Antinatalism

Post Reply New Topic

Are there any antinatalists on here? For those who don't know anything about it, it is the idea that childbirth is a selfish act. Antinatalists believe that all the pain we experience in life outweighs the pleasure. I just discovered the term antinatalism over a month ago but I've had these beliefs ever since I was a teenager. I do believe that bringing a child into the world is a selfish act whether your intentions are good or not. If you think about it, there really is no selfless reason for bringing another human being into this world. If you want to have kids because you want to give them a good life or give them a better childhood than you had it is still selfish because you are using the words "I want" making it about you. No one thinks about how the child will benefit by being in this world. People only think about how they will benefit from having a child. By bringing a new life into this world you are guaranteeing that child at least some pain and suffering and death. Even if our lives are mostly good, we still experience some struggle and bad things when we are here. Whatever struggles, pain, or suffering that your child experiences throughout his or her life you are partly responsible for it. When you turn on the news, the news is mostly bad. There is so much suffering and struggle in the world that I don't know why anyone would even consider bringing another child into the world.

My only argument in favor with antinatalism is that we are turning into what America has become in the movie Idiocracy. No later than 40 years ago, I wouldn't have this opinion. But today, my optimism of people giving childbirth is fading away.

Don't think I'm an antinatalist per se, I actually find the act of birth is quite beautiful and the most special thing that any human being has the power to do. That said, I don't think most people who just "want" a child understand the responsibility they're withholding. That's what troubles me the most about the idea of me personally having a child, who am I to ask of this responsibility... How can I ever be so sure of myself to think that I could bring something good into this world or have any idea of what good means, I can only inspire civility along with my own morals. On top of that, I can barely bare the thought of what losing a child could do to me, I'm too passionate of a person to lose a begotten part of me and just be whole again. I'm a strong person and maybe if it happened I would react differently but I don't want to know

I'm inspired by the love of mothers and single mothers and I love kids but I wouldn't want a child unless something were to occur on accident. Don't believe in abortion after the fact and would embrace the idea/challenge if it were to come. Interesting view on the selflessness of it all, have rarely thought of it in that way

You also have to look at the fact that they are not going to be babies and children forever. When people talk about having kids they seem to only talk about the baby and youngest years. It feels like everyone forgets that the child is eventually going to become a teenager and then an adult. It goes by fast. I think it is stupid for someone to have a child just because they want a baby. They are only babies for such a short period of time. Having kids also requires a lot of work, responsibility, sacrifice, and money. Adding more people to the planet also takes up resources. Whether you have good intentions for having kids or not, it is selfish to force someone into this world without their consent just to satisfy whatever reason you have for bringing the child into the world. I do agree that many people who have kids have no idea what they are getting into. The same with marriage. When people get married, they tend to only focus and plan for the wedding and all of the wedding ceremonies instead of the actual marriage. When people decide to have a baby, they only focus on the first few years of their lives instead of what lies ahead. It seems that people just blindly conform to society's standards instead of thinking outside the box.

You don't need to consider how someone will feel about being brought into the World. They can decide that for themselves once they arrive, and if they wish to, they can leave. But they'll never get here otherwise. It's not like they're minding their own business somewhere and then get ripped away.

As for the question, I think it usually is done for selfish reasons, but I'm not ready to accept the idea that it always is.

Call bringing a child into this life selfish if you will, but what it is, is a biological imperative to reproduce our species. That desire to have a baby to love and raise is nature. And sex and reproduction is, next to personal survival, the most powerful drive of all.

Having kids is a choice. No one is required to have them. So many people have them without thinking or planning ahead. When a couple wants a child that child is a want like wanting a new car or a new house. The baby is treated like an inanimate object. Nothing will happen if you never have kids. It is not like your life is in danger if you never have a baby. Selfishness isn't always a bad thing but it is selfish to have kids whether you have good reasons or not. Whether you want kids to have someone to take care of you in your older years, you want to keep your bloodline going, you want to make society happy, you couldn't control your sexual urges, your religious beliefs, or whatever the reason may be, they are all selfish reasons to have kids. You are setting them up for pain and suffering even if it is just occasionally. Everyone who is born deals with hardships, struggle, challenges, pain, and suffering even if his or her life is mostly good. There is still going to be some bad in the person's life. Antinatalists such as myself believe in no suffering and no pain whatsoever.

Say what you will, but I still say it's a biological drive to perpetuate the species. We're no different from bed bugs, penguins, or sperm whales in that regard.
As a matter of fact, my wife and I do have a daughter. She wasn't so much a choice as she was a happy accident. And I've never regretted it. If you choose not to have kids, then that's your choice, just as having and keeping ours is our choice.

I think life is a beautiful thing and wanting to share it via child birth or marriage is ultimately a selfless act because you're committing yourself and your life beyond means of your grasp. I share your idealism in not wanting to get married or have kids but mostly for inherently selfish reasons, I don't think I can give myself to somebody to that extent although I'm open to it

These acts can be selfish, depending on the person, but to care or committing to care for a persons suffering is a selfless act on its' own imo

Telling people not to have kids is pointless. The global birth rate will cool down eventually.

How many times do I have to say "demographic transition" before people will listen to me?


^^^
Overpopulation is a racist myth.

You don't want to bring kids into the world because the world is a horrible place? Here's an idea. Why can't we make the world a better place? Read about democratic socialism, social anarchism, and other forms of non-authoritarian socialism. Tell people about the wisdom of Noam Chomsky and Bernie Sanders. Spread the love.

The world is horrible right now, but we can organize people via the internet. We can start a revolution. If we increased the taxes on the multibillionaires, we could feed everyone on the planet. We can overthrow our corporate overlords with the help of the internet. We can recruit people who think that life is hopeless and meaningless.

Remember Clint Eastwood by Gorillaz

I'm useless, but not for long.
The future is coming on.
It's coming on.
It's coming on.
It's coming on.
It's coming on.

That is great that you view life positively. Not all of us do. For most of us, life as full of hardships, challenges, and struggle along with some good. Let's talk about selflessness. Selflessness in my opinion is caring for someone who already exists. Doing something for someone else who is already alive is selfless. I don't consider creating a new life and sacrificing for it selfless because that is what you are supposed to do when you have kids. You are supposed to make sacrifices and care for the child that you created. Adoption is selfless. Making sacrifices and caring for a child that you did not create is selfless because you putting another human being before yourself without imposing anything on it. Parenthood by creating your own children is selfish. Parenthood by adoption is selfless. You may disagree with me but this is what I believe.

I think doing what you're supposed to do when it comes to respecting and caring for another individual is selfless in any context, especially when many fail to do so. Adoption is also selfless imo specifically cause it's impersonal. Just as well, child birth isn't only about the birth parents but the extension of family and identity. I can agree with having different viewpoints, my point would be that life isn't a curse although perception can allow it to seem that way, not every life is the same and responsibility among individuals making and caring for children should be taken in account moreso than the act. I respect your opinion

I've made this argument numerous times, so maybe I qualify as an antinatalist. It doesn't often go over well; people frequently become enraged.

Part of it comes down to the contradiction mentioned above. Child raising requires selflessness, but selflessness toward your genetic copies comes easily. Seeing the act of having kids as an act with global consequences requires selflessness toward people who aren't your genetic copies. As Bill mentioned, it's a powerful genetic drive. However, that doesn't make it ethical. Genetic drives don't have morality. In fact, ethics usually act as a mediating force between our utterly amoral genetic drives and our social actions.

Ideally, people expand the circle of genetic similarities toward which they can act selflessly. Calling the idea of overpopulation racist focuses on only one side of the argument. I don't intend to force choices on people when it comes to them having children. I just intend to keep making my risky argument about selflessness, which is about as anti-racist an idea as you'll find. Yes, racists decry the overpopulation of brown people while ignoring the disproportionate impact of the relative pressure their own children put on the planet by using vastly more energy and carbon. They don't get to own the scientific argument.

Another related genetic drive makes us find new resources, or ways to exploit existing resources with less cost. When we expand the resources available to our unit, however, we tend to increase the number of members until we use up all the excess and return to the margin of survivability. Most animals do this. We need to intermediate that drive with ethics.

Once we fix all the easy resource issues, people will tend to look around and find someone who's genetically different enough that they want to behave selfishly toward them, then kill them and take their stuff. The genetic drives are completely amoral. As our situation gets more sophisticated, we need more sophisticated ethics.

I don't think I'm an antinatalist (only just hearing about this).

But I do think that we (human beings, everywhere) are over-populating the planet and it's "ruining it for everyone" as they used to say in the classroom or playground. . .

There are TOO MANY PEOPLE these days. Our cities and all resources are strained to breaking point. Too many people want to cram into too few "popular" places to be, or safe places, or whatever other definition places. It is literally unsustainable. The problems are too complex to list and I'm no expert but all the issues are becoming clearer and clearer.

I do think a birth LIMIT may be necessary.

Too many people have children when, if they thought it through, they would not.

I think that if only people who were prepared to raise their children, and are concerned for them, procreated, things would be a lot better. There are too many unwanted people with poor skills due to childhood neglect.

I would say no to the proposal, in the sense that I think as technology progresses fewer people will have the need for marriage, fewer people will really want to, and a lot of the hereditary diseases that wreak havoc on both families and governments economically are likely to be resolved within the century.

I might say that we'll want to slow down - significantly - on the number of offspring we have because we could be living a lot longer than our ancestors did, significantly longer, so the replacement rate will be much lower. At the same time I would add that a world where the average age is 300 or 400 (and looking every bit 30 or 40) would probably be a much better world culturally - ie. ignorance wouldn't be the norm, and you see that cultures where the average age is under 20 both have their situations caused by the lack of any sort of meaningful institutions and also the general level of knowledge in such cultures keeps potential for growth low to the ground.

So things are probably going to get a lot better from here technologically and culturally, albeit we may have a difficult road environmentally even if we're able to just about wipe out our carbon footprint or even reverse it to pre-industrial levels. Supposedly the sun is getting hotter at a rate where were we might not have a lot of time left. I'm sure we'll have pretty good geoengineering at that point and may figure out ways to cool the planet by reflecting more light back but eventually that war is likely to be lost. We could maybe buy some time if we figure out how to push ourselves back 250,000 to 500,000 kilometers from the sun per year without loosening the moon's orbit too much but that's about the best we can hope for long term aside from colonizing other planets.