Is having children selfish act?

[astorian]

@Czarcasm

Putting a cap on living past 75 makes more sense.

And I suppose YOU volunteer to go around euthanizing all the 75 year olds, right?

[Machinaforce]

@Grrr

Okay fine, I’ll throw the OP a bone:

Speaking in the very strictest of terms: Yes, the decision to have children is selfish. I doubt there was ever a couple in the world that decided to have children for the sole reason to propagate the species.

The flaw in your reasoning is, you assume all “selfish” acts are by default, negative. They are not. A loving couple deciding to have a baby so they can share that love WITH the baby is not a negative thing at all. In fact, it’s quite beautiful.

And the benefits of having a child are well worth the risks of any negative connotations you mention in the OP. Both to the couple AND society at large.

These comments clearly show no one has read the links I posted. It’s about preventing suffering, which is the goal of being alive. To maximize pleasure and minimize suffering. Life overall is a net negative, with pain being in far greater supply than pleasure.

There isn’t a benefit to having a kid. Studies do show that happiness in a couple tends to decrease after kids. Not to mention you end up perpetuating the suffering in the world. The world is full of suffering and it’s unfair to birth someone into that kind of world.

Birthing a child is gambling with their life, it would be kinder to spare them the suffering they are guaranteed in life. There is no meaning to life. Why have them endure such existential pains?

[Czarcasm]

@astorian

And I suppose YOU volunteer to go around euthanizing all the 75 year olds, right?

I never said I approve of the idea-I just said it made more sense…as would most any other idea.

[Human_Action]

@astorian

And I suppose YOU volunteer to go around euthanizing all the 75 year olds, right?

Greyhead-knocker is a noble and storied profession, I’ll have you know.

[BeepKillBeep]

@Machinaforce

TLife overall is a net negative, with pain being in far greater supply than pleasure.

Prove it.

You still have yet to prove this cornerstone of your argument.

[Machinaforce]

r/antinatalism - A serious question on antinatalism and suicide

The fact that existence can be painful is reason enough to not subject people to it.

[Czarcasm]

@Machinaforce

Reddit - Dive into anything

The fact that existence can be painful is reason enough to not subject people to it.

Can you justify your existence?

[Tee]

I had other people’s grandchildren - that was the important thing.

[Human_Action]

@Machinaforce

Reddit - Dive into anything

The fact that existence can be painful is reason enough to not subject people to it.

What happened to “maximize pleasure and minimize suffering”? Now any amount of pain is too great?

[Shodan]

@Machinaforce

Life overall is a net negative, with pain being in far greater supply than pleasure.

This has not been my experience, nor, I daresay, my children’s either. (I haven’t asked them recently if they think they are better off dead.)

But if it were possible to ask me if I would like to be born, I would have said Yes. My life hasn’t been problem free, but overall it has been pretty good.

IIRC studies have been done on paraplegics, and people who win the lottery. Five years after the event, both sets of subjects report being roughly as happy as they were before.

Regards,
Shodan

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Machinaforce

The fact that existence can be painful is reason enough to not subject people to it.

Please respond to what I said earlier: how could you possibly subject today’s infants to the terrifying and horrific calamity of extinction-by-old-age that you’re proposing?

[Kent_Clark]

1. You can not “force a being into the world against their choice.” There wasn’t a “being” to have a choice.

2. While some level of suffering is almost inevitable in one’s life, it does NOT follow that suffering outweighs pleasure in every case.

3. Since the OP stipulates “it would be kinder to spare them[children] the suffering they are guaranteed in life,” isn’t it also logical to end children’s lives immediately to spare them future suffering? For that matter, end all lives now because future suffering is inevitable?

[greenmario]

I take issue with anyone who is still alive enough to argue that you are better off dead.

[Czarcasm]

@greenmario

I take issue with anyone who is still alive enough to argue that you are better off dead.

aka “There are too many other people in the world today”.

[Velocity]

So…should we build a 1,000,000,000,000,000-megaton nuke right now and just get ‘the suffering’ over with?

[snfaulkner]

Is having children selfish act? Yes. As is every other act.

[HurricaneDitka]

@Velocity

So…should we build a 1,000,000,000,000,000-megaton nuke right now and just get ‘the suffering’ over with?

I prefer the “to each their own” approach. If Machinaforce or his fellow anti-natalists believe that “The fact that existence can be painful is reason enough to not subject people to it”, let them end their own painful existence. Personally, I’m quite enjoying my existence, and have no desire for it to end. They have no right to decide for me (or my unborn children) if the pain in our lives will outweigh the pleasure.

[HurricaneDitka]

@snfaulkner

Is having children selfish act? Yes. As is every other act.

You don’t believe any action is ever for non-selfish reasons?

[Velocity]

Machinaforce, based off of this “Life is all about avoiding suffering” logic that you use, why don’t you stop posting on the Straight Dope? Every time you start a thread or post a comment, it’s possible that people will disagree with you and make you unhappy. So if life is about avoiding suffering, why keep posting in the Straight Dope, which brings added potential for criticism and suffering? By posting less, you suffer less.

[Ambivalid]

@HurricaneDitka

You don’t believe any action is ever for non-selfish reasons?

No, not really. True altruism doesn’t exist. Even “selfless” things have a selfish motivation. It’s the feeling of doing the right thing.