I think I would like to start a campaign to push people to have more children.
couple other things to note, education (especially of women) and industrialization seem to correlate with having less kids
so rather than argue with them I would try to live in less industrialized and educated settings perhaps in order to havd lots of kids. hard to argue with people who live in environments that are kind of anti-natalist by design
other thing is that perhaps tragically this movement will likely fail, with the dumbest and poorest continuing to have lots of kids. So they’re kind of failing to address this problem and only perhaps making it worse by getting smarter wealthier people to not have kids. not sure is this socioeconomic dynamic is at play
so rather than argue with them I would try to live in less industrialized and educated settings perhaps in order to havd lots of kids. hard to argue with people who live in environments that are kind of anti-natalist by design
Isn’t that kinda excepting defeat? I would like to see women encouraged to have children and marry while they are in class instead of told to wait, wait, wait.
If it is accepting defeat, perhaps I retract the statement and agree with your sentiment that this moveent is wrong and should be challenged as much as they are challenging “natalism”.
But I guess I mean that it is hard for drunks to stay sober when being in a bar atmosphere. The social and environmental factors may make having more kids challenging.
I suspect that with more freedom, more people would have more resources with which they could have more kids. It’s a vicious cycle of poverty, socialist policies and government regulations, which make things expensive and discourage and incentivize people to not have families.
or destructive movements like feminism. I guess I think that you could maybe more indirectly attack antinatalism by attacking these harmful movements rather than respond to antinatalist movements themselves. As well as encouraging people to be Christian which indirectly rejects some of the antinatalist talking points.
We, I think both views can be right. We need to find a way to get those who promote bad values, those who are unfit, etc., to have fewer kids. And we need to get those with better values and more to offer to society to have more kids.
It’s interesting that the opening image depicts a White woman and a possibly Biracial man. Those are the types of couples that, to a point, I’d like to see have fewer kids.
I don’t wish someone else would have fewer kids. We are about to be in a demographic crises. The population has a looming cliff.
Long term, I think it’s necessary and useful for the population to shrink. The cliff isn’t a bad thing, it just looks that way if you’re worried about the next hour instead of the next 20 years.
The powers that be want the population to grow forever, for the power of the individual and the value of the individual to shrink so they can be marginalized. They don’t want to pay for laborers, they don’t want people asking for good working conditions, they want people scrambling for places to live, and for limited resources, and for a shrinking planet that they own and meter out in tiny proportions.
The biggest increases in human rights and worker’s rights and pay came about because the population shrank. The black death famously led to increases in worker’s rights. World War 2 was followed by a boom in worker’s rights because there weren’t enough people for all the work that needed to be done and employers had to fight over workers.
Getting past the medium-term negative consequences of a baby boom without a follow-up baby boom to cushion the demographic blow hurts because you have all these old people to take care of, but eventually you have a younger generation with lots of places to live, more resources to live off of cumulatively, and lots of jobs to choose from.
The fact that people aren’t having kids right now is part of a feedback loop. People are having to work so hard just to put a roof over their heads and food on the table, of course people aren’t having kids. Then you have the cruel thing governments are demanding – that instead of having a mother or father raising your kids, you have an institution raise them so you can work instead, and you should thank the state for providing such an institution.
Now, I’m not saying don’t have kids. What I’ve come to believe holding my son is that it’s an important part of our lives and writing The Graysonian Ethic made me realize that someday you’ll be on your deathbed, and it won’t be lofty ideals holding your hand as you slip into oblivion, it won’t be grand ambitions to change the world that will speak at your funeral, it won’t be doing what some ivory tower idealogue says is the right thing that will think of you after you’re gone. I’ll be the people you actually form real connections with, especially your kids.
What I’m saying is that the “numbers always have to go up” mentality is dangerous and ultimately not a good thing for individuals. We can grow the GDP forever, but doing it this way will only hurt most people.
agenda 21 is all about reducing the population. I don’t want them to win. but looking at the numbers, they have. The gap is to wide to close. Thanos has snapped his fingers. I hope it does bring about a beautiful time for our grand children. I bet they will find a way to make them slaves though.
I do. Only those who have something to offer society should have kids. That is the only true path to freedom, IMHO. Then get rid of globalism.
We don’t need a bunch of retarded savages making babies and ruining the world. If they were out of the way, more intelligent Whites and Asians would be more willing and able to have more.
Those that are smart enough and resourceful enough to have children will pass on their genes to the next generation. If white people and Asians choose to die out by not valuing life, children and family its their own fault and so be it.
We’ve taught a generation of women to go against their biology, hate being married and having children and thus deserve to go extinct.
Personally I’ll have as many kids as I possible can.
Again, I believe that unfit people should be encouraged to have less, even castrated if necessary. Then the more intelligent will feel freer to have more.
So I honestly feel that Blacks and liberals should be forced to have fewer kids.
The test that determines if one is unfit or not is reproduction. Nature is taking its course. If you have the power to personally castrate them then do it, otherwise you better get to having children.
Thank you for your input. I’m bowing out.
I appreciate the candid responses. Its been on my mind lately. I apologize if I come off over zelous.
I think its a great movement !.. for the rest of us
Maybe the woke gene can go extinct for good
Families are more conservative
Anyone who wants a family, and good for the family is a conservative these days. The left fell off a cliff.
Looking at how lefty teachers behave, I am sure you won’t want those people near anyones’ kids.
maybe a good movement for leftists to enbrace? less leftists?
one more thought: the antinatalist philosophy probably contains heresies, according to Christian judgment.
Monks or religious often do develop a life of celibacy and don’t have kids. So there was a place for people who don’t want kids, in Christendom.
Also there is a belief in heaven which is the everlasting absence of suffering, or at least which is thought superior to nonexistence. Hence they seem to implicitly deny the existence of the afterlife in their philosophy. Their view of life is that is is only suffering and then people die and do not exist. So it’s a secular or anti-Christian worldview and therefore lacks logic of Christian thought.
The goal of life is to know, love, and serve God in this life and be with Him in the next. Fundamentally the anti-natalist worldview seems to lack this vision. Perhaps the movement Christians might want to see in response is to encourage people to live good lives more. Or discussing what makes life meaningful and worth living.
I may need to create a standalone post on this as it is a frustrating recurring topic that older generations haven’t addressed much as far as I know.
The goal of life is to know, love, and serve God in this life and be with Him in the next.
I would like to say that this is a noble goal indeed but it isn’t written anywhere. Religion gives us understanding, a reference to relate to one another and perspective (where we are in the universe). Some people derive meaning but in Christianity as far as I can tell that meaning is never actually spelled out. Probably because it isn’t meant to be the same for every person.
I do know that one of the very first things that the Bible said to do was to be fruitful and multiply.
This is not that.
it isn’t written anywhere
well, in the Bible the highest commandment is to love God with all your heart. but I guess the people who don’t know the Gospel don’t know that. Although to some extent the moral principles are “written on the heart” as I think it says in Romans.
meaning is never actually spelled out
maybe we can live meaningless lives, and unhappy ones. Neither seem necessary for salvation. Heaven can give meaning and happiness in the next life.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
