Thursday, 29 December 2011

Natalists; You hold the burden of proof!

I was thinking recently about death, again, and reasoned that, just like how a lot of atheists believe that the burden of proof rests with Christians, as the natural state of affairs is non-belief in any deity, the burden of proof rests with anyone who wishes to commit suicide, since although eventually we all do die, living is the norm. If you have no evidence that death would be better for you, then you must keep living, simply because the world is innately biased so that you will stay alive, not in a Schrödinger's cat-like state between living and death, if you are undecided as to whether you should live or die. And the same thing, I think, is true with regards to natalism and its nemesis. People do not naturally exist. Children are not brought to parents by storks, whether they want them or not. Babies do not exist unless we make them exist. So I think, to an extent, we antinatalists have never really needed to convince anyone of anything (if we lived in a world filled with androids, that is). The ball has never been in our court, as it were. If you wish to bring a child into this world, then everything rests upon you to prove that it is a good thing, for if you do not choose to have a child, no such child would be in existence - that is the natural state of affairs, the world is biased in this way.

The problem with this is, what counts as proof that children should be brought into existence? Well the usual manner in which we decide whether an action is good or not is to simply consult our emotions. But a human life, a human life that does not belong to you, is a lot more important than that. So no, I don't think you can use a selfish reason in place of a real argument here. You have to turn to that which humans SHOULD generally use for all things important, negative utilitarian moral reasoning. Are you reducing the total suffering of the world via this action? Possibly, since that child could become a moral paragon of virtue. But the more likely outcome is that the total suffering of the world will actually increase, via stress, boredom or general ill-feeling - in which case your proof for having a child being a good thing has gone out the window.

Again we prevail. Huzzah! But if any economist or 'rationalist' of Bryan Caplan's ilk does read this blog (which I sincerely doubt), do be prepared to either suffer an outright rejection ("Everyone thinks being born is a good thing so the burden of proof lies with you!") or reasons that go against negative utilitarianism (despite how ordinary utilitariansim has some weird consequences - like allowing humans to be tortured for the greater amusement of other humans). But you should be used to that by now.

Wednesday, 28 December 2011

Double Trouble

I think you can judge how non-sociopathic a crowd is by how extreme the dissonance is between their initial, then final emotions with respect to being introduced to antinatalist. "Hi everybody! How about we all start preventing suffering. Prevent it now! [note elation, cheering] We'll do that folks, with just one itty bitty pill - a birth control pill! Stop breeding, stop suffering, it's that simple. [intense hatred and shock]".Antinatalism is something of a gold-encased turd, as far as most haters are concerned. I've said before that a good part of antinatalism is common knowledge. It is the quintessential goal that unites the vast majority of humanity - the elimination of suffering. Now granted, that's normally the elimination of one's own suffering, but when people start applying it to their family members and their friends, then it really isn't a big leap to just go the full hurdle and apply it to all mankind. But that 'no breeding' thing has the same effect on some people as taking a dump in their mouths. What I've realised since the last post is not only is this non-intuitive from a cultural perspective, it actually might be non-intuitive from a genetic perspective too - especially since that 'biological clock' keeps on ticking.


But how hard does that make things? How hard is it to uproot a biological bias, as opposed to a cultural one? It has taken years for a lot of cultural suffering-imposers to be locked away in the archives of history, but as far as people are concerned, I'm not entirely sure it is particularly hard for anyone to overthrow our genetic overlords. Vegetarians don't go through a horrible detox, bodybuilders don't stop just because they're already strong enough to kill predators or prey, and chessmasters don't suddenly stop because they need to be doing something more genetically advantageous. I think we're actually okay as far as human biology goes, simply because our conscious minds can ALREADY override most of our instincts. Hunger strikes are another good example of this, by the way.

So it isn't doubly intuitive after all to have children. It's more like (culturally + 0.00001)x intuitive. And that's easy for us to beat, right?

Tuesday, 27 December 2011

Not even supervillains are antinatalist

And that shocks me a bit. The closest thing we folks get to a bit of fair representation in the world of the arts is the supervillain who wants to blow up the world, for undisclosed reasons. It's never specifically stated however that that villain wants to destroy the world to prevent future suffering (thus making them an antivillain, instead), but most of the time it's just because that villain is a generally hateful person, and needs to be taught a lesson so he/she stops being such a big meanie. I don't specifically understand how this culture has never even caught on to a even a fragment of this whole antinatalist idea, because to me it sounds like quite an easy way to make your show one to be remembered (which hence sells DVDs and the like). Doctor Mort D. Thanatos is putting sterilising chemicals into the water supply? Stop that fiend! He's trying to murder our unborn children! And so on.

Antinatalism is just not something that is... anywhere really. It is not a word in most people's vocabulary, and it is not an idea that can be processed by brains easily. It actually takes people a while to assimilate what you're trying to say before they start insulting you with regards to it. To me, this sounds like a world-wide conspiracy, which again, would be a great plot for a movie. And I think it could well be a conspiracy - orchestrated by our genes. Not that we could PROVE that or anything. But it does seem strange that even those of us who do not want to live, detest the world or hate the way things are, do not (generally) immediately come to the conclusion of antinatalism. At least in my experience, antinatalism has never been something intuitive. I don't know if other animals can commit suicide, but to some extent I expect that they may have drives to say, throw themselves to predators for the sake of their kin's genes, just because of the way evolution works (not going into that whole massive "that allele survives and its frequency therefore tends to increase over generations' thing). Suicide, despite how detestable most people find it, is emotionally available. It is a conclusion that comes naturally - without the need to ingest various logical arguments. But antinatalism, however, as far as I can tell from how few our numbers are, just doesn't. Obviously, you say, there is no evolutionary reason for it, so why should it appear. Except so many ideas in this world HAVE appeared and continue to appear every generation - say, multiple deities, our rulers are right, our rulers are wrong, let's be governed, let's not be governed.

But to go off track a bit (i.e. I came to a conclusion in the time it took me to write out that paragraph), I think maybe this post will have become outdated in the future (HOPEFULLY). While some ancient societies did have notions of sexual equality (SORT OF - Sir John Gibbs's book is all I have to go on here), I'm sure very few people back then would have found that concept intuitive. And the thing is, it seems pretty much intuitive now, as far as most people are concerned. There are two types of intuitive, then. That arising from the phenotypical effects of your genes (suicide - probably), and that arising from the culture you're in. And the fact that antinatalism is neither, means it isn't actually as strange as I thought. Yes, it's quite scary when people don't have a clue what you're talking about. But I'm sure early abolitionists and feminists probably felt the same way. In summary, I should learn not to be so weirded out by things.

Monday, 26 December 2011

Anhedonia update

Finally found a couple of good posts about anhedonia.

Most of the time this isn't really seen as anything more than an annoyance by most psychiatrists, simply because they think that the absence of pleasure isn't nearly as bad as the presence of negative emotion - and in my experience, in no way is that true. I would much rather prefer being my usual hateful depressed self than this robotic mindless husk of a person, but for the sake of keeping up appearances for relatives and the like - the illusion of me 'getting better', I'm keeping to my medication. It's another one of those cases where I could thrust suffering onto others, or keep it to myself, and in that regard I feel more in control when I'm facing something alone. I'd get horrible anxiety, for example, if I just let the people around me know that I'm, shock and horror!, going off medication. So I won't, and will simply be semi-content to bitch about it on the internet. Life is being a toilet bowl attached to a toilet that is never flushed. Sometimes there's delicious corn or carrots in there, and sometimes people get mostly carrot, but they're still being shat upon in the grand scheme of things. Thus ends my quick stream of productivity on this blog (I think, at least) as a christmas present to the fifty or so people that read it.

Sunday, 25 December 2011

Things have changed. Do we have an obligation to die?

What I assumed most of the time here was something you maybe didn't notice, being a person culturally indoctrinated to believe otherwise. You see, it may be that you, dear reader, do not actually have to take other things into account when contemplating suicide. You may actually be the only person, only real person that is to say, in existence. Now while I certainly don't believe this, simply because the universe we're in doesn't seem like one tailor-suited to fit my or anyone else's needs (though I do sometimes toy with the idea that aliens watch and laugh at everything I do), it is however possible that you don't believe this (if I'm correct). It is possible that you are a Solipsist, and see me as either a figment of your imagination, a simulated being created by a computer, or a part of yourself. So let's put aside the fact that it should be technically impossible for you to commit suicide (owing to how the universe may in fact be you, the scientists won't let the virtual reality end etc.). Are you able, now, to do so? Are you obligated to live on? The problem I find with that reasoning, is that suicide is, and always will be, a decision born mainly from emotion - logic applied to emotion, such as how much 'utility' you get from life, but emotion nonetheless. Can you ignore you concern for those imaginary beings you talk to then? And the answer at first really appears to be no (absurdly), since you will feel bad (more bad) by attempting to get out of whatever crazy subjective reality your brain/overlords has or have concocted. But if we instead shift the focus from 'do whatever makes you feel good' to 'do whatever gives you the best utility', the clear answer is, if you are suffering and do not like to suffer, that you maximise your overall life-sum of experiences and exit. The imaginary or simulated beings you encounter do not factor into this because even though you care about their 'suffering' it doesn't really exist. As soon as you die, they will also die, so there are no booboos to kiss. And as for the consent issue, even if you are killing them, you are really just, say, shooting a rock with a raygun. No consent there, nothing to worry about.

Though in this situation we can say without a doubt that no one has an obligation to live, is it that the reverse is actually true? That we have an obligation to...DUN DUN DUN...die?! (Provided we are suffering more than we feel pleasure, would prefer to have a life-sum of experiences that is positive in value and have no qualms about dying).

Well, um, given those quite restrictive conditions, we actually would, it seems, have an obligation (to our values) to die. But I'm sure that in an actual scenario like this, these ideal restrictive limits would never really be met. People tend to not suffer too much, or if they do, they tend to not understand how much they actually suffer (and hence make the wrong judgement). People PROBABLY want a positive life-sum of experiences, I'll give you that, but I think most would be willing to settle with something that is zero, or slightly negative. As for the fear of death, thanatophobia, I think that to some extent everyone has an inherent Samaritans hotline inside them, and as I've seen from personal experience, sometimes one can be absolutely frozen with fear at the prospect of dying in a short period of time.

Regardless of how strange and absurd these conditions are, especially that of having good evidence you are in a Solipsist universe, I find it interesting how one could potentially find oneself either obligated to live or die. When people like say,Bryan Caplan, talk of how easy it is for one to kill oneself, they don't seem to understand how sometimes (or even, a lot of the time) there is very little choice in the matter at all. If you don't like your life, you can't just kill yourself, because you might actually be obligated, by your own moral values, to continue living. But if you were never born, then you wouldn't necessarily have that burden. Your joys wouldn't be there, but at the same time, why would an unborn being need any such joys? If you value non-suffering, then suicide becomes ever more unlikely. But if you value non-suffering, so too does having children.

Saturday, 24 December 2011

Do we have an obligation to live?

I've touched on this quite a bit before, actually, here. But I've never exactly put this into words, as such. When we are forced into this world, I emphasise, without our consent, we might wonder how exactly we are to alleviate the suffering that has been imposed on us against our will. For some there's love, for others there's sex, some soap operas, others westerns, some psychotropic drugs, and some self-mutilation. And so on. But for those of us either burdened with an amount of suffering disproportionate to that dealt out to others, one might be tempted to start thinking around the required reading necessary for existence. One might turn to philosophy, for example. But for those of us who are maybe, a little more critical or sceptical than others, we still can't acclimatise to life. We still don't settle down into a neat fixed pattern, like the animals we actually are (despite our species's collective pretending). Eventually by word of mouth or otherwise, we come across the interesting theory that we might have a choice in this matter after all. That suffering need not be a necessary thing, and that it could be ended - though of course this would mean the end of all our joy, too. Though if the joy is almost negligible in our lives, then, no one should really be surprised if we do think about that act - suicide - a lot more than others. Now we may say, "I didn't want to be born, I didn't ask for all this pain, so why can't I end it if I so choose? It's only undoing the evil that was started so long ago", but there really is that looming presence of one's loved ones' wishes. Can you really just state that since you are being harmed, you are allowed to do everything in your power to stop being harmed? But that seems to me, to be looking at things in too simplistic a matter. It's not just you who is being harmed. Everyone is being harmed. Every second someone is being harmed. Your decision isn't based upon whether you can prevent your own harm without affecting anyone else, you will be, whether directly or not, causing harm to other people by acting in such a way. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If you commit suicide, you will not suffer. But if you do so, others will suffer. So my main point is, I believe that if you have a lot of loved ones, you really must have an obligation to live, based upon your own morality, unless your potential suffering really does outweigh theirs. Which is actually quite scary, in my opinion. I like to believe that there is always an escape route, but with life, in some cases, unless, as I've said, you are a psychopath, there really is no escape at hand. You just have to wait it out.

So in summary: everything I've said before, except with that ominous phrase: "You are obliged to remain alive".

Monday, 19 December 2011

Most people are already halfway there. No Bon Jovi references please.

Antinatalism, in my eyes, can be reduced down to only two major statements, the second of which is taken as a logical consequence, whether wished for or not, of the first. I say now that a good amount of people will not accept the first of these, most likely because of their religious beliefs, and others may not be swayed one way or another as to whether they accept it or not as they do not much care for other human beings (psychopaths, for example). But upon their reflection, I sincerely think - or else my view of humanity must descend even deeper - that the majority of non-religious (or not strongly religious) people on this planet would accept the first proposition, and in doing so will only have to swallow another half of the red pill that is antinatalism.

The beliefs core to antinatalism are:
          1. The ultimate goal of humanity should be the reduction of suffering (just as the personal goals of most people all boil down to the reduction of their own, or of their loved ones' suffering)
          2. As a result of 1., people should not breed.

Of course, one could quite easily claim that I'm making an arbitrary division of thought here - I could quite have easily, you say, divided antinatalism up into 3 or 4 separate parts, and said that most people are 1/4 of the way there, or 1/5 of the way there, etc. But that isn't the point, I don't think. The point is, there isn't THAT much cognitive distance between antinatalism and the common person's thoughts. Or the cognitive distance between antinatalism and an ordinary person's mindset isn't as large as you might think. Once you have someone realise that they would prefer a world with less or no suffering, then it SHOULD be easier to convince them that a logical consequence of their original belief is the negation of their genes' conniving and scheming to produce more and more suffering. Of course, hypothesis doesn't determine what happens in reality, reality determines what you do with your hypothesis. And in my arguments with people, I'm not so sure that it is significantly easier to get my point across when I have convinced other people that the primary goal of human existence is to end suffering, though it does certainly sound as if that would help.

In other news, someone on an atheist chatroom recently told me that VHEMT has a humorous section debunking reasons why people think they should breed. Check it out, here.

Friday, 9 December 2011

Sorry for posting again, found a great video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IyJp5dak9M
The best description I've found yet of why Theological Noncognitivism is the prime reason for non-belief in any deity or deities.

Will things work out in the end?

Starting off here I'd like to say that yes, we will win. Human suffering will eventually end, because probabilities add up over an infinity of years, and eventually all humans will all die out. I can't say the same for alien species, since if there are multiple universes continually being brought into existence, then I must say that as antinatalists, we are well and truly screwed.

But on a shorter scale of time, are we alright? Will things go alright for us? Certainly I'd wager that most of us will be dead by the time antinatalism becomes anything that is in the vocabulary of most people, but as for whether or not it will have any influence on their genitalia, I can't really say. The problem with antinatalism is that it is so absolutely appalling in the eyes of most people out there who value their lives, and most influential people are generally of this kind, that it is unlikely that many people will come round to seeing things our way. Yes, there'll be a few converts here and there, that's just a matter of chance and our increasing publicity among economic and philosophical circles, but essentially there is such a large mental barrier blocking off rational discussion that I doubt that without widespread understanding of the arguments of antinatalism would it hold any kind of political power. As a personal anecdote, I'd like to say that the people I talk to in school probably know the arguments for antinatalism at least as well as I do,  YET STILL CANNOT EVEN CONSIDER THE IDEA. As long as it is so firmly entrenched within people's minds that having children is a right, that suffering is necessary for life, and that that elusive deity called meaning can be acquired through creating a non-consenting human being, there is little hope for antinatalism to spread.

 But I do think that even if it won't become necessarily popular enough in our time, there will be certain people susceptible to its ideas without much resistance - just as most of we, who frequent these blogs, came to understand antinatalism without much resistance. So while we may become the new pagans of our time, or satanists or what have you, I'd bet that the antinatalist population will grow significantly soon enough (ironic as that is). Whether or not things will work out only time will tell, but for the moment, fittingly, I am quite pessimistic about this whole affair. But I would say that the difference between now and Schopenhauer's time is simply that we now have the internet - now our voices are not suppressed, and anyone interested can simply search for us, and find us they will. And moreover, if we adopt children, we may actually defeat the whole 'natalists will outbreed us there is no point' argument. So there is SOME hope, but not a whole lot. Though I guess most of us being pessimists here, those are the kind of conditions we're used to. Have fun and take it easy, never forget to look after your unborn children. Bye for now.

Thursday, 8 December 2011

A final word on Speaker for the Dead

By the way, I'm not an atrociously slow reader. My method of best performing my daily acts of escapism involves rotating around over 50 forms of media, changing whenever one begins to bore me - and these days I bore very, very easily. Or at least, my tolerance for boredom is abysmally low. In any case I am basically with 100 or so pages to read, and despite how it may be interesting enough to people without a distractingly painful mind, I find anything past the middle of this novel boring, and I find the religious overtones really, really annoying. And consider this: I have on numerous occasions, for funsies, read the Bible and the Koran. In my lowly valued opinion this is not so much a science fiction book as an amateur theology/philosophy book, and a terrible one at that. Yes, the start is all exciting and you start to think Card has come up with another masterpiece. But past that, you may call me intolerant for this, but I could not look past how religion and forgiveness bla bla bla was maximised, while characterisation was basically minimised. Yes, the plot is really quite amazing when you get down to it. But TO get down to it you have to somehow make it through endless slaps in the face from the gigantic penis of theological bullshit. This is not the sequel to Ender's Game I had in mind. I may sound like a toddler having a temper tantrum here - but this is not what I wanted, this is not what anyone could have wanted, and this is not even in the same genre as Ender's Game. There is military science fiction, and there is defecating from your mouth science fiction, at least as far as Card is concerned. I am sorry I do not understand how 'deep' this book is, but in my ever-growing library of media to re-experience, this is not making the cut.

Hypothetical: would I change my mind about this book, had Card not set things up in a boring-ass Catholic colony, and had left his religious delusions behind closed doors? MAYBE, but the slow-release mechanism that is the plot essentially draws attention to the fact how, as I have mentioned several times, Card is not very good at characterisation. That is to say, it is extremely hard for me to distinguish one character from the next. In fact, Ender's Game had better characterisation that this - and that is one of the only aspects of it that I can actually fault. All in all this book was one I really enjoyed at the beginning, got frustrated with towards the middle, and towards the end simply accepted its inevitable inferiority to its prequel. Is it antinatalist? Card is a staunch Mormon, so you can count on it being as far away from antinatalism as possible. Would other people enjoy reading it? It has several awards to its name, great reviews, and is generally well-loved. And owing to how my opinion is representative of exactly one estnihil, and many people's opinions could easily be representative of the whole population of the world, this is one of those things I should like, but ultimately don't. Note how I used up a whole post for a novel most people probably have not read. Sorry about that.

Sunday, 4 December 2011

Nothing is radical enough for depression. Save me DBS!

My personal experience with medication is an annoying one: any effect it has is generally either so minimal that it is almost impossible to contrast my previous experience with my current one, or it has the effect of robbing me of anything I previously had. Take creativity and drive, for example. I don't have those anymore. I can't even sit down and write a simple story, like say about aliens, for example. In conversation my one winning trait used to be my ability to make jokes. All my improvisational ability is  now gone to the wind. The only effect my antipsychotic/mood stabiliser seems to have had is that of stealing my personality, and my ability to feel pleasure beyond a tiny tingle in the back of my mind. Yeah sure, if I weren't on it I might go around thinking the walls were talking to me. Who cares? They never said anything bad anyway - it was just comforting. But to be honest, that's fine with me. I don't mind being a boring person, or a useless person, so long as I have the ability to feel good in myself. Which I don't, and never have had. When I took the antipsychotics effectively what happened was that I actually CREATED new problems that my fun old psychotic breaks helped me deal with naturally, such as a crippling anxiety, and a painful, stabbing kind of depression. The anxiety is more or less gone now thanks to ANOTHER pill - an anxiolytic - but as far as depression goes, THE ONE THING I ACTUALLY WANTED TREATED IN THE FIRST PLACE, nothing has any effect at all. Sertraline and Venlafaxine have basically only served to make me, not less in pain, but more alert, and thus, even more aware of how utterly horrible life is. That's the thing - it is very, very easy to treat things that are wholly atypical - such as psychosis and anxiety, because people rarely get those things anyway. But the thing is, depression being a natural part of everyone's life - a natural reaction to low social status seen in other apes, cannot be easily treated because, I wager, it is not something that should be evolutionarily easy to fool. That is to say, there is a point in being depressed - chimpanzees don't challenge their low social status, stay out of the way of the alphas and don't cause trouble, so they might, just might get the chance to breed. So if they say, ate bananas, and these bananas were natural antidepressants, they might be fooled into becoming cockier, and might challenge the powers that be, and ultimately die from fighting, being physically weaker. So therefore, bananas and other easily attainable substances are not potent antidepressants. And probably the same is true for any other chemical substances. It is harder to fix a problem that is not actually a problem in the first place - human brains THINK it's a problem, but evolution does not give a crap about suffering, as has been shown everywhere since millions of years ago. So as I was saying, it's not likely that you can fix depression easily, unlike anxiety or psychosis, simply because it's a natural thing. And that's why I think my low response to even the most potent of antidepressants (the most potent of the most potent of antidepressants - SNRIs, venlafaxine) is simply because pissing about with chemicals isn't going to fix something that doesn't want to be fixed. So my choices basically are: have more people like me (EXTREMELY UNLIKELY), or hit that been-there-so-long-as-I-could-think depression with something akin to a nuke - use ECT.

Yeah yeah, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. I've seen that film. I want it. Branding, flagellation and burning are all forms of torture and yet that doesn't put certain sadomasochists off. And searching the internet, well for about a couple of seconds, I can find no real evidence that it was used in that way. In any case, regardless of how it WAS used, it makes no difference to the fact that it seems, to me, like the only thing that could actually work. My affect is so unbelievably blunt that almost nothing can give me pleasure. I am almost anhedonic every single day, and the only thing that takes my mind of it is the standard pain and boredom and anger I feel. And with no actual readily available suicide methods, I'm thinking the only way forward is to do something to really screw with my brain. And ECT, to me, sounds a little like shocking a heart with a defibrillator - like, uh, smashing the television set so it starts working again.

But sadly, our Lord who art in Connections, the internet, tells me that ECT, compared to placebo-ECT, doesn't actually do much. So as far as I'm concerned, I'm going to have to just wait for Deep Brain Stimulation to become available. If for example, they start testing it where I live, you can bet your ass off that I'm going to be one of the first ones on it. But I'm wondering really whether my desires are rational or not. Do I really feel that the only thing effective is another approach? Pretty much. But is something more radical the answer? It FEELS that way, but it isn't necessarily true. I could piss about, again, with diet and nootropics and the like, but to be honest the only thing I think that will actually, completely work is a partial brain transplant. Most people wouldn't understand why exactly I would want such a thing - they say, if your brain isn't normal, how can you know it isn't normal!! (i.e. wankers trying to be philosophical). I know my brain isn't normal from years of watching other people, and from empathy. Let me tell you: I can model other people's brains and they do not work like mine. I am not autistic, I am not sociopathic, but I am in some other way non-neurotypical, and it has made my life one damn thing after another. Unless something radically changes my brain, instead of, as I've said, messing around with chemicals and such, I don't think I'm going to ever feel anything like what anyone else has ever felt.

The main problem I think is with me attempting to smash and crunch my brain into a workable state is simply that I can't do it without going off the medication I'm already on (because they interact with other drugs, and hence force me into an emergency room), and this would entail notifying or fooling my parents. Which won't work. So as it stands I am utterly trapped. Whoopee!

No interesting features, news or reviews today, sorry. Just the ramblings of a sleep-loving, hopelessly ego-lacking robot waiting for death.

Thursday, 1 December 2011

An antinatalist FAQ

I'm sure someone has done one of these already, but it shouldn't hurt to add some of the responses I generally gave to people when they started arguing with me (almost verbally assaulting me, actually).

You can't be serious, right? You just want to be different, that's it!
Antinatalists are deadly serious about their views - it isn't a joke, and it isn't a cry for attention. No one would choose to be antinatalist if beliefs were something you just wore, like clothes. There is nothing inherently attractive about antinatalism - almost all of humanity, even those who suffer more than the majority, believe life to be the greatest free lunch in the universe. Choosing not to see having babies as a duty, or as something to stake your happiness on, or as something to show the neighbours, is an incredibly hard decision. Are we better for believing this? Yes, because we can prevent suffering in the world merely by the act of ceasing to breed. Do we just want to be non-conformists? Some of us do, some of us don't. We're people, just like you.
That's the most illogical thing I've ever heard! Your arguments are stupid!
Read with an open mind, and get your values straight. If you care about your fellow human beings, you will want them not to suffer. You will want suffering to be unnecessary. In doing so, you should see that we have a large amount of common ground between us
You're just angry at the world!
Some of us are, some of us aren't. But being angry at the world does not drive you to antinatalism. Antinatalism is created from empathy, not hatred - or at least, only in the rarest of circumstances does someone believe that people should stop breeding to satisfy their own selfish urges.
Do you really want the human race to end?
Some of us do, some of us don't. This is a subjective thing. The end of the human race is merely a side-effect of taking our beliefs to their logical conclusion. Do no harm. 
You're missing the point. Suffering is a part of life, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
You assume that life has inherent value - and as any two-bit nihilist could tell you, nothing has inherent value. Only the things which we decide upon collectively to have value, have value. And what the human race, in general, has decided is that  suffering is something we do not want. Suffering is something we could do without. The human race does not desire life, for they already have it. They desire an end to suffering, and this suffering can swiftly be ended with the end of breeding. Yes, this will cause an end to life itself. But as humans do not wish to do harm to other living beings, they should not in turn wish to create new living beings, as those beings will inevitably be harmed. Why? Because if they had not been created they would not have come to any such harm.
We're not responsible for what happens to our children after we've raised them! Everyone knows that.
Had those children not come into being, they would not have been harmed, and the total suffering of the world would not have increased.
What about all the good things about life? Why are you ignoring them?
We have no moral responsibility to create pleasure - or else many people in an arena watching people being eaten by lions could be declared as moral. But we do have a duty, moral responsibility - or inherent need - to reduce harm, in any way possible. And the best way to reduce harm is to stop breeding.