u/BlueberryLemur

If you mention antinatalism outside of r/antinatalism, you’re may likely encounter one of the following responses:

“You must be depressed!”
“Why do you hate your own kind?”
“You evil person, stop telling people to kill themselves!”
“But there is so much good in the world!”
“Why don’t you start by making the world a better place?”
“Suffering is necessary, you wimp!”

Let’s tackle them one at a time.

“You must be depressed!” - I’m not depressed; I just have eyes and a brain and I notice that we’re not living in a great world. While things may be better than they have been in the past, that doesn’t make the world objectively good. It is still governed by money and privilege rather than merit. The planet is facing serious resource and environmental issues. Cut-throat capitalism is making living standards increasingly difficult. Ice cream and sunsets are nice, but they don’t negate the many problems with this world, nor do they justify bringing a new person into this mess.

“Why do you hate your own kind?” - Noticing the world's widespread problems does not equate to "hating humanity." Much of antinatalist thinking is motivated by compassion and a desire to prevent suffering. Suffering and striving are inherent to life, and no parent - no matter how well-meaning or wealthy - can possibly predict every scenario or protect their children from all harm. The only people who remain unharmed are those who have never existed.

“You evil person, stop telling people to kill themselves!” - There is a difference between not bringing people into existence and ending the life of someone who already exists. In the former case, there is no person until the very moment they are created. In the latter, the person already exists and has their own rights, interests, and views. By not bringing a new person into existence, you are not violating anyone’s consent or bodily autonomy. In the latter case, you would be.

“But there is so much good in the world!” - There certainly is good in the world and many people experience it. But every person who lives will also suffer; the only questions are how much and for how long. Unlike pleasure, which is often temporary, pain can be chronic. People can experience long-term trauma, chronic pain, flashbacks and PTSD. A nice sunset or an ice cream is not a cure for the many ills of this world.

“Why don’t you start by making the world a better place?” - Indeed; why not abstain from reproduction until the world is fit for children? Even if we adopted a conditional antinatalist position (that reproduction is immoral only while the world has serious problems), there are still many unresolved issues: the cost of living, the climate crisis, wars, economic instability and more. You can be an antinatalist, work to leave the world better than you found it, and still recognise that it is nowhere near good enough for children to grow up in. Importantly, children are not tools for anyone’s world-improvement project, nor should they be created with the burden of fixing problems they did not create.

“Suffering is necessary, you wimp!” - If you personally believe suffering is good, then good on you. But don't impose your worldview on others by bringing them into a world they did not consent to enter and who may well wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment.

Deontology is a moral philosophy that argues that intentions are central to determining the morality of an action, as opposed to utilitarianism, which primarily focuses on the consequences of actions.

For example, deontologists would generally consider it morally good to donate to charity out of genuine concern for the poor, whereas donating solely to increase your own status would not be viewed as morally good. In contrast, a utilitarian might argue that, because the charity receives the same amount of money in both cases, both actions are equally good in terms of their outcomes.

That said, reducing deontology to "intentions only" would be overly simplistic. It is generally accepted that when serious harm is easily foreseeable, good intentions alone are not enough to make an action moral.

For example, taking a child to a derelict amusement park may stem from good intentions, but given the park's poor condition, if the child is harmed, that harm is the parent's responsibility.

In our current reality, everyone who is born will eventually die. Many people will pass following a painful illness such as cancer or after a prolonged decline caused by conditions such as dementia. Everyone will also experience bereavement, sadness or some other form of tragedy during their lifetime.

Yet people often argue that as long as parents want the best for their child, they cannot be held morally responsible for the negative outcomes that child experiences.

I disagree. No one gets out of life alive. Bringing a child into existence inevitably exposes them to death and suffering. At the very least, it condemns them to confront their own mortality and the loss of others they love. However sincere or well-intentioned the parents may be, I don't believe there is anything moral about making that choice.

This past week in the UK has been one of the hottest on record. We've seen temperatures reach 36°C (97°F), something that would have seemed almost unimaginable not that long ago. While recent summers have become increasingly hot and dry, this heatwave has drawn inevitable comparisons with the famous summer of 1976.

While I would argue that procreation is unethical even without a climate crisis, advocating for more births while the planet is boiling seems unconscionable.

More births = more demand for housing, food, energy & infrastructure = higher emissions & more environmental degradation (under current systems) = an even hotter planet

I’ve seen the top 5 horror movies trend on Instagram, so I thought I’d give it an AN-twist 🍿

1. I can’t say I believe in reincarnation but the idea that we’d have to do all that again on a planet that is even more decayed is the stuff of nightmares

2. What I mean by this are initiatives such as paying people to have children (which treats children as commodities), taxes on childfree/ childless people, indoctrination into natalism (“you owe a duty to society to reproduce”), propaganda that the only way for a woman to find fulfillment is to be a mother etc.

3. Examples include laws passed Nicolae Ceaușescu in Romania which restricted abortions and contraception (aka Decree 770) or overturning of Roe vs Wade in the US

4. This is the direct result of initiatives 2) and 3) where children are seen as societal status symbols, means of production, cannon fodder, wage slaves etc rather than sentient beings whose consent had just been violated

5. Breeding 80 billion + land animals into existence solely to kill them is one huge horror show (Dominion / Land of Hope and Glory provide visual examples)

What are your top 5 antinatalist horror movies?

I came across a post recently discussing why people decide to have children. I hoped to see people making a conscious choice to provide the best possible experience for the next generation… but alas, I was disappointed.

The “arguments” were paltry:

* To give meaning to life
* To provide entertainment
* To fix the world
* To “tick off” the experience of parenting
* To experience love
* To fulfil a desire to have children

None of the commenters seemed to consider the interests of the child, nor did they discuss whether the parent is fit to provide for the child’s needs. It’s one thing to want children when one can care for them well; it’s quite another to knowingly bring a child into the world when one already knows they cannot adequately provide for them. While antinatalism would argue that both are fundamentally unethical, the level of irresponsibility involved is quite different.

What’s more, children are their own people, who may grow up to have very different worldviews and values from their parents, and they are under no obligation to fulfil a particular agenda. Children should not bear the task of giving meaning to a grown adult’s life. They are not there to provide anyone with entertainment or experiences.

What’s especially egregious is that none of these people seemed to consider things going wrong, as they inevitably do in life. Whether it be a genetic disorder, disease, bereavement, bullying, injustice, poverty, or one of a thousand other sources of suffering, the child will experience these too. And they never asked for any of it.

Given the weakness of these natalist “arguments,” it seems rather rich to claim that child-free or antinatalist people are the selfish ones.