Antipatigenics

Is antinatalism actually a particularly virulent form of eugenics?

This is a line of attack against antinatalism’s supposed moral “high ground” that it is all about compassion and reducing suffering.

Rhetorically, this reframing is effective because it demonstrates the clear parallels between antinatalist thought and eugenics thought. That they aren’t exactly the same is not a refutation of the strong similarities.

1. Antinatalism sees suffering as intrinsic to sentient beings.
2. Antinatalism sees the suffering of sentient beings as passed on by procreation, so it advocates for the voluntary cessation of breeding by humans at least. (Some antinatalists advocate for the cessation of breeding by some means of any species that is sentient enough to suffer.)
3. Antinatalism does not advocate for the cessation of all life, as all life is not capable of suffering in any way recognizable by sentient beings (e.g., plankton).
4. Hence antinatalism simplistically views the capacity to suffer as a “bad gene” inherent to some species, and advocates for the “breeding out” of this “suffering gene” from the pool of all life by encouraging humans to voluntarily refrain from reproducing.
5. Eugenics is the practice of breeding for “good” genetics, or breeding out “bad” genetics based on some metric.
6. Hence antinatalism (“against-baby-having”) actually advocates for a very specific and radical form of breeding out the “bad” trait of capacity to suffer. We shall more accurately and descriptively call this antipatigenics (“against-suffering-breeding”, where pati- is the Latin root for “to suffer”, a cognate of the English word patient.)
7. Both views, despite their different tactics and histories, share a common goal of seeking what they perceive as the “best” genetic outcome for future generations. Eugenics seeks this through selective breeding for positive traits, while antipatigenics/antinatalism seek the nullification of the “suffering trait” through the cessation of the lines of sentient species.

Distinctions with No Difference

Objection 1: Eugenics involves selective breeding for specific traits, not total non-reproduction.

Response 1: You can eliminate selecting for traits and just practice select out traits (like the capacity to suffer) and still be practicing eugenics. So antinatalism’s goal of eliminating suffering through non-reproduction aligns with eugenic principles.

Objection 2: “Capacity to suffer” isn’t actually a simple genetic trait.

Response 2: It’s not simple, in fact it’s intrinsic to the nature of sentient beings. But it is a trait that antinatalism seeks to eliminate from the pool of all life, and because it is intrinsic, it seeks to eliminate it by artificially selecting against humans and other sentient life.

Objection 3: Eugenics is an active and often coerced intervention in breeding, unlike the passive and voluntary stance of antinatalism.

Response 3: The distinction between active and passive intervention is purely a matter of tactics; both aim to influence genetic outcomes, with antinatalism’s passive approach still aligning with eugenic goals. Furthermore, with “degrowth” activism on the rise, antinatalism is only a few political steps away from becoming coercive.

Objection 4: Antinatalism and eugenics differ fundamentally in their motivations and ethical bases.

Response 4: Eugenicists claimed to be operating out of compassion, as do antinatalists. Eugenicists ultimately aimed to alter the genetic composition of large populations, as do antinatalists. Traditional eugenics at least sought to improve existing species, while antinatalism values the extinction of sentient species (particularly humans) via voluntary, passive-non breeding while maintaining that procreation is actually ethically wrong. Antinatalism’s ethical framework therefore functions as a specific form of radical eugenic thought and it is this parallel that actually matters.

Objection 5: Antinatalism applies universally, whereas eugenics is typically selective, for example racist.

Response 5: This actually strengthens the line of thought: eugenicists favored some human genotypes over others, while antinatalism’s “egalitarian” approach is actually worse than racism: it is actually broadly anti-human.

Objection 6: Associating antinatalism with eugenics is misleading due to eugenics’ negative historical context and connotations.

Response 6: This is actually the point. If a most highly-valued goal state of the reduction of suffering to zero (and consequent extinction of all human life) shouldn’t have negative associations, then I don’t know what should.

Finally

The parallels between antinatalism and eugenics are too strong to dismiss. And to anyone who wishes to continue drawing fine distinctions between eugenics and antinatalism/antipatigenics in an attempt to distance the two: the burden is now on you to explain why antinatalism is not ethically worse.