Anti-natalism

[Runenight201]

What are your thoughts on this? Ive seen increasing interest around this ideology, especially around those disheartened by the current state of affairs and a primarily cynical and negative viewpoint of humanity.

I believe the internal state generates the psychological predisposition towards the pro or anti natality. Those who are overwhelmingly negative and cynical are stuck in stressful/inflammatory pathways and haven’t felt the full breadth of euphoria an energetic and vital metabolism can give. I believe it just takes one moment in such an ecstatic state to shake off all beliefs of nihilism and antinatalism, and in turn, fully embrace and affirm life for what it is and exude a desire for its reproduction and continuity.

 

[orewashin]

Beware of beliefs that the world is overpopulated. The world can hold many billions more humans.

If someone wanted to take control of the world, what would they do? Scare people into thinking that we will destroy this planet, so the population will dwindle and they'll be able to control them easier.

True, we may produce toxic smog and pollute the land and water with toxic chemicals. But we would survive even in bad conditions. Overpopulation is a lesser evil than overregulation, which would neuter liberty and render human life mundane and destroy its beauty.

 

[snacks]

What are your thoughts on this? Ive seen increasing interest around this ideology, especially around those disheartened by the current state of affairs and a primarily cynical and negative viewpoint of humanity.

I believe the internal state generates the psychological predisposition towards the pro or anti natality. Those who are overwhelmingly negative and cynical are stuck in stressful/inflammatory pathways and haven’t felt the full breadth of euphoria an energetic and vital metabolism can give. I believe it just takes one moment in such an ecstatic state to shake off all beliefs of nihilism and antinatalism, and in turn, fully embrace and affirm life for what it is and exude a desire for its reproduction and continuity.

The world should be depopulated, but through centuries of heroic WAR, not the endless tepid decay the managerial overclass envisages

I'm sorry, but the most populous peoples are all the most easily controlled. It's easier to control populations of billions of han chinese or indians than a handful of chechens. Tying low population to ease of control is intuitive but the ppposite seems to be true. This is why now you see state dept. leftists touting the lie that overpopulation is a racist myth etc. They've found out that huge self-divided populations with no stable identity are easiest to control

 

[Runenight201]

The world should be depopulated, but through centuries of heroic WAR, not the endless tepid decay the managerial overclass envisages

I'm sorry, but the most populous peoples are all the most easily controlled. It's easier to control populations of billions of han chinese or indians than a handful of chechens. Tying low population to ease of control is intuitive but the ppposite seems to be true. This is why now you see state dept. leftists touting the lie that overpopulation is a racist myth etc. They've found out that huge self-divided populations with no stable identity are easiest to control

Do you believe that ecologically the earth can’t sustain a growing human population? Or are you approaching the subject from an issue of control, where as a smaller population has more freedom over their lives.

 

[snacks]

Do you believe that ecologically the earth can’t sustain a growing human population? Or are you approaching the subject from an issue of control, where as a smaller population has more freedom over their lives.

Ecologically I'm sure it's possible. I'm less sure that the result of endless expansion of numbers would be recognizable as humanity but that's a bridge we may have already crossed and burnt. I'm not at all optimistic about the future and would say my views are pretty much word for word those of Linkola on ecology generally

Of course anti natalism isn't natural and I dont support it

 

[gaze]

The world should be depopulated, but through centuries of heroic WAR, not the endless tepid decay the managerial overclass envisages

I'm sorry, but the most populous peoples are all the most easily controlled. It's easier to control populations of billions of han chinese or indians than a handful of chechens. Tying low population to ease of control is intuitive but the ppposite seems to be true. This is why now you see state dept. leftists touting the lie that overpopulation is a racist myth etc. They've found out that huge self-divided populations with no stable identity are easiest to control

all war is a managerial overclass doing. heroism can be found and achieved elsewhere, where people don't die.

 

[snacks]

all war is a managerial overclass doing. heroism can be found and achieved elsewhere, where people don't die.

Read Homer, Jünger, Augustine, really anyone who isn't a redditor on war and you may find a different vision of war from what you're used to. There is such a thing as a good war and real valor but all we have now are global police actions and "interventions"

Everyone will die anyways so "like, people die man" is a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned. Please note that I'm not going to debate on this topic of which the correct position is imho self-evident so I have no issue in agreeing to disagree

 

[Runenight201]

Ecologically I'm sure it's possible. I'm less sure that the result of endless expansion of numbers would be recognizable as humanity but that's a bridge we may have already crossed and burnt. I'm not at all optimistic about the future and would say my views are pretty much word for word those of Linkola on ecology generally

Of course anti natalism isn't natural and I dont support it

I’m not connecting what you mean by recognizable by humanity, or how that response supports the claim that the human population should be depopulated. Do you mind clarifying a bit for me?

Read Homer, Jünger, Augustine, really anyone who isn't a redditor on war and you may find a different vision of war from what you're used to. There is such a thing as a good war and real valor but all we have now are global police actions and "interventions"

Everyone will die anyways so "like, people die man" is a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned. Please note that I'm not going to debate on this topic of which the correct position is imho self-evident so I have no issue in agreeing to disagree

The position you take on the reluctance to engage in certain conversations/ideas is one I’ve similarly thought with regard to things like veganism, where I’ve positively concluded with great certainty how necessary animals are in a healthy human diet. However, usually stating things like that generate the impressions from others that one is pretentious and grandiose.

I’m interested in hearing what you think a good war in today’s culture would consist of and whether that is the best outcome for humanity among the set of different interventions.

 

[snacks]

The world should be depopulated, but through centuries of heroic WAR, not the endless tepid decay the managerial overclass envisages

I've played around or crossed the line into trolling territory too many times lately so I'll do what I can to defend my position in earnest although I'm very tired and I may not expresss myself perfectly.

As I'm finishing this post I see your reply about coming off as pretentious etc. I say that I don't want to reply to certain arguments because I've been on the internet for too long and know how fruitless discussion of certain topics can be. I'm aware of how it comes off but I really only want to spare bother for everybody and avoid clogging up the forum with pointless unresolvible dialogues

I do not actually believe that centuries of global war would solve anything, especially with munitions in their current state causing so many degenerative second order effects-- just look at the rate of birth defects in the former Yugoslavia and Iraq, it's depressing. That was a throwaway joke but I do believe that a return to the age of wars is both inevitable and at least capable of returning something of the spirit of real life to humanity.

What I do think is that the proliferation of mere masses of people has been decidedly negative. You could fit renaissance Florence into that giant lovecraftian mess of a highway interchange in Atlanta, and the population of that city at its most productive period would fit almost dozens of times into Atlanta. The issue as I see it isn't the number of the population itself, or even the density, but that a mass of people vast and undifferentiated has become a thing that smothers human excellence and differentiation. With a terrific rise in quantity of people has come a similar decline in quality, and a lot of this has to do with creating the circumstances to allow this quantity to exist. It's not even the fault of this new type of person-- and I don't believe that I belong to some hidden undecayed branch of humanity btw. Look at africa where feeding the burgeoning population was made possible by the introduction of nutrient-void GMO grains and vaccines. Look at the ecological devastation and the decline in the health of the entire population there. The same thing can be seen in the pacific islands, among australian aboriginals and everyone else not adapted to this style of life which exists ONLY to proliferate life in quantity.

At the same time, the lives of those people who are willing to play by the rules, i.e. the highly educated, city livers etc. are made difficult by costs which make it IMPOSSIBLE to have or sustain children. Doing this at the same time as poorly educated people can simply ignore all of these rules and have children is bad. You don't even need to bring race into this for this to be true and I don't really have an opinion on race so this isn't a statement on that. I think that antinatalism is actually conducive to the decline that is occuring becuase it encourages poor hygiene within and between populations.

A mass of people is also less rational than an individual, and this is something that demagogues have always taken advantage of. The difference between Caesar and today though is that huge numbers of people mean that the potential for crowd hysteria rises as the number of situations where it can form multiply with the quantity of people. Pretty much all politics today is this kind of hysteria...

I could add to this forever but I am just trying to outline my thinking in brief without saying anything incendiary. If I didnt answer something it was inadvertent but for war in general I hold to what Heraclitus says and what Junger says..

 

[snacks]

I've played around or crossed the line into trolling territory too many times lately so I'll do what I can to defend my position in earnest although I'm very tired and I may not expresss myself perfectly.

As I'm finishing this post I see your reply about coming off as pretentious etc. I say that I don't want to reply to certain arguments because I've been on the internet for too long and know how fruitless discussion of certain topics can be. I'm aware of how it comes off but I really only want to spare bother for everybody and avoid clogging up the forum with argument

I do not actually believe that centuries of global war would solve anything, especially with munitions in their current state causing so many degenerative second order effects-- just look at the rate of birth defects in the former Yugoslavia and Iraq, it's depressing. That was a throwaway joke but I do believe that a return to the age of wars is both inevitable and at least capable of returning something of the spirit of real life to humanity.

What I do think is that the proliferation of mere masses of people has been decidedly negative. You could fit renaissance Florence into that giant lovecraftian mess of a highway interchange in Atlanta, and the population of that city at its most productive period would fit almost dozens of times into Atlanta. The issue as I see it isn't the number of the population itself, or even the density, but that a mass of people vast and undifferentiated has become a thing that smothers human excellence and differentiation. With a terrific rise in quantity of people has come a similar decline in quality, and a lot of this has to do with creating the circumstances to allow this quantity to exist. It's not even the fault of this new type of person-- and I don't believe that I belong to some hidden undecayed branch of humanity btw. Look at africa where feeding the burgeoning population was made possible by the introduction of nutrient-void GMO grains and vaccines. Look at the ecological devastation and the decline in the health of the entire population there. The same thing can be seen in the pacific islands, among australian aboriginals and everyone else not adapted to this style of life which exists ONLY to proliferate life in quantity.

At the same time, the lives of those people who are willing to play by the rules, i.e. the highly educated, city livers etc. are made difficult by costs which make it IMPOSSIBLE to have or sustain children. Doing this at the same time as poorly educated people can simply ignore all of these rules and have children is bad. You don't even need to bring race into this for this to be true and I don't really have an opinion on race so this isn't a statement on that. I think that antinatalism is actually conducive to the decline that is occuring becuase it encourages poor hygiene within and between populations.

A mass of people is also less rational than an individual, and this is something that demagogues have always taken advantage of. The difference between Caesar and today though is that huge numbers of people mean that the potential for crowd hysteria rises as the number of situations where it can form multiply with the quantity of people. Pretty much all politics today is this kind of hysteria...

I could add to this forever but I am just trying to outline my thinking in brief without saying anything incendiary

I guess I should have made this very short by saying that I am not an antinatalist and was at least partially in jest with my first statement but I see an unfortunate trend of life becoming mere quantity, which is a societal trend I think Rene Guenon expresses better than I ever could in The Reign of Quantity, and I think it is interesting and poignant that the best, most productive societies i.e. athens always had issues with population shortages at their peaks. Maybe the real end and pinnacle of life is something else? I don't know but I have been speculating for a while. English is my 3rd language so sorry for any writing issues

 

[Runenight201]

From what you’ve written I’m catching the idea that you believe that the quantity of humans has increased at the expense of quality. I do believe this to be true today, but not that it necessarily is a universal truth, at least if applied to an idyllic case of every human existing in a state of the highest potential. Thinking on it more there could be a perfect equilibrium point where quantity and quality peak at an upside down parabola vertex and then the quality becomes to decrease as the quantity increases. Residing at that peak equilibrium point could create the most harmony in the world.

The antinatalist accurately captures the negative result of what careless population expansion can create, but I don’t believe the correct answer is the subsequent divorce from all reproduction, but rather the active integration of reproduction into a life order which either grows or maintains the harmonious good in the world, and the separation from thoughtless childbirth as one of the few outlets for individual expansion

I’m not sure if war is the ultimate answer for such ascension into the highest human potential on earth, but I’m heavily biased due to my Catholic upbringing.

 

[snacks]

From what you’ve written I’m catching the idea that you believe that the quantity of humans has increased at the expense of quality. I do believe this to be true today, but not that it necessarily is a universal truth, at least if applied to an idyllic case of every human existing in a state of the highest potential. Thinking on it more there could be a perfect equilibrium point where quantity and quality peak at an upside down parabola vertex and then the quality becomes to decrease as the quantity increases. Residing at that peak equilibrium point could create the most harmony in the world.

The antinatalist accurately captures the negative result of what careless population expansion can create, but I don’t believe the correct answer is the subsequent divorce from all reproduction, but rather the active integration of reproduction into a life order which either grows or maintains the harmonious good in the world.

I’m not sure if war is the ultimate answer for such ascension into the highest human potential on earth, but I’m heavily biased due to my Catholic upbringing.

I don't think that quality and quantity of humans is necessarily at odds, just that the means by which population was increased and the ends to which it was increased (to create more laborers, more consumers of commodities) has PUT quality and quantity at odds. I should have been far more clear about this lol. I don't really like the idea of there being 7 billion or 10 billion or 20 billion people but under a different civilizational order it would probably be possible or even good for the advancement of humans.

As for war, I am for a certain kind and ideal of war in the abstract but this really has nothing to do with my opinion on population. I made a joke without being clear about the fact that I was joking and then ran with it when some guy said something that irritated me. I apologize for doing this as I appear to have created a lot of confusion

 

[gaze]

@snacks the Iliad can just as easily be read as an antiwar book. Human virtues can be seen anywhere, you have a fetish for the virtues of courage and honor in battle, yet I'd guarantee you'd never go anywhere near it. Achilles is more of a tragic figure and representation of human pitfalls, then he is as a role model to go kill random people to show your strength

 

[snacks]

@snacks the Iliad can just as easily be read as an antiwar book. Human virtues can be seen anywhere, you have a fetish for the virtues of courage and honor in battle, yet I'd guarantee you'd never go anywhere near it. Achilles is more of a tragic figure and representation of human pitfalls, then he is as a role model to go kill random people to show your strength

The Iliad can be read as an antiwar book but that would be incorrect. Nietzsche talked about this and it's obvious from any good translation but as someone who reads ancient Greek I PROMISE you that it is above all a romanticization of glory and striving. I am joining my country's military with the goal of ultimately joining a PMC after I get my degree so I'm not sure what you're getting at unless you just think scattershot personal attacks will help you make your point

"Achilles is more of a tragic figure." First of all, to be a tragic hero in a Greek story isn't necessarily a place of dishonor, though it can be. Second o fall, you know there are other people in the Iliad right? You did the pedestrian thing and IMMEDIATELY invoked achilles, which is more telling than anything else you could've said or done. My aspirational model is Diomedes. Anyways I'm sorry but you should brush up on the topic a bit. Why did Alexander idolize Achilles? Why was he considered the greatest hero of the war? You're failing to understand something very basic about the Greek worldview but it's nothing to feel bad about as this is something you're taught to do in school

I don't plan on following this thread any further but the last thing I'll leave you with is a recommendation to read Junger, specifically the unabridged translation by mystery grove is most faithful to the original

 

[gaze]

The Iliad can be read as an antiwar book but that would be incorrect. Nietzsche talked about this and it's obvious from any good translation but as someone who reads ancient Greek I PROMISE you that it is above all a romanticization of glory and striving. I am joining my country's military with the goal of ultimately joining a PMC after I get my degree so I'm not sure what you're getting at unless you just think scattershot personal attacks will help you make your point

"Achilles is more of a tragic figure." First of all, to be a tragic hero in a Greek story isn't necessarily a place of dishonor, though it can be. Second o fall, you know there are other people in the Iliad right? You did the pedestrian thing and IMMEDIATELY invoked achilles, which is more telling than anything else you could've said or done. My aspirational model is Diomedes. Anyways I'm sorry but you should brush up on the topic a bit. Why did Alexander want Achilles' shield? Was it out of poignant love for his "tragic" story?

Your certainty free to aspire to be like whoever you like, but aspiring to act and be a certain way closes your mind and imagination to new or better possibilities. Nietzscheans ideals don't have to be your ideals, nor do the Greek ideals. I have no doubt that we all have all the traits of the Greeks for better or worse within us, cowardice, courage, rage, whatever it may be, or the capability for violence, but certain virtues can be superior, such as forgiveness, and an empathy and understanding of the universal human experience within ourselves and others that can bring about love and forgiveness. not the fake, passive aggressive, and inauthentic forgiveness and love that's covering underlying envy, but a real forgiveness of ourselves for our own envy and a recognition of the human condition within ourselves first and foremost, not pointing fingers. War is and always will be a human condition, but it doesn't have to be our condition nor a condition that is almost ever worth it for individual meaning when there are other pathways towards a meaningful life in cohesion with others.

 

[gaze]

Deleted, too off topic to the thread