too late. I’m at the hospital right now my wife is in labor. Why didn’t you post this nine months ago? Now its your fault I’m evil.
Posting with iphone sorry for typos…
Come from where?
As the story goes, it may be a crooked game, but it’s the only game in town.
Very interesting discussion, thanks for your post. Unfortunately, most of the people I know who have children have them for exactly the reasons you cite above (one person in particular keeps popping them out precisely because she just wants more “real life lovey dovey dolls” to add to her collection - it’s sad). You’re absolutely right that wanting children is selfish, otherwise people wouldn’t do it. People think that having children makes you happy. Having kids is fun. If they succeed in life, they make you feel proud and fulfilled. You will have family to surround you in your old age, to keep you company and to take care of you. Blah blah blah, etc. All absolutely selfish reasons. I don’t have kids, but I do want kids, and I admit it is for many of the reasons above - because it will make me happy, because it will make me feel good and fulfilled. Yes, it is absolutely selfish.
HOWEVER, it’s much less selfish when you wait to have kids until you’re ready, and you have ample means to support them, and to give them the best opportunities to succeed (such as, you should be prepared to send them to college.) In my life, I made the smart and right decision to terminate two accidental pregnancies because I was not ready. It sucked, but I know that it is not right to create a life when you can’t support it at a maximum level.
Too many people accidentally (or not) get pregnant and have the babies because an abortion would cause them too much guilt, or just because it would be awesome and fun and fulfilling to have a little mini me to play with and take care of, and to give your empty life meaning. I don’t agree with that at all.
Personally, I am glad my parents had me… because they are wonderful parents who had the means to raise me in a very comfortable environment, that was full of love and happiness. They gave me everything I needed and wanted and then some. And so far my life has had more joy than suffering.
But the OP does make some very compelling points. very interesting discussion.
Cool. Hope it goes well.
My kids are both adults now, and are happy they were born.
The OPs argument would also rule out all medicine. Much medicine involves short term suffering, for the greater good, so doctors are immoral. Plus, since artificially induced suffering must be worse than natural suffering, these people should not allow doctors to give them shots or operate on them. Pills, I suppose, would be okay.
The argument should also ban all sex where there is even a chance of pregnancy, since birth is painful, as is abortion, and all birth control might fail.
So, anyone truly believing in the premise of the OP needs to avoid a lot more than just having kids.
This I find an interesting statement that may be the lynchpin of this entire argument. I’m not sure if I can really put into words what I’m thinking right now, but this part of it doesn’t seem to be getting the attention I believe it deserves.
The argument is also self-contradictory, for two reasons. The first, and most important, premise is
- It is morally wrong to inflict suffering on others.
Considering our biological imperative to reproduce, while some may be comfortable with not having children, some would find this very distressing, as evidenced by the great lengths some couples go to in order to have children. Thus, it is impossible that all humans will voluntarily give up childbearing, and to enforce the first premise this must be imposed. But this will cause suffering to those with urges in this direction. Thus, the imperative to not inflict suffering through having no children inflicts suffering. Even worse, it inflicts it on people here now, not likely but uncertain suffering in the future.
Second, consider a world in which this imperative has been carried out, and no more children are born after nine months from today. In seven years, the need for kindergarten teachers will disappear, and as years go by more and more teachers are thrown out of work, which will certainly increase suffering. Then, seventy years from today the population of the world will be increasingly old and small. The infrastructure would break down, food would become short, and the survivors will suffer increasingly as they age with no one to take care of them. Again, the imperative to eliminate suffering causes suffering.
You might argue that the course of these people would be to commit mass suicide before the end. But if this does not cause suffering, why shouldn’t the entire population of the earth do this today - which will end suffering forever.
Thus this justification of antinatalism fails.
You say this like there’s some sort of absolute morality. Society defines morality, and while society generally agrees with your first point, it does *not *agree that all life is suffering. Hence does not view giving birth as causing nothing but suffering, so doesn’t consider it immoral to create new lives. Of course, if you believe in absolute morality, there’s no helping you.
Define “filled with suffering”, please. I try and follow the Precepts, and while I may not be enlightened, I’ve certainly reduced the amount of suffering in my life to much lower levels. I would not say my life is “filled with” suffering, and I believe I can ensure the same for my daughter, and any other children I might have.
Not for everyone.
See above.
I’m kind of sympathetic to the OP. My problem is not suffering…what can you do about that. But living is a great responsibility. You are responsible to your families, your society, your moral system. It’s a pretty hefty burden. And I’m a little uncomfortable giving this great responsibility to someone who had no hand in choosing it.
However, in the grand scheme of things there isn’t much else to do and I’m not an overwhelmingly moral person. So there we go.
I just checked with my daughter. She’s seventeen. Typical teen angst aside, she’s rather happy so far with this life thing, and appreciates the opportunity.
Leaper, if I may, what I’m thinking when I read that is “and they’ll also never know joy, which is actually what really matters, if you’re doing this whole ‘life’ thing right.”
I acknowledge, of course, that there are plenty of people born who are just thoroughly fucked from the get-go. But somehow, most of the people who espouse that life is suffering aren’t those people. They’re just giant fucking pussies.
marshmallow Wouldn’t the most righteous action then be suicide? Wouldn’t killing yourself reduce the suffering you are inflicting upon others with your fatalistic anti-life attitude? Wouldn’t the world be a better place without you in it? It would also end your suffering, which would be good right? It is also the ultimate insurance that you will never breed. Post a manifesto on a blog for posterity, so that others may follow your righteous example. I mean if human life is an unmitigated evil, because it includes suffering, then what is the point of living another day?
Man, you know absolutely nothing about demographics do you?
- Population growth is ebbing worldwide
- If everyone stopped breeding for a couple of decades that would lead to a dramatic reduction in the population and the end of civilization.
- Those who survive to breed would have children in dotage and be unable to provide for them at the level of a healthy young parent
- A whole generation of old people would be dependent on a very tiny generation of young people, thus contributing to the collapse of society.
- There wouldn’t be enough people do essential jobs for the maintenance of civilization
The overpopulation argument isn’t even a good one.
Nonsense. Population growth is driving every factor leading us into catastrophe of unprecedented scale, and it’s not slowing fast enough. The problems you mention would be a walk in the park compared to not changing the current trend.
However, that’s enough of a hijack.
:rolleyes:
Actually this is an oft-cited canard. World population growth is only slightly above replacement rate at 2.58 children per woman. The rate of increase has also steadily decreased.
There is no such thing as overpopulation on a world scale. There is overconsumption, there are artificial limiting factors like stupid governments such as in Zimbabwe, or areas that are overpopulated due to small land mass and lots of people like Japan, but the world as a whole is far from overpopulated.
We seem to be achieving a natural equilibrium with our environment in terms of breeding, naturally.
The numbers just don’t support your conclusion.
It’s always amused me that these arguments are made by people who are already born.
Such arguments therefore inherently reek of hypocrisy. “What YOU should do is not have children, but it was fine for my parents to have me.”
the OP’s idea of logic is very dangerous and immoral. you should not make decisions for other people without them having any say in it. if you fear suffering so much, deal with it yourself. let other people deal with it in their own way.
what is truth? Truth is you have already doomed your unborn child to a world painted with doom and gloom by their father.
Possibly relevant quote from G. K. Chesterton:
Once, just once, my son tried to play the ol’ “I never asked to be born, so why should I have to take out the trash?!” card. I replied that my uterus begged to differ - he had **demanded **to be born! 
Can someone who is against the argument in the OP respond to the above?
I’d be interested how their view antinatalism translates to the scenario above.
BTW, maybe the last point could have been
[ul]
[li]You can push a button and force someone to come to this party against their will. Or you can decide not to push the button.[/li][/ul]
I’m always amused how people who agree on a topic (in this case against the argument in the OP) post hollow self-congratulatory arguments that allow others in the thread who agree with them to pat each other on the back.
Your response is nonsense and empty
- Of course the arguments are already made by people who are already born, because the unborn cannot make arguments.
- Not all people who agree with the OP say “it was fine for my parents to have me”, so there is no hypocrisy there.
BTW, the argument, posed in various forms in this thread, of “If you don’t like it here, then why don’t you kill yourself then?” is utterly stupid.
The instinct to not die is so strong that it can easily override any rationalization that life can be miserable.
The rate of increase is declining, but we are overpopulated if we want the rest of the world to have a decent standard of living, not just the West. The impact of China and India on oil prices shows this pretty well. Stopping reproducing for a few decades isn’t the answer - cutting the number of kids to replacement levels or below would work a lot better. Much of the world is unemployed, underemployed, or working on subsistence farming. A decrease in population which would allow these people to have better jobs would be a big plus. We should do it before famine or plague does it for us.