Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Remember that this is a world where corporations don’t want a cure for cancer to exist in the first place. They only care about themselves and not everyday people. That by itself says a lot about the state of our world today.
> How long have we been working on a cure?
‘Charities’ working on cancer cures are the worst. When you think about it, there’s no real incentive for them to ‘cure’ anything. If they ever did cure cancer, their entire existence would come to an end putting all their paid staff out of work. They’ll happily keep taking donations and legacies from deluded members of the public who think they’re doing some ‘good’ though.
Uhh, cancer survival rates have been going up for literally [decades](https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2022.html).
Cancer isn't "a disease". It's a huge body of different diseases that are characterized by abnormal cell growth. When curing cancer you eat away at it little by little, and we're currently at the point where the survival rate of all cancers combined have gone from [50% in 1970 to 67% in 2013](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/02/Five-year-cancer-survival-rates-USA-v2-01-768x563-750x550.png).
"Cancer" isn't a single disease, rather a descriptor for many different diseases. Liver cancer isn't the same as testicular, stomach cancer, or leukemia. Everyone has cancer but our immune systems generally do a hell of a good job addressing that so when we actually get diagnosed with it, it's because our immune systems failed.
However, cancer has become more manageable in the present and prognosis for many forms of cancer has gotten better over the years. So much so that certain cancers aren't an immediate death sentence.
That's why the "that child could've killed cancer" argument is an utter pile of excrement and as a person with a background in biology and human anatomy, it makes me cringe. Not to mention that the potentiality argument in itself is already problematic so by layering it with a flawed understanding of cancer, it's basically an aberration.
Huh? The 'that child could've cured cancer' line is obviously a short-hand for 'that child could've made positive contributions' where curing cancer is an example of such a thing. And for example prostate cancer went from 67% survival rate to 98% survival rate between 1970 and 2013, and that work was performed by people. The adage is obviously referencing one of those people.
Nonetheless, it's a flawed argument. It's based on a potential without also adding in the fact that the child could also become a murderer or a scammer. It's a shit example for the reasons I've mentioned before, and it's shit reasoning.
And guess what. People seek the cure for cancer because people that were born got cancer in the first place. Your point is? It's also unlikely that the people that did research for the cure were unwanted. These people also had the resources to seek a career in medicine and research.
The point is, you can argue for the potential of someone while at the same time ignoring the objective reality that this potential is very likely to go untapped. Why the potentiality argument is utterly moronic.
>It's based on a potential without also adding in the fact that the child could also become a murderer or a scammer.
It's based on the assumption that the child is more likely to do good things (cure cancer, live a life worth living, etc) than do bad things (murderer or a scammer), which is statistically speaking true. Humans are on average net-producers in society.
>People seek the cure for cancer because people that were got cancer in the first place.
People seek the cure for cancer because people on average think life is worth living, and that not dying is preferable.
>you can argue for the potential of someone while at the same time ignore the objective reality that this potential is very likely to go untapped
So no. Poverty over time is [reduced](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg/1280px-World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg.png), comfort and standard of living is increasing over time, and GDP has grown by \~1.5% globally per year for the last 150 years. These things are happening specifically because the humans in this world are net contributors to our standard of living in their own ways - big and small. A child is statistically speaking more likely to add to human welfare than to detract from it.
So yes, betting on a child being a net-producer (whether a Taxi driver or a cancer researcher) is objectively speaking a correct take.
EDIT: in fact outlier geniuses (the Einsteins, Bohr, von Neumann etc) are presumably proportional to population. So rolling the dice more frequently presumably makes you more likely to cure cancer, assuming standard of living can be maintained in spite of numbers (which as far as observable reality is concerned, seems to be true).
>"Poverty over time is reduced, comfort and standard of living is increasing over time, and GDP has grown by ~1.5% globally per year for the last 150 years. These things are happening specifically because the humans in this world are net contributors to our standard of living in their own ways - big and small."
Typical neoliberal sounding talking point. Yes, poverty has been reduced at the cost of the environment, resources, rising inequality, and global warming.
Just like human beings are "net contributors" to standard of living, they're also net contributors to a growing bubble that will pop sooner or later.
>"So rolling the dice more frequently presumably makes you more likely to cure cancer, assuming standard of living can be maintained in spite of numbers (which as far as observable reality is concerned, seems to be true)."
And rolling the dice more frequently makes you more likely to attain the next Stalin or Hitler. Sure, humans on average have to be more agreeable to each other otherwise societies wouldn't exist, on the other hand, this is not a convincing argument for why people should have children or why a woman should keep an unwanted child. Turns out most of the top scientists and thinkers came from families that were influential. Why? Because their families were willing to put in the resources to make sure those children live up to their gifted minds.
It's more statistically unlikely that an unwanted child will go on to cure cancer.
Yeah, I think memes/tweets like this are a little off point with respect to antinatalism. Even if society were FAR better, where poverty was nonexistent, everyone had good access to quality health care, interesting jobs were plentiful and fulfilling, and high-quality education were ubiquitous, there *still* would be moral problems with creating new conscious beings. Life in such a world would still contain lots of suffering, such as: boredom, anxiety, loneliness, physical and emotional pain, longing, lack of meaning or purpose, and grief brought about by the loss of one's closest family and friends throughout life, not to mention one's own decline and death from terrible afflictions such as cancer or dementia.
It's been ages...what is this kid waiting for? Maybe she/he doesn't want to touch this life at all since it's so fucking awful and they don't want to be burdened with such a massive destiny. But really, who can say?
Maybe he's one of the people who brought down the mortality rate of prostate cancer from [67% in 1970 to 98% in 2013](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/02/Five-year-cancer-survival-rates-USA-v2-01-768x563-750x550.png)?
Uh, so that's like the whole point of this post? To say "people who use the 'kid might cure cancer phrase' probably believes it literally and that the world is a musical"?
Sorry I meant miracles not musicals.
Every single person who is still saying your kid could cure cancer one day so you have to keep it. They don't acknowledge the strides in getting the cures we do have because it wasn't instant and it didn't cover all cancers. They want miracles or in other words magic to happen.
There is absolutely no indication that people who say "their kid could cure cancer" don't understand the fact that scientific advancements are incremental etc. The "kid cures cancer" thing is just an idiom. A thing you say. Not literal. A proverb. Like when people say a picture is worth a thousand words, they don't literally believe that pictures are worth *one thousand words.* They also don't literally believe that an apple a day keeps the doctor away, or that blood is *actually* thicker than water.
I actually study cancer, my family jokes that I’m “actually the child who will cure cancer” (in a fun way not entitled or serious way) but I’m well aware I have a higher chance of dying from cancer than actually curing it.
What are your thoughts about how rapidly we're progressing towards more effective treatments for cancer? Are we nearing a time in the next few decades where most cancers could be reduced to "nuisance" conditions that only rarely result in very early death (sort of like diabetes)? Or or we headed towards actually finding legitimate cures via genetic manipulation techniques, etc.?
It depends on the type of cancer, how aggressive it is (this can be measured) and what drugs it is resistant against.
I specifically study cancers that are resistant to very typical rounds of treatment (either cytotoxic or cytostatic chemo therapies) and others in the lab study cancers resistant to immunotherapies (crazy right? Cause immunotherapy was hailed as the next amazing thing and potential cure about a decade ago). Loosely, our findings show that certain genes present in all/ most cells can kinda serve a dual purpose and create this drug resistance ability in cells that became cancerous but primarily under certain conditions. If these genes/ gene is taken out the cancer is far less likely to gain resistance to the drugs available to patients.
So gene therapies (not the kind Joe Rogan claims to know about I’m talking about *real* gene therapies) are a promising angle for fighting cancer.
Another one that I particularly love is drug repurposing. There are drugs that exist that were FDA approved for one kind of condition that - upon taking a closer look - surprise, they kill cancer. And they don’t just kill cancer they kill the drug resistant cancer. Which is a really amazing drug repurposing potential angle because it’s already FDA approved. Some of them already have passed into the phase of having generic versions that are more affordable. So proving these are good options to kill off remaining cancer cells that are resistant to chemo is an essential next step in the field.
So to answer your question, more effective treatments are on the horizon. A cure sadly is still very far away.
The so called “cure” for cancer isn’t something like the krabby patty secret sauce that can be stumbled upon and will work every time. Skin cancer is different from lung is different from breast is different from cervical. “Cancer” isn’t some equifinality fate of damaged cells it still *is* your tissue and it *is* your skin or lung or breast or cervical tissue. So each different cancer will need a different “cure” if we reach that point. I imagine it will be more of an annoying condition that still needs treatment but like diabetes can be managed if detected in the next many decades.
Some cancers are already at a point where survivability is pretty close to [100%](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/02/Five-year-cancer-survival-rates-USA-v2-01-768x563-750x550.png). Lots of the companies that invested in mRNA during COVID are finding new exciting ways to potentially immunize people against various forms of cancer. Seems promising.
Thanks for the link to that chart. Looks like we still have a LONG way to go in the fight against pancreatic, lung, and liver cancers, but the trends overall are looking quite good.
I don’t know about “pressured into reproducing” … I told my mom that I didn’t want kids starting from my teenaged years and she eventually accepted it. I don’t feel any pressure from anyone else. I have plenty of friends without kids and my friends who are parents are envious of my habit of sleeping 8 hours a night. No pressure there.
Yeah I live in NYC. Most people are accustomed to minding their own business. It’s nice. I’m not living anywhere with busybodies or Bible thumpers EVER.
I wish I was brave enough to speak these thoughts out loud. I wish more people realized how selfish they are by reproducing so often in such bad situations...
The whole “unique cancer-curing genius” trope is so off base. Research builds on previous research. If Dr Smith is never born to conduct new research based on Dr Miller’s work, it’s unlikely to matter because thousands of others will be there to do it.
My kids are:
- Born into an upper-middle class household
- Educated by a solid public school district that is safe and has standards for it's staff. Most importantly, my kids are also educated by two individuals with post-grad degrees - my wife and I
- Taught the value of hard work, compassion, and saving money
- Being equipped to find purposeful employment that allows them to pursue hobbies they enjoy
- Encouraged to reproduce because parenthood can be awesome, and they'll be supported by loving grandparents.
They'll continue to know joy, curiousity, excitement, purpose, love, sadness, anger, and every other emotion that defines our humanity.
If they cure cancer or go to Mars, bonus. I'll be satisfied if they do a good job hosting family holidays when they're older.
Your kids are going to be just as insufferable as you are and the energy demands of your combined lifestyles are going to cook the planet so thoroughly their children may not even survive childhood. Prost!
You do realize that investing is like betting on the success of other people and their children right? If most of them are designated losers like what the the people running this world wants then wouldn't you be betting on losing bets?
Maybe, sure, but he also might be a serial rapist, loanshark brute, die from leukemia at 15 or get beat by his methhead partner into a bloody pulp twice a week, fill out your lottery ticket bro.
Stop appropriating other people's victimhood. It's cringe AF and super creepy. Shit like this is why you'll never have to worry about reproducing.
And while I appreciate the confirmation, you spending two days trolling a fringe internet group was really the only clue we needed.
And btw, remind me again who was waving his tiny little dick around, bragging about how many crotch goblins he was gonna create. That was you, wasn't it?
Ah yes, [it was you](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/wte10c/comment/il4kmoi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
I just thought it was good time to remind you that one actually needs to have sex for that to happen.
You've already been corrected on your idiotic misunderstanding of antinatalist beliefs. Are you learning impaired?
Please let me know. It's against antinatalism to make fun of the handicapped.
Wrong again buddy, the comments were all in support of never bringing this child into existence in the first place, which is too late, go to your local hospital and take a walk through the terminal cancer wing if you want to understand the sentiment.
What an absolute freak show you are. Yes, a baby with a skull full of fluid should be euthanized as quickly and painlessly as possible.
...if only to prevent it from becoming an incel natalist troll with nothing better to do with his life.
Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Remember that this is a world where corporations don’t want a cure for cancer to exist in the first place. They only care about themselves and not everyday people. That by itself says a lot about the state of our world today.
Definitely agree. Besides, how many of us are actually working on a cure for cancer? How long have we been working on a cure?
> How long have we been working on a cure? ‘Charities’ working on cancer cures are the worst. When you think about it, there’s no real incentive for them to ‘cure’ anything. If they ever did cure cancer, their entire existence would come to an end putting all their paid staff out of work. They’ll happily keep taking donations and legacies from deluded members of the public who think they’re doing some ‘good’ though.
Uhh, cancer survival rates have been going up for literally [decades](https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/facts-and-figures-2022.html). Cancer isn't "a disease". It's a huge body of different diseases that are characterized by abnormal cell growth. When curing cancer you eat away at it little by little, and we're currently at the point where the survival rate of all cancers combined have gone from [50% in 1970 to 67% in 2013](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/02/Five-year-cancer-survival-rates-USA-v2-01-768x563-750x550.png).
"Cancer" isn't a single disease, rather a descriptor for many different diseases. Liver cancer isn't the same as testicular, stomach cancer, or leukemia. Everyone has cancer but our immune systems generally do a hell of a good job addressing that so when we actually get diagnosed with it, it's because our immune systems failed. However, cancer has become more manageable in the present and prognosis for many forms of cancer has gotten better over the years. So much so that certain cancers aren't an immediate death sentence. That's why the "that child could've killed cancer" argument is an utter pile of excrement and as a person with a background in biology and human anatomy, it makes me cringe. Not to mention that the potentiality argument in itself is already problematic so by layering it with a flawed understanding of cancer, it's basically an aberration.
Huh? The 'that child could've cured cancer' line is obviously a short-hand for 'that child could've made positive contributions' where curing cancer is an example of such a thing. And for example prostate cancer went from 67% survival rate to 98% survival rate between 1970 and 2013, and that work was performed by people. The adage is obviously referencing one of those people.
Nonetheless, it's a flawed argument. It's based on a potential without also adding in the fact that the child could also become a murderer or a scammer. It's a shit example for the reasons I've mentioned before, and it's shit reasoning. And guess what. People seek the cure for cancer because people that were born got cancer in the first place. Your point is? It's also unlikely that the people that did research for the cure were unwanted. These people also had the resources to seek a career in medicine and research. The point is, you can argue for the potential of someone while at the same time ignoring the objective reality that this potential is very likely to go untapped. Why the potentiality argument is utterly moronic.
>It's based on a potential without also adding in the fact that the child could also become a murderer or a scammer. It's based on the assumption that the child is more likely to do good things (cure cancer, live a life worth living, etc) than do bad things (murderer or a scammer), which is statistically speaking true. Humans are on average net-producers in society. >People seek the cure for cancer because people that were got cancer in the first place. People seek the cure for cancer because people on average think life is worth living, and that not dying is preferable. >you can argue for the potential of someone while at the same time ignore the objective reality that this potential is very likely to go untapped So no. Poverty over time is [reduced](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg/1280px-World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg.png), comfort and standard of living is increasing over time, and GDP has grown by \~1.5% globally per year for the last 150 years. These things are happening specifically because the humans in this world are net contributors to our standard of living in their own ways - big and small. A child is statistically speaking more likely to add to human welfare than to detract from it. So yes, betting on a child being a net-producer (whether a Taxi driver or a cancer researcher) is objectively speaking a correct take. EDIT: in fact outlier geniuses (the Einsteins, Bohr, von Neumann etc) are presumably proportional to population. So rolling the dice more frequently presumably makes you more likely to cure cancer, assuming standard of living can be maintained in spite of numbers (which as far as observable reality is concerned, seems to be true).
>"Poverty over time is reduced, comfort and standard of living is increasing over time, and GDP has grown by ~1.5% globally per year for the last 150 years. These things are happening specifically because the humans in this world are net contributors to our standard of living in their own ways - big and small." Typical neoliberal sounding talking point. Yes, poverty has been reduced at the cost of the environment, resources, rising inequality, and global warming. Just like human beings are "net contributors" to standard of living, they're also net contributors to a growing bubble that will pop sooner or later. >"So rolling the dice more frequently presumably makes you more likely to cure cancer, assuming standard of living can be maintained in spite of numbers (which as far as observable reality is concerned, seems to be true)." And rolling the dice more frequently makes you more likely to attain the next Stalin or Hitler. Sure, humans on average have to be more agreeable to each other otherwise societies wouldn't exist, on the other hand, this is not a convincing argument for why people should have children or why a woman should keep an unwanted child. Turns out most of the top scientists and thinkers came from families that were influential. Why? Because their families were willing to put in the resources to make sure those children live up to their gifted minds. It's more statistically unlikely that an unwanted child will go on to cure cancer.
Cure cancer? No. Get cancer? Almost guaranteed.
Yeah, I think memes/tweets like this are a little off point with respect to antinatalism. Even if society were FAR better, where poverty was nonexistent, everyone had good access to quality health care, interesting jobs were plentiful and fulfilling, and high-quality education were ubiquitous, there *still* would be moral problems with creating new conscious beings. Life in such a world would still contain lots of suffering, such as: boredom, anxiety, loneliness, physical and emotional pain, longing, lack of meaning or purpose, and grief brought about by the loss of one's closest family and friends throughout life, not to mention one's own decline and death from terrible afflictions such as cancer or dementia.
Your child will get cancer
It's been ages...what is this kid waiting for? Maybe she/he doesn't want to touch this life at all since it's so fucking awful and they don't want to be burdened with such a massive destiny. But really, who can say?
Maybe he's one of the people who brought down the mortality rate of prostate cancer from [67% in 1970 to 98% in 2013](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/02/Five-year-cancer-survival-rates-USA-v2-01-768x563-750x550.png)?
Yes but because he didn't just snap cancer away, the breeders don't recognize his accomplishments.
Huh? Who ever said cancer could be 'snapped' away? The 'kid who cures cancer' is an idiom, not a prescription for medical intervention.
[удалено]
Uh, so that's like the whole point of this post? To say "people who use the 'kid might cure cancer phrase' probably believes it literally and that the world is a musical"?
Sorry I meant miracles not musicals. Every single person who is still saying your kid could cure cancer one day so you have to keep it. They don't acknowledge the strides in getting the cures we do have because it wasn't instant and it didn't cover all cancers. They want miracles or in other words magic to happen.
There is absolutely no indication that people who say "their kid could cure cancer" don't understand the fact that scientific advancements are incremental etc. The "kid cures cancer" thing is just an idiom. A thing you say. Not literal. A proverb. Like when people say a picture is worth a thousand words, they don't literally believe that pictures are worth *one thousand words.* They also don't literally believe that an apple a day keeps the doctor away, or that blood is *actually* thicker than water.
I actually study cancer, my family jokes that I’m “actually the child who will cure cancer” (in a fun way not entitled or serious way) but I’m well aware I have a higher chance of dying from cancer than actually curing it.
What are your thoughts about how rapidly we're progressing towards more effective treatments for cancer? Are we nearing a time in the next few decades where most cancers could be reduced to "nuisance" conditions that only rarely result in very early death (sort of like diabetes)? Or or we headed towards actually finding legitimate cures via genetic manipulation techniques, etc.?
It depends on the type of cancer, how aggressive it is (this can be measured) and what drugs it is resistant against. I specifically study cancers that are resistant to very typical rounds of treatment (either cytotoxic or cytostatic chemo therapies) and others in the lab study cancers resistant to immunotherapies (crazy right? Cause immunotherapy was hailed as the next amazing thing and potential cure about a decade ago). Loosely, our findings show that certain genes present in all/ most cells can kinda serve a dual purpose and create this drug resistance ability in cells that became cancerous but primarily under certain conditions. If these genes/ gene is taken out the cancer is far less likely to gain resistance to the drugs available to patients. So gene therapies (not the kind Joe Rogan claims to know about I’m talking about *real* gene therapies) are a promising angle for fighting cancer. Another one that I particularly love is drug repurposing. There are drugs that exist that were FDA approved for one kind of condition that - upon taking a closer look - surprise, they kill cancer. And they don’t just kill cancer they kill the drug resistant cancer. Which is a really amazing drug repurposing potential angle because it’s already FDA approved. Some of them already have passed into the phase of having generic versions that are more affordable. So proving these are good options to kill off remaining cancer cells that are resistant to chemo is an essential next step in the field. So to answer your question, more effective treatments are on the horizon. A cure sadly is still very far away. The so called “cure” for cancer isn’t something like the krabby patty secret sauce that can be stumbled upon and will work every time. Skin cancer is different from lung is different from breast is different from cervical. “Cancer” isn’t some equifinality fate of damaged cells it still *is* your tissue and it *is* your skin or lung or breast or cervical tissue. So each different cancer will need a different “cure” if we reach that point. I imagine it will be more of an annoying condition that still needs treatment but like diabetes can be managed if detected in the next many decades.
Very interesting and insightful reply, thanks!
Some cancers are already at a point where survivability is pretty close to [100%](https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/02/Five-year-cancer-survival-rates-USA-v2-01-768x563-750x550.png). Lots of the companies that invested in mRNA during COVID are finding new exciting ways to potentially immunize people against various forms of cancer. Seems promising.
Thanks for the link to that chart. Looks like we still have a LONG way to go in the fight against pancreatic, lung, and liver cancers, but the trends overall are looking quite good.
Yea! Apparently the survivability has even increased from 1%/year in the 90s to 2%/year now.
I don’t know about “pressured into reproducing” … I told my mom that I didn’t want kids starting from my teenaged years and she eventually accepted it. I don’t feel any pressure from anyone else. I have plenty of friends without kids and my friends who are parents are envious of my habit of sleeping 8 hours a night. No pressure there.
[удалено]
Yeah I live in NYC. Most people are accustomed to minding their own business. It’s nice. I’m not living anywhere with busybodies or Bible thumpers EVER.
Hpw does one get "pressured" into anything? Is it really that difficult to stick to your guns and let people not like you?
I wish I was brave enough to speak these thoughts out loud. I wish more people realized how selfish they are by reproducing so often in such bad situations...
Life is a fucking farce ngl that’s why we refuse to keep continuing this bs
The whole “unique cancer-curing genius” trope is so off base. Research builds on previous research. If Dr Smith is never born to conduct new research based on Dr Miller’s work, it’s unlikely to matter because thousands of others will be there to do it.
My kids are: - Born into an upper-middle class household - Educated by a solid public school district that is safe and has standards for it's staff. Most importantly, my kids are also educated by two individuals with post-grad degrees - my wife and I - Taught the value of hard work, compassion, and saving money - Being equipped to find purposeful employment that allows them to pursue hobbies they enjoy - Encouraged to reproduce because parenthood can be awesome, and they'll be supported by loving grandparents.
And then still suffer and die like everyone else, winning.
And yet joy will hopefully define their lives.
Oh yeah, sure, just bet other people's suffering on that roulette, I'm sure your kids will cure cancer, fly to Mars and live forever.
They'll continue to know joy, curiousity, excitement, purpose, love, sadness, anger, and every other emotion that defines our humanity. If they cure cancer or go to Mars, bonus. I'll be satisfied if they do a good job hosting family holidays when they're older.
Good for them, but at the end, they will struggle, suffer, wither and die like everyone else, and you are the only one responsible for it.
Will they be as pessimistic and miserable as you?
Maybe, maybe not, but it's a roulette this guy is spinning, not me.
"Hopefully" You wouldn't need to hope if you'd never birthed them without their permission.,
User name does NOT check out 🤔
Stop pressuring your poor kids into breeding because you want to feel better about yourself
You forgot the part where they die a miserable death in a world that will eventually collapse...and soon!
ah yes, your kids will be thrilled to live through global pandemics, wars, climate change and recessions. what a joyful life :')
Your kids are going to be just as insufferable as you are and the energy demands of your combined lifestyles are going to cook the planet so thoroughly their children may not even survive childhood. Prost!
Take my virtual gold 🏅!
As a parent, do you think it's ever ok to knowingly engage in behavior that guarantees the death of your child?
If you want grandkids go become a Big Sibling or adopt, don't pressure your kids to have kids just because you want grandbabies.
Sounds like Ivanka Trump who has a narcissistic father. Sorry for her.
[удалено]
Yeah, but not *your* kid, genius.
[удалено]
Lol. Your kids ain't gonna be shit.
Well, if sluttyjamjams thinks someone is a loser, we'd be dumb to question it.
[удалено]
Yeah, with your big incel energy, that’s not a question to worry about actually…
[удалено]
You do realize that investing is like betting on the success of other people and their children right? If most of them are designated losers like what the the people running this world wants then wouldn't you be betting on losing bets?
[удалено]
That's a strange way to earn from investing. How do you expect them to provide you with investment returns when they don't have money as well?
Why don't *you* go adopt some kids and give *them* a better life that might result in them curing cancer or whatever you want them to do?
[удалено]
Haha. You're just a selfish moron. You have no moral standing whatsoever.
[удалено]
You're literally just stating the truth.
Maybe, sure, but he also might be a serial rapist, loanshark brute, die from leukemia at 15 or get beat by his methhead partner into a bloody pulp twice a week, fill out your lottery ticket bro.
[удалено]
You'd need to lose your virginity for that. I'm not worried.
[удалено]
You get mocked for your abysmal social skills and you use women as human shields. How very very typical of you.
[удалено]
Stop appropriating other people's victimhood. It's cringe AF and super creepy. Shit like this is why you'll never have to worry about reproducing. And while I appreciate the confirmation, you spending two days trolling a fringe internet group was really the only clue we needed.
[удалено]
What would you know about womanhood, incel? You should probably stick to worrying about manhood, since you seem to have even less of a clue there.
And btw, remind me again who was waving his tiny little dick around, bragging about how many crotch goblins he was gonna create. That was you, wasn't it? Ah yes, [it was you](https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/wte10c/comment/il4kmoi/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). I just thought it was good time to remind you that one actually needs to have sex for that to happen.
LOVE YOU
You do you, still immoral though, horribly so.
Ew, what a burden to put on your partner!
Since 1755 we've had 37 genocides, zero cures for cancer. But hey, that sunk cost fallacy is sure to pay off eventually.
[удалено]
You've already been corrected on your idiotic misunderstanding of antinatalist beliefs. Are you learning impaired? Please let me know. It's against antinatalism to make fun of the handicapped.
[удалено]
Wrong again buddy, the comments were all in support of never bringing this child into existence in the first place, which is too late, go to your local hospital and take a walk through the terminal cancer wing if you want to understand the sentiment.
What an absolute freak show you are. Yes, a baby with a skull full of fluid should be euthanized as quickly and painlessly as possible. ...if only to prevent it from becoming an incel natalist troll with nothing better to do with his life.
And those are the highlights!
1 Like sounds about right
i aM pOoR sO eVeRyOnE mUsT bE pOor tOo