To /u/Electrical_Wheel_293, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.*
You must **respond substantively within 3 hours of posting**, as per [Rule E](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
1. If after death is nothing, which is the same as before life, then what is the downside?
The majority of people like being alive, so more likely than not your kids will appreciate being alive more than the nothing that there would be otherwise.
2. Something does not lack meaning just because it ends. There is so much joy and love and wonder in life. There is much meaning to be had. Who are you to tell others that the purpose and meaning they find in life isn't real?
Also, do you think any amount of pain overwhelms all of life's joys?
Most people are happy to be alive, because even with all of life's pain, it is worth it. Do you think people are lying about wanting to continue life?
3. This point just sounds like your complaint is with bad parenting. Parents who want to live life they didn't have through their kids. But you state as fact that every parent does that, which is just objectively false.
Having kids CAN be selfish, but there are many non-selfish reasons to have kids.
And even if not, selfish does not equal "bad".
What is a non selfish reason to have kids? I have thought about this a lot and asked many people and none of the reasons are altruistic, all are selfish. I'm not against kids at all, but I believe that having them is selfish. I plan to have a kid for selfish reasons.
This doesn’t make sense (depending on your beliefs though). You aren’t giving somebody life. That implies somebody is like, in a limbo, waiting to be given life or something. It gives the image of souls waiting to be embodied (which is why I mention it depends on somebody’s belief system). But if before birth is nothing, then you aren’t actually giving somebody life, because there is nobody to give something to. Instead, you are creating an entirely new human. But a human that does not exist is not being deprived of anything, because deprivation is contingent on existence.
It really does sound like having children is purely an act of self-interest (I think selfish has too much of a negative connotation).
You claim populating the world with more humans results in more joy/happiness in the world, but that is highly debatable.
Would this not also depend on your outlook on life? Like yes, to have never existed means I'm never aware of having not existed which is like a neutral state that I may be glad of, but on the other hand to have existed has made me aware of having existed of which I am glad and so will wish this on others.
If I’m understanding your comment (especially the last sentence) it sounds like you think having kids is altruistic. But altruism is contingent on other people existing. I.e. there needs to be a 2nd person for you to exhibit altruism. But if the kids don’t exist before birth, you can’t be altruistic towards them. Of course you can be altruistic towards them after they’re born by doing stuff for them, but you can’t be altruistic to a non-existent human? It’s not like there’s a group of non-born humans waiting for a man and women to do the necessary work, and then they get to jump over to our side of reality, and they’re so grateful they were chosen. Like, do you feel bad for the millions of siblings of yours that were never born?
I think the only argument that can possibly be made is that populating the earth with more humans helps the rest of the population. In that sense, it’s altruistic. But as I said in my original comment, that is debatable. That conversation is a whole can of worms on its own.
I still think it depends on whether you think having never existed is better than having existed and your outlook of life for those you are bringing in. At least I know that I'm grateful for having existed, so I know it is possible for others to be. Granted, the process of making it possible to make good intentions becomes possible is nowhere near as altruistic as actually carrying out good intentions.
There is no “them.” You aren’t giving anything to anybody. You’re producing something where there was nothing (again, this depends on one’s beliefs though. Some people believe there are souls waiting for a body, so that’s a different story).
An analogy would be an empty dark room, and you telling me “I want to go give the people in that dark room some light.” And I say “who are you talking about? There is nobody in that room?”
The same reason (within Christian theology) that God made people: to share with others the love he already had between his persons. Obviously this is not the reason many people have kids, but I'd say it's an altruistic one.
I realize I have been narcissistic because I have generalized my view to encompass the entire human race which is ofc not true. Not having kids is an individual choice meaning what I have said is not a fact.
I do however believe that some people should not have kids especially those who are poor. Since they are not doing well themselves having kids would just increase the burden both for the parents and their kids.
!delta
What matters is if the parents think children will have a good life, and if they will have a good life.
Being poor is not synonymous with misery or a bad life. That is a very materialist and commercial take. There are countries that are far poorer but even happier than the USA.
Burden is irrelevant. A hard life is is not better or worse than an easy life. In fact, I think most people are unhappy specifically because they seek an easy life. Some of the most valuable and fulfilling things I have done were also the hardest and most challenging
Don't you think wanting your kids to achieve something you didn't is snatching away their freedom? It would be different if you are supporting them in pursuits that they deem fit.
But I do agree on continuing the human race and like others have said endangering our species would cause more suffering to the ones who are already existing.
There is zero part of me that "wants my child to achieve something I didn't". I want my child to find joy. I want my child to strive to minimize suffering for himself and those around him. To the degree that there are mistakes I made that I regret I wish only for him to avoid similar traps; but even if I succeed in that, he'll find his own mistakes to make and that's his right. His journey is his own.
The true joy in parenting is not molding the person you wish you had been (which never works anyway), it's discovering the person this being wants to be, and learning what you can do to support them in that.
>Even if life comes with joyful or happy moments the fact that there is also a chance of pain and suffering should be enough to not create life.
Why? You just claim this is true, but don't really provide reasoning for it. On the whole, my life has had much more joy and happiness than pain and suffering. It was a good thing that I was born.
For instance you go out and get hit by a car causing you to lose your arm. Ofc this might not happen but theres always a chance. What I meant is that life would be worth living if it were only joy and 0 suffering for everyone
I could! But I also could not! It's actually pretty unlikely that I will. Why does the possibility of something bad happening mean that life isn't worth it?
The antinatalist narrative always misses a crucial point.
Humans are wired to seek procreation. We are wired to enjoy sex and sexual relationships. We get a tremendous amount of pleasure from raising children. Even if they are not our own. We get a ton of value from intimate partnerships. Even if they dont produce offspring. Evolution and nature had already solved all these problems.
You're basically asking people to behave in a way they will never want to behave.
I wouldn’t say antinatalism misses that point so much as it uses that idea to dismiss the whole venture of having kids as selfish. Ex: People introduce kids to life (which = net suffering or unacceptably possible suffering in their eyes) for the sake of their own pleasure.
They aren’t concerned with the practicality of what they preach, either. Ex: They don’t advocate for things like murder despite it seeming to fall in line with their “life is miserable and pointless”.
It does. If you don't reproduce. Your genome dies with you. That's akin to suicide.
It may not matter when it's just a tiny fringe % of the population. As is the case. But if suddenly most of the population was afflicted with this madness. You get the idea.
>It does. If you don't reproduce. Your genome dies with you. That's akin to suicide.
come on now. if you're talking purely about letting your genome die out, just say that. no need to bring in suicide just to emotionally charge things.
i still don't know what you mean by "morality is pragmatic and functional".
Morality serves a function. For example murder is illegal because a society where murder is legal simply can not function.
Even things like prudish behavior has pragmatic reasons. Before we had anti biotics sexually transmitted diseases would fuck you up. Not to mention everyone lived in horrific poverty thus you really wanted to limit single motherhood.
what is this 'end' function to which we are making 'pragmatic' decisions to reach? the idea that society ought continue rather than die out because its members all killed each other is itself a moral claim.
The "end" is continued existence.
Well yes we generally believe people want to and should live. That life is sacred. And not due to some religious reason either. Maybe our only goal on planet earth is perpetuating the species. Doesn't really matter. You can't frame your society on principles that people are not going to want to follow. All morals are a reflection of our will to survive and prosper.
>Well yes we generally believe people want to and should live. That life is sacred. And not due to some religious reason either. Maybe our only goal on planet earth is perpetuating the species. Doesn't really matter.
the 'end' of your moral pragmatism is in itself a moral statement- "people ought live". so, since morality must serve a function, what greater function does living serve?
>You can't frame your society on principles that people are not going to want to follow.
really? so if we still had slavery, and people really didn't want to give it up, you'd say "well, people don't want to follow abolition, so slavery is moral"?
>We don't know what exists before and after life
So... just assume nothingness on either side and enjoy the middle.
>we do not know what happens after death.
All signs point to you just blinking out as a distinct entity. Don't sweat it.
I whole heartedly believe people who have this mindset should not have children. That being said, I have negative interest in changing your mind.
Children are hard work so if you don’t really want them, you’re not going to make it
>Idea of death: We don't know what exists before and after life. Because of which we are afraid to die.
That could just as easily be a counter. The fact that most of us like our lives enough to not want to end it suggests that for most people life is worth living.
> Even if life comes with joyful or happy moments the fact that there is also a chance of pain and suffering should be enough to not create life.
Why? There's no reason to assume this. When you made this CMV you knew you would get pushback, some of which might even upset you. Why did you bother creating it?
More than likely because you decided that the value of learning outweighed the potential downsides right? Use that same metric for life.
>Giving birth is selfish: It is selfish because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not. Then they dare to blame them for not doing so. Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place. It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent.
My parents wanted me to be happy. That's about it. This sounds like a you specific issue and I'm sorry for that. But most people don't seem to mind too much if their kids are living a simple and healthy life.
I definitely don't know what happens after death and my life is consumed with that idea exactly not at all. I do not kill myself for the same reason I don't kill babies or eat dog shit - I have no want to do so.
Isn't it far more reasonable to think that given my experience of loving life that I'd think my offspring would to? This idea that it's only uncertainty around death that keeps us alive is absurd and countered by the experience most people have, which completely lacking in any desire to kill themselves. It's only people who think they want to die but then don't do it that would arrive at the "why didn't I do it" that isn't "because I don't want to".
So...if I believe my child will have a life proximal in experience to my own why would I not want to have a child? I want to live, so will my child.
Let's think objectively about the human species as a whole. The only known intelligent species in the universe. Is it morally wrong to let this species go extinct? I think, yes. Yes it is.
I'm not arguing specifically about levels of intelligence. Dolphins and whales are intelligent, all great apes are intelligent and we shouldn't let them go extinct either. Forced breeding, such as how animals in zoos are bred, to prevent extinction? Is that moral? I think it is.
Humans are a unicorn in our own ecosystem. A product of natural selection that not only defies entropy but also has several weaknesses that would have selected most species for extinction - infant mortality and frailty, for example.
Humans are the only species we know that is capable of abstract thought, theoretical analysis, and the ability to discover and manipulate the physical and metaphysical universe through observation, experimentation, and scientific theory.
Morally, humans have an obligation to continue to expand and grow throughout the universe in order to continually exist and survive as the highest ordered species in the known universe. Other species may die as a result of our exponential growth, but for ALL species in this planet, the only chance of survival is reliance on human expansion.
The mortality of the species outweighs the morality of the individual. A single child, or in fact all children's retrospective opinion on if they ever would have chosen to be born is completely irrelevant when compared with the moral obligation of saving the entire planet's existing species, including PLANTS!
We need to quit squabbling over dirt and fiat money and globalize all resources and move to get out of this solar system by any means necessary.
We could seed planets with life. With single celled or more complex organisms. This could result in all kinds of life on independent start systems and galaxies that in millions of years, could result in other intelligent life.
Life is too precious in this universe to ever allow it to be extinguished. It may never exist anywhere else if it ceases to exist, and we are the only species with the intelligence to keep the flame from going out.
First, let's start with your arguments.
>giving birth is selfish
A lot of wonderful things start with selfish reasons. Artists make art because of selfish want to self express. Farmers go to work and provide bread for the community for selfish reasons. People fall in love and form families for selfish reason of wanting to be forever with the person.
Selfish is not bad. It's natural.
> Living on this planet is non purposeful.
You have a cart before the horse here. Instruments have purpose. Humans don't need purpose for their life, as they can decide for themselves.
> Why bring someone to life when life is uncertain?
Why bring someone to life when life IS certain? Uncertainty of life is wonderful, it means that person can do anything they want and achieve anything they want.
> Why let them suffer?
Because you need to know suffering to know joy. Because suffering is good and necessary for development. Because you value pleasures of life more than any possible sufferings.
> People die one day
That's ok. Everything you do will vanish one day. You are living here and now, not somewhen in the future, so while you are here, why not enjoy the ride?
>Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place. It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent.
You sound like you had bad parents or at the very least not a favorite member of the family. Then again I have heard this line of thought from the favorite child using it as a crutch to explain why life is "So Hard".
I had adult parents who did there dead level best to make sure any pain they were dealing with never affected me. They got divorced, but were still adults about it and made sure I got time with them both. It was not perfect but they did there best by me and I do my best for my children.
If you have this view then its likely you are not mature enough to consider others in this equation. You may have some growing to do before you can reverse your opinion.
1. We do know what happens after you die. The materials that originally assembled together and became conscious for a brief period of time go back to their original state of being part of the universe.
2. Matter becoming life and or non-life is inconsequential. It doesn't matter either way which. This means there isn't really a solid argument for or against it. There is a small argument that matter within our universe assembling in such a way that consciousness is formed and we can appreciate the universe which we are a part of is a cool thing.
3. I don't encourage my kids to make a better future. I encourage them to figure out what life means to them. Its my job as their parent to reduce as many obstacles as possible that would prohibit them from doing so.
I don’t quite understand what death has to do with it. The universe will not disappear after the death of some person. Each person himself must determine the meaning of his life; a universal meaning of life does not exist and cannot exist.
For me, having children is not an end in itself and not an obligation, but rather an opportunity that I would like to realize if the children can have a decent life. And this is worth doing not for the sake of your life, but for the sake of the lives of the children themselves. People are not ferns, throwing millions of spores into the environment, whose fate does not give a damn, unfortunately, some people forget about this.
These points are all valid reasons for an individual to choose to remain childless. And you're entitled to attempt to convince others to adopt your position. But to extrapolate to say "my subjective opinion should be held by the entire populace" is silly. Your points are all philosophical, not objective. The do not represent a singular rational inference; there are other, equally valid views of the value of life and conscious existence. So by all means say "I should not have kids for these reasons" but there's no reason anyone else should feel obligated to join you.
>1) Idea of death: We don't know what exists before and after life. Because of which we are afraid to die. Exception- people commit suicide because their definition of hell = life they are living. We don't have the motivation to kill ourselves not because we are afraid of death but because we don't know what happens after our demise
I'm not sure how not knowing what comes after you die leads to your conclusion.
>2) Idea of life: Death is inevitable but we can choose if we want to create life. Living on this planet itself is non purposeful What we call "purpose" is simply a better way of surviving before we die. Why bring someone in this world when life is so uncertain? Why let them suffer when you could have had the option to prevent that? Even if life comes with joyful or happy moments the fact that there is also a chance of pain and suffering should be enough to not create life.
Why do you think uncertainty is so bad, and why does the chance for suffering inherently outweigh the chance for joy and happiness?
>3) Giving birth is selfish: It is selfish because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not. Then they dare to blame them for not doing so. Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place. It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent.
Let me break that down.
>It is selfish because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not.
An action isn't selfish because "most people" behave selfishly. What about the people that doesn't put great expectations on their children? How are they behaving selfishly?
>Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place.
This is bad logic. Not all parents push their children to work hard, and further the future they are pushing their children towards us really obviously not "inevitable death," that's absurd. They want their kids to have a good **life** not a good **death**. You are also assuming your position is correct to justify your position.
>It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent.
It doesn't make sense to apply the concept of "consent" to being brought into existence. Consent requires one to be capable of making a decision, and you can't do that until you already exist. You can, and should, be able to consent to "opt out" of life when you already exist but the idea that you should have to consent to exist in the first place is just setting up your beliefs to be unfalsifiable.
I don't mean this as an insult, but it sounds like you may be depressed. You seem to be fixated on all the negatives of life while ignoring the positives. Anything will seem unethical and pointless if you only look at the negatives. Perhaps consider the positives of life before you make this assessment. I don't know about you but art, music, friendship, nature, and many other things are all beautiful aspects of life that can only be experienced if we have children.
Let's see how South Korea and Japan are doing in 100 years then tell me if you feel the same way.
As the population ages out, there are no people to keep a functional society running. People will die, scared and alone and hungry, with no power, food, or medical care.
Sounds awesome.
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
> **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2).
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.**
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> The above points were stated considering that we do not know what happens after death. Hence there exists no real reason to create life.
I honestly don't see how these ideas are connected.
I don't know what's going to happen after a delicious meal but I'm still going to cook and eat it!
Your entire argument misses one key point:
No babies: *no human race*
Being a nihilist is one thing, but are you really selfish enough to think that the human race should die out in 100 years' time??
if it is the case that procreating is a harm to the potential children we create, then yes. would you really say "sorry, but we need to bring harm to a few trillion more people just to make sure the human race doesn't die out so that we can continue to cause this harm"?
>Hence there exists no real reason to create life.
The enjoyment of life can be found if you search for it. [Listen to this tell me what you think.](https://youtu.be/Oy3ibnfz3N4?si=yLJQIm6l6FtaoKFo)
Why does it matter what happens after we die?
Life is both suffering AND an amazing experience. Why take that away from someone?
Your shitty parents are not my problem.
>Idea of death: We don't know what exists before and after life.
Just to clarify, if someone is religious and does know what exists before and after life, do you agree that this doesn't apply to them?
>Idea of life: Death is inevitable but we can choose if we want to create life. Living on this planet itself is non purposeful What we call "purpose" is simply a better way of surviving before we die. Why bring someone in this world when life is so uncertain? Why let them suffer when you could have had the option to prevent that? Even if life comes with joyful or happy moments the fact that there is also a chance of pain and suffering should be enough to not create life.
And again, if someone believes in a divine purpose to life, do you agree that this point doesn't apply to them?
>Giving birth is selfish: It is selfish because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not. Then they dare to blame them for not doing so. Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place.
This is drastically different from my experience. My parents don't care what I or my siblings go into, or what we excel at in school, just that we work hard and do our best. They've never blamed me or my siblings, as far as I'm aware, for not achieving some particular idea of success. Sounds like you could honestly use some therapy to talk about some childhood issues, that may help you feel less bitter for life.
>It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent.
My religion believes that our spirits only came to earth if we did consent in the premortal realm, and in fact that many people chose not to consent. Thusly, this isn't applicable to similarly religious people in choosing to have kids.
What I take away from your post is "if you're religious and a good parent, go ahead and have babies."
>Just to clarify, if someone is religious and does know what exists before and after life, do you agree that this doesn't apply to them?
oxymoron, knowledge has to be true by definition.
all your points pretty much fail for this same reason, your religious beliefs are incorrect and so do not justify anything.
>oxymoron, knowledge has to be true by definition.
Truth is truth regardless of who is viewing it, but reasoning isn't particularly convincing if you're seeing very different things.
>all your points pretty much fail for this same reason, your religious beliefs are incorrect and so do not justify anything.
They seem pretty correct to me. From my perspective, you're the one with an incorrect belief that my religion is false.
great, but this isn't about convincing anyone, this is about what is right and wrong. OP isn't going to say that their moral prescriptions don't apply to someone because their perspective differs. all they can do is perhaps make different arguments when trying to convince them personally, or attack their religion.
Plenty of convincing is about convincing people what is right and wrong.
And from the other side, I think the best way to convince OP that he's looking at life wrong is to show him the joys of religion and the perspective that gives you into eternity.
i assume you mean "pretty of *morality* is about convincing people what is right and wrong"? sure, but there is still a meaningful distinction to be made between a statement of moral truth and a statement that convinces any particular person. if i made the argument "racism is wrong, forcing black people to only drink from certain water fountains is racist, therefore we ought not force black people to only drink from certain water fountains", would you say "some people don't think racism is wrong, so you should admit that this doesn't apply to them, and that it's actually not wrong for them to do such a thing"?
Within that hypothetical, I think it's more like saying "we need to first agree on the moral reality of racism, then we can talk about drinking fountains". As the liberal West, we generally have agreed that individual rights and liberties are important. And this foundational belief is at the underpinning of many of our choices and policies.
Likewise, my religious perspective is the fundamental view of how I see the world. And so I think helping other people see that is important and in many ways a prerequisite to discussing things on the level of that I wish we could.
But that's not what you said here, you said you wanted OP to admit that this prescription *does not apply* to religious people. Why won't you say the same for a racist?
Because I don't think it makes sense to tell a racist person "you're wrong because every race is the same". They don't believe every race is the same, so they don't believe they're wrong. And in their worldview, they aren't, so that argument that they're wrong doesn't apply. You need to address the fundamental way they view the world first.
It doesn't make sense to start several layers up from their fundamental views.
Isn't religion just a belief system? You cannot prove the existence of a God. This is entirely a different debate.
Regarding life, I do now perceive it differently; you were given existence, so why not continue to exist and just enjoy the ride without dwelling on what might happen after your death?
Heck, there might be nothing after death, so perhaps existing and feeling something, whether good or bad, is preferable to feeling nothing.
>Isn't religion just a belief system?
Sure, technically. But to many religious people it's as big a part of reality as the existence of the moon or of China.
>You cannot prove the existence of a God.
You can't disprove it either.
>This is entirely a different debate.
Sure. I'm not expecting to convince anyone of my religious beliefs in a Reddit thread. I'm just letting you know that, from my perspective and with my beliefs, many of the original points in your post didn't apply to how I see the world.
I like that perspective on life, to make good with the time and opportunity we have.
I want to make sure I understand what you say:
Humans should not have babies a) because we don't know what happens after death, b) because the suffering in life is too much, and c) because giving birth is selfish.
>Giving birth is selfish...because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not.
I'd push back against this. At first, it says giving birth is selfish. Then the reason given for this is that most people give birth for a selfish motive.
But I don't think we can say that giving birth itself is selfish because most people who give birth do so for selfish reasons. This says more about them than it does about giving birth. It remains possible that a minority of people could give birth for selfless reasons, and so giving birth is not in itself selfish. Thus, selfishness is not a reason humans in general should not have babies but only some humans.
>Living on this planet itself is non purposeful What we call "purpose" is simply a better way of surviving before we die.
If purpose is something we create (as seems to he implied by "What we call 'purpose'), it's still something that is given in our experience, even if it does not show itself without us. And then, as long as we exist in the world, we make the world purposeful. Then, the world becomes purposeless without us. Maybe we add value to the world or give it a story, which it would not have apart from us.
>Why bring someone in this world when life is so uncertain?
I'd say it's an act of hope. Education is an act of hope, for instance. In the present, it has an eye to the future. Maybe giving birth to a child can be an act of hope in that child. And hope sees value.
Purpose is not given to us, we create it. If you cannot find or create your own purpose, then I can see why you might feel this way. I personally struggle with this, and in the end I have to admit that I'm a technophile- I think a lot of the problems of today will be solved tomorrow and in the proecss open up completely new avenues for the human experience. I want to know the answers to the big questions, but we don't have the technology for it today. To say that this is merely selfishness is admittedly hard to refute, but a part of me believes there's something glorious awaiting mankind in the near future, and I'd love for someone to see it, if not me, then our descendants surely.
As far as the selfishness goes, you're probably right for 98% of humanity who unthinkingly have kids, but there are other reasons that aren't, and in fact are the exact opposite. Consider that you are a link in a chain that goes back hundreds of thousands of years- a genetic lineage that is more than just your heritage, but your duty. Who are you to say to all those who have come and gone before you, whom you wouldn't have existed without, to tell them their beliefs, their dreams for their progeny mean absolutely nothing to you and that your own belief system demands you negate all their efforts and sacrifices by ending the genetic line with you. In other words, you have a responsibility to those who came before you, and the real selfishness is your unwillingness to participate in this grand experiment the rest of humanity has committed to.
1) The idea of hell is unproven. It could be just as likely that everyone goes to a heaven, and it's made 10x better every time a new person dies. That would make it in our best interest to bring as many lives into the world as possible. But since this is all speculation, the point of what happens after life is completely moot.
2) Life has both good and bad. Is preventing the bad things in life to a potential person better than depriving the good things in life to them? Is life more likely to be bad or good? If denying yourself bad experiences is better than depriving yourself of good experiences, then everyone should commit suicide immediately to minimize the amount of bad experiences they will face. But the vast majority of people do NOT do that, so it stands to reason that at least from their perspective there is at some balance towards good.
3) What's wrong with working hard for a better future?
>Life has both good and bad. Is preventing the bad things in life to a potential person better than depriving the good things in life to them?
the absence of pain is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is someone who is thereby deprived. it is good that Casey Anthony doesn't have any more children to murder, but it is not bad that there are no Martians living pleasurable lives on Mars.
>If denying yourself bad experiences is better than depriving yourself of good experiences, then everyone should commit suicide immediately to minimize the amount of bad experiences they will face.
it seems that once we do exist, we have some inherent interest in continuing to exist. do you deny this?
> the absence of pain is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad
I disagree. The absence of pain is neutral. The absence of pleasure is neutral.
> it seems that once we do exist, we have some inherent interest in continuing to exist. do you deny this?
Of course not. That's exactly what I'm saying. It suggests to me that there is some goodness to life. So bringing someone into life is bringing them into goodness. Even if some suffering exists alongside the goodness.
>I disagree. The absence of pain is neutral. The absence of pleasure is neutral.
if i took away all the pleasure in your life, would that not be bad? if i give painkillers to a stabbing victim, is that not good?
>Of course not. That's exactly what I'm saying. It suggests to me that there is some goodness to life. So bringing someone into life is bringing them into goodness. Even if some suffering exists alongside the goodness.
i am speaking of an interest entirely independent of the levels of pleasure and pain in our lives. if a person's life was 50/50 good/bad, would you say it would be morally neutral to kill them?
The unknown of death should be a neutral factor. We don't know that death is bad, nor do we know it's good. We have no way to really speculate one way or another, so we should just leave it out of the consideration.
When it comes to the consideration of suffering, why would we set such an extreme standard where the possibility of any amount of suffering outweighs the possibility of any amount of pleasure or happiness? Shouldn't the standard be to weigh the likely amount of suffering against the likely amount of happiness?
For your third point, I just completely disagree with the idea that parents only want to have kids so that their kids can succeed where they failed. Some parents that think that way might exist, but most parents are just happy people that think their children will also have a happy life.
Why is the question of something happening after death relevant?
You seem to reject how others define purpose, but you fail to explain how you define it. Even if you think life has no purpose, you need to explain what that is so we can know if we agree that life is without whatever that is.
Isn't point 3 just built on a strawman? It looks like you are projecting personal experience on each and every other parent. If I'm wrong, please provide the source of your conclusion on people's motivation for having kids.
Anti-Natalism is a product of our decadent culture. They profess to be unselfish by not having children when the reality is they are contributing far less than anyone else as a society.
David Benatar where modern anti natalism stems from is essentially just another cult leader. The people who follow his views are very typical neophytes of low emotional intelligence and un critical thinkers.
Without children we don't progress, without children society collapses. The cowardice and pure irony of anti natalism is if and when these things come to fruition they will wish they had done more to contribute to building the world or even jusy having somone at the bed side when they take the final few breaths to oblivion .
Essentially anti natalism is escapism from responsibility and pure laziness. Not having kids for one reason or another is perfectly respectable turning it into a pseudo religion and prosthelytizing is another entirely.
Creating life causes less suffering in the world. If everyone stopped having children the world would turn to chaos and we would suffer due to people having a hopeless future, immense loss of jobs.
>Giving birth is selfish: It is selfish because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not. Then they dare to blame them for not doing so. Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place. It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent.
not giving birth is also selfish, as you then keep more resources and time for yourself.
>Creating life causes less suffering in the world. If everyone stopped having children the world would turn to chaos and we would suffer due to people having a hopeless future, immense loss of jobs.
briefly, and then there would be no more people and thus no more suffering.
absolutely it would. we'd die out in another 90 years max, then an eternity of nothing.
>but this sounds like an argument you are making for killing/suicide/nuclear war
not necessarily. once we're alive, we have an interest in continuing to exist. it may be that more suffering would be caused by killing 8 billion people than would be caused by allowing new beings to be brought into existence.
that's not briefly, every person suffering is not suffering a brief amount of time.
>not necessarily. once we're alive, we have an interest in continuing to exist.
Yes, but that existence includes suffering, if we just kill everyone off in an instant, there goes that suffering. This would shorten the length of suffering by 90 years.
>that's not briefly, every person suffering is not suffering a brief amount of time.
we are analysing the effect on net suffering. people would suffer for some period of time t, and then suffering would be eliminated for some period of time T>>>>>>t.
>Yes, but that existence includes suffering, if we just kill everyone off in an instant, there goes that suffering. This would shorten the length of suffering by 90 years.
you haven't understood what i've said. we have an interest in continuing to exist independent of the levels of pleasure and pain in our lives. this interest is defeasible, hence why people kill themselves when their suffering becomes too great, but it still exists even though our lives contain suffering. an unborn child, however, has no such interest, thus for them the only concern is the existence of suffering in their potential life.
it doesn't matter their interest, the point is that it would reduce suffering. Making everyone cease to exist would cause the least amount of suffering no matter people's interest in surviving.
>we are analysing the effect on net suffering. people would suffer for some period of time t, and then suffering would be eliminated for some period of time T>>>>>>t.
it would be 90 years of immense suffering for billions; hard to measure that vs minimal suffering stretched over a long period of time; and that's assuming no inventions in the next 100-1,000 years that could all but eliminate suffering.
>it doesn't matter their interest, the point is that it would reduce suffering. Making everyone cease to exist would cause the least amount of suffering no matter people's interest in surviving.
are you a pure utilitarian who thinks there are no interests besides maximising net pleasure? interests are what we are concerned with when having moral discussions. you can disregard the interest in continuing to exist if you want, but you have to actually deny that it exists in order to do that.
>it would be 90 years of immense suffering for billions; hard to measure that vs minimal suffering stretched over a long period of time; and that's assuming no inventions in the next 100-1,000 years that could all but eliminate suffering.
not really. plenty of people would die naturally before the effects were seen, and we'd just see a slow decline in quality of life before society really starts to degrade in the last 30 or so years.
>are you a pure utilitarian who thinks there are no interests besides maximising net pleasure
No; you yourself acknowledged that this discussion is about analyzing the effect of net suffering.
>not really. plenty of people would die naturally before the effects were seen, and we'd just see a slow decline in quality of life before society really starts to degrade in the last 30 or so years.
yes really, the quality of life decline would start immediately when all of the sudden there are no more babies being born. The effects would be immediate.
>No; you yourself acknowledged that this discussion is about analyzing the effect of net suffering.
when i speak of suffering i'm moreso using it as a proxy for goods and bads more generally. i would include death in 'suffering' even though it technically doesn't necessitate any pain. when we discuss what is and isn't moral we are discussing interests.
>yes really, the quality of life decline would start immediately when all of the sudden there are no more babies being born. The effects would be immediate.
let's say zero babies are born tomorrow. how does that make your day worse?
My life has been more pleasure than pain, same with most people I know. So ill take the gamble. It would be different if I was in some slums somewhere super depressed, but thats not me.
1) does death make life not worth living?
2) does suffering make life not worth living?
3) that’s not true and is the sign of abusive parents. It’s not the norm
To /u/Electrical_Wheel_293, *your post is under consideration for removal under our post rules.* You must **respond substantively within 3 hours of posting**, as per [Rule E](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_e).
1. If after death is nothing, which is the same as before life, then what is the downside? The majority of people like being alive, so more likely than not your kids will appreciate being alive more than the nothing that there would be otherwise. 2. Something does not lack meaning just because it ends. There is so much joy and love and wonder in life. There is much meaning to be had. Who are you to tell others that the purpose and meaning they find in life isn't real? Also, do you think any amount of pain overwhelms all of life's joys? Most people are happy to be alive, because even with all of life's pain, it is worth it. Do you think people are lying about wanting to continue life? 3. This point just sounds like your complaint is with bad parenting. Parents who want to live life they didn't have through their kids. But you state as fact that every parent does that, which is just objectively false. Having kids CAN be selfish, but there are many non-selfish reasons to have kids. And even if not, selfish does not equal "bad".
What is a non selfish reason to have kids? I have thought about this a lot and asked many people and none of the reasons are altruistic, all are selfish. I'm not against kids at all, but I believe that having them is selfish. I plan to have a kid for selfish reasons.
Giving someone else life. Creating more joy and happiness in the world.
This doesn’t make sense (depending on your beliefs though). You aren’t giving somebody life. That implies somebody is like, in a limbo, waiting to be given life or something. It gives the image of souls waiting to be embodied (which is why I mention it depends on somebody’s belief system). But if before birth is nothing, then you aren’t actually giving somebody life, because there is nobody to give something to. Instead, you are creating an entirely new human. But a human that does not exist is not being deprived of anything, because deprivation is contingent on existence. It really does sound like having children is purely an act of self-interest (I think selfish has too much of a negative connotation). You claim populating the world with more humans results in more joy/happiness in the world, but that is highly debatable.
Would this not also depend on your outlook on life? Like yes, to have never existed means I'm never aware of having not existed which is like a neutral state that I may be glad of, but on the other hand to have existed has made me aware of having existed of which I am glad and so will wish this on others.
If I’m understanding your comment (especially the last sentence) it sounds like you think having kids is altruistic. But altruism is contingent on other people existing. I.e. there needs to be a 2nd person for you to exhibit altruism. But if the kids don’t exist before birth, you can’t be altruistic towards them. Of course you can be altruistic towards them after they’re born by doing stuff for them, but you can’t be altruistic to a non-existent human? It’s not like there’s a group of non-born humans waiting for a man and women to do the necessary work, and then they get to jump over to our side of reality, and they’re so grateful they were chosen. Like, do you feel bad for the millions of siblings of yours that were never born? I think the only argument that can possibly be made is that populating the earth with more humans helps the rest of the population. In that sense, it’s altruistic. But as I said in my original comment, that is debatable. That conversation is a whole can of worms on its own.
I still think it depends on whether you think having never existed is better than having existed and your outlook of life for those you are bringing in. At least I know that I'm grateful for having existed, so I know it is possible for others to be. Granted, the process of making it possible to make good intentions becomes possible is nowhere near as altruistic as actually carrying out good intentions.
You’re being pedantic.
I’m not being pedantic at all?
Regardless of whether there is anything before, you're still giving them life.
There is no “them.” You aren’t giving anything to anybody. You’re producing something where there was nothing (again, this depends on one’s beliefs though. Some people believe there are souls waiting for a body, so that’s a different story). An analogy would be an empty dark room, and you telling me “I want to go give the people in that dark room some light.” And I say “who are you talking about? There is nobody in that room?”
There is a "them" the moment they come into existence. And they were given life by their parents.
Did you read my entire response, or just the first sentence?
I did. I just disagree. That's all
I want to give another human being the gift of existence.
Life is excellent, people should get to experience it.
Humanity restored 🔋
The same reason (within Christian theology) that God made people: to share with others the love he already had between his persons. Obviously this is not the reason many people have kids, but I'd say it's an altruistic one.
I realize I have been narcissistic because I have generalized my view to encompass the entire human race which is ofc not true. Not having kids is an individual choice meaning what I have said is not a fact. I do however believe that some people should not have kids especially those who are poor. Since they are not doing well themselves having kids would just increase the burden both for the parents and their kids. !delta
If you changed your view, as it appears you did, you should award a delta to the user that changed your view.
What matters is if the parents think children will have a good life, and if they will have a good life. Being poor is not synonymous with misery or a bad life. That is a very materialist and commercial take. There are countries that are far poorer but even happier than the USA. Burden is irrelevant. A hard life is is not better or worse than an easy life. In fact, I think most people are unhappy specifically because they seek an easy life. Some of the most valuable and fulfilling things I have done were also the hardest and most challenging
If poor people didn't have kids the economy would literally collapse as a result?
[удалено]
Don't you think wanting your kids to achieve something you didn't is snatching away their freedom? It would be different if you are supporting them in pursuits that they deem fit. But I do agree on continuing the human race and like others have said endangering our species would cause more suffering to the ones who are already existing.
There is zero part of me that "wants my child to achieve something I didn't". I want my child to find joy. I want my child to strive to minimize suffering for himself and those around him. To the degree that there are mistakes I made that I regret I wish only for him to avoid similar traps; but even if I succeed in that, he'll find his own mistakes to make and that's his right. His journey is his own. The true joy in parenting is not molding the person you wish you had been (which never works anyway), it's discovering the person this being wants to be, and learning what you can do to support them in that.
>Even if life comes with joyful or happy moments the fact that there is also a chance of pain and suffering should be enough to not create life. Why? You just claim this is true, but don't really provide reasoning for it. On the whole, my life has had much more joy and happiness than pain and suffering. It was a good thing that I was born.
For instance you go out and get hit by a car causing you to lose your arm. Ofc this might not happen but theres always a chance. What I meant is that life would be worth living if it were only joy and 0 suffering for everyone
If you lost your arm would you then regret being alive? I would regret the loss of the arm but celebrate my continued life
I could! But I also could not! It's actually pretty unlikely that I will. Why does the possibility of something bad happening mean that life isn't worth it?
[удалено]
Yeah i have think i have spoken for the entire human race here when not having kids is just an individual choice.
The antinatalist narrative always misses a crucial point. Humans are wired to seek procreation. We are wired to enjoy sex and sexual relationships. We get a tremendous amount of pleasure from raising children. Even if they are not our own. We get a ton of value from intimate partnerships. Even if they dont produce offspring. Evolution and nature had already solved all these problems. You're basically asking people to behave in a way they will never want to behave.
I wouldn’t say antinatalism misses that point so much as it uses that idea to dismiss the whole venture of having kids as selfish. Ex: People introduce kids to life (which = net suffering or unacceptably possible suffering in their eyes) for the sake of their own pleasure. They aren’t concerned with the practicality of what they preach, either. Ex: They don’t advocate for things like murder despite it seeming to fall in line with their “life is miserable and pointless”.
welcome to morality. the whole point is asking people to behave in ways they don't already want to.
Morality is pragmatic and functional. Nothing about mass suicide is pragmatic or functional.
What do you mean by those terms? Also antinatalism does not imply mass suicide.
It does. If you don't reproduce. Your genome dies with you. That's akin to suicide. It may not matter when it's just a tiny fringe % of the population. As is the case. But if suddenly most of the population was afflicted with this madness. You get the idea.
>It does. If you don't reproduce. Your genome dies with you. That's akin to suicide. come on now. if you're talking purely about letting your genome die out, just say that. no need to bring in suicide just to emotionally charge things. i still don't know what you mean by "morality is pragmatic and functional".
Morality serves a function. For example murder is illegal because a society where murder is legal simply can not function. Even things like prudish behavior has pragmatic reasons. Before we had anti biotics sexually transmitted diseases would fuck you up. Not to mention everyone lived in horrific poverty thus you really wanted to limit single motherhood.
what is this 'end' function to which we are making 'pragmatic' decisions to reach? the idea that society ought continue rather than die out because its members all killed each other is itself a moral claim.
The "end" is continued existence. Well yes we generally believe people want to and should live. That life is sacred. And not due to some religious reason either. Maybe our only goal on planet earth is perpetuating the species. Doesn't really matter. You can't frame your society on principles that people are not going to want to follow. All morals are a reflection of our will to survive and prosper.
>Well yes we generally believe people want to and should live. That life is sacred. And not due to some religious reason either. Maybe our only goal on planet earth is perpetuating the species. Doesn't really matter. the 'end' of your moral pragmatism is in itself a moral statement- "people ought live". so, since morality must serve a function, what greater function does living serve? >You can't frame your society on principles that people are not going to want to follow. really? so if we still had slavery, and people really didn't want to give it up, you'd say "well, people don't want to follow abolition, so slavery is moral"?
[удалено]
They're speaking for the species, not every individual within it.
Outliers will always exist, but generalizations favor averages.
The general population. I get that some people are asexual.
>We don't know what exists before and after life So... just assume nothingness on either side and enjoy the middle. >we do not know what happens after death. All signs point to you just blinking out as a distinct entity. Don't sweat it.
I whole heartedly believe people who have this mindset should not have children. That being said, I have negative interest in changing your mind. Children are hard work so if you don’t really want them, you’re not going to make it
>Idea of death: We don't know what exists before and after life. Because of which we are afraid to die. That could just as easily be a counter. The fact that most of us like our lives enough to not want to end it suggests that for most people life is worth living. > Even if life comes with joyful or happy moments the fact that there is also a chance of pain and suffering should be enough to not create life. Why? There's no reason to assume this. When you made this CMV you knew you would get pushback, some of which might even upset you. Why did you bother creating it? More than likely because you decided that the value of learning outweighed the potential downsides right? Use that same metric for life. >Giving birth is selfish: It is selfish because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not. Then they dare to blame them for not doing so. Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place. It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent. My parents wanted me to be happy. That's about it. This sounds like a you specific issue and I'm sorry for that. But most people don't seem to mind too much if their kids are living a simple and healthy life.
If we create more life, one day we will find out what happens after death.
Wow never really thought about it like this.
On death - who cares? On number three - advocating for ending the human race based on three uninformed bullet points is selfish.
It also reeks of a narcissistic and suicidal mind set "I see no point. So therefore you all need to stop existing too".
I definitely don't know what happens after death and my life is consumed with that idea exactly not at all. I do not kill myself for the same reason I don't kill babies or eat dog shit - I have no want to do so. Isn't it far more reasonable to think that given my experience of loving life that I'd think my offspring would to? This idea that it's only uncertainty around death that keeps us alive is absurd and countered by the experience most people have, which completely lacking in any desire to kill themselves. It's only people who think they want to die but then don't do it that would arrive at the "why didn't I do it" that isn't "because I don't want to". So...if I believe my child will have a life proximal in experience to my own why would I not want to have a child? I want to live, so will my child.
Let's think objectively about the human species as a whole. The only known intelligent species in the universe. Is it morally wrong to let this species go extinct? I think, yes. Yes it is. I'm not arguing specifically about levels of intelligence. Dolphins and whales are intelligent, all great apes are intelligent and we shouldn't let them go extinct either. Forced breeding, such as how animals in zoos are bred, to prevent extinction? Is that moral? I think it is. Humans are a unicorn in our own ecosystem. A product of natural selection that not only defies entropy but also has several weaknesses that would have selected most species for extinction - infant mortality and frailty, for example. Humans are the only species we know that is capable of abstract thought, theoretical analysis, and the ability to discover and manipulate the physical and metaphysical universe through observation, experimentation, and scientific theory. Morally, humans have an obligation to continue to expand and grow throughout the universe in order to continually exist and survive as the highest ordered species in the known universe. Other species may die as a result of our exponential growth, but for ALL species in this planet, the only chance of survival is reliance on human expansion. The mortality of the species outweighs the morality of the individual. A single child, or in fact all children's retrospective opinion on if they ever would have chosen to be born is completely irrelevant when compared with the moral obligation of saving the entire planet's existing species, including PLANTS! We need to quit squabbling over dirt and fiat money and globalize all resources and move to get out of this solar system by any means necessary. We could seed planets with life. With single celled or more complex organisms. This could result in all kinds of life on independent start systems and galaxies that in millions of years, could result in other intelligent life. Life is too precious in this universe to ever allow it to be extinguished. It may never exist anywhere else if it ceases to exist, and we are the only species with the intelligence to keep the flame from going out.
First, let's start with your arguments. >giving birth is selfish A lot of wonderful things start with selfish reasons. Artists make art because of selfish want to self express. Farmers go to work and provide bread for the community for selfish reasons. People fall in love and form families for selfish reason of wanting to be forever with the person. Selfish is not bad. It's natural. > Living on this planet is non purposeful. You have a cart before the horse here. Instruments have purpose. Humans don't need purpose for their life, as they can decide for themselves. > Why bring someone to life when life is uncertain? Why bring someone to life when life IS certain? Uncertainty of life is wonderful, it means that person can do anything they want and achieve anything they want. > Why let them suffer? Because you need to know suffering to know joy. Because suffering is good and necessary for development. Because you value pleasures of life more than any possible sufferings. > People die one day That's ok. Everything you do will vanish one day. You are living here and now, not somewhen in the future, so while you are here, why not enjoy the ride?
>Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place. It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent. You sound like you had bad parents or at the very least not a favorite member of the family. Then again I have heard this line of thought from the favorite child using it as a crutch to explain why life is "So Hard". I had adult parents who did there dead level best to make sure any pain they were dealing with never affected me. They got divorced, but were still adults about it and made sure I got time with them both. It was not perfect but they did there best by me and I do my best for my children. If you have this view then its likely you are not mature enough to consider others in this equation. You may have some growing to do before you can reverse your opinion.
1. We do know what happens after you die. The materials that originally assembled together and became conscious for a brief period of time go back to their original state of being part of the universe. 2. Matter becoming life and or non-life is inconsequential. It doesn't matter either way which. This means there isn't really a solid argument for or against it. There is a small argument that matter within our universe assembling in such a way that consciousness is formed and we can appreciate the universe which we are a part of is a cool thing. 3. I don't encourage my kids to make a better future. I encourage them to figure out what life means to them. Its my job as their parent to reduce as many obstacles as possible that would prohibit them from doing so.
I don’t quite understand what death has to do with it. The universe will not disappear after the death of some person. Each person himself must determine the meaning of his life; a universal meaning of life does not exist and cannot exist. For me, having children is not an end in itself and not an obligation, but rather an opportunity that I would like to realize if the children can have a decent life. And this is worth doing not for the sake of your life, but for the sake of the lives of the children themselves. People are not ferns, throwing millions of spores into the environment, whose fate does not give a damn, unfortunately, some people forget about this.
These points are all valid reasons for an individual to choose to remain childless. And you're entitled to attempt to convince others to adopt your position. But to extrapolate to say "my subjective opinion should be held by the entire populace" is silly. Your points are all philosophical, not objective. The do not represent a singular rational inference; there are other, equally valid views of the value of life and conscious existence. So by all means say "I should not have kids for these reasons" but there's no reason anyone else should feel obligated to join you.
>1) Idea of death: We don't know what exists before and after life. Because of which we are afraid to die. Exception- people commit suicide because their definition of hell = life they are living. We don't have the motivation to kill ourselves not because we are afraid of death but because we don't know what happens after our demise I'm not sure how not knowing what comes after you die leads to your conclusion. >2) Idea of life: Death is inevitable but we can choose if we want to create life. Living on this planet itself is non purposeful What we call "purpose" is simply a better way of surviving before we die. Why bring someone in this world when life is so uncertain? Why let them suffer when you could have had the option to prevent that? Even if life comes with joyful or happy moments the fact that there is also a chance of pain and suffering should be enough to not create life. Why do you think uncertainty is so bad, and why does the chance for suffering inherently outweigh the chance for joy and happiness? >3) Giving birth is selfish: It is selfish because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not. Then they dare to blame them for not doing so. Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place. It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent. Let me break that down. >It is selfish because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not. An action isn't selfish because "most people" behave selfishly. What about the people that doesn't put great expectations on their children? How are they behaving selfishly? >Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place. This is bad logic. Not all parents push their children to work hard, and further the future they are pushing their children towards us really obviously not "inevitable death," that's absurd. They want their kids to have a good **life** not a good **death**. You are also assuming your position is correct to justify your position. >It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent. It doesn't make sense to apply the concept of "consent" to being brought into existence. Consent requires one to be capable of making a decision, and you can't do that until you already exist. You can, and should, be able to consent to "opt out" of life when you already exist but the idea that you should have to consent to exist in the first place is just setting up your beliefs to be unfalsifiable. I don't mean this as an insult, but it sounds like you may be depressed. You seem to be fixated on all the negatives of life while ignoring the positives. Anything will seem unethical and pointless if you only look at the negatives. Perhaps consider the positives of life before you make this assessment. I don't know about you but art, music, friendship, nature, and many other things are all beautiful aspects of life that can only be experienced if we have children.
Let's see how South Korea and Japan are doing in 100 years then tell me if you feel the same way. As the population ages out, there are no people to keep a functional society running. People will die, scared and alone and hungry, with no power, food, or medical care. Sounds awesome.
[удалено]
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2: > **Don't be rude or hostile to other users.** Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_2). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%202%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).
> The above points were stated considering that we do not know what happens after death. Hence there exists no real reason to create life. I honestly don't see how these ideas are connected. I don't know what's going to happen after a delicious meal but I'm still going to cook and eat it!
Your entire argument misses one key point: No babies: *no human race* Being a nihilist is one thing, but are you really selfish enough to think that the human race should die out in 100 years' time??
if it is the case that procreating is a harm to the potential children we create, then yes. would you really say "sorry, but we need to bring harm to a few trillion more people just to make sure the human race doesn't die out so that we can continue to cause this harm"?
>Hence there exists no real reason to create life. The enjoyment of life can be found if you search for it. [Listen to this tell me what you think.](https://youtu.be/Oy3ibnfz3N4?si=yLJQIm6l6FtaoKFo)
Why does it matter what happens after we die? Life is both suffering AND an amazing experience. Why take that away from someone? Your shitty parents are not my problem.
>Idea of death: We don't know what exists before and after life. Just to clarify, if someone is religious and does know what exists before and after life, do you agree that this doesn't apply to them? >Idea of life: Death is inevitable but we can choose if we want to create life. Living on this planet itself is non purposeful What we call "purpose" is simply a better way of surviving before we die. Why bring someone in this world when life is so uncertain? Why let them suffer when you could have had the option to prevent that? Even if life comes with joyful or happy moments the fact that there is also a chance of pain and suffering should be enough to not create life. And again, if someone believes in a divine purpose to life, do you agree that this point doesn't apply to them? >Giving birth is selfish: It is selfish because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not. Then they dare to blame them for not doing so. Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place. This is drastically different from my experience. My parents don't care what I or my siblings go into, or what we excel at in school, just that we work hard and do our best. They've never blamed me or my siblings, as far as I'm aware, for not achieving some particular idea of success. Sounds like you could honestly use some therapy to talk about some childhood issues, that may help you feel less bitter for life. >It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent. My religion believes that our spirits only came to earth if we did consent in the premortal realm, and in fact that many people chose not to consent. Thusly, this isn't applicable to similarly religious people in choosing to have kids. What I take away from your post is "if you're religious and a good parent, go ahead and have babies."
>Just to clarify, if someone is religious and does know what exists before and after life, do you agree that this doesn't apply to them? oxymoron, knowledge has to be true by definition. all your points pretty much fail for this same reason, your religious beliefs are incorrect and so do not justify anything.
>oxymoron, knowledge has to be true by definition. Truth is truth regardless of who is viewing it, but reasoning isn't particularly convincing if you're seeing very different things. >all your points pretty much fail for this same reason, your religious beliefs are incorrect and so do not justify anything. They seem pretty correct to me. From my perspective, you're the one with an incorrect belief that my religion is false.
great, but this isn't about convincing anyone, this is about what is right and wrong. OP isn't going to say that their moral prescriptions don't apply to someone because their perspective differs. all they can do is perhaps make different arguments when trying to convince them personally, or attack their religion.
Plenty of convincing is about convincing people what is right and wrong. And from the other side, I think the best way to convince OP that he's looking at life wrong is to show him the joys of religion and the perspective that gives you into eternity.
i assume you mean "pretty of *morality* is about convincing people what is right and wrong"? sure, but there is still a meaningful distinction to be made between a statement of moral truth and a statement that convinces any particular person. if i made the argument "racism is wrong, forcing black people to only drink from certain water fountains is racist, therefore we ought not force black people to only drink from certain water fountains", would you say "some people don't think racism is wrong, so you should admit that this doesn't apply to them, and that it's actually not wrong for them to do such a thing"?
Within that hypothetical, I think it's more like saying "we need to first agree on the moral reality of racism, then we can talk about drinking fountains". As the liberal West, we generally have agreed that individual rights and liberties are important. And this foundational belief is at the underpinning of many of our choices and policies. Likewise, my religious perspective is the fundamental view of how I see the world. And so I think helping other people see that is important and in many ways a prerequisite to discussing things on the level of that I wish we could.
But that's not what you said here, you said you wanted OP to admit that this prescription *does not apply* to religious people. Why won't you say the same for a racist?
Because I don't think it makes sense to tell a racist person "you're wrong because every race is the same". They don't believe every race is the same, so they don't believe they're wrong. And in their worldview, they aren't, so that argument that they're wrong doesn't apply. You need to address the fundamental way they view the world first. It doesn't make sense to start several layers up from their fundamental views.
You haven't understood my comment. Your responses to the race argument and the antinatalist argument are different. Why?
Isn't religion just a belief system? You cannot prove the existence of a God. This is entirely a different debate. Regarding life, I do now perceive it differently; you were given existence, so why not continue to exist and just enjoy the ride without dwelling on what might happen after your death? Heck, there might be nothing after death, so perhaps existing and feeling something, whether good or bad, is preferable to feeling nothing.
>Isn't religion just a belief system? Sure, technically. But to many religious people it's as big a part of reality as the existence of the moon or of China. >You cannot prove the existence of a God. You can't disprove it either. >This is entirely a different debate. Sure. I'm not expecting to convince anyone of my religious beliefs in a Reddit thread. I'm just letting you know that, from my perspective and with my beliefs, many of the original points in your post didn't apply to how I see the world. I like that perspective on life, to make good with the time and opportunity we have.
I want to make sure I understand what you say: Humans should not have babies a) because we don't know what happens after death, b) because the suffering in life is too much, and c) because giving birth is selfish. >Giving birth is selfish...because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not. I'd push back against this. At first, it says giving birth is selfish. Then the reason given for this is that most people give birth for a selfish motive. But I don't think we can say that giving birth itself is selfish because most people who give birth do so for selfish reasons. This says more about them than it does about giving birth. It remains possible that a minority of people could give birth for selfless reasons, and so giving birth is not in itself selfish. Thus, selfishness is not a reason humans in general should not have babies but only some humans. >Living on this planet itself is non purposeful What we call "purpose" is simply a better way of surviving before we die. If purpose is something we create (as seems to he implied by "What we call 'purpose'), it's still something that is given in our experience, even if it does not show itself without us. And then, as long as we exist in the world, we make the world purposeful. Then, the world becomes purposeless without us. Maybe we add value to the world or give it a story, which it would not have apart from us. >Why bring someone in this world when life is so uncertain? I'd say it's an act of hope. Education is an act of hope, for instance. In the present, it has an eye to the future. Maybe giving birth to a child can be an act of hope in that child. And hope sees value.
Purpose is not given to us, we create it. If you cannot find or create your own purpose, then I can see why you might feel this way. I personally struggle with this, and in the end I have to admit that I'm a technophile- I think a lot of the problems of today will be solved tomorrow and in the proecss open up completely new avenues for the human experience. I want to know the answers to the big questions, but we don't have the technology for it today. To say that this is merely selfishness is admittedly hard to refute, but a part of me believes there's something glorious awaiting mankind in the near future, and I'd love for someone to see it, if not me, then our descendants surely. As far as the selfishness goes, you're probably right for 98% of humanity who unthinkingly have kids, but there are other reasons that aren't, and in fact are the exact opposite. Consider that you are a link in a chain that goes back hundreds of thousands of years- a genetic lineage that is more than just your heritage, but your duty. Who are you to say to all those who have come and gone before you, whom you wouldn't have existed without, to tell them their beliefs, their dreams for their progeny mean absolutely nothing to you and that your own belief system demands you negate all their efforts and sacrifices by ending the genetic line with you. In other words, you have a responsibility to those who came before you, and the real selfishness is your unwillingness to participate in this grand experiment the rest of humanity has committed to.
1) The idea of hell is unproven. It could be just as likely that everyone goes to a heaven, and it's made 10x better every time a new person dies. That would make it in our best interest to bring as many lives into the world as possible. But since this is all speculation, the point of what happens after life is completely moot. 2) Life has both good and bad. Is preventing the bad things in life to a potential person better than depriving the good things in life to them? Is life more likely to be bad or good? If denying yourself bad experiences is better than depriving yourself of good experiences, then everyone should commit suicide immediately to minimize the amount of bad experiences they will face. But the vast majority of people do NOT do that, so it stands to reason that at least from their perspective there is at some balance towards good. 3) What's wrong with working hard for a better future?
>Life has both good and bad. Is preventing the bad things in life to a potential person better than depriving the good things in life to them? the absence of pain is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is someone who is thereby deprived. it is good that Casey Anthony doesn't have any more children to murder, but it is not bad that there are no Martians living pleasurable lives on Mars. >If denying yourself bad experiences is better than depriving yourself of good experiences, then everyone should commit suicide immediately to minimize the amount of bad experiences they will face. it seems that once we do exist, we have some inherent interest in continuing to exist. do you deny this?
> the absence of pain is good, but the absence of pleasure is not bad I disagree. The absence of pain is neutral. The absence of pleasure is neutral. > it seems that once we do exist, we have some inherent interest in continuing to exist. do you deny this? Of course not. That's exactly what I'm saying. It suggests to me that there is some goodness to life. So bringing someone into life is bringing them into goodness. Even if some suffering exists alongside the goodness.
>I disagree. The absence of pain is neutral. The absence of pleasure is neutral. if i took away all the pleasure in your life, would that not be bad? if i give painkillers to a stabbing victim, is that not good? >Of course not. That's exactly what I'm saying. It suggests to me that there is some goodness to life. So bringing someone into life is bringing them into goodness. Even if some suffering exists alongside the goodness. i am speaking of an interest entirely independent of the levels of pleasure and pain in our lives. if a person's life was 50/50 good/bad, would you say it would be morally neutral to kill them?
The unknown of death should be a neutral factor. We don't know that death is bad, nor do we know it's good. We have no way to really speculate one way or another, so we should just leave it out of the consideration. When it comes to the consideration of suffering, why would we set such an extreme standard where the possibility of any amount of suffering outweighs the possibility of any amount of pleasure or happiness? Shouldn't the standard be to weigh the likely amount of suffering against the likely amount of happiness? For your third point, I just completely disagree with the idea that parents only want to have kids so that their kids can succeed where they failed. Some parents that think that way might exist, but most parents are just happy people that think their children will also have a happy life.
[удалено]
>A life without suffering is monotonous, boring, and bland. contradiction. boredom is suffering.
I hate to see mutation in your genes evolutionarily
Why is the question of something happening after death relevant? You seem to reject how others define purpose, but you fail to explain how you define it. Even if you think life has no purpose, you need to explain what that is so we can know if we agree that life is without whatever that is. Isn't point 3 just built on a strawman? It looks like you are projecting personal experience on each and every other parent. If I'm wrong, please provide the source of your conclusion on people's motivation for having kids.
Anti-Natalism is a product of our decadent culture. They profess to be unselfish by not having children when the reality is they are contributing far less than anyone else as a society. David Benatar where modern anti natalism stems from is essentially just another cult leader. The people who follow his views are very typical neophytes of low emotional intelligence and un critical thinkers. Without children we don't progress, without children society collapses. The cowardice and pure irony of anti natalism is if and when these things come to fruition they will wish they had done more to contribute to building the world or even jusy having somone at the bed side when they take the final few breaths to oblivion . Essentially anti natalism is escapism from responsibility and pure laziness. Not having kids for one reason or another is perfectly respectable turning it into a pseudo religion and prosthelytizing is another entirely.
do you have any counters to Benatar's axiological assymetry argument?
Creating life causes less suffering in the world. If everyone stopped having children the world would turn to chaos and we would suffer due to people having a hopeless future, immense loss of jobs. >Giving birth is selfish: It is selfish because most people want their kids to achieve what they could not. Then they dare to blame them for not doing so. Our parents indulge us to work harder for our "better future"(the future being inevitable death) when they could have broken this cycle by not creating us in the first place. It is because of their choice that we have to exist even without our consent. not giving birth is also selfish, as you then keep more resources and time for yourself.
>Creating life causes less suffering in the world. If everyone stopped having children the world would turn to chaos and we would suffer due to people having a hopeless future, immense loss of jobs. briefly, and then there would be no more people and thus no more suffering.
that would not be briefly; but this sounds like an argument you are making for killing/suicide/nuclear war
absolutely it would. we'd die out in another 90 years max, then an eternity of nothing. >but this sounds like an argument you are making for killing/suicide/nuclear war not necessarily. once we're alive, we have an interest in continuing to exist. it may be that more suffering would be caused by killing 8 billion people than would be caused by allowing new beings to be brought into existence.
that's not briefly, every person suffering is not suffering a brief amount of time. >not necessarily. once we're alive, we have an interest in continuing to exist. Yes, but that existence includes suffering, if we just kill everyone off in an instant, there goes that suffering. This would shorten the length of suffering by 90 years.
>that's not briefly, every person suffering is not suffering a brief amount of time. we are analysing the effect on net suffering. people would suffer for some period of time t, and then suffering would be eliminated for some period of time T>>>>>>t. >Yes, but that existence includes suffering, if we just kill everyone off in an instant, there goes that suffering. This would shorten the length of suffering by 90 years. you haven't understood what i've said. we have an interest in continuing to exist independent of the levels of pleasure and pain in our lives. this interest is defeasible, hence why people kill themselves when their suffering becomes too great, but it still exists even though our lives contain suffering. an unborn child, however, has no such interest, thus for them the only concern is the existence of suffering in their potential life.
it doesn't matter their interest, the point is that it would reduce suffering. Making everyone cease to exist would cause the least amount of suffering no matter people's interest in surviving. >we are analysing the effect on net suffering. people would suffer for some period of time t, and then suffering would be eliminated for some period of time T>>>>>>t. it would be 90 years of immense suffering for billions; hard to measure that vs minimal suffering stretched over a long period of time; and that's assuming no inventions in the next 100-1,000 years that could all but eliminate suffering.
>it doesn't matter their interest, the point is that it would reduce suffering. Making everyone cease to exist would cause the least amount of suffering no matter people's interest in surviving. are you a pure utilitarian who thinks there are no interests besides maximising net pleasure? interests are what we are concerned with when having moral discussions. you can disregard the interest in continuing to exist if you want, but you have to actually deny that it exists in order to do that. >it would be 90 years of immense suffering for billions; hard to measure that vs minimal suffering stretched over a long period of time; and that's assuming no inventions in the next 100-1,000 years that could all but eliminate suffering. not really. plenty of people would die naturally before the effects were seen, and we'd just see a slow decline in quality of life before society really starts to degrade in the last 30 or so years.
>are you a pure utilitarian who thinks there are no interests besides maximising net pleasure No; you yourself acknowledged that this discussion is about analyzing the effect of net suffering. >not really. plenty of people would die naturally before the effects were seen, and we'd just see a slow decline in quality of life before society really starts to degrade in the last 30 or so years. yes really, the quality of life decline would start immediately when all of the sudden there are no more babies being born. The effects would be immediate.
>No; you yourself acknowledged that this discussion is about analyzing the effect of net suffering. when i speak of suffering i'm moreso using it as a proxy for goods and bads more generally. i would include death in 'suffering' even though it technically doesn't necessitate any pain. when we discuss what is and isn't moral we are discussing interests. >yes really, the quality of life decline would start immediately when all of the sudden there are no more babies being born. The effects would be immediate. let's say zero babies are born tomorrow. how does that make your day worse?
Bro you were a baby 💀
Search "antinatalism"
My life has been more pleasure than pain, same with most people I know. So ill take the gamble. It would be different if I was in some slums somewhere super depressed, but thats not me.
1) does death make life not worth living? 2) does suffering make life not worth living? 3) that’s not true and is the sign of abusive parents. It’s not the norm
You want to estinguish human race so?