420
Antinatalism Rule (lemmy.blahaj.zone)
submitted 5 months ago by BluJay320 to c/196
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Twentytwodividedby7@lemmy.world 137 points 5 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

[-] drosophila 76 points 5 months ago

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

[-] randomname01@feddit.nl 69 points 5 months ago

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

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

[-] BluJay320 28 points 5 months ago

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

[-] randomname01@feddit.nl 51 points 5 months ago

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

load more comments (21 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)
[-] madcaesar@lemmy.world 112 points 5 months ago

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

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

[-] Thrillhouse@lemmy.world 40 points 5 months ago

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

[-] Letstakealook@lemm.ee 33 points 5 months ago

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Toes@ani.social 90 points 5 months ago

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

[-] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 32 points 5 months ago

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

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] Rozauhtuno 83 points 5 months ago

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

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 25 points 5 months ago

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

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] lorty@lemmy.ml 82 points 5 months ago

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

load more comments (19 replies)
[-] undergroundoverground@lemmy.world 71 points 5 months ago

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

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] nicknonya 68 points 5 months ago

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

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

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Shampiss@sh.itjust.works 61 points 5 months ago

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

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

If I'm incorrect please elaborate

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] 12510198 59 points 5 months ago

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

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Objection@lemmy.ml 54 points 5 months ago

Antinatalism is reactionary and incorrect.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] traches@sh.itjust.works 51 points 5 months ago

touch grass

[-] SternburgExport@feddit.de 44 points 5 months ago

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

[-] Ranger 45 points 5 months ago

Then you're leaving the future to them.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Junkhead@slrpnk.net 43 points 5 months ago

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

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

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

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

load more comments (16 replies)
[-] sexy_peach@beehaw.org 42 points 5 months ago

I believed this once, but then I went to therapy. People have thrived under way worse conditions.

[-] androogee@midwest.social 23 points 5 months ago

I'm more worried about the reefs thriving

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 41 points 5 months ago
[-] vale@sh.itjust.works 28 points 5 months ago

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

[-] spujb@lemmy.cafe 41 points 5 months ago

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

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 32 points 5 months ago

This is why religious people outnumber us.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] retrieval4558@mander.xyz 28 points 5 months ago

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

[-] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 44 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

A person cannot consent to being born

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

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

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] Prunebutt@slrpnk.net 24 points 5 months ago

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

load more comments (21 replies)
[-] Omega_Man@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago

Sorry Timmy, you still have to go to bed.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] Umbrias@beehaw.org 28 points 5 months ago

As long as you're keeping it to your own life not trying to encourage genocide via antinatalist policy then you do you.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] regdog@lemmy.world 24 points 5 months ago

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

[-] FantasmaNaCasca@lemmy.world 45 points 5 months ago

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

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

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] kibiz0r@midwest.social 21 points 5 months ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

load more comments
view more: next ›
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.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS