There are some strange philosophies
out there. Always have been. But perhaps none as bizarre as “anti-natalism.” Anti-natalists
believe that life is a harm and an imposition, human existence is totally
pointless, and no one should procreate. I will admit that, when I’m listening
to AOC or Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) for example, life can appear pointless at
times. However, the feeling quickly passes, and I wouldn’t recommend inviting
many anti-natalists to your next party.
Sadly, this anti-life “philosophy”
appears to be gaining mainstream acceptance. Last February, a 27-year-old
man from Mumbai named Raphael Samuel announced he had plans to sue his
parents for bringing him into the world, because he believes it is wrong to
bring new people into the world without their consent. Since it is
impossible for one to give one’s consent unless one is already alive, to
anti-natalists like Samuel, this means that no one should ever be born. (By the
way, wouldn’t this line of reasoning mean that parents should get their
offspring’s consent before aborting them, as well, no matter the other
aspects of their belief?).
According to anti-natalists, the
question of whether to have a child is not just a personal one, but an ethical
one, and the correct answer is always no, rendering the question no
question at all. This makes them the ultimate, perfected leftists/progressives.
There is—or should be—no free will! Or human beings! Wouldn’t that be a Godsend
to our Mother Earth?! (Except that She wouldn’t be our mother in that case, and
there is no God according to many on the left).
Though differing from them in
degree, anti-natalists join abortion-rights activists and a growing number of
climate change alarmists in essentially touting the “right not to be born.”
Combined with the right to die movement and population doomsayers, they
comprise a culture of death—and an illogically large group of people who don’t
think there should be… nearly as many other people. (Or, as the writer P.J.
O’Rourke titled one chapter in his book All the Trouble in The World,
“Just Enough of Me, Way, Way Too Many of You). Consider: if you are an
anti-natalist and still yammering (i.e. alive), you are a fraud.
Of course, there is also the group
Zero Population Growth, one of whose members founded the Voluntary Human
Extinction Movement ((VHEMT) with the lofty goal of “phasing out the human race
by voluntarily ceasing to breed,” or so states the group’s website. Hey, at
least it’s voluntarily!
Anti-natalists are not to be
confused with “denatalists.” The latter group only opposes procreation in
certain circumstances, such as between people with genetic disabilities that
would likely be passed on to their offspring. Still, this sounds a bit too
Third Reich-ish for my liking. Anti-natalists are opposed to any and all
births, period. They rightly believe that all life involves at least some
suffering, therefore bringing life into the world guarantees the introduction
of at least some pain or harm. From that, however, they extrapolate that it is
best not to bring any life into the world. They say, since it is obviously too
late to prevent our own miserable existence, the least we can do is to prevent
the existence of potential future beings. How magnanimous of us.
Died-in-the-wool anti-natalists,
the true believers, think their “values” apply not only to humans but to all
sentient beings. David
Benatar is the author of a book titled, “Better Never to Have Been: The
Harm of Coming into Existence.” He wrote, “It would be better if humans (and
other species) became extinct.” This belief is apparently why most
anti-natalists are vegans. That said, momentary pain aside, wouldn’t it be
better if anti-natalists put “other sentient beings” out of their misery by
killing and eating them? Wouldn’t they be doing them a service? Anti-natalists
say that “living things can be harmed, non-living things cannot be harmed,
therefore it’s best if there are no living things.” It would be best if there
were no plants then, either, Vegans. After all, some people claim plants can
feel pain, too, and they do respond to various stimuli.
To recap, anti-natalists think the
best-case scenario is a complete lack of life, a permanent state of
non-consciousness. An empty universe. An infinite void. If, in fact, there has
to be a universe, or a void, at all.
Benatar, a South African philosopher
and academic, goes even further. He avers that both life and death are,
for the most part, awful. He says that together they constitute “an existential
vise—the wretched grip that enforces our predicament.” Therefore, he argues,
it’s better not to enter into the predicament in the first place. A couple of
questions for Benatar: does he remember what it was like before he was born?
Maybe that was awful, too. Moreover, since he assumedly hasn’t died yet,
how does he know the afterlife is nothing to write home about? Is it possible
his progressive bitterness and disdain for life—his anti-natalism itself—makes
him feel life is more painful and unrewarding than it otherwise would be?
His statement reminds me of a quote
from Woody Allen: “More than any other time in history, mankind faces a
crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to
total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.” (To
Benatar, that choice is an easy one: head towards extinction).
Mankind does face a crossroads.
One path leads to darkness, privation and totalitarianism. That path is
marked by despair and utter hopelessness. And we well know how to get there. We
take the same path that the U.S.S.R., North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela took. The
path that the Democratic-Socialists are beckoning us to go down now.
The other path? This path reconnects
us with our founding principles. Limited government of, by, and for, the
people. Free markets. Natural
Law. The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to
be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and
the pursuit of Happiness.” Life. Happiness. Speaking of the
Creator, Genesis tells us: “God created mankind in his own image, in the image
of God He created them; male and female He created them. God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be
fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it.’”
God
is the ultimate pro-natalist. But what does He know? He’s not an
academic.
No comments:
Post a Comment