I am curious if the majority of leftist people don’t actually want children haha. There doesn’t seem to be any studies about it, but my convos with leftists is that most don’t seem to want to have children either for the uncertainty of the future or because they are too expensive or because it wouldn’t give them too much time to organize or whatever other reason that I forgot about.
I personally lean on not having children because I have been laid off of several jobs and having someone financially dependent to me scares the shit out of me and would put my stress levels through the roof.
I already cut my balls off, my wife wants to cut of hers too, but we live in a patriarchal society where men can choose what their do with their bodies while women need two kids to do the same.
I’m antinatalist, but don’t hate children. Would adopt, but my wife have not interest and isn’t something I care that much.
You aren’t a leftist if you are an anti-natalist. Anti-natalism is based on the assumption that life is more bad than good which is based on subjective views of the world (and has no basis in actual science). It’s not materialist. Secondly, anti-natalism is anti-human and therefore anti-worker. You cannot be a leftist anti-natalist much as you can’t be a leftist racist. Anti-natalism is extremely reactionary.
Anti-natalism isn’t inherently anti-human or anti-worker, that is laughable.
Yes, it is. Anti-natalism posits that people shouldn’t be born. That means they do not want people to be workers in the future, making it a reactionary anti-worker position to take.
Pretty fucked up to reduce all people to simply just “worker”
That’s an extremely simplistic and slightly childish interpretation.
If anything, I despise the voluntary human extinction movement. That doesn’t preclude being smart about having biological children, and it sure as fuck doesn’t stop be from being a communist.
Having biological children is probably inherently selfish, but that doesn’t make having children an inherently bad or evil thing. That’s my entire point.
You aren’t a communist as you reject dialectical materialism by upholding an ideological framework that analyzes non-beings on the same level as beings. That’s not materialism but religion.
You’re a clown and I won’t dignify your nonsense word salad with a reply.
Ah yes, anything that you disagree with is “word salad”. What a fantastic way to analyze everything. I’m sure that will lead to correct understandings of the world…
You’re just projecting and digging yourself a deeper hole, quit your coping and don’t be a douche.
I think its about concent, I don’t think you should force someone into life just because you want it.
Someone who doesn’t exist can’t give consent. That’s a non sequitur. See this for some general sense on the matter on the vibe that I have again the consent argument. There is an example on the thread that goes about rape and non-consent and that is a non-equivalence.
That’s doesn’t negate the lack of concent.
I don’t understand the fact that because someone exists, therefore it can’t concent so it’s dosen’t matter. Like, if we had technology for genetic manipulation, and someone who dosen’t exists so it’s can’t concent to be birth without eyes, arms and legs, so it would be OK to do it? Maybe the problem is more about branding, if I would say exactly the same without saying the word “antinatalist” nobody would bat an eye.
Again, consent doesn’t matter, as none can be given by this non-existing person. On the other hand, that is to be considered cruel and gratuitous.
Let’s just go on a tangent: we, humans, the apex of this planet, do play God quite often, and as such, we are the ones that draw the line on this type of stuff. See, for example, mice, which are used for bio studies for a myriad of ailments. So, the genetic engineering already exists. Most people just don’t realize it.
“But they are different species”. Yes, and mammals too. So similar to us, in fact, that we use them to study our diseases. We even “pre-bake” them with cancer, if it’s needed for research. Go closer to humans and stuff start to get wronger. Big apes are a no-go, Rhesus monkeys, on the other hand, need approval from bioethics boards. We draw the line where in the tree of life animals start to be too like us to matter.
So, why only be antinatalist and not vegan as well? Is human suffering the only thing that matters? I haven’t even considered invertebrates for that matter.
I’ll end this tangent about genetic engineering and speciecism here.
And no, antinatalism is not about branding. The whole ideology is moot. I do have friends who have this instance. I say it to their face that it is either defeatist, conservatist and, in general, a shit for brains idea. It’s just neomalthusianism, all over again. Here, have a link from Reddit on that.
And, as I like to say, again, to my friend’s face: go seek psychiatric and psychological help. Accepting this type of ideology is, in my own experience being on that side of the argument, a symptom of depression. You see life as completely sad and full of woe, when it’s just so much more.
You’re being a complete tool and douchebag to driving_crooner.
Someone who doesn’t exist doesn’t have the ability to consent so the fact they don’t is irrelevant. Something existing determines if we take it into account as Marxist. That’s a major part of being a leftist
In the actual world, dominated by the bourgeoisie, there is some consent between people and scientiest, that this would be not ok. It is not been seen as ethical. What is ethical or not is nothing more than a artificial line made by humans and depends greatly on material conditions. Especially after human experiments in Japan and Germany.
But the question, if it is ok to artificially create a human with so many disabilities or simply give birth to human, are things which are not related at all. Only if you really equal the human existence itself as a form of suffering, then it has nothing to do with marxism at all and is some Buddha or similar idealistic stuff. But even they are not against giving birth to children.
This are different things. Anti-natalism has nothing to do with being against artificially creating people with the aim of making them suffer as much as possible.
That’s not materialist. Consent can’t exist for those that don’t exist so in a material lens we can only analyze those that do in fact exist. The conception of the theoretical and non-existent individual’s consent can’t be materialist and couldn’t be upheld by an actual leftist.