I’ve momentarily thought “Oh, because birds fly, right?!” but it’d be too crazy if that’s the actual reason.
Seriously speaking though, it could be for all the reasons you’ve listed: breaking conventions/norms to represent their freedom (reinforced by the bird). Idk if it’s worth it given that the symbols would be harder to see tho.
Is there any reason, like symbolic significance, behind putting the emblem and the stripes on the fly rather than on the hoist?
I am assuming that one reason a lot of flags put their devices on the hoist (or on the center) is visibility, especially when the flag waves around. Wouldn’t the devices on the Zambian flag be less visible then as they’re placed on the fly?
I suppose that the vitriol surrounding this topic is tied to the innate biological pressures towards procreation. Life is supposed to the ultimate good. People like us who have doubted this assertion are not only fighting against long-held societal norms, but also biological instincts. It also doesn’t help that having a child (or not) is one of the most impactful personal decisions one can ever make. Having a child not only affects your life, your partner, but most especially, the child themself! It’s something that will permanently change one’s life, and those around them for better or for worse.
I’m not even against people who choose to have children (the so-called “breeders” in antinatalist communities). If their lives are enriched by having children and forming a family, more power to them! Even more so if they can provide the child with what they would need to thrive, or at least survive in this world.
Perhaps this trend of growing sentiment towards childfree lifestyles is yet one of those bio-sociological mechanisms driving us to having more quality children instead of just having more children. Children that would be able to live better, more fulfilling lives than I can ever hope for, and can thrive in the shitty world we’ve left for them.
I’m not exactly antinatalist, but I’m somewhat sympathetic to their position. The way I see it is this: humanity’s effect on nature is on the average, harmful.
We’ve been very successful as a species, but at the cost of a lot of others that weren’t able to cope with our success. Perhaps some species which are useful to us—sometimes just by being cute, have learned to live with us, or have learned to live despite us, have managed to thrive. But for one species that gained our protection, how many others have disappeared with no one caring?
If that’s not bad enough, I don’t think that the average individual human being is thriving. We’ve destroyed a lot only to build depressing cubicles for us to rot in.
I don’t think it’s worth it.
Having a child means condemning them into an ever worsening world. And I don’t think I’ll be able to properly equip my child to even have a smidge of a chance of being “well-off”, healthy or even happy.
However, our innate instincts, as well as societal and other pressures pushes people to have children even when it’s not going to end well for the children as well as their parents. Antinatalism is a counterbalance to this pressure.
My “YT™ experience” has gotten a lot better ever since I started avoiding it altogether and opted to watch videos through an alternative frontend. I do get a fairly different “popular” feed, but I mostly ignore that and go directly to my subscriptions feed instead.