this post was submitted on 20 Nov 2024
1256 points (95.2% liked)
Comic Strips
12743 readers
3000 users here now
Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
- The post can be a single image, an image gallery, or a link to a specific comic hosted on another site (the author's website, for instance).
- The comic must be a complete story.
- If it is an external link, it must be to a specific story, not to the root of the site.
- You may post comics from others or your own.
- If you are posting a comic of your own, a maximum of one per week is allowed (I know, your comics are great, but this rule helps avoid spam).
- The comic can be in any language, but if it's not in English, OP must include an English translation in the post's 'body' field (note: you don't need to select a specific language when posting a comic).
- Politeness.
- Adult content is not allowed. This community aims to be fun for people of all ages.
Web of links
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world: "I use Arch btw"
- !memes@lemmy.world: memes (you don't say!)
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What is the acceptable level of tragedy to impart upon a non-consenting progeny? I vote for zero
You'd have to be immortal, first. Most kids are gonna live to see their own parents pass.
Tragedy is a part of life.
It's easily avoidable tragedy, unaddressed by those who could do something about it, that's the problem.
Even worse, there's potentially extinction level tragedy happening right now, going unaddressed by those who can do something about it.
Yes. And tragedy is categorically bad, and tragedies cannot be experienced by that which is not alive (i.e. non-sentient). Thusly, a total absence of (sentient) life would be a total absence of tragedies and vice versa; in other words, sentient life and tragedy are virtually biconditional. The continuation of sentient life and tragedy is wholly avoidable if the relevant capable parties were willing, and it can often be abated on a small scale on an individual basis.
Most kids though? I'm not going to go looking for stats but let's just say 95% of children are outliving their parents right now. Awkward sentence there. I mean parents who are dying today, 95% of them didn't outlive their children. I hope that makes sense. Yes that's not how statistics work, I'm trying to make a point.
What's an acceptable level to drop to before we say fuck this we're done having kids? I knew I didn't want kids when I was a kid, but I'm an outlier.
Let's say 85% is the number for kids born today. I believe that's already unacceptable. It's so unnatural.
I think the number is worse than that. The mass climate migration/water wars are going to really get moving in the 2040s if not earlier. I don't want to live through that. I definitely don't want a child to live through that.
Historically we've tolerated MUCH higher rates of infant and child mortality than we do today. People will keep having kids even if most of them will die.
Agreed. It's just now we have more options. At least we did before the Christian Nationalist Supreme Court made abortion illegal in half of the US. Even with this there are still more options and more education than in the distant past.
All of their children will die; it is only a matter of when.
Put another way: every time a parent gives birth, they are bestowing the irrevocable gift of one day experiencing dying to their child.
"even if"? Biologically, knowing that most of your offspring are going to die is a reason to have as many kids as possible.
Operation human shield
I don't think many women had a choice in the matter.
"It's hell getting old" - my parents who had me knowing it's hell getting old.