Hacker News Reader

Comment by fzeroracer | Hacker News Reader

Unfortunately this is an argument from the wrong angle, because it assumes what the pronatalists 'mean' by their belief. It's the same way that arguing with Musk about being a free speech maximalist is fundamentally a failed argument, because he doesn't actually believe in free speech.

The silicon valley pronatalist stance is because they want to be patriarchs in full control of their family. They want absolute control over women and absolute control over their kids. Or they want to exert control over particular minority groups.

View on HN

> Unfortunately this is an argument from the wrong angle, because it assumes what the pronatalists 'mean' by their belief.

Thank goodness you didn't assume what they mean as well, then.

They've made their stance clear. If you are unsure, look at the sessions from NatalCon.

I believe in, quite simply, the fact that their actions outline what they truly believe. Elon Musk said he was a pro gamer who was top of the ladder in Path of Exile 2, then he was found to be cheating having hired folks to play the game for him.

If someone calls themselves a free speech maximalist followed by banning people who criticize him, then he cannot by definition be a free speech maximalist.

You are projecting your thoughts on Elon Musk (which you do have some evidence to support) to a much, much larger swath of individuals.

I believe if you reread my post, you will find I isolated out my criticism to a very specific group.

I read it. My take is unchanged, because again you are equating Musk with a much larger group.

Correct. Pronatalism is a just a front, sometimes for pure racism. Remember that Musk grew up in Apartheid South Africa. They're worried about demographic shifts away from white dominance of the US.

Also, according to the article, Musk "called children and called declining birth rates a much bigger risk to civilization than global warming," which is not so much pro-natalism as it is dismissive of global warming, because Musk no longer cares about electric cars and has pivoted to ventures that are much less friendly to the environment such as AI and mass rocket launches.

> Remember that Musk grew up in Apartheid South Africa

And cited his opposition to apartheid as the central reason that he left the country as soon as he could, at age 17, because he didn't want to be a part of that system.

There are so many legitimate reasons to criticize Musk, but this isn't one.

At this point, there's no reason to take anything Musk says at face value. He's proved to be an unreliable narrator. Here's just one small example: https://web.archive.org/web/20201006045204/https://slate.com...

You didn't mention how "opposition to apartheid" also meant avoiding mandatory military service. Interesting coincidence, I would say. Serious question: if one cared about ending Apartheid, wouldn't it be much more effective to do that from within South Africa than from across the ocean?

Considering who he is now, what he wants politically, who he supports and how he treats his employees ... is there really anything about him that makes it sound like a real reason?

Do you think anti-natalism is or should be the default for humans?

What does your question have to do with OP's post? Did OP suggest an "anti-natalist" view, whatever that means?

Saying you don't think declining birth rates is the highest priority does not mean you think people should not have children.

I think the label is completely useless.

There are tons of (valid) reasons for and against boosting birthrates, but you have to break it down to the actual reasons that people are "natalists" or not.

Throwing all (anti-)"natalists" into the same pot makes as much sense as labelling communists, fascists and anarchists "anti-capitalists" instead; yes your label technically applies, but the group it describes is so heterogenous that you can't meaningfully talk about it anyway.

Edit for failing to address your actual question: No and no (people are not anti-nativists by default and shouldn't be).

If "anti-nativist" means someone that wants to keep birthrates below 2/womanlife long-term, than this is basically advocating for suicide at a species-level, and "unhealthy" from an evolutionary point of view.

But is that actually what your "anti-natalist" believe? If people just live lifes that lead to <2 children/woman, but don't really care or consider the whole question, does that make them anti-natalists, too (I don't think so)?

>The silicon valley pronatalist stance is because they want to be patriarchs in full control of their family.

I am not sure what % of pro-natalists that applies to, exactly, but keep in mind most people in Silicon Valley voted for Clinton/Biden/Harris in 2016, 2020, and 2024 and most are not weird traditionalist cultural conservatives. There are many progressive left-liberal pro-natalists who just 1) don't want humanity to go extinct and 2) know that population decline in a country can lead to various issues, including economic problems. Immigration can help with some of that, but reproduction rate is declining or low in basically every single country and so immigration will eventually also not be a sustainable solution.

I think the majority of vocal pro-natalists are probably right-wing/racist/misogynistic, but the core pro-natalist stance in itself (as opposed to a stance of "whites are being out-reproduced", or something) is, in general, still a completely reasonable and I'd argue moral position.

Most people in Silicon valley also are not Musk, Zuck, or Andreesen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com