poolboyg88
Registered Member
There are soft kinds who think that the world is over populated, and we need something like a one child policy, and some areas shouldn't have children at all for awhile. Fair enough.
Then there are these kinds...
Their thinking is that life equals suffering, everyone suffers, and if you aren't suffering, your descendants will inevitably suffer something terrible and so you're directly responsible because you had a part in bringing them into the world, and nothing is worth another persons suffering. Conclusion? Stop people from living, stop people from having children.
So, what are your thoughts on it?
These people are making a lot of assumptions, do they take into account animals who suffer in the wild (should be sterilize them too?). But what get's me is this...
1. Living is bad, and possibly "evil". People should stop living.
2. Hard antinatalists continue on living in order promote their philosophy (youtube videos and whatnot) that people should stop living, and stop propagating.
(shelter, sustenance education, transportation, fuel, etc are required to go on living, in order to promote their ideology. They require other people to live in order for them to promote their message. And those people need new generations, etc, etc.)
3. They're willing to promote "suffering" in order for a "greater good".
So, how many "suffering" people does it take until they say no more? Or what sets their promotion of suffering from that of say the utopianist (who they're so fervently against) that says we can reach a level of civilization where the greatest suffering would be a stubbed toe? :bugeye:
Then there are these kinds...
Their thinking is that life equals suffering, everyone suffers, and if you aren't suffering, your descendants will inevitably suffer something terrible and so you're directly responsible because you had a part in bringing them into the world, and nothing is worth another persons suffering. Conclusion? Stop people from living, stop people from having children.
So, what are your thoughts on it?
These people are making a lot of assumptions, do they take into account animals who suffer in the wild (should be sterilize them too?). But what get's me is this...
1. Living is bad, and possibly "evil". People should stop living.
2. Hard antinatalists continue on living in order promote their philosophy (youtube videos and whatnot) that people should stop living, and stop propagating.
(shelter, sustenance education, transportation, fuel, etc are required to go on living, in order to promote their ideology. They require other people to live in order for them to promote their message. And those people need new generations, etc, etc.)
3. They're willing to promote "suffering" in order for a "greater good".
So, how many "suffering" people does it take until they say no more? Or what sets their promotion of suffering from that of say the utopianist (who they're so fervently against) that says we can reach a level of civilization where the greatest suffering would be a stubbed toe? :bugeye: