This is Why I Don't Use BRAVE Browser
Are Anti-natalists misunderstood?
A note to @ecotrain passengers:
Please skip this post for curation purpose as I ain't an @ecotrain rider but sometimes barge in (without a ticket) to experience the journey. Since I was tagged by @eco-alex and this question was particularly of my interest, I chose to write on this subject. I was just waiting for the train to leave this station and as today there is a new question, I'm here still discussing the old one.
Last fortnight, @eco-alex had put an interesting question to all:
Do you think it is a good or bad idea to bring children into this world in these troubled times?
The question received a very good response from @ecotrain members coming up with their personal view-points which are compiled here. I must confess that I couldn't go through all those posts yet but tried to scan through most of them.
In past, I had tried to write on this subject in posts like Is Human Overpopulation Really a Problem? and First National Anti-Natalist Meet in India. But these had just touched the subject from the perspective of current affairs.
Today, I'm writing to discuss the subject further since I didn't find any post taking a strong anti-natalist approach. However, this is understandable as staunch anti-natalist people are in absolute minority. Hence their views ain't properly represented.
Let me add at the outset that I'm neither an anti-natalist nor an natalist or a pro-natalist but just a confused soul. Therefore, I'd like to invite anti-natalists here to express and explain their stance to all.
Volunatary Human Extinction and Anti-natalism
Many people take the subject of anti-natalism with the assumption that anti-natalists are for ultimate human extinction and hence against humanity.
I've read several posts that take a natalist stance as they consider extinction of whole human species weird and a state of hopelessness emerging out of utter frustration. But anti-natalism doesn't equate with Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.
Anti-natalist wants to contribute as much as they can. Since not everyone in the world will become an anti-natalist, someone needs to counter the uncontrolled population explosion. So by not bringing their children in this over-populated world, they are trying to bring some balance to sustain this world longer.
To the people who are against anti-natalists because they are leading human race to extinction, I'd like to ask a question:
Do you support ABC (Animal Birth Control)?
ABC in India is sponsored by Government and include spaying, neutering or sterilization of stray animals like street dogs. But this doesn't intend to make the whole species of dogs extinct. It's only objective is to control the stray dog population.
If humans don't want to control their population, what right do they have to force it on animals?
Yes, anti-natalists are minimalists too!
Another argument I came across in the response to @eco-alex's question is that population density is higher in third world countries whereas per capita resource consumption is highest in developed countries. Most of the world is suffering because of the consumption by the first world. Therefore, we should become a conscious consumer and teach the same to our children.
This argument denies that over-population is a problem and shifts the focus to another huge problem of mindless consumption and depletion of natural resources. Of course, I agree that increasing consumption by affluent class is a big concern but that doesn't make the problem of over-population disappear.
I however, believe that "consumption" is a bigger problem. But the point to note is almost all conscious anti-natalists have already adopted a minimalist lifestyle. Anti-natalism is the next level to it when they think how can they contribute more to sustain this world.
Good parenting!!!
Many responders have posted that they will parent their children better instead of not bringing them at all. Good parenting will help their children to evolve into a good humans and they will be an asset to the world instead of being a problem.
This argument seem to me just some sugar coated words. What's good parenting? It's a very subjective concept. Do you think most of this world is product of bad parenting? Doesn't every parent wish to offer his/her best to their offspring? I've no doubts that most parents raise their children as best as they could. But the world is in the mess in spite of it!
The words "good parenting" or "conscious parenting" doesn't make much sense to me. It's just being put as some excuse to counter anti-natalism. In reality, it's a passive measure because you will do that irrespective of anything. What is the solution actively being pursued?
Anti-natalists are not against adopting a child
When the issue of "good parenting" comes, this fact is overlooked that anti-natalists ain't against adopting a child. Today, the world has many children who don't have a family or loving parents. Why do human society needs an institution called orphan house? When so many children already exist who are in need of a home, why can't these be provided good parenting?
In fact, most of the crimes committed are by people who didn't get the required love, affection and guidance during their childhood. Orphaned children tend to grow into a fierce criminal. Anti-natalists advocate adopting or fostering children for parenting, and help reduce world population by not bringing their own biological children.
Is population outbreak really a problem?
I know why so many different types of responses were received to the question. Actually, question doesn't make clear what problem anti-natalists are trying to address. By not bringing children, what issue are we going to address is a confusion in itself. Some think anti-natalists hate children and some say it's to avoid bringing their children in the world full of suffering, others think times are getting tougher for the children with every passing generation. But happiness and bliss doesn't depend on circumstances. Suffering is a mental state.
But comfort and discomfort depends on available resources and facilities. So what exactly is the problem? Will the world have enough resources for our children to live a healthy, peaceful and comfortable life?
Over-population or outbreak?
To underline the problem of exploding human population, instead of terming it as "over-population", I prefer to call it as an "outbreak".
It took some 50,000 years to reach human population to 1 billion. Human population reached 1 billion in 1804 AD. And within just 207 years, by 2011 AD, it surpassed 7 billions!
The argument is often put that it's not the over-population but the distribution of resources is the problem. If resources are judiciously utilized, this world can easily accommodate 10-12 billion people.
Okay, let's agree to it. Yes, over-population isn't a problem yet. But until when? According to UN's projections, world will reach 10 billion humans by 2056. So how many generations away?
And mind it that population control measures bring results in long term. Consumption behaviour and habits too can't be changed instantly. So when is the right time to begin?
Or what in your opinion is the optimum population size for this world? No not the total carrying capacity but just a place to live in peaceful luxury!
Humanity has been very successful in increasing the average life span by many folds. Medical progress has also resulted in controlling infant mortality and child mortality. Various techniques like IVF, test-tube babies etc. have been developed to conceive a child going against the intention of the Nature. Along with that, we have also succeeded in developing various birth control tools. But why ain't we putting these tool to good use?
It's strange that we are still not unanimous in accepting that over-population is a threat ...or a problem!
Only some overpopulated countries like China, Singapore and India had / have an anti-natalist or family planning policies in place. It's because of China's one-child policy that world today is 400 million less populated. Recently, the policy was changed to 2-child to maintain the gender balance. But there are many nations like Iran, Israel, Japan and Russia who incentivize population growth.
Looks like the world has yet not figured it out as a global issue and trying to solve it at local demographic level.
However, I don't advocate any forced measures. Everyone can't and shouldn't be an anti-natalist. Just like some people prefer to remain single all their life while others get married; some choose not to bring their biological children. For those who can't imagine or live their life without their own children or think they won't attain fulfillment in their life without rearing children of their own, then they should obviously reproduce. But the rest of us shouldn't! There is every reason to be an anti-natalist.
Sorry for being too verbose. I wanted to cover a few more points but it's already very late here and this post has already turned too long for it. I hope to read the perspectives of some strong anti-natalists who can explain there stance more clearly. Will anyone oblige? (You can also point me to your existing post which I may have accidentally skipped).
