Maybe aliens will show up and give us all little ray guns that can grow a cheeseburger into the size of a house thus solving world hunger. You don't know.

Maybe aliens will show up and give us all little ray guns that can grow a cheeseburger into the size of a house thus solving world hunger. You don't know. — Outlander

Yep.

Setting off a thermonuclear holocaust would be so much more efficient. "Russian and China if you are listening ..." Antinatalists of the world unite! :scream:

But not moral.

But not moral. — schopenhauer1

Just like preaching against procreating —> species extinction (auto-genocide).

If it boggles your mind why a Marxist would simply accept the impossibility of change, then you require a new mind.

I suppose it helps that antinatalism is just another capitalist bromide, an effort to individualize and moralize what are, in fact, systemic problems. After the capitalists, after the liberals, the antinatalists get the wall after the revolution. Alternatively we'll give them the pistol and they can do it themselves and fulfil their deathlong ambitions.

I suppose it helps that antinatalism is just another capitalist bromide, an effort to individualize and moralize what are, in fact, systemic problems. After the capitalists, after the liberals, the antinatalists get the wall after the revolution. Alternatively we'll give them the pistol and they can do it themselves and fulfil their deathlong ambitions. — Streetlight

:smirk: :up:

Very silly especially since Marx loved kids

What you're missing is that many Marxists enjoy life, thinking it's worthwhile despite the general lack of human emancipation. So it depends on the temperament of the individual Marxist--which of course applies generally for antinatalism, not just to Marxists--although I think we can say that virtually all Marxists would not like to see an end to the human species, because they don't think that progress is impossible.

Do Marxists still exist?

This privately owned situation is near impossible to change — schopenhauer1

If there are Marxists who also believe in inevitable capitalism, then I imagine they are too busy trying to square one belief against the other ever to get busy procreating. But if they do, they might find a Christian who thinks we are all already damned, for example. Hopelessness can be quite sexy.

But not moral. — schopenhauer1

Just like preaching against procreating —> species extinction (auto-genocide). — 180 Proof

Without getting into desirability, mankind going extinct as a result of individuals' voluntary choice not to procreate is not immoral.

It follows that it would then be best to not expose new people into this unjust, intractable situation. — schopenhauer1

It is exactly such situations that offer struggle. Humans are built to engage in struggle.
Even the rich and powerful talk about how they look back at their lives and remember most fondly 'the struggle' they had to 'achieve who and what they are today,' and the 'legacy they will leave.'
When the going gets tough, the antinatalists seem to want to run away and prevent any future humans from facing struggle/suffering. A somewhat cowardly approach imo.

I'm referring to the consequences implicit in 'preaching antinatalism' and not to an individual's choice to abstain from procreating. I also find religion itself immoral for promoting falsehoods as "revealed truths", not the individual believer's "hope for salvation". The antinatalist's 'destroy the village in order to save the village' doctrine, like the theodicy/eschatological dogma of 'the end of world that saves or damns both the living and the dead', is, in effect, as pernicious – nihilistic – as it is morally repugnant, or life-denying. (Re: Buddha, Epicurus/Lucretius, Spinoza, Nietzsche et al)

What consequences would that be then? Person A provides arguments for something he believes in, in this case anti-natalism. Person B can the either reject or accept A's arguments and choose voluntarily whether he wishes to live in accordance to A's ideas or not. I have yet to see what is immoral about this state of affairs.

Read the next few sentences of my previous post.

So what, if that is the result of people's voluntary actions?

There's nothing wrong with destroying the village if all the villagers voluntary want it to be so.

After the capitalists, after the liberals, the antinatalists get the wall after the revolution. — Streetlight

Glad to know Marxism has overcome the tendency towards Stalinist and Maoist style "reeducation" and mass murder policies...

It is intractable. The Marxist revolution is no closer to fruition then it was when Lenin and crew tried it (poorly) over 100 years ago.

It's not murder it'd just be delayed antinatalism.

because they don't think that progress is impossible. — Jamal

But then aren't the children being used to promote a cause? If you believe in deontological ethics surrounding the idea of not using people as a means, this is problematic. Also, if Marxism is the closest ideal society, there is no proof that Marxism is closer to any kind of fruition than any other time. Marxists are acutely aware of the plight of the worker. It would also be problematic to put more workers into a world that isn't even close to achieving the ideal social setup (according to Marxists at least).

It's not murder it'd just be delayed antinatalism. — Streetlight

You handle disagreement very well I see.

Do Marxists still exist? — Noble Dust

I've seen self-reported ones here and elsewhere.. Now, if that is actually the case in action, thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes outside of the forum in a very theoretical setting, I don't know.

Hey like I always say, I'm all for antinatalists. The faster you people drop dead without reproducing, the better.

If there are Marxists who also believe in inevitable capitalism, then I imagine they are too busy trying to square one belief against the other ever to get busy procreating. — Cuthbert

You would think.

Hey like I always say, I'm all for antinatalism. The faster you people drop dead without reproducing, the better. — Streetlight

Well, thanks for tempering that. I really appreciate your benevolence.

But not moral.
— schopenhauer1

Just like preaching against procreating —> species extinction (auto-genocide).
— 180 Proof

Without getting into desirability, mankind going extinct as a result of individuals' voluntary choice not to procreate is not immoral. — Tzeentch

:up: Yep, answered pretty much how I would.

↪180 Proof So what, if that is the result of people's voluntary actions?

There's nothing wrong with destroying the village if all the villagers voluntary want it to be so. — Tzeentch

If the village is hostile to the villagers, then certainly one wouldn't want to expose more villagers to the village.

↪schopenhauer1 Hey like I always say, I'm all for antinatalists. The faster you people drop dead without reproducing, the better. — Streetlight

Ditto. :smirk:

But then aren't the children being used to promote a cause? If you believe in deontological ethics surrounding the idea of not using people as a means, this is problematic. — schopenhauer1

No, I think you misunderstood. I did not mean to suggest that children are being produced by Marxists merely as tools to bring on the new society. I was addressing your main points, from which you said it follows that Marxists should not have children:

Modern human living requires the very central aspect of laboring in a privately owned milieu.

This privately owned situation is near impossible to change. — schopenhauer1

Against the first point, many Marxists think that life is nevertheless worthwhile. Against the second, virtually all Marxists believe change is possible. So you did not carry your point.

Internalized defeatism is antithetical to Marxism, so the argument demonstrates a lack of engagement with Marxism and so can't be taken very seriously