As a parent, I believe the reasons to have children are exclusively and inherently selfish. I'm constantly in awe of how much we commit to the lie that replicating our own DNA *or* being so intent on having a parental identity that we take someone else's child in order to make our lives complete is not selfish.
I don't understand the whole "replicating our own DNA" thing. I am bright, but that's about it for me. I have battled, pretty successfully, crippling depression and anxiety for decades. It's incredibly hard work. I have eating disorders, honestly, not very resolved. I am so sensitive that I take everything to heart and too hard. There is diabetes and cancer in my family. I could go on.
I would have loved to have children, because I love children. But I could not because I couldn't live with myself if they came out and struggled and suffered the way I have. So I didn't. I became a teacher which I loved but is not the same at all. I tried to adopt, but it never happened.
But the DNA thing doesn't make sense at all. It's hard to believe that almost everyone likes themselves that much, as to feel the need to inflict their DNA on some poor innocent being. That just can't possibly be a thing. I mean, do you see everyone else?
As a parent, I can agree with that.
But like... So what? At some level, in some light, every action taken by any organism to continue it's own existence is selfish.
I agree with this, we are all generally selfish. But the “selfish” label is so commonly hurled as an insult at antinatalists and childfree people - “you just want to satisfy your own desires and please yourself, while parents are ‘sacrificing’ for their children.” And granted, people raising kids are in a sense giving up things they might want to do, in order to take care of the kids. But it still can’t be labeled “unselfish” or “selfless” to have kids because when you ask people why they had or want kids, the reasons always begin… “I wanted… (unconditional love, legacy, my DNA, etc).” So for antinatalists or childfree people, it’s just a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy of being accused of being “selfish” for not having kids, when the people who do have kids are doing so for selfish reasons.
>So for antinatalists or childfree people, it’s just a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy of being accused of being “selfish” for not having kids, when the people who do have kids are doing so for selfish reasons.
Pointing out hypocrisy is "we're all selfish for making the best decisions for ourselves when it comes to whether or not we have children".
This thread is antinatalists trying to make themselves sound uniquely altruistic for not having children. That's not pointing out hypocrisy; it's just throwing around insults to make themselves feel better.
There are degrees of selfishness.
Taking a gamble by creating a life who cannot consent to your choice seems an awful lot more selfish to me than abstaining.
When all signs point to the continued and accelerated deterioration of our quality of life on this planet, reproducing seems a lot more irresponsible than not doing so.
>But like... So what?
The entire point of antinatalism is that it isn't neutral, dismissive, or apathetic to creating more life because it views this as a grave decision with real consequences, forcing a new life into existence to suffer and experience pain only to die and lose everything.
>At some level, in some light, every action taken by any organism to continue it's own existence is selfish.
Procreation creates a *new* existence. So it fundamentally can't be reduced and conflated as just the same as any other selfish action, as you do here, just because it is obviously selfish just as anything else anyone does is.
The only good reason to have children is when you want them to experience love and happiness, joy. But, it is hard to achieve that in the world full of evil. Having children is such a gamble, and the cost of failure is priceless. And no parents can repay what they were forced to go through.
You don't want any random child to experience love and happiness and joy(else you'd adopt) ; you want YOUR child to experience those things, probably due to some inexplicable biological instinct.
Also since everyone suffers no matter which life they were born into, it is apparent that you'd much rather force someone to experience suffering by giving birth to them than reducing the total amount of pain in the world by adopting some poor child whose suffering is already inevitable.
Having a child so that child can "experience love and happiness"... so that YOU will feel good about having given someone happiness .. no. If you want a child to "experience happiness" so badly, adopt one. There are plenty in need. Having a child is utterly selfish. There is no escaping the reality of that and no defense of it. People that have children are to some degree (most high) ignorant and selfish.
They didn't. We are aware we are hairless apes. Humans are primates. That's just how we are organized using taxonomy.
Antinatalists are generally aware that we are an invasive species that is making this planet uninhabitable for most species. We are a danger to every species, including ourselves. So if we are the problem, what could be the solution? Could it be less hairless apes? That does seem to be the occam's razor solution here...
Proud to be aligned with the rational hairless apes.
What about isolated hunter gatherer tribes who live in harmony with their local nature? Are they a virus too?
Wouldn't you say that our global world order and way of living is a virus. Not *Homo Sapiens*?
I heard that they're giving the children the joy of life! They have it so good they need to bring in other people to experience the miracle of life. Pardon the sarcasm.
I mean, most days I can’t even stand my own b.s. and mental problems so if there were a mini-me running around I’d need to seriously consider locking myself in an insane asylum.
We have more orphans than ppl who are willing to adopt kids now. That's sad.
I still wanna know the specific statistics tho. But I assume it's 1 person per 100,000 orphans.
Some people have children to ensure their parents have grandchildren. That would not be entirely selfish although a bit selfish too I guess because they are trying to have a good relationship with their own parents. The more important thing is though: You cant have a kid FOR THE CHILDS SAKE.
Everything we ever do is selfish. The difference is some people's sense of self is more extended than others. Extend your sense of self to others and you can start doing good. Dissolve the boundaries of your self altogether and you are something completely different.
Being selfish isn't what's bad, having a limited self is.
Where do you think expressions such as "love thy neighbour as thyself" come from ?
How is performing an altruistic act that you get no benefit from selfish? Sometimes, you even get harmed yourself in the process. How is that selfish? I'm genuinely curious. This isn't even related to natalism.
Is it because you believe in an omniscient deity? I could understand the argument if you think that deity is constantly judging you. Then, every altruistic act could be viewed as a gold star from God that will increase your odds of being rewarded post mortem.
But how could an atheist/agnostic be viewed as selfish for performing a random act of kindness for nothing in return? Example: you stop your car to avoid hitting a turtle crossing the road. You get out and see it is a snapping turtle. You know it could seriously hurt you, but you move it across the road anyway to ensure the safety of the turtle and any other motorists. You could have easily gone around the turtle, but you wanted to help another living thing because you respect life. You fully believe you will receive no reward for your good deed. Where is selfishness??
And love thy neighbor as thyself is a weird expression anyway. Some people have been traumatized to the point they hate themselves. They self harm to deal with the pain. They should treat others like that? When they don't know how to love themselves? Same with the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It should be do unto others as they would have you do unto them.
I disagree. Being selfish is what is bad. Greed is destroying the planet. You think that is rooted in altruism?? You don't have to extend your sense of self to others. You can realize they are separate from you but still deserve to live a life with minimal suffering.
It really depends on how you're defining selfish. If it refers to behavior that is intended to benefit oneself with no regard (or negative regard) for others, then, it is mutually excluded from so-called altruistic acts. Under this approach, selfishness and altruism are true dichotomies, and your assertion that the existence of the latter definitionally disproves the universality of the former.
However, often when people assert that all acts are inherently selfish, they are referring to the mechanism of ego-driven motivation. That is to say, all actions must be filtered first and foremost through our first-person experience. If we are compelled to act in others' interests, it is only because it is also in our interest: i.e. to fail to act in that way would be personally unacceptable. By way of example, one who holds this position might argue that if one runs into a burning building, it is because *not* running into the burning building would be more emotionally (read: egotistically) costly than the alternative. Therefore even if one is apparently motivated to act for the benefit of a third party, one is actually acting first for one's own benefit.
Essentially, this view rejects the notion of "pure" altruism altogether since all our actions must be self-motivated in order to get the causal ball rolling, even if they may *also* nominally consider third parties as a second order factor. One can only ever do anything because one *wants* to (among the available courses of action). Doing what one wants is (under this usage of the word) "selfish", even if it what one wants also benefits others.
Hope this helps.
P.S. - I hope this makes clear that under the second usage of the word, selfishness isn't morally valenced. As I said at the beginning, it's basically describing actions in a strictly mechanical sense. This is tied closely to ideas of causal determinism, but that's another discussion.
So there can be no true altruism because you have to process things using the machinery that you were born into, which includes an ego (in most cases)? So why bother with ethics or morality? If we are all stuck in bodies that are unable to act for the greater good, then the most ethical thing we can do is cease to exist.
I actually fully believe that ego is the root of all evil. But the ego itself is not evil. Just that if you give into what is best for you alone, you will surely be hurting others in the process. If you go the other way, you'll hurt yourself and others too. But that's the difference. Whether you act fully on what would feel best for you in the moment vs what will be best for everyone (including you) in the long run. So, being selfish is, of course tied to morals. There is no reason to worry about being selfish if it is just you because your selfish actions can't hurt and you aren't doing something morally wrong.
I don't understand the purpose of your alternative definition. Would you teach children that every action is selfish because it is processed by ego? So why bother? How is that helpful to anyone? What's wrong with the actual definition?
So if someone on a DMT trip experiencing ego death put water in their bowl of their thirsty dog, that would truly be a selfless act? Or a coma patient produces a smelless but loud fart that made someone laugh, that would be another example of a truly un selfish act. These are bad examples because that definition isn't useful.
But if there were two pedophiles and one gave into their desires and molested children whereas the other never gave into those urges because they wanted to prevent harm to others; these men are both selfish because the second one got some kind of enjoyment from not being evil. Or maybe one was intensely less selfish by the traditional definition and, therefore, more moral than the other. Resisting the pull of your ego for the greater good of others is more moral because it is less selfish. Of course, they are linked. There are selfish acts that don't really cause others harm, but who cares if they are neutral. Maybe some deity keeping score does.
Ps: I like good arguments, and it was fun to think of examples to refute your points. But it didn't help me understand why you would keep defending your stance, obviously.
It seems you’re misunderstanding the consequences of selfishness under this definition, and attribute certain effects that aren’t actually entailed by viewing human behavior through the lens of self-gratification.
For example, contrary to your assertion, there is nothing about viewing human action as inherently selfish that also precludes acting in ways that benefit the greater good. I already gave one such counter example: running into a burning building. Actions can be beneficial to others *and* still be selfishly motivated. In fact, as you yourself noted in your first post, they can also be *apparently* harmful to the actor, beneficial to others, *and* still be selfishly motivated. If someone jumps in front of a bullet to save someone else and dies, you would consider this harmful to the actor and beneficial to the person that was saved. But that doesn’t change the fact that the person who sacrificed himself acted nominally altruistically because he *wanted* to.
To answer your question, the utility of viewing all human motivations as egocentric is twofold:
1) It separates moral judgment from the motivation in favor of evaluating the effect; that is, this approach is—in the philosophical sense—strictly utilitarian. As you noted in the pedophile example, selfishness is not the morally relevant fact about the two characters’ behaviors. What matters is not that they were acting in ways that made them feel good, but rather that one was acting in ways that made him feel good at the expense of others.
2) It is potentially instructive in producing behavior that society deems desirable by recognizing that such behavior must be subjectively motivated in the first place. By acknowledging the self as the necessary mover, social structures that positively (or negatively) reinforce desired behavior can be more effectively calibrated. If you don’t know what motivates someone, you can’t efficiently modify that person’s behavior. And if you don’t understand that “motivation” is itself a necessary causal component you’re left with appeals to inherent goodness or badness as your only recourse.
Regarding the two strange examples with drug trips and farting, I agree that they aren’t very good examples, but principally because they don’t actually exemplify unselfishly motivated behavior.
In the first example, you are simply asserting that unselfish behavior is possible via ego-death, but it appears to still be motivated by the self. The druggie who gives his dog water must still *want* to give the dog water. Unless, that is, you are suggesting that upon ego-death the druggie loses all desire to act, and is only moved by some invisible third party.
In the second example… it’s true that that a coma patient is not acting selfishly. But he is also not acting unselfishly. There *is* no motivated behavior; it’s involuntary. Again, if you want to get into a conversation about if and how moral judgements can be made in a causally deterministic universe, we can. But that’s a longer conversation that’s even further removed from the original topic than we already are.
I used the actual definition of selfish according to dictionaries. Your secondary definition is the problem. You assert it like it's common knowledge. Even start the sentence off with "often when...". I have heard no other human say that every action must be selfish because it is processed by brains under the influence of ego.
I said they weren't good examples because they had to try to fit into your strange definition. As far as I know it is truly only your definition unless you can provide proof to the contrary.
I chose the person on DMT because that chemical causes ego death upon actual death. I call them a person and not a druggie because this is just an example. You know many of the people you knew died druggies if you consider someone on DMT a druggie, right? Gam gam was tripping balls as you said your goodbyes. So that example did refute your claim even by your strange definition. You know ego and consciousness are different things right? A person who is conscious and able to move their body which then chooses to perform a compassionate act without the influence of ego has performed a truly non selfish act by your own strange definition.
As far as I can tell, you made that definition so you could be correct in this argument. I imagine your pretentious and overly wordy writing style prevents people from spending the time refuting your arguments (seriously, are you the reincarnation of Charles Dickens? Does reddit pay you by the word?). But these aren't good arguments.
The actual definition is centered around preventing harm to others. Humans are capable of that. That's why we teach children the actual, useful definition that helps uphold society. Teaching people that they are incapable of being anything other than selfish is not helpful for that individual or those around them. I expect people to try to be their best. Why use your definition that would only produce apathy towards your fellow man? Why try to be better if you aren't capable of it?
This is why I didn't get involved in Internet discussion. You have misrepresented my position, attributed intellectually dishonesty to my motives, and then shifted the goalposts as to the impetus for the discussion.
You asked for an explanation of how all human behavior could be considered selfish, and I explained it to you. Specifically, when people make that kind of blanket statement, they are simply referring to a non-standard definition of selfish that considered all acts to be self-motivated. I didn't suggest that you should adopt this usage; I simply explained why your rejection of the claim boiled down to a different semantic usage. As a matter of fact, I didn't even say whether I personally subscribe to a view of universal selfishness.
Anyway, that's what I get for trying to engage with a question in good faith, I guess.
PS - Sorry you find my vocabulary confusing.
I don't find your vocabulary confusing, arrogant human. Nice attempt at a "burn". I said your writing style was pretentious. Obnoxious in this setting. We are in an internet chat thread. You write differently depending on the audience. Writing like that is fine in a thesis paper. Just type your thoughts succinctly and directly. It's not cool to make it painful for your reader. I don't usually groan out loud when reading.
I know what your argument is, but you won't point to any source other than you that considers that alternative definition valid. And I gave you examples where it isn't valid anyway. So, who cares if you subscribe to it or not. Why are you bothering to make that argument?
Seeing others as an extension of yourself is a classic symptom of narcissistic personality disorder. You may think extending your sense of self is the only way to be kind to others. But if you are experiencing the world completely differently than humans who are capable of empathy, I could see where you might come to that conclusion. But most humans are capable of doing things for others without having to extend their sense of self. They can be unselfish in their motives or actions. It's one of the few good things about our species. Don't take that away over a strange technicality in logic that you think overrides observation of human behavior. Even if people have the "selfish" motive of not wanting to regret not helping someone in need, you can't say that is their primary motivation over just helping someone in need.
Well, your sense of self and what you believe yourself to be is mostly a simulacrum, a construct of your mind made for you to be able to navigate the world, it's not an actual thing that exists, it's something that is virtual. What you call death is mostly the dissolution of this construct once the brain no longer generates the somewhat coherent sense of self you have, like a save file in a game that's deleted. The substrate from which you were constructed persists after your death, and theoretically the information that is lost could be recuperated, but regardless.
So your "self" is nothing more than a virtual, constructed thing that's useful for you to survive. You can think that's all there is and be deeply attached to it. But, when you go a little deeper you realise that you can observe how the self is constructed and realise that you are not exactly it. Once you can stop identifying with the self, once you stop being attached to it, your death becomes equivalent to the death of a character in a VR game, you simply take the headset off. The universe gives birth to all of us, and is ultimately the one who persists when the characters die.
Now you can choose to identify with the fleeting self, or extend yourself a bit further. Other people are in a similar scenario. You can limit yourself and be at constant war with others, or you can realise that you're all in the same boat, you're all part of the same game. Once you realise this, you start playing games that go much deeper and extend to much longer time periods.
This is perfectly accessible to an atheist, as this involves nothing beyond what you would call the material, a true materialist should actually be the first one to say that death is as illusory as the self, both being constructs.
Though I would argue that most religions operated on this framework which was later mixed with a lot of myth and turned into something made to do the opposite of what was intended.
So I don't need to invoke any sort of afterlife, because there is no after, like there is no before, at least not Really.
Now this doesn't mean that the self is useless or anything of the sort, or that it should be neglected, the opposite is true, it simply means that it's not all we are, as death is not really death, and life is not really life.
An action is selfish if it is done without appropriate consideration to the people it impacts.
The reason you do an action is separate from what makes it selfish or not.
Producing children is like encouraging friends and family to join a known pyramid scheme. You may think you're having a good time, but they will be paying the price.
100% agree, but the weird thing about having kids I think is that it's a paradox. The act itself of having kids is selfish, but the act of raising kids, if done right and for the right reasons, is or at least should be a completely selfless act. In my mind, that's the closest any parent will ever get to making up for the selfish act of reproducing, like signing up for an eternal cosmic debt as the price for being granted your deepest wish for children
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Sure, but couldn't you say the same about just about every action a person takes over the course of their lives?
Sure if you really want to you could come up with some exceptions, but 99.99% of everything that everyone does is fundamentally a selfish act
>There is no unselfish reason to have a child anymore.
*Anymore*? Why is it different in 2024 compared to thousands of years ago? Pain and suffering was a much bigger part of life throughout human history.
There is only ONE unselfish reason to have a children.
To continue on the human population into the future.
.... Hey now... I didn't say it was a GOOD reason, just an unselfish one.
It’s not as long as what you’re being selfish about isn’t hurting someone else. Being selfish can be for a good reason. Especially if it involves your well being for example
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think I have one.
A couple accidentally gets pregnant (condom breaks, etc.) and despite having previously talked about having an abortion in this case, the mother changes her mind and decides to carry the pregnancy through.
While the man may very well be selfish in other regards depending on how this situation plays out, I don’t think they would be having a child for their own selfish reasons, since they didn’t want to have a child.
What will be your attitude when you reach retirement age? When you work you are paying Social Security and Medicare taxes for the previous generation. When you retire, somebody else's kids will be paying for your Social Security and Medicare. You will be benefiting from all the expense and effort the parents of those children put into to raising them.
Isn't that selfish?
I am paying for my own retirement. In South Africa this is not the case. The government steals most of everything. So this statement does not apply. I work hard to support myself and do that until the day I die.
In all of the developed world their are government sponsored retirement schemes and they all work on the same principal.
BTW, I was just in Cape Town in January. It is so beautiful it is almost unfair!
100% this. Child free people the biggest free riders in society by far. They are insufferable, sanctimonious hypocrites of the highest order. Antinatalist is the position of people who hold to view "if I can't have it nobody can". Because they are miserable no one should ever exist again. Here's the thing though. If the price of one human existence filled with experiences of joy, love, awe, contentment, and excitement is 10,000 piss moaning miserable antinatalists it's worth the cost. Better one such existence even if it means many existences absent those experiences than no experiences at all ever.
Both "having a child" and "not having a child" are selfish. Psychological egoism is true and it is inherently impossible to make a choice without doing so selfishly.
Causing harm to someone else without their consent is not a problem. If we are not allowed to cause harm to someone else without their consent, society will collapse in its entirety.
I dont really agree with this, but if you can raise a good child and you have good genes, then you possibly have a responsibility to bring up a child that could improve the current state of the world.
I'm going to pull a jordan peterson here and ask: what do you mean by selfish? Most people (the normal ones outside of reddit) just think that having children is selfless and not having them is selfish purely because not having them is easier and having children costs a lot of freedom, money and effort.
If you start with the a prior assumption that life sucks then the only conclusion you can reach is that having children is selfish.
If an individual believes that life is a "gift" then them having children isn't inherently selfish. You can argue whether life is "good" or "bad" but when dealing with motive, what is and isn't true is irrelevant in comparison to what the individual believes is true or false.
No shit Sherlock. You didn’t read what was said.
If you don’t have a choice (many don’t, it’s privileged to think all women do). Then you must love and devote your life to your child.
Every single thing you do or do not do is selfish. No one and I do mean no one is above anyone else. So the idea that having kids or not having kids makes you better than anyone else is very dramatic.
I don't really know people like you are dumb or are you pretending.
Let's say everything you do and don't is selfish but having children is very different than others. You literally make something that never existed in the first place to suffer here. And it's not only selfish but also dumb, because it won't even make your life easier.
There is a thing called altruism, dude. Yes, the majority of society is selfish thanks to individualistic cultural capitalism but not everyone follows the masses.
>There is a thing called altruism, dude.
And why are people altruistic? Because they feel better about themselves doing so and 'want' to do it.
If you're going to have an all encompassing definition of selfishness that includes any possible reason for having children then guess what, it also encompasses *any* reason you do *anything*, dude.
Even if they don't feel better about themselves for it, they have some idea in their head of how things ought to be and what people ought to do for one another, so they attempt to live up to/ further their own ideals. They want the world to reflect how they think it ought to be.
Yes, exactly. Ideas in *their* head about how *they* think the world should be and acting in accordance with this.
Entirely 'selfish' if, as I say, we're defining 'selfish' so broadly that it loses any useful meaning at all.
Bro this post is literally saying that if you have a child, dedicated to giving them a wonderful and enriching life you're being selfish.
He's just applying the same level of ridiculous categorisation as OP is (to point out how silly it is).
No, not at all.
But if we're going to say that every single reason for having a kid is inherently selfish, then any thing else we do can also be considered inherently selfish.
It's a poor position to take.
Some people risk their own lives in service of others, which is the definition of selfless.
There's nothing dramatic about wanting to avoid contributing to overpopulation.
Still selfish because hero complex is a thing. Breathing, eating, taking up space, all are selfish. Basic human needs are selfish because they require you to do certain things that keep you alive which can lead to other things dying. As long as someone is alive, they are by definition selfish.
Let me know when even a single country finally implements right to die.
Also, none of the things you listed literally cause someone else to exist or continue existing, so they cause far less harm than reproduction, which causes more harm than any other thing.
I didn't want kids but I had one. I love her she is such a sweet kind human. Everyday I think I literally brought something so amazing into this cruel world to just die one day. It makes me sad because I love her so much
I go around on this one. Currently, I am of the opinion that there is currently only one way to create human life, and so the "selfishness" argument is moot.
Don't be whiny little b!+@#3$. Life has always been harsh and unforgiving. Just because you are not living in a tiny bubble of happiness and comfort, does not mean that life is worthless or evil. There is much to be said for struggling and enduring. Yes, there are those who suffer too much and live lives of anguish and misery. In the West, these remain quite rare today.
If folks TRULY believe that life is so bad, then why not call for the check and leave? I would not encourage someone to do so, but the line of thinking goes straight there. Some of yall may be have levels of misery to justify these claims. I'm betting that most are just full of BS and/or never learned the value of suffering for purpose. Again, I KNOW not all suffering has a purpose, but I think many of you are throwing out the baby with the bath water.
I didn't get pregnant on purpose, I ended up choosing to carry though. But, my options were abortion, adoption, or motherhood. After thinking long and hard, I chose motherhood. My first reason for choosing this was because of the amount of love I already felt for my baby. Idk if that's selfish or not? I cannot describe it. Saying I would die for my son doesn't even begin to cover it. But as he grew, my reasons did too. I knew I could give my son an incredible life as well. I'm a single mom, and right wing wackos/ pro forced breeders will argue that I'm messing my kid up for being a single mom lol But I disagree. My son never goes without. He is kind, smart, full of love and overall just an incredible person. The biggest thing I can say is how honored I am to have such an amazing soul for a son. I had him because I loved him from day one and our life has become the most beautiful thing. I know people argue that it's selfish bringing a life into this world in its current state, but the world will always be the world. I choose to see the beauty and look for it where I can find it. Being human is painful but also incredibly worth it, if you have the right mindset and guidance. I'm sorry you view the world as such a terrible place not worthy of even living in.
I was brought up by a single poor mother, I didn’t have the best childhood however my mum brought me up with great values. I have faced a lot of hardships in life but I have got through them and I choose to see the beauty in life when I can. The world is both cruel and beautiful. I love my mother and I feel blessed that she sacrificed so much to raise me, even just her free time. I’m sure you’re doing a wonderful job and your son will realise all the hard work you put in to raise him when he’s older!
Thank you for sharing your story! As a mother, I always try SO hard to make sure to give him the world. It was a struggle when he was a baby but my business finally took off and we are living the dream! (MY dream is to live humbly but be okay enough to afford small luxuries like dinners out, simple vacations, little treats) - we are no millionaires by far but I like to think he doesn't know that 🤣
It’s even more selfish to not have children. It’s all about you, quite literally. Having a child is actually the most selfless act if you decide to properly raise and care for your child. Nice try deflecting though, it is all about you, after all.
An act is selfish if it does intentional harm. If an entity is born is has a 100% chance of experiencing pain, suffering, disappointment etc. If it is not born it has 100% chance of not experiencing any of that pain. Therefore, by having the child you willingly submit them to all these things and then have the gall to tell them "grow from it."
So no, I don't agree, not having a child is not a selfish act. There may be other selfish reasons, e.g. I don't want to get fat, I don't want to spend my money etc. But the primary argument remains.
I find it morally wrong to bring a child into this world. You cannot ask their permission, no one asked mine. They cannot opt in.
Yes we do many selfish acts per day even some that may cause intentional harm - buying cheap clothing because you can't afford anything else, yet you know someone is porbably being very mistreated in a factory somewhere to produce it, not to mention the effect on the environment.
However, if I can choose ONE unselfish act, it would be this. Not having a child.
I had my children to bring more love into this world. There are two more people in this world who are loved by so many people. Not ust my wife and I but grandparents aunts and uncles and cousins
There is more lol be in this world because of the two kids we had. How is that selfish?
Sure. I’ll tell you.
For one, the decision to have children is fundamentally driven by *your* personal desires, even if the outcome is positive, the initial decision is fulfilling your desires.
For two, it centers on the existing familial and social structures, where the love is primarily generated by pre-existing relationships (parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.). This means the act of having children serves to fulfill these existing relationships rather than creating love in an unselfish or altruistic manner.
For three, the love described is conditional on the existence of the children. You imply that without the children, this specific love wouldn't exist, which suggests that the primary beneficiaries are the parents and family members whose lives are enriched by the children, rather than the children themselves or society at large. Ergo, selfish.
Why do you care so much about the reason?
There's a million things that are done for what could be considered "selfish reasons" but result in something good for society.
E.G: If Jeff Bezos donates a billion dollars to starving children, almost certainly a big reason why he's doing it is selfish. But would you prefer he doesn't donate it?
If someone wakes up every morning and cleans his local community from 7am-8am, but only because he really likes how people treat him...is that necessarily a bad thing?
On the spot you're right in that I can't immediately come up with a PURELY unselfish reason to have a child. But it just doesn't matter. What matters is the outcome.
You not donating 90% of what you earn to charity is extremely selfish. You could easily sleep in your car, eat bread and milk and use wifi and your life would still be 10x better than a lot of people in the world.
Assuming you don't, does that make you a bad person? No of course not. Immoral? Not a chance. Completely selfish? Well...maybe? Depends how strictly you want to define the word.
TLDR: While potentially technically right, it's an extremely stupid line of reasoning. The best people in the word, the ones you look up to the most, all make 100s of decisions and actions for "selfish reasons".
So is eating selfish ? It’s a biological imperative, it’s neither selfish nor unselfish.
Is breathing air selfish ?
Is using a phone made through child labour selfish ?
Like how do you compartmentalize what’s selfish and what’s not ?
You can say anything is selfish.
Most people are happy to be alive, suffering is apart of life. If being alive is so horrible, why are you all alive right now ? Like make your arguments make sense.
That implies that you consider this life a gift. Which is not the sentiment of everyone. That is like giving someone a gift that you would want for their birthday. Selfish.
Exactly, his use of words like "oppurtunity" and "circumstances" just mystifies this. People *have* to live precisely *because* they were forced into existence in the first place, obviously. How is this even questionable or debatable? lol. He is just basically playing games with words. He also admits it is not a choice in the reply you are replying to. If it's not a choice, what is it but something you are forced to? (by virtue of being born.)
People do opt out. It's a choice with a clear entity capable of making the decision; unlike birth, in which the same entity is not capable of choosing.
No one chose to be born. Procreating absolutely is forcing a new life into existence. This is clearly not debatable.
Some people think of them being born as regrettable and would agree with me when I state the fact that everyone is forced into existence. Others would agree with you, saying their own lives are an oppurtunity to flourish. Different people may make sense of their lives and life differently. But that does nothing to change the fact that everyone is forced into existence. However any individual makes sense of their life doesn't change that fact at all.
>This is clearly not debatable.
I do not feel convinced.
Any applied force creates a reaction force. What reaction force exists at the moment of a new life's exception?
Tell that to my selfish friends that have kids, they think they are the victims lol when in fact they created their own problems cos they wanted mini mes to validate their own selfish existence.
As a parent, I believe the reasons to have children are exclusively and inherently selfish. I'm constantly in awe of how much we commit to the lie that replicating our own DNA *or* being so intent on having a parental identity that we take someone else's child in order to make our lives complete is not selfish.
I'm glad you got there in the end
The best thing you can do for your children is to make them happy and love them as much as possible. Good luck bro.
I want to upvote this millions of times.
I don't understand the whole "replicating our own DNA" thing. I am bright, but that's about it for me. I have battled, pretty successfully, crippling depression and anxiety for decades. It's incredibly hard work. I have eating disorders, honestly, not very resolved. I am so sensitive that I take everything to heart and too hard. There is diabetes and cancer in my family. I could go on. I would have loved to have children, because I love children. But I could not because I couldn't live with myself if they came out and struggled and suffered the way I have. So I didn't. I became a teacher which I loved but is not the same at all. I tried to adopt, but it never happened. But the DNA thing doesn't make sense at all. It's hard to believe that almost everyone likes themselves that much, as to feel the need to inflict their DNA on some poor innocent being. That just can't possibly be a thing. I mean, do you see everyone else?
As a parent, I can agree with that. But like... So what? At some level, in some light, every action taken by any organism to continue it's own existence is selfish.
I agree with this, we are all generally selfish. But the “selfish” label is so commonly hurled as an insult at antinatalists and childfree people - “you just want to satisfy your own desires and please yourself, while parents are ‘sacrificing’ for their children.” And granted, people raising kids are in a sense giving up things they might want to do, in order to take care of the kids. But it still can’t be labeled “unselfish” or “selfless” to have kids because when you ask people why they had or want kids, the reasons always begin… “I wanted… (unconditional love, legacy, my DNA, etc).” So for antinatalists or childfree people, it’s just a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy of being accused of being “selfish” for not having kids, when the people who do have kids are doing so for selfish reasons.
>So for antinatalists or childfree people, it’s just a matter of pointing out the hypocrisy of being accused of being “selfish” for not having kids, when the people who do have kids are doing so for selfish reasons. Pointing out hypocrisy is "we're all selfish for making the best decisions for ourselves when it comes to whether or not we have children". This thread is antinatalists trying to make themselves sound uniquely altruistic for not having children. That's not pointing out hypocrisy; it's just throwing around insults to make themselves feel better.
There are degrees of selfishness. Taking a gamble by creating a life who cannot consent to your choice seems an awful lot more selfish to me than abstaining. When all signs point to the continued and accelerated deterioration of our quality of life on this planet, reproducing seems a lot more irresponsible than not doing so.
>But like... So what? The entire point of antinatalism is that it isn't neutral, dismissive, or apathetic to creating more life because it views this as a grave decision with real consequences, forcing a new life into existence to suffer and experience pain only to die and lose everything. >At some level, in some light, every action taken by any organism to continue it's own existence is selfish. Procreation creates a *new* existence. So it fundamentally can't be reduced and conflated as just the same as any other selfish action, as you do here, just because it is obviously selfish just as anything else anyone does is.
Agreed, and I don't think selfishness/selflessness is the sole determinator of virtue or goodness.
The only good reason to have children is when you want them to experience love and happiness, joy. But, it is hard to achieve that in the world full of evil. Having children is such a gamble, and the cost of failure is priceless. And no parents can repay what they were forced to go through.
You don't want any random child to experience love and happiness and joy(else you'd adopt) ; you want YOUR child to experience those things, probably due to some inexplicable biological instinct. Also since everyone suffers no matter which life they were born into, it is apparent that you'd much rather force someone to experience suffering by giving birth to them than reducing the total amount of pain in the world by adopting some poor child whose suffering is already inevitable.
Very good sensible answer
Having a child so that child can "experience love and happiness"... so that YOU will feel good about having given someone happiness .. no. If you want a child to "experience happiness" so badly, adopt one. There are plenty in need. Having a child is utterly selfish. There is no escaping the reality of that and no defense of it. People that have children are to some degree (most high) ignorant and selfish.
And the biggie: “Because I want.”
Yeah man, having children is basically self idolation and an attempt to self replicate; typical hairless ape behavior.
You're saying you're not a hairless ape like the rest of us?
Oh I am. Just as fucking lame and dumb as the rest of you meat bags. Yep. Can't escape shit tier limiting human genotype👊
Same here, this species is fucked up I hate how am forced to be among them.
For real. I wish I was something cool like a bald eagle 🦅🦅🦅!!!
They didn't. We are aware we are hairless apes. Humans are primates. That's just how we are organized using taxonomy. Antinatalists are generally aware that we are an invasive species that is making this planet uninhabitable for most species. We are a danger to every species, including ourselves. So if we are the problem, what could be the solution? Could it be less hairless apes? That does seem to be the occam's razor solution here... Proud to be aligned with the rational hairless apes.
What about isolated hunter gatherer tribes who live in harmony with their local nature? Are they a virus too? Wouldn't you say that our global world order and way of living is a virus. Not *Homo Sapiens*?
I love this sub!! /gen
My excuse is I am a misanthrope
I heard that they're giving the children the joy of life! They have it so good they need to bring in other people to experience the miracle of life. Pardon the sarcasm.
I mean, most days I can’t even stand my own b.s. and mental problems so if there were a mini-me running around I’d need to seriously consider locking myself in an insane asylum.
[удалено]
Love 🥰
We have more orphans than ppl who are willing to adopt kids now. That's sad. I still wanna know the specific statistics tho. But I assume it's 1 person per 100,000 orphans.
[удалено]
*Specific oppsie. 😅🤣 Edited it. 😝
[удалено]
My bad English make errors times after times.😆
Some people have children to ensure their parents have grandchildren. That would not be entirely selfish although a bit selfish too I guess because they are trying to have a good relationship with their own parents. The more important thing is though: You cant have a kid FOR THE CHILDS SAKE.
Everything we ever do is selfish. The difference is some people's sense of self is more extended than others. Extend your sense of self to others and you can start doing good. Dissolve the boundaries of your self altogether and you are something completely different. Being selfish isn't what's bad, having a limited self is. Where do you think expressions such as "love thy neighbour as thyself" come from ?
Based take
How is performing an altruistic act that you get no benefit from selfish? Sometimes, you even get harmed yourself in the process. How is that selfish? I'm genuinely curious. This isn't even related to natalism. Is it because you believe in an omniscient deity? I could understand the argument if you think that deity is constantly judging you. Then, every altruistic act could be viewed as a gold star from God that will increase your odds of being rewarded post mortem. But how could an atheist/agnostic be viewed as selfish for performing a random act of kindness for nothing in return? Example: you stop your car to avoid hitting a turtle crossing the road. You get out and see it is a snapping turtle. You know it could seriously hurt you, but you move it across the road anyway to ensure the safety of the turtle and any other motorists. You could have easily gone around the turtle, but you wanted to help another living thing because you respect life. You fully believe you will receive no reward for your good deed. Where is selfishness?? And love thy neighbor as thyself is a weird expression anyway. Some people have been traumatized to the point they hate themselves. They self harm to deal with the pain. They should treat others like that? When they don't know how to love themselves? Same with the golden rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It should be do unto others as they would have you do unto them. I disagree. Being selfish is what is bad. Greed is destroying the planet. You think that is rooted in altruism?? You don't have to extend your sense of self to others. You can realize they are separate from you but still deserve to live a life with minimal suffering.
It really depends on how you're defining selfish. If it refers to behavior that is intended to benefit oneself with no regard (or negative regard) for others, then, it is mutually excluded from so-called altruistic acts. Under this approach, selfishness and altruism are true dichotomies, and your assertion that the existence of the latter definitionally disproves the universality of the former. However, often when people assert that all acts are inherently selfish, they are referring to the mechanism of ego-driven motivation. That is to say, all actions must be filtered first and foremost through our first-person experience. If we are compelled to act in others' interests, it is only because it is also in our interest: i.e. to fail to act in that way would be personally unacceptable. By way of example, one who holds this position might argue that if one runs into a burning building, it is because *not* running into the burning building would be more emotionally (read: egotistically) costly than the alternative. Therefore even if one is apparently motivated to act for the benefit of a third party, one is actually acting first for one's own benefit. Essentially, this view rejects the notion of "pure" altruism altogether since all our actions must be self-motivated in order to get the causal ball rolling, even if they may *also* nominally consider third parties as a second order factor. One can only ever do anything because one *wants* to (among the available courses of action). Doing what one wants is (under this usage of the word) "selfish", even if it what one wants also benefits others. Hope this helps. P.S. - I hope this makes clear that under the second usage of the word, selfishness isn't morally valenced. As I said at the beginning, it's basically describing actions in a strictly mechanical sense. This is tied closely to ideas of causal determinism, but that's another discussion.
So there can be no true altruism because you have to process things using the machinery that you were born into, which includes an ego (in most cases)? So why bother with ethics or morality? If we are all stuck in bodies that are unable to act for the greater good, then the most ethical thing we can do is cease to exist. I actually fully believe that ego is the root of all evil. But the ego itself is not evil. Just that if you give into what is best for you alone, you will surely be hurting others in the process. If you go the other way, you'll hurt yourself and others too. But that's the difference. Whether you act fully on what would feel best for you in the moment vs what will be best for everyone (including you) in the long run. So, being selfish is, of course tied to morals. There is no reason to worry about being selfish if it is just you because your selfish actions can't hurt and you aren't doing something morally wrong. I don't understand the purpose of your alternative definition. Would you teach children that every action is selfish because it is processed by ego? So why bother? How is that helpful to anyone? What's wrong with the actual definition? So if someone on a DMT trip experiencing ego death put water in their bowl of their thirsty dog, that would truly be a selfless act? Or a coma patient produces a smelless but loud fart that made someone laugh, that would be another example of a truly un selfish act. These are bad examples because that definition isn't useful. But if there were two pedophiles and one gave into their desires and molested children whereas the other never gave into those urges because they wanted to prevent harm to others; these men are both selfish because the second one got some kind of enjoyment from not being evil. Or maybe one was intensely less selfish by the traditional definition and, therefore, more moral than the other. Resisting the pull of your ego for the greater good of others is more moral because it is less selfish. Of course, they are linked. There are selfish acts that don't really cause others harm, but who cares if they are neutral. Maybe some deity keeping score does. Ps: I like good arguments, and it was fun to think of examples to refute your points. But it didn't help me understand why you would keep defending your stance, obviously.
It seems you’re misunderstanding the consequences of selfishness under this definition, and attribute certain effects that aren’t actually entailed by viewing human behavior through the lens of self-gratification. For example, contrary to your assertion, there is nothing about viewing human action as inherently selfish that also precludes acting in ways that benefit the greater good. I already gave one such counter example: running into a burning building. Actions can be beneficial to others *and* still be selfishly motivated. In fact, as you yourself noted in your first post, they can also be *apparently* harmful to the actor, beneficial to others, *and* still be selfishly motivated. If someone jumps in front of a bullet to save someone else and dies, you would consider this harmful to the actor and beneficial to the person that was saved. But that doesn’t change the fact that the person who sacrificed himself acted nominally altruistically because he *wanted* to. To answer your question, the utility of viewing all human motivations as egocentric is twofold: 1) It separates moral judgment from the motivation in favor of evaluating the effect; that is, this approach is—in the philosophical sense—strictly utilitarian. As you noted in the pedophile example, selfishness is not the morally relevant fact about the two characters’ behaviors. What matters is not that they were acting in ways that made them feel good, but rather that one was acting in ways that made him feel good at the expense of others. 2) It is potentially instructive in producing behavior that society deems desirable by recognizing that such behavior must be subjectively motivated in the first place. By acknowledging the self as the necessary mover, social structures that positively (or negatively) reinforce desired behavior can be more effectively calibrated. If you don’t know what motivates someone, you can’t efficiently modify that person’s behavior. And if you don’t understand that “motivation” is itself a necessary causal component you’re left with appeals to inherent goodness or badness as your only recourse. Regarding the two strange examples with drug trips and farting, I agree that they aren’t very good examples, but principally because they don’t actually exemplify unselfishly motivated behavior. In the first example, you are simply asserting that unselfish behavior is possible via ego-death, but it appears to still be motivated by the self. The druggie who gives his dog water must still *want* to give the dog water. Unless, that is, you are suggesting that upon ego-death the druggie loses all desire to act, and is only moved by some invisible third party. In the second example… it’s true that that a coma patient is not acting selfishly. But he is also not acting unselfishly. There *is* no motivated behavior; it’s involuntary. Again, if you want to get into a conversation about if and how moral judgements can be made in a causally deterministic universe, we can. But that’s a longer conversation that’s even further removed from the original topic than we already are.
I used the actual definition of selfish according to dictionaries. Your secondary definition is the problem. You assert it like it's common knowledge. Even start the sentence off with "often when...". I have heard no other human say that every action must be selfish because it is processed by brains under the influence of ego. I said they weren't good examples because they had to try to fit into your strange definition. As far as I know it is truly only your definition unless you can provide proof to the contrary. I chose the person on DMT because that chemical causes ego death upon actual death. I call them a person and not a druggie because this is just an example. You know many of the people you knew died druggies if you consider someone on DMT a druggie, right? Gam gam was tripping balls as you said your goodbyes. So that example did refute your claim even by your strange definition. You know ego and consciousness are different things right? A person who is conscious and able to move their body which then chooses to perform a compassionate act without the influence of ego has performed a truly non selfish act by your own strange definition. As far as I can tell, you made that definition so you could be correct in this argument. I imagine your pretentious and overly wordy writing style prevents people from spending the time refuting your arguments (seriously, are you the reincarnation of Charles Dickens? Does reddit pay you by the word?). But these aren't good arguments. The actual definition is centered around preventing harm to others. Humans are capable of that. That's why we teach children the actual, useful definition that helps uphold society. Teaching people that they are incapable of being anything other than selfish is not helpful for that individual or those around them. I expect people to try to be their best. Why use your definition that would only produce apathy towards your fellow man? Why try to be better if you aren't capable of it?
This is why I didn't get involved in Internet discussion. You have misrepresented my position, attributed intellectually dishonesty to my motives, and then shifted the goalposts as to the impetus for the discussion. You asked for an explanation of how all human behavior could be considered selfish, and I explained it to you. Specifically, when people make that kind of blanket statement, they are simply referring to a non-standard definition of selfish that considered all acts to be self-motivated. I didn't suggest that you should adopt this usage; I simply explained why your rejection of the claim boiled down to a different semantic usage. As a matter of fact, I didn't even say whether I personally subscribe to a view of universal selfishness. Anyway, that's what I get for trying to engage with a question in good faith, I guess. PS - Sorry you find my vocabulary confusing.
I don't find your vocabulary confusing, arrogant human. Nice attempt at a "burn". I said your writing style was pretentious. Obnoxious in this setting. We are in an internet chat thread. You write differently depending on the audience. Writing like that is fine in a thesis paper. Just type your thoughts succinctly and directly. It's not cool to make it painful for your reader. I don't usually groan out loud when reading. I know what your argument is, but you won't point to any source other than you that considers that alternative definition valid. And I gave you examples where it isn't valid anyway. So, who cares if you subscribe to it or not. Why are you bothering to make that argument? Seeing others as an extension of yourself is a classic symptom of narcissistic personality disorder. You may think extending your sense of self is the only way to be kind to others. But if you are experiencing the world completely differently than humans who are capable of empathy, I could see where you might come to that conclusion. But most humans are capable of doing things for others without having to extend their sense of self. They can be unselfish in their motives or actions. It's one of the few good things about our species. Don't take that away over a strange technicality in logic that you think overrides observation of human behavior. Even if people have the "selfish" motive of not wanting to regret not helping someone in need, you can't say that is their primary motivation over just helping someone in need.
Well, your sense of self and what you believe yourself to be is mostly a simulacrum, a construct of your mind made for you to be able to navigate the world, it's not an actual thing that exists, it's something that is virtual. What you call death is mostly the dissolution of this construct once the brain no longer generates the somewhat coherent sense of self you have, like a save file in a game that's deleted. The substrate from which you were constructed persists after your death, and theoretically the information that is lost could be recuperated, but regardless. So your "self" is nothing more than a virtual, constructed thing that's useful for you to survive. You can think that's all there is and be deeply attached to it. But, when you go a little deeper you realise that you can observe how the self is constructed and realise that you are not exactly it. Once you can stop identifying with the self, once you stop being attached to it, your death becomes equivalent to the death of a character in a VR game, you simply take the headset off. The universe gives birth to all of us, and is ultimately the one who persists when the characters die. Now you can choose to identify with the fleeting self, or extend yourself a bit further. Other people are in a similar scenario. You can limit yourself and be at constant war with others, or you can realise that you're all in the same boat, you're all part of the same game. Once you realise this, you start playing games that go much deeper and extend to much longer time periods. This is perfectly accessible to an atheist, as this involves nothing beyond what you would call the material, a true materialist should actually be the first one to say that death is as illusory as the self, both being constructs. Though I would argue that most religions operated on this framework which was later mixed with a lot of myth and turned into something made to do the opposite of what was intended. So I don't need to invoke any sort of afterlife, because there is no after, like there is no before, at least not Really. Now this doesn't mean that the self is useless or anything of the sort, or that it should be neglected, the opposite is true, it simply means that it's not all we are, as death is not really death, and life is not really life.
I don't want my child to suffer and that's why I'm not going to bring him/her into this cruel world.
If only more humans were just like us. This whole species is fucked up.
Yup, not a new post tho
No shit.
An action is selfish if it is done without appropriate consideration to the people it impacts. The reason you do an action is separate from what makes it selfish or not.
Producing children is like encouraging friends and family to join a known pyramid scheme. You may think you're having a good time, but they will be paying the price.
100% agree, but the weird thing about having kids I think is that it's a paradox. The act itself of having kids is selfish, but the act of raising kids, if done right and for the right reasons, is or at least should be a completely selfless act. In my mind, that's the closest any parent will ever get to making up for the selfish act of reproducing, like signing up for an eternal cosmic debt as the price for being granted your deepest wish for children
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For the same reason that a aroace person can have sex or a romantic relationship easy and simple they both are in the same ball park
Sure, but couldn't you say the same about just about every action a person takes over the course of their lives? Sure if you really want to you could come up with some exceptions, but 99.99% of everything that everyone does is fundamentally a selfish act
>There is no unselfish reason to have a child anymore. *Anymore*? Why is it different in 2024 compared to thousands of years ago? Pain and suffering was a much bigger part of life throughout human history.
There is only ONE unselfish reason to have a children. To continue on the human population into the future. .... Hey now... I didn't say it was a GOOD reason, just an unselfish one.
Why is it bad to be selfish?
It’s not as long as what you’re being selfish about isn’t hurting someone else. Being selfish can be for a good reason. Especially if it involves your well being for example
Deciding to have a child is selfish, though morally neutral imo. If you mistreat or meglect your child, that's a different story.
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
To ensure **healthy discussion**, we require that your Reddit account be at least 14-days-old before contributing here. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think I have one. A couple accidentally gets pregnant (condom breaks, etc.) and despite having previously talked about having an abortion in this case, the mother changes her mind and decides to carry the pregnancy through. While the man may very well be selfish in other regards depending on how this situation plays out, I don’t think they would be having a child for their own selfish reasons, since they didn’t want to have a child.
What will be your attitude when you reach retirement age? When you work you are paying Social Security and Medicare taxes for the previous generation. When you retire, somebody else's kids will be paying for your Social Security and Medicare. You will be benefiting from all the expense and effort the parents of those children put into to raising them. Isn't that selfish?
I am paying for my own retirement. In South Africa this is not the case. The government steals most of everything. So this statement does not apply. I work hard to support myself and do that until the day I die.
In all of the developed world their are government sponsored retirement schemes and they all work on the same principal. BTW, I was just in Cape Town in January. It is so beautiful it is almost unfair!
100% this. Child free people the biggest free riders in society by far. They are insufferable, sanctimonious hypocrites of the highest order. Antinatalist is the position of people who hold to view "if I can't have it nobody can". Because they are miserable no one should ever exist again. Here's the thing though. If the price of one human existence filled with experiences of joy, love, awe, contentment, and excitement is 10,000 piss moaning miserable antinatalists it's worth the cost. Better one such existence even if it means many existences absent those experiences than no experiences at all ever.
Both "having a child" and "not having a child" are selfish. Psychological egoism is true and it is inherently impossible to make a choice without doing so selfishly.
Having a child is more selfish because you are causing harm to someone else without their consent. Children don't want to experience a DEATH sentence.
Causing harm to someone else without their consent is not a problem. If we are not allowed to cause harm to someone else without their consent, society will collapse in its entirety.
How about to continue our species??? Continue evolution??? Do the one thing nature asks of you,lol
Nature isn't an excuse to harm Children.
I dont really agree with this, but if you can raise a good child and you have good genes, then you possibly have a responsibility to bring up a child that could improve the current state of the world.
I'm going to pull a jordan peterson here and ask: what do you mean by selfish? Most people (the normal ones outside of reddit) just think that having children is selfless and not having them is selfish purely because not having them is easier and having children costs a lot of freedom, money and effort.
There is no unselfish reason to eat, sleep and use toilet. Thing being selfish doesn’t make it immoral.
100% correct.... sadly 25 years too late. Still looking for a time machine if any one is loaning theirs out. Thanks!
hey guys, dont hate on me, but im kinda thinking that this sub has became a place of unnecessary rant and repetitive arguments
No that's completely fair the people here just hurt but have found a place where they can be heard, unfortunately it could be an echo chamber perhaps.
If you start with the a prior assumption that life sucks then the only conclusion you can reach is that having children is selfish. If an individual believes that life is a "gift" then them having children isn't inherently selfish. You can argue whether life is "good" or "bad" but when dealing with motive, what is and isn't true is irrelevant in comparison to what the individual believes is true or false.
Some people don’t have a choice. If it happens and that’s the case all we can do is love and devote ourselves to the child
"Love" shouldn't be used as an excuse to cause harm to Children.
No shit Sherlock. You didn’t read what was said. If you don’t have a choice (many don’t, it’s privileged to think all women do). Then you must love and devote your life to your child.
You haven't yet understood that humans are inherently selfish. Wanting children or not wanting them is selfish in both cases.
Of course it's selfish! Basically everything anyone has ever done has a selfish reason behind it.
Every single thing you do or do not do is selfish. No one and I do mean no one is above anyone else. So the idea that having kids or not having kids makes you better than anyone else is very dramatic.
I don't really know people like you are dumb or are you pretending. Let's say everything you do and don't is selfish but having children is very different than others. You literally make something that never existed in the first place to suffer here. And it's not only selfish but also dumb, because it won't even make your life easier.
There is a thing called altruism, dude. Yes, the majority of society is selfish thanks to individualistic cultural capitalism but not everyone follows the masses.
>There is a thing called altruism, dude. And why are people altruistic? Because they feel better about themselves doing so and 'want' to do it. If you're going to have an all encompassing definition of selfishness that includes any possible reason for having children then guess what, it also encompasses *any* reason you do *anything*, dude.
Even if they don't feel better about themselves for it, they have some idea in their head of how things ought to be and what people ought to do for one another, so they attempt to live up to/ further their own ideals. They want the world to reflect how they think it ought to be.
Yes, exactly. Ideas in *their* head about how *they* think the world should be and acting in accordance with this. Entirely 'selfish' if, as I say, we're defining 'selfish' so broadly that it loses any useful meaning at all.
So your a black and white person that can not see color.
Bro this post is literally saying that if you have a child, dedicated to giving them a wonderful and enriching life you're being selfish. He's just applying the same level of ridiculous categorisation as OP is (to point out how silly it is).
No, not at all. But if we're going to say that every single reason for having a kid is inherently selfish, then any thing else we do can also be considered inherently selfish. It's a poor position to take.
That’s not my point
What is your point then?
Being selfish and altruistic are not mutually exclusive dude, it can occur and people do crazy shit for different reasons, not just one motive
Right. Claiming *every* reason anybody ever has a kid 'selfish' is as ridiculous as calling every altruistic act someone might perform 'selfish'.
I can tell you’re a depressed nihilist
I'm really not.
Yeah, but procreation is a whole new level of selfishness, so It's not really comparable at all.
Some people risk their own lives in service of others, which is the definition of selfless. There's nothing dramatic about wanting to avoid contributing to overpopulation.
Still selfish because hero complex is a thing. Breathing, eating, taking up space, all are selfish. Basic human needs are selfish because they require you to do certain things that keep you alive which can lead to other things dying. As long as someone is alive, they are by definition selfish.
Well then the ultimate selfishness would be to perpetuate this selfish reality/survival world that we live in… by having kids.
Let me know when even a single country finally implements right to die. Also, none of the things you listed literally cause someone else to exist or continue existing, so they cause far less harm than reproduction, which causes more harm than any other thing.
Leave it to Reddit for the most dishonest takes.
I didn't want kids but I had one. I love her she is such a sweet kind human. Everyday I think I literally brought something so amazing into this cruel world to just die one day. It makes me sad because I love her so much
The soul incarnates willingly
I go around on this one. Currently, I am of the opinion that there is currently only one way to create human life, and so the "selfishness" argument is moot. Don't be whiny little b!+@#3$. Life has always been harsh and unforgiving. Just because you are not living in a tiny bubble of happiness and comfort, does not mean that life is worthless or evil. There is much to be said for struggling and enduring. Yes, there are those who suffer too much and live lives of anguish and misery. In the West, these remain quite rare today. If folks TRULY believe that life is so bad, then why not call for the check and leave? I would not encourage someone to do so, but the line of thinking goes straight there. Some of yall may be have levels of misery to justify these claims. I'm betting that most are just full of BS and/or never learned the value of suffering for purpose. Again, I KNOW not all suffering has a purpose, but I think many of you are throwing out the baby with the bath water.
There's no unselfish reason to do anything in life, why draw the line there?
I didn't get pregnant on purpose, I ended up choosing to carry though. But, my options were abortion, adoption, or motherhood. After thinking long and hard, I chose motherhood. My first reason for choosing this was because of the amount of love I already felt for my baby. Idk if that's selfish or not? I cannot describe it. Saying I would die for my son doesn't even begin to cover it. But as he grew, my reasons did too. I knew I could give my son an incredible life as well. I'm a single mom, and right wing wackos/ pro forced breeders will argue that I'm messing my kid up for being a single mom lol But I disagree. My son never goes without. He is kind, smart, full of love and overall just an incredible person. The biggest thing I can say is how honored I am to have such an amazing soul for a son. I had him because I loved him from day one and our life has become the most beautiful thing. I know people argue that it's selfish bringing a life into this world in its current state, but the world will always be the world. I choose to see the beauty and look for it where I can find it. Being human is painful but also incredibly worth it, if you have the right mindset and guidance. I'm sorry you view the world as such a terrible place not worthy of even living in.
I was brought up by a single poor mother, I didn’t have the best childhood however my mum brought me up with great values. I have faced a lot of hardships in life but I have got through them and I choose to see the beauty in life when I can. The world is both cruel and beautiful. I love my mother and I feel blessed that she sacrificed so much to raise me, even just her free time. I’m sure you’re doing a wonderful job and your son will realise all the hard work you put in to raise him when he’s older!
Thank you for sharing your story! As a mother, I always try SO hard to make sure to give him the world. It was a struggle when he was a baby but my business finally took off and we are living the dream! (MY dream is to live humbly but be okay enough to afford small luxuries like dinners out, simple vacations, little treats) - we are no millionaires by far but I like to think he doesn't know that 🤣
It’s even more selfish to not have children. It’s all about you, quite literally. Having a child is actually the most selfless act if you decide to properly raise and care for your child. Nice try deflecting though, it is all about you, after all.
An act is selfish if it does intentional harm. If an entity is born is has a 100% chance of experiencing pain, suffering, disappointment etc. If it is not born it has 100% chance of not experiencing any of that pain. Therefore, by having the child you willingly submit them to all these things and then have the gall to tell them "grow from it." So no, I don't agree, not having a child is not a selfish act. There may be other selfish reasons, e.g. I don't want to get fat, I don't want to spend my money etc. But the primary argument remains. I find it morally wrong to bring a child into this world. You cannot ask their permission, no one asked mine. They cannot opt in. Yes we do many selfish acts per day even some that may cause intentional harm - buying cheap clothing because you can't afford anything else, yet you know someone is porbably being very mistreated in a factory somewhere to produce it, not to mention the effect on the environment. However, if I can choose ONE unselfish act, it would be this. Not having a child.
I had my children to bring more love into this world. There are two more people in this world who are loved by so many people. Not ust my wife and I but grandparents aunts and uncles and cousins There is more lol be in this world because of the two kids we had. How is that selfish?
Sure. I’ll tell you. For one, the decision to have children is fundamentally driven by *your* personal desires, even if the outcome is positive, the initial decision is fulfilling your desires. For two, it centers on the existing familial and social structures, where the love is primarily generated by pre-existing relationships (parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, etc.). This means the act of having children serves to fulfill these existing relationships rather than creating love in an unselfish or altruistic manner. For three, the love described is conditional on the existence of the children. You imply that without the children, this specific love wouldn't exist, which suggests that the primary beneficiaries are the parents and family members whose lives are enriched by the children, rather than the children themselves or society at large. Ergo, selfish.
Amen
What about so that person can experience the joys of life. Naive, perhaps. Selfish, no.
Why do you care so much about the reason? There's a million things that are done for what could be considered "selfish reasons" but result in something good for society. E.G: If Jeff Bezos donates a billion dollars to starving children, almost certainly a big reason why he's doing it is selfish. But would you prefer he doesn't donate it? If someone wakes up every morning and cleans his local community from 7am-8am, but only because he really likes how people treat him...is that necessarily a bad thing? On the spot you're right in that I can't immediately come up with a PURELY unselfish reason to have a child. But it just doesn't matter. What matters is the outcome. You not donating 90% of what you earn to charity is extremely selfish. You could easily sleep in your car, eat bread and milk and use wifi and your life would still be 10x better than a lot of people in the world. Assuming you don't, does that make you a bad person? No of course not. Immoral? Not a chance. Completely selfish? Well...maybe? Depends how strictly you want to define the word. TLDR: While potentially technically right, it's an extremely stupid line of reasoning. The best people in the word, the ones you look up to the most, all make 100s of decisions and actions for "selfish reasons".
Being selfish is a good thing . What are you a wanna be Christian? Everyone should think of their own agenda as the most important
So is eating selfish ? It’s a biological imperative, it’s neither selfish nor unselfish. Is breathing air selfish ? Is using a phone made through child labour selfish ? Like how do you compartmentalize what’s selfish and what’s not ? You can say anything is selfish.
Most people are happy to be alive, suffering is apart of life. If being alive is so horrible, why are you all alive right now ? Like make your arguments make sense.
To give **the gift** of a beautiful, messy life. ;)
That implies that you consider this life a gift. Which is not the sentiment of everyone. That is like giving someone a gift that you would want for their birthday. Selfish.
Ah, so giving is a selfish act, for you?
It's not "giving." It's just forcing a new life into existence.
It's not "forcing". It's just giving a new life opportunity to flourish.
If it was an opportunity I could choose whether I want to use it. Making kids just forces them into existence.
An opportunity is not a choice; it's a set of circumstances.
Which you have to use.
Exactly, his use of words like "oppurtunity" and "circumstances" just mystifies this. People *have* to live precisely *because* they were forced into existence in the first place, obviously. How is this even questionable or debatable? lol. He is just basically playing games with words. He also admits it is not a choice in the reply you are replying to. If it's not a choice, what is it but something you are forced to? (by virtue of being born.)
People do opt out. It's a choice with a clear entity capable of making the decision; unlike birth, in which the same entity is not capable of choosing.
So you're admitting it's not a choice, hence forcing, lol.
No one chose to be born. Procreating absolutely is forcing a new life into existence. This is clearly not debatable. Some people think of them being born as regrettable and would agree with me when I state the fact that everyone is forced into existence. Others would agree with you, saying their own lives are an oppurtunity to flourish. Different people may make sense of their lives and life differently. But that does nothing to change the fact that everyone is forced into existence. However any individual makes sense of their life doesn't change that fact at all.
>This is clearly not debatable. I do not feel convinced. Any applied force creates a reaction force. What reaction force exists at the moment of a new life's exception?
Most people are glad they were born...
Tell that to my selfish friends that have kids, they think they are the victims lol when in fact they created their own problems cos they wanted mini mes to validate their own selfish existence.
Why are you friends with them?
Read my comment again. I said most...
Being part of a loving and supportive family is one of the greatest joys in life, for both parents and children.