Exploring the philosophy and ramifications of antinatalism; that is, the belief that life should not be brought into existence.
The first half of this paper is really, really bad.It gets better toward the end, but I'm not sure how far you can get with incredibly flawed assumptions based on an outdated understanding of the history of human societies.
Maybe "French critical theory" is more accurate than "really, really bad," although they are generally synonymous. I'm writing a response to it with my own questionable translations.
Curator,I think the point of the paper is the evolution of reproductive ideologies and there bases through the millennia - not to give an endorsement to the beginning. Naturally, the beginning of the paper assumes the truth of a theistic belief system (which one is free to take or leave). Still, the Buddhist basis for non-reproduction is sound, regardless of one's beliefs about religion. (notice I did not say religious beliefs. If Buddhism doesn't explicitly endorse antinatalism, it certainly permits it easily enough.
I don't see the author as advocating theism at all - I'd be very surprised if the author were not an atheist. What I have a problem with is his historical and biological inaccuracy on the way to his (laudable) conclusions.
About "The first half of this paper is really, really bad", my answer to Curator/Sister Y is there http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-cant-critical-theory-be-more.htmljc LurenbaumFrance
Post a Comment