Anti-natalism is the philosophical value judgment that procreation is unethical or unjustifiable. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from making children. Some antinatalists consider coming into existence to always be a serious harm. Their views are not necessarily limited only to humans but may encompass all sentient creatures, arguing that coming into existence is a serious harm for sentient beings in general. There are various reasons why antinatalists believe human reproduction is problematic. The most common arguments for antinatalism include that life entails inevitable suffering, death is inevitable, and humans are born without their consent. Additionally, although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person’s suffering. WIKIPEDIA
If you think, maybe for a few years, like 10-20 years, no one should make babies, and when things get better, we can continue, then you are not an anti-natalist. Anti-natalists believe that suffering will always be there and no one should be born EVER.
This photo was clicked by a friend, at Linnahall.
Science has been able to get inside the heads and determine what animals are thinking? This is a breakthrough! We should now be able to communicate with these animals! Surely we can, right?
Ok, try not eating. Period. I bet instincts will kick in, and you’ll eat, and not starve.
Nobody besides yourself even implied they are.
We’ve changed it myriad times. I provided two such examples.
Ah, so you think all humanity is illustrated only by western living, huh?
@ubergeek@lemmy.today
No, but neither they were able to get inside our own heads. Well, on this matter, there’s some recent progress (scientists got to give a voice to inner monologue, but it’s far from “getting inside the heads and determining what they’re thinking”).
Believe me, I do fast a lot. I deeply know what is it to fight with my own body to override my instincts as try to starve myself (and I’m not joking).
My point is that the things you listed (“shelter, water, food”) are currently tied to artificial systems, far detached from nature and instincts. I said “It’s also instinctive to live among the woods”, to which you said “No, it’s not. Its instinctive to seek shelter, water, food, and to reproduce”, hence why I said “Urbanization and capitalism aren’t part of Nature”.
Originally, hominids could live seek shelter inside caves, drink river water (there was no industrial pollution back then, so river water wasn’t as polluted as nowadays), hunter-gather and mating in natural ways. Now, I can’t have a shelter if I don’t keep paying to some landlord, I can’t eat without paying to some grocery store, even though I can have free drinkable water to a certain extent (but it’s getting increasingly prohibitive to do so, as Nestlé, Coca-Cola and other corporations are further buying entire aquifers).
You provided two examples of self-sufficient societies. Yes, they’re nice examples. However, to repeat what I said to another person in this comment section: they’re not detached from the consequences of climate change, we all live on the surface of this cosmic boulder called Planet Earth so whatever happens here also happens there. There’s no haven on Earth, unfortunately.
And things are getting increasingly worse, especially after an orangey person way up north (I’m Brazilian) started to revert a plethora of scientific, societal and technological progress, while holding the power over red buttons capable of ending all life on Earth seven times… It won’t be any easier for future generations (in fact, they gonna be the ones left to pay this bill in the not-so-distant future), hence my anti-natalist views (because it’s better if future generations weren’t there to suffer from what has been done until nowadays).
The Eastern was and is highly influenced by Western, both socio-culturally, economically, technologically and environmentally, especially after the Cold War and the emergence of Internet. Also, to repeat my previous paragraph: we all live on Earth.