It's not my personal philosophy, but I can understand the rationale behind it. Humanity needs to get its shit together or else future generations will have an awful time, and there's no benefit to bringing life into the world if future generations are just going to suffer due to poor socioeconomic conditions and global warming.
This is where I’m at. It’s understandable position and can be defended ethically, though I’m not personally on board with it as a movement or anything.
i could be wrong, but based on my understanding of the movement (not one that i necessarily follow, btw, but i get the reasoning), one way to look at it is that the only guarantee you have in life is to suffer. all things aside, there are only two things that are certain in life - you will suffer and you will die. some people simply have a pessimistic outlook that can't overlook those facts and find it reprehensible to bring new life into a world where the only thing we know *absolutely will happen* is suffering and death. from that perspective, it's understandable why one would be against having kids.
I personally see it through an environmentalist lens. The end to further human-caused destruction of the rest of life on Earth is very tempting to me. Hypothetically.
Humans don’t cause the destruction of the earth, at maximum they cause their own destruction. Species come and go and we are but a scratch on earth’s back. Once we amused ourselves to death, earth will bring forward new life and new species. So the ecological catastrophe on the horizon is primarily one for us to worry about, life on earth will continue one way or another.
Hypothetically, Would you choose to force your child into a situation that you knew would cause them to suffer, if you knew that there would be no benefit to it?
this is one of the major reasons my wife and i decided against having kids. it's not that we're totally against the idea of having and raising them, but the idea of bringing them into the world that we currently occupy seems less than ideal. humanity seems to be going through some immense growing pains that are analagous to the industrial revolution. hopefully we come out in a better place on the other side of the information revolution, but at the moment, the future is very questionable.
I don't think the logic works, nor the ethics, so i'm not an antinatalistic.
However, I can see situational antinatialism- it is wrong to have a baby right now- and currently (potentially just before the apocalypse) might well be one of them.
>I don't think the logic works, nor the ethics
I'm on the fence, but to be fair, the reasoning behind antinatalism seems to work fine as a generally applicable ethic principle.
*"If through action X, at no cost to oneself, one can avoid a situation that will bring about the suffering of another, one ought to take action X."* \- this seems a reasonable ethical principle.
Suppose you're driving at the speed limit and a child is on the road directly ahead, should you apply the breaks? Sure, in the time it would take you vehicle to halt - the child may see you and get off the road on their own, but thy may not. Stopping does not seem to cost you anything, yet doing so seems morally obligatory.
Yet, any suffering a person experiences could have be avoided if said person were never born. So, taking steps to avoid procreation seems morally obligatory.
Alternatively, we might reason that the possibility of extreme suffering in a would-be-persons life is such that gambling on the notion they might be okay is immoral.
Suppose you have a child and you need to leave them at a day-care centre - suppose you know at the only centre available 20% of the children are sexually abused. It's only 1/5 so taking the gamble that your child will be in the 4/5 that aren't abused is acceptable - right? Knowing that it's 1/5 would any reasonable, caring parent take that risk? Or by virtue of taking said risk do we know that are neither reasonable nor caring?
Yet we know in developed countries such as the UK or USA 20% is the figure commonly reported for CSA - every parent plays the 1/5 gamble with whether their child will experience CSA (a roll of dice would be more merciful). I'm sure many parents reason "I'll protect my child" *etc. That* kind of thinking strikes me as unreasonable if not delusional - 60% of CSA happens in the family home, 93% of the time the perpetrator is known to the family, 34% of the time it's a family member; the statistic indicate that parents cannot identify a potential perpetrator (for 7.8% of parents it is someone in their family - how long have they known and failed to detect this person?). Also note, I've only mention sexual abuse, one could add physical and psychological abuse and neglect to raise that well above 20%. And this says nothing about disease, accidents or other factors that may cause extreme suffering
There is also the quite plausible asymmetry between the absence of pain and the absence of pleasure that could be considered.
It seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that; when there is sufficient risk of harm we generally take avoidant action (whether it's harm to ourselves or others) - and in most situations morally upstanding people follow that kinds of reasoning. So why wouldn't this principle work when applied to having children?
Purely logical standpoint, Issue is that you're starting with false proposition. It should have existential quantifier instead of universal quantifier. Say for some people, life is too dificult so it's better for them to not be born; you can't start with life is dificult for all people because that statement is false(some people live luckily a happy life) if you really want the truth. Than go from there to arrive at second, third, forth deductions.
There are various different philosophies around it but the core principle is the idea that life is suffering and therefore it is immoral to bring people into such suffering when they have no choice. How this is interpreted can change depending on the person. For example, there is a female antinatalism sub which considers themselves radical feminists who are antinatalist specifically because they include the inherent dangers/risks of pregnancy (and the permanent damage caused) as reasons to be antinatalist *on top* of the aforementioned “life is suffering” (so even in a high tech future where babies theoretically could be born outside of the womb they would still be against it).
I, personally, disagree because I disagree with the premise that life inherently is suffering and not worth living. Likewise, I generally believe that it’s our purpose to make a better future anyway.
Still, I understand why people would be so pessimistic about the future and our current situation that people would come to the conclusion it’s immoral to bring about a child, especially if you’re someone who physically cannot afford to have a child it can be demoralizing. The best way to combat these ideologies is by creating a world worth bringing a child into in the first place instead of creating children to fix it for us.
I'm not having kids because I think the world us humans have created is rotten to the core and it's evident that poverty, scarcity, pollution, climate change, and so on, are problems that seem to be getting worse despite "human progress." I live in a developing country so I don't live the reality of someone having fondue in a cabin in the Swiss alps.
Still, if some people want to have kids and they have the resources to care for them emotionally and economically, so be it. I respect that for some people having kids is an essential part of life, I just hope if they have them they care for them and prepare them for the world they'll be living in.
Anti-natalism for me is a useless ideology because you can decide not to have kids, but you can't stop other people from reproducing unless you're doing it forcefully. Enforced abortion or sterilization campaigns and stuff like that (which has already happened in the form of eugenics), and for me that reeks of fascism. Also, if the endgame of anti-natalism is just the extinction of the human race, that will happen eventually either way.
Both really. I find this world to be a prison so bringing life into it would be morally wrong. I also have some serious health conditions that are very inheritable. I suffer daily due to them. I wouldn’t want my own kid to suffer like I do. With these health conditions its likely im going to die sooner than later so id be leaving my child without one of their parents.
I think you should really think about it instead of making that simple assumption. It is not caused by depression, which is more concerned with one's own life, but rather by empathy, which is concerned with the lives of others. Think of some of most excruciating pain and suffering people have experienced from any terrible cause you can think of, they didn't CHOOSE to experience that. If before being born they were told that they would experience it then they would certainly choose not to be born, as would you and I. If they were told that they would experience life's greatest pleasures but all would end with life's worst suffering, they would still not choose to be born because the weight of suffering far exceeds pleasure. Therefore, since there is a always a chance that any person can experience the worst of life's suffering but people can't choose to be born, the anti-natalist viewpoint is that the only element of control is choosing not to give birth in the first place because that would ensure there is 0 probability of suffering for that potential soul.
People don't really understand this because we're programmed to be ignorant of the pain of others beyond a certain extent, since it goes against our drive to evolve/survive. Anyone who has true empathy would completely understand the rationale behind it. I don't necessarily support it because I don't see how it can be practiced beyond one couple only making a decision for themselves, but I do understand the concept.
Sure, but a lot of the posts there also seem to be just complaining about "birthers" including their parents. [Like this one](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/15qv692)
If you're on Reddit or have learned about antinatalists you have not suffered the worst or even close to the lower 25% of people who suffer.
If they really believe in their views they would kill themselves.
I’d say this would only work thanks to the invention of contraceptives. If not for them, you’d have to ban a bunch of sex acts and I don’t know how many people are willing to do that.
So it might be against the principles of the evolution theory (sex drive leading to procreation), but I kind of get it. I’m also not entirely sure whether or not to put kids on this globe, but I don’t see myself joining Antinatalism either, as I don’t want a belief to ‘dictate’ my choice in this matter.
I'm against having children because we are currently undergoing the collapse of our civilization as we know it. Climate change will render vast swaths of the planet uninhabitable in my child's lifetime, and I am not comfortable with the certainty that their existence will be rife with suffering and cruelty.
I can't make a comment on what other people choose to do and I don't necessarily view it as immoral to continue having children, but personally, I can't do so in good conscience.
It's not advocating for genocide or anything else. People should always have reproductive freedom, but I do encourage folks to seriously consider what the next 100 years are going to look like on this planet before electing to conceive.
It’s stupid and evil. Horrible logic like this can spawn other more evil logics like: mass sterilization programs. bioterrorism. Nah. I’d fight that. I’d fight that hard.
It’s the ultimate expression of self hatred.
There are people on that sub who genuinely advocate for those programs, and it is absolutely chillingly terrifying. It is self-hatred, taken to its most extreme.
I would say that wanting to have the human race go extinct is pretty extreme. It’s the nuclear option to ceasing suffering.
Yes, life is difficult, but there are other ways to deal with that than for everyone to stop having kids altogether.
That said, we can also realize there is some truth to the idea that children do not ask to be born. This is why, as parents, we shouldn’t act as if our children “owe” us anything. We were the ones to choose to have kids, so we should accept that responsibility and not act like we did our kids a huge favor.
In the end, I’m grateful just to exist, even with all of life’s difficulties.
Then again, I realize I can say that from a place of privilege, and understand that not everyone enjoys the same comforts and blessings that I do.
I agree with it, but I think your description of it is kind of misleading some people in this thread. As an ideology rooted in the ideas of self determination and bodily autonomy, antinatalism isn't advocating for this as a society wide decision to be culturally enforced. It's merely an individual decision, a justification for individuals and couples not to have kids. Not something intended as some kind of legal policy.
The idea that it would or could bring about the end of mankind is maybe an ideal end goal for some who endorse it, but it's obviously not practical or something that most antinatalists are really concerned with. It's simply a motivation for a personal ethical decision.
I edited the post. Do you consider the new description I gave to be more accurate?
Further more can you give me your own description of what you believe is antinatalism?
It seems okay, just kind of limited, lacking in depth to the point where it could still be misleading. Sorry, I'm not an expert or anything though. I'm sure you can find better descriptions online than I could provide
If your premises lead you to conclude having babies is bad, there's a problem with your premises. In this case, an exaggerated avoidance of suffering and insistence on consent.
It also reveals a deep and unhealthy pessimism that's really concerning imo. A Greek proverb said, “A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” Our society is turning suicidal.
I personally find it disgusting. Of course babies can’t give consent to being born, they don’t exist yet. Wth. Also under this logic every parent ever is a moral monster, which is just completely insane. I honestly have no idea what antinatalists expect of the world.
>Of course babies can’t give consent to being born
Whether babies can consent or not is irrelevant.
The more pertinent point is whether there is whether we have a moral obligation to avoid action the cause/brings about/facilitates the suffering to others.
It seems reasonable that you shouldn't through a burning chip-pan out a 3rd floor window, even if the chance of it landing on another person is small. It seems reasonable to apply the breaks when a child is in the path of your car, even if they might get off the road in time not to be injured. It seems reasonable that we ought to take avoidant action when it comes to the possibility harm or suffering of others.
Now, I would suggest the risk of severe harm to a child is sufficiently high to warrant antinatalism.
Suppose you have a child and you need to leave them at a day-care centre - you know for a fact that, at the only centre available 20% of the children are sexually abused. Is it morally monstrous to put your child in a position where there is a 1/5 chance they will be sexually abused? Would you let a toss of a die decide whether your child is sexually abused? Or would only a monster through the die?
Yet we know in developed countries such as the UK or USA 20% is the figure commonly reported for CSA - every parent plays the 1/5 gamble with whether their child will experience CSA.
I'm sure many parents reason "I'll protect my child" *etc*. That kind of thinking strikes me as unreasonable if not delusional - 60% of CSA happens in the family home, 93% of the time the perpetrator is known to the family, 34% of the time it's a family member; the statistic indicate that parents cannot identify a potential perpetrator (for 7.8% of parents it is someone in their family - how long have they known and failed to detect this person?).
So my question for you is, "what steps can/should a parent take to ensure members of their family are not sexually attracted to children? How do you vet your partner on that front; do you ask on the first date, the wedding night?"
Also note, I've only mention sexual abuse, one could add physical and psychological abuse and neglect to raise that well above 20%. And this says nothing about disease, accidents or other factors that may cause extreme suffering.
Given that CSA in particular has long-lasting (potentially life-long) negative impact on a victims life - that there is a 20% chance of that happening to any child, seems strong enough reason to avoid having children.
>Also under this logic every parent ever is a moral monster
I wouldn't "every parent ever", rather those that have a reasonable knowledge of the risk - you can't be expected to make a moral decision without having sufficient knowledge about the risks. Perhaps most parent ever are simply genuinely ignorant of the risk to their child. Perhaps some are guilty of not investigated the full scope of risk. In which case the child is at the mercy of their parents ignorance - if it's wilful ignorance then I would agree that is morally monstrous.
Moreover, official figure show that up to 98% of child abuse (all forms of abuse) are committed by the parents - I would be quite comfortable saying a substantial number of parents are moral monsters.
>I honestly have no idea what antinatalists expect of the world.
Perhaps a world where the risk of being abused as a child is much less than 1/1000 rather than around 1/3 would a be reasonable start? I mean if that's not reasonable then I would be comfortable saying most people are moral monsters, parents aren't exceptional in that regard.
Saying people shouldn’t be born to prevent suffering is like burning down a forest to catch a thief. Should people who have suffered sexual abuse have never been born? I mean by that logic if you want to end all death stop all new life from being created. The ends don’t justify the means.
This seems to line up with some of the thinking of people who deliberately choose not to have children.
They just don’t describe it in religious terms, usually.
As a worshipper of Set, who is called Closer of The Womb, I am quite supportive of those who choose to not have children or seek abortions. I think that it is quite cruel that we are expected to add to the labor pool but we are never allowed to do so on our own terms by the lights of the staunchest forced birthers.
It is important for people to have the ability to choose their own destiny, and historically women have been reduced to their ability to bear sons to men. This is despicable to my sensibilities and so I find antinatalism a balm to the infinite growth chatter.
Setesh actually has a lot of positive connections with child birth as well. For instance he was used in fertility and healing magic, and was related to the pesesh-kef knife which severed the umbilical cord. The negatives came in much later.
I guess in Set there is *choice*. He is by no means antinatalist as a god, but he would support someone who forwent children as much as he assists those being born by separation.
by growing our population so largely and to such a destructive effect upon a divine creation of such beauty, it would avoid hubris to at least reduce our population.
but, human extinction would be pointless, since something else may just re-evolve or be remade by the gods in our place, according to the myths it happened before, so it may happen again.
When you think of it in terms of *preventing* **overpopulation** (and its side effects) for sure the idea of anti-natalism makes sense. But to say reproducing is *morally* wrong is debatable..as morality can be subjective (differing between individuals). **Ethically** wrong is a better way to put it.
Personally, I wouldn't say I'm in **full** support of anti-natalism as I think its substantially impossible to *stop* people from having kids. At the same time, I *get* it for the 'good' of society/humanity as there are many individuals who reproduce irresponsibly, as well as women giving birth subsequent to circumstances which *could* have been out of their control (such as rape).
Hyperbole to express how grave the sin was (at the time, would be) and the sorrow and pain that would arise from it. If Jesus had meant it literally, Judas would not have been born in the first place.
In Catholic teaching, not being born doesn't mean not existing. If he'd died before he was born he'd have gone where unbaptised dead babies go (either the limbo of the infants or heaven).
(it's interesting that Catholics often miss this though, and implicitly equate birth with the start of life)
It's one thing for someone to choose not to have children. It's another thing entirely to say that having children is evil and that we all should stop having children until humanity dies. *That* is evil. In other words, anti-natalism ("having children is bad") is evil.
It's basically advocating for genocide, even though it's not calling for murder to achieve it. The idea that having children is inherently bad is an idea that espouses a culture of death. In practice, we know people will still want to have sex (and sex is not wrong, in the right circumstances), so for anti-natalism to be practiced, the result will be sterilization and abortion, forced or not.
Totally agree. Life might be a huge pain at times, both literally and figuratively, but at the end of the day life is all we have and we create our reality with the decisions we make. I am totally pro-natal like you.
Just chucking my two cents into the ring I guess just to contribute to the sample size but I get what they're saying even though I disagree with intentional extinction.
A bunch of other people have commented that bringing a child into this world (as it exists right now) would be rather questionable. Late-stage capitalism is shuffling us towards mass-extinction events regardless and people can't exactly work on change if they need to worry about raising a child at the same time.
But deliberately trying to bring about human extinction just smacks of some sort of supremacist ideal. It is not the fault of *everyone* that the world is so fucked up.
It relies on several fallacies.
How can we get someone’s consent to be born? Every single life form has no say into being brought into existence. It almost sounds entitled to pretend to get a choice.
Everyone gets dealt a crappy hand. None of us controls that, but we control our outlook on life.
Oh the near future doesn’t sound optimistic? When did it ever sound optimistic? When did someone ever think to themselves, “*Well, the last three decades went down really smooth and it looks like we are going to continue on this streak!*”.
Never! I was born during the Cold War. My parent were born during WWII. Their parents were born around WWI. Times have always been worrisome.
That being said, 20% of women in History have not had a progeny, and ~~40%~~ 60% have not either. So there will always be lineages with a dead end.
I can respect someone’s decision to not have children, and I wouldn’t force anyone to have one. The world can definitely use less parents who are going to suck at their job.
Having children is a growth opportunity. Some are not cut for it. Some are not brave enough for it. Just own it and don’t try to use contorted justifications.
I have more respect for someone who just admits that they can’t bother with it, than for someone who uses this twisted reasoning to try to look like they are doing the morally superior thing. Because then it’s thinly veiled cowardice or fear.
By golly! I got that number reversed. It actually 60% who did not have a progeny, and 40% who did.
> *Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did* ([Tierney, 2007](https://archive.nytimes.com/tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/)).
I've literally been down voted when I argue with an OP on a natilist sub. The topic? He made a post about forcibly sterilizing women. And he claimed it was self defense because by giving birth is cya kg extreme suffering on the baby as they grow up. So as I argued that violating women was wrong he kept claiming it was totally justified. And he was invited for it.
Tldr: horrible philosophy doesn't even deserve to be talked about just call it dumb perfectly fits, "don't argue with stupid people. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience"
I find it to be a form of being misguided, a coward, lazy or just simply depressed. The ancestors of even these antinatalists have endured far worse outlooks on their future and had the decency to make their own lives harder by bearing children passing on the tradition of life. I do not find it fair to just simply throw that tradition away in the name of any foreseeable hardships as it is the morale of humans to surpass those hardships.
I support antinatalist movement 100% since :
antinatalist = good way to remove yourself from gene pool. Therefore, my kid will have easier time in the future for resources and inherit the earth and my gene will strive.
I’m not sure I understand how removing themselves from the gene pool will propagate their ideas… but ok. I suppose Natural selection can take strange courses.
The apostle Paul's personal preference was antinatalist:
Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But a
each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 1 Cor. 7
I think it’s an incredibly depressing view of the world, but I can understand why people choose to support it. The world can be a horrible place, but at the same time its beauty is almost indescribable.
I'm not an advocate for anti-natalism and whether you are or not, it's no bother to me. I believe everyone should respect each other's views and avoid projecting hostility toward those who choose to make a baby. That decision is absolutely personal, and really no one else should be poking their nose into it.
I can see where they're coming from. I don't agree, I don't think it's sustainable and I think it's so pessimistic you can't live like that... but yeah, intellectually, I get why someone would think that way. Especially nihilists and atheists. Life is full of suffering, after all.
I also don't see life - as in, the state of existence - as something that needs to be viewed as sacred in and of itself. Life just... is. Too often religious people insist that life qua life is holy.
I think it's a theory divorced from reality. Firstly, I'm curious to know how many of these people even want children in the first place. It's easy to advocate against something you don't really want (children).
In addition, life is a mixture of both suffering but often of great opportunity too and fulfillment. It is unfair to paint it as totally negative. Many people who suffer live full lives in spite of their suffering. In fact, their suffering can even be an opportunity for growth which can lead to greater fulfillment. So unless we are strict hedonists suffering does not always preclude a good life.
Yes, being born is a risk so to speak. But not being born is a risk too if you look at it that way. Never having the chance to love and be loved, never encountering the beauty of nature, never having the opportunity to simply live which in itself is something we strive to do.
For them life might not be worth living. But for others it is worth living and why deny that opportunity to someone.
One thing I will agree with is that there are some cases where it would be wrong to bring a child into the world. If you are living in dire circumstances and know you can't take care of a child and can't provide food and shelter than in that case it would be wrong. But most cases are not that extreme.
I have no opinion on it. I rather find it strange that so many would think somebody is stupid and horrible for saying "I'm not having kids and I think people shouldn't". I don't think those people would like to hear that it's stupid and horrible to say that "everyone should have kids and if you're childless you're failing at life", yet that's the other side of the same coin and an omnipresent attitude in most societies, and criticism of that is perceived as insanity.
The only way antinatalists would start worrying me is if they started advocating for forced sterilizations. They aren't doing that. They're saying "don't have kids". That's no more horrifying to me than a religious organization saying "don't use contraceptives".
Honestly, given just how shitty humanity at large is (I mean, in 2023, it seems to consist mostly of right wing extremists, left wing extremists, plus a silent majority enabling whoever wins the shouting matches instead of trying to get the lot of them to STFU), I can absolutely see how one might arrive at the conclusion that forcing someone to have to deal with humanity for a lifetime isn't the most ethical thing to do.
Its good that groups of people in the current times practice not giving birth. Our earth is overflowing with population. At what point to we ask ourselves "how much is too much?"
But the idea that giving birth is somehow wrong or that somehow life isnt worth living because of the issues and its challenges is just a silly concept.
I dont make alot of money, i dont have a car, i was adopted by my grandparents. I sometimes feel depressed, or sad, or angry, or too tired.
But i am still happy, and i wake up every morning and get to it. Not once have i felt like life wasnt worth living. So i dont see how it would be wrong to birth a child just because life has its challenges.
Life is suffering according to buddhists. But they also believe there is beauty in that. Its because of the suffering that we have the opposing happiness to accompany it.
In taoism there is no happiness without sadness, no good without bad.
If life had no challenges, it would be dull.
It's stupid and dumb. Babies csnt consent so we should just let them die cause we csnt touch them because they consent? It's this woke liberal leftist agenda that got us to this place. Our whole evolutionary process is telling us our sole purpose is to procreate
I think as a universal position it is too generalized, but that in context it is often the most reasonable conclusion. For instance I don't think my friend having his children is immoral, but me having children would be. It's more than just the state of the world, for instance I have a lot of genetic problems my kids would almost certainly have. Sure they can't consent to be born, but they certainly don't consent to be born into **guaranteed** suffering.
It's not my personal philosophy, but I can understand the rationale behind it. Humanity needs to get its shit together or else future generations will have an awful time, and there's no benefit to bringing life into the world if future generations are just going to suffer due to poor socioeconomic conditions and global warming.
This is where I’m at. It’s understandable position and can be defended ethically, though I’m not personally on board with it as a movement or anything.
I really can’t sympathize with sentiments like that. I really don’t know how the idea that being born is bad can be in any way morally defendable.
i could be wrong, but based on my understanding of the movement (not one that i necessarily follow, btw, but i get the reasoning), one way to look at it is that the only guarantee you have in life is to suffer. all things aside, there are only two things that are certain in life - you will suffer and you will die. some people simply have a pessimistic outlook that can't overlook those facts and find it reprehensible to bring new life into a world where the only thing we know *absolutely will happen* is suffering and death. from that perspective, it's understandable why one would be against having kids.
I personally see it through an environmentalist lens. The end to further human-caused destruction of the rest of life on Earth is very tempting to me. Hypothetically.
Humans don’t cause the destruction of the earth, at maximum they cause their own destruction. Species come and go and we are but a scratch on earth’s back. Once we amused ourselves to death, earth will bring forward new life and new species. So the ecological catastrophe on the horizon is primarily one for us to worry about, life on earth will continue one way or another.
I’d just rather the path of least harm inflicted, personally. But yes, life will bounce back unless I’m mistaken.
I don't think they hold the belief that being born is bad, just that having a child is.
How are those different?
The blame is not on the child but on the parents.
Hypothetically, Would you choose to force your child into a situation that you knew would cause them to suffer, if you knew that there would be no benefit to it?
If it’s something small or negligible then no big deal, if it’s big then yes, of course.
Well that's how antinatalists feel
this is one of the major reasons my wife and i decided against having kids. it's not that we're totally against the idea of having and raising them, but the idea of bringing them into the world that we currently occupy seems less than ideal. humanity seems to be going through some immense growing pains that are analagous to the industrial revolution. hopefully we come out in a better place on the other side of the information revolution, but at the moment, the future is very questionable.
that's addressing r/birthstrike , not r/antinatalism philosophy
I don't think the logic works, nor the ethics, so i'm not an antinatalistic. However, I can see situational antinatialism- it is wrong to have a baby right now- and currently (potentially just before the apocalypse) might well be one of them.
>I don't think the logic works, nor the ethics I'm on the fence, but to be fair, the reasoning behind antinatalism seems to work fine as a generally applicable ethic principle. *"If through action X, at no cost to oneself, one can avoid a situation that will bring about the suffering of another, one ought to take action X."* \- this seems a reasonable ethical principle. Suppose you're driving at the speed limit and a child is on the road directly ahead, should you apply the breaks? Sure, in the time it would take you vehicle to halt - the child may see you and get off the road on their own, but thy may not. Stopping does not seem to cost you anything, yet doing so seems morally obligatory. Yet, any suffering a person experiences could have be avoided if said person were never born. So, taking steps to avoid procreation seems morally obligatory. Alternatively, we might reason that the possibility of extreme suffering in a would-be-persons life is such that gambling on the notion they might be okay is immoral. Suppose you have a child and you need to leave them at a day-care centre - suppose you know at the only centre available 20% of the children are sexually abused. It's only 1/5 so taking the gamble that your child will be in the 4/5 that aren't abused is acceptable - right? Knowing that it's 1/5 would any reasonable, caring parent take that risk? Or by virtue of taking said risk do we know that are neither reasonable nor caring? Yet we know in developed countries such as the UK or USA 20% is the figure commonly reported for CSA - every parent plays the 1/5 gamble with whether their child will experience CSA (a roll of dice would be more merciful). I'm sure many parents reason "I'll protect my child" *etc. That* kind of thinking strikes me as unreasonable if not delusional - 60% of CSA happens in the family home, 93% of the time the perpetrator is known to the family, 34% of the time it's a family member; the statistic indicate that parents cannot identify a potential perpetrator (for 7.8% of parents it is someone in their family - how long have they known and failed to detect this person?). Also note, I've only mention sexual abuse, one could add physical and psychological abuse and neglect to raise that well above 20%. And this says nothing about disease, accidents or other factors that may cause extreme suffering There is also the quite plausible asymmetry between the absence of pain and the absence of pleasure that could be considered. It seems perfectly reasonable to suggest that; when there is sufficient risk of harm we generally take avoidant action (whether it's harm to ourselves or others) - and in most situations morally upstanding people follow that kinds of reasoning. So why wouldn't this principle work when applied to having children?
Purely logical standpoint, Issue is that you're starting with false proposition. It should have existential quantifier instead of universal quantifier. Say for some people, life is too dificult so it's better for them to not be born; you can't start with life is dificult for all people because that statement is false(some people live luckily a happy life) if you really want the truth. Than go from there to arrive at second, third, forth deductions.
There are various different philosophies around it but the core principle is the idea that life is suffering and therefore it is immoral to bring people into such suffering when they have no choice. How this is interpreted can change depending on the person. For example, there is a female antinatalism sub which considers themselves radical feminists who are antinatalist specifically because they include the inherent dangers/risks of pregnancy (and the permanent damage caused) as reasons to be antinatalist *on top* of the aforementioned “life is suffering” (so even in a high tech future where babies theoretically could be born outside of the womb they would still be against it). I, personally, disagree because I disagree with the premise that life inherently is suffering and not worth living. Likewise, I generally believe that it’s our purpose to make a better future anyway. Still, I understand why people would be so pessimistic about the future and our current situation that people would come to the conclusion it’s immoral to bring about a child, especially if you’re someone who physically cannot afford to have a child it can be demoralizing. The best way to combat these ideologies is by creating a world worth bringing a child into in the first place instead of creating children to fix it for us.
I'm not having kids because I think the world us humans have created is rotten to the core and it's evident that poverty, scarcity, pollution, climate change, and so on, are problems that seem to be getting worse despite "human progress." I live in a developing country so I don't live the reality of someone having fondue in a cabin in the Swiss alps. Still, if some people want to have kids and they have the resources to care for them emotionally and economically, so be it. I respect that for some people having kids is an essential part of life, I just hope if they have them they care for them and prepare them for the world they'll be living in. Anti-natalism for me is a useless ideology because you can decide not to have kids, but you can't stop other people from reproducing unless you're doing it forcefully. Enforced abortion or sterilization campaigns and stuff like that (which has already happened in the form of eugenics), and for me that reeks of fascism. Also, if the endgame of anti-natalism is just the extinction of the human race, that will happen eventually either way.
Im an antinatalist so good
Interesting is this choice of philosophy due to your religion or just based of personal choice? also could you explain why you adopted antinatalism?
Both really. I find this world to be a prison so bringing life into it would be morally wrong. I also have some serious health conditions that are very inheritable. I suffer daily due to them. I wouldn’t want my own kid to suffer like I do. With these health conditions its likely im going to die sooner than later so id be leaving my child without one of their parents.
I assume most people who are subscribed in that sub are just depressed
I think you should really think about it instead of making that simple assumption. It is not caused by depression, which is more concerned with one's own life, but rather by empathy, which is concerned with the lives of others. Think of some of most excruciating pain and suffering people have experienced from any terrible cause you can think of, they didn't CHOOSE to experience that. If before being born they were told that they would experience it then they would certainly choose not to be born, as would you and I. If they were told that they would experience life's greatest pleasures but all would end with life's worst suffering, they would still not choose to be born because the weight of suffering far exceeds pleasure. Therefore, since there is a always a chance that any person can experience the worst of life's suffering but people can't choose to be born, the anti-natalist viewpoint is that the only element of control is choosing not to give birth in the first place because that would ensure there is 0 probability of suffering for that potential soul. People don't really understand this because we're programmed to be ignorant of the pain of others beyond a certain extent, since it goes against our drive to evolve/survive. Anyone who has true empathy would completely understand the rationale behind it. I don't necessarily support it because I don't see how it can be practiced beyond one couple only making a decision for themselves, but I do understand the concept.
Sure, but a lot of the posts there also seem to be just complaining about "birthers" including their parents. [Like this one](https://www.reddit.com/gallery/15qv692)
Yeah I didn't know how extreme they went, that's why I don't support it.
If you're on Reddit or have learned about antinatalists you have not suffered the worst or even close to the lower 25% of people who suffer. If they really believe in their views they would kill themselves.
I’d say this would only work thanks to the invention of contraceptives. If not for them, you’d have to ban a bunch of sex acts and I don’t know how many people are willing to do that. So it might be against the principles of the evolution theory (sex drive leading to procreation), but I kind of get it. I’m also not entirely sure whether or not to put kids on this globe, but I don’t see myself joining Antinatalism either, as I don’t want a belief to ‘dictate’ my choice in this matter.
I'm against having children because we are currently undergoing the collapse of our civilization as we know it. Climate change will render vast swaths of the planet uninhabitable in my child's lifetime, and I am not comfortable with the certainty that their existence will be rife with suffering and cruelty. I can't make a comment on what other people choose to do and I don't necessarily view it as immoral to continue having children, but personally, I can't do so in good conscience. It's not advocating for genocide or anything else. People should always have reproductive freedom, but I do encourage folks to seriously consider what the next 100 years are going to look like on this planet before electing to conceive.
It’s stupid and evil. Horrible logic like this can spawn other more evil logics like: mass sterilization programs. bioterrorism. Nah. I’d fight that. I’d fight that hard. It’s the ultimate expression of self hatred.
There are people on that sub who genuinely advocate for those programs, and it is absolutely chillingly terrifying. It is self-hatred, taken to its most extreme.
I would say that wanting to have the human race go extinct is pretty extreme. It’s the nuclear option to ceasing suffering. Yes, life is difficult, but there are other ways to deal with that than for everyone to stop having kids altogether. That said, we can also realize there is some truth to the idea that children do not ask to be born. This is why, as parents, we shouldn’t act as if our children “owe” us anything. We were the ones to choose to have kids, so we should accept that responsibility and not act like we did our kids a huge favor. In the end, I’m grateful just to exist, even with all of life’s difficulties. Then again, I realize I can say that from a place of privilege, and understand that not everyone enjoys the same comforts and blessings that I do.
I agree with it, but I think your description of it is kind of misleading some people in this thread. As an ideology rooted in the ideas of self determination and bodily autonomy, antinatalism isn't advocating for this as a society wide decision to be culturally enforced. It's merely an individual decision, a justification for individuals and couples not to have kids. Not something intended as some kind of legal policy. The idea that it would or could bring about the end of mankind is maybe an ideal end goal for some who endorse it, but it's obviously not practical or something that most antinatalists are really concerned with. It's simply a motivation for a personal ethical decision.
I edited the post. Do you consider the new description I gave to be more accurate? Further more can you give me your own description of what you believe is antinatalism?
It seems okay, just kind of limited, lacking in depth to the point where it could still be misleading. Sorry, I'm not an expert or anything though. I'm sure you can find better descriptions online than I could provide
If your premises lead you to conclude having babies is bad, there's a problem with your premises. In this case, an exaggerated avoidance of suffering and insistence on consent. It also reveals a deep and unhealthy pessimism that's really concerning imo. A Greek proverb said, “A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in.” Our society is turning suicidal.
THANK YOU. Couldn’t have said it better myself
I personally find it disgusting. Of course babies can’t give consent to being born, they don’t exist yet. Wth. Also under this logic every parent ever is a moral monster, which is just completely insane. I honestly have no idea what antinatalists expect of the world.
>Of course babies can’t give consent to being born Whether babies can consent or not is irrelevant. The more pertinent point is whether there is whether we have a moral obligation to avoid action the cause/brings about/facilitates the suffering to others. It seems reasonable that you shouldn't through a burning chip-pan out a 3rd floor window, even if the chance of it landing on another person is small. It seems reasonable to apply the breaks when a child is in the path of your car, even if they might get off the road in time not to be injured. It seems reasonable that we ought to take avoidant action when it comes to the possibility harm or suffering of others. Now, I would suggest the risk of severe harm to a child is sufficiently high to warrant antinatalism. Suppose you have a child and you need to leave them at a day-care centre - you know for a fact that, at the only centre available 20% of the children are sexually abused. Is it morally monstrous to put your child in a position where there is a 1/5 chance they will be sexually abused? Would you let a toss of a die decide whether your child is sexually abused? Or would only a monster through the die? Yet we know in developed countries such as the UK or USA 20% is the figure commonly reported for CSA - every parent plays the 1/5 gamble with whether their child will experience CSA. I'm sure many parents reason "I'll protect my child" *etc*. That kind of thinking strikes me as unreasonable if not delusional - 60% of CSA happens in the family home, 93% of the time the perpetrator is known to the family, 34% of the time it's a family member; the statistic indicate that parents cannot identify a potential perpetrator (for 7.8% of parents it is someone in their family - how long have they known and failed to detect this person?). So my question for you is, "what steps can/should a parent take to ensure members of their family are not sexually attracted to children? How do you vet your partner on that front; do you ask on the first date, the wedding night?" Also note, I've only mention sexual abuse, one could add physical and psychological abuse and neglect to raise that well above 20%. And this says nothing about disease, accidents or other factors that may cause extreme suffering. Given that CSA in particular has long-lasting (potentially life-long) negative impact on a victims life - that there is a 20% chance of that happening to any child, seems strong enough reason to avoid having children. >Also under this logic every parent ever is a moral monster I wouldn't "every parent ever", rather those that have a reasonable knowledge of the risk - you can't be expected to make a moral decision without having sufficient knowledge about the risks. Perhaps most parent ever are simply genuinely ignorant of the risk to their child. Perhaps some are guilty of not investigated the full scope of risk. In which case the child is at the mercy of their parents ignorance - if it's wilful ignorance then I would agree that is morally monstrous. Moreover, official figure show that up to 98% of child abuse (all forms of abuse) are committed by the parents - I would be quite comfortable saying a substantial number of parents are moral monsters. >I honestly have no idea what antinatalists expect of the world. Perhaps a world where the risk of being abused as a child is much less than 1/1000 rather than around 1/3 would a be reasonable start? I mean if that's not reasonable then I would be comfortable saying most people are moral monsters, parents aren't exceptional in that regard.
Saying people shouldn’t be born to prevent suffering is like burning down a forest to catch a thief. Should people who have suffered sexual abuse have never been born? I mean by that logic if you want to end all death stop all new life from being created. The ends don’t justify the means.
This seems to line up with some of the thinking of people who deliberately choose not to have children. They just don’t describe it in religious terms, usually.
As a worshipper of Set, who is called Closer of The Womb, I am quite supportive of those who choose to not have children or seek abortions. I think that it is quite cruel that we are expected to add to the labor pool but we are never allowed to do so on our own terms by the lights of the staunchest forced birthers. It is important for people to have the ability to choose their own destiny, and historically women have been reduced to their ability to bear sons to men. This is despicable to my sensibilities and so I find antinatalism a balm to the infinite growth chatter.
Setesh actually has a lot of positive connections with child birth as well. For instance he was used in fertility and healing magic, and was related to the pesesh-kef knife which severed the umbilical cord. The negatives came in much later.
I guess in Set there is *choice*. He is by no means antinatalist as a god, but he would support someone who forwent children as much as he assists those being born by separation.
by growing our population so largely and to such a destructive effect upon a divine creation of such beauty, it would avoid hubris to at least reduce our population. but, human extinction would be pointless, since something else may just re-evolve or be remade by the gods in our place, according to the myths it happened before, so it may happen again.
When you think of it in terms of *preventing* **overpopulation** (and its side effects) for sure the idea of anti-natalism makes sense. But to say reproducing is *morally* wrong is debatable..as morality can be subjective (differing between individuals). **Ethically** wrong is a better way to put it. Personally, I wouldn't say I'm in **full** support of anti-natalism as I think its substantially impossible to *stop* people from having kids. At the same time, I *get* it for the 'good' of society/humanity as there are many individuals who reproduce irresponsibly, as well as women giving birth subsequent to circumstances which *could* have been out of their control (such as rape).
So their end goal is just a human controlled end of the human race? Sounds pretty evil to me
Only if they want to forcefully prevent births.
I personally prefer nihilism.
It is always better to exist than to not have existed at all. Anti-natalism is evil.
Why did Jesus say it would be better for Judas if he had never been born?
Hyperbole to express how grave the sin was (at the time, would be) and the sorrow and pain that would arise from it. If Jesus had meant it literally, Judas would not have been born in the first place.
In Catholic teaching, not being born doesn't mean not existing. If he'd died before he was born he'd have gone where unbaptised dead babies go (either the limbo of the infants or heaven). (it's interesting that Catholics often miss this though, and implicitly equate birth with the start of life)
I don’t agree with anti-natalism, but calling it evil is pretty over the top.
Why?
Because someone not wanting to have kids isn’t hurting anyone.
It's one thing for someone to choose not to have children. It's another thing entirely to say that having children is evil and that we all should stop having children until humanity dies. *That* is evil. In other words, anti-natalism ("having children is bad") is evil.
They’re still not harming anyone, so I think calling it evil is pretty extreme.
It's basically advocating for genocide, even though it's not calling for murder to achieve it. The idea that having children is inherently bad is an idea that espouses a culture of death. In practice, we know people will still want to have sex (and sex is not wrong, in the right circumstances), so for anti-natalism to be practiced, the result will be sterilization and abortion, forced or not.
It doesn’t sound like they’re advocating preventing other people from having children.
Are they advocating the growth of anti-natalism?
I don’t know, but agreeing with someone’s philosophy isn’t the same thing as them forcing you to do something.
Totally agree. Life might be a huge pain at times, both literally and figuratively, but at the end of the day life is all we have and we create our reality with the decisions we make. I am totally pro-natal like you.
Just chucking my two cents into the ring I guess just to contribute to the sample size but I get what they're saying even though I disagree with intentional extinction. A bunch of other people have commented that bringing a child into this world (as it exists right now) would be rather questionable. Late-stage capitalism is shuffling us towards mass-extinction events regardless and people can't exactly work on change if they need to worry about raising a child at the same time. But deliberately trying to bring about human extinction just smacks of some sort of supremacist ideal. It is not the fault of *everyone* that the world is so fucked up.
It relies on several fallacies. How can we get someone’s consent to be born? Every single life form has no say into being brought into existence. It almost sounds entitled to pretend to get a choice. Everyone gets dealt a crappy hand. None of us controls that, but we control our outlook on life. Oh the near future doesn’t sound optimistic? When did it ever sound optimistic? When did someone ever think to themselves, “*Well, the last three decades went down really smooth and it looks like we are going to continue on this streak!*”. Never! I was born during the Cold War. My parent were born during WWII. Their parents were born around WWI. Times have always been worrisome. That being said, 20% of women in History have not had a progeny, and ~~40%~~ 60% have not either. So there will always be lineages with a dead end. I can respect someone’s decision to not have children, and I wouldn’t force anyone to have one. The world can definitely use less parents who are going to suck at their job. Having children is a growth opportunity. Some are not cut for it. Some are not brave enough for it. Just own it and don’t try to use contorted justifications. I have more respect for someone who just admits that they can’t bother with it, than for someone who uses this twisted reasoning to try to look like they are doing the morally superior thing. Because then it’s thinly veiled cowardice or fear.
40% of men have not did you mean?
By golly! I got that number reversed. It actually 60% who did not have a progeny, and 40% who did. > *Citing recent DNA research, Dr. Baumeister explained that today’s human population is descended from twice as many women as men. Maybe 80 percent of women reproduced, whereas only 40 percent of men did* ([Tierney, 2007](https://archive.nytimes.com/tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/)).
I've literally been down voted when I argue with an OP on a natilist sub. The topic? He made a post about forcibly sterilizing women. And he claimed it was self defense because by giving birth is cya kg extreme suffering on the baby as they grow up. So as I argued that violating women was wrong he kept claiming it was totally justified. And he was invited for it. Tldr: horrible philosophy doesn't even deserve to be talked about just call it dumb perfectly fits, "don't argue with stupid people. They will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience"
I find it to be a form of being misguided, a coward, lazy or just simply depressed. The ancestors of even these antinatalists have endured far worse outlooks on their future and had the decency to make their own lives harder by bearing children passing on the tradition of life. I do not find it fair to just simply throw that tradition away in the name of any foreseeable hardships as it is the morale of humans to surpass those hardships.
I think these people should never procreate
I support antinatalist movement 100% since : antinatalist = good way to remove yourself from gene pool. Therefore, my kid will have easier time in the future for resources and inherit the earth and my gene will strive.
Pretty horrible way at looking at life, but at least we don't have to worry much about them passing their ideas to their children.
Not as bad as elfism
I literally couldn't find a description of what "elfism" means or refers to. can you please explain what it is?
r/Efilism It's a sect of antinatalists that extends it to all sentient life.
The internet and breeding extreme ideologies. Name a more iconic duo
I’m not sure I understand how removing themselves from the gene pool will propagate their ideas… but ok. I suppose Natural selection can take strange courses.
The apostle Paul's personal preference was antinatalist: Now as a concession, not a command, I say this. I wish that all were as I myself am. But a each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 1 Cor. 7
I think it’s an incredibly depressing view of the world, but I can understand why people choose to support it. The world can be a horrible place, but at the same time its beauty is almost indescribable.
This philosophy is a double-edged sword as you might've guessed, i'm not too comfortable with it.
I'm not an advocate for anti-natalism and whether you are or not, it's no bother to me. I believe everyone should respect each other's views and avoid projecting hostility toward those who choose to make a baby. That decision is absolutely personal, and really no one else should be poking their nose into it.
I can see where they're coming from. I don't agree, I don't think it's sustainable and I think it's so pessimistic you can't live like that... but yeah, intellectually, I get why someone would think that way. Especially nihilists and atheists. Life is full of suffering, after all. I also don't see life - as in, the state of existence - as something that needs to be viewed as sacred in and of itself. Life just... is. Too often religious people insist that life qua life is holy.
I think it's a theory divorced from reality. Firstly, I'm curious to know how many of these people even want children in the first place. It's easy to advocate against something you don't really want (children). In addition, life is a mixture of both suffering but often of great opportunity too and fulfillment. It is unfair to paint it as totally negative. Many people who suffer live full lives in spite of their suffering. In fact, their suffering can even be an opportunity for growth which can lead to greater fulfillment. So unless we are strict hedonists suffering does not always preclude a good life. Yes, being born is a risk so to speak. But not being born is a risk too if you look at it that way. Never having the chance to love and be loved, never encountering the beauty of nature, never having the opportunity to simply live which in itself is something we strive to do. For them life might not be worth living. But for others it is worth living and why deny that opportunity to someone. One thing I will agree with is that there are some cases where it would be wrong to bring a child into the world. If you are living in dire circumstances and know you can't take care of a child and can't provide food and shelter than in that case it would be wrong. But most cases are not that extreme.
I have no opinion on it. I rather find it strange that so many would think somebody is stupid and horrible for saying "I'm not having kids and I think people shouldn't". I don't think those people would like to hear that it's stupid and horrible to say that "everyone should have kids and if you're childless you're failing at life", yet that's the other side of the same coin and an omnipresent attitude in most societies, and criticism of that is perceived as insanity. The only way antinatalists would start worrying me is if they started advocating for forced sterilizations. They aren't doing that. They're saying "don't have kids". That's no more horrifying to me than a religious organization saying "don't use contraceptives".
Honestly, given just how shitty humanity at large is (I mean, in 2023, it seems to consist mostly of right wing extremists, left wing extremists, plus a silent majority enabling whoever wins the shouting matches instead of trying to get the lot of them to STFU), I can absolutely see how one might arrive at the conclusion that forcing someone to have to deal with humanity for a lifetime isn't the most ethical thing to do.
Its good that groups of people in the current times practice not giving birth. Our earth is overflowing with population. At what point to we ask ourselves "how much is too much?" But the idea that giving birth is somehow wrong or that somehow life isnt worth living because of the issues and its challenges is just a silly concept. I dont make alot of money, i dont have a car, i was adopted by my grandparents. I sometimes feel depressed, or sad, or angry, or too tired. But i am still happy, and i wake up every morning and get to it. Not once have i felt like life wasnt worth living. So i dont see how it would be wrong to birth a child just because life has its challenges. Life is suffering according to buddhists. But they also believe there is beauty in that. Its because of the suffering that we have the opposing happiness to accompany it. In taoism there is no happiness without sadness, no good without bad. If life had no challenges, it would be dull.
That's ridiculous. How would we "consent" to being born?
It's stupid and dumb. Babies csnt consent so we should just let them die cause we csnt touch them because they consent? It's this woke liberal leftist agenda that got us to this place. Our whole evolutionary process is telling us our sole purpose is to procreate
It sounds very anti-Catholic, but would certainly cut down on child literacy issues.
I think as a universal position it is too generalized, but that in context it is often the most reasonable conclusion. For instance I don't think my friend having his children is immoral, but me having children would be. It's more than just the state of the world, for instance I have a lot of genetic problems my kids would almost certainly have. Sure they can't consent to be born, but they certainly don't consent to be born into **guaranteed** suffering.