Any group actively advocating for antinatalism is basically eugenics. Which is what r/antinatalism is/does.
But the Position itself isn't opposed to leftist values for the individual. I'm not really comfortable creatinge life because neither do I know if i don't fuck them up nor am I really clear on what they'll have to live through and the expectation's don't look all that rosy to me.
But Kids will still be born through no fault of their own, so we best get to improving the world for them.
I'm trying to point out that antinatalism isn't about pointing out who should and who wouldn't have kids. It's the idea that no one should have kids out of concern of those kids.
I genuinely don't understand how that can be construed as eugenics.
Because as far as I know antinatalism in general is only really discussed in the West. With everything you know about Western governments do you honestly believe any actual mass implementation of antinatalism is going to be done to them? Fuck no antinatalism is going to be used as an excuse to stop brown people (who tons of Western people already believe are using too many resources) from having babies
Eh, it's an extremely fringe idea hardly compatible with any mainstream "western" ideology. You see a lot of leftists showing their disdain to antinatalist ideas, image what chuds and conservatives think about it. Talking about how MyPillow guy would implement it is nonsensical. By this logic any environmentalism in the west is inheritely ecofascism.
image what chuds and conservatives think about it.
They think it's a great idea and will implement it on the global south, which was my main point. Obviously nothing is inherently ecofascist, but you can at least see how a position like antinatalism is so vague and devoid of actual structure that it could absolutely be absorbed into a fascist framework right? And as material conditions get worse that is most likely how it will be implemented?
The thing is what you're describing isn't antinatalism. That's like saying communism is fascism, actually, because when you say "abolish private property", the obvious implementation you'll see in US is taking away property rights of minorities. And sure, NazBols are kinda a thing, but if some lib tells you that communism is antisemitic you'd laugh in their face.
Except not really because due to the actual material conditions of minorities in the US, they largely don't own private property lol.
The difference being policy that is favorable to western interests has been, is, and for the foreseeable future will be implemented on the global south like it has for centuries already. Just because you're ignorant of that fact doesn't mean everyone is.
Yeah, I'm sure when westerners continue to sterilize people in the global south it would be couched in the argument that only kinda appeals to a tiny bunch of misanthropic nerds and not the usual racist eugenic arguments that appeal to like a half of westerners as they always done.
said who asswipe? fuck off with that dumbass shit. some ppl prefer not to have kids. Some women are deathly afraid of getting pregnant. You have no right to judge.
lol are you a leftist rly? yeah I did fucking choose this path. You know sometimes ppl just dont want kids, it's not because they cant afford or against them they literally dont want them. Capitalism isn't to blame for everything you absolute moron. Plus I'm gay, but I guess that means I'm a loser. This is a weird fucking hill, I'd expect this from like my boomer parents but I guess I should learn to be less wide eyed
Honestly that sounds selfish as fuck. We finally create a world that has minimized oppression and that's the point we decided to stop people from being born?
That's the only time a child could reasonably be born according to antinatalists. This is why antinatalism is just misanthropic and should be disregarded.
I understand the concept. I just think that it's dumb and leads nowhere. To those people I say there will most likely be assisted suicide in FALGSC so have at it.
I can believe an advanced, falgsc human society would be capable of eradicating the possibility of life in the solar system, but I don't think that there is any version of human society that could substantially alter the course of the heat death of the universe, or that could prevent the potential for life across all of space.
Right, at a minimum, the difference between the universe and the 'observable universe' is going to put limits on human reach, but maybe there are enough similarly minded organisms in the universe to overcome that.
The problem with an automaton based approach is what characteristics they would need to get the job done. To match the scale of altering the entire reachable universe, they would have to be self reproducing. To be able to prevent life from existing, given all of the different environments in the universe that could lead to the rise of life, and all of the different forms that life could take, they would have to be able to adapt to the local environment, and have enough complexity of information processing to be able to identify previously unanticipated forms of life, and find the best way to disrupt it.
At this point, you've, at the very least, severely blurred the lines of what life is, and most likely created a new form of life that is much more prevalent than naturally occurring life ever was.
Yeah, that would destroy all life that currently exists, but it would also essentially re-roll the whole universe, and create new conditions for the development of life that didn't exist before. 'Destroy all life' is one thing, but 'prevent any possibility of the development of life' is a much harder job.
My first reaction was to argue why an advanced human society would come to a different conclusion, but thinking about it I'm more interested a different question. For anyone that agrees that this issues needs to be investigated by a higher form of civilization, what reason is there to put any weight in your own conclusion on the issue if you're limited by living in the lower form of society?
We need to reach communism, which means those of us who are otherwise willing and able should go ahead and produce more socialist.
We already got Harris and Buttigieg out of those socialist breeding programs. Isn't that enough?
It costs like $200000 on average to raise a kid in US. I'm sure if you put all that money and time into activism and organising you'd get more than one socialist/vegan/antinatalist/whatever out of it.
I feel like Catholics were onto something when they came up with the idea of prohibiting their most ardent believers from procreating. Can't argue with success.
What's the difference? Honestly asking.
Any group actively advocating for antinatalism is basically eugenics. Which is what r/antinatalism is/does.
But the Position itself isn't opposed to leftist values for the individual. I'm not really comfortable creatinge life because neither do I know if i don't fuck them up nor am I really clear on what they'll have to live through and the expectation's don't look all that rosy to me.
But Kids will still be born through no fault of their own, so we best get to improving the world for them.
Why?
Because at that point it crosses the line from "I don't think me having kids is a good idea" into "I don't think you having kids is a good idea."
But like the point is that anyone having a kid is bad idea. The subject here is the (potential) kid, not the parent.
I'm sorry, I honestly do not understand what you mean here, could you phrase it differently?
I'm trying to point out that antinatalism isn't about pointing out who should and who wouldn't have kids. It's the idea that no one should have kids out of concern of those kids.
I genuinely don't understand how that can be construed as eugenics.
Because as far as I know antinatalism in general is only really discussed in the West. With everything you know about Western governments do you honestly believe any actual mass implementation of antinatalism is going to be done to them? Fuck no antinatalism is going to be used as an excuse to stop brown people (who tons of Western people already believe are using too many resources) from having babies
Which is eugenics.
Eh, it's an extremely fringe idea hardly compatible with any mainstream "western" ideology. You see a lot of leftists showing their disdain to antinatalist ideas, image what chuds and conservatives think about it. Talking about how MyPillow guy would implement it is nonsensical. By this logic any environmentalism in the west is inheritely ecofascism.
They think it's a great idea and will implement it on the global south, which was my main point. Obviously nothing is inherently ecofascist, but you can at least see how a position like antinatalism is so vague and devoid of actual structure that it could absolutely be absorbed into a fascist framework right? And as material conditions get worse that is most likely how it will be implemented?
The thing is what you're describing isn't antinatalism. That's like saying communism is fascism, actually, because when you say "abolish private property", the obvious implementation you'll see in US is taking away property rights of minorities. And sure, NazBols are kinda a thing, but if some lib tells you that communism is antisemitic you'd laugh in their face.
Except not really because due to the actual material conditions of minorities in the US, they largely don't own private property lol.
The difference being policy that is favorable to western interests has been, is, and for the foreseeable future will be implemented on the global south like it has for centuries already. Just because you're ignorant of that fact doesn't mean everyone is.
Yeah, I'm sure when westerners continue to sterilize people in the global south it would be couched in the argument that only kinda appeals to a tiny bunch of misanthropic nerds and not the usual racist eugenic arguments that appeal to like a half of westerners as they always done.
deleted by creator
Uhhh... So we should fight for a better world, and if we achieve our goal, we should just stop bringing new people into that world?
Then what is the point of fighting for a better world in the first place?
Removed by mod
said who asswipe? fuck off with that dumbass shit. some ppl prefer not to have kids. Some women are deathly afraid of getting pregnant. You have no right to judge.
Removed by mod
lol are you a leftist rly? yeah I did fucking choose this path. You know sometimes ppl just dont want kids, it's not because they cant afford or against them they literally dont want them. Capitalism isn't to blame for everything you absolute moron. Plus I'm gay, but I guess that means I'm a loser. This is a weird fucking hill, I'd expect this from like my boomer parents but I guess I should learn to be less wide eyed
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
deleted by creator
Yep. Procreation is the goal of all life. Thinking that it is any different for us humans is some misanthropic doomer bullshit.
And it is definitely incompatible with any sort of socialism.
sez who?
Anyone with a brain.
reddit moment
Yes indeed. Antinatalism is something that r*dditors love.
As long as it only applies to poor brown people, of course.
deleted by creator
Alright. Have a good one.
Removed by mod
Uhhh
Removed by mod
I don't think I will.
There going to be people that already alive who want the world to be better.
Honestly that sounds selfish as fuck. We finally create a world that has minimized oppression and that's the point we decided to stop people from being born?
That's the only time a child could reasonably be born according to antinatalists. This is why antinatalism is just misanthropic and should be disregarded.
The idea of antinatalism isn't that living sucks because of capitalism or scarcity or whatever. The idea is that living sucks inherently.
I understand the concept. I just think that it's dumb and leads nowhere. To those people I say there will most likely be assisted suicide in FALGSC so have at it.
Well that would be a more orthodox form of antinatalism than all those grand ideas about stopping everyone from procreating going on in this thread.
deleted by creator
I can believe an advanced, falgsc human society would be capable of eradicating the possibility of life in the solar system, but I don't think that there is any version of human society that could substantially alter the course of the heat death of the universe, or that could prevent the potential for life across all of space.
deleted by creator
Right, at a minimum, the difference between the universe and the 'observable universe' is going to put limits on human reach, but maybe there are enough similarly minded organisms in the universe to overcome that.
The problem with an automaton based approach is what characteristics they would need to get the job done. To match the scale of altering the entire reachable universe, they would have to be self reproducing. To be able to prevent life from existing, given all of the different environments in the universe that could lead to the rise of life, and all of the different forms that life could take, they would have to be able to adapt to the local environment, and have enough complexity of information processing to be able to identify previously unanticipated forms of life, and find the best way to disrupt it.
At this point, you've, at the very least, severely blurred the lines of what life is, and most likely created a new form of life that is much more prevalent than naturally occurring life ever was.
There's still a lot we don't know about the universe. Maybe we can trigger false vacuum decay or some such.
Yeah, that would destroy all life that currently exists, but it would also essentially re-roll the whole universe, and create new conditions for the development of life that didn't exist before. 'Destroy all life' is one thing, but 'prevent any possibility of the development of life' is a much harder job.
But even if we where unified, why would we want to?
deleted by creator
The majority of humanity is never going to believe this.
Give it a decade or two :this-is-fine:
My first reaction was to argue why an advanced human society would come to a different conclusion, but thinking about it I'm more interested a different question. For anyone that agrees that this issues needs to be investigated by a higher form of civilization, what reason is there to put any weight in your own conclusion on the issue if you're limited by living in the lower form of society?
deleted by creator
We already got Harris and Buttigieg out of those socialist breeding programs. Isn't that enough?
It costs like $200000 on average to raise a kid in US. I'm sure if you put all that money and time into activism and organising you'd get more than one socialist/vegan/antinatalist/whatever out of it.
I feel like Catholics were onto something when they came up with the idea of prohibiting their most ardent believers from procreating. Can't argue with success.