It is not a new concept. The 'antinatalism' born in the nineteenth century as a current that states that having biological children is unethical, and it seems that now returns to take center stage among the young people who are opposed to bring more children to the world.
Among the causes pointed out by its defenders: an overpopulated world where there is a lack of water and food for many people, where we are destroying the environment and where we do not stop consuming more and more resources.
But there is much more behind.
The idea: not to bring children to the world
A little over a month ago we informed you of the demographic crisis that our country is experiencing: according to the latest data from the INE, in 2018 the lowest number of births has been recorded since there are records in 1941.
Y while the natural loss of population soars, surprised to meet the resurgence of a current, called antinatalism, which precisely advocates not bringing children into the world.
It is true that it is not yet widespread, but it seems that it is gaining strength (especially among young people) and we think that we should not despise it and understand it.
And we do it now, a few days after Raphael Samuel, a 27-year-old Indian man, denounced his parents "for bringing it into the world without your consent."
In Magnet "I did not choose to be born": the man who wants to denounce his parents for having brought him into the world He says on social networks that he is happy and that he has a good relationship with his parents, but he believes he was considered "your joy and pleasure" Not knowing if he wanted to be born.
Antinatalism: an ideology with history
Although it seems that the ideas anti-Natalism are new, the truth is that they were already in the head of thinkers like Homer, and were rescued in the nineteenth century by the philosopher Schopenhauer. Today, the highest representative is David Benatar, a professor at the University of Cape Town, who defends zero births to ensure that the Earth is at an optimal level.
These and other reflections are included in his book 'Better never to have been', which is something like the founding text of the movement against birth.
On MagnetAntinatalism has returned: the arguments of those who advocate stop reproducing usEthical, demographic and social reasons
Photo: Raphael Samuel's Facebook The current was born motivated by demographic reasons (large population for few resources), but over time their defenders (mostly young) have been adding ethical, social and demographic reasons. That is, we talk about environmental arguments, avoid the pain of others or that each woman decides what she wants to do with her body, instead of being imposed.
But in addition to demographic ethics, Anti-Natalists also defend individual ethics, because who is in a position to ensure the good life of their child?
These could be some of the reasons why this current is gaining adherents, who even resort to sterilization to ensure that they will not have offspring.
But there are more explanations so that society has no offspring, such as the economic problems that suffocate a large part of women: problems of work and family reconciliation, low wages, job insecurity ...
For the moment, most of The population looks skeptically at what 'antinatalism' means, for someone to tell us whether or not we should reproduce, but perhaps it would be convenient not to lower our guard altogether.
Benatar himself acknowledges that it is very unlikely that people decide not to reproduce but insists that at least parents should be responsible and not have more children than they can raise.
What do you think of all this?
Photos | iStock
Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence
Today in Amazon for € 26
