Estoy orgulloso de haberte dado el mejor regalo que un padre podría darte, no la vida, sino el regalo de nunca haber existido. Te mantengo a salvo de cualquier daño; a salvo de enfermedades, epidemias, pobreza, crimen, hambre, violación y asesinato. Estoy orgulloso de muchas cosas. Estoy orgulloso de haber tomado la mejor decisión de mi vida, nunca haberte creado en primer lugar. Estoy orgulloso de que nunca jugué a Frankenstein con tu bienestar y sensibilidad; manteniéndote a salvo de la horrible inevitabilidad de una muerte trágica. Estoy orgulloso de que nunca experimentarás saltar de un edificio en llamas porque los humanos hemos creado esa tontería llamada teísmo y ahora creemos que somos especiales y tenemos derechos especiales para matar a otros en su nombre. Estoy tan contenta de que nunca nos encontremos porque solo el bien viene de no sentir dolor y solo el mal se crea cuando eres creado. Estoy orgulloso de mí mismo por pensar en tu bienestar antes de crearte sin pensar en miles de formas en las que podrías haber muerto. Algunos podrían decir que te estoy privando del placer al no crearte, pero esas personas aún tienen que morir de una muerte horrible y actualmente no están viviendo en un holocausto. Tienen percepciones sesgadas de las realidades del dolor y el sufrimiento. Cuando sean capaces de recuperarse de su muerte y decir que valió la pena, consideraré el equilibrio. Seguro que la vida tiene sus altibajos, pero ¿a qué costo? Casi todo lo bueno procedía de una privación; una buena comida significaba que tenía hambre, los masajes en la espalda significaban que tenía dolor de espalda, una cama caliente significaba que tenía frío para empezar y, lo que es más importante, el alivio del sufrimiento solo venía de la existencia del dolor. Entonces, este es mi mayor logro para ti, hijo; nunca haberte creado y haberte hecho pasar por todo eso. Todo por la satisfacción de tener algo con lo que jugar y algo a lo que mirar y simplemente decir: “Oye, recuerdo cuando era niño y hacía eso; Recuerdo cuando me rompí el codo y la pierna, eso fue divertido”.
Autor desconocidolunes, 14 de marzo de 2022
domingo, 23 de enero de 2022
Promortalismo : BEBÉS MUERTOS EN EL CEMENTERIO DE EL PASO SE SALVARON DE UNA ESPANTOSA EXISTENCIA DE VIDA
Subtítulos automáticos y traducido automáticamente por youtube
Comentario destacado:
viernes, 17 de diciembre de 2021
Mistro, si tú no tienes hijos quién va a defender a los animales?
El mejor cantante y compositor de música vegana (y antinatalista) del Mundo. Mistro de Disobey 93. Te pregunto:
Mistro, si tú no tienes hijos quién va a defender a los animales?
Soy antinatalista pero cuando veo su video clip mi cabeza dice "pero yo quiero un hijo tuyo", es una sensación contradictoria, porque creo que tener hijos es un crimen al condenar a tus hijos a sufrimiento y muerte, pero también siento que es un crimen que sólo se reproduzcan los psicópatas, y que las personas empáticas no tengan hijos.
A mi hace años una mujer me preguntó ¿Y si tú no tienes hijos quién va a defender a los animales?, yo respondí cualquiera bien educado puede hacerlo, pero esa pregunta quedó en mi grabada y sembrando la duda, ahora pienso que no cualquiera puede ser activista por los derechos animales, ni respetarles... porque del mismo modo en que no se puede pedir peras al olmo, hay personas que quizás genéticamente no pueden tener la capacidad de empatizar con otros, menos aún con otros de otras especies. Por eso siento que es necesario en el mundo gente como él.
Es triste que los toreros tengan tantos hijos, y los veganos no tengan... debería ser al revés, para que el mundo sea más compasivo y con menos sufrimiento.
Yo Mistro te pregunto lo que a mi hace años me preguntaron: ¿Y si tú no tienes hijos, quién va a defender a los animales?
Toda la música vegana (y antinatalista) de Mistro subtitulada a español:
A declaration of war (Mistro / Disobey 93) - YouTube :
La escucho casi todos los días mientras hago las tareas de la casa (limpiar platos etc) me da fuerzas en mis tareas, y en seguir siendo vegana...
Mistro te amo, en mi mente sí has sido el padre de mis hijos platónicos. (Me he inventado yo el concepto hijos platónicos, extrapolando la idea de amor platónico). Lo más parecido que puedo hacer a tener hijos contigo, es difundir tus videos, tu arte, tu música, tus letras, tus canciones... tus entrevistas...
lunes, 22 de noviembre de 2021
Poema: I do not want... (Philippe Annaba)
¡No quiero que nazcas! ... No quiero que heredes Defectos, Desórdenes y ansiedades de tu padre. No quiero que lleves en tu cara las pesadillas de tu madre. No te quiero ... Apenas salido de sus entrañas para llorar ... Que en el ambiente contaminado de nuestro mundo Te sofoques ... Y que golpeemos para resucitar. No quiero escuchar tus llantos Cuando tengas sed, Cuando tengas hambre, Cuando tengas dolor. No quiero… Sacarte de tus sueños y arrastrarte a la escuela donde los tontos te forzarán a estudiar estupideces y tonterías. No quiero ... Nada que ver con tu desarrollo social. Para enseñarte nuestras sonrisas. Para enseñarte a postrarte. Para engañarte a ti mismo. No quiero ... El primer maníaco que viene Tocar ni uno de tus cabellos. No quiero ... El cura que te amenace con el infierno, El maestro de escuela, con el paro, el conserje, con la cárcel. No te quiero… Habitar mi Ciudad O escuchar mi televisión mintiéndote Para saciar tu sed Con el veneno de los diarios. Para jugar en la calle Con matones que te escupirán en la cara. No quiero ladrones siniestros Para encadenarte a alguna droga, Para convertirte en un adicto, Para abusar mejor de ti, En la indiferencia general. No quiero que las mujeres te embrujen Con sus pechos arrogantes Y sus culos saltones, Tantos señuelos para una finalidad: Dar a luz. Tampoco quiero que el pretencioso Casanovas te persiga con su adulación y juegue con tu sensibilidad. No te quiero… Para desperdiciar tu vida Ganando tu pan de cada día Con el sudor de tu frente. O bien, por mil renuncias, por mil compromisos. No te quiero ... Luchar por John Doe O por nadie más O por cualquier otra cosa. No te quiero ... Para ver la próxima guerra Para contraer cáncer, O ser testigo de uno de los mil males por venir. No quiero que ... Sufras. No te quiero ... ¡Preguntarle un día a tu padre por qué te dejó venir a un mundo que no se preocupa por el mundo! No quiero que nazcas ¡Hay suficientes esclavos en la tierra!
Traducido por Mª Angeles Climent
martes, 12 de octubre de 2021
Sigue el ejemplo de Jesús y no tengas hijos
Me encontré con una tipa que comía compulsivamente animales, ella justificaba los crímenes contra los animales diciendo que "Jesús mataba corderos", que es "el corderito de dios" y que la biblia dice que está bien comer animales.
Sé que como ella hay mucha gentuza igual, que justifican los crímenes contra los animales poniendo a Jesús como ejemplo, pero no siguieron el ejemplo de Jesús absteniéndose de reproducirse.
Esta tipa en concreto tuvo 3 hijas, y 4 nietos, todos tragadores compulsivos de animales. Su nieto es igual de idiota que ella, y come animales diciendo "es que los animales no tienen alma" (Claro eso dice la biblia).
Me llama la atención esa doble vara de medir, que para abusar de los animales, toman el ejemplo de Jesús, pero en cambio esas mismas personas se reproducen como ratas, no siguiendo el ejemplo de Jesús de abstenerse de reproducirse. Claro tuve que morderme la lengüa, me dieron ganas de decirla pero Jesús no tuvo hijos y tú sí... No tenía ganas de seguir discutiendo con tremenda subnormal.
Esta gentuza son además los mismos que usan siempre los mismos argumentos "es que las plantas sufren" parece que todos fueron a la misma escuela de psicópatas y argumentos absurdos para justificar los crímenes.
Pues esta tipa al yo ver, tras enviarla varios documentales de mataderos, memes veganos, documentales veganos, que cualquier persona normal, decente, empática se hubiese hecho vegana o al menos flexitariana, seguía tragando animales compulsivamente, pensé bueno, ella es tan egoísta y psicópata que nunca va a dejar de tragar animales por empatía, entonces teniendo en cuenta que el ser humano solo actúa en base a buscar el placer o huir del dolor. Las personas veganas lo son por el dolor que les produce los videos que vieron de mataderos, y no quieren seguir financiando esto, ya que el dolor de los animales es su dolor... Qué pasa con las personas a las que el dolor ajeno no les importa? Se les puede veganizar? Claro, con el miedo al Karma (dolor) de que sufrirán lo mismo que esos animales, ya sea en ésta vida o en la próxima, ya sea en forma de Karma o en forma de reencarnar en animal...
Pues yo viendo que ella era creyente, quise hablarla de la religión indú, que muchos indios son vegetarianos por el miedo al Karma, como explica éste chico de éste video, cuyo video ha conseguido que muchas personas se hagan veganas, y dejo el enlace en la caja de descripción. Entonces, ella me contestó algo así:
Por eso es que digo que me alegro que los veganos tengan hijos, obviamente prefiero que tengan hijos los veganos que que tengan hijos gentuza subnormal y degenerada como ella. Que si bien ser vegano es algo que tiene que ver con la educación, posiblemente tenga un componente genético, en relación a la capacidad de sufrir con el dolor ajeno, como antinatalista que soy, siempre pienso que tener hijos es moralmente incorrecto, es un crimen, pero, prefiero que tengan hijos los veganos, que que tengan hijos la gentuza como ella.
Por cierto, viendo caso que es una de esas religiosas que hacen caso a la biblia, yo la dije que Jesús era vegetariano, y que defendía el vegetarianismo, que busque el google Jesús era vegetariano, que esas son las verdaderas enseñanzas, entonces ella me dijo claro que eso podía ser mentira o algo así, entonces ante la duda, ella prefería seguir con lo que a ella la causa placer. Volvemos otra vez a "me cojo de las enseñanzas y de la biblia lo que a mi me interesa".
Versículos de la Biblia sobre el vegetarianismo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fe8Z28nVdc
https://youtu.be/buLI42sxhNs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGPQvnL3s50
Yo la dije si sigues comiendo animales puede que en tu próxima vida te reencarnes en uno de esos animales que torturan, por la ley del karma, ella me respondió, puede que tú te reencarnes en una planta.
Se parecía un poco a la del video todos tienen cara como de que les falta un hervor, un poco de degenerada, fea, subnormal, parece que todos estén cortados por el mismo patrón
domingo, 10 de octubre de 2021
La procreación es como sostener la mano de un niño en el infierno y luego dejarlos allí
Los padres al criar se convierten en la parca.
Este es el texto final de éste video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PT9MVVFDYw
Si mis padres hubieran decidido quedarse con tener un perro, entonces ninguno de nosotros estaría aquí para sufrir y morir cientos de miles de dólares no se habrían gastado en cuidado dental cuidado de alimentos de petróleo hospicio de parkinson la lista de cremación de rehabilitación de enfermeras de drogas sigue y sigue también podría estar aquí hoy para escribir sobre lo tonto que fue todo fue tonto y completamente inútil, lamentablemente siento que la mayoría de los padres piensan que están continuando una dinastía majestuosa o que están comenzando una que realmente no pueden ver más allá de su propia gloria y cómo sus egos ridículos afectarán a otras personas durante posiblemente cientos de años, así que realmente espero al menos uno padre potencial verá este video piense en las repercusiones de dejar que un embarazo vaya a término no hay vergüenza en quedar embarazada es quedarse embarazada ese es el crimen estaba pensando en esa pegatina que vería y alquilé cintas vhs ser amable rebobinar fue amable rebobinar porque le estás haciendo un favor a la próxima persona que alquila la cinta así que ¿qué tal ser amable no dejar a un niño atrás te impusieron a no mantener esa imposición que es el plan de todos los padres, saben que es probable que pre-defunan a su hijo, por lo que el plan todo el tiempo es abandonarlos en un mundo cruel, la procreación es como sostener la mano de un niño en el infierno y luego dejarlos allí que se molestan tanto cuando su hijo muere primero porque no querían ser los que tuvieran que lidiar. con él querían que su hijo tuviera que lidiar con su muerte, en cambio, no quieren planear un funeral que sea el trabajo de su hijo y realmente no quieren enfrentarse al hecho de que crearon una tragedia que todos los padres van a hacer al criar es convertirse en la parca padres potenciales que no quieres ser un asesino de niños ¿tu mundo es tan [ __ ] hasta miles de millones de pequeños espectáculos de terror que suceden cada minuto y realmente quieres traer a alguien a esto con qué propósito la tradición de reproducir y criar no es algo que vaya a enriquecer tu vida, es una responsabilidad masiva no solo para ti sino para el futuro, es el mayor desastre que la mayoría de las personas hacen de sus vidas y las vidas de los demás, no es un pasatiempo constructivo, es destructivo juzgamos las historias por sus finales si el final apesta, entonces la película apesta, solo quiero olvidar toda esta historia ahora porque el final fue decepcionante para decir que lo menos horrible es una palabra mejor, lo que mis padres crearon ahora ha muerto y qué bien hizo ahora quiero huir de este estado en el que he vivido durante toda mi vida porque me estoy ahogando en recuerdos dolorosos aquí tal vez lo superaré algún día o tal vez no voy a una cosa que ciertamente nunca haré es imponer la vida a más
sábado, 9 de octubre de 2021
Un manifiesto antinatalista
Fuimos traídos a la fuerza a la existencia a pesar de que no se nos pidió que naciéramos, ni se nos dio su consentimiento. Esto no es solicitado. Nuestros padres nos trajeron a la existencia sabiendo que cada ser humano muere muy bien, sin una sombra de culpa. ¿Cómo no puede la procreación con conocimiento de que conduciría a la muerte tarde o temprano, dentro de 130 años un asesinato? Incluso si elegimos no llamarlo un asesinato, es porque es un crimen más atroz, no menos atroz que el asesinato. El asesinato solo hace que la muerte ocurra unas décadas antes de alguien 2 que fue condenado a muerte por procreación; mientras que la procreación condena a la vida y a la muerte a una persona inexistente, haciendo que la víctima sufra hasta unos 120 años y muera. Si el asesinato es un crimen, la procreación es un pecado. La consecuencia de cada procreación es fatal y 3 4 trágica. Cada sala de maternidad es un crematorio. 5 6 La falta de capacidad para dar su consentimiento no significa que alguien pueda infligir ninguna acción a la persona que carece de la capacidad de dar su consentimiento informado. Por ejemplo, se considera que un menor de edad carece de la capacidad para dar su consentimiento, por lo que cualquier contacto sexual con dicho menor se considera violación incondicional (estupro). Aunque, por ejemplo, el tratamiento médico, la vacunación y la educación obligatoria se infligen sin el consentimiento informado del niño, se considera que tal acción es (ya sea real o supuestamente) el interés superior del niño como justificable. Para la procreación, el niño no dio su consentimiento ni tiene ningún interés en llegar a existir, aunque una vez que llegó a existir, el niño puede tener el interés de continuar su existencia. De hecho, la cadena perpetua es cadena perpetua sin derecho a libertad condicional, seguida de la pena de muerte. Incluso si somos ciudadanos natos de nuestro país de ciudadanía, nuestra estancia solo está permitida temporalmente, podemos ser deportados del cosmos en cualquier momento, condenados a muerte y 7 ejecutados por inmigración ilegal. Nadie en el planeta permitió quedarse por más de 130 años, todos fueron deportados, es decir, ejecutados antes de que ella tenga 130 años. El párrafo 2 del artículo 2 de la Carta de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea estipula que " Nadie será condenado a la pena de muerte, ni ejecutado ". ¿Cómo no puede ser cada procreación una condenación a muerte? ¿Cómo no puede ser cada muerte una ejecución? No hay ninguna razón intrínseca para pensar que la procreación no es una violación del derecho a la vida. La muerte es el fin de todo, una aniquilación; Es todo. Si ya estamos condenados a la vida, podemos seguir viviendo sin suicidirse. Pero, ¿por qué criarse para soportar solo tormentos insoportables durante décadas y morir? ¿Raza para explotar como animal humano de compañía? ¿Raza para proporcionar un hermano? ¿Raza para explotar como seguro y pensión para la vejez? ¿Criar como una inversión? ¿Raza para perpetuar genes y apellidos? ¿Criar para lavar el cerebro de tu religión o ideología? ¿Criar para perpetuar la tribu, la nación o la raza humana? ¿Criar porque el sexo con un condón es menos agradable? ¿Criar porque la anticoncepción es inconveniente? ¿Criar porque el aborto es inconveniente? ¿Criar sin ninguna razón? ¿Qué tan egoísta podría estar criando por razones tan frívolas o sin ninguna razón en absoluto? Como la destrucción parcial del cerebro es una destrucción parcial del yo, la destrucción completa del cerebro es una destrucción completa del yo. La muerte en neurociencia significa reversión a la inexistencia antes del nacimiento; la procreación es un proceso reversible por muerte. Pero 8 filosóficamente, la procreación antes del nacimiento no es la inexistencia de nadie, es decir, nadie está realmente sujeto a la inexistencia; mientras que la inexistencia después de la muerte es la inexistencia de alguien que hasta ahora existía, es decir, una persona específica está sujeta a la inexistencia, aniquilada, destruida y ya no existe. 9 Hay casos documentados de procreación para la extracción de órganos, por ejemplo, malva ósea o un riñón para proveer al hijo con una enfermedad, por ejemplo, leucemia o insuficiencia renal. Pero si pensamos que la procreación para explotar para salvar otra vida es mala, debemos concluir 10 que la procreación para explotar por razones frívolas o por ninguna razón en absoluto es más malvada. Nadie puede procrear por el bien de una persona inexistente. A menos que sea por el bien de una persona traída a la existencia, es la explotación de una persona traída a la existencia por el bien de otra persona; 11 instrumentalización de los mismos. Una persona potencial que no nació nunca morirá. La vida eterna es imposible, pero la inmortalidad es posible al no llegar a existir. Por supuesto, ya hemos nacido, es demasiado tarde. Pero podemos evitar que nuestros descendientes potenciales condenados a la vida y, por lo tanto, condenados a muerte. De hecho, la procreación es la raíz de todo mal. Si no hay procreación, no habría muerte, guerra, masacre, cáncer, malaria, SIDA/ VIH, crisis de refugiados, mutilación genital femenina, violación y en numerosas violaciones de derechos humanos. Si no hay procreación, Hitler, Stalin, Mao nunca serían traídos a la existencia, ninguna persona moriría bajo regímenes de la misma. Pero como 6 millones de judíos fueron asesinados por el holocausto, la procreación y la ayuda gubernamental y la instigación de tal crimen mataron a 6 millones de personas en 40 días. Aunque nuestra edad de muerte oscurece frente a este hecho, debemos enfrentar la verdad. Tenemos el deber de no traer a la existencia a una persona potencial que sufrirá. Pero no tenemos ningún deber de traer a la existencia a una persona potencial que será llamada feliz. Ningún placer puede compensar ningún sufrimiento y, muerte. Una persona en la condición menos peor de 12 también sufre una cantidad inmensa, que incluye, entre otros, dolor menstrual, micción y defecación, trabajo de parto femenino y masculino. Incluso una persona en la condición menos mala no puede comprar todos los bienes y servicios. Incluso una persona en la condición menos mala no puede escapar de la muerte. Millones de personas se preocupan por los sufrimientos en el mundo y tratan de aliviarlo. Sin embargo, muy pocos de ellos se dan cuenta de que las personas no sufrirán si no son traídas a la existencia. De hecho, la única manera de prevenir el sufrimiento, no solo el alivio, de una persona potencial afectada es no hacer que esa persona exista. Por supuesto, es demasiado tarde para las personas que ya fueron traídas a la existencia. Pero no es demasiado tarde para salvar del sufrimiento a una persona potencial a punto de ser traída a la existencia. Considerando que todo el humanitarismo hasta ahora sólo se refiere al alivio del sufrimiento y a no salvar ninguna vida, postergando así la muerte unas pocas décadas, extendiendo así su tiempo de sufrimiento unas pocas décadas; el antinatalismo es solo humanitarismo que previene el sufrimiento y la muerte, salvando a las personas potenciales de la vida. Sólo el antinatalismo puede eliminar la necesidad misma de alivio o eliminación del sufrimiento. Si reconocemos la dignidad humana, los derechos humanos o la libertad de la persona potencial a punto de nacer, la procreación no es coherente con el principio de dignidad humana, derechos humanos o libertad. Cabe señalar que las procreaciones se llevan a cabo con el conocimiento de todas las miserias humanas que su hijo está a punto de enfrentar, incluida la violencia, la enfermedad y la muerte. Si la procreación se lleva a cabo con el conocimiento de las miserias de la vida, ¿cómo podemos negar que la procreación es realmente una forma de violencia? De hecho, infligir por la fuerza la vida no solicitada a más de 130 millones de personas cada año es la mayor crisis humanitaria del mundo. Haz a tus (potenciales) hijas e hijos un "favor", y un deber, al no criarlos a la fuerza, salvándolo de la vida, la única forma en que puedes salvarlos de todos los sufrimientos y la muerte de tus hijos. 13 Haz un favor y un deber a los hijos (potenciales) de tus amigos convenciéndolos de que no cometan un pecado de procreación, salvándolos de la vida, la única manera en que puedes salvarlos de todos los sufrimientos y la muerte de tus hijos.
miércoles, 29 de septiembre de 2021
Citas célebres antinatalistas y efilistas
El estado ideal sería la utopía suprema, un paraíso socialista al que finalmente conducirán todos los esfuerzos de la humanidad. Será un mundo sin guerras, sin hambre y sin ningún sufrimiento además de los sufrimientos del nacimiento, la vejez y la muerte. Todas las enfermedades se curarán y la gente tendrá una vida llena de alegría con solo una pequeña cantidad de trabajo, porque el trabajo será casi completamente deportado a las máquinas. Así que echemos un vistazo más de cerca a los ciudadanos de ese estado ideal. ¿Estan felices? Lo serían, si no sufrieran de un aburrimiento horrible y un vacío eterno en sus vidas ahora. Si incluso logran vivir una vida tan inútil hasta la muerte natural, no estarán dispuestos a forzar a nuevas personas a meterse en este lío procreando. No les queda ninguna esperanza, porque saben que ya alcanzaron el estado ideal. Por lo tanto,llegarán a la conclusión de que la vida humana tiene que terminar o tal vez incluso que toda la vida tiene que terminar, porque finalmente se dieron cuenta de que no hay nada que lograr para la sensibilidad y que sería mejor si nunca hubieran existido. Este será el punto donde se cumplirá el movimiento de la humanidad (o incluso el movimiento de toda la vida en la tierra) y el universo ahora tendría que seguir adelante sin vida (humana) en la tierra, para alcanzar su propia meta final, que es exactamente lo mismo: Convertirse en nada.Este será el punto donde se cumplirá el movimiento de la humanidad (o incluso el movimiento de toda la vida en la tierra) y el universo ahora tendría que seguir adelante sin vida (humana) en la tierra, para alcanzar su propia meta final, que es exactamente lo mismo: Convertirse en nada.Este será el punto donde se cumplirá el movimiento de la humanidad (o incluso el movimiento de toda la vida en la tierra) y el universo ahora tendría que seguir adelante sin vida (humana) en la tierra, para alcanzar su propia meta final, que es exactamente lo mismo:
Citas célebres de antinatalismo misantrópico
Los humanos son las criaturas más destructivas del planeta. Causamos un gran número de muertes de animales (tanto directa como indirectamente). Destruimos hábitats. Dañamos el medio ambiente. Actualmente estamos calentando el clima mundial de una manera que probablemente sea perjudicial para un sinnúmero de animales (incluidos nosotros). Y tenemos los medios, armas nucleares, para destruir todo con solo presionar un botón. Estuvimos peligrosamente cerca de presionar ese botón en una ocasión (la Crisis de los Misiles de Cuba en 1962). La mejor forma de detener la destrucción es eliminar la fuerza destructiva; para eliminar a los humanos absteniéndose de la procreación. En resumen, la colosal cantidad de daño causado por los humanos nos da una razón moral para boicotear a la especie humana.
martes, 28 de septiembre de 2021
jueves, 23 de septiembre de 2021
MORALIDAD SIN ADICCION
1
Why do you think it’s OK to have children if you oppose the idea of another human
feeling pain, suffering and dying? You seem to be in favour of preventing these
things, yet you risk (or intend on) producing children that will feel pain, suffer and
die. It is most noble to start a family and you’re congratulated for it, rather than being
politely advised that you’re a killer hypocrite. To procreate is to inflict upon others
what you appear to spend your life avoiding, reducing or preventing – pain, suffering
and death. What makes you think your kids will want these if you don’t?
We are all potential killer hypocrites – I wish to never start a family, however, I have
been previously, unexpectedly, intimately involved. We did not have sex, but I was in
such a state of abandon that contraception was not a concern. I didn’t want to be a
hypocrite, but it’s more-or-less a one way ticket when your body reacts to such
stimuli. In my mind, I’m an anti-natalist, but my brain is subject to the whims of my
body. A body that feels first and thinks second; a body whose organs are organised
and systems are connected in a way that ensures sexual pleasure bypasses intellect,
hijacking the host to continue the sentient narrative.
Whilst my body has no choice but to be pleased by sexual pleasure, I feel a strong
sense of objection to this stimuli, that if put into words (directed at whoever I interact
with in this way again (and if I have anything to do with it, will be no one)): “Do not
propose to know my mind through my body, for, my body will tell you a different,
pre-programmed story which favours procreation.”. With instinct, it seems there is
little free will in the senses – but I think there is enough of a degree of avoid-ability to
realise our criminal measure of culpability.
Consider the crime – life: pain, suffering and death made possible. But we consider
life to be more of a ride than a crime. If a rollercoaster injures or kills more than 0%
of its riders, it is more than likely shut down, perhaps permanently. Life has a 100%
injury and death rate, yet we are biologically and institutionally driven or dragged
over the crumpled bodies of our predecessors to sacrifice our progeny on the altars of
‘accident’ or purpose. Who else but a killer – a terrorist – volunteers others to feel
pain, suffer and die? Lifers (parents).
There are estimates that around 100 billion humans have ever existed – this is the
death toll of ‘progress’ and the number of chances we’ve given life to get ‘better’. We
still suffer. We still die. We appear to be under some sort of misconception to keep
doing this. Pleasure drives us to propagate pain, suffering and death – the ‘devil’ is in
the dopamine. It always has been. Before you carry on fucking yourselves into the
next illusion: there is no confusion. We are the loss-locked. Pain always finds and
death always wins – it’s about time we refuse to lose.
2
Joe
I recall a brief conversation with an associate who wants to start a family (he’s bought
a three-bedroomed house on the purpose). As I reflect, I will attempt to distil our
positions.
Me: “Do you support pain and death?”
Joe: “No.”
Me: “Then you shouldn’t have children.”
Joe: “Why?”
Me: “Because by procreating, you’d be exposing them to pain and
you’d be killing them.”
Joe: “No I wouldn’t, I’d be creating life.”
Google
Procreation, as an act, which results in death, matches this definition of killing. It is
also, creating life…
Me: “That will feel pain and die. You’d be a killer.”
Joe: “I wouldn't be killing them because they'd die of natural
causes.”
3
Me: “Natural causes that can only affect them if they’re alive in the
first place.”
Killing is typically observed (primarily through news, TV shows and movies) as
“causing death as the more-or-less direct result of an act” (a ‘hands-on’ approach, in
the form of (if killing with intent) beatings, stabbings, shootings etc.). If Joe is
operating under this definition, then of course procreation isn’t killing – the direct
result of Joe having sex (with the intention to procreate) will be getting his wife
pregnant (thus, “creating life”); neither would he be responsible for his children dying
of natural causes (his hands wouldn’t directly be choking his children’s arteries later
in their lives, causing them to have a fatal heart attack, for example).
I find Joe’s intention to procreate equally as questionable as that of a person who
intends on ending someone’s life by direct means. In both scenarios, the procreator
and the killer performs an act that they know will result in the pain, suffering and
death of another person. You’ve got good intentions, but your ‘good’ intentions will
torment and kill your kids. You’d be killing them with your glands instead of your
hands. The result is the same. I do not accept the definition of ‘killing’ that Joe
appears to be operating under – a definition that conveniently leaves him unhindered
and unpunished to afflict on his children certain torment and certain death.
Joe: “I want to leave a legacy. My children might cure cancer or
stop the world from burning up.”
To use ‘curing cancer’ and ‘stopping the world from burning up’ as reasons to
procreate, leads me to believe that these causes are important to you.
To want to leave a legacy (which is a statement of intent), leads me to believe that
you’ll be making an effort to do so.
I imagine that the bare minimum effort required for someone who intends on leaving
this kind of legacy, would be to set an example to their children.
Dictionary.com
Joe does nothing to help cure cancer or stop the world from burning up – neither of
these things has he mentioned as an active concern, nor do I know of any initiatives
he’s part of, to effect these goals.
The behaviours don’t exist for your children to imitate, which means the chances of
you leaving this kind of legacy are near zero. How will your children learn of these
causes (let alone be inspired to contribute to them) if they’re not even on your radar?
Why should your kids solve these problems if you can’t be bothered? At this rate,
4
your legacy is more likely to be mass murder – terrorists have more interest in
indoctrinating your kids to a cause than you do.
Since it is apparent that you are not capable of achieving your intended legacy,
perhaps you misspoke.
Should your response have been: “I want to leave a legacy. My children might cure
leprosy or develop a vaccine for malaria.”?
Or: “I want to leave a legacy. My children might cure AIDS or instigate world
peace.”?
What else might they do (no thanks to you)? You don’t care enough about any of
these ideals to set an example to anyone, which means the chances of you leaving this
kind of legacy remains at near zero. The effort behind your gesture amounts to
“procreate and hope for the best”. If terrorists don’t have their way with your children,
rest assured – you’re fully capable of ensuring that the legacy you leave will be your
kids can play video games moderately well.
I thought you were using the word ‘might’ in the sense that it’s going to be incredibly
difficult for your children to cure cancer or stop the world from burning up in their
lifetimes. Actually, it turns out you also meant ‘might’ in the sense that you might not
give enough shits about said issues to bother getting your kids on the case. Who
knows – perhaps you’ll surprise me when your children are born and you’ll suddenly
start caring enough to meet the bare minimum effort your statement requires.
Since it is apparent that there is nothing concrete behind your intention to leave this
legacy (other than relying on blind hope), I am inclined to suspect that the primary
(perhaps only) purpose of your response was to make yourself feel good.
Your response might as well have been: “I want to leave a legacy. My children might
{insert dopamine-inducing ideals here}.”
Perhaps I’m wrong – perhaps I don’t know you as well as I thought. Perhaps you’re
the most qualified person to make this kind of statement. Let’s pretend then, that you,
with your PhDs in the related fields, spend every waking moment working on a cure
for cancer or preventing the world from burning up (or whatever cures for ailments or
achievements you pass through this statement to get your hit). Let’s pretend that
you’ll guide your children to contribute to these causes to the fullest extent of their
abilities, at the expense of all unreasonable time-wasting.
Your own morality forbids you from practicing slavery, yet by procreating (with this
legacy in mind, or to fill the purpose-shaped hole in your life), you’re forcing your
children (through their screaming, tears, blood and deaths) to achieve someone else’s
goals. Your goals. Your slaves may be subject to the problems you created them to
fix. Why should the unconceived fix the problems of the conceived? Only the
conceived have problems. Leave the unconceived out of it. Leave the unconceived in
your imagination, in your pants, or as a stain on your bed.
5
Me: “Legacy? Isn’t that just an idea that makes you feel good? If
there were no people, cancer and the world burning up wouldn’t be
a problem for us.”
Joe: “But then there’d be no people…”
Think about it – you supposedly don’t support pain and death. You don’t want cancer
and the world burning up to be a problem for anyone. So… don’t have kids. You get
to feel good by not having kids – knowing that you won’t subject another human to
any pain and suffering; neither will you consign them to the death sentence that is life.
Cancer? The world burning up? No people = no problem.
I interpreted his response as a sign that he was coming round to the idea. I nodded
once, positively, with the intention of nudging him over the finish line.
Joe: “OK, this’ll blow your mind – you can’t say that there isn’t an
immortal person walking around out there.”
It would appear that one person’s finish line is another person’s wall.
The subject of this discussion is that Joe will be a killer if he procreates – how does
his response change this? It doesn’t. It doesn’t change facts. It does change feelings.
When Joe said “But then there’d be no people…”, he had a look of loss and despair on
his face. Proposing that I cannot deny the existence of an immortal (changing the
subject) made him feel better – he was right about something (else). My argument still
stands. You are free to shoot up on dopamine and ignore it. That’s what this entire
conversation has been – an exercise in Joe making himself feel good, rather than to
justify procreating (perhaps these are one and the same thing).
Having moved into the three-bedroomed house in question, he gave me a tour. From
room to room, I felt increasingly uncomfortable with the amount of space two people
had. I thought – “I do not like what’s going to happen here. A child, or children, who
need never exist, for some reason must exist and therefore must suffer and die”.
Joe later portrayed our conversation to others by claiming that, according to me, he’d
be a murderer if he had children. I called him a killer, not a murderer. Murder is “the
unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another”. Killers aren’t always
murderers – there are, of course, government sanctioned, legal killers in your security
services. Procreation should be criminalised, but it would be a stretch on the resources
of the forces to police this as murder.
6
Chloe
I recall a colleague who’s trying to fuck every man in sight.
After two miscarriages, Chloe is incapable of becoming pregnant. Criticised by her
mother for “not being a real woman”, she hopes to get a strong dopamine hit by
conceiving children through IVF treatment and disallowing her mother from seeing
them; rubbing salt in the wound by sending her an ultrasound scan.
I suspected there were more (perhaps ‘better’) reasons for having children than this.
Chloe: “I don’t know, actually… because you get free shit from the
government like dental care, tax breaks and benefits. Maybe it’s
because everyone else is doing it, all your friends are settling down.
I want to continue my family name.”
Having paused for a moment, she added:
“To feel like I have made a successful step in my own life of having
a child and seeing them grow up, knowing I’m the one that’s given
birth to them and have made them into the person they have
become. To be proud of myself for achieving something that some
don’t have the opportunity to do.”
Could you do something else?
You’ve covered how conceiving children will make you feel good – I’m not seeing
how this justifies putting new humans in coffins.
If you’re at the stage in the relationship with your mother that you want to deny her
access to your potential children, I imagine she won’t give a shit – you told me that
she’s already been furnished with a couple of hobby horses by her son.
7
“…because you get free shit from the government like dental care,
tax breaks and benefits.”
A lot of us struggle with survival. If it’s the case that tradition or circumstance
dictates or shapes women into no/low paying jobs where you live, and there is
financial support available to you if you procreate, then I can understand the appeal of
the financial alleviation that procreation can bring. But why should your children pay
the ultimate price to alleviate your suffering or fill your pockets? It is your
responsibility to improve your life without causing damage and destruction to other
people in the process – gone are the days of child sacrifice for better weather …in all
things but procreation.
“Maybe it’s because everyone else is doing it, all your friends are
settling down.”
The human body produces (and can be induced into producing) dopamine, which we
experience as good feelings and pleasure. Humans become addicts to this ‘drug’ from
day one. As a child, I remember how good it felt to play with a toy (the dopamine
‘hits’), and the distress at having lost it (the psychological withdrawal/cold turkey). At
the time, it was the most important toy I had, because it induced the highest amount of
dopamine in my body – it was my ‘primary dopamine inducer’ of toys; likewise, my
siblings and parents were my primary dopamine inducers of humans. At any one time,
we can have multiple primary dopamine inducers in their respective categories. As a
child, one of my primary dopamine inducers was a doll. As I grew, I became aware of
and sampled other objects and experiences that induced stronger dopamine hits.
Whatever those objects and/or experiences were, the new dopamine inducers replaced
the old ones. For a time, I revisited the old dopamine inducers, but it wasn’t long
before I left them behind, for good (quite literally for ‘good’ – for dopamine).
When I lost my doll, how do I know it didn’t leave me behind for a better toy (a
stronger dopamine hit)? It left me distraught, wailing for its return. As I grew, I did
the same thing – I left it behind for a stronger dopamine hit (video games). How did
that make the doll feel? Perhaps as distraught as I was, when it ‘left’ me. The doll, of
course, did not leave me and it felt nothing – it’s a toy. But replace the toy with
sentient beings who can hurt (pets, family, friends and lovers) – it becomes a less
trivial matter for those left behind. Case in point – “all your friends are settling
down”. Your primary dopamine inducers (friends) have found new primary dopamine
inducers (their partners), leaving you in withdrawal. They’re still your friend, but their
footfall in your life becomes that of a stranger. So you figure – make new friends
(which seems to get harder as you age). Even then, a new friend is a relationship away
from becoming an acquaintance. Why? The stimulation of sex organs induces the
strongest dopamine hits – friends typically seek other people for this kind of activity.
Pleasure seeking leaves in its wake a trail of suffering. Lovers leave the greatest
amount of suffering in their wake because:
1. Lovers typically focus on one person to the exclusion of all other dopamine
dependencies (their ex-partners and friends).
8
2. Love typically results in sexual reproduction – lovers leave in their wake all of
the suffering that their children will experience.
It is no surprise that you want to follow in your friends’ footsteps, given that they
appear to have won the dopamine jackpot – yet, you forget that they’re having a great
time at your expense; yet, you don’t realise that you’re about to do the same thing to
your friends. If you’re in love, you leave in your wake your suffering ex-partner(s)
and friends. If you focus on a ‘best’ friend, you leave in your wake your other
suffering friends. In all of these pursuits, you leave in your wake your suffering
family members. Behind us is wake after wake after wake of suffering. Everyone who
likes you suffers because of your pleasure seeking, and your pleasure seeking blinds
you to the suffering you cause. That sounds pretty dangerous to me, and all we’re
talking about is improving our wellbeing. Then we must contend with a life that
infects us, breaks our bones, abuses and: kills us – the final wake of suffering
unleashed by life. Despite our intentions, there is no result in reality where we don’t
leave or die, causing one of us to be left behind again as the suffering spectator.
“I want to continue my family name.”
I ate a salad and I enjoyed it. When I think about salad, that memory is triggered. Not
only is the memory triggered, but so are the dopamine hits that were originally
induced by that experience. You’re familiar with this process – a classic example of
this is when you take trips down memory lane, remembering the good old days. Why
do we do this? Because it makes us feel good now. As memories fade, so do the
dopamine hits associated to them (both in their number and intensity) – we call this
‘diminishing returns’. When you invoke the notion of continuing your family name,
you are remembering (thus, re-inducing the dopamine hits associated with) your
family experiences so you can feel good now (refreshing the returns). Dopamine is
addictive, it makes you want more of it. Because family members have made you feel
good, you want more family members. I don’t know what ‘continuing your family
name’ means. When you invoke the notion, all I see is a drug addict shooting up,
getting high off the idea.
“To feel like I have made a successful step in my own life of having
a child and seeing them grow up, knowing I’m the one that’s given
birth to them and have made them into the person they have
become. To be proud of myself for achieving something that some
don’t have the opportunity to do.”
You don’t need to create people to feel good. You have a dependency for a quantity
and quality of dopamine generated through peopled experiences – initially through
pleasant family, friends, acquaintances, colleagues and strangers. Through time into
adulthood, you become distant from these dopamine inducers; you suffer from
withdrawal. It’s logical to seek the quantity and quality of dopamine you’ve become
accustomed to, by starting your own intimate relationship and family. But this is the
logic of a drug addict. If your addiction only hurt you, then it’s nobody else’s
business, but you have reproductive organs – the stimuli of which enhances the
9
addiction to the point where people invariably afflict their addiction (thus pain,
suffering and death) on other people via procreation.
You have a choice to do something else. Realise that the quantity and quality of
dopamine you’ve become accustomed to can be generated by other activities and
experiences. Ask yourself: “Can I feel good without causing damage and destruction
to anyone else in the process?”. The answer is yes, and you’ve probably already done
it – by babysitting your nieces or nephews. I’ve done it. A classic babysitter response
is: “It’s nice having them round, but it’s equally as nice to send them home.”.
Granted, we don’t all think this way – me and my niece would’ve liked me to become
her missing parent, full time. I wasn’t looking to become a parental figure by being
the go-to babysitter, but it happened and I understand the appeal – but I also know
that you don’t have to create people to have these experiences and you can live a
satisfying life.
Consider…
1. Babysitting
2. The caring of pets
3. Fostering/adoption
…as the methadone substitutes to your heroin-like addiction.
I’m not suggesting that we breed more people and pets to maintain these substitutes –
this would continue to inflict pain, suffering and death on the involved species by
proxy. The ideal scenario is to be drug-free – but given that we are born as drug
manufacturers and addicts, to be drug-free is to be unconscious or not alive. If these
options aren’t available to you without significant pain and suffering, then consider
other substitutes. I work through my own suffering by writing this book; watching
TV; listening to music and playing video games. I’ve been toying with the idea of
teaching myself to play the piano. You have countless dopamine-inducing activities
available to you and a lot of them don’t involve risking sexual reproduction. Since
you can sate your needs by other means, there’s no excuse to inflict further suffering,
right?
Speaking about a lover, who she suspected of cheating on her:
"I just want something to live for. If he gets me pregnant then I've
got what I want and he can fuck off.”
You make it sound like you cannot go on living without having kids, yet you’ve lived
this long without them. Not only lived, but presumably you’ve been entertained
enough by life without kids to refrain from committing suicide. Clearly, kids are not
necessary for your entertainment or survival.
10
Criminal Consequences
How can you claim ignorance of, or deny inflicting pain, suffering and death via
procreation when:
1. You suffer?
2. You witness the suffering of others (typically your loved ones)?
3. You witness death (typically in the form of attending funerals) and the
suffering it causes?
4. The news repeatedly reports on suffering; on the dying and dead?
We protest against suffering; we grieve and complain when we lose our loved ones,
but virtually no responsibility is taken (or assigned to) parents that are primarily
culpable for causing the pain, suffering and death of children that never had to be
alive to suffer and die.
When are you going to take responsibility for the suffering and death you cause by
procreating? If you’re pregnant, which of the more-or-less 161,280 opportunities to
arrange an abortion are you going to take, to prevent your children suffering any more
than they should have to?
Why do you concern yourself with morality when you pause it to satisfy your
addiction at the expense of your children?
1. Your body manufactures dopamine and you are addicted to it – to be alive is
to be a captive addict.
Quite literally, captive – under the care of parents or guardians who, at the very least,
catered for your basic bodily needs by feeding and cleaning you. A lot of us will have
had our dopamine induced by their stimuli; by the stimuli of our siblings – through
games and story time, experiences and adventures, through friendships – cultivating
the belief that overall, people are good.
You were conveniently not informed that your parents were the authors of all of your
suffering and inevitable death. Instead, you were told that your birthday was happy,
and you were made to feel happy on that day – the association of good feelings to
your parent’s crime; the association of good feelings to birth and people, serving as
encouragement to repeat your parent’s crime.
2. The strongest dopamine hits are attained through sexual activity between two
or more people – usually a man and a woman.
As our bodies develop through and beyond puberty, we carry the belief that people
are good into our sexual landscape (when our reproductive organs are fully active to
induce the strongest dopamine hits, upgrading the addiction). Sexual intercourse
usually causes the participants to experience maximum pleasure in the complete
absence of pain.
As a child, I knew it probably wasn’t a good idea to kick the pebble finish off a
garage wall, when one day I kicked it so hard that my big toe became swollen and
11
black, causing me to limp home in tears. People seldom ‘stub their toe’ during sex –
there is no pain; no biological warning signs to suggest that the reproductive
consequences of sex is bad.
3. Children can provide you, the drug addict, with your lifetime’s supply of
drugs.
You can create and hold your own dopamine factories hostage, reliving your
childhood through them; catering for their basic bodily needs by feeding and cleaning
them; inducing your and their dopamine through games and story time, experiences
and adventures, through friendships; cultivating their belief that overall, people are
good.
You get a life-long multitude of dopamine-inducing interactions with your children
because they typically outlive their parents. The likelihood of a child dying before its
parents do are slim, so a parent, in general, never expects to be emotionally
inconvenienced by their children’s deaths because they themselves will have already
died.
In summary, you were unknowingly born as a drug addict; an addiction that typically
associates good feelings to people (thus, if you want more good feelings then you
want more people), and as it happens, you have the ability to create more people; and
the act of creating people feels good; and the end product is a drug factory for a drug
addict. How could you have ever suspected that it was wrong to procreate when your
body is built to do it; your body tells you it’s good and you’re surrounded by beings
who are afflicted by the same condition? You live in a world of addicts enabling
addicts, a circus of clowns creating clowns because clowns are good because good
feels good.
You were on biological auto-pilot, abetted by pleasure and aided by time – the stealth
technologies of the sentient condition that allows the negative consequences of
procreation to a) appear benign/friendly to, or b) avoids detection on, your emotion
radar. That is what we are – emotion radars. What are radars primarily useful for?
Sensing danger, such that those dangers can be avoided, reduced or prevented. The
pain signals detected on our emotion radar form and inform our rules of behaviour
and conduct – the building blocks of morality. It follows then, that the purpose of
morality is to promote the avoidance, reduction and prevention of pain, suffering and
death.
Procreation is the creator of pain, suffering and death, therefore procreation stands in
direct contradiction to the purpose of morality. The rules of any morality (held
personally and/or organisationally) that encourages procreation are based on the
benefits of a drug addiction, benefits that are considered more important than sparing
humanity (often children) from starvation, disease, broken bones, abuse, rape, torment
and depression; sanctioning it entirely acceptable that new people must experience
dying – tortured by their failing bodies or succumbing to (often violent) accident,
suicide or murder. Your ‘morality’ is addiction-weighted, camouflaged by parents as
‘caring’.
12
There is a fault in the underlying technology of our morality – dopamine disables our
emotion radar at detecting procreation as dangerous because the only way to attain the
greatest ‘hit’ is to engage in sexual conduct with organs capable of reproducing the
species. The organs responsible for our suffering and death are conveniently the ones
that give us the greatest pleasure (both in the act of procreating and through the
dopamine-inducing interactions of the lives created), which is why procreation (as a
cause of suffering and death) gets a free pass through our morals and laws (the morals
and laws whose entire purpose is to prohibit and punish the causes of suffering and
death).
Life is a battlefield upon which no one is required to participate, but we are forced
onto it by parents who seem to have had every chance to make other choices. Where
was our parent’s concern for our safety and wellbeing before we were conceived?
They live their lives in a world that prohibits and punishes acts that will cause other
people pain, suffering and death, yet prior to conception, we were somehow exempt
from these basic protections; exempt from the rules that make up the ‘morality’ that
our own parents live by; exempt from the laws that were inspired by such rules and
moralities. At the very least, we should consider the concept of consent before we
procreate. Critics of anti-natalism find the concept of consent absurd and irrelevant,
because how can you get consent from someone who doesn’t exist?
An un-conceived life is unable to give consent to being conceived because they do not
exist to give it. Their mind is not available to be queried.
A person in a coma is unable to give consent to participating in sexual activities
because they are not conscious to give it. Their mind is not available to be queried.
How do I tell the difference between a procreator and a rapist? Both of them either
haven’t considered the concept of consent in their actions, or if they did, they
considered it irrelevant in the process of pleasing themselves.
“The longest human lifespan is that of Jeanne Calment of France
(1875–1997), who lived to the age of 122 years, 164 days.”
Wikipedia
Everyone alive today will suffer and die within the next 122 years, 164 days. Most of
them will suffer and die within the average human lifespan (72.6 years). That’s about
7.8 billion children, women and men. Why do you give a shit about The Holocaust
where only 6 million people died? Or World War 2 where only 70-85 million people
died? Is it because you can see it happening more-or-less all at once in documentaries,
in all its gruesomeness (whereas, in comparison, we normally learn of a few deaths in
our lifetime, separated by decades and we rarely see the bloodied bodies (they are
quickly scraped off roads and buried or burned))? Is it because they were killed
without being made to feel good beforehand? That’s how you justify inflicting pain,
suffering and death on your children via procreation, isn’t it? It’s OK if the victim
feels good about what you did. If the SS had done with their prisoners what parents do
with their children (provide adequate water, food and health care; entertain them and
foster a sense of hope for the future (along with not mentioning the whole “you’re
going to suffer and die and it’s my fault” thing)), then nobody could’ve complained
13
about what they were doing. Hey – don’t get angry with me, I’m using your rules
here, from your morality.
Of the 7.8 billion children, women and men, over the next 122 years, 164 days, every
5 years of that (split evenly) will see just under 325 million of them suffer and die in
the gas chamber that is Earth. This is the number of peace-time deaths we‘re supposed
find ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’ (but not the 70-85 million war-time deaths in the same
amount of time). We’re supposed to find it ‘normal’ and ‘acceptable’ that sentient life
is a continuous Holocaust and basic human survival requires us to exacerbate the
Holocaust of several other species on an industrial scale. I watched a video entitled
‘male chick maceration’, a solid 5 minutes of a conveyor belt feeding live baby
chickens into a meat grinder, along with the egg shells they shouldn’t have hatched
from. Each procreator, when they conceive new lives, turns the wheel of the conveyor
belt – not just for their own species, but for the species they depend on to survive.
Each and every parent contributes to this mass killing; each and every parent is a pixel
in the portrait of their species’ morality, and that image is red. It is ironic that antinatalists care more about the safety of children than parents do. You are prepared to
(or have) put your children in a world that always inflicts pain, suffering and death on
sentient beings. We don’t.
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com
Criminal irresponsibility is innate in the sentient condition, a built-in defence for its
crimes that uses ignorance and addiction to perform a moral bypass on its hosts,
ensuring the continuation of the species. On the other hand, nobody, it seems, is
pointing a gun at your head, compelling you to reproduce. If you do, your kids will
suffer and die to get you high. I propose that ‘innocence through addiction-lead
ignorance’ is no longer an acceptable defence.
14
Why do foetuses get to die better than us?
We need to align our purported morality with reality, perhaps enshrined as a ‘National
Mercy Service’, whose mission statement could be:
“Life is not healthy. It is a terminal disease. Suffering is guaranteed. The prevention
of life is our primary mission. We should promote the idea that procreation should be
a well-thought conscious decision, rather than an instinctual consequence by
irresponsible pleasure seekers. Given that our bodies have a head-start on
indoctrinating us to multiply, we should build into our species artificially innate
measures that force us to consider the implications of what we’re about to do (beyond
getting our next hit):
1. Build into our sex education the concept of anti-natalism.
2. Apply a Do Not Resuscitate order on existing and new people; an order that
the subject can opt out of.
3. Sterilise all new people, but make it reversible.
4. Imprison parents for one day per child if carried to term.
We died when we were conceived because no one intervened.
When the subject is taught anti-natalism in conjunction with sex education; when the
subject learns of their Do Not Resuscitate order or sterilisation; when the subject
observes others (or is themselves) imprisoned for carrying to term their offspring: it is
at these points in the subject’s life, we hope they pause for thought to understand why
these measures were implemented – life will torment, damage and destroy everyone
afflicted with it. Creation contradicts the morality our common behaviours portray.
If our mission fails and life is brought to suffer, we should facilitate a willing
subject’s termination in as painless a manner as possible (render them unconscious via
general anaesthetic, followed by a lethal dose). No effort and expense should be
spared to acquire the best drugs and materials to aid in this endeavour, or to transport
the subject to a participating facility. This is the only decision about the subject’s
existence that the subject has a choice in – it should be harassed equally as much as
the decision to procreate is.
We didn’t ask to be here, we damn well deserve an easy way out.”
Abortion is an easy way out…
“Deciding to have an abortion
The decision to have an abortion is yours alone.
Some women may be certain they want to have an abortion, while
others may find it more difficult to make a decision.
All women requesting an abortion can discuss their options with,
and receive support from, a trained pregnancy counsellor if they
wish.
15
Impartial information and support are available from:
your GP or another doctor at your GP practice
a counselling service at the abortion clinic
organisations such as Brook (for under-25s), BPAS, Marie
Stopes UK and NUPAS
You may also want to speak to your partner, friends or family, but
you do not have to. They do not have a say in your decision.
If you do not want to tell anyone, your details will be kept
confidential.
If you're under 16, your parents do not usually need to be told. The
doctor or nurse may encourage you to tell a parent, carer or other
adult you trust, but they will not make you.”
https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/abortion/
…but once you’re conceived, you’re a slave to the addicts that created you –
primarily your parents, then siblings, friends, partners, associates etc. Thus, you are
usually brought to term to operate as part of your family’s (and society’s) drug
supply.
What are your options if you’ve decided you want to die? How easy is it to commit
suicide? Well, you being dead denies your addicts their drugs, so it’s incredibly
difficult. Suicide is legal, but assisting suicide is illegal. It is illegal to assist someone
who is performing a legal act. The suicidal are therefore deprived of a humane death
(in a clinic or hospital, perhaps), forcing them to consider painful, possibly violent
alternatives, which can result in further suffering through injury and disability (if the
attempt fails). Should the suicide be successful, the suicider risks their family, partner
and/or friends finding their body, perhaps in a shocking, gruesome state. The
authorities addicts, of course, know what they’re doing. They know that they can't
prevent suicide, but they can heavily discourage it by making it as difficult as
possible. For the suicides that they don’t discourage, the suicider died inhumanely at
the hands of a manipulative and barbaric legal system.
Suicidal thoughts/depression are interpreted as signs of an illness, but what if
depression is withdrawal from our built-in addiction? What if the addiction is the
illness, and depression is a sign of sobering up? To be drug-free through this lens
would require you to be unconscious or dead, but you don’t necessarily have to die
with your negative emotions and you don’t have to procreate to be re-addicted to life.
That being said, if you want out, you should be let out, near enough no questions
asked (unlike a foetus, you can assess the evidence of your suffering and
communicate your preference). Instead, the authorities addicts conduct an
interrogation on the sufferer: they are questioned; commanded to re-assess; to be
made to feel like they don’t know their own mind; second-guessed; unsupported in
their aim; emotionally blackmailed; prohibited; detained, counselled and medicated at
the hands of a manipulative and barbaric health system.
16
Anti-natalism extremely detracts from a natalist’s addiction to life, so it is
understandable that our critics believe that we have arrived at our position via
depression; that our position is invalid because we arrived at it via what they consider
to be an illness. As much as I dislike the feeling of having my world view dismissed
by the suggestion that I’m ill, it is not obvious to me how someone becomes an antinatalist without having their drug supply persistently depressed by the negative
aspects of life. People can experience this depression in a general way – witnessing
and empathising with the suffering of others. A lot of us, however, have to experience
our own suffering as a constant or repetitive torture. You might find that surviving
depression makes you appreciate that compassion for future suffering should result in
its prevention, not its propagation for the sake of addiction fulfilment, especially when
the addiction can be fulfilled by non-procreative means.
Suicide causes future suffering too, so it could be argued that anti-natalists should be
in opposition to suicide for the same reason; that the suicidal have an obligation to
their dopamine dependencies not to proceed. You are emotionally blackmailed by the
simple fact that you were brought to term in a world that forces addicts to become
addicted to each other, who will then suffer if that addiction is ripped away. Not only
did you have no choice but to be brought into this world to suffer, you seemingly have
no choice about leaving this life at a time and painless method of your choosing; no,
your suffering must continue in order to protect the addiction of your dopamine
dependencies. Fuck that. Where are your parents? I feel like punching them in their
junk. Just as parents have flagrant disregard for the pain, suffering and death they
author on their children by creating them, so should the suicidal be afforded flagrant
disregard for the suffering that their suicide causes.
You don’t necessarily have to be depressed and/or suicidal to have these thoughts,
you’re just assessing the options kindly provided to you by your parents. The nonsuicidal seem happy to continue sucking every last drop of dopamine from reality’s
teat until they are subject to one of the aforementioned ‘options’ (causes of death (list
not exhaustive)): stroke, heart attack, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, cancer,
asphyxiation, beaten, stabbed, shot, burned, crushed or blown up. Is it wrong to want
an easier death than these? Most people would wish to die peacefully in their sleep.
Well, they can. We have the barbiturates to render people unconscious and kill them
by overdose, making all other methods of dying inhumane (especially inhumane when
the addicts give the suicidal no other option than to do something like stand in front of
a moving train). We could’ve repurposed Harold Shipman for the job. Unfortunately,
the Nazis gave organised dying a bad name.
The suicidal want to die peacefully in their sleep too, but they don’t have to wish
when there is Nembutal. Guess what the addicts banned. In the regions where
physician-assisted suicide is illegal, your ‘right to die’ is an illusion. You must beg,
plead, ask the addicts nicely that alongside Maternity wards (entry from nothingness)
we add Eternity wards (exit to nothingness), such that we can die gracefully; with
dignity; at a time of our choosing. In the regions where physician-assisted suicide is
legal, your right to die is conditional: you must be of a certain age; already suffering;
usually terminally ill. You must get other people’s opinions, meet various criteria,
sign multiple documents, confirm and re-confirm your intention until you are blue in
the face (from suffocating on the bureaucracy). Parents get to kill their kids by
17
creating them on a whim, no questions asked, with encouragement, support and
benefits from governments and health systems.
I've never liked the idea of dying on life's terms (at the hands of a random ailment,
accident or attack), but I don’t consider myself suicidal in the classic sense. I enjoy
life just enough to risk the regular fates, but I’d like to have the option of a graceful
exit at any age (when reality focuses on my mortality). I can, however, envisage a day
where I get slightly annoyed and down Nembutal as if it’s nothing more eventful than
drinking a cup of tea (stubbing my toe for the one-hundredth time might be the straw
that breaks the camel’s back). Sure, I’d be acting on an emotion that might not be
there this time tomorrow. When all dopamine leaves all thoughts and I am empty, my
body still breathes – there is no necessity for my body to die with the dopamine. To
pause my suffering, I carefully re-addict myself to life without propagating suffering
via procreation. Through my understanding of life as an addiction, I take the suicide
out of depression and the killing out of happiness.
I might appear content. Happy, almost. Perhaps successful. But don’t confuse
management of suffering with affirmation of life. Make no mistake – I am here under
duress.
18
Your dopamine destination doesn’t have to continue the
species
I recall a colleague who was talking about how many children she wanted with her
fiancé.
Grace: “I want four kids and he wants two, so we’ve compromised
on three.”
Me: “How about zero kids?”
Grace: “I like kids! We’ve got to have some otherwise humanity
will go nowhere.”
Me: “Why does humanity have to go somewhere?”
Grace: “Wow, this has gone a bit morbid, hasn’t it?!”
You have expressed a need to drive our species via procreation to some sort of
destination, but you have not stated where (just that if we don’t have kids, our species
will go ‘nowhere’). When questioned as to why humanity has to go somewhere, your
response was indicative of you having your dopamine supply reduced or depressed,
revealing that the destination you’re referring to is a dopamine hit. This is typical
sentient behaviour – we strive for our next dopamine hit; we are biologically driven to
our next dopamine destination. What you meant by “humanity will go nowhere” was:
its members would no longer have a dopamine destination to travel to (on the
assumption that every member of our species is sufficiently addicted to the dopamine
induced by new lives, such that they have a desire to procreate).
Google
You’re the one that has (what is sadly considered) a ‘normal’ and ‘healthy' interest in
the disturbing and unpleaseant subjects of afflicting disease on your children before
filling three coffins with their dead bodies via procreation.
19
Given that the word ‘morbid’ is commonly associated with death, you appear to be
conflating there being no more people with losing people (losing people – aside from
relationship failures – is typically achieved by them dying). Whilst the children you
plan on creating don’t exist (thus, cannot die; thus, cannot be lost), your dopamineinducing expection of the dopamine hits you’d receive from them does exist (thus, can
‘die’; thus, can be lost).
Google
Dopamine gives life meaning; ‘the meaning of life’ is whatever is inducing repeated
dopamine hits in your body through repeated ritual. Love is a famous meaning of life
because the intensity of the dopamine hits is high due to the close physical (thus
emotional; thus intimate (in the case of lovers)) proximity of lovers and family
members; through the related rituals of courting, marriage, procreation, rearing etc.
For those who are distracted from the dopamine hits offered by intimate physical
relationships, they receive repeated dopamine hits (that are purportedly an equivalent
intensity as that of physically-induced feelings of love) through new or established
belief systems; through the related rituals of study, worship, ceremony, sacrifice etc.
A person who does nothing but build and play with model railways also has a
meaning of life, regardless of the fact that she/he would be receiving less intense
dopamine hits than the people we typically consider to have a ‘true’ or ‘proper’ sense
of meaning in their lives.
By removing new lives from your addiction equation, anti-natalists are removing the
dopamine hits that give your life meaning, making us appear to believe that life is
meaningless; making us appear to be nihilists. A person who writes a book that could
be described as “sucking all the joy out of life” has a meaningful life, because I’ve
received repeated dopamine hits from the repeated ritual of writing this book. Who
says life is meaningless if we stop procreating? The addicts who rely on procreation to
get their dopamine hits. This reveals a failure of imagination. Whilst I don’t believe
that life is ever worth starting, once you’re lumbered with it, life has many aspects to
it that can make it meaningful, thus worth continuing (assuming that you have the
emotional agility to re-addict yourself to aspects of it when depressed (or if you
choose the easy option: to take anti-depressants)). We don’t believe that life is
meaningless, we know that life can be meaningful without forcing new people to pay
the price for our wellbeing.
Anti-natalism, if adopted by everyone, would result in our extinction. What, exactly,
is bad about extinction? The movie and TV industries have done a fantastic job at
making us recoil in horror at the notion – we almost exclusively believe that
becoming extinct causes immense pain and suffering. Temperature extremes;
hurricanes; earthquakes; tsunamis; resource depletion; disease; nuclear war; alien
invasion; planetary destruction. The focus is on losing; loss. Anti-natalism, as a
method of extinction, inflicts no pain, no suffering and kills no one. No one is lost.
It’s a gradual process whereby the existing addicts find non-procreative ways to
20
entertain themselves until they die. There are plenty of people who, for various
reasons, don’t procreate – and their reasons don’t necessarily ally with, or align to
anti-natalism. They are addicted to other aspects of life that don’t require its
propagation. The only loss is the dopamine hits you expect to receive from
procreating, which are replace-able.
Nobody’s crying about all the non-existent people on Mars. You don’t have to cry
about there being no more people on Earth. Change what you’re addicted to. Change
your dopamine destination.
21
It’s about the journey, not the destination
I don’t know about you, but I feel like I’ve been kidnapped; snatched from
nothingness; stolen from peace; ripped from my freedom from disturbance to suffer
my parent’s journey; to suffer:
1. Physical discomfort (too hot/cold; atmospheric/weather-caused clothing
discomfort; maintaining the same position for too long (necessitated by using
public transport etc.); exercise).
2. Thirst.
3. Hunger.
4. Being fed (and addicted to the taste of) meat and other animal products; made
complicit in other sentient beings’ suffering and deaths from an early age.
5. Excretion of unpleasant substances.
6. Chores.
7. Small injuries (scuffs, bruising, cuts).
8. The common cold.
9. The flu.
10. Intense tooth ache (the “banging your head against a wall all night to distract
yourself from the pain” type).
11. Tooth removal.
12. Broken bones.
13. Aches and pains of varying intensity.
14. Boredom.
15. Stubbing my toes.
16. Familial ‘duties’ imposed upon me in a family I never asked to be a part of.
17. The continued harassment of being torn from the peace of sleep to attend
school.
18. Bullying.
19. Physical assaults.
20. Pressure to (or frustration/feelings of inadequacy by failing to) achieve
something.
21. The continued harassment of being torn from the peace of sleep to attend work
(slavery to survival).
22. Humiliation/loss of dignity.
23. Stress.
24. Fear.
25. Anxiety.
26. Panic attacks.
27. Grief.
28. Depression.
It all adds up, however minor or mitigated these pain points seem or become.
Compared to my previous state (of not existing), I do not appreciate paying these
prices for my parent’s optimism. But calling these ailments and injuries “prices” (or
“impositions”) is being too polite. These are attacks. Attacks that will result in my
death. I consider my conception an attack. If one person inflicted some (or all) of
these ailments and injuries upon me, with the result being my death (whether they
intended to injure and kill me or not), it would be hard not to take it personally.
22
Instead, two people did this to me. Nothing has changed. Anti-natalism isn’t just a
philosophy. This is personal.
We tolerate these attacks because they’re compensated with nature’s currency –
dopamine. We are biologically lead to believe that dopamine is a fix; a solution to our
problems, but it’s a drug fix. It’s the equivalent of giving morphine to a mortally
wounded soldier. Sure, you’ve fixed her suffering (temporarily), but that doesn’t
change the fact that she’s still bleeding to death. You made her feel good about a bad
situation. That’s all we’re doing – making ourselves feel good about this bad
situation. Dopamine is addictive, drug-like; it has withdrawal symptoms such as
distress, grief and depression – we invariably become addicted to temporary
dopamine inducers (other humans) that will leave or die, so these ‘fixes’ (and
happiness) are also future suffering in disguise. Pleasure, via propagation, creates the
problems it ‘fixes’. Unfortunately, it seems that we’d rather have the problems so we
can feel good from the ‘fixes’, than to not have the problems at all. Is it possible to be
happy without it being compensation for (or a cause of) suffering? What makes you
happy that isn’t needed to distract you from (or delay) your suffering?
Natalists and anti-natalists, at their core, want the same thing – to solve suffering.
Natalists remain addicted to the biological belief that the problem can be solved with
dopamine (they want to maintain the addiction in the process). They focus on
improving the potency of the temporary drug fixes – their innovators and inventors
greatly improve (or otherwise revolutionise) our modes of living, socialising, health
and mobility. Innovations and inventions imbue and enrich words like ‘progress’ and
‘future’ with an inordinate amount of dopamine, subconsciously requiring or
commanding us to create more engineers and consumers to innovate, invent and
consume the dopamine hits that each innovation or invention promises to induce. We
need to resist these calls to conception – the mission is to solve suffering, not to feel
good about the impossibilities of achieving it without extinction. We cannot be free
from suffering if we insist on creating new lives; we cannot have morality and
humanity. We’ve had about 200,000 years and thrown over 100 billion people at this
problem – I tentatively suggest that we’re pissing in the wind.
If the addiction-retaining solution to suffering is to be continuously under the
influence of dopamine, perhaps this explains why we immerse ourselves in ‘dopamine
bubbles’ (family, friends, fucking, faith, fortune, future), whose walls we fortify to
mitigate or deny the depressing effects of reality’s dopamine disrupters. The extent of
our (almost wilful) ignorance or denial of our suffering possibilities (to protect our
dopamine bubbles; to protect our addictions) can be extreme – I’ve met people who
genuinely believe that they can prevent all harm to their offspring …until cot death
strikes. Reality does not have ignorance of, nor does it deny unsavoury possibilities
because you do. Religion was/is most effective at ensuring its adherents receive a
continuous supply of dopamine (or desperate concoctions of antidotes to suffering
that bend or break the constraints of reality); it has the advantage of outliving the
more temporary dopamine-inducing alternatives. But the World Wide Web and an
increased understanding of reality (delivered through refined atheist rhetoric) have
made it too easy to puncture the faith dopamine bubble.
When the religious find release from their dopamine-inducing beliefs, they face the
stark prospect that there is no cosmic parent or purpose; they might contemplate their
23
insignificance in the vast cosmos – it can be a bit depressing. They might ask:
“What’s it all for?” and “What’s the point?”. When non-anti-natalists find release
from their species addiction, they face the stark reality that all of their suffering and
eventual death was for the sake of an orgasm by addict parents whose addiction
camouflages itself as a cure (but is in fact the cause of all suffering); they might
contemplate that the only purpose of life is to continuously create, torment and kill
innocents – forget depressing: it’s a sick joke. One day, in all likelihood, I’ll have a
heart attack, clutching my chest as I crawl to call for help. My life won’t be flashing
before my eyes, I’ll be thinking about the alternative decisions and options my parents
could’ve made or had, that could’ve prevented all my suffering and this fate. I might
ask: “Why am I suffering when I didn’t have to?”, to then consider all in life I love
and ask: “What was the point because I can’t keep any of it?”.
Some people believe that by conceiving new lives, they are bestowing a gift on their
children. Some of them believe that they are owed a debt of gratitude for doing so.
You are owed, but it will not be with gratitude that you are repaid.
I discovered early that to minimise deep suffering would be to minimise deep
happiness; I would need to become a ‘dopamine minimalist’ (primarily, to avoid
intimate relationships). That being said, my hormones kicked in and puberty took
hold; after a few short relationships (one where I was on the brink of risking
reproduction), I decided to distance my body from temptation; I banned myself from
friendships and intimate relationships with members of the opposite sex. Over the
years, I’ve crossed paths with many tempting, very compatible candidates for both,
but I denied them all. In retrospect, perhaps I should’ve explained my position:
“Liking you requires that a drug-like effect takes place in my body, of varying
intensity and addictiveness. The degradation/loss of any relationship we have will
cause me to experience withdrawal-like symptoms such as distress, grief or
depression. I do not wish to experience these things again. In addition, we’d be
inflicting these symptoms on any children we create, ensuring their deaths. I don’t
dislike you, I dislike the inevitable suffering that liking you entails”.
Given that anti-natalism withdraws natalists from their addiction, it can be an
unwelcome philosophy; you are likely to reject it because it will deprive you of good
feelings, but do you reject it for reasons that don’t stem from it depressing you? Or to
put it another way, do you reject it for reasons that stem from your addiction to other
dopamine-inducing aspects of life (that you feel warrants the continued reproduction
of our species)? To reject anti-natalism on these bases is a declaration that your
happiness (or the happiness of potential/actual parents) is more important than the
pain, suffering and death of your (or their) children. Perhaps you reject it simply
because I offended you – you might find anti-natalism as offensive as the person who
exposed you to it. Your natural response might be to (predictably) act in opposition to
the offender’s suggestion – you are free to procreate to spite an anonymous antinatalist that cares more about your children than you do. They say “You can catch
more flies with honey than with vinegar”. Must I really pander to your addiction?
Pretty please, with sugar on top, stop torturing and killing your kids.
Anti-natalists and mothers do it for the kicks because dopamine is the ‘do’ in do and
don’t; we are both motivated by our addictions, but anti-natalists also do it for
compassion. Compassion without exception defines morality.
24
I sometimes question whether it was necessary to attack Joe, Chloe, Grace, you;
whether it was necessary to put this book past your eyes. What’s at stake here is the
suffering and deaths of another 100 billion lives (and the rest). The suffering I cause
by promoting anti-natalism this way is a small price to pay if at least one life is spared
from suffering via non-procreation or abortion. My only regret is that your nature
conspires to keep you ignorant of (or distracts you from) the suffering your addiction
causes; necessitating an attack to penetrate your addiction (to burst your dopamine
bubble(s)), to ensure the message gets delivered. Despite the vitriol, I don’t hate you. I
hate suffering – but it seems that the only way to apply a permanent solution is to
attack; to attack the cause (your body through your mind (because your mind is the
controller of the cause, and the cause is your body (that has been evolutionarily
designed to be an addict; an addiction that impels you to propagate suffering)). I
appreciate that the motivation to write and distribute this book appears to come from a
place of anger. This is not anger. This is weaponised compassion.
Life does not just happen. Shit does not just happen. By procreating, you write a blank
cheque for all possible outcomes – don’t complain when reality cashes it in at the
expense of your children’s wellbeing and lives. The buck fuck stops with you: keep
your trousers on, or your legs shut, or use contraception at all times and abort when
pregnant. Better still, get yourself sterilised or fuck something other than the
reproductive organs of the opposite sex. Your kids will suffer, your kids will die, you
made it happen and you could’ve prevented it. Look, if you have to fuck, please – go
fuck yourself.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)