T O P
  • By -

saturday_sun3

So you only want kids because you want them to take care of you when you get old?


TNCNguy

No, I want kids to love. But I acknowledge that I won’t survive as a senior citizen of people stopped having kids


PresentationNo2711

So basically, you only want kids because you want them to take care of you when you get old?


KaktitsM

You realize that what you are saying sound like a pyramid scheme? Yes, the last generation would have difficulties, but we all gonna die sooner or later. Making another human just so there is someone to take care of you when u get old is one of the most selfish and naïve reasons to reproduce. Suck it up, take it for the team.


faszfejjancsi

Why do you dislike humans so much? Why don't you want us to discover new things in science, explore space, etc. Why do you want us to die out? I just don't get it


KaktitsM

Oh I want those things, but im being realistic. Antinatalism is the red pill. Also, its not about humans, but life in general, anything that has self awareness.


rosewatercookiedough

What's wrong with phasing out the human population? You say climate change and overpopulation are scary. They are likely to bring humanity to an end eventually, so why bring in more people to go through that?


TNCNguy

No, they won’t. Humanity will survive. Will we get our act together to minimize suffering is the question of the 21st century


dreggser

This is based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. People have been thinking this since the dark ages. "Don't worry, this time it'll be different."


faszfejjancsi

And it literally did become different? We've dealt with crises of enormous magnitude even when we were uneducated peasants for the most part. The black death killed half of Europe and the middle east and we still recovered. The industrial revolution has brought some of the greatest improvements to human lifestyle ever. We literally ARE getting better with time.


dreggser

>The black death killed half of Europe and the middle east and we still recovered. >We've dealt with crises of enormous magnitude We didn't "deal with" the black death, it just killed people until it ran out of people to kill once people started hiding from each other/acquired antibodies. >The industrial revolution has brought some of the greatest improvements to human lifestyle ever. It has also introduced untold misery on a scale humanity has never seen before, things like the holocaust, mass child sweatshop slavery, genocides via weapons of mass destruction etc all weren't possible before the industrial revolution. >We literally ARE getting better with time. We literally aren't. You just think that technology equals happiness. Id rather be walking in the woods with my dark age buddies looking for food in the evening than staring at a phone waiting to go work a 10 hour shift to pay billionares rent money.


faszfejjancsi

>once people started hiding from each other/acquired antibodies Yeah, even with us not knowing the origin of the disease and mostly just blaming god or whatever deity for it, we still managed to beat it. Genocides have existed before. Does it matter whether you wipe out a population in a year or 10? We've had much more horrible things before, slavery was mostly ended by the fact that machines could do the job of slaves better. We've ended epidemics that used to ravage every year. Your drinking water is treated and we grow enormous amounts of food, so much so that 90%+ of the world does not need to go hungry, a ratio that pretty much any other century would envy from us. The world has gotten much less violent objectively speaking. People used to get robbed, raped, abused, etc.at much higher rates. The majority of objective crime figures are in a negative trend, and have been for decades. Yeah, working for a billionaire sucks, know what sucked even harder? Working for a noble, on their land, that you had to pay to get the privilege of working for free on. Getting eaten by a lion while hunting. Not being able to get food because of the potato blight. Everything that sucks in modern life, there are examples of similar things in the past that were way worse. We are living in what's objectively the best time period in history.


dreggser

>we still managed to beat it. It killed half of Europe and is still prolific in many countries, that's not 'managing to beat it' >Genocides have existed before. Does it matter whether you wipe out a population in a year or 10? Modern genocides post industrial revolution are far, far, far larger than anything pre industrial revolution. The fact that these horrors exist is enough to realise reproduction is unnecessary but some people (you) will follow animal instincts regardless. >90%+ of the world does not need to go hungry, A person dies of starvation every 4 seconds. But nah keep adding to the problem. >The world has gotten much less violent objectively speaking. People used to get robbed, raped, abused, etc.at much higher rates. Citation needed. Or I guess you just make stuff up. >The majority of objective crime figures are in a negative trend, and have been for decades. Citation needed. Or just keep on pulling it out of your ass. >Yeah, working for a billionaire sucks, know what sucked even harder? Working for a noble, on their land, that you had to pay to get the privilege of working for free on. This is completely made up, the working day lasted 5 hours in medieval Europe and you didn't pay to stay, you worked those 5 hours and got lodging for that work. >Not being able to get food because of the potato blight Again, a person starves to death every 4 seconds today. >Everything that sucks in modern life, there are examples of similar things in the past that were way worse Absolutely your opinion with no backing. >We are living in what's objectively the best time period in history. Entirely your opinion with no backing, you cannot possibly prove we are in the 'best time.period in history' Citation needed. Keep pulling stuff out of your ass, I'll just keep saying it. Citation needed


faszfejjancsi

Prolific meaning that there's a couple thousand cases out of a population of billions, pretty much only in poor countries with bad healthcare? >Modern genocides post industrial revolution are far, far, far larger than anything pre industrial revolution. Cities that were conquered in wars were often entirely massacred, women, children, elderly included. Entire fields of crops would be burnt by invading armies to deny food. The genocide of native Americans is still the largest genocide, several times more so than the Holocaust, and still, it happened pre industrial times. Gengis Khan and his mongol armies killed people on a scale comparable to Mao, who's probably the single largest killer of people in history. http://necrometrics.com/pre1700a.htm#Mongol https://web.archive.org/web/20100121024544/http://www.parallelsixty.com/history-russia.shtml They also essentially brought the Black Death to Europe. >A person dies of starvation every 4 seconds. But nah keep adding to the problem. And like I said, 90% of people have sufficient food for themselves. We've discovered the Haber Bosch process in the early 1900s, we discovered new types of grain in the 1950s and with genetic engineering well eventually be able to make crops even more resistant to droughts and bad weather, etc. The reason that there are places with food insecurity is due to conflict, and warlords claiming these areas which prevents even food aid from getting to the vulnerable people. These types of conflicts that involve civilians have happened before. How do you think people nourished themselves in central Europe during the 30 years war? Because I don't think they got adequate nutrition lol >Citation needed. Or I guess you just make stuff up. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.vrc.crim.cam.ac.uk/system/files/documents/manuel-eisner-historical-trends-in-violence.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwie8fra-qX7AhWS66QKHQepDTYQFnoECBEQAQ&usg=AOvVaw20-a_9RibUcouZEPPVHk-l Took me About 15 seconds of googling > Citation needed. Or just keep on pulling it out of your ass. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=File:Intentional_homicide,_2008-2020_(number_of_police-recorded_offences).png >This is completely made up, the working day lasted 5 hours in medieval Europe and you didn't pay to stay, you worked those 5 hours and got lodging for that work. Uhh, medieval peasants worked about 8-10 hours a day, about 180-200 days a week. Considering our 2 day weekend, the 5-6 weeks paid holidays that's the guaranteed minimum in even backwards, shitty countries like mine, and another 2 weeks of national holidays, we work slightly fewer hours, and it is, in most Cases, not back breaking work in the fields. >Absolutely your opinion with no backing. I literally explained all of them, but come on, tell me things that suck about modern life and I'll show u they all sucked equally or more back in the olden days


dreggser

>Cities that were conquered in wars were often entirely massacred, Same as post industrial revolution, but with more people due to higher population. >180-200 days a week Yea sometimes I work 180 days over a week. Literally what. >things that suck about modern life and I'll show u they all sucked equally or more back in the olden days This is wayyyy off track. The core point is that I will live the life I have, I won't force somebody into life that doesn't want to be here just because I assume life is better now than it was in the past(which is entirely unproven and non falsifiable) >k me About 15 seconds of googling Yea and I bet you spent about 15 seconds reading it too Overall you don't seem to get what antinatalism actually is about. There is no way, none at all to guarantee prevention of suffering or guaranteed happiness to your child. You are here with the presupposition that your kids will be happy. Every crack heads parents thought they'd do a good job, every alcoholics parents thought they'd do a good job, every suicide victims parents thought they'd they'd a good job. Live your life, don't be so full of vanity and pride that you force a mini-me into the world for your pleasure.


TheCrazyLazer123

This actually might not be the best argument because by surviving the dark ages did become significantly better over time


AwesomeTrish

We are living in the worst time in 100 years. Sure we have technology, but we are also in the beginning stages of world war 3, there are food shortages traversing the globe, power stations are cutting power in many countries, climate change is causing droughts and also flooding ruining agriculture, the economy is absolutely shot - there's no middle class anymore and for what our parents had we'd have to work 10 times harder, depression and anxiety are at an all time high, people are overworked and underpaid leaving no gap for appropriate child rearing, and unemployment rates are increasing due to overpopulation and technological advancements. I love my kids far too much to bring them to the world for the purpose of caring for me. No matter how hard I try to give them a good life, the world will cause them to suffer.


faszfejjancsi

Worst time in 100 years? You know that WW2 happened during that timeframe, and was by all accounts far fucking worse than what we're living now, right?


AwesomeTrish

How can you predict that it wont be worse? We're in the beginning of another world war right now, and it's threatened as a nuclear war. But besides that, not all countries were heavily affected by WW2. However, the current state of the world is affecting literally everyone. My grandparents lived through the WW2 period but because we weren't in an actively involved country, they could still afford housing, to have 10 children, send them to university and feed them all well. I can't even afford uni and I've been working for 10 years, let alone even think about having kids. And I'm still better off than 75% of the people in my country. This is far worse than us having lived during the WW2 period.


dreggser

Eventually machines will be able to take care of elderly people, will you be antinatalist then? It's very selfish to have kids so you can have an aged care worker for yourself


TNCNguy

I want kids so I can love them


dreggser

You want something to love, again a selfish reason YOU WANT kids so YOU can love them. And why post a big rant about needing kids for aged care and food production then completely switch to wanting something to love?


TNCNguy

Because both are true? I genuinely want kids, not just for the future survival of the human race. But yeah, we need a new generation every few years to do young people stuff


dreggser

>I genuinely want kids, not just for the future survival of the human race I will never understand this absolute NPC mindset. Why do you care about the future survival of the human race? So we can have an endless supply of future wars? A few more genocides? More child sex trafficking? Do you understand that you will die one day? Why would you care about the human race continuing after you are dead, you won't even know its happening. >we need a new generation every few years to do young people stuff We dont


faszfejjancsi

>Why would you care about the human race continuing after you are dead, you won't even know its happening. Because we are biologically wired to do that. Species préservation is very fucking deep in our DNA, given that everything that needed to survive to eventually see us humans develop worked on that same basis.


dreggser

>Because we are biologically wired to do that. Exactly, it's an instinct, it's based on nothing but 'I want it because my instincts tell me to want it'


faszfejjancsi

Breathing, eating or drinking are also instincts, and it's perfectly normal to follow those as they result in your self preservation. It's the exact same, except on a bigger scale, with having children


dreggser

Did you know that rape is caused by instincs? Also murder? Sometimes they are right to follow and sometimes they are wrong. If you are an autonomous non NPC human you will think for yourself and assess what is right and wrong.


faszfejjancsi

Exactly. And being, well, not an NPC, I can confidently say that bringing a life into this world and raising them to be a good person isn't comparable to raping or murdering someone


whatevergalaxyuniver

There's no guarantee that you will love them and vice versa


TNCNguy

Also, if I need assistance I want a human who loves me to take care of me. Not a robot. I wouldn’t want it any different for my parents


dreggser

Selfish reasoning, YOU WANT something that loves YOU to take care of YOU. notice all the yous?


Exotic-Candy-9949

All I am reading from you is I WANT. Pure selfishness.


GantzDuck

You should take a visit to an retirement home and talk to the residents there. Most have multiple kids but haven't seen them in a long time and are lonely. And even if the kids do like the parents; it still isn't a guarantee for visits or help. Because those kids have their own struggles and many even move far away. Besides that; parents that have kids for such selfish reasons and expect them to be their personal butlers or maids are often the most toxic parents and more likely to be lonely later on.


spacewalker112

Kids aren’t here to be fucking aged care workers. They are not responsible for you.


TheBigMondo

Antinatalism is not a social policy. Also, natalism makes no sense. Should we continue the eternal suffering so that there is no suffering when humanity dies out? How do you think humanity should die out? What do you propose we do when the last of the stars in our universe begin to flicker out? The problem with your question is that it can be extended to any length of time, with the same result at the end.


shayayoubfallah

> But most people have kids. Most people will end up having kids. Most people will want kids. Some people are gonna commit rape, murder, etc, regardless of what moral stance I have on those things. Does that mean I should stoop so low and do the same, commit actions that are guaranteed to unecessarily harm others without their consent ? Obvious answer is no. >Its human nature. Doesn't mean it's a good thing. And it doesn't mean it's something that should be allowed to continue. What you did here is called an appeal to nature, it's a fallecy. > Its evolution so we don't go exicint. Funny thing how evolution so far has an extinction rate of about 99%. Also, extinction is inevitable. Infinite growth isn't a thing, at what point this house of cards will collapse. The universe will eventually die most likely due to heat death. Also, extinction is a natalist problem. Extinction and death in general only happens to more sufferers of it because living beings keep procreating in a darwinian hellscape that naturally guarantees death-extinctions. There are literally billions of years of evidence of this. >Life has gotton so expensive and frankly I think its disturbing to see people digusted at the idea of having children "It's disturbing to see people disgusted at the idea of having children" Yeah it's quite disturbing to not want people to suffer and die because two hairless apes felt horny and procreated. >Think the world is getting worst? Sure, in some ways. Climate change is scary. Overpopulation is scary. Then why the fuck do you want to add more victims to these problems and making them worse. > But we also live in the most prosperous, equal, free and comfortable time in human history. Depends on who you're asking I don't think a slave is gonna hold those same views. >99.99% of all humans who ever lived would kill to live in 2022. Source: I made it the fuck up. /s (this might sound dismissive, but that's not my intent, I just wanted to make this obvious joke) What is the evidence for that claim ? In surveys, most people report that they are "happier" or better off, in some relative sense, than the average person in their community. The fact that the majority of people report higher-than-average satisfaction with their lives reveals an obvious positivity bias, as it's mathematically impossible. But still, the results of these kinds of surveys are cited as evidence for the claim that most people "love life", along with the obvious fact that only a small percentage of people commit suicide. The fact that we are all programmed, like robots, by millions of years of evolution to be optimistic and to avoid death at all costs is dismissed as irrelevant by those promoting the notion of widespread, endemic human satisfaction with life. Whether those people are really honest with themselves, and hence how can you separate a genuine appreciation of life from the sheer survival instinct (which is a very potent force indeed), optimism bias, and the way society expects you to think in order to determine who feels that way, and who doesn't. I mean would you trust a gay man saying he didn't like having sex with another man in a society that treats honosexuality as a sickness? I would at least be skeptical. Not outright dismissive, but skeptical. It's well known by researchers that most people substantially overrate the quality of their own lives. Even people with objectively terrible, miserable lives will often self-report high levels of personal happiness and contentment. It's built into the way our brains cope with difficulties. Even in some good parts of the world, some people will literally tell you to your face that life's good, everything's going fine... but in reality, they are plagued with problems and frustrations and anxieties and disappointments and stresses of all sorts. All of these issues come up individually—as little offhand comments here and there—during conversations and extended time spent together. But people gloss over them when looking at their lives at a high level. Evolution and cultural/social programming conspire to trick people into thinking life is going MUCH better than it really is. Anyone who thinks otherwise has very thick blinders on, as the objective, non-self-reported evidence for widespread suffering is overwhelming. >Antinatalism says NO ONE should have kids. It is a moral wrong to bring kids into the world only to suffer (like I said above, its not the case). Do you honestly read what you write. Very few people ever say life is only suffering. Maybe actually read a little before engaging. It's not that suffering outweigh happines or that life is ONLY suffering, but suffering and death is the only thing *guaranteed* to happen to a sentient being. Not everyone will be happy, but everyone will suffer at some point and at some amount (that amount depends on your luck and other circumstances that can be outside your control), and ALL of us will die. Plenty of people do enjoy their lives after all, I am not disputing that. But relief is not always guaranteed and is temporary, but maybe you find that ratio acceptable. Let's say for example that you think any amount of happiness outweigh the bad, so I can explain this next point better. What's to say others will feel the same ? And no, you can't say "what to say that they won't feel the same?" because procreatinn results in suffering (like sadness, unhappiness, unfulfillment, privation and other forms of pain like the physical kind) and death, so the burden of proof is on the one performing the action and not the one refraining from it , someone refraining from procreation causes harm to no one. To elaborate: Logically speaking, antinatalism does no harm and thus shouldn't require justification, even though we have plenty. Natalism, on the other hand, can potentially and does cause great harm and thus should require strong justification. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”  -- Carl Sagan And heck, let's take this a step further And talk about rape alongside procreation. procreation (functionally speaking) is a form of rape. Relief of sex urges producing harm. Some rape victims orgasm. Does that suddenly make rape okay ? No. Do we consider the positive aspects of rape happening ? No The "good" is contingent upon first experiencing the "bad", that's true for rape. And it's also true for procreating, what ever good the oppspring could potentially experience is contingent upon first experiencing a guaranteed harm/privation and ultimately death. Trying to weasel your way out of this would be a special pleading fallecy. The parent -child relationship is unavoidably abusive and parasitic as well. Whole host of things violent and manipulative about all of it - it's an act of predation. >But suppose everyone stopped having kids. No new sufferers will be made. And maybe we can actually do something else instead of just making our current problems bigger and making more victims. >Society would collpased in a few years. Inevitable either way, society will collapse eventually. It's now a question of will it happen, it's a question of when. again, funnily enough this is a problem caused by procreation. Why are you crying about the obvious consequences of the actions of those who procreate to us ? (Not a perfect analogy but close enough) It's like giving tons of free drugs to an extremely addicted person, tell me what other outcome is there for them **if** they keep taking drugs aside from dying from ODing. That's basically what procreation is, sniffing more drugs until you OD and die. It's an obvious outcome **if** you don't stop. You can only recover and get better if you stop, and not by continuing to do drugs. >What will happen when we are all old? Who is going to grow our food? Drive the trucks and ships to carry such food? Produce medicine or be our doctors and nurses? Who will pay taxes for social secuirty (yes it will still be around, just lift the tax caps). Who will pick us up when we fall down in the shower? Who will work at the water treatment plants? Or fix roads. Or be firefighters and save us from burning buildings. To quote another person on this thread: Seriously? you're asking "Who will take care of you when you get old?". That's like asking "BUT WHO WILL PICK MY COTTON?!!" Bro, kids aren't obligated to do any of this for you. They're not some slaves. Also, procreation doesn't solve this issue, it's just making the next generation of old people who will need some to pick them up when they fall. Maybe if you actually stopped passing your problems onto others and actually worked on solving them, you might stop having that problem. Automation, anti aging technology, etc. Procreating can't solve any problem that it doesn't already create, and some of them it just adds more victims to them. >Sure, people 40+ today might be ok. But what about kids born in the last 20 years? Who will take care of them when they are old. If people didn't procreate, that wouldn't be a problem. It's not that hard. Are you intentionally being dense or something ? Answer this, how can you make a pile of bodies smaller by adding more bodies to it ? How's is doubling down on the root cause of the problem somehow going to fix it ? >This is why antinatalism is stupid. Says the person who struggles to grasp causal linkage and basic math.


maninaheartshapedbox

Very well said. I was just gonna comment these points but I'm glad that I don't have to waste my time on explaining antinatalism to someone who obviously hasn't thought about it enough.


KaktitsM

Sad that the OP wont read this at all. Good stuff.


TheCrazyLazer123

You wrote a whole fucking lot and I’m very impressed but it’s like 3 am and I don’t have the will to read it all now so here’s my point Antinatalists take the stance that all the goods of the world are not better than the evils, I don’t think that’s true but from experience of seeing all this is looks like a large majority of the sun have depression, anxiety and other debilitating conditions that make life seem not worth it, and I understand that suicide is not a solution to that, but they should also understand that people don’t want the human race to go extinct, it might be selfish that we prioritize ourselves over every other living being on the planet but which form of life doesn’t, and yeah you might not know when the world will end but you probably don’t want anyone closely related to you being in that time, we will face extinction eventually but that might be the heat death of the universe, in billions and billions of years not even a single thing on this planet or even this planet entirely will be remembered, prolonging life is a goal it is an instinct, you don’t raise slaves, you exploit them, children don’t have to help you in old age you hope they do because you should have raised them with love and care and done your very best to not make them suffer in anyway, which again I feel is too strong of a term, yes you can feel mild discomfort, or even anger and sadness, but pure suffering will never be experienced by 90% of the population.


whatevergalaxyuniver

Seriously? you're asking "Who will take care of you when you get old?". That's like asking "BUT WHO WILL PICK MY COTTON?!!"


TheCrazyLazer123

Yeah you can compare it to that, but one of them is for commercial profits and the other one is their health, it’s just a tiny bit exaggerated


neet_by2027

“Antinatalism says NO ONE should have kids. It is a moral wrong to bring kids into the world only to suffer (like I said above, its not the case).” It’s wrong to bring people into the world to suffer even for one minute. No one is saying that when you make kids they will only experience suffering.


str8outthepurgatory

Hoping i’m not here if i get to the point of needing assistance.


TNCNguy

You want to die young?


Drew__Drop

That really matters for? Generally speaking we don't want to reach a point where we get to be dependent upon others whether is by being impaired by senescence of old age, being rendered tetraplegic by an unfortunate accident among many more scenarios where age is frankly irrelevant. The age importance aspect you're mentioning is the meaning that you and only you are inputting.


str8outthepurgatory

Nope but i also don’t wanna be at the point where i’m literally dying and need help with everything


TNCNguy

I hope that never happens to you. Or me. But statistically very few people live a long life and stay perfectly healthy and functional to the end. Otherwise what causes death?


According-Actuator17

Any pleasure is just a diminishment of pain. You want something - you suffer. You get thing which you wanted - you suffer much less(filling pleasure)


KaktitsM

Very true, well said. I was thinking about this my self the other day. Wanting or needing something is a state of discomfort. Not existing means you want nothing, need nothing. I imagine in the far future when all our wants and needs could be taken care of by machine-brain interface, stimulation our neurons in such a way that we are in absolute bliss - not even wanting to have pleasure for the sake of pleasure and fun or whatever, but actual contentment - would that state even be much different from not existing [with a self aware mind]?


According-Actuator17

I do not know would that state be much different or not, fortunately it does not matter if there are really no pain at all. And I do not think that modifiyng human brain is needed, because it's very hard or even impossible to do because human brain is not constructed to be modified, it does not have nests to connect wires, it does not have any standards, it does not have certain parts that execute certain things alike computers that have video card, processors, hard disks, operational memory and so on. Humanity needs to be very technically developed to do such things, and it's way more easier to create AI which has 1000 times better capabilities.


TheCrazyLazer123

The brain does have wires and to a large extent we already know what part of the brain does what (not all) we can’t replicate concioussness but we don’t need to if it’s just modification


[deleted]

that’s ultimately the goal of antinatalism for humanity to go extinct. what’s the point of this post


TNCNguy

To explain why it’s stupid. It’s trying to end human suffering yet will cause a lot of suffering for the last generation


[deleted]

you’re just stating the obvious. pretty sure everyone here already knows all that. we just don’t care


TheCrazyLazer123

I think a good point to make is if we can prolong that great suffering for long enough we can make the technological advancements to erase suffering entirely


HSeyes23

We stop having kids, everyone dies, no more suffering. Simple and effective. You want to keep the suffering cycle so you can fulfill your personal desire to have kids and have someone to take care of you. I mean, isn't that selfish? Also, 800 thousand people commit suicide every year so I don't believe things are that great here.


TNCNguy

What happens to the last generation? Won’t they suffer when they are all old


HSeyes23

They won't suffer anymore once they are dead. Do you want to endlessly extends the suffering cycle just because of the last generation? It makes no sense.


TheCrazyLazer123

Can’t you say the same about children being born “they won’t suffer when they’re dead” not a great point to make


HSeyes23

It makes sense in the context he's talking about. He's talking about endlessly keep the suffering cycle only for the sake of the last generation.


Accomplished-Fox-486

No one. And lots of older folks would die at 60 or 70, instead of 80 or 90. Which is fine because we're all dying any way. Seems a shitty reason to drag new life on to this shit world that's getting shittier. And a very unfair deal to those that come behind us


[deleted]

When you're too old to care for yourself it's time to die.


TNCNguy

You think young people with advanced cancer, who can’t take care of themselves, should die?


[deleted]

Have you read my comment? Dumbass.


TNCNguy

You’re the dumbass. Who calls themselves “Queen”. Perhaps a drag Queen…


extrasecular

what an evil mindset. i hope the persons you force into this crumbling place will leave you when/if they are adult


[deleted]

[удалено]


TheCrazyLazer123

Souls don’t exist and there’s no such thing as innocent, there is nothingness after or before and no one will feel that


Infamous-Charity3930

Answer this post:we are ready to pay for the consequences of not having children. If humanity stops reproducing it's fine with me. Surely it will mean extinction for our species and the end might very bumpy, but I would rather suffer than die knowing that the hamster wheel is still spinning. Moreover, I think animals should stop reproducing too. In my opinion, it would mean the ultimate victory over meaningless cycle of reproduction, violence and suffering.


efilist76

Most humans can be independent until their 70's without care from anyone. Once you cannot care for yourself, you should be allowed medically assisted euthanasia. Is slowly dying in a nursing home while you lose all independence, and every memory you ever had, so great anyway? You would just be living to live, with no dignity. This would be the equivalent of making an elderly dog live on, even though it cannot walk or keep food down. If we see a pet suffering we end it's misery. If everyone only lived to 70, no big loss. Each year, we would all get more wealthy, because the resources would become more and more plentiful without 8 billion and counting people trying to out compete each other. We might have to reinvent the system to accommodate a contracting population instead of infinite growth, but we could do it. This need to "love" something can be redirected to the aging population, no need to be a slave to our biology.


BagVegetable428

People can figure out how to take care of themselves. Hire professionals to do so rather than out it onto your kids


TNCNguy

Whose the professionals when we’ll all old


mayer97

Your mom would do it for me, the rest of the world doesn't concern me.


Infamous-Charity3930

Here we go again.


spacewalker112

I sincerely hope that you don’t have kids because the poor thing is just going to be your aged care worker in this shit hole of a planet (they don’t owe you anything-who’s to say that the child will go no-contact and not want to take care of you as a senior?) seems to me like you just want to keep the cycle of breeding workers, as young people are just here to deal with the messes and work their jobs. We all die anyway, it’s better off if all of humanity does as well


cheezyboi1234

Are you coming here looking for an argument? You must know what this sub is about...


manseekingvoid

David Benatar covers this question in his book better to never have been. He basically says yes there will come a time when we have to reproduce for this exact problem (because ultimately antinatalism is about harm reduction), but with the current population as high as it is there's zero reason or excuse to have a child. He covers how we could go about this in detail. If you're interested in how antinats actually think read it, and if you'd rather just shit out of your fingers some half baked "response" to antinatalism you'd be advised to stick to facebook.