I spent decades in the construction industry. Hated most days, but learned a lot about everything from human interaction, to how to build my own dwelling. Hands on work, with others of the "unwashed masses" class of folks, can be a surprisingly intimate and expansive experience. Sadly, it took me decades to finally understand that my work life taught me that in the not so distant past, the majority of us were raised by a village, and were far better off as a result.
The brutality of the market meant that I was randomly located in a fairly fertile location to pursue my trades. In the fat times, the market would need more workers, and thanks to being in a union, a lot of my fellow men and women from a "poorer" region, and hour or two distant, got the chance for short term work, at higher pay. These folks were unusual, in that they were remarkably content, pleasant to be around, amazingly productive, and not looking for a way to vent their frustration by "putting it to the company" which was a common theme with a large minority of my fellow union members.
The difference finally occurred to me, much later. These folks were deep in the culture of their own village. They were all from post-industrial cities or adjoining towns. They had an ethnic, family, neighborhood and religious identity that were often quite strong. They belong to everything, from the neighborhood softball team, the fire company, the church on the corner, and more. They lived in a low COL area. They were not striving for the new bass boat, the $70K pickup, the 2500 sq. ft. trophy house a few miles out of town. They were content with a long paid off row house is a gritty town, and thrilled with the small above ground pool they would set up in the backyard every summer. They were concerned with things like getting the neighborhood ready for the upcoming heritage festival, or if their new college grad daughter got the job at the community hospital. They didn't spend time searching for a car dealer willing to trap them into an $800 monthly payment on an SUV they have absolutely zero need for. They were simply enjoying being human, not well-trained little capitalist serfs, chained to the hamster wheel of earning and yearning.
This was how life was for these folks 20-30 years ago. I doubt much of this way of life remains, as those areas are in many case going backwards quickly, as a result of heartless economics, generational flight, and drug addiction. But, for a brief few years I got to see what life could be like when family and community mattered more than a race to the end of it all, chasing the next shiny new thing.
Sadly, it was only after I had the chance to retire and look back at what I missed, did I notice that these folks were a hell of a lot happier than 99% of those I knew, including myself and my dysfunctional family.
I got 2 kids.. But I only got two kids after I was absolutely sure that a violent collapse was unavoidable. So people think i am evil and cynical and many other things. I did it because my wife really wanted to have kids. I had postponed it for 20 years. But now - why should I deny her what makes her happy and is important to her? I understand that people think it is evil against the kids - but any kid will live and die it is just a matter of timing. The kids are happy - the wife is happy. There is no point in denying and diminishing what makes your life good when you are already living like wiley coyote running in the air. There is only one point to life now in the face of the unavoidable collapse: Having a good time.
If not having kids make you happy that is what you should do. Being a CO2 saint at this point - is POINTLESS. The faster the crash happens the faster we are through it and the better chances nature has to recuperate.
I do agree that having a village to bring up the kids would be much better than the awful government institutions. It sucks and is expensive and it is allienating towards the kids.
Capitalism will collapse. Supply and demand runs the world, long before Adam Smith. Capitalism DOES work on a small scale local control situation. You're a wolf, capitalism means better get that moose or the pack starves. Supply and demand. But since the Anthropocene Mass Extinction, number 6 in the series, means that the Omega Generation is here and they will get to be the last, starving, killing for long pork and clean water. Carcinoma Sapiens is circling the drain. Unlimited growth is the philosophy of cancer. HOLY TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS, BATMAN, IT'S "THE MARCHING MORONS"! [Kornbluth, 1951, the plot 'borrowed; for "Idiocracy"
Consider that having a child is the biggest carbon dump of all. *
According to a pivotal study first published in 2008, adding a child to the planet can add up to 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the environment* All those disposable diapers, tons of plastic kinderspullen, the endless driving of children to everything, it all adds up quickly. But you know, I don't care. I'm one of The Few. The Proud. The Nulliparous. Breeding is how women become slaves, and it's not like there are any shortages of our wretched species, the most invasive species ever. Then MEN dump all of the work, the diapers, the SHITWORK on to women. And Mommy screeches that THE VILLAGE do her work. Well, it's about RECIPROCITY, and the breeders give NOTHING back. "Oh, sorry, I have children, so Mother,those homeless shelters will be fine. for you." Sorry not sorry, I did not sign on to anyone's village, I don't do diapers, and no, I won't do your job when you show up an hour late and leave an hour early 'because children' Get. A. Clue. The reason that it's so hard to raise a kid isb ecause there are too many of us already, so of course it takes more work to get the resources needed. You see this in the animal kingdom. When they run out of room and food, they eat their young, plagues set in , and more predators come along THINGS MUST BALANCE. Instead o forcing girls and women into slaves to the breeders, start making BABYDADDIES be the village.
Unfortunately, humanity is basically a "lion's pride writ large". Only difference is that in an actual lion's pride, which is a matriarchy, the hardworking females are the ones with actual power, while the lazy males have no real power, only the illusion of being "King Nothing" like the Metallica song. Whereas under patriarchy, men have power without responsibility (which is very dangerous), while women have responsibility without power (which is very harmful to women and children). At least male lions do a decent job of "guarding the perimeter," something 55% of American men failed to do this election when they voted for and bowed to a misogynistic fascist dictator, throwing women and children under the bus, like Adam did to Eve.
Amen to that! Very well-said overall. A better than Nordic social welfare state, like the one you describe, is the best way to bring back the "village" in modern form, with enough concessions to modern times, and without violating anyone's rights or depriving anyone of opportunities.
This stinks of a “*laudator temporis acti*.” How many fewer hours on average, to use an objective measure, did parents spend raising their children because the latter were partially raised by a “village”? Also, wouldn’t this have applied, at best, to children of (modern) schoolage? For what portion of history did these “villages” raise kids to have a basic education provided publicly in modern times, (not that public education is much better than industrialized daycare, but at least it’s pretty effective and teaching literacy and basic arithmetic).
This stinks of “*laus temporis acti*.” How many fewer hours on average did people devote to raising their own children because the latter were partially raised by a “village”? Also, how would that apply to raising very small children? Wouldn’t it only apply to children of (modern) school age? How much time in the past was devoted to raising children by their parents which is now done by widespread education?
My take is that antinatalism rising in popularity is understandable as a result of present conditions under decaying capitalism, but the danger of antinatalism and other misanthropic ideologies is in essentializing the present untenability of childbearing and family as an inherent feature of life and not a societal disorder artificially imposed by capitalist atomization and the decline of living conditions it has created.
When our agency has been removed from us and we are presented with 2 non-options, what can we really do to affect the structures that are destroying the world? Not having kids is really the only thing you can actually exert your agency at.
I get what you're saying, but what I said isn't really contrary to what you're saying, so I'm not sure what the objection is. What I mean is that antinatalism runs the risk of essentializing problems specifically created by capitalism when it supposes that childbearing and having a family is an inherently evil thing - as opposed to something which under healthier circumstances would be good, but is simply made untenable by the present conditions under decaying capitalism.
Massively disagree with free childcare, parental leave etc. Having kids is a choice. If you can't afford it, whether that's money or time, don't do it.
I used to say exactly that when I was younger: "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em". Natch. But with maturity, I ultimately came to realize that such a weak neoliberal position not only sounds like Scrooge, but also denies the fact that children are essentially "public goods" to humanity at large. And above all, more than anything else, children are people too, and they clearly didn't choose to come into this world, so they should not be punished for the "sins" of their parents.
Excuse ME, Mx M, but 'the village' you refer to is forcing all women and girls to provide free labor. And get a clue, hun but HUMAN OVERPOPULATION causes all our problems. Those without children pay far higher taxes anc get NO BENEFITS. We can't house, feed, and employ everyone here now so we need to pay people NOT to have children. That is, in fact, why in the 60s the GOP was PROABORTION, it's cheaper than wefare. I'm really tired of parentified daughters and the sheet entitlement of the breeders. Heck, the world the way it is, why would you have a child to suffer the future? Your benevolent misogyny sickens me. "Momism is men's most effective weapon against women" as Susan Brownmiller said. I am so freaking over how all men seem to think all women want kids, and I truly despise the concept that pregnancy and childbirth is 'no big deal' ... well, hun, maybee 4th Degree Tear would help cure your Recto-Cranial Impaction.
I don’t think the village referred to in this post is women, it’s just the community that we don’t have anymore (an argument can be made that “the village” was primarily women in the past, but that’s not the same we should strive toward now). And I would argue that we could feed and house everyone that currently exists, very easily actually. Just not under capitalism.
Yes, it is. Women. Parentiied oldest daughters, single CF women told to provide free babysitting . ... . a common trope in reddit. CF employees expected to cover for parents who arrive late, leave early, do nothing in wfh because CHILDREN. And the point is, OF COURSE it takes more resources per child to raise, due to OVERPOPULATION. This is the case for all creatures, great and small. BTW why on EARTH would a sane person ASSume that adding more billions will SUDDENLY make us all share equally . .. if our species was capable of that, we'd've done it several billlion of us ago. And we've lost the most beautiful open space,s our urban high rise slums are becoming unlivable crime zones. the ocean is dying, we can't feed everyone now ... but you say we cand have MORE OF THIS/???????????????? Geeze, you must have some SERIOUS weed to be that oblivious to the obvious, could you share? Because I'd love to be that removed from reality.
Yes I understand that, I’m saying I don’t think the post was implying we should go back to relying only on women, but on building up a community for those who have children instead. Maybe take a break from it for a little while and then try to reread it from a different perspective.
Indeed, the idea that women, especially CF women and parentified oldest daughters, should EVER be forced, coerced, manipulated, or guilted into providing free babysitting services and such is clearly not the right thing to do from anything even remotely approaching an ethical perspective. No argument from me there. It violates individual rights AND has a "kettling" crowd control effect on women collectively as well. But that is not what the author is proposing at all. And the author is clearly NOT a pronatalist at all by any stretch of the imagination.
You make some good points, Elizabeth. And we have to be careful about reactionaries romanticizing the bad old days and worse, trying to re-create that and impose it on others, primarily women of course. But the (imperfect, as there are no perfect) solutions the author proposes are simply the right thing to do regardless.
I spent decades in the construction industry. Hated most days, but learned a lot about everything from human interaction, to how to build my own dwelling. Hands on work, with others of the "unwashed masses" class of folks, can be a surprisingly intimate and expansive experience. Sadly, it took me decades to finally understand that my work life taught me that in the not so distant past, the majority of us were raised by a village, and were far better off as a result.
The brutality of the market meant that I was randomly located in a fairly fertile location to pursue my trades. In the fat times, the market would need more workers, and thanks to being in a union, a lot of my fellow men and women from a "poorer" region, and hour or two distant, got the chance for short term work, at higher pay. These folks were unusual, in that they were remarkably content, pleasant to be around, amazingly productive, and not looking for a way to vent their frustration by "putting it to the company" which was a common theme with a large minority of my fellow union members.
The difference finally occurred to me, much later. These folks were deep in the culture of their own village. They were all from post-industrial cities or adjoining towns. They had an ethnic, family, neighborhood and religious identity that were often quite strong. They belong to everything, from the neighborhood softball team, the fire company, the church on the corner, and more. They lived in a low COL area. They were not striving for the new bass boat, the $70K pickup, the 2500 sq. ft. trophy house a few miles out of town. They were content with a long paid off row house is a gritty town, and thrilled with the small above ground pool they would set up in the backyard every summer. They were concerned with things like getting the neighborhood ready for the upcoming heritage festival, or if their new college grad daughter got the job at the community hospital. They didn't spend time searching for a car dealer willing to trap them into an $800 monthly payment on an SUV they have absolutely zero need for. They were simply enjoying being human, not well-trained little capitalist serfs, chained to the hamster wheel of earning and yearning.
This was how life was for these folks 20-30 years ago. I doubt much of this way of life remains, as those areas are in many case going backwards quickly, as a result of heartless economics, generational flight, and drug addiction. But, for a brief few years I got to see what life could be like when family and community mattered more than a race to the end of it all, chasing the next shiny new thing.
Sadly, it was only after I had the chance to retire and look back at what I missed, did I notice that these folks were a hell of a lot happier than 99% of those I knew, including myself and my dysfunctional family.
I got 2 kids.. But I only got two kids after I was absolutely sure that a violent collapse was unavoidable. So people think i am evil and cynical and many other things. I did it because my wife really wanted to have kids. I had postponed it for 20 years. But now - why should I deny her what makes her happy and is important to her? I understand that people think it is evil against the kids - but any kid will live and die it is just a matter of timing. The kids are happy - the wife is happy. There is no point in denying and diminishing what makes your life good when you are already living like wiley coyote running in the air. There is only one point to life now in the face of the unavoidable collapse: Having a good time.
If not having kids make you happy that is what you should do. Being a CO2 saint at this point - is POINTLESS. The faster the crash happens the faster we are through it and the better chances nature has to recuperate.
I do agree that having a village to bring up the kids would be much better than the awful government institutions. It sucks and is expensive and it is allienating towards the kids.
I ACCIDENTALLY HIT CRINGE ON THE POLL, I AM AN ANTI-NATALIST UNTIL CAPITALISM COLLAPSES.
Capitalism will collapse. Supply and demand runs the world, long before Adam Smith. Capitalism DOES work on a small scale local control situation. You're a wolf, capitalism means better get that moose or the pack starves. Supply and demand. But since the Anthropocene Mass Extinction, number 6 in the series, means that the Omega Generation is here and they will get to be the last, starving, killing for long pork and clean water. Carcinoma Sapiens is circling the drain. Unlimited growth is the philosophy of cancer. HOLY TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS, BATMAN, IT'S "THE MARCHING MORONS"! [Kornbluth, 1951, the plot 'borrowed; for "Idiocracy"
Consider that having a child is the biggest carbon dump of all. *
According to a pivotal study first published in 2008, adding a child to the planet can add up to 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the environment* All those disposable diapers, tons of plastic kinderspullen, the endless driving of children to everything, it all adds up quickly. But you know, I don't care. I'm one of The Few. The Proud. The Nulliparous. Breeding is how women become slaves, and it's not like there are any shortages of our wretched species, the most invasive species ever. Then MEN dump all of the work, the diapers, the SHITWORK on to women. And Mommy screeches that THE VILLAGE do her work. Well, it's about RECIPROCITY, and the breeders give NOTHING back. "Oh, sorry, I have children, so Mother,those homeless shelters will be fine. for you." Sorry not sorry, I did not sign on to anyone's village, I don't do diapers, and no, I won't do your job when you show up an hour late and leave an hour early 'because children' Get. A. Clue. The reason that it's so hard to raise a kid isb ecause there are too many of us already, so of course it takes more work to get the resources needed. You see this in the animal kingdom. When they run out of room and food, they eat their young, plagues set in , and more predators come along THINGS MUST BALANCE. Instead o forcing girls and women into slaves to the breeders, start making BABYDADDIES be the village.
Unfortunately, humanity is basically a "lion's pride writ large". Only difference is that in an actual lion's pride, which is a matriarchy, the hardworking females are the ones with actual power, while the lazy males have no real power, only the illusion of being "King Nothing" like the Metallica song. Whereas under patriarchy, men have power without responsibility (which is very dangerous), while women have responsibility without power (which is very harmful to women and children). At least male lions do a decent job of "guarding the perimeter," something 55% of American men failed to do this election when they voted for and bowed to a misogynistic fascist dictator, throwing women and children under the bus, like Adam did to Eve.
Amen to that! Very well-said overall. A better than Nordic social welfare state, like the one you describe, is the best way to bring back the "village" in modern form, with enough concessions to modern times, and without violating anyone's rights or depriving anyone of opportunities.
Do you have a link to the Peter Kalmus quote, please?
This stinks of a “*laudator temporis acti*.” How many fewer hours on average, to use an objective measure, did parents spend raising their children because the latter were partially raised by a “village”? Also, wouldn’t this have applied, at best, to children of (modern) schoolage? For what portion of history did these “villages” raise kids to have a basic education provided publicly in modern times, (not that public education is much better than industrialized daycare, but at least it’s pretty effective and teaching literacy and basic arithmetic).
This stinks of “*laus temporis acti*.” How many fewer hours on average did people devote to raising their own children because the latter were partially raised by a “village”? Also, how would that apply to raising very small children? Wouldn’t it only apply to children of (modern) school age? How much time in the past was devoted to raising children by their parents which is now done by widespread education?
My take is that antinatalism rising in popularity is understandable as a result of present conditions under decaying capitalism, but the danger of antinatalism and other misanthropic ideologies is in essentializing the present untenability of childbearing and family as an inherent feature of life and not a societal disorder artificially imposed by capitalist atomization and the decline of living conditions it has created.
When our agency has been removed from us and we are presented with 2 non-options, what can we really do to affect the structures that are destroying the world? Not having kids is really the only thing you can actually exert your agency at.
I get what you're saying, but what I said isn't really contrary to what you're saying, so I'm not sure what the objection is. What I mean is that antinatalism runs the risk of essentializing problems specifically created by capitalism when it supposes that childbearing and having a family is an inherently evil thing - as opposed to something which under healthier circumstances would be good, but is simply made untenable by the present conditions under decaying capitalism.
Massively disagree with free childcare, parental leave etc. Having kids is a choice. If you can't afford it, whether that's money or time, don't do it.
I used to say exactly that when I was younger: "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em". Natch. But with maturity, I ultimately came to realize that such a weak neoliberal position not only sounds like Scrooge, but also denies the fact that children are essentially "public goods" to humanity at large. And above all, more than anything else, children are people too, and they clearly didn't choose to come into this world, so they should not be punished for the "sins" of their parents.
Excuse ME, Mx M, but 'the village' you refer to is forcing all women and girls to provide free labor. And get a clue, hun but HUMAN OVERPOPULATION causes all our problems. Those without children pay far higher taxes anc get NO BENEFITS. We can't house, feed, and employ everyone here now so we need to pay people NOT to have children. That is, in fact, why in the 60s the GOP was PROABORTION, it's cheaper than wefare. I'm really tired of parentified daughters and the sheet entitlement of the breeders. Heck, the world the way it is, why would you have a child to suffer the future? Your benevolent misogyny sickens me. "Momism is men's most effective weapon against women" as Susan Brownmiller said. I am so freaking over how all men seem to think all women want kids, and I truly despise the concept that pregnancy and childbirth is 'no big deal' ... well, hun, maybee 4th Degree Tear would help cure your Recto-Cranial Impaction.
I don’t think the village referred to in this post is women, it’s just the community that we don’t have anymore (an argument can be made that “the village” was primarily women in the past, but that’s not the same we should strive toward now). And I would argue that we could feed and house everyone that currently exists, very easily actually. Just not under capitalism.
Well-said
Yes, it is. Women. Parentiied oldest daughters, single CF women told to provide free babysitting . ... . a common trope in reddit. CF employees expected to cover for parents who arrive late, leave early, do nothing in wfh because CHILDREN. And the point is, OF COURSE it takes more resources per child to raise, due to OVERPOPULATION. This is the case for all creatures, great and small. BTW why on EARTH would a sane person ASSume that adding more billions will SUDDENLY make us all share equally . .. if our species was capable of that, we'd've done it several billlion of us ago. And we've lost the most beautiful open space,s our urban high rise slums are becoming unlivable crime zones. the ocean is dying, we can't feed everyone now ... but you say we cand have MORE OF THIS/???????????????? Geeze, you must have some SERIOUS weed to be that oblivious to the obvious, could you share? Because I'd love to be that removed from reality.
Yes I understand that, I’m saying I don’t think the post was implying we should go back to relying only on women, but on building up a community for those who have children instead. Maybe take a break from it for a little while and then try to reread it from a different perspective.
Indeed
Indeed, the idea that women, especially CF women and parentified oldest daughters, should EVER be forced, coerced, manipulated, or guilted into providing free babysitting services and such is clearly not the right thing to do from anything even remotely approaching an ethical perspective. No argument from me there. It violates individual rights AND has a "kettling" crowd control effect on women collectively as well. But that is not what the author is proposing at all. And the author is clearly NOT a pronatalist at all by any stretch of the imagination.
And all the more reason to support UBI for everyone, with or without children, period. Which the author supports as well.
You make some good points, Elizabeth. And we have to be careful about reactionaries romanticizing the bad old days and worse, trying to re-create that and impose it on others, primarily women of course. But the (imperfect, as there are no perfect) solutions the author proposes are simply the right thing to do regardless.