Why Antinatalism?

Disclaimer: Not every argument will be convincing to you, and we are fine with that! The stated goal of Antinatalism NZ is not to convince you, but to provide a space for New Zealand Antinatalists or Antinatalist-adjacent beliefs to feel welcome in NZ without fear of discrimination or exclusion. Antinatalists themselves can be antinatalist for a wide variety of reasons, and people approach the philosophy from many different angles - too many to list here.

Nevertheless, some of the most common views are presented below. If the reader is interested in a specific view, they are encouraged to research the topic themselves. We provide a starting point for independent research here by providing links for further readings.

See also: More Information

Primary Arguments

Argument from The Asymmetry

Wikipedia Article

The Asymmetry is a dense, contentious argument proposed by David Benatar in his 2006 book "Better Never to Have Been". It is not to be confused with the Procreative Asymmetry in Population ethics. The Asymmetry is an argument peculiar to Antinatalism.

To accept The Asymmetry is to accept four premises -

  1. the presence of pain is bad;

  2. the presence of pleasure is good;

  3. the absence of pain is good, even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone;

  4. the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation.

Note: Pain does not mean physical pain, but is used as a shorthand to refer to "Harms". Likewise, Pleasure just means "Benefits" broadly defined.

The first two premises are rarely contested. Yes, pain is bad, and pleasure is good assuming you exist. The contention comes with premises 3 and 4:

------------------------------------------

The key intuition for premise 3, is that we sometimes avoid bringing beings into the world because they will suffer, and that is a good thing even if, in doing so, they do not exist to "reap the rewards" of not suffering.

For example, the Zika Virus is a mosquito-borne virus which caused a big stir in 2016, when an epidemic in South America led to many children being born with microcephaly (an unfortunate disorder, whereupon children are born with "small heads"). The increase in microcephaly was linked to the Zika virus. In this situation, even the Pope (albeit not ex cathedra) said that people ought to use contraceptives and postpone having children until the Zika epidemic was over.

In this case, it was good that we avoided the pain and suffering of those who would have been born with microcephaly, even if they were not there to experience the lack of harm.

----------------------------------

The key intuition for premise 4, is that we don't say it is bad if someone fails to have a child, for that child's sake.

If the opposite was true; i.e. if it was bad if we do not have children for the child's sake, then it would appear that all else being equal we ought to procreate as much as we can to maximise the number of children we have.

However, this does not appear true. When people talk about reproductive rights they don't usually mean that people have a duty to reproduce, or that they ought to. Rather, were merely mean that people have a right to reproduce - i.e. it is permissible. In summary: it is not bad for a child if that child does not exist.

Further Reading: Benatar's Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence (2006) is the definitive source here. Afterwards, it will be worth reading the criticisms, as well as Benatar's responses to them.

Argument from Environmental Impact

Arguably the most well known branch of Antinatalism is the environmental variety.

As we approach a global population of 8 billion, more and more people are becoming concerned about overpopulation. It has been estimated that by 2025, two thirds of the world’s population will be living under water-scarce conditions. Between 0.01 and 0.1% of all species are becoming extinct each year. This Holocene Extinction has significantly contributed by anthropogenic climate change as well as by other human-led activities such as hunting, fishing, and intensive land use. A famous, though debated article from Lund University says that "having one fewer child would save 58.6 tonnes per year".

Further Readings:

Vox's Future Perfect has made the counter-case that having fewer kids will not save the climate. (Link 1) (Link 2) (A Reply)

Founders Pledge argues that the 58.6t figure above is vastly overestimated because it does not account for future policy changes.

The Overpopulation Project - TOP (Intl.) aims "to study and highlight the environmental impacts of overpopulation, including humane policies to end population growth around the world."

Population Matters (UK) - "We promote positive, practical, ethical solutions – encouraging smaller families, inspiring people to reduce excessive consumption and helping us all to live within our planet’s natural limits."

Note: Contrary to most other arguments here, environmental Antinatalism is not concerned for the wellbeing of the particular child that one is bringing about. Rather, it is concerned for the lives of the people and ecosystems that already exist, and will exist. It is a form of Misanthropic Antinatalism (in contrast to Philanthropic Antinatalism).

Argument from Quality of Life

“If the immediate and direct purpose of our life is not suffering then our existence is the most ill-adapted to its purpose in the world.”

― Arthur Schopenhauer, On the Suffering of the World

The Argument from the Quality of Life takes large-scale or individual suffering as it's starting point. It then goes on to say that because of that, we ought not to bring more beings into the world.

While most people would presumably say that their lives are not full of suffering, those that believe in the Quality of Life argument may suggest that these people are not accurately representing reality. There is a psychological tendency called "Optimism Bias" wherein people believe they are less likely to experience negative events. See also: the Pollyanna Principle.

Schopenhauer, while never describing himself as an Antinatalist, is well known for his Pessimistic views on the world and would have accepted the Quality of Life argument. For him, life is full of insatiable strivings. These strivings lead to a life full of suffering. Because there is a lot of suffering, he concludes that nonexistence is preferable to existence.

Further Readings:

"How I finally realized life on earth is mostly suffering" by Phoenix Huber - a personal and touching take on the issue. (Recommended!)

Williams, Kane How are you? Wrong Answer. (2019)

Vinding, Magnus "Suffering-Focused Ethics: Defense and Implications" (2020)

Tomasik, Brian "On the Seriousness of Suffering" (2016) - Warning: NSFW, and not recommended for casual viewing.

Further Readings:

Raphael Samuel famously sued his parents for giving birth to him. An article about this event is here.

The interesting cases of "Wrongful Birth" and "Wrongful Life" suits.

Shiffrin, Seana: Wrongful Life, Procreative Responsibility, and the Significance of Harm (1999). - Link

Singh, Asheel: The Hypothetical Consent Objection to Anti-Natalism (2018) - Link

Argument from Consent

(Also known as the Argument from Anti-Imposition)

The argument could be phrased like this:

When people choose to procreate, they are imposing life on other sentient beings against their will. Imposition is coercion which makes it morally and ethically wrong. Furthermore, we are also gambling with the lives of sentient beings. Procreation is a game of probability, randomness and genetic determinism that is beyond one’s control. There is no way of determining the outcome or end result.

In her book, Every Cradle is a Grave, Sarah Perry references a study done asking children, even those of higher socioeconomic status, if they’d rather be born or not. Most said that they would rather not have been born.

Ultimately, there are two types of argument: 1) since you cannot ask for consent on those beings which you bring into the world, it is not appropriate to bring them into the world, and 2) even if you could ask them for consent, they would not have, for various reasons, willingly agreed to coming into the world.

Secondary Arguments

Argument from Duties to World's Poor

"The cost of raising a child from birth to 18 years old will set you back about $285,000, or around $16,000 a year." (NZ Herald)

David Benatar and Stuart Rachel argue that the cost of raising a child is not justified when the money could be be used to further good elsewhere.

Further Readings:

Benatar, David. Famine, Affluence, and Procreation: Peter Singer and Anti-Natalism Lite (2020)

Rachel, Stuart. The Immorality of Having Children (2014)

Argument from Adoption

While not a primary argument, it is often argued by Antinatalists that it is unnecessary to have children of one's own because there are many children who are in need of adoption.

Further Reading:

De Giraud, Theophile. L'art de guillotiner les procréateurs: Manifeste anti-nataliste (2006) - De Giraud emphasizes that, across the world, there are millions of existing children who need and are without care.


Argument from Uncompensated Harms

Simmons, Byron. A thousand pleasures are not worth a single pain: The compensation argument for Schopenhauer’s pessimism. (2021)

(Link to Paper)

Pronatalist Readings

Pronatalism does not have a single definition, and is not as widely defended as Antinatalism - although having said that, Antinatalism does not have a single definition either, and is definitely a minority view. Nevertheless, it is clear that those who openly advocate for Pronatalism are smaller yet in number then those who openly advocate for Antinatalism. There are less Pronatalist readings than Antinatalist readings.

Blake Hereth, below, distinguishes between Weak and Strong Pronatalism. The Weak Pronatalist says that having children is morally permissible. The Strong Pronatalist says that having children is morally obligatory.

Most Pronatalists are Weak Pronatalists - although Strong Pronatalism, while much less argued, is not unheard of.

Various Readings:

Contra-Pronatalism:

If you know of any other Pronatalist literature that you think could be worth adding, please don't hesitate to Contact Us.

Miscellaneous Resources

A couple of resources that aren't really arguments for or against Antinatalism, but are nevertheless interesting.


Sociology: A Self-Corrective for The Population Explosion? (Time Magazine, 1964)

Idea: When overcrowding occurs, female beetles become cannibalistic and eat each other. Males become less interested in mating, even in the abundance of plenty of food and water.


Brown, Faith. The Effects of Optimism on Anti-Natalism (2020)

"Overall, optimism did not significantly reduce anti-natalism, though optimism specifically about future children did reduce support for anti-natalism. Additionally, nostalgia significantly reduced support for anti-natalism."


Brown, Faith. Anti-Natalism from an Evolutionary Psychological Perspective (2020)


Knutsson, Simon. In support of talking about pessimism, antinatalism, negative utilitarianism, etc. (2020)


Schönegger, Philipp. Dark Triad and Anti-Natalism (2021)


Schönegger, Philipp. What’s up with anti-natalists? An observational study on the relationship between dark triad personality traits and anti-natalist views (2022)