I Believe Having Children Is "Immoral" (Aka: Any Antinatalists Here? )
- Thread starter Bounceounce
- Start date
- Status
I don't think we'd want half of the population to disappear over a generation though. That seems like it would have a drastic impact on many areas in life.
There was a very good TV series called Utopia that explored the issue of overpopulation and offered a very peculiar and controversial idea to fix it: making people infertile during a set amount of years. The show remarkably showed the different points of view of this idea. Too bad it was cancelled.
KO Traveling Hobo
Member
Sure, but don't act indignant when someone being mocked by dozens of people tells one to fuck off.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
I don't think there is any way to tell if this is true or not. Even then, population increases in developed countries are low and mostly through migration. Even still if true, the global crisis will pretty much by definition reduce the population to sustainable levels.
Not sure if this has been mentioned in the twelve pages, but this sounds like a defense mechanism to not being able to get laid, similar to those MGTOW people, where they flip it around and consider it a badge of honor to not be able to socialize well enough to talk to potential partners in order to not feel bad about themselves.
CarpeDeezNutz
Member
It's better to not be born than to be killed in a war or downed by some pandemia/starvation.
I don't think it's up for debate whether we have too many people on earth either.
I disagree. You should also avoid imposing your own subjective views on others. It makes you look incredibly ignorant.
Overpopulation is not a subjective view.
Starfish Hero
Member
I mean yea it kind of is.
Sure, like global warming.
Starfish Hero
Member
Okay... what number is "too much"?
Did you ask their consent to NOT bring them into the world?
Getting to this thread late, but: I don't want kids because I don't want the responsibility. It's as simple as that, so I don't even date or anything so that it's not a possibility. I want to just do my thing and go to bed one night, and then that's it. Let someone find me weeks later and we're all done.
NervousXtian
Thought Emoji Movie was good. Take that as you will.
No it's just a problem to solve, with technology we'll figure it out. There was people saying we couldn't support what we have already.. and we do. We'll solve the next hurdles as well.
It is subjective.
Read what I quoted
Where did I say anything about overpopulation
Seriously man take a deep breath, relax, and read my post
Also, yeah overpopulation is def subjective
You just killed the OP!
I always took you as a guy who got laid all the time. Maybe it was the avatar.
Why no dating though? You can date without having kids. I can totally understand some people not wanting kids at all, but I always think everyone needs someone in their life. It's just so lonely otherwise, especially the older you get.
No, we are consuming natural resources faster than they renew. We live on borrowed time and believing in some miraculous tech that solves these problems (which btw all boil down to there being too many greedy humans on earth) is childish.
D
Deleted member 752119
Unconfirmed Member
Odd view. And I say that as one that thoroughly dislikes being around children and got a vasectomy years ago as I never remotely wanted to have kids (and nor does my fiance).
I just don't enjoy kids at all, or even pets really, as I don't like taking care of things or having my schedule dictated by others nearly all the time. My fiance and I are both independent and have pretty flexible jobs. Kids just aren't a part of that lifestyle.
I just don't enjoy kids at all, or even pets really, as I don't like taking care of things or having my schedule dictated by others nearly all the time. My fiance and I are both independent and have pretty flexible jobs. Kids just aren't a part of that lifestyle.
About the bolded: we don't. In developed countries of the West so far; sure (although that will change if politicians keep playing catch up in the coming years), but many developing countries are already crumbling under their own weight. There simply aren't enough jobs, or food, or water, or housing for millions of people right now.
Developing countries always get hit first, but there is definitely a population limit to this planet, unless we find a way to replace every limited resource (which is far off) or find a way to settle in uninhabitable areas (like those ideas of ocean cities, or colonizing planets - obviously even further off).
Overpopulation isn't subjective, apart from, perhaps, agreeing exactly where that limit lies.
TheOnlyOneHeEverFeared
Member
given that he can't get laid the answer is likely "yes"
Question for the OP:
Let's say I'm driving somewhere at night and I hit a deer. I lose control of my car, I drive down a cliff, and now I'm unconscious in a wreck of a car (that's on fire). It can explode any second.
You happen to walk past, you see what happened, and you realize that you have just enough time to get me out before the car explodes.
You shout at me to ask me if I'm willing to give consent for you to rescue me and therefore give me a couple of extra years of life. I'm unconscious so I can't give my consent.
What do you do?
I'll spoiler code the answer:
Let's say I'm driving somewhere at night and I hit a deer. I lose control of my car, I drive down a cliff, and now I'm unconscious in a wreck of a car (that's on fire). It can explode any second.
You happen to walk past, you see what happened, and you realize that you have just enough time to get me out before the car explodes.
You shout at me to ask me if I'm willing to give consent for you to rescue me and therefore give me a couple of extra years of life. I'm unconscious so I can't give my consent.
What do you do?
I'll spoiler code the answer:
Of course, coming across that situation, you have no idea if I want to live or if I would actually be okay with the situation and rather be dead. However, given that every living creature, thanks to evolution and natural urges, is driven to survive, chances are higher that I would want to live. Of course, plenty of people will wish they had never been born at all (or wish to end it before their natural death), and that is of course a real issue. But given those two options, the chances of me wanting to live are higher. Therefore, if we translate that to the idea of a conceptual person who might be born when you get a child, chances are higher that that child would want to live rather than not live. You can't know for sure, but that's what's more likely. Doesn't that automatically mean that the morally correct choice would be to give that child its life, and let it decide for itself once it develops the ability to decide for itself? It seems obvious to me.
Again, choosing not to do something (in this case have a child) is still a choice, and doesn't excuse you from having your morals questioned. Inaction is, in the end, still an action. Just like an unborn child can't give you consent to be born, it can't give you consent not to be born. It works both ways.
Again, choosing not to do something (in this case have a child) is still a choice, and doesn't excuse you from having your morals questioned. Inaction is, in the end, still an action. Just like an unborn child can't give you consent to be born, it can't give you consent not to be born. It works both ways.
Tangled Up in Blue
Banned
You just said that having children is an immoral act, therefore anyone who has children is, by definition, an immoral person. I'd say that qualifies as an attack.
If everyone adopted your "moral" stance, the human species would be extinct within 100 years. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the overwhelming majority of people on this planet would feel fairly comfortable in labeling that as crazy.
CosmicQueso
Member
I didn't have kids because I like money. Morality? Lol.
In my case yes, my mother was 17 and my parents had no idea how to raise kids which resulted in all kinds of fucked up shit with me and my siblings.
The later people have kids the better. The less they have kids the better. There is no inherent value in parenting for society anymore, there was when the tribes were so small that that every individual was needed.
orthodoxy1095
Banned
Arguing for not having kids because you're worried about the planet is a hell of a lot different than "We should stop having kids because they don't consent to being born."
I already said that I would accept overpopulation as a perfectly legitimate reason to not have kids earlier in the thread, along with many other reasons. The only thing that is drivel is antinatalism.
the-pi-guy
Member
These people denying overpopulation or saying it's subjective...
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eA5BM7CE5-8
Thursday War
Banned
lmfao what
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
I know i said it in more crude terms earlier but consent is absolutely already there. At that point in time the baby is a sperm and an egg. If a strong sperm gets to the egg and they join that is concent. They absolutely want to join and grow. The act of sex is finding a sperm and egg that give this 'consent'. For example it took my wife and I 2 years to conceive, fussy buggers.
If you look at this on any other level then its nonsense. You would be saying its immoral to have a baby because at somepoint in its life it might wish it never existed. And if thats the case then consent at any time for any action is meaningless. All that matters is consent at the time and an egg and sperms joining is the consent you need.
The only moral choice is whether you feel you can bring up a child correctly. If not and you do it anyway then that could be considered immoral.
If you look at this on any other level then its nonsense. You would be saying its immoral to have a baby because at somepoint in its life it might wish it never existed. And if thats the case then consent at any time for any action is meaningless. All that matters is consent at the time and an egg and sperms joining is the consent you need.
The only moral choice is whether you feel you can bring up a child correctly. If not and you do it anyway then that could be considered immoral.
Baron Doggystyle von Woof
Member
There is no answer for life. It is what is it. Just like the universe.
This is the paradox of humanity. We are such intelligent beings that we are looking for an answer for everything.
We can't accept the fact that life just happened. Thus we are overthinking it.
Now of course there is a possibility we are created by a God or a computer program.
In the meantime, just enjoy your stay and make the best of it. Or you can decide to end it it's completely up to you.
poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
Of course it's subjective. People were worrying about overpopulation when the world population was less than half the population of the US. The world's population has basically increased relative to the ability to support that population. Is there even a consensus on what population level would be over population?These people denying overpopulation or saying it's subjective...
TheRealTalker
Banned
???
I mean over population if bad and also having more children then your society or budget can handle is also silly
but as a race we need to reproduce be it the natural way or any other way
seeing as if we don't then our species will seize to exist
it is basically a responsibility to have some people get children and then nurture them and educate them so they can help the future of society and this planet when we pass on
regardless of how many breakthroughs come into existence OP people don't choose to be born or choose not to
I mean over population if bad and also having more children then your society or budget can handle is also silly
but as a race we need to reproduce be it the natural way or any other way
seeing as if we don't then our species will seize to exist
it is basically a responsibility to have some people get children and then nurture them and educate them so they can help the future of society and this planet when we pass on
regardless of how many breakthroughs come into existence OP people don't choose to be born or choose not to
Anyone I meet is either set on having kids or not into me, with no middle ground. So it is super lonely. I am by myself probably 98% of them time and wind up going months on end without physically speaking to or seeing any friends I have. I know it's not healthy, but it's all I know at this point. I'm far enough into this lifestyle that if it went the other way, I wouldn't know what to do or how to act.
Consent isn't the only moral lens one can use. Since consent doesn't really make sense in this situation, if you use some utilitarianism here, you will see that it is moral to bring a being into existence given that most beings are glad that they got the chance to exist. Given what you know prior to conceiving (that is, that it's much more likely the future person will be happy to exist than not), it is morally just to give birth, because it is more likely to produce good than bad. When confronted with the unknown, action is better than inaction if action has higher odds of producing good.
Of course, if you don't want a kid, then the calculus changes entirely. The kid is much more likely to not enjoy its existence if you didn't want it in the first place, and you're also much more likely to be unhappy. In that case, the choice that is most likely to produce more good than bad is to not conceive.
You know what's absolutely immoral, though? Telling the OP that he's stupid/too young/insane/etc..
Of course, if you don't want a kid, then the calculus changes entirely. The kid is much more likely to not enjoy its existence if you didn't want it in the first place, and you're also much more likely to be unhappy. In that case, the choice that is most likely to produce more good than bad is to not conceive.
You know what's absolutely immoral, though? Telling the OP that he's stupid/too young/insane/etc..
Graphics Horse
Member
Congrats on the snip
That sucks, sorry to hear that. I know the feeling of being locked out of the world (or more accurately, locking myself out of the world) when I was dealing with my own depression a couple of years back. It's bad, and getting back up is hard.
I would advise you to start with making some time for real time (non-internet) friends though. It can feel awkward at first but you can get back into it. I know there are plenty of women who don't want to have kids either (if you're willing to try dating services, it can always help to be honest about that in your profile), but if you want to fight that direct loneliness you're facing now, I think it's worth starting with hanging out with your friends again.
I also thought I was better off being alone for a while, but after some time you realize what being alone really means. And like you said, the longer that period lasts, the more difficult it gets. At this point I honestly believe people are meant to have meaningful real world social interactions to survive. Being alone for too long just messes your head up (although that mess can always be unscrambled with some effort).
Good luck man.
ShironRedshift
Member
I understand. I deeply want to have children, but I'm also very concerned about that and don't want to bring them into a world where they have to deal with something so terrible that in no way is there fault. However, at the same time I realize that if everyone who thought like you and I decided not to have children, that would mean that the only people who would be having children would be the ones who give no fucks about any of that, thereby ensuring the planet would be doomed. And that absolutely cannot be allowed to happen. As terrible and frightening as the problems are, the only way we can do anything about them is if we continue the fight and ensure that there are others to continue the fight after we ourselves are gone.
Of course yes, that means bringing them into a world where they have to deal with realities such as climate change, but the only way for that problem to be solved is to ensure there are people who care and are willing to do something about it.
The same is true with concerns over overpopulation/fully-developed nation resource consumption. Yes, it is true that those of us in fully industrialized nations consume tremendously more than our fair share of resources. Thus one solution might appear to be to not have children so as to reduce that strain. However, that's short-sighted as if everyone who actually had concerns about the environment followed that approach then the only people having children would be those that don't give a fuck about any of that and thus if anything the chance of the world being fucked by that would go up under such a philosophy, and not down--it has no lasting impact. The only way to make a lasting multi-generational impact is not only if you yourself take up the fight and reduce your resource consumption the best you can but you also take the temporary hit of increasing the population in the short-term to make sure that there are those to continue to advocate for those causes after your gone and reach out to people about them and try and make a difference and continue to make progress, and that we're not left with only the people who don't give a fuck being the only ones having children and propagating and reproducing their ideas as well without a concern in the world.
Of course, like I said, I'm still deeply concerned about all that and what the effects of climate change will be and what impact that will have on the lives of my kids when I have them, since they'll be the ones who will have to live with all that and not me. But nonetheless, as scared as I am about all that, I can't reconcile that with the conclusion that if people like you and I make that choice, then it follows that in that scenario it will only be people like Trump having kids and propagating their ideas. And indeed, as it stands, in the United States for example, it's groups like deeply evangelical/fundamentalist Christians or Mormons that tend to have some of the larger family sizes and stuff like climate change doesn't tend to be among their top priorities (of course, that's not the case for all of them! But statically, and based on the way these groups vote, it applies far more often than not).
And I just can't be comfortable with that. Because if I choose not to have kids, when I die, I'll be gone, true, and it won't be "my problem" anymore, so it would be easy to not care about what comes next. But regardless the world would keep on turning and while people like you and I would be gone it would be people like the Trump's children who have their hands on the world in that scenario and as concerned as I might be about stuff like climate change, I just am even less comfortable with that, since it changes nothing at best and at worst makes things even worse.
Of course, the one thing that gives me hope about all this is that we humans are tremendously resource, persistent, and tenacious. Just think about our history. We've been fighting against one thing or another our entire brief existence on this planet thus far. And no matter how difficult the fights were, no matter how low the chances were, no matter how bleak things looked and how easy it would be to just stop and give up, we kept going anyway. Because whether you call it stupidity or bravery, foolishness or tenacity, ignorance or perseverance, or whatever terms you afford to that quality, it seems to be a deeply rooted part of the human condition regardless. And indeed, whether it be war or plague, famine or drought, or aiming larger and whether it's possible for us to reach into outer space and other words, not only have we not given up, but we've persevered and found some way to overcome those challenges. It's not easy, it's not pleasant, and there are lots of casualties along the way, but we've always done it. And thus, for the sake of those who fought in the past but are no longer with us, for their sacrifices and efforts to not be in vain, and for the sake of the future, which we've always fought for and always have managed to find no matter how hard it is, we have to keep going, and we will, just like we have before.
So, TL
R: Yeah, I totally get how you're feeling and have had many of those same thoughts myself. But those are reasons if anything for why people like you and I have to be willing to have kids if anything, not reason against it, no matter how scared we might be about our children's futures, in order to ensure that those sentiments don't die with us and that there are always people to keep carrying that torch. We might not want to burden them with that heavy weight, and that's understandable, but nonetheless our duty to do so to pay back the efforts of all of those who are responsible for us being able to live our lives today the way we do, to pay back the sacrifices of those who came before us to get us to where we are now, and to make sure those in the future can have at least as a good a life of us if not better and if that's not the case then to fight to restore those norms. That's both the social contract and at the very heart as a human being. And personally... as terrifying as that is from one respect, I can't help but love it from another. Because looking back at our brief history thus far and looking what we've overcome in the past, I can't help but be optimistic that whatever problems our children face they'll be able to overcome as well and that as scary as things may be at a specific moment that as long as we continue to fight, it will all work out and no matter what happens, it will be alright. I don't know if any of that will help give you peace or not, but they're the conclusions I've come to so I hope they're at least helpful in some respect or another.
- Status