Human Extinction is the Final Atrocity

Having a child is a vote of confidence in society. If you have optimism in society and think humanity is inherently good, your child will grow up and be raised within a beautiful world.

But if we look at the state of the world today, it is hard to justify optimism in society and humanity. You only need to read the news and talk to work colleagues and family to conclude that humanity is inherently corrupt, vulgar, and utterly depraved. Society is slowly rotting under the weight of racism, sexism, corruption, slavery, torture, and greed. 

If you give birth and bring a child into this world, such an act is tantamount to child abuse. You are exposing an innocent creature to a world that is so vile and evil, and if this child has her own children, that creates more lives exposed to suffering and exploitation.

The best way to reduce suffering is to slow population growth, which means we all have a moral duty to go on a birthstrike.

Not having children not only reduces suffering but is also good for the environment. You help the forests, the mountains, the air, the ocean, the trees, the rivers, and the animals. Mother Nature is an innocent being, and she suffers at the hands of humanity, which grows like a cancer engulfing the world.

Not only is childlessness good for humanity and for the environment, but it is also good for your personal finances. This is the principle of prosperity antinatalism. By refusing to breed, not only are you engaging in a selfless act that helps the animals and the planet but you are also saving yourself hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of dollars. The cost of having a child is immense. By having a child, you are effectively consigning yourself to a lifetime of wage slavery. However, if you are childfree, Mother Nature rewards you financially for your selfless behavior.

When humans have freedom, they use their freedom to commit gross atrocities against the environment and the animals. However, an atrocity against humanity is an attack on the freedom humans have to commit atrocities on Mother Nature.

Human extinction is the final atrocity, the atrocity that ends all atrocity.

Freedom Entails Freedom to Commit Atrocity

My brother is a right wing nutcase and I keep telling him that the environment is being destroyed by humanity, but he claims that he has freedom and can do what he wants and can eat meat and kill animals, etc. I find this frustrating because it is true that he can do what he wants and this pretty much allows people to just get away with any atrocity be it environmental degradation, animal abuse, rape and torture and anything.

However, lately I have been talking about antinatalism and how I am never ever breeding and will advocate to others never to breed, and my brother seems worried by this. Being a conservative he is concerned about the low birthrate and the death of marriage, and he is a married man with many children, and I think he is angry at me for being childfree and therefore wealthy as I have zero debt and lots of investments in shares and crypto that enables me to live off passive income and take it easy in life, not stress out at work, etc whereas he is a slave to the banks constantly working paycheck to paycheck to pay the mortgage, stay-at-home wife, and multiple children. I think he is envious of me and he is frustrated because deep down he cannot do anything because he acknowledges that I too have freedom and, as is the case with him, that freedom entails freedom to commit atrocities against Natalism.

This is one of the good points about antinatalism, that you are not dependent on the benevolence of others. You control your own life so you can go ahead and refuse to breed or get a vasectomy. You can spread the message of antinatalism to others, and when you spread the message to others many of them will follow you thereby creating an army of antinatalists who will drop the birthrate.

Antinatalism is not like e.g. environmentalism or veganism that requires other people to not pollute or eat animal products. Other humans can exercise their freedom to commit atrocities on the environment or on animals. However, an atrocity against humanity is an attack on the freedom humans have to commit atrocities on Mother Nature. As such, the atrocity against humanity is the final atrocity, the atrocity that ends all atrocity.

Another good point about antinatalism is that it is profitable. By not breeding you save yourself hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. The cost of having a child is immense. Have a child and you pretty much consign yourself to a lifetime of dull and cruel wage slavery. If you are an antinatalist, Mother Nature rewards you financially for your selfless behavior.

Humans are corrupt and will always rationalize the oppression of those below them (while complaining of the oppression they receive from those above them) so the only solution is to destroy humanity.

The Argument for Childlessness

Having children is a vote of confidence in society. If you have optimism in society and think humanity is all peace and roses, then why not have a child. That child will grow up and then face a beautiful world.

But who are we kidding? You'd have to be a dumbass to not see the corruption and rot in society. If you bring a child into this world, it is tantamount to child abuse. You are exposing an innocent child to a world so evil and depraved that another lifetime of suffering is guaranteed.

The best way to reduce suffering is to slow population growth, which means you do not have children.

Not having children not only reduces suffering but is also good for the environment. You help the forests, the mountains, the air, the ocean, the trees, the rivers, and the animals. Nature is innocent, and she suffers due to the virus of humanity.

Not only is childlessness good for humanity and for the environment, but it is also good for your personal finances, so by not having children, you are not only engaging in a selfless act but you are also engaging in a selfish act. It is both selfless and selfish. You are doing something morally right and getting rewarded with hard cash and freedom for it!

Right makes might.

What Do I Do If I Hate Humanity?

Stop breeding.

Every baby you make is a vote for humanity, and humanity has proven itself to be absolutely corrupt.

Humans must go on a birthstrike.

Save all your money for yourself so that you can shield yourself from the degeneracy of society. It is time to euthanize humanity slowly by not breeding. Becoming financially independent is easy and quick and doesn't require any work. Not have a family to look after and especially having children is an easy way to achieve financial independence.

Both men and women should focus on work and focus on investing so that they can live off their investments.  

Why bring a child into a world that is beyond repair? Don't have children, pocket the cash for yourself, and live a life of luxury and freedom. By doing this you set an example for others.

Don't Have Children

I am very much against having children. Not only are children expensive, but there are around six billion people in the world right now, and the population is predicted to be around ten billion by 2050. This population explosion is putting massive strain on the world’s resources. It’s creating immense environmental destruction. The animal exploitation industry will only grow to feed rising demand, and the animal holocaust problem will only get worse. With so many people on earth, it’s also inevitable that human suffering will rise as there are more people competing for scarce resources. If I have a baby, how will that help? It is inevitable that my hypothetical son will suffer. I am introducing him to a world filled with corruption, oppression, and slavery. It is better if he were never born in the first place.

Capitalism is Corruption

Capitalism is a system whereby wealth is in private hands. Communism is a system whereby wealth is in public hands. Capitalism is by definition corruption. Corruption is defined as putting public money into private hands. For example, if a politician receives a bribe by a company for a permit to mine in an area, then instead of the company paying taxes, i.e. paying the people, he is instead paying the individual politician who pockets the money. Hence bribery or graft is the privatisation of public money. It is a move to capitalism from communism.

Capitalism is a brilliant tool for increasing economic growth and increasing prosperity. What is most unfortunate about capitalism is that it flies in the face of what most people consider is fair, i.e. powerful and corrupt people control the economy and the workers are effectively slaves, some slaves more fortunate and more free than others. The optimal system therefore is a mixed economy, a capitalist economy with a communist redistributive taxation system that takes money from the rich to give to the poor. This is a good compromise. Most advanced economies already do this, e.g. America, Australia, Sweden, and Norway. However, poor countries cannot afford communism. They need capitalism to drive the economy. This is why poor countries are corrupt and why they need to be corrupt in order to develop.

Many developing economies nowadays, e.g. China, India, Russia, and Thailand have enjoyed significant economic growth, and most people agree that these countries are highly corrupt. This is because these countries have embraced capitalism and hence they have embraced corruption.

Karl Marx argued that countries undergo a natural evolution from feudalism to capitalism to socialism. Under capitalism, the rich use the workers for profit and pay workers a wage. Over time, workers accumulate wealth through their income and with wealth comes power. This allows workers as a whole to demand sick leave, public holidays, weekends off, and so forth. Over time, capitalism tends to evolve into socialism because exploitation of workers tends to give workers more power as workers accumulate wealth.

Many conservatives argue against socialist ideas, saying that socialist ideas hurt the economy. This is generally true. Take for example public holidays. The government deeming e.g. Christmas Day to be a public holiday is a socialist initiative that benefits the working class. It is a detriment to capitalists whose  factories and other businesses have to be shut down for a day. In large factories that mass produce, one day of stoppage can mean millions of dollars in lost revenue. Socialist ideas hurt the economy. However, once an economy develops, if the government does not give workers their socialist demands, the alternative is worse. In a country that is already developed, the alternative to socialism is fascism. Fascism is defined as rule of the country by the powerful and for the powerful. Fascism will come about if there is an absence of communism. Without communism, the working class is impotent and the capitalist class control the government. If the capitalist class control the government, they will, through rational self-interest, implement policies that are anti-competitive and can lead to monopolistic inefficiencies. If we assume that humans are all greedy and are "rationally self-interested" then fascism is the direct by-product of capitalism. In a capitalist economy, those who have money and power will have an incentive to use government to eradicate competition, which means they will use government to eradicate rival capitalists. Politicians will, through rational self-interest, accept bribes or political donations from lobbyists, and the anti-competitive policies implemented will be detrimental for the economy. The only things standing in the way of fascism is communism, as the people as a whole can demand that government implement policies that benefit them. The force of democracy then leads to a situation in which politicians who want to please both voters and lobbyists, find a compromise. This compromise between the fascism promoted by capitalists and communism promoted by workers is normally called a "mixed economy" or even "socialism."

Corruption Not Harmful?

A Singaporean friend of mine who had just been on a month-long holiday to his home country, chatted with me a few days ago about what he perceives to be a high level of corruption in Singapore whereby the ruling party in that country silences opposition parties by passing through legislation that punishes those who publish opposing views. This came as a surprise to me because the highly regarded corruption perceptions index (CPI) by Transparency International declares Singapore to the least corrupt country in the world.

According to Transparency International, Singapore is not a corrupt country, but according to many Singaporeans I actually talk to, Singapore is a highly corrupt country.

From what I hear, the corruption perceptions index merely gives surveys out to people and asks them about their perceptions on how corrupt a country is. This is hardly a rigourous measure of corruption. Some have suggested that a measure of the amount of bribes you need to pay is a better measure, but the problem with this is that I don't think corruption can be measured by bribe payments alone. We first have to look at the definition of corruption. Most academics define it as follows: "The use of government power for private gain."

It is my opinion that most of the time people's perceptions of corruption is itself corrupted by snobbery. That is, most people believe that rich countries are not corrupt while poor countries are corrupt because rich people have integrity and are honest whereas poor people are dishonest and have no integrity.

Based on this definition of corruption (corruption is "the use of government power for private gain."), let's face it, virtually all politicians and public servants are corrupt, even politicians and public servants in rich countries. Most politicians and bureaucrats use their position as a career, and large companies make non-transparent political donations to parties to effectively bribe them. Even in developed democracies politicians are driven by private gain, trying as hard as possible to stay in power, whether it is by accepting political donations from large interest groups and lobbies but also by pandering to voters' demands. A politician giving to voter demand is, by the definition of corruption we agreed to above, is corrupt.

It is clear that in all countries government responds to the demand of whoever is most powerful. The only difference between a democracy and a dictatorship is that power is not concentrated. In most healthy democracies, the country is still ruled by an elite but a little bit of power is given up to the people as a compromise.

My point is that perhaps we should not worry too much about corruption. There are numerous stories about corruption in China and India, yet these two countries are growing rapidly, more rapidly than the growth of Western economies when they were developing.

A particular public official in a developing country may not approve of some development unless he receives a bribe from a company. This public official may hold out for the highest bribe so he can make the most money possible. Companies offer him cash in briefcases under the table and the public official accept a particular company. This may occur in many developing countries, but it also occurs in developed countries. It is no different to the government allowing projects based on auctions.

If a dispute occurs in a developing country between two parties, the richer party will pay off the public official. This is no different to developed countries whereby disputes between two parties are settled in courts whereby the richer party hires better lawyers and drags the case on for long periods to bankrupt the other party.

Corruption in the form of bribes is merely the replacement of "might makes right" with "wealth makes right." It provides a non-violent means of conflict resolution.

Aid Workers Jailed for Fraud on USAID and World Vision

Two aid workers were jailed for 12 years for defrauding USAID, an American aid agency. USAID contract World Vision to use $1.9 million to help poor Liberians. Under the initiative, the two aid workers were required to monitor World Vision workers as they distributed aid. But the two aid workers instead sold the food and pocketed the profits. The fraud was revealed by an internal audit by World Vision.



That the fraud was caught by World Vision's internal audit should give World Vision donors most confidence that the money they provide to the non-profit organisation is being used legitimately. If a humanitarian agency has no bad news, it is likely that the organisation has no internal or external audit function. World Vision has not only an internal audit function but is also externally audited by PwC.

Source: Aid workers get 12 years for US aid fraud in Liberia