|
lobster shirt posted:perfectly reasonable post and position and no i don't think this is anti-natalist the poster didn't even use the word "snot-goblin"
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 15:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
Yeah antinatalism is about hating your own life so much you start to believe everyone else does too and it's bad to be born.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
I called it soft antinatalist because I do think it implies that collectively some of us are morally obligated to not reproduce. And I do think that obligation is stronger if you’re living in America, reaping the benefits of overconsumption and imperialism. We should be having fewer kids and preparing to take in hundreds of millions of climate refugees. This is part of my personal hesitation about having kids. The other part is that I just see way too much potential for suffering in their lifetime. How can I explain the climate crises and likely wars, famine, etc that will accompany it to a 16 year who I brought into this world knowing full well they’ll be forced to live much deeper into that crisis than I? How can I face my child and say “yes, when I decided to conceive you I knew that the world was going to poo poo and would be for your entire life. I knew nothing I could do would insulate you from those crises.” For me, I don’t think I can do that. As mentioned upthread, this is all an argument for adoption, especially if you have the means. I wonder if the coming years will see a rise in international adoption of children from the most climate-vulnerable places.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 15:52
|
|
|
war and environmental collapse, two things that are completely unique to our era. no one else has ever had to endure these in our collective history. it is evil to produce children under these conditions.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 16:00
|
|
|
croup coughfield posted:fursonally, its the moralistic (but not moral) and misanthropic foundation of antinatalism that i find so odious. dead-ender poo poo for lazy and depressed losers ye
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
The scale of both will be unique to our era
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 16:08
|
|
|
croup coughfield posted:war and environmental collapse, two things that are completely unique to our era. no one else has ever had to endure these in our collective history. it is evil to produce children under these conditions. 
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 16:20
|
|
|
well call me a natalist cuz i'm starting to feel like i'm BONED
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 16:23
|
|
|
not my problem
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 16:27
|
|
|
i am anti-natalist because i am against goons reproducing
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 16:42
|
|
|
lol one degree? bump your air conditioning down one degree to compensate dumbass. even a child ironically would understand that
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 16:53
|
|
|
Hubbert posted:i am anti-natalist because i am against goons reproducing not a big surprise the climate thread poster is worried about poo poo that doesn't happen
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 16:57
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:not a big surprise the climate thread poster is worried about poo poo that doesn't happen agreed
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 16:58
|
|
|
lol i saw that. you are worried about me making good posts
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 16:59
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:lol i saw that. you are worried about me making good posts you got me!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:00
|
|
|
i wonder if goon reproductivity is even that far off from average either way. probably not
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
Since you got me, Cuttlefush, I'll engage this thread with some sincerity now. Truth be told, I really don't mind if people choose to have children or not. What matters the most are the obligations we have to future generations, and this also goes for those who choose not to reproduce. For example, while I'm staunchly against having children for myself for a number of reasons, I'm still really happy to be an uncle - I even started the education fund for the kid, and I contribute every month, because I want to give them the best shot possible for the future.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:06
|
|
|
how much crossover is there between the antinatalist and incel communities
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:12
|
|
|
filthy natalist...500 good dogs posted:how much crossover is there between the antinatalist and incel communities pretty much none that isn't just coincidental Cuttlefush has issued a correction as of 17:16 on May 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
Hubbert posted:Since you got me, Cuttlefush, I'll engage this thread with some sincerity now. congrats on being the cool uncle OP
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:16
|
|
|
What is natalism? Is it those loving freaks trying to have 11 kids for 7 generations cause they think their genes are superior, Elon etc? Is it everyone who is "concerned" about declining birthrates? Is it anyone who thinks we need population growth (MattY and his dumb book)? Is there an example of a less extreme pro-natalist position?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:17
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:19
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:What is natalism? Is it those loving freaks trying to have 11 kids for 7 generations cause they think their genes are superior, Elon etc? Is it everyone who is "concerned" about declining birthrates? Is it anyone who thinks we need population growth (MattY and his dumb book)? most religions have some component. some political/social programs historically and currently. i think france and japan had pretty recent/ongoing campaigns I'd call natalist? it's kind of arguable whether that's natalist as in "it's good to reproduce, morally speaking" or just a sober take of demographics if the birth rate didn't increase. non-extreme pro-natalism is sort of the default, right? you congratulate couples on having kids. pretty much every culture values raising children. the only standouts are the 'extreme' natalism cases.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:25
|
|
|
yeah, everything is going to be alright.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:27
|
|
|
Eyyyyyy now that's a bright looking future!!
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:33
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:I don’t want humans to go extinct. Speak for yourself
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:43
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:most religions have some component. some political/social programs historically and currently. i think france and japan had pretty recent/ongoing campaigns I'd call natalist? it's kind of arguable whether that's natalist as in "it's good to reproduce, morally speaking" or just a sober take of demographics if the birth rate didn't increase. non-extreme pro-natalism is sort of the default, right? you congratulate couples on having kids. pretty much every culture values raising children. the only standouts are the 'extreme' natalism cases.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:48
|
|
|
Sarah Connor politics
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:49
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Does natalism require an implicit support for population growth, or is aiming for replacement level still natalism? If you are promoting birth then it's natalism.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 17:51
|
|
|
having babies is evil. if you're a baby go gently caress yourself
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 18:09
|
|
|
yeah doesn't really matter. doesn't even have to factor in. i don't think it's very useful outside of the moralistic bit though. population policy made to stave off demographic collapse because that could cause societal dysfunction (wehther that's true or not - doesnt matter) it's really natalist compared to something like Quiverfull or 1920s USSR propaganda (though here the policy isn't natalist, propaganda is). or when someone's parents pressure them to have kids. you could go around calling anyone who doesn't want humans to go extinct a natalist if you wanted to but i think it'd be kinda silly POWELL CURES KIDS posted:having babies is evil. if you're a baby go gently caress yourself brave last words to a thread full of stewies
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 18:10
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:at the risk of taking this thread too seriously, the “soft” antinatalist argument seems straightforward to me: I don't think your position has anything to do with anti-natalism. "soft" anti-natalism is eugenics.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:37
|
|
|
Cuttlefush posted:anyway antinatalism inevitably leads to cringeclusions if you talk about it, especially on an internet forum. it's not a good thing to argue if only because you'll walk into rakes and get owned (not the only reason imo). trying to tie it into "improve material conditions" is just loving up a good thing to argue. antinatalism is a moralizing position no matter how you dress it up. and like disco elysium taught us all, morals are bad i also don't see how you can improve material conditions if there's not enough young people around to work to improve them. we already have serious problems in the west being run by a gerontocracy, it's not gonna get better.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:43
|
|
|
bawfuls posted:Worrying about replacing/growing the workforce sounds like a concern for capital, which demands endless geometric growth. We already know this is physically incompatible with our long term survival on a finite planet. Our reproductive goal should be to reach a stable global human population at a level which the planet can sustain. Forcing this on people is deeply immoral, and it is also unnecessary. 100% disagree. no matter the kind of economic system in place labour is the nexus of our economy and society. capital's current obsession is to cut out labour as much as possible in order to chase profit even as we hurtle towards crises as the rate of profit continues to fall labour is necessary for whatever we plan to do about climate change, and in order to create a sustainable society we need people to do that work. an absolute ton of it! this will necessarily require economic growth, but not for the pursuit of profit and exploitation of labour, but towards a society that owns the means of production and acts as stewards to the entire biosphere that we all rely on. a demographic crisis will make transitioning to a sustainable society extremely difficult because we need enough people to do the work. I agree that a growing standard of living is a great way to reduce birth rates, but I also think people who have kids should receive significant support from society so that having kids isn't a terrible financial burden and that your decision to have kids is based on how many you can afford to have. i also think that most people in the global south who seek this better standard of living through industrialization and modernization are going to accept degrowth
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:51
|
|
|
ah, yes, that is what will make transitioning to a sustainable society difficult
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:56
|
|
|
durrrrr
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 19:58
|
|
|
Fat-Lip-Sum-41.mp3 posted:I don't think your position has anything to do with anti-natalism. It's very funny to brand eugenics as some progressive view though. bawfuls posted:Our reproductive goal should be to reach a stable global human population at a level which the planet can sustain
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
i dont think its "obvious reality" that there aren't enough resources to sustain the current global population
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
look the georgia guidestones didn't say keep mankind above 500,000,000
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 20:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:52 |
|
|
yeah whether or not that gets eugenics-y really depends on what someone's idea of "can sustain" means. if it's "a lot less than current" and you are thinking in terms of "we should do policy that aims for this lower number", welp
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2023 20:07
|
|