top of page

Arguments

Arguments in favor of antinatalism

A. Unborn people don't care about pleasure. Therefore, there is no reason to reproduce since the unborn person does not even desire life.

 

B. Creating a life that might be positive overall or might not be is not your risk to take since someone else is suffering the consequences and you never received consent.

 

C. Birthing people means they will need to work someday (via school, a job, emotional labor, paying taxes, etc.). There is no way around it without suffering, so they are essentially forced into a social contract without consent.

 

D. There are already people who need to be adopted and cared for with well over 400,000 in the foster children U.S. alone. It is unethical to create more people while there are still others who are suffering and need help.  It is also generally very cheap to do and even free. Some may even get paid by the state to do it.

  • See Counterarguments D1 - D3 for rebuttals to counterarguments

​

E. The world is becoming an increasingly globalised place, meaning competition for both material goods and opportunities is getting cutthroat and more difficult to attain as more and more people and organisations participate in the market. Even with the higher demand this generates, it may not be enough to be a net positive overall and resources will become even more scarce as the competition grows. This is especially true if automation replaces jobs on a large scale that are not replaced, further exacerbating these effects. It should not be the choice of a parent to force this burden onto a child or take the risk in the hopes that it will not happen as they will not be the ones who suffer from the consequences.

  • Based on evolutionary psychology, the behavior of human beings changes drastically with a different perception of competition in their immediate environment. When humans perceive more tough competition, they are more likely (and highly likely) to take on more responsibilities than they would have otherwise to get an edge over everyone else. These choices will likely be very stressful for them. For example, they may join more extracurricular activities in school or take on more internships than they can handle so they can add it to a resume. This can have negative consequences on their wellbeing due to the high stress and workload, but they will still feel obligated to do it to keep up with such a toxic environment.

  • Humans are ultimately self-serving and will prioritize their own survival and those they are closer to over others (e.g. prioritizing one’s family or community over those living on a different continent). And since much of the world is a zero-sum game, this means they will take resources away from others to benefit themselves and their in-group, leaving little left for everyone else. This means that having a child will be putting them into a world where they not only have to scrounge for limited resources but will also take away resources from other people who could have used it as well.

  • College acceptance rates have also dropped significantly over the past few decades, making it far more difficult for future applicants to enter a respected university.

    • Even if your child works hard and performs well in school (which may not necessarily correlate as intelligence varies between individuals regardless of effort), the existence of legacy admissions will still lower their chances of being admitted into a prestigious postsecondary educational institution, and, even if they do have this advantage, it would take away a slot that someone else would have gotten through their own merit rather than family history.​

​

F. More people means more resource consumption and more potential harm to others who are already alive, even indirectly via pollution or some other means. (see the mere addition paradox and how adding to a population can decrease happiness)

  • Response to Tännsjö's criticism: The philosopher Torbjörn Tännsjö claims that a larger population with lower average happiness is still better than a smaller population with higher average happiness because the total happiness increased. This is absurd as the logic would mean an incredibly large population that faces extreme suffering with only a sliver of happiness would outweigh a smaller population with extreme happiness. For example, if one trillion people existed and suffered immensely every day except for one day where they could have happiness, this logic would conclude that this is preferable to a population of 33 million living in happiness for their entire lives as the total number of days worth of happiness would be larger for the first population than the second even though the suffering is far greater (assuming the lifespan of people in both populations is around 30,000 days, or about 81 years). It would be far better to have fewer people who exist and are happy than many people who suffer for the vast majority of their lives.

 

G. More people means more evil people in existence who will cause harm to the rest (including towards animals). While there can be good people, there is no guarantee that the deeds of the good people will outweigh the deeds of the evil people. For example, many dictators and authoritarians in charge of countries around the world are usually backed by powerful forces, such as corporations, other powerful countries like the U.S., and militaries. Since there is no way to ensure that well-intentioned people and representative governments can take control or stay in control, it is unethical to have children. This also extends to other situations, such as the net effects of criminals vs. people who help crime victims or prevent crime, corporate misdeeds vs. those who combat it, corruption vs. political activists, etc.

 

H. Loving life comes with a fear of losing it and a fear of death. Since there is no way to completely avoid those scenarios, they won’t even be able to keep a good life since they know it will eventually be lost.

  • Ex. midlife crises, existential crises, fear of death, etc.

  • Death can also be very painful or aggravating, like diseases, cancer, heart attacks, suffocation, etc. 

I. Unborn people don't have needs or wants, so there is no argument in support of producing more people that is not in service of others.

 

J. Even if one's children are happy, their children might not be or their children's children could suffer. Ultimately, the blame for all of those children's suffering lies with the original parents. There are also factors out of your and their control, such as disabilities, illnesses, accidents, etc. Even if your child is happy and a good parent, they can't stop their child from getting cancer. There is also no guarantee they will even listen to you and be a good parent themselves. Not every child listens to their parents.

 

K. Societal structures have a massive amount of control over people's lives, such as official institutions like the government and corporations or cultural ones like racism and homophobia. Since all of these factors are out of one's control and can cause suffering either directly (e.g. surveillance/privacy invasion, crime, unjust laws, legal barriers, social pressure and judgment, etc.) or indirectly (e.g. incompetence, mistakes, lack of protections for oppressed groups or workers and social welfare programs, etc.), creating new people who may suffer because of them is unethical.

  • One example can be seen in how a leaked document from Facebook depicts kids as sources of "untapped wealth," showing that corporations take advantage of the continued supply of consumers created through reproduction as resources to exploit.

​

L. People have needs that require the exploitation and consumption of others or natural resources, such as consuming animals, needing others to perform labor to support you, taking up resources someone else could have used, etc.

 

M. Climate change is making natural disasters more common, depleting resources that a higher population will worsen, flooding land, and will lead to (and is currently causing) significant migrant crises. It is unethical to bring more people into a world that is going to become ecologically devastated. Having children is also the worst action one can take to increase carbon emissions by far.

 

N.  Having enough resources to care for someone cannot prevent suffering no matter what. Since a person never consented to how much or what forms of suffering are “acceptable” and never wanted to take the trade-off of suffering in exchange for pleasure in the first place as nonexistent people have no desires, it is unethical to reproduce.

 

O. A person who is born may be discriminated against due to traits they can’t control (e.g. race, sexuality, gender, appearance, etc.). They never agreed to risk this possibility, making reproduction unethical.

 

P. The world is unstable, so it is unethical to reproduce even if conditions are currently good as that can significantly change in a short amount of time (e.g. the COVID-19 pandemic, depressions and recessions, personal tragedy, accidents, or mistakes, etc.).

 

Q. People who are born will need to take care of themselves through diet, exercise, staying healthy, maintaining financial security, fulfilling oneself emotionally, etc. These tasks are often difficult to do, especially if time and resources are limited or if a person does not or is unable to develop the skills necessary to live a good life. This creates burdens and issues for them that they never consented to taking and would not have to deal with if they were never born. Since it is not the choice of the parents to decide this for them as they are not the ones who will have to fulfill these responsibilities, it is not ethical to reproduce and force these obligations onto someone.

 

R. Unborn people do not have a wellbeing of zero, or neutral. They have no wellbeing at all because they don’t exist. Therefore, there is no reason to create them in an effort to improve their situation as there is no wellbeing to care for in the first place.

 

S. Your child may be a bad person, and that is not something you can control. Not only would this be disappointing, but it could have dire consequences for you and everyone else. For example, they could be a murderer or rapist and may even harm you.  Even if you think this is unlikely or that you can teach them otherwise, this is ultimately the choice of your child, and you have no control over it in the end. Remember that no parents ever expect this from their child, yet it happens anyway. 

 

T. Your child may not even like the world and find it abhorrent. From greed to climate change to wars to suffering, even if they do not experience it themselves, they may be disgusted by the world’s horrors and become misanthropic or bitter. This is not something anyone should be subjected to.

  • If you believe your child can be the one who will dramatically change this, refer to Counterargument 3.

​

U. People often engage in denial and self-deception to cope with negative experiences, like debt, loss, or even to avoid the realization that one’s beliefs may be wrong. This means that they need to deny reality to reduce cognitive dissonance. As a result, people may not get the help they need, such as medical treatment or counseling, or dealing with problems that can spiral out of control — all with potentially devastating long-term consequences.

  • Examples:

    •  A college student witnesses a violent shooting but claims not to be affected by it.

    • The partner of an older man in the end stage of life refuses to discuss health care directives and wills with him, insisting that he's getting better.

    • Someone periodically misses morning work meetings after drinking excessively the night before but insists there's no problem because the work is still getting done.

    • A couple is ringing up so much credit card debt that they toss the bills aside because they can't bear to open them.

    • The parents of a teen with drug addiction keep giving their child "clothing" money.

    • A person with chest pain and shortness of breath doesn't believe those symptoms signal a heart attack and delays getting help.

​

V. Even successful people can be unhappy as material goods and fame do not necessarily translate to happiness. This is why famous and wealthy people commit suicide.

 

W. The widespread prevalence of social media presents a biased view of the world that has caused many to have a distorted perception. This can cause many issues in self-esteem, stress, isolation, anxiety, depression, and much more.

​

X.  Many people (especially those with power and influence) are generally greedy and selfish, as seen by the extent of extreme wealth inequality, widespread environmental degradation, the exploitation of the Global South by the Global North, and a lack of aid from politicians for the general population. This means your child will either be exploited by them or become one of them if they want to participate in society. Unless this is changed, it is unethical to procreate or take the risk of your child growing up in a world where this is maintained.

 

Y. People can face injustice due to institutional bias, such as how wealthy people can afford large bail costs while the poor cannot or how the criminal justice system (and many other socio-economic conditions) place African-Americans at a severe disadvantage in the US. 

 

Z. Even if the parents are well off, that does not mean the children will be. Skyrocketing housing costs and college tuition that far exceed general inflation, climate change, stagnant wages, more competition for jobs despite lower wages overall, etc. may mean a child born in a middle-class family can be worse off than the parents were. This has been shown to occur in recent generations. It will be even worse in the future as automation displaces many jobs, only leaving more difficult ones available that some may not have the capabilities to do. So even if the parents are able to do well in life, that does not mean their children will, and they will suffer the consequences of that.

  • Young people today are less wealthy than older generations were when they were at the same age.

  • Fewer Americans are making more than their parents did—especially if they grew up in the middle class

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

                                                                                          (Source)

​

A2. The logic used to justify reproduction is similar to the logic used to justify nonconsensual necrophilia as both:

  •  Involve performing an action on someone else 

    • Birth in the former and sex in the latter

  • Could presumably be enjoyed 

    • Life being seen as a potentially desirable for the child by the parents in the former and sex being seen as potentially desirable for the person being necrophilized by the person performing it in the latter 

      • Both cases make the assumption that the person receiving the action will enjoy it. The parents assume the person who is born will enjoy life since they think life is generally enjoyable; the person performing necrophilia assumes the person receiving it would have enjoyed it (or at least won’t react negatively to it as they are unable to) since they think sex is generally enjoyable.

  • Can only be done without receiving consent

Both also disregard the impact it would have on the person receiving the action as they are not able to consent. The parents disregard the consent of the child as the child does not exist and cannot consent nor react negatively to the proposition until they are born; the necrophiliac disregards the consent of the person being necrophilized as they can no longer consent nor react negatively to the action.

 

Therefore, the logic used to defend reproduction can also be used to defend necrophilia.

​

B2. You may unexpectedly lose your source of income or current wealth and assets and be unable to afford to care for the child. You may also die due to unfortunate accidents or any other cause and leave the child(ren) to foster care, which often leads to poor outcomes. Additionally, if the child(ren) are 18 or older but still dependent on their parents, especially for college costs, housing, debt relief, etc., they will need to fend for themselves with even less aid and may end up in poverty. This is all exacerbated if the child(ren) has one or more mental or physical disabilities.

​

C2. Caring for a child is very expensive, costing an average of OVER $310,000 in the United States in only the first 17 years just for a single child. Since this is the average cost for the entire country, it is likely much more expensive if you live in an urban area with a higher cost of living, the child needs financial assistance after turning 18 (which is highly likely considering many people are living with their parents after reaching adulthood), life insurance (which parents should have in case they unexpectedly pass away and leave the child with very few resources), and/or your child requires special needs or extra care due to a disability.  Cutting costs below this can damage your child's quality of life, and it would be immoral to knowingly create a child while knowing you cannot afford to provide them with what they need. The birth alone can cost up to $50,000, with the average amount charged approximating $30,000. After 18 years, there is also the VERY high costs of college, the fact that the child(ren) may move back in for any reason, requests for money due to high costs of living and/or low wages, and other expenses that half of all parents say put their retirement savings at risk. These can all add up to be very burdensome and can significantly harm your own happiness. They may even be financially destructive if you suddenly lose your source of income/accumulated wealth and assets for any reason, preventing you from adequately caring for the child or yourself.

This is especially true considering younger people are getting poorer, even while costs are skyrocketing and 52% of people currently live with their parents, so there's a very high chance they're going to rely on you after growing up. It would also be pretty cruel to bring them into a world where they're going to end up even worse off than you regardless, as seen by how older generations started with FAR more wealth than younger generations. Why sacrifice your own wealth just to create a new person who will get screwed anyway?

If you put all of the extra money in stocks or something, you could easily be a multi-millionaire by the time you retire, especially considering the NASDAQ increased by 7.5 TIMES since 2003. Putting in $1456/month for 18 years (or $310k+$30k for the birth divided by 216 months) at a 12% annual interest rate from stocks (which would lead to a ~7.5x increase in 18 years) would make you over $1.2 million dollars based on this calculator. Keeping it there for another 25 years before you retire without adding another penny makes it over $24.2 MILLION for investing the cost of  ONE CHILD. It would be even higher if you play smart with call/put options, you sell during recessions and buy at the bottom when it picks back up, use the time you save from not needing to care for a child to make more money (e.g. side jobs, more rest to make fewer mistakes and have better performance at work, working overtime, etc.), and/or your investments beat the market (which is not difficult to do given the right resources. For example, SeekingAlpha, a well-known and reputable financial research organization that has been active since 2004, can raise your gains to an astounding 29% per year. Using the same calculator as before, this could make you almost $12 MILLION in the first 18 years alone and much more after that even once you account for the $15/month subscription costs). Sounds like a luxurious retirement.

Perhaps you could even retire early after just a decade or two and live off of appreciating stock value and dividends and never have to work again or deal with asshole bosses by your 30s, or even earlier. For example, once you reach about $300k (which should take less than 10 years if you consistently put in $1574/month) and there is a consistent 12% annual interest rate, you’d be making $36k/year on appreciating stock value alone, which is ABOVE the current median national personal income. If you use SeekingAlpha as mentioned earlier and receive a consistent 29% return on investment every year, this can also be accomplished in UNDER 4 YEARS despite the subscription costs. This doesn’t even include any savings you put in outside of what you would have spent on the child or if the costs of the child are above the national average.

​

D2. No matter how much you prepare, your child may still be too much to handle, especially if they have major mental or physical disabilities.

  • For example, these parents were wealthy, well-prepared, and had no preconditions that would harm the child when they decided to have a child. Even so, the child was abusive, violent, and very difficult to handle to the point where the parents were constantly injured, miserable, and frustrated by the child. Due to this, they were excluded from social gatherings even by their own family and wished they had aborted the child. 

​

E2. The child may also develop or be born with severe mental or physical disabilities, which would be completely out of your control. For some, not even therapy can aid them.

​

F2. Pregnancy and birth can cause major health issues, such as a prolapsed uterus, high blood pressure, gestational diabetes, depression, anxiety, and more.

​

G2. There is also a significant negative correlation between marital satisfaction and number of children. The difference in marital satisfaction is most pronounced among mothers of infants (38% of mothers of infants have high marital satisfaction, compared with 62% of childless women). For men, the effect remains similar across ages of children. The effect of parenthood on marital satisfaction is more negative among younger birth cohorts and in more recent years. The data suggest that marital satisfaction decreases after the birth of a child due to role conflicts and restriction of freedom. (Source)

  • General happiness also decreases when people have children as well "nonparents reveal higher levels of well-being in most advanced industrialized societies" and "couples without children reported more romantic bliss." A study also found that "the happiness gap was widest in the United States, where parents were 12 percent less cheerful than childless adults. Fourteen other countries—among them Ireland, Greece, Britain, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Australia—also showed a less-than-sunny outlook for parents." Additionally, it found that "men who still had children at home reported being less happy than either nonparents or empty nesters. For women of the same age, being an empty nester resulted in a slight decrease in happiness compared to nonparents, but a steep decline if the children lived at home." (Source 1) (Source 2)

  • Another study by a behavioral scientist from the London School of Economics found that "unmarried and childless women are the happiest population subgroup" The researcher concluded that "unmarried women are happier than their married counterparts.  He also said that they live longer and have better health." According to these findings, married women die sooner than unmarried women, and the main cause of unhappiness related to not having children is actually caused by the stigma around it rather than the actual act of not having children. (Source) 

bottom of page