Imposing a Lifestyle: A New Argument for Antinatalism

[Oldphan]

Hi, I would love to see a discussion of this article?

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/imposing-a-lifestyle-a-new-argument-for-antinatalism/D31CFBA4E8BB207D7C24A68E415A8AB0#article

By Matti Häyry & Amanda Sukenick

Abstract

Antinatalism is an emerging philosophy and practice that challenges pronatalism, the prevailing philosophy and practice in reproductive matters. We explore justifications of antinatalism—the arguments from the quality of life, the risk of an intolerable life, the lack of consent, and the asymmetry of good and bad—and argue that none of them supports a concrete, understandable, and convincing moral case for not having children. We identify concentration on possible future individuals who may or may not come to be as the main culprit for the failure and suggest that the focus should be shifted to people who already exist. Pronatalism’s hegemonic status in contemporary societies imposes upon us a lifestyle that we have not chosen yet find almost impossible to abandon. We explicate the nature of this imposition and consider the implications of its exposure to different stakeholders with varying stands on the practice of antinatalism. Imposition as a term has figured in reproductive debates before, but the argument from postnatal, mental, and cultural imposition we launch is new. It is the hitherto overlooked and underdeveloped justification of antinatalism that should be solid and comprehensible enough to be used even by activists in support of their work.

And please also enjoy this humorous video about the article ; ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEsymkpno8U

[TheVat]

Somewhat new to this concept.  Wouldn't such a view, universally practiced (I'm applying Kant's categorical imperative here), lead to species extinction?  Having babies: it's a nasty dirty job but somebody's got to do it.   I suppose we could scale back a bit, get population down to some sort of ecological ideal with psychologically optimal amounts of wilderness and personal lebensraum and grizzly bears snatching salmon, but at some point it would still be necessary to get the fertility rate back to 2.3 (commonly seen as replacement rate).  Antinatalism sounds kind of antihuman, taken in the long term.  

On the individual level, it makes more sense.  If Mary wants to be a monk and a lepidopterist, and not be bothered with the whole mommy track thing, that should be perfectly okay, and no one should be pushing the breeder lifestyle at her.  If Joe wants to raise weimaraners and go into town once a week to be spanked, that's his business.  Sounds lonely to me, but maybe I just don't get weimaraners.  Sorry, am losing the serious focus this issue deserves.