discussion Is it morally acceptable to bring children into today's world?

[Into The Void]

2 hours ago, Afterglow said:

No, and I personally believe for the betterment and future of the human race we need a freeze on baby's being allowed, and serious classes and training must be done to consider having children.

 

Adoption is at an all time low, we are severely overpopulated and overstretching our bounds of what this planet will accept. We have so much demand it's impossible to to get resources in morally responsible ways quickly. Right now, more than ever average human mental health is at an all time low.

 

It should have happened in the year 2004-2005 but that's neither here nor there now. Yes, too many new humans are being introduced to the population. 

From what I heard the practice of adoption takes so much time or at least seems to. I think they make it harder to adopt in 2024 then maybe back in the day which is probably a bigger issue.

[constantinople]

capitalism and abrahamic culture are immoral, not bringing children into today's world

[Delirious]

Yes. As long as you are good parent.

[EtherealCat]

yes as long as you are married

[CoolNebraskaGuy]

One-child policy - Wikipedia

 

@Afterglow since you seem to be confused

[Cruel Summer]

I think it's a really complicated issue.

 

To a certain extent, yes - but only if you can reasonably guarantee them a good life. Consistent access to clean and safe shelter, food, water, a good education, and being a part of a community where they can form friendships and grow as social beings - these are non-negotiable if you are going to have a child. But I do agree that because of the direction our world is going, you really need to think about how you feel bringing a whole human into it in the face of uncertain, potentially disastrous times. Are you really up to the challenge? The challenges facing the world right now, especially runaway climate change, are fundamentally different from those that we've experienced before, and they are existential threats to all of humanity. Can one really guarantee their child will live a good life anymore? Is being unable to guarantee it actually a good enough reason not to let that life occur on its own, and let that person make their own way? I honestly don't think there's a single clear answer to that.

 

But I do think there's a limit. Our current human population is, frankly, unsustainable, and part of why our world is facing so many problems. We aren't meant to have ten billion people (which is where scientists currently think the population will peak). The resources we have available to us aren't all universally renewable, and they can't sustain the sheer volume of people out there right now. Even this is a complicated microcosm of the topic, though, because it's not like people have kids thinking "oh, but am I unduly contributing to the resource burden placed on Earth by a fundamentally flawed global capitalist society?” No, they have kids because they want to raise those kids and make memories with a family, because humans mostly have an innate, instinctual desire to do that. We're social creatures by nature and having children is a core part of that.

 

Now, having one or two kids? Sure, fine, I get it and I get that most people have some deep-seated drive to be a parent that I don't get. As long as they'll be given a good shot at a good life, I can't bring myself to vilify such parents. But there is a point where it no longer makes sense for the world or for oneself - and where no family can actually keep up with that many kids in terms of their social, economic, and physical needs. I don't know what the exact line is, or that there is just one for every family, but for each set of prospective parents there is a number of children at which point having more becomes both irresponsible socially and abusive in terms of failing to meet additional kids' needs. I do think, also, that a lot more people ought not to be parents because they honestly suck at it, and I also commend every single person who decides not to have children because they don't want kids - no child should ever be raised unwanted to any degree.

 

And yet, what are we to actually do about any of this? It's not like we can simply legislate away these large families - you can't easily prohibit a human life ethically, and there is a reason such policies have been looked down on historically. And further, our entire society is built on the concept of infinite economic growth - and that requires perpetual population growth. A few people deciding not to have children won't turn that tide. And who am I, or you, or any individual to decide who should or shouldn't have another kid, or whether it's morally right? The "is it ethical to have kids?” issue is just one part of a larger, more comprehensive need for all of us to collectively come together and radically redefine society and the social contract if we want to safely make it out of the turbulent times ahead. We wouldn't be having this conversation at all if people weren't incentivized to try to perpetually sustain infinite growth.

[Strawberry Bubble]

4 hours ago, Bonicap said:

World has never been better than it is right now. Look at the overall data on illiteracy, hunger, wars, deadly diseases or life expectancy. I don't understand the question.

While it may seem like the world is improving, especially in the richest countries, the reality is that the gap between the rich and the rest is getting wider, squeezing out the middle class, and the gap between rich and poor growing.

 

And experts are really worried about a big problem that's coming our way. All this rush to make and buy stuff is messing up the environment, causing climate change, pollution, and destroying habitats for both people and animals. This isn't some far-off thing—it's happening soon, and our kids will have to deal with it.

 

Additionally, the rising costs of essentials like healthcare and education are turning them into luxuries for many, signaling a regression towards a less equitable world than before. 

 

So yes, that's the reason for asking the question.

Edited April 7 by Strawberry Bubble

[LoveInStereo]

Anti-natalist rhetoric bothers me so ******* much. It's up there with the folks always claiming there's an impending doomsday for most disturbing manifestation of unchecked arrogance. You are not the last generation to be young & the world will keep on spinning without you. It's important to note too that somebody has to have kids or we hit extinction too so the subtext is basically "only the right kinds of ppl/cream of the crop" which is eugenicist, Darwinist bs disguising itself as concern for the environment. 

[RideOrDie]

was it morally acceptable hundred years ago when diseases, wars, starvation etc. were all over the place and babies were dying in their cribs? i wouldn't understand gays to get this concept but we are wired in every way to procreate, yes some people don't want kids and that's their choice, yes if you aren't able to care for and love a child you shouldn't have one, women should do whatever they are capable of and want to with their bodies and lives, but we can't bring up current society's issues (which are mild af compared to the past) and judge people for wanting to have families through offspring, not everyone wants to adopt and that's ok! adoption is NOT just signing papers! future generations will always carry the burdens AND enjoy the fruits of the previous generations... 

[BLΔCKP!NK]

4 hours ago, tjspy said:

The world is better than ever.

Despite that, its not that deep. You can bring a kid and teach her to see the world in good eyes, despite its problems.

The world is just too amazing and vast to stay in a depressive bubble and spend too much thinking in things that are not actual issues.

this was literally going to be my answer. i'm so sick of the pessimism and negative attitudes

[Bonicap]

4 hours ago, Strawberry Bubble said:

While it may seem like the world is improving, especially in the richest countries, the reality is that the gap between the rich and the rest is getting wider, squeezing out the middle class, and the gap between rich and poor growing.

 

And experts are really worried about a big problem that's coming our way. All this rush to make and buy stuff is messing up the environment, causing climate change, pollution, and destroying habitats for both people and animals. This isn't some far-off thing—it's happening soon, and our kids will have to deal with it.

 

Additionally, the rising costs of essentials like healthcare and education are turning them into luxuries for many, signaling a regression towards a less equitable world than before. 

 

So yes, that's the reason for asking the question.

You talk about the gap between the rich and the poor but the poorest countries have always lived in worse circumstances than today, and the poor people in first world countries have never had more assistance than today. Regarding the economic issues of the middle class, I agree 90s and early 00s are better if you look at the data, but capitalism is cyclic and if you look at the bigger picture life is still quite comfortable in western countries for middle class people, definitely better than when half the population had to go to wars constantly or there was no welfare state. In fact, most of the economic issues come from people not having kids, which leads to an aging population where there are more retired people than workers and you have to balance that with immigration and that leads to social instability, right wing populism and political chaos.

 

Regarding the rising costs of healthcare and education I guess it's different in each country, but overall life expectancy and literacy rates are higher than ever before.

 

And all the issues coming our way like climate change, economic collapse... we'll see how they go. I'm not a scientist and I judge what I see based on the data we have now, not the apocalyptic scenarios that might come in the future. What I know is that if you have kids now they will be born in a world where every person from the past would have wanted to live in for multiple reasons.

[1000 forms of queer]

So you want humanity to cease to exist? 
 

[Batsy Armada]

There's still a lot of good, beauty and wonder in this world. I think the better question is whether or not it's morally acceptable just to accept things the way they are—believing ourselves to be powerless. We've seen the way people come together and raise their voices over the most trivial things, which sparks change. Despite the various adversities we face, I don't think we should give up on this world. If anything, we should be fighting to change it for the better—educating and encouraging future generations to do the same. Whether or not we think it's morally acceptable, children are being born into this world everyday. The question is, what are we doing to make this world better for future generations?

[Tudors]

Leonardo Dicaprio said just this when asked if he wants kid. He like bring kids into THIS world? Honestly the kids today are iPad kids and always have their heads stuck staring at ipads all day so yeah.. Zero interest in getting to know my neice No thanks. Then they turn into these mean Shady teenagers... Yea no I'll be keeping all my money for me thanks

[alexjealexje]

On 4/7/2024 at 5:30 PM, AvadaKedavra said:

I get your points   I totally want kids, but this is something I think about every day:

• Global warming is getting worse, and in my country, water scarcity is increasing. In some decades, water will be a luxury worldwide if things don't get better. All the rivers from my hometown are dry-empty now. When i was younger they were full. The snowy peaks are gone. The Heatwaves. The Polar Vortexes.

• The development of AGI is scary. Once the robots-machines are aware, life will change for the best, and we will evolve to something new or we will be totally destroyed or enslaved. One of those 2

• All those tech-heads from Harvard, Stanford, and other top places (similar to elon musk-marck zuckerberg) are very pro-capitalistic, like the guy from OpenAI. With the development of AI and Replacement of workers-rise in Automatization, hundreds of millions will go to the street, poverty will increase so so much, and they will not care at all. Universal income? I don't think so. They have the means but they don't care. I love everything surrounding AI, but I'm against the ones having control of it. We are gonna live in something similar to the elysium movie

• In my country, we elected a far-left extremist populist, and he's literally ruining everything. Terrorist groups-narcos are taking over the country again like the 90s, and corporations and international investment are leaving, making everything worse every day. It's so corrupt and disgusting. He also wants to stay in power because he's a megalomaniac. Living in an unstable country is hell. My country turning into Venezuela II could be a reality, and I pray it doesn't happen. My parents live here and don't want to move. We had a moderate left one with good ideas focused on education-science but people went for the extremist with a really dark criminal past and anger-resentment discourse 

• In some places of the world, like North America, fascism is rising, and I feel like Donald Trump could create a dictatorship and destroy the USA. At the same time, Europe has Putin trying to take over everything, and also people are turning more religious and conservative there, which is dangerous. The old liberal utopia is goin down.

• The lack of new pop girls is a new issue we all should care about. The most important issue here. a world without pop music is not worthy  

• I'm scared of another virus rising.

• I feel like World War III could be a reality once Taiwan is taken over by China. Never say never

• Aliens: What if the UFOs reveal themselves? and they abduct us with their *** probes or theyre playing with us like we are the sims 

Even with all of this, I have to be honest.
I would have kids if we were very wealthy. I would have 2. I need a husband for them
I'm 31, and the number one reason why I don't have kids is that I don't have the economic stability to give them good lives.
But for me kids are sacred. Havin kids would be probably my biggest achievement in life
Im a very bubbly happy person, so im one of those who get energized with kids and the youth around.  
 

 

 

You really made good and valid points ! 

[Kassi]

Yes. It's probably the safest most prosperous time to live as a human in all of civilized human history due to:

 

- Modern medicine

- Food availability

- Government safety nets

- Open communication channels

- Accessible global travel

[Gladiator]

No. Having sex is sin.

[Karla Cabello]

not really

[Strawberry Bubble]

On 4/7/2024 at 1:30 PM, LoveInStereo said:

Anti-natalist rhetoric bothers me so ******* much. It's up there with the folks always claiming there's an impending doomsday for most disturbing manifestation of unchecked arrogance. You are not the last generation to be young & the world will keep on spinning without you. It's important to note too that somebody has to have kids or we hit extinction too so the subtext is basically "only the right kinds of ppl/cream of the crop" which is eugenicist, Darwinist bs disguising itself as concern for the environment. 

 

On 4/7/2024 at 6:10 PM, Bonicap said:

You talk about the gap between the rich and the poor but the poorest countries have always lived in worse circumstances than today, and the poor people in first world countries have never had more assistance than today. Regarding the economic issues of the middle class, I agree 90s and early 00s are better if you look at the data, but capitalism is cyclic and if you look at the bigger picture life is still quite comfortable in western countries for middle class people, definitely better than when half the population had to go to wars constantly or there was no welfare state. In fact, most of the economic issues come from people not having kids, which leads to an aging population where there are more retired people than workers and you have to balance that with immigration and that leads to social instability, right wing populism and political chaos.

 

Regarding the rising costs of healthcare and education I guess it's different in each country, but overall life expectancy and literacy rates are higher than ever before.

 

And all the issues coming our way like climate change, economic collapse... we'll see how they go. I'm not a scientist and I judge what I see based on the data we have now, not the apocalyptic scenarios that might come in the future. What I know is that if you have kids now they will be born in a world where every person from the past would have wanted to live in for multiple reasons.

 

On 4/7/2024 at 1:34 PM, RideOrDie said:

was it morally acceptable hundred years ago when diseases, wars, starvation etc. were all over the place and babies were dying in their cribs? i wouldn't understand gays to get this concept but we are wired in every way to procreate, yes some people don't want kids and that's their choice, yes if you aren't able to care for and love a child you shouldn't have one, women should do whatever they are capable of and want to with their bodies and lives, but we can't bring up current society's issues (which are mild af compared to the past) and judge people for wanting to have families through offspring, not everyone wants to adopt and that's ok! adoption is NOT just signing papers! future generations will always carry the burdens AND enjoy the fruits of the previous generations... 

Addressing the recurring argument raised throughout the post: yes, the world faced numerous challenges in the past, but our level of awareness today regarding future issues far surpasses that of previous generations. In earlier times, societal norms heavily influenced personal choices; for instance, women often felt compelled to have children due to cultural or religious expectations that equated them with reproduction machines. However, the dynamics have shifted significantly. While some pressure still exists, it's no longer disproportionately placed on women or individuals; we now have diverse paths to fulfillment, such as focusing on career growth, pursuing passions, enjoying free time, and nurturing relationships.

 

There's a pervasive Western bias evident in many comments, assuming that technological advancements and development automatically translate to universal access. The reality is starkly different; many regions lack equal access to essential services like education, healthcare, and housing, often leading to lifelong debts. Moreover, the current landscape is rife with mental health challenges and work-related stress, impacting everyone's quality of life.

It's crucial to recognize that historical examples, like overpopulation not being a past concern, don't necessarily apply today. Our world faces new and pressing issues, notably overpopulation. Comparing past and present contexts is anachronism and is like comparing apples to oranges; decisions today must align with our current reality and future outlook rather than historical precedents.

 

Furthermore, the notion of a 'better world' overlooks the economic uncertainties and challenges many countries face today, making it increasingly difficult for people to afford starting families or even desire such responsibilities given the uncertain future ahead. This paints a more nuanced picture than simply labeling the present as superior without considering the complexities and hardships faced by many.

[Strawberry Bubble]

On 4/7/2024 at 12:48 PM, CoolNebraskaGuy said:

One-child policy - Wikipedia

 

@Afterglow since you seem to be confused

 

On 4/8/2024 at 1:43 AM, 1000 forms of queer said:

So you want humanity to cease to exist? 
 

I think there's a significant misunderstanding regarding our discussion here. The topic title isn't 'Should we stop procreating?' but rather centers on the moral considerations of procreation in today's context compared to alternatives like adoption or choosing not to have children at all. These discussions delve into ethical principles rather than solely focusing on practical outcomes.

 

For instance, we can acknowledge that consuming meat is ethically problematic due to its impact on vulnerable animals, or that using airplanes, cars, and smartphones contributes to environmental pollution, which is also considered unethical. However, despite this awareness, we often continue these practices, knowing they have negative consequences for the world.

 

The same applies to the procreation debate: individuals may still choose to have children, even while recognizing the moral complexities of bringing a child into a world grappling with pollution, overpopulation, and widening economic disparities. It's a nuanced discussion that balances personal choices with broader ethical considerations, acknowledging that despite our awareness, certain actions may continue despite their moral ambiguity.

[Strawberry Bubble]

On 4/7/2024 at 10:00 AM, Nashe said:

stay out of straight people's business

 

On 4/7/2024 at 10:37 AM, barbiegrande said:

Gay men are so  

 

 

Unless you grew a uterus is your booty, shut up. Women can have as many or as little children as they please.

 

Okay, let's clarify something important: we shouldn't assume anyone's sexuality solely based on whether they're active on a particular platform like ATRL. Our community includes bisexual and pansexual individuals, and many can make choices about having children, regardless of their sexual orientation, including gay individuals.

 

However, a very common way to discriminate lgbt people is to ask them to "stay out of straight people's business": issues arises when LGBT individuals are told to stay out of discussions about the future, as if they don't have a stake in shaping the world their children will inherit. It's a form of discrimination to silence their voices on matters that directly impact their lives and the lives of future generations.

 

As some have pointed out, gay individuals can have biological children through methods like in vitro fertilization or choose adoption, just like anyone else. This conversation is crucial, and we can't censor people just because they say things that make us uncomfortable. 

[Nashe]

15 hours ago, Strawberry Bubble said:

 

 

Okay, let's clarify something important: we shouldn't assume anyone's sexuality solely based on whether they're active on a particular platform like ATRL. Our community includes bisexual and pansexual individuals, and many can make choices about having children, regardless of their sexual orientation, including gay individuals.

 

However, a very common way to discriminate lgbt people is to ask them to "stay out of straight people's business": issues arises when LGBT individuals are told to stay out of discussions about the future, as if they don't have a stake in shaping the world their children will inherit. It's a form of discrimination to silence their voices on matters that directly impact their lives and the lives of future generations.

 

As some have pointed out, gay individuals can have biological children through methods like in vitro fertilization or choose adoption, just like anyone else. This conversation is crucial, and we can't censor people just because they say things that make us uncomfortable. 

girl, this whole essay on a joke. take 5 pls

[Strawberry Bubble]

1 hour ago, Nashe said:

girl, this whole essay on a joke. take 5 pls

I needed to answer it, because some people would take it as a serious comment

[Twixters]

I mean people had kids during the dark ages, slavery and all sorts of atrocities. So today is much better.