Tuesday, August 27, 2013

Is having one child ok?

I know this is antinatalism, but hear me out on this. If people actually got together, and loved each other dearly and had one kid, would it be okay? 


Think about it. Imagine if people only had one kid, and where it would be morally reprehensible to have more than one. Not a crime, like the one child policy in China, but merely morally reprehensible to the point where people wouldn´t feel like doing so, out of respect and understanding economical and physical conditions (not ontological or deontological discussion here, obviously).  


In that case, in that specific case, people could still have children, and humanity would still be going to the right place (considering antinatalism), which is towards oblivion of this precise third-dimensional existence. 

Why? Simple math really. 1+1 in a relation where it generates half of the people before, meaning 2 people generating only one, would still be diminishing population by half every generation. Given enough time, even having kids, sensibly, like in this way, would still contribute towards antinatalism.

And it´s probable that if the cause can be implemented in reality, that still would entail some sort of programming of this sort, to take place, as the dwindling population would prepare themselves to be last ones on this Earth.

26 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. No, just, you know, trying to make sense out of stuff people argue about.

      No steps were taken backwards in my beliefs about AN.

      Besides, the situation is just an hypothetical. "If people would care, morally..." and all and such.

      Anyway.

      =)

      Delete
    2. Coming into existence is ALWAYS a harm. If a couple has one child they may think that the child needs a sibling so that he/she won't be lonely. They'll be able to make a strong rationalization to make more if they've already made one.

      Delete
    3. Yeah, that´s why this 'one child' thing is not full proof. Just as a thought experiment.

      Delete
  2. Being alive, the child will still necessarily have to experience pain and discomfort (e.g. vaccinations, learning from stupid mistakes, work) to survive in society, no matter how loving his or her parents may be.

    So...NO.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah, not to mention accidents of any sort, diseases... you are right.

      Delete
  3. Yeah, Shadow, agree with others' comments! That said, an only child, raised with all love and care, by well-to-do parents, is almost guaranteed to do well in life. Until the final days.

    Also note that current customs will leave the only child without support when their parents age and need help ...

    The black pill is necessary.

    But most importantly -- think of what goes on in the parents' mind as they decide to have a kid. Surely not "Porque te amo, não nascerás (Because I love you, you won't be born)"? How much love are such parents going to give?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The black pill is the most necessary thing. =)

      Right on Srikant! Good portuguese and remiding of the book!

      Delete
  4. It would certainly start society moving in the right direction towards voluntary human extinction. I would never want to encourage anyone to have a child in this world, I mean there is no justification when we know the sorts of things that happen in our world today and have happened in the past (google "the tub", an ancient torture practice, as one grisly example). Just one instance of such a thing in all of history is enough to cover our heads in shame and cancel the human race forever to ensure that no such event can occur again. But we do need something to get voluntary human extinction kick-started and a one child policy would be a great start.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon,
      I believe so, or something of the sort.

      What I´m getting at here is not destroying AN, but upholding it in the best way I´m trying to think of.

      Thanks!

      Delete
  5. I think it wouldn't work, because with Malthusian arguments you can't argue in favor of extinction. If the birth rates are too low the economy suffers. You need a committed Antinatalist society to end this freak show. But I think that will never happen. Instead I put my hope in a technological solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see, but the economies would need to stall their growth and there would need to have a plan for it to work.

      Definitely right, you need a committed AN society to end this, and it probably won´t happen.

      I got curious about your solution.

      Delete
    2. Hi Ardegas what sort of technological solution did you have in mind?

      Delete
    3. A technological solution will have to be IMPOSED on people. But that's alright, because life is an imposition and we seek to end all impositions.

      I've been following @DerivedEnergy on Youtube and he has some great ideas:

      http://youtu.be/aHfGomIrMM8

      And here is his philosophical justification:

      http://youtu.be/iTBbxbCDxCA



      Delete
  6. Wow never thought you would starting walking back from AN Shadow. I hope you see the light -- you are a great contributor to the AN blogosphere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for the worry and the compliment, Jeremy. But there´s no such thing, I won´t back away from AN, not in a million years. I´m with you all, my brothers in dukkha, till the end.

      Cheers

      Delete
  7. Guys, don´t misunderstand me, I mean this in a political, social oriented way of bringing about AN, that is all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I understand, brother! You're just probing the possibility of "selling" antinatalism to non-antinatalist but somewhat compassionate and sensible people.

      But did you see Only One Solution Manifest? http://onlyonesolution.org/manifest.html The fur story (see The Animal Rights Movement Argument) particularly strikes me as resembling what you're trying to do. And I suspect the results may be just as disastrous!

      Delete
    2. Yes! Will take a look on that link ASAP!

      Delete
  8. Antinatalists should have as much children as possible to spread the antinatalist message.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I'd like to see an antinatalist adopt a child. I don't think this has ever happened before.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mh. An interesting take on the AN issue, i'd say. I consider AN to be a chimeric goal, I'm not expecting to happen for real due to its own unforgiving nature: either you love it or you hate it. Usually any idea/vision needs to be widespread adopted to become actual and feasible. AN is not adopted by the majority of mankind because it is adverse to the main and basal instinct that drives our kin forward: have sex, reproduce. So, this vision of yours, Shadow: in my opinion it could become the only realistic way to have a worldwide "AN policy". Only softening up the rough edges of our idea we can hope to make it palatable for the "common man". So, altough many could see what you wrote as a way to "go soft", I really apreciate it. Again, it could be the only true way to have some sort of population decrease and, why not, some sort of extinction, maybe.
    Cheers
    Doctor M.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Doctor M.

      Yes, that was my point and you got it. I appreciate the support.

      A worldwide AN policy could begin with something like this, and wouldn´t "freak out" anybody (much).

      Thanks man. Hope you are "fighting your monsters" as well as possible. Cheers

      Delete
    2. *As I´m fighting mine, over here.

      Delete
    3. The fight will end only when I'm placed in my ash-urn. The only thing we can do to face this filthy life is to fight it with spite and contempt.
      Doctor M.

      Delete

Please, make sure your comment fits with the overall theme of the post. Don´t be rude or offensive towards others without reason - though everyone is free to be vocal, overly offensive comments may be altered/deleted.