Suffering, trauma, and trauma bonding: it’s a feature, not a bug, of biological existence and reproduction
"The antinatalists are always wondering why natalists normalize, minimize, ignore, or even glorify the trauma and suffering of existence in favor of women giving birth to more people. The antinatalists spend a lot of time lamenting about natalists thinking that suffering and trauma are just bugs, not a feature, of biological existence when it’s actually the other way around.
...most if not all complex DNA organisms require some kind of suffering, grievous effort, or trauma bonding for a species to procreate and perpetuate itself. Think of: salmon swimming upstream for miles to spawn, emperor penguins shuffling around together in sub-arctic temperatures struggling to keep eggs warm enough to hatch, bucks fighting other bucks to the death for a chance to mate, groups of male dolphins engaging in “forced copulation” of female dolphins, male spiders getting their heads bit off by female spiders after mating, ect.
So, in a way natalists are right: suffering really is part of life especially procreation, which is why procreation is generally a bad thing and not just for humans. DNA doesn’t give a shit who suffers as long as it perpetuates itself, it even mutates into different varieties of itself to kill and eat itself for it’s own survival; the suffering of life forms be damned.
illness, injury, abuse, war, ect are all ways that humans stay trauma bonded with one another. It’s the plot of every stupid romcom, war movie, horror flick, and even badly voiced children’s movie that says “we all went through this together so now we’re friends lol.” I mean really, how much more obvious does it get that people will not only tolerate hardship and suffering, but inflict it via procreation because suffering and bonding through suffering actually is “normal” in life?"
Credit











