Why it is wrong for humans to breed

[Armoreska]

Wow that didn't end well. Not really interested in another long-winded discussion like that, besides I'm no specialist - that would be someone who read a book on it at least - but I agree with Sunflowers' first post.

here's a list of arguments for not having children that I support:
General uncertainty over quality of life in 30+ years (likely that it's going to worsen).
Lack of consent + Inability to unsubscribe from life easily.
Each new human fuels climate change and creates more trash.
Unadopted children already exist.
Non-existence is not bad.

vegan ones:
No way to know if your child will be vegan.
Nearly all humans have a net negative impact on the lives of other animals.

libertarian ones:
In any society with social welfare, new children increase burden on society. Not everyone agrees to pay for others' child mania.
Overpopulation usually decreases the freedom of other people (and other animals).

tough ones:
The world is generally still not a good enough place for humans to live, if it can ever be. (I'm not sure how many people agree with this, just my view)
Existence leads to suffering. Happiness may cover/balance it out, but not for everyone.
Procreation is selfish.

minor one:
Pregnancy creates risks for the mother.


1. It is wrong to create pain. It is not wrong not to create pleasure.
2. Life contains both pain and pleasure.
3. Therefore, it is wrong to create life. (It is wrong to create the pain in life, but not wrong not to create the pleasure in life.)

1. It is wrong to impose a serious risk on someone without their consent.
2. Having a child is to impose a serious risk on someone (the child) without their consent.
3. Therefore, having a child is wrong.

1. If life is bad (on balance), it is wrong to create it.
2. Life is bad (on balance).
3. Therefore, it is wrong to create it.

1. It is wrong to do something to a person or making them do something they might not like without asking them for permission.
2. Having a child is to impose a whole life with its hardships on them without permission.
3. The child may grow up to have a negative opinion of such a life.
4. If you agree that it's an unacceptable risk, then having a child is wrong.


I've got some of my favorite video links saved that explain the topic.
Check out: Daily Negativity, Glynos, Life Sucks, Danny Shine. I think they're all vegan too.

[Red]

General uncertainty over quality of life in 30+ years (likely that it's going to worsen).

What makes you say that? Quality of life has been improving for many people for many years now, especially in the developed world. For developed countries, the trend is that quality of life will improve.

I can see this being an argument for not having children in undeveloped countries, but not for the world wholesale. If you're concerned about climate change, developed and industrialized countries won't have too much to worry about, because they have the infrastructure necessary to avoid any of the really bad stuff.

Lack of consent + Inability to unsubscribe from life easily.

Lack of consent isn't bad in and of itself; Violating preferences is where it can be problematic.

Consent is violated all the time; A pet can't consent to be given medications, or a child can't consent from being prohibited to play in a dangerous area, yet these are all in their best interest.

Each new human fuels climate change and creates more trash.

Sure, but it doesn't have to be this way. Encouraging more vegan diets, and transitioning our grid to nuclear power and other renewables (along with a few other things) can basically negate all of our emissions, without hampering our quality of life.

Unadopted children already exist.

Sure, but adoption isn't always an option; It can be expensive, and depending on where you live, it can be hard to adopt (even in the US, there's a social stigma against LGBT people adopting).

Non-existence is not bad.

Sounds like Benatar's asymmetry.
wiki/index.php/Bad_Arguments_for_vegani ... _Asymmetry

Nonexistence is not bad, but it's not good either. It's a neutral state.

No way to know if your child will be vegan.

I'd need to see statistics for this; For better or for worse, children raised on values will more often than not proliferate those values, and if they're raised by parents who value doing good in the world (instead of just not being bad), they'll influence others to go vegan in their lifetimes, who will then have vegan kids of their own. The cycle continues.

If no vegans were to have kids, that'd really make it difficult to keep it going through the generations, especially given climate change and health (not to mention the lives of billions of animals).

Nearly all humans have a net negative impact on the lives of other animals.

I'm not sure about this, but even granting it, like I said, it's possible to maximize our quality of life while minimizing the damage done to the environment.

The animals we've killed off have already been killed off; People born today have not had a hand in that.

In any society with social welfare, new children increase burden on society.

I don't know enough about this particular subject, but an increase in population generally can boost the economy. Japan (one of the wealthiest countries in the world) is going through a decline in population, and their economy will suffer because of it.

The decline in working-aged cohorts may lead to a shrinking economy if productivity does not increase faster than the rate of Japan's decreasing workforce.[66] The OECD estimates that similar labor shortages in Austria, Germany, Greece, Italy, Spain, and Sweden will depress the European Union's economic growth by 0.4 percentage points annually from 2000 to 2025, after which shortages will cost the EU 0.9 percentage points in growth. In Japan labor shortages will lower growth by 0.7 percentage points annually until 2025, after which Japan will also experience a 0.9 percentage points loss in growth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan#Economic

Not everyone agrees to pay for others' child mania.

Not sure what you mean?

Overpopulation usually decreases the freedom of other people (and other animals).

Not necessarily. Overpopulation isn't an issue for developed and industrialized countries. This may be a simplistic way of looking at it, but more people than ever are living on Earth right now, with the most amount of people enjoying the most amount of freedom in history. Of course, we still have room for improvement.

The world is generally still not a good enough place for humans to live, if it can ever be. (I'm not sure how many people agree with this, just my view)

I disagree with this view. The good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. As we socially progress and develop more economies, clean up political corruption, create more democracy, invest more in technology, medicine, and infrastructure, and overall learn to stop fighting amongst ourselves and work together, the Earth will be the best place to live (and is the only place to live).

Existence leads to suffering. Happiness may cover/balance it out, but not for everyone.

There's always going to be a little suffering, but we've done a pretty good job of reducing it over the past few hundred years.

This may be conjecture, but a working class American suffers less than the most powerful aristocrats did in the 1700's.

Procreation is selfish.

Please elaborate?

Pregnancy creates risks for the mother.

Sometimes, but this is happens less often with modern medicine.

1. It is wrong to create pain. It is not wrong not to create pleasure.
2. Life contains both pain and pleasure.
3. Therefore, it is wrong to create life. (It is wrong to create the pain in life, but not wrong not to create the pleasure in life.)

This is similar to the Benatar reasoning mentioned earlier.

1. It is wrong to impose a serious risk on someone without their consent.
2. Having a child is to impose a serious risk on someone (the child) without their consent.
3. Therefore, having a child is wrong.

If that risk is clear and obvious (e.g. giving birth to a child while having AIDs in a poor country, or being born into a family with very low financial security), you're right, but many people being born today are presented with great opportunities.

1. If life is bad (on balance), it is wrong to create it.
2. Life is bad (on balance).
3. Therefore, it is wrong to create it.

Again, not always.

1. It is wrong to do something to a person or making them do something they might not like without asking them for permission.
2. Having a child is to impose a whole life with its hardships on them without permission.
3. The child may grow up to have a negative opinion of such a life.
4. If you agree that it's an unacceptable risk, then having a child is wrong.

I think I've already addressed the first two.

Depending on how you raise your child, I don't think the third or fourth propositions are likely.

If you respond soon I won't be able to get back quickly since I have quite a few things to do tonight, but I'll get to it as soon as I can.

[Armoreska]

>What makes you say that? Quality of life has been improving for many people for many years now, especially in the developed world. For developed countries, the trend is that quality of life will improve.
-We don't know. You can either stay optimistic or be a pessimist. I don't think data supports the optimistic position.

>Lack of consent isn't bad in and of itself; Violating preferences is where it can be problematic.
-Enough of an issue for me to care about. Not existing would have saved me a lot of grief. Can't say I'm making life better for many either. Neither does an average person.
Assisted suicide would have been a compromise. I wonder if any person ever thought they're not gonna have children until there's that option for them in case they wish to unsubscribe.

>pet
-Non-human companion animal or animal companion.

>Sure, but it doesn't have to be this way. Encouraging more vegan diets, and transitioning our grid to nuclear power and other renewables (along with a few other things) can basically negate all of our emissions, without hampering our quality of life.
-Maybe, seems unlikely for now.

>Sure, but adoption isn't always an option; It can be expensive, and depending on where you live, it can be hard to adopt (even in the US, there's a social stigma against LGBT people adopting).
-Demand it if you have an opportunity.
Expensive - seems like a bad argument. More expensive than carrying to term and caring for baby?
I wonder if it's possible to cheat the system and forgo the costs. I know someone who knows someone who has adopted more than 10 children, and they're not rich.

>Nonexistence is not bad, but it's not good either. It's a neutral state.
-I expect it's been discussed above. Neutral it is. But if life is given a negative, nonexistence can be seen as a positive.

>I'd need to see statistics for this; For better or for worse, children raised on values will more often than not proliferate those values, and if they're raised by parents who value doing good in the world (instead of just not being bad), they'll influence others to go vegan in their lifetimes, who will then have vegan kids of their own. The cycle continues.
-Educate or reeducate instead of raising children.

>If no vegans were to have kids, that'd really make it difficult to keep it going through the generations, especially given climate change and health (not to mention the lives of billions of animals).
-Hard disagree. I think it's problematic to claim raising children to try to crowd out nonvegans. It's like you're building an army of warriors. If I found out I was born for that, I'd be pissed.

>The animals we've killed off have already been killed off; People born today have not had a hand in that.
-It's not the killing I care about though. + I'm an abolitionist, not a reducetarian.
I think it's silly to think that humans will suddenly awaken.

>I'm not sure about this, but even granting it, like I said, it's possible to maximize our quality of life while minimizing the damage done to the environment.
-Sure, it's not like many people are going to be convinced of the AN argument.

part 2 later

[Red]

You usually respond quickly, are you gonna get to my second part? I was waiting for you to finish responding before I wrote my response.

[Jebus]

What makes you say that? Quality of life has been improving for many people for many years now, especially in the developed world.

Did you mean developing world?

Your statement is incorrect if you in fact meant the developed world (depression, suicides, divorce rates etc.), and even if it were correct there are events on the horizon (climate change) that suggest life won't be so dandy for those who are born today.

[Armoreska]

You usually respond quickly, are you gonna get to my second part? I was waiting for you to finish responding before I wrote my response.

"You usually respond quickly"
That's a no. I may not go to work but I'm a busy man. Actually there are plenty other responses pending. Meanwhile I responded to people on: non-non-violence, non-trans-exclusionary feminism, nature of truth/religion, objective morality, determinism, veganarchism and laughing at other's (Trump) misfortune.

"are you gonna get to my second part?"
Naturally. Although I don't imagine I'm gonna add a lot. I may respond once more after that, and leave it at that.

"I was waiting for you to finish responding before I wrote my response."
I was hoping you would. Tx

Watch this space:

>I don't know enough about this particular subject, but an increase in population generally can boost the economy. Japan (one of the wealthiest countries in the world) is going through a decline in population, and their economy will suffer because of it.
-There's a 20-year lag.
I think there's something fundamentally wrong with creating new life, then force-crowdfunding their education and whatnot using taxes, putting pressure on them to work to someone's questionable benefit for 50 years and expecting them to be fine with it.
I'm obviously not interested in boosting economy, rather dismantling and reorganizing it. Your argument seems to treat humans as resource, therefore I have no interest in it.

>I disagree with this view.
-Lucky to be an optimist. But what is the ultimate point of continuing to create life?

>There's always going to be a little suffering, but we've done a pretty good job of reducing it over the past few hundred years.
-In practice I will agree to compromise (please finally provide an easy out), but philosophically my position remains the same.

>Procreation is selfish.
See arguments on YouTube and Kialo.

Just because 95% people born are quite content with their situation, doesn't override the suffering and discontent of the 5%.
Nothing more to add.

Sometimes I wish
I could lend you my shoes
Lend you my life
And lend you my truth
But sometimes the truth
Is just my point of view
Not what is real
And not what is true

[Red]

I'll get to this soon, but for future reference, please make a new post so I get a notification, if I didn't check back here I wouldn't have seen the rest of your response.

[Red]

-We don't know. You can either stay optimistic or be a pessimist. I don't think data supports the optimistic position.

Does it support the pessimistic one?
Take a look at the Human Development Index:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ment_Index
Even in a lot of developing countries, it's at a very high standard. Our quality of life will keep improving as technology and medicine improve. There is no reason to believe that the our quality of life will start to decline; Think about how much more comfortable and convenient life is compared to 100 or even 50 years ago.

I highly recommend picking up 'Enlightenment Now' by Steven Pinker; He has a whole chapter dedicated to how much our quality of life has improved (and the first part of the book talks about how life in general has gotten so much better, even for the poor).

-Enough of an issue for me to care about. Not existing would have saved me a lot of grief.

Yet, not everyone has that same issue.

Can't say I'm making life better for many either.

Even if your life kind of sucks, you still should make it your goal to improve the lives of others. I'd argue that if someone lived a mediocre life, yet their life meant that others were able to enjoy great lives, that life was worth living.

Neither does an average person.

I doubt that's the case for much of the world's population. I can see the argument that the average meat-eater has an overall harmful impact in their lives, but collectively everyone still serves a role in the world economy, and merely participating in consumerism helps drive the progress of technology, which will help solve more of our problems and increase our quality of life (as I mentioned before).

Assisted suicide would have been a compromise. I wonder if any person ever thought they're not gonna have children until there's that option for them in case they wish to unsubscribe.

I don't think offering assisted suicide to otherwise healthy individuals is useful; Again, what I said about a collective progress.

-Non-human companion animal or animal companion.

The argument is that just because consent is violated, that doesn't automatically mean that the action was unjust.

>Sure, but it doesn't have to be this way. Encouraging more vegan diets, and transitioning our grid to nuclear power and other renewables (along with a few other things) can basically negate all of our emissions, without hampering our quality of life.
-Maybe, seems unlikely for now.

And not having vegan and scientifically literate kids will not help that.

-Demand it if you have an opportunity.

I don't think it'd be that simple.

Expensive - seems like a bad argument. More expensive than carrying to term and caring for baby?
I wonder if it's possible to cheat the system and forgo the costs. I know someone who knows someone who has adopted more than 10 children, and they're not rich.

It's probably different where you are. In developed countries, there are a lot more regulations and such. I highly doubt someone would be able to get away with 'cheating the system' that often in the West.

-I expect it's been discussed above. Neutral it is. But if life is given a negative, nonexistence can be seen as a positive.

That's assuming life is a negative. If life is given a positive, nonexistence can be seen as a negative.

-Educate or reeducate instead of raising children.

But I thought you said it seems unlikely that we'll get more people to go vegan and support Nuclear power?
Fixing education is a hard, arduous task, but it isn't impossible.

-Hard disagree. I think it's problematic to claim raising children to try to crowd out nonvegans. It's like you're building an army of warriors. If I found out I was born for that, I'd be pissed.

It isn't to crowd out non-vegans; If that were the goal, I wouldn't consider that very productive or effective. The point is to create more people that'll inspire others to go vegan, to continue the cycle.

If vegans don't have kids, veganism won't take off.

-It's not the killing I care about though. + I'm an abolitionist, not a reducetarian.

Then I'm not sure what your argument is.

As for reducitarianism, I support it given recidivism, but that's another debate.

I think it's silly to think that humans will suddenly awaken.

But you were saying before that we should try educating?

-Sure, it's not like many people are going to be convinced of the AN argument.

Which one is that?

>I don't know enough about this particular subject, but an increase in population generally can boost the economy. Japan (one of the wealthiest countries in the world) is going through a decline in population, and their economy will suffer because of it.
-There's a 20-year lag.

Which is not as much time as you may think.

I'm obviously not interested in boosting economy, rather dismantling and reorganizing it. Your argument seems to treat humans as resource, therefore I have no interest in it.

I've already explained this. A growing economy is essential for getting countries into rich-territory to make their lives better.

-Lucky to be an optimist. But what is the ultimate point of continuing to create life?

To create more people to influence change to make the world a better place. The wrong people are going to have kids, and there isn't really anything you can do to stop that. So, we have to have kids so good doesn't die off.

-In practice I will agree to compromise (please finally provide an easy out), but philosophically my position remains the same.

Given the march of technology, I don't think it's valid.

Just because 95% people born are quite content with their situation, doesn't override the suffering and discontent of the 5%.

How can you quantify this? I don't see it as likely that the suffering that the 5% goes through is that much worse than the contendedness of the other 95%.

I should add that, even if I did agree with anti-natalism, I wouldn't bother advocating for it for two reasons:

1) People may get turned off by veganism if they see it's associated with such a philosophy, which will screw over the animals and the rest of the world.

2) It isn't something that's going to happen anyway. Humans are more or less wired to screw everything that moves.

Like Buddha said, you know we are all just here to fuck.

People want kids. It isn't really something that can be replaced the way meat can be replaced. Maybe when AI becomes sentient? Even then, it would still be the same end-goal.

[Red]

Did you mean developing world?

Them too. Things are still pretty shitty of course, but it's necessary for progress.

Your statement is incorrect if you in fact meant the developed world (depression, suicides, divorce rates etc.), and even if it were correct there are events on the horizon (climate change) that suggest life won't be so dandy for those who are born today.

By 'quality of life' I mean we enjoy the most amount of comfort in history for the cheapest price (running water, climate control, cheap and available food, entertainment, education, healthcare, etc). Sure, we still have our problems, but usually, and I don't mean to be degrading or whatever, they're problems that people in third world countries wish they had.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Hap ... ess_Report
(not 100% accurate, but it's a decent ballpark)

We have many treatments for depression (therapy, anti-depressants), and I have received some of these treatments over my life with various levels of success. Sure, civilization may be dull, but the alternative, Mr. Jebus, is hell.

That isn't to say that we shouldn't focus on improving of course.

The divorce rate is a bit misleading; The 50% statistic is across the board, not for particularr groups, such as college educated or higher income families. This may seem a bit sardonic, but at least in the US people have the option to divorce (usually!).

A very tiny percentage of any population commits suicide, and according to the WHO, almost 80% of suicides happen in developing countries:
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... il/suicide

As for climate change, as I've said, we have the infrastructure and wealth necessary to protect us from the really bad stuff. The worst we'll get are certain shortages and price changes (not famine level). Despite that though, it isn't really a significant decrease in quality of life for most people.

[Your_Construct]

Hi Sunflowers,

I believe at this point in human evolution that having children is immoral. However, if we do manage to create a utopian society where there is no suffering then I think having children would be fine.