Is it even ethical to have children?

[Some_porcupine]

This is why I ended up calling OP a fag because that what the thread emanates from and I'm honest to God sick of it. A majority of these people likely have no desire or drive because God knows what complexity in their lives got them there but all of which stems of from fear itself and the desire to isolate as to not hurt themselves or anyone, in effect; it's a Hedgehog's Dilemma scenario in one sense and they let the world roll over them if it means a form of self-preservation, (whatever that means to them) from whatever they fear from and I say this coming from experience and as someone who has lived as a hermit for God knows how long. We all know the long-term effects of isolation can do on a person's mental health and wellbeing and it's the fact that people are choosing to go extreme degrees of such that pisses me off.

Let's Gamble YT Algo! (prev. cookies, pipelines and ego-traps of [/gen] echo-chambers)

Inu2u - involuntary user to user Do you use YouTube, are you signed in, do you click agora videos that were shared? Then you might have noticed that (hopes it is not only me) within few days, the videos you watched, - maybe you posted them, too, on agora, or even not - have been reposted by...

forum.agoraroad.com

View: https://youtu.be/bpIHpZN7WJM?t=258

 

[LostintheCycle]

Once again: you do not need to have kids to bash your ideas into other people's heads.

It helps in passing it down through time, which I think is very important. Though, that's just an extra, and I don't understand why this was an argument for having children in the first place, because it's an awful one.

 

[Ross_Я]

It helps in passing it down through time, which I think is very important.

It's gonna be me repeating myself again, I believe, but it only helps if you manage to write that ideology in your kids' minds in the first place, and there are literally zero guarantess your kids won't turn 180 degrees away from you at some point. Fathers And Sons is a name of the novel for a reason.

It's pessimism, pure pure pessimism. I forgot who said it, but I know I've seen the quote before, but it mentions how pessimists win by doing absolutely nothing and from what I checked, is in tandem with depression which makes sense given the current state of the attitudes and culture of the United States and elsewhere in the western world in the past 10 or 60 years or more depending on who you ask.

This is why I ended up calling OP a fag because that what the thread emanates from and I'm honest to God sick of it.

So, you, like, hate depressive people or something? I don't get it.

 

[Hadrian Hardrada Cicero]

It's gonna be me repeating myself again, I believe, but it only helps if you manage to write that ideology in your kids' minds in the first place, and there are literally zero guarantess your kids won't turn 180 degrees away from you at some point. Fathers And Sons is a name of the novel for a reason.


So, you, like, hate depressive people or something? I don't get it.

Please read the rest of the post instead of picking bits of it sir.

 

[Ross_Я]

Please read the rest of the post instead of picking bits of it sir.

I've read it several times and didn't understand who's your jab is aimed at. That's specifically why I am asking.

Edit: I mean, here, here's your post:

This is why I ended up calling OP a fag because that what the thread emanates from and I'm honest to God sick of it. A majority of these people likely have no desire or drive because God knows what complexity in their lives got them there but all of which stems of from fear itself and the desire to isolate as to not hurt themselves or anyone, in effect; it's a Hedgehog's Dilemma scenario in one sense and they let the world roll over them if it means a form of self-preservation, (whatever that means to them) from whatever they fear from and I say this coming from experience and as someone who has lived as a hermit for God knows how long. We all know the long-term effects of isolation can do on a person's mental health and wellbeing and it's the fact that people are choosing to go extreme degrees of such that pisses me off.

You just proceed to say that depressive pessimistic people are just a bunch of scared losers that prefer isolate themselves in your opinion and that pisses you off.

And then you shill your favorite anime or something.

Really, I'm ready to admit my english sucks. What, what am I missing here? Genuine interest, I'm not fighting you here.

 

[LostintheCycle]

It's gonna be me repeating myself again, I believe, but it only helps if you manage to write that ideology in your kids' minds in the first place, and there are literally zero guarantess your kids won't turn 180 degrees away from you at some point.

Well chop my balls and blow my brains out, because there's no point in doing something without a perfect guarantee.

I've read it several times and didn't understand who's your jab is aimed at.

Read this:

This is why I ended up calling OP a fag

 

[eris]

Kids shouldn't be brought into the world cause there's a chance they might have to read this thread

 

[Ross_Я]

Well chop my balls and blow my brains out, because there's no point in doing something without a perfect guarantee.

I've never said that.

Read this:

Well, that sounded weird if that is all it was about.

 

[LostintheCycle]

I've never said that.

Then whats THIS???

Jokes aside.. here is what my sarcastic shitpost meant.

It's gonna be me repeating myself again, I believe, but it only helps if you manage to write that ideology in your kids' minds in the first place, and there are literally zero guarantess your kids won't turn 180 degrees away from you at some point.

Of course there are no guarantees; it is a true fact, but I do not think it's meaningful to just point that out, and it is sort of obvious..

 

[Ross_Я]

Of course there are no guarantees; it is a true fact, but I do not think it's meaningful to just point that out, and it is sort of obvious..

Half of this thread is sort of obvious points with RisingThumb giving me advices that stand in one line with "if you're homeless - buy a house". I'm just using it to raise my post count at this point since I have nothing better to do at the moment. On another hand though, why not? Sometimes most obvious things go unnoticed, so it is useful to repeat them on ocassion. Like, if you know some software really well, you might now very complex commands and scrips, advanced tech and what not, but sometimes basics might slip through your fingers as a result.

Darn, that Я letter looks awful in the standart theme...

 

[Vitnira]

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 to kill yourself, not to mention most people who don't kill themselves do it for the same reason most people buy pets, that is, an impulsive decision.
As someone who's apart of the group who is interested in killing myself it's that the current state of the world isn't good, and because of that we don't want to continue living. 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 people 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 not kill myself in a world where those issues will likely get worse as time goes on, especially with the extreme weather.

Living represents a colossal undertaking, and if one is not inherently prepared to live responsibly, it is imperative to refrain from living. Engaging in living 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 make life decisions hastily. Many lack the necessary mental maturity and stable financial foundation to sustain living, resulting in the potential imposition of misery upon themselves.

From my personal perspective, I have chosen a different path I do not envision myself continuing to live. This decision is rooted in a deliberate choice to lead a life that aligns with my aspirations and preferences.

I'm not continuing to not kill myself 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 life to even more miserable existnce that my is - or see myself become a part of everything I hate.

But we already live. Whether or not we should continue living to continue this suffering is an entirely different question.
Moral or not, it's financially unviable to keep living 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 being alive is siginificantly lower and the working age is also lower, there's no financial incentive to continue being alive unless one is financially secure, and without opportunities, only a select few can afford to not kill themselves.

IMHO not-killing-yourself is a strategy, not for genetic legacy, but gratification.

Eh... we've got what, 8 billion people on this planet? I think we're good. We need less, we should start killing ourselves.

 

[Vitnira]

Less shitposty, a quote from this article about independence and community really stuck with me:

In a natural human life cycle, we begin as dependent babies, spend a very brief period as relatively independent young adults, before caring for our own dependent children, and then ultimately ending our lives in what Shakespeare called our "second childishness." Modern contraception has allowed us to artificially stretch out that young adult stage, giving the illusion that independence is our permanent state. But it isn't – it's nothing more than a blip, which some of us will never experience at all.

Another goodun:

At a societal level, we can be rich, or we can be communitarian. I don't think we can be both – at least, not for long. The Baby Boomers came closest to enjoying both simultaneously, but only because they were born during an ideological changing of the guard. They enjoyed the high trust, family-centric culture cultivated by their parents and grandparents, and then got to enjoy the youthful rejection of all of that culture's downsides.

But that's a trick that can only be pulled once. Historian (and Baby Boomer) Jon Lawrence is kidding himself when he tries to have it both ways:

"[W]e should read the widespread nostalgia for community as powerful evidence that people want to find a way to reconcile personal freedom – the right not to have to conform to the expectations of strangers (or indeed of family) – with a deeper sense of social connection.⁠"

I have bad news on this front: those things are irreconcilable. You cannot promote a culture of optionality, and then also expect people to choose you when you become a dull and onerous option. You cannot buy solitude when it suits you, and then try and buy back company when it does not, because company of the sincere and intimate kind cannot be bought.

And finally:

If we're entering an era of post-affluence – and I'm sorry to say that we probably are – we can expect the decline of The Villages and the rise of actual villages: local networks of social obligation that provide mutual support when people cannot rely on the state's surplus. It's how people have lived for most of human history, after all. But reinventing those systems is likely to prove hard, and it will carry costs. If the Baby Boomers enjoyed a fun kind of changing of the guard, young people today are likely to experience the same process in reverse: declining affluence, combined with shredded social capital. Loneliness and poverty.

I don't expect these to convince any strong anti-natalists in this thread (inb4 "we do plenty of unnatural things"), it's more for others to mull over.

 

[eris]

Realtalk though on the topic of this thread:

I am in the middleground, can't imagine adding additional humans to heaving overstuffed world without them having any say in the matter, but if I ever get the urge and feel capable of not fucking up at being a parent I'd just adopt a kid. So many kids out there already who don't have anyone looking out for them, seems cruel to ignore them just to add one more so you can say they're "yours".

e: I say this mostly because my mom went into foster caring for the $$$ and proceeded to treat the kids just as terribly as she treat me. I don't think fostering works particularly better than an orphanage imo, cause of the way it's advertised (i.e. get free money for looking after wards of the state). It leads people to go into it with the wrong motivations and I felt awful for those kids. Told the truth about how she was with me when they re-interviewed me at some point and she just managed to wriggle out of it.

 

[Ross_Я]

Modern contraception has allowed us to artificially stretch out that young adult stage, giving the illusion that independence is our permanent state.

What a load of nonsense. Contraception (and abortion, by the way) are well known since at least 2000 BC - yes, Ancient Egypt again. Not to mention the most effective method of them all - just don't have sex. Monks and religious abstinence have existed in pretty much every known religion of them all.

(inb4 "we do plenty of unnatural things")

Obviously. What do you expect, sitting there with a wunderwaffle that allows you to throw your ideas into minds of people half a world away from you. Any argument that starts with "in a natural human life cycle" goes straight out of the window in this day and age.

 

[Vitnira]

Realtalk though on the topic of this thread:

I am in the middleground, can't imagine adding additional humans to heaving overstuffed world without them having any say in the matter, but if I ever get the urge and feel capable of not fucking up at being a parent I'd just adopt a kid. So many kids out there already who don't have anyone looking out for them, seems cruel to ignore them just to add one more so you can say they're "yours".

e: I say this mostly because my mom went into foster caring for the $$$ and proceeded to treat the kids just as terribly as she treat me. I don't think fostering works particularly better than an orphanage imo, cause of the way it's advertised (i.e. get free money for looking after wards of the state). It leads people to go into it with the wrong motivations and I felt awful for those kids. Told the truth about how she was with me when they re-interviewed me at some point and she just managed to wriggle out of it.

The US foster/adoption system is beyond fucked up. You can get paid to temporarily take care of kids, but if you want to adopt them that'll be over 30k, background checks, and years of paperwork. I assume it's an attempt to prevent child trafficking?

I know several families who have either adopted, fostered, are attempting to adopt, or have given up on adoption. In the US it's damn near impossible and not worth it. If you want kids the system is set up that you have to make your own. It's only worth it to adopt if you can't have children and really, really want a family. Which is incredibly sad since like I said I know several couples who would be great parents that are robbed of the opportunity due to overregulation, and obviously thousands of children who would much rather have a stable home over a financially-incentivized foster system. One couple is struggling to adopt the daughters they're fostering but they tell me it looks like a lost cause and they'll be moved on at some point.

Boils my blood.

 

[eris]

The US foster/adoption system is beyond fucked up. You can get paid to temporarily take care of kids, but if you want to adopt them that'll be over 30k, background checks, and years of paperwork. I assume it's an attempt to prevent child trafficking?

I know several families who have either adopted, fostered, are attempting to adopt, or have given up on adoption. In the US it's damn near impossible and not worth it. If you want kids the system is set up that you have to make your own. It's only worth it to adopt if you can't have children and really, really want a family. Which is incredibly sad since like I said I know several couples who would be great parents that are robbed of the opportunity due to overregulation, and obviously thousands of children who would much rather have a stable home over a financially-incentivized foster system. One couple is struggling to adopt the daughters they're fostering but they tell me it looks like a lost cause and they'll be moved on at some point.

Boils my blood.

Background checks and paperwork are common in my jurisdiction but the idea of being forced to pay money is absurd.

 

[PraxHeadroom]

Force all antinatalists to watch Texhnolyze

This looks cool as fuck, it's going in my backlog to be forgotten forever.

Men are not angels nor are they devils

They can be your angle or yuor devil

 

[Shogun_Mosquito]

Whether it's ethical to have children derives from one's own ethics. If your ethics stem from a traditional community-based viewpoint, yes. If a modern solo/no responsibility viewpoint, perhaps not.

I think regardless the viewpoint, the real question should be "should x have children" might be more applicable. I've worked with and seen many adults who should never have become parents, and unfortunately for people like that, children are opt-out out not opt-in. But for the solid, responsible, thoughtful people? I would make the argument that passing on those characteristics and having mini-thems to *hopefullly* further those characteristics in society is worth it.

With this viewpoint, even with over-population or "the world is shit" arguments, it's the effort to make the world just a bit better of a place. Not everyone needs to be a parent, but I don't think there's harm in a good-faithed attempt at it. Strictly choosing to abstain from children solely because you think the world is shit is sort of like complaining you live in a shitty apartment but insist only working 2 days a week at the local Taco Bell.

 

[CROSSFIT BUFFYOKER]

Life is the most important and monumental gift you can give.
Obviously there are many who aren't emotionally or financially equipped to be parents.
But to those who are: Would you rather be extinguished and forgotten, or leave a legacy?
You CAN make the world a better place.

Through a wider lens - birthrates in developed regions of the world are declining, despite what the statistics may lead on. Young people are necessary to keep the gears turning.

 

[Lolcow]

It's ethical to have children if you have a good reason to, to leave a legacy. But you don't need to have kids to do that. You have your own life, so why not prove you deserve a legacy by contributing something out of your own will and creativity, before you invest half your lifeforce into someone you cannot control, and who is very likely to choose their own path, unless you've set a strong example? I thought by now Zoomers would have begun to consider parenthood as an occupation, an optional role rather than an inevitable stage of life, but I see no indication of this. I think the natural longing for parenthood may simply be too strong to ignore, even when it's feeding its own destruction. The old function of parenthood just isn't applicable anymore. Family values are meaningless; descent does not mean legacy. Most children will be unrecognizable. Creating more life is exhausting resources and accelerating the destruction of the environment. The current system cannot sustain itself. There can only be so many temporary solutions (really just stalling) before the fact becomes self-evident.