26 comments

[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 71.0 ms ] thread
Too many lawyers with too little to do.

Clerks of court who accept vexatious filings and sham pleadings.

No one has accepted anything. "Man plans to sue his parents". Plans.
Anti-natalism makes no sense. How is it better for the planet of there are no humans to appreciate it?

At best the planet is ambivalent about humans.

I think nature is indifferent to all.
I'm hardly an anti-natalist, but such anthropocentric approaches never made any non-egoistic sense to me.
Per David Benatar, there's an excellent case to be made that being born is one of the ultimate wrongs. Like so many of them, though, there is really nothing a court of law can do about the situation.
Hasn't there been cases were a person born with an inherited disability while the parents were well aware of the risks has successfully sued the parents?
> Man plans to sue parents for giving birth to him without his consent

I rarely actually LOL but this headline got me

Same here. And it was on BBC of all places, so had to post it here.

For some reason the submission was flagged, not sure why.

Litigants like this should be sentenced to death.
Pretty sure he is free to take that action himself. If it is against his religion, well there is a good chance that religion also states that it was his parents duty to bring him into this world. In which case, he can be mad at his Creator.
Or just have their case dismissed because they have obviously ratified their circumstance by their voluntary action to continue sustaining their supposedly-unwanted life.
He does have a point. We exist, one or the other way, for the pleasure of our parents. I find this sad.
Our parents exist, one or the other way, for the pleasure of us.
The words are the same, but cause and effect have been reversed.
"Mr Samuel, of course, understands that our consent can't be sought before we are born, but insists that "it was not our decision to be born".

So as we didn't ask to be born, we should be paid for the rest of our lives to live, he argues."

This is an interesting economic/social perspective actually. The later parts of the article about eradicating humanity aren't that original though.

Ecclesiastes 4:1-3:

Next I turned my attention to all the outrageous violence that takes place on this planet—the tears of the victims, no one to comfort them; the iron grip of oppressors, no one to rescue the victims from them. So I congratulated the dead who are already dead instead of the living who are still alive. But luckier than the dead or the living is the person who has never even been, who has never seen the bad business that takes place on this earth.

We’ve been on this idea for a while.

This, he says, would gradually phase out humanity from the Earth and that would also be so much better for the planet.

Perhaps he should lead by example, instead of setting up a Facebook page. Smells like he's more interested in attention than improving the planet.

To be honest, making a meaningful difference towards which cause is probably easier without leading by example there.
It's all virtue signaling. Like "raising awareness" of things everyone is already aware of.
With time I have less and less understanding of what's "everyone already aware of", especially when going outside of usual social bubbles.
How is this not immediately solved by suicide?
Suicide is psychologically difficult, often even in spite of great suffering.
Let alone illegal. If the country legalized assisted suicide then I'd agree with what you are saying
Related question: If a woman decides to keep a child born out of rape does she forfeit the right to sue the rapist?

Sometimes you don't consent to things but you decide to make the best out of the resulting situation. It doesn't make the non consensual thing right.