I’m not confident enough in pro-natalism to go around poking holes in condoms (especially because of costs to autonomy). But I’m not confident enough in anti-natalism to support family planning charities.
I think you are correct in the sense that overpopulation arguments have a strong anti-natalist assumption behind them. However, most of the funding for family planning comes from governments and large foundations like Gates whose focus is on saving and improving people’s lives.
Family planning has a pretty strong anti-natalist assumption behind it. One cost to family planning is preventing potentially net positive lives. There are reasons to think we should value population (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~sfop0060/pdf/Should%20we%20value%20population.pdf).
I’m not confident enough in pro-natalism to go around poking holes in condoms (especially because of costs to autonomy). But I’m not confident enough in anti-natalism to support family planning charities.
I think you are correct in the sense that overpopulation arguments have a strong anti-natalist assumption behind them. However, most of the funding for family planning comes from governments and large foundations like Gates whose focus is on saving and improving people’s lives.