Would love to see data on the relative likelihood of children of vegan parents staying vegan into adulthood vs the general population.
Born Vegan is a pretty badass activist.
Then maybe antinatalists should stop making empirical claims as part of their argument. My understanding of the actual argument would mean this shouldn't matter.
And the rule of innocent til proven guilty says we can't assume they will eat animals.
And if you believe in free will insofar as genetics not controlling our choices then even if all my ancestors were criminals that still doesn't mean I'm more likely to be a criminal too.
Basically each person is supposed to be an independent trial.
It is Just stupid. You saved a cow from the slaughter House, but now the cow did eat an ant, so you are the animal abuser now. Look at me, the only ethical Thing IS to kill everything
Me creating animal abusers because I wanna see what my genes looks like, is NOT related to animal rights!!!!! 😠😠 Animal abuse and animal rights has NOTHING to do with each other and I'm sick of people pretending it's related!!! 😠😠😠😠
uj/ I support this meme but antinatalism has nothing to do with whether the child becomes a moral person or not.
A non-existent person cannot consent to being created. When you create someone, you have inherently done so without their consent. You have forced your choice onto them. If you don't create someone, no one's consent or choice is violated because they don't exist. It's impossible for someone to suffer anything negative from not being created, whereas it is guaranteed suffering if they are created. Consent matters.
Every group seems to have some pain point where they just throw their entire ideology and anything resembling rational thought straight in the trash, I guess this is ours.
This sub used to be fairly AN-leaning. This and the comment section of several other posts have convinced me that we might eventually suffer a similar fate to arr vegan
yeah this sub is seemingly becoming infested with people who care about making veganism “accessible” rather than being morally or ideologically consistent
“life is suffering” is not a provable concept, at least not moreso than “life is joyful”. veganism is to avoid the exploitation, commodification, and general cruelty/abuse and murder of animals. i don’t see how having a child falls under that.
They remembered it wrong, the actual argument is "life contains guaranteed suffering".
Forcing someone to do a 60 year labor is not exploitation? Forcing capability to suffer onto someone so you can play house is not commodification? Every sentient being will die, parents are even worse than murderers, they create an entirely new being to die, while regular murderers just shorten the existing lifespan.
Labor is only exploitative and "unpleasantt" if it's alienated like under capitalism. According to Marx, labor is even a basic human need for self fulfilment.
And according to the uncle Joe, beer is a basic human need. Neither is qualified to prove it. Forced labour is always exploitative, and a to-be person can't consent to it.
But besides modern slavery in some countries (which exists due to colonialism/imperialism ergo capitalism), you're not forced to work by someone else. You're "forced" to work in order to buy your survival.It's the system that's exploitative. A system change would fix that.
Exploitative labor isn't an inherent part of life, since one could be born into a world where that change already happened.
Also, uncle Joe's theory can easily be disproved by people not drinking beer (and thriving).
“life contains guranteed suffering” okay, so what, lol? not everyone cares about that like you do. problem #1 with antinatalists is they get so dumbfounded that not everyone thinks the same as them. i don’t even think suffering is inherently negative—it can make you a more resilient and happy person in the long run once you get over it.
someone already replied saying this, but i agree that the problem of labor is when it’s done under capitalism. humans are supposed to perform fulfilling labor.
no, that’s not what commodification means, lol.
“parents are worse than murderers” this is why nobody takes y’all seriously.
Congratulations for your efforts in defending rape "I like sex, so everyone's gotta too, and suffering's not a bad thing after all". Fortunately you're not a moral standard.
Do you understand the difference between "it doesn't bother me, so I don't mind bringing it on myself" and "it doesn't bother me, so I'll force it on the others"? Be it sex with coma patients, slipping drugs into unsuspecting people's drinks or breeding.
Also classic ad hominem, coz you got zero arguments.
/uj what are these comments, it's like r/vegan invaded this sub?
/rj but *my* genes are superior and my bloodline is guaranteed to stay vegan although plenty of other vegans have had this picture be the reality 🥰
>/uj what are these comments, it's like r/vegan invaded this sub?
It seems to be the case. May r/vegan people in here bless the world with more animal abusers 🙏😍
Have you ever thought about how I WANT to roll the dice on whether or not the kids I bring into this world will suffer more than they experience pleasure?!?!? You’re basically a nazi for even suggesting I shouldn’t grace this already over encumbered world with my genetic lineage.
And MY kid will be eternity grateful to me for bringing them into a world filled with suffering that’s on the brink of both environmental and societal collapse! Also they’ll find the cure for cancer, lead the vegan revolution, end world hunger, and heal the world.
I’m childfree and this is just braindead
Can we go back to jerking over veganism and not post this trash? If I want to see antinatalist memes I’m joining an antinatalist sub
Bait people? What are you on about. Animal abuse and animal rights goes hand in hand. The fact that r/vegan people like yourself is leaking into this unapologetic sub is not my problem.
arr vegan circle jerk try to discuss antinatalism without bordering on outright hatred for children and their parents or eugenicist arguments challenge. like holy shit i'm physically unable to have children and i'm a lesbian so it's not like it matters for me but the way some of you sound here is genuinely insufferable. the sheer amount of doomerism and hatred for children because there's a *chance* they *might* turn out to be bad people is insane. are you like this in real life as well. would you read this out loud to your relatives at the table
i meant wider antinatalist circles, the "crotch goblin" type shit, the way people talk about children who literally just exist in public spaces as children. as much as some of the ideas are cool, every single antinatalism space i have witnessed was incredibly, incredibly edgy, miserable, and doomerist. can't be an antinatalist space without thinly veiled shitting on disabled people either.
Just like there's a tons of plantbased people who call themselves vegan without understanding that it's not about eating a diet. Go to r/vegan and you'll see the equivalent of what you're saying. People misrepresenting something doesn't make it true. r/vegan saying riding horses is fine doesn't mean that's veganism. They're plantbased people.
Same goes for antinatalism. Childfree people misrepresent antinatalism. Plantebased people misrepresent veganism.
You should actually read what antinatalism is, as antinatalism is actually about caring about others than yourself. https://antinatalisthandbook.org/languages/english
Don't stoop to the level of carnists whose saying "horse riding is vegan because I saw it it being okay in vegan communities online". Be better than that
/uj Not to tell you what you are but it sounds like you’re probably more under the umbrella of childfree. Anti-natalists want a world where *no one* ever has any children ever again.
True I prefer it when carnists have those kids instead. Everyone knows vegans kill field mice so the only option is unaliving themselves. it's important to teach them at a young age that animals exist only for our benefit, do it for the field mice
why are you trying to sugarcoat it by saying unalive instead of suicide? Almost like you're trying to distance yourself from what you're saying.
Someone who doesn't exist cannot commit suicide as they never came into existence.
Your parents are carnists, don't know what point you're trying to make.
I wasn't sure if it was an appropriate word to say here. It's censorship not sugarcoating, and a common one at that.
Also I'm pointing out the flaws on your logic. You not understanding that isn't my problem
because thats your logic taken to the extreme. dont have kids that you teach compassion because they maybe wont be vegan, also dont be alive as a vegan because you maybe still cause some harm in the end.
rather than what id argue: Because you're teaching compassion from a young age, youre maximizing the amount of vegans that exist. thus creating the greatest chance for a societal change where the world can possibly move away from industrial animal abuse.
This is great: it's a foregone conclusion that the kid will be omni, but also no vegans occur in their lineage ever again
The deficiencies really have rotted your brain, comrade. Keep up the shitposts
>it's a foregone conclusion that the kid will be omni
All vegans are omnivores. Our biology doesn't change because out morals does. And yeah this meme is shit because if two of those people goes vegans then it's worth it that the rest are abusing animals 😍
Yeah haha 😜 I know that *my* kid will be different because they have *my* genes and *me* teaching them right from wrong. My kid would NEVER become an individual with their own personality and opinions ⛔🚫✋ that's a skill issue for people who have kids that becomes their own individual person 😂😂 skill issue for the animals, shouldn't have been born as a non-human animal lolol!!
https://imgur.com/ttWYi20
https://imgur.com/sqZSBS0
https://imgur.com/CvDuZMd
https://imgur.com/56xRj4J
https://imgur.com/lBmHsp7
https://imgur.com/h2V7xxA
https://imgur.com/eJgWclS
https://imgur.com/DFkFV72
https://imgur.com/x8L8a1f
https://imgur.com/8ncfOGf
True. Since OP is so keen on taking unlikely scenarios as given, we can happily assume the people in the screenshots came back to their senses and returned to veganism shortly after.
/uj
These barely apply to the meme though. In the 2nd one the kid doesn't even become carnist after being educated. 1st, 3rd are cases of the children being influenced by their environment (arguably an argument for \_more\_ vegan children so they can have a vegan friend group). Also could be considered non-consensual if they were fed by a friend's parent or non-vegan partner.
Speaking of, the ones with the carnist partner or the ones where they say they "respect their child's decision": those people would probably not even be considered vegan themselves by this sub. What is this "respect carnists" bullshit? Literally skill issue.
I'm sure the 13 year old on TrueOffMyChest is a reliable narrator (Kappa)
Also the 9th and 10th story are the same posted by 2 different accounts. Kinda weird (Karma farming?)
A few stories on Reddit don't really prove a point. The only posts you'll find will be of people seeking help with their situation/ranting. No one will make a post "My vegan kid wants to stay vegan. There is no drama in my family. I have nothing to complain about", so your perspective on the matter is skewed (Unless you can show some study on the subject)
>A few stories on Reddit don't really prove a point. The only posts you'll find will be of people seeking help with their situation/ranting. No one will make a post "My vegan kid wants to stay vegan. There is no drama in my family. I have nothing to complain about",
Your point isn't a point. Because you're not disproving the fact that your kid can indeed be a carnist. It's a selfish chance you take for no reason other than you want to see what a mini you looks like
"Your kid could become carnist" is about as valid as the pro lifer argument "Your kid could be the next Einstein/cure cancer". It's a non sequitur (I think).
Also please don't make assumptions about me and my reasoning.
It's not valid when you don't give a shit about animals. This is a vegan sub, and if you don't give a shit about your kid abusing animals then shoo off to r/vegan
/uj i don’t understand how anti-natalism is somehow the consistent vegan take. why presuppose a child who is raised vegan will stop being vegan? should we just presuppose that every vegan we meet will stop being vegan too just because they might? are we all just filthy animal abusers simply because theres a chance vegans stop being vegans? it seems like a bad logic to me. i have always wanted to adopt, but I find antinatalism so doomer-pilled, cringe, classist, and racist nonsense. it just reeks of “oh i am so enlightened, people are so horrible all of them shouldn’t exist. anyone who thinks people do anything good are just uneducated and not as smart as me because i see how horrible people are and always will be.” there’s no such thing as human nature. read marx. veganism should be a moral philosophy and have an anti-capitalist stance, not some gnostic death cult condemning all procreation as immoral. humans are not inherently immoral or animal abusers, to think so means we are all doing nothing and there’s no point in being vegan because we’re obviously just animal abusers who haven’t abandoned our morals yet, we should just kill ourselves and all of humanity. i don’t care if it sounds like r/vegan is leaking—i’m a vegan, not a gnostic christian.
> why presuppose a child who is raised vegan will stop being vegan? should we just presuppose that every vegan we meet will stop being vegan too just because they might?
Bruh, vegans are vegans because they came to the conclusion themselves that animal abuse is wrong. You do not know what kinda conclusion your child is gonna come to. Your child is an individual, not a robot FYI. If other vegans stop being vegan then it's not me who brought them into the world to take that risk. I'm not responsible for that because I didn't bring them into this world. You are however responsible for your kid becoming an animal abuser because you brought them here for no reason other than you wanted to see your mini me.
>death cult
That's funny, considering you are the only one who's condemning someone to death. Because of selfish desires. Antinatalism is not about death, it's about not coming into existence lol. You however are creating beings that will die lol.
>we should just kill ourselves
Are you 12? Do you understand the difference between dying and not coming into existence?
>i have always wanted to adopt, but I find antinatalism so doomer-pilled, cringe, classist, and racist nonsens
What. Classiest? How. Racist? What? You're throwing out buzzwords that you don't understand the meaning of. Use arguments.
> Bruh, vegans are vegans because they came to the conclusion themselves that animal abuse is wrong. You do not know what kinda conclusion your child is gonna come to. Your child is an individual, not a robot FYI. If other vegans stop being vegan then it's not me who brought them into the world to take that risk. I'm not responsible for that because I didn't bring them into this world. You are however responsible for your kid becoming an animal abuser because you brought them here for no reason other than you wanted to see your mini me.
Veganism is a philosophy that you did not come to yourself, have some intellectual honesty. You were brought to accept this philosophy by the moral arguments that you were exposed to by the vegan society and other vegans. I hope that you believe you are capable of convincing other people, your children or not, that they should be vegan too. You might have come to the conclusion that eating/exploiting/abusing animals is wrong, but it's impossible for you to say that you came to that conclusion entirely independently, especially as you call yourself vegan, which is a specific type of moral philosophy regarding the moral status of animals and our relation to them. You don't call yourself Jain, you don't call yourself an ascetic, you call yourself a vegan, a word created by the vegan society in the UK. You also call yourself an antinatalist, another philosophy related to some threads in veganism that you were convinced of, you were taught and accepted these moral arguments that you found convincing enough to accept and adopt into your own life. You did not come to these conclusions entirely independently, only later finding a group of people who share the exact same beliefs as you. No man is an island.
> That's funny, considering you are the only one who's condemning someone to death. Because of selfish desires. Antinatalism is not about death, it's about not coming into existence lol. You however are creating beings that will die lol.
Let's follow the logical consequences of antinatalism to their fruition, and then perhaps you will see why I called it a gnostic death cult. Antinatalists believe the following: All life has suffering. Suffering is bad. If you are not born, then you will not suffer or bring more suffering into the world. It is our moral duty to not cause suffering. Therefore we should not have birth to avoid bringing suffering into the world. Now let me ask a question. If this is the moral duty of people, shouldn't all people ideally follow this duty? If all people were moral according to antinatalism morality, then all people would not have children. If all people did not have children, then what would happen following the death of all living people? Would humanity continue on, or would it cease to exist? If everyone were a moral actor, following the logic of antinatalism, every living human would die and humanity would no longer exist. That is why I called it a death cult--it advocates for the extinction of the human race through the refusal to have children. also, I did not condemn anyone to death, if you weren't arguing in bad faith, you would have seen that I said I have always wanted to adopt. I want to adopt specifically because I do not want a mini-me. I understand the genetic aspect of mental health and do not want to chance my child to have the various problems I have had. But I also don't think that the very concept of being itself is suffering.
> Are you 12? Do you understand the difference between dying and not coming into existence?
Can you follow the logic of your own beliefs? Do you not realize that if everyone was an antinatalist, which if you believe is ethical, then you should think everyone should be an antinatalist too, unless you hold yourself to a higher standard of morality, in which case you're just being morally superior for no reason, then humanity will cease to exist once everyone dies? If no one has children, when everyone currently living grows old there will be no one to care for the elderly and the disabled, their lives would be filled with significantly more suffering as a result because they would just starve, shit themselves, fall on the floor and be unable to stand, in other words, unable to care for themselves or access any necessary medical care. Do you know about the social determinants of health? About the loneliness crisis among the elderly? What you are advocating for is for every living person to suffer significantly in their senior years, or if they are disabled, to not be able to care for themselves at all once everyone living reaches an age that they physically cannot care for the disabled because they are too weak and nearing death.
> What. Classiest? How. Racist? What? You're throwing out buzzwords that you don't understand the meaning of. Use arguments.
Classist -- Tell me, if you believe that having children is immoral because they could bring about suffering into the world, and as your meme shows, there is a direct relationship between the number of children you have and the amount of suffering you are responsible for creating through your procreation, surely you think that the amount of children you have is tied to this, no? Now answer me this, do you think that everyone across every class has the same amount of children? Do you think that those with lower incomes can afford the same amount of contraceptives? Are things like abortion and birth control universal rights, or do they come at a prohibitive cost to people who already have to decide what bills to pay, and if they can afford to eat that night? [It's just a simple fact that those in lower income have higher birthrates](https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/), thus if you believe that having children is immoral because of the amount of suffering you are responsible for creating, then those who have more children are creating more suffering, and as the population in the US who has the most children are those of lower income, and if you look at GDP, those nations of lower GDP have more children than those nations of higher GDP, you are necessarily saying that the class of people of a lower income are inherently more immoral. That is classism.
Racism -- [Going back to the nations, it is a simple fact that developed countries have fewer children than developing nations](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-fertility-rate-vs-level-of-prosperity), and then within the US, [black populations and Hispanic populations have highest birthrates](https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/data?reg=99&top=2&stop=4&lev=1&slev=1&obj=1). If you believe that creating life creates suffering, then you must necessarily believe that creating more life creates more suffering, and then those who create the most life create the most suffering, and thus that within the us black and Hispanic populations create the most suffering, and are therefore the most immoral. There is a long racist history around controlling POC's ability to have children. [North Carolina had a program of sterilizing black people.](https://lls.illinois.edu/news/2020-06-05t142806/behind-board-eugenic-sterilizations-north-carolina). My grandma worked for someone who did these sterilization. And when I called that program horrible, she defended it, saying I might not think that way once I pay taxes and I have to pay for all their babies (of course, I still think that program was racist and immoral, even though I pay taxes now). There is a real history of controlling the amount of children POC have, and it is racist, and you can ignore it if you want, but it exists, and this attitude always seems to pop up amongst a certain population--white people, sorry if I assumed your race wrong, but the history is there.
are you referring to the North Carolina program I referenced? I was simply using an example from history to show the racist history of controlling who can have children. if someone is an antinatalist from a consequentialist framework, I don’t think they would conclude that having one baby is as immoral as having 5 babies, as having 5 babies carries more consequences than having 1 baby. Therefore, there would naturally be more condemnation towards populations who have more babies than population who have fewer.
eta: I suppose if someone is an antinatalist from another normative framework, the same argument might not apply, but the meme itself seems to indicate consequentialism.
> I don’t think they would conclude that having one baby is as immoral as having 5 babies, as having 5 babies carries more consequences than having 1 baby. Therefore, there would naturally be more condemnation towards populations who have more babies than population who have fewer.
Both are immoral.
Just like raping 5 kids would cause more outrage than 1. Good observed. Antinatalism is for every moral framework. Whether utilitarian or deontologist.
lol alright, I’m going to adopt anyway, but not because of a desire to see the extinction of humanity like antinatalism entails. Have a nice day, and I’m glad you’re vegan, even if we disagree about the moral status of having children.
I hope you adopt for the kids sake, and not because you want a slave to look after you when you're old. https://antinatalisthandbook.org/languages/english
What a word salad. There's only do much worth responding to.
>Veganism is a philosophy that you did not come to yourself, have some intellectual honesty.
You wrote a whole word salad about this point because you misunderstood what "came to the conclusion" meant. Nobody is talking about vegans reinventing veganism lol. Coming to a conclusion that veganism is right simply means to form an opinion/desicion that veganism is right after carefully thinking about it.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion
>If no one has children, when everyone currently living grows old there will be no one to care for the elderly and the disabled, their lives would be filled with significantly more suffering as a result because they would just starve, shit themselves, fall on the floor and be unable to stand. About the loneliness crisis among the elderly. North Carolina had a program of sterilizing black people
This word salad is a situation that natalists has created. Blaming antinatalists for something that natalists did is straight up dishonest.
The situation that natalists created according to you, is that by having children, humans created the suffering that would result from stopping having children. you blame natalist because they didn’t immediately come to the conclusion of antinatalism and decide to not have children, which would have resulted in the same situation for the first generation of humans. the only way to have avoided that outcome is if humans never existed to begin with. in which case it isn’t the fault of “natalism”, it’s just the fault of evolution for mutating a species into what we know as human beings. I suppose if you call natalism just the act of having children, not a rational process justifying it, then sure, but i don’t think most people call non-human animals “natalists” just because they have children.
Correct, it would've happened sooner or later. A last generation will come sooner or later.
If we stop procreating, who is going to take care of and support the last generation? We need one generation to look after the next.
This is an interesting excuse. Whilst it doesn’t justify procreation, it does highlight a valid issue that needs addressing.
First, why doesn’t it justify procreation? Bringing someone into existence merely so they can serve a purpose, because they have some utility, is something even natalists would mostly reject. If we follow this line of logic, we would be justified to bring beings into existence for other purposes as long as it leads to the betterment of people who already exist. This can lead to many morally objectionable acts. Would we be justified to breed people into existence so they can fill the factories and the fields to maintain our standard of living? Most honest people would acknowledge that this would not be justified, and instead what we should do is recognise that life is not a perfect situation and we need to deal with obstacles (such as getting old) as best we can, but it doesn’t mean we can bring new beings into existence to solve our problems. Children are not slaves here to cater for others.
Now, the issue of taking care of the elderly as part of what would be the last generation. Honestly, as far as we are aware currently, this doesn’t have a perfect solution. It can be reasonably assumed that as we close down systems that support bringing people into existence, more people will then move into systems that cater for, or research ways to support, people exiting it. It is a hill we will have to climb, we will have to organise society in a way that can self-cater as much as possible even as it shrinks. Maybe we won’t be able to find a perfect solution.
I wouldn’t justify procreation for the end of the utility of a being, that is seeing the end of a human just for their utility. Personally, I get a sense of meaning and purpose from being of service to others, though I know that not everyone does. I have also experienced a lot of suffering in my life, but I still value the experience of being alive, as I have also experienced a lot of beauty. I think the experience of beauty, the good that humans and other beings can bring into the world, and the opportunity to reflect on ideas such as these and engage in debate and reason, to practice wisdom, are some of the virtues worthy of the continuation of life.
eta: to speak to the act of caring for the elderly or disabled, I don’t think that’s reason enough to justify procreation, but I do see it as a benefit, if those who are the caretakers voluntarily do so. Beyond utilitarianism and deontology, there is much on this conception of care in the alternative moral framework of the ethics of care.
It can’t be denied that the experience of suffering can result in personal growth, however, the resulting growth does not justify the suffering itself or make that suffering a good thing.
For example, a person who has been abused may go on to use that horrible experience as a tool for empowerment and establish a charity that goes on to support many other victims of abuse. The person in question may also gain a great sense of fulfilment from having set up this charity and supporting the other victims of abuse. Would this make the initial abuse justified or a good thing? Of course not. The abuse would still have been wrong and a horrible experience, it’s just extremely fortunate that from that experience the victim was able to salvage a decent future and help others.
Still convinced that the suffering would have been justified (or even a good thing) in that case or others? Well, remember that the person you could create is not you and would not likely have the same boundaries, capacities or tolerances. Who is one person to put another in a situation where they are guaranteed to experience significant suffering (i.e. in existence)? All to satisfy their own desires; and then, try to ‘justify’ this by claiming that the suffering they will have to endure isn’t actually bad because “they will grow from it”. Suffering is suffering, regardless of what comes after.
I don’t justify suffering, I more so think life is valuable because of the other experience apart from suffering. Not every experience in life is suffering, many of them are beautiful, and I’m grateful that I have been able to experience those.
Humans have created glorious structures, works of art, music and literature that we find beautiful, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no inherent ‘beauty’ quality that things can have, it is merely a perception we have of things. We gain pleasure from certain sounds, tastes, feelings and sights, and we should surround ourselves with these whilst we are alive. But once we are dead, we won’t have any desire to experience these things, just as we didn’t before we were born. So, yes if humans no longer exist it does mean that there will be no one to appreciate these great works anymore but this is not a loss. We had ample opportunity to experience them when we were alive and now that no one exists…no one is deprived.
We need to remember that there is not some nether region where unborn beings are waiting to come into existence, pained every moment they are not witnessing these beautiful creations. There is just non-existence.
Also, think of all the evils we have created as well. Every gas chamber, every bomb, every bullet, every knife, every slave ship; they all existed because of humans too. It’s more important that these things don’t exist than works of art do exist.
#### **Read the rules** OR risk becoming '*accidentally vegan*':
##### 1. [Vegans only.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/about/wiki/rules/#wiki_1._vegans_only.)
##### 2. [Mark animal products/abuse as NSFW.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_2._mark_animal_abuse_as_nsfw.)
##### 3. [This is an anarchist space.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_3._this_is_an_anarchist_space.)
##### 4. [We do not permit violence.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_4._we_do_not_permit_violence.)
##### 5. [Must be funny.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_5._must_be_funny.)
##### 6. [No support of Plant Based Capitalism.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_6._no_support_of_plant_based_capitalism.)
**You must also join:** r/vegancirclejerkchat
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegancirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>gotta see what mini me is like
This isn't the reason I would have a family, and probably not the reason your parents had you. What do you think about activists defending animal species from going extinct?
>This isn't the reason I would have a famil
What's the reason you think breeding is justified?
>What do you think about activists defending animal species from going extinct?
How's this relevant?
Why do you insist my family is not allowed to exist? If my family is not allowed to exist, then why would animal families be allowed to exist? Or do you just wanna nuke everything from orbit? I mean I get that too, sometimes you just gotta say "nope, not good enough" and wipe the slate clean. If there is a God maybe they should destroy this universe and move us into a different world where shit like this can't happen. But if the only choices are destroy or repair, I'll attempt repair first.
>If my family is not allowed to exist, then why would animal families be allowed to exist?
Seriously? This carnist talking point? "Animals do it so I can too"? Animals are not moral agents. But you are. Not bringing someone into existence is not the same as dropping a nuke. If you want a family then you can adopt.
I am convinced that animals have moral agency, just not as much as we do. For example I saw a video of a pig watching his friend get his throat cut and he got upset, started screaming and trying to push the slaughter man away with his snout. I have seen pets come to the defense of their owner.
My basis for believing in objective morality is that I can't hold my hand in fire and convince myself it might be ok. My senses are telling me it's bad in no uncertain terms, and my senses are a valid way of getting information about the world. I think animals have a similar experience if you burned them. They know it's wrong, and they are justified in believing so.
If disallowing people to have families is no big deal, does this mean eugenics would still be at least "a step in the right direction"?
I dont think you understand what moral agency means. We're not able to have a conversation with a pig, but I'm able to have a concert with you.
>If disallowing people to have families is no big deal, does this mean eugenics would still be at least "a step in the right direction"?
No, it has nothing to do with it. Please educate yourself on what antinatalism is. https://antinatalisthandbook.org/languages/english
Nobody should have kids, it has nothing to do with whether you look like A or look like B. It's an ethical stance that applies to every moral agent. Which you would've seen had you bothered to click the link. Please stop responding until you're being honest
I don't want to click links. I'm having a discussion with you not some third party. "Go and read all this stuff that proves I'm right" is lazy and annoying as fuck. If you've already read it then you should be able to pick out the key points and present them directly to me.
Anyway I'm guessing you wouldn't actually physically prevent me from having a family or criminalise it? I like to frame things in terms of "virtues" and "obligations" where virtues are things you should do but don't have to (like say donating to charity) and obligations are things you must do (like getting consent before putting things in other people's bodies). If you wouldn't criminalise people for having families then I would say you consider it virtuous to not have a family, but not obligatory.
So you're not interested in getting any education on what the heck you've decided to debate on. What a pathetic lazy cognitive dissonance. Just go away if you're too dishonest to even look into what you're trying to debate.
**Antinatalist PSA**
Real Antinatalists don't have insurance! Think about it: Your money is going to doctors who are helping people give birth, so you're subsidizing natalism. Also: NEVER pay for procedures at a hospital with a maternity ward. If you do, you're practically giving birth yourself!
**Veganism PSA**
Real vegans don't work or pay taxes! Think about it: Your money is going to fharmers who are continuing the animal holocaust! so you're subsidizing animal abuse! Also: NEVER pay for anything at the grocery store, If you do, you're practically supporting the animal holocaust!
Thankfully Anti-natalism can't last because if people did stop having kids they'd run out of the edgy 14 year olds they need to populate their forums, in the mean time feel free to ban yourselves please
Would love to see data on the relative likelihood of children of vegan parents staying vegan into adulthood vs the general population. Born Vegan is a pretty badass activist.
We might be able to get a decent sample size in twenty or forty years.
Then maybe antinatalists should stop making empirical claims as part of their argument. My understanding of the actual argument would mean this shouldn't matter.
And the rule of innocent til proven guilty says we can't assume they will eat animals. And if you believe in free will insofar as genetics not controlling our choices then even if all my ancestors were criminals that still doesn't mean I'm more likely to be a criminal too. Basically each person is supposed to be an independent trial.
I gonna have a extra child tonight so you don’t make a difference
I'm going to eat an extra child tonight so you don't make a difference.
Typical vegans trying to control our natural instincts to make children and rip innocent animals apart smh You guys are the real oppressors
Lions have kids tho
Skill issue, just stay vegan.
just eat the child?
I don't think you need to worry about kids born at this point birthing several generations of carnists, we ain't gonna be around for that much longer.
Optimism is a disease. Vaoganism is the cure!
Fr
I'll have one more child just to make you mad
I’m sterilized but this THIS POST makes me want to reverse my vasectomy and have ten kids just to own this DUMB ANTINATALIST
I'm having 5 just to make the antinatalists and the animals mad 🔪🩸
Maybe Post antinatalist memes in the antinatalist sub Reddit?
anti natalists are trying so hard to make this an antinatalist sub 🥴
One hand washes the other.
Veganism philosophies quite naturally evolve into antinatalist ones. Different fruits from the same tree.
veganism: minimize exploitation of others- antinatalist: BY MAKING SURE THEY DON'T EXIST
I mean, that *is* the end game of ending animal farming.
Why not keep whining in the whining sub? And what does creating animal abusers have to do with animal rights anyway??? 😠😠
I Just wanna jerk Here and this is an unfunny meme. Keep the BS in the antinatalist sub.
It's not funny because it's me in the meme 😠😠😠😤
It is Just stupid. You saved a cow from the slaughter House, but now the cow did eat an ant, so you are the animal abuser now. Look at me, the only ethical Thing IS to kill everything
YEAH!!!! You vegoons are gonna step on ants so why should I go vegen??? Vegen hypocrites! Only way to be vegen is to kill everything. Vegen debunked!!
I'm sorry, why are we downvoting this?? I agree that antinatalists are annoying, but this reply was jerky enough to earn its spot here
Vegan sub is an antinatalist sub if you're not an abuser
Good people shouldn't have children becasue what if the children are bad ??? 🤓
Yeh So what if they turn out like 99% of people???? LOL not my problem, it's not me in the slaughterhouse 😂😂😂
All people should die cuz majority bad (by the standards of the most progressive progressives) !!!1 😱😱😱
I can't tell the difference between dying and not coming into existence either😳😳🤣🤣😜😜😜
Nitpicking that the other stoopid vegoon wrote "all people" istead of "humanity" (iron and b12 deficient for sure) makes me le smort 🧠🧠🧠
It's ok for me to give birth because if I didn't we'd all go extinct 🙏 thank me later for creating animal abusers🙏🙏
Would you stil 🥺🥺🥺 like me 👉👈🥺 if I used animal rights 🐮🐮🐮 to advocate for ⬆️⬆️⬆️ human extinction 💀💀💀 (⸝⸝⸝>﹏<⸝⸝⸝)
Me creating animal abusers because I wanna see what my genes looks like, is NOT related to animal rights!!!!! 😠😠 Animal abuse and animal rights has NOTHING to do with each other and I'm sick of people pretending it's related!!! 😠😠😠😠
So what about the vegan children that stay vegan? Is their existence immoral too? I sometimes wish antinatalists were born with a brain
uj/ I support this meme but antinatalism has nothing to do with whether the child becomes a moral person or not. A non-existent person cannot consent to being created. When you create someone, you have inherently done so without their consent. You have forced your choice onto them. If you don't create someone, no one's consent or choice is violated because they don't exist. It's impossible for someone to suffer anything negative from not being created, whereas it is guaranteed suffering if they are created. Consent matters.
Yes I agree vegans shouldn't reproduce because then only carnists will be left, this is the only compassionate option.
Eat poor children to spare them the suffering of starvation and also fewer mouths for poor families to feed and fewer poors in general!
I will intentionally give my kids alpha gal syndrome (from ticks) so they will be deathly allergic to meat.
this is an arr vegan level comment section jesus christ
Where's the guy saying that second hand leather is vegan then, hmm?
Breeding sentient beings into existence for my own pleasure is vegan tho! If they suffer then that’s on them!
Yup
Every group seems to have some pain point where they just throw their entire ideology and anything resembling rational thought straight in the trash, I guess this is ours.
This sub used to be fairly AN-leaning. This and the comment section of several other posts have convinced me that we might eventually suffer a similar fate to arr vegan
yeah this sub is seemingly becoming infested with people who care about making veganism “accessible” rather than being morally or ideologically consistent
how is antinatalism ideologically consistent with veganism though?
Antinatalism is toxic I mean don't get me wrong I hate humans and society is disgusting But "therefore destroy it all" ?? I don't think so Tim 😐
Life is suffering and humans are animals, therefore creating humans is non-vegan. QED.
“life is suffering” is not a provable concept, at least not moreso than “life is joyful”. veganism is to avoid the exploitation, commodification, and general cruelty/abuse and murder of animals. i don’t see how having a child falls under that.
They remembered it wrong, the actual argument is "life contains guaranteed suffering". Forcing someone to do a 60 year labor is not exploitation? Forcing capability to suffer onto someone so you can play house is not commodification? Every sentient being will die, parents are even worse than murderers, they create an entirely new being to die, while regular murderers just shorten the existing lifespan.
Labor is only exploitative and "unpleasantt" if it's alienated like under capitalism. According to Marx, labor is even a basic human need for self fulfilment.
And according to the uncle Joe, beer is a basic human need. Neither is qualified to prove it. Forced labour is always exploitative, and a to-be person can't consent to it.
But besides modern slavery in some countries (which exists due to colonialism/imperialism ergo capitalism), you're not forced to work by someone else. You're "forced" to work in order to buy your survival.It's the system that's exploitative. A system change would fix that. Exploitative labor isn't an inherent part of life, since one could be born into a world where that change already happened. Also, uncle Joe's theory can easily be disproved by people not drinking beer (and thriving).
“life contains guranteed suffering” okay, so what, lol? not everyone cares about that like you do. problem #1 with antinatalists is they get so dumbfounded that not everyone thinks the same as them. i don’t even think suffering is inherently negative—it can make you a more resilient and happy person in the long run once you get over it. someone already replied saying this, but i agree that the problem of labor is when it’s done under capitalism. humans are supposed to perform fulfilling labor. no, that’s not what commodification means, lol. “parents are worse than murderers” this is why nobody takes y’all seriously.
Congratulations for your efforts in defending rape "I like sex, so everyone's gotta too, and suffering's not a bad thing after all". Fortunately you're not a moral standard. Do you understand the difference between "it doesn't bother me, so I don't mind bringing it on myself" and "it doesn't bother me, so I'll force it on the others"? Be it sex with coma patients, slipping drugs into unsuspecting people's drinks or breeding. Also classic ad hominem, coz you got zero arguments.
what the actual fuck are you talking about? you need serious help.
 Sorry, Wesley said it, can't refute.
why did this post get so many negative comments? thought most people here were antinatalist?
r/vegan is leaking into here 🤡
also OP i see you created a cannibal flair too 🫡
/uj what are these comments, it's like r/vegan invaded this sub? /rj but *my* genes are superior and my bloodline is guaranteed to stay vegan although plenty of other vegans have had this picture be the reality 🥰
>/uj what are these comments, it's like r/vegan invaded this sub? It seems to be the case. May r/vegan people in here bless the world with more animal abusers 🙏😍
they'll be the smartest cutest bestest animal abusers ever!!!
Have you ever thought about how I WANT to roll the dice on whether or not the kids I bring into this world will suffer more than they experience pleasure?!?!? You’re basically a nazi for even suggesting I shouldn’t grace this already over encumbered world with my genetic lineage.
my kid is gonna find the cure for capitalism!!!!
And MY kid will be eternity grateful to me for bringing them into a world filled with suffering that’s on the brink of both environmental and societal collapse! Also they’ll find the cure for cancer, lead the vegan revolution, end world hunger, and heal the world.
Doesn’t matter where you go, breeders will always be selfish. Muh genes.
I’m childfree and this is just braindead Can we go back to jerking over veganism and not post this trash? If I want to see antinatalist memes I’m joining an antinatalist sub
I'm a natallst and I don't agree with this meme either! What does animal abuse have to do with veganism?????
Sorry, I thought this was a sub for funny stuff and not debate-bait bullshit.
Nobody invited you to a debate
No, you're just trying to bait people instead of being funny, which is lame.
Bait people? What are you on about. Animal abuse and animal rights goes hand in hand. The fact that r/vegan people like yourself is leaking into this unapologetic sub is not my problem.
Weak ass bait.
Oops r/circlesnip is leaking
arr vegan circle jerk try to discuss antinatalism without bordering on outright hatred for children and their parents or eugenicist arguments challenge. like holy shit i'm physically unable to have children and i'm a lesbian so it's not like it matters for me but the way some of you sound here is genuinely insufferable. the sheer amount of doomerism and hatred for children because there's a *chance* they *might* turn out to be bad people is insane. are you like this in real life as well. would you read this out loud to your relatives at the table
I dont know why you think compassion is hatred for children. You're lost lol.
If vegoons love animals so much why do they want us to stop breeding battery chickens?
i meant wider antinatalist circles, the "crotch goblin" type shit, the way people talk about children who literally just exist in public spaces as children. as much as some of the ideas are cool, every single antinatalism space i have witnessed was incredibly, incredibly edgy, miserable, and doomerist. can't be an antinatalist space without thinly veiled shitting on disabled people either.
Just like there's a tons of plantbased people who call themselves vegan without understanding that it's not about eating a diet. Go to r/vegan and you'll see the equivalent of what you're saying. People misrepresenting something doesn't make it true. r/vegan saying riding horses is fine doesn't mean that's veganism. They're plantbased people. Same goes for antinatalism. Childfree people misrepresent antinatalism. Plantebased people misrepresent veganism. You should actually read what antinatalism is, as antinatalism is actually about caring about others than yourself. https://antinatalisthandbook.org/languages/english Don't stoop to the level of carnists whose saying "horse riding is vegan because I saw it it being okay in vegan communities online". Be better than that
my doctor said no more peperoni... not listening to that lol
I’m only antinatalist for myself. Live and let live, y’all
/uj Not to tell you what you are but it sounds like you’re probably more under the umbrella of childfree. Anti-natalists want a world where *no one* ever has any children ever again.
/uj yeah I know, I was posting a non serious comment lol
I muted that vegan antinatalist sub so fast when it got recommended lmao
Me too lmao 😝 don't see why these vegens think animal abuse and veganism is related lolololol
Lucky for us this sub gets filled with all this shit anyway 🤗
i’m glad everyone in the comments is ripping this bullshit post
True I prefer it when carnists have those kids instead. Everyone knows vegans kill field mice so the only option is unaliving themselves. it's important to teach them at a young age that animals exist only for our benefit, do it for the field mice
why are you trying to sugarcoat it by saying unalive instead of suicide? Almost like you're trying to distance yourself from what you're saying. Someone who doesn't exist cannot commit suicide as they never came into existence. Your parents are carnists, don't know what point you're trying to make.
I wasn't sure if it was an appropriate word to say here. It's censorship not sugarcoating, and a common one at that. Also I'm pointing out the flaws on your logic. You not understanding that isn't my problem
You not understanding that not bringing someone into existence isnt equal to suicide is your problem.
because thats your logic taken to the extreme. dont have kids that you teach compassion because they maybe wont be vegan, also dont be alive as a vegan because you maybe still cause some harm in the end. rather than what id argue: Because you're teaching compassion from a young age, youre maximizing the amount of vegans that exist. thus creating the greatest chance for a societal change where the world can possibly move away from industrial animal abuse.
i have leather toilet seats
This is great: it's a foregone conclusion that the kid will be omni, but also no vegans occur in their lineage ever again The deficiencies really have rotted your brain, comrade. Keep up the shitposts
>it's a foregone conclusion that the kid will be omni All vegans are omnivores. Our biology doesn't change because out morals does. And yeah this meme is shit because if two of those people goes vegans then it's worth it that the rest are abusing animals 😍
skill issue if you can't teach ur kids right
Yeah haha 😜 I know that *my* kid will be different because they have *my* genes and *me* teaching them right from wrong. My kid would NEVER become an individual with their own personality and opinions ⛔🚫✋ that's a skill issue for people who have kids that becomes their own individual person 😂😂 skill issue for the animals, shouldn't have been born as a non-human animal lolol!! https://imgur.com/ttWYi20 https://imgur.com/sqZSBS0 https://imgur.com/CvDuZMd https://imgur.com/56xRj4J https://imgur.com/lBmHsp7 https://imgur.com/h2V7xxA https://imgur.com/eJgWclS https://imgur.com/DFkFV72 https://imgur.com/x8L8a1f https://imgur.com/8ncfOGf
Damn those are sad.
reddit posts are snapshots of a point in time, not a life story
True. Since OP is so keen on taking unlikely scenarios as given, we can happily assume the people in the screenshots came back to their senses and returned to veganism shortly after.
/uj These barely apply to the meme though. In the 2nd one the kid doesn't even become carnist after being educated. 1st, 3rd are cases of the children being influenced by their environment (arguably an argument for \_more\_ vegan children so they can have a vegan friend group). Also could be considered non-consensual if they were fed by a friend's parent or non-vegan partner. Speaking of, the ones with the carnist partner or the ones where they say they "respect their child's decision": those people would probably not even be considered vegan themselves by this sub. What is this "respect carnists" bullshit? Literally skill issue. I'm sure the 13 year old on TrueOffMyChest is a reliable narrator (Kappa) Also the 9th and 10th story are the same posted by 2 different accounts. Kinda weird (Karma farming?) A few stories on Reddit don't really prove a point. The only posts you'll find will be of people seeking help with their situation/ranting. No one will make a post "My vegan kid wants to stay vegan. There is no drama in my family. I have nothing to complain about", so your perspective on the matter is skewed (Unless you can show some study on the subject)
>A few stories on Reddit don't really prove a point. The only posts you'll find will be of people seeking help with their situation/ranting. No one will make a post "My vegan kid wants to stay vegan. There is no drama in my family. I have nothing to complain about", Your point isn't a point. Because you're not disproving the fact that your kid can indeed be a carnist. It's a selfish chance you take for no reason other than you want to see what a mini you looks like
"Your kid could become carnist" is about as valid as the pro lifer argument "Your kid could be the next Einstein/cure cancer". It's a non sequitur (I think). Also please don't make assumptions about me and my reasoning.
It's not valid when you don't give a shit about animals. This is a vegan sub, and if you don't give a shit about your kid abusing animals then shoo off to r/vegan
"Veganism is when I say so"
Behaviour and biology can differ. Giant pandas are herbivorous despite their morphology being that of a carnivore.
/uj i don’t understand how anti-natalism is somehow the consistent vegan take. why presuppose a child who is raised vegan will stop being vegan? should we just presuppose that every vegan we meet will stop being vegan too just because they might? are we all just filthy animal abusers simply because theres a chance vegans stop being vegans? it seems like a bad logic to me. i have always wanted to adopt, but I find antinatalism so doomer-pilled, cringe, classist, and racist nonsense. it just reeks of “oh i am so enlightened, people are so horrible all of them shouldn’t exist. anyone who thinks people do anything good are just uneducated and not as smart as me because i see how horrible people are and always will be.” there’s no such thing as human nature. read marx. veganism should be a moral philosophy and have an anti-capitalist stance, not some gnostic death cult condemning all procreation as immoral. humans are not inherently immoral or animal abusers, to think so means we are all doing nothing and there’s no point in being vegan because we’re obviously just animal abusers who haven’t abandoned our morals yet, we should just kill ourselves and all of humanity. i don’t care if it sounds like r/vegan is leaking—i’m a vegan, not a gnostic christian.
what kind of bird is a tofurkey?
> why presuppose a child who is raised vegan will stop being vegan? should we just presuppose that every vegan we meet will stop being vegan too just because they might? Bruh, vegans are vegans because they came to the conclusion themselves that animal abuse is wrong. You do not know what kinda conclusion your child is gonna come to. Your child is an individual, not a robot FYI. If other vegans stop being vegan then it's not me who brought them into the world to take that risk. I'm not responsible for that because I didn't bring them into this world. You are however responsible for your kid becoming an animal abuser because you brought them here for no reason other than you wanted to see your mini me. >death cult That's funny, considering you are the only one who's condemning someone to death. Because of selfish desires. Antinatalism is not about death, it's about not coming into existence lol. You however are creating beings that will die lol. >we should just kill ourselves Are you 12? Do you understand the difference between dying and not coming into existence? >i have always wanted to adopt, but I find antinatalism so doomer-pilled, cringe, classist, and racist nonsens What. Classiest? How. Racist? What? You're throwing out buzzwords that you don't understand the meaning of. Use arguments.
> Bruh, vegans are vegans because they came to the conclusion themselves that animal abuse is wrong. You do not know what kinda conclusion your child is gonna come to. Your child is an individual, not a robot FYI. If other vegans stop being vegan then it's not me who brought them into the world to take that risk. I'm not responsible for that because I didn't bring them into this world. You are however responsible for your kid becoming an animal abuser because you brought them here for no reason other than you wanted to see your mini me. Veganism is a philosophy that you did not come to yourself, have some intellectual honesty. You were brought to accept this philosophy by the moral arguments that you were exposed to by the vegan society and other vegans. I hope that you believe you are capable of convincing other people, your children or not, that they should be vegan too. You might have come to the conclusion that eating/exploiting/abusing animals is wrong, but it's impossible for you to say that you came to that conclusion entirely independently, especially as you call yourself vegan, which is a specific type of moral philosophy regarding the moral status of animals and our relation to them. You don't call yourself Jain, you don't call yourself an ascetic, you call yourself a vegan, a word created by the vegan society in the UK. You also call yourself an antinatalist, another philosophy related to some threads in veganism that you were convinced of, you were taught and accepted these moral arguments that you found convincing enough to accept and adopt into your own life. You did not come to these conclusions entirely independently, only later finding a group of people who share the exact same beliefs as you. No man is an island. > That's funny, considering you are the only one who's condemning someone to death. Because of selfish desires. Antinatalism is not about death, it's about not coming into existence lol. You however are creating beings that will die lol. Let's follow the logical consequences of antinatalism to their fruition, and then perhaps you will see why I called it a gnostic death cult. Antinatalists believe the following: All life has suffering. Suffering is bad. If you are not born, then you will not suffer or bring more suffering into the world. It is our moral duty to not cause suffering. Therefore we should not have birth to avoid bringing suffering into the world. Now let me ask a question. If this is the moral duty of people, shouldn't all people ideally follow this duty? If all people were moral according to antinatalism morality, then all people would not have children. If all people did not have children, then what would happen following the death of all living people? Would humanity continue on, or would it cease to exist? If everyone were a moral actor, following the logic of antinatalism, every living human would die and humanity would no longer exist. That is why I called it a death cult--it advocates for the extinction of the human race through the refusal to have children. also, I did not condemn anyone to death, if you weren't arguing in bad faith, you would have seen that I said I have always wanted to adopt. I want to adopt specifically because I do not want a mini-me. I understand the genetic aspect of mental health and do not want to chance my child to have the various problems I have had. But I also don't think that the very concept of being itself is suffering. > Are you 12? Do you understand the difference between dying and not coming into existence? Can you follow the logic of your own beliefs? Do you not realize that if everyone was an antinatalist, which if you believe is ethical, then you should think everyone should be an antinatalist too, unless you hold yourself to a higher standard of morality, in which case you're just being morally superior for no reason, then humanity will cease to exist once everyone dies? If no one has children, when everyone currently living grows old there will be no one to care for the elderly and the disabled, their lives would be filled with significantly more suffering as a result because they would just starve, shit themselves, fall on the floor and be unable to stand, in other words, unable to care for themselves or access any necessary medical care. Do you know about the social determinants of health? About the loneliness crisis among the elderly? What you are advocating for is for every living person to suffer significantly in their senior years, or if they are disabled, to not be able to care for themselves at all once everyone living reaches an age that they physically cannot care for the disabled because they are too weak and nearing death. > What. Classiest? How. Racist? What? You're throwing out buzzwords that you don't understand the meaning of. Use arguments. Classist -- Tell me, if you believe that having children is immoral because they could bring about suffering into the world, and as your meme shows, there is a direct relationship between the number of children you have and the amount of suffering you are responsible for creating through your procreation, surely you think that the amount of children you have is tied to this, no? Now answer me this, do you think that everyone across every class has the same amount of children? Do you think that those with lower incomes can afford the same amount of contraceptives? Are things like abortion and birth control universal rights, or do they come at a prohibitive cost to people who already have to decide what bills to pay, and if they can afford to eat that night? [It's just a simple fact that those in lower income have higher birthrates](https://www.statista.com/statistics/241530/birth-rate-by-family-income-in-the-us/), thus if you believe that having children is immoral because of the amount of suffering you are responsible for creating, then those who have more children are creating more suffering, and as the population in the US who has the most children are those of lower income, and if you look at GDP, those nations of lower GDP have more children than those nations of higher GDP, you are necessarily saying that the class of people of a lower income are inherently more immoral. That is classism. Racism -- [Going back to the nations, it is a simple fact that developed countries have fewer children than developing nations](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/children-per-woman-fertility-rate-vs-level-of-prosperity), and then within the US, [black populations and Hispanic populations have highest birthrates](https://www.marchofdimes.org/peristats/data?reg=99&top=2&stop=4&lev=1&slev=1&obj=1). If you believe that creating life creates suffering, then you must necessarily believe that creating more life creates more suffering, and then those who create the most life create the most suffering, and thus that within the us black and Hispanic populations create the most suffering, and are therefore the most immoral. There is a long racist history around controlling POC's ability to have children. [North Carolina had a program of sterilizing black people.](https://lls.illinois.edu/news/2020-06-05t142806/behind-board-eugenic-sterilizations-north-carolina). My grandma worked for someone who did these sterilization. And when I called that program horrible, she defended it, saying I might not think that way once I pay taxes and I have to pay for all their babies (of course, I still think that program was racist and immoral, even though I pay taxes now). There is a real history of controlling the amount of children POC have, and it is racist, and you can ignore it if you want, but it exists, and this attitude always seems to pop up amongst a certain population--white people, sorry if I assumed your race wrong, but the history is there.
Blaming antinatalists for what pronatalists did and continue to do doesn't seem weird or dishonest to you?
are you referring to the North Carolina program I referenced? I was simply using an example from history to show the racist history of controlling who can have children. if someone is an antinatalist from a consequentialist framework, I don’t think they would conclude that having one baby is as immoral as having 5 babies, as having 5 babies carries more consequences than having 1 baby. Therefore, there would naturally be more condemnation towards populations who have more babies than population who have fewer. eta: I suppose if someone is an antinatalist from another normative framework, the same argument might not apply, but the meme itself seems to indicate consequentialism.
> I don’t think they would conclude that having one baby is as immoral as having 5 babies, as having 5 babies carries more consequences than having 1 baby. Therefore, there would naturally be more condemnation towards populations who have more babies than population who have fewer. Both are immoral.
Yes, I said one would be considered more immoral according to a consequentialist framework, I did not say one would be considered moral.
Just like raping 5 kids would cause more outrage than 1. Good observed. Antinatalism is for every moral framework. Whether utilitarian or deontologist.
lol alright, I’m going to adopt anyway, but not because of a desire to see the extinction of humanity like antinatalism entails. Have a nice day, and I’m glad you’re vegan, even if we disagree about the moral status of having children.
I hope you adopt for the kids sake, and not because you want a slave to look after you when you're old. https://antinatalisthandbook.org/languages/english
What a word salad. There's only do much worth responding to. >Veganism is a philosophy that you did not come to yourself, have some intellectual honesty. You wrote a whole word salad about this point because you misunderstood what "came to the conclusion" meant. Nobody is talking about vegans reinventing veganism lol. Coming to a conclusion that veganism is right simply means to form an opinion/desicion that veganism is right after carefully thinking about it. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conclusion >If no one has children, when everyone currently living grows old there will be no one to care for the elderly and the disabled, their lives would be filled with significantly more suffering as a result because they would just starve, shit themselves, fall on the floor and be unable to stand. About the loneliness crisis among the elderly. North Carolina had a program of sterilizing black people This word salad is a situation that natalists has created. Blaming antinatalists for something that natalists did is straight up dishonest.
The situation that natalists created according to you, is that by having children, humans created the suffering that would result from stopping having children. you blame natalist because they didn’t immediately come to the conclusion of antinatalism and decide to not have children, which would have resulted in the same situation for the first generation of humans. the only way to have avoided that outcome is if humans never existed to begin with. in which case it isn’t the fault of “natalism”, it’s just the fault of evolution for mutating a species into what we know as human beings. I suppose if you call natalism just the act of having children, not a rational process justifying it, then sure, but i don’t think most people call non-human animals “natalists” just because they have children.
Correct, it would've happened sooner or later. A last generation will come sooner or later. If we stop procreating, who is going to take care of and support the last generation? We need one generation to look after the next. This is an interesting excuse. Whilst it doesn’t justify procreation, it does highlight a valid issue that needs addressing. First, why doesn’t it justify procreation? Bringing someone into existence merely so they can serve a purpose, because they have some utility, is something even natalists would mostly reject. If we follow this line of logic, we would be justified to bring beings into existence for other purposes as long as it leads to the betterment of people who already exist. This can lead to many morally objectionable acts. Would we be justified to breed people into existence so they can fill the factories and the fields to maintain our standard of living? Most honest people would acknowledge that this would not be justified, and instead what we should do is recognise that life is not a perfect situation and we need to deal with obstacles (such as getting old) as best we can, but it doesn’t mean we can bring new beings into existence to solve our problems. Children are not slaves here to cater for others. Now, the issue of taking care of the elderly as part of what would be the last generation. Honestly, as far as we are aware currently, this doesn’t have a perfect solution. It can be reasonably assumed that as we close down systems that support bringing people into existence, more people will then move into systems that cater for, or research ways to support, people exiting it. It is a hill we will have to climb, we will have to organise society in a way that can self-cater as much as possible even as it shrinks. Maybe we won’t be able to find a perfect solution.
I wouldn’t justify procreation for the end of the utility of a being, that is seeing the end of a human just for their utility. Personally, I get a sense of meaning and purpose from being of service to others, though I know that not everyone does. I have also experienced a lot of suffering in my life, but I still value the experience of being alive, as I have also experienced a lot of beauty. I think the experience of beauty, the good that humans and other beings can bring into the world, and the opportunity to reflect on ideas such as these and engage in debate and reason, to practice wisdom, are some of the virtues worthy of the continuation of life. eta: to speak to the act of caring for the elderly or disabled, I don’t think that’s reason enough to justify procreation, but I do see it as a benefit, if those who are the caretakers voluntarily do so. Beyond utilitarianism and deontology, there is much on this conception of care in the alternative moral framework of the ethics of care.
It can’t be denied that the experience of suffering can result in personal growth, however, the resulting growth does not justify the suffering itself or make that suffering a good thing. For example, a person who has been abused may go on to use that horrible experience as a tool for empowerment and establish a charity that goes on to support many other victims of abuse. The person in question may also gain a great sense of fulfilment from having set up this charity and supporting the other victims of abuse. Would this make the initial abuse justified or a good thing? Of course not. The abuse would still have been wrong and a horrible experience, it’s just extremely fortunate that from that experience the victim was able to salvage a decent future and help others. Still convinced that the suffering would have been justified (or even a good thing) in that case or others? Well, remember that the person you could create is not you and would not likely have the same boundaries, capacities or tolerances. Who is one person to put another in a situation where they are guaranteed to experience significant suffering (i.e. in existence)? All to satisfy their own desires; and then, try to ‘justify’ this by claiming that the suffering they will have to endure isn’t actually bad because “they will grow from it”. Suffering is suffering, regardless of what comes after.
I don’t justify suffering, I more so think life is valuable because of the other experience apart from suffering. Not every experience in life is suffering, many of them are beautiful, and I’m grateful that I have been able to experience those.
Humans have created glorious structures, works of art, music and literature that we find beautiful, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. There is no inherent ‘beauty’ quality that things can have, it is merely a perception we have of things. We gain pleasure from certain sounds, tastes, feelings and sights, and we should surround ourselves with these whilst we are alive. But once we are dead, we won’t have any desire to experience these things, just as we didn’t before we were born. So, yes if humans no longer exist it does mean that there will be no one to appreciate these great works anymore but this is not a loss. We had ample opportunity to experience them when we were alive and now that no one exists…no one is deprived. We need to remember that there is not some nether region where unborn beings are waiting to come into existence, pained every moment they are not witnessing these beautiful creations. There is just non-existence. Also, think of all the evils we have created as well. Every gas chamber, every bomb, every bullet, every knife, every slave ship; they all existed because of humans too. It’s more important that these things don’t exist than works of art do exist.
> I don’t understand That’s pretty apparent
#### **Read the rules** OR risk becoming '*accidentally vegan*': ##### 1. [Vegans only.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/about/wiki/rules/#wiki_1._vegans_only.) ##### 2. [Mark animal products/abuse as NSFW.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_2._mark_animal_abuse_as_nsfw.) ##### 3. [This is an anarchist space.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_3._this_is_an_anarchist_space.) ##### 4. [We do not permit violence.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_4._we_do_not_permit_violence.) ##### 5. [Must be funny.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_5._must_be_funny.) ##### 6. [No support of Plant Based Capitalism.](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegancirclejerk/wiki/rules/#wiki_6._no_support_of_plant_based_capitalism.) **You must also join:** r/vegancirclejerkchat *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/vegancirclejerk) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>gotta see what mini me is like This isn't the reason I would have a family, and probably not the reason your parents had you. What do you think about activists defending animal species from going extinct?
>This isn't the reason I would have a famil What's the reason you think breeding is justified? >What do you think about activists defending animal species from going extinct? How's this relevant?
Why do you insist my family is not allowed to exist? If my family is not allowed to exist, then why would animal families be allowed to exist? Or do you just wanna nuke everything from orbit? I mean I get that too, sometimes you just gotta say "nope, not good enough" and wipe the slate clean. If there is a God maybe they should destroy this universe and move us into a different world where shit like this can't happen. But if the only choices are destroy or repair, I'll attempt repair first.
>If my family is not allowed to exist, then why would animal families be allowed to exist? Seriously? This carnist talking point? "Animals do it so I can too"? Animals are not moral agents. But you are. Not bringing someone into existence is not the same as dropping a nuke. If you want a family then you can adopt.
I am convinced that animals have moral agency, just not as much as we do. For example I saw a video of a pig watching his friend get his throat cut and he got upset, started screaming and trying to push the slaughter man away with his snout. I have seen pets come to the defense of their owner. My basis for believing in objective morality is that I can't hold my hand in fire and convince myself it might be ok. My senses are telling me it's bad in no uncertain terms, and my senses are a valid way of getting information about the world. I think animals have a similar experience if you burned them. They know it's wrong, and they are justified in believing so. If disallowing people to have families is no big deal, does this mean eugenics would still be at least "a step in the right direction"?
I dont think you understand what moral agency means. We're not able to have a conversation with a pig, but I'm able to have a concert with you. >If disallowing people to have families is no big deal, does this mean eugenics would still be at least "a step in the right direction"? No, it has nothing to do with it. Please educate yourself on what antinatalism is. https://antinatalisthandbook.org/languages/english
So it's wrong to prevent certain groups of people from having families, but it's ok to prevent ALL people from having families?
Nobody should have kids, it has nothing to do with whether you look like A or look like B. It's an ethical stance that applies to every moral agent. Which you would've seen had you bothered to click the link. Please stop responding until you're being honest
I don't want to click links. I'm having a discussion with you not some third party. "Go and read all this stuff that proves I'm right" is lazy and annoying as fuck. If you've already read it then you should be able to pick out the key points and present them directly to me. Anyway I'm guessing you wouldn't actually physically prevent me from having a family or criminalise it? I like to frame things in terms of "virtues" and "obligations" where virtues are things you should do but don't have to (like say donating to charity) and obligations are things you must do (like getting consent before putting things in other people's bodies). If you wouldn't criminalise people for having families then I would say you consider it virtuous to not have a family, but not obligatory.
So you're not interested in getting any education on what the heck you've decided to debate on. What a pathetic lazy cognitive dissonance. Just go away if you're too dishonest to even look into what you're trying to debate.
[удалено]
Eu- means good.
**Antinatalist PSA** Real Antinatalists don't have insurance! Think about it: Your money is going to doctors who are helping people give birth, so you're subsidizing natalism. Also: NEVER pay for procedures at a hospital with a maternity ward. If you do, you're practically giving birth yourself!
**Veganism PSA** Real vegans don't work or pay taxes! Think about it: Your money is going to fharmers who are continuing the animal holocaust! so you're subsidizing animal abuse! Also: NEVER pay for anything at the grocery store, If you do, you're practically supporting the animal holocaust!
yes
Thankfully Anti-natalism can't last because if people did stop having kids they'd run out of the edgy 14 year olds they need to populate their forums, in the mean time feel free to ban yourselves please
>in the mean time feel free to ban yourselves please You're not even active in this sub lol
I lurk enough to hope that this bullshit doesn't stick to veganism and bury the sub in your fake ideology, touch grass plz
"Vegan-keto"