Response to ABEMA Prime "What Is Antinatalism? Is Procreation An Act of Parents' Selfishness?"

ABOUT THIS BLOG POST

In this blog post, I will be summarizing and responding to the ABEMA Prime live show on antinatalism streamed on May 27.

I expect it to help those who was interested in this show but didn't understand it because of the language barrier.

Several people addressing the subject of antinatalism in Japan, including Professor Masahiro Morioka and Mr. Muchi, were featured on the show to discuss the matter with regular presenters of the show.

ABEMA Prime "What Is Antinatalism? Is Procreation An Act of Parents' Selfishness?"

Note: The entire show was in Japanese, and my trenslation into English could very well reflect my personal interpretation of what was said no matter what was actually meant. Please DO NOT USE MY TRANSLATION TO JUSTIFY YOUR PERSONAL ATTACK on someone who you think said something you don't like on the show. I mean, don't attack at all. They were just doing their job and attacking them is not exactly the most effective way to turn them anti-natal!

PEOPLE ON THE SHOW

	GUESTS
	TAKESHI	Antinatalist
	MUCHI	Antinatalist
	Masahiro MORIOKA	Pholosopher, professor at Waseda University
	Yuki AKIYAMA	Writer
	REGULAR PRESENTERS
	Daiki KANECHIKA	Comedy duo 'EXIT'
	RINTARO	Comedy duo 'EXIT'
	Aya SHIBATA	Newscaster
	Patrick HARLAN	Comedian
	Ayaka WADA	Singer, idol, actor

The show featured its usual presenters and the following:

- Professor Masahiro Morioka, who is engaged in the study of what is called "反出生主義/hanshusshou-shugi" (antinatalism) in Japanese

- Takeshi and Muchi, antinatalists

- Yuki Akiyama, who they say procreated despite being aware of antinatalism

INTRODUCTION

The show started with a pre-edited video to introduce the general idea of antinatalism.

00:00
	Life is full of challenging events. Maybe you have thought at least for once that you shouldn't have been born, haven't you? This idea to find births negative is called 'antinatalism' and is gaining a lot of attention these days. Antinatalism is usually defined as an idea that assigns negative value on births of all human beings, not just of antinatalists themselves. Antinatalists question the legitimacy of creation of human beings, but don't encourage those who have already been born to kill themselves. How have they get to support this idea in the first place?
TAKESHI	I have obsessive-compulsive disorder. Those who live with this kind of unavoidable suffering might find comfort in thinking about the alternative reality where they were never born and experienced no such suffering.
	Looking back at the past, antinatalism suggests that we would have experienced no suffering without our births, while looking ahead on the future, it appears to be some kind of a warning to those who intend to procreate.
MUCHI	By going extinct, we abandon all the wisdom that humanity has built for centuries. That's sad, but I see greater benefit in taking away any chances of suffering from the unborn.
	Regarding parents who decide to procreate, he dares to say the following:
MUC	Procreation always comes after parents' wish to have a child or children, so I think procreation is based on parents' selfishness.
	It's true there is no way we can ask the unborn if they want to be born or not. However, not only pain and suffering await them. Isn't suffering the source of great pleasure? Tonight we sit with antinatalists to discuss antinatalism, whose awareness is beginning to raise.

What catches my attention first is the very first part where they say "antinatalism (反出生主義) is usually defined as an idea that assigns negative value on births of all human beings, not just of antinatalists themselves".

As someone who identifies themselves as an actual antinatalist, I argue that the moral legitimacy of my own birth has nothing to do with antinatalism.

The potential births of all human beings are something that shouldn't happen because their legitimacy cannot be judged until they actually occur to become individual cases of births, while my own birth shouldn't have happened but now has happened, turning me as a non-existent potential being into me as an existent and forcing me out of the scope of pure application of antinatalism.

I'm sorry for this lengthy explanation, but this is the best I can do to make myself clear about this issue.

In addition, antinatalism definitely has to be applied to all kinds of sentient beings, not just humankind, which is unfortunately not well-known at the moment; antinatalism as a thought that involves (supporting and exercising) veganism is never mentioned in this show of course, which is sad but can't really be helped.

The term antinatalism is generally not defined as something to apply to non-human sentient beings, so it's not really the fault of this show's producers, but I have to point out too many prople are not aware of their speciesism-biased view, even among those so-called antinatalists.

From here on in this blog post, the word 'antinatalism' will stand for 'anti-human-procreationism' unless otherwise noted.

Also I'd like to make it clear that the position I take (described most accurately today by the word '無生殖主義/museishoku-shugi/anti-procreationism' as defined by the AAPJ) includes 'antinatalism' as anti-human-procreationism, and if following the definition of the word here, it would be inaccurate or insufficient to simply call me an antinatalist.

Now let's focus on what we're here for.

They've done their homework and remembered to clearly state that antinatalism doesn't encourage suicide, which was important.

Also it's nice to hear Mr. Muchi's comment at the beginning of the show about thinking about procreation from the children's point of view, which surprisingly many people don't seem to do (although this important comment seems to have left no impression on the presenters, as we shall see later on in this show).

But what is it when they say "regarding parents who decide to procreate, he dares to say the following"... that's not very nice, is it?

I guess they are trying to make this "seemingly new and interesting anti-whatever philosophical stuff" look interesting on the show to grab attention of the audience, but this is exactly the way people talk about those who call themselves antinatalists and abuse parents with baby carriages in public.

I don't like it at all.

At the end of the introduction, they say something like "we need negative things to appreciate positive things in our lives", which is something I think we (as antinatalists) are used to and utterly ridiculous to be honest... but I guess they need this in order to start the live discussion amoung those at the studio... maybe.

REACTIONS TO THE INTRODUCTION

06:02
SHIBATA	Any thoughts on what you've just seen?
RINTARO	I do think we can appreciate positive things in life thanks to negative things. Harms we do by existing is too much to think about. Human beings are stupid, immature and childish. We have to accept it and believe in life. Having been born, we have to just try to enjoy our lives for eighty-whatever years. What matters, I think, is the fact that they can say what they have to say about their views. We have totally different opinions but what's really important is to try to understand and respect each other.
SHI	I see, having different opinions is totally okay. How about you, Mr. Kanechika?
KANECHIKA	I actually have quite some sympathy. Babies cry like crazy when they are born, literally as if they were born into a hell. I've thought about it a lot. I too think I can just try to be happy and live my own life, but we can't be happy without making other people unhappy, can we? I'm living my days trying not to see or think about it. I act cheerful, knowing I can enjoy my happiness thanks to unhappiness for others and I try not to face it.

It would be too much to ask of Mr. Rintaro to understand a totally unheard-of idea and give a pertinent comment after watching a short video, but I have to say he's missing the point by a mile.

What he says about "the harms we do by existing" and "accepting our stupidity, immaturity and childishness and believing in life" is all post-birth.

Antinatalism addresses the issue of procreation which comes before everything he mentions and becomes the primary reason for it.

Another part he goes off the mark is the importance of "trying to understand and respect each other".

Assuming he means antinatalists and non-antinatalists could perhaps reach a compromise, I'd like to clearly state that it's simply impossible.

What slavery was to the abolitionists of the system is what procreation is to us.

You can't possibly propose any actual compromise over procreation between the two parties, can you?

Let me repeat myself however; this show is likely to be his very first encounter with antinatalism and we couldn't have expected him to understand the idea after just watching a short video.

We should assume he missed the point only because he was asked to talk before he had enough time to understand this philosophy, not because he's genuinely a bad guy.

I honestly envy his ability to immediately start talking about what he's just seen without hesitation 😳

What Ms. Shibata says about "having different opinions" will be repeated over and over again in this show, but this, again, is total nonsense just like the "understanding and respect" that Mr. Rintaro mentions.

There is no compromise to make both the parties happy on this matter.

It almost feels like all the discussion on the show shared this same pattern but I'll talk about it later on.

WHAT IS ANTINATALISM?: PAIN AVOIDANCE AND RUSSIAN ROULETTE

The show proceeded to introduce the 2 guests at the studio, Mr. Muchi as an antinatalist and Prof. Morioka as "a specialist on antinatalism who argues neither for nor against it".

Ahead of the discussion among those at the studio, Prof. Morioka summarized the overview of antinatalism.

08:44
SHI	Professor Morioka, could you explain what antinatalism is?
MORIOKA	Antinatalism entirely denies such an idea as "no pain, no pleasure". Looking back at the past, antinatalism argues that all the human beings shouldn't have been born, and looking ahead on the future, it argues that no human being should procreate. I think these are the two important elements that form the core of antinatalism. It's about all human beings, not about what we wish as indivisuals like "I don't want to procreate" or "I shouldn't have been born". If you were an antinatalist, you'd have to argue that everyone here at this studio shouldn't have been born, and none of us can rightfully procreate.
SHI	We have received your note that antinatalism never encourages suicide or murder.
MOR	Exactly. Antinatalism argues against birth, and once someone has been given birth, it doesn't address such things as how they should die or anything like that.
SHI	Alright, let's keep in mind that antinatalism is all about keeping the unborn forever unborn, and is nothing against lives already been created. I understand some people argue for this idea, others against it. What are some powerful arguments for it?
MOR	I think the pain avoidance theory is something many people agree to. Having been born, we all experience pain at some point of our lives. Without our births, we definitely wouldn't suffer even just a little bit. So every potential child shouldn't be born, it's as simple as that. It's very difficult to deny, but I imagine you would immediately think "life is not all about suffering, there is pleasure too". Antinatalism has 2 answers for that. One is that, for human beings, experiencing no pain is more important than experiencing some pleasure. Haven't you gone through some experience where you have a bit of pain and it ruins all the fun and joy you'd been having? Pain is always more significant than pleasure. We have this chart on the screen, this is the asymmetry of pain and pleasure. However joyful someone's life might be, nothingness is definitely better than living, therefore that person shouldn't be born. That's what this means.
HARLAN	Sorry to interrupt, I've been wondering if what Professor's been saying is true, I want to ask the antinatalist himself. Mr. Muchi, is all of this true?
MUC	Yes, I think the biggest benefit antinatalism offers is that it creates no suffering. I suppose many would wonder how we justify not creating pleasure, but about that, I think, when we compare two subjects, one of which is originally not sentient and turns into a sentient being, another remains not sentient, then it's no problem for the latter to be unable to experience any pleasure. There's no need for it to turn sentient to experience pleasure; missing any opportunities to experience it doesn't really matter. About suffering though, if we impose risks of accidents, coronavirus, sexual assaults or domestic violence to our children and if those things actually happen, then those who are responsible for their birth (parents, society, etc.) cannot undo the damage done. There's simply no way to fully pay for it, so that's why I think it's always better not to procreate and support antinatalism.
HAR	Would you say that just 1 minute of suffering ruins the pleasure for the rest of the whole day?
MUC	If someone finds some meaning in their life or love the life as it is despite a bit of pain in it, then I guess that's no problem.
HAR	But nothing guarantees that's gonna be the case for everyone, so you think we shoudn't procreate; a happy life is not guarranteed for everyone, so we can't roll the dice to create 1 unhappy person and 99 happy ones... oh wait, I'm talking about rolling the dice, should I say 1 unhappy person and 5 happy ones? Anyway, you think we should avoid creating 1 unhappy person even if it means not creating 5 happy ones, is that correct?
MUC	That is correct, yes.
MOR	This argument about rolling the dice is actually the second one I was about to mention. This is called "Russian roulette theory". Even if the majority of people born were to have good lives, there are always going to be some that live in pain and despair. That small amount of people live in pain because procreation is a system that cannot avoid sacrificing some of those created. We can't say it's okay just because we are not one of them. This is a theory that nobody should procreate in order not to sacrifice anybody, and I think it's a very strong argument.
KAN	We see movements to fight for equality getting more and more active these days. Isn't this its final form? To me it sounds like "if you seek true equality, then don't procreate".

I would say Professor Morioka did a perfect job explaining arguments that support antinatalism.

The "pain avoidance theory" sounds a bit new to me but I guess that's simply because we haven't needed to name the common assumption that pain is genuine evil; whether pain is evil or not is a pseudo problem.

I've been thinking that differences in the understanding of the word 'pain/suffering' has been causing unnecessary conflict between antinatalists and non-antinatalists on this assumption but let's wait till another chapter to discuss it.

Mr. Harlan doesn't seem convinced, but actually caught a point when he said "but nothing guarantees that's gonna be the case for everyone, so you think we shoudn't procreate" in responce to Mr. Muchi's comment.

He doesn't look like in sympathy with our agnostic approach to procreation but maybe beginning to understand it; a life's quality can subjectively judged only by the person living it, and no one else can ever know whether that life is (1) entirely ruined by the smallest of pain, (2) not entirely ruined by some pain as long as pleasure neutralizes the pain, or (3) neither 1 nor 2 applies and there is some other criteria, therefore starting that life without consent is unethical.

THE HARM OF BEING FORCED NOT TO PROCREATE VS THAT OF BEING BORN

Mr. Harlan, who seems to opt to prioritise the benefit to the (potential) parents over the benefit (or, more accurately, the absence of harm) to the unborn, attempts a refutation of antinatalism by bringing forward an example of eviction due to construction of new roads.

16:31
HAR	But what about cases like this? We need to construct a new road, but one of landowners doesn't want to move out... oops, sorry! We have to move them for the sake of all other people. On many occasions, we force someone to experience some pain so that many others can experience pleasure. If we can accept this logic, I think we can easily avoid being persuaded not to procreate.
MOR	That doesn't quite convince me. You just mentioned something that is often brought forward as an attempt to refute antinatalism, "whatever we do comes with more or less of sacrifice". But this, to those who consider themselves to be victims of procreation, must feel like the most stupid bullcrap of all time...
HAR	... Of course such people would find antinatalism quite reasonable. But those unhappy people are trying to stop everyone else from procreating, ending up in victimizing all the non-antinatalists! Procreation makes people happy, and most of the children born by them are going to be happy, and yet antinatalists are trying to sacrifice all the happiness. I can't accept it.
19:40
SHI	I think there will always be people who want to procreate, and making them choose not to procreate would make them unhappy...
HAR	That's why antinatalists try to persuade them, telling them they'd be happier without having kids. If they are convinced, then they wouldn't feel so unhappy.
KAN	Maybe it's not about being "happier without having kids", it's more like "not having kids would make..."
HAR	"... make Japan a better place" (This part was almost inaudible; Mr. Harlan might have said "would benefit the unborn children" or maybe something else)
KAN	... right, so it's not about us, because we've already been born, so about us it's like "live your life as you like", while the children yet to be born could have a bad life if they are born, so... I guess that's what antinatalism is about, am I right?
MUC	I think most of those who procreate have never thought about how things could go for the children to be born. Once the children are actually born, they could have a bad life, get involved in accidents or infected with the COVID, even if they have parents who truly love and bond with them. Just understanding this uncertainty would discourage people from wanting to have kids so badly, I think....

Mr. Harlan claims that pleasure for many can justify pain for one, but this logic can also be applied to many forms of crimes such as group violence or gangrape, which I wonder if he'd be okay with.

He would surely agree that the real question is how much pain an individual consciousness experiences, rather than how many individuals experience pain or pleasure, given a decent amout of time to think.

His criticism on antinatalists for 'victimizing those who want to procreate' is basically an attempt to deny morality itself.

Perhaps he could understand what he's saying if we rephrase it like this:

"Of course slaves would wish for complete abolishment of slavery, but by expressing that idea, they are victimizing all the slaveholders! They are trying to sacrifice slaveholders' happiness and it's totally unacceptable!"

Any sort of moral law and rules/regulations based on it has to restrict more or less of individuals' freedom.

Ban of violence restricts one's freedom of enjoying beating others, ban of theft restricts one's freedom of owning things without paying, and ban of slavery restricts one's freedom of getting things done by forcing others to do the hard work for them.

If arguing that nobody has the moral right to procreate is 'forceful imposition' of antinatalism, then arguing that nobody is entitled to own slaves or beat the s**t out of others for enjoyment is also 'forceful imposition'.

Moral laws are always imposed, and pointing out that they are imposed doesn't serve the purpose of denying their legitimacy.

As Mr. Harlan says, the majority of children created might eventually have a good life (we never know that of course, as we can never 'be' those children's consciousness; acknowledging this structural ignorance that we have is what I think is the core of antinatalism), which may be the difference between slavery and pronatalism.

However, his unmindfulness of exposing a consciousness other than himself to infinite possibilities of experiencing pain by creating it should be found worrying.

This really is the same mentality as fixing your friend's eyelids shut with instant glue while they're sleeping just because you eventually liked it when someone else did it to you.

Even the majority of so-called natalists would demand very careful moral consideration when it comes to experiments where sentient consciousness could be formed on living tissue in a Petri dish.

I suppose they don't find the same discomfort about doing exactly the same in a human body because they'd been so pro-natally brainwashed.

Mr. Harlan's 'victimization argument' (imposition argument) clearly shows that pro-natalists fail to even try to think from the perspective of the born when thinking about procreation, while antinatalists including Mr. Muchi are successful in that respect (or, more accurately, are aware that their ability is so limited that they can never successfully think from the perspective of the born).

I'm sure the majority of biological parents procreate wishing the best for their children, but they have never been lucky enough to realize that the lack of their abilities is a huge problem.

LONG HISTORY IN THE PAST AND RECENT 'PROCREATION NEGATION'

It seems like they've planned to hear from Prof. Morioka about the history of antinatalistic thoughts beforehand, as Mr. Harlan suddenly asks him to talk about it.

22:40
HAR	I've done some research actually on antinatalism and found out it has such a long, long history. More than 2000 years!
MOR	Exactly, we can go all the way back to BC tracing the path of antinatalistic thoughts. There's a poem from ancient Greece that goes like "the best is not being born, the second best is going back to the other world soon where we all came from". In the ancient era of India, when the Buddha was around, people believed in reincarnation, which is basically being born once again into the other world. Once they realized they didn't want to be born anymore, that's what we call 'spiritual awakening'. So yes, this kind of idea has always been there since BC. Also, birth control became easier in the 20th century. That made the humanity realize they do have control over whether or not to procreate, and led to the prominence of what I call 'procreation negation', an idea that nobody has any right to procreate. It has 2000-plus-year-long history, so it's not like people suddenly started going anti-natal in the last few years or so.
24:13
MOR	I'd like to note a few things before the ad break. One is that humanity has held this kind of antinatalistic thoughts for more than 2000 years, so we can't expect it to fade away any time soon, in fact I think we'll keep dealing with it for the rest of human history. Another is that antinatalism itself is an extremely rational thought. It's based on a very philosophical idea that humankind is different from other animals because of its rationality; while animals breed when nothing interrupts them, we, humankind, can appropreately control our animal side by making good use of our rationality given only to our species. That's something I'd like to make sure everyone here understands.
SHI	Well, I suppose we all understand that pretty well. Alright, so after a short break, we'll welcome a woman to this studio who gave birth to her children while being aware of antinatalism, and further discuss the philosophy. Stay tuned!

He says humanity has held 'antinatalistic thoughts', not 'antinatalism', for more than 2000 years and casually avoids assertion of the definition of the word 'antinatalism', but he has suggested his own way of defining it where such things as 'birth negation' or 'reincarnation negation' are included in antinatalism (Refer to his paper 'What Is Antinatalism?: Definition, History, and Categories').

As the video at the beginning shows, the producers of this show generally stick to it as well.

We, on the other hand, argue that only what he has named 'procreation negation' should be called antinatalism from practical points of view to prevent any actual harm caused by stupid misunderstanding of antinatalism, but as to the history of antinatalistic thoughts, I have absolutely nothing to add to what Professor says here as I'm no expert on thought history.

This part of the show is relatively unimportant.

CHOOSING TO CREATE RESPONSIBILITY THAT CANNOT BE TAKEN

Yuki Akiyama, who they say procreated despite being aware of antinatalism, joins the folks for the 2nd part of the show.

25:00
SHI	We're now joined by Yuki Akiyama, who has given birth to two children despite being aware of antinatalism, and we will further discuss whether procreation is an act of parents' selfishness. She takes a neutral position towards antinatalism. Hello Ms. Akiyama, good to have you here.
AKIYAMA	Thank you for having me.
SHI	What do you make of our discussion in the first part of this show?
AKI	Well, I suppose I owe Mr. Muchi an apology for procreating, and that twice, but I do find what he says reasonable. When I was a student, I never really wanted to have a child, and thought I and everyone should end our lives in the 40s or something, so... I'd be lying if I said I have absolutely nothing against antinatalism but I find it very reasonable.
SHI	As we understand it, you were aware of antinatalism when you gave birth to your hcildren. Were you perplexed or... what did you think?
AKI	I got to know about antinatalism on Twitter where people discussed women's right to have kids, and I went like "well, that's one way to think about procreation" and nothing more. I got married later, got pregnant, but lost the baby. It was a miscarriage at quite a late stage, and my doctor said it's not common at all, so it really shocked me. I was thinking I was someone 'not supposed to have kids' if we were to classify people into the ones who have the right to have kids and the ones who don't. I eventually gave up on having kids. And then at work, I interviewed someone who had a shotgun marriage, and she said on her postnatal high that her baby 'chose' her to be their mom. I was honestly upset, wondering if that meant I wasn't chosen by my child. That's when I got convinced that a child doesn't choose their parents. Parents choose to have kids, wanting to give birth to and raise them. So I once again wanted to have kids, so I had one, and then another.
SHI	What do you think about the view that procreation is an act of parents' selfishness?
AKI	I think that's right. 100%.
28:30
HAR	How has your view on antinatalism changed, from pre-birth to post-birth?
AKI	It hasn't really. I think the current situation of this world and society has a lot to do with people having antinatalistic thoughts, so all we can do is try our best to build a better society where the future generation don't have to be like antinatalists. I think that's the simple answer we've all got to agree on in the end.

We'd have to "try our best to build a better society where the future generation don't have to be like antinatalists" only when there is the future generation.

If we were to really acheive the goal of protecting the future generation from pain/suffering, then we have to choose the only way to do that with the success rate of 100%, which is of course not to create that generation in the first place.

I think that's the simple answer we've all got to agree on in the end 😉

Ms. Akiyama admits that procreation is always an act of parents' selfishness, so she is probably trying to justify procreation while acknowledging the risks of being born in a way that's appropriate to some extent (or should I say inappropriate to some extent?).

I suppose she found the violence of creating new people in this world where we have to "try our best to build a better society" cheap for the cost of fulfilling her own desire.

It amazes me that she can take so lightly the fact that the cost has to be paid by her descendant, not herself, but this is probably true of everyone who thought they had thought it through before procreating; if one truly thinks it through, they would realize their ignorance and limits of abilities, ending up in deciding not to procreate though.

By the way, they finally start saying the phrase in the title of this show 'Is 出産 (shussan/childbirth) an act of parents' selfishness?', but I have to say this is a poor choice of words.

This could make it easy for viewers to think that the act of procreation we address is something only the ones with female reproductive system can engage, which is obviously not true.

Note: For the sake of simplicity, I have used 'procreation' instead of 'childbirth' so far in this blog post, but the original title of this show indeed uses the word 出産, which in English 'childbirth' is the closest to. Not sure why they chose it... I guess they were just not really thinking.

DOES ANTINATALISM VIOLATE FREEDOM OF THOUGHT?

The most 'disgusting' part of the show starts when Ms. Shibata asks Mr. Muchi if he has any questions for Ms. Akiyama.

29:08
SHI	Mr. Muchi, is there anyhting you want to ask Ms. Akiyama?
MUC	In Mr. Harlan's case, he never knew about antinatalism when he procreated, which is understandable, but in your case, Ms. Akiyama, you knew there was a philosophical position of antinatalism and yet you decided to procreate, and I can't help wondering why. I imagine you realized possibilities of your children having a bad life after getting to know antinatalism, so... how did it happen?
AKI	I guess you could never have persuaded me to choose not to have kids even if you had tried, but anyway... the argument of russian roulette was it, the one where 1 of 5 people has a bad life and 4 have a good life? I think, choosing not to give birth to those 5 means not to create 4 happy lives, only to prevent 1 unhappy life. I think antinatalists turn a means to an end. When a society is a hard place to survive because of some obstacles, then we can change the society to make our life easier. Not creating lives is not a goal but just a means, and I think antinatalists have a bit of illogical jump there.
SHI	What I though in listening to the discussion so far is, I think it's totally okay to have any philosophical thoughts about having kids, and there's no way of stopping people from having those antinatalistic thoughts anyway, but it's so annoying isn't it, that politicians tell us to have more kids while antinatalists tell us no to, like whatever we do comes with complaints, making this society so tiring. I guess we should just listen to ourselves in the end, not what the society or whoever wants us to do. Also, antinatalists may say they can only try to persuade us not to have kids but look what happened here; they say "hey, why the hell did you decide to have kids despite being aware of possibilities of your children having bad lives?", this is such a disgusting way of 'persuading' isn't it? Like, it's just imposition of what they think is right and it's violation of our procreative freedom. I know I'm sounding harsh, but... yes I think it's okay to have any philosophical thoughts, and it's true that the society is such a hard place to survive... but I find it really insensitive to say such things to those who want to get pregnant or who have got pregnant. So I guess that's why I can't accept antinatalism.
KAN	But I think the same can be said from the antinatalists' point of view. I think Mr. Muchi had to ask that question because he can't help wondering why people keep having kids who are not necessarily going to have a good life. We're doing the same to Mr. Muchi right now, wondering why the hell he thinks that way, so I think...
MUC	I mean, it's of course not great that some antinatalists use abusive language and call someone who has procreated all kinds of names. That's because antinatalism is all about getting rid of suffering. We argue that pain should not be experienced, and one way to make it happen is not creating people. There's one example I found: I saw someone suffering from post-birth depression on Twitter and people grilling her like "you shouldn't have had kids then" or "you did this to yourself, don't complain". I found it really ugly. Those people may be antinatalists, but they end up in causing pain for others. This goes against the goal of antinatalism. What if the woman gets even more sick because of this and takes worse care of her child, leading to the child's bad life? So, I think use of abusive language by antinatalists is something that cannot be tolerated, and it's probably part of why antinatalism is not mainstream yet.
SHI	As Mr. Muchi just said, antinatalists sound intrusive and it's not doing any good for them. It's okay to have different opinions; it's a personal choice whether or not to have kids, and it's a personal choice whether or not to think we shouldn't have been born, but I hate the society where people tell those who wish to have kids not to, because of hereditary deseases for instance... like, who the hell are you to say that? You know, it's a basic human right to have kids, so maybe if we respect different views...
MOR	... Sorry to interrupt, I just want to say... I agree with Mr. Muchi, but when you really listen to what antinatalists say, you can see antinatalism is definitely a position to argue that nobody cannot procreate or take any part in procreation. So, for antinatalists, allowing others to procreate while they don't procreate themselves or saying procreation is a personal choice is intolerable; if you do that, you're no longer an antinatalist. As to women, antinatalists don't accept their right to give birth to children. They regard procreation as violence against the born. Whether or not to say that aloud would be a matter of sensitivity, but the idea is that no man or woman cannot procreate. We cannot mistake antinatalism for childfreedom. Only childfree people say "I'm not gonna have kids but you can", and that's incompatible with antinatalism. Those are two totally different things.

It's a relief to see Prof. Morioka advice those pro-natalists who haven't properly understood antinatalism and unfairly criticise antinatalists, claiming that procreation is a personal choice (therefore antinatalism is wrong).

They still don't seem to understand antinatalism though after Prof. Morioka's comment, except for Mr. Kanechika, which is a massive shame.

As I said in a blog post where I responded to an article which tried to refute antinatalism, antinatalists argue that nobody has the moral right to procreate, meaning procreation is not a personal choice (yes, technically everything is a personal choice but I'm using this phrase in a more common way).

If they were to refute it, they can't use a reason that entirely depends on a precondition that procreation is a personal choice.

They sound like arguing against antinatalism, but they are actually making no sense.

Ms. Shibata's 'imposition argument' is totally off the mark and invalid.

It's okay to think we are imposing what we think is right on them; my point is that, if you claim antinatalism is wrong just because it's imposed, you have to argue against abolishionism of slavery because it was imposed on slaverists.

Its being imposed upon the opposition doesn't affect its legitimacy, does it?

Ms. Akiyama says that antinatalists "turn a means to an end" and "have an illogical jump", which makes no sense.

The end of antinatalism is to make sure consciousness doesn't experience pain, and its means is not to create sentient beings.

Where exactly are we "turning a means to an end"?

It is actually pro-natalists that turn a means to an end, who claim that we have to make this world a better place for the sake of future generations.

They want to protect the next generations from pain, and yet somehow they manage to justify creating them, exposing them to possibilities of experiencing pain, and only then are willing to make changes to the world to reduce the possibilities.

There is the perfect way of protecting them with a success rate of 100%, but they don't choose it... this really is the same attitude as putting someone's arm into a meat grinder so that this person requires a surgery, only to fulfill our desire to perform surgery to cure something.

They seem to either lack the sense of purpose or are trying to make lame excuses to justify procreation, or maybe both.

WHAT PAIN/SUFFERING REALLY MEANS

36:19
WADA	This is really basic, but I don't really understand the idea of setting a goal of 'abolishing pain', because I think pain is always something fundamental to life. So what would you suggest as a way of overcoming pain... or are we not even supposed to try to overcome it at all?
MUC	First of all, you are right about pain being fundamental to life, which is exactly why antinatalists argue that we shouldn't start lives in the first place. However, I do think we should address how to overcome pain in lives for the sake of those who have been born. It may be difficult to achieve 'birth affirmation' or find some meaning in our life, but I think it's something important. To be honest, I think my way of 'birth affirmation' is not forcing a potentially bad life on my children by not creating them, and recognizing I'm doing the right thing.

I think this is an issue which originates in a poor wording.

People often don't correctly use the word 'pain' or the phrase 'things that (can) cause pain', and it's probably makes it easy to misunderstand pain as something that we don't have to try to avoid because it's fundamental to life.

Needless to say, this statement "pain is fundamental to life, therefore we can start lives" makes no sense at all.

A variety of ways to express the definition of pain may be possible, but here's my tentative one: a certain kind of quality of subjective experiences with sheer and self-evident wrongness.

Pain I mean here is not what is called 'physical pain' or 'mental pain' which are just some of 'things that can cause pain', but is the badness shared by all things I list below: physical pain of injury, agony of suffocation, anxiety, anger, and sadness... in other words, the purely negative quality of experiences as a reason why those things are deemed wrong.

If you think about a world where there is no sentient (able to experience pain, or painient, as Richard D. Ryder would say) beings , perhaps it would be easier for you to understand what I mean by 'a certain kind of quality of subjective experiences with sheer and self-evident wrongness'.

Why is stabbing someone wrong?

It's because (the consciousnesses of) the one stabbed (person A), the ones who favor person A, and the ones who would suffer damage if person A gets injured or killed are sentient.

If there are no sentient beings in this world and therefore these people are all not sentient, stabbing someone is not wrong or bad at all.

Pain is the only thing in the world that is wrong in itself, and can make other things wrong (sheer wrongness).

The wrongness can be experienced only by the consciousness who experiences the pain, and nobody else (self-evident wrongness).

CLOSING THOUGHTS: THOSE WHO CANNOT THINK FROM THE BORN'S PERSPECTIVE

Are people too busy?

Is it because they don't want to be one of 'dropouts' that they force themselves to spend so much energy trying to survive this human society with the goal of getting a decent job, getting married, and procreate, ending up with incapability of guessing that consciousnesses other than themselves are there with different environments and different experiences, feeling totally differently from themselves (and of realizeing their structural ignorance that allow them only to guess but never to know for sure)?

I don't think they're unable to realize that they are separate consciousnesses from those on human bodies created in the future.

Otherwise they would be unable to wonder if their friends would like what they are about to choose as birthday gifts.

And yet, somehow, most of them seem to allow themselves to be too lazy to think that the children/discendants they are about to create have separate consciousnesses from themselves.

For the entirety of the show, it was suggested that most of those presenters don't think non-existent human beings deserve the same respect as existent ones.

I wonder what they would say if asked whether they can understand what environmentalists mean by such claims as "we can't just do whatever we want to do; we have to do our best to improve environmental situations, because the future generations shouldn't have to survive poor environment because of us", but honestly I don't see them saying no to it...

The difference between environmentalism and antinatalism is whether the non-existent persons as objects of respect will eventually come existent or remain non-existent forever.

It almost seems like pro-natalists think that, in order for us to perform a good/bad action, someone needs to actually exist to enjoy the benefit or suffer the damage as a result of it, which obviously is incompatible with (what I think is) their actual attitude towards environmentalism.

Either way, this show disappointed me a little bit by showing me the extent to which pro-natalists have been brainwashed.

Those people should be able to think about a lot of stuffs by applying the principle that the pain experienced by individual consciousnesses must be minimized, but only when it comes to procreation, they seem to forget all that and rely entirely on baseless b***s*** such as "having biological children is always a great thing", "the right to excercise procreative abilities must always be respected", or "whatever can happen to children, creating them is always the right thing to do".

Once they procreate, they create not only a cute baby; they create a teen, an adult, and an old person as a result of the baby growing up, impose unchangeable conditions on them such as the species, the birthplace and the family, and force them to work hard to survive this world while trying to avoid failures.

There are some things they could do to give their child a decent environment, but they never have the power to control infinite possibilities of how things can go to give them a painless life.

It's astonishing that those incompetent people think they have the right to start the existence of someone else, which (I think) is the most significant thing one can possibly do to another, but I suppose it can't be helped, as they have been educated never to question if it's okay to procreate.

Those who lack knowledge cannot be blamed, as they haven't been lucky enough to even know that they should have that knowledge.

The same can be said about the absurdness of 'common sense' on procreation.

It won't be easy but I'll keep trying to find an effective way to make people realize the fallacies of procreative 'common sense'.