Our last conversation (16 August) included a discussion of the human future as well as those who take issue with modern Western medicine and other scientific practices on the basis that traditional or non-scientific teachings (astrology, alternative/indigeneous medicine, Christian Science, humorism, et cetera) are equally meritable. We disagreed conceptually with this and with indigeneous scientists, who hold that modern Western science—as well as all interpretations of science—are singular perspectives seen through a specific cultural lens. Though acknowledging that all things are seen through a cultural lens, we ultimately concluded that “Western” scientific practices, being designed to transcend individual perspective, hold a unique advantage and have proven themselves in results unseen in other practices.

Objects

• Who is Kaleo Manuel?, an article in Newsweek about Hawaii CWRM Deputy Director M. Kaleo Manuel, who withheld water from the Maui fires in pursuit of ‘equity’-driven indigeneous water management. The fires ultimately killed over 100 people. According to a profile published by the Obama Foundation, Manuel “believes that ancient wisdom and traditional ecological knowledge of native peoples will help save the Earth. Kaleo [Manuel] is passionate about elevating native and indigenous ways of knowing in all spheres of discourse and dialogue.”
  
  There is no question that modern science can learn from traditional ecological knowledge, and it has some success stories in the field of land management. In most cases, traditional practices in resource management deserve a fair trial as candidates for enshrinement in modern scientific knowledge. Here, however, well-intentioned but decidedly non-scientific notions of water as “something to be revered rather than just used”—which Manuel characterizes as indigeneous—led him to delay sending water to Hawaiian reservoirs when it was needed for firefighting. “We can share it, but it requires true conversations about equity,” he explained in a resurfaced clip. The town of Lahaina was reduced entirely to ash.
  
  All of this speaks to our last conversation about the dangers of allowing traditional science be held equally with modern science. While, as aforementioned, some indigeneous practices are worthy candidates for study, using traditional values as guiding principles in a life-or-death situation—defying the established, proven results of conventional water use in firefighting—led far too many to pay the price. It is never easy to reduce tragedies to points of methodological evaluation, but the Maui fires were worsened by such easily avoidable failures that they must be inevtiably examined to avert future calamity.


• Offsetting the Dread of Public Speaking. In recent years, I have genuinely developed a love for public speaking. Sure, I get the little knot everyone gets walking up to the podium (with estimates of the prevalence of so-called “glossophobia” ranging from 25% in a Forbes article to 72–75% in a University of Florida blog post), but it is far outweighed by the excitement I have before and after chances to give a message to large groups of people. There is a deeply human satisfaction in being heard. I would suppose both the love and fear of public speaking are rooted in human social tendencies—wanting to influence group decisions but fearing reprisal makes sense with respect to evolution. Is the solution to glossophobia hidden somewhere within the human psyche?


• Antinatalism. Almost two hundred thousand people are subscribed to a subreddit devoted to opposing child-rearing. Their reasoning broadly includes that life entails suffering, that more human beings means worsened climate change, and that having children reduces the independence and individuality of a person. These three key principles underpin most of what I have read from their writings. Having recently watched Melodysheep’s The Human Future: A Case for Optimism—and given it is safe to say that we are both optimistically in support of the human race—I thought it would be interesting to examine opponents of human optimism and try to break down these three central arguments.


• Suffering in Life. One key principle of antinatalists is that they feel introducing another soul into the world is condemning it to suffering. While obviously well-intentioned, this belief reflects a parochially pessimistic outlook on life rather than a universality. While yes, new parents ‘condemn’ a soul to worldly burdens—everything from genuine loss to, in their words, being “educated by a failing system”—it also deprives them of the deep, soul-filling enrichment of music, art, and relationships. The beauty of nature would go unenjoyed, as would the pride of building something, the feeling of collapsing onto a bed after a long day’s work or the ache of uproarious laughter. Indeed, their arguments seemingly depend on their readers sharing a deep dissatisfaction with life: believing that it is little more than, as aforementioned, receiving a paltry education and resenting one’s work. Unsurprisingly, a statistical analysis of the subreddit revealed that its users were 3.82x more likely than the average user to participate in support communities for anxiety, 4.65x for alcoholism, 5.4x for bipolar disorder, 8.16x for borderline personality disorder, 8.98x for loneliness, 10.21x for depression, and 14.32x for suicidal tendencies. Interestingly, they were also 4.65x more likely to subscribe to misandry, 8.44x more likely to identify their parents as narcissists, 12.03x times more likely to have had a bad experience with religion, and a staggering 17.75x more likely to believe in the imminent collapse of humanity. The latter communities are places of great hate rooted, undoubtedly, in personal trauma.
  
  Simply because a person may suffer from these things does not invalidate their argument, of course—here, however, it might shed light on why they make it. Antinatalism seems altogether tailored to a very specific nihilistic worldview—often burdened by the genuinely serious and lamentable above conditions—that life is simply more bad than good. This is clearly not a universal conclusion. Life does not portend universal misery—I can see this even in my immediate environs. In all generations of my family where records are available, a crushing majority of my relatives have expressed a strong satisfaction with life and a general appreciation for it. Suffering will inevitably still exist, but I think it is reasonable that, if I am able to build a healthy and stable home for my children, they would largely share in the happiness I and my family have experienced. It would seem to me that the ills of life are no reason to preclude others from the great joys of it. No, happiness is not guaranteed—but is it better for a prospective soul to enjoy a great chance of it, or to miss everything altogether?


• Climate Change. Another argument frequently employed by antinatalists is that bringing a child into the world worsens the strain that human beings place on the planet. Their subreddit even officially links itself to VHEMT, which supports the extinction of humanity for the purported betterment of life (and thereby the extinguishing of its most fascinating product). However, if someone is in a position to bring a climate-conscious child into the world who may, in their years, become a valuable asset in the fight against climate change, this argument would seem to lose its force. Even if one’s child does not grow up to install solar panels, volunteer to clean waste or help plan sustainable societies—all easily feasible goals—UN-led estimates expect that the human population will plateau by 2086 and then decline: a notion that contradicts the Malthusian dread of antinatalists. One post on the subreddit asked why people expected their children to contribute to the world when there have been dozens of tyrannical despots and yet no curers of cancer. This logic fast disintegrates when applied conversely. Why would a person would fear their children burning the world when, though there are only a handful of corporate executives causing most of climate change, millions of good people have rallied against it? Why fear your child becoming a tyrant when the number of tyrants pales against all of the legions of freedom fighters in history? Once more, an antinatalist principle seems rather like a symptom of flimsy, unvindicated pessimism regarding the human species and, in turn, a consequence of trauma or dissatisfaction.


• Burdensome Parenthood. The final and most oft-repeated of the three chief arguments I have seen from antinatalists is that children are burdens—that raising a child costs too much time and money and offers no fulfillment on any level. I have not had children, but I have been involved in the raising of of them and have discussed this issue with several parents. Ultimately, I think that this misopedic worldview stems from parents who never should have had children. To my knowledge, parenting requires a truly specific person—one endeared by children who cherishes guiding them, dealing with their most unfortunate parts and altogether finding fulfillment in their upbringing. Many have children because they have no other notion of how to live life, or they do so for social or religious purposes. Many do so with known genetic predispositions to autism or intellectual disabilities but without preparedness for the heavy consequences of raising an autistic child. Indeed, an enormously disproportionate number of users of the associated subreddit for parents who regret parenthood are parents of the intellectually disabled, and antinatalist users were 4.49x more likely than the average user to be involved in the autism subreddit. I do not intend to imply that those with predispositions for intellectual disabilities should avoid parenthood; however, in light of the crushing frustration parents of disabled children face, they might be encouraged to weigh adoption as an alternative. Indeed every potential parent must consider the possibility that their child might be disabled. They must honestly evaluate their ability to handle this outcome.

Indeed, I am not saying that everyone should have children—far from it. I think that prospective parents should be highly selective about whether they actually have children, and that they should do so to the extent that their finances and timetable will comfortably allow. They should not have to sacrifice their whole selves to do so. However, I think that antinatalist arguments that parenthood is entirely terrible and should be altogether avoided are ultimately shortsighted, rooted largely in a pessimistic view that the world is universally comprised of negative experiences.

Conclusions

Our thoughts on M. Kaleo Manuel were in line with our previous conversation: acknowledging the value of indigeneous knowledge insofar as it is compatible with Western scientific methods. In the days since the original articles about Manuel came out, doubt has emerged whether his actions had a meaningful impact on the fires; regardless, we used it as a point of discussion about disaster response methodologies. On the matter of glossophobia, we identified several potential evolutionary causes. A kind of ‘better-safe-than-sorry’ reflex would seem to best fit, wherein humans would prefer to keep ideas quiet for fear of proposing a flawed one to the group and being rebuked for it. This would complement a general pattern of allegiance to one’s social group prevalent among humans.

We discussed separately a Pew Research study that suggested an overwhelming majority of teenagers today inherit their parents’ social and spiritual beliefs. Its 2022 survey indicated much higher rates of this transmission than in 2015, when Jake and I were teenagers. Because both of us have strayed centerward of our parents’ opinions and saw this change in several of our peers, we were surprised to be in the minority on this issue. As for why rates of deviance have decreased, we pointed to an increasing cultural polarization in the United States, though tenatively. We do not wish to immediately declare the coming generation in any way ‘decayed’ or otherwise fundamentally different from ours, for elder generations have tended to do so for millennia. We instead hope to find genuine causes for this statistical variation.

On antinatalism, our views were shared. We agreed that depriving potential future souls of life because of prospective suffering was a fundamentally selfish imposition of personal biases regarding life itself. As emotions are ultimately projections, to deny procreation on emotional grounds is inherently questionable. Even if emotional perceptions were sound bases for antinatalism, we would argue that positive emotions have great potential to outweigh negative emotions during the course of life, as has been our experience and that of those we know. So too did we disagree with the arguments of climate change on the grounds that corporations—not humans—are largely to blame for pollution and emissions. On parenthood, we deferred to the experiences of parents we know, which have largely been periods of fulfillment and positive relationships.

Jake’s subjects included emerging technology equivalent to mind-reading as well as Peter Sinks, a microclimate in Utah where temperatures plunge due to pooling cold air. We discussed the applications of the former, including dream-reading, interpretation of comatose patients’ thoughts, and police interrogations. I inevitably had to draw comparisons to the braindances of Cyberpunk 2077. Jake brought up the interesting implications for animal intelligence; the ethicists of the future will have Gordian knots to untangle if it turns out that animals form coherent thoughts in any way similar to human beings’. On the latter subject, a discussion of microclimates—as well as their implications for engineering—proved quite interesting. That much of climate occurs at a local level is surprisingly little-discussed.