The Left that Should Not Be

Earlier today I was thinking back to a particular day when I encountered some Jehovah’s Witnesses on my doorstep. I was raking the leaves in the front yard, so they essentially cornered me. They served me pamphlets after talking to me about human suffering. “Can there be an end to suffering? Is there a means to alleviate it?” they asked me. I simply nodded in agreement, trying to mask my irritation as much as possible until they left so I could finish raking the lawn.

I looked back on that experience later around the time I was just introducing myself to antinatalism and philosophical pessimism when an idea occurred to me. What if I had made pamphlets of my own for the purpose of convincing Jehovah’s Witnesses who knocked on my door not to procreate? What better way to end suffering than by limiting the amount of humans we bring into the world so that there are no more humans to suffer? In the meantime we can live out our lives as virtuous, kind, Christian people so that the remaining people on Earth will attain salvation? Admittedly, it would be a tough sell to a group of people whose Holy Book tells them to “be fruitful and multiply,” but I thought it would be amusing, nonetheless.

For those of you who are unfamiliar with the notion, antinatalism is the belief that procreation is morally wrong. It takes the negative utilitarian premise that morally correct actions must minimize suffering, but not necessarily maximize pleasure, to its logical extreme. Ultimately the best way to prevent suffering is for humans to cease to exist. To the antinatalist, the most moral action a person could possibly perform is to sterilize himself.

It’s a depressing philosophy, to say the least. It’s not for the faint at heart. I almost feel bad for even considering even promoting it to Jehovah’s Witnesses considering the potential psychological distress it could have caused them.

But then that little devil that whispers terrible, horrible, no-good-very-bad things in my ear popped up on my shoulder and suggested something to me. In the spirit of AAA, what if we tried convincing progressives that antinatalism is true? While antinatalism is a rather dour philosophy, you can’t fault it for being logically inconsistent. And in my experience, antinatalists are far from intellectually bankrupt. But what antinatalism has in intellectual rigor, it lacks in having a practical application. If antinatalists got their way, odds are the only thing that would happen is that they would die out while the pro-natalists they failed to convince would inherit the Earth. And that’s why I’m thinking rightists should promote it.

Now when I say we should promote antinatalism, I’m not saying we should become antinatalists. Rather, I’m suggesting that we convince leftists that if they really care about being good people, then they should stop reproducing altogether. In fact, many of the arguments for antinatalism hinge on liberal principles. Consider the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. They are an environmentalist group that argues that since humans are Earth’s biggest polluters, we should voluntarily opt out of the gene pool so we don’t further consume limited resources and contaminate the planet. Tired of smelly hipsters telling you about the evils of GMOs and the dangers of climate change? Now thanks to the VHEM, your kids won’t have to!

And how about those pesky feminists? They’re an endless source of amusement for yours-truly, but they aren’t harmless. Especially when you consider that they advocate policies that destroy the SMV of our women as well as our men (because men need feminism too). So why not tell women to tie the knot in order to fight the patriarchy? This way feminists can have the career they want without ever having to question the moral implications of squandering their genes. And more importantly, they won’t raise children on feminist ideology, which will lead to a greater proportion of well-adjusted women raised by traditionalists.

I call this strategy instrumental antinatalism.

Admittedly, this is something leftists are already doing. They’re living lifestyles that are inherently dysgenical, so in the long run we can’t expect this progressive epoch to last forever. The difference though is that the current crop of leftists don’t view voluntarily opting out of the gene pool to be a moral imperative. But given their animosity towards Darwinism, I’m sure that telling them that procreation is a horrible sin against social justice shouldn’t be too hard a sell.

It all boils down to this: if they’re going to opt out of the gene pool; let’s encourage them.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Eugenics, Humor, Ideology, Reaction. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to The Left that Should Not Be

  1. Pingback: The Left that Should Not Be | Reaction Times

  2. lol I like it! It shouldn’t be that difficult either since they are already embracing dysgenic lifestyles like you say. “You should totally get a vasectomy, or you know, you could end up with a bunch of kids you dont want and that would be terrible!”

  3. Pingback: The Left that Should Not Be | Neoreactive

  4. James says:

    Anti-natalism rests on liberal principles? What is “liberal” about DON’T CREATE A LIFE SOLELY FOR YOUR BENEFIT? Seems extremely consistent with the morality of selflessness of “conservatives, except the suggestion is to actually follow what you preach!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s