Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Google Podcasts | RSS
Rundown
In this episode we analyze the links between the antinatalist, vegan, and anticapitalist movements. We start by discussing what antinatalism is and distinguish it from merely a personal preference not to have children. We then take a look at how it’s been expressed in the vegan movement, with what implications and problematic assumptions (particularly for consumerist vegans!), including a discussion of the business of adoption. We critique the issue of “overpopulation” from a political economy standpoint, explaining how capitalism is a major driving force of population growth and environmental degradation and why relative ecological footprints matter. We then discuss the limitations of antinatalism to actually save animals and transform the systems that abuse them, as well as the idea of forced sterilization of both pets and humans. We close by looking at the arguments for and against antinatalism in the anticapitalist movement, and once again point out the limitations of antinatalism to actually challenge or transform the system.
Sources and Links
- A Privileged Vegan, Is it Orphan Adoption or Child Trafficking?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6B8uHg7Gjk
- Mexie, The Problem with “Overpopulation”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYuo2QdNu88&t
- Mexie, Precarious Work! The Reserve Army of Labour: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgJlsBCmrUA&t
- David Benatar, “Better Never to Have Been Born: The Harm of Coming Into Existence”: https://www.amazon.com/dp/0199549265/ref=as_at?creativeASIN=0199549265&linkCode=w61&imprToken=deEY9NuZImWU1Pmc0jb6tA&slotNum=0&tag=thneyo0f-20
- Marxist Student Federation, “Anti-natalist philosophy: hysteria, pessimism and capitalism’s decline”: http://marxiststudent.com/anti-natalist-philosophy-hysteria-pessimism-and-capitalisms-decline/
- The Anarchist Library, “Antinatalism as Revolution”: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-antinatalism-as-revolution
- Vegan Feminist Network, “Vegans, Procreation, and “Overpopulation”, Oh My!”: http://veganfeministnetwork.com/vegans-procreation-and-overpopulation-oh-my/
Support the Show
21 thoughts on “13. Should Leftists and Vegans Embrace Antinatalism?”
Good episode. I’m glad you girls decided to tackle this topic. It’s been an important one for me since 2010 when I first came across the term, though I’ve come to be even more critical of it in recent times. Unlike you girls, I didn’t become introduced to it through veganism. I’ve never regarded Freelee and Durianrider as antinatalists. They promoted a childfree lifestyle centered around vulgar, self-centered hedonism first and foremost, and only secondarily tried to score some points or “virtue signal” (as much as I dislike the term) by pushing the idea that a truly moral vegan should adopt. (I think this is partly correct in principle, but also deeply problematic, for the same reasons that Marine brought up.) I’m pretty convinced it was just something else to make regular videos about so that they could hear the sound of their own voices and not some deliberate effort to reduce suffering.
What has distanced me from the “antinatalist community” is that it is deeply reductionist and utilitarian, and at it’s worst it is Manichean. There are various strands of antinatalism but all of them tend to look at things from only one angle or two, and their shared presuppositions go unexamined. Many antinatalists are very much aware that capitalism is a problem, but they don’t necessarily see it as *the* problem. This is because, I think, there is a certain cynicism or fatalism about existence in general. This is, of course, inseparable from the system in which we have existed throughout all of our lives. We don’t know anything else than our atomized experiences, so we come to assume that this is what life is, and have no aspirations to transform it. Even if we are aware of it, the enemy seems too big and too abstract. It’s a lot easier to blame existence itself and to exhort from first principles with the conclusion that it ought not exist.
I think Mexie and I agree, the personal arguments are the most convincing (and most difficult to argue against). I’m not interested in having children because I’m not very hopeful that we can dismantle the system in time, and I think it’s extremely psychologically unhealthy to live in this world. It is even worse than it is often discussed here: we are not only exploited (and taught that this exploitation is perfectly acceptable), but we are conditioned for auto-exploitation. Like Byung-Chul Han argues, “we are achievement-subjects given over to *compulsive freedom*– that is, to the *free constraint* of maximizing achievement.” He argues that in such a society, the exploiter is simultaneously the exploited, and that it is even more efficient than allo-exploitation, because there is a feeling of freedom associated with it. And how do you convince someone that he is exploiting himself?! Another gargantuan task…
My stance would change if people were able to live full lives and have the opportunity to check out painlessly whenever they want, but we don’t even have that right or the infrastructure to allow it. I think this is important to mention because life can be pretty fucking dreadful regardless of the economic system we live under. The evolutionary processes that have gotten us here never had the well-being of any species at heart, much like an economy that puts profit over people, it’s just machine-like. The passage that Mexie read from Benatar seems clearly directed towards a certain portion of the population only (the bourgeois). This is probably strategic; he makes a much different argument in his book and interviews. They are not without flaws, but they are worth exploring and thinking about, I believe (as long as we have the critical tools to not swallow them whole).
I think antinatalism doesn’t have to be political, it can be a logical extension of Quietism. If you believe that life is suffering, it makes little sense to perpetuate it. But another part of me — the systems thinking part — is fully aware that the purpose of a system is to maintain its structure, and in the case of a living system, to regenerate itself as it is always degrading (being thermodynamically open). And the only way for things to get better in a social system is if it regenerates itself too, and it does that through reproduction, through creating new possibly creative individuals, and this can only happen if there are people who are willing to do it. I can’t do it because I’m very sensitive and risk averse, but I know others aren’t. But then I think everyone has to wrestle with an ethical dilemma: we cannot ask the unborn for consent, so how do we go about justifying our desire to bring them into existence? It seems impossible to argue that we bring people into the world for their own benefit rather than ours. And specifically, as activists, are we not making the same mistake that many others have made, in trying to “breed soldiers” for their political cause(s)? This is morally problematic and it also doesn’t seem to work very well.
In any case, these are just some quick thoughts. Oh and, on the topic of sterilizing animals, I thought I’d chime in and say that I agree with your nuanced take, but I think Marine romanticizes the family a little bit too much! When I moved in this apartment, there was a very large colony of stray cats that was out of control, so I had to intervene and I got as many cats sterilized as I could. (I feared that the neighbors would do many worst things than having cats sterilized.) I’ve been managing what is left of that colony, attending to their needs daily, and they are doing great. But I took in one mom and her 3 kittens too at the time. They have never been separated, I felt too bad about it, so I adopted them all. You might be surprised to know that they really aren’t that close. They behave much the same with each other as with the other cats they aren’t related to (yes, I had a couple cats already, don’t judge me!). I think cats are probably much like humans in that they can become closer to other cats that are not related to them than their relatives. They do look very cute together but I don’t think separating cats is that big of a deal now.
I still have 20 minutes to listen to but I’ll post this now since it’s already a big comment. Might comment again later! Looking forward to the next podcast as well. =]
Thanks for your detailed comment, Etienne! And thanks for providing more insight into the antinatalist community. Certainly any belief system that does not address our overarching system is limited. Your personal reasons for not having kids make total sense, and you’re right that it is an ethical dilemma that many people simply do not consider. However, the goal should be to change the material conditions such that the dilemma would be lessened if not removed. Interesting points about the cat families as well! We can’t ascribe human qualities/values to animals, certainly.
Thanks for taking the time to read it and respond <3! I didn't always share this conviction, but I agree with you now. Part of the reason for this is simple: no matter which way you look at it, humans are clearly not ready to abandon the human experiment or to "negate the will", and I haven't found any reason to believe that they can be convinced otherwise. Even Buddhism, which antinatalism can easily piggyback on — and which finds a lot of support in the West — is not the life denying philosophy that people tend to believe it is. I am not being absolutist about this, but it is quite clear that the material conditions for anti-life beliefs to possibly flourish to the level where they could achieve what is desired by antinatalists are not there at all, so these efforts are currently made in vain, as far as the end goal of voluntary human extinction is concerned. And like I touched upon in the previous post, on an individual basis, they also perpetuate Manichean thinking and an ethic of denunciation, which are entirely self-serving and unproductive.
It's also quite clear that the hardline antinatalist view only flourishes (or festers?) in a specific environment where people are atomized and oppressed. We don't know to what extent these beliefs would exist in freer societies. There is good reason to believe fighting for social reforms and human emancipation is not something that is done in vain because of all the historical precedents for it. It seems to be an inescapable factor driving our evolution. I think it's implausible that a classless society will be achieved and open a new chapter in the history of homo sapiens, but there's no non-dogmatic reason to believe firmly that it is impossible.
Putting the pragmatic issues aside, hardline or "global" antinatalists tend to ground their philosophy in an overarching narrative based (somewhat loosely) on some of the suppositions of a Dawkinsian, gene-centered view of biological life, which leads them to believe that biological life in itself is fundamentally a mistake. It goes something like: life has no intelligence or direction; it doesn't accomplish anything of "real value": it only propagates blindly and selfishly in a competitive environment, so it should just be ended as soon as possible. It's a pretty powerful argument for a lot of laypeople. Dawkins himself doesn't come to this conclusion, and I agree that he appears to suffer from Pollyanna syndrome in some of what he says, but I disagree that this is the best model of evolution that we have, and this is not really ever explored by antinatalists.
I believe antinatalists and their educated critics will be talking past each other for as long their presuppositions are not directly and critically examined. There is a broader issue at play which I think can be outlined as a paradigm of simplicity versus one of complexity. This is best explained in French philosopher and sociologist Edgar Morin's work, which seems more relevant than ever now.
Very well said! Certainly humans are not willing to abandon the human experiment any time soon. And, yes, antinatalists and their critics will likely continue to talk past one another until (if ever) all of these things are critically examined. For us, at least, fighting for emancipation for whichever population comes after us is the most important pursuit, especially because animal liberation and environmental sustainability to us are inextricable from human liberation.
Hi vegan vanguard:)
I had no idea that anti-natalism was a thing in vegan circles, I’m a rather new vegan and your podcast inspired me to make a video adding my thoughts to the discussion. I’ll link it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YovVPeif4Ws&t=16s
Thanks for your work, if it wasn’t for outlets like these i and maybe many others would be totally oblivious to the many pitfalls of veganism/leftism, making our road to ethical lives/politics a lot more bumpy
Thank you! And thanks for adding to the discussion through your video 🙂
hi there. for starters, thank you so much for this – it’s the first time i’m listening to your podcast and it’s amazing – i feel like I’ve learned so much already and that this is the kind of stuff that we need to be talking about.
i just wanted to share one thought in regards to the potential impact of being a vegan consumer to actual animal liberation (or two, actually.. ). so you mentioned that even if there are less animals killed by the animal industry, still a hundred percent of these animals were slaughtered, not to mention living under horrible conditions and all that – so even if the number of tortured animals decreases, we are still maintaining the system that perpetuates this treatment of animals as a norm. but saying that, therefore, it makes no difference that the number of suffering animals has decreased sounds to me like taking away the value of each individual life; like claiming that the lives of these animals only value as a group, a symbol for something, namely a measure for the advancement of our human societies. what i mean to say is that if we say that in a war, for example, each life that could be spared made a difference, because each life has in itself immeasurable value, than true animal liberation would naturally see animal life as equally valuable and sacred, in a way that each life that is “spared” does make a difference.
but this does mean you’re not completely right in that in order to achieve animal liberation we need to dismantle the system that creates animal oppression. but then here again i personally feel that being a vegan consumer does make a difference (even if very very small)in itself – not in regards to how it affects the numbers of animals (as this will not eliminate animal oppression), but in terms of the simple message that it advocates. lately i have questioned a lot whether it even makes sense to me to be vegan at all (whether it makes a difference, whether it comes as a manifestation from the root of my values or another new age illusion that becomes empty in its core) – and i’ve just come to the realisation (maybe even as i was listening to the podcast) that, even if being vegan in itself does not directly lead to animal liberation, it still embodies and gives voice to the belief that turning animals into objects for profit, and treating them with violence and disrespect, should not be the norm and is not acceptable. even if only because of the illusion that by decreasing consumer demand and thus decreasing the number of animals exploited by animal industries, one contributes to animal liberation, the choice of being a vegan becomes a voice fighting for animal liberation – it becomes, at the very least, a voice that questions the normalisation of animal agriculture amongst the thousands of people who don’t even recognise or acknowledge this as a problem at all. of course that once you see beyond this, you see that the key for animal liberation is not here – we have to target the system. but the system not only has brought people where they are, it is also made of the people, so the more individual consciousness shifts, the more collective consciousness will shift too.
these are just my thoughts in it anyway. and probably a lot related to what i personally needed to hear right now.
so again thank you so much for your podcast, i’ll be sure to listen to the past episodes as well.
xx
Hi Isa, thanks for your comment! We certainly don’t mean that the animals who are “saved” are not worthy of life, or that we shouldn’t celebrate whatever small victories we achieve. The thing is that the “saved” animals aren’t even born at all. All of the animals in the system are always killed. It’s not like 400 million animals (or whatever the number was) were actually released and got to live out their days in an animal sanctuary. So, in a sense they are saved from having to live that life, however 100% of the animals born into this system are still tortured and killed. We absolutely agree that it is important to reduce demand for animal products and spare animals that life, but our point was that it is simply not sufficient and we as vegans need to push for more than that, and not just pat ourselves on the back and think, yes – THIS is the answer that will dismantle the system. It’s not something we can solve through consumption, especially since it’s so tied to capitalism.
However we FULLY agree with you that it is incredibly important to be vegan as a deeply political stance. We advocate for defining veganism this way, and not merely as a consumption list. It is so important to have vegan voices spreading the discourse that sentient life should not be commodified or exploited, at all. Our issue is just with vegans who think that all we have to do is buy less animal products and do not go beyond this or see capitalism’s role in it all.
Thanks again for the comment and support! <3
What? 400 million sentient lives saved is a huge victory!
And preventing their lives is even better than releasing them from captivity once born.
Please try and get over your class war prejudice and look at Benatar’s work on its own merit (it’s a very quick read compared to Marx!), especially regarding asymmetry.
I don’t have a problem with systemic change of human institutions believe me; we do need to try and turn the boat around. But plugging the leak is paramount.
Have you come across EFILISM? LIFE spelled backwards.
Here is an amazing one-woman bit of theatre:
no, just fewer children. 1 or 2
I love this podcast as I die of loneliness.
There’s a big difference. 1 leads to extinction, 3 to explosion, 2 to very slow extinction (after a slight increase, can’t remember the maths of why, I’ve lost the graph and data).
“proles (from Latin prōlēs, “offspring”)—were listed instead of their property; hence, the name proletarius, “the one who produces offspring”. The only contribution of a proletarius to the Roman society was seen in his ability to raise children, the future Roman citizens who can colonize new territories”
That’s quite some people power we hold in our clenched fists. And I have always found condoms easier than barricades.
If you are lonely please send for some existing kids.
Thank you for thinking before breeding.
How about the term exploiter and exploited nations?
That could also get complicated but perhaps moving in the right direction… thanks for all of your comments 🙂
Analist XD I´m dying
I think the people you are arguing against just simply aren’t antinatalists. Saying we shouldn’t bring humans into the world because they make the earth worse for other things literally has nothing to do with antinatalism. Anyone who is talking about helping the “global ecology” by adopting rather than having their own child is not talking about antinatalism. Antinatalism afaik really doesn’t have much to do with making the world a better place. “The systems are the problem and not being born at all doesn’t solve shit.” I feel like you are also falling for this false understanding of what it is. Yes, the system does cause more suffering than other systems and could be better but this has nothing to do with what David Benatar is talking about. He wouldn’t care what system we live in, we could live in the best society imaginable and it wouldn’t justify bringing new life into this world.
The basic principles of antinatalism is that suffering is bad and causing suffering is morally unjust. So since all life is bound to suffer at least a little, it is wrong to bring live into the world. I think there is a very subtle difference between what antinatalism is and what is being discussed here. Pretty much everything I hear is about minimizing suffering. Things like Humans cause animals suffering, so we should get rid of humans so we minimize the animals suffering or or another point was that the system causes suffering so making it better will minimize suffering by doing things like not forcing people to work. But antinatalism is about ELIMINATING suffering, not minimizing it. And the only real way to eliminate suffering is to not have any thing that can suffer.
I agree with your criticism of the “anticapitalism/vegan antinatalists” but I think it should be made clear that most of the points you say they are making just simply aren’t antinatalist. I’m far from an expert on the idea so let me know if I’m wrong but I’m fairly confident my take is similar to David Benatar’s. I just wanted to clarify this because it was a little frustrating to hear you kinda lump antinatalism with this “movement” and call it all dumb. It’s kinda like hearing a capitalist say the USSR was bad so therefor all socialism must be bad.
There are various strands of antinatalism, just like there are various strands of anti-capitalism. They’re not all reducible to “suffering is bad, we have an imperative not to cause suffering”. Antinatalism as basically defined is a negative value judgment towards birth. It can come from a philantropic, misanthropic, humancentric or sentiocentric, local or global perspective. It’s true that they didn’t cover the topic broadly, but if, like you say, antinatalism is only ever a philosophy concerned with eliminating suffering, then that’s surely where it is most easily criticizable. Suffering could only ever be eliminated collectively, and it is absolutely crystal clear that human beings are not going to band together globally and voluntarily pursue their own extinction. Benatar agrees with this sentiment, but he still makes the argument that it’s immoral to have children, which should tell you that his antinatalism is not strictly about globally eliminating suffering, but compatible with a deontological or a consequentialist ethic.
You could make the case that, in the world we live in, it is equally unjustifiable (from a consequentialist perspective) to advocate that people shouldn’t reproduce, if the results often lead to more suffering than it prevents. It could be that it causes non-trivial psycho-social induced suffering in the individual, or it could be that a society that no longer has children is a society where the aging population suffers and which opens itself up to being conquered by another society which might be a lot more violent and regressive than the one it is replacing. If you take a consequentialist stance, as most antinatalists do, you have to study the systemic relationships and retroactions that follow from your actions, you cannot stop at the level of one individual in a vacuum not being brought into the world and categorically assume that it is always the right action.
I think it is justifiable to advocate for people to not reproduce. If they are simply having a child to reduce their own suffering I’d say that is selfish. If having a child is causing suffering, and you are doing that do reduce your own suffering I think this could be applied to a lot of things. If someone reduces their own suffering by torturing other people I think it’s justifiable to stop them from doing that. And it sounds a little absurd, but these two scenarios are similar assuming antinatalism is correct.
I guess it probably is unfair to say it’s the idea of eliminating all suffering. It’s probably better to define it as saying suffering is bad and we shouldn’t cause suffering. And antinatalism points out that having a child is causing suffering and so we shouldn’t have children.
I don’t think people on Earth now want to end life for sure, but I don’t think you can say that will forever be the case. I think you could argue that if antinatalism is true then it is the “great filter” that advanced civilizations run into and that’s the reason why we don’t see any super advanced lifeforms in the universe. It’s a little absurd but if we could say for certain that antinatalism is correct I don’t think it’s that crazy.
Anyway the points I think I wanted to make and I’m just now realizing is I think there is a difference between people who don’t want children to be born because it will make already living life worse. Vs people who don’t want children to be born because it will make those children’s life worse. Like the people who say we shouldn’t have children because they might hurt animals. I just don’t think that is the same argument as saying we shouldn’t have children because those children specifically are going to suffer.
“I think it is justifiable to advocate for people to not reproduce. If they are simply having a child to reduce their own suffering I’d say that is selfish.”
Human behavior is incredibly complex, we can seldom reduce an action to one single motive. And we’re almost always fooling ourselves when we think we know why someone acted a certain way. We don’t have full information about other agents and the little information we have is “filtered” through a ton of cognitive biases. Anyway, I wasn’t saying a case couldn’t be made for any form of antinatalism, I was saying the case for global antinatalism (total elimination of suffering) is not a favorable one to be making or pursuing. In my own post I explain why I sympathize with and hold some antinatalistic sentiments myself.
“I guess it probably is unfair to say it’s the idea of eliminating all suffering. It’s probably better to define it as saying suffering is bad and we shouldn’t cause suffering. And antinatalism points out that having a child is causing suffering and so we shouldn’t have children.”
Sorry to be blunt, but I think this is a one-dimensional deontological argument. It doesn’t account for anything outside of a micro-individualistic vacuum. What happens when you introduce a higher level of analysis? A country or nation is like a living organism, it seeks to maintain itself no matter what. It will adjust and incentivize procreation if it goes down below replacement levels and there is an aging population that isn’t getting the services it needs. Deontological arguments don’t deal with those real world effects, they simply argue from ideological purity. It’s nice and all, but it doesn’t tend to accomplish much.
What if you go up another level and take an extreme example, what if the entire planet is convinced and stops reproducing with the exception of the most violent terrorist groups who are not interested in your bourgeois morality? They strongly believe they’re going to heaven fighting for their God. These people enslave women and have no qualms torturing animals. Do you think letting such people inherit the world would lead to less suffering? Again, a deontological view doesn’t have anything to say about such scenarios.
“Anyway the points I think I wanted to make and I’m just now realizing is I think there is a difference between people who don’t want children to be born because it will make already living life worse. Vs people who don’t want children to be born because it will make those children’s life worse. Like the people who say we shouldn’t have children because they might hurt animals. I just don’t think that is the same argument as saying we shouldn’t have children because those children specifically are going to suffer.”
I think ultimately it matters very little. Antinatalism has no political force behind it and should not be prioritized in leftist activist circles. It stands at best as a personal philosophy for the risk-averse, but at worst it’s very damaging to individuals who come to see the world in a very reductive and Manichean (“us versus them”) way and who accomplish nothing by antagonizing others with their inflexible ideological purity.
Fantastic point about the “great filter”. Never thought of that! So I have added “voluntary extinction” under:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fermi_paradox&stable=0#It_is_the_nature_of_intelligent_life_to_destroy_itself
Dear Etienne:
1. “letting such people inherit the world” is also used by natalists to justify a multitude of sins.
2. Such terrorists are already among us and breeding. Are you advocating we “breed soldiers” to fight them in the future?
3. “Antinatalism has no political force behind it”. But it could have.
4. “inflexible ideological purity”, “very damaging”, “antagonizing others with their inflexible ideological purity”. Yet you warned above against painting all antinatalists with the same brush and making sweeping generalisations.
Hey, so, I’m actually only fifteen minutes in but I already have something to add.
Anti-natalism is not a ‘bourgeoisie’ ideal. Related ideas have been expressed since at least antiquity. It makes sense for anyone whose worldview is contingent on reducing suffering for as many as possible (e.g. if you’re a vegan or anti-natalist), to be against the extant capitalist market paradigm, which (as we know) necessitates the system-wide exploitation of the vast majority of us on the planet for the sake of a few. That is how I am personally able to reconcile being a leftist with also being anti-natalist.
People in the global North also die and grow old (assuming they live long enough), and it’s not just the filling out of forms and standing in lines that adds to the suffering experienced by people. To make the claim that this is a privileged perspective because many in the developing world have different (often more serious) problems fails to take into account that people acclimated to different baseline experiences will still have things that they are and are not able to easily tolerate. But that’s a bit of an aside, and not really a hill I’d choose to die on.
Not for nothing, but temperatures can be extreme in many parts of the West, so I don’t see how that’s viewed as a trivial complaint. People die of exposure in Canada and the U.S. Sure, with homelessness eliminated there’d be far less (probably virtually none, but likely not 0%) of that but other problems would remain. And with nearly eight billion on the planet already (regardless of the economic paradigm we’re under), is there really any necessity to create more people? My whole thing is, we should definitely make things better for as many as possible while we’re here, but the continuation of the human species into the distant future is an abstract idea that in practice serves no one who is presently alive.
One thing I feel is missed by some is the fact that no matter how much material conditions do improve for people, there are problems that will remain no matter what economic system we do or don’t live under. People will still grow old and and fall ill, and there will still be deaths and injuries related to accidents even if they occur infrequently, people will still experience anxiety over various things (and people do seem to have different temperaments, dispositions, and tolerances), people will still be born with terminal illnesses and disabilities—I suspect—for quite some time.
People will still experience boredom and tedium or things like anhedonia, and people won’t agree on many things. I see it with how fragmented politics can be in general, and I unfortunately can’t ignore the fact that the left isn’t exactly in 100% agreement on things either, and those are just a few things that would remain as issues to contend with even post-capitalism. Socialism is a long-term prospect, which requires a great deal of faith in progress and requires the passage of time to get fully established; things will of course get better but not nearly as quickly as we’d all hope, and in the meantime people will still suffer and die needlessly along the way. Not to mention many of the awful holdovers in people’s mentalities and neuroses as a result of having lived under capitalism; that won’t just go away once capitalism is abolished.
Just some thoughts thus far. Now, to finish the audio. 😀