Then the "theory" contradicts the OP. — Harry Hindu

The efficacy of Will manifests in desires, for example, the desire to have children. I believe Schop's idea is to limit one's desires (i.e. asceticism). On a milder note, antinatalists would focus on the ability that we have to not to procreate, specifically.

I stumbled onto an article today that talked about the 'degrowth' movement. I was encouraged to learn about this movement, as it aims to promote the kind of development we've talked about, but also discouraged by the article itself. It was written by Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation and an economic consultant with FreedomWorks. He grossly mischaracterizes the movement as "anti-growth, anti-people, anti-free enterprise and anti-prosperity." It's certainly anti-growth, in meaning against endless economic expansion. It's not anti-prosperity, however, it just has a different definition of prosperity, which centers on well-being and sustainability rather than the acquisition of materialistic wealth.

The thing is, Moore is not an idiot, I'm sure he understands what degrowth is about. He chooses to misrepresent it, as well as make it appear synonymous with "the left," which is also a misrepresentation. Why? I can only assume that he does this for personal gain and/or to support a political ideology. Either way, he's a cog in a wheel that forces him to mislead others. If he were committed to developing his character and refused to mislead others, I think he'd be a step closer to being free of that wheel. But then maybe he doesn't want to be free.

Just thinking out loud.

The efficacy of Will manifests in desires, for example, the desire to have children. I believe Schop's idea is to limit one's desires (i.e. asceticism). On a milder note, antinatalists would focus on the ability that we have to not to procreate, specifically. — schopenhauer1

If we don't have any control, then how do we have control to limit our desires?

It seems to me that the idea isn't to limit one's desires, but to change one's desires - from wanting to have children to not wanting to have children.

tell us more. what you think but kindly touch the current situation also ( if you have or had any information of it also )

If we don't have any control, then how do we have control to limit our desires? — Harry Hindu

Again, this is about us not having control of our own birth (obviously), rather that is in the parent's control.

It seems to me that the idea isn't to limit one's desires, but to change one's desires - from wanting to have children to not wanting to have children. — Harry Hindu

Well, if we are discussing antinatalism strictly, the only thing that matters is to prevent suffering by not having a new person. Schopenhauer's idea about Will was more about denying the will-to-live through asceticism.

While I respect this position of likening the human condition to a hamster running inside a wheel as if its life depended on it but, sadly, not making even an inch of progress, I think Maslow's aims, if that's where the crux of your post is to be found, were probably very down to earth and thus not deserving of such a dim view; I would've definitely formed a different opinion and seconded your views had Maslow been referring to some kind of Buddhist-like enlightenment state by self-actualization.

You're mixing Western and Eastern philisophies - critiquing the former from the perspective of the latter. Western philosophy is relatively more pragmatic than its Eastern counterpart and so you'll invariably find the former failing, as a method, to keep up with the latter, as a goal. On the flip side, it could be said that Eastern philosphy is too orphic to be realistic.

Just my two cents. It's likely that I've misinterpreted the OP's intent.