I am curious if the majority of leftist people don’t actually want children haha. There doesn’t seem to be any studies about it, but my convos with leftists is that most don’t seem to want to have children either for the uncertainty of the future or because they are too expensive or because it wouldn’t give them too much time to organize or whatever other reason that I forgot about.
I personally lean on not having children because I have been laid off of several jobs and having someone financially dependent to me scares the shit out of me and would put my stress levels through the roof.
I had an abusive parent so I wouldn’t know what to do with children even if I had them. I don’t even know how to interact with other people’s children, so I instinctively avoid them. Also I find a lot of people’s children to be annoying/exhausting. I think seeing parents playing with their kids is nice, but I can’t ever imagine being in such a position myself. All I have right now is myself and I don’t see that changing.
Asexual reproduction is impossible for humans so even if in some alternative timeline I wanted, I can’t. But I wouldn’t either way.
Admittedly it’s not just kids, for me there’s literally no point in marriage, having kids, any non-familiar/friendly relationship etc, and all that stuff, concept’s completely alien to me.
Besides I’m not a fan of little kids in general, past like 10-11 they’re totally alright, but younger no way.
Partner and I recently had our first kid, and it’s the best thing we’ve ever done. Also the most stressful.
We did wait though until our mid thirties, and that seems to be more normal now. I can’t imagine having a kid when my parents did, I don’t know how people can afford that now.
I already cut my balls off, my wife wants to cut of hers too, but we live in a patriarchal society where men can choose what their do with their bodies while women need two kids to do the same.
I’m antinatalist, but don’t hate children. Would adopt, but my wife have not interest and isn’t something I care that much.
Plenty of people and societies make quite a fuss of men sterilising themselves, it sucks
You aren’t a leftist if you are an anti-natalist. Anti-natalism is based on the assumption that life is more bad than good which is based on subjective views of the world (and has no basis in actual science). It’s not materialist. Secondly, anti-natalism is anti-human and therefore anti-worker. You cannot be a leftist anti-natalist much as you can’t be a leftist racist. Anti-natalism is extremely reactionary.
I think its about concent, I don’t think you should force someone into life just because you want it.
That’s not materialist. Consent can’t exist for those that don’t exist so in a material lens we can only analyze those that do in fact exist. The conception of the theoretical and non-existent individual’s consent can’t be materialist and couldn’t be upheld by an actual leftist.
Materialism is more than just raw physical reality, even though materialism is the majority of that. I find it hard to believe that deciding the shape of the next generation isn’t materialist.
Someone who doesn’t exist can’t give consent. That’s a non sequitur. See this for some general sense on the matter on the vibe that I have again the consent argument. There is an example on the thread that goes about rape and non-consent and that is a non-equivalence.
I don’t understand the fact that because someone exists, therefore it can’t concent so it’s dosen’t matter. Like, if we had technology for genetic manipulation, and someone who dosen’t exists so it’s can’t concent to be birth without eyes, arms and legs, so it would be OK to do it? Maybe the problem is more about branding, if I would say exactly the same without saying the word “antinatalist” nobody would bat an eye.
Someone who doesn’t exist doesn’t have the ability to consent so the fact they don’t is irrelevant. Something existing determines if we take it into account as Marxist. That’s a major part of being a leftist
Someone potentially existing has weight and meaning, too.
No, it doesn’t. They don’t exist therefore there is no weight in their existence. Something that does not exist has no moral component to it whatsoever
Again, consent doesn’t matter, as none can be given by this non-existing person. On the other hand, that is to be considered cruel and gratuitous.
Let’s just go on a tangent: we, humans, the apex of this planet, do play God quite often, and as such, we are the ones that draw the line on this type of stuff. See, for example, mice, which are used for bio studies for a myriad of ailments. So, the genetic engineering already exists. Most people just don’t realize it.
“But they are different species”. Yes, and mammals too. So similar to us, in fact, that we use them to study our diseases. We even “pre-bake” them with cancer, if it’s needed for research. Go closer to humans and stuff start to get wronger. Big apes are a no-go, Rhesus monkeys, on the other hand, need approval from bioethics boards. We draw the line where in the tree of life animals start to be too like us to matter.
So, why only be antinatalist and not vegan as well? Is human suffering the only thing that matters? I haven’t even considered invertebrates for that matter.
I’ll end this tangent about genetic engineering and speciecism here.
And no, antinatalism is not about branding. The whole ideology is moot. I do have friends who have this instance. I say it to their face that it is either defeatist, conservatist and, in general, a shit for brains idea. It’s just neomalthusianism, all over again. Here, have a link from Reddit on that.
And, as I like to say, again, to my friend’s face: go seek psychiatric and psychological help. Accepting this type of ideology is, in my own experience being on that side of the argument, a symptom of depression. You see life as completely sad and full of woe, when it’s just so much more.
Your strawmanning is reaching incredibly ludicrous levels. I think you might be projecting.
You’re being a complete tool and douchebag to driving_crooner.
Like, if we had technology for genetic manipulation, and someone who dosen’t exists so it’s can’t concent to be birth without eyes, arms and legs, so it would be OK to do it?
In the actual world, dominated by the bourgeoisie, there is some consent between people and scientiest, that this would be not ok. It is not been seen as ethical. What is ethical or not is nothing more than a artificial line made by humans and depends greatly on material conditions. Especially after human experiments in Japan and Germany.
But the question, if it is ok to artificially create a human with so many disabilities or simply give birth to human, are things which are not related at all. Only if you really equal the human existence itself as a form of suffering, then it has nothing to do with marxism at all and is some Buddha or similar idealistic stuff. But even they are not against giving birth to children.
Maybe the problem is more about branding, if I would say exactly the same without saying the word “antinatalist” nobody would bat an eye.
This are different things. Anti-natalism has nothing to do with being against artificially creating people with the aim of making them suffer as much as possible.
That’s doesn’t negate the lack of concent.
But surely, by this logic, nobody consents to being born, so what does it matter?
The implications for child and societal welfare.
You’re putting words in my mouth. If your implication is that children do not consent to being born, you have to also agree that literally nobody CAN consent to being born or not. So what is the point of you brining this up if not for the indirect implication that having children is inherently wrong as it does not factor in an unobtainable level of consent? I am actually interested in hearing how you would resolve this consent issue.
Anti-natalism isn’t inherently anti-human or anti-worker, that is laughable.
Yes, it is. Anti-natalism posits that people shouldn’t be born. That means they do not want people to be workers in the future, making it a reactionary anti-worker position to take.
That’s an extremely simplistic and slightly childish interpretation.
If anything, I despise the voluntary human extinction movement. That doesn’t preclude being smart about having biological children, and it sure as fuck doesn’t stop be from being a communist.
Having biological children is probably inherently selfish, but that doesn’t make having children an inherently bad or evil thing. That’s my entire point.
You aren’t a communist as you reject dialectical materialism by upholding an ideological framework that analyzes non-beings on the same level as beings. That’s not materialism but religion.
You’re a clown and I won’t dignify your nonsense word salad with a reply.
Ah yes, anything that you disagree with is “word salad”. What a fantastic way to analyze everything. I’m sure that will lead to correct understandings of the world…
Having biological children is probably inherently selfish, but that doesn’t make having children an inherently bad or evil thing. That’s my entire point.
Who cares if it is selfish or not, why does it matter at all? In the end it has still nothing to do with Anti-Natalism. The name itself is nomen est omen and says everything needed to know. Your point is not anti-natalism but a mere moral observation, why life is creating more life. You can be easily misunderstood if you confuse this terms
I wasn’t confusing the terms, and I and lots of people can and should care. That’s why I reiterate that I take a softer approach. I think more people should be aware that it’s perfectly okay to not have biological children, and that choosing to have biological children isn’t inherently good or altruistic, and does have some element of selfishness.
I figure that if people understood all of that upfront (and ofc living in a socialist society) that child abuse will drastically decrease when all the cards are out on the table, so to speak.
As the saying goes, “every child needs a parent, but not every parent needs a child”.
I call myself a partial anti-natalist, the same as classifying myself as a Marxist-Leninist, it’s a specific addition, alteration or subset of a larger category or umbrella.
Most Marxists, for instance, wouldn’t want to be associated with Pol Pot.
I and lots of other people didn’t consent to being born, even if that is a ridiculous-sounding claim. Obviously, no one can consent to that, but every life should be treated with the upmost care and possibility, and life should be something that everyone can take part in and have a good time. And sometimes I do regret that I exist, even if that sounds stupid. But I think even most people with depression and shit can generally agree that we’d rather be born, than not.
I maintain that anti-natalism isn’t nearly the same as wanting all of humanity dead, or that there aren’t eventual positives to birth.
Pretty fucked up to reduce all people to simply just “worker”
I have no clue what you mean
I was abused by my family growing up and am worried that I wouldn’t know how to be a good parent. That is the main personal reason I don’t want to have children.
I also don’t think it’s a good idea for societal reasons. With the way things are currently going, in my opinion there is a near zero chance that upper Gen Alpha/Gen Beta is going to have a pleasant future and wouldn’t want to put a child through that.
We were thinking of having kids, but things became harder financially, and we really began to enjoy our free time. Plus we have a few friends with kids, and they don’t seem very happy, and nephews. So like, that’s probably enough.
I could afford a wife and kids and am not opposed to it, but I am just too unlikable for that to even matter. Lol
I never really wanted children and I am still leaning towards that, together with my partner, though things might change in the next few years. It’s not that we hate children or something, not at all. We have wonderful kids in the family. Just not interested in having them myself.
If none of you are interested in children, why do you think that things may change in the future?
No idea. We’re both young enough not to worry about kids that much so maybe in a few years when we’re older thing have changed. We’ll see how it goes.
No way. Can’t even handle myself 24/7, let alone a child with me. Having a child under the nuclear family model is more responsibility than most humans can handle. But I like dealing with children for limited amounts of time, so I could always help out family or close friends with theirs, besides all the students I’ll have in the near future.
However my utopia world would be one where children are raised by the community rather than the birther and maybe the birther’s partner. That’s one thing I miss from rural life.
I’m not really interested in having sex, but there are certainly other ways of having kids. I just also don’t think I am (or likely ever will be) in a mentally stable enough position that I feel like I could care for a child. I can barely care for myself and require a good amount of support to do so. So no, kids are very likely not in my future.
I had abusive parents, so I wouldn’t know where to begin with raising a kid. If I was even 1% as bad as they were I would consider myself a failure. Much better to just not bring someone into this world than to fuck them up as bad as I was, or fuck them up in strange new ways that I could never see coming.
That’s perfectly valid. I was rather miserable for the large chunk of my adult life and I’m afraid I might somehow inflict that on my children too. I am not against adopting or taking care of my potential partner’s children in the future, if I sort my personal stuff. (:
I want kids but my girlfriend is unsure. I just really want to be a father and the responsibilities associated with it.
It is beautiful when your son/daughter utter the words father/mother. Mine did it yesterday
Nope, because I don’t like kids. I’m not planning to maintain a poop factory and don’t think I’d be interested in giving up my hobbies to help some teenager
I would like to have a kid, but can’t afford to. My wife also is trying to get her career off the ground and so we are not really in the best position. I’m well off enough for our current life, but if we move to a bigger space and have to start paying for all that is required, the math doesn’t math anymore.
Maybe in a few years we’ll reconsider before we are too old
