Narcissistic delusion is not the basis for an entire human life. That person you’re bringing into the world has to exist for decades, and the next few decades¹ are not something I would condemn anyone to. Doing that is sick, its selfish, and its abusive.
Maybe once we start fixing shit, and there’s a chance of not deliberately putting a child through hell.
I guess you had a pretty unpleasant life so far? Not everybody’s has sucked. But I don’t think I need to form a coherent argument against 'all reproduction is inherently morally bankrupt ’ - it’s such deliberate bait that it rejects good faith discussion off-hand.
Is there a more coherent argument to be made against hyper-natalists? Yes, I think that could plausibly be upheld. But that would be a more nuanced stance. The world, despite its trajectory, is not a hellscape.
I’m not delusional about climate change and fascism. Your children will not have your life, asshole. You cannot promise them that. You cannot comprehend how grim this shit is going to get. I’m not really joking about my plan to die in the water wars.
Nobody who breeds right now, in 2025, should be allowed to keep them unless they’re going hard on revolution. Like, anything short of the parents from ‘one battle after another’ you shouldn’t be allowed to keep the kid, you are not responsible enough to care for a child.
This was not the case, arguably, 20 40 60 years ago. This is not anti natalist, this is considering the life that will be available to ypur hypothetical child, the life you are forcing someone to have to live.
Narcissistic delusion is not the basis for an entire human life. That person you’re bringing into the world has to exist for decades, and the next few decades¹ are not something I would condemn anyone to. Doing that is sick, its selfish, and its abusive.
Maybe once we start fixing shit, and there’s a chance of not deliberately putting a child through hell.
I guess you had a pretty unpleasant life so far? Not everybody’s has sucked. But I don’t think I need to form a coherent argument against 'all reproduction is inherently morally bankrupt ’ - it’s such deliberate bait that it rejects good faith discussion off-hand.
Is there a more coherent argument to be made against hyper-natalists? Yes, I think that could plausibly be upheld. But that would be a more nuanced stance. The world, despite its trajectory, is not a hellscape.
I’m not delusional about climate change and fascism. Your children will not have your life, asshole. You cannot promise them that. You cannot comprehend how grim this shit is going to get. I’m not really joking about my plan to die in the water wars.
Nobody who breeds right now, in 2025, should be allowed to keep them unless they’re going hard on revolution. Like, anything short of the parents from ‘one battle after another’ you shouldn’t be allowed to keep the kid, you are not responsible enough to care for a child.
This was not the case, arguably, 20 40 60 years ago. This is not anti natalist, this is considering the life that will be available to ypur hypothetical child, the life you are forcing someone to have to live.