Anti-natalism: The belief that it is morally wrong to have children.

What do you think of anti-natalism?

  • A morally viable position

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • An evil and ill-thought-out philosophy

    Votes: 2 100.0%
  • A legitimate but sad argument

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    2
AtheistForJesus

AtheistForJesus

Well-Known Member
The current electoral frenzy has kept me from posting the sort of rich and intellectually-stimulating material that you've come to expect from me by now.

Today we discuss anti-natalism, the theory that humans should not have children for the good of the (unborn) children.

At the heart of Samuel’s philosophy of anti-natalism is the argument that life is so full of misery that people should stop procreating immediately.

“There’s no point to humanity,” he says. “So many people are suffering. If humanity is extinct, Earth and animals would be happier. They’ll certainly be better off. Also no human will then suffer. Human existence is totally pointless.”


What are your thoughts on this? A poll is available for those too lazy to answer.

 
  • Advertisement
  • The_FPMer

    The_FPMer

    Active Member
    Ironically, Whites think that by having less children they will be saving the world from global warming whereas it is Africa and India whose fertility rates are over 5.
     
    Jorje

    Jorje

    Legendary Member
    Ironically, Whites think that by having less children they will be saving the world from global warming whereas it is Africa and India whose fertility rates are over 5.
    Never seen that argument. The low fertility rate in Europe is a huge problem and basically all governments are treating it as such.
     
    The_FPMer

    The_FPMer

    Active Member
    Never seen that argument. The low fertility rate in Europe is a huge problem and basically all governments are treating it as such.
    Europeans (some of them) as a people not as governments.
     
    Jorje

    Jorje

    Legendary Member
    Europeans (some of them) as a people not as governments.
    Well, it's probably a really really small minority. I'm just saying, this was never a popular argument or an actual cause for the decline in fertility in Europe.
     
    Iron Maiden

    Iron Maiden

    Paragon of Bacon
    Orange Room Supporter
    enjoy fighting your nature and your most basic drive as a living organism.

    people are so full of themselves they think they can fight their physiology.
     
    The_FPMer

    The_FPMer

    Active Member
    enjoy fighting your nature and your most basic drive as a living organism.

    people are so full of themselves they think they can fight their physiology.
    So you're telling me this creature is not a mermaid?

     
    Omeros

    Omeros

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    The current electoral frenzy has kept me from posting the sort of rich and intellectually-stimulating material that you've come to expect from me by now.

    Today we discuss anti-natalism, the theory that humans should not have children for the good of the (unborn) children.

    At the heart of Samuel’s philosophy of anti-natalism is the argument that life is so full of misery that people should stop procreating immediately.

    “There’s no point to humanity,” he says. “So many people are suffering. If humanity is extinct, Earth and animals would be happier. They’ll certainly be better off. Also no human will then suffer. Human existence is totally pointless.”


    What are your thoughts on this? A poll is available for those too lazy to answer.

    2ryta twice faserle enta what u wanna say
     
    loubnaniTO

    loubnaniTO

    Legendary Member
    Staff member
    Super Penguin
    The current electoral frenzy has kept me from posting the sort of rich and intellectually-stimulating material that you've come to expect from me by now.

    Today we discuss anti-natalism, the theory that humans should not have children for the good of the (unborn) children.

    At the heart of Samuel’s philosophy of anti-natalism is the argument that life is so full of misery that people should stop procreating immediately.

    “There’s no point to humanity,” he says. “So many people are suffering. If humanity is extinct, Earth and animals would be happier. They’ll certainly be better off. Also no human will then suffer. Human existence is totally pointless.”


    What are your thoughts on this? A poll is available for those too lazy to answer.

    Anti-natalism is an extreme measure that, in my opinion, is not necessary. It's like demolishing your house because it's not clean.
    Yes, there is a lot of misery and depression in the world... but before we eliminate humanity, why not find the root of that misery and try to address it?
    is there ONE reason for that misery? or multiple reasons?
    are some reasons driven by lack of basic needs (water, food, shelter) and other driven by social pressure (i can't afford the news iPhone, and my car does not have a sunroof)? or is it also driven by social media (i am not getting enough Likes... she invited everyone but me...)?

    Instead of convincing humanity to extinct itself, it might be easier to convince humanity to improve itself. Is it by reducing these social pressures? encourage people to go back to the roots.. live on a farm, grow crops... live off the grid, encourage kids to limit electronics and discover nature. I cannot imagine telling my kids i wish i never had you because life is so miserable...
    Reduce birth rates if earth is overpopulated, but don't go to extinction.
     
    N

    NewLeb

    New Member
    “There’s no point to humanity,” he says. “So many people are suffering. If humanity is extinct, Earth and animals would be happier. They’ll certainly be better off. Also no human will then suffer. Human existence is totally pointless.”
    Well, sure, if all humans possessed the same pathetic and feeble thoughts of this loser, there wouldn’t be a point to humanity. Indeed, his children will simply be a reflection of himself. Let’s hope he doesn’t (didn’t) breed...
     
    Top