is antinatalism a good way of thinking?

[Nemo]

Hi everyone, recently I was thinking about antinatalism and is it actually moral to have kids?

I want to say from the beginning that I've always wanted to have kids, to teach them everything, give them love and all my knowledge. You know, standard crap like "give them a better life that I had". Buy antinatalism gives me very important questions, that I cannot just ignore. Otherwise I would be a very stupid person.

The general idea is that having kids is immoral, because life is full of suffering and pain, no matter what. Even if they have heavenly like life, I can't guarantee that. And if they doesn't exist, they don't care. Literally million of kids right now could be born, but no one cares. And neither those unborn kids. So why would I want to bring one to existence? I like the Schopenhauer's idea of "Devil's laughter", about our natural need to procreate. I think that antinatalism is based on weak foundations of moral ethics, which change over time and culture that we live in.

They say that producing offspring is immoral, immoral equals bad, and what is bad? It's generally speaking an act against some code of ethics. But there are plenty of those, so which should I choose? For example, I can say, that living according to nature is the only good and moral way of living. And what's more natural than having sex and making as many babies as one can? I think, or rather, I know that I want those kids for purely selfish reasons.

I want to be some kind of sculptor, or one could say I'm playing a God, to try to create something by my own, to shape it to my will. This complete control of someone's life, at least in first few years of someone's life. But being selfish, necessarily means bad? You just want what's best for your kids.
I think it's all about, what's more important to you. Is it a logical argument about pros and cons of some act, or this natural need to give love, to be immortal on some way, as I believe Plato would say (it could be someone else, I don't recall XD). I wanted to hear others opinion about this topic to destroy my viewpoint and call me a bad person for wanting kids XD

Hope for fruitful debate!

[Steve3007]

The general idea is that having kids is immoral, because life is full of suffering and pain, no matter what.

There's an old joke. Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of them says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions." Well, that's essentially how I feel about life - full of loneliness, and misery, and suffering, and unhappiness, and it's all over much too quickly.

I have two kids. Since that's exactly the right number to replace me and their mother, and no more, I don't feel overly guilty on the grounds of overpopulation. Regarding the issue of the pain and suffering that they might well suffer at some point, I defer to the likes of Woody Allen (the 1970's Woody Allen from Annie Hall, before we knew all the stuff we now know about people from the 1970's.)

[h_k_s]

The general idea is that having kids is immoral, because life is full of suffering and pain, no matter what.

There's an old joke. Two elderly women are at a Catskill mountain resort, and one of them says, "Boy, the food at this place is really terrible." The other one says, "Yeah, I know; and such small portions." Well, that's essentially how I feel about life - full of loneliness, and misery, and suffering, and unhappiness, and it's all over much too quickly.

I have two kids. Since that's exactly the right number to replace me and their mother, and no more, I don't feel overly guilty on the grounds of overpopulation. Regarding the issue of the pain and suffering that they might well suffer at some point, I defer to the likes of Woody Allen (the 1970's Woody Allen from Annie Hall, before we knew all the stuff we now know about people from the 1970's.)

If couples only have 2 kids, then the population will actually decrease. This is due to accidental deaths, disease, war, crime, etc.

Statistically you need to have 3 kids to break even. Google it and see.

[h_k_s]

Hi everyone, recently I was thinking about antinatalism and is it actually moral to have kids?

I want to say from the beginning that I've always wanted to have kids, to teach them everything, give them love and all my knowledge. You know, standard crap like "give them a better life that I had". Buy antinatalism gives me very important questions, that I cannot just ignore. Otherwise I would be a very stupid person.

The general idea is that having kids is immoral, because life is full of suffering and pain, no matter what. Even if they have heavenly like life, I can't guarantee that. And if they doesn't exist, they don't care. Literally million of kids right now could be born, but no one cares. And neither those unborn kids. So why would I want to bring one to existence? I like the Schopenhauer's idea of "Devil's laughter", about our natural need to procreate. I think that antinatalism is based on weak foundations of moral ethics, which change over time and culture that we live in.

They say that producing offspring is immoral, immoral equals bad, and what is bad? It's generally speaking an act against some code of ethics. But there are plenty of those, so which should I choose? For example, I can say, that living according to nature is the only good and moral way of living. And what's more natural than having sex and making as many babies as one can? I think, or rather, I know that I want those kids for purely selfish reasons.

I want to be some kind of sculptor, or one could say I'm playing a God, to try to create something by my own, to shape it to my will. This complete control of someone's life, at least in first few years of someone's life. But being selfish, necessarily means bad? You just want what's best for your kids.
I think it's all about, what's more important to you. Is it a logical argument about pros and cons of some act, or this natural need to give love, to be immortal on some way, as I believe Plato would say (it could be someone else, I don't recall XD). I wanted to hear others opinion about this topic to destroy my viewpoint and call me a bad person for wanting kids XD

Hope for fruitful debate!

What's to debate?

Your "anti-natalism" sounds more like extreme pessimism and chronic depression to me.

The population is growing fast and furiously enough however to more than make up for all the priests, nuns, and other de facto celebrates who do not end up having kids.

No worries then, as Johnny Depp would say, in Pirates Of The Caribbean.

[Papus79]

I think one of the better arguments against this has been that the last generation under such circumstances would live such horrible lives that the intended prevention of pain and suffering would catch back up full circle in the end (depends I guess what your expectation on the longevity of the human species is) and the other - you'd have to have something beyond a human regime to implement that, like a global pandemic bug that sterilized every man woman and child without exception - short of that it's like trying to get people to not eat, drink, or breathe.

[Nemo]

Hi everyone, recently I was thinking about antinatalism and is it actually moral to have kids?

I want to say from the beginning that I've always wanted to have kids, to teach them everything, give them love and all my knowledge. You know, standard crap like "give them a better life that I had". Buy antinatalism gives me very important questions, that I cannot just ignore. Otherwise I would be a very stupid person.

The general idea is that having kids is immoral, because life is full of suffering and pain, no matter what. Even if they have heavenly like life, I can't guarantee that. And if they doesn't exist, they don't care. Literally million of kids right now could be born, but no one cares. And neither those unborn kids. So why would I want to bring one to existence? I like the Schopenhauer's idea of "Devil's laughter", about our natural need to procreate. I think that antinatalism is based on weak foundations of moral ethics, which change over time and culture that we live in.

They say that producing offspring is immoral, immoral equals bad, and what is bad? It's generally speaking an act against some code of ethics. But there are plenty of those, so which should I choose? For example, I can say, that living according to nature is the only good and moral way of living. And what's more natural than having sex and making as many babies as one can? I think, or rather, I know that I want those kids for purely selfish reasons.

I want to be some kind of sculptor, or one could say I'm playing a God, to try to create something by my own, to shape it to my will. This complete control of someone's life, at least in first few years of someone's life. But being selfish, necessarily means bad? You just want what's best for your kids.
I think it's all about, what's more important to you. Is it a logical argument about pros and cons of some act, or this natural need to give love, to be immortal on some way, as I believe Plato would say (it could be someone else, I don't recall XD). I wanted to hear others opinion about this topic to destroy my viewpoint and call me a bad person for wanting kids XD

Hope for fruitful debate!

What's to debate?

Your "anti-natalism" sounds more like extreme pessimism and chronic depression to me.

The population is growing fast and furiously enough however to more than make up for all the priests, nuns, and other de facto celebrates who do not end up having kids.

No worries then, as Johnny Depp would say, in Pirates Of The Caribbean.

I think you misunderstand this philosophy, it has nothing to do with overpopulation, or depressed thoughts. Just an argument of
which state is better. Existence or non-existence, but it doesn't talk about suicide, if ur already alive, just live to the fullest. And it's hard to argue that existence is better.

I think one of the better arguments against this has been that the last generation under such circumstances would live such horrible lives that the intended prevention of pain and suffering would catch back up full circle in the end (depends I guess what your expectation on the longevity of the human species is) and the other - you'd have to have something beyond a human regime to implement that, like a global pandemic bug that sterilized every man woman and child without exception - short of that it's like trying to get people to not eat, drink, or breathe.

You have a point. Reality that antinatalists propose is kind of utopian and will strongly backfire on last generation, that doesn't have younger people to support them. And it will be impossible to convince whole human population for this plan. I guess if it's impossible, then you can just go on making kids

[LuckyR]

The ideas proposed by the OP suffer from an unrealistic view of life. That is that life should have no negatives, therefore since that is obviously not the case, why live?

I understand that if utopia is going to exist anywhere, the mind of a philosopher is going to be the most likely, so the question is predictable, but the answer is clearly where it should be, in the decision making mind of the individual.

[Papus79]

You have a point. Reality that antinatalists propose is kind of utopian and will strongly backfire on last generation, that doesn't have younger people to support them. And it will be impossible to convince whole human population for this plan. I guess if it's impossible, then you can just go on making kids

I think where antinatalists do have a point - the searing agony of life, on average as our world stands, isn't justifiable. That it's an entertainable position at all should at least shake us out of any complaisant stupor with respect to problems that need to be solved.

[Steve3007]

If couples only have 2 kids, then the population will actually decrease. This is due to accidental deaths, disease, war, crime, etc.

Statistically you need to have 3 kids to break even. Google it and see.

Yes, I realise that. I think that, as far as global sustainability of the environment is concerned, a gentle, not precipitative, decline in human population is just what the doctor ordered. But I won't pretend that's why I have two kids. I guess that's just a lucky accident.

[Felix]

Actually, human fertility rated are declining precipitously, apparently due to environmental pollutants such as the pseudo-estrogenic compounds in plastics that we are drowning in - so we are inadvertently sterilizing ourselves.

[h_k_s]

If couples only have 2 kids, then the population will actually decrease. This is due to accidental deaths, disease, war, crime, etc.

Statistically you need to have 3 kids to break even. Google it and see.

Yes, I realise that. I think that, as far as global sustainability of the environment is concerned, a gentle, not precipitative, decline in human population is just what the doctor ordered. But I won't pretend that's why I have two kids. I guess that's just a lucky accident.

I do remember all the educational propaganda in the USA during the 1960's promoting the 2 child nuclear American family.

Not a bad idea. But immigration would keep flooding in anyway. So it would only work on a world wide basis, not for the USA.

[LuckyR]

Actually, human fertility rated are declining precipitously, apparently due to environmental pollutants such as the pseudo-estrogenic compounds in plastics that we are drowning in - so we are inadvertently sterilizing ourselves.

A self correcting system, right? Unfortunately the effect you are citing is not making up for the advances in life span.

[Felix]

A self correcting system, right? Unfortunately the effect you are citing is not making up for the advances in life span.

It may be, life span too has begun to decline in developed countries.

[Steve3007]

I do remember all the educational propaganda in the USA during the 1960's promoting the 2 child nuclear American family.

Not a bad idea. But immigration would keep flooding in anyway. So it would only work on a world wide basis, not for the USA.

Yes, I think that's an example of one of the many things that can only work with global cooperation.

[LuckyR]

A self correcting system, right? Unfortunately the effect you are citing is not making up for the advances in life span.

It may be, life span too has begun to decline in developed countries.

It would be more accurate to say that it no longer lengthening (rather than shortening)