420
Antinatalism Rule
(lemmy.blahaj.zone)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
420 points (100.0% liked)
196
16714 readers
2600 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
It's fine if you don't want kids for yourself, but antinatalism as an ideology is only a few steps away from ecofascism.
correct. i would have no problem if this post and the subsequent comments defending it didn’t use the words “wrong” and “immoral.” but they do and that’s fascist territory.
Lmao, no it’s not
"Nuh uh"
It is discussed with those words because it has been transformed into an ethical question. It is a personal freedom, but it can be asked how ethically correct or incorrect that action is aside from our current laws or [cultural/social] morality.
It's about wonder, ponder. I think that's always important, even for things that seem taboo at first.
I guess each person has a different approach to antinatalism. I don’t want to bring children into the world because unlike many people who outright lie, I do not think it will bring me joy. I’m also scared that if I bring a child into this world and it will suffer as much as I currently do, I won’t be able to live with the blame.
Antinatalism isn't just a personal decision to not have kids, it's an ideological belief that having kids is morally wrong.
This is an overgeneralisation which completely misses the nuance. Antinatalism does not postulate that it's morally wrong to procreate, only that it is morally wrong to bring another human consciousness into a soup of suffering, which... yeah, kinda'! I mean, is the world not presently a soup of suffering, with extra helpings on the way?
Personally, I doubt most people who subscribe to Antinatalism would do so if society weren't literally a hell hole right now.
if "a soup of suffering" means "life/the world" u just said "its not that its morally wrong to give birth, but that its morally wrong to give birth"? :p
The world as it is now, yes. But this is far from the only option, thus the world is not an inevitable soup of suffering. So, no.
Unless you're both an antinatalist and a philosophical pessimist and believe that the world will always be that soup. But yeah, that's not the case for all antinatalists. A friend of mine calls himself a "temporary antinatalist".
True. I guess the distinction, though semantically redundant, seems to be contextually necessary nowadays...
The problem with that argument is that the world has ALWAYS been a terrible place for the vast majority of people to live, at least since the industrial revolution and arguably since the agricultural revolution. The now vanishing middle class, an artifact of post war economic boom, was about the only time ever it was "morally right" to have a child because chances were very good that they would lead a life of even less suffering than their parents. I chose not to have kids because I agree that the world is headed in a bad direction, but more so because of my financial situation as a working class person, and my mental health as a result of a decade working check to check. If I were in the situation my parents were when I was born, I truly think the equation would work out differently.
I have to disagree with the idea that the world has always been a terrible place. Actually building upon what you've said subsequently, the world itself isn't terrible, it's just a rock with some moss and critters on it, the systems we've created for ourselves are terrible. That's exactly the nuance to which I was referring in my initial comment, Antinatalism isn't universally applicable to all existing and potential existential contexts.
I'm not antinatalist, but I am in favor of voluntary human extinction.