Looking Beyond the Philosophy of Anti-natalism
This is the 7th extension article for my psychological memoir The Snowy Battlefield of Ohio: A Memoir.
December is Christmas month, when Jesus was born. Also, right before the new year of 2025, a catastrophic plane crash occurred in South Korea. (Do you guys remember what happened at the beginning of 2024? A tsunami in Japan.) I wish my readers a happy new year for sure, but how can I say that to the victims of these catastrophes without looking hypocritical?
At this sensitive time point, I want to share a 2D model about people’s decisions on whether or not to give birth to a new life.
In my book, I mentioned the philosophy of anti-natalism. In my late 20s, I labeled myself an anti-natalist (subcategory: anthropocentric, which literally means I’m no vegan) after I read the book Better Never to Have Been by David Benata and realized that this South African philosophy professor’s viewpoints are so relatable. Many people implicitly agree with his viewpoints but few were able to philosophize it. This is similar to what happened to Objectivism.
Not surprisingly, anti-natalism is as much demonized as Objectivism. I didn’t resonate with the community as much as the Objectivist community, and that’s why I didn’t engage heavily with those folks. I prefer the term contraceptionism. It’s more concrete to me, telling you what to do instead of what not to do. It’s promoting an action, not a negation. Of course, these concepts aren’t fully overlapping. I didn’t abandon anti-natalism as a philosophy, but I’m also very realistic: as someone who was trained heavily in psychology, ethics isn’t my main pursuit. I still care about my relationships with many people around me. I can’t afford to lose everybody around me due to lack of diplomacy. This is me. I don’t aim to be philosophically perfect. Why should I? For every philosophy or religion I have interacted with, different people have different interpretations of the creeds. So how is perfection even possible?
In reality, I’m not against procreation for everybody around me. I’m happy that my friends who have good genetics and good (inherited) wealth ( I no longer see “country” as an absolute factor) can give birth to kids because very likely they will give the kids a fine childhood. There can be exceptions to universal suffering, and I firmly believe that. Of course, it’s common sense that people have their choices and I can’t make decisions for them. Meanwhile, it’s always true that children are brought to this world without consent (the foundation of anti-natalism). One cannot deny this fact even though it doesn’t sound like a fair game. When people don’t want to admit this fact, they avoid facing it by silence or simply making false accusations. Anti-natalism, as an academic philosophy, is based on facts and logical deductions. Often people attack it without reading the book first – the same way people attack Objectivism (non-academic philosophy). But whether to embrace it or not is based on personality, how much risk one can afford to take, how much social pressure one can take, etc.
My Irish acquaintance from the anti-natalism community once said that giving birth to a child is like gambling with another person’s life. That’s true. No one knows the future for sure. For that reason, he doesn’t congratulate people for childbirth. I still do, but only to those people I like. Those people tend to be sensible and have the financial freedom to raise kids. And yes, as you can imagine, I am strongly against the idea of bringing a child to a chaotic or underdeveloped region to suffer from war, abuse, malnutrition, disease, poverty, brainwashing, or oppression. Being a US citizen doesn’t guarantee a dignified life, either, as many people realize by watching the news.
The outside world isn’t always about right or wrong. Not everybody cares about philosophical stuff, let alone sensitive ethics, and most people are very good at using defense mechanisms to justify their behavior. It’s part of reality: if you always point out the absolute truth, you may hurt people’s feelings and receive alienation or retaliation. When you reach a certain age, you know that’s true.
The model I propose was inspired by those graphs made by Prof. David Benatar in his book. There are 2 orthogonal dimensions, “early life experience” and “conscientiousness”. Below are the caveats (this word means “words of caution” in normal human language) for this parsimonious (this word means “overly simplified yet practical” in normal human language ) model.
(1) Early life experience is neither fully happy nor fully miserable for most people. It’s a hypothetical average over a period of time against a spectrum. When I say early, I usually mean the time before adulthood. Of course, life has ups and downs. Early life well-being may not predict later life accurately. However, it contributes to one’s worldview.
(2) In the dimension of conscientiousness, I now use “high” vs “low” as the categories. But remember it’s just a well-known dimension in personality traits. Any value is relative. In my original prototype, I used “ethical” vs “unethical”, but later I decided to replace them with “high” and “low”, as I don’t want to overstep by using moral labels to describe personality, especially since procreation is always a debatable issue. I’m not a philosopher by training, after all.
(3) The 4 quadrants are only created for convenience. There’s no absolute boundary between one another.
(4) The terms I put within each quadrant aren’t exhaustive. You may be able to think of something I didn’t think of. This model is the result of my cumulative thinking over many years.
(5) “Vengeful procreation”: for example, creating a life for personal gains or to piss off one’s opponent. If you have no clue as to what I’m talking about, go watch some South Korean romantic TV drama. “Senseless procreation”: for example, creating a new life without caring about replicating miseries. These terms may not be perfect, but you get my message: they’re not procreating for the well-being of the offspring.
(6) Neutral terms such as Contraceptionism can be placed above the horizontal axis, grouped with anti-natalism. Yes, I believe it’s rational, but I’m focusing on the actual decision here, not just the attitude. “Rational procreation” is about the actual action, more than what people say about their plans. Many humans will say one thing and do another, for fear of social judgment.
(7) There are always exceptions. You don’t have to have a painful childhood to agree with anti-natalism. You may only need a great sense of justice and a low willingness to take gambles on this thing called “life”.
(8) Please don’t see this model as any kind of direct advice, just some reference. Use your judgment but avoid mental gymnastics.
In case you wonder, was my worldview on this matter influenced by my experience in Ohio and California? The answer is yes, but only partially. It’s better to use the word “reinforced” than “influenced”. I was determined not to have kids when I was in high school in China, due to the oppression I saw through in mainstream Chinese society. However, living in America (or other white-dominant countries) as an immigrant, especially before I obtain permanent residence, would not make procreation a good decision for my particular case, because
(1) ideologically and emotionally, I don’t belong to the typical Chinese immigrant circle.
(2) mainstream Americans will inevitably see me as an outsider—objectively, I look different, sound different, think differently, and behave differently.
(3) my genetics will result in my offspring being somewhat isolated and discriminated against in mainstream American culture.
The details are available in my book The Snowy Battlefield of Ohio: A Memoir.
Finally, I just want to say, good parenting is hard, probably no less hard than figuring out these chronic musculoskeletal issues in my body. I wouldn’t compare. What I know for sure is that, if you don’t like kids, and don’t like dealing with some horrible educators, please don’t add more burden to yourself against your free will. Childbirth shouldn’t be a means for subsidies.
Wish you a happy new year in which you can live by your free will. My acknowledgment will be given to Prof. David Benatar, unsurprisingly. I have high respect for a scholar like him. He is more objective than some Objectivists who have never lived outside the developed world.
If you have any comments on this model, please share your ideas. If you like or hate this article, don’t forget to share it on social media. If you want to continue to read this type of psychology articles, please subscribe to the newsletter ON THIS WEBSITE. My audiobook is very close to publishing, and my personal website is under construction.