• Boozilla@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Pretty decent article. Better than many I have read on this subject.

    I am a ‘soft antinatalist’ in the sense that I think the philosophy is very likely correct (the ‘math’ adds up), but it’s also not my place to tell other people what to do with their lives.

  • cybernihongo@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    23 hours ago

    I didn’t think I’d be reading an article talking about antinatalism on… Playboy of all places. The Playmates tab is right there, as if to make you forget the article you were just reading. It’s just really funny.

  • socsa@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Give me something to believe in or I just don’t give a fuck. My fellow humans disappoint me, and I’m not going to make meat for the fascist machine.

    I am perfectly happy going out on my own terms when life gets too tedious or painful. I’m not concerned with anyone’s depopulation pearl clutching because it’s literally not my problem.

  • OwOarchist@pawb.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    24 hours ago

    Not all antinatalists want humans to go extinct entirely. Some of us just want there to be a lot fewer humans.

    • FavouriteShapes@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      21 hours ago

      Those are different goals, so should have different titles. The former should be called human-extinctionists, the latter can remain “anti natalists”

  • schipelblorp@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    1 day ago

    This is the thing that troubles me, for I cannot forget Carcosa where black stars hand in the heavens; where the shadows of men’s thoughts lengthen in the afternoon, where the twin suns sink into the Lake of Hali; and my mind will bear forever the memory of the Pallid Mask.

          • 20cello@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            23 hours ago

            Yeah,you just gotta inform 2 billions people living with a few dollars a month. Totally realistic

            • OwOarchist@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              22 hours ago

              It’s a slow process, but possible.

              And living with a few dollars a month will be easier if you don’t have kids. Kids are expensive.

              • 20cello@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                21 hours ago

                It’s a slow process, but possible.

                This might work in first world countries

                living with a few dollars a month will be easier if you don’t have kids.

                For a large part of the humanity raising kids is a way to survive, grown up children,little more than toddlers sometimes, help their families avoid starvation. They haven’t the privilege to choose.

                • OwOarchist@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  21 hours ago

                  And then those children will need to have children to survive when they grow up. And so on with their children, and so on with their children’s children… A never-ending cycle of creating more suffering to alleviate your own.

                  Time to make the selfless choice, tough it out without children, and break the cycle. It will be worse for you, but better for countless future generations who won’t have to deal with it anymore.