Is there a realistic way to implement antinalism in a society?

[noname223]

Or would it basically end in a dictatorship? I have this thought also when I think about certain climate change groups. They seemingly want to achieve their goals no matter what. Of course not all climate change activists are like that.

What do you think about antinatalists? I don't have much insider knowledge about the movement. I don't even know whether one should call it a movement or not? However I could imagine some antinatalists think this goal is very essential and should be achieve by almost any? means. There is also this thought experiment would you press the red button if all humans would disappear then. Without pain or something like that. It is really years ago I read about it. But I think David Benatar said he would not do it. I am not sure whether my memories are correct. But I think the line of argumentation was humans who already live often want to go on living. And ending their life would be therefore immoral. But this thought experiment is not part of antinatalism.

The question I had in mind is how could antinatalism be practically implemented. Personally I was once very convinced about antinatalism. Now I am not that sure anymore. I have some doubts for example about the implementation process. However I have to say I am absolutely convinced that I never want to procreate and in my case I think procreation would probably be immoral. I am just not sure whether no parents shoul procreate. I mean if the parents are very smart, have good genes, live in a wealthy and secure country, are wealthy themselves I think maybe procreation would not be that bad in this example. Even though one could argument due to the fact there is capitalism on this planet the rich are always living at the expense of poor people. And in most cases one perpetuates an evil and unfair system. It is very complicated but this is not fully the core of this thread.

I want to elaborate on the implementation process. How do you think should antinatalism be implemented? There are for sure some antinatalists here. Maybe you don't even want that this philosophy spreads and rather think of it as a personal choice. However some would probably argue that this debate has to be fought with the best arguments. And other people should be convinced by persuasive arguments. Some people (not sure how many) might even argument for the implementation by force. Or that it should be discussed for example in schools.

I have doubts about the implementation of antinatalism. I think I am against force as a mean. So I would go for arguments. I think climate antinatalism becomes more and more popular. Not the moral approach which I often read here in this forum. With the argument life often consists of suffering. There is more bad than good in life etc. I am pretty sure due to the fact procreation is a human instinct one could never persuade all humans not to procreate. I don't have any clue how many people would become antinatalists if it was discussed frequently in school. So the end of humankind could probably never be achieved if the means were simply arguments.

There are some practical problems. My country already has way too many old people who want their pensions and way too less young people who work. My solution would be more (well-regulated)I immigration of new people. However there are some problems. Many people would not want that many foreigners and maybe/ probably it would be counterproductive for societies to have such a huge amount of migrants. One could argument maybe AI can replace most workers. (A naive hope which I have). So this argument is not my main concern.

My biggest concern is the following. Maybe the wrong people would stop to procreate. This argument is touchy because one can interpret as racist, anti-poor people, anti people with bad genes, anti people with low IQ etc. So I rather circumvent some elaborations on these details. I don't have enough knowledge to make a nuance statement on it. One could say there are poor, disabled, with very low IQ people who enjoy life. And this does not mean the people must have horrible lives. But personally I think these traits usually mean more obstacles . And there are not that few people who basically break when facing such conditions. Misery, pain and daily suffering can be the result of it. Many people on here are broken people like me. And there is not much/ enough help from the society for them.

Now to the core of my core argument. The wrong people stop to procreate. There are certain considerations which demand moral thinking and self-reflection when making the decision to procreate or not. I think there are porbably some good arguments why this earth does not need even more humans. But if the educated and smart people stop to procreate who will raise the new generation? However this does not mean only idiots without moralitiy would procreate. But when antinatalism would really become very popular I would be scared about that effect. When most people who procreate would not care about the environment the new generations would be trained to be even more selfish. Parents often influence their children a lot. Maybe there would be a lack of parents who teach their kids ethics, important values, human rights etc. I mean one can argument for sure is already a huge lack of responsible parents on this planet.

One could also talk about the relative amount of pain and the absolute pain which are the results of procreating. Maybe there is more absolute pain when one procreates. But the child can still help other people or the society with paying taxes. As I said young people are desperately needed in many countries.

So I think this thread is a little bit long. But I think the topic might be popular in this forum. And I wanted to make a nuanced stance on it.

How would you implement antinatalism? Or maybe you think this philosophy is stupid?

 

[jodes2]

I'm antinatalist yet I don't think it's achievable without forcing people, and/or selecting only wealthy, healthy individuals to procreate. It's not a movement either, I don't think, just a bunch of people that wish they'd never existed, who believe others often feel the same way. There's no answer for antinatalist but suicide

 

[Chinaski]

No there isn't but we're a doomed species anyway, so

 

[Pluto]

China's former 1-child policy resulted in many families wanting a male for various cultural reasons and having 'femicide' abortions. The result is that there is now 35 million young men for whom there's no possible female partner (Source: Coldfusion on YouTube). India has a similarly scary gender imbalance.

In the West, already we see religious lunatics and various narcissists keen to have huge families because they couldn't care less about the wider world and will raise their children to think the same. The most thoughtful people are having few or no children. What could go wrong?

I do agree with allowing children to engage in the antinatalist debate in school. At least it would help them to be thoughtful and responsible whatever they decide.

 

[jandek]

I can't imagine any functional society based on truly anti-natalist principles. People are going to continue to have children, and the state needs people to tax, fight wars, etc. More likely is a form of state-mandated eugenics. The potential implications are pretty terrifying. Would the government implement mass sterilization of "undesirable" or "inferior" people doomed to what they believe, perhaps seriously, is a life of suffering? The premise is somewhat different, but the movie "Gattaca" is a good picture of what such a society might look like.

 

[Un-]

I mean I say that people that want to be parents should have a license or certificate or whatever it may be. I don't have a bit enough brain to imagine the implications and shit, but I think everyone WHO IS COMPETENT AS A PARENT should have the right to raise kids.

The idea is to sift every shitty individual that fucks without condoms out of the gene pool, and keep the people that are good-hearted enough to try to raise children properly.

Another thing could be more incentive to adopt children. Maybe socioeconomic benefits. But it has to be skewed in a way that the orphans hold the predominant power over the adoptees, so that they don't get exploited.

Again, there's a lot more to think about. Maybe this has already been thought of - I have no clue.

 

[Forever Sleep]

It's an interesting subject and I think you are right- I expect a good proportion of us are anti-natalist (at least for ourselves) on here. Also- personally, I've always felt like human population growth was the largest threat to the environment. I think someone once argued that the overall population rise was actually slowing in speed. Still, I would argue that there is an overall trend for modern man to become more and more 'developed' which I imagine goes hand in hand with industry, consumerism and resulting pollution- so- even if we MAY be reproducing slower, we surely are polluting quicker. Personally, I feel like the only meaningful impact that would reduce our impact on the environment would be for there to be a LOT fewer of us.

I hate to be a pessimist, but I can't see this happening without it being forced upon us and I can't see that happening because people would be in uproar over having their liberties challenged. I think- only until things become REALLY bad- freak weather every other week causing loss of life and property etc that people will feel compelled to take drastic action.

There is also the matter of culture. Maybe it's monstrous of me to say but I really scratch my head when I see a mother in Africa starving along with her 5 children. Obviously- I'm not a total bitch- it's heart breaking to see but at the same time I can't figure out what would possess you to bring a child into the world to watch it starve, suffer and die. I guess it's similar to the philosophy of (likely many) of our ancestors- that having more children means at least some will survive but it is just so different I guess to a way a lot of us think. Of course, in terms of pollution, those in the third world produce only a fraction of what those in the first world do. Although of course- they could well be mining for the raw materials that we need, or slaving away in sweat shops making the clothes we wear. Still- I think many cultures and religions would be vehemently opposed to even birth restrictions let alone anti-natalism.

I do also agree that it's more likely to be the people who care about the environment and who would likely (ironically) raise their children to do the same who will most likely be the ones who CHOOSE not to have them.

 

[another@]

There's many solutions to your problem. But if you want everyone to voluntarily make an mandatory (self-destructive) choice it's unlikely, especially for 8 billion people...

 

[noname223]

There's many solutions to your problem. But if you want everyone to voluntarily make an mandatory (self-destructive) choice it's unlikely, especially for 8 billion people...

I don't understand your comment. Can you elaborate on the the solutions you refer to?

 

[another@]

Lmaoo depends what is the end goal..

Lmaoo depends what is the end goal..

And how do you want it to happen.

I will try to generate a solution.

Edit- sorry about this post it's rude. I self-sabotage and get manic sometimes, so you can see more in the self-sabotage thread... Anyways I will still try to find a solution if you are interested. The first idea that I have is a mutated virus or microbots that could infect the areas of the brain related to hope and sex drive, and reproductive instincts, basically make everyone depressed and see how life really is. You would still probably need some small force of ronots after distribution to ensure no one gets away or somehow survives the infection without losing will to reproduce. It's kinda sad.. If you're interested I guess I could try to explain a little more but tbh I don't really want to. I prefer evolution to an artificially selected species, I know it doesn't eliminate suffering but imo it minimizes it and is more realistic and happy. I think that if you just took out humans something else would take its place so the best option is to minimize suffering by moving on past natural selection (eliminate suffering from competition), life becomes one long gruel then until a way to shut down the universe (eliminate all suffering) is found. Also sad when you think about it but it is more important to eliminate suffering for everyone, and the possibility of it than to "be happy" which basically just passes down the problem to someone else and amplifies it from what I've seen. See the theory of "Roco's Basilisk" for more details. Sorry about earlier man.. I didn't mean to be mean.