“To be face to face with a serious thinker who intends to defend that idea is intimidating,” he said.
A prohibition on procreation sounds far-fetched and perhaps unnecessary in a world of plummeting fertility rates where governments spend heavily to encourage people to have more children.
Yet concerns about climate change have led some couples to consider abandoning plans to have children, which Benatar regards as a form of anti-natalism.
“It seeks an overall reduction in the number of humans created,” he said. “That is compatible with, but not equivalent to, the core sense of anti-natalism, which opposes all reproduction – and not merely some or all reproduction by some people.”
Beard said he hoped the audience approached Benatar’s philosophy with a spirit of curiosity, charity and scrutiny.
Loading
“Ideas don’t have to be wholly right for us to learn from them, nor are ideas entirely wrong simply because we don’t agree with them,” he said.
Beard said the challenge posed by anti-natalists like Benatar was deeply practical.
“The best response to anti-natalists would be to have absolute confidence that people born today will experience far more pleasure than they do pain,” he said. “In an age of climate change, geopolitical instability and economic anxiety, can we really say that with a straight face? And if not, what better spur to act?”
Benatar jealously guards his privacy, to the point where he does not want to be photographed, which The New Yorker suggested was designed to prevent armchair psychologists from “attributing his views to depression, trauma, or some other aspect of his personality”.
It has not worked.
“Some people, in the fullness of their ignorance about me, will psychologise my arguments anyway,” Benatar said. “My arguments, which should be evaluated on their merits, are not about me. They are about the reality of sentient life.”
Yet Benatar’s anti-natalist views are perhaps less incendiary than the views expressed in his 2012 book The Second Sexism: Discrimination Against Men and Boys, which prompted outrage when it was published.
“You are correct that, in some ways, the arguments in that book have proven even more provocative – so provocative, in fact, that many of those most in need of engaging them have simply refused to do so,” he said.
Other commentators had wilfully mischaracterised his position, Benatar said. “Yet, early in that book, I state very explicitly that girls and women are victims of sex discrimination. The point of the book is to show that boys and men also are victims of sexism.”
