Anti-Natalism: Rejectionist Philosophy from Buddhism to Benatar

by Kenneth S. Coates

The last few decades seem to have begun what has been called 'the childless revolution'. In developed countries, increasingly people are choosing not to have children. The causes of this 'revolution' are many including the belief that to create a new life is to subject someone unnecessarily, and without their consent, to life's many sufferings including death. This belief and its underlying philosophy is known as anti-natalism. There has been a recent resurgence of this philosophy, with David Benatar's book Better Never To Have Been (2006) as a major catalyst. Anti-natalism can be seen as part of a broader philosophy, described here as Rejectionism, which finds existence -directly or indirectly, i.e. as procreation - as deeply problematic and unacceptable. The book traces the development of this philosophy from its ancient religious roots in Hinduism (Moksha) and Buddhism (Nirvana) to its most modern articulation by the South African philosopher David Benatar. It examines the contribution to rejectionist thought by Schopenhauer and von Hartmann in the 19th century and Zapffe, a little known Norwegian thinker, in the 20th century, and most recently by Benatar. Benatar and Zapffe represent this approach most clearly as anti-natalism. The book also devotes a chapter to the literary expression of rejectionist philosophy in the works of Samuel Beckett and J.P.Sartre. In sum, far from being an esoteric doctrine rejectionism has been a major presence in human history straddling all three major cultural forms - religious, philosophical and literary. The book argues that anti-natal philosophy and its practice owe a great deal to three major developments: secularization, liberalization of social attitudes, and technological advances (contraception). Anti-natal attitudes and practice should therefore be seen as a part of 'progress' in that these developments are widening our choice of lifestyles and attitudes to existence. In sum, The book argues that anti-natalism needs to be taken seriously and considered as a legitimate view of a modern, secular civilization. Secondly, the book seeks to situate current anti-natalist thought in its historical and philosophical perspective. Finally, it argues that in order to develop anti-natalism further it needs to be institutionalized as a form rational 'philosophy of life', and more attention needs to be paid to the problems and prospect of putting this philosophy into practice. Author Bio: The author is a social scientist. After receiving a Ph.D degree from the University of London he has been a university professor. This book is a result of his long-standing interest in issues of existence and existential philosophy. Keywords: Anti-Natalism, Existence, Moksha, Nirvana, Rejectionism, Suffering, Schopenhauer, Zapffe, Benatar, Beckett.

Genres: Philosophy, Nonfiction, Psychology, History, Buddhism

113 pages, Kindle Edition

First published March 23, 2014

About the author

See also Ken S. Coates

Coates, K. 1956-
Coates, K. S. (Kenneth Stephen), 1956-
Coates, Ken, 1956-
Coates, Ken S. (Kenneth Stephen), 1956-
Coates, Kenneth, 1956-....
Coates, Kenneth S., 1956-
Coates, Kenneth Stephen 1956-

Ken Coates (born in Alberta in 1956 and raised in Whitehorse, Yukon) is a Canadian historian focused on the history of the Canadian North and Aboriginal rights and indigenous claims. Other areas of specialization include Arctic sovereignty;[1] science, technology and society, with an emphasis on Japan; world and comparative history; and post-secondary education.

Reviews

[Asa · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read this because I felt pressure by others to justify not having children. I learn here that nobody need justify that choice. And the onus could easily be shifted in the other direction.
This book was read to understand rejectionist philosophy as well as why and how that philosophy exists at all. Considering the strength of our survivalist gene, it is truly astounding that it has such a deep, yet ignored history.
My conclusions after reading this is not however that all should reject having children. It is obviously necessary if we want to continue the human species. But humans do need to start justifying their existence by reducing suffering at a much higher scale. This book certainly underlines the intense suffering that the overwhelming majority of humans and non-humans go through (and have gone through) as a consequence of being born. This book makes it an obvious, if also too-often ignored truth.
Now that we have a reached a point in our evolution where we are capable of reducing suffering so much, we can actually become a species that truly takes care of each other and other living beings. Instead of the polar opposite (being overwhelming suffering-inducers), which has been occurring right from the beginnings of the human story.

After reading this it inspired me to delve further into suffering focussed ethics. Of interest were the following books::

The Hedonistic Imperative, by David Pearce: which explores the possibility of radically reducing pain even in terms mental health and the elimination of ageing with genetic engineering and nanotechnology.

The Fable of the Dragon Tyrant: on conquering the dragon of ageing.

Suffering-Focussed Ethics, by Magnus Vinding: which focuses on minimizing extreme suffering. Key is reducing suffering for all living beings, not only humans.

I am also intending to read the following now, all as a consequence of dipping into the seemingly esoteric topic of anti-natalism:

Reasons and Persons, by Derek Parfitt. Much-needed challenge of the self-defeating philosophy of self-interest.

The Precipice: Existential Risk and the Future of Humanity.

Homo Deus: A History of Tomorrow.

Animal Liberation, by Peter Singer.

[Marko Bojkovský · Rating 3 out of 5]

Autor tokom teksta naizmenično diskutuje o dva pojma - anti-natalizmu (kao filozofskom stanovištu čiji je glavni moderni zastupnik Benatar) i rejectionism-u (odbacivanje sveta/života) koji on sam pronalazi u dve, tri drevne religije kao i kod nekolicine zapadnih mislilaca i književnika devetnaestog i dvadesetog veka.

Iako autor sam podvlači da ta dva pojma nisu podudarna, samo njihovo preplitanje i očigledno ubeđenje da su povezani (da na neki način pozni, definisani anti-natalizam proizilazi iz drevnih anti-životnih stavova) u mnogome šteti ovom delu. No, možda je samo do mene i do mojih očekivanja pre čitanja.

Uvodna poglavlja se bave rejectionism-om u drevnim tradicijama (pozno vedantskog) Hinduizma i Budizma. Nećemo se ovde baviti apologetikom pretpostavljenog istočnjačkog pesimizma detaljno. Jedino što moramo reći da Coates nije jedini koji uzima istočnjačke tvrdnje o životu "at face value". Ipak, povezivati spoznaje i tvrdnje o životu kao patnji povezivati sa anti-natalističkim stavovima je već nivo koji nisam video do sada. Naravno, autor ne tvrdi da su te tradicije tvrdo protiv rađanja, ali navodi kako su i mnogi hinduistički, a budistički monasi po pravilu bez dece. Još se pita, a kao ne zna, kakvi su stavovi vernika dveju tradicija. Razmislite malo o ovome. Hindusitičke i budističke zemlje su neke od najgušće naseljenih i/ili najmnogoljudnijih na svetu (ako to nisu razlozi su klimatsko-geografski)., tako da - ne, hindusi i budisti nemaju mnogo problema i dilema kada je porod u pitanju.

Dalje, imamo poglavlja posvećena Šopenhauru, kao i manje poznatim pesimističnim misliocima zapada koji su usledili, egzistencijalnim filozofima i književnicima dvadesetog veka i na kraju promatramo samog Benatara, koji i jeste jedini pravi anti-natalista. Nećemo ulaziti u detalje, jer bi nas to odvelo predaleko. Nije toliko teško Šopenhauera povezati sa anti-natalizmom i možda još jednog filozofa, no već sa egzistencijalistima je to jako teško. Ponovo, kao što konstatacija da je život patnja, tako ni npr. besmisao sveta i života nije dovoljno da bi jedan korpus misli povezali sa anti-natalističkim stavovima.

Redovi o Benataru su i najzanimljiviji i ono zbog čega sam i uzeo knjigu u ruke. Ukratko, glavni argument južnoafričkog filozofa je ultimativan - svaki život je patnja i samim tim nije vredan življenja i nemoralno je stvarati novi život. Argument ide od prilike ovako, drevni kelti ne pate zato što više ne postoje, zato što nisu živi, ili recimo na Marsu nema patnje zato što Marsovci ne postoje, nikome nije teško zboig te činjenice. Sa druge strane, moderni potomci Kelta postoje i pate zato što postoje, kao što bi i ljudski kolonizatori Marsa patili. Patnja je nemerljivo jače osećanje od bilo koje radosti. Dakle, nepostojanje je bolje od postojanja... Možda najjača crtica Benatarove misli ovde prisutna je promećivcanje činjenice da ljudi koji ne žele potomstvo moraju imati jake razloge za to, dok se imanje potomstva podrazumeva, iako većina tradicionalnih, podrazumevanih pro-natalističkih razloga u modernom svetu brzo gube validnost.

Na posletku autor pomalo promatra i fenomen "childless", odnosno kako pobornici insistiraju poslednjih godina "childfree" načina života. Pojava je svakako zanimljiva u najmanju ruku, ako ne i zabrinjavajuća i sama po sebi zaslužuje ozbiljne, rekao bih pre svega sociološke, studije. Ukoliko Vas zanima tema, upravo bi bilo bolje da pronađete takvo štivo ili da se direktno obratite izvoru moderne anti-natalističke misli - Benataru.

[Daniel Hageman · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 stars.

This book provides a fair bit of value in emphasizing the need to bring anti-natalism, and ‘rejectionism’ more broadly, into the Overton window of philosophical conversation and study. The intentional juxtaposition of it with ‘pro-natalist’ philosophies, its tying in with existential philosophy in academic institutions, etc all seem like great initial strategies to portray this space in the sort of serious manner that it deserves.

Nonetheless, the Coates still takes on a very human-centric motivation, one that he could argue is of likely more interest to a boarder target audience, but sadly lacks the bulk of non-human suffering that undergirds the strongest case for anti-natalist goals (even those who think wild animals are largely happy and preparing for the third Bambi movie, typically forget about the preponderance of r-selected species that comprise the vast majority of wild sentience).

The focus of the book on negative obligations (personally abstaining from children), seems also to be practically misled. Coates states:

“Rejectionism, you have to keep in mind, is about prevention, preventing future people from being born. But other than that, you lead a ‘normal’ life.” (p. 192)

There are more important prescriptions that come alongside a value-driven, rejectionist philosophy than the mere proscriptive that Coates highlights throughout. A sound recognition of the grounding of many of the arguments/worldviews discussed in this book, undoubtedly come along with positive obligations that deserve much more attention, i.e. to reduce/prevent suffering in all ways manageable. What’s more, the emphasized requirement for personal childlessness has an implicitly, and arguably unjustified, worry about hypocrisy in the ‘movement’, a movement that seems far from vulnerable to such risks given its low adherence and the typical clientele. The goal should not be on inclusivity and exclusivity, normalizing the view as something valid and worthy of consideration for those who plan to have children of their own, already have them, or are undecided but averse to strict requirements for something that is already so esoteric.

Lastly, the sections on rejectionist philosophy in literature, outside of culture/religion/philosophy, were a bit lost on me. Perhaps I need to read more Beckett (or any..) and Sartre to appreciate.

This book serves a valuable purpose, in showing how much more rejectionism might pervade society and culture more than one immediately thinks, and Coates usefully outlines a few ways in which it could be progressed further. Nonetheless, it leaves much to be said and improved upon. I would be tentative at best to bring too many more copies of it into existence, as it currently stands, just look at the beating I just laid on in my review ;)

[Sam Sneed · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book covers anti-natalist (and adjacent thoughts) from a variety of perspective from over the ages. It starts off with a chapter on hinduism/brahmanism and buddhism, and compares their rejectionist philosophy.

It then dedicates entire chapter to Schopenhauer, and his atheistic viewpoint on "rejecting the will to life". Unlike the religious point of view discussed earlier, Schopenhauer believes that in most humans, this repudiation of the will to live is not achieved through mere gnosis, but through harsh suffering brought about by fate. This point is also where his philosophy shares a key similarity with that of Hinduism and Buddhism. Schopenhauer disregards obtaining the knowledge of the truth nature of life as a way to achieve the state of rejection. The rejection according to him is quite of a mystic phenomena that must come from within.

The book then goes on to discuss other secular philosophers and writers of later century like Samuel Beckett, Benatar and Satre and their philosophies the question of life and procreation.

One key point that all viewpoint mentioned in the book share is the optimism that perception of the true nature of reality/life is something within the reach of all. Whether it may come through understanding the upanishads, learning the way of The Buddha, or picking up books from the later authors from your favorite bookstore, everyone is intellectually capable of rejecting life and procreation.

This I believe however cannot be further from the truth. There have been cultures in human history which have not developed moderately complex fairy tales, let alone ponder about important philosophical question of life. These cultures, like those in africa, seem to be bottlenecked by their human capital. Or more precisely, to understand complex philosophical positions, one must have the cognitive abilities, which are majorly inherited.

If the best human capital of the world is infected with the mind virus (and i dont use this term disparagingly) of being childfree, the only ones to have kids are going to be those unable to comprehend or appreciate the concept of being childfree, in greater part due to their IQ. This is only going to lead to an earth extinct of the humans that could great transcendental art, or do amazing feats like taking man to the moon and beyond. Is an animal like existence acceptable? I would leave that upto the reader of this review.

[Imaginarium · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a good overview of a particular strand of philosophical pessimism — antinatalism, which the author calls rejectionism. He goes through the history of thinkers and ideologies (philosophical, religious) that are to various degrees critical of existence. In certain cases, they condemn life, and in the modern format, they cast judgment on procreation — the very source of existence.

The author makes good observations with respect to the problem of dealing with existence. He focuses on this issue a lot. A particular way of approaching the problem of life — non-procreation — becomes prominent starting with Zapffe and culminating in Benatar. For the author, this particular way of rejecting existence is the best one, as it applies not to the one who's already struggling with existence (we, the living), but it's about preventing existence itself.

He ends with a chapter, where his own voice takes center stage, where he discusses a potential for building communities focusing on popularizing and practicing morally grounded abstention from procreation as the surest way to prevent the suffering of future generations.

I'm giving it only 4/5, because there are many editing errors virtually on every page, some important thinkers are omitted (most notably, Julio Cabrera), and because the author himself could have contributed more of his own philosophical thinking into the book. But I would recommend it to anyone interested in antinatalism, the critique of procreation of population ethics, and philosophical pessimism in general.

[Philemon - · Rating 2 out of 5]

The discussion failed to make an attractive case for choosing nothing over something. The Benatar of the title is David, author of Better Never To Have Been: The Harm of Having Come Into Existence. I prefer Pat, the singer of Hit Me With Your Best Shot.

[Ryan McCarthy · Rating 4 out of 5]

Largely a literature review (mostly of books I’ve read), but still a good primer on anti-natalist thought. The last chapter, taking the form of an FAQ, is short and worth a read.

[Douglas Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amazing Book!

If you have open mind, this is a very rewarding and stimulating book. Even though a complex book, it is not hard to read since Coates is a very good writer. Highly recommended!

[Jonathan Orme · Rating 5 out of 5]

Antinatalism is a very painful philosophy, and the fact that I’m agreeing with it is very telling of what modern life does to people. Either that or there’s something wrong with me.

[Sam · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very well-written and interesting history of rejectionist (life-rejecting) thought in religion, philosophy, and literature. The author focuses on Hinduism and Buddhism in the religious context; Schopenhauer, Hartmann, Zapffe, and Benatar in the philosophical context; and Beckett and Sartre in the literary context.

I do have a couple of criticisms of the book, however. Firstly, the editing is actually awful. I don't know who the editor was, but there were constant formatting issues, with extra spaces, a lack of spaces, and missing punctuation.

Secondly, while this can reasonably be called a history of rejectionist philosophy, I'm not sure it's accurate to say it's a history of antinatalism (even if you argue that rejectionism should lead to the antinatalist position). The author makes note of this, to be fair, but I think if you are expecting a book that is wholly about the history of antinatalism, this may not be what you have in mind. If you want some history of antinatalism with ideas that may support the antinatalist position, then this is definitely a decent read.

Also, before reading I was familiar with the ideas of Buddhism, Schopenhauer, Zapffe, Benatar, and Sartre, so a lot of the information wasn't new, although it did help to clarify – and add to – what I had read already about these ideas.

[Nirupam Joshi · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent overview on the subject. Author has thorough understanding of religious concepts of Hinduism and Buddhism. If you are a lazy reader, read only chapter 6 to understand the important points.

[John Ryder · Rating 4 out of 5]

It is sort of an academic analysis of the Rejectionist viewpoints in philosophy,religion,art.
I think it hits the mark and is accurate mostly.

It does not offer any solutions to the problem of existence of current living people,but focuses on anti-natalism.It does not view suicide as an answer to existence.
It tries to establish Rejectionism as a legitimate existential viewpoint and also practical lifestyle on secular universal terms.

My main problem with the ideas in the book:how can someone fully embrace the rejection of existence and live a conforming life apart from not procreating?
You would imagine that you would have to abandon modern life at large if you were a true rejectionist.
Although not procreating is a very important part of rejecting existence,is it the only necessity?
Is it not TOO LOW OF A BAR to aim for after all?Many people adhere to it already.
Are they Rejectionist?Clearly not.

This analysis is good for generating debate about Rejectionism at large,and what it means to apply to society.But so far it has not been established what exactly must be included in the creed.
Schopenhauer,Sartre,Cioran,Hartmann,Benatar have different ideas about what NEEDS TO BE DONE.
Apart from non procreating of course.

[Andrea · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book makes such a compelling argument for anti-natalism that a rational person cannot read it and then advocate for existence. It examines how religions such as Hinduism and Buddhism feature the constant search for an escape from life. Much of the book comes from the philosophy of Schopenhauer. His quotes will resonate with anyone who has questioned his or her existence or the purpose of life. It also explores the ideas of modern philosphers such as Benatar. Although the term "anti-natalism" is relatively new, this book demonstrates that anti-natalist ideology has been around for centuries in religion, literature and philosophy.

"Bringing someone into the world who has not asked to be born, to thrust life upon them and to put them through the painful business of living constitutes an immoral act."

Socrates: "To live is to be sick for a long time."

"Life is a business, whose returns are far from covering the costs" - Schopenhauer

[Tim · Rating 2 out of 5]

For me this book spent too much time looking at philosophical approaches to existence and not enough focusing on anti-natalism, although that does follow on from certain conclusions drawn from consideration of our existence

[Nathan · Rating 3 out of 5]

A somewhat useful overview despite the rather poor and even lazy writing, not much use beyond that (it really reads more like an undergrad paper than a proper book most of the time).

[Jule · Rating 2 out of 5]

Very demanding book. Too demanding for my current mental state. Dropped at 20ish % and my continue reading it in the future.

[Christopher · Rating 3 out of 5]

A great start to a project but I feel that some sections, especially the literature section, could have been much more expansive considering what is out there.