Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

branedead t1_j9geuds wrote

Reply to comment by JimmyShaka in Often mischaracterized as a rather debaucherous, hedonistic philosophy, Epicureanism actually focuses on the removal of pain and anxiety from our lives, and champions a calm ‘philosophy as therapy’ approach in pursuit of life’s highest pleasure: mental tranquility. by philosophybreak

I think my advice is if you genuinely want children, do your damnedest not to inflict intergenerational trauma upon them. I know VERY few who manage it.

3

aecorbie t1_j9heuig wrote

My advice would rather be that if you want children and think you can manage parenting incredibly well, you should adopt a child instead of procreating. That way you actually reduce suffering instead of creating it in the first place (and forcing the burden of human consciousness upon the individual, little things like that).

2

imsorryifimtoxic t1_j9ifout wrote

While you, and antinatalism, argue that bringing a child into the world is inherently harmful and should be avoided for unpredictable risks, there are good reasons to believe that some people are more suited to parenthood than others. For instance, if a person is biologically healthy and intelligent, they may be more likely to provide a nurturing environment for their child and raise them to be healthy and successful adults.

Yes they should and could adopt, but they should also be inclined to have at least one kid. If two people have only one child and do not have any additional children, they are technically contributing to a decrease in population growth. While this may seem counterintuitive at first, it is important to understand that population growth is not just about the total number of people in the world, but also about the rate of change in that number. When 2 people have only 1 child, they are replacing themselves in the population. However, they are not contributing to any additional population growth beyond replacement level.

Also, from an evolutionary perspective, reproduction is a fundamental biological drive that has helped ensure the survival of our species for millennia. While it is true that overpopulation and other social and environmental factors can make it more difficult to raise a child in some circumstances, that does not mean that procreation is always wrong. In fact, it may be argued that individuals who are best equipped to raise children should have them, in order to ensure the continued success and well-being of our species.

While it is true that having a child involves a certain degree of risk and uncertainty, this is true of all human endeavors. Life is inherently unpredictable, and there are no guarantees that any action we take will lead to a positive outcome. However, by living our lives with intention and purpose, and by taking reasonable steps to minimize risk, we can increase our chances of success and happiness.

Antinatalism may have some valid points, but it is not a philosophy that is suited to everyone. For individuals who are biologically healthy and intelligent, having a child can be a meaningful and rewarding experience which also contributes to the well-being of our species as a whole. I'm all for adopting children too. I'm not biologically healthy and hope that biologically healthy people will continue to have kids for the sake of humanity. I personally plan on adopting.

If you don't like humanity, that's a personal problem.

2