• Arthur_Leywin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s the belief that’s it’s immoral to create a child. This is a pretty broad definition so even I might disagree with other antinatalists while still being one.

      Me being antinatalist is conditional and the condition is if the world is becoming worse for regular people. Others believe humans are evil or are a cancer and while I can sympathize to some degree, I think it’s a step too far. XD

      Having said that antinatalism and child-free are not mutually exclusive because an antinatalist could adopt a child.

      • Aremel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I see, very interesting. I think I can gel with some aspects of antinatalism, like in your example of the world becoming worse for regular people yet still being open to adoption.

        • halfelfhalfreindeer@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          You can also ask an adjacent question, which is whether we should attempt to continue to exist as a species. My personal take would be a hard no - I think it would be preferable to seek to end our species within the next few generations - but some would argue that we should attempt to colonize space and maximize our presence.

    • lanolinoil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why wouldn’t this always be true, since we all suffer? How do you determine the max level of expected suffering to make it moral to have kids?