On July 30 2023 Lawrence Anton made his case for why he thinks animals are included in antinatalism. I contend that he failed. This analysis details why.
MAPPING OUT A PATH
1m29s “Before we dive into the actual arguments for and against including animals in antinatalism I think it would be useful to quickly map out a way of how we can actually navigate this question. And to do that I think we need to start by taking a look at antinatalism itself. So in my current thinking on antinatalism, the best way to me to conceptualize it and talk about it is how Thaddeus Metz described it: “Contemporary antinatalism is fascinating and important for requiring sophisticated reflection on the evaluative question of how to judge the worthwhileness of lives and on the normative one of what basic duties entail for the creation of new lives1”.
So here he identifies two parts to antinatalism, an evaluative part and a normative part. So the evaluative part is obviously evaluating something. In the antinatalist case that would be evaluating coming into existence. The normative part on the other hand is a moral judgment of an action taken that is relevant to the evaluated thing. So in the case of antinatalism that action is creating a new being.
So to make this a bit clearer let's lay it out. The evaluative part is Coming into existence is a harm and obviously some people will say sentient existence or just human existence. And the normative part is Creating new, either sentient or human, life is unethical. And a quick side note, I've actually been told that splitting antinatalism into these two constituent parts has actually been done as well by the German philosopher Oliver Hallick in this book (Besser, nicht geboren zu sein? - Eine Verteidigung des Anti-Natalismus2).”
Anton misconstrued what Metz said. I asked Metz if the statement Anton quoted means antinatalism is comprised of evaluative and normative parts, and if statements such as Benatar's “coming into existence is always a serious harm” are antinatalist type statements. Metz confirmed:
Interpreting his statement as meaning antinatalism is comprised of evaluative and normative parts “conflicts with common usage or usage that would be useful to organize the debate”.
An evaluative statement (such as Benatar's) “is not anti-natalist as such, even if it could figure into an anti-natalist position”.3
Hallich does split antinatalism into evaluative and normative parts, but not in the way Anton means4. Anton is referring to pessimistic evaluations concerning the nature of existence and coming into existence. Hallich's “evaluative anti-natalism refers to the value of reproduction and answers the question of whether it is better or worse to reproduce than not to reproduce.5” (Diagram 1).
Hallich's evaluative antinatalism is akin to what has otherwise been described as weak antinatalism6.
Jumping ahead to 22m37s Anton refers to an email exchange I had with David Benatar to bolster his claim, concluding: “It's actually interesting that Benatar actually kind of also hints at this way of breaking antinatalism down into two constituent parts, namely the normative and the evaluative parts.”
Benatar wasn't hinting at anything. He was replying to an email I sent him and the structure of my inquiry dictated the structure of his response7. Taking the full context of the exchange into account, it's an error to interpret what he said as support for Anton's proposition.
The two authorities proffered in support of the claim that antinatalism is split into evaluative and normative parts are misconstrued and irrelevant. Anton also reads something into Benatar's email that isn't there. These unforced errors are indicative of a low reading level and a sloppy research ethic, probably connected to the fact Anton doesn’t read—something he deems boastworthy:
Every argument Anton puts forward relying on his evaluative/normative claim can therefore be dismissed for lack of foundation. (This doesn't mean antinatalism can't be divided into evaluative and normative parts. It only means Anton failed to prove his case that it is.)
I suspect those personally invested in animals being included in antinatalism will balk at this on the basis lack of foundation for an evaluative/normative split doesn't mean Anton's arguments concerning morally relevant differences between humans and animals don't deserve a fair hearing. But the point of his video isn’t whether or not there are morally relevant differences between humans and animals. It’s whether or not animals are included in antinatalism. Even if we grant all his claims relating to morally relevant differences, failing to substantiate his evaluative/normative claim means he lacks foundation for asserting antinatalism includes animals. (Again, for clarity, this doesn't mean animals aren't included in antinatalism. It only means Anton fails to prove they are.)
An example which is probably more easily accessible for so-called sentiocentric antinatalists (who tend to be atheists not invested in beliefs pertaining to god's existence) is the claim that the bible is god's word. There isn't any doubt the bible was written, that it provides valuable insights into human nature, and that people believe god wrote it. But all claims relying on god being the author necessarily fail for lack of foundation unless god's existence can be proven. For example, a believer might insist we have to follow the ten commandments because that's what god requires. Yes, the ten commandments are in the bible and many people believe they come direct from god. But until it can be proven that god exists there isn't any foundation for saying god authored them or that god requires we follow them. Therefore the claim, and all other claims predicated on the existence of god, can be dismissed for lack of foundation. If you accept this you're obliged to accept the same vis-à-vis Anton's claims.
IMPLICATIONS
4m47s “Why is this an important question as to whether animals are included in antinatalism or not. Well it's important because it gets to the center of a debate that has been happening for years amongst antinatalists and that's whether antinatalism is anthropocentric or sentiocentric, and what the implications of those two things would mean for the actions we take. So for instance, when it comes to advocacy an anthropocentric antinatalist conclusion may lead to advocacy that resembles something like the voluntary human extinction movement, where they advocate for the voluntary cessation of human breeding and therefore the extinction of the human species. A sentiocentric antinatalist conclusion, on the other hand, in advocacy may share the same long-term goal of human extinction but they may sideline that in the short term to pursue a more focused effort on other forms of activism that address non-human animals. So for example that could be advocating for a vegan food system. It's also the case that antinatalism doesn't just have implications for our reproductive choices it also has implications for other aspects of our behavior as well. So for example, a sentiocentric antinatalist may want to divest any of their money and resources from industries that partake in the breeding of non-human animals. So one way they could do this is to personally be vegan. Now obviously there are also reasons why an anthropocentric antinatalist would be vegan but they may not be the exact same reason as sentiocentric antinatalists.”
Anton's sole concern is how this issue impacts his ability to transform antinatalism into some kind of animal activism, reminiscent of Amanda Sukenick’s agenda to efilize antinatalism from within. He doesn't care about whether or not antinatalism includes animals. He wants antinatalists to take up the cross of animal suffering under the banner of antinatalism, regardless.
It beggars belief anyone could even conceive of the notion that activist objectives matter in any discussion about what antinatalism is or isn't8. If animals aren't included within antinatalism or if their exclusion results in antinatalists not prioritizing animal suffering, that doesn't mean antinatalism or antinatalists are defective. If anything about antinatalism constrains what Anton et al want to execute under the umbrella of antinatalism activism, that only means they're trying to co-opt antinatalism in the service of unrelated agendas.
Animal activism predates antinatalism, hasn't been hampered by not having anything to do with it, and will do fine without it. So why the urge to get antinatalists on board with it? What exactly does animal activism stand to lose if antinatalism doesn’t include animals? Does Anton believe animal activism will be impeded if it isn’t carried out under the antinatalism brand? Conversely, what exactly does antinatalism stand to gain by association with animal activism? Antinatalism hasn't been hampered by not having anything to do with it, and will do fine without it. Furthermore, it would be piss easy to make a robust case that the most egregious hostility, abuse, and division in the online community comes from sentiocentric/efilist antinatalist activist types. Not only wouldn’t antinatalism lose anything by not having anything to do with animal activism, it would benefit no end.
Anton’s executing a blue ocean strategy. He’s spotted a gap in the market. A way to make a name for himself by monopolizing antinatalism with animal rights activism. The vegan/animal rights arena is saturated. There's very little, if any opportunity for newcomers to make waves. Antinatalism on the other hand is still a scene where newcomers can thrive with minimum effort. There’s also a constant supply of naive proselytes whose understanding of antinatalism probably doesn’t go beyond a couple of youtube videos and a google image search of Benatar’s asymmetry, who conflate a guy confidently producing lots of content with being an authority on the subject (same as what happened with Gary Mosher).
It’s chucklesome seeing people fawn over him as an antinatalism activist, knowing he advocates in favor of pronatalism as a proponent of the Ecological Niche Replacement Argument (ENRA), an explicitly pronatalist agenda9.
Appoota Aravind explains ENRA here: “If we adopt AN, the net suffering in the world would increase, and not decrease as the ANs seem to think. On the contrary, if we do breed, we would need more land for our utilization. This would force us to slowly expand into wild ecological niches. As a result, we would lead to a net decrease in the suffering and number of rights violations, because the scarcity of forest cover would lead to a decrease in predator population naturally, and thus fewer animals will get hunted by them. So the world that is instantiated by AN would look worse on the utility calculus than the world that is instantiated by breeding. So if the goal of an AN is to lead to the world with the least possible suffering, then not breeding doesn’t seem to lead to that goal. On the contrary, in the absence of technologies like Dark matter bombs or something which would destroy all matter in the universe, the only pragmatic way to lead to a world with less suffering is one where we breed. This particular argument is called The Ecological Niche Replacement Argument.”
Anton advocated for ENRA in a December 2022 discussion with Aravind, which understandably left him confused as he tried to make sense of an antinatalist advocating for pronatalism:
41m28s “I think that wild animal suffering is more of a cause for concern than human procreation, so I think it is something that we should focus on more than human proc(reation)— If you're an antinatalist that wants to do good in the world and you see preventing beings from being created in the first place as a good thing, then I think focusing on wild animal suffering, or some other issues, is more pressing.”
What “other issues” does Anton have in mind that antinatalists “should focus on more than human procreation”—antinatalism's core, if not only concern? How is this different from telling vegans, Focusing on human suffering, or some other issues, is more pressing than factory farming? And anyway, why do antinatalists have to focus on anything? It doesn't have any objective. It’s an idea borne of pessimistic philosophy proffering a response to questions concerning the goodness/badness and rightness/wrongness of procreation. There isn’t any dogma, it isn’t a sociopolitical extinctionist movement, and it doesn't make demands of anyone. But I guess Pessimism Activism isn’t as marketable as Save The Baby Elephants.
48m38s LA: I agree with the argument (ENRA) itself which is why I say I don't think human procreation is the number one cause area that antinatalists should be focusing on. I think we should be focusing on wild animal suffering, potentially the worst excesses of AI that could potentially come around. Also animal exploitation as well, like what humans do to animals. I think these issues are all more important than human procreation. But I still think human procreation in itself is an unethical act. I just think it's a necessary evil for now.
AA: Okay so, in practice you're a natalist?
LA: It depends what you mean by natalist, like no, I'm not going to have a child—
AA Just having children
LA: No I'm not going to have children, no.
AA: Okay so you say it's a necessary evil but you're not going to do it. That seems weird to me.
LA: Ah, why?
AA: You said it's necessary, right? And I just take necessary to mean not doing it would be bad.
LA: Yeah but it doesn't mean I have to do it. My time can be better spent elsewhere.
AA: Yeah that's fine. But then I'm not sure I would classify that as a necessary evil.
LA: Well if you want to help wild animals and alleviate their suffering, some level of human procreation is going to be necessary, right?10
Anton, a self certified antinatalism activist, advocates in favor of pronatalism on the basis human procreation is a necessary evil for the sake of wild animal suffering. When he says human procreation is a necessary evil, he means human suffering is a necessary evil, because human suffering is the upshot of human procreation. All the kids’ being maimed and shred to pieces in war is a necessary evil. All the unfathomable cruelty of human trafficking and slavery is a necessary evil. All the exploitation of sexually abused children for child porn is a necessary evil. All the women beaten and raped to prevent them from having children is a necessary evil. All the failed suicides are necessary evils. All the pain, anguish, death, and disease experienced by every human are necessary evils. And let’s not forget all the horrific suffering humans visit upon animals in factory farms. All this, for the sake of some messianic pipe dream about being able to save wild animals from themselves.
Note also how Anton expects everyone else to sacrifice themselves and their children for his crusade, but he won’t put skin in the game because his time can be better spent elsewhere, lol whatever the fuck that means.
Let's flip this: I don't think factory farming is the number one cause area vegans should be focusing on. I think vegans should be focusing on human suffering. Also human exploitation as well, like what humans do to humans. I think these issues are all more important than factory farming. I still think factory farming in itself is an unethical act. I just think it's a necessary evil for now because consuming animals for food, fashion, and fun contributes to alleviating human suffering. If you want to help humans and alleviate their suffering, some level of factory farming is going to be necessary, right?
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
ANIMALS IN ANTINATALISM
Anton’s case for including animals in antinatalism has already been dismissed for lack of foundation. He does however say a couple of things that warrant a response.
6m53s “To begin I think it would make sense to start where we all agree, and that is humans are harmed by being brought into existence. As antinatalists we all believe in this common foundation to antinatalism. But some people, namely anthropocentric antinatalists, draw the line there and claim that it's only humans, homo sapiens, one species of animal, that evaluation is true of. But how can that belief be justified that a human is harmed by their existence but a puppy born in a puppy mill is not harmed by their existence? Well to justify such a belief someone defending it would have to come up with some morally relevant difference between human existence and non-human animal existence such that human existence is a harm but the existence of all other animals is not a harm.”
15m13s “These are the traits that I have seen people claim separate out humans from other animals in the evaluative sense of antinatalism, that existence is a harm to humans but it's not to other animals.”
18m27s “There also seems to be a lack of appreciation for the magnitude of suffering as well. So for example, a human that is born and can existentially suffer but actually has a pretty good life, and existential suffering only punctuates their existence is harmed by their coming into existence. But a pig on a factory farm is not harmed from their coming into existence because they can't existentially suffer.”
This is excrement. Nobody says animals aren't harmed by coming into existence, or pigs don’t suffer because they can’t existentially suffer. It's the equivalent of saying disagreeing about antinatalism including animals means you’re too stupid to realize animals are sentient beings11. It comports with Anton's mistaken belief about antinatalism being parasynonymous with morality: “To me antinatalism itself is sentiocentric. I see no reason to draw the moral line at humans.”. He seriously believes saying animals aren’t included in antinatalism is the same as saying animals are beyond moral consideration.
This is what happens when intellect is held captive by ideology, what Charlie Munger describes as a mind “made of cabbage”. You convince yourself the only way to make sense of people disagreeing with you is to think of them as morally defective halfwits shackled to sin and blind to truth.
But what about the principle of charity? Perhaps Anton misspoke. I don't buy that. Saying the same thing 3 times after prepping the script for at least 4 months12 with the help of a philology postgrad giving him feedback and suggestions13, and choosing to include the statements in the final cut means he meant what he said. Or he's sloppy and these kinds of discussions are above his pay grade.
ANIMAL ACTIONS
In this section Anton touches on the strongest case14 for animals being included, viz., animals brought into existence by humans. But he renders everything void by basing it all on his foundationless evaluative/normative framework.
That being said, Hallick's evaluative antinatalism15 might offer a solution. For example, Coming into existence is always a (serious) harm for animals, therefore it's better to not bring animals into existence (Diagram 1). I'm not suggesting this particular example is a viable argument, nor am I saying Hallick's approach is a shoo-in. But anyone invested in proving animals are included in antinatalism would be remiss to not give this some consideration.
BEYOND ANTINATALISM
Anton’s video may be called Are Animals Included In Antinatalism?, but that’s a ruse to grab the antinatalist’s attention. It's a recruiting video. His real objective is proselytising antinatalists in service of wild animal suffering activism.
24m5s “Intervening to prevent sentient beings from coming into existence is not the same as not creating them. And as Benatar says, while preventing wild animals from bringing each other into existence falls outside the scope of antinatalism we may have sufficient reason to go beyond antinatalism and help alleviate the unfortunate situation the wild animals find themselves in. And in this section I'll be explaining the thought process behind that desire to go beyond antinatalism.”
What matters here isn't what Benatar or anyone else thinks. All that matters is what Anton thinks. And he thinks intervening in wild animal suffering is beyond the scope of antinatalism.
In light of this, let's revisit what he said in his discussion with Appoota Aravind:
48m38s “I agree with the argument (ENRA) itself which is why I say I don't think human procreation is the number one cause area that antinatalists should be focusing on. I think we should be focusing on wild animal suffering... If you want to help wild animals and alleviate their suffering, some level of human procreation is going to be necessary.”
Putting everything together, an antinatalism activist is telling antinatalists to be in favor of human procreation (entirely at odds with antinatalism) for the sake of wild animal suffering (which doesn't have anything to do with antinatalism).
How many fingers am I holding up, Winston?
Four.
And if the party says that it is not four but five -- then how many?
Four.
The needle went up to sixty.
Furthermore, conceding wild animals to be beyond the scope of antinatalism means Anton trying to rationalize ENRA as an antinatalist argument is doublepluslol, because ENRA's singular objective is reducing/eliminating wild animal suffering.
How many fingers, Winston?
Four! Four! What else can I say? Four!
How many fingers, Winston?
Four! Stop it, stop it! How can you go on? Four! Four!
Then he frames ENRA as something efilists (rather than antinatalists) are in favor of, begging the obvious question about whether or not he’s just another fucking efilist trying to efilize antinatalism from within: "Actually there are many efilists who do recognize that it could actually in the short term be good to bring children into existence. Because an efilist is sentiocentric, they, a lot of the time, have conversations around wild animal suffering. So they want to help wild animals because the way they see nature is that it's very brutal. Often wild animals will have very short and hard lives. And so actually if we want to help them the human species would need to continue."
How many fingers, Winston?
Five! Five! Five!
No, Winston, that is no use. You are lying. You still think there are four. How many fingers, please?
Four! Five! Four! Anything you like. Only stop it, stop the pain!
ANTHROPOCENTRISM AWRY
This section doesn't have anything to do with whether or not animals are included in antinatalism. Anton just continues his recruitment drive dealing with objections people apparently raise against getting involved with wild animal suffering.
AN UNDERSTANDING
33m33s “So in conclusion animals are indeed included in antinatalism but only to ”—Imma have to stop you there.
You didn’t come within a country mile of being able to indeed come to any conclusions about anything related to the title of your video. Just unforced errors and misdirection.
—
I sometimes update my posts. If you want to critique things I say, please screenshot or archive to mitigate against your efforts being made redundant or accusations that I change what I write to avoid criticism. (Last update: 2024 March 18, 07:51 JST)
Given the infinitude of online content, and the value of your precious time, thank you for choosing my tiny corner of the web.
Metz, Thaddeus (2012) Contemporary Anti-Natalism, Featuring Benatar’s Better Never to Have Been, South African Journal of Philosophy, 31:1, 1-9, DOI: 10.1080/02580136.2012.10751763, pg1
Hallick, Oliver (2022), Besser, nicht geboren zu sein? - Eine Verteidigung des Anti-Natalismus, J.B. Metzler Berlin Heidelberg, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-65621-1
Private communication, October 30 - November 8 2023
I asked Lenny K (the person who assisted Anton in scripting the video, and who put him on to Hallich (cf n12,13)) about my take on Hallich. Unfortunately I asked him the wrong question, viz., "Did I present Hallich's position correctly in my essay response to Lawrence?". I should have asked Did Lawrence represent Hallich correctly?.
Fortunately Lenny tackled both questions in his response: "Yes, I mentioned Hallich's book because that's where I first came across an "evaluative/normative" distinction, which are terms that sometimes come up in antinatalist discussions. Yes, it is true that Hallich uses it in a slightly different way from Lawrence.
The "weak" (or "mild") antinatalism that Hallich defends in his book is the claim that it is rational to regret coming into existence. In most instances throughout the book when Hallich uses the term "evaluative antinatalism", he refers precisely to this claim as well as to the idea that it is better not to have come into existence.
See, for example, p. 7: "Im Folgenden werde ich – mit einigen Einschränkungen und Qualifikationen – für einen mitleidsbasierten evaluativen Anti-Natalismus, aber nicht für einen normativen Anti-Natalismus argumentieren. Genauer: Es wird die These verteidigt werden, dass es für jede existierende Person besser gewesen wäre, nicht in die Existenz zu kommen, und dass es eine Schädigung einer Person darstellt, sie in die Existenz zu bringen."
And p. 98: "Kern des evaluativen Anti-Natalismus ist die Behauptung, dass der Wunsch, nicht geboren zu sein, ein rationaler ist."
In other words, the statement "it is better not to procreate" (as shown in the diagram) does not seem to encapsulate Hallich's "evaluative antinatalism" *in its entirety*, as it seems to be mostly — though not exclusively! (as pointed out) — concerned with the "coming into existence is a harm" part of the argument (the pessimistic diagnosis focusing on the one being brought into existence) rather than the "we should/should not do X" or "we are encouraged to do / discouraged from doing X" part (the normative - or, in this case, supererogatory - claim focusing on the moral agents)."
Lenny's statement that "it is true that Hallich uses it in a slightly different way from Lawrence" further strengthens my case that Anton lacks foundation for his evaluative/normative split. I also agree with him that "It's better not to procreate" doesn't fully encapsulate Hallich's views. The point of the diagram isn't to summarize Hallich's arguments. It's a simple way of showing how he and Lawrence use the term evaluative in different ways.
Private communication, December 29 - December 30 2020
cf Appeal to Consequences fallacy
Appoota Aravind categorizes ENRA as a critique of negative utilitarianism based antinatalism. I use agenda here because that's how Anton treats it.
Contrast this with what Anton says here: “Should the extinction of humans be the or a goal of an anti-procreative movement, and if so why? So my view on that is that, I don't think it's necessary to have it as a goal, I think an anti-procreative movement should be what it says on the tin -it's anti-procreation rather than pro-extinction. Even though being anti-procreation will very likely practically lead to extinction, I think there's an important difference between being anti-procreative and pro-extinction.”
This was June 20 2021. What caused Anton’s thinking to shift to such an extent that by December 18 2022 he was advocating for antinatalists to be on board with human procreation in his conversation with Appoota Aravind?
If someone does present this as a serious argument, the correct response is to dismiss it as idiotic, not hold it up as representative of the best objection.
Anton began preparation no less than 8 months ago, meaning no later than the beginning of April 2023. The video was posted on July 30 2023, making for 4 months preparation.
As per the description under the video. Lenny K introduces himself as “a student of classical philology at the University of Hamburg, currently wrapping up my Masters degree”.
By strongest case, I don't mean it's necessarily a strong case. I only mean it's the best chance for a shot at the prize.
n4