Natalism and Antinatalism thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > C-SPAM > Natalism and Antinatalism thread

«‹›11 »

War and Pieces: Apr 24, 2022; DID NOT VOTE FOR FETTERMAN

bawfuls posted:

I think it's reasonable for future generations to expect more than simply food clothing and shelter. Like say, modern medical technology, basic labor saving technologies like washing machines, etc.

Big socialized laundromats. Everybody wears the same jumpsuit so there's never any mixups

# ? May 21, 2023 13:18

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 3, 2024 11:38

two-time fee: Jan 13, 2022

Saito,2020 posted:

Against the grain, Harvey points out that natural limits are not absolute.
Resource scarcity does not exist a priori without any reference to society but can be determined only under a certain set of social relations. In other words, overpopulation and resource scarcity do not exist independently of capitalistically constituted relations of production but are relational concepts whose meaning requires the specification of what and how society produces.
By presupposing these historical relations as given and by fixing the purpose of social production and the manner of technical appraisals of nature as unchangeable, the size of populations becomes the only variable that can be modified in the face of resource scarcity, inevitably falling into Malthusianism (Harvey 1974: 270). Harvey warns that environmentalism often makes this kind of error despite its appeal to scientific facts. Here science plays an ideological function that masks or even justifies the existing social constellation of power and domination in Western capitalism.
Harvey’s critique of the ideology of science is founded upon Marx’s concept of ‘relative surplus population’ as a critique of Malthus’s theory of absolute surplus population. In the face of neo-Malthusianism, Harvey revives this Marxian approach to the issue of overpopulation and resource scarcity. Although Harvey as a ‘materialist’ nowhere negates the existence of physical nature, this critique of neo-Malthusianism has made him reluctant to recognize any natural limits because he too hastily identifies their recognition as guilty of ‘Malthusianism’.8 When Malthusianism becomes such a broad framework, there is no room for environmentalism. As quoted earlier, he even maintains that ‘it is materially impossible for us to destroy the planet earth’, but the Anthropocene demonstrates that it is utterly possible for humans to destroy the planet Earth to the extent that it will become unhabitable for humans (and many other living beings).

....

quote:

Harvey’s hesitation explains why these Marxian geographers who advocate the production of nature thesis turn out to be quite reactionary in the sphere of ecology despite their self-claimed radical reconceptualization of the society–nature relationship. Again, it is helpful to refer to Adorno and Horkheimer’s Dialectic of Enlightenment. The modern project of instrumental reason is characterized by a ‘lack of reflection’ (Horkheimer and Adorno [1944] 2002: 158) that ignores the non-identity of nature and reduces it to a mere tool to be controlled and exploited for the sake of exchange value in capitalism (Cook 2011). ‘Reification’ is the ‘forgetfulness’ of society’s embeddedness in nature as well as nature’s otherness. This neglect results in ‘imperialism’ against nature (Horkheimer [1947] 2016: 76). The danger of monism in the ‘production of nature’ derives from its obscuring of the difference between the social and the natural that undermines the reflexibility over the non-identity of nature. According to Adorno, nature can be useful for humans in various ways, but non-human nature has its own purposiveness that is indifferent and irrelevant to humans. Under the identity thinking of capital, nature is damaged even more.9 It is important to highlight that the recognition of objective natural limits is not equal to Malthusianism. As Harvey rightly points out, Malthus’s theory of overpopulation is founded on an ‘ideology of nature’ in that it obscures the historical and social character of subsistence (what people need), natural resources (what they can use) and scarcity (how much they can use) under capitalist relations. The problem of overpopulation arises not because the world is not rich enough to feed everyone but because its wealth is quite unevenly distributed in favour of the rich in the Global North – hence, Harvey’s call to radically transform the capitalist relation of production for a fairer and more just share for everyone. Harvey is certainly correct, but this kind of critique in no way needs to eliminate the objective biophysical limits of the Earth.
No matter how hard capital attempts to discover new frontiers of nature and new markets, there is no infinite space on the earth after all. Technological progress can push limits back to some extent, but entropy increases, available energy decreases and natural resources get exhausted. These are objective facts that are independent of social relations and human will. It is inadequate to call the recognition of these objective limits ‘weakness’ and decry their ‘apocalyptic vision of a planetary ecological crisis’. If this recognition counts as Malthusianism, then the only way to avoid the Malthusian trap would be the dogmatic denial of natural limits as such. Combined with Marxian Prometheanism, this easily turns into the problematic endorsement of further technological intervention in the form of genetic engineering, geo-engineering and nuclear fusion.

...

quote:

There is no compelling reason to believe that capitalism will collapse under rising production costs and degrading natural conditions of production. This is unlikely, as capital can profit even from natural degradation by finding new opportunities for investment in such disasters too (Burkett 2006: 136). As Naomi Klein (2007) has documented, this possibility is clearly visible in what neoliberal ‘disaster capitalism’ has done in the last decades. Capital continues to profit from current ecological crises by inventing new business opportunities such as fracking, geo-engineering, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), carbon trading and natural disaster insurance. Incessantly attempting to shift the rift, capitalism can keep going beyond these natural limits and accumulate more wealth. In contrast, the current level of civilization cannot sustain itself beyond a certain point precisely due to objective natural limits. As far as the logic of capital’s accumulation is being estranged from human life and the sustainability of the ecosystem, the capitalist system might continue to exist, even if all the planetary boundaries are exceeded, but many parts of the earth will be unsuitable for civilization.
In short, there is simply no empirical evidence that the pressure on profit rates due to the increasing costs of circulating capital will bring about an ‘epochal crisis’ any time soon. For example, it is necessary to realize net zero carbon emissions by 2050 to keep global warming within 1.5°C by 2100.
When this line is crossed, various effects might combine, thereby reinforcing their destructive impact on a global scale, especially upon those who live in the Global South. However, capitalist societies in the Global North will not necessarily collapse. This brief example suffices to show an enormous difference between the material conditions for capital accumulation and the maintenance of the liveable ecospheres.

# ? May 21, 2023 15:34

lobster shirt: Jun 14, 2021

did not read

# ? May 21, 2023 15:36

Crazypoops: Jul 17, 2017

What if we simply eat the children

# ? May 21, 2023 15:39

two-time fee: Jan 13, 2022

tl/dr

Antinatalism is just another superficial symptom of the disease that is the completed reification of the fundamental elements that constitute the 'metabolic rift', which, however Marx originally understood it, has been proven historically to be a concept worthy of reinvigoration, according to the author.

Most of us here get to still make six figgies yearly and mock everything though, so things aren't that bad yet.

Anyway, I don't care about the kid y' all won't have, I'm just going to continue and radicalize mine

# ? May 21, 2023 17:42

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 95 days!

two-time fee posted:

tl/dr

Antinatalism is just another superficial symptom of the disease that is the completed reification of the fundamental elements that constitute the 'metabolic rift', which, however Marx originally understood it, has been proven historically to be a concept worthy of reinvigoration, according to the author.

Most of us here get to still make six figgies yearly and mock everything though, so things aren't that bad yet.

Anyway, I don't care about the kid y' all won't have, I'm just going to continue and radicalize mine

everyone on this forum who makes six figures should be forced to give me 10k a year

# ? May 21, 2023 17:47

lobster shirt: Jun 14, 2021

i dont make six figgies but havfe two kids.. hosed up.

# ? May 21, 2023 17:50

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 95 days!

lobster shirt posted:

i dont make six figgies but havfe two kids.. hosed up.

get in on this w/me then

# ? May 21, 2023 17:51

lobster shirt: Jun 14, 2021

croup coughfield posted:

get in on this w/me then

mod challenge: childless computer touchers need to raise my income to 100k

# ? May 21, 2023 17:54

Kibbles n Shits: Apr 8, 2006; burgerpug.png; Fun Shoe

I want to radicalize somebody to my cause, should I radicalize an existing person or should I create a new one? I make $572,842 a year.

# ? May 21, 2023 17:54

two-time fee: Jan 13, 2022

How much do you all spend on candles though?

# ? May 21, 2023 17:55

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; Gleichheit soll gedeihen

I'll radicalize for 10k flat. No subscription needed

# ? May 21, 2023 17:56

croup coughfield: Apr 8, 2020; Can't post for 95 days!

Cuttlefush posted:

I'll radicalize for 10k flat. No subscription needed

bro thats not even enough for materials. you're going to crash the market

# ? May 21, 2023 18:02

Cuttlefush: Jan 15, 2014; Gleichheit soll gedeihen

# ? May 21, 2023 18:02

Kibbles n Shits: Apr 8, 2006; burgerpug.png; Fun Shoe

Cuttlefush posted:

I'll radicalize for 10k flat. No subscription needed

Hm, interesting proposition but I've decided to spend significantly more on having my own children and keep my fingers crossed that they share my values which are diametrically opposed to the affluent upbringing they will have

# ? May 21, 2023 18:03