Asklemmy

54054 readers

515 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

Open-ended question
Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

Lemmyverse: community search
sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
!lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago

MODERATORS

What are your opinions on anti-natalism? (lemmy.ml)

submitted 7 months ago by nutbutter@discuss.tchncs.de to c/asklemmy@lemmy.ml

119 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[+] Cypher@lemmy.world 0 points 7 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] ALiteralCabbage@feddit.uk 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You're moving the goalposts.

You made two key points;

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

My primary objections are

That suffering is always bad (although we disagree on the definitions of suffering, somits likely to be a moot point)
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.