this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
388 points (96.0% liked)

196

16563 readers
1726 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 131 points 4 months ago (27 children)

No, you're a fool if you truly believe this. Every generation has had some form of this feeling. Imagine considering having children during WW1, or WW2, or during Vietnam or Korea? Then after that we had McCarthyism and the Cold War - all seemingly hopeless days. Yet there is still so much beauty in the world, and there is so much that makes life worth living.

My son will turn 2 in a few months. It's tough being a parent, but it is entirely worth it. You cannot give into myopia - every time I hear him laugh, I am reminded that there is good in the world and it is worth fighting for. He will have his own challenges to face in life, but it is our job as a society to equip him, and all of the next generation, with the tools they need to succeed.

I'm troubled about the future, but you cannot make that stop you from striving for better days. As Marcus Aurelius said, never let the future disturb you. You will meet it, if you have to, with the same weapons of reason which today arm you against the present.

I've been re-reading the Lord of the Rings lately, and there is a lot there on this topic, but I always think back to Sam. We all should be so lucky to have a friend like that, but what he says when all hope seems to be lost is truly striking:

"It's like the great stories, Mr. Frodo, the ones that really mattered. Full of darkness and danger they were, and sometimes you didn't want to know the end because how could the end be happy? How could the world go back to the way it was when so much bad has happened? But in the end, it's only a passing thing this shadow, even darkness must pass. A new day will come, and when the sun shines, it'll shine out the clearer. I know now folks in those stories had lots of chances of turning back, only they didn't. They kept going because they were holding on to something. That there's some good in this world, Mr. Frodo, and it's worth fighting for."

Tolkien wrote this after his experiences fighting in The Somme. If he could find hope and found the courage to keep striving for better days, then so should we.

[–] [email protected] 76 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don't think I would have brought a new person into the world during any of the other time periods you mention either.

[–] [email protected] 68 points 4 months ago (3 children)

That’s fair, and not an unreasonable choice. What I can’t get over is people acting like that’s the only reasonable choice, and that people who have children are idiots.

Just look around in this thread and you’ll see some smug ass attitudes. It kind of reminds me of those 14 year old kids who feel immensely smart because they’re atheist, you know?

[–] [email protected] 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I didn’t say people who have children are idiots. I just think it’s immoral

[–] [email protected] 48 points 4 months ago (21 children)

Ok lol, my point remains exactly the same and I think your viewpoint is incredibly reductive.

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago (4 children)

I’d say you can find things that make life worth living if you’re already here. But if someone's not "here", why drag someone you're supposed to love the most into this mess when we can’t even properly look after the children that are already here.

I’m not anti-child - I’d consider adopting if it didn’t cost like $20k. I’m anti-new child for myself, and yeah I get sad when I see other people have kids, especially now. It's like having another kid when you lived in the middle of the dust bowl and people were actively dying from starvation and the dust. Probably not the best time to have kids, similar to now. They just couldn't easily make the choice to not have kids back then.

There are tons of arguments in favour of having kids like what if they cure cancer etc.

However, for myself, I truly believe there will be an ecological collapse due to climate change if not during my lifetime, in the immediate next generation. And we’re still not doing enough. I don’t want to flee natural disasters with a child in tow. One of best things you can do for the climate is not have kids. I'm privileged enough to make that choice so I did, but it's not my only reason. You got late stage capitalism and the accelerating concentration of resources with the hyper wealthy, war / nuclear war, and the fact that pregnancy is one of most risky things I can medically do. Social media, the toxic drug supply, the rise of fascism (again), microplastics in literally fucking everything. I don't even think we'll have social healthcare or social security in Canada by the time I die because they're gutting our programs so badly.

I get that people have a strong reaction to their choices being called immoral. Morality looks different for everyone. However, the counterargument of "Well I have children and they're great and bring me so much joy etc" falls on deaf ears, because it truly does not sound like joy to me and when I say I am anti-child for myself I am telling you that. It's like trying to convince someone skydiving is the greatest thing - some people love it, but not my cup of tea. It is so foreign to me that whenever I hear parents say this it feels like they are trying to convince themselves that they made the right choice.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (25 replies)
[–] [email protected] 107 points 4 months ago (6 children)

Ah yes, it's not the billionaires, corrupt politicians and massive industry inefficiency that's causing our problems, it's children!!!

I swear to God, reading stupidity from people I expect to be on my side of the political divide hurts especially bad.

[–] [email protected] 38 points 4 months ago (1 children)

More like yes those are the problems and children are not the answer to those problems.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 4 months ago

I'm not sure where they got the impression anyone was blaming children unless they are intentionally being obtuse to attack ideas they disagree with. Similar to people who screech "you hate dogs!?!" when you complain about shitty dog owners.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 79 points 4 months ago (4 children)

But without infinite growth how can we feed the capitalistic engine with more souls?

[–] [email protected] 32 points 4 months ago

Just think of all them empty mines, sad and alone, only wanting to be filled with the sound of children coughing themselves to death from black lung.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 77 points 4 months ago (13 children)

Crazy take: people get to choose if they have children.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago

I wish I got to choose if my parents had children.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 74 points 4 months ago (2 children)

It's fine if you don't want kids for yourself, but antinatalism as an ideology is only a few steps away from ecofascism.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 4 months ago (3 children)

correct. i would have no problem if this post and the subsequent comments defending it didn’t use the words “wrong” and “immoral.” but they do and that’s fascist territory.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I guess each person has a different approach to antinatalism. I don’t want to bring children into the world because unlike many people who outright lie, I do not think it will bring me joy. I’m also scared that if I bring a child into this world and it will suffer as much as I currently do, I won’t be able to live with the blame.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 4 months ago (7 children)

Antinatalism isn't just a personal decision to not have kids, it's an ideological belief that having kids is morally wrong.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 71 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Antinatalism is the first law of robotics, reduced to absurdity. It answers the question by forgetting why you asked it in the first place.

Yes, it does eliminate human suffering. However, it does so in the same way that a bullet to the head cures a headache.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 65 points 4 months ago (4 children)

you do understand that the joker is in the wrong here, right? like in this scene he's a mentally i'll man saying that killing people is funny.

if you genuinely believe that existence has an inherent negative value then i strongly suggest you seek help, and i don't mean that to be facetious. antinatalism is depression turned into a moral philosophy, it posits itself as a solution to suffering by offering an unrealizable future, but really it's an excuse to not even attempt to make the world better.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Shampiss 61 points 4 months ago (5 children)

It's absolutely fine if you don't want to have kids

I don't agree with the Antinatalist idea that having children is immoral. Or that Antinatalism reduces suffering.

If I'm incorrect please elaborate

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 4 months ago

What a bunch of cringe edgy antinatalist nonsense. Think about the future, if you don't have kids, who are we gonna feed to the machine a few decades from now?

[–] traches 51 points 4 months ago

touch grass

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 months ago (8 children)

Antinatalism is reactionary and incorrect.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 39 points 4 months ago (14 children)

I think most people simply don’t appreciate what having a child is and what a massive responsibility it is. Bringing another human being into this world is a gift, one that you should be expected to nurture and love no matter what.

The problem is that many believe that a child is simply an extension of oneself and can be manipulated and contorted into whatever the parent wants. A child is not you, a child is not a free workforce, or laborer. Too many people who do not truly understand what they are bringing into this world are parents and thats why theres so many flawed individuals.

I think most people shouldnt have children and especially right now with the way the worlds headed but to say having children is completely wrong is immensely stupid.

(in addition i myself am abstaining from having children because i dont want the responsibility and i find the lil shits annoying.)

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] [email protected] 36 points 4 months ago (3 children)
[–] vale 26 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree. The thought of bringing a child into the world in our current political and economical landscape would be gross.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 4 months ago (2 children)

hahaha it’s funny because you twisted my words to mean the opposite good one 😂😂😂

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 34 points 4 months ago (3 children)

especially when I see what kind of people choose to have kids

[–] [email protected] 37 points 4 months ago (5 children)

Then you're leaving the future to them.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] explodicle 32 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This is why religious people outnumber us.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago (1 children)

In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at Rapid Pace

One of the problems with the historical Christian system, particularly in the US, is that its predicated on people living in the same place and going to the same church intergenerationally. As people are forced to migrate in order to find employment, they become untethered from their heritage church sites and the attendant communities that added real value to church membership.

The hyper-capitalization of the modern American Protestant movement hasn't helped, either. Very hard for the Southern Baptists to maintain participation when GenX, Millennial, and Zoomer cohorts no longer want to live in these heavily religious communities. They move to areas that don't have these highly active and Christian-dense neighborhoods. They fall out of the hyper-religious social circles. And they lose touch with the media and culture that ultimately drive these religious groups insane.

Meanwhile, the low housing prices and the increasingly finance and tech focused economic sectors are bringing in large numbers of religiously rivalrous migrant populations. The most common new religious constructions in the US are Mosques thanks to a large influx of Arab, Persian, and East African migrants. And because migrant populations and religious builders love cheap land, they're often showing up in and around declining Christian communities.

If you're out living in LA or Tampa or Houston and you're wondering why folks in Peoria, Indiana or Chattanooga, Tennessee or Tulsa, Oklahoma are losing their fucking minds over the super-scary illegal immigrant / Radical Islamic invasion, this is a big reason why. Their kids are all leaving for the coasts while lots of unseasonably tan people are showing up to take their place.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Any advanced society should be able to acknowledge that population growth must not outpace the available resources. Or else there will be Bad Times For All

[–] [email protected] 45 points 4 months ago (2 children)

There are more houses/apartments than people.
There is more food going to the trash than what we need.

It's not that we have a lot of people. The problem is the greed of a few and the complacency/idiocy of the rest.

[–] booly 19 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Yeah, having kids probably reduced my household resource consumption, compared to the dual income no kid lifestyle that my wife and I had before kids.

Population growth is so far disconnected from resource consumption, because people's resource consumption does not resemble a bell curve. A private jet produces more CO2 in an hour (about 2 tonnes) than the average Indian produces in a year (about 1.9 tonnes).

The poor people having children aren't destroying the planet. Rich people, childless or not, are. (And yes, I acknowledge that I fall under the "rich" category here.)

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 4 months ago (11 children)

Something that no one has discussed in this highly enlightened conversation here is the issue of consent. A person cannot consent to being born. Full stop. I don't know of a way around that besides ignoring it.

[–] [email protected] 44 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (21 children)

A person cannot consent to being born

But they also can't request it. What do you do for the people who don't exist yet that desire existence?

I should note that I have gone around the local NICU and requested all the children present to indicate a desire to stop existing. None of them agreed. Many of them were struggling mightily to continue to exist. A few even yelled at me for asking the question. I'll admit its a small sample size, but hard to argue with a 100% existence endorsement.

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 4 months ago (21 children)

What's consent to a being that doesn't exist?

load more comments (21 replies)
[–] [email protected] 20 points 4 months ago

Sorry Timmy, you still have to go to bed.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 4 months ago

I was a mild antinatalist for a while. Personally wanted kids, but felt the world was too broken to pass to a new generation that didn't ask for it.

And then -- I know this sounds dumb, but whatever -- I played Horizon: Zero Dawn.

Parenthood in a time of armageddon is a central theme, and it's not subtle about it. Every story element is named in a way that alludes to either parenthood or annihilation. The overarching plot describes the moral challenges of...

spoiler...planning a next generation of humans to rise from the ashes, thousands of years after the previous generation went extinct. They died to an AI catastrophe, but it works just as well as an allegory for climate change.

Is it ethical to even subject a new generation to this, knowing what we know about how we fucked things up? If we're gonna try, do we have a duty to put in a kill switch in case things go off the rails again?

Obviously, the game sides firmly with the new humans, but it doesn't dismiss these questions out-of-hand, and it's okay with ambiguity and hypocrisy even on the part of Project Zero Dawn's chief architect.

The ending scene still gets me: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFJ_vSCJdO0

load more comments
view more: next ›