I recently received an e-mail reminder from the Stanford library for a book that I originally checked out a year ago, and have thrice renewed because I didn’t want to give it up. That book is David Benatar’s Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming Into Existence. There’s a reason why I kept it this long: it’s a tremendous book.
In case the title has you guessing, Benatar wastes no time in outlining his argument. The first paragraph of the preface does so in clear and precise prose that typifies the rest of the book:
Each one of us was harmed by being brought into existence. That harm is not negligible, because the quality of even the best lives is very bad — and considerably worse than most people recognize it to be. Although it is obviously too late to prevent our own existence, it is not too late to prevent the existence of future possible people. Creating new people is thus morally problematic. In this book I argue for these claims and show why the usual responses to them — incredulity, if not indignation — are defective.
Whatever you think about the argumentative thrust of that paragraph — and most people seem to form thoughts about it pretty quickly — I can assure you that he’s right about the incredulity and indignation.
When I first heard of this book from my friend Ric, I was intrigued. It seemed to articulate what I had only acknowledged as a recurring thought, one I rarely saw fit to share for fear of being dismissed as depressing: that there is no reason to have children. (The word “reason” is meant, here and elsewhere in this post, in the classical sense, meaning as a basis for a logical argument, not an emotional or religious one — a significant distinction, as the vast majority of individual reasons for procreation fall into the latter two categories.)
As I read the book, I was startled and impressed by the sheer forcefulness of Benatar’s argument. He follows through on his prefatory promise, outlining and supporting his logical claims against procreation with acuity and grace. I was so impressed, in fact, that not only did I find myself writing about him (at least obliquely, as in the post from another blog I’ve revived and archived here), but I also started telling people about this interesting book I’d read.
Big mistake.
Some people humored me longer than others, but sooner or later — and usually immediately — I got a negative and dismissive response, ranging from laughter to snide comments about the author needing to commit suicide (a nonsensical and lazy response Benatar addresses in the book) to outright indignation and even anger. Benatar was right: incredulity, if not indignance. It turns out almost nobody is willing to engage on logical grounds an argument that challenges such a fundamental social orthodoxy as procreation.
Benatar anticipated this. (From experience, I imagine — I’d love to read the fan mail he must get.) In the very next paragraph he plainly states that he doesn’t expect his argument to change anything, that “procreation will continue undeterred,” and in the third paragraph of the book, he has already begun to dismantle the typical objections.
Many readers will be inclined to dismiss my arguments and will do so hastily. When rejecting an unpopular view, it is extraordinarily easy to be overly confident in the force of one’s responses. This is partly because there is less felt need to justify one’s views when defending an orthodoxy. It is also because counter-responses from those critical of this orthodoxy, given their rarity, are harder to anticipate.
My experience mirrored his anticipations. It wasn’t so much that people disagreed with his argument; most bypassed the argument itself and went straight to ad hominems. It seemed like the existence of his argument angered them, as if to question such an ingrained orthodoxy amounted to an inexcusable presumption. These illogical responses, in turn, began to irritate me, and so after a couple of exchanges grew heated, I gave up on talking about the book and returned it to my bedside bookshelf, where it sat largely unread and undiscussed for almost a year. The widespread hostility to Benatar’s argument still bothers me, though. Especially when one considers that the orthodoxy Benatar challenges — unreasonable procreation — is itself the root of so much human suffering.
But forget about his argument itself: focus on the response. The book often gets dismissed, I think, because it questions a genetic and cultural and socioeconomic orthodoxy. Isn’t that what great books are supposed to do, challenge orthodoxies? The refusal to open the book before dismissing the author and his beliefs reminded me of similar responses I sometimes get when I mention Christopher Hitchens, another unorthodox thinker I admire but sometimes disagree with. (He criticized Mother Teresa? What has he ever done for the poor? And so on.) And in a larger sense, the rejection of an argument that questions often irrational orthodoxies smacks of the same blithe anti-intellectualism that most of these same people — in my social milieu, liberalism is all but assumed — lamented in their peers during the last eight years of American politics.
But this is drifting — my point here is not to chastise. It’s simply to recommend what I think is an ambitious and important book. It’s true that I find his antinatalist reasoning cogent and compelling, but I would like nothing better than to see it disproved on logical grounds, if only because that would mean someone who disagreed with him was willing to try.
Thanks Justin for recommending what seems to me an incredibly wise and insightful book. I’m amazed too at how many people don’t dare question the orthodoxy of procreation, despite over-population and the status of the slum-dweller as the most typical global citizen. But my argument with child-rearing has everything to do too with the equally unquestioned logic of the ownership society. There are plenty of unwanted children out there who are in orphanages, but people, compulsively and, I assume, genetically, want their OWN children. It’s a status symbol almost. Plus, we’re afraid of death so we want a genetic legacy: also a very human compulsion rooted in fear. Lastly, in college, I was depressed for no particular reason and found great solace in the hilarious antinatalism of this DUDE: http://www.amazon.com/Trouble-Being-Born-E-Cioran/dp/1559704624. I think you’d dig it.
Yes! I agree completely about the idea of ownership, and the legacy thing seems to me like the single biggest reason people have kids, even if they rarely admit it.
Otherwise, if it were really about giving love and happiness to another being, or wanting to raise smart and loving and well-adjusted humans to help society, we’d adopt one of the many unwanted children already alive. Instead, we want little versions of ourselves, to love — at least in part — because it’s a socially acceptable outlet for our vanity, and a hedge against our unfathomable deaths. Or, more optimistically, we have kids mostly without questioning the impulse, to validate ourselves in a society that expects it, or to validate our marriages.
That Cioran book sounds awesome. I was also reading some Schopenhauer when I was into the Benatar, because he discusses him at length.
Thanks for this post. My acquaintance with Benatar — from discovery to aftermath — has been eerily similar to yours. If you are interested, I have written about antinatalism in a multi-part series. Here is a link to the first part:
http://hooverhog.typepad.com/hognotes/2007/06/initial_harm_pa.html
Best,
Chip
Chip –
Thanks for the comment. I just read the first part of your series — that conversation at the beginning definitely seems familiar. I look forward to reading the other parts.
Best,
Justin
Thanks for the post; your observations reflect my own. I run a couple of blogs on the subject in case you’re interested:
antinatalism.net
antinatalism.info
Take care, jim
Thanks, Jim. It seems like you’ve got quite a community going over at your site. I’m glad to know there are a significant amount of other people who feel similarly.
Okay, wasn’t going to comment on this, but now can’t resist. I think the legacy argument is true for some folks, but not for all. Getting pregnant, giving birth and nursing a baby is an awesome experience, and one that can’t be had through adoption. (Some women can nurse adopted kids, but only in certain circumstances). Also, I think people are scared of adopting older kids because of early attachment issues. And it’s very hard to find newborns to adopt. So I say of course having kids isn’t logical — but it sure is fun. (Sorry to be one of those people who bypassed the argument altogether, Justin, but what did you expect from a breeder?)
- SF
I understand and appreciate all of those reasons, S, and obviously none of this above discussion should be taken on an individual or personal level. But still, as you said, the reasons you list are not logical reasons. And they’re also all based in the experience of the parents.
Also, to be clear, I don’t think Benatar (or anybody else here) is advocating that the right to procreate should be taken away from individuals. Rather, it seems to me that the implied argument is that if individuals more seriously considered the implications and consequences — both for themselves and for their potential children — of procreating, then there would be far fewer children being born.
Point taken J. No question, it’d be a good thing if people had less kids. I’m really not arguing against his arguments, just saying there’s another perspective that does stem from the experience of parents, and isn’t as selfish as you might think. I do think having kids is a leap of faith, and hopeful act that celebrates life. It might not hold up to logical arguments, but that doesn’t make it any less valid on the personal level.
Anyway, I’m not so good posting blog comments, just thought I’d give the other perspective. Also had no idea I was posting as “frustrated writer.” Where the hell did that come from?
I’ve been meaning to recommend this radiolab show on “choice” to you anyways, so here it is. It talks a lot about what exactly emotions are from a neurological perspective. Probably doesn’t have much to do with our discussion, but it’s really good.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2008/11/14
Check out the one on “stress” too. And let’s go get a beer once this damn cold clears up and my spawn’s in bed.
-S
But you would make such cute babies!
(I know. Am missing the whole point of this thing.) But you really would.
“When rejecting an unpopular view, it is extraordinarily easy to be overly confident in the force of one’s responses.”
I wonder how the level of “forcefulness” of one’s response to a unpopular view correlates to the lack of true conviction in said opposing orthodoxy…