Distributed as in non centralized. Many people feel like there is nothing they can do to contribute to meaningful change, especially with how spread out Americans are, but surely there has got to be something.
Using the trend of blocking traffic as an example, I think a coordinated effort to not just block a highway in one city, but to block state routes and other arteries in many places would be more effective. Instead of one city having bad traffic for a day, it would be many towns and it would be harder to dismiss as a local problem if people across the states are engaging.
Previous poster isn’t talking about those people; but about people who do have a choice and why they should decline.
Correct. But that doesn’t justify dropping a child into the dumpsterfire we’re turning our planet into just so they can serve as a footsoldier in the fight against it. Children aren’t sacrificial lambs.
What’s to say good parenting can combat that to enough of an extent to actually make a difference? It’s not rare for two genuinely good people to produce a little hellspawn that grows up to be a lil hitler despite their parent’s best efforts. Good parenting is certainly an important factor, but that’s far from a guarantee your kid will do good with their lives. They could just as well be the next actual Hitler.
We can’t outbreed stupid or evil. If abstaining from having a kid for the sake of protecting that kid from an increasingly dire hellscape is some kind of failure to delay humanity’s downfall, then humanity isn’t something that should be preserved.
Yeah, my comment is clearly aimed at people who do have choice. That should be implied when someone makes any sort of idea: the ability to actually do something. I’d say that a birthstrike is comparatively easier than a labor strike, where a good percentage of the population is 1 or 2 missed paychecks from financial ruin and homelessness.
Don’t use someone else’s inability to justify your own lack of action. “Whatabout the people who can’t?” isn’t a strong argument if you do have the ability.
well first, it isn’t exactly a binary continuum whether or not one has reproductive autonomy. many people are somewhere between the caricature of a literal sex slave and someone just stuck in an unhappy marriage. without any delimiters in the original comment i don’t think it’s wild to assume that it does refer to these people, generally… how could it not? i’m willing to bet a significant portion of the population is subjectively not exactly “choosing” to reproduce in the same way we choose to do other things so it feels a little dismissive for you to just say these people don’t matter for the sake of your rhetoric.
second, im not really justifying have children nor did i do so originally. honestly, willful antinatalism is an incredibly obscure opinion in public discourse - most antinatalist trends are results of socioeconomic realities - so i don’t really feel the need to even attempt justifying reproducing. like i said, i’d never really have kids myself. but people are going to do it no matter what i think and there’s no public opinion campaign that will ever change that, at least as humanity currently stands.
finally, im not even going to really respond to your last point. if you want to argue against the overwhelming consensus and body of evidence from academia demonstrating that who one’s parents are massively influence their outcomes in life then go ahead but i dont think anyone in your audience at that point has a brain, tbh. of course it isnt the only deciding factor. but this is like saying we should be concerned about repainting our racing stripes when the engine block is literally about to fall out. even if i concede your point that doesn’t change the fact that one of the biggest ways who someone becomes in life is determined is by who they are born to and/or raised by, therefore is one of the biggest levers by which future demographic and political trends will be decided.
& i agree the world is shit; we live in nigh apocalyptic times, but this weird overvaluing of the sanctity of human life that antinatalist do feels similar to the pearl clutching republicans have over abortion and fetuses. a sacrificial lamb? dude get over yourself. we’re all gonna die. kids die everyday. that doesn’t mean you have to retreat into cynic pessimism… who are you, or any of us, to be the anubis weighing the value of souls that might come into this world? your position is just so blindingly anthropocentric and arrogant.
Not sure why you’re putting so much emphasis on this - there is a dichotomy in the sense that you can either make the choice or you can’t. If you’re not in the position to make the choice, it doesn’t matter if you’re a literal sex slave or stuck in an abusive relationship or w/e: you can’t make the choice.
Why does any of that matter in the context of choosing not to have a kid? It’s an obscure opinion? Really? I’ve never put much weight into the whole “everyone’s doing it!” style of peer pressure… having a kid for that is almost as fucked up as having one just to fight in some unwinnable battle on a dying planet. And yeah no shit people are going to keep doing it - even ignoring the ones who aren’t able to make the choice, there’s still an overwhelming tendency to approach that decision for selfish reasons like continuing some family legacy or having that ‘little bundle of joy’. There isn’t much thought into whether or not it’s fair for the kid.
You entered into this conversation doing exactly that, despite your own decision on the matter.
I did not, nor will I. I said it wouldn’t make a difference in the fight against fascism. Nice strawman though.
It’s saying the car is totaled. Tending to the engine or racing stripes are both a waste of time and effort.
In a vacuum, yeah. But in the context of a society where stupid and evil breed like rabbits, casting a drop in opposition to that river isn’t going to do shit. The exception being if you happen to be rich - money is ultimately what drives politics, so if you’ve got the income to make an impact and the means to crank out a child and put the effort into molding them into a decent person, then yeah I guess it’s worth a shot. Even if they can’t change anything, they’ll have the means to live a life detached from the dumpster fire. That said, the venn diagram of people who are rich and people who are decent hasn’t shown much overlap.
More strawman. I didn’t say shit about the value or sanctity of human life. I hate it when people put words in my mouth - stop doing that. My stance here is ultimately about suffering, and that if you’re in a position to choose whether or not create a life that’s doomed to suffer the hellscape we’ve built for the generations after us, that the sensible decision is to simply decline.
Jfc you tell me to get over myself for adhering to an opinion built entirely on minimizing the suffering of others, then immediately shrug off people (and kids specifically) dying everyday. Again, life vs death isn’t the core of the argument here, but consider the mass suffering that goes along with those and follow your own advice: get over yourself. This isn’t cynic pessimism, it’s pattern recognition.
I don’t give a fuck about souls or anubis or any other mythology. Those things are fun in videogames or w/e, but don’t belong in conversations like this one. I care about suffering, climate collapse, this global surge in popularity of authoritarianism: those things are real, and increasing at rate that doesn’t exactly make our world a suitable place to raise a child.
But who am I, you, or anyone else reading this to make the decision to have a kid? A potential parent, of course.
How so? You are the one arguing in favor sending our spawn into a life of misery so they can solve humanity’s problems, for the sole sake of humanity itself, without regard to what that means for the individual kid. That seems pretty anthropocentric and arrogant to me. You’re projecting.
I just wanna prepend my reply here with the fact that I hold no animosity towards you or anything, you’re a stranger to me, and that I appreciate you taking the time to share your ideas with me.
Now, I have two main points in response if you’re interested in continuing any sort of discussion…
Primarily I want to point out how every time material consequences are raised you respond with some form of absolute statement. (e.g, off the top of my head without directly citing you: ‘any kid could be Hitler,’ ‘it all won’t matter anyway,’ ‘humanity is a lost cause’). While this isn’t intrinsically bad it does come across as cowardly rhetoric. Conceding to absolutes is also what we might refer to as faith.
Secondarily, are we talking about morality or strategy here? If we’re talking about morality, then just say plainly you oppose reproduction categorically. If we’re talking real-world, effective strategy then we must confront things dialectically because material facts matter. We can’t just dismiss things with absolutism for being inconvenient to your existing position.
EDIT: Additional thought: If your stance is purely about suffering, then you are indeed making a claim about which lives are worth bringing into existence… namely, those that won’t suffer. That is a sanctity/value claim, just under another name. Which is it? Either you admit this is a value framework, or you have no grounds for your conclusion. I didn’t put words in your mouth, I simply interpreted the ones you put into the world as any reasonable person would.