Lol cry more you little soy filled bitch.

Oh really?

You are blinded by your emotion-based political views.

But aside from all that, at the end of the day, nothing is stopping you from actually practicing what you preach. You are more than free to refrain from reproducing and to look into the adoption process to find other peoples' YOLO babies to bring up as your own. So by all means, put your money where your mouth is and go adopt a few kids of other people. Either way, you have no business jumping down the throats of people who have their own kids and do so responsibly.

And to put it slightly more bluntly - why are you railing against people having children when they do so in a responsible manner, but you have no issues with people popping out YOLO babies left and right? That's like giving crap to a fit person who is generally pretty mindful of their health for eating a couple of McDoubles once in awhile, all while completely ignoring the super fat people who are just one or two extra Happy Meals away from needing a triple bypass when they hit up fast food joints on a nearly daily basis

£50k in daycare fees alone says otherwise.

Besides, the overpopulation thing is fixing itself with the rise of autistic FA's and their mass genetic suicide, which will also help strengthen the strain.

It does not benefit others. We often think it will, but it doesn't.

If you really want to remove human emotions/desires from the equation and and look at it from a purely objective and logical standpoint, then your argument is nothing more than emotion based drivel. Arguing that "having kids" is "selfish" could be done somewhat reasonably from a philosophical standpoint, but the whole premises of your argument falls apart by your adding that you think adopting other peoples' children is somehow a less selfish, and even admirable option.

When you look at it from a purely "how does this action effect the world/universe?" perspective, adopting children and taking care of them has essentially the same net effect on things as having your own kids. Instead of having your own kids who will "pollute the Earth" and whatever other negative redpill rhetoric you want to talk about, you're enabling someone else's offspring to fill that role. Had you had your own child(ren) instead and those children whose parents abandoned them/passed away went without care givers to protect them and ensure their survival, thus causing them to *not* survive, the net drain on the world/universe would end up being the same. The only difference is that if anything, decent and responsible people having their own children would have more potential to have a more positive effect on the world via them supporting what are more likely to be strong/quality genes vs. them adopting and bringing up the (usually crappy) genes of irresponsible idiots popping out countless kids they can't properly care for. Thus, if anything, it could be reasonably argued that purposely electing to adopt kids instead of your own is in fact more selfish than having your own children, as there's no doubt that part of why someone would do that has to do with their political views/virtue signaling. The exceptions to this would be people who want children but are infertile, and thus decide to adopt due to lack of choice in the matter while still wanting to fulfill their biological drive to experience parenthood. Also, if you want to REALLY over-analyze things, even people who choose to adopt due to being unable to have their own is a "selfish" act if you're claiming that having children is simply a drain on the world/universe.

So all of that said, your argument holds absolutely zero water. You'd have a reasonable case to make - albeit a sad, pathetic edgelord one - if you simply claimed that having children in general is a selfish decision, whether they be your own or via adoption. But trying to argue that adoption is somehow less selfish than having your own children (again, responsibly) is simply nonsensical for the reasons I outlined above. You are a philosophical lightweight attempting to look beyond emotional bs, yet being a completely emotion-based fool without any awareness of it.

the 8th fastest growing population is in Chad

coincidence?

having a kid would be cool only once they are done with diapers and walk on their own

you can like build a stronger better version of yourself and teach them not to do the same mistakes. Teach him to lift, socialize better and have good posture etc

Miscer who went to college for a liberal arts degree detected. How much do you spend on your Starbucks soy lattes every year, a few thousand dollars or so?

Explain how raising someone else's child who will take up resources/pollute the world/etc. is any less "selfish" than having your own child who would do the exact same thing, and do so without resorting to virtue signaling emotion-based reasoning. Stick to logic and quantifiable facts in terms of how adoption is somehow less negative to the planet/universe than having your own kids. You can't do it, because claiming adoption is somehow inherently less selfish/more noble than having your own kids is talking out of both sides of your mouth when you set aside all of the bs and consider strictly the facts.

Alright chairman mao

Having a kid is selfish. Did the kid ask to be born? Nope, you had the kid 100% because YOU wanted to.

...and that's okay. There's so many people getting defensive in here, but you don't have to. It's okay to be selfish. It's one of the reasons humanity is still around

Translation: Don't reproduce, goyim.

Because every single one of your direct ancestors since the first biological organic processes have managed to successfully reproduce for hundreds of millions of years and you will be the first one to fail the genetic line that gave you the opportunity of life.

That’s a pretty outstanding reason to not want to be the ultimate fail.

Exactly, I couldn't think of a bigger cuck than someone who CHOOSES to spit in the face of all of their ancestors

Yes.....because life as a human is amazing and magical. /sarcasm. It's like forcing a soul to inhabit your genetic case because you feel the need. What if that soul was happy floating in the nothingness? Truly being one with the universe? I dunno, just the way I see it. we all have different lenses.

this would be a bad thing because?

The elite condone it anyway so it doesnt matter what you think. Why do you think everything in pop culture centers around relationships and sex? They need peasants to continue popping out kids or the economy stagnates like it has been doing in countries with declining birth rates like Japan for decades

Where in my post did I disparage anyone for having biological kids? I was responding to your political views. My close friends have kids, and I have nieces/nephews.

Jesus committed the ultimate act of love and self sacrifice.

As long as these are your reasons for having children it will work out according to God’s plan. Most of the people in prison and enduring or spreading suffering in life did not have these two things growing up.

Do you even.logic? A kid thats adopted is already born, with having your own kids you are bringing new life to the world.

people can choose to have kids for selfish reasons

people can raise and take care of kids for unselfish reasons

And here I thought the people giving up their kids for adoption were selfish

I don't want kids. But think of this, we are all literally descendants of the first humans ever to exist. If you do not have kids, the thousands of years it took to build your personal genetic coding stops.

What if that soul wanted to be born through you? And you said no? Then your decision not to have children is selfish. People are not having as many kids so they can accumulate more wealth and retire in the Florida keys. The man that sacrifices the retirement home in the Keys so his child gets a good education is not the selfish one.

Human life isn't an object or posession. You are rationalizing not creating life and spreading love in this world, because you value materialism more.

The majority of men throughout history have not procreated. And after all that breeding, what do 99.9% of us how to show for it? Mostly average genetics within 1 standard deviation of the median human bean. If you're Lebron James or James Watson, yes the world is better off with your genes in the pool. But average wagecels? Be real about it.

What I stated was simply truth, nothing to do with whether you, me or anyone turned out to be a loser. Yes 99.9% aren't celebs or inventors or influential people. But even they need the rest of us to be relevant and build/continue on with their ideas and creations.

And how do you know the majority of men, never procreated? Almost everyone in their 30's I meet has a kid.

Not hyping having kids....but your genetics and mine have been building since the beginning. Do you really want that to end with yourself?

Either way this race of beings will one day go extinct and new life will form. It's the natural order of things.

There have been multiple academic studies on the subject. Estimates are that about 80% of women reproduce and only 40% of men pass their genes. This planet already has about 350x more people than needed to advance our species. We hit an inflection point decades ago and unfettered breeding is now only making things worse. Think about the bulk of the world already living in abject poverty. My way to contribute to the future world is by not breeding. I don't have offspring who will multiply into hundreds/thousands more people and continue to eat up resources.

And you're right. Time is ticking on humanity. Whether my genetic line ends with me or in 500 years from now, what does it matter other than for my own mental masturbation?

Truth to both arguments. Hence our free will to choose what we decide is the best path. I may never have kids. Never liked them. Don't wanna deal with it. But still debating if having one or two and trying to show them, better than my parents did how to be a worthwhile person, would be a better path. Was just speaking in a general sense.