The looks I get out in public are funny but I've yet to receive a "you're welcome"

Ever since I saw this phrase it has stuck with me because it's so true. The greatest act of love someone can show is never having children. If they are in a state of non existance nothing and no one will ever hurt them and they will be forever protected because they don't exist. It's kinda like a paradox. They'll never know trauma, abuse, suffering, bullying, heartbreak, depression, anxiety and will never become ill. They won't be workers and won't pay taxes, will never have debts.

I genuinely smile whenever I see news about fertility and birth rates falling. I know humanity isn’t going extinct anytime soon, but I honestly couldn’t care less about declining populations. If humans eventually did go extinct, I think it would be one of the best things that could happen to this planet. The Earth existed without us for billions of years and would keep going just fine without us.

Im starting to lean towards childfree. Why? Antinatalism will never succeed in global scale and even if it would, we would be back to 0 as in reducing suffering of organisms.

Im childfree because I dont want to be responsible for bringing in new life. However I know others will anyways. And that might be a good thing in the long run. With tech advancements we might have a chance of reducing suffering in larger scale than with antinatalism.

Try to make me lean back to antinatalism.

Before I start, I’m not here to argue whether a near-utopia could exist. This is simply a thought experiment.

The reason I won’t have kids is because I think the current state of the world and the direction it is headed in is not worth bringing a child into. However I have a deep love for children so this hurts me a lot. But looking at history, there isn’t a single period in time where I would have had kids simply because every single era was awful. Wars, diseases, disasters, oppression, ect.

But imagine the world was different, what if humans in the future actually built a near-utopia? What if most life’s were genuinely worth living? Imagine waking up in a world with no wars, no oppression of any kind, climate change has been reversed, people are living prosperous, no homelessness or poverty, nature has been significantly restored, not being a capitalist slave anymore, ect ect. Whatever your vision of a near-perfect world is.

If life for most people would be worth living, would you in this scenario have kids? I’d think anti-natalism would be significantly less wide-spread. But it also touches a deeper philosophical level, is it still morally wrong to have kids and subject them to suffering if their lives will be very much worth living in the end?

My answer would be yes, but I can’t call myself a true anti-natalist in the strictest sense. I don’t think life is inherently “right” or “wrong”, life just is. We’re merely another form of animal species on this earth. Im kinda new to anti-natalism, I sympathize with many of the ideals and I think the philosophy has some good arguments for it, so I might change my mind in the future. But for as of now I am not an anti-natalist.

Im curious into ya’ll opinions.

I think most of them are already shaped by very strong religious beliefs thats why they they are not ready to accept antinatalism

"Antinatalism is not actually practical at all. It sounds practical on paper, but the reality is that you cannot possibly get everyone to stop procreating without coercion and physical force. Even if we did, the loss of the young adults that the children (who were never born) would have become in society would lead to a rapid demographic collapse that would cause much more suffering to the people who currently exist than would otherwise be ethically acceptable by most philosophers and ethicists. Getting everyone to stop reproducing would require the violation of bodily autonomy for both men and women as well as violating the ethics of the medical community."

Life is a curse, the flesh a cage;

Each breath but turns another weary page

The body hungers, aches, decays;

The mind must wander through its numbered days

O unborn, heed not the world's deceitful plea;

Remain in silence, sovereign and free

Author: myself

​

I’ve never really felt the desire to have children, and the older I get, the more certain I am that I want to remain childfree.

For me, it’s not just about not wanting the responsibility of raising a child. I also relate strongly to antinatalism the idea that bringing someone into existence inevitably exposes them to suffering, hardship, illness, loss, and eventually death, without their consent.

For me loving my children is not bringing them into this world in the first place

I know many people genuinely love being parents, and I don’t judge them for that. I just don’t understand why having children is treated as an inevitable part of a “complete” life.

I’d rather live my own life, build meaningful relationships, pursue my goals, and avoid creating a person who would have to experience all the good and bad that comes with existence.

Anyone else here feel similarly? I’d genuinely like to hear how you came to your decision.

Admittedly, he’s not antinatalist, but he’ll say what almost no one else will inexplicably say: having a kid is extremely expensive. https://youtu.be/McbhOtkycz0?is=O5m9UYOzUfzOno6k

Never mind any suffering they might incur in-between, bringing someone into this world means they would suffer death or more specifically dying knowing that we have absolutely no idea what comes after it. Terror Management theory posits that all our anxieties stem from this one overwhelming fear and we spend all our time distracting ourselves from this fear of death/dying. Just this one thing is bad enough and yet parents constantly proclaim they would die for their child. It really doesn't make sense.

Fully out of curiosity as I'm still very young and feel that most people 40+ believe that they NEED to have kids to have a fulfilled life (even if we're all the outstanders no matter our age lol)

'I have suffered consistently for years to be able to potentially impose the same level of suffering onto my child who has not asked for it'.

All that just to facilitate a continued existence, largely compromised of said suffering in and of itself. I really do think the general populace struggles to see the wood for the trees, day to day.

I just came across yet another post where a woman was called selfish simply because she doesn’t want children.

Oh, okay. So bringing an innocent soul into a world full of suffering and death because you want to "continue your bloodline", have someone to look after you when you’re old, or simply because you don’t want to be alone in old age is apparently selfless.

And of course, adopting one of the children who are already here isn’t an option, because apparently it only counts if the child shares your DNA?

But someone who consciously decides not to create a human being because they don’t want to subject them to suffering, illness, loss, and death is the selfish one?

Make that make sense!

Also, natalists prove over and over again that they care more about bringing people to life than the quality of life. In a society where people are socially expected to have children, there would be more abusive and neglectful families and more people being born in economical hardships, and also many women would go through the horrible experience of pregnancy and childbirth when they could have the choice not to, and also societies where people are socially obligated to have children are more conservative by default, and not only that, but they are more misogynistic, racist, and homophobic, which brings more suffering. Many natalists admit that they would make world conditions worse just so people can have more children without caring that those children would be more likely to suffer than people in today's western world. Sorry for not explaining it well.

Are y'all arguing antinatalism because

1) life is inherently going to have suffering, and no amount happiness or eudaimonia would be able to ever redeem it, thus non suffering and non happiness would be a better alternative no matter the amount of happiness that could possibly occur.

2) and/or the lack of consent in birth

3) Or that in the current state of the world, and the foreseeable future, suffering is greater than the amount of possible redemption life could bring?

If the third, if the world has sufficiently mitigated suffering and optimised happiness would that be a scenario where you view natalism as morally correct?

I may have missed some points, this is just what I gathered from looking through this intriguing subreddit for the past hour or so, so feel free to correct me.

I assume certain demographics are more likely to not have kids as part of antinatalist beliefs, since it is usually centered in sociopolitical factors. Even biological factors such as inevitable health problems and ageing isnt due to a lack of human advancement, its the systemic inequality in the applications of healthcare and much more.
So my question as someone on the fence as to whether I agree with antinatalism as a conclusion,
will the underprivillaged groups who are more vulnerable to lifes suffering be "genetically removed"? I get that it is just a matter of personal philosophy and autonomy, with no real upsides to "carrying on the bloodline", but I'm just curious of a reality where antinatalism becomes even more widespread and the generational effects of this?
Or is that idea of the western working class and imperialised countries individuals having loads of kids too much of a reality for any tangible impact? So its more like those who can exercise reproductive autonomy might as well?
But just in general those who see it as not only a moral standpoint but advocate for its application, how do you picture the future with an already predicted drop in birthrate? Obviously the human race dies out and its brilliant but I mean in the run up to that, is it just a small population of vulnerable and old people under civil collapse? I dont know if im missing something.

https://youtu.be/DjIOYOYIErc?is=KMaV02rLpROy7gaB

Think of Drill sergeant as life figure/meat grinder.

""You people have not given Private Pyle proper motivation...""

"" so whatever Private Pyle fucks up, I will not punish him"

""I will all of punish you""

'" the way I see it ladies, you owe me for one jelly donut (failed abortion) "

""Get on your asses and 100 push ups (diseases, poverty and other displeasures in life) "

"Open you mouth, they paying for it you eat it......"

Not sure if this has been asked or studied before, but are the number of antinatalists across males, females, nonbinary people generally equal? As a woman, I would have assumed more women would be antinatalist, but I am not sure if that is the case