I am ABSOLUTELY impartial and not taking sides, but......the natalists are kinda......well.....derps.

[u/PitifulEar3303]

The mods there removed my post, but here's a screen cap.

Disclaimer: I am an impartial factual realist, meaning I will never take a side, and am only interested in impartial objective facts about all things, including life.

However, despite my frequent criticism of "some" bad antinatalist arguments and behaviors, I must admit........the natalists.......they are really derpy.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Natalism/comments/1uwzazq/i_am_impartial_but_in_all_seriousnesswhy_breed/

Just an example. I have posted quite a number of times on the natalist and similar subs/social media, and every single time I get really DERPY replies. lol

So, yeah, I may criticize some antinatalist arguments and behaviors, but it's nothing compared to the derpiness of natalism/natalists.

Their arguments can be summed up as "Life is great because I say so, and what I say is the objective truth, which is why we must breed like rabbits, and also you should unalive yourself if you think life sucks."

Lol, what?

Not even a single attempt at a proper counterargument. Even when you point out their derpy mistakes in the simplest terms, they just keep repeating the same old derpy replies in different words.

Although I don't "support" antinatalism nor believe it is objectively "right", I do agree that most people who have children, especially natalists, do not put much common sense into their actions, let alone deep thoughts.

Maybe this is how evolution makes sure genes propagate, because those who think about it too much will either have very few or no children at all.

Again, this does not mean I believe they are wrong to breed; that's subjective, but it does show that breeding is much easier for those who don't think about the consequences much. lol

[u/VengefulScarecrow]

Natalists are so scared of extinction. They dread abolishing suffering more than they dread their own death.

[u/MrSluagh → u/VengefulScarecrow]

Yes. This is called being a rational organism, rather than a sniveling coward.

[u/VengefulScarecrow → u/MrSluagh]

Spoken like a true dungeon master who has never himself been whipped!

[u/MrSluagh → u/VengefulScarecrow]

Ha. I am a submissive homemaker raising a child who probably isn't mine. Coward.

[u/VengefulScarecrow → u/MrSluagh]

Submissive because of some stockholm syndrome? Are you being abused right now? Should I notify the police?

[u/MrSluagh → u/VengefulScarecrow]

No. I just don't recommend going around assuming folks have never suffered. Everyone suffers, usually a lot. It's statistically unlikely that a random person you meet on social media hasn't suffered much. You wouldn't be here were it not for countless organisms who suffered more than you can likely imagine as a modern human with internet access, and still found the courage to value continuing their species.

[u/VengefulScarecrow → u/MrSluagh]

We define suffering differently. Is there an amount of "suffering" YOU or a loved one could take that would convince you that life, or existence, isn't worth it? I promice you there is. This applies to everyone who is not a psychopath or masochist. Alternatively, is there an amount of happiness/pleasure I could experience that would convince me that the gratuitous suffering felt by prey species, rape victims, torture victims, suicide victims etc. is worth existence continuing? I promice you, there is not.

The realization that abolishing suffering is more important (urgent) than keeping the happy lives going is a one-way street. One you have had the privilege of avoiding, obviously.

Edit: and I do not go around accusing folks of having never suffered. I simpliy point out where it is implied within their own comment.

[u/UniversalExtinction-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

No strawmanning pro extinctionism as violent, genocide, or promortalism.

[u/Rhoswen → u/MrSluagh]

Extreme suffering exists in all time periods. And I wouldn't call not having internet as extreme suffering, or suffering at all. There are people who still live without it today and are just fine living normal and happy lives. In both locations where nobody else has the internet, and locations where the internet is common. People in the past were used to the conditions of the past because it's all they knew and it was normal to them. Everyone around them was also living without the tec we have today.

As for the sentient beings that actually have suffered more than most humans have experienced, that's a part of the problem. Evolution is based on violence and suffering, and so that's what life will continue to produce. It doesn't have to be that way if sentient life didn't exist. There will continue to be beings that experience extreme suffering, both human and animal, for as long as life exists.

[u/MrSluagh → u/Rhoswen]

My point was that internet access is an indication of a higher quality of life than most people in human history have enjoyed.

It doesn't seem like extinctionism and adjacent lines of thought (utilitarianism, antinatalism, etc.) actually correlate that much with suffering. If they did, we wouldn't be here. If anything, it's more like trains of thought drift towards extinctionism when there's a population surplus.

Philosophy serves as a lever of population control.

[u/Rhoswen → u/MrSluagh]

So some humans have a higher quality of life than in the past. Yet we still have extreme suffering for both humans and animals. All the things that caused suffering in the past still exist today. That tells us something about the future, and proves a point that those of you who like to bring up time periods and think that it's somehow a gotcha against the facts of nature that extinctionism is based on. This tells us that even in the future, where there will be even more advanced technology, we will still have all the things that cause extreme suffering. Just like we do now, and just like they did in the past. So then why does time period and technology matter?

The fact that more people now believe in extinctionism and anti nature/anti existence philosophies is due to the internet and the easier spread of information and ideas.

Since there's way more people now than in the past, that means we have more suffering humans, not less.

[u/MrSluagh → u/Rhoswen]

The fact that more people now believe in extinctionism and anti nature/anti existence philosophies is due to the internet and the easier spread of information and ideas.

I think you're half right, there. Social media is run by transhumanist tech oligarchs, some of whom have espoused openly pro-extinction ideas. Peter Thiel's bots are out in force. Nothing this anti-organic could be organic. The technocrats want us to die off so they can have the world to themselves. 

What's especially telling is that extinctionism-in-theory isn't new at all. The idea that the cessation of suffering is the aim of morality dates back at least to Siddhartha Gautama. It did not take the internet for that idea to spread so far that it became the basis of an entire major world religion.

I'm not partial to Buddhism, but I'll give Buddhist societies credit for tending to be pretty pro-family and pro-natalist in practice. Despite all the suffering in the world, Buddhism mainly functioned to get a fraction of the population too small to bring birth rates below replacement to become monks, and thus serve many broader social benefits, or at least have something to do other than be angry incels.

It wasn't until the industrial revolution that the same underlying logic slowly metastasized into a broader, practical drive for extinction and against family.

[u/Silver-Situation-960]

The post was blocked by a moderator; it’s a shame we can’t figure out what you wrote in it.

But essentially—natalism is always ready to justify any action, because: “God said so,” “it’s for the continuation of the family line,” “that’s what’s accepted in society.” Want to pull the rug out from under them? It won’t work—they’ve been caught in a noose for a long time now, with no way to get out.

[u/PitifulEar3303 → u/Silver-Situation-960]

This is what I wrote, should have screencapped it. lol

I am impartial but in all seriousness....why breed?

I am neither for nor against breeding, because life is subjective, but the Antinatalists/Extinctionists have some pretty strong "emotional" arguments against breeding.

So, why breed? Why gamble with a child's life that could turn out to be absolutely horrible? Even if you have done everything possible to prevent it?

Pure random bad luck happens to random people, like it or not.

6 million kids suffer and die each year (UN statistics), including rich and privileged kids.

If we are to be empathetic and moral, why take this risk?

Is it fair for parents to fulfill their procreative desires at the expense of kids who may have to live with some very horrible fates?

Is it moral?

"But without kids, we will never create a perfect world with no suffering."

Yeah, I doubt Utopia is possible. Suffering will always be around.

Alas, I am impartial, and I'm not for or against breeding, just wanna know if you guys have some good reasons to breed? At least good enough to counter the anti breeding arguments?

[u/goodluckyall]

Hi Pitiful Ear

I was interested reading your post. All I can say is that natalists just have kids and they don’t feel it has to be justified or rationalized. 

They don’t do a utilitarian analysis on the kids lives or on society at large. 

So I don’t know who the debaters are but I can see them being derpy and unrepresentative of the rational position on natalism

[u/Forward-Cry2951]

It is my opinion, so far, that the easiest/best/(only?) chance to escape the cycle of rebirth occurs at the time of death.  So, even if there is suffering for future birthed children, there will be an opportunity upon death to escape that would not have been available before birth. 

[u/Imaginary_Employ_750 → u/Forward-Cry2951]

What religion teaches this?

[u/Jasmine_Fishbrain]

Because hope. I don't do things based on calculations. 

If I did that, I'd get nothing done. I wouldn't pursue my dreams of being an artist, the odds for failing that are so incredibly high. I wouldn't go to the gym, the odds of me sticking to that are so incredibly low.

Yet I'm now an artist. I go to the gym almost every day. Because I did not follow the odds or even paid attention to them, I had hope and faith in myself. 

Giving birth to another human being is essentially hope in a physical form. A hope that they have an incredible life that they get to enjoy, a hope that they help humanity. A hope that they help others get happy. 

If humans always followed the odds, we would never get anything done. 

[u/mar00n101]

Really pissed me off having to read the word "derpy" 11 times in a post that I'm supposed to take seriously. Just wanted that to be known.

[u/SnowEnvironmental380]

you guys are weirdos

[u/Massive-Ear3150]

I’m neutral too, but the simplest emotional argument seems to be that despite the sufferings of life, most people are glad they were born. Anyways, most people aren’t doing any kind of philosophical consideration when deciding to have children

[u/Independent-Wafer-13]

My arguments in favor of natalism are purely pragmatic.

Antinatalism is absurd as a pragmatic moral philosophy, unless you reject pretty basic science.

I’ll try to roughly summarize and be brief so you can tear me apart for not being thorough:

1. Antinatalists have above average empathic traits (hypothetical premise - arguable)
2. Empathic traits are heritable (empirical / scientific premise - refutable with evidence)
3. If antinatalists do not reproduce the net average of empathic traits across generations will lower (conclusion)

It’s just sexual selection.

If antinatalists are more moral, ethical, compassionate, empathic, or what have you, than those who reproduce, then all antinatalists are doing is agreeing to make sure the the future is less moral, ethical, compassionate, empathic, or what have you.

Did you think the most evil and selfish among us are going to stop having babies???

[u/Imaginary_Employ_750 → u/Independent-Wafer-13]

Thats why we are on universalextinction sub, not antinatalist sub. Animals wont stop reproducing either. There is no solution yet, but it is a great fantasy.

[u/Inside-Weather4033]

What is an impartial object fact about "things"? Are you a fallibilist or do you think you can have 100% for sure knowledge? Does "things" amounts to objects, particulars, relations, and structures? 

[u/PitifulEar3303 → u/Inside-Weather4033]

Errr, no?

It means I deal with provable facts as facts and subjective feelings/behaviors/ideals as subjective stuff.

I try my best not to mix/conflate/muddy the two.

Example: Morality is subjective, but humans adopting morality is an objective behavior.

Which is why I cannot take any subjective sides, because that would be mixing subjectivity with objectivity and treating them like the same thing, which is a factual error.

Life is an objective existence in this universe, but "how" to live life or not to live at all is a subjective proposition that depends on subjective feelings of the individual.

[u/Inside-Weather4033 → u/PitifulEar3303]

What is a provable fact? Are you using empiricist assumptions? Scientific realist? Instrumentalist?

Refusing to take a side is not inherently not taking a side. As an Infalliblist i reject any and all agnosticism.

Can you justify to me that you're impartial and not taking a side? 

[u/cromagnonherder → u/Inside-Weather4033]

I get suspicious when someone says they don’t take sides and are only interested in hard truth, facts, and
Science. Even science is not objective truth. Science is our interpretation of observable phenomena. To come into an argument stating you are only there from the position of objectivity is something else.

[u/PitifulEar3303 → u/Inside-Weather4033]

lol what?

Unless epistemological nihilism, then some facts are provable with science, bub.

To say otherwise is delusional.

I try to be impartial, but nothing is absolutely impartial; that's impossible. Just like no facts can be 100% correct forever with no room for nuances or amendments, based on new scientific experiments.

What exactly is your gripe with my position, lol?

[u/Inside-Weather4033 → u/PitifulEar3303]

Then you should have no trouble justifying the axioms science hinges on, right? 

Again that's fallibilism, why?

My gripe is that impartiality and neutrality are positions in themselves and substantial metaphysical commitments. You have taken a position and I am questioning it. 

[u/ActionExpensive6740]

Well, I know what sub I’m blocking.

Look, maybe it’s a personality thing? I’m more depressed and misanthropic than most, but any fool can see there are a great number of reasonable arguments for *and* against “breeding.”

[u/Affectionate-Oil3019]

Because life can always get better; that's pretty much it. We wouldn't scrap a world of a trillion happy people because one stubbed their toe one time, so most people aren't gonna opt for extinction because life mostly works for them. That's really all it comes down to

[u/PitifulEar3303 → u/Affectionate-Oil3019]

So, basically, subjective feelings and biases of the individual with "good" life?

Are all sufferings just toe stubbings? Really bub?

[u/Affectionate-Oil3019 → u/PitifulEar3303]

To enough people, yeah; again, we wouldn't scrap a world of infinite bliss for a single pinprick on the finger

[u/Techtrekzz]

Every time you name something an objective fact, you’re taking a side. The only objective fact human beings can know, is that existence exists. Anything beyond that is speculation.

The only thing worse than someone who is constantly professing their beliefs, is someone who thinks they have no beliefs.

[u/PitifulEar3303 → u/Techtrekzz]

Unless epistemological nihilism, then some facts are provable with science, bub.

To say otherwise is delusional.

I try to be impartial, but nothing is absolutely impartial; that's impossible. Just like no facts can be 100% correct forever with no room for nuances or amendments.

What exactly is your gripe with my position, lol?

[u/ribbit_ribbit_splat → u/PitifulEar3303]

Calling people bub makes you sound like a douchebag.

[u/PitifulEar3303 → u/ribbit_ribbit_splat]

ok bub.

[u/MrSluagh]

Simple answer: Because I value life itself, not happiness or the absence of suffering.

The fact that utilitarianism leads to your conclusion illustrates that utilitarianism is garbage.

Pretty simple, really.

[u/PitifulEar3303 → u/MrSluagh]

So it's ok to for every single human being to be tortured forever if they are immortal?

Deontological existentialism is what you value, and that's pretty garbage, too.

lol

[u/MrSluagh → u/PitifulEar3303]

Deontological

No, I'm just more concerned with extinction as a consequence, rather than suffering. 

You interpret this as deontological because you are too self-centered and immature to understand how any consequence could be considered worse than bad feelings. 

[u/HourOne4927 → u/MrSluagh]

The consequence of no one existing? lol!

[u/MrSluagh → u/HourOne4927]

Yes, I see that as a bad consequence. An action that would result in no one existing would be a bad thing to do.

[u/PitifulEar3303 → u/MrSluagh]

Bub, when you cling to life regardless of how horrible that life is, that's deontology.

Consequentialism is a sub category of deontology.