FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions
Q: Is Antinatalism different to being Childfree? Is Childfree different to Childless?
A: It could be argued that there is a subtle difference between the Antinatalist movement and the Childfree movement. Childfree could come to denote those who are able to have a child, but are not willing to for various reasons, e.g. they may wish to have more free time in their life to pursue various projects. Those who are Childless might include the Childfree, as well as those that want to have children, but are nevertheless unable to - for example: perhaps due to infertility one may be childless, and would not necessarily identify as "Childfree".
On the other hand, one can be Antinatalist without being Childfree or Childless- for example: one may think that we need at least a few humans around the planet to help deal with Wild Animal Suffering, or a parent may have had a child and even though they are happy that the child exists, they nevertheless realise it would have been better had they not had the child in the first place. There is stigma associated with such views however - Parental Regret is not a position which is easy to confess. We believe that such a stigma is unjustified, because there is a difference between a life worth starting, and a life worth continuing. Even if you believe that your child's life was not worth starting, you can rightfully believe that you should provide for them and give them the best life possible. For a book-length perspective from an Antinatalist Parent, check out "Confessions of an Antinatalist".
Nevertheless, regardless of which of the three positions you hold (or do not), we welcome anyone and everyone who has curiosity and an open mind into Antinatalism NZ.
Q: Isn't Extinction a bad thing?
A: There are many Antinatalist views on this issue - one can be an Antinatalist without believing that extinction is good or desirable - for example an Antinatalist may believe that we need a smaller amount of people on the planet, without thinking that we this should necessarily be reduced to zero. Here is another 'non-extinctionist' perspective.
For the most part however, Antinatalists do not view Extinction negatively. According to philosopher David Benatar, we know that at some point humans will go extinct. The important moral question, therefore, is whether it is better to go extinct earlier or later. Benatar would argue that it is better to go extinct earlier rather than later.
Having said that, human extinction should not be met by violent means, and an extinctionist may say that the most sustainable way towards human extinction would be one that is voluntary, thoughtful, and democratic. See: the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT).
Note: The view on Extinction is complicated by the fact that many Antinatalists are also EFILists (see below), and voluntary human extinction may not be the best way to promote the extinction of all sentient life, not just human life.
Q: How can a community sustain itself if there are no children? Also, who will take care of us?
A. One criticism of Antinatalism says that once Antinatalism becomes widespread, we will end up with a top-heavy Population Pyramid. That is, we will eventually have more older people than younger people in a population. Importantly, they say, this will necessarily burden a society who must now take care of the elderly with an ever decreasing youth. Japan's decreasing population is commonly cited.
While an understandable concern, this view has a few hidden assumptions.
Firstly, it is not clear that we will necessarily be burdened by care of the elderly if there are less youth. This is because there will be a supply surplus of labour from those who would have otherwise worked in childcare or primary schools, which will open room up for those to work in the care of the elderly. (For more on labour supply and depopulation, see here)
Secondly and more optimistically, increases in technological development may lessen the workload required for care of the elderly.
Lastly and more pragmatically, if the above two responses nevertheless do not hold up, it may be acceptable to bring children into the world, but only to a lesser extent - Just because Antinatalists believe that it is wrong to bring children into the world does not mean that it is always wrong to bring children into the world:
If bringing children into the world now, means that it is less likely that there will be children in the future, then it may be acceptable.
Analogously: lying is wrong, but there are nevertheless cases where it is better to lie (E.g. if it is necessary to lie to obtain medicine for a dying mother). This is a necessary evil with regards to lying. Likewise bringing children (but a more limited number) into the world may be a necessary evil that some Antinatalists may believe is better all things considered. But this is an open issue which will have to debated within the Antinatalist community.
Q: What other movements are Antinatalists typically associated with?
A: The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement (VHEMT), the idiosyncratic Efilism, the meat-free Veganism, the increasing Childfree, and the controversial Promortalism. Occasionally, Right to Die and Pro-choice are thrown into the mix.
Though note (!) that Antinatalists don't have to subscribe to any of the above views. Antinatalists merely believe that procreation has a negative value, broadly stated.
Q: What is the Antinatalist perspective on Animals?
A: Vegans closely align themselves with Antinatalism (occasionally called Vegantinatalism). However this is not a necessary part of Antinatal belief. Antinatalists only believe that there is a negative value assigned to procreation, and that it is (typically) better to take care of the already existing.
For those sympathetic to Antinatalism applied to animals, you may find the ongoing debate on "Wild Animal Suffering" interesting - whether we should care about Wild Animal Suffering is a debate whose adherents are slowly growing in number. The view is that we should care about the suffering that Wild Animals experience, even if it occurs "naturally" - for example the suffering of a living deer who is being eaten by a lion, or the suffering experienced by a Tasmanian Devil who has Devil facial tumour disease. Such negative experiences have typically been ignored, but with growing concern for animals and the planet, there is increasing reason to want to prevent Wild Animal Suffering. Antinatalists who are EFILists (LIFE spelt backwards - typically used to represent those who care about preventing all life from coming about, rather than just human life) would by sympathetic to the view that Wild Animal Suffering is worth considering.
For more see this article, as well as the Wild Animal Initiative nonprofit.
Q: If life is not worth starting, then why doesn't the Antinatalist end their own life?
A: Thanks for asking the question in a polite way.
The view that one ought to end their own life is called Promortalism, a controversial subset of Antinatalist thought. Most Antinatalists accept David Benatar's use of the distinction between a "life worth starting", and a "life worth continuing". The idea is that while most lives are worth continuing, lives in general are not worth starting. The exact levels for what counts as "worth starting" and "worth continuing" vary from person to person. Presumably, the Promortalist has a very low bar for a "life worth continuing". So, even a life filled with ample pleasures and minimal suffering would not be worth continuing, let alone worth starting. Having said that, there are many variants of Promortalist thought.
The important thing to recognise is that being an Antinatalist does not entail you to accept Promortalism.
Furthermore, while you did ask the question politely, it is typically not phrased as gently. While one can genuinely debate whether Antinatalism leads to Promortalism, this is territory that must be traced with care. Telling someone to end their own life because they believe in Antinatalism is absolutely not OK. Antinatalists already have enough to worry about without people telling them such things, especially if done rudely.
Q. I would join but I like kids. Why do you hate kids?
A. We deliberately try to avoid using the words "children/kids/babies" where possible, although this is easier said than done. As stated in Our Mission, a lot of Antinatalists like kids. The issue is not with the kids themselves, but rather with bringing beings into existence. It just happens that in the English language, the most common way to express this sentiment is with the phrase "to bring children into the world.", which has been the cause of some misunderstandings towards Antinatalism.
Q. I am religious, doesn't Antinatalism go against my religious beliefs?
A. While most Antinatalists beliefs are held for reasons independent of religious beliefs, Antinatalism has nevertheless had a long history alongside religious thought. Al-Ma'arri was a famous Muslim Antinatalist who lived in the 9th century, who held that it was immoral to have children because of the suffering they would go through in life. Furthermore, the fastest growing Antinatalist communities right now tend to be in the Arab world (most noticeably in Jordan and Egypt).
The Shakers were an interesting Christian group who held Antinatalist views on celibacy. While the shakers had a time of growth and flourishing in the mid 19th century (most members converting from outside), they naturally exist now only in small numbers - not having children likely contributed to this. It is clear that the only Christian denominations that currently exist must have been the ones that promoted having more children - as they tend to stick around the longest.
One of the Four Noble Truths in Buddhism, dukkha (normally translated as suffering), is often interpreted as the claim that life is inherently suffering. Buddhist views can therefore fall neatly in line with Antinatalist thought, although this can be debated.
Q. What's the difference between "Philanthropic" arguments, and "Misanthropic" arguments?
(For more, see here.)
A. Philanthropic arguments for Antinatalism take the perspective of the would-be child, and claim that bringing that child into the world will harm the child itself.
Examples of Philanthropic arguments are: 1) The Argument from Consent, 2) The Argument from Asymmetry, and 3) The Argument from Quality of Life. (For summaries, see Why Antinatalism).
Misanthropic arguments take the perspective of the currently existing beings in the world, and claims that bringing a child into the world will harm (or will likely harm) the others in the world.
Examples of Misanthropic arguments are: 1) The Argument from Environmental Impact, and 2) The Argument that most of the the evils and harms in the world originate from humans. (See: Raja Halwani's Misanthropy and Virtue.)
Q. Should we have forced sterilizations?
No. That would be intrusive and an invasion of bodily privacy. The best way to encourage Antinatalism is via voluntary means.
And, as unlikely as it is that Antinatalism will ever be a widely held view (Antinatalists tend not to have children, for obvious reasons - and one's children play a strong part in the cultural transmission of beliefs, such as, Antinatalism), it is nevertheless important to pursue Antinatalist thought in a way that is voluntary, thoughtful, and democratic.
Q. Where does the rad logo come from?
A. The logo comes from the Youtuber "Life Sucks", and is used with his permission, for which we are very grateful. Thank you "Life Sucks"!
We are looking to make a logo more specific to Antinatalism NZ. If you have any suggestions, please Contact Us. See also: Volunteer
If you still have questions that were not answered here,
feel free to Contact Us to ask. We will be happy to answer!
feel free to Contact Us to ask. We will be happy to answer!