Venting to bring children into this world is like carrying wood to a burning house

[Darkover]

What is framed as a gift — the miracle of life — is, under this lens, a silent curse passed down. In a world already aflame with pain, entropy, and disintegration, each new life is not a rescue but more fuel for the fire.

The child, unaware, unconsenting, is thrust into a reality stitched together by struggle: hunger, isolation, disease, labor, loss. To be born is to inherit a body that will decay, a mind that must grapple with mortality, and a world that demands endless endurance.

Bringing life into a suffering world may be seen not as creation, but as complicity. It is to burden a new being with the weight of existence — to ask them to survive in a place where safety is an illusion and joy, at best, fleeting. The parent may act in love, in hope, or in ignorance, but the consequence remains: another soul sentenced to walk through fire.

Is it noble to give life — or is it kinder to refuse to chain another to the wheel of becoming, to the endless hunger of a world that consumes all it births?

 

[Grog]

I think that if you have a good income, and are mentally well-adjusted, that there's nothing wrong with having kids. The world is cruel for many, but not as cruel for affluent families.

 

[Darkover]

I think that if you have a good income, and are mentally well-adjusted, that there's nothing wrong with having kids. The world is cruel for many, but not as cruel for affluent families.

Even children born into wealthy, emotionally stable households are not immune to:

Existential suffering: anxiety, depression, fear of death, identity crises.

Emotional pain: heartbreak, loneliness, rejection, social exclusion.

Chronic illness or accidents: money can't prevent all disease, disability, or misfortune.

Systemic issues: environmental collapse, political instability, societal pressures, social media harms, peer cruelty.

A padded room is still a room — even with silk walls, you're still locked in the human condition.

Ethically, even if the conditions are better, the child is still being brought into a world where:

They will suffer, decay, and die.

They must struggle with the meaninglessness of life on their own terms.

They are being exposed to a lottery of uncontrollable variables (genetics, accidents, global events).

Bringing a child into the world for your own fulfillment or hope that they'll be "okay" doesn't change the fact that they have to carry the full burden of existence without ever having asked for it.

Wealth can buy comfort, not security:

It doesn't prevent neurodegenerative diseases, mental illness, or cancer.

It can't stop global crises (climate change, war, pandemics).

It often isolates children emotionally in highly competitive or pressurized environments.

Privileged people still die tragically, still suffer deeply. In fact, suicide and psychological distress are common even in affluent youth.

Even "responsible" reproduction contributes to:

Overpopulation and ecological strain.

Economic systems that rely on continuous consumption and labor.

The continuation of a species that still has not solved basic issues of cruelty, inequality, and violence.

Each child becomes another part of a machine that grinds forward without asking if it should.

The claim that "there's nothing wrong with having kids if you're well-off and well-adjusted" underestimates the scope and depth of human suffering. It mistakes the alleviation of surface-level hardship for the removal of existential burdens. It assumes that a relatively gentle cage justifies bringing someone into captivity — when the core issues (aging, decay, mortality, meaninglessness, lack of consent) remain untouched.

Having children, no matter how lovingly done, still places a sentient being into a condition of inevitable harm. That harm may be delayed or softened, but it is not removed. That's the core of the counterargument.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Grog]

Even children born into wealthy, emotionally stable households are not immune to:

Existential suffering: anxiety, depression, fear of death, identity crises.

Emotional pain: heartbreak, loneliness, rejection, social exclusion.

Chronic illness or accidents: money can't prevent all disease, disability, or misfortune.

Systemic issues: environmental collapse, political instability, societal pressures, social media harms, peer cruelty.

A padded room is still a room — even with silk walls, you're still locked in the human condition.

Ethically, even if the conditions are better, the child is still being brought into a world where:

They will suffer, decay, and die.

They must struggle with the meaninglessness of life on their own terms.

They are being exposed to a lottery of uncontrollable variables (genetics, accidents, global events).

Bringing a child into the world for your own fulfillment or hope that they'll be "okay" doesn't change the fact that they have to carry the full burden of existence without ever having asked for it.

Wealth can buy comfort, not security:

It doesn't prevent neurodegenerative diseases, mental illness, or cancer.

It can't stop global crises (climate change, war, pandemics).

It often isolates children emotionally in highly competitive or pressurized environments.

Privileged people still die tragically, still suffer deeply. In fact, suicide and psychological distress are common even in affluent youth.

Even "responsible" reproduction contributes to:

Overpopulation and ecological strain.

Economic systems that rely on continuous consumption and labor.

The continuation of a species that still has not solved basic issues of cruelty, inequality, and violence.

Each child becomes another part of a machine that grinds forward without asking if it should.

The claim that "there's nothing wrong with having kids if you're well-off and well-adjusted" underestimates the scope and depth of human suffering. It mistakes the alleviation of surface-level hardship for the removal of existential burdens. It assumes that a relatively gentle cage justifies bringing someone into captivity — when the core issues (aging, decay, mortality, meaninglessness, lack of consent) remain untouched.

Having children, no matter how lovingly done, still places a sentient being into a condition of inevitable harm. That harm may be delayed or softened, but it is not removed. That's the core of the counterargument.

Not everyone suffers as much as us. Not everyone sees life as meaningless. Some still enjoy life and are glad to be alive regardless of the risk that life can bring.

 

[Darkover]

Not everyone suffers as much as us. Not everyone sees life as meaningless. Some still enjoy life and are glad to be alive regardless of the risk that life can bring

This statement implicitly assumes existence is the default or preferable state, but doesn't address whether not existing — which has no suffering — might be better for beings not yet born.

 

[Grog]

This statement implicitly assumes existence is the default or preferable state, but doesn't address whether not existing — which has no suffering — might be better for beings not yet born.

I think a great life is better than not existing. A great life can't be guaranteed, but nothing can. Life is full of uncertainty.

 

[Darkover]

I think a great life is better than not existing. A great life can't be guaranteed, but nothing can. Life is full of uncertainty.

The problem is most of these lives are shit and the risk is to high of having a shit lifetime

 

[cemeteryismyhome]

I wish I had never been born, but it's not for me judge people who deliberately have children. (disclaimer: I deliberately had children).

 

[EvisceratedJester]

Not everyone suffers as much as us. Not everyone sees life as meaningless. Some still enjoy life and are glad to be alive regardless of the risk that life can bring.

That's a pretty lazy argument, tbh. You can never truly guarantee that your offspring won't suffer immensely, so why bother even giving birth to begin with? Why risk giving birth to someone who, when they grow up, could potentially end up wishing that they were dead? Deciding to procreation is incredibly selfish since you forcing someone into existence purely for your own sake.

 

[Grog]

That's a pretty lazy argument, tbh. You can never truly guarantee that your offspring won't suffer immensely, so why bother even giving birth to begin with? Why risk giving birth to someone who, when they grow up, could potentially end up wishing that they were dead? Deciding to procreation is incredibly selfish since you forcing someone into existence purely for your own sake.

I don't think all procreation is a mistake. As I said earlier, if you are well-off financially and have good mental health, I don't think having kids is selfish because you have the opportunity to give them a good life. However, if you're poor or have a lot of mental issues, or both, then yes, it would be pretty selfish to have children. That's my opinion.