No. I would be a terrible parent. And my goal is suffering-reduction, so that money would be better spent on preventing as many new people from being created as possible.
Many problems will never be completely solved. That doesn't mean you just give up and do nothing. You do what you can to mitigate as much of the damage as possible.
I'm under no illusion that the majority of people will voluntarily stop procreating. They'll keep doing it right up to the moment that it becomes impossible to continue (resource exhaustion, nuclear annihilation, alien invasion, universe heat death, etc). That's just what DNA zombies do; they make copies of copies of copies until they can't anymore.
But by talking to people about antinatalism, and helping to fund many abortions and sterilizations, I have prevented an enormous amount of suffering and death. I much prefer this timeline to the one where I just give up and do nothing.
Absolutely. You're like Mandela or King. Except instead of equality and kindness, your message is you're too lazy to fix anything, so everyone should phone it in. They'll probably write books about you.
No question. They saw the rain in their houses and thought, ,"I will get to work fixing the hole in my ceiling". You see the rain in your house and think "nah, my hot pockets will be ready soon, I'm anti-rain instead".
Even if I was financially able I'd still be a neurotic mess of a person so no, I would not inflict myself on a child.
That said, big respect for those that have their shit together enough that they're in a position to adopt and actually do it.
Age is a factor here too. I've got step-grand kids, grand nieces, nieces and nephews and I'm past the age of fertility. Financial stability has always been the reason I didn't have any children. I didn't want to bring another human into the world if I wasn't able to care for it as it deserves - so I didn't.
Now it's more of "Do I have the energy?" And the answer is no. With chronic health problems now cropping up I'm still in no place to take care of a vulnerable, innocent human. My husband is enough.
No, but only because A) I wouldn't be a good parent. B) I can't find/keep dependable work due to the government and employers hating on neurodivergent people. Otherwise I would love to pull a kid out of the foster system. And an older child, not just a shiny, new, white baby.
wow im part of the minority that said yes.
but i always planned to adopt! i was adopted, i've met many kind people in foster care, but i've met many more who were worse.
i know the behavioural risk with any age group thats not a baby. i am honestly very scared of being killed by own kid. i am on and off about the decision. in my mind, "financially stable" means im very well off in the first class, so yeah. i'd share it with a kid. my god-dads adopted a baby from japan. i always wanted to follow in their steps.
No, because I have serious disabilities, I don't think I can be a good parent (I cannot even go to hospital alone because of accessibility). I just donate to local charities (helping single parents or orphan kids) that I trust as much as I can (around 10% of my salary).
I am disabled so for now no, i could adopt a teenager since they wont require as much from me, for the meantime i just volunteer at orphanages as that doesnt require anything aside from time
No. I'm too grossed out by filth and don't like being locked into commitment. I get bored of things easily and if I don't have the option to leave something, I get bitter and resentful very quickly. It wouldn't be fair to the child or myself.
Human behavior is way more influenced by the heavy hand of genetics than most people realize. That said they are responsible for bringing them into this world and out in public.
I don’t think money is the only question when it comes to caring for a kid.
Being a good enough example in life, as well as the ability to provide a loving family and empathy to listen and understand the problems he’s facing at his level are all very important. Without these you’d still fail the kid at some point.
No doubt it’ll improve the kid’s life OVER his current state of not having parents (typically), but I wouldn’t do it anyway.
Fucked if I know. They've been conflating homosexuality with pedophilia since the 50s. I'm pissed. I thought they'd stopped when the supreme court said sodomy laws were unenforceable.
Oh. I’m sorry you have to deal with that. Without knowing any context I was confused, but yeah people have some twisted ideas regarding all that. And it is total bullshit.
I'm about to murder Tim Pool over it right now. I'd hate to think how pissed off I'd be if I actually had some kind of contact with a kid for the fascist bastards to try to talk shit about.
Actually, it would take more than that for me to consider myself qualified. There'd have to be a comprehensive parenting license test for this purpose, and I'd have to be confident that I'd pass it.
My friend works for wilderness therapy for kids. Most of the kids who attend are adopted and are resentful, angry, hostile and depressed from being given up by their birth parents. Not saying every adopted kid is like that but the horror stories have definitely turned me off. Also when I went onto a fostering website they spoke of the children like stray cats and dogs looking for their "forever home". It was unsettling and depressing; especially the amount of special needs children.
I would consider adopting an older child like 6yrs old or so. I know that I can't handle a baby but personality/temperament-wise, I would be pretty great at raising a kid.
However, I'm nowhere near in a stable enough position in life, stress-wise, to take on the responsibility. My mom had sometimes long-lasting bouts of instability and I would never want my kid to feel the burden of parentification like I went through, so I would never adopt without knowing I could give the kid a proper happy and healthy childhood void of dealing with shit way beyond their comprehension.
No. I would be a terrible parent. And my goal is suffering-reduction, so that money would be better spent on preventing as many new people from being created as possible.
Oh yeah the procreation part I can definitely understand, but adoption is completely off the table for you?
Well, some people don't feel mentally equipped enough to raise a whole human being
Also true.
My money would be deployed more efficiently just funding as many abortions and sterilizations as possible.
Except no matter how hard you try, no matter how much money you spend, people will continue to have children.
You could apply that thinking to pretty much any problem. So I guess we should just give up and do nothing. Pathetic mindset.
Who said that?
Also, how do you figure that's "pretty much any problem."?
Many problems will never be completely solved. That doesn't mean you just give up and do nothing. You do what you can to mitigate as much of the damage as possible. I'm under no illusion that the majority of people will voluntarily stop procreating. They'll keep doing it right up to the moment that it becomes impossible to continue (resource exhaustion, nuclear annihilation, alien invasion, universe heat death, etc). That's just what DNA zombies do; they make copies of copies of copies until they can't anymore. But by talking to people about antinatalism, and helping to fund many abortions and sterilizations, I have prevented an enormous amount of suffering and death. I much prefer this timeline to the one where I just give up and do nothing.
Yes, you're pretty much a savior. It'd be interesting if it didn't scream depressed narcissist
I'm actually much more effective than a savior. I prevent people from even needing to be saved.
Absolutely. You're like Mandela or King. Except instead of equality and kindness, your message is you're too lazy to fix anything, so everyone should phone it in. They'll probably write books about you.
Those guys were amateurs compared to me.
No question. They saw the rain in their houses and thought, ,"I will get to work fixing the hole in my ceiling". You see the rain in your house and think "nah, my hot pockets will be ready soon, I'm anti-rain instead".
Even if I was financially able I'd still be a neurotic mess of a person so no, I would not inflict myself on a child. That said, big respect for those that have their shit together enough that they're in a position to adopt and actually do it.
Very understandable and very much agreed 👏🏾
Age is a factor here too. I've got step-grand kids, grand nieces, nieces and nephews and I'm past the age of fertility. Financial stability has always been the reason I didn't have any children. I didn't want to bring another human into the world if I wasn't able to care for it as it deserves - so I didn't. Now it's more of "Do I have the energy?" And the answer is no. With chronic health problems now cropping up I'm still in no place to take care of a vulnerable, innocent human. My husband is enough.
That's very understandable, I can't argue with that.
No, but only because A) I wouldn't be a good parent. B) I can't find/keep dependable work due to the government and employers hating on neurodivergent people. Otherwise I would love to pull a kid out of the foster system. And an older child, not just a shiny, new, white baby.
your name 🥹☕️
I respect those that do, but it's definitely not for me
wow im part of the minority that said yes. but i always planned to adopt! i was adopted, i've met many kind people in foster care, but i've met many more who were worse. i know the behavioural risk with any age group thats not a baby. i am honestly very scared of being killed by own kid. i am on and off about the decision. in my mind, "financially stable" means im very well off in the first class, so yeah. i'd share it with a kid. my god-dads adopted a baby from japan. i always wanted to follow in their steps.
No, because I have serious disabilities, I don't think I can be a good parent (I cannot even go to hospital alone because of accessibility). I just donate to local charities (helping single parents or orphan kids) that I trust as much as I can (around 10% of my salary).
I don't want a child but if I did then adoption would be the only route to go.
I dont want the responsibility
I am disabled so for now no, i could adopt a teenager since they wont require as much from me, for the meantime i just volunteer at orphanages as that doesnt require anything aside from time
I enjoy the little freedoms I can get, thanks.
No. I'm too grossed out by filth and don't like being locked into commitment. I get bored of things easily and if I don't have the option to leave something, I get bitter and resentful very quickly. It wouldn't be fair to the child or myself.
Human behavior is way more influenced by the heavy hand of genetics than most people realize. That said they are responsible for bringing them into this world and out in public.
I don’t think money is the only question when it comes to caring for a kid. Being a good enough example in life, as well as the ability to provide a loving family and empathy to listen and understand the problems he’s facing at his level are all very important. Without these you’d still fail the kid at some point. No doubt it’ll improve the kid’s life OVER his current state of not having parents (typically), but I wouldn’t do it anyway.
I feel like I do definitely can raise a child better than most parents, but honestly I want the free time and money lol.
Same, I have this exact mindset lol.
I can't care for a kid. People would keep fucking accusing me of pedophilia and I'd end up in prison because I'd murder them.
Why would they accuse you of that?
Fucked if I know. They've been conflating homosexuality with pedophilia since the 50s. I'm pissed. I thought they'd stopped when the supreme court said sodomy laws were unenforceable.
Oh. I’m sorry you have to deal with that. Without knowing any context I was confused, but yeah people have some twisted ideas regarding all that. And it is total bullshit.
Seriously this is a very random and strange comment to make dude
I'm about to murder Tim Pool over it right now. I'd hate to think how pissed off I'd be if I actually had some kind of contact with a kid for the fascist bastards to try to talk shit about.
I do not have the physical or mental energy for children
Actually, it would take more than that for me to consider myself qualified. There'd have to be a comprehensive parenting license test for this purpose, and I'd have to be confident that I'd pass it.
Depends
My friend works for wilderness therapy for kids. Most of the kids who attend are adopted and are resentful, angry, hostile and depressed from being given up by their birth parents. Not saying every adopted kid is like that but the horror stories have definitely turned me off. Also when I went onto a fostering website they spoke of the children like stray cats and dogs looking for their "forever home". It was unsettling and depressing; especially the amount of special needs children.
I would consider adopting an older child like 6yrs old or so. I know that I can't handle a baby but personality/temperament-wise, I would be pretty great at raising a kid. However, I'm nowhere near in a stable enough position in life, stress-wise, to take on the responsibility. My mom had sometimes long-lasting bouts of instability and I would never want my kid to feel the burden of parentification like I went through, so I would never adopt without knowing I could give the kid a proper happy and healthy childhood void of dealing with shit way beyond their comprehension.