I don't want children...

Post Reply New Topic

My daughter has chosen not to have kids.
I fully suppose her choice.
Too many people here already.Too many that have no future.
If you want a kid adopt or foster.Care for the ones already here before creating more.
That would really make a difference in a child’s life.
For those who think they should be fruitful and fill the earth, it’s already full to capacity.Enough already.

Why would you not consider they don't have the ability to decide for themselves what is the best religion or if they want to be religious at all?

The state interdicts indoctrination done in schools nowadays but parents aren't respecting the child's autonomy because they believe they should influence their preferences and life choices but it's wrong and children might have your genes but will never be you or think like you. I would rather develop their thinking skills than present only a branch of something possible to choose. I would not sever their choices and expect them to be copies of me. It's almost like religious people are depersonalizing kids and each other.

Such expectations and control over children will backfire unless the quality to self create upon them is not enough due to bad genes. That used to be me, indoctrinated child, and I'll never stop fighting the damage religion inflicts on kids and mbers, particularly women, as well as the male domination expectations in society and relationships which is detrimental. People don't know they're suffering until they escape all that mythical crap.

Unlike you, I choose to not go off a mythical road but wake to a reality that I can truly say that I live in, and that my choices are the best in relation to the world we live in, that have actually worked not like prayers which are worse than placebo. And if I want to create good feelings, I'll create them without the need of believing in false and damaging doctrine.

Myths are tempting, people's minds are creative but there's a difference between enjoying them or taking them as reality without the proof that we can base everything in the real world on.

Because genes are very repeatable in the species you could say the human race is an extension of you, if you so believe. Heck you could say that certain trees which are our ancestors we share genetic material with closer than others is an extension of you.

But I would think being egoistic is generally not the best path for individuals or their species. For a social species we sure tend to affiliate with restrained groups.

"the hope of the parents that the next generations can create a better world than the one they're born into." - this would not be down to Earth. Your claim is hope would be logical but the future is not as bright as hope tends to be. You cannot just end suffering, and you'll have too much trouble messing with human beings because of morality and preferences of the smartass persons who oppose scientific revolution but also because breeding into unevolved beings which isn't going to stop because of the breeders. Putin is not the last of his kind. The wealth gap is growing larger. Humans get off on causing destruction to others. These things will not simply disappear just because you keep breeding. Besides the fact you don't have a personal responsibility to prevent human extinction [it would be illogical to say you do, besides the consideration whether propagating humanity is beneficial to itself] as we are overwhelming the Earth, breeding unalike any other mammal and have become a virus.

With the exception of Russia/Ukraine, our world is at relative peace - Iran, Afghanistan are not doing so well with peace. African breeders don't have enough food and they keep doing it. we like to think we're civilized but we're not that different from Africans. The brain is one thing that holds us into the mess we are, oftentimes valued for its expected proficiency.

If Putin so desired, Hiroshima would happen again. We are at a mad man's mercy, it's no different than in the past. People allied to end wars in the past as well. Just because we are at a period of time when wars aren't across the continent but not far from it, doesn't point to a secure future. You have to keep in mind before wars there were times with no wars. If we are to say things will not get worse anymore we're dreaming. We did never imagine something like covid would come at this point in time but alas, it did. Our atheist great mind said it might, how right was he. And once again we choose to ignore great minds. Einstein told us to stop hoping that a god would listen to prayers. He had a right mind in his head. These minds are not taken for their value.

We can't modify the history to present breeding as a positive thing. First of all, because they are unrelated to peace.

If Texasmoneyman believes he could tell little Einstein to believe in prayers or the Jewish God he can only try. The rest of us will gladly stimulate his thinking brain. Because everyone [unless structural incapacitations etc] has one.

Things might've gotten better in schools but not in the family.

Unreasonably pessimistic outlook.

Hope is not in and of itself logical. Hope is merely preferring to see the best in oneself and humanity. Logic is the means to seeing hope through to fulfillment in reality. Hope is only an idea. Reason is the vehicle by which we achieve those things we hope for. Choosing to have children is one possible realization of this hope that the world can be better. I’ve already given evidence that the world, or at least parts of it, has improved and will continue to improve. It is the choice of people in impoverished parts of the world whether they will take greater control over the circumstances or not, but the choice to reproduce on a large scale indicates a similar hope that either the existence the living already lead is at least acceptable OR, as I already said, their children will choose to create the better life their parents always wanted for them. There is no logical necessity that the future outlook is as bleak as you seem to believe it is. Rather, your hopeless future is merely an assumption and thus the product of circular reasoning.

Not that a hopeful future is any less of an assumption, but there is one key difference: Hope inspires action. If you have no hope and no catalyst for reproducing, and if you are certainly under no obligation to have children (hopeless people tend to feel the most obligated, btw), you need not breed. You won’t be forced into it. So don’t. People who HAVE hope feel more of a good reason to have children.

The reality is that there is a higher population of hopeless people than hopeful people. Hopeful people insist on taking control over circumstances. Even when things happen beyond their control, they persist in restoring the world back to what they expect. That often means that they will have children, but choosing to have children will be on terms they set. They tend to wait longer to start families.

Hopeless people will say they don’t want children and probably sincerely mean that. But they also don’t assert control over circumstance to any measurable extent. Why? No hope. And thus no reason. Why abstain from sex? Sexual gratification provides a respite from hopelessness. But the consequences of sex are at odds with the values of the medical community. Doctors become doctors because of the hope that drives them—it is not in the self interest of any OB/GYN to sterilize young women. Your OB is a hopeful person on some level. And that conflict of values between the hopeful person and the hopeless leads to certain risk that your reproductive decisions will be made FOR you rather than BY you. No hopeless woman can reasonably trust a hopeless
man to properly and consistently wear a condom, yet women often place themselves at the mercy of toxic, abusive men who are nowhere to be found when they father children women never wanted. Hopeful people tend to avoid situations that carry that kind of risk.

I don’t, for example, teach my children to abstain or to use contraceptives. I teach my children what it means to be emotionally ready for romantic relationships and when it’s an appropriate time for them (hint: not now!). I’m also honest about how the intentions of young people are often misplaced and how easy it is to surrender control of your life to other people. There are choices they can make that avoid circumstances like unwanted pregnancies (notice I never said unplanned. Only 2 out of my 4 kids were planned). There are certain types of people who should always be avoided. There are financial practices that should always be avoided. And so on. It’s not out of fear of boys or girls trying to rob our children or their innocence, or wearing certain kinds of clothes out of fear of being raped otherwise. It’s all out of the confidence that we can, and should, do better. The hopeless allow themselves to become victims, hence why there are many more hopeless people in the world. Hopeful people can’t avoid becoming victims. But they don’t base their identity on perpetual victimhood.

“You can’t just end suffering.” Now I think that’s just lie. I think there are hopeless people who don’t want suffering to end. Too many people make suffering their identity. They define themselves by their suffering. Hopeful people view personal suffering as a means to an end, not the end itself. Suffering creates value since out of suffering birth is given to ideas. How many rockets exploded on the launch pad before men were launched to the moon? Suffering in the form of physical human effort is necessary for achievement. It creates value. With value comes reward.

For the hopeless, suffering is the end, not the means to an end. Suffering is the whole point. It’s the whole “road less traveled” mentality, or “it’s not about the destination, it’s about the journey.” It’s like certain religious people who call themselves seekers but they never find anything—they don’t put a name or face on what or who they’re seeking, but the goal of life is only to seek. With these people, ending suffering does more harm than good because the end of suffering means the end of their reason to exist.

The lie isn’t that suffering will ever end—there is no meaningful living without expending effort, including blood, sweat, and tears. But that kind suffering creates value in what is achieved through suffering. The point is that suffering ends with achievement.

People lacking in hope suffer much but achieve nothing. There is nothing to work for, so why work? The point of work is not to achieve, but rather maintain the status quo. The point of work is to exist rather than live. And that existence is often defined by misery and suffering. Children are born not because they are wanted, but because they can’t be avoided.

In the end, this is all that matters:

Having children is VERY selfish because it means that parents think highly enough of themselves that they choose to mix their DNA and continue their bloodline and their ideas into another generation .

NOT having children is selfish because one can focus on individual achievement without the burden of having to put family first. That’s a great reason NOT to have kids.

Excuse me but it was God / nature who advocated for sexual abstinence, I never did. I mean who in their right mind would give a special rod of sensations/clam of possibilities which also causes children to be created every time it's being used. Humanity was bestowed curses upon such as these.

"There is no logical necessity that the future outlook is as bleak as you seem to believe it is." - we have history, as well as present times moral limits that will likely not be changed, as well as tech limitations, political control, I mean it would be unreasonable to do brain surgery on each baby to transfer them into robots, and if it will, some will refuse. There are variations of people. Surgery is not a nice choice even for adults so I doubt that will happen. What of what I'm saying is so far from the truth? Medicine is necessary to continuously evolve because disease evolves, if you think we'll stop disease completely, it's unrealistic. I dont know what sci fi you're imagining, but I'm more inclined to believe that nothing dramatic will happen. Thinking points to how humanity is bound to its limitations, regardless of hopeless romanticizing of having children, the present and of the future.

You are saying desperate men are the same as what you call "hopeless", the antinatalists. There's a big distinction between the two. Incels and antinatalists generally don't get along, I'm the proof of that.

Because I make the best of my future by not having kids, I am as much as I'm concerned taking care of my future instead of hoping it will be okay. I make my path, I don't hope it out. That is where antinatalists are active while breeders are not, but they hope.

"Even when things happen beyond their control, they persist in restoring the world back to what they expect." - I made that change in my life. It so happens to be not to breed.

"Your OB is a hopeful person on some level." - he's just an average jonny, yes. Might be pessimistic but it's true. If you can excuse bastards in the health industry so easily, I would be concerned with what your doctors are like. You profess selectivity is important and protecting ourselves from the wrong companies etc, so I actually put it in practice

"The hopeless allow themselves to become victims" - I'm sorry but this is madness I won't spend my energy to comment on, and if you think antinatalists are victims for not having children, that is wrong

"or wearing certain kinds of clothes out of fear of being raped otherwise" - more madness that cannot be compared to defending kids

You are starting to sound more like a cultist, these ideas are certainly a little unusual. Don't mind if mine are, I never expected yours.

<<“You can’t just end suffering.” Now I think that’s just lie. I think there are hopeless people who don’t want suffering to end. >> - of course we want suffering to end, the purpose of not having children to prevent more suffering. I don't expect some people to believe it, but the existence of antinatalism should be proof enough

"With these people, ending suffering does more harm than good because the end of suffering means the end of their reason to exist. " - you are mistaking breeding with existing, are you doing it on purpose or you have just confused yourself? Certain big differences there

Last edited by Rexi on 23 Mar 2023, 1:02 am, edited 1 time in total.

"I don’t, for example, teach my children to abstain or to use contraceptives. I teach my children what it means to be emotionally ready for romantic relationships and when it’s an appropriate time for them (hint: not now!)." - how do you suppose these two contradictions can happen? How are they supposed to wait without abstaining, or not use contraceptive means without getting pregnant/someone pregnant.

"Suffering in the form of physical human effort is necessary for achievement. It creates value." - no, please, spare me. Spare the children! Not that cultist nonsense.

<<For the hopeless, suffering is the end, not the means to an end. Suffering is the whole point. It’s the whole “road less traveled” mentality, or “it’s not about the destination, it’s about the journey.”>> - well my destination is certainly very different, and that is not going to make it hopeless, neither will it make it negative, as it has been positive for me so long

"without expending effort, including blood, sweat, and tears." - No, thanks. I don't want anyone to go through that, let alone children. I prolly had blood come out of me every month worth 10 thousand lives, coupled with intense suffering, that was only a small portion of my life. Did I get anything out of it? No

"They tend to wait longer to start families." - not the breeders I've seen, who knows, maybe we come from different planets

"Children are born not because they are wanted, but because they can’t be avoided. " - unfortunately that is the case sometimes, it's sad you don't hear about it or see it happening. But most people are just selfish and blind.

"Having children is VERY selfish because it means that parents think highly enough of themselves that they choose to mix their DNA and continue their bloodline and their ideas into another generation ." - dolphins do that, but alas, suffering and madness is continuing even in the animal kingdom, but we cant expect more from them. Though sometimes when they dont have resources some species dont breed, so some are superior

Last edited by Rexi on 23 Mar 2023, 1:08 am, edited 2 times in total.

"NOT having children is selfish because one can focus on individual achievement without the burden of having to put family first. That’s a great reason NOT to have kids." - I like to put my skunk first, so that means nothing to me. I also have values.

Last edited by Rexi on 23 Mar 2023, 1:09 am, edited 1 time in total.

Yep.
A lot of this procreation nonsense is simple societal indoctrination/brainwashing.
Some ppl find out too late about the trickery involved.

In Nazis Germany, Hitler awarded medals to women with multiple children for his Machiavellian plans.



It is a con.
A VERY nasty con-job.



Well, since an intrinsic meaning is a myth, most ppl won't find the meaning/reason they are after.
Those that do are simply fooling themselves, imo.



Personally, realising The Truth that there is no intrinsic meaning in life puts an end to existential anxiety.
It is like the acceptance of death of a partner/family-member:
Denial, anger, depression, sadness, and acceptance.

It is as simple as that if one accepts the reality of life.
There is life after indoctrinated mythos.
It is simply a hard "swim" to get to the other side.
Cognitive dissonance is a biatch.



There are always unenlightened ppl who think they are better than you because you have different values.
Why should anyone give a crap about the views of uneducated ppl?
I certainly don't.



The problem is, when you "shake" their "Tree of meaning", if they are insecure in their beliefs, they will resent you, hound you, and possibly kill you while defending their illusory sense of meaning.

Some ppl are rational, logical thinkers...
And some embrace instincts and emotionalism to feed their feelings.
In essence, they are emotional junkies that are hooked on certain chemical reactions in the brain.
Think in terms of FarCry 5 where communities are addicted to the drug "Bliss".

"Life is suffering."
The buck stops with me.
It's the end of the line.
I have reached the highest possible degree of enlightenment and will transcend away from reincarnation.

Farewell, lesser being.
The skunk has left the building.

No fattening the poosy

I’m not arguing against antinatalism.

You don’t seem to understand that a negative outlook on the future isn’t a logical necessity. I really don’t care what happened in the past. I care about moving forward. The beauty of knowing history is learning history’s lessons and having the choice to not repeat history’s mistakes. It’s unreasonable to assume that we learn nothing from it.

Evolution of disease is not the reason for evolution of medicine. Ideally medicine exists to eliminate suffering from disease or disability, not simply hold it at bay.

Greed and envy are working against us in this area, of course. There is no reason why we can’t cure diabetes right now. But there’s an entire industry dedicated to diabetes management. Jobs and fortunes would be lost. So as long as greedy parasites are rewarded with wealth and power, we will never get cures for diabetes or cancer. Atherosclerosis ought to be reversible, though this is really a product of aging. But the point is that the medical community is largely controlled by corporate parasites concerned not with ending disease and improving quality of life, but rather with extending the lives of people dealing with chronic illness so they can extract more money out of them.

The difference between you and I is that I don’t see a logical necessity that the status quo be a permanent thing. Someone with enough money can build their own rocket and fly to the moon and back without waiting for government permission. And so someone out there could crack the code on an HIV vaccine. Someone probably already has, but we’ll never know until someone gains the independent wealth and political power to fight the system. HIV/AIDS is a big money maker right now, too. COVID is one virus responsible for the common cold, which I was always taught cannot be vaccinated against. Then someone developed the first mRNA vaccine. Honestly, I don’t remember a time in my life that I was healthier! But now all you hear about in the news is how some young person “died suddenly,” usually linked to some vaccine conspiracy.

So have children and teach them that they have the right to expect a better world, that they should work towards that better world.

Or don’t. That’s your choice. But the way I see it, your antinatalist position has given up. All you can reasonably do is step out of the way of those who want children.

Not once have you ever said that you are actively working to prevent people from having children.

What contradictions? My children know where children come from and what contraceptives are. My point is that I as a parent am responsible for making sure my children make the right decisions concerning those kinds of things. Sex is not a concern when the possibility of intimate relationships is off the table. They aren't denied information about things. They are simply being denied any opportunities to experience those things for themselves. When they are old enough to determine their own emotional maturity, THEN they are allowed to make those decisions for themselves. No sooner.

If they are old enough and have the means to live on their own apart from any financial support from me, they can decide for themselves if they are emotionally ready for romantic relationships. If they are living on their own but not fully independent, I reserve the right to pull any support for them if they are using my money to live a lifestyle I object to, e.g. going to bars and getting drunk on the weekends. I have no objections to drinking. I simply refuse to participate in another person's self-destruction.

My children understand all this, and that has a lot to do with how close-knit we are. I don't mind my kids having fun and doing things away from us. But I do expect to be informed of what my kids do and that my kids are always under the supervision of another adult I trust. One of the best ways we can protect our kids from predators and abusers is to set and enforce rules that keep them out of harm's way. Other people allow their children to have boyfriends/girlfriends. That's their business and I respect that. It's not exactly wrong or immoral to allow kids to date. It's just we simply don't do it. And I think for us the benefits outweigh the risks.

Sure, there's the tired old argument about what we're going to do when our kids move out or go to college, and whether we are setting up our kids to run wild once they get their independence. That's just not my concern. The thing is, kids will run wild whether or not parents are strict or lax. Doesn't matter. They can run out and have unprotected sex, have unwanted babies, get diseases and it won't make a bit of difference how they were raised. So the way we handle that is letting our kids know that consequences follow actions. Once they leave us, there is no safety net, no protection. You've been taught how to behave, how to handle situations. Explore romantic relationships. Get married. Bring us lots of grandbabies. But do those things on YOUR terms, not the terms of liars and manipulators. And no, I don't assume that teenaged boys have my daughters' best interests in mind. I expect emotional maturity from my children. I also expect them to recognize the same in others. I'm a little proud of how things are going with them so far.

I love this response so much, but I wanna bring up one point I found pretty unique and interesting.



This is an interesting point but I can't help but feel like the acceptance of the meaningless of life is more of an ultimate end-goal, because you could accept the meaningless of life and culturally imposed narratives and end up in a perpetuated state of ennui/discontentment?

When you remove 'intrinsic meaning', don't you fill the void with other forms of the same thing? Self-love, a good job, hobbies/passions, romance etc. These are all things that give our lives meaning, aren't they? We can't achieve perpetual euphoria naturally by doing nothing meaningful. It's pleasure that comes from achievement, which many people live by, otherwise how do you find happiness? We are not like animals who can somehow live these tethered uneventful lives and remain satisfied.

Realizing how much freedom you have is a weird thing. Most people, religious or not are passionately devoted to one ideology or another which ultimately gives us meaning. We become devoted to things without realizing the true nature of that devotion, so how do you find peace and happiness living a life of total non-attachment? Maybe the secular monks can largely achieve this by meditating and praying all day, but it seems largely idealistic to me.

When you force kids into this world you take care of them but ultimately they will be forced to swim on their own in an unpredictable capricious climate where their basic needs are less likely to be met.

I believe we are social creatures and one of our 'intrinsic purposes' is to be a part of a harmonious social community, but our tech/work focused culture is making it very hard to be a part of such communities which requires a love of other humans, focus, free-time among other things. Making real friends is being replaced with endless small talk and inattentive fleeting relationships that are treated almost like hookups.

Only 38% of Americans claim to be satisfied with their lives according to a gallup poll, and loneliness has reportedly doubled since the 1980s, and depression has reportedly risen by 5% (38% vs 33%) since 9/11 and this trend is very likely to continue, so we have plenty of data on our side to support the validity of an antinatalist worldview.

Edit: Sorry had to edit a few times as I kept thinking of more to add. This is one of very few places where I get to partake in such enjoyable conversations.

Meaning in life, or whether there even is such a thing, will always be personal.

For the atheist, it’s either “there is no afterlife, therefore there is no purpose,” or it’s “this is all there is, so make it count.” So either what happens between birth and death counts for absolutely nothing, or it’s absolutely EVERYTHING.

When you add religion to the equation, you often get that there is no meaning in life except your plans for when you check out. Though I believe in God, I don’t feel as though I’m doing myself or the world any favors by choosing to suffer only for the hope of the hereafter. The apparent meaninglessness of life seems to only be a license for toxic people and manipulators to get what they want at the expense of the gullible who forfeit their right to live well. I would say for the atheist who claims the idea of meaninglessness it’s a confining existence.

It’s not that there is any single universal meaning or purpose. I think if there is such a meaning or purpose, it is for us to decide for ourselves what that should be.

On the topic of anti-natalism, I would argue that true belief is reflected in action. I don’t suggest that violence and terrorism is ever the way to go, but those things reflect a sincere if fanatical view that the world should exist as the terrorist believes it should. It is the logical extreme of a worldview.

The logical extreme of antinatalism need not be terrorism, but could possibly take some form of actively working to stop people from breeding. Talking about it and reasoning with people is a good start. But reason is no good if nothing gets DONE. I’m not convinced that antinatalism is reasonable, nor do I think many other people will find it reasonable. If you cannot reasonably convince people to stop breeding, you have no leg to stand on.

Antinatalism is an inherently dead idea. All you can do is say YOU don’t want more kids in the world and choose not to have children yourself. Once you’re dead, there’s no 1-to-1 replacement for you, just a tiny minority of folks who don’t want kids, either.

Organized groups of antinatalists have existed. Remember the Shakers? They kept their numbers up by adopting/fostering kids and indoctrinating them into their lifestyle. I believe there are only 3 Shakers still living.

I don’t think being anti-birth means being celibate like the Shakers. But then you do realistically have to confront early sterilization and rigid avoidance of conception and pregnancy. It doesn’t matter whether abortion is on the table or not, it’s a strict no-birth policy. Once all your antinatalists are gone, who’s going to be left to spread the idea? Just…meh…young people who don’t want children.

Also…is there an end-goal to antinatalist thinking? In other words, is there an ideal max population, specifically of minority children alive at a given time? What happens to antinatalists once they achieve their goals? Do they stop working to keep people from breeding? Do they decide MAYBE to change their minds and have children for the sake of continuing the species?

I’m more of the line of thinking of just do what feels right and let evolution/nature handle the rest. If we really are overpopulating, there will be some vaccine resistant form of airborne human immunodeficiency flurona virus that will take most of us out and only leaving those of us with genetic traits or behaviors that avoid infection. I never could figure out why it is India reports far fewer COVID deaths and infections than the USA yet has a much higher population living in closer quarters. My opinion is that one factor is increased natural immunity due to more exposure to illnesses in the past among a larger, disadvantaged population.

The human ability to maintain and support large populations is an evolutionary advantage. Cicadas are largely at a disadvantage due to fungal infections and large number of predators. They thrive as a species due almost entirely through emerging in large numbers.

Since large numbers are an evolutionary advantage rather than a liability in most cases, I’m concerned what the true motivations of antinatalism really are. The choice to not breed is a personal one, and I do not presume to say someone is wrong to choose to remain childless. How does one conclude that people should stop having children? Where does your information come from? How did you decide having children of your own was a bad thing? Did someone tell you children were always difficult? Are you a victim of your own bad experiences as a child? Did someone indoctrinate you with the idea that having children is bad without giving you the opportunity to explore the positives of having children? Do you simply hate children, ALL children, or do you resent anyone or everyone for their success as parents?