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?

 

[Repentless]

Devil's Advocate: It's not just being greedy, it is survival instinct itself. If the population gets out of hand (it's increasing at an alarming rate) it could get to a point where there isn't enough food and other resources to sustain itself.

Regarding the good/evil argument: Anti-Natalism means placing limits on birth, not killing people off. It still allows for life, it just regulates it in a way that ensures there's a world left for it to be born in to. Yes, there are some NWO extremists that may believe in killing people off, but there's a difference between the destruction of life and letting people die naturally.

 

Devil's Advocate: It's not just being greedy, it is survival instinct itself. If the population gets out of hand (it's increasing at an alarming rate) it could get to a point where there isn't enough food and other resources to sustain itself.

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.

 

[wowhamba]

I totally agree with what you just posted. I just wish the whole world did the same.

I guess humans won't learn they hit rock bottom, majority of the people won't hate socialism unless they're starving and their kids are too.
Same goes with fascism, Nazism and all other collectivist ideologies, their ignorance will get the best of them.

Same goes with religion.

The people are going to have a very rude awakening, it's only a matter of time.

 

[PwB Hun]

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'.

Well yes, I would say population reduction would reduction would save the environment. We as humans have a tendency to eat a lot and use a lot, and having less of us logically leads to more resources being available.

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.

How is it greedy when these people would be subjected to the same rule? And you are purposefully limiting the possible benefits of population reduction so as to better support your point.

"Nature remaining picturesque" sounds vain enough to demonize but still sounds vaguely accurate. How typical of you.

And the resources made available would be consumed by everyone, including the people who did not having the child.

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.

I'll post an entire thread on why morality doesn't exist right after this, but the below first sentence sums it up for the purposes of this argument:
Morality is very far from standard(unlike what you would have us believe), it is easily changed, and therefore, no one can be judged by it, because it doesn't truly exist. They can only be judged by others (such as you, or me).

When you attach your opinion to a "higher being", in this case, morality, you sneakily influence people in the same way that the government uses their laws, and the religions their gods.

It is a disservice to your purported pro-freedom ideology to tell people what they are doing is morally wrong. If you think it is wrong to be anti-natal, then by all means think that. But when you attach your beliefs to a higher power than yourself, you wrongly and innacurately make your beliefs the "right" ones, when there is no such thing as right, without proof. You are nothing better than a communist or priest, sythe .

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.

Environtalism promotes more life than it demotes by simple math:

For every human unborn, there are many more bacteria, bugs, plants, and animals that live. And that's fact.

You also fail to cut a line between population reduction and population control. I'm certainly against reduction. I'm not suggesting aborting the future mouths and killing off the useless mouths that are already alive. But I do have a problem with the needless excess in non economic matters of society that is leading the world's next generations into future hell. Humans are terrible for the planet by definition, just like government is terrible for humans. So why not make it so that the planet has a lot more time to support us, rather than fuck it over as fast as possible.

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.

Except we promote a better life for those who are alive, and there's the belief that what we sacrifice is made up by more benefits than there were sacrifices.

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?

Leave out your ludicrous, extremist bullshit next time, Sythe. I love the free market but I don't love worshipping it.

 

[The Fat Controller]

Any society based on the principle of individual materialistic gain will self-destruct in time.

 

[PwB Hun]

Any society based on the principle of individual materialistic gain will self-destruct in time.

No, it won't, because it is everyone's interest to maintain stability.

 

[The Fat Controller]

No, it won't, because it is everyone's interest to maintain stability.

So, you're saying that economic growth will slow by itself for the interests of the community?

 

[PwB Hun]

So, you're saying that economic growth will slow by itself for the interests of the community?

No, I'm saying I have faith in laissez-faire.

 

[Repentless]

No, it won't, because it is everyone's interest to maintain stability.

The problem is that people see personal gain as > stability, or ignore the issue entirely.

 

[The Fat Controller]

No, I'm saying I have faith in laissez-faire.

You mean you think the earth is an infinite resource and dumping ground, that private vice always yields public benefits?

 

[PwB Hun]

You mean you think the earth is an infinite resource and dumping ground, that private vice always yields public benefits?

I mean I think that people who understand economics and supply and demand will recognize the profitability and sound business sense in being environmental and non excessive. Which they do. and the companies that dont are failing as we speak. have faith.

 

[The Fat Controller]

I mean I think that people who understand economics and supply and demand will recognize the profitability and sound business sense in being environmental and non excessive. Which they do. and the companies that dont are failing as we speak. have faith.

Ah, so government regulation and coercion have nothing to do with businesses greening-up. Taxpayer funded R&D has nothing to do with the development of new technologies designed to reduce environmental damage. And Exxon-mobil was the organization which alerted the scientific community to the dangers of burning hydrocarbons

 

[PwB Hun]

Ah, so government regulation and coercion have nothing to do with businesses greening-up. Taxpayer funded R&D has nothing to do with the development of new technologies designed to reduce environmental damage. And Exxon-mobil was the organization which alerted the scientific community to the dangers of burning hydrocarbons

Regulation? No.

Coercion? yes.

And look, mr. liberal, by all means continue thinking that way. As regards the environment, you're largely right.


But by and large? Government is a disgusting institution. It is a necesary evil, but that doesnt make it any less evil. Take off your blinders, wannabe hippy.

 

[The Fat Controller]

I'm a "liberal" and "wannabe hippy"? It's wonderful how distorted some definitions have become.

I'm not a fan of the government either, you're just making a crass assumption.

 

You mean you think the earth is an infinite resource and dumping ground, that private vice always yields public benefits?

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.

 

Well yes, I would say population reduction would reduction would save the environment. We as humans have a tendency to eat a lot and use a lot, and having less of us logically leads to more resources being available.

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.

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.

How is it greedy when these people would be subjected to the same rule? And you are purposefully limiting the possible benefits of population reduction so as to better support your point.

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'll post an entire thread on why morality doesn't exist right after this, but the below first sentence sums it up for the purposes of this argument:
Morality is very far from standard(unlike what you would have us believe), it is easily changed, and therefore, no one can be judged by it, because it doesn't truly exist. They can only be judged by others (such as you, or me).

When you attach your opinion to a "higher being", in this case, morality, you sneakily influence people in the same way that the government uses their laws, and the religions their gods.

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.

It is a disservice to your purported pro-freedom ideology to tell people what they are doing is morally wrong. If you think it is wrong to be anti-natal, then by all means think that. But when you attach your beliefs to a higher power than yourself, you wrongly and innacurately make your beliefs the "right" ones, when there is no such thing as right, without proof. You are nothing better than a communist or priest, sythe .

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.

Environtalism promotes more life than it demotes by simple math:

For every human unborn, there are many more bacteria, bugs, plants, and animals that live. And that's fact.

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.

You also fail to cut a line between population reduction and population control. I'm certainly against reduction. I'm not suggesting aborting the future mouths and killing off the useless mouths that are already alive. But I do have a problem with the needless excess in non economic matters of society that is leading the world's next generations into future hell. Humans are terrible for the planet by definition, just like government is terrible for humans. So why not make it so that the planet has a lot more time to support us, rather than fuck it over as fast as possible.

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.

Except we promote a better life for those who are alive, and there's the belief that what we sacrifice is made up by more benefits than there were sacrifices.

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.

Leave out your ludicrous, extremist bullshit next time, Sythe. I love the free market but I don't love worshipping it.

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.

 

Ah, so government regulation and coercion have nothing to do with businesses greening-up. Taxpayer funded R&D has nothing to do with the development of new technologies designed to reduce environmental damage. And Exxon-mobil was the organization which alerted the scientific community to the dangers of burning hydrocarbons

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.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

Let me explain this to you as clearly as I can, it really is not that difficult to understand. I see you classified reproduction as "life" and population control as "death," so lets observe the two outcomes (keep in mind I cannot predict the future, but by reason we can roughly estimate what will happen):

Life: we will keep reproducing continuously until this planet runs out of resources and there will not be enough farm land to feed the large population. The soil will be depleted of all its minerals and we would not even be able to grow food anymore. Disease will spread easily due to the large concentrated number of people inhabiting this planet. So this "life" option will eventually lead us to death, in massive numbers.

Death: We prevent people from being born. This is not death since the people aren't even born yet for us to kill them. Eventually if we carry out with this, population will go down, and the number of workers will go down. Low wage jobs will then go into high demand and the wages will increase, which will substantially improve the quality of life for the average person. This period will let trees and other species reproduce and increase in numbers, which will restore the environment. The number of people will then go down to a level which we will think will be reasonable, and then we will try to sustain it with on and off population control, sort of like controlling the economy.

So as you can see, the "life" option will eventually lead to population control, but in a more violent and unfavorable way: suffering and death. We cannot simply keep reproducing continuously forever and expect the Earth to sustain the massive population. There really is no option for no population control (counting out the option of terraforming Mars and inhabiting it, but it will take centuries to transform the atmosphere and the landscape of an entire planet, so this option is irrelevant), it will happen no matter what, let it be by our own actions, or the actions of the planet. Survival means the avoidance of death, and we only have two options: population control by having less kids, and population control by death. The first option clearly avoids death, so therefore that is our only option for survival.

I believe that reproduction should be a privilege. With reproduction out of control, we are indirectly affecting future generations of mankind. With the invention and better dispersion of birth control methods, we could eliminate the burden of children in poor African and middle eastern nations where birth control is hard to come by. Simply eliminating these unwanted births would increase the number of children that financially stable families could have, so virtually there wouldn't be a limit of two children per family.

Yes this may be highly against many people's morals, but with the survival and well-being of future generations of mankind at stake, the people need to come to their senses or they will inevitably be the cause of a mass extermination of the human race.

 

Let me explain this to you as clearly as I can, it really is not that difficult to understand. I see you classified reproduction as "life" and population control as "death," so lets observe the two outcomes (keep in mind I cannot predict the future, but by reason we can roughly estimate what will happen):

Life: we will keep reproducing continuously until this planet runs out of resources and there will not be enough farm land to feed the large population. The soil will be depleted of all its minerals and we would not even be able to grow food anymore. Disease will spread easily due to the large concentrated number of people inhabiting this planet. So this "life" option will eventually lead us to death, in massive numbers.

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!

Death: We prevent people from being born. This is not death since the people aren't even born yet for us to kill them. Eventually if we carry out with this, population will go down, and the number of workers will go down. Low wage jobs will then go into high demand and the wages will increase, which will substantially improve the quality of life for the average person. This period will let trees and other species reproduce and increase in numbers, which will restore the environment. The number of people will then go down to a level which we will think will be reasonable, and then we will try to sustain it with on and off population control, sort of like controlling the economy.

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.

So as you can see, the "life" option will eventually lead to population control, but in a more violent and unfavorable way: suffering and death. We cannot simply keep reproducing continuously forever and expect the Earth to sustain the massive population. There really is no option for no population control (counting out the option of terraforming Mars and inhabiting it, but it will take centuries to transform the atmosphere and the landscape of an entire planet, so this option is irrelevant), it will happen no matter what, let it be by our own actions, or the actions of the planet. Survival means the avoidance of death, and we only have two options: population control by having less kids, and population control by death. The first option clearly avoids death, so therefore that is our only option for survival.

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.

I believe that reproduction should be a privilege. With reproduction out of control, we are indirectly affecting future generations of mankind.

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