to be fair I can't say I've seen many antinatalists pushing it onto others. we realize its a bit radical and deeply unpopular. it's more of a personal belief that is discussed to bring to light the heavy biases toward procreation that can make childfree people feel misunderstood and downright judged or excluded for exercising choice. like someone said elsewhere in this post, a lot of, if not most, children are unplanned and parents who can't really afford to give them great lives are heavily encouraged by everyone around them to let their mistake rule the rest of their lives. its not surprising that unexpecting parents often decide that parenthood is great, because no one wants to regret irreversible choices.
We still have incentive to make a better world because we know most people won't stop having kids. Duh.
It isn't fucking radical lmfao the main argument I see with antinatalism is "kids can't give consent to be born and the world is shit so don't have kids" which is true on the surface, but the actual radical solution isn't to eliminate the children FFS it's to eliminate the suffering.
Any answer to that question that doesn't ultimately end at that answer is just misanthropic and unhelpful.
Thats a fair point, but I don't think its possible to eliminate suffering. Even if we perfect global communism and no one has to suffer for lack of material needs or opportunities, suffering still has to happen. Interpersonal conflict, grieving lost loved ones, illness, natural disaster, etc etc. The next best thing would be to remove the sufferers, no?
No you are correct that elimination of suffering is an unattainable goal. At the same time is it attainable to stop the creation of life? Also no and you'll even see anti natalists in this very thread admit that. What's the point of antinatalism if someone believes at the same time that suffering cannot be eliminated and the creation of life cannot be stopped?
Also the idea that the next best thing to do is remove the sufferers is some serious lib shit. I can absolutely see libs saying "we're not killing the homeless, we're stopping their suffering"
Comparing alive people to nonexistent ones is a slippery slope and not what I said, but you're right in that you can always count on libs to misconstrue. The point of antinatalism is that it's purely a personal choice. It isn't an evangelical belief, but a discussion to help people who have those opinions see that it's a valid lifestyle, in the face of a lot of hounding and condescendence from people with children.
to be fair I can't say I've seen many antinatalists pushing it onto others. we realize its a bit radical and deeply unpopular. it's more of a personal belief that is discussed to bring to light the heavy biases toward procreation that can make childfree people feel misunderstood and downright judged or excluded for exercising choice. like someone said elsewhere in this post, a lot of, if not most, children are unplanned and parents who can't really afford to give them great lives are heavily encouraged by everyone around them to let their mistake rule the rest of their lives. its not surprising that unexpecting parents often decide that parenthood is great, because no one wants to regret irreversible choices.
We still have incentive to make a better world because we know most people won't stop having kids. Duh.
It isn't fucking radical lmfao the main argument I see with antinatalism is "kids can't give consent to be born and the world is shit so don't have kids" which is true on the surface, but the actual radical solution isn't to eliminate the children FFS it's to eliminate the suffering.
Any answer to that question that doesn't ultimately end at that answer is just misanthropic and unhelpful.
Thats a fair point, but I don't think its possible to eliminate suffering. Even if we perfect global communism and no one has to suffer for lack of material needs or opportunities, suffering still has to happen. Interpersonal conflict, grieving lost loved ones, illness, natural disaster, etc etc. The next best thing would be to remove the sufferers, no?
No you are correct that elimination of suffering is an unattainable goal. At the same time is it attainable to stop the creation of life? Also no and you'll even see anti natalists in this very thread admit that. What's the point of antinatalism if someone believes at the same time that suffering cannot be eliminated and the creation of life cannot be stopped?
Also the idea that the next best thing to do is remove the sufferers is some serious lib shit. I can absolutely see libs saying "we're not killing the homeless, we're stopping their suffering"
It's the exact word games they love to play.
Comparing alive people to nonexistent ones is a slippery slope and not what I said, but you're right in that you can always count on libs to misconstrue. The point of antinatalism is that it's purely a personal choice. It isn't an evangelical belief, but a discussion to help people who have those opinions see that it's a valid lifestyle, in the face of a lot of hounding and condescendence from people with children.