Ethics of Procreation and Existence

4 Paper and Commentary

A Schopenhauerian View on the Ethics of Procreation and Existence

Syeda Safdar, Grassfield High School, 21’ In February 2019, a 27-year-old Indian man declared his plan to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent (Pandey, 2019). Raphael Samuel, while regarding the lawsuit in a humorous manner, is resolute in his belief in the immorality of procreation: “There’s no point to humanity. So many people are suffering” (Pandey, 2019). Samuel’s views are not false; despite life expectancy nearly doubling since the 1900s, the percent of the world living in extreme poverty dropping to about 10%, and crime rates in the west falling by half since the 1990s, the world is still worsening notably in less apparent aspects (Beltekian & Ortiz-Ospina, 2018; Farrell, Tilley, & Tseloni, 2014; Roser, 2013).

Overpopulation is still a concern despite dropping fertility rates (Jezard, 2018). Anthropogenic environmental risks are impacting the quality of life (Swanborough, 2018). Mental health in adolescents is considerably worsening (Knopf, Park, & Mulye, 2008). Although humans as a species may be thriving, there are existing concerning factors pointing to the exacerbation of human suffering and the worsening state of the environment. In artist J. Cole’s “Friends”, the candid message of drug addiction combined with the conspicuous state of damaged mental health in today’s youth demonstrates the severe and almost normative adversities in society (Cole, 2018). In the same line of thinking, The Myth of Sisyphus by philosopher Albert Camus describes existentialism through the story of Sisyphus’s eternal punishment (Camus & O’Brien, 1942). Together, the belief in the futility of existence and the overt suffering amongst younger generations raises the idea that nonexistence may be preferable, or even for the best. Structured around this very idea, a niche philosophy believing in the absolute reduction of human and ecological suffering has been thriving steadily since its ancient roots: anti-natalism (Carter, 2019). Although the concept of non-consensual birth sounds absurd, anti-natalism concludes that since humans are incapable of conveying consent to be born, it is immoral to impose a purposeless life of misery. There is only one means of prevention: the abstinence of procreation (Singh 2018). Specific motivations for anti-natalism vary, but include a philanthropic worry of human suffering, a misanthropic view of human nature, and an environmentalist perspective (Benatar & Wasserman, 2015). The idea of anti-natalism is still widely unpopular due to reasoning that life is worth living for the possible benefits, religious views, or the desire for family (Palazzi 2014; Smuts 2014). The discourse between the two sides of natalism boils down to the question: Is procreation immoral? When considering the ethics of existence, the state of the world, and the impacts of existing, the morality and implications of birth imply that it is morally preferable to stop procreation.

Hope Humanities 5 Anti-natalists view suffering as the general norm. Reflected in the pessimistic ideas of philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, unsatisfiable desires drive the will to live and people ultimately spend the rest of their lives working, worrying, suffering, and inevitably dying (Schopenhauer, 2004). Evil is a very real thing in the world, and the concept of good is only the absence of it (Schopenhauer, 2004). Existence is essentially the unstoppable march of time filled with abundant suffering and very few pleasures, which interrupts the content calm of non-existence (Schopenhauer, 2004).

While considering the ethics of natalism, the experience of life is simplified to pleasure or suffering, happiness or unhappiness. The philosophy of anti-natalism utilizes negative utilitarianism, which prioritizes the minimization of suffering over the maximization of happiness (Leslie, 2002). German philosopher Hermann Vetter created a decision matrix modeling this idea in the context of producing a child, in which the act of not producing the child would always triumph over the possibility of producing a child experiencing more or less happiness by being born (Vetter, 1971). Professor David Benatar’s asymmetry models a similar idea of birth with respect to the existence or absence of pleasure and pain (Benatar, 2012). His main ideas are as follows: The presence of pain is bad, the presence of pleasure is good, the absence of pain is good, and the absence of pleasure is not bad (Benatar, 2012). With this logic, the preferred way to prevent inevitable misery would be to avoid taking a gamble in the creation of life since the nonexistent cannot suffer. If utilitarianism, the belief in maximizing happiness is emphasized, the negatives cannot be sufficiently compensated with the positives. According to Schopenhauer, the greatest pleasures in life are not comparable to the worst pains, and desires are never fully satisfied (Schopenhauer, 2004). Schopenhauer’s famous quote regarding procreation reflects the same view of suffering: If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence? or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood (Schopenhauer, 2004) Since there is no foreseeable method to ensure the happiness of all individuals on Earth, negative utilitarianism is the only view with a theoretically plausible solution, which is ending procreation (Schultz, 2018).

Misanthropic Reasoning

Unlike the altruistic intent to philanthropic anti-natalism, misanthropes hold a pessimistic view of humanity and its destructive nature. This unfavorable perspective on the human race is enough reason to justify the end of procreation for misanthropic anti-natalists (Benatar, 2016). A look at the combination of innate characteristics of human nature and regular human behavior can illustrate the accuracy of this view.

6 Paper and Commentary Evidence suggests that humans are naturally inclined to violent tendencies. A psychopharmacology study on the effect of aggression on mice’s brains compared to humans resulted in researchers concluding that humans may crave violence just as other mentally rewarding stimulants such as food or drugs (Bryner, 2008; Couppis & Kennedy, 2008). Moreover, a report published by Nature found humans may be genetically predisposed to killing each other by comparing habits of lethal violence of over a thousand different mammals to humans (Gómez, Verdú, González-Megías & Méndez, 2016). These intrinsic characteristics in humanity contribute to the cruel actions committed throughout history and today. Some of the most damaging atrocities to happen in the world’s history depict the lowest points of humanity. The 400-year transatlantic slave trade is estimated to have a death toll of around 17 million, with the degradation and inhumanization of fellow human beings as the unquestioned norm for a significant period of time. Years of religious wars caused by human hostility resulted in countless deaths from all sides (“Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th Century,” n.d.). Mass genocides occurred repeatedly throughout history resulting from hate-motivated or political means and reached death tolls of over hundreds of thousands (Roser & Nagdy, n.d.). The capability of humans to perform acts of violence has no limits and even the most abundant acts of humanitarianism would not have a significant impact on the population as a whole. Referencing more recent cases, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) reported over 130,000 investigations of animal cruelty in 2016 alone (“Prosecutions Annual Report 2018,” 2018). Modern slavery was estimated to include 40.3 million people, including forced labour and forced marriage in 2016 (International Labour Organization, 2016). Aside from mass scale atrocities or carnage, smaller individual examples of human selfishness or greed evident in everyday life also demonstrate how the presence of humanity makes the world a dimmer, darker place.

Ecological Motivation

Similar to the misanthropic view, environmentally concerned anti-natalists are more focused on the effects of human activity. The harmful anthropogenic impacts on nature could be gradually reversed if humans desist from procreating. The Volunteer Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT) advocates for a peaceful extinction of the human race for this same reason (“About The Movement,” n.d.). Making the decision to remain childfree for the environment seems to be the most agreeable reasoning for anti-natalism due to the copious amounts of empirical evidence of human-induced natural issues. According to the global risks report of 2018, the risks identified to be the most likely to occur and as having the biggest impact on humans were almost all environmentally-related (“The Global Risks Report 2018,” 2018). In addition, many identified are direct or indirect products of human activity, for example, “failure of climate-change

Hope Humanities 7 mitigation and adaptation,” or “biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse” (“The Global Risks Report 2018,” 2018). Although there are attempted efforts to reduce the disastrous effects on the Earth, just the act of being will negatively affect the environment. A recent environmental study published by Environmental Research Letters confirmed that the most effective way to fight climate change is to have one fewer child, saving 58.2 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year (Wynes & Nicholas, 2017). Overall, it is evident that humanity has a significant impact on the environment and that any chance at a more ecologically hopeful future will be hindered by excessive procreation.

Natalist Perspective

Due to the majority of the population not being opposed to the idea of procreation and having general optimism for existence and the future, arguments against anti-natalism are abundant and can range from philosophical opposition to the ideals to anti-natalism or individual reasoning for having children. In response to philanthropic anti-natalism, it is questioned why suicide is not utilized to escape the suffering present in an individual’s life (Caplan, 2018). In the words of Greek Philosopher Epicurus: Much worse is he who says that it were good not to be born, but when once one is born to pass with all speed through the gates of Hades. For if he truly believes this, why does he not depart from life? It were easy for him to do so, if once he were firmly convinced. If he speaks only in mockery, his words are foolishness, for those who hear believe him not (Epicurus, 2004) It is important to make the distinction between anti-natalism and pro-mortalism. Anti-natalists are focused on preventing the suffering of future generations so that the heavy choice of suicide should not need to be considered by anyone in the first place, and are nor majorly concerned with themselves. They only encourage the existent, suffering or not, to make the same childfree decision which would not be possible if suffering individuals ended their life, thus continuing the cycle of natalism with all of the suffering it brings (Benatar, 2012). The survival of anti-natalism relies on activism, and cannot create a significant impact as an individual-oriented philosophy. In general, the larger impact of having children is not thoroughly considered as people have their own smaller individual reasons for procreating. A critical look at individual rationale for having biological children reveals that natalist reasons for procreating are fundamentally weak and almost entirely selfish. The VHEMT published a chart listing the most common stated reasons for creating another being, the “real” reasons, and suggested alternatives (“Why Breed?,” n.d.). A few examples include but are not limited to: “I just love children,” “Want to see a little me,” or “To carry on family name” (“Why Breed?,” n.d.). Almost all of the reasons have implied personal gain behind the logic, and a true desire for children could easily be fulfilled with adopted or fostered children rather than biological. Based on

8 Paper and Commentary this, there are no convincing reasons for the procreation of biological children other than selfish motivations.

Resolution

Procreation is inherently immoral from a rational standpoint; the suffering in the world, the overwhelming negative implications of human nature, and the worsening condition of the planet are clear indicators that the continuation of humanity may be the most unethical action to the environment and all organisms involved. It is likely that anti-natalism will continue to remain an unpopular philosophy as procreation is a human biological drive and a social norm which will probably never completely desist in the manner anti-natalists envision. However, there has been a recent statistical rise in voluntary childlessness which may lead to a societal shift away from the romanticization of procreation to a more rational viewpoint as a possibility (“The Rise of Childlessness,” 2017). The emergence of contemporary outspoken anti-natalists, such as David Benatar, demonstrate that the philosophy is slowly growing. In addition, action is being taken in order to deal with overpopulation concerns which may slightly relieve population-related environmental issues if prioritized (“Organizations Dealing With Overpopulation,” n.d.). Not everyone may agree with the dreary Schopenhauerian perspective of existence, but it is worth considering resisting biological human nature for the benefit of the world, before humanity essentially destroys itself. References About The Movement. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.vhemt.org/aboutvhemt.htm. Beltekian, D., & Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2018, March 5). Extreme poverty is falling: How is poverty changing for higher poverty lines? Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/poverty-at-higher-poverty-lines. Benatar, D. (2019, November 14). Having children is not life-affirming: it’s immoral – David Benatar: Aeon Essays. Retrieved from https://aeon.co/essays/having-children-is-not-life-affirming-its-immoral. Benatar, D. (2016, April 5). ‘We Are Creatures That Should Not Exist’: The Theory Of Anti-Natalism. Retrieved from http://www.thecritique.com/articles/we-are-can’treatures-that-should-not-exist-the-theory-of-anti-natalism/. Benatar, D. (2012). Every conceivable harm: a further defence of anti-natalism. South African Journal of Phi-

losophy, 31(1), 128-164. Benatar, D., & Wasserman, D. (2015). Debating Procreation: Is it Wrong to Reproduce?. Oxford University

Press.

Bryner, J. (2008, January 17). Humans Crave Violence Just Like Sex. Retrieved from https://www.livescience. com/2231-humans-crave-violence-sex.html. Camus, A., & O’Brien, J. (1942). The Myth of Sisyphus: and Other Essays. New York: Vintage Books.

chives/2011/12/a_cursory_rejec.html. Carter, J. (2019, February 19). The FAQs: What (and Why) You Should Know About Anti-Natalism. Retrieved from https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/faqs-know-anti-natalism/. Cole, J. (2018). Friends. On KOD. Dreamville Records, Roc Nation and Interscope Records. Couppis, M. H., & Kennedy, C. H. (2008). The rewarding effect of aggression is reduced by nucleus accumbens dopamine receptor antagonism in mice. Psychopharmacology, 197(3), 449-456. Epicurus, B. (2004). Letter to Menoeceus (p. 45). University of Adelaide Library. Farrell, G., Tilley, N., & Tseloni, A. (2014). Why the crime drop?. Crime and justice, 43(1), 421-490. Gómez, J. M., Verdú, M., González-Megías, A., & Méndez, M. (2016). The phylogenetic roots of human lethal violence. Nature, 538(7624), 233. International Labour Organization. (2017). Global estimates of modern slavery: Forced labour and forced marriage. Jezard, A. (2018, April 5). Even as birth rates decline overpopulation remains a global challenge. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/04/almost-everywhere-people-are-having-fewer-children-so-do-westill-need-to-worry-about-overpopulation. Knopf, D., Park, M. J., & Mulye, T. P. (2008). The mental health of adolescents: A national profile, 2008. San

Francisco, CA: National Adolescent Health Information Center. Leslie, J. (2002). The End of the World: the science and ethics of human extinction. Routledge. Palazzi, F. (2014). A Set of Objections to David Benatar’s Anti-Natalism. British Journal of Undergraduate

Philosophy, 12-36. Pandey, G. (2019, February 7). Indian man to sue parents for giving birth to him. Retrieved from https://www.bbc.com/ news/world-asia-india-47154287. Prosecutions Annual Report 2016. (2016). Retrieved from https://www.rspca.org.uk/whatwedo/endcruelty/prosecution?utm_source=PR&utm_medium=redirect&utm_campaign=Prosecution. Organizations dealing with overpopulation. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://overpopulation-project.com/organizations-dealing-with-overpopulation/. Roser, M. (2013). Life expectancy. Our World in Data. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy.

Roser, M., & Nagdy, M. (n.d.). Genocides. Retrieved from https://ourworldindata.org/genocides. Schopenhauer, A. (2004). On the Sufferings of the World. Life, death & meaning: Key philosophical readings on the

10 Paper and Commentary Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. xxii+ 138. Utilitas, 30(4), 493-498. Selected Death Tolls for Wars, Massacres and Atrocities Before the 20th Century. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://necrometrics.com/pre1700b.htm#African. Singh, A. (2018). The Hypothetical Consent Objection to Anti-Natalism. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 21(5), 1135-1150. Slote, M. A. (1964). An empirical basis for psychological egoism. The Journal of Philosophy, 61(18), 530-537. Smuts, A. (2014). To be or never to have been: Anti-Natalism and a life worth living. Ethical Theory and Moral Prac-

tice, 17(4), 711-729. Swanborough, J. (2018, January 19). Humanity’s most existential risks are getting worse. Here’s a major reason why. Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2018/01/humanity-s-most-existential-risks-are-gettingworse-heres-why/. The Global Risks Report 2018. (2018, January 17). Retrieved from https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risksreport-2018. The rise of childlessness. (2017, July 27). Retrieved from https://www.economist.com/international/2017/07/27/therise-of-childlessness. Vetter, H. (1971). Utilitarianism and new generations. Mind, 80(318), 301-302. Why Breed? (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.vhemt.org/whybreed.pdf. Wynes, S., & Nicholas, K. A. (2017). The climate mitigation gap: education and government recommendations miss the most effective individual actions. Environmental Research Letters, 12(7), 074024.