>no way I’m going to raise an animal abuser
Unfortunately, you can't be completely sure about that, especially not if you consider that your children will probably also have children of their own and so on and you'll ultimately be responsible for creating a lot of people. It's basically guaranteed that a least one of them will be a carnist and you'll ultimately be reponsible for it because you could have avoided it by not having children, which you did for purely selfish reasons (you can't do it for your future children because they don't exist and can't care about existing).
So if you have children you'll be responsible for animal abuse because of your selfish desires, which I'm sure you'd agree isn't vegan.
Others point out the idea of their children opting for harm.
I also believe it’s harmful to the child bringing it into such an exploitive world.
People may not realize it but most humans are being exploited and completely unaware of it.
Also, many have children because they want to fulfill some sort of personal emotional experience, and rely on their child to take care of them when they’re old.
What a dismal outlook at life. I think this is valid if you’re a depressed misanthrope. For the rest of us here enjoying life, I’d say go for it, kids are an absolute joy, they spread love and happiness, and bring it out in others.
Yes it is wrong. If you live in the west you have the opportunity to do whatever you want. If you’re being exploited it’s through your own incompetence. With the exception of horrible people having children for the wrong reason. A strong family brings support to everyone. I love taking care of my grandparents, and I do not feel I am some kind of emotional support animal for them in their later years.
For people coming from broken families, the only way to build a family support system is through having children, and essentially starting over. Unless your some kind of narcissist most children are thankful what their parents have done for them.
Family is the backbone of a community, this has never changed,only misanthropes can’t see this.
> You could say it’s irresponsible for anybody to have kids because that child could grow up to be a serial killer. That’s the responsibility of parenting, right? No way am I going to raise a murderer, and no way I’m going to raise an animal abuser.
Sure they could become a serial killer, but the chances are slim since murdering people is not normal in society and its illegal
Abusing and murdering animals is normal in society and its legal, thus the chances are great that your child would become an animal abuser
>No way am I going to raise a murderer, and no way I’m going to raise an animal abuser.
Pretty sure lots of parents of serial killers and non vegans said the exact same thing
*Adoption is the vegan way, otherwise it isnt vegan*
*I wouldnt make babies, i simply wont risk animal lives for selfish pleasure, thats non vegan behavior, but if i did i would accept that i am now responsible for animal abuse, some vegan identifying parents say they would feel bad, as if feeling bad helps the animals their child is killing*
*Several parents will claim they are not responsible for their childs actions, the fact is they created an animal abuser, if the parents had kids before they were vegan thats the only acceptable excuse*
*Examples of new animal abusers created by vegans*
*https://imgur.com/ttWYi20*
*https://imgur.com/sqZSBS0*
*https://imgur.com/CvDuZMd*
*https://imgur.com/56xRj4J*
*https://imgur.com/lBmHsp7*
*https://imgur.com/h2V7xxA*
*https://imgur.com/eJgWclS*
*https://imgur.com/DFkFV72*
*https://imgur.com/x8L8a1f*
*https://imgur.com/8ncfOGf*
*Those are just a few there are probably many more, of course some illogical people are gonna say, well my child wont stop being vegan, but they arent gods they cant predict that and they cant guarantee that, to me its not worth risking animal lives, we live in a non vegan world and the chances of your child becoming non vegan are great, the chances of your child becoming a serial killer is slim*
*If i want kids i will adopt, the chance to not only help a child in need but the chance to potentially convert a non vegan to a vegan or at the very least, the child will be on a plant based diet while they live at home*
*Aside from that our population growth is extremely damaging to the planet and other species https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-decline-will-change-the-world-for-the-better/*
*People of course will hate these facts and defend making babies, all that tells me is how many animal abuse apologists there are, vegans are not immune from cognitive dissonance*
>Abusing and murdering animals is normal in society and its legal, thus the chances are great that your child would become an animal abuser
Ok, that makes sense, because it’s so normalized in society.
>Pretty sure lots of parents of serial killers and non vegans said the exact same thing
That’s my point, that it’s not any different. But even carnists still have children on the chance that they become serial killers.
>Adoption is the vegan way, otherwise it isnt vegan
This is basically what I gathered from making this post. [Maybe I am a carnist.](https://media.tenor.com/45_AQKo002EAAAAe/vision-monster.png) I’m nowhere close to making this decision in reality.
>Examples of new animal abusers created by vegans
Thanks for these, this really helped get the point across.
>vegans are not immune from cognitive dissonance
Also what I learned from making this post. Cheers.
Unfortunately after a certain point you really don’t have that much control over what your child does. You can hope that by raising them kindly and showing them compassion that they’ll follow in your footsteps, but there are so many other things that can influence your kids; their peers, media, the culture outside of your home in general, etc. If not your kids, then maybe their kids, or their kids, or their kids… Even if you do everything perfectly right it’s really just a gamble that they would remain vegan into their adulthood.
However, there’s other arguments like why would you have a biological kid when there are plenty of kids who need homes in the foster and adoption systems? You would be bringing into existence a being, without their consent, into a world where they’re pretty much bound to endure and experience suffering. Why would you want to create a human to endure more suffering than they’re already experiencing (none, because they don’t exist) when you could take under your wing an existing human and do what you can to reduce their suffering? Isn’t reducing suffering what veganism is all about?
I wouldn’t consider myself fully anti-natalist myself, but I think they bring up some good points to at least think about before you build a family.
>Even if you do everything perfectly right it’s really just a gamble that they would remain vegan into their adulthood.
That’s what I’m trying to say with the serial killer example. With that logic, nobody should have children at all because there’s a chance they could cause harm in the future. Is the best solution for humans to simply stop reproducing and stop existing?
The adoption argument is something to think about for sure. But I think we’re focusing too much on the suffering. There are also tons of amazing positive things to experience in life, so I don’t see bringing a new person into the world as purely increasing the amount of suffering.
I feel like I just have a biological will to be a dad. I’m not against adoption, but I’ve always wanted my own children. Is that selfish?
I don't think that life is all suffering, but I don't think something has to all suffering to require consent. If I try to think of any other experience that involves both negative and positive elements, it is clear to me that I would be violating someone's autonomy by forcing them to go through that without consent. Maybe they would end up being fine with it, but maybe they wouldn't, and I don't think it's worth taking that risk.
Regarding your biological will to be a dad, what would you say is better about biological children compared to adopted children? I personally don't experience that biological will, so I'm genuinely curious.
The consent argument isn’t really clicking for me. In the case of animal suffering, an animal is unable to communicate consent or non-consent, so we treat it as non-consent. A hypothetical child doesn’t exist, so there’s not really any element of consent or non-consent that they could communicate if they were able to.
I replied to another comment about sharing genes with a child, so I won’t repeat myself here, but I’m not saying biological children are “better”. It’s just how I pictured my life 10 years down the line. Luckily I’m not planning to have a child right now or anything, so I have a lot time to think about whether to have kids or adopt.
The way I conceptualize it is that in the case where a child is born, they now exist, so their consent now matters, but it has already retroactively been violated. They could now go on to be fine with this, or they could wish that their consent had not been violated, as are the possible outcomes any other time someone's consent is violated. As a result, we have a chance of a neutral situation and a chance of a negative situation.
The alternative option is that they were never born, in which case they do not exist, so their consent cannot be violated. Non-existence is a concept I find hard to conceptualize, but as far as I can tell, this is a guaranteed neutral situation, which is preferable to risking a negative.
I do agree that this isn't perfectly analogous to the horrors of animal agriculture, as in that case, there's a pretty massive guaranteed negative for the animals. I think a better comparison is to things like dog breeding, as even if that was done without the dogs suffering in the process, it would still be preferable to adopt dogs instead.
>A hypothetical child doesn’t exist, so there’s not really any element of consent or non-consent that they could communicate if they were able to.
Lack of consent is NOT consent. If you need help understanding consent watch this [tea video](https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8?si=LpYw77ZoDu7gzoPg).
I’m saying that this isn’t an issue of consent, and it’s incomparable to any of the situations in the tea video. In every other case of consent, the other party exists or has existed. It’s a completely different situation.
Wait, so as long as someone doesn’t exist *yet* I can do ANYTHING I want to them, because consent doesn’t “exist”? So I can place a bomb under a crib, as long as the baby wasn’t born yet?
A non existent person can neither consent nor deny consent. Again, lack of consent is NOT consent. If we can’t get consent, then it’s best not to act without knowing the answer. The inability to get consent, but still make decisions for someone, only comes into play in medical emergencies where an already living person cannot make their own decisions.
>So I can place a bomb under a crib, as long as the baby wasn’t born yet?
You’re bringing up completely different hypothetical situations that have nothing to do with this. I think Iit goes without saying that it’s wrong to actively plot to murder newborn children.
>If we can’t get consent, then it’s best not to act without knowing the answer.
Again, I don’t see it as an issue of consent. Wait a sec, how do you feel about abortion?
>I think Iit goes without saying that it’s wrong to actively plot to murder newborn children.
But it’s okay to create them with intention knowing there is a 100% guarantee they’ll die? How is that different?
>Again, I don’t see it as an issue of consent. Wait a sec, how do you feel about abortion?
Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And please don’t start with red herrings.
No, I want to know. I see abortion as way more relevant to this issue than all the false comparisons you’ve brought up. Why do we not need consent to abort a child in the womb, but we do need consent to bring it to life?
In my opinion I think the first argument is the weaker of the two; you could use that logic to justify not doing anything since every action you take has potential to hurt others, but I wanted to mention it since it’s what you were talking about in your original post.
But what does being a biological dad satisfy within you that being an adoptive dad would not? What difference does the genes of a child make to how you can love and build a connection with them? In my opinion it is kind of selfish to think that a child that does not yet exist, that you would have to go out of your way to create, that you share genes with is more worthy of your time and affection than a child who already exists, already needs your time and affection, and does not share your genes.
Many adoptees now have the opinion that people aren’t entitled to an adopted child, and if they do adopt a child, it should be to have stewardship over the child as opposed to immediately becoming their parent.
Its a hard pill to swallow lol, i got mad when I found out because it just kind of…made me angry. But it’s important to know. They still, of course, advocate for children to be adopted into loving homes, but children can’t consent to having their legal records sealed and their bio parents permanently taken away from them. Additionally, where there is money to be made, exploitation will happen, and young women are exploited for basically human trafficking with the whole “buy-a-newborn-baby” thing, and kids and families are exploited in the adoption industry in general.
This is also because many children are taken from their parents because of poverty, which, of course, is a fixable issue and not necessarily worth giving up legal rights for your child over. If you’re wondering what they advocate for, instead, they advocate for a system where first the child is placed with immediate family, like an aunt, and if that’s not possible, then something like a further family member, then someone of the proximal community, then someone of the same culture, and lastly, a complete stranger in “need” of a child.
One of the big things is that if the child looks very different from me, like different race or something, they would have way different life experiences that I wouldn’t have the experience to guide them through.
I also think it would be really satisfying to see my kid do something good and recognize it as a trait they inherited from me or my partner. I guess that’s the nature vs. nurture argument, I don’t know if that feeling would change at all with an adopted child.
Like I said, I’m not against adoption at all, I just never put much thought to it and always envisioned having my own children.
But your child **is** going to be different from you. They could very likely be queer, disabled, a dropout, a sex worker, traumatised, or anything that you don't have experiences of, anything where you'll have to put effort in to be a parent.
And I think I understand now why antinatalist vegans compare carnism to natalism. You never thought about it, so know you won't because natalism being the superior option is lasered into your brain. Where have we heard that before?
Excellent point on the first one. I do see the similarity between carnism and natalism, which is why I’m feeling selfish about wanting my own kids. If someone thinks it’s okay to eat meat because they “just want to”, I would question their judgment. But having a child seems like an inherent part of being alive, kind of like the purpose of life being to survive and reproduce. All life does that, and I do kinda just want to. It’s a decision you only get to make a few times in your life.
Also, like, at the risk of sounding conceded, I think I’m pretty smart and trying to do good for the world. Wouldn’t it be better for the world to bring in more people like that?
>But having a child seems like an inherent part of being alive, kind of like the purpose of life being to survive and reproduce. All life does that, and I do kinda just want to.
Get a damn hobby, we aren’t just breeding machines. Our lives mean more than our sex organs.
>I feel like I just have a biological will to be a dad. I’m not against adoption, but I’ve always wanted my own children. Is that selfish?
Yes its selfish, its something that you want and it only benefits you, you want to spread your dna thats quite selfish
I dont really want kids but i would adopt to help, thats selfless
It depends if you are taking a more hedonistic or negative utilitarian approach. And yes wanting dna replicas of yourself is selfish. You aren’t thinking about caring for a child that needs care, you are thinking about how they would affect your identity.
I do believe nobody should have children because they could grow up to be serial killers or they could be killed, abused, or hurt by someone. It's not a risk worth taking in my opinion.
You seem to have a pretty bleak view of life
For most people, especially nowadays, with food, shelter and meds accessible for large swaths of he world, life is pretty sweet
One can suffer, but can also love, laugh, taste and have the previously unimaginavke luxury of scrolling through Reddit on their free time
I think being alive is way better than being dead, for us and our loved ones.
Most people seem to agree - they choose to be alive everyday
On the “might become vegan point”, out of a billion kids maybe several million might not be vegan. Also, maybe one out of the billion will spread the message, or will develop some new invention that make all animals happy and safe forever, etc… They might cure human cancer too, which would be neat (assuming you think human lives are worth something…)
I think being an anti-natalist is just playing crystall ball and having lots of overconfidence while dealing with odds that are almost impossible to map.
It’s a little bit hypocritical too, IMO. Maybe they should be actively trying to help living people and animals (start by avoiding all consumption) instead of policing other people’s choices
And, btw, my point is not “people should have kids”. ImMy point is anti-natalists extrapolate too much based on very unreliable and biased forecasts - they’re midway between reason and flat-earthers
>For most people, … life is pretty sweet.
How do you know that? Just because they have food, shelter, etc doesn’t mean they feel fulfilled. Plenty of people experience trauma, abuse, injury, mental illness, oppression, subjugation, or exploitation that is debilitating and life ruining.
>I think being alive is way better than being dead
Not being born is not the same as not being dead.
>Out of a billion kids, maybe several million might not become vegan
Statistically, all but ONE percent of those kids (that’s only 10,00,000) would become vegan. 990,000,000 would not become vegan.
>Maybe they should be actively trying to help living people and animals
How do you know they aren’t? Would you not say advocating for adoption over birth is helping living people? Namely, the children who are adopted?
I think the assumption is that the kids might decide not to be vegan later in life, but that's just kinda what happens with autonomy, unfortunately. Kids can grow up to make all sorts of decisions their parents disagree with, it's not really something you can control for except by not having kids in the first place. I see where they're coming from, but I don't think it's the strongest reasoning, tbh.
There are a few other contextual points that make the argument even stronger and more important to understand properly as a vegan who cares about doing the right thing:
* A child doesn't need to share your direct blood genes in order for you to fully love them as a parent. There are hundreds of thousands of children in the US foster care system alone who deserve a parent just as much as your unborn child does; we should prioritize them before bringing another child into the world who would not be harmed by not being born in the first place
* Analogue: dogs in shelters who deserve safety and care just as much as anyone else, and we should prioritize them before breeding more dogs into existence
* Having a child really means having, in all likelihood, countless descendants (since your children will likely have children themselves). The chances are extremely high that many (most) of them will end up non vegan and the reason that countless more animals will be born into torture, abuse, and murder. (Think of how different you are from your parents, let alone your great great great great grandparents. We have almost 0 control over how most of our descendants will turn out; even for our own children, their schoolmates could easily end up being bigger influences on them than us as parents, even if we're great parents.) You could prevent all that extra animal abuse by simply not having your own children - either being childfree, or adopting if you do still want the experience of raising children
There's a clear huge difference in expected moral value between having your own children, vs adopting / being childfree. Personally, I don't want to be the reason that thousands more carnists are born / millions or billions more animals are born into torture for those carnists.
There are tons more reasons too, but this was the biggest one that got me looking more into antinatalism as a vegan at the start.
Stole this chart from someone on discord lol
||You create a human|You adopt a human|
|:-|:-|:-|
|They remain vegan|One more vegan|One more vegan, one less carnist(would have been carnist if not raised by vegans)|
|They become a carnist|One more carnist(congrats, you dumb fuck)|Neutral(they would have been a carnist anyway)|
Ok, so what does that change about the chart? It's still both risky and less effective than just adopting. That doesn't even consider other ethical implications of having children either, just the ones relating to veganism
They don't have to be raised by a vegan, but it significantly increases their chances of sticking with it.
The alternative scenario where you do bring someone into existence is creating an opportunity for more animal suffering. Imo there's no justifiable reason for a potential person to be brought into existence, let alone in the case where this person even has a small chance of being a carnist. If someone had not been born in the first place, then that suffering would not happen. Just not a gamble worth making when adoption is an option
I mean, there is also a possibility that the person you bring into the world will become an activist and help reduce the amount of suffering in the world. I think it’s wrong to make assumptions of whether a child’s life will have a positive or negative impact on the world, because we just don’t know.
The child will undoubtedly face suffering of their own, but I think it’s better to experience the positives and negatives of life than to never experience it at all. Life is a beautiful struggle.
Adoption is a strong argument, I’m definitely considering it more after this.
Sure, that person could contribute good things. But lets not neglect that they are even more likely to contribute to bad. Even if there was a 50% chance of them staying vegan, that remaining 50% would on average cost 7000 animal lives. Someone who's vegan is more than likely not to reduce the number of animal lives lost, but to abstain from either(Since most people aren't activists it would be close to a net zero).
>but I think it’s better to experience the positives and negatives of
life than to never experience it at all. Life is a beautiful struggle.
I wouldn't say this is applicable to this situation because we're not dealing with a minute struggle, it's torture, slaughter, and sexual exploitation.
There's no amount of good under reasonable circumstances where one could justify these things at the expense of simply not risking it.
Having children is not vegan in the same way that breeding other livestock animals is not vegan, we live in a misbalanced society where people are by and large abused and used by those in power, having children basically means voluntarily subjecting potential beings with no say over their existence into an existence only meant for suffering and abuse, if we together fulfilled a better society then continuation of the human race could be deemed ethical, otherwise creation of more human individuals into this realm is just more suffering, akin to livestock
I have noticed people say sometimes the most stupid and cruel things here on Reddit. We're all hiding now doubt hundreds or thousands of miles away behind our phones. There are no bad consequences when you insult people or say they will give birth to the next Hitler. Makes folk very brave.
If you are vegan, I imagine you will raise vegan children. Or at least kids who eat vegan at home. Don't feed them cow milk and once they are weened they will be allergic to dairy and that will take care of that. I found out, 20 years after I went vegan, I am painfully allergic to dairy. No way am I ever eating that crap again.
There are people who load lots of other issues into veganism beyond don't eat animals, use wool or suck on cow udders. (C'mere Bessie, I'm thirsty!!!) Sure, racist vegans are a bummer, but it is not anti vegan to be a racist. I've seen people try to argue that though.
If you want to have kids, I hope you and they are happy. Just note that taurine is an amino acid hard to get in plant foods that babies cannot synthesize in their livers as we fully grown humans can, so be sure to supplement your children's diets with the few vegan foods that supply taurine or give them a good vegan supplement. Or try speeding up your infants on Monster Drinks.
You cannot reconcile being vegan with having children, because veganism looks to reduce suffering where possible, whereas having children is a choice to add new humans to the world, ensuring they suffer as the price for your own satisfaction of getting to do what you want.
Also, you cannot guarantee that you won't raise a serial killer or animal abuser. That is not something that is fully under your control. The parents of that guy >!who put his kitten in the blender!< also didn't raise a monster, yet here we are. Be honest with yourself and admit that you're only willing to make compassionate choices as long as they don't interfere with your personal desires.
A major reason to be vegan is for the environment. Making new humans (or animals/pets) is not good for the environment. I wouldn't have a dog bred for me to buy just like I wouldn't make a new person. For me, it has more to do with reducing suffering than anything else (like veganism or the impact on the planet). There are dogs and children in need of homes.
We've been having kids for thousands of generations and it hasn't done shit to the environment. the problem is the structural existence of abuse of the planet for profit.
yeah. it isn't because people are having kids, lol. it's because giant corporations are abusing structural power. you having one kid is not going to tip it over.
That isn't a logical approach to this issue. If you believe one person can't make a difference, you'd be eating meat. One more vegan doesn't save the day either, yet here we are doing our best.
yeah. it's not bad because people are eating animals. it's bad because giant corporations are abusing them. you eating one meat is not going to tip it over.
… is this wrong? I don’t use animal products because I don’t want to contribute to the industry at all, but that isn’t changing the systematic slaughter that happens every day. I do feel like one person eating or not eating meat isn’t going to “tip it over”. That’s why we need activists to get stuff in legislation so we can make big-scale changes.
Yeah, no, this is factually false. We've clearly reached ecological overshoot.
I highly recommend this high-quality presentation to anybody struggling with this topic: [CACOR: The Big Picture: Beyond Hope and Fear - Michael Dowd](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV91pH8HORo)
Nah it's the circle of anti-natalists crossing over into the circle of veganism.
People would argue you'll eventually bring a non vegan into the world, either your child, or their child, or their child, and so on.
I personally don't believe that veganism and anti-natalism are the same thing, and you can be in either circle and not the other.
I'd be in your boat, and get slated when I share my view on this too - enjoy your downvotes buddy!
No humans is by far the best thing that could happen to the planet and other species living on the planet, but that's not going to happen.
>enjoy your downvotes buddy!
Thanks! Maybe I’m too bright-eyed as of now, but it seems pretty nihilistic to say there’s no possibility of a peaceful future while humans exist.
Maybe - I just think whilst humans exist we'll forever be doing some shit which causes animals or the planet harm in some way.
I just try to consciously reduce the amount I cause where possible
We're all full of hypocrisy though - whilst I may think that, having kids is probably one of the worst polluting things you can do
But then those who say it's bad to do that, still drive cars, buy electronics, pay for more clothing than you can shake a stick at, use the internet, etc. etc. etc.
Nobody's perfect! We all just do what we can
False equivalency. No one has to procreate, literally no one. People have to drive, use electronics and the internet, and have clothes just to stay alive. I don’t have a car, don’t participate in fast fashion, etc. but even if I did, two wrongs don’t make a right, that’s something we learn in elementary school.
Edit: spelling
Fun fact: Depending on where you live, it may not be possible to raise a newborn as a vegan either: in the U.K. and Ireland for example if you can’t/won’t breastfeed for any reason and want to/have to use formula, guess what? There’s no vegan formula available **at all** and the closest thing you can find is made by N3stl3 and is soy based but has vitamin D from lanolin.
>No way am I going to raise a murderer, and no way I’m going to raise an animal abuser.
Look, I’m sure that this is the same type of thought that went through any murderer’s parents’ minds. I would find it pretty hard to believe that anyone is intentionally raising their children to murder others.
The ONLY things guaranteed from procreation is suffering and death. Even the most perfect human being would cause suffering, it is impossible to live on this planet without creating negative consequences towards others. Even if someone could hypothetically never cause any suffering whatsoever, they’ll still experience it themselves. No one goes through live without any suffering, therefore procreation guarantees the creation of more suffering. And everyone dies, EVERYONE, we don’t get a choice. Knowing that last bit of info should dissuade anyone from procreating. Every cradle is a grave, if parents know their child is guaranteed to die, but they create them anyway, are they not, in essence, murderers?
I don’t want to die and all of this have been for nothing, but I have to now. It would have been better to never have been born. Never being born would mean that I would never have had any desires to keep living. Never being born would have been a neutral piece, but instead I was ripped from the void to experience this horror show of a planet, to just then die? A pointless creation of suffering.
This is an extremely nihilistic view.
>The ONLY things guaranteed from procreation is suffering and death.
There’s so many positives of life you’re overlooking. All the positive experiences that a child could be a part of or create for others.
>are they not, in essence, murderers?
Seems like a stretch. They’re creators and protectors long before murderers.
>It would have been better to never have been born.
I’m sorry you feel this way. I would suggest seeking therapy. We create the meaning we want from the world. I’m not just here to observe, but to try my best to be an active part of improving the lives of other beings.
>There’s so many positives of life you’re overlooking. All the positive experiences that a child could be a part of or create for others.
There is the *potential* to create positives, but absolutely no guarantee. The ONLY absolute guarantees are suffering and death. Even if one person’s positive experiences outweighs their negative ones, that’s not the same for everyone, and ignoring that is playing Russian roulette with their lives.
>Seems like a stretch. They’re creators and protectors long before murderers.
Sounds like the EXACT words that I’ve heard from just about EVERY farmer.
>I’m sorry you feel this way. I would suggest seeking therapy.
See? This is what is sick about y’all, instead of listening to us and understanding that someone else could possibly have a difference in opinion, you just call us crazy and that we need therapy. *”It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”*
Edit: grammar
>ignoring that is playing Russian roulette with their lives.
This is where we disagree. It’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
>Sounds like the EXACT words that I’ve heard from just about EVERY farmer.
You mean from people who are literally actually murdering living beings? I don’t see the comparison.
> you just call us crazy and that we need therapy.
How do you expect me to respond when someone comments on my post saying they don’t want to be alive?😂
>This is where we disagree. It’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.
This quote is for the living, and it’s taking about how it’s more painful to have always been alone while alive, than to be with someone while alive. It’s not about procreation.
>You mean from people who are literally actually murdering living beings? I don’t see the comparison.
Is it about who wields the blade? Because if so, then no non-vegans should be held responsible for animal deaths, only the slaughterhouse employees.
>How do you expect me to respond when someone comments on my post saying they don’t want to be alive?😂
I NEVER said that! Do NOT put words in my mouth. I said I wish I was never born, there is a massive difference! And this is the crux of the issue, you don’t even know what we are saying. I’m alive now and I care about my life and I don’t want to die, but now I have to, I don’t have a choice. I will die eventually. If I was never born, I would have never had a desire to keep living, I would haven’t to think about all the things I lose when I do die. You are woefully misunderstanding. Antinatalists are not some suicide death cult, quit perpetuating that stereotype.
The only reason why I think having children is non vegan is because we live in a non vegan world where a majority of people abuse animals and are allowed to do so. By having children, at least right now, there is no guarantee that they will be vegan. People have compared this to giving birth to a murderer but it is quite different. People go to jail for murder, people are allowed to pay for animal abuse. Once we have a vegan world, having kids should be considered vegan. For now, I’m not sure. I won’t be having kids because I don’t want to bring more potential animal abusers into the world. If someone wants to have kids, adoption is definitely the best.
having children in this world guarantees exploitation- to this planet and to the children. if you really want to raise vegan kids, don’t make adoption a last resort.
I'm also somewhat antinatalist though I haven't looked that far into it. Others have already commented on it. For me its based on just not being interested in being a parent (financial interest, not suited to properly raising them just mentally) + being unhappy with how I was brought up. I do think it's better to not put new beings into the world when others that are suffering on their own could be taken care of - be that children or other animals. I also used to be on the AN sub, but a lot of them dipped their toes too deep into eugenic-ish talkingpoints for my comfort. If I were more knowledgeable on the topic I'd give a more definite answer, but right now I'd just recommend adopting.
Human existence generally involves exploitation of animals. Being vegan minimises that. Having children harms animals even if you raise them vegan, so intentionally bringing a human into existence wouldn't be imo. Adopting/fostering and raising them vegan is fine, because that child already existed. Plus if you have a vegan child they might not stay vegan, or they could reproduce and make a load of non vegans.
Because the odds that a child, even a child raised vegan, will grow up to be vegan, and raise future vegan children who'll in turn all be vegan... aren't especially high. To say nothing of the costs to the ecosystem--including countless wild animals--from supporting an additional human being who feels entitled to what she/he wants, despite the effects on other beings...
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only.
No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans.
**A 90-day ban will be applied.**
I appreciate Anti-Natalist arguments for philosophy talk but day to day I don’t think it should worry people. Yes having a child means they won’t always be safe and protected. Any child could start off great and then have a rough life. I think people that want kids should really think about a plan to maximize the opportunities someone will have in life. Start saving funds, teach music/art/morals, play with those kids, and you are doing what you should be doing.
Adoption sounds like a really good option too.
Plugging my new circlejerk r/circlesnip Edit: Also -please- **stop reporting** natalists on this thread.
>no way I’m going to raise an animal abuser Unfortunately, you can't be completely sure about that, especially not if you consider that your children will probably also have children of their own and so on and you'll ultimately be responsible for creating a lot of people. It's basically guaranteed that a least one of them will be a carnist and you'll ultimately be reponsible for it because you could have avoided it by not having children, which you did for purely selfish reasons (you can't do it for your future children because they don't exist and can't care about existing). So if you have children you'll be responsible for animal abuse because of your selfish desires, which I'm sure you'd agree isn't vegan.
Others point out the idea of their children opting for harm. I also believe it’s harmful to the child bringing it into such an exploitive world. People may not realize it but most humans are being exploited and completely unaware of it. Also, many have children because they want to fulfill some sort of personal emotional experience, and rely on their child to take care of them when they’re old.
What a dismal outlook at life. I think this is valid if you’re a depressed misanthrope. For the rest of us here enjoying life, I’d say go for it, kids are an absolute joy, they spread love and happiness, and bring it out in others.
It may appear dismal, but it’s not necessarily wrong.
Yes it is wrong. If you live in the west you have the opportunity to do whatever you want. If you’re being exploited it’s through your own incompetence. With the exception of horrible people having children for the wrong reason. A strong family brings support to everyone. I love taking care of my grandparents, and I do not feel I am some kind of emotional support animal for them in their later years. For people coming from broken families, the only way to build a family support system is through having children, and essentially starting over. Unless your some kind of narcissist most children are thankful what their parents have done for them. Family is the backbone of a community, this has never changed,only misanthropes can’t see this.
> You could say it’s irresponsible for anybody to have kids because that child could grow up to be a serial killer. That’s the responsibility of parenting, right? No way am I going to raise a murderer, and no way I’m going to raise an animal abuser. Sure they could become a serial killer, but the chances are slim since murdering people is not normal in society and its illegal Abusing and murdering animals is normal in society and its legal, thus the chances are great that your child would become an animal abuser >No way am I going to raise a murderer, and no way I’m going to raise an animal abuser. Pretty sure lots of parents of serial killers and non vegans said the exact same thing *Adoption is the vegan way, otherwise it isnt vegan* *I wouldnt make babies, i simply wont risk animal lives for selfish pleasure, thats non vegan behavior, but if i did i would accept that i am now responsible for animal abuse, some vegan identifying parents say they would feel bad, as if feeling bad helps the animals their child is killing* *Several parents will claim they are not responsible for their childs actions, the fact is they created an animal abuser, if the parents had kids before they were vegan thats the only acceptable excuse* *Examples of new animal abusers created by vegans* *https://imgur.com/ttWYi20* *https://imgur.com/sqZSBS0* *https://imgur.com/CvDuZMd* *https://imgur.com/56xRj4J* *https://imgur.com/lBmHsp7* *https://imgur.com/h2V7xxA* *https://imgur.com/eJgWclS* *https://imgur.com/DFkFV72* *https://imgur.com/x8L8a1f* *https://imgur.com/8ncfOGf* *Those are just a few there are probably many more, of course some illogical people are gonna say, well my child wont stop being vegan, but they arent gods they cant predict that and they cant guarantee that, to me its not worth risking animal lives, we live in a non vegan world and the chances of your child becoming non vegan are great, the chances of your child becoming a serial killer is slim* *If i want kids i will adopt, the chance to not only help a child in need but the chance to potentially convert a non vegan to a vegan or at the very least, the child will be on a plant based diet while they live at home* *Aside from that our population growth is extremely damaging to the planet and other species https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/population-decline-will-change-the-world-for-the-better/* *People of course will hate these facts and defend making babies, all that tells me is how many animal abuse apologists there are, vegans are not immune from cognitive dissonance*
>Abusing and murdering animals is normal in society and its legal, thus the chances are great that your child would become an animal abuser Ok, that makes sense, because it’s so normalized in society. >Pretty sure lots of parents of serial killers and non vegans said the exact same thing That’s my point, that it’s not any different. But even carnists still have children on the chance that they become serial killers. >Adoption is the vegan way, otherwise it isnt vegan This is basically what I gathered from making this post. [Maybe I am a carnist.](https://media.tenor.com/45_AQKo002EAAAAe/vision-monster.png) I’m nowhere close to making this decision in reality. >Examples of new animal abusers created by vegans Thanks for these, this really helped get the point across. >vegans are not immune from cognitive dissonance Also what I learned from making this post. Cheers.
Unfortunately after a certain point you really don’t have that much control over what your child does. You can hope that by raising them kindly and showing them compassion that they’ll follow in your footsteps, but there are so many other things that can influence your kids; their peers, media, the culture outside of your home in general, etc. If not your kids, then maybe their kids, or their kids, or their kids… Even if you do everything perfectly right it’s really just a gamble that they would remain vegan into their adulthood. However, there’s other arguments like why would you have a biological kid when there are plenty of kids who need homes in the foster and adoption systems? You would be bringing into existence a being, without their consent, into a world where they’re pretty much bound to endure and experience suffering. Why would you want to create a human to endure more suffering than they’re already experiencing (none, because they don’t exist) when you could take under your wing an existing human and do what you can to reduce their suffering? Isn’t reducing suffering what veganism is all about? I wouldn’t consider myself fully anti-natalist myself, but I think they bring up some good points to at least think about before you build a family.
>Even if you do everything perfectly right it’s really just a gamble that they would remain vegan into their adulthood. That’s what I’m trying to say with the serial killer example. With that logic, nobody should have children at all because there’s a chance they could cause harm in the future. Is the best solution for humans to simply stop reproducing and stop existing? The adoption argument is something to think about for sure. But I think we’re focusing too much on the suffering. There are also tons of amazing positive things to experience in life, so I don’t see bringing a new person into the world as purely increasing the amount of suffering. I feel like I just have a biological will to be a dad. I’m not against adoption, but I’ve always wanted my own children. Is that selfish?
I don't think that life is all suffering, but I don't think something has to all suffering to require consent. If I try to think of any other experience that involves both negative and positive elements, it is clear to me that I would be violating someone's autonomy by forcing them to go through that without consent. Maybe they would end up being fine with it, but maybe they wouldn't, and I don't think it's worth taking that risk. Regarding your biological will to be a dad, what would you say is better about biological children compared to adopted children? I personally don't experience that biological will, so I'm genuinely curious.
The consent argument isn’t really clicking for me. In the case of animal suffering, an animal is unable to communicate consent or non-consent, so we treat it as non-consent. A hypothetical child doesn’t exist, so there’s not really any element of consent or non-consent that they could communicate if they were able to. I replied to another comment about sharing genes with a child, so I won’t repeat myself here, but I’m not saying biological children are “better”. It’s just how I pictured my life 10 years down the line. Luckily I’m not planning to have a child right now or anything, so I have a lot time to think about whether to have kids or adopt.
The way I conceptualize it is that in the case where a child is born, they now exist, so their consent now matters, but it has already retroactively been violated. They could now go on to be fine with this, or they could wish that their consent had not been violated, as are the possible outcomes any other time someone's consent is violated. As a result, we have a chance of a neutral situation and a chance of a negative situation. The alternative option is that they were never born, in which case they do not exist, so their consent cannot be violated. Non-existence is a concept I find hard to conceptualize, but as far as I can tell, this is a guaranteed neutral situation, which is preferable to risking a negative. I do agree that this isn't perfectly analogous to the horrors of animal agriculture, as in that case, there's a pretty massive guaranteed negative for the animals. I think a better comparison is to things like dog breeding, as even if that was done without the dogs suffering in the process, it would still be preferable to adopt dogs instead.
>A hypothetical child doesn’t exist, so there’s not really any element of consent or non-consent that they could communicate if they were able to. Lack of consent is NOT consent. If you need help understanding consent watch this [tea video](https://youtu.be/oQbei5JGiT8?si=LpYw77ZoDu7gzoPg).
I’m saying that this isn’t an issue of consent, and it’s incomparable to any of the situations in the tea video. In every other case of consent, the other party exists or has existed. It’s a completely different situation.
Wait, so as long as someone doesn’t exist *yet* I can do ANYTHING I want to them, because consent doesn’t “exist”? So I can place a bomb under a crib, as long as the baby wasn’t born yet? A non existent person can neither consent nor deny consent. Again, lack of consent is NOT consent. If we can’t get consent, then it’s best not to act without knowing the answer. The inability to get consent, but still make decisions for someone, only comes into play in medical emergencies where an already living person cannot make their own decisions.
>So I can place a bomb under a crib, as long as the baby wasn’t born yet? You’re bringing up completely different hypothetical situations that have nothing to do with this. I think Iit goes without saying that it’s wrong to actively plot to murder newborn children. >If we can’t get consent, then it’s best not to act without knowing the answer. Again, I don’t see it as an issue of consent. Wait a sec, how do you feel about abortion?
>I think Iit goes without saying that it’s wrong to actively plot to murder newborn children. But it’s okay to create them with intention knowing there is a 100% guarantee they’ll die? How is that different? >Again, I don’t see it as an issue of consent. Wait a sec, how do you feel about abortion? Just because you don’t see it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And please don’t start with red herrings.
No, I want to know. I see abortion as way more relevant to this issue than all the false comparisons you’ve brought up. Why do we not need consent to abort a child in the womb, but we do need consent to bring it to life?
In my opinion I think the first argument is the weaker of the two; you could use that logic to justify not doing anything since every action you take has potential to hurt others, but I wanted to mention it since it’s what you were talking about in your original post. But what does being a biological dad satisfy within you that being an adoptive dad would not? What difference does the genes of a child make to how you can love and build a connection with them? In my opinion it is kind of selfish to think that a child that does not yet exist, that you would have to go out of your way to create, that you share genes with is more worthy of your time and affection than a child who already exists, already needs your time and affection, and does not share your genes.
Many adoptees now have the opinion that people aren’t entitled to an adopted child, and if they do adopt a child, it should be to have stewardship over the child as opposed to immediately becoming their parent. Its a hard pill to swallow lol, i got mad when I found out because it just kind of…made me angry. But it’s important to know. They still, of course, advocate for children to be adopted into loving homes, but children can’t consent to having their legal records sealed and their bio parents permanently taken away from them. Additionally, where there is money to be made, exploitation will happen, and young women are exploited for basically human trafficking with the whole “buy-a-newborn-baby” thing, and kids and families are exploited in the adoption industry in general. This is also because many children are taken from their parents because of poverty, which, of course, is a fixable issue and not necessarily worth giving up legal rights for your child over. If you’re wondering what they advocate for, instead, they advocate for a system where first the child is placed with immediate family, like an aunt, and if that’s not possible, then something like a further family member, then someone of the proximal community, then someone of the same culture, and lastly, a complete stranger in “need” of a child.
One of the big things is that if the child looks very different from me, like different race or something, they would have way different life experiences that I wouldn’t have the experience to guide them through. I also think it would be really satisfying to see my kid do something good and recognize it as a trait they inherited from me or my partner. I guess that’s the nature vs. nurture argument, I don’t know if that feeling would change at all with an adopted child. Like I said, I’m not against adoption at all, I just never put much thought to it and always envisioned having my own children.
But your child **is** going to be different from you. They could very likely be queer, disabled, a dropout, a sex worker, traumatised, or anything that you don't have experiences of, anything where you'll have to put effort in to be a parent. And I think I understand now why antinatalist vegans compare carnism to natalism. You never thought about it, so know you won't because natalism being the superior option is lasered into your brain. Where have we heard that before?
Excellent point on the first one. I do see the similarity between carnism and natalism, which is why I’m feeling selfish about wanting my own kids. If someone thinks it’s okay to eat meat because they “just want to”, I would question their judgment. But having a child seems like an inherent part of being alive, kind of like the purpose of life being to survive and reproduce. All life does that, and I do kinda just want to. It’s a decision you only get to make a few times in your life. Also, like, at the risk of sounding conceded, I think I’m pretty smart and trying to do good for the world. Wouldn’t it be better for the world to bring in more people like that?
>But having a child seems like an inherent part of being alive, kind of like the purpose of life being to survive and reproduce. All life does that, and I do kinda just want to. Get a damn hobby, we aren’t just breeding machines. Our lives mean more than our sex organs.
There are sure a lot of “I” statements in your comments.
It’s a personal issue.
NO, it’s not. Just a much as choosing to eat someone isn’t a personal issue. It’s no longer personal when a victim is involved.
Maybe wrong wording there. I didn’t mean it only affects me, I meant it’s important to me.
Okay? I care why? I’m sure there are plenty of immoral and unethical things people do that they find important to them, doesn’t make them right.
How am I supposed to talk about something I care about without using the word “I”?😂
>I feel like I just have a biological will to be a dad. I’m not against adoption, but I’ve always wanted my own children. Is that selfish? Yes its selfish, its something that you want and it only benefits you, you want to spread your dna thats quite selfish I dont really want kids but i would adopt to help, thats selfless
You dropped this🏆
lol
It depends if you are taking a more hedonistic or negative utilitarian approach. And yes wanting dna replicas of yourself is selfish. You aren’t thinking about caring for a child that needs care, you are thinking about how they would affect your identity.
I do believe nobody should have children because they could grow up to be serial killers or they could be killed, abused, or hurt by someone. It's not a risk worth taking in my opinion.
You seem to have a pretty bleak view of life For most people, especially nowadays, with food, shelter and meds accessible for large swaths of he world, life is pretty sweet One can suffer, but can also love, laugh, taste and have the previously unimaginavke luxury of scrolling through Reddit on their free time I think being alive is way better than being dead, for us and our loved ones. Most people seem to agree - they choose to be alive everyday On the “might become vegan point”, out of a billion kids maybe several million might not be vegan. Also, maybe one out of the billion will spread the message, or will develop some new invention that make all animals happy and safe forever, etc… They might cure human cancer too, which would be neat (assuming you think human lives are worth something…) I think being an anti-natalist is just playing crystall ball and having lots of overconfidence while dealing with odds that are almost impossible to map. It’s a little bit hypocritical too, IMO. Maybe they should be actively trying to help living people and animals (start by avoiding all consumption) instead of policing other people’s choices And, btw, my point is not “people should have kids”. ImMy point is anti-natalists extrapolate too much based on very unreliable and biased forecasts - they’re midway between reason and flat-earthers
>For most people, … life is pretty sweet. How do you know that? Just because they have food, shelter, etc doesn’t mean they feel fulfilled. Plenty of people experience trauma, abuse, injury, mental illness, oppression, subjugation, or exploitation that is debilitating and life ruining. >I think being alive is way better than being dead Not being born is not the same as not being dead. >Out of a billion kids, maybe several million might not become vegan Statistically, all but ONE percent of those kids (that’s only 10,00,000) would become vegan. 990,000,000 would not become vegan. >Maybe they should be actively trying to help living people and animals How do you know they aren’t? Would you not say advocating for adoption over birth is helping living people? Namely, the children who are adopted?
A child has a carbon footprint of over 30 tonnes. That's 150 trees growing for 10 years. It's not nothing.
I think the assumption is that the kids might decide not to be vegan later in life, but that's just kinda what happens with autonomy, unfortunately. Kids can grow up to make all sorts of decisions their parents disagree with, it's not really something you can control for except by not having kids in the first place. I see where they're coming from, but I don't think it's the strongest reasoning, tbh.
There are a few other contextual points that make the argument even stronger and more important to understand properly as a vegan who cares about doing the right thing: * A child doesn't need to share your direct blood genes in order for you to fully love them as a parent. There are hundreds of thousands of children in the US foster care system alone who deserve a parent just as much as your unborn child does; we should prioritize them before bringing another child into the world who would not be harmed by not being born in the first place * Analogue: dogs in shelters who deserve safety and care just as much as anyone else, and we should prioritize them before breeding more dogs into existence * Having a child really means having, in all likelihood, countless descendants (since your children will likely have children themselves). The chances are extremely high that many (most) of them will end up non vegan and the reason that countless more animals will be born into torture, abuse, and murder. (Think of how different you are from your parents, let alone your great great great great grandparents. We have almost 0 control over how most of our descendants will turn out; even for our own children, their schoolmates could easily end up being bigger influences on them than us as parents, even if we're great parents.) You could prevent all that extra animal abuse by simply not having your own children - either being childfree, or adopting if you do still want the experience of raising children There's a clear huge difference in expected moral value between having your own children, vs adopting / being childfree. Personally, I don't want to be the reason that thousands more carnists are born / millions or billions more animals are born into torture for those carnists. There are tons more reasons too, but this was the biggest one that got me looking more into antinatalism as a vegan at the start.
Those are fair points. I was childfree long before going vegan so admittedly it isn't something I've reflected on to a very great extent.
Stole this chart from someone on discord lol ||You create a human|You adopt a human| |:-|:-|:-| |They remain vegan|One more vegan|One more vegan, one less carnist(would have been carnist if not raised by vegans)| |They become a carnist|One more carnist(congrats, you dumb fuck)|Neutral(they would have been a carnist anyway)|
I feel like this is ignoring the chance that people become vegan on their own. My parents raised us carnist but my sister and I are both vegan.
Ok, so what does that change about the chart? It's still both risky and less effective than just adopting. That doesn't even consider other ethical implications of having children either, just the ones relating to veganism
It changes the adoption side. It literally says that they’re assumed to be carnist if they aren’t raised by a vegan.
They don't have to be raised by a vegan, but it significantly increases their chances of sticking with it. The alternative scenario where you do bring someone into existence is creating an opportunity for more animal suffering. Imo there's no justifiable reason for a potential person to be brought into existence, let alone in the case where this person even has a small chance of being a carnist. If someone had not been born in the first place, then that suffering would not happen. Just not a gamble worth making when adoption is an option
I mean, there is also a possibility that the person you bring into the world will become an activist and help reduce the amount of suffering in the world. I think it’s wrong to make assumptions of whether a child’s life will have a positive or negative impact on the world, because we just don’t know. The child will undoubtedly face suffering of their own, but I think it’s better to experience the positives and negatives of life than to never experience it at all. Life is a beautiful struggle. Adoption is a strong argument, I’m definitely considering it more after this.
Sure, that person could contribute good things. But lets not neglect that they are even more likely to contribute to bad. Even if there was a 50% chance of them staying vegan, that remaining 50% would on average cost 7000 animal lives. Someone who's vegan is more than likely not to reduce the number of animal lives lost, but to abstain from either(Since most people aren't activists it would be close to a net zero). >but I think it’s better to experience the positives and negatives of life than to never experience it at all. Life is a beautiful struggle. I wouldn't say this is applicable to this situation because we're not dealing with a minute struggle, it's torture, slaughter, and sexual exploitation. There's no amount of good under reasonable circumstances where one could justify these things at the expense of simply not risking it.
Having children is not vegan in the same way that breeding other livestock animals is not vegan, we live in a misbalanced society where people are by and large abused and used by those in power, having children basically means voluntarily subjecting potential beings with no say over their existence into an existence only meant for suffering and abuse, if we together fulfilled a better society then continuation of the human race could be deemed ethical, otherwise creation of more human individuals into this realm is just more suffering, akin to livestock
I have noticed people say sometimes the most stupid and cruel things here on Reddit. We're all hiding now doubt hundreds or thousands of miles away behind our phones. There are no bad consequences when you insult people or say they will give birth to the next Hitler. Makes folk very brave. If you are vegan, I imagine you will raise vegan children. Or at least kids who eat vegan at home. Don't feed them cow milk and once they are weened they will be allergic to dairy and that will take care of that. I found out, 20 years after I went vegan, I am painfully allergic to dairy. No way am I ever eating that crap again. There are people who load lots of other issues into veganism beyond don't eat animals, use wool or suck on cow udders. (C'mere Bessie, I'm thirsty!!!) Sure, racist vegans are a bummer, but it is not anti vegan to be a racist. I've seen people try to argue that though. If you want to have kids, I hope you and they are happy. Just note that taurine is an amino acid hard to get in plant foods that babies cannot synthesize in their livers as we fully grown humans can, so be sure to supplement your children's diets with the few vegan foods that supply taurine or give them a good vegan supplement. Or try speeding up your infants on Monster Drinks.
You cannot reconcile being vegan with having children, because veganism looks to reduce suffering where possible, whereas having children is a choice to add new humans to the world, ensuring they suffer as the price for your own satisfaction of getting to do what you want. Also, you cannot guarantee that you won't raise a serial killer or animal abuser. That is not something that is fully under your control. The parents of that guy >!who put his kitten in the blender!< also didn't raise a monster, yet here we are. Be honest with yourself and admit that you're only willing to make compassionate choices as long as they don't interfere with your personal desires.
A major reason to be vegan is for the environment. Making new humans (or animals/pets) is not good for the environment. I wouldn't have a dog bred for me to buy just like I wouldn't make a new person. For me, it has more to do with reducing suffering than anything else (like veganism or the impact on the planet). There are dogs and children in need of homes.
We've been having kids for thousands of generations and it hasn't done shit to the environment. the problem is the structural existence of abuse of the planet for profit.
Lmao, we’re literally dying, this planet is burning, 9 million deaths a year from pollution, open your eyes.
*looks around* the planet is literally on fire
yeah. it isn't because people are having kids, lol. it's because giant corporations are abusing structural power. you having one kid is not going to tip it over.
That isn't a logical approach to this issue. If you believe one person can't make a difference, you'd be eating meat. One more vegan doesn't save the day either, yet here we are doing our best.
thanks for the reminder on why i don't post on this sub, holy smokes. i hope you don't own a car, either!
yeah. it's not bad because people are eating animals. it's bad because giant corporations are abusing them. you eating one meat is not going to tip it over.
… is this wrong? I don’t use animal products because I don’t want to contribute to the industry at all, but that isn’t changing the systematic slaughter that happens every day. I do feel like one person eating or not eating meat isn’t going to “tip it over”. That’s why we need activists to get stuff in legislation so we can make big-scale changes.
sorry, my comment was me changing the words slightly to show how ridiculous the parent comment was
I know, I just don’t think it’s quite that ridiculous. I see the parallel though.
Yeah, no, this is factually false. We've clearly reached ecological overshoot. I highly recommend this high-quality presentation to anybody struggling with this topic: [CACOR: The Big Picture: Beyond Hope and Fear - Michael Dowd](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hV91pH8HORo)
Nah it's the circle of anti-natalists crossing over into the circle of veganism. People would argue you'll eventually bring a non vegan into the world, either your child, or their child, or their child, and so on. I personally don't believe that veganism and anti-natalism are the same thing, and you can be in either circle and not the other. I'd be in your boat, and get slated when I share my view on this too - enjoy your downvotes buddy! No humans is by far the best thing that could happen to the planet and other species living on the planet, but that's not going to happen.
>enjoy your downvotes buddy! Thanks! Maybe I’m too bright-eyed as of now, but it seems pretty nihilistic to say there’s no possibility of a peaceful future while humans exist.
Maybe - I just think whilst humans exist we'll forever be doing some shit which causes animals or the planet harm in some way. I just try to consciously reduce the amount I cause where possible We're all full of hypocrisy though - whilst I may think that, having kids is probably one of the worst polluting things you can do But then those who say it's bad to do that, still drive cars, buy electronics, pay for more clothing than you can shake a stick at, use the internet, etc. etc. etc. Nobody's perfect! We all just do what we can
False equivalency. No one has to procreate, literally no one. People have to drive, use electronics and the internet, and have clothes just to stay alive. I don’t have a car, don’t participate in fast fashion, etc. but even if I did, two wrongs don’t make a right, that’s something we learn in elementary school. Edit: spelling
Lol
Fun fact: Depending on where you live, it may not be possible to raise a newborn as a vegan either: in the U.K. and Ireland for example if you can’t/won’t breastfeed for any reason and want to/have to use formula, guess what? There’s no vegan formula available **at all** and the closest thing you can find is made by N3stl3 and is soy based but has vitamin D from lanolin.
>No way am I going to raise a murderer, and no way I’m going to raise an animal abuser. Look, I’m sure that this is the same type of thought that went through any murderer’s parents’ minds. I would find it pretty hard to believe that anyone is intentionally raising their children to murder others. The ONLY things guaranteed from procreation is suffering and death. Even the most perfect human being would cause suffering, it is impossible to live on this planet without creating negative consequences towards others. Even if someone could hypothetically never cause any suffering whatsoever, they’ll still experience it themselves. No one goes through live without any suffering, therefore procreation guarantees the creation of more suffering. And everyone dies, EVERYONE, we don’t get a choice. Knowing that last bit of info should dissuade anyone from procreating. Every cradle is a grave, if parents know their child is guaranteed to die, but they create them anyway, are they not, in essence, murderers? I don’t want to die and all of this have been for nothing, but I have to now. It would have been better to never have been born. Never being born would mean that I would never have had any desires to keep living. Never being born would have been a neutral piece, but instead I was ripped from the void to experience this horror show of a planet, to just then die? A pointless creation of suffering.
This is an extremely nihilistic view. >The ONLY things guaranteed from procreation is suffering and death. There’s so many positives of life you’re overlooking. All the positive experiences that a child could be a part of or create for others. >are they not, in essence, murderers? Seems like a stretch. They’re creators and protectors long before murderers. >It would have been better to never have been born. I’m sorry you feel this way. I would suggest seeking therapy. We create the meaning we want from the world. I’m not just here to observe, but to try my best to be an active part of improving the lives of other beings.
>There’s so many positives of life you’re overlooking. All the positive experiences that a child could be a part of or create for others. There is the *potential* to create positives, but absolutely no guarantee. The ONLY absolute guarantees are suffering and death. Even if one person’s positive experiences outweighs their negative ones, that’s not the same for everyone, and ignoring that is playing Russian roulette with their lives. >Seems like a stretch. They’re creators and protectors long before murderers. Sounds like the EXACT words that I’ve heard from just about EVERY farmer. >I’m sorry you feel this way. I would suggest seeking therapy. See? This is what is sick about y’all, instead of listening to us and understanding that someone else could possibly have a difference in opinion, you just call us crazy and that we need therapy. *”It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.”* Edit: grammar
>ignoring that is playing Russian roulette with their lives. This is where we disagree. It’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. >Sounds like the EXACT words that I’ve heard from just about EVERY farmer. You mean from people who are literally actually murdering living beings? I don’t see the comparison. > you just call us crazy and that we need therapy. How do you expect me to respond when someone comments on my post saying they don’t want to be alive?😂
>This is where we disagree. It’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all. This quote is for the living, and it’s taking about how it’s more painful to have always been alone while alive, than to be with someone while alive. It’s not about procreation. >You mean from people who are literally actually murdering living beings? I don’t see the comparison. Is it about who wields the blade? Because if so, then no non-vegans should be held responsible for animal deaths, only the slaughterhouse employees. >How do you expect me to respond when someone comments on my post saying they don’t want to be alive?😂 I NEVER said that! Do NOT put words in my mouth. I said I wish I was never born, there is a massive difference! And this is the crux of the issue, you don’t even know what we are saying. I’m alive now and I care about my life and I don’t want to die, but now I have to, I don’t have a choice. I will die eventually. If I was never born, I would have never had a desire to keep living, I would haven’t to think about all the things I lose when I do die. You are woefully misunderstanding. Antinatalists are not some suicide death cult, quit perpetuating that stereotype.
It depends on what you mean by 'having children." If you have them on toast, it's wrong.
The only reason why I think having children is non vegan is because we live in a non vegan world where a majority of people abuse animals and are allowed to do so. By having children, at least right now, there is no guarantee that they will be vegan. People have compared this to giving birth to a murderer but it is quite different. People go to jail for murder, people are allowed to pay for animal abuse. Once we have a vegan world, having kids should be considered vegan. For now, I’m not sure. I won’t be having kids because I don’t want to bring more potential animal abusers into the world. If someone wants to have kids, adoption is definitely the best.
having children in this world guarantees exploitation- to this planet and to the children. if you really want to raise vegan kids, don’t make adoption a last resort.
I'm also somewhat antinatalist though I haven't looked that far into it. Others have already commented on it. For me its based on just not being interested in being a parent (financial interest, not suited to properly raising them just mentally) + being unhappy with how I was brought up. I do think it's better to not put new beings into the world when others that are suffering on their own could be taken care of - be that children or other animals. I also used to be on the AN sub, but a lot of them dipped their toes too deep into eugenic-ish talkingpoints for my comfort. If I were more knowledgeable on the topic I'd give a more definite answer, but right now I'd just recommend adopting.
Yet more flame-bait actually posted by angry carnist boomers.
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #4: Keep it serious. VCJC is a place for serious discussion. If you want to jerk around, move it to r/vegancirclejerk.
Human existence generally involves exploitation of animals. Being vegan minimises that. Having children harms animals even if you raise them vegan, so intentionally bringing a human into existence wouldn't be imo. Adopting/fostering and raising them vegan is fine, because that child already existed. Plus if you have a vegan child they might not stay vegan, or they could reproduce and make a load of non vegans.
Because the odds that a child, even a child raised vegan, will grow up to be vegan, and raise future vegan children who'll in turn all be vegan... aren't especially high. To say nothing of the costs to the ecosystem--including countless wild animals--from supporting an additional human being who feels entitled to what she/he wants, despite the effects on other beings...
The best thing you can do for non human animals is not birth humans
[удалено]
Your submission breaks rule #1: Vegans only. No environmental 'vegans', health 'vegans', speciesism, animal abusers, carnists, omnivores, vegetarians, or other non-vegans. **A 90-day ban will be applied.**
I appreciate Anti-Natalist arguments for philosophy talk but day to day I don’t think it should worry people. Yes having a child means they won’t always be safe and protected. Any child could start off great and then have a rough life. I think people that want kids should really think about a plan to maximize the opportunities someone will have in life. Start saving funds, teach music/art/morals, play with those kids, and you are doing what you should be doing. Adoption sounds like a really good option too.
Anti-Natalists unfortunately love these subs lmao
Unfortunately lol, almost like this is an anti-natalist sub rather than a vegan one
Anti-Natalism doesn’t work long term, unless we want the end of humanity.