• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Why isn't antinatalism a popular philosophy?

C

cowardescent

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
404
Given how many fringe philosophies (veganism, anti-fascism) have sprung up in the last 20 years, things like antinatalism are unpopular? Why is that?
 
Probably because people are disinclined towards a philosophy that requires them not to have children.

Even when people for various reasons agree that it would be better if fewer people had kids, they're frequently not going to want to personally contribute to preventing it.
 
according to the u.s. census bureau’s current population survey, in 2014, 47.6 percent of women between age 15 and 44 had never had children, up from 46.5 percent in 2012.

i wouldn't consider ~48% 'unpopular'.

alasdair
 
I suppose though we have to remember, we are animals and despite our intelligence, our two goals are to survive and reproduce like any other species on this planet.

And to be honest, all it takes is getting horny once and you can easily get pregnant even without wanting kids.

As well as that, antinatalists would quickly get outbred by natalists
 
The thing that must be kept in mind is that, where women have more education and opportunities, the birth rate plummets. So the first world has the least inherent over population issues.

Which is why I'd rather focus on solving over population by improving society rather than the sledgehammer approach of China.
 
Cream Gravy? said:
If half of U.S. women are having zero babies, then the other half must be having like 8 a piece or something.

I dunno, I support things like China's one child policy. Obviously its effect on women in China was negative, but aside from that it served a great purpose and I really don't think mass sterilizations are even a crime. I don't believe having children is an innate right. In fact I'd say it's often times immoral and criminal and selfish.
Click to expand...

Despite how it may seem, US population has held relatively steady for decades (it is increasing, but by 2-3 million per year, so as far as the projected global increase by 2050 numbers, we contribute little to that increase). It's the developing world who is adding so many humans, because standard of living/death rate are decreasing but people are still having tons of kids (before, you needed to have a ton of kids to have some survive, and it takes time to readjust). In general the population in the western world, that has been industrialized long enough, hasn't been increasing much for quite a while.

Anyway it's simple why antinatalism is unpopular. Humans, as living creatures, have a strong biological imperative to reproduce. Most people actively want to. Among those who might even prefer not to, but have no access to birth control/contraception, or even education about how pregnancy happens, you'd be asking people to stop having sex which will never, ever happen.
 
It's debatable that the population isn't booming in the U.S. I don't think censuses are accurate reflections.
 
It's called immigration. In countries where the social rules are still very traditional, people are breeding like crazy. Then those people try to move to the west for a better life. Rinse, lather, repeat.

Anti-natalism isn't popular because it's contrary to the growth model of capitalism. The only reason why more people are abstaining from having kids now is because they can't afford them. Most of the time when humans are happy with plenty of food and luxuries, they breed. The lower class breed because they are ignorant. The middle class aren't breeding because the middle class is disappearing, and life is too hard to survive on one's own, let alone add more mouths to feed. The social fabric is taxed to the nth degree.
 
Who said it was unpopular?

It is only people that are stupid that have kids, just take a good look around in the world in which we live today & tell me you think it is a good idea to bring an innocent life onto this planet. People are waking up & starting to notice something really bad is due to us quite soon & I for one refuse to subject my offspring to a horrific death via Ecological collapse.
 
Zopiclone bandit said:
Who said it was unpopular?

It is only people that are stupid that have kids, just take a good look around in the world in which we live today & tell me you think it is a good idea to bring an innocent life onto this planet. People are waking up & starting to notice something really bad is due to us quite soon & I for one refuse to subject my offspring to a horrific death via Ecological collapse.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem very smart to not have kids if you're very smart.

If only the stupid have kids, the overall innate intelligence of society should decrease.
 
JessFR said:
It doesn't seem very smart to not have kids if you're very smart.

If only the stupid have kids, the overall innate intelligence of society should decrease.
Click to expand...

The planet has at the very most 70 years left before everything we have done such as GMO crops, Monsanto chemicals, toxic waste dumped under the ground, global warming etc really kicks our arse & the planet collapses & burns. I'm sure you look forward to all the people left on this spinning pile of dirt having a horrific death.
 
Well I don't agree. I support GMO's.

And while I believe in global warming, I don't believe it'll be the end. The human race will almost certainly survive (GMO's will help with that by having crops that can survive in harsher climates). And life other than us will definitely survive.

I don't wish to argue this though, so we will have to agree to disagree.
 
Foreigner said:
And that's precisely what's happening.
Click to expand...

Not according to the Flynn effect. Now I'm the last person to put much stock in the accuracy of IQ tests, but it's enough to bring into question that people are getting dumber.

I doubt they are. People were pretty stupid in the past too. :)
 
JessFR said:
Not according to the Flynn effect. Now I'm the last person to put much stock in the accuracy of IQ tests, but it's enough to bring into question that people are getting dumber.

I doubt they are. People were pretty stupid in the past too. :)
Click to expand...

I don't really put any stock in IQ tests because they are largely based on educational aptitude. It's also hard to evaluate emotional intelligence that way, which is a more accurate indicator of people's probable life choices.
 
Foreigner said:
Anti-natalism isn't popular because it's contrary to the growth model of capitalism.
Click to expand...

I really don't think that's why. People aren't thinking "you know what, I should have kids because it helps capitalism grow". They're just doing what comes naturally to all animals that exist on this planet. To go against that is to go against the biggest biological imperative outside of breathing, drinking and eating. I mean I struggle with it all the time right now, as I approach my 40s. I want to have the experience of reproducing. I think I could make a really good person that would be a good thing for the world. I struggle with various things such as what the state of the world will be when my kid is grown up. But it's hard for me to imagine getting to be old and not having had the experience of reproducing, of having a child to love and to love me. That's what it's about. It's not an intellectual thing, it's emotional and biological.
 
Xorkoth said:
I really don't think that's why. People aren't thinking "you know what, I should have kids because it helps capitalism grow". They're just doing what comes naturally to all animals that exist on this planet. To go against that is to go against the biggest biological imperative outside of breathing, drinking and eating. I mean I struggle with it all the time right now, as I approach my 40s. I want to have the experience of reproducing. I think I could make a really good person that would be a good thing for the world. I struggle with various things such as what the state of the world will be when my kid is grown up. But it's hard for me to imagine getting to be old and not having had the experience of reproducing, of having a child to love and to love me. That's what it's about. It's not an intellectual thing, it's emotional and biological.
Click to expand...

I agree, individuals are not thinking about the growth model. I am referring more to social policy, i.e. government. People are awarded for breeding, including the utterly impoverished who should not be breeding. They get baby bonuses, welfare and services.

Everyone thinks that their special child will change the world. That logic is how the mental aspect of the reproductive instinct manifests in order to justify having children. I have so many friends who said they would never have kids and then as they reached their mid 30's and their reproductive urges kicked in, you could see all kinds of absurd logic gradually seep in, from the personal to the sociopolitical. They can't see that it's merely biology and not some epiphany they're having. A good example is a friend who, a year ago, somehow decided that it could be fun to have unprotected sex with her partner, despite using protection for years. Now she has twins she can barely care for.

Nobody's child is special. We get a few major paradigm-shifting geniuses in every generation and they are totally spontaneous. Playing it by the numbers hasn't helped humanity. Everyone's child grows up to be another consumer who lives a more or less standard human life. Adding more babies on mass does not contribute to human progress. The people who are making major discoveries and advancements that could truly help the planet are a minority. The rest of us are simply... existing.

I honestly find people whose big life dream is having children to be utterly uncreative. The world would be a better place if people saw through their own biology and chose not to do it. It doesn't have to be everyone, just maybe 1 in 5 people. But... at the end of the day people are just biological robots.
 
Admitidly I don't know one way or the other, but I highly doubt government welfare payments to parents is more lucrative than simply not having the kid at all.

Kids cost a fortune. And governments hate giving money back.

Obviously this is going to vary by jurisdiction though. But it doesn't sound very likely to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top