So in the whole anti-natalism/pro-natalism conversation (which I’m mostly agnostic/undecided on, currently), my friend who is a pro-natalist, argued that the success/stability of our world economy is dependent on procreating more children each year than the previous year, so that we not only replace the numbers of the people who existed from the previous generation (and some, to account for the statistical likelihood that many won’t have children or will be sterile or die young etc), but also ensure that the population keeps growing in order to produce more and more human labor to “pay back the debts” of previous generations, because all money is borrowed from somewhere else… this is all very murky to me and I wish someone could explain it better.

She is also of the view that this will inevitably lead to population collapse/societal/civilisation collapse because we live on a finite Earth with finite resources that can’t keep sustaining more humans & human consumption (and are nearing critical environmental crises), but that there isn’t any other option than to keep producing more children because a declining population wouldn’t be able to support itself economically either. Basically the idea seems to be that economically & societally we’re on a collision course for self-destruction but the only thing we can do is keep going and making increasingly more of ourselves to keep it running (however that as individuals, we should be plant-based & minimalist to reduce our impact to the environment, non-human animals and humans for as long as possible). And she is worried about the fact that fertility rates are falling & slated to reach a population peak followed by a decline in the relatively near future.

As I said I’m not sure how I feel about this view but at first glance I think that the effect of having fewer children in providing relief upon the environment and helping safeguard our future is more important than preserving the economy because destroying the actual planet and life itself seems worse than economic downturns/collapses, but I really don’t know enough about economics to say for certain.

  • Vanth@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Pro/anti-natalism is an unnecessary binary. There is also an option to be for procreative freedom.

    I want people to be able to have children if they want them, and to not have children if they don’t want them. I want a society structured in such a way it doesn’t require people to make those decisions for any reasons other than their own personal ones.

    • RBWells@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      This is my feeling as well. Let people decide to have children or not and make that choice possible with widely available, cheap and healthy birth control methods and support for parents.

    • Miaou@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      2 months ago

      So you are anti natalist (whatever the fuck that even means), congratulations

      • Vanth@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Incorrect.

        Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a family of philosophical views that are critical of reproduction — they consider coming into existence as bad or deem procreation as immoral. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children.

        Copy/paste from first paragraph of the wikipedia article. I am not an antinatalist. I am pro reproductive freedom. Stop trying to force people into shitty, unnecessary binaries.