Discussion What is your opinion on anti-natalism?

[worldexploder]

Personally, I'm against imposing life all together. Especially when we live in a society were the right to die is denied. In my opinion, we can't have natalism without the right to euthanasia and call it a fair system.

 

[Maravillosa]

I would be more in favor of anti-natalism if it involved everyone in the world abstaining from sex for 100 years (in other words, if anti-natalism were done in accordance with Catholic beliefs that consider artificial contraception to be sinful). However, it seems that most anti-natalists do not consider the use of artificial contraception a sin and do not want people to permanently abstain from sex for the entirety of their lives.

 

[worldexploder]

I would be more in favor of anti-natalism if it involved everyone in the world abstaining from sex for 100 years (in other words, if anti-natalism were done in accordance with Catholic beliefs that consider artificial contraception to be sinful). However, it seems that most anti-natalists do not consider the use of artificial contraception a sin and do not want people to permanently abstain from sex for the entirety of their lives.

Do you believe that sex should only be for procreation only?

 

[Maravillosa]

Do you believe that sex should only be for procreation only?

All sex should be open to procreation. Sex that is not open to procreation is immoral, I believe.

 

[couldntthinkofaname]

we have a big thread on this in the offtopic section

 

[MEoDP]

In my opinion, we can't have natalism without the right to euthanasia and call it a fair system.

Precisely my position. Because the world doesn't acknowledge the right to die,that makes imposing life essentially trapping someone should they decide that they don't like life.

If the right to die were taken seriously,I can see myself not being an antinatalist anymore.

 

[worldexploder]

Precisely my position. Because the world doesn't acknowledge the right to die,that makes imposing life essentially trapping someone should they decide that they don't like life.

If the right to die were taken seriously,I can see myself not being an antinatalist anymore.

I would defiantly take a more moderate stance on natalism if the other side was validated.

 

[WanderingEremite]

If the people promoting it do so in a sincere effort to end human suffering, they're quite misguided.

First, most anti-natalists wouldn't have reproduced anyway -- overwhelmingly the people I've seen who are drawn to the idea are very poorly adjusted and have little or no success in the mating market. Second, to the extent that it actually does prevent births, anti-natalism will only succeed in establishing selection pressures against whatever genetic variants promote the sort of psychological traits that lead people to accept anti-natalism. Selection has been weeding out whatever is harmful to replicative success since life began (and selective processes likely extend back even further than that). You can be sure it'll remove whatever makes people anti-natalists.

The ecologist Garrett Hardin observed this problem in the case of efforts to promote voluntary control of reproduction to stop overpopulation. Inevitably, to the extent such efforts were successful, they would only lead the subpopulation capable of and willing to engage in reproductive control to be replaced by those subpopulations lacking the willingness or ability or both.

 

[worldexploder]

If the people promoting it do so in a sincere effort to end human suffering, they're quite misguided.

First, most anti-natalists wouldn't have reproduced anyway -- overwhelmingly the people I've seen who are drawn to the idea are very poorly adjusted and have little or no success in the mating market. Second, to the extent that it actually does prevent births, anti-natalism will only succeed in establishing selection pressures against whatever genetic variants promote the sort of psychological traits that lead people to accept anti-natalism. Selection has been weeding out whatever is harmful to replicative success since life began (and selective processes likely extend back even further than that). You can be sure it'll remove whatever makes people anti-natalists.

The ecologist Garrett Hardin observed this problem in the case of efforts to promote voluntary control of reproduction to stop overpopulation. Inevitably, to the extent such efforts were successful, they would only lead the subpopulation capable of and willing to engage in reproductive control to be replaced by those subpopulations lacking the willingness or ability or both.

My sole reason for being an antinatalist is to reduce suffering, not impose more of it. I care a great deal about children. Over 500,000 kids in America and millions across the globe are crammed into orphanages in desperate need of forever homes. Meanwhile, folks keep creating new sentient beings who must struggle with the burdens of existence while other kids who need mommy's and daddy's are denied. Stuff like this bothers me. I can write an entire encyclopedia about why I think natalism is wrong. But that was just one example.

I'm 35, very maladjusted, on SSI. I never had a job or a drivers liscens. I still managed to get married. It lasted for 3 years. Due to my mental health issues, everything fell apart. In the beginning of our relationship, my now ex wife and I discussed having children. I was against it due to my stance in procreation. I also had 3 very short relationships prior. I had a horrible childhood which led to an even worse adulthood. I was raised around children who had it way worse then me. Most of them grew up to procreate, then neglected their kids. So maybe I do have a bias...or maybe my own struggles and what I observed made me more aware of our implosion.

I'll admit, many people have had wonderful childhoods and are glad to be here as adults. I respect that. I am not saying "ban natalism". That would be assanine. I'm saying people should take a very hard look at the ethics of it all, the realities we must face, and were we are headed as a species and ask - is it worth it?

Like I said - you can't have natalism yet deny people the right to die and call it a fair system. Many on this site, including myself, can relate. We were born because our mothers decided to carry us to term. Now we are trapped here with no peaceful way out. What sort of crap deal is that?

EDIT: Plus to me, having children is like gambling but with someone else's life. You never know if the child will be healthy or end up like Ted Bundy or severely disabled. I'm my opinion, it's best to roll the dice with your own life.

 

[MEoDP]

EDIT: Plus to me, having children is like gambling but with someone else's life. You never know if the child will be healthy or end up like Ted Bundy or severely disabled. I'm my opinion, it's best to roll the dice with your own life.

Yup. I'm already Childfree to begin with(I don't want the responsibility nor do I think I have the necessary character traits to make a good parent),but in the unlikely event that I change my mind,I'd become a foster parent(after taking the necessary training)and maybe permanently adopt somewhere down the line. (I'll likely remain a foster parent though if that ever happens. The good thing about the occupation is that you're doing a good deed without the expectation of you permanently staying in the role. You can quit or retire anytime you want.)

The only way I could ever even consider procreation is if Genetic Engineering(like the one you see in the movie Gattaca)became real,and I doubt that will even happen in my lifetime.

I wish aspiring parents would first take parenting training and then test themselves by gaining live-experience with foster parenting before considering procreation. That's a good way of not only determining whether or not you're truly meant for such a major role,but its also good for refining and developing your parenting skills. If you can successfully solve the emotional baggage and heal the likely traumatized children in foster homes,you're much,much more ready than the typical couple who decides to procreate and try to figure shit out as they go along. (often resulting in screwed up relationships and not properly raising your kids for life)

 

[worldexploder]

Yup. I'm already Childfree to begin with(I don't want the responsibility nor do I think I have the necessary character traits to make a good parent),but in the unlikely event that I change my mind,I'd become a foster parent(after taking the necessary training)and maybe permanently adopt somewhere down the line. (I'll likely remain a foster parent though if that ever happens. The good thing about the occupation is that you're doing a good deed without the expectation of you permanently staying in the role. You can quit or retire anytime you want.)

The only way I could ever even consider procreation is if Genetic Engineering(like the one you see in the movie Gattaca)became real,and I doubt that will even happen in my lifetime.

I wish aspiring parents would first take parenting training and then test themselves by gaining live-experience with foster parenting before considering procreation. That's a good way of not only determining whether or not you're truly meant for such a major role,but its also good for refining and developing your parenting skills. If you can successfully solve the emotional baggage and heal the likely traumatized children in foster homes,you're much,much more ready than the typical couple who decides to procreate and try to figure shit out as they go along. (often resulting in screwed up relationships and not properly raising your kids for life)

I think that's a great idea. Also I think parenting should be taught everyday in schools from K-12 (age appropriate). Maybe people will have a better understanding by the time they become adults. Also maybe we should require parents who are pregnant to take parenting classes for a month or so. You gotta take classes to get your drivers liscens so why not when about to have a baby?

 

[throwaway123]

I am a Antinatalist.

 

[MEoDP]

I think that's a great idea. Also I think parenting should be taught everyday in schools from K-12 (age appropriate). Maybe people will have a better understanding by the time they become adults. Also maybe we should require parents who are pregnant to take parenting classes for a month or so. You gotta take classes to get your drivers liscens so why not when about to have a baby?

Indeed. We need more awareness on the issue. Of course,we get into complicated waters when we start discussing licenses to be a parent(Racism sadly still exists in this world,and that can have a really major effect into the legal process of getting your parenting license)but the point is,people need to be more aware. We probably wouldn't be so overpopulated nor would there so many be good-for-nothing-parents raising screwed up children if people were more aware.

 

[worldexploder]

Indeed. We need more awareness on the issue. Of course,we get into complicated waters when we start discussing licenses to be a parent(Racism sadly still exists in this world,and that can have a really major effect into the legal process of getting your parenting license)but the point is,people need to be more aware. We probably wouldn't be so overpopulated nor would there so many be good-for-nothing-parents raising screwed up children if people were more aware.

I agree 100%. Maybe the parenting classes should be on a case by case basis. Like for at risk adults. One thing thst really bothers me is that birth rates are skyrocketing in impoverished, war torn, and famine stricken areas of the world. How can any humanitarian not cry fowl at that fact? I do understand thst a lot of complex issues are going on to cause this to happen...this is were programs that could bring about a more global awareness could come in handy. Let's get the U.N. on this shit!

 

[Smilla]

I believe it's immoral to force someone into existence without their consent, not to mention the fact that you can't even guarantee you will be there to raise them.