Overpopulation and dysfunctional families.
Most adults, especially nowadays are influenced by events in childhood. If the excessive nostalgia and "adulting" woes doesn't tell you, I dunno what will.
Most of our post-boomer politics is just disgruntled people whom are still butthurt about not having an idyllic social life back in their teenage years.

Look at the alt-right and SJWs. Most of them are asocial folks that never had proper peer relations and now it's eating them up inside, so they cope and say that they're destined for greatness.

Their parents never spent any time with them other than to yell and beat them for doing wrong or making mistakes.

Gen X, Y, and Z need reincarnation to an alternate timeline to where boomers didn't ruin things with stranger danger and outsourcing.

>Overpopulation and dysfunctional families.
Most adults, especially nowadays are influenced by events in childhood. If the excessive nostalgia and "adulting" woes doesn't tell you, I dunno what will.
This is relatively objective but then you started projecting, hard...

>Their parents never spent any time with them other than to yell and beat them for doing wrong or making mistakes.

>Gen X, Y, and Z need reincarnation to an alternate timeline to where boomers didn't ruin things with stranger danger and outsourcing.

Anti-natailsm has been around since the BC's. To pretend it's a product of boomerism is narcissistic. By blaming Boomers you're draw an imaginary line in the sand for your convenience when, under your own logic, Boomerism itself is the result of the prior generations and so forth. You have a choice, you can either blame the human condition, where nobody is at fault, or blame your self for refusing to take control of the life you're given.

Solomon says in the Bible, better is he that is born dead than he that lives a thousand years twice over and sees the evil done under the Sun

For though his life is long, yet hath he seen no good.

It's implied those born dead still have the afterlife or rest to enjoy

>>14934

>Their parents never spent any time with them other than to yell and beat them for doing wrong or making mistakes.

How were they projecting? It's pretty fucking obvious. Why do you think so many of them rage about "normies"? Because those normies had parents who give a shit and they're jealous.

>>14942
This is why I think people whom want to abort their babies are probably doing a more heroic deed for their child.
Otherwise that child, had they been born, would be neglected, abused, or dumped off into a worse hell called foster care.

But, I think the ultimate form of ethicality is mandatory human neutering.

>>14953
I advocate for life a little more than Solomon personally, I love me some coffee and weed. I don't think anyone should be allowed to destroy the reproductive process of their own body,
>make no cutting in your flesh for the dead
and
>for when a woman is done laboring she has joy that a man is come into the world
and
>for a man's strength is his son

Read David Benatar's book and some Schopenhauer.

But in short, life is constant pointless striving that begins and leads nowhere. It's inherently filled with suffering, boredom, and want. Happiness is a myth, a fleeting state of satisfaction that precedes the cycle's renewal. Even if happiness were attainable, there is no reason to condemn a non-existent being to its to satisfy one's own vain attempts at immortality through procreation.

The very fact that we don't understand why we are here or what we are doing should be reason enough to not perpetuate this bizarre state of being.

Antinatalism as a philosophical stance is as old as human thought, but in recent years it has achieved popularity on the internet. It's the most controversial and unpalatable idea conceivable, more so than any 'redpilled' social or political perspective. That's why it's been obscured throughout history. Even recent antinatalist communities online are becoming incapable of discussing the idea coherently without falling into 'childfree' talking points.

Any reference in this thread to social issues, generational differences, or politics misses the mark entirely. Read and think for yourself.

>>14954
That is just idealism.
Society is naturally hebephobic/misopediac.
Children are deprived of any social/industrial individuality.

Human individuality is only acknowledged when one is thirty.

>>14934
Yes I know antiatalism is an old idea. All philosophy is transcendent of time.
But with the convergence of the human condition, antinatalism is needed now more than ever. Unfortunately, humans are egotistical.


>>14957
The reason why antinatalism is popular now is because of misopedia. That's it.
Outside of that, antinatalism is seen as misanthropy.
Atheism is also seen as misanthropic because it denies the notion of some cosmic being obsessing over humans.
Yet, atheism is prone to humanism.
Religion, despite giving acknowledgement to a higher power is very humanistic, in the sense that God is a yandere anthropophile.
Any philosophy that points out the flaws of man and puts him off-center is seen as a threat to humanity.

I believe that awareness of the general principles of anti-natalism can lead you to be a better parent and a better member of society. If you understand that life is full of suffering and can easily become unbearable and not worth living, then you will see how important it is to raise your kids properly. You won't be one of these narcissistic parents who thinks their kids owe them everything just for bringing them into the world, despite otherwise neglecting them and bringing them trauma.

And you shouldn't want people of the second category being the ones who raise all the future generations because the first category An Hero'd.

The problem with antinatalists is that so many of them devolve into "Not Like The Other Girls" levels of elitism. Happens every time.

>>14932
this is all american-culture-relative, though. Antinatalism ought to hold up in a more culture-agnostic sense, ideally. I personally don't take much stock in it, I think the world is really beautiful. Life is a long and beautiful struggle. In order to really enjoy a meal one must first work up an appetite, and so the issue of "is life worth living" never really arises because I do not consider suffering to be something that can be mathematically balanced against the exuberance of life.
On a somewhat related note, my exposure to antinatalism was primarily through Conspiracy Against the Human Race, which tried mixing in stuff about ego death as a way to support antinatalist philosophies. I found this rather confusing as ego death is a victory of life over
illusion.
>>14953
This logic applies to mercy killing the elderly too, right? It's less about abortion and more about merciful murder.
>>14960
isn't this a bit of a strawman, though? A lot of the reasons we have bad parenting are cultural, not because of some "natalist" philosophy. Most antinatalism just amounts to anti-capitalist Deleuzian discourse about mental health being connected to the economy.

>>14980
>This logic applies to mercy killing the elderly too, right? It's less about abortion and more about merciful murder.

Society cares more for the elderly and the dead than babies.
Not to say that they're always taken care of, but society acknowledges elderly as people more than they would for children.
Children are always the butt end of some utilitarian philosophy.
Yet, adults never apply said utilitarianism to themselves.

>>14980
How is the world beautiful? It's filled with death, suffering, perpetual need, dissatisfaction and boredom. These are all more intense than the experience of pleasure, which has an upper limit, where as suffering has no bounds. Because of this asymmetry between pleasure and pain, the good cannot outweigh or justify the bad, unless you adhere to a spiritual or cosmic belief that transcends material reality.

Bringing a sentient creature into the world forces them to experience life with all its misery. This act has no purpose whatsoever other than to fulfill a deterministic biological drive and / or satisfy one's ego. No, the world doesn't need any of us. Any intelligent person should be able to see that existence is unwanted, unnecessary, and unpleasant. Why force it on anyone?

File 165722235948.png - (736.80KB , 960x960 , w6j67.png )

>>14994
>How is the world beautiful?
Humans make most of it and shove it in your face with twisted values.

>Bringing a sentient creature into the world forces them to experience life with all its misery.
If you owned a business and had a fruitful job children are fine. The big problem is overpopulation, also created by man to ensure there are tax payers for their evils.

>>14995
You are a person who, for whatever reason, cannot separate modern life from individual sentient experience, which is the same for all of time.

As I said earlier in this thread, any reference to the current social, political, or economic situation avoids looking at existence in its bare form.

Regardless of income, livelihood, or business opportunity, existence falls short and remains subject to life's innumerable ills (which are outweighed by its joys).

Keep in mind, the Buddha rejected wealth. Schopenhauer, the great Western synthesizer of Eastern thought, was born into a life of excess and opportunity and dedicated himself to exploring the why's of existence when he found it repugnant and meaningless.

>>14996
I meant humans make the most ugliness.

>>14963
Why would an antinatalist want to make contact with or recruit people, and do antinatalists even run groups, what would even be the goal? I guess if I was running an antinatalist group I would send texts to people who contacted us.

>>14996
>life's innumerable ills (which are outweighed by its joys).
This is a very rare and questionable position.

>>14921

"Hey i dont belive in something because it makes no sense to me, please make me belive in it anyway"

Literally asking to be brainwashed

>>14994
"the world is filled with suffering" is just as much of an anthropocentric and obviously empirical viewpoint as believing that "life has a greater meaning", for me anti natalism immeadiatly falls apart at its first step

>>15180
Well yeah, of course the view is based on the human experience. No one is saying it's "objectively right" in some metaphysical sense about the universe as a whole, people don't really try to say that about anything.