Anti-Natalism

by Ken Coates

  The next chapter takes a critical look at 19th century secular philosophies concerned with existence and its transcendence. Schopenhauer is undoubtedly the first major Western philosopher to articulate the view that existence in general, and human existence in particular, is intrinsically and irremediably evil. Hence his reputation as the ‘pessimistic’ philosopher par excellence. However his philosophy has more to do with elaborating the nature and source of gratuitous suffering which life invariably entails than with finding a way out. His key concept of liberation is a state of ‘willlessness’ or the abdication of the will-to-live, arrived at voluntarily or otherwise. It resembles the Buddhist notion of nirvana, a similarity acknowledged by Schopenhauer. We consider next Eduard von Hartmann whose magnum Opus The Philosophy of the Unconscious (1869) seeks to combine an evolutionary perspective on human history with Schopenhauerian insights into the pain and suffering of existence. He foresaw a time when reason in man will prevail against his unconscious will-to-live resulting in collective worldwide action to bring an end to existence. The evolutionary historical perspective, the idea of an inherent conflict between will and reason, and that of a collective solution to the problem of existence are ideas which make Hartmann’s work interesting and significant. He seems to have been unjustifiably neglected in the history of rejectionist thought. In Chapter 3 we move forward to the 20th century and beyond. We outline briefly the thinking of P.W. Zapffe( 1899-1990), a little known Norwegian writer and philosopher, who was an early advocate of non-procreation as the solution to the irremediable contradictions of human existence. Finally we examine the work of a contemporary philosopher, David Benatar, whose book Better Never To Have Been (2006) is a seminal contribution to anti-existential thought. Benatar may be described as Schopenhauerian in his evaluation of human existence but his prime focus is on anti-natalism. He argues that it is our duty not to procreate since bringing any life into existence involves inflicting harm, i.e. pain and suffering including death. If each individual refrains from procreation a gradual phasing out of human existence becomes possible. Thus while Schopenhauer espouses a path to liberation which echoes Buddhist nirvana, Hartmann, Zapffe and Benatar suggest very different modes of liberation.

  Chapter 4 presents the literary perspectives of Samuel Beckett and Jean-Paul Sartre on existence. Chapter 5 concludes by arguing that the philosophy of rejectionism, especially in its anti-natalist version, must be seen as one of the modern world-views that is here to stay and is likely to become more influential. It may contribute to increasing rejection of procreation based on moral and metaphysical considerations. The book ends (Chapter 6) with a set of hypothetical FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions and Answers) on rejectionism which provides the reader with an overview of this approach.

  Endnote - Introduction

  1. Given the wide variety, complexity, and ambiguity of many religions and religious belief systems any generalization must involve drastic simplification. What needs to be emphasized however in this context is the dualism of most world religions. On the one hand there is recognition of the ‘evils’ of this world and its denunciation and devaluation. This goes along with the promise of a better world to come in the hereafter for the faithful. On the other hand there is also an emphasis on human life as fundamentally good and to be accepted or even celebrated. The injunction to create progeny is a part of this endorsement of life. In several world religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism there is a distinction between mass and elite religiosity. It is the latter that is primarily concerned with world-rejection, asceticism and emancipation from the wheel of life. Some of these issues are discussed later( Chs. 1, 5 and 6).

  2. Secular philosophies which consider existence, especially human existence, as seriously flawed are few and far between. Among these, philosophies that are explicitly anti-natalist include those of Zapffe and Benatar (see Ch. 3). Schopenhauer’s position, often described as anti-natalist, is somewhat ambiguous in that although he is against procreation it is renunciation of the will that he considers as the path to liberation (see Ch. 2).

  3. These anti-existential perspectives may be termed ‘rejectionist’ in so far as they reject existence and seek to transcend it. ‘Anti-natalism’ means being opposed to procreation on philosophical grounds and implies the rejection of existence. But not all rejectionist perspectives are opposed to procreation. Hinduism, Buddhism and the philosophy of Hartmann are prime examples.

  Chapter 1: Religious Perspectives

  Among world religions Hinduism and Buddhism stand out in their strongly negative view of existence. Liberating human beings from their bondage to earthly existence has been their chief concern (Koller 1982, Chs. 4, 5, 7;Herman 1991, 114-18). Liberation is conceptualized as moksha or release in Hinduism and nirvana or extinction in Buddhism. Both these religions originated in India and have a great deal in common in their view of human existence and in their approach to transcending the evil of existence. However despite many similarities there are also important differences between the two and it is important to examine them separately. Hinduism is the older of the two and, directly or indirectly, has had a great deal of influence on Buddhism. Thus both chronologically and logically it makes sense to start with Hinduism. The main questions we ask of these belief systems are the following. How do they perceive human existence ? Wherein, according to them, lies the ‘evil’ of existence and what are its causes ? What means do they propose for transcending existence and achieving liberation from this evil? We explore these issues and conclude the chapter with a critical commentary on these and related aspects of the religion in question.

  Hinduism and Moksha

  Hinduism has a history of nearly 4000 years during which it has undergone many changes and developments. It is also a vast and unwieldy religious complex with a variety of beliefs, practices and deities. There are, however, some basic concepts notably karma, dharma, samsara or the transmigration of souls and moksha, and beliefs associated with them which constitute Hinduism’s identity and continuity over time (Zaehner 1966; Herman 1991). The Varna or the caste system constitutes the social organization of Hinduism. We should note that unlike major religions such as Christianity, Islam and Buddhism, Hinduism has no individual founder to whom the basic teachings could be attributed. It is primarily the sacred texts and the commentaries on them that constitute the chief sources of knowledge for us. Our interest here is essentially in what is known as classical Hinduism (sometimes referred to as Brahmanism to distinguish it from the body of Hinduism as a mass religion), based on the teachings of the Upanishads, which espoused a form of pantheistic monism and whose primary goal was moksha or liberation. Our chief sources of knowledge here are the Vedas and the Upanishads – spanning roughly 1500 to 500 B.C. To these we might add the somewhat later work, the Bhagwadgita (Gita) or the Song/Teachings of the Lord, which forms a part of the epic story of Mahabharata. These works and commentaries on them comprise the basic philosophy and teachings of Hinduism. The earliest works are the Vedas followed by the Upanishads, which span roughly 800-200 BC whilst the Gita is a later composition dating around 200 BC.

  The early Vedic age was characterized by optimism and the affirmation of life. But by the time of the Upanishads it gave way to a preoccupation with life as suffering and bondage (Koller 1982, 67). Thereafter the Upanishads became more and more extreme in their ‘revulsion against never-ending life through never-ending death in a manifestly imperfect world ‘ (Zaehner 1966, 61). Thus according to one of the later Upanishads the human body ‘is fair in appearance only; in truth it is no more than a conglomerate of foul-smelling impurities’. And as to the soul it is ‘fouler still’. In it are “desire, anger, covetousness, delusion, fear, depression, envy” and human beings are subject to “hunger, thirst, old age, death, disease, and sorrow” (61). It was , above all, the senseless and endless prolongation of life through ever recurring births and deaths - due to the transmigration of souls - that was considered as the evil from which liberation was sought’ (
63).

  In Hindu philosophy, the goal of liberation from existence was closely connected with a number of key ideas, notably rebirth or the transmigration of souls, karma causality and Samsara or the phenomenal world. It was believed that the soul or the self is subjected to repeated births. The ‘karma’ or the actions performed in each existence conditioned the next birth. Although karma literally means action the reference in this context is to the moral quality of one’s actions. Good deeds performed in this life lead to a better birth in the next , e.g. in a higher caste, and conversely evil deeds lead to birth in a lower caste or even as an animal. In any case there was a strict karma causality which causes the soul to return to the earth to ‘reap what it had sown’ in its previous births. And no matter how good one’s actions in life they could not secure him freedom from rebirth. Moksha was deliverance from this sequence of repeated births and deaths or the entrapment of the soul in the phenomenal world or Samsara. Clearly as the quotes above indicate earthly existence, according to the Upanishads, was a pretty sordid business. One life was bad enough but for the soul to be mired in repeated lives was nothing short of a disaster. The world, remarks Zaehner , ‘inspired ‘a feeling of horror’ ‘in classical Hindu breasts’ (67).

  It is important to note here the pantheistic nature of classical Hindu cosmology. Unlike theistic religions such as Christianity or Islam classical Hinduism did not posit a supreme deity as the creator or the master of the world. Rather it was believed that the world had always existed and will always exist. As Max Weber sums up, ‘The world,’ according to Hindu philosophy ‘is an eternal, meaningless “wheel” of recurrent births and deaths steadily rolling on through all eternity’ (Weber1968, 167).The only non-temporal orders were the eternal order itself and the beings – the souls – who escape rebirth. Not surprisingly moksha became the central focus of virtually all systems of Hindu philosophy. All of them ‘aim at the exposition of the nature of moksha and of the way to realize it’ (Lad 1967, Preface).

  The essential concept of moksha is the freeing of the soul from its entanglement with the world brought about through karma causality. Although the meaninglessness of existence formed a part of the perception of its evil the literature enumerated other aspects of life which showed its flawed nature. As we shall see later, Buddhism was more precise in its specification of the evils of existence with ‘suffering’ as its main focus. Hindu thought lacked a comparable emphasis but rather pointed out the ‘unwholesomeness, defectiveness and impermanence’ of phenomenal existence. Driven by his senses man strove in vain for pleasures, possessions, power and the like which rarely brought lasting satisfaction and in any case it all ended in death. The Upanishads as well as the Gita assume ‘the radical defectiveness’ of life (Koller 1982, 172). Samsaric existence, according to Gita ‘is the embodiment of evil and defectiveness’ (ibid.). Lord Krishna, for example, instructs Arjuna that “(earthly) delights are the wombs of dukkha (sorrow)” and that “birth is the place of dukkha”(Herman 1991, 115). Koller (1982, 172) writes of the ‘widespread Hindu attitude that pain, fear, anxiety and death are our constant companions’ in our ‘interminable journey through the cycles of life and death’. Above all what devalued the world in Hindu thought was the transitory nature of everything. Earthly life was reduced to naught by the ‘metaphysical worthlessness of the transitory, death-consecrated world’ with wisdom ‘weary of its senseless bustle’ (Weber 1968, 170).

  Path to Liberation: How could humans be liberated from their samsaric existence ? This became the central question for classical Hindu philosophy. The road to moksha as well as the state of the soul or the self after liberation emerged as a matter of contention among the various philosophical schools. The general answer of the Upanishads seems to be that the main source of human bondage is two-fold: desire or craving for life and ignorance of one’s true self. And they are related. Thus the Upanishads taught that ‘all things are vanity, and only man is fool enough to desire them. He thirsts for life and the fullness of it, not knowing that it is this very love of life that keeps him a bond slave to the twin evils of karma and samsara – samsara that is like a well without water and man the frog that helplessly struggles in it’ (Zaehner1966, 63). In other words it was ignorance that made humans a slave of desire and it had to be overcome by knowledge. The human being’s instinctual attachment to the world is strong but it needs to be overcome by the higher faculties of reason and self-control which distinguishes humans from the beasts. In the Gita Krishna speaks of “Lust, the ever present enemy of the wise man (jnani)” which “envelops true knowledge (jnana) like an unquenchable fire” (Herman 1991,116).

  The knowledge required was that concerning the nature of one’s true and deeper self and its relationship to the ultimate reality. According to one of the major schools of thought, Advaita Vedanta, the true self or Atman was identical with Brahman or the ultimate reality. Once this identity was realized the illusory or misleading duality of the self (Atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman) came to an end and liberation from the samsaric world followed. This “knowledge” was in the nature of an enlightenment or illumination. The quest for this knowledge and self-realization requires inner detachment from the samsaric world and reflection on the deeper levels of one’s inner self. That is what leads to the realization of this identity and freedom from desire. The famous Upanishadic proclamation, “thou art that”, sums up this self-realization. As Katha Upanishad puts it “A man who is free from desire beholds the majesty of the Self through tranquility of the senses and the mind and becomes free from grief” (Ross 1952, 44). He is no longer bothered by hunger, thirst, sorrow or confusion. He does not worry about old age and death. He experiences “the delight of life and mind and fullness of peace and eternity” (44). Is this symbolism and rhetoric or is it a description of reality ? We shall take this point up later. Suffice to say at this stage that Hindu scriptures and philosophies differ in their understanding of the nature of moksha and the state of the soul after it is “liberated” from samsara. The kind of liberation we have described above is the classical Upanishadic view of moksha. It is also the one held by the school of Advaita (monistic) Vedanta. Note that it allows moksha to take place in this life. The one who has conquered desire and realized his true cosmic or transcendental identity is known as Jivanmukta or one who is living and yet freed from life. This concept too will have to be scrutinized later (see below).

  Although the path of knowledge or jnana-yoga was considered the superior path to liberation, other paths were also acknowledged later: the path of devotion or Bhakti-yoga and the path of action or karma-yoga. The Bhagwadgita proclaims all three as valid means of liberation. Unlike the pantheism of the Upanishads, Bhakti or devotion is theistic in its conception of the highest reality. In the Gita Lord Krishna reveals himself as a loving and caring God. Wholehearted and unreserved devotion to the Lord can free humans from the grip of samsara. Through the grace of Lord Krishna one’s karmic accumulations are nullified and the liberated self enjoys eternal union with the Lord. As Hinduism evolved into a polytheistic religion it extended the same idea to other deities. Karma yoga, the other path to liberation, involves active participation in the world in accordance with one’s Dharma or caste duty. But how can this lead to liberation? For is this duty not expected of all Hindus? Yes, but there is a difference. The essential point here is that action has to be disinterested, i.e. free of desire. When one acts without desire the action is not binding. There is no karmic accumulation. It is performed in the spirit of inner detachment such that one acts but without any expectation of rewards. It is a form of renunciation in action. Through such action or Karma yoga the cause of suffering (dukkha), the craving or desire, is destroyed and one achieves liberation (Herman 1991, 119-21; Zaehner 1966, 102-3).

  We turn next to some of the socio-cultural aspects of moksha. Was it meant to be universal, i.e. available to all, or were there differences according to caste and other affiliations? Here we see the importance of caste in
Hinduism. In the early Upanishads the attainment of spiritual knowledge and liberation was seen as accessible to Brahmins, the highest caste, alone. The later Upanishads extend the scope to the other two “twice-born” castes, namely the Kshatriyas and Vaishyas. Evidently the lowest caste, namely the Shudras were left out with no hope of liberation from samsara. The Gita, however, appears to universalize its message. Even the Shudras could achieve liberation if they followed one of the three yogas or paths laid down by Krishna. Indeed by extension release from samsara was available to Hindus and non-Hindus alike.

  Turning to the social organization of Hinduism we see that apart from the caste system there is also a concept of the principal values or goals of life as well as a division of the life cycle into a number of phases. The four goals of life were artha or material prosperity, dharma or performance of caste duties, kama or seeking pleasure including sexual enjoyment and moksha or spiritual quest and liberation. But how could one seek moksha while pursuing these other mundane earthly goals at the same time? Part of the answer seems to be provided by the life cycle and its stages. The first stage was that of a Brahmacharin, i.e. a youth who is a student, is celibate and is practicing self-discipline. The next stage was that of a Householder, i.e. a married man with children, the third that of a Vanaprasthi, i.e. one who is in the process of disengaging himself from his worldly involvements, and the final one was that of a Sannyasi, i.e. an old man who has freed himself from all social and worldly involvements and is immersed in spiritual thought and practices aimed at moksha. As we can see here the goal of moksha, though acknowledged as the most important of life’s goals, has been integrated into the average Hindu (male)’s life1. Clearly liberation has to be sought after the individual has done his worldly duties including the production of offspring, especially sons, required to perform certain religious rites following his death.