Response to ABEMA Prime "What Is Antinatalism? Is Procreation An Act of Parents' Selfishness?"

Life is full of challenging events. Maybe you have thought at least for once that you shouldn't have been born, haven't you?

 This idea to find births negative is called 'antinatalism' and is gaining a lot of attention these days.

Antinatalism is usually defined as an idea that assigns negative value on births of all human beings, not just of antinatalists themselves.

Antinatalists question the legitimacy of creation of human beings, but don't encourage those who have already been born to kill themselves.

How have they get to support this idea in the first place?

I have obsessive-compulsive disorder. Those who live with this kind of unavoidable suffering might find comfort in thinking about the alternative reality where they were never born and experienced no such suffering.

I stay alive only because I have no other options. I don't really have any hope.

Looking back at the past, antinatalism suggests that we would have experienced no suffering without our births, while looking ahead on the future, it appears to be some kind of a warning to those who intend to procreate.

Antinatalism also presents a view that the births of human beings are why we suffer, therefore we shouldn't give births, and ultimately should go extinct as a result.

By going extinct, we abandon all the wisdom that humanity has built for centuries. That's sad, but I see greater benefit in taking away any chances of suffering from the unborn.

(Asked why he supports antinatalism) I think from the unborn's point of view. Do people think about possibilities of their children having a bad life? Parents may believe "we're definitely gonna give our child a good life" but there are always risks of unexpected accidents and illness.

Regarding parents who decide to procreate, he dares to say the following:

Procreation always comes after parents' wish to have a child or children, so I think procreation is based on parents' selfishness.

It's true there is no way we can ask the unborn if they want to be born or not. However, not only pain and suffering await them. Isn't suffering the source of great pleasure? Tonight we sit with antinatalists to discuss antinatalism, whose awareness is beginning to raise.

Any thoughts on what you've just seen?

I do think we can appreciate positive things in life thanks to negative things. Harms we do by existing is too much to think about. Human beings are stupid, immature and childish. We have to accept it and believe in life. Having been born, we have to just try to enjoy our lives for eighty-whatever years. What matters, I think, is the fact that they can say what they have to say about their views. We have totally different opinions but what's really important is to try to understand and respect each other.

I see, having different opinions is totally okay. How about you, Mr. Kanechika?

I actually have quite some sympathy. Babies cry like crazy when they are born, literally as if they were born into a hell. I've thought about it a lot. I too think I can just try to be happy and live my own life, but we can't be happy without making other people unhappy, can we? I'm living my days trying not to see or think about it. I act cheerful, knowing I can enjoy my happiness thanks to unhappiness for others and I try not to face it.

Professor Morioka, could you explain what antinatalism is?

Antinatalism entirely denies such an idea as "no pain, no pleasure".

Looking back at the past, antinatalism argues that all the human beings shouldn't have been born, and looking ahead on the future, it argues that no human being should procreate. I think these are the two important elements that form the core of antinatalism. It's about all human beings, not about what we wish as indivisuals like "I don't want to procreate" or "I shouldn't have been born". If you were an antinatalist, you'd have to argue that everyone here at this studio shouldn't have been born, and none of us can rightfully procreate.

We have received your note that antinatalism never encourages suicide or murder.

Exactly. Antinatalism argues against birth, and once someone has been given birth, it doesn't address such things as how they should die or anything like that.

Alright, let's keep in mind that antinatalism is all about keeping the unborn forever unborn, and is nothing against lives already been created. I understand some people argue for this idea, others against it. What are some powerful arguments for it?

I think the pain avoidance theory is something many people agree to. Having been born, we all experience pain at some point of our lives. Without our births, we definitely wouldn't suffer even just a little bit. So every potential child shouldn't be born, it's as simple as that. It's very difficult to deny, but I imagine you would immediately think "life is not all about suffering, there is pleasure too". Antinatalism has 2 answers for that. One is that, for human beings, experiencing no pain is more important than experiencing some pleasure. Haven't you gone through some experience where you have a bit of pain and it ruins all the fun and joy you'd been having? Pain is always more significant than pleasure. We have this chart on the screen, this is the asymmetry of pain and pleasure. However joyful someone's life might be, nothingness is definitely better than living, therefore that person shouldn't be born. That's what this means.

Sorry to interrupt, I've been wondering if what Professor's been saying is true, I want to ask the antinatalist himself. Mr. Muchi, is all of this true?

Yes, I think the biggest benefit antinatalism offers is that it creates no suffering. I suppose many would wonder how we justify not creating pleasure, but about that, I think, when we compare two subjects, one of which is originally not sentient and turns into a sentient being, another remains not sentient, then it's no problem for the latter to be unable to experience any pleasure. There's no need for it to turn sentient to experience pleasure; missing any opportunities to experience it doesn't really matter. About suffering though, if we impose risks of accidents, coronavirus, sexual assaults or domestic violence to our children and if those things actually happen, then those who are responsible for their birth (parents, society, etc.) cannot undo the damage done. There's simply no way to fully pay for it, so that's why I think it's always better not to procreate and support antinatalism.

Would you say that just 1 minute of suffering ruins the pleasure for the rest of the whole day?

If someone finds some meaning in their life or love the life as it is despite a bit of pain in it, then I guess that's no problem.

But nothing guarantees that's gonna be the case for everyone, so you think we shoudn't procreate; a happy life is not guarranteed for everyone, so we can't roll the dice to create 1 unhappy person and 99 happy ones... oh wait, I'm talking about rolling the dice, should I say 1 unhappy person and 5 happy ones? Anyway, you think we should avoid creating 1 unhappy person even if it means not creating 5 happy ones, is that correct?

That is correct, yes.

This argument about rolling the dice is actually the second one I was about to mention. This is called "Russian roulette theory". Even if the majority of people born were to have good lives, there are always going to be some that live in pain and despair. That small amount of people live in pain because procreation is a system that cannot avoid sacrificing some of those created. We can't say it's okay just because we are not one of them. This is a theory that nobody should procreate in order not to sacrifice anybody, and I think it's a very strong argument.

We see movements to fight for equality getting more and more active these days. Isn't this its final form? To me it sounds like "if you seek true equality, then don't procreate".

But what about cases like this? We need to construct a new road, but one of landowners doesn't want to move out... oops, sorry! We have to move them for the sake of all other people. On many occasions, we force someone to experience some pain so that many others can experience pleasure. If we can accept this logic, I think we can easily avoid being persuaded not to procreate.

That doesn't quite convince me. You just mentioned something that is often brought forward as an attempt to refute antinatalism, "whatever we do comes with more or less of sacrifice". But this, to those who consider themselves to be victims of procreation, must feel like the most stupid bullcrap of all time...

... Of course such people would find antinatalism quite reasonable. But those unhappy people are trying to stop everyone else from procreating, ending up in victimizing all the non-antinatalists! Procreation makes people happy, and most of the children born by them are going to be happy, and yet antinatalists are trying to sacrifice all the happiness. I can't accept it.

I think there will always be people who want to procreate, and making them choose not to procreate would make them unhappy...

That's why antinatalists try to persuade them, telling them they'd be happier without having kids. If they are convinced, then they wouldn't feel so unhappy.

Maybe it's not about being "happier without having kids", it's more like "not having kids would make..."

"... make Japan a better place"

(This part was almost inaudible; Mr. Harlan might have said "would benefit the unborn children" or maybe something else)

... right, so it's not about us, because we've already been born, so about us it's like "live your life as you like", while the children yet to be born could have a bad life if they are born, so... I guess that's what antinatalism is about, am I right?

I think most of those who procreate have never thought about how things could go for the children to be born. Once the children are actually born, they could have a bad life, get involved in accidents or infected with the COVID, even if they have parents who truly love and bond with them. Just understanding this uncertainty would discourage people from wanting to have kids so badly, I think....

I've done some research actually on antinatalism and found out it has such a long, long history. More than 2000 years!

Exactly, we can go all the way back to BC tracing the path of antinatalistic thoughts. There's a poem from ancient Greece that goes like "the best is not being born, the second best is going back to the other world soon where we all came from". In the ancient era of India, when the Buddha was around, people believed in reincarnation, which is basically being born once again into the other world. Once they realized they didn't want to be born anymore, that's what we call 'spiritual awakening'. So yes, this kind of idea has always been there since BC.

It has 2000-plus-year-long history, so it's not like people suddenly started going anti-natal in the last few years or so.

24:13

I'd like to note a few things before the ad break. One is that humanity has held this kind of antinatalistic thoughts for more than 2000 years, so we can't expect it to fade away any time soon, in fact I think we'll keep dealing with it for the rest of human history. Another is that antinatalism itself is an extremely rational thought. It's based on a very philosophical idea that humankind is different from other animals because of its rationality; while animals breed when nothing interrupts them, we, humankind, can appropreately control our animal side by making good use of our rationality given only to our species. That's something I'd like to make sure everyone here understands.

Well, I suppose we all understand that pretty well. Alright, so after a short break, we'll welcome a woman to this studio who gave birth to her children while being aware of antinatalism, and further discuss the philosophy. Stay tuned!

We're now joined by Yuki Akiyama, who has given birth to two children despite being aware of antinatalism, and we will further discuss whether procreation is an act of parents' selfishness. She takes a neutral position towards antinatalism. Hello Ms. Akiyama, good to have you here.

Thank you for having me.

What do you make of our discussion in the first part of this show?

Well, I suppose I owe Mr. Muchi an apology for procreating, and that twice, but I do find what he says reasonable. When I was a student, I never really wanted to have a child, and thought I and everyone should end our lives in the 40s or something, so... I'd be lying if I said I have absolutely nothing against antinatalism but I find it very reasonable.

As we understand it, you were aware of antinatalism when you gave birth to your hcildren. Were you perplexed or... what did you think?

I got to know about antinatalism on Twitter where people discussed women's right to have kids, and I went like "well, that's one way to think about procreation" and nothing more. I got married later, got pregnant, but lost the baby. It was a miscarriage at quite a late stage, and my doctor said it's not common at all, so it really shocked me. I was thinking I was someone 'not supposed to have kids' if we were to classify people into the ones who have the right to have kids and the ones who don't. I eventually gave up on having kids. And then at work, I interviewed someone who had a shotgun marriage, and she said on her postnatal high that her baby 'chose' her to be their mom. I was honestly upset, wondering if that meant I wasn't chosen by my child. That's when I got convinced that a child doesn't choose their parents. Parents choose to have kids, wanting to give birth to and raise them. So I once again wanted to have kids, so I had one, and then another.

What do you think about the view that procreation is an act of parents' selfishness?

I think that's right. 100%.

How has your view on antinatalism changed, from pre-birth to post-birth?

It hasn't really. I think the current situation of this world and society has a lot to do with people having antinatalistic thoughts, so all we can do is try our best to build a better society where the future generation don't have to be like antinatalists. I think that's the simple answer we've all got to agree on in the end.

Mr. Muchi, is there anyhting you want to ask Ms. Akiyama?

In Mr. Harlan's case, he never knew about antinatalism when he procreated, which is understandable, but in your case, Ms. Akiyama, you knew there was a philosophical position of antinatalism and yet you decided to procreate, and I can't help wondering why. I imagine you realized possibilities of your children having a bad life after getting to know antinatalism, so... how did it happen?

I guess you could never have persuaded me to choose not to have kids even if you had tried, but anyway... the argument of russian roulette was it, the one where 1 of 5 people has a bad life and 4 have a good life? I think, choosing not to give birth to those 5 means not to create 4 happy lives, only to prevent 1 unhappy life. I think antinatalists turn a means to an end. When a society is a hard place to survive because of some obstacles, then we can change the society to make our life easier. Not creating lives is not a goal but just a means, and I think antinatalists have a bit of illogical jump there.

What I though in listening to the discussion so far is, I think it's totally okay to have any philosophical thoughts about having kids, and there's no way of stopping people from having those antinatalistic thoughts anyway, but it's so annoying isn't it, that politicians tell us to have more kids while antinatalists tell us no to, like whatever we do comes with complaints, making this society so tiring. I guess we should just listen to ourselves in the end, not what the society or whoever wants us to do. Also, antinatalists may say they can only try to persuade us not to have kids but look what happened here; they say "hey, why the hell did you decide to have kids despite being aware of possibilities of your children having bad lives?", this is such a disgusting way of  'persuading' isn't it? Like, it's just imposition of what they think is right and it's violation of our procreative freedom. I know I'm sounding harsh, but... yes I think it's okay to have any philosophical thoughts, and it's true that the society is such a hard place to survive... but I find it really insensitive to say such things to those who want to get pregnant or who have got pregnant. So I guess that's why I can't accept antinatalism.

But I think the same can be said from the antinatalists' point of view. I think Mr. Muchi had to ask that question because he can't help wondering why people keep having kids who are not necessarily going to have a good life. We're doing the same to Mr. Muchi right now, wondering why the hell he thinks that way, so I think...

I mean, it's of course not great that some antinatalists use abusive language and call someone who has procreated all kinds of names. That's because antinatalism is all about getting rid of suffering. We argue that pain should not be experienced, and one way to make it happen is not creating people. There's one example I found: I saw someone suffering from post-birth depression on Twitter and people grilling her like "you shouldn't have had kids then" or "you did this to yourself, don't complain". I found it really ugly. Those people may be antinatalists, but they end up in causing pain for others. This goes against the goal of antinatalism. What if the woman gets even more sick because of this and takes worse care of her child, leading to the child's bad life? So, I think use of abusive language by antinatalists is something that cannot be tolerated, and it's probably part of why antinatalism is not mainstream yet.

As Mr. Muchi just said, antinatalists sound intrusive and it's not doing any good for them. It's okay to have different opinions; it's a personal choice whether or not to have kids, and it's a personal choice whether or not to think we shouldn't have been born, but I hate the society where people tell those who wish to have kids not to, because of hereditary deseases for instance... like, who the hell are you to say that? You know, it's a basic human right to have kids, so maybe if we respect different views...

... Sorry to interrupt, I just want to say... I agree with Mr. Muchi, but when you really listen to what antinatalists say, you can see antinatalism is definitely a position to argue that nobody cannot procreate or take any part in procreation. So, for antinatalists, allowing others to procreate while they don't procreate themselves or saying procreation is a personal choice is intolerable; if you do that, you're no longer an antinatalist. As to women, antinatalists don't accept their right to give birth to children. They regard procreation as violence against the born. Whether or not to say that aloud would be a matter of sensitivity, but the idea is that no man or woman cannot procreate. We cannot mistake antinatalism for childfreedom. Only childfree people say "I'm not gonna have kids but you can", and that's incompatible with antinatalism. Those are two totally different things.

This is really basic, but I don't really understand the idea of setting a goal of 'abolishing pain', because I think pain is always something fundamental to life. So what would you suggest as a way of overcoming pain... or are we not even supposed to try to overcome it at all?

First of all, you are right about pain being fundamental to life, which is exactly why antinatalists argue that we shouldn't start lives in the first place. However, I do think we should address how to overcome pain in lives for the sake of those who have been born. It may be difficult to achieve 'birth affirmation' or find some meaning in our life, but I think it's something important.

To be honest, I think my way of 'birth affirmation' is not forcing a potentially bad life on my children by not creating them, and recognizing I'm doing the right thing.