Coming war between antinatalist majority and natalists

[Epikur]

 

Edited May 22 by Epikur

[Jannes]

How do you know that antinatalists are the majority?

I think acknowledgment of our destructive ways can be good. We become so conscious of our destructive ways that we open ourselves up to change. Some people in life have to make the decision between suicide and changing themselves radically. That could be it on a more global scale. 

[Epikur]

1 hour ago, Jannes said:

How do you know that antinatalists are the majority?

I think acknowledgment of our destructive ways can be good. We become so conscious of our destructive ways that we open ourselves up to change. Some people in life have to make the decision between suicide and changing themselves radically. That could be it on a more global scale. 

Actually I never thought about it till I saw that video. There malcolm says that the antinatalists are the majority. I guess he should know because they are his "enemies"

From my intuition it may be true. In general I feel like I am in my thinking ahead of the society but eventually society catches up. Finally people came to a point where they can not deny some realitites like evolution, no free will, no god. Modern technology gave us the freedom to watch at things without being pressured by society. People realize life makes no sense.

Also there is not much hope that we can build something much better than what we have. For most people it is just too much effort. 

Btw it is interesting that also Elon Musk sees the antinatalists as the biggest thread.
 

 

Edited May 22 by Epikur

[zazen]

Shame that natural life choices have become identity politics - someone not having kids becomes or is assumed to be 'anti-natalist' and someone with kids is assumed or feels the need to become 'pro-natalist'. Both try to ideologically rationalise their life choices that have been influenced by a more natural outcome of industrialisation and urbanisation.

If we contemplate why so many people are opting out of having kids these days, we can boil it down to the four C's: Cost, Choice, Culture, and Courts.

1. Cost: The cost of raising a child has skyrocketed, putting it out of reach for many unless they want to live a life of constant stress trying to scrape together enough resources. Add to that the opportunity cost, where endless activities and adventures are available, often at lower costs, making the prospect of parenting even less appealing.

2. Choice: Thanks to contraception, sex is no longer inevitably tied to childbirth. Innovations like the laundry machine, industrial machines, and the internet have transformed the economy from brawn to brain-based, liberating women and multiplying the choices available. Plus, there's an overwhelming array of activities for personal enjoyment.

3. Culture: Many feel today's culture is not conducive to raising kids, seeing it as a hostile environment for nurturing new life.

4. Courts: Divorce courts are a major deterrent for men considering marriage, a traditional precursor to having children. While many couples avoid marriage, women often still see it as a priority, hoping their relationships will eventually lead to it, creating additional pressure.

In essence, these factors collectively contribute to the decision to remain child-free in a world offering many alternatives.

A interesting paragraph on whether to kid or not to kid :

'Is extinction something we should necessarily avoid? Yes, otherwise there's no point to anything, ever. This is supreme nihilism. By this logic there's also no value to maintaining the existence of any other species or race or state of anything in nature or anything manmade. If it is not a fundamental moral mandate that we not only exist but aught to exist then there is no mandate to do anything to preserve anything or anyone else.

Furthermore, to make this choice is to invalidate the choice of everyone that's come before and force the same onto everyone that comes after. Put it this way, if you chose extinction then the people that come after you will be locked into that choice with no way to turn back, regardless of the suffering that inflicts on them. You can't unmake that choice. Being can be reversed, unbeing cannot. At the end of the day, we want to keep being and we aught to want to keep being. The fundamental crux of all life is the preservation of being.'

Edited May 22 by zazen

[Epikur]

 

[Scholar]

There aren't enough autistic people to care about this nonsense.

[DocWatts]

Thinking that people are having less children because of anti natalism is a bit like thinking that the reason men are struggling is because of feminism. In both cases the philosophy that's being pointed to is a red herring, as far as its contribution to the problem in question.

Contemporary society has more or less gutted the social support structures that made it viable to have children. In the West, a collapsing middle class, stagnating wages, and skyrocketing cost of essentials such as housing have made having children a dicey prospect for those who aren't economically affluent. In a post-Roe United States, getting pregnant can effectively be a death sentence if anything happens to go wrong during the pregnancy and you have the misfortune of living in a Red state. In the East, a famously dysfunctional work culture that doesn't leave people the time of energy to devote to raising a family has been well studied.

Edited May 22 by DocWatts

[Basman]

2 hours ago, DocWatts said:

Thinking that people are having less children because of anti natalism is a bit like thinking that the reason men are struggling is because of feminism. In both cases the philosophy that's being pointed to is a red herring, as far as its contribution to the problem in question.

Contemporary society has more or less gutted the social support structures that made it viable to have children. In the West, a collapsing middle class, stagnating wages, and skyrocketing cost of essentials such as housing have made having children a dicey prospect for those who aren't economically affluent. In a post-Roe United States, getting pregnant can effectively be a death sentence if anything happens to go wrong during the pregnancy and you have the misfortune of living in a Red state. In the East, a famously dysfunctional work culture that doesn't leave people the time of energy to devote to raising a family has been well studied.

This exactly. People aren't having kids because of some ideology but simply because they can't afford to.

[Epikur]

10 hours ago, Basman said:

This exactly. People aren't having kids because of some ideology but simply because they can't afford to.

I asked chatgpt

 

Quote

Factoring in the influence of antinatalist beliefs on people who are neutral about having children, the overall influence of antinatalist beliefs on the decision not to have children can be estimated to range from approximately 13.4% to 31% of the population. This reflects both the direct impact of conscious antinatalist beliefs and the broader, indirect influence of related ethical and environmental concerns.

Quote

Unconscious or Implicit Antinatalist Beliefs: In the 1960s, indirect influences related to environmental or existential concerns were likely minimal, perhaps influencing around 5-10% of people’s decisions not to have children. Today, estimates suggest this could be around 10-20%.

Increase: Approximately 5-10%.

Combined Influence:

When combining both conscious and unconscious influences:

1960s Estimate: Roughly 5-10% influenced by these factors.

Today’s Estimate: Roughly 11-25% influenced by these factors.

Overall Increase: Approximately 6-15%.

Quote

It's difficult to provide an exact percentage without specific data, but I can offer some insights. In the early 1900s, natalist beliefs were predominant in many parts of the world, and larger families were often encouraged or seen as desirable. However, over the years, especially in developed countries, there has been a significant decline in fertility rates and a shift away from natalist attitudes due to various factors such as increased access to contraception, education, urbanization, and changes in societal norms.

If I had to offer a guess, I'd say there's been a notable decrease, perhaps around 50% or more in some regions, in the prevalence of natalist beliefs compared to the early 1900s, especially in more developed nations. This is a broad estimation and the actual percentage could vary depending on the specific region and cultural context.

 

Edited May 23 by Epikur

[Basman]

1 hour ago, Epikur said:

I asked chatgpt

Even if the data presented is accurate, it is still a minority of people who don't have kids due to ideology. The leading cause of childlessness is relative poverty/cost of living in the developed world.

And I suspect that there is a degree of people adopting views like antinatilism because of the fact that they can't afford kids to justify it to themselves.

[Epikur]

3 minutes ago, Basman said:

Even if the data presented is accurate, it is still a minority of people who don't have kids due to ideology. The leading cause of childlessness is relative poverty/cost of living in the developed world.

And I suspect that there is a degree of people adopting views like antinatilism because of the fact that they can't afford kids to justify it to themselves.

Back in the time poor people wanted to make kids because they could use them for labour. Nowaday even natalists say don't make kids if you are poor. So a kind of soft antinatalism is there. One wants to have happy children not workers. Making children happy is difficult. Additionally most people are distracted from hedonism so they can't concentrate on their children much.

[Scholar]

29 minutes ago, Basman said:

Even if the data presented is accurate, it is still a minority of people who don't have kids due to ideology. The leading cause of childlessness is relative poverty/cost of living in the developed world.

This isn't the case, if it was, poor people in developed nations would have less kids than college educated individuals.

The reason for not having kids are far more multifasceted and deeper than relative poverty, which seems to be a minor factor.

[Basman]

21 minutes ago, Epikur said:

Back in the time poor people wanted to make kids because they could use them for labour. Nowaday even natalists say don't make kids if you are poor. So a kind of soft antinatalism is there. One wants to have happy children not workers. Making children happy is difficult. Additionally most people are distracted from hedonism so they can't concentrate on their children much.

I personally agree, but the leading factor for people not having kids is still cost. Kids are deficit today whereas in the past they where profitable.

And the poverty thing goes both ways. If your kids are poor then that means that you're poor and you'll have a more difficult life as a result. Having kids when you can't afford to can ruin or at least make your life greatly more difficult than otherwise.

Edited May 23 by Basman

[bebotalk]

Anti-natalists are a fringe group of mostly online edgelords. For many in the world, the ideal of having kids is ingrained. people often use religion to justify it. What will an anti-natalist do if they're confronted with "the Quran/Bible endorses my right to have kids!" Just respond by saying "religion is cringe!" yeah, that will do it. 

Yes, there is a need to conserve resources. But anti-natalists would have some severe pushback in that regard, or in terms of their ideology. 

 

[BlueOak]

Inmendham is probably one of the original anti-natalists, or efilism as his ideology describes. People often hate him, because he's very severe with people; anything that challenges his certainty in this ideology does not receive a normal response. I am a vegan, but you've all seen the Vegans on a crusade, and what happens when you challenge their ideology? That is what most of these concepts remind me of.

It's a bit like how I respond to talks about socialism; I am convinced that we lack socially created outcomes; when challenged, I have an instinct to defend that lack.

Anti natalism or efilism embodies doing two things taken to an extreme.

Considering suffering is not worth what it produces.
Devaluing anything that does not fit the ideology.

We often think this way about things we disagree with, but this is the exaggerated version, exclusively hinging on value judgments and an inability to see long-term patterns that disagree with the analysis.

In efilism, there is disagreement about life being created at all.

Only go here if you are balanced and not depressed, because Inmendham is deeply depressed:

http://www.efilism.com/

Edited May 24 by BlueOak

[Epikur]

 

[Scholar]

The process of evolution will eradicate antinatalist tendencies.

If you chose not to participate in life, you will not shape life. Even if the anti-natalists were to succeed in their dream, they would have zero impact on the bigger picture, because reality is infinite. There will be life, and it will continue for all of eternity, in all it's possible forms.

[Epikur]

On 24.5.2024 at 0:26 PM, BlueOak said:

Inmendham is probably one of the original anti-natalists, or efilism as his ideology describes. People often hate him, because he's very severe with people; anything that challenges his certainty in this ideology does not receive a normal response. I am a vegan, but you've all seen the Vegans on a crusade, and what happens when you challenge their ideology? That is what most of these concepts remind me of.

It's a bit like how I respond to talks about socialism; I am convinced that we lack socially created outcomes; when challenged, I have an instinct to defend that lack.

Anti natalism or efilism embodies doing two things taken to an extreme.

Considering suffering is not worth what it produces.
Devaluing anything that does not fit the ideology.

We often think this way about things we disagree with, but this is the exaggerated version, exclusively hinging on value judgments and an inability to see long-term patterns that disagree with the analysis.

In efilism, there is disagreement about life being created at all.

Only go here if you are balanced and not depressed, because Inmendham is deeply depressed:

http://www.efilism.com/

 

Edited May 30 by Epikur