Might Makes Right, Darwinism, and the Double Harm from Procreation

The argument for antinatalism is that having kids increases suffering. The world is filled with exploitation and suffering. The lion eats the antelope, humans eat meat, children are being raped, etc.

One argument given against antinatalism is that suffering is just nature, which I agree with, but this is more of an argument for antinatalism rather than against it. Suffering indeed is part of nature. Most suffering I think occurs due to exploitation. Life evolved to exploit others. When there is a mutation in a living being that increases its ability to exploit another weaker living being for personal gain, it increases the probability of survival, which means that this gene is more likely to be passed down. As such, exploitation is written in our DNA. Looking at it this way, the solution to reduce exploitation and suffering is to prevent DNA replication.

 

Is suffering objectively good or bad?

I'm not saying suffering is necessarily bad or good. I just personally dislike it. For example, if someone has a child, I would dislike it if he is raped by a paedophile, which could happen. Some people may argue that there is nothing wrong with a child suffering because he is being raped by a paedophile. That's just their preference. But because I dislike suffering, I think it's safer if living beings do not exist because existence is the catalyst for suffering.

Imagine if you have a child and he is raped and if the paedophile is an untouchable billionaire who then asks you to justify why the suffering of your child is bad. What would you say? This example illustrates how nature, Darwinism, and "might makes right" creates a world filled with suffering and exploitation. I would not want to bring a child into such a world.

I believe in cultural relativism. Morality depends on each individual and can change depending on who you ask. However, this is not an outcome I like. Think of the example I gave before. What if a very powerful politically connected billionaire rapes your child? There is nothing you can do because there is no objective morality and because "might makes right." So because "might makes right" and because there is no objective morality, any life exposed to this reality has to deal with these risks. If I don't have a child, he or she cannot be raped. He or she cannot grow up to become a rapist.

I do believe we live in a "dog eat dog" world, a hierarchy with the billionaires at the top exploiting the millionaires in the middle exploiting everyone else at the bottom. This is the nature of reality and the reality of nature.

 

The double harm from procreation

Another benefit of not having kids is that kids are expensive, which means that if you don't have kids, you become richer, which makes you more powerful, which makes you better off in a "might makes right" world. Because of the cost of having kids, you will literally become weaker by having kids because money is power. The less money you have, the more you will be exploited by those above you in the hierarchy.

When you have a child, you create yet another worker whom those at the top of the hierarchy can exploit, and because you have to pay so much money to look after your child, you yourself become less resilient to exploitation from those above you in the hierarchy, so there is a "double harm" from procreation. Your child starts from nothing and needs to work his way up the hierarchy and be exploited along the way while you drop many levels down the hierarchy because of the decrease in net worth associated with having a child.

Why bring a child into a Darwinian world?

Could Lying Flat Reduce Property Prices in Australia?

It seems now that house prices in China are starting to decline. There are many reasons for this e.g. the Evergrande crisis, but another possibility is that it is caused by recently proposed property taxes in China. It also looks like these property taxes have been proposed due to the lying flat movement.

 In China, many young people are protesting excessive consumerism, competition and high house prices by "lying flat." The lying flat movement involves doing the minimum possible, that is, working just enough to afford to lie down all day.

It should be emphasised that lying flat doesn't mean not working at all. It means working the minimum to be able to afford to lie flat. This will reduce consumption, reduce demand, reduce asset prices, reduce corporate profits and reduce government tax revenue.

Many young people have embraced the lying flat movement in China. The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has condemned this movement, even trying to censor social media posts about it.

However, there is considerable evidence that the CCP is concerned about the lying flat movement and has been introducing policies to appease the lying flat movement.

For example, the CCP has cracked down on tech firms including crypto miners and has shifted the focus from tech to manufacturing. 

The benefit of manufacturing over tech is that manufacturing is low skill and can employ much more compared to the tech sector. In the tech sector, a small proportion of the population with high education and skills are hired and paid a large salary. However, in a manufacturing economy, very large portions of the population can be hired and wages are spread out over many people. This should encourage those who would otherwise lie down into working.

Another piece of evidence that shows that the CCP is trying to appease the lying flat movement is the proposal of a new property tax. This property tax proposal has been strongly opposed by property interest groups but is likely to pass in order to appease the lying flat movement. It is believed that by taxing property, prices go down and those who would otherwise lie flat would be able to afford an apartment and feel like they have an incentive to work with the system rather than rebel against it. 

The reason why, in Australia, policies are continually implemented to raise house prices is because many people own houses. The government needs to be elected and so needs to give what voters want. Voters mostly own houses and so will demand the government increase house prices. However, if young people in Australia threaten to lie down and do the minimum e.g. work for one day of the week and spend the rest of the week literally lying down, then this threatens the economy. If enough young people lie down, the demand for housing falls, labour costs go up thereby reducing profitability, which reduces corporate profits, which reduces corporate tax revenue as well as income tax revenue. Government will have an incentive to implement policies that appease those who lie flat.