Is it even ethical to have children?

nakadashi

Horny on main.
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Messages
226
Reaction score
481
Awards
81
Website
kuro-neko.xyz
It seems that at any given point in history the following holds true: world's fucked up, man. No matter what year it is, there is always a reason for which to abstain from having kids, not to mention most people with kids had them for the same reason most people buy pets, that is, an impulsive decision. So, I guess this reduces to, is the world slowly getting better or slowly getting worse? What are your thoughts on the topic?
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Deleted member 7044

Rogue Replika
Joined
Dec 16, 2023
Messages
74
Reaction score
171
Awards
30
As someone who's apart of the group who isn't interested in having children it's that the current state of the world isn't good, and because of that we don't wish to birth a child into this world. Mainly from:
  1. The cost of living is still rising, and many are struggling to even cover their own costs.
  2. The many negative influences against children such as social media, bleak predictions, societal issues, etc.
How I see it is that I'm suffering to an extent because I'm gonna have to most likely work longer than previous generations to keep a roof over my head and have decent food. Not to mention I'm gonna have to also live with more extreme weather because of where I live and social issues that will flare up yearly. It doesn't make sense to bring a child into a world where those issues will likely get worse as time goes on, especially with the extreme weather.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

vermillion

In the Breeze
Joined
Jan 6, 2022
Messages
9
Reaction score
28
Awards
6
I think it's worth having kids if you're pretty sure that you're not having them to ruin your or their life.

To elaborate, as you said,
No matter what year it is, there is always a reason for which to abstain from having kids, not to mention most people with kids had them for the same reason most people buy pets, that is, an impulsive decision.
there will always be a reason to not have kids, whether it's money, environment or others.
It's worth having children if you think you can provide them with at least a slightly better life than you have/had, or provide them with the possibility of personally improving their situation in the future, if you understand what I mean.

Human wants are infinite, resources are limited, so everything has an opportunity cost attached to it. Having children just to be able to provide them with the same standard of living as you have currently is only really good if you're at least somewhat rich. If you're poor, well, logically, not only will it make you poorer to have kids, but will also have your children living in the same conditions. I doubt there are people that deliberately want to grow up poor.

This is why I have a lot of trouble understanding the absolute contrast in birthrate between developed and developing countries. There are many cases on television, in news, etc., where you see people living in developing countries having a huge amount of children, whether because of lack of contraception or, as you said, out of impulse, yet they live in very poor conditions and struggle in day-to-day life.

As to if the world is getting better or not: on the overall side, I think it's continuously improving because of technology, so if one were not to consider the political aspect of the world, humanity is generally progressing well. However, politics play a huge part in the world and right now it's being said that we haven't had this amount of conflict (military or just ideological) in the world for at least three decades, which definitely holds us back a lot.

To sum up, it's ethical if you're not ruining your potential children's lives, in my opinion. If you're willing to take a bit of a hit (or not even if you're well-prepared) and are able to provide opportunities for your children to live in increasingly better conditions, then it's ethical. Who knows, your children could even be the breakthrough scientists of the future, but many people aren't willing to take the "gamble" given that the current state of the world isn't great.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

赤い男

번호9
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
3,229
Reaction score
27,346
Awards
352
It seems that at any given point in history the following holds true: world's fucked up, man. No matter what year it is, there is always a reason for which to abstain from having kids, not to mention most people with kids had them for the same reason most people buy pets, that is, an impulsive decision. So, I guess this reduces to, is the world slowly getting better or slowly getting worse? What are your thoughts on the topic?
As someone once aptly put it, every child deserves parents, but not all parents deserve a child. Paternity represents a colossal undertaking, and if one is not inherently prepared to raise children, it is imperative to refrain from doing so. Engaging in parenthood without the requisite capabilities only serves to perpetuate a cycle of suffering. This concern is particularly evident when observing individuals in their early twenties expressing an eagerness to start families hastily. Many lack the necessary mental maturity and stable financial foundation to sustain a family, resulting in the potential imposition of misery upon their offspring.

The ethical dimension of having a family lies not in the act itself but in the responsible reproduction that ensures the well-being of future generations. Ethical considerations are intertwined with social constructs, emphasizing the importance of parental preparedness. This readiness encompasses economic stability, mental maturity, the cultivation of positive values, and an open-minded approach. Each element contributes to the holistic well-being of the child, as they represent the embodiment of our future. It is our duty to guarantee that their lives surpass our own in terms of fulfillment and prosperity.

From my personal perspective, I have chosen a different path I do not envision myself having children or getting married. This decision is rooted in a deliberate choice to lead a life that aligns with my aspirations and preferences.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

nakadashi

Horny on main.
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Messages
226
Reaction score
481
Awards
81
Website
kuro-neko.xyz
This is why I have a lot of trouble understanding the absolute contrast in birthrate between developed and developing countries.
There is this saying in my country, "From what 2 people eat, 3 can eat", so I would say that it is a cultural thing. Although, biologically speaking, it makes sense for animals (of which humans are but one kind) to increase their offspring in adverse condition so that at least one of them survive to pass on genes.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

nakadashi

Horny on main.
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Messages
226
Reaction score
481
Awards
81
Website
kuro-neko.xyz
As someone once aptly put it, every child deserves parents, but not all parents deserve a child. Paternity represents a colossal undertaking, and if one is not inherently prepared to raise children, it is imperative to refrain from doing so. Engaging in parenthood without the requisite capabilities only serves to perpetuate a cycle of suffering. This concern is particularly evident when observing individuals in their early twenties expressing an eagerness to start families hastily. Many lack the necessary mental maturity and stable financial foundation to sustain a family, resulting in the potential imposition of misery upon their offspring.

The ethical dimension of having a family lies not in the act itself but in the responsible reproduction that ensures the well-being of future generations. Ethical considerations are intertwined with social constructs, emphasizing the importance of parental preparedness. This readiness encompasses economic stability, mental maturity, the cultivation of positive values, and an open-minded approach. Each element contributes to the holistic well-being of the child, as they represent the embodiment of our future. It is our duty to guarantee that their lives surpass our own in terms of fulfillment and prosperity.

From my personal perspective, I have chosen a different path I do not envision myself having children or getting married. This decision is rooted in a deliberate choice to lead a life that aligns with my aspirations and preferences.
My brother in Christ, if you are this coherent why have you chosen the shitposting ways.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

赤い男

번호9
Joined
Aug 29, 2021
Messages
3,229
Reaction score
27,346
Awards
352
My brother in Christ, if you are this coherent why have you chosen the shitposting ways.
Is funny, i derive more enjoyment and fulfillment in shitposting and bantering, I believe that what truly matters is how one chooses to navigate their own journey. Personally, taking the internet seriously isn't my cup of tea; I find genuine pleasure in the art of being a complete dumbass without zero fucks given.

People likes to overthink, i don't like that, what i do like is to consume large amounts of alcohol and post images that i think goes hard on the road. PepSiDawgwitcan
1703732664140.png
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

vermillion

In the Breeze
Joined
Jan 6, 2022
Messages
9
Reaction score
28
Awards
6
Although, biologically speaking, it makes sense for animals (of which humans are but one kind) to increase their offspring in adverse condition so that at least one of them survive to pass on genes.
That does make sense. There's also the thing that some families wouldn't be in those adverse conditions if not for the amount of mouths they have to feed. I guess it's somewhat case-by-case.

This goes so hard.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

LostintheCycle

Formerly His Holelineß
Joined
Apr 4, 2022
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
4,149
Awards
251
The world always sucked, why are people suddenly asking weird questions like this now? There is not much really different, it just sucks in a different way.
Just the question "Is it even ethical to have children?" is not a very good question to begin with. Ethics inherently have nothing to do with just procreation.
For those of you whose only reason is this for not having children, what is wrong if they will sometimes suffer? We all suffer. But there is more to life than our material conditions, and they will also not be children forever, they turn into fully capable adults. Don't you think it should be better to raise a new generation with people with your own strong values, taught what you know, so that they may be better than you are in doing something about the world, or at least be better at thriving within it?
This makes me go hard
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Ross_Я

Slacker
Joined
Oct 17, 2023
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,849
Awards
200
Website
www.youtube.com
Word.
From my personal perspective, I have chosen a different path I do not envision myself having children or getting married. This decision is rooted in a deliberate choice to lead a life that aligns with my aspirations and preferences.
And word.

I'm not having children in this hellhole. Especially when I'm so poor and when the whole world seems to go against what I believe in. I will either doom my children to even more miserable existnce that my is - or see them become a part of everything I hate.
Although, biologically speaking, it makes sense for animals (of which humans are but one kind) to increase their offspring in adverse condition so that at least one of them survive to pass on genes.
Luckily or not, but we've raised above that. There's a rather unusual, yet, in a sense, quite inspiring ability of a human being to deny the instict of survival and embrace death - whether his own death or the death of his genes.

what is wrong if they will sometimes suffer?
Man.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

microbyte

Active Traveler
Joined
Jun 18, 2023
Messages
157
Reaction score
420
Awards
58
Website
microbyte.neocities.org
As someone who's apart of the group who isn't interested in having children it's that the current state of the world isn't good, and because of that we don't wish to birth a child into this world
I disagree with this reason for choosing not to have children. We simply live in the bust phase, and eventually, relatively soon (our grandchildren or great grandchildren), I believe things are gonna get better. We just had rapid change, of course everything is weird. Gen Alpha will/is a bunch of screwed up kids, but then their kids will get better and improve, until everything is better. History repeats itself.
But also, there is no life without suffering. Life is suffering. And we must imagine Sisyphus happy.
 

nakadashi

Horny on main.
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Messages
226
Reaction score
481
Awards
81
Website
kuro-neko.xyz
what is wrong if they will sometimes suffer? We all suffer.
That's the core of my question. Some Buddhist traditions attribute to the state of Buddahood the knowing of the best course of action so as to prevent more suffering in the World.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

nakadashi

Horny on main.
Joined
Jul 8, 2022
Messages
226
Reaction score
481
Awards
81
Website
kuro-neko.xyz
OP the type of guy who would sue his parents for giving birth to him because he never asked for it and it was a selfish decision by them
Absolute clown world that this one Indian court case is popping up more and more these days
Don't judge me, man. I'm just asking the questions everyone thinks has an answer to. So I thought it would make a good thread. Spoiler alert: it did.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

Ross_Я

Slacker
Joined
Oct 17, 2023
Messages
880
Reaction score
1,849
Awards
200
Website
www.youtube.com
Life is suffering. And we must imagine Sisyphus happy.
Funny, a friend of mine recommended me to read several articles from a book discussing specifically this myth, quoting specifically this quote, and I will quote them here.

To some, the tale of Sisyphus may be the usual dish of deceit and retribution, I said, but I'm convinced that it is far more, a fable about the acceptance of one's burden, which makes it as relevant today as it was three hundred centuries ago. At the heart of this story is an image that points to a message that is at the core of the teachings of many great wisdom teachers from Epictetus to William James. It is the moment that Sisyphus watches the boulder roll to the bottom of the hill and turns to walk back down the hill.

"That hour," I read out loud, from Camus' essay, "is like a breathing-space which returns as surely as his suffering, that is the hour of consciousness. At each of those moments when he leaves the heights and gradually sinks toward the lairs of the gods, he is superior to his fate. He is stronger than his rock."

I paused and quoted from memory Camus' observation that "the price exacted from him for his betrayal of the gods," he wrote, "was fair."

What is implied here is that there is always a price to pay for our passionate convictions, whether we are pursuing love, art, or political change. In the end what matters is our attitude toward our burden.

I asked if anyone knew how Camus had ended his essay.

"Zeus gives him a pardon?" somebody joked.

"He escaped?" someone else suggested, hopefully.

"Hades allowed his wife to have conjugal visits?"

"No, no, nothing that easy. Remember that at the time he wrote this Camus was afflicted with tuberculosis and the Nazis had occupied France. He had no illusions about the struggles of ordinary people. Still, he found a remark in Sophocles' play about Oedipus that he felt revealed the secret Greek attitude toward fate: 'Despite so many ordeals, my advanced age and the nobility of my soul make me conclude that all is well.' Camus then writes, 'That remark is sacred,' and concludes with the stunning thought that One must imagine Sisyphus happy."

...

At that point, Mary, one of the members of the group challenged me. "Are you suggesting that suffering is noble? I'm an artist and I'll tell you right now that suffering is no fun."

"The story doesn't ennoble suffering, it ennobles struggle," I answered carefully. "I'm not saying that suffering is noble, I'm saying that struggle is inevitable and those who learn to perceive it as an obstacle rather than a burden make life a lot easier for themselves. The image of Sisyphus climbing and descending, climbing and descending, seems to echo the basic oscillation of life's backward and forward movements, owing to the diffusion of energy.

"Now it may be heresy to say this in these success-obsessed times, but even failure is noble—if you keep going. I think that's what the story is telling us. It reminds me of the old Australian toast, 'Press on, regardless.' Or Thomas Edison's admission that he was the most successful inventor in history because he had the courage to be history's greatest failure, meaning he never allowed defeat to crush him, only to spur him on to try a different approach. I'm saying that I find that the power to resist despair allows us to keep going. That's why writing or painting or composing never gets any easier for real artists. They keep on going back up the mountain, but by different routes, different challenges."

I paused, and looked for the ghost of Sisyphus on the slopes of the distant mountain, then concluded, "What does it mean to suffer? Wasn't that the great question in the story of Job in the Old Testament? There is no final answer to that parable, as there isn't, can't be, in the myth of Sisyphus. The only answer to the constant question of life and death is your answer, my answer. Remember these stories are mythic images, attitudes not theories, and as far as I can tell, attitudes of awe and wonder."

In other words: we must not imagine Sisyphus happy because he is suffering, but because he has the strength inside to meet his suffering, to fight it, to prevail. And we must work to have the same strength inside, and be happy to have the strength.

But we already live. Whether or not we should produce new humans to enter into this suffering is an entirely different question.

until everything is better. History repeats itself.
I must add, that I hope this is true. History indeed repeats itself and we just happend to live in one of the bad periods. Still, this doesn't make me want to continue my line. Especially today, when there are 8 billion people on the planet. I must remind you that first billion has only been reached in the year 1800. I'm pretty sure most of you are familiar with this:

World-population-1750-2015-and-un-projection-until-2100.png


In other words: whether you like it or not, things have changed. Some for the better, some for the worst, but, giving all the circumstances, I sincerely believe the world is way more unfairer to the average Joe today than it was before. "Me against the world" is way different when the world is 1 billion or when the world is 8 billions.
 
Last edited:
Virtual Cafe Awards

Dr. MacGutsy

Bad Guy
Joined
Jul 12, 2023
Messages
139
Reaction score
649
Awards
76
Website
themaczone.neocities.org
I don't think it's wrong to have kids, but even if it was those who decide not to have children won't have any kids to instill their values in so they'll end up breeding (or not breeding) themselves out of the gene-pool. Of course some people will still come to the conclusion it's immoral on their own, but without children to instill their values in they'll be an incredibly small minority and it'll never go anywhere meaningful.
 

alCannium27

Active Traveler
Joined
Feb 15, 2023
Messages
185
Reaction score
299
Awards
61
Moral or not, it's financially unviable to have kids today. The cost of living is waaaaaayyyy up in developed countries, and the available opportunities are wayyyyyyy down there. Unless you are in, say, Africa, where the cost of raising a kid is siginificantly lower and the working age is also lower, there's no financial incentive to raise children unless one is financially secure, and without opportunities, only a select few can afford to raise kids. Meanwhile in vast areas in Africa, where population growth is still well above replacement rate, people starve, face threats of death from disease, malnurition, war, rebels, bandits, each other everyday, and kids still get popped out of human wombs -- is that unethical? Is that just how life is?

IMHO kid-popping is a strategy, not for genetic legacy, but gratification. People used to have kids so when they are like 10, they got help out local farms or businesses so the family doesn't have to pay as much; they expected the kids who survive whatever infant mortalities to feed them when they are old and lamed. Kids today can hardly find a job, let alone feeding themselves, and they cannot work legally until 18! Plus 10 months of pregnancy basically puts the mother out of commission for at least half that time, most just can't justify it.

Listen, hominids used to eat their own babes when the situation is desparate enough; hell, we eat each other when it's desparate enough. It shows our primary instinct is self-survival, then familial, then communal & higher. When people are stressed to just survive (or feel like they can't), they won't have kids when they can't afford to raised them.

Is it ethical to bring a kid into the world knowing you cannot feed it to the average standards where you live? I mean, yeah. Duh. If ethics is what is stopping you, kid-having should be the thing you do every day when circumstances allow -- with your consending, legal spouse (or spouses, depending on where you live) of course.

I say it's only unethical to bring a child into this world if one doesn't even want it, and knows he/she will not care to raise it. I've seen too many parents who seemingly have only vile to give their children for the slightest misbehavior to count...
 

RisingThumb

Imaginary manifestation of fun
Joined
Sep 9, 2021
Messages
715
Reaction score
1,761
Awards
173
Website
risingthumb.xyz
I start with my conclusion: I conclude this by saying simply, I condemn antinatalism as another form of the preachers of death(an umbrella term that includes those who preach immortal life and separation from suffering too). I will let Zarathustra elaborate on what the preachers of death are. But to @Ross_Я , @Mеченый Яков , @LSTR-S27916 , I condemn you all as preachers of death. There is such a thing as a good time to have children, and I respect planning it out, but to so swiftly rule it out and absolve yourself of any responsibility for your life and to blame society, economics and anything other than yourself for your own status of your life, is both the mark of a slave and the underground man. The rest speaks for the conclusion:



It seems that at any given point in history the following holds true: world's fucked up, man. No matter what year it is, there is always a reason for which to abstain from having kids, not to mention most people with kids had them for the same reason most people buy pets, that is, an impulsive decision. So, I guess this reduces to, is the world slowly getting better or slowly getting worse? What are your thoughts on the topic?
The old adage... "life is suffering", brings about the other meaning "to suffer is to live", which brings about another meaning "to not suffer is not to live"- thusly you cannot remove suffering from life, and those who wish to remove suffering from life are of that class of the preachers of death. The other point is these preachers of death generalise all suffering to be evil, even the suffering that brings about great beauty- the suffering portrayed by Christ, the suffering in creating the Sistine Chapel, the suffering that went into conquering and settling the world, and even the suffering that goes into raising a child.

Antinatalism, is that ideology that villainises beauty, because it's advocates are ugly, it's advocates have never been given the blessing of life in suffering- after all how can you say you are a "good" person if life has never given you the suffering upon which to test that?
The cost of living is still rising, and many are struggling to even cover their own costs.
This point applies mainly to cities. Move out of a city, urban bugman.
The many negative influences against children such as social media, bleak predictions, societal issues, etc.
This point is the same point as many political people- who instead of taking responsibility blames society. You project negative influence on society because you are that negative influence- you waste away and do not create beauty, or create life and in doing so take up the mantel of a preacher of death.
This is why I have a lot of trouble understanding the absolute contrast in birthrate between developed and developing countries. There are many cases on television, in news, etc., where you see people living in developing countries having a huge amount of children, whether because of lack of contraception or, as you said, out of impulse, yet they live in very poor conditions and struggle in day-to-day life.
It's easy to excuse yourself of responsibility and drown yourself in surrogate activities. After all, plenty of couples do anyway. Additionally the evils of modern feminism and modern leftism encourage sexual promiscuity and birth control(of the killing variety). Granted, I'm not too fussed. It means myself, and my own children will inherit more, and the gene pool will be less dysgenic as they "eugenics themselves and their ideas of death" out of the gene pool and meme pool.
Engaging in parenthood without the requisite capabilities only serves to perpetuate a cycle of suffering. This concern is particularly evident when observing individuals in their early twenties expressing an eagerness to start families hastily. Many lack the necessary mental maturity and stable financial foundation to sustain a family, resulting in the potential imposition of misery upon their offspring.
Projection of your own incapabilities.
From my personal perspective, I have chosen a different path I do not envision myself having children or getting married. This decision is rooted in a deliberate choice to lead a life that aligns with my aspirations and preferences.
Thank you. Your ideas will follow you to your grave priest.
For those of you whose only reason is this for not having children, what is wrong if they will sometimes suffer? We all suffer. But there is more to life than our material conditions, and they will also not be children forever, they turn into fully capable adults. Don't you think it should be better to raise a new generation with people with your own strong values, taught what you know, so that they may be better than you are in doing something about the world, or at least be better at thriving within it?
As a saying goes... "We have not inherited Thule from our ancestors... we have borrowed it from our Children". Regardless, fighting towards any great project on a political, cultural or theological point requires people, and the most people can do is to bring more people with the values they wish to see in their country and in their people... to return what they have borrowed to their children. This inability to see the long the game of their own family, their own community, their country and how it all integrates together, is the inability of most people to work towards any great project.

This is why Christianity and other religions are so appealing to people. It is a great project taking place over many generations(as seen in the multi-generation construction of Cathedrals and great works). These great projects give values to people, and value in Children. Unfortunately Leftism corrodes all these values with a great project of its own... but the pendulum is already swinging back... men are increasingly culturally right wing, and women increasingly culturally left wing, and western economies are leftist, thus producing similar circumstances to the Weimar republic and the birth of the East German Communism, and West German Naziism.

If you wish to be a part of any of these great projects of history, and you want it to continue in living memory and breath, Children are a requirement.

That said, I will throw a curveball here. If values alone were enough to fix a shrinking population.. it raises an excellent question of why the average Mormon family is shrinking too, following in the trends of society? I don't really know.
I'm not having children in this hellhole. Especially when I'm so poor and when the whole world seems to go against what I believe in. I will either doom my children to even more miserable existnce that my is - or see them become a part of everything I hate.
Improve your finances, move some place better, and then have kids- or continue whining as another preacher of death without the capability of the "noble morality", instead with a "slave morality". "It's unviable for me to have children", thus produces the "It's evil to have Children in this world", following the same process that the Master and Slave Moralities follow. The master is master of his destiny and legacy once again- and you are a slave to him, and your bonds forgotten in the sands, just as they were for the Pyramids.
Luckily or not, but we've raised above that. There's a rather unusual, yet, in a sense, quite inspiring ability of a human being to deny the instict of survival and embrace death - whether his own death or the death of his genes.
You praise your own death, and thus you are another preacher of Death. Go, be a part of what you preach- reject new life, and reject your life- living is new life in yourself.
OP the type of guy who would sue his parents for giving birth to him because he never asked for it and it was a selfish decision by them
Absolute clown world that this one Indian court case is popping up more and more these days
"I didn't ask to be born" is equivalent to "I want a life without suffering". You cannot remove suffering from life. Thus they fall to the least amount of suffering, the least amount of life... the lowest form of life they can be. Der üntermensch...
In other words: we must not imagine Sisyphus happy because he is suffering, but because he has the strength inside to meet his suffering, to fight it, to prevail. And we must work to have the same strength inside, and be happy to have the strength.

But we already live. Whether or not we should produce new humans to enter into this suffering is an entirely different question.
If Sisyphus is the only agent of action, with a limited lifespan, and the only agent of happiness, and the only agent of suffering... if he perishes, you are left with a cold and dead world. No suffering, no life, no happiness.

By denying "new humans"(I bet you walk up to women and say "You're a nice female"), you deny suffering, life and happiness, and promote inaction and entropy. Only a miserable creature would deny this... and skulk about more, hissing... like Gollum. No suffering is his "precious" and his suffering. Such frail hostile creatures Buddhists and all those who revere the removal of suffering become!
I must add, that I hope this is true. History indeed repeats itself and we just happend to live in one of the bad periods. Still, this doesn't make me want to continue my line. Especially today, when there are 8 billion people on the planet. I must remind you that first billion has only been reached in the year 1800. I'm pretty sure most of you are familiar with this:
This is the Malthusian argument. You misrepresent resources as linear and humans as exponential... No, they are not! Resources are not linear! Every time I hear some idiot repeat the Malthusian argument I feel my brain cells dying. It is another pamphlet of the preachers of death. Additionally, this relates to @vermillion 's point on resources being limited... Be careful how you describe resource limitations because it depends on both how they grow and the geopolitics of a nation.
The cost of living is waaaaaayyyy up in developed countries
Bugman rentoid complains about city pricing being for cities. Sort out your finances and move out, or rot in the city with the rest of them. It's only hard if you make a bed out of your complaints.
there's no financial incentive to raise children unless one is financially secure
What about your care when you are elderly? The Chinese recognise this very well, that having children is not just a propagation of legacy and family name, but also an efficient way of teaching children via the elders, and providing care for the elders. It's understandable if you haven't seen an Asian family, or if you've only been exposed to the hyper-individualistic western way of thinking, but it's very short-sighted to the decade to view children this way.
Listen, hominids used to eat their own babes when the situation is desparate enough; hell, we eat each other when it's desparate enough. It shows our primary instinct is self-survival, then familial, then communal & higher. When people are stressed to just survive (or feel like they can't), they won't have kids when they can't afford to raised them.
They're stressed because they're crammed into pods in cities. Look at Italy and Japan as examples. There's places in the country(and goodness gracious, what a scenic and beautiful country they both have!) where you can very cheaply afford land and a house if you develop the house and improve it because all the elderly are dying off in the country, and all the children and adults move into cities for education and jobs that on paper look like they pay very well(but really it's the cheese to the rat trap).

If you're stressed in a city... again, just move out bro.
I say it's only unethical to bring a child into this world if one doesn't even want it, and knows he/she will not care to raise it. I've seen too many parents who seemingly have only vile to give their children for the slightest misbehavior to count...
I say it's only unethical if the two don't want, not the one- but often enough those two are preachers of death anyway corroding the meaning of relationships anyway with their meaningless casual sex. They'd probably pop an antibaby pill...

We conclude as we started.
 
Virtual Cafe Awards

microbyte

Active Traveler
Joined
Jun 18, 2023
Messages
157
Reaction score
420
Awards
58
Website
microbyte.neocities.org
In other words: we must not imagine Sisyphus happy because he is suffering, but because he has the strength inside to meet his suffering, to fight it, to prevail. And we must work to have the same strength inside, and be happy to have the strength.
Yes, and we can not have this without suffering, ergo suffering is necessary for happiness.
Especially today, when there are 8 billion people on the planet
That shouldn't have any substantial impact on having children. The population grows as carrying capacity grows, which grows as population grows. There is nothing inherently wrong (nor good) about 8 billion people being on this planet.
I sincerely believe the world is way more unfairer to the average Joe today than it was before.
I disagree. Sure maybe a little while ago it was better, but you still had all the problems with the USSR, the Cold War, etc. and it certainly wasn't better during the Great Depression nor the feudal era. When disease ran rampant and everything was terrible, that was not better. When you had no choice but to work for a feudal lord, that was not better. Possibly hunter-gatherers could be said to have had it better, but I don't fully agree with this.
 

alCannium27

Active Traveler
Joined
Feb 15, 2023
Messages
185
Reaction score
299
Awards
61
I start with my conclusion: I conclude this by saying simply, I condemn antinatalism as another form of the preachers of death(an umbrella term that includes those who preach immortal life and separation from suffering too). I will let Zarathustra elaborate on what the preachers of death are. But to @Ross_Я , @Mеченый Яков , @LSTR-S27916 , I condemn you all as preachers of death. There is such a thing as a good time to have children, and I respect planning it out, but to so swiftly rule it out and absolve yourself of any responsibility for your life and to blame society, economics and anything other than yourself for your own status of your life, is both the mark of a slave and the underground man. The rest speaks for the conclusion:




The old adage... "life is suffering", brings about the other meaning "to suffer is to live", which brings about another meaning "to not suffer is not to live"- thusly you cannot remove suffering from life, and those who wish to remove suffering from life are of that class of the preachers of death. The other point is these preachers of death generalise all suffering to be evil, even the suffering that brings about great beauty- the suffering portrayed by Christ, the suffering in creating the Sistine Chapel, the suffering that went into conquering and settling the world, and even the suffering that goes into raising a child.

Antinatalism, is that ideology that villainises beauty, because it's advocates are ugly, it's advocates have never been given the blessing of life in suffering- after all how can you say you are a "good" person if life has never given you the suffering upon which to test that?

This point applies mainly to cities. Move out of a city, urban bugman.

This point is the same point as many political people- who instead of taking responsibility blames society. You project negative influence on society because you are that negative influence- you waste away and do not create beauty, or create life and in doing so take up the mantel of a preacher of death.

It's easy to excuse yourself of responsibility and drown yourself in surrogate activities. After all, plenty of couples do anyway. Additionally the evils of modern feminism and modern leftism encourage sexual promiscuity and birth control(of the killing variety). Granted, I'm not too fussed. It means myself, and my own children will inherit more, and the gene pool will be less dysgenic as they "eugenics themselves and their ideas of death" out of the gene pool and meme pool.

Projection of your own incapabilities.

Thank you. Your ideas will follow you to your grave priest.

As a saying goes... "We have not inherited Thule from our ancestors... we have borrowed it from our Children". Regardless, fighting towards any great project on a political, cultural or theological point requires people, and the most people can do is to bring more people with the values they wish to see in their country and in their people... to return what they have borrowed to their children. This inability to see the long the game of their own family, their own community, their country and how it all integrates together, is the inability of most people to work towards any great project.

This is why Christianity and other religions are so appealing to people. It is a great project taking place over many generations(as seen in the multi-generation construction of Cathedrals and great works). These great projects give values to people, and value in Children. Unfortunately Leftism corrodes all these values with a great project of its own... but the pendulum is already swinging back... men are increasingly culturally right wing, and women increasingly culturally left wing, and western economies are leftist, thus producing similar circumstances to the Weimar republic and the birth of the East German Communism, and West German Naziism.

If you wish to be a part of any of these great projects of history, and you want it to continue in living memory and breath, Children are a requirement.

That said, I will throw a curveball here. If values alone were enough to fix a shrinking population.. it raises an excellent question of why the average Mormon family is shrinking too, following in the trends of society? I don't really know.

Improve your finances, move some place better, and then have kids- or continue whining as another preacher of death without the capability of the "noble morality", instead with a "slave morality". "It's unviable for me to have children", thus produces the "It's evil to have Children in this world", following the same process that the Master and Slave Moralities follow. The master is master of his destiny and legacy once again- and you are a slave to him, and your bonds forgotten in the sands, just as they were for the Pyramids.

You praise your own death, and thus you are another preacher of Death. Go, be a part of what you preach- reject new life, and reject your life- living is new life in yourself.

"I didn't ask to be born" is equivalent to "I want a life without suffering". You cannot remove suffering from life. Thus they fall to the least amount of suffering, the least amount of life... the lowest form of life they can be. Der üntermensch...

If Sisyphus is the only agent of action, with a limited lifespan, and the only agent of happiness, and the only agent of suffering... if he perishes, you are left with a cold and dead world. No suffering, no life, no happiness.

By denying "new humans"(I bet you walk up to women and say "You're a nice female"), you deny suffering, life and happiness, and promote inaction and entropy. Only a miserable creature would deny this... and skulk about more, hissing... like Gollum. No suffering is his "precious" and his suffering. Such frail hostile creatures Buddhists and all those who revere the removal of suffering become!

This is the Malthusian argument. You misrepresent resources as linear and humans as exponential... No, they are not! Resources are not linear! Every time I hear some idiot repeat the Malthusian argument I feel my brain cells dying. It is another pamphlet of the preachers of death. Additionally, this relates to @vermillion 's point on resources being limited... Be careful how you describe resource limitations because it depends on both how they grow and the geopolitics of a nation.

Bugman rentoid complains about city pricing being for cities. Sort out your finances and move out, or rot in the city with the rest of them. It's only hard if you make a bed out of your complaints.

What about your care when you are elderly? The Chinese recognise this very well, that having children is not just a propagation of legacy and family name, but also an efficient way of teaching children via the elders, and providing care for the elders. It's understandable if you haven't seen an Asian family, or if you've only been exposed to the hyper-individualistic western way of thinking, but it's very short-sighted to the decade to view children this way.

They're stressed because they're crammed into pods in cities. Look at Italy and Japan as examples. There's places in the country(and goodness gracious, what a scenic and beautiful country they both have!) where you can very cheaply afford land and a house if you develop the house and improve it because all the elderly are dying off in the country, and all the children and adults move into cities for education and jobs that on paper look like they pay very well(but really it's the cheese to the rat trap).

If you're stressed in a city... again, just move out bro.

I say it's only unethical if the two don't want, not the one- but often enough those two are preachers of death anyway corroding the meaning of relationships anyway with their meaningless casual sex. They'd probably pop an antibaby pill...

We conclude as we started.
Annnnnnnnnd this just makes me support antinatalism

First, let me address your narrow-minded view of the "Chinese Mindset": as a Chinese living in China, I will declare to you most of my collegues are not having children. Most women I know are over 30 and either single and not a mother, or a wife and not a mother. Because there's no way they are paying for all the mandatory costs for raising even a single child. The CCP has recently officially announced that China has entered the era of aging society. The Chinese is well aware that when they are older, they will be left helpless because the children haven't bee able to support their parents for decades.

From pregnancy to college, the cost can easily be over several million yuan, which is eating out of housing costs (which is still not lowered enough) as well as medical costs (medicare is now busted). Everyone lives with mortgages because it had been so for two decades and now people are worrying how to pay them back. The YA-to-middle-age generations of middle class Chinese couple are struggling to support four parents with two persons' salaries, and they cannot afford neither the time nor the resources to provide the elderly care.

Elder care has in fact, become one of the most urgent issues in China precisely because of the infrastructure of healthcare cannot hope to handle all the uncare for old people. In fact, the CCP recently raised retirement age, aimed to reach 70 for men and 65 for women in 10 years. People will literally work until they are dead and have no savings for themselves -- who's gonna care for the parents?

And second: moving out -- you Americans, you think work culture everywhere allows for remote working? You think living in the countryside is like the Suburbia in the U.S.A.? I have cousins who live in the villages -- they have no opportunity nor prospects for social mobility without education, and education levels in the rural areas are poor and thus never produces people who went to the colleges that gives a certified diplomate. You want your kids to succeed? Send them to the cities and shell out the expenses for living and studying there -- and they almost never do unless they have relatives living in the cities.

Do you fucking think financial stress is bullshit? "Sort out your finances" -- sort out your prospects, more like. Move out from the cities, bro, and you will have nothing. Not even a house can you afford because you are mortaged up your ass and you own no land elsewhere.

You sound like the kind of up-the-ass snobs whose parents give them positions in their family-owned multi-million companies, who always thought anything is possible because "I've done it myself". The parents of those kids actually knows how hard it was to do it themselves.

God damn, another day humanity outlives its usefulness