3 ms·

> you wouldn't be alive if nobody had children, so it's quite selfish of anyone to be anti-children. It gets into philosophical territory, but the default "hav

> you wouldn't be alive if nobody had children, so it's quite selfish of anyone to be anti-children. It gets into philosophical territory, but the default "having a pulse = good" thinking is pretty shortsighted IMO. Life is inherently suffering and no one got a yes/no prompt before being born.

dlisboa 1y ago
For a society it's not philosophical. If it wishes to exist past a few decades then it needs children, simple as that. Therefore societies are (and should) be skewed towards that.
- layer8 1y ago
  “No children” and “single” isn’t the same, as evidenced by DINKs. That set aside, you’re just confirming that singles are (or should be) penalized.
  - dlisboa 1y ago
    Yes, that's just a necessity for the persistence of a society. Otherwise there's no point in even organizing as one. I'm not making a value judgment by the way, just an objective statement. I was also once part of a "DINK" and someone who thought would not have children, I have no qualms with that, but there's just no point in prioritizing that segment.
- hypeatei 1y ago
  I'll ask this in response: why does society need to exist at all? Obviously ideas like yours are ingrained into us at a biological level and it logically makes sense if we want to survive as a species... but there is no inherent reason other than "just because" right?
  - dlisboa 1y ago
    That's indeed a philosophical question. Should we even exist at all? It's a strange thing of nature and evolution that it creates a species that can plan and execute its own intentional suicide.
  - IshKebab 1y ago
    Well yeah, because of our ingrained sense of morality & self-preservation. But we're talking about the policies of society so it's kind of pointless discussing them if you don't accept that society should exist in the first place. Also... it's not society, it's the human species.
  - account42 1y ago
    It's fairly irrelevant to the discussion. All societies that choose not to exist also choose for all their policies about (not) reinforcing children to not exist.
glitchc 1y ago
While there are people who wish that "yes" was a "no" instead, they form an exceedingly small portion of the general population. Most people are happy they exist.
scienceman 1y ago
you get a yes/no prompt every day after you are born though -- and most people keep saying yes until they're ripped out
account42 1y ago
More like it gets into edgy teenager territory.
- hypeatei 1y ago
  I think what's more angsty is replies like this. You can't possibly fathom anything other than the default so you fallback to slop like this. Yes, life can suck and I'm not saying we need to suicide as a species because of that. But, individuals can experience a much larger percentage of suffering than joy. So is it unreasonable to at least consider that possibility rather than going "haha you were brought into this world, suck it up and be happy"?

dlisboa 1y ago

For a society it's not philosophical. If it wishes to exist past a few decades then it needs children, simple as that. Therefore societies are (and should) be skewed towards that.

layer8 1y ago
“No children” and “single” isn’t the same, as evidenced by DINKs. That set aside, you’re just confirming that singles are (or should be) penalized.
- dlisboa 1y ago
  Yes, that's just a necessity for the persistence of a society. Otherwise there's no point in even organizing as one. I'm not making a value judgment by the way, just an objective statement. I was also once part of a "DINK" and someone who thought would not have children, I have no qualms with that, but there's just no point in prioritizing that segment.
hypeatei 1y ago
I'll ask this in response: why does society need to exist at all? Obviously ideas like yours are ingrained into us at a biological level and it logically makes sense if we want to survive as a species... but there is no inherent reason other than "just because" right?
- dlisboa 1y ago
  That's indeed a philosophical question. Should we even exist at all? It's a strange thing of nature and evolution that it creates a species that can plan and execute its own intentional suicide.
- IshKebab 1y ago
  Well yeah, because of our ingrained sense of morality & self-preservation. But we're talking about the policies of society so it's kind of pointless discussing them if you don't accept that society should exist in the first place. Also... it's not society, it's the human species.
- account42 1y ago
  It's fairly irrelevant to the discussion. All societies that choose not to exist also choose for all their policies about (not) reinforcing children to not exist.

glitchc 1y ago

While there are people who wish that "yes" was a "no" instead, they form an exceedingly small portion of the general population. Most people are happy they exist.

scienceman 1y ago

you get a yes/no prompt every day after you are born though -- and most people keep saying yes until they're ripped out

account42 1y ago

More like it gets into edgy teenager territory.

hypeatei 1y ago
I think what's more angsty is replies like this. You can't possibly fathom anything other than the default so you fallback to slop like this. Yes, life can suck and I'm not saying we need to suicide as a species because of that. But, individuals can experience a much larger percentage of suffering than joy. So is it unreasonable to at least consider that possibility rather than going "haha you were brought into this world, suck it up and be happy"?