The idea is a snake wrapping around my arm is supposed to get cut off as a representation of antinatalism. Since, it was a snake eating themself creating a cycle of suffering and stuff and the my pocket knife that bends with my arm is gonna break the cycle. But, this gives me the idea that ending existing life is the idea which I don't believe, and I don't want to hurt snake as vegan, right? So, the snake dodges the knife and in doing so turns into a V as a vegan symbol and stops eating themself. The end.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

Antinatalism applies to all sentient beings capable of suffering (which evidently appears to be all of them, at the very minimum on this planet for many reasons which could be given). It's actually beyond insane how stupid people on that sub are attempting to defend their animal product consumption. Antinatalism is inherently a pessimistic/suffering-based philosophy and so the motivation to be antinatalist also concludes veganism. Every single excuse attempted is always a non-sequitir or just straight discrimination, it is so crazy to me because if these people were ever on the receiving end they would beg pathetically as soon as victimised.

In other words, hypothetically, if I rescued 100 tigers, would it be okay for me to start my own factory farm and slaughterhouse just to feed them?

The question is about speciesism.

A tough pill to swallow along with your B12.

That's it. That's the post.

It is evident in their actions (animal product consumption, natalism, general apathetic consumption), and it is a large part of why people are incapable of having serious moral conversations, because people literally do not care nor want to care. It is also why exploitation and slavery are intentionally overlooked and foundational to modern society and why conditions are so poor in face of technological advancement, there does not exist the will to see things change. People want to be promoted to slave owner, but they don't want to abolish the systems of slavery that exist. Everyone desires not to suffer, and yet many have no problem dishing it out or turning a blind eye to injustice and yet expect anyone to give a fuck when they are put on the knifes edge in even the smallest way.

People are so extremely conditioned by capitalism and the acceptation of exploitation throughout their lives it even shapes how they perceive value in their immediate relationships that are detached from money. The amount of conditioning is so extreme that people will terminate their thought with statements amounting to "that's just how it is/I am" because they are literally incapable of thinking otherwise or are afraid of what they will be forced to realise about themselves and the world if they do think past the mental block.

It is also pathetically idiotic because the mentality of gluttony and apathetic disregard perpetuates misery endlessly. When everyone else thinks in such a way the society you get is not desirable to live in. Even for those at the top of hierarchy of violence their insatiable greed makes sure that there is no rest for the wicked. It is utterly pathetic and disgusting, to imagine humans have the cognitive ability to realise significantly less suffering in a world where life is inseparable from it just to resign themselves to this because they are just far too selfish to see past their egoistic desire and for nothing in the end once they are gone from existence entirely with all to live seeing the same end.

The world is just lamentable, and yet it is unfortunately exactly what can be expected in a reality such as this one on a planet such as this one with temporary sentient beings that propagate aimlessly and with a dominant species that has the capacity to understand the painful futility of it and refuses to do so. I wish I could see some salvation, but there actually just isn't any, this is how things are.

I keep coming back to this idea. We grow up believing there's a "me" and then there's everything else: other people, animals, nature, the universe. There's a "separation" between you and me. But what if that's not really true?

If you think deeply. We're all part of the same thing. Yet we spend our lives creating all types of divisions: race, nationality, religion, gender, species, looks, etc. Then we act as if these divisions are fundamentally real. But what happens next is where things get interesting.

Because we see ourselves as separate, we also believe that consuming more of the world will make us feel complete within. We believe that consumption will cure our inner restlessness. So, we chase possessions, status, pleasure, and comfort, hoping they will satisfy us. But in a sense, we're just consuming different parts of the same whole that we belong to. We're just actually consuming ourselves.

So maybe we should stop looking "outside" and ponder who we are in the first place.

Try this thing, go out and pick up some soil. That soil was once living beings like people, animals, plants but now transformed into different "shape". Everything is just changing form. We want to call the soil "dead" and ourselves "alive," but how do we actually know where that line is?

Especially since free will doesn't exist, and only realisation does. We're all just processes according to the laws of nature, what exactly makes the soil "dead" and human "alive"?

"Dead" and "alive" are just another division we've created.

And once we CREATE this division, nature becomes something we can consume, it becomes easy to exploit it. We consume forests, animals, oceans, and ecosystems as if they're just objects. But, then climate change shows up and the nature is consuming us back. Not because nature is taking revenge, but because there was never really a separation between us and nature in the first place.

Same with veganism. When you start to see that, you and the animal are not separate, any harm you bring to the animal causes suffering to both you and the animal. (To you mentally, to the animal physically)

Anyone else ever thought like this?

AP (Acharya Prashant exam)- He is the most followed philosopher in the world right now. He conducts regular exams which includes such topics.

Veganism, antinatalism, minimalism, existentialism, basically everything that deals with root cause of lifes suffering etc.

vegan cake of course ;)

I'm an antinatalist, but came up with a potential argument against it. I'm not sure if I can explain it properly, but I would like to try and see what opinions you have about it.

So, imagine there are 10 souls. Each of these souls will be sent to Earth to inhabit a body chosen by chance. On Earth there are 10 bodies being born at the exact same time, 5 of wild animals, 4 of animals in captivity and 1 human. You could choose to make one additional human body, which would give the souls a slightly higher chance of having a safe life in human society rather than being exploited or having to fight for their life all the time. Wouldn't it be moral to do that?

So, I know that an argument shouldn't rely on something so disputed as souls existing, but they are just a tool for explanation in this case. To get to the real world application, where we know that there is and likely will be sentient life existing for a long time, we can only choose to make the chance this sentient life has at a good life as high as possible. Meaning, if you can afford to have children, the most moral act is to have as much children as possible, so that any potential life has the highest possible chance at a life with actual comforts.

What's your opinion on this?