Brief counter to antinatalism / Benatar - Pronatalism, and why I am not a Buddhist

Introduction - What is antinatalism?

The basic premise of antinatalism is that life contains more suffering than we think, and therefore, since there's a strong chance or certainty of suffering, bringing someone to life (or any sentient being) is immoral since it almost always or always involves imposing suffering on a sentient being which did not request to be born. IE not coming to live entails not suffering, however coming to live, even if there are joys, involves suffering. Hence, Benatar and his ilk argue, it is immoral to birth a child since you are bringing a being into existence who "better would not have been", since they will no doubt suffer.

Pronatalism

I reject this view and hold the view of pro-natalism, that is, that we ought to create more life. It is one of the few things I agree with Musk about. Here's the counter or pronatalist position.

1. Moral value inheres in sentient beings.

2. Moral value, according to Bentham and other utilitarians, can be calculated additively. So for example, the suffering of 10 people is worse than the suffering of 1, and vice versa, the benefit of 10 people is better than the benefit of one. Obviously, not all sufferings are equivalent, so we can't for example dissect someone to use their organs to rescue 10 people, since the suffering and trauma of that one person, so dissected, is worse than the natural deaths of the 10. Unless of course the person volunteers, and is anaethetised, etc. I can imagine a scenario like that, e.g. were I to offer my organs to say my children, and therefore think that even this extreme case is not convincing.

3. If moral value is additive, more sentient beings equates to more moral value inherently existing in the universe.

4. Therefore, if there are more morally valuable beings in the universe, this equates to a morally better or preferable universe.

Why Buddhism is unethical

Buddhism claims that suffering is inherent in the universe. That is true to a certain extent. As I have argued in a paper on evolution, evolution requires death, and therefore humans would not have evolved without unfit humans and/or their predecessor hominins having died. However, let's not forget that Siddharta Gautama (Buddha) was a prince, and therefore had LESS suffering than the other citizens in his primarily Hindu Caste-based society that he presided over as a prince. 

In fact, my problem with him is that like the Dalai Lama, he was happy to maintain an elitist system and do nothing with his princely power to eliminate suffering. He just figured it was inherent and therefore that you should just be an ascetic and deny yourself pleasures etc., and meditate. No thanks. That's just pseudo-enlightened nihilism, in my view, aka, shrugging at those less fortunate than yourself and saying "the poor will always be with us". No not true. Jesus was wrong on that one too. Buddhism is a conservative view which entails not righting wrongs or injustices in society because "suffering is inherent." No it's not.

Where does suffering come from?

I think it's clear that in our current era, most suffering relates to capitalism and male-originating violence such as gun violence and GBV, and/or other social problems such as poverty, inequality and racism. Those who live in upper-class wealthy english-speaking households have minimal suffering. At most, they might have things like domestic disputes, or drug abuse problems, etc., but it is unlikely that they have other forms of suffering which are more than mere first world problems. Their wifi perhaps goes down and perhaps the maid doesn't arrive to clean. Perhaps they get a flat tyre on the road, or their car gets stolen. But I seriously doubt there is significant suffering if you are socioeconomically prosperous. Therefore, I believe that at present, most suffering is manmade and specifically a byproduct of capitalism and inequality (as well as racism, sexism, etc).

Of course, suffering exists in nature. For example, the trauma that a penguin experiences when being ripped in half by an leopard seal is probably much greater than most trauma that most humans experience (except perhaps those who witness their family die in a car crash, or those who are subjected to colonist racist invasion of their territory and subsequent attempts at genocide). However, humans in general no  longer live in a "state of nature", as Hobbes points out, because we decided that life in a state of nature was "nasty, brutish, and short", and that nature was "red in tooth and claw", as Hobbes put it. So we invented laws and society to inhibit natural violence.

To refute this you would have to show that (a) horror is inherent in the universe and (b) that horror outweighs joy. I do not think this is true, as I think horror is mostly manmade. But even if we take the combined horror of World War 2, The Congo, Rwanda, The Long March, Pol Pot, the 2004 Tsunami, etc., we still only get to about 110-120 million horrific deaths; whereas we have almost or about 8 billion people now - so horror, as far as I can see, represents about 1.25% of humanity's existence. 

We can also reject antinatalism's claim - that horror outweighs joy - qualitatively and by measure of concentration. Let's say your life is mostly full of joy, you never experience anyone's death, and right at the end after 80 years, say, you die in a car accident and watch your broken body bleed out. That I think is probably the most horrible way to die that commonly happens on earth (more horrific deaths, such as by torture, are extremely rare). However, your death will take a mere matter of minutes, which does not at all outweigh the joyous life you had had. The quality and quantity of that horror - your brutal death - is a matter of a few intense minutes. This horror, in my view, is outweighed by just a few nights with a lover. And you probably had many thousands of such nights.

From this I conclude that horror does not outweigh joy, and that horror is mostly manmade. If we implement a true form of communism/socialism, such as we see proposed in the Venus Project, there will be no significant suffering that exceeds the joys of being alive. Personally, if I were a spirit in the Realm of the Forms or Heaven or Nirvana or whatever your myth is, and I were shown my life, and asked whether I wanted to be born, knowing what my life would be like, I can say certainly I would, as my life has had minimal suffering. The worst suffering I experienced thus far was my first romantic breakup; the second worst was the death of my father. However, both have been outweighed by far by my children's birth, and subsequent relationships which have cumulatively outweighed these hurts. 

In my view, a universe without living beings is a worthless, pointless universe, that may as well not exist. A universe with some suffering and a lot of joy is preferable to a neutral universe with no suffering and no joy, from a God's-eye-view. On this point I agree with the Christians: that a universe capable of life is the sort of universe a God would make (one with a purpose: sustaining life). 

Conclusion

The value and joy of being alive is primarily in the value and joy of relationships with others. Hence, it is imperative that others exist for joy and moral goodness to exist. Meaning in life only comes from others. Sartre said "L'autre c'est L'inferne" (other people are hell). I disagree. I think hermetic life, or nihilism, are hell. And I think antinatalism is a form of extreme nihilistic atheism.

Life has good and bad in it, but mostly good, and that's why people manage to carry on living every day, even when suffering due to violence, poverty and racism. If you find life is overwhelmingly suffering, I wager you are either very socioeconomically disadvantaged - in which case I suggest you join your local chapter or branch of a socialist or communist movement - OR you suffer from depression, in which case I suggest you get psychiatric help, or agitate for free psychiatric help in your country.

good summary video on the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F0YxEa1AG4M&t=19s

List of academic terminology

 Re-used with Permission by SurveyFiesta.

25 February 2020: Academic terminology

Conference, congress, colloquium, symposium — a gathering of persons to discuss academic concepts. Larger conferences tend to be called ‘congresses’, smaller ones ‘symposia’. Note the spelling of the plural. If a conference has mini-conferences inside it, those are called symposia. Symposia comes from Greek meaning “to sit together”. Colloquium comes from Latin, meaning “to talk together”. Conference and congress are Latin -derived words as well, meaning To bring together, and To travel together.

Abstract — a summary of a piece of academic work. It appears at the beginning of a piece of academic work and summarises the research question, and the answer that the work gives. It is marked with the word “Abstract” at the beginning of the paper. It also often has keywords listed below it that summarise the work or the topic.

Literature Review — a piece of work which surveys the existing state of the art or knowledge in a particular research area, usually giving the consensus view or a summary of what the general consensus is, as well as any strong dissenting voices.

Research Proposal — a short essay explaining what it is that the author wants to research. It will usually contain a literature review.

Poster — a piece of academic work summarised on a large piece of cardboard (literally a poster). It is presented at a conference by the person standing next to their poster, in a hall, and they wait for people to come up to them and talk to them. One way of thinking of this is as a random opportunity to meet someone who is an expert on a particular area of research. A poster is typically displayed for a limited time on a particular day of the conference. An “electronic poster” is when the person keeps their poster electronically on a computer and presents it electronically (i.e. not printed) — but in the same public space, e.g. a hall.

Paper — an essay, usually 10-20 pages long, which starts with an abstract, and examines a research question. It usually has an introduction, a main body, in which contrasting ideas are debated, and a conclusion, which usually selects one of the contrasting ideas as the more likely to be correct – or it presents a new idea. If the paper does not present a new idea, it is usually called a literature review, and if it does present a new idea, it is usually called a research paper. A person presenting a paper at a conference will usually have PowerPoint presentation that they will talk about in front of a small audience – usually up to about 100 people at most, but sometimes as few as 1-2 people. This is usually done in a closed room, reserved for the paper in a certain time slot on a certain day.

Symposium, Panel — a mini-conference inside a conference, most often, consisting of a panel of experts who sit around and present their papers in turn. The audience, who do not sit around the table, get to listen to their discussion. A symposium is brought together by a ‘convenor’, who often presents the first paper. The symposium or panel is summed up at the end by the ‘discussant’.

Plenary — a session or presentation given by an important or famous researcher, usually attended by everyone in a conference. From Latin for “Complete” or “full”, related to the word “plenty”. A plenary is the same as a paper presentation except for the audience size.

Session — a type of presentation, most often a synonym for a panel or symposium. If a session has only one presenter, that’s a paper session. If the session has a person showing a poster, that’s a poster session. If it’s a group of people, that’s a panel or a symposium session.

Discipline, Research Area — an area of study with specific methods, pre-commitments, and specific foci or areas that it focuses on. A limited area of study. More popular areas of study tend to be broken down into more sub-disciplines or research areas. So for example Physics contains research areas such as quantum mechanics, fluid dynamics, Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, astrophysics, nuclear physics, etc.

Chair — the head of a subdivision of some kind, e.g. a head of a research area.

Reviewer — a person who reads another person’s work to see if it is of acceptable standard.

Peer-review — when a piece of academic work is reviewed by someone who is the author’s academic equal (more or less).

Blind or anonymous peer review — the process of review taken in most cases, wherein the author does not know who is reviewing their paper, and the reviewer does not know whose paper they are reviewing, to prevent bias in favour of colleagues or friends.

Declaration — Reviewers and authors alike are expected to declare their funding interests as well, so that if a paper reviews a product (e.g. tobacco, drugs, etc), or a process (e.g. an industrial process, or a training method, etc.), the reviewer and/or author have to declare if they have financial interests in those products or processes, so that they can be seen to be objective (or biased) as the case may be. Hence, for example, if a pharmaceutical company publishes a paper saying that a certain drug is effective, it makes no sense for the reviewer to be financially involved in that same company, because they will be biased. In short, in academia, it is considered very poor form to “mark your own homework”. Generally you should ensure that whoever “marks your homework” is unbiased and from another organisation. It is even preferable to have a hostile reviewer who has an interest in refuting your work, because if your work passes muster under a hostile review, it is even more respectable.

Ethics panel — Some research has or could have ethical problems apart from potential financial corruption. When a researcher proposes to produce some research, through a research proposal, he or she should consider the ethical implications of the research. Will people or animals be harmed by the research, and if so, how? Research which is unethical is not acceptable and would not be permitted unless there is an outstanding (and urgent) rationale behind the research. An Ethics Panel is a body in a research organisation whose job is to ensure that all research done by the organisation complies with international ethics standards.

Sub-reviewer — a reviewer who reports to a chair or another reviewer.

Editor — a person who reads some writing to check for spelling, grammar and clarity problems. An editor does not check for conceptual or factual problems; that’s what a reviewer does.

Journal — a periodical or magazine for academics with articles on academic topics. Most journals cover very specific research areas, and academics submit their papers to those specific journals for peer review. In most cases, work is reviewed by two or three reviewers to ensure there’s a majority in favour of publication, but if there’s a doubt, another reviewer can be called in. Journals have different levels of credibility and some journals are accredited or recognised as leading journals, whereas others are not. For example, getting a publication in Nature is considered a lifetime achievement, whereas getting a publication in the International Journal of Advanced Studies is not considered an achievement. The reason is that some journals are just very picky about what they publish, particularly on content quality and whether the content contributes to the research area; whereas, other publications are not picky at all. For more on this, Google the Sokal Hoax. Some journals are also considered “predatory” – that is, their purpose is to make money, not to advance science and knowledge. More will come up on predatory journals in another blog post.

Publish — to get a paper accepted into a journal.

PhD, Masters, Thesis, Dissertation — PhD is “doctor of philosophy”; the highest degree you can get (although a “Post Doctorate” was recently introduced). PhD is one level higher than Master. A Master’s degree is typically either by coursework or by “dissertation” (a written discussion of a particular research question). A master’s degree has typically been reviewed by two persons before being awarded the degree. A PhD is typically reviewed by at least three people before being awarded their degree by “thesis”. A thesis is very much like a dissertation — it’s a big book on a particular research topic — except that it offers a new theory, whereas a dissertation does not have to do so. A professorship is not a degree awarded by signing up for a course. A professor, rather, is someone who has published a lot, and who has been awarded the rank by his university.

Proceedings — a journal issue containing only papers from a conference. Sometimes with very large conferences, the papers are too long or the conference was only presentations, in which case the Proceedings might contain only the abstracts.

Call for Abstracts — the opening phase of a conference wherein the conference organisers send out adverts asking academics to submit abstracts for review by the conference organisers. If the abstracts sent in are accepted, the person may then attend the conference as a presenter.

Registration — signing up AND paying your membership/attendance fee for the conference.

Delegate — any person at the conference, who may or may not also be a presenter.

Invited Speaker — a delegate who was specifically invited to give a plenary or other major session.