You must log in or register to comment.
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.
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.
It’s fine if you don’t want kids for yourself, but antinatalism as an ideology is only a few steps away from ecofascism.
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.
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”.
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
touch grass
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
lol, u mad? ^^
Removed by mod
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.
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.
They’re not making a choice. They’re anti-choice.
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.
This is why religious people outnumber us.
In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace
One of the problems with the historical Christian system, particularly in the US, is that its predicated on people living in the same place and going to the same church intergenerationally. As people are forced to migrate in order to find employment, they become untethered from their heritage church sites and the attendant communities that added real value to church membership.
The hyper-capitalization of the modern American Protestant movement hasn’t helped, either. Very hard for the Southern Baptists to maintain participation when GenX, Millennial, and Zoomer cohorts no longer want to live in these heavily religious communities. They move to areas that don’t have these highly active and Christian-dense neighborhoods. They fall out of the hyper-religious social circles. And they lose touch with the media and culture that ultimately drive these religious groups insane.
Meanwhile, the low housing prices and the increasingly finance and tech focused economic sectors are bringing in large numbers of religiously rivalrous migrant populations. The most common new religious constructions in the US are Mosques thanks to a large influx of Arab, Persian, and East African migrants. And because migrant populations and religious builders love cheap land, they’re often showing up in and around declining Christian communities.
If you’re out living in LA or Tampa or Houston and you’re wondering why folks in Peoria, Indiana or Chattanooga, Tennessee or Tulsa, Oklahoma are losing their fucking minds over the super-scary illegal immigrant / Radical Islamic invasion, this is a big reason why. Their kids are all leaving for the coasts while lots of unseasonably tan people are showing up to take their place.
That… actually makes a lot of sense. Couldn’t figure out why America, the land of immigrants, was so hostile to new people but now I can see why a poor old conservative feeling abandoned and surrounded by confusing things might think Trump actually makes sense.
Something that no one has discussed in this highly enlightened conversation here is the issue of consent. A person cannot consent to being born. Full stop. I don’t know of a way around that besides ignoring it.
A person cannot consent to being born
But they also can’t request it. What do you do for the people who don’t exist yet that desire existence?
I should note that I have gone around the local NICU and requested all the children present to indicate a desire to stop existing. None of them agreed. Many of them were struggling mightily to continue to exist. A few even yelled at me for asking the question. I’ll admit its a small sample size, but hard to argue with a 100% existence endorsement.
Fuck me that’s the best counter point I have heard so far. Thanks!
(In case you really work at a NICU: thank you so much for your work.)
My adopted son was born premature, and I’m currently doing a daily sabbatical to check on him. By all rights, he shouldn’t be alive. One of the brighter moments of being an American right now is standing in a room full of babies whose lives hinge on our willingness to fund Medicaid. Every one of these beds is costing hundreds of thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours to maintain. And people are dedicating their entire careers to bringing early newborns off the brink of death.
Its put a whole new spin on the ideas of natalism and anti-natalism. So easy to see some chud troll on the internet saying we should pull the plug, because none of these kids “consented” to keep breathing. But then you’ve got rooms full of compassion and care and joy, as these medical workers weenie all these little guys and girls into the world with the power of modern medicine. Stunning and majestic. The NICU Ward should be on the god damned American Flag. Its a testament to our greatness.
Just to clarify, I’m not advocating for any baby to be taken off life support, that’s a pretty abhorrent thing to accuse me of, if that’s what you meant.
I work in critical care and routinely bring people back from the brink of death. With a living being, unless otherwise stated, their consent to life saving treatment is implied, and I’m happy to give it.
Philosophically, I’m just not convinced that there is such a thing as an implied consent to “make me exist when I don’t exist already”.
That’s just how evolution works- something that already exists and is driven to stay alive is more likely to pass on its genetics than something that is not driven to stay alive. This fact has nothing to do with the philosophy of consenting to exist in the first place.
Edit: missed your first question. Something that does not exist cannot desire.
But how can something that doesn’t exist have the capability of consent being violated?
Because the typical standard of consent is that in order to do something to someone, you should have informed consent. If you cannot obtain that, then you do not do the thing. Something that does not exist cannot give informed consent, therefore you should not do the thing.
I knowhow consent works, but existence is the precondition for anything constent-related, including violationg consent.
Non-interference is a good default position to have, but we are capable of acting on behalf of others when we have a certain threshold of confidence for what they would want in a situation. Otherwise, we would consider it wrong to give CPR to an unconscious person.
When it comes to life, people overwhelmingly prefer to continue existing when they have the power to choose. So it makes sense for us to presume that a hypothetical person would choose to be born given the opportunity.
This fact has nothing to do with the philosophy of consenting to exist
If living organisms are predisposed to prefer existence, this would imply existence is an inherently preferable state.
Something that does not exist cannot desire.
Prove it
If living organisms are predisposed to prefer existence, this would imply existence is an inherently preferable state.
It usually is- to a living organism, which is not what we’re talking about.
Prove it
Come on bro you can’t be serious about this.
😂 Made my day
If we are to assume that every non-existent person desires to exist, and that we have the obligation to not block this, then we should be having children whenever possible as to not block anyone.
Let’s visualize this. If I decide to wait for another partner and a certain age, the humans that I could create with my current sexual partner in these years are screaming to be born and I’m ignoring them. I’m not letting Laura or Ignacio be born, and over them I’m preferring Óscar who will be born in 2028 of a different father. Am I doing something morally incorrect at negating Laura’s and Ignacio’s right to be? If so, as I said, you agree we have the obligation of having children whenever possible and we better start now you and me and everyone else reading. If not, if we don’t have this obligation, then there’s no problem if I skip Laura this year, Ignacio the next and Óscar and others later. Unless you want to save this by saying some people deserve to come into existence more than others, but I already say I won’t agree with that.
Other people would argue in a different way. There are people who would say that even if we create good by bringing people that do consent retrospectively, we also harm forcing life into people that wouldn’t and don’t want life. And even if the proportion is absurd, not harming is always the priority over giving pleasure. This is the idea behind negative utilitarianism and other ethical paradigms. This also has been studied by philosopher David Benatar who reframed it, and now that’s called “Benatar asymmetry” (but the question is older than him).
I hope my English does not betray my explanation…
If we are to assume that every non-existent person desires to exist, and that we have the obligation to not block this, then we should be having children whenever possible as to not block anyone.
Sure. This is the philosophical counterpoint to the “Nobody consented to exist so it is unethnical to bring anyone into the world”. You spin it to argue everyone has a right to exist and you end up with some sort of neoliberal spin on the Quiverfull movement.
There are people who would say that even if we create good by bringing people that do consent retrospectively, we also harm forcing life into people that wouldn’t and don’t want life.
You’re assuming objective standards for “good” and “harm” that aren’t a given. And you’re still ultimately dictating a choice on behalf of other people - both people who are being born and people who are doing the birthing. I mean, ffs, how do you even approach the idea of consent while intruding on two people in the act of coitus? “Stop nutting! You’re violating the potential rights of a potential person!” is a thing you get to say only when you’ve disregarded the actual rights of an actual person.
not harming is always the priority over giving pleasure
That’s a personal ideal, not a functional standard. In practice, people routinely engage in socially harmful practices for the sake of personal pleasure. And that goes well beyond sex. Let me know when we abolish the cruise line industry and then maybe you can come back and discuss chopping off everyone’s balls for the sake of potentially existent people.
now that’s called “Benatar asymmetry”
The theory is rooted in the perspective that pain is bad. But even this isn’t an objective standard.
Nothing is objective to our knowledge and nothing is a given, that’s the point. I was not trying to declare those things as truths but trying to explain that there is room to consider them (e.g., to consider that little pain weighs more than enormous pleasure). I cited a philosopher who does, but there are many others. Those are the topics relevant to this discussion.
Antinatalism is not a negative attitude towards sex nor children.
People are free, free enough to create life. The antinatalist wonders if the people creating it have the right to do so, if it hurts in some way (and who), and if we should continue to do so. The answers are very different even among antinatalists. The only thing they have in common is that they do not approve ethically of creating new [human] lives. You can take out the square brackets for some.
And… that’s it. I understand if many here believe that procreating is morally neutral or good, but I think there is validity in questioning it or in believing that it is morally incorrect. We all have our reasons and nobody ultimately knows.
Nothing is objective to our knowledge
Horrible news for physicists
Don’t worry. Good physicists know it as they study epistemology, philosophy of science, and philosophy of physics, among other things.
The problem I have with your argument is that it could easily be used to justify rape. A person who is incapable of giving consent is also incapable of requesting things, so does that make it okay to just assume consent?
It means that the original argument of consent to life is invalid. Consent isn’t possible until life. It’s a great philosophical problem but not one with a known solution.
Another note on the original post, their argument could also be used to justify going through the NICU and killing every newborn. So there’s a clear ‘pro life’ bias going on here, with acts that bring more life being seen as good, regardless of consent. Wouldn’t a more reasoned approach be to maintain, keep those who are alive, alive, and those not yet existing, unexisting? Forcing a being across the border is bad, regardless of direction.
Do you consider all heterosexual sex a form of rape?
For general rape, the victim is typically capable of giving consent but chooses not to, meaning we know the rapist is violating them. For situations where the victim is incapable of consenting, it is true that we are assuming a position for them. As a society, we have observed that being made to have sex in a vulnerable position is a negative experience, so it makes sense to extrapolate they would be opposed if they were capable of choosing.
For life, the observation is different. Once people have the power to knowingly “opt out” of existing, they rarely do. Most people instead prefer existing and consider it to be positive. So we should assume a hypothetical person would also choose to be born when acting on their behalf.
What’s consent to a being that doesn’t exist?
Nothing, unless they start existing.
So, how does the concept make any sense? Can I get consent from an angel, too?
I’m not sure what your point is here
My point is that the whole premise of “consent for existing” is bogus.
And how does that relate to angels?
They don’t exist either.
When you force it into existence, literally everything
I fail to see how the mere concept makes sense right now. That’s the same flawed logic as longtermists use.
If my understanding of longtermism is correct, it’s more of a function of utilitarianism. If one wants to do the most good for the most people, then it makes some amount of sense to focus on the far future where presumably there will be more people. Their consent is irrelevant, which is kind of the opposite of what I’m saying, which is that consent is relevant.
It’s the other side of the same coin. They both argue about the well-being/bad-being of hypothetical humans. It’s bogus, either way.
They are not related because you have to exist to experience well-being or “bad-being”. What I’m talking about is consenting to exist.
Longtermists try to justify their actions by invoking potential, future generations. Those don’t exist either.
I think you make a great point. Have you read about the problems with “person-affecting views”? It’s admittedly a bit harder to grasp, but doesn’t seem less problematic to me.
Nope
Sorry Timmy, you still have to go to bed.
I’m not consenting to paying taxes. Doew that mesn dobby is free now?
Technically, sure. You are free to go live in the woods, off grid, somewhere. Or you are free to violate this particular social contract and deal with the consequences.
That’s legally not possible. Every piece of land belongs to someone already, either a private entity or a government. You might be able to live somewhere in a forest, but you’re at the mercy of the entity that owns the land you live on.
You could technically live in the ocean, but I’m no fish lol
You can volunteer yo not pay taxes. Move to some place without and renounce your citizenship. If I recall correctly Saudi Arabia doesn’t have a great deal of personal taxes.
Taxes are how currency gets its value. So if you plan to stop using taxed currencies, then sure.
With all due respect but that might be the worst take I’ve heard this week.
A currencies value is determined by the economy behind it. There’s a reason why countries with lots of exports have a strong currency, while countries that don’t are weaker in comparison.
Obviously, it’s not the sole reason - economy is complex. But taxes have no role in a currencies value.
I mean I know there’s no way to obtain that consent, but I did let my parents know that they should have just gotten the abortion since the condom ripped.
I wasn’t planned, and I shouldn’t have been born into that family. None of them were ready or cared to be ready or even cared to be with each other as they almost immediately split after my birth.
One thing I’ll literally NEVER understand are the women on dating sites with literal newborns… What the actual fuck?
Any advanced society should be able to acknowledge that population growth must not outpace the available resources. Or else there will be Bad Times For All
There are more houses/apartments than people.
There is more food going to the trash than what we need.It’s not that we have a lot of people. The problem is the greed of a few and the complacency/idiocy of the rest.
Yeah, having kids probably reduced my household resource consumption, compared to the dual income no kid lifestyle that my wife and I had before kids.
Population growth is so far disconnected from resource consumption, because people’s resource consumption does not resemble a bell curve. A private jet produces more CO2 in an hour (about 2 tonnes) than the average Indian produces in a year (about 1.9 tonnes).
The poor people having children aren’t destroying the planet. Rich people, childless or not, are. (And yes, I acknowledge that I fall under the “rich” category here.)
I don’t know you, but you probably don’t fall on the category of “rich” in my mind.
Richer than an Indian farmer. Ok. I’m also rich then. I live in a house (not mine) and don’t go hungry.
I don’t even consider billionaires on the scale…that is just an afront on humanity and shouldn’t exist.
I think my personal resource consumption, if scaled up to the world population, would be devastating. That’s what I mean by categorizing myself in the “rich.” I might not be a billionaire, but I’m far, far above the global average, and still significantly above the national average for my nation.
Points to you, for self-awareness.
