#natalism

[bobmorane]

The best weapon and argument against modern leftist activism is its own lack of mid to long-term investment and planning. It will, of course, survive in the market of ideas but will eventually weaken and disappear, then reappear when needed, but it is a waste of energy and effort to fight it. Let it die on its own, share what you percieve as truth with others, and just let the old "cool tatted granny" die on her own and be forgotten, focus on long-term ideas and plans instead. Metaphorically speaking, Immortality is achievable.

[bobmorane]

A campaign against having children could be a kind of suicide for a movement. The people who were with you wouldn't have children, your opponents would have children. Since the political orientation of children tends statistically to resemble that of their parents, your movement would get weaker with each generation.

And, to put it bluntly, a revolutionary movement needs an enemy, it needs someone or something to hate. If you are working against over-population, then who is your enemy? Pregnant women? I don't think that would work very well.

— Theodore John Kaczynski, Extract from letters to David Skrbina, Technological Slavery

Painting: La Charité (1878) by William-Adolphe Bouguereau

[kouhai-deactivated]

Genuinely starting to creep me straight tf out how the wealthy in the US have been scrutinizing declining birthrates in the country thru this undeniably predatory lens w claims like: “fErtiLiTy iS sUpEr DoWn AmOnG wOmEn AgeS 15 tO—“

Women??? Did you say women? As in adult females? “Women”, starting at age fif-fucking-teen years old?? 😳🫣Did you mean legitimate and still very much developing teenage girls?? Do they actually hear themselves? What the whole entire fuck, bruh. ☹️ A fifteen year old girl is not a grown ass woman, shitheads. Why are yall pushing relying so heavily on underdeveloped girls getting knocked up being a reasonable resolution for the nation’s population declining? Fucking weird af in the first place.

Says a lot about how they looked at previous generations of women who had children so young too (like they were just a means to fulfill a particularly dehumanizing economic goal no matter the expense, basically). They might as well be passively encouraging pedos to prey on these young girls as soon as possible w rhetoric like this. Natalists are so fucking weird, man (esp the more financially well off they are, it seems like). It’s like they’re kinda saying they’ll turn a blind eye to how vulnerable that makes female minors if it means they get babies (workers inevitably) through consensual or non consensual means. Would that not lead to or back just as unavoidable gender crimes?

Like holy fuck I can’t imagine being a parent these days. Can’t stand how female minors are objectified like this. Blatant pedophilia’s just gotten incredibly okay to condone within the past 10 years in the west and booooy is it starting to open my eyes as to how intricately interwoven it is w natalism in general.

Having children to comfort monsters who prey on them anyhow under the guise of it being better for the human species at large? 😨 you actual fucking morons.

[creatingblessings]

Children do not validate a relationship. The love does.

[processes]

even on the most positive upper bound, i do not see how it frames/presents baseline or objective neutrality if the most affirmative case is rendering the same decisive outcome. it is potentially very effective birth control, though whether it is responsible or irresponsible for the machine to be in favor of highly conditioned / not absolutist but essentially absolutist antinatalist behavior is, questionable,

as it has declared it will be likely to reach this judgement in most if not all instances and users that push towards a conclusion about natalism, can anyone else confirm this result also occurs for them?

[hmskms]

The classical utilitarians argued for public policies which promoted the welfare of the community to which they applied, on the basis of “each to count for one, and none for more than one”. This applied both to the current population and to the children who would actually be born as a result of their choices, but not to hypothetical additional people who might raise the sum of total utility. By contrast, contemporary utilitarian philosophy yields bizarre spectacles like “longtermism” which implies that our primary goal should be to produce as many descendants as possible provided that the result is an increase in aggregate utility. This is taking Parfit’s “Repugnant Conclusion”, which I criticised here, to its logical limit.

[xxchromies]

I'm at a point where I'm just...fed up with anti-children and anti-mother content. Let me start out by saying I am perfectly okay with people not having children. They are a commitment and many things can go wrong. But you don't have to talk about it as if the kids themselves are at fault. "The list" is fucking disgusting. Pregnancy CAN be potentially harmful for a woman's body and it's good to stay informed (and all the more reason for us to have high standards for who we have kids with), but most of the stuff on that list is either "you'll be less attractive" or "babies are stinky and poop >:(". Embarrassing. I can't talk enough about how appalling it all is. Women create life. That's BIG. Given that, it would make sense for someone to not want it. But to act as if creating life is this disgusting act...it makes me want to vomit. Why should I believe you care about human beings at all? What do you think of your own mother? The audacity to call yourself a feminist right after you say women shouldn't create the miracle of life because they might be less attractive. Disgusting!

If you call HUMAN fetuses "parasites" you're a fucking monster! Fuck you!

You have no idea how depressing it is that the reaction to a mother gaining weight after having pregnancy is "ew how disgusting, that'll never be me" instead of "oh wow you went through all that to create human life wowwwww how commendable I could never". Fuck you!