Real Anarchists Don't Breed

[lobotomy3yes]

Haha, lobotyomy3yes, good one. Free comedy! 'Preciate it.

No problem mah friend.

 

[veggieguy12]

...I am not committed to the idea that human extinction is in the planet's best interest.

I don't believe that all humanity need vanish from the planet, though Civilization is doing a good job to ensure this result. However, it's hard to see how the absence of all humans would be a real detriment to rhinos, butterflies, redwoods, roaches, whales, mountains, grasslands, oxygen, coral reef, ice caps, etc.
On the other hand, I think it's pretty easy for all to imagine how absolutely fucked all humans are when some of these things begin to disappear.
I guess I think that it definitely serves "the planet's best interest" - 'the planet' meaning all other living creatures and this Earth they inhabit and depend on - for humans to disappear, though that is only one route to serving (or saving) the planet.
Ideally, we (Civilized) humans will change our dominating, destructive ways before we extinct ourselves.

First of all I would like to note that the most egregious offender of environmental destruction is well, the environment itself.

"The biggest cause of male balding is having a scalp and hair! Did you know that the scalp drops millions of hairs every month?" Point made?
It's not environmental destruction when a forest burns from lightning or summer heat, or when tectonic plates shift, any more than it is looting or theft when you take garbage curbside from the house. It's not murder when you smack a mosquito on your arm or scratch your leg (thus killing or displacing untold numbers of bacteria) - it's just how life works for you, and similarly that's how this planet functions.
It serves the planet, and therefore us, for volcanoes and forest fires and earthquakes, those phenomena aren't some "environmental destruction" which we should end.

I think we need to be honest about why most people who care about the environment do so: to maintain human existence.

I dunno about most people. But even accepting that you've correctly assessed the motivation of most, I'm not sure it's bad. Human existence is dependent upon continued existence (or, at the very least, the slow, gradual extinction) of an indescribable, unknowable diversity of flora and fauna. Human existence will not be served by the destruction Civilization is wreaking against this wild Earth.

...humans have the capability to actually reduce organism-wide suffering due to natural causes. This can be through technology, and also through "green" stuff like certain forms of permaculture.

Even when well-intentioned, this type of meddling has consistently been shown to be unwise, primarily for the fact that we haven't a wide enough lens to view all the ramifications of our actions over time and down the line.

...When [Yellowstone Caldera] erupts, the entire midwest, most of the west coast, and parts of the east coast will be destroyed. Several states will disappear by the blast alone. The ash depositories will most likely result in a rapid volcano winter worldwide- this could lead to another ice age.

That's really nice to know, but it does not give me carte blanche to ransack your house, nor does it fare well as any rapist's defense. So I have to wonder why it merits any mention as some kind of dismissal for stopping the ransack and rape of the Wild.
Yes, we absolutely should stop rape and atrocities upon people and the planet, though an ELE asteroid crash is imminent, or volcanic lava is rushing our way.

Anyway, the idea that there is something inherent about nature that deserves our respect is laughable. Nature doesn't give a shit about nature so we should we by those principles? If we are to actually care about anything other than our own species, we must arrive at our conclusions through a blend of logic, intuition, and practicality.

"Nature" (almost more an abstract concept than a definable thing) produces tornadoes, earthquakes, sunburns, drought, forest fires, floods, etc. - all of which kick billions of asses. Whatever nature is, it's what we're all dependent upon, and not the other way around.

I don't know if I'd say I "respect" Nature, but I damn sure know I need it.
Beyond that, I have a brain and can think and feel and sympathize and grant compassion or respect, or I can eliminate these feelings with rage and anger or hurt. I don't think Nature (wind, rock, water, soil, atmosphere) has feelings or thoughts, so I don't resent that it doesn't "respect" me. Does anyone?

 

[lobotomy3yes]

I think you are misunderstanding what I am actually saying. I'm just trying to raise questions about why we care about the environment (I ask because I do) and what exactly beliefs would mean. That post was simply throwing out a lot of such questions.

I'll try to respond to your critiques after I have gotten some sleep, but needless to say I am primarily opposed to the statement "anarchists don't breed" for entirely different reasons. I don't think it is my choice whether or not to reproduce because I'm not technically the one doing the reproducing. It is the right of a woman to decide how to use her own body. Frankly she doesn't have to give a damn about what I think.

Secondly, the whole "breeding" language is extraordinarily racist (not you, the link) and insensitive to history. For years white people have referred to nonwhites as "breeding." That is just semantics yes, but the racism goes much deeper. This stance against reproduction is, by and large, held by white people. How fucking selfish is for us white people to tell the rest of the world to stop reproducing. Western imperialism at its best..."We've fucked you over for years guys, and you have fought a good fight. Sorry to tell you though, you've gotta give up this human existence thing. Don't worry, it's in the planet's best interests. Us whites know, we always do."

THAT is what I hear when someone talks about shit like this.

Now if you have said WHITE people should not reproduce, I would agree. Then again, it's not my choice so it doesn't fucking matter. In general though, I would prefer not further add to the privilege pool.

 

[veggieguy12]

I don't think it is my choice whether or not to reproduce because I'm not technically the one doing the reproducing. It is the right of a woman to decide how to use her own body. Frankly she doesn't have to give a damn about what I think.

Well, I agree with that.
Of course, your choice to not reproduce lies in you withholding your sperm from anyone. If you give your sperm out, it's entirely her choice; if you don't put out sperm, you've firmly staked your claim in the camp of Not Breeding.

This stance against reproduction is, by and large, held by white people. How fucking selfish is for us white people to tell the rest of the world to stop reproducing. Western imperialism at its best...
Now if you have said WHITE people should not reproduce, I would agree.

I skip all these details; I understand the social-justice aspects of environmental politics, but it really just does not matter when we're facing species-wide and planetary-scale extinction. I'm not particularly concerned that the human species continues, more that it doesn't eliminate the survival abilities of all Earth's other inhabitants - BUT, if humans do survive, then they'll have time to sort out all the wrongs committed and achieve racial harmony and religious enlightenment and finally legalize gay marriage. Without a decent planet to live on, though, all those other goals are moot.

And actually, there are probably pretty equal amounts of people from each race and ethnicity who are going to survive post-Civilization. Nobody in urban centers, really, but anybody currently living inter-relatedly with a mountain, jungle, or forest will make it just as (or easier than) they do now. And these are White, Yellow, Red, Brown, Black, all over the world.

 

[wartomods]

wouldnt it be more like nihilists dont breed, or people who dont want to be worried with kids dont breed???

 

[yarn and glue]

I think this whole argument (like most arguments) can be simplified and summed up by a nice, proverbial hunk of earthy wisdom. In this case, "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem."

Problem: Population growth at this rate is unsustainable.

Solution: Stop reproducing, god damn it.

 

[oldmanLee]

Yarn and Glue,that was the most pragmatic,elegantly simple,and utterly workable statement that I've heard regarding overpopulation ever.Now comes the hard part:convincing people that 6 BILLION+ PLUS is too damned many.Me,i don't regret my kids(some were not mine biologically,but I raised 'em),but convincing people to even "wrap the rascal" seems to be almost impossible.

 

[eruiz87]

I've always sort of felt that making kids is unfair to the kid because families can be so fucked up. But that's just me who's going to stop people from making babies?

 

[veggieguy12]

Now comes the hard part:convincing people that 6 BILLION+ PLUS is too damned many. ...convincing people to even "wrap the rascal" seems to be almost impossible.

Expecting any success from earnest efforts to gain volunteers is like expecting prayers to stop the weather: futile, and perhaps frustrating. Personal actions/decisions are limited to the person, and we need more systemic address of the problem.

 

[120 Proof Vomit]

I think that the real problem is responsibility. People fuck for fun, and have kids on accident. This is not to say that these accidental children are not just as capable of anything children under any other circumstance are, but as unemotional as I can put it, it's reckless, and if you're an anarchist, that reckless fucking is counter-productive to your movement. One could argue that the media pushes sex like they do any other product (you could compare "personal lubricant" to a Pepsi in this demonstration,) and the end result is more consumers to go out and spend more money, perpetuating Capitalism... shit, you don't even need to argue it. If you've ever paid for a sex toy, or a porn magazine, it's clear that someone had their hand in your pocket, while they distract you with self indulgences. It's an age old trick, ever read The Adventures of Tom Sawyer? Sure, sex is great, but it's not that fucking great... But their is the media there to embilish it from the time we're little, turning us all into easily controlled sex robots. But this is the world we've made for our selves, where self indulgence is favored over self discipline. Fuck ever learning anything, or making any real progress...

 

[EastCoast315]

I don't understand anarchism. Sure, its a fun concept, but it seems dumb to actually take it seriously and want it to happen. If the law isn't your thing, come move out to the country. No one gives a shit what you do out here. And I'm just in cny, imagine how shit is in north slope AK and NWT canada. Stay out of cities and you can do what you like.

 

[120 Proof Vomit]

Anarchy isn't about fucking off and disagreeing with laws, To me it's more about organising the people to the point that government is obsolete, the police become obsolete, and so do the big businesses/franchises. It's about taking off the training wheels and doing shit ourselves. Taking responsibility for the world around us, instead of expecting the government to pass a new law against whatever. And no offence, but it's always just a "fun concept" to the people on the outside looking in. To me anarchism is the most frustrating aspect of my life, but it's the only thing that makes sense to me.

 

[christa]

I don't think it is my choice whether or not to reproduce because I'm not technically the one doing the reproducing. It is the right of a woman to decide how to use her own body. Frankly she doesn't have to give a damn about what I think.

This i believe is also racist/classist statement. To say that once your sperm is out it is her "choice". But what if there are no free clinics, or doctors who would preform abortions, or contraceptives or plan b available to you. If we're talking about not breeding in context of the world than this statement of responsibility and choice the woman has, once having been involved, is false. Most women across the world do not have a choice unless they are of upper class and have access to funds or are white and live in a liberal city with access to free health care with doctors who are considered "radical". For most cases there are no clinics that offer anything but to go through with birthing the child. it is actually encouraged in most societies to breed and to establish ones identity through breeding this goes for men and especially women.
I do agree with the bluntness of the article. For the most part it is true that when involved with anarchism, having a child might stop you from certain acts and also continue a dependency on materials produced from capitalism. However I do not believe that it is rational or functional. It undermines the feeling and depths of human relationships and feelings. The article refers to pregnancy as breeding a term one that is racist, but also used for animals and for that i feel is degrading. I believe that there is a choice and that population is a topic that shouldn't be swept under the carpet

 

[120 Proof Vomit]

I don't know the racial history to the word "breeding," but humans are animals, and animals breed. To be compared to an animal, to me, is nothing but natural. The Idea behind having sex is to keep the species alive. The quote from the movie Fight Club comes to mind; "I felt like putting a bullet between the eyes of every Panda that wouldn't screw to save its species." Well, we have enough people. Stop having so much fucking sex, everybody! It's kind of like when you double dose on the wrong meds that you were prescribed and drop dead of an overdose. Too much of a good thing is inherently bad.

 

[christa]

I don't know the racial history to the word "breeding," but humans are animals, and animals breed. To be compared to an animal, to me, is nothing but natural.
the point is that it is meant to be derogatory, not to put us in the context of being connected to the animal planet. And having sex isn't the problem, it's feeling that out of sex a child has to be born which is not necessary.

 

[veggieguy12]

Well, we have enough people. Stop having so much fucking sex, everybody! It's kind of like when you double dose on the wrong meds that you were prescribed and drop dead of an overdose.

Moralizing about sex? What are ya, religious or something? Sex made all the people, but sex is not the reason all the people are here.
I mean, it takes sex to create the people, but it takes food surpluses to keep the people.
And, on that note, sex is natural, humans need it and are programmed for it. Agriculture - creating more food than the inhabitants require, and controlling which foods are grown & where, and who has access to the foods - that is not in our DNA, and the evidence shows it's a practice with dire consequences for the planet.

To say that once your sperm is out it is her "choice".

It sorta looks like you're taking issue where there isn't one to take. In the context of his remarks, he was saying it isn't his position to deny a woman the decision of abortion or motherhood - this is far from saying that the status of reproductive rights is great, far and wide. And further context to the remark is the point that he should not disperse his sperm, thereby exercising his will to not reproduce (rather than to be against breeding but unable to enforce his will upon an impregnated woman).

The article refers to pregnancy as breeding a term one that is racist, but also used for animals and for that i feel is degrading. I believe that there is a choice and that population is a topic that shouldn't be swept under the carpet

Pregnancy is different than breeding; pregnancy can happen 500 times, but breeding may occur from a mere 10% of those pregnancies.
Anyway, I can't really grasp how 'breeding' in reference to the exploding human population is derogatory or degrading or anything other than objective, scientific, an starkly accurate. Racist? What racial superiority or inferiority does it imply, and toward or against whom? Breeding is done (every second) by every race, religion, and ethnicity across the globe - unfortunately.

Also, the Virginia Woolf quote you have for a signature reminds me of Thomas Paine's earlier "My country is the world, and my religion to do good." (That's either plagiarism, or sexism, you make the call.)

 

[MoetThePoet]

No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

O hi there, maybe this will answer everyone's arguments

 

[madewithpaint]

i don't care what anyone says, this shit is 100% undeniably true.

"Anarchists take risks which parents can’t."
and that was just hilarious haha

 

[trustno1]

since its been brought up previously, i thought id add the actual quote

"204. Revolutionaries should have as many children as they can. There is strong scientific
evidence that social attitudes are to a significant extent inherited. No one suggests that a
social attitude is a direct outcome of a person's genetic constitution, but it appears that
personality traits tend, within the context of our society, to make a person more likely to hold
this or that social attitude. Objections to these findings have been raised, but objections are
feeble and seem to be ideologically motivated. In any event, no one denies that children tend
on the average to hold social attitudes similar to those of their parents. From our point of view
it doesn't matter all that much whether the attitudes are passed on genetically or through
childhood training. In either case the ARE passed on.
205. The trouble is that many of the people who are inclined to rebel against the industrial
system are also concerned about the population problems, hence they are apt to have few or
no children. In this way they may be handing the world over to the sort of people who support
or at least accept the industrial system. To insure the strength of the next generation of
revolutionaries the present generation must reproduce itself abundantly. In doing so they will
be worsening the population problem only slightly. And the most important problem is to get
rid of the industrial system, because once the industrial system is gone the world's population
necessarily will decrease (see paragraph 167); whereas, if the industrial system survives, it will
continue developing new techniques of food production that may enable the world's population
to keep increasing almost indefinitely.
206. With regard to revolutionary strategy, the only points on which we absolutely insist are
that the single overriding goal must be the elimination of modern technology, and that no other
goal can be allowed to compete with this one. For the rest, revolutionaries should take an
empirical approach. If experience indicates that some of the recommendations made in the
foregoing paragraphs are not going to give good results, then those recommendations should
be discarded." -Unabomber Manifesto

 

[Kalalau]

I'd just like to point out 2 simple things... anarchists would not exist without breeding.... and all successful anarchist societies have been breeding for 100K years.

anyone here wanna breed with me? how about breeding and pizza?