No, you’re a fool if you truly believe this. Every generation has had some form of this feeling. Imagine considering having children during WW1, or WW2, or during Vietnam or Korea? Then after that we had McCarthyism and the Cold War - all seemingly hopeless days. Yet there is still so much beauty in the world, and there is so much that makes life worth living.
My son will turn 2 in a few months. It’s tough being a parent, but it is entirely worth it. You cannot give into myopia - every time I hear him laugh, I am reminded that there is good in the world and it is worth fighting for. He will have his own challenges to face in life, but it is our job as a society to equip him, and all of the next generation, with the tools they need to succeed.
I’m troubled about the future, but you cannot make that stop you from striving for better days. As Marcus Aurelius said, never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.
I’ve been re-reading the Lord of the Rings lately, and there is a lot there on this topic, but I always think back to Sam. We all should be so lucky to have a friend like that, but what he says when all hope seems to be lost is truly striking:
“It’s like the great stories, Mr. Frodo, the ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were, and sometimes you didn’t want to know the end because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad has happened? But in the end, it’s only a passing thing this shadow, even darkness must pass. A new day will come, and when the sun shines, it’ll shine out the clearer. I know now folks in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn’t. They kept going because they were holding on to something. That there’s some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it’s worth fighting for.”
Tolkien wrote this after his experiences fighting in The Somme. If he could find hope and found the courage to keep striving for better days, then so should we.
I don’t think I would have brought a new person into the world during any of the other time periods you mention either.
That’s fair, and not an unreasonable choice. What I can’t get over is people acting like that’s the only reasonable choice, and that people who have children are idiots.
Just look around in this thread and you’ll see some smug ass attitudes. It kind of reminds me of those 14 year old kids who feel immensely smart because they’re atheist, you know?
I didn’t say people who have children are idiots. I just think it’s immoral
Ok lol, my point remains exactly the same and I think your viewpoint is incredibly reductive.
You really think it’s ethical to bring another human into this world?
I don’t think it’s objectively and clearly unethical, so I think your claim that it is is wrong.
Why do you think it’s not?
The only way to experience suffering is to be alive. The only way to be born is without consent
Obviously yes
You’re awfully judgy for someone who doesn’t like other people judging you for having kids.
Just let people have a difference of opinion to you. It’s okay if some people look down on your choices. This is inevitable in life.
- I don’t even have kids lol
- Calling people out for being condescending is not the same as being condescending. This reeks of the same mentality that people who unironically say hating racists makes you hateful and therefore just as bad as racists have.
I’d say you can find things that make life worth living if you’re already here. But if someone’s not “here”, why drag someone you’re supposed to love the most into this mess when we can’t even properly look after the children that are already here.
I’m not anti-child - I’d consider adopting if it didn’t cost like $20k. I’m anti-new child for myself, and yeah I get sad when I see other people have kids, especially now. It’s like having another kid when you lived in the middle of the dust bowl and people were actively dying from starvation and the dust. Probably not the best time to have kids, similar to now. They just couldn’t easily make the choice to not have kids back then.
There are tons of arguments in favour of having kids like what if they cure cancer etc.
However, for myself, I truly believe there will be an ecological collapse due to climate change if not during my lifetime, in the immediate next generation. And we’re still not doing enough. I don’t want to flee natural disasters with a child in tow. One of best things you can do for the climate is not have kids. I’m privileged enough to make that choice so I did, but it’s not my only reason. You got late stage capitalism and the accelerating concentration of resources with the hyper wealthy, war / nuclear war, and the fact that pregnancy is one of most risky things I can medically do. Social media, the toxic drug supply, the rise of fascism (again), microplastics in literally fucking everything. I don’t even think we’ll have social healthcare or social security in Canada by the time I die because they’re gutting our programs so badly.
I get that people have a strong reaction to their choices being called immoral. Morality looks different for everyone. However, the counterargument of “Well I have children and they’re great and bring me so much joy etc” falls on deaf ears, because it truly does not sound like joy to me and when I say I am anti-child for myself I am telling you that. It’s like trying to convince someone skydiving is the greatest thing - some people love it, but not my cup of tea. It is so foreign to me that whenever I hear parents say this it feels like they are trying to convince themselves that they made the right choice.
Have you watched Idiocracy? I consider myself a smart guy, and having children is my way to fight against the world getting stupider.
Also, it is a joy. Yeah, it’s expensive, and yeah, it’s a ton of work. But it’s like working on a very big project that you know you’ll be proud of when it’s done. I didn’t understand it before because I only experienced other people’s children, but it’s different with your own children in a way that’s hard to explain.
What I don’t get is, why not just adopt? Instead of creating more potential for misery, why not reduce it while still being able to enjoy parenthood?
It’s usually exceptionally expensive, especially considering insurance won’t be any help.
What I don’t get is why people pretend fostering isn’t even an option!
Idiocracy is eugenics propaganda. People don’t get dumber because of their genes but because of worse education.
Like the other commenter said, adopt if you want to improve the world (and not just your own life), but that’s harder without the biological attachment that comes from your own kids.(Not trying to be rude btw, just noting generally my thoughts)
I don’t want to have kids simply because I’m miserable and never consented to being born. I am not suicidal but I would have rather not been born in the first place.
Most people grow up happier than me, so I can’t really make a philosophical argument out of my own experience. All the best to you and your family!I would rather not have been born in the first place
This is called being passively suicidal
Well said.
I’d have to disagree from the angle that, you cannot philoshpy your way out of ecology. If you actually look at a population graph for any species which experiences a massive spike in birthrates, and what comes for them afterwards, you would probably come to a conclusion that the rate at which we’ve been producing kids is very unsustainable, and while we probably shouldn’t tell people not to have kids completely we should probably begin to consider how to transition towards more sustainable population numbers. A given ecosystem can only sustain so much of one species before it begins to break down. Our Eco system is the entire world and it is very much breaking down as we hit record temperatures year after year. There were lights at ends of tunnels during every war as they’ve always like, ended with a winning side that could rebuild/regrow, and even ecological collapses have been recovered from by humans but we’re not going to get to be the humans that recover, and it doesn’t look like our kids will be either. So, if we want to have kinda okay lives we should maybe consider minimizing the impact from what is about to happen, and also not bringing children into a world that has pretty much no chance of being better for them than it was for us.
You’re conflating population growth with capitalistic and exploitative growth. the fact that we’re destroying our ecology does have little to do with the population and everything to do with capitalist overextraction.
The capitalists would extract less if they had fewer workers and not as many people to sell stuff to.
are u serious?
I’m being a little snide but yeah supply and demand right? If the population reduces it impacts the demand for products and also the supply of workers.
Capitalists aren’t going to stop ruining the earth out of the goodness of their hearts or anything.
I get that less workers would mean more power to the workers, but avoiding having kids to limit the supply of workers seems, idk, fucking weird and also weirdly passive?
You can protest, join a union, start a workers co-op or organise in different ways, but that takes effort. Or you could not have kids, which takes less effort than having kids, and say it’s praxis? Idk, to me this feels like packaging your own personal choice as a grand political stand, as if you would jump at the opportunity to have kids if we lived in a socialist society.
Also, to counter your point, historically a lot of protest and unrest came from a dissatisfied populace with not enough job opportunities. So by that logic you should just pop out kids so they’ll be a part of the revolution. I don’t believe this, to be clear, but I mention it as a way to illustrate that basing your decision to have kids on how it will affect the supply and demand of labour is really fucking weird, and also not even something with a predictable outcome.
Oh my heavens no it’s not the only reason not to have kids and it’s not even factor #1 for me as a reason to not. Just one factor among many.
But this part of the thread started with a claim, as I understood it, that population growth wasn’t the problem - that the problem was instead capitalistic exploitation.
I’m just pointing out that limiting one could solve the other. Because I don’t think the oligarchs who rule the world will ever let us protest/unrest in a meaningful way again. People are kept just comfortable enough with fast food, Starbucks, entertainment, etc and just tired enough from selling labour that the vast majority of people wouldn’t care or engage with any sort of meaningful reform to the system.
We can’t even get people to engage in not electing King Fascist (US) and far-right populist Milhouse (Canada). For what reason??? Our other alternatives are middling, one is too old and in Canada I think they’re just tired of the tone and the tone deafness of our current guy. Seems like pretty lame excuses peddled by media that is owned by the very same oligarchs who stand to benefit the most from far right governments. The recent news in the UK and France makes it sting a little less, I guess.
How bad are we prepared to let things get? It’s gonna have to get pretty ugly at a local level for any meaningful change to happen.
Socialism would no doubt increase the planets carrying capacity for humans, but not make it limitless. It is also nowhere near close to being implemented so I am assessing the world that we have, not the one I’d like it to be. Also, even if we did away with capitalism tomorrow we’d probably still need to discuss reasonable population growth and come up with a reasonable estimate for our planet’s carrying capacity which could be weighed against quality of life, human happiness, etc as we transition our economy away from late stage capitalism.
I’d argue that it’s more likely that capitalism is abolished tomorrow than any government having a proposed solution to population control that’s not fundamentally evil.
I wouldn’t. Really all post industrial countries need to do is stop trying to directly insentivize having kids and maybe provide access to free/low cost contraceptives. I think that’s a lot easier than having socialism implemented in enough countries for it to matter.
Maybe Santa will bring that to you next Christmas, if you’re a good Femcowboy. /s
I agree that having kids can be awesome, but the idea it’s foolish to see it as a waste of time is shitty as well. OP is perfectly reasonable to find it terrible, because for many people, it is. People are less happy after having children on average, as alien and counterintuitive as it may seem to you. It’s a spectrum, with many people actually being happier, or at least more content with their life after. However, many people don’t.
The problem is that people make the mistake of seeing children as a means rather than an end. If they knew the truth, that raising children is the end goal for a parent rather than a step to something else, they wouldn’t want to do it. Those people shouldn’t be mislead. If you won’t get satisfaction out of nurturing your kid, it’s better for both you and your potential offspring that you live your own life. The kid might grow up and love life, but both of you will suffer for it.
Someone else, someone who really wants to change diapers and deal with tantrums to see a human grow, can raise the next generation just fine. If you want to pass on genes or whatever, but see no purpose beyond that, then have someone adopt them and be on your way. It’d be a win-win for us both.
OP is claiming having children is wrong, in other words that people who have children are wrong. They’re not saying that it’s not for them but might be the right choice for others, but rather that their own choice is the right one.
Life is a painful mess, no matter what you do, you can’t guarantee that your child won’t have the most horrid existence imaginable, rolling the dice on someone else’s life due to your own selfish need to procreate is what they’re saying is wrong. I regret that my mom had me, life has been a living hell, nothing short of her not having me would have changed that.
Your life is a painful mess and you’re generalising that to everyone. I’m sorry you’re unhappy about your life, but that really isn’t an argument about other people having children.
Life can be painful, it can be beautiful, it can be dull or exciting, or anything in between. It’s not inherently negative or positive, as you’re claiming.
The point is lost on you. I genuinely hope your kid has a good life, but I personally would never gamble someone else’s life for my own selfish wants, and I can’t reconcile others decisions to do so either.
But you’re basing that on your own negative experiences in life, and you’re acting like they’re objective and universal.
Also, by that logic you shouldn’t do anything that could potentially cascade into making someone else unhappy, which would be absolutely debilitating.
Don’t get me wrong, I get that you should think twice, thrice and even more about having kids, especially if you’re not in a position to give them a good life and/or if you have certain heritable issues. But your overall position seems overly negative and, idk, somewhat misanthropic? In your worldview humanity should just stop existing because people can be unhappy in life. It’s overly reductive and negative to me.
Everybody is basing their opinions on their own experience.
I find it hilarious that you can argue your own experience is any different.
To better explain the argument: they are not saying “it’s 50:50 the child will suffer”, they mean “there is obviously a non-zero chance that children will suffer”, which is absolutely true. It’s up to the individual to consider their situation (money, time, temper, parental knowledge, genetic diseases etc) to gauge how much more may their children have it worse than average.
And I would say that many children do indeed suffer, and many don’t have the conditions that I personally would consider ideal.
But having a child is always on their respective parents. Morality won’t change their minds.
And OP is wrong to claim that. Both of your gut feelings about what is correct for you are valid, but you’re both talking past each other emotionally. Your comment sounded condescending to me, and I actually wish I could have kids.
I’ve always loved that Samwise Gamgee line. Makes me tear up every time I read it.
Ah yes, it’s not the billionaires, corrupt politicians and massive industry inefficiency that’s causing our problems, it’s children!!!
I swear to God, reading stupidity from people I expect to be on my side of the political divide hurts especially bad.
More like yes those are the problems and children are not the answer to those problems.
I’m not sure where they got the impression anyone was blaming children unless they are intentionally being obtuse to attack ideas they disagree with. Similar to people who screech “you hate dogs!?!” when you complain about shitty dog owners.
It’s humanity that causes problems
When an invasive species is destroying an ecosystem, what do you do?
I’m not advocating for any policy, I’m just saying people shouldn’t have children. It’s unethical.
I personally can think of several solutions to the climate crisis less drastic than humanity becoming extinct
Not necessarily extinct, but definitely less populous
That’s a policy.
Why would you expect a random person on Lemmy to be on your side?
But without infinite growth how can we feed the capitalistic engine with more souls?
Just think of all them empty mines, sad and alone, only wanting to be filled with the sound of children coughing themselves to death from black lung.
People have children because they want to, not for growth. In a relatively stable society most people don’t even have many children…
“If I didn’t have children, who’d take care of me when I get old?”
“If we didn’t have children, who’d work for our pensions and keep society running when we retire?”
“I want to live a happy life after I retire, and you (young people) are obliged to provide that.”Real words I heard.
A lot of people have kids mostly for future-proofing themselves.India: “I need many children to support my everyday life and me when I’m old.”
Germany: “wtf are children?”
(A bit exaggerated of course, but should illustrate your point.)
Access to opportunities and birth control drop birthrates.
Lots and lots of poor countries have large populations because poor parents are hoping many children can work. Also lack of access to birth control and far right groups insisting children are a religious necessity.
I’m sure that big bad capitalists will be sad of you not having kids and spending all your time and money on movies, games, traveling, …
What money?
Lol, I’m not far-left but I do love comments like these.
It’s important to note that capitalism is far from the only major exploitative system in the world. This said, I’m part of that particular system, and yes… It truly does feel like we’re just cogs in an ever-hungry, broken system.
Crazy take: people get to choose if they have children.
I wish I got to choose if my parents had children.
… without being judged for it, I hope?
Yes… But should they get that choice?
If I could wave a magic wand, I’d make it so every 12 year old that could make sperm (trans, cis, whatever) gets a reversible vasectomy automatically. Then, if/when they ever want and plan for starting a family, they can take the class on childhood development and how to be a good parent who raises not shitty humans. If they pass, great! They get to undo the vasectomy and try for a family. If not, oh well, no one wanted to have to support your shitty kids in the first place.
I have no idea how something like this could ever actually be implemented in a fair way… Hense the need for the magic wand
How about we fix the fucking society, so raising children isn’t so fucking volatile instead of thinking up some wand of eugenics +2?
Well, yeah, that would be the best way to go… I’d still think people should have to pass a class before they’re allowed to be responsible for another human beings entire life
I don’t trust state insitutions enough for that not to turnsinto yet another way to screw over the poor.
Certainly not as long as the corporations are in control of the government
Weirdo
Guilty
Ah, genocidal eugenics, there you are. How I didn’t miss you.
Neither of those words apply here.
They do, in fact.
Nah… Not sure what you think those words mean, but no one’s talking about genetics or the eradication of a race of people.
Ah of course, my mistake.
Eugenics certainly couldn’t be checks notes deciding who can have kids, and humans arent checks notes people.
Absolutely ridiculous. Imagine actually being pro genocide.
Yes. Ultimately, the reason we should let people choose isn’t to prevent people who would be bad parents from becoming parents. That’s an issue that couldn’t be solved directly, but could be indirectly addressed by providing comprehensive sex ed. The real reason we should let people choose is so people aren’t forced to do or not do something they don’t or do want. People may choose the wrong option for themselves and regret it, but outside forces aren’t going to know what they want better than they will.
Magical thought experiments can often mislead, as ethics cannot exist outside of our uncertain, unmagical reality.
But in this case the “wrong option” means a human being will suffer terribly (assuming we’re talking about parents who wouldn’t pass the test)… Do we not ethically owe it to children/humanity to take some level of precautions against allowing them to grow up in hell?
We do owe them protection, but not only do we owe ourselves reproductive rights, there are other ways to protect those children. We can give people the knowledge and resources to be better parents while taking kids away from those that still suck. How many parents largely suck because of poverty? How many never got the chance to learn how to parent or what the experience will be like?
I wish they did but the governments are intent on taking that choice away
Of course. You can, and it’s your right to do so. But that doesn’t mean it’s ethical.
It’s fine if you don’t want kids for yourself, but antinatalism as an ideology is only a few steps away from ecofascism.
correct. i would have no problem if this post and the subsequent comments defending it didn’t use the words “wrong” and “immoral.” but they do and that’s fascist territory.
Lmao, no it’s not
“Nuh uh”
It is discussed with those words because it has been transformed into an ethical question. It is a personal freedom, but it can be asked how ethically correct or incorrect that action is aside from our current laws or [cultural/social] morality.
It’s about wonder, ponder. I think that’s always important, even for things that seem taboo at first.
I guess each person has a different approach to antinatalism. I don’t want to bring children into the world because unlike many people who outright lie, I do not think it will bring me joy. I’m also scared that if I bring a child into this world and it will suffer as much as I currently do, I won’t be able to live with the blame.
Antinatalism isn’t just a personal decision to not have kids, it’s an ideological belief that having kids is morally wrong.
This is an overgeneralisation which completely misses the nuance. Antinatalism does not postulate that it’s morally wrong to procreate, only that it is morally wrong to bring another human consciousness into a soup of suffering, which… yeah, kinda’! I mean, is the world not presently a soup of suffering, with extra helpings on the way?
Personally, I doubt most people who subscribe to Antinatalism would do so if society weren’t literally a hell hole right now.
if “a soup of suffering” means “life/the world” u just said “its not that its morally wrong to give birth, but that its morally wrong to give birth”? :p
The world as it is now, yes. But this is far from the only option, thus the world is not an inevitable soup of suffering. So, no.
Unless you’re both an antinatalist and a philosophical pessimist and believe that the world will always be that soup. But yeah, that’s not the case for all antinatalists. A friend of mine calls himself a “temporary antinatalist”.
True. I guess the distinction, though semantically redundant, seems to be contextually necessary nowadays…
The problem with that argument is that the world has ALWAYS been a terrible place for the vast majority of people to live, at least since the industrial revolution and arguably since the agricultural revolution. The now vanishing middle class, an artifact of post war economic boom, was about the only time ever it was “morally right” to have a child because chances were very good that they would lead a life of even less suffering than their parents. I chose not to have kids because I agree that the world is headed in a bad direction, but more so because of my financial situation as a working class person, and my mental health as a result of a decade working check to check. If I were in the situation my parents were when I was born, I truly think the equation would work out differently.
I have to disagree with the idea that the world has always been a terrible place. Actually building upon what you’ve said subsequently, the world itself isn’t terrible, it’s just a rock with some moss and critters on it, the systems we’ve created for ourselves are terrible. That’s exactly the nuance to which I was referring in my initial comment, Antinatalism isn’t universally applicable to all existing and potential existential contexts.
I’m not antinatalist, but I am in favor of voluntary human extinction.
Antinatalism is the first law of robotics, reduced to absurdity. It answers the question by forgetting why you asked it in the first place.
Yes, it does eliminate human suffering. However, it does so in the same way that a bullet to the head cures a headache.
Yeah, a nuclear exchange would be a faster way of achieving what antinatalists would achieve if they got their way.
you do understand that the joker is in the wrong here, right? like in this scene he’s a mentally i’ll man saying that killing people is funny.
if you genuinely believe that existence has an inherent negative value then i strongly suggest you seek help, and i don’t mean that to be facetious. antinatalism is depression turned into a moral philosophy, it posits itself as a solution to suffering by offering an unrealizable future, but really it’s an excuse to not even attempt to make the world better.
Memes are generally divorced from their original source. This format is only used to show the creator has a controversial idea.
antinatalism is depression turned into a moral philosophy
Not necessarily. Antinatalism and other pessimistic points of view can be held by non-depressed people. On the internet, it seems like psychological pessimism is the same as philosophical pessimism as many depressed people do adopt these points of view and flood the forums. Adding to that, they often abandon their philosophical pessimism when their depression lifts, leaving a testimony that it is true: only depressed people defend these ideas. But we need only an example of a person that is not depressed and still values antinatalism on its own to demonstrate that your statement is not the case, and I think I might be that example. Many other examples might be found in universities. I hope one day we get a formal social study so that I do not have to give anecdotal “evidence” and personal information.
Now, I’d add to defend those I know that are indeed depressed, we should be debating and trying to refute the philosophy itself. Even if depression is leading them into these kinds of thoughts, we cannot say that this disproves their ideas. Many brilliant discoveries and inventions were reached in what we classify as pathological states. The manic researcher and crafter is an archetype for a reason (e.g., mad scientist, mad artist), and we have not fewer examples of depressed people that made valuable work, such as author F. Dostoevsky. There are two books that are coming to my mind that explain why (specifically) mood disorders are pathological but still let people do great things: A First-Rate Madness: Uncovering the Links Between Leadership and Mental Illnesses and Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament. So, as I was saying, the fact that someone is clinically depressed does not inform us about how true or how solid their ideas might be. Discrediting them just because they suffer from depression would be an ad hominem, and, in the moral part, ableism. We need to listen to/read their ideas and discuss the ideas instead.
it posits itself as a solution to suffering by offering an unrealizable future
This is a very misunderstood part of antinatalism. Almost no antinatalist is utopic in their views, that is, few antinatalists think that the point must be to cease all reproduction and that antinatalism fails if they don’t. That would be an ideal scenario; there’s no suffering without existence, but that is a dream. There are no goals for many antinatalists, just the idea that bringing children into this world is not ethically correct. They might follow antinatalism and not have children or adopt, but not preach much about it because they know practically no one will listen. I, for instance, bring this problem to people that might have not thought about it before. If they go ahead and have children, I’d still think that was not correct, but well, nothing to do but to help take care of this new life. It can be as pragmatic as that.
but really it’s an excuse to not even attempt to make the world better.
No. In my case, I try to help in other ways. This right here is an example as I’m trying to broaden the discussion around these topics in a healthy way because I know Reddit has sadly damaged these debates with a lot of insults and bad attitudes from many sides. They insult people, so these people go to their subreddit and insult them back… It is not a good way to first learn about these topics, and many are learning what antinatalism is first on Reddit. I hope Lemmy will be slightly better.
Anyway, I also try to better the world in the ways I can. Still, as a person that values philosophical pessimism, I think we are only saving lives from a neverending fire, or giving palliatives for an incurable disease. I enjoy my life and I try to help others enjoy theirs as much as this existence lets us.
If anything, philosophies around negative utilitarianism, preference utilitarianism, overall pessimism, etc. tend to respect others a lot and value their suffering negatively. That’s usually their point. Suffering is not a “necessary side for pleasure” or “a trial from which we gain something” or “something not that bad” or any explanation different cultures have given. Suffering is bad; in a better world, it wouldn’t exist like this. It is tragic, but it is reality, so we must face it and combat suffering as best as we can. I’d say these ethical paths inspire protection of others more than others less centered on sentience.
Finally, it is good advice to seek professional help, but not on the sole basis of someone being an antinatalist. If our OP here is depressed, I do recommend visiting a professional.
when i say that it’s depression turned into philosophy i mean it in the sense that it is a philosophy that will inevitably lead to depression, or at the very least a skewed world view (think you’ll see a red car and you’re going to spot a lot of red cars, think existence is suffering and you’ll probably focus on suffering a lot).
interesting breakdown tho, i’m glad that you still have hope. i dislike antinatalism and similar philosophies mostry due to their “doomerism” and belief that experiences are somehow cumulative
Oh! That’s a complicated consequence, yes. I cannot lie and say that studying sad things won’t ever make one sad. It’s… hard.
I don’t think it is a rule that it is going to warp one’s vision, but I’ve seen people getting depressed and definitely biased when studying philosophical pessimism. It seems like something that only happens in jokes or memes, but no, reading Arthur Schopenhauer or whoever can be dangerous if one is already vulnerable to depression, isolation, etc.
I definitely advise discretion. And it’s not because they’re dark monsters, monks of death dressed in black robes. There’s nothing too morbid about the books; that’s probably just the myth time has created around them. In reality, their danger is just pondering on dark aspects of life that can be disheartening if one is not prepared. Even when the reading is for high school or university, or for curiosity, I think these authors should be picked with an open mind and a serene “heart”.
Thank you for reading and answering.
It’s absolutely fine if you don’t want to have kids
I don’t agree with the Antinatalist idea that having children is immoral. Or that Antinatalism reduces suffering.
If I’m incorrect please elaborate
/> Pulls existence from the void into this mortal coil
/> Questions how not doing so could have prevented suffering
Pulls existence from the void
This point is highly dependent on whether or not you believe there is some sort of soul or existence before birth. I cannot argue on this point since this is pure belief, so I will accept your view for the sake of the discussion
Questions how not doing so could have prevented suffering
You could say it prevents suffering, but it also prevents Joy, Love, Friendship. Sure it also prevents Sadness and Grief and so on. It prevents everything by way of not giving life a chance.
If you think you cannot provide a happy life to your children then it’s perfectly valid to not want children. But it’s egoistic to think that other people should not have kids because of your own world view.
Many Antinatalists believe that life in the current world is filled with so much suffering that it’s not worth being born.
But that’s like… Your opinion man! Let people make their own choices
Important distinction: Only one side is using “belief”, and that is the one that has subscribed or invented themselves the idea of life before or after death. Zero evidence supports this. I’m not saying it does or does not exist, but it’s a weak point to bring up.
You could just as easily invent the idea of children being literally us, reborn, to justify their creation. Or that children are literal currency in the after-life market. Conversly, what if taking lives gives us points? Maybe the Vikings had it right.
As for your second point, I think it’s the first strong natalistic argument I’ve seen here! I don’t agree with it any more than I agree with the antinatalism folks, but I appreciate the optimistic counter to all of the pessimistic points being made here.
In the end, I guess I remain of the opinion that this area of life (like countless others) is a gray area. I don’t see either extreme as logically moral or immoral without more information being applied on a, case-by-case basis
Yeah, I’m in the same boat. I’m enjoying playing devil’s advocate here, however. People who justify having children as some sort of gift to the world are far less reasonable, and the arguments being made here by those types are exhausting.
I can diffuse just about every comment like this here with a simple word: “adoption”.
I agree that bringing life into the world is morally bad. I also agree that eating other animals is morally bad, as is killing, always. However, that does not mean we should not do these things at times. You just need to understand that you are still committing an immoral act for personal gain. There is no such thing as a perfectly moral existence, as the world is a cruel place which cares little about morality and often forces you to be immoral. You should instead work towards being as moral as in out can when you can, and accept that sometimes morality is out of your hands.
In the case of the child: you are bringing a human consciousness kicking and screaming into this world you know to be dangerous and cruel. That is immoral, and you did it either by failing precaution, or out of personal want or instinct. I think to repent, you are morally obligated to give that child a good life at minimum and ideally the best life you can. You are beholden to them until they can live on their own happily, and you are obligated to help them even after that. I also think that if that child resents how you’ve cared for them, you have no grounds to hold that against them, as you were the one that forced them into this world.
If you cannot do the above, you are should reconsider whether you are fit to have a child.
It is also arguable that to do justice without injustice, the only option is to adopt or guide another person who has no one providing things they need, and I don’t think this kindness should be limited to children but children are the most vulnerable.
What a bunch of cringe edgy antinatalist nonsense. Think about the future, if you don’t have kids, who are we gonna feed to the machine a few decades from now?
Who feeds the machine now, it’s you so why are you even around
Antinatalism is reactionary and incorrect.
Need dragon slayers in the time dragons.
Suffering is inherent to the human condition. Is it okay to undertake actions that cause people suffering?
What makes something okay? Who decides what is okay and what is not okay?
I’m taking an utilitarian approach. Suffering should be avoided, and happiness maximized. Bringing another being into existence guarantees suffering, with a chance of creating happiness. That is not a gamble you should take on behalf of another being.
Is the potential (or guarantee) for suffering greater than the potential for joy? You also have to account for the joy of the person and the joy they create. I believe the potential for expected joy exceeds the guarantee of suffering.
What previous status quo are antinatalists trying to return to? “Reactionary” is just the left wing equivalent of “woke”.
I suppose the previous status quo that anti-natalists want to return to is before the evolution of intelligent life. Word is still out on whether it’s immoral for single-celled organisms to reproduce.
touch grass
especially when I see what kind of people choose to have kids
Then you’re leaving the future to them.
And the suffering that they cause.
Such a doomer mindset
If noone is cultivating and passing on positive culture, it’s not making the chances of reducing suffering any better is my point.
ETA: I am not, to be clear, trying to say that having children is, in itself, a morally/ethically good thing. Generally, it is neutral but may be otherwise depending on one’s situation. Choosing whether or not to have children is a personal choice - what’s right for one might not be for another. Declaring others morally/ethically wrong for having children is myopic and likely a result of projecting one’s experience into others.
In addition, antinatalism is bordering on eco-fascism, which is not ok. It seems most commonly expressed to make one feel superior while not putting in effort to effect positive change, like anti-electoralism/accelerationism.
Adoption. Community building. Helping the disenfranchised.
These are all methods of bettering the future without pumping another child into this world. And arguably, they’re morally better than having a child.
I didn’t know these where mutually exclusive.
You were the one who implied that, by saying that not having children leaves it up to those who will.
Have you or are you planning to adopt a child?
They’re not making a choice. They’re anti-choice.
I think most people simply don’t appreciate what having a child is and what a massive responsibility it is. Bringing another human being into this world is a gift, one that you should be expected to nurture and love no matter what.
The problem is that many believe that a child is simply an extension of oneself and can be manipulated and contorted into whatever the parent wants. A child is not you, a child is not a free workforce, or laborer. Too many people who do not truly understand what they are bringing into this world are parents and thats why theres so many flawed individuals.
I think most people shouldnt have children and especially right now with the way the worlds headed but to say having children is completely wrong is immensely stupid.
(in addition i myself am abstaining from having children because i dont want the responsibility and i find the lil shits annoying.)
I think most people simply don’t appreciate what having a child is and what a massive responsibility it is.
I think you’re talking out of your own ass, if you believe that most parents don’t know all that.
mmmmm no id say youre talking out of your own ass.
Many parents when you truly get down to it seem to think the most important part of being a parent is spreading their genes and maintaining a bloodline.
I truly mean it when I say most parents dont realize how profound having a kid truly is. Otherwise i truly believe people take longer before having kid when it comes to finding another person to raise a kid with, considering what mental illnesses, or diseases that lurk in your dna.
I also think abortion wouldnt be that much of an issue if people consider when its truly the right time to raise a child.
So nah suck it brah.
Many parents when you truly get down to it seem to think the most important part of being a parent is spreading their genes and maintaining a bloodline.
WTF are you talking about? I don’t know a single parent that does that.
I’ll have to play the “you’re no parent, so you simply have no idea card” here, since it’s obviously like that.
Removed by mod
And what do we call people who talk shit about stuff they don’t understand, children?
Tap for spoiler
It’s “idiots”. Alternatively “dumbfucks”.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
lol, u mad? ^^
As a parent, I thought I had an idea. Nope, still surprised. And I wanted the kid and have means to support them.
Yeah, most parents-to-be don’t, since it’s simply inconceivable, really.
From my experience,I personally agree with that sentiment. A lot of parents and parents to be put a lot on their kids that doesn’t need to be there, many don’t understand how much work it will be, and a lot put in much less work than they should.
It sounds like you are or would be an engaged parent to know it’s a lot of work to raise a little individual, but there are many people from many backgrounds.
That’s simply something, no parent would say, so yeah: talking out of their asses galore down here.
So how about we fix the society as to that not only übermenschen can get children and born children have the resource of an intact social safety-net? Maybe that would be preferable to childless asses shaming parents whose situations they have no access to?
Most of the time, it’s a lack of resources that disables parents to properly care for their kids. Try to be a supportive parent if you work 3 jobs to make ends meet.
You quoted the part where they said most people, but you’re replying as if they said most parents.
Anyway, you’d hope people who don’t know all that would learn better after the kid comes out, but I know some people don’t. I can name two off the top of my head.
You quoted the part where they said most people, but you’re replying as if they said most parents.
Hey, if they didn’t mean most parents, then the first part of the sentence didn’t apply.
I believed this once, but then I went to therapy. People have thrived under way worse conditions.
I’m more worried about the reefs thriving
Me too
Then not having kids is one of the best things you can do.
I am not willing to sacrifice having children. It’s an integral part of life for me. Killing myself would probably be good for the climate as well.
Less good than not having children. But we are all free to make our own choices, but I don’t think that you can seriously hold both “I care about the environment” and “I’m choosing to bring life into the world and damage the environment” ideas in your head without a lot of hypocrisy.
I know you may think, my one kid won’t have such a big impact on the environment, but when 7 billion think that, the problem is exponential.
To be human is to hold contradicting understandings of reality in equal measure. The amount of people who hate the idea of animal cruelty (or environmental destruction for that matter), yet still consume animal products is astronomical.
The environment will never be saved by trying to convince people to not have kids. It’s a biological staple of existence stretching back billions of years, and we as a species will never give that up.
Having children gives us a species a more personal stake in the planet’s future, and it would be better to focus our energies on that angle instead of demonizing people who agree with you 95% of the time.
gross
I agree. The thought of bringing a child into the world in our current political and economical landscape would be gross.
hahaha it’s funny because you twisted my words to mean the opposite good one 😂😂😂
Minus the emojis, this statement would be great antihumor (not a disagreement with your point, I just love antihumor).
antihumor + emojis = a good antidote for unkind trolling in my experience :)
common spujb w
they call me wujb
