Anti-natalism is the philosophical value judgment that procreation is unethical or unjustifiable. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from making children. Some antinatalists consider coming into existence to always be a serious harm. Their views are not necessarily limited only to humans but may encompass all sentient creatures, arguing that coming into existence is a serious harm for sentient beings in general. There are various reasons why antinatalists believe human reproduction is problematic. The most common arguments for antinatalism include that life entails inevitable suffering, death is inevitable, and humans are born without their consent. Additionally, although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person’s suffering. WIKIPEDIA

If you think, maybe for a few years, like 10-20 years, no one should make babies, and when things get better, we can continue, then you are not an anti-natalist. Anti-natalists believe that suffering will always be there and no one should be born EVER.

This photo was clicked by a friend, at Linnahall.

    • abbadon420@sh.itjust.works
      4·
      6 months ago

      Do I get this right? You’re the mod of the antinatalism community on lemmy.world, but you reject antinatalism?

      That sounds like a difficult duality to balance, as a mod.

        • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
          1·
          6 months ago

          …as long as they aren’t bombing stuff.

          Which brings up interesting questions about liberty and if you have a right to help people who can’t ask for help or don’t want it.

    • 𝕮𝕬𝕭𝕭𝕬𝕲𝕰@feddit.ukEnglish
      41·
      6 months ago

      Could an artist not suffer for their work that brings great joy to themselves and others? Is that suffering not then worthy and good?

      This is an awful take. Not suffering is always preferable to suffering.

      If something is worthy and good then denying others the opportunity to exist and be worthy and good is itself immoral.

      Does this mean that you have a moral imperative to have children because there are “worthy and good” things in the world? Is the logic “I can have children, there is good in the world, therefore it’s immoral to deny a potential life the opportunity to experience life”?

      I say this as someone who can, but won’t, have children, and who grew up in an evangelical church - that’s a bizarre logic that feels an awful lot like some fundamentalist Christian quiverfull shit.

        • 𝕮𝕬𝕭𝕭𝕬𝕲𝕰@feddit.ukEnglish
          31·
          6 months ago

          I’d put it to you that suffering, in the sense that we’re discussing, would be something more than the pain of exercise - the people of Gaza are suffering, when I go into the ‘pain cave’ on a bike ride I’m enduring something for the benefit of it; I can stop, pause or relent if it becomes overbearing. It’s type 2 fun. It’s not suffering if you can opt out; challenge, and difficulty arent bad; suffering is.

          It’s interesting that your anti-theistic approach has led you to what I would see as a very religious adjacent approach to reproduction; my worry with approaches like the outline you gave is that it can end up punishing any sort of reluctance to have kids (and can paint those who aren’t able to as immoral in some way). Not saying that’s you’re intention, just saying.

            • 𝕮𝕬𝕭𝕭𝕬𝕲𝕰@feddit.ukEnglish
              11·
              6 months ago

              You’re moving the goalposts.

              You made two key points;

              1. That suffering can be beneficial and
              2. That denying someone the opportunity to experience something beneficial is immoral, somtomhave kids is moral positive.

              My primary objections are

              1. That suffering is always bad (although we disagree on the definitions of suffering, somits likely to be a moot point)
              2. Having children on the basis of it being morally good presents a number of very upsetting and dangerous implications.

              Gaza was an example of a point, and of my own views on suffering; that suffering is something you cannot escape and that you do not choose, not something that’s difficult or temporarily painful you can choose to do which will ultimately produce some good. I’d posit that everyone experiences some form of suffering in their lives, to varying degrees, and the minimisation of this can only ever be a net positive.

              Personally I don’t want children for a number of reasons, but boiling it down to a moral reason is reductive, unhelpful, and can be dangerous.