this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2025
88 points (92.3% liked)

Asklemmy

50325 readers
468 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Anti-natalism is the philosophical value judgment that procreation is unethical or unjustifiable. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from making children. Some antinatalists consider coming into existence to always be a serious harm. Their views are not necessarily limited only to humans but may encompass all sentient creatures, arguing that coming into existence is a serious harm for sentient beings in general. There are various reasons why antinatalists believe human reproduction is problematic. The most common arguments for antinatalism include that life entails inevitable suffering, death is inevitable, and humans are born without their consent. Additionally, although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person's suffering. WIKIPEDIA

If you think, maybe for a few years, like 10-20 years, no one should make babies, and when things get better, we can continue, then you are not an anti-natalist. Anti-natalists believe that suffering will always be there and no one should be born EVER.

This photo was clicked by a friend, at Linnahall.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] gnuhaut@lemmy.ml 0 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Oh come on, I can recognize my common interest with other humans without mediating this through overly abstracted "values" and then arguing from that. Plus, you know, little kids and even many animals show empathy and they're not doing any moral reasoning or have any concept of a moral value. It seems to me that, more often than not, moral reasoning is employed to rationalize away empathy.

It would also be nice if you could not imply that I'm a threat to humanity. My comment about shooting philosophers was clearly a joke as should be obvious from the rest of the comment, whereas yours strikes me as deadly serious.

Also you didn't actually argue my points about how this benefits existing authorities, nor about how this incentivizes motivated reasoning.

[โ€“] jerkface@lemmy.ca 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

I said that people who cannot grasp that they are social animals living in a social environment are a threat to humanity. If you want to wear that, fucking do it. If you don't, that's even better. But what I said is true and if you don't like it, that's a you thing.

Your gut is not smart enough to just tell you the right moral thing to do at all times. That's a stupid thing to say and you should be ashamed. Or maybe you are once again using irony and will be offended that I took you at face value.