I think this graphic is citing info from 2014
Yo dawg, I heard you like bikes...
Sounds like that's in here:
"The test build shows the horizontal tab bar and the sidebar at the same time by default. A click on the new "hide tab strip" button hides the horizontal tab bar so that only the vertical sidebar remains."
Cool article but Wired already published this 2 years ago. Wonder why they're repubbing?
What does "biologically rational" mean?
Do you mean "This is what's rational for me, as an organism" ? Seems to me that a lot of self-serving behavior could be classified as "biologically rational."
But as Marxists, do we not strive to transcend that kind of short-term, isolationist thinking? Do we not try to take a long view, grounded in compassion and egalitarianism?
So, too, do the antinatalists. Both groups understand that you can't have a society if the only people you care about are your kin. That is to say, "biological rationalism"-- whatever that is-- has no place in Marxism
Yes, there are some folks who overlap, but it's not inevitable. There are principled antinatalists who don't want anything to do with the Malthusians. David Benatar is a good example. His question is, "is it moral to create a being that can & will suffer?" That's a question that has nothing to do with the size of the population/resources.
That's a fair question, but "Ensuring that fewer people experience suffering by creating fewer people" is a completely fair answer. It just rubs people the wrong way because it runs up against our unscientific, irrational need to reproduce
That's not really accurate. What you're describing is the movement against "overpopulation." That movement often uses concerns about resource shortages as a backdoor into eugenics and upholding the current liberal order.
Antinatalists aren't worried about those concerns, primarily. Their argument is that because all life experiences suffering, creating life is inherently cruel and immoral. IMHO that argument has some overlap with Marxism in that it's an egalitarian concern for all people in society.
Yes, that's all true. But that's a good argument for "You shouldn't only vote," not "You shouldn't vote." See the difference?
If the only action we take is voting, then the tyrants who aren't constrained by law will win. If the only action we take is direct action, then the tyrants win as soon as they outgun us. If we use voting to advance things in civil society inside the lines and direct action to keep the tyrants playing inside the lines, we win.
Glitch.com gives you a free glitch.me page
Thank you for this clear, helpful answer