thebackalleys
pirates and yuri
You are not logged in.
( Login | Register )

Should we reduce the current human population by 100%

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bamyasi
Male
  • *
  • Flip Flap Motherfucker
  • 3,040 posts
  • 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« on: January 23, 2016 12:20 PM »
Controversial Threads that Surely Won't Devolve into Shitposting or Public Stoning by This Time Tomorrow - Part Final: Against Nietzsche, Dark Souls

Several Agnostic (in the sense that they aren't Gnostic) philosophers in recent history have argued in favor of Antinatalism:
  • Arthur Schopenhauer, emulating Buddhism, famously posited in The World as Will and Representation (1818) that the physical universe is an expression of a blind, insatiable noumenon, what he calls the "Will," and that the only way to abate the suffering caused by this force unto humans is to stop making more of them.
  • Peter Wessel Zapffe, argued in The Last Messiah (1933) that mankind is in fact too intellectually evolved, and instead of writhing in terror at this prospect, we resort to three processes of denial: Anchoring, Disctraction, and Sublimation, when what we should be doing is forgoing procreation.
  • Emil Cioran, in The Trouble With Being Born (1973) and the rest of his oeuvre, aphoristically articulated a general pessimism about existence, birth especially.
  • David Benatar, more recently, in Better Never To Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence (2006), demonstrates a negative utilitarian understanding of the issue: that there is an asymmetry between the value of preventing suffering vs. facilitating pleasure, and that humans rightfully prioritize the former over the latter, except, as the case may be, when considering reproduction.
There are also edgy environmentalist organizations like VHEMT and the Church of Euthanasia. Even though I subscribe to deep ecology, I don't find their arguments compelling in the face of the prevailing normative anthropocentrism. Broader, less ideological movements like Childfree also exist, but many times followers espouse intense misopedia. Dyed-in-the-wool Antinatalists often profess extreme compassion for children, which I find much more tenable.

There are also internet edgelords like inmendham, but they can be safely ignored for the most part:


A good primer on Antinatalism and philosophical pessimism in general for those interested is Thomas Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against the Human Race (2010), which a lot of people found out about through that fuck awful HBO series True Detective, as the writer admitted its influence. I don't agree with his reasoning sum total, but it's always entertaining to read someone as passionately horrified by consciousness and existence as Ligotti, even if they're better at spinning yarns than changing minds.

If I find Antinatalist arguments compelling though, it's not because of misanthropy (which is a common argument). I actually care deeply about humanity and find life excruciatingly beautiful at times. My decision to not reproduce arrived independently of my reading Antinatalist texts, but they did codify my ethical and pragmatic concerns. I simply don't think it's right to impose any existence onto another person, when by nature that existence will contain suffering. Even if the suffering can be redeemed through catharsis (which mine often is), one of the more damning tenets of the pessimism in question is that most any pleasure is contingent on the suffering of another (I sure enjoy typing on my computer thanks to Chinese sweatshop workers, who in turn must thank child laborers in Africa, and so forth). Personally, I think all it takes is one look at the forecast to see that making a person isn't in their best interest: rampant, unchecked procreative liberty is making the planet uninhabitable.

That's not to say ethical considerations govern my every action, but they would certainly weigh in my decision to kill somebody, which giving birth is analogous to. When someone is accused of murder, the court wants to know the Why, When, Where, How, etc. Shouldn't we give similar considerations to the act of reproducing? Even if one doesn't subscribe to Antinatalism in full, the potential effects of regulating birth are astronomical. Maybe gun violence and crime in general wouldn't be such a problem if fatherless homes/weak fathers were less of one? Of course some code of eugenics would naturally arise from this, but why not? There's certainly a short term moral imperative, to, at the very least, avert the potential suffering of children born by parents with profoundly debilitating hereditary diseases[1]. The decision not to procreate is, for me, in part a eugenic one, and I expect others to adopt this position (or, at the very least, adopt children), or be given more incentives to do so if they just really don't give a fuck about the people their making (which I don't think most parents do deep down, aside from the fucks put in them by genes, dreams and memes).

(click to show/hide)

The End.



This has been a general appeal for our surrender to entropy.

inb4 edgy.

Offline SHADOWFOX2
  • *
  • 2,243 posts
  • 111
  • Awards IRCOP: this user is a moderator on the irc! PIZZABABY SUPPORTER: this member donated to zhi's pizzababy! OLD SCHOOL: registered before '09
    • SHADOWFOX11590 on Skype
    • http://www.kd2music.com/
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2016 12:26 PM »
Yeah sure why not?
Quote from: Tom
I followed a certain anigen in here one day
Quote from: lenko
also i made tea instead of coffee fuckkkkkkkk
Quote from: lenko
sugar MAKES the tea
Quote from: spite
I'm going to trick the top professional NBA basketball players to touch a magic basketball that absorbs all of their talent; Then combine their talent with mine own and destroy the world by reverse slam dunking over Micheal Jordan from half-court.
Quote from: Mad Meat
Unlike before, when I`m ejaculating, there aren`t any ``sperm`` coming out anymore, and I am wondering if it is a bad thing? will it be permanent? or in the worst case, do anybody know what I should do?
then again, sorry for that question

Offline valiums
Female
  • *
  • 852 posts
  • 109
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2016 12:27 PM »
Is there any major antinat stuff written by women?

Offline Bamyasi
Male
  • *
  • Flip Flap Motherfucker
  • 3,040 posts
  • 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2016 12:48 PM »
Is there any major antinat stuff written by women?
There's this, which I've heard is good but still need to read.

Offline SrsSam77
Male
  • *
  • Greater Aniki
  • 1,303 posts
  • 78
  • Awards IRC REGULAR: this user is one of the top irc chatters!
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2016 01:03 PM »
Humanities existance is a dickslap to the face of the natural world and no matter how much it will put us through we won't stop until we bend the universe over and fuck her in her black hole, get rekt antinat/nihilist fags.

Sincerely though life is a struggle but if you're so much of a cuck as to want all of humanity to give up you need to a)donate all of your shit to a local orphanage and b) kill yourself


Offline Bamyasi
Male
  • *
  • Flip Flap Motherfucker
  • 3,040 posts
  • 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #5 on: January 23, 2016 01:31 PM »

Offline valiums
Female
  • *
  • 852 posts
  • 109
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #6 on: January 23, 2016 01:54 PM »
Some of this stuff I'm finding ties into the radfemmy writings I've been reading lately in the most depressing way. In multiple ways, in fact, some of them being opposites. Like fuck, this is going to take a month to process.


Is there any part of this group/movement that wants to include all of life in this fun discussion? I'm seeing a lot of environmentalisty animalloverly "humans sux" shit.  It seems hypocritical and a waste to say living as a human is awful so choose not to have babies and an hero for good measure, and then to exit without killing everything else that can't make the same choice. There's got to be an extremist branch of this lot in there somewhere.


« Last Edit: January 23, 2016 01:57 PM by valiums »

Offline Gladius
Male
  • *
  • hot ham n cheese
  • 1,319 posts
  • This user is permanently banned
« Reply #7 on: January 23, 2016 01:59 PM »
radfemmy writings

valerie solanas manifesto the best
▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬ ---★☆★☆★ DONALD TRUMP 2016 ★☆★☆★--- ▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬

Offline zwimmy
Female
  • *
  • The original zwimmeme
  • 1,643 posts
  • 188
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #8 on: January 23, 2016 02:20 PM »
yes please just fucking end it

Offline Bamyasi
Male
  • *
  • Flip Flap Motherfucker
  • 3,040 posts
  • 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #9 on: January 23, 2016 02:28 PM »
Is there any part of this group/movement that wants to include all of life in this fun discussion? I'm seeing a lot of environmentalisty animalloverly "humans sux" shit.  It seems hypocritical and a waste to say living as a human is awful so choose not to have babies and an hero for good measure, and then to exit without killing everything else that can't make the same choice. There's got to be an extremist branch of this lot in there somewhere.
Yeah, that youtube guy inmendham founded a philosophy called Efilism (life backwards, get it?), which is basically what you're talking about. I don't really know much about it, but the guys made like thousands of youtube videos and has a small dedicated following. He's also insane.

You're right that a lot AN people are vegan "I would get eaten by a bear to save the bear" nutjobs, but the works I listed don't hold environmentalist goals as the principle concern, just an ancillary benefit.

Cioran has a good aphorism refuting the suicide argument Sam so enthusiastically graced us with:

Quote from: On the Heights of Despair
Only optimists commit suicide, optimists who no longer succeed at being optimists. The others, having no reason to live, why would they have any to die?
The other guys have similar rebuttals, though none dismiss it outright.

What parallels are you seeing with feminism?

Offline valiums
Female
  • *
  • 852 posts
  • 109
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #10 on: January 23, 2016 03:18 PM »
I've seen some inmendham vids (mostly his economic ramblings) but I never got into his "Efilism" stuff (10/10 name). Happy to see there is indeed a far-out section, and it's fucking HIM. HAHAHA.

I'm going to try to write up a proper thing with links and quotes et cet to convey my thoughts later, cause it's all connections and no argument or substance at this point.



valerie solanas manifesto the best

Quote
Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to loudly teach the men antinatalism here, quietly resume parthenogenesis elsewhere, and wait.





Fucking loool.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2016 03:23 PM by valiums »

Offline crackers
Male
  • *
  • i cant stand ya, george
  • 1,226 posts
  • 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #11 on: January 26, 2016 03:23 AM »
isn't this just the fall of Rome

Offline crackers
Male
  • *
  • i cant stand ya, george
  • 1,226 posts
  • 124
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #12 on: January 26, 2016 03:23 AM »
sorry didn't mean to post that here ,  that message was for my dad .

Offline rtil
  • *
  • ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • 25,088 posts
  • 626
  • Awards IRCOP: this user is a moderator on the irc! PIZZABABY SUPPORTER: this member donated to zhi's pizzababy! OLD SCHOOL: registered before '09
    • rtil_yep on Skype
    • http://www.thebackalleys.com
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #13 on: January 26, 2016 04:22 AM »
I simply don't think it's right to impose any existence onto another person
i agree with this sentiment, not because i regret being born or anything but because of how unsure i am about our ultimate fate i wouldn't want to also impose that question on someone i was partly responsible for bringing into this world
Quote
The decision not to procreate is, for me, in part a eugenic one, and I expect others to adopt this position (or, at the very least, adopt children), or be given more incentives to do so if they just really don't give a fuck about the people their making
adopt the position on the basis of eugenics? somehow i doubt it, but there are definitely less people in developed nations having children for a multitude of reasons. most of them are selfish, but i don't think there's anything wrong with being selfish. and the world is already overpopulated in terms of sustainability imo

Offline Bamyasi
Male
  • *
  • Flip Flap Motherfucker
  • 3,040 posts
  • 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #14 on: January 26, 2016 07:47 AM »
I'm going to try to write up a proper thing with links and quotes et cet to convey my thoughts later
Still looking forward to this also is that movie good?

isn't this just the fall of Rome
More or less, but decreased fruitfulness is only one parallel the contemporary western world has with the late Roman Empire. You also have to factor in mass immigration, economic collapses, reliance on cheap (slave) labor, overexpansion of manufacturing and military overspending (by America mainly), governmental corruption, and the weakening of traditional values (decadence, which Spengler always denoted as a tell-tale sign of an empire in decline).

i agree with this sentiment, not because i regret being born or anything but because of how unsure i am about our ultimate fate i wouldn't want to also impose that question on someone i was partly responsible for bringing into this world
My thoughts exactly, except the regret part. One day working at UPS was enough to make me regret that (I jest).

adopt the position on the basis of eugenics? somehow i doubt it, but there are definitely less people in developed nations having children for a multitude of reasons. most of them are selfish, but i don't think there's anything wrong with being selfish. and the world is already overpopulated in terms of sustainability imo
I think if people took the suffering inflicted upon them by the genetic lottery, like hereditary diseases and such, seriously, they wouldn't procreate outside a "designer child" scenario. I'm not completely sold on the AN position but I did inherit enough bad genes to know not to pass them on if there's a chance they could be expressed. Maybe eugenics isn't the right word.

Agreed about the selfish part. AN thinking would deem those people to be in fact far less selfish than those procreating, which I also agree with, especially with environmental factors. A major problem imo is parents in those same developing nations waiting until the tail end of fertility, or even longer with oocyte cryopreservation (egg freezing), before having children. Technology is progressing (or at least obsolescing) so fast that the generation gap even between people born two or three years apart is significant. I don't think the psychological harm inflicted on a child whose parent, for all intents and purposes, was born in the stone age, is negligible, when their (the parents') ability to help their child navigate the socio-economic landscape is diminished significantly. People want to have their career cake and eat their children too. I think they should have to choose.

Speaking of which, does anyone else think parenthood should be a licensed profession? I agree with crazy Canadian youtube cult philosopher king here:

Quote from: Stefan Molyneux
Deep down, I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there - the same way that I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century.

Offline Gladius
Male
  • *
  • hot ham n cheese
  • 1,319 posts
  • This user is permanently banned
« Reply #15 on: January 26, 2016 09:53 AM »
Far be it from me to decide how any man uses his penis to best effect. I see no problem with fellows joining together in merry union, nor with them befriending the boys and making good pederasty. But whither the egg? While the sperms fly and mingle gaily in the air, should it be left to sour in the womb? Can such a thing stand in perpetua? I think we need to rethink our priorities here.
▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬ ---★☆★☆★ DONALD TRUMP 2016 ★☆★☆★--- ▬ஜ۩☆۩ஜ▬

Offline basketweaver
  • *
  • a cloud on the wind
  • 212 posts
  • 43
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #16 on: January 26, 2016 10:27 AM »
Antinatalism

nice, i've been trying to find a word for this concept for a while. i've been thinking about this ever since i got into buddhism, since it's pretty shitty to give birth to a creature that will necessarily feel suffering throughout its existence. this epic meme sums up my current opinion on the matter:



will provide a more articulate opinion later

Offline Bamyasi
Male
  • *
  • Flip Flap Motherfucker
  • 3,040 posts
  • 226
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #17 on: January 26, 2016 12:09 PM »
Schopenhauer was highly influenced by Buddhism. TWAWAR really helps with reading Nietzsche, who a lot of people say's work was in large part a response to.

will provide a more articulate opinion later
I look forward to it.

Also did you make that comic?

Far be it from me to decide how any man uses his penis to best effect. I see no problem with fellows joining together in merry union, nor with them befriending the boys and making good pederasty. But whither the egg? While the sperms fly and mingle gaily in the air, should it be left to sour in the womb? Can such a thing stand in perpetua? I think we need to rethink our priorities here.
Is this a snowclone? It sounds vaguely familiar.

Offline d-floe
Male
  • *
  • Prince Bel of Fresh Air
  • 601 posts
  • 102
    • Kizuuunami on Skype
    • Website
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #18 on: January 26, 2016 12:12 PM »
i didnt ask to be alive so fuck it why not

Offline rtil
  • *
  • ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • 25,088 posts
  • 626
  • Awards IRCOP: this user is a moderator on the irc! PIZZABABY SUPPORTER: this member donated to zhi's pizzababy! OLD SCHOOL: registered before '09
    • rtil_yep on Skype
    • http://www.thebackalleys.com
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
« Reply #19 on: January 26, 2016 02:28 PM »
I think if people took the suffering inflicted upon them by the genetic lottery, like hereditary diseases and such, seriously, they wouldn't procreate outside a "designer child" scenario. I'm not completely sold on the AN position but I did inherit enough bad genes to know not to pass them on if there's a chance they could be expressed. Maybe eugenics isn't the right word.
i have heard of abstaining from procreation partly for reasons due to bad genetics, and also heard of people getting abortions after finding out their child will/most likely suffer from some kind of terrible disease or syndrome through ultrasound or however they do this now instead of bringing the child to term and willingly allow it to suffer which i find absolutely disgusting. it's one thing not knowing, but knowing your child will inescapably suffer, never have the same opportunities you did, and possibly live that way for many years is worse than negligence.

[/quote]
Agreed about the selfish part. AN thinking would deem those people to be in fact far less selfish than those procreating, which I also agree with, especially with environmental factors. A major problem imo is parents in those same developing nations waiting until the tail end of fertility, or even longer with oocyte cryopreservation (egg freezing), before having children. Technology is progressing (or at least obsolescing) so fast that the generation gap even between people born two or three years apart is significant. I don't think the psychological harm inflicted on a child whose parent, for all intents and purposes, was born in the stone age, is negligible, when their (the parents') ability to help their child navigate the socio-economic landscape is diminished significantly. People want to have their career cake and eat their children too. I think they should have to choose.[/quote]
it's a unique time that we live in that this is happening, but you and i passed that generational gap in some sense if we were to hypothetically have children. even though we aren't necessarily savvy to the lingo and zeitgeist of your average 12 year old, we do use the same technology and we're better at it, too. because we grew up with it rapidly changing before our eyes we had the benefit of being forced to quickly re-learn what we knew while at the same time being in a situation where we were forced to fix things on our own because our parents grew up with typewriters instead of computers.

i've noticed most people around 10+ years younger than myself, while glued to their phones and any piece of technology they can get their hands on that allows them to socialize and waste time, have the basic instinct of taking something to the Geek Squad the second it "breaks". basically they've grown up in an era of technology where the internals seemed off limits and never bothered. they're good at adopting but not at adapting. but this is way off topic.

Quote
Speaking of which, does anyone else think parenthood should be a licensed profession? I agree with crazy Canadian youtube cult philosopher king here:

Quote from: Stefan Molyneux
Deep down, I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there - the same way that I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century.
sometimes i wonder what things would be like if there was some kind of required training for parenthood before or after the pregnancy. but that implies that you could fail the test, the qualifications of the test are somewhat arbitrary, and the introduction of the test is a form of eugenics.

deciding what goes on the test/how you qualify would be really difficult to pin down. if i was to put one together i'd try to do it from a purely utilitarian viewpoint - asking the potential parents questions about their daily life, workload, income, then showing how much the child will cost you and what you'll have to change in order to afford the child or if they even can. basically trying to do everything to convince the couple to not have a child if it appears that doing so would diminish the quality of life of both the parents and the child.

but if they wanted to still have one anyway i wouldn't try to stop them. just thinking about eugenics makes me feel like a redditor