Solarpunk

I don't think doomerism or anti-natalism are serious positions, but I will not have leftist prepping lumped in with them! The imperial core is collapsing and that's going to be really hard to live through without at least some knowledge about canning, solar panels, gardening, rainwater collection, repair, and how to shoot a gun.

What distinguishes lefty prepping from the normal rightist variants is a focus on building community before it's too late, and that's literally how we'll build a future. In fact, prepping on the left comes from a belief that there is a future, it's just going to be hard (not even forever, just long enough that the power might go out).

Prepping is literally working for tomorrow, like???

I definitely agree we have an imagination problem, but I don’t think it’s limited to ‘the left.’ I actually think the issue lies squarely with (classical) liberalism and the values it instills. Any time someone with an optimistic vision starts to voice it people pile on with 500 reasons it’s impractical. People have a very “we can’t do better or we already would have” mindset. People also want there to be a general solution that works mechanically for everyone.

As mundane as it sounds I think the key really is fostering a sense of self-determination in our communities. Encouraging people to use their own resourcefulness to solve problems they see in their communities and in the world.

This isn’t limited to small or local problems, Instead of working for google tech bros could be building logistics programs to allow people to organize global food distribution through piecemeal contributions of food and transportation.

Things are the way they are because they were built that way under specific incentives and the people in power do not want to lose it. This is not inevitable or the best we can do. If we change our priorities and stop letting ‘the market’ act as a proxy for what we want to see, there is plenty of room for optimism about the future.

People are reasonable for not wanting to bring children into the world during a famine. Let’s plant some trees and pull eachother up and build communities people can imagine their kids thriving in first.

Even the best path out of the current situation involves us fighitiny the current rise in fascism around the world, and even an optimistic prediction for the path of climate change is harrowing.

I'm not putting a kid through that.

The founder of the Antinatalism International, Anugraha Kumar Sharma, argues that “there is absolutely no hope whatsoever in this world.”

Well, that's hard to argue against. I might disagree, but I cannot artificially give him any hope, even if he wants some.

For some, the progressive embrace of antinatalism might just be a reaction to the pronatalism espoused by the Right. Because Vice President J. D. Vance wants you to have more children, the only natural reply is that we ought to have none.

Not for me. They can want all they want, but to consider children, I imagine I would need to find a society relatively free of strife, a society with lower risk. I would need to feel somewhat secure in my own future, because you have to raise children for a hefty amount of time. Most importanly, I'd have to find someone who'd like to do this together.

Some creatures respond to environmental stress by breeding earlier and faster, and trying to do that more desperately. I cannot find such a response in my own "code". I respond to environmental stress by saving resources to overcome hardship, and focusing effort to defeat the source of hardship. If that means a decline in population by 1.7 people, so be it.

I think that in the modern times, more people have started thinking this way. Having children is expensive and can effectively put you below the poverty line, and stop you from pursuing goals, whatever they are.

I'm not even anti-natalist. I'm just not interested in reproduction - precisely because I still have a future that I might influence for the better - but not if I waste my resources on reproduction.

Also, I think a scarcity of humans might actually cause society to value humans more. In the Middle Ages, when the plague reduced populations, serfs were able to obtain better conditions and break the pattern of slavery in many lands. Feudal lords struggled because their vast empty lands could not be managed by their dwindling crew - someone could till a field or hunt game without paying taxes or asking for permission out there. Of course, this pattern might not apply in modern times, however.

the global democratic left has been incapable of developing an economic agenda that looks beyond the next election cycle.

Not sure if I can agree. Over here, the agenda looks pretty clear. Achieve progressive taxation. Achieve higher taxation of capital than labour. Achieve lower taxation of worker-owned companies. Achieve universal health insurance. Beyond the economic, achieve a governing system not disproportionately influenced by the wealthy. Preferably, achieve all this without violence.

(and reaching those goals is prevented by the disproportionate propaganda capability of the economic right, mostly financed by the wealthy)

Hmm, I find that argument not very convincing. Except for some online nutcases no one on the left seriously argues for voluntary human extinction 🙄

It is rather the lack of long term planning that brought us to the current situation that the planet has way more humans than it can easily sustain.

Trying to organize a soft landing by slowly reducing the population, especially in areas that have a high resource use foot print, seems rather like long term planning to me. And it also makes it easier to welcome others from regions that will likely become uninhabitable due to climate change in the medium term future.

In addition, I find it rather hilarious that someone seriously thinks humans procreate because of long term thinking 😅

I'm one of those doomers. Looking at the science, at the data and the new findings that come out every year, it's not even really debatable that all of civilization will collapse within the next century.

Genuinely. That's where we're at.

1.5C is dead. 2C is dead. 3C is on its last legs and we are on track for 8-10C avg temp rise globally. The oceans will be practically dead acidic wastes by then, the insect populations will collapse and anything that needs pollinated will follow suit.

I am all for dying in the streets defending what we have from fascists and preventing them from making the last few decades we have exponentially worse, but I think it's wrong to claim that we can have a good future.

We can perhaps save a few million more people by the end of the century so that the total human population will be maybe near a billion.

That's the best I can offer. Mass starvation and death. Sorry

This generation grew up watching the rich get richer and their families get less and less. They watch the adults around them work 50 hours a week for the privilege of renting an apartment, no vacations anywhere, barely able to afford healthcare.

Do they have it wrong?

I'm an antinatalist. It's a different mindset, and it's focused on "not losing," i.e. by not playing the game at all. This is in contrast to the more common mindset of focusing on "playing to win." In the fight-or-flight paradigm, it is choosing flight. I'd be curious to know what personality traits other antinatalists have, include their fear response.

These futureless left, whether consciously or not, are going on a birthstrike. This is a combination of a protest but also opting out of the future if things don't change for the better.

You may disagree and/or dislike it, but that's my take on what it is about.

I've never understood why breeding exponentially forever is somehow expected to work... Like infinite expansion capitalism, it's ignoring the fact that things are finite.

The founder of the Antinatalism International, Anugraha Kumar Sharma, argues that “there is absolutely no hope whatsoever in this world.”

If he really didn't have any hope - didn't give a shit - he wouldn't have bothered setting up an international organisation, on some level declaring himself in charge of people who don't want to have kids.

i read about newly discovered plants, and animals, everytime it always end up they are already threatened, especially plants that are very niche.

I think even worse than "no future" is no change. Biden and Kamala pretty much ran on "we are not stupid (like Trump) otherwise no change" and Trump ran on "I'm going to change everything".

It seems the left is scared to propose/pitch radical change.

Not that radical change is necessarily good (see Argentina's historical flip-flop from radical left, right, libertarian, and authoritarian) its just that belief of change is required to believe in a better future.

Great article. I agree with most of the author's points. I find doomers very annoying and problematic. Why even argue that position? Why try to convince people to join you wallowing in misery? I think they just want to confirm to themselves that nothing can be done so they can continue doing nothing.

One other question: It's hard to deny that this problem is hitting the West and Western influenced countries quite hard. What's it like in China? They're building for the future and talking about and working on tech that could help everyone. Are people in China largely optimistic?

We are neurologically hard wired to prioritize information that evokes fear. Fascism thrives on that fact and was kept in place for some time by human intelligence to cut through quite some bullshit. 'Flooding the zone with shit' made the layer to cut through so thick it's harder and harder to do so. AI and social media algorithms is flooding the zone with shit on unknown dimensions. We all need to digitally detox and go for classic, analogous comminity building. Like species homo has done for 2 million years.