Fullscript of Let's Explore Japanese Antinatalism Culture Part4 ("Better never to have been?" by Masahiro Morioka Review)
Masahiro Morioka, a renowned professor, studying philosophy and ethics for 3 decades, published the book titled "Better Never to have been? " in October 2020. If someone would like to learn his "Philosophy of life" up here, perhaps links available in the description work, I guess.
As we know, many talented authors already talked about antinatalism in their works in the past centuries. Still, though, the approach to antinatalism in this book is unique to most of us. If I had to say, the composition of this book is a bit similar to "Ken Coates's Anti-Natalism: Rejectionist Philosophy from Buddhism to Benatar".
This book is trying to "overcome" antinatalism. However, it doesn't negate all aspects of antinatalism, so knee-jerk perfunctory criticism was not found a lot there.
Also, in chapter 7, he lambastes the cons stealthily slept in the philosophy of Jonas and Weinberg, in which they are justifying the continuation and procreation of humanity. From this chapter, we easily can estimate that the author does aware of the violent aspects of procreation.
Furthermore, in his other work called "Painless Civilization", he denounced killing male chicks in the middle of stockbreeding as meaningless and cruel.
What got me was the message told in the introduction. "Between the philosophers all over the world, they are sharing the cognition, namely, we should gradually take a look into the non-western philosophies ."
He buckles down to put it into practice especially in chapter 4 to 5. If the readers' interests are in understanding the gist of primitive Buddhism and the difference between it and modern antinatalism, these chapters would be fascinating.
Regrettably, I can't talk about them a lot, you will be able to deepen your insights about how "I or ego" were considered in the context of Buddhism.
Yet, in some chapters and parts of this book, his goal is obviously to debunk modern antinatalism and its theory. In my personal opinion, it isn't very alright.
For example, in chapter 6, by citing Nietzsche's "Love of Fate" and "Eternal Recurrence", he paves the road to his "Birth Affirmation".
Principally, he positively accepts the statement of "Love of Fate", namely, "I never wish for it, which is, like, a better world than I currently live, could have been there." But, he subtly backs down from "Eternal Recurrence"- "No matter how it was tragic, I wish for it again."
Either way, I guess, if humanity continues to procreate, they must push "Eternal Recurrence" which is slightly different than original form to themselves and future generations.
He already admits this point in a bit different form. Plus, we are not sure if Nietzsche himself would accept his "Eternal Recurrence" again considering his last gruesome days. The latter suggestion is a bit off-topic maybe.
Still, we also ought to recognize that an individual truly accepts "Love of Fate" sometimes completely overcomes Pollyanna Effect and becomes a name.
In chapter 2 and 8, he uses a metaphor to explain the philosophy of Schopenhauer and Benatar like below; "They won't have a drop of ink a white canvas impaired"
But for instance, Benatar just wrapped one of the gists of his philosophy as I remember like below (obviously different than the original quote, sorry)
"There is no need to bring someone into existence because in the situation before they are born they didn't have to feel any pain and doesn't need any pleasure; it's a utopia. Notwithstanding, countless blood has already been shed to search for unexisting utopia. I think this would, unfortunately, go on."
Put another way, the "canvas" he mentioned in his metaphor cannot exist in the first place. Also, (one)self that recognizes the existence of the "canvass" (I found a website written in Japanese which succeeds to explain this point very well . Link to that page available in description. Hope translator works fine).
Additionally, "Better never to have been" itself indicates "I have written this book, then, not under the illusion that it will make(much) difference to the number of people there will be but rather from the opinion that what I have to say needs to be said whether or not it is accepted". Considering this, it is illogical to liken his philosophy or perhaps entire modern antinatalism to the desultory evil desire of "Mephisto", whose target is to annihilate all the existence to ground zero as he did in chapter 1.*1
Probably the author also already notices this point so he cites the concept of "Ātman" and "Brahman" in chapter 4. Still, I am not so sure if he succeeds to negate "void"'s predominance.
Of course, most of us are not a worshiper of modern antinatal philosophers. I, as a "commoner", sometimes think there could have been more mentioning about the possibility of antinatalism in real life, for instance, how we would fight against the problems caused by Phased extinction.
He also notes that "the extinction of all the sentient lives; the consequence of antinatalism will never be attained. Because of this, antinatalism always has to face the possibility of its defeat" in chapter 2.
Notwithstanding, most modern antinatal philosophers,e.g., Benatar, Metzinger, and Cabrera already admitted this point. Regarding themselves as non-activists or non-fulltime activists, they meticulously point out the difficulty we will have to confront when we try to realize the extinction of sentient beings, overcoming foodchains, and so on. While he freely expands the notion of his"Philosophy of Life" and "Birth Affirmation", he perhaps exaggeratedly limits the practicality of antinatalism in real life. His modus operandi isn't kosher, ha?
Anyway, maybe I should talk about how people other than those philosophers make an effort to utilize the notion of antinatalism in real life. Some people are seeking it through the possibility of transmitting the awareness of human beings to the virtual world, others are reducing sufferings prevailing this world by not procreating, not eating sentient animals, or adapting.
From above, I could say, antinatalism, especially in a broader sense, is far different than the aforementioned Mephisto's devastating nihilism.
Plus, as far as I reckon, by keeping on walking along with "Philosophy of Life" and "Birth Affirmation", they also could prolong the term of nearly endless battle which unnecessarily could mar other sentient beings' lives.
Either way, I would like someone who's impressed by his "Philosophy of Life" and "Birth Affirmation" to read other books that profoundly elaborate on antinatalism. Far be it from me to say this book was below my expectation, I enjoyed reading than I imagined, but the viewpoints regarding antinatalism presented by this book were not enough in my personal opinion.
Reference
Lifestudies.Org: Philosophical Study of Life, Death, and Nature: Masahiro Morioka
エッセイ・論文 :: 哲学,環境倫理,メディア,いのち,エコロジー
『生まれてこないほうが良かった』に対する森岡正博氏の批判について - 汚辱に塗れた40年
私たちは｢生まれてこないほうが良かったのか？｣哲学者・森岡正博氏が｢反出生主義｣を新著で扱う理由 | Business Insider Japan
https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/4480017151/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_fabt1_emDTFbC4THTCT
*1:Obviously,this paragraph is badly intricated and convoluted. In a simpler form,this coulda been like this-"In cahpter 1, he uses the metaphor of "Mephisto" to show why antinatalism is possibly considered too extream as a means to reduce unnecessary suffereings"
