[dudeman13]

>When the millenial zeitgeist has drifted in a direction where this is a common opinion, I take it to indicate that our socialization has taught some of us that humans have little inherent moral worth as individuals, the values of a family are subservient to the values of globalism

You lost me a little there. How does not wanting kids makes you think that our socialization has taught some of us that humans have little inherent moral worth as individuals?

[thomasahle]

> How does not wanting kids makes you think that our socialization has taught some of us that humans have little inherent moral worth as individuals?

Doesn't not wanting kids for X reason mean that you consider the moral worth of a new person to be less than X.

I think a lot of people don't consider a new person worth anything at all. Or at least would prefer 9 people at happiness level 10 over 10 people at happiness level 9.

[throwawaygh]

> Doesn't not wanting kids for X reason mean that you consider the moral worth of a new person to be less than X.

What? No.

Most people who do have children are not doing in order to fulfill some dispassionate abstract moral commitment to the inherent moral worth of human life.

And there are all sorts of examples of people who clearly value human life but choose not to have children. Or are all nuns terrible people?

Whether someone chooses to have children or not has very little to do with your underlying moral commitments or -- more importantly -- behavior. Sociopaths and abusers have children. Mother Teresa didn't have children.

[thomasahle]

> there are all sorts of examples of people who clearly value human life but choose not to have children. Or are all nuns terrible people?

OP was specifically referring to people (including in this thread) who choose not to have children on moral grounds:

>> several of my friends (millenial like myself) think that bringing children into this world is a bad thing to do- with global warming and other social problems

So it seems fair to assume that they consider the value of the new person to be none or negative overall.

[throwawaygh]

>>> several of my friends (millenial like myself) think that bringing children into this world is a bad thing to do- with global warming and other social problems

...and?

There's nothing at all logically inconsistent about two following two propositions:

P1. All human life has value.

P2. Intentionally creating new human life is unethical.

FWIW, I am not an anti-natalist, and I do not believe P2. However, I do believe it's unethical to purposefully have children you cannot support (financially, emotionally, intellectually, etc.). But that doesn't meant that I think that the children created by people who cannot support a child are worthless or have negative value! Just because "creating X is bad" does not mean "X has no value".

> So it seems fair to assume...

No, it isn't fair to assume that people who believe "creating X in situation S is bad" implies that those same people believe "X has no value". Those are two very, very distinct and different value judgements.

More importantly, I very much doubt people who hold to above position would agree with this characterization of their view of the value of human life.

[dudeman13]

>Doesn't not wanting kids for X reason mean that you consider the moral worth of a new person to be less than X.

I think it's worth distinguishing between:

--potential Y < X

--actual Y < X

With Y being the presence of the kid. To me actual Y > X, but potential Y < X.

I'd rather not have kids for a bunch of reasons. If I had kids I'd sacrifice those reasons for them.