anti-natalism is an ancient memeplex. some contemporary antinatalist philosophers even framed a significant portion of philosophy as attempts to rebut and escape its ideas.
(see: history of antinatalism by k. lochmanová, Antinatalism, Extinction, and the End of Procreative Self-Corruption by a. sukenick & m. häyry, anti-natalism by k. coates).
re: nihilism, that britannica definition is weird for including the rejection of moral truths. i think it's consistent to believe in moral truths as a moral realist / anti-realist and be a nihilist about some 'meaning' of existence. james tartaglia has the best short book on nihilism i think.
i never comprehended what some 'ultimate meaning' of existence is supposed to mean, despite several rapturous/sublime/cathartic/exalted/ecstatic & other extreme peak experiences. i find the idea unintelligible, because i feel that to anything intelligible, graspable, relational—even if only via 'ineffable' experiencing—i can simply say 'so?'. so what?—there is some hidden information, layers of simulation, infinity, aliens, or a fundamental level? o...k? so what? if x is real the way it is, then x is real just that way & that's that. why would it 'mean' anything in this bizarre uLtImATe superstimulus way?
having been researching the predictive processing paradigm in cognitive science, (see books by lisa feldman barrett, andy clark) i have a hunch that all this 'ultimate meaning' talk that's supposed to reference some like SO disarming and undeniably salient reality, is just the wet dream of the particular allostasis-based predictive brains we happen to have.
if you know The Meaning: well then you should have an easy time reducing, nay! eliminating uncertainty, optimally disambiguating always everywhere algorithmically. it's optimal metabolic control, maximally efficient existing. just what allostatic brains are trying to achieve, so this meaning memeplex is
T H E S U P E R S T I M U L U S
that we just can't let go because only if...
otherwise, reality seems to be a whatever-singularity. like, whatever just happens and there are patterns bc there can't not be and that's it. S-tier anti-natalists like lawrence anton know that AN arguments aren't like knockdown supertruths that either compel you at once or show that you're some irrational dumdumm, and that's largely due to the nauseatingly open neutrality afforded by the lack of stable intersubjective grounding, which may be due to the lack of objective meaning of existence.
1. some sort of arational "knowing" (which is take it or leave it on its face - I can't really argue about this meaningfully besides you know it when you see/feel it.) You could say "so what" but you wouldn't. It'd be self justifying in some indescribable way.
2. The first one is pretty much 100% faith based not a real argument. But also, depending on what the ultimate meaning is, you will get annihilated or suffer or get exalted somehow or go to heaven or whatever. You have a selfish interest. You couldn't not have a preference in existence/non existence and what that'd look like. I take it you don't believe in souls or anything like that so you probably don't buy this either... but it asks for less.
Yeah, you're pretty much right if you don't take the leap
okay, so i guess i just haven't had an experience that was such that i simply 'wouldn't' or couldn't say 'so what?'. it's unintelligible that i couldn't question, but i thought of this idea via a scenario where let's say The Real God convinces us that it truly is The Real God by rendering us simply unable to inquire / question that. that'd be what it would take for doubt to disappear; to render inquiry impossible, as if it never existed, to delete it from our experience.
it seems strange, but also salvia and n,n-dmt exist and i know that there are experiential states that are such that they are reliably unintelligible and ineffable if one hasn't experienced them, however elaborately one tries to vicariously understand them, such as extreme time dilation, communicating with dmt entities, being part of The Infinite Mechanism for 79 years on salvia... but even if i simply couldn't inquire about x, i see no particular motivation to think that that's meaningful or is pointing towards information that makes stuff 'matter'. that said, i'm okay with arational vibes, but why would we even try to explain or justify or frame them in any way, like construing them as 'knowing', oriented towards some particular state of affairs? i feel we shall rather shut the fuck up about non-conceptual vibes instead of linguistically interpreting them.
Intense irony as you ask questions with overly obvious answers, like why people continue to ignore Freud, Darwinian and Nietzschean revolutions. In addition to them being entirely wrong, the average person does not care and intuitively grasps there open purpose. You speak for a small minority, and you're right that will self correct themselves out of existence but you're wrong that their mindset will be contagious. Overall people are becoming more spiritual, not less, and more religious, not less. Whether it be karma, zodiac machinations, and gaia/universal love consciousness, Allah, Jesus, or Apollo, the opposite of everything you suggest here is more true. If you had a firmer grasp of science, which upholds spirituality and purpose supremely, you might understand this. The universe is not winding down to a heat death, not formed from random explosions or gravitic crunches, and black holes only exist in minds like your own. Instead we have a cosmic conscious web that will continue to evolve, as it always has, with no beginning, pruning where needed, and cycling though new seasons of growth and blossoming.
wonderful work.
anti-natalism is an ancient memeplex. some contemporary antinatalist philosophers even framed a significant portion of philosophy as attempts to rebut and escape its ideas.
(see: history of antinatalism by k. lochmanová, Antinatalism, Extinction, and the End of Procreative Self-Corruption by a. sukenick & m. häyry, anti-natalism by k. coates).
re: nihilism, that britannica definition is weird for including the rejection of moral truths. i think it's consistent to believe in moral truths as a moral realist / anti-realist and be a nihilist about some 'meaning' of existence. james tartaglia has the best short book on nihilism i think.
i never comprehended what some 'ultimate meaning' of existence is supposed to mean, despite several rapturous/sublime/cathartic/exalted/ecstatic & other extreme peak experiences. i find the idea unintelligible, because i feel that to anything intelligible, graspable, relational—even if only via 'ineffable' experiencing—i can simply say 'so?'. so what?—there is some hidden information, layers of simulation, infinity, aliens, or a fundamental level? o...k? so what? if x is real the way it is, then x is real just that way & that's that. why would it 'mean' anything in this bizarre uLtImATe superstimulus way?
having been researching the predictive processing paradigm in cognitive science, (see books by lisa feldman barrett, andy clark) i have a hunch that all this 'ultimate meaning' talk that's supposed to reference some like SO disarming and undeniably salient reality, is just the wet dream of the particular allostasis-based predictive brains we happen to have.
if you know The Meaning: well then you should have an easy time reducing, nay! eliminating uncertainty, optimally disambiguating always everywhere algorithmically. it's optimal metabolic control, maximally efficient existing. just what allostatic brains are trying to achieve, so this meaning memeplex is
T H E S U P E R S T I M U L U S
that we just can't let go because only if...
otherwise, reality seems to be a whatever-singularity. like, whatever just happens and there are patterns bc there can't not be and that's it. S-tier anti-natalists like lawrence anton know that AN arguments aren't like knockdown supertruths that either compel you at once or show that you're some irrational dumdumm, and that's largely due to the nauseatingly open neutrality afforded by the lack of stable intersubjective grounding, which may be due to the lack of objective meaning of existence.
I think the reason to care would be
1. some sort of arational "knowing" (which is take it or leave it on its face - I can't really argue about this meaningfully besides you know it when you see/feel it.) You could say "so what" but you wouldn't. It'd be self justifying in some indescribable way.
2. The first one is pretty much 100% faith based not a real argument. But also, depending on what the ultimate meaning is, you will get annihilated or suffer or get exalted somehow or go to heaven or whatever. You have a selfish interest. You couldn't not have a preference in existence/non existence and what that'd look like. I take it you don't believe in souls or anything like that so you probably don't buy this either... but it asks for less.
Yeah, you're pretty much right if you don't take the leap
okay, so i guess i just haven't had an experience that was such that i simply 'wouldn't' or couldn't say 'so what?'. it's unintelligible that i couldn't question, but i thought of this idea via a scenario where let's say The Real God convinces us that it truly is The Real God by rendering us simply unable to inquire / question that. that'd be what it would take for doubt to disappear; to render inquiry impossible, as if it never existed, to delete it from our experience.
it seems strange, but also salvia and n,n-dmt exist and i know that there are experiential states that are such that they are reliably unintelligible and ineffable if one hasn't experienced them, however elaborately one tries to vicariously understand them, such as extreme time dilation, communicating with dmt entities, being part of The Infinite Mechanism for 79 years on salvia... but even if i simply couldn't inquire about x, i see no particular motivation to think that that's meaningful or is pointing towards information that makes stuff 'matter'. that said, i'm okay with arational vibes, but why would we even try to explain or justify or frame them in any way, like construing them as 'knowing', oriented towards some particular state of affairs? i feel we shall rather shut the fuck up about non-conceptual vibes instead of linguistically interpreting them.
Intense irony as you ask questions with overly obvious answers, like why people continue to ignore Freud, Darwinian and Nietzschean revolutions. In addition to them being entirely wrong, the average person does not care and intuitively grasps there open purpose. You speak for a small minority, and you're right that will self correct themselves out of existence but you're wrong that their mindset will be contagious. Overall people are becoming more spiritual, not less, and more religious, not less. Whether it be karma, zodiac machinations, and gaia/universal love consciousness, Allah, Jesus, or Apollo, the opposite of everything you suggest here is more true. If you had a firmer grasp of science, which upholds spirituality and purpose supremely, you might understand this. The universe is not winding down to a heat death, not formed from random explosions or gravitic crunches, and black holes only exist in minds like your own. Instead we have a cosmic conscious web that will continue to evolve, as it always has, with no beginning, pruning where needed, and cycling though new seasons of growth and blossoming.
A few stray thoughts:
1. Do you think that the global elites push the anti-natalist narrative because they know that we are running out of ressources (e.g. fossil fuels)?
2. Would you say that after the death of god his former worshippers loose the will to live and just die off?
I don't think the narrative is being pushed at all, ideas arrived and are retroactively outlined.
The death of God only bolsters his aliveness for many.