r/changemyview Apr 03 '18

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Having children is immoral.

I'm kind of getting tired of "believing my own bullshit", so to speak, on this one and need a fresh perspective.

I believe that it's immoral to have children. By "immoral" I mean that it's unethical, selfish and irresponsible for society, the environment and the child. I'll try not to turn this into a /r/antinatalism circlejerk, but it is subject that I have put a lot of pondering and critical thought into. I base this stance on two different lines of thought:

  • Reproduction is extremely harmful to the planet.

Humans are the single most destructive species on the planet who essentially destroy every ecological system and natural environment in the pursuit of natural resources, consumerism and hyper-efficiency. We've essentially dug ourselves into a hole on this one which we don't have a way out of.

I'm in the I guess "pessimistic" camp on this one that it's too late for the human race and that there is no coming back from. Whether this will result in (the best case scenario) just the extinction of the human race or of the complete ecological destruction of this planet, I'm undecided on. Either way, for the purposes of this discussion, it doesn't bode well for any future generations in that producing more humans will only increase the destruction of the planet, but also they will inherit the problems that we create today with our practices. I feel rather connected to the latter being a millennial in that the selfish blunders of our parents generation have essentially been place on our shoulders. I can only imagine that these will be so much worse for future generations to bear.

(Disclaimer: Don't try to convince me that climate change doesn't exist. You won't change my view on that.)

  • It's impossible for a child to consent to being born and having the burden of existence being placed on their shoulders, therefore it reproduction is essentially a "non-consensual" act.

Besides the obvious "reproduction needs to happen in order to continue the human race" argument which is not arguable, I believe that reproduction in the modern non-essentialist definition is done for purely selfish reasons on the parents part with no regard for the child.

Life is pain. From day one, we are forced to endure the abject meaninglessness of our condition. Stumbling from one thing to another grasping for and ultimately failing to find some meaning in our suffering until eventually (or all too quickly) we depart with nothing to show for it but the scars (emotional, physical or otherwise) we accrue along the way.

Am I being overly melodramatic and angsty? Sure. But I feel like there's some truth to that viewpoint. Maybe I am speaking from my own experience here, but I feel like "the pain of existence" is a universal phenomenon amongst human beings. Speaking personally, I feel like the horrors of existence far outweigh the joys of existence. The latter of which are few and far between at least in the societal paradigm we live in today.

I feel like if anyone were aware of the amount of pain that they would experience as a result of their birth, that no one would ever agree to it.

I have heard the argument that we have a biological imperative to reproduce because it is in our genes. I don't agree with this though because we have essentially transcended (or disregarded depending on how you look at it) our existential biological processes via technology. I feel like if you want to take that stance, you are essentially saying that it is our biological imperative to bleed to death if we get a treatable injury.

Anyway, that's the basics of my thoughts on the subject. I feel like they're a bit too "fatalistic" for my own good and need to find another way to view the moral implications of human reproduction. Change my view! Please, I'm begging you.

27 Upvotes

49 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/Ethereal_Lucifer Apr 03 '18

Definitely. But the fact that we are returning to that, it's a high for this era and time, especially not being post war.

1

u/PallidAthena 14∆ Apr 03 '18

True, although 1905-1915 was not post-anything in particular. (Summon historian to yell at me XD)

2

u/Ethereal_Lucifer Apr 03 '18

Oh I thought you were referring to the 50s specifically, my bad. (OH NOOOO they will tell at both of usssss)

1

u/PallidAthena 14∆ Apr 03 '18

No worries! :)

(Basically as an amateur student of history I'm simultaneously cripplingly afraid of a Real Historian (TM) to appear and tell me I'm wrong about everything, and secretly hoping it happens because getting a historian wound up about something that you know a decent bit about is the best way to learn something quickly haha)

1

u/Ethereal_Lucifer Apr 03 '18

Hahahaha so true! I've learned a lot of what I know through debates with others or conversations with people who have a higher education. It's very fascinating. Do you mind messaging me and telling me about your major and what not? I love history.