PAINIST/ANTINATALIST ACTIVISM
WHAT TO SAY AND HOW
Way too many self-proclaimed "antinatalists" go online and post excessively agressive or pessimistic content.
Such content often attract lots of attention by getting reposted, retweeted, or screenshotted, which prevents antinatalism from gaining support, undoes hard work by serious antinatalist activists, and causes harm to painient consciousnesses who would have avoided being created if antinatalism had gained slightly more support.
Of course, some people would play a role in spreading such information in a way that works as propaganda against antinatalism because they fail (or pretend to fail) to understand that not everything antinatalists say actually reflects the content of antinatalism – I don't intend to argue that they shouldn't be held accountable at all.
However, if you ignore the existence of such people and discharge whatever comes up on your mind onto the internet, that means you're abandoning the responsibility as an antinatalist not to hamper the progress of antinatalism, if not help accelerate it.
WHAT TO EMPHASIZE
-
Antinatalists support antinatalism as a result of exercising reason, often motivated by compassion.
-
Supporting antinatalism doesn't necessarily mean that the supporter is having a bad life. When one has a bad life, it only makes it easy for them to reach an antinatalist conclusion, which has nothing to do with the legitimacy of antinatalism itself.
-
When someone doesn't support antinatalism, that's likely to be only because they haven't been given a chance to take their time to think about the morality of procreation, and not because they are genuinely a bad person. If given enough time to think about it, they will understand and support antinatalism.
-
Those who (try to) criticize antinatalism by equating it with things like eugenics, nazism, or religion should try taking a step back to the badness of pain (and the goodness of pleasure), which is the source of any kind of value, to allow themselves to think clearly and acknowledge differences between each position.
-
It's not any more wrong for people to procreate when they fall into certain categories such as poverty or disabilities, because procreation is always wrong as long as it can (reasonably be assumed to) produce a painient being.
-
Antinatalism and child-free are two entirely different things in two different categories. The former is an ethical view supported and practiced for altruistic reasons, while the latter is a personal, lifestyle choice made for one's own benefit. There is no logical inconsistency in being an antinatalist while raising a child, enjoying interactions with children, or conversely disliking them.
HOW TO SAY IT
-
Remember to "condemn the crime (position), not the criminal (person who subscribes to the position)."
-
Never use derogatory terms for pro-natalists such as "breeder(s)" in English, "nata-kas (ナタカス)," "gosanma (強産魔)," or "hanzaisha (繁罪者)" in Japanese. If you call the person you're trying to convince of antinatalism an idiot, the only real idiot in the room would be you, as you're only making your work unnecessarily difficult.
-
Just like it's not logically inconsistent to like children while being an antinatalist, it is indeed not inconsistent to hate children. But refrain from expressing your hate. Such expression makes antinatalists, as a category, look like a group of people who tell others not to create babies because they don't want to see those "ugly" things on the streets.
-
Never blame those who have procreated. There is nothing antinatalism can do about procreation that's already taken place. Antinatalism is an ethical position to be practiced to change the future; it's not a tool to condemn actions in the past. Using it as the latter only hampers the growth of antinatalism, taking the power to change the future away from it.
-
-
Never use actual cases of unfortunate people (things like incidents or disabilities) to defend antinatalism.
-
If given enough time to think, it shouldn't be difficult for anyone to see that it's wrong to equate antinatalism with widely condemned positions like eugenics and nazism, but it's foolish to express our views by using language that facilitates such associations. It only slows down the progress of antinatalism.
-
-
Avoid linking your personal struggles with antinatalism.
-
The only thing you can link your personal struggles with is what initially led you to support antinatalism. Try not to discuss such things in a way that makes pro-natalists misunderstand that your personal experiences are the only reason for you to be an antinatalist now. What helped you become an antinatalist is something you shouldn't even need to tell in the first place, unless you are asked to talk specifically about it.
-
Why I Don’t Use The Word “Life”
What we, vegans, argue that deserves our protection is the well-being of painient consciousnesses, and not life.
What antinatalists* argue against creating is painient beings or painient consciousnesses**, and not life.
It’s true that, when we practice veganism, we are saving lives in the sense that we reduce the number of individual animals to be killed by avoiding financially supporting industries that cause a great deal of pain to living animals to reduce the demand for animal products.
It’s also true that, when we practice antinatalism, the means to the end of not creating a painient consciousness is often abstaining from creating a life.
But preventing creation of life is not the goal of veganism or antinatalism.
I guess it’s natural for people to want to say “life” just to make it (seemingly) easier to make themselves understood by those whom they are trying to convince, but such a way to phrase their points seems to be allowing the spread of nonsense such as “gasoline is fossil fuel that comes from dead animals, therefore vegans cannot use gasoline-powered cars.”
Engaging in vegan/antinatalist activism with such loose and lazy use of words, in my view, is a great way to fail to convince people of veganism or antinatalism who could otherwise go vegan or anti-natal, allowing the start of existence of consciousnesses that would experience a lot of pain.
* An antinatalist is someone who supports and practices the view that creating a painient consciousness is wrong. Practically, their actions will look very much like those of an anti-human-procreationist (better known as “antinatalist,” which is terribly speciesist and totally unjustifiable!) and a vegan.
** A consciousness is something capable of subjective experience, and pain is only pain when it’s subjectively experienced, so I think using the word consciousness like this is accurate and comprehensive enough.
The only sources of any kind of value are pain and pleasure, and never life.
Human beings are given human rights because they are supposedly painient.
Dogs are legally protected from abuse because they are supposedly painient.
People are urging the Chinese government to establish proper animal protection laws because cats are supposedly painient.
Not because humans, dogs, or cats are living organisms.
Yes, we tend to save lives when we avoid causing pain, but we cannot rephrase that into a false ethical code that life must be saved.
Only because saving lives tends to save the well-being of consciousnesses, have we been taught, lazily, that we must see lives as something sacred and must protect them at all cost.
If you are a vegan or an antinatalist, you must know you don’t consider life to inherently have positive value.
At the risk of making myself sound like a bloody terrorist, I have to say life must not be valued.
It’s the well-being of painient consciousnesses that needs to be valued and saved.
No mistake must be made about that.
Lives don’t directly generate value.
Pain and pleasure do.
Pages 30-33 of “Vegan FAQ” by The Real Argument make good points on this topic way better and in more detail than me, so if you are a user of Japanese language, I strongly recommend giving it a read.