Is antinatalism a valid ideology? Does it have a negative effect upon the vegan movement?

General philosophy message board for Discussion and debate on other philosophical issues not directly related to veganism. Metaphysics, religion, theist vs. atheist debates, politics, general science discussion, etc.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is antinatalism a valid ideology? Does it have a negative effect upon the vegan movement?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Jebus wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:50 pm Come on now. The idea that a carnist will make environmental decisions based on whether or not he has a child sounds a bit ridiculous.
It's ridiculous, but look on the anti-natalist reddit about veganism. It's a bunch of carnists bragging about how they don't need to go vegan because they're already better than vegans because they don't have kids, and a bunch of anti-natalist vegans basically agreeing with them.
Jebus wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:50 pmYou just illustrated why it's so important that people don't have children now.
Babies don't have a very large carbon footprint. Kids don't eat that much, they don't do a lot of driving/flying, compared to adults they consume very little.
Jebus wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:50 pmPossibly the opposite. If someone decides to eat meat, it's probably better that she does so with 7 billion people on the planet than with 10 billion.
Once we have enough people on the planet, they just won't have the luxury to make that decision anymore.
The faster we populate, the faster animal agriculture will have to end (or the faster we'll drive ourselves to extinction).
Jebus wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:50 pmNot my experience. The parents I have met usually don't care about anything besides their children.
One could argue that they don't care about their children if they're doing their best to destroy the world their kids will inherit.
Jebus wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:50 pmNot all vegan parents raise their kids vegan because they have a doubt about the health superiority of a diet without meat or dairy.
That's a problem, we need better education on vegan kids.

Jebus wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:50 pmor. . .One child leaves room for one more immigrant child.
If we could streamline that, sure. It's currently very expensive to adopt, and particularly to adopt immigrant children (and involves a lot of very damaging plane trips).
Jebus wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:50 pmRegarding the economy it might be bad in the short term, but probably beneficial after a couple of generations.
China is facing impending disaster with the 4:2:1 problem. It gets worse with each generation it goes on.
Once they get over that, they'll have a very empty country, and we're not sure what the results of that will be. We'll almost certainly see disaster in the housing market.
Jebus wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:50 pmHow does overpopulation ensure a strong future? How can young people carry their weight if they can't find jobs?
You have more working children to fund retirement of the older generation, and more of a work force as long as you have a good economy and the carrying capacity for the people.
sykkelmannen
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:17 am
Diet: Freegan

Re: Is antinatalism a valid ideology? Does it have a negative effect upon the vegan movement?

Post by sykkelmannen »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 am I maintain that a carnist who decides not to breed will have lighter ecological impact than a vegan with as little as one child.
This is false, and harmfully false:
Prove it.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm A carnist today is worse than two carnists in 20 years or four carnists in 40 years.
Can you explain how a quadruple increase in carnivores in 40 years will be better?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm And that's assuming all of the kids convert to carnism (and they probably will not).
That's strange what you say in bold. Is this the result of expected dysgenics?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm There's no guarantee that you will continue making efforts to live a low impact lifestyle (and diet is the majority of that).
Does that recommend that all good people commit suicide?
Can you tell good from bad? Seems like you know exactly who should breed (vegans) and who shouldn't (carnists and delusional vegetarians probably too). Funny thing is there's idiots among vegans too. And what is best, they don't know they're idiots ;) and they all think they'll make great parents, have great genes to pass on and that they should breed and multiply and fill the Earth and carry the torch, just like their idiot carnivorous counterparts. The most entertaining is the unexpressed notion that somehow having more kids will cause the others to have less (it won't).
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm Or are we maybe capable of doing good in the world too, like inspiring our peers to reduce? And when we couple, by inspiring our mates?
I think we are indeed.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm I would push a button add a billion people to the world today if they were all vegan. I'd do it if even 10% of them were vegan (which would shift the numbers in our favor, and make a lot more vegan options which would make it easier for veganism to push past the early adopter phase).
You disagree that overpopulation is a problem?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 am It is not up to vegans' kids to save the world in the future. It is up to responsible individuals tho to shape that future today.
We don't have time to wait for them to save the future. We need to be worried about immediate impact.
That is exactly what I said.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm But having kids probably reduces impact in many ways; people may do less traveling, for instance (and planes are brutal in terms of impact), and they may begin to actually care about the future and start reducing their impacts FOR their children's generation where as before having kids they may not have cared.
Right. Those kids in bold better have children later on to reduce their own impact just like their parents did.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm Having children changes people, and usually for the better.
I am willing to give this observation a thought if it comes from a neutral corner of a haven't-bred-yet bloke. Are you?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 7:59 am Having said all this, I am not advocating voluntary extinction.
it sounds like you're advocating dysgenics, and breeding empathy, intelligence, and responsibility OUT of the population.
Dysgenics is being taken care of by Mother Nature and there's no need to worry. Again, every man out there thinks he's smarter than most other guys and saving the world from dysgenics by propagating his own genes. (I leave women out of this deliberately. Women are beautiful beings and don't suffer from the same delusions men do. To quote George Carlin: "God can't be a woman, cos a woman could never fuck things up so badly". Also I'm led to believe that there's some biological conditioning pretty much forcing women to bear at least one child. This means they'll keep lowering the standard in search for a mate until a suitable father is found and there we are, delusional men flogging a dead horse in five pages whilst women actually decide. Tho we could still probably find a common ground in lowering population to some acceptable levels via one child policy and then float at two. Wishful thinking ;))
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm In the developed world where populations are failing: One child is below the replacement rate, and is asking for economic collapse and harm to the human population.
Where, and how exactly are populations failing and what is the harm you speak of? World was half today's population just 50 years ago. In the age of automation, how and why exactly would reducing population to 1960's figures be a problem?
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm Two is pulling your weight.
Again we agree!
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm Three is altruism, carrying the weight of others who have failed to reproduce and ensuring humanity has a strong future... at least if you're capable of raising them responsibly.
As you would have guessed, I strongly disagree.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is antinatalism a valid ideology? Does it have a negative effect upon the vegan movement?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:28 pm Prove it.
I've seen this mindset reflected in carnist apologia on the antinatalism reddit. And vegans there can only agree with it.

Which is more important for you, veganism or antinatalism? Because that suggests the latter is, and that's harmful to the vegan movement.
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:28 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm A carnist today is worse than two carnists in 20 years or four carnists in 40 years.
Can you explain how a quadruple increase in carnivores in 40 years will be better?
An increase in carnists is not necessarily good, but it's better to have four of them in 40 years than one today.
People here and now have a more dramatic impact than future people, since we're at something of a tipping point of catastrophe; on the other side of that population is not as concerning.

If we survive to have a sustainable society then even if there are carnists around they'll be using much fewer resources and rarely eating meat.
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:28 pm That's strange what you say in bold. Is this the result of expected dysgenics?
No, that would be eugenic if anything; breeding for compassion, intelligence, responsibility.
But whether nature or nurture, kids don't tend to fall that far from the tree. Vegan kids we know of tend to stray a little during the teens and then return to a plant based lifestyle, particularly when they have children. Of course we have limited data on this, but what we have says they will probably ultimately be vegan or mostly vegan.
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:28 pm Funny thing is there's idiots among vegans too. And what is best, they don't know they're idiots ;) and they all think they'll make great parents, have great genes to pass on and that they should breed and multiply and fill the Earth and carry the torch, just like their idiot carnivorous counterparts.
You can stop stupid people from breeding, all you can do is keep pace.
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:28 pm The most entertaining is the unexpressed notion that somehow having more kids will cause the others to have less (it won't).
Nobody's saying that.
We just don't want them taking over.

Think about it this way: children tend to follow their parents' political affiliations.
What if all of the democrats stopped having children, and all of the Republicans kept on, business as usual?
What would be the result of that? And would it be good or bad?

Yes, there would be fewer people and less resource use, but we'd also be stuck on coal due to the political pressure, probably have a state church, and be going to war more often which has a huge environmental footprint.

It's not just about number, policy makes a huge difference.
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:28 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm Or are we maybe capable of doing good in the world too, like inspiring our peers to reduce? And when we couple, by inspiring our mates?
I think we are indeed.
Then you have to take that into consideration.
More responsible people is not a bad thing.

You can't stop stupid/irresponsible people from breeding. They'll do it by accident either way.

But you must stop advocating for ethical and responsible people to stop breeding: they may actually listen, and that would be catastrophic.
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:28 pm
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 2:34 pm I would push a button add a billion people to the world today if they were all vegan. I'd do it if even 10% of them were vegan (which would shift the numbers in our favor, and make a lot more vegan options which would make it easier for veganism to push past the early adopter phase).
You disagree that overpopulation is a problem?
Overpopulation is only a problem in some developing countries where they don't have the resources to support those people.
The problem in developed countries is the way we're living which is unsustainable.

One is a human welfare problem, another an environmental problem.
The former has to do with population itself, the latter with infrastructure, diet, and general waste and lifestyle of excess. It's not how many people are living, but how they are living.

This Earth could support many times the current population sustainably if we were smart about it; and as the population grows we will have to get smart about it, or we'll die off.
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:28 pm Dysgenics is being taken care of by Mother Nature and there's no need to worry.
You misunderstand dysgenics.
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:28 pm Women are beautiful beings and don't suffer from the same delusions men do.
WTF?
sykkelmannen wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 10:28 pm Where, and how exactly are populations failing and what is the harm you speak of?
Japan is being hit VERY hard.
They affect government revenue and safety nets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan
https://www.vox.com/2016/4/13/11421162/japan-oecd-chart

It's very harmful for a population to shrink too quickly, and many in the developed world are.
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is antinatalism a valid ideology? Does it have a negative effect upon the vegan movement?

Post by Jebus »

First off, you have already convinced me that an antinatalist agenda is generally a bad idea (the exception would be initiatives that primarily discourage the uneducated from having children, such as removing child allowances). I'm just challenging a few of your reasoning points.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:59 pm
Jebus wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 3:50 pm Come on now. The idea that a carnist will make environmental decisions based on whether or not he has a child sounds a bit ridiculous.
It's ridiculous, but look on the anti-natalist reddit about veganism. It's a bunch of carnists bragging about how they don't need to go vegan because they're already better than vegans because they don't have kids, and a bunch of anti-natalist vegans basically agreeing with them.
This is probably equally true for some of those who buy solar panels. Should we not encourage people to buy solar panels.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:59 pmBabies don't have a very large carbon footprint. Kids don't eat that much, they don't do a lot of driving/flying, compared to adults they consume very little.
I agree that babies don't have a big carbon footprint but that is quite irrelevant since infancy is such a small part of someone's life. Children have a large carbon footprint. They get driven around a lot, grow out of clothes frequently, use a lot of powered devices etc. etc.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:59 pmOnce we have enough people on the planet, they just won't have the luxury to make that decision anymore.
The faster we populate, the faster animal agriculture will have to end (or the faster we'll drive ourselves to extinction).
Hopefully, possibly. I can see the wealthy hanging on to animal agriculture for many years after the lower and middle classes have been forced to stop. This could lead to social unrest.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:59 pmOne could argue that they don't care about their children if they're doing their best to destroy the world their kids will inherit.

The educated, i.e. those who we want to have kids might think this way. As for the rest, I think it's doubtful.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:59 pm[China is facing impending disaster with the 4:2:1 problem. It gets worse with each generation it goes on.
Once they get over that, they'll have a very empty country, and we're not sure what the results of that will be. We'll almost certainly see disaster in the housing market.
This could be the impetus we need to make countries like China realize that being split up into different countries is not the ideal way to move forward.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:59 pmYou have more working children to fund retirement of the older generation
True but short-sighted. You'll have a perhaps even bigger problem when the new generation grows old.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is antinatalism a valid ideology? Does it have a negative effect upon the vegan movement?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Jebus wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:43 am This is probably equally true for some of those who buy solar panels. Should we not encourage people to buy solar panels.
I think it's about the ratio.
Antinatalists think they're doing something enormous, when the result probably ranges from nothing to nearly nothing.

I think people who install solar panels probably have a little more perspective on the extent of the harm reduction they're involved in (part of this because it's an action rather than inaction, and involves more research), and in fact they're probably pretty close since that's a legitimately useful thing to do.

The only thing that might come close is somebody who rescues a bunch of cats; they think they're doing something great (partially because of the amount of effort), but in effect probably not.

It's the belief that one is doing something very good, when in fact not, that results in over-compensation and acting to do even more harm they think they've earned the right to.
Jebus wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:43 amChildren have a large carbon footprint. They get driven around a lot,
Mostly by bus to/from school.
Jebus wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:43 amgrow out of clothes frequently,
Yes, but these are usually recycled by hand down and through donation, because they're lightly used since they grow out of them so fast.
Jebus wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:43 amuse a lot of powered devices etc. etc.
Which use tens of watts of electricity.
The fact that they live with their parents and don't travel much or own vehicles of their own (beyond maybe a bike) is a huge savings.

Once they reach teen years they start consuming more resources, taking more/longer showers, wanting to get a car, etc.
But any child born today won't reach that point until 2030. If we haven't gotten our shit together more culturally by then we'll be in trouble.
Impact will likely be a fraction of an adult from today. What matters the most is what happens in the next ten years or so.
Jebus wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:43 amI can see the wealthy hanging on to animal agriculture for many years after the lower and middle classes have been forced to stop. This could lead to social unrest.
Sure, I can see the top 1% doing it, but probably still less than today. So we'd have something like 1/200th of the animal agriculture we currently do, or maybe less.
Most people will be eating mock meats or clean meat. Only really terrible people will pay premium prices for "real" dead animals.

It may also lead to making that illegal, since they're outnumbered, in which case they'll only get it on the black market which could reduce consumption even more.
Jebus wrote: Wed Dec 20, 2017 11:43 am
brimstoneSalad wrote: Tue Dec 19, 2017 6:59 pmOne could argue that they don't care about their children if they're doing their best to destroy the world their kids will inherit.

The educated, i.e. those who we want to have kids might think this way. As for the rest, I think it's doubtful.
Sure, but we can't do anything to stop uneducated people from having kids. You can probably imagine their reaction to the concept of antinatalism.
Only educated and responsible people would be receptive to it.

Like you said, it'd have to come down to policy. I don't think taking away subsidization for children would help much, though.
We need things like universal healthcare so we don't have welfare traps that encourage poor women to get pregnant.

Figuring out public policy that will encourage reproduction from the educated (maybe free childcare for working parents), and not discourage it from the uneducated is tricky.
sykkelmannen
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:17 am
Diet: Freegan

Re: Is antinatalism a valid ideology? Does it have a negative effect upon the vegan movement?

Post by sykkelmannen »

@brimstonesalad
You failed to provide proof for your objection to my claim. I expected hard numbers, not some dubious "you're either with us or against us" fallacy.

I would love to read you elaborate on this astonishing claim that it's a good idea to inflate Earth's population to 30 billion. I've never heard a shocking claim like this before. I'm sure more of us are interested in the maths behind this. Especially in the light of this impending cataclysm you speak of.

You failed to answer whether you're a breeder. I am going to have to assume that you are. Unfortunately for you, this undermines all your claims in this thread for obvious reasons.

Japan's population ISN'T FAILING, it's merely reducing its numbers. That is, if we are to believe the article you've linked. Looking at Japan's INSANE population density at 335 per square km, I'd say they are doing well. Revenue? Gimme a break. Are you a fan of infinite growth too? I have a bridge to sell you.
Given the relative wealth of the country, great possibilities for a paradigm shift open up. A shift towards gift- and resource-based economy, where people find meaning beyond that of hoarding material wealth and working their fingers off to boost the hamsterwheel that is the GDP.

Your call to breeding is ridiculous. Fanatic christians shout the same mantra: "Have more children! We must keep pace with the Muslims! We must secure a strong future of the white race! etc." Isn't it obvious how wrong this is?

You admit eugenics will happen even to the "stupid carnist" parents. It isn't far-fetched to assume you were born to carnist parents. I sure was. Veganism isn't the result of vegan parents multiplying like crazy. Vegan movement grows because it makes sense. It emerged as an answer to unparalleled cruelty of factory farms. It will gain independently of carnist and vegan breeding rates. Just like atheism will gain as children see through the silly superstition of their parents, one at a time.

Every single "stupid" person out there WILL surpass you (not only genetically) in many ways. There is no person in this world universally inferior to you, get over it. To assume this self-serving attitude that you should breed because you're better than others is to admit you are in fact an ignoramus unable to see through this bullshit. I would like you to stop beating clueless vegans over the head with the silly idea that they have a duty to breed. It is harmful in every way.

Similarly, I would love VeganGains to shut the hell up with his idiotic preaching. But I can't and wouldn't want to force neither of you. I like that people can say what they want.

peace
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is antinatalism a valid ideology? Does it have a negative effect upon the vegan movement?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

Look, you think the moon landings were a hoax. You need to start a new thread on that to back up your claim.
Honestly nobody is going to take you seriously after that, that's flat-Earther level conspiracy theory nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings
sykkelmannen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:08 pm I would love to read you elaborate on this astonishing claim that it's a good idea to inflate Earth's population to 30 billion. I've never heard a shocking claim like this before. I'm sure more of us are interested in the maths behind this. Especially in the light of this impending cataclysm you speak of.
It's not maths.

Having more people who live good lives is an intrinsic good.
Having so many people that we approach the carrying capacity of the Earth and can no longer afford to engage in wide-spread animal agriculture is an instrumental good.

It's win-win.
sykkelmannen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:08 pm You failed to answer whether you're a breeder. I am going to have to assume that you are. Unfortunately for you, this undermines all your claims in this thread for obvious reasons.
Obviously I have dozens of children from sperm donation and unprotected one night stands, that must be why I believe in science instead of conspiracy theories! :roll:

I'm not answering everything you ask, and this is none of your business (I virtually never answer personal questions).

Does you not wanting or having children invalidate all of your claims?
No, but your being crazy and incapable of doing basic research probably casts serious doubt on them.
sykkelmannen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:08 pm Japan's population ISN'T FAILING, it's merely reducing its numbers.
Professional economists disagree. This is a problem for Japan. The only people who can't understand that believe in quack conspiracy theory style economic concepts.
Oh, wait...
sykkelmannen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:08 pm A shift towards gift- and resource-based economy,
Of course you're one of those. :roll:
sykkelmannen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:08 pm Your call to breeding is ridiculous. Fanatic christians shout the same mantra: "Have more children! We must keep pace with the Muslims! We must secure a strong future of the white race! etc." Isn't it obvious how wrong this is?
They are logistically correct. Procreation is the primary source of new theists. They are right to multiply to keep pace, but they're wrong about their beliefs.

Of course, they are also mistaken if they believe their children won't be converted to atheism. Veganism has much more staying power by virtue of being credible.
It's very hard to convert somebody TO veganism, because cognitive dissonance and habit are strong, but keeping somebody there benefits a lot from a family support network and credible arguments against the detractors.

sykkelmannen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:08 pmYou admit eugenics will happen even to the "stupid carnist" parents.
You clearly do not know what eugenics or dysgenics is.
sykkelmannen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:08 pmVeganism isn't the result of vegan parents multiplying like crazy.
Not exclusively, people can be persuaded to go vegan. However, it's difficult. There's also no reason to believe that would be convincing to a population that is affected by dysgenic forces increasing selfishness, etc.
sykkelmannen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:08 pmVegan movement grows because it makes sense.
It's not growing like it should. We lose a lot of people too. Recidivism is very high.
We need people who have anchors through multi-generational practice, which is something much more stable (it can even keep religion around for a while, which is impressive).
sykkelmannen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:08 pmEvery single "stupid" person out there WILL surpass you (not only genetically) in many ways. There is no person in this world universally inferior to you, get over it.
Sounds like you've drank the Multiple Intelligences kool-aid too.

They don't need to be inferior in every way, personality type means there are certain kinds of people more likely to be innovators, and also people who will have stronger wills and likely more compassion and social responsibility. Not all of this is genetic, but a lot of it probably is.

sykkelmannen wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 9:08 pmTo assume this self-serving attitude that you should breed because you're better than others is to admit you are in fact an ignoramus unable to see through this bullshit.
It's not personal. Most vegans should have children. You obviously should not, but that's because you're insane and believe crazy things like the moon landings being a hoax.

I suspect that you hold these fringe beliefs not because of reason or empathy, but because it makes you feel special and better than everybody else: it makes you feel like you're in on a secret.
That goes for all of the beliefs you hold: from the (accidentally) sensible ones like veganism, to the insane ones like anti-natalism and the moon-landing-hoax belief.

You're not an intelligent and compassionate person-- that's not why you're vegan. You're vegan because it makes YOU feel good and special and because you think you can lord it over others just like you do with your quacky beliefs. That's not the kind of person we need reproducing.

It's just unfortunate that you're discrediting veganism by association with all of your other fringe beliefs: which only goes to show you really don't give a shit about animals, otherwise you'd find the will to shut up about anti-natalism and about how you think the moon-landings are hoaxes and just advocate for the animals.

I'm not forcing vegans to have children. If they want to, they should, and they should feel good about it because they did a good thing: it's one of those times when human emotional intuition is in line with the consequences. It doesn't happen often, but when it is in line we shouldn't be shy about encouraging it and most of all speaking up against the people like YOU who want to throw around slurs like "breeder" and shame good people who want to have children and raise them to carry on their values.
sykkelmannen
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:17 am
Diet: Freegan

Re: Is antinatalism a valid ideology? Does it have a negative effect upon the vegan movement?

Post by sykkelmannen »

@brimstonesalad
Namecalling and DBA (Discredit By Association) attacks. Wow, class.

If X and Y is your agenda and another debater has a different idea about X (much like veganism btw), according to your "logic" therefore the opposing idea about Y must be wrong based on differing opinions about X, in spite of X and Y being completely unrelated. Imagine that people dismiss vegans' claims about protecting the environment as "crazy" because they are "crazy vegans". That is exactly what you just did here.

I wrote this a couple days ago: Whoever questions the moonlanding hoax is labeled a Flat Earther. The "logic": Flat Earthers say moonlanding was a hoax. Flat Earthers are nuts >> Moonlanding was real >> all doubt about moon landing is flat earth lunacy. Works like a charm.

And voila, you bring it up against me now in the very same fallacious fashion that I have described. Not only that, but you bring it up as your first "point"! And more broadly also as your last lengthy point devoid of content, which was nothing but an explosion of rage and baseless accusations.

Unfortunately for you there is neither logic nor any evidence to back up any of your claims as far as population and so you resort to this smear campaign. Good luck having readers buy this ;)

You don't have to answer the breeder question, it is as obvious as day now.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:12 pm Does you not wanting or having children invalidate all of your claims?
No, because I don't advocate extinction. Also, I didn't say invalidates, I said undermines. There is a difference. I don't claim none of us should have kids.(I shouldn't call myself anti-natalist after all. I don't wish people to die out. It's an unfortunate name for a reductionist ideology) You can't "undo" your kids and since you can't just admit it for some reason, you are justifying it instead. I can breed if I want to. You are doing a horrible job at convincing me about your idea tho. Oh wait! According to your conclusion I shouldn't breed because I don't agree with you on what is crazy. Maybe you should put up a disclaimer as your next post, something like this:
All vegans should breed, except those who know about (ermm I mean believe in) the moon landing hoax ;)
brimstoneSalad wrote: Thu Dec 21, 2017 11:12 pm It's just unfortunate that you're discrediting veganism by association with all of your other fringe beliefs: which only goes to show you really don't give a shit about animals, otherwise you'd find the will to shut up about anti-natalism and about how you think the moon-landings are hoaxes and just advocate for the animals.
If you need to know, I am advocation for the animals. I am deeply sorry, I didn't get the memo that the point of joining a "philosophical vegan" forum means to shut up about hypotheses such as antinatalism or quietly put up with other folks' baseless claims in a respective thread on said forum.

If you asked me what I think is harmful to vegan movement:
- Failing parents who, as it turns out never really wanted to have children but fell for some cult leader that persuaded them it's their duty to multiply and save the Earth. Now wouldn't that be a treat for the press. Is that what you are working on here?
- Putting people in boxes and dividing the movement. Even in your wettest dreams you don't believe that of all the people in this forum, I am the only one questioning the moon landing.

In conclusion, I should like to answer the main question:
1. No, Antinatalism is not a valid ideology if it suggests extinction. In such case it would indeed have a negative effect on the vegan movement which, along with the human society itself would cease to exist.
2. Yes, Antinatalism is a valid ideology if it means reducing population to reasonable levels where poverty, starvation, homelessness, orphanages etc is no longer an issue. It doesn't have a negative effect on vegan movement, because vegan population grows independently of population growth or decline.

Questions remain unanswered. However, I have said what I had to say and I am happy with the result. An attentive reader will be able to discern the bollocks. Go ahead now and have your last word which I promise to leave undisturbed.

Back on topic :)

peace
User avatar
Jebus
Master of the Forum
Posts: 2379
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2014 2:08 pm
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is antinatalism a valid ideology? Does it have a negative effect upon the vegan movement?

Post by Jebus »

sykkelmannen wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:35 am You don't have to answer the breeder question, it is as obvious as day now.
On the contrary, it is pretty evident that Brimstone isn't a breeder.

As a former antinatalist here are my thoughts:

There is no doubt that the world would be a much better place with fewer people. Brimstone and I have disagreed on this in previous threads. I think his theory of letting the population grow to nearly unsustainable levels so as to motivate the world to change their ways is too risky and over optimistic. I think there is a high risk that the whole shit house goes up in flames at such an elevated population number.

However, currently we only have a few practical ways of reducing population growth. These include:
1. Pushing for world wide legalization of abortion.
2. Educating people about protected sex and giving out as many free condoms as possible.
3. Making adoption easier/cheaper.
4. Removing Sweden style child allowances and tax credits for children.

Spreading the antinatalist message is not a good way of going about it. The uneducated are too stupid to understand the message and will continue to breed. The educated will understand it and some of them will decide not to breed. Hence we are left with a higher percentage of people who are unlikely to make the world progress in the way that we (vegans) would like. It is particularly bad when the antinatalist message is spread by vegans as this may further alienate the vegan message from mainstream thinking.
How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 10273
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Diet: Vegan

Re: Is antinatalism a valid ideology? Does it have a negative effect upon the vegan movement?

Post by brimstoneSalad »

I think Jebus already answered most of this pretty well.

And I agree with 1-3, I'm iffy about #4 because it may harm children of low income families, it would have to be replaced by other social programs that help those kids without benefiting neglectful and irresponsible parents. Maybe something like a low mandatory per child tax which pays for making public schools optional boarding schools, so if parents are irresponsible and/or the home environment is not good children can stay there.

I think supporting that just for child welfare makes sense.
Jebus wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 10:26 am I think there is a high risk that the whole shit house goes up in flames at such an elevated population number.
The thing is that the shit house is already kindled; it's on track to go up in flames no almost matter what we do (even if we drastically reduced population, which would take too long; remember the catastrophic outcomes are projected by 2050).

There's a graph here that shows how small the effect is of different population projections:
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/12/12/16766872/overpopulation-exaggerated-concern-climate-change

Again, the issue is that change in population is just so slow, and even the extremes require draconian measures.

So we'll have to turn things around one way or another in a pretty extreme way and get governments in power that support sustainable practices. And if we can save ourselves at all, a larger population will just guarantee that we won't be able to afford as much animal agriculture in whatever sustainable plan results... although I think that will probably mostly disappear in favor of clean meat anyway, a large population would provide a backup in case for whatever reason that didn't catch on.

In terms of those dramatic changes, things like going vegan and switching to nuclear power are much more important. We could hit virtually 0-impact and then population won't matter.

Now if you don't have kids so that you can spend your time advocating veganism, then that totally makes sense, but we shouldn't assume that even for most vegans that's a realistic alternative to children (the actual alternative is probably watching more TV and playing more video games).
sykkelmannen wrote: Sat Dec 23, 2017 9:35 am @brimstonesalad
Namecalling and DBA (Discredit By Association) attacks. Wow, class.
:lol: I'm not saying anti-natalism is wrong because an anti-natalist believes the moon landings were a hoax. That would be fallacious.

I'm saying YOU are obviously not a credible source of information because you believe on conspiracy theories, do not have basic scientific literacy, and don't bother to do basic fact checking before jumping on beliefs that you advocate passionately despite having no idea what you're talking about.

Just as if somebody came here saying the Earth was flat, or that Evolution was not true. These are all clear indications of choosing to believe conspiracy theories over science. Thus, you are not a sensible person to argue with because you're a nutcase who has no respect for science and no ability to do basic research.

You also hold some good beliefs, like veganism, but you hold them not because you are rational but seemingly randomly because they tickle your intuition and make you feel superior to others.

A stopped clock is right twice a day, but it's not worth arguing with because the reason it is right has nothing to do with a mechanism approaching actual fact.
Post Reply