I don't want children. And I hope so much my family won't procreate. But I won't debate anyone to convince them that procreating is evil. I am not sure about the ethics of procreating. I think there are good reasons not to do it.
The problem is how would antinatalism actually be implemented? I think most people would not want laws that prohibit procreation. Otherwise this could end up in fascism.
It had to a decision based on free will. More education, less children? Maybe. Wealthier societies, less children. Maybe.
So far no issues. But what is with the massive problem of demographics and social systems collapsing? Could AI solve the problem? I rather doubt it. It looks like a hype. Robotics could help some older people. But it does not solve all issues. Maybe mass immigration? I think more immigration would be good. But it also comes with downsides. It could destabilize countries, too heterogenous societies can have problems. Even if you disagree with these two statements. Far right parties would instrumentalize mass immigration and use this topic to fearmonger about the replacement of citizens. In some way it would be a replacement.
Wouldn't a part of the population resist the antinatalism movement? Does the win of antinatalism must be absolute? Or are less people already a win? Wouldn't smarter more compassionate people not procreate? While ignorant and selfish people keep procreating? And these people would preach the same exact mentality to their own children? Okay kids can have their own beliefs. But I think the biological instincts are very strong. It is unlikely humakind becomes extinct solely by following antinatalism. Would a compromise be: less people, with more resources, with better life quality? Accepting that some want children no matter what. Could it trigger wars if there was a polarization over this topic?
One last thing. How does one follow antinatalism without becoming a nihilist going down a rabbit hole out of suffering and introspection about the dark sides of life? Isn't that often a hindrance of being a functioning member of society? Wouldn't many people become dysfunctional reminding themselves of their selfish biological instincts? There are certain biases healthy, non depressed people have. And one might be that life is good. Wouldn't many become depressed? Some only keep going by hoping their children will have it better than themselves. What would these people hope for instead? Would these people still contribute to society? Or would a collapse of society might follow if most people followed this philosophy? I am not sure. There are less children already in wealthy, western country without an immediate collapse of society. But antinatalism is not the reason for the decline of the population. Maybe partly? But most people also in these country don't have the attitude life was not fulfilling or good.
The problem is how would antinatalism actually be implemented? I think most people would not want laws that prohibit procreation. Otherwise this could end up in fascism.
It had to a decision based on free will. More education, less children? Maybe. Wealthier societies, less children. Maybe.
So far no issues. But what is with the massive problem of demographics and social systems collapsing? Could AI solve the problem? I rather doubt it. It looks like a hype. Robotics could help some older people. But it does not solve all issues. Maybe mass immigration? I think more immigration would be good. But it also comes with downsides. It could destabilize countries, too heterogenous societies can have problems. Even if you disagree with these two statements. Far right parties would instrumentalize mass immigration and use this topic to fearmonger about the replacement of citizens. In some way it would be a replacement.
Wouldn't a part of the population resist the antinatalism movement? Does the win of antinatalism must be absolute? Or are less people already a win? Wouldn't smarter more compassionate people not procreate? While ignorant and selfish people keep procreating? And these people would preach the same exact mentality to their own children? Okay kids can have their own beliefs. But I think the biological instincts are very strong. It is unlikely humakind becomes extinct solely by following antinatalism. Would a compromise be: less people, with more resources, with better life quality? Accepting that some want children no matter what. Could it trigger wars if there was a polarization over this topic?
One last thing. How does one follow antinatalism without becoming a nihilist going down a rabbit hole out of suffering and introspection about the dark sides of life? Isn't that often a hindrance of being a functioning member of society? Wouldn't many people become dysfunctional reminding themselves of their selfish biological instincts? There are certain biases healthy, non depressed people have. And one might be that life is good. Wouldn't many become depressed? Some only keep going by hoping their children will have it better than themselves. What would these people hope for instead? Would these people still contribute to society? Or would a collapse of society might follow if most people followed this philosophy? I am not sure. There are less children already in wealthy, western country without an immediate collapse of society. But antinatalism is not the reason for the decline of the population. Maybe partly? But most people also in these country don't have the attitude life was not fulfilling or good.
