Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One writer, Robert Heinlein, opined that the only absolutely valid morality is that which enhances the survival of the species.
In that respect, refusing to have children under any conditions only because you can't control the future would be the most immoral act of all.
I could argue with him that all valid morality must be based on survival of the species, but I'd certainly agree with him that an act intending to destroy the species certainly is immoral.
It's wrong to have children because we live in a world full of pain, misery, suffering, violence, bullies, and children are vulnerable to everything. Why do people have children in a world like this? Are they blind and in denial? Parents are aware of all misery that contains in this world and still choose to procreate to please themselves. Having children is an extremely selfish act and it's wrong.
Mankind is the curse of the Earth, and the curse of Mankind is overpopulation.
All biological lifeforms procreate and reproduce. That's why it's called "life."
Even with all of the "bad" things, there are many people that enjoy life. If the human condition is to get better, we need people to do that. We need children.
Not "just" children, but children who are wanted, well cared for, and whose conception was not an unaware exercise in mere biology.
Neither biology nor evolution care about quality of life -- only about gene transmission. But as humans we have the ability to override our primal impulses and demand something better than that for ourselves and our offspring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
Then there is the spiritual explanation that the world we experience is nothing more than the sum total of all of our choices. We ALL contribute to the state of the world.
We all contribute but our world is not merely the sum total of all our choices. Natural disasters, many diseases, lifespan limitations, and many other things are not chosen.
More particularly, YOUR life does not consist entirely of the sum total of YOUR choices. Your life involves Other People, the aforementioned unasked for factors, and as such, you can walk on water as a human being and still have a life of utter suckage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
OP, if people are suffering, ask yourself what part are you playing in that suffering? What have you done to make the world a better place one life at a time? Are you doing any volunteer work with children, the homeless, the elderly?
A fair question, and you should not at all assume that antinatalists are not putting their money where their mouths are, so to speak. Defeatists can be attracted to antinatalism but that doesn't make it an inherently defeatist point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
If life is so full of misery, why are you still sticking around?
Many of us stick around because our personal suffering is a sunk cost, our present lives are rationalizable, and as mentioned above, we believe that there are things we can do to ease the suffering in the world. Also, as parents who are frequently late to recognize what we've done in having children, we feel a particularly keen responsibility to our own children. I don't want to mess with my children's heads by offing myself. And one of my children will probably always been somewhat dependent on me for a decent quality of life.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlygal
There is so much beauty in the world. Too bad you can't see it.
It is not so much a matter of not being able to see it, as not being able to see enough of it, consistently enough. But don't make the mistake of thinking we dismiss the good in the world. It is up to each of us to decide if the good is worth it, and in my view it is no one's legitimate place to decide if it's worth it for our potential children.
I don't judge people for having children anyway; only for having them without recognizing the enormity of their responsibility for creating that new life. It isn't just limited to caring for and nurturing them; it also encompasses accepting your personal responsibility for the fact of their existence and the outworking of that existence. Too many children are brought into existence merely because someone wants, metaphorically speaking, to play "grown-up" or "house" or "dolly". It is a self-absorbed and insufficiently self-aware decision fueled by the conviction that "everyone does it" or "it's what you do" and the need to fit in. And even when we try to get people to be responsible in deciding to be a parent, our vision is often limited to having the earning power and stable marriage in place; it seldom goes so far as to think about our role as creators of living beings with feelings of their own. We are prone to think of them as living beings who are beholden to us to fulfill our expectations and fantasies.
We are also prone, I believe, to think of having children as an imperative that it demanded of us personally, as if the world doesn't have enough people or as if it particularly needs OUR personal genetic input or that it's especially important for us and our family or tribe to feel the quasi-immortality of being perpetuated to another generation.
Why is it asking too much to bring awareness to these matters? Why is it inherently considered negative? I frankly don't get it.
I am "childfree", and I don't necessarily believe that it's wrong to have children; however, it is wrong to have them when one cannot take care of them, financially, or when you have no emotional desire to actually, um, "parent" a child. So to me, the question -- and the answer -- are sort of arbitrary.
I lived in a small town where a lot of folks coupled up and had kids at age 18. Those same people are now divorced, and one or both of their adult children are living with them because they (the grown kids) cannot find jobs, regardless if they went to college or not. And these are not dumb young adults, either. They just cannot get hired anywhere. To get everyone in this country gainfully employed, we must take a hard look at how overpopulation is detrimental to future generations, especially when those generations have no opportunity to be productive in their own right.
It's wrong to have children because we live in a world full of pain, misery, suffering, violence, bullies, and children are vulnerable to everything. Why do people have children in a world like this? Are they blind and in denial? Parents are aware of all misery that contains in this world and still choose to procreate to please themselves. Having children is an extremely selfish act and it's wrong.
I agree.
It is selfish for anyone who views the world as full of pain, misery, suffering, violence, bullies....and think that out weighs all the positives should not have children.
I don't think it's wrong for a loving husband and wife to bring children into a stable household where the children can be fed and clothed, and have a safe roof over their heads. Crazy, maybe, but not wrong.
It's definitely wrong to bring children into the world if you can't provide 2 loving parents and security.
False premise.
No one can guarantee any of those. Loss of stability and security can happen easily. One or both parents can die.
Same can be true for single parents, a new spouse willing to adopt and love and provide for a child can and does happen with regularity.
Can you explain why triumphing over suffering actually means anything? I can think of lots of examples where doing so is just psychology. People often do things just to fuel their ego. For example: mountain climbers, professional athletes, narcissists. Yes, these people don't do so because of philosophical reasons, but can you prove that your goals has any meaning? Because your argument that overcoming suffering has meaning presupposes that your goals have meaning.
What nonsense. All goals have meaning, the meaning that we give them.
You are running the risk of thinking that there is some deeper external meaning to anything. There is not, or at least not one you can prove. Therefore any deeper meaning is only there because you have GIVEN it meaning. The same exact way the mountain climber gives climbing meaning. The exact same way the person you quoted gives meaning.
Their inability to prove meaning of their goals is not more valid than your inability to prove they have no meaning.
No one can guarantee any of those. Loss of stability and security can happen easily. One or both parents can die.
Same can be true for single parents, a new spouse willing to adopt and love and provide for a child can and does happen with regularity.
Yes. I have not seen an argument here against having children that does not presume omniscience.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
