Only unevolved people want to have children

kek

oh christ read a fucking book you bleeding heart liberal brainlet.
if there is such a thing as "more primitive" than the opposite is "more evolved" society progresses with the mode of production and its ideology and unless you're blind it's easy to see that most societies follow stages of development. to say otherwise is completely postmodernist.
if you think i'm spouting right-wing wacko talk then you might want to consider the fact that Karl Marx was influenced by some of the greatest proponents of evolutionism of the 19th century. I'm not even agreeing with OP but you're completely exaggerating to say there aren't less evolved peoples and cultures.

You're being a stupid nigger. He is CLEARLY acknowledging that some are more complex,(otherwise he wouldn't make the cockroach/human comparison), he is just saying that a species can't "evolve more", which is 100% a correct interpretation unless there are multiple origins to life on earth which is a pretty radical conclusion to make for a Holla Forums shot poster to make. He hasn't once said that things don't complexify over time.
Time and time again, geneticists have said that people across the world are more or less the same genetically. Seriously consider ending your life, look into beginning a new one.
finally
These things don't have to come together.

you're using the standard darwinian definition of "evolution" to read OP's post which is pedantic. there are also such things as cultural and social evolution which in that context makes certain people "unevolved" compared to others.

Your deffiniton of enlightened is stupid. Very different from everyone else’s deffiniton of enlightened.

I will procreate because it pleases my ego. Nothing can stop you.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-antinatalism-as-revolution

Since our society today is not anarchocommunist, the proletarian lives a life full of negative experiences: debt, hunger, imprisonment, and fighting the wars of the elite.

When the proletarian procreates, their children will almost certainly will become proletarians themselves and will have the same negative experiences as their parents. Therefore with the act of procreation the proletarian forces their children to live a life without satisfaction and full of sorrow. This, however, based on the positions of antinatalism, is something unethical. It is not right to force others to feel sadness.

Moreover, the proletarian if they are a conscious revolutionary has an ethical obligation to not assist the current capitalist system to preserve itself. The existence of new proletarians helps the self-preservation of capitalism, since they become new consumers, new workers, and new soldiers. In short, the birth of new children by proletarians is an act that further promotes capitalism.

In accordance with the above positions, therefore, the proletarian should not create new children, because in that way they force them to live a life in sadness and at the same time they surrender the children to the capitalists who are known to have no mercy and will use them for the continuing preservation of their unjust system (capitalism could not exist without a lot of proletarians).

Therefore we provided a possible answer to the question about the revolutionary properties of antinatalism, supporting the view that antinatalism is a revolutionary philosophy because it refuses to supply new proletarians to the capitalist machine, and we see that a possible act of resistance by the proletariat against the capitalist barbarism is the refusal to bring new proletarians in life.

If being a socialist means I can’t have kids I’m out. I want to have kids. That’s that.