NATION

PASSWORD

Middle ground between antinatalism and natalism?

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
The Land Named Bob
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Sep 09, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Middle ground between antinatalism and natalism?

Postby The Land Named Bob » Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:57 pm

A question regarding the optimal handling of populations by a nations government or any system

With the idea that:
Natalism leads towards overpopulation through population growth
Antinatalism leads towards extinction and self destruction through population stagnation
And keeping in mind one of the main supporting concepts of antinatalism is to prevent unnecessary and preventable suffering of future sentient beings,

What specifically would be some important aspects of a rule or guidance system that would be most optimal in terms of:
1. upholding a stable population
2. preventing overpopulation
3. maintaining a large enough population to sustain itself in a variety of settings and situations (climates, resource shortages, etc.)
4. as low amount of suffering as possible

And, if these terms themselves are flawed, what better terms should be used to define such a system of population control (for sustainability)?

(To be clear, this question excludes options such as abortion, execution, mandatory expansion or eugenics for the sake of simplicity and morality.)
(This question is not intended to be political and is for worldbuilding a futuristic utopia with reasonable systems that are also applicable to real world situations.)

If you have any ideas for a possible solution, please respond with them!
Last edited by The Land Named Bob on Sun Jan 16, 2022 10:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Thee North American Technate
Civil Servant
 
Posts: 9
Founded: Sep 12, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Thee North American Technate » Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:03 pm

A system that makes having or not having children a person's individual choice. Just let people have the freedom to pursue their self-interest, interests evolve over the course of life anyways, so the 25 year old F7er against kids may have second thoughts in their 40s or 50s. The state would be most beneficial in ensuring the viability of both choices, economically and politically speaking anyways. The true middle ground involves catch-all policies, minorly pleasing everyone. Populations tend to correct themselves, they're dynamic like that, Im led to believe it would be immoral for unnecessary state intervention in such intimate personal affairs.

If the general trend of OTL is to be taken into consideration then the human race as a species isn't going to run out of people anytime soon. A lot of variables goes into pop growth, but it is generally believed that developing nations will stabilize as it becomes less necessary and more economically unviable to support large families. This doesn't take into account, say, reactionary groups taking power and start artificially increasing population growth through government edicts. Or even the possibility of sufficiently advanced automation that renders the reserve army of immigrant labour concept redundant. So its hard to make even near future predictions with so much uncertainty in the world.
Last edited by Thee North American Technate on Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:16 pm, edited 6 times in total.
The United Technocratic Republics of North America Accelerates towards the Future
~ A World set in the early 50's and Where Every Man's a King! ~

User avatar
Sundiata
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9380
Founded: Sep 27, 2019
New York Times Democracy

Postby Sundiata » Sun Jan 16, 2022 11:22 pm

No.
"Don't say, 'That person bothers me.' Think: 'That person sanctifies me.'"
-St. Josemaria Escriva

User avatar
Eahland
Minister
 
Posts: 2522
Founded: Apr 18, 2006
Libertarian Police State

Postby Eahland » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:03 am

If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.
Eahlisc Wordboc (Glossary)
Eahlisc Healþambiht segþ: NE DRENCE, EÐA, OÞÞE ONDO BLÆCE!

User avatar
Dreria
Diplomat
 
Posts: 621
Founded: Sep 16, 2021
Capitalist Paradise

Postby Dreria » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:25 am

ah yes a middle ground between reproducing and not reproducing
catboy traditionalism

User avatar
Dowaesk
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1231
Founded: Nov 03, 2020
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby Dowaesk » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:36 am

Dreria wrote:ah yes a middle ground between reproducing and not reproducing

Reproduce half a child.
I know. I am Smart 8)
Dowaesk is a nation set in the year 2041 in the Indian Ocean. An alternative future where Laccadives, Suvadives and Chagos are independent. And these 3 countries along with the Maldives join together to form Dowaesk. Much like how the EU is made up.
-Social Democrat
-Environmentalist
-Moderate
-Modernist Muslim
-Pro-Palestine
-Anti-Kemalist
-Warning: I tend to talk about Maldives a little too much.
A Patriotic Maldivian and a Proud Muslim
FREE PALESTINE
TGs always welcome. Idk. I just like keeping people in my inbox. TG me for my Discord.
#FreeNSGRojava

Member of UDAF
The Amman Message

User avatar
The Alma Mater
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24564
Founded: May 23, 2004
Liberal Democratic Socialists

Postby The Alma Mater » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:50 am

It is called being pro-choice. Duh.
Getting an education was a bit like a communicable sexual disease.
It made you unsuitable for a lot of jobs and then you had the urge to pass it on.
- Terry Pratchett, Hogfather

User avatar
-Astoria-
Senator
 
Posts: 3516
Founded: Oct 27, 2019
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby -Astoria- » Mon Jan 17, 2022 12:57 am

This implies that there is a middle ground.
Republic of Astoria | Gwernaith Asdair | Šenvat Astoir
 26 May 2022 
 ✉ TV1 News | ▶ ⬤──────── (01:00) | Headlines: HSR fare increases postponed to April 2023 • Teachers' unions call for more clarity in matric exam guidelines • Day tourism in the Eastern Ranges: "much planned, but little implemented", say locals | Weather: Liskerry ☁ 9° • Altas ⛅ 4° • Esterpine ☁ 10° • Naltgybal ☁ 5° • Ceirtryn ❄ 0° • Bynscel ⛅ 8° • Lyteel ⛈ 1° | Traffic: 10 minutes delay on HR-31 southbound

IC: Anthem (lyrics) • EmbassiesFAQIntegrity | OOC: ⅐ Hep'virateCCL's VP • Hmm artist7 civ • 9th in NSFB#110/10: DGES


User avatar
Kaczynskisatva
Chargé d'Affaires
 
Posts: 407
Founded: Nov 02, 2021
Ex-Nation

Postby Kaczynskisatva » Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:20 am

The land named bob wrote:A question regarding the optimal handling of populations by a nations government or any system

With the idea that:
Natalism leads towards overpopulation through population growth
Antinatalism leads towards extinction and self destruction through population stagnation
And keeping in mind one of the main supporting concepts of antinatalism is to prevent unnecessary and preventable suffering of future sentient beings,

What specifically would be some important aspects of a rule or guidance system that would be most optimal in terms of:
1. upholding a stable population
2. preventing overpopulation
3. maintaining a large enough population to sustain itself in a variety of settings and situations (climates, resource shortages, etc.)
4. as low amount of suffering as possible

And, if these terms themselves are flawed, what better terms should be used to define such a system of population control (for sustainability)?

(To be clear, this question excludes options such as abortion, execution, mandatory expansion or eugenics for the sake of simplicity and morality.)
(This question is not intended to be political and is for worldbuilding a futuristic utopia with reasonable systems that are also applicable to real world situations.)

If you have any ideas for a possible solution, please respond with them!


It's impossible by definition to optimize any system for more than one variable.

If you are optimizing it for "the balance" between those variables, then that balance is the one variable you are optimizing for, and you haven't defined it.

If you want as low suffering as possible, just have everyone killed. No man, no problem.

The problem with anti-natalism is obvious. The problem with natalism is that the need for intelligence in postindustrial society has evolved a lot faster than intelligence itself evolves in people - most of the human resources available for exploitation these days are useless, and they are actually more of a liability than a resource. This simple economic fact is what drives anti-natalism. The solution is genetically engineering the human population, and the positive effects of this would endure any subsequent policy.

User avatar
Mtwara
Envoy
 
Posts: 206
Founded: Aug 31, 2014
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Mtwara » Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:20 am

Is it really true that there are too many people, or is it really our current lifestyles that's unsustainable?

As a rule, if commodities don't increase in line with demand then the price goes up and eventually people can no longer afford children. Although the modern economy and markets are complicated, you could broadly say this has already happened since in most of the developed world birth rates are below replacement rate. We don't need government intervention to reduce the population, we need it to sustain or increase the population.
Last edited by Mtwara on Mon Jan 17, 2022 3:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1553
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:28 am

Mtwara wrote:Is it really true that there are too many people, or is it really our current lifestyles that's unsustainable?

Is there really a meaningful distinction? If people aren't willing to give up their lifestyles, doesn't that leave "fewer people" as the only sustainable option left?

User avatar
Burgundy Russia
Bureaucrat
 
Posts: 63
Founded: Jan 03, 2022
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Burgundy Russia » Mon Jan 17, 2022 4:39 am

Eahland wrote:If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.


Why? The reproduction of society is not a purely private matter.

Forced insemination, sterilization and abortion are tyranny (this is not always true about sterilization), but they are not the only instruments of population policy.
Strange socialist Russia

User avatar
Mtwara
Envoy
 
Posts: 206
Founded: Aug 31, 2014
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Mtwara » Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:00 am

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
Mtwara wrote:Is it really true that there are too many people, or is it really our current lifestyles that's unsustainable?

Is there really a meaningful distinction? If people aren't willing to give up their lifestyles, doesn't that leave "fewer people" as the only sustainable option left?


Of course there's a meaningful distinction. In terms of sustainability, how something is made is just as important as why it's made. If energy is clean, is using it a problem? If cheap crap is made using reneweable materials, is it a problem?
Economic Left/Right: -4.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.56

User avatar
Vikanias
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1790
Founded: May 01, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Vikanias » Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:17 am

It’s great that I watched something about antinatalism on Friday!

So let’s begin, technically yes, but also no. You see some Antinatalists go too far and address anyone who has a kid or in a relationship as a ‘Breeder’. These redditors have never had a positive interaction with a person of the other sex. Now there are moderates for antinatalism saying that having children should be limited but not banned, but these people get knocked out of the antinatalist subreddit anyway. Let people pursue the interest they want, if they don’t to have kids? That’s fine. If they do? That’s fine as well.

1 fedora’s/10
Last edited by Vikanias on Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:19 am, edited 3 times in total.
AAAAA IM ON FIRE!!! WHAT ARE YOU DOING THERE READING THIS SIG COME HELP ME FOR GODS SAKE AAAAAAA!!!!!!

proud member of LDO and NATO also a former member of PRS


dumbass who got the internet one day, Seals are the best animals and you can’t convince me otherwise. I hate anime, And dinosaurs are super cool :7 my favourite is Allosaurus/Apatosaurus who both lived in the Jurassic! I’m going to make this a dino area now because I’m fucking stupid. Did you know that Cryolophosaurus is one of the largest Antarctic dinosaurs. Some say that the Spinosaurus’s new look is dumb but you are wrong, I actually like it more! And no it wasn’t a quadruped.

User avatar
Bloodstained Castle
Secretary
 
Posts: 30
Founded: Jan 15, 2022
Ex-Nation

Postby Bloodstained Castle » Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:27 am

People should want to be antinatalist after receiving an informed opinion. The government shouldn't force it.

User avatar
Kerwa
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1157
Founded: Jul 24, 2021
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Kerwa » Mon Jan 17, 2022 9:53 am

Dowaesk wrote:
Dreria wrote:ah yes a middle ground between reproducing and not reproducing

Reproduce half a child.
I know. I am Smart 8)


It’s called the one child policy.

User avatar
GuessTheAltAccount
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1553
Founded: Apr 27, 2021
Democratic Socialists

Postby GuessTheAltAccount » Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:39 am

Mtwara wrote:
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Is there really a meaningful distinction? If people aren't willing to give up their lifestyles, doesn't that leave "fewer people" as the only sustainable option left?


Of course there's a meaningful distinction. In terms of sustainability, how something is made is just as important as why it's made. If energy is clean, is using it a problem? If cheap crap is made using reneweable materials, is it a problem?

The problem is the consumer doesn't care if it isn't clean or renewable. At least not enough to do something about it, anyway.


Vikanias wrote:It’s great that I watched something about antinatalism on Friday!

So let’s begin, technically yes, but also no. You see some Antinatalists go too far and address anyone who has a kid or in a relationship as a ‘Breeder’. These redditors have never had a positive interaction with a person of the other sex. Now there are moderates for antinatalism saying that having children should be limited but not banned, but these people get knocked out of the antinatalist subreddit anyway. Let people pursue the interest they want, if they don’t to have kids? That’s fine. If they do? That’s fine as well.

1 fedora’s/10

Bill "having more people isn't green" Maher isn't an incel.

User avatar
The Land Named Bob
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Sep 09, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Land Named Bob » Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:36 pm

Kaczynskisatva wrote: The solution is genetically engineering the human population, and the positive effects of this would endure any subsequent policy.


Something I am wondering is what traits would be specifically beneficial in achieving this solution, since this is part of a world building project with multiple fictitious alien races which could have these traits already. But what could these traits be in a relatively human-minded civilization?

Thank you for providing insight into this problem, because it is very difficult to design world backgrounds and races and then write how this race would interact with this environment and itself! :)
:)
Today is a day.

User avatar
The Land Named Bob
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Sep 09, 2021
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Land Named Bob » Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:47 pm

Eahland wrote:If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.


In the fictitious world I am building, this system is not imposed by the government but instead a part of the culture or regular belief of the impacted race.
Also, in this hypothetical utopia, essentially all individuals have received a high-class education and are able and encouraged to make choices on their own, that is why it is a guidance system, not a government process or law.
:)
Today is a day.

User avatar
Neutraligon
Game Moderator
 
Posts: 39116
Founded: Oct 01, 2011
New York Times Democracy

Postby Neutraligon » Mon Jan 17, 2022 1:51 pm

If you are talking about creating a fictional world I believe arts and fiction would be the appropriate place for this discussion. General is intended for discussions about the real world.
If you want to call me by a nickname, call me Gon...or NS Batman.
Mod stuff: One Stop Rules Shop | Reppy's Sig Workshop | Getting Help Request
Just A Little though

User avatar
Vikanias
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1790
Founded: May 01, 2020
New York Times Democracy

Postby Vikanias » Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:21 pm

GuessTheAltAccount wrote:
Mtwara wrote:
Of course there's a meaningful distinction. In terms of sustainability, how something is made is just as important as why it's made. If energy is clean, is using it a problem? If cheap crap is made using reneweable materials, is it a problem?

The problem is the consumer doesn't care if it isn't clean or renewable. At least not enough to do something about it, anyway.


Vikanias wrote:It’s great that I watched something about antinatalism on Friday!

So let’s begin, technically yes, but also no. You see some Antinatalists go too far and address anyone who has a kid or in a relationship as a ‘Breeder’. These redditors have never had a positive interaction with a person of the other sex. Now there are moderates for antinatalism saying that having children should be limited but not banned, but these people get knocked out of the antinatalist subreddit anyway. Let people pursue the interest they want, if they don’t to have kids? That’s fine. If they do? That’s fine as well.

1 fedora’s/10

Bill "having more people isn't green" Maher isn't an incel.


Yes, but I’m not talking about him.
AAAAA IM ON FIRE!!! WHAT ARE YOU DOING THERE READING THIS SIG COME HELP ME FOR GODS SAKE AAAAAAA!!!!!!

proud member of LDO and NATO also a former member of PRS


dumbass who got the internet one day, Seals are the best animals and you can’t convince me otherwise. I hate anime, And dinosaurs are super cool :7 my favourite is Allosaurus/Apatosaurus who both lived in the Jurassic! I’m going to make this a dino area now because I’m fucking stupid. Did you know that Cryolophosaurus is one of the largest Antarctic dinosaurs. Some say that the Spinosaurus’s new look is dumb but you are wrong, I actually like it more! And no it wasn’t a quadruped.

User avatar
Rusozak
Negotiator
 
Posts: 5037
Founded: Jun 14, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Rusozak » Mon Jan 17, 2022 2:35 pm

Eahland wrote:If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.


But what if it's a matter of mass death and breakdown of society? It's easy to kick the overpopulation can down the road, until we HAVE to start limiting reproduction or people die. The rate of population growth is not sustainable, and I doubt enough people will do their part to fight it.
NOTE: This nation's government style, policies, and opinions in roleplay or forum 7 does not represent my true beliefs. It is purely for the enjoyment of the game.

User avatar
Haganham
Diplomat
 
Posts: 780
Founded: Aug 17, 2021
Father Knows Best State

Postby Haganham » Mon Jan 17, 2022 5:31 pm

Rusozak wrote:
Eahland wrote:If you're even asking this question, you're already wrong. Any government or system that believes it has the right to interfere in people's reproductive decisions is a tyrannical monster that must be destroyed.


But what if it's a matter of mass death and breakdown of society? It's easy to kick the overpopulation can down the road, until we HAVE to start limiting reproduction or people die. The rate of population growth is not sustainable, and I doubt enough people will do their part to fight it.

This is a fictional problem. Populations are already plateauing. Available birth control is really all you need to get population growth down to what can be supported.

The real challenge is how to reintroduce family life into our modern societies. Because if there's one problem developed nations have with population it's that people are not having enough children to support society going forward. This is a huge problem if it becomes multigenerational, as you can have a society where the workforces is too small to support the previous generation, never mind also support the next generation. You can see this already in china, which will face demographic collapse over the next few decades as the population halves in each generation.
Remember kids, if it doesn't have private property rights, competitive markets and voluntary exchange then it's just sparkling feudalism.
TITO Tactial Officer
Assistant WA secretary: 10000 Islands, TEP
Praefectus Praetorio, Caesar: Oatland
Cartographer: Forest

User avatar
Fractalnavel
Attaché
 
Posts: 68
Founded: Oct 04, 2005
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Fractalnavel » Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:14 pm

Last edited by Fractalnavel on Tue Jan 18, 2022 8:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Hemakral
Diplomat
 
Posts: 899
Founded: Nov 02, 2021
Psychotic Dictatorship

Postby Hemakral » Mon Jan 17, 2022 10:21 pm

Step one: Build a giant orbital death beam
Step two: Kill half of Earth's pregnant women with your space laser of doom
Step three: Congrats, you win philosophy!
._.

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: -Astoria-, American Legionaries, Duvniask, Fractalnavel, Hexton, ImperioKorkumida, Muslims Political Council of Evagia, Red Lake Circle, Snuggly Trousers, The Aber, The Alma Mater, Unitarian Universalism, Xerographica

Advertisement

Remove ads