L
Leshen
Member
- Oct 31, 2018
- 97
I'm an antinatalist. I don't know how anyone can look this world and go "yep, this is a perfect place to bring a child into!".
It's insanity.
It's insanity.
As you know, censorship around the world has been ramping up at an alarming pace. The UK and OFCOM has singled out this community and have been focusing its censorship efforts here. It takes a good amount of resources to maintain the infrastructure for our community and to resist this censorship. We would appreciate any and all donations.
Let's not forget that from a biological, evolutionary standpoint, our primary goal in existence is to pass on our genetic material. Putting aside emotional attachments and societal expectations, it's still "natural" for us to want to have children.
Just to be clear, I'm not a breeder. (I'm gay and married to another man. Not that I couldn't physically breed, but... ya know... not likely!) Nor do I subscribe to the idea that passing on our genes is what's important. I think given how humanity has evolved, there are much more important things to consider. But I don't fault people for wanting to have children. It can be difficult to fight biology.Don't worry, I couldn't ever forget that, since "...but, but, muh GENES!!!!!" is the top come back from breeders.
Just to be clear, I'm not a breeder. (I'm gay and married to another man. Not that I couldn't physically breed, but... ya know... not likely!) Nor do I subscribe to the idea that passing on our genes is what's important. I think given how humanity has evolved, there are much more important things to consider. But I don't fault people for wanting to have children. It can be difficult to fight biology.
I do wish I could adopt, though. There are so many children in this world without a home or a caring family. Wish I could be that for some child.
For you maybe but not for me and lots of others.it's still "natural" for us to want to have children.
It's a bit of a conundrum, because in order to justify having children, the world needs to get better. But, in order for the world to get better, there needs to be slow, generational change. How can you do that without having children? I think our best bet is to require a license to have children, which includes financial requirements and personality tests, among other things.The idea of bringing an innocent child to this world horrifies me... even the highest qualities of life are still low quality in a bigger picture hence I never became serious in any of my relationships ... my best friend died of cancer within 5-6 months and I witnessed what his mom went through ... there is an old saying "lucky ones are those never been born"
I didn't even know "antinatalism" exists as an ideology up until a few months ago I guess that goes hand in hand with my belief on birth and procreation.
Ah well, that would open doors for malpractice big time. It was best when nature decided who was strong and healthy enough to have children.I think our best bet is to require a license to have children, which includes financial requirements and personality tests, among other things.
Um, your survival of the fittest argument is the reason why the world is so fucked up in the first place. As for the malpractice concern, you've peaked my interest. What do you think would happen?Ah well, that would open doors for malpractice big time. It was best when nature decided who was strong and healthy enough to have children.
Who should decide what the criteria for a "license to have children" be? What is excluded and what is not? In our western society that would probably result in rich pricks that trash the environment with their wasteful lifestyle, enslave people in third world countries with their money and have an asshole personality but "good" genes and much money having the right to get children, but kindhearted people with a very basic life do not.As for the malpractice concern, you've peaked my interest. What do you think would happen?
How do you come to that conclusion? Long ago when survival of the fittest still applied people were happy, as animals living in nature are. As the world slowly got so developed that it applied less and less the world got fucked up more and more and here we are: Today survival of the fittest is gone, it is more survival of the most ruthless or maybe even survival of everybody for the sake of limited suffering short-term, even if it creates far more suffering long term.Um, your survival of the fittest argument is the reason why the world is so fucked up in the first place. As for the malpractice concern, you've peaked my interest. What do you think would happen?
It's a bit of a conundrum, because in order to justify having children, the world needs to get better. But, in order for the world to get better, there needs to be slow, generational change. How can you do that without having children? I think our best bet is to require a license to have children, which includes financial requirements and personality tests, among other things.
Society is improving technologically but it is deteriorating socially. I really believe there is no fixing it at this point, it has gone terminal.