Yeah, it seems like it has. It'll come and go, and return once more.

It may have, but reading anti-natalist posts on sites like this are not representative of even most subsections of the public, like people generally interested in philosophy.

I don't suppose anti-natalism attracts the kind of concern that QAnon or reactionary Republicans attract, so probably no reputable group like Pew Research or Gallop, et al, have surveyed the public about anti-natalist views.

I don't suppose anti-natalism attracts the kind of concern that QAnon or reactionary Republicans attract, so probably no reputable group like Pew Research or Gallop, et al, have surveyed the public about anti-natalist views. — Bitter Crank

I find it interesting though, what would the concerns be per se? I'd be fascinated with a public discussion on this, without it being grossly mischaracterized. There are no conspiracy theories, or calling for hate, or anything that you might have been implying by mentioning QAnon or reactionary Republicans.

Actually now that I read your post again, you were saying it would not attract concern. That would make sense then. To groups that do surveys, there would be no interest to survey due to this. I see what you are saying.

Has antinatalism increased in popularity the last few years? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Even if this type of ideology and philosophy grows, it fails on its own premise. Let them not reproduce, because the future of humanity will be decided by those who will.

you were saying it would not attract concern — schopenhauer1

Right. There are and have been people who are/were anti-natalist without using that term, perhaps quite a few, who have never attracted official notice (except in places like Nazi Germany where German reproduction was prioritized). Anti-natalism isn't an organization or a conspiracy. It is a highly pessimistic and individual Weltanschauung.

The pastures in which one grazes matter. There is a huge difference between what results from relying on the PBS News Hour and and on Fox News. There is a huge difference between the politics of very conservative Christians and Muslims and mainstream and secular Christians and Muslims. And so on and so forth.

Philosophy fora are of course not Fox News or even PBS. We who populate the member lists are a scant demographic -- like anarcho-syndicalists, theosophists, and cloistered nuns. 100 years ago, I could have included American vegans as a scant demographic; not now. From a population crisis point of view, if nothing else, one would hope for much more anti-natalism, but that hasn't happened yet.

Perhaps, as environmental conditions worsen for everyone, anti- or non- natalism will be taken up by a significant number of people. Then, if Pew Research and the Gallop Organization are still in business, they might survey people about their anti-natalist views.

I know of one fan.

I am not an expert on antinatalism and have not read many authors apart from this site. I really cannot understand their point of view but realise this is my problem not theirs.

However, I am not entirely convinced of the genuine nature of the stance and wonder it could be more one which is for creating effect and sensation more than anything else. A desperate cry of protest in a world which is chaotic. I might be wrong and I could be accused of trying to psychoanalyse the antinatalist but in fact I would like to understand the position because it seems so pointless, claiming that it would be better if humans did not have to exist in the future. Better for who?

It sort of has from what I've seen, but if you think about it, antinatalism isn't anything new. If you look at history there have been tons of movements promoting that we abstain from procreation. Obviously, humanity will not stop procreating, so it will come and go. Aside from economics and the cost of living, it is also apparent that many people are not having children because of climate change fears and eco-fascist ideas that are gaining popularity.

I think the anti-natalism is fundamentally anti-being. And by being I just mean the way or ways that humans or other non-human animals experience and interact with reality. But we're talking mainly about humans here.

In the anti-natalism thread I asked Schopenhauer whether he'd still be an anti-natalist if all of societies problems (hunger, disease, war, etc) were solved, and he still said yes. If I'm understanding anti-natalism correctly it's an extreme sensitivity to life's inevitabilities. Nobody is fully in control of their life and the anti-natalist is extremely sensitive and opposed to that. I think anti-natalism is fundamentally anti-religious in the Judeo-Christian sense because in Genesis God describes his creation, including mankind, as "good" while the anti-natalist contradicts this.