Selective antinatalism: the propaganda that targets a chosen few

Selective antinatalism: the propaganda that targets a chosen few

"White babies are climate killers." The phrase, thrown out as a provocative tweet, is no isolated outburst. Behind it lurks a current some call selective antinatalism: the aim is not to discourage reproduction in general, but to direct the message at specific groups. Those who trace this propaganda point out that Spain's fertility rate already stands at 1.1 children per woman —according to data from INE (Spain's statistics institute) and the World Bank— while in sub-Saharan Africa it ranges between 4.5 and 5. The gap is no accident, and the environmental discourse seems focused on discouraging motherhood in the West.

Is this a misdirected approach or a deliberate strategy? Radical environmentalism often equates having children with an unsustainable carbon footprint. But when the same yardstick is applied to communities with vastly unequal environmental impact, the message becomes suspect. It is argued that behind campaigns like the initial tweet lie interests that go beyond the climate: a drift toward social eugenics, funded by sectors that see Europe's demographic decline as a solution to their agendas.

Figures that don't match the official narrative

The contrast is overwhelming. While the population of countries like Spain ages and fails to replace itself, other regions maintain exponential growth. If the goal were really to reduce pressure on the planet, the propaganda should focus where population growth is most pronounced. Instead, the dominant narrative points to the "Western consumer" as the main culprit. Coincidence or design? The numbers invite doubt.

Some analyze the funding of these campaigns and point to green groups that have made degrowth their banner. The suspicion of an "obsession" with reducing white birth rates runs through the debates, though conclusive evidence is lacking. What is verifiable is the asymmetry: the antinatalist message is applied with an eraser depending on whom it targets.

The risk of this approach is that, under the guise of saving the planet, a demographic hierarchy becomes legitimate. The question left hanging: who decides which lives are welcome and which are "climate murder"?