The Agenda with Steve Paikin (Audio) - The Moral Case Against Having Kids

Episode Date: December 12, 2024

Should you have kids? It's a question most of us will ask ourselves at some point in our lives. Antinatalists have an easy and categories answer for you, regardless of your life circumstance: don't. In fact, it is immoral, they claim, to bring new life into this world. Lawrence Anton, editor of the Antinatalist Handbook, and Amanda Sukenick, host of The Exploring Antinatalism Podcast, join the program to make the case against having kids. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

I'm Matt Nethersole. And I'm Tiff Lam. From TVO Podcasts, this is Queries. This season, we're asking, when it comes to defending your beliefs, how far is too far? We follow one story from the boardroom to the courtroom. And seek to understand what happens when beliefs collide. Where does freedom of religion end and freedom from discrimination begin? That's this season on Queries in Good Faith,

a TVO original podcast. Follow and listen wherever you get your podcasts. In a fractured information environment, isn't it hard to tell what's real and what's not? I'm Molly Thomas, host of a new show called Big If True. We're fighting misinformation one story at a time. Subscribe on YouTube and follow us on Instagram. At a certain point in most people's lives they'll ask themselves the question,

should we have children? There is a group of people who have an easy answer for you, regardless of your life circumstance. No. Don't. In fact, they say it is your moral responsibility not to bring new life into this world. They're known as anti-natalists. And to help us understand this philosophy, let's welcome in London, UK, Lawrence Anton. He runs a YouTube channel dedicated to anti-natalism and is the editor of the Anti-Natalist Handbook. And in Chicago, Illinois, Amanda Sukenik, host of the Exploring Antinatalism podcast and co-author of Antinatalism, Extinction and the End of Procreative Self-Corruption.

Okay, Lawrence and Amanda, I thank both of you for making time for us tonight here on TVO. I want to start with a quote from a 2006 book called Better Never to Have Been, The Harm of Coming into Existence. It's by philosopher David Benatar and here's a quote from the book. Coming into existence, far from ever constituting a net benefit, always constitutes a net harm. Most people, under the influence of powerful biological dispositions towards optimism, find this conclusion intolerable.

They are still more indignant at the further implication that we should not create people. Okay, Amanda, get us started here. Do you think it is immoral, immoral to have children? Thank you, Steve. Yes, I think that it is unethical to procreate. What antenatalism essentially is is preventative medicine. When we create new people, we set them up for all the risks of suffering in the world.

And antenatalism is essentially the Hippocratic oath. It's the fail safe. It's the principle of doing no harm. Again, when we create new people, we set them up for all kinds of different risks of suffering, and we do so completely unnecessarily. Lawrence, what is the core argument or insight about antinatalism? So I think one of the core insights

is that there's no one who exists before we exist to want to come into existence. And so when we do create someone, we're bringing them into a world that they didn't exist to have an interest in coming into. And it's a world that has a lot of suffering and harm in it that will be imposed on them to varying extents. And we could have simply just not created them in the first place and not exposed them to any harm and risk of harm.

Well, that does, I guess, pose a follow up to Amanda, which is, is it the state of the world today in particular that drives this philosophy? Well, I think certainly with the way that the world is now today, there certainly are many, many people coming to different decisions from all kinds of different motivations to not to have children. But what contemporary antinatalism is based on is not those reasons at all. So even though there are antinatalists

that are motivated by the way our various economies are functioning today, the state of the environment. Antinatalism, as Lawrence and I understand it, again, would be of an ethical concern. Let me follow up, Amanda, with this. And admittedly, this is a ridiculous question, but you'll humor me as I ask it. What if we solve climate change?

What if we solve poverty? What if we bring in an unprecedented amount of world peace? Would you still be arguing against bringing new life into the world? Well, I certainly hope that we achieve all that. Let me just say that. I think that we can do, we have within our power to do a tremendous amount of good. We can alleviate all kinds of suffering. But I actually think that it was, this world was never an

adequate place to bring lives into. I think even with all of those terrible problems fully solved, there is still, what we, you know, we are designed to not only feel all the pleasures of life, but we're also designed to feel all of the sufferings of life too, and none of that is going to go away even if these problems are alleviated. Well in fact Lawrence my mother always used to say no one gets through life scot-free and by that I know she meant there is untold suffering in this world and we can do something about some of it and not much about a lot of it but of course we also experience great joys, great triumphs,

great loves, beauty, awe, engagement, connection. I mean the Maple Leafs won the Stanley Cup in 1967. I mean these were all unambiguously good things. Is it not a tragedy to miss out on all of that? So obviously once we're here, we have an interest in experiencing all of the things you've listed and the good things in life generally, right? So I agree no anti-natalist is going to deny that once we're here, there are many things we can enjoy.

But like I said before, one of the core insights is that before we exist, there's simply no one to come into existence. If I use you and me as an example, neither of us existed 100 years ago, and we didn't exist to care that we didn't exist at all. We weren't missing out on any of the good things 100 years ago, just like the child that I will never have

doesn't exist and will never exist to miss out on the things happening now. Are you not glad that you're here, though? It's a complicated question. So I don't have emotional lament over the fact that I'm here. I am here now. I accept that I try to have the best time I can and try and help others while I'm here as well, but I recognize that I wouldn't exist to care if I was never born.

If that makes sense. It does, Amanda. I'll follow up with the same question to you, but I want to set it up in a different way. This is a clip from the podcast that you do, and this is from Emma Shevchuk, and she talks. Well, I'll let her speak for herself, shall we? Sheldon, roll the clip, if you would. I have to say, I'm not grateful for having been born. And I don't know why that never occurred to me before having children.

That I'm not grateful to my parents for having had me. What about you, Amanda? Are you grateful to be born? Well, first of all, wonderful to see Emma there. But I am grateful for the love and the care and all the wonderful things that I have experienced in my life. I have many, many things in my life that I'm incredibly grateful for. I have people in my life that I love. I'm an artist. I'm a toy collector. I take great pleasure in all manner of things in life. But I'm not grateful for the fact that risks

were taken with my sentient welfare. I'm not grateful for the fact that I, like all living things, will face a death at the end of my life journey. So life is not just one thing. It is not just all suffering. It is not all joy. But as Lawrence was essentially saying, before we're born, there is nobody in need of any of these things. Once we're put into existence, it's

essentially a circumstance of creating need for absolutely no need unnecessarily. There's nobody in purgatory screaming for a good life. There is no rescue mission at hand. We're not taking somebody out of nothing that is in need of anything. We are instilling, we are putting these needs into something that didn't need to exist in the first place.

Okay, Lawrence, back over to you. We've quoted David Benatar off the top. I'm gonna go to him again, the antinatalist philosopher, who said life itself is, quote, permeated by badness. So it poses the obvious question, are you happy? Yeah. So people are sometimes surprised when I say that and they're asking me within this sort of framing.

And yeah, I mean, I'm very fortunate if you take all of the people who have ever lived ever and all of the people who exist now, I am in one of the best situations that can be I'm in an economically developed country I have a supermarket and hospitals near me all this sort of stuff so I in the grand scheme of things I'm very privileged and I have a pretty content life I enjoy myself and I don't think that has any friction at all with being an anti-natalist because like I said before being an anti-natalist is just recognizing that there's no need to bring anyone into existence we're not

benefiting people by doing that because they don't exist to want to come here but we we are we are preventing or not imposing harm on new people by creating them. Although given your circumstances, if you had a child, there's every possibility your child would enjoy the same amount of happiness that you are currently experiencing. So what's wrong with giving that a shot? Well, Amanda has referred to risk before, so I mean, I could create someone. I don't see why I would do that. Because

like I said, there's no one who wants to come into existence. But if I did do that, of course, they could end up having a good life as I have. But I'm completely unnecessarily, like Amanda said, rolling the dice for that person, you know, there are many people who were born in very similar conditions to me that didn't have as good a life as me and had quite awful lives. And you can never tell if the child you're gonna create is gonna be one of those people or not. And so it's just better when you're dealing with someone else,

it's better to take the more cautious approach. Amanda, admittedly, I've only known you for 10 minutes, but you seem to be a person with a rather sunny disposition. Are you a happy person? I am a happy person. Listen, I've certainly had my struggles in life as anybody else.

But like I said earlier, I take great joy out of my life. But I have to also say, I'm only 41. I've made it pretty well so far. I have not yet experienced death. I mean, it's interesting that we never get to ask people this question after they have gone through the death process and actually written the product review after the full purchase has been made,

the purchase that was made for us. But yet we don't know who we're creating before we create somebody. So candy to me might taste like garbage to this new person. They are not going to be us. And so as an antinatalist, I've made the decision to derive the happinesses in life from myself, from the other people that are here.

And I think that people that are interested in having children really should ask themselves, what is it about your own existence that you're not being able to derive those goods from? Why can't we find it in ourselves? Why can't we find it in people already here? Why do we need to take risks with other people's lives that don't even exist yet just to fulfill something that we happen to be missing for whatever reason that might be? Well that's one possible explanation. The other possible explanation is, Amanda, you might have a child and that child may grow up

to find the cure for cancer. Now that'd be a good thing, wouldn't it? They also might grow up to have cancer. So again, I wouldn't, there is no good that that life could possibly have in life that would be worth my taking risks with their welfare for absolutely no reason. Again, I hope that there is a cure for cancer, but I hope that that is solved by somebody who already exists. These things are needed by the living. It is not an appropriate roll of the dice to try to find those cures with beings that don't already exist, who may not

thank you for signing them up for that task. Lawrence, I wonder how you got to the position that you currently hold, because I think it's fair to say that most little kids, when they are little kids, think at some point in their life, they're going to have a little kid. So when did you change your mind about that, if in fact that was the case? Yeah, well, I used to want biological children. And I sort of viewed my future somewhat predominantly around

the fact that I wanted to have children. I first came to this idea actually from just overhearing a conversation where the term was mentioned. And then I had a further conversation with some anti-Natalists. I basically just had like an open and honest exploration of the ideas with them and went away and listened to a few interviews with people like David Venatar, who you've mentioned. And really from that point forward, I couldn't come up with any good arguments against it. And so I thought, well, I'm gonna have to take this on

and it has implications for my actions. So I'm going to have to sort of change my future life plan or potentially not, because obviously, you know, antinatalists can adopt. And yeah, that was how I came to it. How old were you at that time how I came to it. And yeah. How old were you at that time? I was 20.

20. So that was a while ago. Yeah, I'm 27 now, yeah. Oh, then not that long ago. OK. Amanda, since of the three of us, you're the only one who can, I think, actually have a child. I wonder whether you, at some point in your life,

maybe when you were younger, wanted to have kids and changed your mind. No. No, I have never wanted children. The idea has always, I've always been rather allergic to the idea, in fact. And you know, this is one of the arguments that the Finnish philosopher Matihaira and I have sort of developed the argument from imposition. There's many different versions of the argument for imposition, but essentially the one that

we have developed is that when we have children, one of the things that we impose on those young lives is this expectation to have children. And there is sort of a cultural mandate that that is the course that their lives are going to take. And there are repercussions if lives don't necessarily take those routes. You know, if you don't have a positive opinion of procreation, it might affect your relationship

with your parents who may have certain expectations. It might affect the kind of opinions you can say in polite society. It might affect the kind of friends that you have. So it's a freedom that is really not extended to the young to have a more of a different opinion about procreation, to critique procreation. And I think that that is essentially what antenatalism allows for. And people are finding this idea at a younger and younger age. So I think that as time goes on, it's

very likely that younger people will be able to, I mean, they are at some degree doing it now. But I think as time goes on, more and more young people will have less of a rosy idea of this being their future. Well, let me try this idea with Lawrence. Lawrence, I'm twice your age plus 10. So I guess I am hearkening back right now to the time when I was 27. And I think to myself, you know,

some of the things I believed back then, I don hearkening back right now to the time when I was 27. And I think to myself, you know, some of the things I believed back then, I don't necessarily believe anymore. So are you open to the possibility that 27 is still a fairly tender age in this life and that you might change your mind about this at some point in the future? Do you allow for that possibility? Yeah, of course. I mean, look, everyone, you know, if we all know one thing about humans,

it's that they can get things wrong, you know, if history teaches us anything, it's that. So I'm completely open to the possibility that I could have my mind changed, or I could naturally change my mind over time. And if that happens, then then so be it. If there are better arguments out there that convince me, then I'm completely open to those. And in the future, I already referenced before that, you know, antinatalism is not in conflict with adoption. And I see adoption as a very virtuous thing, you know, there's someone who already exists and is in need of love and support. And

they need someone to provide that to them. And, you know, I can if I decide that I would, you know, want to raise a child, then I would go that route, even if I became convinced that by having biological children was, you know, morally okay, just because even if I was convinced that it was morally okay, I still think it would be better to adopt someone because they already exist. Yeah, I take your point. Amanda, how about for you? You're a little older than Lawrence, but still younger than me. Can you imagine changing your mind on this at some point in life? Well, you know, listen, I think that, well, I was exactly

Lawrence's age when I came into this subject, by the way. And also, yeah, I think that, well, I was exactly Lawrence's age when I came into this subject, by the way. And also, yeah, I think that's one of the reasons, you know, behind doing something like the Exploring Antinatalism podcast. I don't want to speak for Lawrence, but I mean, you know, he and I both are constantly talking to new people about this subject. And I think one of the reasons is right, like we're constantly interested in hearing new arguments, you know, new people that maybe can challenge some of these ideas. And, you know, I've talked to hundreds, if not thousands of people at this point about this

subject. And so far, nobody has really made a dent in the, in the cement of antedatalism. But it's built, it's built a very's built a very strong house within my mind. But I am always, my mind is always open for things to penetrate. Okay, Lawrence, again, not meant to be a smart-ass question, not at all, but just a natural question. Have you ever held a baby? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. I think it would be very hard to get to 27 years old and not have held a baby? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

I think it would be very hard to get to 27 years old and not have held a baby. Okay, just checking. And did it not cause you pause to rethink your views? No, because when you're holding a baby, if that is a pleasant experience for you, then it's simply you having some form of connection or experience with another with another person. So, you know, and obviously, we all we'll,

you know, I can't say all but many of us thrive on on human connection, you know, being around others, whether they're babies or not. And, you know, that is, again, it's not in conflict with antinatalism and, you know, enjoying the connection of another human being is not necessarily something that should lead you to do something that you view as immoral. You know, we can think that babies are, you know, warm and cuddly and cute, but also recognize that, you recognize that procreation is still morally wrong. Understood.

OK, we've got less than five minutes to go here. And let me try this. Amanda, I'll start with you on this one. I've talked to environmentalists who believe that the presence of humans on this planet is ultimately injurious to the planet, that the planet itself would be a lot better off if there were no humans on it. And there's a pretty good case to be made for that if you look at what we're doing these days.

Do you believe that the moral endpoint for your position is to have no humans at all on the earth? Yes, well actually my moral endpoint is to have no life on the earth, but different antinatalists are going to have different ideas about that. Not all antinatalism is focused on human extinction or otherwise. There are also antinatalists like David Pierce who are interested in bioengineering life so that it no longer experiences suffering. There are also antenatalists who are interested in the ideas about life extension. So we would live for extended period of time, but the catch to that is we would no longer have children.

But yes, I mean, I think antenatalism, as I have always understood it, is an extinctionist philosophy. And we would, you know, we would stop having children and just quietly in the most peaceful way possible exit. Now, my motivations for that is, again, not environmentalist. It is not in the hopes of saving the planet from human harm, which is absolutely real. But again, that human beings and other life forms are sensitive, sentient creatures.

And that once we exist, we are vulnerable to experiencing suffering. And Lawrence, how about you? Is the ultimate aim of your movement no life on this planet at all? So personally, I don't think that a specific end goal is really like the main focus of antinatalism. I think that it's just a critique of an action that obviously we have to admit in practice if everyone stopped having children, obviously humans would fade out.

But I don't necessarily think that has to be the end goal. It's more about the ethics of the actions that we're doing now. And if the consequence of that is extinction, then I think we should happily accept that unless someone raises a good argument as to why that would be an extremely bad thing. Okay, Amanda, last word to you on this. There are a lot of smart people out there who believe that not population explosion, but rather quite the contrary, population decline, which is particularly acute in Western countries right now, could make this world a much worse place.

It will be a much more difficult place to live as the populations decline. And the suffering that that could engender after that. Fair to say that you think, at the very least, population decline would be a good thing for this world. Well, I think that it's good that for whatever reasons people are not having children, the fact that they're not producing new lives is a good thing. It does mean less suffering in the world, at least in that sense. But we are ruled by, you know, our governments, our collective governments, our societies, are not on the same page that would allow for a decline in population to proceed without extra helpings of suffering, let's say that.

If we lived in societies where growth was not the obsession. And if our governments would basically see, OK, people want to start procreating less, let's start scaling certain things back, a lot could be done to prevent some of those walls being hit by less of us coming into existence, let's say. So again, I think it's a good thing that people are producing less people. But I also think that certainly they're not producing less

people with the ideas of something like extinction in mind. But none of that is happening in any sort of way that will actually prevent some of the worst scenarios, I think. Yet is what some other people would say to that. I want to thank the two of you for coming onto our program. I know these views are not popular in some circles,

but I hope you agree. We've had a respectful and civilized discussion about it here. And I thank Lawrence Anton from London, UK, and Amanda Sukenik from London UK and Amanda Sukenik from Chicago Illinois for appearing on TVO with us tonight. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you Steve.