r/antinatalism

question is serious and i’m not trolling, i need to see the logic here

I want to ask both the natalist and anti natalist community

I always try to take the 'scientific' approach so important to see how both minds read the world, even though this question is far more philisophical

I won't comment on anyone's views because that is not a point

The point is to see how my viewpoints compare to both.

List up to 5 strongest points each, no more 👈

I am leaning anti natalism myself. Here is my list:

Aganist

1. I don't want to pass incurable diseases/genes to kid that may make them not functioning to survive here

2. If you don't exist, you have no needs ever. Anything positive here is just ying yang of trying to fight negatives off. So why bother?

3. If you are religious and believe in hell, it makes no sense to gamble your kids' souls. Too many ways to sin or can just be damn for non belief due to not being convinced. Even the Bible said that those who weren't born are best off. Keep your child in the void - no soul punished.

4. The world is clearly hostile place and looking to kil you at every corner Diseases, evil people in power, natural disasters, poverty, poor genetics etc.

5. Even if you get 'perfect life' all is temporary Ignorance is bliss, you have to realise you can't help everybody and someone always will be suffering here Happy people will not necessarily spawn more happy people, you can give everything to your child just to find out he is next nihilst or takes their life for 'no reason'

For life (also means for people who are already here, not just newborns since people misunderstand, reasons not to self terminate)

1. in theory you can get that perfect life, it is possible if lucky enough Minimal diseases, no poverty, no heartbreak, personal and community fulfilment, good looks, peaceful death

2. things can only improve if human race doesn't go extinct - it is only true biological 'purpose' for life to replicate from science pov.

Don't know anymore honestly. I think things like having good house, fulfiling God's work and watching kids grow up happy comes under point 1) So can't include separate

Why have a child knowing that life is so difficult, knowing that they will have to work and grow old, knowing that life has an empirical predominance of pain over pleasure, and knowing that they will suffer at some point because of poverty, illness, heartbreak, unfulfilled desires, work, fatigue, and their inability to choose their physical appearance or place of birth? It is true that life has a few good moments, such as eating, going out with friends, or listening to music, but what is the point if you spend 90% of your time doing things you do not want to do and suffering? Having a child should be considered a cruel joke.

just the fact that we can’t choose our appearance or our parents is crazy work. also mental health is not even a factor when deciding.

It always baffles me why people have children. If suffering on this earth is inevitable and people have known this since the beginning then why do it? I dunno it will never make sense to me.

I heard this twice or more last time I told my cousins I don't want children, it really ANNOYED me because I turn real serious when it comes to this topic but they didn't seem to take me seriously.. tf you mean I'll have six children or I'll change my mind.. why is this the first thing that comes to your mind!?? Just say "Oh that's fine too" or keep ur mouth closed.. what should I answer that next time..? Without going on a debate/discussion because it's no use with them..

personally, i tell people the second it becomes even remotely relevant. fear of death? yeah that’s ANOTHER reason im antinatalist. living is expensive? i know it’s insane we have to pay just to exist despite not having a choice… yeah that’s also why i think having kids is horrible. do you want kids? i think procreation is the cruelest act.

i went out of country to visit my extended family. and there was this one time, one of my very young cousins who is about 5 years old, was on her mom's phone too much. (i don't even know why my aunt gives her kids her phone anyways.) but after my aunt snatched the phone out of my cousin's hand, she (cousin) started throwing a tantrum and running for the phone. my aunt then started spanking her, right in front of me. i wasn't antinatalist at this time but i obviously had a problem with this. i didn't like that this mid 30s woman is just casually hitting a 5 year old but the rest of my family doesn't care and neither does my aunt of course. after becoming anti natalist, i especially find this messed up. my aunt gave birth to children knowing that she will "have" to hit them and punish them. people literally birth children wanting them to suffer, even tho it is not neccessary whatsoever. what also makes me dislike my aunt a bit is the fact that the reason she even had a second daughter was because "the first one needs to learn how to take care of a younger child." which i think is weird to do for both the first daughter and second daughter. (basically the second daughter is only born for the "sake" of the first) and on top of that my aunt had children, kid you not with her OWN COUSIN. which in our culture is considered normal but i find that weird and i have openly said that to her. though she probably thinks i come off as an ignorant american.

all this to say anti natalism for sure changed my perspective on natalists like my aunt (and my distant family member she is married to). at least my mom, though she isn't anti natalist, chose to only have me after she understood our situation isn't good enough for her to have a second child. i don't think my aunt would be like that since she is more like the "people deserve the 'gift' of life.' type.

What I've noticed is that when some people make pessimistic remarks about the world, their reasoning tends to refer to contingent harms out in the world - wars, climate change, factory farming, inequality, etc. Although these are bad, I think what really makes being born a human regrettable is the structurally negativity nature of the human organism. That is, we are bodies with constant, eventually lethal material needs that cause us to suffer and die when not met. Needs for warmth, water, food, etc. Our bodies must struggle to survive our we suffer and die - from exposure, from hunger, from thirst, etc. And yet our struggle is lost from the start - we cannot win - as inherent within our bodies is an aging and dying process that will render us all lifeless corpses no matter how hard we battle against our nature, secure our needs, or hoard the material resources required to keep us alive. All the food and warmth and water in the world are powerless against the aging and dying process inherent within our bodies.

On top of this, we are always vulnerable to disease, sickness, and injury. So we spend our lives struggling for the material recourses we require to not suffer from want and die, in a stare of constant vulnerability to whatever contingent or accidental harms that can befall us, and all this while our bodies wear down, age, and slowly die towards our final, inescapable nature as a lifeless corspe. The structure of the human 'life-cycle' is negative. We are born as these bodies (subject to the genetic lottery that to a large degree determines the quality of your life), are trained by the community we depend upon for our survival to talk, to act among others, to be obedient to the state, and ultimately are trained to produce for the society we are embedded within. We earn a check and trade it for material our bodies require to not suffer - for food, for clothing, for housing, etc. And yet, the struggle is lost from the start as the aging and dying process inherent within every organism can not be overcome. You are born, you struggle, you work, you age, and then you die. And that's only if some horrific contingent harm doesn't befall you along the way - cancer, car crash, house fire, murder, etc.

To be born a human is a horrific fate, and it's a fate that for the born, is inescapable and can not be overcome. For us already living as human bodies, our lot is to struggle for our bodily needs, while in a state of constant vulnerability to harm whose source can be both from the external world (eg someone attacks you), or from within our very body (eg, cancer, arthritis, etc), all while our bodies wear down, age, and slowly degrade towards our inescapable fate as a lifeless corpse. To be born a human and to suffer this fate is regrettable. It's better not to be born. So in recognizing the structurally negative nature of human embodiment we can decide not to procreate, to cut the problem at its root so that nobody else, at least via our hand, is born to suffer this fate. But for us, the already born, our lot is sealed - we will struggle for our needs, suffer the harms of human embodiment, and then die on this earth.

Just saw this in an Instagram comment section on a video of montemader debating abortion rights. What do you guys think? How well does this describe the pro-life movement?

I was recently having a discussion with my mom and we started to talk about a recent suicide that happend in the family. According to her said person was a traitor to the family and she chose to throw away the gift of life and cause everyone grief. After I said that people have the rights to do what they want with a gift even refuse it she said that "no it's a gift that you aren't allowed to throw away" because making people takes up a lot of resources so while you're "the owner you're not the main shareholder" so once you are born you have to live and you have to have kids because that's part of the duty. This is just insane. I think it's just practically psychotic that we are totally okay we bringing living beings to this world but they aren't allowed to leave if they want to, and then are expected to bring more people themselves because that's what society wants.

I can’t bring myself to say congratulations

If it is true that:

• no one should have the right to inflict suffering on another; and

• every individual should have the right to zero suffering,

then a difficult question follows: should the right not to be born be considered a fundamental individual right?

If the rule of law has a duty to protect individuals from suffering imposed on them by others, how can it consistently exclude the decision that exposes an individual to the possibility of suffering in the first place?

This is not an argument for legally restricting anyone’s reproductive choices. It is a question about the internal consistency of our concept of individual rights.

If the conclusion does not follow from the premises, where exactly does the reasoning fail?

If so how did they react? Im basically the only one who can pass down my last name, but i dont wanna keep the cycle going, but everyone in my family does. They keep telling me how they can’t wait to see their grandkids. Sometimes i feel bad but then i realize it’s my life and not theirs. At the end of the day im doing it for the greater good. I kind of just wanna hear stories about yall telling ur parents.

​

Being a convinced antinatalist living in the Middle East, specifically within a traditional society, creates a profound sense of isolation. When you philosophically reject the act of bringing new life into a suffering world, your options for romantic companionship narrow drastically. The reality of finding a partner who shares these views—or even understands them—feels nearly impossible, leaving you caught in a difficult web of compromises, fears, and emotional needs.

The first logical path for an antinatalist is to seek a partner who is childfree or holds similar anti-procreation views. However, this comes with deep personal anxieties. Can I truly trust that my convictions will remain unshaken decades from now? What if, by the time I reach my forties, a sudden wave of loneliness hits me, or a latent paternal instinct kicks in? In that scenario, I would likely turn to adoption as a way to fulfill that need But adoption not allowed here, so perhaps find myself wishing I had married a single mother to experience parenting without the act of procreation. Furthermore, looking locally, the pool of openly childfree individuals within Arab and Muslim communities is practically non-existent. Cultural and religious expectations heavily tie marriage to reproduction, making the prospect of finding a compatible partner locally complicated, if not entirely unrealistic.

Faced with this barrier, the option of marrying a single mother often crosses the mind. It seems like a way to have a family dynamic without creating a new human being. Yet, diving deeper into this option brings up a cascade of societal warnings and internal doubts. The prevailing cultural narrative warns men against raising another man's children, often framed as building someone else's legacy. More practically, there is the fear of emotional displacement. As a young man wanting to feel cherished, the thought of always coming second to her child is a bitter pill to swallow. Why should you invest your heart, time, and youth into a relationship where you might perpetually feel like a secondary priority?

Then comes the heavy burden of financial reality. The stereotype of the single mother's partner acting merely as an "ATM" is hard to completely dismiss when societal roles place the entirety of financial responsibility on the man. The thought of working tirelessly to support a household and pay for a child's education—while the child is biologically not yours—breeds resentment, even if you are theoretically open to the idea of adoption or stepped-in care.When these options weigh too heavily, a darker, more compromising thought creeps in: Why not just marry a traditional woman and have a single child? At least that way, you bypass the social friction, secure a companion, and hope that the shared experience of raising a child fosters a loving family.

Yet, this is where the core of antinatalism strikes back with full force. Deep down, bringing a child into this world purely to satisfy an emotional void, to cure loneliness, or to force a partner to love you is the ultimate form of selfishness. Using a new human being as an emotional bandage for your own existential dread is everything an antinatalist stands against... i need your opinions .. what should i do?