Debunking the most common natalist argument: "If your parents thought that way, you wouldn't be here!"
"You don't want children? That's stupid! If your parents thought that way, you wouldn't be here!" - Ever heard something like this? It's a completely fallacious non-argument that has zero logical merit. Let me explain with a story.
Stacey has a precious gem. She suddenly decides to throw her gem away. Amy finds the gem, and Amy is now rich. Amy is very happy! However, Brad comes over to Amy, and tells her: "You should throw your gem away Amy! If nobody threw gems away, you wouldn't be rich now!" Who is stupid here? Amy or Brad? Because you sound like Brad if you use this non-argument. If A led to B, and if B is useful to you, saying it would be logical for you to commit A is a fundamental error in reasoning. It goes somewhat like this:
"A acts in a way that has several consequences, one of these is B.
B benefits you, so it is rational to copy the actions of A"
It is very easy to demonstrate why this argument is fundamentally flawed:
"The barkeeper gave me back too much change! I now have more money, and I like this, thus it must be rational to give people back too much change."
Let's disect the logic of this argument:
(The barkeeper) - A
(gave me back too much change) - The action done by A.
(I now have more money) - B
(I like this) - B benefits me
thus it must be rational to give people back too much change - flawed conclusion
Let's do another...
"My sister killed herself, and now I inherited her house. I like owning a house, so I should kill myself."
(My sister) - A
(Killed herself) - The action done by A
(And now I inherited her house) - B
(I like owning a house) - B benefits me
(I should kill myself) - Flawed conclusion.
So let's now put the original flawed argument in this form.
"My parents had children, so I'm alive now. I like being alive, so I should have children."
(My parents) - A
(Had children) - Action done by A
(I'm alive now) - B
(I like being alive) - B benefits me
(I should have children) - Flawed conclusion.
Etc...
Now I understand some of you like having kids. That's completely fine. But please, do not use this argument as if you somehow have some kind of intellectual nugget of wisdom that you ought to share with the world. It's a shame childfree people have to listen to this.
I agree with the reasoning but I don't get why you think having children is bad. I don't want children perse but I got the feeling from some of your FB posts that you think it is immoral to have them. A blogpost about that would be interesting.
Well, you can argue that having children is immoral - see here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
You decide whether this is legit or not.
Well, I can personally say that, if death was certain and transhumanism impossible, I would rather never have been born. But I rather judge procreation for the effect it has in those partaking (Just like I judge crack cocaine abuse) and for destroying our society by reinforcing traditional femininity, which holds back innovation and the economy.
I'm considering writing one :). Now mind you, I do not say that one should use force to stop people from doing it. I just think it's a very bad decision for yourself, very irrational and very much surrendering the nature in stead of transcending it. I'll write a post about it :)
Or just to summarize: Profiting from something does not lead to the necessity of doing something.
Rather, profiting from something follows from someone else making a bad decision does not mean you should imitate his bad decision.
Congratulations @ascendance! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOP