Came across this community in my feed, and after browsing a bit I'm intrigued.

As an "outsider", I would have assumed this place would be about enjoying a childfree lifestyle, but it seems to be more than that.

For example, I see lots of posts and comments that seem to allude to extinctionism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement

That caught me off guard since I figured this place would be more like "look at all this free time and money and freedom I have to enjoy my life to the fullest in any way I want". Now I'm curious.

It seems like there's a whole spectrum of ideas that are getting lumped into the same bucket. What's your take? What brought you here?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 0 points 2 months ago (1 child)

It is about preventing needless suffering. So, if suffering constitutes an overwhelming part of life, one should not procreate in order to avoid it. Sure, we may have our coping mechanisms to get around the suffering, but why learn and deploy them when it can be avoided altogether? It is not for the benefit of the child that they are being brought into existence.

This just doesn't track with my lived experience. I have personally had my fair share of pain in life, but not so much that I wish I was never born, or that I want to prematurely die. The suffering is there, but not so much that it is overpowering or unbearable.

Am I enjoying life because I'm deploying coping mechanisms and don't even realize it? Maybe. Is my brain tricking me into thinking everything is fine? Maybe. Does it matter? I really don't think so. The subjective experience is what matters.

I would say overall that I've enjoyed existing and am thankful for it, and I don't know how to square that with the argument you're presenting.

Avoiding all procreation to prevent the possibility of future generations experiencing some level of bearable suffering seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    The testimony is granted, and it is the strongest form of the objection: the pain was real, it was bearable, and the life that carried it is one its holder would choose again. The question is what that balance licenses for anyone else. A sum does not record who carries which entry. Flat aggregation would therefore also license one person's delight outweighing another person's agony, which almost nobody accepts. The constraint that blocks it, a refusal to use one being as raw material for another's surplus, forbids the cradle for the same reason: a new person made the bearer of an uncapped risk so a balance comes out positive. The remaining alternative is that the child's own joys outweigh its own harms, which presupposes the subject whose creation is in question. Before the act there is no one for whom the joy is a good.

  • source
  • parent