DontplayGod
She/her
- Feb 6, 2022
- 123
Wondering where people stand on this philosophy here. Antinatilism is basically the thought process that bringing life into this world is bad for those who didn't know
I have the same opinion. Unfortunately, poor people like to have may kids :(In the past i was hardcore about it, but now i'm more towards thinking that only a selective number of people should have children, those who have a really good financial situation and no major genetic diseases, they should pass a strict evaluation process too.
Omg I love your profile picture so much <3I'm an antinatalist, as I am anti-suffering. It's pretty obvious.
The only thing you would need would be to require them to show they know/understand something about literature, philosophy, science, history and then pass an empathy and care test. This examination would cull the breeding candidates considerably.this planet is too small for 8 billion people, I would make laws to prevent people from having children because we have become a virus, this planet is sick and needs to breathe.
But can you explain why?Disagree
I think not having kids will actually avert collapse. If we rapidly or slowly lower population in non violent means we might achieve some level of sustainability. On the other hand creating vast population bubble with less and less resources would cause massive unrest and possible systemic failure with huge die off as a result. Besides the consumption rate is so huge we might not be able to asses when did we run out and how of possible critical resource. It might be oil, uranium, rare earth metals, or maybe fresh water or soil nutrients. With rising population the collapse will be sharper and more violent.Humans killed so many species of animals that are now extinct, that i think it´s only fair, humans kill themselves to extinction. Not having kids will help.
So you're basically like a nazi or something?but now i'm more towards thinking that only a selective number of people should have children, those who have a really good financial situation and no major genetic diseases, they should pass a strict evaluation process too.
Yeah, kind of like what the nazis wanted.The only thing you would need would be to require them to show they know/understand something about literature, philosophy, science, history and then pass an empathy and care test. This examination would cull the breeding candidates considerably.
Oof, this guy actually said it.Personally , I will never have children because I am a poor person with a health problems and a weak moral character.
I also believe that an unfortunates like me
Shouldn't have children as well.
However , if some rich , healthy , good looking
and of the strongest moral
character Ubermensch wanted to have kids , I would have no problem with that.
Weren't you the one who had a communist symble profile picture? A regime who killed millions?so you're basically like a nazi or something?
So kind of like what the nazis wanted.
That's not true at all, the problem is not over population it is a gross mismanagement of resources and a massive inequality gap.this planet is too small for 8 billion people, I would make laws to prevent people from having children because we have become a virus, this planet is sick and needs to breathe.
What is your source that they killed millions, and how did they die?Weren't you the one who had a communist symble profile picture? A regime who killed millions?
Dictators like Stalin and Lenin killed many innocent people just because they were political opponents.What is your source that they killed millions, and how did they die?
They provided healthcare to all their citizens, and housing, and college was free, people did not have to pay for telephone, and electricity, and other utilities, they were all publicly owned... if you can't see the difference between that and endorsing eugenics, and social Darwinism, I don't know what to say
Nah, those kids will be just much better off. You suffer less with better genes and status.So you're basically like a nazi or something?
How many? The Wikipedia article doesn't say, it contains wildly different and at times contradicting claims of an exact death toll, and contains no actual evidence which allows one to reasonably conclude just how many people died, or how. This is what it has to say regarding sources:Dictators like Stalin and Lenin killed many innocent people just because they were political opponents.
The article then goes on to use several estimates, but none of them has any evidence to back them up. The article itself clears this up:According to professor of history Klas-Göran Karlsson, discussion of the number of victims of communist regimes has been "extremely extensive and ideologically biased [...] Scholars have criticized the estimates for relying on émigre sources, hearsay, and rumor as evidence, and cautioned that historians should instead utilize archive material. Such scholars distinguish between historians who base their research on archive materials, and those whose estimates are based on witnesses evidence and other data that is unreliable. The press has continued to include serious errors that should not be cited, or relied on, in academia.
It goes on to conclude:the estimates are based on sparse and incomplete data when significant errors are inevitable, the figures are skewed to higher possible values, and victims of civil wars, famines, and wars involving communist governments should not be counted. Criticism of these estimates has focused on choice of data sources and his statistical approach. Historical based on these figures can rarely serve as sources of reliable estimates.
So how many people died? The article doesn't contain a reliable figure, backed up with evidence. It contains a number of unreliable estimates from biased and anti-communist writers who include things like famine, and war, but contain no evidence of any program of genocide or mass murder carried out by Stalin or the ussr.our understanding of the scale and the nature of Soviet repression has been extremely poor" and that some scholars who wish to maintain pre-1991 high estimates are "finding it difficult to adapt to the new circumstances when the archives are open and when there are plenty of irrefutable data", and instead "hang on to their old unreliable methods with round-about calculations based on odd statements from emigres and supposed eye witnesses.
I did not say I support any "regime". Go through my post history and point out where I said I support any kind of regime. You can't, because I didn't. But you right here in this thread did endorse eugenics, and social Darwinism.And please, don't call me a nazi, especially when you support this kind of regime, you're very rude.
That's what the nazis thought. Even though there has never been any scientific data to support social darwinism.Nah, those kids will be just much better off. You suffer less with better genes and status.
A few bad people? I'd say about 90% of people do evil things that hurts this world when put into power, if there's a few of anything it would be decent human beings.That's not true at all, the problem is not over population it is a gross mismanagement of resources and a massive inequality gap.
There are enough resources on this planet and in the solar system that every single human being could enjoy a high quality of life, we could be living in the kind of technological wonder world of Star Trek next generation with automation and food growing basically everywhere, even cultured meat in labs, but that would require massive change and the whole human race to come together and work for common goals, and that's just not going to happen so yeah probably best not to have kids and just let us die in our eventual nuclear oblivion because people are too stupid to stop fighting one another.
Everyone here saying life is shitty so we should kill ourselves and stop having kids to just end the existence of humanity, because of a few bad people who have to ruin this world, and everything good for everyone else, and they don't even think they are doing it; the Bezos' and the musks' of the world. Not to mention the Epstein's, and Weinstein's, the Trump's and pelosi's, the various monarchies which refuse to die, cartels who exploit the weak and vulnerable...
What we need is universal healthcare, and housing, and etc... but no let's just all kill ourselves. That's what capitalists want. Because as automation takes over, they won't need a surplus population of poor workers anymore.
What is your source that they killed millions, and how did they die?
They provided healthcare to all their citizens, and housing, and college was free, people did not have to pay for telephone, and electricity, and other utilities, they were all publicly owned... if you can't see the difference between that and endorsing eugenics, and social Darwinism, I don't know what to say