Procreation is Wrong
If I were to ask a father or mother about the nature of their experience in rearing a child, in most cases it is likely the response I'd receive would be positive.
Of course, their positive affirmation of the experience is completely and utterly divorced from the reality of the life experience of the child. If not physical debilitation, the child will have almost certainly dealt with a degree of subconscious trauma occasioned by external drama, difficulties and tragedies. Such internal pains and struggles are not within the purview of the parents as their child is the mere by-product of their own biologically-driven vanity project.
What is the one commonality that binds together the rich man who lives in the lap of luxury and the poor man who lives in the squalor of destitution? It is the fact that both are trying to escape distinctive pains. For while the poor man is forced to find ways to cope with his meagre existence with the aid of hustle and distraction, the rich man must find ways to curtail the atrophy caused by sheer boredom by means of instilling a sense of purpose so as to somehow render coherent this blank void called "life." As such, an attempt to employ distractions to escape the inherent emptiness and impermanent nature of life is all encompassing.
Notwithstanding the biological drivers at play, it strikes me as the ultimate vanity project of human kind. Our desire to create replicas of ourselves, so to speak, serves what ends exactly? Why is it a source of joy for a parent to facilitate the arrival of a new being into such a dismal planet? In which the highs and low lows of life must be inevitably experienced? It is almost an absurdity to consider that a person can grow up to specialise as a medical practitioner in order to cater to those who emerge in this world and grow up being mentally or physically crippled. It makes no sense. The entire phenomenon is honestly an exercise in utter redundancy. In my mind, the prime difference between being a Genghis Khan character who impregnates many women, and humanity voluntarily ceasing to procreate altogether is that at least the latter isn’t participating in a pointless endeavour that occasions needless trauma to millions upon millions.
Of course, their positive affirmation of the experience is completely and utterly divorced from the reality of the life experience of the child. If not physical debilitation, the child will have almost certainly dealt with a degree of subconscious trauma occasioned by external drama, difficulties and tragedies. Such internal pains and struggles are not within the purview of the parents as their child is the mere by-product of their own biologically-driven vanity project.
What is the one commonality that binds together the rich man who lives in the lap of luxury and the poor man who lives in the squalor of destitution? It is the fact that both are trying to escape distinctive pains. For while the poor man is forced to find ways to cope with his meagre existence with the aid of hustle and distraction, the rich man must find ways to curtail the atrophy caused by sheer boredom by means of instilling a sense of purpose so as to somehow render coherent this blank void called "life." As such, an attempt to employ distractions to escape the inherent emptiness and impermanent nature of life is all encompassing.
Notwithstanding the biological drivers at play, it strikes me as the ultimate vanity project of human kind. Our desire to create replicas of ourselves, so to speak, serves what ends exactly? Why is it a source of joy for a parent to facilitate the arrival of a new being into such a dismal planet? In which the highs and low lows of life must be inevitably experienced? It is almost an absurdity to consider that a person can grow up to specialise as a medical practitioner in order to cater to those who emerge in this world and grow up being mentally or physically crippled. It makes no sense. The entire phenomenon is honestly an exercise in utter redundancy. In my mind, the prime difference between being a Genghis Khan character who impregnates many women, and humanity voluntarily ceasing to procreate altogether is that at least the latter isn’t participating in a pointless endeavour that occasions needless trauma to millions upon millions.
Scroll to see replies
Then don't procreate if you feel it has no worth to you.
Original post by Decahedron
Then don't procreate if you feel it has no worth to you.
then how would he be able to be an edglord on TSR and show his holier than thou attitude?
"Why is it a source of joy for a parent to facilitate the arrival of a new being into such a dismal planet?"
What planet do you live on? It's not the same planet as me.
Earth is not dismal. It's a wonderful planet.
"Of course, their positive affirmation of the experience is completely and utterly divorced from the reality of the life experience of the child. If not physical debilitation, the child will have almost certainly dealt with a degree of subconscious trauma occasioned by external drama, difficulties and tragedies."
It takes the less good things in life to make us realise just how good the good things in life are. So what if a child has had subconscious traumas? There are, in effect, dreams. Dreams and subconscious traumas are unimportant. Conscious traumas may be of some importance. You are creating a problem where none exists by mentioning subconscious traumas.
Difficulties and tragedies? They are part of life. As are achievements, turning ambitions into reality, physical pleasure, emotional and mental pleasure. The good by far outweighs the bad.
The whole tone of the opening post is so negative that it doesn't create a balanced view of life on Earth.
What planet do you live on? It's not the same planet as me.
Earth is not dismal. It's a wonderful planet.
"Of course, their positive affirmation of the experience is completely and utterly divorced from the reality of the life experience of the child. If not physical debilitation, the child will have almost certainly dealt with a degree of subconscious trauma occasioned by external drama, difficulties and tragedies."
It takes the less good things in life to make us realise just how good the good things in life are. So what if a child has had subconscious traumas? There are, in effect, dreams. Dreams and subconscious traumas are unimportant. Conscious traumas may be of some importance. You are creating a problem where none exists by mentioning subconscious traumas.
Difficulties and tragedies? They are part of life. As are achievements, turning ambitions into reality, physical pleasure, emotional and mental pleasure. The good by far outweighs the bad.
The whole tone of the opening post is so negative that it doesn't create a balanced view of life on Earth.
Original post by Vinny C
This is a great time for kids... they've never had it better.
I have to disagree — that only really applies, to an extent, in western society. All about circumstance & finance.
Original post by Dunnig Kruger
"Why is it a source of joy for a parent to facilitate the arrival of a new being into such a dismal planet?"
What planet do you live on? It's not the same planet as me.
Earth is not dismal. It's a wonderful planet.
What planet do you live on? It's not the same planet as me.
Earth is not dismal. It's a wonderful planet.
Perfectly legitimate arguments for its pros and cons can be made on both sides; I am not so myopic as to not recognise this. However, I speak from a macro perspective that perceives our entire phenomenon, at root, as amoral. To take a few evident observations, consider the fact that natural disasters strike blindly; that females have an unapologetic biological clock; that regressive syndromes at birth are arbitrary; that bad experiences are inescapable which often, in our early years, feed into subtle traumas on a subconscious level that has a negative feedback loop, in terms of our thought patterns and decision-making in the future, unless worked against with great struggle; that social dynamics are highly superficial and manipulative [we all wear inconvenient masks]; that society favours moreso those who win the genetic lottery in terms of looks and stature; and that life is random and does not care about the physical or emotional consequences of a stupid mistake or accident.
What does this all stand to mean? That our entire reality externally is mechanical in nature, and our responses internally are primal. We are socially aware beings, not too dissimilar from the average primate, that live on a spinning rock which hangs in the midst of nothingness. The nature of this planet, in its purest expression, operates in accordance with natural selection and the rules of the jungle. How much sheer brutality does humanity undergoe in an attempt to wrest control and power? To what extent does humanity suffer for the mere sake of survival? And yet the surreal truth is that there is that there is no ultimate purpose for any of it. Our planet runs its course irrespective of our existence and our existence is so utterly dependent on seeking distractions in order to cope living on an otherwise void plane. We can’t see behind the curtain, nor even catch sight of the strings, even though we are the leading actors, complicit in its drama. Truly, how perversely strange is our condition?
To peocreate in this reality suggests that it is to be taken seriously and not a cosmic joke. Yet there is no utility in subjecting new lives to the varying degrees of stresses and pains one must undergoe inevitably in this life. The argument that there is a beauty to be found in the “hustle” mentality, in the ups and downs of life experience, is no less an exercise in sophistry. It is an unassailable fact that our existence is amoral, and as such, it is contrary to logic for existence to be ascribed emotive adjectives. One’s subjective opinion of life, be it good or bad, is always a by-product of circumstance and psychology, and they both feed into one another in complex ways.
Thus, it is irresponsible and selfish to bring new life on this planet just to repeat the pointless miseries and clichés that you have experienced in your own life.
(edited 5 years ago)
Original post by 134841422
then how would he be able to be an edglord on TSR and show his holier than thou attitude?
The topic is controversial, I understand this, but your impression that I’ve exhibited a holier than thou attitude is a resoundingly false one. I have made basic observations about our reality and argued that it is not favourable to reproduce in respect of what has been deduced from said observations.
Original post by nightisdark
I have to disagree — that only really applies, to an extent, in western society. All about circumstance & finance.
How far back would you like to go before you find a good time to have them? The world wars... the middle ages, the Crusades?
Original post by Vinny C
This is a great time for kids... they've never had it better.
Yep I’m lovin the uncertainty about whether I will be classed as a non-eu applicant for uni in 3 years and if I’ll have to pay an extra €20,000. Lovin the constant political worry, the education that taught me nothing, the worry about getting a job just to be replaced by a robot, where climate change will be in 40 years. yeah I agree it’s great hun xxx
Original post by ap.ferro
I agree. It is a dangerous time to be raising children.
You have concurred with an argument I have not made. My argument is that humanity ought to cease procreation altogether; it is and always was dangerous.
Original post by ap.ferro
I agree. It is a dangerous time to be raising children.
I think, for me, the worry about technology and political disagreements and potential conflict, as well as climate change etc is perhaps the greatest. A big reason why I wouldn’t want kids in the future is because I think it will only get worse and I don’t want to bring up a kid in a place where there’s more pollution than clean air, or where they have to fear for their life because of some political conflict.
Original post by Anonymous
I think, for me, the worry about technology and political disagreements and potential conflict, as well as climate change etc is perhaps the greatest. A big reason why I wouldn’t want kids in the future is because I think it will only get worse and I don’t want to bring up a kid in a place where there’s more pollution than clean air, or where they have to fear for their life because of some political conflict.
In fact, I would not have children to prevent further climate change. But it is the african and asian countries that are causing it, families have about six children each, that's using more water, more cars, more electricity, more food such as red meat....I think a one child policy could work well in those countries.
ap.ferro,
Why do you want population control to begin with? The fact that you deem it necessary suggests that the planet is not fit to sufficiently accommodate human life in all capacities. The question I ask is why do you desire procreation even on a limited scale? Is it not cruel to subject new life to the confusion and chaos of this existence?
Why do you want population control to begin with? The fact that you deem it necessary suggests that the planet is not fit to sufficiently accommodate human life in all capacities. The question I ask is why do you desire procreation even on a limited scale? Is it not cruel to subject new life to the confusion and chaos of this existence?
Original post by Dunnig Kruger
It takes the less good things in life to make us realise just how good the good things in life are. So what if a child has had subconscious traumas? There are, in effect, dreams. Dreams and subconscious traumas are unimportant. Conscious traumas may be of some importance. You are creating a problem where none exists by mentioning subconscious traumas.
Difficulties and tragedies? They are part of life. As are achievements, turning ambitions into reality, physical pleasure, emotional and mental pleasure. The good by far outweighs the bad.
The whole tone of the opening post is so negative that it doesn't create a balanced view of life on Earth.
Difficulties and tragedies? They are part of life. As are achievements, turning ambitions into reality, physical pleasure, emotional and mental pleasure. The good by far outweighs the bad.
The whole tone of the opening post is so negative that it doesn't create a balanced view of life on Earth.
Perfectly legitimate arguments for its pros and cons can be made on both sides; I am not so myopic as to not recognise this. However, I speak from a macro perspective that perceives our entire phenomenon, at root, as amoral. To take a few evident observations, consider the fact that natural disasters strike blindly; that females have an unapologetic biological clock; that regressive syndromes at birth are arbitrary; that bad experiences are inescapable which often, in our early years, feed into subtle traumas on a subconscious level that has a negative feedback loop, in terms of our thought patterns and decision-making in the future, unless worked against with great struggle; that social dynamics are highly superficial and manipulative [we all wear inconvenient masks]; that society favours moreso those who win the genetic lottery in terms of looks and stature; and that life is random and does not care about the physical or emotional consequences of a stupid mistake or accident.
What does this all stand to mean? That our entire reality externally is mechanical in nature, and our responses internally are primal. We are socially aware beings, not too dissimilar from the average primate, that live on a spinning rock which hangs in the midst of nothingness. The nature of this planet, in its purest expression, operates in accordance with natural selection and the rules of the jungle. How much sheer brutality does humanity undergoe in an attempt to wrest control and power? To what extent does humanity suffer for the mere sake of survival? And yet the surreal truth is that there is that there is no ultimate purpose for any of it. Our planet runs its course irrespective of our existence and our existence is so utterly dependent on seeking distractions in order to cope living on an otherwise void plane. We can’t see behind the curtain, nor even catch sight of the strings, even though we are the leading actors, complicit in its drama. Truly, how perversely strange is our condition?
To peocreate in this reality suggests that it is to be taken seriously and not a cosmic joke. Yet there is no utility in subjecting new lives to the varying degrees of stresses and pains one must undergoe inevitably in this life. The argument that there is a beauty to be found in the “hustle” mentality, in the ups and downs of life experience, is no less an exercise in sophistry. It is an unassailable fact that our existence is amoral, and as such, it is contrary to logic for existence to be ascribed emotive adjectives. One’s subjective opinion of life, be it good or bad, is always a by-product of circumstance and psychology, and they both feed into one another in complex ways.
Thus, it is irresponsible and selfish to bring new life on this planet just to repeat the pointless miseries and clichés that you have experienced in your own life.
The crux of your argument is that people suffer, and thus don't need to be born in order to spare them. If we took this to be true, the natural other question to be raised is why don't we all kill ourselves? Given that you've not done so, you've probably got a reason for living. This particular reason could probably be shaped into a reason to be born in the first place, et voila.
Original post by Retired_Messiah
The crux of your argument is that people suffer, and thus don't need to be born in order to spare them. If we took this to be true, the natural other question to be raised is why don't we all kill ourselves? Given that you've not done so, you've probably got a reason for living. This particular reason could probably be shaped into a reason to be born in the first place, et voila.
My reasons: - All the ways I can think of are painful, I hate/ I'm scared of pain
-my family and friends
I'm sure most have better reasons that could be applied. 😂
But I mostly agree with you OP.
Original post by Retired_Messiah
The crux of your argument is that people suffer, and thus don't need to be born in order to spare them. If we took this to be true, the natural other question to be raised is why don't we all kill ourselves? Given that you've not done so, you've probably got a reason for living. This particular reason could probably be shaped into a reason to be born in the first place, et voila.
It would be illogical for one to employ retroactively the blind biological drivers that cause procreation in the first place as a legitimate reason for one’s existence; the process per se involves no rationale beyond the amoral mechanics of biology. It is an unassailable fact that one’s desire to procreate mostly stems from the desire to avoid loneliness, boredom and judgmental remarks; and as such, it is a case of existence-induced trauma being passed generationally without pause for thought. Put another way, the desire to procreate is an avoidance behaviour that safely outsources a sense of purpose to “starting a family” in an attempt to ignore addressing the cause of that which was being avoided in the first place. As a result, the deliverers of new life onto this planet become collective parasites for the new generation, who in turn can become potential parasites if they, like their predecessors, choose not to pick the option that recognises the avoidance behaviours for the existential coping mechanisms that they are, and choose not to adapt to the amoral resort of life rather than subject a further generation to more of the exact same trauma. As the saying goes, it a sign of insanity to perform the same act and expect a different result. The intrinsic trauma of existence must be recognised before can be cut off at its very root.
Original post by Polymath0
It would be illogical for one to employ retroactively the blind biological drivers that cause procreation in the first place as a legitimate reason for one’s existence; the process per se involves no rationale beyond the amoral mechanics of biology. It is an unassailable fact that one’s desire to procreate mostly stems from the desire to avoid loneliness, boredom and judgmental remarks; and as such, it is a case of existence-induced trauma being passed generationally without pause for thought. Put another way, the desire to procreate is an avoidance behaviour that safely outsources a sense of purpose to “starting a family” in an attempt to ignore addressing the cause of that which was being avoided in the first place. As a result, the deliverers of new life onto this planet become collective parasites for the new generation, who in turn can become potential parasites if they, like their predecessors, choose not to pick the option that recognises the avoidance behaviours for the existential coping mechanisms that they are, and choose not to adapt to the amoral resort of life rather than subject a further generation to more of the exact same trauma. As the saying goes, it a sign of insanity to perform the same act and expect a different result. The intrinsic trauma of existence must be recognised before can be cut off at its very root.
You seem to have spent your time eating an entire thesaurus rather than actually adressing my point. Your argument as it stands entails that we should all commit suicide. You've not done so, and so one could safely assume that your existence is worse than your none-existence.
It's a quite simple point really. I'm not sure why it warranted a paragraph of nothing in response.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
