Conversation

That may be true about Schopenhauer, but, the point of my tweet was that environmental "activists" are oblivious to the real danger to the environment: humans and their progeny.

Quote Tweet

Be Child Free, Ok?

@abisjajo

· Jul 7, 2019

A friendly reminder to all fellow antinatalists that loss of wildlife & rainforests is the Schopenhauerian ideal. Upon observing the suffering of animals and people, he wishes the earth could have the same sterile landscape as the moon. twitter.com/joedan346/stat…

Be Child Free, Ok?

@abisjajo

Jul 7, 2019

We are agreed! Procreation destroys the environment. Therefore environmentalists who reproduce are hypocrites. Additional point: Destroyed environment impairs procreation. Therefore antinatalists should support fossil fuel corporations and rain forest loggers. Are we agreed?

antoine sugar

@joedan346

Replying to

@abisjajo

It matters not whether one does or doesn't "support" consumption & degradation of the natural resources because that is the way it is by default & the way it's always been. One can only accept reality or not. To not accept it only increases one's suffering.

8:14 AM · Jul 7, 2019Twitter Web Client

Replying to

All true! But let me ask it another way. You took the trouble to acknowledge the inconsistency of environmentalists who procreate. Do you likewise acknowledge the inconsistency of antinatalists who advocate environmentalism?

antoine sugar

@joedan346

Jul 7, 2019

Well, some antinatalists only want to see Homo sapiens go extinct but want other species to continue on. To want all life to go extinct is beyond the realm of antinatalism and is what is known, for lack of a better term, efilism. I would say I'm efilist.

Show replies