If you think the earth is dying because poor people are having too many babies, that's about three logical steps away from ecofascism.
If you think the earth is dying because poor people are having too many babies, that's about three logical steps away from ecofascism.
Anti-natalism is dumb. You I can understand being the opposite of whatever the fuck is going on with Matt Yglesias, but stripping away the right to reproduction is not a solution to anything. Material conditions improving tend to lead to a stability in population growth (~2 kids/couple). Caring about population at all is baby brained nonsense.
If you don't want to have kids, whatever. That's your choice I guess, no one can force you to fuck. Just stop trying to say it's a solution to anything and pretending that it's not just a fetish.
Literally stop obsessing over other peoples' parenthood choices. I don't want to have kids. Not as some solution to anything, not as some weird fetish, but just because I do not want kids, and I cannot afford them anyway.
Not everyone has to want to reproduce, weirdo.
That's literally what I was saying. If you're doing it as a personal choice whatever, but I see plenty of anti-natalists out there saying banning children is some sort of solution to the world's problems. It's not and never will be.
deleted by creator
I'd agree with anti-natalists if their entire argument was "sometimes procreation creates Matt Yglesias, therefore, no one should procreate" lol
deleted by creator
There's more robust philosophical arguments against having children than economic/population considerations, and those arguments don't come down to mere matters of taste/personal decisions. Having children is inherintly a decision that effects other people one way or another, with the children themselves being the most obvious example.
I don't think you should generalize so much in this regard, it mostly just comes off as uninformed.
Edit: I mean, seriously, you can start with something as simple as the Wikipedia article and see that environmental arguments constitute a very small minority of the various positions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antinatalism
So is the robust philosophical consideration that the kid has to exist and existence is inherently bad?
That's one approach. Consent (or the impossibility thereof) is another. Some argue that existence is pretty nice actually, but boy howdy does death and existential angst suck, and seeing as we can't get around that it sure seems wrong to force someone to experience it.
There's all kinds of angles, and it's a very nuanced and intricate argument. Your reductive summation is, at best, offensive to people who have put a lot of thought into the matter and come out on the other side. At worst, it will actively impede yours and other people's ability to make sense of the things. I'm actually agnostic on the matter, seeing as there ARE really good arguments on both sides.
I don't know, when I read those arguments, I just see the inverse of the anti-abortion arguments that Catholics make. I think focusing on the fact that existence sucks is wrong when you should be focusing on making existence better. When you take the anti-natalist arguments to their logical conclusion, it's just mass extermination of sentient life to prevent procreation. Which they literally mention in the wiki.
I just see the whole endeavor as pointless. It needs to be coupled with massive systemic change and a transition to a communist mode of production, but doing that would inherently change the nature of existence and alleviate much of the suffering that currently goes hand in hand with existence under exploitative hierarchies/capitalist modes of production.
So your disagree with where they place their emphasis. Fine. But I bet they'd have reasons for their emphasis, too. Reasons that they likely make the case for in one of the many books they've written. I doubt they expect you to accept it at face value, especially such a radically heterodox attitude to the norm.
As for your suggestion, communism would certainly eliminate much of the suffering, but whether or not that can tip the scales of utilitarian calculus is a question worth asking. Even if it did, that does not mitigate the reality of death. Realistically can't change that one in time for it to be relevant to our decisions now. Procreation brings another sentient, conscious, and autonomous being into the world (without their consent!) and subjects them to unavoidable existential terror. You're absolutely right, those of us who are here SHOULD do everything we can to lighten that burden and make life better - but we didn't get here via magic. The decision to procreate precedes a decision as to what to do about existence. Glossing over the first one would be a grave mistake if our aim is to behave ethically.
I reiterate here - I'm not actually an anti-natalist myself. I just think they've made valuable contributions to the discussion and you're being incredibly uncharitable to the people you disagree with.
Well, yeah. Their problem is where they place the emphasis because they assume that the current mode of production is some natural unchangeable thing. If they didn't, they'd be communists. Anti-natalism is the ultimate form of doomerism.
Hmm, gonna hard disagree with you here and say you're continuing to be overly reductive. Many of these arguments have nothing to do with what means of production we're using and would stand even under communism. Might serve you well to actually engage with some of the literature instead of assuming so much or trying to import a framework from something you understand better. I'm gonna disengage for now, I feel the goal posts sliding away, and I've said my piece.
I don't see how I'm sliding the goalposts. It's a pretty simple argument they have. One that presumes a pessimistic model of existence which is not by any means a given.
"Just stop trying to say it’s a solution to anything and pretending that it’s not just a fetish."
That's where things started. My initial addition was to say it's a hell of a lot more than that. Now you're arguing against anti-natalism based on what you're assuming the other side assumes. Having actually read the literature, this is a pretty absurd conversation. Either develop your understanding or don't my guy - but if you're going to come in here with big dunning-Kruger energy you're gonna get pushback lmao.
Don't know how often you've engaged with anti-natalists online, but there's a large overlap between them and stupidpol/malthusians. To most anti-natalists I've had the misfortune of interacting with it is nothing more than a fetish.
I don't think the ethical calculus is inherently worthless, but it's not something I'd ever base my view of reality on. It contradicts too much with everything else I believe and I don't think the presumption of existence being inherently bad is necessarily a productive stance to have.
This is why I said it's fine for individuals to have this view, but any sort of implementation of anti-natalism by a state/ would be indistinguishable from malthusianism. I also don't think it's something that will ever take hold of the collective conscious because it's inherently defeatist and requires a complete and total lack of optimism. Which as we can see, even in the most brutally repressive hierarchy's doesn't happen.
So I guess I just don't see the point of it as a philosophy worth fighting for.