Natal conference, to be held in Austin in December, promoted on far-right podcast circuit and set to host self-described eugenicists

A high-end hotel in the liberal Texan enclave of Austin is playing host to a conference whose theme is boosting global birth rates, but which will in fact feature racist and eugenicist internet personalities and far-right media figures.

The Natal conference – whose website warns that “by the end of the century, nearly every country on earth will have a shrinking population, and economic systems dependent on reliable growth will collapse” – is scheduled to be held on 1 December at the Line Hotel.

  • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    And which social or ethnic group in particular do you suggest should be the ones to be sacrificed exactly? The answer to eugenics is not more eugenics.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why does there have to be a sacrifice? Why can’t people just be encouraged to use contraception?

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Because the pope says I can’t wear a little rubber thingie on my old chap.

      • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you encourage marginalized people who have been historically discouraged from breeding due to eugenics reasons to voluntarily stop breeding because the people in power just lowkey want them to?

      • DessertStorms@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because the people causing the collapse of the planet are not the same ones you expect to stop reproducing (literally eugenics btw)

          • DessertStorms@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            You clearly stated it - the ones you think need encouragement to use contraception, and lets not pretend you mean rich people or even just the “middle class” in wealthy countries who are having fewer and fewer children to the point where they fear population collapse.

            It’s also interesting that you’ve responded here, but not to the comment with the links proving you wrong.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Why not rich people? I meant all people. If rich people don’t understand condoms, they should. And use them. I have no idea why you think I would say otherwise.

              • utopianfiat@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You’re talking about this as if there’s no overriding socioeconomic context that carries forth implications. Any time birthing restrictions have been tried, rich and privileged groups always get exemptions.

                People should be encouraged to take advantage of contraception because they should have the right to plan their families- not because we’ve decided we want to look down on people who breed.

              • DessertStorms@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                1 year ago

                No, you didn’t, no one who brings up overpopulation ever does, it’s a dog whistle (so even if we pretend you didn’t mean to, you’re advocating the same bullshit as those who do mean it).

                But hey, double down away if it makes you happy, just know that your choice to die on this hill instead of putting your hand up to admit you had a shitty uninformed take doesn’t do you any favours… ¯_(ツ)_/¯

                • orclev@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  He’s right, and saying there’s too many people on the planet to live sustainably isn’t racist or a dog whistle. Suggesting that there’s too many of some specific race or class of people would absolutely be racist (or classist or some other -ist), but nobody should get a pass. Everyone helped get us into this situation and everyone should be working to solve it. While it is true that using our current factory farming methods we can produce enough food today that’s absolutely not going to be the case forever and it’s also forcing our hand with regards to using incredibly environmentally damaging and unsustainable farming methods. We have to use factory farms because we literally couldn’t produce enough food otherwise. Everybody should be encouraged to limit the number of children they have. And before you start, I practice what I preach, I have no children.

                  Prime example one of the problem is Muskrat and his what, nearly a dozen kids? That should be completely unacceptable. There’s absolutely no reason why anyone should have more than 2 kids at worst, ideally 1 or no kids. At least until global population levels have dropped to a point where we can meet our food needs using smaller farms that don’t require truck loads of fertilizer and antibiotics and pack so many animals into such a tiny space that they can barely move.

        • ieatpillowtags@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          You put a lot of words into someone’s mouth and then had an argument with yourself. That was funny but I doubt that was your intent. Maybe try not constructing so many straw men?