Anti-Natalism, Can It Really Exist?

[marioneta]

Would the anti-natalist celebrate the fact that natural and "man" made disasters, like wars, are necessary purges to rid the planet of this human infestation (a word much popularized by IQ45) as well as hope for the "big one", that big meteorite that would end human civilization. Yet when such catastrophes occur,like hurricane Maria, the first ones to go are the old, the poor, the children, the people of colour. Then again I maybe making a caricature since, and correct me if I'm wrong, anti-natalism is basically a voluntary decision of existential weight...?

 

[Sad Marsh Ghost]

Ligottian antinatalism's goal is to end the continuation of suffering, so an exacerbation of war, famine or disease would be horrific and counter-productive. Ligotti's philosophy is also fundamentally anti-capitalist – not to mention egalitarian, so there shouldn't be room for Nazis, who should be punched and disavowed with extreme prejudice. There definitely is a danger of antinatalist rhetoric being used to further a eugenics-based agenda, so wariness should be kept, as it should be in any 'philosophy'-orientated group comprised of mostly disgruntled white men these days.

The type of antinatalism Ligotti espoused is a humanitarian concern rooted in empathy. No slow, painful murdering of other nations, please. No choking societies in toxic smog because of fucking up the environment. Make the planet less awful to live on, while working towards fighting many of the lies behind pronatalism.

Related to that: antinatalism is, after all, a luxury position, because contraceptives are not free.

THE LIGOTTIAN UTOPIA WILL HAVE ANAL. SEX. ONLY.

 

[marioneta]

Thank you, James, for clearing up some of my doubts. I had an inkling that Ligotti's anti-natalist stance was much more humanist than the usual fare. And calling out the danger of Nazi or neo-Nazi appropriation of anti-natalism as the gateway drug for ethnic cleansing is important to keep in mind

 

[Ibrahim]

Ligottian antinatalism's goal is to end the continuation of suffering, so an exacerbation of war, famine or disease would be horrific and counter-productive. Ligotti's philosophy is also fundamentally anti-capitalist – not to mention egalitarian, so there shouldn't be room for Nazis, who should be punched and disavowed with extreme prejudice. There definitely is a danger of antinatalist rhetoric being used to further a eugenics-based agenda, so wariness should be kept, as it should be in any 'philosophy'-orientated group comprised of mostly disgruntled white men these days.

The type of antinatalism Ligotti espoused is a humanitarian concern rooted in empathy. No slow, painful murdering of other nations, please. No choking societies in toxic smog because of fucking up the environment. Make the planet less awful to live on, while working towards fighting many of the lies behind pronatalism.

Whoah, James. Let's take it easy, shall we.
"Pronatalism?"
That's falsifying the argument a bit, i do think. Only in an antinatalist worldview excluding all other perspectives can things which are not outspoken antinatalism be termed pronatalism. Not to endorse antinatalism does not automatically mean to uncritically promote birth at all cost.

I'll let pass your exultation at the hindmost delights of the Ligottian paradise because it is needless to remark that most of my argument would still stand, except it would then rest on a basis of sexually transmitted diseases and their prevention.

Funny thing is, philosophy has always been disgruntled white men, from the Stoics onward.

 

[ToALonelyPeace]

But it can also be dangerous not to link nazism with the things that might grow or evolve towards it in time. In fact, i can imagine a nazi ( note i'm not capitalizing that ) might argue his belief system is grounded in a certain type of morality; certainly the peoples the many genocides have been enacted upon were viewed as being morally inferior and hence not deserving of having their genes distributed. Our nazi might very well argue that the genetically more pure ( or whatever balderdash they call it ) are less prone to suffering because of their übermenschliches constitution.

Your argument is based on a type of "selective antinatalism" recently invented in this thread which when flipped around it can be called "selective pro-natalism".

In regards to Marioneta's understated point about antinatalism and PoC, allow me to stretch and fill it in a bit: if one is susceptible to it, one might find, in the discourse of Occidental apologists for the antinatalist cause, the underlying and perhaps subconscious assertion that those who choose not to 'breed like rabbits' are somehow morally superior to the many African nations or, say, Palestine where birth rates are rather higher.
That's potentially an ugly undercurrent, no?
Related to that: antinatalism is, after all, a luxury position, because contraceptives are not free.

For those living in poverty and underdeveloped countries, physical, then social, and political needs are their priorities. It doesn't make sense to make such a comparison since their needs are different. The reality is that antinatalism is not known to most people on this planet. It's not a luxury position nor is it about contraception. Even if the later is freely available, the number of antinatalists would remain the same.

Antinatalism is only a philosophy, so while one may develop an idea of it, in reality its practice is condemned by society and religion as selfish and degenerate. Note that when race,nation or class is involved, the image of "passing the torch" will necessarily be conjured up (e.g, White nationalists take procreation very seriously ). Although let's suppose there is a position where the Nazis think: the white race is dying so all other races should die too. It'd still be about negative value of a race and not about the negative value of birth. Such a position can be called "selective antinatalism" or "selective pronatalism" as one wishes, just as the color grey can be called "half-black" or "half-white".

 

[Ibrahim]

Your argument is based on a type of "selective antinatalism" recently invented in this thread which when flipped around it can be called "selective pro-natalism".

Your assertion that a thing is so doesn't make it so. The argument of mine you quoted is in response to the claim that nazism has no morality and therefore has no overlap with antinatalism, and that nazism gives no thought to the reducing of suffering, and therefore has no overlap with antinatalism; i think both claims are doubtful.

Grey can be termed half-black or half-white? Pardon me, but that's the most half-intelligent idea i've heard in a while. Colours, despite Goethe and Ben-Day dots, are not made up of other colours; colours are colours.

A car is a half-bike?
A cloud is a half-lake?
Come on.

 

[Ibrahim]

Antinatalism is only a philosophy

Exactly. It is a philosophy. That is why, when some worldview or other happens to not consider birth as anything other than a fact of life ( and thus makes no big point of it ) it cannot be said then to immediately embody the philosophy of pronatalism.

Simplified:
Let's say i am a Stoic.
Trees exist.
I let them exist.
That does not make me more of a Tree-ist than a Stoic.
In fact, there is no correlation at all.

 

[ToALonelyPeace]

Your argument is based on a type of "selective antinatalism" recently invented in this thread which when flipped around it can be called "selective pro-natalism".

Your assertion that a thing is so doesn't make it so. The argument of mine you quoted is in response to the claim that nazism has no morality and therefore has no overlap with antinatalism, and that nazism gives no thought to the reducing of suffering, and therefore has no overlap with antinatalism; i think both claims are doubtful.

Grey can be termed half-black or half-white? Pardon me, but that's the most half-intelligent idea i've heard in a while. Colours, despite Goethe and Ben-Day dots, are not made up of other colours; colours are colours.

A car is a half-bike?
A cloud is a half-lake?
Come on.

My argument on the last page has been:
1) It doesn't make sense to link antinatalism with Nazism, since with the latter it's about the conservation of one's race and genetics-it's not about the morality of birth. Your example which I quoted in my last post involves a Nazi with a moral view on race, which is still about race and not the act of procreation in itself.

2) There is no such thing as "selective antinatalism" or "selective natalism" hence why I said earlier "It's false to link Nazism with a type of 'selective antinatalism'. Such a thing doesn't make sense just as it doesn't make sense to call grey "half-black" or "half-white". Now the post which mentions "selective antinatalism" has been deleted, but I quoted it earlier in the thread.

Antinatalism is only a philosophy

Exactly. It is a philosophy. That is why, when some worldview or other happens to not consider birth as anything other than a fact of life ( and thus makes no big point of it ) it cannot be said then to immediately embody the philosophy of pronatalism.

Simplified:
Let's say i am a Stoic.
Trees exist.
I let them exist.
That does not make me more of a Tree-ist than a Stoic.
In fact, there is no correlation at all.

I did not say you were pronatalist. Yet it is a fact that pronatalism is the philosophy of many societies. You cannot seriously say that something like forced marriage happens because birth is a natural fact of life?

 

[Ibrahim]

Your argument is based on a type of "selective antinatalism" recently invented in this thread which when flipped around it can be called "selective pro-natalism".

Your assertion that a thing is so doesn't make it so. The argument of mine you quoted is in response to the claim that nazism has no morality and therefore has no overlap with antinatalism, and that nazism gives no thought to the reducing of suffering, and therefore has no overlap with antinatalism; i think both claims are doubtful.

Grey can be termed half-black or half-white? Pardon me, but that's the most half-intelligent idea i've heard in a while. Colours, despite Goethe and Ben-Day dots, are not made up of other colours; colours are colours.

A car is a half-bike?
A cloud is a half-lake?
Come on.

My argument on the last page has been:
1) It doesn't make sense to link antinatalism with Nazism, since with the latter it's about the conservation of one's race and genetics-it's not about the morality of birth. Your example which I quoted in my last post involves a Nazi with a moral view on race, which is still about race and not the act of procreation in itself.

2) There is no such thing as "selective antinatalism" or "selective natalism" hence why I said earlier "It's false to link Nazism with a type of 'selective antinatalism'. Such a thing doesn't make sense just as it doesn't make sense to call grey "half-black" or "half-white". Now the post which mentions "selective antinatalism" has been deleted, but I quoted it earlier in the thread.

Antinatalism is only a philosophy

Exactly. It is a philosophy. That is why, when some worldview or other happens to not consider birth as anything other than a fact of life ( and thus makes no big point of it ) it cannot be said then to immediately embody the philosophy of pronatalism.

Simplified:
Let's say i am a Stoic.
Trees exist.
I let them exist.
That does not make me more of a Tree-ist than a Stoic.
In fact, there is no correlation at all.

I did not say you were pronatalist. Yet it is a fact that pronatalism is the philosophy of many societies. You cannot seriously say that something like forced marriage happens because birth is a natural fact of life?

Sorry i misread you there.

Nevertheless, if selective antinatalism does not exist, how can nazism be linked to it, even falsely?

I'm mildly ( but only mildly ) amused at being inveigled into explaining a nonexistent nazi's assumed views here, and as i absolutely abhor the philosophy i won't go much farther with this, but as far as i've understood nazi ideology, it won't do to describe their views on morality as a moral view on race only. In fact, nazism did not justify itself on eugenics, its eugenics were justified by their own definition of morality.

But again, my argument is not as you state, but simply to show that nazism does not necessarily have nothing to do with morality and suffering ( as you would have it).

If you repeat your point that pronatalism is the philosophy of many societies, you force me to repeat my point that just because their philosophy does not rule out births doesn't mean they have to be dubbed pronatalist.

Thus i state again:
Let's say i am a Stoic.
Trees exist.
I let them exist.
That does not make me more of a Tree-ist than a Stoic.
In fact, there is no correlation at all.

And as to your closing point: you cannot seriously mean to say that seeing birth as a fact of life leads to forced marriage?

 

[Ibrahim]

For those living in poverty and underdeveloped countries, physical, then social, and political needs are their priorities. It doesn't make sense to make such a comparison since their needs are different.

Aha.
Well just you go ahead and adjudicate to the poor and underdeveloped ( whatever that might mean ) their priorities, then.

As if that has not been, throughout the ages, their problem exactly.

( if this sounds short-tempered, please read it as directed at the idea, not the person - whom, after all, i do not know)

 

[Sad Marsh Ghost]

Thank you, James, for clearing up some of my doubts. I had an inkling that Ligotti's anti-natalist stance was much more humanist than the usual fare. And calling out the danger of Nazi or neo-Nazi appropriation of anti-natalism as the gateway drug for ethnic cleansing is important to keep in mind

I have argued this a lot, and I know some people disagree, but Ligotti is a humanist. The deep empathy of the man for human suffering is commendable. It all comes from compassion.

 

[cannibal cop]

I still have no idea how and why this thread first got contaminated with misleading talk of Nazism and eugenics, and have pretty much given up caring, at this point.

Antinatalism isn't a political system, if anything it's inherently apolitical. Race, creed, gender, socioeconomic status, etc, don't carry any weight with it.All that matters is whether you agree that having children is, in a universal sense, a bad idea.

And as ToALonelyPeace suggested earlier, there is no such thing as "selective" antinatalism. It's a contradiction in terms. Antinatalism is an all-or-nothing deal. Let's get something straight here: its purpose is not to benefit some hypothetical "ideal" society, it's not about reshaping demographics or "purifying" the gene pool. Antinatalism is primarily, and in truth only about sparing the innocent the horrors of this life.

 

[Sad Marsh Ghost]

Antinatalism is obviously political. Same goes for any philosophical methodology to diminish suffering. Coming at it from an 'apolitical' (generally an euphemism for not questioning certain aspects of the status quo) perspective is a bad idea and would almost certainly see the movement hijacked as a tool of oppressing minorities. Antinatalist spaces online frequently become such discussions (I can think of a ton of times this forum has), along with a base level of misogyny aimed at putting the onus entirely on women for not having abortions.

I would go as far as to say I'm not interested in 'apolitical' antinatalist discussions as they seem to inevitably become cryptofascist reactionary white male angst rather than conversations drawn from empathy. I'm always wary of people who think 'Let's be careful about this happening, eh?' is a troublesome approach, and we can start the 'apolitical' application when we're applying this to a fair and apolitical society.

 

[Mr. Veech]

Antinatalism is obviously political. Same goes for any philosophical methodology to diminish suffering. Coming at it from an 'apolitical' (generally an euphemism for not questioning certain aspects of the status quo) perspective is a bad idea and would almost certainly see the movement hijacked as a tool of oppressing minorities. Antinatalist spaces online frequently become such discussions (I can think of a ton of times this forum has), along with a base level of misogyny aimed at putting the onus entirely on women for not having abortions.

I would go as far as to say I'm not interested in 'apolitical' antinatalist discussions as they seem to inevitably become cryptofascist reactionary white male angst rather than conversations drawn from empathy. I'm always wary of people who think 'Let's be careful about this happening, eh?' is a troublesome approach, and we can start the 'apolitical' application when we're applying this to a fair and apolitical society.

Having visited forums associated with antinatalism, I can say that there's something true about your claim. I've come across more than a handful of topics regarding why black people choose to have children given the socioeconomic status of many blacks. According to this line of reasoning, black people should be the first to embrace antinatalist principles.

It goes without saying that there's something inherently troubling about the logic underlying such a claim. Granted, one can't make grandiose claims on the basis of the occasional forum post. But I do think that it's probably fair to say that, when speaking of race, black people tend to experience more suffering than whites do - all things considered. If antinatalism is essentially about the elimination of suffering, then it goes without saying that black people have more to gain than white people when it comes to the benefits of antinatalism.

As a regulative idea, antinatalism is "apolitical" insofar as it's meant to be a universal (or abstract) moral imperative. But is it in reality? I don't think it is.

 

[cannibal cop]

Granted, one can't make grandiose claims on the basis of the occasional forum post.

Not that that's ever stopped anyone, eh?

...If antinatalism is essentially about the elimination of suffering, then it goes without saying that black people have more to gain than white people when it comes to the benefits of antinatalism.

No, it actually doesn't. And in fact nobody benefits from antinatalism. The point isn't to make life better for anybody, the whole point is to prevent others from being drawn into this cycle of misery we're all trapped in, even if some people (and there really is no need to bring up race here) tend to suffer a lot less than others.

As a regulative idea, antinatalism is "apolitical" insofar as it's meant to be a universal (or abstract) moral imperative. But is it in reality? I don't think it is.

First off, antinatalism isn't a regulatory idea, certainly at this stage. And I believe I've been clear enough in this thread about my firm belief that it not only shouldn't be one, it can never succeed as one.

The best that can be hoped for, as I see it, and I believe I've made clear here, is that, through increased promotion and public visibility, the idea attracts more and more of those who are naturally sympathetic to it and that it becomes widely accepted as a legitimate alternative to the ordinary social imperatives of producing and raising offspring.

The claim that antinatalism is inherently politicial is itself politicized garbage. That's equivalent to claiming that the act of childbirth is inherently political.

There's nothing political about it until ideologues choose to poison it with politics, and if that happens it is a virtual certainty that as a philosophy antinatalism will either fade into irrelevance or (a lot less likely) become the platform of some horrible totalitarian movement (whether of the Left or the Right hardly matters) who will use it as a false justification for al, sorts of repressive measures.

Needless to say, I consider either outcome highly undesirable.

 

[Sad Marsh Ghost]

Pretty extreme reaction to: 'Hey, let's be careful about racists?', but I don't know what I expect these days.

 

[cannibal cop]

Pretty extreme reaction to: 'Hey, let's be careful about racists?', but I don't know what I expect these days.

Who cares what you "expect"? It's clear by now to anyone with sense that you're only trolling this forum with your phony teenage-Che-Guevera-cosplay "woke" act for your own amusement, and not interested in or capable of seriously discussing anything in any depth.

Anyway, knock yourself out. And I suppose I should be thanking you for giving me a solid reason to stop wasting my time reading this forum.

 

[dr. locrian]

Just a quick reminder to refrain from personal insults.


For what it's worth, I agree that Ligotti's brand of antinatalism is decidedly humanist. CATHR is discussed at some length on this recent podcast: Episode 222 - Zapf Dingbats (w/ Jon Padgett) | Miskatonic Musings

 

[ToALonelyPeace]

We must be talking about two different kinds of antinatalism throughout the last two pages.

Antinatalism argues that it's immoral to procreate even in ideal circumstances due to the certainty of death, illness and numerous other possible sufferings. It's a philosophy which one can adopt or reject, per individual's freedom.

The other antinatalism: regulations or sterilization programs to curb birthrate. As seen in this article, these programs are directed against poor black women.

I think it's clear the antinatalism we discussed before this doesn't involve a regulation program of any sort.

 

[Sad Marsh Ghost]

I don't want regulation to be involved at all. The word 'political' has much broader meaning than governmental authority and signifies an application of critical thinking regarding class, race, gender and sexuality, which I am applying to the hypothetical long struggle towards 'peak antinatalism' (no more births at all). I think the centuries of building towards peak antinatalism should be organised under an egalitarian and anti-suffering society rather than a 'FUCK everybody else as nothing matters' society as I think that would be completely antithetical to the actual substance behind Ligottian antinatalist morality.

I would go as far as to say that I have no interest in antinatalism without the humanist/empathy/political element, as then it inevitably becomes an excuse for awful selfishness, and as 'peak antinatalism' is unlikely to ever even occur this would mean spreading awful behaviour with no real benefit for the greater antinatalist cause.