>>14922
If you don't find any of the arguments compelling you will probably never be an antinatalist. That's not being mean that's just how it works, the majority of people can never be converted to really anything, communism, anarchism, fascism, and especially not antinatalism. And of course nobody is going to "red pill" you on it or whatever, antinatalism is not a movement or political.

I think if you spent some time really dwelling on the basic dynamic of "pleasure" and suffering you would get the point. By just about all accounts, life has way more suffering than pleasure. Not many people actually contest this.

There is also a more extreme view that pleasure doesn't really exist at all, that it's just a neutral break from suffering. I am not sold on this, but I get the point. Think about the nature of alcohol, opiates, and endorphins, the description of their 'good feeling' is interchangeable with 'less pain'.

Combining that view with a belief that death is just eternal non-experience (which we all pretty much know, copes aside), and death is objectively much better than life. Now, that's not to say agreeing this requires you to be an anti-natalist, there are lots of other possible factors and value judgements to take into account.

>>14922

Antinatalism arguments are convincing to no one, if you arent seduced by its rethoric that means you are a normal human being. In other words, the pill you are looking for doesnt exist.

Antinatalism is a very stoic belief and i dont think modern philosophy or even modern human beings go in the flow of that nonsense.

Anywho, there are other schools of philosophy that i find interesting who preach such values as the trivialization of death without trying to devoid you of essencial human characteristics. One of such schools is epicureanism, give that a try

>>15162
I really think that a lot of wisdom can be obtained through considering the anti-natalist view without actually becoming one. I accept that life is inherently painful and that by having a child you are subjecting them to pain they would not otherwise have to deal with. I also accept that I want to have kids, and the awareness of point A will not stop me. The end result is planning to have kids but recognizing the ordeal I'm putting them through and being very thoughtful about how I raise them.

Basically, I do not intend to act like they should thank me profusely just for bring them to life and not letting them starve until they're 18. I know that human beings need a hell of a lot more to be reasonably happy and free from suffering, and it's not fair to act like it's entirely on them to get it for themselves. I will be responsible for giving them the problem of scarcity, thus I have a considerable obligation to help them deal with it.

>>14922
>>15163

I think the original post was more about OPs stance on death rather than the ethical implications of having kids, I think we're side tracking here.

Anyway, looking at life as a patchwork of either painful of happy experiences and trying to weight it on that basis is absolute insanity.
No, life is not inherently painful, and its not inherently happy. Its more complex than that and cannot be racionalized in such simplistic ways

You're not subjecting your future kids to torture by bringing them to the world. Hopefully your kids wont see life so black and white, hopefully they understand its many shades of grey

>>15165
>no sidetracking allowed on a board that gets two posts a week and all them are about the same dead-end topic
yeah okay buddy