this comment section is a hell of a ride, but i’ll just state what seems to be a pretty significant thing that everyone just merrily sails past:
Y’all remember that saying of “it takes a village to raise a child”? That’s why modern parenting sucks, we don’t tend to have villages to help raise our children anymore. We’re not meant to raise kids with maybe at best our partner and some assistance from their grandparents and kindergarden/school, we’re meant to share that load and responsibility among like at least a dozen people and kids are meant to constantly have access to other kids to play with and collectively learn what boundaries are.
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.
Crazy take: people get to choose if they have children.
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
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?
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.
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
… without being judged for it, I hope?
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.
I wish I got to choose if my parents had children.
I’m old and out of touch… What’s with this “rule” memes?
r/195’s 1 rule was if you visit this subreddit, you must post before you leave.
Now you have to send weekly nudes to the mods too. :(
Sooo back on reddit…
There is r/196. The rule of the sub is that if you visited it, you have to post a meme before you leave. These people are just following the rule.
Thank you. I’ve been subscribed to this sub for months and didn’t know a damn thing just that it consistently produced amusing content. Please proceed you glorious bastards.
Thanks kind stranger
They also required “rule” somewhere in the title
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.
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.
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? ^^
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.
I consider myself staunchly antinatalist. Almost nobody I see in the world day-to-day should have children. Hell, working in retail I’ve come to understand how few people deserve life in general. And then those shitty people have shitty kids.
But I feel like I love as deeply as I hate. When I do meet actually decent people, it makes me feel very happy. It’s just not often enough.
I’ve come to understand how few people deserve life in general
This honestly made me laugh. Again, fair.
It should do more than that, I should hope!
Hell, working in retail I’ve come to understand how few people deserve life in general.
How full of yourself you are.
That’s just misanthropy.
That’s an output of the system, cat thing. Systems can be changed.
, working in retail I’ve come to understand how few people deserve life in general.
Hope you don’t hurt falling from that highest of horses
That’s fair.
Buddy needs to go touch some grass
Cats tend to land on their feet.
At the level of humanity as a species we are born to reproduce, like every other living thing.
I don’t care about the species, I care about the people. If someone doesn’t want to reproduce, it’s better for both them and the species that they don’t. People only reproducing when they personally get something out of it will eventually make future generations enjoy it more. Forcing it just promotes suffering, perpetuating the cycle of unhappy parents in the long run.
This whole idea of caring about furthering our “species” is eugenics anyways. My genes make me want to be a parent, but I understand that the genes themselves don’t matter for shit. I’m planning to have kids because I will enjoy raising them and helping them live full lives. If someone doesn’t share this desire, I’m not gonna force my preference onto them.
Freedom and treating humans with dignity does that very job of eugenics better than the eugenics notion of pressuring people to be parents. There’s no Darwinian excuse for being shitty to other people. Just be good.
There’s no Darwinian excuse for being shitty to other people.
Exactly. There’s even an evolutionary reason to be good to other people, as described by Pjotr Kropotkin in “Mutual Aid”.
Oh boy, you guys are gonna love the global pension fund crash then!
Which shouldn’t be a problem, but with how abjectly you guys reject AI and automation, it is gonna be a problem
Yeah, as if automation was never used to cut jobs in order to enrich the wealthy class and the working class didn’t get any of the benefits. /s
Cool I guess we’ll all just die then.
We sure will.
Valuing children only for the monetary value they will contribute is a very good way of producing unhappy children which in my view is pretty immoral. It’s also pretty close to viewing humans as capital and that’s problematic in it’s own right
It’s not the only value but you do you
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.
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.
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.
Memes are generally divorced from their original source. This format is only used to show the creator has a controversial idea.
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.
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.
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.
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…
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.
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.
Lmao, no it’s not
“Nuh uh”
I’m not antinatalist, but I am in favor of voluntary human extinction.
It’s funny to think that modern humans have been around for tens of thousands of years but we’re only ~80 years of infertility away from global extinction.
80 years of total infertility across billions of people. Even 99.9% infertility would still leave millions of people. Extinction isn’t coming anytime soon.
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.
Why would you expect a random person on Lemmy to be on your side?
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.
That’s a policy.
I personally can think of several solutions to the climate crisis less drastic than humanity becoming extinct
Not necessarily extinct, but definitely less populous
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
