Anti-natalism is the philosophical value judgment that procreation is unethical or unjustifiable. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from making children. Some antinatalists consider coming into existence to always be a serious harm. Their views are not necessarily limited only to humans but may encompass all sentient creatures, arguing that coming into existence is a serious harm for sentient beings in general. There are various reasons why antinatalists believe human reproduction is problematic. The most common arguments for antinatalism include that life entails inevitable suffering, death is inevitable, and humans are born without their consent. Additionally, although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person’s suffering. WIKIPEDIA
If you think, maybe for a few years, like 10-20 years, no one should make babies, and when things get better, we can continue, then you are not an anti-natalist. Anti-natalists believe that suffering will always be there and no one should be born EVER.
This photo was clicked by a friend, at Linnahall.
There’s a certain degree of arrogance in thinking that you are contributing to a greater cause by potentially birthing and raising the next Einstein.
On paper, we may have enough resources to sustain the world population. In practice, we are no where nearly socially and politically progressive enough yet to support said population. Social progress doesn’t happen overnight. Birthing the next Nobel prize winner doesn’t instantly resolve climate change or end world hunger.
Of every person born, there will be far more people putting strain on a system that isn’t able to adequately distribute resources to those who need it. Most people make for dog shit parents.
I’m not talking about “birthing the next Einstein” or “nobel prize winner”, types who again, likely had above-average means that contributed to their positions and therefore are less likely to fundamentally question the system that afforded them that. There’s a certain level of arrogance in assuming that only a “great man” in a great position could come along to change things.
I’m talking about collective struggle. You don’t need to be anyone special to engage in that, it just doesn’t work that way. No, that is not the world we have, and it won’t be easy, but is it not one worth fighting for? Other places like cuba, china, and the USSR have had revolutions that created what they could of that world on a national level, under worse conditions. Haiti was a literal slave colony under one of the most powerful nations at the time of its revolution. It’s on the rest of us to learn from their examples and bring the rest of the world to meet them, to complete their revolution. It won’t be overnight, but we can make revolution in our lifetimes. In the grand scheme of things that is not a long time at all, and each successive generation can build on it if we only teach them our struggle and enable them to have greater power over their own lives.
The system is able to adequately distribute resources, that’s what I’m saying. It’s not the number of people that is straining it. The people in power are the ones that design it to fail in that way. The more of us there are to stop them, to fight with numbers rather than capital, the better.
You’re definitely showing on full display here, some commenters’ points about eco-fascism and “giving up” on the world because you’re too small-minded to imagine a better one and how you can personally fight for it, so might as well just cull the working class population including your own potential children to make it more comfortable… (for exactly the people who cause the suffering you seek to address.) Up to and including literally putting them down like dogs, apparently. Real classy thing to gloss over btw.