this post was submitted on 10 May 2025
974 points (96.2% liked)
memes
14674 readers
4462 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to [email protected]
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
A collection of some classic Lemmy memes for your enjoyment
Sister communities
- [email protected] : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- [email protected] : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- [email protected] : Linux themed memes
- [email protected] : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How about I do something which will make life better for people who are actually alive already instead of increasing total human suffering by making new people.
That's the philosophy group to the left
Having kids can be extremely fulfilling, doesn't increase human suffering at all. Having kids subjectively improved my life and the lives of many people adjacent to me, e.g. the lives of my family members and friends and my kids' friends.
I don't understand how the Internet is so anti kids, it's pretty baffling.
Because people who are chronically online are chronically online because they had shitty childhoods which gave them chronic depression. Thus they associate the creation of children with the creation of suffering.
Source: me
You say it's improved your life and the lives of those adjacent to you, your family members, friends, and your kids' friends. But you haven't said its improved your kids life. I think that's what the OP was talking about. A being who doesn't exist doesn't desire to exist so making new life isn't doing them a favor and only exposes them to harm.
Don't project your own depression onto others, and non-existent beings.
If you think existence "only exposes [living things] to harm" and nothing else, nothing even potentially good?
If you truly believe that, I've got no nice way to say this: You need therapy.
I mean I'm not depressed and I love living, so I wouldn't be projecting depression on to others.
I agree that people can experience good things as well as harmful things, but it's not a risk worth taking. Giving birth is gambling with human life. You never know if someones life experience is going to be overwhelmingly positive or negative, but if they are never born, that's not even an issue to worry about.
Virtually every sentient life experiences a non-zero amount of suffering. Progeny that doesn’t exist categorically doesn’t suffer; progeny that does exist is virtually certain to suffer to some degree. The hedonist argument that progeny may get to experience some joy falls apart because progeny that doesn’t exist categorically doesn’t experience any lack of joy (i.e. that would-be joy is not mourned by that which does not exist).
Ensuring the certainty of the sum total of suffering in another person’s life just for one’s own self-fulfillment is incredibly selfish. Procreation is a cycle of blithe selfishness that perpetuates universal suffering and is at best wrought by apathy for others’ suffering and at worst wrought by enthusiasm for others’ suffering.
I’m anti-kid because I didn’t consent to the sentience that I have experienced and I have the empathy to want others not to suffer.
Sure, life is imperfect, but is that really a reason to espouse something as radical as nonexistence? I find that the imperfection and thereby dualism of existence is part of what makes it beautiful; we get to experience both the good and the bad, pleasure and pain.
I guess in some sense what I understand you're saying is that to you, being thrust into the pain inherent of becoming and being alive, is the consequence of a bad moral or ethical (selfish) action and therefore wrong even if the children are able to adapt, because there is always more potential suffering throughout the course of a life. I get that, I think most of us would love to be in situations where we could have no-suffering-guarantees for our children.
Maybe the point of friction is that it seems to me like you believe that there should be no suffering at all for it to be ethically permissible to have children (lest it be selfish) while many of us believe that the "base level" of suffering inherent to life (eg. death of parents, the setbacks of infancy, social interaction, etc.) is permissible, and it then falls on us as parents to make sure that there is no or as little additional or unnecessary suffering as possible by means of safe environment, education and tools to cope and overcome so that what could potentially be suffering doesn't become so. When it comes to that I believe it to be more reasonable to discuss who ought and who oughtn't be a parent than whether it's ethical or not to have kids.
Eugenics is not going to reduce suffering in the world.
Maybe you should find the empathy to see that your experience is not everyone's experience, then?
Refer to the first sentence of my comment.
Non 0 amount of suffering is a meaningless statement.
Human suffering is caused in part by overpopulation (as is the suffering of all creatures - we are invasive, destructive and afflicted with a superiority complex) and in part by religious indoctrination, so while you procreate, as long as you don't force offspring into a single and restrictive belief system, I suppose it's okay, and all the best to you.
Come on, it's worth it but it certainly brings a lot of suffering that wouldn't exist otherwise. Telling my teenager that he needs to shower 5x, every day that he does sports, is suffering for both me and him.