You can be antinatalist and not be defeatist. Adopting kids is probably one of the most significant ways in which you can make the world better.
I was into those ideas for a while and mostly agree with what you say. I still think it's probably best not to bring more kids into this mess, at least until we figure it out.
I don't think that "wait and figure it out" concept is exactly anti-natalism, or at least not the kind I'm referring to/familiar with, then. Anti-natalists generally seem to think existence is worse than non-existence as a rule, that life and all its challenges aren't worth the hassle, and bringing children into the world is a net-negative either for humanity, the world at large, the child themselves, or some combination therein.
Anti-natalists OFTEN try to claim adoption is the morally superior alternative to birth, though, as it avoids the supposed downsides of creating new life and remedies much of the problems of some other child in need of a home and parental relationship. I sort of think this argument is in bad faith, though, and weaponizes kids in need of a loving home against people who, I believe can quite legitimately, want to reproduce and have biological children. Depending upon which problem an anti-natalist points to it is more or less solvable, but it is nearly always a collective action problem. Families are alienated and driven apart by market forces, life is a miserable grind of useless (see Graeber), harmful (see the environment/exploitative conditions) labor, or worse yet, destitution. All of those may be true right now, but they are pretty much a symptom of late-stage capitalism and its descent into neo-feudalism and fascism. Individuals can't solve that, nor should they be expected to martyr themselves in order to stem the bleeding of a dying machine.
To be clear, I'm not saying people shouldn't adopt, but they absolutely shouldn't be shamed into being a bandaid for the meat grinder of capitalism.
You can be antinatalist and not be defeatist. Adopting kids is probably one of the most significant ways in which you can make the world better.
I was into those ideas for a while and mostly agree with what you say. I still think it's probably best not to bring more kids into this mess, at least until we figure it out.
I don't think that "wait and figure it out" concept is exactly anti-natalism, or at least not the kind I'm referring to/familiar with, then. Anti-natalists generally seem to think existence is worse than non-existence as a rule, that life and all its challenges aren't worth the hassle, and bringing children into the world is a net-negative either for humanity, the world at large, the child themselves, or some combination therein.
Anti-natalists OFTEN try to claim adoption is the morally superior alternative to birth, though, as it avoids the supposed downsides of creating new life and remedies much of the problems of some other child in need of a home and parental relationship. I sort of think this argument is in bad faith, though, and weaponizes kids in need of a loving home against people who, I believe can quite legitimately, want to reproduce and have biological children. Depending upon which problem an anti-natalist points to it is more or less solvable, but it is nearly always a collective action problem. Families are alienated and driven apart by market forces, life is a miserable grind of useless (see Graeber), harmful (see the environment/exploitative conditions) labor, or worse yet, destitution. All of those may be true right now, but they are pretty much a symptom of late-stage capitalism and its descent into neo-feudalism and fascism. Individuals can't solve that, nor should they be expected to martyr themselves in order to stem the bleeding of a dying machine.
To be clear, I'm not saying people shouldn't adopt, but they absolutely shouldn't be shamed into being a bandaid for the meat grinder of capitalism.