Adoption can be and often is a selfless act. And I wish many more people would adopt. I don't ever see myself wanting to be a parent, nor do I think I would be capable of being a good one, but if I ever did, I would either adopt or not have a child at all.

However adoption is often a selfish act as well. Especially when done by natalists. My own mother is an example of this. She was the only daughter out of 5 children. Her 4 brothers were all biological children. And she was adopted purely because my grandparents wanted a daughter and kept failing at conceiving one. Now, adopting a child is typically a good thing. They were already born and you give them a home and care for them. But that was not the case for my mother. My grandparents were incredibly abusive to her. I don't know if it is because she was a girl or because she was adopted.

From the perspective of her adoptive parents, she was viewed and treated in much the same way natalists view and treat their children: as property, as something to be controlled and to be punished if they do not follow their idea of how a child should act.

It blows my mind how someone can ADOPT a child, something that takes way more decision making and conscious effort to do than conceiving one, and then treating them like a burden. They did not choose to be born, nor did they choose for you to adopt them, that was your choice. In my grandparents case THEY wanted a daughter but didn't give 2 shits about what she wanted or needed.

Even if everyone stopped conceiving, and all that was left was to adopt children, I would still strongly believe not everyone should be a parent.

I do however believe, on average, antinatalists would be the best parents.

I think that's the best we can do and then we can end the cycle of suffering.

I consider my cat Chrissy to be my daughter.

I feel like the most moral position you can have in this world is to be an antinatalist, especially since it doesn't seem like things will get better with any degree of certainty. I mean our world is run by the most evil and corrupt people and it seems like it's been that way for most of recorded history.

It doesn't seem like a very positive outlook but it is a certain way to prevent more suffering. I think that people who bring living beings into the world should be expected to provide for them their entire lives because they may not necessarily be able to generate profit. For example if they're disabled. But many people have children and don't consider what they would do if their child was disabled and that child ends up neglected and lacking support.

I know i should be greatful my mom loves me and whatnot

But when my mom says she is so glad she had me, it just makes me think "Gee, im so glad that me being miserable let you be a #mommy"

I get she means well. I get she loves me. But i dont hear that she is happy i am in her life. I hear that she is happy that I was forced into a life of being miserable so she could be a parent.

I just want an apology, but i know ill never get one. I try to not be one of those people who resents their parents, but deep down, it hurts knowing that they will never apologize or even feel that they hurt me by bringing me into this world that they know I dont want to be part of. i know its stupid, but all I want is a "sorry" and knowing ill never get one hurts.

Anyone else experience this? how do I get over it?

personally, i hold kind of grudge against them. i believe if they brought me into existence without my knowledge, they should let me decide to leave at my own terms and accept i will never be mediocre beings. they should get rid of pathetic hopes every kid gonna be grateful

Ro: Salutare, oameni! :) Nu cunosc pe nimeni care să cunoască antinatalism sau alte filosofii mai exotice în România. Dacă e cineva aici, îl rog să lase un semnal de fum, un porumbel călător, orice :)))

eng: Hey, everyone! :) I don't know anyone in Romania who's familiar with antinatalism or other more exotic philosophies. If anyone here is, please send up a smoke signal, send a carrier pigeon, anything :)))

What do you think about this person's argument that disagrees that humanity should become extinct?

swipe right for the next text image...

Many outsiders think that ideas like antinatalism can only emerge from a place of depression, hopelessness, existential nihilism, or hatred of life (even if that were the case, it would be a fallacy to dismiss the conclusion for that reason alone), as if it were impossible for someone to think "oh, maybe the ends don't justify the means in this case?" or "maybe the unnecessary risk involved in creating more sentient beings should *at least* make us treat this matter more seriously?" without wanting to blow their own brains out. No middle ground, no concessions, you're just a depressed p-ssy who needs therapy. They ask, "If you hate life so much, why do you keep living?" Oh my friend, I don't hate life, that's not the point; in fact, I've been much *less unlucky* than almost every person and non-human animal who lives or has ever lived in this world. The point is that, no matter what attitude you have towards existence, it's a one-way street. It's like an abusive relationship where, no matter how hard one party tries to keep the dynamic going, they can still be repaid with a punch in the stomach, or worse. There are no guarantees, no justice, sometimes not even in a legal or social sense; we can only hope that our fate isn't as bad as the tragedies that fill the newspapers. That said, I choose not to perpetuate this system, because things can go terribly wrong here, and when they do, it’s always the innocent who pay the price.

Hi, I heard about antinatalism due to the controversies in r/philosophymemes. One point people made is that antinatalism is a rationalization for depression, being hurt by family or parents, etc. That is convincing to me since I remember being a lot more nihilistic and misanthropic when I was suffering from depression. If you're suffering, believing humanity should go extinct is convenient. This causes a loss of ethos when making arguments.

So I wanted to ask you how you generally feel. Is your mood generally good, generally bad or neither; are you clinically depressed or not; do you agree that there's a connection between antinatalism and depression or not. Thanks!

For me, Being an anti-natalist stems from the realization that human existence is a cyclical loop. Regardless of our individual circumstances, we all endure the same core experiences: love, betrayal, motivation, existential search, personal success, heartbreak, and fleeting moments of happiness....

So, what is truly the point of bringing someone new here just to repeat the same routine, other than simply keeping the population stable or growing?

Given that existence ultimately ends in death, bringing another soul into this repetitive struggle feels unnecessary.

Why not just live life peacefully without taking on the responsibility of another human being?

I would rather enjoy my time here, die knowing I didn't leave another human behind to go through another meaningless loop, and simply make the most of the life I already have.

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

sorry if this is too long or confusing but im just genuinely trying to understand.

So i've recently started researching antinatalism because im interested in the idea. Im currently trying to understand the asymmetry between pain and pleasure, i understand the empirical asymmetry. it makes sense to me that there's more pain than pleasure in life but Benatar claims that there's another asymmetry, that the absence of pleasure for a non existent person is not bad but the absence of pain for a non existent person is good. I think i've heard him use the example of how the fact that there's no one on mars experiencing pleasure is not a bad thing because there's no one to be deprived of it but the fact that theres no one on mars experiencing pain is a good thing. My problem is i dont understand how that second part works. Something i thought about was, suppose there was a utopian society on mars where the people there were in a constant state of bliss, it would be true to say there is no one on mars experiencing pain, and it'd also be true to say most people would agree in this case that it's good no one is experiencing pain. suppose a counter to this might be some hellscape on mars in which everyone is in a constant state of pain. It'd be true to say there is no one on mars experiencing pleasure, but it'd also be true most people would say this is a bad thing. But this sense of 'no one' is different than the way i think benatar wants to use it. In the mars utopia/hellscape cases, I mean For all X, X does not have the property of pain or pleasure. But Benatar is comparing the case in which there is an X that is experiencing pain or pleasure and the case in which that X doesnt exist. But when X doesnt exist by definition there is no X for me to have any preferences in regards to. Is he equivocating between the senses of "No one"? I think benatar would try to show that with my view im commited to absurd conclusions, for example the case where you know that if you have a kid that they'll have some genetic defect that'll force them to have a short and miserable life with no pleasure, most people would say its wrong to have a kid but in the case where you know your kid would turn out fine its not wrong to not bring this kid into existence. In my view it seems at first that im commited to saying that in both cases there is no wrong but im not. First off it's important to note is that when we do this thought experiment we are imagining a case in which the kid does exist and noting that its suffering would be unnecessary. the reason why it'd be wrong to bring a kid into this situation is because of your obligation as a parent. To willingly bring a kid into a life means you must accept the responsibilty of caring for your kid you cant care about a kid and simultaneously bring them into a life you know will suck. but if you dont have a kid theres no obligation because you arent going to be a parent. another case is the person being tortured. This is pretty simple, of course if someone is being endlessly tortured i can say it'd have been better for them not to have been born but all im saying is that i dont like the pain they're going through and so i id like the situation in which they werent experiencing pain to go away. I can't literally be talking about their non existence. similarly if someone was expereincing endless bliss i would be sad if they hadnt been born but all im saying is that i like the fact that they are experiencing bliss and would like the situation in which they experienced bliss to keep going.

TLDR: I don't see how a hypothetical person's existent and non-existent states can be compared when non-existence is completely void of any properties. Is Benatar committing an equivocation fallacy with how he uses the phrase "no one"?

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.

Any ideologically left wing anti-natalists? How do these things connect for you?

Maybe a lot of you are apolitical or right-wing? That’s great, though this post isn’t directed at you.

Thanks.

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.

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.

"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."

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

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

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

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.