You must log in or register to comment.

rattledlove1139 wrote

It is uncomfortable. i have pain and hard times because disabilities and people mistreating me, but i am happy exist. Even with all problems i face life is not all down down down, there is up and good and things to look forward to.
understand why someone would not carry or raise children themself - like money and time limits, health problems, or just not want - but really uncomfortable if say bad as sort of universal truth. I wish i could be parent but eugenics society do not want that and sometimes this do not feel much different


[deleted] wrote (edited )


kano wrote

I think this response is completely inappropriate.


asterism wrote

Yet to hear an antinatalist argument that isnt just a bunch of moralising nonsense.

Have kids or dont but dont pretend either decision gives you moral high ground. its all a matter of preference.


kinshavo wrote

Maybe I subscribe to this, and it's funny to see that raddles opinion on this is so diverse and the thread stirred a conversation that I didn't saw here for a couple of months.

I interpreted antinatalism as a philosophical position in essence, much like suicide, and I also see it as a very personal decision. I can't see it as a mass prescription for any kind of ideology as antinatalism pose as a movement.

I personally don't have the emotional strength to raise a kid, I can barely take care of myself properly. But even then I have instincts of parenthood and maybe this can happen in a given circumstance


Bezotcovschina wrote

Is veganism moralist nonsense? Is anti-racism moralist nonsense?


asterism wrote

I suppose I would think myself a nihilist. So, Though I choose to practice both, I think the answer is yes.

In fact finding things to be "moralist nonsense" is also moralist nonsense.

The only reason I see to do anything at all is because it pleases me to do it. Though this is hedonism seeing pleasure as a moral good or as desirable. This too is moralist nonsense.

Basically everything is nonsense and there are no good arguments to do anything ever. Though that too is moralist nonsense.


ArmyOfNone wrote

Did you read Sweetiebot's reply? I don't see anything moralistic in it.


Fool wrote

Seems moralistic to me, believing that they're doing something good by not bringing life into the world.

It's really the most basic anti-natalist argument.


ArmyOfNone wrote (edited )

It's not moralist, it's just moral.

Who here is really having...

" the habit or practice of moralizing" (according to Merriam-Webster) ?

But this poster was not moralizing anyone. They just don't want to reproduce (for the reason they said). It's their choice and neither you or I have a say about it.


Fool wrote

Then it's not anti-natalism. Not having kids isn't anti-natalist, believing no one should have kids is anti-natalism


ArmyOfNone wrote (edited )

believing no one should have kids

So that's a rather extreme POV I rarely seen/heard anywhere. To a point I wonder if that's such an issue?

But people accusing those who believe we'd better be thinking twice about having kids to be "anti-natalist" sound dishonest and sus too. This could potentially be conservative/Pro-Lifer gaslighting, too.

In a hyper-cosumerist capitalist society, to be having more kids ain't bad, but systematically it represents an ever-increasing demand on a weak system that's hardly sustainable. So there's reason to raise a few questions at least.


Tequila_Wolf wrote (edited )

I think that there are multiple versions of it, some better than others. I don't subscribe to it, since I think there are occasions where having a child is ok, but I lean towards it.

The main one I see going around, grounded in David Benatar's work Better Never To Have Been, is built on a utilitarian argument that fails in some of the ways that utlilitarianism fails. But the basic idea that if you bring someone into existence, you are a cause of all their pain, but if you don't bring them into existence, that person didn't exist to miss out on anything, does affect me.

Incidentally, it was antinatalism that made me vegan. The fact that industrial farming of animals, including for milk and eggs actually involves forcing life, pregnancy and birth onto animals, over and over, was an additional kind of harm that made clear to me that was unacceptable. Trillions of animals have been brought into existence by humans, their entire lives just abused through industrial processes. They didn't need to be brought into existence, and trillions of entire lives continue to be forcefully created and filled with horrid suffering. The egg that the vegetarian eats couldn't have been laid without the life of the chicken that laid it, and little-to-nothing about that coming into being wasn't constructed by abusive humans.

I think that whether someone should have kids or not depends on their particular circumstance. For example, I think it's hard to justify having a child if you have the resources to adopt. Choosing to bring someone into existence instead of adopting someone is fucking two people over horribly. Instead of making someone else's life markedly better by adopting them, you're leaving them in that (relatively much worse) position, while creating a whole new life that will suffer terribly, perhaps horrifically in this world.


ChaosAnarchy wrote

I think experiencing life is great & it feels like antinatalism is weirdly eugenics. That being said, right now I can't see myself getting children, because I can't imagine watching over them all the time in this economy.


Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

Could you explain why you feel that antinatalism is eugenic?


ChaosAnarchy wrote (edited )

It's a sort of reverse-planned "breeding", I heard antinatalism's argument like "you only suffer when you live so you shouldn't birth others" or "in today's society your child would face great terror because of the coming consequences of climate change like food wars"

but I feel like it's an argument to keep out poorer people getting children, because by this sort of argument, the rich wouldn't have it bad therefore according to the antinatalism logic they could have babies.

Now, forgive me if I'm totally speaking wrong now, but aren't you technically, if this goes on for generations, if only the more richer people are going to give birth, are getting humans that are more likely to have the "desired" traits the rich people have? As far as to my understanding, the way your life and personality shapes is like 50% environment. Of course, that could be some strange information ingrained in me that could possibly not be true.

If I'm wrong please do correct me. I feel somewhat unsure myself.

Edit: I also forgot to mention another fact: How do you know that your children would not enjoy life on earth? I feel like basing the reason on whether or not to have children because of thinking there's a chance they might not enjoy living here, is at the very least a very tough one to find an answer for.


NoPoint wrote

to keep out poorer people getting children

Or rather, anyone who empathizes with the struggles of living life in this world.


Bezotcovschina wrote

I see, but I think, similar logic is applied by people claiming veganism is racist. Or, in reverse, racist rants about "white replacement" if white people won't have enough children.

getting humans that are more likely to have the "desired" traits the rich people have

If "desired" traits mean specific shapes of a chin or skin pigment, than yes, such traits will propagate

the way your life and personality shapes is like 50% environment

It's much, much more than 50%. I don't know, probably much more than 99% even.

Eugenics is bad not only because it's cruel or racist, or something like that. It's also bad because it's unscientific bullshit.

How do you know that your children would not enjoy life on earth?

For me, it's not about the joy of life, it's about consent. And beneficial outcomes of human extinction to the Earth.


fortmis wrote

Why would anyone make an "ism" out of something like this.


sweetiebot wrote

with so many human and non human animals in need, how could i possibly think of forcing another into this machine of misery? this curse ends with me..


kano wrote (edited )

At some point I thought it was kind of interesting cos basically no one can consent to being born.

Then I decided not to think about it anymore being alive is cool

Edit to add that I never really knew anything about anti natalism or if that's a common argument from them, just that I thought about the above


ArmyOfNone wrote (edited )

I think it's a vague position with several different and diverging standpoints, so that it's difficult to have a thought about it precisely.

If we talk about birth control imposed by some states, well of course to me it's a malthusian form of authoritarian management that shouldn't exist. But then again several states are funding natality and parenting, without planning any overhaul of the economy, infrastructures and public services. So that also means a time bomb for society... but not in the way you'd like. That's the situation in several developed countries where the whole social insfrastructure is not catching up to the ever-growing demands. And a lot of these demands has mostly just to do with more people that got new levels of economic demands, especially for education, transportation and healthcare.

So the argument that this is patronizing or moralizing is kinda dishonest, as it's not taking into account how state and society are pushing birth rates from the start, often without providing the means to back up such population growth.

But if it's about some female person's choice to not have kids, then I don't see what is wrong with this anti-natalism... or how it's anyone else's business!


Bezotcovschina wrote (edited )

complicated. Humanity proved to be very harmful for the Earth and the best thing we can do for our planet is going extinct. Besides, indeed, forcing someome into existence without their content feels very authoritarian. These two merits seems solid to me

Despite that, to be honest, I want to have children. Likely, never will, though. I'm ashamed of these thoughts, of this irrational urge to leave something of you, this specific set of chromosomes after you, after your death. Such a spook


NoPoint wrote

I'm ashamed of these thoughts, of this irrational urge to leave something of you, this specific set of chromosomes after you, after your death. Such a spook

To a certain degree, there will be nothing exactly like you. IDK maybe in the history of time and space you have a genetic doppelganger out there. But there is no way you will make a clone of yourself. And even if you did, it would be exposed to a much different time. They would catch different diseases at different times, be exposed to different substances. Unless you had a time machine I guess.


Bezotcovschina wrote

No-no, it's not what I meant. I'm not talking about exact clones, I'm talking about my egoistical genes wanting to survive, so they are making me want having children. Like some favor for the future, huh.


Bezotcovschina wrote

Damn, just noticed I've listed two same merits in the first part of my comments. I've edited it so my position is clearer now


GoddamnedVoodooMagic wrote

It's absolutely a great thing, I support it 100%. And will likely be more embraced when capitalism (which is pro-natalist to the core) runs its course, as well as being perpetuated by young folks, women, and queer people who are trying to liberate themselves, since patriarchy forces child-bearing/child-rearing upon everybody (can't keep up a nation's strength if more workers and soldiers aren't being pumped out like clockwork). Hell, I'd say pro-natalism is a core tenent of fascism, since it views people as nothing more but property that must create more property (in this case, being children). Then, of course, we get into the ecological problems of natalism, such as the inevitably razing and destroying of lands and species, ravaging the Earth, overpopulation, ramped-up consumption, which causes states and economies to grow, or want to grow, leading to imperialism, etc.


bergra wrote

I think it's privileged thinking because most working class people need children to look after us in our old age.


asterism wrote (edited )


"Lets have children so we can manipulate them into caring for us when we are old and place immeasurable burdens on them"

edit: I have children btw. One thing that is important is that they know they don't owe me shit. If they want to let me die in a ditch, well then I get whats coming to me. Never will I have the expectation they are to care for me.


cyberrose wrote

Don't you think different forms of social behavior would fix that problem?


bergra wrote (edited )

Sure, in a perfect world but we don't have a perfect world so we need to survive in any way we can.