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: 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]