Anti-Natalism; The call for population reduction is pure evil!

Natalism or pro-birth is a belief that promotes human reproduction. The term is taken from the Latin adjective form for "birth," natalis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalism

It may come as a surprise to the reader that many people today consider human reproduction to be an evil that must be limited or even abolished. Many environmentalists promote the idea of 'population reduction' in order to 'save the environment'.

Typically the vast majority of these people are socialists, and as such see each new individual as a further burden on their own lives and their own standard of living. They want nature to remain picturesque for their viewing pleasure, and the population to not exceed two children per female so that resources they do not own 'are not consumed too quickly'. In short, they greedily do not want other people to have children, because under their ideal system that would mean that they have less to enjoy.

Morality provides a standard of judgment by which the behaviors and actions of individuals can be evaluated; That which is good tends to promote wellbeing and that which is bad tends to promote unwellness. However, morality itself is based on a deeper premorality, which deals with the root of all action; survival.

The desire to survive or 'survival instinct' is not directly subject to reason. It is a given, already provided by the nature of life and of reality. The need for morality stems from the desire to survive, and indeed is part of the means to the attainment of the ends of survival. If, for example, one does not know that it is bad to drink contaminated water, then one may undertake this action, resulting in ill-health or even death.

Thus we may say that a valid morality is one based fundamentally on the distinction between life and death, where life is the good, and death is the bad, and that this indeed must be the case because if the inverse were true there would be no-one to espouse a theory of morality to begin with.

Therefore, given a valid moral code, the call for population reduction and anti-natalism is of the purest evil, and by extension so too is any doctrine which promotes anti-natalism; Socialism is thereby evil and environmentalism is thereby evil.

Simply put, to impede the survival and continuation of the human species for any reason is of the worst practical evil imaginable. To invert the moral code such that life is the bad and death is the good, is to contradict the very purpose of morality itself, and the very purpose of any action at all.

In my opinion we need many more people. Trillions of human beings living in a market society, in which each produces and exchanges goods and services toward the attainment of his or her own ends. A system which becomes better, faster, wealthier and more efficient the more people there are. A system based on the principles of individual liberty, free trade and property rights.

The industrial revolution was but the first step on the stairway to the universe. We confront a decision: do we step off the stairway and cease to exist? or do we march forward into the universe and unlock its mysteries? There is no middle ground; earth will not last forever. Life, or death, reason, or religion, commerce, or war, liberty, or socialism. This is the one choice, by its many faces, we humans must make.

In the end I believe, we, on the side of liberty, will succeed regardless. But for the sake of all that is human, why won't the rest of you join us?

 

As far as the goal sought is 'population reduction' there is no distinction between means. The end in itself is evil.

The distribution and availability of resources is inherent in the price system. Where there are too few available resources couples will 'not be able to afford to have children', thus there has never been a real issue of overpopulation in capitalist society.

 

You think we are just limited to the earth?

You think resources are simply a given? Known resources were discovered by entrepreneurs. Whale oil was replaced by kerosene, which was replaced by petroleum, which previously had been a toxic waste product no one could effectively get rid of.

'Resources' are a product of human cooperation in society, not a given. In their natural state they are worthless.

The universe contains enough energy to transform every last scrap of matter into exactly the products demanded by the economic democracy that is the market.

 

Resource availability, history shows, comes as a product of population expansion, not reduction. Fewer people means less manpower and fewer new ideas, which results in less production (due to division of labour) and less investment in future production, finally resulting in a lower standard of living for all and less efficient use of available resources as well as a lack of discovery of new resources.

Population reduction will lead in the very short run to the possibility of more resources per head, but given the inescapable fact that each Man produces more than he consumes, it is undeniable that the fewer people there are the fewer overall usable resources there will be.

It is an evil greed in that they are forcibly determining the lives of others based on their own subjective feeling toward population; A subjective feeling based on a misguided notion of social cooperation and the scarcity of resources.

I did not attach any higher being to morality. The morality I expound is one based on reason, not on faith. Just because morality in the past has been the domain of religion does not mean that a rational morality cannot exist. Indeed, it is imperative that we develop a rational system of morality to aid in social cooperation. If we do not the social structure of human relations will fall apart, resulting in grinding poverty for all. It is only though trade (which is dependent on social cooperation) that individuals are able to specialize and thus produce many times more value than otherwise they would be able to.

This is so obvious that it needs hardly be stated. You have every freedom to find a piece of wilderness and attempt to live your life without contact with others. No technology, no immunization, no medicine, no books, no electricity, no appliances, no steel beams. Just you and your two hands against the might of nature. The fact that you would opt for a hot shower, a modern shelter, and some warm homogenized milk, any day of the week, over such a bleak and depressing existence is testament to the incredible benefit each individual derives from being a member of the social web.

Again, you are entirely mistaken about the nature of morality and its necessary part in the viability of social cooperation.

Rational law may be thought of as a subset of rational morality. Those actions which invade the natural rights of others are both immoral and illegal under a system of natural law. One is free to do as one pleases with his own body, but that does not preclude him from immoral acts. Indeed, I would postulate that being unecessarily rude to others, or shooting up heroin, or refusing to provide charity to a starving man at your door is rationally immoral. However it is not rationally illegal, you own the property therefore you have the exclusive right to despence with it as you please.

This is but the most ridiculous case of equivocation I have ever seen. When we speak of life in terms of morality we mean human life, with a much lesser emphasis on any other form of life.

This is totally ridiculous. 'Needless excess'? You are falling into the very same fallacy you previously accused me of; imposing your own subjective valuation on the rest of the population. Do you have any evidence that it is needless, or unwarranted? Or indeed that people only 'need' things, and that other desires are to go unfulfilled simply because you yourself 'want' it to be so? A self contradictory and hypocritical stance at best.

You sir, are little better than a commoner. You see only what is at your feet and react accordingly. What you do not see is the incredible wealth of knowledge and technology that comes from the advancements in a [classically] liberal society. It does not matter that resources will eventually run out. They will be worthless anyway when there is no one left to even appraise their value. Planet earth is DOOMED by death from exploding star, if not by a myriad of other catastrophic events first.

We are in no danger of destroying the earth ourselves, indeed we improve it everyday in order to live on it. We build houses and powerplants and ships and satellites and factories and industry. What nature does not provide, we make ourselves. If anything we are at war with nature, and in a race against time to transfer some of our eggs from this single basket.

Well your attempted ex postfacto justifications here are equally applicable to homicide, genocide, tribal warfare and any other doctrine of mass culling of human lives. In fact you have validated my original point that supporters of this doctrine of 'population reduction' are greedily seeking control of others in order to benefit themselves.

I'm the extremist? You're the one calling for worship of 'mother earth' and the reduction of human population! I'm calling for what should naturally occur; the spread of the human species. And I am calling for it because it is both consistent with reason and with human nature.

No matter. Presumably you will have fewer children than the rest of us, and your blood lines will die out. This could be good for the species.

 

Actually it probably did assist. Big business tries to secure monopoly privileges by lobbying government about the environment all the time.

Of course [man made] global warming is complete bunk so the point is moot.

 

This is most typical problem espoused by pseudo intellectuals. You take things at your feet and extrapolate to infinitum without regard for past and present trends and variables which may affect the outcome.

It was predicted in the 70's that by the year 2000 the earth would run out of copper, iron, oil, food and fresh water. This has not happened. It is nowhere close to happening.

Are you really so foolish as not to recognize that the biosphere is a closed system, in which matter is transformed from a state of high potential energy into a state of low potential energy, then back again by both natural and human processes. There is no reasonable expectation that we will run out of energy, and therefore there is no reasonable expectation that we will run out of resources.

As we speak a revolution in farming technology which was previously unimaginable is taking place. The science of aeroponics is taking the industry by storm. No longer do we need farm land, or even great quantities of fresh water to grow food. Food can now be grown at low cost, in a warehouse using 95% less water than conventional growing methods, 50% less energy and significantly less fertilizer. As if that combination of benefits weren't good enough already, the crops can be isolated from disease and insects, grown year-round and in as large a quantity as the market requires.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeroponics

The only reason this technology was not developed sooner is that we HAD NO NEED of it until now. The greatest advantage of the human species is the ability to rapidly adapt, not just to almost any conditions, but also to adapt the environment itself to our own wants and needs. No other species does this. Humans are blessed with the ability to comprehend and change the environment they live in, via the application of the natural sciences, through reason and logic, to specific concrete cases.

As I say, it is the fallacy of the commoner to see only what currently exists and to base all future predictions on that transient state!

It will categorically not result in a higher standard of living. What use are higher wages if they buy less? Each human produces more than he consumes, therefore the excess in society is greater when there are more people. There is no denying this. The division of labour under a system of market capitalism provides the capacity for higher standards of living. Remove either the market, or the division of labour, or the people in the division of labour and EVERYONE (even the ruling elite) suffers.

The common worker today enjoys luxuries that even the kings of old Europe could not have imagined. And he enjoys these luxuries for mere pennies. Hot water, electricity, instantaneous communication, automobiles and electronic calculation.

Again you are labouring under the delusion of the commoner's fallacy. You need to understand that needs are filled by the market as they arise. Its a rational mode of thought based on the understanding that one person cannot know solutions to all things, but that out of all people someone will in all probability have a much better solution than you can ever come up with. That is assuming that there are still people in order to solve such problems, which there may not be if your foolish anti-natalism spreads far and wide.

And who will grant this privilege? I propose that you stand in line first for castration. Or are you a hypocrite?