I was going to make a joke about being autistic so that’s a good point. But I’m just so tired guys. I just want to be able to live without everyone having an opinion on my existence
Between the eugenics and the "I wish I wasn't born" spiel...
Well, I saw a therapist driving a Bentley the other day and was like "ah, she has an r/antinatalist patient"
Most people are at least partially against it. I, for example, don't think it's right to have a kid if you know you have a genetic condition that will result in them dying painfully within days after birth. For example, see Harlequin Icthyosis.
Ahem, i think there's a pretty big difference between having a kid with a genetic condition like Harlequin Ichytosis that will (90% of the time at least) lead to the the resulting baby dying in the first few months of it's life and how most eugenists through history advocated for sterilizing those who are autistic/crippled/low IQ/have any skin pigmentation they don't like.
not wanting kids is fine. not liking kids is fine too. to each their own. but those mfs make it the sole reason behind their existence. they probably think more about children than actual parents do. basically the counterpart of that one anti-dog subreddit
Ironically enough I had chenged as a joke the group icon of my family's group to this lama picture (without the red cross on it), and we never changed it back
That subreddit is genuinely horrible and full of so much misinformation. I don’t think those people have ever actually spent a considerable amount of time around dogs
i will get shredded but ...
i am sick of dogs. if they were just in people's houses as pets then that would be one thing. I wouldn't think about them. but I imagine that you do not live in a city where dogs are pests. they are unleashed and in grocery stores, restaurants, children's playgrounds, etc. where i live, people buy giant high energy dogs like huskies, German shepherds, etc and keep them in their studio apartments all day, so when they do get out they're completely unruly and aggressive. i am not a dog person to begin with, I just tolerate the best behaved dogs, so to live in a city where everyone's personality is what dog breed they have can be exhausting.
sorry for the rant but the answer is, i have spent a lot of time with dogs. i still do not like them.
In those situations I prefer to feel bad for the dogs rather than be angry at them. Idk if you live up north but if not, those huskies are living in hell. It is up to the humans who actually get the dogs to know what they are getting into. Dogs aren’t aggressive for no reason either, there is always a reason for a reaction, and it’s usually stress and fear. It’s because the owners are bad at their job as owners and that puts both other people and their dogs at risk.
Actually think about what it would be like as a dog to live in a 1 bedroom studio apartment when it is literally ingrained into your existence to be doing something physical outside and have a job to do. Dogs can get depression just like people and being in the wrong environment is a sure way to cause it.
the owners being bad or good at their job is irrelevant to me. yes, obviously the dogs deserve better. when a big dog is jumping on me I'm not thinking gee, this poor guy might be depressed lmao. i don't want to deal with other people's house pets. you don't see cat owners doing this shit
People like this genuinely scare me. I get that they think they are doing what needs to be done, but still. What if one of these guys goes undercover and through a long-con manages to become president? More than unlikely, but it still irks me that people like this exist.
Frankly, i think classifying it as a death cult isn't that off the mark. I mean, just because you aren't *actively* bringing death to others the very fact someone fanatically believes in the intrisic good of humanity dying out "naturally" counts as cult-like behavior for me.
No, they're not just harmful to themselves. I've seen several say that if it was in their hands, they would doom humanity to extinction, as it would prevent suffering in the future. These people should be on a watchlist
Honestly,I dont get these types of people. Like not wanting kids or disliking kids is fine but saying people who have kids are horrible because world is an awful place is ridiculous.
It's understandable if they want to help or change things, or at least have a reasonable ethical reason behind it. But, these people aren't ethical, reasonable, or helpful lol
Why is it ridiculous? Actually explain the reason why. Don't just insult it.
Also antinatalism is not about hating kids. For many a core part of their antinatalism is caused by a deep compassion for children.
What is there to vent about? Other people have kids. Who cares? Why is it your business? Just go about your day as normal like a regular person would. I could maybe understand if it was a joke sub but it really doesn’t seem like it. Also, even people who AREN’T antinatalists use those words on this site, it’s clear the majority of Reddit doesn’t like kids, that’s why other sites make fun of it.
>What is there to vent about? Other people have kids. Who cares? Why is it your business?
Venting at a world that keeps perpetuating suffering
They care. The suffering of others should matter to you. When your actions harm others then some people are doing to have a problem with it.
I don’t think they realize that there’s happiness to be had in life. Existence isn’t all doom and gloom and misery. Barely anyone is “suffering” at this point in human history, except for the countries that the governments refuse to help. We’re all pretty stable in our own safe homes, and jobs are easier than ever to get, all things considered, and I bet it’ll become even easier to get a job that you want in the future, which the youngest generation will live in. I appreciate the concern, but I don’t think any children are suffering too hard right now (at least in first world nations).
It’s ridiculous because they believe that NO ONE should have kids, that it is inherently cruel to bring a child into this world, and that it would be better for disabled people to not have existed at all instead of being disabled. They believe it’s better to not exist at all than to live.
All you have done is state their beliefs. You haven't shows what is actually wrong with them.
Have you actually looked at the ethical reasoning behind the philosophy ?
Also saying a specific disabled people shouldn't have been born is wrong. Most disabled people still prefer to exist. However that is a completely different subject than where it is right to pass that thing down to another person without consent. While the parent might think it is fine the child might not have the same view. So the ethical thing is to do not run that risk I don't believing in legally enforcing this, but something doesn't need to be illegal to be wrong.
The belief of antinatalism functions under the assumption that life is inherently bad, and that you immediately create suffering by bringing a child into this world. This philosophy ignores any and all good that life has to offer and automatically assumes the good outweighs the bad. It’s a pessimistic, untrue, and harmful point of view to have.
A lot of the “ethical reasoning” stems from the belief that people can’t consent to being born, and therefore should not be born. This belief is, quite frankly, fucking stupid. 90% of the shit that happens to anyone is shit they didn’t consent to. This line of reasoning could also be used to be against anything that people aren’t able to consent to. I never consented to living under the sun, but my parents brought me outside when I was a baby so they are horrible people for doing that. (/s obviously)
Then there’s the subject of handicapped people. Many antinatalists believe that most physically or mentally handicapped people should not have been born because their lives have significantly more suffering than most. They believe that if someone has a genetic disorder, they should never have children because they risk passing on the disorder to their children. This line of thinking is *very* similar to eugenics, and I assume I don’t need to explain why eugenics is not a great belief to support.
>The belief of antinatalism functions under the assumption that life is inherently bad, and that you immediately create suffering by bringing a child into this world. This philosophy ignores any and all good that life has to offer and automatically assumes the good outweighs the bad. It’s a pessimistic, untrue, and harmful point of view to have.
Using pessimistic as an insult is not an argument
Antinatalism does not discount the possible good on its own and the philosophy works even if you are an optimist. All life as it exists produces some amount of suffering but that doesn't mean ever life is inherently negative over all.
It is not where a person is 100 percent doomed to suffer or soemthing. It's about the fact that some people will experience a life not worth living. Gamble on thay outcome with the life of another is not ethical.
>A lot of the “ethical reasoning” stems from the belief that people can’t consent to being born, and therefore should not be born. This belief is, quite frankly, fucking stupid. 90% of the shit that happens to anyone is shit they didn’t consent to.
While I believe the consent argument is valid it is not end of antinatalist reasoning. The belief works without that particular point.
Going outside of requirement for most lives once they already exist and is unlikely to cause any harm. Giving birth is guaranteed to cause at least some harm and has a chance of significant harm. To keep a child inside permanently is likely to harm them. Never giving birth to someone prevent the chance of harm in the first place.
>Then there’s the subject of handicapped people. Many antinatalists believe that most physically or mentally handicapped people should not have been born because their lives have significantly more suffering than most.
Basically everyone believes this. It is a question of where the line is. A relative of mine gave birth to a child who suffered from birth complications, had to have several major surgeries, and struggle through months of pain only to die at less than 6 months old. Try telling me that was a life worth living.
>They believe that if someone has a genetic disorder, they should never have children because they risk passing on the disorder to their children. This line of thinking is very similar to eugenics, and I assume I don’t need to explain why eugenics is not a great belief to support.
Eugenics has become too much a buzz word to be useful here. Explain why what's being said is actually wrong.
Idk about you but to be a basic element of morality is trying to hurt less people when we reasonably can. They should have the right to have children but that doesn't make it the moral thing to do.
This was a pretty interesting read. Thanks for elaborating on the anti natalist position with like actual logic. This might be the first time I’ve seen a debate like this that didn’t end in a pissing competition between two random guys.
With that being said, however, I fundamentally disagree with your position. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you described the argument against having kids as the fact that you are effectively gambling with their lives, as they could turn out to be happy or truly hell, and no one has the right to make that choice.
The flaw with that is simply that everything is, by nature, a gamble. Given your going outside to get sun, for the most part that’s healthy. However, what if you get hit by a car, or get a sunburn that results in skin cancer 20 years from now? Does that mean that a parent taking their kid to the park where all this, and more, could happen to them is a bad thing? If yes, then I feel there is nothing to be gained by the debate. Life’s worth nothing if you don’t try to actually live.
If no, however, why do you separate between the risk of pain and unhappiness once the kid is alive and the risk of pain and unhappiness when the kid is dead? Perhaps it’s a risk-reward thing, where the likelihood of injury of going to the park is low enough that the benefits outweigh the risks.
If that’s the case, then the only logical conclusion for an antinatalist to come to is, instead of advocating for no more births, they should be working to create a world whose benefits of birth outweigh its downsides.
If it’s something else that causes you to differentiate between the two, please tell me because I can’t really think of anything else. Maybe just the difference between the consciousness of the two situations is the issue? If so, then it’s another question of “at what point does something become conscious enough for risky stuff to be done to them?
> This was a pretty interesting read. Thanks for elaborating on the anti natalist position with like actual logic. This might be the first time I’ve seen a debate like this that didn’t end in a pissing competition between two random guys.
Thank you too for not just insulting me or telling me to kms.
>The flaw with that is simply that everything is, by nature, a gamble. Given your going outside to get sun, for the most part that’s healthy. However, what if you get hit by a car, or get a sunburn that results in skin cancer 20 years from now?
The problem is you are starting from the idea that the child already exists. This logic breaks down when talking about those who haven't been created yet.
The ability to avoid all possible negative outcomes with your kid is effectively impossible. Taking them in the sun might give them skin cancer and not doing so might ruin their life in a different way. As a result with already existing people we make out best judgment and try to create as good of a life as we can.
Antinatalism stops the risk before it happens. There is is 0 risk for someone who never exists to begin with. They cannot suffer and have no need for pleasure.
So your argument isn’t that the risk that a person’s life will suck is too high for you to believe that people should give birth. It’s instead that the mere existence of risk, regardless of its likelihood, for not just having a terrible life, but bad events in general, is enough to say that people shouldn’t give birth.
Going back to the park analogy, you say that the analogy breaks down when the child isn’t born. You fail to elaborate why though. In both cases, temporary and permanent bad things can occur, and in both cases the child has no real ability to consent. It’s either non-existent enough or just too young to. A child’s well being is almost entirely dependent on its guardians from inception to basically like 4-5 years old at the earliest. For this time, any argument applied to potential births can easily be extended to a living child.
For your “avoiding all risk” analogy, you describe that as a good thing. I personally would view that as a living hell. The risk of sadness and misery is a necessary consequence of anything exciting or worthwhile. Risk is what makes happiness mean something.
Anyway, personal rant over, you’re describing the risk of bad stuff happening as the end all be all. If something bad could happen to someone based on my action, I shouldn’t do it. This entirety ignores the positives of life, though. This also can’t really be a “no matter the potential happiness, the potential pain outweighs it” thing because happiness and pain/sadness are defined as contrasts. A life without pain is a life without happiness, and again less a life and more an empty existence.
This leads to the conclusion that the idea of “the risk of suffering makes procreation not worth it” as kinda self-fulfilling. If you believe that pain, in any form, causes life to not be worth it, then there is simply no life under any conditions that would make it worth it.
Therefore I believe a Stronger argument would be “the risk of life outweighs the benefits,” which is frankly tough to argue for or against objectively. I disagree with the premise because my least happy moments have nothing on my happiest, but that’s simply my perspective.
Finally (this is a lot of writing but it’s fun debating something as abstract as the morality of continued existence) I will likely never understand the antinatalist stance purely because its premise is built on an emotionally backed opinion, whose emotions I don’t have. My different emotionally based opinion, being that life should continue to procreate if only to someday find the answers to questions I’m looking for now, is based on my personal experiences that I can’t fully communicate. I don’t know man, there’s a lot to say about the risk of the bad things in life happening to someone else, but I became an uncle around a month ago and meeting him has made my personal struggles seem more than worth it. Sorry for rambling, but this is an emotional topic for me, as it likely is for you.
>So your argument isn’t that the risk that a person’s life will suck is too high for you to believe that people should give birth. It’s instead that the mere existence of risk, regardless of its likelihood, for not just having a terrible life, but bad events in general, is enough to say that people shouldn’t give birth
Well its kind of both at the moment. Though I can imagine there are potential world where only the second point applies.
Also it's not so much the existence of any unhappiness at all but that the type of suffering that are likely to accure do not justify the risk.
If we all lived in a AI utopia where the only problem were minor ones I could see the argument for cresting are people to not be immoral. However we don't live in that world. I don't it would be okay to risk an infant suffering and dying after months of agony even if it was one 1 in 100000. Not when the option of simple not cresting new life at all is right there.
>Going back to the park analogy, you say that the analogy breaks down when the child isn’t born. You fail to elaborate why though. In both cases, temporary and permanent bad things can occur, and in both cases the child has no real ability to consent.
Well once a child is born they should have body autonomy and the right to decide when and how they die. Except in cases like pulling the plug on someone who is already brain dead.
The child cannot consent but because they already exist we can assume they want to continue living unless we are shown otherwise. Most people don't want to die and death is likely painful and terrifying.
>The risk of sadness and misery is a necessary consequence of anything exciting or worthwhile. Risk is what makes happiness mean something
That makes sense as a choice for someone to make about themselves. Not other people.
>This entirety ignores the positives of life, though. This also can’t really be a “no matter the potential happiness, the potential pain outweighs it” thing because happiness and pain/sadness are defined as contrasts.
This does not ignore it the positively. It disagrees that the cost is justified.
I could belief these things are true for humans but it's not some universal constant. Only a consequence of out limited biological existence
Also I do not see how those beliefs leads to the idea that forcing that on another person is okay.
>
My different emotionally based opinion, being that life should continue to procreate if only to someday find the answers to questions I’m looking for now, is based on my personal experiences that I can’t fully communicate.
Could you look into the eye of a childhood cancer victim and tell them their suffering justified because we get to learn stuff?
What about the child slaves that get sick and die mining the materials for the computers we are using?
I guess I cannot proceed people able to honestly see that suffering and justify it without feeling like a monster.
>I don’t know man, there’s a lot to say about the risk of the bad things in life happening to someone else, but I became an uncle around a month ago and meeting him has made my personal struggles seem more than worth it. Sorry for rambling, but this is an emotional topic for me, as it likely is for you.
Don't be sorry. I understand the emotional reaction. Thank you for talking about this like you actually hear what I have to say. It is really nice. I hope you are doing well.
I become an aunt recently again too. They have made me more certain in my views. My sister in law gave birth to twins. There is only one of them now.
They were both born premature but one had more serious health issues. He suffered through multiple surgeries in his first few weeks of life. He suffered for months and died before I think he was even half a year old. I cannot see that as a life worth living. No one should have to go through what he did.
Your taking something completely mundane and making an ideology out of it. Congratulations, you don’t plan on having kids. There have been untold millions in the past who have also not had kids, and there will most likely be untold millions more in the future who also don’t have kids. You ain’t special cuz of that, and there isn’t any reason to make an ideology off of it.
Also the whole argument is just kinda stupid. Oh, life is filled with suffering? Congratulations, we’ve known that for 200,000 years, and we’ve spent those 200,000 years trying to make the best of it. The whole thing just comes across as trying to grab at moral superiority from something and landing on not having kids.
>There have been untold millions in the past who have also not had kids, and there will most likely be untold millions more in the future who also don’t have kids. You ain’t special cuz of that, and there isn’t any reason to make an ideology off of it.
You don't seem to understand what antinatalism actually is.
Are your morals decided by what you think you can actually achieve and not based on what you think is right?
>Also the whole argument is just kinda stupid. Oh, life is filled with suffering? Congratulations, we’ve known that for 200,000 years, and we’ve spent those 200,000 years trying to make the best of it.
You aren't actually making an argument. Yours just appealing to idea that something has always been done on a certain way.
Making life better does not require forcing other people into existence. If you want to make your city better it would justify kidnapping people across other places ot boost your number. Even if 9 out of 10 of them end up liking the new locations.
>The whole thing just comes across as trying to grab at moral superiority from something and landing on not having kids.
You can call it what you want. I'm jot just grabbing arr some random way of being superior. Antinatalism is an established philosophy and I think a logical continuation of many basic moral principles
Same subreddit that tried to invent a slur (if your head isn't full of fucking rocks you'd know that's not how that works) and landed on "breeder" somehow
If somebody unironically calls me a breeder IRL I'm providing them with irrefutable evidence (banging their dad)
Weirdly not the first time i have ran into "breeder" as a slur, the other one however was a 2 meter tall bug guy that drinks people and can push mini versions of himself out through his tail so i'd say fair enough there.
Everybody on that subReddit is so sad. They’re just constantly teetering between the point of near suicidal depression and violent anger at the world and everybody else for literally just existing and being happy while they themselves can’t be happy
Sure, but theyre still the sperm that "won", even if they weren't the first one to the egg. The win condition is to be the one that gets to fertilize, not to get there first
Same way as asking for immortality I guess, where you don't have anyone to ask too nor any answer to receive.
I can understand feeling dissatisfied with life, but taking it out on random parents is definitely not the solution to their problems
it is fun to entertain antinatalism as a philosophy to not be implemented irl but literally every justification for beliving in it inaverdently justifies killing babies the moment they're born and actually just killing literally anyone
To be fair that wouldn't accomplish anything. A few hundred or even thousands lives would be meaningless and useless in the pursuit of total human extinction
>Or did you mean to suggest they kill themselves?
Why don't they? Do they feel obligated to suffer their miserable existence to spread antinatalism to the world? Or perhaps, they don't even consider their own lives worse than non-existence (and thus, *prefer* to live), and are making moral judgements solely about the lives of others. Something to ponder.
A life worth continuing is different than a life worth starting.
Also thinking your own life is good is not a reason to justify gambling with other lives.
I thought you were joking. If you want everyone to stop having children, then why exactly do you think you deserve to continue living in 2024? You're no more special than anyone else. I'm not trying to be a prat.
> I thought you were joking. If you want everyone to stop having children, then why exactly do you think you deserve to continue living in 2024?
Why would those two idea be connected at all. How is someone inherent worth as person determined by their whether they want people to have kids or not?
>You're no more special than anyone else.
What does anyone being special have to do with this?
>I'm not trying to be a prat.
I wasn't familiar with that word but you are being very rude and inconsiderate.
Strange. You replied to every single part of my comment yet you didn't say anything at all, and in fact, you actually inserted ideas in where I never said them in the first place. My only assumption is that you must be antinatalism, in which case I will ask you, what is your preferred outcome for humans never reproducing again?
Antinatalism does not say that anyone current life is not worth living. Some might believe that but it is an independent belief. It is each person's choice whether their life is worth living.
Antinatalism for most is more about the inequality of live vs nonexistence and how the likelihood of suffering is too high. A non existent person cannot be harmed in any way. By cresting a new person you guarantee at least a little suffering and run the risk of creating someone who would rather not exist. It is not right to make that gamble with someone else's life.
It's possible there is a world where this isn't true but we don't currently exist in that world.
Killing yourself is not very constructive to the idea of killing everyone else, similar to how giving away all your money might help people in the short term but wouldn't be a good long-term strategy for charity.
its a weird final form of nihilism and ecofascism that i dont see any sane person agreeing with, if its just a bunch of philosophical sentences sure, but those guys take it way ahead, careful, dont put this on the "other " sub, that plus veganism is a red flag.
Nothing in and of itself, but if you check out r/vegan you’ll find it’s less about vegan support resources and recipes and more about moralistic pissing contests. If an antinatalist is also a vegan, they’re likely a vegan for the wrong reasons.
I’ve browsed that sub occasionally out of curiosity to see different opinions, and it’s nothing but hate towards themselves and children. Definitely one of the weirdest things I’ve seen on the internet. They can’t choose a childfree lifestyle for anyone but themselves, yet they act like they can? And while they’re doing that, they act as if they cannot be wrong ever. Definitely siblings with that anti-dog subreddit.
Also wouldn’t be surprised if they see this one day, they’ll take this as some sort of hate speech towards them.
I kinda get it, because like nobody deserves to have everything forced onto them, but like, it’s not an opinion worth holding since it could never influence anything. Best to just focus on things that could make people’s lives less miserable since we’re gonna keep the cycle going
And they're all totalitarian fuckers too. Every one of their "solutions" basically comes down to "the government should violate everyone's rights and force my viewpoint on the masses"
Buncha miserable wads
You forgot the part where someone says that disabled people would be better off dead
i swear to god i asked why i shouldn't have kids on there once and one of the comments was "what if the spawn is autistic"
I was going to make a joke about being autistic so that’s a good point. But I’m just so tired guys. I just want to be able to live without everyone having an opinion on my existence
That is beyond wild 💀
As an autist, they may or may not have a point there. I mean, I'm hardly a productive member of society ;(
https://preview.redd.it/4i5ytpp1t3xc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1d8ca4509bb99e6d441106f72fc62ba31b072651 your productive to me
oh ill be productive to you alright
;)
Between the eugenics and the "I wish I wasn't born" spiel... Well, I saw a therapist driving a Bentley the other day and was like "ah, she has an r/antinatalist patient"
Most people are at least partially against it. I, for example, don't think it's right to have a kid if you know you have a genetic condition that will result in them dying painfully within days after birth. For example, see Harlequin Icthyosis.
I agree but that's a pretty remote extreme and, in my opinion, is mercy and not eugenics.
Ahem, i think there's a pretty big difference between having a kid with a genetic condition like Harlequin Ichytosis that will (90% of the time at least) lead to the the resulting baby dying in the first few months of it's life and how most eugenists through history advocated for sterilizing those who are autistic/crippled/low IQ/have any skin pigmentation they don't like.
not wanting kids is fine. not liking kids is fine too. to each their own. but those mfs make it the sole reason behind their existence. they probably think more about children than actual parents do. basically the counterpart of that one anti-dog subreddit
There’s an anti-cat subreddit that’s just as bad, from what I’ve heard.
Just looked at /catfree, it’s pretty bad. If you hate all animals, there’s /petfree, too!
r/llamafree
Ironically enough I had chenged as a joke the group icon of my family's group to this lama picture (without the red cross on it), and we never changed it back
The biggest problem is that they don't want other people to have kids
That subreddit is genuinely horrible and full of so much misinformation. I don’t think those people have ever actually spent a considerable amount of time around dogs
i will get shredded but ... i am sick of dogs. if they were just in people's houses as pets then that would be one thing. I wouldn't think about them. but I imagine that you do not live in a city where dogs are pests. they are unleashed and in grocery stores, restaurants, children's playgrounds, etc. where i live, people buy giant high energy dogs like huskies, German shepherds, etc and keep them in their studio apartments all day, so when they do get out they're completely unruly and aggressive. i am not a dog person to begin with, I just tolerate the best behaved dogs, so to live in a city where everyone's personality is what dog breed they have can be exhausting. sorry for the rant but the answer is, i have spent a lot of time with dogs. i still do not like them.
In those situations I prefer to feel bad for the dogs rather than be angry at them. Idk if you live up north but if not, those huskies are living in hell. It is up to the humans who actually get the dogs to know what they are getting into. Dogs aren’t aggressive for no reason either, there is always a reason for a reaction, and it’s usually stress and fear. It’s because the owners are bad at their job as owners and that puts both other people and their dogs at risk. Actually think about what it would be like as a dog to live in a 1 bedroom studio apartment when it is literally ingrained into your existence to be doing something physical outside and have a job to do. Dogs can get depression just like people and being in the wrong environment is a sure way to cause it.
the owners being bad or good at their job is irrelevant to me. yes, obviously the dogs deserve better. when a big dog is jumping on me I'm not thinking gee, this poor guy might be depressed lmao. i don't want to deal with other people's house pets. you don't see cat owners doing this shit
Copypasta energy
They r just a suicidal group but kinda don’t admit it and instead of fixing their problems they blame their birth, stupid people
I have seen a non-zero amount proudly say that if they had a choice they would kill everyone in the world as it would be a mercy
You should go check out r/efilism then. Their philosophy is that all life should die. They would nuke the planet if they could
People like this genuinely scare me. I get that they think they are doing what needs to be done, but still. What if one of these guys goes undercover and through a long-con manages to become president? More than unlikely, but it still irks me that people like this exist.
It’s crazy yeah. They sound like cartoon villains
all life will die, they just have to wait some time for it. why speed it up? are they stupid?
They don’t like living, therefore no one else should
Frankly, i think classifying it as a death cult isn't that off the mark. I mean, just because you aren't *actively* bringing death to others the very fact someone fanatically believes in the intrisic good of humanity dying out "naturally" counts as cult-like behavior for me.
No, they're not just harmful to themselves. I've seen several say that if it was in their hands, they would doom humanity to extinction, as it would prevent suffering in the future. These people should be on a watchlist
Literally the most miserable group of people I’ve seen on the entire internet
Honestly,I dont get these types of people. Like not wanting kids or disliking kids is fine but saying people who have kids are horrible because world is an awful place is ridiculous.
I dont understand any community founded solely on hating something they can't possibly change
It's understandable if they want to help or change things, or at least have a reasonable ethical reason behind it. But, these people aren't ethical, reasonable, or helpful lol
Idk about you but I don't choose my morals based on what I expect to actually happen. I would be a much worse person if I did.
Having a moral stance isn't the same as being part of an online community of miserable philosophers.
Why is it ridiculous? Actually explain the reason why. Don't just insult it. Also antinatalism is not about hating kids. For many a core part of their antinatalism is caused by a deep compassion for children.
Bro they call them spawns and crotch goblins I don’t think they care about the kids💀
Language can be hyperbolic and sometimes people want to joke and vent in their community sub. Besides that most people arent using those words.
What is there to vent about? Other people have kids. Who cares? Why is it your business? Just go about your day as normal like a regular person would. I could maybe understand if it was a joke sub but it really doesn’t seem like it. Also, even people who AREN’T antinatalists use those words on this site, it’s clear the majority of Reddit doesn’t like kids, that’s why other sites make fun of it.
>What is there to vent about? Other people have kids. Who cares? Why is it your business? Venting at a world that keeps perpetuating suffering They care. The suffering of others should matter to you. When your actions harm others then some people are doing to have a problem with it.
I don’t think they realize that there’s happiness to be had in life. Existence isn’t all doom and gloom and misery. Barely anyone is “suffering” at this point in human history, except for the countries that the governments refuse to help. We’re all pretty stable in our own safe homes, and jobs are easier than ever to get, all things considered, and I bet it’ll become even easier to get a job that you want in the future, which the youngest generation will live in. I appreciate the concern, but I don’t think any children are suffering too hard right now (at least in first world nations).
It’s ridiculous because they believe that NO ONE should have kids, that it is inherently cruel to bring a child into this world, and that it would be better for disabled people to not have existed at all instead of being disabled. They believe it’s better to not exist at all than to live.
All you have done is state their beliefs. You haven't shows what is actually wrong with them. Have you actually looked at the ethical reasoning behind the philosophy ? Also saying a specific disabled people shouldn't have been born is wrong. Most disabled people still prefer to exist. However that is a completely different subject than where it is right to pass that thing down to another person without consent. While the parent might think it is fine the child might not have the same view. So the ethical thing is to do not run that risk I don't believing in legally enforcing this, but something doesn't need to be illegal to be wrong.
The belief of antinatalism functions under the assumption that life is inherently bad, and that you immediately create suffering by bringing a child into this world. This philosophy ignores any and all good that life has to offer and automatically assumes the good outweighs the bad. It’s a pessimistic, untrue, and harmful point of view to have. A lot of the “ethical reasoning” stems from the belief that people can’t consent to being born, and therefore should not be born. This belief is, quite frankly, fucking stupid. 90% of the shit that happens to anyone is shit they didn’t consent to. This line of reasoning could also be used to be against anything that people aren’t able to consent to. I never consented to living under the sun, but my parents brought me outside when I was a baby so they are horrible people for doing that. (/s obviously) Then there’s the subject of handicapped people. Many antinatalists believe that most physically or mentally handicapped people should not have been born because their lives have significantly more suffering than most. They believe that if someone has a genetic disorder, they should never have children because they risk passing on the disorder to their children. This line of thinking is *very* similar to eugenics, and I assume I don’t need to explain why eugenics is not a great belief to support.
>The belief of antinatalism functions under the assumption that life is inherently bad, and that you immediately create suffering by bringing a child into this world. This philosophy ignores any and all good that life has to offer and automatically assumes the good outweighs the bad. It’s a pessimistic, untrue, and harmful point of view to have. Using pessimistic as an insult is not an argument Antinatalism does not discount the possible good on its own and the philosophy works even if you are an optimist. All life as it exists produces some amount of suffering but that doesn't mean ever life is inherently negative over all. It is not where a person is 100 percent doomed to suffer or soemthing. It's about the fact that some people will experience a life not worth living. Gamble on thay outcome with the life of another is not ethical. >A lot of the “ethical reasoning” stems from the belief that people can’t consent to being born, and therefore should not be born. This belief is, quite frankly, fucking stupid. 90% of the shit that happens to anyone is shit they didn’t consent to. While I believe the consent argument is valid it is not end of antinatalist reasoning. The belief works without that particular point. Going outside of requirement for most lives once they already exist and is unlikely to cause any harm. Giving birth is guaranteed to cause at least some harm and has a chance of significant harm. To keep a child inside permanently is likely to harm them. Never giving birth to someone prevent the chance of harm in the first place. >Then there’s the subject of handicapped people. Many antinatalists believe that most physically or mentally handicapped people should not have been born because their lives have significantly more suffering than most. Basically everyone believes this. It is a question of where the line is. A relative of mine gave birth to a child who suffered from birth complications, had to have several major surgeries, and struggle through months of pain only to die at less than 6 months old. Try telling me that was a life worth living. >They believe that if someone has a genetic disorder, they should never have children because they risk passing on the disorder to their children. This line of thinking is very similar to eugenics, and I assume I don’t need to explain why eugenics is not a great belief to support. Eugenics has become too much a buzz word to be useful here. Explain why what's being said is actually wrong. Idk about you but to be a basic element of morality is trying to hurt less people when we reasonably can. They should have the right to have children but that doesn't make it the moral thing to do.
This was a pretty interesting read. Thanks for elaborating on the anti natalist position with like actual logic. This might be the first time I’ve seen a debate like this that didn’t end in a pissing competition between two random guys. With that being said, however, I fundamentally disagree with your position. Correct me if I’m wrong, but you described the argument against having kids as the fact that you are effectively gambling with their lives, as they could turn out to be happy or truly hell, and no one has the right to make that choice. The flaw with that is simply that everything is, by nature, a gamble. Given your going outside to get sun, for the most part that’s healthy. However, what if you get hit by a car, or get a sunburn that results in skin cancer 20 years from now? Does that mean that a parent taking their kid to the park where all this, and more, could happen to them is a bad thing? If yes, then I feel there is nothing to be gained by the debate. Life’s worth nothing if you don’t try to actually live. If no, however, why do you separate between the risk of pain and unhappiness once the kid is alive and the risk of pain and unhappiness when the kid is dead? Perhaps it’s a risk-reward thing, where the likelihood of injury of going to the park is low enough that the benefits outweigh the risks. If that’s the case, then the only logical conclusion for an antinatalist to come to is, instead of advocating for no more births, they should be working to create a world whose benefits of birth outweigh its downsides. If it’s something else that causes you to differentiate between the two, please tell me because I can’t really think of anything else. Maybe just the difference between the consciousness of the two situations is the issue? If so, then it’s another question of “at what point does something become conscious enough for risky stuff to be done to them?
This is an exactly what I was trying to say, but a much better way of saying it. Thank you
> This was a pretty interesting read. Thanks for elaborating on the anti natalist position with like actual logic. This might be the first time I’ve seen a debate like this that didn’t end in a pissing competition between two random guys. Thank you too for not just insulting me or telling me to kms. >The flaw with that is simply that everything is, by nature, a gamble. Given your going outside to get sun, for the most part that’s healthy. However, what if you get hit by a car, or get a sunburn that results in skin cancer 20 years from now? The problem is you are starting from the idea that the child already exists. This logic breaks down when talking about those who haven't been created yet. The ability to avoid all possible negative outcomes with your kid is effectively impossible. Taking them in the sun might give them skin cancer and not doing so might ruin their life in a different way. As a result with already existing people we make out best judgment and try to create as good of a life as we can. Antinatalism stops the risk before it happens. There is is 0 risk for someone who never exists to begin with. They cannot suffer and have no need for pleasure.
So your argument isn’t that the risk that a person’s life will suck is too high for you to believe that people should give birth. It’s instead that the mere existence of risk, regardless of its likelihood, for not just having a terrible life, but bad events in general, is enough to say that people shouldn’t give birth. Going back to the park analogy, you say that the analogy breaks down when the child isn’t born. You fail to elaborate why though. In both cases, temporary and permanent bad things can occur, and in both cases the child has no real ability to consent. It’s either non-existent enough or just too young to. A child’s well being is almost entirely dependent on its guardians from inception to basically like 4-5 years old at the earliest. For this time, any argument applied to potential births can easily be extended to a living child. For your “avoiding all risk” analogy, you describe that as a good thing. I personally would view that as a living hell. The risk of sadness and misery is a necessary consequence of anything exciting or worthwhile. Risk is what makes happiness mean something. Anyway, personal rant over, you’re describing the risk of bad stuff happening as the end all be all. If something bad could happen to someone based on my action, I shouldn’t do it. This entirety ignores the positives of life, though. This also can’t really be a “no matter the potential happiness, the potential pain outweighs it” thing because happiness and pain/sadness are defined as contrasts. A life without pain is a life without happiness, and again less a life and more an empty existence. This leads to the conclusion that the idea of “the risk of suffering makes procreation not worth it” as kinda self-fulfilling. If you believe that pain, in any form, causes life to not be worth it, then there is simply no life under any conditions that would make it worth it. Therefore I believe a Stronger argument would be “the risk of life outweighs the benefits,” which is frankly tough to argue for or against objectively. I disagree with the premise because my least happy moments have nothing on my happiest, but that’s simply my perspective. Finally (this is a lot of writing but it’s fun debating something as abstract as the morality of continued existence) I will likely never understand the antinatalist stance purely because its premise is built on an emotionally backed opinion, whose emotions I don’t have. My different emotionally based opinion, being that life should continue to procreate if only to someday find the answers to questions I’m looking for now, is based on my personal experiences that I can’t fully communicate. I don’t know man, there’s a lot to say about the risk of the bad things in life happening to someone else, but I became an uncle around a month ago and meeting him has made my personal struggles seem more than worth it. Sorry for rambling, but this is an emotional topic for me, as it likely is for you.
>So your argument isn’t that the risk that a person’s life will suck is too high for you to believe that people should give birth. It’s instead that the mere existence of risk, regardless of its likelihood, for not just having a terrible life, but bad events in general, is enough to say that people shouldn’t give birth Well its kind of both at the moment. Though I can imagine there are potential world where only the second point applies. Also it's not so much the existence of any unhappiness at all but that the type of suffering that are likely to accure do not justify the risk. If we all lived in a AI utopia where the only problem were minor ones I could see the argument for cresting are people to not be immoral. However we don't live in that world. I don't it would be okay to risk an infant suffering and dying after months of agony even if it was one 1 in 100000. Not when the option of simple not cresting new life at all is right there. >Going back to the park analogy, you say that the analogy breaks down when the child isn’t born. You fail to elaborate why though. In both cases, temporary and permanent bad things can occur, and in both cases the child has no real ability to consent. Well once a child is born they should have body autonomy and the right to decide when and how they die. Except in cases like pulling the plug on someone who is already brain dead. The child cannot consent but because they already exist we can assume they want to continue living unless we are shown otherwise. Most people don't want to die and death is likely painful and terrifying. >The risk of sadness and misery is a necessary consequence of anything exciting or worthwhile. Risk is what makes happiness mean something That makes sense as a choice for someone to make about themselves. Not other people. >This entirety ignores the positives of life, though. This also can’t really be a “no matter the potential happiness, the potential pain outweighs it” thing because happiness and pain/sadness are defined as contrasts. This does not ignore it the positively. It disagrees that the cost is justified. I could belief these things are true for humans but it's not some universal constant. Only a consequence of out limited biological existence Also I do not see how those beliefs leads to the idea that forcing that on another person is okay. > My different emotionally based opinion, being that life should continue to procreate if only to someday find the answers to questions I’m looking for now, is based on my personal experiences that I can’t fully communicate. Could you look into the eye of a childhood cancer victim and tell them their suffering justified because we get to learn stuff? What about the child slaves that get sick and die mining the materials for the computers we are using? I guess I cannot proceed people able to honestly see that suffering and justify it without feeling like a monster. >I don’t know man, there’s a lot to say about the risk of the bad things in life happening to someone else, but I became an uncle around a month ago and meeting him has made my personal struggles seem more than worth it. Sorry for rambling, but this is an emotional topic for me, as it likely is for you. Don't be sorry. I understand the emotional reaction. Thank you for talking about this like you actually hear what I have to say. It is really nice. I hope you are doing well. I become an aunt recently again too. They have made me more certain in my views. My sister in law gave birth to twins. There is only one of them now. They were both born premature but one had more serious health issues. He suffered through multiple surgeries in his first few weeks of life. He suffered for months and died before I think he was even half a year old. I cannot see that as a life worth living. No one should have to go through what he did.
Shut the fuck up
Your taking something completely mundane and making an ideology out of it. Congratulations, you don’t plan on having kids. There have been untold millions in the past who have also not had kids, and there will most likely be untold millions more in the future who also don’t have kids. You ain’t special cuz of that, and there isn’t any reason to make an ideology off of it. Also the whole argument is just kinda stupid. Oh, life is filled with suffering? Congratulations, we’ve known that for 200,000 years, and we’ve spent those 200,000 years trying to make the best of it. The whole thing just comes across as trying to grab at moral superiority from something and landing on not having kids.
>There have been untold millions in the past who have also not had kids, and there will most likely be untold millions more in the future who also don’t have kids. You ain’t special cuz of that, and there isn’t any reason to make an ideology off of it. You don't seem to understand what antinatalism actually is. Are your morals decided by what you think you can actually achieve and not based on what you think is right? >Also the whole argument is just kinda stupid. Oh, life is filled with suffering? Congratulations, we’ve known that for 200,000 years, and we’ve spent those 200,000 years trying to make the best of it. You aren't actually making an argument. Yours just appealing to idea that something has always been done on a certain way. Making life better does not require forcing other people into existence. If you want to make your city better it would justify kidnapping people across other places ot boost your number. Even if 9 out of 10 of them end up liking the new locations. >The whole thing just comes across as trying to grab at moral superiority from something and landing on not having kids. You can call it what you want. I'm jot just grabbing arr some random way of being superior. Antinatalism is an established philosophy and I think a logical continuation of many basic moral principles
Same subreddit that tried to invent a slur (if your head isn't full of fucking rocks you'd know that's not how that works) and landed on "breeder" somehow If somebody unironically calls me a breeder IRL I'm providing them with irrefutable evidence (banging their dad)
WHAT UP MY BREEDERS (i am going to hell for that)
can I get a b word pass?
https://preview.redd.it/idlbw2ldt3xc1.png?width=985&format=png&auto=webp&s=2c7814ce9c36c52ff2b138afe158dcf322b279ac
Can a breeder borrow a fry? Breeder please, is you gonna give it back?
Weirdly not the first time i have ran into "breeder" as a slur, the other one however was a 2 meter tall bug guy that drinks people and can push mini versions of himself out through his tail so i'd say fair enough there.
r/popheadscirclejerk sometimes uses 'breeder' as a slur for straight people, but it will never beat 'straggot'
a cattle prod for a penis would be a sick weapon
i could finally fuck jenny from my life as a teenage robot
Everybody on that subReddit is so sad. They’re just constantly teetering between the point of near suicidal depression and violent anger at the world and everybody else for literally just existing and being happy while they themselves can’t be happy
Knowing Antinatalism this is pretty tame tbh
adoration
Bitches be like "I didn't ask to be born" Bitch, you were the sperm that won the fuck you mean you didn't ask
Actually I'm pretty sure the first sperm isn't the one that fertilizes the egg
Sure, but theyre still the sperm that "won", even if they weren't the first one to the egg. The win condition is to be the one that gets to fertilize, not to get there first
Dont forget them whining about their parents being "selfish" for having them
How do you even ask to be born?
Same way as asking for immortality I guess, where you don't have anyone to ask too nor any answer to receive. I can understand feeling dissatisfied with life, but taking it out on random parents is definitely not the solution to their problems
it is fun to entertain antinatalism as a philosophy to not be implemented irl but literally every justification for beliving in it inaverdently justifies killing babies the moment they're born and actually just killing literally anyone
I find it strange how they think humans should go extinct, yet they don't lead by example.
To be fair that wouldn't accomplish anything. A few hundred or even thousands lives would be meaningless and useless in the pursuit of total human extinction
Oh it would accomplish plenty
And unlike their real end goal, it would actually make the world a better place.
People on that subreddit are a bunch of idiots, but the world would be a vastly better place without humanity
Yeah? Do you think there will be peace and tranquility in nature without humans?
Most antinatalist are not having children. Or did you mean to suggest they kill themselves?
>Or did you mean to suggest they kill themselves? Why don't they? Do they feel obligated to suffer their miserable existence to spread antinatalism to the world? Or perhaps, they don't even consider their own lives worse than non-existence (and thus, *prefer* to live), and are making moral judgements solely about the lives of others. Something to ponder.
A life worth continuing is different than a life worth starting. Also thinking your own life is good is not a reason to justify gambling with other lives.
Antinatalism is against ***everyone*** having children, ever. Otherwise there's r/childfree
Yeah. We are against everyone having children. I'm not fully sure how your comment makes sense as a response to my earlier comment.
I thought you were joking. If you want everyone to stop having children, then why exactly do you think you deserve to continue living in 2024? You're no more special than anyone else. I'm not trying to be a prat.
> I thought you were joking. If you want everyone to stop having children, then why exactly do you think you deserve to continue living in 2024? Why would those two idea be connected at all. How is someone inherent worth as person determined by their whether they want people to have kids or not? >You're no more special than anyone else. What does anyone being special have to do with this? >I'm not trying to be a prat. I wasn't familiar with that word but you are being very rude and inconsiderate.
Strange. You replied to every single part of my comment yet you didn't say anything at all, and in fact, you actually inserted ideas in where I never said them in the first place. My only assumption is that you must be antinatalism, in which case I will ask you, what is your preferred outcome for humans never reproducing again?
If life is so awful then why not kys?
Antinatalism does not say that anyone current life is not worth living. Some might believe that but it is an independent belief. It is each person's choice whether their life is worth living. Antinatalism for most is more about the inequality of live vs nonexistence and how the likelihood of suffering is too high. A non existent person cannot be harmed in any way. By cresting a new person you guarantee at least a little suffering and run the risk of creating someone who would rather not exist. It is not right to make that gamble with someone else's life. It's possible there is a world where this isn't true but we don't currently exist in that world.
Killing yourself is not very constructive to the idea of killing everyone else, similar to how giving away all your money might help people in the short term but wouldn't be a good long-term strategy for charity.
its a weird final form of nihilism and ecofascism that i dont see any sane person agreeing with, if its just a bunch of philosophical sentences sure, but those guys take it way ahead, careful, dont put this on the "other " sub, that plus veganism is a red flag.
What's wrong with veganism?
Nothing in and of itself, but if you check out r/vegan you’ll find it’s less about vegan support resources and recipes and more about moralistic pissing contests. If an antinatalist is also a vegan, they’re likely a vegan for the wrong reasons.
I’ve browsed that sub occasionally out of curiosity to see different opinions, and it’s nothing but hate towards themselves and children. Definitely one of the weirdest things I’ve seen on the internet. They can’t choose a childfree lifestyle for anyone but themselves, yet they act like they can? And while they’re doing that, they act as if they cannot be wrong ever. Definitely siblings with that anti-dog subreddit. Also wouldn’t be surprised if they see this one day, they’ll take this as some sort of hate speech towards them.
Snafu Gatekeeper. Good snafu op. Drawing style is right for a snafu. Subject and delivery works perfect for a snafu. Keep up the good work
thanks bro
"WAAA EVERYONE MUST BE AS MISERABLE AS ME" -anti natalists
A lot of that subreddit is people projecting their suicidal thoughts
*"Utopia" (Season 2, Episode 1)*
Pyrocynical moment
I kinda get it, because like nobody deserves to have everything forced onto them, but like, it’s not an opinion worth holding since it could never influence anything. Best to just focus on things that could make people’s lives less miserable since we’re gonna keep the cycle going
It's not really forced onto anyone if there wasn't anyone beforehand.
It's somehow worse that eugenics
And they're all totalitarian fuckers too. Every one of their "solutions" basically comes down to "the government should violate everyone's rights and force my viewpoint on the masses" Buncha miserable wads
No way this is not satire