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.
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
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.