Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It's not meaninglessness that makes of procreation a moral issue. It's the intense, horrifying suffering that life includes that makes it condemnable. Truly, there's not much to argue, antinatalism is self-evident and it's premisses are very easy to get, it's just the emotional indisposition of some and their innate optimistic biases that make them try all kind of acrobacies to justify this abomination.
Well, In no other situation, one could justify the imposition of unconsented suffering for the sake of futile, unnecessary pleasure. What makes of procreation an exception to this rule? Being against antinatalism is simply being against morality.
I don't think pleasure is futile or unnecessary, or else we'd have to say the same thing about pain. I think that in modern society I'd definitely prefer people not have children than have children, unless they want children, because that's because of overpopulation. Without the overpopulation, in a different world, I could imagine benefits to producing new people even if parents didn't want children that much.
I think new people are to be viewed as tools to assist ourselves. If they improve our lives they should be brought into existence. If they don't improve our lives, they should not. If their lives are of a type that you and I wouldn't want to live them, then they should not be created either...but I think a common flaw of the antinatalist thought process is the view that we're somehow gaining something by not existing. Before we existed, there was no one to gain anything, so I don't think we can say nonexistence is superior to existence, necessarily. Only when we've already existed can nonexistence be superior to existence, I think.
In any case, even if no new life should be created, it's certainly not self-evident that antinatalism is correct or more people would be antinatalists.
I've thought about this heavily, and while I think antinatalism would, generally speaking, be good for society, I'm not an antinatalist because I still see value to new life if that new life is looked at as a useful tool for existing life to use.
I challenge you to tell me one thing in life that isn't just consumption and reproduction. I'm so sick of this meaningless existence that is manipulated by my DNA to consume for the end goal of reproduction (mindless self-replication, thereby imposing this meaningless existence onto another innocent soul). It is always better to never have been born into such an existence.
For me the existence of humans is the most meaningful thing in this universe.You can do many meaningful things in your life,and you have pleasure when you are succeed.Nothing in the world could have these feelings.So,man's existence is the most precious in the world,other existences are just materials which are used for man's existence.
Wrong. You must not have ever bonded with an animal. Animals can play, can be affectionate, can communicate their needs and their state of body and mind, they can be selfless in protecting those they love, they can be clever in learning to work or do tricks for the amusement of others, they can provide comfort to humans that other humans can not. Theories of chakras are just theories. Life experience is the greater truth. Humans can also love and play and be affectionate and cummunicate their state of body and mind, be selfless, honest and courageous and noble. And humans can create art and music and literature, they can land on the moon, they can even create the theory of chakras.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ukrkoz
Look at the seven chakras. Animals do not have 7. They have only 2. Mulhatar and Swadistan. Mulhatar is the sex chakra. Birth is coming from Mulhatar. Swadistan is death chakra. In Japanese it is known as "hara", hence hara-kiri.
What Mulhatar gives, Swadistan takes away.
Animals live only between the two chakras - Mulhatar and Swadistan. They give birth, they have sex, they eat, they die.
Unfortunately, majority of humans live the same way. They do not go past the second chakra, Swadistan. They give birth, they have sex, they eat, they die.
In that respect yes, OP, you are right.
For me the existence of humans is the most meaningful thing in this universe.You can do many meaningful things in your life,and you have pleasure when you are succeed.Nothing in the world could have these feelings.So,man's existence is the most precious in the world,other existences are just materials which are used for man's existence.
But that is a tautology. It is meaningful to you only because of you, not because there is some fundamental meaning to the universe. Your DNA has built you to have a big knot of neural matter that has consciousness, but evolution also has given us the notion of human and self meaning because without it we would all quickly realize, with those big brains of ours, that life really has just one purpose and that is to mix and match genetic material and run it through the evolutionary winnowing process to select for the best. We have evolved to give our selves a sense of meaning, but that in no way means that such meaning exists outside of us.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
