I’m not having children either, but antinatalism is so ignorant and we literally wouldn’t have lasted this long as a society if people stopped having children every time world conditions were bad (there hasn’t been a time in world history where a genocide was not occurring).
Passing moral judgement like this on people who choose to have children is both insulting to their intelligence while also ignorant of the entirety of world history.
Society needs both people with children and people without. You are not better just because you’re not having children.
Yeah, that came off a lot harsher than I intended; “immoral” was a poor word choice on my part. I have no qualms with people (who are willing and able to be good parents) having kids; I personally just wouldn’t choose to do so.
Society will always have children. But for now it’s set up for rich children. I do judge people a bit for having kids in a society that refuses to offer them basic needs or economic mobility. Basically judge you for your ability to set your kids up for success. Not actually having the kids. But the foundation you offer them.
I think people who have the means (can afford or have access to the resources) to have children and want to have children (as in, not to fix a relationship but actually want to raise children) should have children.
I do have an issue with capitalism making it so that having children is a privilege of the rich, but that is a moral judgement on capitalism as a system, not people having children (some people being forced to by that very system as abortions or contraceptives are not available to them, nor is sex ed).
But to judge someone’s morality simply for having a child is arrogant and unfair.
I agree it goes too far. I had a lot of friends in foster care and I think that will be one of those lived biases you find common with the anti-natal crowd.
You’re kinda getting into enviro-fascist/eco-fascist rhetoric with the “humans are a cancer” talk.
That’s rhetoric often pushed by the ruling class alongside food scarcity talk – food scarcity that is manufactured by capitalists to convince us that rampant famine and starvation (caused by capitalism) cannot be fixed (it absolutely can given current technology if we stopped spending our resources on pointless wars).
Humans are capable of co-existing with nature quite well, actually, and we did for hundreds of thousands of years. Capitalism has only existed for at most 500 years, and feudalism before it had only been around since the 8th century in the common era.
The way it is is not the way it has always been, and the way it is is not the way it has to be. We are not the cancer, unchecked power is.
I’m not having children either, but antinatalism is so ignorant and we literally wouldn’t have lasted this long as a society if people stopped having children every time world conditions were bad (there hasn’t been a time in world history where a genocide was not occurring).
Passing moral judgement like this on people who choose to have children is both insulting to their intelligence while also ignorant of the entirety of world history.
Society needs both people with children and people without. You are not better just because you’re not having children.
Yeah, that came off a lot harsher than I intended; “immoral” was a poor word choice on my part. I have no qualms with people (who are willing and able to be good parents) having kids; I personally just wouldn’t choose to do so.
I appreciate the clarification, I’m sorry if I also came off harsher then necessary, that particular wording just really gets to me.
No, it was understandable you took it that way because it certainly comes off like that!
Society will always have children. But for now it’s set up for rich children. I do judge people a bit for having kids in a society that refuses to offer them basic needs or economic mobility. Basically judge you for your ability to set your kids up for success. Not actually having the kids. But the foundation you offer them.
I think people who have the means (can afford or have access to the resources) to have children and want to have children (as in, not to fix a relationship but actually want to raise children) should have children.
I do have an issue with capitalism making it so that having children is a privilege of the rich, but that is a moral judgement on capitalism as a system, not people having children (some people being forced to by that very system as abortions or contraceptives are not available to them, nor is sex ed).
But to judge someone’s morality simply for having a child is arrogant and unfair.
There’s nothing more tragic than an unwanted uncared for child in my book.
I agree it goes too far. I had a lot of friends in foster care and I think that will be one of those lived biases you find common with the anti-natal crowd.
You’re just imposing your human superiority like humans ought to/deserve to/need to exist. Humans are a fucking cancer on the Earth.
Can you demonstrate why that is a bad thing? Because your next thought in that sentence seems like a strong argument for why it’s good.
You’re kinda getting into enviro-fascist/eco-fascist rhetoric with the “humans are a cancer” talk.
That’s rhetoric often pushed by the ruling class alongside food scarcity talk – food scarcity that is manufactured by capitalists to convince us that rampant famine and starvation (caused by capitalism) cannot be fixed (it absolutely can given current technology if we stopped spending our resources on pointless wars).
Humans are capable of co-existing with nature quite well, actually, and we did for hundreds of thousands of years. Capitalism has only existed for at most 500 years, and feudalism before it had only been around since the 8th century in the common era.
The way it is is not the way it has always been, and the way it is is not the way it has to be. We are not the cancer, unchecked power is.