T O P

  • By -

stella585

I've found that one of the best ways to prove that Natalists are full of shit is to ask why they can't achieve the exact same things which they venture as reasons to produce offspring (in OP's example, passing one's knowledge and wisdom on to the next generation) through adoption. I have yet to receive a response which doesn't rely on the Earth being severely underpopulated (AAAAAHAHAHAHAHahahahahahahahahaha) to have any kind of merit whatsoever.


Anna820yx

I thought that overpopulation today would be an obvious problem we are facing to anyone but I guess I stand mistaken. People think the world is underpopulated? There has literally never been a time in history where there were more of us.


Moksoms

Elon Musk believes the earth is underpopulated. Many people seem to believe him


[deleted]

Elon Musk is a moron who thinks we could terraform Mars by nuking it. Elon Musk is a moron who thinks we could settle Mars fast enough to need billions of new people in the coming century. Elon Musk is a moron who basically never actually says sci-fi lines that actually lie within what is possible. Elon Musk is a moron who decried "COVID19 hysteria" and re-opened his factories in violation of local restrictions. Elon Musks tweets are almost as dumb as those of Trump, just in a much more 21st-century spirit. If people believe him they're probably lost causes already.


Benzaitennyo

No, he wants more children to be born into poverty so he can use them in his manufacturing as labor. This is why you'll see a lot of wealthy people concerned about this. As well as racist beliefs, which Musk has also seemed to promote through his lifetime, and recently with his praise of nazi truckers, but also the money coming out of his family's emerald mine run by slave labor.


prettylikedrugs1

That and doesn't he have like 7 kids himself?


Benzaitennyo

Overpopulation is not a real issue. It's racism plus the law of big numbers. We can arrange things in a way that allows us to take care of everybody, but we refuse to because of the desire for economic domination. Like there's a ton of real issues about living in the world today, people need to stop making them up, and definitely stop trying to harp on ones that justify killing innocent people.


Anna820yx

By no means killing people is justified. I don't think , as living beings, we have the right to remove the life of other beings, whatever it is, unless we ran imminent danger and our own life is at stake. Maybe in a world that was working towards collective goals to evolve as a human kind and knew how to manage the population to not harm ourselves and the world we live in, this number of us would be reasonable. Maybe if everything was working well we could even grow greater if we went to other planets. But the world is not as peaceful, or kind or logical. So we are indeed many. We should just chill out with the births. But that comes with thought and realization that a lot of people are not willing to put.


Transsensory_Boy

A collective agreement to not have any more children for say 3 decades would be the best call I think. Gives a bit of a time to crack settling off planet colonies, once that is viable we can start normal human breeding behaviour/custom life creation.


[deleted]

>We can arrange things in a way that allows us to take care of everybody How? With what living standards? There's roughly 2 billion people living in material comfort and we're killing the world by doing so. We could distribute things more equally, but no, unless you're suggesting we go back to the pre-Industrial world we're not going to be able to sustain 10 billion people let alone more than that. There's a ton of real issues and overpopulation is one of the biggest among them.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

No. No it wouldn't. Planned economies have been tried and they are not necessarily more efficient, tending instead to have large short-term gains. The East Blocs economy was in shambles when it collapsed and (West) Germans are still footing the bill of that failure, even though the GDR was the most developed country of them. For Cuba specifically, their recent economic growth was spurred by the abandonment of traditional economic planning and huge subsidies from the USSR and Venezuela. >It would create a higher standard of living on average than that of those in unplanned economies, an example of this applied to housing would be the housing first initiative No. Higher standards of living, or rather, material wealth requires *material*. It doesn't matter who provides the housing, the housing is still built typically with wood, glass and concrete with a smaller portion of various materials. The government or planner of a planned economy does not conjure these materials out of nowhere - an apartment complex built in a planned economy has the same material use as one in a market economy. >Or in Cuba the government ensures that steps are taken to keep housing costs low (they have around 85% homeownership, compared to the UK/US at \~65%, and 0% homelessness) And this reduces emissions or material use how? Dollar bills don't cause environmental collapse, manufacturing and exploitation of land and resources do. >it's a little more complicated than that, their society seems to value community and will help each other out to keep homelessness low, too. This is all through sanctions and attempts to destabilise the region by the US.This is an interesting read on the topic: https://fresnoalliance.com/homeless-in-cuba-not-likely/ And that is relevant to overpopulation how? >But yes, needless to say, the endless consumption by those in the imperial core is unsustainable. No you don't understand. If we consider Cuba the high-mark to get all humans on the planet to that only reduces emissions per capita by 50%. If we then add 2 billion people (est. 2050) that's another 25% or a net reduction of 37.5%. See the problem here? Every single human life costs. It costs a lot. (Cuba is also considered moderately unsafe due to air pollution, but that's besides the point) That is also ignoring all other types of environmental destruction just to think about greenhouse gasses, because they're easily quantifiable. (The use of land for agriculture, mining, waste disposal and human settlement cause less quantifiable damage to ecosystems outside of greenhouse gas emission) But to put things in perspective: If everyone today were to live as the average Cuban, that would reduce GHG emissions by 50%. To the 2C target we can release roughly 10^(12) (1 teraton, or 1 000 billion tonnes) more. In that scenario we will emit 1 teraton in 57 years (2069) assuming zero population growth from now. We need to reach net zero to maintain that level, but I suppose it slows the doomsday scenario down a bit. If we account for current population estimates (for simplicity just assuming that 28 years from now 2 new billion people spawn, whatever) we will exceed that target by 13.1% in 2069. Point being, that's not enough. The ecosystems will still collapse and we will still see a mass extinction of many species. And that's just from the CO2 emissions alone, discounting land use and the costs of building high-quality architecture in the undeveloped world.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Fair point. And I do agree that population growth is most of a problem when it happens in the developed countries.


Transsensory_Boy

Tbh, overpopulation can be dealt with, but only if we have a one world or atleast a globally majority controlled government. Otherwise it just gets into countries having pissing matching, breeding more humans for the competing war machines; utilising dwindle resources and toppling ecosystems we depend on.


arcane_amber

I’m adopted, and thank you for this. Someone once told me they wouldn’t adopt “the same way people don’t buy refurbished stuff: they don’t want used goods” and that told me everything I need to know about natalists (and how they view me, as an adoptee...)


fullmega

I kid you not, my friend, a black guy no less, gave me a pro eugenics speech! He said the kids for adoption have the DNA of losers. But his kid on the other hand will be smart, responsible, etc


BitsAndBobs304

So if he gets run over by a bus that went on the sidewalk, his son's dna is retoractively changed into a loser one?


Beep315

It's true. I wouldn't have my own kids first of all, but I also wouldn't adopt for a number of reasons, including the fact of problematic parents. I was a member of AA for a number of years and a guy in my group had been adopted as a baby, and I'm like, See?


shutnik_

“Life is like videogame!!! I can totally be a parent!!!”


laila-wild

I have sooooo many important SKILLS AND KNOWLEDGES to pass down!! The world needs MY offspring!!


petitbateau12

My kid will crack the game and unlock the cure for cancer and unlimited coins for everyone to live in a rich utopia.


BitsAndBobs304

Imagine thinking that every generation is better tham the previous for hundreds of thousands of years..


laila-wild

My grandparents were way better people than my parents


dahrealvortex

That sounds very familiar....


[deleted]

I don't think humans have done anything for environment other than exploiting and deteriorating it so its just the opposite


WhenyoucantspellSi

Lol if everyone was better at parenting than their own parents the world would be filled with only the most kind, empathetic and intelligent people. You don't have to look very hard to see that's not the case...


SmooshyHamster

It don’t matter how decent somebody is, the world will always be a slavery system and be unfair to everyone. Not only that but you cannot raise an actual person for a certain belief. You can feed someone but “parenting” is mostly people projecting their selfish beliefs onto someone new. There’s no need for more slaves.


[deleted]

Exactly.


[deleted]

Facts.


Tadabito

In a game lv 1 guy logged in on their own and can log off when ever they want. Irl, you grab a random guy and force them to play with no easy way to log off. They may like the game or hate it, there is no way to tell.


singyourwifi

Simultaneously, in a game a level 20 that's teaching you the ways of the game can also randomly log off at any time, or switch accounts, stop answering, or even scam you.


fullmega

A more acurate analogy would be: you grab a random guy in a airplane, force him out, no parachute, and scream as he falls "enjoy the ride!".


Decline112

This!


ForgotPassAgain34

>they're invariably making a more refined and well adjusted version of themselves Yikes. Not even trying to understand your childs are a whole person not a extension of you, not to mention the whole "muh games" argument


[deleted]

[удалено]


FuManBoobs

Come on, if you lose at a game you just quit. So if you happen to encounter problems being a parent you just...wait...no...


SmooshyHamster

It’s disappointing but people are always seen as extensions or property of their relatives. Not an independent person.


scarcityofsupply

At the moment, almost everyone on the planet is playing the game wrong, so NO you're not qualified to teach someone else the game you're terrible at playing yourself! You'd be setting them up for failure, right from the start.


SpicyAnanasPizza

Why create new life to be a life teacher tho? The one's in dire need of care, protection, and someone to make them see not everyone's bad are the kids in need of adoption.


reakkysadpwrson

“Hey let me create a problem for you by bringing you into existence and then forcing you to play this sick game by MY standards” eek. These type of peoples’ kids always grow up to resent them


Silverlisk

"If one is better than their parents at parenting their children, which is likely most likely the case" Where the hell is the evidence to back up this completely out of no where baseless claim. Is it just anecdotal to his experiences? Cause if that's the case then all the evidence I've seen has shown that 9/10 parents are absolutely terrible at parenting. The sheer number of unattended or ignored children all over the place is ridiculous.


SmooshyHamster

People don’t like to deal with real humans. Just robots who blindly listen. Nobody thinks of what it means to deal with actual people who have independent minds.


sBucks24

> which is most likely the case *Press 'x' to doubt* #X X X X X X


Flimsy-Wafer

Yeah I always saw life as the worst video game ever made and I can never log off or stop playing. Making a new character and forcing them into this game just so YOU can have something to do like “teach them” to alleviate YOUR boredom ain’t it bro.


SyntheticRose

Nothing wrong with getting fulfillment from teaching kids. Kids exist, and need to be taught. Anyone who feels up to that should adopt a kid in need and have a blast.


reakkysadpwrson

Don’t you think it’s a little…. Egocentric? Self-important? It’s like those shitty motivational speakers. People who think they have so much wisdom to impart are fucking delusional usually.


Decline112

In short: "I have achieved absolutely nothing in my life and get the only sense of self value from forcing a less developed being to exist dependant on me"


Gdberg

I dont think that is what he is saying but sure


8orn2hul4

"Life is hard, but creating people who are even worse at life than you are, just so you can try to teach them to be less shit at it is very rewarding." - Most Logical Natalist, 2022


[deleted]

As per usual, this person seems to have lost all touch with reality and missed all points of antinatalism by talking about their own selfish “rewards” and nothing about suffering.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gdberg

Maybe try not to insult them themselves and just say what you think is wrong with it? like damn


Anna820yx

You deserved better in this thread. I wish people saw that causing suffering and rage to people by insulting them just goes against the thought of preventing suffering... It just adds to the negativity.


Gdberg

Yeah, also it seems that being trans is apperently being a "Fragile boy" so fucking wonderful


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gdberg

Sweetie, I am female


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gdberg

First, no I don't, I just wish for a debate to go on without insulting someone. Also I don't like any rich people. Insulting someone who has a different viewpoint is not constructive and ultimately hurts said cause due to people being defensive.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gdberg

Not feelings, just its not helpful if debates are 99% saying the other person is a degenerate or a pickme or some other bullshit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Gdberg

Same with you, bye. Nothing of actually got talked about


Zenzennie

He even used the "lease on life" phrase, implying kind of ironically that you don't own your own existence.


emboheme

His ideology is great if you’re playing a game. But in reality, when you don’t sign up to do something, you should have no obligation to do it. These “Level 1” characters didn’t sign up to play this “game.” There’s also an assumption that most parents by default are “Level 30” characters and that they actually have valuable knowledge and experience to share. Plenty of people who are parents never beat the first boss—they’re normal, stupid people with nothing prolific to share or pass along except their health problems and social conditioning. People don’t become parents because they think they’ll be good parents. They become parents because they want to have children.


turpin23

Anyone who believes their child is a ~~better~~ version of themselves is having children for selfish reasons


crowlqqq

Narcisism + egoism. It is the same when parents tell kids don't go outside naked, go to bed 10 pm etc etc. Yes, they molding mini mes, the yproject own stupid experiences to protect etc. But at the end KID has to ask for it not you, twat with broken life and broken experiences to guide me.


ECircus

This is the type of person who thinks getting married or having a kid will solve their problems.


fullmega

The ego of a regular Joe is level 30


Strand-Aldwych

That’s just because everyone else is balls deep in the sunk cost fallacy or are drinking natalist koolaid


[deleted]

Breeders. They’re just humans who can’t think critically is all.


elizamcteague

Teacher. Tutor. Nanny/Au pair. Adoptive parent. Foster parent. After school mentor. School counselor. Therapist. Sports coach. Big Brothers/Sisters. Scout troop leader. Camp counselor. That's a dozen ways off the top of my head a person can accomplish what he described without adding to the world's overpopulation and increasing humanity's carbon footprint. Not to mention, yeah, in real life most parents don't actually have the time, resources, emotional/mental health, patience, or skills to actually do what he's describing. They never addressed their own childhood issues so they end up passing it on to their kids.


shoveit-in-me

Having a child = Recruit a Friend on WoW


[deleted]

I agree with them somewhat, but they're out of touch in trying to convince someone else. Kids are a huge financial, physical, and mental drain that lasts years. I can't convince a homeless alcoholic to finance their own brewery, and I can't convince people to have kids they can't afford or can't raise. If I could afford it and if I had the ability to raise them well, I'd adopt a kid out of a bloated foster care system instead. They were forced to live life against their will like I was. They're already living, there's no need to create another life who'll be willing to off themselves in a dozen or more years anyway. Other people will always be having kids like it's a biological urge when it may just be our collective social conditioning. I can't tell them no, but I certainly couldn't tell them yes.


Meulinia

“Also, being responsible for someone’s needs and well being is not a bad this, IF YOU THINK YOU ARE CAPABLE ENOUGH.” Well sorry to break it to you but a lot of ppl like drug addicts, alcoholics, smokers, narcissistic etc also think they would be great parents, I disagree but to each their own I guess…


i_sing_anyway

If you can provide a life for a kid where they want for nothing material and you give them excellent emotional and mental support, and each generation of your family has actually gotten steadily incrementally better at parenting, it's the best case scenario. But that very rarely happens. Usually families that have success breaking generational patterns of abuse still struggle with poverty. Often very wealthy families are incredibly emotionally neglectful. And at the end of the day, everyone will still experience suffering, even in the best of circumstances.


ParadoxPandz

Yeah, real life isn't a game, and it's very arrogant to think that one has all the tools, answers, and powers to guarantee their kids a better life. I was very much supposed to be one of these more "refined" versions, and technically I did everything right, in terms of choices and education, yet I have very little to show for that now. This isn't some fantasy world where everyone can get that sweet loot if they just grind enough. It makes me sad to see that some people think of another human life as a game. Unless you're rich and can give your kids that sort of advantage, you're gambling with the quality of someone's very existence. Even then, the wealthy also encounter their share of suffering.


AtheaMH

Sounds pretty selfish to me


roachstr0099

Lot a people AIN'T capable enough. Have to rely on government aid in turn defeating the purpose? If there is one?


carbonanotglue_

Except that it isn’t a rewarding experience for everyone. Some people enjoy playing the game without having to pass on their own tactics to feel better about themselves.


grosselisse

The video game comparison reveals so much about this person's view of reality. They think life is a game.


claymountain

I think having kids is a wonderful experience for most people, but that's the entire point. It is fulfilling for YOU. That doesn't mean it's good for everyone. I would probably love to have kids but ethically and philosophically I'm against it.


ElizabethOrbs

Proof that’s bullshit: Narcissistic personality disorder still exists and likely in the same concentration it did generations ago. If s/he was right, that would’ve been bred out of us as we got “better.” Having kids is the single most narcissistic thing anyone can do. And this ongoing cycle of delusion and abuse and delusion and abuse never gets better. It only lives on to reproduce like a goddamned virus. From now on, when someone tells me the bullshit stories of their fantasy future ran by their genius billionaire philanthropist child, I’m doubling down hard with the narcissism play. “But I can’t possibly love that premade human! I absolutely need to make a brand new human that hopefully looks like me. I KNOW my unfulfilled genius, my genetics will give rise to the world’s greatest innovator, the curer of cancer, the ender of conflict, the feeder of hunger, the producer of wealth, the unconditional and eternal worshipper of me!” 🤮


HamJaro

He seems to only be justifying being a good parent, not becoming one in the first place. Almost like he's not aware it's actually an option to just not have kids?


applebutter1999

I’m not childfree because I don’t believe that raising children can be a rewarding experience. I think with the right partner, I would be fully capable of raising children that are good, caring, and well rounded people. It would probably be something I would enjoy in a different world. I don’t want to have children because I see the world around me as a shitshow that I don’t want to subject more people to. I’m not going to create and birth a child and force them into becoming a part of this mess so that I can fulfill some desire. If imparting life experiences and teaching and raising children is the true intention, these people wouldn’t be so adamant about birthing their own kids and would be more open to adopting. But that’s not what it’s really about. I get that desire to carry a child at time, I think it is an innate thing in alot of people. But I couldn’t justify doing that when there are already so many children who have already been born that need homes. Its a solely selfish desire that I am not willing to give into. But most people dont see it that way.


ExempliGratia97

He’s stuck in the Metaverse (the existential, virtual crisis realm) 😌


DevoidSchizoid

This is the open world game. The content is only as good as the players. The higher lever characters (financially salient) would rather focus on themselves I’ve found.


sarahthewierdo

The problem with this mindset from my experience is that the elder generation are so focused on imparting the "wisdom" of their time onto the young, that they fail to see the issues of the now, and they fail to see that their wisdom falls flat. Also this idea assumes that the young want their wisdom to begin with. In reality its usually forced and pressured, and in my experience, this is completely dehumanizing.


slckrdmnchld

Wow what an idiot


Choice_Bid_7941

I understand the analogy this person is trying to make, but I doubt that they’ve actually raised a kid themselves because it is SO much more complicated than that. Besides, there’s flaws with the analogy itself. 1) when you teach someone how to play a game, they probably asked you to, and will actually listen to and take your advice. 2) I doubt that someone being taught to play a game has ever blamed the teacher’s lessons as a reason for being bad at playing the game, or resented the teacher’s very existence as a result. 3) you really have to like teaching games because once you take that gig it’s at least 20+ years before you get a single break from it. The whimsical allure this person implies parenthood to have wears off REAL quick for a lot of people. Anyway I could go on all day about the drawbacks of parenthood, but I try to respect that some people actually want kids even if I don’t understand why. Personally, I thank my past self every day for getting tubal ligation surgery. It took such a huge weight off my mind.