In the Wind

Back in May, one Guy Edward Bartkus bombed a fertility clinic in Palm Springs, California, killing himself in the process. During the investigation, the Federal Bureau of Investigations said that Mr. Bartkus had left behind materials "indicating anti-natalist views." This, and Mr. Bartkus' supposed nihilism turned something of a media spotlight on these outside of the mainstream, and thus, poorly understood, viewpoints. Which, honestly, didn't make them any better understood.

The news media tends to treat such topics with a "news of the weird" lens, and not go very deeply into them, instead tending to affirm what the general public understands to be true, which is rarely the whole story and almost never an accurate picture.

This brought a certain amount of heat down on Professor David Benatar, who is generally credited with originating the anti-natalist movement. Recently, Professor Benatar was interviewed by the moral philosopher Professor Peter Singer, where he sought to distance himself, and his philosophy from Mr. Bartkus' actions. Professor Benatar says that articles that linked Mr. Bartkus and anti-natalism constituted "a serious misrepresentation" of his work and writings. Which I understand. It's common for the big names associated with some or another philosophy or ideology to deny a link between their ideas and criminal activities.

But that doesn't make it logical. One of the point's behind anti-natalism is a level of asymmetry between pleasure and pain. Namely, while pain is bad, and pleasure is good, the absence of pain is also good, bit the absence of pleasure is simply neutral. Living people experience pleasure and pain, while those people who are never born experience neither. Given the asymmetry involved, there is a harm in living that isn't there in never having lived in the first place. In other words, it is worse to live and then to die than never to have lived at all. And this casts bringing new people into the world as a harm done to them.

While Professor Benatar is at pains to note that he doesn't believe the moral wrong of reproduction should be codified into a legal prohibition against the practice, it's not clear what he expects should be done. Many people understand, and quite clearly, that simply going around to people and saying "don't do that" is pretty toothless in the face of there being literally no other sanctions. And once it's understood that harm is being done, it's to be expected that someone is going to want to do something to either mitigate or prevent that harm. Through legal means, if they are available, or, if not, extra-legal means.

I understand the public relations hit that one takes with acknowledging this, especially with views that the mainstream finds strange. People are going to jump to the conclusion that there are a bunch of weirdos out there who want to hurt them. But this is just the way things are. There's no way to convince people both that harm, especially involuntary harm, is being visited on others, and that they should simply stand by and allow it to take place. People's basic sense of justice is going to rebel against that outlook. It makes more sense to recognize that, and then work to mitigate it, than to pretend that it's somehow a twisting of one's intent.