Why isn't antinatalism a popular philosophy?

cowardescent

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
159
Given how many fringe philosophies (veganism, anti-fascism) have sprung up in the last 20 years, things like antinatalism are unpopular? Why is that?
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,732
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.
 

alasdairm

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Jul 22, 2002
Messages
60,775
Location
south lake tahoe, ca
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
 

cowardescent

Bluelighter
Joined
Jun 29, 2017
Messages
159
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
 

Cream Gravy?

Moderator: PD, DC
Staff member
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
5,735
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.
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,732
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.
 

Xorkoth

"City Watcher" & Sr. Mod: PD, TR, TDS, P&S
Staff member
Joined
Feb 8, 2006
Messages
38,591
Location
Shadowmeister v0
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.
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.
 

Cream Gravy?

Moderator: PD, DC
Staff member
Joined
Jan 28, 2014
Messages
5,735
It's debatable that the population isn't booming in the U.S. I don't think censuses are accurate reflections.
 

Foreigner

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
6,491
Location
The Cosmos
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.
 

Zopiclone bandit

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
2,934
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.
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,732
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.
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.
 

Zopiclone bandit

Bluelighter
Joined
Jan 25, 2018
Messages
2,934
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.
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.
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,732
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.
 

JessFR

Moderator: CEPS
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
5,732
And that's precisely what's happening.
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. :)
 

Foreigner

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
6,491
Location
The Cosmos
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. :)
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.
 
Top