Antinatalism Rule(lemmy.blahaj.zone)

I really appreciate this point of view. I don’t strongly find myself on either side of the isle here, but I think you are making stronger points than those supporting the mainstream opinion that procreation is essential and important.

The argument against you seems to be “but there have been worse times to have kids, and people still had them.” That is emphatically not a good argument.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

naught@sh.itjust.works

2 points

3 months ago

I think I have a fairly cynical view that reproduction is primarily a selfish act based solely on our biological drive to continue our species. I’ve pondered for a long time, and I fail to see a more logical conclusion than that.

Life is tough and there are no guarantees. Rolling the dice by having a kid seems like a messed up thing to do imo.

That said, I would adopt a child or children. That’s a better way to ensure you are putting kindness and hope into the world where it’s needed, rather than creating another vessel for pain from whole cloth.

report

[ - ]

15 points

3 months ago

So? The only way to contribute to community is to be alive. The only way to feel joy is to be alive.

Consent doesn’t make sense for a nonexistant being.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works

1 point

3 months ago

What if you bring a child into the world that’s born with a major, incurable defect?

Life is not always full of joy, in fact, for many it’s devoid of it. I think really good points are being made here against children.

I don’t believe it’s necessarily immoral to have kids, but I DO think it’s a serious grey area. It’s emphatically not the positive action society makes it out to be.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Prunebutt@slrpnk.net

7 points

3 months ago

What if you bring a child into the world that’s born with a major, incurable defect?

What’s your point? That disabled people’s lives aren’t worth anything? 🤨

Life is not always full of joy, in fact, for many it’s devoid of it.

ummm, source? O.o

Also: live can be better, you know. Just because life sucks for some today, doesn’t mean it can’t improve in the future. That’s simply a defeatist stance.

I think really good points are being made here against children.

I’ve yet to see one, tbh.

I don’t believe it’s necessarily immoral to have kids, but I DO think it’s a serious grey area.

I think, the question alone shows a misunderstanding of existence: not everything can be cathegorized into “good” and “bad”.

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

[ - ]

naught@sh.itjust.works

4 points

3 months ago

Is the joy worth the pain? What if they don’t want to contribute to a community? Can you guarantee the joy will outweigh the pain? What gives you the right to will another being into existence?

If the being will become conscious and self aware, why doesn’t their consent matter?

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Prunebutt@slrpnk.net

11 points

3 months ago

Is the joy worth the pain?

Is the pain justifying withholding joy?

What if they don’t want to contribute to a community?

Humans are a social species. That’s like asking: “What if it doesn’t want to drink?”

Can you guarantee the joy will outweigh the pain?

Since when are we modeling everything we do on guaranteed knowledge?

What gives you the right to will another being into existence?

Rights aren’t given. They’re negotiated. I negotiate the right with the person that conceives the child with me.

If the being will become conscious and self aware, why doesn’t their consent matter?

Consent doesn’t matter for hypothetical futures.

permalink

report

parent

[ - ]

Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works

2 points

3 months ago

I don’t believe you won this. I’m not siding with the person you’re discussing this topic with, but they made better moral arguments.

Your supposition that consent can morally come from two seperate human beings, despite the potential condemnation of the new human, is inherently flawed. The same logic could be used to excuse a huge variety of cruelties. Giving someone something (even life itself), does not inherently grant the donors agency over that life.

For example, if a terrible disease that brings pain and very early death is genetically passed on by one person that decides knowingly to have a child, and the child is born with that disease, one could easily make the argument that it was immoral for that individual to have a child, instead of adopting.

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments

[ - ]

naught@sh.itjust.works

2 points

3 months ago

You yourself said they are not yet existent, so really is joy being “withheld”? That doesn’t work in your framework, I think.

Just because a human exists does not mean they fall neatly into a category where they innately love “contributing to a community”. We’re not apes, well most of us :p

rights are negotiated

You only mentioned the rights of the parents (in a strangely cold and transactional way btw lol). What of the child’s rights? They must negotiate with you for them after their nonconsensual birth?

Consent doesn’t matter for hypothetical futures

It’s not hypothetical–a child is born. They live and experience. You’re in a paradoxical state where consent doesn’t matter because the kid doesn’t exist, yet they necessarily must exist to experience the joy you mention

permalink

report

parent

Show more comments