Amygdala Guides Morality, Even In Rabbits

Case in point, the argument to not have children:

You don’t have to dislike children to see the harms done by having them. There is a moral case against procreation

In 2006, I published a book called Better Never to Have Been. I argued that coming into existence is always a serious harm. People should never, under any circumstance, procreate – a position called ‘anti-natalism’. In response, readers wrote letters of appreciation, support and, of course, there was outrage…

However, severe suffering is not a rare phenomenon, and thus anti-natalism is a view that, at the very least, should be taken seriously and considered with an open mind.

The idea of anti-natalism is not new. In Sophocles’ Oedipus at Colonus, the chorus declares that ‘not to be born is, beyond all estimation, best’. A similar idea is expressed in Ecclesiastes. In the East, both Hinduism and Buddhism have a negative view of existence (even if they do not often go so far as to oppose procreation). Various thinkers since then have also recognised how pervasive suffering is, which moved them to explicitly oppose procreation: Arthur Schopenhauer might be the most famous, but others include Peter Wessel Zapffe, Emil Cioran and Hermann Vetter…

But even if life isn’t pure suffering, coming into existence can still be sufficiently harmful to render procreation wrong. Life is simply much worse than most people think, and there are powerful drives to affirm life even when life is terrible. People might be living lives that were actually not worth starting without recognising that this is the case…

Considering matters carefully, it’s obvious that there must be more bad than good. This is because there are empirical asymmetries between the good and bad things. The worst pains, for instance, are worse than the best pleasures are good. If you doubt this, ask yourself – honestly – whether you would accept a minute of the worst tortures in exchange for a minute or two of the greatest delights. And pains tend to last longer than pleasures. Compare the fleeting nature of gustatory and sexual pleasures with the enduring character of much pain. There are chronic pains, of the lower back or joints for example, but there is no such thing as chronic pleasure. (An enduring sense of satisfaction is possible, but so is an enduring sense of dissatisfaction, and thus this comparison does not favour the preponderance of the good.)

Injury occurs quickly but recovery is slow. An embolus or projectile can fell you in an instant – and if you’re not killed, healing will be slow. Learning takes a lifetime but can be obliterated in an instant. Destruction is easier than construction.

When it comes to the satisfaction of desires, things are also stacked against us. Many desires are never satisfied. And even when they are satisfied, it is often after a long period of dissatisfaction. Nor does satisfaction last, for the satisfaction of a desire leads to a new desire – which itself needs to be satisfied some time in the future. When one can fulfil one’s more basic desires, such as hunger, on a regular basis, higher-level desires arise. There is a treadmill and an escalator of desire.

In other words, life is a state of continual striving. We have to expend effort to ward off unpleasantness – for example, to prevent pain, assuage thirst, and minimise frustration. In the absence of our strivings, the unpleasantness comes all too easily, for that is the default.

Listen to it. You can never be satisfied. Get satisfaction and you immediately want more satisfaction. The world is filled with unbearable difficulty and harshness. You have to strive, which is awful. Even the article begins with “You don’t have to dislike children to see the harms done by having them.” You may not, but it certainly helps. When he says that, he is trying to speak to the people who are not like him, and who might like children.

And what does this all justify? Using birth control and abortion so you don’t have to raise children. The morals derive directly from the reproductive strategy’s urges. It feels right, and they believe therefore it is right.

It is a deep article, originating from the very well spring of the r-selected psychology deep within the subconscious of the human rabbit. Reading it and trying to visualize yourself producing those words is a dark journey. I came away from it feeling like a neurotic, unsatisfiable, selfish addict, unable to scratch a perpetual itch for a world that will never be. I came away from it depressed and unhappy, in a way that I could see motivating me to seek a world of hedonism to medicate the hurt.

But what would make the author feel being born was worthwhile? Being born into perfect health, with total satisfaction instantly, and no danger, or hurt, or need to strive, or suffer, and an endless stream od easily acquired, never-ending pleasure. That is the environment he is designed for.

Tell others about r/K Theory, because our morals say something different