Debates
22 Nov 11
22 Nov 11
I've recently been having a discussion with someone who claims to be an antinatalist. This seems like a delusional standpoint to me. It seems like a convenient philisophical stance for those who feel sorry for themselves. It requires no action on their part, it allows them to accept no blame for their sh11ty lives, and as it is will never happen it is a fool proof excuse for doomsaying tomfoolery.
An i right, or am i missing something rpofound (entirely possible).
Thanks in advance for any responses.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundIt might help if you told us what antinatalism was.
I've recently been having a discussion with someone who claims to be an antinatalist. This seems like a delusional standpoint to me. It seems like a convenient philisophical stance for those who feel sorry for themselves. It requires no action on their part, it allows them to accept no blame for their sh11ty lives, and as it is will never happen it ...[text shortened]... or am i missing something rpofound (entirely possible).
Thanks in advance for any responses.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by rwingettAh, i thought you all would know (or have google).
It might help if you told us what antinatalism was.
Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth. The antinatalists i've come across want the eradication of life through zero procreation, they consider nature to be a flawed creator, and that non existence is prefereable to continuing the cycle of suffering that us part of life itself.
The lines a fuzzy on the final solution depending on who we ask. Some antinatalists also list the suffering of animals among their list of problems with the world, making the eradication of alll life to be the perfect solution...the deeper i go into the argument, the more i fear i'm reaching their tipping point if you want me to be honest.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundWell, there are far too many people on this planet. We could certainly stand to cut our numbers down quite a bit. Antinatalism might just do the trick.
Ah, i thought you all would know (or have google).
Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth. The antinatalists i've come across want the eradication of life through zero procreation, they consider nature to be a flawed creator, and that non existence is prefereable to continuing the cycle of suffering that ...[text shortened]... to the argument, the more i fear i'm reaching their tipping point if you want me to be honest.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundLet's just say that I have some antinatalist sympathies. Human beings are a virus that are destroying the planet. We should act as though we intend to reduce the human population to zero, and then perhaps stop short of that somewhere.
By cutting it from far too many to zero...what trick are we talking about exactly?
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by rwingettNot what an antinatalist agrues though. I'm all for a cure to over population aswell, i just think your idea is attacking the problem from the wrong end...cutting away the deadwood sounds like a better plan to me.
Let's just say that I have some antinatalist sympathies. Human beings are a virus that are destroying the planet. We should act as though we intend to reduce the human population to zero, and then perhaps stop short of that somewhere.
Antinatalism is the eradication of humans as a species through zero procreation, that is what i'm asking about here...thanks for the response though.
Originally posted by rwingettHuman beings couldn't "destroy" the planet if we wanted to. Apocalyptic claims about the destructive impact of human beings are naive, ignorant, arrogant and self-important. Detonate all nukes on the planet, dump all toxic waste in the oceans, and the globe would continue circling around the Sun, and life on Earth would prevail (though humans might not).
Let's just say that I have some antinatalist sympathies. Human beings are a virus that are destroying the planet. We should act as though we intend to reduce the human population to zero, and then perhaps stop short of that somewhere.
As for "antinatalism": people who think they are so terrible should kill themselves or stop whining.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI think you know what I mean.
Human beings couldn't "destroy" the planet if we wanted to. Apocalyptic claims about the destructive impact of human beings are naive, ignorant, arrogant and self-important. Detonate all nukes on the planet, dump all toxic waste in the oceans, and the globe would continue circling around the Sun, and life on Earth would prevail (though humans might not).
22 Nov 11
2 edits
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThumb up thingy
Human beings couldn't "destroy" the planet if we wanted to. Apocalyptic claims about the destructive impact of human beings are naive, ignorant, arrogant and self-important. Detonate all nukes on the planet, dump all toxic waste in the oceans, and the globe would continue circling around the Sun, and life on Earth would prevail (though humans might not) ntinatalism": people who think they are so terrible should kill themselves or stop whining.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by huckleberryhoundPopulation control may certainly desirable to ensure that there are adequate resources to support the people that do exit.
I've recently been having a discussion with someone who claims to be an antinatalist. This seems like a delusional standpoint to me. It seems like a convenient philisophical stance for those who feel sorry for themselves. It requires no action on their part, it allows them to accept no blame for their sh11ty lives, and as it is will never happen it ...[text shortened]... or am i missing something rpofound (entirely possible).
Thanks in advance for any responses.
The ""VHEMT" (Google it) which seems fairly similar to the position you describe is the ultimate end of whacko environmentalism completely run amuck. Sure, it has some superficial appeal:
- Humans cause destruction of the environment
- The environment is good
ergo: Getting rid of humans is good
Here's the itsy bitsy little problem with that: Without humans and perpetuating humanity, who gives a damn what happens to the Earth? If my children and grandchildren are going to be wiped out with the rest of the human race, why should I give a damn as to whether the bacteria and the bugs survive? If my children and society are going to be destroyed, let the Universe get destroyed in a fiery big crunch for all I care.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by sh76So you and your ilk are the center of the universe?
Population control may certainly desirable to ensure that there are adequate resources to support the people that do exit.
The ""VHEMT" (Google it) which seems fairly similar to the position you describe is the ultimate end of whacko environmentalism completely run amuck. Sure, it has some superficial appeal:
- Humans cause destruction of the environment ...[text shortened]... going to be destroyed, let the Universe get destroyed in a fiery big crunch for all I care.
22 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettEven if you goal is to maximize the happiness of all species on Earth, how on Earth would you measure such a thing? We might care that the panda or tiger go extinct, because they are cute and fluffy. But does "nature" care? If we are not there to care about the environment, then who cares about the environment?
So you and your ilk are the center of the universe?
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by rwingettIf by "my ilk" you mean human beings, then we are the "center" of the Earth. The Universe is irrelevant because even by the wildest most outlandish guesses of environmentalists, we cannot possibly hurt life outside of our planet, if it exists.
So you and your ilk are the center of the universe?
As for life on other planets, if it exists, I'm not too worried about their fate at least until we can confirm their existence.
22 Nov 11
Originally posted by sh76So everything on the face of the earth exists for the sole purpose of satisfying human desires? Nothing has any value to it except for how it can be manipulated toward our own purposes?
If by "my ilk" you mean human beings, then we are the "center" of the Earth. The Universe is irrelevant because even by the wildest most outlandish guesses of environmentalists, we cannot possibly hurt life outside of our planet, if it exists.
As for life on other planets, if it exists, I'm not too worried about their fate at least until we can confirm their existence.