muflax65ngodyewp.onion/content/reflections/antinatalism.mkd

---
title: Antinatalism Overview
alt_titles: [Antinatalism]
date: 2011-11-16
techne: :incomplete
episteme: :believed
---

> If only I could show you the places I have seen, you might understand the
> things I say. I have been to the Desolate Lands, wandered by those souls who
> still see the lands of the living but wear the cloak of the dead. Blind to
> their own ends, they cry, passing through one another like shadows in the
> dying light of day. I have travelled to where souls rot in torment, pierced
> with the jagged shards of life and vision, clinging to memory - regrets of
> the flesh. I saw that this prison was of their own making, and that the key
> was in unknowing, in release... and still, I travelled on.
>
> And finally, I came to the place where souls go to die. Where the mirrored and
> worn spirits fall into an endless sea of grey, mirrored glass, and I lowered
> myself within, and lay there among them, and I almost did not return.
>
> And do you know what I found there? There, among the silent and battered
> shells of the innumerable? Peace. Enlightenment. Truth. Only then did I realize
> that this place, this "Life", is an abomination, a horrible distortion of the
> natural order. This *"Life"*, who mothered Pain, and Fear, and Envy... these
> twisted children who exist only because we are here to feed them, to nourish
> them. This *"Life"*, this *afterthought* - a disturbance, a mere ripple in that
> great, dead sea, not even the cause, but merely an effect, sending these souls
> upwards, screaming for release from the day they are torn from their waters!
> The effect of what?!
>
> I do not know. Nor do I care.
>
> Have you ever spoken with the dead? Called to them from this side? Called them
> from their silent rest? Do you know what it is that they feel? Pain. Pain,
> when torn into this wakefulness, this reminder of the chaos from which they
> had escaped. Pain - for having to live. There will be no more pain. There
> will be no more chaos.
>
> -- [Kerghan][], about to end the world ([video][Kerghan Speech])

# Why You Got Screwed

I've got bad news for you. According to some philosophers, there is a huge
source of harm in the world that most people ignore. Even worse, *you* are
already affected by it. The harm? *Being born*.

This position is called [antinatalism][Antinatalism].

As a stylistic convention, I will refer to all good experiences as "awesome" or
"awesomeness" and all bad ones as "suck" or "suckiness". That's a little
unusual, but I think superior to words like "pleasure" or "pain", which can
refer to either very specific sensations (e.g. having a toothache) or the whole
category. So to prevent this confusion, everything bad just "sucks". If I mean
specifically just pain, I'll say so.

Range of Positions
==================

The names for these positions are mine, but reasonably close to common versions.

## Pronatalism

It is never wrong to bring someone into existence.

## Indifferent Natalism

It isn't *wrong* to bring someone into existence, but isn't right either. Both
outcomes are morally equivalent, so we should decide based on other
considerations, like our personal preferences or involved economic costs.

## Minor Antinatalism

There are some beings who are worse off, but on average, it works out. This
seems like the majority view of humanity.

## Major Antinatalism

Some beings are better off alive, but on average, the harm dominates. This
position is not unusual among transhumanists, who might think that humanity has
a possible good future, but so far has mostly suffered. It is not uncommon for
people to hold off on having children because the world is too horrible at a
given time.

## Categorical Antinatalism

It is always wrong to bring someone into existence. *Every* being is worse off
alive. Even [Manabi][].

## A Note on Circles

One thing this overview won't address is any argument for the particular size of
the ethical circle, i.e. the set of all morally relevant beings. It doesn't
really matter for antinatalism whether you think [only you][Egoism] or [all
animals][Animal Rights] matter, or if the circle is [expanding][Expanding
Circle] or [narrowing][Narrowing Circle]. For simplicity's sake, I will assume
the circle encompasses all humans, but most arguments can be trivially modified
for any size.

Arguments for Antinatalism
==========================

## Escape from Kaldor Hicks

Argument from consent.

http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2011/01/pareto-kaldor-hicks-and-deserving.html
http://theviewfromhell.blogspot.com/2011/01/markets-are-ungrounded.html

## The Asymmetry {#asymmetry}

[Benatar][]'s famous argument. It's deceptively simple:

1. The presence of suck is bad.
2. The presence of awesome is good.
3. The absence of suck is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone.
4. The absence of awesome is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this
   absence is a deprivation.

The first two are uncontroversial. It's the second two parts that are
problematic.

TODO Argument from Duty

Benatar:

> The asymmetry between (3) and (4) is the best explanation for the view that
> while there is a duty to avoid bringing suffering people into existence, there
> is no duty to bring happy people into being.

The asymmetry relies fundamentally on the intuitions that absence of suckiness
must be good and that absence of awesomeness can't be bad. Disagreeing with
either would have weird consequences, so Benatar, and doesn't match our actual
behavior.

But I think Benatar is not expecting enough from his audience. Both positions
seem actually fairly sensible. Let's have a closer look.


### Absence is Always Neutral

One way to resolve the asymmetry is to deny that the absence of suckiness is
actually good.

After all, who is benefitted? The hypothetical preferences of
non-existent people can't matter, or we would also take their preference for
awesomeness into account - and by accepting (4), we don't. So how does this
benefit arrise?

[Sister Y][Sister Asymmetry] gives us this thought experiment:

> **The Austrian Basement**
>
> E. F. has been kidnapped by her father and imprisoned in an Austrian cellar
> since her early adolescence. Her father repeatedly rapes her over the course
> of several years. E. F. gives birth to several children sired by her father.
> She reasonably believes that all these children have severe health problems,
> and that at least the female children will likely be abused by her father as
> they grow up.
>
> In Year 10 of her imprisonment, with four children born and removed from her
> by her father, she discovers a box (unknown to her father) hidden under a
> floorboard in her cell, containing everything she needs in order to practice
> undetectable birth control.
>
> Does she have a duty to practice birth control and avoid having more babies?
> Does she have a duty not to practice birth control, because she would be
> depriving her unborn babies of life (which, while it would have certain
> problems, would nevertheless presumably be worth living)? (Assume she would
> like the company of more babies, but fears the pain of more unassisted
> childbirth, and the "interests of the unborn children" is the concern that
> will break the tie, given her personal ambivalence.)

If you answer "yes, E. should use birth control", then why? She is preventing
harm to her unborn children, but if you deny the asymmetry, how is this
relevant?

So if absence of suckiness is not good, E. should have more children, who will
subsequentally be raped and beaten, but overall, say they like living. That's a
tough bullet to bite.

### Astronomical Waste

Why should the absence of awesome be considered "not bad"? Why not consider it
an evil? One transhumanist approach to this is called [Astronomical Waste][]. As
Nick Bostrom says:

> With very advanced technology, a very large population of people living happy
> lives could be sustained in the accessible region of the universe. For every
> year that development of such technologies and colonization of the universe is
> delayed, there is therefore an opportunity cost: a potential good, lives worth
> living, is not being realized. Given some plausible assumptions, this cost is
> extremely large.

TODO

[Sister Y][Sister Asymmetry] has another thought experiment:

> **Slum World**
> 
> The Supreme World Leaders meet in Tokyo in 2100 and decide that the world has
> a choice. Either the 2100 world population of 3 billion can be maintained in
> relative splendor, with fresh kumquats and sensory implants for everyone, or
> the world population can be increased to 100 billion, with everyone living in
> conditions similar to the conditions of a 20th century slum, apparently
> endured by upwards of 900 million people circa the year 2000.
>
> Which condition should the Supreme World Leaders choose?

This is really just an illustration of the problem, but a poignant one. However,
someone already convinced of positive utilitarianism will simply accept the
[Repugnant Conclusion][] and appeal to [Scope Insensitivity][].

Even so, Benatar writes:

> Whereas, at least when we think of them, we rightly are sad for inhabitants of
> a foreign land whose lives are characterized by suffering, when we hear that
> some island is unpopulated, we are not similarly sad for the happy people who,
> had they existed, would have populated this island. Similarly, nobody really
> mourns for those who do not exist on Mars, feeling sorry for potential such
> beings that they cannot enjoy life. Yet, if we knew that there were sentient
> life on Mars but that Martians were suffering, we would regret this for them.

Even most positive utilitarians don't feel saddened by the emptiness of space
and feel a strong moral compulsion to fix this mistake. On the other hand, nor
do negative utilitarians rejoice at all the matter in the universe that *isn't*
used to torture people. So overall, maybe our feeling of regret or relief isn't
such a great guide after all?

### What about future versions of yourself?

TODO Self, person-moments. Should you kill yourself right now?

## Life Sucks

This is a really straightforward argument. Life sucks, therefore it is bad to
create another life, for it too will suck.

It starts to get tricky once you start asking questions like "How *much* does it
suck?", "Is there an acceptable level of suck?" or "Does it suck for everyone?".

### Amount of Suck

TODO benatar

### Acceptable Suckiness

TODO utilitarian / max-harm argument

### I like Russian Roulette

Maybe not everyone is affected by overall suckiness. If you are already
upper-class parents with no history of depression, then maybe your child *does*
have a good shot at a worthwhile life.

This is fundamentally an utilitarian argument. You take the probability of
*your* child having a sucky life, multiply it with the negative value of all the
expected harm, do the same thing with the chance of awesomeness and compare the
two. It's fundamentally like russian roulette, but if the odds are good enough,
why not play?

Of course, if you accept this argument, I'd like you to show me these
calculations. (Seriously. [Contact][] me. I can't even decide on the rough order
of magnitude for any of these values.) In my experience, almost no-one who makes
claims about utility actually ever calculates it. So how do you know?

TODO non-utilitarian rebuttals

## Children are Expensive

TODO

### Humans are Parasites

A variant of this argument argues that the rest of the planet would be better
off without humans.

TODO [Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT)][VHEMT]

TODO wildlife is much worse off

Of course, if you think that animals don't have moral value, then the whole
argument is moot.

Arguments against Antinatalism
==============================

## Most people don't want to die.

If you ask people if they would like to die, most disagree.

TODO hypothetical consent

TODO bias argument

TODO include [Wasting The Dawn][] somehow

I can't help but feel that culture too rarely [makes the case][Wasting The Dawn]
for antinatal positions and that feeling regret at having to live is always
treated as a mental illness, not a possible position to defend.

## Synthetic Happiness is Real Happiness

[Dan Gilbert][Gilbert TED] argues that we fabricate "synthetic happiness" when
we don't get what we want, and that this is as good as "real" happiness. Thanks
to the [Hedonic Threadmill][], we will adapt to any change in life and go back
to our happiness set point.

If this happiness research is right, then our life circumstances are largely
irrelevant when considering how happy we are. Only one thing matters: our
happiness set point.[^setpoint] And because most people say they like living, they have a
sufficiently high set point and weren't harmed by whatever life we forced upon
them. And if you have a transhumanist bend, you might even think that [modifying
the set point][Wireheading] is not too far off.

[^setpoint]: All you depressed people hopefully realize how devastating this is.
    Life sucks and it will *keep on sucking*. Under [normal
    circumstances][Happiness Stochastic], happiness is largely constant. Happy
    endings are for other people.

TODO rebuttal from desire fulfillment

TODO rebuttal from separate pain

## Non-Person Values

Not just people matter. We can value states of the world without existing. Thus,
I can be harmed without ever being brought into existence. Existence is not a
morally significant hurdle.

Basically, we should respect the values of of even non-existent people. They
would want to live (or so they would tell us), so we are harming them by denying
them the opportunity.

*Rebuttal*: This can't be right. For every possible mind X, there is a possible
mind Anti-X that values exactly the opposite. If you bring X into existence
becomes X wants to live, then you are ignoring Anti-X who wants X to *not* live.
If you prefer a specific sampling of minds (say, minds similar to you), then you
are really just imposing your own values. Then it's not about unborn people,
just you.

## You Can't Harm the Non-Existent

[Benatar][] provides a version in [Better Never to Have Been][]\:

1. For something to harm somebody, it must make that person worse off.
2. The 'worse off' relation is a relation between two states.
3. Thus, for somebody to be worse off in some state (such as existence), the
   alternative state, with which it is compared, must be one in which he is less
   badly (or better) off.
4. But non-existence is not a state in which anybody can be, and thus cannot be
   compared with existence.
5. Thus coming into existence cannot be worse than never coming into existence.
6. Therefore, coming into existence cannot be a harm.


## If life is so horrible, why don't you kill yourself?

TODO if life is so awesome, why do so many people kill themselves?

TODO suicide censorship, illegality

## Your suffering is a First World Problem.

An anonymous commenter on [The View from Hell][] provides an example of this
common argument:

> I think your blog's title is a total misnomer: if you're still able
> (emotionally, physically and financially) to enjoy drugs, sex, running and
> talking about philosophy as you yourself claim you clearly haven't got the
> slightest notion of what hell consists of.

In other words, if there are many people who are much worse off than you, you
can't claim to suffer.

I find that a very strange argument. If even privileged people suffer greatly,
isn't that an argument *for* antinatalism, namely that even greatly improved
average circumstances don't fix suffering? Shouldn't we therefore conclude that
many more people suffer than we typically think?

What the arguments seems to be doing is to critize people for requesting help.
Basically, if someone else needs help much more than you, you shouldn't be
bringing your pain to our attention. You're just wasting resources that way.
That's not a bad point, but it is not an argument against preventing births. If
less people are made, less will suffer and we can take better care of the rest.

## Without slaves, Rome would collapse!

> I need children to care for me once I am old. Our social system needs enough
> young people or the old will starve.

This is fundamentally a very selfish argument. That doesn't mean it's *wrong*.
Just that you can't have any pretense that you care about the well-being or rights of
others if you make it.

TODO real argument

## Potential People Have Rights Too

See the [asymmetry](#asymmetry).

Practical Implications
======================

Is this just a contrarian position? Are you merely signalling how deep and
unconventional you are? After all, even professional ethicists aren't more
ethical on average[^ethicistfail].

[^ethicistfail]: See [Schwitzgebel's various studies][Schwitzgebel Ethics].

## Moral Consequences

I once read a summary of the game [Vampire: The Masquerade][Vampire RPG]. In it,
you are a recently turned vampire who has to feed on the living to survive. Your
constant hunger for blood makes it likely that you will one day lose control and
kill whoever you're feeding off or any amount of other innocents. You must
exploit and endanger a large number of humans merely to survive. You know that
this is wrong, yet your own need to survive makes you do it anyway. You might
tell yourself all kinds of clever reasons why this is acceptable. But really,
no-one believes you, not even you. You know that you could do the right thing
anytime and just step out into the sun. You don't *have* to exist. You can just
die. Yet you don't. No matter what you tell yourself, you are evil.[^social]

[^social]: The analogy to our economy, social system and all of
    industrialization is too obvious to ignore.

This is basically the antinatalist worldview.

## Apocalyptic Imperative

The fact that only [few][Dawrst] antinatalists call for the end of all life, in
some form or another, is a bad sign. It requires a fairly complex argument to
think that being born is bad, but total extinction isn't worth it. Instead of
that particular combination being right, it seems much more likely that you
really just picked an unusual belief as a contrarian signal, but don't want to
upset the status quo *too* much. Gods forbid you actually have to live according
to your expoused morality![^positivestatus]

[^positivestatus]: The same goes for pronatalists, of course. If life is so
    awesome, why aren't you making much more of it? Why stop at 2 kids and not
    at 2000? Costs? What, I thought birth is always good?

Religious Analogies
===================

This section isn't completely serious. It doesn't provide actual arguments,
really. Just because some religion or old ascetic supported something like
antinatalism doesn't mean it's right. But I still find it interesting how
*common* the position actually is. There is obvious [memetic][meme] pressure to
remove antinatalism from any religion, but it still survives for some reason.

## Christianity

Even Jesus was an Antinatalist.

> Jesus said, "The example of whosoever demands the world is like those who
> drink sea water. The more he drinks the more his thirst increases until it
> kills him." -- [al-Ghazali][]

A minor remark. Antinatalism also provides a solution to Anselm's ontological
argument, like so:

1. God is the greatest possible being. (Definition)
2. It is best to not exist. (Antinatalism)
3. Therefore, God does not exist.

### Shakers

How not to do it.

## Buddhism

> Furthermore, as if the monk were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground
> — one day, two days, three days dead — bloated, livid and festering, he
> applies it to this very body, 'This body, too: Such is its nature, such is its
> future, such its unavoidable fate'...
>
> Or again, as if he were to see a corpse cast away in a charnel ground, picked
> at by crows, vultures and hawks, by dogs, hyenas and various other
> creatures... a skeleton smeared with flesh and blood, connected with
> tendons... a fleshless skeleton smeared with blood, connected with tendons...
> a skeleton without flesh or blood, connected with tendons... bones detached
> from their tendons, scattered in all directions — here a hand bone, there a
> foot bone, here a shin bone, there a thigh bone, here a hip bone, there a back
> bone, here a rib, there a breast bone, here a shoulder bone, there a neck
> bone, here a jaw bone, there a tooth, here a skull... the bones whitened,
> somewhat like the color of shells... piled up, more than a year old...
> decomposed into a powder: He applies it to this very body, 'This body, too:
> Such is its nature, such is its future, such its unavoidable fate.'
>
> (...) His mindfulness is established, and he lives detached, and clings to
> nothing in the world.
>
> -- excerpt from the [Satipatthana Sutta][]

> A monk who is constantly mindful of death will be diligent. He is disenchanted
> with all forms of existence. He has conquered attachment to life. He abhors
> all evil. He is not greedy and does not hoard requisites. The perception of
> impermanence grows in him, followed by the perceptions of suffering and
> non-self. Others who have not developed mindfulness of death become victims of
> fear, horror and confusion when the time of their death arrives. They may feel
> suddenly seized by wild beasts, ghosts, snakes, robbers or murderers. However,
> the monk dies fearless, without delusion.
>
> -- excerpt from the [Visuddhimagga][]


# Unused References

http://www.alcor.org/magazine/2011/01/14/non-existence-is-hard-to-do/
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/06/should-this-be-the-last-generation/