i dont think anti-natalism is rooted in the fact that life has suffering, i think its more subjective to a persons individual belief that leads to it.

arthur schopenhauer, one of the “OG” anti natalists believed that life is almost entirely just suffering. and that happiness is really just the extremely temporary removal of said suffering.

from a “philosophical anti-natalist” viewpoint, schopenhauer does not believe people should have kids because experiencing life itself is inherently a bad thing.

but from a young person seeing the world burning, society collapsing, another world war approaching, then yes, they would be an anti natalist because they want to prevent their children from experiencing that suffering, not because they believe experiencing consciousness/life is suffering.

the question is - do you think it’s selfish? to say life is not worth living, and then to drive society and all life into death and nothingness because you believe that experience is only bad, and that everyone who believes otherwise is biased, is that not selfish? thats something ive been asking myself. who am i to even answer the question of whether life is worth living?

i disagree. i dont think the only thing we are sure of existence is ourselves. i think the only thing we are “sure of” is that we know nothing.

and to ponder on whether or not we are in a simulation/illusion is a ridiculous waste of time. who cares if we are, what do you do then? what difference would it make from that of “reality?”

this shit literally is the basis of cogito ergo sum. you are exploring a pointless thought that some dude hundreds of years ago panicked about already.

myth of sisyphus

the stranger

the plague

all albert camus. i wouldnt say optimistic nihilism is the best “philosophy” to follow. to be a nihilist is to define life’s meaning as “meaningless,” when, in reality, it is trying to define something which we cannot define.

life might be meaningless. it might not be. you don’t know, and its arrogant to say that it is.

language is the use of words that reference ideas, which make it so you can put that idea into someone elses brain

language both limits and allows understanding of things. it can be used to trade thoughts, philosophies, ideas, trade, and emotions, but it will not be able to communicate the subjectivity of our own experience.

there is a word for the subjectivity of your experience, and its called qualia. essentially, it is how it feels to experience. how the fuck would you tell a blind person what its like to see? you cant. that is the one true barrier of language. we are, essentially, alone in our own experiences - our own qualia

start by asking what perfect even means. how do you even define perfect, and if feelings something you can attach that adjective to.

that being said, its a question that leads nowhere.

i always kind of hated this “we live in a simulation” shit

okay, lets say that we are in a simulation. then what. what the fuck are you gonna do about it. youre gonna live anyway, so whats the difference? its literally just some “what if?” ass question. its essentially the same thing as asking “what if we were put here by a god?” you dont know, and it doesnt matter either way.