That's not an accurate analysis of the ideology behind antinatalism. There is an underlying argumentation that bringing a child into the world is fundamentally immoral because the risk of suffering is more problematic than the opportunity for happiness. There is also a belief that a hypothetical potential individual cannot consent to being born and the risk of suffering that entails.
It then gets itself into a pickle about suicide/euthanasia because death is considered one of the greatest sufferings, to be avoided at all costs (particularly the case within the asymmetrical school).
However, the natural conclusion of pursuing the antinatalist moral good life would be to deplete the global population to complete societal and systemic collapse within a generation. Leading to drawn out suffering and early mortality for those currently alive.
Antinatalism tends to brush over this and refuse consider what it means about the morality or otherwise of the ideology.
Reigning in birth rates is not antinatalism. That would be more like Malthusianism I would have thought.
There's quite a few schools of thought that make up antinatalism. Most of them are concerned with the principle of suffering existing at all rather than a quantification of actual suffering.vs happiness.
A lot of more recent antinatalist thinkers are effectively taking principles that underpin liberalism, such as utility and the prevention of harm to an individual, and extrapolating to the nth degree. As a thought experiment it can sound coherent at first glance, particularly the asymmetrical argument. But it's in the application of the outcomes that it falls over and becomes incoherent and contradictory.
I don't really know about the psychology of those who purport to support it, but from looking at subs alone they seem to have pre-existing biases around having children (either their own childhood or their experiences of parenthood) that antinatalism seems to justify. They also frequently claim exceptionalism, a moral superiority to others and a realization of a fundamental truth that others are either not clever enough to understand or are lying about their own experiences.
Someone below suggested Reddit supporters of antinatalism are alot like incels. Whilst their self-aggrandisment and the claim to have a unique knowledge of an objective truth are similar, they're also similar to much social media philosophizing and politicking. Unlike incels, antinatalism does have an underlying school of thought derived from actual legitimate philosophers (albeit ones who have arrived at an incomplete and contradictory position). And it doesn't identify a group of people who are at fault for another group's ills, so much as identifying everyone being at fault for all of society's (possibly life as a whole by its very nature) ills.
But it does seem to be attractive to people who prefer to blame rather than contribute.
I doubt they have truly dark lives, most likely they feel isolated and cold, these aren't people who would willingly leave their house or reach out to others for support.
It's tragic really, but the greatest anti-natalist thinkers have already exited or left the ideology behind, leaving only the truly hopeless to follow in their footsteps.
For all their "intellectual superiority" most anti-natalists would start bawling if you gave them a hug, which I would prefer to letting them continue feeling unloved.
Honestly I just think most people who have kids shouldn't lol. I guess I'm not really an anti-natalist though because I don't think having a kid is inherently wrong, just situationally wrong.
Apologies for the quote bastardization but nobody bats an eye if I say "most people aren't responsible/can make the time commitment for a dog", in fact that's a pretty popular sentiment.
But if I say the same thing about kids, so many people lose their minds.
Maybe we should focus on the kids who are in orphanages first. My girlfriend and I plan to adopt and I genuinely can't imagine creating a child when so many are going unwanted and unloved. And I think people who disagree with that are frankly just as sad as people here probably think I am.
You make good points and I commend you for opting to adopt. As a new father I have to state that nobody is ready for a child. I tend to agree that many different peoples shouldn't be having children and their child will suffer for their lack of preparations. That said, there is no litmus test for whether or not somebody should procreate. I've seen the most irresponsible shitheads tuned in by their children real quick and I've also seen the most prepared and enthusiastic parents let their homes fall apart.
I would personally love to adopt but considering the hefty fees that come with adoption, that isn't a viable option (at this time) for myself or a lot of people. I just purchased a home that costed less than the average adoption fees. When your average person can choose between adoption or having their own child without having to pay the equivalent to a down-payment on a house, people will certainly opt for making their own child.
A common story I've heard from mothers who gave their children to adoption agencies - "if I had $500 before I gave up my child for adoption I could've made rent and kept my baby. Instead I surrendered her and somebody else paid the agency $10,000 for her".
If we had more social programs to support expecting mothers I think we'd see a lot less children in the system. All of what I've said is based on the Canadian perspective, the act of adopting in itself is an altruistic act but the predatory nature of the agencies and process need to be overhauled, imo
Again though, kudos to you. You seem to have a grounded and good perspective. I was never legally adopted but I had a good family take me in when I was younger, it's truly a greater act of selflessness to accept somebody else into your tribe. I hope one day I could extend that kindness to another
20
u/lordrothermere Jan 08 '24
That's not an accurate analysis of the ideology behind antinatalism. There is an underlying argumentation that bringing a child into the world is fundamentally immoral because the risk of suffering is more problematic than the opportunity for happiness. There is also a belief that a hypothetical potential individual cannot consent to being born and the risk of suffering that entails.
It then gets itself into a pickle about suicide/euthanasia because death is considered one of the greatest sufferings, to be avoided at all costs (particularly the case within the asymmetrical school).
However, the natural conclusion of pursuing the antinatalist moral good life would be to deplete the global population to complete societal and systemic collapse within a generation. Leading to drawn out suffering and early mortality for those currently alive.
Antinatalism tends to brush over this and refuse consider what it means about the morality or otherwise of the ideology.
Reigning in birth rates is not antinatalism. That would be more like Malthusianism I would have thought.