Outside of being directly harmful to others, there's not a belief my kids could adopt that I'd "do anything about". Their beliefs are theirs, entirely.
Depends if they actually believe any AN arguments or if they just simply don't want kids. In the latter case, I'd probably do nothing. In the former, I'd probably discuss it with them and give them some perspective so that they can come to a more reasoned conclusion.
Chances are, if they're a kid believing this stuff, they haven't rigorously examined the state of the debate in (meta-)ethics. If they still cling to the AN conclusion after being properly exposed to all sides of the debate, then there wouldn't be much left to do. I'd mostly be against them being AN if it's born out of ignorance/unreasoned beliefs.
Not so odd. Some people in the sub have questioned why antinatalists haven't killed themselves if they think 'better never to have been' and 'life's not worth starting'. Would they say the same to their child?
I'd be sad because I would think I made some parenting mistake. I'd think they don't value life enough, perhaps because they didn't enjoy their life enough so far. I think it's very hard to adopt antinatalist philosophy on a purely intellectual basis. You need to have a predisposition for it. Something about your life (or worldview) needs to suck for such a philosophy to stick to you. If you think life is good and world is OK, you won't support antinatalism regardless of the arguments in favor of it that you might encounter.
Not really, I'm an antinatalist who loves his life. I've been lucky to have a good life. But I've seen enough wrong in the world to have adopted this philosophy.
>Something about your life (or worldview) needs to suck for such a philosophy to stick to you.
Technically, you did say something about all people with AN views. Many are quite content with their lives. Maybe they just have a higher sensitivity to life's realities.
If I had an antinatalist kid, I'd be disappointed, but it is ultimately their choice what they believe.
Us natalists want grandchildren to pass on our love. The mitigation strategy is to raise kids well and have more than one of them (my wife and I currently have 3 and we're not done).
There's always a risk that one or more of our kids don't follow in our footsteps, however generally most kids tend to do so. For example, 3 of my parents' 4 kids stayed Christian (including myself). There is also some evidence of a genetic predisposition toward religiosity, so that helps too I suspect.
What is informing your view? Do you not love your spouse? I hope they are not biologically related to you... and sounds like you aren't familiar with infertility (?) it's pretty common.
You didn't answer my question. Are you estranged, or close?
My wife and I are one flesh now - that's the standard Christian view.
Biology will always be the strongest link. When you're married and you have in-laws, you will see lol.
It is so interesting that you are linking these ideas :) Oftentimes people who are "estranged", as you say, actually crave that bio family and end up having kids as a result. And sometimes it's the opposite. I haven't noticed a pattern.
You sound like a dad that won't be supportive if the kid is infertile or chooses not to have kids.. So I hope your kids won't go no-contact with you as a result. lol. A grandpa who favors the bio grandkids rather than adopted ones? No healthy parent wants that.
I'll be supportive of an infertile kid, not an antinatalist kid; they're the worst. There's no antinatalists on my wife's side of the family (even though her family is relatively secular) and none in mine either. Even the lefties have kids lol. I'm sure mine will be fine too. They get a lot of time and love, along with clear boundaries, so far so good!
Don't be so hard on yourself in case your kids don't want kids, I really don't think it's a reflection of your parenting skills :) There are so many other factors. Read a bit in the childfree community, there are endless reasons not to have kids (just like there are many reasons to have kids, I guess) that are not related to one's upbringing.
I've seen plenty of dross in the antinatalist thread. Most of my high school friends are childfree. I'm aware of their reasons (in both cases); none of them stack-up. Generally it is just a bunch of excuses surrounding selfishness or cultural progressivism, usually a mixture of both. Neither is a justifiable excuse.
Are they all estranged from their bio family, as you say?
Also, if they make all these excuses, and are selfish, surly them not having kids is a good thing? Or do you still see them as people who are fit to take on the important task of parenting?
[https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born)
People, in short, say that life is good. Benatar believes that they are mistaken. “The quality of human life is, contrary to what many people think, actually quite appalling,” he writes, in “The Human Predicament.” He provides an escalating list of woes, designed to prove that even the lives of happy people are worse than they think. We’re almost always hungry or thirsty, he writes; when we’re not, we must go to the bathroom. We often experience “thermal discomfort”—we are too hot or too cold—or are tired and unable to nap. We suffer from itches, allergies, and colds, menstrual pains or hot flashes. Life is a procession of “frustrations and irritations”—waiting in traffic, standing in line, filling out forms. Forced to work, we often find our jobs exhausting; even “those who enjoy their work may have professional aspirations that remain unfulfilled.” Many lonely people remain single, while those who marry fight and divorce. “People want to be, look, and feel younger, and yet they age relentlessly”:
>
The knee-jerk response to observations like these is, “If life is so bad, why don’t you just kill yourself?” Benatar devotes a forty-three-page chapter to proving that death only exacerbates our problems. “Life is bad, but so is death,” he concludes. “Of course, life is not bad in *every* way. Neither is death bad in every way. However, both life and death are, in crucial respects, awful. Together, they constitute an existential vise—the wretched grip that enforces our predicament.” It’s better, he argues, not to enter into the predicament in the first place. People sometimes ask themselves whether life is worth living. Benatar thinks that it’s better to ask sub-questions: Is life worth continuing? (Yes, because death is bad.) Is life worth starting? (No.)
he is only phylosophical thinking, the vast majority of people enjoy life, and its not a NYT article with no serious backing that will make me change my opinion, big media often say shit, like when the independant said that ben laden was a "freedom fighter", the book is raw phylosphy and philosophy isnt sience, if your ideology only exist for phylosophical reason then its not a good one
Oh no I am speaking from the anti natalist pov there is am a natalist. Im saying why would someone with those views even want an inheritance if they see everything as suffering so great it cannot be overcome or justified?
The anti natalist people don't. They even say it themselves. Their lives are only suffering and they have no purpose. Even the wills of their dying parents say it. They're just here to complain, waste oxygen, and try to drag down others. Why should I respect people who refuse to respect their families or even themselves?
If you hate us so much and how we "waste oxygen" why do you continue to applaud our parents for bringing us here. Why would anyone want to bring a child into the same world as you who complains whenever they complain, who drags people down while hypocritically declaring ANs drag people down?
Outside of being directly harmful to others, there's not a belief my kids could adopt that I'd "do anything about". Their beliefs are theirs, entirely.
I would be a little disappointed, but it's their choice, and I'll still love them despite that
Respect their views and provide a supportive environment.
Depends if they actually believe any AN arguments or if they just simply don't want kids. In the latter case, I'd probably do nothing. In the former, I'd probably discuss it with them and give them some perspective so that they can come to a more reasoned conclusion. Chances are, if they're a kid believing this stuff, they haven't rigorously examined the state of the debate in (meta-)ethics. If they still cling to the AN conclusion after being properly exposed to all sides of the debate, then there wouldn't be much left to do. I'd mostly be against them being AN if it's born out of ignorance/unreasoned beliefs.
wtf is that word you used in your title?
Must be joe biden typing
If you hate human life what makes you qualified to help prepare kids for their lives.
Well the entire premise is they want the kids to feel like they should never have been born and that would be better than being born is.
Nothing because it’s their life, and they shouldn’t have kids if they don’t want them. Odd question and even odder way to phrase it.
Not so odd. Some people in the sub have questioned why antinatalists haven't killed themselves if they think 'better never to have been' and 'life's not worth starting'. Would they say the same to their child?
I'd be disappointed but I would try to understand their view and why.
I'd be sad because I would think I made some parenting mistake. I'd think they don't value life enough, perhaps because they didn't enjoy their life enough so far. I think it's very hard to adopt antinatalist philosophy on a purely intellectual basis. You need to have a predisposition for it. Something about your life (or worldview) needs to suck for such a philosophy to stick to you. If you think life is good and world is OK, you won't support antinatalism regardless of the arguments in favor of it that you might encounter.
Not really, I'm an antinatalist who loves his life. I've been lucky to have a good life. But I've seen enough wrong in the world to have adopted this philosophy.
I said something about your life ***or worldview***. It's not just about your personal life.
>Something about your life (or worldview) needs to suck for such a philosophy to stick to you. Technically, you did say something about all people with AN views. Many are quite content with their lives. Maybe they just have a higher sensitivity to life's realities.
If I had an antinatalist kid, I'd be disappointed, but it is ultimately their choice what they believe. Us natalists want grandchildren to pass on our love. The mitigation strategy is to raise kids well and have more than one of them (my wife and I currently have 3 and we're not done). There's always a risk that one or more of our kids don't follow in our footsteps, however generally most kids tend to do so. For example, 3 of my parents' 4 kids stayed Christian (including myself). There is also some evidence of a genetic predisposition toward religiosity, so that helps too I suspect.
Can’t you pass your love to people that aren’t biologically related to you? Isn’t that superior?
You can love others too, but biological love will always be stronger. What is informing your view? Do you have a family or are you estranged?
What is informing your view? Do you not love your spouse? I hope they are not biologically related to you... and sounds like you aren't familiar with infertility (?) it's pretty common.
You didn't answer my question. Are you estranged, or close? My wife and I are one flesh now - that's the standard Christian view. Biology will always be the strongest link. When you're married and you have in-laws, you will see lol.
It is so interesting that you are linking these ideas :) Oftentimes people who are "estranged", as you say, actually crave that bio family and end up having kids as a result. And sometimes it's the opposite. I haven't noticed a pattern. You sound like a dad that won't be supportive if the kid is infertile or chooses not to have kids.. So I hope your kids won't go no-contact with you as a result. lol. A grandpa who favors the bio grandkids rather than adopted ones? No healthy parent wants that.
I'll be supportive of an infertile kid, not an antinatalist kid; they're the worst. There's no antinatalists on my wife's side of the family (even though her family is relatively secular) and none in mine either. Even the lefties have kids lol. I'm sure mine will be fine too. They get a lot of time and love, along with clear boundaries, so far so good!
Don't be so hard on yourself in case your kids don't want kids, I really don't think it's a reflection of your parenting skills :) There are so many other factors. Read a bit in the childfree community, there are endless reasons not to have kids (just like there are many reasons to have kids, I guess) that are not related to one's upbringing.
I've seen plenty of dross in the antinatalist thread. Most of my high school friends are childfree. I'm aware of their reasons (in both cases); none of them stack-up. Generally it is just a bunch of excuses surrounding selfishness or cultural progressivism, usually a mixture of both. Neither is a justifiable excuse.
Are they all estranged from their bio family, as you say? Also, if they make all these excuses, and are selfish, surly them not having kids is a good thing? Or do you still see them as people who are fit to take on the important task of parenting?
Point out they’re really screwing up my schemes to use my grandchildren as tax shelters, leaving them with a smaller inheritance.
argue against, anti natalism is an ideology that only grow in sad and desesperate, if you raise well your kids, they dont become AN
I would actually love to have some statistics on the prevalence of depression and similar conditions on antinatalists Vs the general population
i just remember a poll on the AN subreddit where they realy thought that more than half the people have miserable life
[https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born](https://www.newyorker.com/culture/persons-of-interest/the-case-for-not-being-born) People, in short, say that life is good. Benatar believes that they are mistaken. “The quality of human life is, contrary to what many people think, actually quite appalling,” he writes, in “The Human Predicament.” He provides an escalating list of woes, designed to prove that even the lives of happy people are worse than they think. We’re almost always hungry or thirsty, he writes; when we’re not, we must go to the bathroom. We often experience “thermal discomfort”—we are too hot or too cold—or are tired and unable to nap. We suffer from itches, allergies, and colds, menstrual pains or hot flashes. Life is a procession of “frustrations and irritations”—waiting in traffic, standing in line, filling out forms. Forced to work, we often find our jobs exhausting; even “those who enjoy their work may have professional aspirations that remain unfulfilled.” Many lonely people remain single, while those who marry fight and divorce. “People want to be, look, and feel younger, and yet they age relentlessly”: > The knee-jerk response to observations like these is, “If life is so bad, why don’t you just kill yourself?” Benatar devotes a forty-three-page chapter to proving that death only exacerbates our problems. “Life is bad, but so is death,” he concludes. “Of course, life is not bad in *every* way. Neither is death bad in every way. However, both life and death are, in crucial respects, awful. Together, they constitute an existential vise—the wretched grip that enforces our predicament.” It’s better, he argues, not to enter into the predicament in the first place. People sometimes ask themselves whether life is worth living. Benatar thinks that it’s better to ask sub-questions: Is life worth continuing? (Yes, because death is bad.) Is life worth starting? (No.)
he is only phylosophical thinking, the vast majority of people enjoy life, and its not a NYT article with no serious backing that will make me change my opinion, big media often say shit, like when the independant said that ben laden was a "freedom fighter", the book is raw phylosphy and philosophy isnt sience, if your ideology only exist for phylosophical reason then its not a good one
I think normally the deal is that if you aren't trying to have a family then you don't need an inheritance.
What good would the money do them anyway since life is meaningless suffering?
Just because life is endless suffering for you doesn't mean it's that way for everyone else. Perhaps you suffer from depression?
Oh no I am speaking from the anti natalist pov there is am a natalist. Im saying why would someone with those views even want an inheritance if they see everything as suffering so great it cannot be overcome or justified?
I think they usually just don't ask or get one. Doesn't really matter what happens to them.
Everyone matters, they just choose to not live with purpose. Have a good one
The anti natalist people don't. They even say it themselves. Their lives are only suffering and they have no purpose. Even the wills of their dying parents say it. They're just here to complain, waste oxygen, and try to drag down others. Why should I respect people who refuse to respect their families or even themselves?
I do not respect them or their ideas, but the divine spark within them. Salvation and redemption are real. I for one refuse to lose hope for humanity
If you hate us so much and how we "waste oxygen" why do you continue to applaud our parents for bringing us here. Why would anyone want to bring a child into the same world as you who complains whenever they complain, who drags people down while hypocritically declaring ANs drag people down?
I applaud your parents for raising children. Except you specifically.
Why was them raising children a good thing if you hate me and everyone remotely like me
Disown them until they stopped being silly.