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’m not antinatalist, but I am in favor of voluntary human extinction.
But without infinite growth how can we feed the capitalistic engine with more souls?
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.
Crazy take: people get to choose if they have children.
… without being judged for it, I hope?
I wish they did but the governments are intent on taking that choice away
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.
Of course. You can, and it’s your right to do so. But that doesn’t mean it’s ethical.
Antinatalism is reactionary and incorrect.
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.
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.
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
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?
gross
common spujb w
they call me wujb
As long as you’re keeping it to your own life not trying to encourage genocide via antinatalist policy then you do you.
This. I don’t have children and don’t think its a good idea do to what humanity is doing to the planet, regardless of which element of humanity is to blame, but my other family members have children as do my friends and neighbors. Im not going to proselytize to them or encourage society to disallow it. I may not want it subsidized though, but even that there is often times no choice. For example while people may be bad for the planet in general, ignorant people is worse, so im gonnna want education funded and that same thing plays out for a lot of things.
The subsidies have an ontological value in that they improve the quality of life for the child. So removing subsidies will actively perpetuate and increase the very systemic issues that many antinatalists care about in the first place. You address this too, I’m just expressing agreement that simply removing chiodcare subsidies is not ethically simple even for staunch antinatalists.
In general governments ought to be working to support the people they represent. To me it seems an antinatalist who’s goal is to reduce suffering would want to introduce things like a basic income or some such to improve the quality of life of those who do exist, not further take from those who have yet to be.
Yup. education, healthcare, basic income, carless cities, improved energy efficiency and usage of the cleanest sources. Im down.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
How long do you think women should wait to date after giving birth?
I’m not consenting to paying taxes. Doew that mesn dobby is free now?
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.
It’s only encouraged because if people stop having children, it breaks the system, an utterly shit system which apparently can’t be fixed fast enough if people stop having children so we better go full speed ahead on a the most moronically large scale sunk cost calamity that is going to hit us like a brick wall along with all the other things piling up.
Yes, common objections are that the economy could crash or that humanity could go extinct. I don’t think these are good objections, and I have different reasons. It seems like a bad “an end justifies the means” way of thinking sometimes.
Honestly, the economic crash one is weird. The logic is that we must sacrifice our present and immediate future (that happens to be millions of lives) so that other lives are better (supposedly). Huh? It reminds me of the argument I heard against prohibiting animals in circuses. They argue that the animals that were in the circuses at the time would be slaughtered or abandoned, so their logic was allowing more and more years of animals suffering inside the circuses. What? Yes, the change definitely hurt, but it was possible both to fight against their slaughter and abandonment, and to get rid of that abuse forever. If we decrease in population, of course it will be difficult, but we can find ways to face the difficulties while we get into a better system. We cannot preserve capitalism just because we are afraid of hard times, when capitalism itself is hurting us.
The extinction one is different. We won’t get to that point, but even if we did, it would be a free decision of humanity that is hurting no one else. That’s the intuition they probably have: that those humans would be hurting the ones that do not exist yet, but I already commented about that reasoning. I don’t think there’s harm against the non-existant. Our end is possibly inevitable because the habitable Universe seems to have an end. If we decide to fight it, that’s okay as long as we do it ethically. But if we collectively decide to end it all, I respect it as long as it’s done ethically too. Anyway, as I said, this is mere imagination as I do not see humanity (in the big numbers we now are) never ever choosing this path together. We will be here for some time.
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!
That’s an output of the system, cat thing. Systems can be changed.
Hell, working in retail I’ve come to understand how few people deserve life in general.
How full of yourself you are.
I was a mild antinatalist for a while. Personally wanted kids, but felt the world was too broken to pass to a new generation that didn’t ask for it.
And then – I know this sounds dumb, but whatever – I played Horizon: Zero Dawn.
Parenthood in a time of armageddon is a central theme, and it’s not subtle about it. Every story element is named in a way that alludes to either parenthood or annihilation. The overarching plot describes the moral challenges of…
spoiler
…planning a next generation of humans to rise from the ashes, thousands of years after the previous generation went extinct. They died to an AI catastrophe, but it works just as well as an allegory for climate change.
Is it ethical to even subject a new generation to this, knowing what we know about how we fucked things up? If we’re gonna try, do we have a duty to put in a kill switch in case things go off the rails again?
Obviously, the game sides firmly with the new humans, but it doesn’t dismiss these questions out-of-hand, and it’s okay with ambiguity and hypocrisy even on the part of Project Zero Dawn’s chief architect.
The ending scene still gets me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFJ_vSCJdO0