None of those events produced the methane rich superheated atmosphere that runaway global warming is bringing us, which is ACTUALLY going to be “world-shattering”. Feedback loops don’t end until equilibrium is reached, the earth has seen it before, we are seeing it now. Ignoring it isn’t going to make it go away.
yea lol people clearly still aren’t grasping how terrible things are going to get soon if they think the Great Chinese Famine compares. it’s not anti-natalism to not want your own child to have to go through that!
Why do you assume I’m talking about the USA? Seems very Americabrained. Much of the world is not able to feed its own population and has to import a great deal of food. My country imports around half. In the event of global famine and caloric shortfall due to the consequences of climate change (eminently possible by 2040), what is going to stop famine for billions if capitalism and imperialism continue to exist? What is going to stop a state and political order that is becoming openly authoritarian and reactionary from carrying out genuine atrocities on a large scale to manage this crisis? You don’t seem to have grasped how serious climate change is.
Do you think it’s morally acceptable for Gazan Palestinians to have children, knowing that their children may live short, painful lives terminated by a violent death?
Was it acceptable for European Jews to have children during the Holocaust, knowing full well that they all might end up hanging on meat hooks?
Is it morally acceptable to have hope for the future?
Is it morally acceptable to resist genocide by having children?
Or do you think that anything less than a perfect life is unacceptable?
I’m not the person you were talking to, but in their defense, it doesn’t look to me like they ever implied that any of what you listed is not “morally acceptable.” By framing it that way, you’re assigning them a position they never took and skirting around the valid issues that they are talking about. Acknowledging that anyone born today or in the coming decades will very likely see large scale ecological collapse that will only accelerate with time and the inevitable drastic decline in living standards (or even the very ability to live at all on a rapidly warming planet) doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with whether a person thinks it’s morally acceptable for victims of genocide to have children. It is worth giving pause and consideration to the kind of horrors that your children will have to face if you’re in the privileged position of deciding on whether or not to make the conscious decision of having some (especially when there are so many already that need parents and don’t have any). It is both stupid and reactionary to shame people for having children, especially if the people being shamed are “underprivileged” and facing dire circumstances. But taking into consideration the kind of future those children are almost certain to have should be part of a prospective parent’s moral calculus.
I fundamentally disagree with so much of this I don’t know where to even start, and as a communist and aspiring revolutionary who can’t have children, it’s downright offensive.
This is all nonsense, equating concern for the future and those who have to live in it with “nihilism” and pretending that the lack of such concern is "belief in a better future.*
“You can only afford to stop caring when you have no skin in the game.” Disgusting. All those people who literally can’t afford to have children have “no skin in the game.” Fuck you.
“Having children forces you to care.” Bullshit heaped on more bullshit. I have known many parents, some even in my own family, who didn’t give a single shit about their children beyond what they could get from them or out of them. It’s ridiculous and antirevolutionary to say that having children is a revolutionary act and it spits in the face of the many real revolutionaries who choose for themselves not to have children, despite very much wanting to out of their love for people and the health of their community that already is overburdened without enough adults to care for the children already in it. All of this also either pretends that adoption doesn’t exist or worse, implies that parents who adopt don’t or can’t love their children every bit as much as biological parents. Fuck you even more for discounting the profound love that parents who made the decision to adopt have for their children.
According to you, I guess the quiverfull movement are the true revolutionaries. Not reactionary at all!
Recognizing the inevitability of what climate change is going to do to this planet and the consequences that future generations will face is not nihilism. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that climate change isn’t the existential threat that it is because you “believe” that “a better future is possible” isn’t revolutionary. It’s just climate denial.
Denial is, well, denial.
None of those events produced the methane rich superheated atmosphere that runaway global warming is bringing us, which is ACTUALLY going to be “world-shattering”. Feedback loops don’t end until equilibrium is reached, the earth has seen it before, we are seeing it now. Ignoring it isn’t going to make it go away.
yea lol people clearly still aren’t grasping how terrible things are going to get soon if they think the Great Chinese Famine compares. it’s not anti-natalism to not want your own child to have to go through that!
First-world problems will never get as bad as famine or Japanese occupation. Get a grip.
If you think 2040 USA is ever going to get anywhere as bad as WW2 genocidal occupation and famine, you are seriously uncalibrated.
Why do you assume I’m talking about the USA? Seems very Americabrained. Much of the world is not able to feed its own population and has to import a great deal of food. My country imports around half. In the event of global famine and caloric shortfall due to the consequences of climate change (eminently possible by 2040), what is going to stop famine for billions if capitalism and imperialism continue to exist? What is going to stop a state and political order that is becoming openly authoritarian and reactionary from carrying out genuine atrocities on a large scale to manage this crisis? You don’t seem to have grasped how serious climate change is.
Do you think it’s morally acceptable for Gazan Palestinians to have children, knowing that their children may live short, painful lives terminated by a violent death?
Was it acceptable for European Jews to have children during the Holocaust, knowing full well that they all might end up hanging on meat hooks?
Is it morally acceptable to have hope for the future?
Is it morally acceptable to resist genocide by having children?
Or do you think that anything less than a perfect life is unacceptable?
I’m not the person you were talking to, but in their defense, it doesn’t look to me like they ever implied that any of what you listed is not “morally acceptable.” By framing it that way, you’re assigning them a position they never took and skirting around the valid issues that they are talking about. Acknowledging that anyone born today or in the coming decades will very likely see large scale ecological collapse that will only accelerate with time and the inevitable drastic decline in living standards (or even the very ability to live at all on a rapidly warming planet) doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with whether a person thinks it’s morally acceptable for victims of genocide to have children. It is worth giving pause and consideration to the kind of horrors that your children will have to face if you’re in the privileged position of deciding on whether or not to make the conscious decision of having some (especially when there are so many already that need parents and don’t have any). It is both stupid and reactionary to shame people for having children, especially if the people being shamed are “underprivileged” and facing dire circumstances. But taking into consideration the kind of future those children are almost certain to have should be part of a prospective parent’s moral calculus.
deleted by creator
I fundamentally disagree with so much of this I don’t know where to even start, and as a communist and aspiring revolutionary who can’t have children, it’s downright offensive.
This is all nonsense, equating concern for the future and those who have to live in it with “nihilism” and pretending that the lack of such concern is "belief in a better future.*
“You can only afford to stop caring when you have no skin in the game.” Disgusting. All those people who literally can’t afford to have children have “no skin in the game.” Fuck you.
“Having children forces you to care.” Bullshit heaped on more bullshit. I have known many parents, some even in my own family, who didn’t give a single shit about their children beyond what they could get from them or out of them. It’s ridiculous and antirevolutionary to say that having children is a revolutionary act and it spits in the face of the many real revolutionaries who choose for themselves not to have children, despite very much wanting to out of their love for people and the health of their community that already is overburdened without enough adults to care for the children already in it. All of this also either pretends that adoption doesn’t exist or worse, implies that parents who adopt don’t or can’t love their children every bit as much as biological parents. Fuck you even more for discounting the profound love that parents who made the decision to adopt have for their children.
According to you, I guess the quiverfull movement are the true revolutionaries. Not reactionary at all!
Recognizing the inevitability of what climate change is going to do to this planet and the consequences that future generations will face is not nihilism. Burying your head in the sand and pretending that climate change isn’t the existential threat that it is because you “believe” that “a better future is possible” isn’t revolutionary. It’s just climate denial.
deleted by creator