A Concord (New Hampshire) Monitor Perspective on Antinatalism

[VeganSmokerOneironaut]

The only link I could think of with objectivism is that Ayn Rand was an anti-familialist, and an advocate of the childfree lifesyle. To quote her directly;

“The respectable family that supports worthless relatives or covers up their crimes in order to "protect the family name"(as if the moral stature of one man could be damaged by the actions of another)
-the bum who boasts that his great-grandfather was an empire-builder, or the small-town spinster who boasts that her maternal great-uncle was a state senator and her third cousin gave a concert at carnegie hall (as if the achievement of one man could rub off on the mediocrity of another)
-the parents who search geneological trees in order to evaluate their prospective son-in-law.
-the celebrity who starts his autobiography with a detailed account of his family history
-All these are samples of racism.”

Do any of you like philosopher John Gray? He rejects and criticizes both capitalism and socialism/communism as utopian universalist views that attempt to create an impossible world. Essentially, as the various groups mentioned may indicate, antinatalism is fundamentally incompatible with with an optimistic philosophy. SJWs and Alt-Righters have both called me a troll for suggesting people not have children. (or that there is anything immoral about it)

Human beings are essentially selfish, the child's fate is never in consideration, the ''choice'' is always the ''choice'' of someone only indirectly effected. (the parent)

Quote Originally Posted by VeganSmokerOneironaut

Do any of you like philosopher John Gray? He rejects and criticizes both capitalism and socialism/communism as utopian universalist views that attempt to create an impossible world. Essentially, as the various groups mentioned may indicate, antinatalism is fundamentally incompatible with with an optimistic philosophy. SJWs and Alt-Righters have both called me a troll for suggesting people not have children. (or that there is anything immoral about it)

What kind of economy does he advocate instead, if any at all?

I'm a socialist, also an antinatalist, and I was never particularly bothered by any supposed contradiction between the goals of either.

Let's assume that, after the workers have seized the means of production, the market system remains intact, which wIll probably be the dominant form of socialism. As markets are inherently unstable, going through fits of booms and busts, there is still room for unfavorable economic conditions to inspire folks not to procreate, at least till we find a way to transcend the market, so to speak.

And of course the fact remains that the human species will eventually go extinct, regardless of how well an economic system functions for the welfare of the populous.

Quote

Human beings are essentially selfish, the child's fate is never in consideration, the ''choice'' is always the ''choice'' of someone only indirectly effected. (the parent)

Well, what about women who choose to have an abortion because of unfavorable economic conditions, their perceived parental incompetence, the inevitability that the child may be abused by her spouse, or discovers the child will be terminally ill on arrival?

Surely the fate of the child is considered in those circumstances?

[VeganSmokerOneironaut]

Quote Originally Posted by Nirvana In Karma

What kind of economy does he advocate instead, if any at all? I'm a socialist, also an antinatalist, and I was never particularly bothered by any supposed contradiction between the goals of either. Let's assume that, after the workers have seized the means of production, the market system remains intact, which wIll probably be the dominant form of socialism. As markets are inherently unstable, going through fits of booms and busts, there is still room for unfavorable economic conditions to inspire folks not to procreate, at least till we find a way to transcend the market, so to speak. And of course the fact remains that the human species will eventually go extinct, regardless of how well an economic system functions for the welfare of the populous.

I don't know of any that he advocates, he has a rather pessimistic belief of what is achievable. Essentially, one of his big themes is that progress is a myth, and that it is impossible to create a better world of tomorrow. (Regimes change masks, but fundamentally stay the same. From Louis the XVI to Napoleon, Nicholas II to Lenin)

That's a good point, Nirvana in Karma, I suppose it was rash of me to say optimistic philosophies are completely incompatible with AN. Do you believe the government, if by some lucky coincidence, should carry out antinatalist policies? The sad thing is that I would contest people breed less under unfavorable conditions, if anything, they tend to breed more. Its only under affluence they dial back a bit. (As we see in South Korea, Japan, Europe)

What do you mean by transcend the market?

Also, not to be contrarian, but as a socialist Nirvana in Karma, I'm wondering what you think about the interplay between socialism and human nature? Its interesting to note that Ligotti identifies as a socialist, but don't you think that a government that revolves around helping people contradicts human nature? There are a lot of intelligent socialists, but to me socialism seems too optimistic that humans are anything, but selfish psychopathic bastards. (to paraphrase Hobbes and Freud. ;) )

Quote Originally Posted by Nirvana In Karma

Well, what about women who choose to have an abortion because of unfavorable economic conditions, their perceived parental incompetence, the inevitability that the child may be abused by her spouse, or discovers the child will be terminally ill on arrival? Surely the fate of the child is considered in those circumstances?

Ah, well the problem was using the word ''never'' a rash word as well. But wouldn't you agree that those four things are rare reasons for people not to have children? and that most discussions as Benatar, Inmendham and others have pointed out revolve around the parent? It would be nice if more potential parents thought like that, but from my experience it seems like a lot of women have mildly Marian delusions and would give birth in hell if nobody stopped them. For example, in a recent documentary I watched, a homeless Columbian women who literally lives knee-deep in sewer filth, was on her third child during the filming of the documentary and and did not have the children BEFORE going homeless. Your thoughts are appreciated.