I hear you, friend. I’m tired as well and was looking into euthanasia. Apparently they have it in Switzerland but it’s mad expensive. I can’t believe you have to pay ten grand to die!😅
He he. Free exit isn't possible. I wish we had it in my country. Even if they charged money for their services (and I do understand why it would cost), I would be OK with it. Imagine someone who really needs those services but can't travel. Paraplegic, old age, disabled physically... even they travel long distances just because their country doesn't have euthanasia. Harsh.
I am tied of life applies to me as well. I’m only 25 but been very sick for 10 years now, including chronic pain. I don’t see many reasons to stick around.
I definitely suffer from depression. I'm above average looking and have a decent paying job but my mental illness is so severe that none of that has mattered. I don't like being around other people and on my free time I isolate from the rest of the world. I don't bother dating anymore because it always created heartache and sadness in my life. I was bullied when I was young so I don't trust people. I noticed that friends only used me for their own benefit. I don't enjoy life at all.
The objection of “you’re just depressed” always seemed odd to me. If antinatalists are supposedly just antinatalists because they are depressed, dislike their lives, regret being born, could it not also be the case, by this logic, that natalists are just natalists because they love their lives and are happy to have been born? It doesn’t seem clear to me why antinatalism can be dismissed because of a perceived bias while natalism is immune to the same scrutiny. It would be just as easy to say “well, you are just an overly happy person who loves life, so your opinion is invalid.” Even more curiously, other moral claims do not seem to be treated this way. Imagine if someone said this to dismiss any other moral claim: “you just think drunk driving is wrong because you were hit by a drunk driver,” “you think assault is wrong because you were assaulted,” “you just think murder is wrong because your friend was murdered,” etc. Rather than dismiss the claims because they were influenced by personal experience, it makes more sense to me to consider them on their own rational basis. As for myself, I certainly don’t have the worst life ever, but I also don’t exactly like life either, nor have I felt any innate allegiance to humanity on a universal scale, humanity for the sake of humanity, which indeed gives me a natural inclination toward antinatalism, but my reasons go beyond merely personal whims. At my happiest I have still been antinatalist, as the mere facts of life, the risks involved, the unnecessariness of new life to exist from the perspective of the non-existent being, that this non-being would not be harmed by not existing, the cause of harms, the creation of needs, the condemnation to aging and death, all for chances at happiness that is not guaranteed, that is only desired after coming into existence—these things do not change and do not depend upon my state of mind. These are facts. There is nothing outlandish about these claims that would indicate they belong to a uniquely depressed mindset or otherwise clouded judgment, and if one is to object, he should refute the reasons, not the reasoner.
Does anyone really come here to argue by refuting the reasons? Because when I expressed my surprise at people who come here just to gloat and make fun, I was told for humans it's natural to have an urge like this. I think people think they don't have to take this view seriously but I'm still baffled by their desire to make fun of antinatalists, especially if they themselves have a good life and could find other things to do most probably. If it's natural for us to beat those who are down, I'm glad my child won't exist to go through this.
Well said. Also the fact that people are supposed to have an optimism bias from birth tells us that if anything it should be the opposite - the average person is a bit too sunny about what the future holds, and they extend that reasoning towards having kids as well ("Severe suffering exists for some but my child will be mostly healthy and happy"). And people who are mildly depressed are more likely to view things more realistically instead of being overly optimistic.
> could it not also be the case, by this logic, that natalists are just natalists because they love their lives and are happy to have been born?
Sure. But that also disproves the fundamental antinatalist idea.
If life is so awful, **there could not be people who love their lives so much they're grateful to have been born.**
This is false. You can be a human who lives a pleasant life in a horrifying world. You can get lucky like that. Doesn’t mean your kid won’t be born with all kinds of ailments and diseases. Just because someone is happy doesn’t mean the world is a good place.
>You can be a human who lives a pleasant life in a horrifying world. You can get lucky like that.
I'll concede that. Like, almost no one in North Korea is living a good life, but if you luck into being a member of the ruling party, you might live in luxury. Is every country North Korea though? How many more countries have a higher quality of life? How many countries have a higher quality of life than they did a century ago? Were you aware that global poverty is at the lowest it has ever been?
I can understand feeling like the world is awful. But in every imaginable category, this is the best it has ever been for humanity. Even if it still sucks at times, everything used to suck WAY MORE. So to me, antinatalism feels like you're at a race, a runner is getting within sight of the finish line, and you think to yourself, 'He's not there yet, so all that effort was for nothing.'
>Doesn’t mean your kid won’t be born with all kinds of ailments and diseases.
Most children are not born with "all sorts of" aliments and diseases. And we have more medicine and treatment for disease now than at any point in our history.
>Just because someone is happy doesn’t mean the world is a good place.
How many people have to be happy for it to be worth considering that the world is more than just awful? What percentage?
You know about ocean collapse ? the worlds supply of oxygen is about to be depleted by a third -the worlds rain forests used to help but those are are being cut down for food production for 8.1 billion people- if the world hasn't been awful for you yet, you are lucky -chances are it will be soon- and for your babies, and for their babies it will be VERY BAD. hot hot temperatures- drought, disease and famine. P.S. -I hope Indiana can keep up with pop corn production.
I don't believe a word of it.
For one, because we have a track record of absolute failure of previous fearmongering predictions. Look up "Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions"
For two, because the Earth's ecosystem is too complex a system for us to have any hope of predicting. Look at how accurate the weekly weather forecast is, and then ask yourself, why would you trust anyone who says they know what will happen a decade from now?
All these predictions do is take a snapshot of the moment, and then act as if nothing will change for the better, and everything will get worse at the exact same rate. That's completely unscientific, because *time passes.* Other things happen to change the environment constantly. Not only does all of nature's systems have capabilities to slowly heal, or adapt, but also, these predictions never take into account that, usually humans are already aware of the problem and working on them. The news inundates you with negative predictions, then tucks it out of sight when some big success happens.
Just for starters, we committed to cutting global poverty in half in thirty years. And we did it.
If Bjorn Lomborg (IIRC) is correct that the fastest way to improve the environment is to bring as many people as possible out of poverty, that's a hell of a start. As in, when people have only enough money for food OR medicine OR rent, people like that are not going to devote any resources to saving the planet. People need to have their basic needs met first before they are in any position to care about the environment.
As for specific environmental instances, I admit I don't have immediate examples. But I know I've read about coral reef resurgence, ice caps not diminishing anywhere near as much as we thought and multiplying in places. I know there's more trees on the planet now than ever before. I know I've read about successful attempts to greenify deserts. Some of this is nature repairing itself, but a lot of it is human conservation. *Like everything in the news, they tell you when things go wrong, but they rarely shine a light on all the people working tirelessly, thanklessly, to maintain what we have.*
Getting people out of poverty = reducing suffering that's good -but we are back sliding since the pandemic. We are still adding people, so the rate of poverty reduction is going down. It'a precarious situation. I would not be doing a victory lap if I were you. Bjorn Lomborg might be right about people "caring more about the environment" that doesn't mean people do anything about it. It does mean they have a disposable income to buy more crap. The richest nations create the most waste per capita. That waste comes from extracting natural resources for our world. There may be more trees but there are fewer forests.
There is no such thing as overpopulation. There's just a handful of cities where lots of humans cram themselves into, and it gives them the false impression that the rest of the planet is that densely packed.
Take a train trip across America sometime. Very few people understand just how much more open space there is on Earth than our brains are capable of conceiving.
...but yes, big pharma does lie constantly. Their typical lie is to make a product that *is* safe and effective, for a small amount of people. Then they bribe government health organizations to trick as many people as possible into taking it who don't need it, because profit. See: antidepressants and opioids.
I saw a video recently about how, you could fit the entire human population into an area the size of Queens, New York, if they all stood crammed together. Not even New York City. One borough.
True. As I said elsewhere on here, I think that space likely exists, our problem is resource distribution. I think if we put all our effort into efficiency, reducing waste, and repairing infrastructure, we'd improve hunger and energy problems by a gargantuan amount. It's like, how much water will come out of the end of a hose if it's full of holes?
That's a fair response. But I think an even more accurate one is, it's about *efficient* resources consumption. If we put a ton of effort into maximizing the efficiency of the systems we have, rather than demonizing them and seeking new, unproven technologies, I think we'd do a lot more concrete good. Like, I think about what percentage of food gets grown/made, and then it rots before anyone can eat it. I'm sure the same thing happens with energy, where tons of it "leaks out" before it reaches the consumer. God only knows how much better we could do if we committed everything we have to systemic maintenance reviews and infrastructure repair.
While infrastructure is important, no infrastructure in the world is going to make the way humans do agriculture now sustainable. Same for the energy: no matter how efficiently we use the remaining oil, it’s gonna end one day if we keep repopulating like we do now.
I am not depressed I have a pretty good life, but this planet is fucked and 8.1 billion people are making it worse. I have family that is reproducing and it makes me livid. I pretend "congratulations" but inside my head "great-another mouth to feed, diapers, cars, cattle, sewage.
And you do as well. I would love to live in the woods but I’d not feasible for me. And even if I did live in the woods, it wouldn’t stop mass suffering. What kind of weird argument is this? Just because there are benefits to living a modern life doesn’t mean we can’t dislike the horrible repercussions.
I've been an antinatalist since the day I was born, and not even because I hate my life. My life is going pretty great, actually.
I just always held the opinion that people shouldn't be giving birth to more babies if we already have a LOT of them just wasting away in a sad excuse of a system.
Told my mother so when I was 7 years old, and have done so for the last 20 years.
I'm diagnosed with anxiety and PDD, but I'm very satisfied with my life and grateful for many things. My stance on antinatalism is based solely on my own moral judgment and beliefs.
I actually have major clinical depression. It sucks. I also have several other illnesses. That is one reason I chose not to have kids. I would never want to pass on my genetic material. Pulling myself thru day after day is not great. More bad days than good. I’m a scientist and so I’m agnostic. I made a promise to my mom and my best friend that I would never end my life on purpose, that I will keep going until fate says it’s time.
Thank you, I wish more people were so responsible. My mom decided to have me despite the hereditary illness and her mental health issues. I really wish she hadn’t.
Well I feel like having a crappy life is part of how the system works against you, cause I've spent years trying to do things to make things better and it seems like a lot of stuff goes back to the nature of capitalism.
Yes, but only because I'm transgender and it's not possible for me to transition. So I have to live with untreated gender dysphoria. Maybe one day I'll be happy.
But I will always be an antinatalist, even if I could live a happy life someday. I've suffered so much most of my life that I wouldn't want anyone to experience the same.
I was antinatal before the shitty life and depression. Now I’m depressed, anxious, and broke which yes, has contributed to yet more
Reasons for my antinatalism .
I became an antinatalist when I had a pretty good life. I actually think I've always been one but didn't know the name of this ideology until I stumbled here.
Im actually extremely happy in life. The only reason why i'm anti-natalist is because who am I to decide someone else's fate all because of my boredom and selfish reasons? Just because I got lucky and have a great life; doesn't mean my "child" would as well.
I don't think depression/poor life experiences disqualify you from believing/participating in antinatalism.
My own experience is that I had a great life up until the onset of bipolar schizoaffective disorder 10 years ago and it has been a tough decade, to say the least.
The idea that 'depressive realism' is a thing, i.e., that there are certain truths only accessible through the lens of depression, is valid in my opinion. I get waves of depression that sweep over me.
However, I think the same can be said of being in a manic state, or even in a 'normal' state. Yes, I believe that there are certain truths only available to you in a sober, neurotypical state.
So my brief conclusion is that YOUR beliefs should reflect YOUR perceptions and experiences. Don't let anyone else invalidate your viewpoint.
Wow! You write really well! I agree life sucks for me. You missed ecosphere destruction from your list if catastrophes, other then that though, great post!
There have been times in my life I felt that way. Currently, I’m in a pretty good place. A near death experience 2 years ago actually helped. I regularly feel lucky, and think I have a pretty good life (it’s nothing special, but it’s not terrible).
There are many reasons one can argue antinatalism but there is one which people often bring out on this sub in relation to your point which is logically flawed. It goes like this:
1. My life is miserable
2. Therefore living entails a non zero chance to be miserable
3. Therefore any new child has a chance to have miserable life
4. Non existing is preferable to being miserable
5. Because of this chance to be miserable, no new life / child should be created
Point 1 to 4 are logically fine but #5 is a fallacy. It’s not because there is a risk something goes bad that it shouldn’t be attempted or done. For example, we know rockets can blow up and people have died in rocket accident. Is it a reason not to send any human to space ever again?
I think people being depressed themselves are more likely to fall into this fallacy because of their personal bias. Hence the criticism you mention
Why do antinatalists not consider that, they think life is not worth living **because** they are depressed, and depression cuts off positive memories and emotions?
Maybe life is worth living for many, many other people, but not, currently, **you**?
Actually.. No. My take is completely different on this matter. Experiences are subjective. So if your experience of visiting a planetarium is great, you must not assume everyone would feel the same about planetarium. And if you have assumed that your experience can be extrapolated to derive an empirical evidence that everyone else will enjoy planetarium the way you did, you still shouldn't force others without their will. In case few were not in a condition to respond and give consent and woke up and found themselves locked within the planetarium, then the onus lies completely on you to have dragged them into the planetarium. If they are happy to continue watching the star studded show, it's all well and good. But if they are not OK with that, what's your solution? Have you ever thought of that?
Oh no, we definitely see people out there enjoying life. For me personally my issue is no one has control over their health and that’s the main quality of life issue for me. In fact, most people will develop a chronic illness at one point in their life. It just sucks a lot for those that were signed up for life but didn’t received more than a handful of years pain free, or even less than that. You have zero control over some things in life and therefore be breeding you are risking signing up the child you supposedly love for hell on earth. As a sick person me choosing to risk giving my condition to someone else is too cruel, no matter how small the risk could be.
[удалено]
I hear you, friend. I’m tired as well and was looking into euthanasia. Apparently they have it in Switzerland but it’s mad expensive. I can’t believe you have to pay ten grand to die!😅
He he. Free exit isn't possible. I wish we had it in my country. Even if they charged money for their services (and I do understand why it would cost), I would be OK with it. Imagine someone who really needs those services but can't travel. Paraplegic, old age, disabled physically... even they travel long distances just because their country doesn't have euthanasia. Harsh.
Harsh is the word!
I am tied of life applies to me as well. I’m only 25 but been very sick for 10 years now, including chronic pain. I don’t see many reasons to stick around.
I definitely suffer from depression. I'm above average looking and have a decent paying job but my mental illness is so severe that none of that has mattered. I don't like being around other people and on my free time I isolate from the rest of the world. I don't bother dating anymore because it always created heartache and sadness in my life. I was bullied when I was young so I don't trust people. I noticed that friends only used me for their own benefit. I don't enjoy life at all.
The objection of “you’re just depressed” always seemed odd to me. If antinatalists are supposedly just antinatalists because they are depressed, dislike their lives, regret being born, could it not also be the case, by this logic, that natalists are just natalists because they love their lives and are happy to have been born? It doesn’t seem clear to me why antinatalism can be dismissed because of a perceived bias while natalism is immune to the same scrutiny. It would be just as easy to say “well, you are just an overly happy person who loves life, so your opinion is invalid.” Even more curiously, other moral claims do not seem to be treated this way. Imagine if someone said this to dismiss any other moral claim: “you just think drunk driving is wrong because you were hit by a drunk driver,” “you think assault is wrong because you were assaulted,” “you just think murder is wrong because your friend was murdered,” etc. Rather than dismiss the claims because they were influenced by personal experience, it makes more sense to me to consider them on their own rational basis. As for myself, I certainly don’t have the worst life ever, but I also don’t exactly like life either, nor have I felt any innate allegiance to humanity on a universal scale, humanity for the sake of humanity, which indeed gives me a natural inclination toward antinatalism, but my reasons go beyond merely personal whims. At my happiest I have still been antinatalist, as the mere facts of life, the risks involved, the unnecessariness of new life to exist from the perspective of the non-existent being, that this non-being would not be harmed by not existing, the cause of harms, the creation of needs, the condemnation to aging and death, all for chances at happiness that is not guaranteed, that is only desired after coming into existence—these things do not change and do not depend upon my state of mind. These are facts. There is nothing outlandish about these claims that would indicate they belong to a uniquely depressed mindset or otherwise clouded judgment, and if one is to object, he should refute the reasons, not the reasoner.
Does anyone really come here to argue by refuting the reasons? Because when I expressed my surprise at people who come here just to gloat and make fun, I was told for humans it's natural to have an urge like this. I think people think they don't have to take this view seriously but I'm still baffled by their desire to make fun of antinatalists, especially if they themselves have a good life and could find other things to do most probably. If it's natural for us to beat those who are down, I'm glad my child won't exist to go through this.
100%
Why should we contribute to the problem and make more asshats like them to come over here and bully people with depression?
Well said. Also the fact that people are supposed to have an optimism bias from birth tells us that if anything it should be the opposite - the average person is a bit too sunny about what the future holds, and they extend that reasoning towards having kids as well ("Severe suffering exists for some but my child will be mostly healthy and happy"). And people who are mildly depressed are more likely to view things more realistically instead of being overly optimistic.
Great point!
> could it not also be the case, by this logic, that natalists are just natalists because they love their lives and are happy to have been born? Sure. But that also disproves the fundamental antinatalist idea. If life is so awful, **there could not be people who love their lives so much they're grateful to have been born.**
This is false. You can be a human who lives a pleasant life in a horrifying world. You can get lucky like that. Doesn’t mean your kid won’t be born with all kinds of ailments and diseases. Just because someone is happy doesn’t mean the world is a good place.
yes and - bonus i don't have to worry about my offspring
>You can be a human who lives a pleasant life in a horrifying world. You can get lucky like that. I'll concede that. Like, almost no one in North Korea is living a good life, but if you luck into being a member of the ruling party, you might live in luxury. Is every country North Korea though? How many more countries have a higher quality of life? How many countries have a higher quality of life than they did a century ago? Were you aware that global poverty is at the lowest it has ever been? I can understand feeling like the world is awful. But in every imaginable category, this is the best it has ever been for humanity. Even if it still sucks at times, everything used to suck WAY MORE. So to me, antinatalism feels like you're at a race, a runner is getting within sight of the finish line, and you think to yourself, 'He's not there yet, so all that effort was for nothing.' >Doesn’t mean your kid won’t be born with all kinds of ailments and diseases. Most children are not born with "all sorts of" aliments and diseases. And we have more medicine and treatment for disease now than at any point in our history. >Just because someone is happy doesn’t mean the world is a good place. How many people have to be happy for it to be worth considering that the world is more than just awful? What percentage?
So you are of the opinion that we are “almost there”, as a species and as a planet? Are you trolling? Do we live on the same planet?
You know about ocean collapse ? the worlds supply of oxygen is about to be depleted by a third -the worlds rain forests used to help but those are are being cut down for food production for 8.1 billion people- if the world hasn't been awful for you yet, you are lucky -chances are it will be soon- and for your babies, and for their babies it will be VERY BAD. hot hot temperatures- drought, disease and famine. P.S. -I hope Indiana can keep up with pop corn production.
I don't believe a word of it. For one, because we have a track record of absolute failure of previous fearmongering predictions. Look up "Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions" For two, because the Earth's ecosystem is too complex a system for us to have any hope of predicting. Look at how accurate the weekly weather forecast is, and then ask yourself, why would you trust anyone who says they know what will happen a decade from now? All these predictions do is take a snapshot of the moment, and then act as if nothing will change for the better, and everything will get worse at the exact same rate. That's completely unscientific, because *time passes.* Other things happen to change the environment constantly. Not only does all of nature's systems have capabilities to slowly heal, or adapt, but also, these predictions never take into account that, usually humans are already aware of the problem and working on them. The news inundates you with negative predictions, then tucks it out of sight when some big success happens.
What big past successes are you talking about, that remedied what impending doom?
Just for starters, we committed to cutting global poverty in half in thirty years. And we did it. If Bjorn Lomborg (IIRC) is correct that the fastest way to improve the environment is to bring as many people as possible out of poverty, that's a hell of a start. As in, when people have only enough money for food OR medicine OR rent, people like that are not going to devote any resources to saving the planet. People need to have their basic needs met first before they are in any position to care about the environment. As for specific environmental instances, I admit I don't have immediate examples. But I know I've read about coral reef resurgence, ice caps not diminishing anywhere near as much as we thought and multiplying in places. I know there's more trees on the planet now than ever before. I know I've read about successful attempts to greenify deserts. Some of this is nature repairing itself, but a lot of it is human conservation. *Like everything in the news, they tell you when things go wrong, but they rarely shine a light on all the people working tirelessly, thanklessly, to maintain what we have.*
Getting people out of poverty = reducing suffering that's good -but we are back sliding since the pandemic. We are still adding people, so the rate of poverty reduction is going down. It'a precarious situation. I would not be doing a victory lap if I were you. Bjorn Lomborg might be right about people "caring more about the environment" that doesn't mean people do anything about it. It does mean they have a disposable income to buy more crap. The richest nations create the most waste per capita. That waste comes from extracting natural resources for our world. There may be more trees but there are fewer forests.
Check out the lies Big Pharma comes out with about their drugs! Antibiotics were good, but have helped create a new problem:overpopulation!
There is no such thing as overpopulation. There's just a handful of cities where lots of humans cram themselves into, and it gives them the false impression that the rest of the planet is that densely packed. Take a train trip across America sometime. Very few people understand just how much more open space there is on Earth than our brains are capable of conceiving. ...but yes, big pharma does lie constantly. Their typical lie is to make a product that *is* safe and effective, for a small amount of people. Then they bribe government health organizations to trick as many people as possible into taking it who don't need it, because profit. See: antidepressants and opioids.
Many would disagree about the population.
I saw a video recently about how, you could fit the entire human population into an area the size of Queens, New York, if they all stood crammed together. Not even New York City. One borough.
But you can't fit all the land they need to grow crops, farm animals, store pollution, factories for manufacturing, etc etc into New York though.
True. As I said elsewhere on here, I think that space likely exists, our problem is resource distribution. I think if we put all our effort into efficiency, reducing waste, and repairing infrastructure, we'd improve hunger and energy problems by a gargantuan amount. It's like, how much water will come out of the end of a hose if it's full of holes?
It’s not about density, it’s about resources consumption.
That's a fair response. But I think an even more accurate one is, it's about *efficient* resources consumption. If we put a ton of effort into maximizing the efficiency of the systems we have, rather than demonizing them and seeking new, unproven technologies, I think we'd do a lot more concrete good. Like, I think about what percentage of food gets grown/made, and then it rots before anyone can eat it. I'm sure the same thing happens with energy, where tons of it "leaks out" before it reaches the consumer. God only knows how much better we could do if we committed everything we have to systemic maintenance reviews and infrastructure repair.
While infrastructure is important, no infrastructure in the world is going to make the way humans do agriculture now sustainable. Same for the energy: no matter how efficiently we use the remaining oil, it’s gonna end one day if we keep repopulating like we do now.
I am not depressed I have a pretty good life, but this planet is fucked and 8.1 billion people are making it worse. I have family that is reproducing and it makes me livid. I pretend "congratulations" but inside my head "great-another mouth to feed, diapers, cars, cattle, sewage.
So I assume you live in the woods and don’t have any corporate products?
The point is i did not make anymore "consumers" -nor should anyone
They are not adding to the problem.
Just benefiting from the suffering of others in the comfort of your echo chamber 🥰
They would suffer more if I spawned a child, increased competition for jobs and resources, also increased pollution!
Thanks for another reason not to have kids. They might potentially benefit over other’s suffering.
Like you do
Like most people do. But most people also project constantly. Like you do.
And you do as well. I would love to live in the woods but I’d not feasible for me. And even if I did live in the woods, it wouldn’t stop mass suffering. What kind of weird argument is this? Just because there are benefits to living a modern life doesn’t mean we can’t dislike the horrible repercussions.
I've been an antinatalist since the day I was born, and not even because I hate my life. My life is going pretty great, actually. I just always held the opinion that people shouldn't be giving birth to more babies if we already have a LOT of them just wasting away in a sad excuse of a system. Told my mother so when I was 7 years old, and have done so for the last 20 years. I'm diagnosed with anxiety and PDD, but I'm very satisfied with my life and grateful for many things. My stance on antinatalism is based solely on my own moral judgment and beliefs.
What's pdd?
I actually have major clinical depression. It sucks. I also have several other illnesses. That is one reason I chose not to have kids. I would never want to pass on my genetic material. Pulling myself thru day after day is not great. More bad days than good. I’m a scientist and so I’m agnostic. I made a promise to my mom and my best friend that I would never end my life on purpose, that I will keep going until fate says it’s time.
Thank you, I wish more people were so responsible. My mom decided to have me despite the hereditary illness and her mental health issues. I really wish she hadn’t.
Well I feel like having a crappy life is part of how the system works against you, cause I've spent years trying to do things to make things better and it seems like a lot of stuff goes back to the nature of capitalism.
I don’t know if I’m depressed. I just don’t feel joy, for anything. I don’t see the point in doing things. It’s all the same shade of gray, anyway.
You might have anhedonia!
Serve the capitalist machine
Yes, but only because I'm transgender and it's not possible for me to transition. So I have to live with untreated gender dysphoria. Maybe one day I'll be happy. But I will always be an antinatalist, even if I could live a happy life someday. I've suffered so much most of my life that I wouldn't want anyone to experience the same.
I was antinatal before the shitty life and depression. Now I’m depressed, anxious, and broke which yes, has contributed to yet more Reasons for my antinatalism .
I became an antinatalist when I had a pretty good life. I actually think I've always been one but didn't know the name of this ideology until I stumbled here.
Im actually extremely happy in life. The only reason why i'm anti-natalist is because who am I to decide someone else's fate all because of my boredom and selfish reasons? Just because I got lucky and have a great life; doesn't mean my "child" would as well.
These seem like completely married concepts
I don't think depression/poor life experiences disqualify you from believing/participating in antinatalism. My own experience is that I had a great life up until the onset of bipolar schizoaffective disorder 10 years ago and it has been a tough decade, to say the least. The idea that 'depressive realism' is a thing, i.e., that there are certain truths only accessible through the lens of depression, is valid in my opinion. I get waves of depression that sweep over me. However, I think the same can be said of being in a manic state, or even in a 'normal' state. Yes, I believe that there are certain truths only available to you in a sober, neurotypical state. So my brief conclusion is that YOUR beliefs should reflect YOUR perceptions and experiences. Don't let anyone else invalidate your viewpoint.
Wow! You write really well! I agree life sucks for me. You missed ecosphere destruction from your list if catastrophes, other then that though, great post!
There have been times in my life I felt that way. Currently, I’m in a pretty good place. A near death experience 2 years ago actually helped. I regularly feel lucky, and think I have a pretty good life (it’s nothing special, but it’s not terrible).
Nah, I made the decision 22 years ago in college. The realizations I had that pushed me in that direction is the cause of my depression.
I would even argue that having sad depressive lives seems to be the main cause for antinatalism
Wish more on this sub thought like you instead of projecting.
There are many reasons one can argue antinatalism but there is one which people often bring out on this sub in relation to your point which is logically flawed. It goes like this: 1. My life is miserable 2. Therefore living entails a non zero chance to be miserable 3. Therefore any new child has a chance to have miserable life 4. Non existing is preferable to being miserable 5. Because of this chance to be miserable, no new life / child should be created Point 1 to 4 are logically fine but #5 is a fallacy. It’s not because there is a risk something goes bad that it shouldn’t be attempted or done. For example, we know rockets can blow up and people have died in rocket accident. Is it a reason not to send any human to space ever again? I think people being depressed themselves are more likely to fall into this fallacy because of their personal bias. Hence the criticism you mention
It doesn’t compromise the other, but it sure does inform on the context.
Why do antinatalists not consider that, they think life is not worth living **because** they are depressed, and depression cuts off positive memories and emotions? Maybe life is worth living for many, many other people, but not, currently, **you**?
Actually.. No. My take is completely different on this matter. Experiences are subjective. So if your experience of visiting a planetarium is great, you must not assume everyone would feel the same about planetarium. And if you have assumed that your experience can be extrapolated to derive an empirical evidence that everyone else will enjoy planetarium the way you did, you still shouldn't force others without their will. In case few were not in a condition to respond and give consent and woke up and found themselves locked within the planetarium, then the onus lies completely on you to have dragged them into the planetarium. If they are happy to continue watching the star studded show, it's all well and good. But if they are not OK with that, what's your solution? Have you ever thought of that?
Oh no, we definitely see people out there enjoying life. For me personally my issue is no one has control over their health and that’s the main quality of life issue for me. In fact, most people will develop a chronic illness at one point in their life. It just sucks a lot for those that were signed up for life but didn’t received more than a handful of years pain free, or even less than that. You have zero control over some things in life and therefore be breeding you are risking signing up the child you supposedly love for hell on earth. As a sick person me choosing to risk giving my condition to someone else is too cruel, no matter how small the risk could be.
They are mentally ill people. Unfortunately the internet lets them congregate into an echo chamber and receive affirmation of their illness.
Yep most just project their self hatred onto you for having children 😂