The_Face_of_Boo wrote:
kraftiekortie wrote:
We weren’t talking about neutering pets.
Somebody mentioned something about preventing pregnancy in people because of this “cruel world.” I said, sometimes, that parents could offset the effects of the “cruel world” by nurturing kids.
This ideology is called antinatalism.
I an not anti natalist, but I don’t want kids because I think it’s too late anyway.
I am...
And proud of it.
Quote:
David Benatar may be the world’s most pessimistic philosopher. An “anti-natalist,” he believes that life is so bad, so painful, that human beings should stop having children for reasons of compassion. “While good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place,” he writes, in a 2006 book called “Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence.” In Benatar’s view, reproducing is intrinsically cruel and irresponsible—not just because a horrible fate can befall anyone, but because life itself is “permeated by badness.” In part for this reason, he thinks that the world would be a better place if sentient life disappeared altogether.
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/perso ... being-bornLeave life to single-cell organisms, I say.
But make sure they are neutered also, so they don't develop into more complex life forms.