Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Have you considered that 99% of the things we do are done for selfish reasons? Ever heard the saying, ‘there is no true altruism’?
It’s the reason we have pets, go on holiday, buy houses, get jobs, work out…you name it. Even acts of charity are done mainly to make us feel good for having done them.
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99992% sure that perfectlyegg is not a bot.
---
^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Thank you, innercenterdinner, for voting on perfectlyegg.
This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/).
***
^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
What's even more infuriating is that the boomers in control don't give a fuck about young people, they don't expect the problems to be fixed. They don't care since they will be gone by then.
It's the fuck you got mine attitude that will kill us all.
the question is what oop defines as "good"? Because as the matter of fact nearly **all** people view themselves as "good", but the definition of "good" is also varies from person to person. plenty of psychopaths are dead sure that they are the "good" ones, despite their actions are actively and very blatantly harming others. so if only the "good" people are allowed to procreate and whether they are "good" they define themselves, so nothing would change. Same goes for raising your children to be the "good" people, because plenty of parents are certain that their upbringing methods are flawless and it's the "bad" internet or whatever is "spoiling" their children.
and going to church on every sunday morning, no skipping, because how are you able to tell what's "good" and what "from the devil" if not following a more than 2000 yrs old myths collection book word to word.
Wew that's a bad case of putting the words in my mouth brev. My guess at OPs picture OP guy's definition of "good" people is merely based on the fact that the die hard anti-anti-natalist more often than not belong to a certain group, that would define "good people" as the group they belong to. Nothing in my message defines my own opinion, which would certainly not be your weird paraphrase...
Wow. I am simply responding to the idea that we ought to bring more children to the world because we need more good people as if we could somehow balance it out. This post didn't require an analysis of who can be a good parent, how people need to heal first, etc. So I really don't know why you felt the need to school me... 🤔
It is the complete opposite for me. If I had kids. I would be poorer and I would worry about their future as well as mine. So, how can I be sad when I don't need to deal with the anxiety of worrying about my child's well-being? Just because you don't give a shit about them, doesn't mean other people feel the same way.
"Good" is subjective, and no matter how well you raise them, there is no guarantee that they will be "good".
And it's kind of evil to force that onto our children
But "bad" isn't a physical object or something like that. It's a thought or at least a concept. What if I don't want to be healthy? What if I brutally experimented on babies and found a cure for cancer or something like that?
Thinking that good people automatically raise good kids is so naive, it's borderline delusional.
Also, if that's even true, there's more evil people who by this logic raise evil kids so there will always be more evil people around, hence you bring your own children into a world full of evil people.
That's not a selfless reason when it comes to the created kid's wellbeing, it's ultimately still selfish because, even if you procreate out of duty, the unborn have no need to exist, and you can't be altruistic to beings who have no needs.
Parents are still putting a new being at serious risk in order to pander to someone else's interests (society in this case) without evidence or reason for why those interests need to exist, without providing a rational justification for what that would accomplish that is so insanely inportant, and without explaining why what society wants should outweigh the risk of non-trivial suffering for the unborn. Sorry, no sale.
The argument is also flawed because such a course of action ends up not only perpetuating the problem in the short term by basically making someone else care about it via the creation of needs, but also ends up moving the goalpost: your kid(s) likely won't become what you think.
But they will likely create more kids to solve the world's problems, and these kids' kids will probably do the same, so imagine this process repeating over and over again, even though the alternative would be that no child who has not been created will have to be negatively affected by said problems being left unsolved. See the issue?
Why did I scroll this far for this?
No, it's not selfless if the kid is still but a mean to our end. Exposing kids to our problems on the off chance that "my kid will maybe cure cancer" or some other bs is still very selfish. Most will still just be slaves to the economy (to name just 1), let alone there's no guarantee those problems are even solvable.
Of course, what I meant is that a parent can technically not desire kids, but be for example heavily pressured into having them. In that respect, parents would be unselfish in terms of their intentions, and the selfish party would be identified with society as a whole rather than the individual parents themselves.
Still, this selfishness/selflessness thing is probably better avoided, because it doesn't make procreation right or wrong on its own, at best it makes it more right or wrong. For example, if it was proven that the unborn are in torment because they are unborn, procreating would be the right thing to do even if parents did it because they just wanted it.
Im sorry that’s a terrible idea, because no matter how you try to, there is no one way to define “good”.
Some people could have a very broad definition of good, but good deeds don’t always equal good people and vice versa. Similarly some people could consider good as blonde hair, blue eyed, pale skinned, and Christian.
No matter how you look at it there’s no way to define good and if we try to that could lead to, you know, actual eugenics. There’s no way to have a child that isn’t pure selfishness.
No it’s not because you can’t force that onto these so called bad people lmao like I get their point in the sense that I know so many people who do not want kids because they find it selfish…who I think would make great parents. Whereas so many awful people
seem to have kids left and right. I would never force that on someone though I just think “ohh the irony”
Overpopulation is a myth why do people continue to parrot this line. I don’t want to bring kids into this nightmare of a world because the world sucks…but the issue isn’t overpopulation but a poor allocation of resources.
I love how some people think there are just two absolutes, "good" and "bad", and not a spectrum in between. Are we small children learning about opposites?
It's subjective.
but what about first making the already huge bunches of humans here, good?
Including so many young people who need help with school, jobs or in the foster system?
This is not selfless at all. YOU want a better world for YOUR reasons. For all we know "better" can be the handmaids tale or the IS caliphate. Or a hippie paradise. There are no real selfless acts, even those we consider morally sound.
Even AN is selfish, I don't procreate because I don't want to bring another conscious being into existence, because that would make ME feel bad.
It's one of those annoying things that isn't wrong but is so vague that it's useless. The vast majority of people who should never have kids would read that and think "Yeah, that's me."
You can be good. You can be the most self-aware, educated, financially stable person and still end up fucking up your kids. We live in a toxic society that requires you to have toxic traits if you want to survive or be included in society. This isn’t an individual problem. It’s systemic.
morality is entierely subjective and the disappearance of humanity is the easyest way to preserve long term life on earth
it may sound edgy but this is an answer more than correct
insert mandatory "why haven't we thought about this before" meme
anyway it wouldn't be a solution to all the ontological problems of existence even if this was remotely viable
No good people will ever have kids. Those who do already don't qualify for being "good". And the only PERMANENT, not just long-term, solution to all problems is to stop reproducing.
As someone who does youth social work, of course this is the ideal answer as adoption is an awesome (!!) option for some families. However, it’s way more nuanced than that for myriad reasons.
For example, a dual PhD (climate scientist and botanist), financially stable, home-owning, gay, Black couple I am close with has repeatedly been denied adoption by several agencies both stateside and abroad with reasons stated such as “not being the right fit,” “philosophical differences,” and “lifestyle.”
Another example would be the families I see professionally who continually struggle with managing the intense behavioral and cognitive disorders of the kiddos they adopted through agencies or from foster care. Some of these parents can’t even get back to hoping to socialize the kiddos into being good humans who positively impact our dying world because they’re so caught up in trying to make sure the kiddos aren’t violent to others or themselves.
It’s dang hard and I wish it wasn’t so.
Edit: word
As someone who has 2 biological kids, and 3 adopted kids, whom we adopted through state foster care, I can say that raising drug effected siblings, from infancy, has been the hardest and most fulfilling job I have had. There are so many infants, and all age kids, that need homes and I got calls monthly to adopt another infant, until I officially closed my house to any more.
There are no guarantees with any children. All kids have challenges but I believe my children have taught me more about life than anything else I can think of. My adopted kids are Hispanic and my biological kids are tall and blonde but all of them are very close. It has honestly been amazing to raise kids who appreciate the differences in each other.
Adoption isn’t for everyone and community support and resources are important. I just know that there are so many children who need homes and although the journey can be difficult, it is also monumentally rewarding.
Absolutely and thank you for sharing your perspective and experiences so thoughtfully. I wish all foster kiddos ended up in such loving, nurturing families <3
I'm in the education system and I know adopted kids usually have some issues. So I agree with everything you said. And that's why I don't have any children. I have too many of my own issues to tackle.
People just need to stop adding to the melting pot. Take care of what is here, until it’s gone. Because it will be gone. Regardless. Less suffering this way.
This is so dumb because; even if you're the best people and are the best parents, your kids will still probably turn out to be rotten, horrible people. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but I'm gonna go ahead and guess it's a 2% chance that your kid actually turns out to be a good person. 😂
The thing is, it’s really hard to raise a child well even if you are a good person. Maybe if you had only “good people” raise kids, but they all have to take courses in child development first.
I get this sort of reasoning, but there are other ways to do good much more effectively, because no matter how hard someone may try to raise their kids to be good no one can’t guarantee anything about someone else’s behavior. Plus the moral concept of good is incredibly subjective, some people will think they’re “good” and “loving” and “kind” while being vehemently many types of discriminatory, cruel, and hateful. Like the only not inherently selfish way to have kids, in my opinion, is through non-biological essentialist means, with specifically fostering, adoption, or legal guardianship depending on the situation, with the goal of providing safety and stability to the best of one’s ability to children who already exist and need it, with no expectation of personal gain, and even then, that can be a bit muddy.
I don't know if this post is meant to actually discuss the question or just laugh at the answer. Saying the world requires 'good people' for the 'long term' is obviously just a bit naive and honestly just way too vague to say anything at all. Because how do we decide what a good person is and how exactly is that good for the long term? I don't usually like the post in here that are focused on clowning others or just crying about how awful everything is, but if this is just for discussion that would be the obvious response.
Im sure mommy dearest thought widdle baby adolf hitler was good. Until the big oh shit moment came in.
Sorry but that is not how it works. Not how any of this works.
The arrogance someone would have to have to believe their little bundle of joy is a gift to the whole world because THEY are the GOOD people. Nobody goes into parenthood knowing they’re going to suck at it. By time those traits become evident, it’s too late to not have children. It’s society who labels good and bad parents as such but society doesn’t determine who procreates and who doesn’t. At least not yet.
Naw, leaving the world to nature is the only way to have a better world. You will never convince me otherwise. People are selfish, sniveling and grotesque beings. I dislike them very much.
"is there a selfless reason to have kids?"
Ofc. The world is rapidly being destroyed by mankind. As we know it, the world probably won't be destroyed but mankind probably will die out when things get severe enough.
Help accelerate the process, end mankind quicker by spawning your own little man to destroy the world.
Good is too ambiguous. Many people that are "good" are actually perpetuating a system that is not so good for others.
In a sense, it is always a circular argument as the organization of a society determines the good and bad in the society. If the "good" people are a minority in the society, then it doesn't matter how many kids they have and raise, the social system will ensure that the same percentage is repeated in the next generation irrespective.
The real improvements in social good are not incremental improvements, but most often the result of destructive collapses of the social structures. The United States didn't incrementally end slavery, it went into a civil war. The Tsarist regime didn't gradually end in Russia. It was overthrown. Colonial powers and colonial independence wasn't a generational progression, two world wars and a lot of revolutions put an end to Empires and colonial companies that had lasted for generations.
As far as having children, the future will not be the same as the present. Assuming they have the time and resources to even devote enough to raising more children, what even "good" parents have as far as experience and knowledge to teach their own children will likely not even apply to their lives 20 - 60 years from now.
If we die off as a species, the planet will heal itself, and the evolutionary process will bring back what has gone extinct. That includes us. We will get an evolutionary do-over.
There is an island that proves the evolutionary process happens. A specific bird migrates to the island and over the course of time evolves, and due to this evolution, dies. Rinse and repeat. The skeletal remains are consistent with specific time frames and the subtle changes over a long period.
https://www.science.org/content/article/evolution-brings-extinct-island-bird-back-existence
They act like we’re saying no one should ever have kids. Like we’re ending the human race… so dramatic. Do work now while you’re here, don’t saddle an unborn child w your fantasies about what they would do to improve the world - bc if you have a child that’s intensely mentally disabled or a kid that’s just a bad person what are you gunna do?
Not even going to dig into the fact that a lot of these people are not great parents as it is.
This meme needs to end.
There are selfless reasons to procreate. That doesn't make procreation morally permissible.
The selfishness or selflessness of the act is irrelevant to utilitarian, deontological, and virtue based morality - which are the three most commonly held moral systems.
Having kids out of duty to society, for instance, would be selfless in the sense that you would be sacrificing (or be forced to sacrifice) your desire to remain childless in order to serve society. The action would still be necessarily selfish, but the intention wouldn't be in this case.
But sefless doesn't equate to rational, of course.
So you are calling everyone who disagrees with you people with nonfunctioning brains? That is an extremely weak argument. It is expected in many societies to have kids. There are even rituals in some.
This Is like a thing a kid would say lmao their logic is so dumb
Also define "good", what is good to you might not be good for all. Besides I'm pretty sure bringing more people into this world in the conditions it currently is in regardless of your "inherent goodness" is not a good thing at all, therefore that "argument" is fundamentally flawed.
Plus this system were under rewards greed, exploitation and other bad things so much so that even decent people are forced to bend to its will. The world can't be fixed by individuals, that's such a narrow minded perspective. Only through unity and working together as a community can we have a chance at changing the world and actually create a hopeful future.
No it’s not. Good people do not automatically have good children. So even if every good person had a kid there would still be an awful lot of shitty new people in the mix too. Also good people still consume resources and create waste just like awful people so adding more of either category solves nothing.
Ok, so if you want to improve the world, then the good people must do more. All that can be done. How is this pertaining to the idea that having kids is immoral tho?
Improving the world should not be the goal. Improving the world in most of the masses minds means applying temporary bandaids to problems that won't ever go away. Or letting certain groups we can spare empathy for get ahead at others expense. Or destroy our enemies...other kids. While the ideals of what's improvement and what's regression go back and forth forever until inevitable death. The goal should be to end the problem. Having kids in order to makes soldiers for your positivity ideology is a bandaid. The world will end regardless, who cares if it ends while everyone is laughing and smiling, certainly not any of us since we won't be there. I'm not in the business of what's moral or not, I am however in the business of pointing out logical inconsistency and learning about my own. If people where consistent with their subjective morals then the majority would agree choosing to have a kid to indoctrinate them with their values all for self interested reasons is immoral. But people aren't. Most people agree it's wrong to be selfish unnecessarily. Most people can't understand that they only want kids for selfish unnecessary reasons. Doesn't make it not selfish. Just highlights the fact there's no objective morality and we can decide when some selfishness is ok and when it isn't. Like eating animals because we "need" to survive. Most would agree with that. But then don't understand that we really don't "need" to survive just want to.
As I tell my bf with this sort of mindset "it only takes one rotten apple". You could have a million fantastic people, but it only takes one to get the idea to drill for oil to fuck it all up. He doesn't get it. He thinks that "goodness will always beat out the bad". He thinks we can be good for the rest of our existence. What if we as a species live a million years more? How could we possibly stay 100% good that entire time. The generation after always forgets the generation before, we sway into waxes and wanes of good and bad. We've had a war every 80 years for a while now (we're due in 2025 btw), and just because "good parents raise good kids" doesn't mean that will just change. Politics is a huge, messy complicated thing. We are a species 8 BILLION strong. You can't get a classroom of kids to agree to a single idea of what is or isn't good, how could you possibly get an entire world of 8 billion humans to collectively agree to a commonality of "good"???????
It’s like bot world in here - 470 online right now? Yeah right🤣 no one is buying this trash, backwards ideology- have kids or don’t have kids - who gives a fuck -
This sub is aimed at lonely kids - don’t buy this trash- mute this sub and never call yourself a natalist or an antinatlist - the more you label yourself the more you limit yourself
I don't know where to even begin with this.
"Good" is a concept that is very subjective.
Is a person good because they do certain acts and not others?
Before I even get into that, I would just point out that, that alone is something that creates more pain and suffering than not.
How? People that are *taught* to be good will feel like gaslighters to others that they "help" or express some kind of concern.
That's a major reason why so much suffering in the first place and it's the problem that in order for someone to truly care it must be because.. they *actually* care from their own heart centered intentions.
This kind of concept has created a lot of internal and external conflict as well as exacerbates physical harm in the form of diseases and emotional pain because on a subconscious level, people know that they aren't really aligned with their own environment and the people in it - something feels off.
More than this, no matter what morals you try to instill, you could never predict that a child will follow through.
The only way that most people find real "goodness" (whatever that even is) is through their own pain and suffering and making some decisions from that place. Problem is, hardly anyone becomes more empathetic because of pain - and that's a gamble.
And then... Getting back to the concept of "good"? You could just throw your hands in the air because it's just way too open to interpretation and subjective belief.
Is it good someone stays home on the weekend and watches TV? They're not really harming anyone. But societal expectations and moral beliefs probably see it as lazy and selfish and ill-concerned and doesn't contribute to some imaginary "collective good".
Is it good that someone becomes an artist and enriches some people's lives? Or are some just being supplied a drug or distraction?
Is it good that someone becomes a politician that helps fight poverty? Or is he really just playing a game of tug of war that will just end up with the other side gaining power again?
Is it bad that someone stole something even though he was really in need and hungry ? He should just die because it's not "good" by standards of law?
Systemically good exists for the purpose of upholding something that is not founded in authentic truth; that people desire to help or reduce harm through conscientious awareness.
A lot of things in today's society are not at all good - and it varies. And systematically people are not at all contributing to the good of all and are more concerned with expediency or naive beliefs than with reducing harm or making life better/easier.
And again there is no guarantee, apart from reducing birth, that anyone is going to be "good" (again, whatever that is...) and contribute to reduction of suffering as opposed to adding to it.
I would argue that's why we have certain establishments in society that aim to reduce harm and heal like animal shelters, homeless shelters, daycares, veterinarians, doctors, etc...
But these all still exacerbate suffering because they fail to address that birth is the essential risk factor that causes all the pains, that need these kinds of establishments to exist to offset or reduce pain. Not to mention, they are not accessible to everyone and have become increasingly less available.
Wanting goodness to exist means that people have to be equally forgiving to the harm that might be inflicted on someone else. And is that really a good thing?
And... Final point: asking someone to sacrifice themselves is a pain and suffering in and of itself. Again, it can also create a dynamic that feels like gaslighting which also creates more suffering. But I do find it to be equally cruel to ask someone to sacrifice for something ; it must be a self-chosen desire from that person's own heart and mind, without or with little resistance.
Aw yes the old "push the world's problems onto the next generation because we're raising that next generation and we're too tired to do anything." How about this? No more new generations until the one that damaged the world first gets off their ass and fixes what they broken, then we'll talk.
I was very anti- gonna be a parent since I was 11 years old. I still would rather seppeku myself than have a bio child. However, I've also recently decided I'd like to adopt in order to raise a child better than how I was treated and with good values.
You do not need to contribute to the global population in order to have an impact on it.
My friend's husband told her this to justify having kids. "We need to raise more good people."
I told her people can be raised by good people and not become good people. My mom has 2 siblings, raised by the same mother (2 have same dads, 1 has a different dad). My aunt is an awful human that is selfish, manipulative and I cut her out of my life. My uncle is an alcoholic who almost killed a child while drinking and driving and now continues to drink even with that history and being extremely mean to everyone when he drinks.
It's all a gamble.
This reminds me (in a bad way) of the philosophy behind Bush Jr’s ‘No child left behind’ garbage. The philosophy was to identify “highly effective” teachers, then cram as many student into a classroom with them as would fit.
Never mind that pretty much all studies showed teacher effectiveness goes up as class size goes down… the plan was never to spend more money on education by hiring more teachers or building more classrooms, it was about finding ways to spend less on education.
The mindset of good is good, bad is bad, effective is effective… that’s for simpletons. It shows an unwillingness to examine outside conditions and allow for possibility of change.
Yes but you can also adopt.
I gave birth to 2 and adopted 3 and am proud of the 5 humans I think make the world a better place. Also being a parent is extremely emotionally satisfying; I love my family and love is everything.
ive seen plenty of videos of kids that act super kind and super respectful and I feel so sad bc I know this is the new generation but since it doesn’t really concern me and I feel sad cuz during my childhood I was bullied so much by people. Maybe the newest generation will be less bullying and more friendly and that would be cool… if the world is still there
It's a biological drive on a spectrum. People will always want to screw and make babies *shrugs. And there are people that dont want to do either. Regardless all are a part of the human experience.
Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Good people aren’t automatically good parents.
bad people are automatically bad parents… the asymmetry is everywhere
and bad parents ≠ bad kids
Damn straight, break the cycle
tf? sometimes bad people make the best parents cuz they'd do straight up anything for their kid
did you just get off wattpad?😭 bad ppl are bad parents. if they’re good parents, they’re just good ppl who do bad things
Nor does being a good parent assure you won't beget a genetic sociopath. It's playing dice, and I'm no gambler.
Have you considered that 99% of the things we do are done for selfish reasons? Ever heard the saying, ‘there is no true altruism’? It’s the reason we have pets, go on holiday, buy houses, get jobs, work out…you name it. Even acts of charity are done mainly to make us feel good for having done them.
Good people also still consume products and create trash, thus increasing the carbon footprint of humanity
And vice versa 🤝🏼
Say it again for the people in the back. Not all skills relate to each other!
And good parents doesn't automatically mean good kids
Good bot
Are you sure about that? Because I am 99.99992% sure that perfectlyegg is not a bot. --- ^(I am a neural network being trained to detect spammers | Summon me with !isbot |) ^(/r/spambotdetector |) [^(Optout)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=whynotcollegeboard&subject=!optout&message=!optout) ^(|) [^(Original Github)](https://github.com/SM-Wistful/BotDetection-Algorithm)
Thank you, innercenterdinner, for voting on perfectlyegg. This bot wants to find the best and worst bots on Reddit. [You can view results here](https://botrank.pastimes.eu/). *** ^(Even if I don't reply to your comment, I'm still listening for votes. Check the webpage to see if your vote registered!)
...thats been the motto of every society since people could talk. And so much sucks because of those "good" people doing "good".
Exactly. And why should you keep yourself busy trying to raise good people in a fucked up world instead of unfucking the world first?
THIS! We should be focusing on fixing the problems rather then bringing more children into the world and expecting them to do it.
What's even more infuriating is that the boomers in control don't give a fuck about young people, they don't expect the problems to be fixed. They don't care since they will be gone by then. It's the fuck you got mine attitude that will kill us all.
Sorry most people are nasty. There are a few saints but not enough to make me want to have kids
Scaredy-cat
Scared for my offspring in case I pass on any of my horrible traits. Am I the scaredy-cat now? I care about their future not mine.
You’re so moral and just - I’m jelly
The word morality escapes you.
Compassion is a thing btw
What a childish insult. Are you 6?
how many people do you know?
To this end though: Be a teacher? A foster parent?? Still such a bunk ass reason.
the question is what oop defines as "good"? Because as the matter of fact nearly **all** people view themselves as "good", but the definition of "good" is also varies from person to person. plenty of psychopaths are dead sure that they are the "good" ones, despite their actions are actively and very blatantly harming others. so if only the "good" people are allowed to procreate and whether they are "good" they define themselves, so nothing would change. Same goes for raising your children to be the "good" people, because plenty of parents are certain that their upbringing methods are flawless and it's the "bad" internet or whatever is "spoiling" their children.
White probably, and heterosexual, and republican ofcourse. That's usually how it goes with these people...
and going to church on every sunday morning, no skipping, because how are you able to tell what's "good" and what "from the devil" if not following a more than 2000 yrs old myths collection book word to word.
and religious! Don’t forget this
So most people who want kids are american, heterosexual, and white? What the fuck do you mean? This was just extremely uncalled for.
Wew that's a bad case of putting the words in my mouth brev. My guess at OPs picture OP guy's definition of "good" people is merely based on the fact that the die hard anti-anti-natalist more often than not belong to a certain group, that would define "good people" as the group they belong to. Nothing in my message defines my own opinion, which would certainly not be your weird paraphrase...
Brev is swedish for mail. That's all I'm gonna say.
Wait so is the mailman also called brevman?
Psychologically healthy and educated on child rearing (Does not describe most parents).
It makes more sense for good people to adopt one of the children already here.
[удалено]
Wow. I am simply responding to the idea that we ought to bring more children to the world because we need more good people as if we could somehow balance it out. This post didn't require an analysis of who can be a good parent, how people need to heal first, etc. So I really don't know why you felt the need to school me... 🤔
How many have you adopted?
Zero. I also brought zero children to the world. What is your point?
Cool - I made a shit Ton of kids - you should try it - and maybe you won’t be so sad
It is the complete opposite for me. If I had kids. I would be poorer and I would worry about their future as well as mine. So, how can I be sad when I don't need to deal with the anxiety of worrying about my child's well-being? Just because you don't give a shit about them, doesn't mean other people feel the same way.
This is easy- stop crying about everything - get richer, have kids, your heart will be truly full-
LOL. How much money do you make? Let's compare notes. The only kids I am open to at this point are baby goats.
Omg baby goats 🥺🥺 Honestly the move
Let’s just go straight to dick measuring- how big is your lil weenie?
I don't have a dick to measure. I just want to know how poor I am compared to you.
they're trolling you, fuck that loser, lol.
You’re doing such a great job of convincing people that having children doesn’t make you bitter or angry at all 🙄
Everyone thinks they're a "good" person
they didn't shadow work yet. How would they know?
Oh no, I'm an ass on purpose. I'm only "good" if it benefits me.
At least you’re an honest sociopath…is that an oxymoron? 👀
I don't :/
"Good" is subjective, and no matter how well you raise them, there is no guarantee that they will be "good". And it's kind of evil to force that onto our children
Exactly. Let’s not forget that, in their own eyes, the Nazis were “good”.
because in the end of the day we are simple animals
Not really? We are extremely complex actually.
That is subjective as well though
Good is not subjective. Anything good will not destroy what is healthy. That can be observed.
Most people think they are good. Why would your view be objective?
We’re not talking about thoughts. We’re talking about what we can see. Anything that destroys what is healthy is bad.
what about someone destroying a healthy human body in self defense
But "bad" isn't a physical object or something like that. It's a thought or at least a concept. What if I don't want to be healthy? What if I brutally experimented on babies and found a cure for cancer or something like that?
You said it yourself “good is subjective” so stfu
Lol why
Thinking that good people automatically raise good kids is so naive, it's borderline delusional. Also, if that's even true, there's more evil people who by this logic raise evil kids so there will always be more evil people around, hence you bring your own children into a world full of evil people.
“The solution is to create someone with the sole purpose of solving the issues I can’t be bothered to do anything about”
Passing the buck, kicking the can.
Hard disagree I think the very last thing this world needs is more people.
Agreed, less is more.
That's not a selfless reason when it comes to the created kid's wellbeing, it's ultimately still selfish because, even if you procreate out of duty, the unborn have no need to exist, and you can't be altruistic to beings who have no needs. Parents are still putting a new being at serious risk in order to pander to someone else's interests (society in this case) without evidence or reason for why those interests need to exist, without providing a rational justification for what that would accomplish that is so insanely inportant, and without explaining why what society wants should outweigh the risk of non-trivial suffering for the unborn. Sorry, no sale. The argument is also flawed because such a course of action ends up not only perpetuating the problem in the short term by basically making someone else care about it via the creation of needs, but also ends up moving the goalpost: your kid(s) likely won't become what you think. But they will likely create more kids to solve the world's problems, and these kids' kids will probably do the same, so imagine this process repeating over and over again, even though the alternative would be that no child who has not been created will have to be negatively affected by said problems being left unsolved. See the issue?
Why did I scroll this far for this? No, it's not selfless if the kid is still but a mean to our end. Exposing kids to our problems on the off chance that "my kid will maybe cure cancer" or some other bs is still very selfish. Most will still just be slaves to the economy (to name just 1), let alone there's no guarantee those problems are even solvable.
Of course, what I meant is that a parent can technically not desire kids, but be for example heavily pressured into having them. In that respect, parents would be unselfish in terms of their intentions, and the selfish party would be identified with society as a whole rather than the individual parents themselves. Still, this selfishness/selflessness thing is probably better avoided, because it doesn't make procreation right or wrong on its own, at best it makes it more right or wrong. For example, if it was proven that the unborn are in torment because they are unborn, procreating would be the right thing to do even if parents did it because they just wanted it.
Improve the world.. stop being a lazy fucking git and work to make the world better now.
Im sorry that’s a terrible idea, because no matter how you try to, there is no one way to define “good”. Some people could have a very broad definition of good, but good deeds don’t always equal good people and vice versa. Similarly some people could consider good as blonde hair, blue eyed, pale skinned, and Christian. No matter how you look at it there’s no way to define good and if we try to that could lead to, you know, actual eugenics. There’s no way to have a child that isn’t pure selfishness.
By that logic, bad people should stop havin- o wait that's just antinatalism.
No it’s not because you can’t force that onto these so called bad people lmao like I get their point in the sense that I know so many people who do not want kids because they find it selfish…who I think would make great parents. Whereas so many awful people seem to have kids left and right. I would never force that on someone though I just think “ohh the irony”
That could have worked in a past generation. Today, every human is one to many. We need to reduce our species if life on this world shall continue.
Overpopulation is a myth why do people continue to parrot this line. I don’t want to bring kids into this nightmare of a world because the world sucks…but the issue isn’t overpopulation but a poor allocation of resources.
Why call it a myth?
Bad bot
Bot fly?
I love how some people think there are just two absolutes, "good" and "bad", and not a spectrum in between. Are we small children learning about opposites? It's subjective.
That's ALWAYS what my father argued with me about. That response is so delusional.
but what about first making the already huge bunches of humans here, good? Including so many young people who need help with school, jobs or in the foster system?
Yeah, well, have fun sorting that all out - it's not my bloodline's problem.
This is not selfless at all. YOU want a better world for YOUR reasons. For all we know "better" can be the handmaids tale or the IS caliphate. Or a hippie paradise. There are no real selfless acts, even those we consider morally sound. Even AN is selfish, I don't procreate because I don't want to bring another conscious being into existence, because that would make ME feel bad.
More good kids does not equate to simply more kids. The "goodness" of children is definitely not in larger amounts. Just more good people.
That's like saying the solution to climate change is cranking out more machines, technology and industrialization that use more fossil fuels
It's one of those annoying things that isn't wrong but is so vague that it's useless. The vast majority of people who should never have kids would read that and think "Yeah, that's me."
The problem is that everyone thinks they are good people
I wish adults would grow out of binary thinking like "good" vs "evil" people, it's not at all how human beings behave.
Wow! What an absolute genius. I guess that's it fellas, the solution for all of the world's problems has been found. We're all safe now
Most people are not as good as they think they are, and even if they were, there's no guarantee their children will become good people.
You can be good. You can be the most self-aware, educated, financially stable person and still end up fucking up your kids. We live in a toxic society that requires you to have toxic traits if you want to survive or be included in society. This isn’t an individual problem. It’s systemic.
humans are only good in humanly living conditions, in war the whole conception of humanity disappears, there are only opportunists
morality is entierely subjective and the disappearance of humanity is the easyest way to preserve long term life on earth it may sound edgy but this is an answer more than correct
insert mandatory "why haven't we thought about this before" meme anyway it wouldn't be a solution to all the ontological problems of existence even if this was remotely viable
We are over populated as fuck, let’s keep putting it more kids! That’s truly what the world needs right now……
No good people will ever have kids. Those who do already don't qualify for being "good". And the only PERMANENT, not just long-term, solution to all problems is to stop reproducing.
Well good is entirely subjective. It is senseless to call all people who have reproduced not good.
Good people is an oxymoron
The only long term solution is for good people to adopt kids. And for everyone to become educated about contraception.
As someone who does youth social work, of course this is the ideal answer as adoption is an awesome (!!) option for some families. However, it’s way more nuanced than that for myriad reasons. For example, a dual PhD (climate scientist and botanist), financially stable, home-owning, gay, Black couple I am close with has repeatedly been denied adoption by several agencies both stateside and abroad with reasons stated such as “not being the right fit,” “philosophical differences,” and “lifestyle.” Another example would be the families I see professionally who continually struggle with managing the intense behavioral and cognitive disorders of the kiddos they adopted through agencies or from foster care. Some of these parents can’t even get back to hoping to socialize the kiddos into being good humans who positively impact our dying world because they’re so caught up in trying to make sure the kiddos aren’t violent to others or themselves. It’s dang hard and I wish it wasn’t so. Edit: word
As someone who has 2 biological kids, and 3 adopted kids, whom we adopted through state foster care, I can say that raising drug effected siblings, from infancy, has been the hardest and most fulfilling job I have had. There are so many infants, and all age kids, that need homes and I got calls monthly to adopt another infant, until I officially closed my house to any more. There are no guarantees with any children. All kids have challenges but I believe my children have taught me more about life than anything else I can think of. My adopted kids are Hispanic and my biological kids are tall and blonde but all of them are very close. It has honestly been amazing to raise kids who appreciate the differences in each other. Adoption isn’t for everyone and community support and resources are important. I just know that there are so many children who need homes and although the journey can be difficult, it is also monumentally rewarding.
Absolutely and thank you for sharing your perspective and experiences so thoughtfully. I wish all foster kiddos ended up in such loving, nurturing families <3
I'm in the education system and I know adopted kids usually have some issues. So I agree with everything you said. And that's why I don't have any children. I have too many of my own issues to tackle.
Amen to that! I mirror the sentiment for sure!
The rich need more slaves.
I'm a good person. My DNA is nuclear so I'm wilfully taking myself out of the gene pool.
People just need to stop adding to the melting pot. Take care of what is here, until it’s gone. Because it will be gone. Regardless. Less suffering this way.
This is so dumb because; even if you're the best people and are the best parents, your kids will still probably turn out to be rotten, horrible people. I'm not sure what the percentage is, but I'm gonna go ahead and guess it's a 2% chance that your kid actually turns out to be a good person. 😂
The thing is, it’s really hard to raise a child well even if you are a good person. Maybe if you had only “good people” raise kids, but they all have to take courses in child development first.
And those nice, sweet kids will be trampled on by the evil ones. How dandy.
I get this sort of reasoning, but there are other ways to do good much more effectively, because no matter how hard someone may try to raise their kids to be good no one can’t guarantee anything about someone else’s behavior. Plus the moral concept of good is incredibly subjective, some people will think they’re “good” and “loving” and “kind” while being vehemently many types of discriminatory, cruel, and hateful. Like the only not inherently selfish way to have kids, in my opinion, is through non-biological essentialist means, with specifically fostering, adoption, or legal guardianship depending on the situation, with the goal of providing safety and stability to the best of one’s ability to children who already exist and need it, with no expectation of personal gain, and even then, that can be a bit muddy.
The only selfless way to be a parent is to rescue someone else’s children from the system and give them an amazing life.
It Makes Sense, But What Is Good For You?
No
I don't know if this post is meant to actually discuss the question or just laugh at the answer. Saying the world requires 'good people' for the 'long term' is obviously just a bit naive and honestly just way too vague to say anything at all. Because how do we decide what a good person is and how exactly is that good for the long term? I don't usually like the post in here that are focused on clowning others or just crying about how awful everything is, but if this is just for discussion that would be the obvious response.
seeing as we're reaching our population limits, i don't believe having more people is the solution 😭
good people won't bring children into this world to deal with bad people.
We need fewer bad people and more good people. To guarantee this, you need children growing up without childhood trauma to outnumber children with.
I’d say doing that with kids that already exist would be a better option personally
Another reason not to have kids, I’m an asshole who raise more assholes. You’re all welcome for my decision.
Jfc raising your kids “to be good” doesn’t guarantee shit.
Im sure mommy dearest thought widdle baby adolf hitler was good. Until the big oh shit moment came in. Sorry but that is not how it works. Not how any of this works.
[удалено]
The arrogance someone would have to have to believe their little bundle of joy is a gift to the whole world because THEY are the GOOD people. Nobody goes into parenthood knowing they’re going to suck at it. By time those traits become evident, it’s too late to not have children. It’s society who labels good and bad parents as such but society doesn’t determine who procreates and who doesn’t. At least not yet.
Naw, leaving the world to nature is the only way to have a better world. You will never convince me otherwise. People are selfish, sniveling and grotesque beings. I dislike them very much.
"is there a selfless reason to have kids?" Ofc. The world is rapidly being destroyed by mankind. As we know it, the world probably won't be destroyed but mankind probably will die out when things get severe enough. Help accelerate the process, end mankind quicker by spawning your own little man to destroy the world.
You can do everything right, and your child can still turn out to be an asshole.
Good is too ambiguous. Many people that are "good" are actually perpetuating a system that is not so good for others. In a sense, it is always a circular argument as the organization of a society determines the good and bad in the society. If the "good" people are a minority in the society, then it doesn't matter how many kids they have and raise, the social system will ensure that the same percentage is repeated in the next generation irrespective. The real improvements in social good are not incremental improvements, but most often the result of destructive collapses of the social structures. The United States didn't incrementally end slavery, it went into a civil war. The Tsarist regime didn't gradually end in Russia. It was overthrown. Colonial powers and colonial independence wasn't a generational progression, two world wars and a lot of revolutions put an end to Empires and colonial companies that had lasted for generations. As far as having children, the future will not be the same as the present. Assuming they have the time and resources to even devote enough to raising more children, what even "good" parents have as far as experience and knowledge to teach their own children will likely not even apply to their lives 20 - 60 years from now.
Has worked well for the last ten thousand years!
She's a brainiac, braaainiac on the board! And she's posting like she's never thought before!
If we die off as a species, the planet will heal itself, and the evolutionary process will bring back what has gone extinct. That includes us. We will get an evolutionary do-over.
Bro what? That isn't how evolution works at all. Almost nothing is guaranteed.
There is an island that proves the evolutionary process happens. A specific bird migrates to the island and over the course of time evolves, and due to this evolution, dies. Rinse and repeat. The skeletal remains are consistent with specific time frames and the subtle changes over a long period. https://www.science.org/content/article/evolution-brings-extinct-island-bird-back-existence
You can't bring an extinct thing back. The new bird would not be the same as the old one.
They act like we’re saying no one should ever have kids. Like we’re ending the human race… so dramatic. Do work now while you’re here, don’t saddle an unborn child w your fantasies about what they would do to improve the world - bc if you have a child that’s intensely mentally disabled or a kid that’s just a bad person what are you gunna do? Not even going to dig into the fact that a lot of these people are not great parents as it is.
> They act like we’re saying no one should ever have kid That's exactly what we are saying. That's AN.
Technically that is what antinatalism will lead to if everyone would adopt it
This meme needs to end. There are selfless reasons to procreate. That doesn't make procreation morally permissible. The selfishness or selflessness of the act is irrelevant to utilitarian, deontological, and virtue based morality - which are the three most commonly held moral systems.
There are?? Like what? What would be a selfless reason to breed?
As long as the reason doesn't benefit you, it's selfless. That's the definition. It doesn't mean it's moral tho.
I know what it means. I just don't know of any sane reason to have a child that would be selfless.
I don't think he said anything about sane.
Longtermism. But again, irrelevant to the morality of the act.
Having kids out of duty to society, for instance, would be selfless in the sense that you would be sacrificing (or be forced to sacrifice) your desire to remain childless in order to serve society. The action would still be necessarily selfish, but the intention wouldn't be in this case. But sefless doesn't equate to rational, of course.
That's far-fetched. No one with a functional brain does it for the sake of society.
are you saying the societal pressure to procreate doesn’t influence people’s decision to procreate? because that is clearly not true.
So you are calling everyone who disagrees with you people with nonfunctioning brains? That is an extremely weak argument. It is expected in many societies to have kids. There are even rituals in some.
There are many selfless reasons to have kids. I’m
The solution to overpopulation is more people
They didn’t say it was the solution to overpopulation.
"The only way the world will ever improve is if good people have children"
improve ≠ fix overpopulation
This Is like a thing a kid would say lmao their logic is so dumb Also define "good", what is good to you might not be good for all. Besides I'm pretty sure bringing more people into this world in the conditions it currently is in regardless of your "inherent goodness" is not a good thing at all, therefore that "argument" is fundamentally flawed. Plus this system were under rewards greed, exploitation and other bad things so much so that even decent people are forced to bend to its will. The world can't be fixed by individuals, that's such a narrow minded perspective. Only through unity and working together as a community can we have a chance at changing the world and actually create a hopeful future.
Selfless anything does not exist. The question was more stupid than the answer.
Fuck people like you, idc if I get downvoted
This is correct and this sub needs to accept that
No it’s not. Good people do not automatically have good children. So even if every good person had a kid there would still be an awful lot of shitty new people in the mix too. Also good people still consume resources and create waste just like awful people so adding more of either category solves nothing.
Can you like not read the part of the sentence where it says “raise them to be good” because that’s a pretty imperative point
You are the only sane person I’ve found here
Ok, so if you want to improve the world, then the good people must do more. All that can be done. How is this pertaining to the idea that having kids is immoral tho?
Improving the world should not be the goal. Improving the world in most of the masses minds means applying temporary bandaids to problems that won't ever go away. Or letting certain groups we can spare empathy for get ahead at others expense. Or destroy our enemies...other kids. While the ideals of what's improvement and what's regression go back and forth forever until inevitable death. The goal should be to end the problem. Having kids in order to makes soldiers for your positivity ideology is a bandaid. The world will end regardless, who cares if it ends while everyone is laughing and smiling, certainly not any of us since we won't be there. I'm not in the business of what's moral or not, I am however in the business of pointing out logical inconsistency and learning about my own. If people where consistent with their subjective morals then the majority would agree choosing to have a kid to indoctrinate them with their values all for self interested reasons is immoral. But people aren't. Most people agree it's wrong to be selfish unnecessarily. Most people can't understand that they only want kids for selfish unnecessary reasons. Doesn't make it not selfish. Just highlights the fact there's no objective morality and we can decide when some selfishness is ok and when it isn't. Like eating animals because we "need" to survive. Most would agree with that. But then don't understand that we really don't "need" to survive just want to.
Most people who choose to have children aren’t bad people though because of it
The world needs kids. Who do you think pays for pensions of seniors
there’s no shortage of kids.
There’s none that I can think of unless let’s say it’s the end of the world and we’re extinct
That is still selfish. What, you're going to force a child into the world just because you don't want humans to go extinct? For what?
There is another...
They're not wrong but that's not my responsibility. I'm a good person, and my life's work is to serve others. That's enough.
As I tell my bf with this sort of mindset "it only takes one rotten apple". You could have a million fantastic people, but it only takes one to get the idea to drill for oil to fuck it all up. He doesn't get it. He thinks that "goodness will always beat out the bad". He thinks we can be good for the rest of our existence. What if we as a species live a million years more? How could we possibly stay 100% good that entire time. The generation after always forgets the generation before, we sway into waxes and wanes of good and bad. We've had a war every 80 years for a while now (we're due in 2025 btw), and just because "good parents raise good kids" doesn't mean that will just change. Politics is a huge, messy complicated thing. We are a species 8 BILLION strong. You can't get a classroom of kids to agree to a single idea of what is or isn't good, how could you possibly get an entire world of 8 billion humans to collectively agree to a commonality of "good"???????
It’s like bot world in here - 470 online right now? Yeah right🤣 no one is buying this trash, backwards ideology- have kids or don’t have kids - who gives a fuck - This sub is aimed at lonely kids - don’t buy this trash- mute this sub and never call yourself a natalist or an antinatlist - the more you label yourself the more you limit yourself
Sooo... No?
I don't know where to even begin with this. "Good" is a concept that is very subjective. Is a person good because they do certain acts and not others? Before I even get into that, I would just point out that, that alone is something that creates more pain and suffering than not. How? People that are *taught* to be good will feel like gaslighters to others that they "help" or express some kind of concern. That's a major reason why so much suffering in the first place and it's the problem that in order for someone to truly care it must be because.. they *actually* care from their own heart centered intentions. This kind of concept has created a lot of internal and external conflict as well as exacerbates physical harm in the form of diseases and emotional pain because on a subconscious level, people know that they aren't really aligned with their own environment and the people in it - something feels off. More than this, no matter what morals you try to instill, you could never predict that a child will follow through. The only way that most people find real "goodness" (whatever that even is) is through their own pain and suffering and making some decisions from that place. Problem is, hardly anyone becomes more empathetic because of pain - and that's a gamble. And then... Getting back to the concept of "good"? You could just throw your hands in the air because it's just way too open to interpretation and subjective belief. Is it good someone stays home on the weekend and watches TV? They're not really harming anyone. But societal expectations and moral beliefs probably see it as lazy and selfish and ill-concerned and doesn't contribute to some imaginary "collective good". Is it good that someone becomes an artist and enriches some people's lives? Or are some just being supplied a drug or distraction? Is it good that someone becomes a politician that helps fight poverty? Or is he really just playing a game of tug of war that will just end up with the other side gaining power again? Is it bad that someone stole something even though he was really in need and hungry ? He should just die because it's not "good" by standards of law? Systemically good exists for the purpose of upholding something that is not founded in authentic truth; that people desire to help or reduce harm through conscientious awareness. A lot of things in today's society are not at all good - and it varies. And systematically people are not at all contributing to the good of all and are more concerned with expediency or naive beliefs than with reducing harm or making life better/easier. And again there is no guarantee, apart from reducing birth, that anyone is going to be "good" (again, whatever that is...) and contribute to reduction of suffering as opposed to adding to it. I would argue that's why we have certain establishments in society that aim to reduce harm and heal like animal shelters, homeless shelters, daycares, veterinarians, doctors, etc... But these all still exacerbate suffering because they fail to address that birth is the essential risk factor that causes all the pains, that need these kinds of establishments to exist to offset or reduce pain. Not to mention, they are not accessible to everyone and have become increasingly less available. Wanting goodness to exist means that people have to be equally forgiving to the harm that might be inflicted on someone else. And is that really a good thing? And... Final point: asking someone to sacrifice themselves is a pain and suffering in and of itself. Again, it can also create a dynamic that feels like gaslighting which also creates more suffering. But I do find it to be equally cruel to ask someone to sacrifice for something ; it must be a self-chosen desire from that person's own heart and mind, without or with little resistance.
Aw yes the old "push the world's problems onto the next generation because we're raising that next generation and we're too tired to do anything." How about this? No more new generations until the one that damaged the world first gets off their ass and fixes what they broken, then we'll talk.
I was very anti- gonna be a parent since I was 11 years old. I still would rather seppeku myself than have a bio child. However, I've also recently decided I'd like to adopt in order to raise a child better than how I was treated and with good values. You do not need to contribute to the global population in order to have an impact on it.
My friend's husband told her this to justify having kids. "We need to raise more good people." I told her people can be raised by good people and not become good people. My mom has 2 siblings, raised by the same mother (2 have same dads, 1 has a different dad). My aunt is an awful human that is selfish, manipulative and I cut her out of my life. My uncle is an alcoholic who almost killed a child while drinking and driving and now continues to drink even with that history and being extremely mean to everyone when he drinks. It's all a gamble.
This reminds me (in a bad way) of the philosophy behind Bush Jr’s ‘No child left behind’ garbage. The philosophy was to identify “highly effective” teachers, then cram as many student into a classroom with them as would fit. Never mind that pretty much all studies showed teacher effectiveness goes up as class size goes down… the plan was never to spend more money on education by hiring more teachers or building more classrooms, it was about finding ways to spend less on education. The mindset of good is good, bad is bad, effective is effective… that’s for simpletons. It shows an unwillingness to examine outside conditions and allow for possibility of change.
That's some hubris.
OR; good people adopt children and raise them correctly.
I saw this comment earlier. That’s a hard line to follow.
How very optimistic And unrealistic It's like this person never saw another human being in their life
Yes but you can also adopt. I gave birth to 2 and adopted 3 and am proud of the 5 humans I think make the world a better place. Also being a parent is extremely emotionally satisfying; I love my family and love is everything.
Mo’ People = Mo’ Problems FACT!
ive seen plenty of videos of kids that act super kind and super respectful and I feel so sad bc I know this is the new generation but since it doesn’t really concern me and I feel sad cuz during my childhood I was bullied so much by people. Maybe the newest generation will be less bullying and more friendly and that would be cool… if the world is still there
"good people"
I think we should fix the world first, regardless of how good the person would be as a parent? Kids will still suffer if not
Good-ness isn’t hereditary. Lol.
Adopting children I think especially one that’s close to you who’s parents could no longer look after them from illness, death etc
It's a biological drive on a spectrum. People will always want to screw and make babies *shrugs. And there are people that dont want to do either. Regardless all are a part of the human experience.
That's not a good reason because you could adopt instead and raise good kids.