Who of you want or don't want children? I am just curious because most people that I talk to don't seem to want it. I mean leftist
I am curious if the majority of leftist people don't actually want children haha. There doesn't seem to be any studies about it, but my convos with leftists is that most don't seem to want to have children either for the uncertainty of the future or because they are too expensive or because it wouldn't give them too much time to organize or whatever other reason that I forgot about.
I personally lean on not having children because I have been laid off of several jobs and having someone financially dependent to me scares the shit out of me and would put my stress levels through the roof.
Commiejones - 9mon
Part of me would have liked to have kids but given the material conditions of my life it would have likely ended up as a miserable story.
Early in my life my parents were taught the lesson of precarity under capitalism. I picked up the lesson and I could never shake it. As I came to working age I knew that no matter how hard I worked chances were good that everything I had built up would be dashed away. I could see that there was no way I (or most most millennials without generational wealth) would ever own a home. My future was quite obviously to work hard so landlords, capitalists and petti bourgeoise could live comfortable lives. I didn't put it in these terms at the time but wrecking my mental and physical health supporting the rich and producing one or more future laborers for capitalism to exploit seemed stupid. Instead I did personal austerity and worked as little as possible.
The only way to minimise your losses when you are forced to play a rigged game is to play as little as possible.
My lady never wanted kids for her own reasons and that's fine with me.
19
redfox - 9mon
I want kids but my girlfriend is unsure. I just really want to be a father and the responsibilities associated with it.
16
rainpizza - 9mon
It is beautiful when your son/daughter utter the words father/mother. Mine did it yesterday
18
SovietCinnamon - 9mon
That's perfectly valid. I was rather miserable for the large chunk of my adult life and I'm afraid I might somehow inflict that on my children too. I am not against adopting or taking care of my potential partner's children in the future, if I sort my personal stuff. (:
13
littlebrother @lemm.ee - 9mon
I lean left like most intelligent people.
I do actually want a child, i know it's hard. But several instances and things beyond my control and this current political climate. Absolutely not. And being almost too old, we'll I guess it's fast becoming not an option.
So on my soapbox for a minute.
Most liberals would actually have children, if you make the environment supportive of those who choose that option. Being in the US i can assure you, it's exactly the opposite in this dumb country. It's a liability, it's cruel, its harsh. There's barely any incentive beyond not having your bloodline die out.
9
commiespammer - 9mon
My gf and I want 2, but that's a long time from now, and I'm uncertain if we'll be able to stay together for that long and not be pulled apart by circumstances.
8
201dberg - 9mon
I was going to write a long drawn out wall of text to explain my thoughts and reasoning, but to just summarize...
I would have liked to have had kids years ago, but I also knew that the future for any kid is going to be grim. They should not have to be forced to deal with the societal and environmental collapse that is guaranteed to happen. Especially for my country there is a zero chance that kid will have a good life. So I just won't. Maybe I'll adopt, since at least that's saving a victim and not contributing to more miserable children, but I cannot conciously bring a child into this existence which I have no hope for.
This is the perspective of someone who doesn't see a future for their country. There are still places in the world that still have hope for their civilizations. I just have none for mine.
8
SeeingRed [he/him] - 9mon
I would like to have a kid, but can't afford to. My wife also is trying to get her career off the ground and so we are not really in the best position. I'm well off enough for our current life, but if we move to a bigger space and have to start paying for all that is required, the math doesn't math anymore.
Maybe in a few years we'll reconsider before we are too old
7
FuckBigTech347 - 9mon
I had an abusive parent so I wouldn't know what to do with children even if I had them. I don't even know how to interact with other people's children, so I instinctively avoid them. Also I find a lot of people's children to be annoying/exhausting. I think seeing parents playing with their kids is nice, but I can't ever imagine being in such a position myself. All I have right now is myself and I don't see that changing.
7
SpaceDogs - 9mon
I think I would’ve liked having children in the future, but it just isn’t in the cards for me. I am “selfish” in that I don't want to go through the “normal” process of having kids, and all other methods are incredibly unethical, at least under capitalism (I don’t know if they could ever be ethical).
7
Nyx - 9mon
It would be very difficult but if all the chips fall into place I do like the idea of having kids someday. ^^
7
albigu - 9mon
No way. Can't even handle myself 24/7, let alone a child with me. Having a child under the nuclear family model is more responsibility than most humans can handle. But I like dealing with children for limited amounts of time, so I could always help out family or close friends with theirs, besides all the students I'll have in the near future.
However my utopia world would be one where children are raised by the community rather than the birther and maybe the birther's partner. That's one thing I miss from rural life.
6
rando895 [she/her] - 9mon
We were thinking of having kids, but things became harder financially, and we really began to enjoy our free time. Plus we have a few friends with kids, and they don't seem very happy, and nephews. So like, that's probably enough.
6
thepeoplesinging - 9mon
I'm not really interested in having sex, but there are certainly other ways of having kids. I just also don't think I am (or likely ever will be) in a mentally stable enough position that I feel like I could care for a child. I can barely care for myself and require a good amount of support to do so. So no, kids are very likely not in my future.
5
SlayGuevara - 9mon
I never really wanted children and I am still leaning towards that, together with my partner, though things might change in the next few years. It's not that we hate children or something, not at all. We have wonderful kids in the family. Just not interested in having them myself.
4
Spectre - 9mon
If none of you are interested in children, why do you think that things may change in the future?
3
SlayGuevara - 9mon
No idea. We're both young enough not to worry about kids that much so maybe in a few years when we're older thing have changed. We'll see how it goes.
2
Boomkop3 - 9mon
I personally don't want children simply because I don't have that drive or urge or something that people have that makes them want to have kids.
Why I don't? No idea. From my perspective people who want kids seem a bit weird. But to each their own I suppose.
3
pcalau12i - 9mon
I could afford a wife and kids and am not opposed to it, but I am just too unlikable for that to even matter. Lol
2
amemorablename - 9mon
I could probably be a good parent, but I could also probably put that to the test by doing teaching or something, without the need to try to have kids first. Of course, this is assuming I found someone to have kids with in the first place. Anyway, I tend to have mixed feelings about it. It appeals to me on some level, but it would also be a huge commitment to take on and one I'm not currently well-equipped to handle materially. When I'm on dating apps, I tend to put like "open to kids" cause I don't feel closed off to it like some do who don't want children, period. But I could not say I'm actively pursuing the idea either. It also just feels a bit weird to think about as a decision I make at any point, since I'm not the one who would be bearing the child. I know it matters though insofar as I'm looking for someone who wants the same thing. But since I'm not sure what I want and some of it for me depends on things like financial stability, that makes it harder. If I lived in a socialist state where financial stability came relatively easily, as did community support systems, I'd probably be much more into the idea. But in the US? Sometimes I wonder how much can hold together before weeks become decades. So it's hard to even think about a lifetime commitment like that.
2
Fox [he/him] - 9mon
I was abused by my family growing up and am worried that I wouldn't know how to be a good parent. That is the main personal reason I don't want to have children.
I also don't think it's a good idea for societal reasons. With the way things are currently going, in my opinion there is a near zero chance that upper Gen Alpha/Gen Beta is going to have a pleasant future and wouldn't want to put a child through that.
2
Sherman - 9mon
I want children, maybe two.
If you consider yourself a Marxist or even simply a "progressive", I feel like the next generation should always be your focus. Our descendants keeps everything that has happened, everything currently happening and everything that will happen in motion, so that can't be ignored if you have revolution on your mind. If someone personally does not want kids, I feel like they owe it to the next generation to be an educator and/or putting their energies into cultivating fresh minds, at the very least. Societal progress will only get so far if we are only concerned about what our current generation is doing — we have to think of revolution as laying the groundwork for people who aren't even here yet. That is truly our best and only hope.
It appears to me that depression and stress drives a lot of leftists into a pessimistic, self-destructive outlook, leading to anti-natalist views, but it is important to remember that human beings are not a curse — human existence and procreation are not the cause of our woes and we should not individualize larger issues, it is the systems and institutions of imperialism that are the cause and the curse.
It is not a big deal whether someone wants kids or not, but it is imperative that we do not slip into reactionary tendencies that will kill off the movement. I struggle with an uncertainty of the future as well but we must have revolutionary optimism that allows the working class to hold onto their imagination and creativity.
1
cayde6ml - 9mon
I'm a partial anti-natalist (only partially) but I don't hate children, ofc. And I do think that globally speaking, a falling birth rate is a major problem.
In regards to having children, I got a vasectomy over a year ago, and my Girl never wants to have biological children.
I almost definitely never want to have any children, period. But I wouldn't be completely against adoption, after we move to Chengdu one day.
But that would take decades' worth of personal growth/change from me.
0
Spectre - 9mon
I don’t mean this as an insult at all, but I thought that Marxism and anti-natalism were opposite ideologies
11
Dengalicious - 9mon
They are. Anti-Natalism cannot function with a material view of the world since it views the world through a lens that rejects the purely material conception. Socialism is also pro-worker so if you think humans shouldn’t exist ideologically then you also think that of workers and couldn’t be a socialist
8
cayde6ml - 9mon
Anti-natalism doesn't reject material reality, and as I said, only partial anti-natalism.
You're being dogmatic and immaterial.
I also never said that humans shouldn't or don't deserve to exist. That's different than anti-natalism. Anti-natalism means that it's inherently selfish to biologically have children. But just because something is selfish, doesn't automatically make a bad or simple thing.
-3
cfgaussian - 9mon
There are two different viewpoints on this. One is the one you are mentioning which holds that having children is something selfish that you do for yourself. There are a number of arguments for this view such as the personal fulfillment many people get from raising a child, having more people around you who love you and who can take care of you when you are older, and of course getting to "pass on" something of yourself. In that sense it makes sense for some people to view it as selfish.
The opposite view however would argue that it is actually selfish not to have children, since children are necessary for the perpetuation of society. This too makes sense: By having children you are doing something good for society, adding to your community another person who can help make that community better while potentially (depending on how much of a burden you view taking care of a child as) giving up some of your other goals in life as you are sacrificing your own time and resources.
Both views exist and i don't think we should be arguing about who is right and who is wrong. Ultimately this is a personal choice and it has no relation to being or not being a good socialist. The duty of a socialist society is to help with all possible means those who do choose to have children, providing them with all that they need to raise a family, while also respecting the choice of those who don't and making sure they too are taken care of by the larger "family" of society.
19
cayde6ml - 9mon
Quoted for Truth
0
Dengalicious - 9mon
Being against people having children and viewing it as a selfish act in of itself, devoid of any context inherently upholds the view that humans shouldn’t exist. The whole foundation of the ideology has to led to that position.
3
cayde6ml - 9mon
Did I say devoid of any context? And that's a ridiculous strawman that I won't bother giving even the tiniest bit of credence.
0
Dengalicious - 9mon
Yes, you literally did. You referred to the ideology which posits itself as universal in any commonly understood and used context.
1
cayde6ml - 9mon
They aren't. At least not in a reasonable interpretation
-8
driving_crooner @lemmy.eco.br - 9mon
I already cut my balls off, my wife wants to cut of hers too, but we live in a patriarchal society where men can choose what their do with their bodies while women need two kids to do the same.
I'm antinatalist, but don't hate children. Would adopt, but my wife have not interest and isn't something I care that much.
-1
Dengalicious - 9mon
You aren’t a leftist if you are an anti-natalist. Anti-natalism is based on the assumption that life is more bad than good which is based on subjective views of the world (and has no basis in actual science). It’s not materialist. Secondly, anti-natalism is anti-human and therefore anti-worker. You cannot be a leftist anti-natalist much as you can’t be a leftist racist. Anti-natalism is extremely reactionary.
3
cayde6ml - 9mon
Anti-natalism isn't inherently anti-human or anti-worker, that is laughable.
-5
Dengalicious - 9mon
Yes, it is. Anti-natalism posits that people shouldn’t be born. That means they do not want people to be workers in the future, making it a reactionary anti-worker position to take.
3
BlueFootedBooby @lemm.ee - 9mon
Pretty fucked up to reduce all people to simply just "worker"
-3
Dengalicious - 9mon
I have no clue what you mean
0
cayde6ml - 9mon
That's an extremely simplistic and slightly childish interpretation.
If anything, I despise the voluntary human extinction movement. That doesn't preclude being smart about having biological children, and it sure as fuck doesn't stop be from being a communist.
Having biological children is probably inherently selfish, but that doesn't make having children an inherently bad or evil thing. That's my entire point.
-6
Soviet Pigeon - 9mon
Having biological children is probably inherently selfish, but that doesn't make having children an inherently bad or evil thing. That's my entire point.
Who cares if it is selfish or not, why does it matter at all? In the end it has still nothing to do with Anti-Natalism. The name itself is nomen est omen and says everything needed to know. Your point is not anti-natalism but a mere moral observation, why life is creating more life. You can be easily misunderstood if you confuse this terms
5
cayde6ml - 9mon
I wasn't confusing the terms, and I and lots of people can and should care. That's why I reiterate that I take a softer approach. I think more people should be aware that it's perfectly okay to not have biological children, and that choosing to have biological children isn't inherently good or altruistic, and does have some element of selfishness.
I figure that if people understood all of that upfront (and ofc living in a socialist society) that child abuse will drastically decrease when all the cards are out on the table, so to speak.
As the saying goes, "every child needs a parent, but not every parent needs a child".
I call myself a partial anti-natalist, the same as classifying myself as a Marxist-Leninist, it's a specific addition, alteration or subset of a larger category or umbrella.
Most Marxists, for instance, wouldn't want to be associated with Pol Pot.
I and lots of other people didn't consent to being born, even if that is a ridiculous-sounding claim. Obviously, no one can consent to that, but every life should be treated with the upmost care and possibility, and life should be something that everyone can take part in and have a good time. And sometimes I do regret that I exist, even if that sounds stupid. But I think even most people with depression and shit can generally agree that we'd rather be born, than not.
I maintain that anti-natalism isn't nearly the same as wanting all of humanity dead, or that there aren't eventual positives to birth.
4
Dengalicious - 9mon
You aren’t a communist as you reject dialectical materialism by upholding an ideological framework that analyzes non-beings on the same level as beings. That’s not materialism but religion.
5
cayde6ml - 9mon
You're a clown and I won't dignify your nonsense word salad with a reply.
-6
Dengalicious - 9mon
Ah yes, anything that you disagree with is “word salad”. What a fantastic way to analyze everything. I’m sure that will lead to correct understandings of the world…
4
driving_crooner @lemmy.eco.br - 9mon
I think its about concent, I don't think you should force someone into life just because you want it.
-6
Angry_Fuck - 9mon
Someone who doesn't exist can't give consent. That's a non sequitur. See this for some general sense on the matter on the vibe that I have again the consent argument.
There is an example on the thread that goes about rape and non-consent and that is a non-equivalence.
6
driving_crooner @lemmy.eco.br - 9mon
I don't understand the fact that because someone exists, therefore it can't concent so it's dosen't matter. Like, if we had technology for genetic manipulation, and someone who dosen't exists so it's can't concent to be birth without eyes, arms and legs, so it would be OK to do it? Maybe the problem is more about branding, if I would say exactly the same without saying the word "antinatalist" nobody would bat an eye.
-2
Soviet Pigeon - 9mon
Like, if we had technology for genetic manipulation, and someone who dosen't exists so it's can't concent to be birth without eyes, arms and legs, so it would be OK to do it?
In the actual world, dominated by the bourgeoisie, there is some consent between people and scientiest, that this would be not ok. It is not been seen as ethical. What is ethical or not is nothing more than a artificial line made by humans and depends greatly on material conditions. Especially after human experiments in Japan and Germany.
But the question, if it is ok to artificially create a human with so many disabilities or simply give birth to human, are things which are not related at all. Only if you really equal the human existence itself as a form of suffering, then it has nothing to do with marxism at all and is some Buddha or similar idealistic stuff. But even they are not against giving birth to children.
Maybe the problem is more about branding, if I would say exactly the same without saying the word "antinatalist" nobody would bat an eye.
This are different things. Anti-natalism has nothing to do with being against artificially creating people with the aim of making them suffer as much as possible.
6
Angry_Fuck - 9mon
Again, consent doesn't matter, as none can be given by this non-existing person. On the other hand, that is to be considered cruel and gratuitous.
Let's just go on a tangent: we, humans, the apex of this planet, do play God quite often, and as such, we are the ones that draw the line on this type of stuff. See, for example, mice, which are used for bio studies for a myriad of ailments. So, the genetic engineering already exists. Most people just don't realize it.
"But they are different species". Yes, and mammals too. So similar to us, in fact, that we use them to study our diseases. We even "pre-bake" them with cancer, if it's needed for research. Go closer to humans and stuff start to get wronger. Big apes are a no-go, Rhesus monkeys, on the other hand, need approval from bioethics boards. We draw the line where in the tree of life animals start to be too like us to matter.
So, why only be antinatalist and not vegan as well? Is human suffering the only thing that matters? I haven't even considered invertebrates for that matter.
I'll end this tangent about genetic engineering and speciecism here.
And no, antinatalism is not about branding. The whole ideology is moot. I do have friends who have this instance. I say it to their face that it is either defeatist, conservatist and, in general, a shit for brains idea. It's just neomalthusianism, all over again. Here, have a link from Reddit on that.
And, as I like to say, again, to my friend's face: go seek psychiatric and psychological help. Accepting this type of ideology is, in my own experience being on that side of the argument, a symptom of depression. You see life as completely sad and full of woe, when it's just so much more.
6
TankieReplyBot - 9mon
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
Your strawmanning is reaching incredibly ludicrous levels. I think you might be projecting.
-3
cayde6ml - 9mon
You're being a complete tool and douchebag to driving_crooner.
-11
Dengalicious - 9mon
Someone who doesn’t exist doesn’t have the ability to consent so the fact they don’t is irrelevant. Something existing determines if we take it into account as Marxist. That’s a major part of being a leftist
3
cayde6ml - 9mon
Someone potentially existing has weight and meaning, too.
2
Dengalicious - 9mon
No, it doesn’t. They don’t exist therefore there is no weight in their existence. Something that does not exist has no moral component to it whatsoever
4
cayde6ml - 9mon
That's doesn't negate the lack of concent.
-9
☭CommieWolf☆ - 9mon
But surely, by this logic, nobody consents to being born, so what does it matter?
2
cayde6ml - 9mon
The implications for child and societal welfare.
Edit: "but who cares?!" such a disgusting thought-terminating hollow canard.
-3
☭CommieWolf☆ - 9mon
You're putting words in my mouth. If your implication is that children do not consent to being born, you have to also agree that literally nobody CAN consent to being born or not. So what is the point of you brining this up if not for the indirect implication that having children is inherently wrong as it does not factor in an unobtainable level of consent? I am actually interested in hearing how you would resolve this consent issue.
4
Dengalicious - 9mon
That’s not materialist. Consent can’t exist for those that don’t exist so in a material lens we can only analyze those that do in fact exist. The conception of the theoretical and non-existent individual’s consent can’t be materialist and couldn’t be upheld by an actual leftist.
2
cayde6ml - 9mon
Materialism is more than just raw physical reality, even though materialism is the majority of that. I find it hard to believe that deciding the shape of the next generation isn't materialist.
-1
Boomkop3 - 9mon
Plenty of people and societies make quite a fuss of men sterilising themselves, it sucks
1
KrupskayaPraxis - 9mon
I don't. Part of it is because of being trans and infertile, part of me wonders if I can handle it mentally and financially. And I missed out of my own childhood and teenagehood a little bit and I want to catch up and can't do that if I get children.
There's also the overpopulation concern.
-1
Boomkop3 - 9mon
Nope, because I don't like kids. I'm not planning to maintain a poop factory and don't think I'd be interested in giving up my hobbies to help some teenager
Confidant6198 in asklemmygrad
Who of you want or don't want children? I am just curious because most people that I talk to don't seem to want it. I mean leftist
I am curious if the majority of leftist people don't actually want children haha. There doesn't seem to be any studies about it, but my convos with leftists is that most don't seem to want to have children either for the uncertainty of the future or because they are too expensive or because it wouldn't give them too much time to organize or whatever other reason that I forgot about.
I personally lean on not having children because I have been laid off of several jobs and having someone financially dependent to me scares the shit out of me and would put my stress levels through the roof.
Part of me would have liked to have kids but given the material conditions of my life it would have likely ended up as a miserable story.
Early in my life my parents were taught the lesson of precarity under capitalism. I picked up the lesson and I could never shake it. As I came to working age I knew that no matter how hard I worked chances were good that everything I had built up would be dashed away. I could see that there was no way I (or most most millennials without generational wealth) would ever own a home. My future was quite obviously to work hard so landlords, capitalists and petti bourgeoise could live comfortable lives. I didn't put it in these terms at the time but wrecking my mental and physical health supporting the rich and producing one or more future laborers for capitalism to exploit seemed stupid. Instead I did personal austerity and worked as little as possible.
The only way to minimise your losses when you are forced to play a rigged game is to play as little as possible.
My lady never wanted kids for her own reasons and that's fine with me.
I want kids but my girlfriend is unsure. I just really want to be a father and the responsibilities associated with it.
It is beautiful when your son/daughter utter the words father/mother. Mine did it yesterday
That's perfectly valid. I was rather miserable for the large chunk of my adult life and I'm afraid I might somehow inflict that on my children too. I am not against adopting or taking care of my potential partner's children in the future, if I sort my personal stuff. (:
I lean left like most intelligent people.
I do actually want a child, i know it's hard. But several instances and things beyond my control and this current political climate. Absolutely not. And being almost too old, we'll I guess it's fast becoming not an option.
So on my soapbox for a minute.
Most liberals would actually have children, if you make the environment supportive of those who choose that option. Being in the US i can assure you, it's exactly the opposite in this dumb country. It's a liability, it's cruel, its harsh. There's barely any incentive beyond not having your bloodline die out.
My gf and I want 2, but that's a long time from now, and I'm uncertain if we'll be able to stay together for that long and not be pulled apart by circumstances.
I was going to write a long drawn out wall of text to explain my thoughts and reasoning, but to just summarize...
I would have liked to have had kids years ago, but I also knew that the future for any kid is going to be grim. They should not have to be forced to deal with the societal and environmental collapse that is guaranteed to happen. Especially for my country there is a zero chance that kid will have a good life. So I just won't. Maybe I'll adopt, since at least that's saving a victim and not contributing to more miserable children, but I cannot conciously bring a child into this existence which I have no hope for.
This is the perspective of someone who doesn't see a future for their country. There are still places in the world that still have hope for their civilizations. I just have none for mine.
I would like to have a kid, but can't afford to. My wife also is trying to get her career off the ground and so we are not really in the best position. I'm well off enough for our current life, but if we move to a bigger space and have to start paying for all that is required, the math doesn't math anymore.
Maybe in a few years we'll reconsider before we are too old
I had an abusive parent so I wouldn't know what to do with children even if I had them. I don't even know how to interact with other people's children, so I instinctively avoid them. Also I find a lot of people's children to be annoying/exhausting. I think seeing parents playing with their kids is nice, but I can't ever imagine being in such a position myself. All I have right now is myself and I don't see that changing.
I think I would’ve liked having children in the future, but it just isn’t in the cards for me. I am “selfish” in that I don't want to go through the “normal” process of having kids, and all other methods are incredibly unethical, at least under capitalism (I don’t know if they could ever be ethical).
It would be very difficult but if all the chips fall into place I do like the idea of having kids someday. ^^
No way. Can't even handle myself 24/7, let alone a child with me. Having a child under the nuclear family model is more responsibility than most humans can handle. But I like dealing with children for limited amounts of time, so I could always help out family or close friends with theirs, besides all the students I'll have in the near future.
However my utopia world would be one where children are raised by the community rather than the birther and maybe the birther's partner. That's one thing I miss from rural life.
We were thinking of having kids, but things became harder financially, and we really began to enjoy our free time. Plus we have a few friends with kids, and they don't seem very happy, and nephews. So like, that's probably enough.
I'm not really interested in having sex, but there are certainly other ways of having kids. I just also don't think I am (or likely ever will be) in a mentally stable enough position that I feel like I could care for a child. I can barely care for myself and require a good amount of support to do so. So no, kids are very likely not in my future.
I never really wanted children and I am still leaning towards that, together with my partner, though things might change in the next few years. It's not that we hate children or something, not at all. We have wonderful kids in the family. Just not interested in having them myself.
If none of you are interested in children, why do you think that things may change in the future?
No idea. We're both young enough not to worry about kids that much so maybe in a few years when we're older thing have changed. We'll see how it goes.
I personally don't want children simply because I don't have that drive or urge or something that people have that makes them want to have kids.
Why I don't? No idea. From my perspective people who want kids seem a bit weird. But to each their own I suppose.
I could afford a wife and kids and am not opposed to it, but I am just too unlikable for that to even matter. Lol
I could probably be a good parent, but I could also probably put that to the test by doing teaching or something, without the need to try to have kids first. Of course, this is assuming I found someone to have kids with in the first place. Anyway, I tend to have mixed feelings about it. It appeals to me on some level, but it would also be a huge commitment to take on and one I'm not currently well-equipped to handle materially. When I'm on dating apps, I tend to put like "open to kids" cause I don't feel closed off to it like some do who don't want children, period. But I could not say I'm actively pursuing the idea either. It also just feels a bit weird to think about as a decision I make at any point, since I'm not the one who would be bearing the child. I know it matters though insofar as I'm looking for someone who wants the same thing. But since I'm not sure what I want and some of it for me depends on things like financial stability, that makes it harder. If I lived in a socialist state where financial stability came relatively easily, as did community support systems, I'd probably be much more into the idea. But in the US? Sometimes I wonder how much can hold together before weeks become decades. So it's hard to even think about a lifetime commitment like that.
I was abused by my family growing up and am worried that I wouldn't know how to be a good parent. That is the main personal reason I don't want to have children.
I also don't think it's a good idea for societal reasons. With the way things are currently going, in my opinion there is a near zero chance that upper Gen Alpha/Gen Beta is going to have a pleasant future and wouldn't want to put a child through that.
I want children, maybe two.
If you consider yourself a Marxist or even simply a "progressive", I feel like the next generation should always be your focus. Our descendants keeps everything that has happened, everything currently happening and everything that will happen in motion, so that can't be ignored if you have revolution on your mind. If someone personally does not want kids, I feel like they owe it to the next generation to be an educator and/or putting their energies into cultivating fresh minds, at the very least. Societal progress will only get so far if we are only concerned about what our current generation is doing — we have to think of revolution as laying the groundwork for people who aren't even here yet. That is truly our best and only hope.
It appears to me that depression and stress drives a lot of leftists into a pessimistic, self-destructive outlook, leading to anti-natalist views, but it is important to remember that human beings are not a curse — human existence and procreation are not the cause of our woes and we should not individualize larger issues, it is the systems and institutions of imperialism that are the cause and the curse.
It is not a big deal whether someone wants kids or not, but it is imperative that we do not slip into reactionary tendencies that will kill off the movement. I struggle with an uncertainty of the future as well but we must have revolutionary optimism that allows the working class to hold onto their imagination and creativity.
I'm a partial anti-natalist (only partially) but I don't hate children, ofc. And I do think that globally speaking, a falling birth rate is a major problem.
In regards to having children, I got a vasectomy over a year ago, and my Girl never wants to have biological children.
I almost definitely never want to have any children, period. But I wouldn't be completely against adoption, after we move to Chengdu one day.
But that would take decades' worth of personal growth/change from me.
I don’t mean this as an insult at all, but I thought that Marxism and anti-natalism were opposite ideologies
They are. Anti-Natalism cannot function with a material view of the world since it views the world through a lens that rejects the purely material conception. Socialism is also pro-worker so if you think humans shouldn’t exist ideologically then you also think that of workers and couldn’t be a socialist
Anti-natalism doesn't reject material reality, and as I said, only partial anti-natalism.
You're being dogmatic and immaterial.
I also never said that humans shouldn't or don't deserve to exist. That's different than anti-natalism. Anti-natalism means that it's inherently selfish to biologically have children. But just because something is selfish, doesn't automatically make a bad or simple thing.
There are two different viewpoints on this. One is the one you are mentioning which holds that having children is something selfish that you do for yourself. There are a number of arguments for this view such as the personal fulfillment many people get from raising a child, having more people around you who love you and who can take care of you when you are older, and of course getting to "pass on" something of yourself. In that sense it makes sense for some people to view it as selfish.
The opposite view however would argue that it is actually selfish not to have children, since children are necessary for the perpetuation of society. This too makes sense: By having children you are doing something good for society, adding to your community another person who can help make that community better while potentially (depending on how much of a burden you view taking care of a child as) giving up some of your other goals in life as you are sacrificing your own time and resources.
Both views exist and i don't think we should be arguing about who is right and who is wrong. Ultimately this is a personal choice and it has no relation to being or not being a good socialist. The duty of a socialist society is to help with all possible means those who do choose to have children, providing them with all that they need to raise a family, while also respecting the choice of those who don't and making sure they too are taken care of by the larger "family" of society.
Quoted for Truth
Being against people having children and viewing it as a selfish act in of itself, devoid of any context inherently upholds the view that humans shouldn’t exist. The whole foundation of the ideology has to led to that position.
Did I say devoid of any context? And that's a ridiculous strawman that I won't bother giving even the tiniest bit of credence.
Yes, you literally did. You referred to the ideology which posits itself as universal in any commonly understood and used context.
They aren't. At least not in a reasonable interpretation
I already cut my balls off, my wife wants to cut of hers too, but we live in a patriarchal society where men can choose what their do with their bodies while women need two kids to do the same.
I'm antinatalist, but don't hate children. Would adopt, but my wife have not interest and isn't something I care that much.
You aren’t a leftist if you are an anti-natalist. Anti-natalism is based on the assumption that life is more bad than good which is based on subjective views of the world (and has no basis in actual science). It’s not materialist. Secondly, anti-natalism is anti-human and therefore anti-worker. You cannot be a leftist anti-natalist much as you can’t be a leftist racist. Anti-natalism is extremely reactionary.
Anti-natalism isn't inherently anti-human or anti-worker, that is laughable.
Yes, it is. Anti-natalism posits that people shouldn’t be born. That means they do not want people to be workers in the future, making it a reactionary anti-worker position to take.
Pretty fucked up to reduce all people to simply just "worker"
I have no clue what you mean
That's an extremely simplistic and slightly childish interpretation.
If anything, I despise the voluntary human extinction movement. That doesn't preclude being smart about having biological children, and it sure as fuck doesn't stop be from being a communist.
Having biological children is probably inherently selfish, but that doesn't make having children an inherently bad or evil thing. That's my entire point.
Who cares if it is selfish or not, why does it matter at all? In the end it has still nothing to do with Anti-Natalism. The name itself is nomen est omen and says everything needed to know. Your point is not anti-natalism but a mere moral observation, why life is creating more life. You can be easily misunderstood if you confuse this terms
I wasn't confusing the terms, and I and lots of people can and should care. That's why I reiterate that I take a softer approach. I think more people should be aware that it's perfectly okay to not have biological children, and that choosing to have biological children isn't inherently good or altruistic, and does have some element of selfishness.
I figure that if people understood all of that upfront (and ofc living in a socialist society) that child abuse will drastically decrease when all the cards are out on the table, so to speak.
As the saying goes, "every child needs a parent, but not every parent needs a child".
I call myself a partial anti-natalist, the same as classifying myself as a Marxist-Leninist, it's a specific addition, alteration or subset of a larger category or umbrella.
Most Marxists, for instance, wouldn't want to be associated with Pol Pot.
I and lots of other people didn't consent to being born, even if that is a ridiculous-sounding claim. Obviously, no one can consent to that, but every life should be treated with the upmost care and possibility, and life should be something that everyone can take part in and have a good time. And sometimes I do regret that I exist, even if that sounds stupid. But I think even most people with depression and shit can generally agree that we'd rather be born, than not.
I maintain that anti-natalism isn't nearly the same as wanting all of humanity dead, or that there aren't eventual positives to birth.
You aren’t a communist as you reject dialectical materialism by upholding an ideological framework that analyzes non-beings on the same level as beings. That’s not materialism but religion.
You're a clown and I won't dignify your nonsense word salad with a reply.
Ah yes, anything that you disagree with is “word salad”. What a fantastic way to analyze everything. I’m sure that will lead to correct understandings of the world…
I think its about concent, I don't think you should force someone into life just because you want it.
Someone who doesn't exist can't give consent. That's a non sequitur. See this for some general sense on the matter on the vibe that I have again the consent argument. There is an example on the thread that goes about rape and non-consent and that is a non-equivalence.
I don't understand the fact that because someone exists, therefore it can't concent so it's dosen't matter. Like, if we had technology for genetic manipulation, and someone who dosen't exists so it's can't concent to be birth without eyes, arms and legs, so it would be OK to do it? Maybe the problem is more about branding, if I would say exactly the same without saying the word "antinatalist" nobody would bat an eye.
In the actual world, dominated by the bourgeoisie, there is some consent between people and scientiest, that this would be not ok. It is not been seen as ethical. What is ethical or not is nothing more than a artificial line made by humans and depends greatly on material conditions. Especially after human experiments in Japan and Germany.
But the question, if it is ok to artificially create a human with so many disabilities or simply give birth to human, are things which are not related at all. Only if you really equal the human existence itself as a form of suffering, then it has nothing to do with marxism at all and is some Buddha or similar idealistic stuff. But even they are not against giving birth to children.
This are different things. Anti-natalism has nothing to do with being against artificially creating people with the aim of making them suffer as much as possible.
Again, consent doesn't matter, as none can be given by this non-existing person. On the other hand, that is to be considered cruel and gratuitous.
Let's just go on a tangent: we, humans, the apex of this planet, do play God quite often, and as such, we are the ones that draw the line on this type of stuff. See, for example, mice, which are used for bio studies for a myriad of ailments. So, the genetic engineering already exists. Most people just don't realize it.
"But they are different species". Yes, and mammals too. So similar to us, in fact, that we use them to study our diseases. We even "pre-bake" them with cancer, if it's needed for research. Go closer to humans and stuff start to get wronger. Big apes are a no-go, Rhesus monkeys, on the other hand, need approval from bioethics boards. We draw the line where in the tree of life animals start to be too like us to matter.
So, why only be antinatalist and not vegan as well? Is human suffering the only thing that matters? I haven't even considered invertebrates for that matter.
I'll end this tangent about genetic engineering and speciecism here.
And no, antinatalism is not about branding. The whole ideology is moot. I do have friends who have this instance. I say it to their face that it is either defeatist, conservatist and, in general, a shit for brains idea. It's just neomalthusianism, all over again. Here, have a link from Reddit on that.
And, as I like to say, again, to my friend's face: go seek psychiatric and psychological help. Accepting this type of ideology is, in my own experience being on that side of the argument, a symptom of depression. You see life as completely sad and full of woe, when it's just so much more.
A Reddit link was detected in your comment. Here are links to the same location on alternative frontends that protect your privacy.
Your strawmanning is reaching incredibly ludicrous levels. I think you might be projecting.
You're being a complete tool and douchebag to driving_crooner.
Someone who doesn’t exist doesn’t have the ability to consent so the fact they don’t is irrelevant. Something existing determines if we take it into account as Marxist. That’s a major part of being a leftist
Someone potentially existing has weight and meaning, too.
No, it doesn’t. They don’t exist therefore there is no weight in their existence. Something that does not exist has no moral component to it whatsoever
That's doesn't negate the lack of concent.
But surely, by this logic, nobody consents to being born, so what does it matter?
The implications for child and societal welfare.
Edit: "but who cares?!" such a disgusting thought-terminating hollow canard.
You're putting words in my mouth. If your implication is that children do not consent to being born, you have to also agree that literally nobody CAN consent to being born or not. So what is the point of you brining this up if not for the indirect implication that having children is inherently wrong as it does not factor in an unobtainable level of consent? I am actually interested in hearing how you would resolve this consent issue.
That’s not materialist. Consent can’t exist for those that don’t exist so in a material lens we can only analyze those that do in fact exist. The conception of the theoretical and non-existent individual’s consent can’t be materialist and couldn’t be upheld by an actual leftist.
Materialism is more than just raw physical reality, even though materialism is the majority of that. I find it hard to believe that deciding the shape of the next generation isn't materialist.
Plenty of people and societies make quite a fuss of men sterilising themselves, it sucks
I don't. Part of it is because of being trans and infertile, part of me wonders if I can handle it mentally and financially. And I missed out of my own childhood and teenagehood a little bit and I want to catch up and can't do that if I get children.
There's also the overpopulation concern.
Nope, because I don't like kids. I'm not planning to maintain a poop factory and don't think I'd be interested in giving up my hobbies to help some teenager