Why the distinctions between Antinatalism, Conditional Natalism, and Natalism matter.

I won't be the first or last person to point out the rise in Conditional Natalism on this sub, and this will surely be, and likely already has been, labelled 'gatekeeping'.

However, just because a person may be perceived as gatekeeping does not automatically mean that they are wrong, and the 'gatekeeping vs adhering to a proper definition' debate has been hashed out many times.

I'm also not doing a tl;dr, those who care enough to read and understand are the people I'm talking to.

Much of what is posted here, and is considered to be Antinatalistic, is in fact either Conditionally Natalistic or purely Natalistic.

Antinatalism is the view that it is always wrong to bring a person/being into existence because problems X, Y, and Z will never feasibly be solved.

Natalism is the view that it is good, or not wrong, to bring a person/being into existence under the current circumstances, or any circumstances.

Conditional Natalism is the view that it is wrong to bring a person/being into existence until reasons A, B, and C are solved.

Firstly, the issue of Conditional Natalism being confused with Antinatalism.

It is ironic how often people here discuss that there is no non-selfish reason to procreate, while simultaneously listing purely selfish reasons to avoid procreating.

While the former are related to Antinatalistic thought (depending on the focus of the act), the latter are not, under any circumstances. All that this shows is that, if it were in fact deemed to be the case that procreation was an ethically good act, we would be a community of people too selfish to undertake that act because of our own thwarted desires.

Just to make this clearer:

If it is the case that people should not procreate because 'Children are expensive' then, if it were ethically good to procreate, not doing so because they are expensive would be selfish. Yet these kinds of Childfree reasons for 'Antinatalism' are unironically posted here alongside people decrying the selfishness of Natalists.

It is also a simple fact of reality that many of these reasons do not apply to everyone which makes them necessarily conditional.

Any reason given for the avoidance of procreation which does not have as its primary focus the being that will be brought into existence is ultimately either Conditionally Natalistic or Natalistic. Never Antinatalistic.

The second issue is misunderstood and disguised Natalism (I am not claiming that these are Natalist infiltrators, merely confused Antinatalists).

The other common reasons that are posted here usually have to do with Overpopulation or Environmentalism, and my issue with them requires a bit more nuance to explain.

It isn't controversial to say that overpopulation is an argument for Conditional Natalism.

If overpopulation was solved tomorrow, then those Antinatalists would think it was ethical to procreate. If they would not think that it was ethical to procreate under those circumstances, then there is ultimately no purpose behind the argument being used for Antinatalism.

If Antinatalism is valid with overpopulation and without overpopulation, then overpopulation is irrelevant to the validity of Antinatalism. The same can be said of Environmentalism.

However, I think that overpopulation is, at its root, a purely Natalistic concern, given the intention behind solving it. It no longer being an issue results in the world having a greater capacity to support human societies for longer.

The 'why' is the root of the belief, and the why at the root of Environmentalism is to ensure the continuance of a stable world. This is not to say that Antinatalists cannot be concerned with overpopulation or environmentalism for suffering reduction reasons, but they are not, ultimately, Antinatalistic reasons to avoid procreation.

As a result, and on a grander scale, Overpopulation and Environmentalist 'Antinatalists' are doing the best work for the Natalist belief.

Once those issues are solved, Antinatalists will remain, and environmental 'Antinatalists' will either leave the movement, or recognise their true reasons for being against procreation, but they could just as easily do this now.

The confusion between Conditional Natalism, Natalism, and Antinatalism has only grown over the past few years, and it is evidenced every time an outsider visits and asks the question: What is Antinatalism all about?

These people are given contradictory information, and they may be convinced into thinking that they are an Antinatalist when they are actually something else entirely.

Those people aren't going to procreate though, so what's the problem with this?

Aside from intellectual honesty, and not supporting the act of tricking people into taking their lives down certain paths under false pretence, the problem is that this is still a relatively small movement. Most people haven't even heard the term Antinatalism. Neither can they conceive of a group of people who are against procreation.

Once this movement grows into something that regularly attracts mainstream attention, its story needs to be straight and clear, or nobody is going to understand it, and there will be more people pointing out the flaws loudly and clearly to much larger audiences than this movement will be able to garner.

This is the time when this movement needs to be getting its ideas straight and its reasons well-defined, or it will come back to haunt us in the future.