Antinatalism and why you should stop having babies
The antinatalist position is that intentional reproduction is morally indefensible and that we should stop having babies on purpose. The premise behind antinatalism is apotropaic and congruent with core Buddhist principles: There is nothing one can do that will wipe clean the debt incurred by creating a consciousness-bearing vessel that is without fail going to suffer. Best case scenario, a baby conceived is an inevitable man or woman to suffer from disease, old age, and death. If you are creating more humans on purpose, the antinatalist position is that your behavior is morally indefensible and that no rhetorical contortionism nor any purported series of crucified deities can ever whitewash your behavior.
This position can also be traced back to both Gnostics, whose argument is just weird — but that’s Gnosticism for ya — and Greeks who essentially echo the Buddha’s sentiments in a similar fashion as the writings of Marcus Aurelius, perhaps best crystallized in his “Meditations,” and those of other Stoics.
No matter how healthy, wealthy, and wise a child may grow to be, he or she (or xer or whatever) is unavoidably going to suffer tremendously from what are referred to in Buddhist doctrine as the Three Poisons: attachment (wanting shit), aversion (not wanting shit), and delusion (not understanding what the hell is going on).
I am not a religious person, or rather I should say that I am fortunately no longer one, and for me these principles do not hold water by virtue that they are asserted by Buddhist rhetoric. They only hold water because like most, if not all, Buddhist rhetoric they are readily apparent. Buddhism just happens to be correct about this position, as usual, and in a secular context — which I would contend is its natural habitat — Buddhism always follows reason and observation first and foremost.
Buddhism aside, it is readily apparent that reproduction, while rewarded socially and selected for naturally, inevitably leads to the suffering of another being and is therefore immoral.
There are multiple arguments for and against reproduction.
One might say that we are obligated to reproduce as man is made in the image of some deity, but this is the worst-ever manifestation of the appeal to authority fallacy flimsily propped up by an unsupported theistic premise. There is hardly a more rickety or irrational argument.
One might make racial appeals, such as the Nazi 14/88 slogan, “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children.” Pro tip: What we refer to as white people, or any racial denomination, are a flash in the cosmic pan — even that description feels inflationary in magnitude — and any effort to sustain any racial population is not only misguided and ignorant but leads to a series of moral black holes, which recent history has already demonstrated. TL;DR: Procreating to sustain a race is stupid, pointless, and potentially immoral.
One might make nationalistic appeals, saying that if we do not repopulate our nation, it will wither. But the eventual decline of any nation is destined to happen regardless. Even within our short 5,000 years of recorded history, no nation has ever lasted indefinitely (at 200 years, we’ve had a good run, and cheers to the American republic unrealistically lasting forever!), and on a planet sustained by a dying star, only Isaac Asimov’s and Elon Musk’s pipe dreams offer hope. Furthermore, as long as recorded history remains recorded, the ideas that make the great social experiment that is America will live on, only to reincarnate through other democratic republics. Our Constitution is not special in and of itself; only the ideas that it enshrines are. There is little to no evidence that Yeshua of Nazareth was an actual person, but similarly there is just as little evidence that Socrates was a real person. However, Socrates’ ideas — the only aspect of his life that has relevance to us — live on. America will someday fall, and America as we know it is metamorphosing before our eyes … but its values will live on.
One might make various other populist or tribal appeals, claiming that one is filling the human coffers of a given sect by reproducing. Even the most superficial scrutiny reveals that this is utterly repugnant behavior, leveraging human life against ideology, politics, or demographic majority. This is what religious people appear to do (I’m looking at you, ye obdurate, solipsistic Utah Mormons), and I find it to be the most stomach-turning defense of reckless reproduction to leverage human life as ammunition in a psychotic, brain-dead ideology war against not only the rest of humanity but reason and critical thought itself. For shame.
One might appeal to family values, but these are short-sighted. One might like the idea of having a family; but as I’ve already mentioned, an antinatalist would note the irrevocable fact is that by reproducing, one creates a series of vessels for suffering. There is no denying it.
One might try to ameliorate that suffering with the notion that life is wonderful, or any other series of fluffy sentiments. But if I lock you in a basement and torture you, there is nothing I can offer you as repayment that will truly compensate for that to the extent that it actually levels the balance. Purposefully bringing a sentient being into the world is a crime for which there is no adequate compensation.
On the contrary, it is apparent that due to novel advances in sanitation, medicine, governance, science, and technology over the past few hundred years — again, a flash in the cosmic pan — the ability for humans to successfully reproduce and sustain life has increased dramatically.
We have the ability to reproduce, but a capacity for behavior does not necessarily lead to a right to indulge in it. I am physically capable of rape and plunder; this does not mean that I have a right to engage in it. Furthermore, social consent does not create rights; if it did, we could simply vote rights in and out of existence. This could lead to a discussion of the origin of rights, and that would almost inevitably lead back to the fallacy of authority when one begins to argue in favor of divine right. The irony is that our nation was established upon that very argument. But while our “unalienable” rights demonstrably do not have divine origins, they still exist, and that is arguably due to social evolution and the balance struck between mutual benefit and individual sovereignty.
The argument that one has a right — not just an ability — to reproduce based on individual sovereignty fails because enlightenment values at the least suggest that one does not have sovereignty over another sentient life; therefore, if those values are held to be sound, it follows that one does not have the right to inflict consciousness by creating another life that will almost certainly succumb to consciousness, which inevitably leads to suffering.
(And dear third-wave feminists, we do not give a good damn about your uteri — only their contents. I maintain that a woman fully has the right to her uterus but not to the destiny of the unfortunate life that dwells within. She can avoid conflict by exercising personal responsibility and not creating unwanted sentient beings with her uterus.)
And the argument that one has a right to reproduce based upon social evolution is an appeal to tradition fallacy that also exhibits confirmation bias. Slavery was once socially acceptable. It is unlikely that it was ever genuinely regarded as moral behavior unless it was viewed through the funhouse mirrors of religious influence — and religion is demonstrably not a source of morality in human behavior. The argument for slavery was always one form or another of might makes right justified by race, religion, nationality, or other forms of identity politics; the fact that we are fed approval by society for reproducing is not a real moral defense.
We can mate for life and have meaningful, lasting relationships without reproducing. Potential parents should understand that by having children they are assigning them more than a death sentence but a life full of suffering to precede it. We are not perpetuating ourselves; our DNA is so common that over 99 percent of it is shared with the rest of the mammal population. Reproduction is just an ego trip. And for pathetic people with no meaning in their lives, it’s a dangerous and pathetic way to fulfill that need. It’s 2018 in America — no woman (or man, for that matter) with half a brain should fall back upon reproduction for self-fulfillment. It’s animalistic base behavior.
So as I stated, antinatalism maintains that intentional reproduction is morally indefensible and that we should stop having babies on purpose. The antinatalist position — mine — states that creating more humans on purpose is reprehensible and reveals a complete lack of self-awareness and compassion. Condoms are cheap, people. If you aren’t man enough to be able to keep that dog in your pants, muzzle it.
The viewpoints expressed above are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of The Independent.
Articles related to “Antinatalism and why you should stop having babies”
The Women’s March on Washington: Since when are all women leftists?
How to submit an article, guest opinion piece, or letter to the editor to The Independent
Do you have something to say? Want your voice to be heard by thousands of readers? Send The Independent your letter to the editor or guest opinion piece. All submissions will be considered for publication by our editorial staff. If your letter or editorial is accepted, it will run on suindependent.com, and we’ll promote it through all of our social media channels. We may even decide to include it in our monthly print edition. Just follow our simple submission guidelines and make your voice heard:
—Submissions should be between 300 and 1,500 words.
—Submissions must be sent to editor@infowest.com as a .doc, .docx, .txt, or .rtf file.
—The subject line of the email containing your submission should read “Letter to the editor.”
—Attach your name to both the email and the document file (we don’t run anonymous letters).
—If you have a photo or image you’d like us to use and it’s in .jpg format, at least 1200 X 754 pixels large, and your intellectual property (you own the copyright), feel free to attach it as well, though we reserve the right to choose a different image.
—If you are on Twitter and would like a shout-out when your piece or letter is published, include that in your correspondence and we’ll give you a mention at the time of publication.
I know this is a bit late, but I thought I’d post anyway. You say that potential suffering is a good reason to not reproduce. Would not the argument extend to suicide? If you exist now, is it not as reasonable that you will suffer in the future as that an unborn child will suffer? Is not an avoid-suffering argument for mass non-reproduction also an argument for mass suicide?