Why should I bring a kid into this fucked up world that’s getting more idiocracy by the day
I’d sue for wrongful life /s
As long as you aren’t one of the 17-40% of miscarriages (depending on your mom’s age).
If you’re a bit more unlucky, and in an adoration ban state, you might take your erstwhile mom out too!
The most annoying thing is all the awful spelling and lack of punctuation I’ve seen on all the major platforms in recent years. None of today’s kids can spell for shit. This is what happens when you’re raised by a tablet.
Einstein predicted this too
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge’s_law_of_headlines
Any headline that ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.
Not a daughter for sure
Undergoing pregnancy and childbirth, regardless of the baby’s gender, just got much more dangerous. In the country that already has the highest maternal mortality rate of all “developed” nations.
Developed nations have healthcare systems. The US does not.
I have three children born under obama. That their formative years were under trump was a difficult pill to swallow, but they were young. Now all three will become teenagers during this fucking nightmare.
I’m so pissed off, my job is so much harder now you fuckers.
“No”
The answer is no it’s not safe, but I fear they might not even have a choice.
Go beyond, and beware the common regurgitated talking points, if you care for human rights, a better tomorrow and world liberated from authoritarianism, heirarchal domination, state class and money:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeADcAaeDAg
It is a great injustice that the poor are denied the resources and means to start families. I extend that to non-traditional families, even beyond those that involve birth. Adoption I am told is incredibly difficult. As a trans woman with many chosen family who need to escape hostile situations, we are, as a big queer diaspora, in our own way denied generational wealth and greatly inhibited in the means of persisting our culture.
This is a topic that leftists should not cede ground on, certainly not so easily as is common
I really do get the sentiment, but I also think about my grandparents who grew up during the great depression and then fought WWII, or really all the incredibly shitty times to be alive throughout history
And there were birth rate dips during those times. WWII only caused a baby boom because it ended and all those soldiers came back horny as hell.
The Great Depression caused a massive drop in Birth rates that took years to recover from, and WWII saw big fluctuations in birth rates until it was over.
This hesitation is normal, people don’t want to have kids when the future is uncertain.
Where has all that gotten us though? In the interim we’ve made the world less habitable yet more expensive to live in. I don’t want to raise kids just to watch them struggle to make ends meet (as I also struggle to make ends meet)
What’s with the whataboutism? Just because our ancestors acted imorrally doesn’t make it OK to do the same
Putting current events in historical context is not even remotely “whataboutism.” And it sounds like you’re saying your ancestors acted immorally for having children, which may be arguable…
And it sounds like you’re saying your ancestors acted immorally for having children
I’m saying they acted immorally if they willingly conceived a child during a World War or the great depression
Just adopt. Breeding is stupid
I used to be on this talking point but then I learned about how antinatalism is the tool of nazis. Like some real eugenics shit. Worth the dive into the topic.
Wtf? It may be A tool of Nazis, but it is certainly not THE tool of Nazis.
Moreover, it is better to adopt a child than to spawn one. You can do whatever you like, but there are hundreds of thousands of kids out there without families.
At the end of the day, you can do what you like, but mass adoption is a positive for our society.
I have no idea how this is supposed to play into Nazi talking points and I don’t really give a fuck.
I will happily die on the hill that adoption is better for everyone than birthing more children into society. However, these do not have to be mutually exclusive. It is perfectly possible to do both, and that may be the best outcome overall.
Obligatory: Fuck Nazis
Prefiguration must go past some vision of mass adoption, abandon the model of society which capitalism has rendered, and land us on something much more equitable. It is lazy, irresponsible…literally erasing entire cultures (the nazi shit), to rely on mass adoption wherein only the privileged have children. Not to mention entirely unrealistic, with the lot of them not interested in the first place.
Allowing the existing class dynamics to persist, along with the greater empire and global system of explotation, can end only as all empires do, in ruin.
So I’ve abandoned the simpler “oh just adopt” and i can see that’s triggered a commenter or too 🤷♀️
That’s a lotta words. To bad I’m not… Readin’ em.
Mainly because you’re trying to come off as some pseudo intellectual and I have zero time for your self aggrandizing bullshit. Therefore, we’ll have chatgpt analyze it for us.
The comment seems to be critiquing the notion that adopting children from orphanages is a simple, universally moral solution to systemic issues related to inequality, privilege, and exploitation. Here’s a breakdown:
Key Argument: They’re rejecting the “just adopt” narrative as a solution to broader societal problems. They argue that relying on adoption as a widespread practice might erase cultural identities, perpetuate systemic inequities (like class dynamics and imperialism), and disproportionately benefit the privileged. They also point out that this narrative is unrealistic because most people aren’t inclined to adopt anyway.
Tone and Delivery: While their frustration seems genuine, the comment still reads as unnecessarily combative and self-congratulatory. Phrases like “lazy, irresponsible… literally erasing entire cultures” and “the nazi shit” feel exaggerated and detract from the argument. The shrug emoji caps it off with a dismissive tone, implying they don’t care if others disagree.
Content Validity: There are valid critiques of child adoption as a systemic “fix” for larger issues, such as:
The exploitation of vulnerable families in the adoption industry.
The erasure of cultural identity, especially in cases of transracial or international adoption.
The fact that adoption doesn’t address the root causes of why children are in orphanages in the first place (poverty, war, etc.).
However, the way they present these points muddles the argument and risks alienating readers who might otherwise agree.
Final Thought: Their argument has merit but is undermined by the delivery. A clearer, less confrontational approach would help communicate their concerns more effectively without alienating people. For example:
“Adoption can be a compassionate choice for individuals, but framing it as a universal solution to systemic problems ignores the deeper issues of inequality, exploitation, and cultural erasure. It’s important to address the root causes—like poverty and global inequities—rather than relying on a model that often benefits the privileged.”
And that’s where I disagree. If adoption were pushed as a societal norm, as in something that occurs as often as having a child the old fashioned way, then all of society would benefit massively.
No one is suggesting putting a stop to people having children. What is being suggested is that people be encouraged to adopt as well as have children, or to choose one or the other.
Additionally, it is not being proposed as a universal solution, if that was indeed your intention.
For example, some women may prefer to have children without having their bodies fundamentally altered.
If theres a child out there suffering, its definitely more moral to take them in and give them love and support rather than creating a child that will possibly just end up resenting you for bringing them into such a fucked up world.
Yeah. They address that. In excrucitiating detail. Listen, enough running circles abour it on boards. Just…watch the video, or read, i think the author’s long form written reponse which is even more exhaustive.
Bc you can say that but then when you get into the actual root cause analysis and solutions you recognize you cant simply wave the issue off with “just adopt”, and you begin to recognize the callousness, unrealistic expecration, classism and outright anti-intellectual dismissiveness such a write-off amounts to.
watch the video
Its three hours long no thanks.
did you read the rest of the comment? this is a topic worth taking seriously rather than be flippantly dismissive.
Ok.
If someone’s thinking about a lifelong decision, it’s well worth that 3 hours of being spoonfed the dozens hours of research that went into it.
(That’s just for whoever passes by to read this. I do not care what you do personally.)
Being spoonfed dozens of hours of cherry-picked research is exactly the problem with lots of “youtube research” like this.
One could do another 3 hour video on the subject “Natalism is the tool of the nazis” also rooted in cherry-picked sources.
you’re aware this logic applies to any information in any form, yes? that’s why you need to engage critically with a text, not just numbly accept or dismiss them…
Wah youtube
In response to a link to a creator who has litterally dedicated a video to grapple with the dynamic that we as audiences need to consume information with care
Idk what to tell ya. A lot of people enjoy learning in this format. You do know a person can read in addition to watching a video, dont be silly ✨️
If you are diving into the subject, this might not be the best video to start with… Lots of cherry picking and ad hominem attacks.
Some reflection in this thread. https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism/comments/1f9a6tt/new_video_essay_about_antinatalism_just_dropped/
If you’re seriously asking yourself this, let me refer you to Mr. Darwin.
I get that people have myriad reasons for not having kids, and I truly respect those reasons, whatever they may be.
But if you throw your hands in the air and say, “Gosh! This is horrible! How irresponsible to bring children into this world!”, fine. I’m OK with that. I really am. You’re kind of a pussy, but I’m fine with that.
OTOH, my genes will outlive yours, because they’re tougher, selfish. This is Biology 101. Maybe check out Dawkin’s The Selfish Gene, because that’s how the world works. It’s simple science, evolution.
tl;dr: I’ve never given two fucks if my line continues, none, never a thought. But give up a billion years of perfect heritage if you wish. I will not. My children will inherit the Earth, while your line dies. I’m ambivalent on the question, done my part. Roll the dice!
Lol buddy you’re kids aren’t going to inherit the Earth. We’re in a mass extinction event and humans aren’t coming out the other side.
You haven’t really studied biology have you?
No, please enlighten me with your big brain and perfect genes
Surely you mean *you’re big brain
You claimed not to care if your line continues and then proceed to brag that it will. No one believes you respect reasons to not have kids. Since you told us you don’t.
I don’t consider it important or necessary to “continue my line”. Even if I did, practically everyone in my family has had kids. And I honestly feel sorry for what those kids will endure. Making a living is harder than ever and the election of trump is a horrendous sign of things to come. So yeah, good luck to your kids and your whole weird lineage fascination which you totally “don’t have”.
Not bragging, simply stating a fact. Didn’t plan it that way. Anyway, y’all end your DNA. The better adapted will, as always, continue. Whether that’s me, you or the other guy, don’t care. I don’t make the rules.
I honestly feel sorry for what those kids will endure
Coward. How about the people having kids in:
- -900,000: Whatever happened to kill off almost all humans
- -1177: Bronze Age collapse
- 535: Volcanic winter of 536
- 1347-1351: Black Death
- 1914-1918: WWI and Spanish Flu
- 1929-1939: Great Depression and Dust Bowl
- 1962: Great Leap Forward
- 1943-1945: Worst killings and bombings of WWII
- 2020: For our lifetimes. COVID and 100 other disasters. So bad most have forgotten it started with Australia burning to the ground, 1 billion animals killed.
Without whose toughness, you would likely not exist to make wimpy online comments.
“buT TrumMP!!!”
Grow a fucking pair. Or don’t. Don’t care.
Since the industrial age, being strong or smart has nothing to do with surviving. Your toxic masculinity is extremely validating. Especially after seeing you in two different threads defending adults having sex with underage girls.
We talking about me saying 17-yo’s aren’t sexual children?
40 of 50 US states disagree.
As of April 2021, of the total fifty U.S. states, approximately thirty have an age of consent of 16 (with this being the most common age of consent in the country), a handful set the age of consent at 17, and in about eleven states the age is 18.
But let’s see what our European friends have to say!
The majority of countries set their ages in the range of 14 to 16; only four countries, Cyprus (17), Ireland (17), Turkey (18), and the Vatican City (18), set an age of consent higher than 16.
Oh god. I hope you did not read that last bit. I am so sorry.
tl;dr: Just because you were an incel at 17 doesn’t mean the rest of the world was. Keep white knighting! Someone, someday, will throw you a pity fuck.
Lol what a mental toddler. This is who is having children. Kinda makes sense when you look at the sprint toward Idiocracy we’ve been on.
what if I don’t care about your genes outliving mine?
My friend (not american) had 3 miscarriages and then a baby at 40. Even in a country with a year of mat leave and a month of pat leave they are fucking exhausted.
Add to that I am in America, in a Southern RTW/AWE state so get 0 pat leave, my wife gets 0 mat leave, and if she miscarriages she could be executed by doctor inaction or prosecuted for daring to not carry a baby to term.
Considering I could get as much longevity in my legacy by being part of several group Guiness world records, have had my work written about in the NYT, am mentioned in passing in a book with an ISBN and am mentioned (again, minorly in passing) on 3 Wikipedia pages - why risk my partners life, health, freedom and endure the hardships to actually raise a child well when there are other ways to ensure you are remembered for roughly 60-80 years?
You don’t have to care. In fact, caring doesn’t make too much of a difference, some, but not defining.
The better adapted pass on their genes, the less so, well, don’t tend to. Was there some part of evolutionary biology you misunderstood?
No, everyone who breeds passes on their genes. The “better adapted” (to what?) could be killed in a fire before they reach puberty, and people with hereditary diseases have kids.
It only has to be good enough to survive to puberty and birth, puberty and birth. Whatever it is you’re thinking of as some kind of superior gene would only affect humanity if it were passed on by millions of people who had it, and it proved to be such a boon it meant they could have kids while others can’t.
There is currently no natural pressure on humans to not have kids. There is nothing, technically speaking, preventing me from having a baby with a supermodel, an athlete, a wheelchair user…
This is such a weird take. It sounds like looking for a reason to be happy with your decision to have kids.
Here’s the thing about your genes “outliving” others’: by definition, it cannot affect you at all.
I don’t have to make a justification for having my kids. I simply wanted to.
And yes, so far so good on my genes outliving the people who won’t have kids. Genes are kinda selfish, ya know? Have you actually read any books on this subject?
I have, actually. A lot, with all the extra time from not having kids.
Have you ever read Sex At Dawn by Christopher Ryan and Cacilda Jethá? If we’re doing early humanity sociological book recs.
I’ve read The Selfish Gene and also studied Biology, earning a BS in the process. One thing you fail to consider is your genes are diluted with each generation. Your children will have 50% of your genes, your grandchildren 25%, and their children will each have 12.5% of your precious genes. And lest you think your genes are somehow unique and valuable, most likely 100% of them already exist in other people.
You also fail to mention that Dawkins, rightfully concerned about those using his work to justify selfishness, explicitly discusses how, now that we know of these selfish-replicators, we can cultivate pure altruism - going against our biological programming and doing the right thing. That’s what people who choose not to have children are doing - they are acting in the best interests of humanity.
This is one nice thing about getting older, I’ve met younger people I didn’t even share an ethnicity with that had traits that I thought were uniquely particular to me. They’re rare but they’re out there. Good to know whatever makes me special is perennial. As far as carrying on family traditions I’m okay with it being a lost cause (some cousins had kids so not a complete loss) but no doubt similar enough eyes will look out on this blasted world in a dozen and a thousand generations.
I really don’t get the weird attachment to having your generic lineage continue. I guess it’s just as arbitrary as hoping that anything in particular will outlive you, but it’s not going to do you in particular any good, and it seems to me there’s less reason to think it’ll help people as a whole than doing something productive with your money rather than spending it all in diapers, clothes, college, and so on.
I don’t care so much either, but I guess that didn’t come across. My point was, I’ve passed my genes so I’m better adapted that those who refuse. My kids will go on, or not. The other path is a dead end.
My point is that you’re ascribing some kind of value to passing genes along and that seems super weird.
This feels like the influence of some drug or other but I couldn’t say which one.
Copium. Nobody argues this hard, with such flimsy and poorly understood reasoning, to defend their decision… if they actually think it was a good decision…
Could also be racism. White Supremacists have this fear that ‘their superior genes’ will disappear, and that they’ll be ‘replaced’ by ‘inferior peoples’.
So they put a lot of emphasis on having lots of kids with white women—and the younger the better, because they think younger women are ‘prime breeders’, despite that being very not true.
