Home
Search
Login
RegisterPosted by: HikariDude
« on: March 13, 2026, 05:41:07 am »"Yes. It would be part of 3)."
Thanks for clarifying
Thanks for clarifying
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 12, 2026, 10:14:01 pm »"(Would antinatalist Aryanists still need to eliminate the remaining predator bloodlines if their reproduction continues?)"
Yes. It would be part of 3).
Yes. It would be part of 3).
Posted by: HikariDude
« on: March 12, 2026, 07:53:59 pm »"They would also be prohibited from reproducing. (Reproduction itself is initiated violence, remember?)"
Well yeah I remember. I meant if we end the extinction of the predatory bloodlines first, we would still have the prey bloodlines.
"Actually, an alternative proposal is that if the prey species go extinct first, the predator species will follow automatically."
I might know what you mean regarding that problem since it is not that far from the final step - eliminating the predator species thereafter. Is it? Because reproducing predators (in contrast to reproducing pacifists) at least the reproduction is almost excused by the elimination. (Would antinatalist Aryanists still need to eliminate the remaining predator bloodlines if their reproduction continues?)
Well yeah I remember. I meant if we end the extinction of the predatory bloodlines first, we would still have the prey bloodlines.
"Actually, an alternative proposal is that if the prey species go extinct first, the predator species will follow automatically."
I might know what you mean regarding that problem since it is not that far from the final step - eliminating the predator species thereafter. Is it? Because reproducing predators (in contrast to reproducing pacifists) at least the reproduction is almost excused by the elimination. (Would antinatalist Aryanists still need to eliminate the remaining predator bloodlines if their reproduction continues?)
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 12, 2026, 06:56:55 pm »"But would the less competitive animals in that case not still reproduce if they are saved before we go extinct?"
They would also be prohibited from reproducing. (Reproduction itself is initiated violence, remember?)
"Of course it is more important that the more competitive bloodlines (regardless of species) should be eliminated sooner."
Actually, an alternative proposal is that if the prey species go extinct first, the predator species will follow automatically.
"should we (not myself of course as I refrain from reproduction) not still eliminate the less competitive bloodlines"
Indeed we should. Any bloodline which would not voluntarily refrain from reproducing must be prohibited from reproducing.
The sequence of steps is:
1) contain the scale of the problem (by extinction of all bloodlines which could make things worse such as by expanding into outer space);
2) maximize the trustworthiness of the antinatalists (by Aryanization);
3) controlled extinction of all non-antinatalists;
4) controlled extinction of antinatalists.
They would also be prohibited from reproducing. (Reproduction itself is initiated violence, remember?)
"Of course it is more important that the more competitive bloodlines (regardless of species) should be eliminated sooner."
Actually, an alternative proposal is that if the prey species go extinct first, the predator species will follow automatically.
"should we (not myself of course as I refrain from reproduction) not still eliminate the less competitive bloodlines"
Indeed we should. Any bloodline which would not voluntarily refrain from reproducing must be prohibited from reproducing.
The sequence of steps is:
1) contain the scale of the problem (by extinction of all bloodlines which could make things worse such as by expanding into outer space);
2) maximize the trustworthiness of the antinatalists (by Aryanization);
3) controlled extinction of all non-antinatalists;
4) controlled extinction of antinatalists.
Posted by: HikariDude
« on: March 12, 2026, 07:46:14 am »"We have to end this first before we can safely leave."
But would the less competitive animals in that case not still reproduce if they are saved before we go extinct?
Of course it is more important that the more competitive bloodlines (regardless of species) should be eliminated sooner.
But after that happens, should we (not myself of course as I refrain from reproduction) not still eliminate the less competitive bloodlines - who would eventually be more competent than us by that time?
But would the less competitive animals in that case not still reproduce if they are saved before we go extinct?
Of course it is more important that the more competitive bloodlines (regardless of species) should be eliminated sooner.
But after that happens, should we (not myself of course as I refrain from reproduction) not still eliminate the less competitive bloodlines - who would eventually be more competent than us by that time?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: March 12, 2026, 03:08:59 am »The OP is an anthropocentrist, albeit a relatively well-meaning one. As some non-anthropocentrist comments correctly point out:
While the total violence initiated/unit time would be many orders of magnitude lower than the current total if humans all died immediately, this is not good enough:
We have to end this first before we can safely leave.
Quote
The logic here relies on the assumption that "evil" doesn't exist if it is not currently being perceived by humans.
That isn't an assumption that has to be accepted.
While the total violence initiated/unit time would be many orders of magnitude lower than the current total if humans all died immediately, this is not good enough:
Quote
it is bad when animals suffer while being eaten by each other in the wild. that would still happen if all humans died immediately.
We have to end this first before we can safely leave.
Posted by: rp
« on: March 12, 2026, 01:24:42 am »Posted by: antizion
« on: December 03, 2025, 09:45:51 am »The fact that people think creating life is a good thing is proof that they're brainwashed.
How can anyone look at how messed up Yahweh's world is, and think that bringing anyone into it is a good thing?
How can anyone look at how messed up Yahweh's world is, and think that bringing anyone into it is a good thing?
Posted by: rp
« on: November 25, 2025, 07:53:55 pm »Posted by: rp
« on: July 27, 2025, 11:37:44 am »Recently saw this thread on how the recent switch 2 launch feels dystopian:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/507478-nintendo-switch-2/80977369
Some noteworthy replies:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/507478-nintendo-switch-2/80977369?page=1
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/507478-nintendo-switch-2/80977369
Some noteworthy replies:
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/507478-nintendo-switch-2/80977369?page=1
Quote
I don’t wanna have kids (I don’t wanna force anyone to land in this planet right now…) so I can afford working only 3 days a week and it changed my life. Of course, I’m not rich but my life is so much better now that I have more time for myself. I have enough time to play videogames, do sports and lose myself in nature, discover new hidden spots…
Posted by: Yahweh
« on: June 02, 2025, 12:54:56 am »Why The U.S. Government Can’t Convince Americans To Have Kids
In other words, the U.S. government will never be able to convince sane people with a little nobility in their blood that birthing children into a world lead by people like this:
And this:
Is a good idea...
Quote
America’s fertility rate is at a historic low, and governments around the world are experimenting with ways to raise birthrates. The U.S. is no exception, but experts argue the policies proposed by the federal government fall short. This video explores why one-off proposals like baby bonuses and child tax credits may not be enough to reverse the trend of declining fertility.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBKotoTx8R4
Chapters:
0:00 Introduction
1:36 Why the government wants people to have kids
4:18 Incentivizing parenthood?
8:37 Beyond money
Produced and Edited by: Charlotte Morabito
Animation: Jason Reginato, Andrea Schmitz
Senior Director of Video: Lindsey Jacobson
Additional Footage: Getty Images
In other words, the U.S. government will never be able to convince sane people with a little nobility in their blood that birthing children into a world lead by people like this:
And this:
Is a good idea...
Posted by: 4B
« on: June 02, 2025, 12:22:57 am »Resistance through no sex: The 4B movement in South Korea | DW Documentary
As long as they do not back a matriarchy replacing the patriarchy I'm down with the 4B movement!
Quote
The 4B movement in South Korea represents one of the most radical rejections of patriarchy to date: no sex, no dating, no marriage, no children.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCN-dd5J1lE
For years, the image of young women in Seoul's nightlife was characterized by mini-skirts, makeup, and a 'cute' demeanor. Now, more women are adopting short hair, baggy pants, and loose shirts as a statement of independence. Meanwhile, marriage and birth rates in South Korea have hit historic lows. Socioeconomic factors play a role – but for many women, it’s a conscious rejection of patriarchal norms – still deeply embedded in South Korean society. The movement has also sparked backlash from many South Korean men, who often reject even moderate forms of feminism, which remains highly stigmatized. A report by Caroline Bergmann.
#documentary #dwdocumentary #dwdocs #reporter #southkorea #4bmovement
As long as they do not back a matriarchy replacing the patriarchy I'm down with the 4B movement!
Posted by: rp
« on: May 03, 2025, 01:38:23 pm »https://x.com/sabrewulf001/status/1618280121269649408?t=JjYT6CjcCrChwEh06D941A&s=19
Quote
Population collapse is bad because? Incerdible hubris to think humans, as one of millions of species, NEED to continue to exist ad infinitum. Nature be like, "nah, bye Felicia!"
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: November 28, 2024, 10:34:48 pm »While caring for the unborn is without doubt the ethically best reason to not reproduce, by this desperate stage I am even promoting (to the less ethically-minded) not reproducing merely for the reason of having more money left to spend on oneself. Despite disliking extravagance myself, I note that there is at least a limit to the quantity of spending can be crammed into one extravagant lifetime, compared to which even an arbitrarily frugal person who reproduces similarly frugal offspring will cumulatively as a bloodline spend more over the generations than even the most extravagant single individual. Unsustainable evil is always preferable to sustainable evil.
In other news, our enemies confirm that multiethnic society is beneficial to antinatalism:
https://www.amren.com/videos/2024/08/white-guilt-up-birth-rates-down/
In other news, our enemies confirm that multiethnic society is beneficial to antinatalism:
https://www.amren.com/videos/2024/08/white-guilt-up-birth-rates-down/
Quote
This recent paper reports that diversity – whether through racial integration or immigration – reduces childbearing for all races.
The authors control for every imaginable confounding variable and conclude that “the rise in racial diversity in the US since 1970 explains 44% of the decline in birth rates during that period, and 89% of the drop since 2006.”
Posted by: antihellenistic
« on: November 28, 2024, 08:05:26 pm »Quote
“If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?”
― Arthur Schopenhauer, Studies in Pessimism: The Essays
Source :
A quote from Studies in Pessimism. (2024). Retrieved November 29, 2024, from Goodreads.com website: https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/314258-if-children-were-brought-into-the-world-by-an-act