What an insulting position to take with childfree people. Saying we "just can't be bothered" Guess what? Not everyone wants kids and that's ok. I won't ever be having kids and my life isn't empty or sad because of it. This perspective also seems to only view children as a benefit to the parents. He takes no consideration whatsoever for the quality of that child's life. I love my hypothetical children so much that I REFUSE to force them to exist in this dystopian nightmare hellscape we call "society."
Also consider the flip side.. you don't want kids bcz of the fear of harm or danger.. which is understandable. That also indicates it comes from love.. bt as we know it's better to hv loved n lost than never to hv known that depth of love PLUSSS *if good ppl forsake hvng kids then what will the world come to..*
It's okay that not everyone wants kids. It's **not** okay that we're depopulating because many people choose not to. Your life is certainly emptier for it, but you know this already. re: your hypothetical children, miraculously, birth rates were still good in soviet russia and communist china, so some perspective beyond the past 2 decades would help you, I think.
You try to make your position somehow virtuous when it's just embracing entropy and quitting the game of life for good. There's nothing virtuous in not having kids. The society looks like your own results, and you can choose to make it better by acting better and creating a healthy family. Operating from a place of resentment, hopelessness, and hate doesn't help. You're free to exit the server with the main quest incomplete but ultimately that's just giving up. If you imagine everything your ancestors went through, you probably had an easy life comparatively.
The goal is to avoid this from being true; that a person is mature and stable enough to have children, to be eligible to participate in the next generation.
@@VaelVictus People can be mature, stable, and influential to the next generation in a positive way without ever reproducing. Encouraging human reproduction as a goal in itself when there are over 8 billion people alive at once is needless and destructive.
@@Panamenya They can be, but most people who aren't (or sadly cannot) reproduce are not necessary to the future of the species. The most accessible way to be necessary is to reproduce or at least act as a parent to children who would be without. Curious what destruction you're talking about. I haven't destroyed anything -- maybe you have -- but I hope my descendants will be part of initiatives that bring life to the rest of the universe.
A good host would have asked a counter-question to that - What about the population explosion effects due to everyone having kids? But this host can only laugh like an ...
Population will not explode if everyone has atmost 2 kids. Lookup something called population replacement rate. The logic is that as people are being born, people are also passing away, so basically grandparents are being replaced by 2 children, and then as they grow, your parents are being replaced by your kids and so on. People who don’t have kids because they believe in population explosion are misinformed. I can’t speak for other reasons..
Because 'he couldn't be bothered'...i think its rude to think that people who choose not to have kids are not bothered. They are extremely bothered and thats why the decision. Appreviate his thoughts but he makes people who have kids seem superior than others.
Yes they are because they choose to act in spite of all hopeless and ressentiment around them. Not having kids is not virtuous - that's just failure in biological life's terms. Your whole biological framework is built to propagate life. Taking on challenges is virtuous. Being weak and feeble is not.
Interesting and honest perspective. I kind of agree that both should equally be happy in the relationship !! Everyone should have kids, I agree too. At right time and when couples are ready. I have seen many people are unhappier after having early kids.
Disagree with Naval on "everyone should have kids". Here's me brutally deconstructing him: There's no objective 'should' in that decision to have kids. If you want to have kids then have them, if you don't want kids then don't have them. To me it doesn't matter which path you take as long attained buddhahood/nirvana/conquered mind. Jiddu Krishnamurti, Osho, Ramana Maharshi, Eckhart Tolle, Mooji, as far as it's known none of them had any children. So firstly, Naval Ravikant's argument for having children is rooted in a traditional, almost evolutionary view-that life is a continuation of a chain of reproduction, and opting out of this chain might be seen as a break in that legacy. His reasoning appeals to both evolutionary biology and cultural ideas about legacy and survival. 1) While many species, and indeed many genetic lines, have successfully reproduced, far more have failed or become extinct. Evolution itself is a process of trial and error, where not all organisms are meant to or succeed in reproducing. The idea that we're somehow obligated to continue the chain oversimplifies this biological reality. Naval's view is more like a social or cultural obligation rather than a biological one. 2) Also every individual or couple is in their own unique situation, including different financial situations. Therefore, individuals are free to make the choice based on their circumstances, desires, and values. There isn't an inherent moral obligation to reproduce, and some people find fulfilling lives without having children. 3) Naval himself has previously argued against the existence of an afterlife, making it inconsistent to appeal to the notion that ancestors might be disappointed or care about reproductive choices from some eternal vantage point. If there's no afterlife, then the idea of ancestors "looking down" is moot. It seems that in this instance, he's leveraging a rhetorical device to make an emotional point rather than staying consistent with his own rational arguments against the afterlife. “I don’t buy the everlasting afterlife because it’s insane to me with absolutely no evidence to believe that because of how you live 70 years here on this planet then you’re going to spend an eternity (which is a very long time) in some afterlife. What kind of silly god judges you for eternity based on some small period of time here. So I think after this life it’s very much like before you were before, and if that was nothing then it’s going to be nothing.” - Naval Naval is making a normative claim that people should have children, while I'm saying that there's no objective obligation-it's a personal choice. My position is stronger because there's no universal "should" when it comes to having children; it's ultimately an individual's decision, free from external moral imperatives.
His context of saying this is for those who are not into spirituality, no sadhna just nothing. You just want to live a materialistic life then you must have kids it would calm you down and would add a sense of spirituality also. The people you are talking about were evolved beings don't give their example until you are up to that level
@@Khushi-n3f8d 1) He never actually clarified that's the context but if it is what you say then he could've done a better job articulating that. 2) If you're not on that "sadhana" (or whatever you call it) path, then the chances are you're going to suffer from the assaults of the mind regardless of whether you have kids or not. If it's a matter of suffering less, then having kids does not guarantee that either. Lots of people have kids and yet it has not calmed them down one bit, if anything it has made them suffer more - as they now suffer from the endless enslavement of the desperation to provide a "decent" lifestyle for their kids, suffer from the attachments to their kids, and even from a financial standpoint. Especially in early parenthood where there's the anxiety of getting the kids ready for school, the anxiety of getting the kids to bed at night so that they may get to school on time the following morning and so on. Now sure, there's also the nicer side to having kids - your child's smile or hug to you can feel great and there's no issue that comes along with that unless you view the smile to signify something related to You. There's the possible "meaning" aspect to it, there's the possible respite from one's own mundane life, possible respite from loneliness, etc. But overall, from the standpoint of those not on the "sadhana"/moksha/mushin/conquering-the-mind/ending-all-inner-conflict path, any relationship one has (whether that's their kids or wife or parents or friends) is more likely to bring far greater pain than joy just due to the way 'attachment' works and brings misery. You have to examine your own experience and if you have found in your experience that that isn't truth then you should completely disregard the words. 3) Don't blindly assume that anyone is not "up to that level". In fact, even thinking theyre "evolved beings" is an assumption, I only used those names as examples because they're frequently quoted by people such as Naval as guys who have attained. None of that matters, you can't know with absolute certainty whether another being has arrived or not, only you yourself matters to you.
Such a smart guy but still didn't highlight the fact that you can pick anyone as your life partner based on merits and everything, but the relationship won't work if its not meant to work. Its just a matter of luck !!
I agree with some .. bt definitely not "Not bothered" I was scared to bring a life into this world due to the dangers that are.. Bt inspite , i did n man was it more than anything i hv ever felt One doesn't want kids bcz of the fear of harm or danger.. which is understandable. That also indicates, it comes from love.. bt as we know it's better to hv loved n lost than never to hv known that depth at all PLUSSS *if good ppl forsake hvng kids then what will the world come to..*
Yeah people are ruled by their self-generated fear, anxiety, hopelessness etc. But the world isn't like that - they just are feeble. That's why you need to grow up, and become formidable.
What an insulting position to take with childfree people. Saying we "just can't be bothered"
Guess what? Not everyone wants kids and that's ok. I won't ever be having kids and my life isn't empty or sad because of it.
This perspective also seems to only view children as a benefit to the parents. He takes no consideration whatsoever for the quality of that child's life. I love my hypothetical children so much that I REFUSE to force them to exist in this dystopian nightmare hellscape we call "society."
wait till midlife crisis gets you
Also consider the flip side.. you don't want kids bcz of the fear of harm or danger.. which is understandable. That also indicates it comes from love.. bt as we know it's better to hv loved n lost than never to hv known that depth of love
PLUSSS *if good ppl forsake hvng kids then what will the world come to..*
It's okay that not everyone wants kids. It's **not** okay that we're depopulating because many people choose not to. Your life is certainly emptier for it, but you know this already.
re: your hypothetical children, miraculously, birth rates were still good in soviet russia and communist china, so some perspective beyond the past 2 decades would help you, I think.
You try to make your position somehow virtuous when it's just embracing entropy and quitting the game of life for good. There's nothing virtuous in not having kids. The society looks like your own results, and you can choose to make it better by acting better and creating a healthy family. Operating from a place of resentment, hopelessness, and hate doesn't help.
You're free to exit the server with the main quest incomplete but ultimately that's just giving up. If you imagine everything your ancestors went through, you probably had an easy life comparatively.
@@edheldude I'm convinced most of the anti-natalists just have a resilience problem.
Fantastic last lines spoken on the practicality of being honest version of ourselves!
No, some people definitely should NOT reproduce.
True
Peacefulls🙃
The goal is to avoid this from being true; that a person is mature and stable enough to have children, to be eligible to participate in the next generation.
@@VaelVictus People can be mature, stable, and influential to the next generation in a positive way without ever reproducing. Encouraging human reproduction as a goal in itself when there are over 8 billion people alive at once is needless and destructive.
@@Panamenya They can be, but most people who aren't (or sadly cannot) reproduce are not necessary to the future of the species. The most accessible way to be necessary is to reproduce or at least act as a parent to children who would be without.
Curious what destruction you're talking about. I haven't destroyed anything -- maybe you have -- but I hope my descendants will be part of initiatives that bring life to the rest of the universe.
A good host would have asked a counter-question to that - What about the population explosion effects due to everyone having kids? But this host can only laugh like an ...
Population will not explode if everyone has atmost 2 kids. Lookup something called population replacement rate. The logic is that as people are being born, people are also passing away, so basically grandparents are being replaced by 2 children, and then as they grow, your parents are being replaced by your kids and so on. People who don’t have kids because they believe in population explosion are misinformed. I can’t speak for other reasons..
Can a public figure have a natural 'right' to prescribe for ' everyone'?
Yes, why not? Everyone have their own free will.
I mean most men in history have not reproduced - but sure he can suggest. Most men won't succeed like they didn't in the past.
Really dense knowledge. Naval is a fast speaker, but more importantly he doesn't waste his words.
I 100% again on what Naval Ravikant said on ration-ship and kids
The kids really don’t have any consent for being born into this world.
This guy is too full of himself to understand that
Can they have any?
Ok? And what now? It's a privilege.
Because 'he couldn't be bothered'...i think its rude to think that people who choose not to have kids are not bothered. They are extremely bothered and thats why the decision. Appreviate his thoughts but he makes people who have kids seem superior than others.
Yes they are because they choose to act in spite of all hopeless and ressentiment around them. Not having kids is not virtuous - that's just failure in biological life's terms. Your whole biological framework is built to propagate life.
Taking on challenges is virtuous. Being weak and feeble is not.
Interesting and honest perspective. I kind of agree that both should equally be happy in the relationship !! Everyone should have kids, I agree too. At right time and when couples are ready. I have seen many people are unhappier after having early kids.
Very fresh and good perspective. Well put together
Wow! Good perspective 👍
He’s a Smart Chap from a very Different Background. But he should look for the future of his kid rather than care about dead ancestors.
Honest advice!
Disagree with Naval on "everyone should have kids". Here's me brutally deconstructing him:
There's no objective 'should' in that decision to have kids. If you want to have kids then have them, if you don't want kids then don't have them. To me it doesn't matter which path you take as long attained buddhahood/nirvana/conquered mind. Jiddu Krishnamurti, Osho, Ramana Maharshi, Eckhart Tolle, Mooji, as far as it's known none of them had any children.
So firstly, Naval Ravikant's argument for having children is rooted in a traditional, almost evolutionary view-that life is a continuation of a chain of reproduction, and opting out of this chain might be seen as a break in that legacy. His reasoning appeals to both evolutionary biology and cultural ideas about legacy and survival.
1) While many species, and indeed many genetic lines, have successfully reproduced, far more have failed or become extinct. Evolution itself is a process of trial and error, where not all organisms are meant to or succeed in reproducing. The idea that we're somehow obligated to continue the chain oversimplifies this biological reality. Naval's view is more like a social or cultural obligation rather than a biological one.
2) Also every individual or couple is in their own unique situation, including different financial situations. Therefore, individuals are free to make the choice based on their circumstances, desires, and values. There isn't an inherent moral obligation to reproduce, and some people find fulfilling lives without having children.
3) Naval himself has previously argued against the existence of an afterlife, making it inconsistent to appeal to the notion that ancestors might be disappointed or care about reproductive choices from some eternal vantage point. If there's no afterlife, then the idea of ancestors "looking down" is moot. It seems that in this instance, he's leveraging a rhetorical device to make an emotional point rather than staying consistent with his own rational arguments against the afterlife.
“I don’t buy the everlasting afterlife because it’s insane to me with absolutely no evidence to believe that because of how you live 70 years here on this planet then you’re going to spend an eternity (which is a very long time) in some afterlife. What kind of silly god judges you for eternity based on some small period of time here. So I think after this life it’s very much like before you were before, and if that was nothing then it’s going to be nothing.” - Naval
Naval is making a normative claim that people should have children, while I'm saying that there's no objective obligation-it's a personal choice. My position is stronger because there's no universal "should" when it comes to having children; it's ultimately an individual's decision, free from external moral imperatives.
Couldn’t have said it better. 💯💯💯
Agreed, I agree with Naval on so many things but he’s being a hypocrite here for sure.
@@devanshdwivedi8893if you parents thought the same way, you would not be here typing!
His context of saying this is for those who are not into spirituality, no sadhna just nothing. You just want to live a materialistic life then you must have kids it would calm you down and would add a sense of spirituality also. The people you are talking about were evolved beings don't give their example until you are up to that level
@@Khushi-n3f8d 1) He never actually clarified that's the context but if it is what you say then he could've done a better job articulating that.
2) If you're not on that "sadhana" (or whatever you call it) path, then the chances are you're going to suffer from the assaults of the mind regardless of whether you have kids or not. If it's a matter of suffering less, then having kids does not guarantee that either.
Lots of people have kids and yet it has not calmed them down one bit, if anything it has made them suffer more - as they now suffer from the endless enslavement of the desperation to provide a "decent" lifestyle for their kids, suffer from the attachments to their kids, and even from a financial standpoint. Especially in early parenthood where there's the anxiety of getting the kids ready for school, the anxiety of getting the kids to bed at night so that they may get to school on time the following morning and so on.
Now sure, there's also the nicer side to having kids - your child's smile or hug to you can feel great and there's no issue that comes along with that unless you view the smile to signify something related to You. There's the possible "meaning" aspect to it, there's the possible respite from one's own mundane life, possible respite from loneliness, etc. But overall, from the standpoint of those not on the "sadhana"/moksha/mushin/conquering-the-mind/ending-all-inner-conflict path, any relationship one has (whether that's their kids or wife or parents or friends) is more likely to bring far greater pain than joy just due to the way 'attachment' works and brings misery. You have to examine your own experience and if you have found in your experience that that isn't truth then you should completely disregard the words.
3) Don't blindly assume that anyone is not "up to that level". In fact, even thinking theyre "evolved beings" is an assumption, I only used those names as examples because they're frequently quoted by people such as Naval as guys who have attained. None of that matters, you can't know with absolute certainty whether another being has arrived or not, only you yourself matters to you.
Such a smart guy but still didn't highlight the fact that you can pick anyone as your life partner based on merits and everything, but the relationship won't work if its not meant to work. Its just a matter of luck !!
I agree with some .. bt definitely not "Not bothered"
I was scared to bring a life into this world due to the dangers that are..
Bt inspite , i did n man was it more than anything i hv ever felt
One doesn't want kids bcz of the fear of harm or danger.. which is understandable. That also indicates, it comes from love.. bt as we know it's better to hv loved n lost than never to hv known that depth at all
PLUSSS *if good ppl forsake hvng kids then what will the world come to..*
Yeah people are ruled by their self-generated fear, anxiety, hopelessness etc. But the world isn't like that - they just are feeble. That's why you need to grow up, and become formidable.
Great marriage advise. I wish I had met him before meeting my wife😀.
Indian defininately needs more people 😂
No thanks, not even if I had the chance to get together with any women I want, I wouldn't.
oh ok ok ok ok
❤👍🏼
🤝💖🌷👍