Your Entire Human Existence from Birth to Death

Suppose there is a couple, the Joneses, who just gave birth to a baby boy named Sammy. As they stand together in the hospital, gazing down at their newborn, they share an awareness that the life ahead of Sammy will be filled with an indeterminable amount of both pleasure and suffering, happiness and heartbreak, miracle and tragedy. Then, in an instant, the harsh reality of their baby's future hits them, and for a fleeting second, they look into each other's eyes and think, "If we hadn't given birth to him in the first place, he wouldn't suffer anything." Right there, they both make the decision to give Sammy the best life they can and to prevent him from experiencing as much suffering as is humanly possible.

The Joneses are great parents for thinking this, but in the words of David Benatar, it is curious that while good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one and only guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is to not bring those children into existence in the first place. This is the philosophy of antenatalism. It's the thought that human procreation is unethical, the belief that any action with suffering as its byproduct should not be encouraged, no matter how much pleasure will follow.

Although the roots of antenatalism can be traced all the way back to ancient Greece, the philosophy has experienced a particular spike in popularity over the last decade or so. This recent resurgence can be accredited, by and large, to the South African philosopher David Benatar, who authored what may be the most widely known literature on the subject. In his book, "Better Never to Have Been," Benatar argues that his anti-natalist views come from a place of compassion, stating that the only way to truly prevent the suffering that comes with existence is to not exist in the first place.

And he isn't the first person to have this thought. The Greek tragedian Sophocles once said, "Never to have been born is best." Heinrich, the 19th-century German poet, wrote, "Sleep is good; death is better; but, of course, the best thing would have been to never have been born at all." In the preacher in Ecclesiastes said, "Swive praised the dead that are already dead more than the living that are yet alive; but better than both of them is he who has not yet been, who has not seen the evil work that is done under the sun."

So as you can see, the school of thought that non-existence is inherently better than existence isn't a new one. In recent years, though, these ideas have given rise to the anti-natalist belief that seeks to end human procreation. There are two different schools of thought under the anti-natalist argument. The first is the one David Benatar makes when he says we should spare the unborn from suffering. That is life. This argument centers around the harm in which existence poses on the baby being born.

On the other hand of the spectrum are the misanthropic arguments for antenatalism that center more around the harm that babies being born will go on to afflict upon one another, other animals, and the environment as a whole. To put it into context, consider this: the average carbon footprint for a single person in the United States has been estimated to be around 16 to 20 tons per year, meaning that just fulfilling daily necessities such as driving, showering, eating, and using electricity has unimaginably damaging consequences towards the environment we live in.

So, to anti-natalists, the most ethical way to solve this problem is to prevent it from happening in the first place. Both anti-natalist arguments, whether philanthropic or misanthropic, are centered around one core problem: suffering, and one proposed solution: to stop giving birth. And you might say, "Well, what about all the good things in life? Why would you not want a child to experience all of that?" Well, Anthony believed that in human life, there is an inherent imbalance or asymmetry between pleasure and suffering.

Let's take Sammy, for instance. Because Sammy has been born, he would experience pain, which is bad, and pleasure, which is good. However, if Sammy was never born, then he wouldn't experience pain at all.