I have a new column this week on OnlySky. It’s about the strange philosophy of antinatalism, and how it led to terrorist violence in at least one case.
Antinatalism is a philosophical idea which claims it’s better not to exist, because existence inevitably involves pain and suffering, which should be avoided at all costs. Most antinatalists stop at urging others not to have children, which is a valid choice in line with the principle of individual autonomy.
However, a few disturbed people go further, concluding that life is so intolerable that it’s a positive good to end it – whenever and wherever possible. This is the nihilist mindset that appears to have inspired the bombing of an IVF clinic in California last month. This act of terrorism fortunately killed no one except the perpetrator, but it could easily have resulted in the deaths of innocent people, as well as the destruction of frozen embryos.
Before we pass judgment on the bomber, we need to examine the ideas that motivated him. Does the antinatalist philosophy hold up to criticism? Is it bad to be alive and unethical to reproduce?
Read the excerpt below, then click through to see the full piece. This column is free to read, but paid members of OnlySky get some extra perks, like a subscriber-only newsletter:
In the name of fairness, we should try to steelman the antinatalist argument. Here’s what they’d likely say for themselves.
When scientists run studies on human beings, they have an ethical obligation to do no harm, or at least, not leave the participants worse off than they were before. There’s a dark history of experiments carried out on unwilling or unaware participants that did grievous harm, which is why scientific studies today have to be approved by institutional review boards or other ethical watchdogs.
In the antinatalist view, having children is like an unethical human experiment.
Are antinatalists all Libertarians?
It’s perfectly fine for a person to decide that they do not want to have children, for whatever reason: that’s bodily autonomy (and that’s something conservatives want to take away from women). These fools have decided that NOBODY should have children, and the antinatalist will stop at nothing to ensure other people can’t decide for themselves whether to have children.
I’m going out on a limb a little, but I think antinatalists might be described as an extreme form of leftism. They claim to be motivated by utilitarianism, and specifically the belief that suffering must be prevented at all costs.
That’s not an idea I’ve heard conservatives espouse too often. If anything, they tend to go in the opposite direction and say that some amount of suffering is necessary or even good.
“Antinatalism is a philosophical idea which claims it’s better not to exist, because existence inevitably involves pain and suffering, which should be avoided at all costs. Most antinatalists stop at urging others not to have children, which is a valid choice in line with the principle of individual autonomy.”
They all do; the idea is that to exist is to suffer, thus to procreate is to perpetuate suffering.
It’s in the very name!
The opposite of natalism, of course; a privative concept.
Rather than valuing and encouraging procreation, it does the opposite.
“However, a few disturbed people go further, concluding that life is so intolerable that it’s a positive good to end it – whenever and wherever possible.”
They’re anti-life, not anti-natalism. This is not going further — can’t go further than not procreating.
Nihilism also doesn’t cut it; its conceit is that life inherently lacks meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value, not that it should perforce be terminated or avoided. It’s not a prescriptive philosophy.
I think a significant percentage of antinatalists really are anti-life, in that sense. That’s their core belief, of which antinatalism is just a corollary.
The David Futrelle post that I linked to in the article talked about the “big red button” thought experiment, which asks whether you’d end all life on earth if you had the chance. So many of them say yes that their subreddit mods banned discussion of the topic.
I see no such link here.
There’s this: https://x.com/DavidFutrelle/status/1929599650157179096
—
Ah, “Continue reading on OnlySky…”, you write.
I am responding to what you wrote here, not to what you wrote elsewhere.
“So many of them say yes that their subreddit mods banned discussion of the topic.”
You mean antinatalists banned that topic? Almost as if it were not on-topic, is it?
Again: it’s in the name.
Now, if they were antibiotics, then sure. The name would fit! 😉
@Katydid
Nah, once someone has created a person we have the same ethical obligation to care for them as for anyone else.
From the article:
“With that established, the question is: Would a reasonable person wish to exist? Would an average human being of normal health and intelligence regret ever having been born? Or would most people say that, all things considered, they’re glad to have the precious and priceless experience of being alive?”
The problem here is that you have already defined suicidal depression to be abnormal and unhealthy in the article. You’re assuming your conclusion
Humans have an innate sense of self preservation, this is obviously a useful trait for an organism to evolve. It takes a hell of a lot of suffering to break this. So the average person is not going to regret being born, because the average person is biologically motivated to keep living
So in the same way you reject my suicidal depressive attitude, you can’t use your perspective here as it is too biased by not experiencing the suffering to break your innate sense of optimism about life
As for why I’m still alive? I’ve experienced enough trauma to give me CPTSD, social anxiety, and decades of suicidal ideation, but not quite enough to break me enough to actually kill myself
Children don’t suffer if you don’t create them, so don’t
“… the question is: Would a reasonable person wish to exist?”
Ahem. Would a non-reasonable person wish to exist? Same answer.
The intended insinuation is that only an unreasonable would person would wish to exist, of course.
Coarse framing, slanted language.
—
Since I do in fact wish to exist (though I know my days are numbered), either I am unreasonable thereby or else it’s a thing that both reasonable and unreasonable people can do.
—
Your wife won’t get sick if you don’t have one, so don’t marry.
You shan’t lose your job if you don’t get a job, so don’t get a job.
(An interesting approach)
Are you implying that a wife doesn’t exist in a capacity to experience suffering until someone marries her? (presumably a man, otherwise we would have self manifesting lesbians)
Not in the slightest.
I am using a parallel form to yours; the statement is the same, the variables are the only thing that differs.
Your pet shan’t get some horrible ailment where you have to euthanise if you don’t get a pet, so don’t get a pet.
Food in your larder shan’t spoil if the larder is empty.
(You can’t fail if you don’t try)
However John Morales can make an inane comment even if John Morales doesn’t type in the box
I have faith in you
If you didn’t have faith in me, you could not be disappointed by me.
—
I think I’ve made my point.
Nah, keep going! You haven’t beaten your personal best for annoying comments in a freethought blogs posts, you hit at least 20 in one of PZ’s
I’ve said elsewhere that anti-natalists (or at least people calling themselves such) have a very broad range, from “let’s tone down the pro-natalism and let everyone decide for themselves whether to have kids” to “let’s turn this planet into a beautiful dead rock”. One can argue that only those near the middle of the range are “true” anti-natalists in the sense that the term doesn’t accurately describe those towards the ends of that range, though I don’t think we should be policing language like that.
I’ve also pointed out elsewhere that believing that everyone should die but not checking out yourself ASAP isn’t necessarily hypocritical. There’s a reason why there’s a thing called murder-suicide and not suicide-murder. And even if you’re just trying to convince others to join you, you’re extremely unlikely to spread the message if you’re already dead.
That being said, I consent to continue existing, kthx. For a very long time, if possible. *And* I support euthanasia for people who have a good reason to end their lives early, and who consent to do so. But I won’t brook anyone taking that decision away from others.
Yeah, we should understand these beliefs as a continuum. Like there are extremist pro-natalists, but there are a lot more reasonable ones
@ Snowberry, 4, LOL, you can’t have a suicide-murder because once someone is dead by suicide, they can’t take anyone else along for the ride. Also, your last sentence says it all.
@3, dangerousbeans: you contradict yourself all over the place.
John Morales writes:
Yes, that’s how I interpreted it as well, with a childish “I didn’t ASK to be born!” self-righteous attitude thrown in. In other words, an immature perspective. And if someone wants to hold that mentality, that’s their business, but they have no right to impose it on other people. They’re blind to the fact that some people enjoy their life and some people genuinely want children and enjoy them.
I didn’t ask to be born, I didn’t ask to be abused by a society which saw queerness and autism as unhealthy and abnormal (though that is getting better). What i do ask is that people think about if it’s appropriate to create new people just because they enjoy children
To use John Morales pet analogy: should you breed French bulldogs because you enjoy their squished faces even though they struggle to breath?
Or maybe just adopt a mongrel
“To use John Morales pet analogy: should you breed French bulldogs because you enjoy their squished faces even though they struggle to breath?”
That was no analogy; that was mordant sarcasm.
I do have a god. Um, sorry, a dog.
I walk him in the morning, for a sniff and peeing and probably a poop (I take doggy-poop bags with me).
Another before beddie-byes, for more peeing (he’s pooped out by then).
And often, a walk to the shop to get stuff. About 1.1km each way, but you know… doggy walk.
For a dog, walkies is the best thing ever!
Other than eating time (twice a day feeding, twice a day treat after a walk). That’s the best time.
Except for playtime; that’s truly the very best time.
And meeting another doggy friend? Best time ever!
When I/we get back, O joy! Bestest time ever!!1!
And the rolling on the back, writhing on the grass! Bestest time ever!
The treat by a stranger, ‘cos he’s so cute. Best!
(I get the ancillary benefit of keeping active and making a pooch happy. Win-win!)
The one argument I’m missing is: opposite to suffering there is also pleasure.
Yes, I’ve suffered, but I also enjoy my life. And I would say, for me, the pleasure far outweighs the suffering, so life is a net positive effect. And so we can flip the entire argument around, if you expect your children to have a good life, you *MUST* have as many children as possible!
Which is of course also nonsensical, as that many children may impact your own life. (And I’m a guy… but I suspect any potential partner will also say “no way!”)
@6: Yes, dogs are great! And dogs feel joy, and bring joy. And if you could ask dogs, I bet most of them would say they want to live. You highlighted very well the attitude of dogs I have had: so much is the best time ever!
@7: Children also feel joy and bring joy. But too much of anything (dogs or kids!) is not good! There is a very real cost to a woman’s body to bring children into the world, which is why it should be an option for those who want to, and an option for those who don’t. There’s a faction of people who would force their choice on others…just like there’s a faction of antinatalists who would force their choice on others.
@5: What seems to elude you is that you’re a black and white, all or nothing, thinker who can’t seem to get beyond your own self. While YOU may not enjoy your life, there are many others who enjoy theirs. You don’t want to allow anyone else to feel or think differently than you do, and on the fringes of your belief are people who will kill other people because they themselves don’t want to live. That’s not making your point. I’m just astounded you seem to see nothing wrong in that. It’s the same mindset as the incels who demean all women, and some go on to kill a bunch of women they’ve never met because they’re furious that women don’t find them attractive.