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 all respects. We’re not going to go into how this system trips all over the Naturalistic Fallacy with evolutionary ethical claims or go full abstract into how positing that suffering is evil requires you to believe in a metaphysical ethics system in the first place. Instead, let’s hoist anti-natalism with its own petard.
By asserting that we *should* prevent suffering, and that humans suffer and cause ecological “damage”, the anti-natalists and voluntary human extinction crowd are being incredibly short-sighted. They never actually seem to be conscious of what happens AFTER humans voluntarily vanish from the planet, which seems strange since most of them have probably read Daniel Quinn’s “Ishmael” at least once. Essentially these childlike intellectually bankrupt nihilists just assume that with no humans, the earth goes back to being a verdant Eden-like paradise, free of the nastiness of homo sapiens putting down shopping malls and strip mining everything. The actual reality is, the earth will go back to remaining a paradise right up until the NEXT species in line achieves sentience, then you’re right back on track for more suffering, ecological damage, and internecine warfare among whichever animal species figures out written language first.
That individual, in a sea of “children”, is responsible for her own awareness of and relationship to the truth that she must discover; and had she tried to convey that inner discovery to anyone else in the audience– I kind of peeked on God– no one would understand, because that kind of insight is only available through art and only individually, through an inner connection.
Translation: By rehashing/spamming “atheist” and “science” blurbs (image), you reveal yourself not as the woman, the individual, but as the audience, the child. Yeah, oops.
While in the western world faith in God has long since been sent to the graveyard, faith in God’s concept of ethics and morality still haunt the human mind. Despite the victory of existentialism and the words of philosophers like Nietzsche and Stirner finally shattering the fragile glass of moral realism, in actual political thought these philosophical advancements have remained in their infancy. Commoners still bray like donkeys about “Natural Rights” and “Social Justice” as if these concepts have the slightest shred of validity. Even with the advancement of moral non-cognitivism and the gradual shift of non-theist philosophers from any sort interest in discovering the “One True Moral Order Hanging There Out In Space,” there is still earnest discussion, even among ATHEISTS about the question of ethics.
The history of egoism is of course tied to Max Stirner, who in turn provided the basis for existentialism. Nietzsche’s contributions further advanced existentialism into the mainstream where it eventually coalesced into a more popular philosophy in the hands of writers like Jean Paul Sartre. Existentialism is essentially the Western acceptance of the Zen Buddhist position that “The Great Truth is that There is No Great Truth.” Western thought has merely just now caught up to something eastern thinkers and monks have known for quite some time, which is that ethics, morality and conscious constructs have no sort of intrinsic meaning or weight, and are merely the vain imaginings of the human mind. However, Western thinkers, unlike their Asian cousins, did not have a tradition of meditation and intense personal focus to enable them to peacefully absorb this knowledge. While a Zen Buddhist can smile at the nihilism of the universe and calm the vigorous horse of his mind with Zazen, the Western philosopher often found this final knowledge to be an endless torment, and had no refuge from what he saw as the terrifying implications of this reality. (Given this perspective, the insanity of Nietzsche and Sarte’s “Existential Angst” should now make perfect sense.)
Occasionally an incident occurs that lays bare how truly absurd postmodern society is. Such incidents are notable not for their grand scope and sweeping narrative, but for their drab pettiness. Disasters, tragedies, mass casualty terror attacks and wars do not reveal any fundamental truths about our society. We are too far removed from those sorts of things for them to be real. No, it is rather in events that are shabby and frivolous that we see our culture reflected.
The recent media controversy that has been labeled “The PyCon Incident” or even “Donglegate” (see what I mean about frivolity) is one such event. To summarize: a woman attending a male dominated software conference overheard some remarks that she claims she found offensive, took a picture of the male offenders, posted it online along with an accusation, got one of them fired from his job and then was herself fired in the ensuing backlash. This whole scenario is absurd and contemptible, yet such things are inevitable given the toxic nature of the postmodern social environment.
The Steubenville rape case has gotten everyone talking, and predictably, the most effeminate, pansexual white genderqueers with “Asperger’s Syndrome” have weighed in with their nauseating platitudes on the “origins” of this “social epidemic.” Nathan Goodman from Center for a Stateless Society (C4SS) had this to say:
“Evan Westlake testified at trial that he saw one of the perpetrators, Trent Mays, smacking the victim’s hip with his penis. He also saw Ma’lik Richmond, the other perpetrator, penetrating the victim’s vagina with two of his fingers. When asked why he didn’t intervene, he answered “it wasn’t violent. I didn’t know exactly what rape was. I always pictured it as forcing yourself on someone.”
What Westlake witnessed was violence. It entailed physically violating another person’s boundaries. But, as is often the case in real rapes, there was no struggle, no armed stranger in the bushes, no screaming victim. What Westlake witnessed was rape. But it wasn’t the comparatively rare stranger rape that haunts the popular imagination. So Westlake did not even recognize it.
We need to change that. In a culture that educated young people about respecting boundaries and treating other people’s bodily autonomy as sacrosanct, Westlake would have known exactly what rape was, and he would have intervened. Throughout the night, when boys assaulted the victim, joked about raping her, and carried her unconscious body between rooms, multiple people would have intervened. But evidently, we don’t live in that culture.”
Leftists are having a field day with the response of some media outlets to the Stubenville rape verdict, namely the response of CNN. Left-leaning CNN sacrificed itself for the consumption of its leftist base by running a segment in which they expressed some bizarre and seemingly thoughtless rape apologetics. As if reading straight from the feminist handbook of “How to Demonstrate Rape Culture,” they lament that the two rapists will tragically serve a year in a kiddie detention facility. This is especially tragic to their community because they are two high-school football stars, so obviously they were slated to become instrumental members of society in addition to being current staples of the panem et circenses. CNN barely acknowledges the girl or her humanity. They even score bonus points from the feminists by mentioning alcohol, implying that the boys could not be held responsible because they were drunk. Of course the feminists think this is bullshit, which it is, but these same feminists will call you a rapist if you even dare suggest that a woman who’s had a glass of wine be held responsible for her actions.
Something I have noticed in my travels thus far; in this day and age, young men (my age especially) view kindness as weakness.
The implicit idea is that you are a “pushover” or a “pussy” for showing gentleness (being a gentleman). Masculine ideals of a generation past have been discarded in favor of everyone imitating a jungle predator in over-priced shoes. The apathetic acceptance and market success of such facades reflect poorly upon our culture.
To be a strong man requires the temperance of human kindness. This noble ability to make and endure the reality of distinction, to create a hierarchy of values and apply them to human beings is what separates heroes from the cowards, the elites from the brutes.
So what happened? Where did the chivalrous man go, and who left this subhuman animal in his place? This filthy thug “hero” certainly hasn’t been the prevailing dynamic forever.