Hot take: eating a capybara is about as morally reprehensible as eating pasture-raised chicken.

I’m flexitarian and I eat meat. I just don’t want to be a hypocrite about it.

The idea that eating IUDs causes pain is a myth and any frog who says otherwise is just being hysterical.

High rises give way to urban density and walkable neighborhoods. Any costs in maintenance is easily offset by freeing hundreds of people from the costs of car ownership, medical costs due to sedentary lifestyles in unwalkable suburbs, provide more affordable and accessible community funded childcare, better access to healthy foods than in food deserts enforced by zoning, and reduction in homelessness related crimes.

Nothing is more socially isolating than car-centric suburban hell where anyone too young or too old to drive are deemed ineligible to leave their house independently and participate in society. Nothing creates anti-social behavior like forcing homelessness and desperation onto people who cannot afford to live in cities that are lacking in affordable public housing.

Speaking as someone who has lived in both urban highrise public housing and suburban hells in different parts of the world, the most socially isolating experience by far has been living in car-depedent suburbs with piss poor public transit, especially as someone who cannot drive often. Every will eventually become disabled and cannot drive. It’s just a matter of when. When that time comes, you better hope you can afford a retirement home or to have someone drive you, because if you can’t, you’re stuck right where you are. And that times sooner the less walking you find the time to do in a day.

High density housing bad and dystopian. Homelessness good. Now build more single family homes with lawns pls. /s

Roblox is literally actively shutting down anti-pedophilia efforts.

It’s clear from the moment you called anti-natalism fascism that words don’t mean anything to regressive fuckwits like you anymore.

How about you “go join q-anon and suck Charlie Kirk’s decomposing dick while you tout your ‘family values’ and pump out kids with room temperature IQ.”? See? I can also use words the same way you use ‘fascism’ to make a meaningless word salad.

Just because you can’t handle valid criticism it doesn’t make others fascist for calling you out. Go sit down and think of something original to write instead of copying everything I said with a flimsy ass ‘no u’. Everything you deflect is just another projection of yours.

Lmao complaining about my reading comprehension when you confused ‘sterilize’ with ‘euthanize’ is a whole other level of hypocrisy.

Keeps complaining after claiming after you’re ‘done responding to this thread’.

Words just don’t mean anything to you. You like to say whatever soothes your precious little ego and then backtrack when you get called out on it.

Can we cut it with the veganism bad boomer humor?

I’m not even vegetarian but this shit is getting old.

Removing humans? Again, shows how little you understand about anti-natalism. There is no ‘removing humans’ involved if they aren’t born in the first place.

I love how you substituted ‘sterilize’ with ‘euthanize’ as if they were the same thing, and then claim that I was the one who didn’t try to engage.

If you don’t care to learn you should have said so earlier. Anti-intellectuallism, bad faith arguments, pronatalism, false attribution, deflection, and projection are all hallmarks of conservatism. Go and take your conversative shit somewhere else.

That’s wild of you to think that not wanting kids is facism. Read up on the Cross of the Honour of the German Mother.

Anti-natalism is pro-working class because it goes against pronatalist ideologies. Working class women without affordable access to birth control are often trapped in a cycle of poverty, lack of higher education access, and financial dependency. Pronatalism is often presented under the guise of family values but actually aims to encourage the birth of more minimum wage workers and cannon fodder for the military industrial complex.

I’m not the one advocating the Great Man theory here, I’m merely emphasizing the ridiculous of your claim that one can only improve the world by birthing kids and raising them to do good. You don’t have to birth kids to do that, just fuckin do it yourself.

Your arguments are not written in good faith because to go as far as claiming that anti-natalism is facist shows how little you care to learn about the topic. You don’t actually care about anti-natalism, you care about being called out because you can’t emotionally handle the idea of being wrong.

There’s a certain degree of arrogance in thinking that you are contributing to a greater cause by potentially birthing and raising the next Einstein.

On paper, we may have enough resources to sustain the world population. In practice, we are no where nearly socially and politically progressive enough yet to support said population. Social progress doesn’t happen overnight. Birthing the next Nobel prize winner doesn’t instantly resolve climate change or end world hunger.

Of every person born, there will be far more people putting strain on a system that isn’t able to adequately distribute resources to those who need it. Most people make for dog shit parents.

Thoughts and prayers.

Nothing about anti-natalism rejects the possibility of improving the world.

To iterate a Buddhist belief, suffering is an inevitable part of existing. The point of anti-natalism is to avoid causing more people to suffer than necessary.

We are no where near the threat of extinction if most of us stop having children. The world is beyond overpopulated and there is no ecologically sound reason to have more kids.

Think of why we sterilize cats and dogs. It’s not because we are absolving ourselves the responsibility of improving their lives, it’s because we do not want them to create more just to suffer on the streets.

Anti-natalism is a response to natalism, a popularly held religious belief that one should have as many children as possible. It’s about rejecting social and cultural pressures to have kids on people who don’t want to.

You are misinterpreting a crucial point. It’s not about remedying your own shitty living conditions, it’s about not creating one for others.

I don’t know how to state this more simply, but anti-natalism isn’t centered around improving the quality of life for yourself, it’s about not giving the opportunity to suffer for others.

I think you’re misunderstanding anti-natalism if you believe it’s about envisioning the end of the world. It’s not that grand, nor that pessimistic. It was never meant to remedy shitty living conditions. It’s not a tool for embettering society, it’s a philosophical exercise that questions one’s right to create a person and subject them to sentience and suffering.

Imagining non-existence is anything but lacking imagination because it so abstract to our minds. To be anti-natalist, you must first have attempted to imagine that in order to compare it to existence before asking if you feel it is right to subject a human to that.

It’s a philosophical exercise that challenges social conventions about child-rearing. Don’t forget that it’s an excruciating ordeal for women too. There is suffering involved for all parties. Not all kids are born healthy, secure, and provided for.

Ask anyone with disabilities, abusive families, trauma, financial hardship, and generally going though too much shit in life and you’ll find that it was never about a lack of imagination. We suffer because we are able to imagine how things could have been so much better. It is because we can imagine ourselves in a better place that we ask if not being born is necessarily any worse. That isn’t a statement made with just pessimism, it’s made with genuine curiosity towards thinking back what ‘life’ was like before being born, and deciding that it is the greatest gift you can give to your hypothetical children.

They might be wild blueberries which are smaller than regular ones.

More like, ‘I will die for my parents’ if we’re comparing literary classics.

Never say you were one. I was pointing out the hypocrisy in your claim because the said ‘evil people who have Christ as their symbol’ is a subset of ‘Americans who joke about the electric chair’.

Hence, there is no need to be reserved about making jokes about this particular execution.

Americans like to joke about the electric chair all the time, even with its history of false convictions. I fail to see the difference.

We humanize lots of non-human things all the time. Pets, animals used as meat, 1 month old fetuses, fictional characters, religious figures, etc.

It is as human to humanize as it is to dehumanize because it’s in our nature to attempt to define what is and isn’t us.

When you attribute value to a being because you see humanity in it, you are making a value statement that a being has worth because it has humanity, not because it has life which is precious.

Ultimately, dehumanizing ourselves is how we can extend our compassion to other beings. When we accept that we are no more alive than pigs are, we accept that pigs, too, are living being with their own thoughts, subjective experience, and suffering.

You can absolutely dehumanize things that were never human, because what it means to be human is neither universal nor static. AI is human to people who don’t understand how LLMs work. There’s a thought experiment called Roco’s basilisk (trigger warning as it can induce anxiety) that entirely banks on people’s tendency to humanize AI. You can argue that people are dumb and just don’t understand that that’s not how AI works, but how something works often has no bearing on how it is perceived by people.

More people than ever are asking what it means to be human in the face of something that almost communicates like one. We are not dehumanizing AI because of it’s race, gender, or color, because that is not clearly defined in AI. We’re dehumanizing AI because we are asking what it means to be human outside of superficial context.