Here’s a doozy of a post: Kids? Just Say No.
I’ve been seeing an awful lot of this kind of sophistry lately. It’s moralism run amok. It differs from Social Justice only in degree. The SJW prioritizes certain classes and groups above others, based on an arbitrary Progressive Stack. This cretin suggests that life itself must be extinguished, in other words that nobody is salvageable. It won’t be long before something akin to this becomes orthodox Social Justice belief.
Everything they do, from the casual treatment of abortion to the constant wearing down of men, to the incessant racial polarization, and finally to the worship of Death Cults like militant Islam and Communism… it all leads inexorably to this destination.
I lack the ability to prove it (I cannot get into their heads, and I don’t think I’d want to even if it were possible), but I’ve long suspected that the underlying mechanism is disappointment in life. These people were promised utopias, heaven on Earth, a place without suffering, loss, and unfairness. If such a place exists, it is not here on Earth. Most of us eventually come to realize this, and make peace with it, and live our lives as best we can despite it. But these people never entirely let go of the expectation, and it festers into extreme disappointment and rage at the unfairness of it all.
And like all misery, it desires our company. Observe:
But even if life isn’t pure suffering, coming into existence can still be sufficiently harmful to render procreation wrong. Life is simply much worse than most people think, and there are powerful drives to affirm life even when life is terrible. People might be living lives that were actually not worth starting without recognising that this is the case.
This is full of rhetorical nonsense like “life is simply much worse than people think.” What people? Worse than what benchmark? To the contrary, human life has, in general, improved in very quantifiable ways over time. As I type this, I sit in a comfortably temperature-controlled building, with a full stomach, able to access pretty much any piece of human knowledge in seconds. Part of the desire to have children is the notion that they will have it better than us. That we leave to them a world better than we found it.
The central argument of this piece is that life is full of suffering (true), and that as a result, bringing new life into the world is fundamentally immoral. This is an argument for human extinction, something the author realizes:
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.
This contains many implicit assumptions: first of all that there is not a higher purpose for human beings. If one, for instance, were to believe in God, then it is possible this life is a test, and that another exists should we pass the test. Even if one is an atheist, it is possible to consider that human knowledge and evolution will eventually lead to immortality, or something like it; that even the supposed heat-death of the universe might be reversed (there is a great story by Isaac Asimov about this very thing). Regardless, the author is solipsistic in the extreme. He does not ponder a meaning or purpose outside the bounds of his own puny life. And since his life is imperfect, he presumes it a moral wrong that any other should “suffer” it. With a solipsistic worldview, it is easy to slip into madness like this, because other people don’t even necessarily seem entirely real. It’d be like a Communist reading reports on the number of people who died at the gulag last week, they are just numbers, not even real people.
How many dead bodies have been stacked up in the quest for perfection? It is and always has been a fallacy.
The thing to understand above all this, however, is that morality is a tool. People like the author of this bullshit moralize until they are blue in the face. They dig too deep. They are too far away from the purpose of morality. If humans did not exist (for the sake of argument, I’m presuming there are no other sentient species), there would be no morality; no right or wrong. These are concepts that exist solely in the minds of individual humans. What good would the universe be, then? He argues not for the peak morality, but for the elimination of all morality.
This is the danger of applying concepts of morality at a meta level. It is what SJWs do, only to even greater degree. The SJW tries to balance out the conflicting moral stances of history; slavery to Jim Crow; Genocide to Imperialism; Conquest and Jihad; Poverty and wealth. This is beyond us. Playing with morality at a meta level leads to surprisingly irrational conclusions like kill all the humans, kill all men, or fuck white people. They differ only in degree of meta-moralizing.
Think about it. Someday SJWs are bound to realize that male feminists are just as “rapey”, if not more so, than the shitlords. Sooner or later, they must learn that Islam is much harder on gays and transgender folks than Christians are. Or that groups of people far more racist than white Americans exist. SJWs will have to cannibalize themselves sooner or later. Black Lives Matter must inevitably conflict with White Girl Feminism. Chinese Communism must eventually conflict with Euro-Globalism. And so on…
Sooner or later SJWs will join our self-described “anti-natalist” in condemning the entire human species as worthless.
It all stems from a category error. Morality must first and foremost be applied to individual interactions. Bottom up, so to speak. Applying it from the top down leads to a self-destructive rationalization spiral ending with the position this man has espoused: the complete extinction of humanity. It’s something adherents of death cults like militant Islam are perfectly aware of, too, given their quasi-apocalyptic rhetoric.