#1262 Amanda Sukenick: Antinatalism, Extinction, The Right to Die, Eugenics, & More

00:00 Ricardo Lopes: Hello everyone. Welcome to a new episode of The Dissenter. I'm your host, as always, Ricardo Lopes, and today, today, finally, I'm here with Amanda Sukinik, the host of the Exploring anti-atalism podcast. I'm going to link it and I'm also going to put her as a collaborator. On my YouTube video. If you are unaware of her podcast, please go there and watch and listen to all the episodes because they're awesome. And she's also the co-author of Anti-Nalism, Extinction, and the End of Procreative Self-corruption, written with Mati Hairu. Uh, WHICH, who I've already had on the show twice. So Amanda, welcome to the show. Finally, we're doing this.

00:48 Amanda Sukenick: Thank you so much, Ricardo. It is my absolute pleasure to be here. I have long wanted to be on the dissenter, so this is actually a dream come true, a true, a true life bucket list now checked off.

01:00 Ricardo Lopes: OK, so look, this is the time to laugh. Now we're going to talk about anti-atalism, so I guess. Uh, uh, YEAH, so, let me first ask you, what got you interested in antenatalism? I mean, what, uh, how did you become an antenatalist

01:20 Amanda Sukenick: exactly? Yeah, so, um, so, uh, without meaning to like tell the same story that I've told a bunch of times before, I think I always sort of had inklings of antenatalist like thinking even as like a younger person, but I sort of suppressed it because there's like virtually nothing, you know, in society that will You know, encourage such thinking, especially in a young child, especially in a young girl who, you know, could be the oven for a future.

01:53 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, look, look, most people even nowadays, if I tell them that I am an antenatalist, they're like, What? What is that? And when I tell them they're going, OK, let me go get the pitchfork now because this is too much.

02:10 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, uh, no, absolutely. I mean, you know, um, as you well know, uh, you know, I mean, it was not even a philosophical term until 2006. So, you know, I was born in 1983, like, you know, like, like many antenatalists, like we had these thoughts and there was no word to support it. And so it, it, it really, I didn't find antenatalism in. Until, um, around 2010, I was already sort of on YouTube. I was making in a totally different part of YouTube. I was making Twitter reviews. And, um, and all of a sudden I found people like in Mendam and I found derived Energy and, uh, Metamorph, who is Jim Crawford. He's the, he was, he's the author of Confessions of an Antenatalist. Um, AND they were all making videos either. Uh, EXPLICITLY using this term anti-natalist or anti-natalism, um, or just videos sort of around this general idea that was at that point unnamed. Um, AND it, it just was like so inspiring to me. It was like I had found this idea, this thing that I had been looking for my entire life. It just crystallized so. Much. And so that has continually propelled all kinds of creative and academic interests that I've had moving forward. I just think that antenatalism, uh, you know, I mean, the, the crux of what was so attractive to me was that it offered just this very beautiful, simple, uh, I mean, whatever other, um, Uh, you know, whatever else antenatalism is, whatever else the, the, uh, the duties or whatever else it entails beyond just what it is in its, its simplest form, you know, it offers this very beautiful means of, of, of of rejecting, uh, alleviating and ending suffering, which is just to simply not create more lives. And I, I just found that absolutely enchanting. And so that was. You know, 16 years ago now, and now I'm this, and um I've never stopped and I've, I've, I've, I, I cannot even conceive of losing interest in it. It's just uh it's the most important idea in the world to me.

04:19 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, it's the same to me. So I mean you also asked me this question when you interviewed me for your show, but I mean I think it's a great question. So I also want to ask you it. So what do you think are the best arguments for anti-NATOism? I mean, if I remember correctly, when you asked me that question, I said that it's the risk argument. For me, because, because it's like it's always a risk if you bring someone new to this world that they're going to suffer, so you shouldn't take that risk, but I mean in your opinion. What are the best and strongest arguments?

04:59 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, I, I would concur. I really do think that it is the risk argument that is the strongest. I think they all have their own strengths and weaknesses, you know. I think for, for, you know, something like the Benatarian axiological asymmetry. It's extraordinarily important. It's, uh, it communicates something, you know, especially for people who are analytic philosophers. It's, you know, it has all of this sort of weight to it, um, you know, but it's a little too complicated for most people to understand. The consent argument really gets a lot of people. Into antenatalism. I mean, it, it, it, it, it's the argument that speaks to a great many people, but it sort of does have, um, weaknesses in the sense that sort of people get sort of lost and sort of like, well, you know, you can't get consent from a being that doesn't exist. So we're talking about counterfactuals, and people get very sort of lost in that. And so it's sort of for a lot of people, it sort of loses its, its steam. Um, THE quality of life. Which, you know, you know, Benatar also proposes, you know, I think is absolutely true and, and, and salient, you know, but at the same time, people there are another contingent of people who find that argument to be very offensive because, you know, they can just come back with like, well, my life is good, and this is, you know, this is, this is a ridiculous argument because it doesn't apply to me and it doesn't apply to my family, it doesn't apply to my children. Um, AND so, You know, the risk is that one argument though that I think does sort of pause, give people a little bit of pause because it it people do understand the general language of, of, of hazard. I mean, they do understand, you know, risk is like a very common language for people. It's, it's an argument that I think a lot of people can absorb in a in a in a fairly easy manner, and I think it is the argument that Has the most uh play as far as like usefulness to antenatalist activism. I also really love the imposition argument. The imposition argument can take a lot of different forms, um, you know, Mati Hairi and I in our book, you know, kind of, uh. Reformulated into the idea of postnatal imposition. So we're no longer talking about, you know, this, this act of bringing people into existence. It's like, well, the imposition of actually having to live a life and be, uh, you know, have a natalist. You know, into a natalist world and sort of have those expectations imposed upon you. I think that's a very powerful argument. So I think that there's an interesting toolbox and some arguments work better for other people. I don't think any of the arguments for antenatalism should be, you know, lost, but I do think that there is a need to find even better ones out there because I don't think that we've necessarily found like a truly effective argument to get people to stop procreating. Yeah,

08:01 Ricardo Lopes: uh, but look, when it comes to, and I imagine that I, I mean, you've been involved in anti-Natalism longer than I have. I mean, I became formally an anti-Natalist. I mean, I was already informally an anti-Natalist well before that, but I, but I came across the term and became officially an anti-Natalist in 2017. That was when I read David Bennett's book Never to Have Been. The first time, uh, but and I imagine that over these years you must have come across many different arguments against antenatalism, right? So among all of them. Have you come across arguments that you think or that, that you really uh thought were hard to refute, and, and if so, which were those arguments?

08:54 Amanda Sukenick: Um, I think that the arguments that I, I mean, this is a really important question and it's a difficult question to answer because I, I really do think that anti-natalism can do. So much good in the world, you know, um, but I also think that there is something to the idea that it, it, it, you know, brought to full fruition or even halfway fruition. Like it might be too difficult of a project, you know, for humanity, you know, convincing all of humanity, um, you know, there is sort of, um, I, I, I, I, I think that arguments against its ultimate effectiveness, um. Those are sort of difficult to dispel because I think that there's some real truth to that. I mean, when you, when you are an antenatalist activist, especially if you're an extinctionist, I mean, there's, there's a lot of limits to sort of, um, to how far you can go convincing people, um, to how, what your expectations are going to have to be as far as like how successful this thing, um, will be, uh, those are difficult to dispel. And I think antenatalists, you know, we sort of, unfortunately, Uh We, we sort of settle on sort of somewhat magical thinking like, oh, there's gonna be this red button or everybody is gonna agree and we're just gonna like all go hand in hand silently into that good night by not procreating. And like, that's probably not gonna, gonna happen. You know what I mean? That's, that's not reality. So I think that arguments that um uh that point out, you know, that um the effectiveness of antenatalism is, is, is maybe Not as grounded as we would love it to be. I mean, and again, taken to its full fruition if we're, if we're really talking about extinctionist antenatalism particularly sentio-centric antenatalism and beyond, um. I, I, I think those are the real challenges. Yeah, I don't know that they're insurmountable, but that's, I think, where the real challenges for anti-natalism are, yeah.

10:57 Ricardo Lopes: So let me ask you this because I've already asked this question to several different people on the show and not even just antenatalists. I've even asked psychologists and other people. Yeah. I mean, in your understanding, do you think that we have really evolved an instinct? To reproduce, I mean, is that, is that really what we have in our sort of evolved psychology, or is, or is that, or is that really not it, because I mean, in my understanding, I'm going to tell you what I think about the subject, and then you, you can comment on it. I mean, So for me it's very clear that we have evolved an instinct, if you want to call it that way, to er feel attracted sexually attracted to other people. I mean, since we're, since we're talking about reproduction, I mean the relevant thing is here is heterosexual sex. Of course, but I mean to feel attracted to people of the opposite sex and to have sex with them from puberty onwards, particularly, I mean that kicks in and it's universal, so I don't think we could dispute that that's part of our evolved psychology, but that's different than. AN instinct to to reproduce because that's, that's like claiming that people actually want to reproduce. No, they want to have sex and then reproduction is sometimes the consequence of that and and if they consciously would say that they want to have kids, I think that the strongest. Argument there it's that that's a cultural thing and not a biological thing, because look, I mean, to be very honest, I don't think that anyone is born or even after puberty without them being told that it's like that, that things work. I don't think that anyone just spontaneously knows that if they have sex they're going to have a baby. They have to be told them,

13:06 Amanda Sukenick: right, right. I, I mean, I, I can't disagree with any of that. That's, that's pretty much my exact thinking too. I mean, we are biologically designed to have sex drives and to, uh, uh, sire and, and carry children. Um, THERE might be some. Argument to there being some sort of like, you know, our sort of drive to care for children. There might be some sort of instinct there, I'm sure, but no,

13:38 Ricardo Lopes: I think that yeah, but even caring for children, I think it's more an after the fact. It's after, for example, women get pregnant or even after they have the children are born and that happens for both men and women that that that instinct for caring and protecting kicks in. It's not beforehand, I think.

14:00 Amanda Sukenick: I think I. I think so too. Although I mean, you know, I just to preface, as you well know, I'm no evolutionary biologist or anything, but that's what I, that's what I also suppose is also going on. But I think, as you've, as you've so eloquently said, I think that our, uh, what is generally called the instinct to procreate is really culturally built. I mean, we have, again, you know, Monty and I talk about this in the book that, you know, It's basically this sort of panopticon-like imposition on children from the beginning of their lives, you know, that they will grow up and they will find meaning in procreation. And that's sort of like, that's, that's your, that's your telos, right? Like to be a procreator. Um, AND, um, and that's very difficult sort of social programming to unthink, you know, most people. Don't really kind of get to that point where they even question that as, as, as where their lives are sort of headed. So I, I think all that is culturally built. I think we have sex drives, and I think nature sort of, uh, candies procreation in the form of the orgasm, you know what I mean? And, and we're so we're, we're, we're driving towards that, but, um, but it tricks us. It's also producing more of us through, through that mechanism.

15:17 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and and also I mean people can argue that, oh yeah, but you look across societies and all societies are pro-NATOist. Yeah, OK, but the issue with that is if there ever were any anti-Natalist societies, the thing is that I mean they just went extinct. So you know, in the cultural evolutionary race, unfortunately the ones that are more successful or the only ones that are successful are the pro-Natalist societies, right, because they keep having new members.

15:56 Amanda Sukenick: They keep having new members and all too often pro-Nalism is driven by A politics of identity and race and all of these other things. I mean, Les Knight, who's the founder of the voluntary Human Extinction Movement, he has this sort of great line in an interview he did years ago, which is just, and I'm I'm, it's a horrible paraphrase, but it's something to the effect of like, maybe procreation is racism in its most basic level, and I think there's a lot of truth to that. So yeah, I mean, a type will have sort of a A cultural desire to perpetuate itself into the future and, you know, compete with the rest, but yeah,

16:39 Ricardo Lopes: I mean, I guess that's another obstacle to anti-Natalism, right? It's just, I mean we have to be very honest about this. If, if we, if we created an anti-atalist society, I mean, competing with pro-Natalist societies, we will always lose. That's just. Just, that's just how it is because our society will go extinct very quickly.

17:04 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, I mean, you know, our, our, our choice is to. You know, basically, I, I, I think basically the, the. The way if we were to actually get, I mean, anti-natalist activism, unfortunately is not particularly serious about what it's trying to do, um, you know, it hasn't been yet. I mean, with, with, with the exception of a couple of people who, who have, who have made some very strong contributions, but I mean, if it wanted to get, you know, very serious about um Becoming another, another entity at the table that pro-natalism sits at, you know, it has to advocate. A procreative freedoms of all kinds, and it has to get really serious about sort of making its stance accessible to future generations. Like there will be more people, and we sort of just have to be present. We have to live. I mean, and keep the meme going to know, to let the future generations know that they do have this choice. There are really good reasons not to. Uh, GO through with, um, the meaning that their parents found in, in, in having created, created them. Um, THERE'S, there's really good reasons to make the choice not to take the choice away from somebody else.

18:23 Ricardo Lopes: So look, what do you make of the pro-NATOist movement, particularly the way we're seeing it right now in the US? I mean, because in my understanding, in my understanding, it's not just from our perspective as anti-NATOists the immorality of bringing new people into the world, but it's also the fact that This is just my understanding, you can tell me if I'm right or wrong here, but they're, they're also contributing to undermining reproductive rights for women like access to abortion, access to contraception, access to sexual, to sex education and all of that, er, and, and, and, and some of them, not all of them, but some of them are actually associated with eugenics.

19:13 Amanda Sukenick: Oh yeah,

19:14 Ricardo Lopes: absolutely, because, because they're pushing for sort of racist narrative. Oh we should all support white supremacy. It should be American white people reproducing and not black people, Hispanic people, Muslim people, or people from other origins, right?

19:34 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, no, I think you've got it 100% right. I mean, first of all, for a A variety of reasons worldwide. People seem to be procreating less and less and less, and that has both government, governmental interests and also just, just outright racist interests just terrified because it's the it's the disappearance of types and you know, we've got to perpetuate our our cultural and racial identities into the future. And so that The end of the pro-natalist movement is, I find absolutely terrifying, and you know, I think is making every move that it possibly can to rule the world and set the tone for what the future is going to be, and I think it should be opposed, you know. In any way possible. I think it's, I think it's absolutely disgusting. I think eugenics is absolutely disgusting. If we're talking about the pro-natalist movement as a rational movement towards like reproductive freedoms, you know, access to abortion, I mean, you know, because that's That's one end of end of it, I think. Then I, I would place myself firmly with them. I mean, I think it's, it's good when anti-natalists can find a place of having dialogue with pro-natalists, you know, to respect people's autonomy, to have. Access to things like abortion and whatever the case may be. I mean, I believe people should have the right to make appropriate choices, whatever they may be, and have access to information. But yes, on the extreme other end of it, you know, we're we're talking about. The worst possible things imaginable, really. I mean, you know, we're talking about, uh, so I, I don't know. I mean, it's, it's, it's very scary here as far as how loud, you know, I, I, I want to say that when I first started in antenatalism. Um, EVEN though, I mean, it's not like the word pro-natalism or pro-natalist didn't exist. I mean, it's an old term, but you wouldn't really hear it as much. And in fact, like a lot of times even when that was said, like people were like, what, what antenatalists made up this term. And for a little while, I actually kind of thought that. I was like, you know, maybe, maybe we kind of coined. It just as a counter to to anti-natalism. But it's really, um, I, I would say in the last like 3 or 4 years, um, that term, that identity, you know, the, the pro-natalist identity, uh, especially in a matter of what, what the status of it is in other parts of the world, but especially in America, um, it's become frighteningly loud, as, um, you know, and, and, um. Yeah, so it's, uh, it's, it's not, it's not good. I'm not sure what else to say, but it's, uh, yeah, it's very frightening.

22:27 Ricardo Lopes: Uh, LOOK, what do you think, er, could be the consequences of anti-NATOism? I mean, do you think that er Uh, of course, I, I guess this is very unrealistic, but if everyone, uh, or most of the population became anti-Natalists, do you think that we could realistically go extinct?

22:51 Amanda Sukenick: I think we will go extinct. I mean, I think that's, you know, whether anti-natalism has anything to do,

23:00 Ricardo Lopes: but not, not through antenatal, not through

23:02 Amanda Sukenick: antenatalism. Look, I think, I think extinction cannot be separated as part and parcel of antenatalism. I think it is the consequence. I mean, well, there's plenty of people trying to separate those two things, but I mean, I, I don't think that it can be. Uh, REMOVED as, as a, as a real, as a, as a consequence of, of the doctrine or whatever you want to call this thing, um, but, uh What I, I actually, I mean, I, I don't, I don't really know. I mean, you know, part of my thinking currently is like, How far is this, this new sort of radicalized pro-natalist movement going to get, you know, and, and, and what is that going to mean for the future of anti-natalism? I mean, it, there is some evidence that anti-natalism or anti-natalist-like thinking has kind of been squashed in the past, um, you know, I mean. The first crusade was against the Cathars who were, you know, sort of, sort of proto antenatalists, you know, the neo-Malthusians of France and other places were, were, you know, done away with, you know, in the, I think it was the 1800s, you know, Marie's time. Um, SO is that going to happen to us? I don't know. I mean, I really don't know what, how far sort of this other ever loudening voice is going to get and what the reaction to is going to be. I mean, right now in most places in the world, it's still so unknown, you know, it's not a household. Word, but even in places like Russia, you know, you can be charged with, uh, I mean, again, I don't know how familiar they are with the term antenatalism per se, but there is, you know, child-free propaganda, propagating ideas against having children can, I'm not sure if it can carry with it jail time, but I mean you can be fined, uh, you know, you can be financially penalized. And so I'm not sure how much. That is going to be something that contemporary antenatalism faces as time goes on. Um, WHAT I, I hope is that none of that comes to pass. And, um, you know, antenatalism as an academic, uh, subjects increases, that antenatalist, antenatalist activism kind of gets more. Healthy and robust. And at the very least, I would like to see us organized to the point where, um, you know, just information and antenatalism can be a lot more sort of streamlined, accessible. We can be just sort of a louder voice in society, and That it can have. You know, right now, as far as what it means or like what the expectations can be, um, you know, I think it can, it can, aside from personal choices not to procreate, uh, you know, if you happen to be somebody who's also a sentiocentric antenatalist and also has uh You know, it can mean also going vegan and things like that. So there's a lot of sort of positive things in, in the antennatalist direction that people can do. But I think the future of it is a little uncertain. It's never looked brighter, but at the same time it's also never looked darker. So I'm not sure. Yeah,

26:39 Ricardo Lopes: yeah, you know what, this just came to my mind now because I'm a socialist, and I think that the people who should actually listen more to Anti-Natalists are are the far left and even more so the anarchists because there's a very, there's a very good argument to be made that you should look at pro-natalism as a form of oppression by the state. I mean oppressing people or coercing people into reproducing to create new. New workers if you have a military project to create new soldiers or future soldiers and basically to use you as, I mean, a cannon fodder or to use you or to use you as like cattle. So I mean in what in whatever kind of state projects or I mean it even doesn't necessarily be. It need to be public projects. It can even be private projects. I mean, then the state working in tandem with capitalists and things like that to get to have more workers to get lower wages and still work for them for pennies or things like that, because if you have a reduced number of people, you have to pay them higher wages, for example, so you know.

28:07 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, no, I, I, I would say one of the most positive things we could do is move the conversation into arenas, political arenas, different philosophies, whatever the case may be, that it just doesn't exist yet. Um, I mean, the left is here in America, at least, again, I can't really speak to the rest of the world. It is so woefully behind on issues like animal rights, like the right to die, that I'm not really sure what chance anti-natalism has, but I couldn't agree with you more, you know, no.

28:37 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and when it comes to the extinction part, I mean, as you were saying, I think you were alluding to what I'm going to mention now, but extinction, I mean, it's just going to happen. It doesn't matter when it's, it's just going to happen. It's inevitable because I mean it doesn't matter if it's through climate change, it doesn't matter if it's through a nuclear winter, it doesn't matter if it's through AI going rogue or it doesn't matter if it's through just pure biological evolution that will evolve into other species and humans just cease to exist eventually. Or I mean, if even if we survive all of that, it's inevitable, at least according to the predictions made by theoretical physicists, that we will reach a point where even the universe itself won't be able to sustain life anymore. So I mean, it doesn't matter if we're talking 100 years in the future, 1000 years in the future, it could really. YEARS in the future, it's inevitable.

29:42 Amanda Sukenick: It's inevitable. I do think it matters how it happens, and I think, I mean if if we value suffering, we value sentience, we value manipulation, we, you know, we, then it does matter how it happens. And that's why I wish that people would embrace it not only antenatalism, but more of a like a more of a sort of an Engineered extinction, like whatever, whatever ethical extinctionism can be. I wish that was something of value because I think that where the human race, we're sentience, where life itself sort of sits now, yes, it will end, and it's good that it will end, but it's probably going to end really ugly and really badly, uh, you know, over a long period of time in which there's going to be tons of suffering. I think even in the best sort of. Anti-natalist, extinctionist. And engineered and I, I'm not sure if we could expect that to be 100% suffering free. I, I, I, I don't, I don't know that, you know, especially, I mean, that's sort of the subject of, um, my, my, my, my, uh, my first solo author article that just got released, The End of Sentience, whereas, you know, You know, even if we sort of take the, the more um Uh, You know, the route that's sort of like hands off, you know, we might sort of be committing our worst. ETHICAL, uh, misstep, you know, as, as a, as a, as a human species of like, you know, we have the power to do something about the rest of sentience, um, but out of fear that we might sort of impose our will, we might allow them to suffer far greater harms. But if we intervene, you know, then surely there's going to be some sort of imposition of harm there too. So we're in a very sort of difficult bind, you know, um, none of that may ever come to pass. But, but yeah, um, I, I, I, I would, I would like to see our species, value, um, a kinder extinction than a, than a grosser. Nastier extinction, which I think is unfortunately probably going to be the case.

31:58 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, but the reason I mentioned that that it is just inevitable is because, I mean, people who think that we will ever be able to live forever, I mean they're just delusional. That's just not going to happen. No,

32:12 Amanda Sukenick: it's just not,

32:13 Ricardo Lopes: it's not on the table at all.

32:15 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, no, I of course agree with you 100%. We will not live forever, nor should we.

32:22 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, so, let me ask you, because I know that these are two different subjects, but I'm also very interested, and I'm sort of, I mean sometimes I dip my toes on that, but I'm also very interested in the right to die movement, and you're also part of it if I understand it correctly, right? So, and this is interesting because for example, if you have a David Bennett our approach to anti-natalism. Uh, YOU would always consider death to be a harm, right? Or at least generally speaking, death is a harm. But do you think of death as necessarily a harm?

33:02 Amanda Sukenick: No, I don't, um. I, I, I, I do not take, uh, and, no, I, I, I don't believe that. Um, SO I, I do believe that a right to die should be seen as a basic human right, you know, having access to medically assisted, ending of one's life at the time of their choosing. Unfortunately, I mean, even where, you know, like right to die laws just came to Illinois, where I am, um, but It, it's still so woefully far behind. I mean, you have to be in, uh, you know, terrible condition in order for them to, uh, even consider, you know, offering that piece, uh, to you. So I, I, I, I don't, I actually have, I actually think that the right to die movement is Even where it has some successes, it's actually in worse shape than the antenatalist movement, and I think it's actually far more difficult than the antenatalist movement, uh, uh, than antenatalist activism is. Um, YOU can be funny with antenatalism. It's really hard to be funny with the right to die. It's really, you know, and I think there is potential for like a global. Right to die movement. I think there's potential for even like a youth movement with the right to die. I mean, I, I've, I've, in my time on the internet, I've met so many young people who can very articulately, you know, describe why they should be given this right to, uh, medical access to dying or, or whether they should have the right to end their lives. Um, AND unfortunately, you know, they, they die. You know, I, I mean, I'm, I'm not trying to be funny when I say that, but I mean, although, you know, I mean, It It, it's, I, I, I think that there's real obstacles towards building like a truly effective, uh, movement around the right to die. Um, I mean, I hope I can be proven wrong on that. I mean, obviously for elderly people, that's a whole other contingent of people and there is like sort of a healthy sort of movement for that, but, you know, they don't want those people don't generally want, you know, it to expand to. Uh, ACCOMMODATE, um, younger people, people that have, uh, maybe mental health conditions as opposed to, um. You know, like physically, physical illnesses. Uh, I mean, obviously there's some inroads here and there being made. There's literally made, um. But, uh, but yeah, it's a, it's a troubled, troubled, troubled movement. And, um, I, I, I have to say it, it's, it's very difficult. I mean, I, yes, I was, I was, um, deeply involved at one point with uh some friends of mine that we had a, we had an organ uh sort of proto organization called the Right to No Longer exist. And um, You know, I was very proud of the work that we, that, well, I really couldn't take much, much of any credit for any of it, but I'm very proud of the work that they did, uh, Kevin and Danny. Um, Danny and unfortunately no longer with us, but Yeah,

36:12 Ricardo Lopes: I, I, I know, I know who you're talking about. I know those guys.

36:16 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, yeah, I mean, it's just all I mean to say by bringing all that up is that it really put me in touch with just how difficult, uh, and how many obstacles there are to, um. To even having this conversation with with the people, I think people are much more receptive to anti-natalism, you know, which, which is crazy to think about, but yeah.

36:37 Ricardo Lopes: No, look, I have two different kinds of thoughts about that. The first one is Yeah, I completely understand why we as living organisms, we evolved to fear death. I mean, yeah, yeah, that, I mean that's just to be expected. If, if you didn't fear death, our species would no longer be here. So you know, but, but I mean, on the other hand, I get that, but it's sometimes. People cling to life in such dire circumstances that it, it, it starts to feel morbid, that clingingness to life starts to feel morbid because it's like it doesn't even matter to them whatever kind of circumstances you are in, you, you still have to be kept alive. I mean, yeah, what, and and then. So I think that we should, um, OK, fear of death, fine, but we should teach people or converse with people to try to make them more accepting of death as just a natural phenomenon because it is a natural phenomenon. Yeah,

37:54 Amanda Sukenick: absolutely.

37:55 Ricardo Lopes: I mean it's going to happen to every one of us. It's just you can't avoid it unless you are one of those mad guys who thinks that transhumanism will make you live forever, and that's just not going to happen because there are biological limits, but you're going to die inevitably. Yeah, absolutely. So I mean we have to take a more Normal, we have to normalize thinking of death as just something natural, something that happens, something that we shouldn't just fight against to our last breath, I mean, and and and then the other thing is. This is my second point. I, I think, I honestly think that, and I know that many people will hate hearing this, but I think that people, uh, the ones that should create and pass legislation should be the ones who are affected by those pieces of legislation. So for example, if you're talking about abortion, it should be just women making that decision. Full stop, because it's reproductive rights for women. If we are talking about euthanasia, the right to die, whatever, I mean, I honestly think that the people who should make those decisions in terms of legislation should be people who suffer the worst and particularly from mental illness, because those are the ones. That really understand very well the point, the point you can reach in terms of suffering where life is no longer worth living. And in this particular case, why am I saying that those should be the ones making the decision? Because If you pass the legislation and er medically assisted death becomes legal, I mean, no one is forced to er er no one is forced to choose it. I mean, you can choose it, you cannot choose it, you can suffer whatever, you can do whatever, it's not the state imposing death upon you. It's just a choice. So, I mean, since it's a choice, I, I think that it should be people who actually reach the extreme end of suffering that should legislate on that, you know, it's just my opinion.

40:24 Amanda Sukenick: Well, no, I, I appreciate you, you, you, you saying that. I, I, I, I. I would at least say that people who actually, you know, people who suffer from, uh, people who want the right to die, um, should definitely, and, you know, in terms, or, or women in, in terms of abortion should at least be a part of the conversation when these laws are passed. I mean, all too often, it's, uh, it's one or the other, or, or it's it's all men or it's all, you know, uh, religious, um. Factors to sell it, yeah, you know, who have a say in these things. So it's not, you're never really getting with a lot of these kinds of debates, you're never really getting the full gamut of the arguments where it's always sort of on extremes. Um, I mean, look, I, I don't think that people who, you know, people who are a little weary of the right to die, you know, as far as like, um, People who are afraid of people getting coerced into it, you know, people with disabilities who are like afraid that decisions are going to be made, uh, you know, surrogate decisions are going to be made, you know, against their interests and against their will to live. I, I, I don't think that those are stupid concerns. I mean, I, I, I unfortunately do think that there does need to be some kind of safeguards to make sure that. You know, people who want this can get it, and people who don't want it are not forced into it in any kind of way and, you know, but unfortunately what happens now is, is. The will, the, the desire to end one's life is sort of like never the right answer for, for, for, for a lot of, uh, people in the medical profession. Like people can be pretty explicit that that's what they want, and, uh, it's just sort of, yeah, it's just sort of never the right answer. And, um, yeah, it, it, it, it's, it's, uh, yeah, go ahead, sorry, no,

42:25 Ricardo Lopes: look, look, look, I hear, I, I, I hear you. I'm, I mean it. It was a phenomenal conversation, but on May 20th, I'm going to release on my channel a 3 hour 40 minute. The discussion with the psychiatrist just on that topic, and I mean we had to go we had to go through 3 hours and 40 minutes of discussion. Yeah, I mean and I I I I mean I'm not, I'm not saying anything here against him. He's a he's a great guy. It's it's not a criticism or anything like that, but I mean it's just to say that it's that hard to get into a. Conversation with even a psychiatrist about that.

43:11 Amanda Sukenick: I mean, because,

43:13 Ricardo Lopes: because they're just trying to, OK, we should save people in whatever circumstances, and, and the correct answer is always prolonged life, prolonged life, prolonged

43:25 Amanda Sukenick: life. It's always flourishing. It's always, no, I, I, if I, if I may say, I don't want to get into too many specifics, but like I, I've, I've been a graduate student at the University of Chicago over the last. Nine-ish months. And, um, and during that time, I've, you know, I've, I've talked to a lot of doctors and bioethicists and, you know, who take a very negative view of the right to die. Um, AND some of the, and I, I again, I can't get into too many specifics, but it's like, sure, I've really, it's really been a challenge for me to Kind of like, calm down, hear what they have to say, because I'm so on the other side of it. Like I really do believe that this needs to be a human right. And, you know, doctors kind of need to get out of the way, just let people go. Um, BUT some of the time, some of what they have to say is salient, you know, um, and it's, it's, it's very complicated. Um, AND it, like I said, I think that. I would love to see a real, uh, sort of like an international right to die movement kind of spring up that is very articulate and can really sort of make the argument for a more universalized right to die, um, but I think we're very far away from that.

44:41 Ricardo Lopes: And you know, one thing in that discussion, one thing that we discussed. And he agreed with me, he agreed with me on that, is that, I mean, if you have a legal access to medically assisted death, I mean it should be a decision that is made between the patient and the doctor, and no one else should interfere with it. I mean, because I mean there. There was this case, I don't know if you got across it, but it was all over the internet and the news in back in March, the case of Noelia Castillo, that girl, that 25-year-old girl from Spain who got access to euthanasia there, and basically, I mean, it was, it was just sick, of course, not her decision. I'm not saying that her decision was. It was a bad decision. What was sick there was the fact that her father, who had even abandoned her, tried to interfere legally with her having access to that. And also in the last few hours before she got access to it when it just exploded over the internet. And the news, I mean there were famous people and the damn Catholic Church trying to convince her to not go ahead with it and condemning her decision. I, I, I mean just. Just leave people alone, man. If they are, if they have been followed by medical professionals, by psychiatrists for I don't know how many years, and, and they decided consciously that that's the best decision for them, just leave them alone, man. Yeah,

46:33 Amanda Sukenick: yeah, absolutely. Well, I think like, you know, it would be very helpful if we could declare. You know, our interests in the, in the right, you know, if that could be sort of part of our, our end of life planning, you know, you know, our desires known from as early a point in our life as possible.

46:51 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, I don't know if you, I don't know if you have that in the United States, but here in Portugal we have sort of a OK, the direct translation would be vital will, where basically we write down or select in a formal document all the medical interventions that we allow people to do on us if we are found, for example, if for example, we don't want to get resuscitated, we can have that document validated and so if we're found just not breathing, they can do anything about that.

47:30 Amanda Sukenick: We have something similar here, but I think it does get complicated because like You know, you can have a DNR. You can have an advanced directive, but if you're unable to. Uh, COMMUNICATE. Like if you're in, if you're, you know, sick enough, you're in a coma, you're in some sort of medical, medical state to where you can't advocate for yourself. And, you know, even if you have this sort of documentation, I mean, maybe like you're in a, you have, and, and you've, you've, you know, you have surrogates who can sort of advocate for you, but you're You know, you have some sort of condition that can be like, uh, you know, it, it, where somebody in, in that sort of circle can sort of see your condition is not a big deal. Like we can just administer this little thing and they'll they'll have 2 more years, you know, to live. And even though we've made sort of these advanced directives, that sort of like possibility of um Excess of life or flourishing, like, you know, I, I think sometimes even these, these guardrails or steps that we as individuals put in place to prevent, um, you know, more life kind of get ignored or, or, you know, there's, there's just sort of this. The sense that I got, you know, over the last, again, over the last 9 months speaking to the people that I've spoken to is that they will find any way possible for it, um, you know, if they can, uh, legally and, and, and, and, and morally, you know, to keep you alive no matter what. And it's, it's really, really troubling. I mean, the, the, the part of it that I think is Really difficult is like, you know, the, the argument that, uh, that a lot of, um, people with severe disabilities make where it's sort of like, you know, nobody should have the right to die because I'm in this position. I could be sort of coerced through various mechanisms to, uh, for my life to be ended. What I need is care. You know, I need, I need access to these services, like, you know, or, or. There's a lot of other, I, I've heard sort of, uh, policymakers sort of make the, the argument that it's like, well, it's not that these people need the right to die, it's that they need society to be different, you know, they need, uh, the, the, the economy needs to be better, they, you know, but it's like, there needs to be a stronger voice on the other side. Uh, THAT has good salient counters to these arguments. Not that those salient counters to those arguments don't exist, but there needs to be somebody out there making those arguments that it's like you shouldn't, you can't make people wait for for life to improve before you just allow, like allow them to have this human right to say, I don't want to do this anymore.

50:26 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and and you know, and you know, sometimes it's just disgusting because Everyone knows that a particular person's life is not going to get better. I mean, they know. There's

50:36 Amanda Sukenick: that too.

50:39 Ricardo Lopes: They know it.

50:40 Amanda Sukenick: There's magical thinking involved and there's all kinds of unrealistic thinking. Yes, it's true. And there's no will to say that, you know, yeah, to make that explicit. I'm sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you, but yeah, I agree with you.

50:52 Ricardo Lopes: So let me ask you this, because last year I've had on the show Dr. Philip Nitschke. He's he's a very interesting figure. You're aware of him.

51:02 Amanda Sukenick: Absolutely, and congratulations. Get him on the show,

51:04 Ricardo Lopes: yeah, yeah, yeah, and I mean he says that in his opinion there should only be two criteria for people to get access to drugs for them to basically get access to assisted suicide, so The first one is for them to be of age, so over 18 years old or 21, whatever the case, and the other one is for them to have mental capacity. I mean that term mental capacity, we can discuss it to our graves and we'll probably never. Get a consensus on that because it also involves, or at least to some people it involves not being internally coerced and that that internal coercion, you know, it would exclude in principle everyone that suffers from mental illness, but I mean, you know, it's a tough one. Yeah, so, but but I mean that anyone who fulfills those two criteria should just be given if they want a drug to take home and if they decide to take it, they take it. If they decide they don't want to take it, they don't take it. I mean, what do you think of that? Do you, does that strike you as as reasonable or

52:29 Amanda Sukenick: So he's advocating that just sort of everybody be be given their, their

52:33 Ricardo Lopes: pill in their pocket if they ask for it if they

52:37 Amanda Sukenick: if they ask for it. I mean, yeah, I mean, I, I, I, I, I, I think I'm mostly on board with that, um. You know, I, I, I'm, I'm sort of at a point where I'm, I'm not sure, I'm not sure how I feel about The right to die existing outside of sort of like medical assistance in dying and just like generalized access like should people have, uh, should people be able to go to a Walgreens or a CVS or something like that and just like, I don't know, talk to a nurse and then just like be able, I mean. My heart says yes, my, uh, but there's another part of me that's like a little bit. Worried about misuse if it's that I don't know. I, I, I'm, I'm just a little cautious about, uh,

53:33 Ricardo Lopes: yeah, but you know, but you know something funny, a few decades ago, I'm not sure if you could do that during the far right dictatorship we had here in Portugal up till 1974. I'm not sure about that, but at least up until a few decades ago. You could go to a pharmacy here in Portugal and buy cyanide. Oh wow, it was just available. So wow, and you, and you know what someone can do with cyanide, right? Well,

54:05 Amanda Sukenick: you can kill other people with cyanide, so that's,

54:08 Ricardo Lopes: that's, yeah, yeah, yeah, but also yourself,

54:11 Amanda Sukenick: right? Well, right, right, right. So, uh, yeah, I mean, access to whatever I. I do worry about it, just the bad actors who do want to use it on other people. So there's that, that, uh, which I don't, you know, that, that might be very rare instances of that occurring. I don't know. But I mean, there is that concern. Um, BUT also, I just don't know about doing that without medical assistance. Like you should probably. There does seem like there's A huge potential to have a very poor end, uh, doing that on one's own. I, I, I don't know. But at the same time, people should have The right to choose that if they, if they want, uh, it, it's a little complicated. I, I, I feel like there's A greater sort of argument to be one that, you know, the medical industry doesn't seem to think that. Death is also part of the medical responsibility that it's not just the perpetuation of life, that it's also the administering of death, whether it's, um, I mean, in, in, in, in, um. In the thesis that I'm working on that I'm, I'm, I'm, I'm going to be, I'm going to be turning in by Monday, um, you know, part of it sort of talks about the need for um another kind of bioethics, a bioethics that can like accommodate things like euthanasia and abortion and Um, you know, this has kind of been, there, there's various philosophers that have, have kind of commented on this, Mati being one of them, Julio Cabrera being another, uh, um, uh, another philosopher by the name of Konrad Sochik. I, I think it's how you pronounce his last name, um, and there was another philosopher that kind of coined this term of thanatos ethics, and there seems like there's a greater Battle to be won for that to, you know, be like a, a, a, a strong robust voice in medical ethics, um, that, you know, uh uh uh uh the, the creation of bioethics that can accommodate, um, these arguments and these necessary actions, um, and that, that, that bioethics isn't only, and medical ethics isn't only for the, uh, perpetuation and flourishing of life. And so I, I, I, I. At this particular period of time, it's like that's, that's, that's the kind of right to die that I wanna see. I wanna, I want people to, I wanna see, you know, the right to die should be like anything else. Like I, if, if, if you have a, if you need To have surgery, you should have the right to anesthesia. You know, if you need to die, you know, you should be able to go to a doctor, you know, and you should be able to plan the rest of your life. It, it, it, I mean, like you, like you were talking about, you know, it's, it's, um, you were, you were saying how, uh, you know, death needs to be seen more as a part of life. And, um, you know, and, and in that sense, I mean, like if, if we had Real medical access to dying, um, then. You could plan for your life in a, in a completely different way than we're allowed to now. Um, AND I, I would really love to see that happen. So, uh, so, so yes, it would be, it would be great, it would be really great if, if you had the level of access to where there were just sort of like no questions and you could just go out and get it. In a, in a, it's hard for me to absolutely put my foot down and say, no, I wouldn't want to see that because I, I do think that ultimately people have a right to it. But, um, but I would, I would like to see this sort of greater battle against, uh, Against euthanasia, uh, prevail. Like I, I would like to see it succeed in this sort of big way that I think, um, people have been moving towards for, uh, for, for decades now.

58:12 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, so I mean, do you think, I'm not saying that this would ever be practically feasible, but just theoretically that there, there would be or there could be any circumstances somewhere in the future where if people would be able to eliminate as much suffering as possible from human existence, that it would make it. MORAL to bring new people into the world. I mean, like I don't know, like through transhumanism or something like that.

58:50 Amanda Sukenick: Oh. So you're talking about like, like if a mechanism of, of transhumanism came to pass and we could eliminate huge amounts of suffering that way, um, so I, I don't think. It, it's a trade-off, right? Like, uh, like we already had, like, you know, there's plenty of things we do in the medical profession that are sort of transhumanistic, right? Like they prolong life, they're, it's a, they're, they're, yeah, they're, they're, they're, uh. Uh, BIO-ENHANCING, enhancing one's ability to survive disease or disability or everything. And that's great. So a lot of those things I couldn't possibly say no to. Like once people are here, like, I do think that that making people's lives good is fantastic. Like, let's do it, let's do all of those things. Um. I don't know that, like if we're talking about, uh, I mean, this is. You'll have to pardon me, Ricardo, you know, like there's this question's a little bit abstract. So if we're talking about something like, uh, like, like David Pierce's antenatalism, where,

1:00:02 Ricardo Lopes: yeah, yeah, he is one of the people I was thinking of, yeah,

1:00:06 Amanda Sukenick: yeah, I had, I had, I had a feeling that was the direction you're going in. Like, so if we could eliminate all suffering. And that would, you know, in, in his view, that would mean that procreation was now, uh, permissible and free of ethical. Issue. I, I wouldn't agree with that. Like, yes, there's no suffering, but there's still, there's still manipulation. There's still creating needs for no needs. There's still, they're still, um, they're still imposing one will over another, and I think that's still fundamentally wrong. Um, AND so I, I, I don't think that, I think that I can't imagine that even in the absence of suffering, uh, creating lives, um. It is completely free from all ethical and moral infraction.

1:01:02 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and look, I mean when people hear what I'm about to say they might think that I'm making an argument for suffering, but not at all. It's not at all that kind of argument that I'm making, but I think that people also Or at least people who think that we can eliminate all suffering, many times they underestimate how boring life could get, and boredom would also be a form of torment, if you will,

1:01:35 Amanda Sukenick: so yeah. Well, I mean, I, I, yeah, I think, I, I, I think about that. I, I think that's absolutely true. I also, I mean, one of the most fascinating aspects of, of David Pierce's proposal, uh, for me is just the Idea of like how. The app, like what would be perceived in the absence of a circumstance that would normally cause suffering. So if you're, if you're Let's say there's no suffering, but there's still some kind of totalitarianism, and these totalitarian entities create some sort of atrocity like I almost I mean, you, would you somehow not be able to perceive that as like a bad thing? Like, I, it, it's like, I can't, it's, it's hard to kind of wrap my brain around. Uh How people would sort of move through these experiences, uh, with suffering being a muted element, but there's still something not good taking place, you know what I mean? It's like, so I, I, I, I just don't know. I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't know how to articulate it in exactly the right way, but that's, that's something that I think about a lot insofar as, as his, uh, his proposal, at least. I, I'm less familiar with, with Perhaps a lot of other transhumanists, you know, thinkers that would maybe uh propose something. But yeah, I think, I think transhumanism is a mixed bag. Like, I, I think it, it, uh, big picture transhumanism, uh, uh, uh, you know, as far as, uh, uh, a far futurism, um, I, I, I think it's, I think it's just as fraught with, um, ethical violations as, as natalism, you know, uh, to, to a large degree. But there are also elements of it, um, that I think people need and are good. And so, yeah, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, uh, my current thinking on transhumanism is that it's, it's a complicated conundrum. The thing, yeah,

1:03:47 Ricardo Lopes: no, and I mean for sure there are at least parts of it. I'm not even claiming that it's mainstream transhumanism or most of transhumanism out there, but there are elements of it that connect also to to eugenics. Oh,

1:04:03 Amanda Sukenick: absolutely, yeah, there's, there's that for sure, yeah.

1:04:06 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, it's, it's like, oh my God, we're going to create a superior human race or something like that by eliminating certain undesirable traits.

1:04:18 Amanda Sukenick: I, I, I think, I think transhumanism is, is, is very vulnerable to that kind of thinking and that kind of application, and I, and, and some of the transhumanists that I've talked to, and I've, David Pierce not included, but seem to be sort of Unaware of that, unaware of what could go wrong. And, uh, actually, that's part of, that's part of what frightens me the most about transhumanism is that a lot of transhumanists that I've spoken to are not, are not pessimistic enough about what could, what could go wrong, you know, it's a, there's a lot of beautiful ideas there, but not enough appreciation for how ugly it could be.

1:04:57 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, and then you also get that beautiful, beautiful mix of people who are pro-natalist, transhumanist eugenicists.

1:05:08 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, yeah, 100%, yeah, it's, it's not a good mix. It's not a good salad.

1:05:14 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, so look, earlier you mentioned just in passage that things like sentio-centric anti-atalism, I mean, are you a proponent of that? Do you extend your anti-atalism to all sentient beings?

1:05:32 Amanda Sukenick: Absolutely, yeah, I, I, I. My origin story as an antenatalist is as a sentio-centric antenatalist. I remain a Sentio-centric antenatalist. Um, AND I, you know, part of the work that I've been, that I've been doing in my, in my current, uh, graduate thesis is the idea of like what is beyond Sentio-centric antenatalism, exploring the idea of biocentric antenatalism. Um, AND that's sort of like what informs that, uh, inquiry is sort of this, you know, this, this thing that David Benatar says about his, his own Benatarian antenatalism, that it is theory neutral, that it can extend to all sort of normative theories, axiological basiss, and so, Um, I've done a lot of work over the last couple of months of like analyzing what a biocentric antenatalism could look like, um, you know, what it, you know, could antenatalism be formulated in sort of like an Aristotelian or Aristotelian kind of camp. Um, AND, uh, uh, and that's, uh, yielded some very interesting. Possibilities, some very creative possibilities, some possibilities that could possibly, probably never come to be. But, um, but yeah, I mean, I think, I think, uh, I think sentience is like the biggest problem in the world, right? Like, it, it is the seat of we're all suffering lives and suffering is, is, to me, where all the, all or a great portion of the value really is. Um, BUT then, you know, uh, part of the proposal. THAT I've made is that even, even in sentient life, even though it, it is spared the blight of suffering, all living things are blighted by needs. So even insentience can have the condition of neediance, as I, as I've coined it. And you know, so I think that's another sort of basis for, um, like an all life antenatalism that could, could emerge.

1:07:30 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, you know what, I think that we as antenatalists should create our own origin story and sentience would be the original sin.

1:07:40 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, yeah, for sure, for sure,

1:07:43 Ricardo Lopes: which is, which is funny because I mean when you talk to many, I mean, I'm not sure if many, but at least some Christians, they like, I mean if they don't, even if they don't say that out loud. They, they, they're basically admitting that this life here is crap and they're waiting for a better life in the in the year after. So yeah,

1:08:12 Amanda Sukenick: no, absolutely, I mean there there's, there is a, there is absolutely a this world is not good enough and you know, you know, the real, the real joy. Exists in the year after and yeah, so they've kind of got it on one level. They just, you know, and, and certainly some You know, there are, as you well know, I mean, there is, there is, there is such a thing as Christian antenatalism, so you know, it's like it's not possible for them to get there. So yeah.

1:08:43 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, but I mean I would imagine that particularly nowadays in the US, if someone were to find some passage in the New Testament where Jesus, where something that Jesus said could be interpreted as anti-atalist, they would say, I don't support Jesus, he's woke. That's what that's, that's, that's a woke narrative. I mean, because I know it.

1:09:10 Amanda Sukenick: Uh SORRY, I didn't mean to interrupt you, Ricardo, but I, I, I,

1:09:14 Ricardo Lopes: I was, I was just going to say that it's funny because actually in recent times there are religious figures in the US, uh, basically when they are confronted with some, uh, sayings. By Jesus, they, they basically accused Jesus of being

1:09:35 Amanda Sukenick: woke, of being woke. Yeah, I was just, I apologize for interrupting you, but I was basically just going to say exactly what you just said and agree with you that like I think that a great deal of the contemporary Christian. You know, American movement is like as far away from the vision of Jesus as it could possibly get. I mean, you know, it's it's this sort of militant. You know, hate, hate machine, you know, as opposed to acceptance and love and all, all that, all that woke hippie, hippie stuff, yeah.

1:10:10 Ricardo Lopes: OK, so look, talking about, uh, conservative the the conservative right in America, in America, uh, no, no, no, no, OK, I, I know, I know what you're expecting, but I still have one question before before that, but uh. Do you think that antenatalism itself would have anything to say about the ethics of abortion? I mean, I'm always thinking about this because uh I mean pregnancy is the mechanism through which you bring new life into the world, right? So I mean abortion, we're talking about humans here, so. But I mean, because that's the case, do you think that there could be something from anti-atalism that we could apply to the ethics of abortion?

1:11:00 Amanda Sukenick: 100%. So I think that the interest abortion is like a fascinating subject within antenatalism in my opinion, because the the Um, the opinions from antenatalist philosophers, um, on abortion really like runs the full gamut, um, you know, from, from every extreme. So, uh, famously, Julio Cabrera, who's like a, a Kantian antenatalist, you know, he's against abortion. I mean, not to the extent that he would like take it away as a right from women, but like, ethically, he believes that it, it is. A manipulation of this new being. Like it was a manipulation to conceive the being in the first place, but to end their life through abortion is also like a violation. And it's, it's, it's something that, you know, he thinks anonatalists should really take seriously. David Benatar, and, and, and let me just preface this by saying this is everything that I am attributing to each of these philosophers, a gross paraphrase. So I I very much encourage people to go out and like see what they've actually said,

1:12:10 Ricardo Lopes: but yeah, I'm also one of those people that I never memorize specific quotes.

1:12:16 Amanda Sukenick: I'm

1:12:17 Ricardo Lopes: always paraphrasing

1:12:19 Amanda Sukenick: and no matter how much I, you know, preemptively practice, you know, the quotes, I always seem to get them wrong. So, so yeah, so it's necessary to make that clear. But, but David Benatar also famous, I think it's before 2018. Weeks, he says that there is a moral sort of, uh, I don't know whether he uses the word imperative, but that it's, let's just say it's perfectly fine, even, even morally ethically recommended to abort the fetus. After that point, he places sort of, I think the heartbeat as a sign of an interest to survive and that not that we would never, it's never ethically permissible to Um, to have an abortion at that point, but it's like really something that we should take seriously though. Again, we're making, you know, he, again, he believes death is bad, so it's bad to impose, it's bad to impose life, but it's also bad to impose death on that, you know, that gestating entity. Um, THEN you have Monty Hari, who, who, who, um, you know, uh, famously in Uh, his, his master's thesis in 1984 was an absolutely permissible view on abortion. So, you know, that so long as the woman desires to have an abortion really at any stage, that it should be granted, that there's, there's no, um, that it's a violation of her personhood, basically to deny a woman an abortion. So, so again, so I think that the Um That's a, that's a huge spectrum of opinion from, you know, three of the, 3 of the most important antenatalist philosophers. Um, IT'S interesting that when the topic is brought up sort of within whatever the antenatalist community is, there's sort of this desire to separate abortion from antenatalism, like they have nothing to do with one another. But um I think that's clearly not true. I think there's huge inroads. It's definitely something that Uh, could be a part of antenatalist activism, and I think probably should, um. So yeah, so I, I, I think there's a, a great abundance of connection and things that, that, um, yeah.

1:14:34 Ricardo Lopes: OK, let's finally get into the juicy stuff here. The juicy stuff. Yeah, I, I left it for last because I want to force people to watch the entire. Sure, sure, sure,

1:14:46 Amanda Sukenick: yeah, yeah, yeah,

1:14:48 Ricardo Lopes: yeah, because if I, if I. Came up with this right at the beginning, they would stop watching after 10 minutes, so you know, so your debate with Rachel Wilson, yeah,

1:15:02 Amanda Sukenick: yeah.

1:15:04 Ricardo Lopes: Look, look. I have to tell you, I mean, I've already told you via email, but it was just, I was expecting it, but because I was already familiar with the debating style of Rachel Wilson and her husband Andrew Wilson, it's always the same kind of crap. And uh I was already expecting it, but it doesn't matter how many times I'm expecting it, it, it's always frustrating because er those guys always completely ruin every debate and. They're like the pigeon playing chess, you know, they're like the pigeon playing chess. They go all over the board. They ruin all the places where the pieces were on, and, oh, I won.

1:15:51 Amanda Sukenick: I

1:15:51 Ricardo Lopes: won that check,

1:15:53 Amanda Sukenick: check.

1:15:54 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, yeah, yeah, but, but, but I, but I mean, tell us about your experience.

1:16:00 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, so, uh, I regret doing it. Um, I, I, I was familiar with both of them previously. I sort of knew what to expect. I did read Rachel's book, um, so I should,

1:16:13 Ricardo Lopes: oh my God, you read her.

1:16:15 Amanda Sukenick: I did. I did read her book.

1:16:16 Ricardo Lopes: Oh my God, Jesus,

1:16:20 Amanda Sukenick: yeah, it was a rough one. So I mean, I sort of knew what to expect, um. At the same time. You know, I didn't like, I didn't expect him to go so low as to like. I don't know. They went into a lot of territory that I thought was just, just absolutely gross. Um, AND, and a little threatening. I mean, like, you know, their, their whole thing is like they're raising funds to buy more guns and so it's like, and they have this massive audience who like Yeah, uh, yeah, so it was, it was, it was awful. It was a terrible experience. I, I, I love doing interviews and, and I, I typically say yes when I'm, when I'm offered one. I mean, you know, and so, um, and I, and I consider it like my Just part of what I do, like part of my charge as an antenatalist. If somebody wants to talk about it, I'm, you know, that's what I'm here for. Um, SO on, on, on that, you know, it, it, it was, it was, uh, it was one of those experiences where I'm glad I did it in the sense that. I got a real window into like the true face of, of like what I'm up against, you know, because I had, I had never quite experienced that, you know, um, and, uh, but I, I, I, I, I have to be honest, I mean, I, I found the whole thing by the end to be just deeply depressing. Um, I, I did, I did receive a lot of very Lovely sort of uh feedback afterwards. Um, I, I, I tried my best not to get too angry. I tried not to get too sort of Belligerent. I, I, I, I, I did the best I could. You know what I mean? But uh, at a certain level, I'm just not, there was a time in my life where I was, I was more Aggressive sort of on the internet. Like I would have been much more prone to be, you know, getting into a screaming match with people, you know, in, in, in, in such a, in such an arena. And I'm just, uh, I'm just too old for that now. And I just, I'm, I don't know. I, I just can't do it anymore. So, um, I wonder if there's anything that I could have said that would have made any kind of dent, you know, and I, I don't, I don't think so. And I, and I think part of it is not, is not simply the, the rhetoric and the The competing philosophies, you know, that I was up against, but it's also the audience backing them up. It's, it's the, it's just, it's just such a, it's such, such a nasty echo chamber of hate.

1:19:03 Ricardo Lopes: No, no, look, I'm going to say just this one thing because this is something that when the debate gets to that point, I never heard anyone using this argument against them. And I think that someone in the future should try. I know that they're going to, they're going to use the same MO, the same modus operandi, and they're going to just shit all over the board and win the debate anyways, but because they're always trying to do this, always in all their debates. It doesn't matter the topic, they're always. Trying to bring it down to, OK, so, ah, do you believe in logic? Do you believe in mathematics? Where does logic come from? Oh, it has, it has to be God. It has to be God. If it's not God, then explain where it comes from. And look, and look, I think that someone at that point should tell them, look, have you ever heard of idealism? Have you ever heard of that position in philosophy, because there's actually idealists out there that do not believe in God, and they're like they, they believe in ideas, but they do not believe in God. So you're just making a God of the gaps kind of argument there. You're just, you're just, oh, logic, God. It's like, oh, logic exists, God. No, there are alternatives to that. There are also, there are also materialist alternatives to that, but you you don't even need to get into the materialism because they just reject materialism. Uh THE the the Wilson's reject materialism in terms of, in terms of their epistemology. So, but, but, but there there's idealism. And you don't need God to to have idealism.

1:21:03 Amanda Sukenick: Well, Ricardo, you know, uh, if you want, I bet you anything, if you want to propose a debate with them, they'll, they'll be happy, and you can, you can tell them that. You could be the next in line. Please don't. Please don't. Don't do it. No, I, I, no, I, I, um, that might work. I mean, the, but the, you know, the fact of the matter, I mean, that's a great argument, and, and I think that if, if they were. More honest interlocutor, I always have a problem with that word. But I mean, if they were, if they were truly interested in the truth, if they were truly interested in, in, in, in, in real philosophical debate, I think that that argument would have um some real legs. But, you know, I mean, Anytime I thought I was bringing up a fairly good point, they'd ask me questions like, Are you gay? You know, I mean, that, that's the kind of like shit we're dealing with, or like, why don't, you know, you know, then of course it, it's, uh, at some point they got into the, you know, why, you know, why don't you just kill yourself or, you know, what, what, uh, You know, it got really, it got really nasty, so I, I just. I don't think there's any real way of winning with, with a crowd like that, because they're, they're, it's just, it's just designed for them to always win.

1:22:24 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, no, and look, I've listened to debates where they're debating morality with other people, and it's always the same shit. It's always, oh, there are objective moral values, God. If you don't think that there are objective moral values, then everything is subjective, then I, then I'm right. And I'm like, and I'm like, if I were to debate with them, I would be like, look. I can explain to you where human moral values come from through evolutionary theory plus cultural evolution plus ecology. And I'm going to explain that to you. Step by step. If by the end of it you think that your BS God argument has more evidence to it than all of these, then you're a BS artist.

1:23:25 Amanda Sukenick: That's what you are, yeah, yeah, 100%, but that is what they are, so, yeah, yeah, I, I, I, I. You know, like, on one hand, I'm proud of myself that I did it. On the other hand, I wish I had not. So it, uh, it, it, it, I will admit it took me a little while to kind of come back from it because I really had wanted, I really wanted it to go well. And, uh, it was, yeah, it was a real challenge to say the least.

1:23:55 Ricardo Lopes: Yeah, OK, so one last question then, and this one, this one I have to ask you because I mean I really need to know if in your, I don't know how many years of anti-Natalism if you ever came across such a BS counterargument to anti-NATalism because this was a first for me. This was a first time I had never heard such bullshit. My entire life. It was like back in November I was on Facebook talking about eugenics, I mean criticizing eugenics, and the guy came on arguing against me and saying, because he knew I was an anti-Natalist and saying, oh, but you're an anti-atalist, you're also promoting eugenics, right? And I and and I was like, What the damn heck have I just done? What, what is the look. You don't know what eugenics is and you don't know what antenatalism is. If you were to make such a claim, you're a complete dumb ass. First off, first off, we've already talked about eugenics here. Eugenics is about selecting particular kinds of traits that you consider to be good or acceptable or ideal and trying to Eliminate bad traits. That's basically eugenics. Anten-atalism is like it's immoral, immoral for you to reproduce. It doesn't matter your traits if you're white, black, tall, short. It doesn't, that doesn't matter at all. So there's no link at all, at all between eugenics and antenatalism. And then, and then he he like he said that. He said that I would like to see eugenics promoted politically. And I was like, look, when have I ever said that BS and name me 11 anti-atalist out there who's involved in trying to make anti-atalist policies. Name me one. Name me one. And the eugenicists are always trying to do that, involve themselves in. Eugenicist policies, namely one anti-atalist who's out there trying to, oh no, no, I'm going to force legislation to prevent everyone from reproducing.

1:26:42 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, yeah, yeah, no, no, no, I, I, so I was looking forward to this question because the answer is actually a little more complicated than you might think. So let's, so this is a bit of a, bit of a history lesson. So as, as you probably. You probably already know a lot of these little, little particulars, but, uh, but just for the benefit of, of our audience. So David Benatar and Theophi de Gre in 2006 coined antenatalism as a philosophical term. So that is the advent of antenatalism as we know it has nothing to do with eugenics whatsoever. Um, AND, you know, as far as it's uh, like actual Political movements that have come out of contemporary philosophically informed anti-natalism. There has been very, very little of that. There was actually an antenatalist party in the UK, um, and they, they were around for a very, very short period of time. It was initiated by Uh, a YouTuber, I'm not going to say his real name because I don't, I don't, I don't know whether he's still around or not, but he, his, his YouTube channel was called Self Immolator, and he was a British antenatalist. And there was also, he had some sort of partnership with Glennos, who Some people watching might be familiar with you. He was sort of very well known for making antenatal cartoons, and so they, they, the party didn't last very long, but there was like a couple of radio interviews. They didn't participate in any elections. There was no As far as I know, they didn't get to the point where they were creating, uh, proposals for policies or anything, but certainly what they were doing was informed by, uh, contemporary antenatalism and had nothing to do with eugenics. But I think that, uh, that one thing that antenatalists really should, it's a piece of antenatalist history that is not particularly well. Uh, KNOWN or understood is the history of antenatalism prior to the history of the word antenatalism or antenatal prior to 2006. So, um, the first instance of this word, uh, that we know of, and there, there might be, uh, earlier examples, but the first example that we know of came from a book called Population and world power by Catherine and AFK Organsky, and it's, it's a population control term. I mean, that's and it is eugenics and basically what that, that word meant. Now it's pretty obscure. I mean, when we go this far back and when we look at the and and and just, just to Make clear, like a really formalized sort of academic literature review or like encapsulation of this early history of the term, I think has really not taken place yet. I talk a little bit about it in some of the works that that I'm doing with Mati Hairra and also my thesis and also The End of Sentience, the paper of mine that just came out. But It's pretty obscure, but you can, if you research it, I mean, you can definitely see in various places in the world, all kinds of different language iterations of the term anti-atalism, anti-atalist, antitalismo, antenatalista, antenatalismus all over the world being used in association with Limiting births of a certain type of people, a certain population for, uh, basically eugenics. And unfortunately, um, and actually, uh, uh, in my time at, um, the, uh, the University of Chicago, you know, I for really for the first time, uh, read. Works that more kind of came out of like critical theory, uh, feminist philosophy, certain like Marxist philosophy, and it does kind of seem like a lot of those types of thinkers are more familiar with the usage of the term as it applies to this pre-Bennetarian understanding. Um, THEN, then, then the antenatalism that you and I know and love, you know, that, that, that emerged, you know, since Benatar and Theo, um, so. It's, it's absurd to our ears to be like to hear that people are associating us with population control and eugenics, but it's just sort of a, it's actually a pretty understandable misunderstanding if the antenatalism that they've been familiarized with is this older understanding of the term. So,

1:31:44 Ricardo Lopes: OK, OK, but that's a massive if because that's because even most antenatalists, I would bet, are not aware of what you just said. Yeah,

1:31:56 Amanda Sukenick: but you know what, anti-atalists have done a pretty good job of like not paying attention to the pre you know, 2006 history. Um, AND I think that's kind of been a mistake. Like we should have a more formalized understanding that that's the way that the term has been used prior to, um, the advent of contemporary antenatalism. We should, because, because honestly, it's still that prehistory, uh, still influences the way that like dictionaries around the world. Um, uh, DEFINE antonym like the, like the definition in the French definition, uh, in Larous and, uh, Petit Robert, um, you know, reference things like like direct Malthusianism, uh, population control, all these different things. Like, again, to us, it seems insane and it is, but it's because they're talking about this, this older form of anti-natalism that did do a lot of harm to people, you know, that, that was a eugenics movement and that, that, that, um, so I, I, I think we should. Uh, BE more informed about that and know that that unfortunately is what a lot of people are more familiar with when they hear this term, and we need to make efforts to then set them straight that it's like, yeah, we do share this term with this older history, but we're something completely different and we have nothing. We're not for the creation or non-creation of some lives. It's not a, it's not a conditional stance. It's not eugenics. It's

1:33:34 Ricardo Lopes: yeah, yeah, but, but still making the claim that that guy made back in November, it, it sounds very disingenuous because it could,

1:33:44 Amanda Sukenick: yeah.

1:33:45 Ricardo Lopes: It it it's almost like when er there are people who say that er Nazism was a left wing movement just because it had socialism. In the name, I, I mean, come on, it's that level of argument, absolutely,

1:34:03 Amanda Sukenick: absolutely. I mean, yes, the, the example that you bring up of this person you spoke to, they, they, they might not, they might not be informed by any of what I'm talking about. They might just, they might just be. Being a jerk about the whole thing. And, and that's, that's, that's definitely a possibility too. But I, I like again, I mean, you know, I, I, I was really, I was really shocked. Like I took a class that was about sort of ectogenesis. And again, in, in, in this class, we, you know, read a different critical theorists and stuff, and I was, I, at least on 3 occasions, I was confronted with This term that like I know to have a completely mean a different meaning than the meaning that they're saying and so I, I, I think they're, I think as time goes on, um. I hope that there will be sort of an understanding of the real difference between these two usages of the term. Yeah,

1:35:00 Ricardo Lopes: yeah, no, that's great. That's great. That clarification is very important and Uh, look, so, uh, would you like to, just before we go, would you like to tell people where they can find you currently on the internet?

1:35:14 Amanda Sukenick: Yes, absolutely. Thank you so much, Ricardo. Uh, SO yes, so I am, uh, I'm the host of the Exploring Antenatalist, uh, antenatalism podcast. It has been on hiatus for like a year, over a year, um, and that's mainly because I've been In graduate school, it's my 2nd graduate degree. Um, I will be graduating next month. And, uh, yay. And, uh, once that's in the bag, I, I will be bringing the podcast back. I don't know with what regularity. I, I, I still kind of think it's gonna be sort of like, when I feel like it, there will be an episode, but I, I do intend to continue the show. I miss doing the show a lot. It's just been too much to kind of like juggle, you know, um, uh, uh, you know, uh, uh, um, I, I, I have been, uh, publishing academically, uh, with, uh, my, the wonderful Matihaire, um, you know, uh, we have our, our books together, um, as well as a number of articles. We got lots of, lots of irons in the fire, lots of stuff that's, uh, you know, in peer review. Uh, WE'LL see when it comes. Out, um, uh, and, uh, and then I, as I mentioned earlier, uh, my first solo author publication has just, uh, been released at the end of sentience, and, um, I have more, uh, solo-authored works on the way. Um, AND I have a lot of, a lot of writing that I want to do and that I, I will continue to do. Um, AND, uh, so, uh, the antenatalism never stops.

1:36:41 Ricardo Lopes: OK, so look, it's been really fun and amazing to have this conversation with you, and thank you so much for coming on the show.

1:36:48 Amanda Sukenick: Yeah, Ricardo, it's been an absolute pleasure. Thank you so much. Again, it's been, uh, it's such a thrill to finally be on the dissenter and you do amazing work on the show. So thank you for everything that you do.

1:36:57 Ricardo Lopes: Hi guys, thank you for watching this interview until the end. If you liked it, please share it, leave a like and hit the subscription button. The show is brought to you by Enlights Learning and Development done differently. Check their website at enlights.com and also please consider supporting the show on Patreon or PayPal. I would also like to give a huge thank you to my main patrons and PayPal supporters, Perergo Larsson, Jerry Mulleran, Frederick Sundo, Bernard Seyaz Olaf, Alex, Adam Cassel, Matthew Whittingberrd, Arnaud Wolff, Tim Hollis, Eric Elena, John Connors, Philip Forst Connolly. Then Dmitri Robert Windegerru Inai Zu Mark Nevs, Colin Holbrookfield, Governor, Michel Stormir, Samuel Andrea, Francis Forti Agnun, Svergoo, and Hal Herzognun, Machael Jonathan Labranth, John Yardston, and Samuel Curric Hines, Mark Smith, John Ware, Tom Hammel, Sardusran, David Sloan Wilson, Yasilla Dezaraujo Romain Roach, Diego Londono Correa. Yannik Punteran Ruzmani, Charlotte Blis Nico Barbaro, Adam Hunt, Pavlostazevski, Alekbaka Madison, Gary G. Alman, Semov, Zal Adrian Yei Poltonin, John Barboza, Julian Price, Edward Hall, Edin Bronner, Douglas Fry, Franco Bartolati, Gabriel Pancortez or Suliliski, Scott Zachary Fish, Tim Duffy, Sony Smith, John Wisman. Daniel Friedman, William Buckner, Paul Georg Jarno, Luke Lovai, Georgios Theophanous, Chris Williamson, Peter Wolozin, David Williams, Dio Costa, Anton Ericsson, Charles Murray, Alex Shaw, Marie Martinez, Coralli Chevalier, Bangalore atheists, Larry D. Lee Jr. Old Eringbon. Esterri, Michael Bailey, then Spurber, Robert Grassy, Zigoren, Jeff McMahon, Jake Zul, Barnabas Raddix, Mark Kempel, Thomas Dovner, Luke Neeson, Chris Story, Kimberly Johnson, Benjamin Galbert, Jessica Nowicki, Linda Brendan, Nicholas Carlson, Ismael Bensleyman. George Ekoriati, Valentine Steinmann, Per Crawley, Kate Van Goler, Alexander Obert, Liam Dunaway, BR, Massoud Ali Mohammadi, Perpendicular, Jannes Hetner, Ursula Guinov, Gregory Hastings, David Pinsov, Sean Nelson, Mike Levin, and Jos Necht. A special thanks to my producers Iar Webb, Jim Frank Lucas Stink, Tom Vanneden, Bernardine Curtis Dixon, Benedict Mueller, Thomas Trumbull, Catherine and Patrick Tobin, John Carlo Montenegro, Al Nick Cortiz, and Nick Golden, and to my executive producers, Matthew Lavender, Sergio Quadrian, Bogdan Kanis, and Rosie. Thank you for all.