Tuesday, 7 February 2012

Antinatalism is not yet illegal

Antinatalists are pure evil. Whereas abortionists kill beautiful babies just when they have been given this glorious gift of life, antinatalists kill thousands of babies every year before they have even been formed in the womb, and sometimes even before they have been formed in the brains of their parents. No more! All antinatalists on this sublime and amazing planet must be put to death! (I'm thinking a cocktail of barbituates, loved ones' memories erased, and a Good Job! You figured out how reality works! sticker on our foreheads).

Espousing antinatalism hasn't really become a crime yet. Mainly because it is, as Jim says, a pretty damn big taboo. Such a taboo in fact, that few people even know it's possible to think of. Talking about antinatalism is the same as talking about buttered hippos flying into onion rings. It IS intelligible, but most people think it's just plain silly. But if things were different, and we had a sizeable chunk of the population not replacing themselves every year, then, at least in some of the less modernised sections of the world, there is something of a chance that it could become a de facto crime, like having too many children in China. You probably wouldn't go to jail for it, but you may get punished some way or another for it. Think of all that social stigma back in the day against 'barren' women (note how back in those times men generally weren't thought of as having the potential to be infertile, as far as I know). Quite a lot of people just don't think you can be a complete, living breathing person without having spun the roulette wheel of misfortune and gambled on someone else's life.

While antinatalism doesn't really seem to be growing substantially as far as I can see (well, I can't really tell to be honest), being childfree definitely seems to be. Google has failed me once again: I can't find any articles on subsidies for producing more harm, I mean children, but I THINK I have read somewhere about that some countries with falling birth rates and hence populations (Japan I think, definitely) are starting to incentivise evil, I mean breeding. And while that may not seem so bad, where is that money coming from, do you think? Governing people is a zero-sum game. If you incentivise one thing, you're taking something away from someone else - sort of. So there is something of a de facto punishment occurring to the childfree (besides flexible workdays not being offered and such).

Will we actually see anything happening on this front in our lifetime? Things HAVE changed a lot, philosophically and technologically over the past century or so, so it's not too much to think that maybe our world is heading, once again, towards the morally permissible option. Except the real problem with antinatalism is that those who are harmed by not following its ideals aren't the most vocal - in fact, unlike those victims of racism or heteronormativity, most victims of natalism will actually defend the same flawed ideology that got them there in the first place. So I don't really know if I should be stocking up on popcorn in the coming years.

Another rambling post. This is again, a result of that slight high I've been having. Things will start getting a bit more coherent again by the time it's over, and trust me, it will be over soon.

No comments:

Post a Comment