u/Hopeful-Parsley7253

Amazing! You guys really have an answer for everything!

Literally their answer. Creating someone who originally already wouldn't die or involuntarily suffer, or need and therefore can now lack whatever "good" life might be able to offer, just to maybe make some existing people happy.

And there is NO END to it. They want this to go on forever and ever and ever and ever.

Absolutely f-ing wild

For some reason, previous generations act like having kids is mandatory, not a choice. So they cranked them out, suddenly realized they couldn't afford or handle it, and then turned around and told the kids:

"Grow up."
"Stop being so entitled."
"Be grateful for what you have."

Grateful? For being dragged into existence with the bare minimum, then blamed for needing things?

Imagine someone breeds a dog, doesn't have enough food to feed it, and then tells the dog to go fend for itself, or be grateful for scraps. "Other dogs had it worse than you!" We'd call that insane. Maybe we'd call the police. Post that in animal rights groups and see their reactions. But parents do this to human children all the time.

Reproduction is 100% optional. Choosing not to gamble with someone else's life isn't selfish, it's being completely responsible.

Remember: YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE, NOT SELFISH.

I really think the reason why they are natalists at all is simply because they've never actually thought about the ideas they were taught.

They think:

1. "Suffering and death is just part of life."

And then they turn around and say "The new humans might be able to ease the suffering of existing people."

So they tell new lives to accept suffering and death, but they don't accept it themselves. They avoid involuntary sufferings and fear death. They do not simply look at their own suffering and say "it's just life". They hope new humans will somehow help them.

2. "Forcing good on someone who never asked for it is not just good, it's practically an obligation."

They say forcing on the unborn a "good life" is something they should do.

But they don't go out there forcing on every existing human something good that they never asked for. They don't buy strangers every dinner, pay off everyone's debt, or even try their absolute best in solving the needs that existing people DO ask for: like housing the homeless or cleaning the streets. The rule doesn't necessarily even apply to their own relatives, parents, or siblings.

Apparently, the "obligation" to force good on someone only applies to the creation of new humans.

3. "Forcing the possibility of good on new humans is an obligation, but guaranteeing that they'll actually experience any of it is not"

Do you ever hear them say: "I guarantee my child will have everything good there is in life?

No? There you go.

4. "Creating new humans is a should"

By that logic, they should be creating the maximum number of people they possibly can. Every person they don't create is a missed opportunity to experience happiness.

And yet they don't do that. I've never seen a man with millions of kids, or a woman with hundreds.

Interesting innit?

It's true: natalists show up, call us "braindead" or "depressed" for a week or two, and then they vanish. It's happened so many times.

I think something is shifting in their minds. I was the same 6 years ago. I investigated what this human project is actually for, and found nothing. Just people openly telling me how the whole process works: how they sign people up for involuntary suffering and death.

I just found it interesting.

Have you ever heard anyone say "beating someone is a personal choice"? Or "stealing from someone is a personal choice"?

No? I didn't think so. Because these actions affect someone else

The only reason people treat "having kids" as a personal choice is that they don't really see kids as people. They see them as objects, aka things that exist to fulfil the parents' desires.

Like "buying a jacket is a personal choice", or "drinking vodka is a personal choice".

They've always believed:

• Children are not independent people.
• Their existence is simply an extension of the parents' wishes.

Let that sink in for a sec: you were brought into this world as an object.

That's why they felt free to put whatever they wanted on you, responsibilities, expectations, anything, without ever asking if you wanted any of it. And you were silly enough to just take them for some reason.

Over 15,000 gods throughout history. Which one are you specifically referring to?

The almighty, all-loving creator who created humans? Then why does he need you to do his job? Why not create humans himself? Where's your evidence he told you to?

If this is the god you worship, and he:

• Can't prove he can create humans,
• Commands you to create them without consent,
• Knows they'll suffer and die

Then what's "loving" about it? And how do you even know he's the one who created humans at all?

The real question:

How do you know this isn't a false power, one that made up stories to make you produce new humans to suck up sufferings for their benefit?

If suffering is a "trial to better humans," why not just make humans better from the start? Isn't your god almighty?

If you say "God gave humans free will", then he gave you free will, but also gave you a direct command to procreate. And you're not supposed to use your free will to question that?

So what exactly are you worshipping?

An almighty, all-loving god who gave you free will, or an unprovable god who doesn't want you to use it but just create new humans to suffer?

You can't have it both ways.

They actually need us to explain basic sh-t like: "Why is preventing suffering for someone an obligation, but creating happiness someone never asked for is not?" LMFAO

I just asked my husband: "If I give you a box with a bomb and some chocolate inside, just because I want you to have it, and I already know the bomb will 100% go off, would you take it?"

He said: "No. I'd say you're mentally ill. Maybe I will call the police on you as well"

I said: "But there's chocolate in it! Maybe you'll enjoy it! And well, ignore the bomb will you?"

He looked at me like I was losing my mind. "How am I supposed to enjoy it with the bomb? If making me happy is the point, then you've failed haven't you?"

That's exactly what natalists ask us. They force someone into existence, someone who never asked for whatever happiness life MIGHT be able to offer, at the expense of them having to suffer and die, and claim it's for THE UNBORN'S HAPPINESS? And somehow antinatalists are wrong???

Come on. At least be honest. Just say: "I don't care about the new kids. I just want to use them for my own happiness. And I want them to not have a problem with it"

In my view, the average person historically had no conceptual grasp of what life actually is, let alone its "meaning". Many lacked the cognitive capacity or tools (such as a grasp of definitions and formal logic) to process complex philosophical questions. Combined with the fact that pre-modern lifespans hovered around 30 to 40 years, most people’s lives were essentially over before they ever had the chance to contemplate such matters.

So, how would commoners across different eras have answered the question, "What is the meaning of life"? Here's a summary:

• Tribal Era: To hunt, gather food, produce offspring, and honour their parents, just like their ancestors.
• Feudal Era: To serve the king or lord (including fighting in wars), produce food, endure suffering in exchange for a promised afterlife, and carry on the family name.
• Industrial Era: To work, earn money, build a family, and serve the country.
• Modern Era: To self-actualize, find love, and pursue happiness.

Looking at this trajectory, a pattern does emerge: these answers were largely designed by those in power for commoners to follow. Naturally, these narratives served the interests of the ruling class. Whether they incidentally benefited the commoner was secondary, that was never the point.

Through discussions with various people, I’ve come to realise most cannot distinguish between a genuinely thought-out answer vs a model answer. They regurgitate socially conditioned scripts while genuinely believing they arrived at them through independent thought. They conflate "what everyone else is doing" with "what is correct". All while true, well-reasoned answers however, should be able to withstand rigorous criticism and questioning.

Btw, If you are curious about my take on why the definition of life's meaning has evolved, here it is:
- Tribal Era: Power rested with fragmented tribal leaders, leading to constant, unreasoned warfare.
- Feudal Era: Smarter, more centralised rulers conquered and consolidated the tribes into larger groups (called countries).
- Industrial Era: The countries still kept fighting massive wars, forcing authorities to negotiate and re-engineer the cultural script around steady labor.
- Modern Era: To ultimately prevent total war and avoid reducing people to mere tools or soldiers, society shifted the narrative toward individual self-actualization.

So, next time someone says "the meaning of life is procreation," just know that's an answer coming from someone who never really thought about it. It's a model answer they picked up somewhere and repeated. And you can tell, because when you push even a little, they'd reply you with question stoppers.

A human is essentially a need machine. Constantly needing food, water, shelter, safety, love, validation, purpose, meaning, entertainment... the list literally never ends.

We are all born needy. Between birth and death, we compete, consume, be in conflict because we need and want.

Every new human is another need machine added to the world.

Honestly, what do natalists expect? That adding more needs will somehow create everlasting less suffering, less conflict or problems? That more mouths to feed means more everlasting peace?

If you buy something and end up not liking it, you can get a refund. Simple as that. Neither you nor the store takes any loss.

But when you create a life, that person can end up killed, be in accidents, be terminally ill, chronically suffering etc. Who takes the loss? The new life (and anyone who cares for them)

A refund returns you to the state BEFORE the purchase. S-icide doesn't return you to the state before birth, it just ends the existence you never asked for. It's not a cancellation but a destruction. And destruction is not the same as undo.

-------------------------- -------------------------- --------------------------

Now imagine a store that operates like life itself:

It somehow makes its customers drag new customers in. It sells them something they never needed in the first place. That product slowly destroys the new customer. And when they try to return it? No refund or cancellation allowed. The only way out is to destroy themselves.

And yet, the new customers are somehow captivated to drag even more customers into it. When you ask each and every one of them "Do you like the destruction the item causes you?" Apparently they all say no! So they know something is up.

I'm smelling some serious problem here.

Really, when was the last time you saw someone genuinely like something, and instead of enjoying it themselves, or sharing it with someone they know is likely to also enjoy it, they decide to FORCE it on someone else, not needing to know of their opinion, and giving them no opportunity to refuse?

Like, have you ever seen someone who really likes Hershey's, so instead of eating it happily, they decide to force it on someone who never asked for it?

Really, do you actually like the chocolate bar or not???

Doesn't it sound much more like:

"I was also brought into existence without being consulted, and told to just accept whatever negatives life throws at me. I thought that was absurd, but I couldn't call out the one who forced it on me, they were big and I was small, so what makes you think this smaller-than-me-human deserves to have a say?"

If someone forced you to have an item. And you don't want it, you might simply give it to someone else.

If someone beat the sh-t out of you as a kid. You were small, severely abused, but couldn't take it out on your abuser. You might find someone smaller, someone who cannot fight back, and beat them instead.

Which scenario do you think "life" resembles more closely?

If life really were all good as certain natalists claim, they might have just kept it to themselves, not forced it on someone who obviously couldn't say no.

They certainly wouldn't say sh-t like "life is only x% bad, so I'm gonna make someone have it!"

More like: "I took on worse abuse. Now I'm abusing this smaller person a little less than how I was abused already. Who's anyone to say I am wrong?"

So basically, deep down they know, don't they? That life isn't a gift. It's more like an abuse, mixed with a little something good here and there

- If life were a gift, it might be shared to someone who wants it
- If it were a treasure, it might even be guarded or hidden.
- But if it were an abuse, and one was severely hurt? Then one might take it on someone else weaker, smaller, with less or even no power.

Humans have simply always been abused when young, normalised it, and made someone smaller take it.

They're just shocked that now, someone is sober enough to call it out.

Years ago, I watched a Korean horror movie about a boy who was bullied. Later, he became a bully himself.

I didn't understand it then, I don't bully others. Now I sort of do.

He didn't actually "accept" the abuse. He made bullying his rule of life. Normalised it. In psychology, this is called internalising.

When natalists ask: "Does suffering matter? Many suffer and are still okay with life, so creating more people guaranteeing them suffering and death is fine, right?", I now understand a little better. They've internalised the same logic. Normalised it and make others carry it too.

Using child forced marriage as an example. Today, we call it abuse. Back then, it was normal. Because people internalised it, and then externalised it onto the next generation.

Essentially it's "I was dealt with the same way, what makes me doing the same to others 'wrong' "?

If abuse were truly "accepted", it'd be more like a live hamster in front of a snake, accepting its fate of being eaten, that's the end of it. It wouldn't then going off to eat other creatures. That's true acceptance. Clearly, that's not what natalists are doing.

Would you make someone watch a sh-t movie and say "that's just a movie"?

No? Guess not.

If it's sh-t, you might even tell everyone it's sh-t, make reviews about it etc.

Because "that's just life" is no reason, it's a script, programmed in you. It's what you say when you don't have an answer. And from this analogy alone, you can see just how much programming is baked into procreation. Both societal and biological.

(This is one reason what I mean when I say natalists run on autopilot, saying things without ever thinking about them, but thought they have. Programmed answers are not the same as reasoning)