[wolfgke]

> I got into a discussion about this recently. It seems like most of the time new technology and automation inherently creates less jobs than it depreciates.

> Meanwhile, the population only goes up.

That's why one should consider people who produce children as "evil-minded". There are few things that are similar as cruel as producing children who will have no place in society. Antinatalism for the win.

[YCode]

Sort of.

On the other hand, on a national or global scale having children is not optional.

If you want your species to continue, some people have to have children.

That said, I agree in that I believe contraception should be essentially free to anyone who wants it. There's simply no logical reason for society to bring unwanted and superfluous children into the world.

[wolfgke]

> If you want your species to continue, some people have to have children.

But only as many as society really needs (currently we have to many) and and only if there exist people that are willing to bail if the child will be unemployed (a risk that will increase with even more automatization).

[mej10]

Without children the human species will simply die. If that's your goal or an accepted side-effect of your goal, then Antinatalism makes sense.

If you don't want humanity to die, then it is far too simplistic and it would actually be wrong to not value people having children -- at least to some degree -- since as far as we know it is the only way for humanity to continue.

In reality, as with most things, there is a lot of grey area and difference of circumstance that factor into the morality of such a decision.