http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.com.

es/2012/11/the-question-of-antinatal
ism.html
http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/1759
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/antinatalism-58316-27.html
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/dalai-lamas-18-rules-to-14659.html
http://nhneneardeath.ning.com/forum/topics/being-buddhist-was-it-different
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/this-is-the-pure-land-6598.html
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/reincarnation-question-14186.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_sect
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/antinatalism-better-if-i-hadnt-existe
d-at-all-52281-8.html
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/reincarnation-question-14186-2.html
Pure Land Buddhism
Alan Watts
Hiroyuki Itsuki
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/05/philippa-foot-obituary
Theres nothing inherently wrong with being a pro-natalist. The fact you can even ho
ld an anti-natalist position is the result of generations of people providing yo
u with an environment so decadent and spoiled you can actually take the time to
contemplate such a useless, self-annihilating philosophy.
Lemme blow your minds for a second:
There is nothing inherently bad about suffering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_Fallacy
You have an arbitrary preference for eliminating suffering as a goal. Guess what
, a whole lot of fucking humans share this goal and go about it without engaging
in insane delusions of planetary annihilation. Try looking into Buddhism, or an
y number of religious traditions that deal with this suffering problem much more e
legantly than your shitty, cowardly and just plain psychotic world view. Maybe t
hen right wingers (Im not really describable as a true right winger) wont back you i
nto a corner and ridicule how flimsy your philosophy is. Or do you wanna go trip
ping over the is/ought gap and explain why you think suffering *ought* to be eli
minated without appealing to emotion? I see you totally ignored my legitimate ph
ilosophical criticisms, is it because anti-natalists suffered from oxygen deprivat
ion as infants?
---
Anti-natalism is based on the simple concept that reproduction brings humans into
the world, and humans will suffer and die, ergo, breeding is ethically evil in al
l respects.
^^^^That statement is such a big question begging philosophical fallacy Im not ev
en sure where to begin. Im willing to bet youd have to look with some friendliness
on Sam Harriss Human Fluorishing nonsense too, completely disregarding the is/ough
t gap in the process. This sort of facile, superficial ethical standpoint is such
a completely ungrounded philosophy I feel like Im debating the Goof Troop. Then y
ou imply that oh golly gosh, if I disagree, I must like it when humans suffer. S
o what if I do? Maybe Im all for humans suffering if it serves my purposes. Guess
what, suffering is not the end all be all ethical standard for existence, if it c
an even be said that ethics exist at all. Did the Skyman tell you human life is
suffering therefore we ought not to reproduce? Do you think suffering is bad and
not suffering is good? Which fallacy do you like better here, Is/ought, or the
Naturalistic version? Oh wait, you really need your hilariously flimsy ethical r
ealism to bludgeon the non-believers with, dont you?
---
"Would we not want to go back to where we came from, where suffering and thrivin
g do not exist?"
You come from a philosophical standpoint, where something is intellectualized on
a superficial level with rhetoric. Ergo, I assume you mean death and not some s
ense of Nibbana.
I don't know if thriving is an opposite of suffering because when can thrive and
suffer. But that is just using rhetoric.
Until you reached a place of non suffering (enlightenment), you don't realize ho
w beautiful suffering is. I don't mean in some masochist way, but rather in its
importance and love despite how bad it can be. You see suffering differently. Th
at doesn't mean you want to suffer. No one wants to actively suffer(or I should
say most). However, there becomes a certain "appreciation," if I may call it tha
t, for it.
There are people who spend their entire lives to end suffering for themselves (a
nd others). Working on themselves to that no suffering may affect them.These spi
ritual people with detach themselves from the past and future (the past and futu
re cause attachment and attachment leads to suffering). This is not philosophica
l but someone changing their own consciousness where the past and future becomes
non-existent. With the further realization that the past and future don't actua
lly exist and only exist in our mind. That each moment brings itself into being.
Our minds have random thoughts that we don't control and we are not in control
but our thoughts are in control of us. So by non thinking we can become more awa
re of our surroundings.
Some stay in this state. However some leave it because life becomes "as it" or t
hey realize that three is something beyond enlightenment. When one leaves a cert
ain stage, they don't to the original state of suffering, and trying to avoid it
in some basic sense. This is because their experience combine and don't negate
each other. There is a lot of truth to wisdom being the accumulation of experien
ces.You have to go through non suffering first to understand what I mean. Intell
ectualizing it only goes so far.
"Would we not want to go back to where we came from, where suffering and thrivin
g do not exist?"
So to answer your question. People do go want to avoid suffering and thriving. S
ome work on there entire lives. Some stay. Fewer still move on from non sufferin
g and non thriving.