pull down to refresh
284 sats \ 22 replies \ @Undisciplined 20h \ on: Is choosing not to have kids the most ethical act today? AskSN
Almost no one wishes they didn't exist. Antinatalism is ridiculous.
The strongest correlation in economic history is that more people = more prosperity.
Africa (the continent) has a way higher Birth Rate. Way higher than Japan, South Korea, or even the United States...
But it is not more prosperous quite the contrary actually
reply
True, and?
Africa is also more prosperous than it was when there were fewer Africans.
reply
Undisc bringing the heat. No mercy, bitches
reply
I think we're talking past each other.
Countries that focus on economic development and education recognize... that it's hard to educate well very large populations.
Japan is a perfect example of this.
Asian families tend to have fewer children and educate/raise them very carefully. The people are very well educated - quality over quantity.
African societies are the exact opposite. Education and economic development take a huge backseat... and they have "lots of children." but when there's no education, no infrastructure and no government what difference does it make?
You have millions of poor people and in the worst cases starving people with awful outcomes.
Somalia, South Sudan, Niger, the Congo are all examples are this.
reply
you're missing the point, I believe.
Looking not at a snapshot in time but over decades/generations, every country has lower fertility -- Africa is just lagging. While African women today have more kids than any other place, the observation/correlation that their nations are the poorest is immaterial... every country has made that economic journey from: high births, high mortality, low econ development, to low births, low mortality, high econ development.
I don't see what's gained by pointing to Africa being behind on that curve
reply
I understand what you're saying, but by that logic...
If higher birth rates means greater economic development, isn't the solution then for Europe and the US to have large amount of immigration from higher-birthrate continents?
For Europe the African continent, lots of immigration, and for the US, immigration from Central and South America?
I think we're... missing the point. Africa the continent unfortunately is not what i would consider prosperous
reply
I didn't say it was, but the Malthusians and their heirs would expect a poor place to be poorer with more people and the opposite is true.
That was my point, so I don't think I'm missing it.
reply
Almost no one wishes they didn't exist.
But what about those struggling with suicidal thoughts? Don’t they often wish they didn’t exist? Over 700k people die by suicide every year around the globe. What about people in extreme financial conditions, or those suffering from chronic diseases, disabilities, or unrelenting pain? For many, the desire to escape their circumstances can make life feel unbearable. The argument for antinatalism isn't about denying the potential for happiness or prosperity, but recognizing the real and devastating suffering that can accompany existence.
more people = more prosperity
While it's true that more people can contribute to economic growth, this doesn't seem enough to justify bringing more suffering into the world.
reply
What you're saying just doesn't support the antinatalist position. Again, the vast majority of people are glad they exist. That means the expected value of creating a new person is that it will be a person who's glad to be alive. Choosing not to have kids is depriving someone of life they would have valued.
Further, even people who go through suicidal periods are not suicidal all the time. So, even the population you're pointing to spend large portions of their lives preferring to be alive.
To choose non-life for someone who would prefer life, because you don't like that they might experience suffering is extremely disrespectful. People can persevere through a lot and don't wish they had died during their periods of hardship.
reply
Interesting points. But I can't shake the feeling that:
Choosing not to have kids is depriving someone of life they would have valued
Can be valid for the other side as well. The antinatalist argument believes that there is more suffering than pleasure/non-suffering. ‘Choosing TO have kids is condemning someone to a life they would probably hate.’ And (just guessing) that’s probably true, especially if you’re born in a shitty country like India, Libya, or in a favela in the northeast of Brazil. I dunno, dude. I need to read more and live more to get to a good answer.
reply
Yes, both can be true, but why err on the side of the (far) less likely outcome?
there is more suffering than pleasure/non-suffering
In what way can this claim possibly be evaluated? Revealed preference (almost everyone continues to choose living) is the only evidence we have and it's extremely against your assertion.
Even people born into situations that you deem undesirable generally prefer to be alive. Who are you to decide for people that their lives aren't worth living? This seems unbelievably arrogant and entitled.
reply
reply
That's really the final nail in the argument.
reply
reply
I thought it would be in poor taste.
reply