Antinatalism

[Danoff]

I'm making my way through the HBO show True Detective, which has some discussion of nihilism and antinatalist philosophy. My wife reminded me of this event:

FBI links California fertility clinic bombing to anti-natalist ideology

The attack killed one person Saturday and injured four other people.

www.nbcnews.com

From all appearances, this fertility clinic bombing was carried out by an antinatalist with the intent do prevent babies from being born, because creating humans is inherently immoral according to antinatalist philosophy (I suppose blowing people up can be justified by their desire to create people or something. That seems at odds with nihilistic or antinatalist philosophy though). For the uninitiated, here is an excerpt from wikipedia on antinatalism:

There are various reasons why antinatalists believe reproduction is problematic. The most common arguments for antinatalism include that life entails inevitable suffering, death is inevitable, and humans are born without their consent (that is to say, they cannot choose whether or not they come into existence). Additionally, although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person's suffering. There is also an axiological asymmetry between good and bad things in life, such that coming into existence is always a harm, which is known as Benatar's asymmetry argument.

If you've watched the Dune remake, you'll perhaps remember the scene where a sentient "pet" is present in the Harkonnen palace. And if you have some idea of the horror that may be implicated by the presence of that 6-legged pet, you have a good idea of what it means to say that it is immoral to create a living being into suffering. And it is difficult to distinguish the morality of creating a being whose entire life is suffering and subservience from creating a human, which will be known to suffer and die.

It is somewhat inescapable that we cannot get the consent of the unborn to bring them into the world, and they maintain that lack of consent for many years after birth. It is a significant philosophical and moral struggle, far more serious and difficult to wrestle with than something more trivial like Utilitarianism or a problem like the trolley problem or Sophie's choice. Antinatalists have a real point, which I think most people are biologically inclined not to wrestle with, and so their brains are turned off to these issues.

The first escape that I thought of for the antinatalist position is that suicide is the alternative. You bring someone into the world without their choice, but they have the choice to leave. But imagine that you cut someone's arm off, and when someone said that it was immoral because of the pain you caused them your response is that suicide is an alternative. Satisfying? Probably not. And while that's not a perfectly parallel example, it should help epxlain that the suffering experienced by a new creature cannot be undone, and was not its own free choice to endure.

There is another mostly unsatisfying attempt to get out of antinatalism, which is to fool yourself into believing that all new creatures would choose to exist. I think it's pretty clear that they would not all do so. In fact quite a few choose to opt out early for a wide variety of reasons.

I'm not an antinatalist, and I have a reason for it that many of you will find super unsatisfying. But I'll save it for later. I want to hear your thoughts.

 

[MeanElf]

The nature of any species is to survive and most animals will do their utmost to do so, unless very old. To state that no one has been consulted about being born as a reason is therefore a specious argument. Hardly surprising as many of these fringe cults are lock-ins with issues that their parents and the more cash obsessed societies just don't seem interested in helping to solve.

Maybe that's a simplistic interpretation of the situation but there is much that I don't understand about human behaviour this past half-century or so. Going backwards rather than forward into an inclusive future.

 

[Joey D]

This is the second time I've heard of antinatalism within a week. The first was having something linked on Reddit to a subreddit for people who subscribe to the belief, which was really unhinged.

I think a lot of the problem comes down to people having kids that shouldn't have kids. You should be financially stable with a good home situation and have reasonably good health before considering having children. People also have more kids than they should. If you can afford a larger family and want one, then go for it, but be aware of your situation before making a decision. My wife and I figured everything out and determined that we could comfortably afford one child. When we considered having a second, we laid out all the costs, our home situation, our work situation, and took into account any health problems we had. We determined that while we could afford a second kid, it might not be to the standard we would want to give it, and we worried it would take away from my son, so we stuck with one. We also worried about the off chance of twins since we'd then suddenly have three kids.

There's also a huge pressure from the older generation for the younger generation to have kids. Gen X parents are probably pushing it less, and Millennials are probably pushing it even less than them. Boomers, though, want you to have kids and have a lot of them because they still think women stay at home and raise children while the man is the breadwinner, or whatever outdated way of thinking they have. My mom was the only person out of my parents or my in-laws who didn't push us to have a bunch of kids, and that's likely because she was an executive when I was born and she didn't have the time for more than one kid (she barely had time for one). But my in-laws and my dad, who are all in their 70s, wanted us to have at least 2 but preferably 3-5. We shut them up by saying "if you want us to have more kids, then you pay for it."

People should have children, but only if they fully understand the investment it will be, both financially and emotionally, as well as the physical and temporal commitments.

With regards to the idea that we don't have a choice in whether or not we are born, that's true, or at least we believe it to be true. But if people just stopped having kids, the human race would be extinct in roughly 100 years and probably not be able to function very well in as little as 20 years. It doesn't make sense for us to just quit having babies, although I do think as a species we should probably have fewer kids and trim down the Earth's population a bit.

 

[Danoff]

The nature of any species is to survive and most animals will do their utmost to do so, unless very old. To state that no one has been consulted about being born as a reason is therefore a specious argument.

Animals do all kinds of awful things. They eat each other, they rape each other, they abandon, maim, even torture in some cases. The Ichneumonidae wasp is famous for basically having convinced Darwin that there can be no god that created beings, because no god would do something so horrible. So the idea that animals do it means we can do it with moral impunity falls flat.

Taking your argument to its fullest conclusion, that because animals do it we can do it, this ultimately argues that morality is non-existent. So antinatalsists are wrong, but rape and murder is always permissible. Basically, you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. It order to defeat the antinatalist argument you gave up all moral and ethical philosophy. I think that counts as a win in the antinatalist column actually.

 

[Danoff]

I think a lot of the problem comes down to people having kids that shouldn't have kids.

Even if you're financially stable and can provide for your children, they will still suffer and ultimately die. So the antinatalist position is basically that no matter how well your kids are taken care of, you didn't have the right to make them.

With regards to the idea that we don't have a choice in whether or not we are born, that's true, or at least we believe it to be true. But if people just stopped having kids, the human race would be extinct in roughly 100 years and probably not be able to function very well in as little as 20 years. It doesn't make sense for us to just quit having babies, although I do think as a species we should probably have fewer kids and trim down the Earth's population a bit.

This is a utilitarian argument, basically the ends justify the means. That essentially cannot work out (causally).

 

[05XR8]

It is interesting that some people(in the OP example) feel they’re making the choice for the sake of sparing possible future suffering for those that are not yet to make their own choices. Thereby, whether they understand or not, causing suffering for other fellow human beings bearing witness to those actions.

 

[Danoff]

It is interesting that some people(in the OP example) feel they’re making the choice for the sake of sparing possible future suffering for those that are not yet to make their own choices. Thereby, whether they understand or not, causing suffering for other fellow human beings bearing witness to those actions.

Playing devil's advocate here:

Do you think people are somehow entitled not to suffer in bearing witness to your actions? Do you think that an antinatalist could distinguish the kind of suffering they're preventing from the kind of suffering you're talking about?

 

[05XR8]

Playing devil's advocate here:

Do you think people are somehow entitled not to suffer in bearing witness to your actions? Do you think that an antinatalist could distinguish the kind of suffering they're preventing from the kind of suffering you're talking about?

I don’t know. That’s why it’s interesting. I wouldn’t know their level of understanding, even by the definition of their labelling. Not being silly, it’s as if I caused a fellow motorist to suffer because I cut them off in order not to miss my exit. How much of a ripple effect did that cause?

For myself, my eldest son did get the brunt of suffering from young parents that made the choice to have him. Not to mention the suffering my mother and her mother felt. We were both not mature enough to work together(finances, fortunately, wasn’t a problem), though my son did grow up with love from both of us and our extended families. He’s not grown up waking to seeing his parents love each other every morning. However, he’s made it clear he does not want children. At 31, he has a cat and an aquarium.

Today, for the past fourteen years, my fourteen year old daughter has awakened to seeing both her parents love each other every morning. Our choice to have her was about three years of thinking about it. My wife having two previous children. Knowing what we knew from our own children, our own well being and at the time, the state of the world we were living in, we made the choice.

To answer that first question, in a way. As parents, watching our child go through life changes and development. Living in a loving home and having to endure an at harsh times, cruel environment outside of that comfort, a few years ago we got the eternal question out of life’s frustration, “WHY WAS I EVEN BORN?!”. Then, her bedroom door slammed.

Beings on earth are nuts.

 

[Imari]

It's kinda interesting in that it's almost a reverse Roko's Basilisk argument.

For those not familiar, the argument suggests that at some point in the future there will be an AGI that is functionally God, the "basilisk". This AGI will commit to punishing anyone who at any point in history did not do their utmost to hasten the coming of the AGI, or at least those that were aware of it's potential existence. Therefore, performing the action of advancing AI tech avoids potential suffering in the future.

Compare to anti-natalism, where avoiding the action of having children avoids potential suffering in the future.

I find it all kind of misses the point. Suffering on some level seems to be pretty inherent to consciousness. It'd be nice if the ceiling of suffering was a bit lower than some of the heinous ******** humanity seems to come up with in it's neverending quest to one-up each other in being total dickheads, but an actual life without suffering is probably impossible both practically and because of how the human brain works. You can feed a brain morphine all day, as much as it wants, and it will still find ways to be unhappy eventually.

IMO, there are much better reasons to not have kids than "existence is suffering". I mean, have you seen the little *****? Filthy, disgusting animals.

The nature of any species is to survive and most animals will do their utmost to do so, unless very old. To state that no one has been consulted about being born as a reason is therefore a specious argument.

It's not a specious argument, just one that you don't want to engage with. You can choose to make an argument to justify the lack of consent based on survival of the species if you want. We choose to override the autonomy of the individual for the benefit of the greater society in other ways already. Whether that is good or appropriate is case by case, and you just attempting to hand wave it means that nobody is any wiser as to what the arguments for either side might be.

People should have children, but only if they fully understand the investment it will be, both financially and emotionally, as well as the physical and temporal commitments.

And if they want to, presumably. Some people don't want to, either because it's not for them or because they know that they cannot provide an appropriate upbringing for a child or children.

 

[Danoff]

I don’t know. That’s why it’s interesting. I wouldn’t know their level of understanding, even by the definition of their labelling. Not being silly, it’s as if I caused a fellow motorist to suffer because I cut them off in order not to miss my exit. How much of a ripple effect did that cause?

I think an antinatalist would say that you are 100% certain that your physical act of creating a human will result in that human's suffering at some point. That's not necessarily true of the motorist.

Beings on earth are nuts.

I think that one an antinatalist might agree with - beings on Earth should refuse to procreate and die out because they are indeed nuts.

It's kinda interesting in that it's almost a reverse Roko's Basilisk argument.

For those not familiar, the argument suggests that at some point in the future there will be an AGI that is functionally God, the "basilisk". This AGI will commit to punishing anyone who at any point in history did not do their utmost to hasten the coming of the AGI, or at least those that were aware of it's potential existence. Therefore, performing the action of advancing AI tech avoids potential suffering in the future.

Utilitarianism with a massive event correlated with the greatest good. I suppose there's a knowledge problem though, which is that nobody could be sure that AGI would work out that way. Especially if they've seen Terminator. I hope that the AGI spares people who saw Terminator.

I find it all kind of misses the point. Suffering on some level seems to be pretty inherent to consciousness. It'd be nice if the ceiling of suffering was a bit lower than some of the heinous ******** humanity seems to come up with in it's neverending quest to one-up each other in being total dickheads, but an actual life without suffering is probably impossible both practically and because of how the human brain works. You can feed a brain morphine all day, as much as it wants, and it will still find ways to be unhappy eventually.

I think that's the antinatalist point though. Suffering is inherent to conciousness, so how can you justify creating conciousness?

 

[Imari]

I think that's the antinatalist point though. Suffering is inherent to conciousness, so how can you justify creating conciousness?

They're combining the idea that suffering is bad (which is not a given), and that non-existence is preferable to any amount of suffering (also not a given). If you take those thoughts to their actual conclusion then you don't end up not having babies, you end up killing every conscious being on the planet. People who exist are also suffering, and while their brain chemistry may not make them inclined towards killing themselves it doesn't mean that minimising their suffering by ending their lives isn't the moral thing to do.

This is what I mean by missing the point. The point that actually needs discussion and argument is the premises of antinatalism, around suffering and it's interaction with consciousness. Antinatalists just say that suffering is a priori bad without bothering to argue for that, and we tend to just let it slide because suffering in the moment does legitimately feel bad. It's one of suffering's defining characteristics, it feels bad.

Now, I'm not arguing that there are net positive benefits to torture or child rape or Dr. Disrespect, but I do think it would be possible to construct an argument that there are net positives to some types of suffering, like working hard to improve yourself or achieve some goal under challenging conditions. Not always, but at least some of the time, which would imply then that some sort of "ideal" world in which it would (under the antinatalist logic) be morally acceptable to have children would not be entirely without suffering, but would instead only have certain types of suffering.

Hell, if you combine antinatalist ideas with solipsism, the idea that the only conscious mind that you can be absolutely sure exists is your own, then the only moral thing to do is kill yourself.


If I'm not being a nit-picking arsehole, I think antinatalism is the sort of thing that doesn't work as a general philosophy but that is interesting in how it can be applied to individuals. When considering if you will have a child, thinking about what that child's life is going to be like seems relevant. Are they going to inherit awful genetic diseases that will make their life a misery? Are they born to parents who are slaves, and will therefore be slaves themselves? Are they likely to die of starvation or disease before they have any chance to experience the positive aspects of living as a human? These are relevant considerations, but there's not some absolutely correct answer to these questions that applies to every situation without it devolving into some level of justifying mass murder.

Which may be the answer, but in the spirit of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, I'd think that any logical claim that ended with mass murder being moral would need to be extremely detailed and airtight. You can't handwave any part of such a claim.

 

[Exorcet]

The nature of any species is to survive and most animals will do their utmost to do so, unless very old. To state that no one has been consulted about being born as a reason is therefore a specious argument.

I think the fact that most organisms do often have an innate drive to survive is important to point out, but it's not a solution to the problem by itself. That drive can be overcome by suffering and there is always a chance that it never exists in a particular individual at all.

We can say thanks to evolution, people will probably want to live and that there will probably be some form of life that they will enjoy. So on the whole, procreation isn't inherently evil. There are circumstances where you'd be creating harm though and that should be taken into account by anyone considering having a child. Do you have the resources to provide for them? What are the chances of them inheriting disease or disability? These are very serious questions that should be deeply explored before the fact.

 

[eran0004]

I never heard of antinatalism before, but to me it sounds like a "division by zero" error. A person that doesn't exist can't give consent to being brought to life, so the argument that people are born against their will is ridiculous.

A person is free to choose not to have any children, but preventing others from having children is to actively create more suffering in the world, which would make the whole philosphy of antinatalism pointless.

 

[MeanElf]

Taking your argument to its fullest conclusion, that because animals do it we can do it, this ultimately argues that morality is non-existent. So antinatalsists are wrong, but rape and murder is always permissible. Basically, you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater. It order to defeat the antinatalist argument you gave up all moral and ethical philosophy. I think that counts as a win in the antinatalist column actually.

That wasn't my point at all - not really sure how you got "because animals do it we can do it" from "the nature of any species is to survive and most animals will do their utmost to do so"? We are also meant to be better than our animal past and many of us are able to distinguish that all of those things that animals do, is morally wrong and so don't do that.

I think the fact that most organisms do often have an innate drive to survive is important to point out, but it's not a solution to the problem by itself. That drive can be overcome by suffering and there is always a chance that it never exists in a particular individual at all.

We can say thanks to evolution, people will probably want to live and that there will probably be some form of life that they will enjoy. So on the whole, procreation isn't inherently evil. There are circumstances where you'd be creating harm though and that should be taken into account by anyone considering having a child. Do you have the resources to provide for them? What are the chances of them inheriting disease or disability? These are very serious questions that should be deeply explored before the fact.

True, there is the parental aspect which I did touch on though probably too briefly considering the length of all other replies here. Yes, parents should always be asking if they can be there for their kid(s). I knew early on that my life was going to be too unsure for any thought of sharing in raising a kid so I never had one - had the chop a long time ago to preclude accidents and the way things panned out, I was right in choosing to not help being a child into the world; it was a responsible choice.

It's not a specious argument, just one that you don't want to engage with. You can choose to make an argument to justify the lack of consent based on survival of the species if you want. We choose to override the autonomy of the individual for the benefit of the greater society in other ways already. Whether that is good or appropriate is case by case, and you just attempting to hand wave it means that nobody is any wiser as to what the arguments for either side might be.

And if they want to, presumably. Some people don't want to, either because it's not for them or because they know that they cannot provide an appropriate upbringing for a child or children.

True, it's not one I want to particularly dwell too long upon, precisely because it is specious. Essentially wanting to completely halt the growth of humanity as a species because consent was not given by any individuals born who will in fact be unable to make a sound choice on the matter for some years - it's a philosophical thought experiment and not a plan for any kind of future. Sure, at some point far in the future it may be possible to model a child's likely response but would you really want to trust in that kind of solution? It's an impossible ask, simple as that.

And yes I can choose to make an argument based on the patterns of nature, as that's what we are programmed to follow; though we do have a few more options available to us due to our increased development - putting the brakes on the whole shebang is not a choice that many would accept. We have a huge difficulty in limiting the population growth as it is and such ideas are fine for individuals who wish to live their life that way.

I have never been interested in raising a kid myself and that cost me a marriage many years ago even when I made my case clearly before starting the relationship and my wife at the time agreed that it wasn't important. My choice though was for logical reasons, not because of some thought experiment.

 

[05XR8]

I think an antinatalist would say that you are 100% certain that your physical act of creating a human will result in that human's suffering at some point. That's not necessarily true of the motorist.

I think that one an antinatalist might agree with - beings on Earth should refuse to procreate and die out because they are indeed nuts.

Wonder if an antinatalist might agree with topping themselves to free their own life of suffering. I mean, I don’t know if an antinatalist feels, believes or knows what they are doing is, maybe in their minds(again, I don’t know), compassionate(their self motivated duty?) in saving/preventing future humans from future feelings. Might be best to take their own suffering out of the equation by disappearing.
Just seems more like animal behaviour of eating an animal’s eggs or young of land, sea or air.

I’m not going to delve into my own beliefs. That’s not what I’m thinking when formulating my thoughts. I’m just wondering about the label of person the topic is about.

 

[Danoff]

Without any antinatalists in this thread, I'll have to be the surrogate for this discussion for the time being. I think I understand the philosophy for the most part.

They're combining the idea that suffering is bad (which is not a given)

I think the idea is that to cause someone else to suffer is immoral. If you don't think so, I'd be interested to know what you think is immoral.

and that non-existence is preferable to any amount of suffering (also not a given).

It's the trolley problem. If you don't pull the lever, you're not culpable. Basically, if you don't cause a being to suffer, you're not guilty. And the implication is that creating a new being is necessarily causing them to suffer, because life entails suffering and death. These are somewhat difficult to argue out of.

I think it's helpful to not view antinatalists from a utilitarian perspective. It's not some broad calculus across society for minimizing suffering. It's a causal thing for an individual. The central point is that you're not allowed to cause someone to suffer.

If you take those thoughts to their actual conclusion then you don't end up not having babies, you end up killing every conscious being on the planet.

That would be committing the same sin as conception. Because you're killing without their consent. You don't have their permission to bring them into the world, but you definitely don't have their permission to take them out.

People who exist are also suffering, and while their brain chemistry may not make them inclined towards killing themselves it doesn't mean that minimising their suffering by ending their lives isn't the moral thing to do.

I understand that point. But I think the antinatalist perspective is that you need consent.

This is what I mean by missing the point. The point that actually needs discussion and argument is the premises of antinatalism, around suffering and it's interaction with consciousness. Antinatalists just say that suffering is a priori bad without bothering to argue for that

Most philosophies allow themselves this one. But I think it's fair to point out that a case would need to be made.

but would instead only have certain types of suffering.

I love this line. Genuinely, that's not sarcasm.

I think the antinatalist distinction would be that the type of suffering that they're not ok with is the non-consensual type.

Hell, if you combine antinatalist ideas with solipsism, the idea that the only conscious mind that you can be absolutely sure exists is your own, then the only moral thing to do is kill yourself.

Well, I think this comes from the perspective that morality is the minimization of suffering, which I don't actually think is a central part of antinatalism (I could be wrong though). I don't think it's a utilitarian calculus, but rather a strict causal calculus. You can kill yourself, or not, and it's entirely up to you because it's consensual. But creating a new life is not.

I'd think that any logical claim that ended with mass murder being moral would need to be extremely detailed and airtight. You can't handwave any part of such a claim.

I think most antinatalists would just conclude that having babies is wrong (not mass murder). But some of them want to blow up fertility clinics to efficiently take out a bunch of embryos.

We can say thanks to evolution, people will probably want to live and that there will probably be some form of life that they will enjoy. So on the whole, procreation isn't inherently evil.

I'm not sure that the first part of this proves the second. Just because evolution came up with it doesn't mean it's not evil.

A person is free to choose not to have any children, but preventing others from having children is to actively create more suffering in the world, which would make the whole philosphy of antinatalism pointless.

Think of it like stopping a crime. If you think people who conceive are criminals (because they're doing something immoral by creating a new consciousness), then causing them suffering is not as relevant as stopping them from committing the crime. I think you came at this from the perspective that it is automatically NOT immoral to conceive. Which is a begging the question fallacy.

Wonder if an antinatalist might agree with topping themselves to free their own life of suffering. I mean, I don’t know if an antinatalist feels, believes or knows what they are doing is, maybe in their minds(again, I don’t know), compassionate(their self motivated duty?) in saving/preventing future humans from future feelings. Might be best to take their own suffering out of the equation by disappearing.

I suppose some of them might and some might not. But either way it would not weigh on whether it is immoral to create a new person.

=============================

The central antinatalist theme is this - if you (not people, you specifically) create a new person, you know, even beforehand, that this person will suffer and die. You are therefore doing something immoral by creating them. Because even if you think their life will be great, or better than not, it's not up to you. It's up to them. You do not have their consent.

This is not particularly straightforward to reckon with.

 

[05XR8]

That would be hypocritical of antinatalists. They have not been given consent by those future humans to be ended.

 

[eran0004]

Think of it like stopping a crime. If you think people who conceive are criminals (because they're doing something immoral by creating a new consciousness), then causing them suffering is not as relevant as stopping them from committing the crime. I think you came at this from the perspective that it is automatically NOT immoral to conceive. Which is a begging the question fallacy.

There's no moral justification to consider it a crime. If it's a crime to cause suffering, then antinatalism in itself is also a crime. In fact it's arguably a bigger crime because antinatalism is certain to cause harm and suffering and the harm and suffering is caused intentionally. Giving birth to someone could potentially lead to harm and suffering, but it's not certain and it's not done with the intention to cause harm.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm not sure that the first part of this proves the second. Just because evolution came up with it doesn't mean it's not evil.

Evolution has no moral weight, it's just the process responsible for people's perception of the world. It has happened to shape the human mind in such a way that most people seem to enjoy life, or at least have an idea of a life that they would enjoy. In other words it seems that "by default" people would rather exist than not. That is why I say that procreation isn't inherently evil, not evolution.

The central antinatalist theme is this - if you (not people, you specifically) create a new person, you know, even beforehand, that this person will suffer and die. You are therefore doing something immoral by creating them. Because even if you think their life will be great, or better than not, it's not up to you. It's up to them. You do not have their consent.

This is not particularly straightforward to reckon with.

That we can't ask if someone wants to be born is a flaw in the system. We can only infer on what their choice would be from experience. What we do know is that suffering is subjective and what constitutes it will vary from person to person as well as how much suffering is tolerable. While we can't say with certainty that people will enjoy life, we also can't say that they would regret being born at all. The antinatalist position raises valid points but I'm not sure if the conclusion actually holds.

On a semi-related note life arose on its own in the first place so even if nature is left to its own devices you're going to get life almost certainly and presumably it will suffer at some point. Humans are an example of intelligent life, which might be rare, and has the capacity to look for ways to mitigate suffering. You could argue to life forms like humans are the greatest mitigating factor against suffering in the long run because of their ability to understand the causes of it and address them. I wonder how this fits into the antinatalist view.

If choice is the only concern this point may not matter as that still isn't addressed. If suffering is the concern though, then does the seemingly inevitable formation of life without ways of dealing with suffering count for anything?