"No future triumph or metamorphosis can justify the pitiful blighting of a human being against his will." Peter Zapffe
Interesting and well done. I was struck by how he appears to oscillate between a brilliant analysis and a kind of hopeless nihilism about life in general. Because life wants to live.
He is certainly correct though that the monster is inside all of us.
I think you may be missing something there. The nihilism IS part of the analysis. There’s no oscillation there: from the antinatalist perspective, sentient life is a disease. I’ve written more about the analysis behind that principle here:
Ah. I am an animist, I see the entire universe as being aware, though generally not in ways most humans are comfortable considering. So I think everybody’s sentient, and everybody’s people, and that this human civilization we’re stuck in is hopelessly sick and needs to go, basically because it does not teach respect of everyone, be they animal, mineral or vegetable.
However, what I was reacting to was the idea that life is inherently bad because it eats other life up. That’s a knottier one: are we eating each other or are we feeding each other? Is violence ever justified, even for food? Because if not, then you are anti-life. It’s pretty stark.
Of course I’m anti-life. You didn’t read the entry I gave you, did you. :)
No, I didn’t. But I kind of had a sense of where you were going with this.
It may provide some clarification.
Will it clarify your support of radical feminism? Why not back up the MRA’s and the insane warmongers? We have such potential of late, to wipe out life. You seem to be backing the wrong team.
I don’t want to read about why you are anti-life. It’s too sad. Suppose life is simply a disease – then I am part of the disease, you are part of the disease, and you wish us both dead.
Do I really need to read your essay in order to understand this further?
You don’t have to read it. It’s not really a big deal, I thought it would help clarify that’s all.
“Will it clarify your support of radical feminism?”
No. (although I have also written about the connection between antinatalism and radfem)
“Why not back up the MRA’s and the insane warmongers? We have such potential of late, to wipe out life. You seem to be backing the wrong team.”
Well, that’s the thing. I am not pro-suffering, I am anti-suffering. I am anti-life because I am anti-suffering.
If we could all live completely happy, fulfilled, and free from most physical suffering, I’d have a lot fewer problems with life, I imagine. But that’s not the kind of life we humans have made for ourselves. Instead we want to keep populating, destroying and hoarding, seemingly because it’s a more interesting game than being happy.
I think that the most moving part of his analysis here is that the entire process is flawed from the beginning… The idea that simply creating over and over and over again, regardless of the outcome, this is the main concept. There’s no real plan: improvement, attrition, or anything in between.
“We are at war against the facts of life.” Man, that hurts to think about.
Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:
You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Twitter account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Facebook account. ( Log Out / Change )
You are commenting using your Google+ account. ( Log Out / Change )
Connecting to %s
Notify me of new comments via email.
Notify me of new posts via email.
My new book: A New Approach to Procreative Ethics
My antinatalist Zazzle store
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Join 673 other followers