Anti-Natalism

by Ken Coates

  Although you would have preferred not to be born you accept your own existence as a given and live your life like anyone else. Rejectionism, you have to keep in mind, is about prevention, preventing future people to be born. But other than that you lead a ‘normal’ life. There are of course a growing number of people who are not rejectionists but prefer not to have children for other reasons. They seem to lead a normal life.

  Q. Isn’t the anti-existential and anti-natalist stance of rejectionism very different from the positive, spiritual dimension implicit in the concepts of Moksha and Nirvana ?

  A. Certainly there is a difference. These two religious notions of liberation are premised on faith and a supernatural belief system. Both believe in rebirth of the same ‘self’, ‘soul’ or entity in different physical forms – human or otherwise – through the ages. What they seek is release of the ‘self’ from the interminable cycle of births and deaths. Liberation from existence is the essential aim or goal. In this respect modern rejectionism, with its non-procreation and rejection of earthly existence, is very similar to the ideal of moksha and nirvana.

  Note, however, that there is much debate about being able to attain moksha or liberation in this life (‘Jivanmukti’) and what that means for the one who has attained that state. The state of nirvana in this life is even more contentious. The debate seems to end in pointing to a state that cannot be described in words or by any other mundane expression. It is considered as beyond subject-object distinction and thus implies some form of a mystical state. The Buddha, it will be recalled, refused to elaborate on what exactly nirvana meant and discouraged speculation about its nature. Let us also note in passing that what happens to the ‘soul’ or ‘self’ after liberation, i.e. post mortem, remains something of a mystery in the case of both moksha and nirvana.

  By contrast, there is nothing mystical or mysterious about modern Rejectionism. It is entirely secular and this-worldly in orientation. Above all the crucial difference between moksha and nirvana on the one hand and modern rejectionism on the other is that the latter aims at liberating future generations, not existing individuals from the bondage of existence. Of course the individual self that is liberated in the case of moksha or nirvana, will indirectly liberate its future progeny also. But moksha and nirvana are essentially about the existing individual, i.e. they are ego-centric, whereas rejectionism is other-oriented or altruistic.

  Q. What are the core values of rejectionism ?

  A. The rejectionist philosophy is essentially about compassion. It is about a deep empathy with the suffering of all sentient beings, especially humans, and a desire to prevent avoidable suffering. There are other values, notably, meaningfulness. Existence lacks an inherent rationale, a purpose or a goal which could justify putting up with all the ‘evil’ it entails. Of course one can think of many ways of justifying existence. But ultimately it all boils down to its acceptance and continuation simply because we find ourselves saddled with it by chance. This contingency or lack of a reason for existence is a part of rejectionist belief. Thirdly, freedom of choice is another value. Procreation imposes existence on beings who have not chosen to be born. It amounts to a form of enslavement or conscription which is an immoral act on two counts: violating the autonomy of a potential being, and exposing them to pain and suffering. These are the moral and metaphysical values underlying Rejectionism.

  Q. Nietzsche argued that we who are a part of life cannot sit on judgment over life as a whole. It is wrong to set up an ‘ideal’ against which to judge real life and reject it because it does not measure up to the ideal. What is your response to Nietzsche’s challenge that ‘life is not an argument’?

  A. Nietzsche is one of the great philosophers of the 19th century, if not of all time, and is often labeled as an ‘existentialist’. As a young man he discovered Schopenhauer by chance and was bowled over by the radical atheism and the rejectionist implications of his philosophy. Although deeply influenced by Schopenhauer at first, Nietzsche later reacted strongly against his teachings. He totally rejected what he saw as Schopenhauer’s ‘resignationism’, i.e. his call for the abnegation of the will and the practice of asceticism. The idea of the ‘death of God’ and the coming decline, if not demise, of Christianity made Nietzsche fearful of the spread of nihilism. His clarion call was to affirm life, to embrace the world which is all we have, to celebrate life with all its pain and suffering treating it as a price we have to pay for all that is glorious and wonderful in life and in human civilization. Nietzsche was a believer in evolution, development and, yes, progress which he believed came about through the boldness and creativity of great individuals. This forward and upward march of humanity is what life is or should be about. For Nietzsche that is its ‘meaning’, if we must have one. Nietzsche’s general standpoint may be described as ‘life for life’s sake’, i.e. that life transcends logic, truth and morality.

  While Nietzsche has every right to hold on to and espouse his beliefs and values there is no basis for his argument that we as ‘insiders’ cannot pass judgment on life and that there is no vantage point outside the human community – sub specie aeternitatis, so to speak –from which to judge life. Here he is quite simply wrong. For as conscious beings we have lost our innocence which other living beings still have. We cannot help being aware of what life means and what it does to people. If human beings cannot make judgments about life who can? Only a theist could argue that humans have no right to judge life as a whole. Of course Nietzsche claimed that nature knows neither reason nor morality. So why should we expect these from her or apply these to her since life is a part of nature? Indeed Nietzsche rejected morality as a form of cowardice, a weakness, as something that is almost life-denying, something that inhibits and weakens the vital life force. The ‘superman’ of the future would trample over morality. Nietzsche recognized the irremediable conflict between nature and reason and came down on the side of nature, i.e. life. This is an existential choice and the rejection of reason and morality involves value judgment. Thus his attitude of acceptance and endorsement of life is as much a matter of choice as is its rejection. As ‘grown ups’ expelled from the Garden of Eden, we cannot hide behind naturalism. We have a choice and indeed a duty to choose. We cannot evade our metaphysical, and we should add moral, responsibility. As creators of value we also have to live by those values even if, paradoxically, they entail going against existence itself.

  Nietzsche’s greatness lies, among other things, in his recognition of the problem of ‘evil’ (i.e. moral evil) which he acknowledged as being an intrinsic part of existence. He was also fully aware of the role of religion and its theodicy in this context. Indeed we could say that how to justify a secular existence, which includes evil as an irremediable presence, was the philosophical problem he set out to solve. That life was a heavy burden which we should bear for the ‘greater good’ is implicit in his idea of ‘eternal recurrence’, i.e. that you must be able to embrace life to the point where you are prepared to accept and welcome repeated return to life, exactly the one you have led this time round. Consciously or otherwise Nietzsche here inverts the belief of Eastern religions which see the interminable cycle of births and deaths as a kind of ‘life imprisonment’, from which they seek release. Nietzsche, on the other hand, offers you a kind of eternal life – immortality – indeed asks you to will it as a cheerful Sisyphus rolling the same rock up the same hill ad infinitum. No wonder he puts the idea of eternal recurrence in the mouth of a ‘demon’.

  Q. If everyone stops procreation that would mean the eventual end of human species. How can a species will its own extinction?

  A. True, species other than the human cannot go against the ‘instinct’ of reproduction. The survival and continuation of the species is a nature-bound, unconscious process. Of course particular species do die out as a result of natural disasters, environmental destruction or through natural selection and evolution. It is only human beings that have this emancipatory potential and the ability, if not
also the obligation, to assume moral and metaphysical responsibility for our acts and to choose whether to reproduce or not. It is an individual choice. Throughout the ages holy men, and also women, of different religious persuasion have practiced celibacy although for reasons other than those of rejectionism. The latter adds another reason for voluntary childlessness.

  However, collectively the human species is most unlikely to commit voluntary euthanasia. True if all humanity is converted to rejectionism the end result would be the extinction of our species. But it is more likely that the human species will become extinct through other means. No doubt we have vested interests in preserving our species and it may seem a disloyal act to go against this interest. But you have to think of the rejectionist as a ‘conscientious objector’ in a war where you are expected to fight for your country, right or wrong.

  Q. Surely if rejectionists find life so bad shouldn’t they advocate and commit suicide?

  A. None of the rejectionist philosophies we have presented above advocate suicide. There is a misconception about the implications of rejectionism. All the approaches we have examined condemn existence on moral and metaphysical grounds, broadly conceived. Where they differ is in advocating different paths to liberation but suicide is not one of them. In modern thought about existential problems, it was Albert Camus who brought suicide into prominence linking it directly with the question ‘Is life worth living?’ For him a negative answer to this question logically entails suicide. Camus’s well-known remark in this regard is worth quoting here: ‘There is but one truly serious philosophical problem and that is suicide. Judging whether life is or is not worth living amounts to answering the fundamental question of philosophy. All the rest…..comes afterwards’. To put it in this way is to oversimplify both the question and the answer. The issue of existence and our attitude to it cannot be reduced to a simple either/or question. It does not occur to Camus that the more important question might well be whether to procreate or not, i.e. to bring a new life into what he recognizes as an ‘absurd’ existence. Be that as it may, let us review briefly our rejectionist philosophies and their attitude to suicide.

  Both Hinduism and Buddhism recommend withdrawal from the mainstream life, eschewing worldly goals and desires, practicing asceticism and leading a life of contemplation. This is a path to ‘holiness’ and to ensuring liberation from the wheel of life, i.e. attaining the supreme good of not being reborn. Here suicide does not feature at all because it will not attain this goal. It is the penance, the process of purification that the practitioner goes through, the freeing of the self from worldly cravings and one’s immersion into a spiritual inner world that leads to emancipation.

  In the case of Schopenhauer, the process is not dissimilar albeit the context is secular. Liberation from the will and from pain and suffering is sought through the renunciation of the will. The goal is to achieve freedom from the will-to-live while remaining in this world. It is similar to the Christian attitude of ‘in the world but not of it’. It involves withdrawal from all worldly desires and goals and the practice of asceticism of the severest kind in order to weaken the physical basis of willing in order to attain a state of ‘willlessness’. Schopenhauer discusses suicide at length and rejects it as an act of willing, an escapist act. It is a form of egoism and selfishness, not the practice of willlessness but rather a final and desperate act of willing to escape the misery of living. This is not something that Schopenhauer’s philosophy, in spite of its strong emphasis on life as suffering, would advocate.

  Hartmann’s approach is even further removed from the idea of suicide. He too in common with Schopenhauer holds that life’s pain and sufferings far exceed its ‘good’ including pleasure. But does he therefore advocate suicide? No. What he looks forward to is humanity’s collective resolve to transcend existence. Far from suicide, which for him attains nothing but the ending of a few lives, he is in favor of continuing normal living, including reproduction. This is necessary in order for civilization to develop further and to reach a level of consciousness where the mass of humankind sees the folly and futility of existence, of doing the bidding of the will and remaining nature’s accomplices.

  Unlike the philosophies discussed above Benatar’s approach focuses on how to spare future lives the pain and suffering of existence. And his solution is non-procreation. Suicide does not enter in this equation because he is not concerned with the liberation of existing people. The latter, as adults, are free to do as they please with their own lives. True he repudiates existence as an ‘evil’ primarily because it inflicts considerable pain and suffering, felt keenly by sentient beings. He has personally faced the question from some irate readers of his book “ If you feel so bad about life why don’t you go kill yourself?” He provides a detailed and cogent response to this challenge emphasizing the big difference between a) not starting new lives and b) ending existing lives through self-slaughter. The former is a preventive and peaceful act, the latter an act of violence and aggression against a person, a form of murder, albeit in this case of oneself. Rejectionism does not advocate killing. Quite apart from this fundamental objection there is also the question of the instinct of self-preservation, the vested interest one develops in one’s existence and the hurt and trauma suicide is bound to cause one’s relatives and friends. To Benatar’s basic argument we might add that the rejectionist has an additional reason to go on living and that is to further the cause of rejectionism. That said it also remains true that the rejectionist approach is not opposed to suicide if an adult chooses rationally to do so.

  Finally, Zapffe who was in favor of the gradual phasing out of the human race by limiting procreation below replacement levels or not having a child at all ( he chose to remain childless though married), says virtually nothing about suicide. It is not something that he considers as a solution to the problem of existence.

  Q. Does Rejectionism recognize that the world also contains much that is good, e.g. love, beauty, creativity, art, music, great literature, scientific and other forms of knowledge. If humans disappear all these good things will disappear too?

  A. Indeed rejectionists recognize and appreciate the ‘good’ that the world also contains. The disappearance of these things will certainly be a loss. But think of the heavy price we pay for the good things to come into being. The question really is whether you are prepared to pay the price in all the negativities that the world also contains. How would you balance for example the horror, the agony, the torture, the outrage of Auschwitz against the works of Shakespeare, Bach, Newton and Einstein ? Rejectionists, unlike for example Nietzsche, are not prepared to accept the view that for the sake of the positives of life we should accept all the evil that the world also contains. After all, life is a natural phenomenon; it just is. And we can either accept it or reject it. The choice is ours. As for our cultural achievements, they only make sense in the context of a human community. If humans disappear then no one will be left to regret the loss of these good things. At bottom human existence is no different from that of other species except that we are capable of providing all kinds of rationalizations for it, making a ‘necessity’ out of what is an entirely contingent affair.

  Q. Do Rejectionists welcome death as a release from the bondage of existence?

  A. Not necessarily. For once you have come into existence and grow up as a human being you become part of a network of relationships. You may be very interested or involved in your profession or in furthering some cause, i.e. quite apart from that of rejectionism, such as human rights or animal rights. The fact that you do not procreate does not mean that you cannot be an active participant in life like any non-rejectionist.

  Death means saying farewell to the many good things of life that you come to appreciate. You also know that your own death changes nothing except that your own awareness and experience of the world – its good and evil – come to an end. Of course we can imagine many people, rejectionists and non-rejectionists alike, looking forward to death as a
release from the ravages of aging including physical and mental decline. However our human ‘conspiracy’ requires that we do not complain and ‘grin and bear it’, that we keep going as long as possible. With the prolongation of life and with the coming of many medical interventions and technologies that can keep us alive even though our quality of life may have deteriorated severely the question of the ‘right to die’ and ‘death with dignity’ is assuming greater importance. Physician-assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia are likely to become major issues in the coming decades. How many old people, often physically or mentally incapacitated, secretly long for deliverance we shall never know. This too is a taboo subject and it would be ‘bad manners’ to admit to anything of the sort. Here again we come across one of the paradoxes of progress and the ‘absurdity’ of conscious existence.

  Q. Is rejectionism a form of Existentialism? What is the connection?

  A. Existentialism is a philosophy which focuses on human existence and especially on the individual as a living and acting being rather than on such questions as the fundamental nature of reality, epistemology, logic and the like. With some simplification it may be described as a philosophical and literary perspective that emphasizes the freedom and the responsibility of the individual to live his or her life in an ‘authentic’ manner. Existentialism can be theistic or atheistic. It is the latter that is more relevant to rejectionism. This brand of existentialism starts with the idea of the ‘contingency’ of human existence. Heidegger speaks of it as ‘thrownness’. Thus we are thrown into the world. We don’t know why we are here. Moreover we have no control over the gender, class, nationality etc. of our birth. There is no god who has ordained our being here. And there is no divine guidance about how we should live. In Sartre’s words “existence precedes essence”. As conscious existences we are left to make of our life what we would. To quote Sartre again, “We are condemned to be free”. It is up to each of us to decide not only how we live and act in the world but also our attitude to existence itself. Whether to say yes to existence, whether to have children or not are issues on which we have to make up our minds as free individuals.