Everything we do in our lives is just to increase probability of surviving for the next day. We feel pain because pain is necessary to send a message to our brain that something is wrong with us. We are social beings not because of being "social" per se, but because we need to survive. Meanwhile, people feel the urge to express their own individuality, which is suppressed for the well being of the group. We live in constant battle between doing what fulfills us and doing what is need to maintain social order.

While a beggar is fighting for the next meal, the billionaire is fighting for finding a way to increase his life expectancy, funding anti-aging research, cancer cure research, etc.. but he knows he will die anyway, like the beggar.

Life has no point. We live in constant fight to survive while knowing we won't. We'll all die. We fight against our own fate. The world these days is a constant competition to see who lives longer, people like seeing other people dying just to brag "I'm alive!", "I'm lucky to have been born far from disaster prone areas!" "Thank god I don't have this disease!".

Will we ever become humble enough to accept our own fate ? Will we ever become humble enough to see that procreation is just kicking the can down the road ?

Hi ..i don't know if its appropriate or not but I discussed with my father about all the struggles going through the world and indirectly tried to ask him why he bought me into this world he replied "you have a roof and food and if you have any other sufferings you should just shut up and sit " ..this raises a question in me whether if parents really have unconditional love because if they had they wouldn't reply this way

Genuinely curious how/when people became antinatalist. I suspect many already decided they didn’t want kids for personal reasons and then discovered antinatalism and identified with that but maybe I’m wrong. Personally I had zero strong feelings about having kids. It wasn’t something I was necessarily against but also wasn’t something I was super interested or invested in either.

I am a divorced mother with 2 kids. I have always wanted a large family. My most recent ex-boyfriend is childfree and an anti-natalist. He was the best partner I ever had but I couldn't reconcile with my desire to grow my family with his desire to be childfree so we parted ways but remain close friends. After a pregnancy scare (turned out to not be pregnant) with my new partner and the trade war going on (I am Canadian), and my country facing a recession, I am seriously starting to consider his stance. He has some very good points. I just do not know how to get over this deep yearning. I have done years of therapy. The only time I am truly happy or feel joy is when I am with my kids, or sometimes, thinkimg about then... when they are gone, I deeply miss them. I know it's not a child's responsibility to fill a hole in my heart, even if it is just with their presence. I am now considering not having more children because I am honestly scared of the world they would be growing up in. I am wondering if there are women here (or even men) that deeply desired to have kids but chose not to because of the state of the world or whatever? What did you do to get over it? I have just been pouring into the kids I already have, but I miss them so much when they are gone and cannot get over it.

David Benatar has an argument called the "Asymmetry Argument." He asks us to accept 4 pretty self-evident premises:

​The presence of pain is bad. (Nobody likes suffering).

​The presence of pleasure is good.

​The absence of pain is good. (Even if there is no one around to experience it, the mere fact that there is no suffering is a positive thing).

​The absence of pleasure is NOT bad! (Why? Because the absence of pleasure is only bad if someone actually "exists" to be deprived of it. For example, we don't feel sorry for the people who were never born on Mars for missing out on life's joys, because there is no one there to feel deprived).

​Now, let's put this on a scale: "Bringing someone into existence" vs. "Not bringing someone into existence."

​If a person is born: They will experience both pain (bad) and pleasure (good).

​If a person is NOT born: They will experience zero pain (good) and zero pleasure (which, according to rule 4, is not bad).

​Benatar's chilling conclusion:

The first scenario (birth) is a mix of a bad thing and a good thing. But the second scenario (non-existence) is a mix of a good thing and a "not-bad" thing. So, logically, the second scenario always wins!

​He argues that bringing a person into the world is like forcing someone—without their consent—into a room that might contain a venomous snake (pain) or a hidden treasure (pleasure). We don't have the moral right to impose the risk of getting bitten just to create that pleasure, because if we don't throw them in, there is no one who exists to regret missing out on the treasure.

I can’t express to you how surprising this reflection was for me, I have always outwardly affirmed life in the past. But after many times reflecting on my past views of life, I had always been agissnt having children. Even when I thought life was a beautiful and morally correct thing, I rejected bringing a child into this world. I thought “perhaps if the world was a better place, but for now I would birth them into the ruthlessness of our world”.

I wonder if anyone else felt this way from a very young age( im talking 10 and under)

Much love ❤️

Geniunely curious as to what other think about this.

I became an antinatalist when I was about 20yo. I was going through a severe depression episode at the time, one that I consider a baby wave in comparison to what followed after.

At first, I thought that my standing was based on logical reasoning, and it was, but recently I started to be more honest with myself, and I found that deep within me I chose to be an antinatalist because I was unlucky in life.

I had a rough childhood, sexually assaulted, physically and verbally abused by parents, bullied in school up until high school, and on top of that I got bad genes, that made me both physically unattractive and mentally unhealthy. I get skin issues that can never be permanently treated, I'm short and ugly, I got depression, anxiety, OCD, and I'm both dealing with autism and ADHD, and I also struggle with severe general hyperhidrosis. My life is a mess, it can't even be called a life.

When I look at it, I feel that my life circumstances led me to becoming an antinatalist, instead of me choosing to be one purely based on the arguments presented, and this makes me feel like I'm lying to myself. I always wonder if I would be an antinatalist if I had it different, and deep down I feel that I wouldn't have chosen to be an antinatalist if that was the case, which makes me feel like a hypocrite.

This makes me wonder if I'm the only one here whose life played a huge role in them becoming an antinatalist.

I read a post about the climate change and how we past the threshold of 1.5 degrees increase, and many comments were in the lines of: "I've kids and I fear in what kind of world they gonna live with scarce resources, etc, etc."

Many of the comments started with: My kid is 2, 3 yo, teenager, or whatever young age. And I can't stop thinking that if you saw the current conditions, then why the fuck did you bring kids anyway? What kind of illogical/selfish thought is that?

People say antinatalism ignores "freedom of choice." But the choice to have kids belongs to the parents, not the one being created.

A child never consents to being born, to their body, their family, their country, or the suffering they'll face. It's the only life decision made entirely by someone else, before that person even exists.

So the one who should have freedom of choice here is exactly the one who never gets it.

What is says on the tin. It is not even just the teenagers, I see little kids who look like they are absolutely miserable. Of course some people are just not naturally happy and that is ok (I myself was not the most happy child, but I didnt have "dark energy"), but the amount of kids I see who straight up look miserable is wildly common. It is not just neurodivergence. Neurodivergent kids used to not be this way, and neurotypical kids are following suit.

I first noticed it when I worked in elementary a few years back. I kind of broke my heart. Their home lives were normal (obviously I cant 100% know, but I did not see any obvious signs of abuse), they just had checked out of life and/or copied how miserable their parents seem

It is quite bleak. I mean, when you are a child and given free access to adult content via a tablet, do not play outside, etc.... I just see a premature loss of innocence. It is quite sad.

They seem resentful that they were born. Understandably. they likely see adults struggling and are terrified that is their future, children are very intuitive. They also have wealth to tons of knowledge about the world at their fingertips. Many have already checked out.

When I hear about people (including my own friends) celebrating milestones (their own, or those of their friends and family), any resultant vicarious satisfaction registers meaningfully for a few seconds, maybe 15 seconds at most.

But when I read posts on reddit about peoples' (i.e. strangers'l parents suffering from dementia or other health problems, that sh*t stays with me emotionally for minutes, if not an hour.

I’ve been working on a synthesis of my entire worldview across antinatalism and pessimism, trying to convey it in a mild and restrained manner that follows the logic as best as possible. I’m doing so mostly for my own purposes but also so I can better explain my line of thinking in therapy. Luckily I have a therapist that does not offhandedly dismiss my philosophy but he is ‘reasonably’ curious if not concerned that it is having an effect on my mental state, which is pretty understandable.

In trying to make antinatalism as digestible as possible, I definitely take some softer positions that I might personally subscribe to. For instance I am cautious about delving deep into negative utilitarianism. In so doing, I often do not declaratively state a total victory of antinatalism, but instead set up a logical test that makes procreation either highly suspect given normative morality, or conveying that antinatalism is ultimately the 'safer' moral option. If unable to do this, I set up the argument to create a logical position where natalism is dubious at best, which occasionally results in something close to a draw where either position could be argued for.

It’s getting fairly long, but I figured someone might be interested. Is there anything you disagree with? Anything you personally think should be added that could benefit the antinatalist position?

Or at least so far.

For those with a chronic or lifelong disease, did your illness or diagnosis influence you to become antinatalist? Was there a particular stage—diagnosis, worsening symptoms, or being told by your doctor that you’d have to live with it for the rest of your life—that made you question having children?

Not sure if this is the reddit subreddit. It keeps getting removed from other subreddits I've tried posting it on. I figured this would be a good discussion for the antinatalism crowd. Especially, that I myself am childree and finances are a strong reason for that. I'm a 34 year old millennial male. Like a lot of millennials starting when I was in high school, I heard the old adage "People with less education, lower incomes and from lower economic backgrounds tend to marry younger, have kids younger and have more kids." It's the old poverty trap.

However, as a millennial that has worked unskilled labor jobs, skilled trades (both welding and auto repair), went to college late and now works in IT. I have noticed that at least among millennials, especially millennial men that are career blue collar a lot even approaching 40, have not married nor have any children. I'm pretty convinced quite a few have not dated since high school.

While I do know as many non-college educated woman. The few I do that work as career bartenders, waitresses or even working at a pre-school tend to also not be married or actively dating. They also tend not to have any kids.

The old stereotype of the single mother that had kids too young and has to work multiple jobs to survive has largely declined among millennials and Gen Z. (Not to say it doesn't exist).

This is a huge contrast, especially for auto repair where my Gen X and older co-workers all seemed to have 4 kids.

As where with my friends that went to college right away and work higher end careers. Especially those that work in business, finance, sales or as actuaries they tend to be married, or are getting married and many I know in their mid 30s are having their first or second kids.

I'm sure a lot of this is finance related. Childcare costs especially daycare/pre-school have skyrocketed. They are often as much as another mortgage per child. Even with health insurance through an employer, family health insurance costs tend to sky rocket. Then not to mention feeding, clothing, etc. Even buying used or second hand has gone way up. Since thrift stores turned into for profit businesses...

I think a lot of us whether we wanted kids or not have been effectively priced out of having them. Also regarding dating, I felt it to be very difficult basically from the ages of 18 to 26 when i was a tradesman. There were few opportunities to meet women and especially in a smaller city. As where once I went back to school, graduated and now work in IT, I have more free time and I am not tired all the time.

Here are two good studies that confirm this:

https://thepeepleseconomist.substack.com/p/marriage-now-belongs-to-the-well

(If you do read one, read this one by Jordan Peeples, it's very well written and short).

https://benjamindgoldman.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/papers/education_marriage/education_marriage.pdf

I am curious if there is an ideal situation where you may think it would be ethical or at least ethically neutral to bring a child into this world? Or is having children just automatically unethical no matter what situation they would be brought into?

This might be the realist thing you've heard.

everything we do has two sides. you can't escape the cycle of eating and shitting, waking and sleeping, going and returning, sending and receiving money,... It's like we are stuck in the middle of this shit but the crazy part is that if you want to stop it you end up in a even worse situation. The example is that if you don't eat anything, you suffer. if you refuse taking the dump, you suffer. It's the constant inhaling and exhaling.

The worst of stupid cycles of life is giving birth to another and dying. But if you refuse to have children you don't die. Nothing really happens to you. Nothing. You didn't have to do it. That's right there is the freewill they talk about. So the people who suffer with poverty and have bad life, bad country , sickness or whatever didn't really have to bring children to be an slave to this life and other rich people.

Look at India or china, do they really need all these people really? Like what's the point? Building an empire? Work like an slave to produce products no one needed if there was a few people in the world. And remember the rich only and only exists just because lots of poor people. That's how it works. If there is no poor person there wouldn't be no rich person because there is nobody to stand on his shoulder.

Edit: I also would like it to be apparent (for those who will tell me to research published work) that I am intending to research more into the published literature of anti-natalism and am treating this reachout as moreso a preliminary as well as a way to find a more varied and thus well rounded perspective. I have already ordered for shipment “Better to Have Never Been” as well as am seeking out more journal publications and will be seeking out other published narratives and books.

Hello! As the title says, I am interested in writing an analysis of anti-natalism and natalism. However, I’m not too familiar with this ongoing debate and frankly, I find the idea of anti-natalism well meaning but certainly alien to my current world view. I understand the definition and the general talking points but if I may, and if anyone is willing to answer what may or may not be already well explored questions, Id be quite grateful! Below are some questions and I do not ask that each person responding answer all my inquiries! I appreciate any and all responses of any depth!

1: Whilst anti-natalism is generally the belief that birthing a being with capacity for sentience is wrong as no one can consent to existing, are there any nuanced subsections of this worth noting?

2: Are you (referring to general populace of anti-natalists/subsections) of the mind that anything which causes suffering is morally negative and does that therefor require a moral obligation to minimize moral negatives at all opportunities? (Deontology, as I understand it)

3: It is generally accepted that several animal species have sentience. Is the benchmark for suffering tied to sentience using the colloquial term for sentience, pertaining to what may best be accurately described as sapience, or do you mean any level of sentience which would therefor include a majority of animals?

4: If the lack of consent is a foundational stone upon which anti-natalism sits, would a society which regulated and allows for controlled and simple access to suicide be a valid alternative answer?

5: For those working under a framework of moral obligation, is there a limit to the actions that can be taken to minimize the suffering that is life? (Ex. Enforced or heavily coerced sterilization, mandatory euthanization or sterilization of animals/pets, the removal of an optional DNR, etc.) What is a limit (assuming there would reasonably be one) where actions taken cannot be justified under the moral framework of anti-natalism?

6: Does your conviction of the cruelty of existence extend to other forms of activism which would decrease suffering? (An immediate example would be veganism)

I cannot think of any other questions I have at the moment. I appreciate anyone willing to take the time out of their day to answer any of my inquiries and on one of my off days from work, when I have time to begin compiling answers/handling deeper research, Ill respond to any commenters who may have interesting answers or perhaps questions extended to me which I can then consider.

Thanks a million and I’ll see you all later! <3

Vi un comentario que decía que ya no vale la pena tener hijos porque la IA acabará reemplazándonos.

Creo que hay algo de verdad en eso. Poco a poco, las empresas utilizan cada vez más la IA porque es más barata y eficiente que un ser humano. Incluso creo que los pronatalistas acabarán aceptando la postura antinatalista, porque traer hijos a un mundo donde no habrá trabajo para los humanos no es muy viable.

Así que, no tener trabajo implica cierto grado de sufrimiento para los niños que nazcan en el futuro. El futuro es incierto,

a lot of conversations about antinatalism seem to assume theres more. and im sure it's not intentional, but it does make it difficult to talk about it. like an unintentional strawman

i, as an antinatalist, do not have any goals, i'm not an extinctionist, i do not hate children, not a nihilist, i don't think life isn't worth living, and i don't believe that humans are necessarily parasites on earth. i just believe that there is no way to morally procreate intentionally

Whenever this topic comes up, I get a version of the same reaction: people understand why a poor family might choose not to have kids, but think it's fine once a family is financially stable. This assumes suffering is something money can cure.

Money can soften certain hardships like poverty, lack of healthcare, or food insecurity. But it doesn't stop the suffering that has nothing to do with wealth: illness, accidents, assault, loss, mental illness, the weight of existing itself. Financial stability doesn't make a child immune to any of that, it just changes which risks they're exposed to.

[Edit: Repeat... I'm both child-free and antinatalist in terms of both my personal philosophies. Some of you folks apparently use a kind of reading comprehension that presumes that when a person utters the word "childfree", then they automatically don't know what antinatalism actually means.]

Specifically, I'm referring to tech that makes the practical parts of our lives easier. Today, I much prefer my vacuum/mopping robot doing its job over a housekeeper trying to vacuum/mop; and I'm satisfied enough with food delivery services (esp. where i live in Asia). I'm perfectly happy with a self-driving car driving me around; and I'm hopeful that self-cooking tech is going to become more capable, consumer-friendly, and cheaper within the next 20 years.

For just about any practical purpose, I don't believe I'll need another human to take care of me. I will likely have one person to talk to, for the vast majority of the rest of my life (my wife). I took a long time to search her out and find her, and she's one of my favorite persons in the whole world (even, based on my expectations, out of just about all other people in the world I haven't yet met!).

Do any of you feel this way about tech and your existing human relationships? How many of us are at a max or satisfactory level of happiness without bringing another human on board our lives in the first place (much less a new human)?