Antinatalism has a point but it upsets me

Is antinatalism any different than anti-immigration? It’s the same ‘we are full already’ mentality but on a global scale.

Why is it antinatalists always see other people as the problem? They always think that the solution to the world’s problems means reducing the number of other people. You never see them lining up outside the Soylent Green factory themselves.

I think it's a bit of a derail to argue whether the women are feminists. They are and have some standing in feminist circles

Well you are the one who is making a case for them being feminists. I don't care if they are or not. Their argument is no less impractical or unrealistic or plain bonkers just because they might or might not be feminists.

Oh FGS. Throughout history, our ancestors lived through some appalling times. Even today, many people do. Who are we to say that because those lives weren't/aren't perfect, they weren't/aren't worth living?

Most antinatalists aren’t feminists though.

I honestly don’t see how it is defensible to tell other people they shouldn’t have children.

If someone thinks the world is over populated and we should reduce that population, well they can start by not existing themselves, rather than advocating it for other people.

I have two sisters and two cousins, adult human females, each and every one who never had an urge to procreate. I have a SIL who felt that she didn't have the urge either. She had two sons and still thinks that it was society that pressurised her into having children. She loves her boys.

Personally, if I had the chance to do it all again? I wouldn't have children. I love my three children.

Antinatalism is the ultimate form of misanthropy. Humans are too shitty to live, just let them die off.

If we need fewer people to exist you should list who to get rid of and how to dispose of them, or who to sterilise. I’ve got a feeling people like me would inevitably find themselves on such a list, just as they have previously.

I'm still failing to see why you are taking them seriously.

I never read women's magazines except my mother's Cosmo but never bought it after I left home at 18 so can't comment on what influences or insights Take a Break might bring to the subject- possibly it was more rational than the antinatalists.

I don't find the idea that humans have a primal urge to procreate a particularly surprising one.

I see you don't address that their twaddle is potentially dangerous to mainstream environmentalists? It's difficult enough to get climate change taken seriously by Trump et al^ without muddying the issue by this sort of impractical nonsense.

I'm not sure what point there is speculating about the supposed beliefs of a group of which no-one here is a part and who as far as I can tell aren't making their message (if their message is being represented even vaguely accurately here) heard particularly effectively, despite it being the age of the internet.

I'm not sure why anyone is bothering to take them seriously.

They are flat- earthers/anti- vaxxers/ the world was created in 6 dayers. Does sticking "feminist" in front of those groups make their theories any more credible?

Quite. A group I do find interesting are those feminists who are opposed to women becoming married/mothers as standard, mostly for the benefit of the individual women themselves and their ability to resist patriarchy. It is obvious how this group is feminist in nature. The group being discussed by the OP, not so much.

I'm not sure why anyone is bothering to take them seriously.

They are flat- earthers/anti- vaxxers/ the world was created in 6 dayers. Does sticking "feminist" in front of those groups make their theories any more credible?

Where they are dangerous is it allows the Trumps of this world to lump serious and credible environmentalists in with this bunch. Why should Trump believe any environmentalist when this sort of nonsense is peddled.

Not RTFT but interested to know more about how this rhetoric would work. How do antinatalists legislate for women who are subject to rape and/or forced birth, women who don’t believe in contraception, or who don’t believe in abortion, or women who have no access to either of these things, or women who just want to have a baby because they have a strong reproductive urge?

It’s not really a sufficient argument to say that people ‘shouldn’t have children’ and leave it at that. What if they do? (Which they will obviously) What happens then?

These people have always existed. The problem is they used to go round with sandwich boards and shout about it. Now with the internet they can group together and spread their hate far and wide. I am very conflicted about having children but blaming women and talking about them in such disparaging terms is never going to be the solution. We need more respect for each other.

It's true in my experience that most of the people who talk that way didn't in fact want kids, and often they don't like them, and they resent having any obligation to other people's kids. For example, paying taxes for family benefits or having someone at work who always leaves on time to pick up their children from school.

Fundamentally they are selfish and they are radical individualists who don't understand how dependent we all are on each other. I often think they should be allowed to opt out of helping and then when they age, they only are allowed to receive benefits that they accrued themselves. No social benefits from taxes of younger people, no investment income from industries making money from selling to younger people, no younger nurses or cleaners in their care home to look out for them.

They are also often the people who take the "I didn't ask to be born into this terrible world, poor me so put upon just because my parents were selfish as to have kids" line. Which you do not, in my experience, hear often from people who come from places where they really are barriers to their survival.

There was a thread on here not long ago where someone was saying that they wouldn't have had children if they knew about climate change. Their children were in primary school! As if climate change has only started in the last 5-7 years.

OP I essentially agree with you but having guilt about this is a bit silly and self indulgent. It's pointless and untrue to say that you wouldn't have children now if you knew what you knew. You still would.

Essentially I had babies because I thought it would be a nice thing to do. And it was!

Thats why every one has children. You have trod the exact same path every parent has. 1. "I really want children"

1. Has children
2. "Why on earth did I have all these children?"
3. "Oh but I wouldn't be without them"

BUT anyway, having fewer children will not automatically solve the problem. The problem is number of people * footprint per person.

Footprint per person varies widely around the world and it is quite possible for footprint per person to go up if people have no or smaller families. For example, instead of having a family you may have a high flying career with lots of foreign holidays.

We need to solve the fundamentals and short of mass extinction of humans we need to Sort out the uk transport system, sort out the uk electricity generation , fix agriculture, fix capitalism.

This is why people are saying that governments have to step up. The pr8mary reason for people to take individual action is to pressurise the government.

Without government action we as individuals can not do enough. We have a few years. Stopping all births world wide now will not solve the proble in time

Erm, don’t you need men to have children? Do these people also tell men that they shouldn’t have children?

How is this a type of feminism if it’s entirely blaming women for having children? I mean they do realise there are two parties involved right?

Aside from the complete stupidity of the rest of it of course, that bit particularly stood out to me.