CONTRIBUTOR
ASAGI HOZUMI
Membership Number: 2
Regular Member
Asagi Hozumi co-founded Antinatalism Japan in 2021, and has been the Director since then.
He is doubtful of utilitarianism, and finds much greater legitimacy in Richard D. Ryder's painism.
Oscar Piastri is his favorite racing driver.
In my previous column, I showed an example of people hampering the progress of antinatalism by posting excessively aggressive or pessimistic content on the internet.
I also argued that, when antinatalists choose to engage in expressive activities in a way that contributes more to the growth of antinatalism instead of doing so in a way that does the opposite, that can't be called censorship.
Then what kind of content and ways of expression do I suggest?
Here are some examples:
CONTENT OF EXPRESSION: 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, and it doesn't have anything to do with the legitimacy of antinatalism itself.
When someone doesn't support antinatalism, that's only because they haven't been given a chance to take their time to think about the morality of procreation, 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 enable 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 hating to see/hear children.
WAYS OF EXPRESSION: TONE AND ARGUMENTS
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 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.
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.
Of course, I'm not an expert when it comes to human psychology, so I can't promise that antinatalism will achieve its objective fastest if all antinatalists do what I say.
But I can very confidently assert that insulting pro-natalists by calling them "monkeys with no rationality" or "pieces of s**t" on Reddit or Twitter is not the fastest way.
If you want to rant so badly about pro-natalists, you can do that within a community that only antinatalists have access to.
If you, instead, do that publicly where pro-natalists can read/hear/see, it means, as I said before, abandoning the responsibility as an antinatalist not to hamper the progress of antinatalism, and you'd be undermining antinatalism while claiming you support it.
Then how should we urge antinatalists on the internet to recognize this problem and try to find a solution?
It'd be ideal if the city office sends someone who's just become an antinatalist a letter saying "here are examples of how and what not to express in public spaces, as they could hinder the growth of antinatalism," but that's not how things work.
In my next column, I’ll share my ideas of how Antinatalism Japan could play a part in resolving this problem.