4 ms·

Antinatalism is the default world view in most of the world. Birth rates are plummeting and most people are far more passionate arguing reasons to not have chi

Antinatalism is the default world view in most of the world. Birth rates are plummeting and most people are far more passionate arguing reasons to not have children than the opposite.

rayiner 1y ago
“Antinatalism” is arguably distinct phenomena in individualist societies like the U.S. versus collectivist societies like Asia. The latter were heavily propagandized in the 20th century to believe that lowering birth rates was key to societal progress. It’s not a moral stance against children.
- jimbokun 1y ago
  Maybe. It’s striking that birth rates are plummeting globally across very different cultures. It may be the reasons are completely different in different places, despite it happening everywhere all at once. Or there could be common causes that are at work all over the world.
  - lotsofpulp 1y ago
    That is because a woman’s cost of having a child is roughly the same across all cultures. Not just the biological costs and risks of pregnancy/childbirth/breastfeeding/infant rearing, but the financial cost that forces most to give up independence and have to rely on and compromise with someone else. If I was a woman, I could see having one kid, maybe two kids. Having 3 kids? Absolutely out of the question. I would never expect anyone to do what I saw my wife do (relatively uncomplicated pregnancies with secure finances) 3 or more times. And that is generally what you see, very few women having 3+ kids, and most with 0, 1, or 2. The large proportion of 0s and 1s really drags the TFR down to below replacement rate.
    - rayiner 1y ago
      > but the financial cost that forces most to give up independence and have to rely on and compromise with someone else Yeah, that’s the natural state of human existence. That you say that as if it’s something obviously detrimental is bizarre.
      - lotsofpulp 1y ago
        I am not saying it is bizarre, I am saying people try to avoid it because it reduces their power (obviously). It is the "natural" state when people don't have power, i.e. they don't have a choice. The change seen in the last 10 to 20 decades is what happens when people do have the power, i.e. they have the choice. What is natural or bizarre is merely a function of circumstance.
Johanx64 1y ago
It absolutely isn't default world view in most of the world. The reason people don't have children - most of them anyway - have nothing to do with antinatalism. Having children simply would be a massive, major inconvienience, and would negatively affect their quality of life, income, expenses, career prospects, housing, etc, etc. Ie. their decision making for having children and not having them is exactly the same. I want to, I don't want to (inconvenience, etc), there's no deeper reasoning behind it in most cases. Plummeting birth rates have little to do with antinatalism, and is a self-correcting problem. It will - without doubt - self correct. You just might not see the change in your lifetime.
- jimbokun 1y ago
  How is that not antinatalism? All of those circumstances you described were there throughout history. Yet people had many more children than today.
  - Johanx64 1y ago
    So you don't see the difference between: 1. I'm not going to have children because it's WRONG, unethical and unjustifiable to inflict serious harm and suffering (without their consent) 2. I'm not going to have children, because it will inconvenience ME, because then I'll have less time and money to jerk off and play video games, travel, etc? Or some temporary economic circumstance. Like even if you don't have children because you perceive the world to overpopulated at this moment in time, you're still pretty firmly in the (2) camp. There's quite a lot of people that claim to be antinatalists that are simply in the economic circumstances camp. And lots of things have changed now, contraceptives, less societal pressures, etc.
    - jimbokun 1y ago
      Those are both antinatalist arguments.
      - Johanx64 1y ago
        Have you bothered to, you know, do the bare minimum and check atleast the vulgaris definition of antinatalism.... on say, wikipedia? I'm not going to argue your private distorted perception and misunderstanding that falls completely outside of even the most pedestrian understanding of what antinatalism is - even the wikipedia, etc. (2) isn't an antinatalist argument. Now an antinatalist might try to convince a regular Joe-Schmoe not to have kids, by pointing out how much of an inconvenience it might be. And Joe-Schmoe might not have kids, because it would be incovenient for him and get in the way of more important things, like playing video games and jerking off.... or point out how expensive it would be economically and such. Which means Joe-Schmoe does not operate on, or even considers or contemplates the antinatalist argument at any point, in any shape or form. Which is to say Joe-Schmoe would absolutely have kids if it cost him less, there were different economical social pressures and so on, or if he simply... wanted to. Focal point here is the Joey-Schmoey and what he WANTS. That's all there is to it. That however does not make it into an antinatalist argument, nor does Joey Schmoey think in any antinatalist capacity at all. The fact I have to explain this also makes me suspect that... sadly not a lot of cerebral action is going here either....
mensetmanusman 1y ago
They aren’t anti-natalists, all the data from the people who answer why is that they are materialists. Having kids means less stuff.
- jimbokun 1y ago
  That sounds like an antinatalist argument.
  - mensetmanusman 1y ago
    Only as a second order phenomenon, intent matters.

Antinatalism is the default world view in most of the world. Birth rates are plummeting and most people are far more passionate arguing reasons to not have children than the opposite.

rayiner 1y ago

“Antinatalism” is arguably distinct phenomena in individualist societies like the U.S. versus collectivist societies like Asia. The latter were heavily propagandized in the 20th century to believe that lowering birth rates was key to societal progress. It’s not a moral stance against children.

jimbokun 1y ago
Maybe. It’s striking that birth rates are plummeting globally across very different cultures. It may be the reasons are completely different in different places, despite it happening everywhere all at once. Or there could be common causes that are at work all over the world.
- lotsofpulp 1y ago
  That is because a woman’s cost of having a child is roughly the same across all cultures. Not just the biological costs and risks of pregnancy/childbirth/breastfeeding/infant rearing, but the financial cost that forces most to give up independence and have to rely on and compromise with someone else. If I was a woman, I could see having one kid, maybe two kids. Having 3 kids? Absolutely out of the question. I would never expect anyone to do what I saw my wife do (relatively uncomplicated pregnancies with secure finances) 3 or more times. And that is generally what you see, very few women having 3+ kids, and most with 0, 1, or 2. The large proportion of 0s and 1s really drags the TFR down to below replacement rate.
  - rayiner 1y ago
    > but the financial cost that forces most to give up independence and have to rely on and compromise with someone else Yeah, that’s the natural state of human existence. That you say that as if it’s something obviously detrimental is bizarre.
    - lotsofpulp 1y ago
      I am not saying it is bizarre, I am saying people try to avoid it because it reduces their power (obviously). It is the "natural" state when people don't have power, i.e. they don't have a choice. The change seen in the last 10 to 20 decades is what happens when people do have the power, i.e. they have the choice. What is natural or bizarre is merely a function of circumstance.

Johanx64 1y ago

It absolutely isn't default world view in most of the world. The reason people don't have children - most of them anyway - have nothing to do with antinatalism. Having children simply would be a massive, major inconvienience, and would negatively affect their quality of life, income, expenses, career prospects, housing, etc, etc. Ie. their decision making for having children and not having them is exactly the same. I want to, I don't want to (inconvenience, etc), there's no deeper reasoning behind it in most cases. Plummeting birth rates have little to do with antinatalism, and is a self-correcting problem. It will - without doubt - self correct. You just might not see the change in your lifetime.

jimbokun 1y ago
How is that not antinatalism? All of those circumstances you described were there throughout history. Yet people had many more children than today.
- Johanx64 1y ago
  So you don't see the difference between: 1. I'm not going to have children because it's WRONG, unethical and unjustifiable to inflict serious harm and suffering (without their consent) 2. I'm not going to have children, because it will inconvenience ME, because then I'll have less time and money to jerk off and play video games, travel, etc? Or some temporary economic circumstance. Like even if you don't have children because you perceive the world to overpopulated at this moment in time, you're still pretty firmly in the (2) camp. There's quite a lot of people that claim to be antinatalists that are simply in the economic circumstances camp. And lots of things have changed now, contraceptives, less societal pressures, etc.
  - jimbokun 1y ago
    Those are both antinatalist arguments.
    - Johanx64 1y ago
      Have you bothered to, you know, do the bare minimum and check atleast the vulgaris definition of antinatalism.... on say, wikipedia? I'm not going to argue your private distorted perception and misunderstanding that falls completely outside of even the most pedestrian understanding of what antinatalism is - even the wikipedia, etc. (2) isn't an antinatalist argument. Now an antinatalist might try to convince a regular Joe-Schmoe not to have kids, by pointing out how much of an inconvenience it might be. And Joe-Schmoe might not have kids, because it would be incovenient for him and get in the way of more important things, like playing video games and jerking off.... or point out how expensive it would be economically and such. Which means Joe-Schmoe does not operate on, or even considers or contemplates the antinatalist argument at any point, in any shape or form. Which is to say Joe-Schmoe would absolutely have kids if it cost him less, there were different economical social pressures and so on, or if he simply... wanted to. Focal point here is the Joey-Schmoey and what he WANTS. That's all there is to it. That however does not make it into an antinatalist argument, nor does Joey Schmoey think in any antinatalist capacity at all. The fact I have to explain this also makes me suspect that... sadly not a lot of cerebral action is going here either....

mensetmanusman 1y ago

They aren’t anti-natalists, all the data from the people who answer why is that they are materialists. Having kids means less stuff.

jimbokun 1y ago
That sounds like an antinatalist argument.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  Only as a second order phenomenon, intent matters.