Comments by "Kate S" (@KateeAngel) on "“Having Children is Wrong” | Antinatalism" video.

  1. ​​ @isaiahd5396  cowardly in what way? What is courageous in thrusting another soul into suffering
    15
  2. Noone who is anti-natalist proposes to "thin the herd". That sounds like a pro-mortalist arguements
    9
  3. Yeah and even if everyone doesn't agree with us, that will decrease the birth rate, and taking care of less people is easier than more people. There is a good reason why countries with 40+% population being underage are all insanely poor, have more orphans, violence towards kids child labour etc. When there is a moderate amount of kids it is easier to make their lives better than when there are lots of them.
    8
  4. Except there is no choice because never existing and dying are different. Killing one self is a very hard traumatic thing to do as well. So you are taking a choice of never existing from them. The only choice left is either "continue living for as long as you can" or "take your own life at some point which will be hard and painful for you and will cause suffering to others who know you". In short never existing prevents more suffering, but killing one self only causes more suffering to more people
    6
  5. ​​​ @francisdec1615  not stupid but deluded into soothing fantasy because accepting harsh reality is hard for a human mind. But, we can't ignore that religious view is "everything god says is good, is good", it is the worst, arguement from authority of a dictator of universe. If he says all those atrocities which happen in the world are justified to serve his "grand plan" then so be it. It proposes no real solution, just says "everything is justified cause god says so". I still can't understand how religious people manage to soothe themselves with an idea of cosmic dictator, but somehow... Maybe it is all because they are afraid of non-existence after death way more than anything else, and religion provides them an alternative
    5
  6. I am not a hedonist but I am an anti-natalist. So your logic fails
    4
  7. I just think other species namely wild nature is not for us to control and to impose our values on. It has no obligation to follow our rules. We don't have a right to decide what's bad or good for wild species and impose it on them. So even though I agree with antinatalism in many ways, I would never seek to impose it on wild nature. Eating your kids is also bad, but many wild animals do it, good luck trying to stop them. Also, it would be really impossible to stop all species from reproducing, only relatively big and the ones which live on land. So if anyone tries to do that, that would only destabilize ecosystems and those species of animals which remain would suffer even more from the consequences
    2
  8. Ex-antinatalist? You are cucked. The real arguement should end with "it is unacceptable to risk someone else's well-being". Let's say the probability that your child will have a totally unbearable life, so much so that they will not want to live, is only 0.1%. It is still not zero. It can never be zero. It is still wrong to risk the well-being of that potential child by bringing them into existence with non-zero probability that it will be unbearable. No asymmetry needed..
    1