this post was submitted on 09 Jul 2024
418 points (99.8% liked)

196

16721 readers
2368 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 6) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 112 points 5 months ago (6 children)

Ah yes, it's not the billionaires, corrupt politicians and massive industry inefficiency that's causing our problems, it's children!!!

I swear to God, reading stupidity from people I expect to be on my side of the political divide hurts especially bad.

[–] [email protected] 40 points 5 months ago (1 children)

More like yes those are the problems and children are not the answer to those problems.

[–] [email protected] 33 points 5 months ago

I'm not sure where they got the impression anyone was blaming children unless they are intentionally being obtuse to attack ideas they disagree with. Similar to people who screech "you hate dogs!?!" when you complain about shitty dog owners.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 59 points 5 months ago (1 children)

What a bunch of cringe edgy antinatalist nonsense. Think about the future, if you don't have kids, who are we gonna feed to the machine a few decades from now?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago

Who feeds the machine now, it's you so why are you even around

[–] [email protected] 9 points 5 months ago (3 children)

I'm not a fan of utalitarianism myelf, so this might be wrong; this sounds like utalitarianism - as the action you did cause other suffering.

then in your moral philosophy, are all actions that cause suffering (and joy, and all other feelings a human can experience) morally wrong?

Is then not dating, f.ex Morally wrong?

Or is it the impossibility of consent? Yes, a child is unable to consent to being born. Just as we are all unable to consent to the world being created, or nature's whims. I cannot consent to a state on the other side of the world making policies, but I can still react and do things about it.

Is it morally wrong to let animals have children?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (1 children)

If one animal species is harming an ecosystem then I don't see how it's morally wrong to limit their reproduction.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

Usually, a better way to help an ecosystem balance itself is to reintroduce predators or similarly.

the deer population in yellowstone was destroying the soil, this was solved by reintroducing wolves.

there's a big difference between this, and f.ex castrating a lot of the deer, or going on a shooting spree.

It also goes with the assumption that the ecosystem is either outside the moral spectrum, or morally good.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 83 points 5 months ago (6 children)

It's fine if you don't want kids for yourself, but antinatalism as an ideology is only a few steps away from ecofascism.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 5 months ago (8 children)

I guess each person has a different approach to antinatalism. I don’t want to bring children into the world because unlike many people who outright lie, I do not think it will bring me joy. I’m also scared that if I bring a child into this world and it will suffer as much as I currently do, I won’t be able to live with the blame.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] [email protected] 28 points 5 months ago (3 children)

As long as you're keeping it to your own life not trying to encourage genocide via antinatalist policy then you do you.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 51 points 5 months ago

touch grass

[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

Ignore or assume we fix socioeconomics, environment, etc.;

Is having a child moral given the child cannot consent to being born?

(Not offering any opinion or trying to lead towards any answer)

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

I mean.. with all the negativity in this thread, every single person here is consenting to be alive every single day. While there are a number who choose an early exit, the vast vast statistical majority overwhelmingly consent to live another day every day. With such stats I feel like it's fine to assume the default status is consent in this context.

Plus, speaking of morals, we're just dumb little apes. You give us too much credit if you think we can fight the greatest biological urge of all life over something we've completely invented in our minds : morals, and the morals of the unborn is like double hypothetical.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (4 children)

The child can still consider taking the one-way exit as soon as it is able to make such considerations and thereby gets a choice.

You could ask in a similar manner:
Wouldn't it be immoral to disallow this decision making process by leaving the child no choice by not having it?

Asking for consent of an unborn is paradoxial and inherently impossible. It's almost like asking a plant whether it consents into being planted and eaten afterwards. It has no agency. Is it immoral though to plant it and eat it anyway?

Having a child is similar. Get it, let it grow and develop its agency. Then it can decide for itself.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago (7 children)

So the answer boils down to kill yourself when you turn 18 bud? That seems like incredibly callous and unnecessary pain for all involved.

Consent 101: If you’re unsure about whether or not someone would consent, the answer is no. And since we can’t ask the unborn, people who don’t want kids assume the answer is no.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 5 points 5 months ago

I would say it isn’t

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›