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.
