Why isn't antinatalism a popular philosophy?

[JessFR]

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.

 

[Foreigner]

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.

There is a huge belief in the black community that government welfare is the reason why poor black neighbourhoods have exploded into areas filled with social problems. This happened as of the late 60's. The introduction of widespread welfare programs has enabled social dysfunction to persist rather than force people to take responsibility for their actions. Personal responsibility has gone downhill. Modern liberalism blames historical slavery for the modern plight of blacks, but historically, black communities suffered outside violence and racism, but they did not have the degree of material and internalized inequities that they have today.

The theory is incomplete, but similar situations have cropped up all around the world where poor communities get expanded welfare access with each additional child they have.

I'm just going to come out and say it... unless people are actually threatened with the real possibility of their children dying because they can't afford to have them, people will have no deterrent to stop breeding.

Birth control and abortion should be widely available and on demand, and welfare should remain as a standard amount. No bonuses for extra kids. There is no excuse for this in 2019.

 

[JessFR]

It doesn't seem like your post at all addresses if it actually is financially sensible to have children.

Of course, if people believe it is, even if it isn't, they'll still have the kids. I'm just curious for curiosities sake. I find it hard to believe parental welfare payments result in more money than just not having the kids.

Regardless though, one things absolute, which is that I'm absolutely never going to support allowing children to starve or live in total poverty because of the mistakes of their parents.

Either pay the parents, or take away the kids, but no way is it acceptable to me to just give the parents nothing if it means the children live in absolute poverty without food. That's totally unacceptable an answer to me.

No child anywhere in America should have to go without food, shelter, the basic necessities of life. That's not a situation that can be permitted to continue.

 

[Wilson Wilson]

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.

If you have been keeping up with the Flynn effect you'd know it has actually been reversing since 1990 across the entire developed world.

So if you go by IQ we are observably getting dumber and Idiocracy is right. Keep in mind that the data is clear that the more intelligent or educated someone is, the fewer children they have.



To answer the OP, I believe antinatalism is unpopular simply because humans are emotional, not logical, creatures. If our feelings tell us "having kids is nice" we will do it based on emotions and justify it with "reason" later, even though studies show parenthood reduces happiness and relationship satisfaction and these trends only reverse when the kids move out 18+ years later.



For that matter studies on happiness and marriage show similarly dim patterns: once you get married, happiness does not change at all while relationship and life satisfaction only go down with time. And those stats are from studies that are designed to be biased in favour of marriage by omitting divorced couples for example. They still couldn't show marriage in a positive light despite fudging the stats to be biased towards it!

Marriage and Happiness: 18 Long-Term Studies

Getting married does not make you happier.

www.psychologytoday.com

And of course if you look at those divorced couples omitted from the stats, you get a very depressing picture indeed. Divorce is the number one factor in suicide.

Safe to say I have no plans to either get married nor have kids.