Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by martyb on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:33AM   Printer-friendly
from the are-you-"kid"ding? dept.

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.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by EJ on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:39AM (36 children)

    by EJ (2452) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:39AM (#879960)

    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)

      by ilPapa (2366) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:47AM (#879965) Journal

      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.

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:33AM (#879984)

        What is the carbon footprint of a sweaty, fat, degenerate president?

        You mean, like Clinton and Trump?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:38AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:38AM (#880043)

        What is the carbon footprint of a sweaty, fat, degenerate president? Asking for a friend.

        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)

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:59AM (#879970) Homepage Journal

      We need to drop down to below 1 billion total humans.

      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)

        by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:05AM (#879974) Journal

        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.

        But everyone laughs at me when I say, "Hey, let's build some arcologies!"

        --
        [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by EJ on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:34AM (2 children)

        by EJ (2452) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:34AM (#879999)

        Mathematics.

        • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:35PM (1 child)

          by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:35PM (#880272)
          So then post the proof for it.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:03PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:03PM (#880454)

            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)

        by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @08:31AM (#880033) Homepage
        > 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

        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

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:40AM (#880046) Journal

          I suspect your model is one of 7.5 billion spherical humans in a vacuum all fitting into Texas, rather than "humans living".

          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)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @11:29AM (#880076) Homepage Journal

          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)

            by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:54PM (#880136) Homepage
            > the entire rest of the planet to pick farm/ranch land from

            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

              by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:05PM (#880139) Homepage Journal

              They can commute.

              we're consuming about 1.5x earth's sustainable rate presently

              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)

              by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:47PM (#880443)

              we're consuming about 1.5x earth's sustainable rate presently, so even the rest of the planet isn't enough.

              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)

                by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Thursday August 15 2019, @08:47PM (#880727) Homepage
                Ahhh, someone else who's never considered how important potable water coming in, and soiled water running away is.

                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

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 15 2019, @11:25PM (#880762) Journal

                  Enjoy drinking TMB's urine as you both die from some multiply-resistant rebirth of a medieval plague.

                  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

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 15 2019, @11:04PM (#880756) Journal

              we're consuming about 1.5x earth's sustainable rate presently

              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

        by Bot (3902) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:16PM (#880116) Journal

        >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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:16PM (#880117)

        > 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 JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:32PM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:32PM (#880152)

        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)

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:53PM (#880178) Homepage Journal

          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.

          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

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:35PM (#880224)

            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

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:17PM (#880416) Journal

        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

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:04AM (#879973) Journal

      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)

      by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:18AM (#879978) Journal

      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)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:34AM (#880025)

        Lead pipes too.

        • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:03AM (2 children)

          by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:03AM (#880036) Homepage
          Nope, there was a concrete and direct mechanism for harm to humans that was known about long before the lead pipes were done away with.
          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)

            by Bot (3902) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:19PM (#880119) Journal

            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

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:25PM (#880423) Journal

              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

      by driverless (4770) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:38AM (#880044)

      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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:29PM (#880219)

      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

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:31PM (#880428) Journal

        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

      by hendrikboom (1125) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:50PM (#880278) Homepage Journal

      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*.

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by qzm on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:47AM (11 children)

    by qzm (3260) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:47AM (#879964)

    Its not just about children, but who is having them.

    Have a look at statistics on number of children versus average IQ, and it is telling.
    We are rapidly breeding intelligence out of the human race - basically a reverse survival of the fittest...

    Is there a solution? almost certainly not - but its a pretty basic problem really.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by takyon on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:50AM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @03:50AM (#879966) Journal

      ogbultory [imdb.com]

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:33AM

        by Mykl (1112) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:33AM (#879983)

        Some people think this is a comedy. I think it's more accurately described as a documentary about events that haven't yet happened.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:36AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:36AM (#880026)

      And just a followup question - when have the Superior People not thought this to be true?

      • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @08:19AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @08:19AM (#880032)

        IOW, after weeding out some prior bunch of degenerates, and themselves not yet noticing their feet now stepping along the same path.
        One human universal is that winners fancy themselves totally better than losers, and eagerly go the same course expecting it surely shall end differently for them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @10:00AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @10:00AM (#880050)

      Its not just about children, but who is having them.

      Here's a dose of reality for you - assuming your mindset is based in reality.

      All of those economically disadvantaged women who can't afford birth control? The ones who don't get insurance through work, or whose employers don't include birth control in their coverage? The women who use low cost women's health care clinics? The women whose reproductive rights, including abortion, are being restricted by self-proclaimed "small government" advocates? They are having babies whether they want to or not. And they are having a lot more babies than the people who can afford birth control, or do get full prescription coverage, or who can get access to abortion.

      All of those babies, the ones you condemn for not being of your quality, are growing up to be voters. And while they are growing up they are taught that people like you are the enemy. And they will vote you and your ilk out of office. And once their numbers in government are strong enough they will pass laws that treat you and your kind the way you treated them.

      You are sealing your own fate by ensuring your population becomes less important. So either start popping out babies or start handing out birth control like it's candy. Because if you don't you're guaranteeing your predictions will come true.

      • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:21PM (#880146)

        Yes we know how that works out. See: Zimbabwe, South Africa, Detroit, Baltimore, Gary IN, Chicago, etc.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:34PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:34PM (#880433) Journal

        You're assuming that people, en mass, think logically and can reasonably identify the source of their problems.

        You're also assuming that the elections are fair.

        And you're making a few other assumptions that I find dubious.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @10:29AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @10:29AM (#880057)

      Have a look at statistics on number of children versus average IQ, and it is telling.
      We are rapidly breeding intelligence out of the human race - basically a reverse survival of the fittest...

      Then you have lots of kids, I presume? Because that's a fucking stupid conclusion. IQ scores are almost exclusively based on environmental factors, not genetics. Genetic factors only determine brain *size*, not how you use it. IQ is now you use it, not the size of it.

      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:19PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:19PM (#880144)

        IQ scores are almost exclusively based on environmental factors, not genetics.

        Then you must have fell on the short end of those environmental factors. Genetics affect height, predisposition for myriads of diseases, color, shape, size, hair type, features, and sex but somehow it's TOTALLY disconnected from IQ. Were your parents brother and sister?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:09PM (#880458)

          DNA is not totally disconnected from IQ but it is far from the only factor. Environment does play a huge role, from social interactions to nutritional availability. Regardless, that conversation is only one that genocidal eugenecists and other evil fucks care about. The rest of us only care enough to prevent more genocide.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:35PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:35PM (#880156)

      There's a logical conundrum at work as well: anti-child bearing religions have cropped up from time to time, but... after 100 years they are doomed to be a minority of the population no matter how successful they are: as long as they don't reach 100%, and I think most people can agree that is taking a good idea too far...

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:01AM (4 children)

    by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:01AM (#879971) Homepage Journal

    I won't tell you how to do you, you don't tell me how to do me. Unless you just have a fetish about being told to fuck off.

    --
    My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by qzm on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:49AM (3 children)

      by qzm (3260) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:49AM (#879986)

      Didn't you just describe what democracy isn't?

      Just saying...

      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:58AM (1 child)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:58AM (#879989) Homepage Journal

        Yup. Democracy is a fucking terrible form of government. That it's a little less terrible than all the others doesn't mean it shouldn't be as limited as possible.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:42PM

          by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:42PM (#880438) Journal

          Well, it's a nice paraphrase of a famous quote, but it's not exactly a true statement.

          The basic idea of a democracy is that if the biggest gang wins, nobody's going to argue, because they'd lose. It's true, within certain bounds, but it sure doesn't guarantee a good government. If it did the police forces would be a lot smaller. It *would* be true if the choice were really binary and along one dimension, but it isn't really, even though all the propaganda always depicts it that way. But just try to get "majority required to win" adopted. There are all sorts of "special interests" who would prefer that a majority was not required. (One way to get "majority required" is instant runoff voting, called IRV.) That would get the most popular elected...which sure doesn't mean the ones that are doing what is really needed.

          --
          Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:04AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:04AM (#879991)

        He described all* governments. Every government, short of one where you are the sole despot, is someone else telling you what to do. And even then, in order to maintain control, you have to meet certain demands or be overthrown or assassinated.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:07AM (15 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @04:07AM (#879975)

    A philosophy that will die out... um, pretty quickly.

    Membership in the Facebook groups isn't the same as adhering to the philosophy. Not everyone in the flat earth discussion groups believes that.

    It turns out that all you have to do to solve overpopulation is provide everyone with birth control, and they'll do it themselves. Developed nations have below-replacement birth rates, or less. Historically we used disease, war, and famine, but birth control is a little less unpleasant. Places like Bangladesh have gone from six children per woman to two in the space of 50 years. Overpopulation is a non-issue.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:24AM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @05:24AM (#879996)

      Doubt it. You don't have to give the phenomenon a name or theme song, but people eventually will tend to do what makes economic sense. A hundred years ago, families were popping out kids annually. Not just because infant mortality was high, but because *somehow* things were going to work out.

      That's not really true anymore - Children are a giant drag on the freedom and finances of parents. Not just from the kids' actions, but also government imposed restrictions and demands. Then once the kids are grown, will there be decent jobs for them?

      As usual, the lower classes lag somewhat in picking up on the economics lesson. Take that fire last week in Erie: several kids were killed in a house that was being used as an overnight boarding house for children whose parents both worked the night shift. If husband and wife both had to work tough jobs to make ends meet, and pay $1600 per month or whatever for room and board for each kid, what were they thinking getting kids? They couldn't rationally afford them.

      Now when there isn't such an oversupply of people anymore, meaning the economy will desire kids again, I guarantee that births will pick up to reach that equilibrium.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:45AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:45AM (#880047)

        Now when there isn't such an oversupply of people anymore, meaning the economy will desire kids again, I guarantee that births will pick up to reach that equilibrium.

        OK, put you money where your mouth is: let me see your guarantee!

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Coward, Anonymous on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:59AM (1 child)

      by Coward, Anonymous (7017) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:59AM (#880011) Journal

      A philosophy that will die out... um, pretty quickly.

      Only if it is inherited. In reality, new people will come along and join this group.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:48PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:48PM (#880488) Journal

        How long has it been since you've seen a community of Shakers?

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:43AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:43AM (#880027)

      I have a different vision where everyone becomes incel and then massacre eachother in autism spectrum-like tantrums using the automatic weapons given to every citizen as their birthright.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:37PM (8 children)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:37PM (#880160)

      Overpopulation is a non-issue.

      Tell that to the old growth forests, the great buffalo herds of the American midwest, the "unlimited" fish stocks of the oceans.

      Oh, right, you can't, because they've all disappeared in the last couple of hundred years, and will never return as long as we continue to rape the ecosystem to feed our children.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:56PM (7 children)

        by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:56PM (#880185) Homepage Journal

        Untrue. They're gone because we treated them as endless and didn't give a fuck until it was too late, not because of population. There are any number of ways to mitigate or outright negate the environmental impact of harvesting renewable resources.

        --
        My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:38PM (3 children)

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:38PM (#880226)

          There are any number of ways to mitigate or outright negate the environmental impact of harvesting renewable resources.

          And, statistically speaking, how frequently are these wonderful management techniques ACTUALLY employed? I'm thinking less than 3SD below the median is a generous estimate, the other 99%+ of the time/space we're all assholes and elbows maximizing yields while ignoring the external / long term consequences.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 16 2019, @02:03AM (2 children)

            You're assuming I'm of the business as usual mindset. I'm of set out a workable system that both isn't fucking insanely self-destructive and isn't short-sightedly self-destructive either. And then deal wit anyone who breaks the rules of that system with extreme prejudice.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
            • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday August 16 2019, @03:24PM (1 child)

              by JoeMerchant (3937) on Friday August 16 2019, @03:24PM (#881125)

              I'm of set out a workable system that both isn't fucking insanely self-destructive and isn't short-sightedly self-destructive either. And then deal wit anyone who breaks the rules of that system with extreme prejudice.

              I'm wit you, but I'm afraid we're a less than 10% minority of people who care enough to actually lift a finger to do something about it, and a less than 1% minority of money/power to actually get things done.

              What I've seen, time and again in Florida and anywhere else that I've learned enough to know what's really going on, is that the land and resources that get "preserved" are the most economically worthless lands and resources - kinda like what was "given" to the surviving native north americans for their reservations. Business gets to throw a bone to the Greens to shut them up, without really impacting themselves much, if at all, the Greens get to declare "VICTORY!!!" but all we're preserving around here are mosquitoes and alligators on land that's 5x as expensive to develop as the rest anyway.

              Incase I haven't plugged it lately: http://5050by2150.wordpress.com [wordpress.com]

              --
              🌻🌻 [google.com]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:14PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:14PM (#880465)

          Are you dense? Or just one of those people who has to re-frame simple points in order to appear smart? "continue to rape the ecosystem" vs "because we treated them as endless and didn't give a fuck"

          Terrible semantic jokes aside you didn't say anything new. Sure if everyone went vegan the animal life would spring back, except for the extinct ones of course, but you must have missed basic math if you think an exploding population of omnivores is not part of the problem.

          Some few of us are working on sustainable management, though a lot of the improvements are insulted by people Just. Like. You. *they can pry my meat from my cold dead hands* mmhmmm, sure thing Mr. Convenientlyethical

          • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:58PM

            by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:58PM (#880495) Journal

            Even that won't work. Humanity is taking an increasingly large share of the available caloric input (from sun to chloroplast), and everything else needs to survive on the residue. Vegan will decrease the share, but also decrease the non-human lifeforms supported by human desires. As the population increases, we'll quickly reach the same point again. This may be a part of the "great filter".

            The only real answer is to decrease the human population. Everything else is a stop-gap...and probably insufficient. Space colonies have the potential of increasing human population without much limit[*], but they don't have the potential of decreasing Earth's population. (Except, of course, via war...but we don't need space colonies for that choice.)

            * "without much limit" doesn't imply without limit. Even if our habitable sphere expanded at the speed of light there would be a hard limit, and exponential reproduction could quickly reach it. What the limit is can't be specified, as it depends on technologies that have not yet been developed.

            --
            Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
          • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday August 16 2019, @02:05AM

            You're an alarmist idiot, so I'm not even going to go into this with you. I'm just going to say "For every animal you don't eat, I'm going to eat three," and go pay attention to something actually interesting.

            --
            My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by DannyB on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:20PM

      by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:20PM (#880210) Journal

      I think the anti natalists should set an example for the rest of us. After several generations of anti natalists, we might recognize that they are on to something.

      --
      People today are educated enough to repeat what they are taught but not to question what they are taught.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @10:01AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @10:01AM (#880051)

    Actually, I regret that I never found the right person to have kids with. Now with one foot in the grave I look back at my life and realize I missed out on something very, very special. Perhaps I would have been a terrible parent, or maybe I'd have been okay at it. Either way, children are a huge part of the human experience and if you feel that calling...embrace it.

    • (Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:33PM (1 child)

      by Bot (3902) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @12:33PM (#880124) Journal

      >Actually, I regret that I never found the right person to have kids with.

      Being responsible has a price. On the other hand, every couple I saw getting married had at least one person exhuding the "what have I gotten into" expression.

      --
      Account abandoned.
      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:34PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:34PM (#880155)

        I married and eventually divorced a sociopath so I understand that feeling. However, I wouldn't trade any of my four kids (yes, fuck you carbonistas, four) for the misery of being married to a psycho. I love all of them dearly and do anything I can for them. My first grandchild was born this year and I love her beyond all reason. Nothing can really prepare you for children, but nothing will ever give greater happiness.

  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Wednesday August 14 2019, @10:07AM (2 children)

    by looorg (578) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @10:07AM (#880053)

    They say they have 35000 members like it would somehow be impressive in a population of 7,7 billion individuals. Clearly it's not gaining momentum among the breeders (or natalists?) Instead they are just another little fringe group of nutters that believe in something weird that found like-minded idiots online to reinforce their idiocy with.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:40PM (1 child)

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:40PM (#880164)

      just another little fringe group of nutters

      I doubt she's a card carrying member, but I have heard public statements from Ocasio-Cortez sympathizing with the goals of the movement. She's the shape of your politicians of the future.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:17PM (#880469)

        Good!

        We've tried the "fuck you got mine" politicians long enough, things have only gotten worse.

        Well, things HAVE gotten better if you ignore all the secondary / tertiary effects and imagine that those good things couldn't have happened without the bad. -- I.E. you're a moron

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @10:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @10:41AM (#880061)

    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.

    So, because they don't want 50 kids, somehow they are linked to people that don't want kids? What is the next conclusion we will have? People want to decarbonize economy with people that want to live in caves? Or maybe people that want to cure diseases with the anti-vaxers?

    Thought meet hyperbole .... that's the summary.

    People that don't want kids for whatever reason, that's their fucking (literally) business. It's not like we are running out of people having kids.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:50PM (3 children)

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:50PM (#880171)

    They believe humans shouldn't have children.

    They tend to be extremely racist, far more than myself, for example. Note how if you pay attention they define "human" as exclusively "white American people".

    I mean, geeze, even I think non-whites are humans who have rights and basic civilization stuff like that. Some of the anti-natalists are WAY further right wing than I am and cheer on genocide. You know a group is kinda right wing when they make me look like a flaming liberal.

    • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:57PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 14 2019, @01:57PM (#880187) Homepage Journal

      Take a bath, hippie!

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
    • (Score: 2) by Alfred on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:10PM

      by Alfred (4006) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:10PM (#880200) Journal
      So are you saying their stance is fewer whites and kill the rest?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:32PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @06:32PM (#880430)

      Myself, I'm very sexist. I think men shouldn't have children, and that most women shouldn't have children either.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:50PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @02:50PM (#880240)

    sure having fewer kids is better for the environment but the key to a stable population is having:

    2.1 kids.

      the decimal throws a lot of people off so here is a handy guide https://www.genolve.com/design/socialmedia/memes?creation=9a3cca7fb6c54e9aa82bb25a6056acd2 [genolve.com]

    • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 14 2019, @08:02PM

      by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 14 2019, @08:02PM (#880499) Journal

      The problem is that a stable population is unsustainable. We're already considerably past the long term carrying capacity of the Earth. 1.5 would probably be a better choice until the population is considerably reduced. Perhaps Japan will show us how.

      --
      Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:29PM (2 children)

    by Gaaark (41) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @07:29PM (#880480) Journal

    Why don't they just reduce the population numbers by killing themselves?

    --
    --- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
    • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Wednesday August 14 2019, @08:28PM (1 child)

      by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Wednesday August 14 2019, @08:28PM (#880509) Journal

      Indeed. I agree completely. I've actually occasionally hung out reading posts at r/antinatalism for the past several months, because I find their philosophical argumentation so bizarre and illogical, yet they keep propping themselves up by claiming they are the only ones who are actually being rational and logical. (I posted a journal entry on this several months back.)

      You'll find out quickly if you go there that they REALLY don't like people who ask the suicide question, because they consider it to be a flippant answer that isn't relevant. Except that it's completely relevant. As Camus once said: the first question any thinking person needs to answer is why not to commit suicide; until you answer that, you can't develop the rest of your philosophy. (I'm paraphrasing.)

      And the antinatalists have a philosophy that logically should only result in immediate suicide, except in very unusual cases. Keep in mind that they are not simply people who think more people should reconsider before having a child, or even that most people shouldn't have children. They literally regard having children as an offensive immoral act, and no sentient being should be subjected to the suffering produced by existing.

      Effectively, the fundamental premise of their philosophy is that all humans suffer, and it's immoral to bring a being into existence that will suffer without consent. If you try to counter that while all people do suffer sometimes, the vast majority of people tend to say they are satisfied overall with their lives -- well, they don't like that either. They bring in weird hypotheticals that future pleasure of a non-existent being is morally "neutral," while future suffering of a non-existent being is morally offensive, so the latter wins out and no one should have kids. If you again point out that most people seem satisfied with their lives and believe good things to outweigh suffering, they will literally claim that all human beings are "delusional," because we have a cognitive bias that tends to selectively emphasize good things in our memories. (This bias does exist, but they have no evidence it is so powerful as to outweigh subjective judgment for all humans of their own lives.)

      So, then if you accept their premise that life is so horrible that no person should ever be born, and if you think you're happy, you're only being deluded by your brain tricking you, and all people are actually suffering much worse overall, then it seems logical that a reasonable person in such a scenario should commit suicide. (I know if I actually believed their arguments, I would view the only moral action as committing suicide immediately. Furthermore, as some of them admit, by an individual's continued existence in an overpopulated world, you are likely contributing to a state of affairs that is leading to suffering of others -- another moral duty to commit suicide immediately.)

      But most of them say no. Beyond that, they even strongly downmod and yell at anyone who comes to their forum who ever suggests that they should all commit suicide. It's pathetic. Their only flimsy rationale for denying suicide (excepting cases where people are dependent on another, so a suicide might lead to greater suffering for dependents) is to claim that living beings have an irrational "will to live," so once we're alive, it's hard to "opt out," as we're born with this irrational desire to keep living.

      Except making that last argument undermines their entire philosophical premise, because their whole thing is about the following: yes, most humans have an irrational desire to have kids, but they have a moral obligation to NOT have them according to antinatalism. So, we are morally required to deny one irrational desire (procreation), but have no moral requirement to ignore another irrational desire (to stay alive, even when we are suffering, and perhaps even being deluded into believing that we are not suffering greatly).

      It's all a bunch of inconsistent hogwash. And yet they all act incredible superior all the time and believe they have found the one, true logical philosophy. And the rest of the world are ignorant morons. It's incredibly weird.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:21PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 14 2019, @09:21PM (#880539)

        A lot of your points have a rebuttal here
        https://aeon.co/essays/having-children-is-not-life-affirming-its-immoral [aeon.co]

        I am confused on why anti-natalists draw such ire from other people, that article caused Aeon to temporarily turn off its comment system . Most people would concede there is no danger of humanity dying out because of their views.

(1)