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 »

ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:44 pm This topic is fascinating to me. I'm not an antinatalist (after all, I've produced two biological children of my own!). But I am a very strong believer that no-one who does not deeply desire children should have or raise them.
It seems like most people's parenting instincts kick on after they have a child, though, or during pregnancy.
It would be really interesting to see if parents who strongly desired children before having them make better parents; it's possible that they do, but because the feelings are so biologically rooted in many this may not be the case.

The important thing is being planned so the mother can take prenatal vitamins and avoid alcohol, etc.

But in terms of unplanned children, for many people having a child by accident (even unwanted a first) turns their lives around for the better and they become good parents and better people because of it. Something to think about.
Of course we must always have the option for abortion (and make it socially acceptable) for people who really don't want children and don't change their minds when faced with the immediate prospect.
ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:44 pmIt's very unusual for people to foster unless they need the money, which is a tremendous shame.
That is a serious issue. And I think you're right that in this case (fostering) you really want people who want children and not those who are motivated by the money and maybe biased to adopt anyway because of it.
On the good side the money could motivate an effective altruist who loves children and knows that he or she can then spend more money on charity because less is required to raise the children due to state support, but it can also motivate people who will be neglectful and see it as a source of income (particularly since those aren't their children).
ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:44 pmMy husband and I did consider fostering or open adoption before we had our first child (perhaps I'll make a video on this topic if my husband agrees, since it's rather personal, but has mostly to do with my own medical issues).
That would be interesting!
ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:44 pmThe last thing anyone on earth should ever do is try to persuade someone who does not want kids that they ought to have them.
I think the question is why they don't want children. If they otherwise love children and would have liked to have them, but don't because of environmental reasons or belief that it will overpopulate the world, then I think it's worth resolving those concerns and giving them an informed choice.

If it's a legitimate hatred of children (and not say, even, an irrational fear of diapers), that's probably a good call for them to not have them.

Of course nobody should think that the only way to make the world a better place is to have children. Donating to effective charities or spending your time on effective charities is another good way, and that could employ some of the time and money that would have otherwise gone to children.
ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:44 pmI support the idea of small families, and I think most people do.
Of course, that lets you put more resources and care into each child. A huge family can lead to neglect which isn't helpful to anybody. I don't understand how families with 7-8 kids are giving them the necessary individual attention.
ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:44 pmI think we should all encourage the broad adoption of birth control and delaying child birth until the mid twenties (which sounds a bit ridiculous in the West, but is a real problem in much of the world).
That could help a lot.
ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:44 pmOn the other hand, I'm not convinced by the idea - popularized by UV and others - that it's good for vegans to have children because they are likely to become vegans - is a little silly. Certainly, statistics show us that good parents tend to have good kids. But it's hard to get much more specific than that.
What do you mean?

We don't have any studies, but I think we have quite a few examples of popular vegans with vegan kids who stick with it and have inspired people in their own ways.
Even more reducetarians in the world probably create positive inspiration in others that offsets their effects (assuming they aren't completely anti-social).
The chances of a complete polarity shift into paleo or the S.A.D. or something seems unlikely.
ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:44 pmAnd of course, I also look forward to CRISPR technology allowing people who will make good parents - but might have bad genes - to have children.
Just wait until the conservatives outlaw it. It's God's job to choose the genes for the child! Don't mess with HIS plan. :roll:
User avatar
ModVegan
Full Member
Posts: 123
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2016 12:01 pm
Diet: Vegan
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

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

Post by ModVegan »

brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:59 pm It seems like most people's parenting instincts kick on after they have a child, though, or during pregnancy.
It would be really interesting to see if parents who strongly desired children before having them make better parents; it's possible that they do, but because the feelings are so biologically rooted in many this may not be the case.

The important thing is being planned so the mother can take prenatal vitamins and avoid alcohol, etc.

But in terms of unplanned children, for many people having a child by accident (even unwanted a first) turns their lives around for the better and they become good parents and better people because of it. Something to think about.
Of course we must always have the option for abortion (and make it socially acceptable) for people who really don't want children and don't change their minds when faced with the immediate prospect.
Meh. I'm afraid I don't find a "seems like" argument to convincing in this matter. Of course, I'm basing my own experience off of anecdotes as well, so unless either of us has strong evidence to the contrary, we're unlikely to get very far.

It probably doesn't carry too much weight, but I'm of the persuasion that unless you have a reasonable belief you can provide a stable home (which would include being pretty darn sure you want kids), you ought not to have them.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:59 pm I think the question is why they don't want children. If they otherwise love children and would have liked to have them, but don't because of environmental reasons or belief that it will overpopulate the world, then I think it's worth resolving those concerns and giving them an informed choice.

If it's a legitimate hatred of children (and not say, even, an irrational fear of diapers), that's probably a good call for them to not have them.

Of course nobody should think that the only way to make the world a better place is to have children. Donating to effective charities or spending your time on effective charities is another good way, and that could employ some of the time and money that would have otherwise gone to children.
Fair enough, I don't think we disagree here.
brimstoneSalad wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 5:59 pmWhat do you mean?
We don't have any studies, but I think we have quite a few examples of popular vegans with vegan kids who stick with it and have inspired people in their own ways.
Even more reducetarians in the world probably create positive inspiration in others that offsets their effects (assuming they aren't completely anti-social).
The chances of a complete polarity shift into paleo or the S.A.D. or something seems unlikely.
Unfortunately, since we know about 85% of vegans give up on veganism, odds are that similar statistics exist for children of vegans. SO, I don't think it's a good enough reason to have kids on its own. Being a responsible and ethical person who wants to have kids is a good enough reason on its own - I don't think we have to murk it up by throwing potential mini vegans into the mix.
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 »

ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:08 pmwe know about 85% of vegans give up on veganism
From where did you get this number? I know many people like to identify as vegans although they are not. Perhaps this number includes people who did the 21 day vegan challenge etc.

Either way, I think it would be more accurate to compare the likelihood of a born vegan remaining vegan to a born Christian remaining Christian. In fact, I think a born vegan is less likely to convert than a born Christian given the fact that the vegan arguments are so much more difficult to tear down.
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 »

ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:08 pm Of course, I'm basing my own experience off of anecdotes as well, so unless either of us has strong evidence to the contrary, we're unlikely to get very far.
I agree, we'd need hard data to compare costs and benefits.
I'm not sure it's good either, I was just presenting a case against the "only if you really want them" part, because I think people can grow to love being parents too. And on the flip side, it's possible people who wanted kids could realize it's not for them because they had the wrong idea of it (sometimes people who want something that bad -- like people who need to be in a relationship -- have that desire because of romanticizing, and that level of obsession might not be good).

I'd focus more on concrete things, like that they don't hate children, and that they're prepared to care for them and provide them what they need. Stable home, definitely; ability to follow through on commitments, etc. could be meaningful. They should know what they're getting into.
ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:08 pm Unfortunately, since we know about 85% of vegans give up on veganism, odds are that similar statistics exist for children of vegans. SO, I don't think it's a good enough reason to have kids on its own.
I'd take an extra billion people today if 150 million of them were vegan. Imagine what that would do for vegan options, it would something like quadruple the number of vegans in the world at least, and more likely multiply it by ten or more times.

Also, a lot of people who give up go to vegetarianism, or still eat a lot more meatless meals than average and many want to try again; these are all good things.

Cultural tipping points have a lot to do with percentages of the population, but we can't simplify it to either vegan or the opposite; there's a lot of spectrum there on our side.

But I don't think the odds are that low. Most vegans quit within a couple months, longer term vegans are more likely to stay vegan and part of that is because they know how to do it right if they lasted that long. Surveys of ex vegans show nutritional concerns are significant. Social concerns are too, and part of those is family (particularly Xmas, thanksgiving, etc.). Removing a couple of the major reasons why people quit, we would expect the number to increase proportionally to that.
I may be wrong, I think it was something like 1/3rd with reasons like those. We'd be looking at closer to a 40% retention rate, and of the rest most would probably be vegetarians and reducetarians of other kinds not all out S.A.D.ers, which would still have a positive impact.
ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:08 pm I don't think we have to murk it up by throwing potential mini vegans into the mix.
Part of the antinatalist argument is that those kids will grow up to be carnists or otherwise very destructive; mentioning how vegan kids will have less impact (and maybe negative impact through influencing others too) is useful to debunk that concern. And I think that's true even if we only get a 40, or 30% retention rate. Even 10%.

Although there is a retention rate at which they would be correct, maybe 1%? I don't know.

But all the same, I think human society overall (even with all of the ignorance) is important as long as we're making some moral progress, and there's no good reason to hit the reset switch. That's a harder argument to make, though...
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: Mon Nov 13, 2017 2:28 am
ModVegan wrote: Sun Nov 12, 2017 11:08 pmwe know about 85% of vegans give up on veganism
From where did you get this number? I know many people like to identify as vegans although they are not. Perhaps this number includes people who did the 21 day vegan challenge etc.

Either way, I think it would be more accurate to compare the likelihood of a born vegan remaining vegan to a born Christian remaining Christian. In fact, I think a born vegan is less likely to convert than a born Christian given the fact that the vegan arguments are so much more difficult to tear down.
Staying vegan is culturally more difficult than just saying "Sorry Jesus" every now and then after you sin... maybe compare it to how many born Jews keep kosher, or how many born Muslims keep Halal? (Those who are not atheists and just cultural Jews/Muslims)
If we could find numbers on that, it would probably tell us a lot.

I agree of course that the vegan arguments are stronger, but if we excluded the atheists (since the kids won't likely disagree with the arguments) we should have a good number to go by.
PhilRisk
Junior Member
Posts: 54
Joined: Tue Oct 10, 2017 5:08 am
Diet: Vegan

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

Post by PhilRisk »

Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:48 pmIf it's a large portion of the vegan population then this could give people the impression that there is some connection between the two ideologies.
I think there is a possible logical connection between the two.

If one adopts a type of negative consequentialism, i.e. that harm is bad whatever the good it might be for, the having children is prima facie* wrongdoing to the child:
It has to be expected that your child will suffer at some point during his lifetime.
No amount of happiness can compete with negative consequences.
Therefore, it is prima facie wrong to have a child, as it will suffer.

This type of negative consequentialism is easily applicable on the case of using animals. It is wrong if animals suffer, whatever good it is for, e.g. the pleasure of eating.

If one adopts such a negative consequentialism, then one should not have children and become vegan.

--------------------------------------------
*There might still be an argument for having a child. If one thinks that your child will reduce more suffering in the world, than there would be without it.
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 »

PhilRisk wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:24 pmI think there is a possible logical connection between the two.

If one adopts a type of negative consequentialism, i.e. that harm is bad whatever the good it might be for, the having children is prima facie* wrongdoing to the child:
It has to be expected that your child will suffer at some point during his lifetime.
No amount of happiness can compete with negative consequences.
Therefore, it is prima facie wrong to have a child, as it will suffer.

This type of negative consequentialism is easily applicable on the case of using animals. It is wrong if animals suffer, whatever good it is for, e.g. the pleasure of eating.

If one adopts such a negative consequentialism, then one should not have children and become vegan.
By that description there is a possible logical connection between any two moral acts as nearly all acts include some negative consequence. There are also negative consequences involved in the decisions of having children and not using animals.
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 »

PhilRisk wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:24 pm I think there is a possible logical connection between the two.
Absolutely, for the ideological arguments.

Benatar's asymmetry applies just as well to non-humans, as does the argument of having to consent to being brought into existence.

I will try to start the Wiki article on this soon since it's getting more attention right now.

There are only a few more things to add to the #NTT article and other than that I'm waiting for feedback from a couple people on tone.
PhilRisk wrote: Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:24 pm *There might still be an argument for having a child. If one thinks that your child will reduce more suffering in the world, than there would be without it.
Yes, with respect to the empirical arguments, in a global consequentialist evaluation (even a negative only one), veganism is much more easily substantiated than antinatalism.
Jamie in Chile
Senior Member
Posts: 399
Joined: Tue Apr 11, 2017 7:40 pm
Diet: Vegetarian

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

Post by Jamie in Chile »

This idea that low IQ parents should not have children is a bit troubling, I think everyone should have the right to choose. Asking lower IQ parents not to have children is in any case a non-starter politically. However, it may be possible to partly achieve this indirectly by programs that aim to reduce teen pregnancies, government incentives and campaigns against more than 2 children with financial incentives geared to smaller families. Perhaps the best thing that could be done might be a better system of birth control to eliminate unplanned pregnancies.
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 »

Jamie in Chile wrote: Mon Nov 20, 2017 1:37 pm This idea that low IQ parents should not have children is a bit troubling, I think everyone should have the right to choose. Asking lower IQ parents not to have children is in any case a non-starter politically.
Well, what people ideally should do and what they should have the right to do are very different issues.

Perhaps people should not bully others (at least beyond moderate teasing), but there could be a lot of problems in restricting free speech in taking away that right, and drawing distinction between bullying and criticism.

The right to have children could be a pretty important one.
Post Reply