powers-that-be are having a ball, while the drones toil on, ever eager to climb the greay pole. There are very few who merit sympathy.

      Delete
    2. This is what the anti natal socialists believe-
      There is nobody in this country who got rich on their own. Nobody. You built a factory out there - good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn't have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory... Now look. You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea - God bless! Keep a hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along

      Delete
  14. I'm an AN who suffers from crippling, clinical-grade anxiety. I'm aware that certain other ANs have the same affliction (e.g. Ligotti). I'm wondering whether this is a common theme among our set. Anyone care to chime in about their own experience?
    I know that we ANs tend to be stereotyped as bitter, depressed, miserable souls by those who would like to believe that our philosophy is predicated solely on our "bleak lives". And I don't want to fan such flames... But I can say for myself that anxiety has fucked my life so hard that it has quite possibly opened the figurative window that allowed me to see the light of AN very clearly, and quite early in life (thank dog... at least something redeeming has come out of the affliction).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My anxiety has been greatly helped by a number of nutritional supplements, google anti-anxiety supplements, learn about it, try different ones out, etc.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous:

      Yes, I do think these thoughts only surface when when is in a non-comforted state. The light of AN is too difficult to see when you're wrapped up in worldly pleasures. Even today, with all I know about the nature of our world, I can become caught up in the game and sometimes block out the horror.

      Delete
    3. Anon One: Yes, I too suffer from chronic anxiety, my brother or sister. You are far from alone. I worry about EVERYTHING, even what my well meaning father calls "minor details". My meds take the worst off the edge, usually. With all respect to donotdog, I've tried many "natural" remedies with no effect.

      Delete
    4. Incarnating the failed life of a disabled mysophobic and agoraphobic "high-functioning" autist with obsessive-compulsive disorder, physically scarred as a consequence aswell, I can still say:

      my adherence to antinatalism won't save me.

      Trying to discredit antinatalism, based on antinatalists being less likely to impose or benefit from imposing birth, is as vain as attempting a defence of slavery, from the notion that the vast majority of its opponents were Black persons.

      Delete
    5. Unknown, if you feel comfortable sharing, what are you taking? I was recently prescribed bupropion for anxiety (even though it's actually indicated for depression--no biggy, as I have that, too). I've resisted pharmaceuticals for a long time--I hate the idea of taking them for many reasons. However, I've reached a point of near-complete dysfunction and total desperation, so now I feel I'm game for just about anything. Oh, and do your meds cause insomnia (that demon I can't seem to shake)?

      Delete
    6. Yes, Bazo. I sometimes think that those who answer ANs with "just kill yourself" have a valid point.

      Delete
    7. I take a relatively light dose of Klonopin and Xanax. Well, the generics. Harder and longer to write their names. They may have different names outside the USA.

      Delete
    8. I take Xanax and Klonopin, or rather their generics. They don't cause me insomnia.

      Delete
  15. Who will take care of you in old age if you don't have kids?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Save the money you would spend on kids for old age care; stay healthy so you don't need looking after; seek a graceful exit if things get too awful etc etc

      Delete
    2. Having to take care of one's parents in old age, and then watching them die, is one of very worst aspects of the imposition of being born!

      Delete
    3. One of the many kids who exist now will (I'll pay them) or I'll "take care of myself." Or, maybe I'll have a seizure/stroke/heart attack and die alone in my living room or on the streets. Dunno. Regardless of what happens to me, I will NOT cause another human being to suffer and die because I'm afraid of suffering and dying myself. That is the height of selfishness and it is a cruel thing to do.

      Delete
  16. It is okay to marry & have kids if the one you are marrying is rich & will make you rich too?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'll be generous in the spirit of the season and assume this is a serious question:-) Money may help, but life is still pointless and pain will be on the menu no matter how much money you have.

      Delete
    2. No, it's not okay to create a being who will suffer and die. Rich people aren't infallible gods; they experience pain and die, too. If you want a child, ADOPT one of the NUMEROUS kids who don't have parents. Your "need to bred" feeling is a design of mindless nature. Rise above the other mindless animals and quell that "need."

      Delete
  17. "Posterity is the religion of intellectuals." – Woody Allen.

    ReplyDelete
  18. With hopes that this will be the year that the universe successfully purges mankind for good. It certainly is trying, but failing. This can only mean the efforts of the forces of the universe will have to increase and continue to increase until the desired effect of human extinction is achieved.

    ReplyDelete
  19. By Ligotti-I politically self-identify as a socialist. I want everyone to be as comfortable as they can be while they’re waiting to die. Unfortunately, the major part of Western civilization consists of capitalists, whom I regard as unadulterated savages. As long as we have to live in this world, what could be more sensible than to want yourself and others to suffer as little as possible?"

    I don't need to elaborate on this. But he goes on to say something really pessimistic; essentially he says that making things better is impossible, because too many people are savages.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe Thomas Ligotti needs to read a rudimentary textbook on economics before he opens his mouth. May I suggest e.g. Basic Economics, and Economics in One Lesson (available online), and How and Economy Grows and Why it Crashes . He could even read Economics for Real People (available online) -- yes, it's by pronatalist scumbag Gene Callahan, but nonetheless worth reading.

      Delete
    2. Anon -Are you a capitalist bloodsucker?

      Delete
    3. "Socialism" can mean anything from Stalinism to the meager welfare state in the USA. There is a movement afoot in the US to even cut that safety net. I'm with Tom, who is no doubt speaking of democratic socialism.

      Delete
    4. The USSR will rise again!

      Delete
    5. ""Socialism" can mean anything from ..."

      No, it has a precise definition, as state ownership of the means of production. You are talking about "social democracy".

      "meager welfare state in the USA"

      Hahahahahahahahaha! In the US, total social spending (welfare, social security, etc.) comprises 70% of the budget. But this point is irrelevant, because the US economy is completely going to implode within the next 3 years, due to hyperinflation and a huge public debt crisis. Unemployment will be worse than in the Great Depression, and those who are relying on receiving government assistance or a pension will be left empty-handed. Of course malicious know-nothings such as Anon 09:17 and 21:16 will blame the collapse on capitalism, even though the US hasn't had capitalism since the 19th century.

      Delete
    6. Although Capitalism seemed okay in the 1940's and 1950's (when the top 2% of earners paid about 45% of their income in taxes), but then came Reagan and the rich decided they wanted to get richer... now Capitalism has become a process where only the companies who make the most profits survive, no matter how immoral they are in making those profits... is it not obvious that Capitalism puts profits before anything else? if you have Company A and Company B, and Company A pays their works half as much and doesn't give them benefits, while Company B treats their employees fairly and compensates them well.... Company A makes more profits, because they have less costs from taking care of employees so they can charge a lower price for their product, putting Company B (the ones that treats its employees right) out of business... its not just employee costs, its materials costs, shipping, etc. etc. etc. Capitalism results in companies making worse products, treating their employees and their customers worse, and taking advantage of the system..

      Capitalism is why big corporations like oil, tobacco, auto, insurance, etc. spend billions and billions of dollars on lobbying Congress to get laws changed in their favor. since when do corporations have more say in Congress than citizens?? those billions of dollars spent on lobbying Congress could have been spent on making this country and world a better place, but it is spent on bribery instead.

      wake up America!

      Delete
    7. Read a book before spewing your ignorance, and it will refute all your fallacies.

      Companies compete with other companies in hiring labor. It is IMPOSSIBLE for Company B to pay their employees less than their marginal product of labor (MPL, which is the increase in revenue caused by hiring one additional employee), because otherwise company A would make MORE profit, by luring away these employee by offering them a higher wage than company B. The point is, companies do not determine how high their input costs are, nor how much profits they make: The consumer indirectly determines the price of EVERY factor of production in the economy. Capitalism = consumer democracy.

      Worse products? Ever notice how much better computers, cell phones, cars, TVs, computer games, household appliances, and other products, have become in the last few decades? Consumers reward those companies making ever better products, not worse products.

      And lobbying is corporatism, not capitalism, so I agree with you. If Congress had no power, there would be nothing for which to lobby.

      WAKE UP SHEEPLE!11

      Delete
    8. Anon. 04:54: I take it you are "doing all right, Jack". And don't want anyone's hands on your stack! And btw, workers pay into Social Security. It is not a handout. I know your type. You want all the "useless eaters" to starve to death.

      Delete
    9. Nope, wrong on all counts. I'm currently on the dole, receiving less than minimum wage! When you ASSUME you make an ASS out of U and ME. But personal attacks on me is all you are left with, because you don't have any logical arguments!

      Social security is a wealth transfer those who work to people who do not: it's a Ponzi scheme, NOT a pension. NONE of the young workers who are currently paying into Social will be receiving a dime in return, because the money is already gone (spent)!

      Delete
    10. It's commonly known that light bulbs have gotten shorter and shorter life spans, much like other appliances.

      Capitalism has essentially realigned us into this food pyramid, where First World corporate shareholders leach upon consumers, but not before harvesting the Third World to fatten up the consumer on end products.

      Delete
    11. Oh, boy. There's nothing funnier than gormless internet "economists" who take von Mises seriously. I'm also amused by the moron who defines capitalism so narrowly that he thinks that it is wrong to speak of capitalism's presence in America. That the American economy is technically mixed does not imply that it is senseless to speak of the problems of American capitalism, as plenty of economists do. Take Nobel Prize winner Paul Krugman (unlike von Mises, an actually intelligent human being): http://bigthink.com/videos/paul-krugman-on-capitalism-and-waste .

      Delete
    12. Krugman is a political hack whose Keynesian policies caused the housing crash, and whose only solution is for the government to spend more and inflate more. His and his buddy Bernanke's policies will directly lead to the US economic collapse and Greater Depression in the next 3 years or so. Remember, you read it here first.

      Delete
    13. Baz, we all occupy some place on the exploitation chain. I used to think passive opting out was a way of keeping my hands clean, but now I realise there's no way to avoid some level of responsibility.

      Delete
    14. Yes Karl,you are right-but don't compare us,the anti-natal socialists to the Almighty,instead ,compare us with the alternative-the vulture capitalists.

      Unemployment blows. The easiest and most direct solution is for the government to guarantee that everyone who wants to contribute productively to society is able to earn a decent living in the public sector...A job guarantee that paid a living wage would anchor prices, drive up conditions for workers at megacorporations like Walmart and McDonald's, and target employment for the poor and long-term unemployed – people to whom conventional stimulus money rarely trickles all the way down...Imagine a world where people could contribute the skills that inspire them – teaching, tutoring, urban farming, cleaning up the environment, painting murals – rather than telemarketing or whatever other stupid tasks bosses need done to supplement their millions. Sounds nice, doesn't it?

      Delete
    15. Anonymous, I agree. I've often thought that a society could function which guaranteed a four hour working day for all. Of course, such a set-up would require a reduction in material aspirations which is highly unlikely in the current set-up. We can but dream....

      Delete
    16. I have a question for socialist vampires who dare to call themselves antinatalists. You talk a lot about imposing unwanted obligations on newborn children who did not consent to them. Well, the sum of federal debt, state debt, local debt, and unfunded liabilties is equal to $120 TRILLION (almost $1 MILLION per taxpayer)!!! How does it fit into your antinatalist morality to impose such a huge debt burden on the future generation, when they did not ask for it? (And how the hell is such an economy "capitalist" ? In a capitalist society there would be no government debt.)

      Delete
    17. Your owed capital is right under your nose.
      God forbid you do the socialist "vampire" thing and reflect the burden upon the hags who ride your children's society!

      Delete

    18. Mate,if one's anti-natalist then he tries to ensure that there are NO FUTURE GENERATIONS.All resources should be used up by the present generation.There is no future for humanity.There capitalism in america as there are 50 million folks living in poverty while the bankers travel in corporate jets.

      Delete
    19. Great Link Bazo-take that you blood sucking capitalists!

      Delete
    20. Hi folks,

      Bazompora,
      Simply pointing your finger at "the" rich is not an argument; you have not provided a single calculation. But I realize that would be too much to ask of socialists, or else we would not be in this collossal mess to begin with.

      The net worth of the richest 400 Americans which were mentioned in your link, is $2 trillion, NOT $120 trillion. But even if the US confiscates all the wealth of the richest 20% you are not mentioning one thing. Richer people do not own their wealth in the form of money stored on a bank account, or stuffed under their mattrass. They own in the form of capital: factories, machines, robots, computers, tools, trucks, ships, and other equipment. That means that if the US were to pay back it's debt by confiscating all this stuff (illegitimately, through dictatorship) and selling all these things to China, Japan, and our other creditors, then the average American go back to complete poverty, because you have eliminated all of his capital. Income is determined by the amount of capital per employee. Moreover, you would have eliminated the most productive 20% of the population.
      My point is, the US is already broke, no matter what it does, even if, and especially if, they rob the richest 20% of the population.

      And Anonymous7 January 2014 20:49,
      So you want to live in wealth and let the future generation live in destitution. Good to know that the true motivations of the pseudo-antinatalists are finally revealed.
      50 million folks living in poverty, because the US is entering the greatest depression in its history:

      1. The total debt is $120 trillion, as mentioned.
      2. The central bank (socialist bank) has set the interest rate to be negative. In a free market, the curent interest rate would be higher than 20%, like in the early 1980s, because Americans have an extremenly low saving rate.
      2. The central bank (socialist bank) has quadrupled the monetary base in five years.

      But all 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto have been implemented, so you should be happy right?

      Delete
    21. Anonymous above, the anon of 7 Jan, 20:49 specifically refered to the AN fantasy of there being no future generations. Therefore, no future generation would live in destitution. Please read comments carefully before hurling around groundless accusations.

      Delete
    22. Oh, and the total US wealth is $70 trillion, so even confiscating everything from everyone does not work.

      Delete
    23. Okay, I agree I might have misread him/her.

      Delete
    24. It may come close to pulling hands off of it, but the onus of making capitalism work is on your side, Anonymous one. So far, we've only constated how it is a just another sham that allowed ancestors to indebt their descendants.

      Surely there's more creative ways to make use of nationalised propriety, than to auction it off. But I notice it's a common neo-liberal reflex, to sell the goose along with the golden eggs: that's how, in Belgium, the rent the state pays on privatised offices surpassed the income from their sale after a few years. With a growth of about 20% for that capital in one year, the derived income that could be taxed from the wealth of the rich is worth itself manifold over decades.

      You may be taught they generate jobs, but in fact, large business prevent small business from breaking even, like trees stealing the sunlight from saplings. The larger, the more they can thrive with less employees per proprietor. This cumulates more wealth in the hands of few, who excessively come short from proportionally paying back for as many services from society as would owners of small entrepreneurial business, who have none to a handful of employees. The large and rich as a consequence possess the means to move labor to cheaper places, inducing a race to the bottom for wages, as is happening in Germany, much in the vain of post-war USA. Cheaper and less employees means less state income, more loans and more debt. Of course, going along with your capitalist pundits, such malevolent exploitation is not only fair but also laudable and redressing some of this injustice constitutes "robbery", while continuing the exacerbating trend is made out to bring stability.

      Furthermore, the question of legitimacy is moot, for might makes right when it comes to the US of America: your country has made this world its jurisdiction and the succession of oligarchies self-certifies "the leader of the free world". If someone can be made a lifelong fugitive for exposing a bit of its dirty laundry, then surely can someone who is presumed to go on the run with the contents of its wallet.

      Of course, living above standard is the addiction of the middle-class West and likewise its demise. However, one should notice that the trend among antinatalists here is one of less, antithetic to the general goldfish gluttony that prohibits durability.

      Delete
  20. Karl and others,

    A general question:

    There are some people in our society who say that since being depressed is not conducive to rational decision making, it is one of those cases where COERCIVE intervention to prevent suicide may be justified.

    But if there is a coercive intervention to prevent someone who has been depressed for many years from commiting suicide, is there not now a moral obligation on the part of the person intervening to RELIEVE the sufferer's depression?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm in favour of euthanasia for all, after, say a six-month consideration period between state-approval and final act.

      Delete
  21. A baby is God's opinion that the world should go on

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. God gives really bad advice.

      Delete
    2. Who?

      More like a sad symbol of human worthlessness, that they hold nothing off-limits in their efforts to fill the black hole of meaning and value called life, even condemning others to it.

      Delete
    3. The rotting God disagrees. I always saw God as "nothing". The thought of there being a multiverse/infinite repeat big bang/eternal return fills me with horror. Let heat death be the end of all things.

      Delete
    4. I quite like the idea of God as nothing, nothingness-the idea gives nothingness as much theory of substance as man can endure and cause for altruism on the way to nothingness. If that nothingness is where we are all headed then fine-it is where we are going. Even multiverses are multiverses of nothingness-matter without any consciousness that we can discern.

      Delete
    5. There is no evidence that a god exists, let alone that you or anyone would know what that god desires. A baby is the opinion of HUMANS that the world should go on. Humans need to take responsibility for their own thoughts and behaviors instead of putting it on a "god" that does not appear to exist. And even if a god believed that, I could give a shit. I am against creating a person who will suffer and die. If my morality is higher than a god's morality, it is not fit to be listened to and it will be ignored.

      Delete
  22. ebenezer scrooge-that who all of you are!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If being against pain and death makes me Ebenezer Scrooge then I have no problem taking that name. It's not an insult to me. Giving a shit about other people is something that human beings should aspire to if they want to call themselves human beings.

      Delete
  23. This blog must be shut down as it encourages hate crimes.
    I think all of you are anti Semites!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous how absurd! Where have you found anti-Semitism here? We are against the propagation of all humanity. No particular group is singled out. Also the worst hate crime is the bringing forth of new life into a world that is going to make them suffer, and bodies that are going to feel pain, and emotions that are going to hurt. Fact of the matter is we wouldn't have hate crimes and we wouldn't have anti-Semitism if we didn't have humans.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous, this blog is the complete opposite of hate. It's loving human beings and/or hating pain and death SO MUCH that you advocating sparing humans the horror of pain and death. This blog is MUCH needed in a world that cries about child murder and child rape and yet thinks it's okay to perpetuate it by creating more victims.

      Delete
  24. Hi Karl, I listened to 'Thinking Allowed' on Radio 4 today, it is one of the small chances in life to make life rational and pleasant. The subject Laurie Taylor wanted to elicit opinions on from his expert guests was 'love', in the variety of it's meanings. One of the more realistic and optimistic parts of the programme was on companionship. I am well aware that anti-natalist simply don't want to be parents themselves, regret having been parented and believe the planet is over-run with human beings with varying degrees of venom and grief. But is there an anti-natalist range of opinion on (childless) companionship? It is something I believe in strongly and work at with some people, whilst as cheerfully as possible avoiding the trap of parenthood. I would be interested in your views. Malcolm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont mind companionship as long as no kids are involved. After all, short of committing suicide, I am sure most of us here would enjoy an understanding member of the opposite sex who would enjoy our company until the last moment.

      Delete
    2. Childless companionship is a wonderful thing if you can find it, Malcolm, and something that I suspect may become more common.

      Delete
    3. Bearz, if two (or more) people care about each other enough to be companions and don't reproduce, I have no problem with that. I believe in minimal pain for those who exist and consensual companionship can help to alleviate some of the pains of life.

      Delete
  25. Dima and Karl: Companionship without children. What a beautiful idea! That's what "love" should be about.True affection, alone, till the end.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like the idea of affection that abnegates growth, as in children, and gets around the ticking body clock that insists on creating dependents whom we then mistreat because we do not lend them respect, because we never felt in control of the body clock that brought them into the world.

      Delete
  26. beautiful idea indeed!Sorry to burst your ballon but kids or not-most compionionships dont last long beyond the honey moon period.Couples end up fighting with each other over silly things-human nature and al jazz!Nature just wants you to produces babies & the hell with pleasurable companionship.Bitter truth.Read a litlle leass Mills & Boon.
    Oh yeah-I you.got tons of dough youd get plenty of companions but try to get a fraction of one while living on social security.
    Anyway-Live in the cuckoo land if you want to-whatever floats your boat-Mill s& Boon authors got to eat too-no?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Drawing from my experience as a marriage counselor, here are 3 common problems that destroy companionship.Sorry Dima,Karl-you are just being a romantic an antinatalist should know better-

      1. Poor boundaries. Engaging in intimate conversations with members of the opposite sex leads to emotional experiences that cloud judgment, trigger fantasy life, and progress toward physical intimacies outside of marriage.

      The connection and acceptance found in an illicit relationship diverts energy away from solving problems with one’s spouse. Confiding about marital problems with a sympathetic listener provides a contrasting experience to whatever dissatisfactions might be present in the marriage.

      2. Selfishness. There needs to be fairness in the distribution of work and responsibility within the relationship. This willingness to extend oneself also pertains to meeting emotional needs. Placing one’s desires consistently ahead of a partner’s emotional needs and responding only when it is a matter of convenience, demand or negotiations leaves a spouse feeling unloved.

      If too many important needs are neglected over time, the unloved spouse feels used or taken advantage of. Consistent lack of love interferes with a spouse’s willingness to give unselfishly in the relationship. When marriage partners don’t trust their needs will be met, they tend to meet their own needs first and become hesitant to share freely of themselves.

      Selfishness in its most destructive form involves control, manipulation, jealousy, possessiveness, demands and abuse in order to get one’s way. In milder forms, it is lack of consideration and respect.

      3. Disrespectful judgments. Marriage needs acceptance, admiration, appreciation and emotional safety. Feelings of anger and hurt follow when the process of exploring differences or contrasting opinions consistently degenerates into criticism, impatience, labeling, contempt, or discrediting one’s thoughts or feelings.

      It is disrespectful to try to change a spouse’s thinking by lecture, ridicule, threats, brainwashing, or negative aspersions. These perceived attacks on personality, character, intelligence or values undermine the mutual respect that forms the basis of love. The tendency is to retaliate in kind or else to withdraw and not share one’s ideas. It becomes hard to love or give of oneself when one feels unfairly judged or mistreated.

      Delete
    2. I have come to the conclusion that love does not exist. I say this because if you look at the fail rate of marriage and every other relationship it is huge. >50% of all marriages fail.

      What people term Love actually is only old-fashioned lust, desire.

      Studies have shown that couples who marry on the basis of "Love" do NOT last . The same studies went on to conclude, albeit controversially, that couples who use "Love" as a reason to be together would rather be better of apart, because such relationships never last.

      It will interest you to know that the western world who gave us the concept of love have the highest divorce rates today.

      Delete
    3. It takes a huge amount of self discipline to be sufficiently selfless to make a partnership work, long term, for the partnering to be a thing in itself rather than the means to an indiscipline empire we pretend we control. No Mills and Boon there, a little bit of St Paul (who in his letters counselled pre-arranged married couples-both partners-that 'marriage is about learning to love') and a lot learning to listen and wait rather then speak over the other person. There is probably a fair but of Schopeneur and Kierkagaard in there too, Is that unfluffy enough for you?

      Delete

    4. You prose is denser than Hegels-gambol with girls in the garden,but don't call yourself an antinatalist.
      The two philosophers you mentioned never had romantic relationships.Bible is a piece of bad fiction.
      I know you cant help it-its not you-its your hormones talking,your genes just want to replicate themselves.Love is a pretext-your body just wants to sustain the human race.The hell with romantic championships.

      Delete
    5. Now there, no need to pull out the True Scotsman. Any kind of love, not only romantic, corrupts: to love is to give preferential treatment, which is always connivance with the selfish gene. Unfortunately, we can't strike back from death, so we can at best manipulate the strings that manipulate us in life, so as to subvert that reproductive drive.

      More true than a lover, I would deem reciprocal companionship in misery.

      Delete
    6. Could not understand your last three line-you beat Hegel hands down Romeo.

      Delete

  27. The names Bond, Anti-natalist Bond-

    I am a dried in the wool antinatalist.But what I can't abide is the tendency of some of us to mope about & be teary eyed all the time.
    James Bond,the fictional character is also an anti-natalist.
    He always has a smile hardened by experience, tempered by a sardonic fatalism.
    He knows that there will always be folks trying to kill him-but thats life.
    He knows that when comes across lassies-he'd like to make love to them-
    again our instinct.
    He knows that he will not get to stay will the gal forever-again epitome of realism.
    He never marries,never enters into commitment.
    He does not like to kill but when he has to he does it efficiently.

    Not thats real anti-natalism for you-Bond cries,often, but always in private.
    He does not brood about the times when he had come close to dying,he takes that in
    his stride.

    He swears a lot & often,its been proven that swearing often makes you feel better.
    Bond recognises no authorities.

    OH & I am taling about the Bond of novels ,not the Bond of movies.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Al Jazeera has recently been caught censoring news which is critical of the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation based on forcing the world to Islam (which is probably the biggest contributor to avoidable human suffering on the planet) so I seriously suggest changing your news source.

    ReplyDelete