I'm not familiar, but I assume they advocate that their members not have children. I think this is a bit problematic. People who understand the logic of anti-natalism are the people who are the most likely to be good parents, while those who don't care about all this philosophical gobbledygook are probably worse parents. I see the world as a battle between the forces of those who are philosophical and those who are negligent, and I want the philosophical ones to win.
I think if someone wants to have children, and they are very thoughtful about it, then I don't see that as a crisis in itself. I'm more concerned about the general behavior of billions of people as a statical average than trying to guilt a few conscientious individuals.
I view the problem like nuclear disarmament. Having nuclear weapons is very scary, but if the good guys disarm, the bad guys win. Encouraging philosophically minded people to not reproduce on a personal level seems risky. I think the philosophers need more firepower to outweigh the idiocracy. At least until we understand biology a bit better.
The other analogy I would make would be to vegans. Yes, we should stand against human suffering. But if someone eats meat and they are an effective voice for animal rights, I would rather let them eat meat and be energized in the cause than shame them for meat eating and exile them. (I eat meat, if you can't tell)
I don't pressure individuals to have kids, but I also wouldn't pressure anyone personally not to have kids. I just think we should implement policies at a global level that reduce the amount of unthinking parents -- the type of people who don't really care, but would get knocked up by accident, sort of thing. So female education, access to contraception, and access to abortion in every country across the globe. Beyond that, I think if we could reduce the human population to Georgia Guidestones level, that would be an improvement, and I don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good, since there are always oppositional actors (the Imperial Germans, the Russians, the Chinese) who could "break the pact" and outbreed a VHEMT-led America and take over the world. Then we'd be back to square one.
VHEMT advocates for people to stop procreating completely, regardless of income, education or whether they “understand the logic of antinatalism”. It’s about preventing future human suffering and preserving the planet and all of its (nonhuman) species.
And I wouldn’t worry about oppositional actors like Russia and China, given they’re on their way to demographic extinction anyway.
> Sterilization wasn’t a result of “evil genocidal racists,” unless you’re claiming that the South African government in 2016 is also run by evil genocidal racists.
" Relative to African residents of other regions of the country, the share of African women that gave birth in these townships and white-owned farms declined by nearly one-third during the 1970s."
You have this quote in your section arguing that family planning was focused on whites, but doesn't this quote go against that argument? They're specifically talking about how African residents in the areas targeted had 1/3rd less births, not white residents.
My argument was that the anti-natalist policies weren't confined to the black population, but affected blacks and whites.
The fact that they were "targeted" in the white areas could be a product of one of a few things:
1. The AR wanted to keep the black birth rate high, so they neglected to bring their policies into black homelands. (Lyman claims this)
2. The AR wanted to keep the white birth rate low, so they targeted white areas.
3. The AR wanted to keep the black birth rate within white areas low, so they targeted white areas (to create racial Balkanization).
4. The AR just enacted its policies where it had the existing economic and political infrastructure to do so. Black homelands were underdeveloped, so they didn't have the infrastructure (roads, hospitals, doctors, literacy) to support an anti-natalist campaign to the same extent.
Maybe we can rule out #2, but then the question is, why did the AR allow white people to use condoms, and why did it allow white women to get sterilized at all? Is this something that a genocidal white supremacist regime would do? Maybe, but I think it's an important detail for providing nuance in this story.
My point is that the drive toward anti-natalism wasn't intended to kill all black people; it wasn't genocidal. The point was that, without anti-natalism, the black population at a TFR of 7 (as it was in 1970) would lead to unsustainable growth, which would increase the likelihood of insecurity, instability, and violence.
I think you could make the same argument for an anti-natalist policy in Maoist China. My argument is not dependent on the inherent genetic quality of a particular race, but on the problem of overpopulation generally when you have a population in extreme poverty. What I'm trying to say is that anti-natalism was a good policy, even if it was done racistly, and it can be defended from the position of wanting a better life for black South Africans.
Might be worth a follow up as to why you wouldn't call yourself a libertarian or randian, that's what the "protect smart people from idiot nationalist collectivists" line strongly reminded me of.
I'm not a pro or an anti-natalist. I think we should support people who want to have lots of kids, and that we should support people who don't want to have lots of kids. If we let people choose then we get the best of both worlds.
Out of curiosity, have you heard of VHEMT (Voluntary Human Extinction Movement)? A lot of your arguments sound like the ones they make.
I'm not familiar, but I assume they advocate that their members not have children. I think this is a bit problematic. People who understand the logic of anti-natalism are the people who are the most likely to be good parents, while those who don't care about all this philosophical gobbledygook are probably worse parents. I see the world as a battle between the forces of those who are philosophical and those who are negligent, and I want the philosophical ones to win.
I think if someone wants to have children, and they are very thoughtful about it, then I don't see that as a crisis in itself. I'm more concerned about the general behavior of billions of people as a statical average than trying to guilt a few conscientious individuals.
I view the problem like nuclear disarmament. Having nuclear weapons is very scary, but if the good guys disarm, the bad guys win. Encouraging philosophically minded people to not reproduce on a personal level seems risky. I think the philosophers need more firepower to outweigh the idiocracy. At least until we understand biology a bit better.
The other analogy I would make would be to vegans. Yes, we should stand against human suffering. But if someone eats meat and they are an effective voice for animal rights, I would rather let them eat meat and be energized in the cause than shame them for meat eating and exile them. (I eat meat, if you can't tell)
I don't pressure individuals to have kids, but I also wouldn't pressure anyone personally not to have kids. I just think we should implement policies at a global level that reduce the amount of unthinking parents -- the type of people who don't really care, but would get knocked up by accident, sort of thing. So female education, access to contraception, and access to abortion in every country across the globe. Beyond that, I think if we could reduce the human population to Georgia Guidestones level, that would be an improvement, and I don't want to make the perfect the enemy of the good, since there are always oppositional actors (the Imperial Germans, the Russians, the Chinese) who could "break the pact" and outbreed a VHEMT-led America and take over the world. Then we'd be back to square one.
VHEMT advocates for people to stop procreating completely, regardless of income, education or whether they “understand the logic of antinatalism”. It’s about preventing future human suffering and preserving the planet and all of its (nonhuman) species.
And I wouldn’t worry about oppositional actors like Russia and China, given they’re on their way to demographic extinction anyway.
> Sterilization wasn’t a result of “evil genocidal racists,” unless you’re claiming that the South African government in 2016 is also run by evil genocidal racists.
Well...
I meant anti-black ones, lol.
" Relative to African residents of other regions of the country, the share of African women that gave birth in these townships and white-owned farms declined by nearly one-third during the 1970s."
You have this quote in your section arguing that family planning was focused on whites, but doesn't this quote go against that argument? They're specifically talking about how African residents in the areas targeted had 1/3rd less births, not white residents.
My argument was that the anti-natalist policies weren't confined to the black population, but affected blacks and whites.
The fact that they were "targeted" in the white areas could be a product of one of a few things:
1. The AR wanted to keep the black birth rate high, so they neglected to bring their policies into black homelands. (Lyman claims this)
2. The AR wanted to keep the white birth rate low, so they targeted white areas.
3. The AR wanted to keep the black birth rate within white areas low, so they targeted white areas (to create racial Balkanization).
4. The AR just enacted its policies where it had the existing economic and political infrastructure to do so. Black homelands were underdeveloped, so they didn't have the infrastructure (roads, hospitals, doctors, literacy) to support an anti-natalist campaign to the same extent.
Maybe we can rule out #2, but then the question is, why did the AR allow white people to use condoms, and why did it allow white women to get sterilized at all? Is this something that a genocidal white supremacist regime would do? Maybe, but I think it's an important detail for providing nuance in this story.
My point is that the drive toward anti-natalism wasn't intended to kill all black people; it wasn't genocidal. The point was that, without anti-natalism, the black population at a TFR of 7 (as it was in 1970) would lead to unsustainable growth, which would increase the likelihood of insecurity, instability, and violence.
I think you could make the same argument for an anti-natalist policy in Maoist China. My argument is not dependent on the inherent genetic quality of a particular race, but on the problem of overpopulation generally when you have a population in extreme poverty. What I'm trying to say is that anti-natalism was a good policy, even if it was done racistly, and it can be defended from the position of wanting a better life for black South Africans.
"The best form of Liberalism is when you oppose:
The Medieval suppression of Cathars and Bogomils"
The Cathars are my favorite heretical group. Thank you for mentioning them.
Might be worth a follow up as to why you wouldn't call yourself a libertarian or randian, that's what the "protect smart people from idiot nationalist collectivists" line strongly reminded me of.
I'm not a pro or an anti-natalist. I think we should support people who want to have lots of kids, and that we should support people who don't want to have lots of kids. If we let people choose then we get the best of both worlds.
https://tamritz.substack.com/p/the-return-of-the-kibbutz-children?source=queue