Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    2. News

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. News
      2. Red Dead Online
      3. The Armadillo Inn
    1. GTA Online

      1. After Hours
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Crews

      1. Events
      2. Recruitment
    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA Next

    3. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    5. GTA Chinatown Wars

    6. GTA Vice City Stories

    7. GTA Liberty City Stories

    8. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    9. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    12. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Forum Support

    2. Site Suggestions

Sign in to follow this  
Dealux

Anti-natalism

Recommended Posts

j peril
Posted (edited)

 

Yeah, I used the term "deprived", as in the adjective, not "deprive" as in the verb.

As do both of the quoted examples I lifted from the Collins English Dictionary, you mook.

 

(Social Welfare) lacking adequate food, shelter, education, etc

Emphasis mine.

 

We aren't discussing social welfare, so the concept of social deprivation is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

 

You may check the Collins Thesaurus as well, which lists "lacking" (adj) as synonymous with "deprived" (adj):
deprived
adjective poor, disadvantaged, needy, in need, lacking, bereft, destitute, in want, denuded, down at heel, necessitous
And don't forget Random House/Kerner/Webster's more generalized version of the term:
de•prived (dɪˈpraɪvd)
adj.
marked by deprivation; lacking the necessities of life.
Again, I was using the adjective form of the word, notice I interchanged it with "miserable" which is also an adjective.
But all of this is tedious nonsense, superfluous fluff to help you demonstrate your superiority in debate for no other reason than to gloat. Just like life. A lot of repetitive, ultimately purposeless competition all for shallow posturing.

 

 

The basic point is parents are creating needs when needs themselves were never needed.

This is, to be quite frank, nonsensical drivel.

 

It's simply stating that unnecessary needs are being created.
Children, their biological needs, are unnecessary. Men and women do not need children for their survival. They do not need children to subsist. Children are needed for the human species to exist, but continuation of the human species is not necessary. Why must the human species continue to exist? Why must life in general continue to exist? I argue there is no reason to continue other than to continue.

 

In order for someone to decide whether or not they wish to live, they must be in a self-aware state which allows them to rationalise a decision. Personally I believe that any mentally competent consenting adult should be permitted to end their life on their own terms however they wish.

 

Either way, a presupposed outcome for or against the creation of new life is an unsolvable philosophical dilemma because an entirely hypothetical individual is not capable of decision making until it ceases to become hypothetical, at which point the decision of whether it wants to be alive has already been made for it.

 

That was just a long-winded way of saying "We don't care about others' opinions". Another way of saying "I have the ability to make the decision, so I shall impose life, impose a conscious experiment upon another. I shall gamble with another's life because of my position and opinion." It's an inconsiderate, asshole-ish position.
It is objective fact: All sentient, living organisms die, and in the process endure immeasurable amounts of pain and stress. That is the sentence imposed. Just to continue to continue.
Edited by j peril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j peril
Posted (edited)
The basis of the argument:


My unborn child won't be harmed. At all. Additionally my unborn child won't exist to know he/she is missing out on anything.


But on the other hand...


Your born child can be harmed. A lot. Additionally your child can realize it is missing out.


There is obligation to avoid harm. There is no real obligation to exist for enjoyment.



Edit:


This is why Benatar says it's "better never to have been". There is no real need to exist in happiness, but there is need to avoid or prevent harm and injury. Notice the asymmetry.


Edited by j peril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

I honestly think you need to be psychiatrically assessed. If your perception of life is truly that it is full of pain and repetition then there are only two possibilities: there is something wrong in your head, or there is something wrong in your life.

 

There has never been a time in the existence of mankind where life has been easier, softer, and more filled with pleasure than right now. Yet, somehow, it is still to harsh and painful for you. I don't get it. You've thrown around absolutely ridiculous bullsh*t that makes me wonder if I am still responding to a man who gets sad when he drinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j peril
Posted (edited)

I honestly think you need to be psychiatrically assessed. If your perception of life is truly that it is full of pain and repetition then there are only two possibilities: there is something wrong in your head, or there is something wrong in your life.

It's just a critique of life.

 

What is nature? A bone grinding machine. For millions of years animals have chewed, clawed, ripped, digested their way to the top of their respective domains. Humans are no different. It's a vicious, repetitive cycle.

 

Reproduction is driven largely, if not entirely, by irrational, automated behavior, not rational decision-making.

 

 

There has never been a time in the existence of mankind where life has been easier, softer, and more filled with pleasure than right now. Yet, somehow, it is still to harsh and painful for you. I don't get it. You've thrown around absolutely ridiculous bullsh*t that makes me wonder if I am still responding to a man who gets sad when he drinks.

That is opinion. In addition that's coming from someone living inside a bubble. Do you think individuals in Ethiopia feel that way? What about the homeless in America? What about the countless indigenous tribes who have been involuntarily displaced and forced to adopt alternative lifestyles?

 

And now think of all the other animals, the other organisms trapped on this planet with the rapacious humans, gnawing away at the environment.

Edited by j peril

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You may check the Collins Thesaurus as well, which lists "lacking" (adj) as synonymous with "deprived" (adj):

Yes, in the social context (again). Hence the existence of terms such as poor, destitute and down at heel, both of which relate solely to social deprivation, as other synonyms.

 

 

 

And don't forget Random House/Kerner/Webster's more generalized version of the term:

This definition doesn't actually support your assertion, though. "Marked by deprivation" reads as societal context again, which I'd love to reinforce by quoting the definition of "depravation" but this just circularly references back to "deprived".

 

It's telling that none of the three definitions given by Random House for the root word "deprive" (1. to divest of something possessed or enjoyed; dispossess; strip. 2. to keep from possessing or enjoying something withheld: to deprive a child of affection. 3. to remove from office.) corroborates your definition.

 

 

But all of this is tedious nonsense, superfluous fluff

I don't know what amuses me more- the last ditch attempt to try and address critique by casting it if as irrelevant semantics or a mediocre, intellectually bereft early-college-grade token nihilist asserting anything said by another individual is "tedious nonsense" or "superfluous fluff" after doing such a piss poor job of debating.

 

 

That was just a long-winded way of saying "We don't care about others' opinions".

Er, no, It's a glaring logical hole in your argument that you seem entirely incapable of comprehending. Things that are hypothetical don't exist. Things that don't exist can't have opinions. One needs to exist in order to make a decision about whether they wish to exist, so the only way of creating the actual circumstances for that decision to be made is to reproduce. Those opinions are nonexistent in the event that a child does not exist, therefore those opinions cannot be considered because they are nonexistent.

 

That's quite aside from how idiotic the notion of considering nonexistent future opinions is logically. At the time the decision is made, those opinions are both unknown and unknowable. It's basically a monsterous manifestation of hindsight bias.

 

 

It is objective fact: All sentient, living organisms die, and in the process endure immeasurable amounts of pain and stress.

It's difficult to argue this is "objective fact" given it's filled with hyperbolic drivel like "immeasurable". But all I'm left wondering is how you can possibly maintain these positions with any integrity given that you, clearly, exist and have not decided to cease what you, by your own admission, believe is a life filled with nothing but unmitigated suffering? Your own continued existence is effectively proof that you known everything you've said is utter hogwash.

 

 

Do you think individuals in Ethiopia feel that way?

Yeah probably, given that Ethiopia is the shining jewel of economic and social development in sub-Saharan Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chiarii

So, are you about to tell me that in addition to being an anti-natalist, I should also be a vegan?

 

I don't think it's an opinion, I said life has never been easier and I'm guessing that applies to Ethiopia. Not to say that Ethiopians live like me, but to say it's easier for them today than in the past. Then again, I'm not someone who's oblivious to the existence of things like

 

Foreign Aid

Red Cross

UN Peacekeeping

MSF

Charity

 

and a multitude of lesser known efforts that exist today. The quality of life on average, around the globe, has improved. In places like the USA and Europe, it has improved to a level that inspires envy on other continents. Yet to you life is meaningless and painful? This is pathetic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
j peril

So, are you about to tell me that in addition to being an anti-natalist, I should also be a vegan?

 

I don't think it's an opinion, I said life has never been easier and I'm guessing that applies to Ethiopia. Not to say that Ethiopians live like me, but to say it's easier for them today than in the past. Then again, I'm not someone who's oblivious to the existence of things like

 

Foreign Aid

Red Cross

UN Peacekeeping

MSF

Charity

 

and a multitude of lesser known efforts that exist today. The quality of life on average, around the globe, has improved. In places like the USA and Europe, it has improved to a level that inspires envy on other continents. Yet to you life is meaningless and painful? This is pathetic.

 

Yet with all of those agencies the American homeless still exist. Economic and social disparity exist. Disease exists. Threats of nuclear war loom.
Yes, humans have made much progress. In fact the progress still continues. But if anything that is a testament to the insatiability of the beast, the insanity of the whole thing.
Life is never satisfied but always motivated. It's always looking to "improve", or "change", or "evolve". For millennia animals have fought and slaughtered each other, humans included, all in the name of sustenance and progress. All to develop a larger jaw, or sharper teeth, or longer claws to obliterate each other with. Now humans have moved on to technological toys to annihilate each other. It's not a pretty game, and the losers are real people experiencing real trauma.
Just because you may think you have it good now does not mean your possible children will have it the same in the future.
Additionally denying, or even attempting to shame, someone else for views concerning such subject matter is quite disturbing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eutyphro
Posted (edited)

Life is never satisfied but always motivated.

Which is the exact factor to defeat your entire argument. For life to be meaningful it doesn't need to have an 'end point' of full satiation. It's this continual motivation of human beings to create, to share experiences, and to enjoy which makes life good. Even if those experiences are only temporary and don't reach some ultimate point. Reaching this ultimate point would be the exact thing to make life meaningless, wouldn't it?

 

But then again, who knows what will happen when the singularity occurs? We might not be that far away, and it might transform life fundamentally. Or it might lead to our complete destruction. Or both.. But that's something for another topic I guess.

 

Additionally denying, or even attempting to shame, someone else for views concerning such subject matter is quite disturbing.

Anti-natalism is defensible in an intellectually honest way. It's not the viewpoint you take which is disturbing. It's the ignorance you use to defend it.

Edited by Eutyphro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Triple Vacuum Seal
Posted (edited)

@j peril

As humans, we love the struggle/grind. Or in other words, 'we out here' as the popular saying goes. It would be best not to conflate the inherent struggles of life with misery. Misery, depression, suffering, struggling, and coping are all on a spectrum (the latter states being more unavoidable than the former).

 

Happiness vs. misery arguments for procreation are a bit oversimplified. Happiness is more of a temporary high and it can coexist with clinical depression. Contentment vs. misery is a more apt dichotomy, and even that has its deficiencies seeing as one can be in either of those states while still carrying an urge to procreate. Misery is often attributed to avoidable experiences. In fact, sometimes the best parents are those with direct knowledge of such traumas because they can actively steer their offspring clear of certain experiences. It's like guiding someone through a minefield you've already crossed.

 

Not procreating is quite defensible. But anti-natalism in particular is not a very strong argument for deciding against procreating due to its moral basis.

 

More broadly though, as part of the happiness bit, I think it needs to be considered that emotions are endogenously regulated, which means that you can control how happy or sad you are. Even people who are clinically depressed have a degree of control in their emotions.


This is another often downplayed fact indeed. When venturing into the stoic realms of society (ex cons, combat vets, and those from tough circles within sh*t neighborhoods), we commonly see people who are depressed without being miserable.

 

Though it's certainly an unhealthy attitude to some degree, many subcultures don't even acknowledge depression as real suffering and those who are depressed often buy into it kinda and emerge with a degree of fortitude. In fact, that was a mainstream idea back in the old days. Old school depressives suffer in silence for this reason. Depression was seen as an excuse and pity was scarce unlike today.

Edited by Triple Vacuum Seal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.