|
some plague rats posted:Do you think it diminishes his point at all that Gramsci went on to have multiple children? Gramsci's whole thing was contradicting himself depending which journal you're reading.
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2021 04:42
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Big Scary Owl posted:Why is this thread considered "pseudo intellectual nonsense" in your mind? there's no real intellectual reason to believe 'reproducing' as a broad concept could be an inherently ethical or unethical act, any more than taking a poo poo is inherently ethical or unethical, or living and dying is. All consume resources and all could, in theory, be at least pared back if you're willing to just completely go full brutal authoritarian on your population, but the scale at which it'd mean anything to do would require entire nations to do that. Beyond that, the whole 'more birth = more resources' isn't an inherent fact, and applying a global scale to the whole 'we're running out of land/resources' thing is absurd on face value. It's a personal choice, draping it in an ethical imperative either to pop out Lil Revolutionaries or to castrate yourself in the name of the global ecosystem's survival is just a way to justify your personal choice which is basically the exact connotation of something like this being pseudo intellectual nonsense.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 01:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I already answered that as well, it seems weird to me to imagine that animals are necessary happy (insofar as they are capable of experiencing happiness) given that nature is often very unpleasant to live in. well now you're talking about an entirely different scale, though. Environmental impacts won't be solved by not having kids, unless you define that as literally zero babies, if you're trying to entirely focus on human life as an environmental stewardship issue you're gonna have to start a-culling, so who's first up?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:And again as I have repeatedly pointed out, I don't think there is much historical evidence to suggest that just killing lots of people actually diminishes population growth in the long run, but education, access to contraception, and changes in social attitudes regarding the importance of procreation absolutely do. And are also just good things in general. And this is a global scale program? A kid in, I dunno, rural Lithuania and a kid in Manhattan get the same education of 'having babies is bad, actually'?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 01:30
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Again, it can be both. it literally can't, you need to understand you can't just loving Thanos things and say 'I would simply use the magic gauntlet to make it happen'. The two solutions of 'we somehow manage to globally force the entire world population to not reproduce' and 'we improve life for the people of the world so that society can nurture life' are literal polar opposites in even the most fantastical solution. Like, this isn't even going into some extremely troubling elements like 'so if nobody from rural China to bloated LA is allowed to breed...how the gently caress does humanity continue?', you can't just say 'actually I want both' when faced with the question of 'instead of global fascism why not improve the world'
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 03:20
|
|
|
what happens when people still have kids though? Like, again you've applied this globally, so what should happen in this world when someone in New Delhi has a kid, what happens when someone in rural Japan does? Even if you make their material conditions perfectly stable there's still going to be a statistically significant amount of people on earth who view having kids in some form a virtue? You yourself are freely admitting for this to have an impact we functionally need everyone in the world to do it to the point where the global population begins to shrink, how do you DO that when pretty much most cultures in the world have some degree of value in 'have a kid, raise them in your values to continue the community'?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 03:33
|
|
|
Also yea, that stuff. I have no idea where you even have the idea that people with stable conditions have no kids. They may have FEWER kids compared to say literal subsistence farm lifestyles but...people still will have kids. I also don't think you fully grasp the scale in which people have to stop having kids to make the global population shrink to the degrees you're talking about, you literally can't do it without making China's one child period look like a loving free love commune.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 03:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Except no, in humans I believe the trend is quite consistently that for some reason a lot of what I guess you would call first would countries in recent decades are already experiencing a levelling off of the population growth through births. What exactly causes that is harder to determine but it does generally coincide with better access to reproductive care, education, social freedom for women and better gender inclusivity in work. So those good things appear to also cause a reduction in the fertility rate, which IMO is good. uh, no, what causes that is almost always an uneven economy where the younger generation literally can't afford to have kids, a thing making life better for the world would certainly fix. Like, yes, small DIPS in childbirth can be attributed to, say, Japan becoming slightly less lovely about women working and all, or Ireland not having condoms be literally illegal or whatever the gently caress they did, but the thing that causes massive drops is, ya know, global economic collapses.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 03:47
|
|
|
me, rolling my sleeve up in the delivery room: Oh no you don't you little poo poo, get back in there until nature begins to reclaim the land.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 04:13
|
|
|
Vasukhani posted:sucide booths will be the next socially progressive issue no no, see haven't you learned anything? It's not enough to just have a baseline stance of 'bodily autonomy means freedom to do what you want with your body', you have to put every kid in the world in a class where they learn how correct and good it is to use the suicide booth in the name of dwindling the population to pre-industrial levels.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
IronClaymore posted:Golden rule. I think you just have depression
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 21:16
|
|
|
Like that wasn't a shitpost, 'I don't want to die, per say, I want to never have existed to begin with' is depressive spells summed up.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 9, 2021 21:17
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:So to be a Real antinatalist, I need to have a vasectomy yesterday, got it. When your core position is extreme, yes. "All life is inherently suffering and pain and the only reason to live is active spite" is inherently an extreme stance that probably comes from genuine mental illness,
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 23:07
|
|
|
Like I'm not being all internet 'lol you're mentally ill' I'm genuinely saying you should probably be getting checked in on somehow if you're living only for spite
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 18:32 |
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:A reason to live is a reason to live. I don't see how it's any more or less valid a reason just because it personally offends your sensibilities as long as it accomplishes its purpose. well aside from being just a genuinely kinda tragic thing to see I'd argue a negative reason to live is much less stable than a positive, considering that kinda hinges on weird outside perception stuff rather than a focus on yourself.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2021 23:14
|
|