It’s basically the philosophy that it is wrong to have children. But what is the material cause to this belief, along with other beliefs that antinatalists have? (including efilism, basically the philosophy that all life should end)
It’s basically the philosophy that it is wrong to have children. But what is the material cause to this belief, along with other beliefs that antinatalists have? (including efilism, basically the philosophy that all life should end)
That’s not really accurate. What you’re describing is the movement against “overpopulation.” That movement often uses concerns about resource shortages as a backdoor into eugenics and upholding the current liberal order.
Antinatalists aren’t worried about those concerns, primarily. Their argument is that because all life experiences suffering, creating life is inherently cruel and immoral. IMHO that argument has some overlap with Marxism in that it’s an egalitarian concern for all people in society.
Id disagree personally, ive always read anti-natalists as being more in the doomer/neitzche type of vibe, which is more pre-occupied with defeatism.
I see marxism as a optimistic ideology, its the anti-thesis of this idea. Sure, we want to get rid of the nuclear family, but we dont want to get rid of the family. Cant support workers without supporting single mothers, cant be a communist without wanting every child fed.
The question shouldnt be ‘life is suffering, how can we end it’ but ‘how can we improve life’
That’s a fair question, but “Ensuring that fewer people experience suffering by creating fewer people” is a completely fair answer. It just rubs people the wrong way because it runs up against our unscientific, irrational need to reproduce
I dunno, that just kinda sounds like it could easily turn into eugenics.
Id rather just let people breed as they want and then just build housing to facilitate the projected growth with a surplus; trying to legislate births just leads to a lot of unforseen consequences.
I dont think its irrational to want to reproduce, its literally one of the most biologically rational desires. Its fine if people dont, but to call the act of reproduction irrational is a strange take.
What does “biologically rational” mean?
Do you mean “This is what’s rational for me, as an organism” ? Seems to me that a lot of self-serving behavior could be classified as “biologically rational.”
But as Marxists, do we not strive to transcend that kind of short-term, isolationist thinking? Do we not try to take a long view, grounded in compassion and egalitarianism?
So, too, do the antinatalists. Both groups understand that you can’t have a society if the only people you care about are your kin. That is to say, “biological rationalism”-- whatever that is-- has no place in Marxism
Theoretically yes, and i did read such antinatalists, but many of them when questioned further inevitably express neomalthusian sentiments. As in, it’s not exclusive and actually very close to one another and the overlap is high.
Yes, there are some folks who overlap, but it’s not inevitable. There are principled antinatalists who don’t want anything to do with the Malthusians. David Benatar is a good example. His question is, “is it moral to create a being that can & will suffer?” That’s a question that has nothing to do with the size of the population/resources.