I don’t spend any time watching the news, so it’s only through substack that I have heard of “anti-natalists” - yours is one of two articles in my feed today. Your response interrupts their bleak vision with truth and beauty. Yes. Love, of course.
I'd imagine after your many years of teaching, and also writing, that you might have some helpful thoughts about what's currently happening in the realm of education (the government leaning hard on schools, the introduction of AI into the classrooms, etc., etc.). I find a huge amount of uncertainty about the purpose of education at all. There was just an Ezra Klein podcast ("We Have to Really Rethink the Purpose of Education") on this topic that was pretty interesting. I listened to another one back in 2017 from Radio Atlantic, called "What Are Public Schools For" that was pretty mind-blowing. It was a panel of education writers, and no one ever said anything about helping the child develop themselves, become themselves, instead it was only about the child growing up to get a good job and also understanding different types of people so that our democracy could handle the amount of diversity in the country. Anyways, if you ever feel like writing anything for The Whole Social, I'd definitely be interested. Just let me know, and if so I'll get in touch with you via email and we could chat about it :)
This is not actually a response to anti-natalists per se, but a response to the image you prefer to have in your head labeled "anti-natalist" and as such is not that interesting, except perhaps for yourself. The map is not the territory, not even close... But then again, such mistakes are endemic in the world of anthroposophy, so no big deal...
Hey Youlian - thanks for the comment. Can you say more? In which way does my response address an image and not the real thing? I know it’s a simplification of the philosophy - I’m only pointing to one basic aspect - but I didn’t think it was necessary to address other aspects in order to make my basic point. Do you think otherwise?
I don’t spend any time watching the news, so it’s only through substack that I have heard of “anti-natalists” - yours is one of two articles in my feed today. Your response interrupts their bleak vision with truth and beauty. Yes. Love, of course.
Thank you, Seth, for your good thoughts. They're needed.
Hey Jack, thanks so much for saying so.
I'd imagine after your many years of teaching, and also writing, that you might have some helpful thoughts about what's currently happening in the realm of education (the government leaning hard on schools, the introduction of AI into the classrooms, etc., etc.). I find a huge amount of uncertainty about the purpose of education at all. There was just an Ezra Klein podcast ("We Have to Really Rethink the Purpose of Education") on this topic that was pretty interesting. I listened to another one back in 2017 from Radio Atlantic, called "What Are Public Schools For" that was pretty mind-blowing. It was a panel of education writers, and no one ever said anything about helping the child develop themselves, become themselves, instead it was only about the child growing up to get a good job and also understanding different types of people so that our democracy could handle the amount of diversity in the country. Anyways, if you ever feel like writing anything for The Whole Social, I'd definitely be interested. Just let me know, and if so I'll get in touch with you via email and we could chat about it :)
Hope all's well with you and Carol!
https://martyrion.blogspot.com/2025/05/not-i-but-christ-in-me.html
Thanks Larry. A beautiful synopsis of the article, but in story form (which I always find preferable... :)
This is not actually a response to anti-natalists per se, but a response to the image you prefer to have in your head labeled "anti-natalist" and as such is not that interesting, except perhaps for yourself. The map is not the territory, not even close... But then again, such mistakes are endemic in the world of anthroposophy, so no big deal...
Hey Youlian - thanks for the comment. Can you say more? In which way does my response address an image and not the real thing? I know it’s a simplification of the philosophy - I’m only pointing to one basic aspect - but I didn’t think it was necessary to address other aspects in order to make my basic point. Do you think otherwise?