File: monkey saves girl.jpg (43 KB, 480x477)

43 KB JPG

Like atheism, antinatalism is motivated more by a kind of "REE FUCKING NORMIES" attitude rather than any coherent intellectual underpinnings. Someone who says "there's no proof of god" generally leaves it at that, they don't spend hours ranting about it on r*ddit, similar to you who says "I don't want kids".

>maybe change my mind
Antinatalists will argue "but the child will eventually suffer and die", but surely there is more to life than cowering in fear of pain, that pretty much settles the debate unless you are some deranged r*ddit troon. However reproducing is not always a good thing.

Germany in the 1930s had a concept called lebensunwertes leben, life unworthy of life. When you look at say India where half the prostitutes are children, most girls experience incest growing up, the low trust communities where street food has zero hygiene, people scam each other constantly, drop trash where their stand and sometimes even take a shit whenever they feel like it and live in awful conditions despite possessing modern material abundance we are clearly looking at a nightmare, a mistake.

The British should have maintained control over their colonies by any means necessary, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, just totally crush all resistance and make it clear colonialism is a permanent feature of our world. They should have then begun sterilization campaigns, which India in fact did itself after independence, such was the pressing and urgent need to do so. It seems a tiny sliver of their population accomplishes high intelligence due to freak mutation and foreign admixture.

This population control and eugenics would have been objectively for the greater good. However total annihilation of all conscious life is just a ridiculous hyperbole from atheist nihilist r*dditors trying to be what I call "safe-edgy". If you really want to be edgy, just tell people the truth without profanity and if they spit in your face you have succeeded.

>>18444285
In my opinion, you have to have an optimistic point-of-view to be a natalist. Additionally, you have to be someone who is thankful for what you have been given in life. If you hate the world and your lot in life, you won't want to have children. These things typically do not do well in the 'algorithm', so antinatalist views tend to be pushed more online. Additionally, antinatalist thought is typically tied more to consumerist culture, leading to it being the more "trendy" viewpoint.

I would say the arguments for natalism are:
>leaving a lasting legacy via genetics or name
>a sense of duty either to the world, society, nation, or family to help keep things "afloat"
>the idea that the world is getting better and better, and having kids will help preserve that instead of upending social order
>seeing having kids as an innate, natural desire and the ultimate goal of life
>a desire to act as a guiding figure to a being that will be massively influenced by you
>religious reasons ("go forth and multiply")

>>18444285
natalism and antinatalism are both retarded. have kids or don't. who cares, neither option is morally superior

also the bulk of antinatalism is literally just "i hate my life and wish i wasn't born, and i cannot comprehend that other people's lives aren't pure suffering - therefore, you shouldn't have kids, because you're just bringing them here to suffer"

>>18444304
I would also add that Elon Musk, in my opinion, seems to lean towards this idea of pushing humanity to its breaking point to prompt technological development or scientific breakthrough. If people become anti-natalist, populations will stagnate, and we will be left in a stagnating technological and scientific landscape as many will see what we have now as "good enough". With stagnation comes deterioration over time.

Natalism is good for the world, ironically all you have to do is look at history, the more people there has been, or the more people didn't die, the more technology progress.
If all people in the 1800 suddenly decided to become anti natalist, we probably wouldn't have the train, or aeroplane or computers.

>>18444299
You complain about people posting arguments for antinatalism online then went on for 4 paragraphs describing arguments for antinatalism online. Okay?
You went to /r/antinatalism and got angry because you saw discussion of antinatalism?
Anyway, this thread is aiming to get arguments FOR natalism, not against it. Arguments against natalism are easy to come by and make sense to me, I don't really need to hear more of them until I hear the other side, which for some reason seems to be trying not to make an argument at all.
>>18444304
>Additionally, antinatalist thought is typically tied more to consumerist culture
but natalism leads to more consumption, no? I mean there are entire product lines specifically for babies. The antinatalists are the ones who are (or at least are capable of) saving money here.
>leaving a lasting legacy via genetics or name
Is this honestly something people care about? I'm an immigrant and I live in Belgium with my grilfriend who is from here and has a French last name, if/when we get married I planned to change my last name to hers for optics. As for genetics, I mean, going down that path would imply that absentee fathers who just knock up 30 crackwhores and skip town are some virtue high point. I cant' say I see the value, it's not like anyone in the future will realistically take a DNA test and look me up based on my hypothetical granddaughter or whatever. You'd be leaving more of a real legacy by participating in some kind of project, like a work of art of an open source whatever. Anything really, a wikipedia article even.
>a sense of duty either to the world, society, nation, or family to help keep things "afloat"
This would only make sense to me if humanity would legitemately be at the brink of extinction, you can't really argue that's the case in any way where more kids would solve the problem, it's not like they will disarm nukes.
>the idea that the world is getting better and better
cont

r/antinatalism will never argue for birth reduction in Africa and Asia, only when talking about White people. Jewish trick simple as.

>>18444285
Natalist theory does not exist. Not because the position is inherently flawed or anything; it's just the universal implicit default belief. It has never had to actually defend itself on an even playing field. I guess the closest approximation would maybe be Quiverful literature? Or maybe polemics against anti-natalism, but they really aren't so much arguments for natalism as they are attacks on anti-natalism with the expectation that the audience will just default back to natalism.
It's just such a widely accepted idea that even asking for an argument will get you looked at like a lunatic.
I'm not saying there aren't arguments for natalism. But I don't think anyone has ever actually sat down and penned a reason for why one should have children, why it's a good thing.

>>18444304
>the idea that the world is getting better and better
difficult to argue for given what's been going on recently, but if you were to believe that, then you would also have to believe that declining birthrates are a part of that process
>seeing having kids as an innate, natural desire and the ultimate goal of life
difficult to actually justify philosopically
>a desire to act as a guiding figure to a being that will be massively influenced by you
this one is prominent enough that antinatalists constantly attack it, and as they will point out, this seems sociopathic and akin to grooming. I tend to agree but probably won't word the counterargument correctly.
>religious reasons ("go forth and multiply")
difficult to argue for ESPECIALLY if you actually read the bible (new testiment, both Jesus and especially St. Paul argue heavly for celibacy. If you're a jew you can probably still use this one but you'd have to argue for judaism, dunno how you'd do that one

No offense but yeah these are probably THE arguments, but.. these are the arguments that I GUESS they would have as I am actually looking for them, I don't see natalists actually making these points directly, I just have to infer them like i'm in a debate club and am trying to come up with anything.
>>18444309
>have kids or don't. who cares, neither option is morally superior
How can you be so sure of this?

>>18444311
>we should make the world so shit that people are incredibly desperate to leave and colonise rocks outside of our planet in an attempt to escape the shithole we've created
that's... an interesting position...
>With stagnation comes deterioration over time.
any reason as to why we should believe this? I mean if we really were in some utopia where every need was provided for us, i think it'd be pretty sweat and we could focus on philosophy and projects that focus on long term stability, no?
>>18444315
scientific progress was massively sped up by the printing press and the enlightment though

>>18444315
any reason to assume scientific progress is actually directly tied to population increase and not better education, ways for information to travel and so on? I mean let's say you can snap your fingers and 10 million illiterates materialise across Eurasia, how does that help scientific progress?

>>18444320
find me one post on that subreddit where they actually say anything close to "natalism is bad but only for europe"
protip: you can't

>>18444339
Well someone must build the materals, do you think geniuses work alone?
There's probably illiterates working in one of the giant companies right now, making menial essential jobs.

>>18444321
If someone thinks I'm wrong please correct me.

I guess there's this newfangled "Pro-natalist" movement. But I haven't seen them actually justify why children are good, either (aside from practical considerations, but those don't count). They're just harping on about the birthrate and what not.

File: cat apu pet.jpg (58 KB, 828x840)

58 KB JPG

>>18444321
I understand how this would be the case on reddit and forums in general, but I find it hard to believe no philosopher has actually bothered to sit down and write argumentation for the practice, if only just as an exercise.
>>18444344
I don't know of any country that currently has a 0% unemployment rate (other than the vatican maybe).
An increase in population has yet to be shown (by you) to be directly tied to better scientific output. Most of the science done in important fields like medicine is being done in Europe and North America. If 200 million people appeared suddenly, that would probably cause more problems for the country than it would solve. Those people need to be provided for, housed, fed and so on, that money has to come from somewhere, if it's coming from scientific reaserch funding, that would be a decrease of scientific output. Only if those people are properly cared for, educated and so on can they be put to work in any meaningfully positive capacity. (and no, "no welfare" doesn't solve the problem, since you would then have a bunch of people living in slums commitin crime and you have to spend more on police and prisons instead)
It's obvious to me that more people does not always equal a more productive society. You can easly imagine a society where ALL the jobs are taken, any more people than that would just be a loss of output, not gain.

>>18444354
Well I did search further. And I found this. She's a light anti-natalist, though.
https://old.reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/7fw5jr/i_am_rivka_weinberg_philosopher_and_author_of_the/
In chapter 4 of her book she apparently presents some arguments for Natalism.

You know you won't have a chance at having kids so you cope

Anti-natalism is just long-form collective suicide. It's not a serious outlook, it's a cope for depressed people with a nihilistic attitude. It doesn't make sense as an actual philosophy at any scale. If all of humanity adopted anti-natalism, the species goes extinct, making every human enterprise totally pointless. And if anti-natalism isn't universal, then all you're doing is removing your own genetic imprint from humanity. Perhaps because you feel that the world is better off without you, or anyone descended from you who might have inherited your (many) deficiencies. It doesn't matter at all to the rest of humanity who will keep on having children. Eventually, the anti-natalists die off to no real effect on society. It is the most pointless fake ideology I've ever heard of.

And it is ultimately rooted in suicidal urges. Every single anti-natalist I've spoken to is unable to adequately explain why they don't commit suicide. It's just endless excuses about how dying would be "more traumatic" than being alive, which just gives away the lie of their entire belief system.

>>18444354
If you don't have children then humans cease to exist. It's not something you can claim to be universally true unless you are arguing that humanity should go extinct, in which case nobody will listen to you because you're clearly just suicidal and projecting your desire for death onto every single human being.

>another antinatalist thread
Not wanting kids doesn't make you an antinatalist. Antinatalist not only don't want kids they also feverently preach how if you do have kids you are 100% evil because all life is bad. Period. The easily refute to any of their arguments is simply, if life bad why not kill yourself?

>>18444340
How about you go back and stay there.

>>18444417
>If you don't have children then humans cease to exist.
factually incorrect

>>18444424
Oh I am sorry, didn't know humans can now reproduce through mitosis.

>>18444285
>Raising children takes time and effort, you have a limited time in your life so you'd probably rather spend it on something else - that's just one but I find it pretty appealing and reasonable
That is only justifiable if you are selfish

>>18444429
It's not as though if I specifically don't reproduce then that will in any way lead to extinction.
99% of humans could castrate themselves and the species will be just fine, the world population not too long ago was in the millions and it's not as though anyone was actually worried about extinction back then

>>18444435
how is looking out for yourself "selfish"? it's not as though you're harming anyone else. this is like saying if you have a thorn in your finger, it'd be selfish to pull it out.
>>18444423
>>18444421
>>18444412
>>18444371
the case for natalism seems to be entirely just insults and peer pressure

>>18444440
So if life is bad why not kill yourself?

>>18444437
What would happen if 100% of the population castrated themselves?

>>18444452
Back to >>>/int/ nobody can read your retarded runes snownigger

>>18444444
1)how is this an argument for natalism?
2)there are people who have killed themselves, obviously, they just can't respond to you because they're dead. what's your point?
humans are hardwired to not want to die, but this does not have to match with your concious experience or philosophical position. there are plenty of people around who want to kill themselves but can't bring themselves to because it's scary on a primal level, that isn't in any way an argument against their decision or the philosophical reasoning behind it.
and most cruicially: you have yet to establish any link between anti-natalism and suicide? BY FAR the most common argument against having a child is that it's a waste of your limited time on earth, that you should use the time you are given on enjoying life instead of raising a child and making money for that child. How is that not, in fact, life-affirming?
>>18444448
humanity would end, yes, but it's not as though that would ever happen. People have children ON ACCIDENT, even if everyone on earth made the concious decision to avoid having kids, there would still be PLENTY for several generations.
There is 0 reason to universalise this. If everyone was a baker, people would starve because there would be no grain farmers, society would collapse and humanity would go extinct. Does that make it wrong to become a baker?

>>18444448
okay if everyone castrated themselves humanity would end.
now you have to
1) explain why that would be bad
2) explain how this makes one person castrating themselves bad

>>18444333
>>18444317
>I'm an immigrant and I live in Belgium
kek. Please don't have kids and when you do get the urge, go back to your homeland and find someone of your kind. No wonder you are lost. Let your "girlfriend" find someone who does want kids
>difficult to argue for given what's been going on recently
nigger we had an upwards trend for the last 500 years and have been stagnating a little since covid. This alone proves that your perspective is extremely pessimistic.

>>18444494
>kek. Please don't have kids
okay so suddenly you're anti-natalist?
you don't even know where i'm from retard

Me not having children is a public service.

>>18444464
>explain why that would be bad
Because life is inherently good
>one person
Absolutely nothing. Again nothing is wrong with being celibate. But to say someone is evil for having kids is what I have a problem with.

>>18444508
Probably true for most of you retarded spergs on this board. Not true for me though.

>>18444550
Why are leftists so obsessed with chopping off weiners? They don't just want to castrate their enemies, which is insane but has some logic to it, but they also wish to castrate themselves, they don't want to have penises either and they love transwomen.

>>18444550
>Because life is inherently good
Tell that to people like this >>18440584

>>18444572
that thread was already debunked >>18443057

>>18444444
>if life is bad why not kill yourself?
Just as you don't choose to be born, you also don't choose to have a self-preservation instinct.

>>18444573
"God working in mysterious ways" doesn't make his life good THOUGH.

>>18444572
What about them?

>>18444315
South Asia alone disproves this

>>18444575
People kill themselves easily every day. Antinatalists simply wimp out

>>18444572
Is a majority of people suffering from such diseases? Having an exception to the rule doesn't mean 1 example disproves the majority. Now your argument is "because life isn't perfect life isn't worth living" which is just stupid and wrong

>>18444333
>How can you be so sure of this?
convince me otherwise
alarmingly low and alarmingly high birth rates are bad. if you're becoming a minority in your own country, you should have children. if you're in a disgustingly overpopulated country (like India) you should refrain from having children.
neither of the two options are inherently morally correct or incorrect, it depends on your circumstances and where you live.

if you're in a Western nation, where birth rates are generally/relatively healthy to the point where the mainstream argument for (e.g.) antinatalism is "having children = bringing people into a horrible world and forcing them to suffer" i don't think it matters whether or not you have children. people wanting to enjoy their life without being responsible for a child is never going to be a factor in changing a nation's birth rate in any meaningful way, unless hedonism and degeneracy are already a prevalent component of said nation's culture

>>18444456
Natalism doesn't need an argument when antinatalism is so easily refuted by that simple question.
>philosophically
Irrelevant. If you have a belief but do not live by your belief you are a hypocrite and thus your beliefs are not real.

>>18444616
Your claim was "life is inherently good", so yes, that exception does in fact disprove your claim. Cope and seethe.

>>18444633
So because life isn't perfect nobody should have kids? Is stubbing your toe also a deal breaker since that accident still causes suffering?

>>18444299
>most girls experience incest growing up
Well if they weren't so fuckable damn

>>18444333
>difficult to argue for given what's been going on recently, but if you were to believe that, then you would also have to believe that declining birthrates are a part of that process
I believe that declining birthrates can be attributed to a variety of reasons, but quite a few of those reasons are memetic in nature and have no real bearing on quality-of-life getting better or worse.
>difficult to actually justify philosopically
no need to justify philosophically when it's instinctual behavior
>this one is prominent enough that antinatalists constantly attack it, and as they will point out, this seems sociopathic and akin to grooming. I tend to agree but probably won't word the counterargument correctly.
if someone calls raising a child "grooming" then they are completely off the deep end. it's like i said: antinatalists typically have a negative view of the world even beyond just a "I don't want to bring a kid into this world" viewpoint. Being antinatalist leads to viewpoints like yours, where shaping/molding a being's life is akin to sexual assault. what is the intermediate step here that antinatalists are arguing for? that children should be given free reign with no outside influence?
>difficult to argue for ESPECIALLY if you actually read the bible (new testiment, both Jesus and especially St. Paul argue heavly for celibacy. If you're a jew you can probably still use this one but you'd have to argue for judaism, dunno how you'd do that one
I disagree but obviously depends on interpretation and moreso "living religion" as in how religion actually plays out in a community. no one is arguing for celibacy in Alabama

File: IMG_9350.jpg (179 KB, 959x960)

179 KB JPG

>>18444633
life isn't inherently good or inherently bad. i'd say the majority of people would rather live than die, and a substantial amount of people enjoy their lives and glad they were born

i'm sorry your SSRIs aren't working for you but don't try and project your misery onto other people

>>18444606
>People kill themselves easily every day
...because they go through enough suffering to overcome the instinct, neither of which they chose to have.

>>18444647
>no need to justify philosophically when it's instinctual behavior
when you're really angry at someone your instinct is to hurt them, possibly even kill them
when you're really lustful your instinct might be to rape
are you really saying there is no justification needed for these actions?

>>18444654
So antinatalists aren't really suffering or aren't suffering enough making their claims that life is bad wrong

>>18444655
No there isn't inherently. We do it not just because morraly we know rape and murder are wrong but also because we are afraid of the consequences.

>>18444661
If being alive is so great, why does there need to be an anti-suicide buffer built that works by making the process of killing yourself cause extreme amounts of suffering in order to offset anything but complete and utter despair?

>>18444667
>why does there need to be an anti-suicide buffer built that works by making the process of killing yourself cause extreme amounts of suffering in order to offset anything but complete and utter despair?
Proof? Anyone can easily get a gun and blow their head off or find a really high place and jump

>>18444669
>Anyone can easily get a gun
American privilege.
>find a really high place and jump
This immediately triggers massive vertigo and fear, AKA suffering.

>>18444671
>American privilege
Not my problem you live in a shithole. Hell it seems it is even easier to get a gun there.
>massive vertigo and fear
If you aren't willing to go through with it then you obviously aren't suffering enough to justify suicide

>>18444299
>India where half the prostitutes are children
You white losers are truly lying bastards, I will remind you all faggots that according to fbi statistics the race most responsible for pedophile crimes ARE WHITE MEN. Indians don't go around abusing girls, some retards commit those crimes but they are uncommon and because of that they make national news. India is becoming more feminist by the day and has been going that a feminist path for at least 10 years now.

You hate India because you are worthless, whites are nobodies who only sorta rules because you have no souls and love killing unarmed civilians. Fortunately the jews have put you in your place and are finishing you off, meanwhile India keeps on growing and we are now in the top 5 strongest nations on the planet. Our expertise so desired even your most racist administrations in the usa and europe try to hire us non stop and get us to migrate into your soulless cultureless nations.

And I repeat, white men are the most common perpetrators of pedophilia. It is so common that even the fucking white supremacist fbi can't deny it anymore and write it clearly for everyone, whites are responsible for the most cases of pedophilia and zoophilia.

>>18444683
Damn all this seethe. Too bad you are brown and irrelevant

>>18444666
okay so if someone is afraid of the consequences of having a child, then that justifies not having one, right?

>>18444683
>be jeet foid in india
>get raped by jeets
>go to police station to report it
>get raped by the cops there too
lol

>>18444697
Yes. Again simply not wanting kids isn't wrong. But hating on people who do (which a majority of antinatalists do in fact do) is wrong

File: depop.jpg (3.82 MB, 4200x9944)

3.82 MB JPG

>>18444285
too many people
billions must die

>>18444285
Mammals avoid reproduction when they're in captivity or under severe abuse.

File: Lainey Molnar's vital sta(...).png (479 KB, 856x1024)

479 KB PNG

>>18444683
>per capita
brown men are more likely to be pedophiles, particularly in India where pedophilia is acceptable and your god Shiva raped 8 year old Rukmini, it has been ingrained in your culture for millennia and possibly genetic, it is de jure illegal thanks to Indian inheriting its legal codes and police forces from the British, the police intervene when it is particularly embarrassing and foreigners demand action, but concerning the masses it is overlooked

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=number+of+underage+prostitutes+india
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=total+prostitutes+in+india

>PROSTITUTION IN INDIA Prostitution is technically illegal but widely practiced in India. By one count prostitution is an $8 billion a year industry with more two million prostitutes

https://www.indiatoday.in/education-today/news/story/child-prostitution-in-india-awareness-can-help-218632-2013-11-24
>In India nearly 1.2 million sex workers are below the age

it is nearly 80 years after independence and India still has this problem, this is also one element of India's "cultural diversity" western voters are not informed of when told we need more Indian migrants with fake diplomas who will end upworking at ubereats or subway

remember when these were stereotypical jobs for white teenagers? yet it is now a job for grown adult indian men who would probably molest any female teenage coworkers

>>18444638
>schizobabble
Just admit you were wrong. It's not difficult, dumbass.

>>18444653
>life isn't inherently good or inherently bad
That's not what the anon I'm arguing with said. Pull the dildo out of your ass for a second and pay attention.

File: 1763918049213589.webm (1.72 MB, 696x522)

1.72 MB WEBM

+ Elon Musk
+ & humanities

>>18444412
The first thing you learn about anti-natalism is the "Life after being started can be still be worth living but is not worth starting" retort to the retarded suicide comment.
>>18444721
Why?

>>18444757
I mean just answer the question. Why does life have to be perfect?

>>18444915
>but is not worth starting
Completely subjective

>>18445067
They would disagree in a variety of ways. But I'm not an anti-natalist.

>>18444285
my theory is that people who don't want kids simply don't come from loving households. there's no substitute for family, no emotional bond is stronger than that between parent and child. that relationship ends when your parents die, and the only way to experience it again is to have kids of your own

>>18444683
>mad incestuous shitskin noises

>>18444285
Elon was such a good dad his son trooned out

>>18444285
Nobody has kids for logical reasons. Remember the natalist discourse about declining birthrates? No children were born from that. Having children is something anyone who does, does based on feelings. That is how it is.

>>18444315
The roman empire was famously burdened by the grain dole, having a large illiterate population of freemen that, through no fault of their own, were permanently out of a job because of cheaper slave labour and thus had go rely on government handouts. You can't just not feed them because they would understandably turn to crime or riot, so the problem isn't as simple as "welfare bad". A population reduction in the form of declining birthrates would have undoubtedly improved the roman economy and quality of life, leading to more funding being available for things like science and art.
That's one example but with a 6% unemployment rate I fail to see how this isn't similar to what's happening now.

>>18444285
>Redditors
>Normies
Redditors aren't normies. Maybe 15 years ago they were more Normie channers but but not anymore

Redditors are people who have been under socialised throughout childhood and spent their childhood overstimulated by video games and the internet. They were the type of kids at school who would be the school prefect, or the kid who did all his homework, never went out with friends and talk shit about kids who smoked and got drunk because they couldn't understand.
Essentially types of people who can't understand the reason why people do what they do and think everything needs to fit neatly into rational boxes but of course that isn't how humanity works


To your point about natalism, anybody who goes on natalism or antinatalism subreddits are mentally ill - its as simple as that but parents are the bedrock of society, community of each of our lives.

The best argument for natalism is one you'll get from parents.
The best achievement whether the person is a success or a total fuck up, a person will always say the best thing in their life is their kids.
Because kids are essentially pure love. There is no negative to having kids because kids provide something that no hobby, no wealth and no job can.

Diotima's speech in Symposium

>>18444915
>why
Because there is nothing wrong with sharing the gift of life with a new human being. Again life is inherently good. Just because life isn't perfect doesn't make life bad.

>>18445442
All it takes to be a parent is to have unprotected sex once and then carry the baby to term.
>>18445531
Why do you think life is inherently good?

>>18445611
Intuition. I and a majority of people enjoy life and their lives thus life is good.

>>18445649
>I and a majority of people enjoy life
source?

Antinatalism is satanic, Lord have mercy

>>18444285
The problem is that there are no natalist arguments that dont treat having kids as a means to an end rather than an end in themselves.
See: >>18444304 as examples - all of these are positions of inherent selfishness. Having kids out of some moral or cosmic duty is NOT a reason to have kids.
I'd suggest the only real justification is for people to simply own the fact that having a kid is a selfish act. Arugably, it is one of the most selfish acts one can commit. It's an uncomfortable truth, but it is what it is. If you want a kid, have a kid. No one - but a willing partner, really has a say in the matter.

>>18444683
SAAAAR, we do not rape the childrens you britishers do that SAAAR

>>18445649
What makes your intuition trustworthy or correct?
>a majority of people enjoy life and their lives
How would we measure that?
>>18445660
It's because natalism is a universal default and no one has ever had to build a real defense of the concept. Hell, I would bet the vast majority of people who have had kids didn't even think about it before hand. They fucked and then a child popped out.

>>18444285
why is elon posting this when all of his kids hate him

>>18445657
both Jesus AND Saint Paul urged for celibacy (or as Jesus puts it, becoming a eunuch)
Saint Paul in a later letter of his beckrudgingly permits people to marry IF they are so full of lust that this is the only way they think they can abstain from pornea. He then immediately says that, just to be clear, it's best to be like him (celibate).
That's as close as you get to natalism in the new testament, and I struggle to even imagine how from that you can in any way see it as an endorsement of natalism, it's indifference at absolute best.

>>18445657
Sorry but your religion was an apocalyptic doomsday cult that genuinely believed Jesus would return in their lifetimes. Celibacy was encouraged. The religion was co-opted by the state and its apocalyptic elements were scrubbed out. Its adherence to celibacy was also removed for the laity and was transferred to monks and priests.

>>18445692
>>18445650
>how would we measure that
If life was inherently bad and filled with suffering there should be mass suicides daily until nobody is left.

>>18445771
so everyone who says they're unhappy in life is lying and must secretly be happy then?

>>18445790
If they were truely dissatisfied they could leave easily. Them staying alive means they inherently believe their situation will get better.

>>18445795
ok so when someone comes up to you and says they are very unhappy and do not in fact believe things will get better, they're lying to you? every time this happens, they're lying?
understand that you are committing to the complete and utter denial of the fact that there are people alive who are not happy

>>18445800
If that happens I will ask why haven't they killed themselves. If they were truely unhappy with their life they would understandably end themselves. Yet they still choose to cling to life.

>>18444285
Because you don't need to justify basic behavior of every living being on the planet
You already know exactly why people have kids, unless you're dumber than literally every animal on the planet. They all know it

>>18444683
>Indians don't go around abusing girls
Yeah they focus on boys

>>18445442
>kids are essentially pure love
Elaborate on that. I don't feel pure love towards my parents, I don't really care. I don't think that's weird. Mothers have strong love towards their children but for fathers it doesn't seem to be as universal. Some of my friends have kids and some just straight up don't really care about their kids. They're just sort of there
>no negative to having kids
Don't be silly, it's money. For many of us life without children is simple and carefree but life with children would be a wagie hell. So you do have to consider just how much "pure love" you're going to get as you sigh up for a lifetime of wage slavery in exchange

>>18445936
>I don't feel pure love towards my parents, I don't really care.
>Some of my friends have kids and some just straight up don't really care about their kids. They're just sort of there
Sad.

>>18445660
once again this all goes back to whether a person has a positive or negative outlook on life. if you thought life was a positive force, you would see having kids as bestowing a gift upon a soul. instead, people like you see it as trapping a soul. it's sad but ultimately quite telling

>>18445936
Life is more about "money".
>wage slavery
Ah you are one of those. Gotcha. How about you get a job you enjoy doing?

>>18445936
>Mothers have strong love towards their children but for fathers it doesn't seem to be as universal
It isn't especially universal for mothers either I don't think. If you look into people complaining about narcissistic abusive parents, mothers are at least as prominent as fathers if not more.

>>18446130
You're pre-supposing that selfish = bad, I'd argue that it is not, or at least it's neutral as a value judgement in this instance. I don't think it's a stretch to say that humans - by their very nature are inherently selfish, and having kids is simply vestige of that. Why sugar coat it or try to add some unnecessary moral justifications is all i'm trying to say.