Discussion How many suicidal people here are anti-natalists?

[thewalkingdread]

@Mistiie Jesus Christ... You just won't give in to any simple point of contention, will you?! You have a neediness to always be in the right just about absolutely everything, don't you?!

You're making it very hard for me to keep my promise of not writing any more replies to you...

This is the — definitive — last time i'm going to bother myself or let myself to be dragged to do it...

But what can I say... I kinda like educating people.

evidence that i already knew existed before you had written your lengthy diatribe towards me.

a lot of this is starting to seem like projection now

My dear... How do I even break the bad news for you...!?

The only person in this thread writing LENGTHY posts is YOU. Have you seen the size of your replies?! Are you aware of It?!

I thought of using a word count on your posts to objectively show this FACT to you... But that would be too much work, unnecessary and of no real benefit to anyone.

People can already clearly SEE who's the owner of the most LENGTHY posts on this thread since It all started. All they need to do is some scrolling...

You are the only one being manipulative, projecting your own faults on others, because you like to play the blame shifiting game so much.

you're not reading my messages in the way they're intended

This is pure blame shifiting...!

See... From your POV, It's not your fault that you wrote convoluted, inaccurate, specious, ambiguous sentences and thoughts... NO WAY!

It's my fault. It's my fault for not knowing how to read what you wrote in the proper, right way.

I guess I owe you another apology for my misbehavior, right?!

you misread my message/skimmed over it and made a half-arsed response to it thinking that what you said was correct.

Oh, God... How I wish that was a true statement! I really wish I could've just skimmed through all your posts without giving any serious consideration... But I didn't. I guess I kinda like torturing myself a little bit....

Oxford Languages definition of "disrespectful": "showing a lack of respect or courtesy; impolite."

Yes, a thesaurus is a very handful book and you should keep using it.

But you should also know that just because the definition of a word included another word as it's synonym, that doesn't mean that they mean the exact same thing.

Yes, 'disrespect' is similar to 'impolite' in a vague, general way but they're not exactly the same... I.e. 'It would be impolite refusing drinking tea with you, but not, in any way, disrespectful'... Do you see the difference?!

Precise, meaningful, competent use of words can make a lot of difference in communicating ideas — and philosophies — in a proper, right way!

You've suggested that anti-natalism is pro-infanticide.

except i didn't suggest it?

Yes, you DID.

my interpretation of the idea that anti-natalism would result in children not having opportunities to live is entirely correct.

And you keep suggesting it, over and over, again and again. That's why I won't "debate" you.

You keep insisting in the same nonsense that what anti-natalism "wants" is to DEPRIVE CHILDREN from having opportunities (to live, etc).

And this is just, once again, strawmaning the anti-natalism thesis.

You are oblivious to the fact that for a child to be "missing" any opportunities, It would've had to be born, to begin with.

Anti-natalists have half-baked arguments

I suggest you get educated about a topic before debating It... And specially before calling it a half-baked argument.

I wish you good fortune, you're on your own from now on.

 

[Lost in a Dream]

I picked yes, but the right to die is a much more concerning issue in my opinion. Knowing how often miserable people are forced to stay alive against their will, even with terminal illnesses or horrible injuries, is a huge reason for me being antinatalist anyway.

I think if everyone who didn't want to exist always had access to a peaceful exit, so no one feels like they're forced to be here, that would be totally different. In that case, I wouldn't be antinatalist anymore, but I still wouldn't have kids anyway because I have too many mental issues to handle that kind of responsibility.

 

[thewalkingdread]

I picked yes, but the right to die is a much more concerning issue in my opinion. Knowing how often miserable people are forced to stay alive against their will, even with terminal illnesses or horrible injuries, is a huge reason for me being antinatalist anyway.

I think if everyone who didn't want to exist always had access to a peaceful exit, so no one feels like they're forced to be here, that would be totally different. In that case, I wouldn't be antinatalist anymore, but I still wouldn't have kids anyway because I have too many mental issues to handle that kind of responsibility.

I think both the anti-natalism and the right-to-die claims are, essentially, the same "pro-choice predicament".

I'm an anti-natalist and a right-to-die advocate because I am — above all else — pro-choice (and against unnecessary suffering, but that goes without saying it).

The anti-natalism claim deals with the lack of consent argument — pro-choice — from the POV of the infant to be born;

The right-to-die claim deals with the libertarian argument — pro-choice — from the POV of people that, for whatever reflected, rational reason, want to terminate their life.

(So being pro-choice is the real background issue between anti-natalism and the right-to-die.)

And when we take a good, sober, look at the state of the world, we conclude that only a small minority of people really cares about being pro-choice.

 

[LaVieEnRose]

I think both the anti-natalism and the right-to-die claims are, essentially, the same "pro-choice predicament".

I'm an anti-natalist and a right-to-die advocate because I am — above all else — pro-choice (and against unnecessary suffering, but that goes without saying it).

The anti-natalism claim deals with the lack of consent argument — pro-choice — from the POV of the infant to be born;

The right-to-die claim deals with the libertarian argument — pro-choice — from the POV of people that, for whatever reflected, rational reason, want to terminate their life.

(So being pro-choice is the real background issue between anti-natalism and the right-to-die.)

And when we take a good, sober, look at the state of the world, we conclude that only a small minority of people really cares about being pro-choice.

The right-to-die movement is a lot more grounded in reality and viable than the anti-natalism. There is not much point debating the merits of a philosophy that will never ever be realized in the real world, not to the extent that those who espouse it here want.

 

[thewalkingdread]

The right-to-die movement is a lot more grounded in reality and viable than the anti-natalism. There is not much point debating the merits of a philosophy that will never ever be realized in the real world, not to the extent that those who espouse it here want.

I disagree with the assymetry you postulated... Why anti-natalism less grounded in reality or less viable?

I think both of them will never be realized in any adequate, satisfactory, significant way.

The majority of people will always be "pro-life" and against legalized MAD or against abortion(practical anti-natalism).

Sad but true.

 

[HybridMindset]

I wanted to be a mother. But my own trauma and mental health issues would equal me being a horrible mother. I feel people who have issues like mine, or are just fucked up shouldn't be allowed to have kids. But then it gets complicated on who can and cannot have children. But I feel like the country you live in should have evaluations for anyone who wants to be a parent.

Add to the fact people shouldn't be having kids until every last adoptable child has a happy home, but we all know that once a baby is born no one gives a fuck about it anymore. Knew some kids in the system they lived through some twisted sick shit, they shouldn't have been born just to suffer like that.

It might be weird to say this, but my mum's been on antidepressants for well over a decade now and she's the best parent I know. When I tell my dad (divorced) that I'm overwhelmed and lack the energy to even clean my apartment, he just thinks that I'm making shit up. My mum on the other hand is way more understanding and even helpful, because she's been through similar stuff.

I don't think I can give an unbiased opinion here, but people who didn't go through proper character development should not be parents imo. I feel sorry for my mum, but I'm also grateful that she went through the stuff she did, because she's been one of the most helpful people I know.

EDIT: grammar

 

[SketchedOut]

i'm an anti-natalist, but if you want to be a parent, so be it. adoption is a thing, accidents still happen, and if you can get those kids a nice, comforting, and safe home, then what's wrong with that?

 

[sanlcx]

I wanted to be a mother. But my own trauma and mental health issues would equal me being a horrible mother. I feel people who have issues like mine, or are just fucked up shouldn't be allowed to have kids. But then it gets complicated on who can and cannot have children. But I feel like the country you live in should have evaluations for anyone who wants to be a parent.

Add to the fact people shouldn't be having kids until every last adoptable child has a happy home, but we all know that once a baby is born no one gives a fuck about it anymore. Knew some kids in the system they lived through some twisted sick shit, they shouldn't have been born just to suffer like that.

Thing is people want kids with their genetics, that came from them, that's human nature... that's why most ppl keep making children instead of adopting.

 

[Arihman]

Antinatalist and Efilist here (I say "and" because they are not the same thing). Btw, whether most people are happy or not (and I find the former statement questionable, as per this paper, of which I'll also post a screenshot: ) is ultimately irrelevant to the proposition that it's unethical in and of itself to have biological children, because:

• On a large enough scale, the price for creating happy people will always be creating miserable people;
• Bad is stronger than good, which also means that it's easier to destroy a good life than it is to fix a bad one. Example: a man spends the first 60 years of his life being happy (e.g. he has good friends, a loving wife, and was healthy until that point), then he gets bone cancer, which causes him enough pain for him to wish to die, in spite of all the goods he experienced so far. Was his life destroyed? I'd say yes. On the other hand, the opposite situation (extremely bad life fixed by a positive enough event) is, to the very least, far less likely to happen;
• Non-existence can't be improved upon, as you can't improve what isn't in need of being fixed in the first place. This means that the positives are only valuable because they solve a problem created by life itself, as in they can have no "independent" value. On the other hand, suffering is an unsolved problem, and hence it's presence is always worse than its absence, unless it is necessary to avoid more of it in the future (e.g. having to work is bad, but you have to endure it because homelessness is worse), which is not the case with procreation;
• Natalism tends to depend on there being a majority of happy people, since it's the originator of all needs, but antinatalism doesn't depend on the opposite being true, given that, if no sentient being existed, happy people who remain unborn wouldn't lament the fact of not being created to prevent miserable lives;
• You can't get consent to procreate. Yes, I know, there is nobody to give or deny consent, but that's the point, if you can't get it AND your action can and will negatively affect a being who will exist as a result of said action, then you don't have consent. Impossibility of consent doesn't equate to the permissibility of acting without it, especially if it is for the sake of fixing the emotional deficiencies of prospective parents;
• If procreation continues, miserable people will eventually far outnumber the number of happy people who exist now, even if the latter amounted to 9 out of 10. Case in point: if all the 610 million people who existed in 1700 didn't procreate, the more numerous miserable lives that exist today would have been prevented at no cost in deprivation of pleasure;
• Both joy and suffering don't need to exist;
• Life ultimately has no real purpose, as in, our presence doesn't serve any "noble" goal, like curing some kind of wound in the universe.

 

[hellispink]

The human race is the most selfish, all it brings its disaster pain. Read history books , see how life is. It requires a level of awakening very high to notice. This world and humans should be extinguished forever. People shouldnt be reproducing themselves fucking other people and leaving them to their mercy in a fucked world. If a person isnt anti natalist then how can they see children without food bed or other type of abuses and still look at me in the eye. We should not bring more people here this world is rotten

 

[Lupgevif]

I don't get the outrage that antinatalists spark on natalists. If you want to have children, how is someone on the internet telling you not to stopping you in any way? So many worse things to get offended by, but you choose to fight over the choice of having children - which again, is not being taken from you by literally anyone. Or are antinatalists reducing your sperm count somehow? lmao

 

[Arihman]

I don't get the outrage that antinatalists spark on natalists. If you want to have children, how is someone on the internet telling you not to stopping you in any way? So many worse things to get offended by, but you choose to fight over the choice of having children - which again, is not being taken from you by literally anyone. Or are antinatalists reducing your sperm count somehow? lmao

Well, to be fair, there are antinatalists who would never forcefully impose antinatalism based on deontological morality, but there are also those like me who would do it, but don't purely due to the possible or likely practical outcomes of doing so.

Any attempt to forcefully impose AN is likely to cause more suffering than what it's meant to fix, such as people organizing some violent revolution even if just to fuck you for trying to enforce your views, having kids in secret (and maybe using them to build an army to usurp power from governments, which might lead to worse outcomes), goverments changing, and then using their power to impose pro-natalism, and other stuff. So, for all practical purposes, I also wouldn't use power to impose antinatalism even if I could, but I would definitely do it if there really was a quick and clean solution that is more or less guaranteed to be the best, and cause as little suffering as possible. But, ultimately, that's more of a thought experiment than anything else.

 

[dangero]

I believe that humanity can change for the better and eventually understand that it is necessary to cut off unnecessary suffering, that euthanasia should be allowed. I think religion is a hindrance in this matter. Some people are afraid of God, hell, and only because of that, they do not want to contribute to ending human lives. Those who believe in fairy tales are more protected than those who are suffering. Of course, it's not just about euthanasia but about a change in thinking and behavior. Unfortunately, evolution does not work quickly and there's no telling which way it will go

I'm Neutral/Undecided

I believe that even now, somewhere in the distant cosmos, there exist intelligent civilizations that care more about the common good than we do, ones that put an end to the suffering of animals and their own species, and have devised a humane method of euthanasia. I believe there are no wars there, where everyone lives in prosperity because free access to energy has been invented. If conflicts arise, they are minimal and quickly extinguished because everyone is connected to a system that prevents them. I believe it's a heaven that can be created here in this reality, and no other magical realm is needed.

If suffering occurs, it can be put to an end very quickly. Suffering will never be eliminated, but it can be minimal. Sometimes there could still be major catastrophes such as a star explosion, meteorite impact, or the destruction of a planet. However, these are very rare cataclysms. Cataclysms like floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions could be prevented by relocating the population from these areas to safer ones. Probably there will still be suffering, loneliness, humiliation, there will be job burnout, boredom, physical pain, illness, etc. It's just that there won't be most of the worries that the vast majority of people have now, namely financial problems, slave labor. With everything else, people somehow manage except physical suffering, but that is rare.

Unfortunately, the universe is so large that such civilizations are probably very few, if any, and there are plenty of civilizations like ours. Although even here, some scientists say that this may be the only intelligent civilization in the universe, but I don't want to believe it. The universe is so large that such civilizations cannot influence other more distant ones, so a civilization that is heading in the wrong direction can annihilate itself and that will be a good thing.

The only mission of humanity that may exist is to travel into space and help distant sentient beings, but at a speed faster than the speed of light, otherwise it makes no sense.

What I wrote is a very naive belief. But you have to believe in something to maintain the joy of life, although some nihilists claim that you don't have to believe in anything to be happy.

 

[willitpass]

I am antinatalist for myself. There are many people I don't think should have children, but to be quite honest I'm far too tired and drained from my own problems to spend time worrying about other people and their procreation. As far as my own children, I've wanted nothing more than to have kids since I myself was a little girl. I always planned to be a mother up until about two years ago. At that point I'd been suicidal and depressed for about 10 years and that was around the time I ran out of treatment options. To have kids when I know I will most likely die of suicide (if all goes well within a few years at the latest) would be beyond selfish of me. And even if I don't kill myself, my mental illnesses would make me an unfit mother. Also I would hate to pass on my horrible genes. To watch my own child come down with mental health issues because of me would be the worst thing I could imagine. It was a hard pill to swallow, but I know I can never have children, it just wouldn't be fair to them.

 

[thewalkingdread]

 

[MiMif]

Do what you want with your life...

That's my view of it. If you want to have kids have them but please love them and don't throw all your problems at them. Don't have kids just for decoration.

Just cause I want to die doesn't mean everyone else should. Do what you want