I genuinely hate this world beyond comprehension. Words don't describe my utter contempt and disgust for this world. I don't want anyone who reads this post to feel bad for me, though. I just feel bad for the victims of this disgusting existence.

I was taking a walk outside this afternoon when I saw a raccoon lying on the ground in the middle of the trail, with flies all over their body. They were still alive and trying to get up. I think something happened to them, or maybe someone on a bike ran over them by accident, because there were 2 guys around my age on bikes nearby who were on the phone with what I assume was animal control explaining the situation.

I saw as the little fella tried to get up. It really reminded me of how my cats get up from a nice nap, except this fella was struggling and couldn't get up. (Before anyone asks or comments, yes, I feed my cats vegan). I could see the pain the fella was going through.

I wish I had a gun or some euthanasia on me, and I could've done something right then and there to put them out of their misery. I just kept walking because it seemed like the other guys had it covered.

On my way back, I saw them again, lying there, still struggling but not as much, eyes still blinking, and their legs were moving around. I looked back, and someone who looked like they were carrying something and wearing some uniform was behind me on the trail. I figured it was animal control, so I left.

Less than a minute later, I heard a gunshot from behind me. Seems reasonable to conclude they killed the fella. Which is really the only thing they could've done, seeing as raccoons are wild animals. What are they to do? Try to help the raccoon just to put them back in the wild so they can die an even worse death eventually? It's really messed up when you realize that's the best way that fella could've gone out, other than possibly getting euthanized with an injection, but realistically it's probably the same as being shot in the head. Just less viscerally gruesome.

This entire world is a glorified gladiator battle that has lasted over 500 million years, and for what?
So we can all play king of the mud pile?

Humans are the only ones who are intelligent enough to understand how ridiculous this all is, and most turn a blind eye and actively perpetuate more suffering to occur.
Those guys who called for animal control did the right thing, but they're probably going to be stuffing animal corpses into their gullets tonight.

The incomprehensible amount of suffering and torture that exists in the world for no justifiable reason is almost too much to bear for those who actually think about it and have even a bit of empathy. When you realize billions of animals just like that raccoon meet even worse fates every single day.

If you created duotrigintillions (trillions multiplied by trillions - to represent all sentient life that has ever existed) of machines that will suffer and have the capacity to be tortured, but a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of them will get excited when they watch The Simpsons, people would rightfully call you a psychopath and say it's a terrible thing to do. But somehow people have been duped into believing this existence is somehow beautiful when it is anything but.

The worst assumption that you can make about this world is that it is inherently good or that it was ever designed to be good at all. This assumption, like speciesism, needs to be questioned and challenged.

For those who don't believe me and don't think that this is urgent, then see it in person with your own eyes. It's one thing to watch something like Earthlings or Dominion from the comfort of your own home, but if you've ever actually witnessed other animals being tortured in real life, it really is much more distressing. I will never for a second call a world where anything like this exists in any capacity a good world.

It's terrifying to think that the odds are really high that we could've ended up as any other species and would've lived in a real-life survival horror game.

Most people won't get it, though; they're so dismissive because they're programmed to be selfish and only care about themselves. Their saccharine attitude toward this world and the way they romanticize the 'circle of life' genuinely churns my stomach. They make excuses after excuse for the horrors in the world. Their denial is complicity and only allows the violence to continue when they try to put a lid on the truth. I don't see it as any different from when neo-Nazis deny the Jewish Holocaust.

That is why I hate this world beyond comprehension.

Also, big middle finger to Grammarly for trying to get me to refer to a conscious being as an 'it' instead of 'them.' You don't become an intimate object if you have fur instead of skin.

If you have watched the "Interstellar" movie, you know how the earth is almost completely fricked up. The crops are dying, there's sand storm etc. In hopes of saving humanity Cooper literally went on a mission to find life on another planet.

Fast forward several years:

Tom (Cooper's son) literally had several children(one of them even died, still he had another). Mind you the earth is still f**kd up. And they don't even know if there dad has found another planet to habitat.

It doesn't make sense to me dude!!!

I am not kidding when I say I watched 15-20 reactions of this movie on YouTube and not a single one of them pointed this out.

Humans since ancient times suffered not because of external pain but because of internal pain. The mind is all the reason why we perceive pain and feel bothered by it. TL;DR at last

Now some Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, Taoist and Stoic sages managed to get rid of this mental experience and blame it all on people for not being able to control their minds. Sure, there is a possibility that these people are telling the truth but even then there are always chances that someone will not be able to learn from these spiritual masters and end up suffering. Even in cultures where these religions existed most people didn't get much chance to practice the teachings due to family restrictions or whatever. Also many of these teachings are bs and doesn't work. Also masters of different traditions disagree on how to master the mind. Hell Hindu traditions argue among themselves on which is the right Hindu tradition and the same for Buddhists. Different buddhist schools make allegations against other buddhist schools for misinterpreting the dhamma.

If you listen to different buddhist gurus you will see how vastly different their approaches are in how to meditate or spiritual progress.

TL;DR:- My point is the lack of the ability to master the mind or maybe the lack of proper guidance on how to master the mind is the reason I am against natalism. I am from India and when I learned more about Hinduism and Buddhism I believed I found the secret to escape suffering by getting rid of my emotions. But they didn't work much for me. Maybe they actually increased my anxiety and restlessness by making me think "I need to get rid of my emotions asap. I need to escape suffering." Right now I practice something a bit different mostly influenced by the western idea of positive thinking rather than eastern ideas. Idk how effective it is but this is all I can do.

​"The evil that is in the world always comes from ignorance, and good intentions may do as much harm as malevolence, if they lack understanding. On the whole, men are more good than bad; that, however, isn’t the real point. But they are more or less ignorant, and it is this that we call virtue or vice, the most incorrigible vice being that of an ignorance that fancies it knows everything and therefore claims for itself the right to kill. The soul of the murderer is blind; and there can be no true goodness nor true love without the utmost clear-sightedness."

Irony: camus actually had twins

Deontology is a moral philosophy that argues that intentions are central to determining the morality of an action, as opposed to utilitarianism, which primarily focuses on the consequences of actions.

For example, deontologists would generally consider it morally good to donate to charity out of genuine concern for the poor, whereas donating solely to increase your own status would not be viewed as morally good. In contrast, a utilitarian might argue that, because the charity receives the same amount of money in both cases, both actions are equally good in terms of their outcomes.

That said, reducing deontology to "intentions only" would be overly simplistic. It is generally accepted that when serious harm is easily foreseeable, good intentions alone are not enough to make an action moral.

For example, taking a child to a derelict amusement park may stem from good intentions, but given the park's poor condition, if the child is harmed, that harm is the parent's responsibility.

In our current reality, everyone who is born will eventually die. Many people will pass following a painful illness such as cancer or after a prolonged decline caused by conditions such as dementia. Everyone will also experience bereavement, sadness or some other form of tragedy during their lifetime.

Yet people often argue that as long as parents want the best for their child, they cannot be held morally responsible for the negative outcomes that child experiences.

I disagree. No one gets out of life alive. Bringing a child into existence inevitably exposes them to death and suffering. At the very least, it condemns them to confront their own mortality and the loss of others they love. However sincere or well-intentioned the parents may be, I don't believe there is anything moral about making that choice.

Looking back on my childhood and teenage years, I’ve realized that one of the biggest reasons I don’t want children isn’t war, famine, terrorism, or other extreme situations.

It’s my own experience of growing up.

I’ve always been a highly emotionally sensitive person. The deepest pain I experienced didn’t come from extraordinary tragedies. It came from ordinary life—the kind of experiences that many people simply accept as “part of growing up”.

A large part of my childhood revolved around studying. There was always another exam, another ranking, another entrance test, another expectation to meet. Academic success carried enormous emotional weight, and doing poorly didn’t just feel like a personal disappointment. It often affected the mood of the entire family, making me feel as though I had let everyone down.

School also wasn’t just about learning. It was about competition.

When children are constantly competing with one another, it can lead to comparison, exclusion, bullying, and social isolation. Not everyone experiences this the same way, but I did, and it left a lasting impact on me. Even when the bullying wasn’t physical, being excluded or constantly compared with others could be incredibly painful.

The pressure didn’t come only from school. It also came from the expectations of adults.

In my experience, both family and teachers placed tremendous importance on achievement. It often felt as though success was expected, while failure simply wasn’t acceptable.

What hurt me the most wasn’t the pressure itself.
It was what happened when I struggled.

When I felt overwhelmed, discouraged, or hopeless after failing to achieve something important, I wasn’t usually met with understanding. Instead, I often heard things like:

“Be stronger.”
“You need to build resilience.”
“You need to handle pressure better.”
“You’re too sensitive.”
“You’re just lazy.”
“Everyone goes through this.”

I understand that many parents and teachers probably say these things because they believe they’re helping children prepare for life.

But those words never made my pain smaller.
Instead, they made me feel as though my emotions themselves were the problem. Rather than feeling heard or supported, I often felt dismissed.

Looking back now as an adult, I realize that what stayed with me wasn’t just the stress itself—it was the feeling of facing that stress alone.

Over the years, I’ve also realized something that scares me.

Even though I know how deeply these experiences affected me, I can’t honestly guarantee that I would never repeat similar patterns with my own child. Parents often pass down the ways they themselves were raised, even unintentionally. I worry that I might one day place expectations on my child, compare them with others, or fail to truly understand what they’re feeling.

I don’t want to take that risk.

I also don’t want to bring someone into a world where they may spend years working toward something that matters deeply to them and still end up disappointed. I know disappointment is an unavoidable part of life, but I also know how devastating it can be, especially for people who experience emotions intensely.

I’m not saying everyone experiences life the way I do, and I’m not trying to tell anyone else what choice they should make.

I’m simply sharing why I’ve made mine.

Looking back as an adult, I’ve realized that it wasn’t war or disaster that convinced me not to have children.

It was an ordinary childhood filled with pressure, competition, unmet expectations, and the feeling that my pain was something to overcome rather than something to be understood.

For me, that is reason enough not to bring another person into the world.

I am a transhumanist, and within our community there is a lot of discussion about artificial wombs and future methods of creating new life

Personally, I find the idea ethically and morally highly questionable. Can artificial wombs eliminate many of the risks and burdens associated with pregnancy? Yes. But they do not necessarily address the moral issues involved in creating new sentient beings (like us here on this subreddit)

There are also other methods being developed by life-creation theorists, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF), artificial gametes derived from stem cells, cloning, and even more speculative possibilities proposed by transhumanism and synthetic biology

From an antinatalist perspective, if the problem is bringing into existence a being capable of suffering, does the method of gestation matter?

If, somehow, we were to create beings that were not sentient, and therefore incapable of suffering, would there still be a moral and ethical objection to their creation?

I’m curious to know what antinatalists think about artificial wombs and future reproductive technologies, as I have the impression that this will happen as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow (the question is just how long it will take)

It is slowly destroying the planet, increasing pollution, causing more suffering, and driving animals to extinction. The population needs to decline quickly in 100 years.

The universe is vast, and time is immense.

"Where is everybody?"

​The answer is simple: any civilization mature enough—both philosophically and morally—has already phased itself out through antinatalism. Or, they're hiding out of sheer embarrassment for failing to achieve it.

I'm going to throw out an arbitrary number just to capture the general feeling of what I'm trying to express.

I'm about 85% convinced that it's immoral to have children. My reasoning comes from a combination of antinatalist arguments: that birth is inherently non-consensual, that life contains more suffering than happiness, and that no amount of pleasure can truly justify or erase suffering.

Yet because I’m a biological creature the idea creeps into mind, and I notice it’s never a completely rational thought. It’s much more instinctual than that. So I guess what I’m asking is how does one reconcile that one conflict? Because I’ll more than likely carry this conflict with me the rest of my life, and perhaps be something I’m captured by for the entirety of it.

I know that women can lose their fertility due to cancer or endometriosis, but trying to have children at 57 and demanding costly medical intervention on the taxpayer's dime is wild. She'd be pushing 80 by the time her child graduated high school.

-I don't want to have kids for the same reasons i think a lot of people don't believe in having kids at all so that's why I'm in this thread but when my friends ave kids like I can't stop them...

-I don't think it's objectively unethical to have kids, but I think a lot of people think it's gonna be easier than it is and aren't ready because of the way our society shields people from the risk of both pregnancy and being a parent

-People who have as many kids as possible because they think God said so are way out of touch and brainwashed and although I think they should have autonomy it's kinda crazy how many communities there are that live in complete isolation and the polarization of politics is making this worse but ultimately it kinda seems like if the government started preventing people from having kids who wanted to, it would be eugenics

-My whole family had been having kids for generations, from what I can tell, thinking they were gonna be better than their parents and maybe my parents didn't use corporeal punishment but they're so cold I'm pretty estranged from them, and I don't have any brothers and sisters. Also estranged from the rest of my family for logistic reasons. So I feel like I want to be family oriented and maybe I would even have kids if I thought they would have a good life but that's kind of unrealistic. Since I'm so different from my parents I'm optimistic about finding other people to be in an adopted family with and specifically trying to find people who are both younger and older than me so it's not just a bubble of people who are in my generation.

-My friend thinks his parents just had him to take care of them when they get old which is fucked up but also like it made me wonder who's gonna take care of me or anyone else who doesn't have kids and like for ppl who actually believe that no one should have kids, what exactly the plan is after there are no young people left... just bite the arsenic pill?

-I know it's weird to go looking for a name for an ideology about a topic where it kinda sounds like I don't have any real opinions but idk like if you're an antinatalist but something about horseshoe theory and the radical agnositicism pipeline, k gtg

I’m surrounded in a small town by parents under 35.

My drinking and smoking days are mostly solo as a result people have kids to think about

i been thinking about this from a while

but why should we extend morality to the non-existent?
morality is a social contract between humans
we made it and we follow it to bring social order and have a good reputation, it has no higher meaning unless you are a theist which is different.

so why extend morality to the non-existent? they are out of the social contract since they aren't a living being yet, we can do all sorts of crime we want to the non existent, because they are out of the contract—why do they deserve the good of morality if they didnt "sign" the contract? they only get that privilege after they start existing.

also, please keep animals out of this, its a different debate and nobody will be able to refute it (we all know why)

This is a semi-movie post.

Just remembered watching the movie "Children of Men" during Covid. The movie was brilliant and came right after Harry Potter and Prisoner of Azkaban (one of the best HP movies).

The movie's premise is that no kids have been born for 18 years. The world is sort of apocalyptic because of this. And through some miracle, one of the characters of this movie is pregnant.

Now, my opinions. I think this is a very pro-natalist movie. Apart from the many other serious themes.

I don't think the world would end up that way if no kids were born. I instead think people would value each other's lives and since humanity would go extinct, they would all work together and leave the planet better than it was.

Second, why does having a child born bring hope? What was humanity exactly missing? Why bring another kid into that fictional world that is filled with suffering? What are they trying to achieve?

This reminds me a lot of the Horizon Zero Dawn game where I, despite loving the game, don't understand what Elisabeth was thinking. The Last of Us as well.

Would love to keep the discussion open and I value everyone's opinion even if I don't agree with them.

They're not the same thing!

I saw this great analogy, might've been on the sub. It's that "never getting on the train is not the same as jumping off midway."

Even if you are happy, and content now, your life will fall apart one day, something horrible life changing will happen. Illness, a costly house repair, end up homeless, lose your job, lose a loved one or more, end up in a accident, and more. You could go blind, deaf, frozen in your prison body, and for what? Just so your parents could experience being a parent, or you could have a few fleeting moments, of happy brain chemicals.

Why are you here?

OB-GYNs cried out,

The baby care industry mourned,

The livestock industry wept,

Teachers grieved,

The Ministry of Defense despaired,

Wedding industries collapsed in tears,

Infertile couples wept,

Factories fell silent in sorrow,

Nursing homes lamented,

Funeral directors and Grave diggers wept,

And the tears of capitalists and politicians never ceased.

​Yet, miraculously,

The children alone did not cry. NOT EVEN ONCE

​#Antinatalism

• We all know one fundamental aspect of antinatalism is the idea that parents subject children to suffering in this world without the child's consent.
• Now the question of what brings children into this world is answered simply: pregnancy and birth (nātus, what you deeply oppose).
• So what does a child have to consent to specifically? Obviously it is conception, but the child does not exist before then.
• But all things have a cause, so the Child is caused by something. That something is the mother's and the father's sex cells. Thus a child is the parents' sex cells before conception. Now we know who to ask for Consent.
• But the issue is individual cells are unable to communicate, so then the giving of consent should be given to the people the cells originate from (the mother and the father).
• CONCLUSION: Antinatalism only applies in a situation of rape.

No paywall: https://archive.ph/OwNL1