Antinatalism

Post Reply New Topic

I would say no to the proposal, in the sense that I think as technology progresses fewer people will have the need for marriage, fewer people will really want to, and a lot of the hereditary diseases that wreak havoc on both families and governments economically are likely to be resolved within the century.

I might say that we'll want to slow down - significantly - on the number of offspring we have because we could be living a lot longer than our ancestors did, significantly longer, so the replacement rate will be much lower. At the same time I would add that a world where the average age is 300 or 400 (and looking every bit 30 or 40) would probably be a much better world culturally - ie. ignorance wouldn't be the norm, and you see that cultures where the average age is under 20 both have their situations caused by the lack of any sort of meaningful institutions and also the general level of knowledge in such cultures keeps potential for growth low to the ground.

So things are probably going to get a lot better from here technologically and culturally, albeit we may have a difficult road environmentally even if we're able to just about wipe out our carbon footprint or even reverse it to pre-industrial levels. Supposedly the sun is getting hotter at a rate where were we might not have a lot of time left. I'm sure we'll have pretty good geoengineering at that point and may figure out ways to cool the planet by reflecting more light back but eventually that war is likely to be lost. We could maybe buy some time if we figure out how to push ourselves back 250,000 to 500,000 kilometers from the sun per year without loosening the moon's orbit too much but that's about the best we can hope for long term aside from colonizing other planets.

I like the story, but I worry that those amoral genetic drives won't get intermediated by ethics soon enough to solve our current crises.

That's part of why I think age extension might be critical for this. We're hardly worse in terms of atavism than we are through our late teens and early/mid 20's.

I don't think that old people only seem more racist because they came from a more racist time. Some of them seem to get a lot more racist as they get older. I don't know if the approach of death is what makes them care more about the copies of their code, though. If that were the case, wouldn't it also affect young people with terminal illness? I don't know if they get more racist, but I doubt it.

I was really coming from a different angle with that one. Essentially when you're under 20 you're at your most hormonal and you're about as light on facts and real-world understanding as you'll ever be. Totalitarian movements start as romantic youth movements for that reason - ie. brainwashing people at that age is easier than it ever will be and they've got a thirst to assert themselves.

I also think someone whose 100 and fully looking and feeling 20 or 25 would probably be in a different space psychologically than someone whose a centenarian now. Also, to your point about time's progress, 1968 was less than 50 years ago. That was the end of segregation in the US. If it seems like old people are racist, well... many of them lived a few decades and had their childhood to adult slate written before that. You'll have younger people who still may come up racist for different reasons but they're fewer and farther between, as they'll likely be even farther between as they get older (that is assuming Steven Pinker's world where things get better rather than actually devolving into race-war, which could indeed take us full-speed backward).

How about the reason that by bringing a life into the world you are giving one more person the chance to actually have a life. The alternative to this is never being born, never getting the chance to experience what life has to offer.

How on Earth could something like this ever be seen as being selfish?! Seriously, you've lost me here, and I say this as a childless bachelor whose marriage prospects are precisely zero, so I will end up leaving NO offspring.

You don't think a planet with 7 thousand million of us (and counting) is a bit too much? What about the environment?



Try telling this to the people of Venezuela. Socialism isn't the answer to everything, and it sometimes fails. That having been said, it sure is a hell of a lot better than capitalism. Noam Chomsky isn't "wise", not by a long shot. He is misguided on many issues, and his reflex response to anything he sees as being a problem in the world today is to parrot the words, "It's because of U.S. imperialism!" Now, like him, I am not a fan of the American Empire, but I don't blame it for everything that goes wrong these days.



The people who believe life to be hopeless and meaningless are the ones who are largely responsible for the mess the world is now in. Why would you want to recruit those people? Sure, start a revolution, and after you have guillotined the aristocrats, then what? Who will be in charge? What form will your government take?



Um, okay.

I think some would consider me an antinatalist but I don't find my life horrible and I don't want to put an end to all life on earth, just humans. BTW if you want to know, it means voluntary human extinction.
Having children is selfish indeed. I don't see how someone's unborn hypothetical child is better than an existing one. Adoption would be a logical decision for those who crave to care for some offspring.
Facebook antinatalist groups have a tendency to gather some individuals who spit out hatred towards parents and I don't like it. Like if I was interested in those hatred posts. It also seems like admitting you like your own existence there is a big no-no.
What new does humanity bring to the world?
I can think of a few things. Understanding the world itself, finding it's laws and structures. Music does not exist in natural world in such well organized way as humans are capable to create it. Other stuff will probably be imitation of things that are already there.