Antinatalism: Still ambiguous

Benatar writes in his book on page 49

If all lives were as free of suffering as that of the imagined person who suffers only a pin-prick, the harms of coming into existence would easily be outweighed by the benefits to others (including the potential parents) of that person coming into existence. In the real world, however, there are no lives even nearly this charmed.

If you saw my last video, you’ll know I find it very strange to be talking about what’s feasible in the real world when you’re arguing for something that you accept is tantamount to impossible.

But what’s stranger is when you compare this quote with the following from page 29.

As will become apparent, my argument does not apply to those hypothetical cases in which a life contains only good and no bad. About such an existence I say that it is neither a harm nor a benefit and we should be indifferent between such an existence and never existing. 

Firstly, this is implausible. Why should we think that a life filled with pleasure and no pain is as valuable as no life whatsoever? Secondly, he appears to have contradicted himself, in saying that suffering can in principle be outweighed [in a chapter called Why Coming Into Existence Is Always A Harm]. Thirdly, Benatar seems to be operating under some kind of utilitarian calculus most of the time, but then hints at a more nuanced understanding of life when he talks about the benefits of parenting. Finally, he seems to be unsure if antinatalism is true by definition or true synthetically. And neither do many run of-the-mill antinatalists, who seem to be too busy listening to Evanescence and liking posts from “antinatalist humour” to read much philosophy.  

My last video got some very interesting comments. Captain Andy commented that the wholesale removal of sentient life on earth is impossible. I believe Dewinthemorning (who unlike me is scientifically literate) also made a video on this. 

I would add that since this is the case, a thoroughgoing antinatalist policy might increase the suffering in the world. If humans forsook the pursuit of a scientific utopia in the futile pursuit of a totally lifeless planet, the net result would be increased suffering. Even if one accepts the doubtful proposal that the best we can do is break even on the scale of pleasure and pain, antinatalism is still an inferior solution than the pursuit of utopia.