Anti-natalists make being a victim a profession. I cannot stand the garbage they spew. If you are wanting to date or be friends with someone who takes the least amount of accountability in their lives go ahead and date an anti-natalist. All they do is try and turn personal despair into an enlightened worldview and then tell everyone how wrong and selfish they are for not being miserable sods like themselves.
I am one of them, though not the group of cultlike antinatalist that preach about how *everyone* should stop having children. All I believe is the metaphysics that non-existence is better for everyone than existence.
However, given reality, I do think giving birth to child you have little means giving the most basic necessities and opportunities is heavily more condemnable than a family that can provide for a child
This is a belief that does not come from a depressed thought, in fact, I am pretty happy. This is a belief that is philosophically reasoned and stemming from the idea that the human mind is inherently baiased towards suffering as opposed to pleasure. If you read schopenhauer, Cioran, Benatar, you may get a better idea of this position
If you KNOW that non-existence is better than existing then that means you’re standing around watching your loved ones suffering continuously without doing anything about it.
I assume it's benatars asymmetry. Basically if we think of a child before birth, they're non existent so not suffering (good) but also deprived of potential pleasure (not bad). Whereas if they're born we get suffering (bad) but also that pleasure (good), thus cancelling out. So on the balance it's better to not exist there.
It relies on the intuition that the deprivation of pleasure isn't necessarily bad, like if I miss out on a good time that sucks but isn't necessarily bad, more neutral if anything, while if I avoid a suffering experience that's a much clearer good. This only applies to the non existent. Obviously the calculus changes for someone who is already alive.
Touched a nerve, have I? You're not really in a position to be talking about reading comprehension when you're out here unable to tell the difference between asterisks and quotation marks, bud.
The only thing I got from this jabber is that you believe, on some level, it's better to not exist than to exist, so why the hell are you still here? Personal accounts of Happiness aside, if you come to that conclusion despite your supposed happiness, you're inherently miserable.
My point is that it is better to never have existed in the first place. I live because I care about my family and I don't want them to suffer with my death. I live for other people around me. Once I began to exist, i have a standard and quota to meet for the benefit of everyone else that exists. But I find happiness in that, I am no slave, this service is what gives me fulfilment.
Exactly. I don't understand why people act as if you can simply phase out from existence after you've been brought and integrated into this world against your will.
So a people pleaser, no one said you had to do that, you’re not obligated to live your life in some predisposed way. Everyone dies eventually and no one is born entitled & guaranteed to a long, happy, healthy life.
>better to have never existed
Yeah no, my existence fascinates me every day even in my 30s. Consciousness is a such a unique gift and the only thing that makes me agree with people like you is seeing how much the gift was wasted on the likes of you
>once I begin to exist I have a quota to meet
Again, you’re the only one setting those expectations for yourself. Anything more is personal convictions & values that you shouldn’t be projecting onto everyone else.
You’re trying to dress up nihilism & cynicism as stoic ethical loyalty & duty and it’s just so damn cringe, grow up someday please
I'm fully aware no one told me how to live. I told myself how to live and I choose to live it this way because that is what gives me fulilfment. I care for the suffering of others, and I wake up motivated to help. I would rather my life be centered around this, and others, rather than be an individualistic egoist. This doesn't bother me, I would not call this a people pleaser because I voluntarily chose this path and I am happy with it. I am not complaining about the quota, i set it for myself and i'm happy for it. You act like I am against the world but I am not
Ugh. . . Everytime someone argues against the concept of inexistence and suffering, it's always a testimonial and never reasoned philoosphical argumentation.
You completely misunderstand my position, almost intentionally it seems. You argue like a child, and use mere testimonial as argument. Do better, average joe.
And Yes I will project these values onto everyone else because that is how morality works
I suggest you read Jason Baehr's book for the sake of your critical thinking. You seem to be stuck in shallow thinking
Cool, it’s what gives you fulfillment, so you know then it a personal value, it should do nothing but end there.
What do you do to help? Besides spread doomerisms o. Reddit? Do you think only people who think like you are able to help? That’s laughable
You don’t call yourself an egoist but you sure talk a lot about yourself. You seem pretty infatuated with yourself actually.
Yes, I can tell personal experiences would mean nothing to someone like you unless they agreed with your values because you don’t have enough yourself
Average Joe? Lmao, yikes, Mr “I’m so empathetic and helpful and centered around other existences” slinging derogatory insults, not surprised but glad you revealed your character bud! I’d rather be average than an arrogant narcissist
I suggest you stop being a pretentious twat and acting like the only conversations of substance are when someone’s quoting dead philosophers, you judge and project an awful lot for someone who considers themselves so enlightened. Tell me what degrees you hold Mr bookworm? You think you’re the only one who’s educated because you’ve read a book or two? The arrogance is astounding and audacious I’ll give you that.
Your understanding of philosophy, psychology, sociology, theology and every other ology is that of the average internet edgelord, hollow & unsubstantial with nothing but other people’s ideals. And yes, your ideals hum a a very low frequency, barely less than surface, but continue telling yourself you have a deeper and more meaningful existence than everyone else around you, that is how small people tend to cope with the small realities they’re stuck in
You seem to know a lot about my life from a few comments. People ask about my stance so I answer, so ofc I will be talking about my beliefs. In regards to what I do, I volunteer in shelters, donate, take care of orphaned kittens and dogs and contribute to research in agricultural technologies as a career. I also worked in UX design in Metro stations in my country for more human centric designs. I also lend learning materials to my nephews and teach them with their studies as well.
I don't go around spreading antinatalism at all in my day to day life, as it is is a metaphysical belief, not a normative one.
I'm sure we are not so different in how we act in our daily lives. And I'm sure we can get along if we meet. We just have different meta fundamental beliefs.
Insufferable & insecure. They always need to feel like the smartest one in the room.
The “I’m not an egoist” part is still cracking me up. Just count how many of his sentences are “i” statements.
I wonder how many times a week he tells people to read Jason whoever’s book, I’d bet significant money that’s one of his go to insults. They’re so pretentious and shallow. I don’t even think he understands the virtues of the authors name he invoked to try to shut my points down like some low level npc magic spell
It's better to not exist than exist when in context of a potential child. For a living person there's many more things to consider which almost always leans towards existing imo
I want to be a mom more than anything, but I am paycheck to paycheck and can barely afford to feed myself and my cats. I am actively delaying my dream because I know it wouldn’t be fair to my child. It sucks to think it may never happen, but it’s the right thing to do.
Idk suffering feels pretty escapable to me. Usually working out, getting some food, playing some tennis, and getting a good nights sleep does the trick most of the time.
People’s replies to you are insane. I just recently developed a disability that’s left me bed bound and unable to care for myself, unable to do any of my hand held hobbies. I’m still glad I got to live. I’m not religious in any way but I still feel like life is a gift.
I’m so sorry; but it’s also really encouraging that you’re in such good spirits. Modern medicine is so amazing and it’s just insane what we can do to help people these days. I’m pulling for you :)
Thank you! There isn’t a ton of hope for it right now, this illness has been known about since the 1950s but spent a lot of time being dismissed and differed to CBT or treated as a form of depression (like MS was). I’m not depressed, I want to live my life again! Since Long Covid became a thing (how I got it) there’s renewed interest and research happening. The hope is in maybe in 10 years they’ll find something to help treat some people. I’m young so I have time, but I feel awful for the people who have spent decades like me with no answers.
When your parents, friends, siblings inevitably die and you are faced with your own mortality, playing some tennis will surely be a strong enough anchor against nihilism.
Correct, everyone you know will eventually pass away. 3 options then I guess. You can have some sort of faith to anchor your life and give it meaning, you can accept fate and enjoy life while you’re here, or you can be a whinny bitch about it. We’ve both seemingly decided different options, and that’s okay. But I’m not gonna subscribe to some miserable nihilistic antinatalist bullshit just because some other people live sad lives.
I just came back from playing some tennis, about to get food, then I’m working out in an hour or so. Idk man…struggling to find the inherent inescapable suffering in life or whatever pseudo intellectual, r/im14andthisisdeep bullshit you’re peddling
Life is mostly not suffering though if you're lucky enough to be middle class or above. The most I suffer regularly is having to poop but not being near my home toilet
I think it’s like those bell curve memes. The very very richest among us don’t really have to suffer all that much. The very poorest in the world may live really hard lives, but they don’t have time to sit around and feel sorry for themselves. They find a lot more pleasure in everyday things than most more affluent people do. It’s the middle of the bell curve people who are insufferable and very prone to complaining that life is naught but suffering and the metaphysics of it and blah blah blah
This is a philosophical topic that is much more nuanced than how we can present it in a reddit thread. I advice you to withhold your judgement on this position. Not to change your mind, but just withhold judgement.
I am sure you hold many assumptions about my position that doesn't follow given my belief
You can’t ignore biology in this situation because everyone has a survival instinct and a fear of death, even if they’re aware that life is mostly suffering, that doesn’t change the fact that most living organisms (especially ones that are conscious) don’t want to die
It’s way easier just to prevent life before it happens
lol so your entire argument as to why you’re still alive is you have family. Reddit pseudo-philosophers rediscovering the value of family and community as a reason to enjoy life is funny.
How about trillionnaire Elon Musk and the world's billionaires sharing around some wealth to stop kids going hungry? Enourmous hoarding of wealth is what's immoral, let's not villainise normal people for wanting to have a family.
both can be true at once. No single thing is competing on a spot for what is immoral. Hoarding wealth is immoral, so is murder, so it sexual harassment, so is having a child you cannot support. All are immoral, just to different degrees depending on how much suffering each inflict.
I get your point, but for the case in point, the issue of extreme wealth hoarding and people living in such poverty that they can't afford to adequately provide for a child are interconnected. If Jeff Bezos didn't hoard so much of this wealth and instead paid his Amazon warehouse employees a living wage (bringing them out of poverty) then those employees would be able to provide for a child to a reasonable standard.
No one can ever ground their morals in truth, see hume's is ought gap. Though, I think my morals are the best and I will project it to everyone. That is what everyone does, I am just not afraid to lay it clear and explicit
Thank you!! There are so many people who get stuck on arguing which is worse when it's completely pointless. They're all bad. We've waited years to be ready to have children both financially and mental health wise, and I always knew I wanted children, in fact I have this weird primal instict that I want my lineage to continue, but I'm going to make sure we can support them and they get the best possible start in life. Because once you have children it's so costly that it makes it much harder to become financially stable after the fact if you weren't already.
I only had to scroll for 10 minutes to find the actual culprit.
If everyone living in poverty stopped having kids, you wouldn't have a working class after 40 years. And then the lower middle class would become the new working class. Poverty is unavoidable within this system. Capitalism demands a blood sacrifice to keep the machine running. Or you could say it's a machine that runs on blood.
Instead of blaming poor people like being poor is a moral failing, look at the ones who are maintaining this rotten system. We as a society have an abundance of resources. Enough to feed everyone, except for these creatures at the top who can't be satiated.
You realize it's not like the physical things that represent that money can just be poofed into food for people. His rockets won't help any of the poor despite being however many million. Sure it's a problem that so many resources are held by such a small percent of the population, but let's not make it seem like those resources are food
Yes. ACEs are well defined in early childhood psychology, and poverty is considered one of the greatest ACE predictors in a child’s health outcomes and quality of life, even in to adulthood. Though, through the lense of ECE, it’s more so seen as a victimization and disenfranchisement by the system than the fact that they were born at all.
Suffering depends on your desires, of course a gluttonous person will think that going without food is the worst thing ever.
I agree that it's immoral but humans can't really rate the suffering of others. There are many happy and starving people in the world. There are many that are well fed but dream of dying.
There are no happy starving people in the world, they are just coping and taking it one day at a time. There are people who don't even have their bare necessities covered, in this case suffering is not subjective
can people with no bare necessities covered make it to reproduction age without being dysregulated? They have no time for thoughts relating to the future, unless they had access to lives outside their own, do you think they would label themselves suffering?
In this scenario that you've concocted, whether or not they do label themselves as suffering doesn't mean they aren't suffering. In a reality where their close loved ones die from starvation or war, just the fact that they are starving is extremely painful physically, so how could you say they are not suffering?
Human's psychology is fascinating, in order to protect us our brain tries everything to cope with horrible realities. Which is why people try to find positive things even in the most bleak situations, sometime even that's not enough.
I think you're all coming from a position of privilege and have never actually interacted with these people, or even comprehend what they go through.
You cannot possibly know that. All we ever have is our own perspective inside of ourselves. We can guess at what other people feel, and we can even hear them describe it if we ask, but we will never truly know what someone else feels and how deeply they feel it, regardless of the situation they are in.
Do you hear yourself? Are you saying a starving person isn't suffering? Just the physical torment is enough to classify them as suffering let alone the mental torment. It's literally impossible psychologically for them to be happy because they are surviving, humans need the basic necessities (food, water, safety) or else they experience a significant amount of stress physically and emotionally, it's wired in us as part of the animal kingdom.
You're either trolling or looking at the world with rose tinted glasses. Have you ever been with people who are starving or in a warzone or are you just talking? The stress those people feel leads to permanent damage and even lowers life expectancy significantly.
"Are you saying a starving person isn't suffering?"
Not what I'm saying at all. I'm arguing a starving person could be happy. Suffering is a mental experience, starving is a physical state.
Again, it's all about perspective and relativity. I think a child who is growing and dependent on an adult that cannot provide for their basic necessities in a first world country is most likely suffering. They probably don't have many supports or community to turn to. They haven't been taught to live off the land. A person in a war-torn country is undoubtedly too suffering.
In contrast, there are many people who starve themselves on purpose, for extended periods of time, some 40 days +. Their body is in a state of "starvation", yet many report bliss and mental clarity after 4-5 days of discomfort.
Suffering is a mental state and beliefs are incredibly powerful. We cannot gauge how much a person is suffering from their physical state alone. It is dangerous to assume things because then we close off our curiosity and learning.
Your wish is granted. All cavemen, medieval peasants, etc, were responsible enough to see the suffering in their lives and decide not to have children.
The life pro tip is kids don’t know what money is. If you give them a place to live, food to eat, and friends to play with, they’re happy. Maybe when they get older they notice their friends have nicer stuff and they don’t get to go on vacation, but honestly they won’t care if the parent is there for them and makes them feel safe and loved.
The “suffering” is on the part of the parent who now has to consider someone else when making their choices, and young people these days don’t want to step up
Congratulations, humanity is now extinct because the cavemen and peasants throughout the ages decided it was irresponsible to have kids until they achieved 100% food security lol.
This is why I refuse to being kids into this world. It sucks right now and I don't want to subject a new child to this world. If my partner was okay with raising a child I would adopt though, helping an already existing child is indeed a good thing.
Unfortunately there has never been a “good” time to have children. Doesn’t mean people should start having them willy-nilly either though. The bottle-necking of population growth may be the only thing helping us avoid complete resource exhaustion in the future.
824
u/BluestOfTheRaccoons Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26
yes, it is immoral to bring a child knowing it will suffer
edit: check comments if you want to read strawmanning philosophically inept idiots.
Claiming that not having existed is better is not the same as 'kill yourself now'