SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Anti-natalists: The people who want you to stop having babies
They believe humans shouldn't have children. Who are the anti-natalists - and how far are they willing to push their ideas?
"Wouldn't it just be better to blow a hole in the side of the earth and just have done with everything?" Thomas, 29, lives in the east of England, and although his idea of blowing up the world is something of a thought experiment, he is certain about one thing - humans should not have babies, and our species should gradually go extinct.
It's a philosophy called anti-natalism. While the idea dates back to ancient Greece, it has recently been given a huge boost by social media. On Facebook and Reddit, there are dozens of anti-natalist groups, some with thousands of members. On Reddit, r/antinatalism has nearly 35,000 members, while just one of the dozens of Facebook groups with an anti-natalist theme has more than 6,000.
They are scattered around the world and have a variety of reasons for their beliefs. Among them are concerns about genetic inheritance, not wanting children to suffer, the concept of consent, and worries about overpopulation and the environment. But they are united in their desire to stop human procreation. And although they are a fringe movement, some of their views, particularly on the state of the earth, are increasingly creeping into mainstream discussion. While not an anti-natalist, the Duke of Sussex recently said he and his wife were planning to have a maximum of two children, because of environmental concerns.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by EJ on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:39AM (36 children)
As with anything, extremism is bad. I feel like the majority of people should not have children. If you do have children, I think you should sterilize yourself after one. (Maybe preserve your genetic material in case that first child dies) We need to drop down to below 1 billion total humans. After that, maybe we can relax a little as long as we make sure to maintain a stable population below 1 billion.
If you look at the carbon footprint of everything on the planet, the carbon footprint of a single human being is the greatest of all.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by ilPapa on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:47AM (2 children)
What is the carbon footprint of a sweaty, fat, degenerate president? Asking for a friend.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:33AM
You mean, like Clinton and Trump?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:38AM
That depends ... do we include all the energy he uses for tweeting?
(Score: 5, Disagree) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:59AM (22 children)
Says who? I mean if you had some scientific data and a solid reason behind that it'd be an arguable position at least. You don't though. The world is not overpopulated by humans from a sustainability perspective. Every last human being on the planet could live in the state of Texas and it would have a population density about the same as NYC. The only reason you think this way is because you've an overabundance of self-hate going on.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:05AM (1 child)
But everyone laughs at me when I say, "Hey, let's build some arcologies!"
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:19AM
That's because you only say that when you've forgotten to put pants on again.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by EJ on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:34AM (2 children)
Mathematics.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:35PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:03PM
That will depend entirely on first assumptions. Do you believe a healthy and diverse ecology is a good thing? Or is the max sustainable human population preferred? Do you want buffers against disasters to prevent millions of people from dying or do you want max possible human population? Do we understand all the various externalities to human activity or shall we assume that the world not ending tomorrow means everything is fine?
I don't know what the best number of humans actually is but my anecdotal experience traveling the world says we have surpassed the ideal by quite a bit.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 14 2019, @08:31AM (8 children)
Hey, can we have some scientific data to support that claim, please?
What are they eating? Where's it farmed/produced?
What are they drinking? Where does that come from?
How/where are they disposing of their sewage?
I suspect your model is one of 7.5 billion spherical humans in a vacuum all fitting into Texas, rather than "humans living".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:40AM
Naaah, you would like it.
Packing them horizontally (well balanced, that is) and feeding them alcohol... did I pick your interest? (grin)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 14 2019, @11:29AM (6 children)
World population: 7,500,000,000-ish
Area of Texas: 268597 mi2
Theoretical population density: ~28K/mi2
NYC population density: 26,403/mi2
There would need to be similar living arrangements to NYC, of course. Water would take some serious engineering but with the Red, the Rio Grande, and the Mississippi all within spitting distance, it's not insurmountable. Food would necessarily have to be shipped in but with the entire rest of the planet to pick farm/ranch land from, that wouldn't be too much of a problem. As for sewage, I'd just pump it up between Virginia and Maryland (that's where DC is for you non-Mericans); it might improve the smell.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:54PM (5 children)
So people aren't all in Texas then?
And you seem to have overlooked that we're consuming about 1.5x earth's sustainable rate presently, so even the rest of the planet isn't enough.
Your model is cornucopoeia woo-woo.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:05PM
They can commute.
Say self-hating econuts who're opining on something they can't remotely speak authoritatively on.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:47PM (2 children)
Asimov's book Caves of Steel describes vast underground cities. The population is fed by yeast products.
Achmanov's book Среда обитания also describes underground cities that are home to a large population.
Many books talk about underwater cities and farms. Some discuss arcologies. In other words, there are possibilities even on this planet. Good life does not necessarily require a house in suburbs. As soon as you increase the density of population, the transportation expenses drop and all services suddenly become available within minutes. You'll have not one store 7 miles away, but dozens of stores, left, right, above and below you. Or choose delivery - it's only minutes away, cheap. Many things become easier in a well built arcology.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday August 15 2019, @08:47PM (1 child)
Enjoy drinking TMB's urine as you both die from some multiply-resistant rebirth of a medieval plague.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 15 2019, @11:25PM
You already are drinking somebody's urine, many times recycled, and haven't died from such a disease yet.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 15 2019, @11:04PM
In other words, a few decades of technology development would get that under control. Assuming it's going to be a problem any time in the next few millennia.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:16PM
>Says who?
Indeed I'm stumped, pretty sure the figure given in the Georgia guidestones is only 500 million. Maybe it's the damn inflation.
As for the topic, the antinatalists are kindly requested to lead by example, no further action needed.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:16PM (2 children)
> Every last human being on the planet could live in the state of Texas
OK, but I want to live in Austin. Everyone else can be packed into dusty, dry west Texas, where the land you live on doesn't include the mineral (oil/gas) rights to what is below.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:34PM
Spent non-trivial time in both. You're welcome to Austin. Texas hippies aside, the drivers are psychotic and the humidity is brutal compared to Amarillo.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:23PM
Help keep Austin weird!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:32PM (2 children)
I like 2 billion as a target number - it's just as valid as GP's 1 billion, maybe moreso: I like the sustainability of h. sapiens environmental footprint at the time when population was 2 billion. It wasn't great, it wasn't all peaches and cream, but in 1927 there weren't enough people, and the people who existed wielded insufficient power, to overwhelm the world's ecosystems.
As a purely philosophical position, I think we should target a return to 2 billion population while we also focus on lowering our per-capita negative environmental impacts. Whether the "best" number is 1 billion, 2 billion or 20 billion all depends on your perspective, values, etc. What is inarguable is: we cannot continue to quadruple our population every century into the unlimited future - not while we're all constrained to this one planet, that's simple math.
All the "everything's gonna be alright" arguments about how population will control itself naturally without intervention may be seen below. My counterpoint: we've already fucked it up, I'm not happy with the global environmental changes I have personally witnessed in the last 50 years, we need to do SIGNIFICANTLY better or life in the future is gonna suck a lot worse than it did in 1927.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:53PM (1 child)
True enough. Nobody alive today has the ability to speak authoritatively on exactly how many people is too many though. Nobody is even qualified to give a reasonable ballpark. So while it is a legitimate concern that needs some serious thought put into it, I'm disinclined to listen to anything those saying the sky is falling have to say on account of them quite obviously talking out of their asses.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:35PM
Ask the oceans: the sky isn't falling, it fell 10 years ago and it hasn't gotten appreciably better since.
For some perspective, look to the (all too rare) total exploitation exclusion zones of the world. Zero fishing marine sanctuaries, not managed forests, but excluded ones like Chernobyl. Compare them to their "business as usual" and "highly managed" counterparts. We're shitty stewards of the land and seas, they manage themselves far better than when we get involved in any way. (Usual disclaimer for absolute statements, of course there are minor exceptions, etc., and: only a complete moron would set up an elephant sanctuary and let them overpopulate it...)
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:17PM
Well, no. The reason to think that way is that most people don't want to live in NYC. Population of cities normally doesn't reproduce fast enough for replacement. The reasons need a lot more research, because until there's a reasonable way to control population space colonies are going to have problems.
Also, we aren't just talking about living space, but also resource usage. That means we need to actually recycle garbage rather than just ship it to a place that will *say* they're recycling it. Most "recycled" garbage still ends up in land-fills. And we're currently driving other species into extinction at an unsustainable rate. (The bottom of the food chain is being hollowed out, and when it will collapse is uncertain...just that it will collapse at some point...and we *hope* we haven't passed it.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:04AM
The solution is supply and demand.
Supply the right amount of money per human, fulfill the demand for live streamed gladiatorial combat.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:18AM (4 children)
I hope you realize that carbon footprint is a recent metric whose importance has not withstood the test of time. Humans are known to self-flaggelate. This anti-natalism is in the same mold.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:34AM (3 children)
Lead pipes too.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:03AM (2 children)
There's no concrete and direct mechanism for harm to humans caused by increased carbon dioxide.
If you're going to pull some fairy story like the death of the corals that are a vital habitat for the microorganisms that feed the small fish that feed the larger fish that we humans eat, then I'll just say "too late, and too indirect, we've been catastrophically over-fishing the fish that humans eat for decades, that's why we won't have as much fish to eat in the future, nothing to to do with the flapping of environmentalists wings over corals on the other side of the globe".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:19PM (1 child)
Apparently the coral reef problem has been linked to excessive dumping of chemical agriculture products. So we should all return to pre industrial agriculture. That would solve either overpopulation or job market problems. Maybe both.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:25PM
The problem exists, but the proposed solution is poor.
Also, agricultural waste is only one of the stressors on coral. Temperature is an even more important one. Another is the carbon dioxide content of the water. Acid water makes is more difficult for coral to grow their support skeleton. (This doesn't only affect corals, of course. it affects most shellfish and all bony fish [i.e. teleosts], like salmon, cod, tuna, etc. It doesn't affect sharks, rays, jellyfish, etc, though the pH change may also affect them in some other way.)
Oversimplification of this problem is endemic. Please don't contribute to it.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by driverless on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:38AM
The Church of Euthanasia does this a lot better. And they do have a point, most of the world's problems are caused by too many people competing for too few resources. If there were a lot less of us, there'd be a lot more to go round. There'd still be conflict, but not of the type we have now, and will have even more of in the close future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:29PM (1 child)
Your post starts off with: "As with anything, extremism is bad." and then presents a pretty damn extreme plan.
Self-awareness...
Even if you believe we have way too many people on the earth, a more gradual population reduction is desirable to avoid FAR worse societal problems than those that your solution would cause.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:31PM
I wish I could agree with you, but we're already in the midst of a "great dying" to equal that of a giant meteor impact. Addressing things even more slowly is likely to result in everyone dying....well, probably not the bacteria. Some of them live a mile below the surface. But there's reason to believe that oxygen generation is already not keeping up with consumption. It's the sort of thing that's a bit hard to measure, so I don't know that anyone's certain. What is certain is that if we keep doing things that destroy the plankton, we'll soon get to that point. (Most oxygen comes from the oceanic plankton, not from land-based plants.)
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:50PM
Reducing the number of children per parent seems to happen automatically when technology and industrialization reaches a certain level. It's called the demographic transition. And one of the mechanisms seems to be the education of women.
In Japan the birthrate is so far below the replacement level that it's a crisis. Even below the one-child per couple the Chinese were enforcing a few years ago. And that's *voluntary*.