The rise of doomers, preppers, and antinatalists on the Left reveals something deeper than the hollow posture of rebellion: a collapse of belief in tomorrow. A Left that chants “No future” isn’t just demoralized — it’s unserious, misanthropic, and bound to lose.
Tldr: How do you inspire people to work for a better tomorrow if you don’t believe tomorrow can be better? Trump and the American right have a vision of a future America that they claim will be great and glorious. The American left - and the global left - have lost sight of the future entirely. Instead of promising a bright future, they merely seek to endure the crises of the present - and some on the left have given up even that.
The article speaks to the desperate need for hope - for a clear, compelling, leftist vision of the future to serve as a guiding light for left-wing activists and politicians.
And hey, what political slash environmental slash aesthetic movement focused on a hopeful future just got its instance back up?
(Welcome back, everybody!)
Hmm, I find that argument not very convincing. Except for some online nutcases no one on the left seriously argues for voluntary human extinction 🙄
It is rather the lack of long term planning that brought us to the current situation that the planet has way more humans than it can easily sustain.
Trying to organize a soft landing by slowly reducing the population, especially in areas that have a high resource use foot print, seems rather like long term planning to me. And it also makes it easier to welcome others from regions that will likely become uninhabitable due to climate change in the medium term future.
In addition, I find it rather hilarious that someone seriously thinks humans procreate because of long term thinking 😅
I mean, kids are a lifetime investment. Most people think about whether they can afford to feed and educate their kids over the next few decades, and what kind of life the kids will have after that. In countries without social safety nets, children are often the only retirement plan. I think the decision to have kids (or not) is the longest term planning the average person will ever do.
I’m not saying it’s necessarily good planning, but it’s certainly thinking long term.
With that being said, I think this article isn’t claiming not having kids is a problem in itself. It’s a symptom of the real problem - despair for the future.
People choosing not to have kids for positive reasons? Because they have a vision of the future with a lower population and choose to live their values? Great! No problem there.
But when people choose not to have kids because they think the world is collapsing around them, that they can’t give children a good life, that there’s no hope for the future and it would be immoral to expose a child to the coming tribulations - those decisions are made because people give up on the future.
The despair is the problem - the decisions made out of despair are just the symptoms.
And it’s hard to motivate people to work for a better world now when they have no hope for a better world in the future. If we’re all doomed anyway, why not burn all the oil you want and let the fascists take over?
People really believe this thinly veiled eugenics argument?
There is plenty of resources to support humanity. The issue is solely in our societal structures and our distribution of those resources causing almost half of everything we produce to become waste because it profit couldn’t be extracted from it.
We could cut most of our production, reducing our environmental harm, redesign our cities so they are not sprawling wastelands of parking lots and empty lawns, and there would be plenty enough to go around. That’s real long term planning we need to have.
The problem is not that we do not have the resources, but rather the way humans chose to use them. Multiply that by 8 billion and we get a problem, although realistically the bigger problem are the top 2-3 billion or so that control so many resources.
In a world with a significantly lower population, the planet could absorb the issues we cause much better.
I don’t see how this fact has anything to do with eugenics 🤷
The argument that “there are too many people and we need to reduce the population” has been for decades a thinly veiled excuse to justify eugenics. Which ethnicity’s population are we going to reduce? How will the social mechanisms work to reduce population? Who will hold that authority to dictate things and how will it be enforced? Historically, very violently and strictly enforced against marginalized communities. That’s how.
I literally said the problem is how we use them.
So the answer is we need to work towards societal change and structure ourselves to incentivize sustainability, not overly simplistic and unethical arguments such as “reduce the population” so we can maintain our shitty practices and kick the can down the road.
It also isn’t “top 2-3 billion”, it’s more like “top 2-3 thousand”.
Interestingly it doesn’t seem like those questions need to be answered, since the birthrate is dropping all by itself for some reason.
Microplastics causing infertility is the main reason for that. Hard to have babies when men’s nuts can’t properly produce viable sperm or women can’t properly form a placenta and their ovaries have atrophied.
There are also socioeconomic reasons where people are avoiding pregnancy, plus the breaking down of community togetherness exacerbating the “loneliness epidemic” and people just aren’t meeting each other and going on dates anymore, also due to socioeconomic factors. There is also the antinatalist movement but unsure as to the size of it.
Either way, the call to “reduce populations” is a bullshit argument. Just because it is happening naturally (or due to natural phenomena as a result of the externalities from human activity) doesn’t excuse the call for an authority to dictate that decision for others.
I really doubt it’s microplastics. There aren’t a bunch of people complaining of infertility. I would guess it’s socioeconomic.
I don’t think anyone likes the idea of anyone else telling them how many kids they can have, but they’ll probably take that over their kids starving. Probably won’t come to that.
Bruh, there are legitimate issues to reproductive health caused by microplastics. That’s just a fact. Microplastics are so small they can bypass the blood-testi barrier and disrupt spermatogenesis. They also leech chemicals into the blood that mimic certain hormones, fucking up our endocrine system which has a negative effect on reproductive health as well. There actually are a bunch of people having issues with infertility across the globe, and research shows it is due to microplastics affecting reproductive health, but the current media framing of the argument around microplastics isn’t highlighting that specific issue. It is being lumped in with the rest of the issues caused by microplastics and how we don’t fully understand just how harmful the build up is to our health overall.
The point is that falling birth rates is a multifaceted issue. It isn’t one or the other. It is both medical issues caused by microplastics and socioeconomic stresses.
Also, there isn’t a dichotomy between “being told how many kids you can have” and “having their kids starve”. Those two things are not mutually exclusive, so they don’t have to “take one over the other”. No one has to choose between the two nor should they be forced to choose by any body of authority.
Then where are all the people complaining they can’t have kids even though they want them? People aren’t having kids because they don’t want them.
Right, they’re not, but the odds of starving are lower when there are less mouths to feed. I read that pre-agriculture tribes limited their reproduction to live within their means.
You are arguing a strawman. Both the article and me are talking about people voluntarily chosing to not have children. I don’t see anything wrong with that, and neither with promoting the idea that this is totally ok.
And no, it isn’t just the top few thousand. Even if those were gone tomorrow we would still have very similar issues realistically speaking. But sure, limiting the excesses of the top few thousands would also help and is a politically reachable goal. Solving the over-consumption of the top 2-3 billion needs an strong change in mindset, and politics alone will not be able to do that. But at least many of these 2-3 billion are already getting few children voluntarily.
@poVoq @Doc_Crankenstein
Voluntary is… an interesting choice of terms, to say the least.
If you can and want, could you explain who these top two to three billion (holy moly!) consumers are and what is characteristic to their overconsumption?
If you don’t want to do this in this thread, Tag me in the appropriate toot.
I honestly believe that “we” aren’t going to do jack s**t. It’s a process which is nearly unsteerable. People are going to live longer and longer, and use resources that would otherwise be used by children they might have had. Society is going to be burdened by caring for the old, and this is going to reduce chances of caring for the young.
In nearly every developed country, population growth is slowing or population has already started decreasing. Only in the least developed regions (some areas of Africa) does the opposite still apply, but UN predictions (made by competent people) suggest the process just reaches there later.
So, every ethnicity’s population is going to be reduced. Every ethnicity can also consider if their numbers are adequate, too high or too low. If a nation feels threatened by disappearing from the maps, they can try to reorganize their society. Random ideas: a few laws that give parents various health and social security guarantees regardless of their employment status, especially in case they’re single parents, then maybe create a few dating sites that actually try to help their users find people they like, etc…
Yes, everything you said is good, and we should be attempting to restructure our society to be more sustainable and ethical in our use of resources but that is a much larger political discussion about economics. I know there are currently natural and sociopolitical phenomena that are slowing down the growth of certain regions but the reasons why is a much larger, multifaceted discussion. Populations will fluctuate naturally and that’s all fine and dandy.
but my point was specifically against those who call for attempting to steer the process in an effort to deliberately reduce the population through planned means which is intrinsically linked to eugenics arguments when you get down to the sociopolitical mechanisms of how that will be accomplished.
I cannot say I agree, and I think I recall that some indicators currently suggest we’d need about 3 planets to keep going at the same pace.
I think we shouldn’t use up every atom on Earth to churn out more humans. Our species has experienced a massive population explosion and is at peak numbers.
Usually this kind of events are followed by a hurtful population crash. It seems considerably better if growth ends due to a (subconscious?) decision to stop expanding, rather than a war for remaining resources.
The back of the envelope calculation says if everybody on Earth lived like an average American we’d need the resources of about four Earths to cover it:
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33133712
That being said, from the same source, if everyone on Earth lived like an average Indian we’d only use half the Earth’s resources and could support twice as many people.
So it’s not about the number of people - it’s about the standard of living those people have and the resources they use.
I think the most effective way forward is more efficient and sustainable lifeways - if the richest countries learn to consume less, if people around the world get access to better technology and better institutions to raise their standard of living without raising their resource consumption.
And it’s interesting to note, the better off people are, the fewer children they tend to have. If we improve people’s lives worldwide, a steadily declining population will be a natural side effect.
An incredibly difficult goal, of course, but worth pursuing.
Good thing no one said to do this. I don’t appreciate bad faith reframing of my argument.
It was meant to be humorous framing, given the impossibility of making humans from magma or the iron core. :)
From my perspective it is a disingenuous, bad faith framing of my position meant to exaggerate it and mock it as if it was absurd.