3 ms·
> The question is not _whether_ humans will become extinct, but rather _when_ they will. If the anti-natalist arguments are correct, it would be better, all thi
by pmastela 6y ago
> The question is not _whether_ humans will become extinct, but rather _when_ they will. If the anti-natalist arguments are correct, it would be better, all things being equal, if this happened sooner rather than later for, the sooner it happens, the more suffering and misfortune will be avoided.
By this rhetoric, life itself will one day end and since life is the source of all suffering, one might even argue hurrying along the process of destroying life. This I cannot get behind so I guess that makes me a pro-natalist.
- sneak 6y agoThere is a huge difference between destruction and failing to create.
- gremlinsinc 6y agoEveryone will die someday, a large percentage will die in a very painful manner.. If you had a way to make sure everyone dies at the same time but in the most peacefully painless way, wouldn't you be saving billions from future pain? Also dying at the same time, they'd never have to witness their loved ones die which brings emotional pain. Now, hopefully most would see this as idiocy and immoral, but there's someone out there who's a closet Thanos, thinking this is a brilliant idea.