The community is called childfree, you’d think everyone here would be at least somewhat opposed to the concept of having children.
I was child free until I wasn’t?
Lil guy is pretty cute.
Saw this when browsing everything, normally I’d let it pass but I felt called out.
I totally support the child free community. Was pretty sure I’d be amongst you all.
I hope most in the child free are not aggressively against children, I knew someone like that once, not a cool person.
There is a surprising amount of antinatalism here. Apparently people just want the human race to end.
I do want the human race to end though. Not painfully, but rather phasing out gradually (although I do realize that antinatalism is such an unpopular opinion that it isn’t really possible). No hate for children or any other being though. I just want there to be less suffering.
do you want to end all life that suffers?
Not sure what you mean by that. Neither I nor antinatalism advocates for ending existent life. It is just about not causing additional suffering by bringing new beings into existence.
If anything, I believe that we should acknowledge that we are all in this suffering together, and be compassionate to fellow living beings.
It’s the logical conclusion of antinatalism. All life “suffers”. If you stop bringing new beings into the world that can experience suffering then you’re advocating for no life at all after this current generation.
And yes I fully support compassion and empathy, but you can do that while also sustaining the human race and life as we know it.
The description of the conclusion is accurate: no new beings means no one after this generation, and that is the intended outcome rather than a side effect nobody noticed. What is disputed is that the outcome is a harm. The absence of a generation is not bad for anyone, because there is no one for whom it is a loss. Deprivation needs a subject who is deprived, and after the last being there is none, so the loss registers only from the perspective of beings who already exist and are attached to the continuation. The compassion points the same way rather than against it. Caring about suffering is what makes it hard to justify starting a life whose consent cannot be obtained and whose worst outcomes are permanent. That the species continues is a goal that has to be argued for, and the argument offered is that it continues.
Yeah, reddit childfree is insanely hostile and spread to other subreddits with their hate on any child. I was childfree until i understood the concept of life and how we came to be in humanity and society. I would not exist if any one of my billions(trillions?)of ancestors decided to be child free.
This is the problem with the childfree community these days, antinatalists (who argue no one should have children) have taken over.
But they are an extreme and vocal subset of child-free people. I am happily childfree but i acknowledge that other people who do want to have kids should have them, and that we need children to sustain society.
The distinction between choosing childlessness and holding that no one should procreate is real. What follows from the second view is not a demand that anyone alive change. It is a claim about the next person. The economic half deserves a direct answer, because it is the strongest part: modern growth presupposes continuous population expansion, new workers funding pensions and new consumers driving markets. Stated plainly, that requires imposing existence on unconsenting beings so they can serve as economic instruments for those already here, inheriting the debt and the degradation. The problem of caring for an ageing population is real. It has to be solved through automation, institutional reform, mutual aid and resource reallocation, and not by creating people whose justification for existing is to care for those who preceded them.