[Member's Column] Asagi Hozumi (6) Why Bartkus Was Wrong To Bomb IVF Clinic: From Antinatalist Activists’ Perspective

<< Previous Column by Hozumi

---

CONTRIBUTOR

ASAGI HOZUMI

Membership Number: 2

Regular Member

Asagi Hozumi co-founded Antinatalism Japan in 2021, and has been the Director since then.

He is doubtful of utilitarianism, and finds much greater legitimacy in Richard D. Ryder's painism.

Oscar Piastri is his favorite racing driver.

---

I’ll share my thoughts here in this column, as an antinatalist activist, on the bombing of an IVF clinic in California by Guy Edward Bartkus on June 17, 2025, which killed him and injured 4 people.

If we were to convince people of something that goes against the belief they haven’t found a reason to oppose, which in this case is that it’s good, or not bad, to create humans and other animals, we need to get them sitting at the table of discussion and ready to listen to us.

To that end, we must not let them have a strong impression that antinatalism is extreme or dangerous.

However, Bartkus’s bombing made it likely that more people will consider antinatalism to be a dangerous view that could threaten the safety of this human society, and will avoid even just discussing it.

Some of them will make things unnecessarily difficult for antinatalist activists by actively opposing it out of emotional and irrational fear, without understanding what antinatalism really is.

If our sole goal were to raise awareness of antinatalism, then terrorist attacks such as this one would be an effective way to achieve that*, but unfortunately, it’s also a great way to spread misunderstanding (or non-understanding) of this ethical view.

Many of those who had their very first encounter with the term ‘antinatalism’ because of the bombing will most likely see it as a dangerous ideology, due to the fact that someone who supported this view hurt someone with an actual weapon.

Even if antinatalist activists put a lot of content out onto the internet that would help people learn what antinatalism really is, the media reports on this terrorist attack and their brief mention of what (they think) antinatalism is could easily overshadow such content, making it difficult for antinatalists to change people’s inaccurate and vague understanding of antinatalism as something like “anti-life” or “anti-human.”

(This is probably what happened to me regarding anarchism and communism, which I viewed in the past as "extreme and dangerous” without knowing what they actually are.)

Some may, one day, stop opposing antinatalism for no clear reason and start trying to grasp what it really is, but this bombing will have already made them procreate and not live a vegan life where they would minimize their involvement in animal exploitation.

* This is, of course, if we ignore the general wrongness of terrorism!

It’s crucial to remember that the only reason we have the goal of raising awareness of antinatalism is to serve the higher purpose of gaining more support for it.

Surely, the quickest way to achieve that is to cultivate accurate understanding of antinatalism while trying our best to leave no room whatsoever for any misunderstanding, even if it means slower increase in awareness than resorting to terrorism like Bartkus did.

I fear that what I’ve mentioned so far could only be a part of the effect of Bartkus's attack.

It’s totally imaginable that some of existing antinatalist activists would decide it’s too risky to continue their activism, concerned that the general public and law enforcement may consider them to be one of the extremists like him.

Potential activists may have been lost, for that matter; an antinatalist, who could have otherwise become an activist, may no longer go for that path, for the same reason as existing activists.

Violence, as a means to spread messages, can easily undermine the very movement one wants to contribute to by taking human resources away, just like Bartkus may have done.

It goes without saying that we, antinatalist activists, are not the only ones to be negatively affected by this terrorist attack.

Most of the humans and animals, who will be created because of antinatalism’s reputation damaged by Bartkus, will live their lives spanning years or decades, experiencing a variety of things, some of which will cause them pain.

To make matters even worse, many of them will most likely create their offspring, many of whom will create their own, and so on, continuing the chain of suffering for generations.

It’s almost certain that one of those consciousnesses will experience more pain than the current maximum sufferer** among existing antinatalist activists***.

Bartkus clearly didn’t consider this, but we must.

We must never allow any “activist” to resort to violence, following Bartkus’s example.

** The maximum sufferer literally means ‘the one who experiences the most pain.’ In painism, the maximum sufferer is the one to be given the moral consideration first.

*** The more dice you roll, the more likely you will get at least one 6. This is one of my painist arguments to support antinatalism.

By the way, I’ve seen media reports saying Bartkus had “nihilistic ideologies.”

I understand that’s what law enforcement said.

As David Benatar has pointed out, that’s simply incorrect.

Any view that says “X is wrong” is the opposite of nihilism, no matter what X is.

It’s astonishing how carelessly some people seem to choose their words.

---

<< Previous Column by Hozumi