Any books that argue human beings should go extinct?

[Anonymous No.17367645]

Are there any misanthropic books that promote human extinction but don't approach it from the angle of nihilism?
I'm tired of insipid nihilism being used to justify anti-life ideologies. Humanity is the problem, not the Universe. Destroying mankind is good and an expression of light.

[Anonymous No.17367657]

[Anonymous No.17367662]

>>17367657
this also The Philosophy of Redemption

[Anonymous No.17367681]

>>17367657
I have read TCATHR. My question was specifically phrased to avoid recommendations like that. I am looking for misanthropic books that do not argue such positions from nihilistic premises.
I am a misanthrope but not a nihilist. I think the destruction of mankind is an objective good. I do not extend this to other sentient beings or the natural world.

[Anonymous No.17367716]

>>17367681
By what reasoning do you consider the destruction of mankind to be an objective good?

[Anonymous No.17367797]

>>17367716
I am asking for books that argue this.
Also, I could write a book about this topic myself.

[Anonymous No.17367803]

>>17367681
>My question was specifically phrased to avoid recommendations like that.
haha, sorry bitch

[Anonymous No.17367824]

>>17367645
The idea that suffering is evil is stupid. The idea that humanity is evil is stupid AND logically inconsistent. There's a reason people stick to the former to justify antinatalism.

[Anonymous No.17367832]

>>17367824
There's nothing internally inconsistent about saying humanity is evil and should go extinct.
“ Mark my words once for all, my dear friend, and be clever. Men are entirely self-centred, and incapable of looking at things objectively ” - Schopenhauer

[Anonymous No.17367834]

>>17367797
If you could write a book, then maybe you could also elaborate on your position a little further? You seem convinced, I'm wondering what thought processes led you to that conclusion.

[Anonymous No.17367839]

>>17367645
/lit/ threads

[Anonymous No.17367849]

>>17367839
This is related to lit. I've read a lot of pessimistic literature, but I want something that speaks about mankind's extinction in more positive terms rather than nihilistic.

[Anonymous No.17367852]

>>17367645
You are the problem, not humanity, you just dont like people because they dont bend over backwards to do what you want. Sad really.

[Anonymous No.17367857]

>>17367834
He has no reason to hate people, he is just evil, he is looking for reasons to use as a cloak, to hide his evil.

[Anonymous No.17367862]

>>17367852
I am not a human being, so your accusation is entirely baseless.

[Anonymous No.17367868]

>>17367857
Hatred of humanity is in fact the highest expression of love.

[Anonymous No.17367878]

>>17367862

[Anonymous No.17367916]

>>17367878
How do you feel that mankind bred and transported cats and then they became invasive species, threatening biodiversity of native habitats, and afterwards, rednecks and Australians start culling them, blaming the cats for the problems rather than the causal source of these issues being humanity? These issues wouldn't exist if it weren't due to mankind's short-sightedness and egotism.
1. Man through his action breeds and/or transports x or y invasive species (e.g., Grey squirrels in UK or cats around the world or countless other examples).
2. Man scapegoats the invasive species for destroying biodiversity.
3. Man refuses to acknowledge how he was the causal source of these problems in the first place.
Humanity causes these problems. They refuse to take accountability and responsibility for their egotism and destructive behavior, and then they scapegoat animals like cats.

[Anonymous No.17367947]

>>17367916
None of this is evil in the absence of man to say it's evil.

[Anonymous No.17367951]

>>17367645
the entirety of modern left wing argues for that

[Anonymous No.17367952]

>>17367947
Take your hackneyed nihilism and shove it up your ass.

[Anonymous No.17367959]

>>17367951
Blacks should go extinct too, but you're right that they may not be human beings... I think they're close enough though. They're more like the demonic progenitors of mankind.

[Anonymous No.17367962]

>>17367952
So you claim that there's an absolute good and an absolute evil, and that man is capable of judging which is which, but that man is also evil?

[Anonymous No.17367966]

>>17367657
read his fiction first, reading conspiracy first ruined my enjoyment of his other works

[Anonymous No.17367995]

>>17367962
>>17367962
On average, mankind is tilted more to the evil, yeah.

[Anonymous No.17368001]

>>17367995
I'm more caught up on the fact that there exists an absolute good and evil independent of man, but which we're perfectly capable of judging.

[Anonymous No.17368010]

>>17368001
Not everyone is capable of accurately judging it.

[Anonymous No.17368015]

>>17368010
Then why are you so sure you are?

[Anonymous No.17368032]

>>17368015
It's like trying to explain the color red to a blind man. It's not easy, but one can attempt to point at with a complex philosophical treatise. It's also similar to how koans function in some ways.

[Anonymous No.17368036]

>>17368032
huge cope

[Anonymous No.17368037]

>>17367916
Mother nature was destroying biodiversity hundreds of millions of years before man ever existed. The vast majority of species to ever exist have gone extinct. Either slowly, through eons of competition and evolution, or all at once in some catastrophic event that destroys up to 90% of the species. And in a few hundred million years the biosphere will be shredded by the expansion of the sun, and every complex lifeform will perish, and even the microbes buried deep underground will get cooked alive. Speaking of microbes- the first ones to produce oxygen as a byproduct almost killed all life on Earth completely by accident.
But let's say your premise is correct and there is an objective good and an objective evil, and mankind is the latter. That would mean the universe introduced the evil of mankind into the good world of nature- and now the universe expects the evil of mankind to resolve itself through mass suicide. What sort of good universe would produce such a situation where evil is allowed to expand unchecked and destroy what is good?

[Anonymous No.17368085]

>>17368037
Evolution proceeds by way of refinement, trial, and error, so it's not a simple matter of good versus evil. Good versus evil only makes sense in context of embodied states of mind, and on average, mankind's mind is trash. Of course, there are unique exceptions such as my mind, which is bright and luminous.
>>17368036
Nope.

[Anonymous No.17368161]

>>17367645

[Anonymous No.17368177]

>>17368085
So you think that there is an objective morality, but it only matters when there are humans to comprehend it. Functionally, I think you are identical to a nihilist.

[Anonymous No.17368215]

>>17368177
Stop putting words into my mouth.
Also, there are more sentient beings than just humans.

[Anonymous No.17368245]

>>17367645
kys

[Anonymous No.17368254]

>>17368245
No, I would rather kill you, nigger.

[Anonymous No.17368266]

>>17367868
if it were born of love perhaps, but it's not, it's born of blind spite.

[Anonymous No.17368292]

>>17367916
feral cats are the problem, australia holds many completely unique species and rightfully protects them with stringent biosecurity.

also two things:
1. cats are responsible for their own actions and it is reasonable to kill them if they are doing harm, you want to make them a blameless object for your own pleasure instead of their own thing.
2. mankind isn't a monolithic mind acting with full knowledge and intention past future and present. if you really cared about this topic and weren't just OOOMGGMG NOO NOT TTHE KIITTY CATS NOT THE CATERINOS THEY DINDU NUFFIN then you would also address the fundamental problems with the way we live, the serious issue of not living in accord with what we evolved for. you're simply a bitter, hateful creature. don't pretend otherwise and i will join in bathing this world in fire.

[Anonymous No.17368314]

>>17368292
>feral cats are the problem
I agree, but the true causal source of the problem is mankind.
>cats are responsible for their own actions and it is reasonable to kill them if they are doing harm, you want to make them a blameless object for your own pleasure instead of their own thing.
While cats have a degree of self-awareness, their minds are not developed to the point they can understand things like the importance of native biodiversity. In this sense, mankind is more to blame for moving them away from their native habitats. The rhetoric used to cull cats could be more aptly applied to human beings.
>2. mankind isn't a monolithic mind acting with full knowledge and intention past future and present. i
99.9% of human beings are trash. There are exceptions like me though, but that is a small and negligible number. Granted, the 0.1% is not exactly human either.
>then you would also address the fundamental problems with the way we live, the serious issue of not living in accord with what we evolved for.
I don't have to do anything. The extinction of mankind is guaranteed, and this gives me motivation in the mornings. I have transcended humanity and become something better. In fact, if people were truly wise, they would submit to my benevolent rule and realize they are better off bending to my Will.

[Anonymous No.17368362]

>>17368161
Linkola is amazing

[Anonymous No.17369011]

>>17368254
>No, I would rather kill you, nigger.
y u gota be racist :((((((

[Anonymous No.17369028]

>>17367645
if all humans could achieve the state of thought and deed as the greatest of us, we would become a race of gods. Human beings are in a perpetual state between insect and divinity.

[Anonymous No.17369192]

>>17368314
>I have transcended humanity and become something better.
yet you make basic mistakes in reasoning and LARP on an anonymous imageboard. i do too, it's ok.

[Anonymous No.17369246]

>>17368314
>In fact, if people were truly wise, they would submit to my benevolent rule and realize they are better off bending to my Will.
Based and enlightenedabsolutismpilled

[Anonymous No.17369328]

>>17367716
The basic idea seems to be that there is far more suffering than happiness in the world so by eliminating both you reduce net suffering.

[Anonymous No.17369353]

>>17367916
>These issues wouldn't exist if it weren't due to mankind's short-sightedness and egotism
Curious. You see that Mankind has adopted less than noble traits, namely shortsightedness and egotism. Yet instead of simply transforming those traits in mankind into foresight and (I suppose) altruism, you wish to dispose of Mankind outright. Care to elaborate, why can't we choose the former path?

[Anonymous No.17369370]

Humans are the least selfish animals ever. I go to my yard everyday and feed the deer, I let bear root through my compost pile unharassed, I put apples out for the skunks and porcupines, and meat waste for the ravens. Not once have any of these fucks returned a favour