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.
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.