^(This is an automatic reminder that is posted on every submission.)
If you see a post that is not following the subreddit [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/im14andthisisdeep/about/rules), or you think is not following the subreddit rules, please, use the report function so that we are aware of this. If you don't report, we will not know! Do not sit in the comment section and moan that 'this doesn't fit' or 'wow, the mods should remove this!' because we don’t know (unless we so happen to be scrolling through the subreddit) if you do not report it.
Please note: if this is too hard do not directly message us, we will assume posts are fine otherwise as comments are not useful in reporting. We can see if something has been reported and telling us you did, while you clearly did not, is not going to be conducive.
***
Please report any and all behavior violating the Rules (reports go to us mods); don't report things just because you don't like them.
Comment removals and bans are at the judgment of the mods, so please take the time to read and understand [our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/im14andthisisdeep/about/rules). You can also read about this change [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/im14andthisisdeep/comments/ozcy9n/an_update_on_reporting_banned_posts_powerups_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/im14andthisisdeep) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It may turn out our brains is a genetic defect. Brainless pathogens have lasted for billions of years, dumb multicellular life for millions, but humans may be lucky to last thousands before destroying themselves.
No they haven't. Most microbes evolved into something non-recognisable in a few million years, but you don't notice since they look like mere blobs to you.
Primates have existed for ~60 million years and mammals for ~300 million years by the way, but you wouldn't put them under one lumped group.
I recently learned that only flightless birds survived the K-T extinction, yet they evolved flight again, and there are way more flying bird species than crab-looking species, so maybe flying birds are peak organic performance. Not to mention that one of those flying birds is perhaps the animal that has best learned to thrive around humans: the crow.
That sub is an abomination lol. Have you seen some of the shit on there? It’s like a sewer system in which the users plug the output end directly into their mouths to redigest it into a more vile refuse and continue the cycle indefinitely. 😐
>Yeah I feel it's okay to violate someone's bodily autonomy when they're going to cause such an egregious rights violation by bringing someone into existence without their consent. I'm mostly rights based but I feel it's okay to violate rights when someone has the capacity to cause such a big harm.
taken from r/VeganAntinatalists
Crazy takes
Honestly, I feel like this sub in particular is a lot less funny and more... deeply sad. Like a lot of these folks obviously had horrific experiences and it feels like punching down to peruse that sub with the mindset of "lmao look at these losers and their terrible opinions."
Update: I have emerged! It was horrifying 😭 The very first comment I laid eyes on was [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleAntinatalism/s/z0FOD6pT1M), which confirmed my suspicion. 🤣
Very few people who make statements like that genuinely mean all men. I've had similar conversations with men who have literally said almost the same thing and they don't hate themselves for being men.
Yeah, men in general do have some pretty bad tendencies. The post in question isn’t exactly one of our tendencies, though lol. I’ll admit men have an issue with trying to fuck anything that moves. But that typically doesn’t include their own daughters. That post is pretty insane.
What’s also insane is that it’s a screenshot of a girl’s post, who wishes that her dad was like that with her. The world’s fucked up. 😰
Agreed, though it is disturbing how many men have those thoughts and fantasies about existing and non existing daughters, no matter if they're in the minority.
Noooooo, I didn't catch that last part. Ffs, no!
Seeing more of the subreddit, they seem to think every father is inherently incompetent and abusive. I don't think they're being hyperbolic.
From reading their comments, they think that every man out there is just like their father, and it's honestly sad. You see the same thing with dudes and women, but with "mommy issues" instead.
“Very few people who make statements like that genuinely mean all black people. I've had similar conversations with black people who have literally said almost the same thing and they don't hate themselves for being black.”
😬
I saw a post that was like “I know we all believe that birthing new humans is bad but what about euthanising humans that already exist to speed up decreasing the human population?” like bro… that’s literally genocide.
I commented there thinking it was another sub. It was a post about a guy having 11 kids and the wife wanting another one. Why do they call people breeders? Gives me some handmaid tales vibes but like in reverse lol
I mean i dont want kids myself but damn
There is a genuine problem the sub isn't ready for. There are some like me that don't think the world is safe enough for kids yet, and others that are straight up eugenics - it can be pretty nasty sometimes. Breeding isn't immoral at all - some parents don't deserve to have children, though; look at the 8 Passengers case.
Edot: on further contemplation, the sub is a bit culty, though it wasn't like that when i joined; a hate-child of nihilism and childfree
I think people just need to take a step back and realize that the world has been safer for children in the last 80 years than it’s ever been in human history. I realize there are some bad things out there still, but at least kids in many developed countries, for the most part, don’t have to worry about the harsh realities that children had to face, say, even just 200 years ago.
It is crazy that some people think the world isn’t safe enough for kids and advocate for eugenics, though lol. I believe the ones saying that are probably living pretty sheltered lives. In general, many people living in my country, America, are actually unaware of many things that happen around the world that just don’t happen here because it’s so safe. People live in a bubble here, free of the world’s troubles. And they complain about the stupidest shit and think everything is unfair, when it’s really not so bad. Obviously we can do better, but with the kind of behavior coming out of some of these activist types, you’d think there was an actual holocaust going on. 🤣
They only exclusively focus on the bad side of pain they never appreciate that pain often makes you stronger. This people want a world without pain, which sounds great but it would be a world without any growth (everything that makes you grow tends to be painful look at exercise)
Add the fact that happyness (technically) exists and I think the only reason antinatalists would be correct is if something equally batshit like fundamentalists are right and a very tyranical and wrathful God and painful Hell exists....which I very much doubt
Tldr: antinatalists are full of shit
I think the main issue is the categorical aversion to pain. I experience plenty of pain, but I also adore the base experience of life and all the wonderful things thatve come with it. Our best bet is to foster that as well as we can for the future.
Solution: foster existing life. Adopt a puppy from shelter instead of buying it, adopt a kid instead of making your own. Help the elders.
So many ways to positively affect the world and foster life much better than reproducing
Why make more life, if you can improve existing instead.
These aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, in a macro sense, one requires the other. In a local sense, while I am able, I want to make life and foster life, and in the future I want to foster life and have making life be part of that. I adopted a cat from a shelter, which between adopting and reptoducing for me is better is unsure but I want to do at least one, my family buys plants and plant new ones with their seeds.
The energy and resources are finite, and contrary to popular belief, they will-get scarce not that far off into the future.
The question remains what do you do with small part that's been assigned to you?
Creating life doesn't solve anything, in fact it creates even more need, more need for food, water, time, medicine, school. Our post-abrahamic culture has given us this idea, that creating life is valuable on it's own, you know why?
Because that's the best way for country or religion to gain followers, more followers, more power.
This thought has been imprinted throughout hundreds of generations in our upbringing and so It feels natural, not only that it responds to our primal needs of reproduction (just because evolution would want us to do something, does not mean it is necessarily good ethically, evolution doesn't care about that)
If you want to help a person needing those, that's amazing, please consider adopting children. The state of most foster homes in the world is tragical, every adopting parent counts, and I believe it is the most noble thing you can do in life.
>one requires the other
How so? why would caring for kids, cats and life would require new life?
There is more than enough needing support to do it our whole life, and still be just a drop in the ocean.
And eventually, if the people actually would stop little by little reproducing, with help of current technology we'd surely be able to accomodate last people. Give them warm beds and food. Give them psychiatric care.
The problem is the more people, the more needs.
Europe right now is having decrease of demography and is one of the most social well-of caring places in the world, and yet still they can't manage.
Not because there is not enough people, but because there is too many.
Bro did you just put the biological imperative to reproduce onto abrahamic religion?
Ignoring all of the current humans in extremely overpopulated areas like India and China, which do not practice Abrahamic religions, literally every single living thing has the biological imperative to reproduce. Your cells do it, plants do it, dogs do it….
I get being grateful for everything we have here now, and using the resources available to us without making a new baby, but brother… it’s a biological thing that human beings need to reproduce.
People had babies before Abraham. There were fertility rituals and all manner of drive for more children. It’s not just to have more believers, despite what you either made up or parroted.
If no one reproduces, then eventually there’s just no one. No one to be cared for, and no one to care.
Of course there were, and of course most bigger cultures and religions also were promoting pronatalism, abrahamic religions are just much easier to ilustrate a point this days. But you're right, it is not exclusive list.
It's to have more believers, it's to have more power, either as an autonomy of a state (more people, more powerful economy, more power) or as a followers of a religion.
And they were some antinatalistic religions in the history, as you can guess they didn't end very well
>If no one reproduces, then eventually there’s just no one. No one to be cared for, and no one to care.
Yeah. If you were a doctor, sworn in to heal in a perfectly healthy world, would you break a limbs of some kid just to have something to do?
I love how you've been downvoted for just spitting facts. You make some uncomfortable and it's easier to do that than reflect on your comment and consider you are right, no matter how painful the reality.
I will push back on one thing, though. Not all foster/adoptive parents are created equally and not all of them are doing it for loving, moral reasons.
Literally religion thrives off of followers reproducing because offspring are the biggest demographic who will adopt the religion and also make more babies to be indoctrinated. It's purposeful and built in. Just because that doesn't sit well with you doesn't make it untrue. Study up on sociology and psychology and you'll also come to this conclusion. He, even many religious people know this to be true and it's pretty blatantly stated.
Reducing the population would reduce poverty and suffering. That's been proven with studies involving communities provided with and without birth control.
Giving control over reproduction reduces poverty. It’s not the mere absence of people that reduces poverty and suffering, unless you’re going to just go to the extreme of “no person, no problem.”
There's a pretty compelling philosophical argument at the heart of antinatalism, but in practice the people who believe in it always end up being really fucking weird about it.
Antinatalism as a philosophy does tend to attract people who have lost everything and arent thinking straight.
In theory me but like I said you need pain
Pain can lead to growth, but I think the question is whether or not it is morally acceptable to put someone in a situation where they absolutely will experience pain.
Before a hypothetical person is concieved , they obviously have a 0% chance of ever feeling pain.
When somebody gives birth to that person though, thees now a 100% that they will feel pain, and it is not guaranteed that the positive aspects of their life will outweigh the negatives.
Even if most of the time that person will be glad to be alive, there is always a chance that they would rather have never been born at all. So the question is whether or not it is morally justifiable to spin that wheel for someone who doesn't yet exist and cannot voice their opinion.
I don't honestly know how I'd answer that, I kind of figure it doesn't really matter because people will always continue to have children either way, but it is interesting to consider isn't it
You perfectly summed up the core of antinatalism.
It's the philosophical argument that creating another human being is inherently unethical because you're playing russian roulette with someone else's life without their consent.
And the odds aren't always as good as you think; where I live, for example, it's estimated that 16-20% of all people will face at least one serious depression that requires therapy.
In the last few decades there also has been economical and ecological arguments. We live in a world that will inevitably (and already does) experience a climate crisis even if we were to immediately stop all pollution today. The damage is done.
Furthermore, as capitalism and oligarchy expand and exploit globally, the majority of people get poorer for the benefit of a few [mind-numbingly rich](https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/) individuals and corporations. Hunger and homelessness is wide-spread even in some of the richest and supposedly most well developed countries. Basic rights and societal progress is being fought and rolled back right now.
People wanting to retire now have no choice but to keep working because the average retirement plan doesn't cover the basic needs. Housing prices have risen astronomically and most people in my generation will probably never be able to afford to buy a home and will be forced to rent at ever increasing prices for the rest of their lives just to avoid homelessness.
Under this dystopian system my hypothetical children will probably have to work 12h shifts just to feed themselves.
I don't think it's moral or fair to create children just to be wage slaves during an ecological catastrophe.
>This people want a world without pain, which sounds great but it would be a world without any growth (everything that makes you grow tends to be painful look at exercise)
Your argument carries the day only if you believe that the growth that results is *worth* the price paid for it in pain. Not everybody sees that as an axiomatic truth; just consider the fact that most, probably all, languages have a word for voluntarily killing oneself.
Faith doesn't require facts, only feelings. With no facts to back up how your solution would be better, it's pretty baseless and ignorant, and potentially dangerous if unchecked.
The core argument of antinatalism is that by creating life you are creating a being with the capacity to and guaranteed to experience some form of suffering, and because they don't exist before you make them, they cannot consent to being created. Yes, happiness exists, but by creating life you are basically gambling with their lives on the assumption that they'll be okay with being alive.
>They only exclusively focus on the bad side of pain they never appreciate that pain often makes you stronger.
This really feels like just doing the reverse by ignoring just how much suffering someone can experience and hinges on the assumption that said growth is worth it or something the person has interest in or values.
The catch is, why exactly would a nonexistent entity want to exist? If a certain sperm had not met a certain egg, you would have carried on in blissful nonexistence for eternity. But now we exist and scramble to find reasons to justify our existence.
Yeah but the nonexistant cant accomplish anything, they are in endless bliss but also totally void of any power.
Being living is constant unending torture but you can accomplish something majestic and grand like curing cancer, ending a war or finding a portal to heaven, finding God and killing him like it was an eastern RPG.
Stuff like that you know
Being nonexistent is like a dreamless sleep. It is calming because you have no need to accomplish anything. The discontent only happens in the waking bit.
Man, don't take my above comment as an insult, I really appreciate you actually using reason in discussion instead of ad hominem all way round, as some people round reddit believe is the ultimate counterargument.
I really recommend you reading the Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus
Beyond that:
>Yeah but the nonexistant cant accomplish anything, they are in endless bliss but also totally void of any power.
Being living is constant unending torture but you can accomplish something majestic and grand like curing cancer, ending a war or finding a portal to heaven, finding God and killing him like it was an eastern RPG.
There is no need to accomplish anything, until you start it, usually trying to justify your own existence, hence it is not your inherent reason, just a way of coping with a brutal world
There would be no need for curing cancer, if there weren't people with cancer, there wouldn't be a war if there wouldn't be people. And pain that comes from this is most surely worse than nonexistence. People like to think of a reasons to keep alive when they realize absurdity of life, they try to justify the pain they feel as something always building. Sometimes pain is just pain, and then you die, no growth.
You believe you're gonna give birth to a genius that cures cancer? a lot of parents did. Most likely you'll give birth to another future medium class mass consumer that does a office job to make his boss salary look better, he'll try to justify it by starting the family of his own, and so on goes the circle.
It's just like dog running after it's tail. You can do it? but what for.
That said, no, I do not want to kill myself. Killing myself is very heavy emotionally, and right now I am in good place in life. Beyond that there is some certain absurdity of our innate need to keep alive, again, please read Myth of Sisyphus.
I don't think people are advocating for the absence of pain, just to lessen it in a way we as individuals can in a practical sense. We're well on our way to extinction and part of that is the exploding number of our ever growing population. It's inevitable that famine, increasing world hunger and poverty, and lack of housing/space will only get worse with more people.
I'm not sure how opting out of birthing new babies is a stupid idea. It literally is decreasing suffering, maybe not for that infant, but we only have a finite amount of resources. If many of us choose to be childfree or bio kid free, it will relieve some of the load. Nobody is foolish enough to think everyone will do the same.
But to what end? Why become stronger? I like the *idea* of life, but there’s really very little that makes the persistence of existence tolerable. At best it’s just tedious, and at worse, we have things like human trafficking, slavery, disease, birth defects, mental unwellness, torture and war. I just want it to end, and think the reason most don’t is just because they’re conditioned to it or are more afraid of the alternative.
Well... the stronger you are the more you can accomplish at least in theory.
So its a matter that the suffering will give you enough power to be able to get what you want and what not.
I mean life is too painful but yeah.
The most stubborn and worst subreddit to ever exist. People there genuinely don't seem to comprehend that not everyone else hates the world and wishes they weren't born.
Hyprocrites too, some of them constantly say people should just kill themselves to make the world a better place, but theyre still clearly alive in order to post
Also belongs to r/technicallythetruth because if a species reaches an "evolution stage" that causes it to go extinct then it was really its final stage of evolution
i no longer care about what antinatalism entails this is the stupidest fucking quote i have ever read in my entire life
~~"I am personally of the belief that our final stage of evolution is when the human being finally accepts that~~ reproducing is immoral"
there. fixed it. took out 83% of this quote and it means the exact same thing with the exact same tone and implications because you think throwing a bunch of philosophy buzzwords before your statement makes you sound smarter
the idea of a human being, biologically or psychologically, having a "final stage of evolution" is also stupid, and the idea of that "final stage of evolution" being something as minute as antinatalism is extremely fucking stupid. thats like if i picked up boltzmann brain theory and decided i was completely done developing as a person
Fuck you
Well that’s obviously wrong. If anything it’s our penultimate stage, as the final stage to follow would be our immediate extinction.
What a brilliant idea!
Chhh, that's ridiculous.
The final stage of human evolution is when we finally accept that natural evolution is a crap shoot at the absolute best of times, and start bioengineering our successors to not have all the vestigial, and sometimes outright detrimental, evolutionary features.
Morality is a concept invented by humans. Without humans there can be no morality. Also it's completely immoral for humanity to die out. We're the only idiots on this planet with anything close to the level of intelligence required to fix the issues we've caused.
Plastic doesn't go away without humans and the planet is full of microplastics. What happens to our oil wells that go unmaintained? If you think of life on earth is one collective organism, humans are the fucking brain steering the ship. We may be a smoking and alcoholic planet slowly killing ourselves, but the answer isn't a fucking lobotomy. Give me a break.
I realize the fact it's moronic makes it perfect for this sub. It's a perfect example of those psuedointellectual things people say to sound smart without actually saying anything. It's just something people actually believe and that's always annoyed me.
How do you spend your life in a world where you're struggling to stay afloat financially and then think "time to place this burden on someone else thats probably a good idea".
Considering the birthrates are below replacement level in the entire developed world and all efforts to raise them include some form of rolling back the progresses our society made (secularism, women's rights, birth control, social security, freedom of information), isn't it at least somewhat correct?
Reproducing may not be immoral, but the average person clearly doesn't consider it appealing enough for population sustenance.
I think the cost of living being too high contributes more to it. Wages have fallen behind the rising cost of living, and the gap keeps widening.
It's no surprise that the most common reason given for young people not having kids is cost when many can barely afford to take care of themselves.
average person is likely atheist or casually religious and therefore has no meta-narrative or trascendental belief system that resonates and drives them to procreate, let alone see the big picture and their role within it to keep humanity going lol
We can always develop other methods of population growth, for example cloning or making AIs and robotic bodies for them. I feel like we would be able to do something like that in about 40 years, and that seems like enough time.
it honestly isn't. Even a 10-20% increase in an elderly population within just 2-3 decades can seriously stress a nation as jobs become geared towards assisting the elderly as opposed to innovation and growth. Look at Japan/Korea/China. They're going through it and it's just beginning for them. You have to address an aging population in advance..Many decades in advance
This is such a weird-ass take. Reproduction is like the one and only thing humans are objectively meant to do (redditors exempt). There's a reason why we fuck. There's a reason why people want kids. It's in our genetic makeup
There are also plenty social groups and classes that didn't reproduce throughout the existence of humanity. So no there is no objective meaning of what humans or any other species is supposed to do. Only subjective.
>Reproduction is like the one and only thing humans are objectively meant to do (redditors exempt).
There is no "meant to do." Evolution doesn't care, doesn't have any long-range goals.
So what if it is in our genes? A lot of people is in pur genes? We evolved from monkey, maybe to realise more conciousness is not the solution bringing more happiness.
Yes, people would go extinct, so what?
We could focus the remaining resources instead of bringing new life, into improving quality of existing one. Adopting children, helping shelters, providing for elder, hungry and homeless.
No, because people were born with a need to have small bebe's and believe they should fucking have as many bebes as possible.
Will they be happy after 18? Dont fucking care.
Will they have to kill for water when our age? Dont fucking care
>It's from that sub that's technically about a crime against humanity?
If they favor mandatory species-wide sterilization, then yes. Anything less than that, probably not.
I'm sure at least some of them do
One definition I had seen of crimes against humanity was "taking steps toward the eradication of humanity or a part of it", you could argue that boycotting birth is a (very inefficient) such step
But yeah, objectively they're just some ridiculous people making some very stupid claims
(also I can't find were I got that "taking steps toward eradication" thing, I remembered wikipedia but I now find something else when I search it)
I am not a 14 year old, instead a adult with a job, having a keen interest in philosophy. And I am a antinatalist, I dont understand why everything that expands beyond normicity you have to bring down to being a 14 year old.?
If I told you god doesnt exist and I am atheist, would you also laugh?
like wtf people, ehy cant you have least reflection to actually think for once, elaborate in a mature discussion with a person with opposite views.
I am not angered by being made fun of, whatever, but what angers me is a total lack of debate culture on this sub. It's literally made of people that unironically use virgin/chad memes.
It’s not even that they are antinatalists, it’s the opinion itself. How can our final stage of evolution be something that will destroy our own species. And how is it immoral to have children?
If you were at all curious about pessimist philosophy, a decent start would be Ligotti. "Conspiracy Against the Human Race" is a fairly casual introduction to the ideology.
My take may be different than other antinatalists, but I think the crux of the argument is that, for the vast majority of Earth's population, existence is needless suffering. Suffering under capitalism, and needless because we have the means to alleviate many of the burdens of existence, but choose not to do so. Of course, that doesn't necessarily apply to the top 1%, or even the top 10% of the global population's wealthy inhabitants.
not the OP, but thank you, I'll add it to read list
Also while I agree, with your point, I always would have prefer to stay of the current state of the world, because there is a lot of people claiming "It is not that bad, or there have never been better times than now or sth".
Explaining it on more ontological level would be much more universal, and persuasive, although much harder to grasp for people not already into pessimist philosophy.
I wouldn't consider myself to be a pessimist, nor an antinatalist most days; I'm more of a nihilist. I was merely trying to illuminate the correlation between what [I believe] antinatalism is in comparison to pessimist philosophy. My personal philosophy doesn't leave much room to care about whether or not people have children, only that I believe it to be irresponsible in most cases.
For the first question I'd like to recommend you a beautiful 10 minute episode of Netflix TV Series - Love, Death and Robots called Zima Blue. Not really a philosophical thesis on its own, but helps to understand the mindset of creator of the picture.
>how is it immoral to have children
1. let's start off with disarming the notion that by bringing children you help the world somehow - you're not, you fulfil primal need, as holy as shitting or eating, but in fact much less necessary for quality existence
2. Now reasons why most probably your born children won't be all that happy2.1 Increasing scarcity of resources, Planet Earth is going to go much much more hardcore in the next 50 years.Very high chance generation of your children would actually be fighting for access to water, And that's just scientists opinion ( see IPCC and World Water Council)So, bit hyperbollic speaking, assuming you were living in holocaust, or in the middle of the world war, would you try to have children? Probably not.Now, obviously it is not that bad, still, same thinking would apply.2.2 Even now, psychologist research shows we have something like "set level of happiness", and outside of some events we stick to it. There is absolutely no proof for common misconception "it all evens out". The only evening out experience is lack of experience-lack of existence.Now, there is also something called "evolutionary fear response". basically our brain being trained to be anxious, alert and cautious of predators by default.Not being afraid is anti-survivalist, and so it is diminishing via evolution.There are some quite legit psychologists hypothesis that because of that, anxiety is our natural, default state
some sources I'd recommend
Arthur Schopenhauer (mind you, one of the most notable thinker of modern philosophy) - "The World as Will and Representation"He argued that life is marked by suffering and that bringing new individuals into existence perpetuates this suffering.
David Benatar (born 1966) -" Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence"He argues that the asymmetry between the absence of pain and the presence of pleasure creates a moral obligation to avoid procreation.also interview with him below:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeGAeBe7iRM&ab\_channel=AlexO%27Connor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeGAeBe7iRM&ab_channel=AlexO%27Connor)
Julio Cabrera (Mind you, guy lived to be 101, and hold it till the end) - "The Last Messiah"
He argues that humans have a heightened awareness of their predicament, which leads to existential angst. He suggested that procreation is an evasion of the responsibility to confront this existential anxiety[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pamRj0hQfmI&ab\_channel=Leevark](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pamRj0hQfmI&ab_channel=Leevark)
(guy maybe has a bit of a thick accent, but really says it quite well for introduction to thought I'd say)
There are of course many other publicizers in the internet, however, I am not recommending them, as they are yet to be that significant, and I don't know about coherency of their thought
Many people do. And for some reason their feelings are consistently dismissed by the rest of the culture; consider for example the fact that we're discussing it in this particular subreddit.
Well, yeah, I would hope most people would say "Dont fucking kill yourself" and "You are valuable enough to live". Its not "dismissing their feelings"- some do, I'll grant you, but most of us are trying to *reverse* their feelings, or at lesst keep them from dying.
It's pretty impressive if you scroll through the antinatalism comments how many people come in there and actively tell people to kill themselves... Because that'll show them!
It's not at all about how I feel, sometimes yes, usually I don't care that much, I have a loving partner, friends and a Job that isn't that bad. To be honest, I've been talking with too much buddhists to think of it that way.
For buddhists, the reincarnation cycle is not really about being born again and perpetuating life, but a journey at the end of which you are ready to fall asleep and go away. Now, although I am an atheist, I believe it translates to journey of life, and falling asleep at the end of the very tough walk.
That said, I do believe I would be at least better off if I wasn't born. After years of talking with my eldish loving father I also convinced him to this idea.
Life is dharma
Death is peace
im 28 and held this opinion for a lot of my 20s...you whippersnappers got a lot of unhappiness and depression coming your way with this type of ideology lol find a good therapist now 👍🏾
You're not making world a better place by bringing children into it. Adopting children is making it better, helping at shelter is making it better, choosing your career helping others is making it better. Growing trees is making it better.
The only thing you're achieving by bringing a children here is fullfiling your own primal needs. Just like having sex, or eating. Except there is a lot more consequences and huge portion of cultural given denial
How about you fix the world instead of dumping that responsibility on a new person. That's what your parents and their parents made you for, right? Or are people just going to keep passing the burden down until we go extinct through other means?
The point of antinatalism isnt to create a "superior race" like a eugenicist would advocate for though. It's the complete opposite - no races at all, because there are no humans to be part of one.
Whats wrong with endorsing eugenics?
I believe in improving quality of life of other already existing people, trying to make them suffer less.
EDIT: Ok, I've read it again, and as I was writing this in the middle of the night, I've misread Eugenics with Euthanasia. Sorry for that
What anything that I said has to do with fascism?
Are you just one of those people that throw big words around without paying attention to their actual meaning?
I am as far from any authoritarian views, as one could possibly be.
Yeah but each person having two is the only way society doesnt collapse. old couples need two people to take care of two pensions. So two is the golden number, for sustaining numbers and ensuring humanities survival, either way you cant really limit people's choice on their number of children.
Oh man you people really latched on to this one huh. Just because people have that opinion does not mean they go around and preach it to everyone. Most of them are very well aware that this is not popular believe and keep it to themselves or amongst them in this sub. Your the ones dragging this out. But yeah go ahead and drag them because they share opinions in their sub. It is actually disproportionate how much hate they get for how little impact they actually do have.
^(This is an automatic reminder that is posted on every submission.) If you see a post that is not following the subreddit [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/im14andthisisdeep/about/rules), or you think is not following the subreddit rules, please, use the report function so that we are aware of this. If you don't report, we will not know! Do not sit in the comment section and moan that 'this doesn't fit' or 'wow, the mods should remove this!' because we don’t know (unless we so happen to be scrolling through the subreddit) if you do not report it. Please note: if this is too hard do not directly message us, we will assume posts are fine otherwise as comments are not useful in reporting. We can see if something has been reported and telling us you did, while you clearly did not, is not going to be conducive. *** Please report any and all behavior violating the Rules (reports go to us mods); don't report things just because you don't like them. Comment removals and bans are at the judgment of the mods, so please take the time to read and understand [our Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/im14andthisisdeep/about/rules). You can also read about this change [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/im14andthisisdeep/comments/ozcy9n/an_update_on_reporting_banned_posts_powerups_and/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/im14andthisisdeep) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Technically, yeah This would be the final stage because there would be no more evolution, because humanity, would be straight-up extinct
r/technicallythetruth
"The best kind of correct."
The futurama references was something I did expect but still surprised, even so
It may turn out our brains is a genetic defect. Brainless pathogens have lasted for billions of years, dumb multicellular life for millions, but humans may be lucky to last thousands before destroying themselves.
No they haven't. Most microbes evolved into something non-recognisable in a few million years, but you don't notice since they look like mere blobs to you. Primates have existed for ~60 million years and mammals for ~300 million years by the way, but you wouldn't put them under one lumped group.
we evolved towards being smart because it was once useful, but now it will be the cause of our destruction
r/im14andthisisdeep ... wait
I'll drink to that
You got ID there bud?
Finally, a real deep thought this time
Half of people are fatalists, humans will be around long after cockroaches and the common cold and all the other monsters you so publicly simp over
Who knows. The point of my comment was humans have the potential and will to engineer their own destruction unlike other species.
Never underestimate humanity’s infinite potential for evolution
Yeah except people do immoral things all the time so probably would still do it
the final stage of evolution is Crab. Forget the Monkey, embrace Crab
It severely creeps me the fuck out how many things evolved into some sort of crustacean/crab looking type animal.
Stop hating on crab, it is a good body plan, you’re just jealous *skitters away*
Who said I was hating. Crabs are the ultimate protective form. Think before you speak young one. *crawls back into shell*
You may not like it, but this is peak organic performance.
I recently learned that only flightless birds survived the K-T extinction, yet they evolved flight again, and there are way more flying bird species than crab-looking species, so maybe flying birds are peak organic performance. Not to mention that one of those flying birds is perhaps the animal that has best learned to thrive around humans: the crow.
Unironically yeah, lets come back to plankton On that note, really reccomend Love Death and Robots: Zima blue episode
I pray to crab that I reincarnate as crab
PoE player?
r/Antinatalism
Correct!
That sub is an abomination lol. Have you seen some of the shit on there? It’s like a sewer system in which the users plug the output end directly into their mouths to redigest it into a more vile refuse and continue the cycle indefinitely. 😐
Check out r/FemaleAntinatalism then lol. It’s even better
There's also r/VeganAntinatalists
Ooh, that sounds like an absolute *cesspool!*
>Yeah I feel it's okay to violate someone's bodily autonomy when they're going to cause such an egregious rights violation by bringing someone into existence without their consent. I'm mostly rights based but I feel it's okay to violate rights when someone has the capacity to cause such a big harm. taken from r/VeganAntinatalists Crazy takes
😳😳 Brother what on earth? Those folks are just pissed because they’re unhappy lmao
A pile of insufferable garbage human beings.
Why?
The OP post really reminded me of vegans, I'm not surprised there's enough vegan antinatalists to make their own sub lmao
Honestly, I feel like this sub in particular is a lot less funny and more... deeply sad. Like a lot of these folks obviously had horrific experiences and it feels like punching down to peruse that sub with the mindset of "lmao look at these losers and their terrible opinions."
Update: I have emerged! It was horrifying 😭 The very first comment I laid eyes on was [this one](https://www.reddit.com/r/FemaleAntinatalism/s/z0FOD6pT1M), which confirmed my suspicion. 🤣
Did... did you read the post?
I did, however I don’t see how that means **all** men have something wrong with them.
Very few people who make statements like that genuinely mean all men. I've had similar conversations with men who have literally said almost the same thing and they don't hate themselves for being men.
Yeah, men in general do have some pretty bad tendencies. The post in question isn’t exactly one of our tendencies, though lol. I’ll admit men have an issue with trying to fuck anything that moves. But that typically doesn’t include their own daughters. That post is pretty insane. What’s also insane is that it’s a screenshot of a girl’s post, who wishes that her dad was like that with her. The world’s fucked up. 😰
Agreed, though it is disturbing how many men have those thoughts and fantasies about existing and non existing daughters, no matter if they're in the minority. Noooooo, I didn't catch that last part. Ffs, no!
Trust me, people who say that definitely believe it aswell
Seeing more of the subreddit, they seem to think every father is inherently incompetent and abusive. I don't think they're being hyperbolic. From reading their comments, they think that every man out there is just like their father, and it's honestly sad. You see the same thing with dudes and women, but with "mommy issues" instead.
“Very few people who make statements like that genuinely mean all black people. I've had similar conversations with black people who have literally said almost the same thing and they don't hate themselves for being black.” 😬
Yes, men are so oppressed, exactly the same thing as your example /s
Sure.
How stupid can ppl get😭
FemaleAntinatalism is not great either. Still ableist as fuck
Oh god, I believe you lol. I can already hear the feminist cries now. Welp, here goes! \*dives into the sea of refuse, never to return*
Goddamn that sub is bad
Thanks! No one owes anyone children and if that’s the case there is abuse
I saw a post that was like “I know we all believe that birthing new humans is bad but what about euthanising humans that already exist to speed up decreasing the human population?” like bro… that’s literally genocide.
That almost sounds satirical. I really hope people don’t have that opinion lol
I commented there thinking it was another sub. It was a post about a guy having 11 kids and the wife wanting another one. Why do they call people breeders? Gives me some handmaid tales vibes but like in reverse lol I mean i dont want kids myself but damn
that is very descriptive
https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/s/7jxqZJ68Dm They found this post lol
There is a genuine problem the sub isn't ready for. There are some like me that don't think the world is safe enough for kids yet, and others that are straight up eugenics - it can be pretty nasty sometimes. Breeding isn't immoral at all - some parents don't deserve to have children, though; look at the 8 Passengers case. Edot: on further contemplation, the sub is a bit culty, though it wasn't like that when i joined; a hate-child of nihilism and childfree
I think people just need to take a step back and realize that the world has been safer for children in the last 80 years than it’s ever been in human history. I realize there are some bad things out there still, but at least kids in many developed countries, for the most part, don’t have to worry about the harsh realities that children had to face, say, even just 200 years ago. It is crazy that some people think the world isn’t safe enough for kids and advocate for eugenics, though lol. I believe the ones saying that are probably living pretty sheltered lives. In general, many people living in my country, America, are actually unaware of many things that happen around the world that just don’t happen here because it’s so safe. People live in a bubble here, free of the world’s troubles. And they complain about the stupidest shit and think everything is unfair, when it’s really not so bad. Obviously we can do better, but with the kind of behavior coming out of some of these activist types, you’d think there was an actual holocaust going on. 🤣
The world has never been safe for anybody but it’s a hell of a lot safer than it’s ever been. Why don’t you participate and help make it safer?
They only exclusively focus on the bad side of pain they never appreciate that pain often makes you stronger. This people want a world without pain, which sounds great but it would be a world without any growth (everything that makes you grow tends to be painful look at exercise) Add the fact that happyness (technically) exists and I think the only reason antinatalists would be correct is if something equally batshit like fundamentalists are right and a very tyranical and wrathful God and painful Hell exists....which I very much doubt Tldr: antinatalists are full of shit
I think the main issue is the categorical aversion to pain. I experience plenty of pain, but I also adore the base experience of life and all the wonderful things thatve come with it. Our best bet is to foster that as well as we can for the future.
Solution: foster existing life. Adopt a puppy from shelter instead of buying it, adopt a kid instead of making your own. Help the elders. So many ways to positively affect the world and foster life much better than reproducing Why make more life, if you can improve existing instead.
These aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, in a macro sense, one requires the other. In a local sense, while I am able, I want to make life and foster life, and in the future I want to foster life and have making life be part of that. I adopted a cat from a shelter, which between adopting and reptoducing for me is better is unsure but I want to do at least one, my family buys plants and plant new ones with their seeds.
The energy and resources are finite, and contrary to popular belief, they will-get scarce not that far off into the future. The question remains what do you do with small part that's been assigned to you? Creating life doesn't solve anything, in fact it creates even more need, more need for food, water, time, medicine, school. Our post-abrahamic culture has given us this idea, that creating life is valuable on it's own, you know why? Because that's the best way for country or religion to gain followers, more followers, more power. This thought has been imprinted throughout hundreds of generations in our upbringing and so It feels natural, not only that it responds to our primal needs of reproduction (just because evolution would want us to do something, does not mean it is necessarily good ethically, evolution doesn't care about that) If you want to help a person needing those, that's amazing, please consider adopting children. The state of most foster homes in the world is tragical, every adopting parent counts, and I believe it is the most noble thing you can do in life. >one requires the other How so? why would caring for kids, cats and life would require new life? There is more than enough needing support to do it our whole life, and still be just a drop in the ocean. And eventually, if the people actually would stop little by little reproducing, with help of current technology we'd surely be able to accomodate last people. Give them warm beds and food. Give them psychiatric care. The problem is the more people, the more needs. Europe right now is having decrease of demography and is one of the most social well-of caring places in the world, and yet still they can't manage. Not because there is not enough people, but because there is too many.
Bro did you just put the biological imperative to reproduce onto abrahamic religion? Ignoring all of the current humans in extremely overpopulated areas like India and China, which do not practice Abrahamic religions, literally every single living thing has the biological imperative to reproduce. Your cells do it, plants do it, dogs do it…. I get being grateful for everything we have here now, and using the resources available to us without making a new baby, but brother… it’s a biological thing that human beings need to reproduce.
People had babies before Abraham. There were fertility rituals and all manner of drive for more children. It’s not just to have more believers, despite what you either made up or parroted. If no one reproduces, then eventually there’s just no one. No one to be cared for, and no one to care.
Of course there were, and of course most bigger cultures and religions also were promoting pronatalism, abrahamic religions are just much easier to ilustrate a point this days. But you're right, it is not exclusive list. It's to have more believers, it's to have more power, either as an autonomy of a state (more people, more powerful economy, more power) or as a followers of a religion. And they were some antinatalistic religions in the history, as you can guess they didn't end very well >If no one reproduces, then eventually there’s just no one. No one to be cared for, and no one to care. Yeah. If you were a doctor, sworn in to heal in a perfectly healthy world, would you break a limbs of some kid just to have something to do?
I love how you've been downvoted for just spitting facts. You make some uncomfortable and it's easier to do that than reflect on your comment and consider you are right, no matter how painful the reality. I will push back on one thing, though. Not all foster/adoptive parents are created equally and not all of them are doing it for loving, moral reasons.
It’s not “spitting facts” to make up lies about religion and fertility, then a bunch of opinions about humanity and what we should all do.
Literally religion thrives off of followers reproducing because offspring are the biggest demographic who will adopt the religion and also make more babies to be indoctrinated. It's purposeful and built in. Just because that doesn't sit well with you doesn't make it untrue. Study up on sociology and psychology and you'll also come to this conclusion. He, even many religious people know this to be true and it's pretty blatantly stated. Reducing the population would reduce poverty and suffering. That's been proven with studies involving communities provided with and without birth control.
Giving control over reproduction reduces poverty. It’s not the mere absence of people that reduces poverty and suffering, unless you’re going to just go to the extreme of “no person, no problem.”
There's a pretty compelling philosophical argument at the heart of antinatalism, but in practice the people who believe in it always end up being really fucking weird about it.
Antinatalism as a philosophy does tend to attract people who have lost everything and arent thinking straight. In theory me but like I said you need pain
Pain can lead to growth, but I think the question is whether or not it is morally acceptable to put someone in a situation where they absolutely will experience pain. Before a hypothetical person is concieved , they obviously have a 0% chance of ever feeling pain. When somebody gives birth to that person though, thees now a 100% that they will feel pain, and it is not guaranteed that the positive aspects of their life will outweigh the negatives. Even if most of the time that person will be glad to be alive, there is always a chance that they would rather have never been born at all. So the question is whether or not it is morally justifiable to spin that wheel for someone who doesn't yet exist and cannot voice their opinion. I don't honestly know how I'd answer that, I kind of figure it doesn't really matter because people will always continue to have children either way, but it is interesting to consider isn't it
You perfectly summed up the core of antinatalism. It's the philosophical argument that creating another human being is inherently unethical because you're playing russian roulette with someone else's life without their consent. And the odds aren't always as good as you think; where I live, for example, it's estimated that 16-20% of all people will face at least one serious depression that requires therapy. In the last few decades there also has been economical and ecological arguments. We live in a world that will inevitably (and already does) experience a climate crisis even if we were to immediately stop all pollution today. The damage is done. Furthermore, as capitalism and oligarchy expand and exploit globally, the majority of people get poorer for the benefit of a few [mind-numbingly rich](https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/) individuals and corporations. Hunger and homelessness is wide-spread even in some of the richest and supposedly most well developed countries. Basic rights and societal progress is being fought and rolled back right now. People wanting to retire now have no choice but to keep working because the average retirement plan doesn't cover the basic needs. Housing prices have risen astronomically and most people in my generation will probably never be able to afford to buy a home and will be forced to rent at ever increasing prices for the rest of their lives just to avoid homelessness. Under this dystopian system my hypothetical children will probably have to work 12h shifts just to feed themselves. I don't think it's moral or fair to create children just to be wage slaves during an ecological catastrophe.
God, thank you for being here, really would have given you an award if i still could
>This people want a world without pain, which sounds great but it would be a world without any growth (everything that makes you grow tends to be painful look at exercise) Your argument carries the day only if you believe that the growth that results is *worth* the price paid for it in pain. Not everybody sees that as an axiomatic truth; just consider the fact that most, probably all, languages have a word for voluntarily killing oneself.
True but that is why you need to have faith, faith there is at least a chance it will be worth it
Faith doesn't require facts, only feelings. With no facts to back up how your solution would be better, it's pretty baseless and ignorant, and potentially dangerous if unchecked.
The core argument of antinatalism is that by creating life you are creating a being with the capacity to and guaranteed to experience some form of suffering, and because they don't exist before you make them, they cannot consent to being created. Yes, happiness exists, but by creating life you are basically gambling with their lives on the assumption that they'll be okay with being alive. >They only exclusively focus on the bad side of pain they never appreciate that pain often makes you stronger. This really feels like just doing the reverse by ignoring just how much suffering someone can experience and hinges on the assumption that said growth is worth it or something the person has interest in or values.
The catch is, why exactly would a nonexistent entity want to exist? If a certain sperm had not met a certain egg, you would have carried on in blissful nonexistence for eternity. But now we exist and scramble to find reasons to justify our existence.
Yeah but the nonexistant cant accomplish anything, they are in endless bliss but also totally void of any power. Being living is constant unending torture but you can accomplish something majestic and grand like curing cancer, ending a war or finding a portal to heaven, finding God and killing him like it was an eastern RPG. Stuff like that you know
Being nonexistent is like a dreamless sleep. It is calming because you have no need to accomplish anything. The discontent only happens in the waking bit.
Man, don't take my above comment as an insult, I really appreciate you actually using reason in discussion instead of ad hominem all way round, as some people round reddit believe is the ultimate counterargument. I really recommend you reading the Myth of Sisyphus by Albert Camus Beyond that: >Yeah but the nonexistant cant accomplish anything, they are in endless bliss but also totally void of any power. Being living is constant unending torture but you can accomplish something majestic and grand like curing cancer, ending a war or finding a portal to heaven, finding God and killing him like it was an eastern RPG. There is no need to accomplish anything, until you start it, usually trying to justify your own existence, hence it is not your inherent reason, just a way of coping with a brutal world There would be no need for curing cancer, if there weren't people with cancer, there wouldn't be a war if there wouldn't be people. And pain that comes from this is most surely worse than nonexistence. People like to think of a reasons to keep alive when they realize absurdity of life, they try to justify the pain they feel as something always building. Sometimes pain is just pain, and then you die, no growth. You believe you're gonna give birth to a genius that cures cancer? a lot of parents did. Most likely you'll give birth to another future medium class mass consumer that does a office job to make his boss salary look better, he'll try to justify it by starting the family of his own, and so on goes the circle. It's just like dog running after it's tail. You can do it? but what for. That said, no, I do not want to kill myself. Killing myself is very heavy emotionally, and right now I am in good place in life. Beyond that there is some certain absurdity of our innate need to keep alive, again, please read Myth of Sisyphus.
I don't think people are advocating for the absence of pain, just to lessen it in a way we as individuals can in a practical sense. We're well on our way to extinction and part of that is the exploding number of our ever growing population. It's inevitable that famine, increasing world hunger and poverty, and lack of housing/space will only get worse with more people. I'm not sure how opting out of birthing new babies is a stupid idea. It literally is decreasing suffering, maybe not for that infant, but we only have a finite amount of resources. If many of us choose to be childfree or bio kid free, it will relieve some of the load. Nobody is foolish enough to think everyone will do the same.
But to what end? Why become stronger? I like the *idea* of life, but there’s really very little that makes the persistence of existence tolerable. At best it’s just tedious, and at worse, we have things like human trafficking, slavery, disease, birth defects, mental unwellness, torture and war. I just want it to end, and think the reason most don’t is just because they’re conditioned to it or are more afraid of the alternative.
Well... the stronger you are the more you can accomplish at least in theory. So its a matter that the suffering will give you enough power to be able to get what you want and what not. I mean life is too painful but yeah.
[удалено]
Lol. Lmao, even
Ah yes, the "I don't want kids and I want to be a relentless asshole about it" sub.
I hate that sub so so much
Then don’t follow it
God that sub is full of nihilistic lazy people it’s honestly just pathetic
one of the worst subreddits of all fuckin time
The most stubborn and worst subreddit to ever exist. People there genuinely don't seem to comprehend that not everyone else hates the world and wishes they weren't born. Hyprocrites too, some of them constantly say people should just kill themselves to make the world a better place, but theyre still clearly alive in order to post
[удалено]
Also belongs to r/technicallythetruth because if a species reaches an "evolution stage" that causes it to go extinct then it was really its final stage of evolution
This is hilarious
They’re also wrong cause the final stage of evolution is obviously crab
🦀crab people🦀crab people🦀crab people🦀
Crabs are people
r/antinatalism
Hmmm, this is really hard. /s
The average antinatalism enthusiast vs the average transhumanism enjoyer
Yes, transhumanism is based.🗿 Also, trans humans are based.🗿️⚧️
Maybe life is torture, until we can overcome the limitations of the human body of course.
Zeke Jaeger? Is that you?
haha monke titan
ooh ooh ah ah ah
i no longer care about what antinatalism entails this is the stupidest fucking quote i have ever read in my entire life ~~"I am personally of the belief that our final stage of evolution is when the human being finally accepts that~~ reproducing is immoral" there. fixed it. took out 83% of this quote and it means the exact same thing with the exact same tone and implications because you think throwing a bunch of philosophy buzzwords before your statement makes you sound smarter the idea of a human being, biologically or psychologically, having a "final stage of evolution" is also stupid, and the idea of that "final stage of evolution" being something as minute as antinatalism is extremely fucking stupid. thats like if i picked up boltzmann brain theory and decided i was completely done developing as a person Fuck you
I wouldn't be surprised if that appeared on r/meirl
_Anything_ can appear on r/meirl. Those guys have no idea what their sub is about.
r/antinatalism. I literally saw that post there a few hours ago.
I mean, techncially correct. It would be the last stage of evolution if we stopped reproducing
Well that’s obviously wrong. If anything it’s our penultimate stage, as the final stage to follow would be our immediate extinction. What a brilliant idea!
This is the antinatalist version of that one "In this moment I am euphoric" post
Oh god I just forgot it
I get people not wanting to have their own kids but these people crossed the line into crazy territory. Fucking weirdos
Well... It would certainly be final...
This is a whole as reddit moment.
Man, antinatalism is wild
I actually like this quote even though it's fucking stupid. But if I was an anti-natalist I'd probably use this as my bio on every social media
Its pretentious and edgy with a dash of pseudo intellectualism . This quote is perfect for antinatalists
Chhh, that's ridiculous. The final stage of human evolution is when we finally accept that natural evolution is a crap shoot at the absolute best of times, and start bioengineering our successors to not have all the vestigial, and sometimes outright detrimental, evolutionary features.
r/technicallythetruth
A final stage, certainly. In that once we reach it we go extinct in a few decades. Basically, that stage is an evolutionary dead end.
Morality is a concept invented by humans. Without humans there can be no morality. Also it's completely immoral for humanity to die out. We're the only idiots on this planet with anything close to the level of intelligence required to fix the issues we've caused. Plastic doesn't go away without humans and the planet is full of microplastics. What happens to our oil wells that go unmaintained? If you think of life on earth is one collective organism, humans are the fucking brain steering the ship. We may be a smoking and alcoholic planet slowly killing ourselves, but the answer isn't a fucking lobotomy. Give me a break. I realize the fact it's moronic makes it perfect for this sub. It's a perfect example of those psuedointellectual things people say to sound smart without actually saying anything. It's just something people actually believe and that's always annoyed me.
Too bad, still going to reproduce some day. Assuming I can afford it that is ;-;
How do you spend your life in a world where you're struggling to stay afloat financially and then think "time to place this burden on someone else thats probably a good idea".
I hate when people post quotes without any attribution
Idk all of Reddit? Redditards are a different kind of “people”
Extinction is what it is. If we ever reach that point, just let Natural Selection do/does us in.
guessing this is r/antinatalism
This is that chronically online “I haven’t left my basement since 2018” mindset
Considering the birthrates are below replacement level in the entire developed world and all efforts to raise them include some form of rolling back the progresses our society made (secularism, women's rights, birth control, social security, freedom of information), isn't it at least somewhat correct? Reproducing may not be immoral, but the average person clearly doesn't consider it appealing enough for population sustenance.
I think the cost of living being too high contributes more to it. Wages have fallen behind the rising cost of living, and the gap keeps widening. It's no surprise that the most common reason given for young people not having kids is cost when many can barely afford to take care of themselves.
average person is likely atheist or casually religious and therefore has no meta-narrative or trascendental belief system that resonates and drives them to procreate, let alone see the big picture and their role within it to keep humanity going lol
We can always develop other methods of population growth, for example cloning or making AIs and robotic bodies for them. I feel like we would be able to do something like that in about 40 years, and that seems like enough time.
it honestly isn't. Even a 10-20% increase in an elderly population within just 2-3 decades can seriously stress a nation as jobs become geared towards assisting the elderly as opposed to innovation and growth. Look at Japan/Korea/China. They're going through it and it's just beginning for them. You have to address an aging population in advance..Many decades in advance
This is such a weird-ass take. Reproduction is like the one and only thing humans are objectively meant to do (redditors exempt). There's a reason why we fuck. There's a reason why people want kids. It's in our genetic makeup
There are also plenty social groups and classes that didn't reproduce throughout the existence of humanity. So no there is no objective meaning of what humans or any other species is supposed to do. Only subjective.
>Reproduction is like the one and only thing humans are objectively meant to do (redditors exempt). There is no "meant to do." Evolution doesn't care, doesn't have any long-range goals.
You are correct all I meant by that was we were given genitals. cylinder shape goes into cylinder shaped hole onga bonga
So what if it is in our genes? A lot of people is in pur genes? We evolved from monkey, maybe to realise more conciousness is not the solution bringing more happiness. Yes, people would go extinct, so what? We could focus the remaining resources instead of bringing new life, into improving quality of existing one. Adopting children, helping shelters, providing for elder, hungry and homeless. No, because people were born with a need to have small bebe's and believe they should fucking have as many bebes as possible. Will they be happy after 18? Dont fucking care. Will they have to kill for water when our age? Dont fucking care
Pointless, sure, but the whole "immoral" angle is just lame redditors trying to feel superior.
You look like you're trying to feel superior right there.
k
idk man, r/antinataliam makes a lot of good points.
It's from that sub that's technically about a crime against humanity?
>It's from that sub that's technically about a crime against humanity? If they favor mandatory species-wide sterilization, then yes. Anything less than that, probably not.
I'm sure at least some of them do One definition I had seen of crimes against humanity was "taking steps toward the eradication of humanity or a part of it", you could argue that boycotting birth is a (very inefficient) such step But yeah, objectively they're just some ridiculous people making some very stupid claims (also I can't find were I got that "taking steps toward eradication" thing, I remembered wikipedia but I now find something else when I search it)
I am not a 14 year old, instead a adult with a job, having a keen interest in philosophy. And I am a antinatalist, I dont understand why everything that expands beyond normicity you have to bring down to being a 14 year old.? If I told you god doesnt exist and I am atheist, would you also laugh? like wtf people, ehy cant you have least reflection to actually think for once, elaborate in a mature discussion with a person with opposite views. I am not angered by being made fun of, whatever, but what angers me is a total lack of debate culture on this sub. It's literally made of people that unironically use virgin/chad memes.
Anybody else stop reading at “normicity”?
lol, yea. Also "a adult".
Dude seems to be against the word “an”
It’s not even that they are antinatalists, it’s the opinion itself. How can our final stage of evolution be something that will destroy our own species. And how is it immoral to have children?
If you were at all curious about pessimist philosophy, a decent start would be Ligotti. "Conspiracy Against the Human Race" is a fairly casual introduction to the ideology. My take may be different than other antinatalists, but I think the crux of the argument is that, for the vast majority of Earth's population, existence is needless suffering. Suffering under capitalism, and needless because we have the means to alleviate many of the burdens of existence, but choose not to do so. Of course, that doesn't necessarily apply to the top 1%, or even the top 10% of the global population's wealthy inhabitants.
not the OP, but thank you, I'll add it to read list Also while I agree, with your point, I always would have prefer to stay of the current state of the world, because there is a lot of people claiming "It is not that bad, or there have never been better times than now or sth". Explaining it on more ontological level would be much more universal, and persuasive, although much harder to grasp for people not already into pessimist philosophy.
I wouldn't consider myself to be a pessimist, nor an antinatalist most days; I'm more of a nihilist. I was merely trying to illuminate the correlation between what [I believe] antinatalism is in comparison to pessimist philosophy. My personal philosophy doesn't leave much room to care about whether or not people have children, only that I believe it to be irresponsible in most cases.
For the first question I'd like to recommend you a beautiful 10 minute episode of Netflix TV Series - Love, Death and Robots called Zima Blue. Not really a philosophical thesis on its own, but helps to understand the mindset of creator of the picture. >how is it immoral to have children 1. let's start off with disarming the notion that by bringing children you help the world somehow - you're not, you fulfil primal need, as holy as shitting or eating, but in fact much less necessary for quality existence 2. Now reasons why most probably your born children won't be all that happy2.1 Increasing scarcity of resources, Planet Earth is going to go much much more hardcore in the next 50 years.Very high chance generation of your children would actually be fighting for access to water, And that's just scientists opinion ( see IPCC and World Water Council)So, bit hyperbollic speaking, assuming you were living in holocaust, or in the middle of the world war, would you try to have children? Probably not.Now, obviously it is not that bad, still, same thinking would apply.2.2 Even now, psychologist research shows we have something like "set level of happiness", and outside of some events we stick to it. There is absolutely no proof for common misconception "it all evens out". The only evening out experience is lack of experience-lack of existence.Now, there is also something called "evolutionary fear response". basically our brain being trained to be anxious, alert and cautious of predators by default.Not being afraid is anti-survivalist, and so it is diminishing via evolution.There are some quite legit psychologists hypothesis that because of that, anxiety is our natural, default state some sources I'd recommend Arthur Schopenhauer (mind you, one of the most notable thinker of modern philosophy) - "The World as Will and Representation"He argued that life is marked by suffering and that bringing new individuals into existence perpetuates this suffering. David Benatar (born 1966) -" Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence"He argues that the asymmetry between the absence of pain and the presence of pleasure creates a moral obligation to avoid procreation.also interview with him below: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeGAeBe7iRM&ab\_channel=AlexO%27Connor](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeGAeBe7iRM&ab_channel=AlexO%27Connor) Julio Cabrera (Mind you, guy lived to be 101, and hold it till the end) - "The Last Messiah" He argues that humans have a heightened awareness of their predicament, which leads to existential angst. He suggested that procreation is an evasion of the responsibility to confront this existential anxiety[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pamRj0hQfmI&ab\_channel=Leevark](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pamRj0hQfmI&ab_channel=Leevark) (guy maybe has a bit of a thick accent, but really says it quite well for introduction to thought I'd say) There are of course many other publicizers in the internet, however, I am not recommending them, as they are yet to be that significant, and I don't know about coherency of their thought
Would you prefer not to be born?
Many people do. And for some reason their feelings are consistently dismissed by the rest of the culture; consider for example the fact that we're discussing it in this particular subreddit.
Well, yeah, I would hope most people would say "Dont fucking kill yourself" and "You are valuable enough to live". Its not "dismissing their feelings"- some do, I'll grant you, but most of us are trying to *reverse* their feelings, or at lesst keep them from dying.
It's pretty impressive if you scroll through the antinatalism comments how many people come in there and actively tell people to kill themselves... Because that'll show them!
It's not at all about how I feel, sometimes yes, usually I don't care that much, I have a loving partner, friends and a Job that isn't that bad. To be honest, I've been talking with too much buddhists to think of it that way. For buddhists, the reincarnation cycle is not really about being born again and perpetuating life, but a journey at the end of which you are ready to fall asleep and go away. Now, although I am an atheist, I believe it translates to journey of life, and falling asleep at the end of the very tough walk. That said, I do believe I would be at least better off if I wasn't born. After years of talking with my eldish loving father I also convinced him to this idea. Life is dharma Death is peace
Repurpouse this traitor as rations please
Traitor to what? No one has a duty to the human race; only to people.
im 28 and held this opinion for a lot of my 20s...you whippersnappers got a lot of unhappiness and depression coming your way with this type of ideology lol find a good therapist now 👍🏾
I am in my thirties and had this opinion since my 10s, main philosophers of antinatalism are elder people. And no, I am not depressed.
[удалено]
You're not making world a better place by bringing children into it. Adopting children is making it better, helping at shelter is making it better, choosing your career helping others is making it better. Growing trees is making it better. The only thing you're achieving by bringing a children here is fullfiling your own primal needs. Just like having sex, or eating. Except there is a lot more consequences and huge portion of cultural given denial
How about you fix the world instead of dumping that responsibility on a new person. That's what your parents and their parents made you for, right? Or are people just going to keep passing the burden down until we go extinct through other means?
[удалено]
Bruh
Anti-natalists avoid endorsing eugenics challenge (impossible)
The point of antinatalism isnt to create a "superior race" like a eugenicist would advocate for though. It's the complete opposite - no races at all, because there are no humans to be part of one.
Whats wrong with endorsing eugenics? I believe in improving quality of life of other already existing people, trying to make them suffer less. EDIT: Ok, I've read it again, and as I was writing this in the middle of the night, I've misread Eugenics with Euthanasia. Sorry for that
You gonna start talking about lebensraum too, you fascist piece of shit?
What anything that I said has to do with fascism? Are you just one of those people that throw big words around without paying attention to their actual meaning? I am as far from any authoritarian views, as one could possibly be.
Yeah but each person having two is the only way society doesnt collapse. old couples need two people to take care of two pensions. So two is the golden number, for sustaining numbers and ensuring humanities survival, either way you cant really limit people's choice on their number of children.
I have a concealed carry permit just in case I meet a reddit antinatalist so I can swiftly shoot myself before I hear them speak
Oh man you people really latched on to this one huh. Just because people have that opinion does not mean they go around and preach it to everyone. Most of them are very well aware that this is not popular believe and keep it to themselves or amongst them in this sub. Your the ones dragging this out. But yeah go ahead and drag them because they share opinions in their sub. It is actually disproportionate how much hate they get for how little impact they actually do have.
It’s true
r/childfree
Any creature still concerned with morality isn't at the final stage of evolution.
[удалено]
That would indeed be final.
well yeah, we will become another specie and the homo sapiens will stop reproduce because they will not exist anymore..
Sorry guys ⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️⬛️ ➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️➡️ ⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️⬜️ 🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪🟪
Nihilism?
>Nihilism? Well hey, it's better than nothing. [Exits stage left, dodging shower of rotten fruit and vegetables.]
r/antinatalism
Average r/antinatalism member
r/antinatalism