- What do antinatalists claim?
Antinatalists propagate non-propagation. To justify this claim, they try to show that the suffering we experience is ethically more important than the happiness we experience. Antinatalists do not deny that happiness exists. However, they question whether, for example, my current happiness can compensate for my past or future suffering or the suffering of other people. To give a concrete example: antinatalists deny that the alleged happiness at the time of the German economic miracle in the 1950s could compensate for even a tiny fraction of the suffering in the German concentration camps. Because of the preponderance and inevitability of suffering, antinatalists advocate not having children and plead for an ebbing away of humanity by way of natal abstinence.
- Do natalists need good arguments for the creation of life? After all, their position is in a way “biologically default”. Maybe the burden of argument is on the antinatalists’ side? What is your opinion on this?
At a first glance it may look like the burden of proof is on the antinatalists. Animals do procreate and many people consider man as an animal of sorts. However, our biology does not compel us to procreate; human sexuality is not closely linked to procreation. Contraception is almost as old as history. What “dictates” us to procreate are, rather, cultural institutions, social expectations and intuitions: family members, neighbours, communities or states. Still, against this overwhelmingly pronatal background it looks like the proof of burden is with antinatalism.
At the same time, there is a basic rule that puts everything in a completely different light. I call it the Never-Act Rule:
Never act in such a way that a person will die due to your action
Today it appears to be an accepted verdict in most countries that – except in cases of legitimate defence – one must never act in such a way that a person will inevitably die as a consequence of that very action. Now, procreation is an act as a result of which a person will inevitably die. Since procreation is not an act of legitimate defence, one must not procreate. Looked at from this angle, antinatalism is embedded in our most fundamental values and suddenly it looks as if the burden of proof can be reversed and placed on the pronatalists!
While it is true that antinatalism doesn’t have too many adherents today, it is also true that the Never-Act Rule, according to which we must not procreate, is a widely accepted moral rule.
- Do you think that the axiological postulate of antinatalists would ever be put in practice widely and thus lead to the extinction of humanity? Would the spreading of this ideal have any (whether positive or negative) influence on political or economical processes?
Unfortunately, the human capacity for suffering seems infinite. If this were not the case, the vast majority of all people would have long since opted for the extinction of humanity by means of natal abstinence. After the great catastrophes of the Armenocide, the Judeocide, in the face of the events in Cambodia, Rwanda and the Congo wars a perpetuation of mankind seems hardly justifiable. However, it is not only the capacity to suffer that appears to be immense; selfishness must also be boundless. How else can we explain the fact that hardly anyone shrinks from bringing children into such a world which will also be a world of heat with hundreds of millions of people migrating due to global warming.
Even though it seems extremely unlikely to me that mankind will die out because everyone has become a convinced antinatalist, it could well be that in future there will be significantly fewer people on earth due to a declining global birth rate.
This would probably have a major economic impact. As we know, we live – at least in consumer and industrial societies – in growth-driven societies. That is, our capitalist economies cannot continue without growth. A sharp long-term decline in birth rates would probably be tantamount to an end of capitalism. Against this background, antinatalists and denatalists are called to think about alternative and non-maximalist forms of economy.
While capitalism is growth-oriented, antinatalism is anti-growth. It would seem that antinatalism and capitalism do not go well together. If the antinatalist ideal were ever to be taken seriously on a global scale, there would certainly be a strong reaction from the defenders of a growth-oriented economy.
It would be an attractive task to describe the economic form that would be required to allow an “orderly” ebbing away of mankind.
- Can we say that the arguments supporting antinatalism may also support suicide?
Certainly, many advocates of antinatalism and suicide have a common denominator and shared convictions. Upon closer inspection, however, the moral theory of antinatalism is not per se linked to suicide. The aim of antinatalism is to minimize suffering. As a matter of fact, an act of suicide often leaves near and dear ones suffering. Perhaps it could be said that suicide can be defended against the background of antinatalism as follows: The antinatalist moral theory holds that the presence of human beings on earth, is not an overriding value to which everything else must be sacrificed. This also applies to the individual: If his or her continued existence has become unbearable for him or herself, he or she does not have to make a sacrifice by continuing to exist.
- To what extent does antinatalistic view also relate animals other than humans? Apart from the sterilization of domestic species, should we also stop breeding farm animals, and strive for the gradual extinction of other species?
Antinatalism is a moral theory that focuses on ill-being and suffering. It calls on all morally capable persons to stop producing more beings that are prone to suffering. According to this principle, people should not have children. Now, there is no fundamental difference between human and animal suffering. Against this background, the antinatalist moral theory urges all moral persons to also reduce the amount of animal suffering and the number of suffering animals as much as possible without creating new suffering. What are the means of achieving this moral goal? The following means appear to be obvious: 1. A diet and clothing without animal products. 2. The extinction of livestock breeds by means of sterilisation. 3. Reducing the suffering of wild animals through sterilisation, where this can be done without creating new animal suffering. 4. Where this measure leads to the extinction of entire species, we may lament this as an aesthetic loss, but we must not forget that the perpetuation of a species is often a great generator of suffering.
- What is the difference between the postulates of antinatalists and those put forward by the advocates of eugenic projects?
Already at the beginning of the Nazi dictatorship there were eugenic efforts to prevent the procreation of the hereditarily unfit or the biologically inferior through forced sterilisation. To enhance the genetic stock, only “valuable” women or men were allowed to reproduce. It is immediately obvious that such dictatorial state-natalism has nothing to do with an antinatalist moral theory, which addresses people who are free to act.
Regarding current human enhancement projects, I think they are just escapes from antinatalism.
- Which erroneous views (stereotypes) about antinatalism do you observe most often?
a. Antinatalist hate children.
b. If the goal is that there should be no more people (or: If it would have been better if one had never begun to exist), then it would be better if I no longer existed either. So antinatalists therefore wish for my death!
c. Antinatalists want to dictate the reproductive behaviour of other people.
d. If they don’t like it here, antinatalists should go to a world yonder and commit suicide.
e. Antinatalists want to destroy humanity instead of helping to solve mankind’s problems.
f. In principle, antinatalists would have to approve of wars, because many people are killed in wars.
- What benefits can we (including those of us who choose to raise children) have out of philosophizing on antinatalism?
A study of antinatalist moral theory gives us insights into the extent and meaning of suffering in the world and teaches us to question received intuitions.
Certainly there are people who find the antinatalist moral theory convincing, but who at the same time have a marked desire for children that is stronger than ethical insight. Such a person might still attempt to persuade others not to have children of their own.
- What ontological assumptions would make antinatalism most convincing?
1. If there were a Supreme Being who suffered unspeakably at the disappearance of humanity, then it would be somewhat more difficult to defend the antinatalist moral theory. Therefore, an atheistic worldview is conducive to antinatalism. At the same time, I would counter the appeal to a Supreme Being with an anti-theism that blames the responsible Supreme Being for the suffering throughout history up to this point.
2. The same goes for an ideal value sphere: If there were an ideal sphere of values “aiming” at realisation, then it would be slightly more difficult to defend antinatalism.
3. A naturalistic-realistic ontology appears to be conducive to antinatalism. If there were a paranormal dimension behind our everyday world then it might well be that mankind is embedded into a more comprehensive or encompassing structure such that our disappearance could be conceived of as a loss. Today parapsychology is mostly carried out as a critical science that tries to refute alleged paranormal phenomena. Provided that the findings of parapsychology to date are correct, we should not expect human beings to be embedded in a more comprehensive reality.
Additional question:
How do you define denatalism? (We would add a capsule explaing the meaning of the term as you understand it).
The goal of denatalism is to limit population growth in the face of scarce resources. While antinatalism ultimately wants to reduce the population to zero, denatalism aims to reduce the number of people to an environmentally or socially acceptable level. In the context of population policy, the latter endeavour has been called antinatalism since the 1960s. With the emergence of moral-theoretical antinatalism, a categorical differentiation has become necessary.
For more on Filozofuj see:
https://filozofuj.eu/wydania/
antinatalismblog 