Totally insane.
You're anthropomorphizing human consciousness onto nonhuman consciousness and as such your assumptions are senseless since they draw a false equivalence.
-
-
Furthermore, the manner in which animals struggle to maintain their lives implies that, despite any apparent suffering, they desire to live. As such, it doesn't make sense that they would wish not to be born nor to be able to breed.
-
Since alongside suffering in life is enjoyment, the idea that life must end to cease suffering is absolutely incomplete. If life ends, then so does enjoyment.
-
Furthermore, since you don't believe nonhuman animals have the capacity for meaning, they must not have the capacity for higher order suffering either. Since for suffering to be more than mere pain, one must attach meaning to it.
-
Thus, if anything, anti-natalism only makes sense for humans.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
no i'm not. we know that animals have the capacity to suffer, and we know that their lives are filled to the brim with suffering
-
Do they then not also have the capacity to experience joy, love, curiosity, appreciation, contentment, etc.? If suffering truly outweighs the joys, then why do they continue to live? Why do humans continue to live? Is it perhaps because there are things that outweigh suffering?
-
And why ought the human animal dominate all life on Earth? This ideology reeks of a mindless hubris incomplete of any real apprehension of the necessity of complexity to balance.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.