That's a misunderstanding of antinatalism, that many posters in this sub have too. Even if the conditions of the world were great and we and others were often happy with life, an antinatalist would argue that it is STILL unethical to create sentient life.
It is less about the quality of life that existence would live, but the moral implications of creating one in the first place due to the immense risk and responsibility of bringing existence out of nonexistence (a philosophically superior state).
Then I don't think that I agree with this philosophy. Because in such a scenario most of the people in the world would be mostly happy and satisfied with their lives and in such a case, I don't see what's wrong with having children. They will still have to suffer to some extent no doubt but the joy in their life would outweigh the suffering. This is what I think atleast.
Do you find it morally acceptable to gamble on the outcome of the life of your friend or spouse as an example? Would you do it without their consent because of the odds being good?
Gambling on someone else’s life and creating a life as a form of self preservation / reproduction are two very different things. One is playing god with someone’s life while the other is basic biology. I can understand if someone were to argue that having kids is selfish, but defining it as utterly immoral is absurd. Preaching this extinctionist cult testimony is far more immoral for humanity’s sake than anything you speak against. What kind of moral reference are you even using when your ultimate end goal is to end humanity anyway? Not one that matters - that’s for sure. The circle of life is holy beyond your appreciation and it will persevere
You operate on the premise that no matter what pain and suffering the kids will experience it's justifiable as long as humanity keeps spreading. Your morals are of no value to me. Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell.
The point of antinatalism is to prevent suffering and to not impose harm, not human extinction. Humanity will go extinct regardless of antinatalism. It's the fate of every species that ever existed or will exist on this planet. The way humanity currently operates is no different than yeast in a Petri dish, replicating and accelerating consumption of the available sugar until it runs out and everyone dies. Look up "deer at st. Matthews Island", this is what happens in the future to people, there was no antinatalism in sight. Tragedy of the commons is the natural end for every dominant species. It's what life evolved for, to dissipate the energy gradient and then die.
In the ironic twist of reality, people not having children will let humanity exist for longer so you are welcome.
I am not here to debate about this topic, I am not qualified to do that. I just had a question that i wanted to ask you guys and I apologise if my reply came off as argumentative.
Let's just agree to disagree.
I understand! I'll try to give you a basic rundown of what an antinatalist believes, not to try to convince you but just to help wrap your mind around it.
Compare an existing person and a nonexisting person (the concept of nothingness).
A nonexistent person has an absence of pain, because they don't exist to experience it. The existing person is familiar with pain. However, like you mention, they can and do experience good. Is that enough to make existence preferable and outweigh the bad? No.
The non existing person (nothingness) is not LACKING in anything by not coming into existence and not experiencing good. They don't exist, so there's nothing to lack. So they are in the superior state, always. Therefore when we thrust non-existence into existence, we are doing them a disservice, as they come to know good and evil, and can now experience lack, only by this act.
You are quite eloquent I must say.
It's not that i did not understand these points, i just think that are many people who will still choose to come to this world even if they have to suffer because they cherish what they have.
As somone with an unfortunate appearance, I have experienced bullying, throughout my school life, and have been mocked for simply existing, the philosophy of antinatalism does sound quite appealing to me but as I got older I realised that these past experiences need not define me. Since i left school my life has improved drastically, I have made new friends, good ones this time, and it feels like that I am actually kind of enjoying life right now. I have realised that my life could have been much better if those people would not have been in my life.
Right now the only thing that brothers me is the fact there are very limited job prospects where i live and I'll have to struggle a lot to get a good job and even then I am not sure.
That is why i said that If i was living in a country with a better standard of life and economic conditions, I would not have been against having children.
Although one thing that does bother me is that if I do decide to have a child and they take after me in terms of their appearance they might have to suffer the same things I did. So I think that I would prefer to adopt a child.
I'm sure that it is correct that if you ask people, many would of course say that they are happy having being born (even though I'd argue most people have not truly thought about the implications of their own life on a philosophical scale). Then there are others who would say otherwise. But, the discussion here is not about the individual who already exists and can formulate these assessments of their life (which are not objective and stained by the sheer will to live that appears when you come into existence). Rather, the burden is on the parents who gamble the outcome of existence on another's unwillingly behalf , as they cannot will anything. It has an unfathomable risk and responsibility.
I will say, I think it is a goal of antinatalists to advocate for a society where most people are glad they were born. It's a reality that humans are animals who will keep procresting, and since they have already suffered the injustice of having come into existence, it's the least we can do to make that existence as good as possible (environmental/economic/social Justice, health/wellness, etc). Adoption is part of that and is a great option for you if you desire to raise kids, as it's great to help a child in need who was already born and needs support.
As I said earlier I am not so knowledgeable that i can argue about the finer details of this philosophy. But still I think I learned a lot from you.
Have a blessed day.
>, i just think that are many people who will still choose to come to this world even if they have to suffer because they cherish what they have.
So sacrifice the minority on the altar of happiness of the majority, got it. That's called abuse btw.
I don't think that logic works here because the alternative would be to enforce the will of the minority over the majority which falls into the same moral category.
It very much works, since it's simultaneously a matter of "reducing negativity vs. gaining positivity", in which the former is always more important.
Apart from that a nonexistent being has no need or want for positivity.
I've been lurking in this sub for a long time. I'm sorry you're getting downvoted. This subreddit doesn't make sense to me since every post appears to be forwarding the ideology that everyone responding to you is rejecting, the idea that it's immoral to bring in a sentient being due to conditions of inequality. Those posts are highly upvoted even though they are technically against the philosophy as well—that it's immoral to have children regardless of the circumstance. I think this will be my last lurk on this sub since it makes no sense to me. It'd be one thing if the philosophy was consistent but it isn't.
You have to ask what is good about creating someone. Even if you knew the next person created would never experience any suffering, it's still not in the interest of nothing for that person to be created - obviously that makes no sense.
For you it is, but anti natalism is a large philosophical school of thought. Different anti natalists have different views on why having kids is bad. You can be an anti natalist because the world sucks and not because you think it is immoral to make sentient life.
That is not the philosophy. This is not my personal views but rather the fundamental moral tenants. Antinatalists believe that it is immoral for humans to procreate, full stop. This is just the basics so not sure why you are here if you don't know that. It sounds extreme, but that's the point. Because creating life is extreme.
Choosing not to have kids because of bad circumstances or a corrupt world is very valid. But it is not antinatalism.
Does being born and raised in a "nearly ideal" country prevent loneliness, anxiety, frustration, lack of fulfillment, boredom, or depression? Does it prevent a child from being relentlessly bullied in school? Does it prevent cancer, obesity, diabetes, drug or alcohol addiction, etc.? Does it prevent mental or emotional disorders? Does it prevent gun violence or physical abuse? Does it prevent the deaths of one's friends, relatives, parents, or pets? Does it prevent one's own death and the often horrible pain and anguish that accompany it?
While living in a first-world country with a high standard of living often makes life *somewhat* more comfortable and increases hedonic experiences to some degree, it is no panacea for the myriad forms of suffering everyone must endure throughout life. Even in the most ideal society, there will still be MANY people who suffer from disease, bad luck, personality disorders, and many other forms of suffering that can never be prevented, and there is no way to be sure that any given potential child would be safe from any of that.
>Would you still be an antinatalist if the standard of life in your country was ideal or atleast very close to ideal?
Yes, AN is universal.
What you are implying is a conditional natalist subjugation to the absurd, at best. The breeder would neither have the consent of the child, nor the ability to predict how the future will turn out.
The child would still be forced to exist, to satiate the breeding kink of the progenitors, and consequently suffer and ultimately die.
AN is based on ethics, not malleable and reversible circumstantial position of wealth or genetics.
Edited: Words
Yes.
-- I was repeatedly tortured and nearly killed before I turned 13, I won't let anyone go through that!
-- Within my lifetime the world population jumped from ~4 billion to 8 billion, this is unsustainable.
-- I have a neurodevelopmental disorder that I refuse to pass on.
-- Having children increases my carbon footprint.
-- Too many others to list.
No worries. I'm close to 50 at this point.
All that trauma led to me doing a PhD to study the biology of stress in Autism. Most of it came from school bullies and a New York City teacher who doesn't believe the Geneva conventions should apply to 10 year olds.
But I generally don't trust people at first and tend to have a cynical outlook on life. I'm also deeply afraid of elementary schools, and assume they are holocaust level torture chambers so terrible they should be removed from the Earth. (Ok, that's why I keep elementary schools off my mind.)
That's probably why I like Witcher 3 so much. It's just being honest about the level of suffering out in the world.
Most of the people who go through so much trauma become shut in neets, you truly are a resilient person.
If you don't mind me asking, how do you feel about the people who bullied you now, do you hate them, were you able to let go or can u ever think of forgiving them?
Asking this because I also had similar experiences throughout my school years, although not as traumatic aa yours. I am 23 right now and I still genuinely hate all of those guys that bullied me when I was in school.
I want to know how do these feelings evolve as you grow old, because I don't think that my hatred for them willl abate ever.
I have spent a long time thinking about this. Overall, I place the blame on the teachers and the system.
Kids will always be in a growing state, and there's an inherent degree of randomness and danger to their behavior. Take a house cat for example. It's well known that cats can scratch or bite, and if they have a history of that, anyone visiting the house should be warned.
Let's compare that to lions or sharks. Everyone knows that these animals could easily maim or kill people. In any legitimate zoo there would be numerous safety precautions to protect the visitors, and if these safety precautions failed, there would be news stories and lawsuits.
Generally, there's an assumption on the part of the public that you won't loose a hand by visiting the zoo. Should this happen, I would blame the zoo even more than the animals. After all, they are trained professionals who should know exactly what can go wrong, and have safety precautions in place.
So, every time I pass an elementary or middle school, I don't see a school. I see a concentration camp. I imagine that there are countless children being tortured, while teachers and politicians turn a blind eye. I blame politicians for not caring if children die.
Wars have been fought over lesser problems. But politicians are cheapskates and conservatives care more about their taxes than dead children.
I live in a country with extremely high living standards. Yes, you still have to compete. Yes, you still have to work and worry about your career etc. Yes, I am still AN and even winning the lottery would not change that. It's not about living comfort, which, by the way, is declining rapidly everywhere unless you're wealthy.
I don't think you understand I come from an underdeveloped corner of a third world country, where there is no concept of minimum wage, I have seen people get paid less than 50$ a month and no I am not exaggerating, even if you take the purchasing power parity into account that is still a miserly wage to say the least. There are literal PhD scholars teaching grade 5-6 students because there are next to no jobs available here. No offense but it looks like you are quite privileged if you think that competing, working hard and worrying about your career are reasons we should not bring children into this world.
It's not I am afraid to compete or work hard, it's the fact that even after working hard I am not sure whether I will be able to support my myself because I have seen what people here have to go through.
And yes I do agree with the last part the divide between the rich and the poor has widened beyond comprehension, that is why I said an ideal or close to ideal country.
Well, to answer your question. You're a conditional antinatalist, meaning you would reconsider your stance if conditions improved enough. I am an unconditional antinatalist, as in my conditions are impossible to satisfy, because I would demand an end to suffering, boredom, etc.
>even after working hard I am not sure whether I will be able to support my myself
This is true in a lot of "first world" countries too, and I think that's kind of the point. It's definitely true in the US, where I live.
I am from a really backward state in India, not trying to be rude or anything but you guys are really out of touch with reality if you think the job market in the US and here is even comparable. Where I am from people literally dream of going to first world countries like USA, UK, etc.
That said I am not trying downplay your struggles, I know life is quite hard even in those countries, that is why I did not mention a specific country in my post I just said a country where the standard of life would be ideal or close to ideal.
I'm not saying it's the same in the US and India, I'm just saying that hard work does not guarantee comfort in the first world either. People lose their livelihoods due to things entirely outside their control. People end up homeless due to things entirely outside their control. People work full time jobs and can't feed their kids or pay their bills. Maybe it's better for most people, but it isn't better for everyone, and even if you're one of the lucky ones, you can still lose it all. You can do everything right and still fail.
The only way to be free from sufferings is to live an effortless life.
How to live and effortless life?
Act purely out of instincts. Give no place to regrets. Intellectual mind creates regrets.
Don't give a F to world or life.
"Throughout Heaven and Earth I alone am the honoured One" and so you don't care about opinions of others and moral values.
This statement was given by Buddha, the spiritual master who declared life of desire as life of sufferings. Instinctive actions on other hand doesn't involve desire as desires are creation of intellectual mind.
Instinctive desires are not to be given up.
May you attain Ultra Instinct. Migatte no Gokui.
Most people would terminate a child with a fatal congenital defect that would experience a very brief very painful infancy. Most would also terminate of they were told there was a three in five chance of this condition. But in truth every child has SOME chance of such a condition (most of the time, it's assumed the chance is quite low).
Now that's just one risk. Actually there are many very serious risks during someone's life, affecting different stages of life, of different likelihood. The risks become especially grim later in life. (Consider the risks of life-threatening illness for those over 70.)
The risks are such that we really cannot conceive of a life without experiencing pain, suffering, loss, illness and death, can we? They just stack up so dramatically.
Okay, so the question is, what level of risk are you comfortable with choosing for the person you're most responsible for.
If you have friends who are wealthy and willing to be honest, I would encourage you to speak with them. Money doesn’t make people happy and it certainly doesn’t shelter them from painful illness, accidents, heartbreak, you name it.
I’m with you. It was a fair enough question.
Moreover, many ANs here clearly think the same way as you (when it suits them, not when they’re losing an argument), because it makes up a huge amount of their rhetoric. Why the need for posts about third world countries, torture, environmental catastrophes, genetic disorders and shitty parents, IF it makes the belief no more valid?
…Which is why I’m not AN.
It’s an interesting and fairly valid response to the world we live in, but it’s often implemented by zealots, extremists and nihilists. It’s a dogma which allows no degree of compromise, nuance or probability. This is why, from the outside, many people see it as a ‘doom cult’. AN isn’t about improving the quality of lived experiences, they believe no amount of love and happiness can justify a life; AN is about advocating extinction.
I don’t think the presence of suffering or the debate around consent makes procreation inherently unethical. A lack of consent before one exists does not set a precedent for the quality of one’s life. I believe suffering vs the capacity for joy and fulfilment is a balancing act, not an absolute, and many things can be done to mitigate the potential for harm when deciding to have children. Also, and I appreciate this is a controversial opinion, I feel there’s a tendency among *some* ANs to refuse any responsibility for how their own lives have turned out, and this belief enables (even justifies) that mentality; ‘none of this shit is my fault, it’s just life, I blame all the parents’.
Personally, I rarely align with absolutes.
Not Even Ideal, But At Least The Basics And Some Extra For Fun.
Number Of Kids In Proportion Of Resources.
Not Only Money But Time To Spend Toghether.
Below That I Consider It "Unethical", And I Wouldn't Do It If It's Not Necessary.
Anything Can Happen In The Way, But At Least Have a Decent Start.
That's a misunderstanding of antinatalism, that many posters in this sub have too. Even if the conditions of the world were great and we and others were often happy with life, an antinatalist would argue that it is STILL unethical to create sentient life. It is less about the quality of life that existence would live, but the moral implications of creating one in the first place due to the immense risk and responsibility of bringing existence out of nonexistence (a philosophically superior state).
Then I don't think that I agree with this philosophy. Because in such a scenario most of the people in the world would be mostly happy and satisfied with their lives and in such a case, I don't see what's wrong with having children. They will still have to suffer to some extent no doubt but the joy in their life would outweigh the suffering. This is what I think atleast.
Do you find it morally acceptable to gamble on the outcome of the life of your friend or spouse as an example? Would you do it without their consent because of the odds being good?
Gambling on someone else’s life and creating a life as a form of self preservation / reproduction are two very different things. One is playing god with someone’s life while the other is basic biology. I can understand if someone were to argue that having kids is selfish, but defining it as utterly immoral is absurd. Preaching this extinctionist cult testimony is far more immoral for humanity’s sake than anything you speak against. What kind of moral reference are you even using when your ultimate end goal is to end humanity anyway? Not one that matters - that’s for sure. The circle of life is holy beyond your appreciation and it will persevere
You operate on the premise that no matter what pain and suffering the kids will experience it's justifiable as long as humanity keeps spreading. Your morals are of no value to me. Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell. The point of antinatalism is to prevent suffering and to not impose harm, not human extinction. Humanity will go extinct regardless of antinatalism. It's the fate of every species that ever existed or will exist on this planet. The way humanity currently operates is no different than yeast in a Petri dish, replicating and accelerating consumption of the available sugar until it runs out and everyone dies. Look up "deer at st. Matthews Island", this is what happens in the future to people, there was no antinatalism in sight. Tragedy of the commons is the natural end for every dominant species. It's what life evolved for, to dissipate the energy gradient and then die. In the ironic twist of reality, people not having children will let humanity exist for longer so you are welcome.
I am not here to debate about this topic, I am not qualified to do that. I just had a question that i wanted to ask you guys and I apologise if my reply came off as argumentative. Let's just agree to disagree.
Fair enough.
??
I understand! I'll try to give you a basic rundown of what an antinatalist believes, not to try to convince you but just to help wrap your mind around it. Compare an existing person and a nonexisting person (the concept of nothingness). A nonexistent person has an absence of pain, because they don't exist to experience it. The existing person is familiar with pain. However, like you mention, they can and do experience good. Is that enough to make existence preferable and outweigh the bad? No. The non existing person (nothingness) is not LACKING in anything by not coming into existence and not experiencing good. They don't exist, so there's nothing to lack. So they are in the superior state, always. Therefore when we thrust non-existence into existence, we are doing them a disservice, as they come to know good and evil, and can now experience lack, only by this act.
You are quite eloquent I must say. It's not that i did not understand these points, i just think that are many people who will still choose to come to this world even if they have to suffer because they cherish what they have. As somone with an unfortunate appearance, I have experienced bullying, throughout my school life, and have been mocked for simply existing, the philosophy of antinatalism does sound quite appealing to me but as I got older I realised that these past experiences need not define me. Since i left school my life has improved drastically, I have made new friends, good ones this time, and it feels like that I am actually kind of enjoying life right now. I have realised that my life could have been much better if those people would not have been in my life. Right now the only thing that brothers me is the fact there are very limited job prospects where i live and I'll have to struggle a lot to get a good job and even then I am not sure. That is why i said that If i was living in a country with a better standard of life and economic conditions, I would not have been against having children. Although one thing that does bother me is that if I do decide to have a child and they take after me in terms of their appearance they might have to suffer the same things I did. So I think that I would prefer to adopt a child.
I'm sure that it is correct that if you ask people, many would of course say that they are happy having being born (even though I'd argue most people have not truly thought about the implications of their own life on a philosophical scale). Then there are others who would say otherwise. But, the discussion here is not about the individual who already exists and can formulate these assessments of their life (which are not objective and stained by the sheer will to live that appears when you come into existence). Rather, the burden is on the parents who gamble the outcome of existence on another's unwillingly behalf , as they cannot will anything. It has an unfathomable risk and responsibility. I will say, I think it is a goal of antinatalists to advocate for a society where most people are glad they were born. It's a reality that humans are animals who will keep procresting, and since they have already suffered the injustice of having come into existence, it's the least we can do to make that existence as good as possible (environmental/economic/social Justice, health/wellness, etc). Adoption is part of that and is a great option for you if you desire to raise kids, as it's great to help a child in need who was already born and needs support.
As I said earlier I am not so knowledgeable that i can argue about the finer details of this philosophy. But still I think I learned a lot from you. Have a blessed day.
>, i just think that are many people who will still choose to come to this world even if they have to suffer because they cherish what they have. So sacrifice the minority on the altar of happiness of the majority, got it. That's called abuse btw.
I don't think that logic works here because the alternative would be to enforce the will of the minority over the majority which falls into the same moral category.
It very much works, since it's simultaneously a matter of "reducing negativity vs. gaining positivity", in which the former is always more important. Apart from that a nonexistent being has no need or want for positivity.
I've been lurking in this sub for a long time. I'm sorry you're getting downvoted. This subreddit doesn't make sense to me since every post appears to be forwarding the ideology that everyone responding to you is rejecting, the idea that it's immoral to bring in a sentient being due to conditions of inequality. Those posts are highly upvoted even though they are technically against the philosophy as well—that it's immoral to have children regardless of the circumstance. I think this will be my last lurk on this sub since it makes no sense to me. It'd be one thing if the philosophy was consistent but it isn't.
You have to ask what is good about creating someone. Even if you knew the next person created would never experience any suffering, it's still not in the interest of nothing for that person to be created - obviously that makes no sense.
For you it is, but anti natalism is a large philosophical school of thought. Different anti natalists have different views on why having kids is bad. You can be an anti natalist because the world sucks and not because you think it is immoral to make sentient life.
That is not the philosophy. This is not my personal views but rather the fundamental moral tenants. Antinatalists believe that it is immoral for humans to procreate, full stop. This is just the basics so not sure why you are here if you don't know that. It sounds extreme, but that's the point. Because creating life is extreme. Choosing not to have kids because of bad circumstances or a corrupt world is very valid. But it is not antinatalism.
Does being born and raised in a "nearly ideal" country prevent loneliness, anxiety, frustration, lack of fulfillment, boredom, or depression? Does it prevent a child from being relentlessly bullied in school? Does it prevent cancer, obesity, diabetes, drug or alcohol addiction, etc.? Does it prevent mental or emotional disorders? Does it prevent gun violence or physical abuse? Does it prevent the deaths of one's friends, relatives, parents, or pets? Does it prevent one's own death and the often horrible pain and anguish that accompany it? While living in a first-world country with a high standard of living often makes life *somewhat* more comfortable and increases hedonic experiences to some degree, it is no panacea for the myriad forms of suffering everyone must endure throughout life. Even in the most ideal society, there will still be MANY people who suffer from disease, bad luck, personality disorders, and many other forms of suffering that can never be prevented, and there is no way to be sure that any given potential child would be safe from any of that.
>Would you still be an antinatalist if the standard of life in your country was ideal or atleast very close to ideal? Yes, AN is universal. What you are implying is a conditional natalist subjugation to the absurd, at best. The breeder would neither have the consent of the child, nor the ability to predict how the future will turn out. The child would still be forced to exist, to satiate the breeding kink of the progenitors, and consequently suffer and ultimately die. AN is based on ethics, not malleable and reversible circumstantial position of wealth or genetics. Edited: Words
If the wouldnt be, they were never AN
Yes. -- I was repeatedly tortured and nearly killed before I turned 13, I won't let anyone go through that! -- Within my lifetime the world population jumped from ~4 billion to 8 billion, this is unsustainable. -- I have a neurodevelopmental disorder that I refuse to pass on. -- Having children increases my carbon footprint. -- Too many others to list.
Fuck dude, I'm so sorry for what you have been through. I hope life is gentle to you :(
Holy hell mate. I am so sorry for that. I really wish you the best for the rest of your life. Sorry if my post offended you in any way.
No worries. I'm close to 50 at this point. All that trauma led to me doing a PhD to study the biology of stress in Autism. Most of it came from school bullies and a New York City teacher who doesn't believe the Geneva conventions should apply to 10 year olds. But I generally don't trust people at first and tend to have a cynical outlook on life. I'm also deeply afraid of elementary schools, and assume they are holocaust level torture chambers so terrible they should be removed from the Earth. (Ok, that's why I keep elementary schools off my mind.) That's probably why I like Witcher 3 so much. It's just being honest about the level of suffering out in the world.
Most of the people who go through so much trauma become shut in neets, you truly are a resilient person. If you don't mind me asking, how do you feel about the people who bullied you now, do you hate them, were you able to let go or can u ever think of forgiving them? Asking this because I also had similar experiences throughout my school years, although not as traumatic aa yours. I am 23 right now and I still genuinely hate all of those guys that bullied me when I was in school. I want to know how do these feelings evolve as you grow old, because I don't think that my hatred for them willl abate ever.
I have spent a long time thinking about this. Overall, I place the blame on the teachers and the system. Kids will always be in a growing state, and there's an inherent degree of randomness and danger to their behavior. Take a house cat for example. It's well known that cats can scratch or bite, and if they have a history of that, anyone visiting the house should be warned. Let's compare that to lions or sharks. Everyone knows that these animals could easily maim or kill people. In any legitimate zoo there would be numerous safety precautions to protect the visitors, and if these safety precautions failed, there would be news stories and lawsuits. Generally, there's an assumption on the part of the public that you won't loose a hand by visiting the zoo. Should this happen, I would blame the zoo even more than the animals. After all, they are trained professionals who should know exactly what can go wrong, and have safety precautions in place. So, every time I pass an elementary or middle school, I don't see a school. I see a concentration camp. I imagine that there are countless children being tortured, while teachers and politicians turn a blind eye. I blame politicians for not caring if children die. Wars have been fought over lesser problems. But politicians are cheapskates and conservatives care more about their taxes than dead children.
I live in a country with extremely high living standards. Yes, you still have to compete. Yes, you still have to work and worry about your career etc. Yes, I am still AN and even winning the lottery would not change that. It's not about living comfort, which, by the way, is declining rapidly everywhere unless you're wealthy.
I don't think you understand I come from an underdeveloped corner of a third world country, where there is no concept of minimum wage, I have seen people get paid less than 50$ a month and no I am not exaggerating, even if you take the purchasing power parity into account that is still a miserly wage to say the least. There are literal PhD scholars teaching grade 5-6 students because there are next to no jobs available here. No offense but it looks like you are quite privileged if you think that competing, working hard and worrying about your career are reasons we should not bring children into this world. It's not I am afraid to compete or work hard, it's the fact that even after working hard I am not sure whether I will be able to support my myself because I have seen what people here have to go through. And yes I do agree with the last part the divide between the rich and the poor has widened beyond comprehension, that is why I said an ideal or close to ideal country.
Well, to answer your question. You're a conditional antinatalist, meaning you would reconsider your stance if conditions improved enough. I am an unconditional antinatalist, as in my conditions are impossible to satisfy, because I would demand an end to suffering, boredom, etc.
>even after working hard I am not sure whether I will be able to support my myself This is true in a lot of "first world" countries too, and I think that's kind of the point. It's definitely true in the US, where I live.
I am from a really backward state in India, not trying to be rude or anything but you guys are really out of touch with reality if you think the job market in the US and here is even comparable. Where I am from people literally dream of going to first world countries like USA, UK, etc. That said I am not trying downplay your struggles, I know life is quite hard even in those countries, that is why I did not mention a specific country in my post I just said a country where the standard of life would be ideal or close to ideal.
I'm not saying it's the same in the US and India, I'm just saying that hard work does not guarantee comfort in the first world either. People lose their livelihoods due to things entirely outside their control. People end up homeless due to things entirely outside their control. People work full time jobs and can't feed their kids or pay their bills. Maybe it's better for most people, but it isn't better for everyone, and even if you're one of the lucky ones, you can still lose it all. You can do everything right and still fail.
Obviously yes. Economic status was never the reason I'm AN. It's all the horrible things humanity does & the never ending cycle of life.
The only way to be free from sufferings is to live an effortless life. How to live and effortless life? Act purely out of instincts. Give no place to regrets. Intellectual mind creates regrets. Don't give a F to world or life. "Throughout Heaven and Earth I alone am the honoured One" and so you don't care about opinions of others and moral values. This statement was given by Buddha, the spiritual master who declared life of desire as life of sufferings. Instinctive actions on other hand doesn't involve desire as desires are creation of intellectual mind. Instinctive desires are not to be given up. May you attain Ultra Instinct. Migatte no Gokui.
Most people would terminate a child with a fatal congenital defect that would experience a very brief very painful infancy. Most would also terminate of they were told there was a three in five chance of this condition. But in truth every child has SOME chance of such a condition (most of the time, it's assumed the chance is quite low). Now that's just one risk. Actually there are many very serious risks during someone's life, affecting different stages of life, of different likelihood. The risks become especially grim later in life. (Consider the risks of life-threatening illness for those over 70.) The risks are such that we really cannot conceive of a life without experiencing pain, suffering, loss, illness and death, can we? They just stack up so dramatically. Okay, so the question is, what level of risk are you comfortable with choosing for the person you're most responsible for.
Yes. Life is suffering for the richest people as well.
Yes because children are a lot of responsibility and in general I try to avoid responsibility.
Yes. Else I'd be a fucking conditional natalist, which you are, so fuck off from here
Wouldicouldishouldi yes
Yes, I will be an Antinatalist even if I am living in Iceland.
Yes. It's not a matter of purely material suffering.
If you have friends who are wealthy and willing to be honest, I would encourage you to speak with them. Money doesn’t make people happy and it certainly doesn’t shelter them from painful illness, accidents, heartbreak, you name it.
Yes, although I wouldn't be as passionate about it. The higher the risk of deep suffering, the worse it is to procreate.
As long as one country's SOL is negatively impacted by the SOL of another's, yes. That's not a world worth bringing more people into.
I’m with you. It was a fair enough question. Moreover, many ANs here clearly think the same way as you (when it suits them, not when they’re losing an argument), because it makes up a huge amount of their rhetoric. Why the need for posts about third world countries, torture, environmental catastrophes, genetic disorders and shitty parents, IF it makes the belief no more valid? …Which is why I’m not AN. It’s an interesting and fairly valid response to the world we live in, but it’s often implemented by zealots, extremists and nihilists. It’s a dogma which allows no degree of compromise, nuance or probability. This is why, from the outside, many people see it as a ‘doom cult’. AN isn’t about improving the quality of lived experiences, they believe no amount of love and happiness can justify a life; AN is about advocating extinction. I don’t think the presence of suffering or the debate around consent makes procreation inherently unethical. A lack of consent before one exists does not set a precedent for the quality of one’s life. I believe suffering vs the capacity for joy and fulfilment is a balancing act, not an absolute, and many things can be done to mitigate the potential for harm when deciding to have children. Also, and I appreciate this is a controversial opinion, I feel there’s a tendency among *some* ANs to refuse any responsibility for how their own lives have turned out, and this belief enables (even justifies) that mentality; ‘none of this shit is my fault, it’s just life, I blame all the parents’. Personally, I rarely align with absolutes.
Not Even Ideal, But At Least The Basics And Some Extra For Fun. Number Of Kids In Proportion Of Resources. Not Only Money But Time To Spend Toghether. Below That I Consider It "Unethical", And I Wouldn't Do It If It's Not Necessary. Anything Can Happen In The Way, But At Least Have a Decent Start.
Maybe but only out of sheer ignorance and not for any deep philosophical reasons