Honestly, most people shouldn't be having children. Change my mind.

Nothing to disagree about here.

My business Econ teacher in college said kids are a negative net present value investment. I mainly agree also as my wife and I hate kids. We love watching miserable couples pushing their screaming kids in strollers as we glide by and run in peace knowing we have a home that is forever clean and no whiny ugly kids to spend our life’s savings on. No thank you.

dfa wrote:

Three strong reasons:

1) As Schopenhauer (and Buddha) said, the average human experience on this earth can be characterized as "suffering."

In other words, net negative value. The vast majority of people have unfulfilled lives, then drop dead. It's thus unconscionable to bring another human to this world just to suffer most of the time.

2) Most people are ill-fit to be parents. My parents didn't know how to parent, and neither did yours probably. Most people are winging it, creating mentally imbalanced monsters (see Jamin).

3) This Earth could use a little lower usage of resources and lower asset prices.

To make this work, we need to enforce vasectomy on men around age 14, which can be "undone" if and only if the person passes some qualitative and quantitative tests (e.g. psychological health, net worth, income, etc)

Sorry you’ll life is so empty. While I agree, many people shouldn’t be reproducing, those of us that can run a 10k in under 18 minutes and earn over $250k a year definitely should be. Why would I waste my model wife’s excellent genes!

1. Only pansies view suffering as a negative.

2. You grow into the job.

3. Overpopulation is a myth and they're lying about the real population numbers.

1) If you literally believed your life had negative value you would kill yourself.

2) Most people are able to parent, unless you believe every child who isn't on track to get into Stanford by age 7 is a failure of parenting.

3) The Earth doesn't have feelings or care how many people are on it.

Only incels believe others shouldn't have children. They know evolution hasn't selected their DNA for the next generation so they try to ruin it for everyone else.

While I can't change your mind over Letsrun, your logic has some fallacies.

1) You can say suffering isn't bad because it isn't you that will be suffering. It's the kid.

2) Actually, I did say those who are qualified can have babies. That said, anyone who thinks having a trophy wife and makes $250K a year automatically qualifies clearly has mental issues.

These people shouldn't be allowed to procreate.

SinceYouAsked wrote:

1) If you literally believed your life had negative value you would kill yourself.

2) Most people are able to parent, unless you believe every child who isn't on track to get into Stanford by age 7 is a failure of parenting.

3) The Earth doesn't have feelings or care how many people are on it.

Only incels believe others shouldn't have children. They know evolution hasn't selected their DNA for the next generation so they try to ruin it for everyone else.

Actually, no. Schopenhauer said despite net negative value, organisms are biologically programed to live due to "Will to Live" - a primal force that overrides all emotional pain. So you will carry on your sorry existence.

You don't know how to parent. You probably stink. And your kids are probably going to be fked up sh*ts like Jamin with that attitude.

And funny, I probably make way more than you and went to Stanford - and I'm telling you that most of us including myself aren't qualified to parent.

dfa wrote:

Three strong reasons:

1) As Schopenhauer (and Buddha) said, the average human experience on this earth can be characterized as "suffering."

In other words, net negative value. The vast majority of people have unfulfilled lives, then drop dead. It's thus unconscionable to bring another human to this world just to suffer most of the time.

2) Most people are ill-fit to be parents. My parents didn't know how to parent, and neither did yours probably. Most people are winging it, creating mentally imbalanced monsters (see Jamin).

3) This Earth could use a little lower usage of resources and lower asset prices.

To make this work, we need to enforce vasectomy on men around age 14, which can be "undone" if and only if the person passes some qualitative and quantitative tests (e.g. psychological health, net worth, income, etc)

Fourth reason: You can't get laid and are a social misfit.

Thanks!

Everyone who can find a willing partner (not necessarily you) is qualified to parent, so long as your mandatory genital mutilation idea never becomes law - and it never will, because the number of incels with your attitude will always remain low because you don't reproduce.

What's with the ad hominem attacks?

Let's suppose I'm an incel. Why would me not getting laid lead to a wish that no one else had a chance to procreate?

How about trying to tackle any of my three points using your brain?

And let me guess, you derive some sense of superiority by assuming you are the only one getting laid, but that's kinda insecure of you. Don't you think?

Honestly I don't care if people keep reproducing. More supply of laborers and lower middle class folks. Good for capitalism.

But I'm just saying your kids won't like you for it as they bring me my Postmates meals, and drive my Uber ride to the airport.