I have a very different philosophy that is derived from the same central principle that life=suffering. Perhaps it will help you to inspire purpose and meaning in your own life. Let me know what you think.
It's the video on my channel called "The Meaning of Life".
What a bizzare and difficult to fathom perspective, unless maybe you believe in a soul that would exist even without being brought in to this world? are not the good parts of life worth the bad parts? if you disagree, I think you need a little more wisdom and understanding of yourself.
Giving birth to a child is the most selfish act a human can commit. That child did not ask to be put here. However adoption (especially an older child or teenager) is one of the most selfless acts of humanity. You are taking care of a complete stranger already here,and that child needs someone to give a damn about them.
People always ask me the same question: "If you are against earthly life, why do you not kill yourself?" And my answer is always the same: If you discovered you were aboard a sinking ship, would you immediately abandon ship, or would you first attempt to rouse the other passengers and alert them to the impending catastrophe?
Yep, life's just pain and misery and terror and boohoohoo. Man up dude, you live in a first world country, life is fun, it may be pointless but there's lots of great emotions to be felt and things to be learned and feel good about knowing. A baby born here is going to be much happier than one in Africa, not everyone grows up miserable. And if you think life is such shit strive to make it better for everyone, give your life meaning, help the millions of people you talked about.
@EpicFailureFilms 'Man up' by espousing the exposure to sometimes horrible risks by someone other than myself? If I throw someone into a lion's pit, does that make me more of a man? And your baby statement makes no sense; you're talking generalities. There are plenty of suffering people everywhere. It doesn't matter if not everyone grows up miserable. What matters is that some do, and the shit can hit the fan in ANY life, at ANY time. It's not under our control.
@metamorphhh I agree that using 'man up' was incorrect, I saw your response because I came back to delete the comment and post a new one with that part worded differently. And I know there are people suffering everywhere, and that people will always adjust to the conditions around them and compare themselves to their neighbors no mater how rich or poor, I'm just saying that not ALL babies EVERYWHERE are going to grow up to live lives of depression.
@metamorphhh So does it feel good to advocate an ideology that, if embraced by the world's populace, would cause a worse outcome than if virtually any of the world's religions were?
Bringing someone into this world so they can experience emotions? That makes as much sense as saying we need to create a robot with human-level intelligence because we soon will be able to. What's the point. The robot has no intrinsic need to exist, and neither does a non-existent person. Neither NEED to come into existence because to NEED something it must exist first. The need for another person to exist comes from our own desires, not that person's.
@EpicFailureFilms It has perhaps not occurred to you that the relative comfort you enjoy living in a first world country is procured at the expense of the third world, where another child starves to death every five seconds. The truth may be that far greater courage and vigor, not to mention honesty, is needed to avoid the easy out which your optimism represents; to look squarely at the horrors of existence without cracking a joke, raising a diversion, or grasping at rose-colored cliches.
@EpicFailureFilms "The ideal of Morality has no more dangerous rival than the ideal of highest Strength, of most powerful life; which also has been named (very falsely as it was there meant) the ideal of poetic greatness. It is the maximum of the savage; and has, in these times, gained, precisely among the greatest weaklings, very many proselytes. By this ideal, man becomes a Beast-Spirit, a Mixture; whose brutal wit has, for weaklings, a brutal power of attraction." -- Novalis
Sorry, but I'm not about to let humanity die out like that. This species has accomplished too much and has worked too hard to vanish into extinction in such a cowardly manner as choice of extinction. The possibilities to transcend beyond the petty struggles of life exist and I think humanity can improve its condition both in hardware and software. The technologies have already began to develop, your lack of knowledge clouds a better vision of the future.
We WILL go extinct eventually. Along with literally every atom in this universe. Granted that's an enormous amt of time from now, but still a FINITE # of years. All our accomplishments will fade away too. So what's the point of creating new human lives? Sure, improve the world for people who ALREADY exist, but that's irrelevant to CREATING new humans.
In the end, the only reason to reproduce is EGOTISM - "Humans want it, therefore humans deserve it. End of story!"
"This species has accomplished too much and has worked too hard to vanish into extinction in such a cowardly manner as choice of extinction."
But isn't the cowardice in 'not daring to save others from bondage', because it leads you to admit that your own sweat, blood and tears didn't serve some greater good? It seems absurd, to believe that those we would usher forth would find Heaven on Earth, while, despite all technological advance, we still persist in acting as full-blown beasts.
oh waaah. why don't you cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it!
There are billions of other people in this world that are happy with their existence. In the past hundred years, mankind has more than doubled overall life expectancy from then. and life expectancy has more than tripled since man was little more than a thinking ape, tens of thousands of years ago.
The point is to force the argument of whether existence is justified. If the AN'rs committed suicide the pro-natalists would win the argument--by default there would be no one to oppose them. It's a shallow, sophomoric retort. ANs have every right to make the case that it would be better no to exist. If the best the PNs can do is advocate that those who disagree commit suicide it simply reveals that have no case and that the argument makes them uncomfortable, i.e., they would rather NOT have it.
You cannot look at life from this objective viewpoint, but then add the subjective quality of "suffering" to your world model, give it a negative value that trumps all other values and claim that your model would still be objective. It is not. Your model is distorted by this negative value you attribute to suffering. It is not objective, it is subjective and thereby arbitrary. It does not describe reality accurately.
Are you denying that there are lives that are more suffering than enjoyment? If not, then I question your moral objectivity: if it's OK for miserable lives to be created for the unnecessary creation of new happy lives, aslong as you believe the bad and good to be in balance, is it then - by the same logic - also not OK to murder innocent people, aslong as you minimally save a person's life (prolonging it beyong it's intended fate) for each you terminated (shortening it ~)?
I am not in the position to judge whether someone is suffering or not. That can only be decided by each one individually. I cannot look into people's heads and decide for them that they are suffering too much and should therefore not live anymore.
If someone is suffering so much, that he can't endure it anymore, so that he wants to end his own life, then that's his own decision not mine.
How generous: for those who can't take it to jump the hurdles of life anymore, you offer them to jump over the highest hurdle of all (i.e., to attack one's own life), to land into oblivion thereafter. And what for? Why not prevent soultearing dilemmas like these altogether? Is there any life that you can predict to be worth the collateral misery?
"I am not in the position to judge whether someone is suffering or not" is a cop-out; you are very well in position to observe.
>Are you denying that there are lives that are more suffering than enjoyment?
No, i am not..
Are you denying that most human beings want to stay alive nevertheless?
The desire to stay alive is just as subjective as suffering. So, if you say that most people are suffering and should therefore not live, you could just as well say that most people have the desire to stay alive and should therefore live. Both,the desire to stay alive and the feeling of suffering are equally subjective.
"Are you denying that most human beings want to stay alive nevertheless?"
Certainly not; and that is a good reason to KEEP those others alive, yes. But it is an equally good reason for keeping new people FROM coming into life, as despite our most profound desires to stay alive at almost all costs,
True and therefore all individual suffering is finite too. The price we pay for taking the risk of allowing life can only be finite. How do you want to know that we can't improve our conditions one day, so that the amount of suffering can be largely reduced?
Aside from knowing man's nature well enough that the opposite is more likely (already we live in times where non-age related mortality worldwide dwarfs that of all ages before the twentieth century), I don't see the point of extending the problem, to only reduce it in size. not to mention that it's a macabre legacy to have the future built upon a mountain of corpses.
Besides, the probability that there are thousands of other planets in the universe that are also full of life and suffering is rather high.
If you end only all life on this planet, then you only prevent all future suffering on this planet. What about the other planets? If we would keep evolving we could one day be in the position to not just end life on this planet, but also other planets in the universe. You are denying responsibility for suffering on other planets by giving up now
Let me explain: the chances of life to appear on a suitable planet are astronomically small (life on Earth took about 2 billion year to appear) and only a tiny minority of planets are projected to be suitable to life. On top of that, life capable of feeling pain has an astronomically small chance to evolve (almost was avoided on earth, wasn't it for that "snowball" period that rebooted natural selection, but came about 1.5 to 2 ...
... billion years after "genesis"). and as if that is not unlikely enough, intelligent life, capable of resenting and dreading its fate have an astronomically small of an astronomically small of an astronomically small chance of appearing (aside from hominids being about only 5 million year old, and humans only half a million years old, we are the only human species - and subspecies! - that has not vanished yet, from the many once in play).
[continued] 3. My seven-year-old self is already dead; his cells are not mine. More to the point, he never really existed in the first place. Which body part would he have had to lose in order to no longer be himself? He's lost them all, technically. Suicide doesn't solve the problem, because the problem isn't that people suffer -- it's that negative chemical reactions occur on Earth.
2. It's a messy, depressing, anxiety-inducing, horrific business -- and certainly not government-regulated. As said in the video, it's contra our self-preservation instincts.
I honestly think that deep down inside, I long for death's quiet mercy... but with that said, I think I'll try to enjoy life's noisy insanity for as long as I can get away with it. :)
Haha, I was going to write a devil's advocate argument about how not having kids doesn't allow them the chance to experience joy, and how we should strive to make life better for others, but then the 30 seconds of open air at the end of the video just made me laugh too much to care.
also, the vast majority of suicide attempts are not successful and many end up permanently disabled leaving them in a situation worse off than before. and if you were to kill yourself, who would be left to convince other people not to procreate?
Anyways, I don't see how realising that life is tragic equates to wanting to die. To me (and obviously, also to the billions being delusional over it), death is what makes life pointless. All you've achieved, all you've gathered, all you love and all you know; it all vanishes. Life is one long struggle from inexistence to inexistence. With death, all one has endured through life proves to be for naught.
And, without exception, all who live, die eventually.
That's absurd. Think about the meaning of "purpose". Does it imply that something has to exist forever in order to have a purpose? No, it doesn't. Something can have a purpose for a limited time and then it loses its purpose or it gets a new purpose, but for that limited time it served its purpose nevertheless.
A "purpose" you didn't choose for yourself, is as pointless to you as a wolf's taste for sheep flesh is to a sheep. And what point is there in having been the wolf? You wouldn't have liked sheep flesh if you hadn't been and won't when you no longer are; you only like to indulge your instincts, because someone before you did as much, just as did someone before him and her and so on. Such "purpose" comes from nowhere and goes nowhere & I don't like to be a disposable product.
@Bazompora Very well put, that is EXACTLY it, death is what takes away the value of life, everything we do is washed away in the flow of time including our very essence, we flicker into existance like a candle and inevitably get snuffed out and our light served no purpose because eventually even the room the candle was in will also get snuffed out of existance.
@BeardedBill86 Mmmm, that's not really the AN argument. That's the nihilist argument, i.e., that life is meaningless because it ends in nothingness, which is ancillary to the AN position. The AN argument rests solely upon the suffering & pain inherent in this life combined with the low probability that a sentient being will overcome those odds. There's nothing wrong with overlaying nihilism on top of that but it's not the core argument.
Nobody asks to come into this world. Frankly, I don't want to bring anyone into this world. They can't consent to come into this world. Besides, humanity's gonna go extinct one day anyway (read about "proton decay" on an astronomy website). So why reproduce in the first place?
Besides, I disagree with too much of human nature for me to contribute my sperm to humanity's upkeep.
I'm not sure I could have said it any better. The Sun, will for one eventually explode. Like Jim said in the part 1 video, there will eventually be a last generation. So why the need for reproduce with all the chaos in the world.
Life can be sad sometimes, but now that you're here, you should try to enjoy your life as much as possible. Because everyone will die one day, sooner or later. When you're enjoying your life, life seems short. When you're not having a good time, life seems to drag on..and on.. So have a good time.
This has been flagged as spam show
I have a very different philosophy that is derived from the same central principle that life=suffering. Perhaps it will help you to inspire purpose and meaning in your own life. Let me know what you think.
It's the video on my channel called "The Meaning of Life".
jlhe2011 1 month ago
Your argument is illogical.
Both suicide and natural death harms people around you.
If you really think humanity should die (slowly) what does it mater if you do it faster?
Take your own life and probably take as many life as you can with you.
Not suiciding goes against your own beliefs, it makes no sense.
DogsneedpIeasuretoo 3 months ago in playlist More videos from metamorphhh
@theantinatalist
What a bizzare and difficult to fathom perspective, unless maybe you believe in a soul that would exist even without being brought in to this world? are not the good parts of life worth the bad parts? if you disagree, I think you need a little more wisdom and understanding of yourself.
NoTrueFace1 4 months ago
Giving birth to a child is the most selfish act a human can commit. That child did not ask to be put here. However adoption (especially an older child or teenager) is one of the most selfless acts of humanity. You are taking care of a complete stranger already here,and that child needs someone to give a damn about them.
RetroJenny 4 months ago
If suicide is cowardly, how much more so is the fear of death?
Silenus6 6 months ago
People always ask me the same question: "If you are against earthly life, why do you not kill yourself?" And my answer is always the same: If you discovered you were aboard a sinking ship, would you immediately abandon ship, or would you first attempt to rouse the other passengers and alert them to the impending catastrophe?
Silenus6 6 months ago
That´s some great videos.
PeterRoeder31 6 months ago
well we mind as well go kill all the animals, plants, in fact lets just nuke this fucker hahahaha
KRAZYKALA16 6 months ago
Comment removed
EpicFailureFilms 7 months ago
Yep, life's just pain and misery and terror and boohoohoo. Man up dude, you live in a first world country, life is fun, it may be pointless but there's lots of great emotions to be felt and things to be learned and feel good about knowing. A baby born here is going to be much happier than one in Africa, not everyone grows up miserable. And if you think life is such shit strive to make it better for everyone, give your life meaning, help the millions of people you talked about.
Be happy :)
EpicFailureFilms 7 months ago
@EpicFailureFilms 'Man up' by espousing the exposure to sometimes horrible risks by someone other than myself? If I throw someone into a lion's pit, does that make me more of a man? And your baby statement makes no sense; you're talking generalities. There are plenty of suffering people everywhere. It doesn't matter if not everyone grows up miserable. What matters is that some do, and the shit can hit the fan in ANY life, at ANY time. It's not under our control.
metamorphhh 7 months ago 9
@metamorphhh I agree that using 'man up' was incorrect, I saw your response because I came back to delete the comment and post a new one with that part worded differently. And I know there are people suffering everywhere, and that people will always adjust to the conditions around them and compare themselves to their neighbors no mater how rich or poor, I'm just saying that not ALL babies EVERYWHERE are going to grow up to live lives of depression.
Continued...
EpicFailureFilms 7 months ago
Comment removed
EpicFailureFilms 7 months ago
Comment removed
EpicFailureFilms 6 months ago
Comment removed
EpicFailureFilms 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@metamorphhh
...my response to your response continued (originally made a month ago but forgot to make it a reply instead of just a comment)...
I think stopping anyone from ever living again solely based on the idea that they'll even PROBABLY be sad is dumb is all I'm trying to say.
EpicFailureFilms 6 months ago
@metamorphhh So does it feel good to advocate an ideology that, if embraced by the world's populace, would cause a worse outcome than if virtually any of the world's religions were?
TheLockon00 1 month ago
@EpicFailureFilms
Bringing someone into this world so they can experience emotions? That makes as much sense as saying we need to create a robot with human-level intelligence because we soon will be able to. What's the point. The robot has no intrinsic need to exist, and neither does a non-existent person. Neither NEED to come into existence because to NEED something it must exist first. The need for another person to exist comes from our own desires, not that person's.
filrabat 7 months ago 2
@EpicFailureFilms It has perhaps not occurred to you that the relative comfort you enjoy living in a first world country is procured at the expense of the third world, where another child starves to death every five seconds. The truth may be that far greater courage and vigor, not to mention honesty, is needed to avoid the easy out which your optimism represents; to look squarely at the horrors of existence without cracking a joke, raising a diversion, or grasping at rose-colored cliches.
Silenus6 6 months ago
@EpicFailureFilms "The ideal of Morality has no more dangerous rival than the ideal of highest Strength, of most powerful life; which also has been named (very falsely as it was there meant) the ideal of poetic greatness. It is the maximum of the savage; and has, in these times, gained, precisely among the greatest weaklings, very many proselytes. By this ideal, man becomes a Beast-Spirit, a Mixture; whose brutal wit has, for weaklings, a brutal power of attraction." -- Novalis
Silenus6 6 months ago
Comment removed
EpicFailureFilms 7 months ago
Comment removed
EpicFailureFilms 7 months ago
Sorry, but I'm not about to let humanity die out like that. This species has accomplished too much and has worked too hard to vanish into extinction in such a cowardly manner as choice of extinction. The possibilities to transcend beyond the petty struggles of life exist and I think humanity can improve its condition both in hardware and software. The technologies have already began to develop, your lack of knowledge clouds a better vision of the future.
Plasmon19 7 months ago
@Plasmon19
We WILL go extinct eventually. Along with literally every atom in this universe. Granted that's an enormous amt of time from now, but still a FINITE # of years. All our accomplishments will fade away too. So what's the point of creating new human lives? Sure, improve the world for people who ALREADY exist, but that's irrelevant to CREATING new humans.
In the end, the only reason to reproduce is EGOTISM - "Humans want it, therefore humans deserve it. End of story!"
filrabat 7 months ago
@Plasmon19
"This species has accomplished too much and has worked too hard to vanish into extinction in such a cowardly manner as choice of extinction."
But isn't the cowardice in 'not daring to save others from bondage', because it leads you to admit that your own sweat, blood and tears didn't serve some greater good? It seems absurd, to believe that those we would usher forth would find Heaven on Earth, while, despite all technological advance, we still persist in acting as full-blown beasts.
Bazompora 7 months ago
takes all kinds
zEropoint68 7 months ago
oh waaah. why don't you cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it!
There are billions of other people in this world that are happy with their existence. In the past hundred years, mankind has more than doubled overall life expectancy from then. and life expectancy has more than tripled since man was little more than a thinking ape, tens of thousands of years ago.
emperorkang 7 months ago
Excellent to see a fellow antinatalist who has written a book on the topic. Keep up the good work.
trick0171 8 months ago
The point is to force the argument of whether existence is justified. If the AN'rs committed suicide the pro-natalists would win the argument--by default there would be no one to oppose them. It's a shallow, sophomoric retort. ANs have every right to make the case that it would be better no to exist. If the best the PNs can do is advocate that those who disagree commit suicide it simply reveals that have no case and that the argument makes them uncomfortable, i.e., they would rather NOT have it.
eschatonicus 8 months ago
You cannot look at life from this objective viewpoint, but then add the subjective quality of "suffering" to your world model, give it a negative value that trumps all other values and claim that your model would still be objective. It is not. Your model is distorted by this negative value you attribute to suffering. It is not objective, it is subjective and thereby arbitrary. It does not describe reality accurately.
xknowledgeisfreex 9 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex
Are you denying that there are lives that are more suffering than enjoyment? If not, then I question your moral objectivity: if it's OK for miserable lives to be created for the unnecessary creation of new happy lives, aslong as you believe the bad and good to be in balance, is it then - by the same logic - also not OK to murder innocent people, aslong as you minimally save a person's life (prolonging it beyong it's intended fate) for each you terminated (shortening it ~)?
Bazompora 9 months ago
@Bazompora
I am not in the position to judge whether someone is suffering or not. That can only be decided by each one individually. I cannot look into people's heads and decide for them that they are suffering too much and should therefore not live anymore.
If someone is suffering so much, that he can't endure it anymore, so that he wants to end his own life, then that's his own decision not mine.
xknowledgeisfreex 9 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex
How generous: for those who can't take it to jump the hurdles of life anymore, you offer them to jump over the highest hurdle of all (i.e., to attack one's own life), to land into oblivion thereafter. And what for? Why not prevent soultearing dilemmas like these altogether? Is there any life that you can predict to be worth the collateral misery?
"I am not in the position to judge whether someone is suffering or not" is a cop-out; you are very well in position to observe.
Bazompora 9 months ago
@Bazompora
Still better than offering them no choice at all, even if it can be a high hurdle to take ones own life.
xknowledgeisfreex 9 months ago
@Bazompora
>Are you denying that there are lives that are more suffering than enjoyment?
No, i am not..
Are you denying that most human beings want to stay alive nevertheless?
The desire to stay alive is just as subjective as suffering. So, if you say that most people are suffering and should therefore not live, you could just as well say that most people have the desire to stay alive and should therefore live. Both,the desire to stay alive and the feeling of suffering are equally subjective.
xknowledgeisfreex 9 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex
"Are you denying that most human beings want to stay alive nevertheless?"
Certainly not; and that is a good reason to KEEP those others alive, yes. But it is an equally good reason for keeping new people FROM coming into life, as despite our most profound desires to stay alive at almost all costs,
nobody born, stays alive.
Bazompora 9 months ago
@Bazompora
>nobody born, stays alive.
True and therefore all individual suffering is finite too. The price we pay for taking the risk of allowing life can only be finite. How do you want to know that we can't improve our conditions one day, so that the amount of suffering can be largely reduced?
xknowledgeisfreex 9 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex
Aside from knowing man's nature well enough that the opposite is more likely (already we live in times where non-age related mortality worldwide dwarfs that of all ages before the twentieth century), I don't see the point of extending the problem, to only reduce it in size. not to mention that it's a macabre legacy to have the future built upon a mountain of corpses.
Bazompora 9 months ago
@Bazompora
Besides, the probability that there are thousands of other planets in the universe that are also full of life and suffering is rather high.
If you end only all life on this planet, then you only prevent all future suffering on this planet. What about the other planets? If we would keep evolving we could one day be in the position to not just end life on this planet, but also other planets in the universe. You are denying responsibility for suffering on other planets by giving up now
xknowledgeisfreex 9 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex
Oh, I know that argument already ... ^ ^
Let me explain: the chances of life to appear on a suitable planet are astronomically small (life on Earth took about 2 billion year to appear) and only a tiny minority of planets are projected to be suitable to life. On top of that, life capable of feeling pain has an astronomically small chance to evolve (almost was avoided on earth, wasn't it for that "snowball" period that rebooted natural selection, but came about 1.5 to 2 ...
Bazompora 9 months ago
@Bazompora
... billion years after "genesis"). and as if that is not unlikely enough, intelligent life, capable of resenting and dreading its fate have an astronomically small of an astronomically small of an astronomically small chance of appearing (aside from hominids being about only 5 million year old, and humans only half a million years old, we are the only human species - and subspecies! - that has not vanished yet, from the many once in play).
And why should we be wasting count- ...
Bazompora 9 months ago
@Bazompora
...less human lives, to stand watch over the universe and find nothing for aeons, before being violently destroyed by cosmic forces ourselves?
And if, by astronomically unlikely astronomical unlikely astronomical unlikely bad luck, intelligent life that suffers has emerged somewhere:
• what greater responsibility do we have towards beings whose fate we never influenced, than to our own victims?
• their problems could be solved through their own intelligence or a cataclism.
Bazompora 9 months ago
some of my family members voted for Bush, twice!! they are dead to me....
mrzack888 11 months ago
[continued] 3. My seven-year-old self is already dead; his cells are not mine. More to the point, he never really existed in the first place. Which body part would he have had to lose in order to no longer be himself? He's lost them all, technically. Suicide doesn't solve the problem, because the problem isn't that people suffer -- it's that negative chemical reactions occur on Earth.
LeavingSociety 1 year ago
Reasons to not commit suicide:
1. It would cause your family to suffer.
2. It's a messy, depressing, anxiety-inducing, horrific business -- and certainly not government-regulated. As said in the video, it's contra our self-preservation instincts.
LeavingSociety 1 year ago
I honestly think that deep down inside, I long for death's quiet mercy... but with that said, I think I'll try to enjoy life's noisy insanity for as long as I can get away with it. :)
Thanks for speaking up about these things, Jim.
FourthDerivative 1 year ago
Beautiful application of the ol' "misery loves company".
TheBestInterest 1 year ago
animal instinct or reason? which one is easier to live with?
beastinblack 1 year ago
Comment removed
lex798 1 year ago
leaving this world is leaving hell!!
GriefTourist 1 year ago
@GriefTourist Yes!!!
SightseerLounge 1 year ago
Comment removed
lex798 1 year ago
Haha, I was going to write a devil's advocate argument about how not having kids doesn't allow them the chance to experience joy, and how we should strive to make life better for others, but then the 30 seconds of open air at the end of the video just made me laugh too much to care.
KingRooster 1 year ago
@KingRooster
Ridicule is for those whose arguments otherwise lack force. It's also a sign you're uncouth and uncultured
filrabat 1 year ago
@filrabat
nah, that's not true at all.
KingRooster 1 year ago
also, the vast majority of suicide attempts are not successful and many end up permanently disabled leaving them in a situation worse off than before. and if you were to kill yourself, who would be left to convince other people not to procreate?
leiapeison 2 years ago
Those who are allready convinced?
Anyways, I don't see how realising that life is tragic equates to wanting to die. To me (and obviously, also to the billions being delusional over it), death is what makes life pointless. All you've achieved, all you've gathered, all you love and all you know; it all vanishes. Life is one long struggle from inexistence to inexistence. With death, all one has endured through life proves to be for naught.
And, without exception, all who live, die eventually.
Bazompora 2 years ago 11
@Bazompora that is a really great comment.
artep2122 1 year ago
@Bazompora
Death makes life pointless?
That's absurd. Think about the meaning of "purpose". Does it imply that something has to exist forever in order to have a purpose? No, it doesn't. Something can have a purpose for a limited time and then it loses its purpose or it gets a new purpose, but for that limited time it served its purpose nevertheless.
xknowledgeisfreex 9 months ago
@xknowledgeisfreex
A "purpose" you didn't choose for yourself, is as pointless to you as a wolf's taste for sheep flesh is to a sheep. And what point is there in having been the wolf? You wouldn't have liked sheep flesh if you hadn't been and won't when you no longer are; you only like to indulge your instincts, because someone before you did as much, just as did someone before him and her and so on. Such "purpose" comes from nowhere and goes nowhere & I don't like to be a disposable product.
Bazompora 9 months ago
@Bazompora Very well put, that is EXACTLY it, death is what takes away the value of life, everything we do is washed away in the flow of time including our very essence, we flicker into existance like a candle and inevitably get snuffed out and our light served no purpose because eventually even the room the candle was in will also get snuffed out of existance.
BeardedBill86 8 months ago
@BeardedBill86 Mmmm, that's not really the AN argument. That's the nihilist argument, i.e., that life is meaningless because it ends in nothingness, which is ancillary to the AN position. The AN argument rests solely upon the suffering & pain inherent in this life combined with the low probability that a sentient being will overcome those odds. There's nothing wrong with overlaying nihilism on top of that but it's not the core argument.
eschatonicus 8 months ago
do you donate to international family planning? birth control? it would be a good idea.
leiapeison 2 years ago
Nobody asks to come into this world. Frankly, I don't want to bring anyone into this world. They can't consent to come into this world. Besides, humanity's gonna go extinct one day anyway (read about "proton decay" on an astronomy website). So why reproduce in the first place?
Besides, I disagree with too much of human nature for me to contribute my sperm to humanity's upkeep.
filrabat 2 years ago 14
I agree with you completely.
metamorphhh 2 years ago
@filrabat
I'm not sure I could have said it any better. The Sun, will for one eventually explode. Like Jim said in the part 1 video, there will eventually be a last generation. So why the need for reproduce with all the chaos in the world.
jeromeeusebius 10 months ago
@filrabat BRAVO!
nahaymath 3 weeks ago
Life can be sad sometimes, but now that you're here, you should try to enjoy your life as much as possible. Because everyone will die one day, sooner or later. When you're enjoying your life, life seems short. When you're not having a good time, life seems to drag on..and on.. So have a good time.
msquestionmark 2 years ago
Thanks, I will. You do the same! :)
metamorphhh 2 years ago
Let's be clear here .... Just because I am an antinatiist does not mean that I'm depressed and / or suicidal !!!!
lesliejay63 2 years ago 5
I am very happy to hear that!
metamorphhh 2 years ago
you are totally right!
ouzzapyre 2 years ago
Yes, I am! LOLOL! Thanks.
metamorphhh 2 years ago