Antinatalism and Eugenics

Cholera, Le Petit Journal

Antinatalism is not eugenics, and eugenics is not antinatalism. Antinatalism is a specific term, that emerged at a specific time and has a specific history — a history that has absolutely nothing to do with eugenics. Eugenics is also a term with a very specific history and usage. In short, we can say that antinatalism is the philosophical position that considers it negative for sentient beings (especially humans) to come into existence due to the suffering and terminality intrinsic to sentient existence. It essentially means that it would be better if we had never been born. The term antinatalism, with this connotation, emerged independently in the first decade of the 21st century through authors such as Theóphile de Giraud and David Benatar. Both acknowledge that this position owes much to the philosophical pessimism of thinkers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and Emil Cioran, among others.

Eugenics, on the other hand, is the thesis that we should select the best genetic traits from the population to produce healthier or superior humans over time. Historically, eugenics has been closely tied to the pseudoscience of scientific racism in Europe in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a racism that culminated in German Nazism and, even before that, served as an excuse for barbaric acts committed by European colonizers around the world. While eugenics isn't necessarily a racist pseudoscience, it has come to be closely associated with pseudoscientific racism — and rightly so, in my opinion. That said, it's clear that antinatalism has nothing to do with eugenics. But it has become fashionable among critics of antinatalism as a philosophy to associate it with racist eugenics, particularly in Brazil and, in particular, among critics with a progressive political bias.

I won't do an exhaustive analysis here. I'll just provide a summary, a quick and direct introduction of why one thing has nothing to do with the other and how, on the contrary, eugenics is associated with “pro-natalist” ideals. The trigger for writing this text was the absurd thesis directed at me, which I recently read on social media, stating that, despite the two being distinct, I needed to be careful when talking about antinatalism, as it would (supposedly) always end up falling into eugenics. Therefore, I should self-censor or be sparing when approaching the topic. This all started after I defended a young woman who tied her tubes, something that is extremely difficult for women to achieve, especially when they are young, thanks to the cursed culture that treats them as potential childbearers.

The young woman not only underwent the procedure but also apparently quoted the famous line that concludes Machado de Assis's novel Posthumous Memoirs of Bras Cubas. I celebrated this on social media, citing antinatalist quotes from other authors. This drew many comments in favor of the young woman and my quotes, but also several against. Two specifically accused me of defending eugenics because of antinatalism. One comment was quite crude, while the other attempted to convey the disgusting idea that I should be careful, as antinatalism would inevitably lead to eugenics and racism. However, associating the two is something that only occurs in the minds of those who are critical or who understand absolutely nothing about what antinatalism is, its history, and how it is applied.

Of course, there are irrelevant idiots online who abuse the term, calling themselves “antinatalists,” but the vast majority inevitably abandon it once they realize it has nothing to do with the aspirations of the virtual edgelord spaces. Incels who use the term tend to show a complete lack of knowledge of the writings of David Benatar, Julio Cabrera, Emil Cioran, Peter Wessel Zapffe, Philipp Mainländer, Arthur Schopenhauer, Abu al-Ala al-Maa'rri, among many other thinkers and precursors of antinatalism. They demonstrate obvious contempt for the Wisdom of Silenus, Greek tragedy, and the writings of the Pali canon of Buddhism. And thanks to the complete lack of interest of antinatalism's critics, coupled with the fact that these critics are constantly online, their impression of the philosophy ultimately comes from these incels who inhabit the worst corners of social media.

The term “antinatalism” first appears generically in the book The Struggle for Population, published by British sociologist David Victor Glass in 1936. In the work, the term appears twice in connection with the then-declining birth rate trend in some European countries, a trend that was countered by policies aimed at increasing birth rates. At no point is the term antinatalism associated with eugenics in this work. Regarding eugenics, Glass briefly mentions Nazi Germany, which discouraged abortion except in cases of fetal malformation. In other words, it has nothing to do with antinatalism — on the contrary, it was a blatantly pronatalist policy. The fact that the Nazis encouraged the abortion of malformed fetuses while rewarding mothers who gave birth to dozens of children did not make them antinatalists, but pronatalists. It was selective pronatalism, yes, but it was pronatalism.

At this point, someone might ask something like: “But what about the Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, and other ethnic groups the Nazis considered undesirable? Weren't the Nazis antinatalist against these ethnic groups?” The answer is no. The Nazis were genocidal against these ethnic groups. Forcibly killing and sterilizing others is called genocide. Genocide is also a well-defined term, with a well-defined history, just as eugenics and antinatalism have well-defined definitions. And I'm speaking here only in the generic sense of the term antinatalism; if we use the philosophical sense, which is recent and popularized the term, the distance is even greater from any idea of ​​eugenics or genocide.

When we use the term “antinatalism” in a generic, non-philosophical sense, the closest thing we have to it is not eugenics or racism, but the population control that occurred and continues to occur in China. For three decades, the Chinese government implemented — in my view, correctly — a one-child policy, which was more recently relaxed to two children. The irony is that the vast majority of online critics who accuse the antinatalist philosophy of being eugenicist seem to pretend to be unaware that the most successful population control policy in history was implemented by a socialist state with an avowedly Marxist constitution. However, since critics of the antinatalist philosophy seem to confuse population control and eugenics, it is difficult for them to admit that China, which many of them see as a bastion of human progress, is the most successful example of population control.

Having covered all this, I return to what I discussed at the beginning about the emergence of the term antinatalism in the contemporary sense. It appears in the writings of the French thinker Theóphile de Giraud and in the writings of the South African philosopher David Benatar. As I've written, Giraud credits several pessimistic philosophers, including Cioran and Schopenhauer, as well as writers like Giacomo Leopardi, as precursors of this type of thinking. In some interviews, Benatar also gives due credit to Schopenhauer. Both mention that the sentiment also existed in ancient philosophies and religions, such as Buddhism. In the current, non-generic sense, through which the term “antinatalism” became popular, it is tied to a tradition of thought that considers coming into existence as a negative event when one is a sentient being — that is, a being capable of feeling pain and suffering. It is a matter of moral philosophy, an ethical stance. It has nothing to do with ethnicity, race, or social class. It has to do with pain and suffering, with the idea that, no matter how hard one tries, mere being is always linked to friction and finitude.

Can crazy ideas be derived from this? Yes. In the US, especially, there are some who believe the right thing to do would be to violently prevent others from reproducing. I personally attribute this to the North American and Anglo-Saxon complex of wanting to be a hero and save the world, even if it means shoving their values ​​down other people's throats. But the fact is that no serious philosopher defending the subject in academia or literature today or in the past has advocated using violence to prevent others from reproducing. First, because it is wrong to be violent against others within a philosophical framework that aims to reduce suffering. Second, because it is impractical even if it weren't wrong. Third, because, besides being impractical, it is an excellent way to turn yourself into a harmful agent to others, and harmful agents can and should be contained.

However, even among these few antinatalists who think we ought to stop others from reproducing, antinatalism is not tied to eugenics, classism, racism, etc. As I stated previously, even the genocidal eugenics of the Nazi regime cannot be characterized as antinatalist, either in a generic sense of the word or in the current philosophical sense of the term. That regime was not antinatalist, but selectively pronatalist. It did not seek to achieve the end of the species peacefully through the voluntary refusal of reproduction, but the eternal continuity and multiplication of those the regime considered superior. Even among the most vocal antinatalists, those who believe we should force others not to reproduce, the idea is that everyone should not reproduce, without exception. And these are an irrelevant minority within the academic and literary debate. Accusing the philosophical stance of people like Benatar, Cabrera, Cioran, Zapffe, Mainländer, Schopenhauer, etc, of eugenics is ignorant at best and mischievous at worst.

On a slightly more personal note: I believe that certain people see philosophical pessimism and antinatalism as something repulsive, something inherently bad, something evil. They can't admit that such a philosophy could arise from a good place, from extreme compassion for sentient beings. In their minds, proponents of this type of philosophy can only be ignorant or evil. That's why it's so easy for them to associate antinatalism with eugenics, classism, racism, and Nazism. But from the pessimistic and antinatalist perspective, all ideals that affirm existence are committed to the established order; it doesn't really matter whether people follow good or bad ideals — we pessimists at least make this distinction between the “affirmers”, something that affirmers often don't do with us. If you want to see, by the way, who are the great examples of openly racist eugenicists today, all of them, without exception, are radically pronatalists: they are people like Elon Musk and the hipster couple Simone and Malcolm Collins.

I'll end here. There's nothing more to add.

by Fernando Olszewski