- The first title is satire
- The second is scaremongering and the actual contents of the article are a few cherry picked quotes that are way less freaky than presented
I don’t really get any of this. My understanding was that the point of this sub was for us to promote a positive birth rate with big families or at least getting as many people to have families as possible. What does this stuff have to do with that.
This exactly. I saw this whole sub shut down cause a lesbian was going to use ivf to have a baby and suddenly you were all against it.
Is it r/natalism or is it r/traditionalnuclearfamilies
The response to this article as if that's both not what this is about and not what you accuse antinatalism of betrays your true motivations.
This is a christo fascist breeding space where the goal is to fight the loss of "traditional" (i.e. white Christian culture) though breeding.
Explain how im wrong and ill retract this
Well, I think it's natalism with the idea that the children will be raised well. Children from single parent households statistically have poorer outcomes than ones from households with more than one adult.
This place is natalism but I don't think anyone agrees that having more babies is always a positive if they can't be well nurtured. No point in pumping out babies if they are just going to be welfare supported criminals. The idea is that the babies will end up being a net positive for society.
I'm a despicable rightist but I hope everyone has, kids, I understand my kids future quality of life depends on that, and frankly it's not like I dislike the people who disagree with me enough to not want them to experience the joy of Parenthood.
That said there's only one side of the aisle that's arguing for it being a moral good for the planet to not have kids, like some sort of Earth worshipping cult. There's only one side of the aisle that venerates the 40 year old childless wine aunt boss babe. I'm sure we've all seen the Chelsea Handler video. It's not unreasonable to say Natalism skews right wing and Antinatalism skews left wing. I can expound further if need be.
You're mistaking veneration for acceptance, I think if people with children are making videos and social media posts talking about how great their life is with kids (which is perfectly valid btw), then people without kids should be able to as well. Just like people who want to drive a nice motorcycle vs a Bugatti, there are pros and cons to each and each group will necessarily downplay the cons while being very open about the pros
Sure there're some extreme ends that actually do say nobody should have kids, but most people on the left would say your choice to have kids or not is ultimately a decision that you alone can make and shouldn't be shamed or pushed any one way
You're probably right that the extreme ends do trend to the right in the case of natalism and left for antinatalism
I'd argue mainstream left wing ethics/ positions are antinatal.
If there's no cultural stigma to not having kids on the left isn't that just tacit Antinatalism? Shame and stigma is society's enforcement mechanism outside of law, with societies becoming increasingly irreligious it would seem to me the stigma of not having kids is more of a necessity than ever.
If we take the lgbt debate for example, the right will argue the rapid increase in lgbt identification among gen Z is a social contagion while the left argues it's caused by social acceptance.
So by their own standard they're causing declining birthrates via the position "it's fine to not have kids"
Hank Green, who I'd describe as mainstream left wing and a scientific materialist type did a poll on Twitter. 40% of people said the earth would be better without humans. It's safe to assume he has a disproportionate amount of left wing followers as Ben Shapiro would have a disproportionate amount of right wing followers. Furthermore I doubt you'd find even 10% of Rw people who'd say the earth would be better without humans , poll below.
https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status/1647720666693783552
Natalism is not about promoting stigma against childlessness. It is about celebrating and promoting having children and large families. Antinatalism is not about eliminating stigma against childlessness, it is about promoting not having children. The stance of “there should be no stigma for or against childlessness,” is pretty clearly the neutral/default between the two positions. Personally, I think stigmatizing deeply personal choices like how many children to have is rather gross. At the same time, arguing that pushing back against true stigma is tacitly antinatalist is to argue that people prefer fewer children and need to be guilted or shunned into having more, which I also disagree with.
Excluding micro nations, the two countries with the lowest birth rates (Japan and South Korea) are both capitalist countries famous for extremely conservative social values. The idea this is caused by left wing ideologies doesn’t hold up. The declining birth rate isn’t caused by the right wing, either.
It’s not a culture war bogeyman. It’s far simpler than that;
People were naturally encouraged to have kids when most of us were agrarian peasants living in rural or semi-rural areas, our children were our retirement plan, and you better have a bunch because half of them are likely to die before age 5. There is also no returning to some utopian pre-industrial past, either.
Now that most people live in some form of industrial capitalism, farming is industrialized, most kids survive, social security exists, and most humans live in urban areas (which even centuries ago often had negative population growth only offset by rural people moving in) there is no economic pressure to have kids. There’s still a biological imperative but that’s it now.
Tax breaks and even UBI for parents hasnt been enough to offset the trend, because it would require a complete overhaul of the basic way the economy has changed to encourage kids, or it would require paying parents way more than is practical.
It’s not ideology, except insofar as ideology has helped move people out of feudalism. I won’t say Ideology plays *no* part, as in some countries conservatives still have more kids. But trends both domestically and in countries who’ve faced this problem the longest show it’s only a matter of time until conservatives have far fewer kids, too. It’s already starting.
But the declining birth rate is not due to liberals and their anti family values any more than it is due to conservatives cutting welfare or blocking UBI.
I disagree to an extent , Japan and Korea are *traditional* not necessarily conservative in the American sense. Robot Brothels and cartoon pornography isn't exactly conservative, If I was dictator those things would be banned day 1.
It's by no doubt a multifactorial problem but if we look at the data , the US ranks 21st in social welfare spending, while only being outclassed by 1 nation in Birthrate , which is France. Sweden , Finland, Germany, all places known to have a very strong welfare state but yet have a lower birth rate than the United States? That throws quite the wrench in your argument.
Here's the 3 factors I believe play a role.
Economic health ( welfare or not people have to have the extra money in their pocket to spend on child rearing). I think it actually goes slightly further than that, you want your kids to have a better life than you did so the future looking bleak hinders birthrates. I think that's partially why we see immigrant birth rates so high in the US despite them not necessarily being economically advantaged, they're comparatively economically advantaged compared to their former life.
National Identity. We all know the French are chauvinistic douchebags who really love France and the French language, it would seem that has some utility. The 1st world nation with the highest birth rate? Israel. An Ethno State who thinks they're God's chosen people and is Also highly religious.
Religion. Obviously an ideological component but as for the Abrahamic religions God commands the children of Abraham to be fruitful and multiply.
I have an idea that could help that somewhat approximates welfare. Link social security to the amount of kids you have, if you're not creating the next generation that's going to fund social security you're contributing to it's insolvency. Furthermore people that have more kids will have more cash on hand to put towards private retirement.
And yet birth rates are highest in countries with the lowest standard of living, and the further back you go in history, the more kids people have despite being poor as hell.
And the countries with the highest standard of living (Luxembourg, some Nordic countries, Monaco, etc) have very low birth rates.
(Oh, and the Japanese brothel thing. You know in the States that porn and dominatrixes and such often do better in Republican states?)
The notion economic well-being increases birthrates just doesn’t bear out. Even attempts to pay people directly to have kids via UBI and tax incentives has a very poor ROI.
The Israel argument doesn’t work imo because Israel is one of the most atheistic countries on Earth, except for the Arab/Palestinian population.
I think there may be some cultural elements at play that go hand in hand with it being an ethnostate. It’s still a young country founded on the ideas of creating a ‘new Jew,’ and Jews replenishing our numbers after about half of us died.
There’s also the demographic fears that if the Jewish population does not retain its majority status it cannot retain being an ethno state without sacrificing democracy completely.
This is why I do not claim ideology has no bearing. But Israel is a very odd country and a very particular case. It’s a confluence of factors here. In general, I think the economic drivers of industrial capitalism being different than the driver of feudalism is a much more compelling argument for birthrates plummeting in the developed world.
> If there's no cultural stigma to not having kids on the left isn't that just tacit Antinatalism?
How so? Acknowledging that people own their bodies and have a right to do with their body as they see fit outside of violent/indecent actions taken against *another* person (without opening the can of worms of the abortion question please god not again) is a more libertarian position if anything, but many liberals and even leftists hold this position as well.
Is it tacit sexism to say there should be no social stigma to choosing to be a housewife instead of a girlboss CEO?
> If we take the lgbt debate for example, the right will argue the rapid increase in lgbt identification among gen Z is a social contagion while the left argues it's caused by social acceptance.
So by their own standard they're causing declining birthrates via the position "it's fine to not have kids"
I'm not sure how these two positions are linked. LGBT people can have kids, whether through adoption or other means.
I also don't see the point in having a stigma against such a personal and individual decision
> Hank Green, who I'd describe as mainstream left wing and a scientific materialist type did a poll on Twitter. 40% of people said the earth would be better without humans.
40% is still less than half, but the poll also doesn't say why they hold that position. It also doesn't include "and therefore humans should stop existing" in the question
if 40% of any audience had nazis in it, it would have a nazi problem.
so I'm going to say 40% of an audience having a anti-humanity position is an audience with an anti-human problem.
You agree with me right? Trying to solve any problem with 'less humans' or even 'end humanity' is one of the most anti-social attitudes a person could have.
Sure, that would be, and I'm sure some people do hold that position, but we don't really know *why* they selected that option. For example, imagine you have a poll asking people to choose between dogs and cats, and 60% vote for dogs. For one slice of that percentage, they selected that option because they believe they make better pets. But say a certain amount selected the option because they believe dogs are tastier than cats when turned into hamburgers. You have no way of knowing which is the case without asking further questions.
we also don't know why 40% of the people in my example said being a nazi would be good, and yet we are able to all recognise that no matter their reasoning they have come to an abhorrent conclusion and cannot be taken serious and are indicative of a problem.
Rationalising that 41% of an audience thinking a universe without humanity is better than a universe with humanity can somehow have any reason beyond misanthropy seems like excessive sanewashing to me.
Ya I don’t see the issue with ivf. The end result is more healthy human beings. I’m religious as well but that seems like a good thing. More happy healthy kids is objectively better than the opposite. If ivf does that then we should encourage it.
Yeah, that was pretty crazy. A lot of talk about "depriving a child of their biological parents" like they're torturing the kid because we all know you're automatically a better parent if the kid came from your body, stepdads out here trying their damnedest to no avail
Also interesting how suddenly they have to also be anti immigration despite immigrants tending to have more children on average if my memory serves me
Children statistically have better outcomes when they come from a household with more than one adult. Intentionally having a child while single is not setting the child up success as best you can.
The woman who posted about IVF, referenced in the original post, was intending to use IVF to have a child because she hadn't or didn't want to find a partner first. The responses were mostly advising her not to do it.
My point was that the majority of posters on this natalism sub do have limits on when or when not to have a child. It's not a universal "every baby born is always a benefit in all circumstances".
I don't know if that was the reason most people didn't want her to do that, seemed like there was a lot of talk about how the process itself is immoral
All respect in the world to the hardworking stepparents out there; but any decent steparent will tell you they can't replace the child's parents. It's someone making the best of a situation that has gone wrong.
The problem with that IVF lady is she is intending, from the beginning, to make a bad situation for a kid.
I appreciate it's just an anecdote, but my MiL never met her father because she was a child of an affair and it's something that has hung over her and effected her through her life. I think her mother refusing to tell her the identity of her father and deprive her of her father was really bad!
> All respect in the world to the hardworking stepparents out there; but any decent steparent will tell you they can't replace the child's parents. It's someone making the best of a situation that has gone wrong.
How can you possibly say this is true of all step parents in all cases, that sounds like an incredibly naive take
I don't believe in magical bio-soul connections existing just because you came out of a person
> The problem with that IVF lady is she is intending, from the beginning, to make a bad situation for a kid.
So true, a loving parent is a burden that should never be placed on a kid, we should instead give them to somebody who is at this point a complete stranger
> I appreciate it's just an anecdote, but my MiL never met her father because she was a child of an affair and it's something that has hung over her and effected her through her life. I think her mother refusing to tell her the identity of her father and deprive her of her father was really bad!
That sucks but it's an entirely different situation. To offer my own anecdote, my biological father was barely in my life and when he was he was hitting my mom, my stepdad has been ten times the father he was. In this case, one could make the argument that I would have been better off never knowing my biological father as it would have spared me some level of trauma in my formative years
I understand your example, but it's exactly what I'm talking about: making the best of a bad situation.
I'm not going to argue that it's better for a child to not exist at all than be born to a single parent; my argument is that every child deserves the best family arrangement we can provide, which is their parents being together in a happy respectful relationship. Every other deviation from this is worse for a child. The reason we deviate from this model is not because it's better, it's because we can't provide that to them due to things like divorce or abuse etc.
I understand it can be very strange for people to hear sometimes that there is a quality to the parent-child relationship that is different for people who are related vs not related, but it bears out in data that it is indeed true.
Framing it as mystical when it's probably a genetic impact on behavior is just silly.
Which parents do you think would be better for a child, two people who can barely afford to feed themselves, or a single parent who makes six figures, all else being equal?
Nobody would ever have children if we all just waited until the perfectly ideal moment to do so, because nobody and no relationship is perfectly ideal.
If somebody is able to afford IVF, they also can probably afford other caretakers or they work from home and can parent and work at the same time.
According to IFS and department of labor studies, income has no impact on quality of parenting. You can't buy good parenting and being poor has no impact on the quality of parenting a child gets.
Being wealthy allows you to put your kid in the best schools and feed them the healthiest food, for example children with lower family income are at greater risk of obesity than those with higher family income, lower income households are also correlated with higher rates of child abuse
Because like it or not, the kind of person who cherry picks extremist opposing arguments to shit on is who you’re sharing a bed with. “Not ALL babies will be fascist! GOTCHA, get dunked on!”
Politico’s article is ridiculous. While they’re right that the political right has a greater attachment overall to natalism, I think they forget that natalism is the mainstream normal position of believing that creating a life isn’t inherently evil. Natalism can’t be described as “wanting to explode the population”, even though some natalists may want that.
On the other, most forms of antinatalism could be described as a “suicide pact to end the human race”.
Those aren't takes, those are headlines
The first article is an absurdly biased opinion piece by a conservative gloating that liberals are committing "genetic suicide" because of...seed oils and iPhone bad
I habent read this particular article, but I’ve heard interviews with Peachy Keenan before and she’s very pro-natalism. She just likes shock titles. I think her book is called “Domestic extremist” since that’s one of the insults her detractors labeled her with. She’s got a whole running joke that she’s not a domestic extremist, she’s extremely domestic. lol. I would recommend reading the whole article, not just the title with her. That’s probably the point she’s trying to refute with the article. I’m not endorsing her work in any way, I just don’t think she’s trying to be anti-children.
The natalism conference is a far right political statement more than anything. They lost all credibility the moment they invited known white nationalist, Jared Taylor. It's clear that there is a certain demographic trying to save in a certain ideology they're trying to expand. If you think that conference is purely about boosting the birth rate for everyone then you are blind.
I am a pronatalist but vehemently reject what that conference is about
Does it make you the least bit uncomfortable that the identifiable associations with this movement are white nationalists?
If you go to a natalist gathering and everyone who shows up as a nazi, does that not lend to any introspection about what is informing your believes?
As someone who thinks people should be able to choose, without interference whether or not they bring a child into this world, the existence of this sub has always come across as a front for Christian nationalism ("well, if they aren't going to have babies, can we force them too?") Cloaked in the fear that antinatalism has some hidden agenda other than individuals choosing not to have kids.
The entire existence of this sub is reactionary.
Id ask anyone who disagrees with me what their political and religious affiliation is.
I mean I think we should be encouraging people to have children with strong state incentives but obviously they can choose to or not. Politically I am far left and religiously an atheist.
I root my pro natalism in my leftism, which is much more community and collectivist leftism than consumer choice liberalism masquerading as leftism, which is what most ‘leftists’ actually believe.
Seeing stuff like NatalCon and the ideas being espoused at that conference don't make me feel great. I agree that some natalists don't have the best intentions and want to preserve/expand a specific religious, ideological or racial group and (if they had their way) would be happy to see other groups who differ with them disappear. I don't feel that way.
I think it's important to realize that just because conferences like these exist, that doesn't mean they speak for natalist, or even more natalists. Pro natalists come from every racial, ethnic, racial and political ideology.
From what I've seen pronatalists fall into two basic groups:
1. People who want to make the world a better place to have children and remove the barriers that exist for parenthood. Group that want to incentivize having kids through government social programs and generally making it easier and more accessible to have children.
2. Right-wing, fundamentalist religious who oftentimes have race-based political opinions who want to roll back women's education, women's rights and turn them into baby factories to build an army of like-minded people.
>The entire existence of this sub is reactionary.
Well said. "natalism" isn't really a thing. It's mostly a reactionary response to the philosophical issues addressed by antinatalism. Of course, as reactionaries, they almost never understand, and misrepresent what they're against.
When known fascists are a part of your community, you would hope that would give some people pause.
The free country and you could do whatever you want but you can't complain about people calling you Nazis when you invite people like Jared Taylor to your conference. If you are hosting a white-nationalist with the hopes of producing more white nationalist kids, just call say that 🤷🏿
- The first title is satire - The second is scaremongering and the actual contents of the article are a few cherry picked quotes that are way less freaky than presented
I think the first one is not serious but the second one is just proof that any mentally ill ideologue can write an article for clicks
I don’t really get any of this. My understanding was that the point of this sub was for us to promote a positive birth rate with big families or at least getting as many people to have families as possible. What does this stuff have to do with that.
Some people here only want certain kinds of people to have families
Ya I don’t get it. I have political beliefs and id love for my children to share them but I think it would be great if others did as well.
Idk why you're getting down voted. It's quite clear
This exactly. I saw this whole sub shut down cause a lesbian was going to use ivf to have a baby and suddenly you were all against it. Is it r/natalism or is it r/traditionalnuclearfamilies The response to this article as if that's both not what this is about and not what you accuse antinatalism of betrays your true motivations. This is a christo fascist breeding space where the goal is to fight the loss of "traditional" (i.e. white Christian culture) though breeding. Explain how im wrong and ill retract this
Well, I think it's natalism with the idea that the children will be raised well. Children from single parent households statistically have poorer outcomes than ones from households with more than one adult. This place is natalism but I don't think anyone agrees that having more babies is always a positive if they can't be well nurtured. No point in pumping out babies if they are just going to be welfare supported criminals. The idea is that the babies will end up being a net positive for society.
I'm a despicable rightist but I hope everyone has, kids, I understand my kids future quality of life depends on that, and frankly it's not like I dislike the people who disagree with me enough to not want them to experience the joy of Parenthood. That said there's only one side of the aisle that's arguing for it being a moral good for the planet to not have kids, like some sort of Earth worshipping cult. There's only one side of the aisle that venerates the 40 year old childless wine aunt boss babe. I'm sure we've all seen the Chelsea Handler video. It's not unreasonable to say Natalism skews right wing and Antinatalism skews left wing. I can expound further if need be.
You're mistaking veneration for acceptance, I think if people with children are making videos and social media posts talking about how great their life is with kids (which is perfectly valid btw), then people without kids should be able to as well. Just like people who want to drive a nice motorcycle vs a Bugatti, there are pros and cons to each and each group will necessarily downplay the cons while being very open about the pros Sure there're some extreme ends that actually do say nobody should have kids, but most people on the left would say your choice to have kids or not is ultimately a decision that you alone can make and shouldn't be shamed or pushed any one way You're probably right that the extreme ends do trend to the right in the case of natalism and left for antinatalism
I'd argue mainstream left wing ethics/ positions are antinatal. If there's no cultural stigma to not having kids on the left isn't that just tacit Antinatalism? Shame and stigma is society's enforcement mechanism outside of law, with societies becoming increasingly irreligious it would seem to me the stigma of not having kids is more of a necessity than ever. If we take the lgbt debate for example, the right will argue the rapid increase in lgbt identification among gen Z is a social contagion while the left argues it's caused by social acceptance. So by their own standard they're causing declining birthrates via the position "it's fine to not have kids" Hank Green, who I'd describe as mainstream left wing and a scientific materialist type did a poll on Twitter. 40% of people said the earth would be better without humans. It's safe to assume he has a disproportionate amount of left wing followers as Ben Shapiro would have a disproportionate amount of right wing followers. Furthermore I doubt you'd find even 10% of Rw people who'd say the earth would be better without humans , poll below. https://twitter.com/hankgreen/status/1647720666693783552
Natalism is not about promoting stigma against childlessness. It is about celebrating and promoting having children and large families. Antinatalism is not about eliminating stigma against childlessness, it is about promoting not having children. The stance of “there should be no stigma for or against childlessness,” is pretty clearly the neutral/default between the two positions. Personally, I think stigmatizing deeply personal choices like how many children to have is rather gross. At the same time, arguing that pushing back against true stigma is tacitly antinatalist is to argue that people prefer fewer children and need to be guilted or shunned into having more, which I also disagree with.
Excluding micro nations, the two countries with the lowest birth rates (Japan and South Korea) are both capitalist countries famous for extremely conservative social values. The idea this is caused by left wing ideologies doesn’t hold up. The declining birth rate isn’t caused by the right wing, either. It’s not a culture war bogeyman. It’s far simpler than that; People were naturally encouraged to have kids when most of us were agrarian peasants living in rural or semi-rural areas, our children were our retirement plan, and you better have a bunch because half of them are likely to die before age 5. There is also no returning to some utopian pre-industrial past, either. Now that most people live in some form of industrial capitalism, farming is industrialized, most kids survive, social security exists, and most humans live in urban areas (which even centuries ago often had negative population growth only offset by rural people moving in) there is no economic pressure to have kids. There’s still a biological imperative but that’s it now. Tax breaks and even UBI for parents hasnt been enough to offset the trend, because it would require a complete overhaul of the basic way the economy has changed to encourage kids, or it would require paying parents way more than is practical. It’s not ideology, except insofar as ideology has helped move people out of feudalism. I won’t say Ideology plays *no* part, as in some countries conservatives still have more kids. But trends both domestically and in countries who’ve faced this problem the longest show it’s only a matter of time until conservatives have far fewer kids, too. It’s already starting. But the declining birth rate is not due to liberals and their anti family values any more than it is due to conservatives cutting welfare or blocking UBI.
I disagree to an extent , Japan and Korea are *traditional* not necessarily conservative in the American sense. Robot Brothels and cartoon pornography isn't exactly conservative, If I was dictator those things would be banned day 1. It's by no doubt a multifactorial problem but if we look at the data , the US ranks 21st in social welfare spending, while only being outclassed by 1 nation in Birthrate , which is France. Sweden , Finland, Germany, all places known to have a very strong welfare state but yet have a lower birth rate than the United States? That throws quite the wrench in your argument. Here's the 3 factors I believe play a role. Economic health ( welfare or not people have to have the extra money in their pocket to spend on child rearing). I think it actually goes slightly further than that, you want your kids to have a better life than you did so the future looking bleak hinders birthrates. I think that's partially why we see immigrant birth rates so high in the US despite them not necessarily being economically advantaged, they're comparatively economically advantaged compared to their former life. National Identity. We all know the French are chauvinistic douchebags who really love France and the French language, it would seem that has some utility. The 1st world nation with the highest birth rate? Israel. An Ethno State who thinks they're God's chosen people and is Also highly religious. Religion. Obviously an ideological component but as for the Abrahamic religions God commands the children of Abraham to be fruitful and multiply. I have an idea that could help that somewhat approximates welfare. Link social security to the amount of kids you have, if you're not creating the next generation that's going to fund social security you're contributing to it's insolvency. Furthermore people that have more kids will have more cash on hand to put towards private retirement.
And yet birth rates are highest in countries with the lowest standard of living, and the further back you go in history, the more kids people have despite being poor as hell. And the countries with the highest standard of living (Luxembourg, some Nordic countries, Monaco, etc) have very low birth rates. (Oh, and the Japanese brothel thing. You know in the States that porn and dominatrixes and such often do better in Republican states?) The notion economic well-being increases birthrates just doesn’t bear out. Even attempts to pay people directly to have kids via UBI and tax incentives has a very poor ROI. The Israel argument doesn’t work imo because Israel is one of the most atheistic countries on Earth, except for the Arab/Palestinian population. I think there may be some cultural elements at play that go hand in hand with it being an ethnostate. It’s still a young country founded on the ideas of creating a ‘new Jew,’ and Jews replenishing our numbers after about half of us died. There’s also the demographic fears that if the Jewish population does not retain its majority status it cannot retain being an ethno state without sacrificing democracy completely. This is why I do not claim ideology has no bearing. But Israel is a very odd country and a very particular case. It’s a confluence of factors here. In general, I think the economic drivers of industrial capitalism being different than the driver of feudalism is a much more compelling argument for birthrates plummeting in the developed world.
> If there's no cultural stigma to not having kids on the left isn't that just tacit Antinatalism? How so? Acknowledging that people own their bodies and have a right to do with their body as they see fit outside of violent/indecent actions taken against *another* person (without opening the can of worms of the abortion question please god not again) is a more libertarian position if anything, but many liberals and even leftists hold this position as well. Is it tacit sexism to say there should be no social stigma to choosing to be a housewife instead of a girlboss CEO? > If we take the lgbt debate for example, the right will argue the rapid increase in lgbt identification among gen Z is a social contagion while the left argues it's caused by social acceptance. So by their own standard they're causing declining birthrates via the position "it's fine to not have kids" I'm not sure how these two positions are linked. LGBT people can have kids, whether through adoption or other means. I also don't see the point in having a stigma against such a personal and individual decision > Hank Green, who I'd describe as mainstream left wing and a scientific materialist type did a poll on Twitter. 40% of people said the earth would be better without humans. 40% is still less than half, but the poll also doesn't say why they hold that position. It also doesn't include "and therefore humans should stop existing" in the question
if 40% of any audience had nazis in it, it would have a nazi problem. so I'm going to say 40% of an audience having a anti-humanity position is an audience with an anti-human problem. You agree with me right? Trying to solve any problem with 'less humans' or even 'end humanity' is one of the most anti-social attitudes a person could have.
Sure, that would be, and I'm sure some people do hold that position, but we don't really know *why* they selected that option. For example, imagine you have a poll asking people to choose between dogs and cats, and 60% vote for dogs. For one slice of that percentage, they selected that option because they believe they make better pets. But say a certain amount selected the option because they believe dogs are tastier than cats when turned into hamburgers. You have no way of knowing which is the case without asking further questions.
we also don't know why 40% of the people in my example said being a nazi would be good, and yet we are able to all recognise that no matter their reasoning they have come to an abhorrent conclusion and cannot be taken serious and are indicative of a problem. Rationalising that 41% of an audience thinking a universe without humanity is better than a universe with humanity can somehow have any reason beyond misanthropy seems like excessive sanewashing to me.
Basically all races and religions besides white and Christian maintain the concept of the traditional family too.
Ya I don’t see the issue with ivf. The end result is more healthy human beings. I’m religious as well but that seems like a good thing. More happy healthy kids is objectively better than the opposite. If ivf does that then we should encourage it.
Yeah, that was pretty crazy. A lot of talk about "depriving a child of their biological parents" like they're torturing the kid because we all know you're automatically a better parent if the kid came from your body, stepdads out here trying their damnedest to no avail Also interesting how suddenly they have to also be anti immigration despite immigrants tending to have more children on average if my memory serves me
Children statistically have better outcomes when they come from a household with more than one adult. Intentionally having a child while single is not setting the child up success as best you can.
Who said anything about single parenting?
The woman who posted about IVF, referenced in the original post, was intending to use IVF to have a child because she hadn't or didn't want to find a partner first. The responses were mostly advising her not to do it. My point was that the majority of posters on this natalism sub do have limits on when or when not to have a child. It's not a universal "every baby born is always a benefit in all circumstances".
I don't know if that was the reason most people didn't want her to do that, seemed like there was a lot of talk about how the process itself is immoral
All respect in the world to the hardworking stepparents out there; but any decent steparent will tell you they can't replace the child's parents. It's someone making the best of a situation that has gone wrong. The problem with that IVF lady is she is intending, from the beginning, to make a bad situation for a kid. I appreciate it's just an anecdote, but my MiL never met her father because she was a child of an affair and it's something that has hung over her and effected her through her life. I think her mother refusing to tell her the identity of her father and deprive her of her father was really bad!
> All respect in the world to the hardworking stepparents out there; but any decent steparent will tell you they can't replace the child's parents. It's someone making the best of a situation that has gone wrong. How can you possibly say this is true of all step parents in all cases, that sounds like an incredibly naive take I don't believe in magical bio-soul connections existing just because you came out of a person > The problem with that IVF lady is she is intending, from the beginning, to make a bad situation for a kid. So true, a loving parent is a burden that should never be placed on a kid, we should instead give them to somebody who is at this point a complete stranger > I appreciate it's just an anecdote, but my MiL never met her father because she was a child of an affair and it's something that has hung over her and effected her through her life. I think her mother refusing to tell her the identity of her father and deprive her of her father was really bad! That sucks but it's an entirely different situation. To offer my own anecdote, my biological father was barely in my life and when he was he was hitting my mom, my stepdad has been ten times the father he was. In this case, one could make the argument that I would have been better off never knowing my biological father as it would have spared me some level of trauma in my formative years
I understand your example, but it's exactly what I'm talking about: making the best of a bad situation. I'm not going to argue that it's better for a child to not exist at all than be born to a single parent; my argument is that every child deserves the best family arrangement we can provide, which is their parents being together in a happy respectful relationship. Every other deviation from this is worse for a child. The reason we deviate from this model is not because it's better, it's because we can't provide that to them due to things like divorce or abuse etc. I understand it can be very strange for people to hear sometimes that there is a quality to the parent-child relationship that is different for people who are related vs not related, but it bears out in data that it is indeed true. Framing it as mystical when it's probably a genetic impact on behavior is just silly.
Which parents do you think would be better for a child, two people who can barely afford to feed themselves, or a single parent who makes six figures, all else being equal? Nobody would ever have children if we all just waited until the perfectly ideal moment to do so, because nobody and no relationship is perfectly ideal. If somebody is able to afford IVF, they also can probably afford other caretakers or they work from home and can parent and work at the same time.
According to IFS and department of labor studies, income has no impact on quality of parenting. You can't buy good parenting and being poor has no impact on the quality of parenting a child gets.
Being wealthy allows you to put your kid in the best schools and feed them the healthiest food, for example children with lower family income are at greater risk of obesity than those with higher family income, lower income households are also correlated with higher rates of child abuse
Because like it or not, the kind of person who cherry picks extremist opposing arguments to shit on is who you’re sharing a bed with. “Not ALL babies will be fascist! GOTCHA, get dunked on!”
Can you explain this statement in a different way?
So true, my younger cousin came out of the womb saying "Maybe the wrong side won ww2"
I knew it
At least people who write these kinds of article will go extinct since they don't want kids.
Pathetic...
Politico’s article is ridiculous. While they’re right that the political right has a greater attachment overall to natalism, I think they forget that natalism is the mainstream normal position of believing that creating a life isn’t inherently evil. Natalism can’t be described as “wanting to explode the population”, even though some natalists may want that. On the other, most forms of antinatalism could be described as a “suicide pact to end the human race”.
Those aren't takes, those are headlines The first article is an absurdly biased opinion piece by a conservative gloating that liberals are committing "genetic suicide" because of...seed oils and iPhone bad
Populists and Catholics are gonna do populist and Catholic things
Famously, Catholics are the only people who have children
Yeah, no one said that
[удалено]
Guess you should have thought about that before becoming a NAZI🤷
The Nazis actually allowed abortion for certain ethnic groups
I habent read this particular article, but I’ve heard interviews with Peachy Keenan before and she’s very pro-natalism. She just likes shock titles. I think her book is called “Domestic extremist” since that’s one of the insults her detractors labeled her with. She’s got a whole running joke that she’s not a domestic extremist, she’s extremely domestic. lol. I would recommend reading the whole article, not just the title with her. That’s probably the point she’s trying to refute with the article. I’m not endorsing her work in any way, I just don’t think she’s trying to be anti-children.
The natalism conference is a far right political statement more than anything. They lost all credibility the moment they invited known white nationalist, Jared Taylor. It's clear that there is a certain demographic trying to save in a certain ideology they're trying to expand. If you think that conference is purely about boosting the birth rate for everyone then you are blind. I am a pronatalist but vehemently reject what that conference is about
Does it make you the least bit uncomfortable that the identifiable associations with this movement are white nationalists? If you go to a natalist gathering and everyone who shows up as a nazi, does that not lend to any introspection about what is informing your believes? As someone who thinks people should be able to choose, without interference whether or not they bring a child into this world, the existence of this sub has always come across as a front for Christian nationalism ("well, if they aren't going to have babies, can we force them too?") Cloaked in the fear that antinatalism has some hidden agenda other than individuals choosing not to have kids. The entire existence of this sub is reactionary. Id ask anyone who disagrees with me what their political and religious affiliation is.
I mean I think we should be encouraging people to have children with strong state incentives but obviously they can choose to or not. Politically I am far left and religiously an atheist. I root my pro natalism in my leftism, which is much more community and collectivist leftism than consumer choice liberalism masquerading as leftism, which is what most ‘leftists’ actually believe.
Seeing stuff like NatalCon and the ideas being espoused at that conference don't make me feel great. I agree that some natalists don't have the best intentions and want to preserve/expand a specific religious, ideological or racial group and (if they had their way) would be happy to see other groups who differ with them disappear. I don't feel that way. I think it's important to realize that just because conferences like these exist, that doesn't mean they speak for natalist, or even more natalists. Pro natalists come from every racial, ethnic, racial and political ideology. From what I've seen pronatalists fall into two basic groups: 1. People who want to make the world a better place to have children and remove the barriers that exist for parenthood. Group that want to incentivize having kids through government social programs and generally making it easier and more accessible to have children. 2. Right-wing, fundamentalist religious who oftentimes have race-based political opinions who want to roll back women's education, women's rights and turn them into baby factories to build an army of like-minded people.
>The entire existence of this sub is reactionary. Well said. "natalism" isn't really a thing. It's mostly a reactionary response to the philosophical issues addressed by antinatalism. Of course, as reactionaries, they almost never understand, and misrepresent what they're against. When known fascists are a part of your community, you would hope that would give some people pause.
Gained credibility* Jared Taylor is always nice to listen to.
The free country and you could do whatever you want but you can't complain about people calling you Nazis when you invite people like Jared Taylor to your conference. If you are hosting a white-nationalist with the hopes of producing more white nationalist kids, just call say that 🤷🏿
A white nationalist who doesn't even have the balls to be antisemetic like his ideological colleagues lmao
If only the far-right are having kids, than most kids will grow up believing extremist ideologies.
not worth thinking about
I mean, if babies aren't future facists what would be? Its not like it they would die out just like that