Philm series | depopulation and antinatalism | two provocative documentaries

In philosophy, in logic, an aporia is a puzzle, a form of paradox, a problem arising when two claims on our attention, each as evident as the other, counter each other leaving us at a loss as to what to think. In ethics, it is a situation that leaves us at a loss as to what to feel or do. The two film documentaries below appear to present an ethical dilemma. We have addressed the topics of depopulation and antinatalism in the past here, here, and here, but this event will be a discussion of two engaging, well-made films motivated by seemingly opposed concerns – which is the greater? Where we choose to target our compassion is unclear.

1. Birthgap - Childless World PART 1
By Stephen J. Shaw

https://youtu.be/A6s8QlIGanA?si=Ym6nrI43ow2RZx1s

“The era of ultra-low birthrates has begun. But why are people having so few children these days? And what are the consequences? Come on a journey of discovery across 24 countries to find the reason and also the future consequences for young and old alike.” Recent Q&A by Shaw.

2. I Wish You Were Never Born - A Documentary
By Jack Boswell

https://youtu.be/tnjC4GCHvA8?si=RP4xYn2jSXP-VmXY

“Life is a gift, isn't it? Or perhaps it's actually pretty awful? In this documentary, I explore the fringe philosophy of Antinatalism: the belief that having children is morally wrong because life contains mostly suffering.

“How has the movement spread and found new followers? What impact does it have on antinatalists' lives for them to hold such an extreme belief? How does it cross over with issues including climate change, abortion rights, mental health and assisted suicide? Join me, as I travel from London to the far-flung corners of America to find out.

“When all is said and done, is the kindest thing you can do for someone... not bring them into existence in the first place?”

...

I want to focus our discussion on the moral/existential aspects of the dilemma, or perhaps trilemma, of the problem, not the political. Though, as the NYT article below shows, the problem invites political opportunists... By "trilemma," I mean there are traumatic consequences for policies no matter whether they are pronatalist, antinatalist, or whatever vision of a sustainable population equilibrium one might entertain. If you think there's a way out, let's talk...

Related

1. "White House Assesses Ways to Persuade Women to Have More Children," Caroline Kitchener, The New York Times.

2. In his Substack essay "Antipronatalism," Jason Anthony proposes a middle path between pronatalism and antinatalism. He is skeptical of pronatalist tendencies largely on the same political grounds as the NYT article above. He suggests a sensible sustainable population, balancing human survival needs and resources on this planet. He is right to point to the one-dimensional capitalist interest in raising the depopulation alarm, but wrong in not fully thinking through the likelihood of his proposal and the consequences, should it, against all odds, come to pass. An annotated copy of his article with my critique is here.

3. "The Vanishing of Youth: The precipitous decline of birthrates throughout the world poses a serious threat to humanity. What is to be done?" Victor Kumar, Aeon, May 2025. Depopulation is a threat for progressivism as well. "Every major advance in human history – technological, cultural, moral – has been driven by youth." Old people get set in their ways, become risk-averse. If you have any kind of hope for enlightened human progress, it should be placed in the young. Fewer of these means what?

4. In their long video essay, "Should People Exist? Antinatalism and the Politics of Pregnancy," The Leftist Cooks offer a counterargument to Benatarian antinatalism. Whether you find their case convincing, I think, depends on whether you place the demands of life above the moral dualist, harm/benefit, analysis that informs Benatar's argument. The Leftist Cooks reject the idea that we can definitively separate joy from suffering, or pain from pleasure. We are so constructed as humans that we cannot live within those dichotomies. The keyword is "live." If they are saying that whenever the demands of life and truth clash, life wins almost every time, they are right. That we are here at all is proof. At least heretofore, this has been the case. But will it always be the case? Is there a consciousness-raising afoot that is moving us away from the idea that life should triumph? If The Leftist Cooks are making a normative claim, i.e., that life should prevail, they are begging the question: assuming the very thing they seek to prove or at least move us to accept. Again, they are right that life has never needed objectivity, truth, logic, critical reasoning, etc. to justify itself. The business of justification has no biological basis. The demand for it is the byproduct of an evolved reflective consciousness. Self-deception is healthy, The Leftist Cooks say explicitly, if it serves the interests of life... but should the pursuit of life and everything conducive to it trump every other conceivable value? To some, the answer seems obvious. But do we all agree? There seems to be a growing number of us who don't. Why is that?

Image from Aporia (2023) film. Thanks to Mike and Olivia for some of these references.