It’s weird logical fallacy to conflate pain/suffering with the moral equivalent of bad. The idea you could slot our experiences in one of two boxes, always, is just silly. Life is complex and messy — a continuum of sadness and joy and everything in between.
I wonder if pleasure and pain belong in the same equation. After all, Pandora's box didn't contain all the evils of the world, plus pleasure. Actually, on refection there might be a voice in my head ready to argue that pleasure was one of the evils...
I'm probably too dismissive of antinatalism: I tend to lump it into the 'pointless rhetorical flourish' bin, along with certain brands of 'longtermism' and 'hard determinism'.
I used to work in a classy bookshop and the most heavily shoplifted sections were cooking and philosophy. Cooking was right by the front entrance and the books were on the expensive side. What was philosophy's excuse? Readers skilled at justifying their actions, was my feeling.
I did give some thought to the ethics of having a child, before my daughter was born. I back-and-forthed for a couple of weeks, weighing the evils of the world and its imminent collapse into barbarism. In the end, like the Greeks, I found in favour of hope. I couldn't honestly say that my situation was worse than that of my ancestors, for whom the prospect of raiders on horseback, sweeping over the hills killing and burning everything they encountered, was very real. I'm glad they rolled the dice. I hope my decedents will be too.
...on the other hand, maybe I'm just stealing philosophy books.
I do lean towards the Benatar side, and I think in large part because of some factors addressed but not really explored in Paul's essay. That is, that the good things, the pleasant experiences, the interesting work (in particular), even access to treatments for illnesses and problems, are all heavily weighted towards the affluent. I should clarify that affluence is not just financial wealth, but a wealth of social and cultural capital.
No matter how adolescent it sounds, I think I would have preferred not to have been born (or, referring to Paul's previous essay, perhaps to have been born a different person). I was never really convinced my mother wanted a child, rather, she did it because it was expected of her. In fact I think she slightly resented it. My presence contributed to her ending up alone and raising me as a single parent which, although by no means a terrible experience, was a situation that had a significant practical and psychological impact on us both.
I have chosen not to have children as I do, on balance, believe it not to be fair on them or on me. That's not to say I would ever try to convince someone else not to have children - to say that they are wrong to do so. It's just not right for me. And if that conclusion is based on a subjective experience whereby my life has not been pleasant, purposeful or fulfilling, then so be it. I won't risk bringing another life into existence in the desperate hope that it will somehow give me a fleeting sensation of positivity.
If your mother resented you, that is a terrible cross to bear, and very difficult to let go of. Know this, though: Your presence did not contribute to her ending up alone. She, and much more so your father, failed you. You are innocent. And you are wise to avoid having children if you’re not ready.
So you think it'd be better to not exist? How so? You'd have to be able to appreciate your lack of existing for it to be better. The last time you didn't exist didn't stop a life from being imposed... What makes you think non-existence would have stopped some other life from being imposed? Perhaps the life of an elephant, or someone in North Korea, or an alien somewhere.
I don't think I would press the button as the poll is currently phrased, but an important stipulation from the post that isn't in the poll is that you would later remember everything. This is not a negligible distinction. Without memory, it would be difficult to justify it as net positive due to the concomitant confusion. I lean antinatalist with a high degree of epistemic uncertainty, just because I'm not sure if the world will be worse in the near future, because there are plenty of lives to improve through adoption, because I personally have severe depression and anxiety and don't want any of my children to risk the kind of suffering I've experienced because of my genes (this one is personal and not generalizable), and because I think the kind of people willing to be surveyed are likely to be privileged in certain ways that might not be generalizable (regardless of your beliefs on politics, it would be difficult to argue that life in Gaza, even before October 7, was net positive for many people). This last argument might mean improving lives rather than not creating them, but realistically, there's never been a time in the world that war, famine, displacement, etc. have not lead to unimaginable suffering.
Also, just to add, I think that reform in the meat industry has the potential to alleviate a whole lot of suffering much more easily than anything related to humans. I find it implausible that the enjoyment derived from the consumption of meat products brings more pleasure than the corresponding suffering (at least in factory farms). Not trying to proselytize any individual (although it does make a meaningful difference). Rather, I think the factory farming system itself needs to change. Tangentially related, but I think it's more ethically straightforward and can still benefit from a similar type of analysis: would most farmed animals be better off never existing? Probably.
Interesting stuff, Paul. On your "auto-pilot" study, someone's done a larger-scale experiment (though not officially published) per William MacAskill's What We Owe The Future:
"In a currently unpublished large survey of over 8,500 people,
psychologists Matt Killingsworth, Lisa Stewart, and Joshua Greene
added a twist to the experience sampling approach. At random
times, they asked participants to write down what activity they were
doing and how long it would last, and then respond to the question, “If
you could, and it had no negative consequences, would you jump
forward in time to the end of what you’re currently doing?” That is,
they asked participants to imagine having the option of simply not
experiencing—though still doing—whatever activity they were
engaged in at that moment. If they were making a cup of tea, they
would imagine that they could blink and their next experience would
be drinking the cup of tea that they had just made. The researchers
called this “skipping” an experience. The idea underlying the question
was that, if someone would choose to skip an experience, they were
judging that experience to be worse than nothing; if someone chose
to keep an experience, they were judging that experience to be better
than nothing. It turns out that people in the survey, on average, would skip
"if someone would choose to skip an experience, they were judging that experience to be worse than nothing”
Sorry, but this is just poor thinking. It reveals only a preference to immediately experience what might come next rather than the current experience - for example, drinking tea rather than making tea.
This might be the most depressing thing I've ever read (not this blog post per se, but philosophical pessimism, anti-natalism, etc.) - it kind of reminds me of a skit I saw once with Noam Chomsky doing fun things like swinging on a playground, going to a football game... all while morosely explaining how everyone is being manipulated, living meaningless lives filled with distraction, etc.
When I was a kid I drove my friends crazy with my theory that it was better to have bad luck than good luck. All things being eventually equal, good luck simply meant that bad luck was on its way; while a bit of bad luck, my bike fell over when I went to put a paper in the customer's door for example, meant that good luck was on the way. Maybe that cute girl I had my eye on would talk to me today. It was more than a theory for me, as you can see. I eventually got over it, not sure if my friends ever did.
"Whether we know it or not, objectively we are all doing badly."
It's funny that Benatar focuses on an objective standard when there is no real way to measure how I perceive pain is perceived. The same amount of liquid in my bladder as my wifes has a very different impact on our perceived pain despite the objective nature of the discomfort being the same. People give meaning to their pain (thinking fasting for religion), or even pleasure (masochism).
I am still skeptical despite your good point about how we act and our professed preference. It seems like the joy I get from talking with my Dad about the camping trip when the canoe and all the gear tied to the top of the car came off while driving outweighs the real discomfort from picking up tent poles and sleeping bags up from a busy highway and retying it in the rain.
It’s good to hear that many people are living acceptable lives (with the proviso that we’re probably over-counting them). I think a strong ethical conclusion follows from this: Namely that we should do a lot more to reduce the suffering of those who generally live below the neutral point (hello!) even at some cost to those who live above it.
Begging question on how does one define "neutral point." Arguably, that's what volunteering and the service industry is? Those who feel able (financially, physically, emotionally) to give of themselves give to those in need, sometimes for compensation, sometimes not...
I guess I was just thinking of the standard ways that happiness science defines it in terms of happiness and/or life satisfaction. So a 5 or below on a 10 point scale?
I think the stats would bear out that too many people scoring there are not getting the help they need. Not to mention the advances in care also required.
For those interested in anti-natalism and philosophical pessimism more broadly, here's a recent open access book co-authored by anti-natalist philosopher Matti Häyry and anti-natalist activist Amanda Sukenick:
"Antinatalism, Extinction, and the End of Procreative Self-Corruption"
I love Benatar's gripping eloquence and earnestness. Here's a recent open access paper -- not directly related to anti-natalism, but partaking of its pessimistic spirit:
Ooooo... This one is interesting! Psychological research asked the question, are the affluent less likely to be generous and that is why they are affluent? And the result was the discovery that there is no difference in generosity along the socioeconomic line, but the affluent tend to give to those who are also generous (e.g. charities), whereas those in poverty tend to give to those who just take (e.g. addicted sibling). Interesting rebuttal to this article!
Might Benatar consider an Alexei Navalny or Nelson Mandela imprisoned in a chronically miserable situation yet they continued their work? Were they able to go within for strength and endurance? What power of the mind sustained them? Are they the luckiest or most unlucky? Could we harness this power? Buddhist practice maintains that yearning is cause for human suffering and acceptance and surrender to reality is the only balm. What if our reality is daily chronic pain? Do we have a choice surrendering to that pain or not? The not, I assume (though I dislike assuming anything) eventually leads to self destruction. My sister in law is in a wheelchair most of the day enduring MS for 30 years now. She might agree with Benatar. Yet she lives in 2 homes, one in the Midwest and the other in AZ. She has had superior medical support and travels the country with my brother, her caretaker husband, at her side. Is she the luckiest or unluckiest? I might add that she is ultra religious (her choice of crutch) and far from accepting her plight which has made most of us around her not want to be around her. Mental illness, as insidious as it is, might have some value in human living as medicine allows for some semblance of lucidity or relief, allowing for those moments of life is good. So are even glimpses of life is good worth living for?
"Buddhist practice maintains that yearning is cause for human suffering and acceptance and surrender to reality is the only balm"
Yes, but what a balm! Buddhism's abstract is 'liberation from pain'. Their mindfulness makes life more meaningful, peaceful, more connected with other beings and the whole universe. I think is a more realistic, affordable, tied to the ground plan for a kind of 'happiness' than others.
I was rambling around trying to point readers in that direction. Buddhism’s “making friends with reality” has guided me in my older years inspired first by Eckhart Tolle and his breakthrough A New Earth. However I admire philosophical debate of any sort, and Paul’s Small Potatoes offers plenty of that!
Of course. My direction was more on the way of Shynriu Suzuki's. I admire believers, they have many instructions guides available, and 'without errata'; but it is a painful bridge to cross for my feet. I can't dissociate the idea of a paternal only God with totalitarian ways of thought. Likewise, I also think of death as part of the process to recycle our punished bodies. It reinforces the idea of individual lives as unique, short, sacred, collectively linked with others who will continue their tasks in present time, the only possible heaven.
Obvious. Buddhism is plenty of common sense. Know the problem before solve it, know yourself... There's some meditation involved, also some brain gym, compassion, nothing to do with holding crowns of thorns. Pain is natural, suffering an option.
It’s weird logical fallacy to conflate pain/suffering with the moral equivalent of bad. The idea you could slot our experiences in one of two boxes, always, is just silly. Life is complex and messy — a continuum of sadness and joy and everything in between.
I wonder if pleasure and pain belong in the same equation. After all, Pandora's box didn't contain all the evils of the world, plus pleasure. Actually, on refection there might be a voice in my head ready to argue that pleasure was one of the evils...
I'm probably too dismissive of antinatalism: I tend to lump it into the 'pointless rhetorical flourish' bin, along with certain brands of 'longtermism' and 'hard determinism'.
I used to work in a classy bookshop and the most heavily shoplifted sections were cooking and philosophy. Cooking was right by the front entrance and the books were on the expensive side. What was philosophy's excuse? Readers skilled at justifying their actions, was my feeling.
I did give some thought to the ethics of having a child, before my daughter was born. I back-and-forthed for a couple of weeks, weighing the evils of the world and its imminent collapse into barbarism. In the end, like the Greeks, I found in favour of hope. I couldn't honestly say that my situation was worse than that of my ancestors, for whom the prospect of raiders on horseback, sweeping over the hills killing and burning everything they encountered, was very real. I'm glad they rolled the dice. I hope my decedents will be too.
...on the other hand, maybe I'm just stealing philosophy books.
I do lean towards the Benatar side, and I think in large part because of some factors addressed but not really explored in Paul's essay. That is, that the good things, the pleasant experiences, the interesting work (in particular), even access to treatments for illnesses and problems, are all heavily weighted towards the affluent. I should clarify that affluence is not just financial wealth, but a wealth of social and cultural capital.
No matter how adolescent it sounds, I think I would have preferred not to have been born (or, referring to Paul's previous essay, perhaps to have been born a different person). I was never really convinced my mother wanted a child, rather, she did it because it was expected of her. In fact I think she slightly resented it. My presence contributed to her ending up alone and raising me as a single parent which, although by no means a terrible experience, was a situation that had a significant practical and psychological impact on us both.
I have chosen not to have children as I do, on balance, believe it not to be fair on them or on me. That's not to say I would ever try to convince someone else not to have children - to say that they are wrong to do so. It's just not right for me. And if that conclusion is based on a subjective experience whereby my life has not been pleasant, purposeful or fulfilling, then so be it. I won't risk bringing another life into existence in the desperate hope that it will somehow give me a fleeting sensation of positivity.
If your mother resented you, that is a terrible cross to bear, and very difficult to let go of. Know this, though: Your presence did not contribute to her ending up alone. She, and much more so your father, failed you. You are innocent. And you are wise to avoid having children if you’re not ready.
Thanks for sharing your view.
I am unconvinced, Paul. :( I wish I didn't agree with Benatar but I can't help it.
So you think it'd be better to not exist? How so? You'd have to be able to appreciate your lack of existing for it to be better. The last time you didn't exist didn't stop a life from being imposed... What makes you think non-existence would have stopped some other life from being imposed? Perhaps the life of an elephant, or someone in North Korea, or an alien somewhere.
I don't think I would press the button as the poll is currently phrased, but an important stipulation from the post that isn't in the poll is that you would later remember everything. This is not a negligible distinction. Without memory, it would be difficult to justify it as net positive due to the concomitant confusion. I lean antinatalist with a high degree of epistemic uncertainty, just because I'm not sure if the world will be worse in the near future, because there are plenty of lives to improve through adoption, because I personally have severe depression and anxiety and don't want any of my children to risk the kind of suffering I've experienced because of my genes (this one is personal and not generalizable), and because I think the kind of people willing to be surveyed are likely to be privileged in certain ways that might not be generalizable (regardless of your beliefs on politics, it would be difficult to argue that life in Gaza, even before October 7, was net positive for many people). This last argument might mean improving lives rather than not creating them, but realistically, there's never been a time in the world that war, famine, displacement, etc. have not lead to unimaginable suffering.
Also, just to add, I think that reform in the meat industry has the potential to alleviate a whole lot of suffering much more easily than anything related to humans. I find it implausible that the enjoyment derived from the consumption of meat products brings more pleasure than the corresponding suffering (at least in factory farms). Not trying to proselytize any individual (although it does make a meaningful difference). Rather, I think the factory farming system itself needs to change. Tangentially related, but I think it's more ethically straightforward and can still benefit from a similar type of analysis: would most farmed animals be better off never existing? Probably.
Interesting stuff, Paul. On your "auto-pilot" study, someone's done a larger-scale experiment (though not officially published) per William MacAskill's What We Owe The Future:
"In a currently unpublished large survey of over 8,500 people,
psychologists Matt Killingsworth, Lisa Stewart, and Joshua Greene
added a twist to the experience sampling approach. At random
times, they asked participants to write down what activity they were
doing and how long it would last, and then respond to the question, “If
you could, and it had no negative consequences, would you jump
forward in time to the end of what you’re currently doing?” That is,
they asked participants to imagine having the option of simply not
experiencing—though still doing—whatever activity they were
engaged in at that moment. If they were making a cup of tea, they
would imagine that they could blink and their next experience would
be drinking the cup of tea that they had just made. The researchers
called this “skipping” an experience. The idea underlying the question
was that, if someone would choose to skip an experience, they were
judging that experience to be worse than nothing; if someone chose
to keep an experience, they were judging that experience to be better
than nothing. It turns out that people in the survey, on average, would skip
around 40 percent of their day if they could."
"if someone would choose to skip an experience, they were judging that experience to be worse than nothing”
Sorry, but this is just poor thinking. It reveals only a preference to immediately experience what might come next rather than the current experience - for example, drinking tea rather than making tea.
This might be the most depressing thing I've ever read (not this blog post per se, but philosophical pessimism, anti-natalism, etc.) - it kind of reminds me of a skit I saw once with Noam Chomsky doing fun things like swinging on a playground, going to a football game... all while morosely explaining how everyone is being manipulated, living meaningless lives filled with distraction, etc.
When I was a kid I drove my friends crazy with my theory that it was better to have bad luck than good luck. All things being eventually equal, good luck simply meant that bad luck was on its way; while a bit of bad luck, my bike fell over when I went to put a paper in the customer's door for example, meant that good luck was on the way. Maybe that cute girl I had my eye on would talk to me today. It was more than a theory for me, as you can see. I eventually got over it, not sure if my friends ever did.
"Whether we know it or not, objectively we are all doing badly."
It's funny that Benatar focuses on an objective standard when there is no real way to measure how I perceive pain is perceived. The same amount of liquid in my bladder as my wifes has a very different impact on our perceived pain despite the objective nature of the discomfort being the same. People give meaning to their pain (thinking fasting for religion), or even pleasure (masochism).
I am still skeptical despite your good point about how we act and our professed preference. It seems like the joy I get from talking with my Dad about the camping trip when the canoe and all the gear tied to the top of the car came off while driving outweighs the real discomfort from picking up tent poles and sleeping bags up from a busy highway and retying it in the rain.
You might be interested in “Conspiracy Against the Human Race” by Thomas Ligotti for additional antinatalist/pessimist philosophy.
All is well, one must imagine Sisyphus happy. 😊
I’ve no need to read such nonsense (Benatar, not you, Prof.). As Jurgen points out above (below?), there’s more to life than pleasure and pain.
Jurgen is above rn
It’s good to hear that many people are living acceptable lives (with the proviso that we’re probably over-counting them). I think a strong ethical conclusion follows from this: Namely that we should do a lot more to reduce the suffering of those who generally live below the neutral point (hello!) even at some cost to those who live above it.
Begging question on how does one define "neutral point." Arguably, that's what volunteering and the service industry is? Those who feel able (financially, physically, emotionally) to give of themselves give to those in need, sometimes for compensation, sometimes not...
I guess I was just thinking of the standard ways that happiness science defines it in terms of happiness and/or life satisfaction. So a 5 or below on a 10 point scale?
I think the stats would bear out that too many people scoring there are not getting the help they need. Not to mention the advances in care also required.
No doubt! There is still a LOT of progress to be made.
For those interested in anti-natalism and philosophical pessimism more broadly, here's a recent open access book co-authored by anti-natalist philosopher Matti Häyry and anti-natalist activist Amanda Sukenick:
"Antinatalism, Extinction, and the End of Procreative Self-Corruption"
https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/antinatalism-extinction-and-the-end-of-procreative-selfcorruption/A88E18CA50EF6D919CE459C007447DB4
The pair (along with Benatar) also make an appearance in this recent Harper's Magazine article:
"The Case Against Children: Among the Anti-Natalists"
https://archive.ph/ENEKn#selection-1145.328-1145.334
This was my introduction to Benatar and I found it quite persuasive https://aeon.co/essays/having-children-is-not-life-affirming-its-immoral
I love Benatar's gripping eloquence and earnestness. Here's a recent open access paper -- not directly related to anti-natalism, but partaking of its pessimistic spirit:
"The Paradox of Desert"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/japp.12721
Agreed! Looking forward to reading this.
Ooooo... This one is interesting! Psychological research asked the question, are the affluent less likely to be generous and that is why they are affluent? And the result was the discovery that there is no difference in generosity along the socioeconomic line, but the affluent tend to give to those who are also generous (e.g. charities), whereas those in poverty tend to give to those who just take (e.g. addicted sibling). Interesting rebuttal to this article!
Might Benatar consider an Alexei Navalny or Nelson Mandela imprisoned in a chronically miserable situation yet they continued their work? Were they able to go within for strength and endurance? What power of the mind sustained them? Are they the luckiest or most unlucky? Could we harness this power? Buddhist practice maintains that yearning is cause for human suffering and acceptance and surrender to reality is the only balm. What if our reality is daily chronic pain? Do we have a choice surrendering to that pain or not? The not, I assume (though I dislike assuming anything) eventually leads to self destruction. My sister in law is in a wheelchair most of the day enduring MS for 30 years now. She might agree with Benatar. Yet she lives in 2 homes, one in the Midwest and the other in AZ. She has had superior medical support and travels the country with my brother, her caretaker husband, at her side. Is she the luckiest or unluckiest? I might add that she is ultra religious (her choice of crutch) and far from accepting her plight which has made most of us around her not want to be around her. Mental illness, as insidious as it is, might have some value in human living as medicine allows for some semblance of lucidity or relief, allowing for those moments of life is good. So are even glimpses of life is good worth living for?
"Buddhist practice maintains that yearning is cause for human suffering and acceptance and surrender to reality is the only balm"
Yes, but what a balm! Buddhism's abstract is 'liberation from pain'. Their mindfulness makes life more meaningful, peaceful, more connected with other beings and the whole universe. I think is a more realistic, affordable, tied to the ground plan for a kind of 'happiness' than others.
I was rambling around trying to point readers in that direction. Buddhism’s “making friends with reality” has guided me in my older years inspired first by Eckhart Tolle and his breakthrough A New Earth. However I admire philosophical debate of any sort, and Paul’s Small Potatoes offers plenty of that!
Of course. My direction was more on the way of Shynriu Suzuki's. I admire believers, they have many instructions guides available, and 'without errata'; but it is a painful bridge to cross for my feet. I can't dissociate the idea of a paternal only God with totalitarian ways of thought. Likewise, I also think of death as part of the process to recycle our punished bodies. It reinforces the idea of individual lives as unique, short, sacred, collectively linked with others who will continue their tasks in present time, the only possible heaven.
This guy really gets the First Noble Truth of Buddhism, the truth of suffering.
Obvious. Buddhism is plenty of common sense. Know the problem before solve it, know yourself... There's some meditation involved, also some brain gym, compassion, nothing to do with holding crowns of thorns. Pain is natural, suffering an option.
He sounds fun