Welcome to Atheist Discussion, a new community created by former members of The Thinking Atheist forum.

Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Antinatalism.
#1

Antinatalism.
What is your stance about antinatalism? I don't necessarily see procreation as inherently immoral but I lean more toward the side decrying it as existence brings suffering. At the very least I think that making a new life should be a decision made with more thought. Also no matter how it sounds I don't think that people relying on some kind of gov assistance should have children as kids aren't right but responsibility and would be parents wishes to have offspring don't trump wellbeing of would be child. I was born to poor parents and let me tell you - love don't conquer all and it certainly does not help any when money are tight.

So, what you think 'bout this?
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
The following 2 users Like Szuchow's post:
  • Cavebear, c172
Reply
#2

Antinatalism.
(12-02-2023, 08:34 AM)Szuchow Wrote: What is your stance about antinatalism? I don't necessarily see procreation as inherently immoral but I lean more toward the side decrying it as existence brings suffering. At the very least I think that making a new life should be a decision made with more thought. Also no matter how it sounds I don't think that people relying on some kind of gov assistance should have children as kids aren't right but responsibility and would be parents wishes to have offspring don't trump wellbeing of would be child. I was born to poor parents and let me tell you - love don't conquer all and it certainly does not help any when money are tight.

So, what you think 'bout this?

Well I had to look THAT one up. It condemns the idea of reproduction. The idea is idiotic. If someone doesn't want to reproduce, don't. Actually, I sort of chose not to myself. But that was more because so many other people were pretty enthusiastic and making more of us and I thought we had enough. But antinatalism sure is a goal to eliminate humankind completely and I don't see a lot of positives about that either. I wouldn't mind if there were fewer of us, but "none" would mean no truly sentient life from here to explore the universe.

What if we are the only ones?
Never try to catch a dropped kitchen knife!
Reply
#3

Antinatalism.
(12-02-2023, 08:34 AM)Szuchow Wrote: Also no matter how it sounds I don't think that people relying on some kind of gov assistance should have children...

Quote:So, what you think 'bout this?

Are you asking how it sounds?
test
Reply
#4

Antinatalism.
Quote:Also no matter how it sounds I don't think that people relying on some kind of gov assistance should have children as kids aren't right but responsibility and would be parents wishes to have offspring don't trump wellbeing of would be child.

Yup, that me!! I was born disabled, with spina bifida. I have various mobility and learning deficits that are the result of it and/or the common comorbidity, hydrocephalus ("water on the brain"). These deficits have directly and indirectly affected my social development over my 47---soon 48---years. Anything dealing with sexuality and the disabled is seen with some amount of taboo (probably pretty poor syntax, but you get it). It's just not expected for somebody of my condition to marry, or even date (though some have done both). So I probably never concerned myself with the idea of fatherhood quite enough, even though I am physically capable of producing.

The older I have gotten, the more at peace I am with all that. I see marriages fail way too often for my comfort. I also see kids end up being very difficult to raise, beit because of disability (either the kids' or the parents') or lack of family support or some other issue, and I've never been that patient around kids below, say, middle school. 

I just don't need any of it.

I do think it's a bit extreme to forcefully try to curtail the having of kids, though. But maybe there needs to be mandatory counseling before childbirth? Is that even feasable? What if it just doesn't happen? Forced abortion? I'm pro-choice, but not sure about pro-abortion.

I dunno. Just some thoughts. I'm sure I'll have more.
Is this sig thing on?
The following 1 user Likes c172's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#5

Antinatalism.
(12-02-2023, 03:09 PM)c172 Wrote:
Quote:Also no matter how it sounds I don't think that people relying on some kind of gov assistance should have children as kids aren't right but responsibility and would be parents wishes to have offspring don't trump wellbeing of would be child.

Yup, that me!! I was born disabled, with spina bifida. I have various mobility and learning deficits that are the result of it and/or the common comorbidity, hydrocephalus ("water on the brain"). These deficits have directly and indirectly affected my social development over my 47---soon 48---years. Anything dealing with sexuality and the disabled is seen with some amount of taboo (probably pretty poor syntax, but you get it). It's just not expected for somebody of my condition to marry, or even date (though some have done both). So I probably never concerned myself with the idea of fatherhood quite enough, even though I am physically capable of producing.

The older I have gotten, the more at peace I am with all that. I see marriages fail way too often for my comfort. I also see kids end up being very difficult to raise, beit because of disability (either the kids' or the parents') or lack of family support or some other issue, and I've never been that patient around kids below, say, middle school. 

I just don't need any of it.

I thought more about people on welfare when I was writing it as to my mind when someone does not earn enough to support oneself then that person should not have kids. Generational poverty ain't fun. 

I would simply like for people to think long and hard before deciding to have kids as wanting something is not reason enough for getting it. Impulse buying can fuck up one wallet but impulse fucking can fuck up another human being entire life.

Quote:I do think it's a bit extreme to forcefully try to curtail the having of kids, though. But maybe there needs to be mandatory counseling before childbirth? Is that even feasable? What if it just doesn't happen? Forced abortion? I'm pro-choice, but not sure about pro-abortion.

I dunno. Just some thoughts. I'm sure I'll have more.

To drive a car one needs licence. Why do not do the same with kids? In my view having kids is not a right but a responsibility and some people shouldn't be responsible for a hamster, much less kid.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
The following 1 user Likes Szuchow's post:
  • c172
Reply
#6

Antinatalism.
This may be different where you are..but here, the people on welfare are our workforce. We need them to have more children to raise to be workers who can be paid so little that they need welfare. The rich, meanwhile, have not been producing what I would call the worlds healthiest families.

Now, I don't think that money (or poverty) is the only thing we have that's worth giving to kids - no matter where we are on those lines...but I suppose that there are places or instances where the obvious horrors of the conditions lead us, in safer places and more comfortable positions..to wonder why anyone would bring a child into that world. Warzones. Famines. I suspect that in many cases that there even are any children is one of the few sources of hope and joy for those people. If they stopped having them, I guess that's one way to end the conflict or the famine, but it also ends them. Like the ai that kills all humans to end all wars.

Personally, I think that if our main concern is something like the horrors of childhood poverty then the solution isn't to stop having kids, but to abolish poverty. Then people who don't want to have kids can continue not having kids and people who do can continue having them and none of them, regardless of that choice, will have to endure poverty. If abolishing poverty sounds impossible, pie in the sky...well...how are we going to stop people fucking?

-this isn't to say that there's not a case for antinatalism, I just think that particular avenue leads more to abolishing poverty than to abolishing children.
Reply
#7

Antinatalism.
Being in the fortunate cohort, bringing kiddos into being is a good thing ... so while I think your premise is valid, (despite the occasional radical exception,) it may be a legitimate consideration, but dependent on known facts to the natalists. The question is, is the radical exception balanced by the all the suffering. I dunno. Smile
Test
The following 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post:
  • Szuchow
Reply
#8

Antinatalism.
(12-02-2023, 08:34 AM)Szuchow Wrote: What is your stance about antinatalism? I don't necessarily see procreation as inherently immoral but I lean more toward the side decrying it as existence brings suffering.

There is also music, laughter, chocolate, sex..Terry Gilliam films...I could go on, of course. The "life is suffering" mantra (NPI) is associated by my mind with Buddhism at base and is a bit, er "glass half empty" for my taste, to put it mildly.
Reply
#9

Antinatalism.
Talk about timing....


Bill Maher did this bit on Real Time last night.


Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
The following 1 user Likes Minimalist's post:
  • pattylt
Reply
#10

Antinatalism.
(12-02-2023, 08:35 PM)Minimalist Wrote: Talk about timing....


Bill Maher did this bit on Real Time last night.




I know this isn't a popular opinion but it seems to me that the only people who are having a shit load of kids are conservative religious nutbags, and those kids grow up to also be conservative religious nutbags and then they go out vote for other conservative religious nutbags who influence government policy.  Grrrr  

If religious nuts procreated a whole lot less and liberal, logical thinking people procreated just a little bit more, maybe the world would be more progressive and an easier place to live in.
                                                         T4618
Reply
#11

Antinatalism.
That was almost the exact plot line of Idiocracy....

Except it was stupid people doing the breeding..... which obviously includes religitards.
Robert G. Ingersoll : “No man with a sense of humor ever founded a religion.”
Reply
#12

Antinatalism.
(12-02-2023, 11:31 PM)Dancefortwo Wrote: I know this isn't a popular opinion but it seems to me that the only people who are having a shit load of kids are conservative religious nutbags, and those kids grow up to also be conservative religious nutbags and then they go out vote for other conservative religious nutbags who influence government policy.  Grrrr  

If religious nuts procreated a whole lot less and liberal, logical thinking people procreated just a little bit more, maybe the world would be more progressive and an easier place to live in.
I've had five.  They're all brilliant.  They will be a credit to the entire human race no matter what they do...but....who knows, maybe one of them will be instrumental to solving some problem that leads people to think that we maybe shouldn't bring children into this world.  I'd have had thirty, but I prefer a living wife as a package deal with kids.  That was basically the calculus for her too, she gave us two more than she should have and even that didn't stop her. We lost one way early.

Amusingly enough, it's not the nuts having the most kids - even.  That's why they're loosing their shit.  They're being replaced. Not, as they surmise, by illegals - because even in the case of those illegals there's more often than not a us citizen partner in the realtionship.  They're being replaced by their own children who loathe them and raise their kids to recognize their grandparents for what they are.  There's really no way to sugarcoat the demographics of that one.

I bet that there are even people here who come from full on qanon families - and recognize this dynamic in their own families. That's..basically...the foundation of the profound swing in popular us politics over the last four decades or so. There are more of us, than them..and none of us were miraculously concepted. Bill Clinton had to triangulate with the Reich Wing. Joe Biden has to triangulate with young progressives.
Reply
#13

Antinatalism.
While atheist families tend to have fewer children, their children tend to remain atheist.

Religious quiverfull families don’t always get an entire brood of little quiverfulls…some remain in that mindset and some do not. The Westboro Baptist clan had at least two break from the fold. Once leaving, they don’t remain religious or Republican…they become us.

If their hopes and dreams rely on having many children and replenishing the flock, it’s a wobbly plan at best and sometimes, a complete failure.
Reply
#14

Antinatalism.
My humble opinion? Yes we are overpopulated but without people of all age groups a society would become quite dysfunctional. My thoughts are similar to Suchow in that people absolutely should not have kids they cannot afford to raise but antinatalism just seems a bit crazy to me.
The whole point of having cake is to eat it Cake_Feast
Reply
#15

Antinatalism.
(12-03-2023, 10:51 AM)adey67 Wrote: My humble opinion? Yes we are overpopulated but without people of all age groups a society would become quite dysfunctional.

Society is already dysfunctional (at least polish one with which I'm familiar) and having kids for the sake of "society" does not strike me as wise move. To be frank I would like for people to put far more thought to having kids that they're having right now.

Quote:My thoughts are similar to Suchow in that people absolutely should not have kids they cannot afford to raise but antinatalism just seems a bit crazy to me.

I see nothing crazy in it. Bringing new life to this shitty world looks immoral to me especially when one lacks the means to support oneself.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
Reply
#16

Antinatalism.
(12-03-2023, 12:27 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(12-03-2023, 10:51 AM)adey67 Wrote: My humble opinion? Yes we are overpopulated but without people of all age groups a society would become quite dysfunctional.

Society is already dysfunctional (at least polish one with which I'm familiar) and having kids for the sake of "society" does not strike me as wise move. To be frank I would like for people to put far more thought to having kids that they're having right now.

Quote:My thoughts are similar to Suchow in that people absolutely should not have kids they cannot afford to raise but antinatalism just seems a bit crazy to me.

I see nothing crazy in it. Bringing new life to this shitty world looks immoral to me especially when one lacks the means to support oneself.

We need young people without them we have an aging less effective workforce, young people become doctors nurses carers etc, all essential for all ages. Each generation eventually necessarily supports the one or two that came before this is what I mean by dysfunctional, I maintain that messing with the balance isn't something to aspire to and isn't good for anyone, everything else you said I broadly agree with.
The whole point of having cake is to eat it Cake_Feast
Reply
#17

Antinatalism.
(12-03-2023, 01:29 PM)adey67 Wrote:
(12-03-2023, 12:27 PM)Szuchow Wrote: Society is already dysfunctional (at least polish one with which I'm familiar) and having kids for the sake of "society" does not strike me as wise move. To be frank I would like for people to put far more thought to having kids that they're having right now.


I see nothing crazy in it. Bringing new life to this shitty world looks immoral to me especially when one lacks the means to support oneself.

We need young people without them we have an aging less effective workforce, young people become doctors nurses carers etc, all essential for all ages. Each generation eventually necessarily supports the one or two that came before this is what I mean by dysfunctional, I maintain that messing with the balance isn't something to aspire to and isn't good for anyone, everything else you said I broadly agree with.

I think that such "need" is a poor reason for forcing new life into being and all that shit that is tied to living. Also there always migrants, no need to force existence upon new human beings.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
Reply
#18

Antinatalism.
Not going to convince the vast majority of people having kids is bad, so it seems like an ineffective philosophy if the goal is to drastically minimize suffering. But also I have no problem with voluntary euthanasia if someone decides life is no longer worth living. But ultimately antinatalism just seems to me like complaining about life, and complaining about life isn't a philosophy.
“For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.” -Carl Sagan.
Reply
#19

Antinatalism.
(12-03-2023, 05:26 PM)GenesisNemesis Wrote: Not going to convince the vast majority of people having kids is bad, so it seems like an ineffective philosophy if the goal is to drastically minimize suffering.

Of course it's ineffective* but not every philosophy can be Marxism which certainly was effective at changing the world, not necessarily for the better though.  It can also be effective in microscale as not bringing another life into being saves that being from whatever suffering it would have to endure. He who saves one life saves world entire.

It's deeds that change the world, while philosophy merely provides framework. One provided by antinatalism might not be best but I find it compelling and not utopian - not having kids and thus not continuing the chain of suffering is a thing that every one of us can do. Rather easily in fact.

Quote:But also I have no problem with voluntary euthanasia if someone decides life is no longer worth living. But ultimately antinatalism just seems to me like complaining about life, and complaining about life isn't a philosophy.

It's hardly a complaint, more an observation. Observation that simply isn't to people liking as if passing the genes would still b a crowning achievement.

*Though falling birthrates in western world paint different picture. Or would paint a different picture but I doubt that people don't have kids cause they bought into antinatalism, I rather suspect other factors.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
Reply
#20

Antinatalism.
(12-03-2023, 06:01 PM)Szuchow Wrote: Of course it's ineffective* but not every philosophy can be Marxism which certainly was effective at changing the world, not necessarily for the better though.  It can also be effective in microscale as not bringing another life into being saves that being from whatever suffering it would have to endure. 

You haven't responded to my post near the start of this thread. To reiterate my point: not bringing another life into being denies that being whatever pleasures it would delight in. 
Reply
#21

Antinatalism.
(12-03-2023, 06:16 PM)Dexta Wrote:
(12-03-2023, 06:01 PM)Szuchow Wrote: Of course it's ineffective* but not every philosophy can be Marxism which certainly was effective at changing the world, not necessarily for the better though.  It can also be effective in microscale as not bringing another life into being saves that being from whatever suffering it would have to endure. 

You haven't responded to my post near the start of this thread. To reiterate my point: not bringing another life into being denies that being whatever pleasures it would delight in. 

I was also tempted to not respond to this as despite whatever you might think you are not owed an answer. Your point is dismissed as not bringing another life into being means that there would be no life to suffer which greatly outweighs benefit of being delighted in hypothetical pleasures. 

Also bolding the words does not make argument stronger.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
Reply
#22

Antinatalism.
In my opinion people should have the kids they want. I don't think there should be a minimal or a maximum number of kids a person can have. I do believe a good government must take care of the children on its territory in numerous ways by building parks, providing education (formal though school and informal through museum, public libraries and educative entertainment), entertainment via parks, festivals, etc. It should also dedicate resources to protect their rights from potentially incompetent and/or malicious parents or adult in charge of their care. It should, of course, provide healthcare to them. Children are, in my opinion, full members of society. They don't need to have the maturity of adults or be productive to have worth and deserve all the things I mentioned above. I do not have children and will never have any, but I do love children. I do work with teens every day so I guess I see them less objects than other childless people.

I do not think that there should be a license for having children since I would think that forced abortion or forced adoption would be horrible crimes against women in general and oppressive to the poor. I also doubt anybody can actually make a licensing system that actually encapsulate what it is to be a good parent. Being a parent is a damn hard job that keeps changing in style and demands over the years. There is no "standard template child" either nor one way to be an effective parent. The idea that you can make sure that all parents are good parents via a license system is, in my opinion, a fruitless endeavor with far more flaws and dangers than advantages. Just provide a good quality humanist education to all children and resources and support for expectant parents and things should be fine most of time. For the rest, create watchdogs like child protection services and hope for the best.

I don't think that antinatalism makes sense from a philosophical standpoint. Having a child doesn't mean creating suffering. While all living things suffer; all living things also experience joy and happiness. The proof is in the pudding. I am alive and though I have had experiences of pain, grief and suffering, I would say I enjoy life and had I the supernatural choice of doing it all over again from the start, I would take it. In the end, I view sentient life, especially sentient human life, as inherently valuable. Should an individual not perceive it like so, we can either help them find value and happiness in their life or, if all else fails, accept their suicide. Thus I don't think I align well at all with the antinatalist movement. Then again, I have no problem with people who, like me, choose to remain childless.
The following 2 users Like epronovost's post:
  • airportkid, SteveII
Reply
#23

Antinatalism.
(12-03-2023, 06:26 PM)epronovost Wrote: In my opinion people should have the kids they want.

I disagree. I don't think that unsuitable people have right to bring a new life into this world when they can't even take care of themselves. It's not a right to have a kid but responsibility, one for which many people are unready. In my view "right" of would be parent does not trump well being of would be child.

Quote:I don't think there should be a minimal or a maximum number of kids a person can have. I do believe a good government must take care of the children on its territory in numerous ways by building parks, providing education (formal though school and informal through museum, public libraries and educative entertainment), entertainment via parks, festivals, etc. It should also dedicate resources to protect their rights from potentially incompetent and/or malicious parents or adult in charge of their care. It should, of course, provide healthcare to them. Children are, in my opinion, full members of society. They don't need to have the maturity of adults or be productive to have worth and deserve all the things I mentioned above. I do not have children and will never have any, but I do love children. I do work with teens every day so I guess I see them less objects than other childless people.

Gov should help all citizens whether young or old that goes without saying but it does not mean that people can be irresponsible with decision fraught with so many issues as reproduction. 

Quote:I do not think that there should be a license for having children since I would think that forced abortion or forced adoption would be horrible crimes against women in general and oppressive to the poor. I also doubt anybody can actually make a licensing system that actually encapsulate what it is to be a good parent. Being a parent is a damn hard job that keeps changing in style and demands over the years. There is no "standard template child" either nor one way to be an effective parent. The idea that you can make sure that all parents are good parents via a license system is, in my opinion, a fruitless endeavor with far more flaws and dangers than advantages. Just provide a good quality humanist education to all children and resources and support for expectant parents and things should be fine most of time. For the rest, create watchdogs like child protection services and hope for the best.

I disagree. I mean adopting such licenses certainly would result in some suffering but it's not like current system - or lack of it - does not. Or to say it differently - there are licenses for various things so I have no problem at all with accepting the idea that having kids needs some more oversight too. Perhaps mandatory courses?

Quote:I don't think that antinatalism makes sense from a philosophical standpoint. Having a child doesn't mean creating suffering. While all living things suffer; all living things also experience joy and happiness. The proof is in the pudding. I am alive and though I have had experiences of pain, grief and suffering, I would say I enjoy life and had I the supernatural choice of doing it all over again from the start, I would take it. In the end, I view sentient life, especially sentient human life, as inherently valuable. Should an individual not perceive it like so, we can either help them find value and happiness in their life or, if all else fails, accept their suicide. Thus I don't think I align well at all with the antinatalist movement. Then again, I have no problem with people who, like me, choose to remain childless.

I think that it makes perfect sense, it simply stand in contrast to many people wishes. Having the child does not mean creating suffering, sure. It however means subjecting the kid to the suffering that it wouldn't be subjected to otherwise. As for anecdotes - I do not enjoy life and if I would have magic option not to be born I would certainly chose it. 

I don't see life as inherently valuable. I think that human being living it is only person that can assign value (or lack of it) to it.
There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.


Socrates.
Reply
#24

Antinatalism.
(12-03-2023, 06:21 PM)Szuchow Wrote:
(12-03-2023, 06:16 PM)Dexta Wrote: You haven't responded to my post near the start of this thread. To reiterate my point: not bringing another life into being denies that being whatever pleasures it would delight in. 

I was also tempted to not respond to this as despite whatever you might think you are not owed an answer. Your point is dismissed as not bringing another life into being means that there would be no life to suffer which greatly outweighs benefit of being delighted in hypothetical pleasures. 

Also bolding the words does not make argument stronger.

I was just highlighting the bits I was addressing with the BOLD.

Why deem pleasures merely hypothetical yet suffering irrefutably factual? Given that humans invariably seek and indulge in pleasures, as well as avoiding suffering wherever possible, it stands to reason that pleasure would be MORE commonplace than suffering, especially for we materially rich Westerners. This is also born out in the fact that most people don't commit suicide. 

I know this is a longshot, but you don't look like this by any chance Szuchow?

[Image: R.ba92a158b4437e480328ae6cffcada67?rik=m...mgRaw&r=0:]
Reply
#25

Antinatalism.
Reading, holidays, parties, dancing....
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)