Summerlander wrote:The question is: Could you spare your unborn children the pain and suffering this world brings? The answer should be 'yes'. The only way you can fully protect your children is by not having them. Of course this also means the end of mankind. Notice that anti-natalism doesn't prescribe suicide as it can be consistent with morality by arguing that taking one's life causes others to suffer. And it never goes against the living when they say they'd rather hold on to their lives. Anti-natalism merely advises against having children.
Anti-natalism reminds us: Even the most successful lives come to an end. You live long enough and you'll notice that the phone starts ringing more often with bad news. You start losing people. And you still have to contemplate death ...
I suppose the closest way you can replicate such a feat is if you were a wealthy person raising a pet. After all,in this case,you have almost full control over the pet's environment and as long as you always provide its necessities(and emotionally bond with it of course),then it may very well never have to learn how to handle struggle. You can allow a pet to live a completely spoiled and sheltered life but you can't raise a human being like that. At least,not without crippling their ability to handle life on their own.
True that. In fact,I imagine(though I could be wrong)it is the most successful and happy individuals who will have the most trouble accepting and contemplating the reality of death. For instance,look at the rich people making large financial investments in hopes of achieving immortality or very long life. (not that there's anything wrong with making efforts to lengthen our lifespan and decrease the downsides of aging. if I were rich and happy,I too would be doing my best to prolong the gravy train as much as I could,hehe. )
People who are genuinely miserable with their lives often won't really care about the eventuality of their death. some will even look forward to it. (Suicidal people)