418
Antinatalism Rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
418 points (99.8% liked)
196
16552 readers
2051 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
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
So? The only way to contribute to community is to be alive. The only way to feel joy is to be alive.
Consent doesn't make sense for a nonexistant being.
Is the joy worth the pain? What if they don't want to contribute to a community? Can you guarantee the joy will outweigh the pain? What gives you the right to will another being into existence?
If the being will become conscious and self aware, why doesn't their consent matter?
Is the pain justifying withholding joy?
Humans are a social species. That's like asking: "What if it doesn't want to drink?"
Since when are we modeling everything we do on guaranteed knowledge?
Rights aren't given. They're negotiated. I negotiate the right with the person that conceives the child with me.
Consent doesn't matter for hypothetical futures.
You yourself said they are not yet existent, so really is joy being "withheld"? That doesn't work in your framework, I think.
Just because a human exists does not mean they fall neatly into a category where they innately love "contributing to a community". We're not apes, well most of us :p
You only mentioned the rights of the parents (in a strangely cold and transactional way btw lol). What of the child's rights? They must negotiate with you for them after their nonconsensual birth?
It's not hypothetical--a child is born. They live and experience. You're in a paradoxical state where consent doesn't matter because the kid doesn't exist, yet they necessarily must exist to experience the joy you mention
I'm simply meeting your non-sensical argument where it's at. How is there a ranking of "goodness" at all, be it "bad, because suffering", or "good, because joy" for the presupposition of existence? That's like demanding a serious answer for: "how many angels can dance on the tip of a needle?"
You asked who gave me as the parent the right. In what way is it transactional? Where is transaction happening? Why is it cold? Who "gives" any rights from your point of view? God?
What are you talking about?
You're claiming by conceiving a child, you're violating its' consent. At that point, nothing exists, yet. It's only a being whose consent can be violated in the hypothetical future.
That only happens, because the whole anti-natalist reasons are paradoxical from the start.
The question was "is the joy worth the pain?" That's a fairly simple question -- not nonsense. Is there a point at which suffering outweighs joy? Are you to make that determination for a "hypothetical" person? The question is perhaps abstract and difficult to answer, but it's perfectly valid.
This is the transactional portion. I meant no ad hominem, it just sounds funny to me to put it this way. My point is that the child at no point enters into the question of consent. You're saying there is no violation of consent because the person doesn't exist yet, but what about when they do? I.e. when they are born? Did they consent to that? Does it matter to you?
Other humans. The only way to have a "right" is for the people around you to agree that you have them. Perhaps it's more complicated than that if you want to get extra philosophical, because I do believe that all conscious beings deserve the least amount of suffering possible purely by virtue of them being aware -- be they birds, pigs, cows, whatever. I think maybe that's more morality than "rights," but I'm not sure how clear the distinction is between them.
This isn't what I am claiming. I am claiming that birth is a violation of consent. Conception is meaningless to me unless it comes to fruition and bears a conscious being.
Can you describe the paradox? I found a paradox using your own words. If they were in jest or you were "meeting [my] non-sensical argument where it’s at" then please help me understand better.
I say that it's actually impossible to answer, except in the most extreme cases.
That is because the question was about rights, not consent. The child can't consent, because existence is a presupposition to consent. That's why that anti-natalist gotcha doesn't make sense. It doesn't follow the rules of formal logic. It's like a paradox, but formulated as a question.
In what way is that different to negotiation?
As I don't really give much of a crap about the whole concept of rights, I'd say: forget about the distinction.
But birth is a natural result of conception.
As I said above: Existence is a presupposition to consent. The premise violates formal logic.
It's certainly impossible to answer in a single broad stroke for everyone, but that doesn't mean it's not useful or relevant to think about.
If that's so, then we're talking past one another. My point is that in my ethical framework, having a child is wrong. They are incapable of consenting as you point out, which is part of why I view it as wrong.
Why? The child surely exists before, during, and after its birth. Can't it be that the unborn human is incapable of consent rather than creating a paradox? I understand the chicken-and-egg problem you are describing, but I think it's incomplete. As a fully functioning human being now, if I look back at my birth, did I consent? Did I exist yet? I think I can say simply, "No, I did not consent to being born." Whether you ascribe a negative, positive, or neutral value to this is up to you. In my opinion, it's immoral.
It isn't. I don't think we disagree on this
Yes, however isn't this logic used to argue against abortion? I'd argue that a person becomes a full "person" at birth, which is perhaps arbitrary, but we have to define that point somewhere. Regardless of when we say a person "exists", they still cannot consent regardless.
That all said, is anti-natalism completely correct for everyone? I don't know. I'm sure our species going extinct would create lots of suffering for the dwindling population. Maybe on average, humans do not regret their existence. Does that mean it's moral to make more conscious beings who are capable of feeling that regret?
I don't believe you won this. I'm not siding with the person you're discussing this topic with, but they made better moral arguments.
Your supposition that consent can morally come from two seperate human beings, despite the potential condemnation of the new human, is inherently flawed. The same logic could be used to excuse a huge variety of cruelties. Giving someone something (even life itself), does not inherently grant the donors agency over that life.
For example, if a terrible disease that brings pain and very early death is genetically passed on by one person that decides knowingly to have a child, and the child is born with that disease, one could easily make the argument that it was immoral for that individual to have a child, instead of adopting.
Not what I said.
... I guess. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I really appreciate this point of view. I don't strongly find myself on either side of the isle here, but I think you are making stronger points than those supporting the mainstream opinion that procreation is essential and important.
The argument against you seems to be "but there have been worse times to have kids, and people still had them." That is emphatically not a good argument.
I think I have a fairly cynical view that reproduction is primarily a selfish act based solely on our biological drive to continue our species. I've pondered for a long time, and I fail to see a more logical conclusion than that.
Life is tough and there are no guarantees. Rolling the dice by having a kid seems like a messed up thing to do imo.
That said, I would adopt a child or children. That's a better way to ensure you are putting kindness and hope into the world where it's needed, rather than creating another vessel for pain from whole cloth.
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’d say you can find things that make life worth living if you’re already here. But if someone's not "here", why drag someone you're supposed to love the most into this mess when we can’t even properly look after the children that are already here.
I’m not anti-child - I’d consider adopting if it didn’t cost like $20k. I’m anti-new child for myself, and yeah I get sad when I see other people have kids, especially now. It's like having another kid when you lived in the middle of the dust bowl and people were actively dying from starvation and the dust. Probably not the best time to have kids, similar to now. They just couldn't easily make the choice to not have kids back then.
There are tons of arguments in favour of having kids like what if they cure cancer etc.
However, for myself, I truly believe there will be an ecological collapse due to climate change if not during my lifetime, in the immediate next generation. And we’re still not doing enough. I don’t want to flee natural disasters with a child in tow. One of best things you can do for the climate is not have kids. I'm privileged enough to make that choice so I did, but it's not my only reason. You got late stage capitalism and the accelerating concentration of resources with the hyper wealthy, war / nuclear war, and the fact that pregnancy is one of most risky things I can medically do. Social media, the toxic drug supply, the rise of fascism (again), microplastics in literally fucking everything. I don't even think we'll have social healthcare or social security in Canada by the time I die because they're gutting our programs so badly.
I get that people have a strong reaction to their choices being called immoral. Morality looks different for everyone. However, the counterargument of "Well I have children and they're great and bring me so much joy etc" falls on deaf ears, because it truly does not sound like joy to me and when I say I am anti-child for myself I am telling you that. It's like trying to convince someone skydiving is the greatest thing - some people love it, but not my cup of tea. It is so foreign to me that whenever I hear parents say this it feels like they are trying to convince themselves that they made the right choice.
Have you watched Idiocracy? I consider myself a smart guy, and having children is my way to fight against the world getting stupider.
Also, it is a joy. Yeah, it's expensive, and yeah, it's a ton of work. But it's like working on a very big project that you know you'll be proud of when it's done. I didn't understand it before because I only experienced other people's children, but it's different with your own children in a way that's hard to explain.
What I don't get is, why not just adopt? Instead of creating more potential for misery, why not reduce it while still being able to enjoy parenthood?
It’s usually exceptionally expensive, especially considering insurance won’t be any help.
What I don’t get is why people pretend fostering isn’t even an option!
Idiocracy is eugenics propaganda. People don't get dumber because of their genes but because of worse education.
Like the other commenter said, adopt if you want to improve the world (and not just your own life), but that's harder without the biological attachment that comes from your own kids.
(Not trying to be rude btw, just noting generally my thoughts)
I don't want to have kids simply because I'm miserable and never consented to being born. I am not suicidal but I would have rather not been born in the first place.
Most people grow up happier than me, so I can't really make a philosophical argument out of my own experience. All the best to you and your family!
This is called being passively suicidal
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.
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.
Well said.
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.
I've always loved that Samwise Gamgee line. Makes me tear up every time I read it.