Rise of the antinatalists

However one feels about it...

"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/anti-natalists-childfree-population-climate-change""

maybe a few good lawsuits against parents would get their attention.

I think a lawsuit against parunts who knew they carried a deleterius gene and still bred would be a good target.

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.

Overall it can only reduce the population which is good. Even if the movement "is gaining mainstream popularity" it is likely to remain a tiny subset of the population which ascribes to this philosophy. I love that people are questioning and self-reflecting about this as an alternative to mindless breeding.

While I don't agree with anti-natalists that life is an imposition I do agree that people are born under stupid and unfair circumstances way too often. I would guess a number of anti-natalists may have intuited from their parents (or have been told outright) that they are an imposition. As adults, they remained aware and sensitive to this message. And if so, who could fault them for determining life is an imposition? If anything, they've learned from their parents to not breed and repeat the vicious cycle of making another generation feel that they are an imposition.

Quote
freya
While I don't agree with anti-natalists that life is an imposition I do agree that people are born under stupid and unfair circumstances way too often. I would guess a number of anti-natalists may have intuited from their parents (or have been told outright) that they are an imposition. As adults, they remained aware and sensitive to this message. And if so, who could fault them for determining life is an imposition? If anything, they've learned from their parents to not breed and repeat the vicious cycle of making another generation feel that they are an imposition.

I didn't get the impression from my parents that I am an imposition, yet I am an antinatlist. I suppose that after I realized that life is basically meaningless, a series of events - most boring, some extremely unpleasant, some nice - with a thread of the lurking fear of death, disease and injury, it was logical for me to reach the conclusion that never having existed is preferable. We all spend so much time fighting against the inevitable decay (brushing your teeth, going to the doctor, sleeping, going to the gym, trying to eat well, etc) and in disconnect from the reality of how it will end....for what?

I am fortunate: both in terms of human history and in the current world, I am in relatively good circumstances. So much human existence is far worse than mine. I find the asymmetry argument compelling, and wonder why those in worse circumstances do not.

Have the rest of you noticed this recent change? I don't know what to make of it.

On the board we talked about how most of the people talking about the environment and climate change had all kinds of ideas for dealing with those problems, but no one wanted to address population growth as one of the causes. Some of them even said it would be wrong to expect people to control how many children they had.

Now suddenly the idea of population control has taken on steam. This year we've been seeing it mentioned more and more in response to environmental concerns. Maybe this could be everyone finally seeing the elephant in the room—or it could be the powers that be who want to control everything and everybody, now raising some trial balloons to get the rest of us used to the concept. I wonder about the latter: governments setting the stage to dictate population control as they plan to dictate everything else.

What do the rest of you think?

The fly in this ointment is the GOP is making abortion and soon birth control illegal in the USA.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

I don’t think the US government wants to control population. Capitalism needs consumers. Breeders buy a lot of useless shit for their kids, and those kids grow up and continue the cycle. The elite won’t stay elite if the lower classes start making wise financial decisions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________
"Not every ejaculation deserves a name" - George Carlin

Quote
kman
Have the rest of you noticed this recent change? I don't know what to make of it.

On the board we talked about how most of the people talking about the environment and climate change had all kinds of ideas for dealing with those problems, but no one wanted to address population growth as one of the causes. Some of them even said it would be wrong to expect people to control how many children they had.

Now suddenly the idea of population control has taken on steam. This year we've been seeing it mentioned more and more in response to environmental concerns. Maybe this could be everyone finally seeing the elephant in the room—or it could be the powers that be who want to control everything and everybody, now raising some trial balloons to get the rest of us used to the concept. I wonder about the latter: governments setting the stage to dictate population control as they plan to dictate everything else.

What do the rest of you think?

I don't think it is governments doing it. Look at all the pro-breeding propaganda so many governments are engaging in, and all the hysterical news articles about changing demographics. China, one of the countries which does have the ability to dictate reproduction, ditched its one child policy.

I think governments are gung-ho on reproduction because capitalism demands it. Capitalism needs endless consumers, but it also needs a large supply of the desperate poor. The desperate poor are bodies for the military, which is used to maintain the supply of raw materials and to put down revolts, both local and abroad, of people demanding a more equal distribution of resources.

Consider how population was an issue of concern in the 1970s. There were many initiatives, around the world, to try to control rising population, ranging from India promoting sterilization to China's one-child policy. Then, suddenly, around the time of Regan and Thatcher, when there was a rush to sell of state-owned businesses for private profit, Malthus was "debunked". (Of course it is not possible to sustain infinite growth in a finite system, but the powers that be decided that because our reliance on fossil fuels made his calculations inaccurate, the whole theory was irrelevant.) This is around the same time that the religious reicht in the US was mobilized with an anti-abortion message.

The governments perceive it to be in their interests to have a large, stupid population. If population diminishes, there won't be as much competition and people won't be willing to accept gross inequalities in exchange for a few crumbs. (The black death was an overall boon for the peasants who survived, as it gave them more power to negotiate their labor and started to break the system of serfdom. When there are more jobs than bodies, the poor benefit.) They're trying to push the reproduction narrative with religion, with laws limiting reproductive autonomy, with happy family propaganda, and with increasing breeder perks.

And it isn't working. Younger generations are being much more vocal about not wanting to breed. And while in the past it could be expected that many would change their minds as they got older, the effects of climate change are undeniable to anyone with half a brain. Basically, those same ancient fucks who are trying to pressure everyone to breed have made such a shit-show of the world that it's increasingly unlikely that younger people will change their minds. And seeing what's happening, they've realized that the idea of environmental reproduction in the style of Al Gore is just so much bullshit.

Quote
yurble

Quote
freya
While I don't agree with anti-natalists that life is an imposition I do agree that people are born under stupid and unfair circumstances way too often. I would guess a number of anti-natalists may have intuited from their parents (or have been told outright) that they are an imposition. As adults, they remained aware and sensitive to this message. And if so, who could fault them for determining life is an imposition? If anything, they've learned from their parents to not breed and repeat the vicious cycle of making another generation feel that they are an imposition.

I didn't get the impression from my parents that I am an imposition, yet I am an antinatlist. I suppose that after I realized that life is basically meaningless, a series of events - most boring, some extremely unpleasant, some nice - with a thread of the lurking fear of death, disease and injury, it was logical for me to reach the conclusion that never having existed is preferable. We all spend so much time fighting against the inevitable decay (brushing your teeth, going to the doctor, sleeping, going to the gym, trying to eat well, etc) and in disconnect from the reality of how it will end....for what?

I am fortunate: both in terms of human history and in the current world, I am in relatively good circumstances. So much human existence is far worse than mine. I find the asymmetry argument compelling, and wonder why those in worse circumstances do not.

Yurble, I'm only familiar with the high level tenants of anti-natalism. I've known a few anti-natalists and they were self-destructive. I've even considered that life is pointless and not only does it makes me feel awful but it seems to color my reality. When I focus on the parts of life that make me happy my reality is colored in a much more positive light. You seem healthy and happy to me but do you experience life with happiness?

Quote
LoveToLurk
I don’t think the US government wants to control population. Capitalism needs consumers. Breeders buy a lot of useless shit for their kids, and those kids grow up and continue the cycle. The elite won’t stay elite if the lower classes start making wise financial decisions.

The government won't go so far as to push consumerism overtly (think socially conscious buzz words in advertising: small batch, sustainably harvested, free range, etc.). The government defines these buzz words and in many instances the public perception of the word is very different than the government definition. Last I checked free range meant 30 minutes a day in an open area. Not exactly the picture of roaming happy chickens most would envision. Both consumerism and the government feed into the propaganda machine. But since companies will usually endorse both political parties in their contributions it is safe to say the government is owned by corporations.

I didn't realize this but there was an actual welfare-queen in the 70's who was brought to trial for defrauding the government and claiming numerous benefits to amount to lots of money. One woman did this over 40 years ago. I thought it was a generic term meaning driving an expensive car, weekly hair/nail appts., new clothing and on welfare. I heard about a family living in a house worth in excess of 2 million dollars and they were somehow claiming welfare. And when they were discovered, it made news. But when companies do this by not paying taxes, etc. it is so common and expected that it is a none issue. And plenty of other people have defrauded the government in other ways. And while the original welfare queen was able to obtain quite a bit of money it is a drop in the bucket compared to corporate welfare.

And schools are successful in putting a large population of kids together in a small space for 8 hours a day and they either conform or suffer the consequences of not conforming. That's a form of control and while teachers use it to keep order in classrooms most of the conforming is peer-influenced. How much consumerism stems from schoolyard comparison and social conditioning? And if a kid learns to conform in school then the kid is much more likely to become a good lifelong consumer.

Quote
freya
Yurble, I'm only familiar with the high level tenants of anti-natalism. I've known a few anti-natalists and they were self-destructive. I've even considered that life is pointless and not only does it makes me feel awful but it seems to color my reality. When I focus on the parts of life that make me happy my reality is colored in a much more positive light. You seem healthy and happy to me but do you experience life with happiness?

In addition to being an anti-natalist, I'm a hedonist. I mean that in a philosophical sense, in that I think the only things that really matter are pleasure and pain. This is obviously about finding meaning for an individual life, rather than looking for an ultimate aim that is universal and perpetual.

However I don't believe that pleasure comes from being a sybarite. We evolved as a social species, so it's natural to want others to be happy, especially those we love. Combined with the asymmetry argument for anti-natalism, this means that the best thing you could do for someone you would love is to not let them come to exist, regardless of what happiness you might expect to experience at their expense.

As to my personal life, I take my existence as a given, and try to maximize pleasure and diminish pain within that scope.
I am alive and evolution has equipped me with a will to keep living, so I work within these parameters.

I can't say that I'm the most joyful person out there, but I recognize that happiness doesn't come from sitting around contemplating the meaninglessness and potential for suffering in life. I'm aware of reality, but I don't see any reason to dwell on it. Call it what you like: compartmentalization, cognitive dissonance, callousness. I find it sufficient to act in accordance with my beliefs, without making them the focus of my daily life.

Quote
twocents
However one feels about it...

"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/nov/14/anti-natalists-childfree-population-climate-change""

maybe a few good lawsuits against parents would get their attention.

I think a lawsuit against parunts who knew they carried a deleterius gene and still bred would be a good target.

Two people I know (my mother and a colleague) both had several miscarriages, and took medicines to keep their pregnancies both ended up with an autard. If your body keeps miscarrying pregnancies its doing it FOR A REASON and thats because the omlets youre baking are defective! If this is happening to you and you want a kid so badly then fucking adopt!

I think govt will end up dictating a lot of things. I am not sure how they intend to meddle with peoples' breeding habits but I do think populations will end up being handled on the level of cattle. They already are to a certain extent, it is just not as apparent.

two cents ¢¢

CERTIFIED HOSEHEAD!!!

people (especially women) do not give ONE DAMN about what they inflict on children and I defy anyone to prove me wrong

Dysfunctional relationships almost always have a child. The more dysfunctional, the more children.

The selfish wants of adults outweigh the needs of the child.

Some mistakes cannot be fixed, but some mistakes can be 'fixed'.

People who say they sleep like a baby usually don't have one. Leo J. Burke

Adoption agencies have strict criteria (usually). Breeders, whose combined IQ's would barely hit triple digits, have none.