US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Anti-natalist

[matt cardin]

Well, now.

Quote

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York suggested this weekend that it may not be ethical to have children, given the difficulties that climate change will likely cause in the years to come. In a live stream on her Instagram, Ocasio suggested to her 2.5 million followers that the answer was not clear. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Asks: Is Is Still OK to Have Kids in the Face of Climate Change? Newsweek, February 25, 2019

Jerry Dunleavy on Twitter:

(Note that my sharing of the video from the specific Twitter user represented above doesn't imply endorsement of his or anybody else's views. I was just using the best available source of the actual live stream segment.)

Here's a partial transcript of her comments:

Quote

When it comes to climate in particular, we're actually screwed. There is a global threat to the planet. A global threat. Our planet is going to face disaster if we don’t turn this ship around. And so it’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult, and it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it okay to still have children? Not just financially, because people are graduating with twenty, thirty, one hundred thousand dollars of student loan debt, so they can’t even afford to have kids in the house, but there’s also just this basic moral question, like, what do we do?

AOC is great. Nice to see a future president display such intelligence and empathy. Remember those?

[cannibal cop]

Quote Originally Posted by matt cardin

Quote And so it’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult, and it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: Is it okay to still have children? Not just financially, because people are graduating with twenty, thirty, one hundred thousand dollars of student loan debt, so they can’t even afford to have kids in the house, but there’s also just this basic moral question, like, what do we do?

I'm seeing attitudes like this expressed much more frequently in mainstream forums these days, and fair enough, but I don't think any of it ever quite approaches actual antinatalism, and probably with good reason, as it remains a cause the merest hint of sympathy with which would unfortunately sound the death knell for any realistic candidate's present or future political aspirations.

This is clearer in the shorter quote:

Quote

“There’s scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult. And it does lead young people to have a legitimate question: is it okay to still have children?”

This isn't antinatalism. As every antinatalist knows, it has never been okay to have children. Of course, this doesn't mean she doesn't necessarily sympathize with antinatalist arguments, but on this evidence I don't think anyone could "accuse" her of being one, either, as you can probably expect some of her more vociferous haters to try to do sooner or later.

Still, it is a little heartening to see these subjects being broached and this kind of discussion being had out in the open for once, not just because they are important in themselves, but because it is necessary as a first step toward bringing actual, unconditional antinatalism into the public sphere and the blessed Marketplace of Ideas.

[bendk]

I saw this earlier today on the Scott Adams Periscope.

It seems to me more of a plea to address Climate Change than an endorsement of anti-natalism.

Ligottian antinatalism and a desire not to live in a point-of-no-return spoiled environment both come from a desire to mitigate suffering, but as societal antinatalism is considerably less likely to be achieved recently than ethical regulation of big business, which is itself a ridiculously tough battle with the odds largely against it, I think it does well for Ligottian antinatalists to prioritise environmental concerns rather than fall prey to the temptation of an 'antinatalism or nothing' spectrum of concern, which ultimately works against the ethos of reducing suffering.

[Revenant]

I have no issues with capitalism itself. I have huge problems with corporatism. And the former does not have to lead to the latter.


Oh God. I just posted a political statement.


Pardon me while I wash my mouth out with soap.

There is no ethical consumption under capitalism, but people like AOC, Sanders and Corbyn seek to dramatically improve things and have my support in lieu of an imminent revolution.

Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Veech

I would love to inhabit an ideal utopia where we could all play video games all day and spend money that grows on magical trees grown in some magical government lab. But that's not reality. The real world sucks, which is why we should either adapt accordingly, or cease reproducing altogether.

This has nothing to do with socialism, which is about giving the workers who work the hardest more rights in the face of atrocious levels of exploitation and not running society for the lazy few, which is what capitalism is for. Also the magic money tree is literally a meme. Tax the super rich their fair share instead of *checks calculations* nothing.

Quote

The only way to create a functional system is to raise the price of tuition in order to deter people from going to college.

Making society's opportunities even more stacked in favour of the rich is a really bad idea. We have the resources to fund healthcare and education if we bootlick the super rich less than we do now. It doesn't even need to entirely stop, though it should, as it's an economically wasteful and morally unethical way of structuring social hierarchies.

[cannibal cop]

Quote Originally Posted by Revenant

Oh God. I just posted a political statement. Pardon me while I wash my mouth out with soap.

Go with God, my child. And now let's all take a quiet moment to reflect on what we've learned here.

(And if you guessed "precisely nothing" then-- DING-DING-DING--you're exactly right! Now you get to choose between what's rolling around and mewling inside the box, or whatever it is that's squatting noisomely behind Door Number 2! Show 'em what they won, Johnny!)

[marioneta]

At least she is raising the issue and putting it forward. It's a conversation we need to address in light of our changing climate. Right now water is being rationed where I live because we are in a serious drought, a drought which has a severity not typical for this time of year.

[cannibal cop]

Don't get me wrong, I love what AOC is doing here, and have a great deal of sympathy for the Green New Deal and its proponents (and correspondingly little for its most dismissive opponents).

(Although I would also like to see some of the more prominent environmentalists stressing the central role of human population growth in intensifying and accelerating all forms of environmental destruction, not just climate change. David Attenborough and David Suzuki, for instance, both used to be highly outspoken on the issue, but now it seems like they've almost given up the fight.)

But this is also sobering from an antinatalist standpoint, because it shows how far society has to go before it will admit even the most tangentially AN-related arguments into the political sphere. If you want a look at the seething irrational hostility the subject of antinatalism can still arouse in a purportedly mainstream audience, look no further than the comments after the Guardian article on the Raphael Samuel story. A more venomous outpouring of pure mindless kneejerk vitriol would be hard to find anywhere online, I kid you not.