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
Lightningman_42
Master in Training
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:19 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: California

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

Post by Lightningman_42 »

Hello everyone, so I wanted to share my thoughts on a recent video by Vegan Gains, in which he and his wife Jasmine (both of whom hate children), discuss the supposed immorality of procreation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BtzOhQCJfw

Please share your thoughts on this video, and on antinatalism in general. If you read what I have to say and take it into consideration, then I appreciate that as well.



I'm very worried about the damage that the ideology of antinatalism could have upon the vegan movement, especially when it's promoted by vegan activists with large social platforms, such as Vegan Gains (who had ~303,000 subscribers, as of November 10, 2017). This ideology is likely very off-putting to quite a lot of nonvegans, and could make it more difficult for them to consider going vegan, if they see antinatalism promoted as something consistent with vegan moral philosophy. In addition to the pragmatic dangers of vegan activists promoting antinatalism, there is also the matter of whether or not this ideology is actually valid.

Now I'll respond to some points from the video:

At 5:27, Jasmine said, not wrote:Having children is selfish.
No, not necessarily. In order to prove this, she'd need to first demonstrate that it's impossible for parents to produce children who have can have a net positive impact on the world (on the rest of humankind, animals, and the environment).

At 5:29, Jasmine said, not wrote:There are so many children that don't have any home or parents, just fucking adopt!
I've noticed a common mindset among antinatalists, that producing children involves many problems which can be avoided by adopting children. Therefore, surely it is more moral for people to adopt rather than produce children.
This notion is only true if the net effect of adopting (pros vs. cons) is better than the net effect of procreation (pros vs. cons). Antinatalists like Jasmine have a tendency to compare the cons of procreation to the pros of either adopting or living childless. Unfortunately, they do so without mentioning the pros of procreation, cons of adoption, nor cons of not having any children. To be fair, Jasmine did mention that adoption is expensive, but not much else.
brimstoneSalad, you've mentioned some of the benefits of procreation and problems of adoption. Is it OK with you if I link them here? I hope so.

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3508&hilit=mizen&start=10

At 5:36, Jasmine said, not wrote:We're overpopulated, why the fuck do you feel so self-entitled to breed? Especially when you're vegan! When you're already aware of what the hell is going on with our planet. It's so selfish! There's no way you can justify having a child at this moment because we're so overpopulated right now.
First off, not all people who breed, despite awareness of the negative impact that this can have, do so anyways because they feel self-entitled. Some people who want to produce children are aware of both positive and negative consequences that doing so can have. Such people might end up deciding that producing children can actually do more good than bad, depending on how they raise them.
I think it's especially unreasonable to insist that vegans have some sort of "even greater" responsibility to not produce children, as if it's even worse when vegans do it. Ironically, well-informed ethical-vegans who value science and environmentalism might actually be very good potential parents, who might be able to raise their children to have a net-positive impact on the world.

If potential "breeders" (as Jasmine & Richard call them) want to produce children who can have a net-positive impact upon the world, then I think that there are some measures which parents can take to make this happen:

-Raise them vegan. Provide them with a delicious, healthy, and richly-varied diet based mostly upon legumes, grains, and vegetables; with some fruits, nuts, seeds, and vitamin-B12 supplementation. A healthy vegan diet for children not only minimizes their negative effects upon animals and the environment, but also allows them to show nonvegan children how healthy and viable such a diet can be. Nonvegan peers might be inspired to progress to a vegan diet themselves if they see it done right, and realize that if they do so, they can better practice their innate compassion towards animals (which children tend to have, maybe more so than adults).

-Encourage them to be kind and informative to their nonvegan peers. This can improve the chances that they have for being a good influence on others (in terms of environmentalism, as well as practicing compassion towards animals).

-Raise them to practice environmentalism. Teach them the importance of recycling, avoiding food-waste & water-waste, and minimizing usage of (fossil-fueled) motorized transport (especially for nonessential purposes).

-Encourage them to be passionate about science! Teach them about how fascinating and important STEM careers are!

-Anything else? Please share your ideas!


I see a lot more problems with Jasmine & Richard's video, as well as with antinatalism in general. However, my initial post here is already quite long and I want to encourage others to respond.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
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 »

They themselves are quite selfish when they talk about advantages of not having children as being basically time and money saved, they talk about one of the advantages of not having kids as being more time to play video games ffs, they really don't get it. They also decided to start this video because of a screaming kid and as a result threatened to punch the parents for not controlling their kid. I bet they threw tantrums themselves (their parents would probably laugh watching this), most kids do at least occassionally, it is false to thing that kids having a tantrum is public is necessarily the result of bad parenting. Perhaps if the tantrums are regular.

I wonder if these guys have thought about their old age and when they've lost touch with other friends and family and the generation of their family above them has gone, and then don't have one below. Having kids may lead to a better life later on when the kids are grown up, more to live for.

Their video is ugly, but I think some of it is a fight back against society constantly telling them to have children, which must be annoying, and it has made them mad. They haven't reacted well to that. Less vitriol and a few bits left out and it might have been useful. I am not surprised that people get offended. They obviously don't know how to bring up sensitive topics.

It is true that having a child makes you dramatically poorer and with hugely less free time, and some people could underestimate that.

Unfortunately not having children for environmental reasons is likely a decision taken by intelligent, or liberal and/or environmentally minded parents and will lead to a world where the proportion of such people decreases. Another idea could be to fund and support initatives aimed at educating people about children in the countries where multiple children and unplanned pregnancies are very common and make people think more carefully, hand out more birth control where it isn't available etc. I'd agree with that.
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 »

I only watched the beginning of the video. I don't understand the relevance of that introduction anecdote. Parents not controlling their kids is indeed very annoying but Vegan Gains and his wife don't know for sure that the kid in question was bred and not adopted.
Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:56 pmI'm very worried about the damage that the ideology of antinatalism could have upon the vegan movement.
This unconvincing argument always come up when a vegan voices a "controversial viewpoint." There may be a few idiotic potential vegans who are turned off by veganism because of the viewpoint but they would have to intertwine veganism with antinatalism. They don't have to do much research before realizing that not all vegans agree with this. If they are attracted by veganism I doubt the fact that some vegans are antinatalists will turn them off. Besides, any potential vegans lost because of this would likely be (more than) gained by antinatalist carnists watching the video and hence being attracted to veganism because of the association.

More importantly, since Vegan Gains videos are mostly watched by vegans they could have a big impact on making vegans think twice before procreating.


Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:56 pm
At 5:27, Jasmine said, not wrote:Having children is selfish.
No, not necessarily. In order to prove this, she'd need to first demonstrate that it's impossible for parents to produce children who have can have a net positive impact on the world (on the rest of humankind, animals, and the environment).
I think "impossible" is the wrong word here. She would need do explain that the potential negative impact of the bred child would be worse than the impact of not breeding a child at all.
Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:56 pm
At 5:29, Jasmine said, not wrote:There are so many children that don't have any home or parents, just fucking adopt!
I've noticed a common mindset among antinatalists, that producing children involves many problems which can be avoided by adopting children. Therefore, surely it is more moral for people to adopt rather than produce children.
This notion is only true if the net effect of adopting (pros vs. cons) is better than the net effect of procreation (pros vs. cons). Antinatalists like Jasmine have a tendency to compare the cons of procreation to the pros of either adopting or living childless. Unfortunately, they do so without mentioning the pros of procreation, cons of adoption, nor cons of not having any children. To be fair, Jasmine did mention that adoption is expensive, but not much else.
brimstoneSalad, you've mentioned some of the benefits of procreation and problems of adoption. Is it OK with you if I link them here? I hope so.

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3508&hilit=mizen&start=10
A couple of thoughts regarding Brimstone's comments regarding adoption:
1. One must not oversee the probability of ending up with an adopted child more intelligent than a potential bred child. If one adopts domestically the chance of adopting a low IQ child is probably quite high, but if one adopts an orphan from a war zone that chance would decrease as it is likely that the mom consumed alcohol or smoked crack during pregnancy. Haven written that, I agree that people who prefer to adopt are more intelligent than the national average and as such they are more likely to have a more intelligent child if they have their own. I may be a bit of an idealogue here since most stupid people don't know that they are stupid, but what we really want is for low iq couples to adopt instead of breed.
2. Adopting would eliminate the worst case intelligence scenario (like breeding a mongoloid).Yes, you might adopt a child with a lower IQ than the parents' average IQ but at least you can eliminate the probability of having a severely retarded child.
3. Choosing not to adopt because of the IQ factor would be selfish. A low IQ child would do a lot better with intelligent parents than with low intelligent parents.

Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:56 pm
At 5:36, Jasmine said, not wrote:We're overpopulated, why the fuck do you feel so self-entitled to breed? Especially when you're vegan! When you're already aware of what the hell is going on with our planet. It's so selfish! There's no way you can justify having a child at this moment because we're so overpopulated right now.
First off, not all people who breed, despite awareness of the negative impact that this can have, do so anyways because they feel self-entitled. Some people who want to produce children are aware of both positive and negative consequences that doing so can have. Such people might end up deciding that producing children can actually do more good than bad, depending on how they raise them.
Having kids vs. not having kids shouldn't be the only question potential parents consider when estimating the net global impact on their decision. Adopting and/or fostering children should also be part of this decision process. Unfortunately, few parents don't even make such considerations. They have kids just because they think this is normal, expected behavior. Even more intelligent couples who have the ability of critical thinking don't consider the global impact. Instead they think about how wonderful it would be (for them) to have a child. I suspect that in nearly all cases it is an entirely selfish decision.

Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:56 pmI think it's especially unreasonable to insist that vegans have some sort of "even greater" responsibility to not produce children, as if it's even worse when vegans do it. Ironically, well-informed ethical-vegans who value science and environmentalism might actually be very good potential parents, who might be able to raise their children to have a net-positive impact on the world.
I agree that it is unlikely that the world will ever be majority vegan if vegans don't have children. However, vegans adopting a child that would otherwise have a 99% chance of living a non vegan life would seem the obvious choice.
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
Lightningman_42
Master in Training
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:19 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: California

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

Post by Lightningman_42 »

Jamie in Chile wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:34 pm They themselves are quite selfish when they talk about advantages of not having children as being basically time and money saved, they talk about one of the advantages of not having kids as being more time to play video games ffs, they really don't get it. They also decided to start this video because of a screaming kid and as a result threatened to punch the parents for not controlling their kid. I bet they threw tantrums themselves (their parents would probably laugh watching this), most kids do at least occassionally, it is false to thing that kids having a tantrum is public is necessarily the result of bad parenting. Perhaps if the tantrums are regular.
Jasmine and Richard showed remarkable short-sightedness when they listed these self-serving benefits to not having children. How are arguments like this supposed to appeal to people who think that not having children is typically done for selfish reasons?
Jamie in Chile wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:34 pm I wonder if these guys have thought about their old age and when they've lost touch with other friends and family and the generation of their family above them has gone, and then don't have one below. Having kids may lead to a better life later on when the kids are grown up, more to live for.
Yes, this is worth considering as well. Especially "more to live for". I care about veganism, environmentalism, and science. I want younger generations to develop interest in STEM, and work to make the world a better place. I'm confident that I can be a good father some day, and I want to do my part to help raise the next generation. Having children would give me more to live for, particularly when they get older, reach their full potential, and work to make the world a better place. I'm not going to share Jasmine and Richard's pessimism, and assume that even well-educated young vegans who care about science and environmentalism are somehow going to have a net-negative impact on the world.
Jamie in Chile wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:34 pm Their video is ugly, but I think some of it is a fight back against society constantly telling them to have children, which must be annoying, and it has made them mad. They haven't reacted well to that. Less vitriol and a few bits left out and it might have been useful. I am not surprised that people get offended. They obviously don't know how to bring up sensitive topics.
I'll give them some credit for their criticisms of society: a lot of arguments in favor of procreation (and against adoption) are quite bad. Especially the, "it's more satisfying to have your own children" or "you're going to want children some day; right now you don't yet know what you really want".
Jamie in Chile wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:34 pm It is true that having a child makes you dramatically poorer and with hugely less free time, and some people could underestimate that.
That's right. I can understand why some people don't want children. Choosing not to have children for such reasons, however, does not explain antinatalism. They're insisting that reproduction is actually immoral (and especially so for vegans), which I can't stand by for my previously described reasons.
Jamie in Chile wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:34 pm Unfortunately not having children for environmental reasons is likely a decision taken by intelligent, or liberal and/or environmentally minded parents and will lead to a world where the proportion of such people decreases. Another idea could be to fund and support initiatives aimed at educating people about children in the countries where multiple children and unplanned pregnancies are very common and make people think more carefully, hand out more birth control where it isn't available etc. I'd agree with that.
Yeah, I think that if people live by strong environmental principles, it then makes sense for them to have children, in whom they instill these values. If apathetic people don't care about the environment or animals (and eat them), then they're the ones who'd be doing the world a favor by not breeding.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
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 »

Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:54 pm
Jamie in Chile wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:34 pm I wonder if these guys have thought about their old age and when they've lost touch with other friends and family and the generation of their family above them has gone, and then don't have one below. Having kids may lead to a better life later on when the kids are grown up, more to live for.
Yes, this is worth considering as well.
I think this is probably one of the first things that's considered by potential parents. However, it is a selfish part of the decision making analogous to eating meat (big negative impact) because of the taste (small and selfish positive impact).
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
Lightningman_42
Master in Training
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:19 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: California

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

Post by Lightningman_42 »

Jebus wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:35 pm I only watched the beginning of the video. I don't understand the relevance of that introduction anecdote. Parents not controlling their kids is indeed very annoying but Vegan Gains and his wife don't know for sure that the kid in question was bred and not adopted.
The story that they shared at the beginning doesn't really support their "moral" message. That's why I didn't start responding to their comments until over 5 minutes into the movie.
Jebus wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:35 pm
Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:56 pmI'm very worried about the damage that the ideology of antinatalism could have upon the vegan movement.
This unconvincing argument always come up when a vegan voices a "controversial viewpoint." There may be a few idiotic potential vegans who are turned off by veganism because of the viewpoint but they would have to intertwine veganism with antinatalism. They don't have to do much research before realizing that not all vegans agree with this. If they are attracted by veganism I doubt the fact that some vegans are antinatalists will turn them off. Besides, any potential vegans lost because of this would likely be (more than) gained by antinatalist carnists watching the video and hence being attracted to veganism because of the association.
I agree that a few vegan advocates promoting controversial/off-putting views along side their vegan message won't necessarily have a bad effect upon people who are rational enough not to intertwine the two ideologies. I am concerned though, that it will delay potential vegans (who've only just started to think about veganism) from seriously considering it. Also, you say that "some vegans are antinatalists", but is it really just "some vegans"? I hope you're right. If 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.
Jebus wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:35 pm More importantly, since Vegan Gains videos are mostly watched by vegans they could have a big impact on making vegans think twice before procreating.
You're right, this is a good aspect of their video. Not all people would make good parents, and even the best potential parents should think carefully about how they raise them. Hence I made a list of measures to take to ensure that children do end up having a net-positive impact on the world. Feel free to add to it.
Jebus wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:35 pm
Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:56 pm
At 5:27, Jasmine said, not wrote:Having children is selfish.
No, not necessarily. In order to prove this, she'd need to first demonstrate that it's impossible for parents to produce children who have can have a net positive impact on the world (on the rest of humankind, animals, and the environment).
I think "impossible" is the wrong word here. She would need do explain that the potential negative impact of the bred child would be worse than the impact of not breeding a child at all.
I see what you mean. Above I've suggested that net-positive consequences are all that is needed to demonstrate that producing children is morally justifiable. However that wouldn't be the case if not producing children at all has even better net consequences. Still not convinced that that's always the case, though.
Jebus wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:35 pm
Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:56 pm
At 5:29, Jasmine said, not wrote:There are so many children that don't have any home or parents, just fucking adopt!
I've noticed a common mindset among antinatalists, that producing children involves many problems which can be avoided by adopting children. Therefore, surely it is more moral for people to adopt rather than produce children.
This notion is only true if the net effect of adopting (pros vs. cons) is better than the net effect of procreation (pros vs. cons). Antinatalists like Jasmine have a tendency to compare the cons of procreation to the pros of either adopting or living childless. Unfortunately, they do so without mentioning the pros of procreation, cons of adoption, nor cons of not having any children. To be fair, Jasmine did mention that adoption is expensive, but not much else.
brimstoneSalad, you've mentioned some of the benefits of procreation and problems of adoption. Is it OK with you if I link them here? I hope so.

http://philosophicalvegan.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=3508&hilit=mizen&start=10
A couple of thoughts regarding Brimstone's comments regarding adoption:
1. One must not oversee the probability of ending up with an adopted child more intelligent than a potential bred child. If one adopts domestically the chance of adopting a low IQ child is probably quite high, but if one adopts an orphan from a war zone that chance would decrease as it is likely that the mom consumed alcohol or smoked crack during pregnancy. Haven written that, I agree that people who prefer to adopt are more intelligent than the national average and as such they are more likely to have a more intelligent child if they have their own. I may be a bit of an idealogue here since most stupid people don't know that they are stupid, but what we really want is for low iq couples to adopt instead of breed.
2. Adopting would eliminate the worst case intelligence scenario (like breeding a mongoloid).Yes, you might adopt a child with a lower IQ than the parents' average IQ but at least you can eliminate the probability of having a severely retarded child.
3. Choosing not to adopt because of the IQ factor would be selfish. A low IQ child would do a lot better with intelligent parents than with low intelligent parents.
I'll respond to this some more later. I'm not fully sure of my stance yet on what you've said here, so I'll give it some more thought. Perhaps brimstoneSalad can elaborate on her previous comments some more.

Jebus wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:35 pm
Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:56 pm
At 5:36, Jasmine said, not wrote:We're overpopulated, why the fuck do you feel so self-entitled to breed? Especially when you're vegan! When you're already aware of what the hell is going on with our planet. It's so selfish! There's no way you can justify having a child at this moment because we're so overpopulated right now.
First off, not all people who breed, despite awareness of the negative impact that this can have, do so anyways because they feel self-entitled. Some people who want to produce children are aware of both positive and negative consequences that doing so can have. Such people might end up deciding that producing children can actually do more good than bad, depending on how they raise them.
Having kids vs. not having kids shouldn't be the only question potential parents consider when estimating the net global impact on their decision. Adopting and/or fostering children should also be part of this decision process. Unfortunately, few parents don't even make such considerations. They have kids just because they think this is normal, expected behavior. Even more intelligent couples who have the ability of critical thinking don't consider the global impact. Instead they think about how wonderful it would be (for them) to have a child. I suspect that in nearly all cases it is an entirely selfish decision.
Evaluating the matter of "having kids vs. not having kids" is already enough to determine that producing children is, to some degree, morally good (if it's a greater net-positive than no kids whatsoever). It's not enough, however, to determine what form of "having kids" is the better of the two good choices (procreation vs. adoption).
You insist that the choice to procreate "is an entirely selfish decision" in "nearly all cases", but I don't know if that's the case. What's "nearly all cases" here? 80%? 90%? 99.999%? It would be interesting to have some statistics on this, maybe results of surveys where "breeders" have described their reasons for producing children.
Regardless, the possible reasons you've mentioned for why people want to reproduce serve as good arguments in favor of mindfulness (about the consequences of having kids vs. not, as well as of adopting vs. procreation).
I hope you can agree that some people who consider both adoption and procreation (like me) might end up choosing the latter for reasons that are not entirely selfish. brimstoneSalad's arguments against adoption are worth considering, and so are yours in favor of it. I'll think carefully about both, because I do care about the consequences of each choice.
Jebus wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:35 pm
Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 5:56 pmI think it's especially unreasonable to insist that vegans have some sort of "even greater" responsibility to not produce children, as if it's even worse when vegans do it. Ironically, well-informed ethical-vegans who value science and environmentalism might actually be very good potential parents, who might be able to raise their children to have a net-positive impact on the world.
I agree that it is unlikely that the world will ever be majority vegan if vegans don't have children. However, vegans adopting a child that would otherwise have a 99% chance of living a non vegan life would seem the obvious choice.
I'm not convinced that it's an obvious choice. Raising an adopted child to be vegan might be best if they're otherwise not vegan. Or maybe not, if his/her impact on the world is not as strong as a self-produced child's impact would be (for the IQ & developmental reasons brimstoneSalad mentioned).
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
User avatar
Lightningman_42
Master in Training
Posts: 501
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2015 12:19 am
Diet: Vegan
Location: California

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

Post by Lightningman_42 »

Jebus wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:09 pm
Lightningman_42 wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 10:54 pm
Jamie in Chile wrote: Fri Nov 10, 2017 8:34 pm I wonder if these guys have thought about their old age and when they've lost touch with other friends and family and the generation of their family above them has gone, and then don't have one below. Having kids may lead to a better life later on when the kids are grown up, more to live for.
Yes, this is worth considering as well.
I think this is probably one of the first things that's considered by potential parents. However, it is a selfish part of the decision making analogous to eating meat (big negative impact) because of the taste (small and selfish positive impact).
The "...more to live for" part is not necessarily selfish. If someone lives for promoting veganism, environmentalism, and STEM; then having children (either produced or adopted) can be a good way to further promote these goals. Goals which are not selfish in nature.
"The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil but because of those who look on and do nothing."
-Albert Einstein
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 »

OK, I just watched the whole video and my first thought is. . . My goodness that woman is pale. I would test her for Vitamin D deficiency.

Seriously I think they are missing the point. They keep focusing on selfish reasons for not having children which would legitimize the decision of potential parents to have a baby just because they think this will enrich their lives.
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.
Gregor Samsa
Junior Member
Posts: 62
Joined: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:16 pm
Diet: Vegan

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

Post by Gregor Samsa »

I think antinatalism is a political deadend and reinforces the stereotype that veganism is an evolutionary maladaption. it makes a lot of sense to me to be a "reducitarian" when it comes to having children, but that's already the case in most parts of the west, and so a serious antinatalist would work towards solutions in the third world where population explosion is a problem, not in say northern europe where the population would be receeding but for immigration.
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 »

Gregor Samsa wrote: Sat Nov 11, 2017 11:13 ama serious antinatalist would work towards solutions in the third world where population explosion is a problem, not in say northern europe where the population would be receeding but for immigration.
So basically fewer people where they do the least damage to the planet and more people where they do the most damage. Makes sense.
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.
Post Reply