Introduction
Antinatalism is a thesis that argues that it is unethical to bring new people into this world. Furthermore, it claims we should stop having children altogether with the intent to rid the planet of our species.
There are two proponents of this thesis that I want to share my view on. David Benatar and Peter Wessel Zapffe. Now, while the former is well known to most who are interested in this kind of philosophy, the latter is not. This because his work was written in Norwegian and never translated into other languages. Still, I think Zapffe’s ideas are more «realistic» than those of Benatar in terms of reaching an antinatal decision. In this post, I will explain why.
The reason is, in short, that Benatar argues his view on ethical terms, whereas Zapffe describes it as something that forms in us after acknowledging the veto of nature. I will come back to this term, but the point is: If we were purely rational beings, Benatar would certainly have a strong case. But we’re not, and that’s why I believe the latter is closer to what it takes for a human being to turn against life.
Searching on antinatalism, it seems to me at least, that the topic is growing in popularity. Recently, David Benatar even discussed it with the more famous Dr Jordan Peterson. Common to any discussion though, is that the debate is usually heated due to its «offensive» conclusion. After all, it’s a rejection of life itself. Another common thing is that the theory is almost always discussed on ethical grounds.
But, there is another side to it. A metaphysical perspective that, in my opinion, is more explanatory in terms of how this decision might ever become an actuality in peoples judgement.
In this post, I will give the antinatal thesis a metaphysical ground as found in the Norwegian existentialist, Peter Wessel Zapffe. But first of all, I will start with David Benatar who framed the term.
The ethical argument
David Benatar has a solid case. To be alive and sentient means that you will suffer in one way or another. Be it physical pain from accidents or sickness, misery due to losses or unfortunates or anxiety following by aging and facing the inevitable end of life — death. It doesn’t matter if you’re born into richness or poverty, sooner or later, life will get you.
Benatar’s point is this, as a sentient being, you will suffer, contrary to a plant or any other non-sentient being. Now, imagine if you’re never born — you won’t be disposed to any of the pain and suffering that is unavoidable during a human lifespan. The striving, futile hopes and disappointments, the dread and agony — you won’t have any of it. And, what is more — you won’t miss out or be deprived of anything. And this is Benatar’s focal point — because the amount of pain will always outweigh the amount of joy in life, it is morally wrong to bring new people into this world.
There is a sense of logic to Benatar’s conclusion. How can you argue that a state of suffering and pain is better than not to experience any of it? Off course, you could say that life is wonderful and has a lot more to offer, but narrowing it down will likely leave you with some selfish arguments. Any of which is hard to put against the possible, horrific fate a child could suffer just by being born. However much you want it, how things will work out is up to coincidences and chance.
If you happen to think otherwise, that life is determined by your will and actions and can be steered towards fulfillment and happiness, Benatar will claim this to be due to some psychological processes that are built into the human psyche. Several studies on this have been done with positive results, the «Pollyanna principle» and the more recent thesis «depressive realism» to mention the most famous.
So, either you have to admit to the logic and the conclusion that it’s better to spare more people the suffering, or you are prone to some immanent psychological delusion that makes the world look just fine. As I read Benatar, these are the two categories you will end up in.
The emptiness of logic
But, however reasonable and solid these premises are, its validity won’t amount to much more than becoming an ethical curiosity, at most. It’s not like you will move on it due to some inner ethical acceptance that forces your reason to oblige. Logic, nor reason, applies to questions such as these or matters that deal with the way the selfish gene works. It won’t tame the drive to the point that we will choose against life. And it won’t simply because it doesn’t make an impact, make you crumble, bleed or suffer in any way. Or, put differently, an argument, however logical it is, does not break «the will» to life.
Since human beings are evolved past the «organic state», Peter Wessel Zapffe didn’t entirely agree with «the will» to describe our innermost essence. «Interest» however, are far more characteristic for the human being as we go beyond what is «biologically optimal» in terms of satisfaction. How our interest in life is broken is depicted by Zapffe and are an important element in his antinatal view on life.
..It continued in us
Rather than logic or ethics, Zapffe uses biology as his method. One of his claims and perhaps the most fundamental is that the human species is the result of an unfortunate evolution. Whereas other animals have a mental state that balances with its surroundings, we do not. In this sense, we are the odd ones out. We are animals just as much as any other species. We have the same basic needs, instincts and are living within the same premises set by nature. But where the development seems to have stopped in other animals, it continued in us.
Evolution opened a metaphysical horizon that brought our mental capacity to a level unknown to any other animal. Our perception and understanding were no longer not directed by instincts, but questions and needs unknown to nature. This horizon manifests itself in our search for meaning, purpose and a just order — all symptoms of an excessive mental state, according to Zapffe. Based upon this, Zapffe characterizes the human species as «overdeveloped», in which he means we are developed beyond what is necessary for existence.
One example is our insight of death. We are the only specie who know we are going to die. From a biological perspective, this is an absurd insight and most likely a side-effect to our awareness expansion.
Because it’s there..
In addition to the extended awareness and intellectual capacity, we have an «inner imperative» according to Zapffe, that tells us to realize our species abilities and possibilities. We want a destiny that equals our interest in life. And this is how we live — an everlasting attempt to fit our potential greatness into the world, nature, universe and cosmic scheme.
A famous quote by George Mallory, who died on Mount Everest, on why take the risk, he said: “Because it’s there”. The same applies to our search for a meaning and a goal to our existence. And «since it’s there» we expect our efforts to be confirmed and justified. But it is an expectation that never will be answered. What if we give it up, if we acknowledge our given abilities as dead ends? We shouldn’t Zapffe says, because if we do, we won’t be «worthy» as humans, but become a lesser kind of being.
A qualification for success
At this point, Zapffes philosophy turns somewhat «elitist». In other words, it’s only the best ones among us, the one who uses his «qualified abilities» who be prone to the veto of nature. And this is an important side to Zapffes antinatal thesis. He doesn’t tell you what the right thing to do is, but how the antinatal conclusion is born within by having your every «qualified» shoot at life rejected.
The feeling of being «tricked»
To this individual, life stands as a possibility of greatness. Torn by the question of what he is supposed to do with it — he turns every stone for an answer, for something to make him feel settled and at home in the world. Intellectually honest as he is, the gods and religions will fail him. Nor will the tasks or heroic projects bring him closer to this «inner confirmation» that he needs. He starts to feel like he is «tricked» into life as if it was not intended for him. Experiencing the only ruling principle there is — blind chance, he no longer gazes with awe and wonders to the skies.
Who gets to eat, prosper and survive or who has to beg, suffer and die, is all a coincidence. A moral judgement might be meet with the most unjust response and the most savage action might be regarded with fame and glory. There is no coherence between what he adds to the world, and what is given back. He does not lack any abilities, rather are they more and stronger than can ever be justified.
And as time passes, he can feel the cold breath of death getting closer. The despair and anxiety run through his very bones in thinking of the infinite nothingness he once was and soon will be united with again. Finally, realizing that neither he or any of his given abilities have any purpose whatsoever and that his every attempt is answered with silence and indifference — a mature decision starts to grow within him.
A mature realization
Realizing that all roads to «perfectibility» are closed, his last hope for meaning is crushed and brings him closer to the antinatal conclusion. Now he sees existence adequate to animals, but insufficient to a human being and their needs. Having pulled the «veil of Maya» — life unmasks itself as a nightmare of endless repetitions, filling him with great empathy for all that lives. Why put more people through this? The interest of life fades and a «no» to bring it further stands before him as the only meaningful thing left to do.
The idea with this post has been to draw out some differences in the way Benatar and Zapffe argue their antinatal thesis. Having read both, I feel there is more to Zapffes thoughts that reason with something as significant as antinatalism. Logic will never be enough for such a conclusion. For such a decision to be made, the decision has to come from the hearth, and it will only do so if we seek to realize our abilities and needs in an intellectually honest way. The one truly human, refusing to be anything less than what nature gave him a capacity for. However, most of us won’t.
Rather, we lower ourselves to a level where we are satisfied with the tasks and heroic projects available in society and the culture we are thrown into. Anything, as long as it disguises the feeling of insignificance or the fact that we’re not really “to” anything. We just “are”, as any other animal. We will deny our «situation», fate, mortality and hide beyond our synthetic goals, justifying our journey towards the great ideals while saluting our species progress.
The end
However, Zapffes work is called «On the tragic». His main thesis is that the objective tragic is when an entity strongest abilities are the reason for its downfall. Now, if we consider our current «situation» in terms of climate change and what causes it. Our way of “being” in the world is not bearable to the environment. Not because we are lacking anything, but we are “too much”. So, whether we agree to the antinatal thesis or not, we might end up with the same result anyway. In this sense, Zapffes definition of tragedy is about to get true.
References
Benatar, D. (2006) Better never to have been: the harm of coming into existence. Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press ; Oxford University Press.
Zapffe, P. W. (2015) Om det tragiske. Oslo: Pax (Peter Wessel Zapffes samlede verker).
