this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2024
345 points (100.0% liked)

196

16412 readers
1392 users here now

Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.

Rule: You must post before you leave.

^other^ ^rules^

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 63 points 7 months ago (4 children)

i don’t personally love seeing antinatalism stuff on my feed especially since it tends to attract really nasty proto-eugenics types

can we not, or at the bare minimum mark this nsfw?

[–] TheBat@lemmy.world 36 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don't want to continue my bloodline because of looming threat of climate change.

And also cause I'm ugly and have self-esteem issues.

What's eugenics gotta do with it?

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

/gen is this sarcasm or are you not aware that you answered your question with your second sentence :(

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago (4 children)

I’m ugly and have self-esteem issues

That’s eugenics. Choosing not to reproduce for genetic reasons.

[–] WldFyre@lemm.ee 26 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Choosing to not have kids yourself, for whatever reason, is definitely not eugenics. I don't even get how you'd come to this idea.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 12 points 7 months ago

Yeah, I don't think you can really apply eugenics to yourself. It's more something that one exerts on others.

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 21 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

yes. and to be clear, it’s not eugenics to make that choice yourself. problem starts as soon as it becomes about others though. seen far too many internet conversations go from

  • “i won’t reproduce” to
  • “it’s my responsibility not to reproduce” to
  • “it’s our responsibility not to reproduce” to
  • “the poor and disabled should be sterilized.”

this post is already getting pretty damn close to step 3 right there. reddit was awful for this so i encourage us to just be aware when stuff like this comes up.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 7 points 7 months ago

Alternately: choosing to reproduce for genetic reasons. Positive eugenics is still eugenics.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Historically, eugenicists have attempted to alter human gene pools by excluding people and groups judged to be inferior or promoting those judged to be superior.

Emphasis mine, though seems people rarely get called out for the latter.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Syd@lemm.ee 27 points 7 months ago (11 children)

Curious about your age and social group. Pretty much everyone I associate with doesn't want to have kids, usually citing the world their children would inherit. These definitely aren't the type of people that support eugenics, in any way. Are you of the belief that we should be increasing the world's population? If so, why?

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 9 points 7 months ago

Yeah I have no idea why this person is on about. Antinatalism has literally nothing to do with eugenics. It's all about saying "fuck you I'm not going to make more cogs for the machine."

[–] CurlyWurlies4All 7 points 7 months ago

I'll be honest it was a huge question that hung over my wife and I when we were trying to decide whether to have kids or not. But we were in our mid 30s and it was a 'now or never' type situation.

Believe it not there is positives in raising kids. We're definitely not judgemental of people who decide they don't want to. But I love my kids more than I knew it was possible. And we're trying to raise them with an understanding of the world that's a bit broader than the ra-ra pro-capital values we were taught as kids.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 12 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

i just have a feeling raising kids will get harder and harder, because the economy is getting worse and more unequal. even factoring out climate change, its expensive to afford even my own survival.

[–] kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

this community refuses to put slurs behind nsfw tags but idk i hope u can convince some

[–] spujb@lemmy.cafe 7 points 7 months ago (4 children)

yeah i would also support putting slurs behind nsfw tags that kind of seems obvious to me wow

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] volvoxvsmarla@lemm.ee 49 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Or, you know, fight to see the system change hopefully within your lifetime and provide a better future for the generations to come. Because they will come, no matter whether you personally have kids or not. Your procreation choices are entirely up to you.

Yes, you are not responsible that someone else fucked up. That masses of people fucked up. You are not responsible to clean up the mess it caused. But, you know, you can still help.

[–] Rediphile@lemmy.ca 17 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Sounds like something the people on top would say to ensure I work more hours.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] the_best_nerd@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 7 months ago

Until I saw thia message, I entirely thought that this post was suggesting using a condom to choke oneself to death.

[–] burgermeister@lemm.ee 39 points 7 months ago (1 children)
[–] MashedTech@lemmy.world 29 points 7 months ago

Exactly how it should be.

[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 27 points 7 months ago

Getting a vasectomy is the biggest possible middle finger I could have hoisted to the parasite class

[–] Glitch@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Vasectomy 🎉❤️🐇😘

[–] Mycatiskai@lemmy.ca 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

For The Win.

Cost 650 dollars and saved tens of thousands.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 7 months ago

Tubes tied 4 years ago

[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 24 points 7 months ago (5 children)

Sorry - genuinely don’t understand this one. What’s the connection? No kids means… no future workers?

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 50 points 7 months ago (1 children)

no kids means no slaves means no slavery

[–] Minotaur@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I’m not sure that any kids I might have are going to become slaves….

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 33 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

"Slave" like any word has contextual meaning. In this context I'm using it to refer to the workers who find themselves caught in a coercive political-economic system. Other similar words are wage slave, proletariat, or just working class. The point is that there is an involuntary aspect which likens it to slavery in the more narrow sense. (The narrow meaning of slave I have in mind being "someone forced into labor without pay".)

All that said, in the U.S. there are still slaves as defined narrowly as people who are forced to work without pay. Slavery is used in prison systems, for example, and is not uncommon among human trafficking victims and immigrants (e.g. read Tomatoland). If your children are women, indigenous, black, are born or become disabled, or belong to various other minority statuses they are at even greater risk of getting swallowed into those forms of "literal" slavery as well.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] NickwithaC@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (8 children)

What's the minimum wage where you live?

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] FatAdama@programming.dev 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I think it’s more like, can’t take advantage of me if I’m not born. It’s a little odd to me as well.

[–] thenonymousrexius@lemmy.dbzer0.com 13 points 7 months ago

I got more of a, "You can't continue to take advantage of us if we don't have anymore children and kill off your workforce through gained apathy to our future." Kinda vibe.

[–] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 10 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

It helps if you look at it from the perspective of the capitalist class. Workers are a form of free capital. Capitalists don't have to assume any of the burdens involved in creating life, raising a child, acculturating them to social standards that make them suitable workers, etc. They don't even have to pay for the education or training that makes them capable as human capital in various industrial contexts.

All those costs are dumped onto the working classes, not just as parents (usually the woman) who are expected to deliver a baby, nurse the baby, raise the resulting child until they are the age of the majority all without any wages, access to benefits like retirement plans or health insurance, etc. but also onto taxpayers who subsidize the rest of the costs outside of the home such as their schooling and transportation to the schools.

There is a huge leverage here that the working class does not take by organizing the production of themselves. If we all agreed to not have children and demanded fair compensation for any new production of human capital, society would be much more just and the capitalist class would have less room to exploit us.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] EndlessNightmare@reddthat.com 8 points 7 months ago (6 children)

No future workers. No future consumers (including being bent over a barrel for essential goods). No future taxpayers. No future people to fight their wars.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] calabast@lemm.ee 20 points 7 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 15 points 7 months ago (3 children)

safe sex is the best sex I don't care about that "it feels bad" crap you get to fuck someone else what else do you want? A cookie?

[–] Captain_Buddha@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago

I mean... a cookie WOULD be nice.

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I disagree, I prefer bareback. But I also only have sex with someone once we're dating and exclusive, and we both get tested. Also my tubes are tied.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Bunnylux@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago

❤️antinatalism❤️

[–] Asclepiaz@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Fuck yeah. I got fixed a few years after the ACA (Obamacare) was enacted. Prior to the ACA almost no providers covered voluntary sterilization, or there were difficult hoops to jump. Now I make a point to scream to all my ladies in the states, your health insurance is absolutely REQUIRED to provide coverage for female sterilization.

[–] princessnorah@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

While this is noble of you, it is absolutely harder to get a hysterectomy than a vasectomy. Not because insurance won’t cover it, but because many doctors won’t do it unless you’ve had kids, or a husband’s “permission”, or are older.

[–] Asclepiaz@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Yeah I hear you, I live in the PNW and it still took me three obgyns before a doctor would finally approve. At the time I was a child free never pregnant 22 year old,. The doctor still required that I write a letter stating I understand it's irreversible. Still pretty condescending imo. You aren't wrong, it's hard and depending where you are in the us impossible to access humane women's healthcare.

But you are wrong to assume women seeking sterilizations all get hysterectomies. There are at least a handful of options, I got Essure but I think that it's no longer on the market. I walked out of my appointment, still more of an ordeal for ladies but not necessarily as dramatic as a hysterectomy.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] isVeryLoud@lemmy.ca 9 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Tf?

I mean I don't want any kids, but what the fuck is that supposed to mean? Eugenics for poor people?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›