Book Review: Better Never to Have Been
- Author
- David Benatar
- Grade
- B
Provocative, but dense prose makes it a difficult read.
David Benatar’s philosophical tract Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence first came to my attention on a list of recently published books with bizarre titles. With no further knowledge of its thesis, I bought it, hoping that it would be somewhat related to my own beliefs concerning overpopulation, the environment, and childfreedom. I called it an “anti-natal” book, wishing for an antidote during these illogically pro-natal times in the USA.
The book soon arrived, and I slowly made my way through it, reading 225 pages over the course of a week. I found it necessary to drastically reduce my reading speed as I tackled difficult philosophical concepts and danced with delight over finding an author who agreed with my beliefs so much.
Childfree proponents will certainly be most interested in Chapter 4, “Having Children: The Anti-Natal View.” Benatar has at this point already outlined his belief that coming into existence, something we cannot choose to do, is always harmful to us. Even with perfect physical and mental health, success, loving parents and friends, and a utopian existence in which we never encounter sadists, we will still grow old and die. And how likely is a perfect, pain-free life? Benatar asks. No, a child is born to suffer, and compassionate people should never allow its birth.
Claiming that a duty to have children cannot exist if one is acting in the child’s interests, Benatar states that any other sense of duty has no application in the real world. He then claims we have a duty not to procreate, and that people who make their decision to do so base their desire on the idea of raising children, which, at this point, does not require one’s own pregnancy, since one can adopt.
The next most important chapter is 6, “Population and Extinction.” Here Benatar delves into other philosophers’ arguments, so the reading, already difficult, becomes grueling. Hanging in there until the section “Phased Extinction,” however, is ultimately rewarding, because he presents a feasible plan to reduce human population so that the world’s other species can survive. Deep ecologists get a strong ally here.
For the politically minded, Chapter 5, “Abortion,” is the most relevant. Benatar acknowledges that life-forms range from plants to conscious beings to reflective beings who have interests. We only have a moral duty to the last, he claims, or whenever we can determine that an entity actually desires to continue existence. Benatar then readily refutes some rather silly arguments against abortion, which are noted mainly for granting a fetus too much identification with the arguer.
The rest of the book is not as relevant, unless as a childfree person you consider yourself a nonconformist. If you are cynical, pessimistic, or realistic, you will be amazed to read Chapter 3, “How Bad Is Coming into Existence?” Benatar explains that a “normal” human being is optimistic. A typical person highly overrates the quality of life, even when she is experiencing great pain. When she chooses to become a mother, therefore, she will only see her baby’s future as idyllic.
David Benatar’s book is expensive and hard to read. As most nonfiction books tend to be, it is repetitious and derivative of other studies. Nevertheless, it is a refreshing reminder that not everyone is baby-happy, and for good reasons besides merely disliking children.
Copyright . Published 1 September 2007 in What’s New.
Reader comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
“Having Children: The Anti-Natal View” sounds like he’s trying to make up buzz words to generate support. Did he mention the term childfree in the text?
permalink — 7 September 2007, 13:16