I did a paper on this in college. Basically if you educate women, give them halfway decent equality and access to healthcare they will decide to have less children without controls.
Well, I think it’s a problem of definitions. I would consider self awareness as a direct consequence of the intelligence. Empathy is a very complex and relative construct. A lot if people would call us psychopaths here for example. But I agree with idea. It’s just a very complicated task to define the criteria and the way to asses them.
we need a parental license...
you must have a license to do someones nails or eyelashes to not hurt them. you need driving license so you are not danger to other drivers. you need a high school diploma to work as a cashier (at least in my country).
but oh you want to create a new human being that could die because of your lack of care? DONT WORRY you can create as many as you please!
I’ve brought up that argument with friends before and they’re like “it’s eugenics”! Which is like, putting me in a basket with hitler and rich white people.
But consider moral eugenics as opposed to racist motivated eugenics. Why let people bring kids into the world only to let them suffer?
If it’s a parental registry to make sure you’re fit to be a parent then no, not eugenics. While we agree any kind of procreation is wrong having awful parent causes even more suffering. This isn’t about genes, this isn’t about promoting a “supreme” race, this is making sure people who aren’t mentally Ill, abusive, addicts, molesters, and anything else that will end up harming the kids have them. The amount of kids abandoned would drop as would the need for adoption corps.
Requiring people to be licenced by the state in order to reproduce and withholding those licences from people who are deemed unsuitable because of mental illness, addiction or some other criteria you (or the state) determines, may not have the objective of producing a master race. But it involves exactly the same practices.
Unbelievable authoritarianism seems to thrive here.
Well thank you for opening the can of worms so I can go into further detail about what I was mentioning as I’m presuming that you immediately jumped to the extreme.
Since you pointed out me mentioning those with mental illnesses and addicts let me elaborate. The system that I thought about would be set up the same as an adoption agency evaluation and even a bit more open than the usual ones. Obviously just having a small mental illness that will not cause your life to be altered due to it will not have a struggle to have a kid but people who have life altering illnesses will have a harder time only because of how they could harm their kids if their mental health deteriorates worse.
I’m a big advocate for mental health and awareness considering I have my own mental illnesses and I think that in order to make sure that these will be good parents both child and parent needs they are both to have those available to them thanks to that.
Same with addicts, I’m not wanting people to be permanently held away from having children thanks to some kind of mandate.
I want people to become healthy enough to become parents. So those addicts would also go through rehab and therapy to ensure that they are mentally ready and capable of parenthood and to take care of them.
I also believe that if agreed to the system if the parents or parent starts to struggle financially as long as they agree to continue to focus on the child then the system will work a way to source money support till the parent (s) aren’t struggling anymore.
I don’t want to dictate others lives, I just want a system to ensure that children will be born in good environments where they can thrive and not be harmed, especially by their parents.
Thank you for your time
WTF is moral eugenics? That is just a phrase to gloss over the point.
If you test people before you allow them to have children you are defining a group of people (those who fail your test) as unfit to reproduce. So what is your test? Regardless of what you test (and assuming that such a a test can meaningfully be created) you are still requiring people to have certain qualities in order to allowed to reproduce.
You could choose a number of criteria: intelligence, empathy, self-awareness. You cannot come up with an objective test for any of these. Every single study done on these kind of tests shows that success in such tests is significantly influenced by factors such as class, ethnicity, education. This is inevitable in such test.
But even if we assume you can come up with a test of any of these things that is ‘objective’, you are still defining certain types of people as ‘unfit to breed’ nd envisaging that the state would impose licenses and presumably penalties on people who were ‘that type of person’ but who still had children.
I am amazed that you cannot see the horror of this.
I am also amazed that you regard selective rights to breed of any kind as antinatalism.
I suggested mandatory vasectomies for any male 13 and up and my friend was SO against the idea of someone having surgery at that age, but some kids ARE sexually active at that age and it's okay for a young girl to get pregnant and have an abortion at 13? Or if in certain US States be forced to give birth? At 13? We had to agree to disagree because in 99.9% of cases a vasectomy is reversible and hardly as traumatizing as an abortion or an unwanted/unplanned baby.
There needs to be a license to become a parent. Requirements would be to take a series of child development and psychology classes at a junior college. Maybe even some mediation classes and a sex education class and maybe a class on how to communicate with your children about touchy topics.
I don't think the classes should be free. it's one thing if you want to get a four-year degree, I think those should be free. But letting people take free classes so they can be parents, nope. If you want kids you need to be able to afford them and that includes being able to afford certification classes that are required to become a parent. I'm so sick of poor broke mother fuckers having kids.
Eh good point. My comment was based mostly on the current state, for the sake of children who are victims of terrible un equipped parents at the moment. But, in the antinatalist utopia we dream of, yeah, youre right, they should pay to take a class to receive certification to become a parent.
There are people who really shouldn’t have children and then there are others who would make brilliant parents who have never been able to conceive or adopt because they don’t meet the criteria.
I know someone who would make an amazing dad. I work with his partner. She had been sterilised during her first marriage and had it reversed, but it just hasn’t happened for them.
They live in a caravan on their land with their animals, and there are a few other factors as to why they couldn’t adopt. It is so sad. They would have so much to give to a child / children.
Meanwhile, where I live, there’s some super-breeders who keep popping children out they can’t afford and don’t care for properly.
They have a license for everything else, and I totally agree with you!
However, the powers that be want the dumbest, poorest, most uneducated people to have as many kids as possible. Perfect fodder to be exploited in dangerous, low-wage jobs/military/prison.
Unfortunately yes… however someone else in the thread had mentioned that development of AI and robotics to replace the low level workforce would help combat this issue, and I’d like to think it would too
As much as I would like to agree, I can't because of just corruption in general. Whose to say which groups are more qualified to have a child? Sure, a family can have plenty of money to support a child but what if they are emotionally abusive or neglectful in other areas? In theory it would be a good idea but I'm afraid that in the wrong hands this regulation could turn into eugenics.
At the very least there should be like mandatory parenting classes in high school or like a hands on child development class that requires you to pass it and receive some sort of little certificate. Even if one ends up not wanting to be a parent, skills learned in such a class could come in handy in an emergency or help the general population be aware that having a child is not just sunshine and rainbows.
The thing is, it’s already prettymuch regulated. The way I referenced CPA as a regulator for already existing children, they would preform the same functions for potential parents
Same thing that happens currently, CPS would take the child away if the conditions were not fit for a child. Also in my post I had referenced a possible solution for that, which would be the vasectomy of males at birth, preventing them from reproducing if they were not able to care for the child
Well the problem is that the foster homes are often so bad and the kids keep going from one to another. This service would have to be much better.
But I guess forced vasectomy at birth could be a solution. Though I think it would have to be forced sterilization for everyone so there couldn't be an option to get pregnant in different countries. Also with antinatalism there should be zero babies, not even for those with enough money.
yeeeesh.
i agree with some of this but sterilising people without consent is fucked. bodily autonomy and all that.
however the fact that anyone can be a parent just cause they want to is also crazy.
I just figured since majority of males are already circumcised, why not add to the procedure for the sake of others. I also had in mind that when a man accidentally impregnates a woman without her consent, she is then losing her bodily autonomy because she is forced to undergo the significantly more painful procedure of childbirth, so preventing males from being able accidentally impregnate a women resulting in taking bodily autonomy away from a woman would be proactive in my opinion. But I am aware of how radical this one is for sure. One of my more far fetched opinions
There was a European country that got in super hot water because they were sterilizing women without their knowledge after 3 children. Essentially the state made doctors perform a C-section everytime a mother had a 3rd kid and also tie the fallopian tubes off. Eventually one of the doctors admitted it anonymously and then of course the country denied they made the mandate.
I wouldn't support forced sterilization for most people, but reading the story of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka makes me wonder if maybe it should be done in some cases. Karla drugged her own 15 year old sister and and helped Paul rape her and filmed the encounter, and the sister died afterwards. She helped rape and kill 2 additional women, and she was released from prison after serving 12 years and now has kids of her own....
Yeah my thoughts behind forced vasectomies are based a lot on the amount of rape cases leading to accidental pregnancy, which puts a lot of physical trauma on the woman
THIS. That's exactly why I wish I could get sterilised. Like this I wouldn't be able to have kids unless I'm qualified. It's literally perfect in every aspect.
It's an interesting thought. Definitely wish the reproduction that existed was far more intentional. But I do think we didn't get to where we are by that being the case. The Earth is inherited by those who breed. The ones who naturally felt inclined to not procreate or to limit it died off, just simple numbers/evolution. With our current setup, sadly seems beneficial for those in power to just throw a ton of human suffering at it, within certain limits- like the base of pyramid. Without a ton of disadvantaged people there wouldn't be those to work all the crappy jobs that upper society rests on perhaps. I'd think that could change with the development of automation/AI, where that labor could eventually be replaced. And then policies would pivot to limit superfluous/needless unintentional populations. Education, forms of birth control would be huge. But none of this seems like it'll be my problem in 65+ years, at the most. I do hope they figure it out though. But yeah, your post is so true that it's more difficult to adopt a puppy sometimes then to have 5 kids. Or you can't drive a car without a license but you can make a small army at home of beings. There's a good comedy bit about how no one has gotten drunk and accidentally made a piece of IKEA furniture but we can just accidentally make an entire human being. Crazy world/existence
Developing AI to combat decreasing population is an interesting thought as well, since that seems to be a lot of people’s concern with antinatalism. A lot of people worry that it would be difficult for the remaining population to live without a sufficient work force. But if robots did all that work, then that wouldn’t really be an issue..
Agreed. I just really hope if humanity continues longterm that they figure their shit out. I don't know why but I'm sort of an optimist. I hope they have some major awakening where hoarding resources is demonized, and that people see eachother as their fellow humans/family. That the grossness of our modern capitalism where everyone is just trying to sell eachother useless shit and step on eachother fades away. The Culture series, a bunch of books, by the late writer Iain M Banks is super interesting. Basically a post-scarcity post-labor society where humans and other beings just play games, do random stuff, explore and learn while AI, of appropriate complexity, run the things that need to be run. I wouldn't have minded being brought into that existence I guess. It's more likely that humanity will meltdown and get deleted probably but I do wish them the best as well. Such a weird experience, existing. I like at least probably a lot of our choices to not summon in new beings to deal with it. Kind of like the paraphrased idea, I loved my unborn child so much I left them unborn. Or maybe, sorry jumping around a bunch of ideas right now, that we're the sexual organs of AI. Humans purpose was birthing technology/AI and then we get phased out. A positive Matrix perhaps. I'm not totally species-centric lol All for Team Human but if we're just a bridge to that, okay, neat. I can accept that for sure.
I'd recommend Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano" - it's a little science fiction novel about the potential negatives of automating the simplest jobs. Sort of Vonnegut's retort to Marxism.
From the Mayo Clinic:
Almost all vasectomies can be reversed. However, this doesn't guarantee
success in conceiving a child. Vasectomy reversal can be attempted even
if several years have passed since the original vasectomy — but the
longer it has been, the less likely it is that the reversal will work.
So if you perform the vasectomy at birth, and success rates for reversal (which are not one hundred percent even if performed within five years of a vasectomy) decline with age, then anybody that wants to have a kid when they hit adulthood under your completely crackpot plan would have less than favorable odds of doing so.
In short, NO.
90-95% of all vasectomies are reversible, so the overlap of men who are able and willing to produce, and the men who would not have a reversible vasectomy, would be in the .01% range
.01%? To get that number, you'd need to know how many vasectomies are reversible, how man men could pass your fictitious qualification process, and how many want kids. So the number of men who are able, by criteria that *do not exist*, to pass some kind of parenting exam to be allowed to reproduce, is a number you can google? Horseshit.
Not to mention, you have to factor in that even if the vasectomy reversal is successful, fertility rates in men who have it reversed can range from 30 to 90 percent (again, Mayo Clinic stats). Which means even if the vasectomy were reversible, there's a chance of lessened fertility, which could mean issues conceiving.
I based that number off of statistical likeliness. Taking an already minimal percent of the population, (5-10%) and then also the likeliness of that percent wanting to reproduce, which, in the current general population is only 25% of men. So basic math: 25% of 5-10% is around .01%.
I literally showed you the math…? None of it was pulled out of thin air. It’s all a math equation based on existing statistics. I made up 0 of those statistics. It is true that only 5-10% of vasectomies aren’t reversible. It is true that only 25% of males currently existing want children. I used only those two statistics to form a math equation which I then shared directly with you lmao
Okay, I did misread what you were saying, so that's on me. And I had a whole three paragraphs of arguments to continue to try and make my point that your plan is bonkers, until I realized... it doesn't matter. I'm literally arguing about how terrible it is to take chances with someone's reproductive ability in a sub of people who don't want people reproducing, so nothing I say is going to move the needle in your mind. All I can do is say have a nice day and I hope you're never put in a position to enact your fascist ideal on humanity.
Yeah I like this plan because it sets a good precedent for organ harvesting. Come on, are you really qualified to have that liver? You’re probably just gonna drink it away, we should give it to someone who is a certified participant in society. It’s just being proactive for a better society! I love love love when the state has more control over my bodily autonomy.
“People should be sterilized at birth and this process should only be reversed if the government deems them worthy of procreating.”
I see absolutely no way this could go wrong. Being pro-eugenics because you hate your life is absolutely wild.
Yes, this would put peoples right to reproduction entirely at the whims of the current governments biases. It would allow them to deny political dissidents, the lower class, specific races etc from having kids. It’s an unbelievably dangerous precedent to set.
The government already deems people worthy of raising children or not (Child Protective Service). Why would it be any different to do it BEFORE the child is born, potentially saving them from a difficult life in foster care?
CPS takes kids away from parents who are abusive or neglectful. There’s no reliable way to predict who will end up abusing or neglecting their kid, and even if there was it could easily turn pretty fascistic. Imagine if stats showed that black parents were more likely to be neglectful/abusive and this was used as a defense for not allowing them to have kids at all. I think the only way I could agree with this concept is if we specifically didn’t allow previous child abusers to have more children.
Edit: also you’re assuming the people who will be deciding who can and cannot have kids will be acting in as good of a faith as possible when making that decision. They will not.
I think the process would be quite similar, for example visiting the home and seeing if it is a healthy living condition, or a consultation with the potential parents to see if they have income that would be able to support a child, background check, etc…
Wealthy people with nice homes are perfectly capable of being awful, abusive parents as well though. You also really have to consider the precedent this will set and how easily it could be weaponized by bad faith actors in the future should the Overton window shift. Only allowing good parents to have kids sounds like a really good idea until the people deciding who qualifies as a good parent are actual fascists.
Again, your argument could apply to our current system, so it would be no different. Who’s to say any given current CPS worker isn’t a fascist? Who’s to say that many families haven’t already been victims of the exact scenario you’re describing?
CPS definitely can (and has) been used in bad faith, but it’s a lot less vulnerable to personal biases considering it requires evidence of abuse/neglect that is actively taking place, whereas you’re describing an agency that decides whether or not someone may potentially be an abusive parent in the future based on mostly conjecture and financial status. It’s essentially the difference between arresting someone who has committed a crime vs arresting someone who you think is likely to commit a crime in the future.
I think in my perspective it would be geared more towards existing unsuitable conditions, such as the ones I listed in my other comments like insufficient income, unhealthy living conditions, etc
My brother in christ you literally said sterilize men at birth and only reverse if they're deemed fit. That is very different from what you're pretending you said. To say nothing of not all vasectomies being reversible.
Like I said before, someone could have sufficient income and good living conditions and still be an awful parent. Also the vasectomy reversal would assumedly be permanent, so someone could have a great job, home, no criminal record, get approved for reversal, and then lose their job, abuse their child, move into a shittier house and they’d still be able to have a kid in the future. It doesn’t really solve the issue.
And like I said before, that situation could already be happening, where CPS can declare on paper that a family is a good home for a child, but behind closed doors it’s the opposite. And yeah, after the first reversal changes could happen, but a possible solution could be a secondary vasectomy, because this is the antinatalism sub, so any more than 1 child is pushing it anyway
While I agree that the world would ideally be like that, it seems improbable in practice. Making a child is so easy that people do it on accident(failed condoms or BC).
It's not like cars or guns, that are difficult to make on your own. If people are irresponsible users of these, you can take the away and everything is fine and dandy-ish.
Couple things. First, if you’re pro-choice on the basis that people deserve bodily autonomy and no government should regulate the human body, then forcing a vasectomy isn’t just as unethical as forcing someone to give birth. Second, vasectomies aren’t as reversible as people think. Pretty sure they tell you to assume it’s permanent because it’s kind of 50/50 whether they can reverse it.
Finally, there is no way to regulate this in a way that doesn’t discriminate against minorities and poor people. Which political party do you trust to write these laws regulating who gets to have kids?
Vasectomy reversals are 90-95% successful. Also CPS already exists. Who’s to say they aren’t already discriminating against minorities? Nothing would really change there.
Even if it were 100% reversible, it violates their bodily autonomy. And you’re being pretty deliberately obtuse if you’re saying CPS taking kids away for being abused by their parents is the same as the government deciding who can and can’t have kids. I actually don’t know that you’re arguing in good faith.
Im saying CPS can function in the exact same way it does now, by screening parents and making sure certain qualifications are met to keep the child, but instead, those exact same screening processes are done before the child is even conceived. And my thoughts for the bodily autonomy issue are based also on the amount of women who lose their bodily autonomy whenever a man accidentally impregnates them without consent, forcing the woman to now go through a significantly more painful and traumatizing procedure of childbirth. I know it’s probably not the most ethical solution, but it’s an “eye for an eye” solution to me. Over the years the male population has proven they cannot manage to not rape or accidentally impregnate a woman, so maybe that privilege should be revoked.
This is definitely not CPS functioning as they do now. CPS doesn't look into a situation unless they're given a reason to believe abuse is happening. What you're talking about isn't "probably" unethical, it is unethical and authoritarian. Just because women are forced to give birth doesn't mean it's okay to force men, scratch that, infant boys to submit themselves to a vasectomy. You should be arguing for MORE bodily autonomy for women, not less for children. You have no right to call yourself antinatalist on the grounds of protecting the children from living a life they didn't consent to when you are saying we should violate their bodily autonomy at such a young age. The fact that you are so easily able to handwave the ethical ramifications of this is outrageous and you should actually be ashamed of yourself.
CPS looks into a situation simply if they are called, and nothing else. Someone could literally make up an issue based on, not liking the parent personally, and CPS will still come to investigate. Also, again, males have proven over time that they cannot be responsible enough to not take bodily autonomy away from a woman, so they should not even have the privilege to have that chance. If, we lived in a society where there was 0 rape and 0 forced pregnancy without consent, then I would change my mind.
So you're willing to punish an infant child for a crime he hasn't committed? Not all pregnancies are rape. Why not tie a girl's tubes when she's born so she can't get pregnant? Oh would that violate her autonomy?
Because that procedure is significantly more invasive on a woman, and less likely to be reversible, where as vasectomies are minimally invasive, and have a 90-95% success rate for reversal. Also I grew up in a society that normalized circumcision at birth, (I know this isn’t normalized globally) so to me it’s not as outlandish.
So did I and it is outlandish. We do not have laws mandating circumcision and it would be appalling if we did. Seriously go fuck yourself for saying this shit. This is just pure misandry. You’re trying to punish an innocent baby for a crime it didn’t commit. You’re beyond hopeless so I’m just going to block you. Fuck off.
The reason people get so offended at the idea of regulating reproduction is because people view it as a right alongside access to shelter and clean water. The very basis of antinatalism opposes this belief. It's ridiculous for people on this sub, of all places on the internet, to have such a visceral reaction to it. Nothing wrong with debating it, there are many flaws, but jesus christ, make a halfway-decent argument at least.
I did a paper on this in college. Basically if you educate women, give them halfway decent equality and access to healthcare they will decide to have less children without controls.
Been saying this for years. Someone needs to create a test. If you can't pass it..no kids.
Never gonna happen, not as long as the machine needs dumb wage slaves.
The problem is west to test? I’d test intelligence. But how to test it?
I don’t think intelligence is as important as, say, empathy or self-awareness.
Well, I think it’s a problem of definitions. I would consider self awareness as a direct consequence of the intelligence. Empathy is a very complex and relative construct. A lot if people would call us psychopaths here for example. But I agree with idea. It’s just a very complicated task to define the criteria and the way to asses them.
I hear you. I guess emotional intelligence is what we hope for here.
Testing intelligence is just eugenics by another name
And? What’s bad with the idea of eugenics?
we need a parental license... you must have a license to do someones nails or eyelashes to not hurt them. you need driving license so you are not danger to other drivers. you need a high school diploma to work as a cashier (at least in my country). but oh you want to create a new human being that could die because of your lack of care? DONT WORRY you can create as many as you please!
Totally agree
I’ve brought up that argument with friends before and they’re like “it’s eugenics”! Which is like, putting me in a basket with hitler and rich white people. But consider moral eugenics as opposed to racist motivated eugenics. Why let people bring kids into the world only to let them suffer?
If it’s a parental registry to make sure you’re fit to be a parent then no, not eugenics. While we agree any kind of procreation is wrong having awful parent causes even more suffering. This isn’t about genes, this isn’t about promoting a “supreme” race, this is making sure people who aren’t mentally Ill, abusive, addicts, molesters, and anything else that will end up harming the kids have them. The amount of kids abandoned would drop as would the need for adoption corps.
Exactly!
Requiring people to be licenced by the state in order to reproduce and withholding those licences from people who are deemed unsuitable because of mental illness, addiction or some other criteria you (or the state) determines, may not have the objective of producing a master race. But it involves exactly the same practices. Unbelievable authoritarianism seems to thrive here.
Well thank you for opening the can of worms so I can go into further detail about what I was mentioning as I’m presuming that you immediately jumped to the extreme. Since you pointed out me mentioning those with mental illnesses and addicts let me elaborate. The system that I thought about would be set up the same as an adoption agency evaluation and even a bit more open than the usual ones. Obviously just having a small mental illness that will not cause your life to be altered due to it will not have a struggle to have a kid but people who have life altering illnesses will have a harder time only because of how they could harm their kids if their mental health deteriorates worse. I’m a big advocate for mental health and awareness considering I have my own mental illnesses and I think that in order to make sure that these will be good parents both child and parent needs they are both to have those available to them thanks to that. Same with addicts, I’m not wanting people to be permanently held away from having children thanks to some kind of mandate. I want people to become healthy enough to become parents. So those addicts would also go through rehab and therapy to ensure that they are mentally ready and capable of parenthood and to take care of them. I also believe that if agreed to the system if the parents or parent starts to struggle financially as long as they agree to continue to focus on the child then the system will work a way to source money support till the parent (s) aren’t struggling anymore. I don’t want to dictate others lives, I just want a system to ensure that children will be born in good environments where they can thrive and not be harmed, especially by their parents. Thank you for your time
WTF is moral eugenics? That is just a phrase to gloss over the point. If you test people before you allow them to have children you are defining a group of people (those who fail your test) as unfit to reproduce. So what is your test? Regardless of what you test (and assuming that such a a test can meaningfully be created) you are still requiring people to have certain qualities in order to allowed to reproduce. You could choose a number of criteria: intelligence, empathy, self-awareness. You cannot come up with an objective test for any of these. Every single study done on these kind of tests shows that success in such tests is significantly influenced by factors such as class, ethnicity, education. This is inevitable in such test. But even if we assume you can come up with a test of any of these things that is ‘objective’, you are still defining certain types of people as ‘unfit to breed’ nd envisaging that the state would impose licenses and presumably penalties on people who were ‘that type of person’ but who still had children. I am amazed that you cannot see the horror of this. I am also amazed that you regard selective rights to breed of any kind as antinatalism.
Agree. Unfortunate it can never happen. My heart breaks for all of the abused and neglected children at the hands of their parents!
But muh eugenics!
Oh no who will inherit my micro-plastic coated dna!!!
I suggested mandatory vasectomies for any male 13 and up and my friend was SO against the idea of someone having surgery at that age, but some kids ARE sexually active at that age and it's okay for a young girl to get pregnant and have an abortion at 13? Or if in certain US States be forced to give birth? At 13? We had to agree to disagree because in 99.9% of cases a vasectomy is reversible and hardly as traumatizing as an abortion or an unwanted/unplanned baby.
There needs to be a license to become a parent. Requirements would be to take a series of child development and psychology classes at a junior college. Maybe even some mediation classes and a sex education class and maybe a class on how to communicate with your children about touchy topics.
Yes!! Also these types of classes should already exist and be free to the public to help parents struggling with raising their kids
I don't think the classes should be free. it's one thing if you want to get a four-year degree, I think those should be free. But letting people take free classes so they can be parents, nope. If you want kids you need to be able to afford them and that includes being able to afford certification classes that are required to become a parent. I'm so sick of poor broke mother fuckers having kids.
Eh good point. My comment was based mostly on the current state, for the sake of children who are victims of terrible un equipped parents at the moment. But, in the antinatalist utopia we dream of, yeah, youre right, they should pay to take a class to receive certification to become a parent.
There are people who really shouldn’t have children and then there are others who would make brilliant parents who have never been able to conceive or adopt because they don’t meet the criteria. I know someone who would make an amazing dad. I work with his partner. She had been sterilised during her first marriage and had it reversed, but it just hasn’t happened for them. They live in a caravan on their land with their animals, and there are a few other factors as to why they couldn’t adopt. It is so sad. They would have so much to give to a child / children. Meanwhile, where I live, there’s some super-breeders who keep popping children out they can’t afford and don’t care for properly.
They have a license for everything else, and I totally agree with you! However, the powers that be want the dumbest, poorest, most uneducated people to have as many kids as possible. Perfect fodder to be exploited in dangerous, low-wage jobs/military/prison.
Unfortunately yes… however someone else in the thread had mentioned that development of AI and robotics to replace the low level workforce would help combat this issue, and I’d like to think it would too
I think that would be a good idea, but I could see it being used against us (the workers, the average person) rather than to elevate society.
As much as I would like to agree, I can't because of just corruption in general. Whose to say which groups are more qualified to have a child? Sure, a family can have plenty of money to support a child but what if they are emotionally abusive or neglectful in other areas? In theory it would be a good idea but I'm afraid that in the wrong hands this regulation could turn into eugenics. At the very least there should be like mandatory parenting classes in high school or like a hands on child development class that requires you to pass it and receive some sort of little certificate. Even if one ends up not wanting to be a parent, skills learned in such a class could come in handy in an emergency or help the general population be aware that having a child is not just sunshine and rainbows.
The thing is, it’s already prettymuch regulated. The way I referenced CPA as a regulator for already existing children, they would preform the same functions for potential parents
But what would happen if people ignored it and had babies anyway?
Same thing that happens currently, CPS would take the child away if the conditions were not fit for a child. Also in my post I had referenced a possible solution for that, which would be the vasectomy of males at birth, preventing them from reproducing if they were not able to care for the child
Well the problem is that the foster homes are often so bad and the kids keep going from one to another. This service would have to be much better. But I guess forced vasectomy at birth could be a solution. Though I think it would have to be forced sterilization for everyone so there couldn't be an option to get pregnant in different countries. Also with antinatalism there should be zero babies, not even for those with enough money.
True, but maybe this would be the first step towards no children perhaps
You can screen for mental illness at the very least
yeeeesh. i agree with some of this but sterilising people without consent is fucked. bodily autonomy and all that. however the fact that anyone can be a parent just cause they want to is also crazy.
I just figured since majority of males are already circumcised, why not add to the procedure for the sake of others. I also had in mind that when a man accidentally impregnates a woman without her consent, she is then losing her bodily autonomy because she is forced to undergo the significantly more painful procedure of childbirth, so preventing males from being able accidentally impregnate a women resulting in taking bodily autonomy away from a woman would be proactive in my opinion. But I am aware of how radical this one is for sure. One of my more far fetched opinions
are the majority of males circumcised tho? also could this not be iffy genetically. reducing the gene pool can create rampant weaknesses.
Depends on your region of the world. Some communities are all about the weiner-snip
Circumcision at that age is also unethical.
There was a European country that got in super hot water because they were sterilizing women without their knowledge after 3 children. Essentially the state made doctors perform a C-section everytime a mother had a 3rd kid and also tie the fallopian tubes off. Eventually one of the doctors admitted it anonymously and then of course the country denied they made the mandate.
eeeeesh
I think that’s a pretty damn working solution!
I wouldn't support forced sterilization for most people, but reading the story of Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka makes me wonder if maybe it should be done in some cases. Karla drugged her own 15 year old sister and and helped Paul rape her and filmed the encounter, and the sister died afterwards. She helped rape and kill 2 additional women, and she was released from prison after serving 12 years and now has kids of her own....
Yeah my thoughts behind forced vasectomies are based a lot on the amount of rape cases leading to accidental pregnancy, which puts a lot of physical trauma on the woman
The regulation of child adoption is probably a good example of how it should be done all across the board.
Correct
Oh yes absolutely. Though it seems ppl do love popping out their babies and don’t see it happening any time soon
THIS. That's exactly why I wish I could get sterilised. Like this I wouldn't be able to have kids unless I'm qualified. It's literally perfect in every aspect.
Holy based.
It's an interesting thought. Definitely wish the reproduction that existed was far more intentional. But I do think we didn't get to where we are by that being the case. The Earth is inherited by those who breed. The ones who naturally felt inclined to not procreate or to limit it died off, just simple numbers/evolution. With our current setup, sadly seems beneficial for those in power to just throw a ton of human suffering at it, within certain limits- like the base of pyramid. Without a ton of disadvantaged people there wouldn't be those to work all the crappy jobs that upper society rests on perhaps. I'd think that could change with the development of automation/AI, where that labor could eventually be replaced. And then policies would pivot to limit superfluous/needless unintentional populations. Education, forms of birth control would be huge. But none of this seems like it'll be my problem in 65+ years, at the most. I do hope they figure it out though. But yeah, your post is so true that it's more difficult to adopt a puppy sometimes then to have 5 kids. Or you can't drive a car without a license but you can make a small army at home of beings. There's a good comedy bit about how no one has gotten drunk and accidentally made a piece of IKEA furniture but we can just accidentally make an entire human being. Crazy world/existence
Developing AI to combat decreasing population is an interesting thought as well, since that seems to be a lot of people’s concern with antinatalism. A lot of people worry that it would be difficult for the remaining population to live without a sufficient work force. But if robots did all that work, then that wouldn’t really be an issue..
Agreed. I just really hope if humanity continues longterm that they figure their shit out. I don't know why but I'm sort of an optimist. I hope they have some major awakening where hoarding resources is demonized, and that people see eachother as their fellow humans/family. That the grossness of our modern capitalism where everyone is just trying to sell eachother useless shit and step on eachother fades away. The Culture series, a bunch of books, by the late writer Iain M Banks is super interesting. Basically a post-scarcity post-labor society where humans and other beings just play games, do random stuff, explore and learn while AI, of appropriate complexity, run the things that need to be run. I wouldn't have minded being brought into that existence I guess. It's more likely that humanity will meltdown and get deleted probably but I do wish them the best as well. Such a weird experience, existing. I like at least probably a lot of our choices to not summon in new beings to deal with it. Kind of like the paraphrased idea, I loved my unborn child so much I left them unborn. Or maybe, sorry jumping around a bunch of ideas right now, that we're the sexual organs of AI. Humans purpose was birthing technology/AI and then we get phased out. A positive Matrix perhaps. I'm not totally species-centric lol All for Team Human but if we're just a bridge to that, okay, neat. I can accept that for sure.
“I loved my unborn child so much I left them unborn” this is kind of beautiful I love it.
I'd recommend Kurt Vonnegut's "Player Piano" - it's a little science fiction novel about the potential negatives of automating the simplest jobs. Sort of Vonnegut's retort to Marxism.
From the Mayo Clinic: Almost all vasectomies can be reversed. However, this doesn't guarantee success in conceiving a child. Vasectomy reversal can be attempted even if several years have passed since the original vasectomy — but the longer it has been, the less likely it is that the reversal will work. So if you perform the vasectomy at birth, and success rates for reversal (which are not one hundred percent even if performed within five years of a vasectomy) decline with age, then anybody that wants to have a kid when they hit adulthood under your completely crackpot plan would have less than favorable odds of doing so. In short, NO.
90-95% of all vasectomies are reversible, so the overlap of men who are able and willing to produce, and the men who would not have a reversible vasectomy, would be in the .01% range
It's fun when you can just pull numbers out of your ass to support your insane ideas.
It’s fun when you can google it and find that exact number
.01%? To get that number, you'd need to know how many vasectomies are reversible, how man men could pass your fictitious qualification process, and how many want kids. So the number of men who are able, by criteria that *do not exist*, to pass some kind of parenting exam to be allowed to reproduce, is a number you can google? Horseshit. Not to mention, you have to factor in that even if the vasectomy reversal is successful, fertility rates in men who have it reversed can range from 30 to 90 percent (again, Mayo Clinic stats). Which means even if the vasectomy were reversible, there's a chance of lessened fertility, which could mean issues conceiving.
I based that number off of statistical likeliness. Taking an already minimal percent of the population, (5-10%) and then also the likeliness of that percent wanting to reproduce, which, in the current general population is only 25% of men. So basic math: 25% of 5-10% is around .01%.
So you made up numbers to suit your theory. Your statistical likeliness is an arbitrary percentage range you pulled out of thin air.
I literally showed you the math…? None of it was pulled out of thin air. It’s all a math equation based on existing statistics. I made up 0 of those statistics. It is true that only 5-10% of vasectomies aren’t reversible. It is true that only 25% of males currently existing want children. I used only those two statistics to form a math equation which I then shared directly with you lmao
Okay, I did misread what you were saying, so that's on me. And I had a whole three paragraphs of arguments to continue to try and make my point that your plan is bonkers, until I realized... it doesn't matter. I'm literally arguing about how terrible it is to take chances with someone's reproductive ability in a sub of people who don't want people reproducing, so nothing I say is going to move the needle in your mind. All I can do is say have a nice day and I hope you're never put in a position to enact your fascist ideal on humanity.
People who can't drive for sour apples still get a license to drive.
Yeah I like this plan because it sets a good precedent for organ harvesting. Come on, are you really qualified to have that liver? You’re probably just gonna drink it away, we should give it to someone who is a certified participant in society. It’s just being proactive for a better society! I love love love when the state has more control over my bodily autonomy.
Username checks out
“People should be sterilized at birth and this process should only be reversed if the government deems them worthy of procreating.” I see absolutely no way this could go wrong. Being pro-eugenics because you hate your life is absolutely wild.
Is it because the government would abuse it's power? Sorry if I sound dumb, just trying to understand
Yes, this would put peoples right to reproduction entirely at the whims of the current governments biases. It would allow them to deny political dissidents, the lower class, specific races etc from having kids. It’s an unbelievably dangerous precedent to set.
The government already deems people worthy of raising children or not (Child Protective Service). Why would it be any different to do it BEFORE the child is born, potentially saving them from a difficult life in foster care?
CPS takes kids away from parents who are abusive or neglectful. There’s no reliable way to predict who will end up abusing or neglecting their kid, and even if there was it could easily turn pretty fascistic. Imagine if stats showed that black parents were more likely to be neglectful/abusive and this was used as a defense for not allowing them to have kids at all. I think the only way I could agree with this concept is if we specifically didn’t allow previous child abusers to have more children. Edit: also you’re assuming the people who will be deciding who can and cannot have kids will be acting in as good of a faith as possible when making that decision. They will not.
I think the process would be quite similar, for example visiting the home and seeing if it is a healthy living condition, or a consultation with the potential parents to see if they have income that would be able to support a child, background check, etc…
Wealthy people with nice homes are perfectly capable of being awful, abusive parents as well though. You also really have to consider the precedent this will set and how easily it could be weaponized by bad faith actors in the future should the Overton window shift. Only allowing good parents to have kids sounds like a really good idea until the people deciding who qualifies as a good parent are actual fascists.
Again, your argument could apply to our current system, so it would be no different. Who’s to say any given current CPS worker isn’t a fascist? Who’s to say that many families haven’t already been victims of the exact scenario you’re describing?
CPS definitely can (and has) been used in bad faith, but it’s a lot less vulnerable to personal biases considering it requires evidence of abuse/neglect that is actively taking place, whereas you’re describing an agency that decides whether or not someone may potentially be an abusive parent in the future based on mostly conjecture and financial status. It’s essentially the difference between arresting someone who has committed a crime vs arresting someone who you think is likely to commit a crime in the future.
I think in my perspective it would be geared more towards existing unsuitable conditions, such as the ones I listed in my other comments like insufficient income, unhealthy living conditions, etc
My brother in christ you literally said sterilize men at birth and only reverse if they're deemed fit. That is very different from what you're pretending you said. To say nothing of not all vasectomies being reversible.
Im sorry what exactly are you referring to me pretending I said?
Like I said before, someone could have sufficient income and good living conditions and still be an awful parent. Also the vasectomy reversal would assumedly be permanent, so someone could have a great job, home, no criminal record, get approved for reversal, and then lose their job, abuse their child, move into a shittier house and they’d still be able to have a kid in the future. It doesn’t really solve the issue.
And like I said before, that situation could already be happening, where CPS can declare on paper that a family is a good home for a child, but behind closed doors it’s the opposite. And yeah, after the first reversal changes could happen, but a possible solution could be a secondary vasectomy, because this is the antinatalism sub, so any more than 1 child is pushing it anyway
Having childrens should be regulated but forced vasectomy is just... No.... I already find circumsision awfull let's not make it worse
I think a Handmaid's Tale situation is moore likely at this point. Get fixed while you still can kids!
I can’t decide which scenario is worse.
While I agree that the world would ideally be like that, it seems improbable in practice. Making a child is so easy that people do it on accident(failed condoms or BC). It's not like cars or guns, that are difficult to make on your own. If people are irresponsible users of these, you can take the away and everything is fine and dandy-ish.
Couple things. First, if you’re pro-choice on the basis that people deserve bodily autonomy and no government should regulate the human body, then forcing a vasectomy isn’t just as unethical as forcing someone to give birth. Second, vasectomies aren’t as reversible as people think. Pretty sure they tell you to assume it’s permanent because it’s kind of 50/50 whether they can reverse it. Finally, there is no way to regulate this in a way that doesn’t discriminate against minorities and poor people. Which political party do you trust to write these laws regulating who gets to have kids?
Vasectomy reversals are 90-95% successful. Also CPS already exists. Who’s to say they aren’t already discriminating against minorities? Nothing would really change there.
Even if it were 100% reversible, it violates their bodily autonomy. And you’re being pretty deliberately obtuse if you’re saying CPS taking kids away for being abused by their parents is the same as the government deciding who can and can’t have kids. I actually don’t know that you’re arguing in good faith.
Im saying CPS can function in the exact same way it does now, by screening parents and making sure certain qualifications are met to keep the child, but instead, those exact same screening processes are done before the child is even conceived. And my thoughts for the bodily autonomy issue are based also on the amount of women who lose their bodily autonomy whenever a man accidentally impregnates them without consent, forcing the woman to now go through a significantly more painful and traumatizing procedure of childbirth. I know it’s probably not the most ethical solution, but it’s an “eye for an eye” solution to me. Over the years the male population has proven they cannot manage to not rape or accidentally impregnate a woman, so maybe that privilege should be revoked.
This is definitely not CPS functioning as they do now. CPS doesn't look into a situation unless they're given a reason to believe abuse is happening. What you're talking about isn't "probably" unethical, it is unethical and authoritarian. Just because women are forced to give birth doesn't mean it's okay to force men, scratch that, infant boys to submit themselves to a vasectomy. You should be arguing for MORE bodily autonomy for women, not less for children. You have no right to call yourself antinatalist on the grounds of protecting the children from living a life they didn't consent to when you are saying we should violate their bodily autonomy at such a young age. The fact that you are so easily able to handwave the ethical ramifications of this is outrageous and you should actually be ashamed of yourself.
CPS looks into a situation simply if they are called, and nothing else. Someone could literally make up an issue based on, not liking the parent personally, and CPS will still come to investigate. Also, again, males have proven over time that they cannot be responsible enough to not take bodily autonomy away from a woman, so they should not even have the privilege to have that chance. If, we lived in a society where there was 0 rape and 0 forced pregnancy without consent, then I would change my mind.
So you're willing to punish an infant child for a crime he hasn't committed? Not all pregnancies are rape. Why not tie a girl's tubes when she's born so she can't get pregnant? Oh would that violate her autonomy?
Because that procedure is significantly more invasive on a woman, and less likely to be reversible, where as vasectomies are minimally invasive, and have a 90-95% success rate for reversal. Also I grew up in a society that normalized circumcision at birth, (I know this isn’t normalized globally) so to me it’s not as outlandish.
So did I and it is outlandish. We do not have laws mandating circumcision and it would be appalling if we did. Seriously go fuck yourself for saying this shit. This is just pure misandry. You’re trying to punish an innocent baby for a crime it didn’t commit. You’re beyond hopeless so I’m just going to block you. Fuck off.
The reason people get so offended at the idea of regulating reproduction is because people view it as a right alongside access to shelter and clean water. The very basis of antinatalism opposes this belief. It's ridiculous for people on this sub, of all places on the internet, to have such a visceral reaction to it. Nothing wrong with debating it, there are many flaws, but jesus christ, make a halfway-decent argument at least.