If you think the earth is dying because poor people are having too many babies, that's about three logical steps away from ecofascism.
If you think the earth is dying because poor people are having too many babies, that's about three logical steps away from ecofascism.
So your disagree with where they place their emphasis. Fine. But I bet they'd have reasons for their emphasis, too. Reasons that they likely make the case for in one of the many books they've written. I doubt they expect you to accept it at face value, especially such a radically heterodox attitude to the norm.
As for your suggestion, communism would certainly eliminate much of the suffering, but whether or not that can tip the scales of utilitarian calculus is a question worth asking. Even if it did, that does not mitigate the reality of death. Realistically can't change that one in time for it to be relevant to our decisions now. Procreation brings another sentient, conscious, and autonomous being into the world (without their consent!) and subjects them to unavoidable existential terror. You're absolutely right, those of us who are here SHOULD do everything we can to lighten that burden and make life better - but we didn't get here via magic. The decision to procreate precedes a decision as to what to do about existence. Glossing over the first one would be a grave mistake if our aim is to behave ethically.
I reiterate here - I'm not actually an anti-natalist myself. I just think they've made valuable contributions to the discussion and you're being incredibly uncharitable to the people you disagree with.
Well, yeah. Their problem is where they place the emphasis because they assume that the current mode of production is some natural unchangeable thing. If they didn't, they'd be communists. Anti-natalism is the ultimate form of doomerism.
Hmm, gonna hard disagree with you here and say you're continuing to be overly reductive. Many of these arguments have nothing to do with what means of production we're using and would stand even under communism. Might serve you well to actually engage with some of the literature instead of assuming so much or trying to import a framework from something you understand better. I'm gonna disengage for now, I feel the goal posts sliding away, and I've said my piece.
I don't see how I'm sliding the goalposts. It's a pretty simple argument they have. One that presumes a pessimistic model of existence which is not by any means a given.
"Just stop trying to say it’s a solution to anything and pretending that it’s not just a fetish."
That's where things started. My initial addition was to say it's a hell of a lot more than that. Now you're arguing against anti-natalism based on what you're assuming the other side assumes. Having actually read the literature, this is a pretty absurd conversation. Either develop your understanding or don't my guy - but if you're going to come in here with big dunning-Kruger energy you're gonna get pushback lmao.
Don't know how often you've engaged with anti-natalists online, but there's a large overlap between them and stupidpol/malthusians. To most anti-natalists I've had the misfortune of interacting with it is nothing more than a fetish.
I don't think the ethical calculus is inherently worthless, but it's not something I'd ever base my view of reality on. It contradicts too much with everything else I believe and I don't think the presumption of existence being inherently bad is necessarily a productive stance to have.
This is why I said it's fine for individuals to have this view, but any sort of implementation of anti-natalism by a state/ would be indistinguishable from malthusianism. I also don't think it's something that will ever take hold of the collective conscious because it's inherently defeatist and requires a complete and total lack of optimism. Which as we can see, even in the most brutally repressive hierarchy's doesn't happen.
So I guess I just don't see the point of it as a philosophy worth fighting for.