Raphael Samuel has invited much ridicule and abuse, as well as bits of admiration, on social media, reports Ritwik Sharma.
Who: To be born, or not to be born. That was never really a question, you would think.
But Mumbai-based businessman Raphael Samuel believes this choice is everyone’s ‘birthright’.
Samuel is a self-proclaimed adherent of ‘anti-natalism’ -- a philosophical stance that ascribes a negative value to birth.
But he appears to be pushing it further by introducing a prior element of having a say over whether one wishes to be born or not.
What: Samuel plans to sue his parents because they did not seek his consent before giving birth to him.
Apparently, he gets along fine with them. But, as a committed anti-natalist, it is his belief that bringing children into this world only subjects them to a life of suffering and misery.
Samuel says that his objections were well-received at home, especially by his mother, and that his aim is to make people understand that parents don’t own their children and children don’t owe parents any explanations of their decisions or actions.
He claims that his mother wished she had met him before he was born so she could decide against having him.
“She didn’t understand that they have an option to not have kids,” he says in a video that he uploaded on YouTube, emphasising that we realise this option is available to all.
Where: On his Facebook profile, Samuel posts images of himself wearing a fake beard and with cheeky anti-natalist messages such as ‘Isn’t forcing a child into this world and then forcing it to have a career kidnapping and slavery?’
His mother, Kavita Karnad Samuel, responded to Samuel’s dare with a statement, which he shared on Facebook.
She says, ‘I must admire my son’s temerity to want to take his parents to court knowing both of us are lawyers. I’m very happy that my son has grown up into a fearless, independent thinking young man. He is sure to find his path to happiness.’
How: With the ensuing social media attention, Samuel has invited much ridicule and abuse, as well as bits of admiration.
However, the concept of anti-natalism isn’t new. Anti-natalists aren’t anti-children; they feel it’s morally wrong to reproduce.
Finding echoes in ancient Greek philosophy, Buddhism and in contemporary South African philosopher David Benatar, who believes the world’s ideal population size is ‘zero’, anti-natalism draws from ideas that may have occurred to practically everyone through the ages.
There are now individuals who identify themselves as child-free proponents, voluntary human extinction movement activists, anti-natalists and efilists.
Trends such as nuclearisation of families and working couples opting for a single child or even choosing not to have children reflect a changing Indian society.
In such a scenario, the anti-natalist message of finding an optimal solution to problems such as humankind’s existential crises, as well as threats to the planet and other living beings, from humans by simply saying no to procreation may find takers among young, urban Indians.
Meanwhile, if the case is indeed admitted in court, Samuel is likely to lose.
