Antinatalist Anonymous 147213
Anyone else antinatalist?
I've always been.
Birth horrified me as soon as I realized what it was, and that it was how babies came about. I saw my cat give birth as a kid and was scared by it. How all of the writing kittens were constantly biting her and kneading at her.
Seeing how women are treated in the hospital while giving birth made me never want to go through that too. A highschool friend of mine gave birth at 19 and wanted me to be there for her and it was absolutely terrible how she was treated and what she went through. No thanks.
All that just so I could have my own kid? There are so many out there who need parents and my genes aren't that special. You're forgotten by everyone within 3 generations dying anyway- so its not exactly like you're leaving a legacy. Yeah, you drop some genes in the genepool, but they get super diluted and who even cares if some distant relative has your same eye color?
Also growing up, I saw my mom as some kind of all-knowing goddess when I was very little (as children often do) but as I got older I saw how being a mother had impacted her and changed her into a shadow of herself, how she was kept on a short leash and how much she had to sacrifice. I wanted to never lose myself like that. Image related, I guess.
Also, Its just a fucked up world and I can't justify bringing anyone into it. People do so for selfish reasons, like "who will take care of you when you're older?" (Most people don't take care of their aging parents at all) or "don't you want a little baby to make your life complete?" (your own worth is projected onto a tiny infant and thats awful reason to make an entire human being who now has to grow up and pay rent and work in an overcrowded and failing planet). I just can't get over how selfish people are. Most people don't even spend time with their kids, too, as evident by how people reacted during the pandemic when schools closed and they felt absolute terror at having to spend 8+ hours a day with their own children.
Before someone says some "what if your mom thought the same?!" bullshit,
…Honey, I wish she did.
And I bet others who see this thread wish she did, too! People seem to get quite heated over this topic. Not sure why, as my own choice to not procreate has NOTHING to do with them.
i don't think i have antinatilist views but i've felt the same way in the past too, and yes, it is alarming to see how angry people get when you say anything about not popping out children. honestly i've wanted a kid in the past, and in an ideal world i would, but when i see how depressed and anxious gen z and gen alpha are i start to wonder whether it would be right to procreate in our current environment. i also grew up depressed and know that everyone in my family is very sensitive, so i question if my offspring would be able to adapt well considering lots of things are going down the shitter (or media is effective in making us think so, at least).
that being said, i agree with you about how selfish and unprepared many modern parents are. way too many people are popping out babies because they think it'll give meaning to their lives or "fulfill their purpose" (kek), without thinking about the implications of having to take care of another being with their own desires and wills. i knew way too many kids who were emotionally neglected as children because their parents were incredibly self-absorbed and overly concerned with their own identity (i honestly think this is just a sacrifice you have to make when you become a parent, so i understand why you feel picrel). also people giving birth who don't give a shit about providing access to quality education and food to their kids.
I went to the beach today and it was great. On days like this I feel like I would rather be alive than dead.
The above post could only have been written by a suicidal person.
The new suicide hotline is 988.
Maybe try to get some help.
I feel like pregnancy is only a shitty experience because our misogynistic society has made it that way. I think when women take it into their own hands and explore alternative options, esp when they use midwives and doulas, it seems to be much better experience than a sterile, stale hospital where you're one of many and everyone is mean to you and thinks your lying about your pain and your dumbass husband is complaining because he has to sit in an uncomfortable chair for 6 hours while you have a literal human forcing its way through your vag.
Anyways, I understand and respect why some women don't want to have kids. It definitely seems like a really intense experience overall. That said, it's a uniquely female experience and it's crazy that our bodies can do it, so I'm often just in awe of the women who manage to get through it. I still don't know if I want to have kids or not if I even will be able to (I want to be stable enough on my own and I don't want to have a fucking moron for a husband). I think overpopulation is a myth so that doesn't bother me, but I am worried about the culture I am bringing a child into as well as climate change. I also do agree that most people bring kids into the world for selfish reasons, or because they think they have to due to societal/cultural pressure. People who have kids for these reasons often are not quality parents. Everyone I know who had parents like this have grown up to be miserable. It's sad.
Dont we have like 40 of these threads in the catalog
I’d rather just adopt. There’s already so many unwanted kids in this world, I genuinely don’t see the point in bringing in more when we can’t even look after the ones we’ve already got. The fact that most people are averse to adoption (especially men) really makes me realise how narcissistic most humans are, and how for most humans having kids is less about loving a vulnerable little person and trying to give them a good life, and more about producing a malleable genetic copy of themselves/their partner, someone that they can easily control and brainwash.
The historical practice of tribeswomen communally bringing up children, while the men fuck off and go hunt or gather resources or whatever, is more healthy and natural imo than modern nuclear families or the epidemic of single mothers without a large support group.
A matriarchal upbringing system means a good mixture of support and resources, with less of the violence and aggression and other dumb shit that men tend to bring to childrens lives if they’re around too much.
So not wanting to have children is one thing (and its completely fine), but antinatalism is the belief that no one should procreate because having children is wrong.
Personally, I believe that antinatalism is one of the most retarded opinions one can have. First of all, morality itself evolved in order to make us cooperate better with the purposes of survival and reproduction. Reproduction is the reason why morality exists in the first place. Saying that reproduction is immoral is basically like saying "reproduction is bad for survival and reproduction". It's a nonsensical statement.
Furthermore, consciousness is the most complex and wonderful thing in the universe. Without consciousness nothing has value, nothing has meaning, nothing has beauty and so on. ANd human consciousness is the highest level of consciousness we know of, the most complex, the one that can most appreciate beauty, create meaning and value. And antinatalism wants to take that away, because MUH SUFFERING. Happiness and suffering mean nothing compared to everything else human consciousness add to the world, I honestly think that wanting to take all of that away because you think there's more suffering than happiness in the world means you have a very child-like understanding of life.
Happiness (or lack of suffering) aren't the be all end all of life. They're just an internal tool we have to tell us if we're doing fine and to motivate us to do things necessary for survival and reproduction. The same as any other feeling, like pain, hunger, thirst and so on. If you want to set that as your lifes purpose that's completely fine, but creating or adhering to an ideology that would sacrifice all human life, human experience and all that comes with it for the sake of reducing suffering is missing the forest for the trees, to say the least.
What's even the point of spamming every post you don't like with "MOID"? If you really think I'm a moid just report me. This "moid" crap every 3rd post is the dumbest thing on cc.
that was pretty thought provoking anon. i still kinda agree with some of OP's original sentiments, but your post certainly did put into words that feeling i get when people reduce whether or not procreation is justified to a matter of suffering/happiness.
Then why aren’t you having kids if it’s so great?
you seem stable
I mean OP is mostly justifying why she doesn't want a kid and I attack antinatalism, these 2 posts arent completely antithetical. I myself am not sure yet if I want to have children and I also resonate with some of what she's saying, but that's a far cry from antinatalism. My post was mostly to yell at antinatalists than to yell at OP, because I saw that sentiment a few times here and I thought I should finally express my thoughts on it, since I don't think I ever saw my take in those arguments.
I say I’m anti natalist and endorse the child free lifestyle to moids because it triggers them.
I'm a anti-natalist but only for the human species, but I trully support other animal species to procreate and have offspring.
We humans became too brutal and evil, created countless wars and we are slowly killing our mother earth. I will remain anti-natalist untill I don't see a change in us.
Plus who needs kids these days, there parasites.
Thanks for fixing me I was writing really really fast, plus englush is not my native launguage.
your children will not give you purpose.
they'll probably be suicidal when they grow up and hate you because I can tell you'd be a pathetic parent
It’s some weird Indian moid troll. Ignore it.
>>147285>Without consciousness nothing has value, nothing has meaning, nothing has beauty and so on
And that's a good thing.>>147213
I'm with you OP, except I'm more of an efilist. I wish all life on Earth would cease to exist, and if I could erase it, I would. Only people who were lucky or privileged are natalists, also those who are scared of dying alone, or those who simply lack empathy and don't value the suffering of others. They will defend the cancer of life because that's what they were programmed to do.
Image related, 3 very interesting books for anyone interested in the topic.>>147221
nice try, sis. I can not want to have kids and not want to kill myself.
The difference is it being activly removing something, or not.
So- Its a different thing to end my life now. Thats taking something away. I exist now. Suicide= ending that. Some math= 1-1=0.
1 (me, a person existing) - 1 (me, killing myself) = 0.
If my mom never had me, there is no difference. I didn't exist before, and wouldn't exist after.
Same fucking thing.
Just like how if I dont have kids, Im not killing anyone. I'm simply not bringing someone into the earth. You can't subtract 0 from 0. Just doesn't work.
To use the same idea of expressing it through math: 0-0=0.
0 (someone who doesnt exist) - 0 (they keep not existing) = 0.
Here is a cool cartoon that might describe this shit for you : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l88ugDhM_OI>>147307
see the above argument.
I don't know why this is so difficult to understand???>>147285>>I believe that antinatalism is one of the most retarded opinions one can have
Absolutely no need to call opinions you disagree with retarded, or be so hostile.
This is exactly what I was talking about how people get so bent out of shape the second you say "Hey I don't want kids" and think its some sort of personal insult against THEM.
Has nothing to do with you. 0. You should be happy my retarded opinions and retarded bloodline is dying off with me, I guess.
also is it a bannable offense to say tfw no antinatalist bf? just wonderin.
How arrogant and delusional to think that we are the only entities in the universe that have consciousness or perception.
according to random anon, making conclusions based off available evidence is arrogant and delusional. more at 10
get this moid outta here
I can smell his stinky scrote through the internet
Imagine thinking limited human perception counts for shit in this infinite universe. Holy crap you’re dumb and a perfect argument FOR antinatalism.
he is a great motivation to be antinatalist, imagine bringing more moids to the world
Just abort male children only, simple as.
agreed, remember to use pre implantation genetic diagnosis and choose the healthiest female embryo :D
We need more female Freemasons.
Sorry you’re not cool enough to join our Stacy club, loser.
>not having control over the entire world
Lol fucking loser.
You will never understand, and we like to keep it that way.
why the fuck are you shitposting about freemasons?
can we please talk about the topic of the thread?
make your own thread about freemasons if you want.
>noooooooo lemme in on the secret knowledge!!!
It pisses loser moids off and it’s fun.
Meta-ethical deficit detected. Let's examine.
>morality itself evolved in order to make us cooperate better with the purposes of survival and reproduction
Morality has no purpose, it's not a subject with motivations, it didn't evolve with any purpose in mind, it wasn't created by anyone for any reason.
Morality itself is a thing that is subject to the effects of natural selection, particular moral beliefs confer advantages or disadvantages when it comes to reproductive fitness. Morality though is not a tool to maximise to reproductive fitness, instead particular moral beliefs that confer increases to reproductive fitness proliferate while those that do not or do the opposite have a tendency to decrease.
Basically the effect of some moral beliefs is an increase in reproductive fitness, but it's not the purpose of morality. You're mistaking an effect for the purpose.
>Reproduction is the reason why morality exists in the first place. Saying that reproduction is immoral is basically like saying "reproduction is bad for survival and reproduction".
As said above, you're giving a human teleological explanation to a phenomena that arose without purpose. Your premise is incorrect, everything that follows then is incorrect.
>Furthermore, consciousness is the most complex and wonderful thing in the universe.
>Without consciousness nothing has value, nothing has meaning, nothing has beauty and so on.
I'm surprised you didn't reduce these things also to their contribution to reproductive fitness, they too are influenced by natural selection. The particular things you think are beautiful/have value/have meaning etc are a byproduct of natural selection. The things you see value in increase your reproductive fitness, beauty in increase your reproductive fitness, meaning in increase your reproductive fitness. Still however, these things have no inherent purpose.
The dead and those who have yet to be born have no need or want of these things. They require a mind that cares about these things to think these things are important and worth having. The question isn't, "on balance are the highlights of life worth the vicissitudes of life." The question is do we force a consciousness into a body that appreciates these things so it can live for on average 80 years so it can appreciate these things when we could just not, and why. For me, I'm indifferent, I don't know why we should or why we shouldn't, it seems to be a matter of personal vibes about whether life was worth living for the person being asked.
I think that you underplay the importance of suffering in deciding whether to carry on living also. I guarantee you that I could torture you into begging for death. I guarantee you that as much as you love and appreciate beauty and all that stuff, I could make you suffer so badly you wish for death. I know that's an edgelord thing to say and that's not my intent, but in my experience people who underplay the contribution of suffering in the decision of whether to carry on living are those who have a deficit of suffering in their lives.
>Happiness (or lack of suffering) aren't the be all end all of life. They're just an internal tool we have to tell us if we're doing fine and to motivate us to do things necessary for survival and reproduction. The same as any other feeling, like pain, hunger, thirst and so on. If you want to set that as your lifes purpose that's completely fine, but creating or adhering to an ideology that would sacrifice all human life, human experience and all that comes with it for the sake of reducing suffering is missing the forest for the trees, to say the least.
You do this strange thing where you create a divide between psychological mechanisms which are merely tools for survival (such as pain) and psychological mechanisms which are the ends for the prior psychological mechanisms, (pain helps keep us alive so we can appreciate beauty). What you're doing is you're saying some faculties are subservient to others, that suffering is a lower faculty, a tool to help keep you alive so you can experience your higher faculties and that getting hung up on a lower faculty and seeing it as a motivating reason to end your life is foolish because of the fact that it's purpose is to keep you alive to experience more important things, not motivate you to die. There is no inherent distinction though, and when people talk about happiness they usually are speaking about it as a kind of index, where appreciating beauty is a thing they would say makes them happy. Happiness is that good feeling and used as a construct that subsumes all the things that people appreciate and like about living and suffering a construct that subsumes the opposite. It's either you've fundamentally misunderstood what people mean when they use terms like happiness and suffering or you're saying that happiness isn't the end all be all of life, the things that make you happy are the end all be all of life, that is to say, the ends are not the ends, the means are the ends. Which is strange.
>>147493>morality has no purpose
Sure it does. It stops humans from completely slaughtering each other to extinction, which in turn helps the species.
Purpose refers to the reason for something existing or being done, or made, or used etc.
Subjects have purposes for things because they have intentions and subjects employ things for purposes. Morality is not a subject and so it has no reason for affecting the world in the way it does, and morality was not created by any subject to fulfil some intention, so it lacks purpose. Morality itself has no purpose, it does however have effects. What you've described is the effect of morality, but not it's purpose. It is like saying the sun has a purpose which is to provide energy to our crops because it does that. That is the benefit we derive from the sun, but the sun isn't a conscious subject radiating energy to plants for our benefit, it has no designs and there is no purpose behind its actions and we didn't create it for that purpose either.
Anyone who browses this shithole should be an antinatalist since the alternative is you retards giving birth and raising children, a horrifying concept
There is already antinatalist thread on /hb/