I was going to comment that this comment is going to draw in antinatalist weirdos but I am beaten to the punch.
Hey, the world is beautiful, do what the other user suggested and go out and experience it.
Comment on Slay Girl
scratchee@feddit.uk 1 day ago
In cartoon ducks: overly simplistic but cute, naive, and innocent
In humans: pronatalism. weird disgusting pseudo colonial bullshit that’s the dark mirror to “just” wanting kids.
ameancow@lemmy.world 1 day ago
lessthanluigi@lemmy.sdf.org 1 day ago
Anti-natalism is such a wild and depressing position to have. It’s not just not wanting kids personally, or even just not wanting to be around kids, but that giving birth is immoral and horrendous.
I don’t really plan to have kids myself, but I have a nephew and he is so amazing and my sister is doing an amazing job raising him.
I’ve heard (well, read) from one anti-natalist that thinking children are wonderful to be around is akin to cult language. As if anti-natalists don’t sound like they are in a cult themself.
Thank you for coming to my TedTalk
DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works 23 hours ago
Militant Anti-natalists are just as cringe as those Pro-natalistswho pressure you to have children
Just leave people alone for their personal decisions ffs
ameancow@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I’ve always thought if they actually believed what they said they would be against all animal life as well. If existing is such misery and we need to like, end experiencing the universe broadly or whatever their main idea is, then definitionally we would also need to end all animal life, they have existed far long and suffered far worse than any humans over any stretch of time.
But for some reason they get real shifty when you start trying to dismantle their ideology.
wolframhydroxide@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
As someone who understands, if not necessarily espouses, anti-natalist ideology, I can give a bit of elucidation from my perspective of the philosophy of utilitarianism, which I am happy to debate. It would be nice to be proven wrong here.
It comes down, in my opinion and understanding, to the following argument:
-
an entity is inherently unable to consent to its own creation. [A postulate]
-
suffering has a net-negative effect on the (perceived or actual) value of existence [precept of utilitarianism]
-
suffering knowingly enacted against any entity which cannot give informed consent is eqquivalent to the suffering of an entity which is actively not consenting [by which argument paedophilia is a crime]
-
The potential suffering inherent in life is foreseeable, as is the potential of a human life to harm the lives of others. [The basis of the concept of negligence]
-
An entity that is not created does not harm or cause others to suffer, nor does it experience harm or suffering [postulate]
From propositions 1 through 4:
-
You are personally, morally responsible for the life which you create, both its actions and its experiences, as all of its experiences and actions are exclusively contingent on the act of its creation. It is from this moral duty that parental responsibility derives.
-
there is a foreseeable possibility that the entity being created could endure enough suffering (or be the cause of same) to make the value of their life net-negative
From propositions 5 and 6, and the various observations one might make of the world (from climate change, to the renewed rise of fascism and the far-right, and a myriad of other “natural shocks which flesh is heir to”), they suggest:
- On cost-benefit analysis, the expected value of a new life which I might create is net-negative.
From which:
- it would be irresponsible (read: negligent) to procreate.
That is the basis. If you can prove each of those propositions, then from a utilitarian perspective, I think anti-natalism follows. I am personally convinced up to proposition 6, and I am personally waiting until I no longer feel that 8 has a chance of being valid before I have children. There are plenty of ways you can argue against the propositions, but as they stand, there is no indication of a moral duty to end already-extant life or to engage in mass-sterilisation of animals. There are certainly people who try to come at it from a nihilistic perspective, and it’s MUCH easier to argue pretty much anything from nihilism than from utilitarianism, but I, being primarily utilitarian, hold with the above.
I also think that the person saying “anti-natalists think children are awful to be around” is presenting a ridiculous strawman. I’m a public school teacher, and I love being around kids. The wonder with which they view the cosmos is forever inspiring to me, but many of my students have experienced truly awful things. I believe my moral duty involves doing everything I can to minimize the suffering of entities that exist. I think that, once a child has been created, you now have a moral duty to make that child’s life as free from suffering and as fulfilling and rich as possible (without imposing suffering on others, of course)
-
MousePotatoDoesStuff@lemmy.world 1 day ago
But if she found more baby rather than “make”, doesn’t that imply adoption?
scratchee@feddit.uk 1 day ago
True. Lots of pronatalists tend towards eugenics, so doubt they’re huge fans of adoptions.
OTOH, even nurture-over-nature pronatalists would be problematic. “I’m better than everyone else so I should have an outsize impact on the next generation by adopting as many children as possible” is only slightly better than the eugenic variant.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I can’t tell if you hate ducks or are simply a pro-natalist. Regardless go watch a movie or play a game or something, may I suggest Red Dead Redemption? It’s currently on sale on steam.
BlackDragon@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
I can’t tell if you hate ducks or are simply a pro-natalist
That’s an impressively incorrect reading of the comment.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Can’t see any other point they were making then. Unless they are just trying to call hypocrisy towards folks thinking animals having lots of babies is cute while humans doing the same is bad. Because if that is the point that’s missing so much fucken context that if it was a physical object it’d be a fucken mountain range, mostly because most animal babies die pretty fucken often. From experience chicks alone have like a 60 percent mortality rating if humans aren’t directly involved in taking care of them, roosters apparently love to eat chicks.
BlackDragon@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
They’re saying that “more babies = more success” is a funny and cute idea when expressed by a cartoon duck, but is extremely harmful when expressed by humans in the real world. I honestly can’t imagine how you reached your interpretation of the comment because it seems to have very little in common with anything they said.
sem@piefed.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, because it looks like the duck had 1 baby, then adopted 19 others.
Obviously ducks are cuter than humans.
nomy@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Just hopping in to say that the RDR franchise is great and worth the money.
I’ve spent so many hours just riding around hunting or collecting herbs. One of the few games you can genuinely turn off your brain off and immerse yourself in the world.
vaultdweller013@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
Also undead nightmare is unironically one of the more unique takes on zombies. Not necessarily because they do anything particularly interesting with the zombies themselves but moreso because the closest thing to zombie Western I know of is a bug in the PS3 version of Fallout: New Vegas where an infinitely spawn of ghouls can occur at the test site. Never been able to replicate it on PC and I don’t know if it was specific to me or not.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 day ago
No one else said, and it seems like you’re catching on, but it needs saying out loud: today, you suck.
Ilovethebomb@sh.itjust.works 1 day ago
I think you need to go outside and look at some wildlife or something.
JetpackJackson@feddit.org 1 day ago
But not ducks, clearly