Is antinatalism actually a valid philosophy?

Regarding those who oppose procreation, I am curious to hear your thoughts. What is your perspective on them, and are there any such individuals within this group? Some advocate for this philosophical stance by viewing life as inherently harsh and devoid of value, often citing the fact that Earth's resources are finite. Do you believe antinatalism is a rational viewpoint, or do you consider it to be unnatural and irrational?

Gerald Hill said:Regarding those who oppose procreation, I am curious to hear your thoughts. What is your perspective on them, and are there any such individuals within this group? Some advocate for this philosophical stance by viewing life as inherently harsh and devoid of value, often citing the fact that Earth's resources are finite. Do you believe antinatalism is a rational viewpoint, or do you consider it to be unnatural and irrational?

Hmm. Not sure if someone's "philosophy" actually dictates whether they have kids or not.
Feels more like people just tailor their philosophy to fit what they already want to do.
If you truly see life as some cruel, meaningless slog, then yeah, not wanting to bring more people into the mess makes sense. It's rational. 😁
Gives you something to chew on, I guess. Heh. 😁
But... still going with the "have kids" route for me.

darkcanyon10 said:Hmm. Not sure if someone's "philosophy" actually dictates whether they have kids or not.
Feels more like people just tailor their philosophy to fit what they already want to do.
If you truly see life as some cruel, meaningless slog, then yeah, not wanting to bring more people into the mess makes sense. It's rational. 😁
Gives you something to chew on, I guess. Heh. 😁
But... still going with the "have kids" route for me.

It is true that some people eschew parenthood due to a philosophical belief that existence itself is just a mess.

Apemant used to toss around the VHEMT "why breed" list quite often:

http://www.vhemt.org/whybreed.pdf

Gerald Hill said:Regarding those who oppose procreation, I am curious to hear your thoughts. What is your perspective on them, and are there any such individuals within this group? Some advocate for this philosophical stance by viewing life as inherently harsh and devoid of value, often citing the fact that Earth's resources are finite. Do you believe antinatalism is a rational viewpoint, or do you consider it to be unnatural and irrational?

That really depends on how you define rationality... for instance, if the drive to propagate the species is considered an irrational impulse—something buried in our subconscious or a primal instinct to persist—then it stands to reason that a viewpoint opposing that drive would be perfectly rational.

I suspect that antinatalism is inherently self-destructive—which is why I’d argue it can only ever be an instrument of some larger, darker cosmic force, rather than its actual origin. Even Darth Vader, in his own twisted way, ended up preserving his son's existence. 🤣

Jonathan Brooks8 said:That really depends on how you define rationality... for instance, if the drive to propagate the species is considered an irrational impulse—something buried in our subconscious or a primal instinct to persist—then it stands to reason that a viewpoint opposing that drive would be perfectly rational.

Essentially, you are arguing that we ought to cease procreating so that life itself eventually vanishes from the face of the earth😁.

A single individual making a catastrophic decision can inflict far more damage on the planet than, say, the entire population of the USA. Therefore, viewing antinatalism as a way to save the Earth is fundamentally flawed. Now, stopping reproduction in impoverished regions—where a child is born already facing hunger and a lack of basic necessities—that actually carries some weight.

Gerald Hill said:Essentially, you are arguing that we ought to cease procreating so that life itself eventually vanishes from the face of the earth😁.

Presumably humanity—not life as a whole.

Michael Castillo said:Presumably humanity—not life as a whole.

From what I understand about life, it isn't just limited to humanity; it encompasses all living creatures in nature. To me, such a stance seems entirely nonsensical. As for those anti-human nihilists who harbor nothing but hatred for mankind, I would quite gladly assist in their disappearance.🙂.

Gerald Hill said:From what I understand about life, it isn't just limited to humanity; it encompasses all living creatures in nature. To me, such a stance seems entirely nonsensical. As for those anti-human nihilists who harbor nothing but hatred for mankind, I would quite gladly assist in their disappearance.🙂.

You misunderstood it.

Michael Castillo said:You misunderstood it.

Hmm. In that case, I am at a loss as to who exactly would be those individuals standing against life as a phenomenon and existence itself—if we are to call them anything at all.

Gerald Hill said:It is true that some people eschew parenthood due to a philosophical belief that existence itself is just a mess.

That’s pretty much spot on.

Michael Castillo said:Presumably humanity—not life as a whole.

Look, no matter how terrible people act, I don't see the logic in suggesting that life itself is somehow "bad."

Lions would still be tearing into bison while they're still breathing even if we weren't here. 🤷

So, if I were actually leaning into those anti-humanist sentiments, I’d rather look at achieving the total annihilation of all life (on Earth... or even in space, though that's probably too big for even my wildest imagination LOL) as something "negative"—rather than just ending the human race. That second option is honestly nonsensical. That VHEMT chart is an interesting bit of work, but that doesn't mean VHEMT members aren't a bunch of crackpots. Because they are. 😬 Or, at the very least, they know exactly how to troll. 🤣

Gerald Hill said:It is true that some people eschew parenthood due to a philosophical belief that existence itself is just a mess.

To be fair, it’s not necessarily that existence itself is a disaster for these folks. It's more that they dread the inevitable—aging, decay, and eventually kicking the bucket. Plus, life tends to throw enough curveballs at you as it is.

If everyone were eternally young, loaded with cash, and ridiculously good-looking, maybe life wouldn't feel like such a slog. That is, provided they didn't get bored out of their minds. And then we're right back where we started—boredom is its own kind of hell. 😁

But honestly, it isn't that black and white. Take this woman, for instance—she can't stand little kids, yet she adores them once they hit double digits!!?? :

I tried hanging out with my sister's kids, and it just doesn't work for me. I'll buy them stuff, I'll even play along with them (just to be polite), but actually loving them? Not happening. You all probably think I'm a monster now, but I find kids endearing only when they've grown up past ten—when they're actually big, smart, and capable of holding a conversation. In other words, I simply don't have the patience to raise someone or deal with the constant worry.

Gerald Hill said:Regarding those who oppose procreation, I am curious to hear your thoughts. What is your perspective on them, and are there any such individuals within this group? Some advocate for this philosophical stance by viewing life as inherently harsh and devoid of value, often citing the fact that Earth's resources are finite. Do you believe antinatalism is a rational viewpoint, or do you consider it to be unnatural and irrational?

Look, if we're only born for THIS single lifetime, then I totally get why some people decide to skip having children altogether.

I mean, what's the point? To watch a world where there's way more darkness than light?

But—and this is a big but—if this life isn't everything, if there's an "afterlife" waiting, and if that place is completely free of suffering, then having kids makes total sense—and maybe even more than one!

In that case, the very kids you love (and who love you back!) will give you the strength you need to live forever. Because honestly, even eternity WON'T be enough time to show them how much you care.

Love is something you express every single second—you'll never reach a point where you look at the people you love and say, "Ugh, you're annoying, I don't want to see you anymore." Not if you truly love them, anyway! That’s why I always say that ONLY love can make a person truly, eternally happy. 👍

Gerald Hill said:Regarding those who oppose procreation, I am curious to hear your thoughts. What is your perspective on them, and are there any such individuals within this group? Some advocate for this philosophical stance by viewing life as inherently harsh and devoid of value, often citing the fact that Earth's resources are finite. Do you believe antinatalism is a rational viewpoint, or do you consider it to be unnatural and irrational?

Evolution will "pick its winners," and everyone else simply fades away.

Gerald Hill said:Regarding those who oppose procreation, I am curious to hear your thoughts. What is your perspective on them, and are there any such individuals within this group? Some advocate for this philosophical stance by viewing life as inherently harsh and devoid of value, often citing the fact that Earth's resources are finite. Do you believe antinatalism is a rational viewpoint, or do you consider it to be unnatural and irrational?

In Western philosophy, that term mostly points back to Schopenhauer’s vibe. It isn't even really about whether life has value or not; it’s more the idea that suffering always wins the tug-of-war. So, it's better not to exist at all than to exist and deal with the pain. Basically, why bring new beings into the world just to crank up the total amount of misery?

You see this religious-philosophical angle in Buddhism, and honestly, it shows up in Christianity too (even if they try to look past human weaknesses and suggest holding off on sex or procreation as the "ideal" path). Augustine taught that original sin is passed down through seed, meaning every newborn comes pre-loaded with it. In his autobiography, he mentions how his sexual drive was a huge hurdle when deciding to go Christian, because he felt being a believer meant ditching sex entirely—that was just his personal takeaway, obviously, since plenty of bishops back then were married.

That whole mindset is totally irrational, though. You can't justify it with logic because there’s no way to weigh suffering against pleasure on a single scale to make a utilitarian call.

There's even that episode in the "Aster Blissett" comic where a supercomputer decides to wipe out the entire universe just to bring the total suffering down to zero.

That is pure antinatalism. Now, the demographic argument is a whole different beast. That’s the idea that there are simply too many people, so we need to stop growth and probably shrink the population. Honestly, it's a lot less painful to lower birth rates than it is to ramp up mortality rates.

That stance actually makes sense. We can have a rational debate about how many people can realistically live on Earth long-term while still getting their needs met.

China has been the most hardcore about this, running anti-birth policies for the last 40 years or so, and it worked—they've got about 400 million fewer people now than they would have had without that "one-child policy." Nowadays, growth is basically flat because people are living way longer, and by sometime after 2025, it might even start dipping.

But hey, birth rates are dropping everywhere else, pretty much across the globe. The global population might top out around 9 or 10 billion by 2050 or 2060. Even with a "fourth industrial revolution" and an economy built on renewables and a super efficient "circular economy," that's probably still too many people for the long haul. Looking way ahead, say past 2100, if we dodge any massive disasters, dropping the global population to maybe 4 or 5 billion could be sustainable and let everyone live high on the hog.

Right now, India is packed with 400 people per square kilometer, which is denser than the tightest spots in Europe. South Korea 500, and Bangladesh hits 1,000. That kind of density just doesn't work long-term.

lonetrucker4 said:In Western philosophy, that term mostly points back to Schopenhauer’s vibe. It isn't even really about whether life has value or not; it’s more the idea that suffering always wins the tug-of-war. So, it's better not to exist at all than to exist and deal with the pain. Basically, why bring new beings into the world just to crank up the total amount of misery?

You see this religious-philosophical angle in Buddhism, and honestly, it shows up in Christianity too (even if they try to look past human weaknesses and suggest holding off on sex or procreation as the "ideal" path). Augustine taught that original sin is passed down through seed, meaning every newborn comes pre-loaded with it. In his autobiography, he mentions how his sexual drive was a huge hurdle when deciding to go Christian, because he felt being a believer meant ditching sex entirely—that was just his personal takeaway, obviously, since plenty of bishops back then were married.

That whole mindset is totally irrational, though. You can't justify it with logic because there’s no way to weigh suffering against pleasure on a single scale to make a utilitarian call.

There's even that episode in the "Aster Blissett" comic where a supercomputer decides to wipe out the entire universe just to bring the total suffering down to zero.

That is pure antinatalism. Now, the demographic argument is a whole different beast. That’s the idea that there are simply too many people, so we need to stop growth and probably shrink the population. Honestly, it's a lot less painful to lower birth rates than it is to ramp up mortality rates.

That stance actually makes sense. We can have a rational debate about how many people can realistically live on Earth long-term while still getting their needs met.

China has been the most hardcore about this, running anti-birth policies for the last 40 years or so, and it worked—they've got about 400 million fewer people now than they would have had without that "one-child policy." Nowadays, growth is basically flat because people are living way longer, and by sometime after 2025, it might even start dipping.

But hey, birth rates are dropping everywhere else, pretty much across the globe. The global population might top out around 9 or 10 billion by 2050 or 2060. Even with a "fourth industrial revolution" and an economy built on renewables and a super efficient "circular economy," that's probably still too many people for the long haul. Looking way ahead, say past 2100, if we dodge any massive disasters, dropping the global population to maybe 4 or 5 billion could be sustainable and let everyone live high on the hog.

Right now, India is packed with 400 people per square kilometer, which is denser than the tightest spots in Europe. South Korea 500, and Bangladesh hits 1,000. That kind of density just doesn't work long-term.

I am hearing the term "absolute antinatalism" for the very first time. For those who harbor a hatred for existence itself and argue that nonexistence would be preferable to being, I believe we ought to devise a new designation. As it stands, the term "antinatalism" carries a distinct and different meaning.

Gerald Hill said:I am hearing the term "absolute antinatalism" for the very first time. For those who harbor a hatred for existence itself and argue that nonexistence would be preferable to being, I believe we ought to devise a new designation. As it stands, the term "antinatalism" carries a distinct and different meaning.

A quick search on Google pulls up 97,700 results for "antinatalism." You've got Wikipedia articles, entire threads on philosophyforums.com, dedicated blogs on blogspot.com, quotes all over goodreads.com... the list goes on.

You don't have to "hate all of existence" to be an antinatalist.