top 80 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 109 points 5 months ago (11 children)

If you’re concerned about this, but still want to be a parent, consider fostering. That way, you’re not bringing a child into the world, just taking care of one that’s already here

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    And adopt older kids too, just because they carry some baggage with them doesn't mean they aren't deserving of a home too. When I was 16, only one family in my entire district took age 14+ kids, otherwise they had to wait in group homes for placement, oftentimes aging out instead.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    Fuck no lol. My personal opinion obviously. Those half adults will have zero attachment to you, and will gladly pass you cyanid when being asked for water

    Again, personnally, no way i am letting an immature, unstable person in my house

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Not that over population is really a thing but we have so many children not in a loving adult's care we really need to focus on them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Overpopulation is really a thing though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    We have enough resources to support the current global population and then some. To call the failure of our chosen economic system to distribute those resources rather than burn them or let them rot in warehouses "overpopulation" is misdirection.

    It's kind of like this: I have two sandwiches, I only need one, and you come up to me because you're hungry. I tell you "Ah I see your problem. There's too many of you! If you were fewer people, you wouldn't need a sandwich."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago

    No, I get that the resources could be distributed better, but there is no environment wherein the current population is going to be supportable by the current biome esp considering climate change.

    It's wild to think otherwise, frankly.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 27 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    This world is ambivalent. There are both horrible and wonderful things, but I'm quite happy to be there.

  • source
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    Oh look someone who isn't suffering

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (12 children)

    My life is far from perfect, I had and have my share of suffering. But I also, at the same time, feel joy and awe. I choose to concentrate on the good.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    No one can blame you for choosing to go through life that way, but unfortunately it's the very reason so many people are suffering.

    "I've got enough good to focus on so I can disregard the bad" is basically the exactly desired result of "bread and circuses". Personally it's great. Societally? Awful.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago* (10 children)

    I disagree. As I'm not despaired I can actually act to lessen the suffering around me, which I do by being socially engaged. Doomerism and concentration on the negative parts of life is what prevent us to act and in fact is the very reason why so many people are suffering.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Exactly. Work to leave the world better than when you entered it through your words and actions. Even if it's just one person that you positively impact. Sometimes shit fucking sucks and it's a personal decision if you choose to wallow in it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I mean I'm in the same boat as you but many people are either incapable or unwilling to learn how to be happy despite their circumstances, and basic things humans need to be happy/fulfilled like connections and time in nature are both far worse than when I was born. I recognize many people have objectively far worse situations than I do and are doing much worse mentally, and I feel like the causes of that are only getting worse day by day.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago (7 children)

    Well I'm not really talking about despair am I? You said you choose to concentrate on the good. I'm saying that if everyone in society just concentrated on the good the bad would never be solved.

    You say you can "act to lessen the suffering around you". Doesn't that imply that you're actually concentrating on the bad, at least a bit? How do you disregard the bad and act against it at the same time? You obviously, self-admittedly care about the bad at least enough to do something about it.

    You kind of changed your story and then held it against my argument.... and ended it with an argument that the people who despair are to blame for the world's problems, which is a bold and egregiously wrong thing to say.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Concentrating on the good doesn't mean denying the existence of the bad. It means to put the good at the center, in this case of my life, finding in my family, my faith and my hobbies the strength to look calmly at the bad, which are at the periphery of my life but still exist and are always present in my consciousness.

    an argument that the people who despair are to blame for the world's problems

    That's not what I said. But the people in power want us despaired, because they want us docile.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    (Doomerism and concentrating on the negative) is the very reason why so many people are suffering.

    If you're not referring to people in despair, what are you referring to?

    I think we're both not trying to talk about the fringes of this issue. But I take personal offense when "doomerism" is attacked like it's some kind of illness. I spent almost two decades not being a doomer. And watched as complacency due to ignorance got replaced by complacency due to political indoctrination which is being replaced by complacency due to overwhelm.

    You can't fault a guy for arguing that maybe we should start acting like doom is impending. Or do you not think that it is? Cause if you understand the scientific method, have at least an average IQ and don't have any significant mental disabilities, it's pretty clear that we are, objectively, doomed on our current trajectory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The keyword here is: “on our current trajectory”. Doomerism is not the idea that our current trajectory is catastrophic; it's the idea that's our trajectory is already decided. It's not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    I am sorry if at this point is kind of an interruption of your conversation, but I believe I disagree only with a little detail my fellow human said, and I think it is important. There is a way to be a "doomer" or whatever name we get nowadays without believing in a trajectory. I do not believe we have a fixed path. I believe there are a lot of options, but all within a range of possibilities (we won't develop wings tomorrow and sparkle and be angels all of a sudden). And the thing is I believe that realm of possibilities is mostly negative from our point of view. That many possible paths are okay, even some kind of good, but many many others are bad or frankly terrible. So, in that way, I believe I am a "doomer" without thinking that it will all go downhill. No, sometimes history gets a good chapter, a good period of time, here and there; still, overall, I'd argue existence is mostly or predominantly negative/ugly/sad/not-likable.

    And I agree with my fellow lemming that the only thing left when you view things like this is to try to make things better, thus, "doomerism" shouldn't be apathy or defeat or whatever, it is a very urgent call to reduce the suffering we 'diagnose' and to make the world a better place.

    I wouldn't call it "doomerism", I'd call it philosophical pessimism (because it's more technical and Wikipediable, lol).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

    Yes, our trajectory is already decided in the sense that we're locked into catastrophe. It's about degrees of catastrophe now. "But if we work hard" you say?

    Here's an imperfect but approachable analogy: If you're trapped in a bathtub and it's pleasantly warm, and you pour boiling water in until it's concerningly hot, you can't just stop pouring the water to resolve your problem. You're now in mortal danger since you can't get out, even though no more hot water is being added to the system. It'll take too long for the water to naturally cool to save you. The water is the climate system. The boiling water is the extra energy trapped by greenhouse gases. You are human civilization as we know it.

    It's concerningly hot now. You don't currently have any access to cold water (carbon sequestration and/or mitigation). Nothing more than a few drops a minute anyway. That's not going to help. Even the very most optimistic of scenarios says that we might be able to bring that up to a very slow stream of cold water. Certainly won't work fast enough.

    Now here's reality: the hot water is not stopping, it's speeding up. Your body might be able to manage the hot water for a little bit, but pretty soon things are going to stop working properly as you overheat. You might get lucky if the hot water stops RIGHT NOW, but that's if you're lucky. Even if you somehow make it, you're going to be severely fucked.

    But. The. Water. Is. Still. Speeding. Up.

    Edit: Ah yes, the downvote. Hero, would you care to critique anything? I really could use some hope, I'm serious. I would love reason for optimism, and I'm totally open minded to it. All you need to do is speak up?

    I hope the silent downvotes make y'all feel better.... anything except confront the issue I guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    If your fear for the future prevents you to live your present life, you don't need more arguments with strangers on the net. You need professional help and I hope you have it. Doomerism may not be an illness, but depression is, and like all illnesses it's better to fight it with a doctor. Believe someone who suffered it, and married to someone for whom it's chronic. There is a way out of depression too, or at least a way to mitigate its effects. Just like climate change.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    It's a sad state of affairs when a statement of fact is disregarded as depression lol.

    Don't you worry, I live my life just fine. Believe it or not it's possible to be clear eyed about the world's problems while also living your life.....

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 66 points 5 months ago (11 children)

    All the smart and empathetic people deciding to stop having children on ethical/logical grounds was a major premise of the film Idiocracy.

    The film demonstrated it to be a very bad strategy.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    And yet all it took was a few decades of indoctrination and disinvestment in education to get there in real life. Almost like we have more pressing things to worry about than the speed at which this effect - if real - could turn into an actual problem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago

    I'd rather have the bad strategy then to put a child into this world that is going downhill fast.

    Because the bad strategy means my kid doesn't have to suffer through it, I already consider 90% of my days a suffering and it hasn't gotten better in the past 40 years. No amount of hard work, studying, gaining knowledge, doing the right thing has improved it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 5 months ago (5 children)
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Whu?

    There is literally no eugenics in Idiocracy.

    Eugenics = forced attempts to modify the genome since at least the times of ancient Greece via infanticide, murdering or sterilizing 'low quality' groups, paying desired groups to have more children, to modern literal selective breeding via government body mandates in Nazi eugenics etc.

    New eugenics / 'liberal eugenics' = informed choice via technology eg scanning for downs syndrome in embryos and allowing parents the informed choice of termination, genome editing, etc. Which we are clearly not talking about within context, but also is not present or suggested in Idiocracy.

    What doesn't fit into any definition of eugenics is telling people "hey if only the dumb people keep breeding, that will not end well".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    The belief that intelligence is a heritable trait is a core tenet of eugenics, and is the very basis of the setting of Idiocracy. In the film, corporate capture and the gutting of the US government via bread and circus tactics didn't create a "stupid" society; stupid people overbreeding caused a societal drop in intelligence, which then created the issues. The film gets cause and effect backwards, if only to adhere to the eugenicist pretext.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 17 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    At best, a necessary thing. Without people, civilization would simply not exist.

    That said, civilization should be obligated to fully care for children and adults alike: Shelter, food, education, healthcare, entertainment, third spaces, transport, all should be fully provided for. If we are going to force people to exist, we should at least make sure their stay on the mortal coil is a pleasant one.

  • source
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [+] -16 points 5 months ago* (12 children)

    nobody is 'forcing you' to exist. suicide is always an option.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    Some people should not have children

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 5 months ago* (5 children)

    who gets to decide that? you?

    what else do you believe you should decide for other people? where they should live, what their job is? etc?

    Why is it that you think you know better than them, what they should do with their lives?

    do you feel someone else should tell you, how to live your life? or would you find that very upsetting?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    It wasn't a moral judgement, just a statement.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Bullshit. It's literally impossible to say "some people should not have children" without making it a moral judgment. You're just gaslighting everyone by pretending your morality is objective. You're literally pulling an Ayn Rand.

    Pick the worst case you can think of, the kind of person who is unlikely to be able to support children. Imagine a profoundly disabled person, themselves a ward of the state. You would like to pretend that objectively, they shouldn't have kids. But a hell of a lot of disability advocates would disagree with you. They would argue that anyone who wants should to should be able to have kids. And if they can't support them, well that is why we have welfare programs.

    "Should" is by necessity a moral statement. You're literally saying how you think the world should be and how people should act. That's the literal fucking definition of morality!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    I mean this is 1/2 pedantry 1/2 not, I'm sure there is a situation that almost anyone in existance would agree a person shouldn't have kids, but that doesn't make it a fact that they shouldn't have kids. Almost anyone would agree having a kid in a family that is constantly screaming and toxic that leaves the child a depressed anxious adult is immoral. That's about as close to "objective" as you can get with morality, even if it is still subjective.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -3 points 5 months ago

    it is a moral judgement. you just won't define who it is you think shouldn't have children, because you know it would make you look bad.

    so you hide behind it as if it were a fact, without articulating who it is you think is unworthy, and who you think it is worthy.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago

    If someone told me the way I lived my life would lead to immense suffering, yes I would not only listen I would hope more than anything that they would tell me so I could not do something I find incredibly immoral.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    That is quite sound advice! You should follow it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    it's not advice. it's a statement of fact.

    and you clearly feel the facts of the world are so upsetting, you have the right to wish death on others.

    do you feel they have the right to wish that on you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I mean TBH I don't really give a shit what you wish. Have at it, but you were the one suggesting suicide to someone, and oddly enough you don't seem to enjoy being told the same. I will tell you my wish for you, though, I wish for you to have exactly the day you have invited. ✌️

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    remember kids, if the only thing that matters in life is having rich parents, than your parents have failed you every day since your birth

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    Do you know how much you have to fuck over and stress a mammal to the point that they refuse to fuck and procreate? Humans are fucked

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    16 years ago there was still hope for a better future. The world wasn't nearly this bad. Its shocking how quickly it changed.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    If someone can tell me one way that kids are better off now than in my generation (mid 90s) then please let me know. The only way I can say that is pretty good is being more accepting in general, but in every other important way it's worse. Climate change causing worse weather means it's harder to start a garden, more time spent indoors, less enjoyable calm weather, and that's just the readily noticeable effects.

    Algorithms with websites are constantly trying to push people to be adhd and addicted, ai garbage. Don't get me wrong I'm still happy to be alive in this day and age, but I am truly afraid of how I would feel/ who I would be growing up in the tiktok algorithm ai zombie era, and I don't want to expose anyone to that, let alone kids that I would care about more than anything.

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [+] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Yes 100% agree with adoption. I agree it is a short time span, and might get better in the next 400 years (assuming people start looking long term after the climate disaster, which I doubt they will), but the time in between that my kids and theirs would have to suffer through still is very real.

    I genuinely don't know if you would be less happy living in the 300s compared to if you're not wealthy living through freak weather heatwaves and massive shortages + algorithm addiction growing up 100 years from now.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    tell me one way that kids are better off now than in my generation (mid 90s)

    You could rattle off a bunch of childhood and young adult diseases we've eliminated, for starters. We don't talk about the AIDS epidemic anymore, because it's a treatable condition rather than a death sentence.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    Aids was treatable in the late 80s, and we are getting other untreatable illnesses now like long covid, with america having just dumped 40+ years of research for being too woke. We are also seeing a return of measles because again the algorithm + media addiction pushing people to become antivax. idk it's just like every conceivable way things are just getting more cooked.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    Aids was treatable in the late 80s

    Zidovudine could extend life expectancy marginally. But patients regularly built up a resistance to the drug and eventually succumbed to the illness.

    HAART was only introduced in the late 90s and did not become commercially available until the 00s. It was also a cocktail of drugs with a YMMV performance. So you needed to regularly administer treatment and constantly follow up.

    PrEP and the long lasting injectables didn't arrive until the '20s.

    We are also seeing a return of measles because again the algorithm + media addiction pushing people to become antivax.

    We had antivax movements for as long as we've had vaccinations. This problem goes back over a century. You just don't learn about the Anti-Vaccination League of America or the the UK National Anti-Vaccination League, so we treat modern vaccine hysteria as novel.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    I can't really argue that aids treatment isn't better, but by around the 2000s it was a single pill, and Aids is also something we learned how it spreads and could massively reduce the risk of, which is not true for any of the new problems.

    We have never had the head of the fda being antivax and actively cutting vaccine programs. About 20% of Republicans are antivax, and the majority of Republicans do not think vaccinations are important. And yes, that's sort of what I mean, we're going back to 1880s levels(if not worse) of "vaccines are unsafe," despite 140 more years of research showing that they are unbelievably safe. That level of anti-science isn't unprecedented, but it's far far worse than when I was growing up. This is not contained to just the US either, but the US is the most extreme case.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Aids is also something we learned how it spreads and could massively reduce the risk of, which is not true for any of the new problems.

    What?

    We have never had the head of the fda being antivax and actively cutting vaccine programs.

    We have had a number of administrations, following the official creation of the modern FDA, abuse the roles and advanced industry profits over human health and safety. Reagan very famously made light of the AIDS crisis specifically, accusing reporters and advocates of sodomy whenever the issue was raised. Bush restricted the sale of Plan B abortion drugs, restricted public school education on contraception, and banned embrionic stem cell research to pander to Christian fascists in his party. You can just Google the various scandals around the FDA. No shortage of corrupt and incompetent leaders, nevermind instances when a president would leave the office vacant indefinitely to obstruct its functions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Aids was preventable with condoms or staying with people who didn't have aids, the effects of climate change can't be avoided (besides maybe being rich and moving).

    Pretty much every bad thing you've mentioned is happening right now, but all at once. Abortion/ abortion drugs are banned in many states, Trump and ~70 million republicans made light of covid which caused far more deaths than aids and encouraged people to spread it, we have the most insane levels of corruption (j6ers got pardoned and paid 2b, Trump coin, literal insider trading by the president, supreme court saying something would be "inconvenient" in order to give unconstitutional readings). And the people supporting this are not some small whackjob minority, it's 70 million people seeing an American on the ground not moving getting shot by ICE and saying "he was asking for it."

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 14 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Greatest source of guilt I have. I didn't realize how shitty things were until after I'd had them. I also passed down neurodivergence and diabetes, I shouldn't have done it. My kids are my only source of joy in the world and that's not a good reason to have kids, it's selfish. I hope they forgive me.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I’m glad you recognize this. I am shocked to find how many people say “I don’t know what I’d do if I never had kids” or something along those lines. It alludes to people having kids as a next step to adulthood or to avoid boredom. Or the ole “who would take care of me when I’m old if I didn’t have kids” - the most selfish one.

    We’re not having kids and that is almost always the first thing people say, who will take care of you? What a selfish thing to thrust onto another human.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    If you hate the world, just say so

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    My Gen Z friends have no hope for the future. I don't either, but we could at least pretend that it might get better back in my day. Fucking sucks.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago

    Millennial here, no kids because (1) we have enough people on this earth, and (2) my partner and I are not interested in raising children.

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›