BluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 6 months agoAntinatalism Rulelemmy.blahaj.zoneimagemessage-square275fedilinkarrow-up181arrow-down11
arrow-up180arrow-down1imageAntinatalism Rulelemmy.blahaj.zoneBluJay320@lemmy.blahaj.zone to 196@lemmy.blahaj.zoneEnglish · 6 months agomessage-square275fedilink
minus-squareArkaelus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·6 months agoThe world as it is now, yes. But this is far from the only option, thus the world is not an inevitable soup of suffering. So, no.
minus-squareKatrisia@lemm.eelinkfedilinkarrow-up2·5 months agoUnless you’re both an antinatalist and a philosophical pessimist and believe that the world will always be that soup. But yeah, that’s not the case for all antinatalists. A friend of mine calls himself a “temporary antinatalist”.
minus-squareArkaelus@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·5 months agoTrue. I guess the distinction, though semantically redundant, seems to be contextually necessary nowadays…
The world as it is now, yes. But this is far from the only option, thus the world is not an inevitable soup of suffering. So, no.
Unless you’re both an antinatalist and a philosophical pessimist and believe that the world will always be that soup. But yeah, that’s not the case for all antinatalists. A friend of mine calls himself a “temporary antinatalist”.
True. I guess the distinction, though semantically redundant, seems to be contextually necessary nowadays…