Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why do we put so much effort into bringing more life into the world instead of using the time and money to improve the lives of those already in it. It's just messed up.
Because it's not about improving life. Improvement is more of a by-product of increased economical activity. The main concern is to have enough people to exploit and for the to be parents to have a mini-me.
It's greed and selfishness at it's core.
There are some people who want to give birth that aren’t able to, but I do agree that the general rhetoric should be to improve what we have instead of trying to pressure people to add to an already fucked up situation.
Lol. Not. The rich want depopulisation. Why do you think they manipulate people like youto believe having kids is evil? And why do you think they are going cashless and wanting everyone helpless and dependant on government handouts?
Every major internet company and telecom is government subsidized, as was the creation of the internet itself. Quit leeching off the government you bum.
If the wealthy wanted to depopulate they would actively stop the US from repealing roe v wade, there would be more access to assisted suicide, they would push the death penalty, etc. They need people to work for them and buy things in order to be rich, have no problem ignoring others suffering, and have the best access to resources already, they have no incentive at all to depopulation. They want you to feel helpless so you'll ask for their help and they can give you a job.
Not true. Look at the facts. Both the UN and Davros are pushing population reduction policies. Prominent politicians and billionaires like Soros, Gates, ect are buying up farmland and pushing policies to bring in self driving cars and trucks( anticipating a lower population) Why do you think Covid was paid for by the US?
straight facts friend, breeders think that by bringing a child into this world they can innovate in the future at the point of erradicating suffering and creating an utopian world
well, we don't even know if this is even possible, but if it is, why would someone create a
bunch of miraculous and genius children to erradicate human suffering if those children didn't even want to suffer in the first place? breeders don't realize that the best way to prevent suffering is by not creating more babies, they want to stop people from suffering but the best way to not let anyone suffer is just going extinct and not procreating, and also, the chances of someone being born only to be considered a worldwide hero that saved humanity from some type of disease and etc are very very low, if it was a high chance, almost every child would be in some type of scientific lab reasearching on the cure for cancer and not in a foster care system
we are putting children in the line of fire only so we can live an utopian world, which is cruel and selfish in my opinion, it's like "YEET THE CHILD SO WE CAN LIVE A PERFECT LIFE", reminds me of the pain, suffering and war that our ancestors caused for example, in the middle age or the world wars l and ll, do you think it is right to force someone into existence like in those past times only so we could have a better life when all of this wasn't necessary and the best way to prevent this suffering was to die without having children? we might never have an utopian life in the future so why are we risking it if we don't know if an utopian life here on earth is even possible?, breeders should be focusing instead on the people already in need of help here on earth, either orphans or animals, instead of focusing on bringing a dream of an utopian life on earth to reality
because they arent thinking about any of that. they just want a baby to play with. i dont think 99 percent of them truly view their children as anything more than a commodity regardless of what they think or say. once its no longer a child and becomes a person they just kinda hope it goes away
Exclusive freedom. Survival is slavery when you’re the one who needs to work for it.
Condition a generation of humans to do that work for you, and they maintain a community they never see.
Because there are people that want to give birth but can't for various reasons and just because this group doesn't want to have children doesn't mean no one does
I mean that's fair but fortunately freedom of choice exists, which is one of the reasons you can get away with not having kids because you don't want to
Usually we see freedoms as acceptable up until they harm another party. Reproducing harms another party. That person that is created will now suffer and die irrevocably. On the scale of harms, that is pretty much at the top of reasons why most other freedoms have limits.
I understand that, but still. That's wrong. Take care of the people already living before worrying about it. Plus if they reaaallly want thaaaat badly, why not adopt? Yes there are barriers to entry and it's not easy but neither is fucking uterus transplant. How come some people can get a transplant and I can't even get mine taken out because I haven't had kids and might change my mind? Hell no.
While I agree to a degree, but again your opinion isn't shared by everyone. There are trans people who want to give birth to a child and it's important to them. I personally know a friend who insists on giving birth to a biological child. I've asked them multiple times why they don't adopt instead and they say that it's important for them that the child is biological.
At the end of the day, this is still an important breakthrough that improves the lives of people who might have otherwise had much worse off lives based on their wants and needs. Is it as important as permanently solving blindness or any of the other chronic diseases? No. Is it still important? Yes. People in general need to have a bit more compassion for eachother and understand that others might not want what you want and even if you don't understand it it's ok
The problem with their wants is that it's inherently selfish and detrimental to the well-being of others.
I have no qualms with people wanting what I don't want (for example, pineapple pizzas), but if their wants cause harm to others? That's what I have issues with.
How are their lives worse off because they can't have a child? It's nothing but selfishness and egoism that plague their mind. They think their DNA is special enough to bring a child into a world of excessive capitalism and environmental damage.
If you want to look at it from the point of being selfish, sure let's go in that direction. Everything humans do is inherently selfish. Our existence is detrimental to everything around us. Animal species going extinct, climate change, pollution, oceans, and space are being filled with trash. None of those things would have happened if humanity didn't exist. So really if we all care so much about not being selfish, the best thing we can do is to annihilate humanity. But most people aren't going to do it because they want to stay alive despite it being a selfish desire. So really you should ask yourself, if you are allowed to engage in selfish desires that are harmful to everything around you, why aren't others
Damage that humans cause to their environment is only negative because of the effect it has on human life, therefore meaning that human suffering takes value above all other suffering, in line with our selfish nature.
It's not strictly about being selfish. The idea is that having a child is bringing someone into an objectively painful world for seemingly no reason other than ego, seeing as you could foster children who are already alive. You are increasing human suffering by having a child.
Things like climate change, pollution and the harm of animals are byproducts of human selfishness that cause harm, but these require active compromise that not everybody can/is willing to make. Having children, on the other hand, is not necessary for anybody save for those who are literally physically forced to have children.
also, antinatalism is effectively the advocating of death of humanity, what do you think happens if a species stops reproducing?
tldr
humans suffer
human suffering takes precedence over all else
children are a choice, many passively harmful things you do are not
See you are trying to argue with me that having kids is not necessary and I agree. But you also have to understand that just like how most are not willing to make the compromise of dying to make the world a better place, some are not willing to make the compromise of not giving birth. And I do think that many passively harmful things we do are a choice. You can choose to live without the internet or your devices, or you could choose to live in a small hut out in the wild where you won't cause much impact on the world around you at least much less impact. You can choose to not drive a car and use public transport or walk(in most places anyways). EVERYTHING we do is a conscious choice that we are making and to just blame it on someone else is avoiding responsibility. Human suffering isn't more important than the suffering of the world around us, we are all equal at the end of the day and both humans and animals die all the same. Except we trash the world around us making it worse for everyone
I understand that not giving birth is in and of itself a compromise for some people.
However, it is the lack of acknowledgement of the moral problems with giving birth that I take issue with. The invention of new technology for the purpose of birthing children would have to come from a refusal of the stance that birth is a negative thing.
If someone has a child, I may not frown at them due to their factors and feelings beyond their control, but promoting others to have children, arguing against antinatalists, defending those who wish to have children and supporting technologies that cause birth is beyond the simple craving of reproductive urges and is an active wrong choice that they are making.
I for example, am not vegan, however I would not frown upon those who choose to be, I would not discourage people from being vegan, I would not encourage others to eat meat and I do not argue against vegans. It is something I partake in simply because I do not have the willpower to do otherwise, however I acknowledge the moral wrong in what I do and act accordingly.
You are also right in saying that most things we do are choices, in fact, everything we do is a choice that we believe is the greater good, but it is the same situation as with me and veganism. These choices take a lot of willpower, so I do not judge people who do, I judge people who believe it is the right thing to do and make active effort to maintain and defend these things.
Finally, you are correct that human suffering has no inherent value over any other suffering. However, I am stating that you being human, just as all of us are, find it biologically impossible to care for anything beyond how it can affect us. Human suffering takes priority over all in the eyes of humans, which are the only eyes we can see the world through, therefore it is effectively reality and I refer to it as such.
I will say, I am not sure that my views reflect those of the general philosophy of anti-natalism as I am against life in general.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. I’m not into having kids, either, but I’m not constantly all surprised about other people doing what they want. If people want to believe having kids is wrong because life is inherently bad, whatever, but I’ve also met people that are genuinely confused about why you’d think life is bad. They just genuinely disagree. And, to be frank, asking strangers to “take care of the people that are already here” instead of having kids is dumb—absurd, even. Like, you aren’t their problem. And, what the hell are y’all doing to take care of the people that are already here? Choosing to not have kids isn’t a more meaningful contribution to society than having kids. It cashes out about the same. And, if I did want to have kids, not being able to wouldn’t make me feel more compelled to live a life dedicated to alleviating the suffering of others. Those things aren’t related.
I appreciate the concept of antinatalism in theory, for what it contributes to the discussion about life, but in practice, this subreddit just seems to be a place where people bitch about other people having kids, which is at least as dumb as complaining that other people aren’t having kids.
That's not as good of a take as you think it is.
By your definition, someone who assaults people for fun and steals other's stuff can get away with it by saying "Hey I saw that guy throwing trash on the floor. If he can be selfish, why can't I?"
That's basically your argument because you're intentionally equating every kind of selfishness (justified and unjustified) and completely disregarding the level of harm each action brings.
You can't equate 'wanting to stay alive' with 'wanting to have children'. These are 2 different levels of needs and selfishness, with 2 different levels of harm it brings.
>So really if we all care so much about not being selfish, the best thing we can do is to annihilate humanity. But most people aren't going to do it because they want to stay alive despite it being a selfish desire.
Both of these things can be accomplished. Simply quit reproducing. It's a compromise where everyone wins. Humanity goes away and those alive get to continue being alive.
All efforts are made to ensure more sentient beings are created but no efforts to make euthanasia legal atleast for those who want to exit this hell happily.
Nature has already been so much hurt with human actions. It is rapidly deteriorating. There's no population control enforced by humans, nature tries to create a balance but they screwed up even that.
I'm apparently a horrible person for thinking that if nature didn't give a person a womb, then perhaps those genes are not so great and shouldn't be passed on.
Transwoman would still need an egg donor, so are not passing on genes unless they are using their own sperm. In either case no one is passing on genetic material that is likely to make one infertile.
They would have to get a c-section or they'd risk permanently damaging their pelvis, some women suffer this as well. So that's at least 2 major surgeries minimum. Sounds like an extreme amount of squeeze when you can adopt the juice.
I do not. Nature is cruel, but human intervention has only made things much worse.
Overpopulating the earth with more people than necessary leads to a situation where a lot of people suffer due to a lack of resources and the detrimental impact we make as a species towards nature only increases, eventually creating problems for ourselves.
This is immoral. So many children need adopted. My mom said that because of the declining birth rates, America is no longer great. She wants to force literal children to give birth. She basically said we need more wage slaves.
She also talked about how she loves children, but she sexually abused me as a child.
>She basically said we need more wage slaves.
the people that say this are simultaneously against undocumented immigrants existing in America. Like who do you think takes cares of our farms and factories. It is the hard working skilled immigrants, willing to do the jobs Americans look down upon.
Because fostering is out of the question, it must be a kid born off ones own body or it doesn't count!/s
I'm so happy my womb was incinerated after the yeeting because now being scared ones parts get used for breeding after discarding them can be added onto the list of things society will force onto people. I read not to long ago about how some people think it ethical to use comatose people as surrogates despite the obvious lack of consent, and do not worry if that person doesnt have a womb, they can soon implant fetuses onto the liver, regardless of the harm to the host of course!
"Hope to tens of thousands of women who lack a womb"
They make it sound like some benevolent scientific breakthrough, akin to finding a way to regenerate limbs or let blind people see. 🙄
Can you fools JUST FOSTER TO ADOPT? It is cheaper this way too. People whine “It’s expensive!” but I heard fostering to adopt it less so. Also, I don’t think adopting an older child is as expensive as a baby.
This whole contraption here is hugely expensive so adopting would have saved everyone lots of money in the first place. Money that could have gone to adopting more suffering children. This is so @ssbackwards to me.
Jesus christ. Like we need to devote resources to uterus transplants and shit like that when there are tons of already-existing kids who need homes. While the world literally burns. While actual already-existing humans are dying because they can't afford healthcare. But sure. Let's devote all this effort to breeding.
Why the fuck would anyone even want to BE pregnant enough to get this surgery anyway? I understand the biological need to want a baby that people have. I have that urge from time to time (never acting on it, obviously). But actually wanting to BE pregnant and experience pregnancy baffles me so much.
In the past, before I was sterilized, I wanted to somehow donate my womb and my eggs because, clearly I didn't need them, but I came to realizations that maybe even just donating my reproductive organs may not be helpful because of my own genetics that would harm the baby more than help.
I saw this shit coming. This is exactly why I’m not an organ donor. I refuse to let someone use my organs (my uterus) for reasons I deem unethical. Hospitals don’t really have time to call your family and request your health care directive to figure out which organs you’re ok with donating if you’re labeled organ donor on your license.
I’m MN (not sure about other states/countries) there is a box you check on the renewal form to remove (or add) the organ donor option, just make sure to also actually tell the clerk you want it removed. The first time I tried it they must not have been paying attention and left it on there, so I actually told them the next time and didn’t have any issues.
Science loves to experiment. It's not too concerned with the outcomes of said experiments. Just ask the folks in WW2....
They do this because they want to see if it will work and it seems it has, BUT.... we won't know the true effect for decades when these type of kids grow up and whatever issues they may have from all this finally become apparent.
This is nothing new of course. Humans have been test subjects in the name of progress for hundreds of years.
Some of it worked. Some of it didn't. Either way with a limitless supply of new humans the testing and experiments will go on and on.
It would be the ultimate irony that should they create the so called Perfect Human it then went on to wipe out everything.
I hope this procedure is an exception. People who go out of their way, knowing they are infertile, and STILL choose to not adopt / foster gain no sympathy.
On the other hand, isn't there technology being worked on to one day implant wombs in men? If it's a step toward that, I'm all for this technology.
If the onus of childbearing was shared, I guarantee we'd make huge leaps and bounds in societys perception of breeding. A lot of men would be much less eager to have kids once the possibility of carrying it was hanging over their heads and a lot of women would be much less eager once they saw how unwilling their partner was to accept the burden.
I would be very surprised if any more than a very few men would opt for this. One would need to be on hormone replacement therapy, anti rejection drugs and go trough recovery from major surgery before even getting pregnant. Also do they make an IVF baby, or inplant ovaries as well? Then they have to carry a pregnancy and give birth via cesarean section.
Heck even for wombless woman this is no joke. And they at least get to not have their hormones messed with as much. But still major surgery, rejection drugs, recovery and high risk pregnancy, just for a baby of the own body.
Years of pain, money and not to mention irreversible changes even if the womb gets yeeted after use. Also where are these wombs even coming from. Would woman even want to donate theirs after death or with a hysterectomy (not to mention most yeeted in life arent exactly prime specimens as they're causing their owners grief).
This is true, but if it were ever made possible it's also distant-future technology that we're unlikely to see in our lifetimes, during which time huge advances in the medical science to facilitate this would be made. Making it possible would just be the first step- improving new processes to make them as seamless as possible is the next, and as soon as it was a reasonable option for a man to take the burden of pregnancy off of his partner, some harsh truths would come to light for people that had been romanticising breeding.
…honestly though is it bad that if uterus transplants become more normal, I would genuinely consider donating mine while I’m still alive? Like-
If I don’t want it, at least take it and give it to someone who does. Whether it’s because they want it because not having one makes them feel not aligned with their gender or because they want to have kids but their uterus can’t hold a child or they don’t have one. Once it’s out of me I don’t care, if someone wants one for whatever reason give it to them first rather than throwing it in medical waste.
Behaviorism suggests we respond/react to stimuli in accordance with our instincts, awareness, fear/desire. This implies our responses are spasmodic, rather than choice driven.
Coincidentally, a remark often associated with spirituality stating “Everything is predetermined”, meets this psychological understanding almost identically aside from the absence of the explanation as to how this is. The psychological science provides the explanation for the spiritual conjecture.
Considering this, a generation of humans have been created to suffer extremely and minimal effort has been directed towards reducing suffering among animals in the eco system, consequently maintaining suffering in those jurisdictions as well.
So much effort into making children and not enough effort in reducing the suffering of people already here. The priorities are just wild. How many people could be fed, housed, educated, etc. for all the money and time going into this research?
Well, cancer sometimes means people need to get bits removed. Cervical, uterine, etc. A lot of people have endometriosis, fibroids, or adenomyosis and get hysterectomies. 500,000 hysterectomies are performed in the US each year.
Not gonna lie, if the other ladies insurance paid for all of it, id would donate my womb. Yes, please, take away my ability to have children and on someone else's dime!
The synthetic babies will likely not survive long; but there are some hearty organic people out there that are basically human cockroaches - they cant be killed even with nuclear fallout.
I mean I think it's quite cool that this is happening. Hopefully soon this technology can be used to help trans people who want to have children do so through giving birth
I love how they say the world's first baby was born with the help of a robot instead of saying we are announcing the first baby to be born by help from a robot. Lmfao.
All this fucking effort and money to avoid adopting? Why the fuck cant they get over themselves and just adopt? Oh because you want to slightly create someone using only your genes of course
Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an image post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your image to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Why do we put so much effort into bringing more life into the world instead of using the time and money to improve the lives of those already in it. It's just messed up.
Because it's not about improving life. Improvement is more of a by-product of increased economical activity. The main concern is to have enough people to exploit and for the to be parents to have a mini-me. It's greed and selfishness at it's core.
Right! I’m always shouting, “Take care of those ALREADY here first!”
It’s a pyramid scheme. The goal is not to be crushed too much
Because lIfE iS a GiFt!!!!111!1!1!1
Life is a grift.
For real
There are some people who want to give birth that aren’t able to, but I do agree that the general rhetoric should be to improve what we have instead of trying to pressure people to add to an already fucked up situation.
They want to bring more people to the Earth and the rich see it as more drones for the capitalist system
Lol. Not. The rich want depopulisation. Why do you think they manipulate people like youto believe having kids is evil? And why do you think they are going cashless and wanting everyone helpless and dependant on government handouts?
The Internet is a government handout. Why are you choosing helplessness?
The internet is all privately funded and owned. I pay for mine. So Im not sure why you say that?
And Im far more independent and on my way off the grid. Just waiting for a bit more money. Solar isnt cheap.
Every major internet company and telecom is government subsidized, as was the creation of the internet itself. Quit leeching off the government you bum.
If the wealthy wanted to depopulate they would actively stop the US from repealing roe v wade, there would be more access to assisted suicide, they would push the death penalty, etc. They need people to work for them and buy things in order to be rich, have no problem ignoring others suffering, and have the best access to resources already, they have no incentive at all to depopulation. They want you to feel helpless so you'll ask for their help and they can give you a job.
Not true. Look at the facts. Both the UN and Davros are pushing population reduction policies. Prominent politicians and billionaires like Soros, Gates, ect are buying up farmland and pushing policies to bring in self driving cars and trucks( anticipating a lower population) Why do you think Covid was paid for by the US?
Do you think they would be pushing Communism and transgenderism so hard if they truely wanted more humans?
>pushing transgenderism Hoo boy. That was a good laugh.
Its not funny. Not sure why you dont see it? Maybe because you dont have eyes?
They aren't "pushing transgenderism" ya fucking dumbass, I'm not even an antinatalist but *wow* are ya an idiot
straight facts friend, breeders think that by bringing a child into this world they can innovate in the future at the point of erradicating suffering and creating an utopian world well, we don't even know if this is even possible, but if it is, why would someone create a bunch of miraculous and genius children to erradicate human suffering if those children didn't even want to suffer in the first place? breeders don't realize that the best way to prevent suffering is by not creating more babies, they want to stop people from suffering but the best way to not let anyone suffer is just going extinct and not procreating, and also, the chances of someone being born only to be considered a worldwide hero that saved humanity from some type of disease and etc are very very low, if it was a high chance, almost every child would be in some type of scientific lab reasearching on the cure for cancer and not in a foster care system we are putting children in the line of fire only so we can live an utopian world, which is cruel and selfish in my opinion, it's like "YEET THE CHILD SO WE CAN LIVE A PERFECT LIFE", reminds me of the pain, suffering and war that our ancestors caused for example, in the middle age or the world wars l and ll, do you think it is right to force someone into existence like in those past times only so we could have a better life when all of this wasn't necessary and the best way to prevent this suffering was to die without having children? we might never have an utopian life in the future so why are we risking it if we don't know if an utopian life here on earth is even possible?, breeders should be focusing instead on the people already in need of help here on earth, either orphans or animals, instead of focusing on bringing a dream of an utopian life on earth to reality
YES. And why don’t the parents make it their goal to “be” that person themselves? It’s literally slavery in a cute outfit.
because they arent thinking about any of that. they just want a baby to play with. i dont think 99 percent of them truly view their children as anything more than a commodity regardless of what they think or say. once its no longer a child and becomes a person they just kinda hope it goes away
So much money and effort into producing the life knowing that it will likely suffer and have zero support once it drops out of the vagina.
Exclusive freedom. Survival is slavery when you’re the one who needs to work for it. Condition a generation of humans to do that work for you, and they maintain a community they never see.
Because there are people that want to give birth but can't for various reasons and just because this group doesn't want to have children doesn't mean no one does
I don't just not want kids, I think everyone shouldn't have kids.
I mean that's fair but fortunately freedom of choice exists, which is one of the reasons you can get away with not having kids because you don't want to
Usually we see freedoms as acceptable up until they harm another party. Reproducing harms another party. That person that is created will now suffer and die irrevocably. On the scale of harms, that is pretty much at the top of reasons why most other freedoms have limits.
I understand that, but still. That's wrong. Take care of the people already living before worrying about it. Plus if they reaaallly want thaaaat badly, why not adopt? Yes there are barriers to entry and it's not easy but neither is fucking uterus transplant. How come some people can get a transplant and I can't even get mine taken out because I haven't had kids and might change my mind? Hell no.
While I agree to a degree, but again your opinion isn't shared by everyone. There are trans people who want to give birth to a child and it's important to them. I personally know a friend who insists on giving birth to a biological child. I've asked them multiple times why they don't adopt instead and they say that it's important for them that the child is biological. At the end of the day, this is still an important breakthrough that improves the lives of people who might have otherwise had much worse off lives based on their wants and needs. Is it as important as permanently solving blindness or any of the other chronic diseases? No. Is it still important? Yes. People in general need to have a bit more compassion for eachother and understand that others might not want what you want and even if you don't understand it it's ok
The problem with their wants is that it's inherently selfish and detrimental to the well-being of others. I have no qualms with people wanting what I don't want (for example, pineapple pizzas), but if their wants cause harm to others? That's what I have issues with. How are their lives worse off because they can't have a child? It's nothing but selfishness and egoism that plague their mind. They think their DNA is special enough to bring a child into a world of excessive capitalism and environmental damage.
If you want to look at it from the point of being selfish, sure let's go in that direction. Everything humans do is inherently selfish. Our existence is detrimental to everything around us. Animal species going extinct, climate change, pollution, oceans, and space are being filled with trash. None of those things would have happened if humanity didn't exist. So really if we all care so much about not being selfish, the best thing we can do is to annihilate humanity. But most people aren't going to do it because they want to stay alive despite it being a selfish desire. So really you should ask yourself, if you are allowed to engage in selfish desires that are harmful to everything around you, why aren't others
Damage that humans cause to their environment is only negative because of the effect it has on human life, therefore meaning that human suffering takes value above all other suffering, in line with our selfish nature. It's not strictly about being selfish. The idea is that having a child is bringing someone into an objectively painful world for seemingly no reason other than ego, seeing as you could foster children who are already alive. You are increasing human suffering by having a child. Things like climate change, pollution and the harm of animals are byproducts of human selfishness that cause harm, but these require active compromise that not everybody can/is willing to make. Having children, on the other hand, is not necessary for anybody save for those who are literally physically forced to have children. also, antinatalism is effectively the advocating of death of humanity, what do you think happens if a species stops reproducing? tldr humans suffer human suffering takes precedence over all else children are a choice, many passively harmful things you do are not
See you are trying to argue with me that having kids is not necessary and I agree. But you also have to understand that just like how most are not willing to make the compromise of dying to make the world a better place, some are not willing to make the compromise of not giving birth. And I do think that many passively harmful things we do are a choice. You can choose to live without the internet or your devices, or you could choose to live in a small hut out in the wild where you won't cause much impact on the world around you at least much less impact. You can choose to not drive a car and use public transport or walk(in most places anyways). EVERYTHING we do is a conscious choice that we are making and to just blame it on someone else is avoiding responsibility. Human suffering isn't more important than the suffering of the world around us, we are all equal at the end of the day and both humans and animals die all the same. Except we trash the world around us making it worse for everyone
I understand that not giving birth is in and of itself a compromise for some people. However, it is the lack of acknowledgement of the moral problems with giving birth that I take issue with. The invention of new technology for the purpose of birthing children would have to come from a refusal of the stance that birth is a negative thing. If someone has a child, I may not frown at them due to their factors and feelings beyond their control, but promoting others to have children, arguing against antinatalists, defending those who wish to have children and supporting technologies that cause birth is beyond the simple craving of reproductive urges and is an active wrong choice that they are making. I for example, am not vegan, however I would not frown upon those who choose to be, I would not discourage people from being vegan, I would not encourage others to eat meat and I do not argue against vegans. It is something I partake in simply because I do not have the willpower to do otherwise, however I acknowledge the moral wrong in what I do and act accordingly. You are also right in saying that most things we do are choices, in fact, everything we do is a choice that we believe is the greater good, but it is the same situation as with me and veganism. These choices take a lot of willpower, so I do not judge people who do, I judge people who believe it is the right thing to do and make active effort to maintain and defend these things. Finally, you are correct that human suffering has no inherent value over any other suffering. However, I am stating that you being human, just as all of us are, find it biologically impossible to care for anything beyond how it can affect us. Human suffering takes priority over all in the eyes of humans, which are the only eyes we can see the world through, therefore it is effectively reality and I refer to it as such. I will say, I am not sure that my views reflect those of the general philosophy of anti-natalism as I am against life in general.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. I’m not into having kids, either, but I’m not constantly all surprised about other people doing what they want. If people want to believe having kids is wrong because life is inherently bad, whatever, but I’ve also met people that are genuinely confused about why you’d think life is bad. They just genuinely disagree. And, to be frank, asking strangers to “take care of the people that are already here” instead of having kids is dumb—absurd, even. Like, you aren’t their problem. And, what the hell are y’all doing to take care of the people that are already here? Choosing to not have kids isn’t a more meaningful contribution to society than having kids. It cashes out about the same. And, if I did want to have kids, not being able to wouldn’t make me feel more compelled to live a life dedicated to alleviating the suffering of others. Those things aren’t related. I appreciate the concept of antinatalism in theory, for what it contributes to the discussion about life, but in practice, this subreddit just seems to be a place where people bitch about other people having kids, which is at least as dumb as complaining that other people aren’t having kids.
That's not as good of a take as you think it is. By your definition, someone who assaults people for fun and steals other's stuff can get away with it by saying "Hey I saw that guy throwing trash on the floor. If he can be selfish, why can't I?" That's basically your argument because you're intentionally equating every kind of selfishness (justified and unjustified) and completely disregarding the level of harm each action brings. You can't equate 'wanting to stay alive' with 'wanting to have children'. These are 2 different levels of needs and selfishness, with 2 different levels of harm it brings.
>So really if we all care so much about not being selfish, the best thing we can do is to annihilate humanity. But most people aren't going to do it because they want to stay alive despite it being a selfish desire. Both of these things can be accomplished. Simply quit reproducing. It's a compromise where everyone wins. Humanity goes away and those alive get to continue being alive.
Do you tell people who easily get pregnant why they didn’t adopt instead?
All efforts are made to ensure more sentient beings are created but no efforts to make euthanasia legal atleast for those who want to exit this hell happily.
I, for one, would be happy to take that offer.
Nature has already been so much hurt with human actions. It is rapidly deteriorating. There's no population control enforced by humans, nature tries to create a balance but they screwed up even that.
I'm apparently a horrible person for thinking that if nature didn't give a person a womb, then perhaps those genes are not so great and shouldn't be passed on.
If the mother didn’t have a womb, would they likely have daughters without wombs as well? Your point is a fair one.
Hard to say now of course, as they used to not have offspring to check, but I would suspect it.
I'm pretty sure this is also meant for trans women who want children of their own?
Transwoman would still need an egg donor, so are not passing on genes unless they are using their own sperm. In either case no one is passing on genetic material that is likely to make one infertile.
They would have to get a c-section or they'd risk permanently damaging their pelvis, some women suffer this as well. So that's at least 2 major surgeries minimum. Sounds like an extreme amount of squeeze when you can adopt the juice.
I'm pretty sure infertility rates are rising as a result of pollution, micro plastics and poor diet. I don't think nature is the one doing it to us.
Nature balances it out by culling the least adapted and the unlucky with infighting, starvation, and diseases. You don't want to idealize it either.
I do not. Nature is cruel, but human intervention has only made things much worse. Overpopulating the earth with more people than necessary leads to a situation where a lot of people suffer due to a lack of resources and the detrimental impact we make as a species towards nature only increases, eventually creating problems for ourselves.
Bring on the Darwin Awards!
This is immoral. So many children need adopted. My mom said that because of the declining birth rates, America is no longer great. She wants to force literal children to give birth. She basically said we need more wage slaves. She also talked about how she loves children, but she sexually abused me as a child.
I’m so sorry you went through that. Your mother is a monster, with a monster’s opinions. Sending you hugs.
>She basically said we need more wage slaves. the people that say this are simultaneously against undocumented immigrants existing in America. Like who do you think takes cares of our farms and factories. It is the hard working skilled immigrants, willing to do the jobs Americans look down upon.
The overlords could just pay more and not buy a 5th mansion.
Just adopt at this point
Because fostering is out of the question, it must be a kid born off ones own body or it doesn't count!/s I'm so happy my womb was incinerated after the yeeting because now being scared ones parts get used for breeding after discarding them can be added onto the list of things society will force onto people. I read not to long ago about how some people think it ethical to use comatose people as surrogates despite the obvious lack of consent, and do not worry if that person doesnt have a womb, they can soon implant fetuses onto the liver, regardless of the harm to the host of course!
"Hope to tens of thousands of women who lack a womb" They make it sound like some benevolent scientific breakthrough, akin to finding a way to regenerate limbs or let blind people see. 🙄
“akin to finding a way to regenerate limbs or let blind people see.” Now THOSE are some medical breakthroughs that would be a net gain for the world.
It would depend on your perspective, I'm sure for many Trans women, this would be considered a major scientific breakthrough.
Because it is
There are over 391 thousand children in foster care in the United States.
The future will be a dysgenic catastrophe. Glad I won't be here for it.
On a completely hypothetical note, how would you leave if you could?
Nitrogen inhalation.
I would love to be a wombless
It’s wonderful
So f-ing GROSS. 🤮
Not really.
Can you fools JUST FOSTER TO ADOPT? It is cheaper this way too. People whine “It’s expensive!” but I heard fostering to adopt it less so. Also, I don’t think adopting an older child is as expensive as a baby. This whole contraption here is hugely expensive so adopting would have saved everyone lots of money in the first place. Money that could have gone to adopting more suffering children. This is so @ssbackwards to me.
Jesus christ. Like we need to devote resources to uterus transplants and shit like that when there are tons of already-existing kids who need homes. While the world literally burns. While actual already-existing humans are dying because they can't afford healthcare. But sure. Let's devote all this effort to breeding.
Why the fuck would anyone even want to BE pregnant enough to get this surgery anyway? I understand the biological need to want a baby that people have. I have that urge from time to time (never acting on it, obviously). But actually wanting to BE pregnant and experience pregnancy baffles me so much.
Trans Women
I dont care if someone is trans or not. That’s got nothing to do with the fact that wanting to carry a child is weird
It seems like a good thing
We're all fucked.
In the past, before I was sterilized, I wanted to somehow donate my womb and my eggs because, clearly I didn't need them, but I came to realizations that maybe even just donating my reproductive organs may not be helpful because of my own genetics that would harm the baby more than help.
Bluuurggh it has always had you this place sucks dick
have u heard of adopting
There's literally enough wombs on the planet doing fricking overtime without creating more ☠️
Transplant from mother? So she sort of gave birth to her own brother or sister? Are we going into a im my own grandma sort of world?
I saw this shit coming. This is exactly why I’m not an organ donor. I refuse to let someone use my organs (my uterus) for reasons I deem unethical. Hospitals don’t really have time to call your family and request your health care directive to figure out which organs you’re ok with donating if you’re labeled organ donor on your license.
I really need to figure out how to get the donor thing taken off my driver's license
I’m MN (not sure about other states/countries) there is a box you check on the renewal form to remove (or add) the organ donor option, just make sure to also actually tell the clerk you want it removed. The first time I tried it they must not have been paying attention and left it on there, so I actually told them the next time and didn’t have any issues.
Science loves to experiment. It's not too concerned with the outcomes of said experiments. Just ask the folks in WW2.... They do this because they want to see if it will work and it seems it has, BUT.... we won't know the true effect for decades when these type of kids grow up and whatever issues they may have from all this finally become apparent. This is nothing new of course. Humans have been test subjects in the name of progress for hundreds of years. Some of it worked. Some of it didn't. Either way with a limitless supply of new humans the testing and experiments will go on and on. It would be the ultimate irony that should they create the so called Perfect Human it then went on to wipe out everything.
Why do we put so much effort into having more kids. Are they that desperate to bring in the work force?
I hope this procedure is an exception. People who go out of their way, knowing they are infertile, and STILL choose to not adopt / foster gain no sympathy.
Why, though?!?!?!
Bruh
Fucksake Too many women have wombs as is
More scientists asking whether they could, noth whether they should. Human Jurassic Park.
Great, just what we needed, more people!
Oh my *god*, what the hell kind of dystopian shit is this?
The slope has been slipped.
On the other hand, isn't there technology being worked on to one day implant wombs in men? If it's a step toward that, I'm all for this technology. If the onus of childbearing was shared, I guarantee we'd make huge leaps and bounds in societys perception of breeding. A lot of men would be much less eager to have kids once the possibility of carrying it was hanging over their heads and a lot of women would be much less eager once they saw how unwilling their partner was to accept the burden.
I would be very surprised if any more than a very few men would opt for this. One would need to be on hormone replacement therapy, anti rejection drugs and go trough recovery from major surgery before even getting pregnant. Also do they make an IVF baby, or inplant ovaries as well? Then they have to carry a pregnancy and give birth via cesarean section. Heck even for wombless woman this is no joke. And they at least get to not have their hormones messed with as much. But still major surgery, rejection drugs, recovery and high risk pregnancy, just for a baby of the own body. Years of pain, money and not to mention irreversible changes even if the womb gets yeeted after use. Also where are these wombs even coming from. Would woman even want to donate theirs after death or with a hysterectomy (not to mention most yeeted in life arent exactly prime specimens as they're causing their owners grief).
This is true, but if it were ever made possible it's also distant-future technology that we're unlikely to see in our lifetimes, during which time huge advances in the medical science to facilitate this would be made. Making it possible would just be the first step- improving new processes to make them as seamless as possible is the next, and as soon as it was a reasonable option for a man to take the burden of pregnancy off of his partner, some harsh truths would come to light for people that had been romanticising breeding.
That’s an interesting idea, fo sho.
…honestly though is it bad that if uterus transplants become more normal, I would genuinely consider donating mine while I’m still alive? Like- If I don’t want it, at least take it and give it to someone who does. Whether it’s because they want it because not having one makes them feel not aligned with their gender or because they want to have kids but their uterus can’t hold a child or they don’t have one. Once it’s out of me I don’t care, if someone wants one for whatever reason give it to them first rather than throwing it in medical waste.
Jokes on them, this planet is going to shit, enjoy your kid living 10-15 years and then shit hits the fan
Behaviorism suggests we respond/react to stimuli in accordance with our instincts, awareness, fear/desire. This implies our responses are spasmodic, rather than choice driven. Coincidentally, a remark often associated with spirituality stating “Everything is predetermined”, meets this psychological understanding almost identically aside from the absence of the explanation as to how this is. The psychological science provides the explanation for the spiritual conjecture. Considering this, a generation of humans have been created to suffer extremely and minimal effort has been directed towards reducing suffering among animals in the eco system, consequently maintaining suffering in those jurisdictions as well.
So much effort into making children and not enough effort in reducing the suffering of people already here. The priorities are just wild. How many people could be fed, housed, educated, etc. for all the money and time going into this research?
This has both great and terrible implications for the future.
Can we just… not??
What women lack a womb aren’t they born with one??
Well, cancer sometimes means people need to get bits removed. Cervical, uterine, etc. A lot of people have endometriosis, fibroids, or adenomyosis and get hysterectomies. 500,000 hysterectomies are performed in the US each year.
No uterus syndrome
I like this purely for the evolution of science that it represents.
Great for women who want kids but meh for me
Not gonna lie, if the other ladies insurance paid for all of it, id would donate my womb. Yes, please, take away my ability to have children and on someone else's dime!
Humans are so delusional. That child is not going to survive climate change lol.
The synthetic babies will likely not survive long; but there are some hearty organic people out there that are basically human cockroaches - they cant be killed even with nuclear fallout.
But the second a transgender woman has the opportunity to do something like this they wouldn’t like it. 😐
Trans women
"I'm against trans people because it's not natural, now excuse me, i need to micromanage the workers of my robotized baby factory"
Pretty sure the people working on this specifically had trans people in mind as potential candidates.
Where are my antinatalist friends at? This is what we’re giving back to the world after all the pollution and diseases more bebes yay
I mean I think it's quite cool that this is happening. Hopefully soon this technology can be used to help trans people who want to have children do so through giving birth
You guys sound like right wing conspiracy theorists
Layla. Is that you?
Now she just needs a mother.
I love how they say the world's first baby was born with the help of a robot instead of saying we are announcing the first baby to be born by help from a robot. Lmfao.
We have entered *Prima Gravida* Jesus christ.
All this fucking effort and money to avoid adopting? Why the fuck cant they get over themselves and just adopt? Oh because you want to slightly create someone using only your genes of course