It doesn't change absolutely anything in my argument, it remains exactly the same. Antinatalism absconds not only the responsibility to improve the world but even the possibility of a better world existing in the future, it assumes à priori that existence is and will remain insufferable.
It was never meant to remedy shitty living conditions.
Vs
Ask anyone with disabilities, abusive families, trauma, financial hardship, and generally going though too much shit in life and you'll find that it was never about a lack of imagination.
This is a contradiction. You are literally picking the antinatalist option because of shitty living conditions.
And of course, the lack of imagination is not whether you can imagine things being better but whether you can imagine things becoming better starting from where we are here and now.
=======
We suffer because we are able to imagine how things could have been so much better. It is because we can imagine ourselves in a better place
If you can imagine such a place, steelman your argument then, try making it without a premise of shitty living conditions. Pick a convivial world, and make an antinatalist argument from that world. Does it still stand?
=======
Finally, the argument that says nonexistence might be better is literally vacuous: False implies True. Nonexistence therefore is trivially whatever you want it to be, but not In any meaningful sense.
In a society whose official ideology is that "There is No Alternative", antinatalism is basically a dressed up version of "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism".
It's basically just lack of imagination. Doomerist defeatism.
The Berlin legislature has gone pretty bananas on the criminalization of pro-palestine speech. I am wondering if any of the mainstream parties are calling it out or if they're leaving the lane wide open for the actual antisemites to take advantage.
An ecosocialist world would not allow wealth inequality to become this bad.
We don't live in one. The challenge is to make one.
It’s a biological fact when resources are constrained that a population will plateu.
Mice and fleas don't have medicine, feminism, research centres and agriculture. Look at the world around you. In societies with high degrees of scarcity and high infant mortality, humans have tended to have a lot of babies. This is true now, and it was true historically. On the flipside, in societies with high development indexes, humans tend to not have many kids. From Japan to Sweden to Cuba, you see that fertility rates inversely correlate with human development. These are just observable facts.
Oh, so you get to decide who gets to have kids and how many? And the "trailer park welfare mom" is your problem? Like, the straw(wo)man you made up with ingredients from classism, sexism and eugenics?
Yea, that makes you a regular fascist. The "eco" is just the excuse.
The demonization of the Romans is silly.