"Infertility and infertility are now reversible as everyone now has the ability to maintain their fertility and have children whenever they want by simply preserving their sperm and eggs," said reproductive gynecologist Elias Tsakos. some years.
Such a statement and a possible confirmation of it would be a nightmare for fans of the anti-child movement. A movement that has come to the surface again as it has not yet taken material form as a kind of protest in the streets of the planet.
The anti-natalists are mainly found online in forums with thousands of members as well as in related pages on popular social networks. Their influence in the global debate of the overpopulation of its planet is still in its infancy but their arguments are not thrown in the trash.
After the heartbreaking images of total destruction from the huge fire that burns the Amazon forest but also the catastrophic consequences that human activity has on the environment and on the planet itself that hosts the debate on whether or not the human species should is reproduced and gradually lead to extinction, has erupted.
The philosophical position against it childbearing gives a negative tone to the birth of a person. Fans of this philosophical position argue in favor of the abstraction of the human species from the reproductive process mainly because "it is not morally correct."
The fans against her childbearing are found all over the world, are of all social and economic classes as well as believers of many different religions.
Anti-natalists are divided into two main categories: "misanthropes" and "philanthropists.
The former believe that people have the ultimate goal of "pausing". In short, to die. So the to bring new people into the world is a reckless and immoral act.
Fans of non-reproduction belonging to 2η category believe that people should not have children for the sake of (unborn) children. This is because parents who give birth to babies put them in danger and eventually die.
The logic behind this scheme is that it is immoral to bring another person into this world where he is doomed to die. According to some theorists anti-natalists the idea that it would have been better not to have been born finds its origin in the teachings of Ancient Greece.
In particular, many believe that the ancient Greek philosopher Democritus was the first to claim that "childbearing is dangerous." In various passages Democritus, who is considered the "father of modern science", among other things, had stated that:
"I believe that people should not have children παιδιά In childbearing I see great risks, pain and few advantages. And these are weak. "
The decision of a 2019-year-old businessman from Mumbai to sue his parents… because they gave birth to him fell like lightning in February 27.
Speaking to the BBC, Rafael Samuel said: "It is wrong to impose a life in pain and misery. It was not our decision to be born. And since it was not our decision and we were not asked, we would have to be paid for the rest of our lives in order to live ".
The parents of the 27-year-old made the decision of their child, who is a fan of the anti-child movement, with a dose of humor. Specifically, his mother jokingly commented that "I admire our son's desire to want to take us to court knowing that we are lawyers. "If he manages with a logical argument to prove that somehow we could have gotten his permission to be arrested and born, then I will accept my mistake."
The image of the burning Amazon and the melting ice at the North Pole is true that they cause despair. Despair for a future at least dystopian.
The human factor and the catastrophic consequences of the almost murderous material activity on the planet have led many people to deny the process of conception and birth.
"People are responsible for climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation and ocean acidity," said a 32-year-old British woman who decided she would never get pregnant. "The only thing that will solve these problems is to have fewer people on the planet. "Yes, I have a maternal instinct, but I will never change my mind."
By 2050, scientists point out, the world's population is estimated to increase by 30% from what it is today.
"We use more resources than the earth can offer - it's just math," said Anna, a vegan fanatic who tries to limit her own ecological footprint with her lifestyle.
Another Cambridge alumni couple is more upright: "Every extra child is another person who consumes resources and takes up space from a wildlife."
The philosophical position of anti-natalists it is often misinterpreted as a nihilistic view that may go to extremes.
Nevertheless, despite the sometimes extreme rhetoric, non-child lovers are pacifist in nature. Every time they talk on the online forums about the disappearance of humanity, it is more like taking part in an argument contest than in a delirium of threats of violence.
A follower of the anti-natal theory had written: "If I had a huge red button that if I pressed it humanity would end, I would do it." This view runs counter to a fundamental moral value of anti-natalists, "consensus".
"Creating or destroying a life without the consent of this person as to whether he is going to live or die is immoral," said one proponent of the theory.
For this very concept of consensus, however, the theory of anti-natalists touches on the global debate on the right of women to abortion.
This is because the theory of consent in the life or death of someone who has no knowledge of what is going to happen to him goes in parallel with the self-disposition of the female body and the unquestionable choice of the woman about how to act with the embryo pregnant.
The debate is lively and remains open as now more than ever the choices we make affect not only ourselves but also those around us. Some say those who have not yet taken their first breath on the planet.