Permanently Deleted

      • 4bicycles [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Any group actively advocating for antinatalism is basically eugenics. Which is what r/antinatalism is/does.

        But the Position itself isn't opposed to leftist values for the individual. I'm not really comfortable creatinge life because neither do I know if i don't fuck them up nor am I really clear on what they'll have to live through and the expectation's don't look all that rosy to me.

        But Kids will still be born through no fault of their own, so we best get to improving the world for them.

        • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Any group actively advocating for antinatalism is basically eugenics.

          Why?

          • 4bicycles [he/him]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Because at that point it crosses the line from "I don't think me having kids is a good idea" into "I don't think you having kids is a good idea."

            • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
              ·
              4 years ago

              But like the point is that anyone having a kid is bad idea. The subject here is the (potential) kid, not the parent.

              • 4bicycles [he/him]
                ·
                4 years ago

                I'm sorry, I honestly do not understand what you mean here, could you phrase it differently?

                • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  I'm trying to point out that antinatalism isn't about pointing out who should and who wouldn't have kids. It's the idea that no one should have kids out of concern of those kids.

                  I genuinely don't understand how that can be construed as eugenics.

                  • Harukiller14 [they/them,comrade/them]
                    ·
                    4 years ago

                    Because as far as I know antinatalism in general is only really discussed in the West. With everything you know about Western governments do you honestly believe any actual mass implementation of antinatalism is going to be done to them? Fuck no antinatalism is going to be used as an excuse to stop brown people (who tons of Western people already believe are using too many resources) from having babies

                    Which is eugenics.

        • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          Uhhh... So we should fight for a better world, and if we achieve our goal, we should just stop bringing new people into that world?

          Then what is the point of fighting for a better world in the first place?

          • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
            ·
            4 years ago

            Then what is the point of fighting for a better world in the first place?

            There going to be people that already alive who want the world to be better.

            • Harukiller14 [they/them,comrade/them]
              ·
              4 years ago

              Honestly that sounds selfish as fuck. We finally create a world that has minimized oppression and that's the point we decided to stop people from being born?

              That's the only time a child could reasonably be born according to antinatalists. This is why antinatalism is just misanthropic and should be disregarded.

              • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
                ·
                edit-2
                4 years ago

                The idea of antinatalism isn't that living sucks because of capitalism or scarcity or whatever. The idea is that living sucks inherently.

                • Harukiller14 [they/them,comrade/them]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  I understand the concept. I just think that it's dumb and leads nowhere. To those people I say there will most likely be assisted suicide in FALGSC so have at it.

                  • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    4 years ago

                    Well that would be a more orthodox form of antinatalism than all those grand ideas about stopping everyone from procreating going on in this thread.

            • Segorinder [any]
              ·
              4 years ago

              I can believe an advanced, falgsc human society would be capable of eradicating the possibility of life in the solar system, but I don't think that there is any version of human society that could substantially alter the course of the heat death of the universe, or that could prevent the potential for life across all of space.

                • Segorinder [any]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  Right, at a minimum, the difference between the universe and the 'observable universe' is going to put limits on human reach, but maybe there are enough similarly minded organisms in the universe to overcome that.

                  The problem with an automaton based approach is what characteristics they would need to get the job done. To match the scale of altering the entire reachable universe, they would have to be self reproducing. To be able to prevent life from existing, given all of the different environments in the universe that could lead to the rise of life, and all of the different forms that life could take, they would have to be able to adapt to the local environment, and have enough complexity of information processing to be able to identify previously unanticipated forms of life, and find the best way to disrupt it.

                  At this point, you've, at the very least, severely blurred the lines of what life is, and most likely created a new form of life that is much more prevalent than naturally occurring life ever was.

              • CatherineTheSoSo [any]
                ·
                4 years ago

                There's still a lot we don't know about the universe. Maybe we can trigger false vacuum decay or some such.

                • Segorinder [any]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  Yeah, that would destroy all life that currently exists, but it would also essentially re-roll the whole universe, and create new conditions for the development of life that didn't exist before. 'Destroy all life' is one thing, but 'prevent any possibility of the development of life' is a much harder job.

                • Ram_The_Manparts [he/him]
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  4 years ago

                  Because we deemed it immoral for new life to be brought into the world

                  The majority of humanity is never going to believe this.

                • Segorinder [any]
                  ·
                  4 years ago

                  My first reaction was to argue why an advanced human society would come to a different conclusion, but thinking about it I'm more interested a different question. For anyone that agrees that this issues needs to be investigated by a higher form of civilization, what reason is there to put any weight in your own conclusion on the issue if you're limited by living in the lower form of society?