An Unpopular Conviction

Star Forge wrote: Most couples reproduce, whether intentionally (the thought of it makes me gag)...

You've said you are a Christian and will always be so. You're aware that this is written in the Bible right?

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" -- Genesis 1:28.

This is your God commanding intentional sex. If you don't believe in that particular verse, cool; as Jedi we are free to pick and choose what we believe, but I'm curious what your thoughts on it are.

For a New Testament verse:

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." -- Mark 10:7-9

So here you have your God again talking about men and women coming together intentionally to have sex (and to procreate if you tie the Old Testament verse to this one). Unless you believe it was simply that they were to be united in heart and his real goal was no sex and the depopulation of the earth within a generation?

What are you thoughts on those verses from your God as an anti-natalist?

Star Forge wrote:

Br. John wrote:

The big question is if you had the power to render all humans sterile would you do it?

Hell no. While I wish all people would make that decision, I would NOT make it for them.

Star Forge wrote: However, the point is that the unborn, theoretical person cannot make the choice themselves as to whether or not they consider it worth it.

I made a post earlier, you might have missed it

Akkarin wrote:

Star Forge wrote: To answer Br. John's question, I maintain my belief that it is an injustice that we are conscripted into life.

I personally am very happy with my life

I put it to you that is an injustice for my parents to NOT have me as their child and to experience the world...

If I'm displeased then I can simply choose to leave it

But you also talk about not imposing your views, well you are already forcing a choice onto another person by saying 'You will never have the opportunity to decide for yourself'

Star Forge wrote: Think about it, what motive can one have for reproduction that is in the best interests of the hypothetical unborn person? I mean, think of every possible reason people have to reproduce, and none of them benefit the unborn, and only one is not self-serving, and that is the only one which I find acceptable, which, as I said, is merely as a side-effect of sex.

I've thought about this since you posted it and this is what has come to my mind.

The idea of a "benefit" must come relative to something else, in order to be identified as a "benefit" or a "disadvantage". To create a "benefit", would mean to have something in this life that you would not have had before this life. (I hope I'm making sense here) In this case, in order to really know if this life is or is not a benefit compared to something else or not, one must KNOW what lied before this life. Since you CANNOT know what has lied before this life of yours, you cannot know if having this life is a benefit compared to whatever might have been before it.

Now, you might use this view, Star Forge, to say "AH HA! See!"... however, this is a two sided coin here. Just as you cannot know the benefit of this life because you do not know what lied before it, you cannot know, just as well, that this life is NOT a benefit compared to what has lied before it.

Star Forge, in order to make a proper debate of your view on a subject like this, I think you will need to find a stance on if you believe in souls existing before this life or not, whether you believe in reincarnation, and what you believe to lie before this life, else, this view seems to technically fall apart. One cannot make a proper debate such as this with loose ends to the views you have. Also the posts above do make a point that one cannot shut off rules of a debate for one person and then turn them on for yourself when it is convenient. This also contributes to pushing down your side of the discussion.

Learn_To_Know wrote:

Star Forge wrote: Most couples reproduce, whether intentionally (the thought of it makes me gag)...

You've said you are a Christian and will always be so. You're aware that this is written in the Bible right?

"Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth" -- Genesis 1:28.

This is your God commanding intentional sex. If you don't believe in that particular verse, cool; as Jedi we are free to pick and choose what we believe, but I'm curious what your thoughts on it are.

For a New Testament verse:

"For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate." -- Mark 10:7-9

So here you have your God again talking about men and women coming together intentionally to have sex (and to procreate if you tie the Old Testament verse to this one). Unless you believe it was simply that they were to be united in heart and his real goal was no sex and the depopulation of the earth within a generation?

What are you thoughts on those verses from your God as an anti-natalist?

Well, the Genesis part is all figurative, and only retarded creationists take that stuff literally. The second part refers to marriage, perhaps sex, but it does not mention procreation. A lot can be determined from what the Bible *doesn't* say.

Here's an example of one of the divergences between ultra-conservative Christian and the rest of them. I don't view God as this huge architect who creates a universe and fine-tunes it and sits back and watches for his amusement. Rather, I am sort of a pantheist. Therefore, I think our reproductive habits are not something he is too concerned about, or even takes cognizance of, even though many Christians consider sexual behavior and the prohibitions thereof to be key tenets of Christianity.

Well, I know I set off a hornet's nest with this post, but I got my view out there and I think a few of you at least understand where I am coming from, even if you disagree. Just giving you all the disclaimer that I am not a part of a death cult or anything, before any sensationalist gossip starts (though I'm sure most Jedi are above such things). Please understand that I don't hate people who have procreated. As an earlier post stated, one of my best friends is a father, and he himself is a bit of an antinatalist. Being an antinatalist doesn't mean you hate kids, or look back and wish you hadn't reproduced. It just means you're against making anymore. Once a kid is here, it's here and should be treated with as much love and dignity as you have in you. Personally, I'd be content just to squash religious natalism, and I could then *perhaps* maybe tolerate intentional reproduction, but it would still be hard. I mean, I look at intentional reproducers the way most people look at Nazis. Maybe with even more disgust. Anyway, if this argument is going to the metaphysical, it's outside of the parameters of what is knowable.

I agree. I think this thread might have run its course and I think you've clearly gotten your viewpoint out.

I'll ask one more question for your consideration and then bow out as I don't know what else to say on the matter.

What about animals? Does your disgust toward intentional pregnancy from humans extend to nature? Or even to asexual production from plants and microscopic life-forms?

Star Forge has not only got his view point across but has also made it clear in his view of others what he thinks of himself. His persistence shows how desperately he needs to be heard in his views. Lol thank god there are procreative products to hear his views otherwise he may be interned in the psychiatric hospital for talking to himself.

Why is suffering bad?

Jon wrote: Star Forge has not only got his view point across but has also made it clear in his view of others what he thinks of himself. His persistence shows how desperately he needs to be heard in his views. Lol thank god there are procreative products to hear his views otherwise he may be interned in the psychiatric hospital for talking to himself.

Why is suffering bad?

Actually, couldn't be more the opposite. This is actually the first time I've ever shared this view, either online or otherwise. I think my first post, or the first few at the very most sum up what I believe. It's just that this debate went in circles. People kept asking the same stuff and I guess I can't blame them, because reproduction is just one of those cultural norms that has been pressed upon generation after generation.

By the way, the modern antinatalists, which are mainly atheistic and often anarchist, are not by any means the first ones to bring up this issue. The Cathars (not the Star Wars race, but the Gnostic sect that got killed off in the middle ages) believed as I do. The Russian Skoptsy did also, though they are an extreme example, and did it for other reasons. I think the Shakers were the best example. Imagine, in the 1700s, a society where women were equals in every regard, and were not oppressed by reproduction. Also, the Shakers loved kids. They took in orphans and abandoned kids all the time, even though they didn't reproduce. Kind of dispells the myth that antinatalism is a destructive death cult.

Also, no. Animal reproduction does not bother me. It's not done with intent, or by sentient beings. Evil requires intent.

Well, I hope I have changed at least one person's mind. But again, we live in an era where we're told that sex is as necessary as eating and as trivial as farting. Where abstinence and childlessness are considered negative, and the result of some personal flaw or disability. I'd rather be right, even if I'm the only one.

Is it not interesting to see how we humans are so easily led into trying to drive our point home like a nail in concrete because others are doing the same. What you are saying sounds like that no one is really listening to what the other is saying otherwise it would simply suffice saying things once. That we want to drive our points home at all costs and let ourselves be so easily led by what others say does say a lot for itself.

Forge... I actually can completely understand this argument. It is the yang that must exist in the universe for a 'yin-yang' balance. But as a total argument, it only holds up so long as we assume that life has no purpose, and that we can arrive at this knowledge somehow. In human history, I don't think that the question of purpose in physical life has been definitavely answered, and so to see it as a result, and not as a part of a process is (no offense intended I assure you, I only mean this in the literal sense of my argument) ignorant.

I disagree with this post only because it assumes the natalists are wrong, and the antinatalists are right. I can agree with a lot of what Star Forge is saying, especially when it comes to the octomoms of the world. But to assume you are right is exactly what they are doing, and neither of your minds can be changed because you both "know" that your already right.

IF a soul does not consent to be born, then yes it is very unfair, but that isn't known one way or the other. Likewise IF God expects us to have as many children as physically possible, then that's what should be done. But, this also isn't known one way or the other. We'll all just have to wait and see I guess. Very Interesting topic, I hope you post more "radical" ideas in the future