Understanding Antinatalism
***THIS IS NOT COMPREHENSIVE!!!***
Please read this FAQ for more information.
What is Antinatalism?
Antinatalism is a philosophical position and social movement that assigns a negative value to birth. Antinatalists argue that humans should abstain from procreation because it is morally bad. Some also apply the philosophy to all sentient beings rather than just humans.
Why Should I Be An Antinatalist?
The ultimate goal of antinatalism is to prevent suffering. By abstaining from procreation, you prevent the conception of another human being who will suffer due to many issues that will be outside of their control, ranging from disease to poverty to simply a general disdain for life or society. Whatever the case may be, it is not ethical to reproduce as you cannot receive the consent of those who are born, people who have not been born have no desire for life in the first place, and there is no way to know if the person who is born will enjoy their life.
If you have any objections to this, please refer to the “Common Counterarguments & Rebuttals” section of this guide.
Antinatalism vs. Promortalism
Antinatalism is not the same as promortalism, or the philosophical position that it is always best to die as soon as possible. Antinatalism is against the idea of creating new life, not ending existing life, as existing life can make its own decisions as to whether it wants to continue living while nonexistent life has no desires and does not want life nor can it consent to it. Antinatalists do not believe in ending the lives of others to prevent future suffering as it is the choice of those who are alive to make that decision and choose to risk potential suffering, a decision that nonexistent life cannot make. Antinatalists do not desire to “save” people from suffering if they can make that decision for themselves. Some antinatalists can also be promortalists, but they are not necessarily linked together.
While promortalism can undo the harm caused by birth, it is ultimately up to the person who is alive to do what they want with their life now that they have it. Additionally, death would also cause harm as the action itself is generally painful and undesirable and it may cause severe distress to those who may have formed relationships with this person (something that a nonexistent entity could not do).
Antinatalism vs. Conditional Natalism
Antinatalism means believing reproduction is harmful, regardless of circumstance or situation. Even in a utopia, it would be unethical due to inherent qualities of the process that are outside of anyone’s control, such as consent, lack of desire to be born, risk of ailments or suffering, etc. In contrast, conditional natalism means believing reproduction is unethical under poor conditions but ethical under better circumstances. Small or personal events can still cause suffering. There doesn’t need to be a global war or genocide for mass suffering to occur, all of which can still happen as well.
While both do aim to minimize suffering, conditional natalism posits that birth can be ethical under the right conditions while antinatalism rejects reproduction no matter the circumstances.
Do antinatalists support forced sterilization?
Some do, and some don’t. While we all agree that procreation is unethical, some antinatalists might think forced sterilization is too authoritarian, gives the state too much power, or don’t want to impose their will onto others. Whatever the case may be, they are not necessarily intertwined, and it is possible to be antinatalist without advocating for measures to stop others from reproducing.
What do you mean by “suffering?”
In this guide, suffering is defined as any experience that a person would find undesirable, regardless of its severity. It can come in many forms, such as discomfort, stress, boredom, and other negative feelings or through personal and general circumstances, such as poverty, grief, emotional duress, political turbulence, etc. You may not personally see this as suffering, but your child(ren) might. Since there is no objective way to measure such feelings, child(ren) may suffer even under circumstances you may find tolerable.
Are antinatalists just depressed/misanthropic/self-loathing/nihilistic?
No. Antinatalists can have great lives and even be happy that they were born but understand that new children may not be or still find it unethical to reproduce for any other reason. There are no prerequisites to being an antinatalist. Even if they do match this description, this does not invalidate the philosophy or its reasoning, and their experiences show how reproduction can cause harm regardless of the parents’ intentions.
What if I am not a negative utilitarian (someone who believes that people should minimize suffering)?
Why would a parent not want to minimize suffering for their child? Even if they did not want to, it’s not their choice to make. The child may have wanted to have their suffering minimized, but they ultimately do not have a say in the matter. Therefore, the parent should not make that choice for them based on their own values that the child may not share.
Should there be legal consequences/legal action to prevent reproduction? Is it moral/ethical?
Some antinatalists may find the idea of banning reproduction or punishing it to be too authoritarian, while others could support it as it can reduce harm. One argument that could be made in favor of it includes how most find it ethical to illegalize rape and murder because they prevent people from harming each other. The same could be applied to reproduction since that causes harm as well. If not, there could be other ways to discourage reproduction, such as tax incentives/disincentives to choosing adoption or abstaining from procreation, increasing funding and access to sex education, contraceptives, family planning services, and abortion, and widespread media campaigns against reproduction or in favor of choosing adoption instead. This seems to have worked in Thailand.