rayzor

joined 1 year ago
[–] rayzor@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

but also if people want to retire they need a workforce to keep society running, no?

Why is a workforce required for society to keep running if somebody wants to retire, I am not so certain on that premise.

[–] rayzor@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not certain which side you are falling on? Anti-Natalism leads to weird conclusions, or my thinking leads to weird conclusions?

The reality is that they BOTH do, so that shouldn't be used as a basis for making that decision.

[–] rayzor@beehaw.org 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

you’re forcing someone else to deal with these problems and you didn’t even give them an option - and by the time they’re old enough to understand the magnitude of the problem, they’re in too deep to get out. It just screams of selfishness and duplicity to me.

this narrative has always been touted that every generation inherits the problems of its ancestors. and yet the world continues to survive and improve. death rates have fallen, infant mortality has fallen, life expectancy has risen, happiness has risen in some countries, mobility across countries has increased for some (but not all or enough). There are problems but I am hoping 100 years from now we'll solve it and our children will have a better life. Maybe I am an optimist, but all I can use is my own anecdotal experience.

[–] rayzor@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

I think it's a flawed premise based on my limited understanding of what I have read

Life entails inevitable suffering.
Death is inevitable.
Humans (and all forms of life) are born without their consent, no one chooses whether or not they come into existence.
Although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person's suffering without their consent.
Therefore it is immoral to create life.

The problem that I have with this is it also is making the choice for the potential life. If you ask anybody at end of life if they were glad they existed or the life they had, and if given the choice to have existed or existing again under the same conditions of their current life, they would choose to have existed/exist the same. Therefore, I think it is just as immoral to take the potential away.

Existence is also a choice. If at any point you no longer consent to existing, there exists a mechanism for accomplishing that. It is not accepted by society (we are making progress in some areas such as assisted suicide for terminal illness) but it doesn't mean you are bound to abide by those 'rules'.