Anti-Natalism

by Ken Coates

  Rejectionism is a creed likely to appeal to a small minority of population. This minority will probably grow with time but at the moment it is difficult to predict the future since we know very little about people’s attitude towards existence and how it might evolve as social conformity loses its firm grip on the populace and there is greater awareness of the ethical and metaphysical issues involved in procreation. What is important is to establish rejectionism clearly as a philosophical perspective on existence – as one of the possible existential choices - and to facilitate its practice throughout the world. It should take its place as one secular belief system among others. Here we need to distinguish between voluntary childlessness a) motivated by pragmatic considerations, e.g. lifestyle or lack of interest in parenting, which does not or need not involve any particular ‘world-view’, and b) that based on philosophical principles, notably prevention of suffering to future beings. It is important to recognize that the latter entails rejecting existence as the source of suffering whereas the former does not. This is not to deny that the distinction is ‘ideal typical’ and in reality the two may overlap. Furthermore, childlessness itself – no matter for what reason –presents problems and issues that rejectionists share with the others. Nonetheless it is important to differentiate between pragmatic and philosophical reasons for voluntary childlessness which sometimes get conflated under the term ‘anti-natalism’.

  Rejectionism in Practice: It is instructive to compare religious and secular approaches relevant to rejectionism. World religions, notably Hinduism and Buddhism (which we have discussed in this book), as well as Christianity, make a distinction between lay and virtuoso religiosity. The Hindu ascetics, the Buddhist and Christian monks may be seen as religious virtuosi with their abstemious lifestyles and wholesale dedication to their spiritual objective. Sexual abstinence is a part of this mode of life. All three religions lay particular emphasis on this since sexuality forms the strongest bond to existence and its perpetuation. It is a part of materiality and earthly desires which constitute an impediment to achieving liberation from bondage to nature and existence. The laity, on the other hand, lives a regular life as a part of the mainstream of society while following the moral and other guidelines of their religion. One can think of this as a form of stratification, a division between the religious virtuosi and the masses. Historically a gender division has also been involved, to a greater or lesser extent, often excluding women from the ranks of the virtuosi and in any case subordinating them to men in the hierarchy of status and power.

  The underlying assumption has been that the necessary ‘knowledge’ and enlightenment, the renunciation of the world, the disciplined life, in short the challenging task of liberation can be truly desired and achieved by men and then only a select few. By contrast the masses are expected to marry, have progeny and continue social existence. In short, the goal of transcendence and emancipation, e.g. Buddhist nirvana, is reserved for the select few while the many are condemned to dull conformity.

  The situation is very different with a secular belief system such as modern rejectionism. It is universal in its application and thoroughly egalitarian in nature. Any thoughtful person, male or female, rich or poor, highly educated or otherwise, can be a rejectionist. Furthermore, the rejectionist is expected to lead a normal life in every respect except one, albeit of a consequential nature, i.e. non-procreation. If reproduction is considered as an integral component of a ‘normal’ life then in that respect the position of the rejectionist is akin to that of a religious monk or nun. However unlike the latter the rejectionist does not have to practice sexual abstinence or any other form of asceticism. Moreover her beliefs are based on reasoning and evidence and her values are also clear with compassion as the core. No supernatural beliefs or imaginary state of affairs, such as that claimed for the state of Buddhist nirvana, are involved. She is not seeking a state of bliss or beatitude for herself. She is not self-oriented but other-oriented, seeking to protect future persons from the ills of existence.

  There is another important difference. Religious monkhood, notably Christian and Buddhist, tends to be an organized community. Hinduism, however, accepts a plurality of approaches such as belonging to some form of ‘ashrams’ or retreats run by a Guru or an association, as well as living as a wandering monk, i.e. as a ‘sadhu’ or ‘sannyasi’. The laity usually show respect for the sannyasis and support their livelihood through material gifts and other forms of assistance. While the comparison between monks and rejectionists may be somewhat far-fetched we need to note the similarities. The monks or nuns share a set of beliefs and thus constitute a ‘community’ of believers. At least in this sense rejectionists may also be said to form a community, people who share a set of beliefs. Of course monks are a part of an ‘organized’ community. Rejectionists, however small their number, have the potential to form at least a network, an association of some sort worldwide. Here again technological progress is a facilitator. The internet provides a viable means of communication enabling the exchange of ideas and mutual support.

  In fact there is already a fairly robust presence of anti-natalism - a philosophical approach which rejects procreation in order to prevent suffering- in the form of websites, blogs and online debate. An interesting hybrid – partly opposed to procreation on environmental grounds – is VHEMT or voluntary human extinction movement which has been in existence for many years as an internet-based association. However it appears to be run almost entirely by its founder and consists of a loose network of ‘members’. The only condition of membership is not to procreate3. There are also a large number of websites which act as a source of moral support and networking for the ‘childfree’ or the voluntarily childless irrespective of their reason for non-procreation4. There is some overlap between the two, e.g. the ‘moral childfree’ website which is against procreation on grounds of prevention of suffering but has little concern with related philosophical issues. What we have in effect is a plethora of websites and blogs with one group centered on ‘anti-natalism’ and the other simply on the state of being ‘childfree’. It appears that the latter caters mainly for those who have chosen childlessness on pragmatic grounds. On the other hand anti-natalism, i.e. non-procreation in order to prevent suffering, is an expression of modern rejectionism. However because of the wider connotation of the term anti-natalism, a variety of prefixes, e.g. ‘philosophical’, ‘philanthropic’, ‘altruistic’, and ‘compassionate’, have been used to identify this particular form of rejection of procreation which is aimed at the prevention of suffering. While rejectionists need to make a common cause with the ‘childfree’ i.e. voluntarily childless on pragmatic grounds, the distinctive identity of rejectionism also needs to be affirmed and strengthened. For although it shares many problems with the childfree, such as social stigma, and coping with aging it constitutes a distinctive moral and metaphysical world-view. In this regard it is comparable to say ‘rational humanism’.

  Should rejectionists seek to acknowledge that the core of beliefs and principled action which they share constitutes a valid basis for a community or fraternity? Such an acknowledgment demands the creation of a stronger identity, and a vehicle for mutual support. Thus far modern rejectionism has operated largely as an individual and private belief system, a personal philosophy and attitude to existence. And despite a good deal of ‘blogging’ and online debate around it – under the title of ‘anti-natalism’ - much of it tends to be pseudonymous. Some of the blogs are rather bizarre conveying the impression of an esoteric doctrine, something rather like a cult. In any case many people are unwilling to identify openly with rejectionist beliefs. This is an important point and has not received much attention from rejectionists. The ‘anti-natalist’ websites are largely concerned with debating the philosophical underpinnings of non-procreation with little attention to its social aspects which underline the problem of being open about these ‘counter-intuitive’ beliefs. This raises the problem of legitimizing rejectionist beliefs.
/>
  The question is whether things should be left as they are, considering that publicly known rejectionists are often academics, intellectuals, writers and artists who tend to value individualism and privacy. On the other hand it seems that they may be just the tip of an iceberg of many ordinary individuals who are rejectionists but about whom we know very little and who would welcome the fact that there may be thousands of people worldwide who think and perhaps also act as they do. It makes sense that those who share certain basic beliefs and values should acknowledge this commonality and come together. This could help to strengthen their beliefs and resolve and spread the ideals of rejectionism widely, perhaps converting more people to their beliefs.

  The word ‘conversion’ suggests an ideological movement with its publicity, recruitment, organization, membership, newsletter etc. Many rejectionists may have a strong aversion to such an approach and may prefer to retain the privacy of their beliefs and action. But this is a matter worth arguing about. For what is certain is that it is not easy to be an open rejectionist while remaining a part of the mainstream society. The rejectionist stance is likely to meet with strong disapproval not only from society in general but perhaps also from one’s own relatives and friends. It can leave the rejectionist not only isolated but also vulnerable. It is an attitude to life that needs legitimization and placed at par with not only other, e.g. lifestyle-based, forms of non-procreation but also with natalist and pro-existence attitudes.

  Furthermore we need to know a great deal more about, and understand much better, people’s attitudes towards their own life and towards existence more generally. For this we need surveys, interviews and other forms of investigation. For example questions such as, ‘given the chance would you like to live your life all over again?’, ‘is it fair to bring children into the world and expose them to all the suffering that living involves?’ could well form a part of such an inquiry. On the face of it such questions and inquiries may seem bizarre to ordinary people but one has to start somewhere. Asking such basic questions about existence could be an excellent way of raising awareness of the underlying philosophical issues. It may be necessary to start with those likely to empathize with or appreciate the nature of such an inquiry. In short, we need a sociology of rejectionism to complement its philosophy. Compared with the latter the former is seriously under-developed. An Institute or Association of rejectionists could both attract people from a wider intellectual background and facilitate further exploration and thus greater acceptance of rejectionism. It could be an important step in moving it from the fringes towards the mainstream and furthering the legitimacy of rejectionist beliefs. An internet-based journal or newsletter may be another useful step.

  In this context we need to take note of another important difference between religious and secular rejectionism. Religion confers the all-important legitimacy on the ideology and practice of monkhood and world-negation. The case of Buddhism is particularly interesting in this regard. As Ligotti (2012, 130), for example, points out the Buddha’s teachings are nothing if not thoroughly ‘pessimistic’ and world-negating. Yet Buddhism has a general acceptance and legitimacy which secular ‘pessimists’ e.g. rejectionists, lack. The reasons for this are not difficult to find. For one, Buddhism as a religion for the masses, especially in its Mahayana version, plays down the ‘pessimist’ aspects of the religion and emphasizes compassion and right way of life. For another the ascetic way of life and celibacy is reserved for the select minority of monks associated with the spirituality and mystique of nirvana. Moreover Buddhism is not against procreation as far as the mass of believers are concerned.

  By contrast, as a secular and democratic belief system modern rejectionism is very different. There are no transcendent beliefs associated with it and it is primarily anti-natal in its orientation. Be that as it may, the important question is what can be done to promote the legitimacy of rejectionism? The first step in this direction might be to establish the contours of this world-view as a form of existential philosophy. In this regard Benatar’s work represents a major step forward and seems to have been a catalyst for its further development. It is also important, as mentioned above, to institutionalize anti-natalism as a belief system. This could then underline the fact that both pro-natal and anti-natal attitudes are at bottom philosophical in nature, and involve existential choices. Rejectionism could thus emerge as a viable form of existential philosophy.

  Endnote – Chapter 5

  1. For a brief introductory outline to Nietzsche’s thought see e.g. Earnshaw (2006). For an insightful discussion of Nietzsche’s attitude to rejectionist view of life see Neiman (2002, 203-27).

  2. The case for increasing secularization and the persistence of religion in the modern world is made by various authors in Pollack and Olson (2011). However they focus more on church membership, attendance, belief in god and such general indicators of religiosity. They have little to say about attitudes and beliefs concerning specific issues, e.g. contraception and abortion, and their relationship to secularization. An interesting idea offered in this book is that of ‘belief without belonging’ and its opposite ‘belonging without belief’. The latter category will apply, for example, to Catholics who practice forms of birth control forbidden by the Church or who may be pro-choice regarding abortion.

  3. See www.vhemt.org

  4. See Basten (2009, 15-18) for a list of Facebook and Web-based groups.

  Chapter 6: FAQs about Rejectionism

  Q. What is Rejectionism ?

  A. It is a philosophical viewpoint that is opposed to existence. It finds life inherently and deeply flawed in a number of ways. First and foremost life inflicts an inordinate amount of pain and suffering ; second, it is totally unnecessary in that it is without any goal or purpose as such except its own perpetuation. Third, human existence is particularly reprehensible in that it inflicts life consciously upon innocent sentient beings, viz. children, who have not asked to be brought here and are thus victimized by being conscripted to the unnecessary process of birth, death and rebirth. Butchering and eating animals and subjecting them to cruelties of all kinds is another feature of human existence. Rejectionism is about moral and metaphysical rejection of existence on these grounds. The main implication of modern, secular rejectionism is abstaining from procreation. Another name for rejectionism might therefore be philosophical anti-natalism.

  Q. Why this new term? Surely anti-natalism covers what you are saying quite well?

  A. True, anti-natalism is the expression used generally for being opposed to birth. But It is too broad a term. Thus national policies for limiting population can be described as anti-natalist. Individual decision to remain childless, for whatever reason, can be described as anti-natalist. The focus here is on the result or the effect which is to prevent birth. It tells us nothing about the reasons for being against birth. That is where rejectionism comes in. It underlines the point that in this case anti-natalist behavior is based on some philosophical principles and attitudes towards life in general. This is different from deciding not to procreate for personal or some other general reason, e.g. environmental.

  Q. Rejectionism sounds like nihilism?

  A. It may, but rejectionism is not nihilistic. Nihilism is a creed, if it can be so described, that believes in nothing. It espouses no values. Rejectionism, on the other hand, is above all motivated by compassion for all living things and their sufferings. It is essentially a moral standpoint. It seeks to prevent future people from unnecessary pain and suffering. Not having children does involve sacrifices and deprivations for the childless. Rejectionists are prepared to pay this price on account of their beliefs. Rejectionism is a secular, not a religious belief system but in many ways it is similar to Buddhism.

  Q. At any rate it does sound like a pessimistic doctrine ?

  A. Pessimism or optimism, like beauty, is often in the beholders’ eye. It is judgment from a relative standpoint. Rejectionism can be seen as hopeful in that it holds out hope for freeing h
uman beings from bondage to nature, the evil of existence and the immorality of procreation. From this viewpoint pessimism implies the opposite, i.e. the attitude that ‘there is no alternative’, ‘make the most of it’, ‘look on the bright side, ‘you can’t turn the clock back’ etc. or pass the buck to God or nature.

  Sometimes optimism-pessimism refers to a person’s general outlook or disposition, i.e. whether it is hopeful or otherwise. Or it may refer to judgment about a specific matter, e.g. whether you are bullish or bearish about the movement of the stock market, the unemployment situation etc. But these have nothing to do with rejectionism. Admittedly both rejectionism and its opposite, i.e. conformity or acceptance, imply value judgment. Conventional wisdom is definitely in favor of ‘optimism’. But the overused metaphor of ‘the glass is half-full or half-empty’ would be misleading in this context. The glass is full. The question is full of what? You have to drink it but it may be full of trans fat, saturated fat and other harmful substances although it may have some good things too, e.g. protein, and might taste good, like a lot of fast food or rich dessert. Rejectionism is based on the idea that don’t invite others to the party where the food or drink is contaminated. That is not pessimism but common decency.

  Q. Can you reject existence and still lead a normal life ?

  A. What rejectionism requires is non-procreation. Apart from that you can be and do whatever you like. You don’t have to be an ascetic or in any other ways deprive yourself of anything. True, childlessness presents emotional and other challenges including care and support in old age. But these problems are not unique to rejectionists. You don’t reproduce but you can adopt children. You may be a rejectionist and be fond of children. Not having your own children you might develop a closer relationship with your nephews and nieces and your sibling. You may forge strong friendships. You can marry, live with a partner, have sexual relations. None of these are against rejectionism.