Tuesday, 19 November 2013

China eases One-Child Only Policy


The big news relating to Antinatalism last week came with the Chinese government's declaration that their one-child policy was to be loosened. Don't know about you, but I felt the proverbial heart sinking when I learnt the news. I assume that the UN projection of 10 billion on the planet by 2050 will now have to be revised substantially upward. Now obviously the Chinese didn't have a one-child policy because they were convinced Antinatalists ( a friend of mine who worked there told me the limit on procreation was the biggest cause of grumbling amongst the populace, not the lack of democracy) but the fact that such a policy existed was a source of encouragement for me as I thought that it might lead to other governments following their lead, but with the Chinese caving in, I assume this is a forlorn hope.

So now there are going to be even more mouths to feed on an already overcrowded planet with limited resources. Yipee.

What really irks me amongst those who hail the news as a triumph for 'liberalism' or 'human rights' is that population control should be a vital issue even for natalists. After all, if you do have a kid, you want there to be less competitors out there, but no, this seems to be beyond a lot of people. The only thing about it all that did cheer me was that when I scanned an article on the topic in the Guardian, the comments that received the most likes were those calling for enforced population control. So contrary to whar the Liberal left PC Thought Police want you to feel and think, there are actually people out there with sense:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/15/china-one-child-policy-abolish-labour-camps?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487#start-of-comments

So more people, more indifference, more struggle, more ruthlessness, more environmental degradation, more big inhuman cities, less compassion, less care, less peace etc.

Lest anyone think I exaggerate, there has been specualtion aplenty about future resource wars between Russia and China, Now that the latter has popped its sperm cork, this is ever more likely an eventuality:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/01/us-russia-china-military-idUSTRE72027S20110301

I think at this stage we can give up on humanity and just concentrate on making our own individual passages to nothingness as painless and graceful as possible.


124 comments:

  1. "I think at this stage we can give up on humanity and just concentrate on making our own individual passages to nothingness as painless and graceful as possible. "

    Lol

    Eventually the faked compassion just runs out and the ennui takes over, doesn't it? Appropriately enough, antinatalism was stillborn.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ennui is certainly real, as was the compassion, but the endless circle of madness is enough to drive anyone into the shadows. The gameplayers won't stop until they and their 'loved ones' are carried off the stage by time.

      Delete
    2. Karl, I can´t compliment you enough on this text.

      Everything - from the Liberal left thought police, to information about Russia vs China in the impending years, to the links, to the last bit about giving up on humanity - it´s all very well put together, informative, and also funny.

      Thanks for being around with your website man =) Great text!

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Rafa:-) Stay strong.

      Delete
    4. Hm ...
      I'm now am doubting that we are all understanding the same thing by that last phrase ("I think at this stage we can give up on humanity and just concentrate on making our own individual passages to nothingness as painless and graceful as possible.") May I inquire for elaboration? As, surely, we're not doing antinatalism without going anti natalism?

      Delete
    5. It was more an expression of personal fatigue than anything else. I'm tired of having the same stupid and generally pointless debates with pronatalists as I find their conditioning and wilful refusal to take logic to its natural conclusions to be a drain on my energy. The world seems determined to go to hell; well, let it. Perhaps an ultimate meltdown will be hastened. In the meantime, I'm more worried about staying out of it all as much as possible.

      Delete
    6. But, Karl: the world can't go to hell, since it's been there already for the half billion years of sentient life tearing itself apart for new edifices. :-D

      On the bright side: the rise in childfree lifestyles (apparently becoming predominant in Japan) makes antinatalism more and more viable, as those less entangled in this mess are closer to unraveling it.

      Debates are quite fruitless indeed; you're right to retire from those. To establish a foothold, the aim should be representation in day to day life, would you not agree?

      Delete
    7. Well, I like to think I do that. I have the blog and I don't have kids, and if the topic of kids and population comes up, I'm more likely to speak my mind than previously.

      You MUST the video linked in the comments below. You'll love it:-)

      Delete
    8. Well this whole antinatalism shebang is a narcissistic echo chamber of self-flaggelating misery, so you can't say you're forever tormented by breeders here.

      Or maybe you are, you delete, like, every comment that doesn't flatter certain views.

      Delete
    9. Always good to see the opposition providing rational, well-thought out, non ad-hominem arguments.

      Delete
    10. Karl, not everything is meant as a rational debate point and counterpoint.

      Now if I had said, "antinatalism is wrong because you're a big stupid meanie pants" then that would be ad hominem.

      And you do delete every comment that broaches certain topics, so how is a fair debate even going to function? Trying to debate antinatalism on the blogosphere(it's a bit better on youtube, but not everyone wants to express themselves via vlogs) is like pulling teeth. This if like if Christian missionaries stayed inside small Christian towns and lobbyed to banish anyone from outside who wasn't a believer without even bothering to argue with anyone other than abstract non-believers invented inside their heads.

      So it's exactly like fundamentalist Christianity, is I guess what I'm saying.

      Delete
    11. Not at all. I only refuse to publish trolls. There's been plenty of arguments and counter-arguments re AN here and elsewhere.

      Delete
    12. "Not at all. I only refuse to publish trolls. There's been plenty of arguments and counter-arguments re AN here and elsewhere."

      On youtube maybe.

      'round these parts that "Anti-Natalist and Anti-Anti-Natalist Debate" blog is the last gasp of real debate. Everyone else has their comments sections shut up tighter than fort Knox, except maybe Shadow. You get automatically dismissed as a troll if you criticize a specific antinatalist's coherency or position rather than antinatalism as a free-floating ideal entity that can't be pinned down to any concrete position.

      Delete
    13. Frankly, I think you're wrong. There been plenty of debate here and elsewhere. All that happens is that the pronatalists have their shortcomings pointed out, descend into ad hominem and eventually disappear.

      Delete
    14. What I've seen is mainly someone posts a denial of antinatalist ideas, then people argue with that, then the person who posted the original thing doesn't come back. Not really much debate there. That's just here. Dimasok is off in la-la land believing that antinatalists will be able to build a universal death bomb, Jim has his comments locked down, as do Sister Y and Srikant. Estnihil, Leaving Society, and that KefkaPonders guy have all disappeared, and youtube antinatalism is in a bad spot with Inmendham losing his flock and Derived Energy's death(RIP).Not really a good place to voice your criticisms. And it's kind of off-putting in the first place, what with the vitriol being slung around at anyone who dares to disagree and the unchecked misogyny and culture of infantile self-congratulatory chauvinism. I realize you can be a misogynistic, infantile, self congratulatory chauvinist and still be right, but when you're a human with a limited amount of time on your hands, you're probably not gonna go "yes, I am going to spend my time arguing with these people who I find hateful and who only let through certain comments." As of now, it's "I will debate you, but it has to be ON MY TERMS, and also we must hold the debate inside a dirty Porta-Potty"

      Also I get the feeling antinatalism would die out kinda quickly if easy suicides ever became an option. It's dying out as it is.

      Delete
    15. "the unchecked misogyny and culture of infantile self-congratulatory chauvinism. I realize you can be a misogynistic, infantile, self congratulatory chauvinist and still be right"

      Big yawn. Yet more ad hominem and not a rational argument in sight. And you wonder why ANs lose patience for their opponents?

      Delete
    16. Karl, for that to be ad hominem, I'd need to have implied that you were wrong. I gave you an explanation of why people don't bother arguing with antinatalists, not a rational argument.

      I COULD give you rational arguments, and we could go back and forth there, but it would distract from my attempts to explain to you why it's dumb to complain about nobody being convinced by antinatalism when you make every effort to make it as unappealing and unconvincing as possible.

      Delete
    17. There are plenty of people convinced of antinatalism and there is plenty of debate on the blogs and youtube and in the academic presses and general philosophy fora, so you're really just setting up a bunch of straw men objections.

      Delete
    18. "There are plenty of people convinced of antinatalism "

      A few yes

      "and there is plenty of debate on the blogs" Point me toward some.

      "and in the academic presses"

      There's Benatar and his opponents, but I'm not aware of other antinatalist philosophers currently alive, besides Ray Brassier who doesn't talk about antinatalism much.

      "general philosophy fora"

      Yes it does crop up their occasionally.

      Pessimism, in all likelyhood, will last until the end of the human race. This particular internet variant, is not, from what I've seen, doing well though. You might disagree, but I'd like to point out that I've identified specifics of where it's fading and you've just spoken in vague generalities. You just keep being put off by my refusal to talk in terms of idealities dueling in the heavens rather than material practices here on earth.

      Delete
    19. http://mister-mean-spirited.blogspot.com/2013/11/women-need-correction.html

      'kay, Karl, forget this debate, your good friends Shadow and Mr-MeanSpirted just convinced me it's not worth trying to get through to antinatalists.

      Delete
    20. I'd like to see some support that AN is misogynistic, as Anon above has asserted. Based on the evidence provided by the AN v/bloggers and those who submit comments, I would say nearly half of us (myself included) have a vijayjay between our gambs. Try again (dude?). It would appear that you equate AN with misogyny because you assume women in general are pronatalist, and therefore AN is anti-woman. I think it's more misogynistic to view all women as brain-dead womb vehicles.

      Delete
    21. There's an infinity of debate on this blog, Shadow's, Sister Y's, Jim Crawford's, Inmendham's you tube channels and plenty elsewhere. Go find it yourself and stop being lazy. The AN 'scene' is perfectly healthy (this blog receives hundreds of views every day); more books on the topic are appearing and the topic is becoming more known.

      As for Mr Mean Spirited, I know nothing of him, haven't read that post and have never had communication with him.

      As for misogyny, see the comment above this one.

      And your complaining is utter hypocritical and attention-seeking, as I've invited you to make a counter-argument to AN several times, but you've refused and just dolloped out the standard ad hominem so bye bye.

      Delete
    22. Misogyny? Which part of your ass did you pull that one out of? I'm a female and no one has even said a thing to me about it, much less a nasty thing. If there aren't a lot of women hanging around here, my guess would be that's because most of them are too busy slavishly reacting to hormonal and social stimuli.

      Like most men, actually, but apparently there's a slightly greater percentage of the male population that actually can be bothered to take logic to its fatal conclusions. Or maybe most of our females are busy having a childfree life and don't hang out on the Internet as much.

      Point being, I have yet to see anyone here say anything specifically anti-woman. Yes, we oft bemoan the fact that most PEOPLE PERIOD are animals that do nothing with their minds above and beyond obtaining food, shelter, and mates, except to rationalize, which I guess does technically count as hatin' on most female people, but really, if this were Takimag you'd be seeing a rapist in your sandwich.

      Delete
    23. I've a suspicion that the anonymous is a certain GM who tends to show up periodically to express his dislike of AN, but can never offer counter-arguments and has to resort to ad hominem before disappearing in a cloud of smoke.

      Delete
    24. Karl is a disgusting coward who's unwilling to admit that he loves Mister Mean-Spirited because he's too scared his prog friends will judge him.

      Delete
  2. Grace doesn't stick to all of us, Karl. I'm sure I outlived it by years already.

    The thing about natalists is their shortsightedness: a very short scope towards the future and a hazy memory for the past. They won't think things through to their conclusion and they don't recognise the pattern spiraling into repetition. Their undisposedness to see outcomes is how they find their thrill in playing this meat grinder. Grave to us, this is all a game to them: to unqestioningly follow a set course, play against other candidates, jump over hurdles that countless others have jumped over, deliver a custom variation on the same mold, aim for preset goals and acquire personal high scores and taste made-up victory. Their taking this all serious is why natalists are "too busy" to seriously take to mean from this all even the vital issues, isn't it?

    It's a shame for 'mononatalism' though ... which they should have called the one-child policy rather than label it "antinatalist". But as expected, in a fervently 'parriarchal' world, children wouldn't receive the same value as a spouse. For, somehow monogamy isn't a likewise "violation of human rights" to the liberalist chorus, huh?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A sweet summation, Bazompora. Let the Hunger Games recommence, not that they ever stopped....

      Delete
  3. You are quite right that we must “give up on humanity.” While we antinatalists are on the passage to “nothingness,” the most graceful thing that we can do on the way out is to brandish a pitchfork against the advancing hordes.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "the limit on procreation was the biggest cause of grumbling amongst the populace, not the lack of democracy"

    MOAR SHIT PLEASE!!!

    And these people call themselves buddhists.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not sure how many Chinese are Buddhists, but there's definitely a lack of Taoist wisdom there, or perhaps an indictment of it.

      Delete
  5. China already liberalized this policy in some or one province just for testing, as far as I remember, but the results the Gov hoped for failed to appear. It produced only a negligible rise in natality. Chinese today are not the Chinese 40 years ago. They are more like Japanese and Koreans now, regarding this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Perhaps the point to start with this story is 'What is democracy?' I used to believe that in Britain women wanted the vote because if the richer amongst them were going to own property and be taxed they deserved to choose their representative. But I believe now that what women ultimately wanted was control of their own bodies and for medical science to be freed from the shadow of patriarchal values and other forms of ignorance. Women saw active citizenship as having their own voice and choice. So, in democratic China whether one votes or accepts a censored media (all media are censored through out the world -there are annual charts of country by country censorship) the cheap version of democracy is the right to have more than one child, the expensive version of democracy would be transforming the oligarchy of The Communist Party into something with a wider base. Of course in the best societies the choice to have no children is equally 'democratic', and just as much a statement as choosing to have children and look after them-remember you and I were once looked after....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, I'm sure China will or is going down the same dreary road of vapid materialism as every other 'modern' country.

      And I really wish I had never had to have been looked after in the first place....

      Delete
    2. I am interested in a less materiaslistic modernity, such as I can find daily, and that includes keeping on the lookout for positives in the anti-natal message. Because that which is not positive confines itself, and not always of it's own free will...

      Delete
  7. Hi Karl,

    I know this is off topic but I thought you might like to read this "Men Are Obsolete Nonsense"

    Useless garbage. A disease of affluence: while first world people quibble about this nonsense with their materialism other people around the world AND in the City of Toronto scrape by, these elite fools debate utter nonsense.

    Read here:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-munk-debate-goes-on-both-sexes-won-this-time/article15525237/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, Nicholas, the more I get on, the more I feel that so much 'liberal discourse' is nothing but the prattling of the cosy, cossested, affluent elite who reside in academia and the media, happy to 'do lunch' while the plebs toil to keep the machine going.

      Delete
  8. ARGGH!!!
    Simply the most disgusting, cloying, self-satisfied, blind, Pollyanna-ish schmaltz I've EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE!!!! Someone help me unsee this...

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWTVCkvQzY8

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that having children can be quite selfish, and this world contains too much misery, but this is the only way to fix this world.
      Children are the future. Procreation is needed.

      Delete
    2. Please, reconsider:
      Misery persists as we're paving the future with it. By procreating, you're creating but the future misery - misery, of which time upon time again very little will be fixed by those entrusted with solving a problem essentially created by previous generations. There are only two possible outcomes: the bad future or no future. In either of both, the fix needs a lack of procreation.

      Delete
    3. People cause most of the misery. Solution? Have more people! And bam, misery mysteriously disappears!

      Someone make a comic of this, please.

      I think humans have had more than enough time to prove that this nonsense actually works. And they've failed to prove it. I am no longer willing to give them the benefit of the doubt.

      Delete
    4. Children are needed to construct a better future.

      Delete
    5. And here we are,
      those very children who grew up to construct the best of futures:

      one that doesn't need children for fuel.

      Delete
    6. “Children are needed to construct a better future.”

      10 the present sucks
      20 must build a better future
      30 give birth to the builders
      40 the future becomes the present
      50 goto 10

      Delete
    7. Hi Karl,

      I guess my previous post was too obscure and irrelevant for publication?

      Delete
    8. Hi Martin,

      Don't think there was any post with your name on it. Try send it again, maybe?

      Delete
    9. Anon, you write that "children are needed to construct a better future." First of all the mandate to create new lives so that they can perform some difficult task is blatantly selfish. Secondly you make the assumption that a future is needed. I would much prefer the annihilation of life on earth rather than the continuation of suffering and horror, and the creation of new beings with the dreadful weight on their shoulders of solving un-solvable problems. We are all going to die eventually, so why this need to create a future none of us will even live to see? For our children? Why have children? They will die as well. From the beginning of time humanity has been attempting to build this future, this utopia, and for all the efforts it remains a dystopia, an ever-increasing dystopia.

      If you live at the bottom of a gigantic pit, and hadn't succeeded in finding a way out, would you give birth to someone just so they would be forced to try to find a way? Is humanity really no better than that? Then simply put if we're going to be so selfish we don't deserve to exist. I'm not going to be passing the torch of suffering onto anybody else, and neither should you. - Aleis

      Delete
    10. Not only is humanity not any better than that, Aleis... it even gets celebrated, just think of Camus' 'twist', rabbit out of the hat or "deus ex machina" ... however you may call the end he composed for his work: "The struggle itself is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy."
      Pollyanna's Odyssee.
      You may call it all a cesspit, a vale of tears and lament the vanity of it all. But please, just don't forget to write the Happy End and even worse, do not propagate and live by the logical consequences of what you have elaborated on.
      The basal ganglia take it all.

      Delete
  9. The thought of suicide is a great consolation: by means of it one gets through many a dark night

    ReplyDelete
  10. Karl I don't even know what to say about this video....

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL-207QGzN0

    If the human race is determined to march itself off a cliff I say let them go over. There have been more than enough warnings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that video is possibly the greatest example of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen. I had to take my head out of the ouke bucket after watching it.

      Delete
  11. Folks, first off I'm an anti-natalist.

    But of late this is what I have started to think about the breeders:
    Whatever their conscious motives, these men cannot know why they are as they are. As sickening as I find their behavior, I have to admit that if I were to trade places with one of these men, atom for atom, I would be him: There is no extra part of me that could decide to see the world differently or to resist the impulse to produce more kids. Even if you believe that every human being harbors an immortal soul, the problem of responsibility remains: I cannot take credit for the fact that I do not have the soul of natalist. If I had truly been in a natalist's shoes on the day he had intercourse which resulted in a child being born - that is, if I had his genes and life experience and identical brain (or soul) in an identical state - I would have acted exactly as he did. There is simply no intellectually respectable position from which to deny this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In any serious ethical debate, free-will has to be assumed. And there are examples of breeders who've become post-facto antinatalists, Jim Crawford being the best known on the Antinatalist scene.

      Delete
    2. Free will is an artificial requirement if the ethical spectrum is limited to a liberal range, i.e. no constraints until after the facts. Yet, merely the censorship of harmful imagery invalidates free will. If it were to be assumed on principle, the outcome of the debate would be biased towards retributive excess.

      IMO, natalists are to be viewed as malignantly mentally unstable persons and treatment for their malignancy should be corrective rather than retaliatory.
      Crawford's example would be a case of spontaneous "recovery" or, rather, 'immunity'. I would bet that his pseudonym "metamorphhh" is an acknowledgement of forces larger-than-will. In tackling these, antinatalism, I suspect, would be much more compelling.

      Delete
    3. Schopenhauer once said: Der Mensch kann was er will; er kann aber nicht wollen was er will (Man can do what he will but he cannot will what he wills).”

      Delete
    4. There is no free will.

      Delete
  12. Ah, the sanctity of life:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09/15/shock-mom-dad-planned-to-have-sex-with-their-kids-before-they-were-born-and-did/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :-( What have I ever done to you?

      Delete
    2. Aw ... both moms gave dad kids as sex-slaves for the sake of love.
      One couldn't agree more with the saying:
      "All's fair in love and war."

      Delete
    3. "She said she initially was unsure of the idea of allowing him to have sex with their child, but caved into the pressure because she was in love with him. "

      Once again, Love conquers all!

      Delete
  13. You have a right to conceive and birth healthy children

    God is not a respecter of persons (Acts 10:34). What he does for one person he will do for another! There are abundant examples in the Bible of couples who were barren, sought God, and then later conceived and birthed incredible and influential children. In fact, there isn't a case in the Bible where someone struggled with infertility and sought God and didn't eventually conceive and birth a child! So, why wouldn't God do the same for you?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What? You think we're a club of infertile folks lamenting our infertility?

      No, we are a group of people lamenting everyone's fertility, especially our parents'.

      Delete
    2. Sri, do you, like me, have mixed emotions about your own parents? On the one hand, mine are flawed, but relatively "good". I inherited my chronic anxiety from my mother. On the other hand I so resent them for dragging me into this world. This is a good question for all ANs.

      Delete
    3. This is Aleis. My parents destroyed my life completely. I am furious with them for having brought me into life (and not even trying to care for me properly). They wanted a slave of their own, and that's what they got. Some day I will turn my back on them for good.

      Delete
    4. As E. M. Cioran might have said, to speak of one's parents and then speak of them destroying your life is a redundantcy!

      Delete
  14. Because God doesn't exist and anyone who believes he/she does is a delusional to the point of mental illness?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah, Christians. They always know better. They have the one true religion, the one true god, the one true book, the one true everything.

      Delete
    2. Just Christians? I would have thought that quite a few creeds (including some scientific fundamentalists) felt better for believing they had exclusive rights to strangle the truth on everyone's else's behalf. But the Christians have been at it a long time, granted...

      Delete
    3. You are right, Bearz, not just the Christians, of course. Sometimes it seems that human life is about enforcing uniformity on all levels. Same thoughts, same opinions, same beliefs, same way of life…

      Delete
  15. "'Sing, O barren, You who have not borne! Break forth into singing, and cry aloud, You who have not labored with child! For more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married woman,' says the LORD. " (Isaiah 54:1, NKJV)

    ReplyDelete
  16. The Messiah of Anti-natalists-H. P. Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life:
    The most merciful thing in the world, I think, is the inability of the human mind to correlate all its contents. We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far. The sciences, each straining in its own direction, have hitherto harmed us little; but some day the piecing together of dissociated knowledge will open up such terrifying vistas of reality, and of our frightful position therein, that we shall either go mad from the revelation or flee from the light into the peace and safety of a new dark age.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Ann Sterzinger, your blog does not allow unregistered commenters!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Ann, you need to change that. Same goes for Victor Palmer. Get with it, you two!

      Delete
    2. Fine, I'll write a goddamn comment28 November 2013 at 02:27

      Ann, please allow unregistered commenters, but please don't allow anonymous commenters bacause otherwise we won't be able to tell people apart!

      Delete
    3. I actually did not know that. Thanks for the heads-up; let me check it out.

      Delete
    4. Fixed! Once again, thanks for the tip.

      Delete
    5. PS Well, sort of fixed. There's no option for allowing anyone to post while NOT allowing anonymi. I'm not sure why anonymi don't just come up with fun handles anyway. "Fine, I'll write a goddamn comment" is an excellent choice.

      Delete
    6. Fine I`ll write a goddamn comment7 December 2013 at 20:25

      Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war!

      Let the trolling commence!

      Delete
    7. I politely asked people to use handles...

      Delete
  18. The duty of the Quiverfull adherent is only to maintain an "open willingness" to joyfully receive and not thwart however many children God chooses to bestow. Contraception in all its forms is seen as inconsistent with this attitude and is thus entirely avoided, as is abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Antinatalists are capitalists or socialists?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All sorts and none. Ultimately, it's irrelevant to the issue.

      Delete
    2. Well Anon,I think most anti natalists are inclined towards socialism-lite. Karl?

      Delete
    3. I'm in favour of a basic welfare state and healthcare, but I feel more apolitical as time goe by.

      Delete
    4. Me too -- support basic welfare FOR the childless only (includes children themselves, of course). But if even that seems impracticable, just a safe suicide pill (or process) would do. Hell, even if they charge the production cost for the pill, it's fine by me!

      Delete
    5. I lean toward refusing to take sides, because a. Both sides seem to assume things can be fixed, b. I don't want to give any of them the satisfaction of joining their little team and waving their little flag and giving up my right to have my own opinion on individual issues, and c. Both sides tend pretty much equally toward brat production. Sure, the left tends to be friendlier toward abortion, but they're also behind the heinous hostage-encouraging welfare state.

      (In my country the childless can't even get welfare, no matter how much they've paid into the system or how temporary their embarrassment. If you aren't eligible for unemployment—you've just come out of grad school, for example, or your employer was cagey enough to harass you till you quit instead of firing you—thanks for your former contributions to our precious dirty diaper factories, but ha ha, fuck you. Sorry, side rant there. But like Srikant says, it ought to be the other way around—if only for the general good. They're still blindly incentivizing overpopulation on top of a global rash of unemployment.)

      Delete
    6. Socialist, definitely. The good socialists destoyed more than a hundred thousand people in EFILstyle.

      Delete
    7. *hundred million

      Delete
    8. Capitalism has killed billions,only in a covert manner.

      Delete
    9. You show me a capitalist, and I'll show you a bloodsucker

      Delete
    10. When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist.

      Delete
    11. Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners

      Delete
    12. A socialist is just someone who is unable to get over his or her astonishment that most people who have lived and died have spent lives of wretched, fruitless, unremitting toil.

      Delete
    13. A witty saying proves nothing

      Delete
  20. I see your point;
    either way one is in for it.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The last capitalist we hang shall be the one who sold us the rope

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's the EFIL spirit!

      Delete
  22. The same rightists who decades ago were shouting, 'Better dead than red!' are now often heard mumbling, 'Better red than eating hamburgers.”

    ReplyDelete
  23. Replies
    1. Yes-the final.solution.obviously is antinatalsim-but so long as those already born are alive-lets have socialism-antinatalistic socialism.

      Delete
    2. The kind where it would be the bio-parents who pay alimony and pensions for their children's entire lives?

      Delete
    3. That would be the only just system. Why is that every year at this time we hear, 'A puppy is for life, not just for Xmas' without the same logic being extended to human beings? Oh that's right, because we're selfish fucked-in-the-head human beings. And notnoyl do domestic animals receive lifelong care (ideally, anyway), but when their quality of life is irreversibly damaged, then they receive the grace of a dignified exit, another care denied to human beings.

      Delete
    4. 'not only do domestic animals' above

      Delete
    5. Karl,

      Any thoughts on this:

      5 Reasons Why 2013 Was The Best Year In Human History

      http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/12/11/3036671/2013-certainly-year-human-history/

      Steven Pinker the cognitive scientist at Harvard and friend of Richard Dawkins also retweeted this story.

      Delete
    6. Thanks, Marc. The author seems to ignore that by definiton the more people there are the more suffering there will be, and potential for suffering. Also the issues of overpopulation, dwindling natural resources, rising food prices and environmental degradation is ignored. Nor is there is there any mention of the rising worldwide suicide numbers plus anti-depression intake.

      This is not to deny the progress the author cites, but anyone who writes that 'we’re outracing the Four Horseman, extending our lives faster than pestilence, war, famine, and death can take them' is clearer living in la-la land.

      As for Steven Pinker, I urge you to read this;

      http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/john-gray-steven-pinker-violence-review/#.UqrZHPkZzig

      Delete
    7. To Bazo-yes,that's the sort of politico-economic system I am talking about.you will get free food,shelter,clothing,no formal education-study what you like.
      And this sort of society would last for the next 125 years(about) & then the last
      man dies out.

      In the mean time,no drudgery,no toil or turmoil,no production of nonessential/luxury goods.
      Just bread & lentil diet.No bloody competitions of any kind.
      The last human generation will just eat ,when hungry, & read rest of the time.

      Also, I think it will be important for the last generation folks to not get too
      close to each other sexually or otherwise & I strongly suspect-Hell is the other
      people.

      Thats An-socialism.

      Delete
    8. Sounds a bit like Pol Pot's Year Zero:-)

      Delete
    9. Karl, that's the description of my present life we're talking ... :-(


      So, to the anonymous: count me as an antinatal socialist or ... I dunno about "an-socialist", because it would be taken to mean 'unsocialist'. What about "Mecenism"*?

      * after the Roman figure MAECENAS, aka Mecenas when in the derived meaning of one who takes it upon oneself to unconditionally provide material support to ones protégés, so that they can continue without worry.

      Delete
    10. Don't worry, it's mine as well. I was just smiling at the idea of the 7 billion other frenzy driven apes suddenly downing tools to adopt it:-)

      Delete
  24. Overpopulation is a myth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ... based on real facts.

      I would even call overpopulation an old taboo, for, from the time of scripture to the day of today, our history has recorded invading tribes, colonies settled abroad, genocides for Lebensraum and anti-immigration policies, without as much linking these to their cause.

      Delete
  25. Not (all) DOMESTIC animals, Karl, PET animals! Domestic animals include pigs, cows, calves, goat and sheep that are turned into pork, beef, veal and mutton. But it's heartening that they at least tell kids (the nerve of parents!), "A puppy is for life, not just for Xmas". Remember, there are people who MICROWAVE puppies and cats even. =(

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed, Srikant. You'll notice that I did say 'ideally'. Obviously in this world, nothing is ideal.

      Delete
    2. I will never understand how can people have cats and dogs at home and yet think eating other animals in the restaurant or at home is acceptable. This is fucking disgusting. They might as well be eating their own pets!

      Delete
    3. Not in refutation of the previous, but merely a reflection in annex:
      do the cats and dogs of vegetarians not eat the meat of other animals?

      Delete
    4. I confess to being very fond of cats, as I find them beautiful and elegant, but I'm not generally someone who gets gooey about animals. The suffering they endure at the hands of human assholes is disgraceful, of course, but there are, after all, DNA machines, that will gladly consume whoever is available to survive.

      Delete
    5. Bazo, in India it is uncommon for people to keep cats. Indeed many of those who keep pets are at least "animal lovers" to the point of being vegetarian, and raising their pet vegetarian. Not all.

      Now, biologically, dogs are omnivores and cats are carnivores. It is neigh impossible to raise a healthy cat on vegetarian diet.

      Delete
  26. All,

    Here is a link to a recently started AN thread in a largely pro-natalist forum:

    http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/47/science-math-philosophy/conspiracy-against-human-race-thomas-ligotti-1397912/

    ReplyDelete
  27. Karl,

    Any thoughts on this study?

    A Formula for Happiness

    Social scientists have caught the butterfly. After 40 years of research, they attribute happiness to three major sources: genes, events and values.... But about half of our happiness is hard-wired in our genes.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/15/opinion/sunday/a-formula-for-happiness.html?ref=opinion

    ReplyDelete
  28. To Bazo-

    You may call it that -what matters is that we.must get rid of the five headed hydra called capitalism.Our opponenets are the nappy,toys &baby food manufacturers-we must crush this vermin,we.must wipe this plague-only then will the idea of antinalism win.

    Karl,we dont need. all 7 billion apes to implement it-50 antinatalist could come together and start a commune.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Maybe I ought know, but ... what makes capitalism 5-headed?

      Delete
  29. Merry Christmas Karl, and I wish the best for you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bazo-its all pervasive. my friend.Also,I think the pleasure of gain is somehow always less than the pain of loss.

      Bye the bye,James Bond is a covert anti natalist.

      Delete