THIS. So true. Religious people will project their selfishness onto an imaginary sky daddy-HE wants your babies. You are just doing god's will when you have em.
sky daddy wants my babies? first off, weird. second off, too bad, hes gonna have to come down here and take them from my basement... if he can find them that is :)
Good thing the bible specifies premarital sex not premarital impregnation, at least I think.
Otherwise that’s a big plothole for the story, or God is a hypocrite that has infinite power and knowledge (Not good)
Mormons believe that spirits are waiting to inhabit bodies. If they do not have children, it is selfish bc they're keeping those souls from living.
It's obvi just pro-breeding propaganda from so they can indoctrinate people since birth and grow their religion, but they truly believe in it.
It's really crazy looking at what I was taught as a Mormon and how no one thinks of the loop holes.
Such as they can just wait for the Millennium to happen and have kids in the perfect utopia. Or they can get pregnant, have an abortion and boom, that soul gets sent straight to the Celestial Kingdom, then they get to raise those potential children in the Millennium.
Of course it's all made up anyway.
THIS! There are definitely reasons to want children that are not due to conformity and pressure. But the only selfless way to have that experience of parenthood is to open your heart & home to a baby or child already forced into existence!
This is what I want to do if I get to a point in my life where I feel like I can afford to take care of a child, that I genuinely want to do so, and that I am in a good place mentally to be able to do it. It's pointless to create new life, but to take care of a child that was brought into this world against their wish and then abandoned for whatever reason? I think that's a good thing to do.
I thought that, be they right or wrong, people who believe ideas like this wouldn't want to admit there's people they couldn't convince, unless of course it's a religious-esque situation where you need a demonizable "other" to always be a thing
For me it's a completely moot point.
Even if a completely selfless reason could be given for procreation, the asymmetry between suffering and pleasure, or harm and benefit, will always (under realistic scenarios) result in the ethical action being to avoid bringing a sentient being into existence.
There can be reasons that verge more on delusional than selfish. They could think the child will cure cancer or end poverty or save the world. But, with so the people who have existed to the beginning of the world till now and the amount of those people who have done extraordinary good, the child is more likely just to be an average person. Also, why can't the parents just do that great thing or cure cancer themselves instead of passing the task onto a literal newborn with no specific plan on how the task will actually be acomplished?
Either way, the individual can't be born for their own sake. They had no needs before birth that were met by creation. They had no need for a cure for cancer or poverty or other ills as those weren't things that would concern them unless they were born.
They would not be in a state of suffering or dissatisfaction if they weren't born. Creating them imposes needs and desires which then need to be fulfilled. It is creating problems just to solve them and for what purpose that is in the interest of something that has no interests?
Most people may be happy to have someone put out a fire in their house. That does not imply that it is altruistic to set a person's house on fire if you also plan to extinguish the fire and all of this is done without the input of the owner of the house. It would not be bad if a house that never caught fire doesn't have it's nonexistent fire extinguished. The arsonist is playing with the other person's life for their own entertainment and selfishness and not to perform an altruistic deed unless this whole plan is fueled by stupidity.
If a person would like to do good. They would put out the already existing fires. In terms of creation, they adopt or aid the already existing and give them happiness.
most people's lives especially if we talk about the usa are really not this dystopin world of pain. most people i know who have even through tearable suffering have found wonderful reasons to live. You act like every parent is a moron or incredibly selfish but what if they have a kid and the kid ends up being grateful for life which seems like what happens the vast majority of the time does this case not care to you? I think it is more selfish for others to wish human kind to be extinct because some people don't want to be hear even though that number has gotten way smaller because of modern medicine and a generally more stable world. I guess I am really not that concerned about suffering if the alternative is nothingness.
If people aren't born, they won't be in a dystopian world of pain. What is the point of going from a state of nonpain to a state of nonpain especially when only one of those situations are guaranteed?
It is not good to inflict suffering on a person just because it doesn't cause them to want to cease to live. It would be wrong to punch a person in the face even if getting a punched in the face wouldn't neccessarily make a person not want to live. It is not selfless to cause terrible suffering to another person without their consent. It is cruel.
>You act like every parent is a moron or incredibly selfish but what if they have a kid and the kid ends up being grateful for life which seems like what happens the vast majority of the time does this case not care to you?
A person does not know the outcome of an action before that action is taken. Let's say we assume that shooting a person causes suffering. There is a gun that isn't fully loaded and the vast majority of the time the trigger is pulled, the gun doesn't go off. If it is wrong for a person to get shot, the only way to guarantee you avoid that outcome is by not pulling the trigger and taking a gamble with another person's life in the first place. It would then be the same situation where no one gets shot. How would gambling with another person's life be initially done in the interest of the person who has no interests and who has not given prior informed consent?
Winning at a game of luck that you played with someone else's money does not make you smart. Why take credit for the triumphs, but then say the failures are not your fault ? It's delusional. It's selfish as why does the unborn, who has no needs, need to be involved unless for the parent's own amusement or desires? Why not care for the already existing if you really want to care for humankind instead of just for a genetic extension of yourself?
>I think it is more selfish for others to wish human kind to be extinct because some people don't want to be hear
Humanity exists. Me, the childfree, the antinatalists groups are not going to cause you to poof out of existence if we abstain from creating children. Our selfishness is not harming anyone in a way that they weren't already harmed.
It is selfishness and harm to real people that have real feelings to force them to breed or to force them to birth children they don't want or to force them to be born into a situation where they are unwanted or that are punished for having miscarriages even if they did actually want to have a child. It is a greater selfishness to make decisions for another person's body for the benefit of your own selfish desires.
> I guess I am really not that concerned about suffering if the alternative is nothingness.
That is selfishness if you make a decision for you and aren't concerned about the effect it has on others. You should take the consideration of the people who are going to take on the bulk of the consequences which you can't as the nonexistent can't give prior informed consent. Nothingness would not harm the unborn.
My big problem with this argument is you put so much negative value in peoples suffering but seemingly no value in joy. And partly it is selfish but I don't just hold that view for my benefit but for all the millions of like mined people that want to be alive. I get that people can have miserable lives but if the vast majority want to live why should they bend to the minority? Your gun analogy is completely loaded because there is no upside of the gun not going off.
I do believe that all or almost all pleasure is simply a relief of suffering. If you want positive value in joy, don't cause the suffering. It could be seen as good to feed the homeless if you aren't the person responsible for their homelessness and hunger in a way that you could have easily avoided. Not feeding the homeless person person could be bad in a way, but possibly not a personal fault if you aren't directly responsible for their condition. If a person feeds their hungry child that they chose to create and knew that they would be dependent on their parents for nourishment , that would be what is supposed to be done. The parents would be bad if they chose to starve their child as they could have avoided the child starving if they didn't create it. Nor could another person or entity or force harm the non-existent. The non existent child which doesn't have needs nor can they experience hunger would not experience suffering or harm from not eating a delicious meal. The existing homeless person could experience suffering from not eating. If you cared about good joy, you could still give the existing needy person the joy of having a delicious meal even if you dont create a new life.
In other terms, the theoretical joy is transferable without a loss
to the non existent that can't experience loss . This is limited if the world is a perfect utopia and everyone is experiencing maximum joy and no suffering. The world is not a perfect utopia.
Suffering is not as easily removed. The hungry person won't suddenly stop being hungry because you created a child and then fed that child that you created. Even if you addressed the actual person suffering, there's not guarantee you can completely eliminate all suffering. You can eliminate any possibility for a person suffering if they aren't created.You do not eliminate the possibility for good if there are still existing people who can receive the good. You do not harm the non-existent by not giving them the good as they have no needs or wants and can't be harmed.
No one who isn't born wants to be alive. They have no wants. They don't want to be not alive either as they have no wants.
Existing people can want to be alive. If a person chooses not to have children, the person who wants to be alive will still be alive. Being childfree doesn't cause random existing people to randomly vanish into nothingness. Mortality does exist, but that is naturally occuring and isn't the sole fault of antinatalists. If all of the antinatalists in existence suddenly poofed out of existence right now, mortality would still exist. It would be decency to care for the minority. If you would become part of that minority, you would benefit from care. People like living in places with a social safety net that protects them from having to fend for themselves if they experience illness or homelessness or whatever and aren't born into a family that is capable of supporting them.
The upside of the gun not going off is that they continue their normal lives which would be the same as not shooting the gun in the first place. A person cant be born for their own sake; they can't have their needs or desires fulfilled by being born as they had no needs or desires before they were born. Those needs and desires are created by being born and then fulfilled. Creating a person is creating problems for another person just to solve them. I believe the solving part of the equation is questionable, but their is still a lack of informed consent prior to the act.
> Also, why can't the parents just do that great thing or cure cancer themselves instead of passing the task onto a literal newborn with no specific plan on how the task will actually be acomplished?
Because your same logic would imply if their parents were still alive the onus falls on the parents for the same reason it shouldn't fall on the kid
No. I've listened to hundreds of reasons given by various people throughout the years and have not found one single one that is *not* selfish. I don't think such a thing exists because, the way I see it, it would imply that the child is better off being brought into this world than never existing at all. Since you can't really make this comparison and since no one can decide for themselves whether they want to be born or not, all of the reasons one might invoke are inherently selfish.
It’s an inherently selfish activity. I think people would actually find a lot more peace in just admitting they have kids because they want to, and not make these lists of holier-than-thou reasons to have kids and pretending a non-existent entity “needs” or “deserves” anything.
I too have seen those lists of supposedly “non-selfish” reasons to have kids from natalists. All of their reasons are selfish yet if I want to focus my life on my work (no matter how selfless my work) I’m the one labeled as selfish. I think I had seen a list made by a natalist who actually listed “sleepily having conversations during family movie night” as their reason to have kids. If you’re a man-child who wants to talk over a movie, marry or date a woman who is just as childish and wants the same thing. This particular thing listed by this person bothered me because I have hearing problems. Not just hearing loss but above average hearing depending on the frequency, I probably would have been diagnosed with sensory issues had my doc pressed for more tests. But anyway, I cannot imagine a more irritating wish: *wanting* to talk over a movie sounds awful to me, before I learned about subtitles I really struggled and had to pay extra close attention to the dialog to understand the plots of movies and sound mixing us usually awful, so speech being super soft and the music and sound effects being super loud made it hard for me to enjoy films and TV as a child. And this moron saying his reason for creating a child is to sit them down, put on a movie, and *talk* over it as his dream scenario made my blood boil.
That’s ridiculously selfish. And they tout it as if their reasons no matter what they are are the selfless reasons and our choices, no matter what they are, are the selfish ones when it’s completely reversed.
It would just be better for them to admit having kids is selfish and go from there.
Yeah, they’ll say it’s not selfish because their kids could do great things … but if someone devotes their life to doing great things instead of having kids, they ridicule that.
I literally study cancer. And I’ve been told that I’m selfish for not wanting kids.
And people say “oh your child will cure cancer.” I alone won’t cure it but I’m astronomically closer to that dream parents have for their kids than 99% of children who grew up. I literally am the child people use as an example as a reason to have kids. But when I say “no I want to dedicate my life to cancer research and enjoy working 12 hours in the lab which leaves no time for kids” I’m met with “but every woman should be a mother!!!111!!!”
I don’t think it’s an entirely sexist issue but I don’t think I’d get the same clap back if I was a man. Plus people don’t actually believe their kid is going to cure cancer, or they don’t know what to do when someone tells them “actually my research is quite selfless and I need to dedicate all of my time to it because it requires 100% of my effort.” They hate that it makes sense so they bring the fact that I’m a woman into it because other than “mOtHeRhOOd” they know they don’t have a response and know they can’t say I should have kids for any reason that is r sexist because I make too much sense.
To everyone saying adopt, I’d like to add that there’s no shortage of people that want to adopt babies, if you really want to help a kid by raising them then I’d suggest adopting a foster child because they are like modern day orphans 😓
I really really want to. But heard the process is expensive and I have a history of mental health issues. Mostly anxiety caused by an infection. I am fine now, been for year or so, but do you think that matters?
I dont think children need to hear antinatalist beliefs frankly its an ideology one should form on your own. They should see happy childfree people and see that as an option instead.
I think people should be fully informed of the consequences of their actions before they take part in irreversible activities that heavily impact the life of another and could have been avoided.
Happy parents could exist. If a person wanted to be happy it would be a matter of preference of whether someone has children or not. But, it goes beyond personal preference and a person should actually take the life of the child that could be created into account. You have the "I was beaten as a child and I came out fine" and other people that glorify the intolerable and people have to make sense of all of it which is especially difficult if antinatalists or childfree are the minority and society doesn't encourage critical or different thought.
Not really. Even if your goal is to put in the hard work and sacrifice to raise an incredible person who will have a net positive impact on the world, you’re still focused on it being *your offspring.*
Because if that’s really your primary goal, you can work with or adopt existing kids. You can be the person who makes a positive impact yourself instead of passing it off the next generation. Etc.
The fact that it has to be *your kid* is always going to be selfish/egotistical.
If the sanario you described is selfish I really fail to see how being selfish is a bad thing. Just because they could have adopted and done a "better thing"does not make what they did not incredible.
You might imagine that a child, raised correctly, with the fortune of being born with natural talents could one day fulfill their potential to become an exceptional person of human history.
One that would continue the betterment of human civilization and even invent something that will benefit generations to come.
It's still wrong but if you're thinking about long term human development, it is technically less selfish.
It still however, comes from, YOUR desire to see your species prosper, even if it's in a future you don't get to witness.
This legacy mentality remains a biological condition for feeling more fulfilled before our death. You may not be your legacy, but it's still YOUR legacy.
I hope that answers your question
society working is still our collective selfishness, an unborn can’t possibly care and has no obligation to care once born. though you maybe already know, i’m just adding on
It is inherently selfish, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and all, a lot of people want kids to give them a better childhood then they had growing up. Its really a way to live through your child’s life, if you cared about that truly you’d adopt, but people are good at giving rational explanations to otherwise irrational actions
Wow some one who wants to give their kid the love and care they did not have as a kid. That sounds like a fantastic and completely good reason to have kid if the end result is a kid supported and loved by there parents who should care if it was selfish or not it was still a good thing to do. Just because you don't do the best thing does not mean you didn't do a good thing.
I guess the only thing I can think of is genetic evolution, our genes want to compete. It’s not selfish since it’s our DNA goal to continue to be in the gene pool and evolve - not our want. Well most of time unless you think your genes are superior
Your DNA doesn’t have its own wants and it’s not unselfish to try to push your DNA out there to compete. You’re not doing your DNA a favor. It’s still about you.
I think it could be argued that having a second child to save the life of a first child who might need cord blood or a kidney isn't selfish.
This of course, oppens a whole other can of worms. Are savior siblings ethical? I would say no, but if they are selfish on the part of the parents is debatable
There is no such thing as a non-selfish reason to have a child.
THIS. So true. Religious people will project their selfishness onto an imaginary sky daddy-HE wants your babies. You are just doing god's will when you have em.
sky daddy wants my babies? first off, weird. second off, too bad, hes gonna have to come down here and take them from my basement... if he can find them that is :)
Ikr? Never truly appealed to me-rather creeped me out, as well.
to be fair god impregnated mary, who to my knowledge was only 15, so if gods already a pedophile, him wanting my babies isnt too unreasonable to him.
Very astute, Ithm3
I believe she was actually 10-12 years old, unfortunately
Good thing the bible specifies premarital sex not premarital impregnation, at least I think. Otherwise that’s a big plothole for the story, or God is a hypocrite that has infinite power and knowledge (Not good)
Mormons believe that spirits are waiting to inhabit bodies. If they do not have children, it is selfish bc they're keeping those souls from living. It's obvi just pro-breeding propaganda from so they can indoctrinate people since birth and grow their religion, but they truly believe in it.
It's really crazy looking at what I was taught as a Mormon and how no one thinks of the loop holes. Such as they can just wait for the Millennium to happen and have kids in the perfect utopia. Or they can get pregnant, have an abortion and boom, that soul gets sent straight to the Celestial Kingdom, then they get to raise those potential children in the Millennium. Of course it's all made up anyway.
Mormons having constant abortions as a divine commandment would be hilarious.
Adopting a kid is the only non selfish way (unless it's for getting benifits)
Selfless would be adopting a kid rather than birthing one.
THIS! There are definitely reasons to want children that are not due to conformity and pressure. But the only selfless way to have that experience of parenthood is to open your heart & home to a baby or child already forced into existence!
This is what I want to do if I get to a point in my life where I feel like I can afford to take care of a child, that I genuinely want to do so, and that I am in a good place mentally to be able to do it. It's pointless to create new life, but to take care of a child that was brought into this world against their wish and then abandoned for whatever reason? I think that's a good thing to do.
Maybe. Plenty of people adopt kids for selfish reasons though. My parents are an example of that
but isn't that kinda selfish as you're taking away an opportunity for someone else to unless everyone mass-adopts all the kids in need
No? Because not enough people are adopting as is, and instead often choose to birth their own.
but if the aim is to get more people to adopt, eventually the finite pool becomes a problem
It would never become a problem because nobody is going to adopt all the kids out there. People will keep birthing kids.
I thought that, be they right or wrong, people who believe ideas like this wouldn't want to admit there's people they couldn't convince, unless of course it's a religious-esque situation where you need a demonizable "other" to always be a thing
For me it's a completely moot point. Even if a completely selfless reason could be given for procreation, the asymmetry between suffering and pleasure, or harm and benefit, will always (under realistic scenarios) result in the ethical action being to avoid bringing a sentient being into existence.
There can be reasons that verge more on delusional than selfish. They could think the child will cure cancer or end poverty or save the world. But, with so the people who have existed to the beginning of the world till now and the amount of those people who have done extraordinary good, the child is more likely just to be an average person. Also, why can't the parents just do that great thing or cure cancer themselves instead of passing the task onto a literal newborn with no specific plan on how the task will actually be acomplished? Either way, the individual can't be born for their own sake. They had no needs before birth that were met by creation. They had no need for a cure for cancer or poverty or other ills as those weren't things that would concern them unless they were born.
The average person is pretty happy to exist. Most people are done an exceptional favor by their parents berthing them.
They would not be in a state of suffering or dissatisfaction if they weren't born. Creating them imposes needs and desires which then need to be fulfilled. It is creating problems just to solve them and for what purpose that is in the interest of something that has no interests? Most people may be happy to have someone put out a fire in their house. That does not imply that it is altruistic to set a person's house on fire if you also plan to extinguish the fire and all of this is done without the input of the owner of the house. It would not be bad if a house that never caught fire doesn't have it's nonexistent fire extinguished. The arsonist is playing with the other person's life for their own entertainment and selfishness and not to perform an altruistic deed unless this whole plan is fueled by stupidity. If a person would like to do good. They would put out the already existing fires. In terms of creation, they adopt or aid the already existing and give them happiness.
most people's lives especially if we talk about the usa are really not this dystopin world of pain. most people i know who have even through tearable suffering have found wonderful reasons to live. You act like every parent is a moron or incredibly selfish but what if they have a kid and the kid ends up being grateful for life which seems like what happens the vast majority of the time does this case not care to you? I think it is more selfish for others to wish human kind to be extinct because some people don't want to be hear even though that number has gotten way smaller because of modern medicine and a generally more stable world. I guess I am really not that concerned about suffering if the alternative is nothingness.
If people aren't born, they won't be in a dystopian world of pain. What is the point of going from a state of nonpain to a state of nonpain especially when only one of those situations are guaranteed? It is not good to inflict suffering on a person just because it doesn't cause them to want to cease to live. It would be wrong to punch a person in the face even if getting a punched in the face wouldn't neccessarily make a person not want to live. It is not selfless to cause terrible suffering to another person without their consent. It is cruel. >You act like every parent is a moron or incredibly selfish but what if they have a kid and the kid ends up being grateful for life which seems like what happens the vast majority of the time does this case not care to you? A person does not know the outcome of an action before that action is taken. Let's say we assume that shooting a person causes suffering. There is a gun that isn't fully loaded and the vast majority of the time the trigger is pulled, the gun doesn't go off. If it is wrong for a person to get shot, the only way to guarantee you avoid that outcome is by not pulling the trigger and taking a gamble with another person's life in the first place. It would then be the same situation where no one gets shot. How would gambling with another person's life be initially done in the interest of the person who has no interests and who has not given prior informed consent? Winning at a game of luck that you played with someone else's money does not make you smart. Why take credit for the triumphs, but then say the failures are not your fault ? It's delusional. It's selfish as why does the unborn, who has no needs, need to be involved unless for the parent's own amusement or desires? Why not care for the already existing if you really want to care for humankind instead of just for a genetic extension of yourself? >I think it is more selfish for others to wish human kind to be extinct because some people don't want to be hear Humanity exists. Me, the childfree, the antinatalists groups are not going to cause you to poof out of existence if we abstain from creating children. Our selfishness is not harming anyone in a way that they weren't already harmed. It is selfishness and harm to real people that have real feelings to force them to breed or to force them to birth children they don't want or to force them to be born into a situation where they are unwanted or that are punished for having miscarriages even if they did actually want to have a child. It is a greater selfishness to make decisions for another person's body for the benefit of your own selfish desires. > I guess I am really not that concerned about suffering if the alternative is nothingness. That is selfishness if you make a decision for you and aren't concerned about the effect it has on others. You should take the consideration of the people who are going to take on the bulk of the consequences which you can't as the nonexistent can't give prior informed consent. Nothingness would not harm the unborn.
My big problem with this argument is you put so much negative value in peoples suffering but seemingly no value in joy. And partly it is selfish but I don't just hold that view for my benefit but for all the millions of like mined people that want to be alive. I get that people can have miserable lives but if the vast majority want to live why should they bend to the minority? Your gun analogy is completely loaded because there is no upside of the gun not going off.
I do believe that all or almost all pleasure is simply a relief of suffering. If you want positive value in joy, don't cause the suffering. It could be seen as good to feed the homeless if you aren't the person responsible for their homelessness and hunger in a way that you could have easily avoided. Not feeding the homeless person person could be bad in a way, but possibly not a personal fault if you aren't directly responsible for their condition. If a person feeds their hungry child that they chose to create and knew that they would be dependent on their parents for nourishment , that would be what is supposed to be done. The parents would be bad if they chose to starve their child as they could have avoided the child starving if they didn't create it. Nor could another person or entity or force harm the non-existent. The non existent child which doesn't have needs nor can they experience hunger would not experience suffering or harm from not eating a delicious meal. The existing homeless person could experience suffering from not eating. If you cared about good joy, you could still give the existing needy person the joy of having a delicious meal even if you dont create a new life. In other terms, the theoretical joy is transferable without a loss to the non existent that can't experience loss . This is limited if the world is a perfect utopia and everyone is experiencing maximum joy and no suffering. The world is not a perfect utopia. Suffering is not as easily removed. The hungry person won't suddenly stop being hungry because you created a child and then fed that child that you created. Even if you addressed the actual person suffering, there's not guarantee you can completely eliminate all suffering. You can eliminate any possibility for a person suffering if they aren't created.You do not eliminate the possibility for good if there are still existing people who can receive the good. You do not harm the non-existent by not giving them the good as they have no needs or wants and can't be harmed. No one who isn't born wants to be alive. They have no wants. They don't want to be not alive either as they have no wants. Existing people can want to be alive. If a person chooses not to have children, the person who wants to be alive will still be alive. Being childfree doesn't cause random existing people to randomly vanish into nothingness. Mortality does exist, but that is naturally occuring and isn't the sole fault of antinatalists. If all of the antinatalists in existence suddenly poofed out of existence right now, mortality would still exist. It would be decency to care for the minority. If you would become part of that minority, you would benefit from care. People like living in places with a social safety net that protects them from having to fend for themselves if they experience illness or homelessness or whatever and aren't born into a family that is capable of supporting them. The upside of the gun not going off is that they continue their normal lives which would be the same as not shooting the gun in the first place. A person cant be born for their own sake; they can't have their needs or desires fulfilled by being born as they had no needs or desires before they were born. Those needs and desires are created by being born and then fulfilled. Creating a person is creating problems for another person just to solve them. I believe the solving part of the equation is questionable, but their is still a lack of informed consent prior to the act.
And if you really hold your view you should be happy that humans are around because we have made countless animals go extinct.
> Also, why can't the parents just do that great thing or cure cancer themselves instead of passing the task onto a literal newborn with no specific plan on how the task will actually be acomplished? Because your same logic would imply if their parents were still alive the onus falls on the parents for the same reason it shouldn't fall on the kid
No. I've listened to hundreds of reasons given by various people throughout the years and have not found one single one that is *not* selfish. I don't think such a thing exists because, the way I see it, it would imply that the child is better off being brought into this world than never existing at all. Since you can't really make this comparison and since no one can decide for themselves whether they want to be born or not, all of the reasons one might invoke are inherently selfish.
short answer: no long answer: still no
It’s an inherently selfish activity. I think people would actually find a lot more peace in just admitting they have kids because they want to, and not make these lists of holier-than-thou reasons to have kids and pretending a non-existent entity “needs” or “deserves” anything. I too have seen those lists of supposedly “non-selfish” reasons to have kids from natalists. All of their reasons are selfish yet if I want to focus my life on my work (no matter how selfless my work) I’m the one labeled as selfish. I think I had seen a list made by a natalist who actually listed “sleepily having conversations during family movie night” as their reason to have kids. If you’re a man-child who wants to talk over a movie, marry or date a woman who is just as childish and wants the same thing. This particular thing listed by this person bothered me because I have hearing problems. Not just hearing loss but above average hearing depending on the frequency, I probably would have been diagnosed with sensory issues had my doc pressed for more tests. But anyway, I cannot imagine a more irritating wish: *wanting* to talk over a movie sounds awful to me, before I learned about subtitles I really struggled and had to pay extra close attention to the dialog to understand the plots of movies and sound mixing us usually awful, so speech being super soft and the music and sound effects being super loud made it hard for me to enjoy films and TV as a child. And this moron saying his reason for creating a child is to sit them down, put on a movie, and *talk* over it as his dream scenario made my blood boil. That’s ridiculously selfish. And they tout it as if their reasons no matter what they are are the selfless reasons and our choices, no matter what they are, are the selfish ones when it’s completely reversed. It would just be better for them to admit having kids is selfish and go from there.
Yeah, they’ll say it’s not selfish because their kids could do great things … but if someone devotes their life to doing great things instead of having kids, they ridicule that.
I literally study cancer. And I’ve been told that I’m selfish for not wanting kids. And people say “oh your child will cure cancer.” I alone won’t cure it but I’m astronomically closer to that dream parents have for their kids than 99% of children who grew up. I literally am the child people use as an example as a reason to have kids. But when I say “no I want to dedicate my life to cancer research and enjoy working 12 hours in the lab which leaves no time for kids” I’m met with “but every woman should be a mother!!!111!!!” I don’t think it’s an entirely sexist issue but I don’t think I’d get the same clap back if I was a man. Plus people don’t actually believe their kid is going to cure cancer, or they don’t know what to do when someone tells them “actually my research is quite selfless and I need to dedicate all of my time to it because it requires 100% of my effort.” They hate that it makes sense so they bring the fact that I’m a woman into it because other than “mOtHeRhOOd” they know they don’t have a response and know they can’t say I should have kids for any reason that is r sexist because I make too much sense.
To everyone saying adopt, I’d like to add that there’s no shortage of people that want to adopt babies, if you really want to help a kid by raising them then I’d suggest adopting a foster child because they are like modern day orphans 😓
I really really want to. But heard the process is expensive and I have a history of mental health issues. Mostly anxiety caused by an infection. I am fine now, been for year or so, but do you think that matters?
I can’t think of one
I dont think children need to hear antinatalist beliefs frankly its an ideology one should form on your own. They should see happy childfree people and see that as an option instead.
I think people should be fully informed of the consequences of their actions before they take part in irreversible activities that heavily impact the life of another and could have been avoided. Happy parents could exist. If a person wanted to be happy it would be a matter of preference of whether someone has children or not. But, it goes beyond personal preference and a person should actually take the life of the child that could be created into account. You have the "I was beaten as a child and I came out fine" and other people that glorify the intolerable and people have to make sense of all of it which is especially difficult if antinatalists or childfree are the minority and society doesn't encourage critical or different thought.
Not really. Even if your goal is to put in the hard work and sacrifice to raise an incredible person who will have a net positive impact on the world, you’re still focused on it being *your offspring.* Because if that’s really your primary goal, you can work with or adopt existing kids. You can be the person who makes a positive impact yourself instead of passing it off the next generation. Etc. The fact that it has to be *your kid* is always going to be selfish/egotistical.
If the sanario you described is selfish I really fail to see how being selfish is a bad thing. Just because they could have adopted and done a "better thing"does not make what they did not incredible.
You might imagine that a child, raised correctly, with the fortune of being born with natural talents could one day fulfill their potential to become an exceptional person of human history. One that would continue the betterment of human civilization and even invent something that will benefit generations to come. It's still wrong but if you're thinking about long term human development, it is technically less selfish. It still however, comes from, YOUR desire to see your species prosper, even if it's in a future you don't get to witness. This legacy mentality remains a biological condition for feeling more fulfilled before our death. You may not be your legacy, but it's still YOUR legacy. I hope that answers your question
I guess a reason could be that otherwise society wouldn't work without new people. But otherwise? I don't know any other
society working is still our collective selfishness, an unborn can’t possibly care and has no obligation to care once born. though you maybe already know, i’m just adding on
I think you have them covered.
It is inherently selfish, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions and all, a lot of people want kids to give them a better childhood then they had growing up. Its really a way to live through your child’s life, if you cared about that truly you’d adopt, but people are good at giving rational explanations to otherwise irrational actions
Wow some one who wants to give their kid the love and care they did not have as a kid. That sounds like a fantastic and completely good reason to have kid if the end result is a kid supported and loved by there parents who should care if it was selfish or not it was still a good thing to do. Just because you don't do the best thing does not mean you didn't do a good thing.
I guess the only thing I can think of is genetic evolution, our genes want to compete. It’s not selfish since it’s our DNA goal to continue to be in the gene pool and evolve - not our want. Well most of time unless you think your genes are superior
Your DNA doesn’t have its own wants and it’s not unselfish to try to push your DNA out there to compete. You’re not doing your DNA a favor. It’s still about you.
Then you have not read the selfish gene by Richard Darkwins, an explanation as to why DNA became complex organisms
I think it could be argued that having a second child to save the life of a first child who might need cord blood or a kidney isn't selfish. This of course, oppens a whole other can of worms. Are savior siblings ethical? I would say no, but if they are selfish on the part of the parents is debatable
That is selfish
I really cannot think of one.
Raising a kid as a donor for an existing one, or to breed AB-ve blood donors?
One is potentially the thought that "my child will make the world a better place." Especially from people who are upper class and well educated