https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism

I think it’s stupid and worrying that their ideas are gaining traction.

I am not opposed to people not having children or representing themselves as a block, but the idea that having kids is bad is just plain dumb.

My own experience in life makes it reek a lot like mental health issues in those who are antinatalists.

  • nomadic
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    2 years ago

    It’s a personal philosophy. There are pros and cons to having kids. I can understand why more people are leaning this way given that it is difficult to believe that things will improve in the future. I don’t think it’s a stupid philosophy but I don’t specifically identify with it.

    • jscummy@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The way the wiki article reads is that its not just a personal philosophy (“belief that procreation is immoral”), which I would say is pretty stupid. If it’s on an individual basis, then absolutely reasonable.

      I can’t even begin to think about having a kid and don’t know if I ever will.

  • dax@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    My own experience in life makes it reek a lot like mental health issues in those who are antinatalists.

    I mean, is that not a good enough reason not to have kids?

    Assertions I’d like to make, in no specific order:

    • Yes, my retirement might not even happen because of falling birthrates.
    • We live in a world of finite resources and an imperfect method of distributing them.
    • It’s only going to get worse, especially with climate change.
    • If we don’t have a population contraction voluntarily now, eventually we’re going to have one involuntarily later, as people turn to force.
    • Wars over constrained resources are an end in and of themselves. It doesn’t even matter if you gain control of other resources; if you win, you get more resources to buy your people a little more time. If you lose, you got rid of a lot of people who need and want things.

    These problems are all solvable. These problems are also not plausibly going to be solved, as those who have will do their level best to turn away from those who have not. We have literal centuries of evidence neatly showcasing just how selfish our systems are, and how resilient to change they are.

    You can absolutely have as many kids as you want. I personally think it’s myopic, as you’re forcing someone else to deal with these problems and you didn’t even give them an option - and by the time they’re old enough to understand the magnitude of the problem, they’re in too deep to get out. It just screams of selfishness and duplicity to me. But, I mean, I’m still friends with omnivores - hell, I’m one myself - being selfish and inconsistent is kinda fundamentally what humans are, so it’s not like my shit doesn’t stink too.

    Edit: I should also note that the one reason I allow myself to eat animal products is because I’ve said “well, I’m not having kids, so I’m just a temporary problem, not an ongoing one”

    • rayzor@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      you’re forcing someone else to deal with these problems and you didn’t even give them an option - and by the time they’re old enough to understand the magnitude of the problem, they’re in too deep to get out. It just screams of selfishness and duplicity to me.

      this narrative has always been touted that every generation inherits the problems of its ancestors. and yet the world continues to survive and improve. death rates have fallen, infant mortality has fallen, life expectancy has risen, happiness has risen in some countries, mobility across countries has increased for some (but not all or enough). There are problems but I am hoping 100 years from now we’ll solve it and our children will have a better life. Maybe I am an optimist, but all I can use is my own anecdotal experience.

    • sexy_peach@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      2 years ago

      I personally think it’s myopic, as you’re forcing someone else to deal with these problems and you didn’t even give them an option - and by the time they’re old enough to understand the magnitude of the problem, they’re in too deep to get out. It just screams of selfishness and duplicity to me.

      This is the part I don’t really understand. I am not grateful for existing either, but existing has got to be a neutral, right? Idk

      • dax@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        This is the part I don’t really understand. I am not grateful for existing either, but existing has got to be a neutral, right? Idk

        I mean, maybe? The point is you never gave the kid a choice. They never had agency in this. Like, admittedly, it can’t be any other way, but it shouldn’t surprise you that some people don’t feel comfortable deciding things of that magnitude for anyone else.

  • Sander@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 years ago

    As someone not wanting kids and getting a vasectomy at 27, I personally have multiple reasons why I don’t want them. And I know more people like me with many different, personal reasons.

    My brother on the other hand has four children, and we have had conversations about this. Although we both want the opposite in life, we came to the agreement that having more than two children is bad for the environment because of overpopulation. He just accepts doing something “wrong”, because it makes him happy. And in the end it evens out: some people have multiple children, others have none. All good, if you ask me.

  • feduphuman@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 years ago

    Anyone can have as many children as they want, if they can support, provide and care for them, otherwise they become other people’s problem.

    • sexy_peach@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      otherwise they become other people’s problem.

      I mean yes, but also if people want to retire they need a workforce to keep society running, no? This is not me advocating for having kids, but for society helping raise kids.

      • feduphuman@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        2 years ago

        Sure, if we had governments who cared for the wellbeing of their citizens, and companies that paid fair wages, but sadly we are just “human capital” or “human resources”. I’m not contributing to that.

          • feduphuman@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Agreed, but like I said, if you can love and care for them go ahead, because if you can’t you might be putting a burden on society instead of contributing to it.

  • Griseowulfin@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    2 years ago

    I think a lot of it is depression and loss of hope and think “why would you bring a kid into this mess?”. I feel there’s a lot of personal aversion to children that might feed into this too where someone generalizes their dislike of children into the idea that having babies is bad.

    • alyaza [they/she]@beehaw.orgM
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      yeah, i’d say a lot of it is a very understandable but simultaneously extreme and reactionary response to the general… malaise the world is in. i won’t judge someone for not bringing life into this world–i’m not planning to do it either, lol–but i can’t agree with the premise that it’s immoral to do so, even if the conditions currently are quite bad. i think that can lead down some quite bad roads.

  • TheTrueLinuxDev@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    It may strike you as unusual, but I maintain beliefs in both reincarnation and anti-natalism. While it might seem contradictory at the outset, I prefer to see it as a distaste for reincarnation, while still acknowledging it as the most probable outcome, irrespective of the absence of past life memories. Anti-natalism generally revolves around a moral philosophy that questions the ethics of bringing a new life into a world marked by considerable suffering and difficulties, regardless of how unfair these challenges may seem to the child.

    Adherents of anti-natalism contend that it’s ethically problematic to bring a child into the world without the ability to ensure a life chiefly or entirely filled with happiness. Consequently, some choose a lifestyle of abstention. It’s important to understand that these individuals are not necessarily foolish, as they often show astute and pragmatic consideration for the potential conditions a child might encounter if brought into this world. Considering our current economic, political, and environmental climate, it’s not unreasonable to suggest population contraction as a potential remedy for resource constraints. One could argue that anti-natalism is a rather selfless philosophy - while its followers personally choose not to procreate, they refrain from imposing this ideology on others, leaving them free to make their own choices.

    As with all aspects of life, people make decisions and draw conclusions based on their unique circumstances and experiences. It’s essential to appreciate that these choices may differ from our own. I offer my viewpoint in the hope that it provides a perspective you might not have previously considered.

      • aRubes@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        2 years ago

        Butvdoes it worry you in the long run? After all, the people having kids are, well, procreating faster aren’t they?

        • sexy_peach@feddit.deOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          2 years ago

          I think I am mainly worried about those peoples mental health. I don’t even want them to have children, I agree that having more or less humans isn’t a moral good or bad.

          • aRubes@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 years ago

            Well, that Wikipedia article is about the philosophical stance only, and does not include correlation with mental health state. Labeling them as having mental health issues due to subscribing to that particular philosophy is not going to help them even if that was the reason for their mental health state om the first place. If you subscribe to a particular philosophical system, it probably means you took the time to investigate it’s logic and found it agreeable. Example: As an atheist I have had my mental health state questioned often, but I find it amusing and it does nothing to convince me otherwise