Shaping how we interact with information
Antinatalists argue that bringing new life into the world is unethical. Some believe only humans should stop procreating, while others extend this idea to all sentient beings, suggesting that nonexistence is preferable to the suffering of life.
South African philosopher David Benatar, a leading advocate of antinatalism, argues that coming into existence is always a serious harm. His book, ‘Better Never to Have Been’ (2006), extensively explains why preventing birth is actually an act of compassion.
Benatar’s argument relies on the idea that existence brings both pain and pleasure, while nonexistence ensures neither pain nor deprivation. He claims that this makes nonexistence superior, as it avoids suffering without missing out on anything.
Buddhist philosophy suggests that life is a constant cycle of praise and blame, gain and loss, success and failure, and joy and sorrow. Every newborn is inevitably thrown into this storm, and suffering becomes an unavoidable part of life.
Even if life brings joy, is it truly worth the suffering? While music, food, and love may enrich our days, they exist alongside pain, grief, and loss. Benatar argues that no amount of pleasure outweighs the inevitability of suffering.
If nonexistence were truly a tragedy, we would lament the lack of people on distant, uninhabited planets. But we do not grieve for the lives that never began. This suggests that not existing is not a loss, only a missed opportunity for suffering.
German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer, one of history’s most notorious pessimists, argued that pain is more intense than pleasure. His thought experiment (which compared the experience of an animal being eaten to the predator’s pleasure of eating) perfectly illustrates this imbalance.
From the trauma of childbirth to the inescapable march toward death, existence is a cycle of suffering. Even those who live comfortably still endure loss, dissatisfaction, aging, and the existential dread of mortality.
War, poverty, illness, addiction, loneliness—humanity is plagued by afflictions, whether self-inflicted or imposed by nature. Antinatalists argue that, even in moments of comfort, suffering lurks beneath the surface, which proves that life’s hardships far outweigh its joys.
No matter how much pleasure life offers, it all ends in death. The fear of the unknown, the pain of loss, and the struggle to hold onto fleeting moments make life’s end an ever-present source of anxiety.
Schopenhauer likened childhood to waiting in a theater before the curtain rises. In youthful ignorance, we anticipate the play with excitement—unaware that the show we’re about to witness is one of inevitable suffering.
If life is truly tragic, should we succumb to despair? While antinatalism suggests that nonexistence is preferable, those who are already here may seek meaning in easing the suffering of others, even if life itself remains fundamentally painful.
Buddhism teaches that suffering is the essence of existence, and nirvana (the ultimate freedom) only comes from breaking free from the cycle of rebirth. This aligns with antinatalist reasoning that nonexistence is the only escape from pain.
Modern culture glorifies travel, entertainment, and luxury, yet these pleasures often mask underlying dissatisfaction. Rather than bringing lasting happiness, they serve as distractions from the inescapable reality of suffering.
Schopenhauer argues that pleasure is not truly positive but merely the relief from pain. Every desire is like a debt—its fulfillment brings temporary relief, but new cravings quickly emerge that trap us in an endless cycle of longing.
Buddhist philosophy likens desires to a fire that must constantly be extinguished. If we never start the fire (by never being born), we avoid the endless struggle of quenching unfulfilled wants and the inevitable suffering that follows.
Antinatalists often describe human reproduction as a Ponzi scheme. Each generation suffers, yet continues the cycle, hoping their offspring will find meaning in life, all while ensuring more suffering for future generations.
Despite Benatar’s reasoning, many people claim to be happy and grateful for their existence. But this perspective could be attributed to biases that people inherently have, like the Pollyanna principle, where humans remember positive experiences more than negative ones and so they remain irrationally optimistic.
Despite life’s suffering, humans desperately cling to existence, hoping for happiness. But Schopenhauer suggested that old age only brings greater misfortune, summarizing it as: “It is bad today, worse tomorrow, and worst in the end.”
Love is often considered a good enough reason to live, yet it comes with heartbreak, betrayal, and loss. Even the happiest relationships end (whether through separation or death), and antinatalists believe this is proof that love itself cannot justify existence.
Many people instinctively reject antinatalism, believing life is valuable. But philosophers argue that this reaction comes from evolutionary programming rather than rational consideration of whether existence is actually desirable.
Humans are biologically driven to reproduce, often without considering the implications. Many have children to fulfill personal desires rather than for the benefit of the child—who, by being born, is doomed to experience suffering.
Many antinatalists highlight the ecological crisis as a reason to cease procreation. Human overpopulation strains natural resources, accelerates climate change, and leads to environmental destruction. By not having children, antinatalists believe they are reducing their ecological footprint and contributing to a more sustainable planet.
Antinatalism does present a challenging ethical dilemma. While existence may be an unchangeable fate, understanding its tragic nature can inspire prospective parents to consider the impact that life may have on a future child.
Sources: (Today) (BBC) (The Conversation) (Real Talk Philosophy)
See also: Pregnancy denial—all about this psychological condition
If antinatalism were widely adopted, it could reshape legal and social structures. Policies related to family planning, inheritance, and retirement would require massive reconsideration. Some antinatalists advocate for voluntary human extinction, while others merely encourage more personal responsibility in reproductive decisions.
Despite life’s suffering, the shared experience of existence fosters compassion. Recognizing that everyone endures pain can lead to kindness, even if we ultimately conclude that life itself is undesirable.
Antinatalism is not about harming existing beings but preventing future suffering. It does not advocate for destruction, but rather for the gradual cessation of reproduction in order to eliminate the seemingly endless cycle of pain.
If parents truly love their unborn children, is the most ethical choice to spare them from existence? By not creating life, we prevent suffering without depriving anyone of joy—since nonexistence does not entail deprivation.
Critics often argue that antinatalism is overly pessimistic and ignores the joys of life. Some claim that suffering can be mitigated through social progress. Others challenge the idea that nonexistence is preferable, and they assert that life, despite its struggles, has inherent value.
Is life truly a gift, or is it an affliction that people are unwillingly subjected to? For most of human history, procreation has been seen as not only natural, but necessary—an unquestioned act that ensures the continuation of our species. But some people argue that life is an inescapable cycle of suffering, making nonexistence far more preferable. This philosophical perspective, known as antinatalism, challenges the deeply ingrained belief that bringing new life into the world is a good thing to do.
Whether we agree with it or not, antinatalism forces us to confront difficult truths about the nature of human life and the responsibilities of parenthood. Curious? Click through this gallery to see why some people find it immoral to bring life into the world.
Antinatalism: why some people say 'no' to having children
Is life a precious gift, or an inescapable burden?
LIFESTYLE Philosophy
Is life truly a gift, or is it an affliction that people are unwillingly subjected to? For most of human history, procreation has been seen as not only natural, but necessary—an unquestioned act that ensures the continuation of our species. But some people argue that life is an inescapable cycle of suffering, making nonexistence far more preferable. This philosophical perspective, known as antinatalism, challenges the deeply ingrained belief that bringing new life into the world is a good thing to do.
Whether we agree with it or not, antinatalism forces us to confront difficult truths about the nature of human life and the responsibilities of parenthood. Curious? Click through this gallery to see why some people find it immoral to bring life into the world.