Stop having children. There are more than enough people on the planet as it is, we don't need any more. We're all full up, thank you. Stop. Having. Kids. Reasons to stop having kids:
- They consume too many resources over the course of their life; your kid drains resources from the rest of the world. Is that what you want?
- Human beings contribute to ecological ruin through overfishing, deforestation, and other such activity, and that includes human overpopulation
- Your kid probably won't amount to much anyway, and if the technocrats succeed in making AI that displaces the entire workforce, then your kid will live in squalor as a result of a lack of economic opportunity, and that's the last thing you want, right?
- The Halocene Extinction is ongoing and we're all going to die, DON'T YOU GET IT, WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE, LARGE SWATHES OF THE PLANET WILL BECOME INHOSPITABLE AND WE'LL BE PACKED LIKE SARDINES INTO THE LANDMASSES THAT ARE LEFT. Is that what you want, for your kid to live in jobless purposeless squalor in a slum with third-worlders from the global south, who they have to fight against tooth and nail in order to secure for themselves what little resources that remain?
- Kids are a pain in the ass anyway, and you won't be able to write that book, or develop that game, or do whatever it is that you wanted to do if you have to drop everything to tend to your child (and you're a piece of shit if you delegate the child rearing to someone else like your in-laws)
- Basically, there are no upsides to having a child, save for the boost to your ego that you might gain for having successfully achieved the biological imperative (not that impressive, I know crackheads who managed to pop out some kids)
There are many more reasons, I'm sure, but that's more than enough for you to chew on. STOP. HAVING. CHILDREN. STOP IT. Don't do it. You help no one, least of all the child you bring into this boiling piss pot of a planet.
>>815537Do they have sex? Anyways since I don't expect to ever have sex I'm most likely never having children but I think I would've if I had had sex by now. I probably would've been a shitty father but that's another issue.
>>815539They do have sex, yes.
>I probably would've been a shitty fatherYet another reason to abstain from having children: You're likely going to be a shitty parent anyway. Is that what you want?
Post them having sex.
>>815542I don't really want anything except maybe sex. But since I'm not getting it then I guess I want nothing.
I hate antinatalist sentiments that are based on misopedia.
Adults waste far more resources than kids and are bigger pain in the ass.
>>815547So what you are saying is that we should still have kids, but prevent them from growing into adults?
>>815543I don't have video of them having sex, sorry.
>>815546Ok. Fair enough.
>>815547>misopediaI don't hate children, though I am something of a misanthrope. You are correct, adults waste a lot of resources and are a bigger pain in the ass when you get right down to it. That doesn't exempt children from being little resource sponges, though.
>>815537But yeah I agree with forced sterilization if its targeted at rightoids.
> They consume too many resources over the course of their life; your kid drains resources from the rest of the world. Is that what you want?
Adults do that way more.
Adults but cars, houses, jewelry, appliances and whatnot that consume more energy than mere kids toys
> Kids are a pain in the ass anyway, and you won't be able to write that book, or develop that game, or do whatever it is that you wanted to do if you have to drop everything to tend to your child (and you're a piece of shit if you delegate the child rearing to someone else like your in-laws)
Adults are pain the asses as well. Ever had roommates or family memebers? Or romantic partners? Kids don’t have autonomy which makes them difficult.
But that’s mainly all.
Adults have autonomy but are much more needy for some “relevance”
0/10
This OP is just misopedia
Elderly people, drug addicts, disabled adults, gambling addicts, consume more resources than kids.
And I notice that the people who complain about kids being “leeches” are often extremely fond of their own childhood or are prone to “childish” indulgences.
>>815548No. I’m saying that you should stop blaming them for your selfish adult conveniences.
Adults do way more consumption and you know it. Kids merely lack autonomy
>>815550No, because I am here to compete with your little cumsprouts for resources. That's right, lady. I'm going to take as many cheeseburgers as I can get away with, and your kid ain't getting none. Two for me, none for you.
>>815551Interesting theory, but the bourgeoisie need people to keep having kids in order to keep the working class flush with reserve labor.
>>815553I do not hate children, though. It's OVERPOPULATION that is the problem, and well, having children contributes to that problem, but of course, your existence does as well.
>>815554Sorry, fren. I know the audio is from a porno, tho.
>>815558you think too high of the bourgeoisie in a time and day where they try to keep as many from the job market
>>815549> That doesn't exempt children from being little resource sponges, though.That’s why I say kids should be trained in basic labor but this place thinks that’s “abusive”
The main reason why kids are resource sponges is due to adults objectifying them as pets
In fact, less people are having kids now, which is a good thing. Unfortunately, they’re now wasting money on dogs and cats.
There’s people that spend hundreds of dollars on vanity products for pet animals
Or people who mindlessly buy pets while being stuck in dead end jobs and leave them locked in the house all day.
>>815558> No, because I am here to compete with your little cumsprouts for resources. That's right, lady. I'm going to take as many cheeseburgers as I can get away with, and your kid ain't getting none. Two for me, none for you.So your antinatalism is based purely on selfishness.
> I do not hate children, though. It's OVERPOPULATION that is the problem, and well, having children contributes to that problem, but of course, your existence does as well.Why then do you keep pointing to their existence as a problem and referring to them with depersonalizing terms?
Why do we never refer to offspring of animals and plants as “crotch fruit” or “cum sprouts”?
>>815550
This.
I notice people who promote antinatalism are less willing to self-sterilize or share.
Most antinatalism is based on contempt for children and unwillingness to share resources with their fellow Man.
You could solve the overpopulation crisis by reducing the number of elderly and disabled people. Yet, it’s considered wrong to discriminate against elderly and disabled especially in geopolitical affairs.
Yet, children are seen as fair game to view as ballast.
It’s just the polar reflex of pro-natalism, where kids are seen as pets/avatars of the elders
>>815560
This.
I’m an antinatalist but I don’t agree with their contempt for children like that.
If I were to talk about disabled and elderly people like this, I would be labeled as fascist.
Also, OP is just using antinatalism as justification for ethical self-indulgence
>>815559This sorta.
But the real problem is that they want people to be customer service workers
>>815559They only keep the cushy well paying pointless jobs away from you; don't you know there's a shortage of truck drivers, plumbers, electricians, warehouse workers, etc.? WHY DON'T PEOPLE WANT TO WORK ANYMORE??
>>815560That's very cute, but I am way over here and you are way over there and there's no way you can actually lay a finger on me so… I win :3
>>815561>kids should be trained in basic laborHm, perhaps, but then wouldn't those children be competing with adults for participation in the workforce?
>your antinatalism is based purely on selfishnessYes and no; I would like to continue living, sure, however, it is also true that the destabilization of our ecosystem is going to see the quality of life for the already existent human population severely drop in the coming 20 to 50 years or so, and it's something of a moral conundrum, the act of bringing children into the world. It would be irresponsible to not give the act of childbirth due consideration in lieu of such trying times, even moreso than usual.
>>815563How many times do I gotta say that I don't hate children?
I don't think antinatalists generally hate children but they're either more misanthropic or even more altruistic than the average person. They're just generally weirdos like the typical image board user or rather they're generally a bit weirder than the average person. Not that this makes the average person better but it's how I see it.
>>815565> Hm, perhaps, but then wouldn't those children be competing with adults for participation in the workforce?Not really. By having kids as apprentices, they can help with workload.
Our modern pedagogy reduced kids to being purely students. That along with the excessive romanticization of childhood as some anti worldly utopia where its only good vibes to downplay bullying and abuse, it’s sociocognitive conditioning to make adulthood into a more reflective system of a customer rewards program
> How many times do I gotta say that I don't hate children?Then why aren’t you also focusing on elderly and disabled? Or even adult activities in general?
>>815551Wrong. Antinatalism isn’t bourgeois.
Misopedia is bourgeois.
Misopedia has hijacked antinatalism.
>>815568Wrong. Most antinatalists aren’t “weird”.
The popularized form of antinatalism in media is misopediac and is adapted by average people. (Its also pro-hedonistic)
The misanthropic/altruistic antinatalists are a minority.
Also, imageboard users are more like the average person then they care to admit.
>>815569OP is right for the wrong reasons.
OP could’ve listed the atrocities of child abuse, the amount of neglected disabled/elderly, or even the rise of neurocognitve disorders
>>815572>Then why aren’t you also focusing on elderly and disabled? Or even adult activities in general?Because it would be immoral to just murder a bunch of people who already exist for the sake of population control, obviously.
>>815542This is the main factor that’s overlooked.
It’s funny how abusive/incompetent parents are sympathized even by progressive society
>>815574Children already exist. Yet you wanna murder them for “convenience”
Also, elderly people are already nearing the end of their lifespan
And disabled people cannot do anything for themselves without assistance.
They cannot even work.
>>815573It's crazy because i wanna ask people like OP: Now, did you read the news today? They say the danger's gone away, but I can see the fires still alight. They're burning into the night.
But sheeple like OP don't even think about this stuff tbq&h
>>815574>it’s immoral to target the adults who have shaped or continued the geopolitical crises>instead let’s blame the youngsters who aren’t even old enough to wipe their own assesEvery single time.
>>815551lol no, they want to increase the working class population so we have less bargaining power and they can treat us however they want.
>>815577People like OP use antinatalism as a vehicle for self-indulgence. The same kind I see on imageboards and Reddit.
All the “concern” for ecological equilibrium is really just concern for whether or not they can mindlessly consume their favorite products as adults without thinking about the next generation
People are having less kids in the west anyway, thank goodness, so OP beating a dead horse here
>>815580Wrong.
The elites will power regardless of there’s ten thousand people. Also, if anything, more proles means less stability of bourgeois control.
It means a bigger potential for a really bad insurrection
>>815576>Yet you want to murder them for "convenience"Incorrect, I said that you should stop having children, not that you should murder children that already exist.
>elderly people are nearing the end of their lifespanIt'd be immoral to not provide them with healthcare for as long as they live, unless they're adamant that they'd like to refrain from accepting it so as to accelerate their own demise.
>>815578It's immoral to kill people who already exist, yes. Age doesn't really factor into that.
>>815581>antinatalism as a vehicle for self-indulgenceStop saying this, Christ sake. It's not indulgent to say that overpopulation is a problem. If anything, it's the opposite. You're being indulgent if you deny it and then contribute to that problem by producing more mouths to feed.
>>815581Honestly? True. And also: My generation will put it right. We're not just making promises. That we know we'll never keep
>>815583> Stop saying this, Christ sake. It's not indulgent to say that overpopulation is a problem. If anything, it's the opposite. You're being indulgent if you deny it and then contribute to that problem by producing more mouths to feedI never said overpopulation isn’t a problem. I too am an antinatalist. But I don’t approve of how children as often used as scapegoats for ecological crises.
Like, even if everyone stopped having kids, people will just focus that en energy on more adult activities which are just as voracious.
If anything, I am more of the preference that humans should either develop human photoautrophic cells to be inserted in human skin as to reduce our dependency on food.
I also would prefer mandatory birth control supplements in middle/high schools.
Parents who refuse to allow their pubescent kids to have mandatory contraceptives will be disqualified from tax benefits and student enroll in public schools.
I also would make parenting have mandatory licensing
Schooling will not be universal compulsory. I’m sorry but not every kid is cut out of higher education. There should be mandatory competency exams for people who wanna continue past seventh/eighth grade. If you don’t make the cut, you’ll have to do community service or go into vocational training.
>>815584I had that album on cassette
>>815585>even if everyone stopped having kids, people will just focus that en energy on more adult activities which are just as voraciousYou understand that children don't stay children forever, right? They "grow up" and become adults, right? Ergo, less children NOW means less adults TOMORROW. If you want to reduce human consumption, regardless of whether or not it comes from adults or children, then you must reduce human activity, and that starts by reducing the population size. There is no other way to really control that aside from curtailing the birthrate. Besides, if humans were smart, they'd recognize the need for a reduction in their activity as well, which is something we can control.
>human photoautrophic cells to be inserted in human skin as to reduce our dependency on foodWeird, but ok.
>mandatory birth control supplements in middle/high schools>Parents who refuse to allow their pubescent kids to have mandatory contraceptives will be disqualified from tax benefitsSo you seemingly understand the importance of curtailing the birthrate.
>Schooling will not be universal compulsory… mandatory competency exams for people who wanna continue past seventh/eighth gradeA little weird, because education is important.
>>815592See I told you antinatalists are weird. I mean I think I agree but still.
>>815574>Because it would be immoral to just murder a bunch of people who already exist Okay but is it immoral if someone sterilizes you without your consent? If not, why?
>>815599Well, I'd say that it would be immoral to sterilize someone against their will, yes. Is that happening to you? I'm not advocating for that, it'd have to be willing on your part, of course.
>>815602>Well, I'd say that it would be immoral to sterilize someone against their will, yes.Why is it immoral if youre an anti-natalist? Arent you saving babies from ecological nonsense?
>>815592>A little weird, because education is important.Education is important relative to practicality. Right now for the first time in history, we have so many people enrolled in higher education yet there’s no prospects for them.
>You understand that children don't stay children forever, right? They "grow up" and become adults, right? Ergo, less children NOW means less adults TOMORROW. If you want to reduce human consumption, regardless of whether or not it comes from adults or children, then you must reduce human activity, and that starts by reducing the population size. There is no other way to really control that aside from curtailing the birthrate. Besides, if humans were smart, they'd recognize the need for a reduction in their activity as well, which is something we can controlYou can also control population size by euthanizing criminals, elderly, and disabled.
Also, if humans are smart enough to recognize a need to slow down their activity, why haven’t we done it yet? Why are we still making products and places for consumption.
Also, adults are the main producers and consumers of slop. Population control is just the first step. We also will need to curtail urban development.
>Weird, but okHow is it weird?
People wanna talk about AI automation is gonnnareplave humans entirely which is weird.
Humans are still gonna be needed for maintenance and programming.
>>815597Antinatalists are the most ethical form of weird. Pro natalists are an egocentric form of weird.
>>815600>Maybe people should just have as many kids as they can possibly churn out, for the lulz. I mean, if we're fucked either way, what does it really matter? Go out with a bang, right?So you think that kids are pets to be subject to whatever dystopian perversions you want without consequences?
Isn’t this the same thing we accuse boomers of doing?
>>815603This tbh.
>>815606So its ok if I make children because I have free agency to do so?
>>815606People like you often end up succumbing and have kids or adopt pets or consume just as much as multiple kids
>>815584The real problem is that adults are procreating past their prime years rather than forgoing procreation all together.
It’s not good to have children past your early thirties. Genetic quality of eggs declines sharply and especially since everyone is on psych meds and consumes junk food and does a lot of soft drugs, all those chemicals are seeping into your reproductive system.
No wonder why so many kids are born with developmental disorders.
>>815607>euthanize criminals, elderly, and disabledCriminals are one thing, but the elderly and disabled? Why are you so eager to kill people?
>if humans are smart enough to recognize a need to slow down their activity, why haven’t we done it yet?Greed, of course. Also, humanity as a whole is not a monolith; Some people are greedy, while others understand the need for a cessation of human activity that is detrimental to the ecosystem, and some of those people are doing various things. I'm sure you could use a search engine of your choice to find out more.
>humans are gonna be needed for maintenance and programmingNot really, no. Assuming they get what they want, an AGI, then humans will be cut out of the equation entirely. Anyway, it's weird because I don't even think such a technology is currently feasible, and I don't know that it ever will be.
>you think that kids are pets to be subject to whatever dystopian perversions you want without consequencesNot sure where you got that idea, but no, I don't think that.
>>815608Yes, but your actions have consequences for both yourself, your progeny, and the planet as a whole.
>>815609I don't have children and never will. There's no possible way I could consume more than multiple people, even if I spent all my days consuming.
>>815611Excaaaactly. I've BEEN saying this; AND, ALSO:
I must've dreamed a thousand dreams
Been haunted by a million screams
But I can hear the marching feet
They're moving into the street
>>815613> Not sure where you got that idea, but no, I don't think that.I was referring to
>>815600
> Greed, of course. Also, humanity as a whole is not a monolith; Some people are greedy, while others understand the need for a cessation of human activity that is detrimental to the ecosystem, and some of those people are doing various things. I'm sure you could use a search engine of your choice to find out more.Humans are not a monolith, but ironically that’s kinda would contributes to ecological imbalance. It’s not just mere consumption that’s the problem.
Not every where on earth is hospitable for humans. A lot of people remake the at the United States has more empty land compared to most other countries. A lot of the empty land is concentrated in the middle the continent
However there’s a reason for that: TORNADOES.
The Great Plains and Midwest are notorious for constant thunderstorms some of which turn into tornadoes due to wind currents coming from the Gulf Of Mexico and the Arctic converging in the heartland.
Also, there’s tundralands like the Himalayas and Siberia.
Or even tropical island countries which are ravaged by hurricanes.
>>815537>go to imageboard>tell people not to reproducewouldn't this get more speed on a parenting subreddit?
>>815622True, good point. You got me there. I can't stomach Reddit, though. Plus I know at least a few people here have already had children.
>>815622That would be too late
Global one child policy until world population decreases to one billion
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQyGcwTAHwEUnironically the best porn acting I have ever seen
>>815781Second only to Steve Rambo's perfect "hmmm".
This thread gets me thinking about my co-workers because every year I've been working where I'm working somebody or somebody's spouse is having a baby. Last year or year and a half about seven of the people that work at the school I work have had kids. At least two of those people were on their second kids and the rest I'm not sure. It does seem like most of the people who are at least 25 who work there have at least one kid. Most have had multiples and some of the older workers have grandkids.
If you're serious about fighting le bourgeois with antinatalism, then embrace TND because Third World darkies account for 90% of the world's population growth. It would also mean that it's completely fine to round up entire demographics and gas them like Nazis did with heebs and gypsies, but I know that none of the antinatalists would agree because it's a philosophy of xenophile self-hating white libshits, literal commieuyghurpedobeautiful lady😍🥰s and yids.
>SFM porn
Antinatalismuyghurs proving themselves to be coomers and Redditors as always lmao.
>>815537>Stop having childrenmost people here have trouble getting laid let alone having kids
There are fewer people on Earth than official statistics indicate.
I've never seen an antinatalist actually explain how their policies should be implemented, especially if they're queasy about having a very authoritarian state like Socialist China at the height of one child policy or Third Reich and its campaigns of sterilization of Jews, Romani, Slavs et cetera.
Do you covertly spike the water supply?
Do you jack up the costs of having kids?
Do you take away all the tax breaks for the parents and only give them to the childfrees, incels, the sterilized people?
Do you initiate a propaganda campaign and morelize and wag your finger at the normies until they stop marrying and breeding?
>>815860I'm not a policymaker, you understand. Maybe my prescriptions would be disastrous, you know. That being said, I guess what one could do is establish state regulated child rearing, i.e. people would only be allowed to have X number of children, as we'd want to regulate the number of newborns in circulation at any given time. Thus, if a couple wanted to procreate, they'd have to apply for a license to do so, which would put them though psychiatric evaluation that determines whether or not they're psychologically fit to be parents, as well as physical fitness, educational, and financial requirements. And of course, there'd have to be punishments for unauthorized procreation, so as to deter citizens from doing so.
It's no more authoritarian than the hoops that people have to go through to maintain their driver's license, and it'd make great strides toward reducing human activity that sucks the planet dry of resources to sustain a fresh crop of newborns that contribute to overpopulation/overconsumption. Of course, this is only a partial solution; we as a species would still have to radically change our lifestyles so as to preserve the fucking planet.
>>815862>>815881 >>815537Your brain is fried by MaltHHuSSianism
>>815886Fake. If the neonazis had killed off the third world, they wouldn't exist themselves.
kill yourself NOW
>>815885>license for parentingAre you German or British?
>>816155Why those two specifically?
>>816287Germans are stereotyped for doing everything by the book, the British for needing a "loicense" for everything.
>>816296the uk doesn't even have any unusual licenses except maybe a tv license - in a lot of other countries they just take the money for state media out of your taxes directly anyway
no actually we dont have enough because there is no pensions. too many people talk is stupid because back in my day i worked hard and buyed houses so today i am honorable landlord and king of my life. you have to work harder and see what you can do. maybe dont buy starbucks and buy storebrand or something. you all deliveroo your breakfast, lunch and dinner and never actualy marry and then you get poor and thats sad.
>>815885haha license to create life haha. what next? euthanaisa and maid for pains? life is tough and you must accept it just cause you have boo boo now you want to stop it? please sir
>>815820I think two more women are pregnant at my workplace now I can't tell too well but they look like it. I bet their will be two or three this school year.
>>815820>>816340Just tell them that their babies have a chance of becoming Drumpf 2.0 and they'll get an abortion.
>>816927I think they're too far along at this point anyways.
>>815537imagine making this thread and attaching a video of a character that makes me wanna BREED BREED BREED
>>815860Just do this. Round up all the breeder bitches and send them to makeshift abortion clinics, shoot every breeder moid in the dick, throw all the kids into the GULAGs. Also strip the cisheteroids of all their tax breaks and shit.
Or sterilize everyone who has or wants mini-mes.
>>817243It's reverse psychology I think.
>>817243I don't think gay sex can produce offspring.
>Stop having children. There are more than enough people on the planet as it is, we don't need any more. We're all full up, thank you. Stop. Having. Kids.
>There are many more reasons, I'm sure, but that's more than enough for you to chew on. STOP. HAVING. CHILDREN. STOP IT. Don't do it. You help no one, least of all the child you bring into this boiling piss pot of a planet.
>I don't hate children, though I am something of a misanthrope. You are correct, adults waste a lot of resources and are a bigger pain in the ass when you get right down to it. That doesn't exempt children from being little resource sponges, though.
>No, because I am here to compete with your little cumsprouts for resources. That's right, lady. I'm going to take as many cheeseburgers as I can get away with, and your kid ain't getting none. Two for me, none for you.
>>818884reddit is much more saccharine, listless, and unwilling to be any sort of offensive. at best, you can call it millennial cringe, and maybe that was equivalent to reddit a decade ago but not anymore. anyway don't act like shartyfags are any better, you're the type to suck on a log of shit and act like it's activating your entire palette with only the most succulent of flavors.
>>818890You don't like seeing 'jaks or you specifically don't like that quoted OP with a soyjak?
>>819069sharty memes suck, yes.
>>818890The OP could've been posted on r/collapse or a dozen environmental, philosophy, antinatalist subs.
>>819169Yeah but could he have done it with pornography like he did here?
>>819171I don't care, I just think it's funny the people who hate reddit tend to have very reddit opinions, unless they're Christian fundies maybe.
>>819195please identify the reddit opinions that were disseminated here. please explain how they differ from non-reddit opinions. please explain why you have any reason to believe that any opinion expressed here is genuine. please explain how, even if they are genuine, having such opinions, that may also be held by users of reddit, somehow disqualifies someone from hating reddit. the floor is yours.
>>815537Too many rightoids making babies and too few leftoids making babies.
>>819199Antinatalism is the one of the most reddit opinions, next to atheism. Non-redditors are natalist, see beauty in life, continuing the human species, even if there's struggle and hardship. It's true, the OP could be trolling, but it's an elaborate one if so. It's possible for someone with reddit opinions to hate reddit, sure, like maybe they don't like the ui or something, but they would fit right in with their views and get lots of updoots.
>>819236>Antinatalism is the one of the most reddit opinions, next to atheism. >Non-redditors are natalist, see beauty in life, continuing the human species, even if there's struggle and hardshipsorry to say but you're retarded. the rest of what you said is fine, I can see your point. except for the whole
<I only hate reddit because of the user interface!!!is just you being retarded again.
>>819236Most have kids to be like everyone else. It sort of confers normiehood on someone. Their are actually a lot of benefits one gains from being a parent with the big drawback that your life is not your own anymore. Not having kids can actually be seen as a disadvantage because it sort of disconnects you from the wider community even though their are probably more people now who don't have children compared to 50 years ago. Although what's happening more is most adults having kids but settling for about 2 kids or so.
>>819305Maybe. But you used an example from the childfree sub reddit instead of the antinatalism sub reddit. People who call themselves childfree are often more likely to be alright with people having children, as long as you can take care of them, yet they often are less tolerant of children themselves. While people who describe themselves as antinatalist are usually more against anyone giving birth but are often somewhat more tolerant of children. That's just my impression from reading both subreddits. Also it seems to me that predominantly women congregate in both subreddits although I think they predominate more in the childfree subreddit. Personally I don't think men are as invested in that that type of thinking because women are most likely to become primary caregivers anyways so they are more likely to worry about that. Men can just deposit their seed and move on or kick back and let the woman worry about running a household. Plus the childfree sub reddit often turns into a place to complain about dating prospects since most people don't seem to subscribe to the idea. Anti natalists probably don't date as much.
telling people what to do with their bodies is some great leftist politics
go back to reddit
>>819305why did you even post this as an example of antinatalists being evil? shushing someone at a movies is literally the most normal thing ever. TADC isn't for 6-7 year olds anyway, it's a 12A/!"+ etc
>>819324apparently in the UK it's a 12A but in the USA it's only a PG, in fairness, so maybe my shithole gave it a higher rating for having harmful
trans themes
>>819305- Climate change is real. If you genuinely deny this, you're retarded and you should kill yourself.
- The increasing human population contributes to said climate change, largely as a result of overconsumption. If you genuinely deny this, you're a retard and you should kill yourself.
- Therefore, if people opt to collectively reduce the global birthrate, this can have an impact on overconsumption, which will ultimately help preserve the environment.
It's just that simple. I don't give a shit if Reddit agrees with me or not, but it's not really a matter of opinion in the first place. I am not an anti-natalist, I don't care if people have children, but I do care about the environment. Meanwhile, the right wing are a bunch of culture-war-brained dipshits who think that having 15 children is some rebellious 'fuck you' to the status quo. They're dumb, and they're not thinking about it reasonably, they're just thinking to themselves
>hurr durr dem dirty libs dun wan yew ta hab cheeldrin?! fuck dat y'all should have 20 cheeldrin jus ta fuk wit em!!!And if they're not thinking that then they're adherents of 'The 14 Words' aka they're perpetual victims and think they have to procreate to outpace the procreation of brown people, lest they be eradicated, which is fucking stupid.
>b-but there are people who just hate children because they're an inconvenience!!! And what? Who cares, that's largely inconsequential, and other people's kids do have the potential to be an inconvenience. As for your image, yeah it's cringe, because this presumably 25+ year old person cares so deeply about a cartoon that is arguably intended for children (I'm not going to argue with Disney adults over the themes of their favorite cartoon; think whatever you want, but I doubt it's really that deep), that they just had to have a little melty over a child being a child in a movie theater. However, what you didn't comment on is that this child is so poorly behaved that they can't shut their mouths long enough to appreciate a feature length film, and that is a testament to the poor upbringing they're probably currently receiving, which is something the person who wrote that post laments having to endure.
<Raise your goddamn kids. It's your problem, and I shouldn't have to deal with itis ultimately the message that the person who wrote this post is conveying, and it's a sympathetic one.
What else is there to say?
>>819198Wait…reddit is BASED???
>>819362>And what? Who cares, that's largely inconsequential, and other people's kids do have the potential to be an inconvenience. So do dogs and partnered adults and disabled and elderly. Yet it’s considered wrong to discriminate against disabled and elderly and romantic partners in the same way we do to children.
Most anti-natalism concerns are rooted in seeing children as leeches. They don’t take into account adult consumption of resources for non-essential purposes.
They even promote shameless adult self-indulgence
>>819316>Personally I don't think men are as invested in that that type of thinking because women are most likely to become primary caregivers anyways so they are more likely to worry about that. Men can just deposit their seed and move on or kick back and let the woman worry about running a householdYou couldn’t be more wrong. Men are more into antinatalism than women. Women are often the ones wanting to have a baby to “seal the deal” in relationships. I swear this place has shallow distorted view of gender just like the rightoids they complain about.
>>815537>>819362>>816927>>818086It’s amazing that you will complain about “muh eugenics” whenever someone suggests that people with hereditary disabilities shouldn’t be allowed to breed.
But, you have no problem with wanting to kill unborn kids for “moral” convenience.
Also
>shoot every breeder moid in the dickYet, there’s no proposal for violence on breeder foids?
>>818890Reddit doesn’t need to be excessively edgy like imageboards are. Tbh I prefer it being “saccharine/inoffensive”.
>>819463>You couldn’t be more wrong. Men are more into antinatalism than women. Women are often the ones wanting to have a baby to “seal the deal” in relationships. I swear this place has shallow distorted view of gender just like the rightoids they complain about.Maybe it's just what I've seen on Reddit but it does seem like more women use the childfree and antinatalist subreddits. Often one of their main complaints is that men often trap women in pregnancies and that seems to be a common sentiment, at least among the female part. Not that they don't blame the female for her part but I feel they tend to put the blame more on the man. Also in the comment your replying to I did try to differentiate between the childfree and antinatalist communities as while there's crossover their is some differences. Or at least that's how they try to portray themselves. I did say that women predominate more in the childfree subreddit. I think antinatalism might be more equal or possibly male dominant, at least on Reddit. Also childfree is more of a dating preference anyways.
>>819463- it's considered wrong to discriminate against people in general.
- there are too many people is about as simple as I get it for you. we can't kill people who are already alive, the only way to address overpopulation is by reducing the birthrate. I know that makes you nazi larpers big mad because some of your rhetoric revolves around increasing the white birthrate, but the environment is more important than preserving your genetics, and also brown people should be having less kids, too.
>>819470- eugenics is pseudoscience hogwash with no basis in reality, and I would not be against the cessation of certain genetic profiles being proliferated via pregnancy if it is scientifically certain that those genetics will result in defects.
- you can't kill a fetus, it's a fetus, and morality doesn't really factor into it unless you're some fundamentalist christian type who already sees the fetus as a person.
>>819623why should I care that some people on reddit might have enough sense to understand that climate change is a result of human activity, and that only humans can make the choice to reduce that activity? good, I'm glad people on reddit understand that. why don't you?
>>820780>Even if everyone stops having kids right now, it would take centuries for the population to drop from ≈8,5 to just 1 or 2 billion or whatever is the optimal number to not hurt the climate, so you'll have to go on a mass killing campaign.I.
- in 2023 there were roughly 800 million people aged 65+ around the world. according to the data, european and asian countries have the highest concentration of old people on a per country basis. that's something like 1/8th of the population.
- the average human lifespan is roughly 80 years
- if everyone stopped having kids right now, it would take roughly 10-15 years to drop from 8 billion to around 7 billion, because in that time frame it can be safely assumed that at least 80% of those people will have passed.
- in another 30 years, the people who are roughly 50 years old now will be in that same category, so the population would drop even further, though to what extent I'm not sure; you'd have to separate the demographics even further, i.e. find how much time the people aged 40 - 60 have and do the math to see how long it'd take to further reduce the population after the boomers die off.
this is all to point out that it actually wouldn't take centuries, but probably one (1) century to slash the population by somewhere between 10% and 30%. also climate change is a result of human activity, and the size of the human population is just one factor that can be controlled; seems like this number is only important relative to resource consumption; more people = more mouths to feed = more consumption = more industry that contributes to climate change.
II.
your statement, regardless of whether it's true or not, is defeatist in nature. it's like saying
<welp, I've got stage 1 cancer, might as well drink myself to death<welp, I'm officially 300 pounds, might as well eat like a pig until I double in size<welp, she cheated on me, I guess that means I should never have a relationship with another woman in my life ever againetc.
III.
https://science.nasa.gov/climate-change/faq/is-it-too-late-to-prevent-climate-change/>If we stopped emitting greenhouse gases today, the rise in global temperatures would begin to flatten within a few years. >Temperatures would then plateau but remain well-elevated for many, many centuries. There is a time lag between what we do and when we feel it, but that lag is less than a decade.>While the effects of human activities on Earth's climate to date are irreversible on the timescale of humans alive today, every little bit of avoided future temperature increases results in less warming that would otherwise persist for essentially forever. >The benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions occur on the same timescale as the political decisions that lead to those reductions. >Without major action to reduce emissions, global temperature is on track to rise by 2.5°C to 4.5°C (4.5°F to 8°F) by 2100, according to the latest estimates.>But it may not be too late to avoid or limit some of the worst effects of climate change. even if long term damage has already been done, we can still take steps toward reducing climate change, including a reduction in the human population. people generally don't like this idea for numerous, political reasons, but fuck that shit. this is bigger than politics.
>It's not the philosophy of antinatalism that invites ridicule, but the way the vast majority of Current Year antinatalists operate; it really is just fedoralords with neckbeards sperging about le normiefags and kids=little monsters and how you're a very heckin evil person if you're a parent or aspire to be. Maybe if the crux of antinatalist rhetoric wasn't "Ugh, why can't everyone see that kids are just parasitic crotch tumors that suck away all joy in life and everyone who pops them out is a low I.Q. breeder Karen, I wish the state would just outlaw breeding and kill all cisheteroids and their demonspawn"ok, I get your point, but I just don't care. that first image is just whatever. the second image, I largely agree with her reasoning, only she stepped out of line by asking "are you sure you want to go through with it?" because the bitch was already pregnant, like god damn. that's a point of no return, seems like she's pretty committed at that point (or an idiot, but it's their lives to live, not yours). third image is just someone who is mentally ill, and those people exist everywhere, and they inhabit every system of belief.
>>820780Bro you're clearly just an insane person. You couldn't find anything anywhere near as bad as what you said all antinatalists are like, btw something being "Reddit" doesn't actually make it wrong
>>820821this baboon meant to say
>I have a sister who recently announced that she and her husband are pregnantwhich means that they as a couple are conceiving a child, not that both she and her husband are pregnant. they're not having two kids, just the one. you know this because dudes can't get pregnant. duh.
yes, you're right, she should've just said
>I have a sister who recently announced that she is pregnantor maybe
>I have a sister who recently announced that she and her husband are expecting (a baby)or even
>I have a sister who recently announced that she and her husband have conceiveddon't think about it too hard though.
I don't think we need any more population growth but you're not gonna manage that through individual shame. Promote sex education and condom use. Also do everything possible to destabilize the Catholic Church so they have no influence.
>>820837Why the Catholic church? Right now I think it's more the Evangelicals and Muslims.
>>820780Every thing you said is correct. It’s unfortunate that the replies are taking you out of context.
I’m an antinatalist but I hate how antinatalism is being used to justify misopedia.
“Kids take too much resources” all the while celebrating new adult toys that take up more energy than a few hundred kids
>>819693>it's considered wrong to discriminate against people in general. People like to say “we are all one” but yet they only criticize certain forms of discrimination.
This website for example, allows and promotes cishetphobic misandry.
> there are too many people is about as simple as I get it for you. we can't kill people who are already alive, the only way to address overpopulation is by reducing the birthrate. I know that makes you nazi larpers big mad because some of your rhetoric revolves around increasing the white birthrate, but the environment is more important than preserving your genetics, and also brown people should be having less kids, too.Why do you assume that I’m a white supremacist? Irony is, there’s a lot of white supremacists whom are all for depopulation although only for non-white people.
>eugenics is pseudoscience hogwash with no basis in reality, and I would not be against the cessation of certain genetic profiles being proliferated via pregnancy if it is scientifically certain that those genetics will result in defects.So there should be no qualms about people wanting to abort their fetuses if they find out they’re autistic.
> you can't kill a fetus, it's a fetus, and morality doesn't really factor into it unless you're some fundamentalist christian type who already sees the fetus as a person.Fetuses are people though. Without fetuses, there’s no people.
Do you believe people gain sentience the moment they pop out of the womb?
You’re seriously ignorant of you think that.
Granted, fetuses don’t start out sentient, they do gain heartbeat and nerves after a certain developmental stage.
But okay then, by your logic, if people started aborting fetuses for certain ethnicities or genders, then there’s no problem, because fetuses aren’t people.
I would be more in favor of strong contraceptives. Such as egg harvesting or spermicide.
>>819623why should I care that some people on reddit might have enough sense to understand that climate change is a result of human activity, and that only humans can make the choice to reduce that activity? good, I'm glad people on reddit understand that. why don't you?
>>820839Catholic Church is still the biggest anti-birth control organization in the world, especially in Africa and South America.
>>820837You can actually get the normoids to stop breeding and shoving dick in pussy if you get enough people to shame them. Let's be real, we'd have to discourage people from being cishets to get to stop spawning clones.
>>821565The way it's going now it's good enough. People are just producing 1 or 2 kids generally which is really all you need. It's just that people would generally go overboard in having children in the past which is why we're stuck with so much people today. That and improved conditions and childhood vaccinations helped swell the population. A gradual and managed decline would be for the best at this point.
Unique IPs: 51