Change my mind on antinatalism?

I resent my parents for having me - I can't see the justification for creating a conscious being in a world where there is a good chance they will come to harm. It seems the vast majority of people just have kids because it's what everyone else does without actually considering what an enormous thing it is to create another person, who will experience pain and hardship, and have to fend for themselves by working their lives away.

Is having a child selfish? If not, why? Genuinely would like to have my mind changed on this

Attached: antinatalism.jpg (958x559, 35.36K)

Other urls found in this thread:

abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Keep being antinatalist, many men claim to be prolifers but literally dash out of there like their life depends on it once the baby is born

Having children should be about giving someone a beautiful life. If you can't do that then don't have children. I've told my mother several times she should have had me aborted.

but there isn't any way to guarantee a beautiful life. even if a child is born to a loving family with wealth and everything provided for them, that child could still one day suffer a great deal. In fact, it's almost guaranteed: they will suffer grief, chronic illness in old age, not to mention any manner of accidents or world events that could affect them. Or maybe they'll just be depressed.

Why create a life that can't consent unless you can guarantee they will never experience any pain?

the world sucks and forcing other people to experience it is even worse

Well rich families have kids as they can almost guarantee their kids will live a luxurious life

If you're looking for a logical argument in favor of natalism, you can stop looking now because you're never gonna find it. Breeders don't have a single non-emotional argument, and they're quick to get pissy when you point that out.
>you'll change your mind/it'll make you happy
No it won't, eat shit.
>propagation of the species
Can be handled by someone else.
>muh white race
As above, plus whites will not ever be bred out, stop browsing pol.
>it's morally important
Lol.

Why not just adopt an autistic twink?

Attached: thinking-emoji-meme-png-10.png (600x550, 231.28K)

When the risk is not yours why care

Bestowing life onto someone is a greater gift than the associated suffering. I know it is a tired trope, but if people believed life was just terrible suffering they'd commit suicide. Seriously why not just slip into nothingness if life is so bad? It's because living is better than non-existence for the vast majority of people. The daunting prospect of an eternal void are way scarier than an overdue bill or an abusive parent or a failing grade, even in many cases a wasted life.

So if you can give someone the gift of existence, even if it's imperfect, that's a net positive.

Attached: oldmemes.png (500x712, 594.08K)

>for the vast majority of people.
>net positive.
Your social credit has increased!

Attached: download.jpg (290x174, 19.17K)

>I don't think life is worth living, so nobody should be allowed to live

Why not just kill yourself and be done with it?

David Pearce thinks antinatalism is retarded.

abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html

>Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.

Attached: David_Pearce.jpg (800x1067, 64.42K)

>for personal reasons, I do not want children
okay, you do you
>we should all accept antinatalism!
go fuck yourself

/thread

>Why create a life that can't consent unless you can guarantee they will never experience any pain?

What you don't get is that pain and suffering is an important part of life. You need the bad parts, so you can appreciate the good parts. You're basically throwing a tantrum because life isn't perfect. Are you five years old or something?

Most people won't accept natalism. Because the Bible said in genesis 1:8-12??? "Multiply and be fruitful" that sentence is the reason why I being exist, and my 8 brothers. Anywayys

Attached: ezgif-6-af8dc3c33487.jpg (460x445, 48.46K)

Bla bla bla I'm self centred and want to exercise god like complex by bringing someone else into the misery of this world so I don't die alone in some care home

>Bla bla bla I'm self centred and want to exercise god like complex by forcing everyone to stop having kids so when I die I can drag the whole world down with me

>eternal void
Literally the most comfy thought there is

I was an antinatalist until I figured out only intelligent and/or white people buy into antinatalism with any numbers. Low IQ's and mud people are going to continue to breed like crazy regardless.

It's a losing ideology if you want a worthwhile future for the human race. Put yourself in a position to have many children, preferably white, and raise them right. The future depends on it.

Attached: 96765.jpg (980x579, 107.61K)

Yes user. Cease fornication at this very moment or else!

Using this logic, why haven't you killed yourself?

Why are you assuming he wants to end his own life?

>When I do it, it's okay :^))))

You fucking hypocrite. You pot calling the kettle black motherfucker. You disingenuous dipshit.

Where was I being hypocritical? You're getting upset over an argument, no one has testicles in a vice grip. Get over yourself

I used to be the same, but I think I understand now what the flaw in my logic was. Your parents are bad parents, and thus, they are selfish. I believe that "successful parenting" is the exception to when this is selfish. If good men can be born, then is birth the evil, or is it something else?

1. The child is almost certain to face adversity:
This is true, but adversity is only bad subjectively. If you can raise a virtuous child, one who is unflinching in the face of adversity, then what you have done constitutes successful parenting. You may be inundated by a fusillade of hardships, but it is possible to face them with equanimity, so that internally, you are unaffected by them. What I mean is this. You cannot avoid life, but you can avoid interpreting life negatively. Even when losing a friend, there is still an underlying beauty in that chaos, there is a sweetness in the tears you shed over a lost friend because they are tears of love.

2. Humans cause pollution:
This is true, but it's also true that a well nurtured, intelligent, dedicated human can do a great deal to reverse that pollution (see: Elon Musk, solar power, green planet initiatives, etc...). It is not that we have too many people that is causing the global climate problem. It is that there are too many stupid people, too many worker drones, too many slaves that incessantly consume and pollute, too many selfish, evil, bad people. People who were not raised by loving parents, people who were not raised by intelligent parents, capable parents, etc...

3. My parents had me, and I turned out a social outcast loser, etc etc...:
It's possible to change who you are. There are multifarious books and podcasts on psychology and parenting that you can understand how to treat a child to be a well rounded, good, individual. Someone that people actually like. If you make a good person, then you are doing good, because the world can always benefit from more good people.

this is what I am planning to do.
either if I get a gf and adopt a daughter which I probably won't, or I would adopt my gf.
both of them sounds like promising plans to me.

Attached: Gtnuns_in_anime_f3e965e4db3faf02da697a201ebbfd92.jpg (1440x1617, 460.77K)

You accuse of having a god complex, then I accuse you of the same thing and you don't even try to deny it. You accuse others of sins you yourself commit. If that isn't hypocrisy, what is?

>can't consent
You didn't exist at the time. You can't ask thin air to magically consent to something, and holding that to the same standards as an actual person who exists is retarded. Also, your logic cuts both ways because a lot of people are grateful to have been born, so depriving them of that without their "consent" would be wrong too.

Yes and my argument was that I did nothing but point out the fact that most people will have kids to exercise a formulaic of control over another sentient being, how is that the same as your retarded reply?

>But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.
It is, suffering and humanity go hand in hand.

Were you bullied at school, user? Be honest

This argument only holds up if you agree that unnecessary suffering is a good thing